What kind of books should young people who might be tricked into voting for a socialist president read?

He is definitely not pro-borders what the fuck are you talking about??

If he's pro-borders I will legit become a Berniebro Zealot

Attached: 068.png (635x457, 376K)

No, the middle class would have to pay virtually the same as they do now; true, the public tax rate would be increased, but the private tax (insurance companies) would be abolished. It's the big corporations and the rich who would be taxed a lot.

Attached: Capture.png (743x597, 45K)

bernie has admitted several times that under his administration the middle class would pay more taxes. He always couches it in saying "but you'll pay less on average for healthcare" but he freely admits his plan to raise taxes on the middle class.

Is there any more ridiculous posture than the one this poster is assuming?

youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

observer.com/2019/06/bernie-sanders-says-he-would-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class-during-democratic-debate/
vox.com/2019/8/2/20751074/middle-class-taxes-medicare-sanders-warren-debate
>We can’t fund the progressive agenda by taxing the 1% alone
npr.org/2019/06/30/737495980/on-the-trail-with-bernie-sanders
>During a podcast interview with NPR on Monday, Sanders said taxes could rise by $10,000 for American families.

dunno why you wouldn't believe the man himself

If Bernie won in this economy and political climate congress would be intransigent even with a dem supermajority. I honestly hope a recession kicks in before 2020

>“Yes, they will pay more in taxes, but less in health care than what they pay now,” said the 2020 hopeful during the second night of Democratic debates.
That's what I just said.

I find it so crazy that Bernie Sanders is on Joe Rogans gay little podcast. Imagine having Trump on there. We live strange times.

Wait so you're telling me that Bernie Sanders is pro-removal of the ~50 million illegal immigrants in the US and construction of serious border enforcement? Fucking based, where do I sign up for the Sanders Socialist Safety Squads?

You forgot

>fuck white people, give reparations, give everything to oppressed minorities
>incoherent jewish murmuring

I’m beginning to come around to Rogan, if only because the televised debates were so farcical

Interesting post. Care to drop me your email?

[email protected]

iirc he's not really much of a gun grabber either

Sent ;)

Vision of the Anointed. - If you're only going to read one book, let it be that.
Economic Facts and Fallacies
Basic Economics
Discrimination and Disparities
The Problem with Socialism
How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, from the Pilgrims to the Present
Myth of the Robber Barons
Antitrust: The Case for Repeal

Bernie's definitely not a socialist since notting he's putting forth would in anyway lead to socialism... that's not to say that if he was elected that every CEO to alphabet soup government agency wouldn't through a total hissy fit and try to sabotage everything.

Making these sorts of commitments is nonsensical. Taxation rates have to change when other macrovariables necessitate it or you get trouble. If there's enough slack you can decrease taxes or increase spending but if real unemployment ever clears you're going to have to start getting money out of the economy or face problematic levels of inflation.

Pretty much all those works are by wacko ideologues. Thomas Sowell is a monetarist which has actually been proven empirically wrong so obviously during the last 10 years. Donald Trump is doing a great job sticking the final nail in the bleeding hearth of free traders.

not that guy, but doesnt his idea require that he gets pretty much everything he wants? just like obamacare - yeah we got

>wacko ideologues
I don't trust anyone who calls somebody else an ideologue. It doesn't really mean anything but it has a negative connotation so it's used rhetorically by people without anything interesting to say. Thomas Sowell can be completely wrong in one area but that doesn't he's wrong in every area. None of the books have anything to do with monetarism.

He pretty much conceded after a bunch of neoliberals attacked him for being a xenophobe.

When you're citing works from such learned scholarly think tanks as the Mises Institute and the Foundation for Economic Education... well it's pretty safe to say you're a libertarian ideologue. Austrotards aren't monetarists but are equally quick to start whooping about the hyperinflation which is always just about to break out and why we can't afford to do anything but can afford not to since doing not totally has like no costs.

Read up on post Keynesian economics.

It's shocking how Americans are so cucked that they believe someone as tame as Sanders is a socialist.

It's funny how AnCaps will always jump to the defense of monetarism too.

Attached: IMG_20190623_121254.png (500x822, 772K)

I don't Bernie has or he's still framing things financially in a very conventional manner just for political purposes.

But you guys pay so much money to israel and they have social healthcare?

Bernie is not only facing the republicans, but also the great majority of his very own party and all the big donors. Just like the UK, it's a choice between a senile socialist and right wing ''populist'' kleptocrats with zionist links. Netanyahu is banking on the israelisation of american and european politics. The far left and the far right are social clubs and erzats religion for atomised autists, sexual deviants and potential active shooters

I would invite any would-be US socialist-leaning voter to open any /pol/ thread concerning an e-celeb or camwhore.

I think you'll locate all the evidence needed to convince you to vote as far left as possible this cycle. I can't respect the political philosophy of people so wasteful with their time and money. Like, really? You bunch of beta orbiters are going to lead us? You just wired a confused young man in panties 20 bucks to lick a dragon dildo!

All this from the anti-degeneracy movement. God I wish our reporters were journalists, but then they wouldn't have their villain.

Naw, I trust the commies way more, especially the one's demonstrating just how superfluous is the bulk of the wacky system!

Sure it's binary af, but fuck it.

Attached: 1553298635174.jpg (800x434, 82K)

Das Kapital for actual Socialism. Various #woke altright rekt yaaas twitter accounts for what you are describing.

