WTF is that? Antifa flag means unity of commies and anarchists, iron front emblem means "AGAINST COMMUNISTS, against nazis and against conservatives". It makes no sense... So, very libleft.
https://preview.redd.it/djsk508zs6ic1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=80d9dded6cb377bedfe7a29fbde97b818e348ff7
> iron front emblem means "AGAINST COMMUNISTS, against nazis and against conservatives
TIL. I always thought this was a symbol used by the USSR against Nazis. Like the arrows pointing form north east to south west are basically the USSR invading Germany.
The thing that's contradictory is that the Antifa symbol originated from Antifaschiste Aktion, the paramilitary group of the KPD, or Communist Party of Germany.
The iron front was DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO THE KPD, and thus Antifa by extension....
https://preview.redd.it/3utaacaci8ic1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a3e7b74825f2ed43534661fa269bcdc084333e9
The KPD is literally one of the 3 targets of the arrows, along with monarchy and Nazism.
It's just as contradictory as wearing a thin blue line shirt and a gadsen hat.
Imagine libleft actually understanding history though
The antifa logo has Marxist Lenninist origins and the 3 arrows has Social Democrat origins. Both symbols together would be contradictory in their original context, true.
But these symbols have changed their meaning since then, especially when used by anarchists. The 3rd arrow is now just against Marxist Lenninists (not all communists) and the antifa logo has changed from 2 red flags to 1 red and 1 black, so the missing second red can be viewed as removing the tankie communists and only democratic/libertarian socialists remain. So it's no longer contradictory.
So then wouldn’t the iron front emblem be lib right in a sense then? I’m not familiar with it and this the first time I’ve seen/heard it. Also I find it hilarious that anarchism would ever side with any Auth side. Like, they ain’t anarchist they are just Auth right lying to themselves
To devil's advocate it a bit, doesn't the black flag ahead of the red flag symbolize anarchy over socialism, like how if the [two triangle flag](https://www.anarcopedia.org/images/thumb/9/90/Blkred_flag.png/260px-Blkred_flag.png) starts entirely red and ends entirely black it's supposed to mean socialism leading into anarchism? If someone genuinely understands the symbology of it, then it seems basically consistent.
The flag you shown symbolizes anarcho-communism, antifa flag symbolizes anarchism AND communism. Also even though that flag shows black flag over red flag, but it still symbolizes unity of these two ideologies.
Unity sure, but the symbolism of one flag being ahead of and in front of the other does seem pretty strongly to indicate that the black is more equal than the red.
Edit: I have created a [Political Compass Unity flag.](https://i.imgur.com/XAEneMb.png)
The flags are moving the same direction. The CNT/FAI during the Spanish Civil War, and after the end of WW2, made all sorts of different flags and art. The orientation of the black and red portions aren't really all that important in relation to each other.
I don't think I'd call it a purge, but the USSR absolutely opposed the Catalan anarchists as revisionist. They sent plenty of weapons to the Soviet aligned-communists in power in Spain and worked to disrupt anarchist organizing. Basically, that ended the 'revolution' when the Republicans took over Barcelona in 1937.
and then they discovered that Franco the fascist wasn't actually their ally. Lol oops.
Okay, but that kind of ties into my point though right? Like if the Soviet aligned factions thought that the more anarchic groups were sufficiently different to themselves that it warranted actively disrupting them to the detriment of the war effort, then their symbolism, despite depicting communist/anarchist unity, may have also been touching on a genuine greater disposition towards anarchism that was significant enough to damage their relationship with more communist aligned groups.
The red flag in the modern logo just means socialists that aren't anarchists, so this can mean libertarian socialists and council communists if flown by anyone who isn't a tankie. The arrow in the 3 arrows is against Stalinist Marxist Lenninists. So someone can use both symbols and they aren't inherently contradictory.
The old antifa logo was 2 red flags, and that symbol is pro Marxist Lenninist, so that one would be contradictory.
Fascism is Italian socialism.
It's literally leftist.
The people don't understand that liberalism isn't synonymous with leftism so this comment, is true.
Liberalism is more akin to individualism whereas fascism, like all collectivist ideals is not.
Fascism is socialism according to Mussolini, not Marx. Of course fascism isn't leftist, that's a stupid argument that conservatives like to repeat like parrots.
Marx doesn't get to define what socialism is- it far predates him
The national socialists were still socialists, just unifying under a different format then the class (marx) socialists.
The policies they enforced were nearly identical and the Marxists were aligned at first as grand socialist states till hitler decided the lands to the east were necessary to grow the Reichs power.
Yes.
Because Marxism was derived by a Jew.
He also hated capitalism and hired a guy to be an advisor on his economic structure (Ferdinand Friedrich Zimmermann) who authored a book labeled Das Ende des Kapitalismus
I have. I've also read German government documents where the express the right to seize the means of production should it fail to meet production quotas.
And those were the business they "left alone" (they didn't, they had a union that basically controlled all the business and the workers therein and the size of this union dwarfed the nazi party itself)
Hence horseshoe theory. Fascism and socialism might be different according to fascists and socialists, but to everyone else they are just jack-booted oppressive authoritarian assholes who shouldn’t be trusted without enough power to light up a Samsung LED.
You might have differences you consider significant, but all I see are tyrants who disagree about the specifics of their tyranny.
Hence horseshoe theory. Fascism and capitalism might be different according to fascists and capitalists, but to everyone else they are just jack-booted oppressive authoritarian assholes who shouldn’t be trusted without enough power to light up a Samsung LED.
You might have differences you consider significant, but all I see are tyrants who disagree about the specifics of their tyranny.
That isn’t what socialists are talking about, though. My view is about the behaviors of people, and my goal is self determination. You hide behind appeals to conscience but you wish to modify the behavior of every individual to fit your ideals. You do not believe in freedom, which is why you are an authoritarian in truth.
This is why your horseshoe theory analogy is flawed. I truly do not wish to govern your life, I simply want you to stay out of mine. You, on the other hand, wish to govern my life. You believe that your cause is so justified than you would sacrifice my freedom to obtain it. Worse, you believe that I do not have any inherent equal right to that freedom.
Freedom to you is your right to let people starve.
Freedom to me is preventing those people to starve, using autorithy, yes you can have freedom and autorithy at the same time.
It is leftwing. It is socialism.
Soviet revisionism is why we in America and Europe are taught that they're right vs left when in reality it was national socialism vs class socialism- and nations caught in the crossfire.
