What is Hillary Clinton's Relationship to The Establishment

[Jack V Savage]

I don't think "establishment" is used as universally as you think.
As used here, "establishment politician" usually refers to the political establishment of the relevant party (ie they've risen through the usual paths to political power and represent the usual interests within those groups. Unions. Factions such as Labor Unity or the Socialist Left etc).
There's no doubt that Hilary is an establishment Democrat (both Clintons really, the Clintons are a smiley, shiny, political machine), just look at her history and position.
You could say Trump for instance isn't an establishment politician (in that his political power/ambition is entirely through his personal fame and wealth), and we have equivalents here (Bob Katter, Clive Palmer).
You couldn't really call Trump "anti-establishment" though, because in the broader sense of "The Establishment" being the political and social elite, he is a part of it and in favour of entrenching that via policy.
That said, I don't think I'd call Hilary "anti-establishment" under any definition.
From what I've seen of her positions, she's moderately progressive, but not challenging to the establishment itself (whether you're talking about the democratic political establishment, or the broader social establishment) in a way that could be called "anti".

Yes, I've said that in the sense of "Democratic Establishment" clearly that fits Clinton (though "pro-establishment" doesn't really make sense in that context). And the argument isn't whether she's part of the establishment; it's whether she's "pro-establishment." I'd say that support for increased taxes on capital, increased progressivity in the tax system, increased worker protections, etc. are all "anti-establishment." Not a radical, though.

 

[skombolis]

I don't think there is any way these days to run for the highest office without being establishment. You need to much backing financially and politically. Look how much power two people, the Koch brothers, have in the shot-calling process. They (anyone in either party running for POTUS) may be allowed some pet projects but for the most part, they will not be going against the grain.

 

[Ruprecht]

Yes, I've said that in the sense of "Democratic Establishment" clearly that fits Clinton (though "pro-establishment" doesn't really make sense in that context). And the argument isn't whether she's part of the establishment; it's whether she's "pro-establishment." I'd say that support for increased taxes on capital, increased progressivity in the tax system, increased worker protections, etc. are all "anti-establishment." Not a radical, though.

Yeah, I can see how you're defining her positions (especially in regards to the polarisation of wealth) as "anti-establishment", but I just wouldn't use the term that way.
If you're just focusing on policies and their effect like that, you could make the same argument for Otto Von Bismark and his introduction of the welfare state (although of course he was explicit about his goal being just the opposite).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

lol



lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state

For fun I looked at your link.

Withering away of the state is a concept of Marxism, coined by Friedrich Engels, and referring to the idea that, with realization of the ideals of Socialism, the social institution of a state will eventually become obsolete and disappear, as the society will be able to govern itself without the state and its coercive enforcement of the law.

Looks like they want a bunch of government until there is none (somehow). Where's the example of communism shedding the state altogether? How about the notion that if everyone owns something that means nobody does, which ultimately leaves everything under the power of the ruling class.

Oh, this is total bullshit. But as a general rule, if someone badly mischaracterizes your position, would you say that you are obligated to prove that their claim is incorrect or have it assumed that it is? I submit that you don't apply that generally, but shift your principles to support your emotional alignment.

Your not making sense. Here's what I said.

Wouldn't it be easier for you to point to the part where you acknowledged the government as being part of the establishment?

Go ahead and tell us how this is me wanting you to prove a negative. The only bullshit is coming from you.

Well, now you know. And surely, if the word meant anything at all to you, you knew that they want to completely destroy The Establishment.

Communists want more government (via socialism). It's right there in the link.

Nope. Here's what you said:

"Hilary doesn't address gun fears by saying it's out of the hands of the federal government as prescribed by the founding document, which would be an anti-establishment position. Her solution would involve more government, and that's pro-establishment."

So you first say what she doesn't do ("address gun fears" by making a statement in support of current law). Then you add that that statement in favor of the existing law would be "anti-establishment," somehow. Then you jump to her (unspecified) position, which you think involves "more gov't," which you claim is pro-establishment. Maybe you just did a bad job of expressing yourself, but that sounds like a complete load as written.

