Create a new article
Write your page title here:
We currently have 5,885 articles on Polcompball Anarchy Wiki. Type your article name above or create one of the articles listed here!

    Polcompball Anarchy Wiki

    Armandonian Cooperativism

    (Redirected from Armandonian Liberalism)

    "Men are no more dependent beings that need protection from a hierarchical and paternalistic system; they are independent beings capable of guiding themselves and can approach others as equals."

    Armandonian Cooperativism is user GeneraleArmando's self-insert ideology that mixes various beliefs from the center and left wings of politics, mainly from Liberalism (and all its variants), Social Democracy, Market Socialism and, more limitedly, some variants of Right-Libertarianism and Left-Libertarianism.

    Ideology Template

    Politics, State and Government

    • Form of Government

    I believe in a Semi-Direct Liberal Democratic Federative Republic with a strong Constitution (In order to protect Civil Liberties from Dictatorship of the Majority) and a strong emphasis on Experts making sensible policies based on the will of the elected politicians and, thus, of the people.


    • State Powers and its Limits

    The State is both a necessity and a benefit for society, even though I do have my reservations against excessive Economic Regulations, excessive State Intervention and most forms of state-mandated Culture.

    I am extremely Anti-Authoritarian and I critique Military Conscription and Compulsive Military Service, Government Surveillance, Imperialism, State Capitalism and Excessive Interventionism as Authoritarian Actions and Government Overreach.


    • Monarchy

    In principle, I have nothing against Ceremonial Monarchies, and I would even support a Constitutional Monarchy where the monarch has either Reserve Powers comparable to those of a Parliamentarian Republic, or executive power and the duty to nominate capable ministers.


    • Presidentialism



    • Ministries and Ministers



    • Parliamentarianism and Democracy


    Against Electocracy



    • Non-Party Parliamentarianism

    Political Parties are detrimental to democracy, WIP

    Alliances, not Parties



    • Technocracy

    I support replacing all Senates with a ' House of Experts ', where actual experts, nominated by the President or the Monarch , also vote (and veto) on laws. They should also have some legislative power

    This would ensure that destructive policies aren't put in place before being analysed by more people that actually have the power to block them, unlike today's democracy, where the dominant party can pass basically any law.


    • Subsidiarity


    Regions should have much more power in the state, as they are much more conscious of their local problems when compared to the Central Government WIP






    • Political Methodology

    I overall personally support Fusion Reformism in the form of both Social Economy Activism ( Co-operative Ownership, Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP), Board-Level Employee Representation (BLER)) and of Ordoliberal-adiacent economics. In the event of an Authoritarian Government I do however support both Peaceful and Violent means to attain Liberty once again.


    • Foreign Policy

    Diplomatically, I am a strong Pro-Europeanist that would like closer European integration, but not to the level of a Federation. I also support close International Cooperation as a mean of peace rather than Military Interventionism. However, I still recognize how military intervention can potentially be better in some situations (E.g. against ISIS or in genocidal countries).


    • European Union


    As I have said, I am a strong Pro-Europeanist and, in order to reach closer collaboration between European countries, while still maintaining a necessary degree of independence, I see a Confederation as the right approach: common European Army, European Police Force, European Highway and Railway systems, Energy Policy and a common European Legal System should be objectives to strive for, while there should be a bit more independence on Regulations and Public Tender Issuance and Economic matters in general (See: Italy's Ban on Plastic Bags overturned by the EU (in Italian); Denmark suspends reviewing wind power projects over possible EU law conflict). The common EU market and the EU-wide policies, regulations and institutions present today should still be maintained and even enlarged.


    TLDR; European states should eventually dissolve and become a strong confederation of the countries' regions; Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Patchwork and a kinda Neocameralist/Charter Cities argument for regional policy competition, albeit democratic


    • Palestine - Israel Question

    I define myself as an Anti-Zionist, since I, in principle, refuse any legitimacy of the state of Israel; however, I also believe that the current situation has both gone too far to delete Israel from the map without creating unnecessary suffering and that the current generation is mostly free from the faults of their fathers and mothers, so I propose either a two-state solution with Israel mostly going back to 1947 borders (With obvious adjustments for modern times based on the 1967 borders) and abandoning illegal settlements in Cisgiordania, or a one-state solution where religion is completely banned from state legislation (Other than respecting freedom of religion and religious festivals) and total equality between all ethnic groups is upheld.

    Culture and Society

    I define myself as a Radical Liberal, as I have a strong commitment to Civil Liberties, Freedom Of and From Religion, Anti-Clericalism, Liberal Egalitarianism, Cultural Liberalism, primacy of the Individual, Individualist Feminism and supporting Government Programs that make it possible for everyone to put their rights and liberty into practice (Support programmes for the homeless, for abandoned LGBT teens, economic safety nets, ...). I also support a Pragmatic and Moderate form of Progressivism in society, without forcing it on people 9 times out of 10 (As it has generally the opposite effect).

    • Religion and the State

    As part of my Anti-Clerical and Laicistic policies, I believe that religious authorities should not partecipate in political life and that the state should have an Atheistic or Deistic approach to life, without devolving into a priori Repression of religion.

    • State Deism

    (This is probably my strangest belief).

    I believe that direct Religious influence on the government is almost always negative and, as such, I see State-Sponsored Deism with Religious Freedom as the only way to defend it from Religions , as the state would ultimately need to conform to the Deistic worldview (which is basically the same as the Atheistic one).

    • Nation

    I deem Citizenship and Language as the two main factors of nationality, with Culture playing only a smaller part overall. Patriotism is a necessity in my opinion, as it just means "Love for one's own country and cultural characteristics" and not "Belief in one's own supremacy on the basis of country and nation".

    • Immigration

    I am supportive of immigration; however, I also understand that Interculturalism is necessary to preserve the Civil Liberties from Conservative Immigrants that want to change their host country to a less Free one. I am thus critical, at times, of Multiculturalism, especially in regards of Religions. I support the 'Ius Culturae' rather than the 'Ius Soli' and I am against the 'Ius Sanguinis' past the parents.

