×
Create a new article
Write your page title here:
We currently have 2,525 articles on Polcompball Wiki. Type your article name above or click on one of the titles below and start writing!



Polcompball Wiki
Polcompball Wiki
2,525Articles
  Recent changes
in:
Pages with broken file links, Pages using Tabber parser tag, Self-Insert, Ideologies

Armandonian Liberalism

Revision as of 18:54, 1 December 2023 by GeneraleArmando (talk | contribs)
Self Insert
"People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism

This page is meant to represent GeneraleArmando's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission.



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

Ideology Template

Armandonian Liberalism

Politics

  • Form of Government

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

I support replacing all Senates with a ' House of Experts ', where actual experts, nominated by the President or the Monarch , also vote on laws.

In principle, I have nothing against Ceremonial Monarchies, and I would even support a Constitutional Monarchy where the monarch has Reserve Powers comparable to those of a Parliamentarian Republic.

  • State Powers and its Limits

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

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

  • Political Methodology

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

  • Foreign Policy

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

I am an Anti-Zionist, however, I propose either a two-state solution with Israel mostly going back to 1947 borders (With obvious adjustments for modern times) and abandoning illegal settlements in Cisgiordania or a one-state solution where religion is completely banned from state legislation (Other than respecting freedom of religion and religious festivals).

Culture and Society

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

  • Religion and the State

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

  • Nation and its Definition

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

  • Immigration

I am supportive of immigration; however, I also understand that Interculturalism is necessary to preserve the Civil Liberties from Conservative Immigrants that want to change their host country to a less Free one. I am thus critical, at times, of Multiculturalism, especially in regards of Religions. I support the 'Ius Culturae' rather than the 'Ius Soli' and I am against the 'Ius Sanguinis' past the parents. I think we should crackdown on Illegal immigration and accept less refugees overall, but at the same time, we should simplify the process for legal immigration, as today it is excessively slow and cumbersome.

  • Crimes and Punisments

I regard myself as File:Anti-Identi2.png Anti-Identity politics and would like to see a society where people are not judged or classified on the basis of Race, Ethnicity, Sex, Language (Mostly), Sexual Orientation or Gender, but rather on their Knowledge, Merits, Culture (As in, how they behave in regards to their culture) and content of their character.

  • My little Conservative side

I am Moderately Conservative on a few issues: I strongly oppose Anti-Gender Neutral Language (In romance languages, my native langs); I am moderately Anti-Xenogenders, as I see both as Forceful changes of the ways of speaking; I personally oppose open relationships and Naturism; I legally oppose open marriages and pro-open-marriage legislation. However, I will never support Anti-Non-Binary, anti-open relationship and Anti-Naturist (Mostly) Legislation, as I support their right of Self-Determination.

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

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

  • Linguistic Nationalism

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

  • A - Change/translate their surnames in the state's official language
  • B - Give them two surnames: the first one being a surname in the state's official language and the second one being their native surname

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

Philosophy

Philosophical Influences

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

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


My greatest ideological influences come from the Enlightenment Era and similar movements both preceding and succeeding it, making me a fusion of Empiricism and Rationalism. I may also define myself as a Kantian and Post-Kantian gnosiologically and epistemologically.

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

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

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

All of this makes me an Anti-Positivist.

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

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

Pragmatism is also a big part of my thought process.


  • How do I define myself philosophically?

Personally, I find myself as mainly part of these movements:

The Human (WIP)

  • The Fundamental Meaninglessness of Life

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

  • Human Action

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

  • Humans as the Measure of Everything

We've already said that life is Meaningless, but that doesn't mean that there are no truths in the universe.

We need to start by saying that no human constructs, such as order and chaos, exist outside the human (Just as in German Idealism); however, the human world is inherently inside the human, so human concepts are inherently existing even if not necessarily universal. Thus, rationality is not inherently existing, but it exists in the human world.

This also puts a hard divide between hard sciences and soft sciences: hard sciences are completely rational and can be perfectly described by mathematical relations (how hard they are to describe is unimportant) because they are governed by physical laws; soft sciences can't be completely described by rationality because they have a metaphysical plane (human relations) that is not completely governed by physical laws but rather by human emotions.


  • Physics and Metaphysics

Let's keep this simple:

  • Physics: The physical world; how matter itself behaves. Inherently Rational and Materialistic. The physical world is objective and has no meaning or attribute but the one of 'being', of existence.
  • Metaphysics: The conscious world; how consciousness decides to behave and how it responds to stimuli (Be it human, animal, vegetal, etc.). Both Rational and File:Irrationalism.png Irrational, but inherently Idealistic. The conscious world is subjective and it has meanings and attributes based on the experience of the consciousness.

Basically the Cartesian 'Res Cogitans' (Metaphysics) and 'Res Extensa' (Physics) or, even better, the Pascalian 'Esprit de Geometrie' (Physics) and 'Esprit de Finesse' (Metaphysics).

The physical and the metaphysical world are inherently connected because:

  • The physical world projects itself into our consciousness through our categories
  • The metaphysical world is also a personal interpretation of the physical world
  • The metaphysical world also acts in and through the physical world and its phenomenons


  • Ontology

Yes, the human is the measure of everything. Every object is thus the entity itself (Universal and Rational), its uses (Rational, not necessarily Universal) and how we consider it emotionally (Irrational and Subjective).

However, I view ontology as a useless branch of philosophy, as it is obvious that we have different emotions regarding different entities; thus, we can simply say that an object is simply an object, and we just define it subjectively through our emotions.

In addition, I am extremely critical on the concept of 'Substance', as I believe that any object is just a synthesis of all of its parts and attributes and not inherently an object (Similarly to the ideas of Berkeley and Hegel): this is because, as I've previously said, everything but matter is inside the human mind, and thus even the concept of 'object' is but a human construct without any physical manifestation. There is therefore no substance of 'table', no substance of 'human', etc.

The only things that may resemble some sort of 'substance' are the elementary particles or the strings of the string theory, but I will not delve into this argument, as I have no profound knowledge on it.

  • Rationality, Irrationality, Emotions

We already spoke about the existence of rationality. But what is Rationality?

Rationality is everything that can be described as objective, so basically all of mathematics and derived disciplines, observable Cause-Effect clauses, observable and/or measurable events, observable and/or measurable objects and truth (As in, an event described in an unbiased way).

This means that Rationality is a Universal, Neutral, Pragmatic, Non-Ideological, Apolitical and naturally Egoistic party made of cold intellect and is inherently Materialistic.

Wait... what is intellect? Intellect can be described exactly as in Kantian philosophy: Categories through which we "understand" and analyse the world we perceive through our senses and through which we solve our problems.

Rationality is, however, neither the natural state of man, nor the preferable way to live, because:

  • Rationality is simply the intellect and objective truth, and is thus non-ideological. This can mean that a rational outcome isn't necessarily the better one in our minds. For example, rationally, Slavery is a preferable outcome for me, as I make the least work for the maximum earnings; however, ideologically, there are people who refuse slavery on the basis of Human Dignity, which is not rational nor existing in nature.
  • Living purely by intellect is impossible, as we all are ideological in some way or another: even preferring to live 100% by intellect is having an ideological belief in Rationality.
  • The human mind is inherently File:Irrationalism.png Irrational and Idealistic, as our thought process and objectives are influenced by culture, geography, genetics, events, etc., which makes it basically completely different from one person to another.

In short, rationality is merely a universal and Materialistic tool through which we strive for our personal, ideological and political goals, which are inherently irrational, emotive and Idealistic as they are subjective.

We should however recognise that we should try to remain grounded in rationality when making ideological decisions, as the further we get from rationality, the more irrational and unrealistic we get: this is because the physical world projects itself on the consciousness through our categories, so the metaphysical world of the consciousness is inherently connected to it.


