5/30    When did Hillary join the Communist Party?
        http://urltea.com/nwv (timesrecordnews.com)
        \_ Right about the time you applied your mad reading comp skillz to
           this article.
           this article. --scotsman
           \_ So I used a little hyperbole.  But at least I can read better
              than you.
              \_ Let me see if I get your point: any regulation of the Free
                 Market is Communism?
                 \_ 'it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one
                    based on shared responsibility and prosperity.'  Sounds
                    like communism to me. -op
                    \_ Then you're an idiot.
                    \_ Then you're an idiot.  You either have a fundamental
                       misunderstanding of what Communism is, or you can't
                       read.  Either way, your little jaunt here says that
                       you're an idiot.
                       \_ Trying to explain an idiot why he's an idiot is
                          kind of a waste of time.
                       you're an idiot. --scotsman
                       \_ Trying to explain an idiot why he's an idiot is kind
                          of a waste of time.
                       \_ I understand what Communism is.  I guess you just
                          can't defend your point. -op
                          \_ You haven't made a point at all.  You've called
                          \_ I haven't made a point at all.  You've called
                             HRC a member of the Communist Party, with no
                             basis.  You don't do this whole "thinking"
                             thing too well, do you?
                          \_ I haven't made a point at all.  You've called HRC
                             a member of the Communist Party, with no basis.
                             You don't do this whole "thinking" thing too well,
                             do you?
                             do you? --scotsman
                             \_ And you simply call me an idiot.  I posted a
                                quote which is part of why I believe she's
                                pushing towards a communist agenda.  You called
                                me an idiot again.  You'll pardon me if I don't
                                see this as the height of debate.  Oh, and then
                                more ad hominem.  Yawn. -op
                                Here's another quote:
                                "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the
                                right government policies."
                                more ad hominem.  Yawn. -op Here's another
                                quote: "Fairness doesn't just happen. It
                                requires the right government policies."
                                \_ Explain how that quote is in any way untrue,
                                   or "pushing towards a communist agenda".
                                   Your wink-and-nod approach may win you
                                   points at freerepublic, but you're making
                                   little sense here.
                                   \_ Having the government define
                                      'fairness' and then enforce it
                                      sounds a lot like communism.  If
                                      you don't understand, I'm afraid
                                      I can't help.
                                   little sense here. --scotsman
                                   \_ Having the government define 'fairness'
                                      and then enforce it sounds a lot like
                                      communism.  If you don't understand, I'm
                                      afraid I can't help.
                                      \_ you're an idiot.
                                      \_ You obviously do not understand what
                                         Communism is, in spite of your earlier
                                         claim. Where is the classless society
                                         or the government ownership of all
                                         means of production? What about the
                                         dictatorship of the proletariat? You\
                                         are not an idiot, you are insane.
        \_ Thank you for reminding why I gave $1000 to the HRC for
           President campaign. Hint: it isn't because of her political views,
           it is because I love watching Freepers squirm.
                                         dictatorship of the proletariat? You
                                         are not an idiot, you are nuts.
                                         \_ tom, you're the idiot.  You don't
                                            need this to be part of the CPUSA.
                                            See:
                                            http://www.cpusa.org
                                            See: http://www.cpusa.org
                                            \_ That wasn't my post, idiot. -tom
                                            \_ You still haven't shown where
                                               defining and regulating the
                                               marketplace means that the
                                               government owns the players in
                                               it.  You keep talking, yet you
                                               say nothing.
                                               marketplace means owning
                                               the players in it.  You keep
                                               talking, yet you say nothing.
                                               --scotsman
                                               \_ My original statement was
                                                  about the communist party,
                                                  not an academic definition.
                                                  Go back to your cage. -op
                                                  \_ This doesn't help your
                                                     point, as noted below.
                                            \_ From your source:
        "All Communists are for socialism, seeing it as a transition stage to
        communism, a higher stage of economic, political, and social
        development. All socialists arent for communism; some see Communists
        as too radical.
