Evolutionary Socialism

is the personal ideology of DuyQuangNguyenPham. He's economically center-left to  left-wing,  civically liberal,  culturally reformist,  patriotic,  interculturalist, and  internationalist. Economically speaking, he believes in the phaseout of private enterprises with predominantly  worker cooperatives along with other mutuals in a  regulated 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 liberalization,  LGBT rights, decriminalizing recreational drugs, a reformed criminal justice system, etc. However, he is skeptical of gender self-identification or gender fluidity. Therefore, he's only a moderate progressive.

Civically, he can be best described as a liberal. Participatory democracy is deeply important to him, and so is the separation of power, so no branch of government can grow unchecked. Basically, in his ideal system, citizens will have a lot more freedom of choice in the political sphere and have many rights protected.

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, wages will not reach equilibrium in the short run. 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 and monetary policies.

The deficits wouldn't be left unpaid. Evolutionary Socialism wants to raise taxes or decrease spending to balance budgets later on. That way, debts would remain at sustainable levels, while the vulnerable will not get the short end of the stick. Dampening booms also have the added effect of preventing high inflation caused by any excessive stimulus.

He wants to have an independently-managed central bank. 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 for him would hover at non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, which is kept low (at 5%).

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

Tax system
Evolutionary Socialism endorses a high amount of taxation to fund generous cash transfers and public services that can't be left to the market. The specific taxes that he wants, however, should preferably have as little deadweight loss as possible. The primary tax base for him will therefore be: Besides these, he also supports Pigovian taxes to internalize externalities. They're mainly used to discourage harmful things, and so are not meant to be a long-term revenue stream.
 * [[File:Georgist.png]] Land value tax (close to 100%)
 * Consumed-income tax (45–60%, with the top rate applied at twice the average income)
 * Value-added tax (a uniform 25% rate on consumer goods)
 * Payroll tax
 * Destination-based cash flow tax
 * A global minimum DBCFT
 * Inheritance tax (at least 50%)
 * Net worth tax (wealth above a million dollars will be taxed at 1%)

[[File:PCB-Regulationism.png]] State interventions [[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  because an economy only governed by  supply and demand and little else is inhumane at its very core. Not only does it lead to rising precarity (which hurts workers' rights), but it also prevents the firms from feeling the environmental costs to society. Furthermore, the lack of regulations can eventually destroy firm-level competition itself, as a few oligopolies have no qualms about eliminating their rivals through unethical means. 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, including unorthodox political views, sexual orientation, or religion. For that reason, he wishes to mandate that firms have a just cause (like poor performance or economic redundancy) when terminating someone. Interestingly enough, a worker cooperative is not so willing to shred the labor force by design.
 * -|Hiring & firing process=

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 have perfectly competitive markets. There are indeed imperfections found in the labor market, where there are simply not enough companies lying around or significant costs incurred to switch jobs. Both of these contribute to the wage-setting power firms have. One way to fight oligopsonies 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.

In the long run, he feels that minimum wages should be complemented by sectoral bargaining between strong unions and the government when union density is a lot higher. He supports the creation of an economic constitution, similar to the one implemented in  West Germany. If any enterprise was found to increase its market share by engaging in anti-competitive practices (such as predatory pricing or collusion,) it will be nationalized and be run properly.
 * -|Anti-trust laws=

This is not to say that Evolutionary Socialism dislikes big businesses altogether. Sometimes, an economy of scale means that those firms can operate with greater efficiency. He is just worried about them getting so large that they start to have price-setting power, which hurt the customers or gain enough political influence through lobbying, which can subvert the political democracy itself. A financial system directs capital investments to businesses that need to expand their operations, so it has a really important role in the macroeconomy. Its failure would be catastrophic. That is why Evolutionary Socialism thinks that banking regulations, like higher reserve requirements, are important for overall economic stability.
 * -|Financial system=

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 intervened by the central government, but rather be left up to appointed economic experts.

