Create a new article
Write your page title here:
We currently have 5,886 articles on Polcompball Anarchy Wiki. Type your article name above or create one of the articles listed here!

    Polcompball Anarchy Wiki

    Collective federalism is the current and developing ideology of user DDDRotom. It is currently mainly focused on various "ethnic" and sex-gender matters. The governmental part is yet preety ambiguous and on the economic part is currently almost apolitical because it can't figure yet how to work out a proper economy.


    Basic terms to know

    Collective federalism wants to talk in the most precise manner possible. But as this is just a PCB wiki I will not go into very hard terminology and explain everything as plainly as possible. Maybe I'll post as as link a translated version of my writings when I end them.


    The central element of analysis on Collective federalism. A collective is a group of humans that can be identified by an especific trait.

    Sex and gender

    Currently, DDD thought needs to asses the issue of trans-people (wich giving a properly justified awnser is harder than seems), include family organization into the fold when other parts of the theory required for it are developed, and to use the model of analysis to empirically analyze the emergencies of society to propose a sex-genre political program. And algorythm for making sex-genre analysis is soon to be ended.


    Collective federalism sees sex as a merely biological matter. It is defined by the biological attributes of each human. It believes that the central atribute of sex is the genital, as other characteristics such as chromosomes, hormones and breasts, though highly definitory of sex, can be artificially or accidentally disturbed. Collective federalism uses the Prader Scale to define the sex of each human, being lower graded more female-like, and higher-graded more male-like. Very in between grades might be called intersexual. Wich Prader Grades are called female and male and intersexual are at the end trivial, but we must remember what each Prader Grade is able to do. In that regard 0 and 6 graded are the only ones capable of reproduction by the traditional way (but not all 0 and 6 graded), wich is crucial to have in mind.


    For Collective federalism gender is the personal culture that is associated with sex. It is to say, a woman is the one that behaves as such as the average female, and viceversa, note that this allows for man-female and woman-male humans, but each of them can never be over 25% of the population, because otherwise they would effectively destroy cultural-sex correlation and thus gender. With conducting investigations on the behaviour of people sorted by sex, we can do multiple computations to get a model of a man and a woman (not what is a man, but how is a man), and with that be able to conduct investigations on how men, women, and any sort of intergender (the ones wich are ambiguous) behave. When we have models of how each gender acts, it'll be needed to analyze how this behaviours affect culture. The behaviours could be then classified into three fields, "bio logical", wich are direct consequences of sex differences and cannot be changed to expect something viable, "perjudicial", wich are the parts of behaviour that are not direct consequences of biology and thus changeable and are undesirable because they cause injustices or there are better alternatives, and "carcassal", wich are the behaviours that are not a direct consequence of biology but do not cause problem, so for just identity reasons, should be preserved. So, the bio logical part of gender should be dependant on sex, the perjudicial eliminated, and the carcassal preserved so everyone independently of sex can have a carcassal part of gender as they wish.

    On the LGBTIQ+ movement

    The LGBTIQ+ movement faces a lots of problems currently. First problem, in terms of collectives, it would traditionally be a collective who encompases Lesbiasns, Gays, Bisexuals, Transexuals and Intersexuals. Wich are a variety of peoples that seems strange they have come together, but the LGBTI movement was born to claim rights for this peoples, but the cultural changes spoused by this movement ended creating a lot of turmoil in the culture of sex and gender that allowed for the conceptual and sometimes practical creation of new cultures, like gender-fluids and other newer concepts. Under the theory and ideals spoused by the movement this new cultures were allowed, and for them was the Q and the + added. The situation is thus that the movement has evolved from reclaiming rights for the 5 original collectives to reclaiming rights for them and a mirriad more of collectives. So a practical theorical anarchy has been stablished where valid cultures, things that are valid but don't fit anywhere in the LGBTQ community (like demisexuality or sapiosexuality), despreciable cultures (like pedophiles), and outright stupidities (like food based genders) can be added to that Q+. And this has caused a lot of critiques for the movement and internal infighting. What is needed is a formalization of what is allowed and not in the collective and the movement. Second issue, and a little one I must say, is the Q on intself, wich stands for queer, wich is the most counterproductive thing ever thought of. The point of the movement is the reclaiming of rights for the collective and it's cultural normalization, it is to say, not being though of as something weird, and they call themselves "queers", nonsense. Third issue, and not only of the collective, the concept of sexual orientations as currently thought of is bs. The terms, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and etc. lack a lot of definition, for starters, what is even attraction, that you want sex?, you want to marry?, you want a romantic relation?, all of the mentioned or just some of it? It lacks explanation. And overmore is overcomplicated, these are functions, you input person A they give you person B (a man is heterosexual, therefore he likes women), isn't more easy to say just person B? ([whatever pronoun] likes women). In that regard I like the concept of Finsexual (someone who likes women, independently of the sex-gender of the person that likes women). And it also just works with genders, it lacks the sex-gender component. And that'd be my problems with the movement, except that it's existence means it's targets are not achieved yet. I'm ready to recieve any shit you want in comments.


