Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Hillary Clinton

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Theocrat
    replied
    Originally posted by Doc
    Hang in there with the reader. Marx is a bit cryptic sometimes, but remember that some of us like the professor-speak :lol:

    Marx wrote the Manifesto for a particular segment of the proletariat, but couldn't write a position that spoke to them effectively without Engels. Engels was a less important thinker, but I'm guessing you will learn Marx's language and gain important insight into Marx by continuing to read Engels.

    For what my opinion is worth... :)
    Well if I can get through Wallerstein's 'new science' lingo, I can get through it suppose.

    I'm really annoyed at the ideological battle going on between liberals and socialists. Well heck! All the Ideologies. Somehow people can't manage to rise above it all. Pointing fingers, calling names etc... 'Ist's' and 'Ism's'.



    Maybe I should just "Have a coke and a smile and shut the f**k up!" :lol:

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Hang in there with the reader. Marx is a bit cryptic sometimes, but remember that some of us like the professor-speak :lol:

    Marx wrote the Manifesto for a particular segment of the proletariat, but couldn't write a position that spoke to them effectively without Engels. Engels was a less important thinker, but I'm guessing you will learn Marx's language and gain important insight into Marx by continuing to read Engels.

    For what my opinion is worth... :)

    Leave a comment:


  • Theocrat
    replied
    Re: Hillary Clinton

    Originally posted by Doc
    Originally posted by Theocrat
    I want a free and open kind of (ad hoc) socialism, not a giant bureaucratic prison.
    Which is the classic Marxian problem: How do you have socialism without the "dictatorship of the proletariat?"

    Bureaucracy scares me almost as much as rampant capitalism.
    Well historically (Not talking dialectics here) dictatorships where a common thing during marx's life time. I have a Marx - Engels reader i'm trying to go through, but marx is so cryptic when he writes. Strictly professor talk etc. Engels is better to read. He goes a little more easy.
    I wonder how the proletariat during Marx's time could ever be thought to understand what Marx's was trying to say? I mean that education was really lacking for workers in those days.. Right?

    *Socialism. Zmosialism.* if you ask me. But I think liberals (especially Neo) assume too much when they see 'society' work, and argue that "it's socialism this!", "and socialism that!". Like tax.
    Failing also to see that the state 'has' to work like a macro-economic stabilizer for capitalism, and I mean serious capitalism, to even work.

    "Sustainable development with neoliberal economic policies"?

    *Tchaa*.. That to me is like taking a shit standing on your head!
    Oh Wait!? Maybe thats what they mean with "Trickle Down"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Re: Hillary Clinton

    Originally posted by Theocrat
    I want a free and open kind of (ad hoc) socialism, not a giant bureaucratic prison.
    Which is the classic Marxian problem: How do you have socialism without the "dictatorship of the proletariat?"

    Bureaucracy scares me almost as much as rampant capitalism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Theocrat
    replied
    Re: Hillary Clinton

    Originally posted by Doc
    Originally posted by Theocrat

    Well.. Thats one of the problems with party politics. But I understand why people need the parties to hold on to their political direction.
    It's a little bit mystifying to me. People are verywilling to adopt ideologies wholesale, even when some components are apalling to them. At least parlimentary systems have more choice than America's two party system. However, I also understand that having more choice often simply means more shepards for the sheep.
    Well.. I know a guy who worked for a Communist who runs his own business. Things where good for him at the beginning, then bad decisions and bad boss attitudes happened. He preaches about 'Communism', and really saw nothing wrong in Cuba while there on vacation. I'd rather trust the anarko-syndicalists view on that issue. I've started serveral rough arguments with him. Trying to take the Stalinist mindset, put in their by his parents, and shake it out of there!

    Problem with 'many' communists is that they really begin to have their head in the clouds about the "true society". Not really looking for the good and open society. Even though Marx screamed for a 'critical thinking'. Marx had his points about capitalism, and I think most of it is justified. But he becomes somewhat elusive on scarcity I believe.
    And doesn't really understand human failures like greed and laziness.

    Liberals have many flaws in their ideology, not to say conservatives as well. Liberalism suffers from exclusive behaviourlism. And Conservatives for not understanding others. That and the other two's habit of jumping on Fascist train rides.

    I want a free and open kind of (ad hoc) socialism, not a giant bureaucratic prison.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Re: Hillary Clinton

    Originally posted by Theocrat

    Well.. Thats one of the problems with party politics. But I understand why people need the parties to hold on to their political direction.
    It's a little bit mystifying to me. People are verywilling to adopt ideologies wholesale, even when some components are apalling to them. At least parlimentary systems have more choice than America's two party system. However, I also understand that having more choice often simply means more shepards for the sheep.

