We are getting
fascinating results in the polls. Namely, almost every Communist voter is also voting Socialist, but virtually no New Capitalists are voting Social Democrat. Obviously, that reflects in the results, but it also says intriguing things about the kind of people voting New Capitalist. Finally suggests something hilarious; it took economic crises, political crises, disease crises, complete national collapse, the resurgence of monarchist politics abroad, a monarchist puppet state on American soil, a nuke, and filtering the insanity and moral depravity of William S. Lind, but I've made a world where leftists can cooperate.
Anyway, votes are still coming in, there's no
devastating lead and, most importantly, I'm about to go to sleep and closing the vote now would be pointless. So we're continuing for now.
And now, comment responses.
I mean, things are already abstracted, and the way
@PoptartProdigy has written things, I'm not twitching against Socialist. I just revised my vote above.
My biggest concern/fear in Socialism or Communism can be summed up by this scenario (inspired by real life):
A husband and wife own a chicken farm. Not, like, 10 chickens, but a lot of chickens. They own the land, the chicken houses, the barn, and the house on the property. They do the most work, they're the ones who put this farm here. But they hire help. Let's say 4 people; 2 part-time, 2 full-time assistants. Mostly tasked with secondary labor, assisting the owners, etc.
Depending on how extreme "WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY" becomes, how protected are they from having their farm seized by these 4 people, up to and including being evicted from their home, or having to sit in a house and watch these people work this farm or tear it down?
Ooh. OOH! I found out what a hostile takeover looks like in a workplace democracy! This is such a fascinating bit of worldbuilding. I'm going to have so much fun with this! I'm nerding out so hard right now. You could have entire organized syndicates dedicated to targeting (former, obviously) small business owners in this way, and legally, stopping them would be almost completely unenforceable! This is fucking insidious, I love it. I would have never thought of that! This is going to add so much to the world. Thanks, Knight!
To answer your question, the (former) owners of the farm wouldn't really have any protections against being voted out, unless they were able to argue for the rules of the business to make that impractical while outnumbered four to two, with the four in this case possessing an obvious incentive not to comply. Even workplace democracies need to be able fire people. They
would be permitted to keep their home — collectivizing land is a later step in the process, and not universally agreed-upon— but anything related to the business is subject to the usual votes.
Sara Goldblum:
"I love my Sten gun, it's my favorite thing after 'not being in a concentration camp,' but can we please start turning out a decent battle rifle in quantity? It's not all urban warfare from here to Maine."
That reminds me, what political affiliations does Sara have?
Are the votes, even the ones that lose contributeing to the total view of the populace?
Yes.
I wonder if there will be a shift in politics (in-universe of course because the audience is not likely to change) if and when we incorporate new territories that hold different views from the Chicago mainstream such as explicitly communist communes or states with highly conservative populations.
Question to the OP
@PoptartProdigy How weakened would be the Victorians be if the Russians Empire suddenly stopped supporting them for whatever reason? Would they collapse in a week, be significantly weakened but carry on, or act like nothing happened?
Incorporating new populations will indeed lead to political shifts.
They'd probably remain solvent at this point, but they probably couldn't survive the deluge of war declarations.
I have to say that I'm not really convinced by this.
@PoptartProdigy Can you please clarify whether the "legal concepts" of the US constitution refer to things like the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary, as well as nature of the Legislature as a necessarily Bicameral one? Or, are the constitution's "legal concepts" instead meant to refer to things like the right to free speech, religious freedom, and so forth?
I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, particularly given that US constitution was explicitly tied to a Federal model of government, whereas we're deciding that stuff in a separate vote. After all, complaining about the overrepresentation of small states in the Senate would be a bit absurd if there weren't even any States, and only a single unitary government.
The Enlightenment philosophical foundation, mostly, and the legal concepts stemming from that. You'd also keep the Preamble, with the middle option.
So a big part of participating in these quests for me is adding to canon lore through omakes. What constitutes a canon omake in quest?
Something that does not contradict established bits of canon (to which the player base is not necessarily always privy) and that I like.
[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][IDEALS] Socialist: Having come to refer to a specific political movement rather than an entire branch of ideology, modern socialism is focused on giving the state the power to care for all citizens, and claims that the modern Social Democrat platform does not go far enough in pursuit of this. It also calls for a massive investment into healthcare in order to revitalize the field and make sure that there are enough medical professionals to go around (long-term, they want free healthcare, but there needs to be enough of it first). They also grant unions extensive privileges over private employers. They are fervently in favor of democratized workplaces, and openly campaign in favor of granting them special concessions.
[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 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.
Everything looks for the most part. I kind of wish the wording of throwing out the Constitution wasn't so dour and condescending. It could've easily just been a "The Constitution should only be mentioned in history books, remembered at best as a icon of the old American identity like the Declaration of Independence, or at worst a novelty like the Liberty Bell. We'll let future generations decide, but now is the time to chart a new path." Still a tad dismissive, but in this case we are doing so because we need something better.
You are Revivalists. If this congress throws out as powerful a symbol as the Constitution competely, people will take it to mean that you consider it completely irredeemable, and that will be the story that goes down in the public's mind. And they will also doubt your claim to be Revivalists, thus the negative Legitimacy.
Did you miss the run-down on the setting?
Capitalism and "American tradition" are what got the country into this mess in the first place. I have a hard time buying that the people of this world would put any stock in those getting them back out.
For accuracy's sake, America fell because it got hit with simultaneous waves of super-plagues, hyperinflation on a fantastical scale, and political infighting in Washington that compromised confidence in the government. And then, when all three of those together failed to do the job, it got smacked in the head by foreign-backed separatists. Without staking a political position, I don't think it's controversia to say that being further left would've helped. They were just utterly cursed by the hand of William Lind. :lol
Which means Poptart will leave it up for as long as possible to make sure all the New Capitalists posters manage to find this thread and vote. Got it.
I would like to say that you are incorrect, but I recognize that I am unlikely to change your mind.
