Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why was that? You were part of the Baby Boom. Ehrlich and Steinem at al had no affect on you being born. In fact, the birth rate went down in the late 60s not because of what any feminists and doomsayers said, but because boomer women wanted to wait longer or do other things instead of being baby factories right from the get-go. Children interfered with a fulfilling life. Xers might not have liked that, or felt neglected, but it was a totally understandable attitude.

Families were not so well put together in the 1970s. But the nuclear family of the 1950s was no great shakes either. For Boomers, family was lonely, boring in the extreme, and restricted. For Xers it was broken up, but more permissive. 6 of one and half a dozen of another. I say get over it and make the most of whatever your childhood taught you.

It's the other species who have a problem with our over-population. We kill off all their habitat and think we own the world. Not to mention put a strain on all the Earth's resources. Ehrlich and company probably helped ward off the disaster they predicted. Birth rates are down all over the world. That's a good thing.



What about the pathology list for 1950s cohorts? Wouldn't those be factors for them too?

Eric the birth rate peaked in 1957. So even before the pill hit, fecundity was already heading downward. The pill merely accelerated the existing trend.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I'm not scared of Trump. Two-Thirds of what he has so far suggested is simply undoable. It is bluster, I can deal with bluster all day long.

But his efforts can do great harm to America. Religious bigotry has never been a core of national politics -- and Trump introduces it. That's not to say that other Republicans can do great harm in economics or foreign policy. In economics they can follow the lead of the Koch syndicate and eviscerate unions, exempt the rich from income taxes while imposing a heavy sales tax on everyone else, establish a nationwide Duty to Starve law, eliminate the minimum wage, allow child labor, and eliminate the overtime premium -- in fact maybe allow companies to compel 'voluntary' overtime. Yes, if you want to keep your job you will do two hours of unpaid work for the Master Class every day.

Of course the establishment of a workingman's nightmare brings America closer to the possibility of a Socialist insurrection, but before that happens, count on Big Business calling out the private, politically-charged militias to mow down protesters and strikers. But that is not 1917; that is 1905 all over.

What scares me is 4 years of Bubba Clintion-esque triangulation and a Democrat being in the White House when the business cycle sends us into the next recession which it is due to in 2017.

Elect Republicans, expect an economic meltdown just as bad as that of 1929-1932 to begin, and if we are lucky Republicans lose the Senate and the House in 2018. Maybe we get some nasty war that brings America a huge new import of body-filled body bags from some pointless war (pointless except for its profitability). But that is asking for miracles.

Democrats better know what to do with a shaky economy. Republicans will offer nothing but tax shifts, pay cuts, mass firings, and the intensification of managerial brutality. This time the Right is even more hard-hearted than Herbert Hoover was... Republican policies can kill.

In short, I want the set up to the end of the Tea Party types to happen, and for that to happen the GOP has to have the White House, and hopefully the House and Senate when the shit hits the fan. In short, the strategy should be to make the Republicans fail to save the day when the latest round of bubbles pop.

I have no desire to see images of children with distended bellies, this time in America.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yes, I was part of the demographic Baby Boom. Also, I know if you count immigration, 1961-1965 is the largest 5 year segment, followed by the 1956-1960 segment. I just remember those wahoos nagging about kids.


They added to the ambiance though.


Kids can get messages better than most think.



We are. We're been walling off things in our personal lives for a long time. First it was exiling deadbeat dads from grandkids and now it's gonna be walling off stuff in the real world. Xer's world round are gonna make lots of walls.


OK, how's about they move to hmmmm.... Kenton, Oklahoma and live off grid. I want them all to have 0 footprint. I'll call it Rag's Wahoo Ranch. They can eat cactus and creosote bushes, have one of those old timey windmills for water, and dig real shitholes for the bathroom.




Yes, and it is. Jonesers as a whole had them. If anything, social pathologies are a defining trait of all Jonesers.

Kenton ... hard core Panhandle.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Therein, lies my friend to GenX's blowback of hating assorted Boom agendas. The above was a literal war on children, (us) . So... come the 1980's we probably unconsciously pulled every lever around to undo the consciousness revolution and then some. I have a few grudges. I'll be dancing on Gloria Steinams, Bella Abzug, and Jane Fonda's graves and pissing on them. I'll also piss on Dr. Ehrlich's as well. They can all go rot in hell. If they had a problem with population, why didn't they themselves pop some cyanide?



James Watt became a generational hero. I liked him in the 1980's , well because I was working for Big Oil.

Pollution could be controlled but how pure is pure? And for whom? Which is how we got things like blockades against oil pipelines without support for oil patch and refinery workers who are being made sick and dying (not to mention nearby communities) by low level emissions and accidents. Caring more about fish and birds and animals than people directly affected. There's plenty wrong with the oil and gas industry in terms of occupational safety that has largely escaped environmentalist notice and has been treated as an afterthought.

That's because there's stupid.