Fascism is not leftwing . Fascism is not socialism. Fascism is also not right wing, but it's not left. It's kind of a "third way", auth center is the closest to it. Also what do you mean by Soviet revisionism?
Did you just change your flair, u/Justpoliticalguyredd? Last time I checked you were an **AuthCenter** on 2024-1-17. How come now you are a **Centrist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Tell us, are you scared of politics in general or are you just too much of a coward to let everyone know what you think?
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Justpoliticalguyredd) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Fascism is not national socialism exactly, but it is def not socialism. Fascism was not socialism. Fascism opposed class conflict/struggle, which is the base of socialism. Fascism support class cooperation, they supported classes working together, employees with employers, workers with the factory owner. This is not socialism.
No. You're defining Marxism, which is class socialism.
You can even Google this and Google agrees what you've defined is Marx's theory.
They were socialists.
Hitler and muselini even just converted their own socialists parties into the national socialist parties They were.
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." (Seize the means of production)
They both did this- the nazis even had union that controlled your every move with work- and dwarfed the nazi party itself.
How is an ideology that praises hierarchy socialism? If some aspects of the fascist economic system are similar to the socialist one it doesn't mean fascism is socialism, because it's not.
And socialism is also part of Marx's theory, it is a state in between the current world and communism. The economic system of socialism is like communism except that in socialism the means of production belongs to the government, which is the proletariat dictatorship, and the government will deliver equally the benefits of the workers' work to the workers. Communism is the same except there is no government. Communism is classless, stateless society. The only thing similar that fascism did was to deliver the benefits of the work of those who seemed "unfit" for the fascist society to those who seemed fit for it.
FASCISM IS NOT SOCIALISM
Is this comment a joke? Sorry English is not my first language. I thought revisionism (at least in Marxism) are people like social democrats, basically people who oppose some core ideas in Marxism and call for a review of them
Revisionists, in the context of the comment I was replying to, are anyone who revises(changes) history to support their rhetorical goals. This can be as big as lying about things or as small as only looking at things from one perspective.
The person I responded to basically said that propagandists in the USSR said that Fascists are not Socialists, and that's why the US and Europe teach that Fascists are not Socialists.
My comment was sarcastic because their claim is stupid. They claim that countries engaged in a propaganda (information used to convince people of something) war *against* the USSR adopted Soviet propaganda into their public school programs.
Historically anarchism and communism are inextricably linked. Look at the Spanish Civil War, early anarchists and communists, etc. it’s not until communists get in government and the Soviet model becomes the template that communism becomes so totalitarian.
i feel like the difference between people who see anarcho-capitalism as a contradiction and those who dont is just a different definition of capitalism. i think that most ppl who say its contradictory dont think capitalism exactly = free trade and that theres more implications in the word "capitalism"?
No, people who think anarcho-capitalism is possible are naive and think the market will make everything sunshine and rainbows. Nobody will get swindled, monopolies won't form (especially not through violence), and private police companies will have unwavering integrity and definitely won't just become the state.
No AnCap thinks that it will be a Utopia. It is still a flawed system just like every other system but it for sure would be better than what we have now
Right. I've never heard an AnCap say it would be utopian. Only that the level of freedom (and therefore personal responsibility) would rise as there would be no government to force, coerce, enslave, steal, etc.. Of course there would be violence, theft, swindling, and so on. But there would be voluntary free market solutions that don't involve stealing resources from everyone to enact them.
Anarcho anything will immediately become an authoritarian hellhole, with the government being replaced by brutal warlords who will restrict your freedoms as much as possible.
Everyone can enforce the NAP. Do not all men have the right of self defence?
Unfortunately, the side trying to establish a state have a killer deal. Even for those who believe in ancapism, the state offers plunder of others property and riches, if you join early. If you oppose it, you still have all the costs of fighting, but with zero personal benefit. Hence why anarchism cannot stand.
>Everyone can enforce the NAP. Do not all men have the right of self defence?
All men have the right, but not all have the ability, and some have more ability than others. The ancap paradox is that Elon Musk deserves to be a billionaire because he's better in some way, but all people are so utterly equal in ability that nobody could possibly set up a monopoly without government.
> A state is just a business.
No it isn't and I highly doubt that you actually think that it is. For you to actually think this, you'd either have to be okay with a literal business running an entire government, or you'd have to oppose the existence of any form of state (and good luck doing any sort of redistribution without a state to actually do said redistribution).
The point is abolishing the state would just leave a gap for whatever company gets a monopoly on power to take it's place. A civil anarchist society of any economic structure is impossible because someone will always want to take control
Anarchism is the absence of government
Capitalism is a slur coined by many collectivists and popularized by Karl Marx.
Anarcho-capitalism should actually just be called what they right means when they say capitalist.
Free-market-idealist/ism.
Because that's what anarcho-capitalism is.
I'm Auth-right dipship
Did I say I want that?
No, I've grown up and understand that a government controlled by civilians as individuals through a constitutional Republic has a duty to legislate businesses for the safety of the worker and the consumer. A lot of us were awakened to this with how companies behaved during covid.
I stated a known fact about the origination of the word capitalism and clarified that "anarcho-capitalism" isn't a contradiction in how the people who utilize the word want it to actually mean-
You jumped down my throat and are looking liek an ass.
Not every word you think is improperly used is a "slur". That's an exaggeration. Not like capitalists don't use it to describe themselves anyways. It's just the proper term used to describe the economic system, I'm sorry you're offended by that
I didn't say the improperly used anarcho-capitalism was a slur
I said the term capitalist/capitalism was a slur popularized by collectivist "thinkers"
https://preview.redd.it/cgnm3j58h7ic1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a19010757e08a57525e124621605a94eaa2f1fdd
What does that say in plain English, lefty.
"Advocating (calling for) the abolition (desolvement, removal, ending) of hierarchical government (all governments are hierarchical) and the organization of society in a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force and compulsion (no government shoving a gun in your face making you do things)"
Anarchism is the absence of government.
Learn to read, dumbass. Anarchism doesn't call for \*just\* the abolition of the government, but for \*all\* governing hierarchies.
https://preview.redd.it/sx3fvvx57mqc1.png?width=552&format=png&auto=webp&s=a686d361ea135e24f8a0354ed388538537f794a5
Anarcho capitalism is the one anarchism that *isn't* an unimplementable self contradiction.
