North american union?

[Issaiah1332]

I am sure many of you have heard about the hypothetical "North American Union." If this were to happen...do you feel that it would be good for the revolution? I mean...then you have the capability of changing an entire continent, so it would ease the possibility of a counterrevolution. Yet, at the same time, it would be harder to overthrow a country made up of 3 subcountries.

Also...(Just imagining things) if this were to happen...along with other continents doing the same. Do you feel that it is possible for a one world nation and if so how do you think that this would affect the revolution?

Thanks...I am interested in your opinions.

[Comrade Rage]

If this were to happen...do you feel that it would be good for the revolution?
Hell no.

This is probably the one thing that US capitalists can do to ensure their continued hegemony over the world. No.

[jake williams]

There will never be a functional North American Union like the EU. I mean, shit, if there ever was even an inkling, the psychos would come down from the hills and trailer parks with their assault rifles and tanks and start shooting everything and bombing the federal government. Crazy bastards really hate the Mexicans.

What we will see is gradual neo-colonialist expansionism by America into Canada and Mexico, as far as they're allowed to.

[Comrade Rage]

What we will see is gradual neo-colonialist expansionism by America into Canada and Mexico, as far as they're allowed to.I think that scenario is far more likely to happen than the NAU.

[jake williams]

Comrade jammoe, your post is full of classism and liberal arrogance. Communists understand that the reactionary ideology present in the U.S. is a result of its capitalist rulers (which control the schools, prisons, media, etc.). We don't attack the poorest workers and farmers.

The people "in the hills" come from immigrant families and many have carried out some of the most militant struggles in U.S. history (e.g. the Matewan Battle, which itself was a result of efforts of "white," Italian and Black miners to unionize).
I see what you're saying, and it's a valid consideration we shouldn't ever ignore. But it's not just some liberal myth used to beat up workers that America is full of insane redneck gun nuts and people who think Ron Paul is the sanest candidate running. Have you heard of the NRA?

[jake williams]

Yes, I'm very familiar with the NRA.

One, communists support the right to bare arms. Two, the NRA is a bourgeois organization that helps push the reactionary outlook of the ruling class.

Mao made a good point when he said don't point the spear down, point it up. In other words, don't blame and attack the workers and farmers who cling to reactionary ideology, blame and attack the source of that ideology.

People get their views from society. When the capitalists control all aspects of society, from the TV to the radio to the movie, etc., their garbage becomes widespread.

That's what Marx meant when he said the ideology of any society is the ideology of its rulers.

Of course, it's our job to combat that.

Attacking the workers and farmers is liberal arrogance.. (I never said anything about any 'myths').
I do think there's a lot of truth in what you're saying. But partly it sounds like a whole other kind of "liberal arrogance" to assume these sorts of people have no power over their beliefs and are just the ideological victims of a propaganda system. It's a bit of both I think - they do hold some responsibility for their views and actions, unless you're a complete determinist.

[Q]

A North-American Union is highly unlikely in this epoch. The European "unification" was relatively easy in a period where there was a common enemy, relative high economic growth and social-democratic policies (which put a cap on competition of ruling classes between the membernations).

But the unification will only go so far as it doesn't threathen the interests of the ruling classes of each membernation and since the bourgeoisie will never just give away power, even if it is to their class brethern on the other side of the border, the unification will never be completed under capitalism. There will never be one European superstate.

Actually, since the common market has been completed with the introduction of a common currency and a common set of policies that encourage competition, tentions between the members states (especially the new members) are on the rise. The referendums for a European constitution failed in the Netherlands and France in 2005 (it is now being introduced without the lable "constitution" on it...), which is an indicator how the working class thinks about the EU. It is my prediction that tentions will only further develop and the political union will probably degenerate from the infant point it currently holds. They'll probably stick with the Euro and the common market, but beyond that the bourgeoisie of each country will just keep with their own political interests.

Now, what does this say about the North-American Union or perhaps a World Union? Simply this: not going to happen under capitalism. The EU is the legacy of WW2, so it holds a rather unique position in capitalist politics, which is not expected to repeat anywhere across the planet.

