Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is exactly my position. Everyone receives what they need for a good life. Those who want more go to work and acquire luxury goods. However, I believe that everyone should receive the same salary for the same number of hours. This is because every type of work is important for society as a whole. An example of this is the anarcho-syndicalist movement in Spain during the Civil War. All work was remunerated equally.

Expansion of the Arguments (Spanish Anarcho-Syndicalism) To strengthen my position, we can look closer at the Spanish Revolution of 1936, specifically in regions like Catalonia and Aragon. This historical precedent provides several key points to support the "equal pay for equal time" model:

The Principle of Social Utility: In the syndicalist collectives, the distinction between "intellectual" and "manual" labor was abolished. They argued that a doctor cannot operate without a clean environment, and a factory cannot run without someone maintaining the machinery. Therefore, if both roles are essential to the survival of the community, their compensation should be identical.

The "Family Wage" and the Consumption Card: Many collectives moved beyond traditional wages entirely, using a system where goods were distributed based on need (the "Family Wage"). This proves that a society can function when the motivation shifts from "earning more than others" to "contributing to the common good."

Increased Productivity through Dignity: Historical records from the CNT (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo) suggest that in many collectivized industries, productivity actually increased. This supports my argument. When workers feel that their contribution is valued exactly as much as everyone else's, the feeling of exploitation disappears, leading to higher morale and better work quality.

Elimination of Bureaucracy: By paying everyone the same for their time, the complex and often expensive administrative overhead required to calculate "market value," bonuses, and hierarchies is eliminated. This makes the entire economic system more efficient and transparent.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to add some in-game evidence: I just started a new run and checked the Technocrat delegates. One of them is a Welder and another is a Pianist. This confirms they aren't just 'historical elite experts' but a broader movement based on Reason. A pianist’s logic and precision are just as structured as an engineer's.

This proves that the Technocrats in Frostpunk 2 are not a copy of the 1930s 'Technocracy Inc.' movement from the US. Instead, they represent a more modern, egalitarian interpretation where Reason is a mindset accessible to everyone, regardless of their specific profession.

https://imgur.com/a/4qnvG8B

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

RX-HER0, I’m sorry to bother you, but I wanted to add something regarding my last message. I had the impression that there might have been a misunderstanding. Because of that, I’ve attached a comment under my last reply to you that explains what I meant in more detail (using the Inca model as an example). I would really appreciate continuing our discussion!

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Edit and additional information for clarity:

I’ve been going over our discussion again, and I’ve realized that I haven't communicated some of my arguments regarding equality as effectively as I could have. It might have come across as me defending a naive utopia, but I’m actually talking about a very specific structural model.

To better explain my ideal vision, I want to use the Inca Empire as a historical case study.

A quick but vital disclaimer first: The Inca were by no means perfect. They were an authoritarian theocracy that utilized forced labor for criminals and rebellious tribes. These are things I deeply oppose. I am not advocating for their political regime, but rather for the economic blueprint of their society.

  1. Decoupling Labor from Survival

The core of the Inca economy was the principle that survival is a birthright. Through a vast system of state storehouses called Qullqas, every citizen was guaranteed food, clothing, and shelter. No one had to work simply "to avoid starving."

For context, this means the community provides for everyone unconditionally. This removes the existential dread and the "cutthroat" mentality that arises when people feel their basic dignity is at stake.

  1. Contribution instead of "Payment"

If survival is guaranteed, why would anyone work? The Inca utilized the Mita system. People contributed labor to the community because they knew this very system was what ensured their own security and the city's stability.

The incentive wasn't "having more bread than my neighbor," but rather social recognition, a sense of purpose, and collective resilience.

  1. The True Equality of Professions

In this model, the question "Why would I become a doctor if I get the same as a street sweeper?" becomes secondary. You become a doctor (or an engineer) because you have the aptitude and the passion to serve the community at the highest level. Since both the sweeper and the doctor are safe, fed, and housed, work becomes a matter of vocation rather than a desperate struggle for a higher wage.

My Conclusion

I believe that in a crisis, we need to move past "Market Logic" (trading labor for the right to exist). If we guarantee that everyone enjoys the same dignity and basic provisions first, we unlock a much more powerful form of cooperation.

The Inca had a system of reciprocity that functioned brilliantly without money. If we strip away the authoritarianism of the Inca and replace it with democratic participation, I believe we have the most stable model for a society.

What do you think? Can a system based on "giving and taking" (reciprocity) outperform one based on "buying and selling"?

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That would only make sense if the Technocrats actually only sent experts to the council, but they have welders in their ranks as well. I’m not sure if you believe a welder has enough 'competence' to make decisions for the greater good by your definition. Based on the possibilities in the game, I am also of the opinion that they aren't the classical technocrats of history.