True that. I think lead was one of several environmental elements that created the huge social pathology list for 1961-1964 cohorts. Lead emissions probably maxxed out right before the ban. The same goes for the nuclear test ban treaty. I think 1962 was the max out year for fall out. The treaty took affect in 1963.[/QUOTE]
And ironically, the Neo-Malthusians are STILL piggybacking on other causes and "astroturfing". An environmentalist population controller named John Tanton founded all three anti-immigration lobbies, Numbers USA, Foundation for American Immigration Reform and Center for Immigration Studies, groups which mobilised the nativist Right, including millions of Tea Party and Trump supporters who have no idea that they were mobilised by an environmentalist. See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/us...anted=all&_r=0 and https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-h...antons-network

Originally Posted by playwrite

You're looking for a GOPer-in-the-WH catastrophe significant enough to kill off the GOP, and you don't fear that???

Typically it is the Far Right (e.g. Cynic Hero) who has these visions of a zombie apocalypse with the huge but unspoken assumption that they personally will survive if not thrive in its aftermath.

Maybe this is one of those times where going so far to one end of the political spectrum one circles back and begins to exhibit the same attributes of the other end of the spectrum?

The thing is, the demise is already underway. 2010 was the equivalent of 1863's Picket Charge, the High Water Mark, turned back by the 2012 re-election of "that man in the WH."

There were lots of important battles post-1863 High Water Mark. Even a draft riot in NYC that I believe one of my great uncles on my Irish side participated in. I'm sure a lot of folks had the feeling then that the 4T was still underway and undecided. And I'm positive that was the view of many Southerners on the losing end long after formal military fighting stopped, and lynching became a pastime. BUT, it was over and the majority of Americans moved on - particularly to the West.

I think its hard to see when a 4T is over when you've been immersed it for some years and the aftermath is just as ugly and uncertain. Particularly tough (and reactionary) if you're on the losing end.

You just want more of it. More revolution. It's in every Far Lefty's DNA. It can be problem, however, not recognizing times have changed. Just ask Trotsky.

If I read you correctly you are arguing for a 2001-ca 2020 4T, in which case it is largely over. Could you spell out this thesis more specifically?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't see Hillary being effective at all. You do. Let's leave it there.

Cool, but let's pick it back up in about 2 years.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Iowa is up for grabs. Sanders ahead in Quinnipiac, Clinton ahead in PPP polls. Trump back slightly in front of Cruz.

Sanders picking up both Iowa and NH will make for great "entertaining news" but eventually Super Tuesday will make the storyline (a) how those two weird states reflect the weird eccentries of Sanders' voters and should they be given so much weight in the nomination process (or is it, the entertaining news) and b) how those early loses steeled HC for the general.

On the Dem side, it's more or less going by script. The GOP side, not so much - ask Jeb!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_paradox

In another thread (Is Connecticut the Best State in Which to Live?) I noticed a pattern in which Mexican-Americans fared far better than blacks or whites of similar socio-economic status and age in surviving heat waves in Chicago. Mexican-Americans have more social cohesion and are less vulnerable to social atomization. Relatives, friends, neighbors, and even landlords are more likely to look out for the most vulnerable. The scenario in which one dies of heatstroke behind closed windows with no fan is commonplace among poor non-Hispanics, but rare among Hispanics. The poor are more likely to be ignored -- unless Hispanic.

I noticed that in most measures, Texas fared better than states to its east. One obvious difference between Texas and Alabama (similarly poor) is that the poor in Texas are more likely to be Hispanic. Poor Hispanics are less hostile to formal education than whites or blacks of similar socio-economic status even if they are themselves under-educated. They also smoke much less (and smoking is a severe stress upon one in health and economics -- so much that I could correlate adult smoking to a large and inverse manner with credit scores of statewide populations. (I noticed that Utah, not a rich state, has much better statistical measures of economics and health than neighboring Nevada, similarly poor, and this has nothing to do with the ethnic mix. Religious mix? Sure. Devout Mormons do not smoke).

People who look out for each other can be expected to do better as groups... and if I had to choose being a 12-year-old Mexican-American in a San Antonio barrio and a 12-year-old poor white kid in lily-white eastern Kentucky... looking out for each other is a portent of middle-class status for a group even if the group has yet to achieve middle-class status.

Re: poor white people.

Whites in the Mountain and Deep South alternate between waves of populism and reactionary politics. It is now in a reactionary wave. I can't say that I have any timing on those waves, but we are far away from the time (forty years ago) in which the Mountain and Deep South voted for the liberal Jimmy Carter over the conservative Gerald Ford. Before that was the New Deal, a time of the biggest Big Government in the South since the Confederacy.

I can't see how poor whites in the South are much better off than poor blacks in the South.

