7th August 2024
On the site that is still known as Twitter, Elon Musk has again tweeted that ‘civil war is inevitable’.
The thing is that civil wars are rarely inevitable – at least not in the short- to medium-term.
This is because civil wars occur, almost by definition, where there is some kind of pre-existing polity which has broken down.
This is what makes them ‘civil wars’ as opposed to any other form of human conflict.
*
A polity often has two key features.
The first feature is a means of regulating disputes – political, legal, social, religious disputes, and so on.
The second feature is a means of enforcing order – usually a form of legitimised coercive power.
It is only when a polity fails to resolve a dispute and then does not enforce order that there risks being a civil war.
The presence of perceived contradictions within a given society is not sufficient: a ruler or ruling class can be quite adept at keeping power despite significant domestic discontent.
Some polities – from tyrannies to loose confederations – can exist when with stark differences between those who are governed.
*
In the longer term, there may be a case for a ‘civil war’ being inevitable.
Most political systems will break down eventually, after a century or two.
In what is now Great Britain and Ireland there have been various civil conflicts on and off for hundreds of years.
If Musk waits long enough then there may again be a civil war one day.
But one suspects that is not what he means.
*
What is often meant by those who say civil conflict is inevitable is that they normatively think that civil conflict should be inevitable.
That they believe there should be a civil conflict on socio-economic or ethnic or religious or some other lines within a given polity.
But, to adapt Karl Marx, ‘the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of those in power often staying in power to the frustration of those who want to have a revolution’.
*
Civil wars are rarely inevitable.
And civil wars deliberately brought about and signalled in advance are rarer still.
If the polity fails to resolve the underlying disputes in a given society – including by the means of effecting fundamental constitutional or socio-economic changes or by granting autonomy or independence to a certain part of the polity – then there is the additional hurdle of the state being normally in a strong starting position to enforce and maintain order.
To say that one thinks normatively there should be a civil war is not the same as saying positively that there will be one.
Yes, every polity is capable of collapsing, and a civil war is thereby always a possibility.
But they are often not predictable when they do happen.
And they then only seem inevitable in hindsight.
**
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
That is a helpful and clear analysis.
Also: Elon Musk is a dangerous rabble-rouser.
Arguably the thing that is more inevitable is that large corporations (especially if their leadership behaves unpredictably) will decline and disappear, usually incredibly quickly.
I see he’s attempting to sue companies who’ve chosen to no longer purchase advertising services on his digital toy megaphone.
He’s a flailing, failing wannabe Roman Emperor heading for eventual commercial and psychological collapse imo.
A modern historian would argue that Europe has recently had a civil war, one where Militarism and the far right were comprehensively defeated – 1914-45.
The word ‘civil’ adds nothing to that comment. Indeed, in what way was it a ‘civil’ war, as opposed to a war between empires?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Civil_War
Thank you. I am still not convinced “civil” adds anything to the mix, but I am now better informed that some historians do!
I think it focuses on the result – the European Union – as a new polity. Effect before Cause – which is not how traditional history is thought of so is somewhat counter intuitive. I was very sceptical initially but am coming around to it as time passes – it requires you to accept a broad homogenity of Western European culture and that the conflict dividing lines were between monarchical/populist authoritarianism and Western liberal democracy. I think it was the change in Italy’s role in WW1 and WW2 (and then back in 1944) that I find persuasive. Obviously the Western Liberal Democracies had significant assistance from their big WLD ally from across the Atlantic – assistance that may not be forthcoming if it swings to authoritarianism – which could set us up for a rematch – but ultimately Space Karen knows nothing of this and is just stirring up trouble.
The Europe of Metternich and then of Bismarck as a broader polity. Hmmm. Thought-provoking.
The ubiquity of the 1848 uprisings across Europe is another argument suggesting a broader polity.
I’ll shut up now!
What about, say, the US civil war? The South seceded because it didn’t want to be part of the polity. Contrast the English civil war where there was no issue about the polity itself, rather who was to rule it.
In 1914 there was no ‘far right’ as we use the term today. And in 1945 one of the winners was pretty ‘militarist’.
