Evolutionary Socialism is the personal ideology of DuyQuangNguyenPham. He's economically center-left pragmatically and left-wing ideally, civically liberal, socially reformist, civic-cultural nationalist, internationalist, and utilitarian.
Economically speaking, he believes in the phaseout of private enterprises with predominantly worker cooperatives along with other mutuals in a guided, regulated, and highly taxed market economy. Strategic industries can be under national or municipal ownership, and the expanded publicly-owned capital stock will help fund a protective and decommodifying welfare state.
Evolutionary Socialism believes that economic growth is important, which provides a tax base for social safety nets to cut poverty rates. Unlike capitalists, however, he doesn't think that private ownership is necessary for that to happen, just the presence of competitive markets is enough.
Broadly, he describes himself as a Keynesian. Many times, wages will not reach equilibrium in the short run. That means regulating the boom-bust cycle is paramount, which corresponds to increasing the money supply during recessions and decreasing it during expansions. That can be accomplished by fiscal and monetary policies.
The deficits wouldn't be left unpaid. Evolutionary Socialism wants to raise taxes or decrease spending to balance budgets later on. That way, debts would remain at sustainable levels, while the vulnerable will not get the short end of the stick. Dampening booms also have the added effect of preventing high inflation caused by any excessive stimulus.
He wants to have an independently-managed central bank. It would have a dual mandate of maximizing employment and targeting inflation by adjusting interest rates. During persistent deflationary periods, the monetary authority will resort to quantitative easing, especially when there's a liquidity trap.
He advocates for full employment, which helps the economy operate at the highest capacity. That doesn't mean unemployment goes all the way to zero, however, as price stability is also important. An ideal unemployment rate for him would hover at non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, which is kept low (5% or less).
All of these prescriptions would place him the closest to New Keynesianism.
Under an unaccountable and authoritarian government, he wants to pursue a non-violent revolution first. But if the powers that be still cracked down on the protests and refused to step down, then the violent revolution would be used.
Because of this, he tentatively supports these revolutions:
- American Revolution
- August Revolution
- Cuban Revolution (against Batista's military dictatorship)
- Hungarian Uprising (against Stalinist hardliners)
- Carnation Revolution
- Velvet Revolution
He's a big fan of expanding worker ownership and self-management until they become the main form of organization in the economy. Their ability to grant laborers substantial autonomy to decide the conditions at their workplaces is the primary reason why he's a socialist. Though, he's aware of their limitations, and so unlike market anarchists, he doesn't think merely ending privileges for capitalist companies is enough, positing that active state & social encouragement of co-ops is necessary.
Here are ways to facilitate the transformation:
Encouragement of new cooperatives
- Formalize legal company forms for worker and multi-stakeholder co-ops, while officially recognizing their social and economic benefits.
- Right of first refusal
- Create a public revolving loan fund, which will match the initial capital contributions of the workers three times over to buy out their company.
- Reduce capital gains tax for owners who sold their enterprises to the workers.
- Provide seed grants to employee ownership centers, which will disseminate info regarding worker ownership & self-management, even the internal capital accounts if necessary.
Growth of existing cooperatives
- Give preferential rights to worker co-operatives in case of tie bids.
- Allow outside investors to contribute up to 50% of the worker co-ops' share capital, but their equity will not give them any control rights.
- Mandate that worker co-operatives join a co-operative federation (if it exists,) which will give technical assistance to its members.
- Set up regional economic development agencies, which provide coops with shared services in R&D.
Each company must gradually issue 20% of its total stock to the employee ownership trust. Not only will it be exempt from any taxes, but it is also 'asset-locked,' which means that although workers will receive equal dividend yields and voting rights associated with it, they are unable to sell it for their individual gain. Instead, the fund will remain with the firm forever, or go towards a co-op development fund, in case the company itself closes down. This ensures that some amount of the share capital will be owned and controlled by the workers permanently, no matter how many times it changes hands.
Evolutionary Socialism supports the creation of the fund, inspired by the Government Pension Fund of Norway. It would invest in a diversified portfolio, containing (un-) listed stocks, bonds, and natural resources. To get started, the initial money would come from general taxation, revenues from existing state-owned enterprises, and issuance of government bonds in times of recession. When the first SWF becomes too big, it should be broken up into multiple smaller funds to prevent the centralization of economic power. Within each fund, pay will be linked to its performance to incentivize professional managers to maximize the returns for the public.The advantages associated with having many state-owned funds like this, as opposed to their private alternatives, are numerous. They make sure that the benefits of capital ownership are distributed evenly among the people through a social dividend, instead of allowing the top 10% of people to own nearly three-fourths of all the wealth. In addition to that, by engaging in collective capital formation, they will have a pro-growth effect on the macroeconomy. And finally, the democratic government will have an interest in investing for the long term, fighting the 'short-termism' mentality usually found in stock markets today.
"The concept of a society which is built on moral values is, in my view, too promising to be extinguished by inhuman market forces."self-regulating markets because an economy only governed by supply and demand and little else is inhumane at its very core. Not only does it lead to rising precarity (which hurts workers' rights), but it also prevents the firms from feeling the environmental costs to society. Furthermore, the lack of regulations can eventually destroy firm-level competition itself, as a few oligopolies have no qualms about eliminating their rivals through unethical means. A good government, therefore, should not let the market be free from state interventions but rather subordinate it to a democratic society.
He feels that at-will employment is negative overall. It gives undue power to employers since employees could be fired for almost any reason, including unorthodox political views, sexual orientation, or religion. For that reason, he wishes to mandate that firms have a just cause (like poor performance or economic redundancy) when terminating someone. Interestingly enough, a worker cooperative is not so willing to shred the labor force by design. Just like how workers should be able to quit jobs, they also should be able to find new and better jobs if they so choose. Therefore, occupational licensing needs to be relaxed to improve employment opportunities.
In the real world, the economy doesn't have perfectly competitive markets. There are indeed imperfections found in the labor market, where there are simply not enough companies lying around or significant costs incurred to switch jobs. Both of these contribute to the wage-setting power firms have. One way to fight oligopsonies is to raise the minimum wage to around 60% of the local median wages and tie it to inflation (though he is also sympathetic to a $15 minimum wage, phased in over four years.) A national government would only set the floor. Smaller states are free to set higher minimum wages compared to local median ones if they so choose. This will provide a laboratory to see if even greater minimum wages are positive. In the long run, he feels that minimum wages should be complemented by sectoral bargaining between strong unions and the government when union density is a lot higher.
He supports the creation of an economic constitution, inspired by the one implemented in West Germany. If any enterprise was found to increase its market share by engaging in anti-competitive practices (such as predatory pricing), it will be nationalized and be run properly. This would serve as a warning to other firms not to collude with one another. This is not to say that Evolutionary Socialism dislikes big businesses altogether. Sometimes, an economy of scale means that those firms can operate with greater efficiency. He is just worried about them getting so large that they start to have price-setting power, which hurt the customers or gain enough political influence through lobbying, which can subvert the political democracy itself.
A financial system directs capital investments to businesses that need to expand their operations, so it has a really important role in the macroeconomy. Its failure would be catastrophic. That is why Evolutionary Socialism thinks that banking regulations, like higher reserve requirements and financial transaction taxes, are important for overall economic stability. He also endorses the creation of a central bank to regulate the money supply, once again to mitigate boom-and-bust cycles. However, this particular bank wouldn't be intervened by the central government, but rather be left up to appointed economic experts.
Evolutionary Socialism endorses a high amount of taxation to indirectly fund generous cash transfers and universal basic services. The specific taxes that he wants, however, should have little deadweight loss. The primary tax base for him will therefore be:
- Land value capture (as close to 100% as possible)
- Consumed-income tax (45–60%, with the top rate applied at twice the average income)
- Value-added tax (a uniform 25% rate on consumer goods)
- Payroll tax
- Inheritance tax (at least 50%)
- Net worth tax (wealth above a million dollars will be taxed at 2%)
Besides these, he also supports Pigovian taxes to internalize externalities. They're mainly used to discourage harmful things, and so are not meant to be a long-term revenue stream.
He desires many generous public benefits, not only to curb the gross power imbalance found in capitalism but also to insure people against the different contingencies in their lives. Some of the social programs (which would replace tax credits, such as the EITC) he wants to implement include:
- Universal basic income at the poverty line
- Monthly child benefit, depending on the number of kids parents have
- Home childcare allowance, as an opt-out for public childcare services
- State-subsidized Ghent unemployment insurance funds
- Disability insurance
Of course, such a robust welfare state also requires a really large workforce, which contributes sufficient tax revenues for the system to work. That's why he is a fan of heavy government support to help people find work more easily.
He would establish a new publicly-funded employment service, where the workers would be matched to their desired job. They would be informed of any job vacancy, trained to write a good résumé and go through an interview successfully. He is also a fan of upskilling. This could take the form of subsidized and publicly-provided vocational classes or apprenticeships, with a focus on technical assistance for workers to build their own self-managed cooperatives. He feels that they're important since creative destruction creates a need for retraining the laid-off continuously.However, he's not a fan of a job guarantee, seeing that it's essentially just workfare. As stated before, he doesn't like the idea of forcing people to have to work to gain benefits. Sometimes, an individual gains more utility by taking time off to be with his loved ones, and that's okay. A better way to address structural unemployment in a worker-cooperative-centered economy is to have more public works, but they remain optional.
