GenZedong

Who gains control the underpopulated areas with the nuclear weapons silos? An independent Calorewash would be under constant threat from nuclear Montana and Idaho. And then there is water, who has access to/control of the Colorado River? Canada and Mexico would probably have a say in how things develop, especially if they had expansionist ideas. Balkanization would not happen peacefully.

I think it depends on the movement, the class basis of the ones supporting it, a d the practical advantages/capabilities that a secession movement has afforded to it.

For example, Hawaii should unquestionably push for independence due to the damage the US tourism industry continues to do to the indigenous Hawaiian community.

I'll speak more thoroughly on California, as it's my home state:

I think it's too early to tell here, and through struggle we will be able to see whether or not independence is preferable. The biggest issues we face that would need to be solved in order to obtain independence is firstly the issue of water. We'd need to build desalination plants along with taking control over our agriculture industry and restructuring in for sustainable development and water usage. It would also help to convince other states to come along with us, like Oregon, Washington, and Nevada, so if those states are staunchly against separation then our own independence is less feasible.

The other issue would he power generation. We recieve a substantial amount of power from.the Hoover Dam in Nevada, so again we'd need to need to massively build up our energy sector. This issue is frankly less troublesome than the water, as California is a prime location for Solar, and Berkeley is one if the best Nuclear Science institutions in the world (even if our nuclear sector is Germanh levels of delusional). There's also a lot of opportunity for wind turbines.

Next up would probably be the Californian economy. It's no secret that Silicon Valley, the financial sector, and residential speculation dominate our politics however, our agriculture and manufacturing aren't irrelevant by any means. California is also famous for our engineers for obvious reason, as our UC, Calstate, and Community College systems are generally quite good compared to other states. Our infrastructure is entirely too car dependent, but a lot of people want better public transit, which we have the capacity to provide if the state wanted. Economically speaking, California is capable of being self sufficient if we seized control of the bloated non-real economic drivers, and then directed production of our actually productive sectors.

Demographically, California has a Hispanic plurality, followed by whites, which makes up three quarters of our population. Next is East Asian people at 15% and Black people at a 20th, and from there it splinters further. To put it another way, the whites have been genocided (based). On a serious note, this ethnic diversity definitely positions a lot of us against the white hedgomonic culture that the larger US tends to have. This doesn't mention the large undocumented population we have, who are the backbone of our construction and agriculture industry. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the majority of Californians know, or have known, an undocumented person whether through their work, community organization, school, etc. It would also not be an exaggeration to say that most Californians, particularly in cities at least, see these people as core members in our community, and hostility to them is akin to hostility to the community as a whole.

Calls for Californian independence wil be more likely to come about the more that our vulnerable communities are targeted, as if US federal policy is to brutalized our neighbors, then your average Californian will be radicalized against federal policy.

I'd say that calls for independence are going to get more common the more that ICE reigns terror on the US population.

However there's another aspect of Californian identity that makes this less likely. Californians have a bit of a chip on their shoulder. Due to our large population and surface level economic prosperity, (it's not uncommon to here the fact we are the "5th largest economy in the world" get thrown around) Californians often feel inbittered by our lackluster representation and influence over national politics. Californians, both in our advanced bourgeoisie (Silicon Valley techno-fascists) and our working class feel snubbed by the fact that federal US policy is set up in a way that disempowers us.

The Tech Cartel, as the new capitalists on the block, believe they deserve a much larger share of control in the dictatorship of capital compared to the legacy capitalists that still occupy a lot of that space. The working class, sees how, congress and the senate especially, are proportionally unbalanced against our favor. Us Californians generally think we are positioned to be a much larger guider of US federal policy, however are purposefully kept out of power.

From this perspective, independence becomes in some ways attractive as a kinda of "fine I'll make my own country with black jack and population based electoral systems!' But it's not the only perspective, as others want to continue trying to use our leverage to seize more control over federal policy.