>Americans think that Bernie Sanders is literally Stalin
I honestly try hard not to shit on you people but God damn

Attached: f434d196-ce95-405a-b880-813e9acc008e.jpg (354x486, 28K)

>You just wired a confused young man in panties 20 bucks to lick a dragon dildo!

Remember a time when weird internet shit was confined to the internet and shamed?

Citation needed

>Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox’s Dylan Matthews declared that his “fear of immigrant labor is ugly—and wrongheaded.” The president of FWD.us accused Sanders of “the sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.”

>Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016, FWD.us’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.”

How long is Zizek going to be alive for and do we have anyone to replace him with?

how is socialism going to fix our crumbling cities?

>close borders
>fix opiate epidemic
>fund blue collar small businesses
>get more people into trades

Zizek will probably live at least another 5 years. The only replacement could have been Fisher but the lad offed himself. Jodi Dean is in her 40s or 50s I think and is pretty similar to zizek as far as theory but she isn't as charismatic

>make college free, strengthen unions, cancel student debt
who the fuck gonna paid for that? the evil corporations?
>raise the minimum wage
lol?
>enforce borders so workers don't have to compete with non-natives
So another DRUMFP?

I wish next April's fool joke would be to ban all burgers from this site for a day, and just keep going with it when everyone sees how good things have become.

>fucking ANY of that
>sensible
You fucking deluded moron. Just because you took out massive student loans and didn't take your education seriously and are now stuck in debt like a fucking loser doesn't mean everyone wants to be taken down to your level.

did you forget where you are? literally 5 feet away from /pol/ who thinks everyone is against the 'master race" and they're so superior

okay what level of analysis is acceptable to you?

>stopping the endless wars is not sensible
>enforcing borders is not sensible
But these are also right-wing talking points. Who's side are you on?

> increasing military spending, which was already more than the 7 next countries combined, by an amount that exceeds the total military spending of some countries; passing massive tax cuts for the rich; and sending money to Greatest Ally
A-OKAY!
> anything that benefits actual Americans, or god forbid those disgusting brown roaches that happen to live in America
C-can't afford that!

The wars exist because there's money to be obtained in them, and stopping globalism is a fundamentally anti-capitalist position. If someone in another country is willing to do the labor for 1/3rd of the price, there is no financial incentive for not giving the labor to them.

>Who's side are you on?
No one's. Fuck the arbitrary "left" and "right"

where's this pic from? Is this what he's proposing?

>tricked
>actually talks about issues voters care about like trump
get fucked warren/shillary fag

>No one's. Fuck the arbitrary "left" and "right"
You must be at least 18 to post here.

rich people dont have jobs you can tax you fucking mongoloid

I'm 28. The real posting requirement should be to have an IQ of 130+, we'd see all you anti-capitalist retards disappear from this site in a fucking heartbeat.

Attached: bg5d-square-400.jpg (400x400, 19K)

1) Corporations have taxes
2) Rich people pay capital gains on their investments. Currently the rate is lower than most people pay on their income and could stand to be much higher.

> radical market fundamentalist fanatic writes a propaganda piece
> titles it "basic economics"
What a disgustingly dishonest title

>Corporations have taxes

Attached: 8BD1424E6E9B47458F1807225F127B36.jpg (931x1024, 210K)

You clearly have not read it.

>corporations
which purposely run deficits which they write off on taxes
>capital gains
>rich fags make money off of their 401ks
>delusional poorfag thinks he knows anything about economic reform

Bernie is against the idea of reparations you fucking spastic

Capital

>y-you just haven't read it!
You know it's true.

Attached: Libertarian.jpg (954x658, 89K)

He wants to put a tiny tax on stock trading or whatever it's called. Said it would pay for free college and more.

youre excluding that whole area of reality where (((corporations))) start financing policy changes to hinder anyone else but them from participating and to line their own pockets while degrading the services they provide

I don't disagree in your distinction as to his economic view, but to say that this book holds no merit in terms as an introduction to basic economics, you must have not read it. It is a very viable introduction to basic economics. The subtitle of "citizen's guide to the economy" is highly accurate.

>policy changes to hinder anyone else but them from participating
Can you provide an example of this?

technically you could restructure the tax code nickle and dime the economy and cut taxes and people only notice the increase in prices

>being this fucking retarded he doesnt notice the myriad of laws trying to be passed that make it less and less possible to be a job creator

His market fundamentalist views are there because the whole book is aimed at promoting these views. You can't combine dispassionate instruction and proselyting. If the latter is present, then the former inevitably serves to promote the latter. You wouldn't recommend a book titled "basic economics" if the writer dedicated a significant portion of it to marxist critique of capitalism, right?

So you don't have any concrete examples?

Stop worrying about the president and start worrying about yourself. Can you honestly say you have advanced self-knowledge? Are you aware of all your subconscious, conscious, and even contradictory beliefs, desires, tendencies, history, and behavior? Politics is pro wrestling for midwits. Master your own mind.

Yes Go...er... I mean boy! You live in a vacuum! The environment in which you live does not matter at all! It's all in your head dude! Buy my self help book!

Please don't even cite Basic Economics. I read the book and the whole time he was praising corporations and deregulation. He's against anti trust, minimum wage, protectionism, regulation, price control, rent control, central banking, any public ownership of industries, unions, stimulus, parity prices, and building codes.

Attached: 1565024661339.jpg (271x186, 11K)

Just out of curiosity, were the practices that moved jobs from the Rust Belt to China and Mexico just from the boot-licker's viewpoint?

