Remove ads

Victoria Falls: A Post-Collapse American Nation Quest [Down With Victoria!]

Voting is open
Reader mode
It's also worth re-iterating that, along with @Simon_Jester clearly articulating the reason why "but FREEDOM!" isn't exactly a persuasive argument for keeping pre-collapse capitalist systems in place, there's nothing that's been presented showing why that system would be better at overhauling existing infrastructure and industry rapidly, building up the necessary war economy to take back the continent and would be more secure against Victorian/Russian subversion.

To go point by point all examples of crash industrialization that have worked are usually ones that aren't operating on the imperatives of the market. Whether you're talking the Meiji program in Japan or ISI in Latin America such efforts picked up momentum in spite of and not because of letting market actors pursue the most profitable outcome. When it comes to any sort of large-scale war scenario even the United States had to take direct charge of large swathes of the economy during the World Wars, a scenario that's comparable to what we'll be facing, and no one even the most ardent free marketeers thought anything less would do the job. As for the question of security when the goal is maximizing the profits for a small slice of people owning a given company then that means cutting deals with people like Victoria, Russia, groups who are actively hostile to Chicago and other powers whose interests are at odds with ours not only goes on the table, it becomes actively desirable. All of that means chunks of our economy, society and basic security are much more vulnerable to subversion by a group who has a massive, verified history of using subversive tactics as their bread & butter.

There is no good argument for going back to the way things were, economically speaking, given the conditions that we are facing. We need to do what is best for meeting the needs of re-unifying America that is also as equitable, fair and stable as possible. Workplace democracy delivers all of that while also leaving space for a market economy. Going back to the old status quo not only doesn't do that, it also opens us up to the very tactics that the Victorians used to bring down the United States.
 
I would like to suggest to @PoptartProdigy that at some point, before it's time to close the vote moratorium, the QM might want to outline what they think the voting might look like so far. Right now, we're not entirely clear on whether we are "plan voting" for single massive slabs of constitutionality, or doing a line-by-line vote on multiple issues, and on some issues it's a bit unclear which options should be on offer.

I think wrapping up "Phase One" with a preliminary draft list of votes, followed by a more... focused discussion specifically revolving around that draft list and suggesting modifications or write-ins, might be helpful to narrow down the complexity we're looking at.
 
I've read a lot of the discussion about the introduction of workplace democracy and the benefits this might have for the workers to own the means of production, some of which I can agree with and others I find myself more skeptical of. However, I'm not entirely sure on how the proponents imagine that such a model for business should be implemented in reality. I assume the goal is the redestribution of the means of production from the current owners to the workers in the individual businesses regardless of the size or current structure of the business in question. This can only be done through the imposition of force (either threatened or actualized) by the state on the current owners from the shareholders that control the corporations with hundreds or thousands of employees to the minor family-run businesses with a handful of employees.

If someone could either explain or link to an explanation of how this would happen in reality I'd be grateful because at present I'm not certain how this process would happen or why the current owners would willingly let the state impose a economic doctrine that could see them ousted from their ownership positions. In particular, I find it hard to justify such an imposition by the state on smaller businesses where a relatively low number of employees could remove their boss and implement policies that might be detrimental to the business due to a lack of understanding of the market realities. This could also be an issue in larger corporations but is at least mitigated by the fact that the decision-making process of the employees will likely be steered by people who are more educated on the matters through trade unions.

There's also the fact that granting control of the businesses to the employees creates an in-group that lacks the incentive to grow the business and expand the number of employees unless it directly benefits them because the potential future employees belong to the out-group. In essence, they would rather increase their own wages and privileges than build new factories and hire more workers. This might not be an issue in an economy where private ownership of businesses is also a thing but the fact that all corporations are owned by the workers will lead to stagnation or at the very least diminished growth which we can't afford in our present situation.

All this is not to say that owners of larger corporations care about their employees. They don't. However, they do have an incentive to create growth in the business and expand production capabilities due to the fact that they reap a share of the profit from the workers they employ and that larger revenue generally lead to larger profits. The role of the state here should be to regulate and harness the inherent greed of human being in a way that the incenties to grow the business continues to exist but secures the rights of the workers and rewards them with a relatively large share of the profits that they've created through their labour.

TL;DR: Workplace democracy bad, social democracy good.
 
