I vote we elect both Bernie and Trump as dual-presidents...

I vote we elect both Bernie and Trump as dual-presidents. Their polarized socialist and fascist ideals will balance out into perfect capitalistic leadership.

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/sites/default/files/Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth_Vol_2_3.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

That is literally the stupidest idea I have ever heard. Sage

What would actually happen:
>Trump gives Bernie the chance to do all policy decisions since it's quite obvious that Trump never anticipated getting this far.
>When Trump actually has an opinion on something, Bernie won't give way.

Literally just a less effective Bernie presidency.
Just electing either candidate is better than this.

You do realize that fascism is a left leaning type of government you fucking idiot. Bernie is more of a facsist then Trump is.

same fagging with immediate fail flame

this is why b is dead

bernie is a line towing bitch. until he denounces hilary he has proven his ineptitude

fascism is a conservative, industrial revolution

A shitty definition.
Fascism is corporatist socialism with some authoritarian policies.

How is fascism conservative in any way shape or form. Conservative in its absolute simplest form is less government.

...

>perfect capitalistic leadership

Capitalism's constant need for growth is self-defeating in a world with finite resources. Furthermore, increased automation in the coming decades is going to guarantee that the industrialized world will have to move away from a ~40 hour work week.

Whether you love capitalism or hate it, it's a simple matter of fact that we're going to have to transition into another economic structure.

That isn't what conservative means at all.

As if communism is any better. Besides in a capitalist economy products never stop improving because of capitalisms focus on competition. Eventually we are going to discover new resources and even how to synthesize resources that are in low quantity in the coming years.

Not if you live in the United States. "Conservative" here means that you hate freedom, want to impose your sadistic version of morality on everyone who isn't you, hate that people like things you don't like, and totally ignore facts and reality.

>perfect
>capitalist

Liberals want more government control and for the government to have your back. Conservatives want the government to stay out of their lives as much as possible. That's what I meant to say before

Top kek. bernfags still believe there's hope for Sanders

Hahahahahahaha, no, just no. We already have a major issue with resource management and it's only been getting worse and worse. There's not going to be a magic solution to it, no new resources out of thin air, it'll only worsen until it spawns a new world war... Or we move towards an economic system based on sustainability.

You're wrong too hommie. A fascist political party uses the media to take control of the people. The term isn't a liberal or conservative matter. Trump is a fascist, no matter how he leans.

>corporatist socialism

You should learn what words mean before attempting to use them.

I agree that we need to work on managing resources. We are lower on fuel than anybody cares to admit. A good short term solution to this is allowing fracking in the US. Which for some reason people are triggered by.

funny how i posted this as completely obvious bait but you all are biting like crazy.

You can't get one without the other. By definition they might be different, but in practice they come as a set. Rip Europe

Dubs = truth

The evil white conservative male is leaving the thread continue with you echo chamber

>this is why b is dead
Newfags like you who post autistic threads are why Sup Forums is a terrible board

I really don't think it's as simple as that.

ITT: retards who don't understand fascism and who think either bernie or trump are remotely fascist

smdh

No it fucking isn't. People just throw the term "Fascism" around so much that they forget what it means.

Maybe you people that read too much Marx should realize that the ideology has fractured.

It's almost as if time stopped moving for you in the 1920s

This x1000

Marx is great for understanding economy, but his own ideas are bad. Then people use his bad ideas as a strawman to ridicule his valid criticism of capitalism.

No, no, no. Socialism is a fundamentally different mode of production than capitalism. It isn't capitalism where the state takes the place of the private capitalist. There is no wage labor, private ownership of capital, or profit-driven market exchange in socialism. It is a democratic economic system, as different from capitalism as capitalism's political democracy is different from feudalism.

Europe is not socialist. At all. If capitalism exists, socialism does not exist.

