We should abolish the United States.

[Apparition of Jack]

The internet itself is the genesis of global civilisation.

[aurum]

12 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

Nation-states as an idea are dead.

No they are NOT.

You may feel they are dead, but the vast majority of the world population does not agree with you. And they will fight you to the death.

Even a globally integrated society will still require nations. In the same way that the United States still requires states and cities, even though it is united.

Edited Sunday at 01:23 AM by aurum

[Apparition of Jack]

2 minutes ago, aurum said:

No they are NOT.

You may feel they are dead, but the vast majority of the world population does not agree with you. And they will fight you tooth and nail.

Even a globally integrated society will still require nations. In the same way that the United States still requires states and cities, even though it is united.

There was a time when the vast majority of the world accepted slavery was a fact of life, sometimes even “necessary”, but advances in technology, social thought, trade, living standards etc made it impossible to sustain. Nowadays, slavery is one of the most abhorred institutions on the planet, regulated to obscure black markets and completely eliminated in developed countries. 
 

The world changes. Times evolve. Don’t get me wrong, I love my own country, I love its unique culture and way of life and everything, but there’s nothing about increasing global integration that threatens that (no more than when the US united after revolution Carolina uniting with Pennsylvania threatened those two state’s unique characteristics.) And again, the billionaire class already lives in a de-facto international world, it’s just unlike everyone else they see it as a tool to be exploited and harvested for their own perverse needs, not a living place to be nurtured and curated. This is a frightening prospect, unity, I understand that, but at some point it’ll become inevitable. Things are just way, WAY too interconnected for it to be otherwise. 

[aurum]

16 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

There was a time when the vast majority of the world accepted slavery was a fact of life, sometimes even “necessary”, but advances in technology, social thought, trade, living standards etc made it impossible to sustain. Nowadays, slavery is one of the most abhorred institutions on the planet, regulated to obscure black markets and completely eliminated in developed countries. 
 

The world changes. Times evolve. Don’t get me wrong, I love my own country, I love its unique culture and way of life and everything, but there’s nothing about increasing global integration that threatens that (no more than when the US united after revolution Carolina uniting with Pennsylvania threatened those two state’s unique characteristics.) And again, the billionaire class already lives in a de-facto international world, it’s just unlike everyone else they see it as a tool to be exploited and harvested for their own perverse needs, not a living place to be nurtured and curated.

Then you will be raging against nationalists for the rest of your life. You will never succeed.

Nation-states are going nowhere.

16 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

This is a frightening prospect, unity, I understand that, but at some point it’ll become inevitable. Things are just way, WAY too interconnected for it to be otherwise. 

When is "some point"?

5 years? 50 years? 500 years?

If your solutions are only useful 500 years from now, you have no real solutions. Just idealizations. 

[Basman]

Ignore the will of the people at your own peril. 

[LordFall]

I agree with you. I think we are headed towards the unification of the global order into a world federation that goes beyond national interest into global interest. The current crisis of international law regarding the situations in Ukraine, Gaza and Venezuela foreshadow this as well as the rise of a new possible robotic military peacekeeping force under the control of the United Nations. 

There is a movement advocating for this called World federalism. 

[Cred]

12 hours ago, Basman said:

A lot of "wokiesm" and culture wars is in part about policy being implemented without civic consent, like immigration or trans stuff. 

People wouldn't really hate wokeness if they weren't actively propagandized by the reactionary bourgeoisie

[Cred]

11 hours ago, aurum said:

Uniting is the point of stronger global institutions.

What is the point of a global institution if it doesn't acknowledge the class struggle and wants to uphold capitalism? BRICS is the only global institution I support

[Basman]

4 hours ago, Cred said:

People wouldn't really hate wokeness if they weren't actively propagandized by the reactionary bourgeoisie

The average person doesn't agree with mass migration or transitioning kids, propaganda or not.

[aurum]

5 hours ago, Cred said:

What is the point of a global institution if it doesn't acknowledge the class struggle and wants to uphold capitalism? BRICS is the only global institution I support

I do not prioritize fighting the bourgeois or dismantling capitalism. So our fundamental frameworks are different.

[Cred]

26 minutes ago, aurum said:

I do not prioritize fighting the bourgeois or dismantling capitalism. So our fundamental frameworks are different.

This is exactly right.

Not seeing the class struggle as the most fundamental driving force of political conflict within capitalism is a very bad mistake

The only reason why you think this is not the case or exeggerated is because you fell victim to capitalist propaganda

[Cred]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

The average person doesn't agree with mass migration or transitioning kids, propaganda or not.

This is correct. The only way to sustainably reverse this is by letting communists take over the state and reverse the propaganda

[aurum]

17 minutes ago, Cred said:

This is exactly right.

Not seeing the class struggle as the most fundamental driving force of political conflict within capitalism is a very bad mistake

The only reason why you think this is not the case or exeggerated is because you fell victim to capitalist propaganda

There will always be bourgeois.