Anyone who thinks a mob of a couple of 100 people in Bordesley Green threatened law and order in Birmingham has no experience of being stuck on the pedestrian ramp from New Street into the New Street Shopping Centre on a busy Saturday.
Those were the days …
And anyway:
Birmingham pub condemns ‘mindless thugs’ and thanks Muslim community for support.
“A pub in Birmingham has criticised the “mindless thugs” who attacked its premises last night (Monday 5th August 2024) and said “we are proud of our multicultural city”.
A group of men in balaclavas were caught on video causing damage to The Clumsy Swan on Monday night, when hundreds gathered at a demonstration in the city.
Following reports that the attackers were Muslim, members of the Sheldon mosque visited the pub and apologised for what happened. One elder offered to pay its damages, an online video shows.
The pub wrote on Facebook: “We would like to thank you all for your well wishes and a big thank you to those at Sheldon mosque who have reached out to us with apologies from their community and offer to pay for damages.
“Hopefully we will have no more trouble on the streets of Birmingham. We are proud of our multicultural city and let’s keep it that way.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cw5yyynpwnzt?post=asset%3Ac9a12e68-842f-4087-a31f-c1bac66d6982#post
It follows that for Civil War to be likely the existing system needs a major stress. In recent history this has been the transformation of societies from agrarian to urban/industrial. There is then a large ‘army’ near the ‘palaces’ and civil war needs the former to capture the latter. One such stress on the horizon is the work of physics: global warming. Whether changes to our diet due to agricultural failures, e.g., switch away from meat and dairy, and climate-driven migration are palatable will be interesting.
‘Civil war is inevitable’ feels a bit like a right wing version of how Communist groups in the 70s and 80s used to gather in the back rooms of pubs and agree, amongst the half dozen of themselves, that the revolution was definitely just around the corner.
Up to a point, Lord Copper… because beyond the causes and context, there also has to be a technical definition and consideration of the actual military forces involved. After all, when does a grievance escalate from ‘disorder’, to ‘armed insurrection’, to ‘revolution’, to Civil War?
We’re almost in the “You say ‘terrorists’, I say ‘freedom fighters’,” arena here, but beyond that, it has a military aspect. Wars become ‘the continuation of policy by other means’
a) when the issue(s) are seen as existential for both sides and no settlement is acceptable and
b) When there is equivalent force on each side to wage armed conflict, either as military confrontation or as insurrection.
So, with the breakdown of Tsarism in early 20th century, for instance, there was first disorder (1905) violently suppressed. Not a Civil War. Then there was the February 1917 overthrow of the Tsar by a military led clique. Again, not a civil war. Then there was the overthrow of the Kerensky government by the Bolsheviks. Some shooting, but still not a civil war. Finally, the forces of reaction became organised and started campaigning, while the Bolsheviks formed the Red Army to impose themselves over the whole of Russia and that really was a (very brutal) civil war. You can see similar trajectories with the English Civil Wars of the 17th Century and the descent of the USA into Civil War between 1850 and April 1861. In short, just as it takes two to party, it requires an actual clash of arms to have a civil war.
Just as crucially, there needs to be a critical mass of support behind BOTH sides.
Otherwise, it’s just violent disorder by a minority and a policing/criminal justice issue.
I wish I was clever enough to understand this comment!
I was simply trying to amplify your own point that “It is only when a polity fails to resolve a dispute and then does not enforce order that there risks being a civil war.”
Beyond that admirably concise definition, there are more complex levels enabling factors involved that distinguish ‘dispute’ and ‘disorder’ from ‘civil war’.
My comment meant to illustrate that for civil war to apply, you need actual armies on both sides – and guns. Or at least explosive weapons.
“My comment meant to illustrate that for civil war to apply, you need actual armies on both sides – and guns. Or at least explosive weapons.”
Gosh, that means for most of human history they could not have had civil wars, not having guns and explosives. How lucky they were!
“…there needs to be a critical mass of support behind BOTH sides.
Otherwise, it’s just violent disorder by a minority and a policing/criminal justice issue.”
I think sums up the situation best from all these posts.