>Maybe you people that read too much Marx should realize that the ideology has fractured.
>It's almost as if time stopped moving for you in the 1920s

Socialism is not a religion of Marx. That's like saying people who study physics read too much Newton and are stuck in the 1680s. You're mistaking the foundation for the evolving school of thought.

>Marx is great for understanding economy, but his own ideas are bad.

Such as?

...

@696156279
>trying this hard for a (You)
sorry but nah

The whole idea of requiring a (violent) revolution in order to change things is not up to date anymore. With the help of the internet, people can get together and start their own projects.

You dont fight capitalism by fighting it, you just stop taking part, step by step.

Another thing is his image of man and the philosophy behind it, which is not something that can possibly be discussed on a public board without being called an esoteric nutjob, but in a way, marx is fighting fire with fire.

You do realize that two different economies can exist at the same time right. The Soviet Union and the US existed at the same time. And we all saw who ended up winning that economic battle. Stop trying to "replace the current economic system" America has been the flagship for modern capitalism for the past century and the US has had more innovations and breakthroughs than any other country in recent history.

>first man in space

>The Soviet Union and the US existed at the same time.

that is because both had central banks owned by juice, just a seemingly different way of handling fiscal policies, though everything boils down to one form of corruption or another, as it always has been.

The whole idea of society being always divided into two classes, it was barely correct in the past and in modern societies it doesn't fit at all, shit's pluralist as fuck yo
All his ideas were just thought experiements and not based upon any kind of empirical data

thinking bernie is a socialist, kill yourself

So stop working and demand government money. Sounds like a daring revolution to replace the evil capitalist system. Or an excuse for retards who have never worked a day of work in their life to sit on there asses

I don't agree here. In a sense, Marx simply divided the people into those who have power, and those who dont. It's an arbitrary distinction but it is a binary one that can be applied to any and every society that has any form of hierarchy. Sure, it's simplifying things and leaves out some factors you could say, but the idea is that (economic-) power is the lowest denominator and a good one to go by.

So you are claiming that the US and the Soviet Union were the same thing.

Sure, kid.

>It's an arbitrary distinction but it is a binary one that can be applied to any and every society that has any form of hierarchy
Not really true in our modern society. You now mostly have middleclass as the most important classes, and even in that one you have lots of distinction. You have self-employed people, you have small companies with few emplyees, you have freelance work, you also have giant corporations, you have pretty much everything now.
In the past it might have been true, yes. In slave-based societies you have the masters and the slaves, in feudal societies you have the peasants and the nobility (and some merchants, which puts once again a dent in the system)

>Decent political discussion on Sup Forums
Huh, I need to stop by here at 6 am more often

See, we're talking about two systems here, capitalism and communism, and I said that the solution lies elsewhere, on a whole different level, yet you're trying to argue with it by applying all the premises of capitalism.

You wont find any proper solution if you dont question the fundamental premises of our economy.

A typical example that comes up is basic income. People rightfully say that basic income doesnt work in a capitalist system, and I agree because they're somewhat mutually exclusive in a practical sense. The whole point is though, that basic income would create, and require, a new system altogether, at which point the premises of capitalism dont apply anymore.

>The whole idea of requiring a (violent) revolution in order to change things is not up to date anymore.

What a bizarre claim. You stop taking part? Sounds like a juvenile anarchism that doesn't understand our social, economic, and material conditions.

Obviously I meant that one society is not a mix of socialism and capitalism just because it has welfare programs. Social democracy is fundamentally capitalist in its substructure. Adding transfer payments to the mix does not actually alter its power structure, as one can see in examining the evolution of the United States from New Deal to proto-inverted totalitarianism.

But actually, I tend to believe that socialism and capitalism cannot even exist in the same world. Wherever socialism exists, the capitalist ruling class of every nation will be compelled to attack it as surely as the monarchies of Europe saw 18th century bourgeois revolutions as a threat.