    I think we should crackdown on Illegal immigration and accept less refugees overall (still helping them and treating them humanely), but at the same time, we should simplify the process for legal immigration, as today it is excessively slow and cumbersome.

    • Crimes and Punishments

    Restorative or Retributive Justice?

    "Tough on crime, tough on causes of crime"

    Sir Tony Blair

    I believe that justice should be fundamentally retributive (but not cruel and not excessive) and restoration should be seen as an important part of justice, but not it's first and foremost objective.

    At the same time, we should still work towards resolving the causes of crime (Poverty, corruption, discrimination, lack of education, bad parenting, ...) through government programmes.

    Expulsion of Criminal Immigrants


    Death Penalty

    I disdain death penalty in all cases but these ones:

    □ Serial Rape

    □ Mass Murder

    □ (Maybe I'll add other in the future)

    • Colorblind Society

    I regard myself as Anti-Identity politics and would like to see a society where people are not judged or classified on the basis of Race, Ethnicity, Sex, Language (Mostly), Sexual Orientation or Gender, but rather on their Knowledge, Merits, Culture (As in, how they behave in regards to their culture) and content of their character.

    • Post-Gender Society

    I believe that we should strive to attain a Post-Gender society, where Sex has no meaningful impact on the perception of a person and on how they should behave.

    • My little Conservative side

    I am Moderately Conservative on a few issues:

    Open Marriages

    Open marriages are both false and a fraud, as marriage should be deep connection and trust between two individuals (Regardless of Sex, , Sexual Orientation , Gender, etc.). In addition, open marriages are damaging to eventual children, who wouldn't have fixed parental figures.

    Open marriages shouldn't be recognised as valid marriages and should be treated as marriage frauds and sham marriages and should be accordingly punished.

    Culture War

    I fucking hate the Culture War and both Alt-Lite and SJWs as whiny kids who need to understand the concept of Individual Liberty
    Architectural Reactionarism

    I am generally an Architectural Reactionary with a preference on styles from the Renaissance to the 1800s, but I don't inherently oppose newer styles of buildings (Fuck 1950s-1990s architecture though, ugly as fuck.

    • Linguistic Nationalism

    My most nationalistic policy would be requiring all immigrants that request a citizenship to either:

    □ A - Change/translate their surnames in the state's official language

    □ B - Give them two surnames: the first one being a surname in the state's official language and the second one being their native surname

    Why Linguistic Nationalism? Language is the only way to completely understand a given Culture; Language is the only indissoluble connection one has to one's own nation, unlike any other one, which are either abandonable or artificial ; (WIP)


    ⬢ Philosophical Influences

    "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! “Have courage to use your own understanding!”--that is the motto of enlightenment."

    Immanuel Kant, extract from "Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment?"

    My greatest ideological influences come from the Enlightenment Era and similar movements both preceding and succeeding it. I may define myself as a Kantian and Post-Kantian gnosiologically and epistemologically.

    I was also influenced by Romanticism (More particularly by the Pre-Romantics and the italian author 'Giacomo Leopardi') as I think that emotions are almost as important as rationality (it would be a 50.5% Rationality to a 49.5% Emotions).

    My ethics partly come from Immanuel Kant's ideas and partly are not too dissimilar from J.S. Mill's thoughts ( Utilitarianism and the Harm Principle).

    I believe in the extreme importance of Relativism, Post-Modernism, Post-Structuralism and Positive Nihilism: this is because I think it is impossible for every human to have the exact same thought process, as life shapes us and our way of thinking.

    All of this makes me an Anti-Positivist.

    Humanitarianism is the biggest part of my ideas and it is the whole engine of my political thought.

    Marxism, Catholic Social Teaching, Humanism and the Austrian School have had some influence on my way of thinking, but I would never identify directly with any of those movements.

    Pragmatism is also a big part of my thought process.

    How do I define myself philosophically?

    Personally, I find myself as mainly influenced by and (somewhat) part of these movements and schools of thought:

    ⬢ The Human (WIP)

    • The Fundamental Meaninglessness of Life

    To understand my point of view, we need to start from a single axiom: Life is fundamentally meaningless and we can only make subjective meanings out of it.

    There is basically no interacting God, no teleological end, no divine providence, which makes Atheism, Deism and Pantheism the only doctrines I accept; I, however, have respect for animistic and natural religions.

    • Human Action

    Another axiom, very similar to the Praxeologist one: There is no human nature but self-interest, which means that even altruism is fundamentally self-interested

    • Humans as the Measure of Everything

    TLDR; Transcendental Idealism + Personal ideas shaping how we see the world. Res Cogitans/Extensa. Physical world (Meaningless objects, meaningless everything) and Metaphysical world (Human relations, human understanding).

    • Rationality, Irrationality, Emotions

    TLDR; Neutrality of reason. Impossible neutrality in decision. Equal importance of emotion and reason. Esprit de Geometrie/de Finesse.

    ⬢ The State and Society (Heavy WIP)

    • Justification of the State and Taxation
    • On Liberty


    Liberty and Equality (WIP)

    Liberty and Security (WIP)

    "The aim of all socialist measures, even of those which appear outwardly as coercive measures, is the development and the securing of a free personality. Their more exact examination always shows that the coercion included will raise the sum total of liberty in society, and will give more freedom over a more extended area than it takes away."[1]

    • Tolerance
    • Egalitarianism

    Humans are obviously unequal from birth, be it because of height, sex, colour of the skin, et cetera. However, it would be inhuman to consider people as inherently less than others because of unchangeable and casual characteristics.

    We can say that we should judge people 'not because of the color of their skin, but because of the content of their character', as the human has the capacity of bettering itself to the point where 'natural advantages' get outclassed by sheer 'force of will'.

    People should thus be judged primarily through their capacities and only secondarily and minimally through their unchangeable characteristics.

    • Metapolitics (WIP)

    Ideological purity only hurts a movement in the long run. This is because pure ideology is increasingly distant to rationality and increasingly irrational and unachievable.

    • The State and State Action (WIP)

    Legitimacy of state action is part of the realm of irrational thought, so there is no universal consensus of what kinds of state action can be considered legitimate or not.

    I will defend the liberal views on the matter though.

