this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
186 points (96.5% liked)

Flippanarchy

2348 readers
3531 users here now

Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.

Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.

This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.

Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Rules


  1. If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text

  2. If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.

  3. Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.

  4. Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.

  5. No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.

  6. This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.

  7. No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.


Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] libre_warrior@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Hierarchists oftentimes say that we need the machine to ensure that we are provided for. In this sense I like to think of the machine as a mother. The motherly machine nurtures us. Gives us hospitals, passports, car infrastructure, gives us internet, gives us supermarkets.

But she can't nurture us without vessels which pumps force of life to her. The one raising and maintaining the vessels is the fatherly machine.

Our father is efficient, and does whatever he needs to do to accomplish this. He deathen forests to set up farms. He penetrates the ground for metals, he exploits labour to the degree that it is possible, fully if possible. He grabs around that which he can, from the very biggest, to the very smallest. He sucks up life from the ocean. And penetrates the crust of Gaja to vessel oil.

The issue here is that in fern for the machine to preserve itself, it needs people to look away from the fatherly machine, because then it can get away with more providing. This is easy for the machine, because all the machine has to do is to claim responsibility for being non-exploitative. It is moving responsibility away from people towards itself.

The lokening is therefore to take back responsibility.

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

This sounds like anarcho-primitivism.

[–] libre_warrior@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago

I like to use the term democratic confederalist or demconf in short, but I agree with anarcho-primitivism/indigenism in the sense that we should live with nature, not against it.

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] libre_warrior@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

thank you :)

[–] SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Anarchism is the revolutionary idea that no one can be held responsible for your actions but yourself. Not government, not god, not a gun to your head, just you accepting responsibility. Anarchism without personal responsibility is just fascism at the individual scale.

[–] Chakravanti@monero.town 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Thanks you. That is the most concise & meaningful full explanation.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

👆

that's a very petit understanding of anarchism

[–] w3ird_sloth@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm pretty comfortable in the assumption that they don't give a fuck.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

i assume that the person who posted this is young and hence they shouldn't "give a fuck".

Godspeed to them… hope they can shake down everything around them :)

[–] w3ird_sloth@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

With youth comes assumptions. You'll age out of it soon enough little whipper snapper.

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

I read it as a useful point of recognition accessible to all, something more like a seed than a container (container being "anarchism is...").

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

...yet is entirely incapable of telling you not to impinge on everyone else's control over their own lives.

The whole point of laws is (or should be) to clearly delineate when your freedom to swing your arm impinges on someone else's right not to get punched.

[–] simone@lemmy.org 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Anarchy isn’t about doing whatever you want, hurting anyone along the way. That’s libertarianism.

[–] 5wim@infosec.pub 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Anarchism means no rulers, not no rules.

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

~~No, it means, no rulers.~~

~~Anomie means no rules~~

~~Edit: at least that's the German word for a society without rules. Anarchy can perfectly integrate social rules, but without rulers. Made by the people in the society they live in.~~

~~Edit 2: auto correct fucked my over quite some times here~~

[–] 5wim@infosec.pub 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 1 points 7 hours ago

Ah, fuck...misread, sorry

[–] Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Ok, and who gets to decide those rules?

And don't start with "everyone decides them", I mean practically. Who gets to have the idea of a rule, bring it forth to the group, organize the whole shtick of deciding on it, implement it, inform everyone else how the new rule works, enforce it, and everything else that needs to happen for a rule to exist?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 23 hours ago

Do some reading. There are a lot of solutions. The most obvious, as you brought it up just to dismiss it, is direct democracy. Everyone votes. There are other options too, like a rotating panel of representatives, so no one has lasting g authority and everyone shares in it.

There are people smarter than both of us who think it's a good idea and have thought of potential solutions. Before you just dismiss things out of hand, you should actually look into what solutions have been thought of before. I promise you your thought isn't unique, and people have considered how it would work. Maybe you can learn from it, even if you don't agree with it.

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not sure you know what anarchy means. You might be thinking of direct democracy. Even that has issues with tyranny of the majority and market forces being leveraged to curtail freedom outside of government control. I'm a social libertarian myself, because government intervention is required to curtail abuse of market forces.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Direct democracy is one of the system proposed for Anarchist governance. Direct democracy is just a system. It can be part of many political ideas. Anarchy just means there isn't hierarchy. Direct democracy facilitates this, correct? There are no rulers, and everyone is equal in voting.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social -1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Direct democracy makes the majority into an authority over the minority. You are also going to have to enforce those laws. That means cops and, more importantly, judges. That is unless you plan to try every single criminal in a national referendum. Or you could put them in front of unsupervised juries, in which case you might as well codify it as legalized lynching.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I love people who are so confident that they're the first people to think of something. You assume you must be correct just because you feel strongly about it. This has all been considered. Here's the Anarchist wiki, for your perusal. You might learn something there if you're actually open to learning.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I love it that you assume I should know or care that there is an anarchist wiki. No, I certainly don't think I was the first to think of anything, and no, you have given me no reason to want to "learn something". I studied philosophy of government in college and have read the anarchy page on Wikipedia, have you done either?

Give me one reason why I should bother with your (presumably) anarchist fanfic smartass and maybe I'll bother.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 hours ago

The fact you first think reading a single wiki page is sufficient, and also mention the wrong page, makes this hilarious. Little a anarchy is not the same as big A Anarchism. Anarchism is the political thought. Yes, I've read it.

Give me one reason why I should bother with your (presumably) anarchist fanfic smartass and maybe I'll bother.

Because you have a curious mind and want to be informed. You'd rather know the solutions others have come up with for your hypothetical problems than to think no one has considered it. You'd rather find out you were uninformed and learned something new instead of thinking refusing to learn makes you feel right.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.

how do you "democratically" create laws? Will people vote to create those laws and what's going to happen to people who disagree with those "democratically created laws"?

[–] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Their vision of anarchy is just democracy that agrees with them because they don't want to participate in the democracy they already have.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 23 hours ago

Direct democracy is not the same as representative democracy. We have a ruling class that we elect. A direct democracy doesn't. There are other options to solve the issue too.

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

What democracy? I dont see any democracy here.

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

even assuming that a group of free people without classes or coercion would choose to make a law, it can't possibly apply to people who didn't consent to it.

so it's no law at all. and such a law dies when one of the last two agreed people die.

it simply makes no sense for a system of consent and consensus to implement laws.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago

But who will tell me what to do!?

[–] Smookey4444@anarchist.nexus 5 points 1 day ago

No government can give you freedom🏴🚩

[–] monad@anarchist.nexus 4 points 1 day ago

No Masters, No Slaves.