Evolutionary Socialism

is the personal ideology of DuyQuangNguyenPham. He's economically center-left to  left-wing,  civically liberal,  culturally reformist,  patriotic,  interculturalist, and  internationalist. Evolutionary Socialism believes in the phaseout of private enterprises with predominantly  worker cooperatives along with other mutuals in a  market economy. Strategic industries can be under national or municipal ownership, and the expanded publicly-owned capital stock will help funding a universal basic income be more viable.

On social issues, Evolutionary Socialism supports abortion rights,  LGBT rights, decriminalizing recreational drugs, a reformed criminal justice system, etc. However, he understands that these social changes couldn't be immediately implemented, especially in third-world countries. Public funding in education is needed before gaining a majority necessary for enacting them.

On civic issues, he can be best described as a liberal. Although the state needs to be able to protect its citizens from harm and ensure robust social services, the people should be able to express themselves for the most part.

Macroeconomic thought
Evolutionary Socialism believes that economic growth is important, which provides a tax base for social safety nets to cut poverty rates. Unlike capitalists, however, he doesn't think that private ownership is necessary for that to happen, just the presence of competitive markets is enough.

Broadly, he describes himself as a Keynesian. Many times, nominal rigidity means that prices and wages are sticky, resulting in reduced output. That means regulating the boom-bust cycle is paramount, which corresponds to increasing the money supply during recessions and decreasing it during expansions. That can be accomplished by fiscal policies and/or monetary policies.

The deficits wouldn't be left unpaid. Evolutionary Socialism wants to raise taxation or decrease spending to balance budgets later on. That way, debts would remain at sustainable levels, while social welfare for the citizens is maintained. Dampening booms also have the added effect of preventing high inflation caused by the excessive stimulus.

He wants to create a central bank that is managed independently of the government. It would have a dual mandate of maximizing employment and targeting inflation by adjusting interest rates. During persistent deflationary periods, the monetary authority will resort to quantitative easing, especially when there's a liquidity trap.

He advocates for full employment, which helps the economy operate at the highest capacity. That doesn't mean unemployment goes all the way to zero, however, as price stability is also important. An ideal unemployment rate to him would hover at NAIRU (so around 5-6%).

All of these prescriptions would place him the closest to New Keynesianism.

Taxations
Evolutionary Socialism generally endorses a high amount of taxation to fund a comprehensive welfare state and generous public services for everyone. Here's the list of taxes that he would support: He strongly supports equality of opportunity and low inequality of outcome due to the marginal utility of income and wealth. And it is the combination of both broad-based taxation and high social spending that achieves them.
 * Labor income tax (a flat 30% tax)
 * Capital gains tax (eliminating step-up in basis is necessary)
 * Payroll tax
 * Destination-based cash flow tax (depends on the type of firm)
 * Minimum DBCFT (enforced internationally)
 * Net worth tax (only applied to people with a vast amount of wealth)
 * Value-added tax (very difficult to evade and also raises much revenue)
 * Sin tax (discouraging harmful products)
 * Inheritance tax (should be high)
 * [[File:Georgist.png]] Land value tax (close to 100%)
 * Carbon tax (progressively increasing)

[[File:PCB-Regulationism.png]] Regulations [[File:DvCoordination.png]]
“To allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment… would result in the demolition of society.” ~ Karl Polanyi
 * -|Against laissez-faire=

Evolutionary Socialism is vehemently against self-regulating markets. He believes that an economy that is only governed by supply and demand and little else is inhumane at its very core. Indeed, excessive deregulation has led to the rise of precarious work, which offers less income and job security than regular employment. A good government, therefore, should not let the market be free from state interventions but rather subordinate it to a democratic society. He feels that at-will employment is negative overall. It gives undue power to employers since employees could be fired for almost any reason. Workers with unorthodox political views, sexual orientation, or religion could be fired discriminatorily under this system. For that reason, he wishes to mandate that firms must have a just cause (like poor performance or economic redundancy) when terminating someone. You know which type of enterprise is not so willing to shred the labor force by design? Worker cooperatives.
 * -|Hiring & firing=

Just like how workers should be able to quit jobs, they also should be able to find new and better jobs if they so choose. Therefore, occupational licensing needs to be relaxed to improve employment opportunities. In the real world, the economy doesn't follow the assumptions of a perfectly competitive market. There are indeed imperfections found in the labor market, where businesses have certain wage-setting power because there are simply not enough employers lying around, a phenomenon called oligopsony. And the employees also have to incur significant costs while switching jobs. This is job search friction. One way to fight these structural forces is to raise the minimum wage to around 60% of the local median wages and tie it to inflation.
 * -|Minimum wages=

A national government would only set the floor. Smaller states are free to set higher minimum wages compared to local median ones if they so choose. This will provide a laboratory to see if even greater minimum wages are positive. He supports the creation of an economic constitution, similar to the one implemented in  West Germany. The purpose of the constitution is to outlaw anti-competitive practices, like predatory pricing or cartelization. If non-state monopolies or even oligopolies were to emerge, they would be broken up into multiple, smaller companies.
 * -|Anti-trust laws=

This is not to say that Evolutionary Socialism disavows big businesses altogether. Firms should still gain a larger market share as a result of their superior products sold at lower prices. He is just worried about them getting so big that they start to have price-setting power, which hurt the consumers or have enough political influence, which can subvert the political democracy. When banking fails, it brings the whole economy down with it, necessitating costly bailouts by the public. He thinks that the banking sector should be subjected to strict regulatory oversight to reduce the volatility of capital markets. We really don't want the repeat of the Great Recession.
 * -|Banking=

He also endorses the creation of a central bank to regulate the money supply, once again to mitigate boom-and-bust cycles. However, this particular bank wouldn't be regulated by the central government, but rather be left up to economic experts.

[[File:Synd.png]] Trade unions
In the private sector, Evolutionary Socialism is very pro-union. He thinks that the presence of a strong labor movement explains why left-of-center parties have been so dominant in the  Nordic countries. By combatting oligopsonies and wage theft, it improves the bargaining power of workers dramatically. If taken far enough, these entities can even democratize the economy, leading the way to a post-capitalist society.
 * -|Introduction=

However, he's more skeptical of public unions. Police unions, at least in America, have blocked reforms to hold the police more accountable. That doesn't mean that he wants to break up those unions altogether. The police officers should still have good working conditions and compensation, but their interests should be balanced with the need of the whole society. He believes that an increase in union membership is absolutely vital to revitalize a progressive movement. Since trade unions generally fight for the rights of all workers, he doesn't think that the right-to-work laws, where non-unionized workers can choose not to pay dues to unions, make sense, and he wishes to see them repealed.
 * -|How to increase unionization?=

Furthermore, he believes that mandatory arbitration should be fought hard. It's quite often presented to employees as a condition for their employment, and so the private employers will have a lot of sway, a lot of power against them. Couple that with the creation of funds to meet the basic needs of workers going on strikes, and that should tilt the balance of power toward the organized working class.

Lastly, the unemployment insurance funds can be managed by the trade unions themselves, partly subsidized by the state. This arrangement can further incentivize the workers to unionize since that's how they can stay afloat while moving to a better job. For a long time, he has been a fan of the Rehn-Meidner Model. It has done a good job modernizing the Swedish economy by fulfilling four principles: The trade union representatives would negotiate higher wages for the least productive firms and lower wages for the most productive ones. This would result in greater income equality within each sector, satisfying the 1st principle. The wage restraint prevents wage-price spirals, satisfying the 2nd principle. The aforementioned [https://nordics.info/show/artikel/solidaristic-wage-policy/#:~:text=Solidaristic%20wage%20policy%20refers%20to,wages%20on%20a%20national%20basis. solidaristic wage policy] would force unprofitable businesses to improve their productive capacity, or risk getting bankrupt, satisfying the 3rd principle. Also, active labor market policies to help redundant workers join the better firms and greater coordination of wage bargaining should satisfy the 4th principle. His ideal workplace has the managers be elected by the labor-friendly board of directors since the workers collectively have majority control and ownership rights (shown on the right.)
 * -|Institutionalization=
 * 1) [[File:Equality.png]] Equal pay for equal work
 * 2) [[File:EconInflate.png]] Low inflation
 * 3) High growth
 * 4) Full employment

To get to that point, however, an expansion of the social economy is needed, with a revised version of the employee funds and strong state support. In the meantime, with the trade unions emboldened, the position of the working class is greatly strengthened, and the struggle for workplace democracy begins.

