Novoscarletism is an economically left, culturally center, civically center-Auth ideology (although initially statist in most countries). In short it is a nationalist and culturally center ideology that supports an economy based off of worker cooperatives and worker guilds
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
Teddy Roosevelt (1858-1819)
Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925}}
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938)
G.D.H. Cole (1889-1959)
Huey Long (1893-1935)
Robert M. La Follette Jr. (1895-1953)
Lazaro Cardenas (1895-1970)
Julius Nyerere (1922-1999)
Rudi Dutschke (1940-1979)
Thomas Sankara (1949-1987)
Novoscarletism calls for a co-op based market economy, resembling a system akin to Distributism and Market Socialism in that factor regarding consumer goods, but also believes in guilds as a unifying body between different cooperatives of the same industry, but also as a more expertise vote when the time comes and to hire/fire people (though the latter would need popular approval), making him a Guild Socialist, and takes a more planned approach towards civic services. However he isn’t fond of state owned co-ops, seeing the legitimacy of them as questionable at best. That said though the government will play a bigger role in big businesses, major industries, and essential services. However he is aware that the switch to a co-op based economy will be a long term thing, and for now seeks to promote them giving some grants to co-op businesses, although slowly eliminating teaching of the traditional business model in business classes, but not criminalizing them. Likewise, guild associations of a particular industry would be constructed by the governments, mainly local, sometimes regional, in a few cases national, and said businesses would join said guild as an organization unifying different worker owned businesses of a common industry or service
I will divide services into 2 main groups - consumer goods, and civic services. That will determine whether they will be left to the market, or to planning. Things that would fall under consumer goods would include shops, restaurants, and small/medium enterprises in general. They will be left to market forces. Areas that would fall under civic services would include healthcare, education, natural resources, electricity, and water, which would be more regulated and left to planning, far more often than not decentral. This planning would ensure that there’s no competition even if multiple options can exist, and also so councils of those who use such services can make suggestions to the guild/cooperative, which all businesses of a certain industry or service would be tied to. Said councils would also be present in consumer goods, but would be especially present in civic services
I believe in the right to commerce, and I wish to ease most red tape for opening up cooperatives or independent vendors, as they’d also be entered into a guild based on whatever profession they’re based on. Likewise, competition should be fair, as it ensures free commerce rather than the monopoly or oligopoly we see in many western countries today. While I may bail out failing small businesses initially, when big companies are still around, once the transition is made to a small business based economy, said bailouts would end.
However I have an issue with online commerce, unless it’s something you can’t get at home. Ultimately I believe that it should be done as a last resort and if you’re trying to get a product that can’t be bought at a local business, reason being because of how small businesses have gone out of business thanks to such, as well as how there should be social interaction between people. In addition said companies (especially Amazon) tend to have a monopoly over retail, which ofc should not be tolerated.
There should be a horizontal mode of productions, with the majority of businesses being worker owned. While I do acknowledge it’s disadvantages, such as decision making being harder, it is mostly beneficial as the workers are the backbone of any business, and thus, they should own such. I am aware that not every single business will be like that, but even in those that aren’t, the workers must still have a sizable amount of control, and have their rights to strike protected. Big businesses, major industries, and essential services must be cooperatives, while small and medium businesses will become cooperatives via education and funding towards those seeking to become co-ops. Labor is prior to and independent from capital, and as such, businesses should be owned by the workers and democratically organized. Likewise, I also support individual vendors and would promote and incentivize them alongside co-ops.
As for coordination, the guilds and state would not directly control where materials go, but would regulate and coordinate it as per needs of a particular region.
I believe that each industry should be organized through locally organized guild associations of different businesses of the same sector, as to allow workers of said industries to have a body to ensure cooperation when needed. Likewise there would also be state and national guilds, with local guilds feeding into state guilds and state guilds feeding into national guilds.
Local guilds as association of workers (or guildsmen) of similar professions, whether it be merchants, artisans, farmers, workers, etc., would exist as mutual support for each other when the time comes as well as a more expertise vote in workplace democracy when that time comes, and there are 2 broad categories: consumer goods (which would have it’s cooperatives left to the market, although with the necessary regulations, in addition to trust busting, and there can be competition, but the guild will serve as a body of mutual support when that time comes), and civic services (the more planned area, no competition even if multiple options can exist, all civic services guilds (healthcare, education, construction, utilities, to name a few) must cooperate strongly with each other).
There would be councils/organizations of ordinary citizens with an interest in such services on both ends, to make suggestions to the cooperatives and/or guilds, but there would also be laws to ensure that members of said council use said services, said councils would be prevalent in both areas but more so in the civic services area. These consumer committees would also take part in local guilds, which would feed into both the state and national guilds.
As for the structure of the guilds themselves, a lot of decisions would be left to the cooperatives/workplaces and the guildsmen themselves, but within the guilds, there would be technicians occupying special positions based off of both their knowledge and character/popularity among the workers, as a democratic guild would have leaders, discipline, and authority in a fuller and more real sense than in capitalism. Said technicians would have spots of leadership, but act as more of a consultant and primarily taking part in more expertise decisions, such as resolving disputes that go out of control, hiring, and firing. Likewise the workers can recall said technician if they fail. The guild management would be a force of functioning rather than power. Likewise, said managers have limited power and do not have a right to fire employees without just reason, and one must be tried before their fellow guildsmen. The guildsmen would hold the manager responsible and the manager must consider popular opinion. Likewise, the managers and guildsmen would cooperate and ensure the best for the industry.
Likewise, the guild and it’s workplaces would be a center of workplace democracy and self governance, no longer a paid prison, but a center of free service and associative enterprise. Likewise the workplaces would have committees, meetings, and debates, in addition to cooperation
As for the guilds, there would also be subdivisions, with different types of workplaces with different roles, all with a mutual interest in a particular industry or profession. But despite all of this, while there would be organization by common industry, I still consider autonomy of the factory and the workers thereof to be important. Overall, the duty of the guilds is of coordination, regulation, and cooperation both with workplaces of the same industry as well as other guilds and industries, and the guild committees must represent the various workplaces belonging to the guild
In some areas, such as healthcare, essential services, and certain types of industry, is where the national guilds come into play. Regional guilds would have to follow orders from national guilds, but anything not specified by the national guild is left to the regional guild’s own devices. And local guilds will have to follow orders from regional guilds, but anything not specified by the regional guild is left to the local guild’s own devices.
Likewise, multiple guild committees, separated into 2 main types; worker committees and consumer committees, would partake in workplace democratic decision making, in which the guilds serve to meet both group’s needs, to secure workplace democracy and support cooperative businesses whilst serving as a more expert vote on certain decisions, hiring, and firing, and also ensuring that the consumer’s and people’s needs are met outside the guilds, as well as improving services and industry.
The guild managers are to hire people based off of skill, and basing whether to hire/fire one for race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality is illegal, regardless of who they are.
As mentioned earlier, I support organizing common industry and professions via guilds. One reason being because of how I believe that it is the best way to liberate all workplaces within an industry while also understanding differences and complexities of industries instead of treating all of them as the same or near identical, but I also believe that said organization would result in higher efficiency because of how each workplace would play a role in striving a common goal, each playing a role in production, and being able to communicate, support, and organize easier and as necessary. For example, if each cooperative producing different car parts was separate, then building said car would be difficult. But with the guilds, the guild can make business between the different cooperatives easier, and as such, increase efficiency by requiring less bureaucracy to transfer car parts from one cooperative to another, making the completion of said car faster and with less obstacles.
Another example I can use is the health guilds, as providing the necessary materials and supplies to the hospitals would be made easier and less bureaucratic, and likewise the hospital may communicate with manufacturing easier, so the manufacturers of supplies may know what the hospital needs, and even communication to other hospitals in the region or even nation as to help with medical research and advancement of technology
While two people in the same job who work the same should be rewarded equally, I don’t believe in “equality of outcome”, as it applies that all outcome is equal. Instead I aim for a concept called “equity of outcome”, which as mentioned would reward two people in the same job that work an equal amount the same, but would also reward one more if they work a job that would require more force, or if said person does more work in a job, and would reward less one who either works a less energetic job or works less in a job. As ultimately, not all jobs are created equal, and as one who believes in merit, I believe that the harder worker should earn more
Healthcare is a human right and must not be commodified, as such, I support universal healthcare, and more so, how health services should be tied to a health guild. While local guilds would exist, said local guilds would feed into a regional guild, which would feed into the national guild and the government will cover healthcare costs, and anything specified by the next level of guild, the lower levels would have to follow, but otherwise be left to their own devices. Free healthcare would be provided for all citizens and permanent residents of the nation. However one must pay for any damages that were self inflicted as a consequence for not looking after their own health and wellbeing, those being:
- the unvaccinated
- heavy drinkers/smokers, and drug addicts generally spealing
This of course would only apply if the reason of visit is a direct result of said factors
I support welfare, and believe that all citizens should receive welfare to have a chance to succeed in life, in addition to how there will be social programs used to develop the nation’s infrastructure and wealth, in addition to funding the needs of all citizens and ensure their wellbeing. However, for welfare, it can only go so far and one can’t be dependent on welfare or be a welfare queen, in which case there would be punishment. In addition I do acknowledge that it is often used by capitalists to prevent socialism for rising, and it is more of a secondary component than a core component because of 1: how it is used as a means to help lower class citizens be able to succeed in life, and 2: how those who receive the opportunity to work yet refuse such should not receive any assistance, and to prevent a nanny state from arising
Social Parasite Tax
I believe that while welfare can be a good thing, I also see it as a double edged sword. And you may wonder how I plan on addressing it? Well, the solution is a Social Parasite Tax. You may be wondering what that is? Well basically, if one is able to work but refuses to do so, they have to pay a special tax to the government. Of course those genuinely suffering, or the elderly and students are exempt from this, but to prevent leeching on the welfare system, those of any class who refuse to work despite being able to do so have to pay said tax
If a company is too big to fail, then it’s too big to exist, and in a truly free market, one has the equality of opportunity, instead of only a select few having the opportunity. As such, bigger businesses should be broken up into smaller ones. Likewise, I’m against major corporations would be broken up and turned into smaller cooperatives, and becoming a part of guilds of those sharing the same industry. Speaking of guilds, they should be the dominant form of organization for basically every cooperative business and industry. In some cases (especially big tech), there is a lot of hypocrisy on which companies should and should not be broken up, with people often basing whether or not a company should be broken up off of their political stances. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter the political affiliation, all big companies should be broken up. I have a specific plan for big tech (the most vile of these) which will be mentioned later
Some will inevitably be richer than others, and I will accept that, so long as there isn’t disproportionate wealth and their earns were through hard work and ethical methods, any exploitation will result in redistribution and money going to better usage.