  • Emotions

To expand on the File:Irrationalism.png Irrationality of the human mind, I believe that the famous polymath Blaise Pascal had the right idea: we have both a Esprit de Geometrie (Rationality) and a Esprit de Finesse (Emotions), and the second one can largely be File:Irrationalism.png Irrational, as we are inherently always in the search for distractions, for Divertissement, in order to be happy, as Rationality is not always sufficient and many times even counterproductive for our happiness. To understand the 'Res Extensa' or the 'Esprit de Geometrie', we need maths, physics, etc.; to understand the 'Res Cogitans' or the 'Esprit de Finesse', we need emotions, irrationality, relativism and what we commonly call heart.

"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, [...]"

  • Relativism and Universal Moralism

After having described how rationality is Universal, but human goals are not, we get into the problem of Relativism.

First of all, we need to put the basis to relativism and justify it. We can say that:

  • There are no inherent human moral imperatives, because we all have different ways to understand events and we all have different goals.
  • Good and bad is inherently subjective for the same reason as above.
  • Rationality and objectivity exist, but again, only we can deem it good or bad for us.

It follows that:

  • Nothing is black or white and everything is a shade of grey.
  • Relativism and ideology are fundamentally opposites and it is impossible to accept both equally: complete relativism is without ideology, complete ideology is without relativism.
    Thus follows that to make decisions, one has to abandon relativism partly.

However, pure relativism is rationally dangerous, as it has no universal moral values, which means that killing, being killed, robbing, to be robbed, etc., which are against one's self interest, are permissible.
We can thus rationally get to a small set of rights and laws, which we can call Negative Rights:

  • Right to personal property
  • Right to life
  • Right to liberty
    • Freedom of speech
    • Freedom of movement
    • Freedom of assembly
    • (WIP)

We can say that these rights directly protect relativism from personal beliefs that curtail relativism.

Any expansion or curtailment of these rights can be called Positive Rights, and are all irrational in the sense of being subjective. Obviously, them being good or bad is completely left to the individual.

The State and Society (WIP)

  • On Liberty

I reject whig historiography and the concept of natural progress towards a more equitable and just society, as there have been countless examples in history where a status quo that can be considered as 'good' went back (or forward) to a 'worse' state.

We can thus say that progress towards an achievement (in this case, greater liberty) is NOT a given and that liberty is but frail china that needs to be protected.

  • Liberty and Equality
  • Inequality is impossible to eradicate; we should still strive for a more equitable society
  • Markets are fundamental for personal freedom
  • Liberty and Security
  • Tolerance

Taking from the previous sections, we can describe tolerance. We can already say that tolerance is fundamentally the defense of relativism: it literally means to accept one's opinion regardless of your support of it; we can also sum up tolerance as Evelyn Beatrice Hall's quote 'I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It'.

As even Voltaire said in his 'Treaty on Tolerance', however, tolerance needs to have some limits, and those limits are founded primarily on the intolerance of a particular group.

We can simply take the already universally hated Nazis as an example: their ideology is explicitly against many basic human rights and freedoms, they actively incorporate racialist and anti-egalitarian policies and support a militaristic and extremely authoritarian state. Should we accept their opinions, since their explicit objective is taking away our right to express ours? Absolutely no. We can, again, rationally get to a vague definition of tolerance: it is based around a social contract where we all decide to tolerate each other, so anyone who decides to break the contract in serious ways has no right to cry for tolerance. What is a 'Serious breach' of the contract of tolerance is, obviously, based on emotions, but we can still consider the rational and skeletal definition as a foundation.

  • Egalitarianism

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

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

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

  • Metapolitics

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

  • The State and State Action (WIP)

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

I will defend the liberal views on the matter though.

  • The state's legitimate when it acts in order to preserve freedom and wellbeing;
  • Being judged by one's character and not one's body is a just principle that should be legally protected
  • Non-economic laws should strive to preserve freedom of thought and the possibility of relativism
  • The harm principle is a good basis for laws
  • Against Ethnicity and Race as Concepts (WIP)
  • The concept of ethnicity easily loses any sense, as an italian in germany who doesn't know to be italian is completely equal to an "ethnic" german.

Economic Beliefs

General Overview

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

Fusion Reformism towards a more Social Economy and eventually Liberal Market Socialism is my main objective; if there is active resistance against the peaceful establishment of co-ops, revolution is always the plan B.

  • Economic Schools

Armandonian Liberalism is economically Radical Centrist (Leaning Center-Left ) and follows a mix of Modern Keynesianism , Freiburg Economics, Chicagoan and Neoclassical Economics and, much more limitedly, Austrian Economics , with the objective of being Pragmatic in economic decision-making.

Evidence-based policy is to be favoured.

  • "What are your general economic beliefs though?"

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

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

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

  • Social Economy vs Economic Democracy

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

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

  • Is my ideology really a Social Economy?

Short answer: I believe so.

Long answer: My proposed economic system can be described as nothing more than having a Modern Liberal economic system embrace a Social Economy much more closely. Economic freedom for cooperatives and small businesses and private property are still in place.

While it does have some kind of Social Ownership of Capital (E.g. National Mutual Fund), it is not inherently subjected to the state and individuals, banks, credit unions etc. still have much freedom with investments and loans. The objective is also not state or societal control over the economy, but better economic freedom for every citizen.

State intervention is also akin to EU-style Liberalism and thus not excessive.

For these reasons, I do believe to be in the realm of a Social Economy, rather than in an Economic Democracy.

  • General economic programme

Phase 1:

  • Reform Anti-Trust to encompass extremely large businesses and break them down
  • Promote cooperatives and similar business models
  • Destroy and/or reform crony legislation
  • Promote and incentivise widespread property ownership

Phase 2:

  • Make the state explicitly favour cooperatives
  • Replace the stock market with the bond market

Phase 3:

  • Phase out Medium sized enterprises in favour of cooperatives

Phase 4:

  • Phase out large sized enterprises in favour of cooperatives and cooperative federations
  • Cooperative economy (yay!)
  • Widespread private property (yay!!!!)

Economic Policy

  • Economic Liberalism and Globalism

International cooperation should be fostered, as it maintains peace through trading relations, it helps countries focus only on some kinds of industries and helps directing investments all over the world.

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

  • Private Property

I consider Private Property as "The only way to ensure a good degree of independence of cooperatives from the state" and "The better way to organise property". At the same time, I believe that self-ownership is much more preferable to absentee-ownership, as extreme economic inequality numbs Democracy and damages Human Life and the Economy. We should thus strive to help people and firms to own what they use and leave renting to a completely personal decision by mainly using and adapting market forces (and not by regulating and banning ownership of multiple buildings), but also by breaking down extremely large firms when necessary.

All of this comes from a Distributist, Rousseau-ist (From 'On the Origin of Inequality') and Austrian analysis of private property.

  • Intellectual Property
  • Taxation

(Thanks to Template:Blue Nephalem Thought for the direct inspiration)

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

  • Land value tax (10%-50%, except the first home)
  • Progressive income taxes
  • Pigouvian and Environmental taxes (25%-100% except for self-employed people and businesses with less than 5 people)
  • Inheritance tax (30%-45% from 1 million Euros onwards)
  • Gift taxes (30%-45% from 100 000 Euros onwards, unless given to a charity)
  • Corporate taxes (WIP)
  • Financial Insurance Tax (to fund a National Financial Insurance Fund)
  • Church taxes (15%-25%)
  • Capital gains taxes (WIP)
  • Property taxes (20% for luxury houses)
  • Sales taxes
  • Tariffs (For imports from countries with sub-par working conditions, sub-par environmental laws and sub-par animal welfare)
  • AI tax (2% flat-tax for every business with more than 50 employees employing AI to fund worker retraining programmes)
  • Immigrant tax (50 - 100 Euros a month for all working non-citizens to fund an Immigrant Support Fund)

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

  • State Intervention in the Economy

Regulations

Regulations are a necessity to ensure a healthy economy and a healthy and just society. I am generally aligned to EU regulations on this matter; there are obviously regulations I would support and others I wouldn't.

In general, regulations should be simple, effective and should prevent excessive inefficiency, excessive bureaucracy and regulatory capture; their benefits should be weighted with the benefit of less strict regulation (or no regulation at all). I mainly follow the Freiburg School of economics on the matter.

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

Some examples of regulations I support:

  • Moderate rent increase control
  • Labour Rights
    • Workplace Safety
    • Work-Life balance laws
  • Environmental Regulation
  • Safety and Health Regulation
  • Consumer Protection

Some examples of regulations I would reform

  • Zoning Laws
  • Occupational Licensing
  • Business Creation

Some examples of regulations I would remove or greatly reduce

  • Most internet regulation
  • Compulsory USB-C
  • Taxi permits
  • Tech-companies regulation
  • All File:AntiBert.png Crony Regulation

Anti-Trust

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

Environmentalism

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

The primary objective should be reaching a Solarpunk society.

Welfare

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

Stimulus and Unemployment Checks

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

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

Universal Healthcare

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

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

Education

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

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

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

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

Electricity and Water

Housing

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

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

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


Dirigisme and SOEs

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


Central Bank

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

  • Workplace Democracy
  • Co-Determination

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

  • Stances on Unionism

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

  • Financial Sector (Heavy WIP)
  • Domestic Investment Funds

Yugoslavia's Domestic Investment Funds

  • Cooperative Banking

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

  • Private Banking
  • Private Investments
  • Transport Systems

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

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

  • Urban Planning

Progress towards a more Social Economy

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

  • Co-operative Ownership
  • Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP)
  • Board-Level Employee Representation (BLER).

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

  • Cooperative Crowdfunding

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

  • Coop-Worker Finder

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

  • Cooperativisation of Sectors

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

  • Natural Monopolies: Cooperativisation or Nationalisation?
  • Healthcare: Promoting Worker and Consumer Co-ops

As we've seen, the private healthcare sector in its current form is either a complete failure (Like in countries like the US) or overly expensive (Like in most EU countries). One part of this problem can surely be pointed to private hospitals private insurance companies having profit for the shareholders and the owners as their highest priority; it follows that we should promote (or even force) both Consumer Cooperatives and Worker Cooperatives in the sector.

Firstly, all insurance companies should be consumers' mutual funds, in order to fight the common occurrence of insurers deciding arbitrarily whether a given hospital visit was necessary or not.

Secondly, we should promote cooperatively-owned hospitals and clinics (Similar to the Brazilian UNIMED).

  • Insurance, Banks, Housing: Promoting Consumer Co-ops
  • Prostitution and cooperatively-owned brothels

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

These limitations have these objectives:

  • Reduce sex slavery
  • Regulate prostitution
  • Maintain body autonomy

Cooperative-specific regulations

  • Status of Worker Cooperatives

Worker Cooperatives would be allowed to have up to 20% of workers as non-members, in order to ensure an easier hiring and training process. Membership would remain completely voluntary, with each worker deciding between being a simple employee with none of the benefits of membership, or pay for the membership (This process would be organised by each co-op independently).

Each non-member employee of a cooperative has either the right to some kind of Board-Level Employee Representation or to a reduced value of its vote between 0.3 and 0.8 (E.g. In firm X, a non-member employee can vote, but its vote will have a value of 0.6 instead of 1); this last possibility will be decided by the co-op.

  • Status of Consumer Cooperatives

All Consumer Cooperatives would either become multi-stakeholder/worker-consumer cooperatives, after a vote by both employees and members, or have obligatory co-determination for workers once they pass 60 employees.

  • Status of Cooperative Brothels

Cooperative Brothels will just be considered as collaborating self-employed people who share the same space. Profits will be assigned to the individual worker

Forced Cooperativisation of Businesses (WIP)

Eventually, most sectors will become mostly co-op driven, and all sectors of the economy will be forcibly cooperativized. This is what would happen:

  • Cooperativisation of Non-Capital Intensive Businesses

All private businesses with more than 60 employees would be cooperativised; those with 20 to 60 employees would have employees elect a Employee Representative that would work closely with the employer and/or the administration; finally, those with less than 20 employees would keep doing business as before.

Every business which passes 20-25 employees will, from then on, become a cooperative, with financial compensation in form of a monthly bond (With the duration and the quantity of money set by a court) for the original owner.

  • Forced Cooperativisation: Is there financial compensation?

As businesses with more than 60 employees would become cooperatives, employees of the business will financially compensate the owner(s) and/or the shareholders totally (in form of a monthly bond, with the duration and the quantity of money set by a court) and get 100% control of their business.

There is however a limit to the financial compensation: (TLDR: Shareholders and Owners of larger businesses will receive fewer compensation compared to smaller ones; I will make a chart in the future)

  • Status of Non-Profits

Non-profit organisations will not be subjected to the same laws as for-profit businesses: private ownership will be possible and they will be subjected to pretty much the same regulation as today.

  • Status of Capital Intensive Industries

Reading List

Already Read

  • Ludwig von Mises - Economic Policy
  • Pope Leo XIII - Rerum Novarum
  • Pope Pius XI - Quadrangesimo Anno
  • Voltaire - A Treatise on Tolerance
  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau - On the Origin of Inequality
  • David I. Backer - Illyrian economics
  • Gregor and Otto Strasser - The Manifesto of the Black Front

Reading It

  • Ludwig von Mises - Human Action (Pretty much abandoned)
  • F.A. Hayek - The Constitution of Liberty
  • Group of International Communists - Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution
  • Eduard Bernstein - Evolutionary Socialism
  • Cesare Beccaria - On Crimes and Punishment
  • Immanuel Kant - Perpetual Peace
  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Social Contract

Planning to Read

  • John Stuart Mill - On Liberty
  • John Stuart Mill - Principles of Political Economy
  • John Locke - Two Treaties on Government
  • Henry David Thoreau - Civil Disobedience
  • Henry David Thoreau - Walden; or, Life in the Woods
  • Henry George - Science of Political Economy
  • Karl Marx - Das Kapital
  • Marco Bentivogli, Diodato Pirone - Fabbrica Futuro
  • MacPherson - One Path to Cooperative Studies
  • Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations
  • David Ricardo - On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation

Relations

(The ideologies of PCBA are here because they have in-depth real-world theory or praxis surrounding them and can plausibly be created IRL)

Friends

"65% good, 35% bad" gang

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

Frenemies

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

Enemies

Judging your ideology, not you :D

S-Tier Lads

  • Yori Model - Fellow based reformist (But what if we need revolution, just a little, as a treat ;) )
  • Mainstream Hard Left - I hardly see anything "Hard" about your left, but we are similar nonetheless.
  •  Leerderism - Frisia is my favourite country on EU4 :D. If you add co-ops to that, then it's even better.
  • Yoda8soup - Another fellow reformist with revolutionary characteristics. We are very similar tbh, but abandon the partial democratic planning man.
  • Template:SocMor - You are the closest we can get to neo-distributism lol. A very nice and level-headed ideology (Especially economically) and one of the best class-collaborators here
  • Ultra-Enlightenment - You are one of my favourite ideologies on here and I love the totality of your beliefs, especially the philosophical ones.

