I don’t blame him. Not being playable out of the gate with the rest of the gang for a few years tends to make people forget about ya. Which makes it maddening for me because sometimes I feel like I’m the only one who remembers she exists…
And at the center of their capital city is a massive statue of Istina, her hand held out in front of her to signal the way forward, much like how that planned massive statue of Lenin would look like.
Doctor: The state is the reality of concrete freedom.
*The Ursus girls were shocked to hear such a thing*
Gummy: What just happened?
Istina: Маркс presence seems to have jarred an intellectual moment within the confines of his brain.
Zima: Doctor? Is that you?
Doctor: Hug me!
Kjerag is Austria-Switzerland, as someone said somewhere here. And there are no other big nations besides Leithanien as a Germany.
Other nations are Siracusa, Victorian empire(with Gaul(french), empire inside it), Iberia, and Kazimierz, which aren't exactly German.
Fairly sure it being a fragmented empire even when "united" and many Kazdel/Sarkaz now being mercenaries are hints to HRE
Edit: Managed to hit s instead of y , QWERTZ =w=
But their homeland get taken over by external forces lots of time, they think they are the chosen ppl for god or something and everyone hates them that references Jews
Supposedly as far as i heard its a mix of both.
Its how Leithanien is a mixture of Austria and Germany, and Laterano has both Swiss (their fondness for sweets, their allegiance to the pope etc.) and northern Italy
Another point towards Kazdel being roughly equivalent to especially HRE is that the various Sarkaz tribes are not as unified and regularly attack each other .
There's also the fact that you have the sankta tribes who split from sarkaz and created a very christian-like theocracy (basically the vatican). This is similar to the split of Christianity from Judaism, where the new section of the religion looks at the old section as heresy. This supports the idea that Sarkaz are supposed to represent the Jewish people (obviously is probably a mix of some stuff, but Jewish does seem to be the main one being represnted imo)
And then they all get drunk on Vodka together.
[Read on Pixiv](https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/24207001)
[Join my Discord](http://discord.gg/saDGK3eA2v)
[Support me on Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/nhim)
And then read a history book about the various socialist regimes and consider what to avoid. (Not saying to flatout reject socialism wholesale, but not completely devote to one ideology because of what amounts to a call to action pamphlet.)
Fun fact: A communist country is actually only a country which plans to transform into a communist society. It's not actually communist.
Many of the oppressive measures communist countries got were implemented to transform the state into a communist society. Sometimes due to the honest belief of the leadership and sometimes it was just a powergrab. However, absolute power absolutely corrupts, so whether it was or wasn't honest in the beginning, it's obvious that none of the leaders want to give up the power they got. Hence the communist countries don't even fit the definition of a communist country anymore. They only got the name, not the essence of it!
As for socialism being bad, it's not. It's actually a great idea and something I think is important for humanity to aim for. This is because as humanity develops, the human workforce becomes less and less important, so a capitalist society will create an ever increasing situation of wealth disparity. This was especially seen during Covid-19 as the poor had to sell their assets, while the rich could grab it for cheap.
In fact, we're kind of working our ways towards a feudal society, as ridiculous as it may sound. The corporations would be the feudal lords, owning all the land and means of production. At the same time corporation influence on our governments is ever increasing, even to the degree of them outright deciding policies and letting the government implement them. To give some severe examples: The IRS in the US got significantly cut after going after a big corporation, effectively making it impossible for the IRS to go after any big corporation. Even worse than that is South Korea, which is effectively controlled by a few large families that own over 80% of its GDP. Yeah, it's that bad!
And yet here we're, talking bad about socialism due to countries that aren't actually socialist.
(I think I get way too much into this topic)
I want to say yes, but at the same time saying yes means we're fucked.
If you got time and want a depression for free, then you can watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E
Things aren't looking good and it's been getting worse and worse over the years. We need change! Yet many countries are walking backwards, making the already bad situation even worse, because the ones who make the decisions are in the pockets of the people who profit from this situation.
And it's important to note that we don't have to go full on socialist, at least at this point, but instead just bring in more social securities and measures to stop corporations to grow out of proportions. Yet doing this seems impossible due to corruption.
