The Next CIVIL WAR?

[BigMike]

Let’s dive into a crucial and pressing issue: the risk of social unrest in the U.S. as the wealth gap continues to widen, potentially exacerbated by policies from a second Trump term. When economic inequality becomes extreme, history shows us that social cohesion begins to fray. People across the income spectrum start to feel that the system is rigged—favoring a wealthy few at the expense of everyone else.

Under Trump’s first term, we saw tax policies and deregulation that largely benefited the highest income brackets and corporations. This trickle-down approach didn’t produce broad-based wage growth or improved economic security for the middle and lower classes. And now, if similar policies continue or expand, the effect could be an even greater concentration of wealth at the top, further eroding the middle class and deepening the financial struggles of those at the bottom.

The danger here is twofold: not only are people feeling financially squeezed, but they’re also increasingly aware of the inequality around them—something the pandemic has made impossible to ignore. When people believe that the system is stacked against them, especially if they’re already on the edge of financial stability, frustration can morph into action. Historically, these conditions have sparked social movements and, in extreme cases, unrest.

In this context, we have to ask: What are the broader implications of a growing wealth gap? Are we prepared to address the societal risks that come with it, or are we on a path where widening inequality leads to inevitable social and political turbulence? This isn’t just a theoretical debate; it’s a reality we may soon face.

[Gary Childress]

I've generally heard the term "civil war" coming from conservative pundits. Hopefully now that their guy is in office they'll settle down a bit.

[BigMike]

I've generally heard the term "civil war" coming from conservative pundits. Hopefully now that their guy is in office they'll settle down a bit.

Interesting observation. You’re absolutely right that the phrase “civil war” has often been used by conservative commentators, typically to express fears of social upheaval if their side’s values are threatened. But here’s where things get complicated—and maybe a bit ironic. The civil unrest I’m talking about isn’t so much about partisan loyalties or a left-versus-right dynamic. It’s about what happens when the economic gap between the wealthy and the working class reaches a breaking point.

In fact, if Trump’s policies continue to widen that gap, it’s the economic imbalance and the lack of security that could lead to unrest, not ideological loyalty or party politics. So, the “new civil war” I’m pointing to is a metaphor for the social and economic fractures that emerge when a large segment of the population feels abandoned by the system, not a literal call for conflict. It’s about class, opportunity, and survival, not just political ideology.

We’re at a point where, regardless of who’s in office, these economic pressures are real, and they’re growing. If we want to avoid true division, we need policies that address everyone’s stability, not just that of the top 1%. That’s the core issue here, and it goes beyond the rhetoric of any one side.

[Impenitent]

who gave us this economy? Trump?

who was in office for the last 4 years?

never the democrats...

but a civil war will be beautiful...

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

but a civil war will be beautiful...

-Imp

You poor child. You have an Internet connection and God knows what else and you think war would be "beautiful".

[godelian]

Under Trump’s first term, we saw tax policies and deregulation that largely benefited the highest income brackets and corporations. This trickle-down approach didn’t produce broad-based wage growth or improved economic security for the middle and lower classes.

Every society is run by an elite of oligarchs, i.e. the ruling mafia. I do not believe that this can be fundamentally changed. Regulations are meant to reserve and license profitable activities to well-connected people. I don't think that this can be changed either. Even a communist society works like that. The closer you are to the ruling powers, the more opportunities you are allowed.

In this context, we have to ask: What are the broader implications of a growing wealth gap?

The problem is that inflation has begun eating away at the income of the politically unconnected working class. The working class prefers income that is stable in terms of the local currency, but only if the local currency itself is stable. Otherwise, they get squeezed in between a rising price level and a fixed salary. The more options you have, the better you can negotiate better deals and the better you can avoid getting squeezed. However, the closer you are to the bottom of society, the less negotiation power you have and therefore the more you will be affected by "the great squeeze".

Deficit spending, leading to excessive borrowing, has finally begun affecting the purchasing power of the currency. This process is irreversible.

In order to appease some otherwise rowdy political constituencies, or particularly well-connected ones, the government had to spend and spend and spend, way beyond its capacity to collect the money back in taxes. Collecting more taxes does not help much, because the beneficiary political constituencies will trivially compel the government to spend even more than that.

The average person is getting poorer. There is simply no stopping that.

[BigMike]

Under Trump’s first term, we saw tax policies and deregulation that largely benefited the highest income brackets and corporations. This trickle-down approach didn’t produce broad-based wage growth or improved economic security for the middle and lower classes.

