I hope everyone here understands these facts and is preparing accordingly within their communities.
I always see the chuds getting together to plan the uprising, and shooting each other within ten minutes after getting into an argument over who gets to be the general.
There will be a schism between the chuds who think Israel is good because they genocide Muslims and the chuds who think Israel is controlling the world because da joos
The only problem I have with this take is that the militias have largely merged with the police departments. I think cops around the country are ready to act as Trump’s brown shirts and are just waiting for him to give the word. It wouldn’t be organized but it would be violent
This is true, but the American populace is still highly armed. If it did come down to some kind of a civil war with the police vs civilians, the police would find themselves in a precarious situation. Fighting an insurgency against a heavily armed population is impossible when the military does it in another country - how would the police manage?
And lurking in the background is the real 'might makes right', the US military which is far more diverse then police departments. The US military would just bomb every police precinct into oblivion.
That's why I think radicalizing soldiers is low key a great idea. Officers will never be radicalized, but they're such a tiny fraction of the armed forces.
I'm expecting the bourgeoisie aligned with the Democrats will rally portions of the country to secede, or threaten to secede.
That, or use their connections within the US military, which they have stronger connections with than Trump;
Because the rate of profit this year is plummeting. We're in the greatest crisis of finance capitalism in history. Within the next few weeks, we're going to see a massive financial crisis spurred on by uncertainty in this election, a la 2008 & 1908. The Fed has basically destroyed the value of the US Dollar over the past six months, but the speculative economy has been able to hide that fact from us. The bourgeoisie are aware of this fact, though. And they are preparing accordingly.
The crisis of finance capitalism is resolved through imperialist war, where factions of the imperialist bourgeoisie struggle amongst each other for ever-shrinking surplus value. The bourgeoisie can not engage in peaceful coexistence. That's a proven fact of history.
I know that we haven't seen the Democrats fight but I definitely think if Trump refuses to leave you'll see a fight for it. Trump also is probably going to just resign so Pence can pardon him.
Meanwhile when I talked about this last night, my post was downvoted to not being visible and all my responses also shot to hell. This place does not like hearing that they're not gonna get their accelerationist moment.
I feel like confidently claiming that either scenario will definitely play out is foolish though. We have no idea what will happen, the material circumstances are all out of whack right now. I personally doubt that Trump would want to seize power but I can't say that for sure because I'm positive a lot of the more ideological fascists in his administration are pushing for it.
Tbh I could see any of the major speculative play out whether it's a Biden win and Trump coup, a Trump win and consolation or power, a Trump win and a deep state coup, etc. None of them seem out of the realm of possibility. All I know is that we aren't going to win and things are definitely going to get worse.
The American Bourgeoisie is divided and faces major contradictions between industries as well as contradictions between short term and long term interests. A fragmented bourgeoisie can lead to political crisis, like it did in the 1860s. I don't think any of us really know how far the different segments of the Bourgeoisie are willing to go.
I think 2016 definitely rattled our confidence in definitively claiming anything, so I get that, but I also think 2016 was an outlier. I'm not going to let that fuck with my relative certainty that things will ultimately be a tense if not regular transfer of power.
The American bourgeoisie is split, perhaps, but it's the evangelical DeVos dorks versus the Bezoses. To your point, we have a huge fight ahead of us no matter who wins. But I think the majority of the business community is aligned with Biden with a fringe idiocy dedicated to Trump.
I think 2016 definitely rattled our confidence in definitively claiming anything, so I get that, but I also think 2016 was an outlier. I’m not going to let that fuck with my relative certainty that things will ultimately be a tense if not regular transfer of power.
I'm not trying to start a slap fight here but you've been going around saying people are libs for thinking a civil war could happen, while having the libbest take of all: that 2016 was an aberration. That shit is the new normal. There is no going back without major conflict because the contradictions are too pronounced. The GOP will never go back to being a respectable neocon party and the Dems are going to have to contend with major left wing sentiment in it's base. I really don't see any material basis for thinking that peaceful transfer of power is certain.
The American bourgeoisie is split, perhaps, but it’s the evangelical DeVos dorks versus the Bezoses. To your point, we have a huge fight ahead of us no matter who wins. But I think the majority of the business community is aligned with Biden with a fringe idiocy dedicated to Trump. Trump represents the interests of not just DeVos freaks but the resource extraction, construction, and weapons industries while Biden represents tech, media, finance, and service industries. Finance kind of plays both sides though. That means there is very big money behind Trump but bigger money behind Biden. The right wing faction has loyalty from institutions like police and private right wing militias while the Liberals have way more money and some nascent loyalty from military leadership. This is a level of polarization in the bourgeoisie that we haven't really seen since the 1860s.
