|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:it was Chris King, he left after Vicky II came out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_King_(game_designer) He returned to Paradox on 2017, he did several stream comments for the developer EUIV sessions, but last week I saw him as programmer working as lead on Empire of Sin, who probably needed a senior game programmer to get that game going. He was rewriting the whole AI and tactical combat layer, was my impression.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Wasn't the guy who designed the V2 economy a frothing libertarian? I don’t think any of the developers talk about Marx either. I don’t know where that idea came from other than their Swedish
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I don’t think any of the developers talk about Marx either. pretty sure there was a lot of marxist talk for one of the stellaris updates
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I don’t think any of the developers talk about Marx either. Chris King specifically mentions it in his GDC talk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYzxcf_ZL_g
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I don’t think any of the developers talk about Marx either. good av+post combo
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
Oh guess they did. That’s a random screen cap for Marx
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
finally someone who gets materialism
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
Davincie posted:finally someone who gets materialism ive yet to find anyone who can explain the dialectical part in plain english
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:ive yet to find anyone who can explain the dialectical part in plain english Two opposing forces becoming a third thing that inherits the strengths of both and sheds their weaknesses. So the normal formula is "thesis>antithesis>synthesis". You could also imagine it as "problem>reaction>solution".
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:ive yet to find anyone who can explain the dialectical part in plain english it means to examine things in total as they exist in the real world, not the Hegel dialectic about thesis antithesis synthesis
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:ive yet to find anyone who can explain the dialectical part in plain english Here's the plain English: it's doodoo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
The finest political mind at work
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:The finest political mind at work post/avatar combo
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:post/avatar combo
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 01:55
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:post/avatar combo I don’t get it
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:ive yet to find anyone who can explain the dialectical part in plain english All human social systems are based around the production and distribution of surplus value. These systems face constant contention from those producing and those who control the distribution. This contention causes development, think about the power of the labour movement leading to the invention of the welfare state to keep first world workers' demands in check (built on imperialism in the third world). But one of the most important facets of dialectical thinking is the understanding that due to this method of development, new societies necessarily contain elements of the old society. One can't click their fingers and change society because our entire understanding of the world is shaped by the previous world. Hopefully that makes some sense and is actually useful in any way. You probably need to understand the way the base and superstructure interact dialecticly to reinforce each other to really appreciate it. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I don’t get it Impressive commitment to the gimmick
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 04:11
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:
Plain English, folks. I always understood it as the Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis thing mentioned above. Didn’t Marx describe himself as having found Hegel standing on his head and turned him right side up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 04:30
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Plain English, folks. in that Hegel believed ideas drove human beings and marx thought it was human beings that developed ideas
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 04:49
|
|
|
For the best short intro to Marxism I've come across, try "The Three Pillars of Marxism" from the Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast. Skip 3 minutes in to start. That won't familiarize you with all the technical vocabulary but gets the basics better than most people do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 04:59
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:All human social systems are based around the production and distribution of surplus value. These systems face constant contention from those producing and those who control the distribution. This contention causes development, think about the power of the labour movement leading to the invention of the welfare state to keep first world workers' demands in check (built on imperialism in the third world). But one of the most important facets of dialectical thinking is the understanding that due to this method of development, new societies necessarily contain elements of the old society. One can't click their fingers and change society because our entire understanding of the world is shaped by the previous world. Solid gimmick
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/b1g_damage/status/1300210161773092866
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 05:26
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Plain English, folks. Well yeah, I hope I gave a little bit of an insight into it, but you're not going to get a full understanding of something straight away from a single post. The thesis/antithesis/synthesis triad is too mechanistic when applied to material reality directly, it's correct to a point. This is where you get into the weeds of it with Darwin providing the evidence of evolution's process of dialectical development and why the shape of an organism's lifecycle is not a circle, but a spiral over the long-term. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 06:34