The only way for true unification is via socialism. Capitalism has brought us the progressive fact that we're now a world community, economically speaking. Politically speaking we're still very divided, but this stems from the fact that each national bourgeoisie persues its own interests which doesn't include its own voluntary ending by merging into a bigger nation. Nationstates itself are a product of capitalism, which was a very progressive step at the time coming from feudalism, but now blocks further development. Only socialism, with the working class at the wheel of power and realising that it must cooperate internationally via class solidarity to fullfill its historic tasks, can truely unite the world via a voluntary federation of workers councils that work together on a regional, national and international level. Effectively ending the borders of the nationstate.

[Red_or_Dead]

Im not familiar with the details, so let me just ask: what are the views in Canada and Mexico? Im pretty sure that if the NAU would realise, it would be dominated by the USA, because it is the richest, strongest and biggest (in terms of popoulation) among the three. I can hardly see Canada and Mexico supporting a union with the USA, a union in which they are very likely to give more than they would get.

[Issaiah1332]

Well...if the economy were to worsen to such an extent, would it not be in the US best interest to consolidate?

[Red_or_Dead]

Well...if the economy were to worsen to such an extent, would it not be in the US best interest to consolidate?

What I meant is, would Canada and Mexico be prepared to accept US supremacy.

[Q]

What I meant is, would Canada and Mexico be prepared to accept US supremacy.
Read my previous post for a clear and definite answer.

[jake williams]

I don't know if anyone else realize this, but Canadians completely despise Americans, and have forever. They've tried to conquer us a few too many times, you know? And they're just generally constant competition. The anti-Americanism here is extremely deep.

[Red_or_Dead]

Read my previous post for a clear and definite answer.

Not going to happen in capitalism? I guess your arguments hold water, and I agree with the whole post.


I don't know if anyone else realize this, but Canadians completely despise Americans, and have forever. They've tried to conquer us a few too many times, you know? And they're just generally constant competition. The anti-Americanism here is extremely deep.

Well, thats the sound of NAU not happening, then.

[Davie zepeda]

The fact of the matter is that American is controlled by the bankers and the bankers see there chance now to gain even more control of the world .Mexico is just a stepping stone like el Salvador who uses the usa dollar the main goal of the bankers is to have one world currency which will be reach with the Asian common wealth and European union once they reach the easy part of having the world currency's in three different types. then finishing the job by making it one thus in salving humanity to the will of the banker.

why do you think they hate Chavez so much just because his a leftist no no his making a bank for the people as well as a market for the people thus an enemy of the bankers remember one great leader was killed by the bankers Abraham Lincoln because he wanted to give the money to the people for the people also destroying the national banks which in fact where owned by the monarchy's of england and the world.

[RedDawn]

NAFTA works out great for the US as is. There is no reason to change that.

We can dump our goods on Canada and Mexico tariff free and we can basically prevent them from dumping their goods on us.

Furthermore, by having free movement of goods but not people, it means Mexicans have to cross the border illegally. That way capitalists can exploit illegal immigrants, make them work harder, longer hours, for shit pay, and no bennies.

If immigrants start to rise up, they just use the immigration police as strike breakers. They make it so they are second class citizens who have to keep their heads down and try to prevent them from voting or getting school. Meanwhile, many immigrants put up fronts to show that they are paying taxes and thus paying into the system. Other immigrants can't qualify for welfare and other meager benefits because they don't have social security numbers.

We have the perfect system in the US... if you are a capitalist.

[Lynx]

Some Canadians may be reactionary, yet we end up with pro-American lapdog conservatives.

[RNK]

CdL quoting Mao to prove a point? And I'm agreeing with him?!

Run for the hills!

[The New Left]

I am sure many of you have heard about the hypothetical "North American Union." If this were to happen...do you feel that it would be good for the revolution? I mean...then you have the capability of changing an entire continent, so it would ease the possibility of a counterrevolution. Yet, at the same time, it would be harder to overthrow a country made up of 3 subcountries.