[[File:Univhealth.png]] Healthcare system
Universal healthcare is a moral imperative in any nation. It's very unjust for children to be sick without being responsible for it. Also, healthy citizens are also more productive workers, which benefits us all. This motivates Evolutionary Socialism to fight for a more just healthcare system.
 * -|My ideal model=

Initially, he wants to institute a public option competing with other private health insurances to drive down costs. Additionally, the government can negotiate for lower drug prices, something that has already been done in Germany.

As citizens are getting more satisfied with the government-run plan, he finds it apt to expand the public health insurance over time, eventually leading into a single-payer system, not unlike the National Health Service or the  Canadian Medicare. The expanded public plan will also include dental, hearing, vision, mental, and long-term care. This model can help reduce administrative costs, leading to further cost savings.

Supplemental care can be done by health insurance cooperatives, run for the benefit of customers and combined with co-determination. Those non-profits would replace the role of private healthcare insurers. With the socialized healthcare enacted, he would then create public information campaigns advising the people to not abuse the system. They would be incentivized not to, as misusing the public health insurance would increase the medical costs, thus raising the tax burden on them later on.
 * -|Surrounding legislations=

Excise taxes on socially harmful goods, such as non-medicinal drugs, alcoholic beverages, and sugar-sweetened beverages are levied too. The state can limit the consumption of alcohol even further by operating a liquor store monopoly. He thinks that Vinmonopolet has been pretty well-operated in Norway, and wishes to emulate that.

Education
For kids between 3 to 5 years old, they would be eligible to take part in free public pre-K centers in order to learn basic skills before going to school officially.
 * -|Accessibility=

In primary and secondary education, there will be a robust public option provided by the government, meaning that it's free at the point of use. Other independently-managed schools can exist, but he prefers them to be organized as a non-profit. In both cases, they will be more democratic internally, with students having more ability to influence their learning environments. During this time, education is made compulsory. He values universal education a lot, seeing that is important for children to learn to be functional members of society.

Tertiary education will also be free at the point of service, but participating students must pay a graduate tax on their salaries after they graduate, which will go back to the funding for those schools. This proposal can reduce the regressivity of free colleges and trade schools and ensure that the students have ample opportunities to work in their favored careers. Evolutionary Socialism views the local property taxes as being pretty inequitable. With those in place, the schools being surrounded by high property wealth would naturally have more resources to deploy than the others. This exacerbates inequality of opportunity. Therefore, he would centralize funding for secondary education or below.
 * -|Funding mechanisms=

Housing
Evolutionary Socialism is aware of the acute housing crisis facing us today, creating severe homelessness and thus social instability. He wishes to fight the root cause of the problem, the lack of affordable housing.

He thinks zoning rules should be relaxed. Specifically, single-family zoning is to be done away with to allow more mixed-income housing developments, which are the types of houses designed for buyers with different incomes. Regulating land use is like telling companies what necessities they can sell on the market, and it doesn't really make much sense.

The liberalization of land use regulations could then be coupled with a very high land value tax and a sizeable vacancy tax. The former would fight land speculation, promoting the building of useful housing units which can then be sold instead. Meanwhile, the latter would prevent the usage of homes as an investment vehicle. Additionally, tenants' unions would be strengthened to fight for renters still in let-out homes.

On the public side of things, he is pretty enthusiastic about the Housing First model. In Finland, providing unconditional housing made it easier for participants to solve other personal issues like drug addiction or mental health problems. For that reason, it has proven superior to the staircase approach to homelessness.

Such a project would require a reimagination of the housing policy. We would need a massive amount of social housing to be available. The housing associations could do just that. Their function is to build cheap rental homes for the people. Unlike private landlords, they would not seek a profit margin, and the revenue is used to maintain existing housing or further increase the housing supply. He is of the opinion that they are pretty helpful and should be generously state-funded.

It's indeed possible for tenants to slowly buy out the public houses via a shared ownership scheme. Or the housing coops can get those instead. The land could also be commonly owned via community land trusts, which could maintain low house prices for future owners by placing caps on resale profits or even [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07352166.2017.1362318?journalCode=ujua20#:~:text=The%20findings%20suggest%20that%20CLTs,can%20mitigate%20its%20negative%20effects. slow] down gentrification. It's a viable alternative to the state nationalizing and leasing that land out, similar to how an LVT works.

To him, houses provide a supportive foundation for the people to work and live the best lives they could have, and so they are really valuable. Therefore, houses are to be sold for use, not to earn a rate of return. Owner-occupied, cooperative, plus social housing should ultimately proliferate, while private renting would be limited, fulfilling his idealistic political tendencies.

[[File:Welf.png]] Welfare state universalism [[File:Socdem.png]]
Non-workers are the unemployed, children, the disabled, the elderly, caregivers, and students. Since they don't earn any labor income, it makes sense for an optimal welfare state to primarily transfer money to them, with no income tests, drug tests, asset tests, or work requirements.
 * -|Cash transfers=



1. Unemployment insurance
A person would need to join a union, then give proof of application letters sent to employers to it to be eligible. Then, he will have four-year social insurance with a 90% wage replacement rate (capped at a certain point), which can [https://www.nber.org/papers/w7352#:~:text=This%20paper%20argues%20that%20unemployment,firms%20to%20create%20those%20jobs.&text=Our%20model%20economy%20captures%20the,high%20school%20graduates%20quite%20well. increase] labor productivity.

2. Child allowance
Any parent can claim a monthly benefit to bring up their youth better, as long as they live with their child for at least a month each quarter. The generosity of the payment will depend on the number of children the family has.

3. Disability benefits
People with disabilities that restrict their ability to work will receive a basic benefit, which they can use for self-directed support.

4. [[File:Gero.png]] Old-age pension
Above age 65, all elderly people will be eligible for Social Security, which can prevent a situation where an old person runs out of savings just for living for too long. It's paid for by payroll taxation on their previous earnings.

5. Home childcare allowance
For parents who don't want to send their kids to free public childcare centers, they can instead opt to care for their young children at home and get paid for it. It's analogous to the state employing these people.

6. Student grants
Adults attending tertiary education will have a cash grant from the state, up to the full amount when they live independently. This payment could help them deal with living expenses such as housing or food.

7. Basic income
Every citizen in the country shall receive an equally set money from the government, adjusted for the poverty line.



Only the contributory system will require previous work while a non-contributory one will not. That way, a baseline of needs is maintained for all citizens, but people are still incentivized to work to gain more income. A strong welfare state surely means a high unemployment rate will occur, right? You would be mistaken. Evolutionary Socialism also favors government programs to help the unemployed find work more easily, fulfilling full employment.
 * -|Active labor market policies=

He would establish a new publicly-funded employment service, where the workers would be matched to their desired job. They would be informed of any job vacancy, trained to write a good résumé and go through an interview successfully.

He is also a fan of upskilling. This could take the form of subsidized vocational classes or apprenticeships. He feels that they're important, since constant creative destruction creates a need for retraining of the laid-off to join a more productive workforce continuously.

Furthermore, he believes in transitional employment subsidization as well, where the state would cover a portion of the salaries to workers, especially those who were long-term unemployed. However, the subsidy would be temporary, so when a worker is fully accommodated in the workplace, it would be phased out.

He's not a fan of a job guarantee, seeing that it's essentially just workfare. As stated before, he doesn't like the idea of forcing people to have to work to gain welfare benefits. Sometimes, an individual gains more utility by taking time off to be with his loved ones, and that's okay.

A better way to address structural unemployment in a worker-cooperative-centered economy is to create more state-owned enterprises, where workers can exercise control over those firms with collective bargaining and union ownership.

