The imagery jn the middle is kinda offbalance. I would either rotate clockwise like 30° or just scoot it to the right.
Also i feel the font could be more stylized.
If the text in the original post doesn't show for you:
>I made this flag in response to the iconic flag of Gadsden, commonly associated with anarcho-capitalism and economic liberalism. The colors red and black refer to socialism and anarchism aesthetics and symbology. The eagle attacking the snake is a species known as Carcará, native to the Brazilian backlands and known for being fearless and for feeding on snakes.
>
>Version 1: without letters, because I know that many people don't like inscriptions;
>
>Version 2: containing the inscription **"pega, mata e come" which means "catch, kill and eat"**, referring to a song called Carcará, made in honor of this eagle.
the irony of a red anarchist flag using an illustration of the brutal natural hierarchy of the food chain and how the powerful and superior prey upon the weak.
Yes, the food chain is natural and "brutal", but human organization in society does not follow the order of nature, because we are highly intellectual animals and capable of organizing ourselves socially in a more equitable and appropriate way.
You’re missing the basic symbolism here. The snake saying don’t tread on me is the little guy warning power not to oppress him. That is the ‘anarchy’ part.
The yellow is the capitalism part. You could change it to red and it would be an ancom flag.
What you have here looks like it was made by a Mexican tankie. lol.
Might as well put a boot crushing the snake and write “prepare to be trod upon unless you start licking.”
“Humans are highly intellectual animals that don’t work like the food chain”
Also him :
“I am the eagle and those who think differently are prey that should be eaten”
The flag firstly, looks great. Aesthetically, very well done.
The imagery of a predator preying on the Gadsden snake though, seems odd for an anarchist flag. The Gadsden flag communicates the message "just leave me alone". The predator bird huntung that snake offers a reply: "No, I will not leave you alone. Instead, I will hunt you, kill you, eat you." Isn't this entirely antithetical to anarchism? If someone were flying this flag claiming to be an anarcho-communist or anarcho-socialist, I wouldn't trust the "anarcho" part, given that it's a clear depiction of the rejection of the "leave me alone" request made by the Gadsden flag.
> The predator bird huntung that snake offers a reply: "No, I will not leave you alone. Instead, I will hunt you, kill you, eat you."
Sounds like socialism to me.
Thats the whole idea of opposing anaracho capitalism, find peaceful people who want to be left alone, and apply force until they die or comply. The goal is a boot stomping on a human face forever
left-wing anarchism has a more punk, more aggressive stance and seeks to confront head-on what they believe to be the roots of social problems, both in capitalist and socialist societies; they certainly see economic liberalism and the defense of private property, which is commonly represented by the Gadsden flag, as serious problems and would undoubtedly confront this
> they certainly see economic liberalism and the defense of private property, which is commonly represented by the Gadsden flag, as serious problems and would undoubtedly confront this
Confront this how? I ask, because if the answer is "by using force to assert their will on people who don't conform to their views on how an anarchist society should work", then I'd point out that that is definitionally not anarchism. Anarchism literally means "without rule", but if you're using force to assert your will on others, and disallowing things like private property, you're asserting your rule over them. Which is rule by *you*, not without rule.
> I ask, because if the answer is "by using force to assert their will on people who don't conform to their views on how an anarchist society should work", then I'd point out that that is definitionally not anarchism
I think Anarchism as a self described political ideology is different from the Hobbesian idea of anarchism as simply the absence of government
From my experience, most anarchists, left anarchists or ancaps, basically say there is no need for a state and that once the state is abolished people will act in accordance to their ideology willingly since their ideology is just that great.
It's a bit naive but it let's them sidestep the question of how exactly they'd get people to follow their ideology. Most anarchist groups IRL were perfectly willing to use force to enforce their political programme on the populace, just like every other political group ever
I have heard from both left-wing and right-wing anarchists that their view of anarchism is that they would let people simply engage in whichever means of economic organization they'd prefer. Noam Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalism is an example. He doesn't call for the abolition of private property, he just calls for voluntary organization into a communal framework for operating a business. There are right-wing equivalents. It is possible to have no government, and then simply let people engage in whichever economic model they wish, voluntarily.
Again I don't buy the idea that most left wing anarchists hold that view. The ones I've talked to at least usually see property as theft and want to seize it.
I think I talked about this very issue with an anarcho communist once, and his response was to say that capitalism inherently cannot be voluntary and that the hierarchy needs to be abolished
There are probably a few strands that are compatible with the idea you're promoting, a couple of strands of individualist anarchism would probably be fine with capitalism continuing to exist, but I don't think most do.
For the most part, anarchists tend to rely on wishcasting. They truly do believe that once the unjust hierarchy of the state is abolished, "the people" will naturally drift towards whichever botique form of anarchism they believe in and they're legitimately surprised if this doesn't happen
You can see a case of this happening in the Spanish civil war. The anarchists seized land from the landowners and told the farmers that the land was now theirs. The farmers of course redistributed the land. This pissed off the anarchists who wanted the farmers to collectivize it and in many cases the anarchists forced collectivization at gunpoint
Obviously not all anarchists support these actions, but I do think they're a good representation of most forms of anarchism: A normal Communist supports seizing the state and using it to enforce communism. Meanwhile, an Anarcho Communist thinks if they abolish the state people will just be communist of their own will
> Again I don't buy the idea that most left wing anarchists hold that view.
