this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Anarchist Memes

1188 readers
1 users here now

This forum is for anarchists to circlejerk and share zesty memes

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

I'm 13 and this is deep.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

To me this shows the problem with anarchism. It's a reason anarchism is the somewhat acceptable protestation. In the mean time others are working on actually takeover use the No1 weapon avvailable, the state. /Anarchist in the street, ML in the sheets

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The state is a corrupting force. It’s using the ring to fight Sauron. You can use it at times, but to seize it or accept its right to exist even temporarily gives room for those interested in power to seize your movement and they will never let go. Add in power corrupting even the good and you’ve got problems brewing.

We will be as the weeds. And we will fill the holes an unjust society leaves, cracking the concrete and overrunning their manicured lawns. A decentralized movement cannot be extinguished without removing the conditions that allow it to thrive. It cannot be subverted or taken over. It has its weaknesses, but I don’t trust the people’s stick to beat my neighbors either.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If I was in Middle Earth, I totally would have used the Ring against Sauron.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Someone didn't understand the message of LotR...

You'd start thinking you're using the ring against Sauron, but it would corrupt you. That's the whole things with Boromir and Feromir in the stories. They were both tempted to use the ring for good, but only Feromir was strong enough to resist it and let it go.

Edit: not that this is relavent at all to the larger conversation here. Tolkien was very conservative, though he was happy with people taking new lessons he didn't intend from his works.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Making my point. That's the think that's creates smelly hippies . The opposite is what actually create socialist states. . The people's stick will beat deadbeats and I'm happy with that. Liberalism is perhaps the ideology you are looking for?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Ohhhhhhh, you stand in the front this revolution, we’re done standing between you and the fascists. May you suffer the world you seek to create.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Those aren't anarchists, they're synarchists.

The things they do like pooling resources require governing over. Governing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Just do a simple fucking web search before you comment, this is embarassing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, it really is.

Let's use your link, if that's the level of discussion you're on.

Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions

Literally the first sentence.

These people demonstrate a community so large that pooling the resources will surely be written down. That or it won't work like in the comic. Thus they'll end up making the very same institutions they claim to abolish.

These are a minimally governed commune. Minarchy, synarchy, but not anarchy.

Quite embarrassing indeed.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

that depends on which definition you go off of tho idk about their link but in the begginnings of the industrial age anarchism was redefined for propaganda use and didnt actually mean the complete eradication of government but instead the creation of syndicates and communes

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The actual prescriptive definition, not some vague colloquial use that goes against the prescriptive meaning of the word.

Oh syndicates you say? Huh. That word has the same beginning as the word "synarchy", doesn't it? Followed by "-archy", denoting "rule of". Huh. I wonder why I chose the word "synarchy". It's a mystery, it seems.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

yea well words tend to have multiple definitions and arent just latin afterall we are writing english not latin right?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

"Anarchy" is pretty directly from Greek through Latin.

Yes English has a lot of loanwords and they don't always use the prescriptive meaning, and sometimes evolve. Like "English". The language of the people of Angle-Land. Englaland (old English for England), if you will.

I think this is still fairly known despite having few to none practical applications.

That is still a proper noun though.

We're talking about Greek and Latin words we use precisely because of their prescriptive meaning.

"Democracy" is still the rule of the people, despite "Democrat" being a party alignment in the US, and thus obviously having more meanings than the basic prescriptive meaning, but I think we can still agree that the word indeed means "the [common] people's rule".

So do other words we picked up exactly because of their prescriptive meaning keep their meanings as well.

Like synarchy, minarchy and anarchy.

Colloquially anarchists have switched to supporting minarchy, because it's very evident to anyone that even a small society will need governing in some form, to function. So it wouldn't be wrong to say that modern anarchism isn't actually anarchy, but minarchic synarchism, just like I described.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

bro homophobia isnt fear or aversion just because it ends on phobia (phóbos) tho chief

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

bro homophobia isnt fear or aversion

It's literally exactly that.

If you had written just "fear", I would have to agree. But the added "or aversion" makes it so I can't. It is quite literally, aversion. It is also used to describe acts of discrimination or hatred which stem from fear or aversion.

"irrational fear, horror, or aversion; fear of an imaginary evil or undue fear of a real one,"

https://www.etymonline.com/word/phobia

https://www.etymonline.com/word/homophobic

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

let me correct my statement homophobia isn't just that homophia is a word like any other that goes beyond its wikipedia definition because of the context its used in

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You can use pretty much any word in any context, and the context you previously used "homophobia" in was you saying: "homophobia isnt fear or aversion just because it ends on phobia".

