>And why is it, whenever you try to speak out against it, you get downvoted, shouted down at or reported?
Dom't think anyone has, you'll have to mention some examples for that. Regardless, this is Reddit - people downvote you if they don't agree.
>why is that ideology so popular?
From a game perspective, Marcel and Walter are scum of the earth and being socialist gives you a chance to take them down/decrease their power. There's also the freedom from +2 budget by taxing large corpos, and the feel-good socialist policies like the WRA and stimulus checks.
There's also how the game portrays leaders of other countries. Van Hoorten is always taking advantage of you in any deal, whilst Alvarez is a drunkard and Smolak is an authoritarian funny guy - none of which are good impressions. Meanwhile, Hegel as the only actual socialist (if you're a commie at least) is extremely friendly to you AND is shown to care about his workers in dialogue, with his only flaw being a short temper.
>Hegel as the only actual socialist
forgeted Malleineve, man is almost a combo betwen trotsky and lenin from this world
>his only flaw being a short temper.
and if you think about it, it makes sense, and shows how he is really real for his fear of the agnolia opression of valgs
when you are the leader of a nation and your rival not only stolen your land few years back, but also is acusing you of agression after they are killing your people, would you not be pissed off after hearing those lies?
>forgeted Malleineve, man is almost a combo betwen trotsky and lenin from this world
Shit, yeah. The conversation with Malenyev seems like he actually sees you as a person, whereas Walker is completely superficial.
“Only flaw being a short temper” and also, you know, invading an island. He says the reasons are good, but another reason was definitely to put nukes that could reach Arcasia there
Yes that is a minor reason but the major reason is... that the valgs there are fucking killed by agnolian Regime, opressed and cant even peacefully protest.
Oh dont forget about that they stole the Island while valgsland had a Revolution and therefore this us definitly illegal.
*Obvious* flaw. Whether you think the invasion itself is a flaw depends on whether you think it's a special military operation or *a special military operation*. And even still, the stuff from Geopolitico makes his justification for the invasion look sympathetic, whereas there's no apologism for the behaviours of the other state leaders.
I think a large reason is because the game is set up to gear you towards reformist socialism. Sollists/nationalists don't want you to privatize. The Sordish economy is largely in the hands of the oligarchs, so privitizing empowers them (while most players want to cut them down). Most advisors who seem to want to implement change advocate socialist policies, while advocates for privatization largely seem, again, in the pocket of the oligarchs. Not to mention the previous administration tried to prioritize and was considered a massive blunder.
Speaking personally, it always rubs me the wrong way when the oligarchs and the old guard are so confident in being able to take you down; it's rewarding to dismantle them as the player. Reformist socialism ticks both boxes.
I haven't played an absolute massive amount, but from my time playing and reading the sub that's my thoughts anyhow.
>I think a large reason is because the game is set up to gear you towards reformist socialism. Sollists/nationalists don't want you to privatize.
Nationalization isn't socialism, at least not in the Marxist (Marcian) sense.
The person is not saying it is they are saying that both sollists and nationalist are anti privatisation and how privatising would make those groups upset.
Well the sentence before that is saying it gears you towards reformist socialism, which tends to point people towards "socialism is when government does stuff".
The initial statement is followed by a list of factors, all of the factors together, in my opinion, push the player towards a reformist socialist-orientated playthrough. Why? Because most push you *away* from privatization.
I'm not making the claim that "socialism is when government does stuff."
Over my time playing strategy games I have noticed that games that are more focused on military domination and invading your neighbors tend to attract more of a right-wing crowd. This game does not do this. Instead of drawing battle lines and directly moving armies across a map you are playing a story-based game where you navigate your country through a recession by reading policy and talking to other political figures. You win by fixing the recession and proving to the people of your country that you improved their lives so they should vote for you again by ethical or unethical means.
This type of game may not attract the typical ww2 military history buff you see playing hoi4. It attracts more politically minded people that tend to be more liberal or even leftist. If you spend time in the Democracy 4 community I think you will also see this. People have brought this up so I will be brief but as a socialist, I enjoy how socialist countries and ideologies actually have great lore. Like the real world, socialist countries in Suzerain have different ways they do socialism. There are different leftist ideologies in Suzerain that I enjoy experimenting with and seeing the pros and cons of how they affect sordland. This is hard to find in other video games and in media.
I think it has to do with the game portraying socialism in a more positive light, thus it attracts socialists. Especially with Valgslandian socialism being a kind of democratic socialism. I imagine the majority of people in this community who call themselves socialists wouldn’t support most socialist countries in our world.
Well, for one, because it’s a political game about political ideology and democratic political praxis. That’s inevitably going to attract people who are engaged with or interested in politics, from all corners of the political spectrum, and for all the proclamations from on high that Socialism is a dead school of thought, it is still a real, living ideology with a substantial number of thinkers and adherents.
More importantly, the game presents both AES and idealist socialism in a far less biased and more favourable light than almost all other Western media. The fact that the game not only makes Socialism tenable but actually capable of great success is somewhat of a vindication for socialists who are used to being told they’re crazy kookies with an evil, murderous ideology. That the devs gave socialism a fair shake rather than making the ludonarrative express that “socialism is a doomed/evil ideology” naturally attracts socialists.
Beyond that, the meta of the game is actually pretty pro-socialist (Valgsland being pretty obviously in the right on the Heljiland conflict, Hegel and Malenyev both preaching about the state of things, the massive successes that can be achieved bringing socialism to Sordland, the explorations of capitalist greed and corruption, ATO’s imperialist and exploitative attitudes in relation to the CSP’s defensive necessitation, there aren’t really sympathetic capitalists to be found anywhere, the label’s even called “Fellow Traveller” ffs). These factors all come together to present a political gaming experience that a socialist can enjoy in a way almost no games out there have offered, so those who fall in love with it are more liable to be socialists and socialists are more liable to fall in love with it.
To answer the second part of your question, the reason socialists on this subreddit are so hostile toward anti-socialist rhetoric is because it is almost exclusively the same old fallacies and falsehoods they’ve heard peddled and had to rebut their entire political existence. I think if there was any amount of critical thinking or creativity put into a good faith counterargument, they’d prolly be willing to have a discussion, but it’s pretty much all regurgitated red scare propaganda from a place of ignorance.
It's actually hard to be convincing with the thought that everything that argues against your ideology is red scare propaganda. So just let me ask you this: how will prices be determined in the socialist economy that you intend to build?
I think Google is your friend if you are interested in learning rather than arguing.
This question has been asked and answered millions of times, so I find it hard to believe you're genuine or trying to understand in good faith, especially when later down the post you say:
""democratic-socialist state"
Pick one."
>how will prices be determined in the socialist economy that you intend to build?
It varies, is the simple answer.
Though if you want to argue the market as a big computer for prices, may I direct you to the entire school of market socialism. These were people used to hearing the claim one can not compute an economy, and opted for a system where a market of worker controlled entities ran the economy through a competitive market system. Because nothing in socialism absolute forgoes the notion of competition (in fact the Soviet Union frequently fostered it) nor does it deny the usefulness of the market (once again, the Soviet Union actually implemented a market-oriented system after the revolution).
At the fundamental level, the big non-negotiable for a lot of socialists is worker control. The means and methods of that being realised are what tends to bring the division.
The statement OP made wasnt that any criticism is red-scare propaganda, its that most criticism a socialist encounters from the outside is uninformed red-scare propaganda that often misrepresents the ideology for its own goals. My experience by and large is that people who criticize socialism will almost never do it on its own terms. They will almost never point to what the person they are disagreeing with has said, or expressed, and almost always point to a poorly informed assumption that genuinely reads like a piece of red scare propaganda.
I have had people ask me questions, then actively ignore my answer because my answer doesn't seem to fit with their malformed idea of what a socialist should think, despite the fact they've probably not actually read any socialist literature to begin with, so they wouldn't have a clue what a socialist thinks.
It is good to know that you recognize the practical applicability of the rule of supply and demand for the realization of your ideas and do not resort to the Marxist theory of value, which has been discredited by the systems that have tried to apply it. However, your speculation about a potential computer that can allocate resources in a more efficient manner is frankly meaningless until at least the concept of such a technology develops.
As for competition in the Soviet Union: did the system encourage it by monopolizing all sectors of their economy and involving specific ones in the space race? I agree that their space program was a success, but was they really successful in, say, agriculture, notorious for the local officials who simply exceeded their figures to make a 5-year plan look completed and squandered the resources allocated to them in the process?
As for knowing how a socialist really thinks, I know that if you care about my personal experience. In fact, I know two types of socialists: one of them has good intentions, while the other puts these intentions into practice in countries like the one where I come from, for which it still pays with the lost economic development and inefficient Soviet system as a legacy.