There will be a wealth cap of $250-500 million, and billionaires shouldn’t exist in any way, shape, or form, and we should put an exit ban on any existing billionaires to prevent them from taking their wealth outside the country, so it can be redistributed and confiscated, with the billionaires being broke or sent to jail. Seized assets from billionaires and other rich people will become cooperatives, which would join the guild as said guild would help the newly found cooperative, and all the wealth that was seized by billionaires and exploitative millionaires would go to helping said new cooperatives, but also towards healthcare, housing, education, research, and other benefits for the nation
Even a large chunk of millionaires would also be eliminated alongside their billionaire counterparts, as they too partake in the same shady deeds, even if some may exist
I wish to implement the following taxes:
Theoretically, he supports the right to join a union, and supports that right in itself, but in practice he has an increasingly unfavorable view on trade unionism.
I will give them credit where due, as unions have done good for workers rights in the past, but nowadays things aren’t that desirable. Firstly, some unions can be self serving and corrupt. He wishes to punish those unions. But ultimately, the biggest issue he was with unions is that they do not go far enough. Like, at all. A major issue is how they only ask for “better conditions”, instead of control of the workplace. Thus, essentially making them a tool for social democrats and the like in order to prevent real socialism from arising. He believes that unions should try to take over the workplace as much as possible and form cooperatives, thus giving the workers true control over their workplaces. The next issue involves union organizers, as there is a lack of confronting the employer’s dirty tactics head on and have been rather bureaucratic overall, plus how many only focus on unionization instead of actual demands that can inspire and empower the workers. And lastly, the focus on individual workplace instead of common industry is destructive to the goal of guild socialism, as the unions of today are supposed to be the guilds of tomorrow, but with said focus on individual workplace alone + the lack of wanting any real control over the workplace, it won’t be possible
Likewise, I believe that unions are only supposed to be a short term goal, being mostly phased out by guilds and cooperatives in the future. But if said unions aren’t even willing to advance to such levels, then we can’t have true labor rights, especially with some capitalists supporting unions in their current state and structure. Likewise, if they aren’t completely useless, they’re controlled by the state, giving workers little if any genuine control.
Tl;dr: trade unionism is a cope, even if it has had it’s past achievements. Co-operatives and guilds should be the new way forward.
While I can understand the positives of foreign investment, it can only go so far, nobody should be able to profit off our land without brining anything and even so, our citizens come first and must have jobs. As such, foreign investment is to be limited and restricted
The answer is very simple, take away all their wealth, put it towards the betterment for the nation, severely punish them, and seize their assets and put them into the hands of more ethical companies, but still with a degree of state/guild control.
Likewise, billionaires shouldn’t exist at all as they’re exploitative and even if they aren’t it would cause mass wealth inequality. We should confiscate all money from billionaires/exploitative millionaires, and redistribute it. Likewise other millionaires would be tightly controlled to ensure they don’t do any shady shit, and there must be a wealth cap. Production must be done for the nation and the common person, not some kleptocratic billionaire lizard like Bezos.
For trade, it can be a double edged sword. Positives of such include cooperation and being able to access materials we can’t get at home, and negative aspects of trade include potential over-reliance and diminishing of local industry if we aren’t careful enough. There should be fair trade instead of autarky or free trade. Likewise, tariffs will exist and will be higher or lower depending on 3 factors:
1: if we can produce said material at home and to what extent
2: working conditions of the country which we are importing from
3: how influential said country is economically speaking
Although it is true that some areas, primarily particular types of essential services, are best operated on a regional or even national basis, and now the state should play it’s paternalistic role, it also has it’s negatives. For example, “Democratic” Centralism would, ultimately, would replace the capitalist state with another, although less, still coercive state. Likewise, an order from further away, although can provide said paternalistic role, would know less about a certain area, than those in said area themselves, so ultimately it should be left to the locality. Likewise, there would be communes on the local level.
For essential services, while the national government would provide funding and national guilds will give orders, in larger countries, a lot of it, such as healthcare, education, and water, would be provided by state governments, as some countries are too big for the national government to manage everything. Though leaving it to city or county levels goes too far.
As for local markets, I support them as it makes a community more self sufficient and makes it able to show it’s uniqueness and beauty. Though state and national markets would still be there to support the local markets.
Property and housing must be widespread, and not in the hands of a few. I support implementing a Land Value Tax in order to reduce the amount of land one owns in favor of making the institute of property more widespread among the general populace rather than in the hands of a few. Likewise, I believe that landlordism as an institution must be eradicated altogether, the LVT should encourage them to free up land. If all else fails, we shall resort to confiscation. Once the practice has died down enough, it shall be criminalized, as landlords are parasites who leech off the common person’s needs.
Property being in the hands of the few will also lead to plutocracy, which must be avoided for the common good. I take inspiration from both Georgist and Distributist theory when it comes to land, supporting a land value tax in addition to widespread distribution of property. There will be a sizable amount of public property, yes, but the Land Value Tax would encourage people to let go of properties and break down the oligopoly of property, which would make housing available for all, as well as allowing productive assets to be widespread, even if most businesses and productive assets would be under the guild, they would also be owned only by the members of said cooperative, other than the guild providing a more expert vote on expert decisions, as well as hiring and firing, and the guild serving both as a body for cooperation when necessary and a body for the people to make suggestions and requests to a business/industry, and there are also some that won’t be part of the guild, mainly smaller productive assets, but they would have loose connections with a guild, but also be overall independent, and it is in our duty to ensure that even they don’t fall to oligopoly and preferably they would be cooperatives.
There must be a central bank and a national currency, as those are needed for national economic stability. But, on a local level, banks should be cooperative, and the wealth is to be in the hands of the people, rather than that of greedy bankers. Not only does it ensure that money is in the right pockets, it also serves as mutual support in cases of financial crises.
A minimum income is necessary to ensure that one is paid properly for their work. As for how much said income would be, it would depend on what job is being worked, or how hard said person works. For instance, one who works harder or is in a more expertise job would earn more than one who works less or is in a less expertise job. Said income would be given by the guild, whom will be supplied by regional and national governments, and workers can negotiate for better income within the guild
I see coordination as a double edged sword. A positive aspect of such is that it can bring resources to a particular area, but if done in excess, coordination can bring bureaucracy and stagnation. What I propose for this matter is a form of coordination via communes, but there would also be a checks and balances system to ensure that not too much is coordinated and to reduce bureaucracy. As such, the guilds (especially national guilds in the case of what will be mentioned) should coordinate the economy in the more important aspects such as civic and essential services, although not have complete control over it
Scarlet recognizes the importance of both large scale farming, as well as small, individual farmers. As such, he wishes for a combination of local guilds, which have the most presence over farming, as well as allowing individual farmers to exist, under labor laws assigned by the guild and wider society. He rejects the state socialist approach of collectivizing all farming, but would put large scale farming under guild management, and small scale farmers would be encouraged to form family cooperatives with some loose connections to the agricultural guild
Likewise he’s becoming interested in Agrarian Socialism, both because of living in an agriculture dominated region himself, and understanding the importance of agriculture to a lot of proletariat and working class people.
While there would be national guilds, and they would be nationalized, similar to essential services and big businesses. However, simple nationalization won’t bring justice, as it creates a new hierarchy, but with the government on top, not a CEO. While it may not be as bad as the aforementioned CEO ownership, it still is pretty bad, and while there will still be a people or group of people decided by the guild members who’d make a more expert vote when that time comes, they would be democratically elected by the guild members, and can be recalled if most of the guild chooses to do so. However in order for the guilds to function properly, it wouldn’t be completely void of state influence, especially not in national guilds or essential services, but it would not be completely owned by the government, as the point of such is worker’s ownership, and the state would have more control to prevent any potential bad actions from happening within these big companies and essential services, it can’t be left in the hands of the state alone. The guild would have more state control, but it’s the guild first and the state second
Late Stage Capitalism
We in the west, particularly America, are entering an era worse than even medieval feudalism. I am not defending the system, but the very least one could get a place to live, have food, shelter, clothes, and protection, and at least there was community and family, even if one was ultimately a servant. Of course the hierarchy and loyalty to the crown was bad, as is rent and how the lord would essentially own the serf, but there were at least a few positives from it, even if mitigated. Today however, food, shelter, and clothes aren’t provided by whatever master there is, some workplace conditions under this new hierarchy are dangerous, there is no sense of community or family, partly for economic and partly for cultural reasons, and now things like healthcare are being monopolized by corporations. If we don’t stop this, we could be reaching Brave New World
I consider workplace individualism to be a focus on one specific workplace rather than the common industry. And I see this as a bad thing due to how it doesn’t regard all the other oppressed workers, particularly in the same industry, and instead seems to think that the problem is less severe once a single workplace becomes a cooperative. I see this as a bad thing due to how it doesn’t create a sense of unity, which would create stability, and how even if said workplace became a cooperative, many others in the same industry would still be exploited. This is a reason why I propose a guild system, due to how it would have the interests of a common industry in mind. Of course, I do believe that an individual workplace should also have good conditions and be taken care of, but the wider concern should be in the common industry. But I believe that “workers” is a broad term that embodies many things, many of which are nothing alike each other, so unless a worker council were to have representation of all industries, I don’t see it as a passable system
I’m against wage labor, and instead support the Labor Theory of Value, as the amount of work done is more important than the amount of hours. While there would be a minimum wage of some sort, in order to prevent the possibility of underpaying workers, but it would be adjusted to how much one works. I support a $12 minimum wage, fluctuates based off of job, but the amount of work must also be put into account, as the hardest worker deserves to be paid most.
