this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
8 points (100.0% liked)

Flippanarchy

1328 readers
31 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.

  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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
8
we must maintain the status quo (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

To anyone who supports capitalism or otherwise opposes socialism:

Do you support the idea that one man can accumulate enough wealth to own all land of this Earth, making everyone born in his empire under his rule as long as he can kill to defend it? What prevents capitalism from accomplishing this in law? What law exists that limits the borders of nations?

Why, then, must we endure a system where a single man owning the Earth and enslave it is a feature, not a bug?

https://dice.camp/@sean/114698774200264413

I just wanna know what people think. Why must this be maintained? Why is any opposition to capping wealth just the end of the world when it probably would save it, just logically thinking it through?

top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

There's sort of an unstated rule that capitalism needs black markets / organized crime to work, so, criminals would stop this

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

this is an interesting analogy that i haven't heard before. it doesn't seem like a fully fleshed out analogy though. it jumps between concepts without making the links apparent.

would anyone like to expand upon this analogy for us? how do we get from ruling everything, to killing, to borders, to law, to economics?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm sorry but this is a nonsense over thee top argument. This is the same as saying "do you support the rampant murdering of your opponents, and if you don't, why do you support anarchy?"

Everybody can make dumb statements like that.

Every system, be it communism, capitalism, anarchy or other can and will be abused. There will always be those trying to become a dictator type asshole, see Stalin, for example. The only way for any system to work well is to put laws in place to limit what cheaters can do. For capitalism that would be tax the shit out of he rich, anything over 10M in personal wealth should be taxed at 100%. There is no right for anyone to be extremely rich.

Capitalism has good parts and whether you like it or not, it's by extremely the most successful to move humanity forward . I have zero problems with a capitalist system that would work like this. Limit company sizes to 500 employees and a billion dollars max in value. Again, tax anything over thst at 100%.

This will get you loads of smaller companies that will have to compete for employees, it'll be easier to force them to obey the law.

This will get you a shit load of money in a government that can then use that for a socialist system that pays for free healthcare, free education, free housing, free great public transportation, etc.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

How are "we" going to tax the rich when politicians spend 30% of their time seeking campaign contributions?

Every political viewpoint has a flaw but that doesn't mean people should not bring up the flaw.

Let people criticize all political ideologies and through discourse people can examine what is true and what they want in the future

Capitalism facilitates the rich getting richer. It controls political activity. Capitalism is not a system that allows wealth to be distributed from the rich to the poor.

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

I don't mind people bringing valid criticisms to capitalism, it has a lot of problems, but it bugs me that, instead of giving even semi realistic ideas, they come with "communism is flawless!" or "the anarchists way is perfect, nothing could go wrong!"

When you then point out that all communist examples in practice resulted in terrorized citizens, famines and what not, you only get "no true Scotsman!" arguments.

I do agree as well with you that current political rules (well mostly in the US) are shit. Politicians should never need to fund raise at all and should be chosen for their merits, not their skills in "saying something populist in 5 words or less"

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

capitalism is not a system that allows wealth to be distributed from the rich to the poor

That's like saying that a car does not allow food to be digested.

Capitalism can and should be used as a driver for economic wealth whilst being controlled and capped by law.

You are poor? You pay no taxes. Anybody else pays in brackets and when your net worth reaches 10 million? Anything above it gets taxed 100%. Same for companies, limit them to 500-1000 employees maximum, net worths maximum 100 million or a billion or something like that.

This makes it that nobody gets too rich, nobody gets too powerful and the government gets a huge amount of tax wealth which it can use for a giant social system that gives free healthcare, education, housing, you name it. You could then egen umdo universal income and it requires no communism, no forcing people, no taking away of rights.

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

These are literally critical questions. I'm asking "what prevents it". If "nothing" prevents it then nothing prevents it and maybe we should try to figure out ways to prevent it before it becomes a reality because "nothing prevents it".

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

Why would every landowner sell their land? What could be valuable enough to convince them? Maybe money and if they could keep their land like on an 80 year lease?

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

You may be moving goal posts. Who cares why the sell their land, capitalism doesn't forbid someone for doing it for fun or any reason. Capitalism doesn't prevent it, therefore there is no way to prevent it within capitalism---this is a fundamental truth of capitalism, like it or not. Nothing stops, in a capitalist society, a human being from attaining all the wealth in the world: that is a valid dream within capitalism. Thankfully capitalism hasn't seen it through yet, but it's absolutely possible. This is a feature of capitalism. It must be made a bug.

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

I'm just engaging in the conversation that you started. You said someone could purchase every piece of land in the whole world. I asked why everyone would sell, you say they might sell for fun?