What's confusing you? Her position is for more gun regulation in spite of it being expressly forbidden in the Constitution. Instead of letting everyone decide self-defense as it best suits them Hilary would rather a small group of elites narrow your choices to their own satisfaction. It moves the power from the individual to the state.

If you think I said that, that makes one of us. It is much easier for a big business to influence a local or state gov't than it is to influence the federal gov't. Would you at least concede that? That Madison kind of had a point there?

In some ways sure. That's hardly all there is to the matter. But if you think so that's cool.

 

[Ruprecht]

Another confusion of terms... this time it seems to be "Pro-Establishment" and "Statist".

Then again, communism wasn't essentially a statist ideology, and only big "C" Communists in a socialist state could be considered Pro-Establishment in regards to their own state.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

lol



lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state

Has there ever been a real life example of Communism that lived up to this ideal? If anything, and correct me if I'm wrong, all real life Communist societies have been almost entirely controlled by the State.

 

[IDL]

Looks like they want a bunch of government until there is none (somehow). Where's the example of communism shedding the state altogether? How about the notion that if everyone owns something that means nobody does, which ultimately leaves everything under the power of the ruling class.

haha yeah somehow growing state power is anti-establishment.

If you think they will let it all go once they are done consolidating well..

 

[Denter]

Has there ever been a real life example of Communism that lived up to this ideal? If anything, and correct me if I'm wrong, all real life Communist societies have been almost entirely controlled by the State.

Temporary dictatorship of the proletariat. True communism has never been tried.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

haha yeah somehow growing state power is anti-establishment.

If you think they will let it all go once they are done consolidating well..

After lifting the Cuban embargo I suspect it'll be any time now. Just need that Castro dude to kick the bucket. :wink:

 

[Ruprecht]

Has there ever been a real life example of Communism that lived up to this ideal? If anything, and correct me if I'm wrong, all real life Communist societies have been almost entirely controlled by the State.

There's never been a Socialist State that's "withered" into anarcho-communism, but there's been anarcho-communist communities.

Kinda beside the point though, which is that a revolutionary ideology such as communism, calling for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, is about as "anti-establishment" as it gets.
Right along with the guillotine...

 

[IDL]

There's never been a Socialist State that's "withered" into anarcho-communism, but there's been anarcho-communist communities.

Kinda beside the point though, which is that a revolutionary ideology such as communism, calling for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, is about as "anti-establishment" as it gets.
Right along with the guillotine...

Unless it is funded and nurtured by the people that plan to establish an authoritarian regime and they just need the proles to shake things up for them.

Then it gets a little confusing, and is a matter of perspective.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Kinda beside the point though, which is that a revolutionary ideology such as communism, calling for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, is about as "anti-establishment" as it gets.
Right along with the guillotine...

Seems like a lateral move at best. The next communist I meet who gives a shit what anybody else thinks will be the first. Usually the people into those ideas (from my experience) are elitists who think they need to come in and rescue us all with their rules. Worst case scenario is it entrenches a monolithic establishment by getting rid of the competition. :icon_lol:

 

[Ruprecht]

Unless it is funded and nurtured by the people that plan to establish an authoritarian regime and they just need to proles to shake things up for them.

Then it gets a little confusing.

Not really. Even if a revolution forms a new "Establishment", up until that point it's still very much anti-establishment. Otherwise you're limiting "anti-establishment" to anarchism (of which communism is a variety).
...and I think it's still a confusion of terms with statism.

 

[IDL]

Seems like a lateral move at best. The next communist I meet who gives a shit what anybody else thinks will be the first. Usually the people into those ideas (from my experience) are elitists who think they need to come in and rescue us all with their rules. Worst case scenario is it entrenches a monolithic establishment by getting rid of the competition. :icon_lol:

But even if that is the case, they could still be viewed as anti-establishment given the context. Anti the current establishment, anyways.

Even if someone wanted to replace a democracy with a tyranny, from ground level, they could be viewed as anti-establishment.

It's always a matter of perspective really.

 

[carlos cadona]

Has there ever been a real life example of Communism that lived up to this ideal? If anything, and correct me if I'm wrong, all real life Communist societies have been almost entirely controlled by the State.