In an economy where workers are rarely able to direct how companies operate (besides just leaving), Evolutionary Socialism doesn't trust those businesses to always take workers' interests into account. This is why he is strongly in support of trade unions. Not only can they tackle wage theft right now, but they also let workers be more aware of their collective potential together, which enables further economic changes to take place down the line. He accepts that unions can have perverse incentives, such as the tendency for US police unions to protect bad cops. However, the solution isn't to bust them, but to increase UI generosity, so unemployment is not devastating to any laid-off police officer.
Of course, setting up unions is not an easy task at all. Private corporations can leverage their power to try to persuade, or even intimidate, workers who are trying to organize. Captive audience meeting is a channel where they do this, so it is only fair for it to be banned. Evolutionary Socialism also wants to make it possible for every worker to join a union, so those businesses can't just cut labor costs by re-classifying normal employees into independent contractors.
He is of the opinion that even in firm-level bargaining systems, the positive effect on wages extends far beyond any individually-unionized workplace. For that reason, right-to-work laws should be repealed, primarily to make sure non-member workers pay enough dues to compensate the unions for their bargaining effort, but also to give unions more resources to assist in worker buyouts.One more path to reform that he believes should be taken is to delegate the unemployment insurance administration to the unions and involve them in the job training system. Because workers would be a lot more likely to find work successfully with the help of unions, workers would be enticed to join them under this arrangement.
When the time is right, that is, when the unionization of firms is dense enough, he believes that there are two purposes that unions can serve:
Bipartite collective agreementsIn sectors that work best under public ownership (natural resources, utilities, education, healthcare, vice industries, even banking to an extent), he thinks that sectoral bargaining between centralized trade unions and state-owned enterprises is important. The unions would negotiate wages, benefits, working conditions, and even appoint worker-elected representatives to half the board of directors. Works councils would have the ability to be informed of and veto company decisions if they go against the wishes of workers, to his understanding.
Not only that, strong unions would engage in solidaristic wage policy by eliminating any wage differentials due to varying levels of profitability. Pushing up wages in the least competitive firms would work against the gender pay gap, fulfilling ' equal pay for equal work.' And to the extent that labor is made redundant, they can be retrained to re-enter the labor force, maintaining full employment. Meanwhile, wage restraint in the most competitive firms allows them to gain windfall profits, which will most likely be re-invested thanks to tax credits for long-term R&D. Such investments will drive structural transformation, while macroeconomic coordination will enable wages to rise without causing undue wage-price spirals.
Assistance to worker buyoutsUnions have a few options to do this. They can pool their union dues for a takeover after most of the rank and file agree to do so. Or, they can allow their worker members to use the unemployment insurance benefits as funds to buy out the shares of a capitalist firm of their choice. In exchange, the involved workers will lose the right to collect the amount of UI they borrow, should their firm fail. It's like the Marcora Law, but more union-oriented.
Evolutionary Socialism wants single-payer universal healthcare (inspired by the Beveridge Model) to guarantee that everyone is in good physical and mental conditions regardless of their circumstances, which leads to a highly productive workforce. It is also necessary for a more egalitarian society that he likes.
Basically, the cost of healthcare services is virtually all socialized through a highly robust public health insurance scheme, with the additional inclusion of dental, hearing, vision, mental, and long-term care. Such a state-owned insurance would not only reduce administrative costs, but also negotiate drug prices, which should be able to curb excess rents going towards the drug manufacturers, thanks to its monopsony power (one of the few instances where he thinks such power is good.)In his view, institutional providers should be brought under public ownership, but cooperatively managed with the inputs of all healthcare workers within. On top of that, a public office can be set up to manufacture generic drugs and their active ingredients for which a patent has been licensed, making prescription drugs even more affordable.
Because the government would assume nearly all of the healthcare costs, this provides an imperative to minimize health problems, which he thinks is a better approach than trying to restrict healthcare access. Some ways to promote better health outcomes are:
- Levying excise taxes on non-medicinal drugs & sugar-sweetened beverages and operating an alcohol monopoly, modeled after Vinmonopolet in Norway
- Subsidizing the injection of vaccines, and even mandating its use in crowded areas
- Issuing a brief lockdown in an event of a pandemic to curb its spread
For kids between 3 to 5 years old, they would be eligible to take part in free public pre-K centers in order to learn basic skills before going to school officially.
In primary and secondary education, there will be a robust public option provided by the government, meaning that it's free at the point of use. Other independently-managed schools can exist, but he prefers them to be organized as a non-profit. In both cases, they will be more democratic internally, with students having more ability to influence their learning environments. During this time, education is made compulsory. He values universal education a lot, seeing that is important for children to learn to be functional members of society.Tertiary education will also be free at the point of service, but participating students must pay a graduate tax on their salaries after they graduate, which will go back to the funding for those schools. This proposal can reduce the regressivity of free colleges and trade schools and ensure that the students have ample opportunities to work in their favored careers.
Evolutionary Socialism views the local property taxes as being pretty inequitable. With those in place, the schools being surrounded by high property wealth would naturally have more resources to deploy than the others. This exacerbates inequality of opportunity. Therefore, he would centralize funding for secondary education or below.
To him, houses provide a supportive foundation for people to work and live the best lives they could have, and so are really valuable. Because of that, houses should be guaranteed to all. That is possible with the repeal of single-family zoning, allowing many more types of houses to be built, like apartment complexes. Deregulating zoning also has the added benefit of reducing racial disparities, thus advancing social justice.
Of course, just relying on the private sector won't be enough. That's why he thinks the public sector has a big role to play as well. In the spirit of Finland's Housing First policy, tons of mixed-income homes are provided to the homeless unconditionally by local and national governments, with an emphasis on manufactured homes to lower their construction costs. These houses would be operating on a cross-subsidization model, with excess profits from market-rate buildings subsidizing the rents of lower-income tenants. Additionally, tenants will gain access to social services that treat their mental health issues, if the need arises.Besides state ownership, he is also a fan of personal ownership of homes. He would want the implementation of a right-to-buy policy, with all tenants being able to buy additional shares of their occupied homes over time. When the homes are fully bought, they would no longer be required to pay rent. In his mind, the formation of housing cooperatives is also possible with such a process, but he hasn't figured out the precise logistics of this just yet. The implementation of a sizeable vacancy tax would, to him, strongly reduce the incentive of using housing as an investment asset.
The land isn't really created by any human being; therefore, he wants it to belong to everyone. He is a fan of the Singaporean model, where 90% of the land is owned by the public authority, but can be leased to individual developers through a competitive bidding process to make the most productive use of it. Since the government would capture the value of unimproved land in that instance, this program is mechanically identical to a really high land value tax. For any remaining land not owned in common, he wishes it to be owned by the community land trusts, which caps the resale prices of dwellings, keeping them affordable for low- and middle-income buyers.
On social issues, Evolutionary Socialism supports abortion liberalization, LGBT rights, decriminalizing recreational drugs, a reformed criminal justice system, etc. However, he is skeptical of affirmative action, gender self-identification and gender fluidity, making him a moderate progressive.
He doesn't believe that it's right to mistreat a person just because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. That is why any discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and asexual individuals would be made illegal under his system. Neopronouns and xenogenders won't be legally recognized, however. He would also allow pride parades, but on the condition that they have no nudity.
He also argues that marriage should be available to every adult couple in society. He thinks it's absurd that couples have to enjoy fewer rights just because they happen to have the same gender. Furthermore, marriage equality has been shown to increase the commitment of these partners as well. However, some people might argue marriage was for procreation only. He would respond that homosexual and bisexual couples should be able to have offspring with their DNA thanks to advances in technology, and there are signs that this should eventually be a reality. Moreover, they're allowed to adopt kids too.
As for trans people specifically, Evolutionary Socialism has been sympathetic toward them for a long time. He thought of gender dysphoria as the result of the mismatch between gender identity and sex at birth. For that reason, he wants to expand access to gender-affirming healthcare, like puberty blockers below age 16, hormone replacement therapy above age 16, and sex reassignment surgery above age 18.
Additionally, he hopes that transgender people can participate in sports, especially mixed-sex sports. States' attempts to ban trans women from participating might be well-meaning (assuming that they do care about the integrity of women's sports) but he doesn't think that that is the solution. He would require that these aspiring transgender sportspeople transition and then measure their hormone levels to be appropriate before allowing them to compete. This strikes the balance between the inclusivity of legitimate transgender people in sports and meaningful competition.
Evolutionary Socialism is an ardent feminist. That means he advocates expanding women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. Firstly, he believes that women should be completely equal to men before the law. Any violence and prejudice against women would be outlawed, and women would enjoy the same political rights as men.
Secondly, he would want women to be freer from the constraints of traditional gender roles. That meant additional opportunities for them to be employed, which is why he favors free childcare, which has been shown to increase maternal labor force participation rates. Thirdly, Evolutionary Socialism endorses the expansion of paid family and annual leave to every employee. If affordable childcare gives women more freedom to seek out work, then maternity leave allows them to care for their children when they want to. Keep-in-touch programs will be readily available, where leave-takers could still stay in contact with their workplace.
