Currently re-writing to factor in changes to my ideology over the last few months, including aspects I didn't fully realize or ignored.
Braun Spencer Thought is the ever-evolving ideology of me, u/BraunSpencer. Although I used to be more libertarian, I've come to realize that:
- Under the current neoliberal order which influences every aspect of society, and makes it difficult for people to escape from it, we need a strong, powerful central authority that will bring about the material conditions for a more economically and politically decentralized, yet social democratic order.
- Subsequently, state and local governments presently don't have the means (or have outright reluctance due to corruption) to properly implement an economy dominated by small-medium enterprises (SMEs), worker-owned businesses (co-ops), and that which increases demand for rural housing at the expense (no pun intended) of urban areas. A top-down, heavily interventionist and protectionist approach is necessary. Such as stricter anti-trust legislation with a federal agency dedicated to exclusively enforcing it, a flat tariff on all imports, extensive subsidies for SMEs and co-ops, and land reform.
- That our day-to-day lives are heavily influenced by genetics. Our very personalities have been predetermined by our genes. A child who's a product of rape, for example, still has the genes of their father—meaning they're not wholly innocent. He still has some of the genetic predisposition to violent crime his father likely did. This sort of essentialism, as some of my friends like to call it, has changed my views on . We need a paternalistic government that will guide those born unlucky towards a decent living standard.
- The people who actually implement my preferred policy measures historically were or are either authoritarians or in agreement on centralization. Even Thomas Jefferson—a figure I still greatly admire for his rural-pilling of me—increased the federal government's size as did James Madison. Both doing so to sustain a more agrarian state.
I'm a subjective idealist. Reality is dependent on the mind; nothing is independent of it. And we can only verify our own souls and minds. Objectivity does not truly exist, only individual perception. So I'm in league with anti-realists and moral nihilists. That is not to say observations in these areas are not invalid—I have personal preferences myself, as will be discussed later. I accept the soul-body distinction; my favorite argument for it is philosophical zombies.
My personal moral preference is negative utilitarianism. I believe that our end-goal should be to minimize net suffering in the long-term. But unlike other negative utilitarians, I look at suffering from an Epicurean hedonist perspective—that a materialistic lifestyle which emphasizes wealth and consumption induces suffering; enslavement of the soul to posessions. Pleasure is not only the absence of suffering, but also moderation, community, and pursuit of knowledge. If we are to maximize pleasure, we should encourage through public policy education, meaningful work, financial autonomy, simple living, and small, tight communities. The ends also justify the means.
Although I'm dismissive of Catholic social teaching, I find the label "distributism" exclusively in the sense of "widespread ownership of wealth-generating property" to be adequate. The best way to achieve this in my eyes is by increasing the number of SMEs, including worker co-ops. This should be combined with a generous welfare state.
I see large concentrations in property as an existential threat our institutions and dignity. The big businesses which fuel such inequality are a source of stagnation. Once they achieve a certain size they only do the bare minimum to maintain their market share. An example of this is Big Tech companies spending more on patent enforcement, stifling competition, than on research and development. Big Pharma does something similar by spending more on marketing than creating new drugs. And to the extent Big Pharma does create new drugs, they're rushed, mediocre, and/or dangerous—often doing shady things like covering up negative clinical trial data to deceive patients and doctors. And big businesses eventually become central planners, as demonstrated by the socialist Leigh Phillips in "The People's Republic of Walmart"; and all the inefficiencies seen in Soviet-style economic systems apply.
More than this, wealth inequality corrupts our institutions. Two ways this is done:
- By lobbying politicians. Basically, big businesses donate money to political campaigns which best reflect their policy preferences. That means candidates with the most campaign finances get the most advertisements on television, billboards, etc. This sort of manufacturing consent ensures that candidates most aligned with the rich get the most attention, and therefore the most votes. The wealthy have the loudest voices.
- By regulatory capture. Regulatory agencies meant to protect the common man against dangerous products and working conditions become bedfellows with the wealthiest firms in their respective sectors. A great example of this is nearly half of the FDA's budget comes from the biggest pharmaceutical companies; and this results in the FDA becoming complacent with the industry's unforgivable corruption.
In order to achieve a freer market—less overall intervention in the economy long-term—we need the following:
Otherwise, firms become too big; avarice becomes irresistible.
A federal regulatory agency I would support propping up would dedicate itself exclusively to enforcing anti-trust and pro-competition policies. It would have state and local offices to ensure compliance in the most efficient manner conceivable. Ideal priorities would include:
- Enforcing a prohibition on vertical integration, preventing businesses from growing through mergers and buy-outs.