@Miner238 , I'm curious, you rated this post as "funny". I wrote the post in a serious spirit. Are you amused at my bold/italic of the words, or what I was saying? I'm asking because you have not otherwise replied.
 
Versharl said:
I've read a lot of the discussion about the introduction of workplace democracy and the benefits this might have for the workers to own the means of production, some of which I can agree with and others I find myself more skeptical of. However, I'm not entirely sure on how the proponents imagine that such a model for business should be implemented in reality. I assume the goal is the redestribution of the means of production from the current owners to the workers in the individual businesses regardless of the size or current structure of the business in question. This can only be done through the imposition of force (either threatened or actualized) by the state on the current owners from the shareholders that control the corporations with hundreds or thousands of employees to the minor family-run businesses with a handful of employees.

If someone could either explain or link to an explanation of how this would happen in reality I'd be grateful because at present I'm not certain how this process would happen or why the current owners would willingly let the state impose a economic doctrine that could see them ousted from their ownership positions. In particular, I find it hard to justify such an imposition by the state on smaller businesses where a relatively low number of employees could remove their boss and implement policies that might be detrimental to the business due to a lack of understanding of the market realities. This could also be an issue in larger corporations but is at least mitigated by the fact that the decision-making process of the employees will likely be steered by people who are more educated on the matters through trade unions.

There's also the fact that granting control of the businesses to the employees creates an in-group that lacks the incentive to grow the business and expand the number of employees unless it directly benefits them because the potential future employees belong to the out-group. In essence, they would rather increase their own wages and privileges than build new factories and hire more workers. This might not be an issue in an economy where private ownership of businesses is also a thing but the fact that all corporations are owned by the workers will lead to stagnation or at the very least diminished growth which we can't afford in our present situation.

All this is not to say that owners of larger corporations care about their employees. They don't. However, they do have an incentive to create growth in the business and expand production capabilities due to the fact that they reap a share of the profit from the workers they employ and that larger revenue generally lead to larger profits. The role of the state here should be to regulate and harness the inherent greed of human being in a way that the incenties to grow the business continues to exist but secures the rights of the workers and rewards them with a relatively large share of the profits that they've created through their labour.

TL;DR: Workplace democracy bad, social democracy good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't have a huuuge amount of time to write right now, but I will say that my issue wrt to maintaining private ownership of capital and businesses is that it is inherently oppressive and concentrates power (political and economic) in the hands of the people who have ownership of capital/production and that social democracy, while admirable, still allows the exploitation of peoples' labor for the benefit of the few.

Also the issue of "why do we need/want eternal growth" and other issues of approaching the economy through a capitalist/non-capitalist lens, but I don't have time to get really into it right now.

Also, private ownership by one or a small group of people has not prevented those people from making decisions detrimental to the business as a whole; see people who buy up companies, strip-mine them, and then close them down, which doesn't do anyone much good except the few people who reap massive profits from it.
 
I do however think we should not allow things like faith healing or homeopathy to qualify as any sort of medical practice. I also feel that vaccinations should be compulsory.
 
Versharl said:
I've read a lot of the discussion about the introduction of workplace democracy and the benefits this might have for the workers to own the means of production, some of which I can agree with and others I find myself more skeptical of. However, I'm not entirely sure on how the proponents imagine that such a model for business should be implemented in reality. I assume the goal is the redestribution of the means of production from the current owners to the workers in the individual businesses regardless of the size or current structure of the business in question. This can only be done through the imposition of force (either threatened or actualized) by the state on the current owners from the shareholders that control the corporations with hundreds or thousands of employees to the minor family-run businesses with a handful of employees.

If someone could either explain or link to an explanation of how this would happen in reality I'd be grateful because at present I'm not certain how this process would happen or why the current owners would willingly let the state impose a economic doctrine that could see them ousted from their ownership positions. In particular, I find it hard to justify such an imposition by the state on smaller businesses where a relatively low number of employees could remove their boss and implement policies that might be detrimental to the business due to a lack of understanding of the market realities. This could also be an issue in larger corporations but is at least mitigated by the fact that the decision-making process of the employees will likely be steered by people who are more educated on the matters through trade unions.

