15 States file a petition to secede from USA

[hetz]

15 States including Texas have filed a petition to secede from the United States





As of Saturday November 10, 2012, 15 States have petitioned the Obama Administration for withdrawal from the United States of America in order to create its own government.


States following this action include: Louisiana Texas, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, Colorado, Oregon and New York. These States have requested that the Obama Administration grant a peaceful withdrawal from the United States.


These citizen generated petitions were filed just days after the 2012 presidential elections.


http://www.examiner.com/article/15-states-including-texas-have-filed-a-petition-to-secede-from-the-united-states-1

[TheGodlessUtopian]

One of my "revolutionary" friends was promoting one of these on Facebook; needless to say I ignored it.

[Hermes]

That... would be a very disorganized map.

[l'Enfermé]

The south will arise again!

[GPDP]

It's just a bunch of butthurt Republican morons filing petitions. It's nothing official or that has any chance of success.

[Art Vandelay]

What, if anything, happens when there denied?

[zimmerwald1915]

Misleading title. Should read "individuals in 15 states start circulating petitions for their state to secede from the United States". Also, it's a stunt that will go nowhere, but I think everyone knows this.

[GPDP]

What, if anything, happens when there denied?

Fuck all will happen. It's just a stunt.

[spice756]

Wow it goes shows how conservative they are and how has not really change.

And they want to pull out of the US and have their own country.Looks alot like history repeating self civil war??

[thriller]

Yeah, pretty sure some states tried this a couple years back and there was some conflict stemming from it? I bet they could get 25,000 angry Obama haters from each state to sign it by the deadline. But so what? Nothing will happen. In the article there is this claim: "...the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world" which makes no sense since withdrawal would require a new form of currency that would surely plummet the Texas economy and make it far from 15th largest.

[zimmerwald1915]

That... would be a very disorganized map.

Since you mention it, and since this is fantasy let's indulge ourselves and take a look at what the map would look like if this a) actually meant something and b) was by some miracle allowed to happen.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2m7i845.png

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What, if anything, happens when there denied?

Nothing, literally nothing (unless you cont conservatives whining as "something").lol

I always find it amusing that when petitions like these come around with such huge "goals" they never have an appropriately large amount of "needed signatures." In a country with over 330 million people they only have 25k? Yeah, I am sure the ruling class is gonna say,"Well, you have twenty-five thousand signatures so we are gonna allow these states to break away from us; fair is fair, after all." Makes me amused.

[Ostrinski]

But the disgruntled conservatives have the right to national self determination! *shit eating grin*

[RedAnarchist]

Since you mention it, and since this is fantasy let's indulge ourselves and take a look at what the map would look like if this a) actually meant something and b) was by some miracle allowed to happen.


Member of AH.com by any chance?

Yeah, this has zero chance of happening, it's just the Republicans continuing their meltdown after everyone apart from (some) white men voted against them.

[RedAnarchist]

Yeah, pretty sure some states tried this a couple years back and there was some conflict stemming from it? I bet they could get 25,000 angry Obama haters from each state to sign it by the deadline. But so what? Nothing will happen. In the article there is this claim: "...the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world" which makes no sense since withdrawal would require a new form of currency that would surely plummet the Texas economy and make it far from 15th largest.

They could peg a hypothetical Texan dollar to the US dollar, but they probably wouldn't do that.

[thriller]

They could peg a hypothetical Texan dollar to the US dollar, but they probably wouldn't do that.

Haha "We don't need your socialist leaders or government! But please let us use your currency to help us float ours."

[Geiseric]

This is such a joke. Conservatives are morons, I can't believe the left hasn't overcame a ruling class with fractions so obviously stupid. My prediction: jeb bush becomes president of the independent former US states.

[zimmerwald1915]

Member of AH.com by any chance?
Aye, though I mostly lurk there these days.

[Soomie]

If only. The collective IQ of the nation would jump!

On a serious note, I see this going nowhere. The state governments aren't going to honor it, and the federal government most certainly isn't going to honor it. The only way they could even have a chance of seceding is by violence, and then we'll just have another civil war on our hands. It's a free country. If they don't like it, they can self deport. Oh, wait. There's no where for them to go that doesn't have "socialized medicine," gun control, and equal rights for all.

[Prometeo liberado]

I wish that I hadn't deleted all the emails that I got from this one particular guy. He wrote a book about how Cali was an economic powerhouse and I guess it went on to to advocate secession and all that "get the feds out" non-sense. He would not stop bugging me for a chance to speak at a local meeting we have to promote his book. I finally had to call him and tell him that secession is not what we are about. He sounded like those Tea Party people who went to Occupy events thinking that the protesters and them were all thinking the same narrow mindless bullshit.

Also I couldn't bare to watch him walk in to a "meeting" of three people and try and pub his "book".:crying:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

This is such a joke. Conservatives are morons, I can't believe the left hasn't overcame a ruling class with fractions so obviously stupid.

...because revolutions don't happen because of the mere existence of reactionary ideas (same with class consciousness).

[Q]

Since you mention it, and since this is fantasy let's indulge ourselves and take a look at what the map would look like if this a) actually meant something and b) was by some miracle allowed to happen.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2m7i845.png

Interesting. How would they be called? The Disunited States of America?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Man, look at South Carolina. Deep in hostile territory, only a matter of time before they get consumed.

[Soomie]

I was looking at some of the comments on that article and found this lovely specimen:

"This isn't about red or blue, this is about freedom. Whom ever you voted for (Obama or Romney) you voted for Goldman Sachs. I encourage you to read the Communist Manifesto, a book outlining what a Communist country is. Out of the ten points listed in this book, America hits all ten.. I also encourage you to read 1984, you'd be surprised how realistic this book is now in our day. This isn't a "give me" country. Get off of your ass, get a job, and stop using hard earned tax payers money as a means of life. Also, read more into what the NDAA, patriot act, TSA, drones, Cispa, etc. are. I have a disability and refused to take disability. I will continue to work until my body totally shuts down. Wait for fiscal bottom to fall out and pray to everything sacred and holy you don't end up detained courtesy of the NDAA in which Obama expanded."

I then tried to nicely explain to her that she may have misinterpreted the Manifesto and that she might want to reread it. She swears up and down that the following are all in place in America:

"How many do you think have been adopted American politicians? How successful have those 10 points been?

"1. Abolition of property and land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
3. Abolition of all right to inheritance
4. Confiscation of all property of all emigrants and rebels
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6.Centraliztion of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing of cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of label. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country,
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination with education and industrial production."

Slowly, I'm losing hope for humanity. :blink:

[rednordman]

Well of course its a daft proposal. But would it also spell the end of the USA as a world superpower aswell? Are these proposed states being a slight bit arrogant here? As if they believe that the huge majority of the countries income comes from their region? wouldnt breaking away from the USA also make them weaker with less federal capital going their way too. wtf?

[LiberationTheologist]

I see a bunch of people in this thread advocating for the status quo of the dictatorship of the Republican/Democrat corporate war party. Whose interests does that party serve?

Keep waiting for that socialist revolution to appear when you are unable to even get out of the way of people who will rock the boat. Reactionaries protecting the status quo.

The correct position is to support breaking up this corporate war party capital behemoth.

[LiberationTheologist]

Well of course its a daft proposal. But would it also spell the end of the USA as a world superpower aswell? Are these proposed states being a slight bit arrogant here? As if they believe that the huge majority of the countries income comes from their region? wouldnt breaking away from the USA also make them weaker with less federal capital going their way too. wtf?


In who's class and moral interest is it for the USA to remain as one country?

Speaking factually there are approximately 18 states who are "donor states" to the federal government meaning on the balance they give more in taxes than they receive back in services.

Regardless of the above fact breaking up the USA would be a defacto move to reject US debt and US imperialism. This is a fact and it is in all of our interests to reject the 16 trillion dollar US debt and the moral harm of the war machine.

Please sign the petitions, I signed one.

[Hermes]

In who's class and moral interest is it for the USA to remain as one country?

Speaking factually there are approximately 18 states who are "donor states" to the federal government meaning on the balance they give more in taxes than they receive back in services.

Regardless of the above fact breaking up the USA would be a defacto move to reject US debt and US imperialism. This is a fact and it is in all of our interests to reject the 16 trillion dollar US debt and the moral harm of the war machine.

Please sign the petitions, I signed one.

How would it be in the interests of the proletariat, again, if we split one capitalist country into two other capitalist countries? I'm not sure I'm following your logic.

I doubt that doing so would even have a chance of ending U.S. interventions, and would risk a war between the two, with armies composed of the working class.

--

It's late, so maybe I'm missing the point you're making here. It doesn't really make any sense to me right now, though.

[LiberationTheologist]

How would it be in the interests of the proletariat, again, if we split one capitalist country into two other capitalist countries? I'm not sure I'm following your logic.

I doubt that doing so would even have a chance of ending U.S. interventions, and would risk a war between the two, with armies composed of the working class.

--

It's late, so maybe I'm missing the point you're making here. It doesn't really make any sense to me right now, though.

It is not just in the interest of the working class (a problematic definition for class war), it is in the interest of the rich and poor. The millions of people murdered for lies and which cost trillions of dollars, that burden is on the poor, the middles class - 40,000 - 62,000 annually, and the rich > 62,000 dollars.

Over 60% of the US federal debt of 16 trillion dollars is due to war spending. I can back these numbers up.

[Hermes]

It is not just in the interest of the working class, it is in the interest of the rich and poor. The millions of people murdered for lies and which cost trillions of dollars, that burden is on the working class by which I mean the poor, the middles class - 40,000 and great and the rich > 65,000 dollars.

Over 60% of the US federal debt of 16 trillion dollars is due to war spending. I can back these numbers up.

Okay, but how would splitting up the country stop either from waging wars? Or remove any of the debt?

--

I mean, it's not like the USA is somehow struggling to fight an unnecessary war. I don't think its capability would fall much should the state split up.

[#FF0000]

It is not just in the interest of the working class, it is in the interest of the rich and poor. The millions of people murdered for lies and which cost trillions of dollars, that burden is on the working class by which I mean the poor, the middles class - 40,000 and great and the rich > 65,000 dollars.

The difference between middle class and "rich" is 20k?


Over 60% of the US federal debt of 16 trillion dollars is due to war spending. I can back these numbers up.

I would be really interested in seeing that.

[LiberationTheologist]

The difference between middle class and "rich" is 20k?



I would be really interested in seeing that.

That's right, the last number I heard is that the median family income in the US is 52,000 dollars. My definition of middle class is those making +/- 25% of the median family income. I have seen other definitions that say +/- 50% of that but I disagree with that definition.

Even the main stream media has reported that 2.5 trillion was stolen from the social security trust fund. Even medicare is owed about 500 billion or thereabouts. Social Security only recently started paying out a few billion more than it collected, same with medicare.

If you do a budget analysis of US budgets over the years taking into account the surpluses and theft of Social Security and government pensions you start to get a real picture of where all the money goes, and the war machine is the greatest behemoth financially speaking.

US government website - http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

[LiberationTheologist]

Okay, but how would splitting up the country stop either from waging wars? Or remove any of the debt?

