8 Feb 2021, 19:37

Workers' Congress debates "return to 1834"

Yesterday, a joint meeting of the provisional Cultural and Economic Assemblies of the Workers' Congress began to debate a possible "return to 1834." Long wanted by anti-colonialists, who argue that the establishment of the Union was a continuation of the colonialism of the occupying powers, such a return would entail the revision of existing economic structures as to decentralize the economy, placing greater emphasis on independent workers and local branches of "colleges" - the legal term for what are more commonly known as sub-syndicates.

The inspiration is from the system of 1834 - that is, the State of the Haane at the time of its final fall, in which the economy was managed primarily through quasi-religious organizations which regulated the work of artisans, farmers, professionals, those who provided social services, and the burgeoning sector of those who worked in industry. Workers were regarded not as parts of a collective as they are now, nor as cogs in a greater company as they are elsewhere, but as individuals in their own - artists who were supposed to have an almost mystical knowledge of their "craft," which itself was tied to a religious "aspect" or "force," and were supposed to communicate these to newly "entered" individuals, who would have "passed" from the "realm of the force of development and innocence" into their new "realm" of the force with which their new vocation was affiliated with. Their work was generally governed by two principles:

  • tradition - unwritten knowledge passed down from "elders"
  • written law - decided by the total body of "independent and learned" workers in a certain locality and synchronized through the sending of delegates to a greater council, to be moderated by the "King" (original European translation) or the "State Elder" (modern translation).

Collective work was governed by the "college" of all workers in a vocation in a local community; individual work similarly, but to less of an extent due to its nature.

The argument made by those who wish to re-instate it is that it would "counteract" what they refer to as "the continuing legacy of colonization before 1993, while serving to negate the genocidal regime of Areai." Their reasoning? The current system, according to them, remains influenced by the Convention of 1916, which did not include indigenous representatives and instead forced a constitution on them, believing them to be uncivilized. They wish to remove these influences as to "achieve justice."

Those against argue that it would be more inefficient, and that the current system, which has attempted to find a middle way between total return to 1834 and total return to 1992, is fine as it is, having propelled the country towards food stability and democracy. They currently hold a narrow majority; however, several claim that they are "willing" to concede to the other side.

Debate will continue until at least the 22nd.