Flippanarchy
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
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
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.
-
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.
view the rest of the comments
The presumption that other people's choices are subject to your approval is the exact foundation upon which authoritarianism is built.
It's just a simple step from "you should convinced to do this" to "you should be compelled to do this."
Not to mention, it's incredibly arrogant, dismissive and disrespectful.
No - not really. Anarchism does (or as I've come to refer to it - anarcho-anarchism), but the various ideological subdivisions actually don't.
In the first place, your conception of disassociation (and the conception common to ideological proto-anarchisms) only goes one way. You treat your collective as an entity unto itself, and cover the "free association" requirement by essentially stating that those who don't wish to submit to the dictates of your ideology would be free to leave.
Which is a freedom the majority of the world already possesses, so rather obviously it doesn't ensure or even imply anarchism.
And beyond that, more pointedly but less obviously, ideological collectives (as yours does) always carry with them an unstated presumption that the entity from which people would be free to disassociate would rightfully hold some property. That's always there, lurking inder the surface, and generally comes out in little slips like saying that people would be free to "leave" or to "go."
So you're actually, already, envisioning an entity that would nominally rightfully govern a particular piece of property and would establish the norms that are expected of those who live there.
And to go all the way back that's a lot of why I say ideological proto-anarchism is a masturbatory fantasy at best Dream all you want, but there is no way that such a thing could actually be implemented without empowering somebody to decree what specific norms will be in place, designating some particular borders within which those norms would be the only accepted ones, and most likely empowering someone to see to it that the norms are not violated, and that those who do violate them "freely" go somewhere else.
The first requirement for successful anarchism is people taking control of and responsibility for their own decisions and ceding the exact same control and responsibility to everyone else. As long as people continue to believe that they can and should have some say over other people's decisions, anarchism will fail.
It's actually a huge step, actually. It's like... the whole thing. It's "here's why it would be neat if you consented to this, but you can do something else if you like" versus "do it lol".
Privilege spotted. The majority of the world absolutely does NOT have freedom of association, even de jure.
No they don't, you're imagining that. E.g., you can have multiple distinct anarchist collectives in the same area.
1000% yes. If you join a chess club started by me, you can't shit on the chessboards. You are free to start a chess club where shitting on the chessboards is allowed/encouraged. Establishing norms is not necessarily a system of domination or hierarchy.
If someone decides to rape me, I am wrecking their shit. That's a bad decision and I'm not gonna respect it at all. It's not authoritarian to make and act on that judgment call. Obviously, this is perfectly in line with anarchist theory and praxis.
There are plenty of less extreme examples where someone's decisions will harm someone else, e.g. insert an example from almost any undergraduate ethics textbook.
I gotta be so real with you: you seem like you want to do anarchism with the seriousness and care it deserves, but I suspect you're trying to do a "clean room design" of anarchist principles. Please just do the reading. Anarchist literature is informed by generations of praxis and mistakes that you have no way of accumulating in a "clean room" within a single lifetime. There are even anarchists who make your arguments a lot more convincingly than you're doing.
Never met a "no true Scotsman" anarchist.
Anarchy is individual and collective. Individuals are free to associate. Collectives of individuals work together because "apes strong together". Hierarchies are horizontal. Violence is decentralized.