Did the USSR (Russia) continue to dominate other states and support guerrilla movements as much as it did after its breakup? The debt will become even more unbearable for the rich, poor and middle class and will bring about more class and social conflict when the state starts loosing resources in the form of taxpayers and land.

When your state is split up, that territory that leaves is rejecting the national debt. If you need another example just check history or look at Scotland or Catalonia of present day.



I mean, it's not like the USA is somehow struggling to fight an unnecessary war. I don't think its capability would fall much should the state split up.Well it is struggling, but it is holding all the workers together in one mass to keep paying the war debt. Splitting up a state takes resource away from it and will do a combination of the following - 1.demoralize it 2. enrage it and make it take desperate despotic measures 3. resign it to real reform

[Sea]

In who's class and moral interest is it for the USA to remain as one country?Why, the bourgeoisie of course! Imperialist war really sets the ball rolling when it comes to getting fat off of surplus value, even if it's between two formerly united groups.

Did the USSR (Russia) continue to dominate other states and support guerrilla movements as much as it did after its breakup?
Yes. But considering that you completely ignore class analysis I presume that's not the answer you want so no, no they didn't. The USSR did not continue to do these things after the USSR broke up.
The debt will become even more unbearable for the rich, poor and middle class and will bring about more class and social conflict when the state starts loosing resources in the form of taxpayers and land.

When your state is split up, that territory that leaves is rejecting the national debt. If you need another example just check history or look at Scotland or Catalonia of present day.

Well it is struggling, but it is holding all the workers together in one mass to keep paying the war debt. Splitting up a state takes resource away from it and will do a combination of the following - 1.demoralize it 2. enrage it and make it take desperate despotic measures 3. resign it to real reformMight wanna re-think some of your positions.

Hurting all three (really, three?) classes would be like slapping Larry, Curly and Moe across the face all at once. The bickering will be undirected and internal. As for demoralizing the ruling class, unless the left already had a massive working agitprop machine I don't see how this could happen without demoralizing (and worse, distracting) the working class.

Before you ask your loaded questions about which class will get whatever impact, you've got to keep in mind that a good chunk of being a communist involves having the working class as the one that should benefit above all else.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

WAAAAH, that black guy that Trump says is foreign and evil has won the election, I don't like the United States anymore WAAAAH!

Silly rabbits

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I heard the total was increased to 30 states now...

http://www.queerty.com/over-30-states-applied-secession-from-us-20121113/

[Marxaveli]

I was looking at some of the comments on that article and found this lovely specimen:

"This isn't about red or blue, this is about freedom. Whom ever you voted for (Obama or Romney) you voted for Goldman Sachs. I encourage you to read the Communist Manifesto, a book outlining what a Communist country is. Out of the ten points listed in this book, America hits all ten.. I also encourage you to read 1984, you'd be surprised how realistic this book is now in our day. This isn't a "give me" country. Get off of your ass, get a job, and stop using hard earned tax payers money as a means of life. Also, read more into what the NDAA, patriot act, TSA, drones, Cispa, etc. are. I have a disability and refused to take disability. I will continue to work until my body totally shuts down. Wait for fiscal bottom to fall out and pray to everything sacred and holy you don't end up detained courtesy of the NDAA in which Obama expanded."

I then tried to nicely explain to her that she may have misinterpreted the Manifesto and that she might want to reread it. She swears up and down that the following are all in place in America:

"How many do you think have been adopted American politicians? How successful have those 10 points been?

"1. Abolition of property and land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
3. Abolition of all right to inheritance
4. Confiscation of all property of all emigrants and rebels
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6.Centraliztion of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing of cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of label. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country,
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination with education and industrial production."

Slowly, I'm losing hope for humanity. :blink:

The moment she said "communist country" her entire argument lost credibility. "Communist country" is an oxymoron. If there are nation states, borders and classes, there is no communism. But then again, Americans are not very politically astute or understanding world history. They can tell you how many home runs Babe Ruth hit though, or who won every episode of American Idol. Capitalism and bourgeois ideology has really poisoned the average Americans mind.

Anyway, this will never happen, and even if it did, I don't think it would make a shit bit of difference for the capitalist system either way.

[Agathor]

This is such a joke. Conservatives are morons, I can't believe the left hasn't overcame a ruling class with fractions so obviously stupid. My prediction: jeb bush becomes president of the independent former US states.

Except this isn't the ruling class. The class that split up the US in 1860 was the agricultural slaveowning class - which is obviously extinct. These are the loons that the Republicans have been exploiting for the last fifty years. The GOP plays up to them but they have no real influence. This will go nowhere.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Glenn Beck on the "movement"


The White House website contains a section dedicated to letting the people’s voice be heard. Got an idea for a petition? Got enough signatures? The White House promises it will “be reviewed” and that they will “issue a response” to it. Should be interesting to see how the White House responds to the thirty plus states who have garnered enough signatures to secede from the United States.
“Can I ask you a quick question? Who thinks it’s a good idea to put your name on a petition secede from the United States of America and give it to President Obama?” Glenn said on radio this morning.
According to TheBlaze (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/27-states-petition-federal-government-to-secede-after-election/), over thirty states have petitions for secession submitted to White House with over one thousand signatures each. The Texas petition alone has over 40,000. According to WhiteHouse.gov, petitions with over 25,000 signatures are supposed to receive the attention of the President.
“So after the election, what did people start doing? In 27 states, people started to ask for a peaceful secession from the United States of America. Now how do you think that’s going to work out?” Glenn wondered. “You’re putting your name on a list that goes directly to the White House and you’re putting your name on a list and say ‘Yep, I believe we should secede. I believe there should be a civil war.’ That’s really smart.”
“It says peacefully in it, Glenn. Really, isn’t it just to make a statement,” Stu said.
“Yes, it is. Do you think these people don’t forget who made a statement to them? Are you out of your mind.”
Glenn went on to say that while he could understand that some groups may be fed up with big government, but that the issue of secession was settled during the Civil War.
“if you think you’re going to have secession without war, you’re crazy. You’re not going to. What you are going to have instead, I believe, more likely than secession is you’re going to have a significant disruption in the lifestyle of the United States of America.”

Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/11/13/more-than-30-states-have-a-serious-secession-movement/?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2012-11-13_178584&utm_content=5575047&utm_term=_178584_178593


Must say that it came as a small surprise; I thought that Mr.Beck would have supported such actions but I was proved wrong it seems. Even more surprising Beck knows that peaceful secession is impossible.

[zimmerwald1915]

I heard the total was increased to 30 states now...

http://www.queerty.com/over-30-states-applied-secession-from-us-20121113/
Which means the map of "which states are populated by at least one right-wing loon" now looks like this:

http://i49.tinypic.com/2ahxiqp.png

[Sea]

I'd only be truly happy if all 50 states seceded from the country.

[Ostrinski]

Do these people think the financial institutions, the banks, the large industrial enterprises, the military even - are going to follow them? Man this is a bad joke.

Man what if everyone who ever lost an election wanted to SECEDE FROM THE UNION. Holy shit man. I'd mistake them for Trots!

[Let's Get Free]

The article should be "An Insignificant Number of Fringe Dumbasses in 15 States File Meaningless Petitions". That would be more accurate.

[Ostrinski]

Re dMarx is a more relevant secession than this.

[Red Commissar]

I must say, I always expect the usual comments about leaving the country when an election goes unfavorably, but this is probably the first time I can remember this many uniting in their butthurtery to make a statement. I remember last time around there were also threats that some states would secede, notably Governor Perry here in Texas made statements about states' rights and Texas sovereignty about the US stimulus package, which some supporters took to start talking about secession.

[RedAnarchist]

Truly, they have earned the title of reactionaries, and their kneejerking is second to none.

[LiberationTheologist]

Why, the bourgeoisie of course! Imperialist war really sets the ball rolling when it comes to getting fat off of surplus value, even if it's between two formerly united groups.

Yes the rich are overall war profiteers, but I want to point out they are not alone and will come back to this point.


Yes. But considering that you completely ignore class analysis I presume that's not the answer you want so no, no they didn't. The USSR did not continue to do these things after the USSR broke up.Russia definitely lost a lot of its ability to dominate other states once their political unity was broken up. That is of course not a specific class analysis but as I have stated breaking up an imperialist nation is in the interest of everyone, I say that talking in terms of financial profit as well as moral interests.


Might wanna re-think some of your positions.I have seriously thought about this and I still support the breakup of the USA in a peaceful manner and I am well aware of the danger when countries breakup. I feel evolution of political systems and people must take place and believe that the breakup of the USA can be managed peacefully with very little to no blood shed. As a matter of a fact the breakup of the USSR is a great example of a mostly nonviolent political breakup of a large nation.

I welcome speculation on this issue from others given the specific reality of the USA as it now stands with its huge debt which is mostly due to war spending; and political division.


Hurting all three (really, three?) classes would be like slapping Larry, Curly and Moe across the face all at once. The bickering will be undirected and internal. As for demoralizing the ruling class, unless the left already had a massive working agitprop machine I don't see how this could happen without demoralizing (and worse, distracting) the working class.Let me copy down some notes I have I'm not sure where they came from I believe they may have come from the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" There are 4 conditions under which governments fall/ revolution occurs -

1.conquered from without
2.governs so innefficiently the masses are stirred to revolt
3.allows strong discontented middle group to come into being
4.loses self confidence and willingness to govern

- Determining factor- the ruling class
- no standards of comparison - no revolution
- order of events - important[/quote]

The bickering may very well be general but jumping off a sinking ship will at least be a possibility for both the toiling class and the ruling class. The USA debt will make numbers 2, 3 and 4 possible as things continue to deteriorate and the Democrat party in ever new brash ways attacks their base.




You make a good point that the analysis is both flimsy and flawed in its simplicity and does not state who profits the split up of a large country. I do maintain that in the long run whether you are rich, middle class or poor it is in your interest to want to see the war machine and all the debt and misery it brings to be split up. That is regardless of whether you will be in the country splitting up or the remaining imperialist behemoth.

War profiteers come from all classes even if the inordinate amount comes from the rich. Some profiteers come from the middle and lower class and profit in the form of wages and contracting for the war machine. If anyone has historical analysis to further identify who profits from wars on a class basis that would be appreciated.


Before you ask your loaded questions about which class will get whatever impact, you've got to keep in mind that a good chunk of being a communist involves having the working class as the one that should benefit above all else.Problems with using the term "the working class" is that it is

1. not specific as to who is gaining from economic (and social) policies

2 only addresses those policies in terms of financial and not moral and ethical interests

If communism cannot offer both better a better economic and ethical/moral outcome then it will continue to viewed as unworthy by the masses and cannot be defended consistently and fiercely by communism.

The contradiction of upholding as you say "above all else" the interests of only one class while extolling the virtues of equality is an insurmountable contradiction for communists. We, meaning human society and communists must more sophisticated than to refuse to advocate for just the middle class especially when the interests of the upper and lower classes are so aligned with the "working class" by which I suppose you mean the middle class.

[Krano]

40 states now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/secede-from-the-union_n_2126467.html

[TheGodlessUtopian]

At this point it is painfully obvious it is just a Republican propaganda campaign. I do not know about the rest of you but I highly doubt any of the people leading these petitions actually want their state to secede; I think they are just looking to stir up trouble and if by some chance there were to get their wish they wouldn't have any idea what to do or how to run an independent country.