- Breaking up business conglomerates, trusts, and cartels whenever they arise or are discovered (e.g. Amazon, Google, and Disney).
- Charging fines for cutthroat competition (esp. predatory pricing).
In the meantime, enforcing current anti-trust legislation and expanding them will do nicely.
I love SMEs. And we as a society should actively promote them while suppressing big businesses.
What is a SME?
A SME in my view is characterized as a business with less than 1,500 employees and has a low market share relative to its industry. It has to be both, because if a subscription-based business with only 20 employees controls 50% of market, I would consider that a big business. The very nature of capital concentration makes market share and employees hired mutually dependent yet also mutually exclusive; the greater the market share, the more workers you can hire. But exceptions to the rule exist. A textile mill which hires 763 employees with a low market share, a typical mom-and-pop pizza arcade, or a single worker-owned grocery store are SMEs in my book. Another measure I'd accept is local demand. A business which primarily satisfies or focuses on local demand, not national demand, that could also be seen as a SME.
Benefits of SMEs?
I favor SMEs for:
- Being more innovative—generating 14-16 times more patents than bigger firms.
- Greener, as they take steps to respond to an increasingly anxious consumer base.
- Are better responsive to price signals in general, making them more efficient.
- Being better for workers.
- A sole proprietorship down the street is more accountable than anonymous shareholders 1,000 miles away.
- Small business employees report higher job satisfaction, happiness, and commitment; and feel their concerns are listened to and addressed by leadership.
- And in abundance small businesses will compete for the best working conditions and pay possible. This, combined with LVT and prohibiting usury, will inhibit surplus-value extraction as well.
- Empowering and autonomizing small communities.
- Buying locally generates more local wealth and jobs, making small communities like towns and villages more self-sufficient (local multiplier effect).
- Small businesses foster a sense of community (e.g. a family-owned arcade sponsoring the kid's baseball team and donating heavily to local causes).
- And empowering ethnic, racial, gender, and sexual minorities—giving them more financial independence.
What of Worker Co-Ops?
Most worker co-ops are SMEs and I'm a big fan of them. The average one hires only 20 worker-owners on average. It's axiomatic that the benefits of SMEs below apply to worker-owned firms. In Italy the towns with the most worker-owned firms had better health and educational outcomes, lower crime rates, and a sense of optimism and solidarity. In that same country they also had a higher three-year survival rate (87%) than traditional firms (48%). Worker co-ops encourage more local consumption and production since they prioritize their member's well-being over growth. (Which is why they're almost always small-scale.)
There are also reasons to believe co-ops would be more prevalent in an economy which elevates SMEs, protects trade unions, and suppresses big businesses.
- If large firms are no longer the end-goal, then society as a whole will start preferring a high-time preference when it comes to economic management; the fact business owners feel they must become as big as giants like Amazon (low-time preference) inhibits workplace democracy.
- It will be easier for citizens to start their own SMBs and SOHOs (small office/home office).
- It will therefore be less problematic that worker co-ops tend to not hire more worker-owners, since people can easily start their own businesses.
- Worker-owned firms will show their strengths in an economy with increased competition and a policy preference for smaller firms. In many cases they easily outcompete traditional firms as seen above.
- Trade unions can also negotiate more democratic decision making with employers, eventually shifting to ESOP-type models.
- And in the absence of free trade, tax breaks, third-party limited liability, well-funded legal departments, and other means of offsetting or socializing costs and crushing competition, small firms usually outcompete bigger ones.
I support federal protections and mandates for trade unions. While I believe an economy dominated by SMEs would have so much competition that many workplaces won't necessarily need unions, but unions are still a net positive for determining minimum standards, collectively bargaining with bigger SMEs, and holding business owners in general more accountable to workers. Strengthening or creating a spiritual successor to the National Labor Relations Act would be a step in the right direction. This is also a situation where the federal government has to take action to overcome state-level barriers to unionization like so-called "Right to Work" laws.
I'm usually a fan of local-level production and SMEs, but natural monopolies are a real phenomena; where it is more efficient to have one or a few producers instead of many. There are also some industries particularly susceptible to profit-incentivized corruption and oligopolization. Examples of these sort of industries and natural monopolies include:
- Tap water
- Electricity grids
- Gas networks
- Transportation infrastructure
- Sewer infrastructure
- Operating systems
- Pharmaceutical/biotech industry
- Military industry
- Aerospace manufacturing
- Tank production
- APC production
And in those cases you can't promote worker-owned businesses. Because they might make the problems worse, as workers will not only have a monopoly on a given product but they will raise prices ad infinitum to give themselves decadent benefits. Perverse incentives will arise at the expense of consumers and the national health.