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

Why does anyone ever sell land? Maybe because they're in massive debt and the only thing they have left is a family christmas tree farm that's 100 acres. Maybe they got high and chose to. It honestly has no merit to the debate, I encourage you to engage with the questions posed, specifically the final one.

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

We need to get money out of politics, until that happens logic and morality will not matter

I don't think there's much reason to worry that people will get high and sell their land or just do it for fun or will sell the family Christmas tree farm to settle their debts. All great scenarios

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

What prevents capitalism from accomplishing this in law?

Antitrust laws accomplish this in law

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

Anti-trust laws prevented the violence that capitalism caused in the middle east the past 30 years? When did they prevent it? What evidence do you have that anti-trust laws are preventing this from happening in the modern era? What evidence do you have that anti-trust laws are more effective in creating a peaceful world compared to just trying democratic socialism (as opposed to the status quo of democratic capitalism prevalent in the west)?

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

The statement was with respect to "one man" owning everything on the earth, and whether there is a law that would stop this. And there is such a law.

Antitrust laws don't prevent capitalism or the violence it causes. I was just responding to your point about there being some sort of natural or legal conclusion to capitalism where one guy owns everything. That conclusion is easily avoidable and was considered over 100 years ago when they passed the first antitrust laws to prevent the railroads from owning everything etc. Your post didn't seem to consider antitrust laws.

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

It is a natural conclusion. Capitalism consolidates power with those who own capital. Since capitalism naturally tends towards monopolistic industry, those who write and enforce laws will be capitalists. Who have no motivation to regulate themselves.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

People using violence to gather resources and power to themselves has always been the state of humanity. Capitalism is just a present day version of that.

Power is never relinquished willingly. Only through the threat of violence, or by actual violence.

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

No the fuck it hasn't.

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

has always

No.

(implied) human nature

No and fuck you

power is never relinquished willingly

Has been, could be, but won't be here. No.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Let's put it this way:

If someone held a gun to your head and told you to shut the fuck up, you would shut the fuck up.

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

you didn't ask about my gun pointed at his head as well? why must only he have the gun?

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

You could be the "someone" being referred to. In the case you are not, nothing I said excludes you from participating.

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

if we both pointed guns at each others head, he would be pointing a gun at my head like you stated, but I'd also be pointing a gun at his. Why would either of us shut up in this equally threatening situation where neither are obviously in control? This is literally MAD theory btw. You are arguing countries with nukes would rather nuke each other than talk it out if you think two humans would rather kill each other over whatever made up scenario you invented to make your point on violence than try to resolve it without dying. I'm sorry, but people don't just kill because they're hungry. They'll beg first. They'll steal. Murder is often a last resort man, and any case that you may dream of, I'm sorry but capitalism isn't a better solution to it any more than an honest attempt at democratic socialism.

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

Maybe you're misunderstanding me, though I did say

Capitalism is just a present day version of [people using violence to amass resources and power].

There will always be people who are willing to break every rule and social contract to concentrate power to themselves. If violence is the last resort against them, they will succeed until it becomes the only option.

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

in capitalism, there are zero limitations on property. Human slavery is labor capital in capitalism (private prisons, 13th amendment). You can own people and their labor in capitalism. By you, I mean you mr nougat, with enough capital, can own immigrants today to sell their indentured servitude right this very second in these united states of america and capitalism will not only let you do it, it will reward you with government protection in the form of profit, and the cops and guards and laws to protect YOUR humans.

Or are you saying thats not feasible within the framework of capitalism and I am just not getting it?

If you are not getting it, maybe you are too poor and lower class to realize how little capital you have in capitalism that you cannot fathom how much capital means power in a capitalist society, a society in which capital is authority.

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

I’m not sure why you can’t read what I wrote. So I’ll be crystal clear.

Capitalism is the same as every other system that’s gone before: a few people hold the capital, and wield it as a bludgeon over the many.

I’m not sure why you think I fucking like capitalism. Nothing I’ve said suggests that at all.

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

a few people hold the capital

Capitalism does not enforce a minimum amount of population holding capital, so it can be reduced to 1. Feature, not a bug.

Capitalism is the same as every other system that’s gone before

Every other system? How many systems do you think we have observed in all of human history? What do you believe to be the earliest system ever devised?

No other system ever increased the minimum amount of people owning capital to be higher than a few?

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

Okay, you just want to argue with someone, and for some reason you picked me today, even though we substantially agree.

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

I fundamentally disagree that capitalism is like every other system ever done before, that is all I am saying. I need evidence that capitalism being the same as every other system is true, and I lack it. This is part of why I posed my original question. Why are people seemingly not be able to fathom a single system that can replace capitalism?

