Russia and America are colonial powers, the Soviet Union most definitely wasn’t, but they claimed the land of the previous regime including all the bits that were stolen. Colonialism in Russia wasn’t as bad as it was in the United States but it was still colonialism. Why didn’t the Soviet Union turn Siberia into one or multiple soviets like they did East Germany or Ukraine? Why did Russia get to keep it?
As for the United States I don’t see indigenous and black people being happy about the United States existing even as communist state, Mexicos claims to the south west are arguably still valid, would a communist United States return it? There’s also the glaring issue of all the islands that have active independence movements, most notably Hawaii and Purto Rico, probably wouldn’t want to associate with a communist United States even if they were independent. Is the scars of slavery, colonialism, and genocide too much for a communist United States to bare? Was colonialism in Russia small enough that a communist state could claim lands that the previous regime stolen that any actual leftist power in the United States couldn’t?
I know ideally states shouldn’t exist but certainly the path forwards would require some kind of left wing American state(s)? How much of the colonial project of the United States can be claimed by revolutionaries, it can’t be as much as Russia?
I think it’s basically impossible to know how things will happen until they do. But my basic idea would be be self determination for PR, Hawaii, Alaska etc. Forms of reparations for Natives and descendants of slaves. And then reconstituting the state on a plurinational socialist basis. So nationalization of the economy, but really trying to work towards the establishment of soviets and the like. But I haven’t given it too much thought.
What makes the non continuous land so special? There are arguably more native people living in the inner 48 that deserve the same rights to their own country as all the ones in pr, Hawaii, Alaska, etc deserve. And what about the black people? They arguably deserve more rights than the natives, their land claims will overlap with native ones.
I don’t know if it would be possible for a leftist org to claim all of that territory like the Bolsheviks did in Russia. Maybe looking at just the United States is too blinding, maybe we should be looking at a pan American type state, but eventually the question of territory and nationality and race in the United States will have to be brought up, the United States is a lot less fluid culturally speaking than Europe, the whole American identity would be a lot harder to beat out of people.
Black people were enslaved and brought to the Americas against their will. They had it worse and it would be wrong to say otherwise.
I can see what this person is trying to say, but they're not saying it well
Yeah, i feel like this is just going to lead to a pointless heated argument.
Let's not try to rank which genocide victims got genocided harder, thanks
I think the main difference I actually see is that those three regions have were acquired more recently, and postbellum. And they thus would have more capable and identifiable power structures, and also that they have seen relatively less colonization.
With regards to the Native American's, and I'm no expert in postcolonial theory, but I think a genuinely dual power structure would be best, which recognized the genocide, and gave true economic, judicial sovereignty, etc, but within a larger structure. I think the only thing with establishing new nation states is that, as I understand it, you had these sometimes amorphous configurations before European expansion, so its hard for me to see how these new states would look, would their be overlapping borders, etc? But this is not something I'm incredibly well-versed in.
And, of course this is all qualified with the fact that any sort of American revolution would be so destabilizing to the global system, that maybe it would just be best to form some sort of pan-American state as you say.
It should be balkanized and reintegrated over time as the USSR was and will be. Small westphalian states are obsolete and globalism is inevitable. The future lies with those people who understand and value cooperation and submission to central authority is good when times are both good and bad.
If the goal is for the United States to become irrelevant I don’t think balkanization is the answer. There would have to be some kind of occupation similar to what happened to nazi Germany. The future would take generations to achieve a stateless society, the best we can do now is at least envision what the United States could look like in the IMMEDIATE future.
Yeah, it could look like 7 states vying for power if we simply believed hard enough
Why didn’t the Soviet Union turn Siberia into one or multiple soviets like they did East Germany or Ukraine? Why did Russia get to keep it?
Russia has intentionally never given "Siberia" any political status or recognition for centuries in order to discourage Siberian nationalism from forming. This has basically been successful, which is why Siberia only refers to the natural landscape.
That being said the RSFSR did have several ASSRs federated under it, such as the Buryat Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, that granted autonomy to some ethnic groups.
I'm going to go with based because in the 1930s, every white person who wasn't a leftist pretty much bought into all the ideas about different races having inherent traits (surprise surprise, they all thought white folks had inherent superiority and even when they tried to make it sound balanced they always used things that were actually good, like "white people are excessively compassionate"). It would be cringe in 2022 but only because of work like this where scientists have spent decades proving we are all the same.
