Bernie had a lot of support back in 2020, but he got ratfucked by the entire field moving to ensure that Joe had a clear path to beat him.

I thought the FF7 remake handled that pretty well

Someone should try making a classic JRPG but with the game mechanics replaced with something that's actually good

Have you played Omori? It's not rocket science, but I thought the emotion system was fun to play with.

It seems like the logical conclusion is to have no one-of-a-kind items be steal-based, just money and replaceable items, and bosses (short of the final boss) can give you early access to what will later be a normal resource or something like that.

How can you look at what cocaine does to people and come to the conclusion "the only problem with supplying them with cocaine is exploitation in the supply chain"? Granted, cocaine isn't black tar heroin or something, but it still fucks people up. There's a substantial difference between not punishing drug users (because you obviously shouldn't) and fucking "narco communism" trafficking drugs to them. Like half the people in this reply chain are just ridiculous.

You know, I never thought about it, but my username seems like a direct translation of a minor enemy's name in a little video game manual

They do say that, but I'm not understanding your meaning in mentioning it. Could you say a little more?

To be honest with you, I am not very interested in this, but I'll point out as what I think is a meaningful and bizarre ideological failure because it's easy to:

After going on, in an essay directed against Leninists, about the importance of dual power, with no recognition of the irony therein, this paragraph pops up:

Some Leninists might still advocate authority as a method by which one more “advanced” elements of the working class bring other elements of the working class into line in the fight against capitalism. But this can only ever re-create a class dynamic within the workers’ organisation and sabotage our own goals. If, at a given moment, the working class as a whole is not sufficiently class-conscious to defeat capitalism without resorting to authority, true social revolution is not possible at that moment. As Marx said “The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.” to which I would add that “the workers themselves” can not be taken to mean some tiny sub-faction of the working class that is destined to become a new exploiting class.

This person either catastrophically misunderstands Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, or they are willfully misrepresenting it so they have an excuse to do "The People's Stick" Bakunin bullshit like their type just love to do.

The philosophy that Engels is arguing for is one of democracy overcoming capitalism, and the authority of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the dictatorship of the many over the few. This few inevitably includes some proletarians for various reasons, though it is more discussed as being bourgeois because they are overwhelmingly within this collection of minorities. No one has an interest in this red aristocracy that the author strains to depict.

The author furthermore bares the poverty of their philosophy in this insinuation that the entire working class must be in unanimous agreement, that of a population of millions or even hundreds of millions, every single one must individually have all policies be completely in line with how they spontaneously prefer to act. That is the only way we can interpret these claims about "the working class as a whole". No, we should not hold back 9/10ths of a hypothetical class-conscious working population because the remaining 1/10th isn't on the same page.

I really think though that the average person can see problems like these just by having a passing familiarity with Marxism, specifically reading On Authority, and then reading this essay. I say that on good authority because I might be average on a good day.

Tell them to substantiate the claim instead of just going "um, that's been declared incorrect"

Granted, I think people copy-paste On Authority too much (though I basically agree with it), and it comes off kind of bad in that respect because, when a bunch of people always jump to telling you to read a text and it's always the same text, it comes off as (and often is) book worship. Think of how liberals came off during the election cycle with every single fucking one of them saying "it's a trolley problem". Again, I don't think On Authority is wrong, I just think it's a faulty tactic rhetorically. In that respect, I guess "rote" is right. The people telling you it's "debunked" can still get fucked.

This brave truth-speaker act is pathetic. By your second comment, the mods were right to regard you sitting there repeating yourself as spam, and a disgusting practice in sneering at poverty. It's also not literally true, there absolutely is electrification in Cuba, just not everywhere. So it's not a "simple fact," it's a false generalization.

You were just spamming chauvinistic and incorrect bullshit, that's why your comment was removed.

For some reason I can't connect to any .kp websites at the moment, but I am wondering where they consider the current frontier in state ideology to be. That is to say, what new ideological work are they concerned with? Not just the preservation of standing ideology among the people, which I understand is a necessity.

I've read some of their publications -- and here I am most thinking of the humorously titled "No One Can Replace Women" (available online at kass.org.kp if I remember right) -- and I can't help but notice reactionary trends. For example, in the aforementioned article, women are given such a status because of their ability to produce and rear children. I'll grant the first part, but the publication says things like, paraphrasing, "a mother must devote the entirety of her existence to raising her child" with no mention of others being involved, even the father. Are we really going to endorse such an isolating family structure? Are we not going to exercise collective life by involving others, even beyond the father, in the task of child-rearing? Can't a mother have other aspirations for her own accomplishments besides reproduction? Or does it believe a mother has no other life for however many years?

This isn't a one-off, I just don't have access to the website to refresh my memory or read more articles.

Edit: the collection of articles might also be on naenara.com.kp, idk

kulaks became a targeted class

Turns out communists target classes. Weren't they extremely explicit about this? And the pearl-clutching libs then say that "every domestic enemy of the state was called a kulak"

Or do you mean, like, they were all explicitly targeted with death as the only allowable outcome rather than the dissolution of there class? (a number of them were killed either way, of course)