this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
728 points (97.9% liked)

Flippanarchy

1702 readers
489 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 1 month ago (3 children)

There were still classes back in the day, serfdom, slavery, guilds that had similar exploitation to wage labor. There was plenty of coercion to get labor done.

[–] SparrowHawk@feddit.it 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, the famous neolithic serfs.

Jokes aside, coercion was always a thing, but naturalizing it as inevitable or even desirable stumps any kind of radical thought for a differenti way of things. The world is something we make, and we can make it differently

[–] commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago

We can make it different, but it doesn't mean that we'll be able to abolish coercion entirely.

If instead of commodity production we moved past it, abolished current means of coercion (money) and instead pushed for planned economy that focuses on meeting everyone's needs, there would still be a need for some pressure to fill all the needed positions to meet all the production quotas.

It'd still be kilometers better than "get any job so capitalist extracts money from you or starve", and is radical but still coersive nonetheless.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, go back and read up on The Inclosure Acts and you're going to see the real bedrock of modern capitalism.

The relationship between aristocrats and serfs was materially different than capitalists and wage laborers. The former was more a method of formalized raiding and looting, while the later never lets labor have their hands on the goods to begin with.

In the same vein, Guilds were - at their heart - a system of professionalizing a craft and passing that knowledge on generation to generation. The modern academic institutions simply don't do that. Academic students have to demonstrate a broad competency in academic skills, but they have very little exposure to the commercial applications of their labor until the start their careers. A guild apprentice or journeyman is already building a client network as part of their training, while a college student only cultivates these relationships extra-curricularly (via internships or fellowships outside of the classroom).

These are radically different systems in practice, even if you can draw some vague parallels between instances of labor exploitation.

[–] commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

Never said that the relationship was the same, only that exploitation still existed back then, though I must admit I worded my sentence poorly.

Granted, you're painting the guild relationships as if they were merely teaching devices, while that's far from the truth and just falls to medieval ideological propaganda. In reality, they were an early form of "capitalist exploitation" for the lack of a better term in a pre-capitalistic society, it's very similar to the surplus value extraction that we see today. The master owned the tools, workshop, guild membership, etc which constituted as means of production of that time. The apprentice sold their labor power and essentially themselves thanks to the contracts in exchange for subsistence which is literally what wages are designed to do also.

The other forms were different though, yes, but they were still exploitative. Marx didn't write "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." for no reason.

[–] The_Sasswagon@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That very much depends on when and where you look in history. Many people didn't live that way at all and still lived in large communities and built things with the only coercion being the ties of community for hundreds to thousands of years.

Being a serf was apparently a lot less work and less miserable than you might think from pop culture. They worked for another, yes, but they also were looked after in return, and they didn't have to work the whole year. They also could just leave if they wanted to find a new place to live, which was a lot easier then than it is now. It wasn't the false choice of today where you work or starve.

Slavery, also, depended on the culture. In some cultures slaves were typically people who were captured or traded in compensation for a killing. But rather than be forced labor, they were treated as a sort of trial family member, and once the debt was seen as paid they would often be fully adopted as part of the community.

I recommend a book by David Graeber and David Wengrow called The Dawn of Everything, if you're interested in this sort of thing. It challenges the foundations of what we assume history was like using historical evidence, then reimagines foggy parts and builds an at least as probable image of the past in it's place.

[–] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

Weren't serfs basically tied to the land? They jad to get permission from the lord to go anywhere

[–] commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They (serfs) also could just leave if they wanted to find a new place to live, which was a lot easier then than it is now. It wasn’t the false choice of today where you work or starve.

That's literally false - serfs were legally tied to their land and lord, and the only way out was if they were either let go or escaped to some town offering freedom. This obligation was hereditary too, and getting your own land/home was pretty much impossible given how ingrained in aristocrat culture owning land was, with the sale of land being a great dishonor on your lineage and family.

Are we literally falsifying feudalism now, is that what's happening

[–] MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

That varied by country and a lot of places either never had serfdom or it only lasted a short time.