Flippanarchy

1511 readers

89 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

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.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

226

Still waiting... (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 3 days ago by db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

81 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Photonic@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

American revolutionists would like to have a word... And even though after the French revolution times were bad you can ask yourself whether they would have been any better off if the revolution hadn't occurred. Even if the French themselves weren't better off, fear of revolution triggered other authoritarian monarchs, like the Dutch king to agree to massive reforms. It's not always a simple A-leads-to-B connection.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's fair.

[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

civil rights activists would like to have a word. women's suffrage would like a word.

[+] finitebanjo@piefed.world -13 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Thanks for the counterexamples to violent change.

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 3 days ago

I highly recommend you read this excerpt.

Long. (click to show)

the Suffragettes are instructive. Their tactic of choice was property destruction. Decades of patient pressure on Parliament to give women the vote had yielded nothing, and so in 1903, under the slogan ‘Deeds not words’, the Women’s Social and Political Union was founded. Five years later, two WSPU members undertook the first militant action: breaking windowpanes in the prime minister’s residence. One of them told the police she would bring a bomb the next time. Fed up with their own fruitless deputations to Parliament, the suffragettes soon specialised in ‘the argument of the broken pane’, sending hundreds of well-dressed women down streets to smash every window they passed. In the most concentrated volley, in March 1912, Emmeline Pankhurst and her crews brought much of central London to a standstill by shattering the fronts of jewellers, silversmiths, Hamleys toy shop and dozens of other businesses. They also torched letterboxes around the capital. Shocked Londoners saw pillars filled with paper throwing up flames, the work of some activist having thrown in a parcel soaked in kerosene and a lit match. The civil resistance model? More like the methods envisioned in Lanchester’s paradox. Militancy was at the core of suffragette identity: ‘To be militant in some form, or other, is a moral obligation’, Pankhurst lectured. ‘It is a duty which every woman will owe her own conscience and self-respect, to women who are less fortunate than she is herself, and to all who are to come after her.’ The latest full-body portrait of the movement, Diane Atkinson’s Rise Up, Women!, gives an encyclopaedic listing of militant actions: suffragettes forcing the prime minister out of his car and dousing him with pepper, hurling a stone at the fanlight above Winston Churchill’s door, setting upon statues and paintings with hammers and axes, planting bombs on sites along the routes of royal visits, fighting policemen with staves, charging against hostile politicians with dogwhips, breaking the windows in prison cells. Such deeds went hand in hand with mass mobilisation. The suffragettes put up mammoth rallies, ran their own presses, went on hunger strikes: deploying the gamut of non-violent and militant action. After the hope of attaining the vote by constitutional means was dashed once more in early 1913, the movement switched gears. In a systematic campaign of arson, the suffragettes set fire to or blew up villas, tea pavilions, boathouses, hotels, haystacks, churches, post offices, aqueducts, theatres and a liberal range of other targets around the country. Over the course of a year and a half, the WSPU claimed responsibility for 337 such attacks. Few culprits were apprehended. Not a single life was lost; only empty buildings were set ablaze. The suffragettes took great pains to avoid injuring people. But they considered the situation urgent enough to justify incendiarism – votes for women, Pankhurst explained, were of such pressing importance that ‘we had to discredit the Government and Parliament in the eyes of the world; we had to spoil English sports, hurt businesses, destroy valuable property, demoralise the world of society, shame the churches, upset the whole orderly conduct of life’. Some attacks probably went unclaimed. One historian suspects that the suffragettes were behind one of the most spectacular blazes of the period: a fire in a Tyneside coal wharf, in which the facilities for loading coal were completely gutted. They did, however, claim responsibility for the burning of motor cars and a steam yacht

This is from How to blow up a pipeline by Andreas Malm,

[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

that's some real historical revisionism. it's no different than what trump is doing to the smithsonian. you two have a lot in common.

but that's what you liberals do. you whitewash and appropriate the work of people like MLK and Malcom X, and use their "peaceful" resistance to fund raise while ignoring their advocacy or participation in protests liberals deem "violent".

I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity. — Martin Luther King

Whenever the Negroes keep the Democrats in power, they're keeping the Dixiecrats in power. This is true! A vote for a Democrat is nothing but a vote for a Dixiecrat. I know you don't like me saying that, but I'm not the kind of person who come here to say what you like. I'm going to tell you the truth, whether you like it or not. Up here in the North, you have the same thing. The Democratic Party don't do it, they don't do it that way. They got a thing that they call gerrymandering. They maneuver you out of power. Even though you can vote, they fix it so you're voting for nobody. They got you going and coming. In the South, they're outright political wolves. In the North, they're political foxes. A fox and a wolf are both canine, both belong to the dog family. Now, you take your choice. You going to choose a Northern dog or a Southern dog? Because either dog you choose, I guarantee you, you'll still be in the doghouse. This is why I say it's the ballot or the bullet. It's liberty or it's death. It's freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody. — Malcolm X

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The suffragettes literally threw rocks at windows and commited arson.