Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

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

-- yes it could be different. This is a 4T after all.

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.

-- Hubert Humphrey was the sitting VP @ the time. Of course the Dems were gonna run him. Which brings us to Uncle Joe. Joe has run for prez a few times but never made it past the 1st few primaries. He lobbied hard to be veep back in 2008, presumably as a back door to the presidency. He has been busy dealing with the illness
& death of his son in recent months, but he should be coming out of mourning soon & announce if he's running or not. Infact I'm thinking that's why the Dem clown car is not as full as the repugs car- prospective Dem candidates are waiting for Uncle Joe to give them the green lite, or announce he's running himself. As VP he could take the nomination like Fritzy did back in 1984. We all know how that turned out. Otoh this is a 4T. If the DNC is savvy enough to realize that voters will walk out of the party if whoever wins the primaries is not the nominee, they may ditch Joe (& any smear campaign) & go with the winner. But I doubt it

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.

--- Agreed. From what I've read around the net alot of Bernie's supporters feel that way.

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

-- yup, we'll have to wait & see. As Spock said, there are always possibilities

This today from Robert Reich's blog, marveling at the huge crowd Bernie Sanders attracted in my (very red) state of Arizona:

What amazes me, frankly, are the crowds. Not since Robert F. Kennedy sought the Democratic nomination in 1968 has a candidate for the nomination of either party generated such large numbers of people eager to see and listen to him. None in living memory has summoned such crowds this early, before the nominating season even begins. Even Sanders' advisers are amazed (I spoke with one this morning who said they never expected this kind of response).

What's the explanation? It's not his sense of humor. It's not his youth. He isn't a demagogue, bashing immigrants or pandering to hatred and bigotry. It's that he's telling Americans the unvarnished truth about what has happened to our economy and our democracy, and he is posing real solutions. And it seems that America is ready to listen.

Ok, getting back to our derailment. (For what it's worth, I'm pulling for Trump v Bernie at this point, though we'll probably get stuck with Bush 3 v Clinton 2.)

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

Come now, near complete displacement of hunter-gatherer and mixed subsistence populations by large agricultural populations is quite common in the historical record. See the Bantu expansion, the replacement of the Aurignacians (original homo sapiens population in Europe), the eclipse of Australoid/Melanesian people in SE Asia, etc. Complete replacement of dense agricultural populations is much rarer.

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.

Uh, present data suggests an admixture of roughly 30% Germanic in England, somewhat lower in Scotland and Wales. A huge movement by pre-modern standards, but still only a fraction of the population. Large sections of England (off the top of my head I can think of Cumbria and Cornwall, as well as small regions in other parts) still spoke Brythonic languages well into the Middle Ages or even the early modern period.

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.

Well, they're obviously African (It's Egypt, after all) but I don't see a huge discontinuity between them and say, Nasser or Gabriel or Mubarak or Elbaradei. The last even has the ears, right. Nefertiti isn't a bad example either. Pointy noses, full lips, red brown complexions, not really European or Sub-Saharan.

On the other hand, there is a fair amount of diversity, and you could just as easily point to (indigenous Egyptian) dynasts like Thutmose I, Amenhotep III, Ahmes-Nefertari, Mentuhotep II, or Rameses I and say they were clearly black. I mean, you have thousands of years of history, multiple foreign invasions (including domination by the Persians on two nonconsecutive occasions), and 31 dynasties before Alexander the Great even got started. Take your pick. Or, as my (Egyptian) friend Osama liked to say, "Fuck off, assholes, and stop trying to drag us into this shit. We had more recorded history when you guys started writing than you do now."

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Ok, getting back to our derailment. (For what it's worth, I'm pulling for Trump v Bernie at this point, though we'll probably get stuck with Bush 3 v Clinton 2.)

A Trump Vs Bernie would be an interesting race. Bush III v Clinton II would be boring.

Come now, near complete displacement of hunter-gatherer and mixed subsistence populations by large agricultural populations is quite common in the historical record. See the Bantu expansion, the replacement of the Aurignacians (original homo sapiens population in Europe), the eclipse of Australoid/Melanesian people in SE Asia, etc. Complete replacement of dense agricultural populations is much rarer.