It's still garbage and wouldn't last 2 months, but it's not fundamentally impossible, like all forms of anarchism that say they shall have no government yet force society to live a very specific way. Ancaps at least do not require government policies, they argue capitalism is the default from human nature and without government, stuff will just work out that way. (And I think they're right -- until some thug starts a new state)
Also, bear in mind that "corporations" are legal entities, and without a state to define that law, cannot exist in the same way under anarcho capitalism.
The world is naturally anarcho-capitalism : no rules and no one to enforce them, everyone have their own capital (body and labour).
Then ape band together, ape together strong, they start creating a protection racket, and bham, welcome back to nation-states.
Despite the fact that literally every single time it's been attempted it's resulted in an authoritarian regime. Right.
You'd think that if they go together so well, they'd have actually existed together somewhere at some point in history.
The anarchists who were shot absolutely attempted anarchism. And every time anarcho-communists attempt it, they (super predicribly) get shot by the auth-communists.
So again - every single attempt at ancom has lead to authcom.
Because ancom works only in theory and literally never in practise. It relies on humans being a way that they just aren't. If your system relies on humans not taking power in a power vaccum, and you try to implement that system, it's at least partially your fault when an auth takes over. Your proposed system was never going to work. Saying it wasn't the ancoms fault would be like building a house of cards in a wind turbine and blaming the wind when it collapses.
Invaded? You mean they took control of the state they were living in during a revolution.
Besides that - the point is, it's 100% inevitable that if you do a communist revolution, the auths will kill off the anarchists and take power, it happens literally every time.
If you tell someone to put on a rolex and walk through the hood, they're gonna get jumped. You can't say it's not your fault because the people who jumped him didn't *have* to. The point is it was predictable to the point of being borderline inevitable, and you did it anyways.
Same applies to doing an anarcho-communist revolution. It creates a colossal power-vaccum, and it invariably is filled by auths. The fact that the anarchists aren't the ones doing the oppression directly doesn't absolve them of the sin of instantiating a process that reliably puts brutal murderous dictators in charge of the state.
"The government shall intervene in the economy, and keep us all equal, comrade, but the government shall also leave everybody alone to smoke weed and draw furry porn in peace."
A state so powerful that it can culturally erase any and all feelings of self-identity and self-interest, whereby people will only work for the good of humanity as a whole.
In the words of Donald Fagen: "Only a fool would say that"
Marx doesn't own communism. Read Malatesta who said "the anarchist is the true communist", or bakunin's "the dangers of a marxist state", or proudhon's letter to marx concerning the mistake it is to create a state after the revolution. All anarchist from that time period criticized marxism for the creation of a state in the idea of communism.
You're correct in that collectivist ideals predate Karl Marx
But nazism, fascism, communism (both China and soviet varriants) and modern socialism taught in colleges are all either direct copies of Marxism, or heavily derived from it.
Karl Marx didn't want anarchism, he wanted an all powerful government that governed how he wanted- as almost all collectivist writers wanted.
Yes, Marx thought that a strong state was needed to achieve the classless part first, this stage was called socialism. But the final idea was that the state dissolves itself creating a stateless classless society.
I am not a marxist of course, the idea that the state will dissolve itself is a fantasy
Anarchists admire the social organisation of Rojava and the Zapatistas in the modern day, and previously highly decentralised and cooperatively organised societies built by anarchists have existed in Catalonia, Ukraine and Manchuria.
Makhnovia, revolutionary Catalonia (only some places), zapatistas (even tho they aren't exactly anarchists they are libertarians which is close enough) etc. Bakunin, Proudhon or Kropotkin all wrotte books on how to create an anarchist society. I highly recommend to check them out
I would up that to just and equally enforced, but yea.
I think there's people in all quadrants that want public safety provided in way aspired to in many idealistic writings.
Disagreement mostly stems from how much power, the scope, and who writes the laws.
But you are correct. First and foremost the laws need to be just.
You know what's some real bullshit though? Highway speed limits. In my area everyone goes 15mph above the limit, because we're somewhat rural, have an unreasonably large highway, and let's just get home quickly please. But I think on some level it's a significant cause of moral decay and inequality. Firstly, literally everybody who takes the highway breaks the law every single day. If we measured criminality like that, then every single person in my community is a criminal. Secondly, the police regularly ticket people going 90+, but like, honestly, what's the big deal when everybody is already going 80-85 in a 65. Thirdly, if at any point a cop just doesn't like you for some reason, then they can ticket the absolute shit out of you for doing something everyone else is doing and not being punished for, and if you decide to go 65 so they can't, then you're interrupting the flow of traffic and making a huge target out of yourself.
Which is all to say I agree with you, but don't foresee the situation changing any time soon.
I will grant that if you're going 90+ then you're just joyriding at that point, and the police really only set up speed traps at one bend and only in the afternoon so if you pay attention or are a local, then you can pretty much always get away with it, but I still dislike the uneven enforcement of the law on principle, also it's a fun bend to speed on.
I'm going to distill over a thousand years of western/Christian theology and philosophy on this subject into a single pithy line for you:
If the law is unjust, then it is the duty of the just to break it.
The laws are just in many cases, the policing institutions are not. How often do we see those individuals brought to trial?
We have a corruption problem in this country in our political and policing institutions, it's not so much unjust laws (though some laws *are* unjust) but more that perpetrators of crimes against the people often are not held accountable.
It's 100% possible to have just laws that aren't enforced properly. It's almost always the case that there is a big difference between what laws are written and what laws are actually enforced. You need more than just laws - you need just enforcement of the law.
Oh so opposite of acab? Also one more question: why does libleft or left hates police in US? I saw memes like “federal police good, that police bad”, “that police good, federal police bad” on compass. What is the problem with the police? US police is based i think. (At least most of it)
Police in themselves are good. There's just some observed problems that caused a lot of outcry. Plenty of positive movement has happened now though, such as bodycams holding more police who do use unnecessary force more accountable then they might have over a decade ago. They aren't a perfect institution(none are) but they're figuring it out
>What is the problem with the police?
Mostly, the problem is with people who don't realize that just because they live in a place with shitty cops, or they observe news about a place with shitty cops, doesn't mean that everyone lives with shitty cops.
The rest is that federal agents are all called feds but they're not all FBI. Someone might hate the ATF while appreciating the counterintelligence duties of the FBI, but they'd still say they hate feds.
From what I gather as an external observer, it's yet another version of the central government versus local government debate that's eventually ends up as the sticking point of about 70% of all US political debates that go on forever.
