Looking to start a Mid-Atlantic independence organization in US

[thecoffeecake1]

This is the last place I need to outline a list of grievances with the United States government and argue for the pros of smaller governments and the dissolving of an imperial empire, so I think I'll jump right to asking if there's anyone in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States that would like to be involved in a local independence movement. Although the ultimate goal is to completely dissolve the United States, the best way to do that is through regional independence movements. A few in the United States have garnered good support, and have laid down a solid foundation for future sovereign states. The Second Vermont Republic is probably the best active one right now. As for the Mid-Atlantic, a free state consisting of New Jersey, Delaware, Eastern Maryland, and portions of Eastern Pennsylvania would be practical and economically sustainable in our current capitalistic system. I'm looking for intelligent, far-left minded people to help me start up and mobilize an organization dedicated to the independence of the Mid-Atlantic region. Let me know what you guys think, not just about my proposals, but generally of the possibility and strategies of dissolving large imperial empires of the world.

[Rugged Collectivist]

It's a red herring. Breaking the US down into smaller countries won't achieve socialism, it will only create more misguided nationalists.

Your chances of success are essentially nil. please spend your time and energy on something else. I don't know what but definitely not this.

[thecoffeecake1]

You'll never achieve anything more than our corporate one party system without completely dismantling the country. Dissolving imperial empires is going to be an essential step if we're ever to reach some state of socialism/communism.

I don't understand how the chances of a movement like this succeeding are any less than any other far left movement succeeding. In fact, educating the populace about the abuses of the United States both domestic and abroad, and the economic and social advantages of creating a new sovereign state, especially in an area with so many oppressed, impoverished urban areas, and mobilizing a movement like this seems a more realistic short term goal than establishing a radical left government anywhere.

[Rugged Collectivist]

You'll never achieve anything more than our corporate one party system without completely dismantling the country. Dissolving imperial empires is going to be an essential step if we're ever to reach some state of socialism/communism.

I don't really know what you're getting at. you seem to want the US carved up into a bunch of small bourgeois republics. To what end? How will that help us achieve socialism?


I don't understand how the chances of a movement like this succeeding are any less than any other far left movement succeeding.You got me there. Both prospects look pretty bleak.


In fact, educating the populace about the abuses of the United States both domestic and abroad, and the economic and social advantages of creating a new sovereign state, especially in an area with so many oppressed, impoverished urban areas, and mobilizing a movement like this seems a more realistic short term goal than establishing a radical left government anywhere.Secession isn't necessary to educate the people. I figure opposition from the US would be just as harsh against this as it would be against a communist revolution. If we have to confront the state, why not go all the way?

but now that you mentioned it, what exactly are these supposed economic and social advantages that would come from secession?

[BIXX]

but now that you mentioned it, what exactly are these supposed economic and social advantages that would come from secession?

FREE POT

But seriously, due to the "socialism in one country" thing, there would still be capitalism, and thus, there would be little to no advantages as far as I can see.

[Blake's Baby]

Agitation for the union of the working class and the end of capitalism is more important than agitation for the end of the US. I mean look at Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union - they turned out well after they were dismantled, didn't they? The point is not to create a bunch of small states, it's to destroy capitalism and all states.

[thecoffeecake1]

You cannot achieve any sort of socialism while these large, imperial empires essentially rule the world. The short term goal isn't a socialist state, it's to dismantle one of the largest obstacles to it. The United States government has set up a system that keeps the same corporate system in power under the guise of democracy. It exists only to serve its own interests. Its policies allow corporations to effortlessly take a stranglehold on our economics, and it makes no effort to protect workers of any industry. We may not be able to establish a socialist state, but to destroy an imperial empire that extends its power by force over the entire world, that allows its businesses to abuse our environment for the sake of profit, that has completely ignored the states of poverty and our inner cities, how is that anything but beneficial? We will make zero progress while the United States exists in its current form.

[thecoffeecake1]

but now that you mentioned it, what exactly are these supposed economic and social advantages that would come from secession?
Heavy improvement of the state of local economies, self determination, a real democratic government that is responsive to the needs of their people and communities, ending the corporate control of our government, creating environmentally sustainable policies, bringing back our manufacturing sector and rebuilding the shattered middle class, just to name a few. I'm really curious as to how people so far to the left aren't in favor of dismantling an empire that ceaselessly pursues power and profit at the expense of such a large portion of the world's population.

[Blake's Baby]

The largest 'objective' obstacle is the existence of capitalism; and the largest 'subjective' obstacle is the lack of a revolutionary consciousness among the working class.

