Voting is open
[X][IDEALS] New Capitalist: Aims to restore the old system with badly-needed revisions to address some of the obvious flaws. Among other things, it mandates a living minimum wage tied to government-collected measures, writes into foundational law the de-personhood of anybody who is not, in fact, an actual person, and institutes broad protections for employees against their employers (protected right to unionize, protections for whistleblowers, pension laws for companies, etc.). The New Capitalists do not give a single shit about democratized workplaces, positively or negatively, as long as they pay their taxes.

[X][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.
[X][CRUSH] Some of the central tenets of the founding government's ideology are written into foundational law, making it difficult for even violently opposed successor governments to fully roll them back without immense popular support.

[X][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.
[X][POWER] You are a decentralized federal state somewhat akin to the early United States.

[X][TEXT] The old Constitution had its flaws, but it was a document of many strengths as well. It lasted two and a half centuries. We shall honor that and preserve the original. Our changes will be amendments, as intended, with our population approving them as specified in the text.
[X][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.

[x][REVIEW] The new Constitution should be put to review and possible revision every thirty years.

I just don't get people's fixation with Socialism/Communism. Sure it sounds nice but it will only ever work in fiction like this due to the way the system works. and swinging to an extreme just because there is the opposite extreme doesn't help matters.
 
Last edited:
Sten gun? No, no, PPS-43! Accept no substitutes! 2.7 hours of machine time, 6 kg of raw materials and you get a handy, reliable little package!
Sara:

"Well all I know is that the Iron Brigade didn't have the blueprints for the thing when we needed them, and we had a lot more Parabellum ammo kicking around than we did Tokarev, so we stuck with Stens. The Nazis, now, had looots of Tokarev and gee I wonder why that is?"

[bright brittle smile]
 
Unions have the potential to stop being direct democracies, and to start becoming kleptocratic republics, and we can't reasonably build rules about union bylaws and internal organization into our constitution.

Why not? I'd have zero problem with legislation requiring union members be given direct democratic control over their unions, the power to recall officials and all sorts of other checks meant to stop union kleptocracies from happening. I think that would encourage healthier unions.
 
Sara:

"Well all I know is that the Iron Brigade didn't have the blueprints for the thing when we needed them, and we had a lot more Parabellum ammo kicking around than we did Tokarev, so we stuck with Stens. The Nazis, now, had looots of Tokarev and gee I wonder why that is?"

[bright brittle smile]

You can make a PPS in 9mm parabellum; Finns did it!
Adhoc vote count started by Rat King on Mar 15, 2019 at 3:04 PM, finished with 137 posts and 69 votes.
 
For a small Farm or other family business? Generally the thought is that those people will still be allowed to be private but their employees are garuntee'd to be unionized.

Though that depends on the agricultural scheme in their area. While C O L L E C T I V I Z A T I O N is a NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, communal farms will likely be encouraged, and everyone would manage a wide swath of land collectively. (Without state input beyond, like, the stuff that happens in SocDem states)
Unions I'm fine with.

I mean, the democratic workplace would include control over the chickens, their feed, etc. but not the couple's house because it's not part of the business/labor of raising chickens and eggs. They wouldn't face being evicted, but it is possible that their employees might be able to force decisions about how and where to sell eggs or what feed to buy, that kind of thing.
See, that kind of stuff just makes me leery. I'm not withdrawing my vote for Socialism; I still strongly prefer not going Full Communism. But this just makes me stick to preferring SocDem.
 
Why not? I'd have zero problem with legislation requiring union members be given direct democratic control over their unions, the power to recall officials and all sorts of other checks meant to stop union kleptocracies from happening. I think that would encourage healthier unions.
Legislation, yes; constitutional provisions, no. Union bylaws are too detailed a subject to be appropriate for a constitution. But at the same time, it's unwise to design a constitution that's designed around assumptions about how a private, non-governmental organization will be structured.

That exact mistake is one of the major flaws in the US Constitution- its authors made specific assumptions about how political officeholders and candidates would organize and operate under the new framework, and when those assumptions turned out to be wrong, it crippled the functionality of some key features of the government.

You can make a PPS in 9mm parabellum; Finns did it!
Goldblum:

"Sure, now you can, but now what we need is a decent battle rifle."
 
Ouch. Touché. But does socialism have more direct democracy? Not on the political level as far as I can see, and on the workplace level, democratized businesses merely get "preferred" - and even SocDem has that in certain sectors.

The big differences I see between Soc and SocDem as written up are 1) the healthcare push and 2) union privileges.

You can' really arbitrarily separate economic and political democracy though. If we want a more direct and complete democracy, it has to go through democratizing the economy, or this enormous mass of undemocratic process will weight over everything else you've democratized. You can think what you want about the result of unions under capitalism, but at least most of them are democratic.

As for inequality caused by unions, it's solved by encouraging them to reach to everyone rather than fighting against them and ending up with them only surviving in some entrenched sectors, which is when they become kleptocratic or harmful to the rest of the population. If everyone is unionized, there's no "defending union jobs" to consider anymore.

Why not? I'd have zero problem with legislation requiring union members be given direct democratic control over their unions, the power to recall officials and all sorts of other checks meant to stop union kleptocracies from happening. I think that would encourage healthier unions.