Every society is run by an elite of oligarchs, i.e. the ruling mafia. I do not believe that this can be fundamentally changed. Regulations are meant to reserve and license profitable activities to well-connected people. I don't think that this can be changed either. Even a communist society works like that. The closer you are to the ruling powers, the more opportunities you are allowed.

In this context, we have to ask: What are the broader implications of a growing wealth gap?

The problem is that inflation has begun eating away at the income of the politically unconnected working class. The working class prefers income that is stable in terms of the local currency, but only if the local currency itself is stable. Otherwise, they get squeezed in between a rising price level and a fixed salary. The more options you have, the better you can negotiate better deals and the better you can avoid getting squeezed. However, the closer you are to the bottom of society, the less negotiation power you have and therefore the more you will be affected by "the great squeeze".

Deficit spending, leading to excessive borrowing, has finally begun affecting the purchasing power of the currency. This process is irreversible.

In order to appease some otherwise rowdy political constituencies, or particularly well-connected ones, the government had to spend and spend and spend, way beyond its capacity to collect the money back in taxes. Collecting more taxes does not help much, because the beneficiary political constituencies will trivially compel the government to spend even more than that.

The average person is getting poorer. There is simply no stopping that.

The idea of entrenched elites and systemic favoritism isn’t unique to any one society or political system, as you noted. But the question I’m getting at isn’t so much whether inequality exists—that’s a given in nearly every structure. It’s whether we’re approaching a level of inequality where large segments of society feel that the system is entirely beyond reform, and therefore not worth supporting.

When inflation hits the working class hardest, as you highlighted, and wages stagnate without any realistic upward mobility, we get a situation where frustration can become more than just political discontent—it becomes destabilizing. That’s why addressing the wealth gap and financial insecurity isn’t just about economics; it’s about social stability and, ultimately, trust in the system itself.

[godelian]

When inflation hits the working class hardest, as you highlighted, and wages stagnate without any realistic upward mobility, we get a situation where frustration can become more than just political discontent—it becomes destabilizing. That’s why addressing the wealth gap and financial insecurity isn’t just about economics; it’s about social stability and, ultimately, trust in the system itself.

Yes, indeed, social unrest is inevitable. The working class is certainly justified to feel disgruntled, if only, because they are the ones getting "squeezed". Still, social unrest won't reverse the process of impoverishment. Getting angry won't make the system any less bankrupt. The working class will get poorer, but so will the oligarchy.

By the way, there will always be a wealth gap, because there will always be a social class that runs the show. The apparatschik in the Soviet Union were also much better off than the ordinary workers. There has never been a society where the workers at the bottom could aspire to the same living standards and financial security as the ruling oligarchy.

Elephants follow a matriarch. Wolves follow an alpha pair. Bees follow a queen. Humans, chimps, and baboons live in a gang that follows a mafia boss. Concentration of power and the resulting wealth gap are a biological thing.

[Impenitent]

but a civil war will be beautiful...

-Imp

You poor child. You have an Internet connection and God knows what else and you think war would be "beautiful".

you say you want a revolution...

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

but a civil war will be beautiful...

-Imp

You poor child. You have an Internet connection and God knows what else and you think war would be "beautiful".

you say you want a revolution...

-Imp

I've never said I wanted a revolution.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I've never said I wanted a revolution.

You may have missed the reference.

[LuckyR]

I've generally heard the term "civil war" coming from conservative pundits. Hopefully now that their guy is in office they'll settle down a bit.

Exactly. Those being left behind economically won't take up arms against the system they voted into power. Illogical.

[Dubious]

We’re at a point where, regardless of who’s in office, these economic pressures are real, and they’re growing. If we want to avoid true division, we need policies that address everyone’s stability, not just that of the top 1%. That’s the core issue here, and it goes beyond the rhetoric of any one side.

As I see it, that's a little too simplistic and conventional. The divide is already upon us; the only question that remains is what is its breaking point? What may those consequences be in a country which allows almost anyone the constitutional right to bear arms?

The stability factor will no-longer be resolved by enlightened policy but what usually happens as confirmed by history, that being either war, civil war or revolution. It seems half the idiot population in the U.S., only think - if that's the word - in terms of partisanship, Left or Right, Republican or Democrat as consistently emphasized even on this forum, but hardly ever in terms or analysis of what are the right and wrong ways to proceed which should be of equal interest to all who strive to keep a going concern going! Nice and noble words alone won't do it.