    For what I think is normally refered as "race" I understand hereditary genotipes and fenotipes. There are people that claim that race is a social construct, and I must say that some perceptions of it are, but I think in that regard that genomes manifestating in things like mesuarable concentrations of melanin are purely nature and have nothing to do with social constructs. Only a 1% of the human genome is different at max, the resting 99% is shared by all humans (or a cathastrophic thing may happen). So that is a prove of how similar all humans are, but that 1% of a difference, is something worth defending of. First, because it is a identitarian matter, it helps people have a identity; Secondly, just out of straight ethics, for me it is unconceivable to have a world with only one race of humans, it would be a slight more sad world; And third, is that 1% of difference the one that makes human evolution go forward, with the development of culture we have basically broken evolution, there is no such thing as natural selection anymore, but that 1% keeps making the gene-pool have slight changes. So in conclusion, because the existance of races is important, and because all humans from all races are at the end humans, races should be preserved. The two main issues being on one side racial genocide, wich for luck today it is way less common that in the past, and flooding race-anthropophagy. Race-anthropophagy are situations where a race A of a reduced number reproduces with a high in number race B, this causes the genome of A to get delluted in a few generations in the almost completely B descendancy. When race A is just a part of a race that lives anywhere else and goes to B lives, it will get dilluted making slight changes in the gene-pool of B, wich is completely normal. But when a huge amount of B migrates to where A lives, if the number of B people is too overwhelming, B will dillute A, eradicating A from that place and if the only place eradicating completely A. When is too much B? How do we sort people into different races and subraces? I don't know yet because all that is written actually is kinda lame. I need further investigation to solve this questions. When this questions are solved a system of migration that strives to preserve the current races while allowing a limite interrace reproduction to renew the gene-pools. Avoiding race floods.

    In the topic of race supremacy, I dislike the concept of broad supremacy. So is better to talk in terms of can or cannot and does worse or does better. I don't think there much differences between races, but there must be obviously. But technology smooths into meaninglessnes this slight differences, so we shouldn't bother at all for most of them. But there are some slight differences to have in account, for example, what would be normally called "the white race" is the only one that most of it's population is able to consume milk, while most humans of other races can't. Wich is something interesting to analyze historically, and obviously is important to have in mind for the allocation of milk.


    People live in different places of earth. That's it. And because you live in a place you should at least care about it. Different places on earth have different infrastructural development, and a different number of people living on it, so a thing Collective federalism would do is to allocate economic resources from the most productive regions to develop the less developed regions and equalize the infraestructural development of each region according to it's population. (Something short at last)


    Religions are up to down cultures and part of the greater cultural heritage of peoples. In that regard, most religions are incompatible with eachothers and modern society. Apart they are kinda nonsensical. I'm personally a strict atheist, but ideologically I'm way more tolerant. By the previously exposed reasons secularism is mandatory. But on other regards, state-religious cooperation is really much welcomed, mainly that the cultural federal units protect it's own religions in it's territory with subsidies to religious temples if needed and though installing the raw religious believes in the society is detrimental, religious ethics tend to be good and a strong religion-associated-cultural pride should be promoted. Not the belief, just the good will of it and the enbracement of it's impacts on culture. Under Collective federalism the right to profess any faith should be implemented (though religions are promoted in their respective territories), and the subsidies for religious temples part of it should also be diverted to build mini-religious temples for the minority religions that require it. If some religious believe is to be turned into a really serious problem (like terrorism or cultism), the radical factions of it that cause the problem are to be dealt with prehemtevly and with strong hand.


