[Local Localist]

What one tribe calls 'civil war' and the other calls 'revolution' seems oft discussed in the United States these days. Westerners, and particularly Americans, seem much more prone to posturing than to acting. There is an undeniable laziness to the masculinity of American reactionaries. Though they might like to imagine themselves warriors, they still want their 60 inch TV and their 7-11 big gulp. They are by no means a reliable militant force to be called upon. Of course, this is mirrored in American progressives as well, many of whom cannot and will not even use a gun. Lets say, hypothetically, that November rolls around. Joe Biden is elected president by as slim a margin as you might imagine. Donald Trump officially declares the election result invalid. Protests erupt on a scale larger than anything already seen. The military is sent in on behalf of the president, who utilises a kind of half-hearted martial law to remain in power.

January 20. No sign of Joe Biden. An effective military stewardship descends upon the United States, supported by approximately forty percent of the American populous, including a vast majority of the military. An active resistance of approximately one quarter of America intensifies guerrilla operations and occupation of urban areas, because street fighting won't cut it anymore. The reactionaries aren't strong, but they don't need to be. They have the flag and the army to hide behind. The progressives, on the other hand... how will they ever launch a revolution, in their current state? The dominant ideology among them is anarchism, which is too decentralised and disorganised to actively overthrow anything. How can it become a civil war, with no outright battles? It seems to me that tensions can only continue to escalate ad infinitum, until America Balkanises itself in some extremely messy way. Thoughts?

[wat0n]

The 20th Amendment would (in the unlikely worst case scenario) show a way out of something like that. Most likely, votes would be recounted and the SCOTUS would decide.

[Politics_Observer]

The US military has already stated it is staying out of politics and any sort of election mess in 2020 will have to be resolved by the civilian government and the courts. The US military has no business getting involved.

[Local Localist]

Alright, but in this hypothetical, the law is unable to resolve the issue, and an unending conflict begins. How could it end?

[skinster]

Related:

[Torus34]

What we are seeing, in my opinion, are the cracks which have been forming in our particular US form of constitutional representative republic government. The seeds were sewn by the framers of the Constitution. It was a document designed by elitists for elitists. The phrase 'We, the people' was just that: a phrase. The actual election procedure which was in force was restricted, by and large, to male property owners.

We are now paying the price. A resolution will not come cheaply.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

[Rancid]

Alright, but in this hypothetical, the law is unable to resolve the issue, and an unending conflict begins. How could it end?

Violence. At which point, the US will be come a shit hole country.

[Torus34]

What one tribe calls 'civil war' and the other calls 'revolution' seems oft discussed in the United States these days. Westerners, and particularly Americans, seem much more prone to posturing than to acting. There is an undeniable laziness to the masculinity of American reactionaries. Though they might like to imagine themselves warriors, they still want their 60 inch TV and their 7-11 big gulp. They are by no means a reliable militant force to be called upon. Of course, this is mirrored in American progressives as well, many of whom cannot and will not even use a gun. Lets say, hypothetically, that November rolls around. Joe Biden is elected president by as slim a margin as you might imagine. Donald Trump officially declares the election result invalid. Protests erupt on a scale larger than anything already seen. The military is sent in on behalf of the president, who utilises a kind of half-hearted martial law to remain in power.

January 20. No sign of Joe Biden. An effective military stewardship descends upon the United States, supported by approximately forty percent of the American populous, including a vast majority of the military. An active resistance of approximately one quarter of America intensifies guerrilla operations and occupation of urban areas, because street fighting won't cut it anymore. The reactionaries aren't strong, but they don't need to be. They have the flag and the army to hide behind. The progressives, on the other hand... how will they ever launch a revolution, in their current state? The dominant ideology among them is anarchism, which is too decentralised and disorganised to actively overthrow anything. How can it become a civil war, with no outright battles? It seems to me that tensions can only continue to escalate ad infinitum, until America Balkanises itself in some extremely messy way. Thoughts?

I had to re-read the OP before responding. It's a rather extensive 'what if?'.

In the first PP, there's a statement about President of the United States of America 'officially' declaring the election results invalid. That simply would not happen. President Donald Trump might well blather and bluster about election results as he has in the past, but we have mechanisms in place to handle such complaints. The president has no power to set aside the results of an election.

In addition our military, steeped in tradition, would maintain its neutrality. We would not become a 'banana republic'.

I expect a tumultuous period during and after November 3rd, but expect things to settle down after the vote of the Electoral College, which is the actual determiner of the winner in our constitutional republic.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

[ckaihatsu]

Violence. At which point, the US will be come a shit hole country.