[Rugged Collectivist]

This isn't about red or blue, this is about freedom. Whom ever you voted for (Obama or Romney) you voted for Goldman Sachs.

:) Go on.


I encourage you to read the Communist Manifesto

:D Go on.


a book outlining what a Communist country is. Out of the ten points listed in this book, America hits all ten

:blink:


Get off of your ass, get a job, and stop using hard earned tax payers money as a means of life.

Go fuck yourself.


I have a disability and refused to take disability. I will continue to work until my body totally shuts down.

"Look at me! I refuse to take disability even though I need it."

She's delusional. I hope she literally works herself to death.


Which means the map of "which states are populated by at least one right-wing loon" now looks like this:

Delaware is on that map. I'm disappointed but not at all surprised.


Do these people think the financial institutions, the banks, the large industrial enterprises, the military even - are going to follow them? Man this is a bad joke.

Nah man, you just don't get it. America is a DEMOCRACY, so if the people want to secede the government has to let us. That's what it says in the constitution. This isn't communist China.

[l'Enfermé]

American Comrades, you must commence wars of National Liberation in your home states! Death to the imperialist dogs in Washington!


Edit: Rugger Collectivist, does stupidity count as a "disability" in America? I don't think stupidity causes one's body to "totally shut down", regardless of how hard one works, though.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Also, why did you put "including Texas" in the title? We all know Texas was probably the first to fill up the signature quota.

[LiberationTheologist]

American Comrades, you must commence wars of National Liberation in your home states! Death to the imperialist dogs in Washington!

Right on. This is a fight to free ourselves of the huge war debt the US government has created and foisted on our back through irresponsible and criminally oppressive government. The war tax slavery machine and its imperialist wars and huge drug war and prison industrial complex must be dismanteled and that can only be accomplished through political separation - independence.

US imperialism will take a blow because the large capital that controls the US political system will lose economic and political power as it is diffused in the new nations.

Take note though this is a peaceful petition so everyone is welcome to sign. If we set up an independence website and organization that can coordinate that will be a nice revolutionary step forward.

[LiberationTheologist]

At this point it is painfully obvious it is just a Republican propaganda campaign. I do not know about the rest of you but I highly doubt any of the people leading these petitions actually want their state to secede; I think they are just looking to stir up trouble and if by some chance there were to get their wish they wouldn't have any idea what to do or how to run an independent country.

Will you and everyone else here wait for the great communist revolution that will never come to take action against the most vile capitalist government there is? What a missed opportunity the status quo supporters are nay-saying when they should give support to a just cause which can benefit them and their class.

Supporting the continued continued war debt and tax slavery of the poor and middle class is a damaging thing to do. Under what conditions will you actively oppose the war machine and the debt it brings? What is your plan for opposing the war machine and the debt it brings which is oiver 60% of the 16 trillion dollar US Federal debt. That question goes out to everyone in this thread and on the board.

[doesn't even make sense]

Anybody can put up a petition on that site. They get troll shit all the time. I was going to post a petition that consisted mostly of permutations of "yolo swag 420 weed" but unfortunately they took it down.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Will you and everyone else here wait for the great communist revolution that will never come?

Yeah, the communist revolution is just a naive fantasy, but secession is obviously right around the corner.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Supporting the continued continued war debt and tax slavery of the poor and middle class is a damaging thing to do. Under what conditions will you actively oppose the war machine and the debt it brings? What is your plan for opposing the war machine and the debt it brings which is oiver 60% of the 16 trillion dollar US Federal debt. That question goes out to everyone in this thread and on the board.

Tax slavery? "Poor and middle class"? Debt? What's this fishy smell I'm feeling, is it... a liberal? Division of the United States would "end tax slavery"? Would stop world imperialism!? How could we have been so fooled! And since when is national debt relevant for anything but as an excuse for the government to roll back social programs?

The middle-class is not an actual class. Your use of "poor and middle-class" reek of The Young Turks-watching Liberal. The debt is irrelevant. The collapse of the United States would not mean an end to world imperialism, nor would the division thereof. Fuck the United States, fuck the bloody "middle-class", and fuck your future Independent States of America.

[LiberationTheologist]

Tax slavery? "Poor and middle class"? Debt? What's this fishy smell I'm feeling, is it... a liberal? Division of the United States would "end tax slavery"?

Would stop world imperialism!? How could we have been so fooled! And since when is national debt relevant for anything but as an excuse for the government to roll back social programs?

The middle-class is not an actual class. Your use of "poor and middle-class" reek of The Young Turks-watching Liberal. The debt is irrelevant. The collapse of the United States would not mean an end to world imperialism, nor would the division thereof. Fuck the United States, fuck the bloody "middle-class", and fuck your future Independent States of America.

Answer the questions please. The liberal smear tirade above is overall not very productive.

You state above that debt concern is used to cut social programs yet go on to state "debt is irrelevant" Is all debt bad? It is obvious that war debt is bad, destructive yes for the working class if you so like, so I oppose it. Judging by your reaction above I know this does not jibe with your uncritical anti-austerity position.

[Sea]

Yes the rich are overall war profiteers, but I want to point out they are not alone and will come back to this point.

Russia definitely lost a lot of its ability to dominate other states once their political unity was broken up. That is of course not a specific class analysis but as I have stated breaking up an imperialist nation is in the interest of everyone, I say that talking in terms of financial profit as well as moral interests.

I have seriously thought about this and I still support the breakup of the USA in a peaceful manner and I am well aware of the danger when countries breakup. I feel evolution of political systems and people must take place and believe that the breakup of the USA can be managed peacefully with very little to no blood shed. As a matter of a fact the breakup of the USSR is a great example of a mostly nonviolent political breakup of a large nation.

The USSR did not break up peacefully and you know this.

I welcome speculation on this issue from others given the specific reality of the USA as it now stands with its huge debt which is mostly due to war spending; and political division.

How would dividing the country help any of this?

Let me copy down some notes I have I'm not sure where they came from I believe they may have come from the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" There are 4 conditions under which governments fall/ revolution occurs -

1.conquered from without
2.governs so innefficiently the masses are stirred to revolt
3.allows strong discontented middle group to come into being
4.loses self confidence and willingness to govern

- Determining factor- the ruling class
- no standards of comparison - no revolution
- order of events - important

The bickering may very well be general but jumping off a sinking ship will at least be a possibility for both the toiling class and the ruling class. The USA debt will make numbers 2, 3 and 4 possible as things continue to deteriorate and the Democrat party in ever new brash ways attacks their base.

No clue what you're even trying to say here. Again, how would "jumping ship" be helped by breaking up the nation? I think you should be advocating revolution, not nationalism-breeding breakups.


You make a good point that the analysis is both flimsy and flawed in its simplicity and does not state who profits the split up of a large country. I do maintain that in the long run whether you are rich, middle class or poor it is in your interest to want to see the war machine and all the debt and misery it brings to be split up. That is regardless of whether you will be in the country splitting up or the remaining imperialist behemoth.

War profiteers come from all classes even if the inordinate amount comes from the rich. Some profiteers come from the middle and lower class and profit in the form of wages and contracting for the war machine. If anyone has historical analysis to further identify who profits from wars on a class basis that would be appreciated.

Problems with using the term "the working class" is that it is

1. not specific as to who is gaining from economic (and social) policies
Yes it is.
2 only addresses those policies in terms of financial and not moral and ethical interests
Moral and ethical interests?!
If communism cannot offer both better a better economic and ethical/moral outcome then it will continue to viewed as unworthy by the masses and cannot be defended consistently and fiercely by communism.

The contradiction of upholding as you say "above all else" the interests of only one class while extolling the virtues of equality is an insurmountable contradiction for communists. We, meaning human society and communists must more sophisticated than to refuse to advocate for just the middle class especially when the interests of the upper and lower classes are so aligned with the "working class" by which I suppose you mean the middle class.
Again, no idea what you're trying to say. Keep in mind by working and ruling classes I'm refering to the relationship to the means of production. Just because some proletarians (middle "class") are better off doesn't put them in a separate class.


replies are in the thing there in bold


Well it is struggling, but it is holding all the workers together in one mass to keep paying the war debt. Splitting up a state takes resource away from it and will do a combination of the following - 1.demoralize it 2. enrage it and make it take desperate despotic measures 3. resign it to real reformThis is what I meant when I said you might want to re-think. Either that or explain to me how a demoralized raging despotic split up state that somehow has some reformism going on is going to help the working class.


BTW, what are your politics? You seem to be very critical of communism. Are you a Trotskist (not to be confused with Trotskyist) by any chance?

[LiberationTheologist]

This is what I meant when I said you might want to re-think. Either that or explain to me how a demoralized raging despotic split up state that somehow has some reformism going on is going to help the working class.

With this quote you reveal yourself entirely as a revolution or nothing ideologue of a distorted ideology and I don't mean marxism either. Anyone who outright rejects reforms as something unable to improve the lives of people, the non rich people, is just a religious cult member who will spend their lives planning and dreaming in a tiny marginalized worthless "socialist" organization. Infantile disorders, indeed too bad Lenin didnt consider things a little more instead of being a rigid A or B thinker.



BTW, what are your politics? You seem to be very critical of communism. Are you a Trotskist (not to be confused with Trotskyist) by any chance?Sorry I dont feel like writing a long response right now lets just get back to basics and you can plead ignorance of what I am saying and just claim what I say is false.

Breaking up a huge imperialist capitalist nation is good for everyone who will never be murdered or enslaved by war taxes which is what over 60% of USA federal debt is - war taxes.

"marxists leninists want to get rid of the state" Then why do they always support capital monopolization in private hands which will then move to state hands? As if Lenin-Marxists goal will ever happen with a huge imperialist US state that has millions and millions of innocent deaths on its hands and is a non-reforming entity. The marxist leninists keep doin the same shit and expecting different results. Smash the state indeed.

As for what I know politically, I know this - ethics and morals are important if you want to weild power, which is not to say one needs to be a pacifist. Imperialism whether capitalist or communist must be opposed, hoarding of public land and its resources by capitalists and communist imperialists states alike is bad for people and the environment. political nationalism should be respected where it is just, and history must be acknowledged.

[Sea]

"marxists leninists want to get rid of the state" Then why do they always support capital monopolization in private hands which will then move to state hands? As if Lenin-Marxists goal will ever happen with a huge imperialist US state that has millions and millions of innocent deaths on its hands and is a non-reforming entity. The marxist leninists keep doin the same shit and expecting different results. Smash the state indeed.First of all I never said MLs want to get rid of the state.

And secondly, MLs do have the long term goal of getting rid of the state. Considering that the crapola that happened in the USSR (whoever you want to blame it on, Stalin or Khrushchev, take your pick) happened a long way outside the theoretical framework of Marxism-Leninism, you might want to read a little Lenin (or Marx for that matter) before saying these sorts of things.