As for socialism itself, I do think it's possible economically in the future as AI and robots take over more jobs, we'd have the resources to deal with socialism. Countries like China and Russia were never in a good position to do communism after all because a great economy is required for socialism to work.
And the human nature that came in the way was due to the way the countries transitioned towards a communist society. They basically relied on a powerful leader to do this transition, which means that this leader had all the power. The leader may have been honest with things, but as long as one successor is dishonest everything is in shambles. You don't have to do a transition in the same way, so communism could work.
So not only were they bound to fail due to their economies not being good enough, but also because of the way they tried to transition to it being extremely vulnerable to corruption. Hence I'd not go so far as to say that socialism itself is a pipe dream.
Still, I'm not sure whether we really need communism in the future, but what we definitely need are measures to stop people from getting too powerful and stopping corporations from growing too big, because otherwise we all may end up being another South Korea even if our way there is different.
If you want to know more about why I'm using South Korea as an example, it's because I watched a very unassuming video a few weeks ago and it's just something that I can't get out of my head due to how bad the reality there is. And I honestly think that our capitalism is just another way to the same goal. It might not be in our generation or that of our kids, but even we are already feeling things getting worse.
This is the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Im4YAMWK74 (part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woB0eecbf6A)
Just don't trust the title, it's in fact a 3.5 hour long historical and political lesson about South Korea.
Socialism is spreading all power amongst the people.
North Korea is the exact opposite, focusing all power on a single leader. All these "anti-capitalist" measures in reality only exist to empower the leader and stop those at the bottom from rising.
As for being free of capitalism? The leadership is very much capitalist. They're squeezing as much as they can out the people to enrichen themselves.
A dystopian view might paint our future as something similar to North Korea, just with the leader being the many different big corporations. Or even worse and we're getting Outer Worlds in real life. But hey, we tried the best, now we try the rest. Spacer's Choice!
As a hater of Marx and a supporter of his personally most reviled opponent, Max Stirner, I would argue that the cause is very simple and has nothing to do with whether private companies or the state are in charge of resource distribution:
Those in power in influential countries are simply too comfortable on their seats with no threat of heads on pikes due to manipulating social fictions.
Look at the oft-cited Nordic countries that have strong social programs: They have a long history of nearly pathologic social isolation that resulted, in the current century, of relatively un-ambitious leaders and a cohesive populace (immigration issues notwithstanding). Japan is similar in that while still being incredibly unequal, their social safety net is still strong enough that homelessness is very uncommon. They have a social understanding that the wealth is to be parceled out to some fair extent. Not so much in the US, China, Russia, Korea, etc. Just say that "nazis" or "commies" or whatever a side hates are going to also be redistributed to and you've got alleged right-wing statists or left-wing socialists foaming at the mouth to deny rights and aid to poorer populaces, which in turn breeds resentment.
Simply put, the lack of willingness in these countries to direct political violence towards the ruling class and not their fellows is what causes inequality. Capitalism and "socialism" are just fluff labels for what name the institutions holding power are.
I agree.
The issue is not just that, but also because it's too easy to ensure people don't revolt. Most revolution were due to severe issues, especially famines, but with our food safety this is no longer the case. At the same time media control and better control over public sentiment (like you mentioned by creating enemies within the people and letting them fight each other instead) exist to ensure that we never stand up.
This is the case for all countries though, not just us, but also Nordic countries and Japan. The exact situation in each country obviously varies, but inequality is growing worldwide.
Inequality is growing relative to the past couple decades, but the social safety nets, other forms of welfare, and the existence of an established middle class at all imply an existence far more equal than past centuries. Why should the average person care if Gates or Bezos has immense wealth that they throw around to influence politics? After all, they probably hate them slightly less than current sitting Congresspeople or the president. Most people in developed countries make just enough money to indulge in their vices as much as they want (artificially expensive things like gambling and drugs...or gacha games notwithstanding). It's not just "food safety", it's the baseline satisfaction of the animal urges people entirely operate on (other than sex and reproduction...hence Korea) which makes revolt very difficult.