Also...(Just imagining things) if this were to happen...along with other continents doing the same. Do you feel that it is possible for a one world nation and if so how do you think that this would affect the revolution?

Thanks...I am interested in your opinions.

Okay, think of it this way. Instead of 3 countries who have fairly high capitalistic power levels, you have 1 large capitalist union that is a economic, political and military giant...basically. Common sense helps here.
In Canada, it would be a lot easier installing a social democratic government (at least its a start) than the United States.

However, now that I think about it, if for some magical reason a large, influential group started a revolution in the N.A.U. then it would be easier to make all 3 countries fall at once compared to now. But that's just not a real possibility at the moment.

[Revy]

I think this is a potentially good discussion and debate, not as to whether there is actually a North American Union in the works, many of us know that to be paranoia, often from right-wing nationalists (at least in the US).

However, I think a North American supranational body, is inevitable, as is something similar for South America and Central America (there is already the OAS but it is more of a diplomatic organization than a union). All over the world there are attempts at unifying regions.

I'm not really sure I should oppose the idea. To oppose it simply because "it comes from the capitalists" makes no logical sense, as the nations are sustained in their present state by the capitalist ruling classes.

First, the results of this would have the effect of putting a dampener on rampant jingoism/nationalism. It would increase diversity, both linguistic and ethnic. Canadians and Mexicans are probably less pro-war, or less rallied to war (Canadians oppose by a majority their government's involvement in Afghanistan, something that would seem improbable in the US).

There could still be autonomous republics within the Union (to merge into one country would violate those silly monarchist laws in Canada which still establish the Queen as head of state), but merging into one country would be a whole lot more fun :)

here's the flag btw:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Flag_of_the_North_American_Union.png

[ckaihatsu]

Anyway, the likelihood of a "North American Union" is highly questionable. So far, claims that such a thing is on the way have been used as propaganda by rightist elements seeking to rally the most backward sections to their banner.


Exactly.





What we will see is gradual neo-colonialist expansionism by America into Canada and Mexico, as far as they're allowed to.


Yup.





The fact of the matter is that American is controlled by the bankers and the bankers see there chance now to gain even more control of the world .Mexico is just a stepping stone like el Salvador who uses the usa dollar the main goal of the bankers is to have one world currency which will be reach with the Asian common wealth and European union once they reach the easy part of having the world currency's in three different types. then finishing the job by making it one thus in salving humanity to the will of the banker.


Hey, remember the three mega-empires of the world in George Orwell's _1984_ -- ? They were Eurasia, Oceania, and Eastasia -- not that far off from today's Atlanticists (England and the U.S., plus Japan and now China), Europeanists (Western Europe), and then the Middle East as a bloc (more or less). Of course the boundaries aren't nearly *that* tidy, as in Orwell's dystopian fiction, but it *can* be argued to be along those lines, especially given the history of world-historical development among the major nations and their historically chummy relationships with each other....





why do you think they hate Chavez so much just because his a leftist no no his making a bank for the people as well as a market for the people thus an enemy of the bankers remember one great leader was killed by the bankers Abraham Lincoln because he wanted to give the money to the people for the people also destroying the national banks which in fact where owned by the monarchy's of england and the world.


Yup.





NAFTA works out great for the US as is. There is no reason to change that.

We can dump our goods on Canada and Mexico tariff free and we can basically prevent them from dumping their goods on us.

Furthermore, by having free movement of goods but not people, it means Mexicans have to cross the border illegally. That way capitalists can exploit illegal immigrants, make them work harder, longer hours, for shit pay, and no bennies.

If immigrants start to rise up, they just use the immigration police as strike breakers. They make it so they are second class citizens who have to keep their heads down and try to prevent them from voting or getting school. Meanwhile, many immigrants put up fronts to show that they are paying taxes and thus paying into the system. Other immigrants can't qualify for welfare and other meager benefits because they don't have social security numbers.