Several points:
First of all, the alternation between reaction and populism is reflected in religion as well, in the difference between arminism, which emphasises the potential of all people to be Saved and Calvinist predestinarianism, the idea that some are predestined for salvation and some for damnation and one's material circumstances are the best indicator of who is who. For the last 20 years, the South has been going through a Calvinist phase, in which people have been encouraged to look down on even less fortunate members of their own families. (Which may be an explanation for why Kentucky is going backwards and electing an anti-Obamacare conservative Republican for governor).
Secondly, there has always apparently been a division between the individualistic Mountain and Border counties in the South and the more hierachical, more outwardly racist Cotton Belt. This division has been partially obscured electorally because of the way the Southern States borders include both areas. Alabama, for instance, includes both parts of the Appalachians and the counties of the "Black Belt" which are predominantly African-American. The Appalachian and Mountain counties have been the firewall that have kept Southern states majority white (that and northerners who moved South after WWII) and so major efforts were made to mobilise them against African Americans through the Civil Rights period.
I suspect that the current wave of Reaction amongst Southern whites may be cresting or may have crested. If the "social issues" still had their potency, it would be Ted Cruz or even Marco Rubio who would have the South locked up (which we shall see about in the next 8 weeks). Instead, Donald Trump is way ahead in South Carolina, a state McCain carried in 2008. Trump is even ahead in Florida against 2 favorite sons, Rubio and Bush. And even Bernie Sanders seems able to fill auditoriums in the White South. So populism is on it's way back, apparently, even if Kentucky is a laggard.
Which brings me to the third point. To a greater and greater extent, poor whites are being marginalised exactly like African Americans and more importantly, know it. They are suffering from untreated occupational injuries and intractable pain and getting only opioids until they are cut off and then get heroin. And their social betters are signalling, with dog whistles about gun control, that they are fair game to be disenfranchised by being enmeshed in the criminal justice system as part of the "dangerous classes" rather than mobilising them in pogroms to keep African-Americans "in their place" at the bottom as was done previously.
The old racism isn't working anymore, as we saw in the response to the Charleston church shootings to take down the Confederate Flag. No more rallying around the Confederate Flag this time. (Not to mention the election of Nick Haley and Bobby Jindal --dark skinned Indian-Americans--as Governors of South Carolina and Louisiana respectively). White privilege still exists but increasingly, what we are talking about is CLASS privilege.
A hierarchical society with only two classes is inherently unstable. At least three are needed. To use an Indian analogy, there have to be Untouchables to preserve the position of Sudras. And preferably Viasyas (merchants), Kshatriaya and Brahmins above those so that everyone directs their resentment downward rather than upward. Small wonder that the Jim Crow South deliberately introduced elements of ritual uncleanliness with White and Colored bathrooms and drinking fountains. (Though whites did not feel that they had to go to church for a "cleansing" if an African-American "polluted" their facilities).
So we may very well be looking at a sea change here.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Eric the birth rate peaked in 1957. So even before the pill hit, fecundity was already heading downward. The pill merely accelerated the existing trend.

I'm not sure of the accuracy of that statement.

The FDA didn't allow The Pill use for contraception purposes until 1960, but it did allow The Pill to be used for severe menstrual disorders in 1957 which remains the record year for the biggest percentage increase in women reporting severe menstrual disorders to their doctors -

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know...trol-pill/480/

What else happen in 1957 that could explain the inflection point?



- It was the year when portable radar devices were first used to enforce speed limits - maybe that confused teenage lovers on the way up to Lovers' Lane? Maybe Wonkette could shed some light on the situation back then?

This graph is a little difficult to interpret, but what it shows is the difference between states where The Pill remained banned after the FED approvals and where it was not -



For illustration, the biggest difference between the two categories of states was in 1963 where states allowing The Pill had 6 less births per 1000 women (GFR) than in states where it was banned. As The Pill became universal (in part because of Griswold v Conn.) the difference more or less went away.

The impact of The Pill's availability can also be seen even more internationally where its widespread use was delayed for economic and cultural reasons but once introduced made the US decline look relatively mild -

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Here is some clarification of what I think. When I saw Trump will lose in Iowa I mean he will not meet expectations. That is Trump won't lose to Cruz by a few points, but by a lot say 10 or more. If Cruz just edges out Trump that isn't really a loss (since it is what is expected from the polls). If this happens, Kinser is right Trump can save his position as front runner by winning big in NW, as expected.

But if he underperforms in Iowa (as I expect) then that will carry over to underperformance in NH. He could actually narrowly win in NH and still lose, because this will likely translate into underperformance in SC before he gets eviscerated on Super Tuesday. What I expect is Trump underperforms his poll numbers every time actual voting is involved.

And of course he's a demagogue. A demagogue is like a momentum stock in a bubble. They will keep rising until the bubble pops. But bubbles last longer that you have money. Sometimes the bubble doesn't pop until too late and the demagogue wins. That could happen with Trump, but I do not think it will.

Mike, you don't seem to get it. Iowa is totally irrelevant. They almost never pick whomever is going to be the nominee. Since 1976 (when they first started with the caucus) they have only picked the nominee twice, and once that was due to the candidate being from a neighboring state (Much like Sanders is expected to win NH, just like Romney won NH with little contest) the other time was due to W's strategy of sucking all the oxygen from out of the room before the Primaries even began, something that can't be a factor with Trump having the cash to self-fund an entire campaign should he feel like it.

Trump will only be in trouble if he looses NH and SC. Then he won't make it past super-Tuesday. Otherwise we'll be dealing with Trump for a while yet. As I've said previously Iowa is the tea-baggingest, right wing Christian-est state in the Union, Cruz plays well to that audence. So did Mike Huckabee. Huckabee never got close to the nomination, so I say let the Iowans pick their Christian nutjob and then we can deal with real candidates, namely the Demagogue and Sanders.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Sure it can happen if they want it to. We do have an existing deportation apparatus. The way it works is when police stop folks for traffic or other minor stuff the cops check for legal status. If they don't have it, they get arrested, and if they cannot produce the documentation, they go to a processing center and from which they are deported.