Inevitable? Is not the real question whether revolution – not the same as civil war – is justifiable. That depends on the level of support for a new programme. UK had a civil war with no long term real change or revolution. France and the US had a revolution each (one civil (c 1789 and after) and the other (c 1776) against an occupying power). France are still working out their ‘fifth’ republic; and the US with Trump around realise the consequences of their revolution my be less durable than they thought.
A revolution is often a civil war with a good PR agent.
The change of England, Scotland and Ireland from each having absolute monarchies in the 1630s to a parliamentary system in each which placed the Crown in a structurally weaker position by 1680s, was a revolution. The C17 civil wars had a profoundly revolutionary impact.
I remember at school having a long argument with my history teacher about the Glorious Revolution. He was convinced that it was entirely peaceful. The fact that a bunch of Dutch soldiers were invited to the UK by a large section of the political class, and would have used their weapons if James II hadn’t done a runner, didn’t seem to him as being political violence at all. Nor the subsequent attempts at regaining power by the Stuarts and their supporters.
A prime example of a civil war with good PR.
Agreed, in English terms the 12th Century Anarchy and the Wars of the Roses were more traditional civil wars – whereas what we actually call the English Civil War was more of a 60 year Revolution which replaced Absolute Monarchy with Constitutional Monarchy – from the dissolution of Charles 1’s Third Parliament in 1629 until the Glorious Revolution of 1688 – or a Clash song.
the category of things which ‘never cease to amaze me’ is capacious. One of those things is that we rarely seem to reflect on the word ‘parliament’.
I’m struck here by something I read recently: the wise observation that polities require: ‘a means of regulating disputes – political, legal, social, religious disputes, and so on’ .. by, to use an admittedly obscure word, ‘talking’ about them.
By parley rather than violent conflict. The idea of parley .. ‘talking’ is inherent in the word ‘parliament’. That’s why (I’m guessing here) we call it a ‘parliament’ and have things like ‘two swords’ lengths apart’ rules.
This ‘talking’ thing applies even to courts, where by convention armed conflict is excluded, and disputes of all sorts are (sometimes) resolved.
If only there were some open, public, even global space where people could talk about issues that concern them.
Elon Musk, the ex-South African, ex-Canadian American has a very over inflated ego, no doubt brought about his success in various businesses including PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX and more recently the social media platform ‘X’ (previously known as Twitter). That he is bright, no one can dispute, but is he the source of all knowledge about everything is entirely another matter.
When Musk took over Twitter, he reversed the previous policies of Jack Dorsey, and for one reinstated unpleasant individuals such as Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson, who had been banded by Jack for their abusive tweets.
What does Musk know of the social dynamics in the UK on class, race, religion and immigration; it is suspected precious little?
He however has a huge following on ‘X’ and as a result has an ability to influence people for good or bad. Sadly, he has entered the UK racial riots online fray and strirred things up rather than merely observing and shutting up.
The recent violence in England and Northern Ireland followed a remarkably similar pattern to that in Dublin last November. A horrendous attack by an individual on children was followed by use of social media platforms to spread entirely false information about the perpetrator so as to incite mob violence mainly against anyone perceived as an immigrant. These events raise questions about the need for the regulation of social media platforms, so as to protect the public from random mob violence of this sort. This, one imagines, is Elon Musk’s primary concern, with the prediction of civil war as a way of deflecting responsibility from the use of his platform. As to public opinion in Ireland or the UK, the evidence is overwhelming that this particular violent mob enjoys very little support in any part of the political spectrum. In this context, I know Northern Ireland best and it is clear that in sharp contrast to the sometimes violent protests over the Northern Ireland Protocol, the current violence enjoys support from very few people beyond those directly involved, as leading Loyalists who were responsible for much of the trouble over the Protocol have made abundantly clear.
DAG: you are surely an excellent person to anatomise the civil wars or revolutions (or both) in Engand/Wales, US and France from respectively 1649, 1776 and 1789-1815.
