darthelmet

I'm wondering if it's gonna be Trigger again. That's mostly why I bothered with it in the first place. But they tend not to do sequels, so I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.

External hostility often pushed socialist regimes toward authoritarian measures. For example, the USSR faced significant opposition from capitalist countries, which influenced its militarization and political centralization. This external pressure created a siege mentality that undermined the potential for democratic governance.

This is something that I wish more people who talked about this would acknowledge and engage with. I get it, authoritarianism isn't good. It's not like we want that. It's not the goal. But it's really easy to sit on the sidelines from a relatively cushy life in the imperial core and judge all the people out there who are dealing with the historical reality of colonialism and feudalism and the current reality of imperialism. They are actively engaged in the practical task of liberating themselves from forces, both external and internal (old power structures/privileges) that seek to violently return them to a condition of servitude. The decisions they made have to be viewed through the lens of that context.

That doesn't mean we can't discuss and criticize them, but it's worth engaging in the nuance of the history rather than out of hand dismissing their attempts as inherently illegitimate, evil, and/or misguided. What were the conditions they were operating under? What dangers did they face? Were their actions the best strategy for achieving the future they wanted? Was what they gave up too great? Did they have the capability to take a more open path? Have/had their decisions irreparably led them astray or were/are they still on the path to that eventual communist society on some time scale?

If you think they're wrong for what they did, you still have to be able to answer the question of how you protect your revolution from forces that will spy on you, sabotage your industry, fund right wing militias to terrorize people, sanction and blockade you, or even invade you? Or if you think the path wasn't even violent revolution in the first place, what is your answer to how you get to where you want to be when the power structure that would need to allow this is also invested in not allowing this? It's a bit harder to see how this is made difficult or even impossible in liberal "democracies," but it should be uncontroversial to acknowledge that some kind of force was necessary to escape from illiberal systems like Feudalism in Russia/China or from colonial regimes like in Vietnam.

The one thing I'd push back on from your comment is about the welfare states of Europe. That's not really what socialism is about. They've made life better for people in their own country, yes, but it's on the backs of those exploited in the third world. That's why communism is inherently internationalist. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." You need to be able to build a movement that can work to lift everyone up with you, or at least not drag them down for your own benefit. I'd be interested to have more of a discussion on this, but that's the standpoint I'd start from.

Goddammit.

Understandable. It got pretty frustrating for me too at various points. I'm kinda bad at this kind of combat in general. Most of what motivates me to push through it in games like Dark Souls or Tunic is being interested in the world. But sometimes not even that's enough.

Tunic.

The one thing I think is worth “spoiling” just to save you some pain:

I also second Outer Wilds.

Aside from doing the work to maintain and update your own engine, there is also the problem of onboarding new hires. If you use a standard you can go out and hire people already experienced with working on the engine. If you use your own, you have to teach a new hire to use it before they can be any help.

I read that this caused a lot of development woes on Halo Infinite for example.

The question that is an irrelevant tangent from the original discussion? The one that assumed something about my point that wasn't anywhere in the text? What do you even want out of this conversation? You aren't even engaging with the argument.

You haven't answered my question. You provided a suggested solution, but with nothing to back it up in relation to the question. If all you have to say is "The New Deal was good," that isn't pertinent to the discussion unless you can show how it was related to a mass voter movement. Instead of doing that you just started a different argument with an imaginary opponent.

Also for whatever it's worth:

"Tell me why we shouldn't have a CCC and a WPA as a start."

"It’s not like I was trying to say ND programs were bad."

Assuming your question is "Weren't ND agencies good? Do you not want them?" Then I answered that. That was never a point of contention in the argument. You're getting mad at nothing.

It’s a shame. Seeing the bullshit companies have done to games for the sake of profit ought to be a pretty easy on-ramp to anti-capitalism. But just like in the real world, racist shit distracts them from any of that.

Well at this point it seems like half this thread is just people not being clear what they mean or misunderstanding someone else.

I was responding to the assertion that there was some time when most people voted and participated in the system and that time was good because of that. You offered the New Deal as an example of this. I was showing how that didn’t really match up to the voter participation rate.

It’s not like I was trying to say ND programs were bad. Just that they weren’t the product of mass voter mobilization and didn’t change anything fundamental about the relationship between workers, capital, and the state.

That’s all. I’m pushing back against the idea that American democracy itself has somehow fallen from grace from some mythical period of mass democratic participation. That’s just never been what the country was. If you want to get to that point, you have to start by acknowledging that the old system wasn’t what you wanted to preserve. Otherwise you just keep ending up in the same place.

My point is that something like the New Deal doesn't just happen because everyone decided to get out of bed and vote one day. There's a context to understand and that context is that outside pressure and extraordinary events were necessary for it to happen.

Things didn't get better because just that many more people decided to vote and things didn't get worse because people stopped voting. The numbers just don't bear that out. We've been stuck in the band of our modern voter turnout rate since before the New Deal. So if the claim is that Democracy works when everyone votes and the example is the New Deal, then it doesn't support that claim. So if differences in voter turnout can't explain that outcome, you have to look at other factors.

As for how radical it was. Sure, capitalists didn't like it. But fundamentally it left power in the hands of those capitalists. The quote is just providing insight on how the people involved thought/talked about it. The evidence is all the history that followed that. They kept their money, their influence over the political system, and given time, they used that to dismantle even something as reformist as the New Deal.

It certainly wasn't as extreme or successful as the soviet union, but there was a lot of unionization going on during the industrial revolution that was more radical than the tamer bargaining unions we see in the post-war era. And then the depression happened and things got really bad. It's not hard to see how elites would have looked out at what was happening in the world, looked at the bad economic situation at home, and concluded that something had to be done.

FDR even said that they were trying to reform capitalism to save it.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Transwiki/American_history_quotes_New_Deal

1933 “It was this administration which saved the system of private profit and free enterprise after it had been dragged to the brink of ruin.” President Roosevelt, on how his emergency actions in 1933 prevented a revolution and saved capitalism.

Refer to my comment bellow for a more expanded discussion, but specifically talking about the New Deal:

• The voter participation in this period was comparable to what we have today. Minus all the people excluded, but the comment I'm replying to was talking about people deciding to vote, so those without that option, these people aren't included in the asserted culpability for the success or failure of democracy.

• The New Deal happened with significant context outside of the electoral system. A massive war with another looming on the horizon. A global financial collapse that threatened to incite people against the ruling class. Militant union organizing against violent state and private repression. The rise of the Soviet Union as a counterweight to capitalist hegemony and an example to show workers what was possible.

• The goal was to placate workers enough to preserve the power structure. Far from being a democratic revolution, it was a stalling tactic that kept power concentrated and allowed those in power to slowly dismantle outside power structures like unions until such time as they could claw back those gains. The later end of the Keynesian government programs can be better attributed to the weakening of unions than the failure of people to vote or vote correctly at the ballot box. Government policy obviously had a big hand in this attack on unions, but there were also the material factors of automation and globalization that greatly reduced union bargaining power.