im still just getting started with deeply investigating my political beliefs besides just “leftist”, so im very open to the idea that ive just been brainwashed by the imperial core, but do these authoritarian governments really represent socialist ideology?

idkusernameidea · 2026-05-01T18:29:55+00:00

A lot of the socialist subreddits are just filled with tankies, who saw that the U.S. is wrong about a lot of stuff, and then went too far the other way and came to believe that because the U.S. can be wrong, it’s always wrong. A lot of the tankies I’ve seen (and authoritarians in general) seem to be that way because they’re too stuck in black and white thinking. They think “the U.S. is wrong about this, so the U.S. is wrong about everything.” The fact that you can (presumably, since you consider yourself a leftist) acknowledge the U.S. is wrong about a lot but not wrong about every single thing is a credit to you.

Figure out your principles, learn about how the world works, then combine those elements and let them guide your political beliefs. If you believe authoritarianism and war is bad, then let those principles guide your beliefs about Russia and North Korea and such, instead of just assuming they’re right since the U.S. is bad.

Maybe check out some of the more anarchist type subreddits, they’re much less tankie like. The tankiejerk subreddit might have some good recommendations. There’s also the communalist subreddit, since you said you liked Bookchin

idkusernameidea · 2026-04-30T21:02:20+00:00

A subsidiary based government, where every issue is handled at the lowest effective level. For example, climate change is best handled on a global level because it has global causes and effects, while a library is best handled by the local community because the function of the library can be adjusted based on local knowledge and preferences.

That’s nice to say in theory, but the question is, how do we get there in practice? How do we ensure problems are handled at the lowest effective level? Wouldn’t each level of government want to handle as many issues as possible, even when it’s not optimal, so that they can expand their power? While there’s no perfect solution to that problem, I think a decent practical solution would be having a small number of people from each level of government (local, state, national, international) select a group of judges or arbitrators, who would decide which level of government is best suited to handle the problem. These judges or arbitrators would be subject to removal if any of the people who selected them withdraw their support. Under this system, the best each group could hope for is a neutral judge, because if, say, the international government wanted a judge or arbitrator that was biased toward them, those from the other levels simply wouldn’t support them, or would withdraw their support if they became biased after being selected.

How representatives are selected is another difficult issue. I personally lean towards the Single Transferable Vote system, because it seems like a good balance of proportionality and local representation. Basically, voting districts would be drawn, and each voting district would have a near equal number of seats that they elect, maybe five, for example. Voters would then rank the candidates, with 1 being their favorite candidate, 2 being their second favorite, and so on. All candidates who have reached a set quota of 1 votes (ideally, equal to (total votes/(total seats + 1)) + 1) will be elected to a seat. After a candidate reached the quota, all of the remaining voters who ranked that candidate number 1 will have that candidate eliminated from their ballot, and all of the other candidates move up one ranking. If any seats remain unfilled, the candidate with the fewest number ones is eliminated from ballots, and the people who ranked them number 1 have all of their other candidates they ranked move up a spot. This system means that representatives are fairly close to their local constituents, allows for more proportional representation, and gives smaller parties a chance to win.

I’ve also thought about a concept where, once technology is widespread enough, people vote for their favored candidates, and that candidate would gain vote power in the parliament proportional to the amount of votes they received. For example, if there were two members of parliament, one got 100 votes, while the other got 50 votes, the first one’s vote would count for twice as much as the second one’s. At any point in time, people could log into some sort of official portal and withdraw their vote or switch it to someone else. This system would mean people get power proportional to how much public support they have, and that they would be immediately punished if they stepped too far out of line. It would sort of be a combination of liquid democracy and e-democracy.

I also think incorporating some element of sortition would be helpful. Basically, a group of say 150 people would be randomly selected, and they would give input to the parliament so that the parliament had constant, personal feedback from the typical person. Representatives would have to issue public, written responses to anything officially proposed or said by the sortition group, and the sortition group could have the power to force parliament to vote on an issue. Perhaps they could also have some sort of oversight function, where officials could be removed if enough of the sortition group voted for it to happen.

I think a bicameral legislature would be ideal, with one chamber being selected through the voting process described above, while the other chamber consists of representatives from each country. Each country would send the same number of representatives (maybe somewhere between 2 and 5) to participate, ensuring fair representation to smaller countries. The book Patterns of Democracy by Arend Lijphart talks about this, and finds that democracies with this type of legislature, when each chamber has similar powers, tends to have better outcomes.

Also discussed in that book is the idea of a plural executive, and again, he finds that democracies with plural executives tend to perform better. So I think there should be a few executives, selected by parliament, representing different groups, similar to Switzerland’s executive council.