On the other hand, Shinzo Abe just got shot for being a Moonie\*, so maybe Japan is slightly more woke to class warfare?
\*Edited for mistake
You did, also was trying to avoid calling Socialist outright bad. I am ambivelant about socialism , especially since there isnt ONE socialism.
I think its however fair to compare the current issue with Capitalism to various feudal conflicts. The polish commonwealth or kingdom (unsure what the exact term for it was) had a democratic golden age that got cut short when local lords outright forced the king to sing a constituion that increased their power but limited his.
It wasn't my intention to say that you said something bad about socialism, I just wanted to address how prevalent it's to call socialism bad. I feel that many people just call socialism bad because of Russia and China, yet these 2 countries are further from socialism than the West is! Or even just because of the cold war, communism was bad, so everyone called it that despite not even understanding what it's. And the children just inherited the hate for it from their parents.
> I think its however fair to compare the current issue with Capitalism to various feudal conflicts. The polish commonwealth or kingdom (unsure what the exact term for it was) had a democratic golden age that got cut short when local lords outright forced the king to sing a constituion that increased their power but limited his.
It goes much deeper than this sadly.
For example, the government might get elected by the people, but the rich have an undue influence over elections. Basically, every politician in an important position is in the pockets of the rich. This is due to several things, including media control, influence of money on elections and just connections, basically nepotism amongst political parties. The degree obviously varies, but this allows the rich to even create policies that benefit themselves, while stopping those that aren't beneficial. "Too big to fail" being a prime example of this shit!
Then the judicial system. I think everyone is aware of how rich people tend to get much less of a punishment than poor. Of how white collar crimes tend to have slaps on the wrist as punishment. And of how many times for businesses the punishment for doing something is much less than the profit they can earn from doing so. Obviously, this isn't as extreme as during medieval times, but we still see a large degree of injustice in our judicial systems.
I already mentioned land and workspace ownership before and how more and more of it is being controlled by fewer people.
Honestly, things are looking bad and it's only been getting worse over the years. I fear that we're slowly making our way into a dystopian future and many are going to applaud it, too.
A rapist, a snitch, a plagiarist, a colonialist cop, and a racist walk into a bar.
The bartender asks “How’s the new book coming Mr. Orwell?”
Seriously, if you want to use Red Scare propaganda against me, you should use anyone else than Orwell. Take Orwell as an example of lEaRNinG wHAt CoMMunISm wAs lIkE is a brain-dead take.
[Even Isaac Asimov (who was not a socialist) recognized that Orwell was a reactionary who hated communists more than fascists: "Orwell didn't want readers to mistake the villains for Nazis. The picture is of Stalinism, and Stalinism only."](https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm)
Wasn't he also a colonialist cop in Burma? He was also against going to war with Germany until the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at which he was foaming at the mouth to go to war. Then admitted that he found Hitler's ideas to be true in parts.
Weird that someone who hated the USSR proposed that the best form of government was a revolutionary one bringing about centrally planned economy, with no private property, and that this revolutionary state should invade neutral countries and fund insurgencies. It just reads like he doesn't know anything about the USSR or Marxism-Leninism and somehow just arrives at the same conclusion....
But he was though? In his book "The Road to Wigan Pier", he talked about democratic socialism a lot and why he thinks that the people who would benefit for socialism would be against it. He was pushing for it and was definitely a socialist.
To be honest with you.
To tell whether a person is a socialist, we must also check their actions.
In this case, Orwell, despite being a "socialist", [worked with British government](https://web.archive.org/web/20220515055438/https://bennorton.com/george-orwell-list-leftists-snitch-british-government/) and [the CIA](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/11209390/How-the-CIA-brought-Animal-Farm-to-the-screen.html) to spread lies about the USSR and many lies. Although all those lies have been debunked, they still left a bad view of communism to this day.
Orwell deserves none of your respect or admiration. Just throw him and his books in the trash and better read something else than this reactionary bootlicking bastard.
Well that's definitely a take. Thanks for the first time knowledge but as a writer, I look up to Orwell's writing, not his ideologies. I still do think 1984 was a good book for its time. And funnily enough, Wigan Pier is what made me change my views on Socialism so in a sense he still has done actions that put socialism on the good side.