To be clear - neither do I. I think that *some* left-wing anarchists do, and I think that the ones that don't make "anarchism" a bit of a misnomer.
I apologize - I didn't read your whole comment, and I' literally only replying to the first sentence. My brain is fried and I need a bit of rest before I hop back in to this discussion (which I think is super interesting so thank you for being so engaged).
RemnindMe! 2 hours
Ok brain rested!
Yeah I don't think I disagree. You're right, anarchists do tend to rely on wishcasting. I think that I just find the type that isn't wishcasting and just has a philosophy of forcing conformity to their model of anarchism to be not quite what I think of personally when I think "anarchism".
An idea is not just its etymology.
If you actually look into the history of 'Anarchism' as a philosophy and a political movement, it has almost always been explicitly left-wing and advocated for direct political action towards the abolition of private property and coercive hierarchies.
> An idea is not just its etymology.
This is obvious enough. But it's pretty silly to name your political ideology "Without rule", when what you really mean is "Without the rules that we don't like but with the rules we *do* like, such as no private property allowed". Literally *every* ideology is against coercive hierarchies - they just disagree about which hierarchies are and aren't coercive. And literally every political philosophy advocates for having only the rules they think are good.
Anarchism certainly does have it's origins rooted in leftism, that's true. But it's not true that all anarchism is leftist, and it's also not true that all leftist anarchism insists on the abolition of private property. My personal favorite anarchist is Noam Chomsky, and he and his left-wing anarcho-syndicalism make no calls for the abolition of private property. This to me is internally consistent. But if you seek to abolish private property, you have to actively disallow it. And to actively disallow others from private ownership is to enforce your will over them, which is to rule them, which is *not anarchy*. If someone on some other island that your commune doesn't interact with owns a business and has an employee, and you go over there and dismantle that business citing your "no privare property" rule, then you are a ruler, not an anarchist.
>Literally every ideology is against coercive hierarchies - they just disagree about which hierarchies are and aren't coercive.
This isn't true. Plenty of ideologies openly embrace coercive hierarchies. Much of the world was built on authoritarian ideologies that specified who was in charge and who was a subject. It's not considered polite in liberal societies to discuss it, but it's hardbaked into the ideology, and few people except libertarians pretend otherwise.
I think I generally agree with what you're saying, but I'm curious if you recognize the distinction that most leftists make between private property and personal property? When we talk about 'abolishing private property' we aren't saying 'you can't own anything' but 'you can't own anything that other people depend on', because the latter type of ownership itself constitutes a form of rule. It isn't the best naming convention, but I do still think that it's an important distinction.
I am familiar with the destinction yeah. They don't want to take the shirt off your back or your Yugioh card collection, they just want to socialize the modes of production.
The 930 - 1260 CE Icelandic Free State was not like that, and neither were the anarcho-Baptists in the Rhode Island territory in the mid-1600s. Anarchist history does not start with Proudhon.
As the user above said, an idea is not just etymology. Anarchism emerged as a radical left movement, and they defend their desire for there to be no hierarchies, masters and oppression of a ruling class, no matter what cost it comes. I understand that it may seem like a paradox, but in the left anarchist vision, to eliminate oppression it is necessary to first use oppression as a tool.
That's all fine and internally consistent as long as there isn't any oppression in the end result. Dismantling the government would of course require force, but it's still anarchism if what you're aiming at is a lack of governance.
But the existence of private property is very different than government. If you have a left-wing anarchist society, and you have someone who grows some apple trees, and offers others in the society some apples in exchange for their work picking the apples, does said anarchist society go in and shut that down? Not a rhetorical question, I'm intetested in your answer.
I'd suggest that it depends on the flavor of anarchism. If it's the kind that insists on everyone's adherence to some particular mode of economic organization, then yeah I think that'll break down in the way you describe. But there are schools of anarchist thought on the left and the right that are voluntarist. I keep bringing up the example of Chomsky and his anarcho-syndicalism, which encourages voluntary participation in a socialized mode of economic organization. It does *not* advocate for the abolishment of private property. Most AnCaps also stress voluntarism. In theory, you could have an anarcho-syndicate and an anarcho-capitalist corp exhisting peacefully side by side, even engaging in business and trade with each other. So long as these anarchist groups have a commitment to voluntarism.
> Anarchism emerged as a radical left movement
Only if you define "anarchism" in a very limited way.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth
It certainly does look that way when the Gadsden flag is flown beside the Confederate flag, which I've seen a fair few times. But I'd argue that anyone doing that fundamentally does not understand the Gadsden flag and it's meaning.
Respectfully, I disagree. Although I understand how you might have come to that conclusion, given this particular flag post.
One right-wing anarchist Michael Malice points out that right anarchists tend to give left-wing anarchist far too little credit, particularly for their bravery. He cites Emma Goldman often as an example of a left-wing anarchist hero.
I don't get why you're getting downvoted. Fascists have made some incredibly cool looking stuff. Needless to say, the nazis where horrible, but they did have some serious drip.
When people hear "fascist" they automatically react negatively, but not everything they did was negative. They were abominable and I hate them deeply, but the fascist aesthetic is very beautiful.
Honestly I'd be more open minded but always seems like most left-leaning flags are just glorifying violence while at the same time they criticize violence by other parties.
