Future flags and names

Okay well, I was sitting around and thinking, in a future white workers' state, does anyone have any idea what our flag would look like? Surely, one of yous must have thought of it sometime. Also what about a name? Surely, we can't use the name the "United States" especially if the scenario the user Coach laid out before takes place, in which the United States is divided up between races. It surely wouldn't be the "United States" as we know it.

I have had some ideas for flags and names myself. I'd say this thread is mostly just for fun since it is so early on, but one day it will most certainly have to be a reality. A name and a flag.

So I am interested if anyone here has ideas and if they would share them.

Romanticist, did you make those yourself, or did you find them elsewhere? I'd like to know where you got them, so I could perhaps glance at any others.

Romanticist wrote:

Damn! Those are good. Did you make them yourself and do you mind if I save some and keep them archived on my computer?

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Damn! Those are good. Did you make them yourself and do you mind if I save some and keep them archived on my computer?

No comrade, I didn't actually make them myself, I just browsed around and found the most appropriate ones

Personally, I'd favor some variation of the Revolutionary Syndicalist Front's flag to replace the current 'stars & stripes':


I'd also like the commonwealth to be named something along the lines of "The Socialist Republic of America."

Celtiberian wrote:Personally, I'd favor some variation of the Revolutionary Syndicalist Front's flag to replace the current 'stars & stripes':

I'd also like the European-American socialist commonwealth to be named something along the lines of "The Socialist Republic of America."

Have you possibly considered the WPDR (White People's Democratic Republic)? I admit that its connotations are obvious, but it reflects both the socialistic and the nationalistic aspects of our idea. If we're going to divide up the current states along ethnic lines, it would be also be prudent to leave out the term 'America' altogether. America has long since fulfilled its historical mission, which was the creation of the essential preconditions for the development of a socialist society. It is time for a new era, a new country for that era, and a new name for that country, one which should contain no references to the past.

I harbor no particular resentment for the stars and stripes, because they have represented from the beginning those old noble principles which made all of our people great, and still do. The fact that the modern USA violates those principles on a daily basis is no reason to resent them; no evil could ever besmirch such principles. However, those principles have long since become inadequate, in and of themselves, and for precisely that reason they must go.

If and when we should ever have our own new republic, we should bury the old colors in an official ceremony out of respect for what it was meant to represent a step forward for humanity, whilst simultaneously running up our new colors on the flagpole.

I know I'm waxing all poetic, but.......oh, forget it, I'm starting to sound silly.

Bladridigan wrote:Have you possibly considered the WPDR (White People's Democratic Republic)? I admit that its connotations are obvious, but it reflects both the socialistic and the nationalistic aspects of our idea.

I've never particularly cared for the term "white" to describe people of European descent; it always struck me as sounding somewhat childish. Moreover, "white" is of little descriptive value—there are plenty of East Asians with chalk white skin, for example—which is why I prefer referring to white Americans as being 'Caucasians' or 'European-Americans.' I honestly don't believe we need our ethnicity explicitly incorporated into the name of our republic.

If we're going to divide up the current states along ethnic lines, it would be also be prudent to leave out the term 'America' altogether. America has long since fulfilled its historical mission, which was the creation of the essential preconditions for the development of a socialist society. It is time for a new era, a new country for that era, and a new name for that country, one which should contain no references to the past.

Well, we live on the North American continent, so I don't see why we should eschew the term altogether. Following the proletarian revolution, the United States may well become divided states, so we should certainly avoid salvaging that term when considering what we name our socialist nation.

I harbor no particular resentment for the stars and stripes, because they have represented from the beginning those old noble principles which made all of our people great, and still do. The fact that the modern USA violates those principles on a daily basis is no reason to resent them; no evil could ever besmirch such principles. However, those principles have long since become inadequate, in and of themselves, and for precisely that reason they must go.

When I look at the stars and stripes, it invokes images of ecological and economic exploitation, genocide, and imperialism. The founding principles of this country, in my opinion, are worthy of nothing but contempt (excluding the Enlightenment value of rejecting the alleged "divine right of kings"). I recognize that most Americans will likely never view "old glory" or the Founding Fathers quite as negatively as I do, but that's ultimately of little concern to me.

Celtiberian wrote:Personally, I'd favor some variation of the Revolutionary Syndicalist Front's flag to replace the current 'stars & stripes':

I'd also like the European-American socialist commonwealth to be named something along the lines of "The Socialist Republic of America."

The red RSF flag (featured in the 'Welcome' thread):

Celtiberian wrote:When I look at the stars and stripes, it invokes images of ecological and economic exploitation, genocide, and imperialism. The founding principles of this country, in my opinion, are worthy of nothing but contempt (excluding the Enlightenment value of rejecting the alleged "divine right of kings"). I recognize that most Americans will likely never view "old glory" or the Founding Fathers quite as negatively as I do, but that's ultimately of little concern to me.

Understood, I guess that make me like most other Americans in that respect, I just thought it should be pointed out that, when they were established, they were basically a step forwards. Much like the French Revolution, which was quite progressive at the time.

As for the whole 'white' thing, I think your criticism is more relevant to the 14 word slogan, I always thought it was a cheesy sounding slogan, though I never admitted as much on Stormfront, they have a practical cult around it.