    To put it oversimplified, my definition of a nation is: A distinct group of humans who wants a state for themselves (my definition of a state contains autonomous subdivisions). Depending what makes that group of people distinct, each nation has a different "founding". There are things that you can not use as a founding. For the moment I'm aware of three of this things: Being civilians of a state (Civil nationalism), Having a shared king, and having a shared history. These are fundamentally lies at giving founding to a nation, but they can be used to reinforce a shared identity to a nation. As I'll discuss later, most of the nations are imperfect nations, they can be correctly justified by a shared founding. I suggest in that regard nationalisms based on simple foundings, like race, culture, religions and inhabitance on definite territories. Because of this I also promote from the smallest of the nationalisms like cities, to the biggest of them like entire continents, and at the end a human nationalism. I'll discuss how to manifest all of this in the applied and idealistic Collective federalism that come later.

    On the woke-sjw issue

    I don't have any definition for this terms, but I use it for any "progressive" I consider stupid. Some rightist use the term "Cultural Marxism" to refer to progressivism, wich is mismashing the actual Cultural Marxism, wich are the ideas of Gramsci and succesors, with a certain tendency there is in progressivism to copy the idea of promoting class conflict of marxism and apply to promote whatever collectives conflict. That is no cultural marxism, but it is despicable, as is the original idea borrowed from marxism. The ojbjective of progressivism is to give equality and peace, not to cause fight of races or sex-genders. For this stupid progressives there is one simple solution, just wait until the cultural changes needed bring a more equal society and they shut up with that bs.

    On the "biggot" issue

    Basically a derogatory term used by some progressives, it just means people opposed to progress. There is another simple solution, push forward with the appropiate cultural changes at a pace they just complain. And as most of them aren't just because they dislike progress, and more against the wokes, when the wokes disappear so will they.


    Economy wise, I am currently revising all economic theories in search of errors and things to learn. Currently I must consider myself Marxist, but revisionist to a point where calling me Marxist feels odd. I consider that value theories are just a matter of ethics, and ethically I align most with the Work-Value theory, so I agree with basic Marxist analysis to the point of the exploitation of the worker, just as a ethical affirmation. Otherwise I consider the Marxist critique of capitalism for the rest preety weak due to the ethical nature of the value theory, wich makes any more material affirmation based on the Work-Value theory worthless. I currently consider the sort of socialism described in "Towards a new socialism" by W.Paul Cockshot to be the optimal from my current knowledge. It consists mainly of a highly computerized socialism with some market carachteristics, and the good thing is the book mainly proves it can work. In terms of technology.

    On the seizing of power

    And by that I mean the way of getting to power to apply the agenda spoused by this ideology. The question resumes to playing by the status quo system (reform) or by violent action (revolution). Both are valids methods, and at the end it all depends on the context, but ultimately reform is prefeareble over revolution by a long difference. Revolutions are normally violent, and disrupt the mechanisms that make society work temporally, wich in all causes a lot of human suffering no matter how important the cause might be. In opposition, reform is peaceful, or at least without violence in the streets, and keeps the status quo working until the new order is ready to take in. Revolution is only justifiable when reform is impossible. Wich, unless you are on the most totalitarian countries of earth (like North Korea), reform is always a feasible, though always a very hard way of getting into power. All democracies allow for that. Obviously there woud be the necessity to placate or deal with opposing political movements and other powers (enterprises and other states mainly) wich might be not so peaceful if you arrived to power. For that issue, marginal movement are to be ignored, and to serious opposition, firstly a olive branch should be tended, after all, all people should have a place under Collective federalism. If they refuse while they are shut is all nice, but if they use more violent methods, there is police for something. And for foreign governments and enterprises they must be treated in such a way that they wont' consider the new government as a threat. In more authoritarian countries it is way harder to get in power, but you can do it anyway joining the current order and seizing power from within. In this cases revolution must be more suggestable.