How does your solution address these problems?

[BIXX]

The only thing I think Secession could help is with is that in the time immediately after the secession, the new, little state would be weak, and easy to fight. The bigger state could potentially be weakened as well, but I don't know by how much.

But the fact remains that it is an impractical plan, especially when there are more important struggles than secession that we should be dealing with.

[thecoffeecake1]

The only thing I think Secession could help is with is that in the time immediately after the secession, the new, little state would be weak, and easy to fight. The bigger state could potentially be weakened as well, but I don't know by how much.

But the fact remains that it is an impractical plan, especially when there are more important struggles than secession that we should be dealing with.
That is a video game style analysis you offered. We need to localize our economies, localize our politics and government, otherwise, destructive forces of imperial empires will never end. The United States is not reformable. How can anyone say that removing the most powerful capitalistic organization in the world wouldn't be accomplishing anything? How would dissolving an entity that tirelessly oppresses billions around the world for the sake of profit not solving anything?

[Rural Comrade]

The US must stay united to complete the revolution. As those above have mentioned it would just create many small nationalist nations that will wish to create a new US. Also communism is international so how would breaking something up make it any easier? As for ending it as an empire it's already doing that itself. America is destroying itself on the inside and will eventually collapse.

[Tim Cornelis]

Global capitalism does not hang by a single thread called the United States, that's why people assert dissolving the US will not achieve anything. And evidently the US is not "reformable" hence we seek its dissolution, not in favour of minor nation-states but by communism.

Removing the US will leave a vacuum to China and Russia. Dissolving Russia and China would leave a vacuum for Brazil and India, etc. Dissolving Brazil and India will give way to Germany and France and Iran and Turkey. You don't 'solve' imperialism by abolishing one particular empire without destroying the conditions that give rise to imperialism in the first place.

But even ignoring this, an independence organisation for the 'Mid-Atlantic' will not result in anything. No one will take it seriously as no one will recognise a need for it.


Heavy improvement of the state of local economies, self determination, a real democratic government that is responsive to the needs of their people and communities, ending the corporate control of our government, creating environmentally sustainable policies, bringing back our manufacturing sector and rebuilding the shattered middle class, just to name a few. I'm really curious as to how people so far to the left aren't in favor of dismantling an empire that ceaselessly pursues power and profit at the expense of such a large portion of the world's population.

Because you are fighting symptoms, capitalism is the disease the Empire is a symptom. Moreover, "ending corporate control of our government" implies liberalism rather than communism. "Rebuilding the middle class" is just plain anti-communism.
I think you are not on the same page with communists.

[thecoffeecake1]

We need to meet short term goals before we can achieve a state of communism. If there's any kind of working-class-struggle sentiments, things like bringing back our middle class and ending corporate control of our government are two things that would and would need to happen before any sort of revolution. We're not just going to poor out of our houses one day with rifles in one hand and a copy of the Manifesto in another. Localizing is an important step for social justice. Fighting globalization is an important step for an eventual communist society.

[Tim Cornelis]

We need to meet short term goals before we can achieve a state of communism. If there's any kind of working-class-struggle sentiments, things like bringing back our middle class and ending corporate control of our government are two things that would and would need to happen before any sort of revolution. We're not just going to poor out of our houses one day with rifles in one hand and a copy of the Manifesto in another. Localizing is an important step for social justice. Fighting globalization is an important step for an eventual communist society.

Short-term goals and transitional demands need to reflect demands that enable the working class to strengthen its position for its eventual emancipation. Now here's my many problems with your proposition:
1) Who is the "middle class" and how does bring it back create working class 'sentiment?
2) What is working class sentiment and why would a middle class have it?
3) What does corporate control over the government mean and how would ending it even work?
4) If we end corporate control how does this relate to the position of the working class? Does it strengthen it its position? Does it facilitate class consciousness?
5) How is localising an important step for social justice?
6) How does fighting globalisation relate at all to communism? Instinctively I'd say an internationalised economy means an internationalised working class, which would be a positive development in relation to communism.
7) And why does any of the above have to take place in the context of separatism?

In short, how does your proposition enable the working class to create the preconditions for their emancipation?

And arguing we wont pour out of our houses is of course disingenuous, as if it's the proposed alternative of communists.

[Rural Comrade]

Yes that the Thing communism is international. Why should we break up the US and make it harder on our selves. The states of the US like it or not have autonomy. Look at Lenin he wanted to reunite tho former Russian Empire into the Soviet Union and he got most of it.

Also breaking it up like others have said would lead to many small nationalist nations.

