The American Experiment (Riot Quest)

AN: I read like 5 long articles from various marxists and anarchists regarding the conflicts in early revolutionary Russia on this, so enjoy the summary and my modifications for the issues and solutions to fit this America.


They decided to give Congress the right to dissolve a provincial or commune government if it decides it acted illegally, but in a compromise with the federalists, they would require a ⅗ vote for it. They would also establish the doctrine of Congressional superiority, that there would be no checks or balances upon Congress to prevent them from acting unconstitutionally. The will of the people would not be challenged and the people of the future would not be chained to the past.

The assembly agreed on a lesser signature requirement, only 1% of the number of eligible voters as required signatures in a district for a new candidate to run.

Recognizing political parties was much more controversial. While initially it was the default that they would be recognizing parties, others began to point out that state regulation of parties would offend freedom of association and freedom of conscience. It would also risk turning the SLP into a creature of the state rather than an instrument of its members and the United Front, ruining its popular democratic character.

The main opposing argument was that not recognizing any parties could lead to trickeries, such as someone running under a similar name to another party and stealing their votes. As elections were run under Single Non-Transferable Vote, they could be considered particularly vulnerable to this. Allowing for recognizing parties that have held a convention, but would still have to individually register their candidates, would help avoid said trivial bad-faith actions.

Soon none of the arguments involved recognized parties bypassing the onerous requirement of requiring signatures for every candidate at all. Ultimately, the proposal for recognizing parties won, but it was a close vote.


The assembly then moved onto discussing the nature of the Industrial Planning Association. There were three proposals for how it should be organized, all involving workplace democracy in some form. As they had been practicing forms of democracy for years even before the revolution, and then expanded to a far greater scale, there was a great wealth of ideas and experience.

The Syndicalist Plan was proposed by the DeLeonists, anarcho-syndicalists, and Appalachians (who had gone with it in Appalachia), with full endorsements by the trade unions. This would fully merge the trade unions into government, with the trade union congress by branch and by region becoming economic management. Thus the national organs of the trade unions would make the decisions concerning production and distribution. If paired with factory committees, these committees would become the local branches of the trade unions.

The Workers' Plan was proposed by the anarchists with endorsements from the existing factory committees and other workplace committees. This would have each factory managed by a factory committee, entirely consisting of workers from that factory, which would then elect a Central Council of Workplace Committees as well as councils for each economic section and region of the country for coordination purposes as well as long term planning. All of these would be run fairly independent from the state, though of course still subordinate to Congressional laws. The General Assembly of all workers at a workplace would be the backbone of workplace democracy, with the right of immediate recall and re-elect of committees and delegates to councils as well, and would make more of the most important decisions, only being able to be overruled by the Central Council. Committees would have commissions to organize production and get supplies, which would make use of the knowledge and abilities of technicians and specialists, but they would have no decision making power.

The Proletarian Plan was proposed by Marxists and the technocrats, with endorsements from many elected managers, technicians and engineers, and from intellectuals. It would have an economic board elected by the IPA workers but strictly subordinated to the state and its goals, with an executive committee from Congress directly involved above it. This economic board would have strong powers over all IPA workplaces, allowing for short and long term plans to be followed without internal arguing or noncompliance. The trade unions would remain strictly separate, performing their own role limited to, for example, recommendation of management. This would keep control of the economy to the working class as a whole, rather than individual parts of it. Those in favor of it also argued that they already had Worker Associations for a horizontal section of the economy—having the IPA being more centrally managed would be more useful.


Next was the question of workplace management. Thus far there was a general principle of worker self management, but what that meant exactly differed by each individual factory and farm. This had resulted in a complex system, and if there was to be unified planning, it must be streamlined.

Many factories had factory committees, elected from the workers and working together to make decisions. These would often have sub-committees for departments within a factory or to carry out specific tasks. Others had a single or few managers elected by the workplace, running most similarly to prior to expropriation but with democratic checks on their power. And others more had appointed managers by a democratic body which had been elected by many workplaces. All of these in turn had varying degrees of putting major decisions to a vote by all the workers, which regardless of choices here would likely continue to be the case.

With the average factory having only 30 employees, an entire committee to manage it would mean they would be largely doing both their labor and management duties, keeping there from being a bureaucratic separation but also preventing specialization and requiring the training of all workers in management. Individual management would allow for more specially trained managers. Specifically appointing managers would allow for talented managers to move from place to place, potentially improving efficiency and cohesion, at the cost of the local workplace having less participation.


Finally, the right of veto. The Marxists wanted the state to be able to veto any management picks or fire an incompetent or reactionary manager when necessary, putting the needs of the proleteriat as a class over any individual workplace. The unions agreed that this was needed, but considered it their responsibility instead. Finally, in the case of appointed management, anarchists wanted workplaces to be able to veto choices, while if managers or committees were elected from below, they still didn't want the state to be able to veto choices.



[][organize] Syndicalist Plan

Unions control the IPA.

Industrial Unionism +3, Appalachian +2, Marxist -2

X0.89 voting modifier

[][organize] Workers' Plan

The IPA is a bottom-up structure run by factory committees with national, section, and regional coordination.

Anarchist +3, Marxist -2

X1.05 voting modifier

[][organize] Proletarian Plan

The IPA is centrally managed by an elected body and with direct oversight by the state.

Technocrat +2, Marxist +2, Statist +1, industrial unionism -1, anarchist -2

X1.42 voting modifier


[][management] Workplace committees manage the workplace.

Anarchist +2, Marxist -2, technocrat -2

X0.87 voting modifier

[][management] Individual management elected by the workplace manages the workplace.

[][management] Individual management appointed by a greater democratic body.

Marxist +2, technocrat +2, anarchist -2

X1.14 voting modifier


[][Veto] The state has the right to veto management picks.

Statist +2

X2.27 voting modifier

[][veto] The trade unions have the right to veto management picks.

Industrial unionism +2

X1.29 voting modifier

[][veto] The workplace can veto management picks/has full control.

Anarchist +2

X1.54 voting modifier






Vote by line, not plan, representing the difficulties of getting a >2500 group to discuss agree on something. The vote will run until a clear majority, and then I will start the normal supporters gather vote.

You may suggest a write-in for an option and I'll assign a voting modifier for it.