Quarter of Americans fear civil war after election, Times poll shows
Quarter of Americans fear civil war after election, Times poll shows
www.thetimes.com
Quarter of Americans fear civil war after election, Times poll shows
20 comments
-
-
Americans are too spoiled, coddled, lazy, entitled, dependant, and apathetic to fight a civil war.
-
As the Lenin quote goes, every society is three hot meals away from chaos. The standard of living in US is rapidly collapsing, and people's wages are not keeping up with the cost of living. That can't go on forever.
-
It's actually dependent with an e that is the correct spelling. I'm reporting to my nearest re-education camp.
-
Governments (state and federal) can force people to fight though.
-
-
so, were afraid the same people who lost the last civil war are somehow going to think they can do it this time?
losers are gunna be losers i spose. i dont see it. these people are cowards and have no real targets. they are not organized. they are a joke.
-
Could be the blue states refusing to comply with some crazy federal demand under a Trump administration. Trump has said he'd use the military to attack the "enemy within," after all.
-
-
Then quarter (at least) of Americans are dumb as shit. Who's going to revolt? The low IQ boomer fuckwits that believe the shit they read on Facebook? Give me a break. Half of those wrinkly old shit stains are so glued to their own couches watching Fox "news" they'd probably have a heart attack from the physicality of walking up a steep incline.
So sick of this fucking bullshit line that we're going to have a civil war. Go the fuck outside and get some fresh air jesus christ.
20 comments
Both right-wing candidates are acceptable to the capitalist class, and there is no militant mass labor movement.
I get the impression that the capitalist class is far from unified. It's clear that at least some members calculate that they might be better off with their own personal fiefdoms like Texas or Florida. Also, it's undeniable that there is increasing polarization of society, which is largely driven by the oligarch owned media. Even if the intent isn't to cause civil unrest, it's easy for events to take on a life of their own as this process continues. The continuously declining standard of living is fuelling public anger, and the media tells people that half the country is their enemy who is responsible for this. Both democrat and republican control outlets are actively radicalizing their viewers. Here's an example of what I mean straight from lemmy https://lemmy.ml/post/21741562/14500351
The situation the US is headed for is one where a significant portion of the public no longer believes the elections are fair, and increasingly sees violence as an acceptable way to resolve problems. The fundamental reason people accept the system is because they see it as being broadly fair. The social contract is that you go and vote, and if your side loses, well that's cause most people wanted something different, and you're just going to accept that. However, if you believe that the election was stolen then you no longer see the power structures as being legitimate. At that point you see yourself as living under tyranny.
I don't think that a militant mass labor movement is needed for a civil war to start. It's not going to look like the last civil war with two armies fighting each other. It's going to look more like Rwanda, where you'll see mass murder, and ethnic cleansing happening all over the country.
A civil war certainly can happen without a left, and if things continue along the current path, civil war will continue to become more possible. But I think that’s out beyond the next administration.
Some petit bourgeois do. But I don’t think the haute bourgeoisie are willing to risk losing empire yet. Until they feel that empire is unsalvageable, I don’t think they’d sign on to secession. And I don’t think regional petite bourgeoisie can pull it off on their own under such conditions. I think they’d be quickly dispatched by federal forces if they tried, and I don’t think they’d try without haute bourgeois support. My understanding is that the military is set up so each division consists of people from around the country. They don’t have regional loyalties, except perhaps in the state-based National Guard. So I don’t think they can be brought around to the side of the seceders.
No doubt, but on the “left” there’s no organizing nor funding for civil militancy. It can only rely on state use of force. On the right side, there is some organizing. I think it’s still in a state of patchwork stochastic terrorism, and as-yet no large backing to sew it together and activate it.
Yes, I saw that. I think it’s some Dem stan yelling at their screen. I don’t see them joining a militia and fighting door-to-door in the streets. Dem stans seem to have no convictions more militant than rallies to restore sanity.
Yes, and people live with that in other countries without civil war breaking out, and under even worse material conditions.
I can definitely imagine stochastic terrorism ramping up, and the state increasingly having to come in to take it down. If that’s the kind of civil war you mean, then my answer is different. I don’t know much of anything about Rwanda’s situation, but I get the impression that it doesn’t have a strong federal government, and if that’s the case, structurally I think it’s a different situation.
Aside from stochastic regional terror, I can also envision even more naked coups in the near future. Depending om how one plays out, it can sometimes be considered a lightning round civil war.
And this is why I don't think there will be a civil war. Even the last one at least had two capitalist groups with different interests: industrialists vs. agriculturalists.