    Applied Collective federalism

    This describes the most inmmediate projects DDD thought would want to implement. Collective federalism in it's applied form can be implemented on every country of this earth, and it could be interesting to discuss it's application on each place. But we'll center on DDD's home, Spain, to give an idea how it might be applied. Spain is a country located in the Iberian peninsula comprised of multiple nationalities, due to this it often suffers separatist unrest. This is due because there is no all-spanish nationality as such, what there is, is a central-spanish, "Castilian", nationality that is painted as the spanish nationality, wich causes the mentioned separatist unrest from the rest of nationalities. Thus a redrawing of the spanish mythos must be made. It would have been already made, if it existed a status-quo existing option, but analysing the current status of spain that option does not exist. Try to base it on a iberian identity? You would need Portugal. Base it on a hispanic identity, you exclude non-spanish speaking groups, and would need hispanic america. We could procede in such a way with all valid nation-building methods, because basing it around history, civic or monarchic means would be national fallacies that don't work. So Spain on it's current state is locked into having an unfullfilling myhtos. So, to mantain the unity of the spanish people's, what is needed is the formation of new borders, and as such borders, to create a new mythos. And the easier of wich would be Iberia. So collective federalism applied in spain pushes for the unification of Portugal and Spain into a Iberian state. This new state should be organized as a federation. But not the traditional sort of federation where federal regions are rigid and have a bit of power in almost any aspect. The new federation should be organized owing to the collectives it has to federalize. Applied for Iberia this would mean, there would be on one side the culturo-linguistical federal distribution, wich it's federal units will have in this case just authority for managing cultural and linguistical affairs, and should be divided according to the catalogation of it's languages of dialects. Aplyinf this, the culturo-linguistical federal distribution would be comprised of two federal units, the Romance and the Basconic collectives. But the romance should be further federalised into the Oc-Catalan and Ibero-romance collectives, the Oc-Catalan into the Occitan and Catalan, and the Catalan into its dialects. And the Ibero-romance into Spanish, Portuguese and Asturleones, and each into its dialects. On other hand, the economic federal structure would be independent of this other federal structure, and instead would be organized into economic areas and supra- and sub- areas to make areas the most economically autonomous possible, independently of nations, races, and etc.... There would be also a geographical federal distribution wich would be based on landforms, and would have the powers to administer ambience issues, such as fires, epidemics, animal protection, etc.... For Iberia no more federal structures would be needed, but I'll develop this form of federalism with more deepnes in the idealist form. The new Iberian government should try to pact arrangements of condominium of gibraltar with the UK, of Ceuta and Melilla with Morroco, of Algares with Italy and of the Roussillon and The french basque country with France. Refering mostly to claims based on land and other's based on lingüistical reasons. The new Iberian government should also promote further cultural coopertaion with the ibero-american nations, and more slightly with other latin-speaking nations and with ex-colonies where a iberian language is second language. Also economic cooperation should be strived for with the other european nations (through EU) and with the other mediterranian and atlantic countries.

    Idealistic Collective federalism

    This describes how Collective federalism would implement what it considers the optimal system. The implementation of it would be severely difficult, that is why the applied version exist, to slowly strive towards this system and have a functional system until the necessary changes to achieve this system have been made. Collective federalism pushes for pan-nationalism for all nation able collectives. In that regard, it considers all legitimate forms of nationalism as valuable, lingüistical, cultural, racial, religious, land-based, etc. But you cannot create states just based on one of this pan-nationalisms. If we were to create a land-based state that encompased all of europe, it would be teeming with lots of lingüistical and cultural diversity. Why should we restrict in that case the anglo-nationalism of some englisman then? A pan-anglo federation should also be established then, but sharing both federations authority (but different authorities depending on the sort of nationalism) over the european regions where english is speaked. Applying this to all regions, all races, all tongues and etc. And respecting the right to have a nation-state of each of them, causes the necessity to create a World-Wide human federation comprised of diferent federal levels and multiple federal distributions based on the sort of the nationalism. Overall, at the end, pushing for the greater pan-nationalism in all sorts of nationalism ends in a global-nationalism. Iberia is a part of Europe, Europe a part of Afro-Eurasia, Afro-Eurasia part of planet earth. Spanish is a romance languages, romance a part of europen languages, european a part of indo-european languages, indo-european languages are a part of the human languages. And this applied to races, cultures and etc. WIP