Right now the system is staffed to handle several hundred thousands per annum. If they wanted to spend a lot more they could probably boost it 3 or 4-fold. Over 8 years that might yield a net reduction of perhaps half the undocumented population. If they do that the optics would be probably be good enough to count as keeping a political promise.

Politicians try to fulfill campaign promises more often that one would think. Since mass deportation is probably the #1 promise Trump talks about, I see no reason why he wouldn't do something like this. The Republican Congress would surely authorize the funds (think of the primary challenges they would face if they were soft on immigration by not voting to fund Trump's program). Yes scaling up the program would a logistical problem, but then so was the Iraq war and that didn't stop the Republicans from doing it.

As for citizen children they would either leave with their parents or stay here with legal relatives, as they do now. Obama ordered that when certain classes of undocumented immigrants are identified by local officials , they are not to be deported. Trump would surely rescind that order, and get much more funding to increase the rate of deportations as much as feasible.

So yes, he will probably deport a very large number of people. The GOP has really painted themselves into a corner on this. If they come to power they pretty much have to follow through now.

Not going to happen. The House would have to allocate funds and an Xer dominated GOP led house isn't going to spend the money enough said.

Originally Posted by playwrite

My first point is that whether it's Sanders or Clinton, the game will be played exactly the same way by the GOP.

My second point is Sanders, with his in-the-face approach being just as naive as Obama's let's-just-be-rational, will get his head handed to him in that game.

On the other hand, HC will collect GOP gonads and have periodic nut-crushing parties to celebrate victories including making the SCOTUS progressive.

Your basic problem is that you saw the "triangulation game" when the objective on the Dem side was kumbaya.

That's NOT Hillary's objective - from day one, her's will be to crush GOP gonads. And that will be very good for the country.

The source of the GOP's Clinton Derangment Syndrome is that they fear her... and for good reason. Payback is a bitch.

Except for one problem. HRC has no real positions except to say whatever happens to be the direction of the wind on that day (much like her husband). Add to that the GOP knows how to get under her skin (and have been doing that for a generation), and add to that I highly doubt she has the gonads to host gonad crunching parties I doubt very much Hillary should she be nominated will win (seriously the GOP could run a potted plant against her and win, let alone a bombast like Trump) and all you're doing with this push is setting up the Dems to be the fall guy party when the economy goes into its next nose dive come 2017.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You're looking for a GOPer-in-the-WH catastrophe significant enough to kill off the GOP, and you don't fear that???

Typically it is the Far Right (e.g. Cynic Hero) who has these visions of a zombie apocalypse with the huge but unspoken assumption that they personally will survive if not thrive in its aftermath.

Maybe this is one of those times where going so far to one end of the political spectrum one circles back and begins to exhibit the same attributes of the other end of the spectrum?

The thing is, the demise is already underway. 2010 was the equivalent of 1863's Picket Charge, the High Water Mark, turned back by the 2012 re-election of "that man in the WH."

There were lots of important battles post-1863 High Water Mark. Even a draft riot in NYC that I believe one of my great uncles on my Irish side participated in. I'm sure a lot of folks had the feeling then that the 4T was still underway and undecided. And I'm positive that was the view of many Southerners on the losing end long after formal military fighting stopped, and lynching became a pastime. BUT, it was over and the majority of Americans moved on - particularly to the West.

I think its hard to see when a 4T is over when you've been immersed it for some years and the aftermath is just as ugly and uncertain. Particularly tough (and reactionary) if you're on the losing end.

You just want more of it. More revolution. It's in every Far Lefty's DNA. It can be problem, however, not recognizing times have changed. Just ask Trotsky.

I think the argumentation that 2010 was the high watermark is overblown. There were clear losses in 2014 for the Democrats, and Obama had the benefit of running against an incompetent Mormon who for all intents and purposes was a Democrat anyway. The Radical Christians may have held their nose and voted for Romney but that was only because they hated Obama worse, and that isn't counting the large number of Obama Republicans (of which my own father is one).

The civil war isn't over, in fact I'd argue it hasn't even begun. If we liken 2005 to 1850, then we should be closer to 1860 today than 1865.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't see Hillary being effective at all. You do. Let's leave it there.

M&L,

If you haven't noticed Playdude is a partisan Democrat, I am not. While I agree with him on much more than we disagree on, one thing I can't get behind is Hillary Clinton, and I really really can't get behind a contest of Bush Vs Clinton. It would be enough to make this super voter stay home, and I vote in off year elections for the local dog catcher.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

But his efforts can do great harm to America. Religious bigotry has never been a core of national politics -- and Trump introduces it.

It wasn't that long ago that a Catholic Candidate for president wouldn't be taken seriously, let alone a Mormon. The fact is that there is now and always has been a distrust of non-Protestant Christians in politics. It comes all the way from 1789.

That's not to say that other Republicans can do great harm in economics or foreign policy. In economics they can follow the lead of the Koch syndicate and eviscerate unions, exempt the rich from income taxes while imposing a heavy sales tax on everyone else, establish a nationwide Duty to Starve law, eliminate the minimum wage, allow child labor, and eliminate the overtime premium -- in fact maybe allow companies to compel 'voluntary' overtime. Yes, if you want to keep your job you will do two hours of unpaid work for the Master Class every day.