With this quote you reveal yourself entirely as a revolution or nothing ideologue of a distorted ideology and I don't mean marxism either. Anyone who outright rejects reforms as something unable to improve the lives of people, the non rich people, is just a religious cult member who will spend their lives planning and dreaming in a tiny marginalized worthless "socialist" organization. Infantile disorders, indeed too bad Lenin didnt consider things a little more instead of being a rigid A or B thinker. Reformism is all fine and dandy on the surface but when it comes down to it, it doesn't do jack diddly to remedy the conditions that made reformism necessary in the first place.


Breaking up a huge imperialist capitalist nation is good for everyone who will never be murdered or enslaved by war taxes which is what over 60% of USA federal debt is - war taxes.What?

I think I'll stick with pleading ignorance. :closedeyes:

[LiberationTheologist]

If the largest imperialist war state is split up most of the world will rejoice because they know the nature of the USA and have suffered from it's actions.

Now the holy inviolability of "territorial integrity" in the minds of the indoctrinated US populace must realize the nightmare can only be ended by them.

[Avanti]

i think it should be supported.

secessionism is a sign of disintegration, and disintegration is a sign of the decay of capitalism, and the decay of capitalism leads to opportunities. moreover, it is fun to break-up states, so let's go for it.

the best situation would be if some states achieve partial, illegal independence.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Unfortunately secession in the U.S is almost completely in the interest of reactionaries. Revolutionary enclaves surrounded by a sea of republican red just couldn't survive. Secessionist America would be Yugoslavia circa 1990s on steroids.

[MaximMK]

Even tho these are some republicans promoting this and we know many of them are racists, nationalists, religious fanatics ( Jesus hates fags etc. ) if the USA divided it would really weaken them and end their imperialism. Speaking theoretically i dont know how many people actually support this petition.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

1. They'd probably just be replaced by China

2. I don't think an idea that would end with the deaths of millions (We wouldn't break up like the U.S.S.R) is preferable.

3. Wait 40 years and neoAmerica would unite into a clusterfuck of terror.

[LiberationTheologist]

1. They'd probably just be replaced by China

2. I don't think an idea that would end with the deaths of millions (We wouldn't break up like the U.S.S.R) is preferable.

3. Wait 40 years and neoAmerica would unite into a clusterfuck of terror.

Chinese imperialism will be attacked from within and without by the people themselves.


Your above assertions are speculation, let me assess the situation as I see things. What would the basis of possible violence be in the new states, economic or racial? The movement to secede should be based on economic grounds those being rejection of the following - war debt, the drug war, the police and spying state, and capital domination of our lives. If the new states oppose those things they will be for their opposites, or that should be our pro- new state basis. So we are for a non imperialist, non war machine, pro social liberties state. The moment things take a racial component of secession based on some white nationalism such a thing should be opposed. The exception being the native peoples who should have political autonomy because they are very small minority population which have been subjected to genocide, massive theft of land, persecution and colonization.

As for your third assertion we already have a USA terrorist clusterfuck as you say, so you are pointing to an imagined threat 40 years from now, which currently exists today.

[LiberationTheologist]

Unfortunately secession in the U.S is almost completely in the interest of reactionaries. Revolutionary enclaves surrounded by a sea of republican red just couldn't survive. Secessionist America would be Yugoslavia circa 1990s on steroids.


People advocating for the breakup of the USA are all revolutionaries whether they support capitalism or communism. Is breakup a sure way to socialism? No of course not but it will be beneficial economically and it will give us an opportunity to organize on a smaller scale which is much easier logistically and psychologically speaking.

The reason for the ethnic violence and nationalism in Yugoslavia had both a long and recent historical basis for its volatility. Recent history of Yugoslavia made that kind of thing quite possible, I refer to WW2 and the ethnic slaughter that went on at that time. You also have to consider that Yugoslavia was indebted and purposefully crashed by the IMF The same near term history does does not exist in the USA.

I noticed niether of those two links you put in have connected the war debt to slavery by the state which forces the people to take on loans in the first place. So in other words war debt in the form of imperialist wars and drug wars = personal debt. Thanks for the article I am now motivated to put together some propaganda and maybe even an organization on this debt front.

[Avanti]

1. They'd probably just be replaced by China

2. I don't think an idea that would end with the deaths of millions (We wouldn't break up like the U.S.S.R) is preferable.

3. Wait 40 years and neoAmerica would unite into a clusterfuck of terror.

or canada will take over everything?

nobody knows.

but we can shape the future guys and guyennes!

srsly!

[Hermes]

Uh, I'm kind of doubting, again, that breaking up the US would 'stop imperialism', either in the two new US's, or in some other capitalist state. So far as I can see, a lot of people have brought this up and you've continually failed to address it.

Further, we aren't really against just imperialism, we're against capitalism. I don't see how this would do anything but prolong capitalism, considering that all it would do is, apparently, erase some debt, and create a new state.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

or canada will take over everything?

nobody knows.

but we can shape the future guys and guyennes!

srsly!

The Light of Zartha would fall to the godless hordes of Quebec

[Avanti]

The Light of Zartha would fall to the godless hordes of Quebec

brilliant! we can build something from that!

[Avanti]

Uh, I'm kind of doubting, again, that breaking up the US would 'stop imperialism', either in the two new US's, or in some other capitalist state. So far as I can see, a lot of people have brought this up and you've continually failed to address it.

Further, we aren't really against just imperialism, we're against capitalism. I don't see how this would do anything but prolong capitalism, considering that all it would do is, apparently, erase some debt, and create a new state.

why two US's?

why not 369?

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I respect your crazy (and irrational devotion to extreme anarchy)

[Avanti]

the future is surrationalistic (like surrealistic). we need to rediscover vibrant symbolical pre-language thinking. i think i am a flower child because i think with sensations. i can simulate all kind of sensations on my skin, with the help of lucid drugs and ambient or techno music plugged into my ears...

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

the future is surrationalistic (like surrealistic). we need to rediscover vibrant symbolical pre-language thinking. i think i am a flower child because i think with sensations. i can simulate all kind of sensations on my skin, with the help of lucid drugs and ambient or techno music plugged into my ears...

Continues to be conflicted on this.

[Avanti]

conflictings are good stuff, because it challenges your thinking.

remember there are never two opportunities.

there are billions.

all you need is imagination.

[Sea]

wow thats really groovy man

[LiberationTheologist]

Uh, I'm kind of doubting, again, that breaking up the US would 'stop imperialism', either in the two new US's, or in some other capitalist state. So far as I can see, a lot of people have brought this up and you've continually failed to address it.


I have addressed the question but you did not get the message or doubt that the answer will solve the problem. Below is a partial answer. Left me try to address this in a different way, what does 11-4 equal? Take that mathematical answer and tell me how 7 aircraft carriers can do as much damage as 11 with less resources to call upon and less taxes to support that war machine.





Further, we aren't really against just imperialism, we're against capitalism. I don't see how this would do anything but prolong capitalism, considering that all it would do is, apparently, erase some debt, and create a new state.Well you are being quite rigid in your thinking on this aspect. It will not be a simple process of just vanquish the debt everything is as it was before.
There will be struggle and conflict and the effects of a historical movement to oppose imperialism would challenge all the foundation myths of the country. The affect that has on the conscious of a nation can of course be devastating to parties who brought on this huge crippling and morally repulsive war debt. How could they possibly carry on with the same line of "the greatest country on earth" and "love it or leave it" after the mass struggle to break up the country in the name of opposing the war debt and moral destruction?

Would they still be around after such a popular break with political imperialist war parties? Did the communist party still reign in Russia after the break up of that political entity? The class struggle and solidarity struggle across lines can and will bring forth new political possibilities as the breakup occurs.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There's no actual social-basis for a break-up of the US at this point. What this petition represents is the whining of reactionaries. They have no ability to accomplish this, no social force in society that would act as this independant break-away ruling class etc.

So this is just the right-wing version of all those liberals who said "I'm moving to Canada if Romney wins!"

[LiberationTheologist]

There's no actual social-basis for a break-up of the US at this point. What this petition represents is the whining of reactionaries. They have no ability to accomplish this, no social force in society that would act as this independant break-away ruling class etc.

What do you mean by social force? Economic interests and moral interests are motivating social forces,(to use your term) are they not?. Within the Republican and Democrat parties there are people there are some who can be convinced to support independence for those reasons. I also have to state that less than half of population votes every year and and over 40% of the electorate does not vote year after year. So there is great disaffection with this country, it's political system,its ever deteriorating economic reality and its immoral war atrocities.

Also on a historical level Vermont and Texas were republics before states. Vermont and Alaska have very real independence movements.


So this is just the right-wing version of all those liberals who said "I'm moving to Canada if Romney wins!"Your statement has a a large bit of truth to it but it is not quite the same thing. It took some thinking and effort to make those petitions so it is a step toward action. That is a large step from spurting off a flaunt about moving to Canada.

Generally though if you and others believe this is just a simple little harmless petition why would you not promote abandonment by partisans of one wing of the massive corporate war party? It is a tactical error not to seize on a chance to foment division of a state you want to overthrow.

The moral and financial reasons for supporting a breakup of the an imperialist behemoth is to the advantage of ethically sound socialists.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Neo-secessionists are reactionaries with whom we have nothing in common. Some posters are over-thinking this issue. It's not like this neo-secessionist movement is actually going to succeed.

[LiberationTheologist]

Neo-secessionists are reactionaries with whom we have nothing in common. Some posters are over-thinking this issue. It's not like this neo-secessionist movement is actually going to succeed.

What is this "we" stuff? We who? You speak for you, not we.


Generally though if you and others believe this is just a simple little harmless petition why would you not promote abandonment by partisans of one wing of the massive corporate war party? It is a tactical error not to seize on a chance to foment division of a state you want to overthrow.

The moral and financial reasons for supporting a breakup of the an imperialist behemoth is to the advantage of ethically sound socialists

Answer the question above and try thinking about it before you press the post button. Also try answering what your plan is to stop US imperialism and all the tax slavery and absolute slaughter it brings.

A lot of people are not willing to even rock the boat over US imperialism because of their ideological purity concerns. This is a severe problem for getting people to take action in the face of reality. I guess the slaughter doesn't bother them enough or they support it for some twisted long term distorted ideation which fits in with their programmed thinking.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What do you mean by social force?I mean, other than "the guy I don't like won the election, waaah" there is no real economic or political reason for such a thing to happen. The US ruling class has different sectors with different interests, but they are pretty damn homogenous and have more to gain together than apart.

So who else could muster the actual forces, the economic ability and so on to force a break-up? Really the only likely reason that the US would break up as things stand now would be if a massive working class resistance rose up, caused a revolution in part of the country and the part where the movement wasn't as strong broke-off to try and prevent the growing power of workers from affecting their states.


Economic interests and moral interests are motivating social forces,(to use your term) are they not?.Social forces have political ideas and economic interests, but I'm talking about the material people, networks, and relations between people: class forces, actual organized bodies of people such as unions, militias, formal military.


Within the Republican and Democrat parties there are people there are some who can be convinced to support independence for those reasons. I also have to state that less than half of population votes every year and and over 40% of the electorate does not vote year after year. So there is great disaffection with this country, it's political system,its ever deteriorating economic reality and its immoral war atrocities. Things are hard on regular people, politics are realitvly polarized, but really the US is fairly stable - but not less brutal - compared to other countries.