You did detect my sarcasm right? Mike's proposal was that invasions by group a into group b's territory had little if any effect on the genetic composition of the population. My view is that such a position is incorrect that one should expect at least some genetic overlap, if not out right replacement if the conditions are right.

In the case of the Americas, the indigenous populations were nearly completely replaced.

Uh, present data suggests an admixture of roughly 30% Germanic in England, somewhat lower in Scotland and Wales. A huge movement by pre-modern standards, but still only a fraction of the population. Large sections of England (off the top of my head I can think of Cumbria and Cornwall, as well as small regions in other parts) still spoke Brythonic languages well into the Middle Ages or even the early modern period.

The question should be how much of this is accurate? Are we talking about detection of DNA samples that can be clearly labeled "Brythonic" or "Celtic" or "Germanic" or are we talking about "generic North European"? The problem is that amongst northern european whites and their derivatives there is less genetic variation than even amongst the Bantu.

Well, they're obviously African (It's Egypt, after all) but I don't see a huge discontinuity between them and say, Nasser or Gabriel or Mubarak or Elbaradei. The last even has the ears, right. Nefertiti isn't a bad example either. Pointy noses, full lips, red brown complexions, not really European or Sub-Saharan.

On the other hand, there is a fair amount of diversity, and you could just as easily point to (indigenous Egyptian) dynasts like Thutmose I, Amenhotep III, Ahmes-Nefertari, Mentuhotep II, or Rameses I and say they were clearly black. I mean, you have thousands of years of history, multiple foreign invasions (including domination by the Persians on two nonconsecutive occasions), and 31 dynasties before Alexander the Great even got started. Take your pick. Or, as my (Egyptian) friend Osama liked to say, "Fuck off, assholes, and stop trying to drag us into this shit. We had more recorded history when you guys started writing than you do now."

The facial structure is clearly not European. That said when dealing with Egypt there is a great deal of history to contend with.

A Trump Vs Bernie would be an interesting race. Bush III v Clinton II would be boring.

Right? I don't see* why the big cable networks aren't doing everything in their power to make this a reality. It would be great theatre, if nothing else.

*I mean, I do, but that doesn't mean I'm happy about it.

You did detect my sarcasm right? Mike's proposal was that invasions by group a into group b's territory had little if any effect on the genetic composition of the population. My view is that such a position is incorrect that one should expect at least some genetic overlap, if not out right replacement if the conditions are right.

Nope, sarcasm detector was shut off for scheduled maintenance. Sorry.

In the case of the Americas, the indigenous populations were nearly completely replaced.

Not really, only in the temperate regions (Well, the Caribbean, too). The native populations are still biologically and culturally intact (granted, with substantial admixture) in the polar and tropic regions. Most of Latin America outside the Southern Cone is still plenty brown.

The question should be how much of this is accurate? Are we talking about detection of DNA samples that can be clearly labeled "Brythonic" or "Celtic" or "Germanic" or are we talking about "generic North European"? The problem is that amongst northern european whites and their derivatives there is less genetic variation than even amongst the Bantu.

Covered here, by same author.

The facial structure is clearly not European. That said when dealing with Egypt there is a great deal of history to contend with.

Oh, absolutely not, we're not talking about the Greeks, Romans, Circassians, or Albanians here. But "Africa" is a big place, and I at least was pointing out that the features in question were well within the norms of what we call Egyptians today.

Hee hee ... let's make it happen!

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

For entertainment value, I hope it's Sanders vs Trump.
It would be the best debate since Bentsen vs Quayle.

(Cable networks can't control either of those guys which is why they aren't helping.)

On the one hand:

Bernie Sanders strikes me as someone who "tells it like it is," from his perspective, is reasonably civilized, and probably considered to be a total point off the curve by too many of the citizenry, unfortunately.

On the other hand:

Donald Trump is a lunatic. His belief system, if indeed he even has one, is focused on himself, self-centered and selfish. He cheapens everything he touches, makes it tawdry and defiled.

Reminds me of a neighborhood organization meeting I attended once many years ago. One of the neighborhood's residents was a guy who appeared mostly drunk, who beat his wife and kids, and occasionally started fights with neighbors. At the meeting one of his drunken friends nominated him as a candidate for president of the organization. Other serious candidates were also nominated. During the run-up to the voting process, he and his friends yarked it up and made fun of the process, using him as a parady of what they considered a foolish process. Thereby turning what was otherwise a decent civilized event into a cheapened, less-than-useful event that stuck in everyone's throat.

