-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Classes make history, not people, until someone whips out the eye lasers and body checks a freight train.
we need more communust with abs
we need to recruit the krassentiens.
taking your shirt off in a debate when you are ripped = Insta win
we need to recruit the krassentiens.
taking your shirt off in a debate when you are ripped = Insta win
Clearly a weak leader if such a small amount of smoke obscures their length.
how do alien empires tie into socialism
Seriesly overthrowing space capitalism would be hard
especially if there is super powered alien emperors
we shall install socialism under one planet
Seriesly overthrowing space capitalism would be hard
especially if there is super powered alien emperors
we shall install socialism under one planet
The OG Superman comics were more "imagine what kind of SAW-style torture scenarios we could invent for the rent-seeking class if bullets couldn't stop us." I certainly agree that's what it's become, though.
To be fair, if I could vaporize someone with magic powers and not even sweat I'd probably think carefully about using excessive force. The main problem with making stories that center themselves around that theme is... none of the people reading it are frequently in the position where they need to ask themselves if they should pull their punches.
Alien Empires tend to be humanistic. It's a thematic cul-de-sac. When faced with the problem of imagining something truly different, authors tend to lean towards the familiar.
Capitalism. Imperialism. Colonialism.
This is why so many fictional "galactic civilizations" are just rehashed roman empires.
Asimov's Foundation series really took on a new dimension for me when I imagined Hari Seldon as sci-fi Marx.
Psychohistory, the fictional science that allowed Seldon to project the future, is actually just very sophisticated dialectical materialism.
Capitalism. Imperialism. Colonialism.
This is why so many fictional "galactic civilizations" are just rehashed roman empires.
Asimov's Foundation series really took on a new dimension for me when I imagined Hari Seldon as sci-fi Marx.
Psychohistory, the fictional science that allowed Seldon to project the future, is actually just very sophisticated dialectical materialism.
Last edited:
Come to think of it, psychohistory fell apart when a dude with superpowers showed up.
The long arc of history will be determined by class struggle, until a dude with superpowers enters the equation, at which point the long arc of history will be determined by the dialectical synthesis of superpowers.
That's... actually what happens to the Foundation universe, come to think of it. The finale of the Foundation series is literally a synthesis between a wholly eusocial branch of the human race and a branch of the human race engineered in the pursuit of maximal individualism, shepherded by a sapient and sentient machine designed to liberate the working class, with the goal of creating a eusocial galaxy.
Man, the Foundation series is SO good. There's so much going on in that ending because of the decision to tie it to the Caves of Steel series.
Well, an alien society that lives out gay space communism is not really going to pose a threat to humans, so there's no conflict for the story. Unless the opposite happens (see: Avatar).
OP
OP
Homero Rómulo Cristalli Frasnelli Final Fantasy XVI.
It's like Final Fantasy X, except the whale is socialist and good.
We all know Lenin reincarnated into a British frat boy that works for British intelligent as a phyop and hates evreything except golf and family guy
So a guy I know from my home town is having some problems and I'm going to talk with him later this week. Basically I'm going to try and stealth breadpill him. The guy is a reactionary from a reactionary family in a reactionary cultural area, so I can't just throw Capital at him. I'm trying to find some leftist reading (maybe focused specifically on the alienation of labor) that doesn't come out of the gate quoting Marx directly too much. Do any of y'all have recommendations of that nature? Anarchist works would be great, too. At the least "government is bad" is something he'd readily accept.
something easier would be a documentary or some youtube channels, i think a book is harder for people to read if they are not interested yet in the topic
Documentary
13th from netlfix is good for a leftist view on criminology
there's 1 from Noam Chomsky that's very good but i cant remember the name
Michael Moore is a little controversial but i liked the one about health care
youtube
philosophytube, shaun, three arrows, contra points, peter coffin etc
podcast
majority report and michael brooks show is good
movie
sorry to bother you
1) Get a lip plumper
2) Chew some fruity gum
3) Stare deep into his eyes, make sure your stare is sincere, yet sensual.
4) Kiss him on the lips passionately and profoundly. Don't be afraid to use your tongue.
5) Pull back and whisper "seize the means of production". Walk away with your 10 inch heels clicking dramatically on the ground.
6) REVOLUTION!
Alternatively, you can just show him these:
2) Chew some fruity gum
3) Stare deep into his eyes, make sure your stare is sincere, yet sensual.
4) Kiss him on the lips passionately and profoundly. Don't be afraid to use your tongue.
5) Pull back and whisper "seize the means of production". Walk away with your 10 inch heels clicking dramatically on the ground.
6) REVOLUTION!
