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?

  • queendeadsept8 [none/use name]
    hexagon
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • ALiteralWrecker [they/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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

        • ClimateChangeAnxiety [he/him, they/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          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.

      • queendeadsept8 [none/use name]
        hexagon
        ·
        2 years ago

        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

        • ALiteralWrecker [they/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          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

          • ClimateChangeAnxiety [he/him, they/them]
            ·
            2 years ago

            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.