Also on a historical level Vermont and Texas were republics before states. Vermont and Alaska have very real independence movements.They may have the sentiment, but they have no way of actually accomplishing this.


Your statement has a a large bit of truth to it but it is not quite the same thing. It took some thinking and effort to make those petitions so it is a step toward action. That is a large step from spurting off a flaunt about moving to Canada.Neo-Nazis have been trying to seceede and gain control of the pacific northwest for like decades now - they do petitions, they've created their own flag and shit... but it is really not much more than that.


Generally though if you and others believe this is just a simple little harmless petition why would you not promote abandonment by partisans of one wing of the massive corporate war party? It is a tactical error not to seize on a chance to foment division of a state you want to overthrow. Because "division" and whatnot gets us nowhere. I don't want the US to collapse in the abstract, I want it to be overthrown through the self-conscious action of revolutionary workers wanting to run things themselves.


The moral and financial reasons for supporting a breakup of the an imperialist behemoth is to the advantage of ethically sound socialists.I'm a political socialist, not an ethical one I guess.

[LiberationTheologist]

I mean, other than "the guy I don't like won the election, waaah" there is no real economic or political reason for such a thing to happen. The US ruling class has different sectors with different interests, but they are pretty damn homogenous and have more to gain together than apart.

There is both an economic and political reason to break up the USA in the minds of some people otherwise the petition would not exist. I'm glad you could at least admit that the ruling class having their territory divided would be a blow on a class level.


So who else could muster the actual forces, the economic ability and so on to force a break-up? Really the only likely reason that the US would break up as things stand now would be if a massive working class resistance rose up, caused a revolution in part of the country and the part where the movement wasn't as strong broke-off to try and prevent the growing power of workers from affecting their states.Sounds like a nice split to me, the possibilities are many.


Social forces have political ideas and economic interests, but I'm talking about the material people, networks, and relations between people: class forces, actual organized bodies of people such as unions, militias, formal military. Unions or militias wont get revolutions started at this stage of the game in the US.


They may have the sentiment, but they have no way of actually accomplishing this. This sounds too defeatist. I will continue to advocate for the break up of this country for all the reasons I have stated.


Neo-Nazis have been trying to seceede and gain control of the pacific northwest for like decades now - they do petitions, they've created their own flag and shit... but it is really not much more than that. Oh really, what is the name of that group of people?


Because "division" and whatnot gets us nowhere. I don't want the US to collapse in the abstract, I want it to be overthrown through the self-conscious action of revolutionary workers wanting to run things themselves.Yet above you just said division of the US state weakens the US ruling class. Division can definitely lead to changes, but now you are claiming the division will be (mostly) not the ruling class but the working class.


I'm a political socialist, not an ethical one I guess.This is quite a damnation of yourself but others in this thread have clearly shown they operate on the same principles. The principle is "I only supports things lead by socialist parties and ethical concerns do not motivate me only power does." That can be read as a sign of brainwashing. Hey I think the globe has seen this kind of thing before. Leninism and Stalinism is all that will result from a party and people who base their concerns primarily on political power with little to no concern for ethics.

[Yazman]

LiberationTheologist, I agree in that I think that ethical concerns should play an important role in our motivations, positions & goals. If you have no concern or consideration of ethics it can lead to all sorts of fucked up shit happening, and I think a focus on power alone is not good enough nor is it beneficial to our movements.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There is both an economic and political reason to break up the USA in the minds of some people otherwise the petition would not exist. I'm glad you could at least admit that the ruling class having their territory divided would be a blow on a class level.Not sure it is really possiblility; doubt it would help the working class.


Unions or militias wont get revolutions started at this stage of the game in the US.No, I'm not talking about what would start a revolution - I was responding toy your question of what I meant by forces. I mean a material basis for such a breakup - right now their is neither the social force capable or interested in such a thing. Even if a provincial ruling class that was somehow not tied to the rest of the ruling class (which hasn't really been the case in the US since the urban bourgoise turned it's back on the rural southern post-civil war eliete [expressed through the Dixiecrats and later the CCC and similar segregationist organizations) and antagonistic to the other sections of rulers - what would happen? California declares its independance, the US takes all the military forces out of California while using the navy to block all the shipping ports and then Califonia says "sorry". California, in this hypothetical, would have to raise it's own military (as if they could even take the US military) or split the existing military like in the Civil War, and mobilize it's population for resistance and so on. Who are the social forces which would go along with this? They don't exist!

As far as "unions won't get revolution started in the US" - well to a degree this is true. Unions are defensive organizations for workers under capitalism and union leaderships always are either explicitly reformist or get pulled that way when there is no rank and file pressure from below to counterbalence that tendency - so in general they don't even aim for revolution. But the workers involved in unions, the rank and file, who by virtue of being in a union have the rudamentary class understanding that the interests of the bosses and workers are opposing, are a social force (by only part of the larger class of course) who will most likely play a major role within and without unions if a more generalized class radicalization takes place.


Oh really, what is the name of that group of people? Why because you don't believe me? Anyway:



The Northwest Territorial Imperative is an idea popularized since the 1980s within white nationalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalist) and white separatist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_separatist) groups in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). According to it, adherents of these groups are encouraged to relocate to a five-state region of the Northwestern United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_United_States) — viz. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viz.), Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_(U.S._state)), Oregon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon), Idaho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho), and Montana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana) or the western part at least to Interstate 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_15).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Territorial_Imperative#cite_note-1) Northern California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_California), Alaska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska), Wyoming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming), British Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Colombia), Alberta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta), Yukon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukon), Northwest Territories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Territories), and some parts of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada) are sometimes also included. The intent is to eventually declare the region an "Aryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race)" homeland. The primary proponent of this idea was Richard Girnt Butler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Girnt_Butler) (1918–2004), leader of the Aryan Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Nations). The major current exponent of Northwest Migration is Harold Covington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Covington) (b. 1953) of the Northwest Front.
Beginning in the 1980s, the idea inspired a number of groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_group), Ku Klux Klan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan) leaders, and Christian Identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity) churches to set up shop or relocate to the Northwest. Northwest nationalism and a desire for an independent Northwest American Republic was one of the inspirations motivating Robert Jay Mathews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jay_Mathews) (1953–1984) and his group, The Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order_(group)), to embark on a spree of robbery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbery), murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder), and counterfeiting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeiting) in the region


Yet above you just said division of the US state weakens the US ruling class. Division can definitely lead to changes, but now you are claiming the division will be (mostly) not the ruling class but the working class. No, I just think that there are no real material splits in the ruling class, so a break-up at the top would just not happen in the short-term. A major war (one that's devistating for US rulers) or if the European economy collapses and a renewed intensification of the economic crisis could possibly change the balence within the ruling class. If sections of the ruling class lost confidence in other sections; if the ruling class could not rule as they do, but there was no immediate threat of revolution, then maybe things would get to the point eventually where there would be physical and geographic splits at the top of society.

Barring that, and considering that unlike some other countries where there are actually sort of different sections of capital which are at odds, the US ruling class is pretty solid and unified. With that understanding in mind, the only other real division in society that could split apart the country would be because of major working class uprisings that essentially create a revolution/(social) civil war type situation.

I'm not saying that such a geographic split would benifit the working class - if it was due to a worker's uprising, then I guess it would depend on the facts on the ground at the time. However, my guess is that it would actually be an incredibly dangerous situation for a fledgeling working class break-off to be sitting right next to the remaining bourgois US which would still have all the key codes for nukes and would be figureing out how to either take back the worker's break-away or how to sabotage it if it could not be taken by force. I'd imagine they'd bomb ever electrical plant, every port, every airport, every train-track, and every manufacturing plant and every field to force us to retreat or starve, before we could hoist the first red flag.

If on the other hand we were organized and powerful enough that the GIs sided with us, thus neutralizing/splitting the military (which would be necissary IMO) then why would we just have a break-off and let the old ruling class regroup in the safty of their own section?

[Jimmie Higgins]

LiberationTheologist, I agree in that I think that ethical concerns should play an important role in our motivations, positions & goals. If you have no concern or consideration of ethics it can lead to all sorts of fucked up shit happening, and I think a focus on power alone is not good enough nor is it beneficial to our movements.

But what are ethics? Where do they come from and who decides what's ethical or not? Aren't the kinds of decisions a revolutionary working class might face circumstantial and conditional, i.e. political, not some kind of unchanging ethics?


This is quite a damnation of yourself but others in this thread have clearly shown they operate on the same principles. The principle is "I only supports things lead by socialist partiesNo - I think it's important to organize radicals and class miliants so that we have the best chance to organize broader layers of our fellow workers, learn the lessons from struggles we're involved in, and coordinate our actions. But it's the radicalizing working class in general who will make the revolution - most will not sit down and read Capital beforehand (because largly at that point these lessons can be quickly learned from first-hand experience).


And just to point out the absurdity of this accusation, I am almost always a part of struggles NOT led by a socialist group. I have been involved in everything from strikes to Occupy and they are not "run" by socialist parties in some top-down way or whatever you meant by this. I would like revolutionaries to organically win leadership of movments and strikes (or at least our ideas), but on the virtue that people have begun to make radical conclusions about struggles and see these radicals and our ideas as useful and legitimate. Workers as passive followers can not make a socialist revolution.


and ethical concerns do not motivate me only power does."Yes, I don't ewen know what "ethical" means in this context. Yes I want power, working class power, and all of it for all of us.


That can be read as a sign of brainwashing. Hey I think the globe has seen this kind of thing before. Leninism and Stalinism is all that will result from a party and people who base their concerns primarily on political power with little to no concern for ethics.

Quite the opposite of braniwashing - I want people to act on their own behalf not because someone told them it is "right" (because conventional ethics will say it's "unethical" to "steal" factories and fields and markets and appartment buildings).

Morality is generally just how some people get other people to act the way they want to without explaination IMO. It's moral to act this way, it's ethical. That means in effect, that the moralizer wants to dictate thair values and their conception to workers because somehow their ideas exist on some perfect plane outside of the rest of us, so we should adopt them. I think it's inherently elitist.

I want workers to fight in their own interests and win power for themselves. The means are suberviernt to the ends - things that "break apart" the US or things that "cause economic collapse" but don't help workers to empower themselves and gain confidence and solidarity are wishful short-cuts IMO and "unethical" because the desire for this kind of short-cut puts workers in a passive contect, rather than as protagonists of their own fate and liberation. Things like strikes and social movements against oppression are "ethical" because they help workers learn how to fight, how to cooperate together, and become leaders and self-consious of the way the world works.

[cynicles]

There's no actual social-basis for a break-up of the US at this point. What this petition represents is the whining of reactionaries. They have no ability to accomplish this, no social force in society that would act as this independant break-away ruling class etc.