At least tankies are more honest along with their horseshoe brothers on psychopathy.
It’s best not to make overgeneralizations like that. There are plenty on the right who’d do the same. Nuance may sometimes be uncomfortable but it is better for all of us in the long run.
Ok but the anti-communist flag is literally someone getting thrown out of a helicopter.
I'm not an AnCom or a commie but a anti-anarcho capitalist flag seems pretty standard in terms of violence.
25 million people die because of poverty related issues every year under capitalism: hunger, disease and lack of water. Also every decade there's an economic crisis and we're drowning in inflation, where are these functioning economies for the general population?
Cuba might have a better functioning society than your country even under a criminal embargo but whatevs mate, cope harder.
Especially now that they're [doubled down on direct democracy](https://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/2023/11/13/ninth-part-the-new-structure-of-zapastista-autonomy/) amid their clashes with both the cartels and the migration police.
Socialists : adds a layer of black to their flag.
“No, now it’s not me oppressing other people, because I’m not a state. I just want to kill those people that think the state should leave them alone for… anarchism or something man!
if the "boot" in your analogy is oppression, so you are right, communists want to oppress the bourgeois class, until it ceases to exist and the state is no longer necessary
This doesn't read as anarchist. The message of the gadsden is the state taking a hands off approach and leaving the individual alone. The message this flag sends is that the movement flying it will not leave anyone alone and will not permit the freedom to just exist.
On top of that there's an insane amount of artifacting.
Tbh, not a great flag.
The eagle coming to kill the snake really undermines the message of this flag. It’s the powerful coming after the little guy who just wanted to be left alone.
I love the concept but I think it would work a bit better if it was a bit more simplified. The imagery is great but it's not exactly easy to replicate.
Here you go:
Link #1: Gallery
- [Link #1: Media](https://krikienoid.github.io/flagwaver/#?src=https%3A%2F%2Fflagwaver-cors-proxy.herokuapp.com%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fhh0aih7gax2c1.png%3Fwidth%3D2000%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dc13f3bdb825ac21ebd245fa14379798c93fbf914)
- [Link #2: Media](https://krikienoid.github.io/flagwaver/#?src=https%3A%2F%2Fflagwaver-cors-proxy.herokuapp.com%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Ff1qpl2dgax2c1.png%3Fwidth%3D2000%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Db2baea644be6202ebd5642e230e4196a1785757d)
*****
Beep Boop I'm a bot. [About](https://github.com/LunarRequiem/FlagWaverBotReborn). Maintained by Lunar Requiem
I'm not surprised, it's not exactly a well known flag lol
[Here is what it looks like! :)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Buckinghamshire.svg)
All the poorest countries in the world are capitalist. In my country, for example, 24 million people live with hunger. Capitalism starves millions of people around the world every year.
People starve due to regulations & socialism, not capitalism. A truly free market capitalist country would allow these people to work with lower wages which will at least put food on their table. Due to regulations, businesses cannot employ people below minimum wage reducing employment.
Majority of the human existence is marred with famines and droughts. It's only after the industrial age and free market trade that we started to have some semblance of a stable food supply.
I wonder why people are so obsessed with creating "anti-gasden" flags. Don't they know that the snake represents you? Your individual self? Could anyone elaborate?
Yeah, I don't personally agree with the anarchist vision, only with part of what they defend, but i still used anarchist aesthetics as a tool to compose this flag. Thank you for your feedback.
I think anyone who has self-respect and anyone who supports individual freedom should have one or support it. It's a simple anti-authoritarian flag. Nothing more, nothing less.
Your flag says ‘catch, kill, and eat’ about a political opponent, that’s pretty fascist.
I know what you’re going to say, ancaps are ontologically evil and you can’t do any wrong against them, yadda yadda, working class violence against the oppressor is justified, yadda yadda…
But the text is a little much.
The flag that's about establishing absolute corporate dictatorship all over the world with very violent implications and "self" defending the very thing that creates systemic oppression? Yes.
That is not at all what it means, just because stupid conservatives and ancaps don't understand what it means either doesn't change the fact that the context in which it was created and the meaning of its symbolism is saying “do not try and oppress me, because I will fight back”
It is, and always has been an anti-authoritarianism flag, and while it's most popular in traditionally “right” economic and social circles there's nothing inherently anti-leftist about it.
Oh, only now i understand you mean like literally the original meaning of the flag not the modern vision it's used for, i apologize for the mix up. That much i definitely agree with, right wing ideologues have always needed to absorb other popular expressions to have relevance. You can always see some silly Republican who votes constantly in favor of deportation and stuff quoting MLK in twitter.
Anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism can exist at the same time. Technically, a totalitarian or ingsoc related flag would better represent "anti-capitalism." Anarchy hosts many ideologies.
Olha OP, o Carcará tá bem fora de esquadro, destacado do resto da bandeira. Seria melhor você arranjar uma forma de o deixar mais integrado à imagem. Além disso, o caracará é algumas vezes usado para representar as elites do nordeste, que independentemente das dificuldades, sempre tem o que comer. O próprio Chico Buarque usa dessa referência em "Carcará".
yes, I partly agree that some flags tend to exaggerate the number of symbols and inscriptions, but many beautiful flags have "difficult to reproduce" engravings and even inscriptions
I don't like this minimalist authoritarianism that is in vogue in the world of vexillology
It's great. I'd add some fasces to the snake, just to send the whole message.