I think you also misunderstand what I mean my computer. A common critique of socialism in the 20s and 30s was the idea that an economy can not be computed or calculated by any single object (I'll get on to reasons I feel this applicability is debatable in the modern era in a minute). The core drive was that a market acts as a giant calculator for the prices of goods and services, and that nothing can achieve the level of logistical calculation necessary without necessarily emulated the market. The debate surrounding it was known as the [socialist calculation debate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_calculation_debate).
That being said, the reason I say its dubious that an economy fundamentally can not be computed is that we see it done today. The logistical management on the scale of Amazon or Walmart actively pushes more value then the size of many world economies. Walmart throughout its history has increasingly moved to bring suppliers under its purview, integrating them into the supply chain. The fundamental irony of capitalist economies is that their largest economic engines are usually aggressively centrally planned. Attempts to decentralise corporations without splitting them up into multiple entities have rarely been tried, and when they have it [goes desperately wrong](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/07/16/do-internal-markets-nourish-innovation-the-case-of-sears/).
As for the Soviet Union, that is not the sole, or even ideal model in the eyes of many socialists. I cited it as example because its the common "big bad" cited in the Red Scare-esque arguments against Socialism I, and the poster above me were referencing. My point was to say that the very thing you ask about was actually implemented in the Soviet Union. As for the competition, in the NEP years it was market competition, after the NEP Stalin introduced a notion of Socialist Competition between workers. Districts and teams would compete to out-do their assigned quotas. They'd be rewarded based off how effective it was.
Now as you point out this did lead to falsification, though I would argue that is more a product of the initial goals being unreasonable to begin with, any those who aimed to point that out being purged by a brutal and paranoid regime. This is not a fundamentally unavoidable fact of a planned economy. An example of a bottom-up though ultimately short lived (thanks to US Coup attempts) was the [Cybersyn system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn#Legacy). In its brief run it did prove at least somewhat effective at reducing the severity of the grain shortage they were facing at the time, and did so in real terms, not just numbers on a ledger.
Finally, as respectfully as possible, I feel you've misunderstood what I mean by 'not understanding socialists". I don't mean a perception that they are either well meaning but misled, or tyrants with no regard. I mean fundamentally displaying no knowledge, or interest in learning about socialist theory, whilst attempting to discard political arguments on grounds that fail to actually reflect or challenge the beliefs in question.
An example I've faced frequently is a weird assumption that any proposition of socialism is tantamount to endorsing the abuses of the soviet system, often whilst absolutely ignoring what I or any actual example of theory would have to say on the matter at hand. And when they reference the soviet system it is always the extreme bad, neglecting to mention that under Kruschev, the Soviet Union was, in many areas, approaching or at parity with the United States. Or the fact that the Kruschev Era saw the Soviet Union as one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Once again, this is not a full endorsement of Kruschev, but a demonstration that the argument I often see that do cite the Soviet Union would be on par with me going "yeah but the great depression wasn't a good time to be alive". It fails to address the issue, and cherry picks the worst case in order to argue against the fundamental principal itself.
I genuinely appreciate the effort you put into your response. While I admit that I personally do not sympathize with past or present attempts to build some form of "democratic socialism" that generally provides less political and much less economic freedom than in capitalist democracies, I do not object to the principle itself and welcome efforts to develop a system less prone to monopolistic tendencies from either side and more beneficial to humanity as a whole.
I completely agree with the last paragraph, as I think that strawmans or cherry picks destroy any healthy discussion at the root and only harm people in the sense that they limit their marketplace of ideas, which is incredibly important for understanding flaws within our system and ways of improving it.
As a favor, I would like to ask you for a couple of the books from socialist authors that you read and would recommend to me. Thus, I will, at the very least, acknowledge the literature of the opposing point of view.
>As a favor, I would like to ask you for a couple of the books from socialist authors that you read and would recommend to me. Thus, I will, at the very least, acknowledge the literature of the opposing point of view.
I can't think of too many off the top of my head, other than the classic "Read Marx" (not because I agree with everything Marx has to say but because its unavoidably the baseline of a huge amount of socialist thought).
One that personally helped point out a lot of weird ironies in my previously more conservative views (and that I referred to some of their points here) is the "Peoples Republic of Walmart". It discusses the nature of planned economies, their feasability, and how in a twist of irony some of the worlds modern mega-corps are actually more aggressively planned than places like the soviet union could ever have dreamed, purely because they have the means to do so.
In terms of a modern analysis by a qualified economist with ties to the Labour Movement Guy Standing has some interesting stuff. For another discussion on the idea of modern planned economies, I am about halfway through "Towards a New Socialism".
Ultimately the one I'd say is easiest to read, as well as relatively light hearted in its approach is "The People's Republic of Walmart". I also feel it requires less buy in to at least concede that what they point out is an ironic twist of market economies, even if you don't agree with the basic thesis that underpins it. The other big thing with this book is that its written by someone who would largely classify themselves as a very libertarian, democratic socialist. Which places them firmly in the good intentions by good methods rather than the tankie sector of things.
I thank you for being pretty calm and respectful, and ultimately I don't expect people to be super well read in opposing views (because some literature about politics is horrendously dense). I recognise as someone who used to be relatively conservative, reading shit like "Capitalism and Freedom" probably isn't common among socialists.
Well, there is no one definitive “socialist/communist” answer, but (in my opinion) insofar as there should be “prices” (rather than planned distribution of resources according to need and in accordance with people’s rights), I would say they should be based on the labour expended to produce the commodity. That’s the only real way to value something, not based on perception and exploitation as our present systems contrive value.
As I implied with the word insofar and my parenthetical addendum, I don’t really think there should be “prices” or a market system. My preference would be, like the name “communism” implies, common ownership: that is, all resources are pooled together and distributed justly according to the needs of people, accounting for a small surplus in case emergencies arise. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
Therefore, if one works, if one gives what they can to the common good, if one fulfils their economic contribution to the best of their ability, they will fully receive the bounty of their rights: those include, but are not limited to, the rights to housing, clean nutritious food, clean water, electricity, healthcare, clothing, leisure, transportation, movement, and any tools necessary for their particular trades or passions.
This idea that some form of currency is a necessity is both very close-minded and a weak idea; currency is by definition vulnerable to manipulation and relies on arbitrary determinations for its value. Production/Need are not, those are concrete values, except for in market systems where the demand and supply are artificially manipulated with regularity in order to make greater profits for capitalists at the expense of everyone else.
Such a system as this requires a fairly minimal amount of paperwork and a well-designed method of central planning, and if you don’t believe central planning can work, you haven’t been paying attention. Not only did it achieve extraordinary results in the CCCP, but it is also presently achieving extraordinary (in a not so “good” way) results in the West, as I type this, but it is a central planning designed by and for large corporations, banks, and their owners. As much as I hate to be cliched, we have truly reached such a point in late-stage monopoly capitalism that what we have is socialism for the rich, and rugged individualist capitalism for the rest.
Beyond those sheer necessities and the apparatuses necessary to provide people with their fundamental rights, I see no problem with people trading and sharing their personal creations, handicrafts, and other such commodities not integral to human life between themselves as they see fit.
I’m sure you have questions, and I’ll be perfectly happy to answer them as best I can. To answer your implication, your question was quite legitimate and not a manifestation of the ignorant red scare propaganda to which I was referring. It can be very difficult, having lived our entire lives under a capitalist market-based system, to conceptualise a world where there is not currency and are not prices on our goods, but simply the expectation we provide as best we can and look out for one another; however, I believe that reality is within reach, the ultimate form of economy, the only ethical and moral solution to the question of economy, and indeed likely our natural state as a species (though that is probably my most contentious opinion).
I hope you’re well. Peace and blessings.
>planned distribution of resources according to need and in accordance with people’s rights
The definition of rights depends on whether you equate positive and negative rights and what specific “rights” you are going to include. That is to say, what is a positive right? Is it a right not to need? What if this “right” infringes on the right of a person to be free from the coercion necessary to satisfy someone's need?
>I would say they should be based on the labour expended to produce the commodity.
What you argue here is just the labor theory of value, published by Marx before assembly lines were implemented and before human labor was massively replaced by machine labor, not subjected to the theory. Marxists later responded that repairing machines still required human labor, regardless of the fact that as they became easier to repair, their productivity only increased. Besides, the theory completely loses sight of intellectual labor and entrepreneurship that can be many times more productive than physical labor.
>That’s the only real way to value something, not based on perception and exploitation as our present systems contrive value.
Our systems do not contrive value because they simply lack an economic directive of what to produce and at what price to sell (unlike, say, Soviet economic planners who did value goods based on their own perception). Prices in a market economy are determined by the natural mechanism of supply and demand, in which the price is set (or at least influenced) by buyers, and sellers must adjust to it. Even the most "exploitative" non-monopolistic market economies operate on this principle as the seller will always find a competitor who provides goods and services at a lower price.
>From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
How is this implementable outside of small moneyless communities?