Lastly, he favors reproductive rights for women in general. He would support the legalization of first- and second-term abortions, while third-term abortions would be more regulated, except in cases where women are at risk, rape, incest, and fetal nonviability. Despite this, being pro-choice isn't the same as pro-abortion, as he wants to reduce abortion incidence as well. Comprehensive sex education and affordable birth control are necessary for this to happen. In other words, he operates by the mantra "safe, legal, and rare" when it comes to abortion.
He thinks the job constitutes as a form of productive labor, comparable to massaging, so it should be legalized in his view. However, he acknowledges that the profession has a much higher chance of exploitation, especially for desperate women who are forced to enter this to survive. As a result, he supports many regulations here, from a ban of advertising to strict licensing requirements. All sex workers will also be made aware of alternative job options, in case even a slight discomfort with their work arises.
Evolutionary Socialism believes that global warming is man-made, and that's a big problem. Carbon emissions have been rapidly increasing, and that's due to the Industrial Revolution. However, he doesn't think that we should make environmental progress by curtailing economic growth like many degrowth advocates would say, as it would hurt the general living standards, thus increasing poverty rates. Instead, green growth will be key to defeating the crisis.
Carbon pricing is an important piece of the puzzle. A nationwide carbon tax would start at $60/ton of CO2 and gradually increase annually to be compatible with the Paris Agreement, incentivizing firms to be less carbon-intensive. The receipts could be distributed to citizens to make sure lower-income people do not lose out from this scheme. A carbon tariff could also be adapted to create a uniform global carbon price, levied on goods imported from countries that haven't had sufficient carbon taxation.
The reliance on coal, petroleum, and natural gas has only polluted the air so necessary to sustain us, created oil spills that damaged the ocean, and further increased the accumulation of CO2, which will lead to a mass extinction down the line. It's high time we phase out the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.However, there will be disruptions along the way, which is why the state needs to intervene to decarbonize successfully. First, the government should buy out the major fossil fuel companies to make sure its decline doesn't lead to social chaos. Then, it needs to make massive investments in renewables and nuclear energy to plan out the green transition.
Evolutionary Socialism cherishes the Earth, seeing that its one-of-a-kind environment allows numerous unique species to flourish. It's a tragedy that pollution is allowed to continue unchecked, with adverse effects on the ecosystem that we hold so dear. Because of this, he's supportive of measures to fight it:
- Encourage 'reduce, reuse, and recycle' with posters, awareness campaigns, or otherwise to lower the need for landfills.
- Do public investments in biodegradable plastics and promote those when they become more widely available, since they are more decomposable than regular plastics.
- Issue income-based fines to litterers to keep the streets clean.
- Prohibit ocean dumping to reduce the prevalence of garbage patches.
- Integrate our towns into nature by building green and blue infrastructure.
- Extend national protection to forests, seeing they have a crucial role in carbon sequestration and flood mitigation.
- Impose sanctions on ecologically destructive countries, such as Brazil under Bolsonaro.
On one hand, Evolutionary Socialism opposes state atheism, since religious freedom is not respected there, which is important to him. Furthermore, state atheist regimes tend to replace religion with themselves anyways. Stalin's USSR is a classic example.
On the other hand, he also opposes theocracies. If strict enough, a theocratic government could persecute people for not conforming to the official religion, and he's also worried about the civil rights of non-heterosexual people under that system.
To him, Anglo-American secularism is the ideal. Churches should be separated from the state, but the people are free to worship the religion that they want.
He supports the procedure as long as the patient consents to that. He finds it immoral that a terminally sick person be forced to continue living even when they already decided that the only way to stop their suffering is to end their own life. Although, if euthanasia isn't an option, palliative care will be used instead.
Civically, he can best be described as a liberal. Participatory democracy is deeply important to him, and so is the separation of power, so no branch of government can grow unchecked. Basically, in his ideal system, citizens will have a lot more freedom of choice in the political sphere and have many rights protected.
Because the form of socialism that he envisions contains many public industries managed for the good of all, it follows that robust and democratic institutions should be incorporated to increase the public sector's effectiveness, and make sure the interests of the wider society are taken into account. Therefore, in his mind, the inclusion of political democracy is, to a large extent, the precondition of socialism.
Evolutionary Socialism finds a lack of popular participation in current governments to be concerning, therefore he wants a semi-direct democracy to rectify that, where the people can vote for and subsequently recall their representatives. The citizens also have the ability to vote in referendums and popular initiatives. He believes such a system is important to further empower everyone to reduce the influence of corporate interests, and it's a way to pass progressive agenda more easily. One example is Florida, which has accepted a referendum to increase the minimum wage to $15, even though its legislature was in the hands of Republicans. What's more, he prefers a parliamentary system to a presidential one. Since the prime minister comes from the legislature, the executive and legislative branches are much more in sync, giving them an easier time implementing policies. Lastly, he believes that the senate should stop being used. It might play a role when the government was more decentralized, giving voice to the regional states. But now, it's simply an anti-democratic institution that gives some votes more power than others, just based on their location. Thus, he wants a unicameral legislature, instead of a bicameral one.
He deplores the first-past-the-post system. He dislikes how third parties only have a slim chance against the two main parties, leading to staticism and stagnation. In his opinion, it might make sense to go for ranked-choice voting since it's a feasible option now, but long-term, he wishes for some form of proportional representation. That way, multiple political parties are encouraged to form a coalition, gaining a majority to govern. He also wants the electoral college gone. Championing states' rights isn't worth it when the winning candidate doesn't even need to earn the majority of the popular vote. In addition, gerrymandering would be deemed illegal. As an alternative, a non-partisan redistricting commission would be in charge of drawing boundaries for voting districts, which couldn't be used to any party's advantage.
Evolutionary Socialism believes that big money in politics has made his government significantly less accountable to the people, which is quite worrying. To him, the right of the rich and powerful to lobby doesn't trump the right for everyone to be represented. He proposes a few ways to fight it.
In America specifically, he wants to overturn Citizens United vs. FEC, making the following possible. He also endorses democracy vouchers, a form of public financing, to enable adult citizens to have equal ability to donate to a political campaign of their choosing. In exchange, lobbying will be banned, or at the very least, heavily regulated.
The news media
Evolutionary Socialism thinks that a free press is necessary for a thriving civil society. This is why he is critical of the mass media in the United States, believing that the concentration of media ownership encroaches on free expression that he so cherishes. In his view, the promotion of media cooperatives can decentralize the media landscape more.
On top of that, he wants more interventions and public provisions of goods in information markets too. For one, he supports the implementation of the fairness doctrine to present opposing views fairly, which could effectively fight political polarization, thus stabilizing our society. Also, disinformation to him should be more restricted in general. Any companies that purposefully spread those will be hit with harsh penalties. And finally, he is in favor of well-funded public broadcasters, which operate independently from the government and corporations, to inform the public about what's going on.
In his mind, private prisons would want to keep as many prisoners with as little costs as they can, leading to higher reoffence rates. Therefore, the government should own detention centers and run them without concern for profits. He also advocates emphasizing rehabilitative practices in public prisons, instead of punitive ones. As a constructivist, Evolutionary Socialism believes socioeconomic factors play a significant role in determining crime rates, so leniency should be displayed towards prisoners as a result.
That can manifest as the abolition of the death penalty. There's no reason it would still be around in the world Evolutionary Socialism envisions because the death penalty creates a risk of wrongful executions and doesn't really deliver justice to the victims' families. Ideally, he wants to phase out the life without parole sentences as well (which are basically very delayed death penalties) by restoring parole eligibility to convicted criminals after they have served a decade. This should encourage them to participate in educational and vocational programs to prepare for their eventual release.On a side note, he wishes to end mandatory minimums. Firstly, they ignore the unique circumstances that each offender has been in to commit the crime. And secondly, that type of sentencing contributes to mass incarceration found in the United States. Might as well do away with it entirely.
He thinks that the law enforcement is a necessary institution to keep the community safe. With that said, there is a really large margin of error there. Improperly designed, and it risks being just another tool of oppression, rather than actually serving the public. Therefore, he wants many far-reaching changes to be implemented.
First of all, he seeks to increase the bargaining power of the public in negotiations with police unions, with an easy hiring and firing process. This allows abusive cops to be weeded out and facilitates more favorable conditions for other reforms to be made. He also endorses a comprehensive police misconduct database to prevent fired cops from simply being rehired in other cities, making the punishment sticks.Secondly, the police need to be demilitarized, seeing heavy weapons just as an affirmation of the mentality that causes police brutality to be so commonplace. The increase in budget will fund more social workers to deal with the mental health crisis more effectively. Furthermore, chokeholds should be banned, and police training be altered to emphasize de-escalation practices, as opposed to just the proper use of weapons. Finally, the appointment of arbitrators can be done by elected governors to ensure the discipline towards guilty cops actually fits their crimes, rather than being arbitrarily reduced.
Evolutionary Socialism believes in a marketplace of ideas as it lets radical, unorthodox ideas circulate, making the discourse a lot more interesting. Of course, there is always a risk that misinformation spreads, but that's on us to combat using well-reasoned arguments, not state censorship. His view on free speech goes further than merely protecting speech from interference, believing each individual should also be guaranteed a platform to speak their mind on an issue. Practically, this can be done through public internet service providers, allocated to everyone who needs them.