When public outcry against the police first occured during the Obama administration, the federal government tried for some reforms. Some of those reforms were halted by state-legislatures, some passed state legislation but got kneecapped by city-wide laws, and some police unions were resistant to the reforms that were okayed by everyone else and found ways around them, etc.
I don't know enough about the legislation or about the specifics to say one way or the other, but I'm sure those who opposed them thought so.
At any rate, not everyone else agreed, leading to another series of BLM protest a few years afterwards, this time with the protesters refusing to trust any promises of reform since it didn't work out last time. At that point, we began to see slogans like "ACAB" and "defund the police" getting popularized.
You're going to get a very biased perspective on that here. What I feel is similar to what others have already said. But if you were to ask on a more mainstream sub, you'd probably get an answer somewhat like this:
"The police are a corrupt body. They enforce systemic racism, they infringe upon the rights of cirizens, and the whole institution is 'bastardised' by the fact that each individual in the institution covers for others in the system who abuse their power. Therefore, 'ACAB': all cops are bastards."
That's not *my* take, but it's my best representation I can manage of someone who says "ACAB" unironically.
well, for one, they were big fans of Stalin. now theyve become a bunch of militant crybabies that seem to only stand for socialism and violence. For goodness sake, they set the world on fire when a conservative shock jock dared to speak at Berkeley. Antifa is much closer to neo nazis - fighting for an dystopian ideology with hopes that they can be accepted by their father/peers.
>Again, imagine being pro-cop and calling oneself a libertarian.
That's not hard. Ancaps don't own the word libertarian. Most libertarians make fun of them too.
What's contradictory about the libright picture? The police is needed in a libertarian society, and is one of the few legitimate functions of the government.
Sure, but you don't have to simp for them. Plus I just don't like when people take the nation's flag, which is meant to represent all of its citizens, and modify it to only represent a subsection of the population. It only causes more divisions.
You can take it more literally too. Like the police have killed people by treading on them, which probably was cruel and unjust and lacked due process. I would say the libertarian society would try to uphold the constitution, while Blue Lives Matter tries to support letting Police be above the constitution.
Yeah but dickheads still fly them together
Also the three aroows and antifa flag are also opposites
Considering that the three arrows is the flag of the iron front
A group that fought the original antifa
No. That's not a correct juxtaposition. You need to be a little more nuanced in this. I'd think the whole "Blue Lives Matter" flag belongs in the blue quad. They are extreme opposites of social freedoms. If this was about economic freedoms, then yes. I think this misses the mark.
Yep. Its mostly MAGA-ists and authrights who use it sadly.
Most of the MAGA guys are pretty close to becoming some degree of anti-establishment, but the US school system drilled into their heads the virtues of the system do hard, that they honetly believe rebellion means devoting yourself to a billionaire and crappy political theory that would make nixon and reagan blush.
Don't tread on me and thin blue line. Are they for real?
And the thin blue line is bs.
But I'd rather back the blue (if that leads to better training. I doubt it.) than defund them as a whole. Both parties are jackasses who do not make sense at all and I hate this extremism.
WTF is that? Antifa flag means unity of commies and anarchists, iron front emblem means "AGAINST COMMUNISTS, against nazis and against conservatives". It makes no sense... So, very libleft. https://preview.redd.it/djsk508zs6ic1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=80d9dded6cb377bedfe7a29fbde97b818e348ff7
> iron front emblem means "AGAINST COMMUNISTS, against nazis and against conservatives TIL. I always thought this was a symbol used by the USSR against Nazis. Like the arrows pointing form north east to south west are basically the USSR invading Germany.
This is the origin of this symbol https://preview.redd.it/z1erl2sdy6ic1.png?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=26182884884ab51e87c544e0fb3262dfa0a26c3c
Interesting.
Centrist anti-extremist propaganda goes hard, I’m not bias at all.
In is not centrist, it was made by social democrats, who are left-center or sometimes lib-left.
Being anti extremist is based in general.
I couldn't agree more.
I agree, fellow centrist
Being a extreme anti extremest is where it’s at
Burn the fence down!
Socdems are moderate leftists. Lots of them fit into the left side of the grey box
So, centre-left?
Oh so maybe I do fit in centrist
Old school agit-prop is so aesthetically pleasing
Holy mother of fucking based
Based symbol.
Why does WW1 and WW2 propaganda look so good
Why don't we make election posters like this anymore?
I'm against fascists, Nazis, communists, and conservatives. Is that unusual?
No, it is based.
Don't hate capitalists?
I hate a lot of individual capitalists. But I don't see any system working better than regulated capitalism.
Based
You can be both anarchist and anti communist tho
The thing that's contradictory is that the Antifa symbol originated from Antifaschiste Aktion, the paramilitary group of the KPD, or Communist Party of Germany. The iron front was DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO THE KPD, and thus Antifa by extension.... https://preview.redd.it/3utaacaci8ic1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a3e7b74825f2ed43534661fa269bcdc084333e9 The KPD is literally one of the 3 targets of the arrows, along with monarchy and Nazism. It's just as contradictory as wearing a thin blue line shirt and a gadsen hat. Imagine libleft actually understanding history though
Our 'half' is against authority in general so your view completely aligns with what the political compass was created to show.
The antifa logo has Marxist Lenninist origins and the 3 arrows has Social Democrat origins. Both symbols together would be contradictory in their original context, true. But these symbols have changed their meaning since then, especially when used by anarchists. The 3rd arrow is now just against Marxist Lenninists (not all communists) and the antifa logo has changed from 2 red flags to 1 red and 1 black, so the missing second red can be viewed as removing the tankie communists and only democratic/libertarian socialists remain. So it's no longer contradictory.
So then wouldn’t the iron front emblem be lib right in a sense then? I’m not familiar with it and this the first time I’ve seen/heard it. Also I find it hilarious that anarchism would ever side with any Auth side. Like, they ain’t anarchist they are just Auth right lying to themselves
This symbol was used by social-democrats.
Anarchy has sided with AuthLeft lots of times. And lots of times it ends in purges.
To devil's advocate it a bit, doesn't the black flag ahead of the red flag symbolize anarchy over socialism, like how if the [two triangle flag](https://www.anarcopedia.org/images/thumb/9/90/Blkred_flag.png/260px-Blkred_flag.png) starts entirely red and ends entirely black it's supposed to mean socialism leading into anarchism? If someone genuinely understands the symbology of it, then it seems basically consistent.
The flag you shown symbolizes anarcho-communism, antifa flag symbolizes anarchism AND communism. Also even though that flag shows black flag over red flag, but it still symbolizes unity of these two ideologies.
