this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2026
51 points (96.4% liked)

Flippanarchy

2609 readers
324 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
 

Anarchy in theory is great and it is fairly obvious for small societies but it's complicated for me to imagine how a a functional anarchist society would work with more people.

It would need very proactive and trustworthy people. Anyways I want to know how you all think of solving these problems.

The penalty system. I mean like what now is judges, cops, lawyers. I am guessing there will still be laws? I mean who would decide those anyways and if there were no laws ig it would be case specific. I guess people could do that without needing cops and if you get enough people you cpuld also find a system for that instead of laws

Military forces. I mean like an anarchist country could already be a target. So like if you have no defenses you disappear eventually and if that happens what was the point of having an anarchist country. And then like who is keeping all the weapons and stuff. I mean it could technically just once again be a non-for-profit and people who wqnt to fight just fight.

And some person just trying to take the power while getting people join to them. Even if they don't get control a lot of people could die.

Like Idk maybe I am missing something or I'm dumb, well I am but like fkdjmed I was saying like all of these would need proactive, trustworthy, dedicated and good people. But I don't think that's the mayority of people, maybe I may be wrong but idk. Besides from a lot of people being agaonst the whole idea in the first place making it vey hard or almpst impoasible to mantain.

I still wanna hear what you all think of this ans other possible problems that you know of to like clear things up a little more for me, ty!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Imagine the same society, but everywhere there is hierarchy, you replace bosses by a collective assembly, which takes biggest decisions and mandates people for small, specified missions of oversight/management, and you get one option. From there, you can get another one if we want to do it without money : get rid of banks anf stuff, and organize local communities into regional federations, with multiple associations getting the information of what people need, and handling the collection and distribution of what is produced to everyone, and you get another one. Like people said, it can take many forms, both because there is a lot of different anarchist movments and because each one is not written in stone and is meant to evolve according to people needs.

For cops/judges, most anarchist advocate for reparative systems instead of repressive ones. There does not really need to be laws, though you could still have it, because it just tries to solve problems with everyone agreeing on a reparation specific to each situation. People in Chiapas are trying to implement that if i'm not mistaken.

For armies, anarchist did have armies in the past, you could have one or multiple existing in autonomy, or have a system where common people are trained to join an army of needed, like swiss people.

The problem of people trying to rebuild power is of course a big one, but if we managed to get rid of a fully developped power in place since centuries, there's no reason to think we can't get rid of an emerging one.

The questions you ask are very common, it's not dumb. It's just asked from the perspective we've been told so much and so early that it's deeply rooted in us, that violence and coercion are necessary for a working society, so it's hard to imagine anything outside of this.

[–] ButteredBread@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh yea I'm also not so conserned of people regaining power but more in a large amount of people trying to regain power and like killing a lot of people in the process.

Oh, ok, then that's part of the bigger problem of Counter-revolutionary processes, though it's a wider term that can apply to anything that slightly deviates from the goals of the person employing it, including more "radical" or more "anarchistic" movements, it was first used for people opposing the french revolution and trying to reestablish monarchy. It's not a specificity of anarchism, more of any revolution. I'm afraid there is no clear answer to that problem, it will always depend on local specificity and have an at best imperfect solution.

[–] ButteredBread@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Ty, that sounds nice. I was thinking of some stuff with it but it's... probably better than current society anyways lol. Also, ye, thanks a lot.