There's also the fact that granting control of the businesses to the employees creates an in-group that lacks the incentive to grow the business and expand the number of employees unless it directly benefits them because the potential future employees belong to the out-group. In essence, they would rather increase their own wages and privileges than build new factories and hire more workers. This might not be an issue in an economy where private ownership of businesses is also a thing but the fact that all corporations are owned by the workers will lead to stagnation or at the very least diminished growth which we can't afford in our present situation.

All this is not to say that owners of larger corporations care about their employees. They don't. However, they do have an incentive to create growth in the business and expand production capabilities due to the fact that they reap a share of the profit from the workers they employ and that larger revenue generally lead to larger profits. The role of the state here should be to regulate and harness the inherent greed of human being in a way that the incenties to grow the business continues to exist but secures the rights of the workers and rewards them with a relatively large share of the profits that they've created through their labour.

TL;DR: Workplace democracy bad, social democracy good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, given that we're choosing what our society looks like, we don't actually have to bother with considering how we'd get there. After all, by the point we enter the story, that has already happened. That said, in reality it would require redistribution in some form of the other.

Your idea of stagnation comes from assumptions that are only valid in a conventionally capitalist society. Basically, you assume that new factories must originate from the owners of the old factories, which at it's core is in conflict with the ideas proposed. But the core idea of workplace democracy is that the workers build and own the factories. As such, rather than factory 1 building factory 2 and hiring worker-group 2, you'll see workergroup-2 selforganizing into factory 2.
 
Rat King said:
I don't have a huuuge amount of time to write right now, but I will say that my issue wrt to maintaining private ownership of capital and businesses is that it is inherently oppressive and concentrates power (political and economic) in the hands of the people who have ownership of capital/production and that social democracy, while admirable, still allows the exploitation of peoples' labor for the benefit of the few.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You say that it's inherently oppressive but with proper regulation and redistribution of wealth through the state, I fail to see how that's the case. If employees are guaranteed a fair wage(of course that's subjective) for their work, reasonable hours and a healthy work environment by the state... well, calling that oppression seems like a joke to me. Especially if the state ensures that workers are given unemployment benefits/severance when they're fired and the state helps them find a new job through various programs. I realize that this might be because I've grown up in a country with a strong welfare state, powerful unions and an educated and informed population but I just don't see this oppression that you claim to be inherent in a capitalist society. Sure, when I look at countries like the US or developing countries, the oppression of workers by corporations is obvious but that's because the state lacks the means or will to intervene in the market when necessary.
Rat King said:
Also the issue of "why do we need/want eternal growth" and other issues of approaching the economy through a capitalist/non-capitalist lens, but I don't have time to get really into it right now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You'll note that I specified that high growth was required due to our present and unique situation. I wouldn't say the same is the case in all situations but in a post-apocalyptic situation where we have powerful enemies that are only momentarily distracted? Definitely.
Rat King said:
Also, private ownership by one or a small group of people has not prevented those people from making decisions detrimental to the business as a whole; see people who buy up companies, strip-mine them, and then close them down, which doesn't do anyone much good except the few people who reap massive profits from it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Which is where the state comes in with regulation. I'm not here to be an advocate of vulture capitalists or individuals who make terrible business decisions that lead to the failure of their company. However, it's important to distinguish between individuals and systems. Individual owners of businesses may make terrible business decisions but the system creates incentives for growth and expansion that your system simply doesn't.

I'll also note that you didn't address the in-group vs. out-group dilemma or how you propose to implement workplace democracy which was the primary thrust of my argument against the system but of course you're not obligated to do so. I appreciate the discussion regarldess.
 
Last edited:
Miner238 said:
Yeah, it's funny to see you get worked up over something dumb.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You seemed to be serious about that 'something dumb' as well. Are you sure you're not just lashing out and trying to belittle your opponent?

Miner238 said:
What, you think bold italics makes you look serious? :lol
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's for extra emphasis. Knight's not 'worked up', he's emphasising to make his point crystal clear. You know, like he said he was.
 