The best solution is to have these industries be ran by for-profit state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Ideally on the municipal or provincial level for most natural monopolies; on the federal level for country-wide infrastructure, military affairs, and anything else which (debatably) concerns the nation as a whole. The profits these SOEs generate would go towards healthcare, education, infrastructure, safety nets, and whatnot.
You maintain the benefits of private natural monopolies (like lower prices), a profit motive in improving the national defence, and reducing costs in vital aspects of the economy without the nasty side effects (like worsening inequality); and in doing so you improve the lives on everyone by utilizing the new revenue streams. A win-win!
I support a maximum wage as argued for by Sam Pizzigati. Basically the highest-paid member of a firm cannot have an income thirty times greater than the lowest paid employee (1:30). Every penny which crosses that threshold will be taxed away. This is to ensure businesses cannot accumulate enough capital to cause serious harm; but it also ties the profits of a business to the well-being of bottom-end employees.
I support a welfare state. For several reasons. I see poverty as a form of unnecessary suffering. A lot of it is a product of genetics, so many people economically struggle for reasons beyond their control. Leaving them behind is not only cruel, but can radicalize them. Germany instituted the first welfare state to stop a socialist revolution. Reducing poverty and guiding those born unlucky towards a decent, minimum standard of living enforces both dignity and stability.
Here in the United States, minorities, who are already economically disempowered, tend to be socioculturally reactionary. Ask a random Mexican father down the street how he feels about transgender individuals and you'll see what I mean. Yet the welfare state ensures they vote for otherwise candidates (the ones I prefer). Because otherwise, outside of economics and many racial justice causes, these groups are aligned with the GOP and would vote for them.
- Negative Income Tax - On the federal level those who make less than $30,000 should receive 30% the difference between what they made and the eligibility threshold. Suppose I made $15,000. 30% of that is $8,400. Therefore I will get $8,400 from the government.
- National Health Insurance - I favor something like Canada's Medicaid, where each state democratically manages healthcare provision; but the federal government finances and mandates such a system to inhibit GOP corruption.
- Government Jobs Guarantee - I believe employment is a human right. As someone who struggled with unemployment for years, I can safely say that not having meaningful work is a profound source of misery. There's a reason for the strong link between unemployment and suicide. We need a federal program that aims to get every person who wants a job unionized work that not only pays a living wage ($18/hour now thanks to inflation), but also aims to fix our crumbling infrastructure while taking care of our growing elderly population.
- Crowding and noise—both inevitable symptoms of city life—increases stress and aggression; meanwhile destroying all sense of community.
- Urban societies disconnect humanity from nature, which worsens overall mental health (including children who grow up in cities).
- Attempts to reconcile this either don't go far enough or have their own problems (read below for suburbs).
- As Marx acknowledged (and embraced for accelerationist reasons), urbanization mandates hyper-exploitation.
- Urbanization threatens individual autonomy and democratic institutions.
- Cities have less privacy (more cameras, less space, mass police, etc.) so conformity and molding others to fit an arbitrary spook is commonplace; the ability to speak your mind freely without fear of social consequences, vital for a meaningful democracy, vanishes.
- And overall, urbanization—historically and presently linked with consumerism, alienation, out-of-touch elites, and nasty narcotics abuse—is linked with decadence; the kind which condemns society to a slow, painful death.
- Assuming technological equality, urban societies lose to rural societies in warfare. Probably because of how urbanization weakens commoners through consumption.
What about suburbs?
Suburbs are a consequence of people wanting to emulate rural life (e.g., peace, quiet, and forestry) while keeping the "benefits" of city life. Basically supplying rural housing in areas with high urban demand. This is problematic for numerous reasons; the biggest one is car-dependent infrastructure, which hurts the eco-system, yet suburban areas still have psychological problems associated with urbanization, sometimes in worse amounts. But most Americans live in the suburbs and prefer them. Running on a YIMBY platform would likely be met with mass (perhaps violent) resistance. And even the most radically anti-NIMBY platform likely won't yield meaningful results. So suburbs are not a long-term solution to the problem of urbanization, despite being understandable, and in the short-term they have their own set of problems.