[thecoffeecake1]

Short-term goals and transitional demands need to reflect demands that enable the working class to strengthen its position for its eventual emancipation. Now here's my many problems with your proposition:
1) Who is the "middle class" and how does bring it back create working class 'sentiment?
2) What is working class sentiment and why would a middle class have it?
3) What does corporate control over the government mean and how would ending it even work?
4) If we end corporate control how does this relate to the position of the working class? Does it strengthen it its position? Does it facilitate class consciousness?
5) How is localising an important step for social justice?
6) How does fighting globalisation relate at all to communism? Instinctively I'd say an internationalised economy means an internationalised working class, which would be a positive development in relation to communism.

In short, how does your proposition enable the working class to create the preconditions for their emancipation?

And arguing we wont pour out of our houses is of course disingenuous, as if it's the proposed alternative of communists.
1. The middle class is usually defined as the economic class of people below the upper class and above the lower class. In our current economic climate, the upper class elite control the economy, usually through large corporations, eliminate local commerce, and hire employees at minimal rates. Since deindustrialization of the mid-20th century, there have been very few middle class job opportunities in the United States. I never said reviving our broken middle class would create "working class sentiments". Please use quotes to verify your claims. What I said was, if we were to see any sort of working-class-struggle sentiment, as in a rise in leftist, revolutionary tendencies in our populaces, we would see short term improvements in social and economic climates. Before we could achieve a socialistic state with the increased leftist tendencies, we would see other, less radical reform; i.e, bringing back our middle class, ending corporate control of our government, environmental reform, other "liberal" movements.
2. I'm not sure what "working class sentiment" is. I don't know where you got that from, nor do I know why you keep bringing it up. I also never said the middle class would necessarily have working-class-struggle sentiment. An improved middle class would result from increased leftist, revolutionary activity. It's not as if a growing revolutionary group would sit on their hands before the potential for revolution was there; they would demand reform.
3. Corporate America is the puppet master of the American government. All decisions and policies of the American government support big business and ensure the current party remains in power. There is no practical reason for such irresponsible environmental and urban policy, embarrassing tax regulations on the elite, etc, if there was no incentive of profit. The government as it stands is too large, too unresponsive to the real needs of people and communities, and is not reformable.
4. If we weaken Corporate America, we will strengthen the working class. Big business is the root of extreme economic imparities.
5. Localization is essentially moving away from a corporate based economy. Corporations are able to pay so little and deny workers so many rights with ruthless efficiency, and with the economy in the state it is, it is impossible for workers to unionize or demand any sort of improvements of work conditions or wages without being terminated. A local economy would self employ more people, create more small business, and allow workers to more easily unionize and demand better conditions, higher wages, etc.
6. Globalization is a tool the elite use to move their products and services more easily and efficiently throughout the world. Another "symptom", so to speak, of capitalism. I will never believe an "internationalized economy" will ever be beneficial for the working class.
7. Large governments are unresponsive to the tangible needs of people and communities. The question shouldn't be "why separation", it should be "why large government?". For what reason should a government make the same decisions for people in Charleston and people in Seattle? The cultures are different, the economics are different, and each should have the right to self determination. Much of the secession discourse centers around the problems of the US specifically, and not federalism in general, but each argument is valid and is a discussion in and of itself. Large governments have shown throughout time to be ineffective at ruling large populaces. This isn't even an issue of capitalism. Imperial empires have always existed, they've always repressed their populace in one form or another, and they have all fallen at one point or another. The empires that exist right now are on the same track. As for the United States specifically, it is not reformable. If it continues to exist in this manner, we will never see any improvements to the lives of our working class.

[Tim Cornelis]

1. The middle class is usually defined as the economic class of people below the upper class and above the lower class.

Which begs the question: what defines the upper and lower class? Are we talking about the proletariat (lower class), petite bourgeoisie (middle class), and haute bourgeoisie (upper class)?


In our current economic climate, the upper class elite control the economy,

This implies as if it were ever different ("climate" suggesting a relatively briefly changing environment, with the 1970s not having 'elitist control' for instance). An 'economic elite' has always controlled the economy since civilisation.


usually through large corporations, eliminate local commerce,

Do you consider this a bad thing?


and hire employees at minimal rates.

That's a systematic flaw not a flaw of "evil corporations".


Since deindustrialization of the mid-20th century, there have been very few middle class job opportunities in the United States. I never said reviving our broken middle class would create "working class sentiments". Please use quotes to verify your claims.


If there's any kind of working-class-struggle sentiments, things like bringing back our middle class and ending corporate control of our government are two things that would and would need to happen before any sort of revolution.