Bladridigan wrote:Understood, I guess that make me like most other Americans in that respect, I just thought it should be pointed out that, when they were established, they were basically a step forwards. Much like the French Revolution, which was quite progressive at the time.

I didn't mean to suggest that the Enlightenment-inspired bourgeois revolutions weren't progressive in their own right, they undoubtedly were, but only relative to what preceded them (which isn't saying much). There were social movements in history, prior to the bourgeois revolutions, which were vastly more progressive than what was achieved in the United States and France—such as the Diggers in England (circa 1649)—but they were obviously suppressed by the forces of reaction of their time.

I like the RSF flag as well. I actually had designed something similar to the ones that Romanticist posted with the red flag and Odal rune but it looks no where near as good as the ones he found. I agree that we need to ditch the stars and stripes. Not only white peoples, but every race on the planet at one point has had their culture destroyed and butchered in the name of the stars and stripes.

About the name, I am inclined to agree with Bladridigan, I would prefer we have a name that is relevant to our people. Though I don't like the term white either. White is a color; that is all.

Admin wrote:
The red RSF flag (featured in the 'Welcome' thread):

A somewhat more embellished rendition of the above. Old Glory would most definitely be confined to a retirement home in my post-revolutionary America.

As far as sovereign titles are concerned, I prefer "The United Socialist Republic of America (USRA)" or "The United Socialist American Republic (USAR)" as possible names for our post-capitalist Euro-American nation state. I also find "The American Socialist Federation (AMF or ASF)" or "The Federal Socialist Republic of America (FSRA)" to be quite palatable. At the end of the day, even as simple an alteration as "The Socialist States of America (SSA)" would, in my opinion, suffice.

I got bored and made this in paint:



Kinda sloppy, but I only have paint.

I may just be nit-picking here, and thinking about something way off in the future, but just for fun; I was thinking as I was driving to work this afternoon isn't it silly to put socialist in the name of a socialist nation?

Capitalists don't name their countries "The Capitalist Republic of America" or anything like that. Why should the countries name reflect its mode of production? That isn't necessarily a safeguard against capitalism returning, just look at the USSR.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I may just be nit-picking here, and thinking about something way off in the future, but just for fun; I was thinking as I was driving to work this afternoon isn't it silly to put socialist in the name of a socialist nation?

Capitalists don't name their countries "The Capitalist Republic of America" or anything like that. Why should the countries name reflect its mode of production? That isn't necessarily a safeguard against capitalism returning, just look at the USSR.

I understand your point. However, while nations are forced to exist in a world which continues to feature capitalism, I think it's valuable for the socialist nations to explicitly state their ideology.

Moreover, one of the reasons bourgeois states don't incorporate the term 'capitalist' into their names is because they tend to dislike mention of capitalism in general. You'll notice that it's fairly rare to come across the word 'capitalism' in mainstream discourse. One of reasons for this phenomenon may be because, if people were more familiar with the term, they would be more inclined to research it, and if they did that they would likely come across various critiques of the capitalist mode of production. By failing to explicitly name the mode of production we live under, it also presents the illusion that our economic arrangement is natural and unalterable.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I may just be nit-picking here, and thinking about something way off in the future, but just for fun; I was thinking as I was driving to work this afternoon isn't it silly to put socialist in the name of a socialist nation?

Capitalists don't name their countries "The Capitalist Republic of America" or anything like that. Why should the countries name reflect its mode of production? That isn't necessarily a safeguard against capitalism returning, just look at the USSR.

It is true that a nominal reference does little for ensuring a just mode of production, but I would not discount the naming scheme simply for that.

Bourgeois states do not name themselves in accordance with the predominant mode of production for two primary reasons, in my view. For one, the historical circumstances under which capitalism formed allowed for a subtle transition of power as the mode of production literally changed in the process of capital accumulation, not through any genuine revolutionary action. Two, the bourgeois establishment assumes capitalism to be the final stage in economic development, benefits from a lack of comparative economic discourse and so discourages it, and prefers to cloak blatant service to capital underneath appeals to "democracy" and "patriotism," because all of this suits its ends.

"Socialist" countries emerged through struggle and often brutal conflict with the stated aim of bringing about working class emancipation. Hostility toward such formations by global capital reinforced the identity of a socioeconomic dichotomy, and this in turn spurred attempts to reify the prevailing guidelines of "socialism" (however misaligned reality came with ideals), which in particularly unpleasant situations inspired a national ideology. Revolutionary socialist movements following in the Marxist(-Leninist) tradition envisioned society's most significant obstacle as class struggle, and this entailed an anti-capitalist identity until such a time when communism would or could be achieved.

Socialism is not a conviction that I take lightly, and if I am prepared to die for these principles which bespeak such tremendous social implications, then I certainly find meaning and purpose in symbolizing their ascent in the national title.

I submit the following..

Rule: it MUST be black and red, no questions asked. Other colours are welcome, but must be able to fit in with the awesomeness of black and red.

Love the nazbol flag in the second post with the cog.
Would be great if someone could make a Serbian flag with revolutionary socialist elements in it