25
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by johnmccainstumor@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

I had this what if floating in my noggin for a while, back in the 1910s when Russia had its revolution, Russia then was a colonial power similar to the United States and the rest of Europe, had Russia not had that revolution and instead it was France, today leftists would possibly be okay with French Algeria but be rightly against Russian occupation of Siberia. Why? I think that there were was a brief period in the 1900s when a colonial nation could go socialist/left wing and then its colonial holdings could be legitimized as an integral part of an AES nation. There are limits of course, the USSR did give independence to lands it controlled under the czar like ukraine and after ww2 east germany wasn’t part of Russia proper. China could easily have annexed Mongolia but they didn’t, socialists tend not to favor empire as a matter of ideology, but they will use the legacy of it to their advantage. It would have been crazy then to give up that much territory.

So what about America? Maybe in the Great Depression era we could have elected Eugene Debs, or he could have pulled a January 6th. That was probably the last time an actual leftist could have salvaged the United States as a socialist nation. Now it’s going to require balkanization to implement socialism here, it’s going to have to be done piecemeal, probably will require military occupation, a socialist in power would have to basically burn the whole system to the ground instead of taking over the system. No more White House, no more states, congress, constitution, all that shit has to go now, but it didn’t have to if we had achieved socialism early enough. So say America did achieve socialism in the 1920s? What would the borders look like?

I expect the Indian reservations would have become semi-independent republics like we see exist in Russia now, I would expect desegregation would have happened a lot earlier, we probably wouldn’t have kept Hawaii, and Hawaii probably would have still been attacked by Japan or some other fascist nation in the pacific so ironically America could have been liberators there kinda like we were in the Philippines (not saying the US was a force of good there but a socialist US would definitely have a navy in the pacific and use it). Alaska would have been kept, either Russia is our friend and wouldn’t ask for it back, or Russia isn’t socialist so fuck them. I bet the border with the US and Mexico is a more contentious issue because even if both nations are socialists I would expect both to be claiming the south west as theirs, but the US would get its way as the larger socialist state. And Canada, I think we would have annexed it. It was a British colonial holding, Quebec didn’t want to be in Canada, the maritime providences weren’t even officially apart of Canada yet, the northern territories were entirely indigenous land. If the US went socialist it’s unlikely Canada would have lasted. And the Caribbean, imagine if Cuba was like an an American Taiwan, just the descendants of slave owners doing wholesome capitalism off the shores of communist United States empire. It would be incredibly ironic.

Thats it, that’s the post, please tear it apart and explain why my theories are dangerous.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ideology@hexbear.net 10 points 9 months ago

Counterfactuals just generally aren't very helpful unless you're writing fiction.

[-] johnmccainstumor@hexbear.net 3 points 9 months ago

Im not trying to write alt-history and more trying to come up with a justification as to why AES governments of the past got to claim ownership of the colonial empires they are successors of. And more importantly, why it would be impossible now for the socialists in the United States to make a legitimate claim to ownership to the land of the United States. Like there was a point in history where we went from “this nation is salvageable” to “burn the fucker down”.

[-] Ideology@hexbear.net 8 points 9 months ago

Engels believed the US wouldn't be able to support a revolution until all of its speculative markets (particularly land speculation) become inaccessible to the proletariat. American proletarians who speculate on the price of property will always side with bourgoisie parties, which we have seen play out through history as the democrats and republicans successfully repackage leftist rhetoric and actions into something less scary to white supremacists.

It's only just recently where we've begun to see speculative markets break down, hence the handwringing over war with China. It was always going to play out this way, we just didn't see it. We surmised that maybe the leaders weren't strong enough or the state was too oppressive. But the reality is that the breakdown of the US state was always going to come "on time" and not a minute early.

American prosperity is dead. The prosperity gospel with die with it. And then America itself will die.

this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
25 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13519 readers
952 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS