What if Bernie Sanders was President of the United States, Jeremy Corbyn was Prime Minister of UK...

What if Bernie Sanders was President of the United States, Jeremy Corbyn was Prime Minister of UK, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon was President of France?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/TQoP9lko3uw
youtu.be/Y1ugvUqnUbo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Then Neoliberalism and imperialism would just continue, albeit with a human face.

Honestly, the most radical of the three is Mélenchon, and he's a left SocDem at best.

What policies would you implement as president then, that those 3 people aren't offering?

All three would be unable to enact any kind of significant change given the political climates in their respective countries. They'd probably be able to pull off a "I want to do all these good things, but my opponents won't let me" narrative and their countries would continue to shift left much as they are right now. Basically nothing much would change.

Best thing for socialism ATM is for western leaders to be an impediment to war and military intervention as much as possible. More Corbyns; less Bernies

This.

I would transfer the means of production to the workers and set out a 10 year plan that ends with basic Communism being established.

Franco-Anglo Nazbol Gang!

so exactly what Corbyn and Bernie are trying to do then, by funding cooperatives?

fuck you

that's not what I said
the guy I'm replying to said

Doesn't matter who is the head of the system. US Democratic system was created by rich white guys to assure that it serves the rich white guys. In contrast to other world leaders the American president is pretty much powerless. He can easily be exchanged by the Senate if he doesn't serve the interests of those rich white men who have their puppets (senators) represented as democratically elected officials.
Tl;dr nothing will change unless the rich fear the poor.

Leftist Anglo-French bloc that quickly spreads throughout Europe and North America before going worldwide

It could be the first step towards something that's 100 years too late

co-ops are communist tho tbh fam

Half of France just votes for whoever won the presidential election for the assembly, Melanchon totally could enact significant change. Even in the us and uk I think you lot are underestimating the value of the Bully Pulpit when actually leveraged instead of just sitting back and not defending anything let alone attacking.

...

they're gateway socialism fam, smh

you are correct, but its a hundred times better that standard social democracy

reproduction of capital is impersonal, co-ops are capitalist
you're like the socialists that celebrated joint stock companies 100 years ago

I'm gonna need a more convincing argument

They are the left wing of capital, they should go fuck themselves. Socdems and liberals are the worst enemies of the proletariat.

Co-ops literally don't change anything. Not even better working conditions. As people grow more alienated, the bourgeoisie will seek to make workers more responsible for their own exploitation, a facade of empowerment.

Social democracy is cancer in all its forms. The socdems that murdered Rosa were more left wing than most socdems today, yet they were always part of the reaction.

There was this fantastic quote by Dauvé about it, I'm sure one of the leftcoms knows it.

Go full Allende, but also defend workers' councils (those popped up in Allende's Chile, but he didn't work with them because they wanted to speed up socialization). That's the only acceptable use of power gained by parliamentary means, and you shouldn't be using parliament to gain it in the first place anyways - truth to be told, it's not even a case of should or should not because we do not need it at this point. We have all the coding tools right in front of us. As for which socdem would have a slight bit of merit, Melenchon at least supported workers' councils, but this is shooting himself in the foot anyways because of the position which he would be in as President. If they were to achieve the circumstances and dynamicity which would make them qualitatively the same as those historically advocated by leftcoms, the socdem would doubtless be the first to try to squash them.

This one? Haven't seen it be posted around here yet, but it's a good one.
I did post one about state ownership several times and one time used it to go further and also attack cooperative ownership, if that's what you mean.

Let's be honest. At least one of them would have been assassinated by now.

You mean you would try, and than congress or parliament would just say, "fuck off" and you'd be just like the other presidents/prime ministers

please stop there
goddamnit user

I'm gonna need you to pick two, tops.

He didn't say co-ops are communist.


co-ops are a useful tool to put more productive capital in the hands of the proletariat. The more capital is seized, the more can be communized when the time comes, with greater ease, also they can finance other revolutionary activities, which is extremely important. You can't have a press or guns or a strike or anything at all that is really going to shake the bourg without cash.

Co op networks should also be used to provide free community services and to purchase more co-ops and land outright.


how does the age of an idea have any relevance to its legitimacy?

Being able to democratically decide your wage and working conditions is definitely an improvement of working conditions.

Further, people who are used to working in a more communal, more democratic environment are practising community solidarity, in that way reversing the break down in community relations caused by capitalism.

Your theory might say co-ops do nothing but actually looking at them shows you're completely wrong

All this shitting on soccdems but

Considering Marx thought positively about Lincoln…………………………………………………….wonder what he would think about Corbyn given the circumstances.

what do mean? Corbyn literally picked up massive support in just one month and there is still a raging corboner in Britain even after the election. Melenchon could have done some shit too. idk about bernie though.

there would be more money circulating among the lower class.
/thread

they are not either. you labeling them with these things is religion. cooperation is an action not a political ideology.

They nipped him in the bud early enough that we'll never know.

Holy shit, I love that third image so much

nationalize the toothbrushes.

Bernie ran a 6 month primary against an opponent with a 7 year head start and still got 45% with the entire political establishment going out of their way to fuck him and the media desperately trying to ignore him so that people wouldn't know he existed. He's also way more radical than people give him credit for, but he's gotten better at hiding his power level as he aged.
He was wrong about the Yugo Wars tho, and I need to hear him fess up to it

Goddammit Lassalle, didn't you get BTFO over a hundred years ago? Read "Critique of the Gotha Programme", it's pretty short.

look at the post he quoted


That's not the quote, but thanks anyway.

socdem hegemony

Reminder that Zizek both supporters Reformism in the West: youtu.be/TQoP9lko3uw
And Corbyn: youtu.be/Y1ugvUqnUbo

Luh May Oh

Not sure about Bernie: but Corbyn and JLM are ideologically sound. There was a recent internal labour report on how to totally socialise the economy: be it socialisation, communialisation, nationalisation and syndicalisation in various sectors of the economy. Now that is literal socialism: social ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, Is it communism? No. Yet, socialism by the ballot box IS NOT SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. Social democracy is just pumping up the welfare state and putting controls on capitalism. What Corbyn and JLM are offering is genuine economic socialism, and to be frank I will fight for that.

Co-ops do not give workers the full value of their labor. It's literally just Capitalism without Capitalists.

The black flaggot strikes again.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps

Fuggin ebic XDD

I swear fucking damn half ht people here don't actually know what the tenants of social democracy are and just use as a buzzword.

These are decided by the forces of capital

As in reformist, indirectly democratic labor unionism, correct?