If you feel the need to take down capitalism then Tonight We Riot is out now

These people are nuts, truly thinking the world would be better if it was conquered by china...

China? I think you're confusing Socialism with Communism there.


Last edited by Liam Dawe on 9 May 2020 at 12:24 pm UTC

Wow, looks like an sjw wet dream, I mean they already established 2 terrorist groups under the names ANTIFA and BLM. These people are nuts, truly thinking the world would be better if it was conquered by china...

China? I think you're confusing Socialism with Communism there.

Isn't China pretty much just a ultra-capitalist hellhole that just happens to be operating under a "communist" one-party system? I mean, for a worker utopia the workers sure don't seem particularly happy.


Last edited by Samsai on 9 May 2020 at 12:25 pm UTC

sjw ... terrorist groups ... ANTIFA ... BLM ... china...

You are mixing words in a way that makes me sure you didn't understand a single one of them.

These people are nuts, truly thinking the world would be better if it was conquered by china...

China? I think you're confusing Socialism with Communism there.

you have no idea how many Americans equate socialism and communism.....McCarthy-era propaganda lives on here... :/

A system that's built upon eternal growth in an environment that only has limited resources doesn't sound very future proof to me.

I knew what to expect from the discussion when I saw the game's name & trailer and wasn't disappointed.
"China bad!" in the first comment, even. Glorious :D


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 9 May 2020 at 1:24 pm UTC

Wow, looks like an sjw wet dream, I mean they already established 2 terrorist groups under the names ANTIFA and BLM. These people are nuts, truly thinking the world would be better if it was conquered by china...

China? I think you're confusing Socialism with Communism there.

Isn't China pretty much just a ultra-capitalist hellhole that just happens to be operating under a "communist" one-party system? I mean, for a worker utopia the workers sure don't seem particularly happy.

Yes. Because communism doesn't work.

These people are nuts, truly thinking the world would be better if it was conquered by china...

China? I think you're confusing Socialism with Communism there.

Oh so would you prefer the soviet union over china then? Mm, such nice form of government there.

It doesn't really matter which you go for, it's gonna end bad. Capitalism is great in that it drives progress in all fields as everyone strives to compete with each other, I think we've sorta reached the end of the line there as by this point the corporations are starting to try taking over the world (and succeeding too) and have found simpler ways of increasing profits (marketing and PR) than offering better products.

Change sure is needed, but be it socialism or communism, neither would improve anything, in the absolute best case scenario, they would provide stability and comfort for society for a couple years, at best couple decades, before it all collapses under it's own weight.

Horrendous derailing incoming.

It might be worth keeping in mind that world isn't quite as black and white as what your writing seems to imply you think it is. Political and economic systems have a bit more variety than Soviet Union or our current capitalist systems (not to mention I'm pretty sure MY capitalist system differs plenty from YOUR capitalist system). There have been many proposed reasons why the USSR/China/North Korea systems have created quite awful messes and one of them is the inherent authoritarianism they have been built upon, which allows the elite to screw over their people while reaping all the benefits themselves (sound familiar?). Whether that is actually the case or not, just boiling things down to "<ideology> doesn't work" is not really productive.

You also brought up the failures of capitalism but interestingly you seem to be opposed to toppling that system, which may or may not require some kind of an uprising a la the game in question. This makes me think, how do you think a failing system should be fixed, particularly if that system benefits people who are powerful enough to resist amicable attempts to fix it?

And finally, it is actually possible to construct new systems by combining parts of other systems that have been proven beneficial. It is possible to have markets and competition in otherwise socialist systems for example. Limiting yourself to a binary choice between extremes generally leaves you with two bad choices. Some additional nuance is usually required.


Last edited by Samsai on 9 May 2020 at 1:36 pm UTC

A system that's built upon eternal growth in an environment that only has limited resources doesn't sound very future proof to me.

That is not what capitalism is. When you boil it down, all capitalism means is you can own your own business and invest your money however you want. Even Richard Stallman had to make it clear he wasn't against capitalism as such on several occasions when capitalism was blamed for the problem of proprietary software.

And finally, it is actually possible to construct new systems by combining parts of other systems that have been proven beneficial. It is possible to have markets and competition in otherwise socialist systems for example. Limiting yourself to a binary choice between extremes generally leaves you with two bad choices. Some additional nuance is usually required.

