Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Discussion of current events
neverfail
Posts: 7601
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by neverfail » Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:23 pm

lzzrdgrrl wrote:
Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:12 pm
neverfail wrote:You and I might even live to see the United States disintegrate. When the 13 states that formed the CSA seceeded back in 1861 there was not a single clause in the US constitution that said that they could not do so: so legally those 13 states were only exercising their constitutional right. Conversely President Abe Lincoln may have been acting "unconstitutionally" (i.e. illegally) by sending the US army south to force these states back into the American Union against their will.
That's the kernel of the lost cause mythos, which the United States has extended to her entire national entity in the arena of global affairs.......
:? :?: Eh? :?:

User avatar
lzzrdgrrl
Posts: 928
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:18 pm
Location: Okie Doke

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by lzzrdgrrl » Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:01 am

neverfail wrote:
Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:23 pm
lzzrdgrrl wrote:
Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:12 pm
neverfail wrote:You and I might even live to see the United States disintegrate. When the 13 states that formed the CSA seceeded back in 1861 there was not a single clause in the US constitution that said that they could not do so: so legally those 13 states were only exercising their constitutional right. Conversely President Abe Lincoln may have been acting "unconstitutionally" (i.e. illegally) by sending the US army south to force these states back into the American Union against their will.
That's the kernel of the lost cause mythos, which the United States has extended to her entire national entity in the arena of global affairs.......
:? :?: Eh? :?:

Oh..... the last great hope of freedom and democracy the world will ever know. Heaven and earth will be reunited only when the United States covers the entire globe, make that....... 246 states instead of 50. Peace, freedom and ultimate glorification can only be achieved once everybody thinks like US, acts like US and more or less, looks like US........

The world outside of America is finding its voice and is leaving the classic liberals as a disappointed suitor, but it is a beautiful dream and one the Establishment is reluctant to let go:

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entrie ... cause-the/
I have a certain notoriety among the lesser gods........

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 5893
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by Sertorio » Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:48 am

lzzrdgrrl wrote:
Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:01 am
neverfail wrote:
Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:23 pm
lzzrdgrrl wrote:
Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:12 pm
neverfail wrote:You and I might even live to see the United States disintegrate. When the 13 states that formed the CSA seceeded back in 1861 there was not a single clause in the US constitution that said that they could not do so: so legally those 13 states were only exercising their constitutional right. Conversely President Abe Lincoln may have been acting "unconstitutionally" (i.e. illegally) by sending the US army south to force these states back into the American Union against their will.
That's the kernel of the lost cause mythos, which the United States has extended to her entire national entity in the arena of global affairs.......
:? :?: Eh? :?:

Oh..... the last great hope of freedom and democracy the world will ever know. Heaven and earth will be reunited only when the United States covers the entire globe, make that....... 246 states instead of 50. Peace, freedom and ultimate glorification can only be achieved once everybody thinks like US, acts like US and more or less, looks like US........

The world outside of America is finding its voice and is leaving the classic liberals as a disappointed suitor, but it is a beautiful dream and one the Establishment is reluctant to let go:

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entrie ... cause-the/
The questions which often come to my mind are:

1. Was there a true sense of identity among the citizens of the Confederacy, or not?
2. Could the Confederacy have fought as it did, without such a sense of identity?
3. Could such a strong sense of identity be mainly linked to the existence of slavery in the Confederacy?
4. If not, then what were the roots of such a sense of identity?

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 6259
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by Doc » Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:26 am

Sertorio wrote:
Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:48 am
lzzrdgrrl wrote:
Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:01 am
neverfail wrote:
Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:23 pm
lzzrdgrrl wrote:
Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:12 pm
neverfail wrote:You and I might even live to see the United States disintegrate. When the 13 states that formed the CSA seceeded back in 1861 there was not a single clause in the US constitution that said that they could not do so: so legally those 13 states were only exercising their constitutional right. Conversely President Abe Lincoln may have been acting "unconstitutionally" (i.e. illegally) by sending the US army south to force these states back into the American Union against their will.
That's the kernel of the lost cause mythos, which the United States has extended to her entire national entity in the arena of global affairs.......
:? :?: Eh? :?:

Oh..... the last great hope of freedom and democracy the world will ever know. Heaven and earth will be reunited only when the United States covers the entire globe, make that....... 246 states instead of 50. Peace, freedom and ultimate glorification can only be achieved once everybody thinks like US, acts like US and more or less, looks like US........

