I'm wondering;
Isn't it quite misguiding to call all of the given changes of society "reforms"?
Initiatives such as planned economy, abolishment of private property, collectivizing the means of production, and/or the stage from parlamentarianism to anarchism, is flat out revolutionary progress.

So maybe we should either change the name or make a section for revolutionary changes?

Making entire replacements of the system is so much different than just making adjustmens to the established society.

Another thing that might ought to be included according to the so-called reforms:
Since a planned economy is only per definition a rational, democratically controlled economy, it should be recognized as consisting of various models.
It differs whether the given economy is common owned by the state, or the working class itself.

One should have the opportunity of choosing between variations such as the centrally state-planned model, participatory economics, the union-controlled model (unsure if it was called cooporativism), or the one where the workers themselves collectively own the workplace and distribute the production according common interests.

That would strongly improve the game feel, in my opinion.
It's already great to have a simulation game that includes knowledge about the complexity of the political landscape and doesn't express the same misguided claims, such as the U.S. made simulators, which are based on the confined american "liberal-conservative" politics BS.

This post was last modified: 29.03.2008 16:26 by Petrenkovich.

Why has this topic possibly been ignored..

Well, I call it intentionally reforms, as in Germany a reform is always (in the media) considered as an alternativeless change according to capitalists wishes :hm:

Well, we've got the planned economy and the anarcho-syndicalism, additionally you can modifiy the economy by deciding tasks. What else would you like exactly?

what else... everything!

for example you could let us use the internet to allow every one of our genious citizens to vote on every topic and thereby abolish the need for representatives. make the people govern. then the player could remain as a spiritual leader and only give recommendations, which would affect his popularity. his popularity would affect the number of voters which he can influence. call it "Direct Democracy" or whatever and make it a reform.

"planned economy" - just means that "the means of production belong to the proletariat". but the economic simulation remains essentially the same - simulating capital, taxes and all that.

i understand that the soviet union had this "planned market economy" paradox and in fact everything there belonged to the communist party. but i dont want to make a second soviet union. and i dont see what a market economy is supposed to be doing in a planned economy.

for starters, you could give us the option between buying out the remaining capital in the country (remaining in the international market - at a huge price) or simply disowning it (international economic sanctions). call them "Nationalized Market Economy I" and "Nationalized Market Economy II" or whatever and make em mutually exclusive.
but we should also get other reform options like "Worker Ownership of Production Capacities" (as opposed to nationalization), "Abolishion of Property", "Self-Abolishion of Government" or whatever. just thinking about the consequences of such changes to society is difficult, so i bet coding them would be a real pain.


you could also give us a different budget. like let us control or influence economic imports (to raise production), consumer imports (to raise happiness) and exports (to raise money for the imports). instead of taxes and expenditure, we should be able to influence the allocation of labor and production. like so and so many more percentage points of production into housing construction and so much into export industries. that sorta stuff.

your entire programming concept was so far based on a money-driven market economy. of course we could pretend that the tax is not a tax and that the expenditure is actually labor allocation. but thats not quite it.

allowing us truly different forms of society would be cool. but the required coding effort... does not seem realistic.

There is already a reform which makes workers exclusive owners of the business companies: Anarcho syndicalism (hope this is translated correctly, but you will get what I mean in any case).

The problem is only partly about coding, it is also about modelling. What would be the consequences of such huge modifications of economy? Difficult to estimate, and players will probably not be content if something unexpected happens then. There could be literature about such ideas, but honestly other things seem to be more important at the moment.

Sheep is right, again

No, reform means "gradually" and "within the system".
Revolution though characterizes the fundamental exchange of the existing system.

I don't see anarcho-syndicalism identical to the form of socialist society in which the workers distribute the workplace themselves instead of through direct state-ownership, apart from anarcho-syndicalism, where unions are the overall figure of the worker's collective, and where the state doesn't even exist at all. That's the difference, I'd say.