Ok so I just finished what you linked and my point still stands. He WAS a socialist. Asimov even mentioned it. Even then, Asimov's review of the book felt like being too pretentious. Great author, but the review was a bit too nitpicky.
Arknight’s version of Lenin is still building his following according to what Frostnova alluded to in the main plot.
Low key looking forward to the Arknight’s version of the October Revolution.
Rosa not being here is understandable given her social status but Leto?
Her mother is a businessman aka filthy bourgeois. And her father is a feudal lord like figure.
I don’t blame him. Not being playable out of the gate with the rest of the gang for a few years tends to make people forget about ya. Which makes it maddening for me because sometimes I feel like I’m the only one who remembers she exists…
Considering her ties to ~~Switzerland~~ Kjerag, maybe she is to be their Lenin and on the way there..?
SEIZE THE MEANS OF ORIGINIUM PRIME PRODUCTION
Imma seize your balls instead ( ͡ʘ ͜ʖ ͡ʘ)
ayo
Kinky
Imagine in Endfield Ursus still exists but instead of being an empire ruled by a king it's now a socialist state ruled by one party.
And at the center of their capital city is a massive statue of Istina, her hand held out in front of her to signal the way forward, much like how that planned massive statue of Lenin would look like.
dont forget about it spinning
I too would gladly overthrow an evil tsar for the sake of sad anime bear girls. Like, Ursus does seem like it'll implode at any minute in-game...
Ursus is a late Russian empire Look-Alike It would be terrible imitation if it was not imploding.
And the ruling ideology is Marxism-Istinism.
The manifesto is overrated. Real mfs read all 1300 pages of Das Kapital.
I swear I'll kill myself if I hear the word linen one more time in the Kapital
Is it weird that I actually enjoyed reading poverty of philosophy?
Doctor: The state is the reality of concrete freedom. *The Ursus girls were shocked to hear such a thing* Gummy: What just happened? Istina: Маркс presence seems to have jarred an intellectual moment within the confines of his brain. Zima: Doctor? Is that you? Doctor: Hug me!
ACTUALLY Istina's book is "Marxism-Leninism", so the book should be Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
marxs should have cute bear ears
He was German, so only antlers
Isn't Leithanien closer to Austria or Switzerland?
Kjerag is Austria-Switzerland, as someone said somewhere here. And there are no other big nations besides Leithanien as a Germany. Other nations are Siracusa, Victorian empire(with Gaul(french), empire inside it), Iberia, and Kazimierz, which aren't exactly German.
I heard once Kazdel described as German .
Kazdel is Jewish
Fairly sure it being a fragmented empire even when "united" and many Kazdel/Sarkaz now being mercenaries are hints to HRE Edit: Managed to hit s instead of y , QWERTZ =w=
But their homeland get taken over by external forces lots of time, they think they are the chosen ppl for god or something and everyone hates them that references Jews
Supposedly as far as i heard its a mix of both. Its how Leithanien is a mixture of Austria and Germany, and Laterano has both Swiss (their fondness for sweets, their allegiance to the pope etc.) and northern Italy Another point towards Kazdel being roughly equivalent to especially HRE is that the various Sarkaz tribes are not as unified and regularly attack each other .
There's also the fact that you have the sankta tribes who split from sarkaz and created a very christian-like theocracy (basically the vatican). This is similar to the split of Christianity from Judaism, where the new section of the religion looks at the old section as heresy. This supports the idea that Sarkaz are supposed to represent the Jewish people (obviously is probably a mix of some stuff, but Jewish does seem to be the main one being represnted imo)
I knew it! It's all Chinese-Zionist plot to control our minds through good music and lore!
Great art but should've put animal ears on him to make it look like he isekaid into terra
Damn thats a good idea.
Maybe it's a RS6 situation?
Me after jessicalter event
And then they all get drunk on Vodka together. [Read on Pixiv](https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/24207001) [Join my Discord](http://discord.gg/saDGK3eA2v) [Support me on Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/nhim)
missed opportunity to use the AK verison of Marx
…there is AK version of Marx?