I read t his as "If there's [going to be] any kind of working-class-struggle sentiments, things like bringing back our middle class and ending corporate control of our government are two things that would and would need to happen."

But why would we want to revive middle class jobs?


What I said was, if we were to see any sort of working-class-struggle sentiment, as in a rise in leftist, revolutionary tendencies in our populaces, we would see short term improvements in social and economic climates. Before we could achieve a socialistic state with the increased leftist tendencies, we would see other, less radical reform; i.e, bringing back our middle class, ending corporate control of our government, environmental reform, other "liberal" movements.

Why? Why would we need that? I don't see how achieving that would ultimately achieve socialism/communism.



2. I'm not sure what "working class sentiment" is. I don't know where you got that from, nor do I know why you keep bringing it up. I also never said the middle class would necessarily have working-class-struggle sentiment. An improved middle class would result from increased leftist, revolutionary activity.

How? You make all these assumptions but you don't explain the causality.


3. Corporate America is the puppet master of the American government. All decisions and policies of the American government support big business and ensure the current party remains in power. There is no practical reason for such irresponsible environmental and urban policy, embarrassing tax regulations on the elite, etc, if there was no incentive of profit. The government as it stands is too large, too unresponsive to the real needs of people and communities, and is not reformable

But this is merely social-democracy and social liberalism, how will reforming this get us any closer to communism?


4. If we weaken Corporate America, we will strengthen the working class. Big business is the root of extreme economic imparities.

If we end corporate control we can't yet replace it with proletarian self-rule, as you've implicitly stated yourself. This would be the first step. In the meanwhile, what replaces the corporate controlled government then? Sweden would arguably be the least 'corporate controlled' government, especially in the 1970s, but it didn't bring us closer to communist revolution. How will 'ending' corporate control be any different now?


5. Localization is essentially moving away from a corporate based economy.

I don't regard this as particularly feasible. I consider corporations the natural evolution of capitalism, however I can't really specify why I deem it infeasible.


Corporations are able to pay so little and deny workers so many rights with ruthless efficiency, and with the economy in the state it is, it is impossible for workers to unionize or demand any sort of improvements of work conditions or wages without being terminated. A local economy would self employ more people, create more small business, and allow workers to more easily unionize and demand better conditions, higher wages, etc.

In the 19th century we had small businesses more than corporations, yet working conditions were much harsher.


6. Globalization is a tool the elite use to move their products and services more easily and efficiently throughout the world. Another "symptom", so to speak, of capitalism. I will never believe an "internationalized economy" will ever be beneficial for the working class.

I'd say globalisation is the natural evolution of capitalism, not a conscious tool of an elite of sorts.


7. Large governments are unresponsive to the tangible needs of people and communities.

I'm not sure if that's true. I think Greece's government is less responsive to the needs of people and communities than, say, Germany, yet Germany is much larger.
And if it's true why not call for the restoration of city-states? Mid-Atlantic region is larger than Spain after all.


The question shouldn't be "why separation", it should be "why large government?". For what reason should a government make the same decisions for people in Charleston and people in Seattle?

This is more of an ethical question than a strategic one. Yes I believe in self-governance, but localisation as you advocate is merely localisation of tyranny in a sense.


The cultures are different, the economics are different, and each should have the right to self determination.

Self-determination does not mean the right of a local elite to govern as they lease as opposed to a regional elite.


Much of the secession discourse centers around the problems of the US specifically, and not federalism in general, but each argument is valid and is a discussion in and of itself. Large governments have shown throughout time to be ineffective at ruling large populaces. This isn't even an issue of capitalism. Imperial empires have always existed, they've always repressed their populace in one form or another, and they have all fallen at one point or another. The empires that exist right now are on the same track. As for the United States specifically, it is not reformable. If it continues to exist in this manner, we will never see any improvements to the lives of our working class.

What we need is not improvement of the lives of the working class, but creation the necessary preconditions of the working class to abolish itself. In order for the working class to abolish/emancipate itself, it requires a working class movement across national boundaries waging class struggle. I don't see how separatism contributes to this at all. Localisation and decentralisation does not create the preconditions for working class self-emancipation.

[thecoffeecake1]

I'm just hitting my dick against a wall trying to argue with you. You seem to not believe any reform is necessary before a revolution. I disagree. We are generations away from a revolution. In the mean time, it's important to do things like lower economic disparities and challenge corporate control of our government. These are tangible problems we can face in this generation.