Alternatively, you can just show him these:
Someone in the Void Point thread said Era was a Marxist exho chamber. Gave me a hearty chuckle
Most of David Graeber's writings are expansions of Marx's alenation concept, if he is up for books (accessible) Bullshit Jobs is pretty good - but to be honest his essay in Strike Mag puts the same points forward almost as well: https://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ Graeber is an anarchist.
This podcast is alsopretty good: https://podtail.com/en/podcast/jacobin-radio/jacobin-radio-david-graeber-on-bullshit-jobs/
Civ VI, nice. As the future government types they added go, I kinda read "Digital Democracy" as the stateless communism of the future.
i'm always a liberal in civ, especially civ v. ironically as my irl politics moved to the left my civ political preferences moved to the right, i used to always go communist in civ v but now i know better
I like that Tilda Swinton scene where she's giving that stupid talk about shoes on heads. Like an appeal to common sense or something. It's a nice sort of picture of how I see the weak bullshit in today's media. Fox and Friends, Joe Scarborough (Don't give a shit how his name's spelled), Chuck Todd, etc. All of them with stupid appeals to protect the status quo.
Pithy, snarky twopence off the top of my head: a socialist revolution in China is something I support.
I doubt you're going to find many people on ERA who are on China's side when it comes to this, to be honest. Just because people self-identify as socialists/leftists doesn't mean they're going to 100% support any state that pretends to be socialist. Nobody's ever going to defend North Korea on anything, for instance.
It is fairly clear to me that China in order to achieve its imperial ambition sees it needs to rid its colonial legacy, here meaning Taiwan and Hong Kong, ie. 'national unification'. China also controls the narrative (through reactionary nationalism) to hinder any possible solidarity between the strikers in Hong Kong and workers in China. The task of the socialists, as usual, is neither to support US imperialist dreams/aggressions nor Chinese. My understandings of the situation is quite influenced by reading Au Loong Yu's socialist take on the situation. This is also probably still relevant in its proletarian perspective of Hong Kong movements::
Last edited:
You hit the nail on the head. This is what I'm trying to understand. Is the idea that socialists on here don't truly believe China to be an actual socialist state? To me this is a rationalization.
I feel as though most on here who are actually socialists would say that they support Hong Kong (a government with very little regulation of the economy), over China (an actual socialist state) only because its political correct to do so.
This appears to me to be an exercise in sophism.
It's obvious our younger demographics supports socialism. Is it only democratic socialism that they support? Is it because China utilizes capital more in modern times that they don't support it? If that is the case, they could be considered political more leftist than China.
Then why even support Hong Kong? Hong Kong is more laissez faire than the United States. The young feel as though capitalism has has lead to a slew of problems in the USA. Many similar issues that Hong Kong does struggle with i.e, business having guaranteed spots on their legislature.
Hong Long is ranked as the number one country with limited governmental regulation of the economy https://www.heritage.org/index/ So why not support China?
I just think people are not fans of police brutality. Plus, supporting China because it is more to the left than Hong Kong is some the end justify the means shit.
Last edited:
The support is for Hong Kongers, not Hong Kong. Both states of China and Hong Kong have problematic characteristics, but that doesn't prevent leftists from feeling solidarity with collective movements.
Because China is an authoritarian, oppressive regime that's communist in name only.
Socialism, as far as I support it, is inherently democratic.
China is undemocratic.
Hong Kong is pretty capitalist but nominally democratic. I don't consider freedom of market spending "democracy". I measure it by equality and common welfare, which Hong Kong doesn't excel at. But even nationalist, capitalist HK is is more democratic than China.
Socialism traditionally sides with people on the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder, which tends to be the working, wage-labor masses. It is inherently anti "elite", politically or financially.
Last edited:
No one in this thread thinks China is a socialist state. It is not a rationalization, it is a fact...
Responding to you might not lead anywhere as there might be too many epistemic differences to get into a real discussion... "trying to understand" has a particular meaning to me.
But assuming we can overcome that: You speak of Hong Kong as a totality - it is not - the HK goverment/state is not the protestors - and the protestors are not one entity: some of the protestors want more fundamental changes to the whole of Hong Kong politics due to some of the capitalist ideals you cite (living costs etc), some factions are liberal pandemocrats, some are rightwing nationalists with racist streaks... I support the protests because there is an opening for larger working class politics/ solidarity , including towards China's working class in the movement, no matter how small...
Someone calling themselves a communist party does not necessarily make them communist, in the same way that calling myself a nuclear scientist doesn't make me a nuclear scientist, and the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is neither Democratic nor a Republic.
What you are is defined by what you do, not what you say, and the modern CCP pretty much only does state capitalism.