Federal Communalism

Federal Communalism is a  ideology which draws heavily from the writings of Murray Bookchin, especially his ideas on. It is strongly against centralization of power and advocates for decentralization from pre-revolution to beyond. Federal Communalism, in believing that the government can and should be a source of good, advocates a state which supports its constituents without becoming overly powerful. While it is, it is influenced by   and  Classical Social Democracy.

Friends
- Usually on the statist and reformist side, but principled and a valuable inspiration. - The focus on spontaneity might be fatal to the revolution, but the principles are impeccable. - Good stuff. Not a fan of communism, but those were different times. - Not pragmatic enough, but the goals are good and realistic. All hail Howie Hawkins! - Not quite as good as, but still admirable in its pursuits. - The movement is full of idiots, but the ideas are based.

Self-Inserts
Rocksism - Significantly more moderate, but still within the same realm. The main differences are over globalism. AshleyHereism - Quite utopian in end goal. A gift economy would not function well on a large scale, and I see it as beneficial to have larger-scale countries. I also find the absence of the state dangerous. Still quite agreeable in all other beliefs. Owfism - A ton of overlap. The main difference seems to be the focus on higher levels of government rather than local governments. Regardless, it still values decentralization to a degree. Self-determination being a central tenet of Federal Communalism, I disagree with World Federalism. The attempts at international unity won’t work, and separatist movements will form and fight back if they don’t resist joining in the first place. International cooperation is great, but a permanent government would be too much pressure on many countries. Also, global corporations would ideally not be allowed to exist at all. I’m also a determinist. We have no free will. Yoda8soup Thought - Why does everyone like world federalism? Perfect otherwise, though with a bit too much emphasis on markets. Glencoeism - *claims not to be a socialist* *is practically a socialist* While it doesn’t provide as many services through the government as is preferable, it still is full of great ideas. Some of the policies are too specific to be applied everywhere, as it was designed for the U.S. The technocratic council is an interesting idea, but I think it better to educate those with good intentions than to trust those who may have bad intentions. Also abolish the death penalty and postpone space travel until we can be eco-friendly about it.

Decent People
- Quite reductionist at points. However, it provides some great insight into sociology. It also inspired many of the greatest political movements the world has ever seen. - We May see eye-to-eye on social issues, but capitalism kills. - The intentions are all there, but the methods are a recipe for disaster. The authoritarianism of Lenin combined with an unwillingness to compromise results in an ideology which has all the same problems as while being more susceptible to all the problems of hyperauthoritarianism. - Fuck the KPD.

Self-Inserts
American Social Democracy - My former politics. Capitalism is exploitative by nature. Not even a robust welfare system (even with lots of other bells and whistles) can fix the disaster that is production for profit, and the wealthy won’t give up their wealth without a fight. Semi-presidential systems being less democratic than, as a close alternative, full parliamentary systems makes the claim of being “democratic” sound dubious (without doubting MATT’s honesty). The mention of ceremonial monarchs opens another yet path, but suffice it to say that I disagree. On Social Authoritarianism, I am reminded unsettlingly of. Also, planning on a national level should be rare, if ever, in order to best meet the needs of local communities. This would also greatly diminish the need for a market economy at all. Also, nationalism in any form… No. Otherwise delectable.

Scourge of the Earth
- You shouldn’t be able to own more land than that your house is on. Begone with your “objectivist” crap. - BEGONE! - Philosophically unfounded and always dangerous. - Two in one! - Free market my ass. - The “pink” is just a front to sell more products. - Based economics. Nothing else. Not even the critiques of capitalism are good. is still feudalism. - Against everything I stand for. - Maoism + anti-intellectualism. No. - Authoritarian collectivist bullshit. - Conservative authoritarian capitalism disguised as “socialism.” Pathetic. - You too. - Nope. Just no. How does anyone unironically believe this? - ……?  - Personality cult around a guy who tried (and mostly failed) to make a dictatorship out of a country which has a long history of liberal democracy. Also AuthRight for good measure. - Unfettered individualism is precisely the problem with today’s evolution of capitalism. - I swear I’ve seen this before… - 9/11 never forget. - Late-stage. - I refuse to share my toothbrush. - The state profiting off its own people? Disgusting. - What do you mean “totalitarianism is bad”? - Blind contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism. Also bad in every way. - Bad in every single way but worse. - Bipartisanism is only good when both sides have good ideas. This is not the case. - “More women CEOs” but unironically. - There are certain lines I draw when deciding whether to work with others. Communism is not one of them. If we share most of the same goals, we share enough. I love you commies. Mesoconservatism - The worst sides of and  combined. All redeeming qualities go out the window. - but adapted to conform less to reality and be broadcasted through Dennis Prager’s propaganda network. - What if instead of negotiating with the state and employers we just minimize their existence? Just a thought. - Marx and Lenin roll in their graves every time a ML speaks. Also the PSL can go to Hell. - I have to cleanse my eyes with r/antitankporn after reading about him. - Defeatist idealism.

Gang
- Gang.

Comments
Glencoe- add plz?
 * [[File:Rocksismicon.png]] Rocksism - Add me lad?
 * [[File:FedCom.png]] LizardHead - Sorry I’m kind of new to this. Where do you want to be added?
 * - He means add to your relations section and give an opinion on le ideology (I'd like to be added too if you don't mind)
 * [[File: FedCom.png]] LizardHead - Thank you. I will.
 * - I would like to be added too as well if you don't also mind, thanks.
 * [[File: FedCom.png]] LizardHead - I will.
 * [[File: FedCom.png]] LizardHead - Sure.
 * [[File:Rocksismicon.png]] Rocksism - Hello there, where would you say our ideologies differ concerning globalism? Great ideology btw and, since you're new here, if you need any help tell me or anyone here and -I assume- they'll be happy to help :)
 * [[File: FedCom.png]] LizardHead - I appreciate it. I think a worldwide federation would be dangerous. I think organizations like the World Health Organization and United Nations can be very beneficial, but a worldwide government will have too many problems meeting the needs of its constituents, to say nothing of being allowed into that position in the first place. Regional confederations like the European Union would be preferable. Temporary international coalitions would work, as they tend to be over specific issues which most citizens agree on.
 * - I agree with you, I see a world federation as a long-term goal, and although kind of improbable, if we were able to somehow progress from regional unions to a world federation over a long period of time, that would be ideal. Bookchin himself was an internationalist after all (https://www.democracynature.org/vol2/bookchin_nationalism.htm).
 * [[File: FedCom.png]] LizardHead - I see it as impossible. Impossible to begin and impossible to maintain. I am still an internationalist, just only in certain ways. Of course I agree with Bookchin’s thoughts on nationalism, as I point out to some degree in the “relationships” section. The issue is with a worldwide government. Maybe a global confederation would work, but even that would be risky. I think temporary cooperation/nongovernmental organizations/treaties work better. I certainly would not want a worldwide federation.
 * - Quick sound the based new user alarm! Also, can you add me my guy? :)
 * [[File: FedCom.png]] LizardHead - No problem.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - add me?
 * [[File: FedCom.png]] LizardHead - Sure.
 * - I'm a moderate world federalist and I believe self-determination comes first I'd describe it as more of a belief in pan-humanism and respecting others. I understand your aversion to world federalism so id thought id clear it up. :)
 * [[File: FedCom.png]] LizardHead - Thanks for clearing that up. I guessed as such. I am totally against world federalism because I see it as extremely unlikely to happen voluntarily and impossible to maintain. Of course, it would be possible if most countries are coerced into joining, but that would have all the same maintenance issues as any empire, and we both agree that would be immoral anyway.
 * - Indeed brother. :)