source: cartoon
And so anarchism is defeated the same way it always is: No ability for self preservation
Like the furthest from the truth comment possible.
The Rojava and Zapatistas are still fighting and defending their land to this day.
In Spain we fought, in Ukraine we fought, etc.
I don’t think bringing up Spanish and Ukranian Anarchist movements is a good way to combat notions of a lack of preservation of Anarchist movements. EZLN was a much better example.
Our Anarchy who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power, and the glory, forever and ever.
Of course it’s Kropotkin handing out bread. Dude fucking loves bread
Only anarchist to lead a conquest. A conquest of bread. That’s how much he fucking loves bread.
How can be True Anarchism if you love bread but give away?
True Anarchism is Anarcho-Capitalism. Mean you love bread so you take away from as many as possible.
Give bread away not love. Is against human nature. Stupid leftist no understand how things work.
I just don’t get tired of this comic!
The joke would have landed better if the depicted leftists were not anarchists but were accused/charged by the police of being anarchists
Just saying that thats not anarchy. Anarchy will never work its just unstable and will become some kind of system(which we see in this comic too)
Edit: for the people who downvoted me, the comic literally says “constructing a society” which means its not anarchy.
I’m a Marxist, not an Anarchist, but I used to be one. That’s mostly wrong.
Anarchism isn’t about having no society, but one established based on full horizontalism, like a spiderweb of communes. This is opposed to Marxism, which seeks full collective ownership and planning in a global Socialist republic (kinda like Star Trek).
Edit: for the people who downvoted me, the comic literally says “constructing a society” which means its not anarchy.
It’s funny, because you actually dug a deeper hole with this edit.
when will people understand that anarchy as a form of society is different from the colloquial use of the word to mean absolute chaos (which by the way is probably the result of a deliberate attempt to undermine the former)
the comic literally says “constructing a society” which means its not anarchy.
how does every scrap of culture containing the word “anarchy” attract these experts who were apparently born with these incorrect assumptions about anarchism, SINCE THEY’VE NEVER READ A SINGLE DAMN AUTHORITATIVE WORD ON THE SUBJECT
As long as all the participants buy into the system without coercion or under the threat of starving, who the fuck cares?
That is literally anarchy you clown.
Anarchy is not no rules lawless free for all MadMax world.
Anarchy is when you run around a room waving your hands and screaming “This is Anarchy!!!”
Finally, an actual anarchist.
It’s the assumption of altruism that gets me.
mutual benefit, not altruism. capitalism has the same assumption except it has different incentives.
Leftist memes are awful man
Usually the ones who say this just disagree with Leftism and thus don’t find it funny.
So show me an example of a good rightwing meme. Never seen one to date but chuds keep acting like the left sucks.
Just keep deepfrying Stonetoss until you can swallow it
Yeah.
And that would never happen. Same goes for communism. On paper its all pretty but in practice you have to deal with han beings who want their own thing.
The only way to push through communism (or anarchism, for that matter) is to force people to follow it. This inevitably leads to the dictatorships we all know and love where people were murdered by the thousands only for disagreeing. Corruption will flourish because you’ll keep having a richer class who just hide all their crap better, and those backroom deals are just awesome for a system corrupt to the core
Just acting as if the current problems with capitalism only exist because most people are blind while you “opened your eyes” is an attitude I’d expect from a 15 year old who is just repeating slogans
Personal property ≠ private property of the means of production
It’s astonishing how many people are ok with building bombs to kill kids in the Middle East or developing better drugs that are paywalled by private healthcare so that rich people can get richer, but instead of chalking this up to “human nature” we can see it as a product of repression and persuasion.
Who says I’m okay with bombs?
I’m pretty sure that no one is “fine” with bombs. The reason we have them though is that they are (still) a necessary evil. The second you start your sweet anarchistix community where were all friends and let eachother be free and do what we want you’ll get your ass run over by your dictator neighbor who loves what you did with the place.
You either prepare yourself to defend yourself or you will either be imprisoned, enslaved, or killed. Look at what Russia is doing right now.