    TLDR; The state's legitimate when it acts in order to preserve freedom and wellbeing; Being judged by one's character and not one's body is a just principle that should be legally protected; Non-economic laws should strive to preserve freedom of thought and the possibility of relativism; The harm principle is a good basis for laws; The scope of democracy should be reduced in order not to encompass most social and cultural matters

    • Against Ethnicity and Race as Concepts (WIP)

    The concept of ethnicity easily loses any sense, as an italian in germany who doesn't know to be italian is completely equal to an "ethnic" german.

    ⬢ Philosophy of Property

    Thanks to Robert LaFevre, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine and Robert Nozick for the inspiration.


    • The Origin of Private Property

    As Robert LaFevre puts it, Private Property is a natural right, in the sense that every man has the will to own something, which sets him apart of all the others. Private property arises not from the state, but from the human will to own property, which creates a 'social contract', where everyone has an interest in not stealing in order not to be stolen from, even if the owner is not present.


    • Private Property and its Defence

    I reject the notion that private property is a purely artificial concept created exclusively by violence, either private or from the state. The best defense of private property is primarily the Social Contract previously described: since I own something and I want my ownership to be respected, I will respect the others' claims of ownership of other objects.

    As this notion expands itself to all of society, we see that there is no violence in the continuation of ownership; if it hadn't been like this, there would be an eternal State of Nature, where no one can trust no one else and where everyone fights for property.

    The cases of ownership not being respected are rarer and, in those cases, defence of private property is left to the private individual: how many times is the state useless in the case of theft from one's home? Or when a car is stolen or broken into? In these cases, the state merely restraints the thief and doesn't necessarily defend property directly, else we would live in a police state, with patrols constantly in every street.

    We must, however, reflect on why we need to defend our property: are thieves mostly malicious, or are they created by their dire situation?

    Poverty and inequality are certainly the mother and the father of theft, as widespread ownership of property and wealth wouldn't generate the same amount of thieves. We can say that in an anarchic society, excessively concentration of wealth and of inequality would naturally be redistributed to an equilibrium at a breaking point. However, a state prevents this, which...


    • The State as Defender of Injustice | The Ethics and Limits of Private Property

    ...Makes the state a protector of injustice. Such wealth concentration can happen only when a higher force protects any kind of ownership from the threat of (justified) theft from masses of poors. A state is such a type of higher force and, while it does protect distributed private property (rightly so), it also protects unjust forms of private property, such as:

    □ Unimproved land

    □ Natural conformations (Lakes, Mountains, Rivers, etc.)

    □ Unextracted natural resources (Ores, Forests, etc.)

    □ Property that doesn't respect the right-of-passage to unowned property

    □ Property that is not in enough quantity for the unobstructed survival of others

    And other similar kinds of property.

    This kind of property is unjust because it violates the Lockean Proviso (Which basically enunciates that Private Property is only legitimate, though, only when it arises from work or from transaction; one cannot legitimately own something that is naturally present, unless it required some work to extract, I.E. land and natural resources are not legitimate possessions) and it doesn't respect human dignity and the right of a human to survive.

    However, a case can be made to retain ownership of most of these kinds of unjust property.


    • The Necessity of Private Property

    The necessity of private property lies in the possibility of economic activity: if there was no ownership or usufruct of unimproved land, construction of buildings could be impaired; if there was no ownership of natural resources, no one could extract them efficiently enough; if there was no ownership of extracted resources, their transformation into products would be much slower and less efficient, as anyone could take those.

    In addition to this, as I will explain in the Economics section, private property drives development and innovation, as it adds incentives to the betterment of and a personal relationship with one's own workplace.

    These uses balance out the injustice of private property.


    • The Necessity and Ethics of Wealth Redistribution

    While private ownership of most kinds of unjust property can be seen as necessary, it is equally necessary to maintain private property as distributed as possible (or even to make many kinds of property public), as self-ownership is much more preferable to absentee-ownership, since extreme economic inequality numbs Democracy and damages Human Life and the Economy.

    Another argument in favour of wealth redistribution is that private property is a societal concession: as already said, private property is a protection of possible injustice by the state and, thus, by society at large; to render this injustice justified, society needs to be compensated, as Thomas Paine puts it, "In order that no one is poorer than he would be under Tribal Conditions".

    In the cases where widespread distribution of property is not possible, such property should be taxed and revenue should be distributed to all members of society in need through a dividend (A Negative Income Tax is my preferred method) and to all of society in general by using those taxes to fund Government Programmes .

    Georgism gets the method right: most unjust private property comes from land ownership and, consequently, resource ownership, so we should apply a Land Value Tax on all land and on natural resources, as neither of these have been produced by anyone and both are available only in a limited amount.

    Expropriation should thus be a last resort, only when there are serious societal consequences that derive from the private ownership of a good or of some real estate.


    • Why Real Estate is not Necessarily Exploitative (And Why Private Enterprise Always Is) UNDER HEAVY REWRITING

    something something

    What about shares? Shares are another form of exploitation, since there is only a monetary contribution and no labour contribution to the firm: shareholders get repaid much more than the amount of money or labour that they contribute to the firm. Only Bonds and Loans are a non-exploitative form of exclusively monetary contribution to a firm, since there is only limited profit for Bondholders and Loan-Givers.

    Exploitation by Wage Labour, thus, can only be resolved by working in Worker, Producer, Consumer Coops or in Non-Profits

    Why Ban Private Firms that do not Produce Profit for the Owner?

    An owner that claims no profit, other than the one that he gets should he be a constant contributor to the firm, be it in management, work or anything else, is basically the same as any other worker, and he should get no privilege over the others for the simple fact that he founded the firm at some point. The only 'privilege' he should get is recognition for his efforts in establishing the firm and a just monetary compensation for that, always corresponding to the principle of 'To each according for his own contribution' and nothing more.

    In addition to this, once the constant capital has been repaid to the owner of a firm, the worker owns the constant capital as much as the previous owner does. Paying the total value of something without having ownership over it can be, without a doubt, a form of exploitation.

    Then why don't we ban Non-Profits?

