She's hardly out to make the US a communist state, more likely just wants to change its path into something less unforgivingly neo-con, even out the income gaps, improve public health care and provide better chances of social advancement for the poorest layers. Might just do the trick, in fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, like so many male counterparts in Washington, her primary purpose is to manipulate the system for purposes of acquiring power. That is, acquisition of power for the sake of having power.

I believe you will find in Ms. Clinton's university past in law school, that she was an ardent supporter of Marxist/Leninist ideology, which at the core sought to keep down the underclasses and promote the power of the ruling class. This is scary ideology in the modern world today. It only exists in backwater 3rd world dictatorships.

She doesn't necessarily believe in communism as an ideology that ultimately benefits the whole society. Rather, she believes in the ability of communist/socialist ideology to keep the common people in a corral while the ruling elite maintain all the power and wealth. In other words, she believes that people don't have the ability to think for themselves and determine their own future, so the government should do it for them.

As for the other notes:

- Even out the income gaps: We already have this in place. It's called hard work, study, save and invest. Everything else is either charity or welfare, neither or which was ever intended to equalize incomes.

- Improve health care: Not that the US model is perfect (in fact it has many flaws), but name one country that has better overall health care. Where else in the world can one walk into an hospital and receive treatment (free of charge if necessary) within very short order/

- Provide better chances of social advancement for the poorest layers: This is 2005, not 1925. The US has done more in the last 50 years than most countries have ever done to promote equality and opportunity for advancement. It is a system that works because it has the ability to change. There is no better chance in the world for social and financial advancement, than in the US. None!

As for her socialist activities, well, they don't bother me. She's hardly out to make the US a communist state, more likely just wants to change its path into something less unforgivingly neo-con, even out the income gaps, improve public health care and provide better chances of social advancement for the poorest layers. Might just do the trick, in fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Europeanization of the US will happen. Meanwhile, the Americanization of the world is still under way.

I believe you will find in Ms. Clinton's university past in law school, that she was an ardent supporter of Marxist/Leninist ideology, which at the core sought to keep down the underclasses and promote the power of the ruling class. This is scary ideology in the modern world today. It only exists in backwater 3rd world dictatorships.

It exists everywhere, does this means we live in a Marxist world ? and what's wrong with Marxism ? it's a beautiful ideology. The best idea produced in the 19th century. Unfortunately it was badly implemented by the stupid soviets. They should all be shot for taking this beautiful idea and pissed on it.

Raw capitalism (and its friend Facism) as we witness in the US yield the same end result as Communism. Litte freedom, poor choice of products (as company maximize profits on their product line), everyone ends up buying the same thing (driven by manipulative marketing compaign), standardization of the population etc... etc...

The US is not driven by raw capitalism. There has not and will never be a country driven by raw capitalism, because any form of government, through it's nature will put some strains on the market mechanisms -as will companies themselves when they grow big enough.

I'd say corporatism is a better word for the US system.

Common decency also dictates companies cannot be allowed to do exactly what they want, because it causes direct conflicts of interest with the common good. Even Americans understand this to some extent.

Further, joint price setting and other joint action by major market players is very common, and although illegal in many countries (anti-trust laws), it happens everywhere to a greater or lesser extent. This type of phenomenon is also a curb to unleashed market forces.

Please separate Marx from Lenin. Marx tried to describe what he thought would come to pass as a natural result of capitalism. His socio-economic analyses are still valid in many parts, and a large part of his terminology is used by neo-classicist economists today.

As for Marx predictions for the future, they were obviously flawed, but here are the basics:

Marx believed that the bourgeoisie, which through the French Revolution and subsequent events wrestled power from the aristocracy, would in turn be stripped of power by a revolution conducted by the workers, the next class down in order. Marx thought the workers would stay in power until the means of production were firmly and securely placed in the hands of the people and economic equality was achieved, after which the state would gradually lose its importance and people live classlessly - this final stage is what he referred to as Communism.

In fact, Marx looked at England for his analysis of society, and thought that the revolution would occur there. That the first revolution occurred in Russia made it necessary for Lenin to revise (or twist, if you will) Marx's predictions and ideas to fit his purposes. The revolution in Russia, as well as the revolution in China, was not a revolution by the workers as Marx had envisioned, it was more driven by intellectuals using peasants for leverage in numbers. It is notable that both Tsarist Russia and Pre-communist China were oppressive societies with a high degree of desperate poverty and illiteracy and with very rigid classes and roles.