I wonder if Musk understand the difference between civil war and revolution or evolution
The two civil wars which fascinate me at the moment took place about the same time after the first world war, in Ireland and in Germany respectively. Neither were inevitable. Both were due to the polities in place breaking down, fundamental conflicts not being resolved by other means, and state actors unable and unwilling to use coercive force to keep order. I think civil wars are always possible, and in many places. People take civil calm for granted too often.
I am not Anglocentric in this view – I hope!
The civil war in Ireland from 1922 (or was it 1919?) was in essence merely the continuation of the long crisis over Irish Home Rule that had plagued the Liberal Government and which by 1914 had brought Britain itself to the brink of a civil war. Given simultaneous crises with women’s suffrage and industrial relations, outbreak of war with Germany in August 1914 actually came as something of a relief. But the key point here is that the pre-war tension over Ulster was cynically and irresponsibly fomented by Balfour’s Conservative in rather similar ways as the tensions about immigration and race/faith relations have been stoked by the modern Tory Party.
By 1918, it was no longer a “home rule” crisis – indeed, after 1922, it was only Northern Ireland that had home rule! Ireland had independence.
In a way, it was a transformation of the home rule criss into an independence crisis. Seeing it merely as as a continuation of what happened before 1914 risks missing the fundamental changes after 1918.
ps I am a supporter of Irish unification.
So am I… although I do wonder about the Law of Unintended Consequences in trying to shoehorn Northern Ireland into the Republic. That could get nasty… a reason why, as i understand it, Dublin is not at all keen to see a Border Poll in Northern Ireland (although the idea seems to enjoy surprisingly high popular support in the Republic). The same polling suggests such a Border poll will not happen soon and if it did, would be lost.
Why the “perhaps” in the OP?
Musk’s comment about civil war is nonsense. Widespread racialised disorder is not civil war.
The closest the UK came to civil war was in the unrest over Irish Home Rule 1912-1914.
Asquith’s Liberal government introduced a modest form of self- government for Ireland. The Ulster Unionists opposed this. Supported by the Conservative Party and elements of the army, the Ulster Unionists raised a private army and imported arms from Germany. The Conservatives tried to persuade some senior ranks of the army not to obey the government if it required them to enforce the Home Rule measure when it became law. This treasonable behaviour was endorsed by the Conservative supporting press.
Nothing like this obtains to day. Any attempt by the Conservatives or Reform to endorse the present disorder would result in electoral oblivion.
Time to take on Musk.
“Why the “perhaps” in the OP?”
If you read my post you will see I aver that in the long(est) term, civil wars may be inevitable, as no polity lasts forever.
Point taken.
I will resist the temptation to quote Keynes’ well-known comment about what happens to us all in the long run.
Societies, civilisations and states come to and end, sometimes by decay and sometimes by conquest. They may indeed be transformed into something else.
Civil wars don’t have to happen. They’re willed and they can be avoided.
I find it difficult to believe that the UK is in any danger of a civil war. Wales and Scotland would appear to have avoided the present discontents. Northern Ireland is , alas, in a different category altogether. But even there the combustible material is occasionally given an accelerant by the Tories. The most recent example of this was the willingness to reawaken sectarian animosities in order to gain leverage ( or so they thought) in negotiations with the EU.
I find it difficult not to believe that the steady drip feed of , sometimes rancorous , hostility to immigration in its various forms by the Tories and their supportive press has contributed to the present situation.
“I find it difficult to believe that the UK is in any danger of a civil war.”
We had bloody civil conflicts 1918-1923 and 1969-98. We euphemistically called the latter “the troubles”.
What Elon Musk gets wrong is his apparent belief that free speech includes violent riots and insurrection. His open support of hard right views by adopting their Two Tier Keir mantra is very disturbing. Does he really believe that Tommy Robinson’s army of hooligan’s are genuine protesters who are being singled out for punishment by an oppressive Police force? I find that hard to believe because whatever else he is he is not stupid.
It feels like an escalation is needed for a civil war too.
A state of affairs where demands are made but not met, perhaps repeatedly.
Musk is stoking the fires. Deliberately.
“And civil wars deliberately brought about and signalled in advance are rarer still.”
As Dylann Storm Roof should have known but surely understands now.