With separation, we can tackle real reforms. The argument I keep facing is, well, it won't change anything, just create another elitist government. A condition of secession would be the need for major reform. You seem to think any social advancement needs to be a "precondition of revolution", we need real reform that improves lives. We can't live in this revolutionary fantasy land when we know good and well it's generations, unfortunately, from actually happening.

You said my stance regarding federalism was an ethical one rather than a strategic one. Yes. It is an ethical issue.

Germany being slightly larger than Greece and being more effective at governing it's individuals and communities is not a valid argument against federalism.

The sovereign region I'm proposing is actually about the size of Latvia.

You're not understanding that if we experience a rise in leftist, revolutionary activity, we would see major social reform before a revolution. When the left grows strong enough, we will be demanding reform. The process of creating a communist state will be a slow one.

[thecoffeecake1]

Yes that the Thing communism is international. Why should we break up the US and make it harder on our selves. The states of the US like it or not have autonomy. Look at Lenin he wanted to reunite tho former Russian Empire into the Soviet Union and he got most of it.

Also breaking it up like others have said would lead to many small nationalist nations.
The United States is not reformable

[Blake's Baby]

That's OK, we're not reformists.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm just hitting my dick against a wall trying to argue with you. You seem to not believe any reform is necessary before a revolution. I disagree. We are generations away from a revolution. In the mean time, it's important to do things like lower economic disparities and challenge corporate control of our government. These are tangible problems we can face in this generation.

With separation, we can tackle real reforms. The argument I keep facing is, well, it won't change anything, just create another elitist government. A condition of secession would be the need for major reform. You seem to think any social advancement needs to be a "precondition of revolution", we need real reform that improves lives. We can't live in this revolutionary fantasy land when we know good and well it's generations, unfortunately, from actually happening.

We need 'reforms' if they create the necessary preconditions for the working class' self-emancipation. We need immediate interests to serve as catalyst to attract workers to our cause. For instance, the Landless Workers' Movement fights for land reform but the structure and content of the movement is something I very much support (unfortunately, its ideology is reformist). The Landless Workers' Movement fights for land reform without some illusionary believe they need to break up Brazil to achieve this.

You can fight for reforms, but there's no need to break up the United States. There's also no need to not break up the United States, but it isn't something we should very much concern ourselves with (especially given that it's infeasible).


The sovereign region I'm proposing is actually about the size of Latvia.

Doesn't the Mid-Atlantic region have 60,000,000 residents? (EDIT: nevermind, you specified this in your first post).


You're not understanding that if we experience a rise in leftist, revolutionary activity, we would see major social reform before a revolution. When the left grows strong enough, we will be demanding reform. The process of creating a communist state will be a slow one.

Yes "reforms" but these are not about 'ending corporate control', these are about socially relevant interests for workers. For example, the Seattle Solidarity Network fights employers so they pay up unpaid wages. These are not revolutionary demands, but make anarchism and syndicalism an edible ideology.
And 'communist state' is, or at the very least should be, a contradictio in terminis.

[Rural Comrade]

The United States is not reformable

What I mean is that the US is one nation and one nation alone that will find its own path to socialism

And when I say path to socialism it does not necessarily mean peaceful. A revolution is a path to socialism.

What I meant from the Russian Empire to Soviet Union is that an Empire can become a socialist state.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What I mean is that the US is one nation and one nation alone that will find its own path to socialism.

Uh, try running back some of the various indigenous nations within the "United" States.

Seriously though, what makes you feel that way? What is the common thread "uniting" Americans? I mean, for a significant number, there's settler-colonialism, which maybe is a basis for "nationhood", but I'm pretty sure most communists are against it.

[Rural Comrade]

The people accept America as one Nation for the most part. And by People I mean Americans, Canadians, Mexicans. For a future socialist state building towards communism in the US the best idea would be to keep the whole thing as one Nation.

[Fred]

This is really silly. On what basis would the US bourgeoisie agree to this kind of partition? If this were possible, why stop with this idiotic piecemeal approach. In a circumstance where the working class could engender a dissolution of the Union, why not go for full scale revolution? It won't be any easier to secede than to realize the d of the p. This is crack pot stuff.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The people accept America as one Nation for the most part. And by People I mean Americans, Canadians, Mexicans. For a future socialist state building towards communism in the US the best idea would be to keep the whole thing as one Nation.

You know, it's problematic when you say, "for the most part", and implicitly mean, "not those pesky Indians".

[Rural Comrade]

I was referring to the creator of this thread and people who think like him (not based by race). Regardless its like Fred said we would only be harming ourselves if we split up the US making many smaller possibly nationalist nations.