jorp

do you believe they're going to backpedal on all of the already announced singleplayer characters and content?

you're advocating for the intentional drowning of people for the horrible crime of.... wanting to enter your country?

not sure what new evil migrants can bring to your homeland when you exist

Even funnier is the guy's post history is all about game and media piracy. Ubisoft just lost themselves a lifetime non-customer by daring to go woke.

I hear you man I also only wanna play games with people that look like you but there are only so many zoo tycoon games out there

why would they need to force the game outcome to get the PR win? They could donate anyway and give a snarky tongue in cheek message about the players choosing the mines.

The game outcome is practically irrelevant

I think that's a fair take and perhaps indicates you'd lean anarchist-left. Direct action, mutual aid, and forming parallel power structures are the exact political and social activities that are core to that philosophy. Not exclusively so, but anarchists emphasize that kind of thing over activities like voting or, I guess, awaiting revolution.

I have mixed feelings myself, that kind of natural transformation won't just be left alone to evolve, it'll be actively resisted by powerful political and global forces, the United States and its allies would not allow it, for example. So in that sense a powerful political organization manifesting as a new revolutionary state does seem more likely to work to me, similar to how feudalism and monarchy resisted liberalism and had to be resisted through war.

Funny enough a big reason there's animosity between leftists, especially between anarchists and Marxist-Leninists, is because anarchist experiments were sabotaged and anarchists were fought by "Communists" during the Spanish civil war even as they together fought against Fascists. You'd think a "communist vanguard state" with the goal of establishing communism would be supportive of autonomous anarchist collectives, but those leftists weren't under the thumb of the Soviet Union. I think this pretty clearly demonstrated that the USSR wasn't interested in anything but Empire.

Those states, according to theory, are meant to be a transition TO communism, but of course many things can go wrong in that process, and we're kinda right back at the situation portrayed in the meme.

Despite my spat with the ML leftists in this thread, I see why the idea of a communist Vanguard state is appealing. I also see how a state which transforms into socialism or communism must be "authoritarian" in that it has to take away factories and land from those that keep it as capital, so that it can be shared. These states also had to contend with constant sabotage and aggression from the Liberal Democracies of the West who feared worker revolution coming to their own land.

Anarchists are a more idealistic bunch and generally strive to build parallel power structures and organizations of people and so try to construct a new order upwards. In practice it's hard to imagine that method being able to replace nation states, especially with similar external sabotage on top of the existing internal challenges of running an equal society. Dictatorships and blind supporters of authoritarian leaders are hard to best in terms of efficiency.

Both approaches seek to accomplish communism, anarchists want to have their dessert right away, Marxist-Leninists believe the wolf will take care of them just as soon as he's done eating his enemies.

There has never been a communist state, not as a cop-out, but because there is no state in communism by definition. These states claim that they're transitional towards communism.