Independence in North America

[Porpoise101]

So I've been thinking and it seems like the North American continent could use some balkanization. With only 3 countries (not counting Greenland) North America is not crowded country wise.

Personally I think Hawaii and Quebec should be liberated because of cultural differences. Maybe Hawaii, American Samoa, and Guam can become American client states like the other Pacific countries are.

A more likely place countries could sprout up is in Mexico because the country is pretty much in a civil war. Maybe Oaxaca or Yucatan could be independent because there are lots of Mayans there who feel ignored by the oligarchs in Mexico City.

[Stronk Serb]

California über Alles

[Porpoise101]

Well California has a unique culture, but it is entrenched in the federal government. The state was pretty much built by the government from the dams to the highways. Also the people there are amongst the happiest in the nation so it's unlikely because of mutual interest by the people and the feds to stay together.

[phuckphace]

>California

Also the people there are amongst the happiest in the nation

which must be why 9001 of them jump off the Golden Gate Bridge every year

I've journeyed to the land of fruits & nuts a few times. it strikes me as a sort of dystopian paradise, and everything has a tacky, soulless, self-infatuated taint to it. there are some beautiful wilderness areas in the state, its only redeeming quality (owed to the fact that these areas have few Californians.) it also doesn't help that it's the home of Hollywood, the sewer pipe where trashworld sewage drains out to pollute the world.

saved by the giant sequoias, you goons. if it weren't for those fuckin' trees I'd say nuke it from orbit

[lliam]

I think, America, hmm, better ... the US should be happy to have just a few neighboring countries. Fewer neighbors, less hassle.

[Porpoise101]

>California



which must be why 9001 of them jump off the Golden Gate Bridge every year

I've journeyed to the land of fruits & nuts a few times. it strikes me as a sort of dystopian paradise, and everything has a tacky, soulless, self-infatuated taint to it. there are some beautiful wilderness areas in the state, its only redeeming quality (owed to the fact that these areas have few Californians.) it also doesn't help that it's the home of Hollywood, the sewer pipe where trashworld sewage drains out to pollute the world.

saved by the giant sequoias, you goons. if it weren't for those fuckin' trees I'd say nuke it from orbit
http://g.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/coexist/imagecache/inline-medium/inline/2013/03/1681499-inline-screen-shot-2013-03-01-at-101638-am.jpg

Granted it is in the 2nd quintile but that is not bad. But the US may not be that happy so even being in the top quintile may still mean that the state is unhappy.

Also don't forget Joshua trees. I went to the Mojave desert and it is stunning. But also older and rural Californians are pretty nice down to earth people though.

[Stronk Serb]

Give ideoendence to the Lone Star State?

[Porpoise101]

Give ideoendence to the Lone Star State?
Nah that is in the Mississippi basin the feds won't let it go even if they want

[Sir Suomi]

http://i.imgur.com/LjdeR.jpg

We're ready in Nebraska

[Porpoise101]

Isn't that an American flag? Cascadian separatists seem more ready than that fool
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/djFVkJOI5lc/maxresdefault.jpg

http://cupwire.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/03/Cascadiasoccerflag.jpg

[Hindsight]

Nah as a Marxist I feel that state independence is pointless and can probably bring more troubles.

But I am against imperialism and oppression of ethnical minorities. So if it is absolutely necessary, yes.

[Kahn]

Balkanazation of this Union is the last thing we need

[Porpoise101]

If you are looking for oppressed ethnic minorities check out US territories in the Pacific, Inuit peoples in the far north, and Mayans in the south of Mexico. Interestingly enough the fringes of what can be called North America are where the most oppressed and ignored live.

[phuckphace]

as an anarcholibertarian I have demarcated a national border around my own person. which one of you sexy statist hunks wants to "invade my territory" (if ya know what I mean)? coerce me hard baby

[Stronk Serb]

Nah that is in the Mississippi basin the feds won't let it go even if they want

Yeah, but I would love for a Republic of Texas to emerge again. Also give independence to Cali and Mexican states and form Las Californias. Also Canada-wise, free Quebec, Newfoundland and British Columbia. The US and Canada can cede territories to free New England.

image (http://i.imgur.com/LjdeR.jpg)

We're ready in Nebraska

Nebraska stronk!

as an anarcholibertarian I have demarcated a national border around my own person. which one of you sexy statist hunks wants to "invade my territory" (if ya know what I mean)? coerce me hard baby

Prepare for Anschluß!

[Vlerchan]

Nah as a Marxist I feel that state independence is pointless and can probably bring more troubles.
Historically Marxists have tended to favour national liberation movements.

Numerous have participated in them.

