Originally Posted by Brower

Whether this reflects the faults of Marxism-Leninism or the pathologies of leaders who create or use Marxism-Leninism is almost moot. The record is clear: every Marxist revolution or coup that establishes a Socialist state leads to massacres and persecutions, often of people who did nothing wrong.

It seems someone does not know what the word Kulak means in the Russian language. It means fist. These Kulaks who were "doing nothing wrong" prior to collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union (which he alluding to because it was the messiest collectivization on record, probably because it was the first) were hoarding grain, hoarding grain in their fist to drive up the price by starving urban workers for their own gain. That is if not legally wrong, morally wrong, more so in a state attempting to build socialism.

Marxism-Leninism also promises to jump-start economic growth by ensuring that those who invest cannot divert much of the economic gain to their own sybaritic indulgence so that the gain goes into industrial investment. The problem is that the ML regime is capable of imposing hardships that capitalism in the form of a consumer society need not impose -- because the ML elite becomes unaccountable.

Marxism-Leninism not only promises accelerated economic growth for that reason but it also delivers on that promise. The USSR, Albania and many other countries either industrialized or re-industrialized following Marxist-Leninist prescriptions. Cuba did not because Cuba is not suitable for massive heavy industry and heavy industry is a precursor to light industry with few exceptions.

I want to know what sort of hardships that a socialist society can impose that a consumerist capitalist society does not? Free healthcare? Perhaps free bread? A lack of homelessness, or prostitution? The problem of the elite becoming unaccountable in socialist countries is not because they are ML but rather because over time (without regular purges) they cease to be MLs at all. In some cases they never were ML (Cuba for example).

Unaccountable power invariably imposes great horror, whether the unaccountable power be that of a colonial overlord like Leopold II or a brute like Hitler or Stalin.

Actually Stalin did not hold unaccountable power. He was accountable to the Party's Central Committee which itself was accountable to the Party as whole. Stalin does not belong on your list. Study your history better Brower.

We have our own class war, but it is not between the tycoons and the proletariat; it is instead a struggle of others against middle-income groups. The ruling elite has typically seen an independent middle class as unnecessary and disobedient; the white lower-working class wants to be rid of people that it considers an exploitative elite. Both want most of the middle class to become poor and helpless. After all, the ruling elite needs only so many retainers to do their bidding. Everyone else can be a peon.

I can't say that I necessarily disagree here. I will point out that the reasons why this happens is different than why you describe. While the Bourgeois perspective is true, the proletariat typically sees the so-called middle class (but really the labor aristocracy and petty-bourgeoisie) to be useless dead weight, which in most cases they are. The so-called middle classes cannot be counted on being revolutionary when it really matters--they have a little something to lose besides chains.

I will point out though from an economic point of view that eleminating the classes that have disposable income for mindless consumption will back fire on the bourgeoisie because someone needs to purchase products so they can profit. At the end of the day profit is driven by consumption which is driven by production in the capitalist system--which is why we are having a dual crisis of lack of aggregate demand and over production.

The economic meltdown of 1929-1932 did that -- not deliberate policy of politically-savvy people. The economic elites which had believed much the same trickle-down economics as the elites at the start of the Gilded Age believed in also lost their means of flooding the electoral process with campaign contributions. The economic meltdown of 2007-2009 had an obvious parallel, but it did not go far enough to destroy the means of buying the political process. Barack Obama rescued them, and those elites turned on him quickly by funding a revival of Movement Conservatism. So far as anyone can tell, those elites want 95% of the people suffering for the sybaritic excess of a small sliver of the American population. Those elites want the middle class reduced to a small class of dependent retainers who have no other market for their skills or creativity except to pamper and glorify the elite.

Guess where that puts us? Where but a high-tech version of Imperial Russia!

Guess whose tactics overthrew imperial Russia.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

It seems someone does not know what the word Kulak means in the Russian language. It means fist. These Kulaks who were "doing nothing wrong" prior to collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union (which he alluding to because it was the messiest collectivization on record, probably because it was the first) were hoarding grain, hoarding grain in their fist to drive up the price by starving urban workers for their own gain. That is if not legally wrong, morally wrong, more so in a state attempting to build socialism.



Marxism-Leninism not only promises accelerated economic growth for that reason but it also delivers on that promise. The USSR, Albania and many other countries either industrialized or re-industrialized following Marxist-Leninist prescriptions. Cuba did not because Cuba is not suitable for massive heavy industry and heavy industry is a precursor to light industry with few exceptions.

