this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
247 points (94.3% liked)

Flippanarchy

1338 readers
41 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
 

To anyone who supports capitalism or otherwise opposes socialism:

Do you support the idea that one man can accumulate enough wealth to own all land of this Earth, making everyone born in his empire under his rule as long as he can kill to defend it? What prevents capitalism from accomplishing this in law? What law exists that limits the borders of nations?

Why, then, must we endure a system where a single man owning the Earth and enslave it is a feature, not a bug?

https://dice.camp/@sean/114698774200264413

I just wanna know what people think. Why must this be maintained? Why is any opposition to capping wealth just the end of the world when it probably would save it, just logically thinking it through?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world 47 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

If we hate capitalism and want socialism, we need to recognise that most people do not really know what those words mean, or are even intimidated by them. We need to use very plain language - fewer isms - if we want to bring people with us. Otherwise we are just preaching to the choir.

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 2 weeks ago

Tim Walz's attempt to rebrand social democratic policies as neighborliness might be a good start.

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

No doubt, but I'm talking to people who care about the term capitalism so much that they'll be considered "pro capitalism." That's fine if you're not a capitalist, but I'm not trying to argue that people who are already not pro capitalism should be against it, I'm trying to argue that people who are pro capitalism should be against it.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Generally agree on not assuming a high level understanding but

fewer isms

Okay but this specific phrasing makes me want to violence you. Would you be amenable to this?

[–] FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Knock yourself (or me!) out :) But there is an irony in not liking the word "isms" in an argument against using them in their full / correct form.

[–] AmazingAwesomator@lemmy.world 31 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

anyone who hates socialism must hate driving their truck on all of those free roads.

[–] Caffeinated_Sloth@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago

And they should pay the fire department for saving their home.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

This is the first anti-capitalism post on Lemmy I can agree with. Not because I think capitalism is bad (but what we see now actually is bad and ugly, no question there), but because it poses a valid question: if you are against whatever looks like socialism, go on and explain how current fuckery should be the norm. Thank you for posting this

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago

this is an interesting analogy that i haven't heard before. it doesn't seem like a fully fleshed out analogy though. it jumps between concepts without making the links apparent.

would anyone like to expand upon this analogy for us? how do we get from ruling everything, to killing, to borders, to law, to economics?

[–] onesixone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If only one man owns everything, then expropriation would be really fast in theory

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Not if he's surrounded by dead bodies, but capitalism can't prevent that either.

[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago

I look forward to seeing an evolution of thought, theory and practice in the next few years.

I think there are effective ways to undo this problem that are not born yet

[–] Commiunism@beehaw.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

UHMMM AKSHUALLY (🤓) a single man cannot own all of earth, given how liberalism is heavily propagated and maintained by concepts such as nationalism and by extension xenophobia, racism, bigotry - all that fun stuff.

If a single man or an entity tried to create some pan-cosmopolitan world where every piece of land is under a single world-wide country, you bet your ass there's gonna be countless of reactionary national liberation movements to proclaim sovereignty.

[–] match@pawb.social 3 points 1 week ago

There's sort of an unstated rule that capitalism needs black markets / organized crime to work, so, criminals would stop this

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

People using violence to gather resources and power to themselves has always been the state of humanity. Capitalism is just a present day version of that.

Power is never relinquished willingly. Only through the threat of violence, or by actual violence.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I highly recommend you read up on history. For most of humanity's existence we lived in small relatively egalitarian groups were people depended on each other for survival.

Your "always" is a very recent state of afairs and also not universally true even today.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Not only is it recent, it can also flip back relatively easily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Paradise_Built_in_Hell

[–] Sausa@beehaw.org 2 points 1 week ago

Thanks for the link to that book, it looks super interesting.

[–] strongarm@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

This looks really cool! Thanks.

Reminds me of the books by Rutger Breghman like Humankind

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

has always

No.

(implied) human nature

No and fuck you

power is never relinquished willingly

Has been, could be, but won't be here. No.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Let's put it this way:

If someone held a gun to your head and told you to shut the fuck up, you would shut the fuck up.

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

you didn't ask about my gun pointed at his head as well? why must only he have the gun?

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Hexorg@beehaw.org 1 points 1 week ago

It’s an interesting and hard problem. Because most billionaires don’t own billions in cash - they own companies that are worth billions. These companies also don’t have billions of assets - they are valued at billions by investors.

The problem is that musks and bezoses of the world didn’t start with billions - they started with millions and lucked out. So to prevent this from happening you need some system that can fairly catch a moment where a business becomes too big and do something about it.

You can’t really cut the majority owner out, because well they own the company - you can’t just take away what they own. But you can’t really pay them some ceiling cost either - you’ll just end up making someone else a billionaire.

load more comments
view more: next ›