Civil War In The US?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The people who imagine that this is impossible ought to study the French Revolution.

The problem is that the people who imagine this is possible typically favor an extremely regressive tax structure and are generally ok with vast disparities of wealth - basically the underlying causes of the French Revolution, and the people who don't are worried about wealth disparity and want a less regressive tax structure and more equally distributed wealth, which in their view would make society more stable and less resentful.

[Row6]

The people who think this is likely wish it was likely and probably just had their candidate lose the election. I've lost elections before and didn't therefore start thinking there would be a revolution. Grow up.

[Swampmaster]

people get too caught up in blind allegiance to parties, left, right, etc. instead of focusing on real problems in the u.s. the government is a fraud, filled with people trying to enrich themselves and friends instead of helping regular people.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Swampmaster

people get too caught up in blind allegiance to parties, left, right, etc. instead of focusing on real problems in the u.s. the government is a fraud, filled with people trying to enrich themselves and friends instead of helping regular people.

Historical perspective is a valuable tool. compared to other times in our past the government now is very clean and corruption is low. We have new problems unique to our times and we shouldn't underrate them, but corruption and injustice towards citizens are at very low levels historically speaking.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

The problem is that the people who imagine this is possible typically favor an extremely regressive tax structure and are generally ok with vast disparities of wealth - basically the underlying causes of the French Revolution, and the people who don't are worried about wealth disparity and want a less regressive tax structure and more equally distributed wealth, which in their view would make society more stable and less resentful.

The underlying cause of the French Revolution was fiscal, and it was initiated by disaffected nobility and bourgeois rather than the downtrodden everyman (the famous Tennis Court oath). In fact it does not appear that the wishes of the downtrodden everyman were ever represented by the revolutionaries, meaning the vast majority of poor provincials who were (ironically enough) the main source of support for the ancien regime as well as counter-revolution; rather the Parisian sans-culottes who amounted to intellectualized proletarian agitators were used as a stand-in for everyman, and they were led by radical bourgeois and ex-noble leaders. The terror itself was wholly administered by these bourgeois radicals with an urge to recreate the presumed egalitarian Utopia of a long lost Golden Age. The popular will for the most part was either ignored or silenced by the national razor.

[HALLGATOR]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The underlying cause of the French Revolution was fiscal, and it was initiated by disaffected nobility and bourgeois rather than the downtrodden everyman (the famous Tennis Court oath). In fact it does not appear that the wishes of the downtrodden everyman were ever represented by the revolutionaries, meaning the vast majority of poor provincials who were (ironically enough) the main source of support for the ancien regime as well as counter-revolution; rather the Parisian sans-culottes who amounted to intellectualized proletarian agitators were used as a stand-in for everyman, and they were led by radical bourgeois and ex-noble leaders. The terror itself was wholly administered by these bourgeois radicals with an urge to recreate the presumed egalitarian Utopia of a long lost Golden Age. The popular will for the most part was either ignored or silenced by the national razor.

Nothing like a little history refresher to get the mind to working. Good post!

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Unfortunately (or fortunately), most of that rage is boiling in the bodies of elderly men, who are closer to the grave than they are to charging the ramparts, guns blazing.

At least, that's what you hope.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Row6

Historical perspective is a valuable tool. compared to other times in our past the government now is very clean and corruption is low.

LOL!

[HALLGATOR]

Who are these people going to target when they revolt?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

Who are these people going to target when they revolt?

Interesting read...

fighting modern armies on open terrain is a rather foolhardy proposition, unless you are the top of the military food chain.

no, i believe that the model of conflict in the middle east as we have witnessed the last several years during the "arab spring" and other insurrections provides the proper intellectual modality to anticipate the outlines of such conflict by civilians against an established and entrenched regime.

the fighting in syria, and in lybia is illustrative. and, we have no further to turn than chechnya to witness a fight carried on by a determined populace against a very strong and very well equipped modern military.

the fighting will be in small scale conflict in urban and suburban environs, with the persons conducting the insurrection attacking fixed governmental installations, and then retreating back into the cover of the environment when its damage has been inflicted. and, as between political elements in society, the fighting will be much like has been exhibited in iraq for the last 5 or 6 years, as the various groups have engaged in kidnappings and street assassinations of their opponents. this will be waged citizen to citizen, if it comes to that.

the fighting against the forces of the establishment and government shall be directed against visible but vulnerable members of the military and civilian police, chiefly the command elements. (for reasons discussed later.)

the fighting between civilians shall be in the form of assassination of prominent members of society, the media, entertainment, and the members of the media attacking and defending the government. someone walks on the street, a car pulls up, a fusillade, and a body drops to the ground. the prominent are attacked in their homes, in their work, in the broadcast studio.

in short, those who fight the repression of government shall do so much as terrorist do so now.