Industrial Workers of the World
​
Ideological Heart: Industrial Unionism, organize all workers into One Big Union, run democratically by the workers from below in the spirit of solidarity

Ideological Defense: An Injury To One Is An Injury To All

Constitutionality: First ratified by workers in Chicago in 1905, the constitution of the IWW has guided militant union democracy for almost two centuries, adapting with the times to face new challenges to organizing workers power.​
Preamble to the IWW Constitution
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.
Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.
We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.
These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.
Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."
It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In the wake of the collapse of the United States, it has been extended to serve to as a framework to hold our communities together in the spirit of solidarity, extending beyond the shopfloor into the very fabric of our neighborhoods

Centralization: The basic building block of our Industrial Democracy is the democratic shop floor, this is paralleled by neighborhood, women's, and minority councils, all members of councils in good standing are encouraged to participate directly in the activity of the local General Membership Branches, and General Defense Committees. General Membership Branches elect recallable delegates to their Regional Administration and to the Industrial Unions and Departments to which their members belong, which in turn provide delegates for regular National Conventions, between conventions to establish policy administration is handled by the General Executive Board in Chicago.
 
Last edited:
@Versharl, here is an explanation of the justifications for worker's co-operatives from the perspective of liberalism (not socialism):

http://www.ellerman.org/Davids-Stuff/Books/P&C-Book.pdf (The book I'm quoting from)
Most people who work, work as employees. Yet they do not know employment is the rental relation applied to persons and they do not know the traditional name of the relationship. The system of social indoctrination has been so successful that the employer-employee relation is not even perceived as something that could be different. "To be employed" has become synonymous with "having a job," to be "unemployed" is to be without work so "employment" has become the same as work. The employment relationship is accepted as part of the furniture of the social universe. We have even described the opposite system without the employment relationship as "universal self-employment" [which is akin to describing the opposite of the slavery system as universal self-ownership].

How could this happen? Part of the answer must be Marxism. Capitalism has been able to define its distinguishing features by the contrast with Marxism. The debate with Marxism has been focused on so many sideline issues that it gives new meaning to the phrase "red herring." Since Marxist socialism models the economy as one big capitalist firm, the worker has the choice of being a cog on a private wheel or a cog on one big public wheel. It is as if slavery apologists had been able to successfully redefine the issue as the choice between public or private slave plantations. By diverting the debate, Marxism has been an absolute godsend to capitalist apologetics. If Marxism did not exist, capitalist ideology would have to invent it. The capitalism/socialism debate has not only diverted attention away from the renting of human beings, it has allowed capitalism to be positively identified with democracy, equality, justice in property, and treating people as persons rather than things. Yet the employment relation inherently denies all these ideals in the workplace.

Slavery has been abolished both as an involuntary or as a voluntary relationship. But instead of creating a form of enterprise where people are treated as persons rather than things, we only have a system where workers are rented rather than owned. The transition from workers being an owned input to their being a hired input was certainly a moral improvement. But the capitalism/socialism debate has paid little attention to the alternative form of work where the human element is not "employed" at all by public or private employers where people rent only things rather than the owners of things renting people.

Consider equality. There is a basic equality of rights in the political sphere. But prior to the democratic revolutions, there was a fundamental political inequality between ruler and the ruled where the ruler governed in his own name, and was not selected by and did not represent the ruled. Today in the economic sphere, that same type of authority relationship exists between the master and servant where the employer governs in his own name, and is not selected by and does not represent the employees.

Or consider democracy. The capitalist democracies stands for democracy, but not in the workplace [viz. Dahl 1985]. In the next chapter, we will review the non-democratic tradition of liberal thought which founded autocracy on a voluntary contract, the pactum subjectionis. With the triumph of the democratic revolutions inspired by the natural rights philosophy of the Enlightenment, that non-democratic liberalism retreated to the capitalist workplace where it has flourished ever since as part of capitalist ideology. The employment contract is the pactum subjectionis of the employment firm.

Or consider justice in the private property system. Under capitalism, doesn't everyone get what they produce, the fruits of their labor? We will see quite the opposite, that when labor is hired, the fruits of labor go elsewhere. Labor is the natural basis for the appropriation of newly produced property; the natural "wages" of labor are the fruits. Instead of somehow being the economic system realizing justice in private property, capitalism systematically violates the basic labor principle of private property appropriation. It is again the employment relation which sets up the misappropriation of private property. In each case, we trace the root cause of the problem to be the renting of human beings, the employer-employee relationship.