Nancy Pelosi is the god emperor, corporate Memphis is the official art style, it truely is the dark ages.
I can’t decide whether Siliconia or the Harvard Empire sound worse, but both are clearly preferable to the Holy Protestant Empire
title is built on a weird premise, Russia did not "become one large USSR"
Russia SFSR was one of the republics in the USSR, which was made up of smaller states
title implies it was "one large" thing or whatever? feels very muddled
If the Russian Soviet wasn’t one country it wouldn’t exist today. They have autonomous zones which sure beat any kind of “Indian reservation” but they are still fundamentally apart of Russia no? I figure a situation like this would be too much control in the United States.
:jesse-wtf:
If the Russian Soviet wasn’t one country it wouldn’t exist today.
uh, it doesn't?
I don’t think the answer is “yes” or “no”. If we could devise and execute a plan that would make sense and is morally correct, we wouldn’t need to first destroy the US government. The most likely scenario is Balkanization of some kind. Any area controlled by socialists should be working to give native people their sovereignty again, whatever that entails. Many areas will be controlled by fascists of various stripes. A few areas have the cities and state infrastructure to absorb nearby states. Others will fall into disputed territory. Maybe Mexico will indeed attempt to take back control of certain areas. Hard to say. The very nature of an empire crumbling is that it’s a nexus of chaos. Predicting specific political arrangements is by definition difficult
Balkanization in the United States scares me not because I don’t think they deserve a little suffering but because the south is a very dangerous thing to bring back from the dead. If it’s not a controlled demolition it probably will result in a much more reactionary force taking power. Also nukes, so many fucking nukes.
States where the bulk of the nukes are stored: North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Missouri, Georgia, and Washington (not DC)
Yeah, definitely not comfortable with the amount of those that are in the Deep South or the Pacific Northwest. Guess that makes antifascism that much more important there
literally the worst place to put the nuke factory, except for maybe florida. And honestly it’s so stupid I’m genuinely shocked that the ghoul state even allowed it. The nuke factory should be in the north east where a broken US would maintain the most control. Or if you want it away from big cities, in the Midwest where even a fractured US government could dominate if needed.
Putting the nuke factory in Texas, the state with the strongest independence culture, an isolated power grid, and a history of leaders who are absolute lunatics, is so phenomenally stupid I can’t wrap my brain around it.
If the US starts balkanizing, the entire rest of the world has to occupy those states immediately
God what I would give to live in a Cuban occupied Florida instead of the hell I live in now
I don’t see how there can be any fundamental change without nukes going off. The United States would most definitely use them if pinned in a corner
Honestly, if the US is going to nuke Portland because there’s too many communists there trying to take power, truly all is lost for the human race. Maybe this will come into play at some point, but it will probably look more like US communists getting funding and training from other countries, fighting proxy wars of plausible deniability. I don’t doubt that the US would drop bombs on its own soil and citizens. I just think that using nukes would be a last-ditch “taking you down with me” sort of deal, which is so catastrophic that it almost doesn’t warrant preparing for
I could see the US using nukes in a “you’re going down with me” way if they were invaded but not within anything claimed to be US territory.
This would depend on the conditions under which the current US territories would ever become socialist.
For example, American Balkanization could happen before any kind of adoption of socialism in its current territories. The dividing lines and timeline (how long since Balkanization) would determine whether those new borders were held up by any socialist project.
Also it's possible that the conditions under which socialism would have a chance in the US territories in any semi-near future (let's say 50 years because I can't imagine the current populace having revolutionary potential) would be a result of federalism + chuds constantly fucking us over to the point of unrecoverable crisis. In that case, it would be up to any revolutionary government to decide what to do with the remaining right wing remnants, and that would depend on the outcome of the inevitable civil war that led to said revolutionary government. Basically... what would they feel the need or desire to do to, say, the people who nuked three megacities? Who scorched the earth of your agricultural centers? Or maybe they didn't do that, so reeducation is in the table. Basically... it all depends on the actual material outcomes of the crises, the wars, the power base of any revolutionary government.
