Top
Best
New

Posted by geekamongus 1 day ago

Show HN: Skyline Co-op is like SimTower, but built around democratic socialism(intergalacticrobots.app)
I've been rebuilding old games with Claude. While creating a modern take on SimTower and having election news on TV in the background, I had the idea to build the economy of the game around democratic socialism instead of capitalism.

Instead of a real estate tycoon, you are an elected steward of the building, held responsible by the Assembly. Homes are allocated off a waitlist, dues are set on a sliding scale, and you face outside pressures from neighboring capitalist landlords.

The crown jewel is attracting a large grant to establish an observatory at the top of your tower, attracting scientists. To get there, you must make sure the people are fed, housed, healthy, and entertained. If the Assembly doesn't have confidence in your abilities, you get voted out.

It kinda works, and the potential failures in the game are pretty unique. I'd be interested to hear HN's take. An entire SimCity clone based on a different economy like this could be fun.

41 points | 41 commentspage 2
iso1631 1 day ago|
> attracting a large grant

From whom?

a2ff6eeb0 1 day ago||
There's an incredible irony in using the most effective tool capitalism has produced to boost the power of capital, to make a game about socialism.
bildung 1 day ago|
But not that new, "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them" is a quote attributed to Lenin, so >100 years old by now
ButlerianJihad 1 day ago|||
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/02/22/rope/

  ...The earliest strong match located by QI appeared in 1955 within a periodical called “The Commonwealth: Official Journal of the Commonwealth Club of California”. The club is a non-profit public affairs organization. The quotation [by Major George Racey Jordan] appeared as a filler item.
a2ff6eeb0 1 day ago|||
This smells a bit closer to "We're capitalists, but we'd like to get some lift from the current socialist vibe". If that's the case, respect for skimming off the rubes.

If not, it's giving "We're tying ourselves up with the rope the capitalists sold us".

geekamongus 1 day ago||
Well, it's a free game, and open source...

I acknowledge the irony though.

antiquark 1 day ago||
[flagged]
bildung 1 day ago|||
That cuts both ways - can people in the US vote for democratic socialism, or will the capitalists then create super PACs to influence elections, thus undermining the principle of one person, one vote?
bigfishrunning 1 day ago|||
So the socialists don't influence elections? they don't have speeches and advertising? News to me -- are you sure the majority want socialism? seems like many many people don't. Or is the election only "influenced" if it doesn't go your way?
bildung 1 day ago||
I have no horse in that race as I don't live in the US. But reading today that in Michigan the democratic primary loser outspent the winner almost 10:1 truly baffled my mind. Stuff like this isn't even legal in most other democracies, i.e. in France all presidential candidates have to have equal TV time to present their respective positions.

Imagine how the political landscape in the US would look like if people's votes were actually equal.

bigfishrunning 1 day ago||
So the primary should have gone to the person who spent more? maybe infinite spending can't force through an unpopular platform?
ceejayoz 1 day ago||
I think you've misinterpreted the parent.

Someone almost bought that election. That it didn't quite work doesn't make it a good scenario.

elcritch 1 day ago|||
This is nonsensical.

This PAC influence being putatively for buying advertising, to you know influence individual voters to their point of view? They can’t literally buy votes.

So votes only matter if they’re not influenced by PACs? Perhaps it’s more that if a voter agrees with a capitalist PAC then it’s no longer a valid individual vote? It smacks of anti-democratic value that the masses are too dumb to vote correctly.

bildung 1 day ago||
Of course they don't literally buy votes, but statistically they very much do. Stuff like not having votes only on sundays, votes taking hours, publicity just meaning outspending the opponent etc. are all things most other democracies don't have. I literally had a political science course in university were these were taught as cases of voter suppression (i.e. If you are a member of the working /middle /upper class, how likely is it that you can easily be off work for a full day on a tuesday, compared to a sunday?).
FeloniousHam 1 day ago||
> Of course they don't literally buy votes, but statistically they very much do.

Counterpoint: Haley Stevens Brad Daigle Jon Tester Sherrod Brown Tom Steyer Hillary Clinton Michael Bloomberg (the list is long)

You need "some amount of money" to compete in elections, but the "money correlates to votes" is canard.

kristianc 1 day ago||
Most democratic socialist societies are capitalist, capitalism just remains politically subordinate rather than able to govern society unchecked.
energy123 1 day ago||
Those would be social democracies.
numbers_guy 1 day ago||
No, social democracies are subservient to capital.

The whole modern democratic socialist movement as I understand it is primarily to fix exactly that issue.

energy123 1 day ago||
I don't have much to discuss about the movement (although I am sceptical due to the repeated historical pattern of Mensheviks making way for Bolsheviks), but the subject we are discussing are democratic socialist countries, not movements, which as far as I am aware, don't exist. There are social democracies like Finland, which is what I assume the poster was referring to.
mbmbn 1 day ago||
[flagged]
ceejayoz 1 day ago|
Yeah, co-ops don't exist in capitalist places like NYC, right?
git-nebulous 1 day ago|
[flagged]
DC-3 1 day ago|
venuzuela hamburger xDDDD