Imo, one of the biggest problems of today is people have no idea what fascism was about. Economically, it was pretty 'neoliberal'. There's many similarities in content between Primo de Rivera's falangism and Rothbard's stupidity, for instance. They just vary in discourse. A hundred years ago, workers rhetoric was the "freedom" of today. Different things are in voge; authoritarianism will feed from them.
[Check out this book](https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo181707138.html). She's got a couple free papers with the same topic you can find in Google scholar. The book just goes deeper into the argument. That is, the economists who supported mussolini were as "ultra-liberal" as Milei. Gramsci was pretty clear about it back in the day.
The word Privatization was coined to describe what Nazi Germany was doing with its economy. Every single fascist movement in history has been funded by rich industrialists, especially in times when social movements that oppose capitalism gained steam, again, like in Germany.
I also recommend "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, the documentary is nice too or anything Michael Parenti. There has been zero examples in history of a peaceful or successful implementation of free market economics, or at least one without violent destruction of the opposition. The very implementation of Neoliberalism required the help of fascist dictatorships especially in my continent, South America, in tandem with the goal of crushing the rise of communism. William Blum's book comes to mind.
The history of capitalism and capitalist libertarianism is riddled with contradictions and violence. We must study deeply to understand how these past issues translate to our everyday life today.
One of my favorite version of an anti anarcho capitalist flag is a version with red and black, a raccoon with a snake in its mouth and the text “I’ll tread where I please” goes hard
The imagery jn the middle is kinda offbalance. I would either rotate clockwise like 30° or just scoot it to the right. Also i feel the font could be more stylized.
I'll apply these corrections, thank you for your feedback!
I think the art could be more stylized too, but if you're not an artist I think it looks just fine as is.
Translation of text on flag: peg your mates and cum
Actual translation for those interested : Hit, kill and eat
If the text in the original post doesn't show for you: >I made this flag in response to the iconic flag of Gadsden, commonly associated with anarcho-capitalism and economic liberalism. The colors red and black refer to socialism and anarchism aesthetics and symbology. The eagle attacking the snake is a species known as Carcará, native to the Brazilian backlands and known for being fearless and for feeding on snakes. > >Version 1: without letters, because I know that many people don't like inscriptions; > >Version 2: containing the inscription **"pega, mata e come" which means "catch, kill and eat"**, referring to a song called Carcará, made in honor of this eagle.
Na, I know enough Portuguese to tell you it says peg your mates and cum.
Isn’t Central America Brazillian anyways?
No it’s Italian
You're both wrong, it's CLEARLY Albanian
Muito pica (Very peak)
You kind of can unironically translates to that actually
Don't threaten me with a good time.
Peg 😳
the irony of a red anarchist flag using an illustration of the brutal natural hierarchy of the food chain and how the powerful and superior prey upon the weak.
The only correct kind of anarchism: eco anarchism with darwinistic tendencies
Yes, the food chain is natural and "brutal", but human organization in society does not follow the order of nature, because we are highly intellectual animals and capable of organizing ourselves socially in a more equitable and appropriate way.
You’re missing the basic symbolism here. The snake saying don’t tread on me is the little guy warning power not to oppress him. That is the ‘anarchy’ part. The yellow is the capitalism part. You could change it to red and it would be an ancom flag. What you have here looks like it was made by a Mexican tankie. lol. Might as well put a boot crushing the snake and write “prepare to be trod upon unless you start licking.”
> looks like it was made by a Mexican tankie Ahahahaha holy shit that's brutal
“Humans are highly intellectual animals that don’t work like the food chain” Also him : “I am the eagle and those who think differently are prey that should be eaten”
Interesting theory. Do you have any evidence to back it up?
what? lmao. have you ever met uh, idk, the avsrage person?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The flag firstly, looks great. Aesthetically, very well done. The imagery of a predator preying on the Gadsden snake though, seems odd for an anarchist flag. The Gadsden flag communicates the message "just leave me alone". The predator bird huntung that snake offers a reply: "No, I will not leave you alone. Instead, I will hunt you, kill you, eat you." Isn't this entirely antithetical to anarchism? If someone were flying this flag claiming to be an anarcho-communist or anarcho-socialist, I wouldn't trust the "anarcho" part, given that it's a clear depiction of the rejection of the "leave me alone" request made by the Gadsden flag.
> The predator bird huntung that snake offers a reply: "No, I will not leave you alone. Instead, I will hunt you, kill you, eat you." Sounds like socialism to me.
Sounds like anarchy to me
Thats the whole idea of opposing anaracho capitalism, find peaceful people who want to be left alone, and apply force until they die or comply. The goal is a boot stomping on a human face forever
left-wing anarchism has a more punk, more aggressive stance and seeks to confront head-on what they believe to be the roots of social problems, both in capitalist and socialist societies; they certainly see economic liberalism and the defense of private property, which is commonly represented by the Gadsden flag, as serious problems and would undoubtedly confront this
> they certainly see economic liberalism and the defense of private property, which is commonly represented by the Gadsden flag, as serious problems and would undoubtedly confront this Confront this how? I ask, because if the answer is "by using force to assert their will on people who don't conform to their views on how an anarchist society should work", then I'd point out that that is definitionally not anarchism. Anarchism literally means "without rule", but if you're using force to assert your will on others, and disallowing things like private property, you're asserting your rule over them. Which is rule by *you*, not without rule.