[[File:Synd.png]] Trade unions [[File:SyndieSam.png]]
In an economy where workers are rarely able to direct how companies operate (besides just leaving), Evolutionary Socialism doesn't trust those businesses to always take workers' interests into account. This is why he is strongly in support of trade unions. Not only can they tackle wage theft right now, but they also let workers be more aware of their collective potential together, which enables more radical changes to take place down the line.
 * -|Introduction=

He thinks that a strong labor movement explains why left-of-center parties have been so dominant in the  Nordic countries. By banding together as one organized group, the workers are better positioned to not only tackle any wage theft that occurs but also support welfare state expansions to further improve their bargaining power.

On top of that, he likes unions because when they are sufficiently strong, they can give workers a greater say in corporate governance through both collective negotiations in the public sector and assistance to worker buyouts in the private sector.

He acknowledges that sometimes unions can have perverse incentives. Police unions, at least in America, focus more on job security rather than economic security, for instance. Another way of saying it is that they try to protect bad cops from getting fired, which contributes to the rampant police brutality he is so critical of. However, the solution isn't to bust the unions, but to increase UI generosity, so unemployment is not devastating to any laid-off police officer. Of course, setting up unions is not an easy task at all. Private corporations can leverage their power to try to persuade, or even intimidate, workers who are trying to organize. Captive audience meeting is a channel where they do this, so it is only fair for it to be banned. Evolutionary Socialism also likes to make it possible for every worker to join a union, so those businesses can't just cut labor costs by re-classifying normal employees into independent contractors.
 * -|Pro-union reforms=

He is of the opinion that even in firm-level bargaining systems, the positive effect on wages extends far beyond any individually-unionized workplace. For that reason, right-to-work laws should be repealed, primarily to make sure non-member workers pay enough dues to compensate the unions for their bargaining effort, but also to give unions more resources to potentially buy out firms to be run for the laborers' benefits.

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. Small-scale supplemental care can be done by health insurance cooperatives, run for the benefit of customers. Those non-profits would replace the role of private healthcare insurers.

With healthcare being available to everyone, decoupling health insurance from work would be possible, allowing the workers to be compensated more in cash, which gives them more purchasing power to buy goods or membership shares in their workplaces. Since many of the healthcare costs are socialized by the state, he believes that the government should incentivize the citizens to be healthier. Firstly, he would create public information campaigns advising the people to not abuse the system. Secondly, excise taxes on socially harmful goods, such as non-medicinal drugs and sugar-sweetened beverages are levied. As for alcohol, the state can limit its consumption by operating a liquor store monopoly. He thinks that Vinmonopolet has been pretty well-operated in Norway, and wishes to emulate that. Thirdly, although he wouldn't make vaccines universally mandatory, he would make it a requirement if one were to go to crowded areas. He thinks that the risk of diseases spreading there is too great, so he likes to take proper measures to tackle that.
 * -|How to minimize costs?=

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 problem in several ways:

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 fulfill that goal by building 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 are really valuable. Therefore, houses are to be sold for use, not to earn a rate of return. Owner-occupied, cooperative, plus social housing maintained by non-profits should 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 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 insurance
People with a work-restricting disability will receive income-replacing insurance, 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
Parents who don't want to send their kids to free public childcare centers 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. [[File:UBI.png]] Basic income
Every citizen in the country shall receive 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. The solidaristic social services could also make it less risky for the working people to run their own cooperatives ultimately. 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.

However, 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 much 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. 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * Set up regional economic development agencies, which provide coops with shared services in R&D.
 * 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 3% of their profits to any coop development fund managed by a coop federation that they like (if there is one.)
 * 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 give capital to coops specifically.

Preservation of cooperatives

 * A minimum of 20% of the profits must be put in indivisible reserves if a coop does business with non-members.
 * All profits in indivisible reserves are tax-exempt.
 * Encourage coop firms to implement internal capital accounts to ensure that its structure remains democratic.
 * Include a provision in the contracts with state banks, which dictates that a supermajority of workers must be owners in worker coops.
 * Apply just cause standard to workers that haven't got an ownership stake in coops.

