We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Collectivization Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: MLTP (The Resistance)
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2072
Description[?]:
| Suggested redraft, for the purpose of debate only. 1. Agriculture shall be collectivized. a) Farmers are encouraged to join an agricultural coooperative of their choice. b) Farmers electing not to join a cooperative may retain ownership of their land. c) All crop production, from both cooperatives and individually-owned farms, will be sold at a uniform fair price to a Joint Farm Produce Marketing Board. d) The Board shall be controlled by elected representatives of the farm cooperatives. e) Crop prices shall be determined by the Minister of Agriculture in consultation with cabinet colleagues and the Board. This price will be set in such a manner as to ensure a reasonable standard of living for the rural population. f) This bill replaces the Food Security Act. Farmers will be compensated by a fair price for their produce, and the former subsicdies for low-income farmers and hereby abolished. 2. Public transportation is state-owned and operated. a) The government recognizes public transportation to be a right, and shall ensure that proiper service is maintained throughout the country. b) Public transport workers retain the right to reorgnaize their local transit system into a worker cooeprative, under the term of Lodamun's Cooperatives laws. 3. All heavy industries must be reorganized as worker cooperatives owned by their staff. This process will take place under the terms of existing laws on cooperatives. 4. The state may at any time extend this staff-collective ownership requirement to any other industry. 5. Workers in state-owned enterprises retain the right to form unions and the right to strike. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Current: Agricultural crops which are considered beneficial to the enviroment or to the continued ecological safety of the state are subsidized.
Proposed: All agricultural operations are state-owned and operated.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:51:28, June 05, 2005 CET | From | MLTP (The Resistance) | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | Yes, it's poorly writen, so I'd like imput from the other PACF parties, as to what you think I should change. |
| Date | 02:56:50, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | Do you want input from others? ;) |
| Date | 07:45:02, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | What farms? They don't exist. There's no player agreements in writing that farms exist. |
| Date | 08:12:53, June 05, 2005 CET | From | MLTP (The Resistance) | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | ((CCF: Yeah, imput away. :-] AC: I want you to know that even if no one else liked your comment - which I doubt - I though it was pretty damn funny)). |
| Date | 09:32:35, June 05, 2005 CET | From |  National People's Gang | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | Needs to be changed from "state-owned" to "staff-owned" in all cases. |
| Date | 11:07:22, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | Staff owned? What? |
| Date | 17:05:28, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | That will be a reference to farms being owned collectively by their workers, not by the state, presumably: a much needed change. On point one: the CCF does not support nationalization of agriculture and the forcible acquisition of family farms. Existing subsidies for low-income farmers and cooperatives seem to cover the need. On this question we will take a libertarian socialist line rather than a more Leninist approach -- the MLTP of course should prefer Leninist methods, but may wish to compromise with its more anarchist allies on this point. The remaining points seem to support the spirit of the foreign ownership and cooperatives laws, but go a step further -- you may want to make reference to that. I would presume that there has been an increase in cooperatives owning industry since Albert's bill to that effect was passed by a large majority, but will defer to Albert on whether he agrees with that presumption. The bill might be couched as an attempt to increase control by worker cooperatives, and extend that control into agriculture. The question in agriculture is whether a sector dominated by small family-owned farms should be treated in the same way as industry, dominated by large corporations. Perhaps some form of cooperative marketing board (model of the Canadian Wheat Pool, for instance) rather than outrighht state ownership of crops. Public transport should certainly be state-owned or owned by its workers under state regulation of some sort. The right to strike in nationalized corporations will require clarification -- can workers strike against a company owned by the state in a vital sector? Can they strike against themselves? This may be best addressed in a separate bill, but the question needs to be addressed. |
| Date | 22:23:08, June 05, 2005 CET | From | MLTP (The Resistance) | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | 1. The agriculture shall be collectivized. Farmers shall be grouped into collective farms, and shall be paid a fair, equal price for crops. Those farmers who currently own farms may retain those farms; they must give crops to the farmer’s collective, however, and will be paid an equal amount as their fellow farmers. 2. Public transportation is state-owned. 3. Heavy Industry is collectively staff-owned. 4.The state reserves the right to transfer ownership of any other industry it deems fit to a staff-collective. |
| Date | 01:12:19, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | Suggested redraft, for the purpose of debate only. 1. Agriculture shall be collectivized. a) Farmers are encouraged to join an agricultural coooperative of their choice. b) Farmers electing not to join a cooperative may retain ownership of their land. c) All crop production, from both cooperatives and individually-owned farms, will be sold at a uniform fair price to a Joint Farm Produce Marketing Board. d) The Board shall be controlled by elected representatives of the farm cooperatives. e) Crop prices shall be determined by the Minister of Agriculture in consultation with cabinet colleagues and the Board. This price will be set in such a manner as to ensure a reasonable standard of living for the rural population. f) This bill replaces the Food Security Act. Farmers will be compensated by a fair price for their produce, and the former subsicdies for low-income farmers and hereby abolished. 2. Public transportation is state-owned and operated. a) The government recognizes public transportation to be a right, and shall ensure that proiper service is maintained throughout the country. b) Public transport workers retain the right to reorgnaize their local transit system into a worker cooeprative, under the term of Lodamun's Cooperatives laws. 3. All heavy industries must be reorganized as worker cooperatives owned by their staff. This process will take place under the terms of existing laws on cooperatives. 4. The state may at any time extend this staff-collective ownership requirement to any other industry. 5. Workers in state-owned enterprises retain the right to form unions and the right to strike. |