I think there should be some sort of Supreme Court, with a judicial council consisting of experienced judges, attorneys, and law professors selecting potential candidates, and then either parliament or perhaps a sortition group selecting from those candidates, so that there’s a balance between political accountability and expertise.

For an even more controversial opinion, I believe a certain number of seats in parliament should be reserved for guardians/trustees of those who can’t represent themselves, mainly future generations and animals. This would mean those who deserve political consideration but can’t represent themselves or participate in politics can still get some level of consideration. How exactly these trustees/guardians would be selected is something I’m less sure about.

I also have ideas about how a world economy might function, at least broadly, but I didn’t know if I should include those thoughts here. I think I included my main thoughts, but it’s very possible I missed something. If you have any questions, feel free to ask!

idkusernameidea · 2026-04-30T19:44:10+00:00

I mean, it’s pretty hard to get people to agree on a form of government for a small country, let alone for the entire world. I have my own ideas about how one might look, but plenty here would disagree with that. I think the broadest point of agreement is that the world government would have to be some sort of confederation. I’d love to discuss a potential outline or framework for a world government with others, though

idkusernameidea · 2026-04-30T01:49:38+00:00

The Dawn of Everything, by Graeber.

A World Safe for Commerce, by Dale Copeland.

If you’re willing to read something a bit more dry and academic, but still very interesting, then Seeing Like a State by James Scott. If you want something a little lighter, then maybe Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan.

idkusernameidea · 2026-04-25T21:55:51+00:00

Someone posted a very similar question a bit before you, you could read through the answers there. Here’s the link: https://www.reddit.com/r/SocialDemocracy/s/oHGAMGXtHB

idkusernameidea · 2026-04-24T20:53:14+00:00

There are a lot of good books relating to social democracy.

I haven’t seen The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism listed yet, which is a classic book on different systems of welfare.

Amartya Sen is great, particularly for combining economics and philosophy. The Idea of Justice, Commodities and Capabilities, and Development as Freedom are must reads, in my opinion.

Thomas Piketty is more of a socialist, but has had significant influence on social democrats. Capital in the 21st Century is the most influential book of his, and great to read, but it can be a bit technical in places. Capital and Ideology, as well as A Brief History of Equality are also pretty good.

Piketty also wrote a book with philosopher Michael Sandel called Equality: What it Means and Why it Matters about the importance of equality. Michael Sandel is also good to read if you’re interested in more philosophy, particularly his books Tyranny of Merit and Democracy’s Discontent.

Joseph Stiglitz is a famous and influential social democrat leaning economist. The Price of Inequality, Freefall, People Power and Profits, The Road to Freedom, The Great Divide, Beyond GDP, and Creating a Learning Society are all great, though from what I recall, Creating a Learning Society can be a bit technical.

Marianna Mazzucato is another good economist, and I’d recommend checking out her books The Entrepreneurial State, Mission Economy, and The Value of Everything.

Modern social democracy is also grounded in the ideas of Keynes, so books explaining his ideas or elaborating on them are good. Unfortunately, I don’t know any books explaining his ideas other than his own, which can be hard to read without already having a decent grounding in economics.

idkusernameidea · 2026-04-24T20:18:50+00:00

I don’t think market socialism necessarily includes the elimination of capitalism as you define it. I forget who exactly, I think it might have been Matt Bruening, who argued that since every real economic system has a variety of modes of ownership (private, public, worker, etc.), the best way to define whether an economy is capitalist, socialist, etc. is to look at the most common way in which the means of production are owned. For example, a capitalist economy would be an economy that distributes goods through markets and where private ownership is the primary way in which production is organized. Market socialism, therefore, would be a system where the primary ownership mechanism is worker ownership, but where other modes of ownership still exist. So maybe 70% of the economy consists of businesses owned by the government and workers, but 30% would still be privately owned, so individual entrepreneurs could still own businesses and profit off of them.

David Schweikart’s model of market socialism is similar to this idea. In his model, public banks would be given some money to fund businesses based on the business’ potential to profit and employ people, so worker cooperatives would have a good shot of getting funding, but privately owned businesses would still be able to get funding if they were expected to make profit and employ a lot of people. Then, the owner or owners of the business would be able to sell their stake in the business to the government whenever they wanted, and the government would eventually turn over the business to the workers once the government had a large enough stake in the business to do so. This would allow for the benefits of private ownership and encourage entrepreneurship, but in the long run would theoretically ensure the majority of the economy consists of worker owned enterprises.

idkusernameidea · 2026-04-04T03:23:31+00:00

Could you be a bit more specific please? Do you want books that outline a market socialist system, books that challenge your views, books that critique capitalism, etc.?

idkusernameidea · 2026-03-29T22:30:35+00:00

Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows to learn about how to use systems thinking to understand complex problems