In consumer goods and the like, I see competition as a force of good, as a healthy and stimulating factor in production, and to strive for better production, as a friendly rivalry in respect of the greater usefulness and beauty of what is produced. However, I believe that capitalism has destroyed competition, with things such as the profit motive, monopolization, and not valuing usefulness and beauty, in addition to putting it in the hands of the capitalist and not the merchant, guildsmen, and worker. I believe that anti-trust laws should be implemented, that fair competition and equal opportunity is a must, that it should be in the hands of the workers and not the capitalist, and that things like healthcare, energy, and education shouldn’t be profited off of. Though the guilds also serve as cooperation when necessary
Among all the major trusts, Big Tech has got to be the most repulsive of them all. Not only do they have way too much control over the populace as well as being monopolistic, exploitative, data thieves, a lot of them also partake in the culture war as well. While I support “free speech alternatives” in theory, in practice they often take the conservative position of the culture war, and truth be told, most conservatives would probably support the very companies they complain about if they promoted socially conservative views instead of socially progressive ones. My steps on tech companies are as follows:
- Break up tech monopolies, regardless of political stances, and create smaller tech co-operatives. This would be a part of wider anti-monopolization laws.
- Implement a digital service tax
- Create a “Free Speech Act”, which would not allow companies to censor differing beliefs
- Promote alternative social media companies that do not promote the culture war.
- Crack down on surveillance and data theft by tech companies
- Support the creation of smaller tech co-operatives that actually want to serve as a free speech alternative, rather than taking the socially conservative side of the culture war
I believe that progress is needed for a society to prosper, but also believe that traditions are necessary as a backbone for society. I am a progressive conservative on the issue (but am leaning left in some cases, especially when dealing with the third world). Note that cultural stances are the least important factor of my ideology, so I’m keeping this section short and sweet, but generally speaking I support egalitarianism and getting rid of malevolent traditions while also supporting morality and beneficial traditions, as well as technological advancement
I am against abortion on a moral level and see it as wrong. As such it should be limited to cases of rape (but even then it would still be discouraged) or the mother/baby being at risk. However, I also believe that there must be pro-family programs, paid leave, child care, contraceptions available on demand, comprehensive sex education, and support for the mother. Likewise I’m not so much focused on banning abortion as much as I am focused on reducing the amount of abortions.
Neither hardcore “lGbT rIgHtS” nor “hAnG aLl F**s”. I have no issue with people being attracted to the same/both sexes and accept them for who they are, and I’ll allow same sex marriage (but allow religious organizations to reject such ceremonies). That said though, I oppose pride (yes this also includes straight/cis pride), but still oppose homophobia/transphobia.
Transitioning would be legal and covered by insurance, and one may change their gender on legal documents once they have fully transitioned, but in order for one to transition, one must be an adult and must have genuine gender dysphoria, in which there would be a vetting process to ensure that any gender dysphoria is genuine and transitioning should be done as a last resort. I am a transmedicalist on the issue.
Outlawed, however in countries where it’s a problem, I would initially implement the Nordic Model Approach, helping those in such industries escape and criminalizing buyers. It is a detriment to society and morality and should be done away with. One of the few exceptions on my views of free speech. Even looking past it being degenerate, the sheer amount of human trafficking in the sex industry is insane
I believe that all men are created equal and should have the same rights. And while we have made significant progress when it comes to race, some issues of rather poor living standards exist among African Americans and Native Americans, and we must address and fix those issues. But, not through white guilt or identity politics, as you don’t fight racism with racism, but rather, solidarity, and any advantages or disadvantages are a result of environment and material conditions. Thus, I see no reason why there should be laws favoring a race, and see racial (and by extension, ethnic) nationalism as what gives the concept of nationalism a bad name. Nations are built off of customs, not skin color. What does it matter if 2 people are of the same skin color when their values are nothing alike?
I believe in a family and community oriented society, seeing it as how society functions, via bonds and support, as well as connection between individuals and support for the common good. While I generally oppose individualism, I still believe that individual liberty is necessary for society, so long as it doesn’t harm it.
While I may tolerate or even support some religious ideologies, such as Religious Socialism and (depending on what they are) Religious Democracy, I’m ultimately for a secular state. Similar to race/ethnicity (albeit to a lesser extent as religion can define tradition) religious nationalism is a bad idea. I’m supportive of the separation of church and state, as clergy shouldn’t influence the government and (in already secularized societies) the state should generally stay out of religious affairs as well
Fully supportive of the first wave, and mostly supportive of the 2nd wave, but doesn’t support third wave and later. Men and women will be required to be paid the same for the same amount of work, and patriarchy doesn’t exist in the west, although it does exist in a lot of the third world and should be countered. Women hold up half the sky and as such, should be treated equally and with respect, as both have their characteristics necessary for society, both are equally capable, and need one another to survive. As for traditional gender roles, I’m against enforcing them and believe that women should be able to live how they want, and a lot of said roles can be harmful, but if one willingly decides to follow said roles, she can do so, and I also see maternity (as well as paternity) as important, despite my views on gender roles overall.
It’s pointless and frankly a non-issue, and a bourgeoise weapon. There are far bigger threats such as megacorporations and the billionaire elite. Both sides act like complete clowns, and besides it’s ok to have differences. In the end it’s mundane and the reason why it’s such a focus is because the elites have tricked the people into falling into it’s bluff. Identity politics is always bad regardless of who does it.
I believe in the right to self defense and oust a government if needed, and as such, I’m a supporter of gun rights, although background checks and mental health check ups are required to possess a firearm (trust me I live in a state where firearms are a big part of the local culture, which makes up my pro-gun stances, but a lack of mental health checkups is pretty concerning seeing how said state has one of the highest suicide rates in America, a lot of them being done by firearms). Likewise, possession of any fully automatic or military grade weapon would be banned outside the military
Despite my agrarian stances, I still support technological advancement, seeing it as necessary for an advanced people and society, which he sees as a good thing, and while he doesn’t support a cyborg population, he supports using technology to enhance biology, in order to make the human mind more capable. He believes that technology will solve a lot of our problems. That being said though he is against the notion that machines should replace humans in the workforce, but will let machines provide assistance that humans can’t. Two things I support in particular are green technology and space exploration
Selling drugs will be illegal, but possession will be decriminalized. He sees targeting the source rather than an effect of said source to be most efficient. Soft drugs will be left to the states
I believe that foreign immigrants/minorities should have to learn the national culture, although may still practice their own. If it is a diverse country, then the culture of that specific region. Native minorities, however, only need to adopt the national identity and patriotism. I also wish to fix issues that blacks and natives face, giving what are currently “reservations” more self governance and autonomy, while also improving living standards in said areas for the case of the latter, but there should be a common national identity and way of communication
Individualism or Collectivism
While I oppose mass collectivism, as people will always have their differences and desires, and so long as it doesn’t destroy the community or it’s spirituality, it’s alright, but I still believe in a family and community oriented society, as opposed to an individualistic one. Humanity is an organism. Many other species have survived as collectives and working together in the interests of the community, and thus it’s best for humanity to do so as well, as without each other, we are nothing. While individualism, on the other hand, doesn’t put the community into consideration, accepts decay and deplorability because one is pleasured by it, and doesn’t put into consideration the well being of others, and breeds morally degrading and selfish behaviors. Now I know that nobody is perfect, and that everyone will always do something selfish or morally degrading in some way or another, but the issue with individualism is that it doesn’t acknowledge that it’s wrong, nor does it strive to improve one for the better. Likewise we can’t advance if everyone is focused on themselves rather than the common good, and the community can even be a baseline for both social progress and maintaining traditions
Staunchly supportive of the environment. In already industrialized countries, there will be plans to switch to renewable energy and restore previously destroyed habitats, whereas for unindustrialized countries, I may industrialize first if no green alternative is available, and then switch to renewable energy. I also aim to get rid of water pollution, begin a small punishment system (unsure what it will be, I’m against fining) for littering, and will make recycling far more accessible than it is currently.
Likewise I support nuclear energy, even if it also has it’s risks, as seen with Chernobyl and Fukushima, but I believe that they were poorly managed overall and that nuclear energy must be carefully managed. It is a great eco-friendly alternative to coal power plants and is especially great as a transition point
- Implementing a carbon tax which gradually increases
- Replacing unrenewable energy with renewable or nuclear energy
- Promotion of eco-friendly products
- Replacing plastic products with biodegradable plastics or any plastics products that are friendly to environment
- Creating eco-friendly jobs, especially cooperatives connected to guilds
- Creating tree plating program
- Lowering tax rates for renewable and nuclear energy sources
- Heavily research green technology
- Replacing of petrol motor vehicle with eco-friendly motor vehicle
- Total replacement of fossil fuel with renewable energy by 2045
- Mass production of electric or other eco-friendly vehicles, with the goal of banning the sale of gas/diesel cars no later than 2035
- Placing harsh sanctions on countries that are both already industrialized and actively destroying the environment, and monitoring those that are industrializing
In addition, he sees plastic pollution as a problem, and wishes to stop that by requiring plastic products to be made out of at least 50% recycling material, requiring plastic products to be reusable or biodegradable, and requiring companies producing plastic to make the transition.
