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
It's possible that the differences among those wanting to do good for everyone is what bottlenecks progress. While we all fight over HOW to make the same goals we share happen and not much gets done, the ones who don't care about what their actions do make their own progress because it's easier for them to agree on how to take and destroy.
I very carefully picked social democrats and not someone closer to anarchists like council communists because I would argue that, except for the really broad strokes, we actually don't have the same goals as social democrats. Like okay, if I gave you and a social democrat a survey with the question "Do you support an equitable and just society?" I'm sure you'd both check "Yes", but you and the social democrat are going to have wildly different views on what constitutes "equitable", "just", or even "society".
IMO the bottleneck comes from the fact that the various non-right-wing movements have organic differences that will result in different material realities depending on which groups succeed.
But this statement is about people. Not society. It kind of puts those boubdaries on how you define society. Has to be a thing that's for people and the earth.
I have had some extremely terse disagreements with people who pretty much agreed with me down to like five adjectives/significant figures, as pillow talk, even. Shit happens, especially when youre doing the kind of vivid and visceral imagining a better world you do as you work to make it; i know it soubds like sort of a cop-out, but there really is nothing like it.
But i can work with pretty much any if it, if the foundation is 'i care about people and/or the planet'.
For sure I can work with them too, but we have to be ready to have these debates and work through these issues. My point is that good vibes are not enough to do good politics. Of course, people with good vibes are going to be much more agreeable to anarchist ideas, and any debates we do have will be more productive than people with bad vibes. But we still need to have clear ideas and good praxis with a solid logical and historical basis.
I can still work with people i disagree with. You're being too online; it's not 1917.
Me too 1000%. All the more reason why we need to come up with our own coherent worldview 😁
Im not going to communucate every single thing i believe to everyone who asks. Thats absurd. Hell i barely tell people i actually like much if it.
Perfectly reasonable. I don't disagree with that. But we still need to prepare for the day when disclosing that coherent worldview is needed. And more importantly: a coherent anarchist worldview can inform what you give to the movements you contribute to, and you can give an honest justification for why.