• Commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    12 days ago

    Yeah, because it makes no sense. How can you support “all peoples of the world” when there’s class which divides said people and puts them directly in opposition with one another?

    • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      My naive interpretation of the OP is; they support all ethnic and religious groups but not the states that lay claim to those ethnic and religious identities. Not being against class, would, to me, be the opposite of supporting all people(s).

    • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      12 days ago

      I am of course not the OP but I would assume they believe that statelessness would somehow equate to classlessness?

      • Commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        12 days ago

        Maybe, the OG tweet to me reads like the classic cosmopolitan position that doesn’t concern itself with class and shows support for the things as they are found today (like the bourgeois equivalent of the international marxist position supporting proletariat as a whole but not nation states).

        Even then, you can certainly have class relations without the state. Nationalism is a relatively new concept, with the history of class society existing without it for thousands of years, and there also being nothing that would stop private firms from surviving without the state, with them taking on the tasks of the state business-wise (i.e. security, logistics, infrastructure) privately.