Post-Revolution American Land Re-Distribution

[Man of the Century]

One of the more interesting aspects of post-revolution in the United States is whether there will be any Re-Distribution of lands.

This is a weird one because there are traditional Maxists who would argue for an absence of nationalism, and, therefore, no nation states. But there are others who would view a transition period and have already assigned expected areas of authority to various groups, nations, organizations, what-have-you.

There are those who argue for a "black America" in the South, various American Indian redistributions and an area in the Southwest for Aztlan, or Mexico.

I personally do not believe in ceding any lands to any authority other then the United States, whic is, to my way of thinking, soverign.

Where do you stand on this issue?

[Severian]

The whole idea of self-determination contradicts laying out the map in advance.

[redwinter]

I think that the oppressed nations have the right to self-determination. If they choose to be independent and have their own autonomous state then that is their decision to make. Ultimately, from a revolutionary communist standpoint, I don't encourage the formation of separate states, but I uphold the right for any oppressed nation to do so. So if a lot of the people in the black nation want an independent state in the "black belt" south, it will be an issue worth examining and seeing how the nation as a whole is oriented towards this. Native American tribes, I belive, already have nominal "autonomy" under the US empire, but under socialism of course they will be given more freedom to either extend this autonomy if they so choose, stay the same way they are now, or integrate with the multinational proletarian state.

As for the Southwestern border with Mexico, a revolution in the USA would definitely stir things up in the area, perhaps resulting in the revolution spilling over the border. Many communities in south Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona (and even stretching up into Colorado and Nevada) are already or becoming majority Mexican/Chicano. (see u.s. census map: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/images/hispanic.jpg for a rough approximation of this process).

Some of the areas with increasing Mexican/Chicano populations in the Southwest are also areas with big Native American populations, so there would be further contradictions that might come up if both groups went for independent states...I don't really think that Mexicans who move north of the border, and still maintain their connection to Mexico, should have an independent state, maybe just changing the southern border of the US to better reflect the population would work. Chicanos, people of Mexican descent who are somewhat "Americanized" and possess a totally different culture from Mexicans, I would consider more an oppressed nationality rather than an oppressed nation itself.

[Man of the Century]

I suppose this sort of scheme could only come about after a SUCCESSFUL revolution rather than as part of the beginning of one. United States authority could do quite well rallying the country together if the change in border issue would ever occur, and for Mexico to support this would be an act of war.

Remember what happened the last time a state tried to separate. President Lincoln didn't just let it happen.

[RedStarMilitia]

I dont think it should be segregated so that there are "black-states". As an alternate this could lead people into believing their privacy has been invaded and this could lead to racism. In return this could lead to civil war, and then one group will want to be dominant or there may be chaos and the efforts of the successful revolution lost in vain as the country will have lost its sense of a strength in numbers of equal people and right wing ideas could arise.
We should live as we are. if the revolution is successful we are free men and land should belong to noone, that way black, white, red indian etc will be united as one.

[Man of the Century]

I do not believe that merely having hispanic Americans living in the Southwest makes them more excited about the loss of U.S. authority over the lands there. Many are just as American as a Norman Rockwell painting. They may be "brown" and have relations in Mexico, but they see themselves as Americans.

[romanm]

After the proletariat invades this PIGdom of AmeriKKKa. It's be one big gulag. People will be reeducated and put to productibve labor . Their labor will be sent to the 3rd world.

Amerikkkans will have to give up their PIG lifestyles or face the warth of the proletariat.

[LSD]

After the proletariat invades this PIGdom of AmeriKKKa. It's be one big gulag.

You are a very sick man.


People will be reeducated and put to productibve labor

:lol:


Amerikkkans will have to give up their PIG lifestyles or face the warth of the proletariat.

warth? PIG?

What the fucKKK are you talking about!?

[redwinter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:45 AM
After the proletariat invades this PIGdom of AmeriKKKa. It's be one big gulag. People will be reeducated and put to productibve labor . Their labor will be sent to the 3rd world.

Amerikkkans will have to give up their PIG lifestyles or face the warth of the proletariat.
While I totally disagree with how you say socialism will come about in the U.S. (a national gulag? what are you smoking?), I do see an element of truth in what you're saying. Imperialist countries, the US in particular, are guilty of exploiting the oppressed nations (in fact, they extract superprofits from the oppressed nation proletarians which is used to pay off a section of the imperialist nation proletariat -- the labor aristocracy, workers who are paid more than their labor value in exchange for loyalty to the imperialist system). So we definitely have to have some kind of reparations for oppressed nations, and the US is certainly going to have to be doing the most "payback" of any imperialist country.

How we deal with this contradiction is going to be very tricky -- if there is a socialist revolution in the US before all the oppressed nations, are we going to give money or capital to the bourgeois or comprador governments in the oppressed nations, letting them use it to reinforce their repressive rule? Or, what I think is more logical, will we use it to provide material aid and comfort to the revolutionary forces there until they are able to seize power?

There's also a kernel of truth in that Americans, as well as people from other imperialist countries, will be experiencing a change in their lifestyles when socialism is established. The wasteful use of resources in the imperialist countries reeks of superexploitation of the oppressed nations - much of the "multiple cars for each family" that the middle class and labor aristocracy in the USA is so used to, and the suburban, car-oriented lifestyle of millions of people, will be done away with and replaced with effective public transportation. Maoist urban planning will ensure that neighborhoods are closer-knit, and that people don't have to travel for hours each day just to go to work two or three counties away (a real situation for not only the middle class, but also many in the proletariat), but there will be industry and recreation within the community, as well as institutions of education and other things needed by people. There is plenty of wealth both already created and constantly being created in the United States to export back to the oppressed nations while we create more for use here to transform society. So definitely, I agree that America will change drastically and a bourgeois minded person might say that our "lifestyles" will get worse; but I think it will be getting much better for the proletariat, and a lot of middle class people will definitely appreciate the lifestyle difference and a reduction of the atomization of life that occurs in imperialist societies for the petit bourgeoisie.