:marx-hi:

    • Changeling [it/its]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      This is actually a common question raised in political science: why do countries go to war with each other when it will weaken both of them to do so?

      I’ve always thought it was obvious that rulers are using stolen wealth to send the peasants’ children to war rather than their own, but maybe that’s more of a truism than a legit theoretical construct lol

      • iridaniotter [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        :wojak-nooo: Nooo you can’t just go to war if it’ll be disadvantageous to both parties!!

        :porky-happy: Haha resolving the crises of overproduction go brrrr

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        To make it more theoretical you could describe it in terms of exactly who bears the costs and who reaps the rewards.

        Basically “if there was a button that would give you a billion dollars but kill a million poor people, how many world leaders would push it?”

    • PROMIS_ring [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      I have been scrolling the vic 3 sub all day lol

      this isn’t a political statement but this game has overrepresented marxism and extreme left views and ideas within the society it simulates. there was not a single communist country established for around 4/5ths of the game’s time frame, and yet you can do it and become a communist state with minimal opposition in quite a few countries thanks in part to random dice rolls.

      i fear that the V3 may have a small case of alt-history-itis. they probably got it from hoi4

      marxist alt history, in my Industrial revolution grand stategy game?? :confusion:

      • Leon_Grotsky [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        This guy is very wrong, but in another thread I saw someone bring up how over-represented middle-class supporters of industrialists and Intelligentsia are, and they correctly point out that there isn’t enough pop support for the clergy/devout and petite bourgeoisie which contributes to some other complaints I’ve seen here on hexbear about there not really being much militant opposition to revolution.

  • happybadger [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I kind of want to do what Well There’s Your Problem started out as, Roz playing Cities: Skylines and talking about urbanism concepts. Victoria 3 is a good example of Marxist ideas like overproduction, modes of alienation, labour theory of value, the separation of town and country, and imperialism/colonialism being driven by the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. The only thing the game is missing is an environmental component to balance the pollution of industry. There’s a real niche there to just talk about Marxism while using the game as cheap ambient footage.

    • Coolkidbozzy [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      A pollution mechanic to increase mortality from smog and drive disease into urban centers along trade routes would be really cool

      I think the game technically has disease and famine mechanics, but they don’t seem very important at the moment

      • happybadger [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Mortality is also a non-issue at the moment. Lead mines and whalers are the only industries which specifically increase it. Population growth always outweighs it to the point that a healthcare system is my lowest priority.