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 upon entry into a company.

He also advocates for economic democracy in general to empower the stakeholders, displacing the shareholder primacy model. Although, he doesn't really think consumer cooperatives or state-owned enterprises should be the backbone, except in the case of natural monopolies or the most capital-intensive industries.
 * -|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 its 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 an altered ESOP.

"The concept of a society which is built on moral values is, in my view, too promising to be extinguished by inhuman market forces." ~ Rudolf Meidner

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

There are some ways to help the sovereign wealth fund accumulate more assets. The first is to use the revenues from taxes on assets. Secondly, the government can issue low-interest bonds. And finally, the central bank can use its newly-created money to buy securities, which can get the economy out of recession. Those assets would then be transferred to the mutual fund.

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 SWFs, merit pay can be used to reward returns maximization for the public.

The structure of those mutual funds allows governments to not be dependent on any one sector. Moreover, many national SWFs can help stabilize the financial markets, while preventing bailouts from accruing to the private shareholders. What's more, since those funds are controlled by a democratically accountable state, they represent the people's wealth, effectively reducing wealth inequality. And finally, those profits can be utilized for social welfare purposes, even making a social dividend all the more feasible.

[[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. Moreover, 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 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] reoffence rates. Therefore, the government should own detention centers.
 * -|The prison system=

As a constructivist, Evolutionary Socialism believes socioeconomic factors play a significant role in determining crime rates. For example, poverty has been shown to correlate with violent crimes. Because of this, he advocates emphasizing rehabilitative practices instead of punitive ones.

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

Ideally, he wants to phase out the life without parole sentences as well (which are basically very delayed death penalties) by restoring 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 release.

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 'defund the police' slogan, preferring the phrase 'demilitarize the police' much more.
 * -|The law enforcement=

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. Evolutionary Socialism cherishes the 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=
 * Encourage 'reduce, reuse, and recycle' with posters, awareness campaigns, or otherwise to lower the need for landfills.
 * Do public investments in biodegradable plastics and promote those when they become more widely available, since they are more decomposable than regular plastics.
 * Issue income-based fines to litterers to keep the streets clean.
 * Prohibit ocean dumping to reduce the prevalence of garbage patches.
 * Integrate our towns into nature by building green and blue infrastructure.
 * Extend national protection to forests, seeing they have a crucial role in carbon sequestration and flood mitigation.
 * Impose sanctions on ecologically destructive countries, such as [[File:Cball-Brazil.png]] Brazil under [[File:Bolsonarism_-_alt.png]] Bolsonaro.

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

[[File:Atheism.png]] Religion [[File:Religious.png]]
On one hand, Evolutionary Socialism opposes 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:Liberal_Democracy.png]] Form of government [[File:Republicanismpix.png]]
Imagine an undemocratic state that owns many industries deemed to be essential, such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, utilities, etc. You cannot, in good faith, say that these are used for the good of all if the entity managing them isn't accountable to the wider society.
 * -|The necessity of democracy=

The only way is to give power to the public to control the state apparatus. In other words, political democracy is the precondition of  socialism. Evolutionary Socialism wants to advance to a semi-direct democracy, where the people can vote for and subsequently recall their representatives. The citizens also have the ability to vote in referendums and popular initiatives. He believes it's important to further empower everyone to reduce the influence of corporate interests, and it's a way to pass progressive agenda more easily. Just look at how Florida passed the bill to increase the minimum wage to $15, even though its legislature was in the hands of Republicans.
 * -|Government structure=

What's more, he prefers a parliamentary system to a  presidential one. Since the prime minister comes from the legislature, the executive and legislative branches are much more in sync, giving them an easier time implementing policies.

Lastly, he believes that the senate should stop being used. It might play a role when the government was more decentralized, giving voice to the regional states. But now, it's simply an anti-democratic institution that gives some votes more power than others, just based on their location. Thus, he wants a unicameral legislature, instead of a bicameral one.