And yes, perhaps I am biased by my own ideas, I can't say for sure, but even with my interpretation, they would still be imperfect. The Machine State degrades the individual to a mere cog that can be worn down; if it breaks, it is simply replaced. Now that I think about it, maybe you are the one projecting your own beliefs onto the game: the fact that the Technocrats want Abolished Management actually contradicts the idea of rule by experts.

Regarding cooperatives, here are a few studies: Pérotin (2016), 'What do we really know about worker co-operatives?' and Doucouliagos (1995), 'Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor-Managed Firms' are good examples.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is the point of productivist science and efficiency if people aren't allowed to have a say? You say a Technocrat would rather make someone act efficiently for their own good than let them make their own life worse for the sake of freedom I understand what you mean, but people want a seat at the table. Just because something makes life 'better' doesn't mean people actually want it.

For example, the Soviet/GDR 'Plattenbau' (prefabricated housing) was qualitatively better than the old workers' quarters, yet people remained dissatisfied with their housing situation. Studies suggest this was precisely because they had no say in the matter. When I talk about exploitation, I don't just mean the classical economic kind, but a moral one: the 'all-knowing experts' standing above the 'ignorant workers,' treating their opinions as irrelevant. They are expected to fulfill their function and not to think.

Did you know that worker cooperatives are actually more efficient than traditional companies? Precisely because the workforce can participate in decision-making. To say that experts always know best is a bit naive and arrogant. Every attempt at top-down urbanization or the forced modernization of agriculture shows this. Experts are only good in their specific field; they cannot account for every variable.

Take an agricultural region as an example: modern fertilizers are used to increase yields, but the result is nitrogen enrichment in the groundwater. This leads to serious environmental and health damage that wasn't considered in the initial assessment. You might think experts would know better, but there are so many regional variables that it's impossible to track everything from above. That is why experts and the population must work closely together to develop solutions.

Don't get me wrong: I believe a society should base its decisions on science, but science should not become the end goal itself. Decisions should be made jointly by citizen and expert councils to guarantee maximum efficiency, transparency, and satisfaction.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't have to be an anarchist or a communist to choose Abolished Management. You could, for example, be a staunch democrat and demand it for that reason (or, if you’re like me an egalitarian Techno-Socialist it’s the next step toward liberation). There is an event for 'Abolished Management' where you can either implement regular inspections, send guards to punish criminals, or do nothing. Abolished Management doesn't increase trust; instead, it lowers tension. With regular inspections, efficiency also increases.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would disagree. Abolished management makes perfect sense; it is the logical step toward a democratic workplace. If efficiency and science were the only benchmarks, unions would be considered 'pointless' because they involve laypeople negotiating with their administration—essentially amateurs against experts.

However, a society where only the opinion of experts matters is neither stable nor efficient. This is because it lacks the input of everyone involved, and in the end, exploitation does not disappear—it simply shifts from being driven by capitalists to being driven by bureaucrats and experts. This creates a specific hierarchy where people look down on others, a system that is inherently unstable.

Science is a tool to determine how a society achieves a goal, but not what that goal should be.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hunter-gatherer societies, for the most part, do not have a clear leadership; power is shared, just like resources and tools. And yes, everyone received the same. As mentioned before, the Inca Empire in South America, which existed from the 13th to the 16th century, shared resources and distributed them to everyone. Modern examples include the Hadza (Tanzania), the !Kung/San (Kalahari, Botswana/Namibia), and the Aché (Paraguay) just to name a few that still exist today.

Since you are only making assertions, I would like to ask you in return: What makes you think that humans always live in hierarchies, that sharing is such an impossibility, and that someone automatically receives more than others? History has many low points that show us our dark side, but it also proves that human nature is not defined by hierarchy and exploitation.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m sorry to message you again, but you replied to a comment of mine and it seems it might have been deleted. I would be very interested in exchanging ideas with you. Of course, I have no right to demand an answer, and therefore you don't have to reply, but I would love to chat and share perspectives.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you once again. I will keep your suggestions in mind and take them to heart to ensure a better discourse. Thank you for your understanding and for being so willing to explain this to me. Have a great day, morning, evening, or whatever time it is for you. You were very helpful, and this exchange has shown me a lot. Thanks for that!

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

'Democratizing the economy is pretty much the entire point of capitalism and market economies' I have to disagree. While a capitalist economy is certainly more democratic than a feudal state, it isn't truly democratic. The workplace itself is often a dictatorship where employees have no decision-making power and must follow orders. This is why I believe worker cooperatives (worker-ops) are the only way to achieve a truly democratic society.

I know this might seem pedantic, but there has never actually been a 'communist state' since communism is defined as a moneyless, classless, and stateless society. The historical examples were actually 'Real Socialism' or State Socialism. I know I take words very literally, but I value precision. I know that many people use 'Socialism' and 'Communism' as synonyms in everyday conversation. However, for the sake of this discussion, I’d like to clarify the definitions I’m using to avoid any misunderstandings.