That's exactly the reason that homophobia does mean "fear or aversion". It is used in other contexts as well, and mostly when it's used it's used to describe prejudice that is implied to stem from fear or aversion to homosexuality.

I get your point that colloquial use isn't always the same as the strict prescriptive meaning of the word, but do you get that just because someone doesn't know the prescriptive meaning of the word doesn't mean the meaning doesn't exist?

It's the same as the use of the word "literally." Colloquially, you can use "literally" as emphasis, but there is an actual prescriptive meaning, and that meaning is the reason that the word is used in that context to begin with. It was always used as emphasis, but the "correct" way to use it as emphasis is in a context which "literally" can actually be applied to without it sounding weird.

And the use of "literally" as unconnected emphasis is accepted by major linguistic institutions, so it's not wrong per se, but...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

latin and dictionaries arent rules tho they are teching, guiding language to allow for a common consensus and tge consensus has been for a while that anarchy can both be lawlessness and the existence of a horizontal government struckture built of syndicates and communes

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I skimmed the article and it does seem to agree with the comment you responded to, no? Genuinely asking, I don't know anything about this.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Anarchism is against hierarchy and for horizontal organization. Not disorder. In the comic these are anarchists (they are punk rock representations of 1800s anarchist philosophers Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon) and they are acting according to the principles of anarchism, as anarchists do irl.

"Governing over something" is not the core of the issue that anarchism is against. It's hierarchy. You can have a horizontally, democratically organized collective "govern over", or in other words manage something. They will just do it through collective decision making with no rulers or subordinates.

OP here is trying to invent a new word for what they see in the comic because they don't understand what anarchism means.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Anarchism is against hierarchy and for horizontal organization. Not disorder. In the comic these are anarchists (they are punk rock representations of 1800s anarchist philosophers Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon) and they are acting according to the principles of anarchism, as anarchists do irl.

You people really should read up on the ideologies you think you support.

From the link that the earlier user politely provided.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions

All forms of authority.

Synarchism generally means "joint rule" or "harmonious rule".

They will just do it through collective decision making with no rulers or subordinates.

Ah, so for every single decision, everyone has to gather up and vote? Okay, then you can't have a society as big as in the comic, because everyone would waste the time required to actually produce shit to sit voting on things that don't matter. And what if they disagree? Who solves it? Who enforces the will of the majority when people disagree on these futile votes?

Nah, for a society larger than a family, there's going to be persons responsible for dealing with that. Ie appointed people who will govern a matter. Hmm I wonder what a person like that could be called....

Read even basic philosophy, Rousseau, Hobbes, anything. Just churlish suppositions you make, imo.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You’re doing the equivalent of saying the satanic temple worships the devil

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Not really, no.

More like arguing that Satan is a central figure for LaVeyan satanism, ie The Church of Satan (Satanic Temple is the more... rational one of the two, although both value reason.)

And while neither believe in an actual Satan in the Christian sense, they do value him as a symbolic adversary.

So it definitely wouldn't be wrong to say that the Church of Satan has people who "worship" Satan.

Nice try but no dice. Also, theology is far less objective than "what is the prescriptive meaning of anarchy" which isn't s terribly hard question to answer.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

A philosophical movement is defined by its philosophy and followers not by the word it calls itself.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

So let's go back to what the most basic information on this we have: the Wiki article. Which begins:

Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including the state and capitalism.

So where exactly doesn't it mean these things...?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

fucking hobbes and rousseau lol nah fam been there done that it was part of my school curiculum the problem with the definition of anarchist lies in the fact that anarchy as an idea was always horizontal government structure built on decentralised syndicates and communes but the propaganda term and non political term of lack of order is now commonly accepted as the new definition i suggest you read up on some history and look at the beginning phases of the industrial era

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

anarchy as an idea was always horizontal government structure built on decentralised syndicates and communes

ZzzZZZzzzZzzZzzzz

Your ancient Greek sucks, bruv.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/anarchy#etymonline_v_13397

1530s, "absence of government," from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia "lack of a leader, the state of people without a government" (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), abstract noun from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" (see an- (1)) + arkhos "leader" (see archon).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

real mature there bruv

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Bro still can't grasp that words can have more than one meaning

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

So you admit that the definitions I've used are right, thanks.

Language evolves, yes. Words can have several colloquial meanings. But prescriptive meanings don't change.

Prescriptively, the type of "anarchism" you support is minarchic synarchism, and not anarchism, per se

load more comments
view more: next ›