There are some exceptions where speech restrictions are acceptable, but he believes they aren't many. Like in the classic example of shouting 'fire' in the theater; that's problematic because it creates an undue risk of people stepping on each other to try to escape. Advocating for violence against an individual, for any reason, falls under those cases as well.
Additionally, he fiercely defends peaceful protests. As John F. Kennedy puts it, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." There should be a way for the public to channel their discontent extra-institutionally, which could drive social change. He even supports riots if they're against public institutions specifically, as those could still be rebuilt.
Before, he was quite skeptical of hard drug liberalization, as many of them are harmful to the users, if overused. He wondered if it could really be done.
Until he looked at Portugal's model.individual autonomy. As a result, he no longer believes in the criminalization of hard drugs.
Evolutionary Socialism still thinks that the consequences of drug addiction should be combatted. However, he is now certain that the best way to achieve that is via a public health approach that recognized that drug addicts are not bad for society, but just ill, and need support from the community, not a criminal justice approach.
Here's what he would do:
- Decriminalization of drug consumption across the board.
- Implement a needle and syringe program, where drug users can obtain clean needles, instead of having to get them from black markets.
- Create the Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, composed of social workers and health experts. Repeated referrals by the commission will lead to the issuance of income-based fines, but for first-time referrals, the commission simply recommends health treatments for drug dependents.
He's not opposed to CCTV cameras being used by the police to deter crimes. For example, a potential thief can be discouraged to steal when he sees the camera watching him in a store since being stealthy would be impossible in that case. With that said, he believes that utilizing surveillance in excess is a pretty bad idea because it constitutes a breach of privacy. Governments should only use this in moderation.
To him, every gun purchaser must be law-abiding, pass a mental health check and be old enough before being allowed to buy them. That way, accidental deaths are kept to a minimum and violent criminals have less access to deadly weapons. A waiting period would be introduced to allow the government to perform the background check.
Furthermore, he doesn't like the stand-your-ground laws. He sees no reason why an individual should be stopped from running away to escape a threat, and so wants to see that law get eliminated.
Evolutionary Socialism's diplomatic views are neutral, incorporating both nationalist and internationalist viewpoints. He thinks some sort of national identity is necessary to allow the people to work together for their common interest, but he isn't against global cooperation to fix the world's most pressing issues.
That doesn't mean that the current way of doing things on a global scale is okay, however. He is highly critical of structural adjustment programs and the capital's ability to frictionlessly move between borders, believing them to constrain national governments to engage in redistributive & predistributive policies. This necessitates a new global order, one that maintains economic sovereignty for all, while also giving a lot more industrial support to the Global South.
He supports national self-determination. To him, countries all across the globe should have the ability to determine their own course of development, free from coercion from any imperial powers. He is a civic nationalist, since to him, nationhood is defined by the shared language and values of the citizens. He finds it pretty important to foster the national identity because it creates a sense of solidarity among the people, which is necessary for the maintenance of a strong welfare state.
He is intercultural, albeit leaning polycultural. What this means is that cross-cultural communication would bind the different cultural groups together, in service of the nation. In cases where parallel societies pose a problem to successful integration, he would advocate for some cultural fusion, where minority cultures would be incorporated to create a new national culture. Because he emphasizes the similarities instead of the distinctiveness between cultures, his view is different from multiculturalism on the whole.
Evolutionary Socialism is pretty pro-immigration, to say the least. He sympathizes with the individuals who want to find better living conditions for themselves. This motivates him to make legal immigration a lot easier and provide path to citizenship to illegal immigrants. The newcomers will also be given civic and language courses, preferably through the use of public schools, so they can be acquainted with their new environment more easily. In return, new immigrants should be required to pay taxes to go towards the maintenance of the aforementioned programs.
Generally, he is a non-interventionist. He believes that a nation should focus on maintaining the well-being of its people, and also, the consequences of foreign interventions are just not worth it. Because of this, he believes that they should only be utilized when they have serious net gains. The situations where that might be the case are invasions, which infringe on national sovereignties, and large-scale genocide, which can cost so many lives if not dealt with. Besides that, he prefers peaceful diplomacy.
Additionally, he likes foreign aid. However, he will be careful about it, as corrupt leaders could potentially use the funds to enrich themselves, instead of actually helping the people. Still, he wants to increase humanitarian aid to poorer nations to help them become more prosperous.
He's quite in favor of open trade between nations, seeing that reduces costs of goods in the Global North while helping the Global South industrialize and diversify their economies. That doesn't mean no tariffs are present, for he still wants carbon tariffs to internalize the costs of pollution. There should also be adequate worker standards in multilateral trade agreements, where third-world workers can negotiate as much pay as their labor productivity allows. For laid-off domestic workers, he will help them move to new jobs quickly.
Despite this, Evolutionary Socialism is quite critical of liberalized capital flows. Ever since the post-war consensus, cross-border financial flows have weakened the ability of national governments to engage in redistribution of resources, leading to the race to the bottom. Under his system, international investments would be more regulated via a modified Bretton Woods economic order.
As long as these organizations are voluntarily decided upon by their members, he's fine with them. In fact, he's cool with the developing countries pooling their resources together by integrating into regional trade blocs, which can then bargain for better terms of trade with the more developed nations.
Evolutionary Socialism is not against the existence of military alliances. He can see their role in maintaining the sovereignties of the members. However, they must strictly be for national security, not meddling in the Third World. Say that he took power in Finland, which has just joined NATO due to concerns about Russia. He would not leave the alliance in that instance. He would, however, vote down resolutions to intervene in any foreign countries.
Once again, he's not against the existence of a European Union. It has done a good job reducing carbon emissions and ensuring peace among the EU members. What he doesn't like are its interference in French bank nationalizations and centralized monetary policies. He wants to further democratize the EU and let the setting of interest rates be in the hand of each nation to solve those problems. In that sense, he is a soft Eurosceptic.
As with the United Nations, he's chill with it. He believes that the humanitarian aid that it has given has contributed to the lowering of poverty all across the world. However, he takes issue with the enormous power that the permanent members have, and the horrible sanctions that the organization imposed, particularly the one on Iraq. To tackle this, he wishes for greater democratization of the UN, so that it reflects the interest of all members, not just the Big Five. Once more, he wants to reform the institution, rather than abolish it. Like the EU, he's skeptical of further federalization, though he doesn't have a problem with it if it's done through voluntary agreements.
Evolutionary Socialism believes that knowledge mainly comes from sensory experience. Sure, more political theories can be studied if needed, but they should always be confirmed by the observation of the world as it exists.
Simply put, he believes in maximizing the happiness of everyone as much as possible, though he doesn't believe that should be reached at any cost. If given the choice to kill one random person to increase aggregate well-being, he still won't do it because he believes killing is morally wrong. So, he either accepts rule utilitarianism or negative utilitarianism.
How to draw
- Draw a ball.
- Fill the ball red.
- Draw at the top a yellow hammer.
- Below that, draw two yellow arrows crossing each other.
- Below that, draw a large yellow star.
- Add the eyes, and you're finished!
|Red||#DA251D||218, 37, 29|
|Yellow||#FFFF00||255, 255, 0|
He's generally chill, but he can be quite passionate when a topic he's interested in gets brought up. During debates, he will almost always be charitable and prefers to make substantive points over name-calling. Many communists don't consider him an actual socialist, much to his dismay, though he begrudgingly tolerates this.
Reading / Watching List
- Efficient Management of State-Owned Enterprises: Challenges and Opportunities - Asian Development Bank Institute
- Social Wealth Fund for America - Matt Bruenig
- The Meidner Plan for Market Socialism - Meta Flight
- Worker Democracy - Unlearning Economics
- Policy Supports for Co-operative Development: Learning from Co-op Hot Spots
- Economic Democracy through Collective Capital Formation: The Cases of Germany and Sweden, and Strategies for the Future - Stefan Sjöberg and Nyegosh Dube
- What to shoot for on welfare and unemployment? - David Sligar
- Why did the Swedish Model fail? - Rudolf Meidner
- How to DEFEAT Populism: Liberal Nationalism - My Take
Note: This is just to rank ideologies, not your actual personality.
If you have made it this far, thanks for reading. If you want to add me to your self-insert relations, please use this template Evolutionary Socialism.
Democratic Socialism - Political democracy, social democracy, economic democracy, and workplace democracy are ideal. It may not be simple to get to this point, but with trial and error, it will certainly be possible.
Alter-Globalization - The world really needs to transition to a system where national sovereignties are respected, and each country is free to develop its own economic system, free from fears of a capital strike.
Social Democracy - Your pro-unionization measures, strong public sector, and a universal welfare state are really based, although you have yet to fully democratize the workplace. My main worry is that maintaining social corporatism for too long would just stall any further progress toward wholesale socialization of the economy, as you now have an organized group of private owners mobilized against leftist reforms. Nevertheless, I'm you in realpolitik, but ultimately you're just the transitional step.
Reformist Marxism - Good predictions on how capitalism would develop, and strategy to develop socialism. Although, why support imperialism? Supporting colonial endeavors is what caused your placement to be lower. Still the best Marxist nonetheless.
Social Liberalism - Some of you can be good short-term allies to advance social protections for the people in the current system, but some of you can be too hostile to leftism in general.