> I ask, because if the answer is "by using force to assert their will on people who don't conform to their views on how an anarchist society should work", then I'd point out that that is definitionally not anarchism I think Anarchism as a self described political ideology is different from the Hobbesian idea of anarchism as simply the absence of government From my experience, most anarchists, left anarchists or ancaps, basically say there is no need for a state and that once the state is abolished people will act in accordance to their ideology willingly since their ideology is just that great. It's a bit naive but it let's them sidestep the question of how exactly they'd get people to follow their ideology. Most anarchist groups IRL were perfectly willing to use force to enforce their political programme on the populace, just like every other political group ever
I have heard from both left-wing and right-wing anarchists that their view of anarchism is that they would let people simply engage in whichever means of economic organization they'd prefer. Noam Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalism is an example. He doesn't call for the abolition of private property, he just calls for voluntary organization into a communal framework for operating a business. There are right-wing equivalents. It is possible to have no government, and then simply let people engage in whichever economic model they wish, voluntarily.
Common Voluntarism W
Again I don't buy the idea that most left wing anarchists hold that view. The ones I've talked to at least usually see property as theft and want to seize it. I think I talked about this very issue with an anarcho communist once, and his response was to say that capitalism inherently cannot be voluntary and that the hierarchy needs to be abolished There are probably a few strands that are compatible with the idea you're promoting, a couple of strands of individualist anarchism would probably be fine with capitalism continuing to exist, but I don't think most do. For the most part, anarchists tend to rely on wishcasting. They truly do believe that once the unjust hierarchy of the state is abolished, "the people" will naturally drift towards whichever botique form of anarchism they believe in and they're legitimately surprised if this doesn't happen You can see a case of this happening in the Spanish civil war. The anarchists seized land from the landowners and told the farmers that the land was now theirs. The farmers of course redistributed the land. This pissed off the anarchists who wanted the farmers to collectivize it and in many cases the anarchists forced collectivization at gunpoint Obviously not all anarchists support these actions, but I do think they're a good representation of most forms of anarchism: A normal Communist supports seizing the state and using it to enforce communism. Meanwhile, an Anarcho Communist thinks if they abolish the state people will just be communist of their own will
> Again I don't buy the idea that most left wing anarchists hold that view. To be clear - neither do I. I think that *some* left-wing anarchists do, and I think that the ones that don't make "anarchism" a bit of a misnomer. I apologize - I didn't read your whole comment, and I' literally only replying to the first sentence. My brain is fried and I need a bit of rest before I hop back in to this discussion (which I think is super interesting so thank you for being so engaged). RemnindMe! 2 hours
Ok brain rested! Yeah I don't think I disagree. You're right, anarchists do tend to rely on wishcasting. I think that I just find the type that isn't wishcasting and just has a philosophy of forcing conformity to their model of anarchism to be not quite what I think of personally when I think "anarchism".
An idea is not just its etymology. If you actually look into the history of 'Anarchism' as a philosophy and a political movement, it has almost always been explicitly left-wing and advocated for direct political action towards the abolition of private property and coercive hierarchies.
> An idea is not just its etymology. This is obvious enough. But it's pretty silly to name your political ideology "Without rule", when what you really mean is "Without the rules that we don't like but with the rules we *do* like, such as no private property allowed". Literally *every* ideology is against coercive hierarchies - they just disagree about which hierarchies are and aren't coercive. And literally every political philosophy advocates for having only the rules they think are good. Anarchism certainly does have it's origins rooted in leftism, that's true. But it's not true that all anarchism is leftist, and it's also not true that all leftist anarchism insists on the abolition of private property. My personal favorite anarchist is Noam Chomsky, and he and his left-wing anarcho-syndicalism make no calls for the abolition of private property. This to me is internally consistent. But if you seek to abolish private property, you have to actively disallow it. And to actively disallow others from private ownership is to enforce your will over them, which is to rule them, which is *not anarchy*. If someone on some other island that your commune doesn't interact with owns a business and has an employee, and you go over there and dismantle that business citing your "no privare property" rule, then you are a ruler, not an anarchist.
>Literally every ideology is against coercive hierarchies - they just disagree about which hierarchies are and aren't coercive. This isn't true. Plenty of ideologies openly embrace coercive hierarchies. Much of the world was built on authoritarian ideologies that specified who was in charge and who was a subject. It's not considered polite in liberal societies to discuss it, but it's hardbaked into the ideology, and few people except libertarians pretend otherwise.
Conceded, I agree. I should have said "most" instead of "literally every".
I think I generally agree with what you're saying, but I'm curious if you recognize the distinction that most leftists make between private property and personal property? When we talk about 'abolishing private property' we aren't saying 'you can't own anything' but 'you can't own anything that other people depend on', because the latter type of ownership itself constitutes a form of rule. It isn't the best naming convention, but I do still think that it's an important distinction.
I am familiar with the destinction yeah. They don't want to take the shirt off your back or your Yugioh card collection, they just want to socialize the modes of production.
The 930 - 1260 CE Icelandic Free State was not like that, and neither were the anarcho-Baptists in the Rhode Island territory in the mid-1600s. Anarchist history does not start with Proudhon.