That's why people think there could be a civil war. It wouldn't be like the American Civil war with basically two countries' armies fighting each other though. You'd probably see stuff like right wing mutinies at certain military bases if the military backs Biden, police mass arresting Democrat politicians and terrorism from both sides. One thing I'd definitely expect is chuds blockading food imports into cities.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't call people libs unless they're literally liberals. And this thread, to my mind, is the first I've commented in talking about Civil War.
You may misunderstand me when I say that 2016 is an aberration. I mean it was an aberration in predictive polling. It was unique in that there were two deeply unpopular candidates running against each other too, and you'll probably see one side or the other put up a more palatable candidate next time around.
Do weapons industries back Trump? So far as I've seen they've peppered both sides pretty evenly with money. And the same with other heavy industry.
I can't speak to the rest. It sounds to me more like you're talking about an almost Cold War type of thing.
What do you mean "Libs fighting." Most people don't take up arms in a civil war lol
The problem is that there will be no "pro-BIden" side and there is no left. None of the libs are gonna start a war and I certainly am not going to for Biden either. There will continue to be unrest and right wing terrorism but the only organized violent parties are the state and fascist militias, and they do not seriously threaten each other. Honestly we were closer to a civil war during the Bundy standoffs then now because the right and the state were clearly antagonistic then.
This doesn't rule out genocide or worsening state suppression, but its not gonna be a civil war.
The thing is though, there military is made up of people. They're not a monolith. A schism within the military on who to be loyal to could very well happen. We don't know really.
Well I doubt it will come to that, but I think the officers are mostly pure neocon/neoliberal Imperialists that dislike Trump because he undermines our relations with "friendly" (imperialist) powers and is erratic and unpredictable on foreign policy in general. What I think is a bigger danger is rank and file troops mutinying against their neocon officers.
Who's gonna go to war for Joe Biden and the DNC in a civil war? If there's war in the US it'll be fascists in alliance with the "law and order" against leftists like us
The only wars which can address the scale of the crisis is a war with Iran, Russia, and China - who have begun cooperating in joint military operations and represent a united front against the US military.
The Trump administration has been agitating for war against these targets for his entire presidency. Tearing up the Iran Nuclear Deal, breaking Obama's red line on Russia, the Chinese trade war, etc.
The imperialist bourgeoisie which back Biden had a longer term strategy which had the support of the US military. They wanted to slowly internationally isolate China through economic actions such as TPP, while protecting their relationship with European allies through compromising their aggression against Russia & Iran.
The US military has stated time and time again that they cannot fight a war against the united front of Iran, China, and Russia right now. Trump represented a more volatile section of the bourgeoisie which only ever saw victory in such a war. In that way, he is more fascistic than the other imperialists. Hitler & Mussolini also assumed that only victory could await them.
But this is the contradiction that has been brewing within the US bourgeoise for awhile. A war within the US, with these two factions of bourgeoisie vying for supremacy, seems more likely than the bourgeoisie going entering a war against Iran, Russia, and China because a faction of the US bourgeoisie recognize that it is suicide for their class.
The Biden camp has been rallying the support of a large faction of the imperialist bourgeoisie in this country.
The last time civil war nearly broke out in the US - the 1933-1934 Business Plot - their soldiers were not ideologues. They were 500,000 people promised a salary.
This myth that there's peaceful coexistence amongst the bourgeoisie should've been tossed into the dustbin of history a hundred years ago. There are financial interests that need Biden to become president.
Yes, there would certainly be a number that are swayed materially. But the DNC has absolutely nothing to rally around. Their best effort against Donald Trump is Joe Biden. The DNC is not a strong enough bourgeois faction to convince other bourgeois factions to rally behind them and risk their assets and safety. As it stands, their power is entirely due to an alliance with the bourgeoisie of international scale exploitation who believe concealed class exploitation is a lower risk management of the capitalist system. The more nationally oriented bourgeoisie and those less inclined to dress up the exploitation are all rallied behind Trump and are enjoying the hell out of politics of now. The DNC faction is much less strong, since if they were to challenge the opposing faction their backing would no longer see supporting them as low risk, in fact far more risky. And in modern conditions where there is clear growth in proletariat consciousness/resistance, you can expect most of the ruling class to rally behind fascist elements.
My point is, the bourgeoisie is not stupid enough to go to war with itself in the midst of a clear growing radicalized proletariat. Their material interests will yet again unite them as it becomes clear that we are a real threat, make no mistake.