The world outside of America is finding its voice and is leaving the classic liberals as a disappointed suitor, but it is a beautiful dream and one the Establishment is reluctant to let go:

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entrie ... cause-the/
The questions which often come to my mind are:

1. Was there a true sense of identity among the citizens of the Confederacy, or not?
2. Could the Confederacy have fought as it did, without such a sense of identity?
3. Could such a strong sense of identity be mainly linked to the existence of slavery in the Confederacy?
4. If not, then what were the roots of such a sense of identity?
1) Yes like the citizens of the Soviet Union had an "identity"
2) No in the Soviet Union Ukrainians looked at the Nazis as liberators with reason.
3) Yes, in the sense that Russian under communism were linked to the Idea of joining the party to get ahead in the stratified Art\aristocracy , Like confederates supported slavery as a means to get ahead on the aristocracy of the confederate south. But no in the sense that slavery was the means to advance.
4)A dream of being accepted as part of a birth right Aristocracy. Only about 10% of Confederates owned slaves. Much like about 10% of Soviet Citizens belonged to the communist party.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 7601
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by neverfail » Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:10 pm

neverfail wrote:You and I might even live to see the United States disintegrate. When the 13 states that formed the CSA seceeded back in 1861 there was not a single clause in the US constitution that said that they could not do so: so legally those 13 states were only exercising their constitutional right. Conversely President Abe Lincoln may have been acting "unconstitutionally" (i.e. illegally) by sending the US army south to force these states back into the American Union against their will.
lzzrdgrrl wrote:
Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:12 pm
That's the kernel of the lost cause mythos, which the United States has extended to her entire national entity in the arena of global affairs.......
neverfail wrote:
Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:23 pm
:? :?: Eh? :?:
lzzrdgrrl wrote:
Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:01 am
Oh..... the last great hope of freedom and democracy the world will ever know. Heaven and earth will be reunited only when the United States covers the entire globe, make that....... 246 states instead of 50. Peace, freedom and ultimate glorification can only be achieved once everybody thinks like US, acts like US and more or less, looks like US......../
Oho, I think that I get it now. You were being ironic and sarcastic?
lzzrdgrrl wrote:
Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:12 pm
The world outside of America is finding its voice and is leaving the classic liberals as a disappointed suitor, but it is a beautiful dream and one the Establishment is reluctant to let go:

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entrie ... cause-the/
Yes, it is only a dream and like all dreams a figment of the imagination. Yet it is still an enticing dream that appeals to many people abroad as well as to Americans.

It is just a pity that from time to time the USA negates the appeal and the authority of that dream by attempting to impose it on other people by usa of brutal armed force - like in Iraq and Afghanistan..

neverfail
Posts: 7601
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by neverfail » Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:40 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:48 am

The questions which often come to my mind are:

1. Was there a true sense of identity among the citizens of the Confederacy, or not?
2. Could the Confederacy have fought as it did, without such a sense of identity?
3. Could such a strong sense of identity be mainly linked to the existence of slavery in the Confederacy?
4. If not, then what were the roots of such a sense of identity?
I get the impression that by the eve of the War between the States (the Southern definition of the 1861 - 65 conflict - which I now accept as valid) a sort of shared sense of being American had developed in the northeastern states (the "Lincoln loyalist" states) but this mood and mindset had not spread south into the Dixie states where fierce regional loyalties prevailed. When (for instance) General Robert E Lee, who was then serving in the US military, turned down Abe Lincoln's offer as the start of the conflict to be appointed supreme commander of the US army in favour of riding down into his home state of Virginia to take command of Confederate forces there he was demonstrating an overriding loyality to his home state rather than to the Confederate cause generally (which I get the impression he did not care much about).

What the states that comprised the CSA had was not a shared itentity but rather a shared set of common interests. They were all opposed to perceived Yankee (northern) encroachment upon their "states rights" - that is to say their right to do things in their own characteristic southern way that excluded interference from Washington DC.

(Let us imagine that the CSA had managed to get away with its bid to set itself up as a republic of seperate soverignty to the United States and that the rump USA, resigned to the loss, had gone on to respect that soverignty. Within a matter of years I can forsee secession bids by states within the Confederacy for the simple reason that the states of the CSA had no common national identity, no shared "centre of gravity" and sense of common destiny. (CSA disintegration!) Meantime the USA would likely (no gilt edged guarantee here but the weight of probability indicates this outcome) would despite the setback still have remained unified; undergone its legendary westward expansion and still have emerged by the early 20th century as the makings of a World power.)