        Socialism is social ownership of the main means of production
        (factories, transportation) and the commanding heights of an economy
        (banks and other financial institutions) and runs them in the
        interests of the working people, using part of the value that
        workers produce to build up the social institutions and benefits
        for the whole people."
        Is that what you claim that HRC is supporting with her statement?
        \_ Thank you for reminding why I gave $1000 to the HRC for President
           campaign. Hint: it isn't because of her political views, it is
           because I love watching Freepers squirm.
           \_ A fool and his money are soon parted.
              \_ Funny, my net worth goes up every year.
                 \_ Are you getting a VIP dinner for that money?
            e.g. <DEAD>contribute.hillaryclinton.com/events/paloalto0531.html<DEAD>
                    \_ I'd rather have $1k than eat dinner with Hillary.
        \_ Maybe I read a different article that you did, but Sen. Clinton's
           comments suggested to me that she prefers a strongly regulated
           market. At most she would be advocating a socialist position, not
           a communist position. A communist position would not allow for any
           private enterprise.
           In addition, it is not at all clear what level of regulation that
           Sen. Clinton feels is necessary. She merely states that some add'l
           rules are needed to protect workers, &c. In light of Enron, &c.,
           one needed not be a socialist to think that perhaps some add'l
           regulation or supervision of the market is needed.
           Of course, if one were a Ferengi, then perhaps one would not see
           any difference between the two b/c either one would prevent you
           from maximizing your horde of gold-pressed latium, which would
           violate countless rules of acquisition.
           violate countless rules of acquisition. And we all know the Rules
           of Acquisition are the ultimate way to run a free market b/c they
           work so well for the Grand Negus.
           work so well for the Grand Negus. -stmg
           \_ Regulating markets is not socialism or communism.  Until the
              government, under the direction of the people, steps into the
              marketplace, either as an unfairly subsidized player, or as
              a strongarming force to takeover and shut down private players,
              it's not socialism.  Seriously, everything you add to this
              discussion further betrays your misunderstanding of the subject.
              --scotsman
              \_ Really? I always thought that socialism existed where the
                 government imposes its judgement in place of what the mkt
                 under reasonably unrestricted conditions would provide.
                 But then again everything I know about economics comes from
                 E120, DS9 episodes and broad generalizations in my Contracts
                 class, so its not surprising that I'm completely wrong. -stmg
                 \_ Socialism is where the government/society imposes OWNERSHIP
                    not judgement.  Regulating capitalism is not "socialist".
                    It's "necessary".
                    It's "necessary". --scotsman
                    \_ Is this really true? I was always that Sweden was a
                       socialist country but they still have private business
                       over there.
                       over there. -stmg
                       \_ Here's a succinct little snippet from a critique
                          of Swedish Socialism:
                          http://www.namyth.com/SocialismWORKS!/index.php?sw=Sweden#third_way_home
                          http://urltea.com/o8e (namyth.com)
                          Medicine is socialized.  Schools are socialized.
                          The state holds large chunks of the marketplace,
                          and highly regulates the rest.
                          I personally believe health care and education
                          should be considered rights and therefore should
                          be guaranteed by the state.  I also personally
                          believe that outside of those "common good" bits
                          of the economy, the government's primary duties
                          are making sure the marketplace is fair, and that
                          workers are protected.  For that, would you call
                          me a socialist?  Because, really, I'm not.
                          me a socialist?  Because, really, I'm not. --scotsman
                       \_ They also have some government owned business. But
                          then, so do we. But actually "socialism" is not as
                          well defined as the know-it-alls here think. I think
                          any schemes where the government causes resources
                          to be redirected to the poor can be classified as
                          socialist. Countries with high tax rates that provide
                          lots of public services fit that description
                          perfectly. It's a matter of degree. Public schools
                          and libraries ARE socialist institutions. Same with
                          welfare, medicare, progressive income tax, subsidized
                          housing projects, food stamps, etc. Government owning
                          businesses or regulation etc. isn't socialist per se
                          unless it has socialist goals. (e.g. the gov't could
                          run the something like the postal service completely
                          unsubsidized).