The specific details will of course differ depending on the current circumstances, but analysis of society in terms of class conflict remains an invaluable tool in understanding how to resolve systemic social problems and achieve progress. Lack of awareness of class conflict leads to silly conclusions like the idea that government self-generates corruption out of nothing.

>I don't know that capitalism encourages recycling and minimizing waste by definition
>or that socialism and communism don't
>and that both of these phenomena have been borne out in the real world.

It does hardly matter in what class you are, because everyone who doesn't have a bank license is technically on the receiving end of the bumfuck.

The whole point of Marx is the aspect of power, which is often ignored in currently taught economics.

>A typical example that comes up is basic income. People rightfully say that basic income doesnt work in a capitalist system, and I agree because they're somewhat mutually exclusive in a practical sense. The whole point is though, that basic income would create, and require, a new system altogether, at which point the premises of capitalism dont apply anymore.

Ok, but unless you're actually going to confront the power structure of capitalism, this wishy-washy thinking will have no better effect than traditional social democracy and welfare capitalism. Your basic income will simply be a welfare program for which you will use the state to compel the capitalist elite to pay. From the moment you implement this program, they will be working to subvert your political system to undermine and undo your basic income. If you don't have the courage to confront capitalism head-on instead of praying it will just go away, you will fail just as the New Deal failed. And at that point you will have lost everything - if we have not destroyed capitalism before the automation revolution, the people will be utterly lost.

>"Liberal" here means that you hate the Second Amendment, want to impose your sadistic version of gun control on everyone who isn't you, hate that people enjoy things you don't like, and totally ignore facts and reality.

I didn't argue against class-based role distinctions in general, just Marx's very simple version of it. Nowadays you have way more specialized categorization, generally based upon a mix of economic and social status

What is wrong with how people are paid. It is true that the very rich circle jerk and make shit loads of cash, but the fact that you get paid for the work you do is the only way to get people to peruse more challenging and important careers

Try to abstract both systems and see on what level they meet. Wouldn't you agree that in both systems, the corporations or persons with the most money would have the most power? The whole political apparatus doesn't really matter, just like elections don't matter, because politicians can and will be bought. It doesn't matter for a big corporation if there is no state at all so they can freely fuck people over, or if they have a "strong" state where they first have to buy all politicians before they can fuck people over.

Of course there were some technical differences between the two, but you still had the same rules governing the money supply, which is the key point.

Yes, this is well-explained. And the most important point is that the economic power really is more fundamental than political power; that was Marx's key insight. The reason why capitalism plus political democracy failed to achieve anything like an egalitarian or free society is that it did not resolve the deeper economic conflict between the ruling class and the people, it merely changed its form.

The main reasoning behind basic income is not an economical one but a psychological, social one.

>any room to critique flaws in an economic system
>communist
Pick one

mises.org/sites/default/files/Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth_Vol_2_3.pdf

See also, Venezuela

People with the most money always have the most power and will always have the most power no matter what system that you throw seven prefixes on is in place. It happens in every economy. And will continue to happen in every economy

>What a bizarre claim. You stop taking part? Sounds like a juvenile anarchism that doesn't understand our social, economic, and material conditions.

Stop buying shit you don't need. Start making your own shit. Get together with friends and neighbors, form small communities of moneyless exchange. Of course there are obvious practical limits right now, but the more people do it, the easier it gets.

But again, the mindset is a big part of it.

That's actually a valid comparison. You know why? We specifically differentiate Newtonian Mechanics sometimes since they are outdated when describing some phenomena. Even Newton made mistakes in his work (especially potential energy) and he was corrected. Anyone actually using his definitions and not the improved ones WOULD be stuck in the 1600s.

Read Preussentum und Sozialismus (1919) for example. It presents the idea that true socialism is a form of corporatism. Unless Marx's writings ARE your socialist bible, you're going to have a hard time saying that socialism has no influence over Fascism.