Originally Posted by TnT

On the one hand:

Bernie Sanders strikes me as someone who "tells it like it is," from his perspective, is reasonably civilized, and probably considered to be a total point off the curve by too many of the citizenry, unfortunately.

On the other hand:

Donald Trump is a lunatic. His belief system, if indeed he even has one, is focused on himself, self-centered and selfish. He cheapens everything he touches, makes it tawdry and defiled.

Reminds me of a neighborhood organization meeting I attended once many years ago. One of the neighborhood's residents was a guy who appeared mostly drunk, who beat his wife and kids, and occasionally started fights with neighbors. At the meeting one of his drunken friends nominated him as a candidate for president of the organization. Other serious candidates were also nominated. During the run-up to the voting process, he and his friends yarked it up and made fun of the process, using him as a parady of what they considered a foolish process. Thereby turning what was otherwise a decent civilized event into a cheapened, less-than-useful event that stuck in everyone's throat.

I agree. On the other hand, I wonder if too much is being made of his remarks about John McCain. If people insult Donald Trump and his fans, as McCain did, Trump's big ego is very likely to strike back. But all he said is that "he is a war hero because he was captured." He first said he is not a war hero, and then said maybe he is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wBHhs7o63g

Trump is a boorish asshole, as far as I can tell. I doubt very seriously that he could get elected President, and if he did, it would be probably be a disaster. On the other hand, his demagoguery, like all such, works because it gives a voice to real dissatisfaction amongst a sizable portion of the electorate. In that respect, he's little different from Al Sharpton. And if the establishment, like you, continues to be so wrapped up in their own bullshit that they can't address those concerns in a meaningful way, then we are going to continue to see candidacies like his until America finally up and elects someone a damn sight worse.

And everything I said is just as true on the left as it is on the right, as, say, the protests and disruption at the Netroots convention in Arizona showed, despite it hosting (white) progressive stalwarts like Sanders and O'Malley. People are not happy with the options on offer.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

This today from Robert Reich's blog, marveling at the huge crowd Bernie Sanders attracted in my (very red) state of Arizona:

What amazes me, frankly, are the crowds. Not since Robert F. Kennedy sought the Democratic nomination in 1968 has a candidate for the nomination of either party generated such large numbers of people eager to see and listen to him. None in living memory has summoned such crowds this early, before the nominating season even begins. Even Sanders' advisers are amazed (I spoke with one this morning who said they never expected this kind of response).

What's the explanation? It's not his sense of humor. It's not his youth. He isn't a demagogue, bashing immigrants or pandering to hatred and bigotry. It's that he's telling Americans the unvarnished truth about what has happened to our economy and our democracy, and he is posing real solutions. And it seems that America is ready to listen.

-- the question is, can he turn those crowds into votes? I truly hope he can

Originally Posted by Kinser79

A Trump Vs Bernie would be an interesting race. Bush III v Clinton II would be boring.

-- ga-roannnnnnnn I don't even want to contemplate a Hillary vs Jeb race (yawn) somebody here posted if that happened they were going into the desert with a tent. Take me with ya

Originally Posted by Kinser79

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

There are exceptions. Most historical migrations were not accompanied by plagues the wiped out the indigenous population.

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.

That's not what I remembered having read. Did a search came up with this:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...erman-ancestry

Anglo-Saxons did significantly affect the gene pool of the English, although not the Romans, Vikings or Normans. So I must have misremembered. According to this article there was no "Celtic" influence, the cultural Celtic regions were more heterogenous, indicated older, indigenous genes. This might dove tail with population history. The population of Roman Britain was about 4 million, but it then fell to about 1.5 million during the Anglo-Saxon period. In such an environment quite a bit of genetic displacement would be possible I would imagine.

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.

You claimed that all the noses on Eqyptian statues were broken. I showed pictures of statues with intact noses from a pharaoh of the 25th dynasty, who were from Nubia/Kush and those of the 18th which were native and followed the Hyksos ruling class of the 17th. I think Hyksos are believed to have been Semitic. Here's one of them with an intact nose.