[tovaris]

Yep they realy could use some new countries like Alaska, New fundland, Texas, United california, Quebek... etc etc

I think, America, hmm, better ... the US should be happy to have just a few neighboring countries. Fewer neighbors, less hassle.

fewer neighbors fewer alies and stronger emanies

[Emerald Dream]

I thought Central America was considered part of North America? That's a bit more than three countries.

[Porpoise101]

I thought Central America was considered part of North America? That's a bit more than three countries.
Well yes technically they are, but they are already tiny countries so I don't really count them. I should also count the Caribbean if I want to be accurate. The three big countries are what could be feasibly cut down which is why I'm focusing on them.

[lliam]

Isn't that an American flag? Cascadian separatists seem more ready than that fool


don't know, if it's the right flag, but would that be better?


http://picload.org/image/iwoagpo/freenebraska.jpg

[Porpoise101]

don't know, if it's the right flag, but would that be better?


image (http://picload.org/image/iwoagpo/freenebraska.jpg)
Yes

In other news I made a map of countries I want to see happen
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/08/16/6c6a67148c5e954f4d93563d0dbf3f9c.jpg

[lliam]

You've really big plans to get America small or so. ^^

[Jean Poutine]

https://www.reminetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/Quebec.jpg

Vive le Québec libre.

Fun facts :

-ice hockey was invented in Quebec
-so was poutine
-the maple leaf used to be a Canadien symbol
-so was the beaver
-Quebec produces 80% of the world's maple syrup and a crushing proportion of the Canadian production
-the national anthem used to be a Canadien patriotic song
-the word "Canadian" itself used to refer exclusively to the French speakers in the land - Anglos were "English"
-Quebec has the greatest tradition of non-piss beer in the country
-and more...

Almost everything known throughout the word as typically Canadian is really from Quebec (except the RCMP and nanaimo bars and shit). What happened is that cut off from England, the poor little Anglos needed to forge themselves an identity, so they simply jacked ours instead and called it their own.

[lliam]

fewer neighbors fewer alies and stronger emanies


got it. divide et impera

[Hindsight]

Historically Marxists have tended to favour national liberation movements.

Numerous have participated in them.

My next sentence in the post you quoted from does some explaining.

To elaborate, I utterly despise nationalism. The reason why Marxists participate frequently in those movements are due to their even stronger hatred of extreme oppression of ethnical minorities or other cultures. Really though, in the end, state means nothing.

Edit: I do apologize if I sounded a bit brash and cynical in my initial comment. Hope this explains properly what am I attempting to convey.

[Vlerchan]

The reason why Marxists participate frequently in those movements are due to their even stronger hatred of extreme oppression of ethnical minorities or other cultures.
Marxists like James Connolly and Ho Chi Minh self-identified as nationalists.

---

In general Marxists tend to make a distinction between progressive and non-progressive nationalism. Progressive nationalism being that which further the class struggle.

In the end, state means nothing.
Then let's use the term 'administration'.

[Hindsight]

Marxists like James Connolly and Ho Chi Minh self-identified as nationalists.

---

In general Marxists tend to make a distinction between progressive and non-progressive nationalism. Progressive nationalism being that which further the class struggle.




I agree that the so-called "progressive nationalism" could further class struggle to some extent. But only so to some extent. Granted, Marxists are not exactly a group of people agreeing with each other, in fact not even close. I personally view that the "progressive nationalism" can only seemingly kick-start the process of class struggle in certain locations in the world. But nationalism is in the end still inherently contradictory to the principles of Marxism. I oppose socialism in one state. People like Ho Chi Minh chose to be nationalists because nationalism can easily unite the masses, especially the proletariat. But we have witnessed that single-state socialism doesn't work and that state would not last long as a true worker's state. Nationalism may temporarily promote class struggle, but the successful global revolution just simply could not be built upon the foundations of nationalism. I and some others consider nationalism to be a tool of the bourgeoisie, and the working class cannot utilize that or they could never truly unite.

[Vlerchan]

I oppose socialism in one state.
There is no reason that left-nationalist causes entail this. It's more like a confederation of self-administrative national units that people like JC had in mind.

In that there is not a trace of chauvinism. We desire to preserve with the English people the same political relations as with the people of France, or Germany, or of any other country; the greatest possible friendship, but also the strictest independence. Brothers, but not bedfellows. Thus, inspired by another ideal, conducted by reason not by tradition, following a different course, the Socialist Republican Party of Ireland arrives at the same conclusion as the most irreconcilable Nationalist.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1897/xx/scirenat.htm

People like Ho Chi Minh chose to be nationalists because nationalism can easily unite the masses, especially the proletariat.
I don't think Ho Chi Minh spoke of valuing nationalism as a tool within his writings.

Nationalism may temporarily promote class struggle, but the successful global revolution just simply could not be built upon the foundations of nationalism.
Of course not. Both there's no reason that nationalist sentiment might not still possess units of the proletarian masses.