[[File:PCB-Dsa.png]] The movement toward socialism [[File:Demsocstar.png]]
Under an unaccountable and authoritarian government, he wants to pursue a non-violent revolution first. But if the powers that be still cracked down on the protests and refused to step down, then the violent revolution would be used.
 * -|Reform or Revolution?=

Because of this, he tentatively supports these revolutions:
 * [[File:Cball-US.png]] American Revolution
 * [[File:Hochi.png]] August Revolution
 * [[File:Castro.png]] Cuban Revolution (against [[File:Nazcapf.png]] Batista's military dictatorship)
 * [[File:Cball-Hungary.png]] Hungarian Uprising (against [[File:Stalin.png]] Stalinist hardliners)
 * [[File:Cball-Portugal.png]] Carnation Revolution
 * [[File:Cball-Czechia.png]] Velvet Revolution

However, an upheaval usually brings lots of bloodshed. And at what cost? This is why Evolutionary Socialism prefers an accretionist route to socialism, especially under  liberal-democratic governments. He really likes the concept of "provisional utopia" by Ernst Wigforss (an early social democrat.) The idea is that a flexible utopian goal would be set for incremental policies to strive toward. As a market socialist, Evolutionary Socialism would want to expand the social economy to be dominant, which consists of mostly worker coops but also consumer coops, and multi-stakeholder coops. Here are some ways to facilitate the transformation.
 * -|Co-ops=

Creation of new cooperatives

 * Fund more empirical research into the effects of coops to create better legislation addressing their weaknesses.
 * Formalize new laws for social enterprises.
 * Officially recognize the social and economic benefits of coops and mutuals.
 * Establish publicly-funded worker ownership centers, which should raise the awareness of coops, thus increasing the supply of specialized coop labor.
 * Cut capital gains tax for owners who have sold their enterprise to the workers.
 * The priority to buy a company when it's being dissolved, sold, or publicly listed lies in the hands of the workers, a policy called the right of first refusal.
 * The redundant employees can collectively use up to 3 years of their future unemployment insurance to make a worker buy-out. Those funds will be matched three times over by a new state investment fund. This law has been implemented in [[File:Cball-Italy.png]] Italy.

Expansion of existing cooperatives

 * Lower the border-adjusted, full-expensed corporate tax rates for coops.
 * Provide more access to interest-free loans for coops with the creation of coop loan funds.
 * Give preferential rights to worker coops in the case of tie bids.
 * Mandate that coops pay 3% of their profits to any coop development fund managed by a coop federation that they like (if there is one.)
 * Require that coops join any federation of coops they like to access technical assistance (if there is one.) Less than one-half percent of the profit is the fee.
 * Mandate that coops pay 5% of their profits to an education and promotion fund, which is responsible for training on democratic workplaces and promoting the coop sector.
 * Create the Coop Investment Plan, which will offer members an income tax deduction equal to 125% of their capital invested into their coop. It can't exceed 30% of their labor income, however.
 * Set up independently-managed banks owned by municipalities, regional states, and the national state, which would issue grants to coops specifically.

Preservation of cooperatives

 * A minimum of 20% of the profits must be put in indivisible reserves if the profits result from the coop members. That minimum is bumped to 50% when a coop does business with non-members.
 * All profits in indivisible reserves are tax exempt.
 * Apply just cause standard to workers that haven't got an ownership stake in coops.
 * Encourage coop firms to implement internal capital accounts to ensure that its structure remains democratic.

The idea of workers' self-management really appeals to him, as an individual spends a large portion of his waking moment in the workplace, yet he's denied the voice to influence his working conditions there. The right to that shouldn't be something that he has to negotiate with employers in order to gain; it should just be something that he acquires immediately upon entry into a company.

And as for economic democracy in general, he advocates for that since the shareholder primacy model has been a net negative to society. Stakeholders should once again be more emphasized, although he doesn't really think state ownership or consumer ownership should be the backbone of the economy. The workers are still alienated and lack a majority ownership share in that scenario, which is his most pressing concern.
 * -|Collective investment funds=

Wage-earner funds
When union membership becomes sufficiently high, there should be worker representation on corporate boards and reduced wage dispersion in each sector. Combine wage restraint at the biggest firms, increasing worker influence with tight labor markets, and workers should agitate for a share of the excess profits, just like they did historically in the 1970s Sweden.

To satisfy the demands of the workers, publicly-listed companies should be required to issue new shares equal to, say, 1% of their total market cap to the employee funds annually. The national government can help aid this transition by regulating financial flows. This process will continue until around 20% of their shares are owned by the association of all labor unions. It can use their newfound capital to either help workers buy out the smaller firms or provide more equity capital for current coops to expand.

Funneling wage demands into genuine control of the means of production can prevent unsustainable wage increases that caused stagflation many decades ago. Additionally, this fund represents further progress from social corporatism into a  socialist economy (although not entirely.) For now, a completely legislated Meidner fund represents a commonly-owned Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

National wealth funds
Evolutionary Socialism supports the creation of a sovereign wealth fund. It's a state-owned investment fund that has a diversified portfolio, such as natural resources, listed stocks, private equity, bonds, and real estate.

There are some ways to help the mutual fund accumulate assets for the benefit of all. The first is to use the revenues from taxes on assets. Secondly, the government can issue low-interest bonds. And finally, it's possible for a central bank to buy financial assets to prop up the economy. Those assets can then be transferred to the SWF.

When the main fund got too large, he'd advise breaking it up into smaller competing funds to avoid centralization of power. Within each of the SWF, merit pay can be used to reward returns maximization for the public.

Those mutual funds can invest in places where private investments are low, thus boosting growth. The multitude of social wealth funds can help stabilize the financial markets while making sure that the public reap the benefits. Lastly, publicly-owned assets can be used for social welfare purposes, even making a social dividend for everyone all the more feasible, reducing wealth inequality.

[[File:Gay.png]] LGBTA rights [[File:PCB-Trans.png]]
He doesn't believe that it's right to mistreat a person just because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. That is why any discrimination against lesbian,  gay,  bisexual,  transgender, and  asexual individuals would be made illegal under his system. Neopronouns and xenogenders won't be legally recognized, however. He would also allow pride parades, but on the condition that they have no nudity.

He also argues that marriage should be available to every adult couple in society. He thinks it's absurd that couples have to enjoy fewer rights just because they happen to have the same gender. Furthermore, marriage equality has been shown to increase the commitment of these partners as well. However, some people might argue marriage was for procreation only. He would respond that homosexual and bisexual couples should be able to have offspring with their DNA thanks to advances in technology, and there are signs that this should eventually be a reality. And they're allowed to adopt kids too.

As for trans people specifically, Evolutionary Socialism has been sympathetic toward them for a long time. He thought of gender dysphoria as the result of the mismatch between gender identity and sex at birth. For that reason, he wants to expand access to gender-affirming healthcare, like puberty blockers below age 16, hormone replacement therapy above age 16, and sex reassignment surgery above age 18.

Additionally, he hopes that transgender people can participate in sports, especially mixed-sex sports. States' attempts to ban trans women from participating might be well-meaning (assuming that they do care about the integrity of women's sports) but he doesn't think that that is the solution. He would require that these aspiring transgender sportspeople transition and then measure their hormone levels to be appropriate before allowing them to compete. This strikes the balance between the inclusivity of legitimate transgender people in sports and meaningful competition.

[[File:Fem.png]] Feminism [[File:Mat.png]]
Evolutionary Socialism is an ardent feminist. That means he advocates expanding women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

Firstly, he believes that women should be completely equal to men before the law. Any violence and prejudice against women would be outlawed, and women would enjoy the same political rights as men.

Secondly, he would want women to be freer from the constraints of traditional gender roles. That meant additional opportunities for them to be employed, which is why he favors free childcare, which has been shown to increase maternal labor force participation rates.

Thirdly, Evolutionary Socialism endorses the expansion of paid family and annual leave to every employee. If affordable childcare gives women more freedom to seek out work, then maternity leave allows them to care for their children when they want to. Keep-in-touch programs will be readily available, where leave-takers could still stay in contact with their workplace.

Lastly, he favors reproductive rights for women in general. He would support the legalization of first- and second-term abortions, while third-term abortions would be more regulated, except in cases where women are at risk, rape, incest, and fetal nonviability.

Despite this, being pro-choice isn't the same as pro-abortion, as he wants to reduce abortion incidence as well. Comprehensive sex education and affordable birth control are necessary for this to happen. In other words, he operates by the mantra "safe, legal, and rare" when it comes to abortion.

[[File:Policeism.png]] Criminal justice system [[File:Policeman.png]]
Private and for-profit prisons would want to keep as many prisoners with as little costs as they can, leading to [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2020.1736501?journalCode=raec20#:~:text=2008.,compared%20to%20public%20prison%20inmates. higher] recidivism rates. Therefore, many of the detention centers should be owned by the government.
 * -|Penitentiary=

As a constructivist, Evolutionary Socialism believes that socio-economic factors play a pretty significant role in determining the presence of crime. For example, poverty has been shown to correlate with violent crimes. Because of this, he advocates emphasizing rehabilitative policies as opposed to punitive ones.