Electoral system
He deplores the first-past-the-post system. He dislikes how third parties only have a slim chance against the two main parties, leading to staticism and stagnation. In his opinion, it might make sense to go for ranked-choice voting since it's a feasible option now, but long-term, he wishes for some form of proportional representation. That way, multiple political parties are encouraged to form a coalition, gaining a majority to govern.

He also wants the electoral college gone. Championing states' rights isn't worth it when the winning candidate doesn't even need to earn the majority of the popular vote.

In addition, gerrymandering would be deemed illegal. As an alternative, a non-partisan redistricting commission would be in charge of drawing boundaries for voting districts, which couldn't be used to any party's advantage.

Campaign finance
Evolutionary Socialism believes that big money in politics has made his government less democratic, which is quite worrying. To him, the right of the rich and powerful to lobby doesn't trump the right for everyone to be represented. He proposes a few ways to fight it.

In America specifically, he wants to overturn Citizens United vs. FEC, making the following possible. He will then regulate how much money can be given to political candidates. To top it all off, public financing would allow small contributions from ordinary people to be matched with public funds, reducing the power of corporate interests even more.

The news media
Evolutionary Socialism thinks that a free press is necessary for a thriving civil society. This is why he is critical of the mass media  in  the United States, believing that the  concentration of media ownership encroaches on free expression that he so cherishes. In his view, the promotion of media cooperatives can decentralize the media landscape more.

On top of that, he wants more interventions and public provisions of goods in information markets too. For one, he supports the implementation of the fairness doctrine to present opposing views fairly, which could effectively fight political polarization, thus stabilizing our society. Also, disinformation to him should be more restricted in general. Any companies that purposefully spread those will be hit with harsh penalties. And finally, he is in favor of well-funded public broadcasters, which operate independently from the government and corporations, to inform the public about what's going on.

[[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 disinformation, 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.

Surveillance
He's not opposed to CCTV cameras being used by the police to deter crimes. For example, a potential thief can be discouraged to steal when he sees the camera watching him in a store since being stealthy would be impossible in that case. With that said, he believes that utilizing surveillance in excess is a pretty bad idea because it constitutes a breach of privacy. Governments should only use this in moderation.

Gun control
To him, every gun purchaser must be law-abiding, pass a mental health check and be old enough before being allowed to buy them. That way, accidental deaths are kept to a minimum and violent criminals have less access to deadly weapons. A waiting period would be introduced to allow the government to perform the background check.

Furthermore, he doesn't like the stand-your-ground laws. He sees no reason why an individual should be stopped from running away to escape a threat, and so wants to see that law get eliminated.

[[File:Modnat.png]] National sovereignty
Evolutionary Socialism supports national self-determination. He knows of Vietnam's subjugation by  the French, so he pretty much dislikes  imperialist endeavors. Countries all across the globe should have the ability to determine their own course of development, free from coercion from the great powers.

He is a civic nationalist, since to him, nationhood is defined by the shared language and values of the citizens. He finds it pretty important to foster the national identity because it creates a sense of solidarity among the people, which is necessary for the maintenance of a strong welfare state.

He is intercultural, albeit leaning  polycultural. What this means is that cross-cultural communication would bind the different cultural groups together, in service of the nation. In cases where parallel societies pose a problem to successful integration, he would advocate for some cultural fusion, where minority cultures would be incorporated to create a new national culture. Because he emphasizes the similarities instead of the distinctiveness between cultures, his view is different from multiculturalism on the whole.

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.

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. However, he will be careful about it, as corrupt leaders could potentially use the funds to enrich themselves, instead of uplifting the people. Still, he wants to increase the aid to poorer nations to help them become more prosperous.

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 in multilateral trade agreements, where third-world workers can negotiate as much pay 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, international investments would be more regulated via a modified Bretton Woods economic order.