What's needed is not to get rid of the bourgeois, but to keep them in check.

Edited Sunday at 07:05 PM by aurum

[Cred]

12 minutes ago, aurum said:

There will always be bourgeois.

What's needed is not to get rid of the bourgeois, but to keep them in check.

Wow yeah agree! What did we disagree on again?

Getting rid of the bourgeoisie is lofty idealism that might or might not happen. Certainly not in our lifetime.

What I'm asking myself though is how you think any capitalist country could ever keep the bourgeoise in check sustainably without communists being in charge?

Edited Sunday at 07:17 PM by Cred

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Cred said:

Wow yeah agree! What did we disagree on again?

Getting rid of the bourgeoisie is lofty idealism that might or might not happen. Certainly not in our lifetime.

What I'm asking myself though is how you think any capitalist country could ever keep the bourgeoise in check sustainably without communists being in charge?

I don't think communists in charge will solve that problem. They will simply become the new bourgeois.

Communism promises to abolish class, private property and the state. But in actuality, they will never achieve this. Even if they succeed in overthrowing the capitalists, all these dynamics will be recreated in a different way.

There will always be, and should be, some social hierarchy. And that within the classes of this hierarchy, there will always be some tension. The proletariat will advocate for the proletariat. And the bourgeois will advocate for the bourgeois.

What's necessary then is not some proletariat revolution, but a dynamic systems balancing. No class gets to dominate the other. 

It's fine to advocate for the proletariat. That's why most people become communists. But the downside is they often lack this systems view.

[Infinity16]

We are currently in the stage blue mode of government which is the nation-state. It is distinct from the stage red mode of government (empire) in that it is supposed to be a state consisting of one people, united by an idea or by ethnicity. Stage blue oftentimes runs on an in-group vs an out-group. As such, citizens will always matter more than non-citizens.

[Madyar]

On 1/25/2026 at 4:48 AM, Apparition of Jack said:

The internet itself is the genesis of global civilisation.

web3 era opened the door to more decentralized way of decision making and i think it's just the beginning the future big decisions could be no more than just a smart contract on blockchain with voting feature of course at first it won't be perfect but overtime it will improve and quantum computing can play a big role as well, human society itself is not and never was reliable in this regard with too many axis of biases. 

Edited Monday at 06:02 AM by Madyar

[BlueOak]

This is a very real possibility as a country grows in size. The America population could easily double over time, maybe reach 500 - 900 million, I just checked plausble populations with Chat GPT. Often countries break down as they grow and reform or split.

It all depends how flexible the government structure and instutitons are. 

At present its becoming very inflexible, so collapse is plausible.

Chat GPT Analysis of my Apex Thinker GPT 5.2, when weighing population growth resources etc;

Me: Given all of this information, can you objectively define how likely in percentage terms America might collapse or split (and possibly reform) over say 100-200 years. The recent trouble there has led to a discussion on a forum.

Definitions (to avoid ambiguity)

• Collapse = loss of central authority + sustained disorder (Roman/USSR-style).
• Split = formal secession into multiple sovereign states.
• Reform = constitutional or structural reset that preserves continuity (e.g. Reconstruction, New Deal, post–Civil War US).
• Status quo continuity = the US remains one state, despite crises, polarization, or decline.
• Probability breakdown (100–200 years)

🟥 Full collapse (hard state failure)

≈ 5–10%

Why low

• Enormous food, energy, and water buffers
• Continental geography with no peer invaders
• Dollar & capital markets provide shock absorption
• Strong state capacity relative to most historical empires

What would be required

• Prolonged economic depression plus
• Severe climate or resource shock plus
• Elite fragmentation with loss of military loyalty

➡️ Historically rare for states with this profile.

🟧 Formal territorial split / secession

≈ 10–20%

Why non-trivial

• Federal structure already legitimizes regional power
• Cultural–political divergence is increasing
• Precedent exists (Civil War), unlike most modern states

Why still limited

• Economies are deeply interwoven
• Military, currency, and infrastructure are unified
• No clean ethnic or geographic fault lines (unlike Yugoslavia)

Most plausible form:

• Peaceful legal fragmentation after a constitutional crisis
• More likely 150+ years out than 50 years

🟨 Severe crisis → authoritarian or illiberal phase → reform

≈ 35–45%

This is the most likely disruption path.

• Pattern seen in:
• Roman Republic → Empire
• Weimar Germany → Federal Republic
• Britain (17th–19th century reforms)

Forms this could take:

• Emergency powers
• Curtailment of federal autonomy or civil liberties
• Eventual institutional reset (new amendments, new balance of power)
• ➡️ The US has already gone through milder versions of this cycle.

