Pantheonism

Pantheonism is a Leftist, culturally variable, statist Ideology. It is the self-Insert ideology of the Wiki user Pantheon.

Pantheonism seeks to unite humanity within a federal gouvernment with a Social Distributist and Guild Socialist Economy, under one crown (well technically many) and banner in order to explore and conquer the stars and to end violent conflicts on earth.

History
Through the vast and dark depths of the Cosmos, there is no life known except one one planet, known as earth where a civilisation known as humanity emerged.

=Beliefs=

Ideological summary
Welfarism

Socialism Distributism Corporatism Internationalism
 * [[File:Monsoc.png]]Monarcho-Socialism
 * [[File:Guildsoc.png]]Guild Socialism
 * [[File:Marketsoc.png]]Market Socialism
 * [[File:Socdist.png]]Social Distributism
 * [[File:MonDist2.png]]Monarcho-Distributism
 * [[File:Social_corporatism]]Social Corporatism
 * [[File:Tripartism.png]]Tripartism
 * [[File:World.png]]Globalism
 * [[File:Globnat.png]]Alter-Globalisation
 * Cosmocracy
 * Alter-Cosmocracy
 * Perphistocracy
 * Alter-Perphistocracy
 * [[File:Unimon.png]]Universal Monarchism
 * [[File:World_federalism2.png]]World Federalism
 * [[File:Humanismpix.png]]Pan-Humanism
 * Galactic Federalism
 * Omni Federalism

Monarchism Transhumanism Nationalism (kinda) Progressivism Conservatism
 * Constitutional Monarchism
 * Social Monarchism
 * Archeofuturism
 * Patriotism
 * Pan-Nationalism
 * Pan-Humanism
 * Pan-Europeanism
 * Pan-Germanism (somewhat)
 * Pan-Asianism
 * Pan-Africanism
 * Indigenism
 * Progressive Conservatism
 * Civil Libertarianism
 * Progressive Conservatism

Socialism and Marxism
I am for Socialism because I am against Capitalism. Why am I against Capitalism? Well I think a system built on infinite growth and profit cannot work in a limited world and profit shouldn´t be the driving factor of economics in my opinion. Why do I reject Marx? While I do recognize Marx as a great philosopher and economist I don´t identify myself as a Marxist because of several reasons: Not even Marx himself called him a Marxist, he either called himself a Scientific Socialist or a Communist. I don´t think a large scale stable moneyless and stateless society in the modern world is realistic or even desirable since a State can benefit the people through Welfare and Public works, as history has shown attempts at Anarchism/Communism usually got crushed in a few years, however there were some exeptions of such societyíes that had one thing in common: they were all protected by states in some way examples: Zapatista ("protected" by Mexico) Rojava (America/Syria) Freetown Christiania (Denmark) and many others. Also I don´t see the need for abolishing money, it just needs to get distributed properly. Marx oposed religion and thought that families will become obsolete. He also said that the workers have no fatherland, since I consider myself a patriot (but not a nationalist) I don´t agree with that. Inviteablity of monopolsation. While it´s true that it´s a natural tendency of Capitalism Marx seemed to see it as invitable and under Socialism the monopoly wouldn´t be abolished but simply controlled by the workers and any resistance against this monopolisation would be reactionary and he classified Petit Bourgeois Socialism as a part of reactionary Socialism in the Communist Manifesto (you could consider me as a Petit Bourgeois Socialist). That´s at least what I understood from the Communist Manifesto. Violent Revolution. Marx seemed to see a violent revolution as invitable and maybe even desirable, but I think violence should always be the last resort. Many may argue that the ruling class will never volunarily give up their power but it actually often happened in history that bloodless revolutions against a elite or a autocrat succeded if it was popular enough. I somewhat agree with the quote of J. F. K. "Those who make peacefull revolution impossible make violent revolution invitable" though. Maybe I am just too naive. Feel free to criticise me.

My Economics
Okay, my Economics are basically a weird mix of State Socialism, Social Distributism, Corporatism, Guild Socialism, Market Socialism, Georgism with a bit of Gift Economy.

I think natural resources (like Air, Land, Oil, Water, Natural gas, Minerals), Infrastructure and key industries should be owned by the state or at least be controlled by it in some way. Large Companies should be broken up into smaller and local ones, also every company over 50 employees (including state owned ones) should have a works council which will be elected by the Workers and represent them. Regulations should be only done if they're neccesary to protect consumers, the environment, the workers ect. These Regulations as well as some Economic planning shall be made in a process I call Coordination, it consists of agreements between multiple companies or co-ops organized into economic sectors called Corporations (by the Corporatist definitions) or Guilds with the Gouvernment and Worker/Trade Unions. Also co-ops should be encouraged. For the Gift Economy part, local Communities should practise mutual aid.

Cellular Democracy
My ideal government structure is a Cellular Democracy in which society would be organised bottom-up by a decentralized council/assembly structure.

Parliamentarianism
Now this might bring the problem that at a certain level the averange person wouldn't have any say in decisions and would be gouverned by representatives of representatives of representatives etc. which is why the should be a muncipal, regional, national and global parliament which would be elected by the people in a representative manner, with the Parliaments having the power to veto the decisions of the councils at their respective level.

Technocratic Comitees
Also I propose adding a third layer of legislature which consists of Technocratic comitees which are meant to make sure that the decisions of councils and parliament are based on expertise and therefore they have the power to veto the decisions of parliament. Furthermore all representatives and delegates should be subject to an imperative mandate mandate which means they can be recalled by those that elected them.

On Monarchy
My most controversial opinion on this matter is my support for Constitutional Monarchy because I believe that a ruler who was raised from birth to rule and rules for lifetime or until abdication could be beneficial in certain limits, set by the constitution and ideally serve as an unifing figure for the people, however, I wouldn't necessarily mandate a Monarchy for all member states. For a Global Monarchy I propose an elective Monarchy in which the Supreme Emperor is elected by the most important dynasties, however public opinion should be taken into account through an assembly of people which were selected by sortion to ensure they represent the public. The monarch’s core constitutional powers and duties should include: Appointment of the prime minister and ministers  Calling and dissolution of parliament; calling new elections  Promulgation of laws (including the right to veto)  Be commander in chief of the armed forces  Lead coalition negotiations as a neutral arbiter  Hold weekly meetings with the government and/or prime minister  Formally appoint officers, high ranking civil servants and judges  Act as a general moderator of the state institutions and government  Be the nation’s chief diplomat and symbol abroad  Be a unifying and neutral symbol at home, a representation of the nation.