Intergovernmental organizations
As long as these organizations are bottom-up, he's fine with them. In fact, he's cool with the developing countries pooling their resources together by integrating into regional free trade blocs, which can then bargain for better terms of trade with the more developed nations.

Evolutionary Socialism is not against the existence of military alliances. He can see their role in maintaining the sovereignties of the members. However, they must strictly be for national security, not meddling in the Third World. Say that he took power in Finland, which has just joined  NATO due to concerns about  Russia. He would not leave the alliance in that instance. He would, however, vote down resolutions to intervene in any foreign countries.

Once again, he's not against the existence of a European Union. It has done a good job reducing carbon emissions and ensuring peace among the EU members. What he doesn't like are the usage of austerity measures when confronted with radical initiatives from below and the centralized monetary policies. He wants to further democratize the EU and let the setting of interest rates be in the hand of each nation to solve those problems. In that sense, he is a soft Eurosceptic.

As with the United Nations, he's chill with it. He believes that the humanitarian aid that it has given has contributed to the lowering of poverty all across the world. However, he takes issue with the enormous power that the permanent members have, and the horrible sanctions that the organization imposed, particularly the one on Iraq. To tackle this, he wishes for greater democratization of the UN, so that it reflects the interest of all members, not just the Big Five. Once more, he wants to reform the institution, rather than abolish it. Like the EU, he's skeptical of further federalization, though he doesn't have a problem with it if it's done through voluntary agreements.

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

[[File:Yes.png]] Friends
Democratic Socialism

My ideal. The path 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.

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.

[[File:Kinda_Yes.png]] Friendly
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. My main worry is that maintaining social corporatism for too long would just stall any further progress toward wholesale socialization of the economy, as you now have an  organized group of private owners mobilized against  leftist reforms. Nevertheless, I'm you in realpolitik, but ultimately you're just the transitional step.

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 leftism. 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.

[[File:Meh_by_buni.png]] Neutral
Neoliberalism

I also believe that government restrictions on trade & building homes should be done away with, and I'm something of a New Keynesian myself.

However, I just can't see eye-to-eye with allowing unfettered capital flows or deriding unions because they distort the labor market. And most importantly, the lack of openness to any form of post-capitalism disallows you from being ranked higher.

[[File:Meh.png]] Unfriendly
Conservative Liberalism

Bruh, stop complaining about the wokes. Also, your civic liberalism does NOT make up for your economic liberalism.

[[File:No.png]] Enemies
National Socialism

The greatest villain in the 20th century, who ended a nascent republic, started World War II, and killed millions in the process. 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=

[[File:Yes.png]] 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.

[[File:Kinda_Yes.png]] 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.

[[File:Meh_by_buni.png]] Neutral


Kalecki's idea of political business cycles, where the power dynamics between labor and capital dictate what policy is enacted, is certainly interesting. With that said, the job guarantee is not exactly the best idea. Full employment to raise worker power is good, but that could be better achieved with ALMPs. On top of that, fiscal stimulus is good, but neglecting the role of monetary policy is unwise. For example, economists believed that 1987 stock market crash would result in the second Great Depression, but that didn't happen. Why you may ask? Because the central banks injected liquidity on time to keep the economy going. Furthermore, fighting against austerity is based, but at a certain point, you have to balance your budgets, unless you want to default, which would be disastrous. The tiebreaker for your theory would be the new Keynes Plan to correct global trade imbalances, which is actually really cool! So, quite mixed on the whole, although still leaning good.

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 inflation spikes. I prefer an inflation-targeting scheme instead. On the flip side, your work on the natural rate of unemployment has been very influential for the Keynesian thought at least.

[[File:Meh.png]] Unfriendly
New classical economics

[[File:No.png]] Enemies
Austrian economics
 * -|Self-inserts=

[[File:Yes.png]] Friends
Yori Model (96.5%)

I'm not sure about focusing on effective demand, but that's about it. We are similar in so many aspects. The parliamentary road to  socialism, the  cultural liberalism, the  love for our homeland, and  worldwide cooperation are just some of them. By the way, I noticed that you defended open trade now, which made you all more based. On the whole, you have one of the best, if not the best, self-inserts on this site.