So this is just the right-wing version of all those liberals who said "I'm moving to Canada if Romney wins!"
Atleast it makes more sense then those conservatives who said they were gunna move to Canada/Australia if Obama won.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Sorry for being off topic but i thought the northwest imperative was outnumbered by Progressive Cascadia? (Which when i think of it would lose in a post apocalyptic scenario due to having little to no support in the countryside. But then again, i'm basing this mostly on latin american focismo and that book promoted by Newt Gingrich where Canadian peacekeepers go into a U.S hit by an EMP

[Jimmie Higgins]

Atleast it makes more sense then those conservatives who said they were gunna move to Canada/Australia if Obama won.Because right wingers would be fleeing the US for Canada to get away from oppressive "socialized medicine"?:lol:

Damnit, I'm tired of Obama's damn socialist redistribution of wealth to insurance companies and the banks. I'm moving to Sweden!

[LiberationTheologist]

Everyone who ignores these petitions as meaningless will have to take them a little bit more seriously due to what just happened in Puerto Rico. The governor and representative are delivering their demand to the president and hopefully the congress.

The idea of political independence is going to grow that much faster if the national question of Puerto Rico is brought before congress and the president even though they will both choose to ignore it, which will in turn exacerbate the issue in Puerto Rico. I would love to see a feedback loop between the issues come into play.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Everyone who ignores these petitions as meaningless will have to take them a little bit more seriously due to what just happened in Puerto Rico. The governor and representative are delivering their demand to be a state.

The idea of political independence is going to grow in the minds of people as the national question of Puerto Rico is brought before congress and the president even though they will both choose to ignore it, which will in turn exacerbate the issue in Puerto Rico. I would love to see a feedback loop between the two stories come into play.

Puerto Rico won't cause the dissolution of the United States

[LiberationTheologist]

Puerto Rico won't cause the dissolution of the United States

No, it won't cause it, but it can be a factor in it.

[Yazman]

No, it won't cause it, but it can be a factor in it.

I agree in that I think it could contribute to unrest. Secession has since the tea party began been at least a very small part of national political discourse, with even governors (like Rick Perry) talking about it publicly at certain points (albeit probably with no sincerity at all).

If one of the colonies applies for statehood and gets refused by the government, and this ends up leading to the colony seceding, I can see how that could be a flashpoint for unrest in the US broadly.

Although, I don't think it would really come to that in Puerto Rico since it seems the vast majority of people don't want independence.

[LiberationTheologist]

If one of the colonies applies for statehood and gets refused by the government, and this ends up leading to the colony seceding, I can see how that could be a flashpoint for unrest in the US broadly.

Although, I don't think it would really come to that in Puerto Rico since it seems the vast majority of people don't want independence.

That very scenario looks to be coming closer to reality. There is a CBO budget forecast for costs of Puerto Rico complete annexation that is due within a couple of months. All of this is timing perfectly with the fiscal cliff rhetoric and issue and now these petitions. This is a potentially explosive nexus although admittedly the ruling capitalist parties will do everything they can to maintain the status quo. Doing nothing in itself could in fact affect mass demoralization in the PNP and change the internal political dynamics on the island.

The Virgin Islands nonvoting representative has stated she is inspired by the Puerto Rico delivery of referendum results and PNP party demand for annexation and is going to submit their own demands in the direction of orchestrating a federally sanctioned pro-state annexation.

[LiberationTheologist]

White House ‘secede’ petitions reach 675,000 signatures, 50-state participation



21 Nov 2012 6:44 AM

Less than a week after a New Orleans suburbanite petitioned the White House (http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/11/white-house-website-deluged-with-secession-petitions-from-19-states/) to allow Louisiana to secede from the United States, petitions from seven states have collected enough signatures to trigger a promised review from the Obama administration.

By 6:00 a.m. EST Wednesday, more than 675,000 digital signatures appeared on 69 separate secession petitions covering all 50 states, according to a Daily Caller analysis of requests lodged with the White House’s “We the People” online petition system. (http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/13/petitions-seeking-white-house-approval-to-secede-now-come-from-47-states/)

A petition from Vermont, where talk of secession is a regular feature of political life, was the final entry.

Petitions from Alabama (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-alabama-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/2TvhJSSC), Florida (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-florida-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/D87Rv7yJ), Georgia (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-georgia-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/pgJ9JLY3), Louisiana (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-louisiana-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/1wrvtngl), North Carolina (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-north-carolina-withdraw-united-states-and-create-its-own-new-government/rx1KDYTs), Tennessee (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-tennessee-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/7xsNwkJ8) and Texas (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-texas-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/BmdWCP8B) residents have accrued at least 25,000 signatures, the number the Obama administration says it will reward with a staff review of online proposals.

http://www.wwntradio.com/news/news.php/displayType/article/11554/2012/11/white-house-secede-petitions-reach-675000-signatures-50state-participation


Please sign the petition for your state and spread the link so others can sign https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/

[cynicles]

Vermont would make more sense, we could absorb them into Canada and expand our Dairy empire! Next Wisconsin!

[GoddessCleoLover]

Any particular reason WHY we ought to sign these reactionary neo-secessionist petitions? If they were paper hard copies I would keep them in the loo for emergency use.

[Avanti]

Any particular reason WHY we ought to sign these reactionary neo-secessionist petitions? If they were paper hard copies I would keep them in the loo for emergency use.

spread disorder

inside the system

the reactionaries are splintered

best help them fight

with one another

without hazard

[GoddessCleoLover]

I am interested in making a social revolution in order to establish working class rule, not just spreading disorder. An unfocused spreading of disorder might just empower the ruling classes to crack down on us.

[Avanti]

I am interested in making a social revolution in order to establish working class rule, not just spreading disorder. An unfocused spreading of disorder might just empower the ruling classes to crack down on us.

they won't crack down on us

they will crack down

on stupid rednecks

[GoddessCleoLover]

Perhaps, but IMO all of these neo-secessionist internet petitions are just a tempest in a teapot. A year from now they will have been forgotten and the teabaggers will be back to claiming that Obama is a socialist Muslim anti-colonialist, etcetera, etcetera.

[LiberationTheologist]

I am interested in making a social revolution in order to establish working class rule, not just spreading disorder. An unfocused spreading of disorder might just empower the ruling classes to crack down on us.

These petitions clearly state that they are peaceful petitions for separation. If you have an ideological opposition to breaking up states please clearly state so and your reasons for that.



Peacefully grant the State of New Mexico to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government

As the founding fathers of the United States of America made clear in the Declaration of Independence in 1776:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government..."


https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-new-mexico-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/mzXG7MtY

[GoddessCleoLover]

Uncle Karl opposed the secessionists and we ought to oppose the neo-secessionists. They were reactionaries and racists back then and they are reactionaries and racists today.

[Yazman]

Uncle Karl opposed the secessionists and we ought to oppose the neo-secessionists. They were reactionaries and racists back then and they are reactionaries and racists today.

What secessionists (from what country & period) did Marx oppose that you're referring to?

[Ler]

Haven't read the whole thread, but I'll say what I've sad every other time this has been brought up: No way, no how, not for a very long time. Such a thing would be beyond devastating to the ruling elite of the US, and thus it could never gain enough political support. I mean, I'd be happy as any of us if it did happen, because it would basically completely destroy US political/economic hegemony, but the whole thing is basically just a big tantrum by whingey right wingers, who are upset that they supposedly 'Didn't get their way' - I don't think we should observe this as anything more serious than another excuse to laugh at right-wingers.

[Robocommie]

I assume he means the Confederate States of America, but it all seems rather moot - I mean is there any serious political movement behind these so-called "secessionists" or is it just a bunch of Republican jackasses being sore losers over the election? I haven't seen any reason to suspect anything more than the latter.

Still, a lot of folks on Revleft always seem eager to either "support" or "oppose" things as if their moral stance on a forum means anything. :bored:

[GoddessCleoLover]

I meant the CSA. Like Robocommie, I am surprised that some Revlefters see this as anything other than GOP sour grapes. They just wanted the white man to win the White House.:rolleyes:

[ckaihatsu]

i think it should be supported.

secessionism is a sign of disintegration, and disintegration is a sign of the decay of capitalism, and the decay of capitalism leads to opportunities. moreover, it is fun to break-up states, so let's go for it.


Taking this purely structurally, it has neutral / no political leaning -- yes, it would be an *organizational* step back from full 50-state unity, but it / they would still be run by capitalists in whatever component regions, as others have pointed out. The worst, a real possibility, would be to see separatist, regionalist, para-nationalist sentiments break out in the sub-areas, detracting from worker class-consciousness.

It needs to be said that what we're seeing *is* almost purely structural, in the sense that the past political heights can no longer be supported by this dwindling economic base -- perhaps the reason why it's so difficult to get a *political* read on this phenomenon is because it's primarily a *bookkeeping* phenomenon, so to speak. A diminished economics -- debt-ridden -- can't motivate to the extents of before, including everyday people and also the officials of the empire themselves.





the best situation would be if some states achieve partial, illegal independence.

[Yazman]

I meant the CSA. Like Robocommie, I am surprised that some Revlefters see this as anything other than GOP sour grapes. They just wanted the white man to win the White House.:rolleyes:

Did Marx really write about the CSA? I've never actually heard of this, but then again, the American Civil War was never my strong point.

[Robocommie]

Did Marx really write about the CSA? I've never actually heard of this, but then again, the American Civil War was never my strong point.

Yep, Marx supported the Union in so far as he supported the abolition of slavery. He called abolitionism the last progressive act of the bourgeoisie, as I understand it. Actually, he even maintained correspondence with Lincoln during the war.

http://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Revolution-Karl-Abraham-Lincoln/dp/1844677222

[GoddessCleoLover]

Robocommie is spot on. Can't understand why any Marxist would support neo-secessionism. First time tragedy, second time farce.:lol:

[Geiseric]

It's a bunch of republican assholes who are bored. The tea party and the militias are the ones who we should be kinda afraid of.

[GerrardWinstanley]

I was waiting for how the lunatic right/states rights diehards in the United States would eventually lash out after seething over the election. I just never expected it merely to take the form of a gigantic hissy fit. This is brilliant.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I wouldn't be surprised if the are neo-Confederate militia fools engaging in jerkoff paintball maneuvers out there in Jesusland.

[Robocommie]

I wouldn't be surprised if the are neo-Confederate militia fools engaging in jerkoff paintball maneuvers out there in Jesusland.

Look, take it easy on the Jesusland routine, right? This isn't about Red states vs Blue states, and class war isn't some kind of cultural thing. If proletarian revolt ever comes to the US, then a fair number of Christians and southerners are going to be involved.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It's a bunch of republican assholes who are bored. The tea party and the militias are the ones who we should be kinda afraid of.

I would prefer to be afraid of people who weren't so pathetically hilarious (and horrid at spelling).

[LiberationTheologist]

Robocommie is spot on. Can't understand why any Marxist would support neo-secessionism. First time tragedy, second time farce.:lol:

This neo-secession as you call it is not about upholding the rights of capitalists to have slavery. Secession should be, and is as far as I am concerned, about opposing tyrannical war debt slavery and the slaughter of millions by the USA around the world.

On that basis it makes absolute sense to support the break up of the USA. I bet you called for and/or cheered for war against Syria or Lybia though don't you?

So called libertarians, anarchists, capitalists, communists, marxists a lot of them are in the same boat, they love to call for separation of states and wars elsewhere in the world but wont do it in their country, even when that country commits mass murder year after year.

