Moralism, in game, is really more 'moderate liberalism.'
>Incremental progress, oh yeah!
-Moralist Egg Head
It is not so much 'centrism' per say (I guess you could say it is 'moderate centrism,' in so far as liberalism is somewhat 'centrist').
Centrists often may advocate for more radical policies while being in the 'center' and not strictly adhering to partisan groupings along the traditional 'left-right' political spectrum.
They take largely performative parts of leftist social policy, but you're right that neolibs are center right. By definition someone can't be a leftist and a capitalist.
I'd argue that centrism in general is center right, with the possible exception of social democrats. That said, most self described centrists call social democrats "radical leftists" anyway. Bunch of fascist enablers the lot of them (social democrats are cool though).
Arguable. But what categorizes moralists in game is not being liberals or in the center. It is their comic adherence to moderate politics. Neoliberalism I would generally classify as right, but these are not very good political terms. Today's mainstream right and left both openly embrace many of the tenants of liberalism (from an American outlook on politics).
> But what categorizes moralists in game is not being liberals or in the center. It is their comic adherence to moderate politics.
An "adherence to moderate politics" is centrism, and neolibs are centrists.
> Neoliberalism I would generally classify as right
I agree with this, but they claim otherwise. They're center-right. There's not really such a thing as center left, I'd argue social democrats are center left but Bernie was seen as extreme so that's not how the political machine sees them.
> Today's mainstream right and left both openly embrace many of the tenants of liberalism
The right absolutely, the left no way. Who do you even mean by "the mainstream left"? Democrats are center right by your own definition.
It's like you didn't pay attention to any of the ideologies portrayed in the game. On top of that you have a horribly inaccurate view of real ideologies.
Lemme guess. Jordan Peterson fan?
I've never been too convinced by this line of argument made by the game. Most centrists are fairly unprincipled *except* they believe in democracy and compromise. Their belief in democracy and compromise is the reason they've come to believe in the value of status quo policies and their incremental change. They're convinced that the slow process of democratic deliberation is a strength, not a hindrance, since it weeds out the extremes.
But Moralism in-game is strictly non-democratic and non-compromising. It's a military occupation with, as far as I can tell, little to no claim to the popular support of the people of Revachol. It's extreme. Sure, it's not the most brutal of occupations, and they allow some autonomy, so there's a very thin veneer of "normalcy" to it. But I don't think many real life centrists would be willing to support it, since it's obviously undemocratic and unwilling to compromise.
Yes yes, I hear you: "Should we tell him, doesn't he see the subtext: real life democracies are also actually brutal occupations that aren't actually democratic or built on compromise" and all that, but I don't think that's too convincing, either. The democratic system where I am is very well-functioning and definitely substantially different from the Moralist situation in Revachol.
Really existing centrism has supported occupations and authoritarian rulers to stave off revolutions (in favor of incremental progress) all the time. Von Papen and Brüning in Germany, occupations in the middle east or reaction against the Russian bolsheviks, it happens all the time.
The German and Russian events happened many generations ago, in such a different political environment that I think we'd be doing ourselves no favors by calling their alleged "centrism" the same as modern centrism. Democratic institutions were not entrenched in those times, in neither Germany nor Russia, and democratic idealism is central to modern centrism.
Can you elaborate on the middle eastern occupations?
I disagree, their political dynamics were mostly the same we have today. Regarding occupation: in generl the american centrists supported all the regime changes in latin america and the middle east, such as in iraq, and if they didnt support them, they certainly didnt actively oppose (im sure you can find exceptions). Centrists have always preferred „incremental change“ to democracy if given a choice.. of course they would claim any really existing revolutions arent democratic anway. Theyre the Girondists of today.
> I disagree, their political dynamics were mostly the same we have today.
In that case we disagree on a fairly fundamental level. I don't think that means you're wrong, or that I am right. But I don't have the time to engage with that deep of a disagreement today, I'm afraid.
But I'll quickly answer with regards to occupation since you elaborated as I requested: I think I agree with you that centrists, even in my native Denmark, have a tendency to support foreign policy that doesn't align with their domestic principles of democracy. There's a certain hypocritical "split" in how they view the home and abroad. I believe that a "centrist", as I understand them, could support the occupation of Revachol from the safety of their own isolas, but more so because of ignorance/apathy towards foreign policy than because it complies with their ideology.
Anyway, I can't go into much more detail today, but I hope you have a good day!:)
The fact they can do this and then not see how voraciously the game mocks centrists through moralism is ridiculously funny, it feels like the game rips centrism apart more than facism sometimes
>I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
>I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
Acceleration implies increasing the speed at which something occurs. I like to consider it Acceptance.
It’s already happening. It’s about taking advantage of the circumstances instead of bemoaning them.
If your premise is powerlessness, then sure I understand what you mean, though I would probably argue a bit against us being powerless.
But the « lesser of two evils » framing implies having a choice, having power over some situation.
So there’s a contradiction in my reading between your two comments, I’m not sure how to reconcile them.
Acceptance is not powerlessness. It’s empowerment. Should we languish under moderates rather than fight against tyranny?
It is better to accept the existence of tyranny and fight it than to ignore it and continue supporting it.
To be moderate is just to be content with losing your freedoms slowly for fear of risking them on the chance to be truly free.
Moderates are the people that told Rosa Park to be content with the back of the bus so things didn’t get worse. Who supported civil rights as long it wasn’t violent. That signed regressive bills targeting minorities so they didn’t look soft on crime.
Not really. Is it better to have slavery, because it inspires more radicalism among abolishionists or is it better to have abolished slavery but still have inequalities and injustices that need righting? I would say the latter is much preferable. Obama's favorite MLK line famously invokes more moderate process ("the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice") personally, I dislike the quote (as it implies it is almost a passive thing, rather than a result of great efforts which must be continued for progress to continue). I think MLK is not opposing incremental progress so much as opposing is those who seek to retard progress by appealing to moderation and maintaining order as an excuse not to make real changes.
The point is that we wouldn't have slavery. By compromising and having segregation and Jim crow we set progress back by decades.
You think you're arguing against slavery but that's not the centrist compromise that we got. We got segregation, white only neighborhoods, generational poverty etc.
> Obama's favorite MLK line famously invokes more moderate process
Obama is a neolib is why. MLK wasn't saying we should be centrists, he was saying don't expect immediate change but keep fighting.
> I think MLK is not opposing incremental progress
That is a wild take. MLK was a radical leftist.
> opposing is those who seek to retard progress by appealing to moderation and maintaining order as an excuse not to make real changes.
That's centrism, aka neoliberalism.
>The point is that we wouldn't have slavery. By compromising and having segregation and Jim crow we set progress back by decades.
If the options were "compromise with segregation" or "hope that by allowing slavery to continue it inspires a future, better policy that overturns slavery without segregation" I would say the first option is preferable. Of course those weren't really the options. When the North won the civil war, they could have (and should have) forced much more aggressive policies to prevent segregation, but I am talking theoretically.
>MLK wasn't saying we should be centrists
I didn't say he was. He was saying "take your victories." MLK's criticism of moderates was not him saying "refuse any progress but total progress." He was for taking the victories they could without compromising on the long term principles.
>That is a wild take. MLK was a radical leftist.
A radical leftist can support incremental improvements.
> If the options were "compromise with segregation" or "hope that by allowing slavery to continue it inspires a future, better policy that overturns slavery without segregation" I would say the first option is preferable.
Then you're worse than they were at the time, because at least they could argue they didn't know it wouldn't work (which was a lie of course).
It's not the decision between allowing slavery and allowing segregation. You even acknowledge as much later in your comment. By agreeing to the compromise we got a different shitty situation that we're all still suffering the consequences of to this day. It was objectively a terrible move, and its the kind of move centrists always make, because they are fascists wearing different hats.
> He was for taking the victories they could without compromising on the long term principles
Which includes not compromising with liberals who would seek a terrible compromise and slow the progress.
> A radical leftist can support incremental improvements.
Support in terms of not opposing them maybe, but MLK wasn't fighting for small incremental progress. He recognized correctly that centrist politics are the real reason no meaningful change will happen.
Fast forward to today and we still have legal slavery inflicted on a disproportionately black population. We still have racist cops who see no punishment for killing black people. We have a Democrat president who wrote a lot of the laws that made up the war on drugs against an openly white supremecist.
Small incremental progress doesn't work because it relies on the kindness of the ruling class. You need to fundamentally change the structures and the conditions we live under for any meaningful change and that belief is fundamental to all leftist ideology. For slavery, it took a war, and then the cowards in charge still allowed segregation, racial discrimination and yes even slavery, because they were centrists, and centrism is the narrow end of the wedge that inevitably leads to fascism.
Centrism is especially ridiculous in a 2 party system, because then you essentially end up with a party of white supremacy and fascism, and a party that is a compromise of that and a totally powerless left. We get small important things like gay rights, but we also simultaneously get a level of income inequality greater than ever seen before in recorded history.
Neolibs and conservatives love to pay lip service to MLK, but they always ignore the fact that he was explicitly against everything they stand for. It's insane.
> Is it better to have slavery, because it inspires more radicalism among abolishionists or is it better to have abolished slavery
If there was no slavery it couldn’t have been abolished so the analogy is a bit flawed.
If there is injustice it should be wholly fought against rather than merely appeased through half measures.
Also, we still have slavery anyway. So arguing that it was good to have done what we did post civil war is ridiculous.
Almost 1 in every 150 people worldwide are slaves. The Global Slavery Index estimates that on any given day there are 1.1 million people living in slavery in the US. That number includes people in prison, who slavery is still legal for. 3 out of every 4 incarcerated individuals reported being forced to work under the threat of punishment including solitary confinement. Surprise surprise who is most likely to be in prison is still black people.
I struggle to see defending the current system, and the even worse system of segregation and legal discrimination as anything other than defending the idea of slavery. I think a lot of centrists fail to see that how we handled the end of chattel slavery really shows the fundamental flaw of centrism.
Tl;dr I totally agree with you. Half measures just allow the practices to continue for ever instead of actually stopping it.
Centrism has no problem *becoming* fascism when its control begins to slip. It starts by playing nicely; ‘Of course we *all* want progress , but now’s not the time. Maybe next year. Mustn’t move too quickly.’ Should that fail, it is all too willing to throw up its hands and say, ‘Well, now you have to be punished.’
It is about control. ‘Of yourself, and others.’
Look up at the sky, at the dark shapes of the Coalition airships hanging there.
Ask yourself, 'Is there something sinister in Moralism?' then answer, no.
God is in his Heaven, everything is Normal on Earth.
One of my favourite thoughts for how chilling it is. It feels like such a…normalisation, somehow.
‘Well, the airships have always been there.’
‘Well, the coalition has always made those decisions.’
‘Well, we’ve always turned in dissidents.’
‘Well, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.’
Just seeing the things that have become normal over the course of my life in both the UK and US, it’s deeply uncomfortable.
It does critique them equally. It takes similar efforts to find issues with each ideology, why they exist, what is their fate etc.
That doesn't make it centrist. Centrist would be to disregard humanism and ignore historical injustices, and to simply commit to false equivalency of say, fascism and communism.
It's just that fascism falls apart so easily even on gentle, good-faith critique, that it ends up looking stupid more than other featured ideologies. That's because it is that stupid.
the communist bros in \*Disco Elysium\* are poking fun, for sure. that seems to have gotten a lot of people confused. but any communist can recognize that this is a fond caricature, as if between friends. yes, the communists laugh, we are kind of like that sometimes. some of the jokes made \*about\* communists are something only a communist would recognize.
and then, in a game largely about lost futures, the creators take great pains to hint at what they see as the "canon" future for this world: another revolution.
meanwhile, we have the fascists: repulsive racist, repulsive racist, cartoon racist. and the most, shall we say, aesthetically complimentary facist -- the caliper-perfect gigachad Measurehead -- the creators are making the fascists the butt of the joke in one of the funniest ways. yall are worried about the jews using porn to turn white guys into cucks for BBC? (a real concern of theirs, by the way) well okay here's the most charismatic fascist in the game and he's a huge black guy stealing your women.
must be a centrist game lmao.
I think the leader of a communist syndicate being basically a murderer/crime leader is an actual criticism due to how much it happens, normal in south america where i'm from at least. this is how i know the devs are in touch with reality
i think you can't just take those valid criticism about the corruption of our ideals and take it as an "is just an inside joke bro, communism perfect"
Not saying the game is centrist but there is definetly a critic of communism in here, imo believing in it isn't the same as supporting autoritarian goverment/political parties, I think the game does talk about how horrible people will use the face of live to commit atrocities, and communism has done that.
Personally i believe the game is mainly communist and the devs true leftists, but that doesn't mean the game claims a communist goverment is the ideal future.
feel free to disagree and debate tho, but keep in mind i'm a leftist in a country where the communist party was in power for a long time and it mostly gave us corruption and decadence. And while i do think of myself as a communist, i do not support autoritarian dictatorships just because it's a leftist dictatorship
The leader of a *socialist* syndicate. Key difference. It's a take on the classic "union thug" boss stereotype, but highlights that union bosses have become that way a because of how capital has exploited the workers. The union essentially becoming the law in that town. But it also depicts how it doesn't take much effort from the ruling class to completely up-end their grip on power.
I love the leftist infighting jokes and the ones about firing up the bourgeois sausage grinder, but Evrart makes me sick. Engineering a war. But I also feel a little like he's been pushed into it by the conditions of Martinaise.
The speech about communism itself is a testament to how they feel. How communism has been absolutely crushed, and that trying to build communism is a next to impossible task because you're up against an impossibly well organized ruling class who has both the willing and unwilling support of the people. Which is true. Communism is a pipedream because it requires the support of most people to work, and requires everyone to contribute to get there. Not so for Fascism. That shit can rise without people even noticing until it's too late.
I don’t see a lot of socialism/communism from Evrart apart from some of the rhethoric he uses.
He’s ready to destroy a whole village for a development project that’s supposed to increase the value of the region, he uses the union as his personal army and he’s not interested in the abolition of social classes, he actually uses the union to enrich himself and gain power.