America is in a massive decline, now clearly apparent, which will only accelerate the internal dissensions already in progress. Gross inequities and dissatisfaction, imagined or real, almost invariably get resolved through violence. Trump's return will only enhance that schism. If I'm sure of one thing it's that millions who voted for him, especially among the middle class - I won't even mention the poor - will regret it.

[BigMike]

We’re at a point where, regardless of who’s in office, these economic pressures are real, and they’re growing. If we want to avoid true division, we need policies that address everyone’s stability, not just that of the top 1%. That’s the core issue here, and it goes beyond the rhetoric of any one side.

As I see it, that's a little too simplistic and conventional. The divide is already upon us; the only question that remains is what is its breaking point? What may those consequences be in a country which allows almost anyone the constitutional right to bear arms?

The stability factor will no-longer be resolved by enlightened policy but what usually happens as confirmed by history, that being either war, civil war or revolution. It seems half the idiot population in the U.S., only think - if that's the word - in terms of partisanship, Left or Right, Republican or Democrat as consistently emphasized even on this forum, but hardly ever in terms or analysis of what are the right and wrong ways to proceed which should be of equal interest to all who strive to keep a going concern going! Nice and noble words alone won't do it.

America is in a massive decline, now clearly apparent, which will only accelerate the internal dissensions already in progress. Gross inequities and dissatisfaction, imagined or real, almost invariably get resolved through violence. Trump's return will only enhance that schism. If I'm sure of one thing it's that millions who voted for him, especially among the middle class - I won't even mention the poor - will regret it.

Dubious, you’re absolutely hitting on a point that often gets overlooked: when divisions deepen and dissatisfaction reaches a critical mass, the question of “how to fix it” becomes less about fine-tuning policies and more about preventing something far worse—namely, the kind of unrest that history has shown us can turn ugly, fast.

You’re right that we’re well past the point of a mild divide. There’s a visceral level of discontent, compounded by the sense that solutions aren’t coming from the very system people are supposed to trust. And in a country with such a heavily armed populace, it’s reasonable to worry about what happens when people feel they’ve exhausted all peaceful options.

So, what might actually work to prevent a worst-case scenario? It might mean immediate, meaningful economic reforms—not just policy patches but large-scale initiatives that directly address job stability, healthcare, affordable housing, and inflation. Real change that’s tangible in people’s daily lives. And that’s no small task in today’s polarized climate, where every solution seems to come wrapped in partisan rhetoric, further fueling the divide.

If we’re serious about keeping the “going concern going,” we’re going to have to focus on unifying issues and emphasize basic fairness, regardless of political orientation. Because, as you suggested, when the stakes get this high, people ultimately seek security and survival over ideology.

It really is about survival at a foundational level. When people’s basic needs—security, food, shelter, stability—aren’t being met, ideology and high-minded rhetoric fall by the wayside. You can’t ask someone to care about abstract ideals or grand political theories when they’re struggling to get by day-to-day. And it’s not just about discomfort; it’s about a kind of prolonged, systemic stress that wears people down physically and mentally.

Let’s bring in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs here. At the base of that hierarchy are the fundamental physiological and safety needs. If those aren’t met, people literally can’t thrive; they’re stuck in survival mode, where every day is just about making it to the next. And what happens when people are stuck in that mode? We see rising rates of mental health issues, physical illnesses related to stress, and overall deterioration in well-being. It’s a societal illness that only gets worse over time.

When you add to that a sense of hopelessness—when people feel they’re on a downward trajectory with no clear path up—you’re creating a situation where discontent becomes desperation. And in a world of “survival of the fittest,” desperation can quickly turn dangerous. We’re seeing that now in rising mental health crises, substance abuse, and acts of violence, all symptoms of a society where a growing number of people feel left behind.

In the end, if basic needs aren’t met, it’s like trying to treat a patient with a chronic illness by addressing only the symptoms. You might be able to keep things stable for a while, but the illness—the deep structural issues—will keep coming back until those root causes are addressed. And if they aren’t? The outcome is bleak. It’s either meeting those needs or watching a “patient”—in this case, society—continue to deteriorate, eventually reaching a breaking point.

So, we’re really at a critical juncture. If policies continue to leave large portions of society in survival mode, those individuals will understandably prioritize survival over any allegiance to a system they see as failing them. Addressing these core needs isn’t just compassionate or politically strategic—it’s necessary to prevent a collapse into widespread unrest.