There are statues that have noses for a variety of Eqyptian rulers of various ethnicities. Also I don't think there can be anything like an African facial structure since Africans are so genetically diverse.

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.

I don't think so. Bernie does not have support from major Democratic constituencies. For example his campaign is 90% white and his rallies look like those of the GOP. Not good optics for a party that is roughly half non-white.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There are exceptions. Most historical migrations were not accompanied by plagues the wiped out the indigenous population.

All most all historical migrations are accompanied by violence, warfare and death. The destruction of the Native Peoples of the Americas was particularly brutal due to plagues.

That's not what I remembered having read. Did a search came up with this:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...erman-ancestry

Anglo-Saxons did significantly affect the gene pool of the English, although not the Romans, Vikings or Normans. So I must have misremembered. According to this article there was no "Celtic" influence, the cultural Celtic regions were more heterogenous, indicated older, indigenous genes. This might dove tail with population history. The population of Roman Britain was about 4 million, but it then fell to about 1.5 million during the Anglo-Saxon period. In such an environment quite a bit of genetic displacement would be possible I would imagine.

The BBC recently had a program on it where that 30% was jumbled with your "general Northern European" which would indicate that the Viking/Norman gene pool is indistinguishable from the Anglo-Saxon. Not surprising since the Normans are from the Vikings which themselves are a Germanic People like the Angles and the Saxons.

The Celtic remnant is of course derived mostly from the indigenous peoples who were there when the Romans showed up. They were largely driven to Wales and Scotland and never really left Ireland.

You claimed that all the noses on Eqyptian statues were broken. I showed pictures of statues with intact noses from a pharaoh of the 25th dynasty, who were from Nubia/Kush and those of the 18th which were native and followed the Hyksos ruling class of the 17th. I think Hyksos are believed to have been Semitic. Here's one of them with an intact nose.



There are statues that have noses for a variety of Eqyptian rulers of various ethnicities. Also I don't think there can be anything like an African facial structure since Africans are so genetically diverse.

Africans are so genetically diverse because they are the original people. The longer a population is in a location the more genetic mutations that develop over time. That is high school genetics, I would have thought this understood. The faces of the remaining no Ptolemaic Pharohs of course are not European looking. They are either overtly African or some type of Semite. And over all the former rather than the latter. The Red/Brown coloring of Egyptian Artifacts indicates that the original Egyptians probably followed the Nile into Egypt from present day Sudan or Ethiopia.

Ancient Egyptians looked pretty much like modern Egyptians in physical appearance. They certainly weren't "Black" in the sense of the West/Central African phenotype people think of when they heard the term "Black". I remember seeing an image of an Egyptian painting showing people of different countries and Nubians (modern Sudan) were portrayed as much darker than Egyptians and Canaanites as lighter.

The impact of Greeks and Arabs on the Egyptian gene pool were not very significant.

The way people obsess about the "race" of the Egyptians says a lot more about the inanity of modern Identity Politics then it does about the Ancient Egyptians.

That makes two of us, then. Although, as I also pointed out, modern/ancient Egyptians have a fairly wide range of phenotypes, and some of them are "blacker" or "whiter" than others. Not sure what that has to do with people who are West/Central African or Northwest European in descent, though. Identity politics run amok.

Originally Posted by Odin

Ancient Egyptians looked pretty much like modern Egyptians in physical appearance. They certainly weren't "Black" in the sense of the West/Central African phenotype people think of when they heard the term "Black". I remember seeing an image of an Egyptian painting showing people of different countries and Nubians (modern Sudan) were portrayed as much darker than Egyptians and Canaanites as lighter.

The impact of Greeks and Arabs on the Egyptian gene pool were not very significant.

The way people obsess about the "race" of the Egyptians says a lot more about the inanity of modern Identity Politics then it does about the Ancient Egyptians.

I dated an Egyptian girl when I was in college. Her hair was light brown / dark blond and she had green eyes. Nuff said ...

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Identity politics run amok.

Agreed. In fact I can't even remember how we even got on this tangent.

Eric did the whole, "Oh, he's so articulate" thing, and you saw red. Well, a different red from what you normally see, at any rate.