That can manifest as the abolition of the death penalty. There's no reason it would still be around in the Evolutionary Socialist world because the death penalty creates a risk of wrongful executions and doesn't really deliver justice to the families of the victims.

Ideally, he wants to phase out the life without parole sentences as well, which are basically very delayed death penalties. One way to achieve this is to restore parole eligibility to convicted criminals after they have served a decade. This should encourage them to participate in educational and vocational programs to prepare for their eventual reintegration into society.

On a side note, he wishes to end mandatory minimums. Firstly, they ignore the unique circumstances that each offender has been in to commit the crime. And secondly, that type of sentencing contributes to mass incarceration found in the United States. Might as well do away with it entirely. Evolutionary Socialism thinks that the armored vehicles, rocket launchers, or grenades that the current police organizations carry are frankly excessive and just increase police brutality and hurt community trust. That's why he wants to shift some funding from the police to social workers. However, the reallocation of the funds should be small in scope. Most of the revenue for more social services needs to come from additional taxes. He also rejects the "defunding the police" slogan, preferring the phrase "demilitarize the police" much more.
 * -|Police forces=

More funding for social workers should enable the creation of a co-responder police model, which consists of mental health experts, other social service providers, and the police to respond to 911 calls that require specific expertise. Further reduction of the chance of escalation of violent force is possible with mental health training programs for police officers. All of these make up the police crisis intervention team, which he wholeheartedly supports.

And then there's also the problem with independent arbitration for the unionized police, which has caused discipline instituted by police departments to decrease by a half, even when the arbitrators agreed with the initial findings. Where's the accountability? There are two ways to reform arbitration. The first is to prevent arbitrators from conducting investigations on their own, so they can only decrease discipline if there's a huge error in the chief's process. The second is to allow arbitrators to be appointed by a democratically elected official so that they remain accountable.

However, many of the reforms above will be hard to implement due to the strong influence of police unions. Research shows that high collective bargaining rights for police can exacerbate police violence and serve as a barrier to officer accountability. So what can we do? To him, the police unions should be overhauled entirely, only allowing the police to negotiate wages and working conditions, not the hiring & firing process. What's more, he endorses the creation of a national database to prevent fired officers from being rehired in other cities.

Despite the flaws, he is against the police abolition movement because he believes law enforcement can be the public servants they're meant to be, especially with the policy prescriptions outlined above.

[[File:Envi.png]] Environmentalism [[File:Glib.png]]
Evolutionary Socialism believes that global warming is man-made, and that's a big problem. Carbon emissions have been rapidly [https://www.statista.com/statistics/264699/worldwide-co2-emissions/#:~:text=Carbon%20dioxide%20(CO2)%20emissions%20began,emissions%20to%20plummet%20five%20percent. increasing], and that's due to the Industrial Revolution.
 * -|Against global warming=

However, he doesn't think that we should make environmental progress by curtailing economic growth like many degrowth advocates would say, as it would hurt overall labor income, and thus, living standards. Instead, green growth will be key to defeating the crisis.

Carbon pricing is an important piece of the puzzle. A nationwide carbon tax would start at $60/ton of CO2 and gradually increase annually to be compatible with the Paris Agreement, incentivizing firms to be less carbon-intensive. The receipts could be distributed to citizens to make sure lower-income people do not lose out from this scheme. A carbon tariff could also be adapted to create a uniform global carbon price, levied on goods imported from countries that haven't had sufficient carbon taxation.

The reliance on coal, petroleum, and natural gas has only polluted the air so necessary to sustain us, created oil spills that damaged the ocean, and further increased the accumulation of CO2, which will lead to a mass extinction down the line. It's high time we phase out the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.

However, there will be disruptions along the way, which is why the state needs to intervene to decarbonize successfully. First, the government should buy out the major fossil fuel companies to make sure its decline doesn't lead to social chaos. Then, it needs to make massive investments in renewables and nuclear energy to plan out the green transition. He cherishes planet Earth, seeing that its one-of-a-kind environment allows numerous unique species to flourish. It's a tragedy that pollution is allowed to continue unchecked, with adverse effects on the ecosystem that we hold so dear. Because of this, he's supportive of measures to fight it.
 * -|Against pollution=

It must have been terrifying to see landfills being so large. Not only are they unsightly, but those large mountains of trash can also risk the contamination of groundwater and the surrounding. That's why he would encourage recycling with posters, awareness campaigns, or otherwise. Additionally, he wants to extend national protection to forests to combat deforestation, seeing they have a crucial role in carbon sequestration.
 * Promote biodegradable plastic products
 * Fine litterers
 * Fine any company that dumps waste into the ocean
 * Build green and blue infrastructure
 * Place sanctions on ecologically destructive countries

With these implemented, hopefully, we are able to preserve the world for future generations to see. Really, all of those beautiful species don't deserve to die off due to our actions.

[[File:Atheism.png]] Religion [[File:Religious.png]]
On one hand, Evolutionary Socialism is opposed to state atheism, since religious freedom is not respected there, which is important to him. Furthermore, state atheist regimes tend to replace religion with themselves anyways. Stalin's USSR is a classic example.

On the other hand, he also opposes theocracies. If strict enough, a theocratic government could persecute people for not conforming to the official religion, and he's also worried about the civil rights of non-heterosexual people under that system.

To him, Anglo-American secularism is the ideal. Churches should be separated from the state, but the people are free to worship the religion that they want.

[[File:Dem.png]] Form of government [[File:Republicanismpix.png]]
To him, democracy isn't necessarily the best political system but rather the least bad system devised by humans. Even if it got corrupted, it would still be better than a despotic government that consistently enacts terrible policies. Democracies are much less likely to go to war, and they don't kill their citizens as much.

Evolutionary Socialism supports a representative democracy with direct democratic elements. A referendum will pop up before the enactment of a particularly controversial policy, like cybersecurity laws. He prefers the parliamentary system to a  presidential one because the prime minister is much more in sync with the legislative branch than a president. Depending on the population, each state will have a certain number of seats. Every political party will have a chance to gain ground with proportional representation instead of first-past-the-post. He dislikes plurality voting precisely because it tends to punish compromise and reward partisanship. Anyways, all of those seats will form a parliament. Some parties that generally agreed on core issues can form a coalition, getting a high enough majority to govern.

[[File:CNN.png]] News media [[File:Mediastocracy flair.png]]
In his view, Evolutionary Socialism thinks that the mainstream media is usually not trustworthy for the people. He supports the Fairness Doctrine to present opposing views fairly, preventing the political polarization found in the US. Media cooperative is a fascinating model and can operate more independently due to the minimization of the agency dilemma. He wishes to incentivize creating more of them.

Electoral process
Evolutionary Socialism feels that corporations have too much power over the political process. He wants to restrict big money by setting an upper limit on the expenditures given to political campaigns. Additionally, he plans to create an independent electoral commission to draw boundaries and monitor elections properly.

[[File:FreeSpeak.png]] Freedom of speech and assembly
Evolutionary Socialism is still not a free speech absolutist, however, he has found himself becoming closer to it than ever before. Besides the laws against defamation, incitement, or excessively violent groups, no other restrictions on speech remain. This applies to hate speech as well. He personally disdains it, but still doesn't think it should be prohibited, because what exactly constitutes 'hate speech' is ultimately arbitrary. When hateful ideas appear, he thinks the best way to combat them is through reasoned arguments, not censorship.

Additionally, he fiercely defends peaceful protests. As John F. Kennedy puts it, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." There should be a way for the public to channel their discontent extra-institutionally, which could drive social change. He even supports riots if they're against the public institutions specifically, as those could still be rebuilt.

Recreational drugs
Before, he was quite skeptical of hard drug liberalization, as many of them are harmful to the users, if overused. He wondered if it could really be done.
 * -|A progressive turn=

Until he looked at Portugal's model.

Evolutionary Socialism was astonished. As the result of the 2001 reforms, drug-related deaths have become a lot lower than the European average. This could be attributed to [https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/10895/going-after-the-addiction-not-the-addicted-the-impact-of-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal#:~:text=The%20results%20suggest%20that%20a,number%20of%20clients%20entering%20treatment. decriminalization].