The alternative to the employment relation is not having everyone employed by the state. It is having everyone working for themselves (individually or jointly). This means restructuring companies so the membership rights are personal rights attached to the functional role of working in the firm. Then there is no human "employment" since working in the firm makes one a member, so people are always jointly working for themselves.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

From a Marxist perspective, well, let me just quote this summary I made a video summarizing (hah!) the argument:
Lazer Raptor said:
For now, my attempt to start discussion will revolve around this video, which I will summarize, by the Leninist (read: likes Lenin and dislikes Stalin) ProSocialism:

It starts by first ridiculing the idea that capitalism can be characterized either by market exchange, or by mere commodity production. After all, societies before capitalism had both of these, instead, capitalism is defined by generalized commodity production, where land, resources, and labor power have all become commodities to be bought and sold, and commodity production has become the typical form of production, yet this does not fully define capitalism. ProSocialism then explains that this creates a new type of capital, industrial capital, which is what transforms a non-capitalist society into a capitalist one, by "penetrating the sphere of production" instead of merely serving as an intermediary.

Thus, the video ascribes capitalism the following characteristics:
  • Generalized commodity production (commodification of labor power, means of production, etc.)
  • Control of the sphere of production (means of production) by capital
The video then goes on to describe the "circle of capital" as such:
  1. Money takes the form of capital
  2. Money is then invested into "productive process"
  3. The production process occurs and the worker produces a commodity of greater value than the original investment.
  4. The commodity is sold and additional money is obtained by the capitalist (capital accumulation)
  5. The process repeats.
ProSocialism goes on to describe wage labor as the ability for a worker's sale of her ability to operate within this cycle, with a wage being a monetary price, which like all prices is governed by laws of market exchange. He then goes on to explain that for this process to work, the value of the wage must be high enough that the worker can subsist and remain decently healthy, and purchase commodities. This does not mean that all workers will be able to do this, but that in general the working class must be able to fulfill these conditions.

The video goes on to discuss the division between "necessary labor time" and "surplus labor time", necessary labor time being the time required for the worker to produce their means of subsistence, which is held withing their wage, while surplus labor time is the remainder of the time that they work, of which the value of their labor goes to the capitalist. Thus, surplus value is created, and ProSocialism explains that thus capitalism is inherently exploitative, as to function it requires the operation of this system.

I found it to be a good summary of some basic Marxist critiques and definitions of capitalism, while still remaining under ten minutes in length. This is no mean feat.

The works and specific chapters he quotes can be found here in the order used:
  1. Economic Manuscripts: Frederick Engels: Supplement to Capital Volume 3
  2. Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter Twenty-Four
  3. Ernest Mandel: Intro Marxist Economic (Chap.2)
  4. Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter Eight
  5. Economic Manuscripts: Capital: Volume Two
  6. Wage Labour and Capital. Chapter 4
  7. Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter Nine
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Finally read through most of this. So wait. The Hohenzollern Family, the one which decided "Nah fuck the throne we are buisness folks nowadays" when asked at every opportunity, decide to become chaotic-stupid(sorry evil) fascists because they want the Throne of Germany....what.

Can we please add some German Nobility in there somewhere who is completely supporting Chicago just so that for once we can not have evil german stereotypes running about?
Also how is it doing what with Russian Hegemony? Is it still ruled by a over one hundred year old cyborg Angela Merkel or has it caved to Pseudo-Hohenzollerns (i refuse to accept that Kraft asshole as anything but the same pretend kind of nobility that the Tsar is)
 
spiritualatheist said:
Hell for that matter, you could use the personal freedom argument to argue against mandating seatbelts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They did.

Flectarn said:
Industrial Workers of the World
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ah! The competition shows itself at last! I shall prepare the hit pieces.

*Screen turns black, and this flag fades into view. An ominous voice speaks out disembodied as the flag sits there*

"This flag is red. Do you know what else is red? Blood. Do you know who liked blood?

"That's right. HITLER!"

*Flag fades out, and regular programming continues*
 
Lazer Raptor said:
@Versharl, here is an explanation of the justifications for worker's co-operatives from the perspective of liberalism (not socialism):

http://www.ellerman.org/Davids-Stuff/Books/P&C-Book.pdf (The book I'm quoting from)


From a Marxist perspective, well, let me just quote this summary I made a video summarizing (hah!) the argument:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, I can't say I find either of the two perspectives terribly convincing given the fact that I'm neither a liberal nor a marxist. It also didn't address the issues I raised in my posts... like, at all. The arguments presented seem to be entrenched in ideological dogma that requires me to accept the underlying premise that the voluntary "renting" of people is wrong, that non-democratic institutions are inherently bad and that "when labor is hired, the fruits of labor go elsewhere" in the liberal perspective. In the case of the marxist perspective, the idea that capitalists reaping profits through "surplus value of labor" is inherently exploitative also fails to convince me because of the reasons I've described in my other posts.