However, I just can't see eye-to-eye with allowing unfettered capital flows or deriding unions just because they distort the labor market. And most importantly, the lack of openness to any form of post-capitalism disallows you from being ranked higher.
Also, put your hands away from the social-democratic movement!
Conservative Liberalism - Really, you only got the civic liberalism that I agree with. I'm not a fan of just privatizing public assets to 'improve' the market at all, and also, stop complaining about the wokeism so much! It really isn't as big of a problem as you think it is.
Libertarian Conservatism - A more radical version of the above. At least your faith in the government is weak enough for you to not enforce your conservative views; I'll give you that.
Marxism–Leninism - I will admit, your states did industrialize extremely fast and play a huge role in defeating fascism worldwide, which I like. However, that doesn't excuse centrally planning the economy, instituting forced labor (ironic,) and stamping out free socialist movements domestically and globally. Why wouldn't you want alternate modes of socialism to emerge?
Hoppeanism - Oh my god. How exactly can you convince other private owners to be that discriminatory? And why be against free movement in your anarcho-capitalist society? There are just so many contradictions in this.
Pol Potism - Imagine aggressing into our territory first, killing our people along with a large chunk of your own citizens, and then complaining when we decided to attack in retaliation. How can you be influenced by Marxism when you're fundamentally a racist, totalitarian, and ultranationalist psychopath? Just dystopian.
New Keynesianism - We should utilize fiscal and monetary policies to stabilize the business cycles. Although, you sometimes leaned toward the latter. With that said, you have achieved extraordinary macroeconomic stability in many developed countries by maintaining aggregate demand with strategic liquidity. I like how you came up with micro-foundations to respond to the critiques from neoclassical economists, like menu costs and efficiency wages. Also, good job focusing on the role of demand during the Keynesian resurgence! Your theory remains comprehensive and stands the test of time.
Neo-Keynesianism - We need to use fiscal and monetary policies to alleviate downturns, even though you leaned toward the former. During the Golden Age, besides inflation, you outperformed the Washington Consensus in terms of global growth and unemployment. Capital flows were limited, so financial crises were very infrequent around the world. However, the assumption that the trade-off between unemployment and inflation remains true in the long run was your biggest flaw, leading to your demise. However, you're still pretty good for your time.
Ricardian Socialism - Your view about the benefits that two nations have from trading goods that they are specialized in has influenced me. Your support of central banking is great also. However, the iron law of wages didn't always hold. Maybe it was during your time, but compensation has steadily increased since then, making gradual reforms viable. Furthermore, I don't think the labor theory of value is valid either, as labor and capital are complementary. But out of the two flawed theories came a very based proposal, democratic worker ownership of firms. So overall, you're a net good, despite your shortcomings.
Post-Keynesianism - Kalecki's idea of political business cycles, where the power dynamics between labor and capital dictate what policy is enacted, is certainly interesting. On top of that, fiscal stimulus is good, but neglecting the role of monetary policy is pretty bad. For example, economists believed that 1987 stock market crash would result in the second Great Depression, but that didn't happen. Why you may ask? Because the central banks injected liquidity on time to keep the economy going. Furthermore, fighting against austerity is based, but at a certain point, you have to balance your budgets, unless you want to default, which would be disastrous. With that said, the new Keynes Plan to correct global trade imbalances, which is actually really cool! So, you're pretty good, though with some imperfections here and there.
Monetarism - Monetary policies ought to be used to reduce the volatility of the economy, but the opposition to countercyclical fiscal policies is unwarranted. Fiscal stimulus absolute worked during the Great Recession. It seems that you underestimated the competence of the government. And your rule that central banks must follow is too strict. A k-percent rule would mean that they can't adjust their plan to deal with inflation spikes. I prefer an inflation-targeting scheme instead. On the flip side, your work on the natural rate of unemployment has been very influential for the Keynesian thought at least.
New classical economics - Why did you seriously think a slump in the real economy only represents an efficient response, rather than an actual defect that needs to be corrected? Also, your assumptions of a 'homo-economicus' are really unrealistic. At least you ain't as crazy as your Austrian cousins, but that's a low bar to clear.Austrian economics
Yori Model (96.5%)
I'm not sure about focusing on effective demand, but that's about it. We are similar in so many aspects. The parliamentary road to socialism, the cultural liberalism, the love for our homeland, and worldwide cooperation are just some of them. By the way, I noticed that you defended open trade now, which made you all more based. On the whole, you have one of the best, if not the best, self-inserts on this site.
Market Syndicalism (94.3%)
Pretty great views so far. I agree with democratic governance & rehabilitative measures on the one hand, and employee ownership of shares & strong unions to organize the workers on the other hand (save for just a single public bank, but that could be negotiated.) I'd love to live in your envisioned society.
Great British New Left (93.1%)
Fantastic stuff. Besides your march (albeit pretty slowly) to upper-stage communism, I'm with you on many, many issues. I especially appreciate your praxis to reach a socialist society. Too many leftists, I feel, denounce other leftists because of small ideological deviations, but you are one of the few that are different from that. That should be honored.
Yoda8soup Thought (92.7%)
You are just a tad bit too revolutionary, but it is more or less your only flaw. We have numerous common principles, from a radical expansion of worker democracy, alter-globalization to cautious progressivism and civil libertarianism. You also adopt left-patriotism, which is a very welcome change from before. In general, you have excellent views, and I won't have second thoughts about becoming your comrade. :)
Socialist Third Way (91.4%)
Fellow left-social democrat and liberal socialist! Your way of dealing with international actors is also pretty agreeable, with the protection of human rights, de-militarization, and self-determination as guiding values. Economically speaking, it really looks like not only do we share the same reasoning on why capitalism is undesirable, but more or less promote the same system to replace it, based on joint worker-public ownership and strong 'social wages.' The only thing I'd nitpick you about is the monitoring of basic income. If the goal is making sure that the needs of all are definitely met, then you should instead focus on making that benefit as easily accessible as possible, instead of trying to prevent the 'false-unemployed' from getting it. That's it, really.
Hey man, could you at least implement some regulations regarding firearms? There are many ways to do this, whether they are universal background checks or waiting periods. Don't just liberalize access to guns lol; it makes me feel uneasy. With that criticism out of the way, your support for freedom of speech, freedom of movement, free & fair elections, and right to privacy are just dope. It's everything I could have asked for in relation to civil liberties, for real. Culturally speaking, I really like how you emphasize social equality first and foremost, but that affirmative action, nah, I think it's misguided, though your reasoning for it is still good.
As for the economics, from my cursory look at it, you want to increase unionization to set the course for market socialism, which is epic. I don't see much to criticize here, except for the tax rates. You should bump those numbers up; these are rookie numbers. No reason why the LVT couldn't be raised to nearly 100%, and the inheritance tax to be increased to 50%. Make those taxes broad-based then you can have the large welfare state you want. With that said, I couldn't find anyone who is closer to me economically, except for maybe Glencoe13, so good job.
Also, your support for a world government is too much for me, however, I can rest easy, knowing that you won't use force to compel unwilling nations to join international institutions. Your wish to democratize those supranational organizations helps me relax even more, honestly. My main fear with globalism is the usage of force to maintain its structure, but if you don't use any of that, then I don't need to worry too much. To wrap it up, we agree on many, many things. You are me, but a bit more libertarian and quite a bit more internationalist. Congrats.
You remind me a lot of Marxian Rutabaga. A federal world-government, technocratic governance, slow transition to communism, cultural (moderate) progressivism, etc; they're all here. I just so happen to agree with a lot of these, or at least find them to be the least bad out of all the variants proposed. Of course, you're quite a bit more revolutionary than him, which I'm pretty sure is too abrupt and thus shouldn't be relied on as much as say, dual power. As far as planned socialism is concerned, your participism has the best chance of working in my eyes (though it might move slower than a regulated market,) so fair enough. I would be damned if I let small differences stand in the way of our mutual cooperation.
Kaylo Liberalism (88.1%)
From what I have seen, you are heavily aligned with me pretty much across the board. That's pretty good. The only major gripe I have is that you still want to maintain private property norms. To me, they generate grossly unequal outcomes, especially if you look at wealth distribution. The only way that I know of that adequately curbs these would involve radically increasing the size of social wealth funds, which would eventually lead to an unorthodox form of market socialism. You should seriously consider adopting it; it flows pretty nicely with your egalitarian philosophy. With that said, I'm still very much willing to work with you in the short and middle term to set the stage for my ideal society.
Before I continue, I just want to say that your new formatting looks even nicer than before. With that said, let's begin.
I see that your page has undergone many changes. You utilized broad-based taxes to fund social programs; you became intercultural and patriotic, and most importantly, you elaborated on further reforms of our government. All are very good! Although, I request that you lower the corporate income tax since its incidence is primarily on workers and users, not the shareholders. A sovereign wealth fund is better for that purpose. But still, you are a culturally permissive social democrat with an emphasis on civil liberties and are sympathetic to worker-centered market socialism. That right there is pretty chad.
In conclusion, if I found you after making a political campaign to represent my constituents, we would become coalition partners for a really long time, making the economy work for all of us, not just a few, and expanding democratic freedoms in the process. You are certified to be based, even more so now.
You're quite socially liberal for a Christian, which is cool, and support progressive reforms in diplomatic spheres along with the democratic road to socialism, which are awesome. However, I don't agree with you suppressing radicals, because that could be used against us leftists. But still, pretty solid and well-rounded. LibSoc gang!
