this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2025
731 points (86.7% liked)

Flippanarchy

1191 readers
17 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
731
Liberal Death Cult (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 4 days ago by db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
636 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I cited Lenin for a couple specific purposes, first, to establish that my positions are part of a broader leftist intellectual tradition, second, because I personally find his arguments compelling and relevant.

Yes, the leftist tradition of deifying outdated theorists. That is a tradition I'm happy to abandon.

I will point out that you claimed that you could support your positions with theory, which you have not done, and have now flipped to saying that theory is irrelevant, accusing me of "blindly following it"

I could. Gramsci, Bernstein, Kautsky, and every other shade of reformist who quite correctly pointed out the dangers of premature revolution, including the inherent instability and susceptibility to dictatorship, and highlighted the necessity to favorably shift the cultural hegemony before trying direct political action. I don't need to cite theory for this, history shows it quite clearly. But I could, I just don't think appeals to authority are reasonable arguments.

If you find the arguments, suited to a population fresh from revolution in transitional parliamentary government less than 5 years old, to be compelling strategy for a deeply propagandized population in an established 250 year old parliamentary government, you're not suited to disseminate strategic opinions. You're better suited to academia, where you can opine about historical theories with other theory-junkies.

But hey, keep trying to fix your computer with steam engine manuals. I'm sure alienating the leftists who try to save you, and everyone else, from your myopic ideological mistakes will shift the American cultural hegemony to revolution. Who cares about dialectics anyway?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I suppose that virtually every academic or scientific paper in history is guilty of "deification" because they cite other works. I guess I'm "deifying" you too, because I've quoted things you've said.

Nothing I believe is on the basis of, "because Lenin said so." Nor do I believe in blindly applying his strategies regardless of material conditions. These are entirely baseless accusations, and there is nothing I've said that you can point to as evidence of them. I agree with Lenin's perspective to an extent, from a reasoned, critical position. But it seems that anything short of blind rejection of everything he said counts as "blindly following" by your standards.

We haven't even really begun to examine the questions of whether his ideas were correct or whether they are applicable to today. All I've done is present what they are and refuted your nonsensical attempts to twist his words around.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I suppose that virtually every academic or scientific paper in history is guilty of "deification" because they cite other works.

Uh, what? That's a bad joke, right? You know that's not how academic citations work, right? Forget what I said about academia, that's not for you either.

These are entirely baseless accusations

Mr. "Everyone who criticizes me is a liberal" is against base**less accusations now? Spare me your crocodile tears.

and there is nothing I've said that you can point me as evidence of them. We haven't even really begun to examine the questions of whether his ideas were correct or whether they are applicable to today.

You know the neat thing about text based conversations is you can go back for receipts, right?

because I personally find his arguments compelling and relevant.

And you keep saying I pressed you on theory, which is completely backwards. That was all you champ.

For example, the fact that I've read leftist theory and can cite it to support my positions

For someone who claims to read so much theory, your reading comprehension is not good.

But we've passed the point that I feel like entertaining your bad faith projection. We're done here.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago

Great! I knew this wasn't going to go anywhere from the start, as I said. You haven't said a single thing worth reading in this whole conversation, or in any other comment I've ever seen you make. So this seems like a good a time as any to simply block you.