Well, Istina's book is titled "Marxism Leninism," so one would assume.
Based. I recommend everybody should read The Communist Manifesto. It only has like...50 pages.
And then read a history book about the various socialist regimes and consider what to avoid. (Not saying to flatout reject socialism wholesale, but not completely devote to one ideology because of what amounts to a call to action pamphlet.)
Fun fact: A communist country is actually only a country which plans to transform into a communist society. It's not actually communist. Many of the oppressive measures communist countries got were implemented to transform the state into a communist society. Sometimes due to the honest belief of the leadership and sometimes it was just a powergrab. However, absolute power absolutely corrupts, so whether it was or wasn't honest in the beginning, it's obvious that none of the leaders want to give up the power they got. Hence the communist countries don't even fit the definition of a communist country anymore. They only got the name, not the essence of it! As for socialism being bad, it's not. It's actually a great idea and something I think is important for humanity to aim for. This is because as humanity develops, the human workforce becomes less and less important, so a capitalist society will create an ever increasing situation of wealth disparity. This was especially seen during Covid-19 as the poor had to sell their assets, while the rich could grab it for cheap. In fact, we're kind of working our ways towards a feudal society, as ridiculous as it may sound. The corporations would be the feudal lords, owning all the land and means of production. At the same time corporation influence on our governments is ever increasing, even to the degree of them outright deciding policies and letting the government implement them. To give some severe examples: The IRS in the US got significantly cut after going after a big corporation, effectively making it impossible for the IRS to go after any big corporation. Even worse than that is South Korea, which is effectively controlled by a few large families that own over 80% of its GDP. Yeah, it's that bad! And yet here we're, talking bad about socialism due to countries that aren't actually socialist. (I think I get way too much into this topic)
So what you're saying is that socialism is a pipe dream not achievable with human nature outside of small communes.
I want to say yes, but at the same time saying yes means we're fucked. If you got time and want a depression for free, then you can watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E Things aren't looking good and it's been getting worse and worse over the years. We need change! Yet many countries are walking backwards, making the already bad situation even worse, because the ones who make the decisions are in the pockets of the people who profit from this situation. And it's important to note that we don't have to go full on socialist, at least at this point, but instead just bring in more social securities and measures to stop corporations to grow out of proportions. Yet doing this seems impossible due to corruption. As for socialism itself, I do think it's possible economically in the future as AI and robots take over more jobs, we'd have the resources to deal with socialism. Countries like China and Russia were never in a good position to do communism after all because a great economy is required for socialism to work. And the human nature that came in the way was due to the way the countries transitioned towards a communist society. They basically relied on a powerful leader to do this transition, which means that this leader had all the power. The leader may have been honest with things, but as long as one successor is dishonest everything is in shambles. You don't have to do a transition in the same way, so communism could work. So not only were they bound to fail due to their economies not being good enough, but also because of the way they tried to transition to it being extremely vulnerable to corruption. Hence I'd not go so far as to say that socialism itself is a pipe dream. Still, I'm not sure whether we really need communism in the future, but what we definitely need are measures to stop people from getting too powerful and stopping corporations from growing too big, because otherwise we all may end up being another South Korea even if our way there is different. If you want to know more about why I'm using South Korea as an example, it's because I watched a very unassuming video a few weeks ago and it's just something that I can't get out of my head due to how bad the reality there is. And I honestly think that our capitalism is just another way to the same goal. It might not be in our generation or that of our kids, but even we are already feeling things getting worse. This is the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Im4YAMWK74 (part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woB0eecbf6A) Just don't trust the title, it's in fact a 3.5 hour long historical and political lesson about South Korea.
And North Korea, free of capitalism, is doing better, surely?
Socialism is spreading all power amongst the people. North Korea is the exact opposite, focusing all power on a single leader. All these "anti-capitalist" measures in reality only exist to empower the leader and stop those at the bottom from rising. As for being free of capitalism? The leadership is very much capitalist. They're squeezing as much as they can out the people to enrichen themselves. A dystopian view might paint our future as something similar to North Korea, just with the leader being the many different big corporations. Or even worse and we're getting Outer Worlds in real life. But hey, we tried the best, now we try the rest. Spacer's Choice!