Hypocritical, egocentrist , nationalist tools of capial is all that such people are. "Don't divide my murderous state, I'm enjoying my nationalist class privelege" What backwards nationalist scum supporters of the USA state are. Down with US dollar hegemony.

[LiberationTheologist]

It's a bunch of republican assholes who are bored. The tea party and the militias are the ones who we should be kinda afraid of.

Do you support USA state murder of millions year after year? Do you support wars against Syria and Libya? Are you an R2Pist? Do you support US dollar hegemony? When should a state be split up for its unchanging mass murderous actions?

[Robocommie]

This neo-secession as you call it is not about upholding the rights of capitalists to have slavery it should be about opposing tyrannical war debt slavery and the slaughter of millions by the USA around the world.

On that basis it makes absolute sense to support break up of the USA. I bet you call for war in Syria or Lybia though don't you?

So called libertarians, anarchists, capitalists, communists, marxists a lot of them are in the same boat, they love to call for separation of states and wars elsewhere in the world but wont do it in their country, even when that country commits mass murder year after year.

Hypocritical, egocentrist , nationalist tools of capial is all that such people are. "Don't divide my murderous state, I'm enjoying my nationalist class privelege" What backwards nationalist scum supporters of the USA state are. Down with US dollar hegemony.

Firstly, you realize there IS no secessionist movement, right? You're getting all worked up over what is essentially an ultra-conservative fiction - and barely that, because I'm not even sure a lot of them take it seriously.

Secondly, there is no benefit to having numerous small states over a few large ones. Marxists are not anti-federalists, we oppose capitalism as a system of capitalist rule. It is capitalism, not the existence of the United States of America, which causes imperialism and war. You get rid of the United States as a world power, and they'll merely be replaced by regional powers and regional conflicts, or even superseded by newly rising global powers, such as China, India, Brazil or Russia.

Thirdly, I have no idea where you're getting this bullshit about Marxists and anarchists supporting wars outside the US, because they don't.

Seriously, fuck off with your bullshit.

[Robocommie]

Do you support USA state murder of millions year after year? Do you support wars against Syria and Libya? Are you an R2Pist? Do you support US dollar hegemony? When should a state be split up for its unchanging mass murderous actions?

Where the fuck are you getting this shit?

[Robespierres Neck]

Hmm.. interesting.

[LiberationTheologist]

Firstly, you realize there IS no secessionist movement, right? You're getting all worked up over what is essentially an ultra-conservative fiction - and barely that, because I'm not even sure a lot of them take it seriously.

I would say there is a growing movement. You can attempt to naysay that but over 600,000 people signed the petitions. The movement will continue to grow as the USA continues to decline economically. For you and others to attempt to stop people from supporting this movement by pointing at "conservatives" shows just how reactionary you and other so called marxists are.



Secondly, there is no benefit to having numerous small states over a few large ones. There is and I have enumerated those advantages in this thread.


Marxists are not anti-federalists, we oppose capitalism as a system of capitalist rule. It is capitalism, not the existence of the United States of America, which causes imperialism and war. You get rid of the United States as a world power, and they'll merely be replaced by regional powers and regional conflicts, or even superseded by newly rising global powers, such as China, India, Brazil or Russia. The USA is already on its way to being superseded by those other countries in terms of capitalism. Breaking up and destroying it will indeed make class struggle easier in the USA. You and others keep using this dogmatic and I believe invented idea of marxism "untity" and paste it over everything you come in contact with. If Marx or Lenin believed in the inviolability of the state then they were short sighted fools. Of course I dont think Marx was as dogmatic as this idealized and popularized "national integrity is for the workers" idea that is so such a part of many unthinking, uncreative reactionary marxists of today.

The USA is the reigning capitalist imperialist monster of today and it must be combated. Period.


Thirdly, I have no idea where you're getting this bullshit about Marxists and anarchists supporting wars outside the US, because they don't.I get it from watching self labeled marxists on this board who defend US state integrity with every ounce of uncritical, dogmatic, unthinking click of the keyboard they have.


Seriously, fuck off with your bullshit.You are really upset by the idea of the workers breaking up the state aren't you?

[GoddessCleoLover]

We want the workers to break up the state, all revolutionary Marxists favor such a course of events. Some of us don't see any potential in this internet campaign that has been spurred by racists who can't stand the thought of a Black president in the White House.

[Robocommie]

I would say there is a growing movement.

Here's a hint: Serious secessionists don't sign online petitions on a website run by the fucking White House. They begin to form militias and arm themselves heavily.

What you're witnessing is a growing movement to flip Obama the finger. It's a political sideshow with all attendant media sensationalism over it - which you're pretty much happy to gobble up.



I get it from watching self labeled marxists on this board who defend US state integrity with every ounce of uncritical, dogmatic, unthinking click of the keyboard they have.Are they defending US state integrity, or do they just have the political maturity to recognize a bullshit temper tantrum for what it is and find you vaguely ridiculous for insisting it's real?



You are really upset by the idea of the workers breaking up the state aren't you?The workers? If only. No, I am really irritated by your presumptions and your self-righteous bullshit, and generally annoyed by your weirdo caricature of third-worldism. You're living in a fantasy and then screeching at everyone else for being dogmatic reactionaries for refusing to dwell in it with you.

[Robocommie]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/feb/24/nickelback-popularity-contest-pickle

A growing movement, you guys.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This won't happen because there is no material basis for this. The ruling class of the US south or southwest or northeast are pretty much the same ruling class for the rest of the country and the two parties have the same overall goals.

In the US civil war, what did you have: the southern ruling class that wanted to expand slavery and plantation-farming west and a northern ruling class that needed to modernize to meet the needs of industry. Both could call up local people to form militias, both could ally with larger world powers if needed. There were decades of negotiations between these two forces who had different needs for expansion and different needs for labor and therefore different and opposed ideological frameworks. There were fistfights in the legislature over the issue of slavery (resulting in a ban from it's discussion in Congress) and there were insurgencies like John Brown, and armed conflicts before the war like in Bloody Kansas. All that had to happen before the civil war.

Really it's just not on the cards right now. We'd likely have a much larger crisis of some kind (economic catastrophe, losing a major war and the US loosing it's position as #1 imperialist power, or near-revolutions) before any kind of break-up of the US happened.

Capitalist states don't break up over "ideas" - they break up if there are opposing interests by forces in society with enough power and regional hegemony to achieve this.

We could start an online petition for the colonization of the moon and I think we'd get a million or so people to sign on. But are those millions building rockets, activly organizing the finances to colonize the moon? No. An 600,000 people passivly signing onto a petition doesn't create the kinds of forces and material ability to actually geographically break the country apart.

Even if they did, as workers what tasks are ahead of us? Well we continue to fight and organize to build up our own independent movement and power in society. In other words nothing changed. A break-up of any country would not automatically make much of a difference for working class power and could, in fact, divert it further as the new mini-bourgeois states begin to try and convince people of their legitimacy and creating their own mini-nationalism.

IF this happened, it would not put workers in any better position, because the objective factors for revolution and workers power generally exist as it is - what's missing is our subjective organization and experience and conspicuousness. There is no short-cut to people taking power into their own hands, nothing will do it for them - even this crisis, which has made class struggle much more overt has not miraculously created more power for our class - it's created more opportunities to try and build that, but that's about it.

[LiberationTheologist]

Here's a hint: Serious secessionists don't sign online petitions on a website run by the fucking White House. They begin to form militias and arm themselves heavily.

Here is a hint, violent armed revolution is not the only way to solve problems. Save me the talk about how you are the real revolutionary. You are a status quoist who supports the USA and its crimes.




What you're witnessing is a growing movement to flip Obama the finger. It's a political sideshow with all attendant media sensationalism over it - which you're pretty much happy to gobble up.Nope, there are plenty of people who do and will support breaking up the USA for economic and moral reasons and I am one of them. The fact that this movement started by people upset at the re-election of Obama is almost meaningless to me as long as it helps amassify a movement. By the way I think about 13,000 people voted for socialist parties in the last US election. Now that is a pathetic beginning to a movement and that in a national election.


Are they defending US state integrity, or do they just have the political maturity to recognize a bullshit temper tantrum for what it is and find you vaguely ridiculous for insisting it's real?As I said the movement will grow as the US state not only declines economically but continues to attack more country to maintain capitalist domination of external and internal populations. Attacks on other countries are attacks on the working class in a very real economic sense.


The workers? If only. No, I am really irritated by your presumptions and your self-righteous bullshit, and generally annoyed by your weirdo caricature of third-worldism. You're living in a fantasy and then screeching at everyone else for being dogmatic reactionaries for refusing to dwell in it with you. Hmmm, third worldism according to you is now when the people of a nation decide to break up an unjust state for a variety of reasons? What an interesting new theory of third worldism you are pushing.

I wish you would read the thread because I have gone through a lot of these arguments.

[LiberationTheologist]

This won't happen because there is no material basis for this. The ruling class of the US south or southwest or northeast are pretty much the same ruling class for the rest of the country and the two parties have the same overall goals.

There is a material basis for separation of the US state. There is a declining living and class standard in the USA. The ruling class may be the key but they are not the only ones who can take action and the amount of people signing proves it. This petty argument should be fully dismissed by socialists in the USA, look at what a tiny sector of the population they are. I could call them meaningless in fact, but I know that we all have an affect to some extent, whether that is good or bad.


In the US civil war, what did you have: the southern ruling class that wanted to expand slavery and plantation-farming west and a northern ruling class that needed to modernize to meet the needs of industry. Both could call up local people to form militias, both could ally with larger world powers if needed. There were decades of negotiations between these two forces who had different needs for expansion and different needs for labor and therefore different and opposed ideological frameworks. There were fistfights in the legislature over the issue of slavery (resulting in a ban from it's discussion in Congress) and there were insurgencies like John Brown, and armed conflicts before the war like in Bloody Kansas. All that had to happen before the civil war.There is a declining living standard in the USA based particular on the decline decline of the middle class and the working poor. This cannot be stressed enough. The ruling class may be the key to mobilizing people on a very militant basis but they are not the only ones who can take action on an issue and become hegemons.

There is plenty of time to realize and organize independence of the various states and that is just what I advocate be done. I also have to state again this is 2012 not 1862 meaning things can be solved without violence and that is what I suggest. Violence is a possibility and right though, especially when faced faced with an uncompromising vile entity such as the US government. The john Brown example is a good one and shows that people can be pushed to action based on moral outrage alone. If Americans are not outraged at the massive crimes of its government since inception and in the last 11 years then they will never be moved to action, which is a counter argument to what I am saying. Now that people in the USA are beginning to see the decline of their living standard and class position, they may well be pushed to action. Even the hack democrats who voted for Obama will soon start to realize election of "their guy" is actually making things worse for them.


Really it's just not on the cards right now. We'd likely have a much larger crisis of some kind (economic catastrophe, losing a major war and the US loosing it's position as #1 imperialist power, or near-revolutions) before any kind of break-up of the US happened.

Capitalist states don't break up over "ideas" - they break up if there are opposing interests by forces in society with enough power and regional hegemony to achieve this.

The USA is in the process of losing its position as the top capitalist as we speak. The USA is in the process of losing another war as we speak. Taking this into consideration along with the approaching end of US dollar hegemony and unsustainable US debt the possibility of massive social upheaval is coming. December 2007 was just the beginning, we have years to go.