    Non-Profits are a completely different form of organisation which, as the name says, does not have profit in mind for no one that partakes in its efforts, since their objective is helping others for a price as low as possible; every worker, thus, is paid for his contribution, and nothing more or less is given to them.

    What about Consumer and Producer Coops?

    Justifying these two types of businesses is much more grounded on pragmatism rather than ideology: consumer coops and producer coops help both economic efficiency and consumer rights and, since it is impossible for a consumer to life off profits from their consumer or producer coop, such businesses offer better wages and benefits to their workers.

    Economic Beliefs

    ⬢ General Overview

    Armandonian Liberalism's economic thought is inspired by various, mostly liberal, schools of though, with the most inspiration coming from Social Liberalism, Ordo-Liberalism, Social Libertarianism, Anti-NeoCon Third Way, Christian Democracy, Green Liberalism, Georgism, Social Democracy, Liberal Socialism and Market Socialism. Yugoslavia is also a big inspiration for policy (either negatively or positively).

    Fusion Reformism towards a more Social Economy and eventually some moderate form of Economic Democracy (Most probably Liberal Socialism) is my main objective; if there is active resistance against the peaceful establishment of co-ops, revolution is always the plan B.


    • Economic Schools

    Armandonian Liberalism is economically Radical Centrist (Leaning Center-Left ) and follows a mix of New Keynesianism, Freiburg Economics, Chicagoan and New Classical Economics , Georgism, Ricardian Economics and, more limitedly, Austrian Economics , Lausanne Economics, Post-Keynesianism and Marxian Economics , with the objective of being Pragmatic in economic decision-making and to favour evidence-based policy.


    • "What are your general economic beliefs though?"

    To answer to that question, I would say that the Freiburg School of Economics correctly defines my beliefs: an economic system where the state doesn't distort the market by excessive Regulations, Artificial Price Distortion or excessive State Economic Intervention, and where an "Economic Rulebook" is created in order to maintain healthy and just competition, foster moral economic practices and direct the market towards a particular direction. At the same time, I support many Georgist ideas.

    I am a strong supporter of the Cooperative Movement and of the concept of Social Economy, as I believe that workers deserve a fair wage (If not the complete value of their own work) and more decision making in firms, since they are both the source of all value and profit of the company, making jobs a social contract between workers and employers, and since it is generally known how firms, the bigger they get, the more they exploit workers.

    In addition, workers value their welfare more than employers and managers, so they wouldn't make terrible and inhuman decisions and wouldn't oppose automation (as every worker, instead of being laid off, would just work less hours).


    • Social Economy vs Economic Democracy

    While they are similar concepts, a Social Economy and an Economic Democracy are not necessarily the same thing: an Economic Democracy is always a Social Economy, but not vice versa.

    The fundamental difference between the two is that a Social Economy just bases itself on cooperatives, mutuals, associations, foundations, social enterprises, paritarian institutions etc., while an Economic Democracy usually adds societal control over investments and overall decision making, effectively putting the markets under the service of society and the state, in a way not too dissimilar to Market Socialism.

    ⬢ Social Economy

    Progress towards a more Social Economy should be done through Activism, autonomous organisation (through internet, for example), pro-worker democracy and pro-cooperative reforms and without much direct government intervention (Basically, we should behave Freiburg-style). The basic tenets are these:

    Co-operative Ownership

    Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP)

    Board-Level Employee Representation (BLER).

    In addition to this, laws that make establishing a cooperative, a mutual etc. much easier should be put into place; examples are the Marcora Law and the Right to Own (More info: Unlearning Economics - Worker Democracy).


    • Cooperative Crowdfunding

    "Cooperative Crowdfunding" is a system where people can crowdfund a new worker or consumer cooperative through either a (cooperative) bank or a bank/state-licensed site or organisation: it would work similarly to sites like Kickstarter.


    • Coop-Worker Finder

    "Coop-Worker Finder" would be a service where new entrepreneurs can find like-minded people to found a coop with.


    • Founders of Coops: Risk and Reward | Sweat Equity

    Sweat equity is a form of finance that accounts for the time and resources that people put into a start-up unpaid, usually at the early stages when there is limited funding or revenue available to cover costs.

    The simplest way to account for sweat equity is to record the hours that are worked unpaid, and agree when they will be paid, which can be by a certain date or when the co‑op reaches a certain income. In this case, the sweat equity should be recorded as debt.

    An alternative is to issue shares to workers in exchange for their labour. In order to use this approach, the co‑op will need to have a suitable legal structure that allows shares to be issued to employees and for them to be converted into cash should the employee leave, or when certain conditions are met.


    • Entrepreneur as a Job | Firms and Buildings

    TLDR; How entrepreneurs can become coop-founders in order to stimulate economic growth

    ⬢ Economic Policy

    • Bond Market and Joint-Ventures

    TLDR; The stock market is socially terrible, so we should foster the issuance and buying of bonds in a cooperative economy instead


    • Economic Liberalism and Globalism

    I believe that the Free Market can be an enormous force of good and efficiency (When well-regulated, as explained further down): this is because, as we've seen countless times, they can create growth, innovation and cheaper prices much better than planned economies.

    Market economies are also self-regulating, leaving most smaller economic decisions to the costumers and the consumers and generally reaching an equilibrium by themselves (Again, there should still be government intervention, as explained further down).

    International cooperation should be fostered, as it maintains peace through trading relations, it helps countries focus only on some kinds of industries and helps directing investments all over the world; plus, I am a firm believer of the Ricardian theory of "Comparative Advantage", so free trade is a terrific way to reduce

    Protectionism should be abandoned, unless there are national security motivations or there is unfair competition for lack of certain laws in other countries. Trade agreements should, thus, have clauses for better working conditions and environmental regulation.


    • Private Property


    If we observe the economic problems of Yugoslavia, we can see that one of the main problems could be found in the lack of property rights for firms: every building was "Socially Owned" (Which basically means " State Owned "), and when a firm exited the market, if the building lost value, the workers would have had to pay the difference, while if the building got added value, only a small portion of it would go back to the workers; cooperatives had no direct incentives to better the plants past a minimum point, as it basically corresponded to expand a building without any long-term compensation.

