Comradeship // Freechat

's position is full self-determination, up to and including independence, for native nations, the internally colonized Black nation, and all island colonies (Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, etc). So the splitting of territory is an acknowledged possibility and likely outcome - it would be surprising if not a single one of those hundreds of nations chose independence.

As far as breaking up the socialist replacement for the current settler state, I don't really see the point. Maybe it breaks apart in the course of the revolution, but it wouldn't be an objective.

Did the Soviets intend to balkanize the Russian empire?

An independent California and Cascadia wouldnt be any less settler states than the US is. The issue with the US is that the actual native peoples have been so thoroughly eradicated that to remove the settlers entirely would depopulate the nation.

What i would do personally is once the US govt thats in place now is overthrown get all the tribal leaders and representatives of other native communities together and work with them to find a good solution.

I personally would think a good system could be one where each native tribe has a garunteed seat in any governing body and has a heavily weighted representation. Like how some states now have more say per person in the senate.

You could pair that with higher autonomy for tribal lands and giving them more land, access to seaports, things like that. And on the individual level offering support to native peoples. Especially ones who want to have kids because there are literally less native americans today then there were before colonization. Like a lot less.

Another big thing is just listening to native peoples about land usage. California wouldnt have the wildfires it has now for instance if it had listened to native peoples advice on how to manage the land.

As for balkanization itll probably be inevitable but it will make doing these things harder. I imagine the US will have a similar path as China. Where it fractures then communists gain a foothold somewhere and slowly reunite the country.

Not entirely, I doubt it. At most one would expect Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and perhaps some of the other Pacific island territories to be freed, but these are places that are literally under colonial occupation and not incorporated into the country proper, even by todays standards, in many cases these are people who can't even vote. As for the rest, I don't see it as being feasible to rip apart the current constituent US into several smaller settler dominated states, as this doesn't address the real issue. Providing equal representation and political agency to the Indigenous as well as preserving and protecting their culture and historic rights is what should be prioritized. This is what was done in the Soviet Union.

Intention? No, natural consequence of a protracted civil war? Very likely.

If a party states balkanisation as an explicit goal they are pretty much eliminating any chance they have of gaining any traction. Secessionism seems more viable but only slightly.

I don't think replacing the current two arbitrary hard borders cutting ~70 Indigenous homelands in half, thereby preventing the Native citizens in these border regions from fully exercising their rights and traditional ways of life... With >100 arbitrary hard borders cutting I don't even know how many Indigenous homelands into halfs or thirds or quarters... Would improve the quality of life of most Natives. Nor would it improve the quality of life of, really, anyone else in the region.

On the other hand, if you instead say that the Balkanized Seppoland just doesn't have hard borders, then, well, how different is that really from the current arrangement? There would still be some sort of central organization managing the affairs between the states — at least when it comes to their borders — but the states themselves would be beholden to significantly fewer laws from above. This is a "small government" Republican's wet dream.

The main thing is just that replacing a settler state with smaller settler states doesn't actually resolve the contradiction. The states will still act in settler interests, in fact they'll probably find some way to just more or less return to the current status quo. The way you help Native nations is to return land and respect treaty rights.

how would breaking it up help anything? So you can have multiple parochial states in endless territorial conflicts instead of one encompassing the entire nation? So half the people remain enslaved by reactionaries while the rest are liberated? No way, its one for all and all for one, the revolution is incomplete otherwise. The Bolsheviks didn't shatter the Russian Empire, they fought and fought hard to create the USSR

Turtle Island Reborn