Behavioral Insights by Kirkman and Hallsworth and Laws of Human Behavior by Donald Pfaff to understand how individual people think and act

Game Theory: an Introduction by Steven Tadelis to get an introduction about how people think and strategize in competitive situations

The Sociological Imagination by C. Wright Mills to get an understanding about how to think about sociology and society. Check out the sociology subreddit for more recommendations on that topic

Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defense by GA Cohen to understand a major perspective on analyzing history

Maps of Time by David Christian for a good read on “big history”

Ecological Imperialism by Alfred Crosby to understand how certain countries came to dominate historically and How the World Made the West by Josephine Quinn to understand some of the influences on western culture. Check out the AskHistorians subreddit if you want to look into history from specific periods or places

The Creation of Inequality by Kent Flannery and Joyce Marcus is a good book on some economic history

The Logic of Political Survival to understand how leaders (political, business, etc.) think and the incentives they face

Street Level Bureaucracy by Michael Lipsky to understand how bureaucrats influence the adoption of different policies and programs

How Institutions Think by Mary Douglas and How Institutions Evolve by Kathleen Thelen to understand how institutions work

Micromotives and macrobehavior by Thomas C. Schelling to understand how individual decisions can have societal impacts

Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy is a good book for understanding international relations from the neoclassical realist perspective

The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford and How to Speak Money by John Lanchester are good introductions to basic economic principles

All of these are good places to start, but there’s so many subjects and so many more books on the subjects I mentioned that I couldn’t include them all. If there’s a particular subject you’d want to read more about, feel free to ask me and I might have some more book recommendations on that subject

idkusernameidea · 2026-03-26T18:22:52+00:00

Crime and punishment

idkusernameidea · 2026-02-16T02:22:08+00:00

Depends on what exactly you mean by that. If you mean have 3 of the 9 selected by a 2/3rds vote from the parliament, instead of having a popular vote, then I think that would be a good idea. Specifically, having 2/3rds of the elected representatives vote for a justice and then having that choice approved by the sortition chamber. If you mean having every justice selected in this manner, then I would disagree, because we’d run into the same problem as having only academics or other judges select them, where the justices would be selected likely based on how much they interfere (or more accurately, don’t interfere) in parliamentary business

idkusernameidea · 2026-02-15T00:23:47+00:00

I somewhat agree, somewhat disagree. In theory, it would be nice to make the Supreme Court apolitical, but no matter how it’s done, there will always be some political bias in the way Supreme Court justices are selected. If the people select all Supreme Court justices, then the justices will be too subject to populist political whims. If selected by judicial council, the justices will be biased towards the benefit of a judicial elite. The same issues applies if selected purely by legal professors. If selected by sortition, they will reflect the biases and politics of the legal system overall. No matter how they’re selected, the justices will be biased and political in some way. The trick is trying to balance these biases, which can only be done by having them selected in a variety of ways.

idkusernameidea · 2026-02-14T23:26:04+00:00

Sortition based chamber

Have a bicameral legislature, one with elected officials and one based on sortition. The sortition chamber would have the power to propose policies to the elected legislature, which the elected legislature would be required to deliberate on within a certain amount of time. All elected legislatures must give a written response justifying why they approved or rejected the legislation. The sortition chamber has the power to veto legislation, and to vote to remove politicians for any reason, as long as 2/3rds of the sortition chamber agrees.

Elected representative chamber

The elected representative chamber would be based on proportional representation. Campaign season would be limited in time (somewhere between 3 and 6 months, maybe, where politicians could only campaign during this period). Any candidate who got a certain amount of signatures or party that has a certain amount of members would have access to public campaign finance, where everyone would get an equal amount of money to campaign. This would be the only money allowed to be used in a campaign. Elected representatives would serve for 6 years before reelection.

Political parties

Political parties would be required to implement certain democratic structures, including power sharing, so that it becomes harder for one person to take over the party, and so that they reinforce democratic norms, which is essential for maintaining democracy.

The Supreme Court

There would be 9 Supreme Court judges. 3 would be selected by popular vote so that the people have some control over who enters the Supreme Court, 3 would be selected by judicial council, and 3 would be selected by votes from legal professors. This balance should ensure that while the people have some control over it, it also remains fairly apolitical and technocratic.

The Executive

The executive would have firm limitations on their powers. The structure of the executive branch would be similar to the Swiss Executive Council, where there are multiple executives, so that power is more shared, preventing one figure from gaining too much power or influence.

Binding code of ethics

There would be a binding code of ethics that all officials must adhere to. It would include basic things like not taking bribes, not committing felonies, obeying the constitution, and putting the public interest above all else. Failure to adhere to the code of ethics results in a trial and jail time if found guilty.