And you don't see how that would be awesome for my Party's propaganda machine?

Of course the establishment of a workingman's nightmare brings America closer to the possibility of a Socialist insurrection, but before that happens, count on Big Business calling out the private, politically-charged militias to mow down protesters and strikers. But that is not 1917; that is 1905 all over.

Revolutions are won when a committed professional vanguard directs the masses. Protests and strikes alone have never won a revolution and can never do so. That being said as horrible as I'm sure a Bloody Sunday event is likely to be, it would certainly galvanize the Proletariat against the state, a force that the master class cannot withstand.

Elect Republicans, expect an economic meltdown just as bad as that of 1929-1932 to begin, and if we are lucky Republicans lose the Senate and the House in 2018. Maybe we get some nasty war that brings America a huge new import of body-filled body bags from some pointless war (pointless except for its profitability). But that is asking for miracles.

Elect Hillary and you get the same except that the GOP doesn't get blamed, the Democrats do, and the Randoid theory is pushed forward rather than discredited.

Democrats better know what to do with a shaky economy. Republicans will offer nothing but tax shifts, pay cuts, mass firings, and the intensification of managerial brutality. This time the Right is even more hard-hearted than Herbert Hoover was... Republican policies can kill.

Hillary's playbook is essentially the same as the GOP's. Her policies will kill just as brutally, and capitalism kills 17,000 children every day through starvation as it is. I fail to see how a handful more will matter in the long run.

I have no desire to see images of children with distended bellies, this time in America.

I have no desire to see that either, but to ensure it doesn't happen, the GOP's policy must be discredited, and that means we need 4 years of ineffective GOP rule. To do that Hillary must be defeated, and Trump can manage that. That Trump might do something good by accident would be a coincidence.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Originally Posted by yours truly

That's not to say that other Republicans can do great harm in economics or foreign policy. In economics they can follow the lead of the Koch syndicate and eviscerate unions, exempt the rich from income taxes while imposing a heavy sales tax on everyone else, establish a nationwide Duty to Starve law, eliminate the minimum wage, allow child labor, and eliminate the overtime premium -- in fact maybe allow companies to compel 'voluntary' overtime. Yes, if you want to keep your job you will do two hours of unpaid work for the Master Class every day.

And you don't see how that would be awesome for my Party's propaganda machine?

Oh, it would help any anti-capitalist cause. Yours is not the only Communist party or tendency. The worst nightmare in practice is to be the wrong sort of socialist (like a Trotskyite among Maoists) in the wake of a revolution.

Bring that monstrosity about and entrench it and I would be a revolutionary if not a refugee. I would want something very different from a doctrinaire Marxist economy. Of course I would dispossess war criminals and enforcers of oppression with the use of a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act and then spread the wealth about. Natural monopolies would remain in government hands, but that is all.

But if there is any consistent lesson of history it is that the concentration of power is the nemesis both of freedom and social equity. Then it is back to an economy based upon small business -- family farms and cottage industries. As Marxist-Leninist states showed, ownership of the means of production is denied to potential landowners, financiers, and industrialists; bureaucratic elites can exploit just as severely. Bloated bureaucracies that recognize no responsibility to workers can exploit workers horrifically.

Revolutions are won when a committed professional vanguard directs the masses. Protests and strikes alone have never won a revolution and can never do so. That being said as horrible as I'm sure a Bloody Sunday event is likely to be, it would certainly galvanize the Proletariat against the state, a force that the master class cannot withstand.

The Right is as capable of revolution as the Left. In view of the pathological narcissism and even sociopathy commonplace America's economic elites, I can imagine only consummate ruthlessness of the Right. These people would murder millions to protect their class privilege or allow profits from lucrative wars.

Elect Hillary and you get the same except that the GOP doesn't get blamed, the Democrats do, and the Randoid theory is pushed forward rather than discredited.

In the meantime we have a chance of incremental reforms to make American capitalism more humane. Given a choice between capitalism with a human face and the Killing Fields of Communists settling scores with anyone who has owned a share of stock or a small farm I will take capitalism with a human face.

Hillary's playbook is essentially the same as the GOP's. Her policies will kill just as brutally, and capitalism kills 17,000 children every day through starvation as it is. I fail to see how a handful more will matter in the long run.

Starvation, the ultimate debasement of humanity, is much more likely in dictatorial regimes of any ideology. India has not had a famine since independence; China has under Mao. The last famine in Europe was in Nazi-occupied Holland.

I have no desire to see that either, but to ensure it doesn't happen, the GOP's policy must be discredited, and that means we need 4 years of ineffective GOP rule. To do that Hillary must be defeated, and Trump can manage that. That Trump might do something good by accident would be a coincidence.

Give the Republican Party the trifecta of the House, Senate, and the Presidency, and this time they will entrench power indefinitely. Are you sure that you will outlast the right-wing corporate state? The Estado Novo of Salazar and Caetano and Portugal lasted nearly 50 years. Franco's Spain lasted as long as he did. Both ended in bourgeois democracies. That of course implies that you can avoid detection under an attentive, ruthless secret police, one that might cast you alive into a wood-chipper or a crematory furnace.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

M&L,

If you haven't noticed Playdude is a partisan Democrat, I am not. While I agree with him on much more than we disagree on, one thing I can't get behind is Hillary Clinton, and I really really can't get behind a contest of Bush Vs Clinton. It would be enough to make this super voter stay home, and I vote in off year elections for the local dog catcher.

