[ACCEPTED] Tempted By The Fruit Of Another

by **A Humanist Science** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:54 pm

Accepted As:

#615 - Tempted By The Fruit Of Another

Sixth and Final Draft:

Name

Whose Lime Is It Anyway?

Description

When @@ANIMAL@@ Farms' produce packing plant on the outskirts of @@CAPITAL@@ went pear-shaped, its former workers broke through the padlocked gates and brought the machines inside back to life -- under their own collective management. But, once The @@DENONYMNOUN@@ Agricultural Co-op started turning a modest profit, @@ANIMAL@@ Farms' investors petitioned the courts to take their property back. The workers' co-op has met the police in the streets, and things are about to go bananas.

Validity

private enterprise legal; low economic output; high unemployment; high wealth gaps; agricultural industry greater than zero

The Debate

[option]"This factory is mine! I have the deed right here!" yells @@ANIMAL@@ Farms majority shareholder @@RANDOMNAME@@ from the safety of a sea of well-armored riot police. "How do you like them apples? Really, it's precisely this sort of commie nonsense that is responsible for the economic downturn in @@NATION@@ to begin with! Everyone knows these lazy peasants don't have the plums to build a real enterprise. But, now that MY factory is turning a profit again, I'm happy to buy their labor! You know, at a small discount."
[effect]agricultural employees work for peanuts
[stats]average income of poor decreases, average income of rich increases, business subsidization increases, economic freedom decreases, economic output increases, employment decreases, government size increases, income equality decreases, law enforcement increases, political apathy increases

[option]"Oh, so you have some quaint little deed? Who gives a fig?" asks @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, an award-winning documentary maker, while simultaneously signing copies of her new book The Shock Logo. "Why does the law protect the rights of failed business owners while leaving the workers out in the cold? Haven't these workers also invested their very lives into this factory? Don't sacrifice their families and their lives to that bunch of sour grapes! Change the law to allow workers to take direct and democratic control of abandoned factories!"
[effect]workers have their fruitcake and eat it too
[stats]average income of poor increases, average income of rich decreases, business subsidization decreases, economic freedom increases, economic output decreases, employment increases, government size decreases, income equality increases, law enforcement decreases, political apathy decreases

[option]"Look, this 'self-management' thing sounds all peachy keen, but it just plays into the same tired capitalist narrative," says red turtleneck-clad political theorist @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, while wrinkling his nose at a tattoo laden protester. "Characterizing the suffering of the working class as merely an 'investment' plays directly into the hands of the bourgeoisie. And what do a bunch of pea-brained individuals know about proper management anyway? Can one factory provide jobs for all? Clearly, the state should seize factories for the good of all @@DENONYMPLURAL@@!"
[effect]the central politburo bears the fruits of everyone's labor
[stats]authoritarianism increases, average income of poor increases, average income of rich decreases, business subsidization decreases, economic freedom decreases, economic output increases, employment increases, government size increases, income equality increases, law enforcement increases, political apathy increases

by **A Humanist Science** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:55 pm

Clearly still a work in progress. Also, based on a true story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%2 ... management

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:15 pm

Instead of "they" option 2 should use "we"

by **A Humanist Science** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:31 pm

Australian Republic wrote:Instead of "they" option 2 should use "we"

Maybe. The subject of the prior sentence is "these workers," though. So a follow-up sentence using "they" is appropriate. Imagine that the speaker is standing forward, yelling into a bullhorn, and gesturing backwards to the people she's talking about. Although she represents a labor organization, she might not necessarily be an actual worker at that particular factory.

That's the image I had in my head, anyway.

by **Trotterdam** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:31 am

A Humanist Science wrote:@@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, spokesperson for the Industrial Workers of @@NATION@@

Why is this person female? Her gender isn't referenced anywhere. You even used the gender-neutral "spokesperson".

by **A Humanist Science** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:51 am

Trotterdam wrote:
A Humanist Science wrote:@@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, spokesperson for the Industrial Workers of @@NATION@@
Why is this person female? Her gender isn't referenced anywhere. You even used the gender-neutral "spokesperson".