I HATE violence, and if it were up to me, all guns would be gone tomorrow. However, I also am realistic enough to understand that that is not how the world works.
Same for drug development, I fully agree. This is a bad part of capitalism that needs to be resolved. Absolutely agree. However, I’m not so naive to just say “dump capitalism” because I also understand the positive aspects of capitalism.
How about instead wed try for a mix of it all. Best of all worlds, capitalism, socialism, anarchism. The raw power of limited and tightly controlled capitalism to create capital for all from capitalism, that can fund all the socialist systems like free healthcare, free education, free housing, etc.
Capitalism is not the only method of producing Capital. On the contrary, once competition plays itself out and monopolies form, it loses efficiency in doing so. Yet, we cannot simply introduce new Competition, and to break up monopoly just reduces efficiency. Rather, the next step that makes logical sense is to fold them into the public sector and plan them accordingly.
Socialism is not “social programs.” Socialism is a mode of production characterized by collectivization and planning in the primary of an economy.
I like that your argument against Anarchism is that people are selfish and greedy, so having a system where individuals have huge amounts of power and wealth and can get what they want is better.
Because (many) Anarchists would say that humans being selfish and wanting more for their own benefit is (one of) the most important reason(s) for stopping humans having power and control over others.
I didn’t read him as saying that though. They are not stating that capitalism is better, they are stating that human greed will attempt to corrupt every system.
There have to be safeguards in place to stop the greed. And yes, there might be safeguards within one anarchist collective (which anywhere else would be known as “laws”), but not another one that gets greedy and wants to take over your collective and has bigger guns.
Fighting against greed is an ongoing project no matter what political system you are under. Switching systems does not miraculously solve this.
Agreed. The flaw in the system is people. I hate to say it with the context of this comic, but the solution unfortunately isn’t “no rules” anarchy. That’s similar to the libertarian view, which somehow relies on the idea that if you get rid of regulation corporations and people will suddenly behave well by themselves when in fact history has proven time and again that it just turns into a big power grab. Corporations start dumping waste everywhere, get rid of environmental and worker protections, etc. whatever it takes to get ahead and make the most money. Same for people. There might be some places that can sort out some kind of effective shared governing and resource managment, but that still means rules, not anarchy.
Rules and laws keep people, the rich, and corporations from running roughshod. Problem is that those same people try to bend and shape those rules so that they can get away with doing just that. There is no “win” and being done, it’s a never-ending battle against greed.
I agree with your last paragraph fully.
I’d also say Anarchism is more a process than an end goal.
Those powerful individuals, however, were chosen by the citizens. (Assuming the system you’re talking about is a democracy.)
Out of an extremely limited pool where often our best option is the lesser evil.
Democracy in any current implementation is hardly democratic.
How is the German democracy hardly democratic?
Because abolishing democracy is not an available option? Is that what a system needs to be considered democratic?
I understand why USAmericans think of their system as hardly democratic, but that’s not the only type of democracy that exists.
I don’t know why Euros always assume everyone is American.
And how is it? Do your leaders reflect your views entirely or is it chock full of compromises you don’t have to make on your end?
The only real democracy is direct democracy, not party politics.
You just asdumed the person talking about German politics to be european, so theres that I guess.
Our leaders are a mix of three different parties because not all German people have the same opinions.
Yes, our leaders are a compromise between left-leaning voters and right-leaning voters. Respecting more people’s votes makes the country more democratic, not less.
If your question is about whether the people have free choice or if they can only choose one of the six parties currently in the Bundestag, the answer is the former. Little story:
Under Merkel, all German parties moved to be more migrant-friendly, until even Merkel’s conservative party (the most right wing party at the time) was largely okay with migration.
However, there are many anti-migration voters in Germany. So what did they do? Did they say “oh, we only have these five options, guess there’s no way I can vote against migration”? No, they founded a new party, the AfD, to be anti migration. This party quickly got into the Bundestag and rose to be a major party now.
Upon seeing the popularity of anti-migration policies, some of the other parties now shift torwards more anti-migration policies, too.