>inb4 automation
Okay, fine, same idea, just metal robots instead of flesh-and-blood i.e. third-world labor

I mean, I know this all saved a shitload of money that profited, well, surely someone, but those cities had real institutions that can no longer survive.

So is it in a society's best interest to save material cost by destroying cultural and scientific progress?

Attached: 1552189038119.jpg (419x559, 28K)

Is there, or has there ever been, a truly successful political movement that was economically left and socially right?

Attached: 1544947130558.jpg (480x405, 21K)

That doesn't really make sense. Historically, the guardians of social norms (mostly the Church) was deeply intertwined with secular authorities. The two support each other. Going against social conservatives is the same - or at least used to be - as going against the ruling elites and their interests.

You do realize you ultimately pay less even with a tax increase because you don't have to pay premiums or deductibles

So you're saying a socialist nation necessarily can not harbor a population that is truly socially conservative (religious, low porn consumption, modest, et al)?

b-b-but then I have to pay taxes to teh gubbihmaynt1! gubbihment bad! Foxy man say gubbiment bad! bad!

3rd party here,

I'm not seeing the benefit of being socially right. Seems like a step in the wrong direction, and unsustainable.

Attached: 196567876.jpg (320x421, 26K)

The closest any have ever come is the Basques in Spain, the Baathists in Syria, Gadaffi in Libya, Nasser in Egypt, and the Falangists

lol great pic

Policy changes that would result in an increase to the price of overhead is an obvious one.

There are "Old Left" parties still out there mostly in eastern europe which are basically just commies who're homophobic and anti-immigration

There's no reason why it can't in the abstract. I reality however, most countries that I'm aware of have religious institutions that support the status quo. A socialist revolution would require attacking religious beliefs as well. Take America for example. The religious elements in America are firmly on the right. They can't be ignored.

There's no reason why socialists can't dress modestly and not watch porn, but religion will likely not be a feature in any situation that I know of. Maybe in the future when Christianity fades to obscurity in the West, a socialist revolt can be backed by a religious revival that emphasizes the more radical elements when it comes to wealth - something something rich folks can't into heaven and whatnot.

I already don't pay premiums or deductibles.

>a socialist revolt can be backed by a religious revival that emphasizes the more radical elements when it comes to wealth - something something rich folks can't into heaven and whatnot.
Religion is always supposed to be radical user. It's about helping build a kingdom of heaven, after all.

>130+ IQ
>Being pro-capitalism
oof yikes and all that stuff
Unless you're just a sociopath who thinks money is the ultimate value, which is a requisite for being a libertarian.

That's what I'm talking about. Based.

And there have always been religious zealots who were radicals politically as well. However, if we look at European history we can see that religion plays a much more prominent role in supporting secular institutions like the monarchy, and later on, Capitalism.

> “Actually existing liberalism,” as Michéa calls it, rests on the illusion that a meaningful distinction can be drawn between economic liberalism, on the one hand, and political and cultural liberalism, on the other. Limitless growth is the necessary corollary to endless self-realization. By the same token, free markets only truly thrive in societies based on cultural and political liberalism. “Capital accumulation (or ‘growth’),” Michéa writes, “would not be able to go on for long if it constantly had to accommodate religious austerity, the cult of family values, indifference to fashion, or the patriotic ideal.” It follows that “a ‘right-wing economy’ cannot function in a lasting way without a ‘left-wing culture.’”

dissentmagazine.org/article/frances-anti-liberal-left

Money is power and power is the ultimate value. Capitalism supports the powerful when not contaminated by anti-capitalist dogmatists. Calling that sociopathy is a cope.

130+ is the realm of capitalists
110-125 is the midwit commie range

>You wouldn't recommend a book titled "basic economics" if the writer dedicated a significant portion of it to marxist critique of capitalism, right?
If his analyses were accurate and he actually took the time to illustrate economic fundamentals, yes. Sowell actually gives credit to Marx for both of these, in contrast to the characteristics of his 20th century intellectual following. But, I don't think it's really fair to compare a communist view of the economy to an actual modern economist's view of the economy. One is moreso a political theorist, while the other can deal with real world applicability of his profession. If we were discussing the Soviet economy, a marxist economist might be of more merit for a "citizen's guide." You should give Basic Economics a read. Sowell really does mostly touch on applicable concepts, and doesn't assign frameworks like globalism or neoconservatism or whatever to his writing. It's quite easy to consume, and he is, at the very least, articulate in his illustration of this view of the world.

>power is the ultimate value
>Not sociopathic
What else can I call that stance?

100-110 is the range for libertarianism - ancapism
110-125 is the range for midwit commie and neoliberal faggots
130+ is the realm of third positionists

>save material cost
>implying chink made shit is as good

> make college free
Holy shit, at least be honest. It’s not fucking free. Colleges are corporations and if they’re are guaranteed payment, then there is no incentive to drop prices.
Also, I’m not going to pay more taxes because of Amerifats penchant for calorie packed fatty treats.
I already pay well over 25k a year in taxes and this bum wants me to pay more — the torpid geriatric fuck couldn’t even pay his own employees $15 hourly.

>What else can I call that stance?
Realistic and honest.

libertarians have the highest iq of any political demographic, which is hilarious because it's the least effective movement ever. I think Marxists are second

this was a study done in american universities I think so it cant be extrapolated beyond that context.

I've beat so many internet Libertarians in arguments. I have a very hard time believing that they have the highest IQs of any group.

