APNM Asks: Should We Abolish America?

[Picairn]

How is it genocidal to call for the Balkanization of America? This is rather extreme and over the top. Was it genocidal for America to push the USSR into dissolving?

The dissolution of the USSR was not as peaceful as you think. Ethnic conflicts after the breakup led to the deaths of many, and left many more displaced. The First Chechen War culminated in 30,000-100,000 deaths, and approximately 500,000 displaced, cities and towns across Chechnya in ruins. I prefer the USSR to become democratic than to fall apart, but that's history.

Is it genocidal when Americans support the various independence movements within other countries that will tear those countries apart?

Gotta need examples on this one. Don't tell me it's Tibet, because peaceful secession of Tibet =/= abolition of China.

Abolition of China is not genocidal. I don’t know where you got that idea from.

You mean all the stuff about WW3 and the world coming together to vanquish and abolish the Chinese nation-state that you produced in other threads aren't genocidal?

[X]

[Stellar Colonies]

I consider the dissolution of the US to be a net good not just for the rest of the world, but potentially for Americans themselves. The United States is increasingly dysfunctional and schizophrenic as the partisan divide grows and drags the country in opposite directions. The abolition of the US could allow for people to form new communities more suited to their belief systems than existing society, thus negating any perceived need for political violence. Mind you, I admit that this is a rather far-fetched and utopian proposal, but it would be nice if it worked.

The US just works better if all its parts are together and interconnected.

A coalition of ex-US states would need to be so integrated to maintain that former standard, they'd basically just recreate the country.

[United Chinese Communes]

I consider the dissolution of the US to be a net good not just for the rest of the world, but potentially for Americans themselves. The United States is increasingly dysfunctional and schizophrenic as the partisan divide grows and drags the country in opposite directions. The abolition of the US could allow for people to form new communities more suited to their belief systems than existing society, thus negating any perceived need for political violence. Mind you, I admit that this is a rather far-fetched and utopian proposal, but it would be nice if it worked.

The US just works better if all its parts are together and interconnected.

A coalition of ex-US states would need to be so integrated to maintain that former standard, they'd basically just recreate the country.

It's together and interconnected now, and looks to be working very badly.

[Stellar Colonies]

The US just works better if all its parts are together and interconnected.

A coalition of ex-US states would need to be so integrated to maintain that former standard, they'd basically just recreate the country.

It's together and interconnected now, and looks to be working very badly.

It would be worse if dissolved into multiple countries.

It needs to be fixed, not cleaved apart.

[Radimostan]

We've decided to abolish America, bombing commences in five minutes.

[United Chinese Communes]

It's together and interconnected now, and looks to be working very badly.

It would be worse if dissolved into multiple countries.

It needs to be fixed, not cleaved apart.

Ordinarily I might agree, but my confidence in the possibility of America ever being fixed has been steadily eroded over the past year.

[Picairn]

It's together and interconnected now, and looks to be working very badly.

It would be even worse when the US break apart. First, who owns the national debt when it is now 50 instead of one? A default on trillions of dollars would trigger a financial depression even worse than the Great Depression. Second, the dollar. Maybe the states can keep the dollar as a single currency like the Euro, but economically weak states may find themselves similar to Greece or Spain in a global crisis since nations that can't control their currencies are incredibly restrained in their responses. Third, the military. Who owns the US military now? The question may end up be solved with war. The strongest states will come out victorious, while the weak ones suffer what they must.

This is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

Personally I don't think that "abolishing" any country in the modern world should occur, except for potentially North Korea, and even then that's a step too far. Instead the jingoistic attitude and the American Exceptionalism that is within the USA must be uprooted for not only the betterment of the planet and her people, but also the citizens of America itself.