A-Tier Friends

  •  Great British New Left - MY MAN. You are pretty cool tbh, hope that our (Pretty dire, to be honest) differences don't distract us from the cooperative movement.
  • Heredism - GANG! You are very... particular with your beliefs, but nonetheless CO-OP UNITY!
  • Template:ETS - Ok man, I gotta say that you are a bit too much of a statist and collectivist in my opinion, mostly on the basis of syndicate control of the economy and of cultural policy, however I don't really have any strong opposition to your beliefs. Your democratic system is interesting. Overall a nice ideology.
  • Mr_Beast_0f_93 - We are pretty much the same culturally and socially, I admire your commitment to human rights and liberty; we are extremely similar even in foreign relations and in (very general) economic policy. However, our direst differences lie in government intervention in the economy. I believe that a mix of Ordoliberal and Social Liberal economic policies are the best balance between economic efficiency, state intervention, liberty and human-centered policy, while you are more laissez-faire on the matter; I do however see how we can influence each other, as our ideologies are pretty much open to change.

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

P.S. PETIT BOURGEOISIE GANG

  • Gooberism - A bit more culturally right-wing than me and you are still laissez-faire adiacent, however your family-centered economics (Basically modern-day distributism) put you a bit closer to me. Overall based
  • Brazilian Liberalism - You are the next target for the coop-pill. Also, pretty based economics, but a bit too authoritarian here and there.
  • Template:Panth - idk about that economic coordination and corporatism, I prefer dirigisme, but otherwise pretty nice economics. Just get a little bit more democratic though.
  • Owfism - Pretty much a regular Social Liberal tbh. Pretty good in my opinion, just needs to be a little more focused on cooperatives and reject a lot of that support for Big Business.

"75% good, 25% bad" gang

  • Aristocratic Futurism File:AriFut2.png - Now - your ideology is really thought-provoking and you raise good concerns against the status quo of liberalism and democracy, but I think that you put a little too much trust in unelected officials and in a society divided in classes, even if they're meritocratic. May also get some ideas from you though.
  • HEW Thought - National Syndicalism is economically based, but socially? Sorry man, I don't really like conservatism that much.
  • Vistulism - A tad bit too statist for my liking plus protectionism is shit, however we have similar ideals and love for cooperatives!
  • Tiberius Thought - Too statist for my liking bro, but you seem to know what you are talking about. Based economics.