Attached: 1565322312890.jpg (680x503, 64K)

>if they’re are guaranteed payment, then there is no incentive to drop prices.
just to be perfectly clear, the reason college is currently so expensive is exactly this.

Once the government made it impossible to declare bankruptcy on college loans, they became the safest possible loans to give. Banks could give huge sums of money to teenagers with zero credit history and be guaranteed either a return on their loan or a debt slave.

Colleges and universities notice the fact that students could get six figure loans suddenly and raised their prices accordingly.
The problem is too much government intervention, not too little.

Same with healthcare. Insurance is segregated by state and competition is strangled because of government intervention.

We all know when someone says "free" they mean "free of charge for the consumer". Now Shut up and pay your taxes you stupid wannabe boomer.

I'd rather people had higher values than "fuck over the other guy"

When was this done? Tbh I think most of us have had a phase of libertarianism, mostly because it's the safe and polite way of dissension from the mainstream, and in a way it can even be coupled with conservatism (classic liberalism) to oppose progressivism, pretending that society is craycray purely because "muh cultural marxism".

It's probably mostly because they're a smaller group. garden variety repubs and dems have all the normal people which dumbs them down a lot. You have to have read a couple books to be libertarian usually, the same holds for marxists, except that marxism functions as a kind of subculture that attracts people who have never cracked open Capital. Libertarianism is way less cool, so it's mostly for people who are attracted to the ideas, which means they at least have some concept of ideas

Im not libertarian btw if you think this is me defending them

every cert law, every regulatory law imposed on R&D, non-commercial real estate zoning and licensing, firms pushing their own business models into law

>I'd rather people had higher values than "fuck over the other guy"
so did adam smith

>You have to have read a couple books to be libertarian usually
That's true, but they usually don't go beyond Mises or Rothbard.

>I'd rather people had higher values than "fuck over the other guy"
That's the problem with you neo-Christian idiots. You think that by recognizing power as the ultimate value that I see value in fucking over random people all the time. That's not how it works and you're projecting your own insecurities onto me.

It doesn't matter what socioeconimical factor we would incorporate into civilisation, in the end, one way or another, the depleting unsustainable resources & agriculture (as well as the increasing demands of the population,) is going to inevitably doom us all.

Attached: Survive the economic collapse.jpg (907x1360, 79K)

libertarianism is appealing to some people because of the impulse of 'leave me the fuck alone'. It is also an economic thesis that appeals to a lot of very smart people, but runs into serious problems when it relates to political power structures.

middle class fags are worthless scrub cattle who deserved to be milked of their "hard" earned money

Yeah I agree.

>You think that by recognizing power as the ultimate value that I see value in fucking over random people all the time
How does one not derive from the other?

Yeah this is true too, ultimately we're discussing different ways of organizing our societies under an industrial paradigm that doesn't have that much longer.

hes a faggot fudd, that may as well be grabbing

>How does one not derive from the other?
Does a kind person do that? But a kind person unconsciously values power above all else too. They're psychologically configured to experience the height of their power through acts of kindness. Power is the ultimate value for everyone, which is what makes capitalism realistic.

>runs into serious problems when it relates to political power structures.
>redcoats still this spooked

Hell yeah user!

Attached: Clap.jpg (480x360, 9K)

Any American history book. Hell, a fucking pamphlet that advocates a left of centre pro-worker slant would probably turn any honest person into a Bern bro.

Tbh I don't quite understand how you define power. Do you mean that power is the ability to do that which fulfills you, and in that case capitalism is the system most conducive to this, or am I reading wrong here?

>be fascist
>talking to "right wing" American friend
>"OK, so we should serve and honour our nation"
>"I agree"
>"So let's have social welfare systems like the fascists and Nazis practically invented, like guaranteed healthcare and an education, to ensure no citizens get 'left behind'"
>"NO!!! That's SOCIALISM! TRUE fascists are libertarian Reaganites who want entrepreneurs to use the free market to invent things and compete, and they can only do that with low taxes!"

Jews and tax-dodging corporations literally own the fucking country

Attached: 1552673585233.gif (720x404, 1.78M)

What middle class? I only know people that make minimum wage or doctors/lawyers/business people who make more than 6 figures.

Are there people that really make 80k a year? Is that really a large portion of America? I don’t remember anyone having a decent paying wage cuck job since I was a kid in the 90s.

It's amazing how Americans are too mentally deranged even for a Fascist.

I know this might seem counterintuitive to you but if you are genuinely a fascist why not do what you can to get American social democrats like Bernie elected? Yes on social issues he obviously is antithetical to what you want but if he was able to establish
>Medicare for all
>free college
>A renunciation of global trade deals like NAFTA and TPP
>A reduction in interventionism and military spending
As a new baseline for ALL politicians then you could fight to normalize and institutionalize your social views later. For instance in Finland the most right wing party in a long time came very close to outright winning the election and will be a real challenge to the establishment social democrats and they were able to do it not only by promising not to touch the welfare state but even expand some of its programs. Also Bernie himself is pretty meh on Israel but many of the newly elected Democratic house and the majority ofvthe Democratic base are noe very anti-zionist so it probably wouldn't be difficult to pit pressure on Bernie to decouple Amrerican and Israeli interests, which would significantly weaken Israel

>Tbh I don't quite understand how you define power.
It's Machiavellian. Read about his virtù and how it differs from virtue. What you suggested is pretty close.

Calling something a basic human right is a meaningless statement.