I want to know what sort of hardships that a socialist society can impose that a consumerist capitalist society does not? Free healthcare? Perhaps free bread? A lack of homelessness, or prostitution? The problem of the elite becoming unaccountable in socialist countries is not because they are ML but rather because over time (without regular purges) they cease to be MLs at all. In some cases they never were ML (Cuba for example).



Actually Stalin did not hold unaccountable power. He was accountable to the Party's Central Committee which itself was accountable to the Party as whole. Stalin does not belong on your list. Study your history better Brower.



I can't say that I necessarily disagree here. I will point out that the reasons why this happens is different than why you describe. While the Bourgeois perspective is true, the proletariat typically sees the so-called middle class (but really the labor aristocracy and petty-bourgeoisie) to be useless dead weight, which in most cases they are. The so-called middle classes cannot be counted on being revolutionary when it really matters--they have a little something to lose besides chains.

I will point out though from an economic point of view that eleminating the classes that have disposable income for mindless consumption will back fire on the bourgeoisie because someone needs to purchase products so they can profit. At the end of the day profit is driven by consumption which is driven by production in the capitalist system--which is why we are having a dual crisis of lack of aggregate demand and over production.



Guess whose tactics overthrew imperial Russia.

Holy mother of God, you sound just like the unreconstructed Stalinists who took over the Socialism subreddit and made it suck.

Originally Posted by Odin

Holy mother of God, you sound just like the unreconstructed Stalinists who took over the Socialism subreddit and made it suck.

There's no such thing as "Stalinists", just orthodox Marxist-Leninists and bourgeois revisionists!

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

There's no such thing as "Stalinists", just orthodox Marxist-Leninists and bourgeois revisionists!

Over in /r/Socialism I got screamed at by those people by supporting Socialist Alternative for their pushing the $15/hr living wage movement. Because apparently wanting practical advances for the working class is bad because things have to get as bad as possible so the Great Revolution can happen. Fuck that kind of accelerationist BS.

Originally Posted by Odin

Holy mother of God, you sound just like the unreconstructed Stalinists who took over the Socialism subreddit and made it suck.

There is no such thing as "Stalinists", just orthodox Marxist-Leninists and revisionist scum.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

There's no such thing as "Stalinists", just orthodox Marxist-Leninists and bourgeois revisionists!

Damn it Jordan...just when you think it safe to drink vodka and pass out.

Originally Posted by Odin

Over in /r/Socialism I got screamed at by those people by supporting Socialist Alternative for their pushing the $15/hr living wage movement. Because apparently wanting practical advances for the working class is bad because things have to get as bad as possible so the Great Revolution can happen. Fuck that kind of accelerationist BS.

Considering the Billions of Dollars in surplus value extracted at the places where the 15 dollar living wage is being demanded I would call such to be reasonable. That being said, revolutions do not happen because "things get bad". Revolutions happen because "expectations rise, and are not moving in the desired direction fast enough". A materialist understanding of history will reveal in about 5 minutes that humans have a vast capacity to endure suffering.

I do my best.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I do my best.

Yes well having someone around who doesn't claim to be Marxist-Leninist using our canned responses is unusual. The first reply I gave Odin actually came from a "copy pasta" file I created filled with canned responses. What is next you gonna start posting underground rap videos in Eric's threads too?

*shrug*

Maybe.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

*shrug*

Maybe.

<snipped video>

Damn it son, you're doing it wrong. You post videos at me I get to thinking. I do it to Eric to piss him off.

/me goes off to check out that youtube channel.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Damn it son, you're doing it wrong. You post videos at me I get to thinking. I do it to Eric to piss him off.

/me goes off to check out that youtube channel.

Sounds to me like one approach is more productive than the other.

PS Lotta people like the first video better than that one.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Sounds to me like one approach is more productive than the other.

PS Lotta people like the first video better than that one.

Its not a bout likes, its about provoking thoughts. I don't know about the productivity of one over the other though.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Its not a bout likes, its about provoking thoughts. I don't know about the productivity of one over the other though.

Judge for yourself.

In my judgement both have their points.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Egyptians of today are not quite the same as Ancient Egyptians (Arab invasions and such).

Invasions do not change the gene pool much from that of the original inhabitants. Britain has been invaded numerous times yet most of the genes are still ancestral. This is typically because invaders usually make up a small part of the population, yet are larger relative to the top elites, who they displace. [/quote]

I would say that that I find it fascinating that the noses on Egyptian statues frequently are missing their noses.

Plenty of Egyptian statues have noses and facial features that allow modern people to have an idea of what the elites looked like back then. Most of the pharaohs for whom we have images of noses did not have particularly broad ones. Those of the 25th dynasty did however:



This is because Egypt had been conquered by the Nubian king Piye, who founded the 25th dynasty, and the Kushite empire. The empire was ruled from Meroe, the Nubian capital, which is in modern Sudan. The sphinx above has the head of his son, and you can clearly see a broad nose.

Here is Hasheput, first woman pharaoh (18th dynasty). She seems to have an intact nose that doesn't look particularly broad.



Here's king Tut (from the same dynasty, but more than a century later)


The nose is intact, but then this came from his tomb and was well-preserved (considering it's wood).

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The economic meltdown of 1929-1932 did that -- not deliberate policy of politically-savvy people. The economic elites which had believed much the same trickle-down economics as the elites at the start of the Gilded Age believed in also lost their means of flooding the electoral process with campaign contributions.

Elites in 1929-32 did not lose so much of their wealth that that they could not fund campaigns. Campaign expenditures even totay represent a tiny fraction of elite wealth, and are easily affordable even if they lost 90% of their wealth. Remember that while stocks fell over 1929-32, bonds rose, and the bond market was larger than the stock market. The rich were not hit as hard as the rest of the population and easily could afford to pay for whatever campaign costs Republicans asked for. Remember FDR was one of them and in 1932 Wall Street was enthusiastic about him. It was only later that they came to hate him.

Make no mistake: if they ever see themselves in danger of being overthrown, the elites will turn to the most vicious causes to get their way.

Well they did not do this in the last 4T. The one coup attempt was pathetic. This time could be different, we now have all these private mercenary companies. Perhaps a more competent coup attempt is more likely today. But after watching Bush & Co. in Iraq I am not so sure.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Invasions do not change the gene pool much from that of the original inhabitants.

Which of course explains why the vast majority of Americans today are actually native Americans.

Britain has been invaded numerous times yet most of the genes are still ancestral. This is typically because invaders usually make up a small part of the population, yet are larger relative to the top elites, who they displace.

Actually the science says differently. The Celtic gene pool is most pronounced in Wales and the Scottish Highlands, the Romano-Brition in South West England but the rest is largely Germanic and Scandinavian. It seems that the invaders of Britain mingled a lot more than you suppose that they did. Like I said the DNA don't lie.

Plenty of Egyptian statues have noses and facial features that allow modern people to have an idea of what the elites looked like back then. Most of the pharaohs for whom we have images of noses did not have particularly broad ones. Those of the 25th dynasty did however:



This is because Egypt had been conquered by the Nubian king Piye, who founded the 25th dynasty, and the Kushite empire. The empire was ruled from Meroe, the Nubian capital, which is in modern Sudan. The sphinx above has the head of his son, and you can clearly see a broad nose.

Here is Hasheput, first woman pharaoh (18th dynasty). She seems to have an intact nose that doesn't look particularly broad.



Here's king Tut (from the same dynasty, but more than a century later)


The nose is intact, but then this came from his tomb and was well-preserved (considering it's wood).

In each of those cases the facial structure was not that of a Caucasian or even of a Semite, but rather more close to that of an African.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Elites in 1929-32 did not lose so much of their wealth that that they could not fund campaigns. Campaign expenditures even today represent a tiny fraction of elite wealth, and are easily affordable even if they lost 90% of their wealth. Remember that while stocks fell over 1929-32, bonds rose, and the bond market was larger than the stock market. The rich were not hit as hard as the rest of the population and easily could afford to pay for whatever campaign costs Republicans asked for. Remember FDR was one of them and in 1932 Wall Street was enthusiastic about him. It was only later that they came to hate him.

That an economic downturn is a creditor's paradise is one of the most venerable realities of economics. Or as is said during the collapse of common stock, "Cash is King". The economic meltdown of 1929-1932 differed from that of 2007-2009 not so much in severity after a year and a half, but instead that the 2009 recovery began when the government started pumping money into the financial system.