The German people have plenty of choice, and if a popular topic is ever not represented by the popular parties, it can quickly be made represented again.
(The reason I was assuming USA btw, is because another comment mentioned America. Also the USA is an easy example of a less democratic democracy.)
What the fuck kind of bullshit are you on bro?
AfD is not anti-migration it’s anti-migrant. Anti-migration is just a facade they use to hide their racism. They are interested in kicking out the migrants not just stopping more from coming to germany.
What they do want is wage-slaves, slaves that will come to germany and do anything they want them to do, live like they are told to live and leave when they want them to leave.
And its ironic how germany the so-called “we won’t forget our nazi past” country now supports a neo-nazi party (they poll at 20%).
Alice weidel, AfD’s chancellor candidate recently talked about how she longs for her grandfather’s time. Her grandfather was an actual fucking Nazi.
AfD is also the same party whose leaders attended a neo-nazi conference at the start of 2024.
On the topic of democracy, 60% of Germans support a ban on arms deal to israel, how many parties support this? How many even acknowledge it?
Which democracy are you talking about?
It’s the tolerance paradox all over again.
We’re not talking about hypothetical individuals. This is a discussion of the present reality. In most of the developed world, but certainly in America.
The more power they are given, the more they will use to get more power for them and their mates.
Any system where people are given power over others will inevitably tend to absolutism by the ruling clique unless the people agitate against it. Not simply participate in the system as given as systems are inevitably co-opted.
The only way to try and get everyone to follow communism is through force, which requires a state, that is true. This is why I prefer anarcho-communism, where there is no state enforcing it.
It is also true under anarchism people have the option to not cooperate peacefully. As you said, humans are still humans at the end of the day and some will take advantage of others or hoard resources.
But I don’t think that is reason enough to not at least try to get there. Because under capitalism those same issues still exist, only people are expected to be okay with losing their autonomy and giving up their resources for the sake of a wealthy ruling class.
Regarding Communism, I mean, kinda? But at the point of Communism, where all production is owned and managed collectively along a common plan, what would you reasonably want that would cause you to want to go against the rest of Humanity?
Wonder why we cant just hammer capitalism into the socialism everyone wants with money. Just beat the shit out of it with money until its utopia. Well, i imagine thats what the neoliberals would like to do. Too bad people give more money to evil people
They are also killing politicians of course but this is generally a net good
Order people to fire off more explosives than the human mind can comprehend in a war, then launch more explosives than that entire war in every battle of the next war, and you get called a “great man”
You toss a single grenade at that first guy and suddenly you’re the “bomb thrower”.
Watch “the Chekist”, and tell me how much of a net good it is.
I love your naivety where you think they’ll kill all the people you don’t like, but they’d never touch you or your loved ones, because you’re the exception
Watch The Murder of Fred Hampton, and tell me how it’s not currently being done by those in power.
I love your naivety where you think that just because they don’t kill you or your loved ones, because you’re (likely) part of the accepted group, it’s ok to ignore the fact that they kill all the people you don’t care to think about.
(I have no idea who you are. I just think the counter point to your point is equally valid and deserves consideration)
I think you’re missing a point here.
Of course his murder is bad and a disgrace, and of course those responsible should have been jailed for life. But with that in mind…
Do you really believe that a “radical” like Fred would not be immediately picked up and put against a wall in case of a socialist, or anarchist revolution? Especially people like him, leaders with their own minds, would just disappear and be put in front of a door.
I’ll watch the movie later when I have a chance to see it on the TV instead of my cellphone.
You do the same.
It was a joke man jesus
I mean I do genuinely believe there are many politicians who deserve to be shot though. Just not genuinely suggesting we line them up against a wall or anything
I’ll agree with you that the world would be off better without many politicians, trump comes to mind. I would piss on his grave but I would never advocate for his murder, even though he might bring the end of the world on all of us.
The reason why I suggested the movie is that too many people here are talking too easily about “well hey, lets just murder those that oppose us in the name of peace!” not thinking about what they say really entails
I apologize for missing the joke