Ah I see, Even worse desu

Thanks user, I'll check it out. I only read The Prince and that was many years ago.
I'd say that I agree with Kaczynski that an industrial system, and especially a capitalistic one (or any system centered on materialism), makes life more unfulfilling, but I'm going to bed so I won't argue the point.

>who makes 80 grand
literally everyone who "keeps the lights on"
6 figures is middle class
low skill tradesmen make 50 starting to low 6 figures later
high skill tradesmen make 6 figures unless its a retarded skill
electricians, natural gas/oil, sys admins, long shoreman, senior transportation/shipping, infrastructure maintenence workers

umm Yea Forums is a right wing board sweaty.

What a stupid thing to say. The notion of deservedness and morality are important parts of politics, especially in America. Saying that something is a right rather than a privilege is an important rhetorical tool because it sets the stakes for the political fight and shows the politician's resolve. For example, right-wingers wouldn't say "An x% tax reduction is a HUMAN RIGHT!" but they would say that gun ownership is a right guaranteed by muh constitution because the former is a run-of-the-mill political plan of theirs while the latter is something that is absolutely critical to their ideology. Same with this. Democrats usually promise to throw Americans a bone with healthcare but now progressives are proclaiming that making America into a civilised country is something that is integral to what they want to Democratic party to be.

>deservedness and morality are important parts of politics
They are absolutely meaningless in proving whether those policies associated with them will benefit the public. Those sentiments are often counterproductive, even, to the end goal of benefitting society. To align oneself with one prevailing vision of the world, one risks denying factual evidence that might risk contradicting that vision, or choosing to ignore history that would show the proven effects of specific policy decisions associated with that vision. Ethical decision making should never allow oneself to be manipulated by emotionally agreeable rhetoric, as is solely the intent of describing anything as a fundamental human right. It is a incredibly meaningless statement, and is borderline misleading.

>6 figures is middle class

Attached: 1564033669227.png (1500x1500, 1.24M)

before taxes, yeah
adjusting for standard of living, no, depends on the area

> he thinks that presidential politics, and even presidential elections are about putting forward a set of policies for the public to examine rationally based on their merit as determined by empirical evidence
I can't even call this outdated because I don't think anyone ever actually believed this

Attached: Rusalka_smug_Laugh.jpg (1920x1080, 492K)

It really depends on where you live

Attached: 5b08bebd3ec4a3538b4e65647347064f65e302771b560c92efcf0675fcd383fe_1~01.jpg (426x388, 22K)

>free

Attached: 55152E9B-2C8D-45E4-A310-CD373C79B9D9.jpg (768x1024, 50K)

SHHHHHHHHH, stop telling coastal fags about areas that dont fucking suck

>implying the average voter has more than 5 neurons firing at any given moment

Oh hi mark

Attached: Fixedthatforu.jpg (931x1024, 298K)

Attached: 436351._UY432_SS432___01.jpg (284x432, 52K)

>Stop the wars
Democrats venerate the military industrial complex. It is the true God of American politics. Some 30c of every tax dollar goes into that monstrosity.
>stop the corporate hegemony
If only the president could wave a wand ant remove the influence of corporate power from American politics. It's not even within the president's power to repeal Citizen's United.

> stop the for-profit insurance companies charging for healthcare
Good. But replace it with what? Hopes and dreams?
>make college free
Once again, there is no magic wand. Such a radical transition would break quite a few systems and lead to unintended consequences.
>raise the minimum wage
Inflation and devaluation of skilled labor
> strengthen unions
Unions are another kind of beauracacy and that's it. Trust me I know first hand how shitty it can be to be collectivized by a union and to have no autonomy as a laborer.
>cancel student debt
Full on canceling debt has serious financial repercussions. Some kind of compromise must be reached. Erase the interest perhaps and leave on the principal.
>, enforce borders so workers don't have to compete with non-natives
As if Sanders actually supports this
> invest in low-income areas,
With what money after everything else has been paid for?

More people need to read Michéa, I suggest Yea Forums to read the realm of the lesser evil, it might do some good to some of the smug idiots here that pretend they aren't liberals

Make trade/vocational school free, no sense in investing in someone's gender studies degree.

Attached: 99.jpg (262x262, 10K)

>Michael Bakunin

>HR and news edutainment lobby starts slandering you

>like the fascists and Nazis practically invented
Those were invented by Bismarck to stop the nascent labor movement in Germany from revolting and establishing something between a co-operative market economy and the corporatist arbitrated collective bargaining system Germany has today.

pls no

>Tbh I think most of us have had a phase of libertarianism
I never stopped being a libertarian. I just managed to develop a sense of empathy and realized that "leave the the fuck alone" takes more than replacing the government with private firms. The word means something entirely different outside our perverse American political discourse.

Attached: Libertarianism-groups-diagram.png (647x647, 36K)

He's a democratic socialist you dingdong. Stop letting the wealthy cuck you and realise that the Europeans are onto something with their free education, free healthcare, and stoping people from shooting up the place every 5 minutes.

Attached: images (4).jpg (220x326, 12K)

>implying gender studies can't be valid and informed by science

large welfare state and facilitated collective bargaining =/= worker-owned means of production
He's not a socialist and neither are the very capitalist states in Europe people always point to as scions of socialism. They're corporatist economies where unions or some other form of worker representation is, rather than being systemically suppressed by a government owned by corporate interests like ours, forced to work with the companies to decide benefits and wages, and together petition the government for socially-beneficial uses of tax revenue that both reduce inequality and keep the firms competitive. In a certain sense their economies are more capitalistic than ours are. They're certainly more pro-entrepreneur.

