Cross-posted from "TRUE communism!" by @Muaddib@sopuli.xyz in !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
208 points (91.6% liked)
Flippanarchy
1339 readers
381 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
-
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.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
... You don't get it?
This is an Anarchist instance.
Anarchists are extremely critical of the concept of 'the State' itself, tend to want to either totally abolish it, or at least strip it down so much or break it apart that it essentially isn't a 'State' any more.
Tankies embrace, and essentially worship the State.
... Also, in basically every single recorded instance of a succesful or attempted leftist revolution in modern human history, tankies ally with anarchists to overthrow the existing State, and then murder all of them after they've established themselves as the new State or proto-State.
One could argue that it seems to be in the material interest of authoritarian statists to extend false allyship to 'fellow leftists', and then betray them as quickly as they abandon their ideal of a 'classless society' and begin to assert themselves as the new ruling class.
There's a 101 level answer for your 'why so antagonistic' question.
Tankies historically cry 'Unity! Unity!' and do exactly what you are doing, trying to shame those who are skeptical... and then the rhetoric flips on a dime and the cry switches to 'Purity! Faith!'
...
Also worth noting is your framing of this as antagonistic in the first place.
I guess you find the evidence of history thus far to largely be antagonistic to your worldview?
I don't know, I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, but that is my assumption.
I could be wrong though.
Ah yes, the evidence of history. Like all the successful anarchist revolutions?
I am not aware of any anarchists that even predict that some kind of anarchist revolution is any kind of inevitable.
And if there were some, I would disagree with them.
I am not purpoting to have some kind of perfect plan to 'achieve anarchism'.
I don't need to.
It's ya'll that tend to have a dogmatic, ideological faith in a perfect way to do things, that things should be done, that things inevitably will be done.
...
Anyway, the evidence of history I am referring to is that basically all self described 'Communist' states/societies haven't ever really come close to Marx's utopian conception of a classless society at the proverbial 'end' of Communism...
They mostly either reform or transform themselves into a highly state-managed form of capitalism, or into something with less overt direct state control over a hybrid state/capitalist economy, allowing private businesses and capitalists to operate under fairly significant levels of regulation...
Both of those will almost always only ever allow a single political party, clamp down on freedom of political association/expression, speech, etc... these societies very much still do have significant wealth disparity, ergo, social classes.
...
And those're pretty much the best case scenarios.
They can also just collapse into... well basically, roughly fascism; a totalitarian, nationalistic, jingoistic central state that works with, grants favors to various capitalist oligarchs, corporations, as opposed to directly managing them or heavily regulating them...
In these societies, wealth disparity and thus class disparity tends to be even more significant... and they tend to put on a show of pretending to be liberal and democratic, though the extent of that effort ebbs and flows back toward social and governmental illiberalism over time.
It can get worse than that, but then we tend to get into 'thats not real communism' or basically just meme/schrodinger's irony level argument territory, at least in my prior experience or discussions with tankies.
...
I don't have a problem admitting that no anarchist revolution has succeeded in making a stable anarchist society at the scope and scale of a nation-state, with some kind of ... assumed authoritative forceful control over a defined physical region.
Partially because... that isn't really what at least I personally view as any kind of useful goal of my idea of anarchism.
...
If you doubt the history of tankies back stabbing anarchists... hold please, will update with source.
EDIT:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-tankies-and-the-left-unity-scam
There it is!
No sense in me retyping all of this myself.
EDIT 2:
Or maybe its this one:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-always-against-the-tanks/
Tell me you don't understand Marx without telling me you don't understand Marx
Edit: LMFAO YOU CITED ZIQ BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was fast!
Sorry, I was trying to specifically use Lenin's conception/phrasing of "socialism" as the progressive process that builds society toward the idealized, but possibly not ever truly, perfectly achievable "communism".
Thats what I get for trying to use ML terms with an ML, I suppose.
So anyway, if a classless society is not the ultimate end goal of Marx, of Marxism... what would you describe the end goal of Marxism as?
You don't think perhaps it was the word "utopian," a word which in the discussion of various different socialist tendencies generally refers to the Utopian Socialists, a group that Marx vocally criticized?
(Which anyone with a decent understanding of Marx would know, and therefore avoid using the word in a description of Marxist goals.)
Does it ever occur to you that mandating a mastery of an esoteric vocabulary and history as the first step toward being elligible for 'left-unity'... is not exactly appealing to, or a reasonable expectation for prospective new members of such a 'left-unity' broad social movement?
Are you trying to be an elitist clique, or a movement that broadly represents large masses of poor, tired, busy, overworked, poorly educated people?
So you also don't know what "esoteric" means? Interesting.
-an anarchist btw
I would expect someone trying to criticize something to have the most basic familiarity with it, yes.
You've been talking down to me this entire time and you claim to have degrees in both economics and political science, and you're now complaining that I'm being elitist for pointing out that you're not actually familiar with my ideology in any depth?
Oof yeah, words can have multiple meanings in different contexts and change over time as well.
I meant it in the more common lingo that normal people mean by the word utopian, an idealized human society that is the best for all its members of any possible society.
Sorry, I don't spend that much time getting into online arguments with MLs and Socialism Understanders these days, as they tend to be so very, very pedantic and unproductive.
See how you almost got me to not notice you didn't even attempt to answer my most pertinent question?
Two faced dishonest hypocrite.
Note: this isn't an ad hominem because I'm not trying to dismiss an idea here, just point out that you're a contemptible person