American partisanship has never been higher in the modern era. Handwringing among liberal in both parties over the issue has reached an all-time high, but no solutions have been forthcoming. Meanwhile, the rank-and-file of both parties are fleeing the center at breakneck speeds. America seems to be on a crash course towards some kind of Balkanization event at best, and a full blown collapse of civil society at worst.
What is causing this, is this desirable, and can the process be mitigated OR accelerated?
If there is a civil war in America, and socialist factions are a major part, it must be won quickly and decisively. The end of American imperialism means the beginning of Chinese world imperialism, this cannot be allowed to happen. Chinese imperialism will be brutal, perhaps even moreso than French or British imperialism as there's no veil of democracy that has to be maintained in China. A Worker's Republic of America must be the leader of 21st century socialism. If not for historic necessity, than it must be fore poetry.
China will be hit hard by a civil war in the United States.
Michael Ramirez
It looks like the polarization really starts in the late 70's and 80's which is around the same time the Post-War boom ended, America had a recession, and stagflation began. Considering America's economy has stayed relatively the same since then I would guess that the introduction of echo chamber social media, the run-away military spending, and that America is overdue for another recession is probably the cause for the polarization of American politics. The recent and highly divisive elections are also a factor.
Cooper Foster
In the short term sure, but a Syria like situation in the US presents all sorts of opportunities to Chinese companies to expand their market share
Andrew Russell
It's also when the political coup's started in all the major western countries, AND when mass immigration from the third world started to ratchet up.
What you're witnessing from 1970's onward is the death of democracy.
Luis Peterson
Three things to consider
1. Like said, China will not escape an American civil war unscathed. America is their biggest trading partner and without the US they would no longer be able to provide the jobs and quality of life that Chinese citizens have come to expect. They'd be too preoccupied with internal affairs to become an imperialist power in the short term.
2. Any American civil war quickly becomes the focal point of all world powers. Whichever faction comes out ahead would still be immensely powerful, despite the damage it sustained. China would be too concerned with the outcome of the US civil war to bother with any other projects. I'd expect them to back a faction within the US, possibly even a socialist faction sympathetic towards Chinese revisionism.
3. American imperialism has achieved hegemony. Chinese imperialism, however brutal it might be, would ultimately be a lesser threat. Imperialized nations stand a better chance at resistance against China's comparatively weaker imperialist might and Chinese imperialism would be held at bay by imperialist powers in Russia and Europe.
Ryder Flores
The thing is when most legislation is decided by the amount of funding it receives and political parties are dominated by affluent families, that country hardly sounds like a democracy. If anything, America is just dropping the democratic facade and showing what it has always been, a plutocracy.
A full on civil war in America seems unlikely, the leadership of the big two parties are only opposed in rhetoric. At worst America will have something like Ireland's "Troubles" or Italy's "Years of Lead" following an economic crash.
Liam Peterson
Americans aren't really happy with their leaders, though. They're practically grabbing anything that moves outside the current political spectrum. The idea that they'd take someone as a leader arguing for more militant action against the other side, who isn't from washington, isn't terribly far fetched at this point
Ian Hernandez
Of course it is.
Jace Bennett
The leadership of the two big parties have opposing ambitions as well, though. Each wants to control the country and be the One Party, with total control over everything. They both serve the interests of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but the jockeying for power between them is certainly real.
And this is what could trigger a civil war. If one or the other party thinks that it is on the cusp of total domination, or destruction, it will be willing to endorse violent measures for existential reasons.
If Republicans gain any more seats, they'll be in a position to amend the Constitution. If Democrats win big in 2018, they'll be in a position to remove Trump from power. These things have real consequences. If a violent tendency emerged within one or the other party, like outlines, the leadership would be be willing to look the other way. And if one side becomes more violent, the other will be forced to react.
Caleb Carter
go play on railroad tracks
Lincoln Green
I completely agree with that, people are fed up with "elected" officials and want an alternative, it just seems far-fetched that there is someone capable of getting a large majority of the country to split off from the federal government and then take up arms against it, not when America still has a massive air and drone force. A bush war is possible but a Syria or Spain 2.0 is out of the question.
Would the american bourgeoisie not intervene in partisan politics to prevent such a war? How much money can porky make with a civil war raging on his doorstep? American politics will definitely get much more violent in the coming years I won't deny that, but having the big two command their own blackshirts with their benefactor Wall Street's approval is doubtful.