    Relations & Opinions


    Patriotism- Visca la patria, Viva la patria.
    Pan-nationalism- A nation made of many nations is a greater nation.
    Federalism- Each nation to govern themselves but in union with other nations!
    European federalism- One of my biggest inspirations. Myself a huge pan-european nationalist, I must differ with the current outlooks of the EU. But overall the EU is a great project, and more than the EU itself, the union of the european peoples on it's way to unite all peoples of the world. The European motto "In varietate concordia" perfectly represents part of my believes.


    Marxism- It's economic analysis of the capitalist system in a ethical level is good, but his argumentation does not prove capitalism to be inherently bad. And the whole part based on Hegelianism is brainrot. To start, no revolution is inminent. Secondly there are better ways to cause change in society wich are not revolution. This is not universal to all marxist, but sometimes it's hyperfixation on class conflict is exhausting. Also, though socialism is realistic, communism it's not.


    Leninism- Marx had some failures. But Lenin commited one huge mistake. It is not only that it follows marxist orthodoxy to it's end, it is the Vanguard and democratic centralism concepts.The idea of leninism is that if you are leading a revolution fo the workers and organizing a state for them, they can't organize it by themselves because they are stupid. So instead the always very smart most fanatic and militant marxist of the party should rule. The communist vanguard it is called. This idea, though it's true most people are kinda stupid, by changing all the people with a group of leninoids who can also be stupid you do nothing or even worsen it. Democratic centralism would basically be that this vanguard has a democratic process but the other people don't participate, wich again is absurd. It doesn't have to be this way, but most leninist states end being totalitarian hellholes.
    Stalinism- Takes the errors of Lenin to it's next fucking level.
    Fascism- Most fascists are ex-marxist disillusioned with marxism. Most fascist, for example Mussolini were syndicalists who turned out to be kinda nationalists and got disillusioned with class conflict during WW1. In this phase they were kinda good. But then they just become fanatic ultrnationalists replacing class-conflict and nation-coopertation with nation-conflict and class-cooperation and adopting the ideas of vanguard from leninism and adding totalitarianism to it. Preety bad. Giovinneza it's a great song though.

    Nazism- People tend to not see the difference between this and this , wich is really huge. Fascism has at it's center a cultural nationalism and third-posiotionist economics. But Nazism has at it's center just volkisch racism and supremacism. The rest is secondary to a Nazi, but obviously it mimics fascism because the goals and situations are really similar, but the base is fundamentally different. It is not only that I am anti-racist, is just that it's racism is pseudo-science up to down, all based on theosophy and bootleg eugenics. On other things the economy was really not clear for anyone, it could be called a sort of "state capitalism", wich could be kinda considered socialism. Totalitarianism is absurd, it is obviously the best way to achieve things, but contradicts almost any ideal you can think of, even the Nazi ones. For the rest not much to say. Batshit insanity from up to down.


    Socialist Third Way- The name is weird but OK. On social aspects very well, a moderate progressive, someone that gets that violent progress is not progress, and your opinion on the waves of feminism is really accurate. Economically is just a very regulated form of social-democracy, wich for me serves well until I'm able to render a proper system. And is nice you recognize the importance of inter-country donations and world cooperation, wich as you mention is the best way to help the climate. Overall, very status-quoi for my taste, but really good. Good job comrade.

    - The progressism is of the sort that doesn't work, but it isn't mad progressivism, so nice. And economically, I have to distaste the really marxist analysis, but the objectives are good, through the traditional means of revolution I dislike, but it is more centered on improving the current situation than outright revolution. Not much, but me like.

    Pantheonism- Me but with slightly different economics and monarchist. The funny thing is that I was in no way inspired by you. I just developed my thought and suddenly stumbled with your ideology and said: "Shit, that's like me".