| Date | 01:34:56, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | (( Boo, you communists! )) The Council will not support this bill for many obvious reasons. |
| Date | 04:40:09, June 06, 2005 CET | From | MLTP (The Resistance) | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | I changed it to the CCF's wording. Any objections? |
| Date | 04:41:47, June 06, 2005 CET | From | MLTP (The Resistance) | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | ((Oh, and I'm leaving the proposal, because even though they arn't exactly state owned, and it's not "All", of all the options, "All agricultural operations are state-owned and operated" sound the closest)) |
| Date | 04:52:23, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | (( Yeah but then tautology comes in and messes with stuff. )) |
| Date | 16:43:55, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | Now i have to decide if i support it... ;) |
| Date | 00:04:12, June 07, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | We support this, definately. ((These are the 'demands' from the PACF, right?)) |
| Date | 00:43:43, June 07, 2005 CET | From | MLTP (The Resistance) | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | ((Yeah, I guess. Why?)) |
| Date | 22:56:21, June 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | That proposal would be funny if you weren't serious about it. How is anything ever going to be decided in these co-operatives. Who makes the excutive decisions, and why should they bother? |
| Date | 18:35:00, June 12, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | Co-Operative production has enjoyed much success over the course of its 15 years in Lodamun, it is not a new and untested concept. The executive decisions are made by everyone, since good decisions are in their best interests (Unlike the quintessential top-down structure, where decisions are made in the best interests of the top.) |
| Date | 19:27:01, June 12, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | Because we all know that top-down structures work best when the bottom ends up screwed. |
| Date | 04:06:38, June 13, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | Hey, you're the one who said it. |
| Date | 02:07:21, June 16, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | A slight problem of sarcasm detector failure there CNT/AFL. "The executive decisions are made by everyone" How? Give us some insight as to how the decision will be collectively made when necessary to reduce staffing levels. The collective will gather together and kill off part of itself we suppose. |
| Date | 06:52:36, June 19, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | TIC does not support this bill. |
| Date | 18:50:38, June 19, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | Staffing levels would not have to be reduced for conventional reasons. The only foreseeable reason for firing workers would be them slacking off, in which case they will be expelled from the collective, but given the adequate provisions to work individually. Remember, these aren't purely capitalist enterprises, money and greed aren't the only motivation. Production is more for use than profit. |
| Date | 21:25:36, June 19, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | So a corporation or enterprise, as you call it, that has a collapse in demand for its product would still pay its workers even though it has no income. Good economics there. I suppose that the deficit would be govered by the government, with the tax paid by the worker who produces nothing as well. Get real. |
| Date | 05:11:55, June 20, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | I fail to see how there would be a collapse in demand for food. |
| Date | 05:31:40, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | "2. Public transportation is state-owned and operated. a) The government recognizes public transportation to be a right, and shall ensure that proiper service is maintained throughout the country. b) Public transport workers retain the right to reorgnaize their local transit system into a worker cooeprative, under the term of Lodamun's Cooperatives laws. 3. All heavy industries must be reorganized as worker cooperatives owned by their staff. This process will take place under the terms of existing laws on cooperatives. 4. The state may at any time extend this staff-collective ownership requirement to any other industry." Demand for food, not too likely. Demand in "any other industry", certainly possible. |
| Date | 19:47:05, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | A right? If one person has a "right" to something, then someone else is obligated to provide it. Why should one person be enslaved to another? "4. The state may at any time extend this staff-collective ownership requirement to any other industry." Our people have shown that they prefer a smaller government. This would grant the government unholy amounts of power at the expense of the current owners of said industries. |
| Date | 19:50:41, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | Demand for food, while not collapsing, does often decrease or increase. Look at what happened after both world wars. "these aren't purely capitalist enterprises" Explain how anything fully state owned and operated is remotely capitalist. |
| Date | 22:32:14, June 20, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | "So a corporation or enterprise, as you call it, that has a collapse in demand for its product would still pay its workers even though it has no income. Good economics there. I suppose that the deficit would be govered by the government, with the tax paid by the worker who produces nothing as well." Workers in co-operatives aren't paid. It's a co-operative, they share the profits. Since labour costs aren't part of the expenditure, there chance of still running a loss is non-existant. ----- "Our people have shown that they prefer a smaller government. This would grant the government unholy amounts of power at the expense of the current owners of said industries." Since when have 'staff' and 'government' been interchangeable? ----- "Explain how anything fully state owned and operated is remotely capitalist." Again, staff =/= state. |
