Remove ads

The American Experiment (Riot Quest)

Voting is open
Reader mode
Would unions of Non-workers be allowed to join the ACUA? Because the resource needs of say, mothers/househusbands or students or those with disabilities will be entirely unrepresented if the Industrial Planning Association board consists of just one guy from the ACUA in a big office declaring the way things be.

Also, I feel that occupations like pastor, rabi, and imam are going to need to have their own unions too. No matter how much marxists declare religion to be "the opiate of the masses" the religious leaders also deserve to eat, and they need resources to tend to the spiritual needs of their flock. That would mean unions, at least one per religion, and those unions being allowed into the ACUA.
 
Last edited:
Ramble said:
which non working persons would need to join in order to get their say over resource allocation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To be clear, in none of the options do trade unions have control over state resource allocation, only their own dues (as all organizations do).

Ramble said:
Would unions of Non-workers be allowed to join the ACUA? Because the resource needs of say, mothers/househusbands or students or those with disabilities will be entirely unrepresented if the Industrial Planning Association board consists of just one guy from the ACUA in a big office declaring the way things be.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is not an answer to your question, but is relevant: The IPA option chosen was an economic board elected by the IPA workers themselves (so not including non-workers) but Congress (elected from everyone) has a committee directly working with and above said economic board to direct it. The ACUA does not influence any of this process except through having a large overlap of members.
 
One issue with just allowing all unions is that the current American union shop only has room for one union if we want it to be function. Any attempt at splitting personnel between unions in one workplace has historically been disastrous because it pits sections of the workers against each other. Even without bosses, I don't think it's particularly desirable.

I think we could mandate regular syndical election as a way to open the door to workplaces choosing their representation without reintroducing divisions in the workers. You can run a competing union but it has to get voted in to represent the workplace, it can't just be an engineers' union that only bargains for engineers.

I'm thinking of the French system of recognition of unions by the state, which basically turned them into workplace political parties that compete in syndical representative elections, rather than the American closed shop.
 
...Yet. I am wary of going the Union and Govt as one. It just, well...

If we do go that path we are gonna need to carefully handle matters lest we risk the two parts corrupting each other.
 
Ramble said:
IIRC one of the problems with the Socialist Internationale is that everybody outside America thinks that it's been co-opted by American Imperialism. Different circus, same old show and all that, just more Americans telling everybody what's good for them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That is not the problem with it, what has happened is that the Possibilists have left because the International Socialist Bureau has been giving full support to America. They are accusing the rest of the ones that have stayed of being American puppets because they don't want to support an actual revolution, while the large majority that have stayed in the Second International do. And American Imperialism is not something that has extended to Europe yet, where the vast majority of membership in the Second International come from. It is limited to the Americas and the Pacific until the destruction of Europe in WW2, European views of America at this time are that of a mostly isolationist power.
 
Nyvis said:
One issue with just allowing all unions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
According to what the GM is saying, unless there's a vote specifically for it, workplaces will be able to run themselves how they like, unions other than the ACUA will be allowed to form and have all the rights and responsibilities of the ACUA, it's just that the ACUA will have an extra fancy office inside the IPA administrative HQ for ease of communication and efficiency purposes.

There are two ways it can go down:
1) youtube partnership program
2) youtube flagging videos they don't like 18+, demonetized it, and then stacking more unskippable ads on it than usual just to make sure that anyone who does manage to find it anyway gets fed up and clicks away.

But exactly how that comes about will be in the details and fine print for Congress to decide later.

@Physici for checking my work.

Otherwise I'm down for one union per shop.
 
Last edited:
Ramble said:
According to what the GM is saying, unless there's a vote specifically for it, workplaces will be able to run themselves how they like, unions other than the ACUA will be allowed to form and have all the rights and responsibilities of the ACUA, it's just that the ACUA will have an extra fancy office inside the IPA administrative HQ for ease of communication and efficiency purposes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The option

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

Has no rules on non-ACUA unions being able to form or not, that's given to Congress to decide. It does mean they wouldn't have any rights specifically given to unions, such as veto-ing a management choice, appealing to the Socialist International, or the protected legal right to strike.
 
Physici said:
[][structure] The government will recognize one union federation (the ACUA).

Has no rules on non-ACUA unions being able to form or not, that's given to Congress to decide. It does mean they wouldn't have any rights specifically given to unions, such as veto-ing a management choice, appealing to the Socialist International, or the protected legal right to strike.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...So, the choice would likely see the other unions as kinda 'second-class unions', if congress allows them to exist at all... 😅
That MIGHT be an issue down the line.
 