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com...t-go-well.html

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The people who imagine that this is impossible ought to study the French Revolution.

I did and it nearly caused me to vomit.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The underlying cause of the French Revolution was fiscal, and it was initiated by disaffected nobility and bourgeois rather than the downtrodden everyman (the famous Tennis Court oath). In fact it does not appear that the wishes of the downtrodden everyman were ever represented by the revolutionaries, meaning the vast majority of poor provincials who were (ironically enough) the main source of support for the ancien regime as well as counter-revolution; rather the Parisian sans-culottes who amounted to intellectualized proletarian agitators were used as a stand-in for everyman, and they were led by radical bourgeois and ex-noble leaders. The terror itself was wholly administered by these bourgeois radicals with an urge to recreate the presumed egalitarian Utopia of a long lost Golden Age. The popular will for the most part was either ignored or silenced by the national razor.

Not many (if any) revolutions are initiated by the downtrodden everyman. They are almost always educated people with limited ceilings in the existing status quo. Robbespiere would have been a mid level lawyer / functionary, with a respectable name, but no title, power or privilege and a heavy tax burden. Not unlike Jefferson or Washington. Or even Fidel Castro.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Not many (if any) revolutions are initiated by the downtrodden everyman. They are almost always educated people with limited ceilings in the existing status quo. Robbespiere would have been a mid level lawyer / functionary, with a respectable name, but no title, power or privilege and a heavy tax burden. Not unlike Jefferson or Washington. Or even Fidel Castro.

And this is certainly true of the French Revolution, at least based on what I've read. Per capita GDP was up under Louis XVI. People were probably more bored and restless than destitute.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Not many (if any) revolutions are initiated by the downtrodden everyman. They are almost always educated people with limited ceilings in the existing status quo. Robbespiere would have been a mid level lawyer / functionary, with a respectable name, but no title, power or privilege and a heavy tax burden. Not unlike Jefferson or Washington. Or even Fidel Castro.

Robespierre was petit bourgeois, Washington and Jefferson were gentlemen planters/landed gentry though they did pursue industrial exploits at times. The key difference is in the agrarian/rural nature of Washington and Jefferson while Robespierre was a burgher through and through (the root, as you no doubt know, of the term 'bourgeois' in the first place). Fidel I'm not sure how to classify. Failed baseball player turned professional revolutionary?

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

Who are these people going to target when they revolt?

Each other.

[Swampmaster]

With high tech weaponry and heavily armed militarized police forces, any uprising would be quickly crushed

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Robespierre was petit bourgeois, Washington and Jefferson were gentlemen planters/landed gentry though they did pursue industrial exploits at times. The key difference is in the agrarian/rural nature of Washington and Jefferson while Robespierre was a burgher through and through (the root, as you no doubt know, of the term 'bourgeois' in the first place). Fidel I'm not sure how to classify. Failed baseball player turned professional revolutionary?

He was educated as a lawyer, from a modest and rural, but not destitute background. He was the least bourgeois, as he was the not-totally recognized bastard of a father of some means, though his education was paid for. The baseball thing is more legend than anything. My main point being that all these men are from middling backgrounds, even if their lives arent mirror images of one another.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Unfortunately (or fortunately), most of that rage is boiling in the bodies of elderly men, who are closer to the grave than they are to charging the ramparts, guns blazing.

The desire to be free from an oppressive government does not have a fixed life span nor does it reside only in the minds of old men. It is universal and eternal. No government has yet been successful in stamping out that desire. Your misguided wish that opposition to government die with a single generation says much about you.

In 1776 life expectancy was 33 years. The average age of the founding fathers: 44. I guess you could say that by the measure of the time they were old men and over the hill. Surely they couldn't be expected to accomplish anything.

[ChartsandGrafs]

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

He was educated as a lawyer, from a modest and rural, but not destitute background. He was the least bourgeois, as he was the not-totally recognized bastard of a father of some means, though his education was paid for. The baseball thing is more legend than anything. My main point being that all these men are from middling backgrounds, even if their lives arent mirror images of one another.

If you are classifying Washington and Jefferson as bourgeois, that is inaccurate, as is their characterization as middling. They were Virginia aristocrats, hardly middle class.