| Date | 22:57:58, June 20, 2005 CET | From | MLTP (The Resistance) | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | We'd like to take this time aside and ask if the CCF and/or MLP will support this bill, as it is still unclear, and I think these debates are leading nowhere fast. |
| Date | 23:31:56, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | If another country produces fod far more efficiently and sells it here at below the price of our national product, then the demand for food from our 'collectivized' farms will disappear. Given that we will not have anybody with any economivc or business experience running our farms, this scenario is almostr certain to happen. This is a recipie for disaster unless you wish to also go to a complete isolatonist policy and ban all imorts at the same time. This latter would be opposed by the people of Lodamun. The conclusion is that the proposed collectivization is the most efficient way yet devised for making us 100% dependent on food imports and for destroying the livelyhoods of our hard working farmers. |
| Date | 23:36:51, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | "Workers in co-operatives aren't paid. It's a co-operative, they share the profits. Since labour costs aren't part of the expenditure, there chance of still running a loss is non-existant." Terminological hair splitting. If the collective makes no money, the worker receives no money. OK It matters not if you pay them or call it profit sharing, if they don't have enough to buy food, shelter, and clothing, then tehy are not going to work are they? The collective does not have lower costs, it simply redescribes them as profit in one of the less subtle pieces of accounting sleight of hand that the world has seen. The cost is still there. You still hqve to provide a livable income to the worker, so the prices have to reflect this. No economic advanytage is gained, but efficiency advantages are lost. |
| Date | 00:45:14, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | "Again, staff =/= state." Thats not what the proposal says...: "Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy. Current: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families. Proposed: All agricultural operations are state-owned and operated." "Workers in co-operatives aren't paid. It's a co-operative, they share the profits. Since labour costs aren't part of the expenditure, there chance of still running a loss is non-existant." There are many other expenses in a business besides labor. And as to profit-sharing, if the business runs at a loss, will there be loss sharing too? Because that sounds like a CORPORATION. Why dont you just allow farmers to voluntarily incorporate their farms, and sell equal amounts of stock to the workers there...That sounds much more fair... |
| Date | 04:03:34, June 21, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | "Thats not what the proposal says...:" The proposals are sometimes a little bluntly worded. We generally value the contents of the bill more than the wording of the proposals. "Why dont you just allow farmers to voluntarily incorporate their farms, and sell equal amounts of stock to the workers there...That sounds much more fair..." Farmers can choose to work alone, it's written there plain and simple. I suppose that they can declare their farm a public company and float it on the exchange, as per our laws. |
| Date | 07:05:16, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | What method is to be used to determine the government cartel price for foodstuffs? Why should our people be subjected to cartel monopoly pricing. Why should a farmer that produces a superior product be restricted to the same return as a farmer who produces crap? Justification for this interference in the lives of the people is required and conspicuous by its absence. |
| Date | 00:12:13, June 22, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | An opinion poll was held among the citizens of the Independent Republic of Lodamun. The subject of the opinion poll was Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.. When asked what their opinions were, the following choices were made:Percentage Choice 13.51% The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families. 18.47% The government allows local governments to craft agricultural subsidy policy. 21.67% All agricultural operations are state-owned and operated. 28.61% The government denies subsidy assistance to farmers. 17.74% The government subsidises agriculture based on market demand for the crop being grown. |
| Date | 20:34:17, June 25, 2005 CET | From | MLTP (The Resistance) | To | Debating the Collectivization Act |
| Message | Eh, what the hell. I'm bringing this to vote. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 72 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 142 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 236 |
| Random fact: Never use the same password as a friend. If two or more active accounts use the same password, they will be inactivated. |
| Random quote: "A democracy that does not allow limits is not a democracy. Just as a limitless freedom is not freedom, but prevarication. Indeed, any theory of freedom worthy of this name is first of all a limit theory. If we extend the unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not willing to defend a tolerant society against the attacks of the intolerants, then the tolerants will be destroyed and the tolerance with them! Because, I ask to myself and ask you, given a certain system that we call democratic, which is today the best possible system to allow everyone to live freely and to be able to express their own thoughts, how can the same system admit attacks against its integrity? How can a system refuse the principle of the self-preservation? For this reason, to suppress the apologetics of thalerrism, it's for this reason that the exaltation of exegetes, principles, facts or methods of Thallerism and its anti-democratic aims does not constitute a violation of the freedom of manifestation of thought, but, on the contrary, the celebration of that freedom. The protection of the first premise on which a modern democratic system is based. And this premise must be safeguarded also and above all against itself and its abuses." ~ Malik Astori, Leadership of Liberty and Progress (Istalia) |