"Abolishing" a country is childish, as it still leaves behind the people who reside there, and any future nation comprising of these people would only be a more dangerous threat if left to their own devices. How is the nation dissolved? Is it occupied by the U.N, the Canadians, the Mexicans, the Chinese, the British, or the Russians? Or is it a free-for-all like China during the warlords? What happens to all of the Nuclear warheads and armed forces, the Stock Market, the dominance of the American Dollar, the industrial facilities, etc.

Mind you I don't like Uncle Sam breathing down our necks waiting for a government to step out of line by asserting its independence or wanting full control of its resources. But "abolishing" America would most likely create more issues than it solves, allowing for whatever future super-power to fill the role of the USA instead. What is more preferable is a peaceful stepping down as the sole superpower to another nation, with the CIA and other American intelligence services... toning it down a bit, so we can all enjoy full self-determination without anyone imposing their will upon us.

[United Chinese Communes]

It would be even worse when the US break apart. First, who owns the national debt when it is now 50 instead of one? A default on trillions of dollars would trigger a financial depression even worse than the Great Depression.

Eh, maybe. To be honest the debt is one of those arcane issues where people keep talking past each other, so I remain unsure as to its true significance. Still, I can think of several ways in which it might be beneficial to throw a spanner into the works of the global economy.

Second, the dollar. Maybe the states can keep the dollar as a single currency like the Euro, but economically weak states may find themselves similar to Greece or Spain in a global crisis since nations that can't control their currencies are incredibly restrained in their responses.

I imagine they would each develop their own currencies when they became independent nations rather than forming a collective currency union. We're talking about the dissolution of the US here, not simply changing it into a looser confederation.

Third, the military. Who owns the US military now? The question may end up be solved with war. The strongest states will come out victorious, while the weak ones suffer what they must.

This is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

I imagine the military would dissolve with the federal government, seeing as it is a part of it. The new nations would be free to develop their own militaries if they wished.

I should also say that with the way things are going I consider a US collapse to be quite likely within the next decade or two, and that such a collapse would be extremely violent. Like, Syrian Civil War violent. Thus a peaceful dissolution of the Union into its constituent states would be a better alternative, as a violent collapse would be far worse than the things that you mentioned.

[Old Zealand Founder]

Most modern nation-states comprise different ethnic groups. Even more homogenous countries like France and Germany have subtle differences in their cultures, never mind countries such as Russia, China, and India. That being said, if the reasoning for abolishing the United States as a country would be to allow different "cultures" - and by that I mean the varying mindsets across the country - to survive on their own without affecting the others, that reason is at best not needed. At worst, the existing tensions between states would further escalate as they do not have a single flag to unite under.

[Richard Hammonds Total Wipeout]

People's Confederation of the United Soviet American States would be a much better replacement.

[Atheris]

I was talking about the dissolution of the USSR and the support that historical event gets from Americans.

Well I for one consider the collapse of the USSR to be a mistake considering the short term and long term effects. Even to this day I'd prefer a USSR the was reformed by Gorbachev than the current, fractured, warring states (except the Baltics which have gotten American protection) led by strongmen dictators.

The logic for the US is no different. Again, splitting one of the largest economies in the world would create serious economic issues for the world, which still relies on America. It'd be like splitting up China, except instead of removing a large producer we'd be removing a large consumer.

Also, it's funny how you confuse Americans ignoring/forgetting about Canada for Americans not respecting and wanting to invade Canada. Always ready to twist America into the villain, eh?

Based as fuck.

[Punished UMN]

Well I for one consider the collapse of the USSR to be a mistake considering the short term and long term effects. Even to this day I'd prefer a USSR the was reformed by Gorbachev than the current, fractured, warring states (except the Baltics which have gotten American protection) led by strongmen dictators.

The logic for the US is no different. Again, splitting one of the largest economies in the world would create serious economic issues for the world, which still relies on America. It'd be like splitting up China, except instead of removing a large producer we'd be removing a large consumer.

Also, it's funny how you confuse Americans ignoring/forgetting about Canada for Americans not respecting and wanting to invade Canada. Always ready to twist America into the villain, eh?