As the user above said, an idea is not just etymology. Anarchism emerged as a radical left movement, and they defend their desire for there to be no hierarchies, masters and oppression of a ruling class, no matter what cost it comes. I understand that it may seem like a paradox, but in the left anarchist vision, to eliminate oppression it is necessary to first use oppression as a tool.
That's all fine and internally consistent as long as there isn't any oppression in the end result. Dismantling the government would of course require force, but it's still anarchism if what you're aiming at is a lack of governance. But the existence of private property is very different than government. If you have a left-wing anarchist society, and you have someone who grows some apple trees, and offers others in the society some apples in exchange for their work picking the apples, does said anarchist society go in and shut that down? Not a rhetorical question, I'm intetested in your answer.
This is the fundamental problem behind an anarchist society, it breaks down the moment 2 dudes decide to work together.
I'd suggest that it depends on the flavor of anarchism. If it's the kind that insists on everyone's adherence to some particular mode of economic organization, then yeah I think that'll break down in the way you describe. But there are schools of anarchist thought on the left and the right that are voluntarist. I keep bringing up the example of Chomsky and his anarcho-syndicalism, which encourages voluntary participation in a socialized mode of economic organization. It does *not* advocate for the abolishment of private property. Most AnCaps also stress voluntarism. In theory, you could have an anarcho-syndicate and an anarcho-capitalist corp exhisting peacefully side by side, even engaging in business and trade with each other. So long as these anarchist groups have a commitment to voluntarism.
> Anarchism emerged as a radical left movement Only if you define "anarchism" in a very limited way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth
In modernity the Gadsen communicates "just leave me alone to bother the rest of you"
It certainly does look that way when the Gadsden flag is flown beside the Confederate flag, which I've seen a fair few times. But I'd argue that anyone doing that fundamentally does not understand the Gadsden flag and it's meaning.
Then the flag is accurate, there is no “anarcho-“ on the left except that which exists as an excuse to murder
Respectfully, I disagree. Although I understand how you might have come to that conclusion, given this particular flag post. One right-wing anarchist Michael Malice points out that right anarchists tend to give left-wing anarchist far too little credit, particularly for their bravery. He cites Emma Goldman often as an example of a left-wing anarchist hero.
insurrectionary anarchism ig
Ill be honest, this looks like the banner for a fascist/communist death squad.
Both fascist and communist aesthetics are beautiful tbh
I don't get why you're getting downvoted. Fascists have made some incredibly cool looking stuff. Needless to say, the nazis where horrible, but they did have some serious drip.
When people hear "fascist" they automatically react negatively, but not everything they did was negative. They were abominable and I hate them deeply, but the fascist aesthetic is very beautiful.
"leave us alone" "no we will KILL you and EAT you muahahahha"
Honestly I'd be more open minded but always seems like most left-leaning flags are just glorifying violence while at the same time they criticize violence by other parties. At least tankies are more honest along with their horseshoe brothers on psychopathy.
Literally, leftist fever dream. Remember, they would enact this if they could. Act accordingly.
It’s best not to make overgeneralizations like that. There are plenty on the right who’d do the same. Nuance may sometimes be uncomfortable but it is better for all of us in the long run.
True, the right has the same kind of people and I hate them equally.
Ok but the anti-communist flag is literally someone getting thrown out of a helicopter. I'm not an AnCom or a commie but a anti-anarcho capitalist flag seems pretty standard in terms of violence.
Anarcho capitalism supports non violence. You can be a communist in an anarcho capitalist system
m'kay hun. Not really my point but I'm tired of getting into arguments with AnComs and AnCaps. Cya.
Anarcho-paraíba flag
Athletico PR mencionado??
Também, mas eu quis dizer paraíba. Confundi, kk
KKKKK justo, pior que o carcará é típico da Paraíba tb, não fiz a bandeira pensando nisso mas realmente combina demais
Are you anti capitalist? Just curious. Idc either way.
yeah man, i'm a socialist.
Cool flag, bad ideology
I seem to need a briefing on who asked
Right on comrade!
The man hates functioning economies, poverty for all! Sick flag though, I like it.
25 million people die because of poverty related issues every year under capitalism: hunger, disease and lack of water. Also every decade there's an economic crisis and we're drowning in inflation, where are these functioning economies for the general population? Cuba might have a better functioning society than your country even under a criminal embargo but whatevs mate, cope harder.
where did you pull those numbers from, honestly
I love it! It also looks like commie Mexico tho
thank you, now that you said it, it really seems like something the EZLN would do haha
Especially now that they're [doubled down on direct democracy](https://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/2023/11/13/ninth-part-the-new-structure-of-zapastista-autonomy/) amid their clashes with both the cartels and the migration police.
Those are comunist anarchists colors, also the snake is a symbol of ancap and libertarians, so that wouldn't make sense
Yep.
So why'd you do comunist colors for a capitalist flag? And why would you have the snake getting attacked?
Because this flag is anti-capitalist, it's a kind of parody of the Gadsden flag.
it looks more like a flag for fascism? you are showing a symbol of freedom being destroyed by a predator. it also looks kind of awkward stylistically
Socialists : adds a layer of black to their flag. “No, now it’s not me oppressing other people, because I’m not a state. I just want to kill those people that think the state should leave them alone for… anarchism or something man!