[Miserabilia]

Do we really need more countries anywhere? It just depends on if you're thinking towards a united power or more seperation and independence. Current development across the world seems to lead to more united powers rather than seperate so I don't think new countries will appear in North America any time soon.

USA's states are basicly countries anyway, different cultures, dialects, religions, ethnic groups, population density, own government; it's actualy strange the way there's still so much attention for the national government when the state you live in is probably larger than the average european country and you don't see us electing a president with mass hysteria for the entire european union

[Porpoise101]

Eh it's less likely in Canada and the US but Mexico is in more out less a civil war so regions could secede just like how Texas did when there was a civil war between the federalists and the centralists.

[phuckphace]

ugh nationalism! ugh invisible lines drawn arbitrarily between the proletariat!

it's ~*literally 2015*~ and Marxists are still doing this

protip there's never going to be a global Marxist revolution for reasons that they insist on handwaving away, and the way everything is framed in terms of comic book-style good vs. evil class struggle is simplistic and outdated. Jimbob the American prole and Nguyen the Vietnamese prole won't be teaming up anytime soon, considering that Jimbob doesn't even trust his next-door neighbor to return his ladder after borrowing it. in fact, the coming decades will feature more and more nations reverting back to "default settings", that is nationalism. sorry bud

re: "socialism in one country doesn't work" you'll find that nothing works too well for too long when there's a psychotic mass murderer at the helm. get better leaders (like me for example) and you're golden.

re: "nationalism is a tool of the bourgeoisie" that must be why our bourgeoisie are working 24/7 to gape our borders wide open Goatse-style

[Hindsight]

There is no reason that left-nationalist causes entail this. It's more like a confederation of self-administrative national units that people like JC had in mind.

I apologize if my post was worded poorly, but I did not imply left-nationalism would cause the failure of single-state socialism. Socialism in one state by itself is already flawed, and nationalism is always present with it. In the long run, there is no point of maintaining nationalism for the masses.

I don't think Ho Chi Minh spoke of valuing nationalism as a tool within his writings.

Again, I did not say that. Whether or not Ho Chi Minh viewed nationalism as a tool did not matter. What matters is the outcome of his usage of nationalism and what role did it play in the revolution.

Of course not. Both there's no reason that nationalist sentiment might not still possess units of the proletarian masses.

Again, does it matter if nationalism may still contain units of the proletarian masses? Nationalism is not easily controlled, and it could get easily out of hand. People like the National Bolsheviks are one example that perfectly display the contradictions of socialism and nationalism. Nationalism plays a major role between the hostility between socialist nations during the 20th century. Nationalism may temporarily somehow promote class struggle, but at the same time it is a hindrance to class consciousness and the union of workers. The elite class can utilize the nationalism to turn workers against workers of different nationalities, thus diverting them from really seeing that the elite class is their true oppressor.

ugh nationalism! ugh invisible lines drawn arbitrarily between the proletariat!

it's ~*literally 2015*~ and Marxists are still doing this

protip there's never going to be a global Marxist revolution for reasons that they insist on handwaving away, and the way everything is framed in terms of comic book-style good vs. evil class struggle is simplistic and outdated. Jimbob the American prole and Nguyen the Vietnamese prole won't be teaming up anytime soon, considering that Jimbob doesn't even trust his next-door neighbor to return his ladder after borrowing it. in fact, the coming decades will feature more and more nations reverting back to "default settings", that is nationalism. sorry bud

Really, so in order to adjust that we'll just promote more nationalism! And also long live our master race!

Marxists maintain their consistency on that matter for a reason. Because if it's any other way another Man of Steel would start purging his country's people. Of course, you may find agreement with Stalinists, but that is just so ironic.

re: "socialism in one country doesn't work" you'll find that nothing works too well for too long when there's a psychotic mass murderer at the helm. get better leaders (like me for example) and you're golden.

I am sure that if another nazi leader is in charge we would get at least one or two genocides within five years.

re: "nationalism is a tool of the bourgeoisie" that must be why our bourgeoisie are working 24/7 to gape our borders wide open Goatse-style

Nope. The majority of the bourgeoisie are still tight on borders (cough cough Donald trump). The only ones want to open them up are libertarians and ancaps, and those people favor profits over basically anything.

[Vlerchan]

I apologize if my post was worded poorly, but I did not imply left-nationalism would cause the failure of single-state socialism. Socialism in one state by itself is already flawed, and nationalism is always present with it. In the long run, there is no point of maintaining nationalism for the masses.
You're unnecessarily bundling nationalism and socialism in one country together. Like I stated in the last post it's possible to feature the former without featuring the latter.

---

The point of maintaining a national consciousness in the long run is that it offers a life worth more than pleasure maximisation that is the end-goal of post-modern individualism. There's nothing to be gained in reducing the globe to this universal sameness of thought and action - thought and action based around pleasure maximisation: and pleasure being defined with reference to sameness - other than perhaps the satisfaction that other people might maintain the line a bit better.