Even if they did, as workers what tasks are ahead of us? Well we continue to fight and organize to build up our own independent movement and power in society. In other words nothing changed. A break-up of any country would not automatically make much of a difference for working class power and could, in fact, divert it further as the new mini-bourgeois states begin to try and convince people of their legitimacy and creating their own mini-nationalism.

IF this happened, it would not put workers in any better position, because the objective factors for revolution and workers power generally exist as it is - what's missing is our subjective organization and experience and conspicuousness. There is no short-cut to people taking power into their own hands, nothing will do it for them - even this crisis, which has made class struggle much more overt has not miraculously created more power for our class - it's created more opportunities to try and build that, but that's about it.A just society will be much more possible in a smaller nation where the power of workers can be organized easier in a logistic sense and in an ideological sense. In large countries the psychological hurdles of opposing a large resource rich state makes revolution that much less likely. Fortunately the USA is a nation in economic decline and is becoming more and more vulnerable to being split up politically. I'm optimistic in that sense, even though I know we, meaning the poor and people of conscious will suffer more, political change is becoming possible.

[Robocommie]

Here is a hint, violent armed revolution is not the only way to solve problems. Save me the talk about how you are the real revolutionary.

That wasn't even close to what I was saying in that part you quoted. It's not going to be much use in arguing with you if you're just going to make up the meaning of what I say to you for yourself.


You are a status quoist who supports the USA and its crimes.You know, that's a new one on me, I so rarely get accused of being a "status quoist" who supports the USA and its crimes. Seriously though, fuck you too.

You know I think you'd probably be way more at home with Ron Paul's followers or the Zeitgeist movement. The socialist revolution crowd isn't going to be particularly interested in your principal objective of neo-Confederacy.

[LiberationTheologist]

That wasn't even close to what I was saying in that part you quoted. It's not going to be much use in arguing with you if you're just going to make up the meaning of what I say to you for yourself.

You know, that's a new one on me, I so rarely get accused of being a "status quoist" who supports the USA and its crimes. Seriously though, fuck you too.

You know I think you'd probably be way more at home with Ron Paul's followers or the Zeitgeist movement. The socialist revolution crowd isn't going to be particularly interested in your principal objective of neo-Confederacy.

I'll accept this as your final statement of surrender and of being a USA nationalist supporter with no ethics or moral concern. I hope the US dollar hegemony decline hits you particularly hard.

You will probably be pushing a full blown communist solidarity with the US government US government line as things continue to get worse a la the Greece communist party or Communist Party USA because you are essentially a nationalist for an imperialist state.

[Dazdra Flynn]

This may have already been mentioned somewhere in this thread, but it looks like most of these petitions are being signed by people from blue states. All these have managed to accomplish is to show conservatives that the rest of America is pretty enthused about the idea of them leaving the union.

[Robocommie]

I'll accept this as your final statement of surrender and of being a USA nationalist supporter with no ethics or moral concern. I hope the US dollar hegemony decline hits you particularly hard.


I mean, if you really want to be that petty, and act like that much of an ass on a message board, then go right ahead.

I'm pretty astonished at just how spiteful and arrogant this post is. I guess I touched a nerve or something. Anyway, you certainly touched one of mine. A couple of months now I've been spending a fair degree of time studying up in depth on the history and politics of Latin America, and in particular looking over the US-backed atrocities in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. It was pretty upsetting because most of the victims of these atrocities never got any kind of real justice and in fact probably never will. It put me in a pretty bad mood for a couple of weeks. How could it not? You read things like the account of Sister Diana Ortiz in Guatemala or about the Salvadoran death squads, stories of brutality, rape, torture; the absolute darkest horrors that humanity has ever inflicted on each other to the point where it strains belief. I kept asking other leftist friends of mine, close ones; how the fuck do you even handle this shit? Being a leftist, and knowing about this evil shit that gets done. How does anyone handle it? Nobody even talks about it in mainstream circles. The extent to which people have ignored it in the media to make sure that most of the world doesn't know about it or even thinks it's somehow justified - thinking about it just got me angrier and angrier. I spend so much time talking to people about US imperialism and wars and the evil that has been done and are ongoing, and no matter how much talking and protesting and organizing is done it just seems to never end, and never really get any better. It's infuriating and horribly depressing all at once, and I swear sometimes it just makes me want to break the fuck down. I don't though. My comrades, God bless them, they keep me going. I ultimately have to hope that we do end up winning in the end, and the better world we're fighting for comes to pass. Even if it never does, I have to think it's better to be the person that tried to make things right, then someone who just accepted things.

Anyway, I didn't write this out for your benefit, really. I wrote it because it's been on my mind lately, and also because when a person starts laying out despicable accusations like this, sometimes it has to be answered. I want people to be super fucking clear on where I stand on this shit, because there are people on this board who I actually like and respect. You on the other hand - just what the hell do you think this is? Final statement of surrender? What a childish thing to say, especially when you follow it up with wishing poverty and economic hardship on me because I think your little secessionist project is dumb. That's fucked up - I wouldn't wish poverty and hardship on anyone. You should be properly ashamed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'll accept this as your final statement of surrender and of being a USA nationalist supporter with no ethics or moral concern. I hope the US dollar hegemony decline hits you particularly hard.

You will probably be pushing a full blown communist solidarity with the US government US government line as things continue to get worse a la the Greece communist party or Communist Party USA because you are essentially a nationalist for an imperialist state.I don't believe that you actually believe this - please, let's keep our disagreements comradely. Robo said nothing of supporting the US state, just disagreement with your argument. This sort of hyperbole does nothing but derail discussions.

[LiberationTheologist]

I don't believe that you actually believe this - please, let's keep our disagreements comradely. Robo said nothing of supporting the US state, just disagreement with your argument. This sort of hyperbole does nothing but derail discussions.


I care less about what he says and more about what he does. Actions over words. My criticisms are based on objective reality not rhetoric someone says or the words that come out of their mouth. When there is an opportunity to oppose the US state and all the atrocities it carries out and then people say- "hey I cant sign on to that some conservatives are pushing that" and "this is not led by some nominally named socialist/communist party therefore I cannot support it."; then what should be said of such people?

To all who will continue to not want to rock the imperialist US boat, I see you as collaborators in these crimes. Every reasonable initiative that exists which will curb the US slaughter should be supported. We live in this world not in the magic soon to appear pure socialist paradise, an ideologically pure paradise which will never come to be without some concrete action and decent principles that put opposition to unchanging imperialist entities right at the top of our priorities. Enough of distorted and illusory ideological purity, and petty partisanship.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I just cannot see how endorsing this racist-inspired internet petition that will never amount to anything consists of concrete action that will rock the boat of US imperialism.:confused:

[LiberationTheologist]

I just cannot see how endorsing this racist-inspired internet petition that will never amount to anything consists of concrete action that will rock the boat of US imperialism.:confused:

Post less base one liners please. You have posted the same one line remark like 3-4 times now. This is real unhelpful and probably purposefully so. If you have no concept of psychology I would invite you to find some links on personal and mass psychology. Your name is Gramsci guy and you have no idea whatsoever how to answer your own question which I have answered numerous times? I lean toward you being a pure troll but maybe you are just real ignorant.

Tell me how would Gramsci critique a stated mass opposition(even at 600,000) people to the continuance of the US state as one political economy? I'll wait for your Gramscian critique.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Tell me how would Gramsci critique a stated mass opposition(even at 600,000) people to the continuance of the US state as one political economy? I'll wait for your Gramscian critique.Considering that he was around for debates about Italian unification, the two red years where workers took over and ran northern factories, and then the rise of fascism - I don't think it's too much of a streatch to say that he would agree that the break-up of the US, if possible, would be meaningless in regards to any automatic effect on class power and that the working class has to develop it's own counter-hegemony.

He argued that the lessons of Italian unification was that before governmental power can be taken, a group in society must already be "leading" and pull other social forces to it and then continue to "lead" society after forming a government.

Getting some online petitions signed is not creating a hegemonic force, let alone a hegemonic force that can create a material force to size power or cause the break-up of a state.

Hell Mexico and Canada can't sneeze without the US's permission - why would you think that the US would allow states to seperate?

And 600,000 people passivly signing something - let alone clicking on something online - is not a "mass movement". Immigrant protests in single cities were bigger than that, there are anti-abortion marches that big, there have been anti-war and NOW marches that big.

In the early 70s polls showed that a near majority of the youth in the US described themselves as revolutionary and thought the US was a "sick society" and that marriage would disappear. That's a hell of a lot more than 600,000 and yet no revolution, no civil war, no break-up of the US - and all under conditions where there were more polarizing crisies than today and there were organized forces activly trying to turn these sentiments into action.

[Yazman]

No more flames y'all. Somebody's already been infracted for it in here - I don't want to have to issue any more. If you don't like what somebody's saying or you're angry or annoyed, just take a break.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Post less base one liners please. You have posted the same one line remark like 3-4 times now. This is real unhelpful and probably purposefully so. If you have no concept of psychology I would invite you to find some links on personal and mass psychology. Your name is Gramsci guy and you have no idea whatsoever how to answer your own question which I have answered numerous times? I lean toward you being a pure troll but maybe you are just real ignorant.

Tell me how would Gramsci critique a stated mass opposition(even at 600,000) people to the continuance of the US state as one political economy? I'll wait for your Gramscian critique.


Antonio Gramsci often referred to the 19th century "risorgimiento" that led to the unification of Italy and the creation of the modern Italian nation-state. Of course, Gramsci's analysis focused on the bourgeois nature of the risorgimiento and its creation of a national-popular culture under bourgeois cultural hegemony. Nonetheless, Gramsci saw that national-popular culture as preferable to the provincialism that it supplanted.

With respect to the internet petitions, my surmise is that Gramsci would have been able to differentiate between a grassroots anti-imperialist movement and the cultural backwardness evidenced by this anti-Obama outburst. Anti-imperialism was a major current among the Italian left in the early 20th century due to Italy's use of brutal military force to subjugate the Arabic and Berber peoples of Libya. Therefore, I would surmise that the Gramscian perspective on the internet petitions ought to involve analyzing their substance for any indication of progressive anti-imperialism on the part of the petitioners.

[ckaihatsu]

This won't happen because there is no material basis for this.




Really it's just not on the cards right now. We'd likely have a much larger crisis of some kind (economic catastrophe, losing a major war and the US loosing it's position as #1 imperialist power, or near-revolutions) before any kind of break-up of the US happened.


If no one else is going to take up the line that's just lying here, I will....

The petitions and publicity point to a mass *disaffection* with things as they are, but the sentiment is in a political ideological vacuum if it just stays with the default 'anti-government' mentality. Certainly such sentiment and related actions may or may be not politically productive -- depending on how the ruling class reacts to them, basically -- but we know, especially from events in Cairo last year, that the overall perspective adopted *will* be the determining limiting factor *against* more successful struggles.

Do we *know* what rural-paradise conception some people have for the land and people that is currently under U.S. domination -- ? No, and *they* don't either, realistically, if they happen to be the *utopian*, libertarian political type depicted here.