    It follows that if workers actually owns their workplace, cooperatives will be more incentivized to take more risks with plant-expansions and modernisations, as they will get both more money than they've spent when they will sell their workplace, and, in case the firm goes bankrupt, they can get some money back by selling it.

    One critique of private property is surely that rent can be considered exploitative; however I don't agree with this analysis, as the end of the commodification of firms means that speculation in the stock market is ended, and, thanks to Georgism, the focus turns to Land Development.

    People will thus invest in house, office and factory building, competing with each other and driving modernisation in the sector.

    Intellectual Property

    TLDR; Where intellectual property is legitimate, where it isn't, why it is inherently exploitative

    Mineral Resources

    TLDR; Ban of raw mineral exports; Joint-Ventures; Georgism


    • Taxation

    (Thanks to Blue Nephalem Thought for the direct inspiration)

    Taxation would be reformed to be much more clear and it should be calculated by using a function and (almost always) no tax brackets. The taxes should be:

    Land value tax (50%-90%, except the first home)

    Progressive income taxes

    Pigouvian and Environmental taxes (25%-100% except for self-employed people and businesses with less than 5 people)

    Inheritance tax (30%-45% from 1 million Euros onwards)

    Gift taxes (30%-45% from 100 000 Euros onwards, unless given to a charity)

    Corporate taxes (WIP)

    Financial Insurance Tax (Paid by banks to fund a National Financial Insurance Fund)

    Church taxes (15%-25%)

    Capital gains taxes (5%)

    Property taxes (20% for Luxury Houses)

    Sales taxes (WIP)

    Tariffs (For imports from countries with sub-par working conditions, sub-par environmental laws and sub-par animal welfare)

    AI tax (2% flat-tax for every business with more than 50 employees employing AI to fund worker retraining programmes)

    Immigrant tax (50 - 100 Euros a month for all working non-citizens to fund an Immigrant Support Fund)

    These tax rates are flexible depending on the circumstances of the economy.

    • State Intervention in the Economy


    Regulations are a necessity to ensure a healthy economy and a healthy and just society. I am generally aligned to EU regulations and with Ordo-Liberal and Freiburg-Style regulations on this matter.

    In general, regulations should be simple, effective and should not create excessive Inefficiency, excessive Bureaucracy and Regulatory Capture; their benefits should be weighted with the benefit of less strict regulation (or no regulation at all).

    The primary objective is being pragmatic with regulations and not excessively ideological.

    Some examples of regulations I support:

    Moderate rent increase control

    Labour Rights

    □□ Workplace Safety

    □□ Work-Life balance laws

    Environmental Regulation

    Safety and Health Regulation

    □ Consumer Protection

    Some examples of regulations I would reform:

    □ Zoning Laws

    □ Occupational Licensing

    □ Business Creation

    Some examples of regulations I would remove or greatly reform and reduce:
    □ Most internet regulation

    □ Compulsory USB-C

    □ Taxi permits

    □ Tech-companies regulation

    □ All Crony Regulation


    Anti-Trust legislation should keep the economy fair and free from Monopolies. It should be expanded to break up firms that have gotten so prevalent that they count as "Too Big to Fail" businesses and, at the same time, be reformed in order not to encompass practices that are misrepresented as monopolistic.


    The environment should be protected using a mix of Regulations, State Intervention and Negative Externality Taxation , all of which should balance the need to do something about environmental problems and human needs (Both social and economic).

    The primary objective should be reaching a Solarpunk society.

    At the same time, we should help industries with the green transition, by using tax cuts, incentives etc.

    Cooperative-Specific Regulation
    □ Worker Cooperatives
    Worker Cooperatives would be allowed to have up to 1/5 of workers as non-members (The calculation would be: Number of Members ÷ 5 = Maximum number of Non-Member employees, always rounded up), in order to ensure an easier hiring and training process. Membership would remain completely voluntary, with each worker deciding between being a simple employee with none of the benefits of membership, or pay for the membership (This process would be organised by each co-op independently). ⠀⠀⠀
    □ Consumer Cooperatives
    All Consumer Cooperatives would either become multi-stakeholder/worker-consumer cooperatives, after a vote by both employees and members, or have obligatory co-determination for workers once they pass 60 employees. ⠀⠀⠀
    □ Cooperative Brothels

    Cooperative Brothels will just be considered as collaborating self-employed people who share the same space. Profits will be assigned to the individual worker and will not be shared through equity.

    ▣ General Idea

    In general, services should be rendered much more clear and efficient, in order to minimise waste of funds.


    Welfare is a necessity and minimum basic services, a safety net and some wealth redistribution should be provided by the state; a progressive Negative Income Tax should be something to look into, as it can potentially simplify the welfare system and the safety net by giving money to those in difficulty instead of creating many different programs, so that they can spend them on what they know they will need.

    Stimulus and Unemployment Checks

    In the event of recessions or when workers get laid off, checks should be given monthly only as requests or payment directly from the government or through banks: this is because unused funds would just be 'Erased' after 8 weeks I.E. they can't be accessed by recipients anymore and would go back into the checks program.

    All of this would discourage saving and actually stimulate the economy. ▣ Universal Healthcare

    Universal Healthcare will be guaranteed to any and all citizens; it should not be completely free though, with smaller sums of money being paid by those who utilise the services (With a maximum of 200 Euros). Individuals unable to pay for medical expenses would still receive free care.

    This doesn't mean that private healthcare would be banned (More will be explained in the next sections).


    In order to provide flexibility, no teacher should be obliged to be a member of the school they work to be, but only an employee.

    Elementary and Middle School education should both be completely state-owned, in order to provide an equal education for all pupils.

    High School education should be mostly state-owned, however private High Schools should be possible to open, with a maximum tuition cost of 1500€ per year and the rest of the costs being paid for by

    University education should remain as it is today; at the same time, there should be more scholarships awarded both by Universities and the State.

    National Financial Insurance Fund

    In order to avoid a financial crisis induced by bank-runs, a National Financial Insurance Fund should be established and paid for by all banks through a dedicated progressive tax. This insurance fund would help failed or failing banks repay their depositors in full.

    Electricity and Water

    State Housing

    The state should play a bigger part in building housing and organizing housing projects. This is mainly inspired by the Gemeindebauen of Red Vienna.