He realized that drug decriminalization not only has been shown to deliver positive results but also goes pretty well with his advocacy for individual autonomy. As a result, he no longer believes in the criminalization of hard drugs. Evolutionary Socialism still thinks that the consequences of drug addiction should be combatted. However, he is now certain that the best way to achieve that is via a public health approach that recognized that drug addicts are not bad for society, but just ill, and need support from the community, not a criminal justice approach. Here's what he would do:
 * -|Hate the sin, not the sinner=
 * Decriminalization of drug consumption across the board.
 * Implement a needle and syringe program, where drug users can obtain clean needles, instead of having to get them from black markets.
 * Create the Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, composed of social workers and health experts. Repeated referrals by the commission will lead to the issuance of income-based fines, but for first-time referrals, the commission simply recommends health treatments for drug dependents.

As for drug production, he is of the opinion that it should be regulated, at the very least.

Euthanasia
He supports the procedure as long as the patient consents to that. He finds it immoral that a terminally sick person be forced to continue living even when they already decided that the only way to stop their suffering is to end their own life. Although, if euthanasia isn't an option, palliative care will be used instead.

[[File:Sec.png]] Restrictions [[File:Authority.png]]
However, he thinks the riots against any other kind of property are mostly unjustified. Destruction of businesses can ruin the lives of many people who worked hard to build them.

He supports gun control because guns aren't often used for defense as most people think. Guns are only allowed for anyone from 18 years old or above, and universal background checks are employed. Less gun prevalence can reduce instances of violent crimes, like school shootings, for example.

With the release of vaccines, Evolutionary Socialism wouldn't necessarily make vaccines mandatory for everyone, but he will make it a requirement to travel and to participate in sports events. Tying vaccines to positive events will incentivize people to take them.

This ideology has a very controversial take on privacy. He allows placing surveillance cameras in public places to combat unlawful activities. A potential thief can be discouraged to steal when he sees the camera watching him in a store. But since this can be a violation of the right to privacy, he will use referendums for every new camera system. Because even if you have nothing to hide, you still have something to fear.

Foreign policy
Generally, he is a non-interventionist. He believes that a nation should focus on maintaining the well-being of its people, and also, the consequences of foreign interventions are just not worth it. Because of this, he believes that they should only be utilized when they have serious net gains. The situations where that might be the case are invasions, which infringe on national sovereignties, and large-scale genocide, which can cost so many lives if not dealt with. Besides that, he prefers peaceful diplomacy.

Additionally, he likes foreign aid to help underdeveloped countries become more prosperous. However, he will be careful about it, as corrupt leaders could potentially use the funds to enrich themselves, instead of uplifting the people.

Immigration
Evolutionary Socialism is pretty pro-immigration, to say the least. He sympathizes with the individuals who want to find better living conditions for themselves. This motivates him to ease legal immigration and provide path to citizenship to illegal immigrants (although the latter will take longer to finish.) In return, new immigrants should know the ins and outs of our government in order to be naturalized. They must also go through a waiting period before they can access the welfare state.

International trade
He's quite in favor of liberalized trade between nations, seeing that reduces costs of goods in the Global North while helping the Global South industrialize and diversify their economies. That doesn't mean no tariffs are present, for he still wants carbon tariffs to internalize the costs of pollution. There should also be adequate worker standards, where third-world workers can negotiate as many benefits as their labor productivity allows. For laid-off domestic workers, he will help them move to new jobs quickly.

Despite this, Evolutionary Socialism is quite critical of liberalized capital flows. Ever since the post-war consensus, cross-border financial flows have weakened the ability of national governments to engage in redistribution of resources, leading to the race to the bottom. Under his system, the foreign direct investment would be more regulated via a modified Bretton Woods economic order.

International relations
Evolutionary Socialism is a civic nationalist, meaning that he defines nationhood as something based on common values and citizenship. He doesn't think that we should discriminate against immigrants because of their different ethnicities, races, or even cultures. An unusual characteristic of his patriotism is his liking both the  United States and  Vietnam at the same time. Representative democracy is a great model to follow, but Evolutionary Socialism also enjoys Vietnam's dedication to socialist ideals.

Unlike Multiculturalists, he seeks to fight the tendency of cultures to self-segregate into parallel societies. Even though he supports the existence of multiple cultures, there needs to be cross-cultural communication and cultural fusion, and the state needs to promote common ground between them. So there's still a collective identity among diverse cultures. Evolutionary Socialism supports moderate nationalism that is not exclusionary nor considering itself to be superior to other nations. This can challenge the rise of right-wing populist parties and prevent them from getting into power, like what the  social democrats did in  Sweden.

He supports regional unions and the United Nations in its current form since they helped solve global problems like climate change and pollution. However, any further developments must be unanimous among their members. One reason is that without the agreement of some countries, these organizations will impede their national sovereignty.

Relationship
This is just to rank ideologies. I don't hate you as a person.
 * -|General=

Friends
Democratic Socialism - My ideal. The journey toward you shall be long, but I will not give up. Not until my preferred system is fully implemented, but still shows to be inferior to the Nordic Model.

Social Democracy - Your pro-unionization measures, strong public sector, and a universal  welfare state are really based, although you have yet to  fully democratize the workplace. Nevertheless, I'm you in realpolitik, but ultimately you're just the transitionary step, an important one at that.

Alter-Globalization - The world really needs to transition to a system where national sovereignties are respected, and each country is free to develop its own economic system, free from fears of a capital strike.

Friendly
Reformist Marxism - Good predictions on how capitalism would develop, and  strategy to develop  socialism. Although, why support imperialism? Supporting colonial endeavors is what caused your placement to be lower. Still the best Marxist nonetheless.

Social Liberalism - You have good ideas regarding cash transfers and social services, but are still too distrustful of further left ideologies. Additionally, I'm not exactly sure why some of you decided to rename yourselves as neoliberals. Think of the messaging! Good ally in liberal democracies though, although only in the very short run.

Neutral
TBA

Unfriendly
TBA

Enemies
National Socialism - The greatest villain in the 20th century, who ended a nascent  republic, started WWII, and killed millions. Your adherents should be ashamed of themselves!

Pol Potism - Imagine aggressing into our territory first, killing our people along with a large chunk of your own citizens, and then complaining when we decided to attack in retaliation. You're fundamentally a racist,  xenophobic,  totalitarian, and  ultranationalist psychopath. Just dystopian.


 * -|Schools of economic thought=

Friends
New Keynesianism

We should utilize fiscal and monetary policies to stabilize the business cycles. Although, you sometimes leaned toward the latter. With that said, you have achieved extraordinary macroeconomic stability in many developed countries by maintaining aggregate demand with strategic liquidity. I like how you came up with micro-foundations to respond to the critiques from neoclassical economists, like menu costs and efficiency wages. Also, good job focusing on the role of demand during the Keynesian resurgence! Your theory remains comprehensive and stands the test of time.

Friendly
Neo-Keynesianism

We need to use fiscal and monetary policies to alleviate downturns, even though you leaned toward the former. During the Golden Age, besides inflation, you outperformed the Washington Consensus in terms of global growth and unemployment. Capital flows were limited, so financial crises were very infrequent around the world. However, the assumption that the trade-off between unemployment and inflation remains true in the long run was your biggest flaw, leading to your demise. However, you're still pretty good for your time.

Ricardian Socialism

Your view about the benefits that two nations have from trading goods that they are specialized in has influenced me. Your support of central banking is great also. However, the iron law of wages didn't always hold. Maybe it was during your time, but compensation has steadily increased since then, making gradual reforms viable. Furthermore, I don't think the labor theory of value is valid either, as labor and capital are complementary. But out of the two flawed theories came a very based proposal, democratic worker ownership of firms. So overall, you're a net good, despite your shortcomings.

Neutral


I really like your effort to fight deficit hawks. The idea of political business cycles is also quite interesting. Additionally, your advocacy for a new Keynes Plan where each nation would be incentivized to pursue high wages and full employment was very welcome. On the flip side, you can't just dismiss debt as being unimportant. Debt can only go so high before a country reaches insolvency, so balanced budgets should be pursued. You also put the horse before the cart. Savings rate drive investments into the economy, not the other way around. A Job guarantee can be used sometimes, but not literally all the time, as that would overheat the economy, which causes inflation to skyrocket. And finally, fiscal stimulus is good to deal with economic busts, but it shouldn't be the main way of solving them. In the 1987 stock market crash, many economists believed that the ensuing recession would be just as bad as the Great Depression, but the actual effects were short-lived. Why you may ask? Because the central banks intervened on time to inject enough liquidity to keep economies going. So, quite mixed.