EDIT: Thinking it through a little further, what we're witnessing is a collapse of the DNC faction all-together, since material conditions (rising radicalization amonst the proles, global systems collapsing in favor of national ones, climate change likely requiring more brutalized exploitation) are going to favor the fascist order that will evolve out of Trump.
I don't think you understand that the material conditions of the bourgeoisie are forcing their infighting as well. The rate of profit has crashed to the point that consolidation is necessary within the ruling class, and all sides of the imperialist class are faced with an existential crisis.
This is the contradiction of imperialist capitalism. Imperialist infighting and class war occurring simultaneously. These are the conditions which allow for proletarian revolution. It doesn't mater how "smart" the bourgeoisie are, they are still subject to material reality like the rest of us.
I understand that the there is infighting, and I'm not arguing that when the US does collapse into civil war/revolution, there will likely be multiple warring bourgeois factions.
However, I think that we are far from seeing distinct enough contradictions between the opposing bourgeois factions, materially and ideologically. All I'm asking is, do you sense any bit of force behind the messaging of the DNC, any militancy? There are no DNC liberals calling for physical violence if Trump refuses to leave office. I just don't see it, and I could be wrong, but idk lol.
The Democratic Party has been much more willing to tolerate property destruction and street militancy than ever before. I don't feel like Leftists are recognizing this fact.
The shit that has happened in Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, etc. is orders of magnitude beyond anything we've seen before, e.g. Ferguson & Baltimore.
The Democrats have been pretty relatively silent on the issue. Democratic mayors & governors have been siding with protestors on occasion. The national Democratic Party is not condemning these actions with even a tenth of the ferocity they had condemned Ferguson.
If the Democrats really wanted, these protests would have been crushed by now.
There are no DNC liberals calling for physical violence if Trump refuses to leave office. I just don’t see it, and I could be wrong, but idk lol.
They have been positioning themselves the reject the results of the election, just as Trump has.
They're silent because they see their silence as the most beneficial decision for themselves electorally. It allows them to act as "opposition" to the Trump admin and Republicans, it convinces naive leftists that they might actually support violent rebellion (lol), and it also allows them the wiggle room later down more silently suppress dissidents and diffuse protests when protests no longer benefit them electorally.
My point in all of these is that you're listening to closely to what they want you to hear. There is not a huge gap between Republicans and Democrats, we know this. Yes, they have real differences in their strategies of managing the superstructure to replicate base relations, but they are not stupid enough (yet) to gift revolutionary factions the chaos of physical warfare between two bourgeois parties, which would undermine the entire legitimacy of each of their games. Their warfare is mainly ideological and in the ownership of Capital. Neither will risk their legitimacy as a legal US entity to destroy the other.
Do you understand imperialism, the inevitable contradiction of imperialist forces leading to imperialist war, and the opportunity that creates being the only reason proletarian revolution happens? It's frustrating to se Kautskyist nonsense that the bourgeoisie can coexist peacefully throughout deep crises in capitalism. This has been disproved by reality countless times.
they are not stupid enough (yet) to gift revolutionary factions the chaos of physical warfare between two bourgeois parties, which would undermine the entire legitimacy of each of their games. Their warfare is mainly ideological and in the ownership of Capital. Neither will risk their legitimacy as a legal US entity to destroy the other.
We are in the greatest crisis of finance capitalism is history. There must be consolidation amongst the finance class, which is an existential threat to factions within the financial class.
The imperialist wars are not waged within the imperial core though, at least not amongst competing national factions. I'm confused as to how my arguments are Kautskyite in theme, I'm curious to hear what you mean by that.
I would also ask which successful socialist revolutions have occurred out of civil war between competing factions of the ruling class? Perhaps I'm ill-informed but none of them really fit (Cuba, China, USSR, Vietnam, Venezuela)
The imperialist wars are not waged within the imperial core though
Both World Wars? What? Imperialist Wars must always be waged in the imperial core. It is the violent overthrow of the imperialists by either other imperialists or the proletariat.
I’m confused as to how my arguments are Kautskyite in theme, I’m curious to hear what you mean by that.
Kautsky's theory on imperialism was that the imperialist powers do not have anything to gain from war amongst themselves. Therefore, they will always coordinate imperialist efforts to be mutually beneficial while suppressing the proletariat, known as "super-imperialism."
This is bullshit. It's defeatist. And it is not grounded in reality. The imperialists are constantly in facing an existential threat from other imperialists because capitalism necessarily concentrates into fewer and fewer hands due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and the growth in profit necessitated by capitalism.