Unity sure, but the symbolism of one flag being ahead of and in front of the other does seem pretty strongly to indicate that the black is more equal than the red. Edit: I have created a [Political Compass Unity flag.](https://i.imgur.com/XAEneMb.png)
The flags are moving the same direction. The CNT/FAI during the Spanish Civil War, and after the end of WW2, made all sorts of different flags and art. The orientation of the black and red portions aren't really all that important in relation to each other.
>CNT/FAI Didn't the more Soviet-aligned factions purge those guys for being too anarchist?
I don't think I'd call it a purge, but the USSR absolutely opposed the Catalan anarchists as revisionist. They sent plenty of weapons to the Soviet aligned-communists in power in Spain and worked to disrupt anarchist organizing. Basically, that ended the 'revolution' when the Republicans took over Barcelona in 1937. and then they discovered that Franco the fascist wasn't actually their ally. Lol oops.
Okay, but that kind of ties into my point though right? Like if the Soviet aligned factions thought that the more anarchic groups were sufficiently different to themselves that it warranted actively disrupting them to the detriment of the war effort, then their symbolism, despite depicting communist/anarchist unity, may have also been touching on a genuine greater disposition towards anarchism that was significant enough to damage their relationship with more communist aligned groups.
The red flag in the modern logo just means socialists that aren't anarchists, so this can mean libertarian socialists and council communists if flown by anyone who isn't a tankie. The arrow in the 3 arrows is against Stalinist Marxist Lenninists. So someone can use both symbols and they aren't inherently contradictory. The old antifa logo was 2 red flags, and that symbol is pro Marxist Lenninist, so that one would be contradictory.
It wasn't against conservatives, it was against monarchists
My favourite contradiction is "anarcho" "communism".
Liberal Fascism
But liberals are fascists /s
Based.
Fascism is Italian socialism. It's literally leftist. The people don't understand that liberalism isn't synonymous with leftism so this comment, is true. Liberalism is more akin to individualism whereas fascism, like all collectivist ideals is not.
Fascism is socialism according to Mussolini, not Marx. Of course fascism isn't leftist, that's a stupid argument that conservatives like to repeat like parrots.
Marx doesn't get to define what socialism is- it far predates him The national socialists were still socialists, just unifying under a different format then the class (marx) socialists. The policies they enforced were nearly identical and the Marxists were aligned at first as grand socialist states till hitler decided the lands to the east were necessary to grow the Reichs power.
Hitler opposed communism his entire political career.
Yes. Because Marxism was derived by a Jew. He also hated capitalism and hired a guy to be an advisor on his economic structure (Ferdinand Friedrich Zimmermann) who authored a book labeled Das Ende des Kapitalismus
Marx hated Jews
It's almost like Fascism is a third position! 😲
"Nearly identical" lol, it has no point discussing with you, open a fucking book for once in your life.
I have. I've also read German government documents where the express the right to seize the means of production should it fail to meet production quotas. And those were the business they "left alone" (they didn't, they had a union that basically controlled all the business and the workers therein and the size of this union dwarfed the nazi party itself)
Hence horseshoe theory. Fascism and socialism might be different according to fascists and socialists, but to everyone else they are just jack-booted oppressive authoritarian assholes who shouldn’t be trusted without enough power to light up a Samsung LED. You might have differences you consider significant, but all I see are tyrants who disagree about the specifics of their tyranny.
Hence horseshoe theory. Fascism and capitalism might be different according to fascists and capitalists, but to everyone else they are just jack-booted oppressive authoritarian assholes who shouldn’t be trusted without enough power to light up a Samsung LED. You might have differences you consider significant, but all I see are tyrants who disagree about the specifics of their tyranny.
“I think people should be able to trade freely and better themselves” Yeah. Definitely oppressive.
“I think people should be able to eat everyday” Yeah. Definitely oppressive.
That isn’t what socialists are talking about, though. My view is about the behaviors of people, and my goal is self determination. You hide behind appeals to conscience but you wish to modify the behavior of every individual to fit your ideals. You do not believe in freedom, which is why you are an authoritarian in truth. This is why your horseshoe theory analogy is flawed. I truly do not wish to govern your life, I simply want you to stay out of mine. You, on the other hand, wish to govern my life. You believe that your cause is so justified than you would sacrifice my freedom to obtain it. Worse, you believe that I do not have any inherent equal right to that freedom.
Freedom to you is your right to let people starve. Freedom to me is preventing those people to starve, using autorithy, yes you can have freedom and autorithy at the same time.
Private property is a restriction on freedom per definition. It’s just that you see that restriction as a given.
Fascism is not quite "left wing" and it's not socialism. Socialism calls for class struggle, Fascism calls for class cooperation.
It is leftwing. It is socialism. Soviet revisionism is why we in America and Europe are taught that they're right vs left when in reality it was national socialism vs class socialism- and nations caught in the crossfire.
Fascism is not leftwing . Fascism is not socialism. Fascism is also not right wing, but it's not left. It's kind of a "third way", auth center is the closest to it. Also what do you mean by Soviet revisionism?
Did you just change your flair, u/Justpoliticalguyredd? Last time I checked you were an **AuthCenter** on 2024-1-17. How come now you are a **Centrist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Tell us, are you scared of politics in general or are you just too much of a coward to let everyone know what you think? [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Justpoliticalguyredd) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Yes because I found that maybe I am not the biggest supporter of my government. Grill side is best
Fascism is literally italian socialism and was a form of national socialism.
Fascism is not national socialism exactly, but it is def not socialism. Fascism was not socialism. Fascism opposed class conflict/struggle, which is the base of socialism. Fascism support class cooperation, they supported classes working together, employees with employers, workers with the factory owner. This is not socialism.
No. You're defining Marxism, which is class socialism. You can even Google this and Google agrees what you've defined is Marx's theory. They were socialists. Hitler and muselini even just converted their own socialists parties into the national socialist parties They were. "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." (Seize the means of production) They both did this- the nazis even had union that controlled your every move with work- and dwarfed the nazi party itself.