I agree with this. The USSR was better together. What needed to end was the gulags and the KGB having the power to bypass the criminal justice system and disappear dissidents. In other words, a democratic USSR.

You mean something that had already been illegal for thirty-five years and something that didn't exist in the first place? Gulag was abolished in 1960 by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, following this, mortality rates in Soviet prisons dropped to no more than those in Western prisons at the time. The KGB never had the authority to bypass the criminal justice system and the USSR generally didn't disappear dissidents. Why would they, the things they wanted to get rid of dissidents for were criminal acts for which the dissidents could be tried in courts of law.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I agree with this. The USSR was better together. What needed to end was the gulags and the KGB having the power to bypass the criminal justice system and disappear dissidents. In other words, a democratic USSR.

You mean something that had already been illegal for thirty-five years and something that didn't exist in the first place? Gulag was abolished in 1960 by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, following this, mortality rates in Soviet prisons dropped to no more than those in Western prisons at the time. The KGB never had the authority to bypass the criminal justice system and the USSR generally didn't disappear dissidents. Why would they, the things they wanted to get rid of dissidents for were criminal acts for which the dissidents could be tried in courts of law.

The forced labor camps existed up to the Gorbachev era, and the Soviet system was oppressive. Yes, the gulags weren't as big as they were in the Stalin era, but they existed in a vestigial form. Enough with the Soviet apologism. It was not democratic and people had little rights before the reforms. The only problem was that it collapsed.

[Punished UMN]

You mean something that had already been illegal for thirty-five years and something that didn't exist in the first place? Gulag was abolished in 1960 by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, following this, mortality rates in Soviet prisons dropped to no more than those in Western prisons at the time. The KGB never had the authority to bypass the criminal justice system and the USSR generally didn't disappear dissidents. Why would they, the things they wanted to get rid of dissidents for were criminal acts for which the dissidents could be tried in courts of law.

The forced labor camps existed up to the Gorbachev era, and the Soviet system was oppressive. Yes, the gulags weren't as big as they were in the Stalin era, but they existed in a vestigial form. Enough with the Soviet apologism. It was not democratic and people had little rights before the reforms. The only problem was that it collapsed.

Forced labor has always been a part of the Russian criminal justice system and remains such, they were never abolished, nor is forced labor an abnormal thing in the world's criminal justice system, the US has forced labor too.

I never said it was democratic, I said that the KGB didn't disappear people, which is correct, it arrested them and put them on trial.

[Salus Maior]

You mean something that had already been illegal for thirty-five years and something that didn't exist in the first place? Gulag was abolished in 1960 by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, following this, mortality rates in Soviet prisons dropped to no more than those in Western prisons at the time. The KGB never had the authority to bypass the criminal justice system and the USSR generally didn't disappear dissidents. Why would they, the things they wanted to get rid of dissidents for were criminal acts for which the dissidents could be tried in courts of law.

After which the government started putting dissidents in insane asylums.

Which actually was one of the major complaints in the 1965 Pushkin square protests.

[Salus Maior]

as long as we get free Cascadia I'm happy

Why do people care about Cascadia so much?

I don't understand the appeal.

[Punished UMN]

You mean something that had already been illegal for thirty-five years and something that didn't exist in the first place? Gulag was abolished in 1960 by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, following this, mortality rates in Soviet prisons dropped to no more than those in Western prisons at the time. The KGB never had the authority to bypass the criminal justice system and the USSR generally didn't disappear dissidents. Why would they, the things they wanted to get rid of dissidents for were criminal acts for which the dissidents could be tried in courts of law.

After which the government started putting dissidents in insane asylums.

Which actually was one of the major complaints in the 1965 Pushkin square protests.

Some were, most were just kept in prison.

[Salus Maior]

After which the government started putting dissidents in insane asylums.

Which actually was one of the major complaints in the 1965 Pushkin square protests.

Some were, most were just kept in prison.