On the bright side, we did get three separate rap videos in.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Eric did the whole, "Oh, he's so articulate" thing, and you saw red. Well, a different red from what you normally see, at any rate.

On the bright side, we did get three separate rap videos in.

Yeah, I can't stand that "he's so articulate" shit. It is basically saying "awww look this nigger almost speaks like a full person". Makes me wonder if these great blue boomers who say shit like that still view us (and by that I mean blacks) as three-fifths of a human being. With the open racists I know what to expect...if you know what I'm saying.

ETA: I also happen to be particularly sensitive about Malcolm.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Yeah, I can't stand that "he's so articulate" shit. It is basically saying "awww look this nigger almost speaks like a full person". Makes me wonder if these great blue boomers who say shit like that still view us (and by that I mean blacks) as three-fifths of a human being. With the open racists I know what to expect...if you know what I'm saying.

ETA: I also happen to be particularly sensitive about Malcolm.

I'm sure Malcolm was a full human being, but I'm not completely sure about you kinser.



And Malcolm was SO articulate
https://youtu.be/hhg6LxyTnY8

Prepared the way for Obama too, for sure. Another one of those very articulate niggers.
https://youtu.be/snzSkny3SZ0

-- great blue boomer

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm sure Malcolm was a full human being, but I'm not completely sure about you kinser.



And Malcolm was SO articulate
https://youtu.be/hhg6LxyTnY8

Prepared the way for Obama too, for sure. Another one of those very articulate niggers.
https://youtu.be/snzSkny3SZ0

-- great blue boomer

Thank you Eric for proving to the world that you are a great big fat racist yet again. You know I wish I believed in hell so I could send you there.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Yeah, I can't stand that "he's so articulate" shit.

"Articulate"? Articulateness, I assure you, is rare enough among white people. I can think of far nastier things to say about people -- like incoherent, belligerent, deceitful, predatory, mercenary...

Inarticulate people have a difficult time expressing what they want others to understand or accept.

I get a kick when some white fool meets an intelligent black person, underestimates that black person due to bigotry, and is amazed to have found some smart black person. It's good for a laugh. (I let someone speak, and I can usually size someone's intelligence by grammar, word choice, and subjects discussed. Even with someone who has poor mastery of English, I can usually size someone up by the sorts of things one discusses. People who barely speak English but have an excellent understanding of complex ideas in Chinese stumbles along in English but on complex subjects. In my experience this trick works well).

It is basically saying "awww look this n----r almost speaks like a full person". Makes me wonder if these great blue boomers who say shit like that still view us (and by that I mean blacks) as three-fifths of a human being. With the open racists I know what to expect...if you know what I'm saying.

Such is hardly limited to people between the ages of 54 and 72.

By the way -- I consider overt racism one of the surest signs of a subnormal intellect.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

"Articulate"? Articulateness, I assure you, is rare enough among white people. I can think of far nastier things to say about people -- like incoherent, belligerent, deceitful, predatory, mercenary...

Inarticulate people have a difficult time expressing what they want others to understand or accept.

I get a kick when some white fool meets an intelligent black person, underestimates that black person due to bigotry, and is amazed to have found some smart black person. It's good for a laugh. (I let someone speak, and I can usually size someone's intelligence by grammar, word choice, and subjects discussed. Even with someone who has poor mastery of English, I can usually size someone up by the sorts of things one discusses. People who barely speak English but have an excellent understanding of complex ideas in Chinese stumbles along in English but on complex subjects. In my experience this trick works well).

I won't disagree here, because it is true. The point is you probably do not understand where I'm coming from. The expectation is for blacks to be inarticulate (you know because we are somewhere between Jews and Chimps according to the Nazi types). When a white person says something about a black being "articulate" I hear "Aw, look that nigger almost speaks like a human."

Such is hardly limited to people between the ages of 54 and 72.

By the way -- I consider overt racism one of the surest signs of a subnormal intellect.

Overt racism is easier to contend with because it is predictable.

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.

1. It may surprise you, but before the First World War, Imperial Russia was industrializing rapidly. To be sure, the political order was backward in the extreme.... and as the February Revolution showed, obsolete.