Not sure about giving full independence to South Florida, but nearly everything else you stand for is really cool. Your non-alignment is an improvement over the views of your peers on r/neoliberal, and I especially like your policy proposals regarding the housing market and global trade. Really sucks to see your page gone.
You got better than ever. After many months, you shed all of the remaining alt-lite social views that you acquired due to the influence of Fabius when he was still your friend and crossed into the progressive territory once more. You also dropped your hate towards unions, realizing their usefulness for publicly-owned industries, and became more lenient with the unemployed.
Besides the positive change that you underwent, you continue to hold mixed-market socialist views, which I admire. Additionally, we are still aligned to a very large degree on the size and the organization of the state. Furthermore, I agree with your balance between nationalism and internationalism, though you are a bit too isolationist for me (though I would rather have that than interventionism.) The only disagreement is that I don't think we should do whatever it takes to reach the end state of DemSoc. Sure, we need to be pragmatic, but that doesn't mean giving more power to the government initially to reach our goal faster. Instead, we should do a lot of persuasions to turn people to our side, while maintaining democratic norms throughout the abolition of capitalism. Still, we share the same principles in the vast majority of the time. To be honest, I miss you quite a bit ever since you left the community, but I figured it was for the best. Be well, Scarlet, and may I see you again one day.
Hey, good to see another liberal socialist! It's important to note that your liberalism is at a high risk of overwriting your socialist ideal, though, because of your emphasis on private property, probably because of the Austrian influence. You also seem to be quite averse to the majority nationalization of industry, denouncing it as being state capitalist. However, if you allow society as a whole to share in the surplus of the public means of production, then there isn't really any separate owner-class, and capitalism disappears as a result.
But still, we are still both civic liberals, which I am in favor of. I happen to think that technoliberalism is a pretty interesting idea, so it should be tried. Although, you can be too globalist and nihilist for me, but I disagree with them only minorly. Despite that, I can appreciate many of your economic and cultural ideas being the derivatives of mine.
As a democratic socialist, I'd naturally find many of your economic views objectionable, chief among them being the skepticism toward a large welfare state and pro-privatization. Like, although the NIT is probably the best means-tested program, it could still produce deadweight losses. Think of the benefit phase-out as a tax but on low-income people only. So that could lead to a situation where poor people have to face higher marginal tax rates, which creates a poverty trap, running counter to you wanting to incentivize people to work. With a UBI scheme, you don't have that same problem. Additionally, I don't think the market for internet service providers could be privatized. That's because it has a high barrier of entry, leading to a large profit margin, so consumers don't get the best deals. I think it worked better with nationalized entities or user cooperatives so these internet suppliers wouldn't screw the customers over (although you might believe they are still practically private.) At least we both like the market as the main way to organize the economy, the use of new technologies to combat climate change, balanced budgets, and liberalized trade (although you take this too far for me.) On the whole, I like your pragmatism on economic policies, but your views here still leave much to be desired.
When I decided to look at what you had to say beyond that, I was blown away. Civically, we share the cherishing of democratic norms, ethnic diversity, a decidedly rehabilitative criminal justice system, and the general skepticism of authority. I especially like the details you put in your semi-democratic government design. And then, I looked further into your social views. Once again, no disagreements! Porn being considered free speech, sex work being legitimate, legalizing (but regulating) abortions, reducing unwanted pregnancies, and gender equality are all our areas of agreement. And finally, diplomatic views. To start off, I guess I only disagree with you leaving NATO, as that leaves your country vulnerable to foreign invasions. I believe the alliance should be reformed to focus more on the defense. Still, civic nationalism combined with international cooperation is so cool, and freedom of movement is very chad, dude. The more I looked into your page, the better it became.
So I guess economics is the only place where we have any major contentions. If I ignore that for a moment, we would be virtually identical otherwise. In my opinion, you are the best right-libertarian I have ever seen.
I feel that strict domestic wealth taxes would plague your system with capital flight, and your militancy is too much for my taste. Despite this, we agree on many principles, namely the need to truly democratize the workplace, ensure social welfare (though you're inadequate on this, considering embracing the universal welfare state), and merit-based society. Basically a more socially progressive version of Scarlet and Nuoh.
I really like how well-thought-out your transitional phrase is. The pragmatic implementation of immediate worker control is great, which can help increase popular support to experiment with worker cooperatives. And although political globalism is not good, your proposed path to it is the least likely to generate resistance from unwilling nations, which is okay.
Your views are not without a few problems, though. For one, I agree that we should have checks and balances, but don't you think having councils, parliaments, and the guild chambers all being able to veto each other is a bit excessive? All you're doing there is making it much harder to pass legislation, leading to gridlock. If the voters don't even know what they're voting for, they will most likely lose trust in our democratic institution, and that's bad. Secondly, I don't think autarky will lead to the outcome you want at all. When your domestic supply chain runs into a problem, do you think you will be more resilient with just your domestic firms or both domestic and international firms? Obviously, you will pick the second option, right?
These are just minor flaws, though, and I can look past that. Though we may have some disagreements, you are still one of the better socialists. I hope you hold the vision of a better world, of democratic socialism, close to your heart, and don't give it up, my friend!
If I had to list some minor issues, there are several. You are somewhat too antagonistic toward porn and prostitution, in my opinion. On top of that, I no longer believe transmedicalism is the way, as gender euphoria is a possibility. So if you want the most happiness, you shouldn't restrict gender-affirming care just because an adult doesn't have gender dysphoria. So far, you are correct that we became more distant ideologically. Still, that doesn't change the fact that you disdain exploitation of nations, favor social equality quite dearly, want to transition the economy to be under the common good and give greater decision-making capacity to the masses. Welcome back to democratic socialism, comrade.
EugeneTLTism / Liberal Social Democracy (78.6%)
You know, I personally like the fact that you're willing to cooperate with other similar nations for mutual interests, whether it's free trade or diplomacy. However, your disregard of national identity will be pretty bad, since patriotism can motivate the population and is needed for social cohesion. Your desire for civil liberties and a responsible government is very admirable, although I'm not sure if free speech absolutism is the way. With that said, your economic policies are quite awesome. Whether we are a capitalist or socialist, strong unions, robust welfare, state interventions, and greater workers' representation are all necessary for a humane economy! I consider you an ally despite your moderation. Clean page and rest in peace, my friend...
The kind of UI system you support is pretty much unheard of for radical centrists (which is good,) and the same holds for mass social housing. There are low taxes and means-tested welfare, which I disagree with, though. For the latter, I hope you know that only ~3.5% of all the jobless people could be slacking (at least that's how it is in the United States), so the fiscal drain is really not that significant. For the former, to be fair, all the social programs and public options you support will most likely push costs upward, so your taxes wouldn't be too low. Still, your openness to democratic socialism is significant. The movement could really use some more members. Perhaps you can join us.
And similar to Bery, your civics are excellent. I legit couldn't find a single flaw in how you would want to organize the state. The institutional reforms you want are admirable, and the democracy vouchers are absolute bangers. You even proposed a potential path toward proportional representation, which I haven't even thought about. It looks like I have a lot to learn, in terms of the possible governmental reforms that we could take.
Not all that you support are good, however. You make such a crusade against LGBT of which I don't see the point. By that, I mean that you think that the fringe elements were so dangerous that it justifies your trans-skepticism just to fight them, which I see as counter-productive. But even that pales in comparison to your sympathy for past colonizations. It wasn't that the Atlantic slave trade is a unique evil, but rather, its widespread occurrence dwarfed other slavery institutions. Just look up the "long-run effects of Africa's slave trade," and you will get what I meant. And don't you think that such erroneous acts of imperialism go against the very liberal principles that you uphold?
If I were to zoom out and look at your beliefs more comprehensively, your other social views are tolerable, which are in line with " new progressivism." Not only that, the focus on empirical justification is very good. You're honestly not bad for a conservative liberal. Just wish you didn't endorse private property, or fall into the anti-woke rabbit hole.
Your sympathies for a vanguardist state apparatus really left me uneasy, to be honest. The interests of the working people are too diverse to be represented by just a single party, so multiple parties are much better. Also, I really don't like your intolerance toward certain dissidents, even going so far as to put them in jail just for being against communism. If your ideas are better, they will eventually win out. No need to suppress the critics.
However, on the flip side, I really like your dedication to post-capitalism, social equality, some e-direct democracy, and a healthy combination of leftist internationalism and nationalism. The focus on new technological advancements to defeat climate change is also something that I can get behind. We can be allies on numerous issues, but we may need to part ways when the issue of political parties and tactics arises.
Miškaism / Mishkaism (67.9%)
Your push for 'self-managed socialism' is really great, but you can be too statist for my liking. Although the level of decentralization that you want is just right, your repression of dissent is not. I believe that many people become anti-communist because they think communism in practice (mostly Marxism–Leninism) severely restricts what their political views can and can not be, which you are guilty of. Drop the Proto-Titoism influence (which incorporates heavy central planning) and you should be good. Also, your cultural views are fine, though there are some elements that I find weird, but they are no big deals. And finally, I think your approach towards national integration is pretty good, so I can look past your radical nationalism. On the whole, your whole views are workable, but can still be improved further.