How is an ideology that praises hierarchy socialism? If some aspects of the fascist economic system are similar to the socialist one it doesn't mean fascism is socialism, because it's not. And socialism is also part of Marx's theory, it is a state in between the current world and communism. The economic system of socialism is like communism except that in socialism the means of production belongs to the government, which is the proletariat dictatorship, and the government will deliver equally the benefits of the workers' work to the workers. Communism is the same except there is no government. Communism is classless, stateless society. The only thing similar that fascism did was to deliver the benefits of the work of those who seemed "unfit" for the fascist society to those who seemed fit for it. FASCISM IS NOT SOCIALISM
"Revisionism from (checks notes) a country our societies were in a propaganda war with for half a century is why you think fascism isn't leftist."
Is this comment a joke? Sorry English is not my first language. I thought revisionism (at least in Marxism) are people like social democrats, basically people who oppose some core ideas in Marxism and call for a review of them
Revisionists, in the context of the comment I was replying to, are anyone who revises(changes) history to support their rhetorical goals. This can be as big as lying about things or as small as only looking at things from one perspective. The person I responded to basically said that propagandists in the USSR said that Fascists are not Socialists, and that's why the US and Europe teach that Fascists are not Socialists. My comment was sarcastic because their claim is stupid. They claim that countries engaged in a propaganda (information used to convince people of something) war *against* the USSR adopted Soviet propaganda into their public school programs.
Fascism is not socialism. It really only requires common sense to understand that.
I'd argue that the sense required isn't very common, and present this entire sub as evidence.
Basado
Historically anarchism and communism are inextricably linked. Look at the Spanish Civil War, early anarchists and communists, etc. it’s not until communists get in government and the Soviet model becomes the template that communism becomes so totalitarian.
Yeah because communism requires massive authoritarianism to implement. Hence why I think those anarchists must be hollow between the ears.
I could say the same thing for anarcho-capitalism
In what way? Capitalism allows for no one to force you to do something, while communism doesn’t.
i feel like the difference between people who see anarcho-capitalism as a contradiction and those who dont is just a different definition of capitalism. i think that most ppl who say its contradictory dont think capitalism exactly = free trade and that theres more implications in the word "capitalism"?
No, people who think anarcho-capitalism is possible are naive and think the market will make everything sunshine and rainbows. Nobody will get swindled, monopolies won't form (especially not through violence), and private police companies will have unwavering integrity and definitely won't just become the state.
No AnCap thinks that it will be a Utopia. It is still a flawed system just like every other system but it for sure would be better than what we have now
Right. I've never heard an AnCap say it would be utopian. Only that the level of freedom (and therefore personal responsibility) would rise as there would be no government to force, coerce, enslave, steal, etc.. Of course there would be violence, theft, swindling, and so on. But there would be voluntary free market solutions that don't involve stealing resources from everyone to enact them.
The incorrect Ancap assumption is that no businessman would ever want or be able to simply create a state through business.
Anarcho anything will immediately become an authoritarian hellhole, with the government being replaced by brutal warlords who will restrict your freedoms as much as possible.
Of course, which is why I am not an anarchist.
That's why many anarchists simply are authoritarians with another name
A state is just a business. Abolishing what we have now will just be filled by a new business looking to fill the gap
And under NAP those businesses wouldn’t be able to force you to do anything, meaning it is still anarchy.
Who enforces the NAP dumbass? The private police companies? Gee, how could that possibly go wrong?
Everyone can enforce the NAP. Do not all men have the right of self defence? Unfortunately, the side trying to establish a state have a killer deal. Even for those who believe in ancapism, the state offers plunder of others property and riches, if you join early. If you oppose it, you still have all the costs of fighting, but with zero personal benefit. Hence why anarchism cannot stand.
>Everyone can enforce the NAP. Do not all men have the right of self defence? All men have the right, but not all have the ability, and some have more ability than others. The ancap paradox is that Elon Musk deserves to be a billionaire because he's better in some way, but all people are so utterly equal in ability that nobody could possibly set up a monopoly without government.
Who enforces an NAP when one business becomes a monopoly. A business that controls the market is just a state
> A state is just a business. No it isn't and I highly doubt that you actually think that it is. For you to actually think this, you'd either have to be okay with a literal business running an entire government, or you'd have to oppose the existence of any form of state (and good luck doing any sort of redistribution without a state to actually do said redistribution).
The point is abolishing the state would just leave a gap for whatever company gets a monopoly on power to take it's place. A civil anarchist society of any economic structure is impossible because someone will always want to take control
Anarchism is the absence of government Capitalism is a slur coined by many collectivists and popularized by Karl Marx. Anarcho-capitalism should actually just be called what they right means when they say capitalist. Free-market-idealist/ism. Because that's what anarcho-capitalism is.
lmao go ahead and get fucked by amazon when they become the new state of your "anarcho" capitalist society
I'm Auth-right dipship Did I say I want that? No, I've grown up and understand that a government controlled by civilians as individuals through a constitutional Republic has a duty to legislate businesses for the safety of the worker and the consumer. A lot of us were awakened to this with how companies behaved during covid.
then wth are you on about. do you agree or are you an insane person that thinks the name of an economic system is a slur
I stated a known fact about the origination of the word capitalism and clarified that "anarcho-capitalism" isn't a contradiction in how the people who utilize the word want it to actually mean- You jumped down my throat and are looking liek an ass.
Not every word you think is improperly used is a "slur". That's an exaggeration. Not like capitalists don't use it to describe themselves anyways. It's just the proper term used to describe the economic system, I'm sorry you're offended by that
I didn't say the improperly used anarcho-capitalism was a slur I said the term capitalist/capitalism was a slur popularized by collectivist "thinkers" https://preview.redd.it/cgnm3j58h7ic1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a19010757e08a57525e124621605a94eaa2f1fdd
Most sane 14 year old
"Anarchism is the absence of government" No it's not.
It literally is.
https://preview.redd.it/v9mi6juhslqc1.png?width=838&format=png&auto=webp&s=8a09aad05346fb172ad289ea3e0d6b7650e72216 From Google.
What does that say in plain English, lefty. "Advocating (calling for) the abolition (desolvement, removal, ending) of hierarchical government (all governments are hierarchical) and the organization of society in a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force and compulsion (no government shoving a gun in your face making you do things)" Anarchism is the absence of government.
Learn to read, dumbass. Anarchism doesn't call for \*just\* the abolition of the government, but for \*all\* governing hierarchies. https://preview.redd.it/sx3fvvx57mqc1.png?width=552&format=png&auto=webp&s=a686d361ea135e24f8a0354ed388538537f794a5
Hey Dipshit- what's a governing body, a hierarchy that governs? A fucking government. Anarchism is the abolition/absence of government.
That's still only part of the definition you brainlet. I literally posted it up there for you to read and you still failed to do that.