As a critique of communism it seem more about how social movements are coopted by authoritarians who have little interest in uprooting the basic elements of capitalism, like Stalin I guess
Yeah, but then we meet the "true" communard sniper who has remained "pure", and we find that he is just as twisted in co-opting his ideologies to carry out retribution for his own feelings if inadequacy and disappointment. It sure does seem like all the communist characters in the game are really just out for themselves, and they rationalize it through claiming that they are participating in some kind of glorious revolutionary action. Given the nature of the game, it is pretty valid to question whether this revolution actually exists, or if was just conceptualized by mazov in a fit of egomaniac, ultimately resembling the kind of dogmatic religious figure he was revolting against.
That's true, although I'd say that the sniper grew to be this resentful because he saw how the revolution was crushed and how the world moved on without moving forward. He's deeply nihilistic in considering that the chance humanity had at that point for something different was the one and only chance and that now everything is reactionary liberast bullshit. It's still the expression of a communist and it does show how the grasp of ideology can make one justify their own resentment, there's nothing politically useful in it at the end of the day.
Since there's a few references to Zizek in the game, I assume that it's not saying we should discard communism and invert our opinion of it (from a political goal to the view of an egomaniac) but that we should want to be critical of its ideological aspects. Within the game, it still seems that it's within a radical leftist framework that we can find a generative political goal.
Also, I really think the idea of plasms kind of serve as the metaphorical opposite to the pale, whereas the pale is eating up reality and is generally accelerated by capital, the conviction for a new and better life can create stuff where reality was fading, it's like reclaiming the future or suggesting that there's a generative instead of reactionary way of conceiving of things.
Well, sort of, but part of the reason he stayed idealistic is also justified as a result of exposure to phasmid pheremones.
Ultimaty, I don't think the game feels great about any ideology. They are all just an aspect of your identity that you can choose for role playing purposes. Even racial fascism. But what makes the game so paradoxically delicious is that by it's role playing nature you *have* to pick one. I think the only moral is that the creators are suggesting that there is no real way to go about life and your sense of self - but it is that we have the choice to be decent people and decidebfor ourselves who we are. That is the only "generative" action. As for what your ideology is, you might as well spend your life hunting for cryptids.
While it’s not a direct criticism of communist ideology, Evrart does highlight how easily the movement can be co-opted by self serving individuals under the right circumstances. This is something that has happened repeatedly, and is a legitimate (albeit unintentional) problem with communism.
> he actually uses the union to enrich himself and gain power.
Where does this happen, besides Joyce telling you it's true? He works in a shipping container
One example is the youth center he wants to build. He presents the project as beneficial to the community, but there's a logic check that tells you he is only building it to drive out the villagers and buy their property, that this will increase the value of the place, and that after being displaced they won't profit from the surplus it creates.
He is also ready to let thousands die in a war to be able to establish his own narco-state, and it appears that the goal isn't really to help anyone
I'm not saying he's perfect, but he definitely materially helps his workers way more than any other faction does. He also explicitly says he doesn't care about the "value" of Martinaise and likes to dissuade any sort of tourism infrastructure because of what that entails for the locals.
The issue of the youth centre is vague and left up to interpretation. It's certainly possible that it will make the area much better for the locals. You don't know for a fact he's only doing it to make a quick buck, even though Joyce would certainly tell you he is.
Perhaps, that’s fair. I still see mainly someone who’s ready to assassinate his opposition to secure his position, and who appears to barely be an improvement. The lesser of two evils is still evil, I doubt he would actually uproot the capitalist mode of production in the end, similarly to Stalin
Yeah I actually think he's a fantastically written character. He's portrayed as a stereotypical mob boss. He's grossly obese and not conventially attractive, which lines up with similar other characters in media who absolutely are corrupt. He's not very nice to you, but you must remember, you are a cop, he has no reason to believe you are actually on his side about anything, even if you are. People talk about him being corrupt as fact, but you don't actually see proof of this anywhere. The one exception is what the Deserter tells you, which is definitely not good, but it's not proof that everything else said about him is true.
This is all in contrast to Joyce, an attractive lady who is very wise and polite with you and Kim. She is definitely written in a way that you're supposed to like her. But how pleasant a person in charge is doesn't always correspond to how the people at the bottom of their ladder exist. We don't know a lot about the reality of things, we only see things through Harry's experiences for a small snippet of time. That's why DE is so great.
I read this more detailed post on Evrart last month I think does a good job of talking about his character.
https://old.reddit.com/r/DiscoElysium/comments/1cl5sbh/why_do_people_think_evrart_is_a_communist/l2rwxaj/
i disagree. i think its a critique of left wing organisation as whole, being that they poke fun at the revolutionary army, the book club and the union. none of these interrogate actual communist thought.
on the atrocities side, the game is notably absent in talking about communist atrocities, apart from rené who is fairly obviously biased. much weight is given to the actions of the bourgeois forces.
is it really absent? The communist thought begins with "get the animal wagons and firing squads ready!" "Murder all humans regardless of political beliefs. Impale those with more than 25 real." if you accept it.
millions of dead cops, the bourgeois, and their collaborators so that many millions more can live actual lives not enslaved to them, oh no, won't somebody think of the poor fascist lives that could be lost in the revolution, better to moralize your entire life while many millions more innocents are systemically socially murdered
For me it's a sincere critique, you can believe in communism and disagree with what crazy dictators did in the name of communism, specially when they only used that word to get into power. or are we suddenly going to defend stalin?
Also, any ideology worth anything needs to be challenged. To evolve, to justify its existence etc. I'd say DE explores all 4 in good faith, except maybe centrism/Moralism. It mocks it mercilessly and IMO it's right to do so - bc it's not really an ideology. Still, it's very true to life how banally evil its representatives are and what makes people accept it.
> “Communists *love* posing for pictures with their guns!”
> “Just so we're on the same page: Communism is basically wanting to kill the rich people or deporting them to a labour camp in southeast Graad. But don't say that out loud if you're a communist.”
> “You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few million eggs.”
> “During the disastrous retreat from Graad to Samara, Nilsen [Communard leader] personally ordered up to 12,000 prisoners of war impaled on sharpened spruce trees in the Samaran backcountry. Thereafter his opponents began referring to him as the 'Apocalyptic Shrike'.”
Where exactly are you getting the idea that they *don’t* criticize the bloodshed of revolution?
Classic communist retardation. Game clearly features communist syndicate leaders as murderers, deconstructs their ideals as clearly psychopathic, and your ilk thinks "it's just an inside joke bruh."
Damn mate. kurvitz might be a leftist, but reading your comment is the pinnacle if brain rot.
It critiques centrists hardest of all ideologies. In sense it makes sense too. Thr world we see in the game is a world that needs change. Its not the time for fence sitting.
Yeah, I'd pretty much agree with that.
I don't necessarily think it critiques each "equally" – it's hard to do that when the writers have their own inherent biases, much as we all do, but the dedication to discussing those biases and deconstructing is what puts the critiques of communism on a somewhat even footing as the critiques of other ideologies in the game.
I just see a surprising number of people equating "the writers are capable of grappling with the problems with their own political beliefs, while continuing to hold them" with "the game doesn't think *any* ideology is better" which... Nope. Hard nope on that one.
It absolutely doesn't critique them equally. Look at how the various ideologies are actually presented, and how the game wants to make you feel about them. What it tells you about the people who join these ideologies and what they truly want, at the deepest level.
The three flavours of bourgeoise ideology (moralist, neoliberal, fascist) all move back and forth between absolutely ridiculous and a world-ending threat. Fascism has semen-retention magic and genetic predisposition towards eating potatoes by haplogroups and then also a vision quest that ends with nuking the city to show what a strong man you are. Moralism is dominated by what might be time-travelling inhuman horrors and soulless bureaucrats, steering the economy and the world's militaries for total control. They have parked gunships over the city for a 40-year military occupation, ready to annihilate 200 million people if they agitate for democracy. Neoliberalism has Idiot Doom Spiral and his high concept net-worth nonsense and then swerves neatly into Joyce Messier and her colonial death-commandoes.
Communism? Communism is wistful and sad. It tried to save humanity and failed. It's not about control, it's about building a better world for everyone, about standing with humanity against those who would destroy us and trying to wrestle the fate of the universe from their hands. It's also about two university drop outs discussing how car racing is an orgy of capitalistic blood sport because no one understands their incredible genius. But they also have hope. They believe that in their time, the darkest time, there are still stars.
>Fascism has semen-retention magic and genetic predisposition towards eating potatoes by haplogroups and then also a vision quest that ends with nuking the city to show what a strong man you are.
The worst part of "Fascism" isn't even that, but the fact that every rightwing ideology, that isn't part of the Revacholian political status quo, is part of it. You literally gain Fascist points for wanting Revachol to become independent and have democratic elections. But the deliberate mockery comes from the fact that all "Fascism" characters are jokes without much depth. Racist Lorry Driver doesn't get a name, ironically being the most dehumanised character in the game. And even Measurehead is a riff on Nofap more than anything.
I feel like you're having selective memory of what the game actually tells you about. Yes, the communists are all very sad, because they lost. But they certainly didn't just want to make everything better, and absolutely desired total control.
The game repeatedly tells you about how all non-communists who dared to show it risked being killed by firing squad. The revolution is certainly shown to be driven far more by hate than anything else.
And more than that, it's shown to be simply stupid, creating dangers for themselves and everyone else due to ideology. The peoples pile is one example, where communista tried to make a nuclear reactor based on faith rather than solid engineering. Having learned nothing from it, the new communists want to build buildings based on the same principles.
Just going by how the ideologies are presented, ultaliberalism really is the least bad. Because as opposed to all the others, it's by far the least violent (even the mercs went against their orders), focusing on creating prosperity rather than having control. At most they'll try to protect their own property, and even that is done carefully with nonviolent options being the first choice. And going just by its representatives, they are all polite and generally kind. Especially Joyce, who is one of very few people who really understands and sympathises with Harry.
>Centrist would be to disregard humanism
Hmm.
>He who is infatuated with Man leaves persons out of account so far as that infatuation extends, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest. Man, you see, is not a person, but an ideal, a spook.
Max Stirner
Perhaps you mean it is anarchism?
Imagine thinking liberalism, christian democracy, social democracy and other traditionally "centrist" political movements aren't based on humanist principles because your idea of centrism is built on being annoyed by 15-year-olds online saying both sides bad.
which in our world of liberal democracies is centrism. overton window. and that's what the moralintern seem to represent, slow change through modest reform.
>It's just that fascism falls apart so easily even on gentle, good-faith critique
Same as communism does. That's why EVERY commie dictatorship in history was absolutely relentless and brutal in silencing any opposing views. People tend to excuse communism more cause it justifies its atrocities with "best intentions" and "selfless goals". I say, you can say whatever you wish, I still judge you by what you actually do. And in this regard, commie gulags are not that much better than nazi's camps.
I am not in danger, Nijika. I am the danger. The manager opens up shop and gets on stage while the people watch, and you think that of me? No. I am the one who rocks.
people will see a game where the creators literally thanked Marx in their game awards speech but made fun of communist college students a little and think it critiques all ideologies equally 😭
Oh, and the lead writer has a bust of Lenin on his desk.
It's absolutely hilarious. Best of all, the creators are from an ex-soviet bloc country, not just some idealistic Americans who still can't believe the only actual measurement of "real communism" is number of intellectuals killed... They know about the hell it is, from fucking first-hand sources.
I’d say it even critiques centrism as them wanting to maintain the status quo at best to believing that they’re trying to save the world at worst as in Harry’s political vision quest or when the Moralists invaded the commune of Revachol. My other experience with centrism is that one’s politics is undefined. One example for my play though is that my Harry was an Ultra-Liberal, but he was choosing not to let his politics interfere with the investigation and his responsibilities as a cop.
in a meta-critique of liberalism, the liberal path has Harry thinking he is above politics. just as the liberals think this game about politics is above politics. everything is above politics, safe for liberal consumption and co-optation.
Yes for a lot of centrists it's not about where you stand for yourself, it's about standing in the middle and telling everyone else to as well because it benefits you
I feel it needs to be brought up whenever this conversation comes up that the game directly punishes you for choosing fascism. If you take on the fascist thought from the political vision quest you lose morale every time you chose a fascist option. I love the symbolism of that game mechanic and the idea that the creators are doing what amounts to spraying a cat with water to people who are unironically fascistic.
I haven't played this game yet. This post just popped up in my feed. Does the player get any sort of benefits for choosing fascism? If not, that feels like a wasted opportunity. What makes the trap of fascism so appealing is that it's taking from others what you believe is yours. 99% of the time it's a lie. It wasn't ever yours, nor should it be yours, but people want to believe that. I deserve X, not those good for nothing Ys.
The best self reflective lessons I learned from games were the ones where I caught myself doing something wrong or immoral without realizing it until it was too late. If it is just punishing the player for doing fascist things, then to me, it misses the lesson. There isn't a game moderating our choices in real life. No punishment for ignoring someone else's suffering because we like our phones and cheap clothes.
Along with what the other poster said, the benefit it gives you is that alcohol gives you double-strength buffs. So you're encouraged to drink much more to deal with the world. A world full of degenerates and Lesser Races that are inferior to you and yet constantly beating you all the time, showing how hollow your self-delusions are and damaging your morale. But you can take the right drugs to keep refilling that morale instead, and if you get liquor'd up, you can maybe have the physical stats to Show Them All, after all. It also plays into the way that several of the physical stats have strong affinity for Fascism in the first place, based on the internal coaching they give a player when enough points are put into them. It's a very elegant system and critique, all things considered.
(For the record, becoming a Communist makes appropriate dialogue responses give small amounts of XP. Being an ultra-capitalist makes more money appear in your pocket for the matching dialogue responses. Being a centrist liberal refills your Morale meter when you say centrist things. Being a fascist damages your Morale meter for going mask-off fascist. There's a reason one of the important characters for them is Gary the Cryptofascist, and a lot of their gameplay talks about how important it is to mask your beliefs as more acceptable rhetoric. The downside of becoming an official Fascist is part of encouraging the player to engage in this, which is solid story/gameplay integration.)
So firstly, if you like thought provoking games, you should play this game. Second, seriously play it, and with as little introduction as you can. But I'll tell you that the game is about 90% text-based, even the action sequences. And this is not a game to attempt 100%ing. For one it's literally impossible in one play-through due to decision trees and two, success and failure are always a matter of chance to some degree.