Yeah, definitely. If we encourage unions within a democratic system, they have to keep to standards of democracy too. But honestly, the worst of unions happen when they're put under massive pressure and retreat to where they're entrenched.
 
Legislation, yes; constitutional provisions, no. Union bylaws are too detailed a subject to be appropriate for a constitution. But at the same time, it's unwise to design a constitution that's designed around assumptions about how a private, non-governmental organization will be structured.

That exact mistake is one of the major flaws in the US Constitution- its authors made specific assumptions about how political officeholders and candidates would organize and operate under the new framework, and when those assumptions turned out to be wrong, it crippled the functionality of some key features of the government.

Goldblum:

"Sure, now you can, but now what we need is a decent battle rifle."


FN FAL! Or we could go back to the M1/M14 in a more controllable cartridge.
Adhoc vote count started by Rat King on Mar 15, 2019 at 4:32 PM, finished with 176 posts and 78 votes.
 
[X][IDEALS] New Capitalist: Aims to restore the old system with badly-needed revisions to address some of the obvious flaws. Among other things, it mandates a living minimum wage tied to government-collected measures, writes into foundational law the de-personhood of anybody who is not, in fact, an actual person, and institutes broad protections for employees against their employers (protected right to unionize, protections for whistleblowers, pension laws for companies, etc.). The New Capitalists do not give a single shit about democratized workplaces, positively or negatively, as long as they pay their taxes.
[X][IDEALS] Social Democrat: Centered around the idea that it is the state's responsibility to ensure a bare-minimum standard of living, the Social Democrats add to the New Capitalist agenda with a push for a government guarantee of adequate housing, food, and water to all citizens -- itself a fairly titanic task. It remains rooted in the fundamental ideal of private enterprise. The Social Democrats have some interest in the potential of democratized workplaces and are willing to support them in an experimental measure.
[X][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.
[X][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.
[X][TEXT] The old Constitution had its flaws, but it was a document of many strengths as well. It lasted two and a half centuries. We shall honor that and preserve the original. Our changes will be amendments, as intended, with our population approving them as specified in the text.
[X][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.
[X][REVIEW] The new Constitution will serve just fine with a standardized system for proposing amendments
 
Last edited:
Unions I'm fine with.

See, that kind of stuff just makes me leery. I'm not withdrawing my vote for Socialism; I still strongly prefer not going Full Communism. But this just makes me stick to preferring SocDem.

I'll be honest, it confuses me that the idea of workers being able to have a voice in the decisions their workplace makes makes you leery and I don't really understand why.
 
[X][IDEALS] Socialist
[X][CRUSH] None
[X][POWER] You are a devolved unitary state with subordinate governments formed or dissolved by central governmental decrees according to need
[X][TEXT] The Constitution was utterly bereft of any kind of legal, political, or ethical merit and shall be cast into the trash heap of history where it belongs. We shall start anew from a blank slate.
[x][REVIEW] The new Constitution should be put to review and possible revision every thirty years.
 
Why are already looking for our Workhouse militia equipment? Shouldn't be after the Constitution is finished

mostly its just a fun diversion
Adhoc vote count started by Flectarn on Mar 15, 2019 at 2:36 PM, finished with 125 posts and 66 votes.

Adhoc vote count started by Flectarn on Mar 15, 2019 at 4:08 PM, finished with 169 posts and 78 votes.

Adhoc vote count started by Flectarn on Mar 15, 2019 at 5:26 PM, finished with 200 posts and 82 votes.
 
...yeah, @veteranMortal has a point. Going full commie then. In fact, going full Free Territories in that case.

[X][IDEALS] Communist: The old revolutionary ideology has elected to push for their aims in the democratic process. Their modern platform, in this setting, is centered around the absolute implementation of workplace democracy in addition to the same welfare and legal measures proposed by other movements. The aims of the American Communists in the present day are to break the concept of private ownership of businesses, which places them in stark opposition to Capitalist and Social Democrat thought of this era. This is a part of a larger drive towards a transition to a fully Communist society, but the Communists have quite enough to be focused on at the moment and are leaving that aside.

[X][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.

[X][POWER] You are a decentralized federal state somewhat akin to the early United States.

[X][TEXT] The Constitution was utterly bereft of any kind of legal, political, or ethical merit and shall be cast into the trash heap of history where it belongs. We shall start anew from a blank slate.

[x][REVIEW] The new Constitution should be put to review and possible revision every thirty years.
 
[X][TEXT] The Constitution was utterly bereft of any kind of legal, political, or ethical merit and shall be cast into the trash heap of history where it belongs. We shall start anew from a blank slate.
i like this. this looks good
 
To be fair, the US very rarely has this problem until recently, EXCEPT in times when the nation itself was very divided.

I mean, we're already dealing with a possible brewing conflict between socialism and capitalism as governing ideologies, so...

Sure, if you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day you might not get lung cancer, but there's no sense risking it unnecessarily.

This is why I don't want to keep the core of the US constitution or whatever. In a real way, the problem with the US constitution isn't the stuff around the edges, it's the core system. Presidential democracies with multiple centers of power who can claim they 'speak for the people' are not good for encouraging stability.
 
Last edited:
Voting is open
Back
Top