this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
129 points (95.7% liked)

Flippanarchy

1291 readers
488 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 [email protected]

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
db0
129
we must maintain the status quo (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 5 hours ago by dreadbeef to c/flippanarchy
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 hours ago (2 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.

[–] dreadbeef 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

Fair.

[–] outhouseperilous 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours 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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours 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.

[–] outhouseperilous 2 points 2 hours ago

Organisms.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

I'm sorry but this is a nonsense over thee top argument. This is the same as saying "do you support the rampant murdering of your opponents, and if you don't, why do you support anarchy?"

Everybody can make dumb statements like that.

Every system, be it communism, capitalism, anarchy or other can and will be abused. There will always be those trying to become a dictator type asshole, see Stalin, for example. The only way for any system to work well is to put laws in place to limit what cheaters can do. For capitalism that would be tax the shit out of he rich, anything over 10M in personal wealth should be taxed at 100%. There is no right for anyone to be extremely rich.

Capitalism has good parts and whether you like it or not, it's by extremely the most successful to move humanity forward . I have zero problems with a capitalist system that would work like this. Limit company sizes to 500 employees and a billion dollars max in value. Again, tax anything over thst at 100%.

This will get you loads of smaller companies that will have to compete for employees, it'll be easier to force them to obey the law.

This will get you a shit load of money in a government that can then use that for a socialist system that pays for free healthcare, free education, free housing, free great public transportation, etc.

[–] dreadbeef 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

These are literally critical questions. I'm asking "what prevents it". If "nothing" prevents it then nothing prevents it and maybe we should try to figure out ways to prevent it before it becomes a reality because "nothing prevents it".

[–] outhouseperilous 1 points 2 hours ago

Yeah it's good that we can only gave nice things as the side effect of a scam, that everything must be based in exploitation, and the only check on that, which usually serves to maintain it, is a massive institution that exists for violence.

This all sounds great. Love it.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

I honestly don’t understand this comment. Is the “free roads” part sarcasm? Roads cost money to build and maintain, so, what are you trying to say here?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

the roads in america are socialized, even for those that dont drive or own a car (yet the infrastructure on/near the roads for non-drivers is lacking at best). taxes that arent related to cars pay for ~75% of the taxes that build and maintain roads (the other 25% is from mostly car-specific taxes).

[–] outhouseperilous 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Sometimes i think I'm great at that bit, then i meet a true master, and am humbled.

[–] onesixone 1 points 2 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago (3 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.

[–] outhouseperilous 4 points 2 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

yeah humans, always killing each other for power, not a species known to have evolved to heavily cooperate and care for one another!

hunter gatherers were all aspiring landlords

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

What prevents capitalism from accomplishing this in law?

Antitrust laws accomplish this in law

[–] dreadbeef 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Anti-trust laws prevented the violence that capitalism caused in the middle east the past 30 years? When did they prevent it? What evidence do you have that anti-trust laws are preventing this from happening in the modern era? What evidence do you have that anti-trust laws are more effective in creating a peaceful world compared to just trying democratic socialism (as opposed to the status quo of democratic capitalism prevalent in the west)?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Tired same old Internet argument garbage, where every argument is against the worst possible absolute of the Other.

The short answer is "numerous regulations and laws exist" and the long answer is that Capitalism pays the paychecks of everyone who controls basically everything, so it's not going away, and the best you can do is enact sensible regulations on it. Because you and everyone else don't have the ability to change any of that really.

[–] dreadbeef 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

It's simply asking "what are the safeguards of capitalism that prevents a terrible person from doing terrible things with its seeming limitless ability to affect the Earth and its inhabitants?"

So far the answer has been: Western Democracy

"Is western democracy is enough to keep capitalism from doing terrible things to Earth and its inhabitants" is my question. The framing obviously alludes to the argument:

Western democracy is either complicit in allowing genocide and conflict across the middle east over the past three decades, or it has been too powerless and ineffective to prevent it. Maybe we should give the opposition to capitalism (any form of anti-capitalism) a try to maintain peace across this beautiful world we all inhabit and need to live.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

No thanks, I'm not a socialist or a communist. I support the US Constitution and democracy, both of which are in far more need of support these days than fantasy revolutions like yours.

[–] dreadbeef 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Let's try out democratic socialism instead of democratic capitalism, why not? I love America and my neighbors of all races and religions and creeds, let's make it great with socialism.

The real fantasy is believing capitalism will usher in a semblance of peace across this Earth, yes even for those brown and black people in the americas, Middle East, pacific islands, and Africa. I'm not so sure why you believe it's the only way to make it happen.

[–] outhouseperilous 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 minutes ago)

lets try literally anything else

Okay, but, counter offer: cloud of sexless hydrogen?

Sounds pretty good, right?

Right?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

you and everyone else don't have the ability to change any of that

I beg to differ.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

Go right ahead then, we will watch

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

I think that idea is that a healthy, well-balanced capitalism (with working competition and anti-trust law) would make this imposible. It's a good argument agains cronyism and other broken form of psudo-capitalims... which most reasonable poeople would agree are bad regardless on theier political aligments. Capitalims shoudn't have monopolies. Period.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

lmfao your conception of reality is hilariously flawed

[–] dreadbeef 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

What law prevents a nation from expanding its borders to include the entire earth as long as "might is right" remains unchecked in this world?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

This part I don't get even as argument. What law would prevent one under socialism?

i understand the logic of "under capitalism -in theory - one could simply by every pice of land". I don't necessarily agree, but I understand. I don't see how it makes a difference if the invader is a socialist or capitalist country.

might is right == capitalism seams reductive

[–] dreadbeef 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Any economic system that has no safeguard to the "can someone own the Earth in your system?" problem is not a valid one in my opinion.

Socialism attempts to solve the problem by stating "the Earth isn't ownable under socialism, and anyone who tries to own a piece of it is met with resistance. Anyone who tries to own a piece of land by violent means is resisted by violent means". This is the nature of socialism and its theory on ownership. Is this not something that would benefit the Earth compared to the existing capitalist system that is only limited by democracy, which has historically used, and is currently using, systemic state-sponsored violence and regime change to achieve its goals?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

hmm, it can't eo owned indyvidualy. Can it be owned collectively? Can socialist country have borders? If it can, than I dont see what rules (not present in the capitalist country) would hard-stop it from expending those borders. If we use existing system from history as comparison, it's not all kisses and rosesses here as well.

If it can't have borders than we are talking the level of abstraction that I don't know how to discuss productively in the context of the twitt.

[–] dreadbeef 1 points 33 minutes ago* (last edited 23 minutes ago)

Do you think democratic socialism fundamentally, foundationally, has a stance on what is and isnt property, and who can or cannot own it, and what is or is not ownership of property, and what level of violence is or is not tolerable in defense of property? If socialism does have quantifiable stances on these things, is it not perfectly reasonable to suggest socialism makes an attempt to address the issue of the original post?

Democratic Capitalism says anyone can own property, anything and anyone can be property (slavery is state sponsored and is allowed within democratic capitalism), and it allows murder in defense of any property. Can a cop kill someone looting a grocery store? Do you believe such a thing be allowed fundamentally allowed in a democratic socialist economic system? Which system do you think would logically lead to a more peaceful planet—the status quo or democratic socialism?

[–] outhouseperilous 1 points 2 hours ago

Right? Yeah we should still only be allowed to make or do stuff as the byproduct of a scam, we just shouldn't go over board with it.

I agree. The version of the philosophy of value where ownership is valued and labor is not, is just :violated by things like 'owning too much' and 'exploiting labor' and 'doing whatever you like with all the shit you own'.