RETVRN TO COVNTRYSIDE
Braun advocates for a rural society. I draw inspiration from the self-sufficient small towns of the 19th-mid 20th century United States. Rural societies have superior outcomes in terms of mental health, physical health, social relations, and whatnot. Which is axiomatic given humans have lived in rural societies for most of their history. And contrary to popular belief, rural societies can have apartments, local industry, and vital infrastructure (like public transportation). 70 years ago rural areas thrived with small-to-medium scale manufacturing. Suppressing large concentrations in wealth and pushing for small businesses will localize production. I favor a strong agriculture sector; enthuastically wanting to boost the number of smallholdings and converting large commerical farms to collective farms (co-ops ran by agricultural workers). He likes the former since the freest individual in his eyes is a self-reliant farmer who tills their own land without external subversion. But collective farms are also pragmatic given the need for ecologically-friendly production and agricultural worker's rights.
Unlike Neoluddists, I believe technological progress can improve the lives of rural people. For example, I'm all for modernizing agriculture since such technologies reduces famines (tractors are nice to be honest). Technology, medicine, and science are not inherently alienating. The fact such "progress" is in the hands of Robber Barons who profit off our isolation, division, and other widespread psychological probmes actually makes it regressive.
All in all, ruralism is the best way to accommodate the valid criticisms anarcho-primitivists have of industrial life without abandoning the chance of positive scientific, medical, or technological progress. In fact, a rural, more equal society would have more innovation. Countries with less inequality have more advances in those areas; inequality perverts innovation, stagnates it, or both as seen in the United States.
Methods I support to push de-urbanization include:
- Creating more opportunities outside of urban areas (e.g. subsidizing tech start-ups in rural areas) and promoting self-employment so people can leave urban areas unscathed.
- Reviving local industry and manufacturing through protectionist measures, leading to self-sufficient, smaller communities outside of urban areas.
- Instituting universal healthcare since many stay in urban areas in case of medical emergency.
- Improving essential infrastructure in rural areas (e.g. more hospitals and railways) so people are less inclined to stay in urban areas for the implied benefits while reducing car dependency.
- Capping wealth, land reform, and other measures which decrease the economic exploitation that fuelled urban development in the first place.
- LVT in general will reduce the price of rural land while encouraging efficient use of it, potentially leading to many leaving the cities to avoid paying extra taxes.
In the short-term with respect to the suburbs, of which Braun prefers some elements of over the city center, he feels we should convert abandoned buildings into apartments, expand public transportation (like bussing), construct pedestrian- and biker-friendly pathways, and invest in greener forms of transportation like electric cars.
Although I considered myself a Civil Libertarian, after contemplating the matter further I realize a superior label for my sociocultural views is Cultural Syncretism. Historically and presently economic decentralization lends itself to traditional lifestyles and customs. My utopian society—one of a more rural character—would probably be more socially conservative than today's. But at times we must evolve as a society in the pursuit of optimal outcomes and harm reduction.
Tradition and progress often compliment each other. Current notions of egalitarianism and human rights originate from religious scholarship; John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers were deeply religious, the former quoting Bible passages to defend natural rights. Also see transgenderism in hunter-gathering Native American communities and India, sometimes offering religious justifications. Atheistic societies—from Tankie regimes like the Soviet Union and China to secular neoliberal administrations like South Korea and Japan—are so oppressive, inhumane, and unequal that they make the Spanish Inquisition look like a picnic.
So the TL;DR of my views is I blend traditional values (e.g. the extended family, dignity of labor, emphasis on aesthetic, integration, and small, tight communities) with progressive interpretations of those values (see: same-sex marriage and parenting), gender equality, civil rights, eugenics, multiculturalism, and positive (read: not in the hands of Robber Barons like Jeff Bezos and Albert Bourla) medical, scientific, and technological progress.
I'm an advocate of LGBT LGBT rights. But I admit to bias since I'm openly bisexual. But I befriended many transgender and non-binary people over the years, which has influenced my views on this topic. The recent surge in persecution of LGBT people in the United States—from the "Don't Say Gay Bill" to hate crimes skyrocketing under Trump—justifies arming LGBT citizens to the teeth. More widespread distribution of wealth-generating property would also empower LGBT people, enabling their financial independence. Same can be said for / racial/ethnic minorities.