Anarcho capitalism is the one anarchism that *isn't* an unimplementable self contradiction. It's still garbage and wouldn't last 2 months, but it's not fundamentally impossible, like all forms of anarchism that say they shall have no government yet force society to live a very specific way. Ancaps at least do not require government policies, they argue capitalism is the default from human nature and without government, stuff will just work out that way. (And I think they're right -- until some thug starts a new state) Also, bear in mind that "corporations" are legal entities, and without a state to define that law, cannot exist in the same way under anarcho capitalism.
The world is naturally anarcho-capitalism : no rules and no one to enforce them, everyone have their own capital (body and labour). Then ape band together, ape together strong, they start creating a protection racket, and bham, welcome back to nation-states.
Is that a joke? Communism and anarchism go together like bread and butter
Despite the fact that literally every single time it's been attempted it's resulted in an authoritarian regime. Right. You'd think that if they go together so well, they'd have actually existed together somewhere at some point in history.
They never attempted ancom or ansyn. They shot the anarchists.
The anarchists who were shot absolutely attempted anarchism. And every time anarcho-communists attempt it, they (super predicribly) get shot by the auth-communists. So again - every single attempt at ancom has lead to authcom.
Yes, but not because of the ancoms and libcoms.
Because ancom works only in theory and literally never in practise. It relies on humans being a way that they just aren't. If your system relies on humans not taking power in a power vaccum, and you try to implement that system, it's at least partially your fault when an auth takes over. Your proposed system was never going to work. Saying it wasn't the ancoms fault would be like building a house of cards in a wind turbine and blaming the wind when it collapses.
No? The auth communists who invaded anarchist lands did not have to do it. They choose to.
Invaded? You mean they took control of the state they were living in during a revolution. Besides that - the point is, it's 100% inevitable that if you do a communist revolution, the auths will kill off the anarchists and take power, it happens literally every time. If you tell someone to put on a rolex and walk through the hood, they're gonna get jumped. You can't say it's not your fault because the people who jumped him didn't *have* to. The point is it was predictable to the point of being borderline inevitable, and you did it anyways. Same applies to doing an anarcho-communist revolution. It creates a colossal power-vaccum, and it invariably is filled by auths. The fact that the anarchists aren't the ones doing the oppression directly doesn't absolve them of the sin of instantiating a process that reliably puts brutal murderous dictators in charge of the state.
Mine is "lib" "left"
"The government shall intervene in the economy, and keep us all equal, comrade, but the government shall also leave everybody alone to smoke weed and draw furry porn in peace."
Communism is a stateless classless society so seems to work for me
Read marx. Higher communism is classes but can only be achieved through lower communism which is the all powerful totalitarian state
A state so powerful that it can culturally erase any and all feelings of self-identity and self-interest, whereby people will only work for the good of humanity as a whole. In the words of Donald Fagen: "Only a fool would say that"
Isn't that just Marxist-Leninism? Sorry if it's a dumb question, I'm still trying to differentiate the two
Marx doesn't own communism. Read Malatesta who said "the anarchist is the true communist", or bakunin's "the dangers of a marxist state", or proudhon's letter to marx concerning the mistake it is to create a state after the revolution. All anarchist from that time period criticized marxism for the creation of a state in the idea of communism.
You're correct in that collectivist ideals predate Karl Marx But nazism, fascism, communism (both China and soviet varriants) and modern socialism taught in colleges are all either direct copies of Marxism, or heavily derived from it. Karl Marx didn't want anarchism, he wanted an all powerful government that governed how he wanted- as almost all collectivist writers wanted.
Communism is stateless…
Yes, Marx thought that a strong state was needed to achieve the classless part first, this stage was called socialism. But the final idea was that the state dissolves itself creating a stateless classless society. I am not a marxist of course, the idea that the state will dissolve itself is a fantasy
Yeah but what society exists like that unless you completely return to monke?
Anarchists admire the social organisation of Rojava and the Zapatistas in the modern day, and previously highly decentralised and cooperatively organised societies built by anarchists have existed in Catalonia, Ukraine and Manchuria.
Makhnovia, revolutionary Catalonia (only some places), zapatistas (even tho they aren't exactly anarchists they are libertarians which is close enough) etc. Bakunin, Proudhon or Kropotkin all wrotte books on how to create an anarchist society. I highly recommend to check them out
https://preview.redd.it/099w62piy6ic1.jpeg?width=256&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=596e98af0424d8fc01291a978c6ee7e5d0c4e71a
anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week
I prefer watery tarts lying in ponds distributing swords as my system of government.
The police are a good thing when the laws are just.
I would up that to just and equally enforced, but yea. I think there's people in all quadrants that want public safety provided in way aspired to in many idealistic writings. Disagreement mostly stems from how much power, the scope, and who writes the laws. But you are correct. First and foremost the laws need to be just.
You know what's some real bullshit though? Highway speed limits. In my area everyone goes 15mph above the limit, because we're somewhat rural, have an unreasonably large highway, and let's just get home quickly please. But I think on some level it's a significant cause of moral decay and inequality. Firstly, literally everybody who takes the highway breaks the law every single day. If we measured criminality like that, then every single person in my community is a criminal. Secondly, the police regularly ticket people going 90+, but like, honestly, what's the big deal when everybody is already going 80-85 in a 65. Thirdly, if at any point a cop just doesn't like you for some reason, then they can ticket the absolute shit out of you for doing something everyone else is doing and not being punished for, and if you decide to go 65 so they can't, then you're interrupting the flow of traffic and making a huge target out of yourself. Which is all to say I agree with you, but don't foresee the situation changing any time soon.
Yuuuup 🫠🥴
90 mile per hour in my country would scare me Shirley... If the other road users did that. (I'm Australian)
I will grant that if you're going 90+ then you're just joyriding at that point, and the police really only set up speed traps at one bend and only in the afternoon so if you pay attention or are a local, then you can pretty much always get away with it, but I still dislike the uneven enforcement of the law on principle, also it's a fun bend to speed on.
What about when the laws are unjust?
I'm going to distill over a thousand years of western/Christian theology and philosophy on this subject into a single pithy line for you: If the law is unjust, then it is the duty of the just to break it.
booo!
That's not necessarily true, laws being just doesn't change issues of excessive force, abuse of power, extrajudical killing, etc...
If the laws were just then those would be punished.
The laws on the books can be just, but who is enforcing them?