Again, I did not say that. Whether or not Ho Chi Minh viewed nationalism as a tool did not matter.
Let's quote what was said.

People like Ho Chi Minh chose to be nationalists because nationalism can easily unite the masses, especially the proletariat.
I'll make the phrasing a little less presumption. Ho Chi Minh didn't state the reason he chose to be a nationalist in writings Im aware of.

What matters is the outcome of his usage of nationalism and what role did it play in the revolution.
This isn't want I was taking issue with just to note.

Nationalism is not easily controlled, and it could get easily out of hand.
It can get out of hand. But nationalist sentiment has been simple to manipulate if we look back to historical case studies.

Nationalism plays a major role between the hostility between socialist nations during the 20th century.
No. Factionalism did. Both the USSR and PRC decided that there thought was the intellectual successor to Marxist-Leninism. Of course the populous was nationalist but the populous wasn't active in the political sphere.

Nationalism may temporarily somehow promote class struggle, but at the same time it is a hindrance to class consciousness and the union of workers.
You realise that internationalism presupposes some extent of nationalism and an existing national consciousness right? Because it does. The point is that nations can work together but should also be capable of interpreting and valuing their distinctions and independence.

It's possible for the bourgeoisie to manipulate the national consciousness of a nation but if there's been the development of an actual class consciousness then that shouldn't be a problem.

[Hindsight]

You're unnecessarily bundling nationalism and socialism in one country together. Like I stated in the last post it's possible to feature the former without featuring the latter.

Theoretically, yes. However, looking at the late USSR, it is evident that what was holding the country together was nationalism. The late USSR was not a bit socialistic. Lying on the nationalist crutch, romanticizing over the "Soviet heritage" did not work well. Socialism in one state would not last, as it is extremely prone to the exploitation by other stronger capitalist states. There is no point of defending nationalism as being capable of keeping a degenerated worker's state together when the worker's state was in fact degenerated.

The point of maintaining a national consciousness in the long run is that it offers a life worth more than pleasure maximisation that is the end-goal of post-modern individualism. There's nothing to be gained in reducing the globe to this universal sameness of thought and action - thought and action based around pleasure maximisation: and pleasure being defined with reference to sameness - other than perhaps the satisfaction that other people might maintain the line a bit better.

I do not think that an universal "sameness" would arrive in a stateless society. The main cause of varying cultures, geographical differences, would nevertheless exist. Is the world getting "samer"? Yes. It is inevitable, with improved technology of communication. The key is that one should not value differences between groups of people over human progress.


I'll make the phrasing a little less presumption. Ho Chi Minh didn't state the reason he chose to be a nationalist in writings Im aware of.

I am not referring to Ho Chi Minh specifically. I was stating a mere observation of what role nationalism plays in a revolution. Using nationalism to kickstart a revolution is disastrous. Because you cannot "get rid" of the nationalist beliefs you just imposed upon the people when you are suddenly facing proletarians of different nationalities discriminating each other. Marxism is inherently incompatible with nationalism.


It can get out of hand. But nationalist sentiment has been simple to manipulate if we look back to historical case studies.

Nationalism is simple to implement, and definitely easy to emphasize. But nationalism has two sides like a coin. If you feel good about your heritage, it is ultimately a way of viewing other nations as inferior or unlikable.


No. Factionalism did. Both the USSR and PRC decided that there thought was the intellectual successor to Marxist-Leninism. Of course the populous was nationalist but the populous wasn't active in the political sphere.

Factionalism certainly did play a major role, with the rampant labeling of "revisionists". But you simply cannot deny that nationalism is playing a role. Being as someone who lived ten years in the PRC, I know for a fact that I was a nationalist a few years ago. I've changed. Vietnam and China, both supportive of Maoism to a large degree. They fought. North Korea and China, both emphasized on a peasant revolution and even fought together against South Korea and the US. Shortly after the Korean War Kim Il Sung urged all Chinese troops to leave as soon as possible, fearing a Chinese occupation. Kim Jong Un, currently placing missiles near the Chinese-Korean border. There is really nothing at this point but nationalism. I would even say in fact nationalism had a grave impact on factionalism. After all, China was for a long time a peasant-dominated state.


You realise that internationalism presupposes some extent of nationalism and an existing national consciousness right? Because it does. The point is that nations can work together but should also be capable of interpreting and valuing their distinctions and independence.