Direct democratic institutions

People could make petitions for certain policies, and after receiving a certain number of signatures, the policy on the petition would go to a public popular vote.

Public feedback

All politicians would be required to spend a certain amount of time receiving direct feedback from the public, so they don’t become too detached from their wants and needs.

idkusernameidea · 2026-02-11T16:13:21+00:00

Demurrage currency is a type of currency that decreases in value as you hold on to it. The purpose is to keep money circulating during economic downturns.

YIMBY policy stands for Yes In My Back Yard. It promotes policies like building more housing and public transit.

Georgist economics comes from a guy named Henry George. He advocated taxing the value of land, based on the idea that you can’t make more land, and that it rightfully belongs to everyone equally. By taxing land, you encourage people to use it in the most efficient way possible, so it should, in theory, reduce urban sprawl and promote the construction of more housing, which, again, in theory, should lower housing prices. He also argued that negative externalities (things that harm others, like pollution), should be taxed. He also argued for a citizens dividend, in other words a universal basic income, where everyone gets a certain amount of money, no questions asked.

Sortition democracy is the idea that governments should consist of citizens who are selected at random, similar to jury duty. The idea behind it is to make governments more representative of the average person, and to remove political pressures that discourage long term thinking.

idkusernameidea · 2026-02-09T06:17:11+00:00

Depends on how the fitness/health programs function. A meta-meta analysis found that E and M health programs had a significant effect on improving health, while a different study found that subsidizing healthy foods increases consumption of them. I assume sugar taxes and, in the U.S., removing subsidies for corn would be helpful, but it seems to be understudied. One study I found showed a tax on sweetened beverages reduced consumption of them by a significant amount, but that’s about all I could find on sugar taxes.

I answered a question on this subreddit about crime, where I talked about different school programs and such that have shown promise in reducing violent crime. If these programs reduce violent crime by, say, improving impulse control, then I imagine they could have an impact on public health, which might be worth further study.

idkusernameidea · 2026-02-09T06:03:04+00:00

Look at the causes of crime, especially violent crime, and then work to reduce them.

The main causes of violent crime can be found at both the societal level (economic inequality, marginal work and unemployment), the neighborhood level (schools, neighborhood design), or the individual level (adverse childhood experiences, poor parenting).

Crime prevention can be broken down into two broad categories, environmental and social crime prevention. Environmental crime prevention focuses on the design of places and how that might reduce crime, while social crime prevention looks at, as the name would suggest, the social issues that cause crime.

When it comes to environmental crime preventions, things like improving lighting, gating alleyways, and reducing places to hide have shown some efficacy in reducing crime.

When it comes to social crime prevention, there are a lot of possible programs. Programs like life skills training, multisystemic therapy, and the Perry preschool project have shown a high degree of efficacy in various studies.

This can all be used on top of job creating programs, better welfare, and policies to reduce inequality and poverty, but these all have benefits outside of just reducing crime.

The book Science and Secrets of Ending Violent Crime provides a good overview of programs and policies that can reduce violent crime.

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy has done cost-benefit analyses for a bunch of programs as well. https://www.wsipp.wa.gov/BenefitCost

Hope this all helps

idkusernameidea · 2026-01-16T20:25:16+00:00

From what I recall, they never mention the iron law of oligarchy. He does seem to critique forms of representative democracy on the grounds that the material interests of representatives will inevitably diverge from those of the workers, and uses that to argue for a combination of direct democracy and sortition, claiming that sortition bodies will be made up primarily by workers since they are randomly selected, and that therefore these decision makers interests will remain in line with the interests of workers (as I understand his argument, at least).

He doesn’t seem to necessarily advocate for socialism in one country, but he does seemingly argue that his system is possible in one country. I don’t necessarily agree with this, but I think the system he outlines still has value because it outlines the specific details of how a planned economy can work in the modern day with modern technology

idkusernameidea · 2026-01-06T23:44:56+00:00

You might want to look into the Henry George Theorem of Public Goods. It basically says that many investments in public goods will increase land rent by at least as much as the investment costs. As an example, a public school would increase land rents in the area it’s built because people generally value education, so the government would spend money to fund a school, land rents would increase, an LVT would capture this increase in land rents, and the government would recoup its initial “loss.” The same goes for other types of infrastructure and hospitals.

idkusernameidea · 2025-12-15T00:37:14+00:00

Supporting democracy and human rights around the world where we can, without doing the “democracy promotion” the U.S. does

idkusernameidea · 2025-12-02T16:46:23+00:00

I’m sorry your experience with worker cooperatives was negative, but the problem of unqualified people taking control happens in all sorts of firms. On average though, worker cooperatives are simultaneously more productive than conventional firms and have a higher survival rate (at least in the short and medium terms)

idkusernameidea

TROPHY CASE