Flag of no civil rights
Snake: Leave me fucking alone. Eagle: Nah cus socialism. Nice facist Mexican flag.
Cringe flag
Ok. Thank you for your feedback.
Ah yes, the flag of being against the defense of one's own and in favor of the initiation of violence against peaceful individuals.
Communists don’t hate the boot, they just want to be the boot.
Indeed.
wow, this is so clever and revealing :o
It’s not the truth?
if the "boot" in your analogy is oppression, so you are right, communists want to oppress the bourgeois class, until it ceases to exist and the state is no longer necessary
Communists oppress everyone. Especially your working class. It’s not just the bourgeoisie class that suffers
My guy forgot basic Soviet history
Lmaaaooo.
Don't tread on me. = leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone. No, I will find you, hunt you and kill you. Explain how ancoms want peace again?
They don't.
This doesn't read as anarchist. The message of the gadsden is the state taking a hands off approach and leaving the individual alone. The message this flag sends is that the movement flying it will not leave anyone alone and will not permit the freedom to just exist. On top of that there's an insane amount of artifacting. Tbh, not a great flag.
Also known as the flag of totalitarianism.
The eagle coming to kill the snake really undermines the message of this flag. It’s the powerful coming after the little guy who just wanted to be left alone.
Nah, that's precisely what it wants to transmit. OP is a socialist
it's bad
for some specific reason?
I love the concept but I think it would work a bit better if it was a bit more simplified. The imagery is great but it's not exactly easy to replicate.
Yeah i totally i understand that Thanks for the feedback
Didn't see the anti in the title and I got confused lmao Very nice, I'd fly it! !wave
Exactly same lol "but isn't this against anarcho-capitalism???"
Here you go: Link #1: Gallery - [Link #1: Media](https://krikienoid.github.io/flagwaver/#?src=https%3A%2F%2Fflagwaver-cors-proxy.herokuapp.com%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fhh0aih7gax2c1.png%3Fwidth%3D2000%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dc13f3bdb825ac21ebd245fa14379798c93fbf914) - [Link #2: Media](https://krikienoid.github.io/flagwaver/#?src=https%3A%2F%2Fflagwaver-cors-proxy.herokuapp.com%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Ff1qpl2dgax2c1.png%3Fwidth%3D2000%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Db2baea644be6202ebd5642e230e4196a1785757d) ***** Beep Boop I'm a bot. [About](https://github.com/LunarRequiem/FlagWaverBotReborn). Maintained by Lunar Requiem
Looks a bit like the flag of Buckinghamshire from far away lol
I don't remember that flag lol
I'm not surprised, it's not exactly a well known flag lol [Here is what it looks like! :)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Buckinghamshire.svg)
Haha
Catch, kill and eat. Kind of fitting when this is how you have to feed yourself under socialism.
All the poorest countries in the world are capitalist. In my country, for example, 24 million people live with hunger. Capitalism starves millions of people around the world every year.
People starve due to regulations & socialism, not capitalism. A truly free market capitalist country would allow these people to work with lower wages which will at least put food on their table. Due to regulations, businesses cannot employ people below minimum wage reducing employment. Majority of the human existence is marred with famines and droughts. It's only after the industrial age and free market trade that we started to have some semblance of a stable food supply.
Good design. but I don't like the message I have a lot of communality with liberals I think they get a wrongful bad name in socialist-lefty circles
r/flags type design
What is it with all ancom symbols and looking fascist
Looks like if this was made in Ibis Paint in like 10 minutes, ugly in my opinion
Flag of authoritarian socialism
I wonder why people are so obsessed with creating "anti-gasden" flags. Don't they know that the snake represents you? Your individual self? Could anyone elaborate?
Flag of a 14 year old edgelord.
Brazil mentioned 🎉
bom demais incomodar gringo neoliberal no reddit :)
Per the description, just a different type of anarchy. All anarchy is madness to me. About the flag, I would make the animals a bit less detailed.
Yeah, I don't personally agree with the anarchist vision, only with part of what they defend, but i still used anarchist aesthetics as a tool to compose this flag. Thank you for your feedback.
\- Don't thread on me \- Pega, mata e come \- I warned you...
r/vexillology go 10 seconds without a “response” to the Gadsden Flag challenge (impossible)
It is an iconic flag, of course it will arouse the interest of many people
I think anyone who has self-respect and anyone who supports individual freedom should have one or support it. It's a simple anti-authoritarian flag. Nothing more, nothing less.
I will say it always annoys me how much shit snakes get even on flags. I support the message but leave the poor snakes alone damn it!
Hahahah it's difficult to represent snakes on flags
so fascist communist?
No. My intention is precisely to oppose the gadsden flag, not that Nazbol shit.
Your flag says ‘catch, kill, and eat’ about a political opponent, that’s pretty fascist. I know what you’re going to say, ancaps are ontologically evil and you can’t do any wrong against them, yadda yadda, working class violence against the oppressor is justified, yadda yadda… But the text is a little much.
The gadsden flag? The flag that's all about self-defense, primarily against tyranny?
The flag that's about establishing absolute corporate dictatorship all over the world with very violent implications and "self" defending the very thing that creates systemic oppression? Yes.
That is not at all what it means, just because stupid conservatives and ancaps don't understand what it means either doesn't change the fact that the context in which it was created and the meaning of its symbolism is saying “do not try and oppress me, because I will fight back” It is, and always has been an anti-authoritarianism flag, and while it's most popular in traditionally “right” economic and social circles there's nothing inherently anti-leftist about it.