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2518
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by SteveFoerster » Fri Nov 05, 2021 9:31 am

neverfail wrote:
Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:40 pm
(Let us imagine that the CSA had managed to get away with its bid to set itself up as a republic of seperate soverignty to the United States and that the rump USA, resigned to the loss, had gone on to respect that soverignty. Within a matter of years I can forsee secession bids by states within the Confederacy for the simple reason that the states of the CSA had no common national identity, no shared "centre of gravity" and sense of common destiny. (CSA disintegration!) Meantime the USA would likely (no gilt edged guarantee here but the weight of probability indicates this outcome) would despite the setback still have remained unified; undergone its legendary westward expansion and still have emerged by the early 20th century as the makings of a World power.)
If you're up for a little light reading, Harry Turtledove wrote an eleven volume "Southern Victory" series of alternate history novels chronicling a world in which the Confederacy won the Civil War, ranging from the 1880's through the end of 1945.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 5294
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by cassowary » Sat Nov 06, 2021 8:44 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Nov 02, 2021 7:07 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 9:07 pm
Another thing. I believe that the failiure of both parties to provide good leadership is due to a systemic flaw in the Constitution which should be reformed.
Which flaw is that and what amendment would you propose to correct it?
Ah. I finally found the time to reply. It was at the back of my mind but never got around to it, till now.

Firstly, democracy is short term in nature. Politicians cannot see beyond the next election. This is one reason why you get every growing government debt. The politicians always kick the can down the road for some future politician to settle the problem.

Monarchies on the other hand, can better see for the long term, provided the monarch is secure on the throne. In fact, he wants his son to inherit a rich, powerful kingdom. The kingdom belongs to him and his heirs. You take care of what belongs to you. In a democracy, the country does not belong to its President.

He is only caretaker for a few years of power. Now, don't get me wrong. There are many disadvantages of monarchies and these outweigh this one advantage. So I am not advocating replacing democracies with monarchies. Instead I merely want to contrast the two systems in order to better highlight a major flaw in the one man one vote system.

Secondly, it is hard for a democratically elected politician to do the right thing if the right thing is unpopular. To get elected, you have to be popular. Would Qin Shi Huang have built the Great Wall of China if there were elections? Building the Wall was unpopular. It created hardships and many people died building it. But after it was built, it was very successful in keeping invaders out.

(The only exceptions were the Mongol invasion in the 13th century and the Manchu invasion in the 17th century. The Mongols went around the Wall while the Manchus were let in by a Ming general, desperate for help against a rebel army. The wall was never breached. It did its job. )

But it took twenty years of hardship to complete. If China was a democracy at that time, the Wall might not be built. The point I am making is that sometimes you need to inflict short term pain in order to get long term gain. Democracies are poor for that.

These two flaws are systemic weaknesses. That is why all mature democracies have growing government debt. The US debt has grown to more than 100% of GDP. Now the Democrats are asking for $3 trillion dollar spending program. All mature democracies have lavish welfare states. Giving people free things is always popular. Taxes go up but there is a limit to what tax revenue you can raise.

This is known as the Laffer curve. After the optimal level is reached, you actually lower tax revenues if you increase tax rate any higher. So tax revenue cannot keep up with Politicians' promises. Thus they had to borrow and borrow. One day, bankruptcy may come, like it did for Greece.

Thirdly, there is an imbalance of power between the net payers and net takers to and from the public treasury. Paying taxes is the most important contribution a citizen can make. Some contribute more than others. But all have one vote. Income distribution is skewed and don't follow a normal distribution. A minority of citizens, those with higher income, pay most of the taxes. They are outvoted. The ones with the most power are those with below average income for they are the majority. The collectively have more power even though individually they are weak.

We all know that the top 1% of the population pay 40 % of the federal income taxes. But they only get 1% of the vote. In contrast, the monarch and nobles of France before the revolution paid no taxes. One rule of thumb is that money flows from those without power to those with power. In a democracy, money flows from the higher income minority to the lower income majority because everybody has one vote each.

This results in too high taxes resulting in economic inefficiency. More importantly, the minority who contribute the most cannot put a brake on the runaway spending plans of politicians who want to use their taxes to buy votes.

So what reforms do I propose?

Firstly, we need to inject more long term thinking into the election process. I propose a longer but single term for the President. How about a single term of 10 years. Without having to think about re-election in four year's time, the President can focus on running the country.

Secondly, to stop the slide into budget deficits and ever increasing debt that will bankrupt the country one day, I propose giving equal power to those that contribute to the country. There must be a link between contribution to the country and political power.

But I don't want to see a minority of rich people ruling the country. Neither do I want to see net takers from the public treasury bullying those that contribute the most. Neither is desirable. Rather there needs to be a balance between the two groups.

So I propose that the election rule for the Senate be tweeked. It will no longer be one man one vote when you vote for Senators. Rather, the number of votes you get should depend on how much income taxes you pay. The rules remain unchanged for the lower house. In this way, the Senate will represent those that contribute the most to the public treasury. This idea was, in my opinion, on the minds of America's Founding Fathers.

