LMAO see how stupid this sounds? They have to realize eventually that once you have to add disclaimers under every snappy comment, you instantly look like the suckup loser.
You can't keep an ideology alive when it's so strictly and neurotically balanced between two distinct levels of radicalism (aesthetic leftism vs NATO/none at all). Anti-Tankies can only exist with the CIA's forceful help because little do they realize, they're fighting a battle in 2 directions at once. They're never willing to do the smart thing sometimes as commies and say "yea so what". Instead they picture the hammer & sickle, then get a buried primal anxiety for Home or Mommy or maybe even Jesus but the internalized USAmerican biases are so subconscious they think theyre feeling normal apprehension when they go out of the way to exclude AES from talk of socialism. Not even trying to psychoanalyze here, but ive met/almost been these types and the one sharp, painful barrier between them and not doing op shit is often that they forgot to actually examine the paranoia they were taught. Instead they shrugged it off, went "yay Leftism", and tried to frantically build their beliefs around it, guided at every misguided google-search-rabbithole by CIA data.
If any of that sounds relatable to you, my first recommendation is (not to sound intimidating but) to start from scratch. Imagine you've just discovered communism, and walk yourself through the process of learning, but this time start in openly communist spaces. Listen to some reading/listening/watching recs from comrades you might otherwise deflect suggestions from (especially if the worry is authoritarianism) and ask plenty of questions. You're bound to learn some surprising things.
Really reminds me of those self-aware quips about everything. Gives the impression that the writers are deeply insecure about the subject matter (often bc its "cringe"), and honestly the same goes for ending every sentence with a reassurance that you wouldnt actually support the Soviet Union. They just need to own up to the legacy of their beliefs, which by necessity has been much more violent than we'd prefer.
I am “anti-tankie” because the regimes supported by “tankies” are opposed to what I want, and I am opposed to what they want.
:fedposting:
I don't need to elaborate, I know what I want and I know what I need to do when people take away what I want.
I don’t need to elaborate
ok good luck getting people to understand you
This is a religious genuflection; Catholics need to genuflect before entering a Pew to acknowledge the divinity of the Eucharist, left anticommunists must always denounce the USSR before speaking to acknowledge the primacy of liberalism.
Oh my god you hit the nail on the head. Never heard a better way to describe the religiousness of pointlessly attacking the USSR.
But communism is the best system! And Tankyism is the best kind of communism! Do they not get that?
I laugh at the fact they call Marxism-Leninism 'Vanguardism' and that you can even implement it during Marx's lifetime. Like sure, ignore the material conditions that gave rise to the Communist or the anarchist movement but can't you at least make how you achieve a communist or anarchist victory in a nation realistic?
Like how the hell can you justify forming a 'vanguard' communist ruled state or anarchist commune state when they get voted in by a succdem intelligentsia - nihilist trade unionists - communalist peasants coalition?
Vic3 is super materialist about trade and economy - but the political simulation is pure idealism. No matter what they do they will always be trying to strike a balance between "letting the player do stuff" and "restricting the player's choices based on [reasons]", and it's understandable that they lean more towards being permissive than restrictive since players will generally find that more fun.
The problem is ultimately that a materialist simulation makes a very obvious "correct" (most optimal) thing to do in every scenario which sort of railroads a player and takes away choices. It's not really a game if you aren't making choices it becomes a ride instead.
it can do that, which is why in Vic3 right now communism is "overpowered" because it's simply the best option
But the way you change how a player approaches a game is mostly through changing their objective. In Vic3 your objective is to take care of the nation as a whole - but what if your objective was just to see to the happiness and political control of a single class? Put the player in the role of the bourgeoisie and they'll make different decisions, which could be the next level of improving Vic3's political simulation (not that I think Paradox will actually go that route).
Put the player in the role of the bourgeoisie and they’ll make different decisions, which could be the next level of improving Vic3’s political simulation (not that I think Paradox will actually go that route).
Wouldn't this just be a railroad to fascism for the ultimate victory of the bourgeoisie and a railroad to communism for the ultimate victory of the prole?
My fear with this is encouraging accelerationism via game mechanic is not necessarily a good outcome for us other than forcing many of its players to ask themselves some questions about moralising.
Less a railroad than a maze.
You can go whichever direction you want, but only one path will get you out of the maze and award you for the accomplishment.
If you want to do Capitalism in Vic3, you absolutely can. But the skinner box won't reward you for it.
At least the only nice part is that fascists or monarchists can :pit: over why their ethno-state fucking sucks as they economically get roflstomped.
can’t you at least make how you achieve a communist or anarchist victory in a nation realistic?
Obviously, you just do it through the electoral system. That's the real Vox Populi and it is the only way to both gauge and implement a truly egalitarian political system.
Unless, of course, the Populi become unruly or hostile to domestic growth. In that case, it is the duty of the domestic armed services to return the state to order by using their tanks.
I've hardly visited at all lately, it's more fun to play dwarf fortress
Always gotta second-guess themselves and try to appease the liberals.
It's a start. Easier to get that person to take a serious look at the merits of AES states (through someone like Parenti) than a person who is still hung up on the c-word.
Wake me up when I can play that game as an indigenous group in North America—even after modding in "unrecognized/insignificant nations" as playable—without the game assuming we're cave people who just discovered fucking rocks when the Brits showed up and demanded all our beaver pelts.
I decided to give the game another shot after my first attempt. I spent a whole god damned afternoon trying to figure out how to mod my ancestors know how to bang two rocks together or put a seed in the ground before Our Racial Superiors showed up and let us know how fire works. Fuck this game.
Haven't played it myself, but I think you can play as the "Indian Territory" in the southern US. Only problem is it almost always gets annexed by the US.
Well, I wish I hadn't pressed that button. Yikes.
You're a Yankee fuck in charge of a bunch of indigenous slaves. We have some cotton plantations, and the most important group in your region is Landlords. Also, Andrew Jackson is in charge of your puppet state.
Naturally, we have extremely advanced technology, unlike the Savages to our immediate west, who know nothing and can't read and only have WAR PARTIES.
Oof, sorry about that. My last idea: you might be able to release and play as indigenous nations while playing as the US/Canada/Mexico.
You expect these Swedish clowns to accurately depict a world they'd only know as an echo of an echo? That they're still clinging to bits of the colonizer's side of the story is hardly surprising .
I was so on the verge of just buying it yesterday. I still need to play more EU4 to justify having bought that, but they keep tempting me.
