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.
Transcript
A crudely drawn ms-paint-style comic. The first panel depicts a person with an ancap (anarcho capitalist) mask. The mask is black and yellow, the colors are divided diagonally. The person is saying "statist bootlickers fuck off!" to a boot. In the next panel, they are staring at the boot draw an amazon logo on it with a marker. The last panel shows the person deepthroathing the boot, saying "At least it's not the gubermint [government".
Ancaps are corporate feudalists who want a cool sounding name.
Even old fashioned anarcho-monarchists are closer to anarchists than ephebophiles. (Please use the correct name for their ideologies)
As if corporate feudalism wasn't cool enough. Sounds cyberpunk as hell
Of course you have no right, he makes a big point about talking about the difference between slavery of the protected (which would be met with aggressive response from the private security they pay for) and slavery of the unprotected (aka poor, and thus are not paying private security to not be enslaved) which is apparently acceptable.
Ah, but is he currently paying for said expensive private security?
If they reply, I imagine it will be some hog wash about the NAP (non-aggression principle). Which in short is a honor code they expect everyone to abide (currently not possible because government). It is a rather odd claim for the ancaps I think. They are saying something about solidarity and no one will want to work with an abuser/slaver. They will also deny that Ayn Rand's objectivism is distinct from their ideas, but interrogating them shows its not. So they have an appeal to solidarity, but the selling points of their ideology are selfish motivations. Historically that means there will be plenty who find their selfish interests are to side with an abuser/slaver/colonizer. Id compare them to a religious fundamentalist that just found some contradictions in the bible and is working on the apologetic.
That last paragraph was a wild read
For real. Sometimes its hard to tell if its a 4chan type being edge, but the whole things is a bit too candid to be a troll.
Sweet mother of fuck just blatantly desiring/justifying slavery is..wild.
“I dream of a world where I can enslave the poors with no consequence” essentially.
Oh, so you would prefer abolitionists running arouns being mean to you?
As someone who doesn't believe in morality, I approach this purely in terms of power dynamics and evolutionary fitness rather than "right" or "wrong." If you truly can subjugate people by force of the unprotected (by unprotected I mean not paying a protection subscription) and no one resists, that is, in Darwinian terms, simply a manifestation of natural selection
Tl;dr
everything shpuld be slavery; work or die!
Well I guess we now know what kind of idiot starts their manifesto with abandoning any form of morality
I'm not gonna read whatever weird BS that came from, but I do think its entirely possible to have a coherent and attractive worldview without morality. If you want to make any sense to normal people, you have to replace it with a belief system that emphasizes community service and the common good. In the end, if it works, it winds up looking just like morality with objective foundations.
but morality is a fundamental part of getting along with others, it's necessitated by the fact that you don't want to be stabbed in the gut, thus gut-stabbing is bad.
if someone doesn't agree that gut-stabbing is reprehensible, then you know they might stab you in the gut, thus you have a very big incentive to tell them to eat shit and stay the fuck away from you.
But that's not morality, that's self-preservation. It's morality if you don't do it because it affects others in a negative way, it's self-preservation if you don't do it because you don't want negative consequences for yourself.
I guess we can only truly measure morality where there are no consequences for one's actions. That's why it usually goes out the window for rich people.
I don't think this is real or helpful towards understanding the world. The measure of morality is the shape of your life after you practice it. Your impact on others. Morals are about things that matter. You've come quite near to postulating that they don't matter. I cannot support this view.
There you go, starting to establish a new system of beliefs from first principles. You don't have to call it morality, if you don't start from some existing authority. In the end, if whatever belief system you build actually works, it winds up looking very like our existing moral code.
very like our existing
Well, no, because thats mostly fucked up and awful and nonsense and made for oppression.
But it would totally include like 'dont kill people or fuck shit up for no reason.'
I unfortunately agree that people largely do not adhere to what one might regard as the normal moral code. In fact there are loud voices saying it is defunct. But its still there. We still use it to judge.
These are some of the reasons that I feel one should be open to rebuilding the squishy biz that is morals into something based on objective values. This project has been tackled by much better men, and I have nothing to add. Rene Descartes. Immanuel Kant. Even Friedrich Nietzsche had powerful things to say about reworking morals into something that actually works.
Nothing is wrong with capitalism; but the current crony capitalism doesn't provide enough opportunities to be the boot
ancaps in a nutshell
“Whenever anarcho-capitalism is mentioned to me in conversation, it’s usually followed by repealing the age of consent.”
Capitalist libertarians still want a (mimimal) state, so they can call the cops to protect them and their underage wife
Well, harem. Their underage harem.
They want only the violence the state has to offer.
I fuckkng despise how ancaps have completely coopted the term "libertarian" in the US, to the point where they are synonymous to most.
Nowadays every time someone says they're a libertarian, I ask them about Mexican immigration. You're not a True Scotsman if you aren't even from Scotland.
There is the kind of old fashioned version whos wrong and crazy but not too much of a bigot and fun as hell if you can put up with how creepy they are.
Most who identify as ephebophiles these days aren't that guy, though.
I don't think true libertarians have good ideas, but its also not unusual that the libertarian party is largely for republicans that are brand aware as they say.
Ancaps aren't against violence, they are just against monopoly on violence.
They have no problem with monopoly of violence, as long as it's "voluntary", by which of course they mean economically coerced.
They're ok with other monopolies though.
Yeah it's just the State's monopoly on violence they have a problem with, it's fine if a company does it