Unless you can show me that the oppression and exploitation that you believe exist in all capitalist systems are also present in a social democratic capitalist system, you're not going to be able to convince be that the mass appropriation of private property from the private owners to the employees is justified. And again, I'd really like someone to explain to me how the process is going to work out in reality!
 
Revoked ability to Like/Rate Posts
Fezzes said:
You seemed to be serious about that 'something dumb' as well. Are you sure you're not just lashing out and trying to belittle your opponent?


It's for extra emphasis. Knight's not 'worked up', he's emphasising to make his point crystal clear. You know, like he said he was.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah I was so serious about religion, I was so serious I was making jokes!

Also, for you information, bolding with italics plus exclamation points just makes you look like your screaming shrilly.

Lashing out, ooh that's some strong language! Almost as if you are trying to portray me in a bad light in order to make your accusations look better;)
 
Versharl said:
I've read a lot of the discussion about the introduction of workplace democracy and the benefits this might have for the workers to own the means of production, some of which I can agree with and others I find myself more skeptical of. However, I'm not entirely sure on how the proponents imagine that such a model for business should be implemented in reality. I assume the goal is the redestribution of the means of production from the current owners to the workers in the individual businesses regardless of the size or current structure of the business in question. This can only be done through the imposition of force (either threatened or actualized) by the state on the current owners from the shareholders that control the corporations with hundreds or thousands of employees to the minor family-run businesses with a handful of employees.

If someone could either explain or link to an explanation of how this would happen in reality I'd be grateful because at present I'm not certain how this process would happen or why the current owners would willingly let the state impose a economic doctrine that could see them ousted from their ownership positions. In particular, I find it hard to justify such an imposition by the state on smaller businesses where a relatively low number of employees could remove their boss and implement policies that might be detrimental to the business due to a lack of understanding of the market realities. This could also be an issue in larger corporations but is at least mitigated by the fact that the decision-making process of the employees will likely be steered by people who are more educated on the matters through trade unions.

There's also the fact that granting control of the businesses to the employees creates an in-group that lacks the incentive to grow the business and expand the number of employees unless it directly benefits them because the potential future employees belong to the out-group. In essence, they would rather increase their own wages and privileges than build new factories and hire more workers. This might not be an issue in an economy where private ownership of businesses is also a thing but the fact that all corporations are owned by the workers will lead to stagnation or at the very least diminished growth which we can't afford in our present situation.

All this is not to say that owners of larger corporations care about their employees. They don't. However, they do have an incentive to create growth in the business and expand production capabilities due to the fact that they reap a share of the profit from the workers they employ and that larger revenue generally lead to larger profits. The role of the state here should be to regulate and harness the inherent greed of human being in a way that the incenties to grow the business continues to exist but secures the rights of the workers and rewards them with a relatively large share of the profits that they've created through their labour.

TL;DR: Workplace democracy bad, social democracy good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Implementation may actually be pretty easy to do given that the economy is pretty much operating at just barely above a subsistence level, as described in the lore post on Chicago thus far, so is probably in all but name operating on a workplace democracy model or something easily adapted to it in many places anyway. For the cases that aren't the support of the city's funds, government and society for workplace democracy in new enterprises would effectively ensure that model gets sufficient strength, inertia and a commanding position that it becomes the de facto system of economic organization. The actual amount of property seizure needed to implement such a system in recovery-period Chicago would probably be pretty minimal given the just above rock-bottom conditions we are in and we're still in the world-building stages (I think if I'm reading the current situation in-thread right) so that suggests part of that means during the collapse such systems more or less crept in informally and formally so that when the Chicago Accords were signed it's pretty much fait accompli that a substantial chunk of Chicago's economy is worker-owned and run.
 
Last edited:
Miner238 said:
Yeah, it's funny to see you get worked up over something dumb. What, you think bold italics makes you look serious? :lol
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, I do think state regulated/mandated religion is bad/dumb, but it's a serious topic to me. Seeing you treat it so flippantly, even in the context of a game, leaves me feeling frustrated, and unwilling to work with you or consider your ideas in the future.
Have you considered that a less religion-hostile approach might garner you greater chances of cooperation and compromise in areas you consider important?
 