    - The objectives for the most part are nice, but the progress of technology should be regulated and the thing about non-working is a really dangerous thing economically in the current systems and what you propose. On economy I don't have much of a opinion yet, but I must point out that Keynesianism and Market socialism are non-compatible if not almost opposites, so check that. About the thing of non-work, is nice that you have a plan for when we can do that, but in the present we don't have yet enough technology to do that, but the main problem is the next: If you are to follow a Marxist view-point of economics without work, objects are valueless, and I thing we agree things have to have a value (this is one of the things that tick about Marx), but without the Marxist analysis, you say that if automation progresses until people don't work the owners will repart more benefit with it's workers, wich won't be the case, because they would fire all the workers or pay way less because they work way less. The non-work economy must be worked outside a capitalist and marxist context to work.

    For the rest is really good, and culturally you make the good observations about progress and wokes. The only thing is trans-humanism and eugenics, to the first I need to further elaborate phylosophically a thing I'm working on to give an awnser, and for the second I must differ unless very especific cases because of the ethical complications of it and the whole thing I've wrote here about race.
    Serbian Socialism- Very larpy. I like your outlook to federalism (I thought you were some serb ultranat or something) and pan-nationalism. I must disagree a lot with leninism, but you are of the more "liberal" sort, so kinda better. Socially you are progressive with some weird conservative stains, wich is very weird, I prefer a more moderate progressivism instead of this peaks, but nice. And on the centrist part, you take a serious lot of hate to it, centrism as apoliticism is just being content with whatever status-quo, but centrism as a ideologically tempered thing can mean a lot of things, so you should focus more on apoliticism than centrism. I think Tito would be proud of you. And thank you for being the first to talk to me on this page.
    Neo-Glencoeism- Economically is just as always regulated capitalism, wich is not perfect but serves well provisionally. On the governmental part putting it as "A Constitutional Technocratic Oligarchy that is Semi-Democratic" sounds really bad, but it really is just logic, politicians should be competent at least. On the gun thing, I prefer outright ban, but I admit banning it directly would cause most of your american compatriots to run wild, so it must be slow. Ok, then there is the thing about suing the opposition constantly, wich is really bad. Defamating a party is bad because it does not allow political discourse wich is really important. I must agree that some form of moderate authoritarianism should be applied to achieve some hard to apply policies, but clamping in opposition unless a very serious threat is bad. Socially is just silent void. Really nice the detail of switching to metric finally. Overall not good, but workable, but this can change if you try to be more concise on the social issues like gender and race, wich are a thing that will burn america to the ground if not properly solved.
    Brazilian Liberalism- Very nice with the brazilin patriotism, I should suggest you try some pan-lusitanism, but good anyways. For the rest is just very plain liberalism. Status quoism all the way. In that regard economically you can just see that the economic situation is just plain out shit, and you don't have to even read a slight of economy to guess that. Socially, moderate progressive, wich is nice, but you just don't enter too much on the topic, and while being a normal progressive is better than other things, modern progressivism is kinda shitty and needs a serious reform. Not good, but you got the Ok because the status-quo is way better than the brainrotted shit the bad is reserved for.
    Mordecaism- Normal libertarian. Libertarianism economically is just chaos and inequality. The system you propose of help "for people who can't ladder up" is nice, but under libertarian economics really hard to sustain and make work. Socially a moderate progressive, wich is fine but I don't think we are on the same vibe of progressivism. On the confederation part, I'd suggest more a federation generally, but in a libertarian context confederation would be better. In the foreign policy is just what nations in the liberal current world should do, wich I don't agree, but given the current rules of the world is the correct thing to do. Is libertarianism but really mild, almost liberal if you wish. (Cool you being Colombian, nice seeing other hispanic people).

    MacDeko's thought- The page is not ended for the moment, so I miss a lot of information, so when you finish tell me to give you a better or worse commentary. For the moment what I see is a lot of mostly culturally really based policies and ideas, and in the other hand, libertarianism, wich economically really sucks. Though I must concede that it limited to just your Island it might be not so destructive and more workable than to apply it into a bigger country. On your cultural policy you have very based and interesting ideas, national rejuvenation is a target for me globally, in the common culturally liberal policies I'd like insight but cool, mestisage as the racial identity is a very based take, and creative racism is extremely based, but it needs to be distributed equally between all races. The things that tick me are mainly, your violence derived from futurism, your unrestricted legalization of drugs, piratism, and to that individualism you should try to add a bit of collectivism (wich you underly through your ideology all the time). Cool culturally, cringe economically. Also a based Red Flood enjoyer.


