You can simplify this with, "No existing nation deserves humanity."
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
190 points (97.0% liked)
Flippanarchy
2260 readers
464 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
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
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.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No human should suffer nations?
I like this.
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?
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.
I am of course not the OP but I would assume they believe that statelessness would somehow equate to classlessness?
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.
Simply dehumanise billionaires, then they aren't included in "all peoples". Easy.
Total capitalist who have $999M or less net worth and psychotic small business owner making you work unpaid hours victory
I can't support all peoples of the world. I've worked in customer service, and I want to kill a significant percentage of the world's population. Otherwise, I agree with this person.
It's important to note that people are mirrors of the system/conditions that they live under. They are steeped and conditioned by frustration, stress, shame, scarcity, competition, individualism, lack of empathy/solidarity/communality, entitlement that comes from either high class that "deserves/earned" it or from trying to grasp at any amount of control they can get over what happens to them amidst a feeling of utter helplessness of having no meaningful effect on how society around them operates, etc.
I've worked in IT, ditto.
But....states DO exist, and some states are shockingly violent while others are required to exist to repel the violence of those states. When you have a war between a majorly powerful state or a superpower (America) and a much weaker global South country (Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Korea, etc), sure, you can take the stance of not supporting any state, but the weaker state are the ones in the role of defending the people of their state. Taking a neutral stance in a situation like this isn't neutral at all, it's of benefit to the stronger power.
I can say I don't support any state, but then you have France for example assassinating leaders in Africa and we can see the tangible results. Neo-colonial countries also claim to support the people of the nations they invade, and yet the results they produce always look like horror shows for those people.
help, showerthoughts is leaking, or is this more i'm14andthisisdeep
I only support good things, and don't support any bad things.
The only reason you think this is "frying people's circuits" is because they immediately recognize the dumb game you're playing and either try to shake you out of it or immediately dismiss you as unserious.
I support all peoples except those who speak in absolutes.
Flagsmasher in the Marvel comics was right
The question is do you have pet interest group in every nation in the world (easy to pick up from major western papers & consider yourself worldly lol) or do you systematically apply political pressure to bring about a higher QoL for the world's citizens? The world's most effective political parties, like Communist Party of China & Communist Part of Vietnam see the world as one great civilization with different parts at war with itself, but inextricably linked. These links are the essence of the entire struggle & confronting imperialist forces while promoting the welfare of all workers in the long run. Breaking the exploitative links that western workers (anarchist, MAGAtt, purple hippopotamus with wings, whatever ideology) bargain with their leaders for access to rather than seizing & developing m.o.production is good for them in the long term
tl;dr - unilaterally trying to increase the living conditions of all workers without analyzing which asset market they intend to plant those wages in, or whether those wages are artificially inflated relative to the globe, is more than just wrong, it is at the end of its lifespan bruh