We're under the 3 week mark before Iowa and there is absolutely no life in the Bush campaign, Rubio is gasping for air and other Establishment clowns are not on anyone's radar except the worse of the entertaining news pundits. At some point, you're going to have to grasp this will be a Clinton vs an insane GOP Trump or Cruz, and come to terms with your suggested role in enabling the resulting outcome of THAT matchup.

For example, is it possible that the US and allies could overplay their hand with Kim Jong-un and in an adolescent rage he launches? Maybe he only has time/accuracy to take out much of LA but not San Fran, Honolulu or Seattle but before we turn N. Korea into the biggest porcelain plate ever, he also manages to take out Seoul and Tokyo. Let's say your not one of the 10s of millions killed instantly and not even one of the hundreds of millions dying of radiation poisoning and cancers or having mutated progeny for the next several decades, you are still going to go through an economic depression that will make the 1930s look like a boom and social displacement that will make every other one in history, combined, seem like a cake walk. This is something you're willing to chance to discredit the GOP???

Hopefully, the odds are small, but let's take Trump/Cruz bellicose approach as possibly upsetting enough to our adolescent in Pyongyang to launch as a thousand-to-one chance. Then let's take Clinton's behavior causing such a launch as being 1 million to one.

You're willing to chance a 1000x more likelihood of your death or wishing you were dead so that the GOP might be discredited?

Sorry, but I've kind of appreciated having an adult in the WH this past 7 years and really don't want to imagine the consequences of forgoing that in the next 4. I'm more a William James pragmatist than a partisan Democrat; it's just that the two have aligned for some time now.

Kinser, I thought you were against Accelerationism?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

M&L,

If you haven't noticed Playdude is a partisan Democrat, I am not. While I agree with him on much more than we disagree on, one thing I can't get behind is Hillary Clinton, and I really really can't get behind a contest of Bush Vs Clinton. It would be enough to make this super voter stay home, and I vote in off year elections for the local dog catcher.

I've danced with PW for a long time, and he's your best MMT ally on the forum. So color him complex, but a NYC Democrat without doubt.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Oh, it would help any anti-capitalist cause. Yours is not the only Communist party or tendency. The worst nightmare in practice is to be the wrong sort of socialist (like a Trotskyite among Maoists) in the wake of a revolution.

Considering I've been a Communist for 23 years (yes since I was 13) I already know that that my Party is not alone in the broad left in the promotion of communism. However, one needs to understand the substantial differences between Marxist-Leninist parties (which can coalece into a single party) and other tendencies with which Marxism-Leninism cannot. These include but are not limited to left fascism (which Odin of course will claim does not exist, but in fact does very much exist), Trotskyism (seriously read Lenin and then read Trotsky and compare the two, they are as compatible as a batamax cassette is to a VHS player), Non-Leninist Maoism (The Avakianites and other forms of Campus Maoism), and any number of Anarcho-whateverisms.

Should a revolution happen with a Marxist-Leninist party at its head, those movements, parties and tendencies which can be absorbed into the leading party will be, those which cannot will be liquidated. But this practice is not limited to just Marxist-Leninists or even nominal communists, it happens EVERY TIME there is a revolution or a change in the state wherein one ideology replaces a previously existing ideology. Also note that liquidation does not necessarily mean your beloved imagry of the Killing Fields, it very well could be the expulsion of the Loyalists from New York and their eventual relocation to Canada, Jamaica and Barbados.

Bring that monstrosity about and entrench it and I would be a revolutionary if not a refugee.

Were I a gambling man, I'd say you'd be neither. You can't seem to leave your own podunk home town, and your apparent aversion to violence precludes you from being a revolutionary because a revolutionary MUST be willing to use violence to accomplish his or her goals.

I would want something very different from a doctrinaire Marxist economy.

Of course you do. You've said repeatedly that you want capitalism but without an all powerful bourgeoise grinding the proletariat into dust for their own pleasure even though this has never existed anywhere ever. Capitalism by its very nature concentrates capital into the hands of the most sociopathic hands of the capitalists, and it does this always. Furthermore no reform of capitalism through democratic states has had real and lasting powers because it quite simply makes the reform but leaves in place the very class that has every reason to undo these reforms with all the tools it takes to undo them.

In short once the Civic generation that puts in place these reforms passes from the scene their prophet children demolish them with abandon and in short order.

Of course I would dispossess war criminals and enforcers of oppression with the use of a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act and then spread the wealth about.

You'd have a small problem with doing much with RICO. The problem is that the vast majority of Wall Street type rackets are in fact legal and without passing ex-post facto laws (which are forbidden by the current constitution, and any other subsequent constitution should it actually be just) one could not use that law or any other like it to convict these "criminals". As such you'd have no basis for convictions let alone wealth redistribution.

Pie in the sky when you die may fill your belly fine, but it does nothing for me.

Natural monopolies would remain in government hands, but that is all.

I would argue that many of these natural monopolies would be best in the hands of State governments rather than a federal government. I'm thinking particularly civil police and education, and health care being administered locally and paid for nationally.