I'm really getting confused by your definitions here. "Imperialist War" is not waged in the imperial core, it is a war of conquering other nations/peoples and creating a structure from the ruins to farm or just steal Capital.
Imperialist powers will war against each other, yes, I am not contending that. But each European bourgeoisie rallied around their national imperial entity, they did not war amongst their own national cohorts, or else there would have not been national armies warring exclusively against other nations' armies. The armies consist almost exclusively of proles, but their roles are unchanged, all that has changed is their job and their direct employer, they are wage slaves to the bourgeois State rather than a bourgeois individual.
I'm not saying there is nothing to be gained for the global working class from imperialist powers fighting each other. But imperialist powers will only use physical force against another imperialist power, not itself.
I’m really getting confused by your definitions here. “Imperialist War” is not waged in the imperial core, it is a war of conquering other nations/peoples and creating a structure from the ruins to farm or just steal Capital.
That's just Imperialism. I'm using Imperialist War to describe conflicts between imperialist powers, WWI & WWII. There's a tendency to make this distinction in works on these wars, but then "Imperialist War" is used to describe wars of imperialism in other cases. Language is imperfect
But each European bourgeoisie rallied around their national imperial entity, they did not war amongst their own national cohorts, or else there would have not been national armies warring exclusively against other nations’ armies.
National identities have been constructed through these struggles. Before WWI, the people who lived along the French-German border did not have rigid national identities. Given the polarization that has been occurring in the US for awhile, it seems like there has been an effort to create opposing national consciousness within the US. "Liberals" and "Conservative" do not see each other as fellow countrymen. This is a new development in the past 40 years. Or rather, it had been dormant, unreflected in the national politick.
Yeah this is why you see the "globalist" rhetoric from the right. The Liberal bourgeoisie sees itself more as an international bourgeoisie than a national bourgeoisie. It's a distinct identity and has distinct interests from the right wing national bourgeoisie. The idea of a WWII era united Imperialist class is obsolete . Idk how this will pan out but it's not going to just go away.
They were just saying there are contradictions between factions in the bourgeoisie. Some segments thrive under Trump and some are hamstrung.
It means people who have to fight a war on behalf of the bourgeois interests behind Biden.
The vast majority of combatants in any war are not ideologues, they're motivated by material conditions.
And also, the vast majority of people in civil wars are not combatants.
It'll be Bush v. Gore all over again. "Listen Jack. I don't want to damage people's faith in our great nation by having a bitter fight over the election results, so in the interests of democracy and freedom we are letting
George BushPresident Trump steal the election."
Who tf is going to fight in the streets on behalf of Biden and the democrats? Karen? Wine aunt? Anti-gun boys?
The imperialist bourgeoisie behind Biden have significantly more sway amongst the militaryelites than Trump.
Yes? You do understand that the Left is not going to be a major force in the scenario I'm describing, at least to start. This is a conflict between the imperialist bourgeoisie.
The Left is irrelevant in their minds right now. They do not see the proletariat as historical actors, but rather, as spawns to play with.
Yeah, we do. I just wanted to highlight that the Left can, and likely will, become relevant as these crises go unresolved.
I'm skeptical of a civil war, as in like Syria, because I don't think anyone is willing to die on behalf of installing Biden. The Trump freaks are willing to fight and die for him, but Trump himself probably just wants a way out of the Presidency while claiming he never lost and it was all rigged. The Bourgeoisie (the real big ones, like the owners of large companies not the petit bourgeoisie) don't back one against the other because their both promising the same neoliberal regime and imperialist wars - Trump never stopped the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq even though he also resisted starting new ones in Venezuela or Iran. I'm also skeptical of a civil war because it would actually accelerate conditions and force libs to radicalize or die - and the general pattern of the last 30 years of neoliberalism has been: nothing good or heinous ever happens (edit: in the imperial core, I thought about this and obviously bad shit has happened in the periphery/global south), things just get slightly worse and more annoying.
Now, something like the Troubles? Paramilitaries running around and bombing shit? That could happen. The Years of Lead? That's totally going to happen. But a 12 sided fractal civil war finally ending the imperial American empire in one bloody orgiastic event? We're dreaming if we think that can happen. No excuses not to prepare, though.
The troubles is already happening. Northern Ireland in the 70's had roughly 300 deaths per year from terrorism, getting those numbers will be so easy.
I'm 90% confident that the most likely outcome will simply be a low-level insurgency dotting around the country, primarily lone wolves who manipulate the 1st amendment to become radicalised.