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

This has happened to me before. I did not shut the fuck up.

I dunno if i would today. Small calibur? Probably. Large calibur? No clue.

How does that apply, though?

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

If we hate capitalism and want socialism, we need to recognise that most people do not really know what those words mean, or are even intimidated by them. We need to use very plain language - fewer isms - if we want to bring people with us. Otherwise we are just preaching to the choir.

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

Tim Walz's attempt to rebrand social democratic policies as neighborliness might be a good start.

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

Generally agree on not assuming a high level understanding but

fewer isms

Okay but this specific phrasing makes me want to violence you. Would you be amenable to this?

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

Knock yourself (or me!) out :) But there is an irony in not liking the word "isms" in an argument against using them in their full / correct form.

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

Organisms.

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

I think that idea is that a healthy, well-balanced capitalism (with working competition and anti-trust law) would make this imposible. It's a good argument agains cronyism and other broken form of psudo-capitalims... which most reasonable poeople would agree are bad regardless on theier political aligments. Capitalims shoudn't have monopolies. Period.

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

What law prevents a nation from expanding its borders to include the entire earth as long as "might is right" remains unchecked in this world?

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

This part I don't get even as argument. What law would prevent one under socialism?

i understand the logic of "under capitalism -in theory - one could simply by every pice of land". I don't necessarily agree, but I understand. I don't see how it makes a difference if the invader is a socialist or capitalist country.

might is right == capitalism seams reductive

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

Any economic system that has no safeguard to the "can someone own the Earth in your system?" problem is not a valid one in my opinion.

Socialism attempts to solve the problem by stating "the Earth isn't ownable under socialism, and anyone who tries to own a piece of it is met with resistance. Anyone who tries to own a piece of land by violent means is resisted by violent means". This is the nature of socialism and its theory on ownership. Is this not something that would benefit the Earth compared to the existing capitalist system that is only limited by democracy, which has historically used, and is currently using, systemic state-sponsored violence and regime change to achieve its goals?

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

hmm, it can't eo owned indyvidualy. Can it be owned collectively? Can socialist country have borders? If it can, than I dont see what rules (not present in the capitalist country) would hard-stop it from expending those borders. If we use existing system from history as comparison, it's not all kisses and rosesses here as well.

If it can't have borders than we are talking the level of abstraction that I don't know how to discuss productively in the context of the twitt.

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

Do you think democratic socialism fundamentally, foundationally, has a stance on what is and isnt property, and who can or cannot own it, and what is or is not ownership of property, and what level of violence is or is not tolerable in defense of property? If socialism does have quantifiable stances on these things, is it not perfectly reasonable to suggest socialism makes an attempt to address the issue of the original post?

Democratic Capitalism says anyone can own property, anything and anyone can be property (slavery is state sponsored and is allowed within democratic capitalism), and it allows murder in defense of any property. Can a cop kill someone looting a grocery store? Do you believe such a thing be allowed fundamentally allowed in a democratic socialist economic system? Which system do you think would logically lead to a more peaceful planet—the status quo or democratic socialism?

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

I think it's a false dyhotomy. I think that "system" is a structured atrmpt to solve social problems - some of those are more efficiently solved by individuals and competotions, some are more efficiently solved by collective effort and collaboration. The dissaggreement between people about which system is better is mostly a categorization of those problem - if you believe almost non are in the first category. But it is a spectrum. Society with overwelmingly capitalist economy, strong social werfare and hard rules that prevents police from killing thieves over food, are not impossible. Those describe most European countries. I feel like people are taking what's broken in US and and point to it saying "this is capitalism". I don't believe it is. I think it's mostly lawlessness and the lack of rule of law. I think capitatalism at it best make most aggressive and predotory tactic both ilegal and inefficient. We just don't see a lot of capitalism at it's best recently.

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

"the status quo (democratic capitalism) must be maintained" got it!

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

I belive that what can be evolved needs to evolved and what can't evolve needs to revolve. I suspect we disagree on which is which. But I thing we would find some common grounds as well. I welcome the disruption. But as someone who was born in one of those "people's republic" I would prefer my revolution with less gulags.

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

I say we look to and learn from places like rojava before we look to those with gulags when we theorize political and economic systems.

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

anyone who hates socialism must hate driving their truck on all of those free roads.

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

I honestly don’t understand this comment. Is the “free roads” part sarcasm? Roads cost money to build and maintain, so, what are you trying to say here?

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

the roads in america are socialized, even for those that dont drive or own a car (yet the infrastructure on/near the roads for non-drivers is lacking at best). taxes that arent related to cars pay for ~75% of the taxes that build and maintain roads (the other 25% is from mostly car-specific taxes).