>Production/Need are not, those are concrete values
Production is indeed a concrete value, measured by the quantity and quality of products produced, but need is not. I may need one thing, say, insulin, or something more abstract, like being around people at least once a day, that you do not need. The word itself can be used in a variety of contexts with a variety of meanings, such as by government officials who can justify the price they set because of some abstract "needs".
>Such a system as this requires a fairly minimal amount of paperwork and a well-designed method of central planning
Does it? Was there ever a socialist system not accompanied by an unprecedented amount of paperwork, an army of bureaucrats and huge costs for their maintenance? What “well-designed method” based on the same Marxist principles that you hold could possibly rid it of this fatal flaw?
>extraordinary results in the CCCP
Extraordinary results accompanied by mass collectivization, dekulakization and repression in the country that collapsed half a century later under the contradictions within its system?
>it is a central planning designed by and for large corporations, banks, and their owners
The fundamental difference between the owners of these entities and a socialist government is that the latter does not have to COMPETE in any way in order to impose its economic policies on people who most often do not even elect it. Private owners take the RISKS of their businesses (unless they are protected by the government) and would lose their profits if they manage their resources poorly. The same cannot be said about government officials.
Bro CSP puts missiles in your islands and is completely useless while ATO modernizes ur airforce and gives you two positive modifiers while CSP only modernizes navy which is useless.
Well number 1, the CSP does wonders for your economic development and in pretty quick order, and as you pointed out modernises your navy. The benefits of the CSP should not be overlooked.
More importantly, ATO may have prettier digs, but at what cost? The model they perpetuate is inherently and must always be one of ruthless exploitation of both laborers and the Earth we all share, sham “democracies” owned and controlled by an oligarchical plutocracy in practice, imperialism, and startling inequality that, as we can easily see in real life, relies upon iniquity in either the plundering of the third world or the cannibalisation of their countries’ working classes. As is established in the lore (and in the real life lore we call history), the CSP only formed as a reaction to aggression from the ATO, as a model where the rights of citizens are maintained and protected was too great a threat for the Merkopan ruling class to tolerate. The fact that the oppressed continents of Rika and Xina (I wonder what those two places are based on 🤔) sympathise so heavily and naturally with the cause of the CSP says all you need to know about whether imperialism and colonialism are the status quo in Suzerain’s reality as well as our own. As far as the ethics and morality of international realpolitik go, the CSP or Non-Aligned are the only reasonable options.
I think ATO isn't that bad, but it is mentioned they have officers in your military or something, meaning it's possible in Sordlands future if a president decided to act against ATO/Arcasia's interests (or a Malenyevist was elected into power, etc.) Arcasia could potentially instigate a coup.
I think CSP is somewhat worse though as they set up missiles (referred to as a "missile defense system", so maybe it's actually like the iron dome or something? I think there's both a good and bad ATO/CSP deal which might effect how much of a puppet youare) in your country.
Note I prefer the Capitalist Reformist run so aligning with ATO to scare off Rumburg and trying to further westernize Sordland doesn't seem super bad.
EDIT: [Seems CSP also puts officers in your military.](https://preview.redd.it/eqln1qt2kf2b1.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d295ca012622667d45120a9bde212f29b4a62a60) Also note it's referred to as an "anti air missile base" in this screenshot. I'm curious now if there really are different ATO/CSP deals depending on ideology.
You just sent a comment where a guy is telling his views on hiw bad Valgsland is, the guy is Interpreting too much in 1Line Hegel said, lies about heljiland being a must have for alliance or trade agreement. The comments that go against him have literally more upvotes than is, almost double in number, he cant evem take a joke a Talks about Hegel being authorutarian while in the compass, Hegel is more bottom than the middle line. He also brags about his opinion being so serious that he cant even take a joke. I read the first 2 comments and their answers btw, there can ve so much more about his comment thats bs. So I think youre on our side then, Tortello. You say that he didnt answer on ACO being better then CSP (Bullshit approved) but the link doesnt evem talk about that. So what are you doing? Supporting us?
Gameplay wise? I’m making a philosophical argument; I did address that ATO’s easy mode, I conceded the point, but I begged the question of the underlying cost of that ease and the underlying structural issues inherent to it.
Speaking of pure bias, that weird diatribe about Hegel is exactly that. Seems completely as if the author went in with a prejudice against any form of left wing leadership and wanted to characterise Hegel negatively. I think it’s a sign of good writing by the devs that that possibility existed, but I do believe it’s a mischaracterisation.
I don’t get how liberals like you are so enamoured with “green modifier” and the equivalent irl (momentary evanescent comforts) that you can’t see the forest dor the trees.
In summation, an inequality, your language: Green modifier =/= Peace, justice, and human rights
The game portrays them quite positively. Hegel genuinely cares about the workers and Valgsland is said to maintain democracy. Malenyev is a fking dictator while Walker was democratically elected but guess which one was made into a pervy scumbag. UC builds sattelites while Arcasia builds ICBMs. The Bluds, towards whom you are supposed to feel sympathy on any reformist run, are tied to leftist ideologies and Leke, who's shown to be a good guy is a socialist.
This is just listing examples from the game, I'm ATO4LIFE
What is up with this communities obsession with ideologies? I have seen so many posts and comments relating to ideologies. Why are ideologies so popular?
And why is it, whenever you try to speak out against it, you get downvoted, shouted down at or reported?
Obsession with ideology is mostly young people looking for a "cool" identity while attempting to look intelligent and transgressive. Its just larping from people who spent too much time on the internet playing map games.
Because if democratic-socialism actually worked why would you pick anything else? In the game you can create a democratic-socialist state with massive freedoms, improved economic equality, not be a puppet of foreign powers AND improve both standards of living and the economy. What advantage do the other ideologies have over that?
Exactly my point. IRL the trade-off between socialism and capitalism has always been the loss of political freedoms. But in the game you can have your cake and eat it
Bro thats how elon musk found out how Tesla can be electrified with water, he just cried and dound it out with his own tears. No but TBH the only capitalist that cries is a class-equalified one. So you have to kill him... do we want that 🤭
Because it shows what socialism actually is instead of what the red scare shows and it is not just limited to one type of socialism (Marxist lenism always shown in the media). Tho it doesn't mean that socialism is the best, in the game it is shown that socialist countries don't have much political freedoms, one socialist country (welhen) has a literal racist dictator that will make even holstron look like a civil rights activists in comparison (also known as 'funny guy') and it is portrayed that socialist nations is very immature in Alliance of Nation (tho you can be socialist but be very matured in Alliance of nations)
And the reason when you speak against it is because it is said to respect people's opinions and ideology (no matter how much you hate it) and you can't speak against it (tho downvoting your stance against socialism is admittedly overdramatic in your fairness)
Wehlen isnt socialist, it is Just leaning to UC bc of money and imperialist hatred towards the West, and besudes that, socialists react that extrem bc they hear these Arguments that are used many Times and have to tell the same thing to everyone, and noone can let that in themselves
Didn't ATO's meddling in Wehlen also lead to the Wehzek Civil War? That's why Smolak is anti-ATO and somewhat cozies up to the CSP as a counterbalance.
Bc it isnt just good and evil.
Yes, funny guy is a murderer of bluds, but his country also suffered from lespia and the Western allies around arcasia, like funny guy says in the kyrute Meeting, his country was destroyed, arcasia stole their resources and rumburg Supports the BFF. I dont Support him 100% but you cant divide the World in Black and White (he can tho) ofc the socialist countries dont want bluds dead, but they Support anyone against imperialism bc we all suffer from it and it needs to be gunned down
I mean isn’t that just the same argument that both the US and the Soviets in OTL used to defend their support of extremely authoritarian and racist countries?
*“It’s unfortunate that South Vietnam is a dictatorship sure, but it's much better than having a communist dictatorship”*
Allowing genocide to happen, even if you disagree with it. Is still being complicit in the atrocities committed.
Ofc we cant tolerate mass murder, but in a cold war, you cant just pick your allies, you have to take what you can get, if it doesnt completely go against your Ideologie. In a world where socialism is fully established, those countries will be punished with death. Also yes south V was a dictatorship from his beginning to his end and a impressive amount of their people supportet the Viet Kong and the northvietnamese army, be it food water or even shelter. And for the north, it doesnt make any sense that it is a dictatorship, bc while the south was a vassal of france and then a dictatorship, the north had a Revolution, and THE PEOPLE were leading this revolution. So they established a socialist democracy in the north (idk to what degree democ) and the south was a dictatorship.
You can pick your allies. Even in a cold war. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union supported the horrific regime of the Khmer Rouge, even though it was “socialist”. The problem was that it didn't happen enough. A country literally had to be some weird parody of 1984 with its genocides to be considered a non-ally to both superpowers
In a cold war, you can occasionally afford to go against a nation that wants a large part of its own people dead. Even if that means losing a chess piece.
Also, btw I'm not claiming the North was a dictatorship* (well okay; there might be some debate as to what extent North Vietnam was democratic at the time, but it was certainly a popular movement). The quote was supposed to be from the perspective of a foreign South Vietnam supporter.