Internationalism is similar to nationalism in the way of possessing a consciousness for a group of people, but that is it. Internationalism is a progressive method of decentralizing the influences of nationalism. It is good. However internationalism is only a temporary compromise to fix the issues nationalism entails, via opposing blatant nationalism, chauvinism, jingoism, and what have you. If there is no state, internationalism's "national" would be dropped, thus becoming more like "interism". I personally find comparing the shared elements of nationalism and internationalism as pointless as comparing the similarities of Karl Marx's and Adolf Hitler's facial hair. However, I guess ultimately it is another case of whether you value differences or human progress more.

It's possible for the bourgeoisie to manipulate the national consciousness of a nation but if there's been the development of an actual class consciousness then that shouldn't be a problem.

...That is because people with true class consciousness are insusceptible to the deceiving qualities of nationalism. If you see people in a society embodying both nationalism and class consciousness, one of the two has to be falsely embodied.

Edit: There is a difference between a global socialist society and numerous socialist states around the globe. The latter happening is inevitable, as nationalism is difficult to dispose for many people. But if we remain in that stage for too long or even start advocating for it, conflicts undoing the revolution would surely occur, due to the fact that the concept of dividing nations is inherently reactionary.

[Vlerchan]

Theoretically, yes.
It's the theoretical model that hasn't been tried that I'm in favour of.

However, looking at the late USSR, it is evident that what was holding the country together was nationalism. The late USSR was not a bit socialistic. Lying on the nationalist crutch, romanticizing over the "Soviet heritage" did not work well. Socialism in one state would not last, as it is extremely prone to the exploitation by other stronger capitalist states. There is no point of defending nationalism as being capable of keeping a degenerated worker's state together when the worker's state was in fact degenerated.
I don't want to look at the USSR since its not a model of what I'm proposing.

I do not think that an universal "sameness" would arrive in a stateless society. The main cause of varying cultures, geographical differences, would nevertheless exist. Is the world getting "samer"? Yes. It is inevitable, with improved technology of communication.
I'm making the point towards the flattening out of national high culture into mass culture. It's that culture is the product of the sacralisation of thought an action within a sphere of relations and the removal of national consciousness leads to the de-sacralisation of thought and action within our national sphere of relations.

De-sacralisation precedes the broadening of the sphere of relations. Those defined within a sphere of relations need to accept the thought or action as being mundane - de-sacralising it - before the other can adopt it in a meaningful fashion.

I am not referring to Ho Chi Minh specifically. I was stating a mere observation of what role nationalism plays in a revolution. Using nationalism to kickstart a revolution is disastrous. Because you cannot "get rid" of the nationalist beliefs you just imposed upon the people when you are suddenly facing proletarians of different nationalities discriminating each other.
I never stated I wanted to kick start a revolution with reference to nationalism. I just want the proletariat to have a separate national consciousness.

Like JC explains in the piece I quoted this need not verge on chauvinism: "friends but not bedfellows".

Vietnam and China, both supportive of Maoism to a large degree. They fought.
The Viet Minh took the USSR's side in the Sino-Soviet split. Ho Chi Minh's thought was also a lot closer to traditional Marxist-Leninism than Maoism despite the numbers of peasants involved in Vietnam if I remember correct.

It's more arguable that the invasion of Cambodia was based around nationalism.

There is really nothing at this point but nationalism.
I agree with this. But then NK thought isn't Marxist. It self-described as both Idealist and Militarist.

Internationalism is similar to nationalism in the way of possessing a consciousness for a group of people, but that is it. Internationalism is a progressive method of decentralizing the influences of nationalism. It is good. However internationalism is only a temporary compromise to fix the issues nationalism entails, via opposing blatant nationalism, chauvinism, jingoism, and what have you. If there is no state, internationalism's "national" would be dropped, thus becoming more like "interism".
Internationalism entails nationalism. It is an extension of nationalism. It is of course different to the various other extensions of nationalism. Bit discussing these misses the point. In imagining international socialism Marxists imagined a space for nationalism to exist the entire time. It's subdued beneath trimmings of cross-national proletarian co-operation but it exists.

The latter point also makes little sense: nationalist consciousness and the movements it produces don't require a state to exist. Look at Basque or Kurdish nationalism. Though even if we alter definitions as long as the same sense of consciousness exists then I don't care much.
However, I guess ultimately it is another case of whether you value differences or human progress more.
I find 'progress' to be too vague a term to prize.

...That is because people with true class consciousness are insusceptible to the deceiving qualities of nationalism. If you see people in a society embodying both nationalism and class consciousness, one of the two has to be falsely embodied.
I of course don't believe this.

[tovaris]

Do we really need more countries anywhere? It just depends on if you're thinking towards a united power or more seperation and independence. Current development across the world seems to lead to more united powers rather than seperate so I don't think new countries will appear in North America any time soon.