    Leave a comment:


  • Theocrat
    replied
    Re: Hillary Clinton

    Originally posted by Doc
    Originally posted by Theocrat
    It's just more of that "Ideas don't matter it's who you know" kinda thing.
    I might ammend that to include "ideas don't matter, but ideology does." And it's who you know.
    Well.. Thats one of the problems with party politics. But I understand why people need the parties to hold on to their political direction.

    There are problems with this in europe wholesale.

    I think maybe the old parties, or partysystems, are collapsing slowly.
    I just hope a Dicky Dictator doesn't come around the bend.
    What seems to be happening is more 'Groupism', both in europe and in the US (Heck! even the world). When people are disappointed with the ability of the state to follow along the lines of its people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Re: Hillary Clinton

    Originally posted by Theocrat
    It's just more of that "Ideas don't matter it's who you know" kinda thing.
    I might ammend that to include "ideas don't matter, but ideology does." And it's who you know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Theocrat
    replied
    Re: Hillary Clinton

    [quote="lemec"]I recently heard alot of talk about Hillary Clinton, alot more that usual.
    [quote]

    More of this 'dynastic democracy' going on's in the US government.
    Aren't americans getting a wee bit tired of this?

    It's just more of that "Ideas don't matter it's who you know" kinda thing.
    Maybe they'll pull the feminist card with Hillary.

    Cheers!

    Leave a comment:


  • Pietro_Mercurios
    replied
    The fact that General Motors (I once worked for the UK branch, by the by), is now calling on its pensioners to make sacrifices (contribute towards health care costs that their GM pensions were already supposed to cover, as if they were still earning incomes like their still employed compatriots), shows just how close to breaking the US health care system really is.

    And Ford look set to follow their lead:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4355936.stm

    Ford aims to copy GM's union deal
    BBC News Online: 19 October 2005

    Ford has confirmed that it expects to follow General Motors' (GM) lead and sign a similar deal with unions to reduce its retiree healthcare costs.

    GM said on Monday that it had secured an initial deal with the United Auto Workers, America's main carworkers' labour organisation.

    "We expect comparable changes," Ford's chief operating officer Jim Padilla said from the Tokyo Motor Show.

    Chrysler has already said that it hopes to follow GM's move.

    Tough trading

    GM is aiming to cut its retiree healthcare costs by about $15bn (آ£9bn).

    Mr Padilla also admitted to reporters that the car market remained "very difficult" in the US because of high petrol prices and reduced consumer spending.

    However, he said he expected conditions to improve towards the end of the year and into 2006.

    The big three US carmakers - GM, Ford and Chrysler - have long sought to reduce their expensive healthcare obligations in the face of tough trading conditions.

    As each has seen sales hit by increased competition from Japanese rivals and reduced consumer spending, their generous healthcare costs have been seen as an extra financial burden.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elphaba
    replied
    Originally posted by Doc
    The irony about health care is how right the Clinton's were. It is likely to be a Republican issue soon, as health insurance costs are choking corporations. It will be interesting to see the health insurance lobby fighting other corporations.
    The tragedy about health care is that Republicans will deal with the problem by making it possible for companies to get away with tossing out health insurance (as opposed to pressuring the insurance companies to lower their ridiculous profit margins so that insurance is affordable).

    Leave a comment:


  • A_Non_Ymous
    replied
    When it comes to moral backbone, McCain is virtually an invertebrate. A very expediently (which is to say "opportunistically") moral individual. The idolatry attached to his person is a remarkable achievement of pure spin. I think of him as playing an inept Pompeius Magnus to Bush & Cheney's hedgehoggish Cato.

    The situation with public health care in the U.S. is a public disgrace. Those who have stood in its way -- rather than tried to find a way to make it work -- have a great deal to answer for.

    LSN

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Two things-

    If John K was a flip-flopper, what does that make John M? How do you capture rolling over in a slogan?

    The irony about health care is how right the Clinton's were. It is likely to be a Republican issue soon, as health insurance costs are choking corporations. It will be interesting to see the health insurance lobby fighting other corporations.

    Leave a comment:


  • A_Non_Ymous
    replied
    It was almost certainly a factor, on the basis of things I've seen.

    LSN

    Leave a comment:


  • Pietro_Mercurios
    replied
    Originally posted by L_Stearns_Newburg
    A pity Hillary Clinton didn't succeed with her push for national health care. That was the Clintons' biggest failure in office. The insurance industry did a good job of mobilizing money and disinformation against the effort. The congressional voting record against the effort tells a lot about who was in the pay of whom.

    The interesting Senator Frist gained his seat in the Senate due (at least in part) to this situation.

    LSN
    There's a theory that the Clintons' push for Health Care reform was the one of the main reasons why the Republican Corporate Machine was mobilized so effectively to steamroller the First Couple.

    By any means necessary.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X