Well they did not do this in the last 4T. The one coup attempt was pathetic. This time could be different, we now have all these private mercenary companies. Perhaps a more competent coup attempt is more likely today. But after watching Bush & Co. in Iraq I am not so sure.

They will do so under the cover of a corrupt election or one held in a disaster -- if possible. I can just imagine what the Right has in store for us if it can win the Presidency and hold both Houses of Congress.

hi Teacher! Once again I am sorry it has taken so long for me to get back to you. You appear to be the only other person here interested in discussing if Bernie can become the Silents 1st Prez

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Yes, marypoza, I realize this is a reply to your first post, but I would like to see the discussion come full circle to the issue of his electability. And so I ask what would it take for Bernie Sanders to win?

1) He needs an overarching theme (e.g., New Deal, Great Society) to his campaign, something that binds together his various policy prescriptions in a coherent fashion, the very name of which resonates with average Americans. On his senatorial website he calls his "12 Steps Forward" the "Agenda for America." That's a good start, but his title sounds too much like Newt Gingrich's "Contract for America," and the word "agenda" has often taken on a negative connotation. He will also need a catchphrase that sums up his philosophy of governance in as few words as possible. Alas, the days of a Lincoln-Douglas style debate of the issues has long since passed. Reagan gave voice to neo-liberalism in his 1980 campaign without ever mentioning the word, simply by saying, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." This philosophy of governance is still very much in vogue, especially at the state level.

-- Bernie's overarching theme is income inequality. It appears to be resonating well enough with folx so far, but I agree a tagline or catchy phrase summing up his views is a good idea. But it will have to evolve organically from the campaign. The refreshing thing about Bernie's campaign is its honesty (like Bernie himself sez, ppl like us bcuz we tell the truth!) which also resonates with folx. A manufactured tagline would sound, well, fake, & that wouldn't be good

2) He needs to clearly brand himself. He won his Senate seat running as an Independent in Vermont. Yet he caucuses with Democrats, and votes with them the vast majority of the time. He is also a self-described "democratic socialist." See the confusion? His Republican rivals--and many voters will be asking, "What are you, exactly, Bernie Sanders? An Independent? A Democrat? A socialist?"

-- how about all of the above? Bernie has said he means Scandinavian style socialism, when he talks about democratic socialism. He does need to talk that up more, & how he wants to see people of the United States enjoy the same high standard of living as those living in the Scandinavian countries

3) He will need to flesh out a foreign policy that brings anti-war Democrats into the fold; otherwise, they (like me) may continue to defect to the Green Party. Personally, given Sander's troubling voting record on war and defense appropriations, I need to see more headlines like this: "Sanders Votes No on War Funds," which refers to his September 2014 vote against the United States training and arming Syrian rebels. Too, he needs to put defense cuts on the table as another way to fund his ambitious domestic program--while at the same blunting the war hawks' almost certain contention that he is soft on defense. A fine line to walk, for sure.

-- I think most ppl are more concerned with his domestic policies, jobs & stuff. However we are also war weary so linking the income inequality to funding foreign wars @ the expense of the American ppl certainly will not hurt him. He definitely needs to continue to pound on that, & the war profiteers while many ppl are living paycheck to paycheck- of they have one, that is

4) He needs to convert early momentum (his surge in the polls and big political rallies) into victories in the Iowa caucus or New Hampshire primary, if not both. Then he has to either win or finish a close second on Super Tuesday.

-- that's the big question: can he turn the crowds into votes? Right now folx are turning out to find out who he is & what he stands for. If he keeps talking about (the lack of good) jobs,TPP, war profitteering, crumbling infrastructure, college tuition, healthcare, & his proposed solutions (eg single payor) he should continue to do well

Here, though, are some "tells" that his campaign is running into trouble:

1) If when his rivals and the media red-bait him, he backs away from his self-described "socialist" label. (So far, he hasn't.) Or if he can't clearly explain his kind of socialism (the Nordic model, really), he runs the risk that simple-minded Americans equate his socialism with communism. Fox News has already begun the attack. (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/sanders-to-vote-no-on-war-funds )