I think I originally intended to get a reference to Naomi Klein in there somewhere.

In fact, i'll just change the option two speaker into a documentary maker, so speaking about the workers as "they" makes even more sense. Need to think about a clever reference for Klein though.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 4:50 am

As always, AHS, your writing quality is superb and you pick very interesting topics to write issues on. I suspect as usual, any submissions you send through will be fought over by the team.

However, to criticise here, I'd observe that this isn't really funny and/or satiricial. Rather, it just replicates the real life situation / dilemma and asks for a choice.

Also, I'd note that its very wordy for what it communicates, and that every speaker seems to have the same tone and style of speaking, despite opposite agendas.

Obviously a solid issue overall, and one that would make it into the yes-pool without any changes, but I know you're always willing to make good issues into great issues, so have a think on those comments.

by **Drasnia** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:16 am

Most of what I was going to say has already been covered, but in Option 1, why does the factory owner call it "commie nonsense?" This doesn't make much sense to me in the narrative as nobody up to that point had been pushing for communal property - just using abandoned property (which does not a commie make).

I'm assuming the title is a reference to Whose Line Is It Anyway, yes? Alternatively, you could title it Whose Assembly Line Is It Anyway?

Finally, what are the flags supposed to represent? I'm guessing the black is for Anarchism and the red is for communism, but what's the green paper for? Money? Maybe I'm just dense . . . I would like to see more humor in these descriptions and option text, like CWA said.

EDIT: Oh look, my 666th post.

EDIT 2: I am incredibly dense. The green paper is of course, money (the American bills). However, I don't know if it's conveyed all that well and thinking more internationally, I don't know how many Brits, Aussies, or other non-Americans will get the "joke" about green paper, as America is pretty unique in their currency design.

by **A Humanist Science** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:50 am

Bump for second draft to reduce wordiness, change up second option speaker, removed waiving flags (despite being a universal feature of pretty much all labor protests/riots), etc.

Also, the third option speaker asks "And what do a bunch of rag tag individuals know about proper management anyway?" Is there a way to visually stress "do" and "individuals" so as to make the speaker sound like he's speaking sarcastically, or asking a rhetorical question here? To my memory, I've never seen bold or italic in a published issue, and ALL CAPS probably wouldn't work either, since that signals mere shouting.

by **A Humanist Science** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:54 am

Drasnia wrote:Most of what I was going to say has already been covered, but in Option 1, why does the factory owner call it "commie nonsense?" This doesn't make much sense to me in the narrative as nobody up to that point had been pushing for communal property ...

The issue description explicitly states that the occupying workers are managing the factory collectively. So, the idea of collective/"commie" management is already established in the narrative before the first option speaker

At any rate, as I understand it, the political culture in Argentina around the time the recovered factories movement got started there was very opposed to the idea of a workers cooperative. Even other private businesses refused to sell supplies or buy products from worker coops (which forced the coops to band together and do business with each other directly, ultimately making their movement stronger...). Critics jumping straight to the communist apocalypse as a rhetorical strategy seems like an accurate assumption to make.

by **A Humanist Science** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:27 pm

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:every speaker seems to have the same tone and style of speaking, despite opposite agendas.

.

Yeah, totally agree. I'm in the middle of writing a major culminating research paper at the moment, so dull soul-less monotone has been my default mode for a couple months now. Especially since im in social science (**sarcastic quote fingers**), where any remote hint that you might care about the outcome is a "bias" apocalypse.

**sigh**

by **A Humanist Science** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 4:21 pm

Drasnia wrote:I'm assuming the title is a reference to Whose Line Is It Anyway, yes? Alternatively, you could title it Whose Assembly Line Is It Anyway?
.

Maybe switch the context to a citrus packing plant and go with "Whose Lime Is It Anyway?"

by **Drasnia** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 4:26 pm

A Humanist Science wrote:
Drasnia wrote:I'm assuming the title is a reference to Whose Line Is It Anyway, yes? Alternatively, you could title it Whose Assembly Line Is It Anyway?
.