This is already reality in most of the EU, capitalism mixed in with (more or less) democratic socialism... "free" healthcare and decent quality public education with certain assurances that you wont end up homeless after one mistake. I would say it is working pretty well. US has none of that (they even have privatized prison system, geez) so it is understandable that they have strong (far)leftist movement, but that's a rabbit hole noone else should follow them down through.

We have seen what marxist socialism can do, all through out 20th century and it is always only good on paper. Fighting for the little man, the workers, peasants, or in current day it is minorities, but it always boils down to one weak point and that is people itself. People end up telling others how to live, what can or cant they do/say. And we see it again today, lot of western countries that didn't go through socialist era in the past is proposing it like it's the new hip thing, younger generations especially. Except nowdays it is wrapped in different package it is really the same, used to be workers and peasants fighting the bourgeois, so they see it justified stealing their land/farms, nowdays it's identity politics and forced diversity, which is basically the same concept. It is also reason why (in what I would still call western civilization) most central/eastern european countries are not going crazy about that, because they already lived through something like it.


Last edited by Solitary on 9 May 2020 at 3:15 pm UTC

Awesome, I will pick this game up!

Thank you Samsai. You summed things up pretty well in a quite detailed and civil way. A welcome sight on a website about gaming ;) I also tend to be wary of over-simplifications such as "XXX doesn't work", or putting people in arbitrary categories ("SJW").

Apart from that, the game seems OK, though I wonder (and hope) if there's more to it than just what the trailer shows, in terms of gameplay and depth.

This is already reality in most of the EU, capitalism mixed in with (more or less) democratic socialism... "free" healthcare and decent quality public education with certain assurances that you wont end up homeless after one mistake. I would say it is working pretty well.

This is true in the sense that us Europeans tend to have it better than others in some ways. However, it's still a constant fight to protect these public systems from privatization attempts, not to mention having to fight the capitalist aspects when they do shitty things like threaten to sue people 3D printing ventilator valves in the middle of a pandemic because the company cannot manufacture or transport them in adequate amounts.

We have seen what marxist socialism can do, all through out 20th century and it is always only good on paper. Fighting for the little man, the workers, peasants, or in current day it is minorities...

People hungry for power often justify their attempt to grab power with beautiful words and promises. I mean, the US only goes to war to bring democracy to undemocratic countries. That, however, does not make democracy itself a negative thing...

...but it always boils down to one weak point and that is people itself.

... unless you believe that democracy doesn't work, which I very much don't agree with.

These people are nuts, truly thinking the world would be better if it was conquered by china...

China? I think you're confusing Socialism with Communism there.

I think you are. Socialism is, by the Marxian analysis, allegedly the transitional state between “capitalism” and communism. No communist party has ever declared that it has actually “achieved communism”; it's always a sort of hypothetical platonic ideal which might be reached at some unknown point in the future. Try convincing the Chinese Communist Party that what they have over there isn't socialism (or that it is communism) and see how you get along.

But this isn't the place. I don't want to lose friends here. Let's keep this stuff on the political blogs, eh?

...but it always boils down to one weak point and that is people itself.

... unless you believe that democracy doesn't work, which I very much don't agree with.

I am not sure you or I understand each other. I think democracy works wonders... because it basically limits the aspect of "people problem" that I mentioned, because nobody is allowed to have too much power. The system is designed to limit, slowdown and prevent any radical changes.

Meanwhile with socialism, where you have strong government you get that problem, because you are governed by people that inherently have more power thanks to stronger standing of the state. People with too much power = abuse of power.

...but it always boils down to one weak point and that is people itself.

... unless you believe that democracy doesn't work, which I very much don't agree with.

I am not sure you or I understand each other. I think democracy works wonders... because it basically limits the aspect of "people problem" that I mentioned, because nobody is allowed to have too much power. The system is designed to limit, slowdown and prevent any radical changes.

Meanwhile with socialism, where you have strong government you get that problem, because you are governed by people that inherently have more power thanks to stronger standing of the state. People with too much power = abuse of power.

Ah, in that case we are in agreement. Overly concentrated power creates conditions ripe for abuse. I would like to propose, however, that social causes can be furthered without concentrating power among the few. There are even people that believe socialism can be done in that way, see anarcho-communists for example.

Ha, this game looks hilarious. I don't think we need to take down Capitalism though. Unbridled capitalism seems to be imploding all on its own. :D

Yes. Because communism doesn't work.

How do you know if they've never tried it, all "Communist" states people know of has all been dictatorships and according to Karl Marx himself, Communism and Democracy is inseparable, you need both. There are "Communist" governments still today who operate under democratic systems and those nations are all fine, Nepal and Mongolia to mention two.

