Liberal appeasement

This is a really stupid thread, but I had an idea at 4 AM yesterday morning that I want to bounce off you dudes.

What's the downside of cordoning-off a shitty territory to let angry liberals practice a capitalism that only hurts themselves?

In the event of a socialist revolution, there would be a huge crowd of absolutely furious capitalists who claim oppression for not being able to exploit others. And there's also going to be a huge amount of inconvertible classcucks.

Could we turn a shittier part of the world (maybe the American Great Plains) into some kind of "capitalist reservation" where dissenters can have their own minarchist market economy? They'd be contained, so they wouldn't hurt the rest of us.

Liberals who try to destroy socialism would be chucked in there. This could prevent a right-wing revolution and ensure the longevity of a socialist society.

...

literally a time bomb

It's the opposite, comrade.
The midwest, great plains and Pacific northwest will serve as a refuge for the networks of communist collectives/soviets/communes, practicing collective self-sufficiency and armed to the teeth against capitalist incursion.

The capitalists and their liberal defenders can retain the coastal urban sprawls, content to exploit and consume themselves until drought, immigration and sea level rise destroy them all and they collapse into barbarism.

the largest contiguous piece of arable land is in your mind "a shittier part of the world", thanks for showing us how unintelligent you are.

This.

Give them somewhere less useful. Like fucking hell.

Or Siberia that works too.

Literally the southwest desert would be a good choice

thats where all our nuclear missiles are, no way would you give nukes to liberals, they would actually use them.

BUILD A WALL AT CAPITALISTAN FRONTIER
CAPITALISTS WILL PAY FOR IT

What the hell is wrong with you, people. Siberia is a nice place.

If you want to sent them somewhere cold, you've got Greenland or Antarctic.

...

Why would you contain them in the greatest expanse of agricultural land, potential for both renewable and petrol energy, and the biggest aquifer in the US?

If anything it's the land you'd want to seize first because without it porkies get hit hard.

...

You have just volunteered as commander of Minas Ithil.

...

As a native and frequent traveler of the Great Plains, no fucking way. It's extremely fertile and excellent for cattle. The fuck are we supposed to eat? Also great way to divide us, weakening our collaboration and defenses.

...

They would start a war. I have thought of similar before but instead of making it a physical area have the government split up. People can register which system they belong to. Once in that system each follow those laws, pay those taxes, get those benefits. I'm not sure if their has been a government work this way before.

Maybe but do you see any chance of Indian reservations taking down the United States?

Killing them makes us look bad and builds internal resentment

a peculiar set of beliefs comrade
you believe immigration is bad, yet you also believe in carbon climate cult propaganda

That's the most based part of the US

Boi

Capitalism is an inherently global system. Read Marx.

It is not a solid or liquid to be confined safely to one place but a gas that will expand to fill all available space.

As long at it is in the bourgeois' material interest to interfere and exploit and claim markets outside the lands you'd leave them, they will struggle to this end.

Stalin went after "socialism in one country" and the results were entirely predictable.


Under capitalism, capitalists are themselves coerced to accumulate capital and defend their own, lest they lose the security it provides and become themselves proles to be exploited. Just as the feudal lord was forced to support the monarchy and the institution of feudalism to save himself from exploitation. The trick is to attack and destroy these coercive material conditions, not actual individual capitalists in their own right. Class genocide is supremely undialectical.
Not to mention, if you add "we're going to fucking kill you for your past actions" to the list of material conditions influencing their behavior, of course we'll get more serious opposition.

What? Mountains, trees, animals. Perfect place for Uncle Ted's like me

Barely. The mountainous parts of WY and CO aren't in the red zone. The western edge of MT that's in the red on the map is pretty hilly, as is the area around Rapid City, SD on the western edge (The Black Hills), but mountains you will not find.

Forested areas are a bit patchy, too. None in KS, none in eastern CO or WY, only a little bit in northwestern NE and western SD. Much more in MT, but who the hell wants to live there? It's fucking cold. There's also been a lot of logging through the state, and the same in western SD.

Okay, you got me there.

Hope you like badlands and plains, buddy. I love the Great Plains, but this region is definitely not what you're imagining it to be.

tbh we should just use shitty places as nuclear reactor dump sites. If the people want to stay and become all stalker let them. So y'know Florida and AZ are good pics as far as I'm concerned.

but as for OP no if we do exile them it should be the fucking antarctic you don't want these people rising up later. It's why you always kill the prince if you kill the king. Communism isn't built on sympathy.

I like the cold, and I'm an animal lover

It'd be a great place to…um…hide

Well have fun then! I like the cold, but I wouldn't want to be some kind of mountain man in it.

Sectioning off the Great Plains for capitalists after the revolution is, on all counts, an idea shitty beyond belief, at least we have that much in common.

What about nazbols like me that want to live there?

Siberia again is awesome you filthy urbanite

is this a man in the high castle inspired larping?

Please, I want to keep the thread civil.

Dumping some more pics. Every single image has come from the highlighted area in OP's pic. I could go on and on, so I'll stop now and conclude by saying I agree with everything these guys said: , , and .

I don't see that in the post. Maybe a reference to the global refugee crisis hits when billions of homes are underwater.

I believe it's bad

It's either there or Siberia, property

Dude, like 20% of the nations' food comes from the highlighted area, and that skyrockets to 50% if you include every Midwestern state, despite only having about 20% of America's total population. Imagine trying to feed 80% of Americans on now half the food. It is the most fertile region in the United States, and you're a dumbass if you think it ought to be relinquished to capitalists. It's also one of the windiest on Earth, and the windiest in both North and South America, providing potentially massive amounts of wind energy. Furthermore, why the fuck would you want to divide a communist society by fucking thousands of miles, when they're supposed to be united? What about defense and coordination?

If anything, they should go to the southwest. Siberia would be too far for to transport millions of people to.

It's the bigger picture, it's not some idpol race bs, it's about keeping those who drain a country's morale, like drug cartels and potential ISIS recruitees. New left retards like to turn it into a spooky race issue because most happen to be minorities.

It's the bigger picture, it's not some idpol race bs, it's about keeping those who drain a country's morale, like drug cartels and potential ISIS recruitees. New left retards like to turn it into a spooky race issue because most happen to be minorities.

Plains states =/= midwest

The capitalists would argue that you are not allowing capitalism if you don't let them impose coercive material conditions on those outside the porky zone.

"What good is my ownership of these tools if you just supply people outside for free?"

Basically the smarter of the bunch would try to counter-revolution and the less smart would be dumbfounded, simply unable to comprehend why human-nature isn't working,yet unable to shed the delusion.

All good points comrade. There is some nice scrub desert in UT/NV/AZ that would do just fine for them to tinker and squabble. Giving them the breadbasket would be massively misguided.

Not every plains state is Midwestern (MT, WY, CO, OK, TX, NM) (although I would say the culture is pretty similar to the midwest in eastern MT, WY, and CO), but KS, NE, SD, and ND are. The plains also extend into MN, IA, MO, IL, and just slightly into WI, IN, and MI, though it's not shown on this map.

You better not be on those morons who thinks the Great Lakes states are the only midwestern states. They're only considered midwestern because they rebranded themselves as western as people started settling in states bordering the Missouri River to seem shiny and new to people looking for somewhere to move.

That shitty territory is Hell.

For you

Such a big guy

It would be extremely bourgeois.

I disagree .

Right, but can't we make a hell on earth to send them to and avoid being accused of limiting human rights while socialism is not yet global?

Please just put them all in California and then dig a moat around it.