Good thing that term was established well in advance.


= )


= /

[Scamp]

Waiting for the Pres to announce the new Insurrection Act. Giving militia the OK to stop the insurrection. The riots will stop almost immediately after the initial slaughter.

[Crantag]

The US military has already stated it is staying out of politics and any sort of election mess in 2020 will have to be resolved by the civilian government and the courts. The US military has no business getting involved.

I can envision what I consider an improbable but possible scenario, where the US military is ordered to go treat American cities like Iraqi cities, a minority of soldiers defect, and shit hits the fan.

[Crantag]

Violence. At which point, the US will be come a shit hole country.

The US is already a shithouse country. It might become a shithole country in due time.

[Scamp]

Bowing to terrorists, like Antifa and BLM, only makes them bolder. This is why we are where we are today.

[Dimetrodon]

We have increased partisanship and lack of respect for those with different political views and we have people on the fringes who are rising from the woodwork. We have idiots who think America is inherently evil and we have hard core Trump hacks who would rather kill than see that man leave office.

My country has devolved into a shit show really.

[Rancid]

We have increased partisanship and lack of respect for those with different political views and we have people on the fringes who are rising from the woodwork. We have idiots who think America is inherently evil and we have hard core Trump hacks who would rather kill than see that man leave office.

My country has devolved into a shit show really.

USA! USA! USA!

[ckaihatsu]

Bowing to terrorists, like Antifa and BLM, only makes them bolder. This is why we are where we are today.

The killer cops and fascists are the *real* terrorists.

[Dimetrodon]

Alright, but in this hypothetical, the law is unable to resolve the issue, and an unending conflict begins. How could it end?

In a bloodbath, like Syria. The law and who rightfully should be in power would be replaced by those who have the greatest ability to inflict mass violence having the power. Terrorist groups would run rampent.

USA! USA! USA!

I'm very patriotic actually. That's partially why it saddens me to see my nation in such a state.

[ckaihatsu]

Here's the proof of culpability:


Breonna Taylor: Louisville to pay family $12m over police shooting - BBC News

[Politics_Observer]

@Crantag @Rancid

What we have, since the 1970s starting with stagflation is the reversion of capital going back to 18th and 19th centuries where most people live in poverty and are poor while a small tiny minority has most of the wealth. This has been happening globally and not just in the U.S. So, beginning the 1980s we saw where unions and the power of unions were a big target by busting unions and reversing legislation that had gave unions power. Plus, we saw massive deregulation. For example, Democrat Bill Clinton signed the bill that got rid of the Depression Era New Deal Glass Steagall banking regulations.

Those are regulations that are needed today (and because we didn't have those regulations in place for some time led to the 2008 banking financial crisis). So, there was this over-reaction to stagflation of the 1970s and the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s that if you just deregulate capitalism and bust unions, that will solve all problems. However, that wasn't the case. The pendulum went too far to the right and it needs to come back more center where capitalism is regulated and workers have the right to organize unions and go on strike under certain circumstances.

You certainly don't want the pendulum to go too far left and you have a revolution which happened in France during the French Revolution and in Russia near the end of World War I, as those revolutions ultimately did not solve the economic problems that we see today or during those times such as with allowing capital to remain untaxed (top 1%) and to roam freely without regulation while preventing workers from organizing into unions that have REAL power and going on strike under certain circumstance to bargain for better wages. Capital in the top 1% needs to be targeted and taxed as well as regulated.

[ckaihatsu]

You certainly don't want the pendulum to go too far left and you have a revolution which happened in France during the French Revolution and in Russia near the end of World War I, as those revolutions ultimately did not solve the economic problems that we see today or during those times such as with allowing capital to remain untaxed (top 1%) and to roam freely without regulation while preventing workers from organizing into unions that have REAL power and going on strike under certain circumstance to bargain for better wages. Capital in the top 1% needs to be targeted and taxed as well as regulated.

I think people tend to be too *dismissive* of the historically-progressive *results* from anti-capitalist revolutions, historically:

Other decrees:

• All private property was nationalized by the government.

• All Russian banks were nationalized.

• Private bank accounts were expropriated.

• The properties of the Church (including bank accounts) were expropriated.

• All foreign debts were repudiated.

• Control of the factories was given to the soviets.

• Wages were fixed at higher rates than during the war, and a shorter, eight-hour working day was introduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_R ... al_reforms