Personally I see the latter as a more effective strategy. The things that disempower California in the US electoral system disempower the margilized and socialists as a whole federally as well. Also California provides quite a bit economically, whether through agriculture, our ports, or our universities, to the rest of the US. As socialists we should be agitating towards seizing control of these economic organs already, and when we're successful in this goal, it would allow is to pressure larger US policy without much issue.

I think that it would be good for the world if seperatist movements in the USA succeed, but I think that USian communists should focus on creating a communist USA. The Soviets also didn't break up Russia, but instead made a socialist state that respected regional differences. I'm not against these seperatist movements, but it's not us communists who should lead them. For example, I would support a capitalist Texas leaving the USA, since it would weaken the position of the USA.

Seperatist parties actually exist, like Alaskan Independence Party (conservative, libertarian), California National Party (socdem), Texas Nationalist Movement (conservative), and you have the Cascadia movement which is more left wing, but has some conservatives supporting it. I support these movements critically, but not over a bigger socialist USA.

At this point in time they aren't viable.

From the perspective of bringing socialism to North America there's no benefit to our cause and it might actually hinder it.

Domestically U.S. secession movements are typically far-right.

From the lens of anti-imperialism while secession might weaken the empire it will destabilize the whole continent and likely result in wars, genocides, and dictatorships.

In short: nation-wide revolution is not only preferable but objectively better.

Last time around: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7773650

Secession is most popular in Alaska (36%), Texas (31%), and California (29%)

I would say the closest historical precedent we can examine is the October Revolution and Russian Civil War period that saw the dissolution of the Tsarist empire, the break-away of sections of it that went on to form bourgeois nations, and the efforts the Bolsheviks of all the nationalities contained within the prison house of nations conducted in building socialist governments that went on to federalise into a union of Soviet socialist republics.

I would not be surprised if some kind of secession caused by capitalist infighting happens before all is said and done, but I don't think it's advisable for communists to be pushing for it as a strategy.

The reason why is the same reason why AES states can survive but pockets of anarchist communes don't. The more divided you are, the harder it is to fight back against repression and reaction, the harder it is to organize anything logistically or do any kind of central planning, and you became a sitting duck for remaining imperial/capitalist forces to come in and destroy you.

Just because the US is big doesn't mean it can't be organized on a federal level. The US federal model proved that many times over. Yeah, it's been organized toward awful purposes so far, but point is, it has been done, logistically. And for another point of comparison, if China can manage to govern by vanguard a place that has over a billion people, USians can figure out how to do a third of that.

When it comes to an issue like indigenous, I see that as an entirely separate point. I would not expect indigenous nations to want to merge into a hypothetical ML state in the region. I would expect they'd want to retain autonomy and that the ML state would have it as a priority to give them support and room to flourish; gradually working to give back stewardship over the land where the numbers are there for them to do it, helping them with having the resources to grow and heal from the horrible situation colonialism put them in, things like that.

Yes and yes, but not by communists, unless and until there is a real demand for it from a significant portion of the population. It's a question of strategic timing. If communists push for something for which the conditions do not yet exist, it would be counter-productive. Communists have to devote their time and effort to that which is most likely to advance the cause, and right now that is not separatism (except in occupied Hawaii and Puerto Rico).

I've been thinking about this quite a bit as well. It seems like the most likely way that any kind of revolutionary movement would come to fruition in the US, as a countrywide revolution seems many levels more difficult.

Seeing CHAZ in Seattle during the BLM protests planted the seed in my head, specifically in the case of a Cascadia-type state. It would be a difficult split though to be sure, the USA would have a lot to lose to a breakaway state and I'm sure would put up a fight against it. If US imperialism is weakened enough and spread thin in conflicts elsewhere in the world, it could be a moment of opportunity for such a movement if proper organization is in place.

I also wonder if as US empire declines, and turns inward, if capitalist infighting will lead to some level of balkanization anyway.