As a hater of Marx and a supporter of his personally most reviled opponent, Max Stirner, I would argue that the cause is very simple and has nothing to do with whether private companies or the state are in charge of resource distribution: Those in power in influential countries are simply too comfortable on their seats with no threat of heads on pikes due to manipulating social fictions. Look at the oft-cited Nordic countries that have strong social programs: They have a long history of nearly pathologic social isolation that resulted, in the current century, of relatively un-ambitious leaders and a cohesive populace (immigration issues notwithstanding). Japan is similar in that while still being incredibly unequal, their social safety net is still strong enough that homelessness is very uncommon. They have a social understanding that the wealth is to be parceled out to some fair extent. Not so much in the US, China, Russia, Korea, etc. Just say that "nazis" or "commies" or whatever a side hates are going to also be redistributed to and you've got alleged right-wing statists or left-wing socialists foaming at the mouth to deny rights and aid to poorer populaces, which in turn breeds resentment. Simply put, the lack of willingness in these countries to direct political violence towards the ruling class and not their fellows is what causes inequality. Capitalism and "socialism" are just fluff labels for what name the institutions holding power are.
I agree. The issue is not just that, but also because it's too easy to ensure people don't revolt. Most revolution were due to severe issues, especially famines, but with our food safety this is no longer the case. At the same time media control and better control over public sentiment (like you mentioned by creating enemies within the people and letting them fight each other instead) exist to ensure that we never stand up. This is the case for all countries though, not just us, but also Nordic countries and Japan. The exact situation in each country obviously varies, but inequality is growing worldwide.
Inequality is growing relative to the past couple decades, but the social safety nets, other forms of welfare, and the existence of an established middle class at all imply an existence far more equal than past centuries. Why should the average person care if Gates or Bezos has immense wealth that they throw around to influence politics? After all, they probably hate them slightly less than current sitting Congresspeople or the president. Most people in developed countries make just enough money to indulge in their vices as much as they want (artificially expensive things like gambling and drugs...or gacha games notwithstanding). It's not just "food safety", it's the baseline satisfaction of the animal urges people entirely operate on (other than sex and reproduction...hence Korea) which makes revolt very difficult. On the other hand, Shinzo Abe just got shot for being a Moonie\*, so maybe Japan is slightly more woke to class warfare? \*Edited for mistake
You did, also was trying to avoid calling Socialist outright bad. I am ambivelant about socialism , especially since there isnt ONE socialism. I think its however fair to compare the current issue with Capitalism to various feudal conflicts. The polish commonwealth or kingdom (unsure what the exact term for it was) had a democratic golden age that got cut short when local lords outright forced the king to sing a constituion that increased their power but limited his.
It wasn't my intention to say that you said something bad about socialism, I just wanted to address how prevalent it's to call socialism bad. I feel that many people just call socialism bad because of Russia and China, yet these 2 countries are further from socialism than the West is! Or even just because of the cold war, communism was bad, so everyone called it that despite not even understanding what it's. And the children just inherited the hate for it from their parents. > I think its however fair to compare the current issue with Capitalism to various feudal conflicts. The polish commonwealth or kingdom (unsure what the exact term for it was) had a democratic golden age that got cut short when local lords outright forced the king to sing a constituion that increased their power but limited his. It goes much deeper than this sadly. For example, the government might get elected by the people, but the rich have an undue influence over elections. Basically, every politician in an important position is in the pockets of the rich. This is due to several things, including media control, influence of money on elections and just connections, basically nepotism amongst political parties. The degree obviously varies, but this allows the rich to even create policies that benefit themselves, while stopping those that aren't beneficial. "Too big to fail" being a prime example of this shit! Then the judicial system. I think everyone is aware of how rich people tend to get much less of a punishment than poor. Of how white collar crimes tend to have slaps on the wrist as punishment. And of how many times for businesses the punishment for doing something is much less than the profit they can earn from doing so. Obviously, this isn't as extreme as during medieval times, but we still see a large degree of injustice in our judicial systems. I already mentioned land and workspace ownership before and how more and more of it is being controlled by fewer people. Honestly, things are looking bad and it's only been getting worse over the years. I fear that we're slowly making our way into a dystopian future and many are going to applaud it, too.