🟩 Messy continuity (no collapse, no split)

≈ 30–40%

• Polarization continues
• Relative global decline
• Governance becomes slower and less effective
• Still one country
• This is the default outcome for large, wealthy democracies.

Edited Monday at 05:52 PM by BlueOak

[Infinity16]

4 hours ago, BlueOak said:

This is a very real possibility as a country grows in size. The America population could easily double over time, maybe reach 500 - 900 million, I just checked plausble populations with Chat GPT. Often countries break down as they grow and reform or split.

It all depends how flexible the government structure and instutitons are. 

At present its becoming very inflexible, so collapse is plausible.

Chat GPT Analysis of my Apex Thinker GPT 5.2, when weighing population growth resources etc;

Me: Given all of this information, can you objectively define how likely in percentage terms America might collapse or split (and possibly reform) over say 100-200 years. The recent trouble there has led to a discussion on a forum.

Definitions (to avoid ambiguity)

• Collapse = loss of central authority + sustained disorder (Roman/USSR-style).
• Split = formal secession into multiple sovereign states.
• Reform = constitutional or structural reset that preserves continuity (e.g. Reconstruction, New Deal, post–Civil War US).
• Status quo continuity = the US remains one state, despite crises, polarization, or decline.
• Probability breakdown (100–200 years)

🟥 Full collapse (hard state failure)

≈ 5–10%

Why low

• Enormous food, energy, and water buffers
• Continental geography with no peer invaders
• Dollar & capital markets provide shock absorption
• Strong state capacity relative to most historical empires

What would be required

• Prolonged economic depression plus
• Severe climate or resource shock plus

Elite fragmentation with loss of military loyalty

➡️ Historically rare for states with this profile.

🟧 Formal territorial split / secession

≈ 10–20%

Why non-trivial

• Federal structure already legitimizes regional power
• Cultural–political divergence is increasing
• Precedent exists (Civil War), unlike most modern states

Why still limited

• Economies are deeply interwoven
• Military, currency, and infrastructure are unified
• No clean ethnic or geographic fault lines (unlike Yugoslavia)

Most plausible form:

• Peaceful legal fragmentation after a constitutional crisis
• More likely 150+ years out than 50 years

🟨 Severe crisis → authoritarian or illiberal phase → reform

≈ 35–45%

This is the most likely disruption path.

• Pattern seen in:
• Roman Republic → Empire
• Weimar Germany → Federal Republic
• Britain (17th–19th century reforms)

Forms this could take:

• Emergency powers
• Curtailment of federal autonomy or civil liberties
• Eventual institutional reset (new amendments, new balance of power)
• ➡️ The US has already gone through milder versions of this cycle.

🟩 Messy continuity (no collapse, no split)

≈ 30–40%

• Polarization continues
• Relative global decline
• Governance becomes slower and less effective
• Still one country
• This is the default outcome for large, wealthy democracies.

I can think of two more:

🟪 Apocalypse

• The west has fallen. Billions must die.
• Likely to result from a nuclear war (during the cold war before the USA and Russia reduced their stockpiles by 90%) or some other apocalypse
• The only way to survive such a hostile world is to form bands which have enough collective knowledge for survival.
• It's unknown if AI can lead to this. Global warming is unlikely to do so but may exasterbate other crises.

🟧 🟩 New mode of government

• The nation-state gets replaced with a new mode of government.
• Just as the nation-state arose from changing attitudes regarding nationalism and economies of scale, this new mode of government will arise from a rise in cosmopolitanism and a decreasing scale to violence.
  • This changing attitude will result from online work resulting in people being able to work from wherever they want in the world.
  • During the peak of economies of scale, tanks dominated the battlefield. Drones are a game-changer, essentially making the war in Ukraine like WWI.
  • 3D printing is now starting to reduce the scale of violence, allowing ethnic minorities in Myanmar to protect themselves from a genocidal regime. This will also make it easier for troubled individuals and organized crime to carry out acts of violence.
  • Because of the reduced scale, the new mode of government will, on average, consist of less territory than the nation-state.
• The stage orange mode of government will operate akin to a business. Cities will be designed around profiting off of digital nomads. Revenue will come from rent and severance taxation. Land and capital will not be taxed as they will be mobile.
• Each mode of government is strengthened by the next stage because that stage accounts for the previous stage's limitations
  • The stage red mode of government, the empire, is strengthened by stage blue because it leads to more stability.
  • The nation-state, the stage blue mode of government, is strengthened by stage orange because it results in more diversity and innovation.
  • The next stage will be strengthened by stage green because the main limitation of orange is that it lacks a sense of belonging.
• One major footnote here is that the stage orange mode of government will be the first to be less militarily capable than the last. This is because the previous is able to engage in total war, that is the use of all assets in a conflict.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

Yeah, "we" should definitely do that, bro lmfao we have soooo much fuckin say on the matter. Wait, I have a meeting with Warren Buffet in about 10 minutes, need to catch a plane