Frenemies

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


"35% good, 65% bad" gang

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

Enemies

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

* Hysteria thought - M̶̡̨̡̢̨̯̦̦̱͚̗̳̗͎͕̯͎͓̬̟͎̠̩̝̫͕̝̮͓̫̹̥͚̈̊̌̈̾̇̽̊̒̿̉̈͒̌͌͛́̄̎̄̉̿̊͘͜͠͝Y̸̡̨̛͈̹͇̠̮̣̲͉̝̬̭͈̺͍̣̑̄̇̊͊̿ͅ ̸̨̧̡̹̖͚̝̹̜̬̝̘̟̱̼̙͎̹͍̝͈͎̫̙̙̗̩̰̭̖̬̜̫̿̈͌̔̈́͊͂́̐͋̐̄̄̍̈́̌̈́̋̇͒́͒͂́̄̔͜͝ͅL̶̨̧̢̹͔̭̣͙͙͉̯̖̜͓̝̞͗̋̀̽̄͆̍̏̆̀̽̈̎̐̾̒̋̆̎̂͐̀͗͗̂͋̐̉̊͘̕͘͜I̷̫̜͖̩̤͈͓̹̦̙̐̀̍̀̄̌̐́̑̆̆̏̽̆̕͝͝͝ͅM̸̨̡̱͈͎̘͔̳͕̙̯̭̗͈̠͕̖͈͙̜̪̭̦̮̲̔́̈͒̀̿̈́̓̒̍̅͑̊̏̀̋̆͒̐̿̚͘͘͜͜͜͝I̶̮̘͆̅̍̄̀̄̀͒̎̄̑̉́̔̿̂͌̈́̅̀͌͊̎͐̔͒͋͛͗̄̓͠͝T̸̡̘̱̦̪̤̭̱̙͙̯̝̦͕͈͇̭̦̤̲̯̮̭̻̫̰̹͇͉̘̥͎̯̰̞̻͓͂̑́͂̍͑̊̈́̀̾̈̿̇̀̏́͆̅̋̽͆̂̀͐͗̓̽̐͒̊̿̈̈́̑͌̔̕͠͝Ê̶͚̝̩̭̗͉̲͖͋̀̃̉̈́͒̈́͝͝D̷̨̨̡̩̥̹̰̣͈̖̬̰̯͇̣͖̤̜͔͍̞͕̪̖̪͎̠̙̺̝̳̭̯͔̙͊́͛̐̀́̍̌̋̈́̈́͒̀͋̇͑̿̅̈́̃͌͆̃̉̋̚͜͝͝ ̶̨̢̧̧̛̛̼̣̫̹͎̥̘͚̬̫͕̺͖͖͕̫̪̱̺̼̫̰̖̐͋̔̎̀̊͑̐̀́̏̈̓͗͋̈͒͊͆̂̕͝͝ͅM̷̢͓̱͖̿͋͋̐̑̆̿̀͗͑̅͐̄͋̀̚͘͠Ĩ̵̖͓͓̺̗̍̿͊̉́̀̈́͒͘ͅN̸̡̨̨̧̲͓̹̝͔̰͍͙̰̱̰̻̪̜͎̭͒͂͑̽͂́̾̀̎Ḋ̶̨̡̢̦͚̺̬̘̮͉̝̱̩̤̦͈̞̥̬̺͙̹͖̳̜̞̻͈͍͓̬͕͕̭̈ͅ ̵̡̢̧̛̞̙̣̥̦̺̖͍͖͈͓̳̦͉͇͈̺̤̳͍͖͕̟͔̻͙̲̻͙̹̙͂̃͒̓͑̾̒́͒̑̓̏̉͘̚̚͜͝͝C̸̡̟͎͚̺͎̼͇̺̪͙̳͎͍̖͚̬̼͉̘̗̗͗͑̆̐̀̑̓͑͐̏̂̽̔͑̀̾̿̈́͂̈́̾́̈́̍̾̔̏͂̀́͊̈́̈́͐͘̚̕̚͜͝͠͠͠Ą̷̡̛̛̛̼̱͍̈́͂͂̋̂̅̆̂̓̈̇̓̄̔̇̊̈́̀̍͗͌̓͛̃́̈́̽͋̚̚͘̕͝Ṋ̶̼͉̺͎̬̖͖̬͔̉̃̊͌̅̍͊͛̅̃̾͠N̸̮̰̈ͅỌ̷̢̡͈̲̰̬͖͕̫̫̫͉̝͉̖̘͖͓̻̞̰̬̗̟̹̯͂͌̀̐͛̿̾́̍̃̀͑̋́̿͑͗̄̾̈̉͐̇͋̎͘̚͜͝T̶̨̨̨̨̡̛͍̟̩̰͎̗̘͍̺͉̰̻͎̥̺̳͓̻̺̮͉̳̣̪̣̥̠͔̰̎̑͊̇͂͑̈́̊̓̈́͊̿̀͑̎͂͗̄̊̅̉̎̾̈́̈́͌̓̓̄̏͊̎̈́̎͘̚̚̕͜͠͠ͅͅ ̴̼̥͎̘̯̤̘͕̯̖͓̰͋̃̅̃̾̎͑̋͌͊͌͂̽̌͋̿͌̀͒̏̑͑͑̈́̕͝͠ͅÇ̸̨̲̹̮̟̖̝̥̮̘̼̗̗̼̏̈̈́͑́̔̑͐́͗̎̄̒̍̏̈́̒̒̃̉͛̈͊̓̀͛͆̀͑̕͘̕͝ͅO̶̡̘̦̮͕̱̣̳̻̻̗̣̤̥̼̜̮̭̥̦̿̓̉͊̀̾̽̔͌̈́̃̍̉̿̚͝Ṁ̷̢̡͓̦͍͍͖̳̮̹̗̳̖̮̺͖͕̩̞̺̥̫̙̯͍͓͇̹̪̗͎͔̯̅̀͂ͅP̷̢̢̟̯̳̯̥̙̲̬̠̝͈͖̬͙̲͉͉̗͔̤̫̼͓͖̝͓̀̀͑͆̽̍̈́͐̿͆͊̃̾͜͝Ř̶͇̫̞̫͕̪̺̣̹̭̻̣͖̥̬̩͕̝͉͈̤͎̜̦̠͚̭̥̺̙̩̟̙͔̣̌̽̔̆́͐͌͗́̐͐̑̇́̇́͐͒́̄̉̿̾̓͗̔͌͛̈́̔̀̉̕͜͝͠͝ͅĘ̶̡̡̥͍̘͖͕̮̭̣͖̜̻̟͚̩͓͚̺̺̻̘̮̗̣̥͈̜̫͓̮̹̭̻̍̾̍͋͛̊̾͒͊̃͗̑̌̿̑̎̓̔̓̊̏͒̅͛́̚̚̚͘̚͝H̴̨̢̨̡̛͚͕̱̙̭̙̻͔̬̥̪̺̥̱͙̘̻͚̘̳͑̃̐̎̋̈́͛̈͊̌̏͊͆̾̈́̓̕Ȩ̸̨̧̛̛̤̼͇̭̭̮͉͍͍̟̦̤̝̱̳̠̣̰͉̤̼̓͐̉́̔͒́̑͌̒͒̊̃̍͌͊̋̊͐̏̌̈́̄͗̋̀̓̋̐̕͘̚̕͘͜͝N̸̨̨̛̦̥̬̟̗̝͔͓͈̟̖͖̒́̌̈́̅̿̇͗̋͌̋̃̋̌̍̿̿ͅͅD̴̡̨̢̞̜̖̫̰̺̮̪̱̹̝̥̪͇͒̇̈́̀̈́͂̆͜͠͠ ̶̧̛̛̜͍̮͖̹̬͖̗̪̯͍̼͎͔̪̙͙̺͕̹̖͇̖̱̱̱̤͎̙̪͓̣̻̮̓̓͋̽̿͋̒͐̓̎̐̿͗̒̈́͋̓̊̔́̉̒̎̾̓̆̂̄̈́͒̂͋̒̓̑̚͘̚͜͜͠͠ͅͅŞ̴͇̠̤͙̭̫̬͎̬̖̖̥̰̼̼̘͍̠̝̜̬͍͉͔̭̪̥̭͚̠̐̄͛́̏̈́̏̍Ȗ̶̢̪͈̳̹̤̮̱̲̠̤̮̲̮̳̰̮̆ͅÇ̴̠̖͎̮̟̗̙̭̬͈̗͓̝̹̣̞̱͓̘͈̦̺̼̘̻̠̯̰̐̐͒̍̇̾͆̿̒̔͆̇̅͊͂̄̈́̋̏̋͐̒͋̀͑̊͛͐͑̽̉͗͗͒͋̐̚͠ͅH̵̛̜͔̝̰̯͚̞͕̬̹̰͖̟͙̲̩͚̲̦̩̖̯͓̩͆́͆͑͗̾̉̈́̍̍͌͂̄̒̉̓̔̀̔̊̍̕̕ͅ ̸̮̪̼̣͓̳̻̬̼̖̠̞̰̲̦̪̥̓͐̋͂͛̄́͐̈́͂̌̋̒̐̒̀́̊͋̆̎̏̀̓͂́̎͌̇̀̏̊͐͆̋̋̕͝ͅI̷̗̭͕̳͖̝̩̙̙̟̩̻̖̟̖̭̮͎͙̟̘͈̹͈̪̥̎̏͒̉̊̔̅̀̅̋͐̍͆̾̀̀̈́̀́͐́̊̽̂̎͋͘̚͜͜͝D̸̨͍̬͍̮̥͈̩̦̞̞̭̙̠̭̳̼̪̙̝̝̺̎̄̈́͆̉͗̔̀̅́͋͂͗̍̋̓̄́͌͆͋̉̑̄̍̓͒̌̂̏̊͗͗͗͘̕̕͘͠͠͠͠E̵̡̛̛̙̠̙̖̥͎̲͈̤̹̳̻̟̦̝̹̥͖̟̹͈͚̟̼͕̥̲͔̘͓͊̅̎́̽̿̋͌̇́͑̒̐̉͂̄̑̔̓͂̑̚͠͠Ơ̶̡̧͙͚͖͕̜̞̙͇̺̦̪̻̳͈̥͔͙̗̭͓̼̗̯̙͚͙͔̥̖̝̥̽̀̒͋͜͝ͅL̷̢̡̨̛̮̳̠͕͇̘̼̣̻̫͔̮̣͕̫̼̼͎͖͓̞̤͕̦͓̱̮͆̀͛̈́̑͌̑͑̊̋̾̈́̽͐̚Ơ̵̰̫̜̟͍̠̣̠̗̺̲͎̻͔̟̰͍̼̬̬̫̈̌̆̓̀́̏̊̅̇̇͌̎̀̇̄̿͒͛̐͌̒́̕͝͠Ǵ̵̛͕̩̪͙̺̯̫̮̖͓͕̟͔̠̼̱̎̿̍̂͛̈́̋̒̚̕̚͜͠͝Y̴̧̨̡̡̡̝̻͖̯̝͖̝̻̤̳̘̫̠̮̙̘͈̻͂͂̌̄͋͑͐̾͂͜͜͠ ̶̩̱͇̺͎̘̯̩̣̥͍̫̫̼͚̂̇̑̿́̓̐̾Ą̴͍̪͇̣͙͓̲̗̹̯͓̦͈̱̻̝̳̞̻̖̊̌A̷̧̛̯̯̰̲̪̰͈̱̗͖̝̻̯̮͚̻̾͑̈̐́̃͂̒͂̅͆̄͐̈̄̏̈́̔̈́̽̑̏̎̒͆̔̽̚͜͜͝͠͠A̷̫̱͎͖͙͍̠̗̰̩̙͕̝͔̲̎̀̈́́̂̔̏̓̈́͗̎͆̂͆́̆͛̌͒̉̕͠͝ͅẠ̶̡̰͇̙̪̬͓̠̺̌͌̆̄͆̔̂͋̿͐͆̓͊̿͐̕̕̕͜͝͝Ą̴̧̧͓͓̱͇̺̲̞͙͓̱͓̮̩̼͔͎̱̞̼̜͋̀̅̅̓̄̊̈́̄́̑͆̀̈́̒̓͌̓́͌̄̓͐̾́̈͛̚͝À̷̧̨̧̺̱̟̭̣̱̲͍̺̰̳͓̳̮̦̜͖̹͔͚͎̺̺̟̰͗̾̔͜A̷̡̡̠̬̮̣̼̙̻̥̫̩͙̮̪̳̗̺͕̾̏̓̎̐̍̏̒̀͐͒̀͊̄̄̃͛͂̈́̓́͋͌̓̿͘͝͝͝Ą̴̡̧̢̨̡̨̧̡̥̫̝͖̣̱͖͔͈̺̭̰̯̩̩̹͇͔̬̣̥͉̱̖̹̣͕̯̙̍͑̌̀̀̀̐̔̎̈́͆̋͒̈̀̎̇͑̅̽̽͗͘̚̕͝͝͝͝A̴̢̨̨͉̥̘̺͖͎̱̦̻̲̫̲͖͕̝̭̦̲͗̆̓͋͒͊͂͗̕A̸̤͆̀͊̈̍͋̆̅̏́̀͒̔̓̋͊̈́̄͒̽̉̂̔̍̚͘͝͠͝Ą̷̢̢̛͕̫̻͎͙͎̙͖̜̝̲̮͖̮̗̣̯͉͍̭͍̹̻́̆͆̏̊̆̓̌͐̀̒̀͌̈̏̌̑̓̉̔́̽͐̔͘͜͝͝ͅA̸̧̮̣͍͉̬̩̠̖͚̻̣̲͙͍̹͈͎̪͋̃̽̏̀͒̓̓̍̿̃͂̑̒́͒̄͗̇̔̈́̏̅̚̕͜͠͠ͅA̵̡͔̺̥̠͙̙̲̯̜̯̻͖͕̤̮̱̱̱̤̦̠̹͉̜̝͙̪͔̥̩͉̗̋͂̈́̾̀̐̓̀̉̍̅̓̈̑̀́̒͑̒͊͊̀̍̉̋͂͆̒̕͜͝ͅA̸̛͔̰͉͎͒͛̌̃̅̿̐͒͗̆͛͗̔̋̈́̕ͅͅÄ̵̧̧̼̺̦͖̖͚̼̲̻͕̭͚̮͖̯̖͙͙̬̥̰́̽̃̒̀̾̇́̑̿̈̓͜ͅȀ̵̡̢̼̖̣͓̘̝̺̜̮͎̹̠̥͇̯̪͔̜̞̹͙̜̓̂͌̀̃͛͐̔̊̉̔͐̈́́̕͜͜͝͝Ä̴̢̡̧̡̡̜̦͎̮͇̮̜͙̬͎̥͈̫̤͕̮͍̥̣̝̯͔̹̞̃̉̏͑̀͋̓͂̋͒̊̃͆̓͛͜͜͠A̶̡̡̳̞͖̝̲͔͑̀͌̈̀̋̌̈̋̈̈́͊̓̿͒̓͆̑́̎̀̕̕͜͜͠͝ͅĄ̵̡̛̛̰̭̳̰̘̝̪̳̙͕̰͓̲̰͙̟͉̾͗̍͗́̽̒͐͆́͗́͗͗͛͑̉͒̈̐́̍̂̒̋̎̕̚͝͝͝͝͠Ă̶̢̛̹̦͎͈̩̙̲͕̱̜̬̼̫͔̯̮̺̘̙͍̗̓̊͂̿̓͊́́̐̔̈́̊̒̎́̐̍̀́͗͂̈͛̌̾̌͒͋͌̽̏̕̕̕͜͠͝A̷̡̧̢̻̭͈̜̺̼̖̗̦̞̻̠̭͍͓͔̻͍̤̭̜͙̯͉̪͔̙͇̖̱͉͖̜̘͛̑͑̋̈́̐͒̍͒̽͛̆̓͜͜͜͜͝Å̸̦̥̣̰̤͓͚̰̬̤̺̫̗͑̆͐̋̒̋͋̓̍̓̌̆̍̓̓̾͂̍͑͐̂̇̏̈́̇͒͘̕̕͜͝͝͝A̸̢̛̩͙̽͗̓̋̉̋͆͒͗̔̏̍͆̈́̃͂̀̓̃͋͐̿͒͑͌̒̓͑̕̕͘͝͝͝Ą̵̡̡͈̼̦͔͈͚̝͇͔̫̪̭͓̭̼͉̟͍̭̼̗͚̝̇̿̈́̽̀̈̃̑͛͊̍͊̋̿̋́͆͌͒̉́͋͌̚͝͝͝ͅÁ̶̡̛̤͕̳͍̬̺̯̻͓̠̙̱̰͎̯̲̱̱̘̪̟̦͖͖̪͈̦̻̅͆́͛̽̈͛̀̂̔̽͒̓̌̍̑͆̾͒̾̈͒̚͘̚͜͜A̴̢̡̝̯̭͙̬͈̪̹͔̰̽̀́̊́͐͋̈́̑̔͐̓̌̿̌̈̾̆̐͒̊̋͊̅̆͊͌̓̒̕̕͝͠A̵̛͚͇̯̠͓̼̣̲̭͗̌͌̎̄͆̑̅͊̈́͋̀̃̎̈͆͆̊͋̽̓͒̽̄̄̽̐̋̓̀̾̈̇̍̕̕͠͝͠Ą̵̢̨̝̘̟̮͖͖̹̣͓͍̻͎̯͇͚̠̮̱̪̪̘͔͚̫̽̋̇͑̏̇̆̀͋̃͛̌͛̓̔̔̄̇́̈́͑̓́̄̓͘̕͝ͅͅÀ̵̡̛͚̪̬̺̘̥̠͉͔͎̹̼̂͋̃̔̑͑̀̌̓̄̒͗̀̃̿̃̈́͒͊́̈́̋̐̄̈̎͑̉͑͂̈́͌̅͑̕͝A̷̡̲͔̲̝͈͈̲̔̿͑͆̀͊̈́̿͋̀̚͝Ą̷̢̨̡͇͕̮̱̝͙̬̖̣̟̯̹͉̯̾̈́̾̀͛̉̓̓̉̅͐͗̈́̑̉̀͒̋̃͆͊́͗̅̍̽̃͒̒̀̏̕̚̕͘͜ͅA̴̧̮̪̞̹̳̺̱͖̻͎͔̣̝̯̙̖̤͉̭̼̺̞̝͎̔̀͑̅̊̓̿̆̂̽̏̓̐̓͑̚͝͝͠ͅA̴̡̨̧̧̳̤͚̳̞͇̼̞̦̥̩͎̼͎̺̬͚͓̪̰̤̖͔͎͓̮͈͋ͅĄ̸̨̜̠̠͍͓̮̫͍̹̙͚̗̪̦̳̫͚̬͍͎̩̺͍̳̙̲̜͌̂̅̎̈̐̊̽̒̈́̓̉̀̚͜͜À̶̧̡̢̨̝͓̝̥̭̥͎̖̦̰̻̹͖̞̹̹͓̻̭̺̱̜̯͂Ả̷̢̧̨̳̠̜̱͙̱̪̓̐̎̔̍́͊͐̓̇̋̒̿̇́̈́̄̆