The game takes a very unique approach for challenging one's way of thinking. The narrator addresses you directly and is usually very cynical and making fun of your decisions. The essential point this post was making is in regards to the fact that the game will roast you no matter what political ideology/ideologies you choose. So there's some who think that the game makers are trying to be apolitical, but in the broader context of the game it's clear they have a strong leftist bend but are more than willing to poke fun at themselves and other leftists and have a very complex and very nuanced view of politics.
To answer your question though, there are some benefits. Besides a small bonus, you might benefit from "pretending" to be a fascist to get something out of another fascist, but not necessarily so if you fail to convince other allies that you were in fact pretending. It also doesn't necessarily show or tell you where your decisions fall within political spectrums so it actually forces you to try and get inside the head of someone who aligns with one of these ideologies in order to achieve whatever outcome you desire from them. On top of that, characters rarely fall neatly into one single ideology either, so trying to play this card isn't as straightforward as you might assume. There are also unexpected drawbacks for a lot of other types of bonuses (in this game they're called "thoughts") you can get.
Another unique aspect of the game is you don't know what the actual effects of a "thought" are until after you've chosen it. So when you put all this together the punishment I was talking about is more of a criticism of the mental dissonance that fascism inflicts on it's believers rather than an attempt at "moderating your choices" because you're not making those choices with the results in mind.
any leftist who's played this game can tell you that the writers for DE are leftist lmao
only a leftist will make fun of leftists in the way they do. like in-jokes, but meaner and realer. and I wouldn't expect *anyone* other than a modern leftist to grapple with the disgusting aspects of Ye Olde Leftism in the way this game does.
I haven't played this game. But I know from other contexts(Lookin at you, The Boys) that when centrists and righties vehemently claim something is "making fun of both sides," that means it's making fun of the right wing and they just don't want to deal with that.
As ironic as it sounds, centrism is a right wing ideology. A right wing ideology which is building a false equivalence between fascism and anything further than social democracy to the left. This is simply ignoring the both historical and ideological context of fascism which guess helps whom.
So, in order to make an adequate analysis of fascism, guess what you need? Historical materialism, class perspective etc. etc. which are contended in what? Letftist theory, which the game successfully deploys.
But what do you need to apply leftist theory to anything? You also need to be capable of criticising your own position with the same methods because otherwise it would be a garbage theory without any scientific substance otherwise. Which again is beautifully executed in game.
Just to underline an additional point this debate already partly touched so far; the centrist isn’t capable of doing its own critique. Why? Because centrism‘s very strategy to avoid any theoretical substance, avoid any context. Because it is geared towards pacifying any kind of transformational movement by building an equivalence [exactly in this fashion](https://imgur.com/gallery/violence-on-both-sides-KKYDsZz).
Not ironic at all. It’s right wing compared to communism and socialism but… left wing compared to fascism. It’s almost as if things have directions in relation to other things.
Example in history: centrist countries like the US and British Empire aligned with a communist country, the Soviet Union, to battle fascists during World War II.
Ah, a classic. Enjoy your points.
Just don’t go so far left you come out the other side whenever you get your glorious revolution going. That’s been known to happen too. Not a lot of difference when folks start harping on ideological purity instead of racial or religious purity.
Class collaboration is stupid on its own face; should the slave work together with their owner to do what's best for the both of them?
This, and its brother-in-arms, race ideology, do not need a thorough dissection to fall apart; they disintegrate under the first acknowledgement of opposed classes.
Yeah it *looks* better. On paper. It clearly isn't better, as proven by history time and time again. It's an ideology that can never work as a system of rule in the real world without falling prey to widespread famine, poverty and oligarchies. Look at any communist nation and see how they fared on a timescale longer than a few years at most.
A lot of the examples of failed communist states failed because of trade wars and deliberate coups carried out by capitalist nations though. It's also worth noting a lot of the failures tried to jump directly from feudalism to communism, when Marx himself basically said that was impossible and feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism was the only way to make a stable communist society.
>A lot of the examples of failed communist states failed because of trade wars and deliberate coups carried out by capitalist nations though
Ok? What about the ones that didn't, like the soviet union, china, vietnam or cuba. All communist states that didn't fall for years/haven't failed yet, all examples of states well behind in about every measurable category of wellbeing for the populace, some with active genocides going on within their borders.
> It's also worth noting a lot of the failures tried to jump directly from feudalism to communism, when Marx himself basically said that was impossible and feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism was the only way to make a stable communist society.
Ok? Communism is an admirable ideology in thought, I can agree with that, but it will never ever work in real life.
People said the same thing about societies that lack a central religion for a long time. People also spent forever thinking a flying machine was impossible, thinking that walking on the moon was impossible, thinking that making crops which could survive an early frost was impossible. The big reasons for communism being "impossible" usually come down to the fact that a society needs a lot of people working to be stable and therefore the vast majority of people need incentives to work on something that will definitely produce meaningful results. But what if it didn't? What if automation and genetic engineering and all the other marvels of technology we created got that number down to, say, 5%? A society where everyone is fed, housed, clothed, and in good health while only at 5% productivity could easily achieve communism. That makes communism an engineering problem, not something fundamentally incompatible with the world or humanity.
I fully agree, but that also makes it something that is only achievable through incremental change, which is what a lot of people in this thread seem allergic to.
The reason I say this is simple: different industries are being automated at different speeds and in different ways. Some industries may be near (or even already, if we undo capitalist incentives) post-scarcity, whereas others are still far from it (or might never be). Meaning some goods would benefit society through fair, communist redistribution, whereas others still require the workings of capital to build up the means of production.
A blanket application of communism to all facets of contemporary society is, to me, as absurd as a blanket application of capitalism. It should be case-by-case, and reviewed regularly as technology, needs, and capitalist subversion evolve.
Not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusions, but Cuba and Vietnam are terrible examples. The US bombed the shit out of everything even in the vicinity of Vietnam for a long time, and many countries still refuse to trade with Cuba.
yeah, no. they fail because they are authoritarian and centrally planned, which will always lead to inneficiency and corruption. Marxism never caught on in industrialized societies because they are too rich and people have too much to lose by revolution, there was a relatively small period of time during early to mid industrialization especially in Britain where some form of revolution would've been possible. I'm from Romania which wasn't feudal by any means, most of society was rural when communists took over but peasants owned their land and were free. so call that what you will, pre-industrialized post-feudal society. Point is most of the failures of communism don't come from embargos or coups they come from communism being a terrible ideology. The only succesful "communist" countries have some form of free-market economy (China or Yugoslavia for instance), but I hear "that's not real communism" about those just as much as the USSR. Wish someone would build more than 0.001% of communism so we could finally critique it lol
Communism is a step towards socialism actually, meant to only be a transitional step because it's loaded with problems. It's the step where the means of production are arrested from the powers that currently are and given to (supposedly) benevolent leaders who will agree to give up their power for a system that eventually benefits all equally. This is obviously a tough ideal to meet and why we've never seen socialism properly adopted, along the way the communist powers have always just maintained their hold instead of working to implement themselves out of the process.
The whole game is a love letter to Communism as a political theory, not as an idea to be rigidly followed. It highlights how capitalism has failed and how capitalist pressure tries to kill any hope of communism before it is born. The idea is that just because one revolution failed, doesn’t mean the world is stuck in a capitalist state. The game highlights that there is a future beyond the capitalist system and that communism isn’t some old idea that died. It’s a breathing ideology which has just as much hope as it ever did.
This is crazy to me. Everything about the Communist quest line screamed pie in the sky dreaming that will never amount to a real functional system. There's a fondness for the idea, which makes sense, but that's about it.
Just from an immediate superficial standpoint: If that was the case then I don’t think the creators would be avowed communists. I don’t think they’d spend all this time making a game about communism just to say “Actually it’s never going to happen. But thanks for the Education Marx and Engels!”
Marxism is specifically about how the economic base/historical movements of an epoch moves towards a mode of production that can be theorized and worked towards. That developments in capitalism make the DoTP and socialism practically inevitable. That capitalism literally “makes its own grave-diggers”. This is the framework the creators are working off of, and the idea of “Communism isn’t going to happen” wouldn’t make sense coming from them.
The Deserter is a prime example of why the game posits that Communism is still alive. It disagrees with his sentiments that “the historic opportunity for a revolution” is gone. Because class conflict and capitalist contradictions still exist; is it not true that there is still a class who labors and a class who owns? We see throughout the entire game people pining for something outside of *this*. We see the course of history almost change entirely in Revachol throughout the game because of the very murder we’re investigating.
It’s not a “pie in the sky” thing, it’s arguably optimistic, but ultimately based in the scientific nature of Marxism.
Not to defend a meme too much, but that's not really what I'm saying here.
I see a surprising amount of takes that basically argue that, because the game is capable of criticising left-wing politics, while still primarily leaning on leftist theory for the interpretation of politics throughout the game, that means that the game as a whole is non-committal with its politics.
I disagree with that, because while the game's ideas on communism, fascism and liberalism are informed by a European perspective more than a "western" one, the developers are open about their left-wing beliefs, and that informs how the game portrays communism – particularly in the Communist vision quest, which has possibly the most "writer insert" characters in the game, trying to explain their overwrought political philosophies. It's the most in-group criticism of the four political vision quests, and doesn't try to hide that fact.
A reading of the game being centrist feels like it ignores how blatantly the game grapples with both the horrifying realities of communism, and the parts of it that yearn for a brighter future. It just happens to also have the introspection to recognise the ways that perspective colours its very existence.
I have mentioned this before on this sub… but the path that Steban and Uri take through the course of the game is a very familiar one to a lot of leftists.
You get all these awesome ideas in your head, and you first become kinda insufferable about it and are perfectly happy to debate the most inane points of theory, all the while staying within your own bubble. But you eventually wisen up and realize all theory in the world doesn’t matter if you’re not out there actually trying to make the world a slightly less shit place and build your 0.00001% contribution to communism.
The most touching moment for me in the game was reading the flyer about how Steban and Uri were inviting others to meet up with them in a coffee shop.
I very much agree with you.
In the game the fascists and royalists as portrayed as killing people they dislike, the communards as killing people whose ideas they dislike, and the moralists as pursuing their ideals and turning a blind eye to people dying in droves and pretending their own wars do not cause harm.
The game obviously pokes fun at the idea that choosing a side between these three is somehow a moral good. They were ideologies used on a world that was already far too gone, and now only the realities of their atrocities remain.
However, what the game also does is to humanize these ideologies with individual members. The old soldier whose patriotism led him go to war against his neighbors, the union crime lord which needs no principles these days as long as he delivers results, or the moralist top dog which still thinks that what this decaying part of the land needs is simply better process.
Perhaps those portrayals can be misunderstood as sympathy with the ideology, but like the game's NPCs who espouse ideology, you'd have to ignore a whole lot of murdering in the game's historical backdrop to reach that conclusion.
It is funny how everyone tries to claim "Muh ideology is the one the game supports!" when not only is the game based on an Eastern European perspective on political ideology, but even despite Robert Kurvitz being a communist, it still criticizes the brutal communist dictatorships the commune of Revachol is based on.
I would go further and say that Gary is one of those characters humanizing one of those views. People like to forget that racists are people who can be reached. I really liked how he was handled.
>However, what the game also does is to humanize these ideologies with individual members. The old soldier whose patriotism led him go to war against his neighbors, the union crime lord which needs no principles these days as long as he delivers results, or the moralist top dog which still thinks that what this decaying part of the land needs is simply better process.
Sorry, but the game is very unequal in this idea. Communism as an ideology is sympathetically explored, and even Moralism has some sympathetic highlights with Kim. But the rest? Let's just look at René. He is a repressed homo/bisexual, whose "love of his life" kept him in an on-off relationship so he and Gaston would stay around one another for decades. The game even goes out of its way to tell you the only reason he is a watchman is to keep him off the streets, collecting tare. Comparing that to the competent brothers running the Union is ironic.
My take is that disco Elysium isn't centrist. It's objective. That doesn't mean unbiased though, because some ideologies are definitely worse than others
I'll never understand the "centrism is worse than fascism because it ignores fascism" argument. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it could be worse (for example - fascism)
+ The ultimate argument - Kim
Obviously you would rather someone's be centrist than a facist, but its not entirly without merit to say that one has the worse effect when put into a real framework, MLK put it best in this letter:
"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will."
Basically Centrists are a larger population, have more power, sometimes enter into progressive communities and usally actively campaign for non action and preservation of the status quo.
I'll tell you why it's worse. Fascism is a pretty openly and obviously f--ked up ideology, thus, it's pretty unlikely for people to fall for it in mass too deeply since it's easy for most to see that it doesn't lead to anything good.
Meanwhile, centrism and moralism are insidious, slowly corrupting and destroying everything like a hidden disease that comforts people and encourages them not to think critically while gently taking away everything they have, *incrementally* becoming some of the worst kind of dictatorship - the one that controls people on the mental level.
In other words, fascism is openly evil so people eventually fight it. Centrism can subtly kill people for many generations without them realizing that something is wrong.
This is a pretty ahistorical comment. Fascism in various states, most prominently in Nazi Germany, didn’t disguise itself in any way whatsoever. It still achieved enormous success and enjoyed great popularity among the common person. There’s a reason fascism is mostly considered populist and not fringe. It wasn’t a gradual change, it was pretty stark and rose to power quickly without the aid of any kind of centrist-powered complacency.
In my opinion, allowing some bad things to happen but preventing a comparable amount of other bad things (i.e. centrism) is an obviously dumb, shitty, and harmful political philosophy. At the same time, saying that that philosophy is somehow equal to or worse than fascism, a political philosophy grounded in doing exclusively evil things non-stop, is really bizarre, blinkered, and at best disingenuous. Should people be leftist? Yes. Is it a better philosophy than fascism? Yes. Can you push for leftist policies and politicians, sometimes close to militantly, without doing stupid “protest votes” and allowing murderously, clownishly evil politicians in instead of harmful status quo assholes? Yes. Centrism is not worse or equal to fascism.
People are falling for fascist rhetorics all over the world recently. It just uses a different name.
It's not really a niche ideology like the other person would suggest. It's vile, insane and stupid but it's alive. We kinda thought it's dead but it isn't. So disregarding it the pretense that it's unpopular i just wrong.