That's precisely why it will fail. It ignores the reality of economic power in our society and instead relies on an idealist proposition that capitalism will die if we all just wish hard enough. It is vastly inferior to socialism in every way, despite intending to arrive at a similar end. The capitalist ruling class would rather burn down the world than relinquish power. You think you can take it away from them by asking them to pay a basic income to everyone? They'll have you on a starvation diet before you can blink.

Don't take what you have said as fact, there are a lot of other opinions and researches out there for you to find. However, what you just said is one of the most fundamental premises of capitalism, but as such, it is exclusive to capitalism and does not necessarily apply to other systems.

The key is to think about what the premises are.

This is actually true though, keynesianism is the only thing that could possibly save capitalism, and the ruling class would never let it happen under the guise of socialism. Socialist economics+the occasional racist comment to keep the people pitched against each other=perfect for maintaining order

I was talking about capitalism in that post. I wasn't talking about any other systems

But what if there is no money? How is "money" defined? what other types of money could there be? What is power?

These are the questions you have to ask if you want to break out of the usual capitalist-socialst argument loop.

What came first, the human or the economy? What you are doing is taking capitalism as natural law, which requires man to adapt to it. How about you go the other way and look at how humans work and then try to design an economy around it?

However, for that you will need psychology that you dont hear talked about in the mainstream.

yeah, I got that. What's your point? Don't really know what your post is supposed to tell me.

Money is just abstracted work and a tool for resource distribution
Unless we reach a stage where we no longer require work and have enough resources to give everyone exactly what he desires, which is kinda difficult since there's plenty one-of-a-kind resources like geographical locations, we'll always need some form of currency

There will always be currency. People will trade things that may not be printed paper bills but will have value. And the people that hold the most of this will have all the power.

Imagine you live in a desert village, and only three residents of this village have a sizable amount of water. Who do you think is going to be the ones with the power.

>Anyone actually using his definitions and not the improved ones WOULD be stuck in the 1600s.

And no socialists interested in more than hanging the Soviet flag on their wall actually do that. That was my point, and why I made the comparison to the evolution of physics (and Marx really was as revolutionary a figure to socialism as Newton was to physics - pre-Marx utopian socialism is considered as laughable as Aristotlean physics).

>Unless Marx's writings ARE your socialist bible, you're going to have a hard time saying that socialism has no influence over Fascism.

Fascism merely appropriated populist aspects of socialism to (in Germany, for example) win support from social democrats in roughly the same way that Trump's campaign is attempting to win over angry Sanders supporters. But this does not mean that Trump's ideas are the same as Sanders'. And the fact that fascism was influenced by socialist thought does not make it anything like socialism, which should be obvious simply by reflecting on the differences between the fascist total state and the socialist's goal of achieving emancipation of the people through economic democracy. In other words, I would say that it does not matter whether or not fascism has appropriated socialist jargon and superficial ideas about social welfare. It is completely beside the point.

I was asking what the problem is with the system we have n place now, regarding how people are paid for their work.

leninist spotted

Define facism and then tell me what about Trump is facist.
Really tired of these buzzwords.

>Unless we reach a stage where we no longer require work and have enough resources to give everyone exactly what he desires.

The most fundamental premise of the current economics, that one thing you will hear on the first day of every entry economics class, and I have, is the premise of scarcity.

On wikipedia, the definitions of economics ought to be something like "Economy is a system to determine the most efficient way of distributing scarce goods".

Basically, what youre asking for is to have a system that's fundamentally based on scarcity achieve abundance.

Maybe try googling "economy of abundance" for a change and see where that goes.

Please don't use fantasies to prove your points in economics, but use real world examples instead. Thank you
(ps desert nomads would probably share the water to avoid being lynched by their peers)

I really have no interest in choosing a tendency. Compared to how dangerous things are becoming, orthodoxy seems laughably unimportant compared to the need to compute the best trajectory towards revolutionary change in our mode of production and distribution.

>A fascist political party uses the media to take control of the people.

