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
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.
Capitalism is violence. Having billionaires while people starve is violence. Denying healthcare while spending billions on military is violence. Supplying weapons or finances to states commiting genocide is violence.
Right now, if you are passive, you are complicit in immense amounts of violence.
Somehow this is lost on liberals. (Or alternatively they believe the once every 4 years elite propaganda contest [elections] or strongly worded petitions are the only effective ways of dissent).
Seriously! I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp
Just because it's a passive or hidden violence, or done from a complete disregard of people, doesn't make it less violent towards the affected
It's like the whole thing of how "murder is bad but war is acceptable". Like, why is one perceived so different just because it's state sanctioned? It's considered abhorrent to talk about violently removing a war criminal from their position of harm. It's complete nonsense
But what if i get table scraps from the violence and so don't want to get rid of it because i like my treats?
Okay but uts not violence if i don't consider them people, or have to think for a second to assign accountability to a specific person.
It won't be violent if the ruling class don't make it violent.
That is to say, it will be violent.
Could be. Stopping working for the system, with massive strikes. There is nothing they fear more. But they will exercise violence first, have no doubt. They are the lords and masters of violence. With violence they have the upper hand. A difficult situation to manage.
History has shown us again and again that when capital feels threatened, it gets violent anyways. Look at how many strikes have been beaten down, shot or even bombed (look it up, the first plane-dropped bombs in the US were dropped on striking miners)
I dislike violence, and I don't think it's good strategy to start it (that's why I'm a syndicalist), but realistically, we should be ready for the reaction.
look it up, the first plane-dropped bombs in the US were dropped on striking miners
Lest we forget about the Black Wall Street massacre.
Fair enough. 1921 truly was a good year to bomb the american people, it would seem
God, the best year for bombing american civilians. 2025 is looking pretty promising though.
Actually might've been on black people getting money in oklahoma. I forget which was first.
Someone else linked that, the Tulsa massacre was indeed a couple of months earlier
Okay, months, i feel better not knowing it was sooner.
You need stockpiles of food, water and heat.
But yes, this is the way.
Downvoted for insinuating protests should be violent to work, which is playing into the administration's cards to declare martial law.
So let me get this straight, you're worried about giving the fascists who have shown zero compunction about lying and making shit up at literally every turn a justification for being fascists? They've been spinning non-issues into crises and fabricating bullshit whole-cloth the entire time, why do you imagine they care whether their reasons are legitimate or not? Do you think they would just stop being fascists if everybody was super chill? Someone else refuted that idea far more eloquently than I can::
Well yes but i don't want to go outside. Outside is scary.
So im making this a principles thing.
Peaceful protesting can work especially if you have 3.5% of the population consistently protesting.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
But violence also works. People have died to make 40 hour work weeks, minimum wage, child labor laws, health laws of all kinds. The LA riots of the 90s were a net gain for the city.
Violence isn't always the answer, but it's an effective one when other avenues don't work.
ETA: billionaires will never let you vote away their power.
Let's put it another way...
So-called "peaceful" protesting (which is never actually peaceful because it's the repressive arms of the state that decides whether they are "peaceful" or not) will only work if it is backed up by a credible prospect of extremely non-peaceful revolution.
I'll meet you at the front line, but I'd like to see you there first. Oh wait, are we still cosplaying?
A liberal? On the front lines?
Now that would be something to see.
I can count on your comfortable endless preaching from behind the keyboard, that's for sure :'(
Do tell, liberal - do you even know what CS gas smell like?
yes m'lord. Goddamn this is cringe
Sure you do, liberal. Sure you do.
My dude, you're a lefty as much as Magats are patriots. It's all performative fellatio
I will be wearing a fur suit on the barricades, yes.
I am not advocating violence but https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign
The LA roots i6f the 90s were a net gain for the city.
I agree with your general point but can you expand on this?
Do you believe that 100% of people, out of millions, will not be violent while they can see what is happening with this government?
Do you believe the government will not resort to agent provacuteurs to get the outcome they desire?
I think you're correct that the government wants to declare martial law, but I also believe that some violent act will occur somewhere, and it will be used against the people.
Downvoted for not having a damn clue.
Sorry, but I don't think you're gonna end this system with peaceful protests.
The administration can just lie and say the protests are violent, that's how they got troops on the ground in California.
Small, little known loophole called "no one will stop me".
Well, one side of them is pretty violent.
Aren't they trying to declare martial law right now anyway?
Well, yeah, but, see, we can't give them an excuse to do something radical, like bring the marines in.
Like, whoever those guys in camo who pointed rifles at me on the way to the grocery store yesterday were scary enough.
Easiest trick: Show two options, let people pick a side and then pitch them against each other.
The problem is complex enough that both options are hammers that won't help to repair a watch.
lol
Please tell us which achievable violent action you would take that would work to change the system. Please be specific and tell me how this action would facilitate change.
Nice try, FBI!
lol
So you have no idea what violence you're advocating for, you just want someone to do it. Sounds like a project 2025 talking point to me. Either do your violence or stfu about it. Stop trying to undermine the resistance to Trump.
lol. you're a moron. fuck off.
Yeah man, you're right. People should absolutely criminally implicate themselves online for you enjoyment. 'fuck outta here.
Short of straight-out illegal actions there is a lot of civic disobedience that organized groups of people could do. In this day and age maybe it will be construed as illegal, but goes beyond the conventional notion of protest.
“murder is bad but war is acceptable”.
War isn't acceptable, that doesn't mean the other guy with plenty of guns isn't going to war with/at you.
Most are just too afraid to say they're afraid, perhaps, which is a more understandable position.
Avada Kedavra ain’t violence.