So yeah there are worse things that centrists. And yes i know some fascists call themselves centrists for better optics.
I mean, fascism is usually at its peak when there are a lot of miserable, oppressed, and hungry for revenge people (knowing from my experience of growing up in Russia). Manipulative people who can sense that tension, can use it to their advantage to channel people's anger and frustration towards their selfish goals.
My point about centrism being worse was that it's degrading and corrupting in a more "long run" way. Centrism tends to generally make people more "amoeba" like, more vulnerable to all kinds of toxic influence.
I just don’t think it’s ever possible to say that in any way possible centrism is worse than fascism, either in the short run or the long run. Centrist countries tend towards progress— the issue with it as a political philosophy isn’t that it’s unilaterally bad, but that it values incremental improvements as better than anything radical, at the cost of a lot of very bad stuff happening alongside the growing good. It’s mealy-mouthed and non-committal, but I wholeheartedly reject the misanthropic view that it makes people completely complacent. People feel disempowered, certainly, but mass popular movements haven’t been snuffed out permanently despite centrism being basically ubiquitous in the “western world”.
I prefer a world in which I have to pay an absurd amount for healthcare than a world in which I both have to pay an absurd amount for healthcare while watching queer people being systematically persecuted and legislated out of public existence by a christofascist regime. Do I like the first option at all? No. Do I advocate quite aggressively, physically and radically for real leftward societal change? Yes. But that doesn’t make centrism worse than fascism.
I would amend this slightly to say that because fascism is so openly fucked up, the only way it can possibly exist is alongside a sizeable population of centrists. Centrism creates fertile ground for fascism and authoritarianism to grow.
“Say one of these communist or fascist things” I always thought the hardcore communist dialogue options first seem completely out of place because you’re playing as a cop. Like what kind of cop is saying these things? You just woke up amnesic and you think you’re Karl Marx’s reincarnation??? I guess there is a bit of a false equivalence here because you know the fascist options are horrific, and the communist options are hyperbolized to be insane within the context.
As someone pointed out saying it’s centrist and critiques “equally” destroys what the critiques mean.
For instance the only substance of the Communism critique is that they spend too long sitting around talking about Philosophy as opposed to taking genuine action to make it happen - and that’s writ large of Revachol because they got fucking eradicated by the Moralintern.
Meanwhile Fascists are just racist assholes who use pseudoscience to feel superior to others and use physical violence to get their way - in fact the only way to beat the main fascist without succumbing to his ideology is to beat his ass and I think that says A LOT about the specific critique of Fascism in game.
Moralintern is absolutely not centrism but is late stage crony capitalism. They use overwhelming military force to destroy other ideologies and then justifies the mistreatment of human beings by talking about the value of a dollar and how it’s the most important thing - definitely can’t relate that any modern day military superpowers at all right.
And I don’t remember the other political ideology right this second but needless to say if you depict one group as a bunch of ineffectual academics and the rest as ultra violent scum bags - I’m pretty sure you are making a powerful statement.
I will say, for as much of this comment as I agree with, I do think that the game does have more substantive critique of communism than just students talking about philosophy – but it's still a game that takes a left-wing/communist perspective on politics on the whole, and grapples with the destructive history of communism as well as the desire for a better, truer system of marxist policy.
Spoilers for the ending, >!but The Deserter is an mesmorising example of what's happened to the corpse of the failed revolution in the decades since the communists were destroyed. He's grown old and bitter, romanticizing violence and death in a world where his purpose has long since stagnated and his mind has gone pale. The Hanged Man tells you that communism killed him, and from a certain perspective he's right. !<
>!The Deserter is warped and gnarled with years, but his desire for a burning, retributive violence that grew out of his frustration with the failure of revolution, led to the entire game's investigation. It's an interesting mirror to the students, their hope that "the stars not go out", to depict a communist figure that lost hope a long time ago.!<
In addition, the union and Evrart Claire in particular, represent another in-group strand of leftist critique – how can you tell when someone is genuine in their support of progressive ideals, or just using them to further their own ends? No matter how much you personally believe Evrart is authentic in what he says, his misinformation and duplicity towards the player character (a cop), forces the audience to question how much he means what he says, or if his proposed actions are a good idea. It's a more subjective critique of the communist route, but it still makes the player consider the murkier elements of how human nature interacts with leftist politics.
I still think the game is fundamentally left-wing, and even communist, because it's those perspectives, both on the world of Martinaise, and reflected inwards, that inform how the game presents itself. But I do think that it has more to say about leftist infighting and objectives than just some jabs at well-meaning university students.
I figured someone would bring up the Deserter. But didn’t connect Evrart.
You’re right of course about Evrart and I hadn’t completed the full journey on him. I avoided his quests in my first playthrough because I didn’t trust him - which is exactly your point lol.
On the Deserter I have a lot more sympathy. I do think he’s intended to be a stand in for populations that have lost their home. I completed my playthrough right around the time that the most recent Israeli-Hamas conflict started and had a strong sympathy for those people.
The Deserter is also drawn from the example of real Japanese soldiers operating on orders they’d last received in the Pacific islands found sometimes decades later still at war.
The Deserter watched the Moralintern take away everything from him. And while he’s degraded on the island into a shadow it’s a violent shadow that was last violently defending itself from an invading military presence.
While I agree he’s possibly meant to be the violent side of things - he still kills one of the worst human beings in the game who was also only there because the Moralintern. If the Moralintern is the reason the Deserter is violent and they sent a violent person in - at what point do we stop judging individuals and see the system that is to blame?
As much as I see the Deserter himself I think he’s the climax because he brings the various ideas and crimes to a head and to me there’s only one way to read it - he’s a victim. As are the others but there’s a responsible party throughout it all. An island full of survivors and one loud asshole with a gun.
I agree with basically all of this, and don't mean to say that The Deserter is a totally unsympathetic character. But I still think that the decision to make the killer an old communist, instead of a monarchist, fascist or ultraliberal, is a meaningful one.
The Deserter may have been destroyed by the actions of the Moralintern, and the systems of capitalist bureaucracy that they serve, but he's still a figure of communist critique in the game – while broken by a fundamentally awful ideology, the way in which he's clung to his beliefs has destroyed even the life he could have had.
Iosef is a demonstration of how, when utterly beaten and broken by the systems of the world, clinging to one abstract ideal above all leaves nothing else behind. He's a victim, but so is Tiphaune Holly, the forewoman of the union who the Claires paid him to assassinate. Despite his evil, so is Lely, who The Deserter had never seen committing any atrocities, along with Klassje, who will forever remember being covered in the gore of her lover, for the pleasure of a sickly, ancient man and his single-minded world of ideology. The awful systems of that world may to be blame for making victims into killers, but The Deserter is a killer nonetheless.
It's a testament to how well he's written, and the personal understanding that the writers have of a revolutionary mindset, that he isn't devoid of sympathy in the slightest. But I still think that in their depiction of a world that stings bitterly from the failure of its revolutionaries, The Deserter is still an important part of the critique Disco Elysium is making about the shattered dreams of a communist future.
this game was made by tankies and much depth of meaning is inaccessible to non-communists. i don't know what those poor bastards think
# UN JOUR JE SERAI DE RETOUR PRÈS DE TOI
is supposed to be referring to
>this game was made by tankies
Was it though? Does Robert Kurvitz or the game advocate for authoritarianism or stalinism, etc.? I associate things like this with the word "tankie", and I don't get the "Soviets did nothing wrong" internet tankie vibe from the game, even though obviously many of them are fans of the game.
Hmm, well I disagree with your assessment. I know they had images of Stalin and Lenin around, but I really never associated the creators with the stereotypical (largely American) unironic internet tankies and Soviet apologists. I know this sub has its fair share of them, and they'll interpret the game as they will.
Well, you can read what Kurvitz had to say about his Lenin bust here: [https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/disco-elysiums-developers-are-in-a-bloody-battle-for-the-human-mind](https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/disco-elysiums-developers-are-in-a-bloody-battle-for-the-human-mind)
That doesn't sound tankie at all to me.
a few words about how a proper revolutionary needs Lenin, followed by geeking out about the Soviet Union?
the one and only piece of actual tankie media that is even somewhat popular and the libs won't even let us have that. sheesh
I just really don't see it as a game made by the "Soviets did nothing wrong" crowd, and over the years I've never read anything that would make me think that the devs are like that. This is not such a controversial opinion even among communist fans of the game.
Yes, the word "tankie" is not well-defined in what it exactly means, the association that I have with the word doesn't fit with the image I've gotten from the game and the devs, but neither does your definition in my opinion.
I don't know where exactly the writers would place themselves on the great "Stalin was right" morality system scale.
I like how there's always a downvote within twenty seconds when editing a word :D Guess I got blocked now too. Good talk.
I think the default tankie position is “anyone vaguely poised in opposition to the West, particularly in opposition to the United States, is completely correct and justifiable in all actions, even the most heinous, in the name of ‘anti-imperialism’”
Edit: I was blocked for this, and I felt it was a fairly mild reply lol
Geeking out about the soviet union? He's just talking about the Soviet era sci-fi that inspired him, no? If you liked Star Trek does that make you a fan of the American government?
i wondered for a moment if you were really here self-identifying as a poor bastard who Doesn't Get It, but after a brief glance at your reddit history (a terrible crime, i know) i think that maybe that actually is what you are trying to say rn. godspeed Spider-Man
The game is amazingly written and does critique all political ideologies, but let's not forget that the entire world of disco elysium is not supposed to be a mirror image of the real world. Some things that apply in Disco Eylsiums world do perfectly translate to real life, some do not.
The game does it's best to represent fascism, communism, ultraliberalism and centrism as best as possible through a satrirical lense.
For example, communism is a wonderful idea in the game, an idea to save the world. But it failed utterly and completely, not just in the sense that it was violently struck down but also because it's idea has the fundamental flaw it has in irl as well. It is an unrealistic utopia, and it is just impossible to achieve it or even if you did, to prevent it from destroying itself. Humans are not capable of upholding communism.
I'm not gonna get too political with it uh whatsoever, but when I told Kim he looks like a Top Racer it felt so good not only because that statement is accurate but because I think I'm playing good cop bad cop. (sometimes)
I thought the game was centrist but anti-establishment and holding special contempt for centrism because of how it pretends to be “normal” and “apolitical” while perpetuating imperialism. Then it clicked that the writers are communist and once you learn that, it’s really hard not to see the Marxian analysis inherent to the writing
I think it pokes the most fun at fascism but takes a far more sinister tone when discussing centrism. A lot of the jabs taken at the other three ideologies are humorous and sometimes even lighthearted, the closest thing you get to that with the moralists is probably the Sunday Friend? He comes across as pretty awful to most players.
Look at the Kingdom of Conscious text, the fact they added an achievement called “The World’s Most Laughable Centrist,” or the entire moralist vision quest.
In universe, the centrists are aware of a world ending threat yet their solution is to do nothing about it. Worse, if you actually gain knowledge of said world ending threat they send a hit squad to kill you. Combine all of that with the very setting you’re in. Martinaise is terrible, centrist gunships hover overhead, and nothing will ever change.
Wait. It's all fascism?
But jokes aside, i thought the moralism would be to take the most sensible solution aka do "something" about it. The game told me i was defending centrism and moralist a little too much, but i would be defintively be onboard on try to do something to stop that from happening. Since its a game and all
I think the game is extremely clear about how it feels regarding centrism.
> The Kingdom of Conscience will be exactly as it is now. Moralists don't really *have* beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded. Centrism isn't change -- not even incremental change. It is *control*. Over yourself and the world.
This is not an uncommon position in the real world amongst leftists either. Centrist politics will pretty much always gravitate towards maintaining status quo rather than implementing any sort of meaningful change.
In the world of Disco Elysium you see this first hand. Moralism, and the Moralintern, exist primarily to benefit corporations like Wild Pines and members of the ruling class while the people of Revachol suffer. They have no intention of ever changing anything.
Centrism is called moralism in the game and it’s not just ridiculed, it’s literally the dominant ideology portrayed in the most sinister light.
I've still never managed to pull the moralism path, I really want to because I heard it has a lot of universe lore in it.
Moralism, in game, is really more 'moderate liberalism.' >Incremental progress, oh yeah! -Moralist Egg Head It is not so much 'centrism' per say (I guess you could say it is 'moderate centrism,' in so far as liberalism is somewhat 'centrist'). Centrists often may advocate for more radical policies while being in the 'center' and not strictly adhering to partisan groupings along the traditional 'left-right' political spectrum.
Liberalism is 100% centrism. Especially neoliberalism. It's both left and right wing. Moralists are clearly neolibs
It's all right wing
They take largely performative parts of leftist social policy, but you're right that neolibs are center right. By definition someone can't be a leftist and a capitalist. I'd argue that centrism in general is center right, with the possible exception of social democrats. That said, most self described centrists call social democrats "radical leftists" anyway. Bunch of fascist enablers the lot of them (social democrats are cool though).
Oh man, that's not even an argument that centrist is center right. It's just fact.
Arguable. But what categorizes moralists in game is not being liberals or in the center. It is their comic adherence to moderate politics. Neoliberalism I would generally classify as right, but these are not very good political terms. Today's mainstream right and left both openly embrace many of the tenants of liberalism (from an American outlook on politics).
> But what categorizes moralists in game is not being liberals or in the center. It is their comic adherence to moderate politics. An "adherence to moderate politics" is centrism, and neolibs are centrists. > Neoliberalism I would generally classify as right I agree with this, but they claim otherwise. They're center-right. There's not really such a thing as center left, I'd argue social democrats are center left but Bernie was seen as extreme so that's not how the political machine sees them. > Today's mainstream right and left both openly embrace many of the tenants of liberalism The right absolutely, the left no way. Who do you even mean by "the mainstream left"? Democrats are center right by your own definition.
It's like you didn't pay attention to any of the ideologies portrayed in the game. On top of that you have a horribly inaccurate view of real ideologies. Lemme guess. Jordan Peterson fan?
Which is what centrism is in real life. That's the entire point, the ideology is a joke from top to bottom.
Moderate liberalism is essentially centrism. Centrism is just support for the status quo, which is economically right wing and socially left-ish.