    Schumacherianism- Simple to understand and read, simple to comment. Radical ibertarianism is preety shitty, philosophically, economically and politically, and Neo-luddism is outright stupidity. At least you are somewhat progressive and a enviromentalist. I must comment that your inspiration list is mostly laughable people, but I must admit they all make some points. Meowxism- Well, well, well. The tankiest, tankie I have seen yet, it commits the errors of Lenin and Stalin and maybe goes a bit beyond? Also a cultural radical. I must say that Futurism is a very interesting ideology, but complete madness (thought the art is really cool). I'd make a furry joke, but that'd be going a bit too far.
    Neo-Optimateism- It's too soon to make a full judgement because of how undedeveloped the wiki is, but just by the first looks it seems bad. To start "Might makes right" principle, might be good in nature, but is horrible for building societies. I agree with you that Laissez-Fare is bad, but I don't think going even further (if even possible) is gonna solve any problem, but until you don't develop it I can't give proper argumentation. Can't say more for now.
    Jefbol Thought- Ok, first I want to comment that you might be one of the few that seems to have read some theory here. To start, you are an orthodox marxist, I'm a materialist, but I can't put up with the dialectics of Hegel. So the whole historical analysis of marx from the point of view of classes is kinda inacurate, wich I'm developing a theory to prove. Your comments on Sorel are interesting, the man was a very good philosopher, but I have to dislike almost all aspects of him, because he builds on socialist errors, puts name to them, and them fascist copy the errors. The whole idea of the mythos in a moderate way could be nice, but in ther radicalism he advocated for is unethical. Mentioning the situationists is great, because their analysis is true, but I also have to comment all societies do that, in different ways but they distract the people away from problems (bread and circuses ). Promoting violence is cringe as fuck. The whole argument of destroying the capitalist is state is bad because is in fact better in the other way, when someone destroys a state (culture in my theory) the whole thing comes crushing down and crisis of all sorts happen, if you reform the previous system you'll be with details from the past system some time, but they can be removed. Good point on the thing of socialism and dictatorship of the proletariat, but I directly have to reject the idea of communism. The argumengtation against the reform in favour of the revolution is really preety but stupid. Your critiques of market socialism is good, but you described a total market socialism, there are tandem systems of guided allocation and market that would work fine. And of the whole thing of socialim is one country, is cool to analyse from the ethical and pragmatical viewpoint for a global revolution, but the question, is it even fissible? An international market with capitalist countries everywhere will destroy or demolish all socialist economies unless they cooperate with the capitalists or suddenly there is a full world or just partly world revolution, wich is unlikely. Overall, very well read person, but an ultra-orthodox marxist, wich I must despise.
    BERNHEism- Step by step. Economically speaking, there is a lot bad, but with some dims of light. I like that you defend a medium-sized welfare state and regulation on the economy. For the rest, I'm preety much against capitalism ethically speaking, and you focusing on the social darwinian aspect of it is really worrying. Because I'm against capitalism I have to be against the massive privatization you propose. On that basis I have to differ with almost everything else in economy. On what you call "Civics". Firstly although not completely totalitarian (as you raise the good arguments against totalitarianism) you make some worrying totalitarian moves. On the whole thing of who is fit to rule, I have another proposal, but really nice. Now one of my main problems, state control of media, state control of the media complicates independent thought and reformism, wich are crucial, but I agree that the state should participate in media, but not control other media. There is independent media and media of the state. Said that American media might be one of the shittiest on the world, so I understand your conclusion. Really agree on the part of the police, but also make sure they are more obedient to the state. You don't say much on race, so no opinion to be said. On the ANTIFA thing, I agree with you that they are a fucking brainrot group of anarchists and wokes, but crushing them is not the way, it'd be best to just convince or directly ignore them, and if they decide to mess up (as with any movement), they shall be met by a coherent response from the police. Judicial, whatever. On drugs legalization is nice, but it should be medically controlled administration and should be followed by an enormous crackdown on drug-dealers. Capital punishment is completely wrong and you should apply them the same treatment as the following crimes. The whole "slaves of the state" sound really bad, but they should work to at least pay their crime and their mainteinance. Rehabilitation should be the general objective, but it should be more strict than it is nowadays to avoid the releasing of not rehabilitated people. Here comes the funny part. This is the utter and more brainrotted outlook I have yet found on nationality, like damn, the nazi outlook ends worse but makes more logic. First your claim that the USA is a nationless state, is bs, is true that is more of the more weak-fundamented nations on the planet, but there is a nation still, based purely on geographical, and lingüistic-folklorical terms. Independent of race, and on the folklore very integrating of the foreign. So, you propose a nation-less devotion to a state to justify world-wide imperialism just sparing europe, wich holy fuck. First, nation-less devotion to a state is bad, secondly imperialism is also bad if you didn't know, and third, why to spare europe? As a european I thank it, but it doesn't make sense. I'd say just a matter of short-term pragmatism, but if it is that way you should also apply that to china and russia. You should also chill a bit about russia, like, the state is a big mess of shit and commiting literal warcrimes, but you should focus it on the government and not the people. Let's move to social (my speciality). Your ignorance of LGBTQ+ issues is astonishing, they question the basis of what is sex and gender, they cause inconformity in people and conflicts arouse from their existence. Not a thing to be ignored definitely. On race, as you said it merely resumes to anatomy and genetics, but just by that there is nothing constructive to it. Just pure genotipes and fenotipes. Your point on white guilt is really true, but you also don't address any solution to the problems that arouse from race except, put some money radomnly there. On gender, you mic up gender and sex. What you said about sex is mostly true, but this affirmation "men are always going to be better manual labors than your average woman due to biology" is false because not in all manual labours are men more efficient. On religion I differ mostly, look at my proposal. On mass automation, obviously automating is good, and obviously if you displace people from more manual works you should teach them less manual works. But it should made at a good pace (not at mass), and you should also focus on developing the general world economy. Eugenics must be avoided unless very especific exceptions.