USA's states are basicly countries anyway, different cultures, dialects, religions, ethnic groups, population density, own government; it's actualy strange the way there's still so much attention for the national government when the state you live in is probably larger than the average european country and you don't see us electing a president with mass hysteria for the entire european union


We have jean claude von juncker... but the european commision is an extrely undemocratic governing body

[ndrwmxwll]

Hindsight and other comrades here,
for marxists, the US as empire, with many peoples choking in its webs, with no other existence beyond a jailhouse of nations, the idea of using settler-imposed borders of north america as a basis for some kind of Socialist Republic is just national chauvinism (and ultimately social-imperialism)

are you comrades familiar with e.g. the chicano movement of aztlan?
http://i.imgur.com/Z3wXRbu.jpg

that being said, the question of what the imperialist continent of NA will actually "look like" is something that is much more likely to be tempered by how the wars themselves develop, what areas the fascists make a grab for (someone mentioned my bioregion of Cascadia, which is a crackertopian pipe dream as well) etc etc

[Porpoise101]

Hindsight and other comrades here,
for marxists, the US as empire, with many peoples choking in its webs, with no other existence beyond a jailhouse of nations, the idea of using settler-imposed borders of north america as a basis for some kind of Socialist Republic is just national chauvinism (and ultimately social-imperialism)

are you comrades familiar with e.g. the chicano movement of aztlan?
image (http://i.imgur.com/Z3wXRbu.jpg)

that being said, the question of what the imperialist continent of NA will actually "look like" is something that is much more likely to be tempered by how the wars themselves develop, what areas the fascists make a grab for (someone mentioned my bioregion of Cascadia, which is a crackertopian pipe dream as well) etc etc
As I've been saying it's unlikely in the contiguous US because any indigenous culture there was is now inundated with Hollywood and Donald Trump.

Northern Canada, Alaska, and Hawaii are more likely because they are more remote and have more visibly distinct cultures in some regions. Hawaii is actually going through a cultural rebirth right now.

Mexico is far more likely to have secessionists because it is very unstable and native cultural identities still exist.

[Karkat]

Utah needs to either be its own country or the Mormons need to fuck off and stop trying to make it Mormonville USA

Like please, either run the state like you're supposed to, or vote for independence so you can be a creepy cult

But seriously, the level of religious tampering in the government here is too real

[thegreatgatz]

Nah as a Marxist I feel that state independence is pointless and can probably bring more troubles.

But I am against imperialism and oppression of ethnical minorities. So if it is absolutely necessary, yes.

One Marxist to another, I must remind you that a dictatorship of the proletariat isn't going to happen in the major capitalist powers. The best bet to advance the world to a classless society would be breaking up the major powers.

[Porpoise101]

Utah needs to either be its own country or the Mormons need to fuck off and stop trying to make it Mormonville USA

Like please, either run the state like you're supposed to, or vote for independence so you can be a creepy cult

But seriously, the level of religious tampering in the government here is too real
Mormonism is entrenched in Utah as it was a Mormon colony from the beginning. The Mormon Church even supplied infrastructure and welfare to citizens until the feds finally intervened. If there was a right wing theocracy ever to form now, these guys would do it. The good news is that the LDS church is becoming more sectarian and there are more dissenters within the religion. That means the church's influence will probably wane.

[Hindsight]

One Marxist to another, I must remind you that a dictatorship of the proletariat isn't going to happen in the major capitalist powers. The best bet to advance the world to a classless society would be breaking up the major powers.

I agree on that. That is a strategic choice, that is why I am supportive of many states' independence. But I honestly do not agree a bit with their nationalist sentiments.

[Sir Suomi]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/files/2013/11/upinarms-map.jpg

Here's an interesting look at how America would possibly be split.

Also, if any of you have read Divided We Fall by Trent Reedy, I could see something along those lines happening in the near future America. Definitely worth the read. I'm currently just starting it's sequel Burning Nation.

[ndrwmxwll]

image (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/files/2013/11/upinarms-map.jpg)

Here's an interesting look at how America would possibly be split.

i like how PEI is in "new france" but nova scotia is mysteriously in "yankeedom".
dont think this particular liberal hack did too much investigation his own shit, though surely a great deal of semen was discharged in the making of the map

[phuckphace]

Really, so in order to adjust that we'll just promote more nationalism! And also long live our master race!

bleep bloop well guess who ELSE was a nationalist? ADOLF HITLER

Marxists maintain their consistency on that matter for a reason. Because if it's any other way another Man of Steel would start purging his country's people. Of course, you may find agreement with Stalinists, but that is just so ironic.

I'm more referring to the Marxian fantasy that people are ultimately united more by class than by culture, ethnicity and shared experience. part of the prerequisite for establishing this stateless communism is the fanciful idea that people will just drop those ties like bad habits and embrace some deracinated ~workers of the world~ nonsense. some people like the idea of belonging to a community of people like themselves, sorry if that triggers you.