Physici said:
Has no rules on non-ACUA unions being able to form or not, that's given to Congress to decide. It does mean they wouldn't have any rights specifically given to unions, such as veto-ing a management choice, appealing to the Socialist International, or the protected legal right to strike.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So basically shadowbanning. Banning for people too spineless to actually say the quiet part out loud.

"You're allowed to exist. But in no uncertain terms stop doing so."

@Physici also are we going to get a turn to reorganize our organizations? A lot of them had their foundations in economic stuff. Now that the economic stuff is done, it might be a good idea to shift focus.
 
Last edited:
Ramble said:
Would unions of Non-workers be allowed to join the ACUA? Because the resource needs of say, mothers/househusbands or students or those with disabilities will be entirely unrepresented if the Industrial Planning Association board consists of just one guy from the ACUA in a big office declaring the way things be.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To be clear here, the IPA only handles the resource allocation of industries not individual people. What they get is handled under the Banks of Exchange as we went for a mix of the two options.
Physici said:
Banks of Exchange would have staticians to help the Worker Associations on planning and the local one would acquire goods for a Commune's stores. Basic goods such as food at these stores would be free for the consumer. Their staticians would determine what was being used or not used, and what was being produced or not, coordinating the Worker Associations. They would work with Worker Associations and the Communes to determine prices based on the labor value of goods—rather than a market price, they would be directly based on the number of worker hours (for skilled workers and modern technology) for production plus cost of inputs. Currency should be replaced with labor vouchers (as the constitution will give full power to Congress for printing currency as they wish), which have a set value.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Basic goods like food are free, while the Banks of Exchange track what consumer goods are being consumed and produced to determine what their prices should be. Local ones handle getting however much they need.

The reason we are determining whether there should be only one nationally recognized union federation is because we have given unions the power to veto a individual workplaces choice of manager and are voting now on giving them the right to appeal to the International and the legal right to strike.
 
Ramble said:
@Physici also are we going to get a turn to reorganize our organizations? A lot of them had their foundations in economic stuff. Now that the economic stuff is done, it might be a good idea to shift focus.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You'll be able to do that in the next planning phase. I'll make it in the universal action section as mostly write-in.
 
[][structure] All unions must be recognized equally by the government
[][conflict] Trade unions have the right to appeal to the Socialist International, whose decision is binding.
[][strike] Trade unions perpetually have the legal right to strike.
Trade unions are one of the few checks on state power. It is crucial that they remain independent.
 
Physici said:
[][strike] Trade unions perpetually have the legal right to strike.
[][strike] Everyone (i.e. including non-recognized trade unions) perpetually have the legal right to strike.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I've separated these out, with the same modifier (since factions can't support anything more than +3 and I don't want to reduce the anarchist support for the first one).
 
Okay imma make a write in for the stuff I discussed earlier, but specifically for the context of a solution to the special rights of unions that require interacting with government, since apparently that's what we're voting on. Specifically, in a system of competitive syndical representation, dialogue with the state on the professional sector and national level is done by all the unions with sufficient representation in that sector.

[][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.

This means unions would have to represent enough workers to earn a seat at the table for the purpose of vetoing management (probably on the sector level) or appealing to the internationale (national level).

It's not quite a federal structure because it has no power in the other direction, the unions remain entirely independent of each other, they just have to agree or outvote each other to exercise powers that require state recognition.

I'm also of the opinion the right to strike shouldn't require union membership anyway, so unions too small to win seats in a sectoral council will still have that regardless of recognition.

Physici said:
I've separated these out, with the same modifier (since factions can't support anything more than +3 and I don't want to reduce the anarchist support for the first one).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think it would be valid for anarchists to be less supportive of right to strike being limited to legally recognized unions, honestly?
 
Nyvis said:
I think it would be valid for anarchists to be less supportive of right to strike being limited to legally recognized unions, honestly?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah that's fair, that's what I would've done if I separated them in a first place. I think I will change that.

Nyvis said:
[][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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Valid write-in.

Anarchist +3, constitutionalist -1, marxist -1

X1.12 voting modifier
 
[][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.
[][conflict] Nothing special, courts arbitrate conflicts as normal.
[][strike] Everyone (i.e. including non-recognized trade unions) perpetually have the legal right to strike.

I think the ACUA is great, but I'm not sure how great it'll remain if it's handed an unchallenged government monopoly. Unions have a disappointing tendency to bureaucratization when left alone. That's also why I think workplaces should be able to vote to strike regardless of their union status, just in case the union bureaucrats like their cushy relationship with planning too much and workers need to go over their head.