Pretty similar to Adamtheuseless when all things are considered, though you are a bit more pragmatic than him, which is a plus. Your whole views aren't that bad, though they can be significantly better if you get more equitable economic ideas. Why not allow the government to invest in businesses, and in exchange, it will gain a dividend-paying equity stake, like Norway? Such a system would allow more public funds to be used for a UBI, and is actually a practical way to advance towards socialism. There are also competing worker cooperatives, which is yet another way to do so if you don't know already. I recommend checking David Schweickart or Matt Bruenig if you want to know more about how it can be done.
Adamtheuseless Thought (65.4%)
I think your opinion on police reform is good, and so is the desirability of democracy (it's better than monarchy, though.) Really, I only disagree with free sales and purchase of guns civic-wise since I'm more concerned about the danger of having untrained individuals carrying them. I also fancy your affirmation of the social equality of all human beings, living up to your humanist ideal.
Of course, that doesn't shield your economics from criticism. Private property norms plus heavy deregulation is a hellish combination, and your decision to terminate corrupt unions instead of reforming them is also pretty bad. At least you want cheap healthcare, but would relying on free markets be a good way to achieve that? I would argue that it's never the case because the sick won't be carefully picking the best hospitals for their treatment, so competition to keep prices down isn't possible. Though, one thing I will give you credit for is your pro-worker stance, but it's still inadequate.
Finally, your diplomatic viewpoints are okay but can use some improvements. Your mild non-interventionism is great, but I don't think your Atlanticism is that good. In my opinion, I want NATO to be a defensive military but I'm still critical of its meddling in the businesses of other countries in the past and the EU's tendency to prevent national economies from engaging in socialization. It's nice that you want those international organizations to maintain peace, though; I'll give you that. For a radical right-libertarian, you're actually fine overall. We have quite a few common principles and significantly disagree on the others (ahem, libertarian capitalism.)
Individual Voluntaryism (63.4%)
Based on the limited information that you put on your page, we see eye-to-eye with each other in many cases. Workplace democracy in a market economy is ideal for both of us, and although your civic views are too extreme, I still like your support of personal freedoms.
Unfortunately, you are against democracy, but for a reason that I believe to be valid. Many democracies recognize that as a problem, which is why they never allow individual rights to be taken away, no matter how strong a majority government is.
However, if you just want to find like-minded individuals to create a mini ego-mutualist society, that's perfectly fine with me.
TypicalFan1 Thought (60.9%)
I like the low tariffs, but I figure it's due to your free-market mentality, which I dislike. Anywho, the first question I have for you is, how can you maintain basic public services if you also want to cut taxes across the board? The second is, how do you know which person is law-abiding if you want easy access to guns? Besides those, I guess you're tolerable, owing to you minding your own business, and you're actually pretty okay as far as conservative capitalism goes.
Jefbol Thought (59.4%)
It seems that we both agree on granting workers full control over their production, but the methods that we utilize differ dramatically. I'm not against bloodless revolutions in poorer and more authoritarian countries, where the conditions are bad enough for revolts to happen, but in wealthy developed democracies, the workers wouldn't risk losing their livelihoods to overthrow the states. Not only that, the militaries are stronger than before and are more likely to side with current governments, making the chance of a successful revolution pretty slim. Meanwhile, reformist socialist governments delivered tons of benefits to workers through many public services, mass unionization, and more workers' influence in industries. One of them even almost achieved their goals through Meidner funds, so their electoral means should be supported in my opinion.
I also think that your criticism of market socialism is too narrow. You only considered worker co-operatives, but social wealth funds are a potential path towards it as well. If the concern is excessive inequalities between regions, you can have a national wealth fund investing more into poorer regions to smooth out such a disparity. And finally, criminalizing prostitution actually runs counter to your goal here. I get the reason why, but all it does in practice is 1. making it harder for sex workers to seek alternative work due to their criminal records, and 2. causing sex work itself to be riskier, thus further increasing harm to people who are forced into the profession. Why not advocate for a legalization & regulation strategy, which minimizes the harm associated with the job, while allowing unsatisfied workers to move somewhere else, instead?
With those criticisms out of the way, your views, on the whole, are fine. Besides workers' self-management, I also agree with using strikes to push for change in our society, seeing that they are essential for leftist reforms to be enacted, and advancing individual freedom, even though you can go too far on that front for me.
P.S: The labor market actually didn't exist in Titoist Yugoslavia at all.
I agree with you that prisoners should be rehabilitated since poverty often causes crimes. However, the abolition of prisons is not a good way to achieve it. You would want to keep serial murderers away from the wider society so that they couldn't do additional harm. And also, the people's militia is just a more decentralized version of normal law enforcement system, so there's literally no need to abolish the police, dude. Other than that, though you claim your cultural views are excessively progressive, they are still pretty good, as expected from an AnCom.
Speaking of which, I'm pretty critical of that. To start, your method of achieving it is pretty questionable. Why spill blood to topple the existing order when you can try to work within the current democratic system? The latter complements your pacifist philosophy well. And there's also the gift economy. You need to understand that when people give things away, they usually expect something in return. So, it follows that such a proposed economy will not work well at all (though I'm in favor of open-source projects to an extent.) And finally, statelessness. You may think state oppression should be done away with, and that's okay, but that doesn't justify such a drastic response. A government can guarantee our basic needs, and it can do it at a greater level than all of the mutual aid out there.
Anyway, these are just constructive criticisms that I have of your ideology. It is, on the whole, kind of mid (mostly due to its infeasibility,) but there are still some parts that I like, more often than not.
Brazilian Liberalism (57.6%)
I actually disagree with your liberal hawkism. They may represent an attempt to allow the people to influence how their government works, but in reality, they devolve into the maintenance of proxy states subordinated to foreign interests. Also, merely softening the sharp edges of capitalism is fine, but it's still pretty inadequate. However, your excellent cultural views, emphasizing the humane treatment of all minority groups, stop you from being placed lower.
It seems like you were quite influenced by liberal capitalism since the last time. You get somewhat less authoritarian, with fewer restrictions on what the individuals could do, which is a plus in my book. You also allow price signals to guide state-owned enterprises now, which is great, but this focus on privatizations is pretty bad in my view. If the goal is more efficiency in the delivery of goods, you can try to introduce merit pay for the managers in the SOEs. Still, I welcome this specific change of yours overall.
However, you are still a chauvinist (which is pretty damn cringe.) You think political imperialism is rightfully bad, but can't seem to apply the same principle to economic imperialism for some reason. To give a relevant example of the latter, the United Fruit Company often subjected its foreign workers to back-breaking conditions to complete its infrastructure builds, which contradicts your support for more (albeit limited) workers' rights. That makes the basis for your support of banana republics on shaky ground. Seriously, you should drop it.
Anyway, your complete views are just... average. Don't get me wrong; they got better than before, but still not enough to be moved above the 'Meh' category.
I thought that you will be ranked a lot lower, based on how you identify yourself (a statist monarchist conservative,) but I'm surprised by your moderation.
As someone self-described as oscillating between rightism and authoritarian rightism, you're actually quite liberal, which is awesome. However, they're offset by the generally neoliberal economic views and some cultural stuff that is, frankly, quite egregious.
To start, you emphasize the freedom of individuals, which I agree with, but also believe that it is somehow possible without trade unions. That's not true because the right for workers to organize is crucial in a free society. Moreover, you said that you want to be defensive mainly but also pledged to fight socialist & communist movements abroad through NATO. The two positions are contradictory, so you need to shed one or the other. Also, the fact that you wish to reject immigrants from specific backgrounds is very questionable to me. You can't control what your race will be, so why discriminate based on that?
There are more problems with your self-insert ideology, but I won't get into them, as my wall of text is too long already. With that out of the way, you're bad. but not the worst thing in the world.
Pretty much the only thing preventing you from being ranked lower is your tolerable economics. Sure, I dislike your protectionism (stemming from your excessively nationalistic tendencies), but nationalizations of natural resources, healthcare, and some investment functions for more funds seem pretty sound.
However, pretty much everything else that you support is just terrible. You claimed to support the 'rule of law' yet advocated for the forced assimilation and deportation of the Chinese people. You should know that race and ethnicity are just arbitrary constructs, so there is no justification for basing a nation around those things. Not only that, your punishment towards people you deem guilty is so extreme. The mere existence of a death penalty is already pretty bad, but you take it to a whole new level, applying it to people with tattoos. Wtf? They are only harming themselves and no one else here; what made you think they deserve to die? It's like your regime maintains itself through fear, not through genuine support like you might claim.
Oh yeah, and the jingoism as well. You worry about China influencing your domestic affair, which is an acceptable concern, but your way of dealing with it is very messed up. Why not focus on developing your industry for exports instead of trying in vain to create an empire of the past? You said that you have moved away from fascism, but I would argue you haven't left it at all. Maybe abandon it for real?
Relationships (to be phased out, eventually)
It's pretty nice that you put water and electricity under the control of society instead of the private individuals. These industries have pretty inelastic demand. Additional public housing and a robust welfare state to provide a baseline of needs are great, and I'm happy that you pursue both of them. Pretty progressive economics so far, but there are two small problems. The first is no economic democracy; you would want workers to have a say in how firms are run. And the second is that you don't want tax rates to be too progressive. Otherwise, you would be relying on the ultra-rich to fund social services, when you want to depend on tax revenues from the whole community. But the two negatives are quickly dwarfed by the anti-trust laws and the reduction of tariffs, so that's something.