Owfism (88.9%)

Hey man, could you at least implement some regulations regarding firearms? There are many ways to do this, whether they are universal background checks or waiting periods. Don't just liberalize access to guns lol; it makes me feel uneasy. With that criticism out of the way, your support for freedom of speech, freedom of movement,  free & fair elections, and  right to privacy are just dope. It's everything I could have asked for in relation to civil liberties, for real. Culturally speaking, I really like how you emphasize social equality first and foremost, but that affirmative action, nah, I think it's misguided, though your reasoning for it is still good.

As for the economics, from my cursory look at it, you want to increase unionization to set the course for  market socialism, which is epic. I don't see much to criticize here, except for the tax rates. You should bump those numbers up; these are rookie numbers. No reason why the LVT couldn't be raised to nearly 100%, and the  inheritance tax to be increased to 50%. Make those taxes broad-based then you can have the large welfare state you want. With that said, I couldn't find anyone who is closer to me economically, except for maybe Glencoe13, so good job.

Also, your support for a world government is too much for me, however, I can rest easy, knowing that you won't use force to compel unwilling nations to join international institutions. Your wish to democratize those supranational organizations helps me relax even more, honestly. My main fear with globalism is the usage of force to maintain its structure, but if you don't use any of that, then I don't need to worry too much. To wrap it up, we agree on many, many things. You are me, but a bit more libertarian and quite a bit more  internationalist. Congrats.

(88.3%)

Too cosmopolitan for my liking. Otherwise, you're a more libertarian and  Marxist version of myself.

(87.8%)

Before I continue, I just want to say that your new formatting looks even nicer than before. With that said, let's begin.

I see that your page has undergone many changes. You utilized broad-based taxes to fund social programs; you became  intercultural and  patriotic, and most importantly, you elaborated on further  reforms of our government. All are very good! Although, I request that you lower the corporate income tax since its incidence is primarily on workers and users, not the shareholders. A sovereign wealth fund is better for that purpose. But still, you are a culturally permissive  social democrat with an emphasis on  civil liberties and are sympathetic to  worker-centered market socialism. That right there is pretty chad.

In conclusion, if I found you after making a political campaign to represent my constituents, we would become coalition partners for a really long time, making the economy work for all of us, not just a few, and expanding democratic freedoms in the process. You are certified to be based, even more so now. By the way, you're currently the top-ranked non-socialist, so far.

Uzarashvilism (87.0%)

You're quite socially liberal for a Christian, which is cool, and support progressive reforms in diplomatic spheres along with the  democratic road to  socialism, which are awesome. However, I don't agree with you suppressing radicals, because that could be used against us leftists. But still, pretty solid and well-rounded. LibSoc gang!

South Floridan Socialism (84.5%)

Not sure about giving full independence to  South Florida, but nearly everything else you stand for is really cool. Your non-alignment is an improvement over the views of your peers on r/neoliberal, and I especially like your policy proposals regarding the housing market and global trade. Really sucks to see your page gone.

(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 nationalized entities or  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 rehabilitative 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 feel that strict wealth taxes would plague your system with capital flight, and your militancy is too much for my taste. Despite this, we agree on many principles, 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.

Pantheonism (80.2%)

I really like how well-thought-out your transitional phrase is. The pragmatic implementation of immediate worker control is great, which can help increase popular support to experiment with worker cooperatives. And although political globalism is not good, your proposed path to it is the least likely to generate resistance from unwilling nations, which is okay.

Your views are not without a few problems, though. For one, I agree that we should have checks and balances, but don't you think having councils, parliaments, and the  guild chambers all being able to veto each other is a bit excessive? All you're doing there is making it much harder to pass legislation, leading to gridlock. If the voters don't even know what they're voting for, they will most likely lose trust in our democratic institution, and that's bad. Secondly, I don't think autarky will lead to the outcome you want at all. When your domestic supply chain runs into a problem, do you think you will be more resilient with just your domestic firms or both domestic and international firms? Obviously, you will pick the second option, right?