He wishes to make recycling more common
I am also a supporter of Blue Environmentalism, as I see sea life as important, but also believe that there must be clean water for humanity and the rest of the environment to thrive. Wip
Am doing a partial rework on this
I lean decentralized overall, specifically, I support Federalism. However, I also believe that a paternalistic role of the state is necessary to ensure that the citizens are safe, albeit not to the point of being an overbureaucratic mess. That said though I do acknowledge that a dictatorship may be necessary in some cases, but I would try to mitigate the effect
It is true that representatives are often isolated from the wants of the people thanks to the system. However I feel that they are needed to a degree to ensure that all areas have representation, as they are a necessary evil in order to ensure that there is some form of connection to the central government and to serve as an intermediary between the central government and more local areas/the people. However, it would be ensured that they have connections with the people, a lot of issues would be decided by referendum, and a representative can be recalled if the people feel that they have failed.
Likewise, I believe that citizens should have a say at all political levels, in order to create a truly democratic system. The powers would be delegated upwards towards the communes, and when necessary, the central government. The states/communes must not be overly reliant on the central government and should be allowed to make their own decisions apart from what the central government specifies. More local referendums would also take place. Direct democracy would primarily be on the local and state levels (with added Participism on the local level), and a semi-direct democratic system on the national level.
On a local level, a council elected by the people would have control of said local area, and decisions would be voted on directly by the people in a participatory matter via a popular assembly. Likewise, people of local areas would choose their secretariat via popular conferences. All secretariats within a certain state/region would form the Regional Communal Congress/State Communal Congress. The secretariat can be recalled by the people if they feel that said secretariat has failed them.
A lot of state issues should be decided via referendum as more of a direct democratic system, however states are too big for participism to work, due to their vast size. Though there would still be a council consisting of one person per county without any official head, as a part of the aforementioned Regional/State Communal Congresses, whom would make decisions on the state level, and there would be regular congressional meetings to decide state policy. As mentioned earlier if the People’s Committees and Popular Conferences of a certain county are unhappy with their secretariat, they can recall said secretariat via popular vote.
There would be multiple elected members of a presidential council and other members of government bodies, as to serve as intermediary between the national government, state governments, and the people. The people of a state/regional commune vote secretariats to be a part of the National Communal Congress, which functions similarly to the Regional Communal Congress, but on a national level instead of a state one. However, a lot of issues would be voted on by the people, Popular Committees, and People’s Conferences via referendums, even if there would be periodic meetings between the secretariats.
I believe in a system in which a president is elected by the people and responsible for national decisions, although there would be governmental bodies to ensure that the president follows the needs of the people. The president is elected for a 4 year term (extendable once), however there wouldn’t be a single head of state, but rather, there would be a communal council on the national level, where the president would be among equals, but with specific presidential duties, as they chair the Communal Council, meetings, and mediates in the case of disputes. In urgent situations the president can order precautionary measures. In the unlikely event that the Communal Council is unable to hold either an ordinary or an extraordinary meeting, the president may take a unilateral decision.
I see the importance of the judicial system as a way of interpreting the constitution and national laws. However the courts must serve the nation, and not political party interests. Wip
Checks and Balances
Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law
I believe that a constitution is needed to ensure a set of laws for the government to follow, and to hold itself to regulations. The freedom and wellbeing of the people must be protected by the law from excessive government outreach, as well as to provide the rights of people. While I do understand the negatives of constitutional puritanism, a constitution is an overall force of good and a government must follow a constitution. There would also be constitutional conventions to suggest any changes to the constitution, but to repeal an amendment, there must be at least 3/4 of the population in favor of said repeal.
As for the rule of law, as mentioned the freedoms of citizens must be protected, and laws must be constitutional to be implemented.
States, provinces, and regions will also have their own constitution and set of laws, while also following national laws, to manage local affairs and grant rights not provided by the national constitution, if needed.
Criticism of Vanguardism
While I do acknowledge that it is needed to some degree in struggling and/or overpopulated countries, for me, it should only be a transitional phase in the case of the former, and watered down for both/the latter. The left isn’t just one movement or one party, it’s a broad spectrum of beliefs all based around workers owning the MoP, although the vision of such is different. Likewise a society and government should be organized from the bottom up rather than the top down, and that leader cults and workplaces being owned by the state, not the workers are to be opposed, even if the state should play a bigger role in big businesses and major industries. But at the same time, we must not reject centralism as a whole, as there must be a body to ensure cohesion and nationhood, but there should be a more participatist system, at least on the local level but it should also extend to the state and national level, although not as much. The party isn’t always right either, and to reject other leftists just for not following the party line is also a bad idea, at least understand why they think differently
However, despite my opposition to vanguardism, I still believe in a loose party structure of some form, as ultimately some party will need to be in power to keep a socialist organization together and make it stronger, even if there would be far greater emphasis on worker guilds and cooperatives. I also believe in a united front of some sort so other ideals can have a say
The Case Against Parilaments
Although originally meant to represent the people, it is ultimately one exercising authority on behalf of the people, not authority by the people. A true democracy must have participation from the people, not an authority claiming such. The people are often isolated from the representative, and likewise the representative loses all connection to the people. They should be replaced by popular assemblies and People’s Conferences
There would exist 3 levels of communes:
The national commune would essentially be the equivalent of the state, whose functioning is that of sovereignty and paternalism, and to ensure the status of the next level of commune, the regional commune, which would be a more decentral commune, focused on the affairs of a particular region and also overlooking some of the regional guilds, as well as the local commune which would manage the affairs of a locality.
Likewise the communes would serve as a coordinating body, however, there would be a constitution in addition to checks and balances for each commune to ensure that they don’t abuse their status and thus distort society altogether. Likewise, there would be direct democratic councils for coordination, as to prevent state coercion. Likewise multiple guilds and councils regarding important industries and civic services would merge into a single commune, primarily local but also regional. Likewise there would also be communal assemblies, elected by the people and with direct contact with the people, and there would also be elections of each member of said assembly via wards, and elected members must report back to and regularly meet with the citizens, and if the people demand, the member would be recalled
As for coordination, although there would be checks and balances to ensure that not too much is coordinated, as the guilds should have control over their affairs for the most part, alongside councils of those who use whichever service is relevant to a particular guild, the commune would also play a role in determining the allocation of resources as well as other forms of financial functions, such as setting price ranges, and ensuring that banks are both mutually owned and stable. Likewise, if (and only if) guilds have disagreements with each other, or between guilds and consumer organizations, the commune may step in and serve as a negotiator. Likewise, the commune will also play roles which impact daily life, such as providing emergency services, such as policing.
The size and function of communes would vary by what area said commune is in charge of. For regional communes, they’d have their own regional administrators and from there the guilds would be formed. Likewise just as there would be local councils, there would be regional councils made of many local councils to communicate with regional communes and guilds, and the regional communes although overall similar have another function;bringing together town and country.
Lastly, there would be a national commune, consisting of national guilds, which as the same suggests, deals with more nationwide issues in addition to playing a paternalistic role
Unitarianism or Federalism
I believe that unitary and overly centralized systems for the most part cause overdependence on the central government, leading to a bureaucratic system, and fail to represent all people of the nation and even overwhelm native minority cultures in some cases. However, I also do believe that there should be a strong enough national government to ensure order and paternalism, and disavow confederalism. As such, I believe the logical conclusion is federalism, as it strikes a balance between national and local governments, both maintaining order and representing people of whatever region there is as best as possible, and does a better job at maintaining native minority cultures, preventing them from being erased, whilst maintaining a common national identity, and lastly isn’t overbureaucratic, unlike unitarianism, nor fragile, unlike confederalism
The Judicial System
The judiciaries would be responsible for legal systems, and ensuring the right of a free and fair trial and ensuring equal justice. Likewise, the courts being manipulated for political purposes must be avoided, as it destroys the fabric of democracy and just law. As such, I propose this system:
- All courts must be independent of political interests
- All citizens, regardless of personal factors, must be equal before the law
- All justices must be adopted by the Judicial Committee or subordinate bodies
- The structure of all courts aside from the supreme court must operare through legislative means
Means of Obtaining Power
Reform or Revolution?
In most cases, reformism is, at best, concessions given to prevent most changes. Ofc I’m not going to advocate for bloodshed, but to me, bloodless revolution, mainly in the form of mass disobedience, strikes, and in most severe of cases, coups, is needed. Working with the establishment only corrupts one in the long run. Social democracy became welfare capitalism in the long run, instead of an ideology genuinely based on worker's control. Reformism leads to abandonment of original principles
However, even revolution is a gradual process, as you have to take control of a lot of localities first as well as gaining popular support before you can try taking on the central government, let alone overthrow it, and we must be prepared for any method that they throw at us
Will You Vote in Elections?
Unless it’s a rare instance where there’s a particularly promising candidate, I would order a boycott of elections. They are the bourgeois way of keeping the people in check via a false promise of “people’s rule”, in which you are provided with multiple establishment candidates. Even those that are supposedly anti-establishment will be corrupted by the system at some point or another, or if they genuinely are anti-establishment, not be allowed to run altogether.
Sowing The Seeds For Revolution
Revolution is a gradual process, but it shall happen. For starters, we must gain a significant following nationwide, as without popular support, any revolution is doomed to fail. Next, we must subvert the institutions, by working against their current system, but also working with them in an attempt to have the institutions submit to us and the revolutionary motif, as well as having the unions of today (the guilds of tomorrow) try to take as much control of businesses as possible. Likewise independent guilds and cooperatives may form. Guilds will be a matter supported by the state once the revolution succeeds for the most part. We will also conduct mass workers strikes and civil disobedience, be it mass workers strikes, refusing to pay the government’s dues, or any method to subvert the state, and the people must remain armed should the current state put up a fight, and lastly once everything else is done, we shall march into governmental buildings and topple the bourgeoise, replacing it with a government of the people
Honestly, I can’t say I exactly support “unity”. Now that’s not to say I won’t accept differences with others and fight for a common goal, but I wouldn’t support “left unity” in itself because that would include aligning with anarcho-communists, Marxist-Leninists, and social democrats (though I don’t consider them leftist). That said though, I’d definitely align with other leftists with some differing views. As for Authoritarian Unity, you’ll end up aligning with fascists and other totalitarian nutcases, and libertarian unity would end up with you siding with anarcho-capitalists and other right libertarians. And ofc no sane person would choose right unity
Scarlet believes in a foreign policy based on both self reliance and international solidarity, as both are necessary for a nation to survive.