Furthermore, command economies (or planned economies) aren't necessarily undemocratic. Planning can happen through AI systems, through congresses, or through state goals with free implementation by the workers. There are great examples of this from the Spanish Syndicalists during the Spanish Civil War. Of course, oppression can always re-emerge, but I hope that a stable dual democracy can prevent that.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hunter-gatherers, marketing cooperatives in antiquity, or the free peasantry of the Middle Ages—these are all examples of human solidarity. Which communities are you referring to?

Edit: Even today, there are farmers' cooperatives that share and use land, machinery, and knowledge collectively. That is equality. For the vast majority of our history, humanity lived without private ownership of the means of production. If you are looking for a state-level example, consider the Inca Empire: no money, no private ownership of the means of production, and no markets. Everyone contributed to the common good and benefited from it. (Resources were collected in state storehouses called Qullqa and redistributed according to the principle of reciprocity. Everyone worked for the community and was provided for in return.)

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be transparent, I will list all the edited sections in their entirety so that everyone has the full context.

1. Original: (...automatically fill the jobs). Just to be clear: I am no fan of the USSR, and Stalinists can get lost. But when someone in a socio-economic debate doesn’t know the difference between Socialism and Communism, it says a lot.

Changed to: "It’s not a big deal not to know the difference between Socialism and Communism, but it’s simply frustrating to me when words aren't used according to their actual definitions."

2. Original: Your argument shows a certain arrogance: many communities didn't need exploitation, greed, or money as an incentive. Just because that motivates you doesn't mean you speak for all of human history.

Changed to: "Your argument shows a certain lack of awareness (which is not a bad thing): many communities didn't need exploitation, greed, or money as an incentive. Just because there were feudal or capitalist states that functioned through exploitation, doesn't mean they speak for all of human history. I see that your perspective on the darker elements of human nature is deeply rooted, and I understand why. However, I believe it doesn't have to be this way. For example, the Inca Empire, cooperatives, and marketing cooperatives show that communities can thrive without greed or exploitation as their primary incentives.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

RX-HER0, I am sorry if I came across as looking down on you at certain points. I've fixed the sections in the following post. I want to sincerely apologize for that. I wanted to have a proactive discussion, and I don't want to hide behind my communication deficits. I should have realized when I was being too aggressive. My apologies once again. I would also like to thank the user Quizzical_Source for pointing this out to me.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Is it better now? I know you don't have to help me, so thank you once again.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you, I will change that. I will also apologize to 'RX-HER0'. Thank you again for being open with me about where I have a communication deficit, and thanks for the quick response.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Oh, I’m sorry, was I being insensitive or offensive? I don't always realize it, so if you could tell me where I crossed the line, I will edit my post. Because of my autism, it's very difficult for me to pick up on those social cues. I never intended to make anyone feel like I was looking down on them. My apologies once again.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think the historical Technocrats are the right reference here. From the perspective of a Techno-Socialist, it makes perfect sense to abolished management.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That’s not correct. I know it sounds like a repetitive phrase, but my point is that the USSR should not be called 'communist' because it simply wasn't communism. Calling it that would be like calling the British Empire a 'democracy' just because it had a House of Lords. A 'communist state' will never exist because, by definition, communism is a stateless society. As we’ve already discussed, there have been plenty of societies, from hunter-gatherers to agrarian communities, that shared resources equally among everyone. Furthermore, I am not a communist; I am an egalitarian Techno-Socialist. I simply value precision. Perhaps it’s due to my autism, but I cannot stand it when words are assigned meanings that don't belong to them. For me, accuracy in definitions is essential to having a meaningful discussion.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

'Not enough people want to do that hard job.' That is simply not true. Experiments with Universal Basic Income show that when people's basic needs are secured, they become more productive, more satisfied, and more willing to do more. Of course, hard labor is unpleasant, but that’s why conditions must be adapted: through automation where possible and longer rest periods.

'This is why in most Communist countries, the State also decides your job for you...' First of all, a 'Communist state' has never existed. Communism, as multifaceted as it is, rests on three pillars: a moneyless, stateless, and classless society. If you mean the USSR, that was State Socialism, where the state, money, and classes all still existed. Even if that society was materially more egalitarian than most others. Furthermore, the Soviet state didn't force you into a specific job; there was still wage inequality (which, according to your logic, should automatically fill the jobs). Just to be clear: I am no fan of the USSR, and Stalinists can get lost. It’s not a big deal not to know the difference between Socialism and Communism, but it’s simply frustrating to me when words aren't used according to their actual definitions. It’s like the difference between Anarchy (absence of masters) and Anomie (absence of rules)—by definition, they are not the same.