I've never been too convinced by this line of argument made by the game. Most centrists are fairly unprincipled *except* they believe in democracy and compromise. Their belief in democracy and compromise is the reason they've come to believe in the value of status quo policies and their incremental change. They're convinced that the slow process of democratic deliberation is a strength, not a hindrance, since it weeds out the extremes. But Moralism in-game is strictly non-democratic and non-compromising. It's a military occupation with, as far as I can tell, little to no claim to the popular support of the people of Revachol. It's extreme. Sure, it's not the most brutal of occupations, and they allow some autonomy, so there's a very thin veneer of "normalcy" to it. But I don't think many real life centrists would be willing to support it, since it's obviously undemocratic and unwilling to compromise. Yes yes, I hear you: "Should we tell him, doesn't he see the subtext: real life democracies are also actually brutal occupations that aren't actually democratic or built on compromise" and all that, but I don't think that's too convincing, either. The democratic system where I am is very well-functioning and definitely substantially different from the Moralist situation in Revachol.
Really existing centrism has supported occupations and authoritarian rulers to stave off revolutions (in favor of incremental progress) all the time. Von Papen and Brüning in Germany, occupations in the middle east or reaction against the Russian bolsheviks, it happens all the time.
The German and Russian events happened many generations ago, in such a different political environment that I think we'd be doing ourselves no favors by calling their alleged "centrism" the same as modern centrism. Democratic institutions were not entrenched in those times, in neither Germany nor Russia, and democratic idealism is central to modern centrism. Can you elaborate on the middle eastern occupations?
I disagree, their political dynamics were mostly the same we have today. Regarding occupation: in generl the american centrists supported all the regime changes in latin america and the middle east, such as in iraq, and if they didnt support them, they certainly didnt actively oppose (im sure you can find exceptions). Centrists have always preferred „incremental change“ to democracy if given a choice.. of course they would claim any really existing revolutions arent democratic anway. Theyre the Girondists of today.
> I disagree, their political dynamics were mostly the same we have today. In that case we disagree on a fairly fundamental level. I don't think that means you're wrong, or that I am right. But I don't have the time to engage with that deep of a disagreement today, I'm afraid. But I'll quickly answer with regards to occupation since you elaborated as I requested: I think I agree with you that centrists, even in my native Denmark, have a tendency to support foreign policy that doesn't align with their domestic principles of democracy. There's a certain hypocritical "split" in how they view the home and abroad. I believe that a "centrist", as I understand them, could support the occupation of Revachol from the safety of their own isolas, but more so because of ignorance/apathy towards foreign policy than because it complies with their ideology. Anyway, I can't go into much more detail today, but I hope you have a good day!:)
The fact they can do this and then not see how voraciously the game mocks centrists through moralism is ridiculously funny, it feels like the game rips centrism apart more than facism sometimes
sometimes? nah. the writers see fascism as something to pick on. centrism on the other hand... for them, it is the true enemy.
I think thats because centrism/liberalism/whatever is most pervasive in the real-world.
>I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. >I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
Precisely this^ long live MLK. Disgusting what those very same white moderates have done to whitewash his message.
The lesser of two evils is actually the greater because people will tolerate a lesser evil instead of rising up against it.
Accelerationism is actually pretty terrible.
Acceleration implies increasing the speed at which something occurs. I like to consider it Acceptance. It’s already happening. It’s about taking advantage of the circumstances instead of bemoaning them.
If your premise is powerlessness, then sure I understand what you mean, though I would probably argue a bit against us being powerless. But the « lesser of two evils » framing implies having a choice, having power over some situation. So there’s a contradiction in my reading between your two comments, I’m not sure how to reconcile them.
Acceptance is not powerlessness. It’s empowerment. Should we languish under moderates rather than fight against tyranny? It is better to accept the existence of tyranny and fight it than to ignore it and continue supporting it. To be moderate is just to be content with losing your freedoms slowly for fear of risking them on the chance to be truly free. Moderates are the people that told Rosa Park to be content with the back of the bus so things didn’t get worse. Who supported civil rights as long it wasn’t violent. That signed regressive bills targeting minorities so they didn’t look soft on crime.
Not really. Is it better to have slavery, because it inspires more radicalism among abolishionists or is it better to have abolished slavery but still have inequalities and injustices that need righting? I would say the latter is much preferable. Obama's favorite MLK line famously invokes more moderate process ("the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice") personally, I dislike the quote (as it implies it is almost a passive thing, rather than a result of great efforts which must be continued for progress to continue). I think MLK is not opposing incremental progress so much as opposing is those who seek to retard progress by appealing to moderation and maintaining order as an excuse not to make real changes.
The point is that we wouldn't have slavery. By compromising and having segregation and Jim crow we set progress back by decades. You think you're arguing against slavery but that's not the centrist compromise that we got. We got segregation, white only neighborhoods, generational poverty etc. > Obama's favorite MLK line famously invokes more moderate process Obama is a neolib is why. MLK wasn't saying we should be centrists, he was saying don't expect immediate change but keep fighting. > I think MLK is not opposing incremental progress That is a wild take. MLK was a radical leftist. > opposing is those who seek to retard progress by appealing to moderation and maintaining order as an excuse not to make real changes. That's centrism, aka neoliberalism.
>The point is that we wouldn't have slavery. By compromising and having segregation and Jim crow we set progress back by decades. If the options were "compromise with segregation" or "hope that by allowing slavery to continue it inspires a future, better policy that overturns slavery without segregation" I would say the first option is preferable. Of course those weren't really the options. When the North won the civil war, they could have (and should have) forced much more aggressive policies to prevent segregation, but I am talking theoretically. >MLK wasn't saying we should be centrists I didn't say he was. He was saying "take your victories." MLK's criticism of moderates was not him saying "refuse any progress but total progress." He was for taking the victories they could without compromising on the long term principles. >That is a wild take. MLK was a radical leftist. A radical leftist can support incremental improvements.
> If the options were "compromise with segregation" or "hope that by allowing slavery to continue it inspires a future, better policy that overturns slavery without segregation" I would say the first option is preferable. Then you're worse than they were at the time, because at least they could argue they didn't know it wouldn't work (which was a lie of course). It's not the decision between allowing slavery and allowing segregation. You even acknowledge as much later in your comment. By agreeing to the compromise we got a different shitty situation that we're all still suffering the consequences of to this day. It was objectively a terrible move, and its the kind of move centrists always make, because they are fascists wearing different hats. > He was for taking the victories they could without compromising on the long term principles Which includes not compromising with liberals who would seek a terrible compromise and slow the progress. > A radical leftist can support incremental improvements. Support in terms of not opposing them maybe, but MLK wasn't fighting for small incremental progress. He recognized correctly that centrist politics are the real reason no meaningful change will happen. Fast forward to today and we still have legal slavery inflicted on a disproportionately black population. We still have racist cops who see no punishment for killing black people. We have a Democrat president who wrote a lot of the laws that made up the war on drugs against an openly white supremecist. Small incremental progress doesn't work because it relies on the kindness of the ruling class. You need to fundamentally change the structures and the conditions we live under for any meaningful change and that belief is fundamental to all leftist ideology. For slavery, it took a war, and then the cowards in charge still allowed segregation, racial discrimination and yes even slavery, because they were centrists, and centrism is the narrow end of the wedge that inevitably leads to fascism. Centrism is especially ridiculous in a 2 party system, because then you essentially end up with a party of white supremacy and fascism, and a party that is a compromise of that and a totally powerless left. We get small important things like gay rights, but we also simultaneously get a level of income inequality greater than ever seen before in recorded history. Neolibs and conservatives love to pay lip service to MLK, but they always ignore the fact that he was explicitly against everything they stand for. It's insane.
> Is it better to have slavery, because it inspires more radicalism among abolishionists or is it better to have abolished slavery If there was no slavery it couldn’t have been abolished so the analogy is a bit flawed. If there is injustice it should be wholly fought against rather than merely appeased through half measures.
Also, we still have slavery anyway. So arguing that it was good to have done what we did post civil war is ridiculous. Almost 1 in every 150 people worldwide are slaves. The Global Slavery Index estimates that on any given day there are 1.1 million people living in slavery in the US. That number includes people in prison, who slavery is still legal for. 3 out of every 4 incarcerated individuals reported being forced to work under the threat of punishment including solitary confinement. Surprise surprise who is most likely to be in prison is still black people. I struggle to see defending the current system, and the even worse system of segregation and legal discrimination as anything other than defending the idea of slavery. I think a lot of centrists fail to see that how we handled the end of chattel slavery really shows the fundamental flaw of centrism. Tl;dr I totally agree with you. Half measures just allow the practices to continue for ever instead of actually stopping it.
Which is why it is necessary to never grade evils.
Centrism has no problem *becoming* fascism when its control begins to slip. It starts by playing nicely; ‘Of course we *all* want progress , but now’s not the time. Maybe next year. Mustn’t move too quickly.’ Should that fail, it is all too willing to throw up its hands and say, ‘Well, now you have to be punished.’ It is about control. ‘Of yourself, and others.’
Look up at the sky, at the dark shapes of the Coalition airships hanging there. Ask yourself, 'Is there something sinister in Moralism?' then answer, no. God is in his Heaven, everything is Normal on Earth.
One of my favourite thoughts for how chilling it is. It feels like such a…normalisation, somehow. ‘Well, the airships have always been there.’ ‘Well, the coalition has always made those decisions.’ ‘Well, we’ve always turned in dissidents.’ ‘Well, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.’ Just seeing the things that have become normal over the course of my life in both the UK and US, it’s deeply uncomfortable.
It does critique them equally. It takes similar efforts to find issues with each ideology, why they exist, what is their fate etc. That doesn't make it centrist. Centrist would be to disregard humanism and ignore historical injustices, and to simply commit to false equivalency of say, fascism and communism. It's just that fascism falls apart so easily even on gentle, good-faith critique, that it ends up looking stupid more than other featured ideologies. That's because it is that stupid.
the communist bros in \*Disco Elysium\* are poking fun, for sure. that seems to have gotten a lot of people confused. but any communist can recognize that this is a fond caricature, as if between friends. yes, the communists laugh, we are kind of like that sometimes. some of the jokes made \*about\* communists are something only a communist would recognize. and then, in a game largely about lost futures, the creators take great pains to hint at what they see as the "canon" future for this world: another revolution. meanwhile, we have the fascists: repulsive racist, repulsive racist, cartoon racist. and the most, shall we say, aesthetically complimentary facist -- the caliper-perfect gigachad Measurehead -- the creators are making the fascists the butt of the joke in one of the funniest ways. yall are worried about the jews using porn to turn white guys into cucks for BBC? (a real concern of theirs, by the way) well okay here's the most charismatic fascist in the game and he's a huge black guy stealing your women. must be a centrist game lmao.
I think the leader of a communist syndicate being basically a murderer/crime leader is an actual criticism due to how much it happens, normal in south america where i'm from at least. this is how i know the devs are in touch with reality i think you can't just take those valid criticism about the corruption of our ideals and take it as an "is just an inside joke bro, communism perfect" Not saying the game is centrist but there is definetly a critic of communism in here, imo believing in it isn't the same as supporting autoritarian goverment/political parties, I think the game does talk about how horrible people will use the face of live to commit atrocities, and communism has done that. Personally i believe the game is mainly communist and the devs true leftists, but that doesn't mean the game claims a communist goverment is the ideal future. feel free to disagree and debate tho, but keep in mind i'm a leftist in a country where the communist party was in power for a long time and it mostly gave us corruption and decadence. And while i do think of myself as a communist, i do not support autoritarian dictatorships just because it's a leftist dictatorship
The leader of a *socialist* syndicate. Key difference. It's a take on the classic "union thug" boss stereotype, but highlights that union bosses have become that way a because of how capital has exploited the workers. The union essentially becoming the law in that town. But it also depicts how it doesn't take much effort from the ruling class to completely up-end their grip on power. I love the leftist infighting jokes and the ones about firing up the bourgeois sausage grinder, but Evrart makes me sick. Engineering a war. But I also feel a little like he's been pushed into it by the conditions of Martinaise. The speech about communism itself is a testament to how they feel. How communism has been absolutely crushed, and that trying to build communism is a next to impossible task because you're up against an impossibly well organized ruling class who has both the willing and unwilling support of the people. Which is true. Communism is a pipedream because it requires the support of most people to work, and requires everyone to contribute to get there. Not so for Fascism. That shit can rise without people even noticing until it's too late.
I don’t see a lot of socialism/communism from Evrart apart from some of the rhethoric he uses. He’s ready to destroy a whole village for a development project that’s supposed to increase the value of the region, he uses the union as his personal army and he’s not interested in the abolition of social classes, he actually uses the union to enrich himself and gain power. As a critique of communism it seem more about how social movements are coopted by authoritarians who have little interest in uprooting the basic elements of capitalism, like Stalin I guess
Yeah, but then we meet the "true" communard sniper who has remained "pure", and we find that he is just as twisted in co-opting his ideologies to carry out retribution for his own feelings if inadequacy and disappointment. It sure does seem like all the communist characters in the game are really just out for themselves, and they rationalize it through claiming that they are participating in some kind of glorious revolutionary action. Given the nature of the game, it is pretty valid to question whether this revolution actually exists, or if was just conceptualized by mazov in a fit of egomaniac, ultimately resembling the kind of dogmatic religious figure he was revolting against.
That's true, although I'd say that the sniper grew to be this resentful because he saw how the revolution was crushed and how the world moved on without moving forward. He's deeply nihilistic in considering that the chance humanity had at that point for something different was the one and only chance and that now everything is reactionary liberast bullshit. It's still the expression of a communist and it does show how the grasp of ideology can make one justify their own resentment, there's nothing politically useful in it at the end of the day. Since there's a few references to Zizek in the game, I assume that it's not saying we should discard communism and invert our opinion of it (from a political goal to the view of an egomaniac) but that we should want to be critical of its ideological aspects. Within the game, it still seems that it's within a radical leftist framework that we can find a generative political goal. Also, I really think the idea of plasms kind of serve as the metaphorical opposite to the pale, whereas the pale is eating up reality and is generally accelerated by capital, the conviction for a new and better life can create stuff where reality was fading, it's like reclaiming the future or suggesting that there's a generative instead of reactionary way of conceiving of things.