Owen Reed
Trump and Hillary proved that the bourgeoisie can't maintain control at this point. All the money and endorsements and propaganda in the world could not stop Trump getting the nomination and could not get Hillary into the White House. They will try their hardest to delay and avert violence, but hyperpartisanship is like Frankenstein's monster at this point. They can't control what they created and it is going to tear them limb from limb.
Or maybe that's wishful thinking.
Gavin Jackson
Keep in mind that there were plenty of bourgeoisie who were supporting Trump as well, but the politics of the next few years depends on the state of the economy, if things get worse or stagnate it may pan out like we've discussed and porky may even try martial law to calm things down. Like you said the only thing for certain at this point is that the bourgeoisie are losing grip of the reins and realize it.
Ayden Brooks
it's literally about liberals and cuckservatives, any leftists aren't even included
Samuel Hughes
I know that Porky has conflicting interests all of the time, but would they work together during a civil war?
Jonathan Adams
Can we really call it "hyperpartisanship" when people are starkly divided by nearly identical opinions? It's like the Chompster said, the secret to soft social control is to debate a very narrow range of topics, but allow, even foster, lively debate within those confines, including radicalism. I mean you look at that last cloud on second OP pic, and divided as it is, the two sides would completely meld together if you discarded opinions on trans bathrooms or similar dumb shit.
Joshua Stewart
Depends on the reasons for the civil war, in America the civil war was the southern agrarian bourgeoisie rebelling against their industrialist northern neighbors out of fear that abolition would away take their status as psuedo-aristocrats. But in a civil war that includes class conflict like the Russian or Spanish Civil wars the bourgeoisie will always band together, either as rebels or in support of the government. I can't see any reason why this wouldn't still be true today.
Luke Moore
I agree, I don't think a large portion I of the country is likely to engage in outright violence. But 2-3 thousand? That's far more conceivable, and also capable of causing a lot of damage.
Michael Martin
spoiler: they're both the same
Noah Russell
if there ever was a civil war in america the left would be fucking annihilated. We can only hope america is damaged enough to the point where we have a multi polar world where the left might have a chance elsewhere
Isaiah Edwards
How do you figure that?
Owen Diaz
American balkanization would be beneficial to everyone. Even people who live in America because america is made of of several regions which have different cultures. The American government is also extremely inefficient and more localized governments are more efficient.
John Martinez
Is this mitosis?
Jace Rogers
How so? Most of the "cultural" differences are only aesthetic ones, everyone speaks the same language, eats the same food and religions plays less and less of a role in society with each passing day. And how would localized governments be more efficient and handle problems that plague society as a whole?
Austin Smith
in local governments people have a bigger say and there’s more face to face communication between the people and the sate. Also if you go to California and then go tho New England then go to Texas you’ll see different customs and cruise. And there’s also different dialects of English.
Justin Taylor
Balkanization and decentralization of political power would be good for empowering the working people for the first time in generations, as well as removing the grip of American imperialism from the world. I mean, it wouldn't be pretty, and the forces unleashed could lead to a cascade of state collapses, wars, etc. but at this point reform of such a corrupt and bankrupt system is a pipe dream, and I very much doubt that any national American government, even a revolutionary socialist one, could take hold of the existing political and military structure and use it for anything except re-instituting imperialism and domination under new banners.
Zachary Sanders
Does more face to face interaction necessarily mean more efficiency? And how would large scale issues that are span across regions be handled?
Which customs? Most Americans have much more in common than not, I'm not sure what differences you're referring to when most people consume the same media and speak the same language, even with local modifications. Regional dialects are not completely alien languages and seem like a flimsy justification for drawing lines in the sand.
Jonathan Thompson
There local dishes and such in America. In New England there’s lobster rolls. In Michigan’s upper peninsula there’s pas-ties. And there’s regional dishes thought the country with the exception of the big cites. There’s plenty of regional customs and such. Most “general American culture” is Hollywood commercial crap.
Jonathan Robinson
...
Noah Price
army is right as fuck, police is right as fuck, population is right, gun owning population is right as fuck. Any leftist movement that gains a significant size would be conintel proed plus a massive propaganda campaign unlike anythign seen before. Best we can hope for is succession/balkanization and have the successor states become socialist at some point
Daniel Price
You say that, but if some coastal fucker calls our loose meat sandwiches "sloppy joes" I will fucking knife them.
Julian Roberts
Second graph kinda looks like a cell dividing.