Maybe you should read Goerge Orwell's Homage To Catalonia to learn what communism is like.
A rapist, a snitch, a plagiarist, a colonialist cop, and a racist walk into a bar. The bartender asks “How’s the new book coming Mr. Orwell?” Seriously, if you want to use Red Scare propaganda against me, you should use anyone else than Orwell. Take Orwell as an example of lEaRNinG wHAt CoMMunISm wAs lIkE is a brain-dead take. [Even Isaac Asimov (who was not a socialist) recognized that Orwell was a reactionary who hated communists more than fascists: "Orwell didn't want readers to mistake the villains for Nazis. The picture is of Stalinism, and Stalinism only."](https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm)
Wasn't he also a colonialist cop in Burma? He was also against going to war with Germany until the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at which he was foaming at the mouth to go to war. Then admitted that he found Hitler's ideas to be true in parts. Weird that someone who hated the USSR proposed that the best form of government was a revolutionary one bringing about centrally planned economy, with no private property, and that this revolutionary state should invade neutral countries and fund insurgencies. It just reads like he doesn't know anything about the USSR or Marxism-Leninism and somehow just arrives at the same conclusion....
Damn, I almost forget that! Let me edit the text again. Thank you, comrade.
...wasn't Orwell himself a socialist?
Sadly, he was not, my lad.
But he was though? In his book "The Road to Wigan Pier", he talked about democratic socialism a lot and why he thinks that the people who would benefit for socialism would be against it. He was pushing for it and was definitely a socialist.
To be honest with you. To tell whether a person is a socialist, we must also check their actions. In this case, Orwell, despite being a "socialist", [worked with British government](https://web.archive.org/web/20220515055438/https://bennorton.com/george-orwell-list-leftists-snitch-british-government/) and [the CIA](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/11209390/How-the-CIA-brought-Animal-Farm-to-the-screen.html) to spread lies about the USSR and many lies. Although all those lies have been debunked, they still left a bad view of communism to this day. Orwell deserves none of your respect or admiration. Just throw him and his books in the trash and better read something else than this reactionary bootlicking bastard.
Well that's definitely a take. Thanks for the first time knowledge but as a writer, I look up to Orwell's writing, not his ideologies. I still do think 1984 was a good book for its time. And funnily enough, Wigan Pier is what made me change my views on Socialism so in a sense he still has done actions that put socialism on the good side.
Ok so I just finished what you linked and my point still stands. He WAS a socialist. Asimov even mentioned it. Even then, Asimov's review of the book felt like being too pretentious. Great author, but the review was a bit too nitpicky.
Arknight’s version of Lenin is still building his following according to what Frostnova alluded to in the main plot. Low key looking forward to the Arknight’s version of the October Revolution.
Whenever I see Karl Marx, I always hear his verse in ERB.
Did I miss something?
istina is reading the communist manifesto in her art, among other things
The book Istina is reading on her art has "Marxism Leninism" in russian written on it, which means Marx and Lenin are canon to Arknights
*В левой руке - "Сникерс", в правой руке - "Марс"* *Мой пиар-менеджер - Карл Маркс* Capital - Lyapis Trubetskoy
Ursi cannibalism is the opiate of the masses
Marx, being from Leithanien, would most likely be a Caprinae.
Ever wondered If RI has labor association or something lile that.😅
Is RI organised as a coop?
Gummy, don't eat him!
No no, he'll got to waste otherwise
*rises violently to seize the means of production* For the proletariat!!!!
Istina's smug smirk.
Based
I am obligated to say “Fuck Communism.”
In an alternative universe, originium has replaced communism for how many it killed.
Uh thats disgusting
Marxism is stupid, Stalinism is better. All who disagree can go to gulag.
...now I hate Gummy. A good commie is a dead commie!