We have the perfect system in the US... if you are a capitalist.


It is truly the perfection of apartheid, through "economic" means ("blessed" from above with insufferable debt), or 'neo-feudalism', which I prefer as a working definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofeudalism


Chris





--









--

___



RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left

www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162



Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu

community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/



3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork

ckaihatsu.elance.com



MySpace:

myspace.com/ckaihatsu



CouchSurfing:

tinyurl.com/yoh74u





-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[zerozerozerominusone]

But it's not just some liberal myth used to beat up workers that America is full of insane redneck gun nuts and people who think Ron Paul is the sanest candidate running. Have you heard of the NRA?

Care to define "gun nut"?

[zerozerozerominusone]

Im not familiar with the details, so let me just ask: what are the views in Canada and Mexico? Im pretty sure that if the NAU would realise, it would be dominated by the USA, because it is the richest, strongest and biggest (in terms of popoulation) among the three. I can hardly see Canada and Mexico supporting a union with the USA, a union in which they are very likely to give more than they would get.

More? More of what?

[zerozerozerominusone]

I don't know if anyone else realize this, but Canadians completely despise Americans, and have forever. They've tried to conquer us a few too many times, you know? And they're just generally constant competition. The anti-Americanism here is extremely deep.

People in the US don't seem to have much use for Canadians either, so as long as Canada behaves itself, they should be safe. :)

[zerozerozerominusone]

If immigrants start to rise up, they just use the immigration police as strike breakers. They make it so they are second class citizens who have to keep their heads down and try to prevent them from voting or getting school.


I might remind you that illegal Mexicans are not second class citizens. They are not citizens at all.

[Charles Xavier]

The purpose of a North American Union is to make it more and more difficult for individual states to hold rights over corporation. Its there as a method of passing the buck making Central Governments more and more just rubber stamp committees for the bankers. Its purpose is for deregulation and making the government less accountable for the people. Of course its a bad thing.

[zerozerozerominusone]

One, communists support the right to bare arms.

Then why have all the so-called "communist" regimes disarmed their people in near-complete fashion? Soviets denied it - that speaks for few dozen nations right there. China... nope. SEA stripped their people of arms - after the war in Viet Nam, the people (vietcong in particular) were rapidly disarmed.

Hell, the Russian constitution guaranteed freedom of speech, too. What it apparently didn't reveal was the "states" prerogative to take you to the gulag in response to anything you may (or may not) have said.

Men can claim or promise anything they please - talk is cheap. What counts is action and so far all I have seen from the likes of these is wholesale destruction aimed at their own people. That makes all kinds of sense.

[Dust Bunnies]

I might remind you that illegal Mexicans are not second class citizens. They are not citizens at all.

They should be made citizens though, we are one human race.

I feel a North American Union is just the imagination of Ron Paul tin foil hatters. Nationalism divides the different countries' ruling classes too much to join into one entity.

[Q]

Then why have all the so-called "communist" regimes disarmed their people in near-complete fashion? Soviets denied it - that speaks for few dozen nations right there. China... nope. SEA stripped their people of arms - after the war in Viet Nam, the people (vietcong in particular) were rapidly disarmed.

Hell, the Russian constitution guaranteed freedom of speech, too. What it apparently didn't reveal was the "states" prerogative to take you to the gulag in response to anything you may (or may not) have said.

Men can claim or promise anything they please - talk is cheap. What counts is action and so far all I have seen from the likes of these is wholesale destruction aimed at their own people. That makes all kinds of sense.
The Stalinesque dictatorships have/had little to do with communism.

I still stand by my original post in this thread by the way: a NAU is not on the table.

[cb9's_unity]

From a revolutionary perspective I doubt this would make much of a difference even if it did happen. I don't think we'll see any of the three nations rise at once. Instead we'll see different regions like the North-Eastern or Western USA or Oaxaca Mexico really become revolutionary or Independent.

So in essence no matter who the U.S joins with other countries it won't make a large difference as revolution will be a somewhat local affair.