At the time, the communists presented an alternative that seemed a lot more fair to everyone except the ones in power.

For an excellent recount of the Chinese Revolution, read Wild Swans. It's a great book.

I equate raw capitalism with Corporatism. Same beast. Facism happens when the government is in bed with the corporations (like we have now in the US) by restricting all kind of freedom and controlling the thinking process of the masses (americans are gullible and "naive" by nature, that's why the patriotism card always work).

I think Marx predictions are right on the money. You are being too pessimistic on that one. 150 years is too early to make that call. I think his predictions will happen. A lot of things he said back then are even making more sense now than they did before.

Like the "unexpected" fall of the mighty Soviet system, mighty capitalism as we know it today will self destruct and everyone will have no choice but to adapt to an alternative model. The only thing Marx missed in his analysis was to underestimate the endurance of the working class.

Unionized workers are in a sense a mini-revolution within the capitalism system. A safe-guard against abuse of corporations. Unfortunately corporations fail to realize that those safe-guards will make their life last longer. Still they keep bitching about them everytime they get a chance.

Unions are definitely good for improving the situation of employees, but like any organisations, only to a point.

They would for example be able to do good here in Thailand, because everything is so totally at the mercy of the employers - but too much power in the hands of the unions, as the situation has been in Sweden, where there has been a cross-contamination between the social democrats and the largest union, LO, a new class of pompous power toads has been born, which is not good for anything but its own preservation.

Unions are definitely good for improving the situation of employees, but like any organisations, only to a point.

They would for example be able to do good here in Thailand, because everything is so totally at the mercy of the employers - but too much power in the hands of the unions, as the situation has been in Sweden, where there has been a cross-contamination between the social democrats and the largest union, LO, a new class of pompous power toads has been born, which is not good for anything but its own preservation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, right on. As usual question of balance. Give too much power to one group and you create the same problem. This is why the fall of communism was the biggest tragedy for the western world. It kept a balance. Thank god we have China and NK to make the yanks poopoo in their paints.

Believe it or not, but worker rights in Thailand are pretty decent. The laws are there. There is just no one to implement them. Unions are also strong here but in "Thai" companies only. You won't hear about the worker strikes and the fights with the owners when it's an export company or outsource chop for a farang company. Different legal framework. And yeah they can get away with pretty much what they want, I mean the outsource chops of course.

She's hardly out to make the US a communist state, more likely just wants to change its path into something less unforgivingly neo-con, even out the income gaps, improve public health care and provide better chances of social advancement for the poorest layers. Might just do the trick, in fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, like so many male counterparts in Washington, her primary purpose is to manipulate the system for purposes of acquiring power. That is, acquisition of power for the sake of having power.

I believe you will find in Ms. Clinton's university past in law school, that she was an ardent supporter of Marxist/Leninist ideology, which at the core sought to keep down the underclasses and promote the power of the ruling class. This is scary ideology in the modern world today. It only exists in backwater 3rd world dictatorships.

She doesn't necessarily believe in communism as an ideology that ultimately benefits the whole society. Rather, she believes in the ability of communist/socialist ideology to keep the common people in a corral while the ruling elite maintain all the power and wealth. In other words, she believes that people don't have the ability to think for themselves and determine their own future, so the government should do it for them.

As for the other notes:

- Even out the income gaps: We already have this in place. It's called hard work, study, save and invest. Everything else is either charity or welfare, neither or which was ever intended to equalize incomes.

- Improve health care: Not that the US model is perfect (in fact it has many flaws), but name one country that has better overall health care. Where else in the world can one walk into an hospital and receive treatment (free of charge if necessary) within very short order/- Provide better chances of social advancement for the poorest layers: This is 2005, not 1925. The US has done more in the last 50 years than most countries have ever done to promote equality and opportunity for advancement. It is a system that works because it has the ability to change. There is no better chance in the world for social and financial advancement, than in the US. None!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

New Zealand

New Zealand

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He forgot Canada, those pinko-commies French, and England ?

...and Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland.