Monetarism

Monetary policies ought to be used to reduce the volatility of the economy, but the opposition to countercyclical fiscal policies is unwarranted. Fiscal stimulus absolute worked during the Great Recession. It seems that you underestimated the competence of the government. And your rule that central banks must follow is too strict. A k-percent rule would mean that they can't adjust their plan to deal with spikes in inflation. I prefer an inflation-targeting scheme by changing interest rates. On the flip side, your work on the natural rate of unemployment has been very influential for the Keynesian thought at least.

Unfriendly
New classical economics -

Enemies
Austrian economics -
 * -|Self-inserts=

Friends
Yori Model (100%)

Market socialism with robust welfare programs is an ideal economic system for both of us. I approve of your reformist stance, and your cultural views are very good. Semi-direct democracy is a much-needed compromise between representative and direct democracy! Civic nationalism? The most based nationalism! I'm happy that you embrace economic interventionism to protect the consumers and additional taxation to make society more equitable. I think you just need to be more open about fair trade.

Overall, there's absolutely no significant divergence between our views. Truly the best self-insert in this wiki hands down.

Admiralism (87%)

It's good that you endorse regulations to prevent our socialist market economy from going haywire. Your overall economics is essentially social-democratic policies within the framework of a socialist market economy, which is right on. Your world free of economic exploitation and unjustified military interventions is a really great ideal. You don't go too crazy with gun ownership since you understood the negative aspects of absolute gun rights, so that's pretty cool. You're somewhat too big on traditionalism, but your views on integration, social rights, the national identity, and the criminal justice system are more than enough to make up for that. I don't think you can preserve civil liberties well under a single-party state, so your proposal for a reformist semi-direct democracy would be a lot better. My only major objections would be your endorsement of the death penalty, which can hurt the families of the victims and prevent healing, and your economic self-sufficiency, which is very difficult to achieve.

All things considered, you're a comrade to me.

(81.6%)

Before I go over your beliefs, I just want to say that your page is very detailed. It went over many issues that I haven't gotten a chance to cover, and it also has pretty nice formatting. With that said, let's begin!

On geopolitics, I would say that you're good overall, although with some noticeable flaws. Your pro-democracy stance could be a bit too hardline sometimes, judging by your support for South Korea to forcibly take over the  North. I am more of a fan of peaceful reunification by a democratic government. Also, you are anti-nationalist for some reason, much to my dismay. It has played a role in the decolonization efforts in the 20th century, so it should remain, albeit in  different forms. Furthermore, your focus on the Western hegemony is misplaced, in my opinion. Third-world nations should have the option to develop their system independently from any major power. As an alternative, I recommend the New International Economic Order, which is the alter-globalist proposal that improves the influence of these countries much more. Other than that, I really like your support for freedom of movement, military rightsizing, diplomatic approach to foreign policy, generous foreign aid, and pro-self-determination movements across the globe. I see you became more skeptical of the European Union, which is an encouraging development.

On cultural and social matters, we're nearly identical. To start off, we both agree on the elimination of discrimination based on characteristics that we can't control. Speaking about the women's issues, I agree with you mostly but disagree on the degree. Pro-liberalization of abortions is acceptable, but you're somewhat too enthusiastic about it. The fetus is considered a person even just after fertilization, so I would only argue for abortions to protect the life of the mother, not to increase her choice. At least you support ways to reduce unwanted pregnancy. Moving forward, your skepticism toward anti-wokeism is nice. However, I don't think multiculturalism is the best, seeing it just bolsters ethnic enclaves or even undermines the solidarity necessary to sustain a  socially-democratic welfare state. If anything, pro-multiculturalism just lends credence to the anti-SJW movement that you disliked. Interculturalism is the better approach here. As a fan of equality of opportunity, the opposition toward affirmative action is warranted. And as a liker of human development, your pro-technological standpoint is pretty much welcome. On a side note, I really like how you justified porn on civilly libertarian grounds, which is pretty effective when talking to  more libertarian social conservatives. This dovetails nicely with your support for euthanasia and near-free speech absolutism too. Your hedonism is not ideal; that's pretty much your only shortcoming.

Regarding civic matters, some small errors stand out. For example, I'm not exactly sure why the difficulty of enforcing the Fairness Doctrine caused you to be against it wholesale. I would argue that it's needed to prevent different people with different political opinions from simply consuming the media that reinforces their own viewpoints, leading to echo chambers and thus greater political polarization. Surely, that can't be good for the long-term stability of the nation. On top of that, although I understand the reasoning behind the selective application of life without parole, I disagree with its implementation. The reasons here are that it's pretty expensive to imprison someone forever, and the sentence itself is just the death penalty, but more delayed. Eventually, the prisoners die behind bars anyways. So, I would give even the worst criminals a chance for parole, but they must work hard to get it. But besides that, your general view on civic liberties is excellent. The government that you want has enough centralization to fund public services in service of the people while still allowing substantial autonomy for both  individual states and for  human individuals to flourish. The deepening of democracy combined with sufficient checks and balances is fantastic to me. And although your prison system is just slightly more punitive, the reforms made to the criminal justice system to make it more accountable and rehabilitative are all cool. Regulating the police's unions  is painful but must be done as well.

And finally, the economy. I noticed you became more supportive of universalistic welfare, which is welcomed by me. The focus on animal rights is pretty good too. However, you adopted some bad policies regrettably due to your left-populist influences. For example, progressive taxation isn't wrong in and of itself, but I just fear that you are too reliant on it to fund strong redistributive measures. Consumption taxes can also fund government programs effectively, but they're regressive. I don't think just looking at tax progressivity is good, but rather you need to take into account both tax and transfers. That entails supporting relatively flat but high taxes and giving out flat benefits to needy groups. And the job guarantee is quite flawed. Your heart is in the right place; I just think active labor market policies are a lot better to get to full employment. Guaranteeing people a job can potentially reduce their job search in the conventional private sector (I mean the sector that isn't owned by the state, Council.) But besides what I pointed out, you are a social democrat and have sympathies for  worker-centered market socialism, and that right there is pretty chad. We are still aligned on most issues here.

So to conclude, if I make a political campaign to represent my constituents and then I find you, we would probably be coalition partners for a really long time, making the economy work for all of us and expanding civil rights in the process. You are certified to be based.

(81.4%)

As a democratic socialist, I'd naturally find many of your economic views objectionable, chief among them being the skepticism toward a  large welfare state and  pro-privatization. Like, although the NIT is probably the best means-tested program, it could still produce deadweight losses. Think of the benefit phase-out as a tax but on low-income people only. So that could lead to a situation where poor people have to face higher marginal tax rates, which creates a poverty trap, running counter to you wanting to incentivize people to work. With a UBI scheme, you don't have that same problem. Additionally, I don't think the market for internet service providers could be privatized. That's because it has a high barrier of entry, leading to a large profit margin, so consumers don't get the best deals. I think it worked better with a network of state-owned enterprises competing with one another with the windfall profits being utilized for  social programs. Or, you can turn them into user cooperatives so these internet suppliers wouldn't screw the customers over (although you might believe they are still practically private.) At least we both like  the market as the main way to organize the economy, the use of  new technologies to combat climate change,  balanced budgets, and liberalized trade (although you take this too far for me.) On the whole, I like  your pragmatism on economic policies, but your views here still leave much to be desired.

When I decided to look at what you had to say beyond that, I was blown away. Civically, we share the cherishing of democratic norms, ethnic diversity, a decidedly rehabiliative criminal justice system, and the  general skepticism of authority. I especially like the details you put in your semi-democratic government design. And then, I looked further into your social views. Once again, no disagreements! Porn being considered free speech, sex work being legitimate, legalizing (but regulating) abortions, reducing unwanted pregnancies, and gender equality are all our areas of agreement. And finally, diplomatic views. To start off, I guess I only disagree with you leaving NATO, as that leaves your country vulnerable to foreign invasions. I believe the alliance should be reformed to focus more on the defense. Still, civic nationalism combined with  international cooperation is so cool, and freedom of movement is very chad, dude. The more I looked into your page, the better it became.