I am staunchly against interventionist, I believe that what other countries do is not our business, and that it is no duty of ours to dictate what other countries do, it makes them hate us more and we spend money on things that could be use for our betterment. That said though, there are a few rare instances where intervention is justified, such as in the case of self-defense, counter-imperialism/counter-interventionism, or genocide occurring in other countries (not ordinary human rights abuses though, even if they should stop such), or if we were attacked, but otherwise we should not care about what happens elsewhere. Likewise I also oppose sanctions as it would only make the already suffering citizens suffer even more thanks to being blocked from things like international food supplies and raw materials
What About Civil Disobedience Groups?
I will back civil disobedience groups ONLY in the worst of the worst countries (ex; anti-war protests in a liberal hawk state, countries where there are racial/gender inequality). Most of the time though, I reject even that. However I will also help citizens of the latter escape totalitarian countries to a degree. But ultimately, I’m against most instances of backing protests other than in said worst of the worst countries
Note that this is NOT calling for intervention against said countries (if anything, it would be just as bad if not worse than most/all of the mentioned regimes staying in power), but these ones are so bad that I would support civil disobedience groups in said countries (unless they’re pro-NATO or some shit like that)
Despite being a nationalist for my country, I also support international cooperation and supporting those in need. Of course I wouldn’t back revolutions in other countries, but would help said countries build socialism. In addition, I believe that international cooperation could be used for a more peaceful world (though interventionists destroy world peace with said rhetoric). Other issues, such as the environment/fighting climate change and dismantling nuclear weapons are also important. Of course, national sovereignty is to stay firm, but cooperating with others and solidarity overall is also a necessity
I am somewhat skeptical of other alliances, and am against defense alliances, as I see no reason for us to waste men or supplies on somewhere half way across the world, though I might send supplies and some military aid to defending countries. However, I refuse to join or support any military pacts, and would dissolve NATO if I were to ever take power, as it is responsible for more human suffering than any alliance in the history of the world, save for the Axis Powers
As for regional alliances, they can be good, but shouldn’t be militaristic in any way whatsoever and even the economic aspects should be watered down to a few liberalized trade agreements, but still with a rather strong sense of self reliance
Despite my nationalist stances, I support international cooperation and see it as a net positive. I still believe that serving as a mediator in large scale conflicts can be a good thing, as well as believing that we should maintain decent relations with all nations of the world, and also believe that global cooperation is needed to fight some significant issues, primarily climate change
West Or East?
Neither, both are shitty
I’m patriotic and I love my nation, and will do whatever to make it the best it can be, but hate the establishment, and believe we have no right to intervene in other nations (nor does anyone for that matter). We should end all interventions, disband NATO, and return all troops home, though we may have to do a more careful execution in some areas. Which brings me to the next one:
There must be a peaceful reunification of the country where both the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea are out of the question, and would be one of if not the only occasion where there would be ideological enforcement on my behalf of some sort. For North Korea, I would not allow a totalitarian, state socialist hellhole to take control, and for the south, I will not allow a liberal capitalist NATO puppet to take control. I would try to implement guild socialism and opposition to both blocs (although remaining friendly to them as well) on Korea. If not guild socialism, then at least a mix of what would be Distributism and Social Georgism, with increased Anti-NATO, Anti-Western, and Anti-Interventionist tendencies.
Modern China is a state capitalist dictatorship which, while improving in some factors economically speaking, is getting worse in terms of excess authoritarianism. Likewise although less offensive than NATO, is still pretty bad in terms of trying to influence third world countries (though some of the debt may have been forgiven) and their land claims. While we shouldn’t be hell bent on undermining them, especially if it will cause high geopolitical tensions, they certainly aren’t good.
So, this means you support Taiwan, right?
NO. Not only is a Taiwanese takeover of the mainland unrealistic, but it would 1: upset many people in the mainland, 2: be unstable as you will need a strong hand to lead a nation of 1.4 billion people, and 3: most importantly, at the very least China challenges western hegemony, if Taiwan took over then then one of the few redeeming qualities of Chinese foreign policy would be gone, and the west would be able to invade and coup more countries with less backlash, although I would also oppose an invasion of Taiwan by the mainland, which would lead to unrest and unnecessary deaths. HK and Macau are part of the PRC though. The Taiwan Strait Crisis is a capitalist conflict.
I don’t understand why so many leftists support modern Russia either. I’m no Ukraine simp, but Russia is a corrupt, oligarchic, authoritarian conservative, iron fist, and is also imperialistic as hell, with the invasions of Georgia and Ukraine (which only drew the average citizen there closer to NATO and the EU, which is a bad thing). The latter in particular drew Ukrainian popular opinion further towards NATO and caused other countries to apply for membership. That said though, Ukraine should stay out of NATO and the EU, and ultimately the War in Ukraine is a conflict between capitalist powers. Basically I want the following:
I oppose the invasion of Ukraine, seeing it as a dick move and imperialist, and as such, I propose this solution:
- Crimea and Donbass should have a referendum to decide their future, but there can not be any future attacks on Ukraine. If Donetsk and Luhansk choose independence or joining Russia, there can not be any shelling
- Ukraine must be neutral, and cannot join NATO or the EU under any circumstance
- Russia can not interfere in Ukrainian affairs
In the end though, Ukraine is a capitalist oligarchy, so is Russia, and the War in Ukraine is a capitalist war. The only group that’s truly innocent is the people of both countries who never wanted any of this.
While Lukashenko did good for Belarus in his first years, he isn’t that great nowadays, especially with being a Russian asset. However he is at least better than the EU and their supporters in Belarus, so I’ll credit him for that. Nonetheless, still negative leaning overall
While condemning the rioters, I also am disappointed that the protests were crushed. Similar to Belarus, Kazakhstan is another typical post-Soviet authcon iron fist, but unlike the protests in Belarus there doesn’t seem to be much pro-western sentiment as much as it is opposing the Kazakh government and Russia
Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be Georgian, but with a high degree of autonomy, particularly involving culture. The incident both was an excuse by Russia to expand it’s influence, and the massacres of both sides show the evils of ethnonationalism.
We should have left after Osama was killed, but we also should have armed the people of Afghanistan before we left. But in all fairness, both sides of the conflict were terrible. There would need to be an authoritarian, secular, progressive, leftist government, as a strong hand is necessary in order to effectively deal with Islamic fundamentalists and kleptocrats. In essence, I support a revival of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
The National League of Democracy did nothing to resolve the ethnic conflicts plaguing Myanmar, but the coup only heightened tensions. To me, there should be an authoritarian, progressive, leftist government that would purge ethnic nationalism and promote a polycultural system
I support Assad and Rojava
The Serb majority areas should join Serbia, and the rest should join Albania
Israel and Palestine
I am supportive of a Jewish state of some sorts, and the right to self determination for Jews, but am against the actions of the Israeli government. There should be a secular, polycultural, socialist Palestine. While I can credit Israel for a few things, namely having an economy based on technology instead of oil, as well as the Kibbutz system of their early days (other than how it was monoethnic), their actions towards Palestinians is unacceptable
I’m a Euroskeptic. But I don’t fit in soft or hard, nor even center. I believe that the concept of the EU is good, as it would further regional cooperation. But the current EU itself…dear god, kill it with fire. From neoliberal free trade, to losing sovereignty in terms of finance, to forcing a certain policy onto other countries, to backing pro-democracy movements in other countries when it’s really not their business, to sanctioning other countries, to basically being an extension of the west. Plus their ever increasing centralization. The EU in it’s current state should be dismantled, but then rebuilt. Unlike NATO, it isn’t inherently evil, but the current structure is irredeemable
Alongside non-interventionism, Scarlet strongly supports a pacifist foreign policy. War is always a tragedy, and we shouldn’t make anything worse. I believe that the military should be purely for self defense, we should not involve ourselves in foreign affairs, and we should not have troops deployed in other countries. I would disband/leave any military alliances and significantly cut the military budget in the case of America, while sending all troops home. Of course I believe that those who defend the homeland should be praised, but overall I support a pacifist and anti-militarist foreign policy. Likewise I believe that nuclear weapons are a threat to the world as is, and under a Novoscarletist system, I would begin a world effort to dismantle nuclear weapons, as it could potentially cause the end of the world or mass killings as is.
Generally speaking, I’m quite collective, being supportive of communitarianism and paternalism. However I also believe that individual freedom is needed and oppose mass collectivism, and am also a utilitarian, despite generally supporting a collectivist outlook on society
Humans, like all species, are designed to work together, so the claim that “selfishness is human nature” or that “individualism is man’s true state” is utter bullshit, since if that were the case, humanity at best would be an inferior species due to the lack of cooperation, and thus the lack of societal construction, and at worst, humanity would be extinct as is. That said though, I certainly do see some individual freedom, such as forms of free expression and choosing ones career, as good, and believe that one should be able to think differently, but still support the community. So all in all, I support collectivism, but not mass collectivism.
I emphasize the importance of community, as that’s how societies function, and how one is happiest in a good community. I believe that a lot of the time, what is best for the community does correspond with what’s best for the individual in at least some way or another, as without mutual support, there would be mutual downfall. Cooperatives, nations, and even international cooperation are all aspects of mutual support.
