this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
607 points (100.0% liked)

Flippanarchy

1362 readers
136 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 65 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I was reading George Orwell’s hommage to Catalonia the other day and was just shocked by how brutal this was.

For context Orwell served in the POUM (anti-authoritarian marxists) in the spanish civil war against the facist-conservative-feudalist camp. However over time the liberal bourgeoisie and the Stalinist side of the republic (anti-facist forces), allied themselves together and started brutally repressing the Anarchist and Anti-Stalinist Marxist Factions. They basically handed the victory over to the facists by purging the left.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

The fascists won because

  1. They had more foreign aid from nazi Germany and fascist Italy. The luftwaffa especially was a key advantage for the fascists as they had air superiority and were able to bomb republican positions with little cost. If France, the UK and the US had a backbone and sent aid the Republicans would have won.

  2. They had more military expertise and discipline. Pluralism and anarchism are great in peace time but you can't win a war with them. The anarchist system was a wonder to behold in Catalonia, but they were never going to be able to spread it to the rest of Spain because they were never able to win a battle after the opening skirmishes in aragon. Say what you will about the communists, they had discipline and had proven there system can win a civil war in russia. If only they had a trotsky and lenin to competently lead the fight against fascism.

Did the communists go too hard on repressing the anarchists? Yes

Did the communist have a valid reason to suppress a movement about not following orders and leadership during a war? Yes

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

I would very much recommend reading Orwell’s Hommage to Catalonia.

Especially the Appendixes. Even though written before the war even ended he explains quite well how the arguments you make were quite meticulously crafted by the republican government’s ministry of propaganda, and broadcast to the communist press worldwide through soviet intervention.

At the end, Orwell comes to the chilling conclusion which is actually fairly common amongst historians, that the Stalinists saw the worker controlled revolution of Spain as more of a threat than both the bourgeois state of things and the Facists. Hence why the allied with the bourgeois liberals and rolled back the revolution.

Here’s a quote

Except for the small revolutionary groups which exist in all countries, the whole world was determined upon preventing revolution in Spain. In particular the Communist Party, with Soviet Russia behind it, had thrown its whole weight against the revolution. It was the Communist Party thesis that revolution at this stage would be fatal and that what was to be aimed at in Spain was not workers' control, but bourgeois democracy. It hardly needs pointing out why 'liberal' capitalist opinion took the same line.

Quotes I think illustrate the tension well

It was queer how everything had changed. Only six months ago, when the Anarchists still reigned, it was looking like a proletarian that made you respectable. On the way down from Perpignan to Cerbères a French commercial traveller in my carriage had said to me in all solemnity: ‘You mustn't go into Spain looking like that. Take off that collar and tie. They'll tear them off you in Barcelona.’ He was exaggerating, but it showed how Catalonia was regarded. And at the frontier the Anarchist guards had turned back a smartly-dressed Frenchman and his wife, solely – I think – because they looked too bourgeois. Now [under the stalinists] it was the other way about; to look bourgeois was the one salvation.

On one side the CNT [Anarchists], on the other side the police [Stalinist]. I have no particular love for the idealized ‘worker’ as he appears in the bourgeois Communist’s mind, but when I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

"I have no particular love for the idealized ‘worker’ as he appears in the bourgeois Communist’s mind, but when I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on."

This quote goes hard, I love it. Onto the reading list it goes

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I wouldn't recommend reading anything from orwell personally. Dude was a cop and a hitler apologist. I prefer isaac asimov's review of 1984.

In this chapter, I will discuss the book, but first: Who was Blair/Orwell and why was the book written?

Blair was born in 1903 into the status of a British gentleman. His father was in the Indian civil service and Blair himself lived the life of a British Imperial official. He went to Eton, served in Burma, and so on. However, he lacked the money to be an English gentleman to the full. Then, too, he didn't want to spend his time at dull desk jobs; he wanted to be a writer. Thirdly, he felt guilty about his status in the upper class. So he did in the late 1920s what so many well-to-do American young people in the 1960s did. In short, he became what we would have called a 'hippie' at a later time. He lived under slum conditions in London and Paris, consorted with and identified with slum dwellers and vagrants, managed to ease his conscience and, at the same time, to gather material for his earliest books.