    Go to r/Neoliberal for my views on housing deregulation.

    "The important thing for Government is not to do things which individuals are doing already, and to do them a little better or a little worse; but to do those things which at present are not done at all."

    Dirigisme and SOEs

    Dirigist policies are, as history has shown us, a necessity to make the country prosper. As already said, protectionism should be abandoned and other methods of fostering an industry should be put in place; generally, direct investments and the creation of State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) are the best ways to do so. Incentives should be put in place only when it is necessary to do so, I.E. when regulations and dirigist policies would be excessively distruptive or difficult to enact.

    Central Bank

    A Central Bank , independent from the central state, is to be retained/established, as it can make business cycles less severe in their effects. The Central Bank should be managed independently by Technocrats.

    • "Private" Welfare and Insurance

    Mutual Societies

    In order to both foster competition and maintain humane levels of welfare, we should foster the establishment of private forms of welfare and insurance in the form of Mutual Societies: this would make competition (and collaboration) between different companies possible, fostering innovation and efficiency, and, at the same time, the lack of profit-seeking shareholders would make services cheaper and more people, which would be considered as "Unprofitable" in for-profit companies, could be reached.

    Medical Cooperatives and Non-Profits

    Taking example from the Brazilian "UNIMED" and from Japan, the establishment of more Medical Coops and Physician-Managed Hospitals should be encouraged and, eventually, mandated, as they manage prices and services more fairly compared to private companies.


    • Housing and Neighbourhoods (WIP)

    Housing Cooperatives


    □ Zoning

    □ Community Land Trusts


    • Workplace Democracy and Worker Representation


    Low-level management should be obligatorily be elected by workers or be completely eliminated in favour of more self-management. Marchionne's "Low hierarchy factories" are also a concept that should be looked into.

    Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP)

    ESOPs should be encouraged by trade unions and the government, so that workers can ultimately have a stake in their company.


    Unions are, in principle, to be supported; however, I apply the concept of "Realist Unionism", that is basically not blindly supporting unions, as, sometimes, they have unrealistic and unjust advances towards employers.


    TLDR; Seeing how well this system works in the Nordic Countries, we should look into it


    We could say that a Gig Economy helps people have more flexibility. At the same time, this is largely abused by many firms, which use Freelancers and Self-Employed workers in order not to abide to an employment contract and exploit this kind of labour.

    In order to solve this, Trade Unions and a newly-formed (albeit not as powerful as in the past) Guild System should regulate relations between firms and Freelancers and Self-Employed workers.


    • Prostitution and Cooperatively-owned brothels

    Prostitution should be legalised but limited to cooperatively-owned brothels, while street prostitution should be prohibited but decriminalised and pimps should remain illegal and prosecutable.

    These limitations have these objectives:

    □ Reduce sex slavery

    □ Regulate prostitution

    □ Maintain body autonomy


    • Natural Monopolies: Cooperativisation or Nationalisation? (WIP)

    Natural monopolies (Roads, Railways, Dams)



    • Transport Systems

    Biking infrastructure should be constructed all over the place, to foster the use of bikes and scooter and reduce the volume of cars used.

    The Taxi sector should be mostly deregulated, in order to foster self-employed taxi drivers and more competition. Motorbike-taxis and bus-taxis should also be allowed to exist.

    • Urban Planning

    Forced Cooperativisation (Section in heavy rewriting)

    ▣ Economy

    • Cooperativisation of Sectors

    We should individuate those sectors that can be mostly coop-driven and foster the creation of and transformation of businesses into worker and consumer cooperatives. Pharmacies, Light industry, Manufacture, Insurance, Programming, Social Media, Road transport, and many other sectors can potentially all be based around cooperatives and cooperative federations.

    Eventually, we should ban private business creation in such sectors and only allow for cooperative creation.


    • Ban on Firm Inheritance

    Firm inheritance should be banned and the firm should go directly to workers, in order to eventually phase out all private businesses.


    • Trade Unions | Employee Firm Ownership Plans

    In order to foster the Right to Own, Trade Unions


    • Ban on Private Insurance

    TLDR; Mutual insurance


    • Cooperativisation of Capital Intensive Sectors

    TLDR; idek


    • Status of Non-Profits

    Non-profit organisations will not be subjected to the same laws as for-profit businesses: private ownership will be possible and they will be subjected to pretty much the same regulation as today, as the objective of this kind of business is, as the name says, not to give a profit to owners or workers, but to give a cheaper and humane service


    • Financial Sector (Heavy WIP)

    Domestic Investment Funds

    Yugoslavia's Domestic Investment Funds□ Cooperative Banking

    Banks Mutual Funds, Credit Unions, Cooperative Banks etc.,

    Private Investments

    TLDR; Bond markets, stock ownership as exploitation, why non-exploitative stock ownership is basically a bond market, why bonds are non-exploitative ('Repaying' machinery and resources to who bought the bond, as the funds come from him)

    ▣ Politics

    Random Things

    ▣ Ideal political party

    • Left-Wing

    Social Democracy

    Liberal Socialism

    Steiner-Vallentyne School

    Market Socialism

    • Center

    Social Liberalism

    Green Liberalism


    • Right-Wing


    Social Libertarianism

    Christian Democracy

    ▣ Political Parties I Like

    Co-Operative Party


    Labour Party

    Partito Democratico


    FDP (Germany)

    European People's Party

    Renew Europe

    Liberal Democrats

    Reading and Watching List


    Already Read

    • Ludwig von Mises - Economic Policy
    • Pope Leo XIII - Rerum Novarum
    • Pope Pius XI - Quadrangesimo Anno
    • Voltaire - A Treatise on Tolerance
    • Jean-Jacques Rousseau - On the Origin of Inequality
    • Gregor and Otto Strasser - The Manifesto of the Black Front
    • Immanuel Kant - Perpetual Peace
    • Robert LaFevre - The Philosophy of Ownership
    • Thomas Paine - Agrarian Justice
    • Niccolò Machiavelli - Il Principe (Studied in school)
    • Fred Foldvary - The Business Cycle: A Geo-Austrian synthesis