Socialism is just a form of firm ownership. There are many American co-ops and otherwise worker-owned companies. Publix is socialist. Aldi is capitalist.

>this thread
>Americans

Attached: 1564465471448.png (388x422, 192K)

>He's not a socialist
I know. That why I said he's a democratic socialist. That's what he literally identifies as.

>MAGA
>Against protectionism and pro-unionism is now somehow equivalent with the exact neoconservatives that Trump originally tried to usurp.

I would say at this point you're right in assessing Trump as just a globalist neoconservative, but he wasn't when MAGA actually meant something during his campaign (even if he didn't actually believe in the rhetoric he was espousing himself).

Maybe perhaps you should actually read some third positionist writings before you lump them in with Neoconservatives because fascists are directly opposed to modern "conservatives" as they exist primarily as a controlled source of opposition to the real workers politik of Fascism.

He calls himself a democratic socialist, yet all his policies are social democratic. To be honest left wing political terminology is a fucking mess, "socialism" doesn't mean shit any more

He's not a democratic socialist. Democratic socialism is as anticapitalist as any other form of socialism. He's a social democrat and until he starts advocating nationalization or worker buyouts or something he's also a liar.

It's only in the US and mostly just for the past forty or fifty years or so. Anybody old enough to remember when Abbie Hoffman was cool knows what socialism means. Bernie Sanders is old enough to remember when Abbie Hoffman was cool. He's a charlatan.

I mean, I understand. Democratic Socialism sounds more punchy than social democracy. It inspires fear in boomers and fervour in young potential radicals without being actually radical.
And don't get me wrong, as an outsider looking in, he and his wing of the party seem like the only politicians with a chance of getting elected that could make America less objectively terrible.

>He calls himself a democratic socialist, yet all his policies are social democratic.
You're right. Democratic socialism is too far left for my tastes but I'd consider voting for him due to his policies. I'd probably go with Yang however as he's pro-capitalism while also trying to alleviate inequality through a UBI.

A UBI is a way more radical redistribution of wealth than free college and single-payer healthcare. Sanders is just as pro-capitalist as Yang though. Both parties reflect a neoliberal consensus. Vote as you like but don't forget red and blue are really just two factions of the same party.

arent random (((NGOs))) that are coming out every year from koch to soros more influential than any shitty corporation trolling for tax havens and subsidizing?

>neo liberal who wants to deliver hand outs
>too far left
nigger, then where do you think actual commies and tankies are? past the international dateline and on the right?

>A UBI is a way more radical redistribution of wealth than free college and single-payer healthcare.
I agree, but I believe Bernie is what he says he is which is far more radical than a UBI.

FEEL THE BERN!

Attached: 1486448314680.jpg (479x461, 91K)

If you really genuinely believe that guy believes in workers seizing the means of production I have a bridge to sell you.

the constitution

A retarded propaganda document they made up ad-hoc to justify their petty revolt over smuggling and tax evasion? How would that help?

>Stop the wars
Yes, always a good idea.
>stop the corporate hegemony
Bribes posing as lobbying should be removed, is that's what this means.
>stop the for-profit insurance companies charging for healthcare
I agree with universal healthcare but not to his extreme. I think the best system is a two tier system of public and private.
>make college free
His focus should be on why college is so expensive in the first place, not just subsidising it. We have no free college in Australia and our system works just fine.
>raise the minimum wage
I don't understand why the minimum wage needs to be increased. 15 years old kids working at McDonald's shouldn't be expected to afford their own place. Minimum wage jobs are not for adults.
>strengthen unions
Are they strong already?
>cancel student debt
Horrible idea, you're going to make millions of people pay for wacky millennial's bad life decisions of useless degrees.
>enforce borders so workers don't have to compete with non-natives,
I doubt he is pro-border control, but if he is, then good on him.
>invest in low-income areas, etc.
Always a good idea to bring people out of poverty, I just hope he knows how to do it, it's not like we haven't been trying to no avail for God know how long.

You will be raped and then murdered by AMERICAN MILITARY PERSONNEL WITHIN YOUR LIFETIME AND YOU DONT CARE

Attached: 0A7B51BF-5811-4D7D-A633-4D1ED2BB9BFF.jpg (746x718, 214K)

Don’t worry “reactionary” fucktards like this are the first to be ennobled in any just regime.

Really hope yr not a chink user

Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Hoppe are the best ones though.

Attached: 15111300.jpg (1200x800, 165K)

>be OP
>stand for the status quo and not change or improve anything ever because muh socialism muh vuvuzuela

tossing the (((tea))) into the ove- I mean river

>change
>guy advocating policy that already exists in other countries

>He's not a socialist,
Didn't he have a USSR flag in his office and take frequent trips to the USSR?

I can only hope the lot of you grow up to realize how little you know. The Progressives on here are the equivalent of YouTube atheists trying to debate the bible. The confidence and knowledge levels are out of whack and you're saying a lot of dumb things. You can't get better until you admit you don't know what you're talking about.

You know you haven't read any books on economics, so stop playing.

>Conceding != Hiding power level from sjws

Not him but he has talked about worker ownership/workers coop. He did a talk where he introduced Noam Chomsky. You don't think he might just be hiding his actual socialist beliefs?

How do Right-Wingers do it? How can they so confidently parrot Republican talking points about how Liberals are just igonrant when they themselves are typically the least educated Americans, and it's shown consistently that academics, journalists and social scientists are almost always firmly on the Left?