He also turned left wing and became a socialist, fighting with the loyalists in Spain in the 1930s. There he found himself caught up in the sectarian struggles between the various left-wing factions, and since he believed in a gentlemanly English form of socialism, he was inevitably on the losing side. Opposed to him were passionate Spanish anarchists, syndicalists, and communists, who bitterly resented the fact that the necessities of fighting the Franco fascists got in the way of their fighting each other. The communists, who were the best organised, won out and Orwell had to leave Spain, for he was convinced that if he did not, he would be killed

From then on, to the end of his life, he carried on a private literary war with the communists, determined to win in words the battle he had lost in action.*

*And he would be heavily propped up as an author by the CIA for doing so:

George Orwell's novella remains a set book on school curriculums ... the movie was funded by America's Central Intelligence Agency.

The truth about the CIA's involvement was kept hidden for 20 years until, in 1974, Everette Howard Hunt revealed the story in his book Undercover: Memoirs of an American Secret Agent. ]

During World War II, in which he was rejected for military service, he was associated with the left wing of the British Labour party, but didn't much sympathise with their views, for even their reckless version of socialism seemed too well organised for him.

He wasn't much affected, apparently, by the Nazi brand of totalitarianism, for there was no room within him except for his private war with Stalinist communism. Consequently, when Great Britain was fighting for its life against Nazism, and the Soviet Union fought as an ally in the struggle and contributed rather more than its share in lives lost and in resolute courage, Orwell wrote Animal Farm which was a satire of the Russian Revolution and what followed, picturing it in terms of a revolt of barnyard animals against human masters.

This would make him a bit of a hypocrite in that regard, no? Perhaps a bit of projection happening?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Ignore that the Ukrainian Black Army was pretty helpful in beating the White Army and only lost after the Red Army had finished all of its other opponents and decided to focus all its efforts on beating its former Black Army allies.

Seems like there is a bit of a trend of Marxist-Leninists thinking their anarchist allies are prime for a knife to the back

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

Authoritarians tend to hate when people don't fall in line.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (8 children)

They had more foreign aid from nazi Germany and fascist Italy.

Misleading half-truth. Franco received copious amounts of logistic support from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy while the US and Britain went out of their way to ensure that the Republican side couldn't receive the same. This forced the Republicans to accept poisoned "aid" from Stalin, virtually ensuring eventual fascist victory. Even so, Franco's fascists had a hard time achieving any of their objectives.

They had more military expertise and discipline.

Another misleading half-truth. George Orwell himself expressed a wish to join an anarchist formation, not because he shared their ideology, but rather because (in his view) they were the most dedicated of the combatants on the Republican side.

Also see what George Orwell had to say about the numbers of defectors they received from the fascist side - so much for your vaunted "discipline."

Did the communist have a valid reason to suppress

How would a tankie even know what the word leadership means?

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, at least they're up front about it. If a Nazi is breathing, they're lying, but I've had commies straight up tell me that I'd get the bullet too.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lol, came here to say the opposite. Communists will talk about left unity until they have enough power to get rid of their "friends"

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I already posted this elsewhere in the thread but i case it hasnt been seen yet, I think this illustrates your point well

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yeah, friends with reds. Do all the hard work for them lazy asses to be backstabbed in the end.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 month ago (3 children)

The reds where I live come to rallies to recruit people into a very cult like group that constantly demands money from it's members, to sell expensive tickets to meetings and their newspaper, even when we make a point to say no stalls are welcome and to not profit off of our work. They're very icky and I feel very bad for the students they recruit because they get all the flack for being duped.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

Yeah we have those people too unfortunately.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago

This thread:

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Fuck leftist unity, if leftist unity means sacrificing the revolution for some some tyrant to twist class consciousness into a "dictatorship of the proletariat" im not playing along.

