this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
281 points (95.5% liked)

Anarchist Memes

1200 readers
1 users here now

This forum is for anarchists to circlejerk and share zesty memes

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 70 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Imagine thinking you can have private property without a central government to enforce it

[–] ssboomman@lemm.ee 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You don’t need a government, you just need violence

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And what is a government but legitimized violence?

Pooling ressources for community services and works.

[–] ssboomman@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (15 children)

I agree with you there. My point is that a government is not needed to have private property. Governments are inherently violent, but you can be violent without a government.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Where is the line drawn between a government and a legitimized systemic form of violence?

[–] trafficnab@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is no line, legitimate violence is just one of the services a government is expected to perform

[–] StrayCatFrump 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's only "expected" to perform other services because its violence prevents us from doing those things apart from it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ssboomman@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Government is top down.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What do you do when your neighbor is more violent than you?

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I used to think I was tough and crazy, until I met some tough and crazy motherfuckers.

[–] ssboomman@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Defend myself? I’m not sure I get your point.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And that's a world you want to live in? Where you have to defend yourself from violent people? The point was not what if your neighbor is more violent, I just said that because it worked well as a response, and most people would understand. What about when your neighbor is more capable of inflicting violence? More skilled with firefights, or physically stronger? The powerful end up with all the stuff.

[–] ssboomman@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

How is that any different with capitalism now? The state just legitimizes that, it doesn’t stop anything. Private property and the state need to go.

[–] choroalp@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Same shit different names

[–] Granixo@feddit.cl 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's called livin' in da toolshed ⚒️

[–] Norgur@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only attractive to those not-so-sharp inhabitants of said shed

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeahhh it'll be great. It's basically anarchism except all the power systematically flows to one person

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

"It's anarchism... that I run!"

[–] Luisp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

A bourgeoise of the proletariat, wait

Thanks for the only comment that wasn't annoying. I miss that era of the internet. Feeling doomed used to be edgy.

[–] match@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

it's Dr Horrible's turn!

[–] Something_Complex@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh you mean real world in practice of anarchy like in Somalia.

Anarchy is very pretty on books, in reality this is the best outcome possible after a few years escalate and after a few centuries we are back to empires fighting against each other

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

You're only saying that because every time an anarchist group gains a foothold, it is forced to exist at the pleasure of more powerful states who view it in terms of profit.

[–] yeather@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (10 children)

If the crux of your argument is “Everytime anarchism happens it is too weak to protext itself from foreign influence.” Then you have a weak governmental system.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] DreamerofDays@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

So except for all the inherent problems of existing in non-ideal conditions and outside of isolation

I think that's part of their point.

[–] Something_Complex@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

do you know where your food comes from, are you aware the world resources are not infinite.

Or do I need to explain why everyone can't own their own house on the beach because there's is only so much costline(not to mention the environmental coats)

Explain how early human society didn't start with anarchy exactly?...how exactly do you expect an anarchist group to survive if you and the other guys from other group both need food but there is barely enough to feed one group.

Do that and replace food by whatever you want

[–] Mozingo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Salary? Money? Without a government?

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Gotta promise them something until you get your military up and running.

[–] Luisp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

During the years of Spanish provinces in America, some small banks would own the entire land and pay the locals using their own currency only print by them, 1 coin equals 1 day of labor which was nearly enough for 2 meals, then the Spanish kingdom would forgive the landowners taxes if the locals were forced into Christian religion.

[–] trimmerfrost@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

It can only be communistic

load more comments
view more: next ›