Hm, these "Foundation of Economic Education" folks don't sound too bad...
The Foundation for Economic Education is listed as a partner organization of the Charles Koch Institute.[3]
Lol
To sum up the vid:
It's not actually communism, it's democratic participation in a cooperative, classless society with the goal of meeting each other's needs and contributing to the greater whole!
:engels-wut:
It's also not new! Early societies have done this and certain groups of people do it today!
:marx-hi:
I suppose the response to these kinds of bad faith arguments is "Cool, maybe it's not communism. So why are we not choosing this over Capitalism then?"
(Admittedly, I haven't watched the show so maybe he is right and Jackson is not really a Communist society, just not with the arguments he presented.)
The real anti-communist messaging of the show is how the revolutionaries at Kansas City are written to be just as bad as Fedra who are misled by a revenge-obsessed woman to their demise.
How do you read a bunch of white militia guys going around killing harmless ex-collaborators as "revolutionaries", is it just because they have guns and got rid of fedra or is there more?
Like, were they portrayed differently in the game, am I missing something, what's up?
They are also hell bent on hunting down a black man and his child.
It was a mass uprising of people against a fascist military dictatorship which is pretty revolutionary imho but they're written to be unreasonably evil for some reason so they ignore all the actual issues (including the imminent threat of hordes of zombies under their city about to burst up) and hunt down a collaborator till the ends of the earth at the behest of their leader who is very clearly not thinking straight due to grief yet goes unquestioned. In the game they don't have the whole "hunting down traitors" plot line, instead they're just made to be psychos who hunt people for sport (and they don't all die at the end).
It's like a reactionary caricature of the French revolution. In both the show and the game it would not affect the plot at all to make them regular-ass people just trying to protect their home from threats. It would make more sense if they were like that. It might even be interesting to portray them as a commune like Jackson to contrast Joel's action in the two places. Instead the writers consciously wrote in this whole "revolution gone too far" background plot. It might just be so the player doesn't feel bad about killing all these people, but they rehash the same line on revolution in the second game which leads me to believe they are making a point.
In the game it also mentions that the hunters kicked out/murdered the Fireflies after they overthrew Fedra because the Fireflies were too controlling. Maybe I'm reading too deep into it, but it seems like the implication is that the Fireflies are the enlightened ones and the regular people are too greedy/selfish/stupid to govern themselves. Even the portrayal of Joel at the end of the first game and into the second is kind of like that.
Edit: To add on top of that, the Fireflies are constantly portrayed as naive and idealistic for believing they can restore constitutional government and yet we have multiple examples of people rising up and overthrowing Fedra in the few remaining strongholds of civilization left. Why is that?
No it isn't.
In my opinion I actually appreciate them depicting what happens when your whole ideology can be summed up as "smash the apparatus of state and do retributive violence against the oppressors and people who hurt us personally" with no "and..." at the end that describes coherently within an intellectually sound framework what you do beyond that to survive in a dire situation.
Sounds a lot like certain idealistic people who think people will just get along and you'll have a nice functioning healthy society once you remove the bad authority structure. Made only worse given their precarious situation against an awful horde of zombie monsters, isolation, lack of resources, and threats from other groups of people. The lady in charge of it all (and behind it all) wasn't an organizer, a revolutionary, or an intellectual, she was just some vindictive, injured person personally aggrieved at the death of a relative who had some (probably liberal) ideals and ideas as a (again liberal) revolutionary and who might had they led the uprising actually been able to build a more productive and solid society that isn't just raiders with a base who ambush and murder travelers for goods and waste all their time and energy and resources vindictively seeking out to murder the people who betrayed their leader when they had other very pressing concerns. And the whole back-story from what I can tell is spontaneous (and probably opportunistic) uprising after a catalyzing event of abuse (possibly her father's murder) that was a metaphorical straw that broke the people's back and caused them to act out with enough of them having smuggled arms and some basic organization to carry that out successfully against a probably already demoralized occupying force.
What they showed is exactly what CAN happen. In fact it did happen in Russia with Makhno and has happened in many other places and times. This is why a vanguard party is critical. This is why you need to be able to organize people under a coherent scientific ideology, stable leadership, to settle things down, bring control after the revolutionary violence is over and indeed to reign in the worst excesses of such violence even during that period.
And consequently what I would expect in fact to happen in the US in just such a situation as depicted in the show as it is such an American-brained thing to do. We are talking about a people steeped in reactionary superstructure, magical thinking, idealism, individualism as religion, and violence as a fetish.
As any good communist revolutionary will tell you, a successful revolution under siege conditions (as they very much were under) is only the very first step, it is in fact the beginning of the real work and the hard times.