But if there is any consistent lesson of history it is that the concentration of power is the nemesis both of freedom and social equity. Then it is back to an economy based upon small business -- family farms and cottage industries.

In other words you want to undo the industrial revolution and thus are a reactionary. Congratulations PBR for exposing yourself in this manner, I doubted you were stupid enough to do so.

As Marxist-Leninist states showed, ownership of the means of production is denied to potential landowners, financiers, and industrialists; bureaucratic elites can exploit just as severely. Bloated bureaucracies that recognize no responsibility to workers can exploit workers horrifically.

As someone who follows the "Hoxhaist Tendency" within Marxism-Leninism (though I'm often accused of being a "Stalinist") I will be the first to admit that the USSR had many problems. What state doesn't? Indeed what state that is the first to implement a new economic order doesn't have problems? That being said, I think a great deal of the bureaucratic baggage that the USSR (and to a smaller degree East Germany and Poland had) have to do with the cultural nature and historical experience of the Russian Empire (also applies to Poland, East Germany had its own Bureaucratic tradition to draw from). As such I'd be more inclined to examine Albania which created its modern economic system under socialism and from scratch--namely that the farms were organized on the lines of local collectives that were governed by the farmers themselves, and that these farmers decided what to plant, when to plant it and how much of it to plant, the same with construction and factories. In Albania all agriculture, industry and resource extraction while carried out to an over all plan was under the direction of local cooperatives of workers.

Interestingly, even though there was heavy rationing in Albania, a small country with few trading partners and not very good terrain was capable of pulling off near autarky for nearly four decades before it was overthrown from without by NATO.

The Right is as capable of revolution as the Left.

Never claimed that they weren't, straw man, moving on....

In view of the pathological narcissism and even sociopathy commonplace America's economic elites, I can imagine only consummate ruthlessness of the Right. These people would murder millions to protect their class privilege or allow profits from lucrative wars.

Yes all the murderous intent of Hitler with all the efficiency of GM. That is to say that the intent very much may be there but Americans are notoriously inefficient even without mountains of bureaucracy sitting on top of their economy. The problem is that the bourgeoisie is not a homogeneous monolith, or at least it isn't yet.

In the meantime we have a chance of incremental reforms to make American capitalism more humane.

Actually no we don't. American capitalism follows the laws and nature of capitalism everywhere else. Capitalism cannot be humanized, capitalism can only lead to humans being viewed as commodities. Be they actual slaves or wage slaves.

Given a choice between capitalism with a human face and the Killing Fields of Communists settling scores with anyone who has owned a share of stock or a small farm I will take capitalism with a human face.

As I've already demonstrated several times capitalism can never have a human face. The nature of the beast is such that it will never be humanistic, can never be humanistic and indeed views humans as nothing more than resources to be exploited much like trees, coal, or iron ore I'll make my choice on something more real thanks.

Given the choice between the quick but painful liquidation of a class that has exploited the planet and the proletariat for five centuries and results in the death of 6.205 Million persons a year through starvation alone, I'll take the liquidations. Fewer deaths, less pain.

Starvation, the ultimate debasement of humanity, is much more likely in dictatorial regimes of any ideology. India has not had a famine since independence; China has under Mao. The last famine in Europe was in Nazi-occupied Holland.

Except that starvation happens under captialism every day and not just in regimes you consider dictatorial. 17,000 children starve to death world wide every day, and since no country can be said to be communist now (since the destruction of socialist Albania and the failure to construct socialism in Laos, Vietnam, DPRK, PRC and Cuba) this must be the fruit of capitalism.

Jesus said you'd know them by their fruits.

As to the lack of famines in India a great deal of that has to do, I think, with the fact that India is independent and can deploy its farmers in the pursuit of growing grain rather than cotton or whatever in the absence of colonial masters should grain stores be threatened.

As to the famine that occurred during the Great Leap Forward in China a great deal of that had to do with drought (a recurring problem in China and elsewhere) and the general backwardness of Chinese agriculture at the time. It seems that semi-feudal peasant societies have recurring bouts of famine.

Give the Republican Party the trifecta of the House, Senate, and the Presidency, and this time they will entrench power indefinitely. Are you sure that you will outlast the right-wing corporate state? The Estado Novo of Salazar and Caetano and Portugal lasted nearly 50 years. Franco's Spain lasted as long as he did. Both ended in bourgeois democracies. That of course implies that you can avoid detection under an attentive, ruthless secret police, one that might cast you alive into a wood-chipper or a crematory furnace.

You are discounting a huge historical fact which the US, UK, other Anglophone countries (outside of colonial Africa) and France have. A long tradition of bourgeois democracy. Spain and Portugal still don't have that, neither does Germany. It is my view that Estado Novo like states are impossible except in the absence of a strong democratic tradition. Ever notice that even when England had its own dictatorship (The Commonwealth) it was incredibly short lived.

It is my contention that should the GOP get this great trifecta, that they will spend most of their time arguing amongst themselves, accomplishing very little and the business cycle will discredit them BEFORE they even get themselves organized enough to enforce an Estado Novo or anything like it.