2. Russia needed a strong agricultural sector if it was to feed a rapidly-growing industrial proletariat. One does not get strong agricultural productivity if one starves the farmers, which is what the collectivized Soviet system did.

3. Lenin's NEP, a compromise with capitalism, worked. I can imagine an alternative history in which someone like Kirov became the Communist Party leader instead of Stalin... without the collectivization of Soviet agriculture, there is actually more food for the proletariat. Peasant farmers are as capable of creating wealth as any capitalists, only that they do so on a small scale.

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.

That is as silly as saying that if chattel slavery could jump-start economic development it would be excused. In most countries, light industry appeared first -- textiles, shoes, pottery... So it was in Italy, in Flanders, in Britain, in America, in Japan, and more recently in India. Paradoxically, Imperial Russia put an emphasis on heavy industry to accelerate economic growth.

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).

Long queues for basic human needs -- like foodstuffs. The emphasis on heavy industries practically ensures material poverty -- just as does an emphasis upon luxuries for elites. "Socialist" states had basically two sets of currencies -- soft currency of little value because it can't buy much that anyone wants, and hard currency (like US dollars, British pounds, etc.) largely available to elites who can buy luxuries.

Capitalism at the least keeps a steady stream of consumer goods flowing so that one does not ordinarily wait several hours for staple foods. Waiting in line is a cost of a precious commodity -- time. People may be priced out of some desirable things -- but under capitalism that can be met with a welfare system that at the least ensures that people do not starve. Inequality? Just look at the pathological values of tycoons and executives in America if you want an explanation of American inequality. Maybe the problem is the callousness of elites more than of the ability of the system to produce goods.

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.

He picked and purged the Central Committee. Members of that Central Committee did as Stalin said -- or would be executed. The Party was Stalin and the Party was the Soviet government.

...An unelected Party Boss is dangerous, whatever the political ideology. I see Karl Rove as a prime example in a capitalist state. Of course, Karl Rove needed a pliant President (George Worthless Bush) and Party majorities in both Houses of Congress so that he could exercise political power without accountability. America is at risk of letting the Koch Brothers do that through fronts that all Republicans will have to obey -- should the Koch brothers get a pliant regent as President and maintain majorities in both Houses of Congress in 2016.

In a democracy, political power must be earned, whether through election to public office, being appointed to high office by elected officials and confirmed by those in another branch of government (as with Cabinet secretaries and federal judges), or hired with very limited discretion (like senior military officers). In a non-democracy people exercise power without competitive elections or outside the formality of Constitutional responsibility.

I can't say that I necessarily disagree (about this):

Originally Posted by me

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 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.

The middle class includes people whose talent is necessary for the smooth functioning of both the public administration (teachers, hospital staff, police, etc.) and small business that can better meet basic needs at the retail level than can monopolistic tycoons and bureaucratic elites within giant enterprises who maximize either profits or compensation by creating shortages that they exploit. The ruling elite of America want everything for themselves, and are willing to cast blame for the misery that they impose upon the proletariat upon the middle class. Membership in the middle class could depend upon ideological subservience to the vilest causes... teach something that the elites don't want taught and you might lose your job. Refuse to shoot strikers or demonstrators and you will no longer be a police officer.

Without doubt, the middle class ordinarily shows more empathy for the poor than do the economic elites. But the economic elites want the middle class marginalized -- made dependent and subservient. If it owns small businesses it want those businesses shut down so recent owners become salesclerks. That too is exploitation and oppression. What do working people get after the middle class is gone? Higher prices and even harsher terms of employment.

Even I recognize that Karl Marx has validity in a pathological society. Indeed, the more pathological the society, the better Marx describes that society.

I will point out though from an economic point of view that eliminating 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.

As demonstrated in Russia before 1917, China in the 1920s and 1930s, Vietnam under French and Japanese rule, and Cuba under Batista, economic elites can be so callow that they so destroy human dignity that they make a revolution inevitable.

Guess whose tactics overthrew imperial Russia.

Liberals (at least by Russian standards) who could no longer accept the despotic rule of Tsar Nicholas II -- in the February Revolution.

Lenin's Bolsheviki had little role in the February Revolution -- and they overthrew a government caught between impossible demands of the German General Staff and the demands of the masses for peace. Lenin solved that problem for the German General Staff in the October Revolution.