this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
615 points (98.1% liked)

Flippanarchy

1106 readers
22 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 [email protected]

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.


Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Why would communists not get along with anarchists? Communists are anarchists

Also it needs to be remembered that political parties are corporations

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Because we have conflicting methods of achieving our system and because for many Marxists, their "communism" would look very different than ours

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

What makes you think communists are anarchists? Communism takes democracy to its logical extent. Social democracy is where we govern as a community and we vote on everything that is anything. Laws get voted on and business gets voted on. Communism > the masses decide. Anarchism > I'll do what I think is good for me.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Wikipedia describes communism as a stateless society.

A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state.

In response to the question "What will be the course of this revolution?" in The Principles of Communism (1847), Friedrich Engels wrote: "Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat." While Marxists propose replacing the bourgeois state with a proletarian semi-state through revolution (dictatorship of the proletariat), which would eventually wither away, anarchists warn that the state must be abolished along with capitalism. Nonetheless, the desired end results (a stateless communal society) are the same.

How do you explain the existence of anarchist communism if the two are mutually exclusive?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Both are without government

Anarchism > No government

Communism > people work together without classes (means no government because that would put people above others. Your idea of communism being the tyranny of the majority does not stand)

Communism is just a form of anarchy

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, communism is absolutely a form of government. There are elected leaders and policy is still passed. Arguably there is more bureaucracy than in socialist countries if real communism is implemented.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

A leader would create class divide, it can’t exist

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I think the problem of left unity is a symptom capitalism. Models of anarchism, communism, and socialism have wildly differing systems of social relations, organizing, governance, economics, etc. Even the sub-models in each of these categories have vast differences. But in our political discourse they're all compressed into the same box of the "left", because our prevailing system so dominates the narrative that these other systems are all erroneously viewed through a lens that presumes private property and redistribution of wealth vs no redistribution of wealth as the dividing line. Nevermind the hypocrisy of "redistribution of wealth," as corporations are speedrunning to unjustly pump virtually all forms of wealth into their coffers.

I remember when I was young and dumb and finding myself fascinated by the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement. The basic idea seemed so elegant and promising to me: we can use technology to solve our problems, to use technological progress to obsolete scarcity itself!. I tried to chat with people about it, and on more than one occasion somebody would just shut the conversation down with, "But that's socialism." That was the first time I realized something was very broken in our discourse, because it was like, yeah kind of technically, but it's also something very different from what we normally think of what socialism is.

That's kind of what a lot of these labels are, ultimately. Thought stopping cliches.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Marxism-Leninism explicitly calls on using technology to eliminate scarcity. That's what collectivized agriculture and mass electrification were for. Along the development pathway the leadership sort of forgot this because they ran into a lot of problems (not the least of which was an incredible amount of hostility from the capitalist powers).

In my view Zeitgeist was just an update on The State and Revolution, but somehow without the armed overthrow of the government. Like technology will somehow allow us to surpass our class antagonisms and ingrained social structures (eapecially militarism) without toppling the ruling elite. I think it turned out to be a naive view unfortunately.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Yeah, its hard to discuss with someone how the soviets could have worked but they hemorrhaged themselves with war cost when they've been taught "socialism=communism and communism bad". We can still be a republic but have economic socialism.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

When I was an anarchist during the Bush years I remember telling an exceptionally crunchy gutterpunk they could use a shower. They accused me of being a Nazi telling them I wanted them to go to the gas chambers. They were then in a grant writing class I took the following summer.

I see this kind of dynamic playing out quite often in online debates about leftism.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

This meme is from a movie based on the Kangoroo Chronicles books. Atleast the original german versions are quite funny

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Fuck leftist unity, if leftist unity means sacrificing the revolution for some some tyrant to twist class consciousness into a "dictatorship of the proletariat" im not playing along.

DEATH TO REACTION, DEATH TO DECEIT, DEATH TO TYRANNY

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

Left unity is a lie to use anarchist labor into making their own graves when the state-based socialists get into power.

load more comments
view more: next ›