Like, giving independence to California and Cascadia for example. Because if you’re a communist party and believe the US is a settler state, it’s logical to strive to break up that state. But I’m not Statesian so I don’t know in what way this is discussed in the parties.
As far as breaking up the socialist replacement for the current settler state, I don’t really see the point. Maybe it breaks apart in the course of the revolution, but it wouldn’t be an objective.
Do you have a place where I can read more on this position? I agree with it, I’d just like to have more information.
The book Socialist Reconstruction goes into some detail on the party’s stance on decolonization. The Black Belt Thesis reader is about the argument for a geographic Black nation in the American South. But there’s a limit into how much we give into the post-revolution plan. First, obviously, we just can’t know exactly how things will be. But second, especially with regards to native nations, there’s potential for colonial chauvinism if we think we have standing to say much beyond “it’s your land to do with as you please”.
How do they feel about Alaska?
I think the above gets that across pretty well. I imagine the vast majority of that land would be immediately turned over to the various native nations there to do with as they see fit. I’m not super knowledgeable about Alaska specifically, but I don’t see why those principles wouldn’t work.