The closest anyone ever got before governments came in and destroy them were these two examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

 

[IDL]

Not really. Even if a revolution forms a new "Establishment", up until that point it's still very much anti-establishment. Otherwise you're limiting "anti-establishment" to anarchism (of which communism is a variety).
...and I think it's still a confusion of terms with statism.

Yes unless the same establishment is fueling the revolution. It all depends on who the establishment is and who is behind the revolution. It could in theory ultimately be the same money behind both. Would be a clever way of grabbing more power.

But I know what you mean.

 

[Ruprecht]

Seems like a lateral move at best. The next communist I meet who gives a shit what anybody else thinks will be the first. Usually the people into those ideas (from my experience) are elitists who think they need to come in and rescue us all with their rules. Worst case scenario is it entrenches a monolithic establishment by getting rid of the competition. :icon_lol:

Funnily enough, the only people I could say that I've met really still living in a communist society, were tribal villagers in Papua New Guinea. Still practicing their gift economy.
Which is about the exact opposite of your description...

 

[Denter]

Not really. Even if a revolution forms a new "Establishment", up until that point it's still very much anti-establishment. Otherwise you're limiting "anti-establishment" to anarchism (of which communism is a variety).
...and I think it's still a confusion of terms with statism.

I think we all (Jack included) agree that anarchism is the ultimate in anti-establishment ideologies.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, I can see how you're defining her positions (especially in regards to the polarisation of wealth) as "anti-establishment", but I just wouldn't use the term that way.
If you're just focusing on policies and their effect like that, you could make the same argument for Otto Von Bismark and his introduction of the welfare state (although of course he was explicit about his goal being just the opposite).

Fair enough. I think it's a relative thing. There are no radicals running for president, but there are different degrees of "anti-establishmentness."

And interesting point about Bismark. People had similar arguments about FDR, with the "pro-establishment" side noting that he saved capitalism.

Your not making sense. Here's what I said.

Go ahead and tell us how this is me wanting you to prove a negative. The only bullshit is coming from you.

Wrong. He suggested something that wasn't even close to anything I said. I called him on it, and he demanded that I prove that I never said it. I said it doesn't work like that, and asked him to provide evidence for his claim.

Communists want more government (via socialism). It's right there in the link.

Socialism isn't "more gov't" than capitalism. It's different gov't. And some communists think that you can use the state to bring about its own end while others don't. All think that communism will have either no state or a minimal one.

What's confusing you? Her position is for more gun regulation in spite of it being expressly forbidden in the Constitution.

Lots packed into here. Um, wouldn't that be "anti-establishment" by your retarded definition, then? Further, you didn't earlier say anything about what her position is. I'll I've seen from her is a vague assertion that we need to take on the Gun Lobby (which, FYI, is certainly part of the establishment as the biggest lobbying group there is). Also, this express forbidding of gun regulations is where in the Constitution? Or do you not know what "expressly" means?

I think we all (Jack included) agree that anarchism is the ultimate in anti-establishment ideologies.

I definitely do agree with that.

Funnily enough, the only people I could say that I've met really still living in a communist society, were tribal villagers in Papua New Guinea. Still practicing their gift economy.
Which is about the exact opposite of your description...

What's going on beneath the surface here is that right-wingers have a self-image of themselves as being "anti-establishment" that is threatened by a more serious examination.

You can be a square or you can be a hippie, but you can't be both, guys.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

But even if that is the case, they could still be viewed as anti-establishment given the context. Anti the current establishment, anyways.

Even if someone wanted to replace a democracy with a tyranny, from ground level, they could be viewed as anti-establishment.

It's always a matter of perspective really.

I don't consider anti-status quo to be the same as anti-establishment. If you want to say people have more choices and options with communism then I'm listening. Otherwise it just sounds like even more heavy-handed establishment than I'm already accustomed to.

Funnily enough, the only people I could say that I've met really still living in a communist society, were tribal villagers in Papua New Guinea. Still practicing their gift economy.
Which is about the exact opposite of your description...

I'm certain your travels have revealed the world more correctly than mine and that keeping everyone poor is the best way to stick it to the man. :icon_chee