>minimum wage
>protectionism
>price control
>rent control
>stimulus
>parity prices
These are always trash, their only purpose is to do the bidding of some group of people to get their votes while fucking everyone else.

>anti trust
>any public ownership of industries
>unions
>regulation
>building codes
>central banking
These can be helpful but they often go too far and become detrimental. Unions are the number one example here.

Most ironic post of the day

>Bribes posing as lobbying should be removed, is that's what this means.
Lobbying isn't the only way corporations have control over our lives.
>I don't understand why the minimum wage needs to be increased. 15 years old kids working at McDonald's shouldn't be expected to afford their own place. Minimum wage jobs are not for adults.
Something like 90% of the minimum wage workers are over 20.
>Are they strong already?
No they aren't.
>I doubt he is pro-border control, but if he is, then good on him.
He is.

Yea Forums is not the general population. 85 IQ rural white republicans don't post here. Neither do 85 IQ inner city black democrats.

I love it how rightoids only stop to seethe at how everyone's a leftist and "muh bias" when they decide to ignore how most of anyone who knows anything about politics is either a Leftist or is getting filthy rich from whatever shady shit they do.

We have 30% tax here in Sweden. Bernie is going to benefit you, your family and friends while republicans will keep fucking you

You americucks really like to cry about Bernie wanting basic human decency in your systems, literally only american conservatives see this as s bad thing.

Have sex.

This is actually pretty based. Might even give my vote to him

30% tax plus 25% VAT plus everything else you haven't enumerated. It's high. I live in Denmark and benefit from the welfare system. I'm also willing to admit that it's why we have nearly zero economic growth despite being a talented population and investing tons in education.

weedy pencil pushing apparatchiks lean left, what a revelation

No we don't, stop lying. Literally hurting your own cause.

Cope

>stop the wars
The wars are necessary to promote democracy

>corporate hegemony
No such thing

>for-profit insurance companies
They're rational actors, you can't stop them from profit-maximizing and trying to do so will be inefficient

>make college free
Regressive and inefficient

>raising the minimum wage
A universal high minimum wage is untenable and inefficient, would create disemployment

>strengthen unions
Unions and in particular public sector unions are cancerous. better would be to reform unions to a German-Japanese cooperative model

>cancel student debt
Untenable, pointless, expensive, setting an awful precedent

>enforce borders
Lol fuck people who aren't born here, right?

>invest in low-income areas
This one is okay but he'd fuck it up somehow

You suck, he sucks. I'm a social democrat. Bernie is just a dumb old post-war economic illiterate

>when they themselves are typically the least educated Americans
This is, in fact, false.
The vast swarm of uneducated minorities are a force for the democrats.

Just because universities and jewish lobbies are currently circle jerking "who can be the most culturally marxist" doesn't mean the educated whites of America have yet been so indoctrinated.

Enjoy paying for all those migrant's housing and healthcare, Sweden.
Bernie doesn't benefit me, he benefits the wellfare state. Bernie doesn't care about me, and neither does any one else. So I vote for whoever better allows me to look after myself. Ideally the libertarian party, but yeah, that's not happening any time soon.
>make college free
>raise the minimum wage
With a wave of a magic wand no doubt
>enforce borders
Good luck lol

If you keep hearing people tell you that you don't know what you're talking about, consider that it just might be true. It's not a Republican talking point to encourage people to humble themselves and actually study the subject they're talking about. There's a lot of very stupid mistakes and hot takes and I think it's annoying because I actually put the work in and I'm not afraid to admit when I don't know something. It's difficult to actually talk about economics online because there's so much noise from people who don't know what they're about.

Can you bait harder retard

Literally everything I said is correct. I guarantee i'm far better read on all of those topics than you. lick my asshole

I don't take the bait. I am experienced user.

How could anyone be a capitalist in 2019?

>forgive all student loans
>give healthcare to illegal immigrants
>minimum wage where it makes no sense
nice basic human decency

Holy mother of cope
That makes sense on an individual level but the """person""" I was responding to was clearly referring to progressives as a whole.

This thread is filled with progressives who don't even know what the hell socialism is, yet insist on talking about it as if they know. What are you putting person in quotes for? That's such a weird cunty thing to do.

Because that person is likely a right-wing lunatic of the variety we see on /pol/ and it's best not to think of these as fully human.

lol yeah, very sensible and practical

I'm the guy you were talking to and I've given you no reason to think I'm a crazed lunatic. You on the other hand, have. I can't even talk to you because quite literally insane. You're seeing things that aren't there.

Attached: EvolaQuote1 .png (840x741, 583K)

Do you know anything about democratic socialism? It means literally taking control of the means of production. That's far more radical than a UBI. A UBI isn't necessarily on the left although I can see why you'd think that. Many on the right are also in favour of it.

That's now how he defines democratic socialism though?

>Feels>reals
wew

bump

Half of this is Trump's program the other half is nonsense (sure lets raide the minimum wage again! Not enought smaller business have closed last time! I fuvking love corporations~!)
>he...He's a social democrat!!!
Both words should be a warning.

Social Democracy is a fool’s errand, reformism dressed up as a ‘revolution’ will only disappoint everyone

lol, terrible bait.

Reading this thread is like listening to a couple bums talking politics at a bus stop. A bunch of ill defined concepts jumbling around your heads.

Look at TurboTax lobbying to keep the filing process more complicated than it needs to be.

Aside from one interview he did with Ezra Klein in 2016 that he got endlessly bullied for by neoliberal progressives for, what evidence do you have that Bernie is actually any more pro strong borders than Schumer was in 2009 when Democrats at least pretended to represent the interests of Americans?