Nope. The majority of the bourgeoisie are still tight on borders (cough cough Donald trump). The only ones want to open them up are libertarians and ancaps, and those people favor profits over basically anything.

Donald Trump is "tight on borders" because he figures it will help him get elected. I'll believe it when I see it.

in real life the majority of the bourgeoisie are neoliberals, who are neither libertarians nor ancaps (the latter two are fringe weirdos and have no influence) but also love open borders.

[jessie3]

Well this wouldn't be considered i think independence but the Constitution of Texas allows the state as a whole to be split up into 5 different individual states.

[Hindsight]

bleep bloop well guess who ELSE was a nationalist? ADOLF HITLER

If you want to avoid being compared with a Nazi maybe you should stop labeling yourself as one.

I'm more referring to the Marxian fantasy that people are ultimately united more by class than by culture, ethnicity and shared experience. part of the prerequisite for establishing this stateless communism is the fanciful idea that people will just drop those ties like bad habits and embrace some deracinated ~workers of the world~ nonsense. some people like the idea of belonging to a community of people like themselves, sorry if that triggers you.

You regard it as a "fantasy" because you chose to be a staunch national socialist. Obviously you are going to find ways to oppose the unity by class, since you value your nationality so so so so so much and would despise living with those "others". It is hard to discuss about Marxism with people believing in metaphysical ideologies, so I don't have to say much. Simply saying "dat is impossible becuz it never worked and as a result will probably never" is not a legitimate argument dialectically.

Donald Trump is "tight on borders" because he figures it will help him get elected. I'll believe it when I see it.

If you actually pay attention, bourgeoisie over the world are discussing about building walls around borders, like in Spain, France, UK....I have no doubt that Trump's slurs are aimed to gain votes, but I have no reason to not believe that he truly wants walled borders. He is a racist, conservative, reactionary bigot and I see no reason for him wanting to tear borders open.


in real life the majority of the bourgeoisie are neoliberals, who are neither libertarians nor ancaps (the latter two are fringe weirdos and have no influence) but also love open borders.

I do not agree that the majority are neoliberals, but it doesn't matter. I pointed out Ancaps and libertarians because they seem the only capitalists that want free borders. But however, I forgot that you were a Nazi and to you a "normal" border is like the Korean DMZ. It is all about perspective and you obviously will think modern bourgeoisie are trying to open borders.

[Professional Russian]

So here's where I piss everyone off. If we're splitting the U.S. up into separate country's well quite frankly THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN. THE CONFEDERACY WILL FINALLY BE A COUNTRY. THANK YOU JESUS. That is all. Let's see how many times I get called a racist

[Stronk Serb]

So here's where I piss everyone off. If we're splitting the U.S. up into separate country's well quite frankly THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN. THE CONFEDERACY WILL FINALLY BE A COUNTRY. THANK YOU JESUS. That is all. Let's see how many times I get called a racist

Well, the Confederate States of America were a slaver country, not institutionally racist, as far as I know. Also I doubt they would enact slavery again.

[thegreatgatz]

i like how PEI is in "new france" but nova scotia is mysteriously in "yankeedom".
dont think this particular liberal hack did too much investigation his own shit, though surely a great deal of semen was discharged in the making of the map

bleep bloop well guess who ELSE was a nationalist? ADOLF HITLER



I'm more referring to the Marxian fantasy that people are ultimately united more by class than by culture, ethnicity and shared experience. part of the prerequisite for establishing this stateless communism is the fanciful idea that people will just drop those ties like bad habits and embrace some deracinated ~workers of the world~ nonsense. some people like the idea of belonging to a community of people like themselves, sorry if that triggers you.



Donald Trump is "tight on borders" because he figures it will help him get elected. I'll believe it when I see it.

in real life the majority of the bourgeoisie are neoliberals, who are neither libertarians nor ancaps (the latter two are fringe weirdos and have no influence) but also love open borders.

The bourgeosie loooveee open borders. Especially because it oppresses the workers by importing cheap scab labor.

[Vlerchan]

The bourgeosie loooveee open borders. Especially because it oppresses the workers by importing cheap scab labor.
Except immigration has no significant impact on wage levels or unemployment.

It is hard to discuss about Marxism with people believing in metaphysical ideologies, so I don't have to say much.
The LTV is metaphysical and forms the base of a large part of orthodox Marxist political-economy.

[Hindsight]

The LTV is metaphysical and forms the base of a large part of orthodox Marxist political-economy.

What are you trying to prove here exactly? Picking LTV out individually pointing out it having some metaphysical features is really pointless. I am referring to Marxism in its entirety, which is far from being metaphysical.

[Hindsight]

The bourgeosie loooveee open borders. Especially because it oppresses the workers by importing cheap scab labor.

I agree with Vlerchan said. Also less strict borders doesn't inherently mean less nationalism.