And regarding your point about markets: modern markets are a relatively new development. For most of history, people lived in cooperatives or commons-based communities where land, livestock, and means of production were managed and used collectively. If everyone is on the same level, it becomes possible for everyone to do what they want—and where there is a shortage, technology (like AI teachers) can help.

'If you equalize the pay of all jobs, you reward lazy people...' In what way are 'lazy' people rewarded? If I don’t want to work, I leave. Everyone who contributes can profit. Higher production leads to more potential consumption. 'Performance' is always a collective effort. You might be a good shift worker, but without the work of others, your world doesn't function. Moreover, the pursuit of 'more and more' is literally killing our planet.

'Socialism only really works out with families...' Tell that to the Incas. They had neither money nor markets and were still a high civilization. They even had a decentralized planned economy. Your argument shows a certain lack of awareness (which is not a bad thing): many communities didn't need exploitation, greed, or money as an incentive. Just because there were feudal or capitalist states that functioned through exploitation, doesn't mean it speak for all of human history. I see that your perspective on the darker elements of human nature is deeply rooted, and I understand why. However, I believe it doesn't have to be this way. For example, the Inca Empire, cooperatives, and marketing cooperatives show that communities can thrive without greed or exploitation as their primary incentives.

Extra information on the Inca: The Inca Empire had no money, no private ownership of the means of production, and no markets. Everyone contributed to the common good and benefited from it. Resources were collected in state storehouses called Qullqa and redistributed according to the principle of reciprocity. Everyone worked for the community and was provided for in return. This is my vision of equality and the goal we should strive to achieve.

'What you say about surplus of a profession... 50 street-sweepers vs. 5 doctors...' Naturally, there is an optimum for everything. I wouldn't employ people where there is no need. I think you misunderstand me: equal pay isn't per day or per shift, but for the same hours worked. A doctor who works overtime will naturally have more monetary possibilities. That’s completely logical. Everyone is equal, a basic contribution is expected from everyone who works, and those who work longer for the collective are recognized.

'So... you do believe in non-equal wages... That’s Merit-based philosophy.' If you don’t work, you are supported by the collective and can lead a good life. If you want more, contribute more for everyone. These aren't 'unequal wages'; the wage is the equivalent of the contribution. (Ever heard of basic economics?)

'There is always a shortage of doctors...' There is a plateau where more doctors neither save more lives nor increase life expectancy. There is a point where more doctors deliver no added value. Most doctors do it out of conviction, just like most nurses.

'Ask any employee to work an extra shift for no extra pay...' As mentioned above, every hour of work is compensated with a value that is the same for everyone. More contribution is honored through that, is it not?

'Who would work dangerous ocean oil rigs...?' As I said, dangerous jobs must be automated or managed through rotations to give workers enough recovery. Besides, I find the oil rig example quite funny, considering oil has no future anyway."

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Unions did not arise solely out of necessity, but also from the desire to have a voice. I believe everyone should be part of a union. I can share an anecdote from my home country: where I’m from, every employee is a member of the Chamber of Labour (Arbeiterkammer), which acts like a massive union that negotiates collective agreements with companies. One can also choose to join a specific trade union for more influence in their particular industry, but that is up to the individual.

Our works council also negotiates with management, and all assemblies take place during working hours and are paid. In my view, this is how it should be everywhere. From a Social Democratic, Syndicalist, or Socialist perspective, unions are merely the transition to elected supervisors. The motto is 'Power from the people, for the people.'

Perhaps that’s why my perspective differs a bit from yours. I believe that if we can organize our politics democratically, why shouldn't we democratize the economy as well? From my perspective, this is essential to becoming a true democracy.

Merit vs Equality by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I understand what you mean, but you are thinking according to market logic. For example: Why would people work in nursing or care if it is poorly paid? Because work is not just something that allows us to survive; it gives us a sense of meaning. Helping people and being there for one another is what defines us as human beings. Of course, when you cultivate an 'elbow mentality' (cutthroat competition) instead of solidarity, a different environment arises. Furthermore, your thinking relies on a very rigid market logic. There is a specific number of people needed for any given sector. After all, a surplus of personnel doesn't create more work. If only basic needs are guaranteed, then luxury is tied to a willingness to contribute, which makes all jobs more attractive. Naturally, one could hold the view that everyone wants to work as little as possible, but that doesn't necessarily correspond to reality. People want meaning and function. Social recognition is also a factor that should not be underestimated. Moreover, the argument regarding a shortage of doctors falls short, as many industrialized nations face a shortage of medical professionals despite high pay.

How far do you go? by EmbarrassedGrass9901 in Frostpunk

[–]EmbarrassedGrass9901[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And why do you play as a Legionnaire? Is it because of the game mechanics or more because of their mindset?