That's still unreasonably repressive.

And really only a means to mask said repression.

[Punished UMN]

Some were, most were just kept in prison.

That's still unreasonably repressive.

And really only a means to mask said repression.

Define "unreasonably." Dissident has a nice ring to it, but let's be clear, these were people who were advocating that the state be dismantled, which is a pretty reasonable thing to criminalize, and has been criminal throughout democratic countries in different parts of recent history.

[Salus Maior]

That's still unreasonably repressive.

And really only a means to mask said repression.

Define "unreasonably." Dissident has a nice ring to it, but let's be clear, these were people who were advocating that the state be dismantled, which is a pretty reasonable thing to criminalize, and has been criminal throughout democratic countries in different parts of recent history.

Then perhaps the problem in the first place is creating a one-party state which doesn't allow for deviation from a very specific ideology.

I'd say people who simply want free practice of religion are reasonable in that request, don't you? Or to be anything other than a dyed in the wool Communist.

Not to mention the utter unfairness of people who were allowed greater expression in the Kruschev thaw being imprisoned under Brezhnev for doing things the state had (briefly) allowed them to do.

[Cordel One]

I was talking about the dissolution of the USSR and the support that historical event gets from Americans.

Well I for one consider the collapse of the USSR to be a mistake considering the short term and long term effects. Even to this day I'd prefer a USSR the was reformed by Gorbachev than the current, fractured, warring states (except the Baltics which have gotten American protection) led by strongmen dictators.

The logic for the US is no different. Again, splitting one of the largest economies in the world would create serious economic issues for the world, which still relies on America. It'd be like splitting up China, except instead of removing a large producer we'd be removing a large consumer.

Also, it's funny how you confuse Americans ignoring/forgetting about Canada for Americans not respecting and wanting to invade Canada. Always ready to twist America into the villain, eh?

It was largely Gorbachev and Yeltsin that destroyed the Soviet Union, though it had been in decline for longer.

[Salus Maior]

It was largely Gorbachev and Yeltsin that destroyed the Soviet Union, though it had been in decline for longer.

Yeah, the USSR wasn't going to last.

It could have landed from that fall with more grace though and less total misery. America certainly did them wrong.

[Cordel One]

It was largely Gorbachev and Yeltsin that destroyed the Soviet Union, though it had been in decline for longer.

Yeah, the USSR wasn't going to last.

It could have landed from that fall with more grace though and less total misery. America certainly did them wrong.

Yeah, the oligarchs did force it into a downward spiral before that.

[Punished UMN]

Define "unreasonably." Dissident has a nice ring to it, but let's be clear, these were people who were advocating that the state be dismantled, which is a pretty reasonable thing to criminalize, and has been criminal throughout democratic countries in different parts of recent history.

Then perhaps the problem in the first place is creating a one-party state which doesn't allow for deviation from a very specific ideology.

I'd say people who simply want free practice of religion are reasonable in that request, don't you? Or to be anything other than a dyed in the wool Communist.

Not to mention the utter unfairness of people who were allowed greater expression in the Kruschev thaw being imprisoned under Brezhnev for doing things the state had (briefly) allowed them to do.

State necessarily has a ruling ideology, if it doesn't, it devolves into a state of open political struggle until it does have one. One-party states just don't mask this truth. There is no political party in the Western world which is a threat to the existence of the state itself.

Yes, that is reasonable, but it was also reasonable for the Soviets to believe that the religious authorities constituted an opposition to state power. It is always true that when a state is first established, it must establish its legitimacy (i.e. its monopoly on violence), and in most cases, this means that it will resort to more extreme measures than are normally undertaken.

It's very easy to say that the goals of a state or dissident are unreasonable from the opposing viewpoint, but the truth is often that both state and dissident are being entirely reasonable, it's not about being unreasonable, it's about politics, the control of the state's power of collective-decision-making. There are exceptions to this, yes, but generally it is true.