                          \_ Please provide a reference for your know-it-all
                             definition of "socialism."  Preferably one which
                             includes reference to public libraries being
                             socialist institutions.  -tom
                             \_ The part after "I think" was merely my opinion.
                                But some dictionaries and other references will
                                support my opinion. See:
                         http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism
                                "there is no precise canon on which the various
                                 adherents of contemporary socialist movements
                                 agree"  "property and the distribution of
                                 income are subject to social control rather
                                 than ... market forces"  "The uses and abuses
                                 of the word socialism are legion".
                                 Some apply the term interchangeably with
                                 communism. However, in my opinion the term is
                                 most commonly applied today in reference to
                                 "welfare-state" type policies such as those
                                 in Sweden. A public library, ok it's arguable,
                                 but they provide access for the poor to things
                                 the rich can afford to purchase. They take my
                                 tax dollars and buy books for the use of
                                 others.
                                \_ Okay, so now that you've actually thought
                                   about it, and had your wikipedia brushup,
                                   let's go back to Hilary's quotes.  What in
                                   there, without putting words in her mouth,
                                   says "welfare-state"?  Though if you think
                                   public libraries are socialistic, there's
                                   really no hope for this discussion.
                                   --scotsman
                                   \_ Hey I just jumped in on this socialism
                                      definition subthread. I wasn't involved
                                      in the HRC stuff. But it is arguable that
                                      "shared responsibility and prosperity"
                                      can imply things like social "safety
                                      nets" and wealth redistribution. How
                                      would you interpret that quote? What
                                      specific political options other than
                                      welfare-state principles would you
                                      infer from that quote? Re: libraries,
                                      \_ As a reassertment of the Social
                                         Contract, a la Rousseau.  As a
                                         rejection of the lassaiz-faire
                                         bullshit that Bush et al. espouse.
                                         That we don't change all our
                                         regulations to voluntary guidelines.
                                         That we actually run inspections on
                                         our food supply, workplaces, etc.
                                         That we make decisions rather than
                                         "make reality". --scotsman
                                         \_ You mean we can't count on "The
                                            Invisible Hand" to take care of
                                            everything?!? That sux. He was
                                            my favorite super hero.
                                      I consider them in the same category
                                      as public schools. If they didn't exist,
                                      private citizens could establish their
                                      own libraries either as charity,
                                      private purpose or commercial operations.
                                      Having the government take my money "at
                                      gunpoint" as ilyas liked to say and use
                                      it for a library fits communist views
                                      of the role of government. Note that I
                                      am not arguing about whether they are a
                                      good thing or not.
                                      \_ I don't think I can take credit for
                                         that particular turn of phrase.
                                           -- ilyas
                                      \_ Read Jack London's People of the Abyss
                                         for first-hand accounts of how an
                                         unregulated society treats its poor.
                                         Cf. Low Life, an account of the
                                         history of the poor in NYC around the
                                         same time period. Also review the
                                         plight of shanty-towns in African
                                         countries where industry operates
                                         unregulated. Wealth-based altruism is
                                         nice, but it doesn't work on its own.
                  http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=11134
                 \_ See now, you just admitted "reasonably unrestricted" which
                    is a fancy way of saying "reasonably restricted" from the
                    other side. Regulation != communism.
                    \_ Um, so? My original point was that regulation !=
                       communism && at most (lots of regulation) == socialism.
                       \_ Apologies! I must have confused you with op.
           \_ Don't you understand, regulating the market is exactly like
              building a Gulag and killing millions of people. The SEC
              is secretly in the employ of Kim Jong-il. If you believe
              otherwise, you are an apologist for Stalinism.
              \_ Don't forget the FDA which (until recently) tried to prevent
                 us from gaining the superhuman strength that Salmonella
                 confers