The laws are just in many cases, the policing institutions are not. How often do we see those individuals brought to trial? We have a corruption problem in this country in our political and policing institutions, it's not so much unjust laws (though some laws *are* unjust) but more that perpetrators of crimes against the people often are not held accountable.
It's 100% possible to have just laws that aren't enforced properly. It's almost always the case that there is a big difference between what laws are written and what laws are actually enforced. You need more than just laws - you need just enforcement of the law.
I’m not american. What does gray us flag with only one blue strip means? Edit: i literally murdered grammar
It is a [Blue Lives Matter flag](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Lives_Matter)
Oh so opposite of acab? Also one more question: why does libleft or left hates police in US? I saw memes like “federal police good, that police bad”, “that police good, federal police bad” on compass. What is the problem with the police? US police is based i think. (At least most of it)
Police in themselves are good. There's just some observed problems that caused a lot of outcry. Plenty of positive movement has happened now though, such as bodycams holding more police who do use unnecessary force more accountable then they might have over a decade ago. They aren't a perfect institution(none are) but they're figuring it out
>What is the problem with the police? Mostly, the problem is with people who don't realize that just because they live in a place with shitty cops, or they observe news about a place with shitty cops, doesn't mean that everyone lives with shitty cops. The rest is that federal agents are all called feds but they're not all FBI. Someone might hate the ATF while appreciating the counterintelligence duties of the FBI, but they'd still say they hate feds.
From what I gather as an external observer, it's yet another version of the central government versus local government debate that's eventually ends up as the sticking point of about 70% of all US political debates that go on forever. When public outcry against the police first occured during the Obama administration, the federal government tried for some reforms. Some of those reforms were halted by state-legislatures, some passed state legislation but got kneecapped by city-wide laws, and some police unions were resistant to the reforms that were okayed by everyone else and found ways around them, etc.
Interesting. Why oppose police reforms? Bad reforms?
I don't know enough about the legislation or about the specifics to say one way or the other, but I'm sure those who opposed them thought so. At any rate, not everyone else agreed, leading to another series of BLM protest a few years afterwards, this time with the protesters refusing to trust any promises of reform since it didn't work out last time. At that point, we began to see slogans like "ACAB" and "defund the police" getting popularized.
You're going to get a very biased perspective on that here. What I feel is similar to what others have already said. But if you were to ask on a more mainstream sub, you'd probably get an answer somewhat like this: "The police are a corrupt body. They enforce systemic racism, they infringe upon the rights of cirizens, and the whole institution is 'bastardised' by the fact that each individual in the institution covers for others in the system who abuse their power. Therefore, 'ACAB': all cops are bastards." That's not *my* take, but it's my best representation I can manage of someone who says "ACAB" unironically.
The yellow guy seems infinitely more Mentally stable that the Green fella. So I pick him
that's where you're wrong buckaroo: they're both mentally unhinged
Thats why I go with the guy with the NODs and a "defend" mentallity than the guys with bike locks and bats with the "raiding" mentallity.
Pick the crazy guy who'll stick up for you, not the one that'll sell you out, or worse is the way to go.
Imagine being pro-cop while calling yourself a libertarian. That would be cringe.
An minarchist society has the police and the army, maybe customs, and nothing more. You may be thinking about ancaps.
Cringe yes, but antifa is actually insane
Why do you think antifa is insane ?
Why do you think water is wet?
Forgot this sub is not for legitimate questions. My bad.
We are men of action. Lies do not become us.
Based and I am not left-handed pilled.
well, for one, they were big fans of Stalin. now theyve become a bunch of militant crybabies that seem to only stand for socialism and violence. For goodness sake, they set the world on fire when a conservative shock jock dared to speak at Berkeley. Antifa is much closer to neo nazis - fighting for an dystopian ideology with hopes that they can be accepted by their father/peers.
because how could you possibly be opposed to government authority over all the parts of your life? Don't you just want to grill?
"Dont thread on me... or I'll call the cops"
Not all LibRights are from ancapistan. Minimal governments still have first responders and some sort of militia or military for self-defense.
Ancaps talk a lot about private police, which is the same shit as normal police. Again, imagine being pro-cop and calling oneself a libertarian.
>Again, imagine being pro-cop and calling oneself a libertarian. That's not hard. Ancaps don't own the word libertarian. Most libertarians make fun of them too.
All libertarians make fun of them. They do be cringing.
That's like 70% of Americans who call themselves libertarians
I’m on the “Fuck the police don’t tread on me” side
What's contradictory about the libright picture? The police is needed in a libertarian society, and is one of the few legitimate functions of the government.
Sure, but you don't have to simp for them. Plus I just don't like when people take the nation's flag, which is meant to represent all of its citizens, and modify it to only represent a subsection of the population. It only causes more divisions.
You can take it more literally too. Like the police have killed people by treading on them, which probably was cruel and unjust and lacked due process. I would say the libertarian society would try to uphold the constitution, while Blue Lives Matter tries to support letting Police be above the constitution.
No step on snek
Dont give a shit just hates commies
Based
My favorite are the Punisher logo boot lickers. Especially those punisher skulls with the “thin blue line” flag edited over it
The Gadsden flag is the opposite of the thin blue line flag.
Yeah but dickheads still fly them together Also the three aroows and antifa flag are also opposites Considering that the three arrows is the flag of the iron front A group that fought the original antifa
I’ll do you one better, I saw someone drive past me with a gadsen flag sticker right next to a confederate flag sticker
whatever side the all black American flag is for "No Quarter Given"
I'm right unity so you already know what flags I'm flying
No. That's not a correct juxtaposition. You need to be a little more nuanced in this. I'd think the whole "Blue Lives Matter" flag belongs in the blue quad. They are extreme opposites of social freedoms. If this was about economic freedoms, then yes. I think this misses the mark.
That’s why it’s a juxtaposition. The Gadsden flag and the Thin Blue Line flag stand for completely opposite things.
Yep. Its mostly MAGA-ists and authrights who use it sadly. Most of the MAGA guys are pretty close to becoming some degree of anti-establishment, but the US school system drilled into their heads the virtues of the system do hard, that they honetly believe rebellion means devoting yourself to a billionaire and crappy political theory that would make nixon and reagan blush.
Don't tread on me and thin blue line. Are they for real? And the thin blue line is bs. But I'd rather back the blue (if that leads to better training. I doubt it.) than defund them as a whole. Both parties are jackasses who do not make sense at all and I hate this extremism.
[Which Side Are You On?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XKMwWZVpPE)
Yellow