So I guess economics is the only place where we have any major contentions. If I ignore that for a moment, we would be virtually identical otherwise. In my opinion, you are the best right-libertarian I have ever seen.

(80.8%)

I fear that your system would be plagued with capital flight, as your wealth taxes are too strict. Also, you are too militant for me. Despite this, we agree on lots of things, namely the need to truly democratize the workplace, ensure  social welfare (though you're inadequate on this, considering embracing the universal welfare state.), and  merit-based society. Basically a more socially progressive version of  Scarlet and  Nuoh.

Friendly
(74.2%)

When it comes to civic issues, I would say that you're meh. Federalism is just the right balance for the interests of regional governments and the national government. Reforming the police is quite chad, nothing else to say. Moving on to the structure of your democracy, direct democracy does empower the citizens, but I'm not sure about your hostility toward  representatives, however. Your elected councils actually function pretty similarly to the latter, so I don't know the difference there. And your criminal justice system could use some more rehabilitation. Like, the death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent. It just hurts the families of the victims, so it's not like it's closure. Checking your page again, I noticed that you became somewhat more moderate on the prostitution question, which is better at least. Just don't criminalize prostitutes in the long term.

Now before I move on to your economics and cultural policies, I want to get to your misc stances first. Your cultural nationalism is a bit too assimilationist, and I prefer just a common national identity to bind everyone together, at least in the long run. Think of polyculturalism and  civic nationalism. You're also a bit too isolationist for my taste (surprisingly enough,) as I think a purely defensive pact is beneficial, and I see not much harm in supporting civil disobedience groups. But it's not like that particular stance hurts anyone else, so fair enough. Kicking illegal immigrants is quite iffy though, as they don't commit more crimes than native citizens. I fancy a scheme that helps them become one of us. On the flip side, your patriotism,  international cooperation, and easier legal immigration are all very based, and those compensate for the rest.

I have a few disagreements about your social policies here and there. For example, your hardline stand against abortion might end up hurting more than it helps. We know that unsafe abortion drives maternal death rates, while legal abortion is one of the safest medical procedures. While you do take an effort to reduce unwanted pregnancies (which is good), I believe that the further step of reducing the deaths of women should be taken. It's nice that you harbor no ill will toward LGBT people, but banning pride parades wouldn't help since those parades would contribute to increasing social acceptance of them. I also disagree with you banning porn, but it's not like I have data on me to prove my point here, so eh. I guess it's more of a fundamental thing, where our morality clashes with one another. With that said, racial equality, gender equality, and  religious equality are all cool. The promotion of fidelity and support for better technology are both awesome. But allowing companies to fire individuals due to them voicing support for the Confederacy isn't. Firms should only eliminate employees due to economic redundancy and not their opinions on things. Opposition to individualism is not something that I would support either. Like independence is a good goal. And sizeable restrictions on the production of recreational drugs along with medium ones on guns are necessary to ensure good health and safety, so those are two more points in favor of you. Although you're quite anti-woke, we still agree on most things; therefore, you're still fine to me. The cultural war is not that important in the first world nowadays

I believe that your economic legislation is quite close to mine. Some public ownership, notably energy resources and transportation, is needed to improve our daily lives at home and movement outside. Universal public health insurance combined with price control of drugs (contrary to what right-libertarians think) are excellent. Your proposals to reduce carbon footprint are very comprehensive! Fairtrade is not something that I'll object to either. Increasing the minimum wage and building a welfare state should give extra power to the workers at long last. Sadly, you are not very supportive of the welfare payments for people not in employment, which is a shame. Around 96% of adults outside the labor market are either ill, retired, caregiving, or going to school. So that leaves us with a mere 3% not working for other reasons, and the number of them just slacking off is probably even less than that. Furthermore, when Alaska decided to give a  universal basic income, full-time employment didn't change. The risk of people "leeching off the system" is so small, that it won't be able to strain government's revenues. Because of this, it's better to have a universalist welfare state to have needs met and claw back the benefits with higher taxation. That's like one of the only criticisms I have of your economic policies. You're still a leftist fundamentally, and that shift toward  mixed-market socialism made you all the more awesome. On the whole, critical support to you.

(78.6%)

You know, I personally like the fact that you're willing to cooperate with other similar nations for mutual interests, whether it's free trade or diplomacy. However, your disregard of national identity will be pretty bad. Patriotism can motivate the population and is needed for social cohesion. Your desire for civil liberties and a responsible government is very admirable, although I'm not sure if free speech absolutism is the way. With that said, your economic policies are quite awesome. Whether we are a capitalist or socialist, strong unions, robust welfare, sensible state interventions, and greater workplace representation are all necessary for a thriving economy!

I consider you an ally despite your moderation. Clean page and rest in peace, my friend...

(75%)

It's pretty nice that you put water and electricity under the control of society instead of the private individuals. These industries have pretty inelastic demand. Additional public housing and a robust welfare state to provide a baseline of needs are great, and I'm happy that you pursue both of them. Pretty progressive economics so far, but there are two small problems. The first is no economic democracy; you would want workers to have a say in how firms are run. And the second is that you don't want tax rates to be too progressive. Otherwise, you would be relying on the ultra-rich to fund social services, when you want to depend on tax revenues from the whole community. But the two negatives are quickly dwarfed by the anti-trust laws and the reduction of tariffs, so that's something.

Anyway, I turned my attention to your other policies and I quite liked what I saw. The stance against discrimination based on ethnicity, race, gender, and religion is obviously needed, so I'm not going too deep into that. I still have reservations about your support of the death penalty and hate speech laws. However, I think the restrictions on adultery, legalized but regulated abortions, regulated prostitution & porn, and sex education are really chad.

To summarize, we will be on common ground in the vast majority of the key issues in the economy. You may not be a pure socialist, but I can still work with you for a more humanitarian world. Socially, your moderate progressivism is super great (progressive in many areas, but also conservative when it matters.) I disagreed with the presidential system but still liked your reformist tendencies. I just know that we are good friends policy-wise!

Neo-Blartism (61.5%)

What's the deal with your enthusiasm for wildcat strikes, lol? But anyway, direct democracy is good, but not the abolishment of  representative democracy. I don't fancy revolutions, especially the first world where we can play by democratic rules. Additionally, I am both skeptical of your short-term planning (at least it's decentralized) and your long-term  communist society without the state, money, or a  market system. You're also too culturally left and too  civically down. However, there're also other characteristics of yours, like federalism and anti-racism, that are enough to offset your downsides. Despite your flaws, I'm glad to find someone who loves workers' self-management, organized labor, free movement of people, and opposes the death penalty as much as I do! The market is good for higher productivity, though.

Neutral
Neo-Immorxism (58.6%)

I have some criticisms of your economy, some more of the government, and especially of your cultural stance. You restrict soft drugs, abortion, and adoption for certain people too much. The punishment for blasphemy and apostasy is way too disproportionate. As for LGBT issues, you're still  conservative, but I like that you are willing to tolerate people in the community. Economically speaking, a centrally planned economy is a bad way to distribute resources, and the lack of circulating money doesn't help much. Otherwise, we have more shared beliefs in the economy than I thought. I love the organized working class, economic democracy (a crucial element in socialism,)  the preservation of the environment, and a strong public sector. I'm not a fan of a one-party state because of a high chance of corruption, but your  direct democracy can resist that tendency somewhat, so that's cool. You're too hostile to international trade, but nationalism and anti-imperialism are based. Generally, you're too socially right-wing and centralized but still have mostly good economic traits.

ThisIsMyUsernameAAAism (57.1%)

You actually have pretty okay cultural stances. I agree with you that prisoners should be rehabilitated since crimes are caused by poverty more often than not. However, the abolition of prisons is not a way to achieve it. You would want to keep serial murderers away from the wider society so that they couldn't do additional harm. And also, the people's militia might serve exactly the same purpose as normal law enforcement would, so there's no need to abolish the police lol. As a social progressive, you are right to support technology as a means to improve human life (and save the environment in the process!) Feminism is also pretty good. It empowers women to be more equal to men. The policy that could help women out would be the legalization of abortion and you're right to support it as a way to reduce maternal death rates. LGBT rights are cool, and I'm in favor of regulated but accessible guns for people too!