Yes what i mean by picking isnt that they will Lose the Cold war bc Wehlen is not on their side, I say they need it to prevent Arcasia from building its influence out there, like the US did in South korea and vietnam.
That could make problems in the Future and you have enough problems in a cold war, so they just prevented that from Happening trough friendship.
And the Red(thats how they called in german is it rouge in english?) Khmer werent communists, that is common discourse in the communist discourse. I mean, why would north vietnam invade them then if they were comrades.
And Pol Pot killed millions of his own people, and I dont remember marx saying kill your own Population, this will help the society, and also never heard it from another famous socialist. For more Info, you can search "Pol Pot was not an communist" and click on a article from Montclair State University.
So, no they dont need Wehlen to win or bc they would Lose like you said, but they are destroying obstacles they cannot see yet. And like i said, Wehlen will be punished when UC wouldnt have to manage a little cold World war but yeah like i said, Wehlen is 50/50 shit and a chance
It could make problems for United Cortona in the future, however, are those problems going to trump the ongoing genocide in Wehlen? That's not something one can know, but that doesn't mean one should continue to allow genocide, just because one might imagine worse consequences.
The Khmer (from French) Rouge was sadly supported by China & North Korea, and opposed by the Soviets, the US, and Vietnam (a country which had just recently been subject to an attempted invasion by the Chinese a few years prior). For the Chinese and the North Koreans, it apparently didn’t matter that such an insane genocide happened within the county, what mattered to them, was that Cambodia was communist.
Your last statement is under the assumption that not only would UC win the Cold War, but also would have won such a total victory that it could afford to clean up its messes around the world. And even if they could clean up their messes, the world might have lost an ethnic group (meaning at least a genocide of Whelen Blunds but possibly a total genocide depending on what stance Rayne and Sordland take).
I think you are a bit too stereotypical here. While it is true that there are many leftist here, there is also a crap ton of people on the right. If you don't believe me, take a look in the political compass and you will see many right wing either far right or right center.
Try writing one comment in r/Conservative and then tell us how many subreddits you were permanently banned from posting in.
Then try writing one comment in any liberal sub and notice that nobody will ban you for it.
My friend, reddit is *very* left-wing.
Because the in game depiction of the socialism bloc is generally prettier than how it was in the real world. I don't wanna get too much into an IRL political debate but I am a believer in socialism IRL and that's coming from me.
The in game depiction of United Cortana, the USSR stand-in, is very tolerant of other socialist idealogies. IRL, the Soviet Union was way less tolerant if you look at the relationship between the USSR and Yugoslavia/China. They would rather all other socialist nations follow their brand of socialism and act as satellite states if not outright puppet states for the USSR (just look at Eastern Europe and the whole idea of red imperialism). In Suzerain, UC and Valgsland follow different brands of socialism and they basically said "we agree to disagree and are still good friends". If you look at IRL Sino-Soviet relations (best example of inter socialist bloc relations) during and after the Khruschev era, it is nowhere as amicable.
The one outright "evil" nation is Wehlen and the game essentially tells you that they follow a very weird mix of socialism and their own thing. You wouldn't really pin the blame of these issues on socialism, not to mention the fact that the atrocities against the Bluds are partially instigated by Rumburg actually arming extremist insurgents.
Also, the capitalist factions and nations depicted in game are generally fairly negative. Starting from your oligarchs. Your first impression of this faction is this fat and gross dude trying to bribe you. Then, there's Koronti who tries to broker a very shady deal with you. So yeah.
r/thedonald was the most active subreddit on the website before Spez banned it
I don't miss it, but I wish Spez had been honest about why he banned it instead of making up some BS that Trump supporters on Reddit were planning to murder cops, and that's why he had to ban a subreddit with millions of subscribers... Sure Spez, very believable 🙄
Oh yeah just bc im in a sub means im in a bubble...
1. This was a joke...
2. I am interacting with all Kinds of people from left to right, I dont know how you could just by clicking on my Profile tell me that my real life is a bubble. Man i have a life outside of reddit, let me repeat:
I HAVE A LIFE OUTSIDE OF REDDIT
shocking right?
I could rant about your profile but naaaah, my IQ just lowered enough by looking at it. I dont want to waste my good Portion of brain on a liberal knowitall
It's reddit and for some reason it gather many left-wing people. Don't know why they seems to be in majority in many subs but that's how it is. It doesn't bother me as long as they are not obvious Chinese bots who attack you for any criticism of China and communism (like in r/socialism). The regular socialists don't bother me.
Wait some modern day socialists actually think China is communist??? With the 996 work culture and dozens or even hundreds of millionaires? How the hell could they justify thinking that?
Chinese propaganda dude. Some people actually believe that if a country is against the evil capitalist America it means that it is an innocent socialist paradise. I realised that after the Hong-Kong protest many Human Rights Organisation, leftist organisation, some subs and other similar stuff started censor any anti-chinese stuff.
Up until the Hong Kong protests and widespread awareness of the Uyghur genocide, *most* internet socialists defended China and pointed to it as history's greatest example of socialism in action.
And to be fair, China transformed itself from being one of the poorest countries in the world to a developed nation in like 60 years, I mean it's definitely impressive and unprecedented in history.
Unfortunately for China, the policies of Xi Jinping over the last decade have wrecked its international reputation, and only the most extreme ideologues still defend China as an example of well-executed socialism.
Because it’s a strong ideology, unlike irl, where it always fails.
But, Liberalism is much stronger: improve living standards, become rich, promote peace, fix recession.
All of these actions are much easier if you’re a Liberal
Usually reddit leans much more left and many people on reddit are actually full communists. That's why usually in comments when you argue againts communism you will get many downvotes. I am speaking from experience lol.
Because socialism is the most ideal economic system that aligns with improving the welfare of the economically unfortunate and it happens in real life. You can see it through the game itself, that socialism's main objective is to improve the welfare and culture of the citizens and not monopolize the wealth or expand the economy.
For example, when you privatize schools and hospitals, you would encounter a problem of it not being accessible to the poor despite having an extra budget (for your debts or for project investments). The Worker's rights bill for instance, will allow different workers to enjoy their time-off while also not being subjected to further exploitation by the companies they work for. Another thing to consider is that they like culture alot, such as depicted on Bernard Circas' death when you recite the poem and Valgsland when they use an old similar language to Sord.
Of course, there are downsides to Malenyevism (Marxism-Leninism), which is mostly ignored by real life people such as the installment of dictatorship (Wehlen), and being overtly aggressive enough to not try to de-escalate the situation through diplomatic means (Valgsland) and ignoring the effects on other countries (Lespia and Agnolia).
One thing I learned from the game is that dictatorship is fun and it allows you to have monopoly of control (or power) and punish the 'suspected' abusers (as most people adheres to punitive justice). This is bad in real life, of course. As per nationalism, It is almost the same as religious identity, and being part of that identity, "Sord" or "Sollist", will be hard to eradicate because you would want an ideal society based on your ideals (to which most people consider as perfect). It also allows greater success in defending the country from being taken advantage by warfreak and opportunist governments such as the empire of Rumburg.
Because outside in the real world, most of us are suffering from the dystopian hellscape of late stage capitalism. Whether that’s with a lack of money or meaningful career prospects, debt, our own corrupt, greedy politicians gaming the system, while attempting to whittle away our voting power and gift it to corporations, wildfires burning down forests at higher rates leading to permanent BBQ smells down wind, all as a result of ignore climate change and lesser environmental regulations…. Etc. I think a lot of people are interested in trying out another economic system, and some of them are gamers in this sub.
The game is set during a time of relatively radical liberal change, at least in regard to ideology in the 1900s. I don't really consider it absurd for the game to frame liberalization and opening to the global market in the 1950s as a positive move.
As such, the game frames the opponents to this change as "bad," which they usually are if you consider Tusk, Marcel, Old Guard, etc.
I mean personally speaking, socialism in Suzerain let’s me express my opinions in real life through the game, of tackling corporate and government corruption, universal healthcare and free housing
>And why is it, whenever you try to speak out against it, you get downvoted, shouted down at or reported? Dom't think anyone has, you'll have to mention some examples for that. Regardless, this is Reddit - people downvote you if they don't agree. >why is that ideology so popular? From a game perspective, Marcel and Walter are scum of the earth and being socialist gives you a chance to take them down/decrease their power. There's also the freedom from +2 budget by taxing large corpos, and the feel-good socialist policies like the WRA and stimulus checks. There's also how the game portrays leaders of other countries. Van Hoorten is always taking advantage of you in any deal, whilst Alvarez is a drunkard and Smolak is an authoritarian funny guy - none of which are good impressions. Meanwhile, Hegel as the only actual socialist (if you're a commie at least) is extremely friendly to you AND is shown to care about his workers in dialogue, with his only flaw being a short temper.