These are just minor flaws, though, and I can look past that. Though we may have some disagreements, you are still one of the better socialists. I hope you hold the vision of a better world, of democratic socialism, close to your heart, and don't give it up, my friend!

[[File:Kinda_Yes.png]] Friendly
(78.8%)

If I had to list some minor issues, there are several. You are somewhat too antagonistic toward porn and prostitution, in my opinion. On top of that, I no longer believe transmedicalism is the way, as gender euphoria is a possibility. So if you want the most happiness, you shouldn't restrict gender-affirming care just because an adult doesn't have gender dysphoria. So far, you are correct that we became more distant ideologically. Still, that doesn't change the fact that you disdain exploitation of nations, favor  social equality quite dearly, want to transition the economy to be under the common good and give greater decision-making capacity to the masses. Welcome back to democratic socialism, comrade.

(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 is 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 with 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. Also, 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 the 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.

Neo-Kiraism (69.8%)

Your sympathies for a vanguardist state apparatus really left me uneasy, to be honest. The interests of the working people are too diverse to be represented by just a single party, so multiple parties are much better. Also, I really don't like your intolerance toward certain dissidents, even going so far as to put them in jail just for being against communism. If your ideas are better, they will eventually win out. No need to suppress the critics.

However, on the flip side, I really like your dedication to post-capitalism, social equality, some e-direct democracy, and a healthy combination of  leftist internationalism and  nationalism. The focus on new technological advancements to defeat climate change is also something that I can get behind. We can be allies on numerous issues, but we may need to part ways when the issue of political parties and tactics arises.

Individual Voluntaryism (63.4%)

Based on the limited information that you put on your page, we see eye-to-eye with each other in many cases. Workplace democracy in a market economy is ideal for both of us, and although your civic views are too extreme, I still like your support of personal freedoms.

Unfortunately, you are against democracy, but for a reason that I believe to be valid. Many democracies recognize that as a problem, which is why they never allow individual rights to be taken away, no matter how strong a majority government is.

However, if you just want to find like-minded individuals to create a mini ego-mutualist society, that's perfectly fine with me.

TypicalFan1 Thought (60.9%)

I like the low tariffs, but I figure it's due to your  free-market mentality, which I dislike. Anywho, the first question I have for you is, how can you maintain basic public services if you also want to cut taxes across the board? The second is, how do you know which person is law-abiding if you want easy access to guns? Besides those, I guess you're tolerable, owing to you minding your own business, and you're actually pretty okay as far as conservative capitalism  goes.

[[File:Meh_by_buni.png]] Neutral
(55.4%)

Bro, you're too heavy-handed on cultural matters. Like seriously, suppressing BLM and  intersectionality? I disagree with the latter, but I don't go that far in trying to remove it. Also, I'm not exactly sure how the appointment of experts to the government would work, and the  state atheism is cringy as always. At least your center-left economics and  empiricism are your saving graces, but you just barely passed the test.

(46.6%)

I thought that you will be ranked a lot lower, based on how you identify yourself (a statist  monarchist  conservative,) but I'm surprised by your moderation.

As someone self-described as oscillating between rightism and  authoritarian rightism, you're actually quite liberal, which is awesome. However, they're offset by the generally neoliberal economic views and some cultural stuff that is, frankly, quite egregious.

To start, you emphasize the freedom of individuals, which I agree with, but also believe that it is somehow possible without trade unions. That's not true because the right for workers to organize is crucial in a free society. Moreover, you said that you want to be defensive mainly but also pledged to fight socialist &  communist movements abroad through  NATO. The two positions are contradictory, so you need to shed one or the other. Also, the fact that you wish to reject immigrants from specific backgrounds is very questionable to me. You can't control what your race will be, so why discriminate based on that?