Have you considered that you live in a fucking bubble of self reinforcement and masturbation? It's a right-wing lunatic position to tell you to be more honest about how little you know about these topics? Get a fucking grip man. You're the reason these stupid "Libtard barbequed alive with FACTS and LOGIC" videos on YouTube continue to convince people. It's not because Ben Shapiro or Crowder actually have anything interesting or worthwhile to say but they at the very least put in a little bit more work than you, which appears to be nothing aside from Facebook links for extremely online 'radicals' and circle jerking podcasts.

>Reals is measuring the quality of society by GDP per capita and nothing else

Hey man, enjoy San Francisco where you pay 5000 a month for a 400 sq ft studio with homeless heroin addicts shitting out front of your lobby. I'm sure the GDP was worth living in this hellscape you've created, it's not like you're ever planning on having children or investing into the future in any meaningful way anyways.

>Thinking the gubmint can fix any of your problems

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's funny because America is actually right now in a moment of growing protectionism with tariffs going up and up but prices not budging much... where's all the inflation the doom mongers predicted? Now that the professional pants pisser are afraid Trump is politicizing the Fed surly we'll see it... right?
Besides rent control not typically ever being the right approach to issues you've always got different approaches... minimum wage isn't necessary when government can just purchase any excess capacity the private sector won't employ and leaves idle and if you pay to little you won't get markets clearing since it's not worth working.
The entire notion of a free trade, low waged economy is coming more into contention so that whole dumb paradigm might end up collapsing.

You only need high taxes if you need to get lots of money out of the economy and that's only really necessary if your working at full capacity which isn't anywhere near being the state in any advanced economy today. Sales taxes are regressive and detrimental to welfare, there's generally no need to encourage people to hoard cash under their beds or increase your bank reserves instead of just buying goods. Banks can always make loans out of thin air when opportunities arise. That's not to say it's not always an open question if lowing taxes won't just increase private rents. That might be ok or you could just tax wealth and land and such to achieve policy objectives. Also maybe your population just aren't as talented as you believe, you can "educate" a bunch of yes men that know arithmetic without any ambition which is just a sign you're doing things totally wrong.

LMAO maybe I'll just emigrate from America and get that sweet sweet Swedish welfare. If I pay less tax than I end up using that makes me a winner right?

I have recently learned that the """American Right""" is basically just Capitalism, there is nothing approaching the old figures of Europe's Right.

>Kuehnelt-Leddihn
patrician taste user

Socialism presupposes the abolition of the government and state.

>democratic socialist
>is in almost no way a socialist
American politics is bizarre.

Attached: 1504227263907.jpg (905x881, 266K)

Ya they're bad but not as worse as European "Socialists" who tend to support "fiscal discipline" and artificial institutional restraints designed and managed by "experts" from prestigious academic institutions. America has more potential in the long run I'd say since they're economically less constrained when they want to be.

Attached: euro.jpg (680x383, 43K)

It's impossible to talk economics on this board. I've tried in multiple conversations to define socialism in terms of how goods are distributed and without fail they object to me not uttering the phrase "seizing the means of production" even though I essentially say the same thing. I think this is because they don't actually know what they're talking about and they're just parroting what they hear from the media or Youtube.

>It's impossible to talk economics on this board
It's almost like this is a literature board.

Libertarians left and right are both stupid.

It's philosophy too which economics is a part of. In either case it's not unreasonable to expect people to have read something about the topics they choose to talk about on a literature board. At the very least we can expect people to make an effort to understand the words other people say and I don't even see that much because they're so confident in knowing what they don't.

>everyone must be poor and lacks prospects like me, r-right?

>it's not unreasonable to expect people to have read something about the topics they choose to talk about on a literature board.
Tbh. But economics, similar to philosophy has such a wide range of literature surrounding it that it's almost impossible to be completely filled in. I say this as someone studying for a masters in finance so I've done my reading around the subject.

I do see far too many people though who have only read Marx and/or Adam Smith and think 'job done, I'm an economist now'. The Dunning-Kruger effect is at its worst in discussion of economics on the internet.

Attached: aae9c6d52e156b68b35b1793616e825ae568c36074d7bb3f7407ddb553e1e152.gif (500x370, 1.87M)

Socialism can't be capitalism unless you don't care about definitions. Historically socialism has meant worker ownership of the means of production. No private property is what distinguishes something from being socialist and something from being capitalist. Raising taxes on the rich to fund social programs in a capitalist system is still capitalism. It's social democracy.

>I'd rather people had higher values than "fuck over the other guy"
>Tbh I think most of us have had a phase of libertarianism

Attached: 1563804275034.jpg (454x520, 48K)

My thoughts exactly. The Democratic socialist/social democrat whatever argument fundamentally amounts to 'this is better for the economy' in which case, capitalism wins. If the policy proposals aren't better for the economy, then capitalism has also won by disproving its opponent. Essentially 'I will make capitalism work or I will die trying'. It's Mark Fisher's capitalist realism in action.

Good read.
Highly recommend.

Attached: Why Socialism Works.jpg (1200x797, 94K)

can you flip to the citations?

Based and mildly redpilled

It can, if the entire current apparatus is thrown out and rebuilt. Good luck waging your private war against Coca-Cola tho.

America was founded by literal libtards who resented the old order of Europe, it's to be expected. American politics is deciding if you want the 1999 libtard or the 2019 libtard.

It's really not