Maybe switch the context to a citrus packing plant and go with "Whose Lime Is It Anyway?"

Or a cocaine factory: Who's doing lines, anyway?

by **A Humanist Science** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 4:34 pm

Drasnia wrote:
A Humanist Science wrote:
Maybe switch the context to a citrus packing plant and go with "Whose Lime Is It Anyway?"

Or a cocaine factory: Who's doing lines, anyway?

Pickle manufacturing: "Whose Brine..."

Rope manufacturing: "Whose Twine..."

Germanic beverage containers: "Whose Stein..."

Orthopedic medical support devices: "Whose Spine..."

by **A Humanist Science** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:33 pm

Third draft. Trying the "lime" thing.

by **A Humanist Science** » Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:42 pm

Took a swing at filling in some [stats] suggestions. First and third options are meant to provide pro-business and pro-labor benefits, respectively, at the cost of bigger and/or more authoritarian government. Second option is meant to link small(er) government with pro-labor benefits (an underrepresented option, in my completely biased opinion), but at the cost of a weaker economy.

Anyway, **bump**

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:56 am

Yeah, this one's good to go, as far as I'm concerned.

Feel free to submit it, or to hold back for feedback from others.

by **Australian rePublic** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:28 am

WAIT!

by **Australian rePublic** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:30 am

This is a bit contradictory in that it's a public company and yet an individual has the deed to the factory, rather than the company

by **Gnejs** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:33 am

Australian Republic wrote:This is a bit contradictory in that it's a public company and yet an individual has the deed to the factory, rather than the company

That's not what's happening. Read it again

Love the turtleneck, by the way.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 3:19 am

Actually, Gnejs, I think Aussie Republic is right.

Option 1 has an individual holding the deeds, and referring to his ownership of the place in a personal way, while the description describes that the party asserting ownership are the @@ANIMAL@@ Fruit investors plural.

That is to say, we've gone from talking about investors and backers, to talking about a single individual asserting ownership. A little pronoun editing is needed.

[option]"We're not afraid to assert our rights and demand back what is legally ours!" yells @@ANIMAL@@ Fruit backer @@RANDOMNAME@@ from the safety of a sea of well-armored riot police. "I have our company's deeds of ownership right here! Besides, it's precisely this sort of commie nonsense that is responsible for the economic downturn in @@NAME@@ to begin with! Everyone knows these simple lazy peasants don't have what it takes to build a real enterprise. But, now that our factory is turning a profit again, we'd be happy to buy their labor! You know, at a small discount."

by **Gnejs** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 3:28 am

The speaker could easily be one of the owners, it does state that they're a backer, which implies there are several. I don't think it needs to be changed, but it's obviously not a problem to do so.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 3:36 am

Good point, it does work as it stands as well.

Up to AHS, I guess.

by **A Humanist Science** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:46 am

Australian Republic wrote:This is a bit contradictory in that it's a public company and yet an individual has the deed to the factory, rather than the company

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Actually, Gnejs, I think Aussie Republic is right.

Option 1 has an individual holding the deeds, and referring to his ownership of the place in a personal way, while the description describes that the party asserting ownership are the @@ANIMAL@@ Fruit investors plural.

Gnejs wrote:The speaker could easily be one of the owners, it does state that they're a backer, which implies there are several. I don't think it needs to be changed, but it's obviously not a problem to do so.

This was an oversight on my part. However, i'm tempted to keep it as is, so as to suggest that the option one speaker is the "last man standing" after a grueling court battle with the other investors. Sort of emphasize that his claim to the plant is more to do with being able to afford the most lawyers, as opposed to some sort of more meritorious claim (again, my libertarian commie bias is probably showing).

Gimme a bit to change the language along these lines. Also, to hint a bit more at the benefits and costs of each option.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:56 am

For sure! Don't forget to keep wordiness at bay!

[ACCEPTED] Tempted By The Fruit Of Another

[ACCEPTED] Tempted By The Fruit Of Another

Who is online