I believe that humanity must be protected and I hold it sacred. As such I oppose post-humanism, as well as militarism and especially things like nuclear weapons
Morality is important for society to thrive. Even if people have different views on what it may be, I think that there are a few objectively moral/immoral acts
Opposition to Individualism
While I believe in some civil liberties and oppose mass collectivism, I believe that “live and let live” is a paradox to degrade society further, both morally and physically, and that without a society, a collective, or a family, an individual is ultimately nothing. Anything successful involves community or collective work in some way or another. I’m firmly against permissive society and hedonism, as that and individualism in general degenerates the mindset and morality of one, and as such, wider society, and breeds selfishness
A state is needed to provide and support the citizens, to provide welfare, mutual aid, and to lead the citizens to the right path and to set an example of a model citizen. Of course I am against an excessive overreach of the state, but I believe in paternalism
This is where whatever areas of individual freedom I support kick in. As long as it isn’t negative for the morality and wellbeing of the people and wider society, I do believe in individual freedom of some sorts, and believe that even if collectivism is the objectively correct philosophy, it can’t be too much and individuals will always have their wants outside of the community or collective, and it’s ok so long as it doesn’t make society decadent or dangerous
I believe that virtue is a trait that all humans must share, to be the best they can be, and that forms good collectives and communities
How to Draw
1: draw a black hoist triangle
2: make the top half of the rest of the ball purple and the bottom half red
3: im the hoist triangle, draw a red horseshoe with a purple border tilted 45 degrees
4: draw a red arrow coming out of the horseshoe also with a purple outline
5: draw eyes and then you’re done
Note that social ideologies are also included
Guild Socialism - basically my economics, thank you for being a major inspiration
Eco-Cooperativism - environmentalism and co-operativism? HELLA BASED
Left-Wing Populism - power to the people! Granted you may have your lib moments, but overall you’re a force of good
Left-Wing Nationalism - for the nation and proletariat!
Market Socialism - a cooperative based market economy is based, though some areas mainly civic and essential services can’t have competition
Social Georgism - LVT and socialism is based, but some of you tend to be welfare capitalists.
Social Distributism - Distributism but even better. (But one of your influences is horrific.)
Luxemburgism - while more rooted in Marxism than myself, you are overall quite based, if only you took power in Germany.
Democratic Socialism - democracy and socialism are based, however, stop being reformist, and stop hanging out with welfare capitalists. If you stop those two, you’re positive
Distributism - widespread ownership of property and cooperatives? I like it. Could be a bit further left and place more emphasis on collectivism, and could be less religious, otherwise based.
Libertarian Socialism - I like how you advocate for a decentralized socialist economy, as well as opposition to state socialism, but you take those too far and you need a stronger state to ensure the paternalistic role of protecting the people. You can also be a tad too planned at times, and how a lot of your western followers follow intersectional idpol is cringe
Libertarian Market Socialism - same as above but more market oriented. Also fuck Vaush.
Neozapatismo - I like the Zapatistas and take some inspiration from them.
Agrarian Socialism - agrarian societies can achieve socialism too, and I understand the importance of farming and the environment.
Social Authoritarianism - has some based figures and gets shit done unlike socdem, but go further left.
Honeckerism - for all your faults, mainly retaining the vanguard state and Warsaw Pact membership, you should’ve been the one to reunite Germany.
Castroism - ousted Batista, improved Cuba, and remains as an anti-imperialist fortress.
Utopian Socialism - I myself am not a Marxist and you have quite a few good ideals. But utopianism won’t get you very far if at all
Liberal Socialism - really it’s a hit or miss experience with you, as some of you are based, and some guildsocs were you and you’re a fellow left anti-communist, but a lot of you also tend to be socdems with a human face (as if socdems weren’t already capitalists with a human face), and your modern followers in particular tend to be quite cringe. Put more emphasis on socialism than liberalism, align with more radical socialists instead of socdems, and don’t support organizations like NATO/EU, and you have a deal. But even then accept that reformism will get you nowhere
National Communism - same as above, you barely escape the below tier. Some of your figures, such as Castro and Ho are based, as is nationalism. If not for that you’d be negative leaning.
Titoism - it’s nice how you were a non-aligned leader, opposed Stalin, and supported third world liberation movements, and while I like how you implemented market socialism, the state meddled in co-ops far too much. Likewise how you were towards Albania (even if Hoxha was cringe) and Bulgaria is a bruh moment.
Conservative Socialism - honestly, you’re a mixed bag. While beneficial traditions are important and a lot of the working class tends to be more socially conservative on average, idk about social conservatism as a whole. And even if you oppose intersectional idpol, a sizable amount of you also give in to rightist idpol, which is no better. Plus the ML tendencies as well as supporting regimes like Russia and China is really iffy, even if I also hate NATO. I’ll support you, but you still have several flaws
Classical Marxism - you’re also a mixed bag. While you do have some good ideas and did contribute to socialist thought, as well as being a supporter of revolution, but it also came at the cost of more or less monopolizing socialism as a whole, for lack of a better term. Plus, not all enterprise is bad
Libertarian Marxism - the above but slightly worse
Marxism-Leninism - I’ll give you credit where due, mainly being an improvement from the previous system and opposing western imperialism, but you’re still cringe with your centrally planned economy, excess bureaucracy, and state ownership (even if the state should play a bigger role in several aspects but they shouldn’t outright own it). “Immortal science” my ass when you’re a dogmatic overly bureaucratic system who ruined the name of socialism worldwide.
State Socialism - same as above.
Anarcho-Communism - I too like decentralization and independent communes, but you take it to the next level. Basically LibSoc but you’re so extreme on the good qualities that they become bad, and too extreme on the bad qualities
Syndicalism and Trade Unionism - Unions have had their successes in the past, but nowadays they’re utterly corrupted. I prefer co-operatives for a pretty good reason.
Left Communism - ultroids explaining how Jeff Bezos is a great and authentic revolutionary. Fr though you blindly follow Marx and call anyone who doesn’t “capitalist”.
Trotskyism - I hate Stalin and virtually all hardline MLs for that matter, but you’re a fucking monster, a red neocon, and if you took power there would be a lot more deaths. I hate Stalin but he was right in giving you the icepick.
Dengism - modern day China is a state capitalist hell and is recently being more authoritarian than necessary. That said though, the market reforms were necessary but too liberal. “Um ackshually those are the people’s amazon warehouses/landlords/billionaires 🤓🤓🤓”
Pol Potism - you are not socialist, you’re a feudalist and a fascist.
Social Democracy - “economy crashers” “the left wing of capital” “the establishment”, all of these terms are true for the arses known as social democrats. Reformism won’t do shit, welfare capitalism is still capitalism, you’re why unions are insufficient, and above all you often tend to be atlanticist. You may have your occasional based moments. But overall, you’re cringe.
Paternalistic Conservatism - slightly less cucked version of the above as you’re more often than not more communitarian, but nonetheless a welfare capitalist, and several of you can be too socially conservative
Social Liberalism - SocDem but even worse. You were based during FDR times but now you’re just cringe. Even more capitalistic than succdem, and I see a pretty clear pipeline between you and neoliberalism (more specifically third way) as you’re either third way in denial, will eventually become third way, or are sympathetic to neoliberalism
Nordic Model - same as above but slightly better. Social corporatism is an ok economic model abeit too moderate and how some of you embrace social georgism, and I also do like how you are at the very least better than other western countries (even if still not good), but otherwise just like the above
Hardline MLs - you’re the most dogmatic of all the MLs and one of the most dogmatic in the entirety of the left. No, not everyone who deviates from Marxism-Leninism is a capitalist (and even so it’s a good thing if they do with some exceptions). Likewise your over-bureaucracy and state control is also undesirable.
Stalinism - lmfao you’re a state capitalist. Workers still toiled in wage labor, and formerly private assets didn’t go in the hands of the workers, but became state owned (some things should be nationalized but still), and the workers were denied the full fruit of their labor, but instead of the employer, it was the state. Even the achievements came with deep consequences. You have ruined the name of the socialist movement.
Civic Nationalism - a nation consists of common values, and all may join us
Progressive Conservatism - both social progress and traditions are important.
Interculturalism - both cross cultural communication and having one culture while respecting others is based.
Anti-Atlanticism - NATO has disgraced and forsaken my beloved country. But please don’t side with them
Isolationism - what other countries do is not our business, I would disband NATO and stay out of military alliances and foreign affairs in general, and put my nation first, but sometimes regional alliances can be good provided there’s still a large amount of self reliance, immigration should be eased, and cooperation involving climate change and serving as a mediator in foreign conflicts is good, which is why I don’t fully embrace you.
Cultural Nationalism - I believe that we must maintain our culture, and that others should learn our way of life if they enter. However, you can be both too exclusionary towards other cultures and too conservative at times.
Progressivism - societal progress is good and is especially needed in the third world, but sadly a lot of your western adherents give into idpol and/or disregard all traditions and/or are quite individualistic, which is pretty bad.
Conservatism - some traditions are important, but some also need to go.
Laicism - I too support secularism, but you take it a bit too far.
Multiculturalism - while I understand accepting others regardless of background, and will allow foreign immigrants to practice their culture, there still must be common values and national identity, and you focus on differences too much.
Keynesianism - I like the mixed market aspect, but not the capitalism or centralism
Revolutionary Progressivism - you give social justice a bad name and give no respect to the backbone of society. No way am I supporting destruction of all traditions or intersectionality.
Reactionarism - I’m willing to bet that most if not all your modern day followers wouldn’t last a day in whatever society you advocate for. Plus how you’re hateful as well. Some traditions are good but others need to go, and you hold on to those that need to go
Third Way - neoliberalism but with a small safety net and some welfare. A slight improvement to straight up neoliberalism but still horrible nonetheless
Libertarianism - we share some common tenants, like free speech, gun rights, decentralization, and non-intervention, which prevents you from being in the bottom tier, but other than that you’re horrific and do support tyranny, but instead of government it’s corporations.
Anti-Authoritarianism - I’ll tread wherever the fuck I want, cry about it. But in all seriousness though while I get that civil liberties are good, you not only take it too far, but side with people just for being less auth and nothing else
National Conservatism - nationalism is good but some of you do have tendencies from religious, ethnic, or racial nationalism. Likewise socially speaking, slight social conservatism is acceptable in the west, but even then a lot of you latch onto or at least lean towards traditionalism and the third world (which you have a sizable following in) is in desperate need of progress. And economically speaking, even your best ones are only good for a transition stage, and a lot of you are rightist even economically speaking
YOU SHOULD KYS NOW
Capitalism - you were good in your early days, but nowadays you’re a horrific system based off of greed and exploitation.