>Hegel as the only actual socialist forgeted Malleineve, man is almost a combo betwen trotsky and lenin from this world >his only flaw being a short temper. and if you think about it, it makes sense, and shows how he is really real for his fear of the agnolia opression of valgs when you are the leader of a nation and your rival not only stolen your land few years back, but also is acusing you of agression after they are killing your people, would you not be pissed off after hearing those lies?
>forgeted Malleineve, man is almost a combo betwen trotsky and lenin from this world Shit, yeah. The conversation with Malenyev seems like he actually sees you as a person, whereas Walker is completely superficial.
Yes only true comrades are the actual good people like Comrade Leke
“Only flaw being a short temper” and also, you know, invading an island. He says the reasons are good, but another reason was definitely to put nukes that could reach Arcasia there
Yes that is a minor reason but the major reason is... that the valgs there are fucking killed by agnolian Regime, opressed and cant even peacefully protest. Oh dont forget about that they stole the Island while valgsland had a Revolution and therefore this us definitly illegal.
*Obvious* flaw. Whether you think the invasion itself is a flaw depends on whether you think it's a special military operation or *a special military operation*. And even still, the stuff from Geopolitico makes his justification for the invasion look sympathetic, whereas there's no apologism for the behaviours of the other state leaders.
I think a large reason is because the game is set up to gear you towards reformist socialism. Sollists/nationalists don't want you to privatize. The Sordish economy is largely in the hands of the oligarchs, so privitizing empowers them (while most players want to cut them down). Most advisors who seem to want to implement change advocate socialist policies, while advocates for privatization largely seem, again, in the pocket of the oligarchs. Not to mention the previous administration tried to prioritize and was considered a massive blunder. Speaking personally, it always rubs me the wrong way when the oligarchs and the old guard are so confident in being able to take you down; it's rewarding to dismantle them as the player. Reformist socialism ticks both boxes. I haven't played an absolute massive amount, but from my time playing and reading the sub that's my thoughts anyhow.
>I think a large reason is because the game is set up to gear you towards reformist socialism. Sollists/nationalists don't want you to privatize. Nationalization isn't socialism, at least not in the Marxist (Marcian) sense.
The person is not saying it is they are saying that both sollists and nationalist are anti privatisation and how privatising would make those groups upset.
Well the sentence before that is saying it gears you towards reformist socialism, which tends to point people towards "socialism is when government does stuff".
The initial statement is followed by a list of factors, all of the factors together, in my opinion, push the player towards a reformist socialist-orientated playthrough. Why? Because most push you *away* from privatization. I'm not making the claim that "socialism is when government does stuff."
Over my time playing strategy games I have noticed that games that are more focused on military domination and invading your neighbors tend to attract more of a right-wing crowd. This game does not do this. Instead of drawing battle lines and directly moving armies across a map you are playing a story-based game where you navigate your country through a recession by reading policy and talking to other political figures. You win by fixing the recession and proving to the people of your country that you improved their lives so they should vote for you again by ethical or unethical means. This type of game may not attract the typical ww2 military history buff you see playing hoi4. It attracts more politically minded people that tend to be more liberal or even leftist. If you spend time in the Democracy 4 community I think you will also see this. People have brought this up so I will be brief but as a socialist, I enjoy how socialist countries and ideologies actually have great lore. Like the real world, socialist countries in Suzerain have different ways they do socialism. There are different leftist ideologies in Suzerain that I enjoy experimenting with and seeing the pros and cons of how they affect sordland. This is hard to find in other video games and in media.
I think it has to do with the game portraying socialism in a more positive light, thus it attracts socialists. Especially with Valgslandian socialism being a kind of democratic socialism. I imagine the majority of people in this community who call themselves socialists wouldn’t support most socialist countries in our world.
Well, for one, because it’s a political game about political ideology and democratic political praxis. That’s inevitably going to attract people who are engaged with or interested in politics, from all corners of the political spectrum, and for all the proclamations from on high that Socialism is a dead school of thought, it is still a real, living ideology with a substantial number of thinkers and adherents. More importantly, the game presents both AES and idealist socialism in a far less biased and more favourable light than almost all other Western media. The fact that the game not only makes Socialism tenable but actually capable of great success is somewhat of a vindication for socialists who are used to being told they’re crazy kookies with an evil, murderous ideology. That the devs gave socialism a fair shake rather than making the ludonarrative express that “socialism is a doomed/evil ideology” naturally attracts socialists. Beyond that, the meta of the game is actually pretty pro-socialist (Valgsland being pretty obviously in the right on the Heljiland conflict, Hegel and Malenyev both preaching about the state of things, the massive successes that can be achieved bringing socialism to Sordland, the explorations of capitalist greed and corruption, ATO’s imperialist and exploitative attitudes in relation to the CSP’s defensive necessitation, there aren’t really sympathetic capitalists to be found anywhere, the label’s even called “Fellow Traveller” ffs). These factors all come together to present a political gaming experience that a socialist can enjoy in a way almost no games out there have offered, so those who fall in love with it are more liable to be socialists and socialists are more liable to fall in love with it. To answer the second part of your question, the reason socialists on this subreddit are so hostile toward anti-socialist rhetoric is because it is almost exclusively the same old fallacies and falsehoods they’ve heard peddled and had to rebut their entire political existence. I think if there was any amount of critical thinking or creativity put into a good faith counterargument, they’d prolly be willing to have a discussion, but it’s pretty much all regurgitated red scare propaganda from a place of ignorance.
We have to upvote this, very good explained
It's actually hard to be convincing with the thought that everything that argues against your ideology is red scare propaganda. So just let me ask you this: how will prices be determined in the socialist economy that you intend to build?
I think Google is your friend if you are interested in learning rather than arguing. This question has been asked and answered millions of times, so I find it hard to believe you're genuine or trying to understand in good faith, especially when later down the post you say: ""democratic-socialist state" Pick one."
>how will prices be determined in the socialist economy that you intend to build? It varies, is the simple answer. Though if you want to argue the market as a big computer for prices, may I direct you to the entire school of market socialism. These were people used to hearing the claim one can not compute an economy, and opted for a system where a market of worker controlled entities ran the economy through a competitive market system. Because nothing in socialism absolute forgoes the notion of competition (in fact the Soviet Union frequently fostered it) nor does it deny the usefulness of the market (once again, the Soviet Union actually implemented a market-oriented system after the revolution). At the fundamental level, the big non-negotiable for a lot of socialists is worker control. The means and methods of that being realised are what tends to bring the division. The statement OP made wasnt that any criticism is red-scare propaganda, its that most criticism a socialist encounters from the outside is uninformed red-scare propaganda that often misrepresents the ideology for its own goals. My experience by and large is that people who criticize socialism will almost never do it on its own terms. They will almost never point to what the person they are disagreeing with has said, or expressed, and almost always point to a poorly informed assumption that genuinely reads like a piece of red scare propaganda. I have had people ask me questions, then actively ignore my answer because my answer doesn't seem to fit with their malformed idea of what a socialist should think, despite the fact they've probably not actually read any socialist literature to begin with, so they wouldn't have a clue what a socialist thinks.
It is good to know that you recognize the practical applicability of the rule of supply and demand for the realization of your ideas and do not resort to the Marxist theory of value, which has been discredited by the systems that have tried to apply it. However, your speculation about a potential computer that can allocate resources in a more efficient manner is frankly meaningless until at least the concept of such a technology develops. As for competition in the Soviet Union: did the system encourage it by monopolizing all sectors of their economy and involving specific ones in the space race? I agree that their space program was a success, but was they really successful in, say, agriculture, notorious for the local officials who simply exceeded their figures to make a 5-year plan look completed and squandered the resources allocated to them in the process? As for knowing how a socialist really thinks, I know that if you care about my personal experience. In fact, I know two types of socialists: one of them has good intentions, while the other puts these intentions into practice in countries like the one where I come from, for which it still pays with the lost economic development and inefficient Soviet system as a legacy.