Something I noticed about the State of The Union address, yesterday, was how pre-seasonal it sounded, it sounded like a 1T speech rather than a 4T speech. The country, as is usual in 4Ts is gripped in a great fear, with what exactly is feared depending on one's political beliefs. A big chunk of the president's address was Obama being the "sensible guy in the room" giving a long list of things showing that people's fears are unfounded, but that just doesn't work in a 4T, the 4T "great fear" is driven by the generational alignment, with moralizing elder Prophets and catastrophizing mid-life Nomads now essentially lacking any Artist restraint, and cannot be calmed by logic and facts.

Sanders and Trump are so popular because both speak to and channel the "great fear" rather than poo-pooing it.

Hillary has appeal to those who prefer a more "centrist" approach to government and foreign affairs, as opposed to Sanders' "democratic socialism." She is also more wonkish and innovative.

Sanders' is more appealing to those who want a candidate with integrity and principle, with the ability to rouse the nation toward change, and keep out of war.

It may be a toss up for Democratic voters. Sanders is actually the stronger candidate, according to the horoscope method. But the "socialist" label may be tough for him to shake.

The VP choice may be essential, if Sanders or Hillary are too old to run again in 2020. I doubt too that either would choose the other, or be willing to serve.

By the way too I think Sanders can get some delegates in southern primaries. Blacks are the majority in the Democratic Party there, and nominated Obama. If many blacks discover that the inequality that Bernie speaks to affects them the most, they may overlook his eastern personality and go with him over Hillary.

By the way I checked Nikki Haley's horoscope score, since she is being considered for VP. Not likely. Her score is lower than I would have even expected. 9-13.

Originally Posted by Odin

Something I noticed about the State of The Union address, yesterday, was how pre-seasonal it sounded, it sounded like a 1T speech rather than a 4T speech. The country, as is usual in 4Ts is gripped in a great fear, with what exactly is feared depending on one's political beliefs. A big chunk of the president's address was Obama being the "sensible guy in the room" giving a long list of things showing that people's fears are unfounded, but that just doesn't work in a 4T, the 4T "great fear" is driven by the generational alignment, with moralizing elder Prophets and catastrophizing mid-life Nomads now essentially lacking any Artist restraint, and cannot be calmed by logic and facts.

Sanders and Trump are so popular because both speak to and channel the "great fear" rather than poo-pooing it.

Barack Obama is himself pre-seasonal for acting much like a mature Reactive/Adaptive who has thoroughly mellowed. He has a firm grasp of history and great respect for legal precedent; he prefers science to superstition. Unlike a not-so mature Reactive/Nomad who sees his purpose largely in settling scores, he would rather cut deals than cut throats. Think of Truman or Eisenhower in the last 1T and you have the personality.

He will not be the last such President in the next twenty years or so. He got an opening because the Idealist President just before him created an opening for him due to gross incompetence. Dubya was slight in Idealist virtues and strong in the faults; there is room for another Idealist President, but that will be someone strong on the virtues and slight in the vices. There will be room for another sixty-something Reactive/Nomad as President when there really will be plenty of 60-something Reactive/Nomad figures.

History is analogous to a burning building. In a 2T people start collecting oily rags that start smouldering when nobody realizes that such is going on. In a 3T one can usually leave through the same door that one entered because the fire is still small and not yet smoky. In a 4T the entry that one used is no longer available and one may even need to create an exit just to escape. Fire-fighters carry axes so that they can create such openings when a flashover is imminent.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

That's because there's stupid.

I'd go for asinine.

And ironically, the Neo-Malthusians are STILL piggybacking on other causes and "astroturfing". An environmentalist population controller named John Tanton founded all three anti-immigration lobbies, Numbers USA, Foundation for American Immigration Reform and Center for Immigration Studies, groups which mobilised the nativist Right, including millions of Tea Party and Trump supporters who have no idea that they were mobilised by an environmentalist. See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/us...anted=all&_r=0 and https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-h...antons-network

Heh. OK, so who's sucking off who here now? This could be the perfect 69 as well. Like they're sucking off each other and since all they see is the respective packages so to speak, they're blind as to what the packages are attached to.
Tea-baggers have no clue that they're shills for a neo-Malthusian.
A neo-Malthusian that had no clue that he'd make lots of fodder for Tea-baggers. Ah yes, there's no fixing stupid.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

(to)

And ironically, the Neo-Malthusians are STILL piggybacking on other causes and "astroturfing". An environmentalist population controller named John Tanton founded all three anti-immigration lobbies, Numbers USA, Foundation for American Immigration Reform and Center for Immigration Studies, groups which mobilised the nativist Right, including millions of Tea Party and Trump supporters who have no idea that they were mobilised by an environmentalist.

Heh. OK, so who's sucking off who here now? This could be the perfect 69 as well. Like they're sucking off each other and since all they see is the respective packages so to speak, they're blind as to what the packages are attached to.
Tea-baggers have no clue that they're shills for a neo-Malthusian.
A neo-Malthusian that had no clue that he'd make lots of fodder for Tea-baggers. Ah yes, there's no fixing stupid.

Or ideologically-blinded, which may be even worse than "stupid".

The Hard Right is especially prone to seeing the world through blinders, failing to read between the lines, and never questioning sources. If the Truth lies outside the comfort zone, then its devotees reject it out of hand.