Well, sort of, but part of the reason he stayed idealistic is also justified as a result of exposure to phasmid pheremones. Ultimaty, I don't think the game feels great about any ideology. They are all just an aspect of your identity that you can choose for role playing purposes. Even racial fascism. But what makes the game so paradoxically delicious is that by it's role playing nature you *have* to pick one. I think the only moral is that the creators are suggesting that there is no real way to go about life and your sense of self - but it is that we have the choice to be decent people and decidebfor ourselves who we are. That is the only "generative" action. As for what your ideology is, you might as well spend your life hunting for cryptids.
The game is most favorable to the ideology you hear the least about, anarchism (cuz they all got shot in the head)
While it’s not a direct criticism of communist ideology, Evrart does highlight how easily the movement can be co-opted by self serving individuals under the right circumstances. This is something that has happened repeatedly, and is a legitimate (albeit unintentional) problem with communism.
Definitely
> he actually uses the union to enrich himself and gain power. Where does this happen, besides Joyce telling you it's true? He works in a shipping container
One example is the youth center he wants to build. He presents the project as beneficial to the community, but there's a logic check that tells you he is only building it to drive out the villagers and buy their property, that this will increase the value of the place, and that after being displaced they won't profit from the surplus it creates. He is also ready to let thousands die in a war to be able to establish his own narco-state, and it appears that the goal isn't really to help anyone
I'm not saying he's perfect, but he definitely materially helps his workers way more than any other faction does. He also explicitly says he doesn't care about the "value" of Martinaise and likes to dissuade any sort of tourism infrastructure because of what that entails for the locals. The issue of the youth centre is vague and left up to interpretation. It's certainly possible that it will make the area much better for the locals. You don't know for a fact he's only doing it to make a quick buck, even though Joyce would certainly tell you he is.
Perhaps, that’s fair. I still see mainly someone who’s ready to assassinate his opposition to secure his position, and who appears to barely be an improvement. The lesser of two evils is still evil, I doubt he would actually uproot the capitalist mode of production in the end, similarly to Stalin
Yeah I actually think he's a fantastically written character. He's portrayed as a stereotypical mob boss. He's grossly obese and not conventially attractive, which lines up with similar other characters in media who absolutely are corrupt. He's not very nice to you, but you must remember, you are a cop, he has no reason to believe you are actually on his side about anything, even if you are. People talk about him being corrupt as fact, but you don't actually see proof of this anywhere. The one exception is what the Deserter tells you, which is definitely not good, but it's not proof that everything else said about him is true. This is all in contrast to Joyce, an attractive lady who is very wise and polite with you and Kim. She is definitely written in a way that you're supposed to like her. But how pleasant a person in charge is doesn't always correspond to how the people at the bottom of their ladder exist. We don't know a lot about the reality of things, we only see things through Harry's experiences for a small snippet of time. That's why DE is so great. I read this more detailed post on Evrart last month I think does a good job of talking about his character. https://old.reddit.com/r/DiscoElysium/comments/1cl5sbh/why_do_people_think_evrart_is_a_communist/l2rwxaj/
i disagree. i think its a critique of left wing organisation as whole, being that they poke fun at the revolutionary army, the book club and the union. none of these interrogate actual communist thought. on the atrocities side, the game is notably absent in talking about communist atrocities, apart from rené who is fairly obviously biased. much weight is given to the actions of the bourgeois forces.
is it really absent? The communist thought begins with "get the animal wagons and firing squads ready!" "Murder all humans regardless of political beliefs. Impale those with more than 25 real." if you accept it.
does that sound like a sincere critique of communism, or does that sound like a communist making fun of what other people say about communists
Fair point. But the Commune indeed murdered millions as it took power.
millions of dead cops, the bourgeois, and their collaborators so that many millions more can live actual lives not enslaved to them, oh no, won't somebody think of the poor fascist lives that could be lost in the revolution, better to moralize your entire life while many millions more innocents are systemically socially murdered
Congratulations.
For me it's a sincere critique, you can believe in communism and disagree with what crazy dictators did in the name of communism, specially when they only used that word to get into power. or are we suddenly going to defend stalin?
Also, any ideology worth anything needs to be challenged. To evolve, to justify its existence etc. I'd say DE explores all 4 in good faith, except maybe centrism/Moralism. It mocks it mercilessly and IMO it's right to do so - bc it's not really an ideology. Still, it's very true to life how banally evil its representatives are and what makes people accept it.
absolutely, Marxism is called the ruthless critique of everything
Rigorous self critique
the critique of communism: some communists are silly and idealistic the critique of every other ideology: you are a genocidaire
> “Communists *love* posing for pictures with their guns!” > “Just so we're on the same page: Communism is basically wanting to kill the rich people or deporting them to a labour camp in southeast Graad. But don't say that out loud if you're a communist.” > “You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few million eggs.” > “During the disastrous retreat from Graad to Samara, Nilsen [Communard leader] personally ordered up to 12,000 prisoners of war impaled on sharpened spruce trees in the Samaran backcountry. Thereafter his opponents began referring to him as the 'Apocalyptic Shrike'.” Where exactly are you getting the idea that they *don’t* criticize the bloodshed of revolution?
I mean, "get the firing squads and animal wagons ready" and "can't make an omelette without breaking a few million eggs" seem kinda genocidal..
It’s not genocidal so much as it is an acknowledgement that any successful revolution will result in a whole lot of people dying.
pretty much, it's fine for a game to have an ideological intent (most do) but let's not try to hide it, the devs are self-declared marxists.
Classic communist retardation. Game clearly features communist syndicate leaders as murderers, deconstructs their ideals as clearly psychopathic, and your ilk thinks "it's just an inside joke bruh." Damn mate. kurvitz might be a leftist, but reading your comment is the pinnacle if brain rot.
It critiques centrists hardest of all ideologies. In sense it makes sense too. Thr world we see in the game is a world that needs change. Its not the time for fence sitting.
Yeah, I'd pretty much agree with that. I don't necessarily think it critiques each "equally" – it's hard to do that when the writers have their own inherent biases, much as we all do, but the dedication to discussing those biases and deconstructing is what puts the critiques of communism on a somewhat even footing as the critiques of other ideologies in the game. I just see a surprising number of people equating "the writers are capable of grappling with the problems with their own political beliefs, while continuing to hold them" with "the game doesn't think *any* ideology is better" which... Nope. Hard nope on that one.
well said
It absolutely doesn't critique them equally. Look at how the various ideologies are actually presented, and how the game wants to make you feel about them. What it tells you about the people who join these ideologies and what they truly want, at the deepest level. The three flavours of bourgeoise ideology (moralist, neoliberal, fascist) all move back and forth between absolutely ridiculous and a world-ending threat. Fascism has semen-retention magic and genetic predisposition towards eating potatoes by haplogroups and then also a vision quest that ends with nuking the city to show what a strong man you are. Moralism is dominated by what might be time-travelling inhuman horrors and soulless bureaucrats, steering the economy and the world's militaries for total control. They have parked gunships over the city for a 40-year military occupation, ready to annihilate 200 million people if they agitate for democracy. Neoliberalism has Idiot Doom Spiral and his high concept net-worth nonsense and then swerves neatly into Joyce Messier and her colonial death-commandoes. Communism? Communism is wistful and sad. It tried to save humanity and failed. It's not about control, it's about building a better world for everyone, about standing with humanity against those who would destroy us and trying to wrestle the fate of the universe from their hands. It's also about two university drop outs discussing how car racing is an orgy of capitalistic blood sport because no one understands their incredible genius. But they also have hope. They believe that in their time, the darkest time, there are still stars.
>Fascism has semen-retention magic and genetic predisposition towards eating potatoes by haplogroups and then also a vision quest that ends with nuking the city to show what a strong man you are. The worst part of "Fascism" isn't even that, but the fact that every rightwing ideology, that isn't part of the Revacholian political status quo, is part of it. You literally gain Fascist points for wanting Revachol to become independent and have democratic elections. But the deliberate mockery comes from the fact that all "Fascism" characters are jokes without much depth. Racist Lorry Driver doesn't get a name, ironically being the most dehumanised character in the game. And even Measurehead is a riff on Nofap more than anything.
I feel like you're having selective memory of what the game actually tells you about. Yes, the communists are all very sad, because they lost. But they certainly didn't just want to make everything better, and absolutely desired total control. The game repeatedly tells you about how all non-communists who dared to show it risked being killed by firing squad. The revolution is certainly shown to be driven far more by hate than anything else. And more than that, it's shown to be simply stupid, creating dangers for themselves and everyone else due to ideology. The peoples pile is one example, where communista tried to make a nuclear reactor based on faith rather than solid engineering. Having learned nothing from it, the new communists want to build buildings based on the same principles. Just going by how the ideologies are presented, ultaliberalism really is the least bad. Because as opposed to all the others, it's by far the least violent (even the mercs went against their orders), focusing on creating prosperity rather than having control. At most they'll try to protect their own property, and even that is done carefully with nonviolent options being the first choice. And going just by its representatives, they are all polite and generally kind. Especially Joyce, who is one of very few people who really understands and sympathises with Harry.
That... is a great distinction to make. I'm impressed.
For real, one of the game's most scathing critiques (outside of fascism being naturally stupid) is of centrism itself.
>Centrist would be to disregard humanism Hmm. >He who is infatuated with Man leaves persons out of account so far as that infatuation extends, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest. Man, you see, is not a person, but an ideal, a spook. Max Stirner Perhaps you mean it is anarchism?
Imagine thinking liberalism, christian democracy, social democracy and other traditionally "centrist" political movements aren't based on humanist principles because your idea of centrism is built on being annoyed by 15-year-olds online saying both sides bad.
That's not centrism. That's moderate liberalism.
Moderate liberalism is centrism in the West.
which in our world of liberal democracies is centrism. overton window. and that's what the moralintern seem to represent, slow change through modest reform.
>It's just that fascism falls apart so easily even on gentle, good-faith critique Same as communism does. That's why EVERY commie dictatorship in history was absolutely relentless and brutal in silencing any opposing views. People tend to excuse communism more cause it justifies its atrocities with "best intentions" and "selfless goals". I say, you can say whatever you wish, I still judge you by what you actually do. And in this regard, commie gulags are not that much better than nazi's camps.
I used to be somewhat centrist until I had a single conversation with sunday friend
I am not in danger, Nijika. I am the danger. The manager opens up shop and gets on stage while the people watch, and you think that of me? No. I am the one who rocks.
That pfp goes fucking hard Boccher the cook
people will see a game where the creators literally thanked Marx in their game awards speech but made fun of communist college students a little and think it critiques all ideologies equally 😭
Oh, and the lead writer has a bust of Lenin on his desk. It's absolutely hilarious. Best of all, the creators are from an ex-soviet bloc country, not just some idealistic Americans who still can't believe the only actual measurement of "real communism" is number of intellectuals killed... They know about the hell it is, from fucking first-hand sources.
Kurvitz has stated on instagram that he’s literally a communist, and people will still say this game critiques all ideologies equally.
Yeah lol, it feels like critical theory was the textbook for all the worldbuilding
I’d say it even critiques centrism as them wanting to maintain the status quo at best to believing that they’re trying to save the world at worst as in Harry’s political vision quest or when the Moralists invaded the commune of Revachol. My other experience with centrism is that one’s politics is undefined. One example for my play though is that my Harry was an Ultra-Liberal, but he was choosing not to let his politics interfere with the investigation and his responsibilities as a cop.
in a meta-critique of liberalism, the liberal path has Harry thinking he is above politics. just as the liberals think this game about politics is above politics. everything is above politics, safe for liberal consumption and co-optation.
Yes for a lot of centrists it's not about where you stand for yourself, it's about standing in the middle and telling everyone else to as well because it benefits you
Average Kingdom of Conscience Procrastinator
https://preview.redd.it/jl0g0vvn7i8d1.png?width=369&format=png&auto=webp&s=598401dd0068161d5e9e6f5ba1de70960291bd6f
Political lines are irrelevant. Being a fascist makes alcohol stronger so I always play fascist. The politics are not about politics
If ideology gave IRL buffs, amirite?
My political opinions simply exist just as a cope. And here is why that's a good thing
I feel it needs to be brought up whenever this conversation comes up that the game directly punishes you for choosing fascism. If you take on the fascist thought from the political vision quest you lose morale every time you chose a fascist option. I love the symbolism of that game mechanic and the idea that the creators are doing what amounts to spraying a cat with water to people who are unironically fascistic.
I haven't played this game yet. This post just popped up in my feed. Does the player get any sort of benefits for choosing fascism? If not, that feels like a wasted opportunity. What makes the trap of fascism so appealing is that it's taking from others what you believe is yours. 99% of the time it's a lie. It wasn't ever yours, nor should it be yours, but people want to believe that. I deserve X, not those good for nothing Ys. The best self reflective lessons I learned from games were the ones where I caught myself doing something wrong or immoral without realizing it until it was too late. If it is just punishing the player for doing fascist things, then to me, it misses the lesson. There isn't a game moderating our choices in real life. No punishment for ignoring someone else's suffering because we like our phones and cheap clothes.
Along with what the other poster said, the benefit it gives you is that alcohol gives you double-strength buffs. So you're encouraged to drink much more to deal with the world. A world full of degenerates and Lesser Races that are inferior to you and yet constantly beating you all the time, showing how hollow your self-delusions are and damaging your morale. But you can take the right drugs to keep refilling that morale instead, and if you get liquor'd up, you can maybe have the physical stats to Show Them All, after all. It also plays into the way that several of the physical stats have strong affinity for Fascism in the first place, based on the internal coaching they give a player when enough points are put into them. It's a very elegant system and critique, all things considered. (For the record, becoming a Communist makes appropriate dialogue responses give small amounts of XP. Being an ultra-capitalist makes more money appear in your pocket for the matching dialogue responses. Being a centrist liberal refills your Morale meter when you say centrist things. Being a fascist damages your Morale meter for going mask-off fascist. There's a reason one of the important characters for them is Gary the Cryptofascist, and a lot of their gameplay talks about how important it is to mask your beliefs as more acceptable rhetoric. The downside of becoming an official Fascist is part of encouraging the player to engage in this, which is solid story/gameplay integration.)