That was probably why they insisted that only property owners be allowed to vote. That's because they were the ones who paid property tax. There was no income tax in those days. It is unjust that those who pay more should not have more say in how that money is spent.
The Imp :D

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2518
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by SteveFoerster » Sat Nov 06, 2021 11:19 am

Thanks, that's very specific. A few thoughts:

Firstly, I can't let the mention of the president running the country pass without saying the president should neither do that nor be expected to do that.

Regarding insulating the president from the opinions of a fickle public, it occurs to me that it would be interesting to compare the decision making of presidents in their first and second terms since, say, the Truman administration. If there's a measurable difference, then that supports your positions. If not, well, then it certainly wouldn't support locking the country in to a ten year administration.

As for changing the upper house of the legislature such that the people who pay the piper call the tune, In principle, I might agree. A few problems arise in that we have a corporatist system, not a free market, meaning that a lot of people who amass wealth do so through rent seeking rather than actually being productive. By giving those people even more of a say, that's as likely to reinforce a negative feedback loop of corruption as it is to have pro-social aspects.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 7601
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by neverfail » Sat Nov 06, 2021 2:16 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Nov 05, 2021 9:31 am
neverfail wrote:
Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:40 pm
(Let us imagine that the CSA had managed to get away with its bid to set itself up as a republic of seperate soverignty to the United States and that the rump USA, resigned to the loss, had gone on to respect that soverignty. Within a matter of years I can forsee secession bids by states within the Confederacy for the simple reason that the states of the CSA had no common national identity, no shared "centre of gravity" and sense of common destiny. (CSA disintegration!) Meantime the USA would likely (no gilt edged guarantee here but the weight of probability indicates this outcome) would despite the setback still have remained unified; undergone its legendary westward expansion and still have emerged by the early 20th century as the makings of a World power.)
If you're up for a little light reading, Harry Turtledove wrote an eleven volume "Southern Victory" series of alternate history novels chronicling a world in which the Confederacy won the Civil War, ranging from the 1880's through the end of 1945.
I have read them Steve.

I know that Turtledove (I have sometimes wondered what the Yiddish surname of this man's immigrant ancestors would have been when they first set foot in the New World :) ) is a writer of entertaining fiction yet I di not entirely agree with his speculation on the flow-on consequences of a successful southern succession in the international arena.

Regarding World Wars One and Two:

I do not believe that the United States, shorn of much of its Atlantic coastline with the loss of the south, would have had any interest in involving itself militarily in the First World War. Turtledove puts up an unconvincing case. The obvious outcome of America's belated abscence would have been a narrow German win on points over the Anglo-French alliance on the Western front (in addition to Germany's clear victory over Russia on the eastern front) leaving Germany far and away the dominant power in Europe and pre-empting the need for a Second World war.

Likewise the Confederacy, though forming an alliance of sorts with the British Empire after soverign independence had been achieved; would likely have not had a strong incentive to participate either. The relatiionship developed with the United Kingdom would have more likely resembled that which Argentina developed over the same period of time. It was British money and technological investments that developed Argentina and the attraction of British overseas market that unlocked the agricultural wealth of their pampas grasslands. Translate that into Dixie cotton and the economic history of the Confederacy over the latter 19th into the earlier 20th century would likely have borne a close resemblance to that of Argentina. Yet Argentina's merchantile ties to the UK still did not propel it into joining either World war as a supportive military ally of Great Britain.

A second shortcoming of Turtledove's approach is the supposition that post-independence the CSA would have held together as a single soverignty. One thing I am clear about is that the states that made up the CSA did NOT have any shared national identity or sense of common destiny - only a common interest and that was a rejection of the northern abolitionists drive to tell them what to do. The only thing that might have impelled the CSA to "hang together" afterwards would have been if the rump USA presented itself as an unforgiving, irredentist menace intent in eventually recovering the "lost 13" of the CSA. Let ius say it did not but in diplomacy showed itself a friendly neighbour able to live alongside a soverign CSA with equinimacy? Within a matter of years I believe that fissures would have opened up within the CSA with Texas making the first bid for a restored seperate soverignty.

Then there is Mexico. Turtledove mentions it several times as being ruled by the (Hapsburg) emperor Maximillion but fails to mention that Max was installed on the throne of Mexico by the French as a puppet ruler for the purpose of bringing Mexico into the French empire. Had they succeeded France would never have let go thereafter. So had it happened the CSA (until texas succession) would have had French power as its closest foreign neighbour to the southwest. That might have actually suited the CSA: supporting the French position to their south in exchange for French support for the CSA in other matters. In real history the US was sympathetic to Mexico's insurgent government led by Benito Juarez all along and (to my understanding) never recognised the legetimacy of the French position in Mexico (in line with the Munroe doctrine?)

Post Reply