Message from @Miniature Menace
Discord ID: 614629435131428874
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.
Of course a peacenik group is going to say something to the effect of "We don't believe in violence, unlike Group X." That's part of the whole idea of being peaceful.
Granted, it probably wouldn't have been so effective, if they hadn't already had so many allies in media, academia, and law.
And finance.
Are you saying it was all a comspiracy amongst the various groups, violent and non-violent?
As well as the media, finance, etc.?
It was heavily compartmentalized, but no doubt their were networkers between both who knew what the grand strategy concerned.
*[citation needed]*
<:Doubt:588038713938804760>
Look into communist and socialist connections in media, academia and law, it's a big component of it. As well as those associations where they overlapped in social justice advocacy, and anti-racism.
Compare it to modern antifa, and the left academics. They're still doing it today.
I've no doubt there's strains of socialism in the various groups—especially given Soviet tendancies and the ongoing Cold War—but that's quite the leap. And I'm certain MLK and other peace advocates weren't perfect. But that doesn't mean it was all one huge plot. Sometimes revolutions are organic, and come about through natural forces—death being preferrable to inaction, et cetera.
Antifa may be more centralized than they let on, but they still have their various cells. They're a more modern beast anyway, and certainly like their violence.
@Goodwood of Dank™ This is far from an exhaustive analysis, but it does explore the connection between MLKJ and the communist/socialist elements in finance, and law.
https://youtu.be/OGUNHsh4Ax8