̑̊͂̽͝͝A̸̧͕̳̭̤̣̰͎̜͓̲̜̭̿͗Ą̵̨̨͙̼͎̣̼̼̙͔͚̫̦̫̘̪̠͈̳̫̻̰̤̬̮̬̗͔̾̿̾̇̇̄̒̆̉̔̀̐͊̓̓̄̓̏͌̐̈̀̏͌͆̀̍͐̏́̊̒̔̚̕͜͜͜͝A̵̧̧̧̛̛̲͚͖̝̫̠̗̪̞̭̱̘̖̺̼͎͍͙͒̓̽̂͐̑́̽̒͒́͒́͂̂͗̃͊̅͒͑̐͂̏͂͋́̄̋̄̅͆͐͌̏͛̽̚͝ͅǍ̴͔̖͎̥̘̤̤̯̩̤̃́̈̎́͆̒̆̉̈́̓́͆̅͐̾͒̆̒̈́̈́̈̉̃̏̈͐̾̕͘̕͝Ą̸̢̡̨͓͖̪͎̣̺͈͖̪̥̟̙͈͎̖͙̼̮̣͕͔̖͉͚̹͇̖̜̘̱̻̄̍͊̔͊͆̐̆̑̿̎̈͑̌̐͒̽̽̈́͜͝A̷̡̡̨̡̨̛̖͉̰̩̙͍͓̬̰̰̖͚̘̥͎̖͙̭͈̩̻͍̪̺͔͓̯͎̣̩̹̭̟̗̤̺̓̔̓̔̾̍͋͋̊̉̔̍̿́̒́͒͒̀̈́̆̉̈́̓͘͘͠͝A̸̧̛͔̬̳̞̦̹̬̖̟̬̤̜̝̭͚͓̬͔͕͎̘̦̯̭͒̋̽̽͗͌͂̾̉̍̾̽̇̅̆̇̾̀̈́̋́̆̈̽̽̀͋̓̂͗̈̓̉̚̕͝͝Ã̸̧̪̬̺͓̩̲̬̞̹̲͔̦͔̗̳͎̼̼̲͓͔̬̻̱̭͆̎̓̌̈̃͋͋̎͂́̋̋͊̄̌̉̀̾̂̊̀͝͝Ä̸̡̨̛̳͖̯̠͖̳͎͇̠̲͎̗̺̳̖̻͔͔̺͎͈͎͙͍́̿̃͋Ą̷̢̢͕͔̹̣͓̖̜͍͓̱͚͚͇͈̤̠͓̙̮̩͚̤̯̰̳̮̝͍̙̯̭̭͈̳̱̖͇̤̈́͂̈͑̀̍̽̌̋̿̒̈́͗͒͗́̿́̔̒̀͗̆̓́̌͛͊̃̆͊́̐̈́̑̕̚͠͠͠ͅA̴̛̦̫̜̖̰̯̫̽̈́́̄͆̅̿͌̂͒̔̂̾̈́̋̿̓̎̾̉̚̕̚̚͜͝͝͝A̵̧̢̧̛̛̯̳͚̫͙̖̘̜̼̼̣̠̟͌̉́͂́̔͂̂̔͐͗̐̓͒̇̈͂̐̀̏́͛̿̂̉̈͗̽̀̔͊͒̔̀̿̌͌͘͝͝A̸̧̛̛̟̳̻̣͕̙̫̫̺̺̤͙͚͉̘̠̥̱̩̞̖̠̲̘̘͈̤̖̮̥̣̜̩̭̲̝̺̒̈́͆͆̋͆̌͐̽̐̈́͐́̈́̀̎͆̽̎̂͊͝͠͠͝ͅA̷̢̢̰̠̻͖̭̫͓̤̝͔͉͔̟̝̠͉͕̹̯͖̭̖̳̻̙͓̹̩̣̦̝͉͇̘̯̹̫̘͚̺̽̌͑͌͋͝͝Ã̸̧̧̡͈̥͇̤̤͔̰͔͊̍͆̀̃́͊͒͆͛̆͊̈́̽͛́̎̕͜ͅẠ̴̧̡̯̲̫̰͚̮̻̫̤͍͙̭͚̹̬͇͔̦͍̟̬̙͂̾̓̑͜Ã̵̡̡̙̻̙͍̬̉͆̚Å̸̡̢̨̡̡͎͎͖̬͉̪͈̬̬̣͚̺̮͉̞̲̣̯͇̙̪͎͍̹̲̐̑͒̀̆̏̆̅͐͊̋̎̒͒͊́̍̄̌̋̒́̿͋̓́͂́̿͂͋́̀̕͘͘̚͜͜͝͝͠͝A̸̛̠̹̯̥͐͑̉̈́̒̈̆̿̈̑̐̔̈̒̃̆̎̇͝͝A̵̩̝̿̐̂̃̆̔̋̊̈́͗̈́̈̿͂͋̒͛̈́̉̿̄̓͂̓̉̈́́͝͝A̵̡̦͓̦͓̗̦̳̺̋̈́̾̍͐͐̈͆̽̋̾͜͠͝A̸͖̦͚̬͒͛̃̊̒͒͊̈̉̇̾́̄̿̿͑̇́͝͝͠͠Ą̸̡̢̡̢̢̡̻̖̪͓̣͙̝̼̞͓̟̤͎̼̲̖̯̞̤͕͈͇̦̪̖͍̻̯͖̳̘̟̉̅̂͑̄̍́̉̾͒͊̎͛͌͋́́̿̃̓̄͒̉̕̕͜͝͝͠ͅA̴̼͗̉̀́Å̶̝͍͚̮̝̦̬͒͐̊͌͠͝A̶̗̩̜̖̱͔͑̾̎̏́̇̔́͆̈́̊͌Ȃ̴͔̫̣̠̲̺̙̬̲̻̙͕͕̺̟̭̜̮̝̣̪̻̳̱̞̦̞̯͑̈́͜ͅA̴̢̡̳͖͇͈̯̩̽̉̉̂́͗̈́̈̉̉́̅̍̔͆͊̇̿̾͋̎͗͂̿̓̚̚͜͝͝ͅͅA̸̟͉̮̠͈̳̺̘̳̣̩̝͕̰̞̩͍̘͓̩̜̦̝̰̗͕͇̙̱̹̼̪͍̽͂̆̅͗̈́̑̔͊̏̃̾͑̄͂̒̇̋̄̋̑̇͗̎͊̆͂̓͒͂̑̚͘̚̚͜͜͠͠͠͠Ǎ̴̱̞̙̻͇̩̞̬͙̪̼̗͎̗̈́̅͌̔̈́̑̿̐̐̂͒̈́̊̆̅̊̾̾̋͐͆̂͆̆̀̉̎́̅̕̕̚͜͝ͅA̷̢͈͖̫̠̹̳̮̽͋̈́́̎̃̈́̚ͅA̷̧̧̗̩͉͙̞̲͈̦̼̱̫̗̺̫͙͓̼̪̝͋̓̒̐̋̀̔͗̈́̓̾̒̎͛͊̓̏̿͂̈́̎̀̾̀̈́̆̌̃̍͐̓͒͘͘͠͠͝A̸̛̝͓̰̗̓͐̽̾̔͊̋́̐͒̀̓͆̌͋̽̀̚̕Ā̶̡̛̛͕͕̞̰̠̺͖͖̰̻̖̱̣̥̭̺̗͕̺̣͔͉̥͉͓̳̟̟̠̞͈̦̯̱̝͖͚͊̐̃͊̉̈́̄̂̒̓̅̓͑̎̃̂̽̿̌́͊̆̊̌͛̉̓͑̄̅̇͜͝͝͝A̷̢̡̡̛̦̟̮̦̮͔̭̗̪̘̬̹̻̘͍̳̦̹͆̇̉̓̄͑̃̌̐̏̉̉͂͐̈́̅̚Ã̶̡̨̛̟̝̻̤͉̙͈͕̝̞̞͉̦͖̯̦͍̟̮̲̮̦̦̼̬̔̒̄̉̀͊͋̃̉́̽͊͐̄͗̓͌̾̌̉̀̿̍̿̅̍̕͘͝͠A̵̛͇͚͖͓̝̹̘̥̻̮̻̗͖͎̙̻̰̭͈͉̒̄̅̉͑̒̇̿́͊͘̚̚̕͝͝A̶̧̨͎̘͇͕͕̜̬̹͔̖̘͓͍̹͊̇͆̆̚A̶̞͈̻͒̓̈́̈́̉̅̍͋̌̿͋̓͌͗̔́̔͊̾́̔̄̾͗̒͒̈́̆̀̅̋͑̒̚̚̕͠͝͝͝͝Ą̵̢̡̛̥̬̖͓̝̩̺̱̠̥̮̰̪̞̬̼͍͚͙̩͕̲͕̭̟͔̹͔̲͒́̄̈́͆̏̽̉̽̏́̈́̐̑͊̓̏̉̃̎̏̎̈́͐̍̑̍̍͆̔̑̆̈̽͘͜͝͠͝Ä̷̢̡̡̢̧͉̙̻͙̤̩͔̤͎͖̩͓̦̪͕̞̪̹̼͔̩̥͔̱́̍͋̽̈́͗̓̌̈́͆̈́͗̇̽͆̊͆̔͊̂̀̇́̓̿̏̕͘̚͠͝A̵̧͇̙̙̞̘̽̇̎͊͐̂́̈̐̈͝͠Ą̷̛̗͇͕̺̤̲̬͍̫̣͕͇͓̳̜͙̣̯̹̝̠͓̬̘̩͗̓͑͆̀̒̔̅̆̓͒͒͊͋̍̍́̓͊̒̎̎͆͋̿̚̕͘̚̕͘͝͠͝͝͝͠͠͝͝͝ͅÄ̷̧̬̘̻̤̺̲͚̟͖̞̦́̃̉̈̑̓̀̔̈́͊̿̒͠͝͝Å̴̢͇̗̱̲͙̪̪̻̹̥̙̹̍͊͒̑ͅA̵̡̡̡̙̝̜͎̻̜̤̲̣͇̝̱͈̭̦̖͖̩͎̤̯͍͖̘͉̙