exactly

it is the ironic subversion

hmm :/

was able to get this in the web client

mb additionally putting it in the post body would be a good idea for future posts?

smth smth about the unity of the cockroach and the chicken happening in the belly of the chicken smth smth

I- what does this even mean? TwT

There is a distinct difference between progressive and reactionary violence

The rule of “law and order” takes constant systemic violence to upkeep, to protect the ruling class, their private (not personal!) property and interests.

This violence of the ruling classes is normalised, even legalized/codified in law. Standing up against it, however, and enacting systemic change is branded by their lackeys as “terrorism” or “violent chaos”.

Class struggle is a constant fight of one class to oppress another. Currently in most of the world, the exploitative classes oppress the exploited ones. For society to progress, the exploited must suppress the exploiters.
(Or for the expropriators to be expropriated as Marx put it. But that’s just the same in fancy)

After all

One person’s terrorist is another one’s partisan

Mao put it quite well, which is why all following quotes are from him
(btw ysjk: quoting someone on a specific issues doesn’t mean supporting their views in general/every other aspect)

“War is the continuation of politics.” In this sense, war is politics and war itself is a political action; since ancient times there has never been a war that did not have a political character… However, war has its own particular characteristics and in this sense, it cannot be equated with politics in general. “War is the continuation of politics by other . . . means.” When politics develops to a certain stage beyond which it cannot proceed by the usual means, war breaks out to sweep the obstacles from the way… When the obstacle is removed and our political aim attained the war will stop. Nevertheless, if the obstacle is not completely swept away, the war will have to continue until the aim is fully accomplished… It can therefore be said that politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed. - “On Protracted War” (May 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 152-53 *

Revolutions and revolutionary wars are inevitable in class society, and without them it is impossible to accomplish any leap in social development and to overthrow the reactionary ruling classes and therefore impossible for the people to win political power. - “On Contradiction” (August1937), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 344.*

War is the highest form of struggle for resolving contradictions, when they have developed to a certain stage, between classes, nations, states, or political groups, and it has existed ever since the emergence of private property and of classes. - “Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War” (December 1936), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 180.

This is why only after the abolition of classes, private property and states (ie. communism), will the contradictions, which are the root cause of virtually all large scale violence, be resolved.

Which in turn is why:

We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun. - “Problems of War and Strategy” (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 225.

relevant quote

The revolutionary struggle is the very antithesis of the parliamentary struggle. In Germany, for four decades we had nothing but parliamentary “victories.” We practically walked from victory to victory. And when faced with the great historical test of August 4, 1914, the result was the devastating political and moral defeat, an outrageous debacle and rot without parallel. To date, revolutions have given us nothing but defeats. Yet these unavoidable defeats pile up guarantee upon guarantee of the future final victory.

from “Order Prevails in Berlin” by Rosa Luxembourg

uuu you are in for an adventure with so much replayability

and as some other comment said: even “failed” checks lead to interesting outcomes

this kinda made my morning. Thx ^w^

deleted by creator

just FYI: you can finish the game without ever as much as looking at the body, there even is an achievement for it!

The imaginary numbers demand sacrifice

def Disco Elysium

heed this warning though: after Disco, there is no going back; most storytelling might seem subpar or just of low quality afterwards

it’s also soul crushing, existentialist and doesn’t shy away from critiquing/ridiculing society and what it believes in (from a Marxist pov, though Communism itself isn’t spaired either in the game, with a harsh critique only communists could write), but it’s also one of the most hopeful games I’ve ever played at the same time

I would rly recommend a blind play through without cheating through quick saves! (aka. save scumming) A lot of decisions in the game succeed based on the probability of your stats accomplishing it. I made the mistake in my first play through and just forced everything I wanted by reloading over and over again -_-

If you call 6 pages a novel, that’s on you…

not even full pamphlet lenght

1. ah ok, I did not know that. I thought that only did that with leftcoms. Some right wing communist call everything left of them “ultra” or “trot” lol
2. ye ik, I just mostly associate it with trots for whatever reason

I don’t think I follow >w<

Entryism is also well known Trotskyist strategy

XD

That’s why the questions are there. Also, I think that classic entryists (ie. Trots) would actually have sane answers but all right-wing “communists” might get preeetty seethy

Ah yes, luckily ethics is what the law says :)) /s

the effect is not the same either, you can just get a pump and refill the tires instead of needing to change them

the feminine urge to knife those tires