Michael Jenkins
Is local food really the best example of regional and cultural differences in America? And I like to think that genuine American culture exists or existed, see folk songs or jazz, but has been buried under a sea of commercial shit like everything else.
I'm from the midwest and I have NEVER heard anyone refer to a sloppy joe as a "loose meat sandwich"
Julian Perez
Folk songs are only really popular in rural areas and they differ based on region.
Jaxon Davis
Would people living in cities not listen to music at all then? I would argue that folk songs were popular in rural areas, with corporate country taking over and forcing local musicians out overtime. But local taste in music and food hardly seems like a solid justification for dividing people, not when they have more in common than not.
Jacob Ortiz
More of what I've been thinking on:
I dont' think the first wave of violence is going to actually get very far, and it's not going to be hugely widespread. Probably a few thousand people engaged in it in total. But I really don't think the US is going to be able to survive it. I think that it'll probably burn for a bit, before eventually getting slowly repressed, but never truly ever smothered. But the damage will be done. There's a lot of patches holding up the US at a lot of places.
The violence and damage over the years will eventually cause more and more to collapse until widespread, and much bigger revolt and insurrection happens 20 years down the road.
Ethan James
Anglo imperialism = genocide, fascism, slavery, torture and human traffic on a grand scale
Chinese and French imperialism = they'll probably rip you off
China as the seat of Empire will be a massive improvement for everyone who isn't a burger.
Kayden Morgan
Here's a more realistic version of your first graph.
Eli James
Cities like pop and rap. This is just part of wider proof that American “culture” doesn’t exist and America is made up of many different nations.
Mason Foster
"Culture" in this case can refer to a lot of things. There are really big differences in personality between people from different parts of the country. As an example, people from New England and especially Boston tend to have a dry wit or heavy sarcasm that other parts of the country don't have. Very straightforward and blunt. I've "offended" people in Cali saying normal shit I'd say in Boston, jokes totally falling on deaf ears, ect. I'm not saying there are these huge chasms of difference, and don't think we should be divided up on cultural lines, but it's pretty obvious we vary by region on cultural lines. And I do agree with the other poster it may be easier to govern and organize society in smaller regions, since blanket law and policy tends to not really do justice to the collect will of certain regions. An example of this may include state vs federal discrepancy in regard to marijuana laws
Ryan Jackson
Two reasons: consolidation of the media and Duverger's Law. The former we can't do a whole lot about, but if we had a more responsive democracy with approval voting and proportional representation, this sort of vacuous polarization wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is now.
Ethan King
It will be a slow burn in the US, if there is going to be violence it will slowly increase in occurrence and severity over the course of years, with the gov. going to greater extremes to stop it. The bourgeoisie may even go into panic mode and try to declare martial law but by then the damage will already be done. If the economy tanks you won't see car bombs and people fighting bush wars immediately afterwards, but that seems like the end result after many years of political violence and repression.
People were listening to music in cities long before those genres existed, they must have been listening to something. Besides that those very same genres have musicians from a wide variety of backgrounds that influence one another and have fans that may not be of the same background. That seems more like proof of a common culture, even if it is a vague one.
Context and Upbringing should also be taken into account when considering personality, although one's circumstances absolutely play a role in it. Regional culture may be expanded and play a bigger role depending on America's near future and I wouldn't deny its existence but in it's current form it's mostly just small things like local expressions and cuisine, I can't see it as being a major factor.
Leo Carter
regional culture is important and also the differences increase over time as well. I don’t think it’ll be the driving force of increased violence against the sate, but it will play a part.
Jaxson Brown
bwahahahaha
James Richardson
Trump will represent the interests of the bourgeoisie the same as any of the other candidates would have, but there are two huge problems that he presents.
Firstly, typical of the nouveau riche, he is more focused on advancing his own personal interests rather than advancing his class interests. They knew Trump would be too self-absorbed and egotistical to work with them towards bigger goals or compromise on his own petty goals, and that he would waste his entire presidency sucking his own dick. Clinton would have happily advanced their agenda with little complaint.
Secondly, he sharpens the class divide in America by highlighting capitalism's contradictions. Membership to socialist parties has exploded, fascists and leftists are brawling in the streets, mainstream politicians and celebrities are calling themselves socialist, his White House JUST refused to condemn white supremacy, ect ect. Trump has destabilized American politics in a way they REALLY did not want. Clinton would have been a soothing balm by comparison.
