this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2026
382 points (93.8% liked)
Flippanarchy
2401 readers
369 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the emphasis here should be on "gave everyone equal say". That is still not the case today. Consider that children, foreigners, and some mentally ill cannot vote.
Until a few decades ago it was also customary that women can't vote.
I think it's not a difficult concept to come up with to collect all the people you know in a group and make decisions that way. Lots of societies historically did it that way. I'm pretty sure the germans had their Thing which is just a general assembly for general purposes (including making law). The main difference is that they only included people in the decision-making process who they thought were able to make good, meaningful decisions. Meanwhile today we include everyone in the process.
And some people with multiple personalities are only allowed to vote once, not once per voice living in their head.
It's probably a good idea to not allow absolutely everybody to have a say. It may not even be the best idea to give everybody an equal say.
Sometimes. It depends on if the vote is for something in particular, or if it's a vote for someone to act as a representative. The first is more democratic, the latter is less so, especially if that person ends up not actually representing well.
Then there is the issue of whether or not "everyone" is truly included in either of these.
Yeh but not with equally weights.
Whatever country you are, you get half candidates saying they're right wing and half saying left wing, when in fact they're all friends with themselves and underlings to capital and lobbying.
The kind of people who always gets what they want out of elections is corporations, because they bet on both sides.