this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
303 points (97.5% liked)

Flippanarchy

2084 readers
594 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

Wait till you hear about the anarchist that loves going into the mines with toxic gases and all to get the resources for the sewage maintainer guy.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Wait, you imagine that there must be a guy forced into dangerous situations against their will and that this society is better because it forces that guy to exist?

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 points 53 minutes ago

What happens is that different people have different options. For some people, they have options that are way better than mining. For some other people, the other options might not be as appealing because they might pay less or whatever. That is the market.

If nobody wants to be a miner, the pay/conditions of mining should go up enough so that there is someone that prefers mining over what they're currently doing.

This encourages people to do jobs that are unappealing.

On the other side, if you are a bad fiction writer, you're probably not earning enough money to survive. That's because you're spending resources but you're not calming many people's desires, so you'll probably take up a job that you like less but pays way more, and is probably more healthy for the community.

Nobody is forcing them. But if those jobs were not done, we wouldn't have the society we have today. Mining safety gear will probably not have been invented in an anarchy society. Water treatment plants wouldn't either. All those things we have today is because we used our resources way more efficiently than "go do whatever you want, the guy over there that loves farming and the guy over there that loves cooking will keep you fed".

[–] ZomieChicken@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Let's see; keep things running by going into a mine and digging out something that is needed with the proper safety gear, or going into a mine and digging out something with only the safety gear your boss couldn't convince the the government to not require.

Such hard choices...

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world -1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, now you just need someone that has a passion for manufacturing safety gear!

[–] Jtotheb@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

You think the issue with non authoritarian collectivization is that people don’t like making things?…

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

No. The problem is that what people want is not the same as what the people need.

The central problem of economics is that humans have infinite desires, which need resources to be met, and resources are finite. Therefore, we should aim to efficiently allocate our resources to meet the most of our desires.

If in a population of 1000, there are 100 fiction writers, you're gone get more fiction books than you can read, and you're probably die of hunger, because now the other 900 have to sustain the 100 writers for basically no value. Since probably most people will only want to read the top 1-2 that are actually good.

If the other 99-98 other writers don't have any pressure to change careers because the community provides for them, why would they? The thing they want to do most is writing!

And all that is assuming such a civilization exists. From my PoV, dreaming about anarchism makes no sense. Our world was born anarchic. There were no CEOs nor governments. And the people that lived in that world rapidly formed societies that had hierarchies, because that is the most efficient way.

The natural consequence of anarchy is non-anarchy. Anarchy is not a final state, it's transitory. Anarchy is not a stable state.

Just like you can try mixing water and oil all you want, the moment you stop stirring, they will separate.

The only way to keep a non-stable state is by force. That is, if you want anarchy, there must be someone enforcing that there be anarchy. And if that's the case, then it's no longer anarchy, since there is a ruler.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Rapidly formed hierarchies huh? miiight wanna read about early human history.

Hundreds of thousands of years passed before tyrants became the norm

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

You don't need tyrants for hierarchies. Tribes had sages and leaders.

[–] Jtotheb@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

That’s a very definitive sounding comment. I’m going to single out some stuff I don’t necessarily care for.

Therefore, we should aim to efficiently allocate our resources to meet the most of our desires.

Reader intended to infer that state capitalism accomplishes this despite ongoing evidence of looting of lower classes

If in a population of 1000, there are 100 fiction writers

Stop. You’re dismissing reality—people can organize without coercion; people grew and foraged and hunted more than enough for millennia—via a terrible hypothetical.

From my PoV, dreaming about anarchism makes no sense.

That’s a fine opinion to hold.

There were no CEOs nor governments.

There were no decision makers and nobody performed any disinterested administrative work or otherwise aided the public good?

the people that lived in that world rapidly formed societies that had hierarchies

Stop spitballing prehistory to back up your opinion of anarchism. Study some anthropology. For instance many archaeological digs show defined differences in construction at different times that show evidence of the overthrow of hierarchical rule, and great disparity of housing, in favor of more egalitarian organization and more egalitarian construction of homes and places of gathering.

because that is the most efficient way.

Money is most efficient when it circulates, because its purpose is to effectuate economic transactions, yes? Yet the current hierarchical world order is squeezing the lowest classes and ensuring they have nothing left to spend in their withering communities while amassing both real and virtual capital. The most efficient way to do what?

The only way to keep a non-stable state is by force.

I would put forward constant action and striving. I can choose to keep mixing the oil and the water. The ideal democracy is a process, not an endpoint.

All that aside, your original comment that I replied to is still very funny.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 points 45 minutes ago

We're not talking about capitalism. IDK where you're getting that from.

I'm reading your argument as "the current system sucks, so this other that I propose is obviously better".

Yes, you can keep mixing water and oil. That's the point of my argument. But to do that, you need someone to enforce anarchy. But when you have someone enforcing a political system, you no longer have anarchy. Since that dude/organization is clearly above others, forming a hierarchy.

[–] deltaspawn0040@lemmy.zip 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

If it's necessary, someone will do it. If that can't be counted on, we're kinda fucked.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Will you? Because I know I won't

[–] deltaspawn0040@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

If all that stands between me and the beginning of a society with no oppression is strapping some gear on and doing some manual labor, then fuck it gimme a pickaxe I'm going down there.

Am I suited for it? Absolutely the fuck not, but I'm willing, and I'm sure many others are as well, especially if they know that whatever happens, their safety and health comes before profit, and they'll always come back to a good place. I could certainly stand working until things begin to hurt if I knew every bit I dug up would do good.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah that's cool. You and sewage guy will make a great duo. But the 5 dudes over there organized themselves, acquired a weapon and killed the other guy. They're waiting for you to come out of the mine with all those resources and you don't even know it.

Is that freedom from oppression?

[–] deltaspawn0040@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Anarchism is the absence of hierarchy, not organization. The means of the people to use force against violent attempts at theft for personal gain are neither eliminated nor lessened.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 points 51 minutes ago

So you're saying that you and sewage treatment plant guy will successfully defend against 5 armed men that ambushed you while you were working?

Remember: this is not an action film, this is real life we're talking about.