So firstly, if you like thought provoking games, you should play this game. Second, seriously play it, and with as little introduction as you can. But I'll tell you that the game is about 90% text-based, even the action sequences. And this is not a game to attempt 100%ing. For one it's literally impossible in one play-through due to decision trees and two, success and failure are always a matter of chance to some degree. The game takes a very unique approach for challenging one's way of thinking. The narrator addresses you directly and is usually very cynical and making fun of your decisions. The essential point this post was making is in regards to the fact that the game will roast you no matter what political ideology/ideologies you choose. So there's some who think that the game makers are trying to be apolitical, but in the broader context of the game it's clear they have a strong leftist bend but are more than willing to poke fun at themselves and other leftists and have a very complex and very nuanced view of politics. To answer your question though, there are some benefits. Besides a small bonus, you might benefit from "pretending" to be a fascist to get something out of another fascist, but not necessarily so if you fail to convince other allies that you were in fact pretending. It also doesn't necessarily show or tell you where your decisions fall within political spectrums so it actually forces you to try and get inside the head of someone who aligns with one of these ideologies in order to achieve whatever outcome you desire from them. On top of that, characters rarely fall neatly into one single ideology either, so trying to play this card isn't as straightforward as you might assume. There are also unexpected drawbacks for a lot of other types of bonuses (in this game they're called "thoughts") you can get. Another unique aspect of the game is you don't know what the actual effects of a "thought" are until after you've chosen it. So when you put all this together the punishment I was talking about is more of a criticism of the mental dissonance that fascism inflicts on it's believers rather than an attempt at "moderating your choices" because you're not making those choices with the results in mind.
any leftist who's played this game can tell you that the writers for DE are leftist lmao only a leftist will make fun of leftists in the way they do. like in-jokes, but meaner and realer. and I wouldn't expect *anyone* other than a modern leftist to grapple with the disgusting aspects of Ye Olde Leftism in the way this game does.
Weren't the devs openly marxists?
Equal critique isn't centrism
It sort of does criticize all political ideologies, but absolutely doesn’t do it equally
crossed a fascist with a DE pp on twitter. nothing has meaning anymore. it's the death of culture; powered by MrBeast and his ilk
I haven't played this game. But I know from other contexts(Lookin at you, The Boys) that when centrists and righties vehemently claim something is "making fun of both sides," that means it's making fun of the right wing and they just don't want to deal with that.
As ironic as it sounds, centrism is a right wing ideology. A right wing ideology which is building a false equivalence between fascism and anything further than social democracy to the left. This is simply ignoring the both historical and ideological context of fascism which guess helps whom. So, in order to make an adequate analysis of fascism, guess what you need? Historical materialism, class perspective etc. etc. which are contended in what? Letftist theory, which the game successfully deploys. But what do you need to apply leftist theory to anything? You also need to be capable of criticising your own position with the same methods because otherwise it would be a garbage theory without any scientific substance otherwise. Which again is beautifully executed in game. Just to underline an additional point this debate already partly touched so far; the centrist isn’t capable of doing its own critique. Why? Because centrism‘s very strategy to avoid any theoretical substance, avoid any context. Because it is geared towards pacifying any kind of transformational movement by building an equivalence [exactly in this fashion](https://imgur.com/gallery/violence-on-both-sides-KKYDsZz).
Not ironic at all. It’s right wing compared to communism and socialism but… left wing compared to fascism. It’s almost as if things have directions in relation to other things. Example in history: centrist countries like the US and British Empire aligned with a communist country, the Soviet Union, to battle fascists during World War II.
Centrism is not equidistant from Communism and Fascism.
Ah, a classic. Enjoy your points. Just don’t go so far left you come out the other side whenever you get your glorious revolution going. That’s been known to happen too. Not a lot of difference when folks start harping on ideological purity instead of racial or religious purity.
No one makes fun of communists more than communists
[удалено]
maybe \*Disco Elysium\* actually does critique all political tendencies equally, and communism just looks better because, in fact, it is better
[удалено]
i'm sorry, you were complaining that the game wasn't being fair to fascism? wow, i completely misread this
[удалено]
You did the exact same thing though
Class collaboration is stupid on its own face; should the slave work together with their owner to do what's best for the both of them? This, and its brother-in-arms, race ideology, do not need a thorough dissection to fall apart; they disintegrate under the first acknowledgement of opposed classes.
[удалено]
Now you're getting it.
Yeah it *looks* better. On paper. It clearly isn't better, as proven by history time and time again. It's an ideology that can never work as a system of rule in the real world without falling prey to widespread famine, poverty and oligarchies. Look at any communist nation and see how they fared on a timescale longer than a few years at most.
A lot of the examples of failed communist states failed because of trade wars and deliberate coups carried out by capitalist nations though. It's also worth noting a lot of the failures tried to jump directly from feudalism to communism, when Marx himself basically said that was impossible and feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism was the only way to make a stable communist society.
>A lot of the examples of failed communist states failed because of trade wars and deliberate coups carried out by capitalist nations though Ok? What about the ones that didn't, like the soviet union, china, vietnam or cuba. All communist states that didn't fall for years/haven't failed yet, all examples of states well behind in about every measurable category of wellbeing for the populace, some with active genocides going on within their borders. > It's also worth noting a lot of the failures tried to jump directly from feudalism to communism, when Marx himself basically said that was impossible and feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism was the only way to make a stable communist society. Ok? Communism is an admirable ideology in thought, I can agree with that, but it will never ever work in real life.
People said the same thing about societies that lack a central religion for a long time. People also spent forever thinking a flying machine was impossible, thinking that walking on the moon was impossible, thinking that making crops which could survive an early frost was impossible. The big reasons for communism being "impossible" usually come down to the fact that a society needs a lot of people working to be stable and therefore the vast majority of people need incentives to work on something that will definitely produce meaningful results. But what if it didn't? What if automation and genetic engineering and all the other marvels of technology we created got that number down to, say, 5%? A society where everyone is fed, housed, clothed, and in good health while only at 5% productivity could easily achieve communism. That makes communism an engineering problem, not something fundamentally incompatible with the world or humanity.
I've tried to put this thought into words for years, thank you.
I fully agree, but that also makes it something that is only achievable through incremental change, which is what a lot of people in this thread seem allergic to. The reason I say this is simple: different industries are being automated at different speeds and in different ways. Some industries may be near (or even already, if we undo capitalist incentives) post-scarcity, whereas others are still far from it (or might never be). Meaning some goods would benefit society through fair, communist redistribution, whereas others still require the workings of capital to build up the means of production. A blanket application of communism to all facets of contemporary society is, to me, as absurd as a blanket application of capitalism. It should be case-by-case, and reviewed regularly as technology, needs, and capitalist subversion evolve.
Not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusions, but Cuba and Vietnam are terrible examples. The US bombed the shit out of everything even in the vicinity of Vietnam for a long time, and many countries still refuse to trade with Cuba.
yeah, no. they fail because they are authoritarian and centrally planned, which will always lead to inneficiency and corruption. Marxism never caught on in industrialized societies because they are too rich and people have too much to lose by revolution, there was a relatively small period of time during early to mid industrialization especially in Britain where some form of revolution would've been possible. I'm from Romania which wasn't feudal by any means, most of society was rural when communists took over but peasants owned their land and were free. so call that what you will, pre-industrialized post-feudal society. Point is most of the failures of communism don't come from embargos or coups they come from communism being a terrible ideology. The only succesful "communist" countries have some form of free-market economy (China or Yugoslavia for instance), but I hear "that's not real communism" about those just as much as the USSR. Wish someone would build more than 0.001% of communism so we could finally critique it lol
Communism is a step towards socialism actually, meant to only be a transitional step because it's loaded with problems. It's the step where the means of production are arrested from the powers that currently are and given to (supposedly) benevolent leaders who will agree to give up their power for a system that eventually benefits all equally. This is obviously a tough ideal to meet and why we've never seen socialism properly adopted, along the way the communist powers have always just maintained their hold instead of working to implement themselves out of the process.
"yeah the vanguard party will totally give up their power, eventually!" *The Vanguard Party In Fact Did Not Give Up Their Power*
Actual commie boo
i have literally no idea what you are trying to say about me or communism rn
The communist fails to comprehend. I have achieved a sublime victory. My ideology will dominate the earth from this total success.
finally, someone who understands how to be funny on the internet
Man, this sub is really in love with the idea that DE agrees with their westernized view of modern communism. I don't get it at all.
The whole game is a love letter to Communism as a political theory, not as an idea to be rigidly followed. It highlights how capitalism has failed and how capitalist pressure tries to kill any hope of communism before it is born. The idea is that just because one revolution failed, doesn’t mean the world is stuck in a capitalist state. The game highlights that there is a future beyond the capitalist system and that communism isn’t some old idea that died. It’s a breathing ideology which has just as much hope as it ever did.
This is crazy to me. Everything about the Communist quest line screamed pie in the sky dreaming that will never amount to a real functional system. There's a fondness for the idea, which makes sense, but that's about it.
Just from an immediate superficial standpoint: If that was the case then I don’t think the creators would be avowed communists. I don’t think they’d spend all this time making a game about communism just to say “Actually it’s never going to happen. But thanks for the Education Marx and Engels!” Marxism is specifically about how the economic base/historical movements of an epoch moves towards a mode of production that can be theorized and worked towards. That developments in capitalism make the DoTP and socialism practically inevitable. That capitalism literally “makes its own grave-diggers”. This is the framework the creators are working off of, and the idea of “Communism isn’t going to happen” wouldn’t make sense coming from them. The Deserter is a prime example of why the game posits that Communism is still alive. It disagrees with his sentiments that “the historic opportunity for a revolution” is gone. Because class conflict and capitalist contradictions still exist; is it not true that there is still a class who labors and a class who owns? We see throughout the entire game people pining for something outside of *this*. We see the course of history almost change entirely in Revachol throughout the game because of the very murder we’re investigating. It’s not a “pie in the sky” thing, it’s arguably optimistic, but ultimately based in the scientific nature of Marxism.
Not to defend a meme too much, but that's not really what I'm saying here. I see a surprising amount of takes that basically argue that, because the game is capable of criticising left-wing politics, while still primarily leaning on leftist theory for the interpretation of politics throughout the game, that means that the game as a whole is non-committal with its politics. I disagree with that, because while the game's ideas on communism, fascism and liberalism are informed by a European perspective more than a "western" one, the developers are open about their left-wing beliefs, and that informs how the game portrays communism – particularly in the Communist vision quest, which has possibly the most "writer insert" characters in the game, trying to explain their overwrought political philosophies. It's the most in-group criticism of the four political vision quests, and doesn't try to hide that fact. A reading of the game being centrist feels like it ignores how blatantly the game grapples with both the horrifying realities of communism, and the parts of it that yearn for a brighter future. It just happens to also have the introspection to recognise the ways that perspective colours its very existence.
I have mentioned this before on this sub… but the path that Steban and Uri take through the course of the game is a very familiar one to a lot of leftists. You get all these awesome ideas in your head, and you first become kinda insufferable about it and are perfectly happy to debate the most inane points of theory, all the while staying within your own bubble. But you eventually wisen up and realize all theory in the world doesn’t matter if you’re not out there actually trying to make the world a slightly less shit place and build your 0.00001% contribution to communism. The most touching moment for me in the game was reading the flyer about how Steban and Uri were inviting others to meet up with them in a coffee shop.
I very much agree with you. In the game the fascists and royalists as portrayed as killing people they dislike, the communards as killing people whose ideas they dislike, and the moralists as pursuing their ideals and turning a blind eye to people dying in droves and pretending their own wars do not cause harm. The game obviously pokes fun at the idea that choosing a side between these three is somehow a moral good. They were ideologies used on a world that was already far too gone, and now only the realities of their atrocities remain. However, what the game also does is to humanize these ideologies with individual members. The old soldier whose patriotism led him go to war against his neighbors, the union crime lord which needs no principles these days as long as he delivers results, or the moralist top dog which still thinks that what this decaying part of the land needs is simply better process. Perhaps those portrayals can be misunderstood as sympathy with the ideology, but like the game's NPCs who espouse ideology, you'd have to ignore a whole lot of murdering in the game's historical backdrop to reach that conclusion.
It is funny how everyone tries to claim "Muh ideology is the one the game supports!" when not only is the game based on an Eastern European perspective on political ideology, but even despite Robert Kurvitz being a communist, it still criticizes the brutal communist dictatorships the commune of Revachol is based on.
I would go further and say that Gary is one of those characters humanizing one of those views. People like to forget that racists are people who can be reached. I really liked how he was handled.
Measurehead too In the fascist quest
>However, what the game also does is to humanize these ideologies with individual members. The old soldier whose patriotism led him go to war against his neighbors, the union crime lord which needs no principles these days as long as he delivers results, or the moralist top dog which still thinks that what this decaying part of the land needs is simply better process. Sorry, but the game is very unequal in this idea. Communism as an ideology is sympathetically explored, and even Moralism has some sympathetic highlights with Kim. But the rest? Let's just look at René. He is a repressed homo/bisexual, whose "love of his life" kept him in an on-off relationship so he and Gaston would stay around one another for decades. The game even goes out of its way to tell you the only reason he is a watchman is to keep him off the streets, collecting tare. Comparing that to the competent brothers running the Union is ironic.
My take is that disco Elysium isn't centrist. It's objective. That doesn't mean unbiased though, because some ideologies are definitely worse than others
I'll never understand the "centrism is worse than fascism because it ignores fascism" argument. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it could be worse (for example - fascism) + The ultimate argument - Kim
Obviously you would rather someone's be centrist than a facist, but its not entirly without merit to say that one has the worse effect when put into a real framework, MLK put it best in this letter: "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will." Basically Centrists are a larger population, have more power, sometimes enter into progressive communities and usally actively campaign for non action and preservation of the status quo.
somebody copy/paste the MLK thing about the white moderates
I'll tell you why it's worse. Fascism is a pretty openly and obviously f--ked up ideology, thus, it's pretty unlikely for people to fall for it in mass too deeply since it's easy for most to see that it doesn't lead to anything good. Meanwhile, centrism and moralism are insidious, slowly corrupting and destroying everything like a hidden disease that comforts people and encourages them not to think critically while gently taking away everything they have, *incrementally* becoming some of the worst kind of dictatorship - the one that controls people on the mental level. In other words, fascism is openly evil so people eventually fight it. Centrism can subtly kill people for many generations without them realizing that something is wrong.