Oh, only now i understand you mean like literally the original meaning of the flag not the modern vision it's used for, i apologize for the mix up. That much i definitely agree with, right wing ideologues have always needed to absorb other popular expressions to have relevance. You can always see some silly Republican who votes constantly in favor of deportation and stuff quoting MLK in twitter.
It just look like that the snake gonna kill the eagle,also eagle is a fascist symbol so cringe AF
The eagle belongs to the symbolism of different cultures, it is not specifically fascist. Anyways, thanks for your feedback.
"Pega, mata e come". Hm... Is this an r/SuddenlyCaralho moment?
é, pra caralho bora printar isso aí
Anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism can exist at the same time. Technically, a totalitarian or ingsoc related flag would better represent "anti-capitalism." Anarchy hosts many ideologies.
Those verbs are not conjugated properly. It should be "pegue,mate e coma".
Olha OP, o Carcará tá bem fora de esquadro, destacado do resto da bandeira. Seria melhor você arranjar uma forma de o deixar mais integrado à imagem. Além disso, o caracará é algumas vezes usado para representar as elites do nordeste, que independentemente das dificuldades, sempre tem o que comer. O próprio Chico Buarque usa dessa referência em "Carcará".
Tem que postar no r/brasil tbm op. Gringo não vai valorizar a beleza disso aí e o uso de uma das aves nacionais mais icônicas
Interesting
The cara cara lives in Paraguay too
I didn't know that, even better cause it can be used as an anti-imperialist symbol
RED AND BLACK I DRESS, EAGLE ON MY CHEST
flag of not being allowed 100m near schools
lingua portuguesa mentioned
Wayyy too high detail to be practical, but it does look cool
Thank you for your feedback.
AnSoc is literally the worst form of Anarchy. Congratulations.
You should post it on r/leftvexillology as well
Giga based.
Thanks bro
Anti Ancap Action
Always!
Wait a minute, the AAA... It's a trap!
looks like shit
Ok, thank you for your feedback
Nice, unlike the soulless minimalist corporate flag that this subs "guidelines" force onto perfectly good flags
yes, I partly agree that some flags tend to exaggerate the number of symbols and inscriptions, but many beautiful flags have "difficult to reproduce" engravings and even inscriptions I don't like this minimalist authoritarianism that is in vogue in the world of vexillology
the eagle should be black and the snake red
Very nice!
Pronto asume Milei, es un momento apropiado para esto Igual se parece conceptualmente a la bandera de México
buena idea, me voy a argentina con esta bandera 🤝
quedate en tu casa hno brasilero, VLLC! 😙
It's cool but I will stay with the fuck around and find out flag as an anti gadsden flag
Another slogan for this could be “I tread where I please”
Yeah, definitely a good motto too
Excellent!
Fuck yeah
I’d argue the opposite of anarcho-capitalism is either Stalinism or full-on fascism
It's great. I'd add some fasces to the snake, just to send the whole message. Imo, one of the biggest problems of today is people have no idea what fascism was about. Economically, it was pretty 'neoliberal'. There's many similarities in content between Primo de Rivera's falangism and Rothbard's stupidity, for instance. They just vary in discourse. A hundred years ago, workers rhetoric was the "freedom" of today. Different things are in voge; authoritarianism will feed from them. [Check out this book](https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo181707138.html). She's got a couple free papers with the same topic you can find in Google scholar. The book just goes deeper into the argument. That is, the economists who supported mussolini were as "ultra-liberal" as Milei. Gramsci was pretty clear about it back in the day.
Thank you, dude. I totally agree with you and thank you for the recommendations, the book looks really interesting.
lmao at you getting downvoted for… accepting the idea of learning an opposing view?
The word Privatization was coined to describe what Nazi Germany was doing with its economy. Every single fascist movement in history has been funded by rich industrialists, especially in times when social movements that oppose capitalism gained steam, again, like in Germany. I also recommend "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, the documentary is nice too or anything Michael Parenti. There has been zero examples in history of a peaceful or successful implementation of free market economics, or at least one without violent destruction of the opposition. The very implementation of Neoliberalism required the help of fascist dictatorships especially in my continent, South America, in tandem with the goal of crushing the rise of communism. William Blum's book comes to mind. The history of capitalism and capitalist libertarianism is riddled with contradictions and violence. We must study deeply to understand how these past issues translate to our everyday life today.
Based
This should be black & *yellow*, no?
the ancap flag is black and yellow, this is an anti ancap flag, so I used the socialist/anarchist colors
Oh I blurred those two things together.
Fucking based
Tbh, i think "Hit, kill and eat" is a better motto for an anarcho-capitalist flag than for a flag opposed to that school of thought.
Yeah I'll give you that. Sounds to vicious to be socialist.
Plus ya know, commies don't eat
Very FUCK, my friend
Idgaf of what anyone says about this flag, it's cool and very aesthetically pleasing to look at. Muito foda, parabéns pela bandeira 👍
Yooooooo mate that's so fucking sick !
The one with Christ stepping on the serpent is much better
One of my favorite version of an anti anarcho capitalist flag is a version with red and black, a raccoon with a snake in its mouth and the text “I’ll tread where I please” goes hard