...and Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well, let's just say the rest of the civilized world then

New Zealand

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He forgot Canada, those pinko-commies French, and England ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Regards to England - takes forever to be seen, and it is a disgrace. I had a convo with my grand about this - National Health would rather a person die then have a necessary operation or procedure.

<snip>

Raw capitalism (and its friend Facism) as we witness in the US yield the same end result as Communism. Litte freedom, poor choice of products (as company maximize profits on their product line), everyone ends up buying the same thing (driven by manipulative marketing compaign), standardization of the population etc... etc...

Not so. Wherever there is demand a free market will fill it. In my town we were reduced to one newspaper. The quality of the paper diminished imo so I stopped subscribing. I thought all was doomed until a couple of years later a free newspaper sprung up and became very popular. It covered local life and local events as well as some political editorials which were very leftist. That's ok because there was always the letters-to-the-editor for people to respond to the editorials so things balanced out. Anyways the paper is well established now. They cover local news and now purchase editorials from national writers as well as local writers. Originally their ad space was very cheap, then reasonable and now it is too expensive imo. The need/demand for an alternative to the local newspaper was there and it was filled. I know two people who design and build custom furniture. People demand and support an organic food market. There are small goat cheese farms popping up in Northern California. I can walk into a store and purchase chicken hindquarters (thighs and legs) for 58 cents a pound. That's 52B per kilo. Or I can buy a free range organic chicken counterpart for considerably more. (So what is wrong if the free market can provide a cheap meat source for people who could not otherwise afford it?) In a free market there will always be niche markets where people can find what they want and people can earn a living providing it. You can shop in a food warehouse or a farmer's market. You can eat at McDonald's or you can eat at a local food stall.

How easy would it be to meet the demands of the market in a planned economy? How do we know people in charge would not get petty or corrupt and prevent the flourishment of entrepenuers, who respond to people's wants and needs quickly and at a financial risk?

I think you are confusing Free Markets and Capitalism, and probably Competition with Capitalism.

Read a Travelgate timeline by a couple of lawyers in Cleveland who defend clients in employment and defamation cases.

ALL THE PRESIDENT'S FAULT

The only way Hillary Clinton can avoid lawsuits over Travelgate is to blame her husband.

By Michael McMenamin and James Oliphant

http://reason.com/9604/Fe.MCMENAMIN.text.shtml

When Billy Dale head of White House Travel Office resisted taking in the Clintons' friends, he and seven employees were accused of embezzling funds and were investigated by the FBI and the IRS. IMO that is ruthless, it is overkill and an abuse of the tremdous amount of power the White House holds. The memos indicate in the meetings Hillary did not wish to wait for an audit of the Travel Office to be finished before people were to be fired and her friends were totakeover. She was advised the audit (begun after the FBI were called in) will help to justify the firings and most of all will help to justify calling in an FBI investigation of the Travel Office employees. Despite the advice she ordered the firings to take place immediately. This is rash behavior if true and again points to her ruthless as well as reckless use of power. The seven employees had to hire attorneys and Billy Dale actually went to trial where he was found not guilty of the charges by the jury after 40 minutes of deliberation. Personal and financial ruin was laid on a man who would not acquiesce to Clinton's friends moving in and being rewarded for their donations to Clinton's campaign.

The memos indicate in the meetings Hillary did not wish to wait for an audit of the Travel Office to be finished before people were to be fired and her friends were totakeover.  She was advised the audit (begun after the FBI were called in) will help to justify the firings and most of all will help to justify calling in an FBI investigation of the Travel Office employees. Despite the advice she ordered the firings to take place immediately.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

She was and is drunk on power. She seeks power for the sake of power, not because she actually wants to do help anyone with it. This is but one example. Her choice to carpetbag in NY is no different. Why wouldn't she want to be a senator from her adopted home state of Arkansas or her actual home state of Illinois? Simple, there is more power and more influence to be gained as a high profile senator from NY.

The one good thing from all this is that everyone now reads her like a book. She has had and will always have her hard core supporters. But they aren't enough to get her elected to anything more than what she is right now. Everyone else knows enough to avoid her like the plague.

Calling in the FBI was overkill. Sicking the IRS on someone is a viscious crushing of your foe. I can see how people call her a Stalinist. She is the type who believes government programs are more important than the people they are meant to serve or help. IMO.