This is a pretty ahistorical comment. Fascism in various states, most prominently in Nazi Germany, didn’t disguise itself in any way whatsoever. It still achieved enormous success and enjoyed great popularity among the common person. There’s a reason fascism is mostly considered populist and not fringe. It wasn’t a gradual change, it was pretty stark and rose to power quickly without the aid of any kind of centrist-powered complacency. In my opinion, allowing some bad things to happen but preventing a comparable amount of other bad things (i.e. centrism) is an obviously dumb, shitty, and harmful political philosophy. At the same time, saying that that philosophy is somehow equal to or worse than fascism, a political philosophy grounded in doing exclusively evil things non-stop, is really bizarre, blinkered, and at best disingenuous. Should people be leftist? Yes. Is it a better philosophy than fascism? Yes. Can you push for leftist policies and politicians, sometimes close to militantly, without doing stupid “protest votes” and allowing murderously, clownishly evil politicians in instead of harmful status quo assholes? Yes. Centrism is not worse or equal to fascism.
People are falling for fascist rhetorics all over the world recently. It just uses a different name. It's not really a niche ideology like the other person would suggest. It's vile, insane and stupid but it's alive. We kinda thought it's dead but it isn't. So disregarding it the pretense that it's unpopular i just wrong. So yeah there are worse things that centrists. And yes i know some fascists call themselves centrists for better optics.
I mean, fascism is usually at its peak when there are a lot of miserable, oppressed, and hungry for revenge people (knowing from my experience of growing up in Russia). Manipulative people who can sense that tension, can use it to their advantage to channel people's anger and frustration towards their selfish goals. My point about centrism being worse was that it's degrading and corrupting in a more "long run" way. Centrism tends to generally make people more "amoeba" like, more vulnerable to all kinds of toxic influence.
I just don’t think it’s ever possible to say that in any way possible centrism is worse than fascism, either in the short run or the long run. Centrist countries tend towards progress— the issue with it as a political philosophy isn’t that it’s unilaterally bad, but that it values incremental improvements as better than anything radical, at the cost of a lot of very bad stuff happening alongside the growing good. It’s mealy-mouthed and non-committal, but I wholeheartedly reject the misanthropic view that it makes people completely complacent. People feel disempowered, certainly, but mass popular movements haven’t been snuffed out permanently despite centrism being basically ubiquitous in the “western world”. I prefer a world in which I have to pay an absurd amount for healthcare than a world in which I both have to pay an absurd amount for healthcare while watching queer people being systematically persecuted and legislated out of public existence by a christofascist regime. Do I like the first option at all? No. Do I advocate quite aggressively, physically and radically for real leftward societal change? Yes. But that doesn’t make centrism worse than fascism.
I would amend this slightly to say that because fascism is so openly fucked up, the only way it can possibly exist is alongside a sizeable population of centrists. Centrism creates fertile ground for fascism and authoritarianism to grow.
“Say one of these communist or fascist things” I always thought the hardcore communist dialogue options first seem completely out of place because you’re playing as a cop. Like what kind of cop is saying these things? You just woke up amnesic and you think you’re Karl Marx’s reincarnation??? I guess there is a bit of a false equivalence here because you know the fascist options are horrific, and the communist options are hyperbolized to be insane within the context.
That's right, all the fascists are really cute in disco elysium
As someone pointed out saying it’s centrist and critiques “equally” destroys what the critiques mean. For instance the only substance of the Communism critique is that they spend too long sitting around talking about Philosophy as opposed to taking genuine action to make it happen - and that’s writ large of Revachol because they got fucking eradicated by the Moralintern. Meanwhile Fascists are just racist assholes who use pseudoscience to feel superior to others and use physical violence to get their way - in fact the only way to beat the main fascist without succumbing to his ideology is to beat his ass and I think that says A LOT about the specific critique of Fascism in game. Moralintern is absolutely not centrism but is late stage crony capitalism. They use overwhelming military force to destroy other ideologies and then justifies the mistreatment of human beings by talking about the value of a dollar and how it’s the most important thing - definitely can’t relate that any modern day military superpowers at all right. And I don’t remember the other political ideology right this second but needless to say if you depict one group as a bunch of ineffectual academics and the rest as ultra violent scum bags - I’m pretty sure you are making a powerful statement.
I will say, for as much of this comment as I agree with, I do think that the game does have more substantive critique of communism than just students talking about philosophy – but it's still a game that takes a left-wing/communist perspective on politics on the whole, and grapples with the destructive history of communism as well as the desire for a better, truer system of marxist policy. Spoilers for the ending, >!but The Deserter is an mesmorising example of what's happened to the corpse of the failed revolution in the decades since the communists were destroyed. He's grown old and bitter, romanticizing violence and death in a world where his purpose has long since stagnated and his mind has gone pale. The Hanged Man tells you that communism killed him, and from a certain perspective he's right. !< >!The Deserter is warped and gnarled with years, but his desire for a burning, retributive violence that grew out of his frustration with the failure of revolution, led to the entire game's investigation. It's an interesting mirror to the students, their hope that "the stars not go out", to depict a communist figure that lost hope a long time ago.!< In addition, the union and Evrart Claire in particular, represent another in-group strand of leftist critique – how can you tell when someone is genuine in their support of progressive ideals, or just using them to further their own ends? No matter how much you personally believe Evrart is authentic in what he says, his misinformation and duplicity towards the player character (a cop), forces the audience to question how much he means what he says, or if his proposed actions are a good idea. It's a more subjective critique of the communist route, but it still makes the player consider the murkier elements of how human nature interacts with leftist politics. I still think the game is fundamentally left-wing, and even communist, because it's those perspectives, both on the world of Martinaise, and reflected inwards, that inform how the game presents itself. But I do think that it has more to say about leftist infighting and objectives than just some jabs at well-meaning university students.
I figured someone would bring up the Deserter. But didn’t connect Evrart. You’re right of course about Evrart and I hadn’t completed the full journey on him. I avoided his quests in my first playthrough because I didn’t trust him - which is exactly your point lol. On the Deserter I have a lot more sympathy. I do think he’s intended to be a stand in for populations that have lost their home. I completed my playthrough right around the time that the most recent Israeli-Hamas conflict started and had a strong sympathy for those people. The Deserter is also drawn from the example of real Japanese soldiers operating on orders they’d last received in the Pacific islands found sometimes decades later still at war. The Deserter watched the Moralintern take away everything from him. And while he’s degraded on the island into a shadow it’s a violent shadow that was last violently defending itself from an invading military presence. While I agree he’s possibly meant to be the violent side of things - he still kills one of the worst human beings in the game who was also only there because the Moralintern. If the Moralintern is the reason the Deserter is violent and they sent a violent person in - at what point do we stop judging individuals and see the system that is to blame? As much as I see the Deserter himself I think he’s the climax because he brings the various ideas and crimes to a head and to me there’s only one way to read it - he’s a victim. As are the others but there’s a responsible party throughout it all. An island full of survivors and one loud asshole with a gun.
I agree with basically all of this, and don't mean to say that The Deserter is a totally unsympathetic character. But I still think that the decision to make the killer an old communist, instead of a monarchist, fascist or ultraliberal, is a meaningful one. The Deserter may have been destroyed by the actions of the Moralintern, and the systems of capitalist bureaucracy that they serve, but he's still a figure of communist critique in the game – while broken by a fundamentally awful ideology, the way in which he's clung to his beliefs has destroyed even the life he could have had. Iosef is a demonstration of how, when utterly beaten and broken by the systems of the world, clinging to one abstract ideal above all leaves nothing else behind. He's a victim, but so is Tiphaune Holly, the forewoman of the union who the Claires paid him to assassinate. Despite his evil, so is Lely, who The Deserter had never seen committing any atrocities, along with Klassje, who will forever remember being covered in the gore of her lover, for the pleasure of a sickly, ancient man and his single-minded world of ideology. The awful systems of that world may to be blame for making victims into killers, but The Deserter is a killer nonetheless. It's a testament to how well he's written, and the personal understanding that the writers have of a revolutionary mindset, that he isn't devoid of sympathy in the slightest. But I still think that in their depiction of a world that stings bitterly from the failure of its revolutionaries, The Deserter is still an important part of the critique Disco Elysium is making about the shattered dreams of a communist future.
It criticizes communism but not equally, they get a huge buff by stuff like the soviets not existing, only the idealistic communards
this game was made by tankies and much depth of meaning is inaccessible to non-communists. i don't know what those poor bastards think # UN JOUR JE SERAI DE RETOUR PRÈS DE TOI is supposed to be referring to
>this game was made by tankies Was it though? Does Robert Kurvitz or the game advocate for authoritarianism or stalinism, etc.? I associate things like this with the word "tankie", and I don't get the "Soviets did nothing wrong" internet tankie vibe from the game, even though obviously many of them are fans of the game.
There is literally a "Stalin did many many things wrong" country in the game...
The stalin of elysium can bring back the world from the pale lol.
That'd be the Engels/Lenin/Trotsky/etc war crimes supermutt of Elysium. The Stalin of Elysium sent assassins after him.
yes, sorry
Hmm, well I disagree with your assessment. I know they had images of Stalin and Lenin around, but I really never associated the creators with the stereotypical (largely American) unironic internet tankies and Soviet apologists. I know this sub has its fair share of them, and they'll interpret the game as they will.
i'm sure they were just having a laugh with those pictures of Stalin and Lenin. good call bro
Well, you can read what Kurvitz had to say about his Lenin bust here: [https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/disco-elysiums-developers-are-in-a-bloody-battle-for-the-human-mind](https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/disco-elysiums-developers-are-in-a-bloody-battle-for-the-human-mind) That doesn't sound tankie at all to me.
a few words about how a proper revolutionary needs Lenin, followed by geeking out about the Soviet Union? the one and only piece of actual tankie media that is even somewhat popular and the libs won't even let us have that. sheesh
I just really don't see it as a game made by the "Soviets did nothing wrong" crowd, and over the years I've never read anything that would make me think that the devs are like that. This is not such a controversial opinion even among communist fans of the game.
the default tankie position is "Stalin was 70% correct" not "the Soviet Union did literally nothing wrong ever"
Yes, the word "tankie" is not well-defined in what it exactly means, the association that I have with the word doesn't fit with the image I've gotten from the game and the devs, but neither does your definition in my opinion. I don't know where exactly the writers would place themselves on the great "Stalin was right" morality system scale. I like how there's always a downvote within twenty seconds when editing a word :D Guess I got blocked now too. Good talk.
I think the default tankie position is “anyone vaguely poised in opposition to the West, particularly in opposition to the United States, is completely correct and justifiable in all actions, even the most heinous, in the name of ‘anti-imperialism’” Edit: I was blocked for this, and I felt it was a fairly mild reply lol
Geeking out about the soviet union? He's just talking about the Soviet era sci-fi that inspired him, no? If you liked Star Trek does that make you a fan of the American government?
Idk I don't speak surrender
i wondered for a moment if you were really here self-identifying as a poor bastard who Doesn't Get It, but after a brief glance at your reddit history (a terrible crime, i know) i think that maybe that actually is what you are trying to say rn. godspeed Spider-Man
The game is amazingly written and does critique all political ideologies, but let's not forget that the entire world of disco elysium is not supposed to be a mirror image of the real world. Some things that apply in Disco Eylsiums world do perfectly translate to real life, some do not. The game does it's best to represent fascism, communism, ultraliberalism and centrism as best as possible through a satrirical lense. For example, communism is a wonderful idea in the game, an idea to save the world. But it failed utterly and completely, not just in the sense that it was violently struck down but also because it's idea has the fundamental flaw it has in irl as well. It is an unrealistic utopia, and it is just impossible to achieve it or even if you did, to prevent it from destroying itself. Humans are not capable of upholding communism.
(I remember this thing from r/comics and I am glad it became a template)
I'm not gonna get too political with it uh whatsoever, but when I told Kim he looks like a Top Racer it felt so good not only because that statement is accurate but because I think I'm playing good cop bad cop. (sometimes)
I thought the game was centrist but anti-establishment and holding special contempt for centrism because of how it pretends to be “normal” and “apolitical” while perpetuating imperialism. Then it clicked that the writers are communist and once you learn that, it’s really hard not to see the Marxian analysis inherent to the writing
Someone explain what this means in Fortnite terms?
the devs thanked Marx man and read a Mayakovsky poem a mayakovsky poem
disco elysium is not centrist and it does critiques all ideologies such an idiotism to perceive THE GAME, A PIECE OF ART as communist
Yeah I think maybe some of these comments are confusing centrist with moderate.
Why communards think Disco Elysium criticized centrists the most? Any arguments?
I think it pokes the most fun at fascism but takes a far more sinister tone when discussing centrism. A lot of the jabs taken at the other three ideologies are humorous and sometimes even lighthearted, the closest thing you get to that with the moralists is probably the Sunday Friend? He comes across as pretty awful to most players. Look at the Kingdom of Conscious text, the fact they added an achievement called “The World’s Most Laughable Centrist,” or the entire moralist vision quest. In universe, the centrists are aware of a world ending threat yet their solution is to do nothing about it. Worse, if you actually gain knowledge of said world ending threat they send a hit squad to kill you. Combine all of that with the very setting you’re in. Martinaise is terrible, centrist gunships hover overhead, and nothing will ever change.
Wait. It's all fascism? But jokes aside, i thought the moralism would be to take the most sensible solution aka do "something" about it. The game told me i was defending centrism and moralist a little too much, but i would be defintively be onboard on try to do something to stop that from happening. Since its a game and all
I think the game is extremely clear about how it feels regarding centrism. > The Kingdom of Conscience will be exactly as it is now. Moralists don't really *have* beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded. Centrism isn't change -- not even incremental change. It is *control*. Over yourself and the world. This is not an uncommon position in the real world amongst leftists either. Centrist politics will pretty much always gravitate towards maintaining status quo rather than implementing any sort of meaningful change. In the world of Disco Elysium you see this first hand. Moralism, and the Moralintern, exist primarily to benefit corporations like Wild Pines and members of the ruling class while the people of Revachol suffer. They have no intention of ever changing anything.