    Reading It

    • Group of International Communists - Fundamental

    Principles of Communist Production and Distribution

    • Eduard Bernstein - Evolutionary Socialism
    • Cesare Beccaria - On Crimes and Punishment
    • Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Social Contract
    • Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Reveries of the Solitary Walker
    • John Stuart Mill - On Liberty
    • Henry David Thoreau - Walden; or, Life in the Woods

    Planning to Read

    • F.A. Hayek - The Constitution of Liberty
    • F.A. Hayek - Road to Serfdom
    • F.A. Hayek - Monetary Nationalism
    • F.A. Hayek - The Denationalisation of Money
    • Joseph Schumpeter - Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
    • Immanuel Kant - Critique of Practical Reason
    • Immanuel Kant - Critique of Judgement
    • Immanuel Kant - Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
    • Immanuel Kant - Metaphysics of Morals
    • Immanuel Kant - The Conflict of the Faculties
    • Mark Fisher - Capitalist Realism
    • Daron Acemoglu, James A. Robinson - Why Nations Fail
    • Vilfredo Pareto - The Mind and Society
    • Jesus Huerta de Soto - The Theory of Dynamic Efficiency
    • John Stuart Mill - Utilitarianism
    • John Stuart Mill - Considerations on Representative Government
    • John Stuart Mill - The Subjection of Women
    • John Stuart Mill - Principles of Political Economy
    • John Locke - Two Treaties on Government
    • Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan
    • Thomas Hobbes - Behemoth
    • Henry David Thoreau - Civil Disobedience
    • Henry George - Science of Political Economy
    • Henry George - Protection or Free Trade
    • Karl Marx - Das Kapital
    • Robert Nozick - Anarchy, State and Utopia
    • Marco Bentivogli, Diodato Pirone - Fabbrica Futuro
    • MacPherson - One Path to Cooperative Studies
    • Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations
    • Adam Smith - The Theory of Moral Sentiments
    • Edmund Burke - (Something in general)
    • David Hume - (Something in general)
    • Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America
    • Alexis de Tocqueville - The Old Regime and the Revolution
    • David Ricardo - On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation


    (Only those I deem significant enough)

    • Meng Hu - Negative Externality: a "Market Failure"
    • Meng Hu - An account of the good deflation in the American economy of 1870s-1890s
    • Meng Hu - How Economic Freedom Mitigates Crisis
    • Meng Hu - Critiques of Natural Monopoly Theory
    • Peter Vallentyne -Freedom of Expression, Hate Speech, and Censorship
    • Andrés Nin - Austro-Marxism and the National Question
    • Ludvik Vaculik - 2000 Words
    • Jeff Peterson II - In Defense of “Vulgar Libertarianism”
    • Tyler Cowen - What libertarianism has become and will become — State Capacity Libertarianism
    • Samuel Hammond - Three Motivations for “State Capacity Libertarianism”
    • Scott Mauldin - State Capacity Libertarianism Reviewed
    • Ryan Murphy and Colin O’Reilly - Assessing State Capacity Libertarianism
    • Titus Gebel - What We can Learn from Liechtenstein
    • Germinal G. Van - The Problem with Africa's Protectionism
    • Arthur Guarino - The Economic Effects of Trade Protectionism
    • David I. Baker - Illyrian economics
    • Katharina Pistor - How finance became the problem
    • Cybertrop(h)ic - Manifesto for a Negative Democracy
    • Cybertrop(h)ic - Order but not Design: Friedrich Hayek & Cybernetics
    • Cybertrop(h)ic - Post-liberals & Meta-liberals: Towards an Exit-Oriented Politics
    • David Prychitko - Did Horvat Answer Hayek? The Crisis of Yugoslav Self-Management
    • James C. Conner - Joint Ventures in Yugoslavia
    • Gary M. Galles - Bookstore Protectionism

    Academic Papers

    • James C. Conner and Branko Vukmir - The Legal Anatomy of a Yugoslav "Enterprise"
    • Svetozar Pejovich - The Economic Position of the Enterprise in the Yugoslav Economy
    • The World Bank - The Hungarian Economic Reform
    • Emil Primorac and Mate Babic - Systemic Changes and Unemployment Growth in Yugoslavia


    About Here - Could This Be a Solution to Gentrification?

    Unlearning Economics - Worker Democracy

    Oh The Urbanism! - What Happened When This City Banned Housing Investors


    Real ideologies



    • Liberal Conservatism - Generally likeable, but you got to actually redistribute wealth for it to trickle down. At least you're not Conservative Liberalism.
    • F.A. Hayek - I like your ideas in general, but you are too laissez-faire.
    • One-Nation Conservatism - Best conservative, but we do have our economic disagreements from time to time MOTHERFUCKER WHY DID YOU LEAVE THE EU .
    • Muscular Liberalism - DEFEND CULTURALLY LIBERAL VALUES RAHHHHHH (But stop being islamophobic please).
    • Social Democracy - Too statist and you create too many inefficiencies in the market, but you have many useful ideas, like co-determination and, arguably, rent control.
    • Titoism - Based laws on foreign investments, but you should have accepted the free market more.
    • Council Communism - Most based form of communism, would live under it if I had to decide which kind of communism to establish. I do have my reservations against the economic planning (It is inherently anti-individualistic) however.
    • Post-Libertarianism - Very respectable form of Libertarianism, which is very close to modern liberalism. As many have said, though, you should embrace some form of welfare.


    • Democratic Socialism - Some of you are more akin to my ideas and Liberal Socialism, others to regular Market Socialism, but why are SO MANY of your followers State Capitalists!? Cringe
    • National Liberalism - A bit of nationalism is necessary to keep us united (If you don't think that liberalism IS the best system ever, how will it ever survive?), but you get too conservative and even protectionist at times.
    • Mutualism - Mixed bag, I will certainly keep that National Mutual Fund you theorised though. One way to socially own money.
    • Austrian School - Has some good ideas and a good business cycle analysis, I may apply your principles here and there, but laissez-faire was a failure. Full stop.
    • Libertarianism - Eh. Liberty is obviously good, but you have more of an emphasis on being egoist than on being free with others harmoniously.
    • Corporatism - Class collaboration is more based than laissez-faire, but you're too statist.
    • Socialism - Yes, we're gonna get to you, but only BY AUTOMATION.
    • Capitalism - VERY mixed bag. I have many elements from you and a good boss can be better than a cooperative, I must admit it. But history shows us how exploitative you are and I think that, in the long run, it would be better to phase you out into a much more Social Economy.