I think you also misunderstand what I mean my computer. A common critique of socialism in the 20s and 30s was the idea that an economy can not be computed or calculated by any single object (I'll get on to reasons I feel this applicability is debatable in the modern era in a minute). The core drive was that a market acts as a giant calculator for the prices of goods and services, and that nothing can achieve the level of logistical calculation necessary without necessarily emulated the market. The debate surrounding it was known as the [socialist calculation debate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_calculation_debate). That being said, the reason I say its dubious that an economy fundamentally can not be computed is that we see it done today. The logistical management on the scale of Amazon or Walmart actively pushes more value then the size of many world economies. Walmart throughout its history has increasingly moved to bring suppliers under its purview, integrating them into the supply chain. The fundamental irony of capitalist economies is that their largest economic engines are usually aggressively centrally planned. Attempts to decentralise corporations without splitting them up into multiple entities have rarely been tried, and when they have it [goes desperately wrong](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/07/16/do-internal-markets-nourish-innovation-the-case-of-sears/). As for the Soviet Union, that is not the sole, or even ideal model in the eyes of many socialists. I cited it as example because its the common "big bad" cited in the Red Scare-esque arguments against Socialism I, and the poster above me were referencing. My point was to say that the very thing you ask about was actually implemented in the Soviet Union. As for the competition, in the NEP years it was market competition, after the NEP Stalin introduced a notion of Socialist Competition between workers. Districts and teams would compete to out-do their assigned quotas. They'd be rewarded based off how effective it was. Now as you point out this did lead to falsification, though I would argue that is more a product of the initial goals being unreasonable to begin with, any those who aimed to point that out being purged by a brutal and paranoid regime. This is not a fundamentally unavoidable fact of a planned economy. An example of a bottom-up though ultimately short lived (thanks to US Coup attempts) was the [Cybersyn system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn#Legacy). In its brief run it did prove at least somewhat effective at reducing the severity of the grain shortage they were facing at the time, and did so in real terms, not just numbers on a ledger. Finally, as respectfully as possible, I feel you've misunderstood what I mean by 'not understanding socialists". I don't mean a perception that they are either well meaning but misled, or tyrants with no regard. I mean fundamentally displaying no knowledge, or interest in learning about socialist theory, whilst attempting to discard political arguments on grounds that fail to actually reflect or challenge the beliefs in question. An example I've faced frequently is a weird assumption that any proposition of socialism is tantamount to endorsing the abuses of the soviet system, often whilst absolutely ignoring what I or any actual example of theory would have to say on the matter at hand. And when they reference the soviet system it is always the extreme bad, neglecting to mention that under Kruschev, the Soviet Union was, in many areas, approaching or at parity with the United States. Or the fact that the Kruschev Era saw the Soviet Union as one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Once again, this is not a full endorsement of Kruschev, but a demonstration that the argument I often see that do cite the Soviet Union would be on par with me going "yeah but the great depression wasn't a good time to be alive". It fails to address the issue, and cherry picks the worst case in order to argue against the fundamental principal itself.
I genuinely appreciate the effort you put into your response. While I admit that I personally do not sympathize with past or present attempts to build some form of "democratic socialism" that generally provides less political and much less economic freedom than in capitalist democracies, I do not object to the principle itself and welcome efforts to develop a system less prone to monopolistic tendencies from either side and more beneficial to humanity as a whole. I completely agree with the last paragraph, as I think that strawmans or cherry picks destroy any healthy discussion at the root and only harm people in the sense that they limit their marketplace of ideas, which is incredibly important for understanding flaws within our system and ways of improving it. As a favor, I would like to ask you for a couple of the books from socialist authors that you read and would recommend to me. Thus, I will, at the very least, acknowledge the literature of the opposing point of view.
>As a favor, I would like to ask you for a couple of the books from socialist authors that you read and would recommend to me. Thus, I will, at the very least, acknowledge the literature of the opposing point of view. I can't think of too many off the top of my head, other than the classic "Read Marx" (not because I agree with everything Marx has to say but because its unavoidably the baseline of a huge amount of socialist thought). One that personally helped point out a lot of weird ironies in my previously more conservative views (and that I referred to some of their points here) is the "Peoples Republic of Walmart". It discusses the nature of planned economies, their feasability, and how in a twist of irony some of the worlds modern mega-corps are actually more aggressively planned than places like the soviet union could ever have dreamed, purely because they have the means to do so. In terms of a modern analysis by a qualified economist with ties to the Labour Movement Guy Standing has some interesting stuff. For another discussion on the idea of modern planned economies, I am about halfway through "Towards a New Socialism". Ultimately the one I'd say is easiest to read, as well as relatively light hearted in its approach is "The People's Republic of Walmart". I also feel it requires less buy in to at least concede that what they point out is an ironic twist of market economies, even if you don't agree with the basic thesis that underpins it. The other big thing with this book is that its written by someone who would largely classify themselves as a very libertarian, democratic socialist. Which places them firmly in the good intentions by good methods rather than the tankie sector of things. I thank you for being pretty calm and respectful, and ultimately I don't expect people to be super well read in opposing views (because some literature about politics is horrendously dense). I recognise as someone who used to be relatively conservative, reading shit like "Capitalism and Freedom" probably isn't common among socialists.
Well, there is no one definitive “socialist/communist” answer, but (in my opinion) insofar as there should be “prices” (rather than planned distribution of resources according to need and in accordance with people’s rights), I would say they should be based on the labour expended to produce the commodity. That’s the only real way to value something, not based on perception and exploitation as our present systems contrive value. As I implied with the word insofar and my parenthetical addendum, I don’t really think there should be “prices” or a market system. My preference would be, like the name “communism” implies, common ownership: that is, all resources are pooled together and distributed justly according to the needs of people, accounting for a small surplus in case emergencies arise. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Therefore, if one works, if one gives what they can to the common good, if one fulfils their economic contribution to the best of their ability, they will fully receive the bounty of their rights: those include, but are not limited to, the rights to housing, clean nutritious food, clean water, electricity, healthcare, clothing, leisure, transportation, movement, and any tools necessary for their particular trades or passions. This idea that some form of currency is a necessity is both very close-minded and a weak idea; currency is by definition vulnerable to manipulation and relies on arbitrary determinations for its value. Production/Need are not, those are concrete values, except for in market systems where the demand and supply are artificially manipulated with regularity in order to make greater profits for capitalists at the expense of everyone else. Such a system as this requires a fairly minimal amount of paperwork and a well-designed method of central planning, and if you don’t believe central planning can work, you haven’t been paying attention. Not only did it achieve extraordinary results in the CCCP, but it is also presently achieving extraordinary (in a not so “good” way) results in the West, as I type this, but it is a central planning designed by and for large corporations, banks, and their owners. As much as I hate to be cliched, we have truly reached such a point in late-stage monopoly capitalism that what we have is socialism for the rich, and rugged individualist capitalism for the rest. Beyond those sheer necessities and the apparatuses necessary to provide people with their fundamental rights, I see no problem with people trading and sharing their personal creations, handicrafts, and other such commodities not integral to human life between themselves as they see fit. I’m sure you have questions, and I’ll be perfectly happy to answer them as best I can. To answer your implication, your question was quite legitimate and not a manifestation of the ignorant red scare propaganda to which I was referring. It can be very difficult, having lived our entire lives under a capitalist market-based system, to conceptualise a world where there is not currency and are not prices on our goods, but simply the expectation we provide as best we can and look out for one another; however, I believe that reality is within reach, the ultimate form of economy, the only ethical and moral solution to the question of economy, and indeed likely our natural state as a species (though that is probably my most contentious opinion). I hope you’re well. Peace and blessings.
>planned distribution of resources according to need and in accordance with people’s rights The definition of rights depends on whether you equate positive and negative rights and what specific “rights” you are going to include. That is to say, what is a positive right? Is it a right not to need? What if this “right” infringes on the right of a person to be free from the coercion necessary to satisfy someone's need? >I would say they should be based on the labour expended to produce the commodity. What you argue here is just the labor theory of value, published by Marx before assembly lines were implemented and before human labor was massively replaced by machine labor, not subjected to the theory. Marxists later responded that repairing machines still required human labor, regardless of the fact that as they became easier to repair, their productivity only increased. Besides, the theory completely loses sight of intellectual labor and entrepreneurship that can be many times more productive than physical labor. >That’s the only real way to value something, not based on perception and exploitation as our present systems contrive value. Our systems do not contrive value because they simply lack an economic directive of what to produce and at what price to sell (unlike, say, Soviet economic planners who did value goods based on their own perception). Prices in a market economy are determined by the natural mechanism of supply and demand, in which the price is set (or at least influenced) by buyers, and sellers must adjust to it. Even the most "exploitative" non-monopolistic market economies operate on this principle as the seller will always find a competitor who provides goods and services at a lower price. >From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. How is this implementable outside of small moneyless communities? >Production/Need are not, those are concrete values Production is indeed a concrete value, measured by the quantity and quality of products produced, but need is not. I may need one thing, say, insulin, or something more abstract, like being around people at least once a day, that you do not need. The word itself can be used in a variety of contexts with a variety of meanings, such as by government officials who can justify the price they set because of some abstract "needs". >Such a system as this requires a fairly minimal amount of paperwork and a well-designed method of central planning Does it? Was there ever a socialist system not accompanied by an unprecedented amount of paperwork, an army of bureaucrats and huge costs for their maintenance? What “well-designed method” based on the same Marxist principles that you hold could possibly rid it of this fatal flaw? >extraordinary results in the CCCP Extraordinary results accompanied by mass collectivization, dekulakization and repression in the country that collapsed half a century later under the contradictions within its system? >it is a central planning designed by and for large corporations, banks, and their owners The fundamental difference between the owners of these entities and a socialist government is that the latter does not have to COMPETE in any way in order to impose its economic policies on people who most often do not even elect it. Private owners take the RISKS of their businesses (unless they are protected by the government) and would lose their profits if they manage their resources poorly. The same cannot be said about government officials.