LHB said:
Implementation may actually be pretty easy to do given that the economy is pretty much operating at just barely above a subsistence level, as described in the lore post on Chicago thus far, so is probably in all but name operating on a workplace democracy model or something easily adapted to it in many places anyway. For the cases that aren't the support of the city's funds, government and society for workplace democracy in new enterprises would effectively ensure that model gets sufficient strength, inertia and a commanding position that it becomes the de facto system of economic organization. The actual amount of property seizure needed to implement such a system in recovery-period Chicago would probably be pretty minimal given the just above rock-bottom conditions we are in and we're still in the world-building stages (I think if I'm reading the current situation in-thread right) so that suggests part of that means during the collapse such systems more or less crept in informally and formally so that when the Chicago Accords were signed it's pretty much fait accompli that a substantial chunk of Chicago's economy is worker-owned and run.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Subsistence level? Really? This section of the last update seems to indicate otherwise:
But damn, it's alive. We've got folks playing music on street corners. We've got people from all over the Country showing up in the hopes that we've got something better to offer. The America we used to have might not be around anymore, but we're building something new here, and god damn, we're all alive to see it!

And you know, once you've gotten yourself put back together and you're thinking ahead a bit, there's a strong drive to spread out a bit. Talk to folks. Urge them back into the old cities. Bulk up.

Get ready, for when Mother Bear has the attention to spare to swing on by again.

Things these days are a little uncertain. We've built up fast, and we're having some growing pains of our own. We've got a lot of people from all walks of life streaming into our area. There's a lot of friction, and a lot hasn't been settled yet. But we're alive. We took the American Collapse to the face and got back up. Now, we've got folks from all over the Northern Midwest in town to talk about how we're going to get this place up and running again. Isn't that incredible? Isn't it grand?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But it is interesting to learn that you do plan on forcing everybody to follow your ideological business model. I don't suppose you could be persuaded to just offer state support for the business model in the form of loans and subsidies for workers wishing to start their own cooperative businesses? The other plan seems a bit authoritarian to me and frankly unnecessary if we give the workers alternatives. If private enterprise is as exploitative and oppressive as you guys claim, surely the workers will jump at the chance to start their own Just™ and Democratic™ cooperatives. I'd like to note that I'm not at all opposed to worker-ownership of cooperations. I'm just opposed to enforcing it on all businesses by the state and the threat of violence. Because let's not mince words. You're forcing people, even small-business owners, to relinquish control of their property under the threat of violence by the state.

And that's not even going into the issue of how this type of authoritarianism is going to look to outsiders. Do you think other fledgling states are going to want to join us when they know we're going to be confiscating the private property of everyone who's middle-class and above?
 
KnightDisciple said:
I mean, I do think state regulated/mandated religion is bad/dumb, but it's a serious topic to me. Seeing you treat it so flippantly, even in the context of a game, leaves me feeling frustrated, and unwilling to work with you or consider your ideas in the future.
Have you considered that a less religion-hostile approach might garner you greater chances of cooperation and compromise in areas you consider important?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah... forgive me for butting in but one of the things that made (and still makes it special even today) is that there is freedom of religion. Taking that away or forcing people to abide by a state religion or have the state regulate what people can worship is... well bad.

It's like taking away part of America's soul. And we are trying to restore America and (hopefully) make it better. However the first amaendment should not be touched or we lose allies that we need to restore it.
 
Last edited:
Businesses are not personal property.

I agree with freedom of religion. But I also believe in freedom from religious ideology in govt.
 
Last edited:
Agreeing with Versharl here. Workplace Democracy and i think a Syndicalist System (thats what this basically is supposed to turn out to be right?) are all well and good but instead of enforcing it incentivize it, and thus allow it to grow by itself. Simply seizing peoples property is leading to unneccessary tensions with the citizenry. Subsidizing or outright State Capitalism seem far better routes to achieve these things.

If you want to start going around nationalizing things turn towards energy, public transportation, water, postal services and such things. Thats where people don't like private folks to muck about and where you have the least resistance to nationalization.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Voting is open
Remove ads
Back
Top