Now we move on to your anarcho-communism and this is when I'll get more critical. To start, your method of achieving full communism is, quite flawed to say the least. The toppling of the existing order requires far more blood to be spilled than working within the current democratic systems to enact lasting changes. Why be unnecessarily violent when you can be much more peaceful in achieving your goals? And then there's also the gift economy. It could exist at a small scale as charities in the current market framework, but it's not applicable at a large scale. That's because individuals aren't as cooperative as you think they are. And finally, statelessness. I can understand liking negative liberty but the state can also ensure positive liberty. The government could ensure a baseline of needs for everyone to flourish and they also help save the world from climate change!

So to summarize, you are very culturally left-wing, but we can still compromise on quite a lot of issues to build a more tolerant society. But, I disagree heavily with abolishing the state or the market. Still, the aggregation of all of your policies leans ever slightly good (due to the similarity of our cultural stances.)

Conservative Socialist Nationalism (52.9%) - Wow, you really remind me of ComradeShrek and TheImmorxy. Anyways, your intercultural principles pretty much strike a balance between excessive division and ruthless assimilation. Couple that with the phase-out of outdated practices along with the nurture of patriotism and I think your way of maintaining national unity is on point. Similar to other AuthLeft people, your decision to put certain industries under public control and/or ownership is definitely good (namely, natural monopolies along with healthcare and education services.) However, you also have similar pitfalls as them as the result of your embrace of state socialism. Central planning shouldn't be done. It's bureaucratic and doesn't respond to the need of the consumers. Moreover, there's a problem associated with nationalizing practically everything. When a businessman creates a new enterprise (co-op or not,) it will immediately be seized by the state. That's just authoritarian. For the collectivization of agriculture, it's really hit-and-miss. I believe that the farmers should ideally band together with agricultural cooperatives to take advantage of economies of scale, but nationalizing every farm will most likely lead to shortages of food. And the protectionism... Don't you know that freer trades help developing countries develop and industrialize their economies?

For the dictatorship of the proletariat to be present, other capitalist parties would have to be outlawed, which isn't very democratic. Otherwise, at least you're more civically liberal than other authoritarian communists, with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and legalization of homosexuality (although the latter two are limited in scope.) I'm still wary of you planning to get rid of me when you get into power, however, you're not that bad when I got to read your page (less statist than Comrade Shrek for sure. :troll:)

Then we finally moved on to your cultural principles, which are as I expected from a European social conservative, so I will rate them one by one. First of all, heavily restricting abortions may save the baby, but it will hurt the women instead. A study has been done and they found that liberalizing abortion laws does reduce maternal death rates. So, we should definitely consider the lives of the baby and the women's lives as well, not just the former. The primary way to reduce abortion rates to this should be to introduce comprehensive sex education, but you might be iffy about this. Also, I don't see what's wrong with performing sex work, as long as the workers are not coerced into doing the service just to get out of poverty. I believe anyone should be able to do things that they enjoy the most, with democratic rights in the workplace. Finally, I really don't get your hostility toward transgenderism. We know that gender-affirming healthcare has been shown to improve the mental health of transgender people. At the very least, you view women as being equal to men, so that's something.

So, looking at your beliefs as a whole, they're meh. The socialist mode of ownership is neat, but you go kinda far to get them. Civil liberties are definitely there, but not comprehensive. Many of your conservative views are pretty bad, however.

(52.8%)

In some instances, nationalizations could be very beneficial for some areas (such as the water industries, healthcare, housing, transportation, etc.) and I'm glad that you have put those under public ownership. However, I think that in any other cases, firms should be cooperatively managed and compete with each other in a market instead of publicly owned due to the risks of stagnation. You shouldn't also use the labor notes, as that could make charities and all cash-based welfare services obsolete. National sovereignty is definitely our point of agreement, like how the movement of capital should be restricted, or how foreign interventions to spread democracy are primarily counter-productive.

But your hardline stances on the power of the state and traditional values have held you back. Firstly, liquidating people in the undesirable classes is too violent and should be substituted for integrating them in the new society. Secondly, sex workers might be taboo, but could still be retrained to do other jobs instead of being forced to do hard manual labor. I could argue that the labor camp in and of itself is actually a form of exploitation, but instead of the private employers doing it in factories, you have the state doing it against the criminals and undesirable people. Additionally, if you care about equality, then you should be in favor of "marriage equality." The idea is that unions for same-sex couples should have equal rights as traditional marriages. At least you leave the matter regarding LGBT up to the religious community to decide, but usually, they are more socially conservative than not. What's more, I disagree with your strong revolutionary methods to realize socialism. The bloodshed might be too much to justify the end goal.

On economic issues, I could work with you on many areas, like putting the key means of production under state ownership, being less entangled in unjustified foreign interventions, enacting strong supportive policies for working families, and strengthening the cooperative sector (but not the removal of markets and money.) You can also organize strikes to bolster the reforms cementing workers' rights and even democratizing the economy. However, we would be quite heavily opposed to each other when it comes to cultural policies. If I look at your self-insert as a whole, I would say that your policies are still leaning more good than not, but at a very slim margin.

Neo-Daveism (50%)

Your economics is quite nice. For example, I highly enjoy your advocacy for workers' control of their guilds, as self-determination for labor is more productive. As for your social views, it's bad. Reactionarism is way too far back for me. That's because I like the emphasis on reason, empiricism along with secularism, and the constitution. Even though there's nothing inherently wrong with the rule of the most qualified, aristocracy is usually undemocratic, as only the nobility holds any power. A national identity is needed to preserve our sovereignty, so props to you. Your civic views are mixed, in my opinion. Delegation of power from the central authority is necessary for the daily administration. I don't like absolute monarchism, as one dynasty usually declines until it gets inevitably replaced by another one. Constitutional monarchism can work out, but an established legal framework (a product of the Enlightenment) would already constrain the monarch. Also, I'm not sure whether a monarch does better than an elected leader. Overall, this's indeed a wacky ideology.

Neo-Bingoism (42%)

You're too undemocratic for me. On the one hand, absolute monarchism creates a large divide between the rulers and the common people. Furthermore, one-party states will most likely repress any competing political organizations. The rule of the military is exclusionary, and social conservatism is dated. On the other hand, you're not without some redeeming qualities. Parliamentarianism is a much better form of government than a presidential system, and I like radical representation of the workers. Not sure about the state meddling in the workplace, but syndicalist economics are worthwhile. I'll occasionally ally with you to advance socialist policies, but not much else.

(40%)

As a supporter of the existence of a government and a market economy, I would disagree with you on statelessness and the gift economy. The idea that we could give things to strangers without expecting anything in return is great, but not applicable for a larger society. Trading one item for another is much better and more sustainable. Also, significant state action is needed to institute social welfare, take actions against global warming, or even democratize our economy in the medium to long term (which you want.) Speaking about the environment, I think that you would want to fix the current crisis, but being doomed about the inevitability of global collapse isn't going to cut it. And as a reformist, I heavily disagree with you on doing whatever it takes to reach your goals, even crimes. We should care about improving the material conditions of the people in the short run while not losing sight of our utopias (even though my vision would be drastically different from yours.)

Judging your ideals as a whole, I absolutely like economic democracy as a concept and will ally with you to advance it (not illegally of course.) I enjoy your advocacy for the individuals to form associations voluntarily (which is something that we have to a certain extent in current democracies) and for them to be less reliant on market dependency (which can be fixed with reforms by the way.) But sadly, your bad parts just narrowly overshadowed the good ideals that you have.

Unfriendly
TBA

Enemies
TBA

Gallery
8Values/NewValues:

Closest Match: Democratic Socialism

DozenValues:

Closest Match: Left-Wing Populism

LiberationValues:

Closest Match: Liberal Socialism

LeftValues:

Closest Match: Democratic Socialism

AltValues:

Closest Match: To be decided

Comments
XarTario - Can you add me into your self-insert relations? Here's my self-insert: XarTario Thought

- add me please

- I want to know who was that one social democrat that was convinced into becoming a mixed-market socialist thanks to you

- very based Add me?

- Ey there, wanna add me? I added you :)

- Wanna add me?

- Add me - Individual Voluntaryism

- Add me (And activate google translation in english translation, you can read better)

Pantheonism - Could you add me my friend?