--as I said above, Bernie has already stated he advocates Scandinavian style socialism. He needs to continue to make that clear to ppl. Bernie is a threat to Rupert & his ilk so of course Faux News is gonna attack him. I'm thinking Bernie is savvy enough to handle Rupert's hacks. I'm more concerned about the anti-semitism. It has already happened @least once when a so-called journalist asked Bernie about his supposed dual citizenship with Isreal. Bernie firmly denied it,(& she had the nerve to try & pursue it!) stating he was born & raised in the US. She later issued an apology, but it was already out there- Bernie's a Jew (yawn). Hopefully ppl who agree with his message won't care that the messenger is a Jew

2) If he is backed into a corner--either in interviews or debates--as to whether he would commit ground troops to defeat ISIS. If he says no, he will look weak on national security to many Americans. If he says yes, then to anti-war Democrats and independents he may come off as just one more politician who would risk bogging us down in another military quagmire. If he says, "All options are on the table," then that equivocation is troubling too.

--I think the question is where he would commit the ground troops. Americans are tired of foreign quagmires. But should ISIS (or any other entity) attack our soil, that would be a different matter

3) If Hillary succeeds in co-opting his domestic platform, if only as a campaign maneuver. He especially cannot let her outflank him on the key issue of income inequality. He must project his righteous anger about the wealth gap in a way that is so genuine as to make hers look insincere.

-- Hillary is taking a different tack for the time being, & is distancing herself from Bernie!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ders-on-monday
Which makes it easier for him to develop that brand you mentioned earlier. If she later flipflops & starts co-opting Bernie's platform she'll look insincere all on her own. I think Bernie is savvy enough to call her on it. I've been reading up on Bernie these past several months. He's a pretty savvy dude . Here's how he is distancng himself from Hillary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...llary-clinton/

4) If his campaign is overwhelmed by the big-money backing his rivals, and he decides to seek similar sources of funding just to keep his candidacy alive. Then he compromises his "small-money" campaign approach and all that that implies.

-- Bernie has prevailed in previous campaigns where his opponents have out spent him. Of course that was in the small state of Vermont. His campaign is heavily exploiting social media, which is free (& yeah I know the other candidates are too, we'll have to see who makes the most effective use of it) & he's been raking in more donations then he expected to so far. We'll have to see how this goes down

I'm more concerned about if he does prevail in he primaries will the DNC run him in the general election. Hillary won the 2008 primaries, including all the big states but the DNC made sure she wouldn't have the delegates to get the nomination bcuz they wanted to run their golden dino boy bam-bam. They were pretty blatant about it too, giving enough of her delegates to him so she wouldn't have enough to take the nomination (this is why I no longer vote Dem, btw, their disgusting bs in 2008 turned me off to them forever) & I won't be surprised if the DNC screws her over again next year for another dino of their choice. It won't be Bernie bcuz they don't like him either, probably bcuz he's an honest to god small-d democrat. But if Bernie does prevail in the primaries & has has the backing of the voters, will the DNC decide to run him in the GE? This is a 4T, I'm betting the voters will walk if the DNC throws Bernie under the bus for some dino tool

In the meantime, when it comes to his criticism of billionaire oligarchs and Wall Street, I say, "Give 'em hell, Bernie!"

--agreed!

Indeed. While this race is still Hillary's to lose if she does lose the primaries the DNC would be wise to not try to use so called superdelegates to force her on the party. It would make the Democratic split of 1968 look like a mild disagreement.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Indeed. While this race is still Hillary's to lose if she does lose the primaries the DNC would be wise to not try to use so called superdelegates to force her on the party. It would make the Democratic split of 1968 look like a mild disagreement.

-- that's just it. I don't think the DNC wants to run either Hillary or Bernie. If they wanted to run Hillary why didn't they do it back in 2008 when she won the primaries?

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- that's just it. I don't think the DNC wants to run either Hillary or Bernie. If they wanted to run Hillary why didn't they do it back in 2008 when she won the primaries?

They may not ''want'' Hillary but she is their default choice. If you're a DLC type centrist Hillary is the best game going. They know that the Clinton's are ''their'' kind of people and if they try to run some male they will also alienate many women voters as well as losing the populists by dissing Bernie. Currently they're stuck with Hillary like it or not.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- that's just it. I don't think the DNC wants to run either Hillary or Bernie. If they wanted to run Hillary why didn't they do it back in 2008 when she won the primaries?