Fascism - violence, genocide, tyranny, imperialism. There is nothing good about you.
National Socialism - caused so much death and destruction. What else is there to say?
Neoconservatism - imperialist and doesn’t really conserve much other than the wealth of the few and forever wars. I dream of an America cleansed of you and your sins.
Neoliberalism - same as above, and you started it all
Longism - every man a king, and none shall wear a crown! You should have been president
Socialism with a Human Face - you had a good vision and were a promising leader. If only Brezhnev didn’t cause your downfall.
Bull Moose Progressivism - Teddy Roosevelt was overall good, however, his foreign policy was quite bad. And screw Wilson.
Kemalism - I like a lot of your policies and how you developed and secularized Turkey. However, Laicism is a bit much and you were too assimilationist
Tridemism - the Three Principles themselves, of democracy, nationalism, and the well being of the people, are based, as is Sun Yat-sen himself. In fact, I thank him for introducing me to the left. However I don’t like a lot of your later followers as they tend to be either Chiangists, CCP shills, or pro-Atlanticist shitlibs.
New Deal Liberalism - one of the few based soclibs, and you definitely did good. But the Japanese Internment Camps are cringe, and you didn’t go far enough on things such as economic issues. he should’ve been president instead, tbh.
Goulash Communism - for an ML, you’re based. Sadly a few shortcomings caused the fall for socialist Hungary
Paleoconservatism - while you are better than neoconservatism since at least you aren’t interventionists, you’re still way too culturally right and capitalistic.
Gorbachevism - while your ideas were good, you were incompetent as a politician.
I’m not a philosophy nerd lol
Communitarianism - community is the backbone of society and people are happy in a good community. Likewise my economics and societal views are collective and community based overall. If not for this mindset, at best humans would be a failed species, at worst we would be extinct.
Utilitarianism - supporting the well being of all people is based, combined with the above you’re my philosophical system.
Virtue Ethics - Virtue is important for one to be a good person
Collectivism - overall you’re good, but when excessive you’re bad, as there should still be a degree of individual freedom, even if I’m against individualism as a whole or permissiveness.
Paternalism - you are needed to provide for the people and lead them to the right path, but you can be a bit constraining at times
Machiavellianism - I agree that pragmatism is important and that the ends justify the means. However, there are a few limits to this. For instance I wouldn’t kill millions of people just to achieve my goals, and moralism is still important. But overall you’re good
Individualism - I understand some degree of individual liberty is needed and that mass collectivism is bad, but not everything should be left to the individual’s role, hence why I support paternalism and communitarianism. A lot of you guys also blatantly disregard the backbone and values of society.
Hedonism - individualism but even worse. Down with permissive society
Egoism - “bAsIc HuMaN rIgHtS? oH tHaT’s A sPoOk, I wAnT tO bE aN aBsOlUtE cUnT tO eVeRyOnE bEcAuSe It PlEaSeS mY eGo” actual human garbage.
To start with, your economics are perfect, an economy based off of worker cooperatives and guilds, fair competition and trust busting are all wonderful. As for social issues, once again, perfect, as I like cultural balance, with leanings depending on region. Foreign policy is, once again, hella based, as nationalism, non-interventionism, and isolationism in most places, but cooperation when necessary is great. In addition to how you acknowledge that reformism is failed while rejecting ML principles of vanguardism and “democratic” centralism.
Conclusion: based Filipino counterpart
Economically speaking, just like the above, you’re perfect, even if there is less emphasis on worker guilds, but market socialism is a great system. In addition, your social views are pretty similar to mine, and the foreign policy and stances on revolution, just like the above, are based
Conclusion: the above but from Indonesia
For economics, they are overall pretty good, however there is a pretty big issue, which is being pretty lenient towards landlords and opposing social georgism, but we both like market socialism and guild socialism. Culturally speaking you’re pretty similar to myself, combining both progress and tradition. Governmentally, you are more authoritarian than myself, and too friendly towards a president staying in power for life. For foreign policy, leftist nationalism and opposing both the west and China is based
Conclusion: a more authoritarian and anti-georgist version of myself
Conclusion: more ethnocentric and slightly more socially progressive then myself, but still quite based overall
I must say, I was quite impressed when I was reading your page. Sure you may be a bit moderate economically (but you’re becoming more anti-capitalist which is based), but you still have plenty of great proposals and liberal socialism can be good depending on various factors, and christian socialism and left-wing nationalism are all based (though I honestly would distance myself from Scandinavian countries, even if they’re better than a lot of the west) and I see modern trade unionism as useless and milquetoast, but overall your economics are quite good and about as capitalistic as you can get while still being tolerable. As for cultural views, I like how you manage to strike a balance between progress and tradition, seeing both as valuable for society. On government, your civic policies and federalism are also based, as is being democratic but using a stronger hand when necessary. Your takes on nationalism and foreign policy are also based, non-interventionism, civic nationalism, and alt-globalism are all great. But, I don’t like your reformism, as the system will corrupt you and try to target you, so perhaps consider revolution? All that considered, you are a worthy comrade and I’d support you.
Conclusion: a more moderate version of myself, which is cool
Economically speaking, you’re quite based, as I too am an enjoyer of cooperatives, add a guild system to it and it would be perfect. But unions are useless nowadays, tbh. Culturally speaking, while overall good, it is a little more left than myself, but I can get where you’re coming from, and you see beneficial traditions as good, so that’s a plus. As for your foreign policy, while I am more nationalist, we both are civic nationalists and non-interventionists which I like. I also adore your environmental policies as well and they are quite similar to mine. Civically and governmentally speaking, even if you’re more libertarian than myself we share a lot of similar ideals. But, I do believe that reformism will not work, and many leftist movements have been corrupted because of such, even then there would be significant obstacles and the establishment would try to stop you from making changes. Plus we both strongly support Eco-Cooperativism, so that is a major plus
Conclusion: we have our differences, but you’re very based overall.
Conclusion: a lot of great ideas, but too libertarian
Evolutionary Socialism (78/100)
For economics, you are quite good, however you do tend to be tolerant towards both welfare to those who reject an opportunity to work, as well as welfare capitalists , but at least unlike them, you want widespread ownership of the means of production, but you still shouldn’t align with them as they’d either hinder or reverse your progress. For social issues, you fit the essentials, but are also too liberal and your support for permissive society and not enough emphasis on tradition is also something I disagree with, although I’m not conservative but you could use some social conservatism, embrace progressive conservatism. For foreign policy, I agree with you on non-interventionism and patriotism, but I’m against defense pacts and backing pro-democratic protests no matter what, as what others do is not our business in any way whatsoever and interventionism should only be reserved for the most genocidal of states or self defense, besides NATO (just like all military alliances) is inherently evil and all military alliances should be dismantled, and the fact you hold on to reformism is a massive bruh moment, why else do you think that Bernie, Corbyn, JCP, etc. fail?
Conclusion: more deviant than I first thought, but still not bad overall
XarTario Thought (70/100)
For economics, your support for a distributist market economy is based, even if I’d like you to go full socialist, but distributism is good, as is your support for widespread ownership of property and opposition to monopolies. I also like your support for environmentalism and nuclear energy. Your social views aren’t bad, but too civically libertarian. As for foreign policy, your non-interventionism is based. However, an issue I have is how you tend to be tolerant towards right-libertarians, as while I agree with them on a few things, it does not make up for their awful economics
Conclusion: more based than I had originally anticipated
Economically speaking, you’re quite based, as you adopt influences from guild socialism, market socialism, and distributism, the three best economic ideologies to have ever existed. Likewise your support for trust busting, cooperatives, guilds, and most of your economic policies in general are nothing short of based. Moving on to your social policies, slightly more progressive than myself but that’s whatever, and overall they’re based, and progressive conservatism is needed. As for foreign policy, could be more nationalistic, but overall it’s quite good, with international cooperation being necessary on some issues and agreeing that both the West and Russia/China are shitty, as well as non-interventionism being a virtue. That said though, there are some areas where I disagree with you on. One of which is your civics, in which I believe that a paternalistic state, although not massive, is necessary to ensure a paternalistic role, as well as individualism putting the community at expense of individual desires. However there is also some good from such, mainly piratism and knowing that excess authoritarianism can be bad.
Conclusion: based ideology overall although more libertarian and right than myself
Conclusion: strange, but more good than bad
Conclusion: too liberal, but overall based
Conclusion: some strange aspects, but agreeable economics and cultural stances
Syncretic Tridemism (53/100)
Economically speaking, you’re about as good as a capitalist can get, although you need to focus more on widespread ownership of the means of production, but welfarism and georgism is both based. But, you seem to be slowly becoming further left, which is nice Your social views are also quite good, and we share a lot in common in that factor. However, there are also some bruh moments that come from you, such as opposition towards Castro, and Corbyn, to name a few. As for your foreign policy, opposing all the major powers is based, so I will give you that
Conclusion: a better version of him ideologically speaking
Economically speaking, although I too like the market economy, you support for it is a bit much, as you wish to leave essential services to competitive forces, as well as how you are too soft on regulations as well as how you still wish to retain the hierarchical model, and are too open to economic globalism, however your support for LVT and widespread ownership of land is based, as well as how you realize that the American Model is fucked. Socially speaking, although not horrible, still too liberal, as while we agree on quite a few key components, there are also some things we disagree on (ex: individualism, too permissive, not enough emphasis on tradition), but we agree more so than not, I also support your intercultural policies as a way for a nation to be protected. Your foreign policy is also great, as it emphasizes both national pride, as well as foreign cooperation when needed. Likewise your support for the Schengen Zone while opposing the current institute of the EU is based, as is wanting to leave NATO. And your government structure and civic policies are also quite decent, with your support for free speech, federalism, and gun rights. And lastly, your environmental solutions, although good, do take the market for granted as state and community regulations and laws will be needed to implement environmental policies
Conclusion: surprisingly not as bad as I first anticipated, but I still disagree with a lot of this, despite some common principles
Economically speaking, although you’re a bit moderate, I still support it overall, as you support cooperatives and Social Georgism, which is based, and how you seemingly consider co-ops to be more important thwn welfare. But I’d recommend cutting yourself off from social democrats as a whole, and embrace guild socialism. Culturally speaking, I agree with almost everything you believe in, and don’t have much to criticize here, and I too am a fellow progressive conservative, so I’ll move on to the next area, which is civics and government. While your civic views are overall good, a country like China is gonna need a strong hand (not what the CCP is doing though), and you’re too unitary, which a unitary government although necessary in smaller areas, in larger ones (like China) would create an imbalance of power between the central government and outside regions. I’m also against reformism, as it is conceding to the system, preventing meaningful change, which will corrupt your ideals and set it down a course of failure. But all the criticisms are relatively minor so far, but there is one aspect that’s so bad that it drops the overall ideology to neutral;your foreign policy. Interventionism destroys other countries over issues which aren’t our business, and creates a more hostile world overall. Intervention is only justified in the event of a genocide occurring, or self defense. Otherwise it’s not your business what other countries do. As for things like inequality, progressive movements from within said country have done better, so you should back said movements instead of intervening in other countries and creating a more hostile world overall. Your foreign policy may not be as bad as I first thought, but it’s still pretty sus, and I really don’t like how you aim to be a world policeman
Conclusion: so good, yet so bad. Drop the interventionism and you’d be a better version of him
Conclusion: some agreements, but still too left wing
Conclusion: nice to see you grow out of anarchism and we have some agreements. But still too leftist even for me.
