You must log in or # to comment.
The joke would have landed better if the depicted leftists were not anarchists but were accused/charged by the police of being anarchists
Leftist memes are awful man
So show me an example of a good rightwing meme. Never seen one to date but chuds keep acting like the left sucks.
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.
That is literally anarchy you clown.
Anarchy is not no rules lawless free for all MadMax world.
It’s the assumption of altruism that gets me.
Of course it’s Kropotkin handing out bread. Dude fucking loves bread
I just don’t get tired of this comic!
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
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.
It’s the tolerance paradox all over again.
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.
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.)
You just asdumed the person talking about German politics to be european, so theres that I guess.
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.
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 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.
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)
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
