LARPer fags and muh Civil War

So, even though places like California in US with their high "wealth" generation yet massive poverty & say, Ireland with it's essentially tax Haven status massive amounts of "wealth" funnelled through it, yet still has among the largest debt in Europe.
How are you measuring this "wealth?"

Bare in mind, you're essentially arguing a heavily industrialized society was if not equal, then inferior to a agricultural society, yet, still won some how…

Good point.
Its an anti federalist stance, I thought it could be useful.
I'm assuming building up duel power on the local level under the guise of "states rights" or using both article 9 of the constitution "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." or using amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I'm betting on duel power to combat federalism while radicalizing individual states.

I just think people claiming they want civil war over trannys in bathrooms is retarded.
based

The point is that slavery was very profitable for the slaveowners, that slaveowners considered slavery perfectly compatible with modern economies as of the 19th century (no matter how wrong these slaveowners were), and that there's no basis for claiming that "The South" was "abandoning slavery."

No I'm not. I'm arguing against the notion that slavery was somehow on its way out in 1860.

When Lincoln was elected on a platform of restricting slavery to its existing territories, he actually would have set into motion the gradual decline of slavery, because the slaveowners would have been deprived of access to new territories (and certain slave states, as Marx noted, derived their wealth precisely by selling slaves to new territories.)

Realizing that Lincoln's victory meant the slow demise of slavery, the slaveowners rose up to defend their archaic system.

So, yet again, what the hell are you talking about with this "The South was abandoning slavery" nonsense?


But the issues that divided the Federalists and anti-Federalists are not relevant to the question of capitalism versus socialism.

wouldn't accomplishing a socialist revolution be easier with a divided America? Not political ideology wise but states being uncooperative.

OHNONONONONONONONONONONONO

Attached: CE3536B0-00EA-4805-89FE-64FD2831EA4B.gif (567x473, 26.49K)

It could also be harder, because people would rather identify with Mississippi or Vermont or something rather than a united, strong workers' state capable of fending off external threats.

Also, to quote William Z. Foster writing back in 1935: "Because of the highly developed 'states rights' principle in government, the workers faced government oppression (troops, police, hostile court decisions, anti-labor legislature) mainly from the individual state governments (until recent years), and this tended to scatter the workers' political struggle and to hinder the growth of a national mass labor party. Hence, American labor parties of a mass character have always been upon either a local, state or regional basis."

Fuck it, you probably have a better plan than I thought up. You make some great points. Consider my autistic plan discarded lol

Civil War in America is pretty unlikely. Either the current “two-party” goverment stays in power forever, or their is a relatively coup/revolution that establishes their rule within a few weeks.

Things have changed a lot sense 1935. The country is a lot more centralized, and while state guards still exist, they are de facto integrated into the army nowadays.

Jews make me sick