DEATH TO REACTION, DEATH TO DECEIT, DEATH TO TYRANNY

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

Left unity is a lie to use anarchist labor into making their own graves when the state-based socialists get into power.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The People's Front of Judea vs the Fucking Judean People's Front

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Anarchists have different goals than communists and use different means/strategies to achieve those goals while using different modes of organization. Just hating capitalism is not enough of a basis to just gloss over those things.

Apart from certain instances when the goals align like antifascist action, international solidarity or support of prisoners, why would working together / doing unity actually be beneficial to achieving anarchist goals?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

Tankies are not that honest.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Not true. The left are always fighting. Always disagreeing methods. If the left would be one strong front we would actually achieve something and fight nazis better.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The problem is trying to group vastly different ideologies such as Marxism and anarchy as one "left". You can't reduce political/social ideologies to a one-dimensional slider. Maybe if you project them on an axis that represents some "issue" they might fall close to each other, but they can also be at the opposite ends depending on how you choose that axis.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Marx was pretty anarchist compared to most people these days who call themselves marxists.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Most people who call themselves Marxists haven't read more than quotes of his work.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, what's a little authoritarianism between friends?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (8 children)
  • Guy who wants everything labeled and documented, because it will be easier to do sweeping economic reforms later

VS

  • Guy who is into good vibes and not rocking the boat, but if you harsh his mellow he'll start breaking anything that looks expensive

Who would win?

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Instructions unclear:

Have autism. Labeling and documenting everything with the hopes to do a sweeping reform are my good vibes.

This boat been rocking since before i was born.

Collective improving of society when?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (4 children)

There's a reason our anarchist instance has so many folks with adhd and autism. We even have a unique flair for either for people like me who aren't afraid of being labeled.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think the problem of left unity is a symptom capitalism. Models of anarchism, communism, and socialism have wildly differing systems of social relations, organizing, governance, economics, etc. Even the sub-models in each of these categories have vast differences. But in our political discourse they're all compressed into the same box of the "left", because our prevailing system so dominates the narrative that these other systems are all erroneously viewed through a lens that presumes private property and redistribution of wealth vs no redistribution of wealth as the dividing line. Nevermind the hypocrisy of "redistribution of wealth," as corporations are speedrunning to unjustly pump virtually all forms of wealth into their coffers.

I remember when I was young and dumb and finding myself fascinated by the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement. The basic idea seemed so elegant and promising to me: we can use technology to solve our problems, to use technological progress to obsolete scarcity itself!. I tried to chat with people about it, and on more than one occasion somebody would just shut the conversation down with, "But that's socialism." That was the first time I realized something was very broken in our discourse, because it was like, yeah kind of technically, but it's also something very different from what we normally think of what socialism is.

That's kind of what a lot of these labels are, ultimately. Thought stopping cliches.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

This meme is from a movie based on the Kangoroo Chronicles books. Atleast the original german versions are quite funny

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Can we focus on the common enemy for now? Can we all agree that of there is going to be a repeat of a dynamic from 100 years ago, it isn't likely going to happen real soon? Just seems like a waste of energy at this point of political reality.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

“Can we focus on our mutual enemy?”

Says the person planning on murdering anarchists if they ever get their way.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I do, on my rifle. Now do us both a favor and fuck off, tankie scum.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I train anarchists to shoot rifles dipshit.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Anarchists and State Communists do not have the common enemy as both have many differing enemies.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Yes, Uncle Makhno, we will give you the bullets you wanted to defend against the Whites. Shoots the black brigades in the back

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Does the movie actually have a social democratic Koala bear, or not?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I wish it was this but instead its constant infighting. Btw im a socdem(socialist if tou stretch the definition), tear me apart lol

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Sure, this guy thinks socdems are socialists, everyone point and laugh!

(It's not your fault that all the other liberals bully and gaslight you, we accept you as the only good kind of liberal ❤️)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (4 children)

we accept you as the only good kind of liberal

Speak for yourself only.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

When I was an anarchist during the Bush years I remember telling an exceptionally crunchy gutterpunk they could use a shower. They accused me of being a Nazi telling them I wanted them to go to the gas chambers. They were then in a grant writing class I took the following summer.

I see this kind of dynamic playing out quite often in online debates about leftism.

load more comments
view more: next ›