New England is the future of American Socialism

Why haven't you taken the New England pill, Leftypol?

Attached: ri.png (570x300, 28.78K)

LMFAO

REEEEEEEEEEEE, New Y*orkers out of my People's Republic of Cambridge

New England is probably one of the most bourgeois parts of the US, materially and culturally. It's like 99% middle class white people. Not that that means revolution is impossible there or that they dont "deserve" it but New England is definitely not "the future of American socialism"

that would the Mid-Atlantic People's Republic, dual administered by Philadelphia and Baltimore

Attached: 20190101_003456.jpg (4032x3024, 5.2M)

marxist Leninist republic of cascadia when

full socialism is not possible in this country. what makes it different from Europe and China is that we have a much larger and more influential agrarian class. Marx recognized that Socialism was much easier to popularize in industrial society.
it's different from Russia and China because they didn't have Fox news or the two-party system. the divide between agrarian and industrial workers ideology is much stronger in this country than that of anywhere else.

Agrarian Socialism with Mainer characteristics when tbh.

people’s hillbilly-hoodrat dixieland republic when

Stop talking about "middle class", that expression barely mean anything sociologically, at least without any adjective after. It's an empty word and basically quite a scam for some groups to conceal social differences, probably for a variety of reasons and with varied ideas in mind. Also an entire state/region just cannot be that sociologically homogeneous. That just can't be on that scale.

This 1000%

Agreed, I was just funposting. Regions can certainly be more or less proletarian in character however and that has significant bearing on their revolutionary potential.


No. It is not irrelevant when the difference between making $50,000 a year and $100,000 a year unilaterally has enormous implications for quality of life. Marx acknowledged that under feudalism there was an entire range of classes and castes, and noted that the success of capitalism over feudalism in the industrial era was significant because it led to such a stark polarization of classes overwhelmingly into two opposed categories. Consistent Marxist analysis would see that this polarization has been blurred by the events of the 20th century, both internally in the class structure and relative regional wealth of developed countries and internationally in the disparity between nation-states.

There is no a large agrarian class in the US at all, the majority of farmland is held by big agro corps, personal farms are a tiny minority. You dont know what youre talking about. Rural areas in the US are effectively the fringe tendrils of the metro areas, they operate under largely the same dynamics just more isolated and with a particular kind of alienation.

source? a lot of the right-wingers here in NY could be traced to families who work on large farm properties in isolation. either that or their parents are literal cops and veterans
but it's this isolation and alienation that matters. they don't have any conceptualization of humans in the outside world so it's much easier for them to imagine the incessant cabal-controlled externalism that Fox News shills.

The US has about a million farm workers. Eat shit.

that's my point you retard. it's not like Europe or China at all. the social and economic conditions just aren't there in most of the country.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (960x720, 617.97K)

it's different from America and Western Europe because they didn't have the tsarist autocracy or the land-owning class. the divide between agrarian and industrial workers ideology is much stronger in this country than that of anywhere else.

A million is fucking nothing. Farmers are a drop in the bucket compared to other proletarians. There's different social and economic conditions, no shit, but that doesn't justify this kind of retarded american exceptionalism. This is why american "leftism" is a fucking joke since it's still based on cold-war era americanism.


The divide is about the same, maybe even less considering the american culture industry. Do you really think you're special urban and rural people aren't the same?

Attached: nagatoro stare.png (448x700, 247.63K)

*Do you really think you're special because urban and rural people aren't the same?

all the bolsheviks needed to do was take the two major populated, industrialized metropoli (petrograd and moscow) to secure the manufacturing and population base to conquer the rest of the country. You're overestimating the power of rural people who are seriously divided by geographical space

read marx shithead

I have, probably more than you. See and please let me know your reply. If you think that liberals in Connecticut suburbs making 150k a year are in the same material circumstances as trailer park residents barely getting 30k a year because they both have a boss, or if you think either are directly analogous to the industrial proletariat Marx was referring to, you are an idiot that thinks in memes instead of analysis. Saying that it is 99% percent middle class was just funposting banter, obviously there are poor and dispossessed people in New England. Behind the funposting my point that it's silly to claim New England as "the future of American socialism" because it has a very high GDP relative to the rest of the country and is politically dominated by mostly-satisfied liberals.

Yeah, the south has way better material conditions suited for the revolution. Either that or the Rust Belt. In New England, everything just seems tolerable. I mean, I know there is a huge heroin epidemic going on but from what I've seen the people in the South are way more oppressed economically.

Attached: burlington.jpg (2048x847, 269.64K)

The South, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic are all more probable centers for revolutionary activity to grow from. I wouldnt write off the West Coast or Southwest or New England but they seem much more unlikely.