Unlike many other progressives—although he's not a tiny minority by any means—Braun is a strong supporter of gun rights. As said earlier he believes transgender people should own firearms to defend themselves against a reactionary population. Especially in states with the trans-panic defence. Everyone should be armed by mandate. (Yes, even for convicted felons; if people fear you're going to abuse gun rights once released from prison, you shouldn't have been released.) If you don't want to be mugged, robbed, or killed, you don't just invest in socioeconomic programs which reduce those crimes—you must arm yourself for the occasional screw-up. The police won't save you; you must save yourself. You have the right to defend yourself and your property. He'd also pass a national stand-your-ground law.
Braun believes police chiefs in towns, cities, and districts should be democratically elected. Just like Sheriffs in most counties. This is to hold them more accountable to the public as, once corruption becomes apparent, they can be voted out or recalled. Something similar recently transpired when the Uvalde school council, due to local pressure, fired the district police chief for reckless, cowardly incompetence. There should also be term limits in place to prevent mini-J. Edgar Hoovers running around. Other legal reforms Braun supports include:
- Eliminating qualified immunity.
- Busting police unions.
- Expanding the castle doctrine to include excessive police force.
- Bodycam mandates.
- Diverting wasteful police spending to better training and social workers.
But Braun thinks / violent responses to law enforcement's excessive force (Waco Siege), repeat violations of the social contract (Minneapolis Police Department), and pursuance of tyrannical laws (e.g. War on Drugs) are morally justified. Moreover, rural societies, by virtue of being less dense, require less policing.
Braun is mostly indifferent to sex work. But he sees value in legalizing prostitution. Namely as a source of stability given the rise in inceldom, a source of income for women in poverty, and as a source of revenue as sex is almost an infinite resource so long as humans have drives. Keeping it criminal makes it difficult for prostitutes to report abuse; outlawing the purchasing of it will only drive it further into the black market. Criminalizing it also doesn't get to the root of the problem. Only a minority of prostitutes actually enjoy their work. Most of them do it for survival, as in some cases, due to monopsony power, prostitution is either a superior alternative to most minimum wage jobs in terms of compensation or is an effective side hustle.
Braun's solution is to confine prostitution to state-owned brothels (SOBs). All prostitutes working in these brothels must be adults and licensed to do that sort of work. They must undergo regular check-ups for psychiatric problems and sexually-transmitted diseases. Contraception use would be mandatory for both parties. Cameras would be installed as well to catch johns. The profits these SOBs generate would go towards reducing the need for anybody to go into the world's oldest profession—safety nets especially. Eventually the only people who would work for SOBs are the minority of those who actually like the work.
Braun is a strong supporter of rehabilitative justice. He believes everyone, even the most heinous of criminals, deserve a second chance at life if they do the time while also being actively treated by psychiatrists. Punitive justice comes with a high recidivism rate. Braun believes this is because the long-term effects of incarceration—adapting to prison culture, being shunned by society, greater difficulty integrating back into society, and whatnot—make it so former convicts have nothing to lose and return. Oscar Wilde is a major influence on Braun's views on this subject.
Braun is strongly pro-choice. His bloodline is filled with drug addictis, alcoholics, mental illness, and poverty. His personal experience shaped his belief that society benefits from sustaining stable population growth and keeping the birth rates of people born with inheritable, anguishing conditions low.
Access to abortion is what drove crime rates since the 70s. Furthermore, there's an originalist for the pro-choice position—the drafters of the 14th Amendment would've understood abortion was protected by the right to privacy (at least until the quickening, 15-18 weeks into pregnancy).
That being said, Braun also thinks we can drastically reduce the need for abortions by providing birth control, sex education, and other programs which reduce unwanted pregnancies.
In no particular order. A I read more I'll expand this list.
- Robert La Follette
- David Ricardo
- Benjamin Tucker
- Karl Marx
- François Quesnay
- Roderick T. Long
- John C. Médaille
- Ian Fletcher
- Hebert Spencer
- Henry George
- Oscar Wilde
- Richard Spencer
- Henry David Thoreau
- James Madison
- Richard Swinburne
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
- John Rawls
- John S. Mill
- Peter Kropotkin
- Theodore Kaczynski
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Paine
- Ego-Progressivism - Based philosophically and overall interesting ideology.
- Matteel - We're have rather similar policy platforms and you seem nice as a person.
- Pirate Tails - Not bad. Not bad at all.
- Pantheonism - You're pretty based, but pls drop the monarchism.
- Uzarash - Epic.
- Fluffy Thought - A wonderful friend who's basically what I was earlier this year.
- Yoda8soup Thought - I'm happy I rural-pilled you. 😎
- Glencoe - I like a lot of your policies! Such as prohibiting interest and PWA. Good job.
