Hacker News Reader

Comment by hindsightbias | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

In what way is Hillary Clinton a Marxist? That seems like a pretty outlandish statement directed towards someone with so much money and power

You’re not aware of Hillary as Saul Alinsky’s disciple? It was a right wing staple for the entire campaign.

(Upvoted on the assumption that you're trying to educate people about the right's tactics rather than actually advancing this position - unfortunately a lot of people genuinely believe this, even upthread, so it's hard to tell from short comments.)

((And meanwhile, Alinsky's playbook did actually work wonders for the Tea Party.))

It’s been quite educating in the last few years how many in the techworld who consider themselves “left”, “moderate” or “libertarian” are completely unaware of their “opponents” memes.

The opposite of course is true, but I thought “we” were supposed to be more curious...

Hillary Clinton is a Marxist in the "I never read Marx and have no idea what Marxism is, but I'll slap the label on everything I don't like" sense.

See also: The GOP is apparently communist, now.

> Yet Hillary and Bernie are Marxists today.

Huh? Not even a little bit. Neither one has quoted a single like of Marx, ever. Bernie identifies as a democratic socialist, which aint Marxist. The conflation is misinformed as hell.

I think hindsight's point is that they are perceived as such do their support for certain policies that benefit all US persons, not just employed white people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis

What more does a moderate need to know?

> In 1969, $(person) wrote a 92-page senior thesis ...

A real moderate would be immediately suspicious, regardless of political stance, of any claim that a thesis paper written 50 years ago was somehow relevant to the same person's current political position.

Besides, I thought colleges were supposed to be a bastion of free ideas where people could say controversial opinions?

What’s a real moderate? An on-purpose one or an accidental one?

My take on PG’s point is that the vast majority of moderates are on-purpose, and those people are not going to be curious.

An accidental one isn’t going to be a real moderate, except occasionally. Otherwise they’d be on-purpose.

Perhaps they might want to know what argument you are trying to make? It is not immediately clear from the link you posted. In what way does that thesis have anything to do with Marxism. If anything, it shows Hillary as a "work within the system" standard centrist liberal. Perhaps I am missing something?

Do you have a point or just a pointless link?

EDIT: Being associated with someone who at one point worked with communists 50 years ago makes you a modern day Marxist? Do these words mean anything to people anymore?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com