227
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 16 points 1 week ago

...yet is entirely incapable of telling you not to impinge on everyone else's control over their own lives.

The whole point of laws is (or should be) to clearly delineate when your freedom to swing your arm impinges on someone else's right not to get punched.

[-] simone@lemmy.org 11 points 1 week ago

Anarchy isn’t about doing whatever you want, hurting anyone along the way. That’s libertarianism.

[-] 5wim@infosec.pub 13 points 1 week ago

Anarchism means no rulers, not no rules.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago

I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.

[-] merde@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.

how do you "democratically" create laws? Will people vote to create those laws and what's going to happen to people who disagree with those "democratically created laws"?

[-] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Their vision of anarchy is just democracy that agrees with them because they don't want to participate in the democracy they already have.

[-] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago

What democracy? I dont see any democracy here.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

Direct democracy is not the same as representative democracy. We have a ruling class that we elect. A direct democracy doesn't. There are other options to solve the issue too.

[-] nsrxn@mstdn.social 2 points 1 week ago

even assuming that a group of free people without classes or coercion would choose to make a law, it can't possibly apply to people who didn't consent to it.

so it's no law at all. and such a law dies when one of the last two agreed people die.

it simply makes no sense for a system of consent and consensus to implement laws.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 1 week ago

I'm not sure you know what anarchy means. You might be thinking of direct democracy. Even that has issues with tyranny of the majority and market forces being leveraged to curtail freedom outside of government control. I'm a social libertarian myself, because government intervention is required to curtail abuse of market forces.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

Direct democracy is one of the system proposed for Anarchist governance. Direct democracy is just a system. It can be part of many political ideas. Anarchy just means there isn't hierarchy. Direct democracy facilitates this, correct? There are no rulers, and everyone is equal in voting.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] merde@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago

👆

that's a very petit understanding of anarchism

[-] w3ird_sloth@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

I'm pretty comfortable in the assumption that they don't give a fuck.

[-] merde@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

i assume that the person who posted this is young and hence they shouldn't "give a fuck".

Godspeed to them… hope they can shake down everything around them :)

[-] w3ird_sloth@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

With youth comes assumptions. You'll age out of it soon enough little whipper snapper.

[-] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

I read it as a useful point of recognition accessible to all, something more like a seed than a container (container being "anarchism is...").

[-] SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 week ago

Anarchism is the revolutionary idea that no one can be held responsible for your actions but yourself. Not government, not god, not a gun to your head, just you accepting responsibility. Anarchism without personal responsibility is just fascism at the individual scale.

[-] Chakravanti@monero.town 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Thanks you. That is the most concise & meaningful full explanation.

[-] libre_warrior@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago

Hierarchists oftentimes say that we need the machine to ensure that we are provided for. In this sense I like to think of the machine as a mother. The motherly machine nurtures us. Gives us hospitals, passports, car infrastructure, gives us internet, gives us supermarkets.

But she can't nurture us without vessels which pumps force of life to her. The one raising and maintaining the vessels is the fatherly machine.

Our father is efficient, and does whatever he needs to do to accomplish this. He deathen forests to set up farms. He penetrates the ground for metals, he exploits labour to the degree that it is possible, fully if possible. He grabs around that which he can, from the very biggest, to the very smallest. He sucks up life from the ocean. And penetrates the crust of Gaja to vessel oil.

The issue here is that in fern for the machine to preserve itself, it needs people to look away from the fatherly machine, because then it can get away with more providing. This is easy for the machine, because all the machine has to do is to claim responsibility for being non-exploitative. It is moving responsibility away from people towards itself.

The lokening is therefore to take back responsibility.

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

This sounds like anarcho-primitivism.

[-] libre_warrior@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

I like to use the term democratic confederalist or demconf in short, but I agree with anarcho-primitivism/indigenism in the sense that we should live with nature, not against it.

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

I think it sounds nice, but it's hard for me to take it seriously.

[-] libre_warrior@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

They do it in southern Kurdistan. Not sure if you take them seriously.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

We need to overhaul our ecology. Our current ecology is too dependent on extractivism

[-] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago
[-] libre_warrior@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

thank you :)

[-] Smookey4444@anarchist.nexus 6 points 1 week ago

No government can give you freedom🏴🚩

[-] monad@anarchist.nexus 4 points 1 week ago

No Masters, No Slaves.

[-] Fontasia@feddit.nl 4 points 1 week ago

What's the difference between this and libertarianism?

[-] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

Anarchism is older and we have actual working examples

[-] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago

If I am not mistaken, Initially anarchism was called libertarianism, but later libertarianism was co-opted by American pro-market believers and now refers to anarcho-capitalists.

As for why an-caps are not real anarchists you can read an in depth explanation here. But briefly it is just an oxymoron. Anarchists believe in a world without hierarchies and capitalism is a system defined by the existence of two classes of people(capitalists and working people) and their relationship to the means of production. So there is an inherently hierarchical relationship within capitalism.

But who will tell me what to do!?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
227 points (96.7% liked)

Flippanarchy

2405 readers
673 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