this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
236 points (82.1% liked)

Flippanarchy

194 readers
1244 users here now

Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.

Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.

This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.

Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Rules


  1. If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text

  2. If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.

  3. Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.

  4. Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.

  5. No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.

  6. This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.

founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

The actual reason is the industrial killing. Only the nazis searched for the cheapest and most efficient way to kill as many people as possible

[–] ActualFactual@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 12 hours ago

I kinda feel like the rationing of bullets and redemption exclusively for severed human hands in would count as trying to find greatest efficiency.

In reference to King Leopold's reign in the Congo. It was.... Unbelievably brutal and quite modern in their pursuit of "efficiency".

[–] LotrOrc@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Nah Leopold and Churchill both did it too

[–] Pantless_Paladin@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

In the case of Churchill, it is more agriculture killing.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

I think you’re right. It also wouldn’t be unfair to say that, if you’re in a european/western world country that is likely going to be mostly white and also happens to have taken a big part in WW2, that of course it will be a big part of your history. For the US, it’s our history in Europe, but we don’t seem to claim or learn much about European history elsewhere, like Leopold or Churchill’s Bengal Famine.

I think many people are familiar with at least a few mass killers. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, maybe the Red Terror, Christopher Columbus, you could even count Khan as one of the biggest, but we might view that as a bloody past and the result of Khan’s conquest of other peoples rather than a internal conflict killing millions of a specific group. Columbus’ mass murder was partly out of ignorance when the European diseases spread in the New World, but Europeans didn’t have too much of a problem with killing natives otherwise.

Hitler, OTOH, as you said, turned mass murder into a pointless, cold, indiscriminate killing machine in a way that no other ruler did. People were warehoused until fed to the machine. The Soviets/Russians and Pol Pot (influenced heavily by Stalin) are a pretty close second, they rounded up people and shipped them off to gulags or prisons and worked them to death if they weren’t just outright killed.