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.
Seeing someone "vaguelly left" unironically defending the extrajudicial murder of Rosa fucking Luxembourg was not in my bingo card.
Note that even Germany itself celebrates Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht
The SPDs record is anti-democratic, they used elections to legitimize themselves then unleashed paramilitaries to crush organized workers. That's not taking 'democracy seriously,' that's narrowing what it means to protect the state.
Revolutionary democracy is more than just fucking ballots and voting. The entire point is mass participation, self organization and ongoing struggle.
The January uprising wasn’t a Bolshevik-style coup. It was a mass revolt sparked by SPD repression, which the KPD didn’t even plan and which Luxemburg herself thought was premature.
'history major'
I mean elections can be pretty good at legitimizing if they're free and fair
don't think we disagree, though the point is more that they're necessary, but insufficient. having elections can legitimize the process, but if you turn around and rely on right wing paramilitaries to suppress your opposition then it's not really legitimate.
'The opposition' here meaning... people literally attempting a coup.
Right, but they're good because they're supposed to give people a voice in their governance, the whole 'by the people' thing.
If you only use them to legitimize your program and then toss out the actual desires of the people; that is bad.
But that means you are threatening my comfort and privileges!!! Emancipation is only worth it if it benefits me personally without having to do any effort.
On a more serious note, elections are all good and well but will not bring the possibilty of completely changing course, just look how any bourgeois democracy reacts the moment a candidate goes too far in "socialist" rhetoric, instantly the whole private and public sector will cooperate to stop this person, and we're not even talking about full-blown communists, look at Corbyn, Melenchon,... becoming a full fascist state through the process of bourgeois elections is deemed acceptable and even necessary, anything else has to face the consequences, and they use violence as well, elections are fair and free until they become a menace to the ruling class.
Tbf, where one learns "history" can certainly skew their knowledge and understanding of "history."