There are more problems with your self-insert ideology, but I won't get into them, as my wall of text is too long already. With that out of the way, you're not too bad for my opposite. Of course, our disagreements are enduring, but I think we can leave each other alone for the most part.

Techno-Ultranationalism (42.9%)

Oh boy, my opinions on you will probably start a controversy, but you aren't as horrid as I thought. Your economics are acceptable, though with a few caveats. Cash transfers are too stringent, and the banned unions are quite cringe. I mean, what kind of entity would negotiate worker representatives and salaries with the superiors without them? On top of that, a heavily directed economy + far-reaching state ownership doesn't work well (think of  India pre-liberalization.) Under your system, the SOEs will most likely be riddled with debts, as there are barely any  market pressures disciplining them. Still, I like your public services, automation, and the general pro-worker outlook.

However, that doesn't make up for civic, cultural, foreign, and philosophical axes of yours. I'm not a fan of plundering a future Europe, first of all. If you are self-sufficient enough, why engage in  imperialism? Couldn't you be an isolationist, at least? Also, that collectivism is just too much. I prefer a state where individual rights are protected rather than a state willing to dispose of the individual to further its goals. And your views of the role of the state are straight-up nightmarish. A militarized police force is bad enough, but you also employ torture, the death penalty, and kangaroo courts. What good is a competent judiciary if it is going to charge an elected representative with crimes willy-nilly? To be fair, I agree that different races should be equal before the law, and your restraint in  eugenics is worth supporting (your social views are not that bad for a  reactionary modernist, though not ideal.) With that said, that isn't enough.

[[File:Meh.png]] Unfriendly
TBA

[[File:No.png]] Enemies
TBA

Relationships (soon to be phased out)

 * -|General=
 * -|Self-inserts=

Friendly
(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 action 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

Navboxes
8Values/NewValues:

Closest Match: Democratic Socialism

DozenValues:

Closest Match: Keynesian Socialism

LiberationValues:

Closest Match: Liberal Socialism

LeftValues:

Closest Match: Democratic Socialism

AltValues:

Closest Match: To be decided

Comments
Reactionary-Cheesenism - pls add me
 * - Sure.

XarTario - Can you add me into your self-insert relations? Current self-insert: Neo-XarTario Thought; Former self-insert: XarTario Thought
 * - I will.

- add me please
 * - Added you, bruh.

- I want to know who was that one social democrat that was convinced into becoming a mixed-market socialist thanks to you
 * - It was T0quetto. Anywho, I have added you to my relations.

- very based Add me?
 * - I've added you man. Add me pls.

- Ey there, wanna add me? I added you :)
 * - I've added you, dude.

- Wanna add me?

- Add me - Individual Voluntaryism
 * - Added.

- Add me
 * - Added.

Pantheonism - Could you add me, my friend?

Tomassciism - Normally I do not ask for such stuff, but I am very curious about your opinion on my ideology. If everything's right, you should already have your ideology reviewed.


 * Add me?
 * - I'll make sure to add you after doing so for Owfedcdl.

- I do not typically say this but can you add me? It seems like my message got forgotten
 * - Added. Add me, please.
 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism - Can you add me too?
 * - Sure thing.

- Yo, I've recently moved away from marxism and my ideology has changed a bit. If you'd like to add me again, that would be great. :)

- I have changed my ideology fairly significantly since last updating it, so when you get the chance, pls reassess it

Neo-Kiraism - add me
 * - You have been included in my relations.

Danielism - add me

- My ideology has... quite evolved, to say the least. Update the relation and I'll add you back.

- Hello Duy, I'd like you to update my relations since my page is complete and far more in-depth than the one you reviewed it since there are a lot more specific things about my ideology that you can cover. I would like to see that review. Please and thanks. BERNHE0504: Can you add my new self insert? Please & Thank You.
 * - Alright, I'll try and re-add you (for the third time.) :p
 * - Your request will be fulfilled.