It's not that easy anymore to say what the "DNC wants to run." The registered Democrats plus some independent voters in some states mostly decide, not a few political pols. The primacy race between Obama and Hillary Clinton was very, very close in terms of actual votes cast. Obama's campaign strategy was more adept at turning out young and black voters in key caucuses and primaries. Hillary won in the big states, but the Democratic primary is not like the electoral college. Delegates are assigned by proportion of the vote. Obama was more cagey by swarming in and grabbing small states where the delegates are not assigned proportionately. Once Obama had the momentum in delegates won, more of the super-delegates chosen by the DNC and other politicians gravitated to him.

Good summary of the 2008 Democratic primary vote:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ote_count.html

Plus, Hillary is more popular now than in 2008. She was successful as Secretary of State, and more Democrats are comfortable with her and admire her qualifications and experience.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

They may not ''want'' Hillary but she is their default choice. If you're a DLC type centrist Hillary is the best game going. They know that the Clinton's are ''their'' kind of people and if they try to run some male they will also alienate many women voters as well as losing the populists by dissing Bernie. Currently they're stuck with Hillary like it or not.

-- this is true. I was one of those woman voters they alienated back in 2008. They even up & told us they didn't need our votes. Like I said uppost, I haven't voted Dem since. I will make an exception next year & vote for Bernie in the primaries, & in the GE if they run him. If they don't then I may vote for a woman, if Jill Stein is on the ballot

anyhow, the operative word in your post is "currently". Don't be surprised if the DNC finds a way to deep 6 her again. If they do, after she wins the primaries- again- alot more voters, male & female, are gonna walk out. This is a 4T after all.

Originally Posted by marypoza

According to S&H the Silents have yet to produce a President, infact they are the only cohort group that hasn't (along with the colonial groups) Several Silents have run, none have been elected. Now along comes Bernie, crowds turn out to hear him speak, but.... can he turn those crowds into votes? Bernie is a War Baby, so he is probably the Silents last hurrah. But could he be the Silents 1st (& likely only) Prez? What do you think?

If the question is what will it take for Bernie to be the Dem nominee, there's a very simple answer that only a very few will understand -

Ted Kennedy

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- this is true. I was one of those woman voters they alienated back in 2008. They even up & told us they didn't need our votes. Like I said uppost, I haven't voted Dem since. I will make an exception next year & vote for Bernie in the primaries, & in the GE if they run him. If they don't then I may vote for a woman, if Jill Stein is on the ballot

anyhow, the operative word in your post is "currently". Don't be surprised if the DNC finds a way to deep 6 her again. If they do, after she wins the primaries- again- alot more voters, male & female, are gonna walk out. This is a 4T after all.

Thanks, marypoza, for bringing the discussion back around to your original post! Here some interesting tidbits from the blogger John Halle:

It is not a question of whether the Democratic Party establishment will attempt to smear and destroy the Sanders insurgency if it manages to get more of a foothold but when and how they do so. (This has, of course, already begun, see, e.g. here and here.)

If history is any indication (c.f. the Dean scream, Hymietown, gonadal politics, etc.) the smear campaign in 1) is almost certain to be successful. Though they might not have to use it...

Once the [Sanders] campaign is over–either sooner or later–the question becomes what it always has been: In what direction will Sanders supporters (i.e. the principled left in the DP and outside) channel their activism? Will they be able to form a Syriza-style insurgency? Again, history does not make one optimistic, but this time could be different.

The 1968 presidential campaign is not a perfect analog to the upcoming 2016 election, but it is instructive nonetheless. Once the anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy was red-baited for being "soft" on communism by the "Johnny-come-lately" Bobby Kennedy, who was himself assassinated, that opened the door wide for the establishment Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey. Frustrated young people who had rallied around McCarthy and Kennedy could hardly stomach voting for Humphrey in the general election, he being tainted by his obvious association with LBJ and the escalation of the Vietnam War. Thus, Richard Nixon won the White House with a campaign that hinged on an insidious "Southern strategy" with its "dog-whistle" appeal, and a vague promise of "peace with honor." Thus our country ended up not with a wing-nut per se (some very liberal legislation passed during his administration), but rather with simply a paranoid nut.

The danger with a Bernie Sanders campaign is that if he loses the nomination, then endorses Hillary in the general election, where do his disaffected supporters turn? I can't vote for Hillary just because she's a woman any more than I could vote for Obama because he is black. The candidate has to be right on the issues from a progressive standpoint.

Of course, as the blogger said, anything could happen...