    • Protectionism - Free trade fosters cooperation, peace and helps every country with focusing only on what they do well. Protection makes prices higher and doesn't help international relations at all. We should still apply you when there is an emergency situation though, or to defend us from unethically produced goods from other countries.



    Judging your ideology, not you :D

    S-Tier Lads

    • Yori Model - Fellow based reformist (But what if we need revolution, just a little, as a treat ;) )
    • Blue Nephalem Thought - You're the mirror version of me basically. Based in all departments and in the support for a social economy.
    • Mainstream Hard Left - I hardly see anything "Hard" about your left, but we are similar nonetheless.
    • - Frisia is my favourite country on EU4 :D. If you add co-ops to that, then it's even better.
    • - Another fellow reformist with revolutionary characteristics. We are very similar tbh, but abandon the partial democratic planning man.
    • - You are the closest we can get to neo-distributism lol. A very nice and level-headed ideology (Especially economically) and one of the best class-collaborators here
    • Ultra-Enlightenment - You are one of my favourite ideologies on here and I love the totality of your beliefs, especially the philosophical ones.
    • - Again, one of the best class collaborators, plus you've become even more similar to me. You should just embrace cooperatives totally at this point though.
    • - Literally me, but jewish

    A-Tier Friends

    • Uzarashvilism - Very strange cultural beliefs, but other than that, very based economics, not unlike to mine
    • - MY MAN. You are pretty cool tbh, hope that our (Pretty dire, to be honest) differences don't distract us from the cooperative movement.
    • - Based mutualism, but I doubt that it would work in the long run.
    • - Ok man, I gotta say that you are a bit too much of a statist and collectivist in my opinion, mostly on the basis of syndicate control of the economy and of cultural policy, however I don't really have any strong opposition to your beliefs. Your democratic system is interesting. Overall a nice ideology.
    • - We are pretty much the same culturally and socially, I admire your commitment to human rights and liberty; we are extremely similar even in foreign relations and in (very general) economic policy. However, our direst differences lie in government intervention in the economy. I believe that a mix of Ordoliberal and Social Liberal economic policies are the best balance between economic efficiency, state intervention, liberty and human-centered policy, while you are more laissez-faire on the matter; I do however see how we can influence each other, as our ideologies are pretty much open to change.

    Another contentious point is the role of co-ops; while you don't support eventually mandating them, you still recognize their utility.


    • Gooberism - A bit more culturally right-wing than me and you are still laissez-faire adiacent, however your family-centered economics (Basically modern-day distributism) put you a bit closer to me. Overall based
    • Brazilian Liberalism - You are the next target for the coop-pill. Also, pretty based economics, but a bit too authoritarian here and there.
    • - idk about that economic coordination and corporatism, I prefer dirigisme, but otherwise pretty nice economics. Just get a little bit more democratic though.
    • Owfism - Pretty much a regular Social Liberal tbh. Pretty good in my opinion, just needs to be a little more focused on cooperatives and reject a lot of that support for Big Business.
    • - National Syndicalism is economically based, but socially? I don't really like conservatism that much. You're pretty moderate though, so still based ;)
    • Ego Future Strasserism - Very based economics, less based strasserist simbology

    Likeable Gang

    • Aristocratic Futurism - Now - your ideology is really thought-provoking and you raise good concerns against the status quo of liberalism and democracy, but I think that you put a little too much trust in unelected officials and in a society divided in classes, even if they're meritocratic. May also get some ideas from you though.
    • Vistulism - A tad bit too statist for my liking plus protectionism is shit, however we have similar ideals and love for cooperatives!
    • Tiberius Thought - Too statist for my liking bro, but you seem to know what you are talking about. Based economics.
    • IMileism - We are obviously quite opposed, but I still respect minarchists! Just become more like Hayek
    • Neo-Optimateism - Terribly based page, and terribly based economic sources. I am still not entirely down to laissez-faire (Friedman and Hayek is the most right-wing I can go), but you raise very good points in general.


    • Council Marxism - A much better version of Council Communism. Still, where are the markets?
      • See the latest addition to my page.
    • Serbian Socialism - Tito 2? Based! You're just a bit too extreme for my liking (And sorry for misrating you lol)

    "35% good, 65% bad" Gang

    • Glorified Communism - Your analysis is... very interesting. I fundamentally agree with the Solar Economy part. However, I reject violence and insurrection and I have my doubts on anarchy and minarchy.
    • Jefbol Thought - Council communism is a mixed bag. Automation will surely lead to it, but for the time being, it just restricts the freedom that the markets give us.


    • Ayafantoho Thought - You're down here simply because I am grading beliefs (I mean, you're anarcho-nihilism on crack boi), but we should bash our own skulls together some day
    • Rigby Thought - Conservatism and right-wing economics have been a disaster for humankind. Also, eugenics???
    • Meowxism - Marxist-Leninist, Planned Economy Supporter, Collectivist, Anti-Nationalist, Eurosceptic, Anti-Liberal, ... I cannot imagine a worst ideology and a worse system to live into tbh.
    • Hysteria thought - A very strange lad, but economically tame (which I still don't support)



    • Terekhofism add me
    • Council Marxism Would you mind if I were to replace the LeftCom armchair emoji you put in my page with one of Council Communism in an Armchair?
      • - Yes you can do it
        • I love making this kind of stuff too much just look at the little gal, she sits
    • Council Marxism Good job on the remaking of the drawings and flag, it looks really good /gen
      • - Thanks gurl, I appreciate it!

    Add List


    New ones



    Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

    Recent changes

  • TheElectricBomb • 3 minutes ago
  • TheElectricBomb • 8 minutes ago
  • TheElectricBomb • 9 minutes ago
  • DarkEggChocolateBowser • 20 minutes ago
  • Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.