FinalFantasy24 Thought (35/100)
Conclusion: idk a lot about your beliefs but it seems like typical Dengism, so no thanks
Before I get to the rest of your ideology, I’ll get into the one saving grace and the only reason you aren’t in negative - your economics. I too am a non-Marxist socialist (though the only Marxists I truly hate are these motherfuckers ), support Georgism, support guild socialism, and you have a based trade policy. But everything else about this is pretty bad. For starters, your cultural policy is too much, although I dislike pride, hating LGBT individuals as a whole doesn’t do much good. As for the rest of your cultural stances, I oppose third wave feminism and after, but the first 2 waves are good, and although you have good points regarding porn, prostitution, and abortion being morally wrong, I also am in a bit of jeopardy regarding the abortion question as of now. Likewise I oppose racial nationalism, as I believe that 1: nations are built off of common customs, not skin color, and 2: all races are created equal and any disadvantages are due to socioeconomic conditions.
Conclusion: sorry, but your economics don’t make up for the rest of your beliefs
Luoyangist Tridemism (25/100)
Economically speaking, though not horrible and with some good policies, you’re even more moderate than the one above. I like your nationalism, but not your irredentism, as it expands even beyond China. Your stance on democracy is on spot though, opposing both liberalism and Mao’s “People’s Democracy”, and your stances on government are spot on. But what I can’t stand is your hawkish foreign policy based on “spreading human rights”, as what other countries do is not our business, and even so, intervention has destroyed countries
Conclusion: Celfloskyism but worse, albeit with some redeeming qualities
Culturally speaking, you have some good points, but you’re too permissive and idealizing Hedonism is extremely cringe. Economically speaking, although with some saving graces, such as land value tax and the right amount of regulations, still too capitalistic for my liking, and unions are only good as a short term goal, they should be mostly replaced by worker cooperatives and worker guilds in the long term, but at least you want a healthy amount of regulation as well as LVT, and are encouraging co-ops. But nonetheless too capitalist. Foreign policy wise, although non-interventionist and it being based that you’re not some hyper-Atlanticist anymore, I do feel that you’re a tad bit too cuddly towards NATO. Ofc it’s based how you oppose Russia and China, though then again lesser-evilism is a bad way to measure things. Likewise I’m glad you’re embracing patriotism now vs a while back, but it could go further, and in addition your adherence to reformism is a bruh moment, the Democratic establishment fucked over Bernie countless times, especially in favor of Hitlary. That said though, you also have some saving graces involving environmentalism, gun rights, and free speech
Conclusion: certainly better than before, but still pretty bad
Economically speaking, you’re too dirigisme and centralized, although at least you support some form of workers democracy and it is certainly an improvement to the capitalist system we have rn and have the right idea of sending people like Jeff Bezos to the gallows, as well as a welfare state but rejecting welfare to those who are capable of working but refuse. Speaking of centralization your government model is also too centralized, as one can’t be completely dependent on an authority from far away. Likewise I agree with nationalism, but not ultranationalism or anti-immigration, and believe that the nation is a collective. For technology, I support it as well, but posthumanism isn’t a good idea, although I agree that technology that reduces consciousness is bad. You’re way too authoritarian, as not everyone is gonna follow the state even if there should be a paternalistic state of some form. And lastly, for cultural issues, you’re way too far right, as I only wish to return to the mid 2000s on a moral level and while there must be common values, I don’t see an issue with subcultures
Conclusion: at the very least we agree that the current system of America is bad and wish to rejuvenate it, but even so we have different solutions. If not for that you’d be in negative
General Shrekretary Thought (30/100)
Economically speaking, you’re too far left, while I get that you want widespread ownership of the MoP, I don’t believe that everything being nationalized would do, as it would just result in the state being the new owner. Likewise, I also believe that to say that the left is one party is a pretty arrogant way of looking at things, which is why I am firmly against vanguardism, and as mentioned earlier, Democratic Centralism is too top-down. That as well as the command economy in general is why socialism is seen in such a negative light. For social views, you have some good points, but also have some bad takes such as rejecting all forms of westernization, even if native cultures should also be kept. Likewise, some more positive qualities of you include anti-imperialism, as well as supporting revolution and believing that reformism degenerates leftist movements, and opposing societal cancers like landlords
Conclusion: too economically left, too culturally right, too civically authoritarian
Nekoqingist Bolshevism (33/100)
Before I go into how your ideology has seriously degraded, I’ll go into some positives. Your support for both nationalism and international solidarity is based, as is your support for revolution. Philosophically you’re based even if more controlling, and culturally you’re based even if more conservative leaning. Opposing interventionism, NATO, and the social imperialists of the east is based as well. But unfortunately that’s about it for the positives. Economically speaking, you’re too far left, and your support for a borderline command economy is cringe, as it would cause overdependence on the government and more specifically the central government. While you may claim to be a market socialist, it seems to be in name only due to what I mentioned earlier, and embracing Stalinism as a whole is also a bad path to go down. But, we oppose capitalism and support collectivization, so that’s good. And civically, you’re too auth. Wanting to make wider society revolve around the party, supporting mass surveillance on your citizens, and heavily restricting what views your people can hold is bruh. Ofc some views are bad enough to make such acceptable, and authoritarianism is needed in some cases and in China, but you go too far even for the standards of that
Conclusion: there’s basically no going back with this ideology and it has seriously devolved. If only you stood clear from this Stalinist and Hoxhaist nonsense.
Libra Thought (35/100)
Conclusion: some similarities, but not a fan
Conclusion: you may not be a postie anymore, but I still don’t like this
New Model Of Cheesenism (18/100)
Civically you’re way too authoritarian, as you wish to get rid of democracy in it’s entirely and replace it with an aristocratic government, though at least you’re getting more into republicanism. Likewise you’re way too culturally right, as while third wave feminism and after is bad, women still must be given equal rights and not forced into traditional roles, and while I’m against pride, I’m also against targeting ordinary LGBT people. Unions are also mid, as they’re so milquetoast it’s not even funny even if they have had their past achievements. As for your economics, you do seem to be more left than before, but you still have good takes such as progressive taxation, but you could still improve. Likewise your environmental policies are horrific and would cause many deaths worldwide, but your welfare system is based other than excluding certain groups of people (though it should be restricted to citizens and permanent residents). Likewise interventionism and imperialism is cringe, although opposing NATO is based. Conscription is cringe, but you have based views involving education and healthcare
Conclusion: near my opposite, with the only saving grace being opposing woke idpol (even then you give into rightist idpol) and opposing both Western imperialism and China (but still have some shady things)
Conclusion: of course less of a dumpster fire than before, but still pretty bad
Conclusion: almost everything I stand against
Left Unity - based, and my quadrant. However there are still some cringe people such as leftcoms, shitlibs, and socdems
Authoritarian Left - good, however tankies and Dengists are cringe, and you can be too authoritarian even if I support paternalism
Libertarian Left - also good, however anarchists are cringe and a sizable amount of you can be liberals. And you can be too libertarian even if I believe in some civil liberties
Centrists - a pretty solid “meh”, at least you aren’t rightists, but you’re still too soft on many things
Authoritarian Right - the only reason you aren’t in the below tier is because of Lee Kwan Yew and Paul Kagame
Libertarian Right - almost everything about you is awful. The only saving graces from you are free speech, gun rights, and non-interventionism, even for the former 2 you take it too far
NOW YOU SHALL PERISH
Right Unity - LibRight but missing at least one of the positive qualities (non-interventionism, and depending on who it is, gun rights). Your life means NOTHING, you serve ZERO purpose, YOU SHOULD KILL YOURSELF, NOW
Barbatos Theocracy - too libright but good overall
Sollism - cool it with the social conservatism! But overall not bad
United Sordlandism - depends on which faction it is
Plan on Reading
None, I either read it or I don’t.
Note that I often overlook the comments, so apologies if I’m late in adding you. Also I will clear them on the 2nd of every monthadd me?
Owfism - 1. Can you summarize your opinion of my ideology in more detail? Thanks. 2. Can you draw an imagine for me like you did for Yoda?
- I oppose both social democracy/reformism and Marxist-Leninist Vanguardism, whilst still being a revolutionary socialist, and the worker guilds I advocate for are similar to worker councils, but more profession-based and organized
- Note that this is applied to the standards of America and most countries, though there are a select few that would be less statist even during the first stages of the revolution