Holy fuck, that's supposed to be your definition? That applies to all parties that have ever existed rightwing, leftwing, democratic, fascist, authoriterian you name it ...fucking millenials, I swear.

Pretty much, yes
I don't understand your point though, no bully

>that one thing you will hear on the first day of every entry economics class, and I have, is the premise of scarcity

Which is extremely amusing when one considers the astronomical rate at which capitalism is presently burning through all available natural resources for extraordinarily wasteful purposes.

You Americans need to do this.

How the fuck does using a hypothetical falter my argument. Have you ever disproved something before? That's how you do that. You give a hypothetical and say why it wouldn't work. You are either incredibly stupid or str8 b8

Well, if youre talking about capitalism, then the point here is that you dont actually pay for work per se, but you pay for a good that is called work, which is entirely different. However, there are other systems out there which do actually generate the money not through private banks through credit, but through a publicly owned, local bank which only pays for labour itself and not goods.

Just saying that there are other, probably better systems out there.

We're fine as long as we get asteroid mining going and figure out a way to renew our drinking water and aquifiers

But economics is wrong and a lie so your point is moot.

You know what I meant calm down Mr. I took AP economics in high school

Oh, good. Well if we're insisting on staying the course and wishing for that, let's make sure there isn't a scarcity of cyanide capsules to hand out.

>And no socialists interested in more than hanging the Soviet flag on their wall actually do that. That was my point, and why I made the comparison to the evolution of physics (and Marx really was as revolutionary a figure to socialism as Newton was to physics - pre-Marx utopian socialism is considered as laughable as Aristotlean physics).
Then you do understand how your absolutist version of socialism is ridiculous?

> And the fact that fascism was influenced by socialist thought does not make it anything like socialism, which should be obvious simply by reflecting on the differences between the fascist total state and the socialist's goal of achieving emancipation of the people through economic democracy
Italian Fascism involved a corporatist political system in which the economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level. You're straight up ignoring reality here.

nah, neither one of them deserve to be president, sorry.

When I want to disprove/prove things about human behavior I look at real world examples of human behavior instead of making stuff up in my head.

>Then you do understand how your absolutist version of socialism is ridiculous?

No, that's not the same thing at all. My definition of socialism that excludes capitalism + welfare programs or social democracy is not absolutist at all. One can say "there are many types of apples" without saying "oranges are also apples".

>No, that's not the same thing at all. My definition of socialism that excludes capitalism + welfare programs or social democracy is not absolutist at all.
Then Fascism is actually socialist. Nice that we agree.

There's no way all of humanity gets it's shit together over a topic as delicate as that
Even if you could for example convince all the western nations to scale back their consumption, youd still have plenty of developing countries that have to achieve our status in the first place
So the only realistic conclusion is to dump lots of money into spacefaring

The point is that economy has no interest in achieving abundance. In other words it is, by design, not fixing real problems, and even further, it creates new problems so it can make money pretending it's fixing it.

But everyone goes along with it because theyve been told that it's for their best. Economy requires and creates scarcity while the public believes it's trying to achieve abundance but for some reason, which of course has nothing to with design, fails at it, accidentally.

see

Youve missed my point then.

No. That's why we have social experiments. They simulate real world human behavior. Hypotheticals are supposed to make you think and use reasoning to find the obvious solution for yourself. Something you are probably not capable of.

>Italian Fascism involved a corporatist political system in which the economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level. You're straight up ignoring reality here.

This. Old school fascism was, by the current definition of the word, socialist. This was because socialist economics are really good for the economy, no way people would've been that okay with totalitarianism if it didn't offer full employment+wage rises tied to rises in productivity

how has this not been posted

Seeing as how socialism is just a nicer sounding synonym for communism, it appears YOU don't know what you're talking about, not the rest of us.

>implying people haven't tried doing that hundreds of times over the years, from hippie communes to the Soviet Union
>also implying that they ALL haven't ended in poverty and disaster