̟̼̓̔̽̽͊̋́̍͂̋́̋̈́́̀̎̈̃͑̈́̆̿͌̍̚̚͠͠͝͠͝͝A̷̢̨̡͍͎̜͎͙̣͎̭͎͍̟̯̱̱̰̼̰̝̣̤̯̟̪͕̫͚͎͎̣̲͙̫̳͇̓̾̄̈́͆͌̑̕Ą̷̭̻͓͖̩͙̙̠̱͈͖̬͔̬̭̪̮͔͕̺͖̖̜͖̥̬͉͚̹̳̗͖͔̰͈͋A̶̠̫̙̬͆͊̈́̅̽Ą̶̼̱̟̼͍͖͈̯̲̤̬̱̪̻̼̰̦̊̈́̃͘͜͠Å̶̲̮̜̗͎̳͈͓͉̣͉͕͉͍̲̭̬̱̹̙̻̞̞̫̃̓̒͗͂́̌͒̊̐̀̓̍̔͆̾̃̒̈͆̊̀̒̍̓̔̾͜͝͠ͅĄ̴̨̢̖͈̗̼̘̖͙̻͉̩͕̪̼̺̺̝̗̟̮̗͎̦̿̐̊̒̒̀͒͑̄̑̔͒̈́̅̾̑͌͑͑̇͋͐̈́̏͛̕͜͠͝͠À̴̢̧̧̢̙̥̙̱͉̘͕̙̰͎̩͇̳̭͎̘͍̣͓͖̤͎̯̲̬̬̠̤̃̏̈̈́̓̅́̌̽̇̈́͂́͌́̑͆̇̄̆͑̊̓̄̀̀̾̋̊͜͝͝͝͠A̷̡̧̡̛̛̞͙̥̹̳͚͔̹̮̙̱͈̗͓̿̽̐̾͌́̿̍̈́͋͆̒̄̓́̎͆̉̈́̓̄̓̐͆̈̀͆̉̕̚͘͝͠͝Ą̵̨̢̧̡̘̘̜͕̱̪̱͖͕͇̲͍̩̫̮͍̹̻͍̗̊̎̒͊͂̔̍̈́͑͆̉̈̍̎͛͛͋̒̃̈́͑̓́͝͠͠͝ͅͅA̸̡̧̡̬̥͓͔̘̭̖͉̙͈̱͕̪̱̮͔̻̗̲̱͈̟̰̠̅͜A̷̰͉̭͍͓̅̒̐͆̃͆͋̑̄̌̎̔͌̋͝͝Ą̴̨̛̛̞̩͍̻̲̬̰͍͕͓̞̪͙̙̪̼͚̝̻͕͉̠͈̹͉͎̠̱̙̦̭̹͍͍͇̠̟͆́͛͒̏̃̉͛̽̉͗̅̾̊͛̈́̌̈́̽̊͒̍̽̚̕͝͝͝͝͝Å̷̡̧̡̰̭͔̪̭̩̪̭̰̪̥͕̱̗͉͇̠̼̝͉̞̞̩̞̻̣̻̮̣͖̮̗̱̤̮̤̩͙̥̈́̒̄͛́̎̇̄́͒͆̈́̓̐͂̀̿͘̚͘͝͠͝͝A̸͖̣͙̠͍̥̖̙̮̤̍̄̈͝Ạ̴̻̙̎̇̄͗̀͝͝͝A̷̢̢̞̞͚̥͚̼͔̪̳͉̟͕̰̳̘̱͕̬̱̝̭͎̹͇͉̱̦̻̻̦͙̙̫̫̭̠͍̽̉̀̔̓̓͐̓̍̋͑̍̽͌̅̈́̐̄̂̉͊͒̓̈́́͆͛̕͘Ầ̴̧̤̳̲̗̝̙͋̒̍̌͋̊͛͋͌̍̐̇̉̓̽͋͐̍͐͛͌́͋̽͛̀̍̈͐̕͠͝͠͝͝Ǎ̵̡̨͈̺̙̜̮͇͙̹̯̭͉̦̦̻͛̅̂̊̉̎̐̄̾̄͗̂͊̔̋̾̈́̅̾͗̉͊͋̑͐̈́̄̍̊͆̇͋̒͘͝͝͝A̴̧̨̱̯̻͖̝̣̦̜̦̼̼̘̬͚̠̝͉̱̫͑̄̔̈́̉͗̒̌̑̕͝ͅA̷̛̦̥̲̙̝̪͔̝̹̗̫̋̀͛̀̆̑̋̎̀̈́̆̔̿͗͂̈́̔̔̌͋͋̎̚͘͘͝Ä̶̢͍͕͍̰͎̘͙̖̥̱́̋͆̐̓͋͝Ǎ̸̡̛̖̟̼̦̣̟̟̮̞̪̞̃̊̏̌͋̋̅̍͒̾̊̏́̔͒̚͠͝͝͝A̷͕̙͇̤͇̍͌̎̈̆̿͑̾́̒̀͆̐͑̊̎̇͠͝͠͝A̷̧͚̰̰̹̫͍͍͖̖̗̳̩̞̺͉͈̮̥͎̮͛̍́̂͘͜Ă̸̧̧̢̛̻̘̣̤̠̦̻̪̞̻̩͆̈́̅̌̇̀̾̓̐̉̏͑̃̔̆̑̈́̕A̴̼̣̞̤̝̫͍̠̯̎̍̍͛̏̈́̏̀̍͒̿̄̊́̐͗̽̕͝ͅA̵̢̡̢̢̟͍̳͖̥͉̟͍̣̪̗̺͓̯͚͔͍̞͖̳̬͇̝͍͌̅̇͒ͅ

Comments

  • Council Marxism Would you mind if I were to replace the LeftCom armchair emoji you put in my page with one of Council Communism in an Armchair?
  • Council Marxism Good job on the remaking of the drawings and flag, it looks really good /gen
    • - Thanks gurl, I appreciate it!


Add List

Navigation

Gallery

  • First Version by HEW!

    First Version by HEW!

  • Second Version by HEW! (The hat and the flag were added by me)

    Second Version by HEW! (The hat and the flag were added by me)

  • Second version by Curly Wurly!

    Second version by Curly Wurly!

Template:Market Socialists


Retrieved from "https://pcbwiki.net/index.php?title=Armandonian_Liberalism&oldid=453663"

Recent changes

  • Paternalism
    PaternalistUnity • 26 minutes ago
  • Dissident Right
    SocialistWorldRepublic • 27 minutes ago
  • Paternalism
    PaternalistUnity • 41 minutes ago
  • Paternalism
    PaternalistUnity • 56 minutes ago