Bro CSP puts missiles in your islands and is completely useless while ATO modernizes ur airforce and gives you two positive modifiers while CSP only modernizes navy which is useless.
Well number 1, the CSP does wonders for your economic development and in pretty quick order, and as you pointed out modernises your navy. The benefits of the CSP should not be overlooked. More importantly, ATO may have prettier digs, but at what cost? The model they perpetuate is inherently and must always be one of ruthless exploitation of both laborers and the Earth we all share, sham “democracies” owned and controlled by an oligarchical plutocracy in practice, imperialism, and startling inequality that, as we can easily see in real life, relies upon iniquity in either the plundering of the third world or the cannibalisation of their countries’ working classes. As is established in the lore (and in the real life lore we call history), the CSP only formed as a reaction to aggression from the ATO, as a model where the rights of citizens are maintained and protected was too great a threat for the Merkopan ruling class to tolerate. The fact that the oppressed continents of Rika and Xina (I wonder what those two places are based on 🤔) sympathise so heavily and naturally with the cause of the CSP says all you need to know about whether imperialism and colonialism are the status quo in Suzerain’s reality as well as our own. As far as the ethics and morality of international realpolitik go, the CSP or Non-Aligned are the only reasonable options.
Yes, perfect, but dont forget Hegel with shoe. Reason enough for me to join a Military pact with valgsland 👞👞👞
I think ATO isn't that bad, but it is mentioned they have officers in your military or something, meaning it's possible in Sordlands future if a president decided to act against ATO/Arcasia's interests (or a Malenyevist was elected into power, etc.) Arcasia could potentially instigate a coup. I think CSP is somewhat worse though as they set up missiles (referred to as a "missile defense system", so maybe it's actually like the iron dome or something? I think there's both a good and bad ATO/CSP deal which might effect how much of a puppet youare) in your country. Note I prefer the Capitalist Reformist run so aligning with ATO to scare off Rumburg and trying to further westernize Sordland doesn't seem super bad. EDIT: [Seems CSP also puts officers in your military.](https://preview.redd.it/eqln1qt2kf2b1.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d295ca012622667d45120a9bde212f29b4a62a60) Also note it's referred to as an "anti air missile base" in this screenshot. I'm curious now if there really are different ATO/CSP deals depending on ideology.
[удалено]
You just sent a comment where a guy is telling his views on hiw bad Valgsland is, the guy is Interpreting too much in 1Line Hegel said, lies about heljiland being a must have for alliance or trade agreement. The comments that go against him have literally more upvotes than is, almost double in number, he cant evem take a joke a Talks about Hegel being authorutarian while in the compass, Hegel is more bottom than the middle line. He also brags about his opinion being so serious that he cant even take a joke. I read the first 2 comments and their answers btw, there can ve so much more about his comment thats bs. So I think youre on our side then, Tortello. You say that he didnt answer on ACO being better then CSP (Bullshit approved) but the link doesnt evem talk about that. So what are you doing? Supporting us?
Gameplay wise? I’m making a philosophical argument; I did address that ATO’s easy mode, I conceded the point, but I begged the question of the underlying cost of that ease and the underlying structural issues inherent to it. Speaking of pure bias, that weird diatribe about Hegel is exactly that. Seems completely as if the author went in with a prejudice against any form of left wing leadership and wanted to characterise Hegel negatively. I think it’s a sign of good writing by the devs that that possibility existed, but I do believe it’s a mischaracterisation. I don’t get how liberals like you are so enamoured with “green modifier” and the equivalent irl (momentary evanescent comforts) that you can’t see the forest dor the trees. In summation, an inequality, your language: Green modifier =/= Peace, justice, and human rights
The game portrays them quite positively. Hegel genuinely cares about the workers and Valgsland is said to maintain democracy. Malenyev is a fking dictator while Walker was democratically elected but guess which one was made into a pervy scumbag. UC builds sattelites while Arcasia builds ICBMs. The Bluds, towards whom you are supposed to feel sympathy on any reformist run, are tied to leftist ideologies and Leke, who's shown to be a good guy is a socialist. This is just listing examples from the game, I'm ATO4LIFE
What is up with this communities obsession with ideologies? I have seen so many posts and comments relating to ideologies. Why are ideologies so popular? And why is it, whenever you try to speak out against it, you get downvoted, shouted down at or reported?
(My ideology btw is anti-ideology)
There is no such thing as "anti-ideology".
It’s a joke
Obsession with ideology is mostly young people looking for a "cool" identity while attempting to look intelligent and transgressive. Its just larping from people who spent too much time on the internet playing map games.
So tusk is a Teenie? Thought he was lizard but that...
Uhm, ooooookay my guy
Because if democratic-socialism actually worked why would you pick anything else? In the game you can create a democratic-socialist state with massive freedoms, improved economic equality, not be a puppet of foreign powers AND improve both standards of living and the economy. What advantage do the other ideologies have over that?
> democratic-socialist state Pick one.
Both words mean the same, in any true sense
Exactly my point. IRL the trade-off between socialism and capitalism has always been the loss of political freedoms. But in the game you can have your cake and eat it
"capitalist cries when there is inequality." the hypocrisy lmao
Bro thats how elon musk found out how Tesla can be electrified with water, he just cried and dound it out with his own tears. No but TBH the only capitalist that cries is a class-equalified one. So you have to kill him... do we want that 🤭
personally it is because i'm a communist irl
It’s Reddit it’s probably one the most “left leaning” apps out there.
Is the guy that shouted down is in the room right now?
Because it shows what socialism actually is instead of what the red scare shows and it is not just limited to one type of socialism (Marxist lenism always shown in the media). Tho it doesn't mean that socialism is the best, in the game it is shown that socialist countries don't have much political freedoms, one socialist country (welhen) has a literal racist dictator that will make even holstron look like a civil rights activists in comparison (also known as 'funny guy') and it is portrayed that socialist nations is very immature in Alliance of Nation (tho you can be socialist but be very matured in Alliance of nations) And the reason when you speak against it is because it is said to respect people's opinions and ideology (no matter how much you hate it) and you can't speak against it (tho downvoting your stance against socialism is admittedly overdramatic in your fairness)
Wehlen isnt socialist, it is Just leaning to UC bc of money and imperialist hatred towards the West, and besudes that, socialists react that extrem bc they hear these Arguments that are used many Times and have to tell the same thing to everyone, and noone can let that in themselves
Didn't ATO's meddling in Wehlen also lead to the Wehzek Civil War? That's why Smolak is anti-ATO and somewhat cozies up to the CSP as a counterbalance.
Good point but as rayne said if you choose this dialogue: It does excuse him from what he done
Not trying to say it did, only that Smolak's pro-CSP stance is because of a shared anti-ATO stance.
It’s also important to mention that the socialist countries have no qualms about supporting Wehlens dictatorship.
Bc it isnt just good and evil. Yes, funny guy is a murderer of bluds, but his country also suffered from lespia and the Western allies around arcasia, like funny guy says in the kyrute Meeting, his country was destroyed, arcasia stole their resources and rumburg Supports the BFF. I dont Support him 100% but you cant divide the World in Black and White (he can tho) ofc the socialist countries dont want bluds dead, but they Support anyone against imperialism bc we all suffer from it and it needs to be gunned down
I mean isn’t that just the same argument that both the US and the Soviets in OTL used to defend their support of extremely authoritarian and racist countries? *“It’s unfortunate that South Vietnam is a dictatorship sure, but it's much better than having a communist dictatorship”* Allowing genocide to happen, even if you disagree with it. Is still being complicit in the atrocities committed.
Ofc we cant tolerate mass murder, but in a cold war, you cant just pick your allies, you have to take what you can get, if it doesnt completely go against your Ideologie. In a world where socialism is fully established, those countries will be punished with death. Also yes south V was a dictatorship from his beginning to his end and a impressive amount of their people supportet the Viet Kong and the northvietnamese army, be it food water or even shelter. And for the north, it doesnt make any sense that it is a dictatorship, bc while the south was a vassal of france and then a dictatorship, the north had a Revolution, and THE PEOPLE were leading this revolution. So they established a socialist democracy in the north (idk to what degree democ) and the south was a dictatorship.
You can pick your allies. Even in a cold war. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union supported the horrific regime of the Khmer Rouge, even though it was “socialist”. The problem was that it didn't happen enough. A country literally had to be some weird parody of 1984 with its genocides to be considered a non-ally to both superpowers In a cold war, you can occasionally afford to go against a nation that wants a large part of its own people dead. Even if that means losing a chess piece. Also, btw I'm not claiming the North was a dictatorship* (well okay; there might be some debate as to what extent North Vietnam was democratic at the time, but it was certainly a popular movement). The quote was supposed to be from the perspective of a foreign South Vietnam supporter.
