@Comando Also, specifically on the subject of civil war, I don't regard it as inherently desirable. Rather, due to how invested and entrenched the interests are which oppose a proper reform and anti-corruption initiatives, I have come to regard it as the most likely *outcome* of any meaningful attempt to dislodge them.

Civil Wars normally are the result of a group that's recently become powerful, not gaining institutional power and striking out to get it, or a formerly powerful group attempting to prevent the ascension of a new group which is otherwise gaining institutional power.

He is correct that the *international* resources and networks of the elites is probably one of the most significant *obstacles* to a red america victory in the event of a civil war.

As they were the chief cause of the failure of other anti-globalist uprisings.

Comando is correct. The causes of the American Civil War can largely be laid at the feet of abolitionism, and the institution of slavery.

States' rights was a smokescreen. It was about states' rights—to own slaves.

Also, debts, but yes. Slavery was a large political component.

But it was an institution. The South broke away, then went to war, to protect this powerful institution.

And another reason why slavery was a political component is because of prior compromises between slave states and the free states.

And the compromises baked into the Constitution, such as the 3/5ths clause.

Exactly

You'd be surprised how much revisionism there is in the South.

It's not as bad as it used to be, but still...

Honestly, I don't care whether you want to call it a civil war or a revolutionary war. War is likely in the event that the established elites are meaningfully challenged. And the most likely alternative to that war is that the elites simply crush dissent, and continue on until their system implodes under its own weight, or control is seized by another faction from within. I don't see them surrendering power willingly unless they expect to face such overwhelming opposition that flight is more appealing. And I don't think that's likely the way things currently appear, but might change down the road.

A civil war is only a revolutionary war when it's fought by seperatists, and only then if they win.

kek

There's no need to be pedantic.

Oh, but there is. The two terms are not interchangable.

How are they meaningful to the discussion?

The Galactic CIvil War in old canon wasn't a Galactic Revolution, because the Rebels didn't want to break away from the Imperial throne. They wanted to topple it and restore the Republic.

That's just a fictional example.

My observations rest on the event of war, not whether it's "civil" or "revolutionary"

War is not inevitable when it comes to a clash of institutions.

I didn't argue it was certainly inevitable, just likely.

I'd say that these days, civil war is far less likely due to a number of factors. First, the profligate expansion of lethal technology; second, a much broader awareness of history and conflict; and third, the reluctance of a reasonably secure, well-fed population to start hacking at each other over ideological differences.

There's not really an effective point of compromise. The interests of the establishment run diametrically opposed to the vast majority of interests of a significant sub-population.

And on a very fundamental level.

Yeah, it's certainly not going to happen until people are far less comfortable and secure. That's for sure.

People are still too comfortable, distracted, and feel they have too much to lose.

Basically, the point at which it will likely occur, is when a critical mass of people are in such a desperate situation, that death is a preferable alternative to inaction.

True, but that doesn't make war more likely. In this day and age, when Western governments have to at least pretend to care under more powerful spotlights, it makes war less likely. Look at the Civil Rights and Indian independence movements as an example of this; the non-violent protesters carried the day because whenever the government or establishment got violent, usually for no justifiable reason, they were the ones who lost.

Obviously this doesn't work in tyrannical regimes, but we're not talking about those kinds of societies.

The Civil-Rights didn't achieve a non-violent victory. It achieved a victory through violent, financial, political, and academic subversion.

wat

It leveraged both political violence in the streets, as well as leveraging the threat of force from the institutions it subverted.

I was referring specifically to the non-violent protests.

Rules for Radicals is a book on how to gain political victory *without* violence.

It only worked because they were leveraging the violence of others who were working towards the same end, and counting on the good faith of others who might otherwise have stopped them.

There were political assassinations, attacks, and tremendous amounts of money involved.

What are you even talking about? The violent actors wanted nothing to do with the peaceniks.

It's a scam. The peaceniks utilized the fear the masses had of the radicals to appear more reasonable by comparison.

I'm not saying the violent extremists weren't there. I'm saying the non-violent actors were the ones who brought victory.