    The guns is just an american culture thing that should be very limited if not eliminated.



    (Feel free to ask anything! And add me alises!)
    Serbian Socialism Can you add me?

    • Excuse, but I'm new and I haven't fully understood the add me thing. My opinion of your thought you mean? If that's the case next thing I do.
      • Yep bro
        • Done
          • Fun fact: I prefer Apoliticism over Centrism and i'm also a HOI4 modder
            • Ok, can you explain that bit? And for the HOI4 modder part, just really nice, what mods are you working or worked on?
              • Apolitics just doesn't care about it, they doesn't stand still on de center. About HOI4, i'm wirking on my mod with United Balkans, East Germany and fractured Italy.
                • Tell me when you ended it and I'll play it assap.
              • I can't upload but i have a question: Do you wanna be leader of some nation? (Btw i will use Ponomarenko as portrait)
                • If you mean the ideology I would love it. Maybe later we can talk about it in some more adequate place.

    Socialist Third Way - Can you add me comrade?

    • Done comrade

    Neo-Glencoeism- Fascinating. Anyway Add me please

    • Done

    Brazilian Liberalism - Add me.

    • Done brazilian friend
    - Same as above
    • Done

    Schumacherianism - add 4 add? :D

    • Added, but wait for adding me, I'm working on it yet. I'll notice you the first when I'm done. :D

    Meowxism - add?

    • Added

    Neo-Optimateism - add me?

    • Added, but tell me when you have more written so I can have a more proper judgement.
      • Sure

    Mordecaism- Add me, i've already added you.

    • Added
    - Add me? :)
    • Added

    Jefbol Thought - add me

    • Added
    - add me?
    • Added. Can you add me?

    Niiloism - Add me?

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

    Recent changes

  • Alexander Terekhof • 34 seconds ago
  • TheElectricBomb • 3 minutes ago
  • TheElectricBomb • 3 minutes ago
  • TheElectricBomb • 4 minutes ago
  • Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.