I'm really not sure on the socint plank. Ultimately I think it's bad. The socialist internationale is an alliance of socialist parties built to support socialist political activity, not an oversight body for socialist countries.

I guess that's my slate. This quest is really bringing me back to my past anarcho-communist roots. But honestly this is anarchists who are taking their seat in an state body so they're more the anti authority edge of the statist coalition wearing the anarchist flag than anything, and that's basically all we as marxists wish anarchists would do with us.
 
Last edited:
Nyvis said:
I think the ACUA is great, but I'm not sure how great it'll remain if it's handed an unchallenged government monopoly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If anything, recognizing competing union federations on the model of the political parties (indeed, unions tied to the the political parties) would discourage union federation opposition to state policy while "their" party is in power, and permit the unions whose parties are out of power to take up the mantle of opposition. Likewise, union federations would rise and fall in popularity with "their" political parties. The inevitable result of this is that eventually the A.F. of L. with all its pre-quest nativism and quest-induced Catholic exclusivity (by coincidence, therefore, essentially a Christian Democratic union with ties to the Democratic Party) will regain its predominance and that ACUA will have futilely spent a bunch of actions and funds in the meantime to forestall it. This is a negative outcome.
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
If anything, recognizing competing union federations on the model of the political parties (indeed, unions tied to the the political parties) would discourage union federation opposition to state policy while "their" party is in power, and permit the unions whose parties are out of power to take up the mantle of opposition. Likewise, union federations would rise and fall in popularity with "their" political parties. The inevitable result of this is that eventually the A.F. of L. with all its pre-quest nativism and quest-induced Catholic exclusivity (by coincidence, therefore, essentially a Christian Democratic union with ties to the Democratic Party) will regain its predominance and that ACUA will have futilely spent a bunch of actions and funds in the meantime to forestall it. This is a negative outcome.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nothing in this system requires pairing up with a political party. And I think the appearance of lacking independence is going to be very damaging to unions when their main remaining role we've defined for them is going to be protesting bad management picks.

In fact I think we should make moves to reclaim ACUA independence from the political machine now that the revolution is secured, so it can do this job properly rather than fall into one of the common historical traps like the party asking you to stop strikes in your workplaces when they're in office.
 
Last edited:
Nyvis said:
Is there a reason to expect unions to neatly match political parties, and not get punished for it?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, not really. Which is why I don't think implementing a system which incentivizes ACUA to back the SLP rather than take an oppositional stance where required, and which instead passes the buck of opposition to the reaction, is a good idea.
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
No, not really. Which is why I don't think implementing a system which incentivizes ACUA to back the SLP rather than take an oppositional stance where required, and which instead passes the buck of opposition to the reaction, is a good idea.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I really don't see how this system encourages that though? If they take such a stance they're likely to lose representation share as workers look elsewhere for a more useful union, so they're in fact directly incentivized to not do that. Meanwhile if they were guaranteed the recognition regardless, they wouldn't have to put in the effort.
 
Nyvis said:
I really don't see how this system encourages that though? If they take such a stance they're likely to lose representation share as workers look elsewhere for a more useful union, so they're in fact directly incentivized to not do that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Implementing a proportional system on a party model replicates the party dynamics. And having two committees to influence SLP policy, and being affiliated to the UF along with the SLP, ACUA will be obviously entangled with the SLP.

Having to represent the whole working class will work as a counterpressure against merely following party interest.
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
Implementing a proportional system on a party model replicates the party dynamics. And having two committees to influence SLP policy, and being affiliated to the UF along with the SLP, ACUA will be obviously entangled with the SLP.

Having to represent the whole working class will work as a counterpressure against merely following party interest.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't really see how it's any better if they have exclusive representation from the state. In fact I expect them running discipline on the working class in its name would be even more likely that was because there can be no consequence for it.

I guess we could have done no union recognition whatsoever to give it back its independence but we decided on the manager veto power and we need a way to implement that.
 
Nyvis said:
I don't really see how it's any better if they have exclusive representation from the state. In fact I expect them running discipline on the working class in its name would be even more likely that was because there can be no consequence for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, thinking more on it, the consequence would be losing exclusive recognition in favor of some other union federation the moment a non-Socialist Labor coalition or party takes Congress. But this outcome is even worse than losing a majority on the IPA-interfacing union board, while retaining a minority voice is at least a backstop against total irrelevance. Point to your system.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Voting is open
Remove ads
Back
Top