Capitalism is great in that it drives progress in all fields as everyone strives to compete with each other

That's the description for a Market Economy, not Capitalism, they are two completely different things. You can have a Market Economy without Capitalism (Yugoslavia during Tito managed to do it and so did CNT-FAI during the Spanish Civil War), basically remove the whole system of stock-ownership and you're about 80% there, the remaining 20% is making sure you construct a system where workers own the companies they work for/at, if you work in a factory then you're a part-owner of said factory, such companies exists all over the world already and they work. Here in Sweden (where i live) our bigest store chain, Coop, is such a collective and we have many others. In Spain (which i mentioned before) there is a multi-sided company called 'Mondragon' which is also such a company, they all prove it's possible.

A system that's built upon eternal growth in an environment that only has limited resources doesn't sound very future proof to me.

That's the root of the problem with capitalism right there! Constant growth is not achievable nor practical if you want to keep the world from collapsing due to getting all it's resources sucked out. This is also what differentiates Capitalism from just a "Market Economy" a ME does not require constant growth, capitalism on the other hand, does.

So yeah.. never thought I'd write something political on this page but hey.. sometimes the world surprises you!

We, the West, are Capitalist no longer.
We became exactly like our former enemies (Nazis, Communists) with an omnipresent State disguised as social justice. The current confinements are the final expression of this.
I hope this Covid-19 situation blows up the financial system (read fiat money) that underpins all this madness.

Yes. Because communism doesn't work.

How do you know if they've never tried it, all "Communist" states people know of has all been dictatorships and according to Karl Marx himself, Communism and Democracy is inseparable, you need both. There are "Communist" governments still today who operate under democratic systems and those nations are all fine, Nepal and Mongolia to mention two.

Capitalism is great in that it drives progress in all fields as everyone strives to compete with each other

That's the description for a Market Economy, not Capitalism, they are two completely different things. You can have a Market Economy without Capitalism (Yugoslavia during Tito managed to do it and so did CNT-FAI during the Spanish Civil War), basically remove the whole system of stock-ownership and you're about 80% there, the remaining 20% is making sure you construct a system where workers own the companies they work for/at, if you work in a factory then you're a part-owner of said factory, such companies exists all over the world already and they work. Here in Sweden (where i live) our bigest store chain, Coop, is such a collective and we have many others. In Spain (which i mentioned before) there is a multi-sided company called 'Mondragon' which is also such a company, they all prove it's possible.

A system that's built upon eternal growth in an environment that only has limited resources doesn't sound very future proof to me.

That's the root of the problem with capitalism right there! Constant growth is not achievable nor practical if you want to keep the world from collapsing due to getting all it's resources sucked out. This is also what differentiates Capitalism from just a "Market Economy" a ME does not require constant growth, capitalism on the other hand, does.

So yeah.. never thought I'd write something political on this page but hey.. sometimes the world surprises you!

\

Marx made certain hypotheses about human history and from there, human nature, which turned out to be wrong. That is why communism doesn't work. And It has never been "tried" because it runs counter to basic human evolutionary psychology.

Is the current system in the west perfect? No. But at least capitalism is somewhat self-aware that it's playing on human foibles. Communism is basically a secular religion. You have a fallen state, a state of perfection and a means to get from A to B. The problem is that it's based on a fauls idea about what people need to be happy.

As for socialism, it ironically has the same problem as what many people like to throw at capitalism: Every generation needs to chip in more resources into the system than the one before it. Elsewise, it cannot sustain itself. Or at the very least, it can't cover everyone of retirement age. Hence many of the problems socialist countries are facing now with their aging populations.

@Desum, I tend to disagree with almost everything you said ( no offence :D <3 ).

Marx made certain hypotheses about human history and from there, human nature, which turned out to be wrong

Said who ? ^^ One could argue that civilization is itself against human nature, that's why there are laws to keep people in check, otherwise folks would be shooting themselves over the slightest disagreement. Socialism and communism just extend the field of those laws to economics.

About marxism being a secular religion, that I can understand.

As for your last paragraph, do not confuse 20th century soviet productivism (which was sort of relevant considering the recent rise of ecology) and 21st century eco-socialism. As for funding retirement, which is a recurring political debate in France where I live, not all economists agree on what should be done to be able to sustain it, but solutions exist, backed with plausible numbers and economic scenarios.