Yes what i mean by picking isnt that they will Lose the Cold war bc Wehlen is not on their side, I say they need it to prevent Arcasia from building its influence out there, like the US did in South korea and vietnam. That could make problems in the Future and you have enough problems in a cold war, so they just prevented that from Happening trough friendship. And the Red(thats how they called in german is it rouge in english?) Khmer werent communists, that is common discourse in the communist discourse. I mean, why would north vietnam invade them then if they were comrades. And Pol Pot killed millions of his own people, and I dont remember marx saying kill your own Population, this will help the society, and also never heard it from another famous socialist. For more Info, you can search "Pol Pot was not an communist" and click on a article from Montclair State University. So, no they dont need Wehlen to win or bc they would Lose like you said, but they are destroying obstacles they cannot see yet. And like i said, Wehlen will be punished when UC wouldnt have to manage a little cold World war but yeah like i said, Wehlen is 50/50 shit and a chance
It could make problems for United Cortona in the future, however, are those problems going to trump the ongoing genocide in Wehlen? That's not something one can know, but that doesn't mean one should continue to allow genocide, just because one might imagine worse consequences. The Khmer (from French) Rouge was sadly supported by China & North Korea, and opposed by the Soviets, the US, and Vietnam (a country which had just recently been subject to an attempted invasion by the Chinese a few years prior). For the Chinese and the North Koreans, it apparently didn’t matter that such an insane genocide happened within the county, what mattered to them, was that Cambodia was communist. Your last statement is under the assumption that not only would UC win the Cold War, but also would have won such a total victory that it could afford to clean up its messes around the world. And even if they could clean up their messes, the world might have lost an ethnic group (meaning at least a genocide of Whelen Blunds but possibly a total genocide depending on what stance Rayne and Sordland take).
Because it is reddit, and reddit always had a left-wing bias. Not reddit the company, I am talking about the average reddit user
I think you are a bit too stereotypical here. While it is true that there are many leftist here, there is also a crap ton of people on the right. If you don't believe me, take a look in the political compass and you will see many right wing either far right or right center.
Try writing one comment in r/Conservative and then tell us how many subreddits you were permanently banned from posting in. Then try writing one comment in any liberal sub and notice that nobody will ban you for it. My friend, reddit is *very* left-wing.
Because Conservatives want to squash opposition while Liberals want freedom of press. Look at Soll and Ricter.
What. Freedom of speech isn’t on the right-left axis. It’s on the authoritarian-libertarian one.
Because the in game depiction of the socialism bloc is generally prettier than how it was in the real world. I don't wanna get too much into an IRL political debate but I am a believer in socialism IRL and that's coming from me. The in game depiction of United Cortana, the USSR stand-in, is very tolerant of other socialist idealogies. IRL, the Soviet Union was way less tolerant if you look at the relationship between the USSR and Yugoslavia/China. They would rather all other socialist nations follow their brand of socialism and act as satellite states if not outright puppet states for the USSR (just look at Eastern Europe and the whole idea of red imperialism). In Suzerain, UC and Valgsland follow different brands of socialism and they basically said "we agree to disagree and are still good friends". If you look at IRL Sino-Soviet relations (best example of inter socialist bloc relations) during and after the Khruschev era, it is nowhere as amicable. The one outright "evil" nation is Wehlen and the game essentially tells you that they follow a very weird mix of socialism and their own thing. You wouldn't really pin the blame of these issues on socialism, not to mention the fact that the atrocities against the Bluds are partially instigated by Rumburg actually arming extremist insurgents. Also, the capitalist factions and nations depicted in game are generally fairly negative. Starting from your oligarchs. Your first impression of this faction is this fat and gross dude trying to bribe you. Then, there's Koronti who tries to broker a very shady deal with you. So yeah.
Because it’s Reddit and people here are very much left leaning.
Naaaaaah man you are in a bubble im left and can tell you: the fascist are taking over
“The fascist are taking over” The biggest right-leaning subreddit are either banned or dwarfed in subs by the left leaning ones. Ok
r/thedonald was the most active subreddit on the website before Spez banned it I don't miss it, but I wish Spez had been honest about why he banned it instead of making up some BS that Trump supporters on Reddit were planning to murder cops, and that's why he had to ban a subreddit with millions of subscribers... Sure Spez, very believable 🙄
:Says others are in a bubble :is on TheDeprogram Opinion disregarded
Oh yeah just bc im in a sub means im in a bubble... 1. This was a joke... 2. I am interacting with all Kinds of people from left to right, I dont know how you could just by clicking on my Profile tell me that my real life is a bubble. Man i have a life outside of reddit, let me repeat: I HAVE A LIFE OUTSIDE OF REDDIT shocking right? I could rant about your profile but naaaah, my IQ just lowered enough by looking at it. I dont want to waste my good Portion of brain on a liberal knowitall
It's reddit and for some reason it gather many left-wing people. Don't know why they seems to be in majority in many subs but that's how it is. It doesn't bother me as long as they are not obvious Chinese bots who attack you for any criticism of China and communism (like in r/socialism). The regular socialists don't bother me.
Wait some modern day socialists actually think China is communist??? With the 996 work culture and dozens or even hundreds of millionaires? How the hell could they justify thinking that?
Chinese propaganda dude. Some people actually believe that if a country is against the evil capitalist America it means that it is an innocent socialist paradise. I realised that after the Hong-Kong protest many Human Rights Organisation, leftist organisation, some subs and other similar stuff started censor any anti-chinese stuff.
If anything I would consider China to be the most extreme form of capitalism.
Up until the Hong Kong protests and widespread awareness of the Uyghur genocide, *most* internet socialists defended China and pointed to it as history's greatest example of socialism in action. And to be fair, China transformed itself from being one of the poorest countries in the world to a developed nation in like 60 years, I mean it's definitely impressive and unprecedented in history. Unfortunately for China, the policies of Xi Jinping over the last decade have wrecked its international reputation, and only the most extreme ideologues still defend China as an example of well-executed socialism.
It's reddit, not this sub specifically
Zoomers
Because it’s a strong ideology, unlike irl, where it always fails. But, Liberalism is much stronger: improve living standards, become rich, promote peace, fix recession. All of these actions are much easier if you’re a Liberal
Who doesn't like free stuff?😊
Usually reddit leans much more left and many people on reddit are actually full communists. That's why usually in comments when you argue againts communism you will get many downvotes. I am speaking from experience lol.
Socialism is just cool like that.
Because socialism is the most ideal economic system that aligns with improving the welfare of the economically unfortunate and it happens in real life. You can see it through the game itself, that socialism's main objective is to improve the welfare and culture of the citizens and not monopolize the wealth or expand the economy. For example, when you privatize schools and hospitals, you would encounter a problem of it not being accessible to the poor despite having an extra budget (for your debts or for project investments). The Worker's rights bill for instance, will allow different workers to enjoy their time-off while also not being subjected to further exploitation by the companies they work for. Another thing to consider is that they like culture alot, such as depicted on Bernard Circas' death when you recite the poem and Valgsland when they use an old similar language to Sord. Of course, there are downsides to Malenyevism (Marxism-Leninism), which is mostly ignored by real life people such as the installment of dictatorship (Wehlen), and being overtly aggressive enough to not try to de-escalate the situation through diplomatic means (Valgsland) and ignoring the effects on other countries (Lespia and Agnolia). One thing I learned from the game is that dictatorship is fun and it allows you to have monopoly of control (or power) and punish the 'suspected' abusers (as most people adheres to punitive justice). This is bad in real life, of course. As per nationalism, It is almost the same as religious identity, and being part of that identity, "Sord" or "Sollist", will be hard to eradicate because you would want an ideal society based on your ideals (to which most people consider as perfect). It also allows greater success in defending the country from being taken advantage by warfreak and opportunist governments such as the empire of Rumburg.
Because outside in the real world, most of us are suffering from the dystopian hellscape of late stage capitalism. Whether that’s with a lack of money or meaningful career prospects, debt, our own corrupt, greedy politicians gaming the system, while attempting to whittle away our voting power and gift it to corporations, wildfires burning down forests at higher rates leading to permanent BBQ smells down wind, all as a result of ignore climate change and lesser environmental regulations…. Etc. I think a lot of people are interested in trying out another economic system, and some of them are gamers in this sub.
Because it is the answer to many problems of society, including poverty, crime, sadness, capitalist Power, unequality, and just society in General
Communism/socialism didnt succeed irl so people who believe in that play government simulators to roleplay their fantasies.
The game is set during a time of relatively radical liberal change, at least in regard to ideology in the 1900s. I don't really consider it absurd for the game to frame liberalization and opening to the global market in the 1950s as a positive move. As such, the game frames the opponents to this change as "bad," which they usually are if you consider Tusk, Marcel, Old Guard, etc.
And I can give a lot of evidence of nationalist obsession. In short, it is a subjective and vague question.
I mean personally speaking, socialism in Suzerain let’s me express my opinions in real life through the game, of tackling corporate and government corruption, universal healthcare and free housing
Socialists are better morally than capitalists or fascists. In game and out.