[Vlerchan]

What are you trying to prove here exactly? Picking LTV out individually pointing out it having some metaphysical features is really pointless.
I think it's a bit unfair to criticise elements of nationalist political-economy as being non-materialist when it's the same with that of Marxists.

It also doesn't have some metaphysical features. It is metaphysical.

I am referring to Marxism in its entirety, which is far from being metaphysical.
It's essential components are based around a non-materialist concept. I'll work backwards.

Marxists believe that the proletariat will eliminate the bourgeoisie and create global communism.
This is inevitable because of inherent class conflict. The interests of the proletariat and bourgeoisie are "diametrically opposed".
This is because the bourgeoisie wealth is gathered from stealing the surplus value of the proletariat's labour - Exploiting her.
Surplus value holds an inherent link to the LTV.
It involves that the proletariat first believe in the non-materialist concept of the LTV before Marx's predictions can be realized .

It's also ironic because the [i]vulgar economist - like me! - use a means of determine economic value with referneec to material processes.

[Porpoise101]

Maybe a Marxist revolution could occur in central America and southern Mexico but other than that it seems improbable to say the least in Canada, the US, and northern Mexico.

[WaffleSingSong]

https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1399/01/1399015385738.png

VIVA LA MAMMOTH! VIVA LA COUNTRY MUSIC! VIVA LA CORVETTES!

[ndrwmxwll]

Porpoise101 et al

for as long as reaction and Fash can pass borders to counter, revolution will not and can not occur in a single north american country alone -- all interdependent

[Hindsight]

I think it's a bit unfair to criticise elements of nationalist political-economy as being non-materialist when it's the same with that of Marxists.

It also doesn't have some metaphysical features. It is metaphysical.


It's essential components are based around a non-materialist concept. I'll work backwards.

Marxists believe that the proletariat will eliminate the bourgeoisie and create global communism.
This is inevitable because of inherent class conflict. The interests of the proletariat and bourgeoisie are "diametrically opposed".
This is because the bourgeoisie wealth is gathered from stealing the surplus value of the proletariat's labour - Exploiting her.
Surplus value holds an inherent link to the LTV.
It involves that the proletariat first believe in the non-materialist concept of the LTV before Marx's predictions can be realized .

It's also ironic because the [i]vulgar economist - like me! - use a means of determine economic value with referneec to material processes.

I think you misunderstood the Marxist view of LTV. LTV is a way of interpreting an effect during in a society operating under capitalism. So there is no point of referring LTV as metaphysical if capitalism is going to be abolished anyway.

But you seem to have also mixed up on the concepts of materialism and metaphysics. There are metaphysical idealists and dialectic idealists. There are also metaphysical materialists and dialectic materialists. Marx himself stated that his philosophy was dialectic materialist, contrary the Hegelian ideas that inspired him (which was dialectic idealist). The four terms are all different. Your claim that LTV is non-materialist is untrue. LTV alone is materialist, and when incorporated with Marxist philosophy it is no doubt dialectic.

Nationalism, on the other hand, is idealist and to some extent metaphysical. Nationalism is a feeling of loyalty and pride to a group of people sharing racial, ethnical, or national similarities. Marxists would only support nationalism if the material conditions call for it, otherwise nationalism would remain a regressive ideal.

[Vlerchan]

Hindsight

On the first point the LTV is a means of calculating the value of economic production and can be relevant regardless of whether production exists under socialism or capitalism.

On the second point I'm quite sure I understand the nuances of the various philosophies. I'll add that I was more using metaphysics in the manner I interpreted it as used in the response to phuckphace's post - disparaging: referring to abstracts constructed distinct from material circumstances. But that seems neither here nor there.

I'll just state what I'm looking for: a definition of 'materialist' and an explanation of the manner in which the LTV fits into this framework. I think the definition of materialist is the more important since I think it's on that note which the fundamental disagreement lies.

To me
Materialism refers to matter itself being primary in realities construction.
Idealism refers to ideas themselves being primary in realties construction.
The LTV is an idea as opposed to a necessary material fact.

[Hindsight]

Vlerchan

In short, LTV is a theory that states the action labor generates wealth. It is materialistic because it is a way of interpreting how labor changes material value. An idea about material conditions is not necessarily idealistic. And again, I was telling phuckface that the mindset that humans will always somehow maintain strong nationalist feelings is metaphysical. I did not say it was idealistic (albeit it is) or materialistic.

Anyways, I first apologize if I have diverted the topic of independence in North America into philosophy. I support many calls for independence, like Scotland and Kurdistan. As thegreatgatz pointed out, supporting the independence of states in North America is a great strategic choice of breaking up centralized powers and I was stupid for not realizing that in my first post. I am just irritated by all the US states demanding "state rights", some swinging Confederate flags and wanting independence because of "muh state nationalism".