Anyway, I turned my attention to your other policies and I quite liked what I saw. The stance against discrimination based on ethnicity, race, gender, and religion is obviously needed, so I'm not going too deep into that. I still have reservations about your support of the death penalty and hate speech laws. However, I think the restrictions on adultery, legalized but regulated abortions, regulated prostitution & porn, and sex education are really chad.
To summarize, we will be on common ground in the vast majority of the key issues in the economy. You may not be a pure socialist, but I can still work with you for a more humanitarian world. Socially, your moderate progressivism is super great (progressive in many areas, but also conservative when it matters.) I disagreed with the presidential system but still liked your reformist tendencies. I just know that we are good friends policy-wise!
What's the deal with your enthusiasm for wildcat strikes, lol? But anyway, direct democracy is good, but not the abolishment of representative democracy. I don't fancy revolutions, especially the first world where we can play by democratic rules. Additionally, I am both skeptical of your short-term planning (at least it's decentralized) and your long-term communist society without the state, money, or a market system. You're also too culturally left and too civically down. However, there're also other characteristics of yours, like federalism and anti-racism, that are enough to offset your downsides. Despite your flaws, I'm glad to find someone who loves workers' self-management, organized labor, free movement of people, and opposes the death penalty as much as I do! The market is good for higher productivity, though.
I have some criticisms of your economy, some more of the government, and especially of your cultural stance. You restrict soft drugs, abortion, and adoption for certain people too much. The punishment for blasphemy and apostasy is way too disproportionate. As for LGBT issues, you're still conservative, but I like that you are willing to tolerate people in the community. Economically speaking, a centrally planned economy is a bad way to distribute resources, and the lack of circulating money doesn't help much. Otherwise, we have more shared beliefs in the economy than I thought. I love the organized working class, economic democracy (a crucial element in socialism,) the preservation of the environment, and a strong public sector. I'm not a fan of a one-party state because of a high chance of corruption, but your direct democracy can resist that tendency somewhat, so that's cool. You're too hostile to international trade, but nationalism and anti-imperialism are based. Generally, you're too socially right-wing and centralized but still have mostly good economic traits.
Wow, you really remind me of ComradeShrek and TheImmorxy. Anyways, your intercultural principles pretty much strike a balance between excessive division and ruthless assimilation. Couple that with the phase-out of outdated practices along with the nurture of patriotism and I think your way of maintaining national unity is on point. Similar to other AuthLeft people, your decision to put certain industries under public control and/or ownership is definitely good (namely, natural monopolies along with healthcare and education services.) However, you also have similar pitfalls as them as the result of your embrace of state socialism. Central planning shouldn't be done. It's bureaucratic and doesn't respond to the need of the consumers. Moreover, there's a problem associated with nationalizing practically everything. When a businessman creates a new enterprise (co-op or not,) it will immediately be seized by the state. That's just authoritarian. For the collectivization of agriculture, it's really hit-and-miss. I believe that the farmers should ideally band together with agricultural cooperatives to take advantage of economies of scale, but nationalizing every farm will most likely lead to shortages of food. And the protectionism... Don't you know that freer trades help developing countries develop and industrialize their economies?
For the dictatorship of the proletariat to be present, other capitalist parties would have to be outlawed, which isn't very democratic. Otherwise, at least you're more civically liberal than other authoritarian communists, with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and legalization of homosexuality (although the latter two are limited in scope.) I'm still wary of you planning to get rid of me when you get into power, however, you're not that bad when I got to read your page (less statist than Comrade Shrek for sure. :troll:)
Then we finally moved on to your cultural principles, which are as I expected from a European social conservative, so I will rate them one by one. First of all, heavily restricting abortions may save the baby, but it will hurt the women instead. A study has been done and they found that liberalizing abortion laws does reduce maternal death rates. So, we should definitely consider the lives of the baby and the women's lives as well, not just the former. The primary way to reduce abortion rates to this should be to introduce comprehensive sex education, but you might be iffy about this. Also, I don't see what's wrong with performing sex work, as long as the workers are not coerced into doing the service just to get out of poverty. I believe anyone should be able to do things that they enjoy the most, with democratic rights in the workplace. Finally, I really don't get your hostility toward transgenderism. We know that gender-affirming healthcare has been shown to improve the mental health of transgender people. At the very least, you view women as being equal to men, so that's something.
So, looking at your beliefs as a whole, they're meh. The socialist mode of ownership is neat, but you go kinda far to get them. Civil liberties are definitely there, but not comprehensive. Many of your conservative views are pretty bad, however.
General Shrekretary Thought (52.8%)
In some instances, nationalizations could be very beneficial for some areas (such as the water industries, healthcare, housing, transportation, etc.) and I'm glad that you have put those under public ownership. However, I think that in any other cases, firms should be cooperatively managed and compete with each other in a market instead of publicly owned due to the risks of stagnation. You shouldn't also use the labor notes, as that could make charities and all cash-based welfare services obsolete. National sovereignty is definitely our point of agreement, like how the movement of capital should be restricted, or how foreign interventions to spread democracy are primarily counter-productive.
But your hardline stances on the power of the state and traditional values have held you back. Firstly, liquidating people in the undesirable classes is too violent and should be substituted for integrating them in the new society. Secondly, sex workers might be taboo, but could still be retrained to do other jobs instead of being forced to do hard manual labor. I could argue that the labor camp in and of itself is actually a form of exploitation, but instead of the private employers doing it in factories, you have the state doing it against the criminals and undesirable people. Additionally, if you care about equality, then you should be in favor of "marriage equality." The idea is that unions for same-sex couples should have equal rights as traditional marriages. At least you leave the matter regarding LGBT up to the religious community to decide, but usually, they are more socially conservative than not. What's more, I disagree with your strong revolutionary methods to realize socialism. The bloodshed might be too much to justify the end goal.
On economic issues, I could work with you on many areas, like putting the key means of production under state ownership, being less entangled in unjustified foreign interventions, enacting strong supportive policies for working families, and strengthening the cooperative sector (but not the removal of markets and money.) You can also organize strikes to bolster the reforms cementing workers' rights and even democratizing the economy. However, we would be quite heavily opposed to each other when it comes to cultural policies. If I look at your self-insert as a whole, I would say that your policies are still leaning more good than not, but at a very slim margin.
Your economics is quite nice. For example, I highly enjoy your advocacy for workers' control of their guilds, as self-determination for labor is more productive. As for your social views, it's bad. Reactionarism is way too far back for me. That's because I like the emphasis on reason, empiricism along with secularism, and the constitution. Even though there's nothing inherently wrong with the rule of the most qualified, aristocracy is usually undemocratic, as only the nobility holds any power. A national identity is needed to preserve our sovereignty, so props to you. Your civic views are mixed, in my opinion. Delegation of power from the central authority is necessary for the daily administration. I don't like absolute monarchism, as one dynasty usually declines until it gets inevitably replaced by another one. Constitutional monarchism can work out, but an established legal framework (a product of the Enlightenment) would already constrain the monarch. Also, I'm not sure whether a monarch does better than an elected leader. Overall, this's indeed a wacky ideology.
You're too undemocratic for me. On the one hand, absolute monarchism creates a large divide between the rulers and the common people. Furthermore, one-party states will most likely repress any competing political organizations. The rule of the military is exclusionary, and social conservatism is dated. On the other hand, you're not without some redeeming qualities. Parliamentarianism is a much better form of government than a presidential system, and I like radical representation of the workers. Not sure about the state meddling in the workplace, but syndicalist economics are worthwhile. I'll occasionally ally with you to advance socialist policies, but not much else.
As a supporter of the existence of a government and a market economy, I would disagree with you on statelessness and the gift economy. The idea that we could give things to strangers without expecting anything in return is great, but not applicable for a larger society. Trading one item for another is much better and more sustainable. Also, significant state action is needed to institute social welfare, take action against global warming, or even democratize our economy in the medium to long term (which you want.) Speaking about the environment, I think that you would want to fix the current crisis, but being doomed about the inevitability of global collapse isn't going to cut it. And as a reformist, I heavily disagree with you on doing whatever it takes to reach your goals, even crimes. We should care about improving the material conditions of the people in the short run while not losing sight of our utopias (even though my vision would be drastically different from yours.)
Judging your ideals as a whole, I absolutely like economic democracy as a concept and will ally with you to advance it (not illegally of course.) I enjoy your advocacy for the individuals to form associations voluntarily (which is something that we have to a certain extent in current democracies) and for them to be less reliant on market dependency (which can be fixed with reforms by the way.) But sadly, your bad parts just narrowly overshadowed the good ideals that you have.
Sapply Compass Clone
Who are you in 1917 Russia?
9Axes (long version)
12Axes (long version)
4 Axes Test
Filteries Political Simulator
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY - Determine your philosophy
What Cold War ideology are you?
Which Leftist Ideology Are You?
What Kind of Socialist are You?
Prism Political Quiz
| Feminists - Smashing the Patriarchy |
|Main||Black Feminism • Buddhist Feminism • Christian Feminism • FACES • Fusion Feminism • Fire Feminism •|