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Well yeah, I hope I gave a little bit of an insight into it, but you're not going to get a full understanding of something straight away from a single post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 06:54
|
|
|
Zane posted:if you're laying out the fundamental principles of world history i'd like a material-dialectical explanation for the electoral failure of democratic socialism and the electoral success of populist-xenophobic ethno-nationalism one gets funded by billionaires and the other doesnt
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 07:03
|
|
|
Zane posted:if you're laying out the fundamental principles of world history i'd like a material-dialectical explanation for the electoral failure of democratic socialism and the electoral success of populist-xenophobic ethno-nationalism humans are jerks
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 07:40
|
|
|
Communism would work so well if we could just solve the human problem
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 07:42
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Communism would work so well if we could just solve the human problem
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 07:47
|
|
|
It's so hosed up the cia sponsored stalin
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 07:49
|
|
|
Not the CIA but the US did sponsor royalist and fascist factions in the civil war which directly allowed someone like Stalin to take center stage. If you kill off everyone from a country who isn't super paranoid you're going to only have Stalins left. Same way Mugabe took power when the colonizers killed off every more reasonable option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 07:54
|
|
|
I think you should look up directly in the dictionary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 07:57
|
|
|
Zane posted:if you're laying out the fundamental principles of world history i'd like a material-dialectical explanation for the electoral failure of democratic socialism and the electoral success of populist-xenophobic ethno-nationalism Thats easy. The capitalist superstructure in the first world is more highly advanced than the third and first world workers, even without welfare states, benefit indirectly from imperialist superprofits. There's far more at stake wrt revolutionary potential in the third world than the first. It was likely felt that potentially squeezing the third world harder to assuage what little revolutionary potential exists in the first would be a losing proposition. Simply reinforcing the barriers between the first and third worlds is a safer option. You can also see this nervousness in them trying to get their ducks in line through their series of coups in Latin America the last few years and their increasingly direct confrontation with China. They do not want the third world to start gravitating towards the Chinese bloc. That's far more frightening to them and their profits than putting down an insurrection on their soil. There's also internally competing factions of the bourgeoisie just as there are in the proletariat. They're not always going to make the right call that will always be in their class interests. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 08:03
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:"human" is a weird way to spell "CIA sponsored terrorists". To my knowledge, the CIA was populated by humans. “Our better political system can’t withstand the pressure from a few varyingly competent spies” is not exactly a ringing endorsement for that political system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 09:18
|
|
|
I mean no political system can survive any of the world's super power deciding it has to be extinguished. The autocratic nations of Europe destroying every attempted democratic or republican government in1848 says nothing about the efficacy of Liberalism. Other than the fact that it doesn't bestow super powers on nations that adopt it. Hell the US had a pretty hard time keeping Afghanistan functional in the face of CIA sponsored terrorists. Terrible Opinions fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 09:28
|
|
|
why would a complicated philosophical theory be explainable in plain english. of course it's gonna use technical language.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 09:38
|
|
|
Like einstein said. If you can't explain something in plain English than you're a dumb oval office
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 09:42
|
|
|
Dialectics are like yin and yang, or the two halves of the Force. Synthesis is like Grey Jedi.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 09:45
|
|
|
fuf posted:why would a complicated philosophical theory be explainable in plain english. of course it's gonna use technical language. The problem is that one the one hand you have an enormous amount of technical language, whereas on the other hand the critics of that philosophical theory manage to frame their objection in the terms of very plain English. Take the explanation of commodity fetishization above. It's great as a piece of describing the internal consistency of that piece of Marxist thought, but collapses instantly the moment someone says "Wait, objects don't have an inherent price value derived from their history, price value is determined between willing buyers and sellers in the moment. If a seller can't find a buyer for their commodity then it is worthless". e: anyway about them video games e2: just in case someone feels the need to pick this point up, I agree that the history of how commodities are made is important and that capitalism allows people to divorce themselves from the fact that their iphone is made in a factory that has suicide nets and delivered from a warehouse where people get sacked if they don't piss in a bottle and that this is wrong. It's just that the route Marxism takes to saying this is important through value relationships is obviously wrong. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 10:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Thats easy. The capitalist superstructure in the first world is more highly advanced than the third and first world workers, even without welfare states, benefit indirectly from imperialist superprofits. There's far more at stake wrt revolutionary potential in the third world than the first. It was likely felt that potentially squeezing the third world harder to assuage what little revolutionary potential exists in the first would be a losing proposition. Simply reinforcing the barriers between the first and third worlds is a safer option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 11:16
|
|