Neo-Arctoism - You're not as bad as I thought you were, but I still think much of your ideology is self-contradictory and that many of your stances on sociocultural issues have no basis in reality.
- Social Capitalism - Effective welfare states? Check. Effective regulations? Check. Promotion of SMEs and trade unions? Check. For-profit state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and sovereign wealth funds (SWAs) in key industries? Check. Embrace tariffs and aggressive taxation and you're good to go.
- Protectionism - We must protect our industries from foreign competition, revive our manufacturing base, end our dependence on other countries for necessities, and be more self-sufficient. If we hope to maintain our national security, ensure fair competition, and give every American good-paying jobs.
- Christian Democracy - Your economic policies are pretty much in line with his early prescriptions. Drop the religious influence in government and you're good.
- Social Distributism - Pretty based economics.
- Jacobinism - C'est la guillotine, ô gué!
- Titoism - The only Tankie variant I can tolerate. A profound leader who kept Yugoslavia together, countered Soviet influence, and pushed for market-based economic democracy. Bailing out failing co-ops caused structural unemployment, but otherwise you're based.
- Eugenics - We owe it to ourselves and the future generations to promote the best reproductive choices. Free access to abortion (rewards for it in cases of disability), contraception, sterilization-causing treatments (e.g., puberty blockers), and comprehensive sex ed best achieve this. The Icelanders get it right.
- National Agrarianism - Rural countries are stronger, freer, and more virtuous.
- Jacksonian Democracy - A fellow / agrarian populist who enlarged America's borders, distributed new land to farmers, expanded voting rights, and was a brilliant pragmatist.
- Kemalism - Pushing for trade unionism and Enlightenment values while opposing reactionary influence? Based.
- LBJ Thought - Bringing my country closer to social democracy, getting my party the most loyal voter base in recent memory, and stubbornly waging war against the dirty Reds? Based and underappreciated.
- Neoconservatism - Advancing my country's national security, access to resources, and / democratic/progressive causes globally? Sign me up!
- Jeffersonian Democracy - A Founding Father I still admire for his wholesome agrarian vision, how he predicted urban capitalism's problems (e.g., immense psychological suffering and less autonomy), and showing that we need economic equality to preserve democratic institutions.
- Bull Moose Progressivism - We need more of your trust busting now more than ever. Plus, La Follette was a chad.
- Machiavellianism - Sometimes making a positive change in the world requires... Getting your hands dirty.
- Longism - A based gentleman who wants everyone to live like a millionaire by sharing the wealth.
- Rooseveltianism - FDR and Truman led America against Nazi Germany, set the stage for a global anti-communist effort, gave commoners assistance during the Depression through redistribution and public works, and helped organize the post-war prosperity (the closest we had in a modern context to social distributism). Respect.
- Lukashenkoism - Belarus is such a wholesome country—a haven for small businesses, village life, collective farms, and state-owned enterprises—but Lukashenko himself is a clown and Putin puppet.
- Strasserism - I feel about you how I feel about him. Based economics, but you take some things too far.
- Classical Marxism - Your analysis of capitalism in many ways stood the test of time. But your solutions were terrible.
- Democratic Socialism - We have similar visions for society (like more democracy in the economy), but I wouldn't go as far as you do.
- Reaganism - Terrible neoliberal policies responsible for many of America's current problems. But your Truman-esque crusade against Tankies and their friends—rightfully condemning the Soviet Union to history's junkyard—is why I didn't put you under the negative list.
- National Socialism - Vile.
- Marxism-Leninism - I may support some state-run industries, but historically your regimes became the new bourgeoise; centralizing wage labor to the benefit of top political officals, turning your citizens into empty cogs in a machine while food shortages were rampant. And you pushed for ideological and geopolitical hegemony on a global scale. I'm glad that they defeated you in the Cold War, starting with Truman's intervention against communist guerrillas in Greece.
- Urban Accelerationism - You make me gag.
- Neoliberalism - Thanks for destroying our manufacturing base, leaving us at the mercy of alien countries for essentials, and turning entire countries into urban wastelands, asshole!
- Rocksism - Add maybe?
- Implianium - Add me
- Yoda8soup Thought - Yo this is hella based. :D
- AshleyHere - Hello there
- Ego-Progressivism - Saw the ideology thingy was broken so i fixed it up, remember to add me if you ever add self-insert relations
- Yoda8soup Thought - Add me?
- Uzarash - Absolutely based! Add me?
- Braun Spencer Thought - You three have been added!
Glencoe- add me