The American Experiment (Riot Quest)

The assembly decided to establish as broad of rights as possible as well as to not carve out any exceptions for reactionaries, seeing it as possible to abuse. So they decided to keep the full first 9 amendments, with one change: the fifth amendment would no longer guarantee no seizure of private property without compensation. This was considered an obsolete right that would have interfered with forcing businesses that hired people to become Worker Associations.

Next, they kept the 13th amendment outlawing slavery, removing the exception for slavery as punishment for a crime. This would prevent all forms of forced labor in the country. They also kept the 14th amendment granting citizenship by birth and the right to due process.

Here there was a brief argument in favor of ending citizenship as a concept, but it was kept to guarantee their rights abroad—abolishing citizenship in the age of the nation state would be a dangerous thing. Instead an addition was made that they also granted all residents the right to ask for citizenship on demand, no exam or language requirements necessary.

The 15th amendment was replaced with the full equal rights amendment championed by the SLP: guaranteeing public accommodation, non-legal disability, wage, employment, right to serve on a jury, and suffrage rights for adults 21 years or more regardless of race, color, sex, or creed, as well as designating election day as a state holiday.

Then more, new rights: the right to food, clothes, healthcare, shelter, education, and secure retirement at the expense of society, not the individual; to a job, to an adequate income, and the right to association, allowing Worker Associations, unions, political organizations, etc. to freely join and split. The government would be required to make documents in any language upon request, a major win both for immigrants, who often had English as a second language or didn't speak it at all, and the indigenous tribes, who had a long history of the government lying to them about what they were signing.

Along these same lines, public schools were to be required to be taught in local languages as well as English. This was championed by the indigenous delegates as a win against current residential schools and the general assimilationist tactics of public schools, which in a unitary state could apply to their former reservations. Being able to demand school in their own language meant their own people being hired to teach it, letting them preserve their culture.

Not that they were the only ones who could benefit. From Asian communities on the west coast to German communities in the Midwest, and most cities having single-language immigrant neighborhoods, there were countless immigrants who would surely seek to preserve their culture this way.


The next topic was on unions. Now that the constitution gave a specific power to the unions—veto ability of management picks—they had to define who "the trade unions" were. This would then also apply any other power or right given by Congress to "the trade unions".

Many in the ACUA itself suggested that the ACUA should be the only nationally recognized union, with everyone affiliated with them. Independent unions would not be banned by the constitution, but they would not get any special powers. They would be backed up by the Marxists who thought all workers should simply join the industrial union which was meant as a body for all workers, the internal democratic structure keeping it fair. The actual text of this proposal would give Congress the right to choose what union federation(s) to recognize, but it was clear they were expected to choose just the ACUA.

The second proposal was that all unions must be recognized equally by the government. This would be the best at preventing government control and interference with the unions, and thus was favored by the anarchists (who suspected they may eventually want to breakaway from the Marxist dominated ACUA), but was also supported by the constitutionalists (who didn't support industrial unionism in the first place). For the IPA veto power, it would apply to whatever union had organized that workplace—leaving non-unionized workplaces or single-workplace unions losing that check on their power.

The third proposal was somewhat of a compromise, proposed by the technocrats, who supported small unions but also wanted to ensure there would always be a group outside a workplace who could veto or fire that management for incompetence. It would have all unions establish a national, federal structure, which would then have the IPA management veto power for all workplaces. This would preserve the independence of smaller unions while forcing them all to work together.


The next question was the case of a conflict between the government and the unions. Most had expected it to be the same as before—courts can judge things, unions can legally or illegally go on strike to protest—except with fewer to no reason for there to be a conflict, as the proletarian state was representative of the workers. But there was always the possibility there would be.

That was why one particularly internationalist delegate proposed that the trade unions could appeal to the Socialist International, which would get the final say in any dispute. This would be a major symbolic step of subordinating the Workers' State to the worldwide workers' movement, even if the power was never used. The anarchists rallied around this proposal, pleased to have some sort of check on the state, but many Marxists supported it as well in the spirit of internationalism.


Finally, the anarchists proposed that the constitution should guarantee the legal right to strike to the trade unions in perpetuity, even against the government itself. This means it would be illegal for the government to try to break a strike in any way other than negotiating and accepting some of the demands. The Marxists, backed up by most everyone else, argued that there would be no need to strike when industry was controlled by the workers themselves, as they had already chosen. Thus it was just as likely a strike would be the work of saboteurs or reactionaries trying to harm the proletarian cause. If a strike was needed, it would have the support to not be suppressed, as they had a proletarian democracy. Therefore there was no need to include that as a special constitutional right. A compromise proposal was also made wherein only the recognized union was allowed to strike—the Marxists certainly weren't worried about the ACUA striking for the wrong reasons, but the anarchists still wanted anyone to be able to.


[][structure] The government will recognize one union federation (the ACUA).

Marxists +3, -3 anarchists, -3 constitutionalists

X0.81 voting multiplier

[][structure] All unions must be recognized equally by the government.

Anarchists +3, constitutionalists +3, -3 marxists

X1.23 voting multiplier

[][structure] All unions will establish a national federal structure, which then has the IPA management veto power.

Technocrats +3, -1 marxist, -1 anarchists, -1 constitutionalists

X0.56 voting multiplier

Write-in vote:
[][structure] Unions will be recognized for the purpose of interacting with state organs in the form of syndical representation councils, allocated proportionally based on their share of representation.

Anarchist +3, constitutionalist -1, marxist -1

X1.12 voting modifier


[][conflict] Nothing special, courts arbitrate conflicts as normal.

Constitutionalist +3, anarchist -3

X0.97 voting multiplier

[][conflict] Trade unions have the right to appeal to the Socialist International, whose decision is binding.

Anarchist +3, Marxist +1, constitutionalist -3

X1.24 voting multiplier


[][strike] Everyone (i.e. including non-recognized trade unions) perpetually have the legal right to strike.

Anarchists +3, statists -3

X0.63 voting multiplier

[][strike] Trade unions perpetually have the legal right to strike.

Anarchist +1, Marxist +1, statist -2

X0.72 voting modifier

[][strike] No special constitutional guarantee for the legal right to strike.

Statists +3, anarchists -3

X1.60 voting multiplier





Vote by line, not plan, representing the difficulties of getting a >2500 group to discuss and agree on something.

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