Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of you have no idea what you’re talking about so any disagreement is traitorous.
Meanwhile…
Quote:
Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.
This. Honestly from what I've seen on this site is a lot of people have a thing for "civil wars". Kind of sad really to feel the need to want harm another person just for having a different opinion.
Comrade Amil:
Quote:
Therefore, the war of position, undertaken and led by a proletarian revolutionary vanguard Party on the basis of the criteria outlined above, is the only strategic approach Gramsci viewed as feasible for revolution in the imperialist countries of his day. The task of future communist parties would have to be to identify the open- ings and necessary points of intervention within ‘civil society’ wherein the commu- nist party could make its interventions and entrench itself for the long battle for ‘terrain’ within the matrices of bourgeois society. This isn’t an argument for operat- ing exclusively or even mainly within the hegemony of bourgeois society, such as through its institutions; but rather to rupture those institutions by building up a dual power of the popular classes.
In the face of the failures of European communist parties in the early 1920s, Gramsci recognized that a more formidable proletarian counter-hegemony was required in advance of an insurrectionary moment, and that only these advanced preparations could consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat post-revolution. Posed as such, revolutionary strategy can be understood as a continuous process of accumulating revolutionary forces that is punctuated with the rupture of revolution, or revolutions. In other words, a protracted war of position would have to precede the rapid war of maneuver.
This. Honestly from what I've seen on this site is a lot of people have a thing for "civil wars". Kind of sad really to feel the need to want harm another person just for having a different opinion.
It sure is and what's even more galling is most of those pining for war have the audacity to call themselves Christians.
....
Today, government threatens lives, takes liberties to hand them out as privileges they fully control like you are their property to do so, and NO ONE is happy.
Well that particular poster voted for a Trump dictatorship in polls on here before so I’m not surprised that he’s still calling for armed conflict to boost Trump.
My fear is that people who advocate for a civil war drag us down a path where the USA resembles Northern Ireland during the “Troubles” of the 1970s and 1980s.
A period of time where the country resembled gang warfare, destroying property, the economy, and killing and maiming thousands, all for no real purpose.
It is much better to work this out through the political process.
This scenario is likely exactly what another civil war would be.
The Civil War we actually went through had clear regional divisions and taking up a side was very clear in those who took up arms.
The citizens of that time were very reluctant to go to war with each other. It took a very long time for the accumulated anger in everyone to build up to the strength to take up arms.
Even after it had built, there was even more resistance to go fight your neighbor than to fight way over in another state against people you didn't know.
Those regions wouldn't exist this time around, and the reasons for the new war are very indistinct and foggy and over-political. We all cherish those we love too much to abandon them to death and despair for some political cause.
What military resources do those who want civil war have to wage the war that can compare to our Army?
A new civil war would be a war of terrorism. Gang war, as you say. And even gang war isn't as bad as civil war. Gang wars don't kill entire neighborhoods. Civil war does.
But more importantly, who among us wants to go kill our neighbors? How many of us want to go kill the mayor, the city council, and all and take their place in city hall?
Who wants to spend a winter hunkered down in a snowbank, spending a winter in N. Dakota, fighting over access to I-90?
Who wants to go slaughter a cow to feed their family after they have killed the farmer for the cow?
Who wants to live in the dark for a full year or more?
Who wants their home reduced to rubble? Who wants to watch their little child die for someone's political cause?
That's what always happens in any war, and more, and worse than I mentioned.
Nah. We still get along with each other far too well to start killing each other. We all like our lives too much to want them destroyed by war.
Most civil wars are not like our first. It was an outlier. Most civil wars are not states seceding and conventional armies forming following those seceding governments. Most civil wars are guerilla type conflicts with plenty of what would be termed "terrorism" by some, often focused on primarily government officials.
And people in this forum are clamoring for civil war? Disgusting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
