[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / booru ]

/games/ - Games

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new on Mondays : /meta/
New /roulette/ topic: /AK-47/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war. - New board: /draw/


File: 1636510515012-0.jpg (102.59 KB, 616x353, acc russia.jpg)

File: 1636510515012-1.jpg (218.37 KB, 1920x1080, acc russia 2.jpg)

 No.13622

All three Assassin's Creed Chronicles games are free on Ubisoft U-Play today, including one set during the October Revolution. It looks like you're tasked with assassinating various Bolsheviks on behalf of the Tsar. Looks memeworthy so here's a discussion thread for the game

 No.13626


EVEN IN THIS GAME TROTSKY IS A BACKSTABBER

LMAO

 No.13629

its red bait trash
hurr durr bolsheviks so evil for killing Tsar family
oh an Assassin saved one of the daughters now they have to get out of spoooookyyy soviet russia!
something about killing lenin idk whatever
don't play this trash

 No.13630

>>13629
trash you dont know
what trash is

this is trash

https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Joseph_Stalin




Influenced by Templars
After Vladimir Lenin's death, and under the regime of Stalin, the state's approach to communism became corrupted. While Stalin was not a member of the Templar Order, the Templars infiltrated the Politburo, secretly influencing Stalin's regime. The Stalinist government allowed the Templar Yuri Petrovich Figatner to head a special government commission to investigate the Russian Academy of Sciences and persecute "counter-revolutionaries".[1] Many Assassins and scientists loyal to the Assassin cause were killed or forced into hiding during Stalin's regime.[2]

World War II and death
Under their influence, Stalin took a leading role in World War II alongside Adolf Hitler, bringing on the turmoil and fear necessary for Abstergo Industries to take control over the working population.[3] On 2 February 1945, Stalin met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt in Yalta for a conference as a followup to their previous meeting in Tehran. There, they worked to discuss a plan to organize and divide Europe after World War II, one of which was a division of Germany into distinct military zones forming areas of occupation by the three states and France.[4]

In 1953,[2] the Assassins managed to kill Stalin[5] with the use of poison, making it look like he died of a stroke.[2]

 No.13638

>>13630
>Lenin good but Stalin screwed up everything!
Why do radlibs always fall back to this cope?

 No.13642

>>13638
He's right you know (though the anti democratic rot started under Lenin)

 No.13646

>>13642
Voting in the USSR became less indirect under Stalin and the state ended up resembling a (one party) liberal democracy around the time of Khrushchev.
Stalinism was a disaster for other reasons but he didn't "screw up" much of anything.

 No.13647

File: 1636647883083.jpg (117.43 KB, 1280x720, Today I will remind them.jpg)

>Killing people and destroying property solves nothing. Democracy is the only road to socialism.

 No.13648

>>13638
Because Stalin was the leader of the USSR for 40 years and the symbol for communism in that time, lenin only Leadered for what ?, 5 years, so he did not need to make the hard choices that affected Stalin's time.

 No.13649

>>13647
>Democracy is the only road to socialism.
lul was that really in there

 No.13705

>>13649
Yes it was, and "democracy" is clearly code for constitutional loyalist reformism. There are some other anachronisms as well such as the use of "comrade" as a title, which only took off in the 1890s (I believe) in Germany and Russia and the 1920s in English-speaking parties.

"Democracy is the only road to socialism", while not an actual quote, is indeed in the spirit of Marx's politics however. "Democracy" in this case is not code for constitutional loyalism and parliamentary horse trading, as it usually implies, but genuine political rule by the majority, a radically democratic republic as described in The Civil War in France and Lenin's State and Revolution. Because the working class makes up the vast majority of society, a truly democratic state would inexorably begin the transition towards socialism. To quote Engels in his Critique of the Erfurt Program:

>The working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution [in context the Paris Commune] has already shown."


Because of this fact, the ruling class will never accede to true majority rule willingly, which makes revolutionary action or the potential for it a necessity. However, this insurrection must be launched with a popular mandate of a political majority of society (not the same as a parliamentary majority due to ruling class control of the electoral system and media, although representation in parliament will be substantial). When the insurrection comes, it will be popular enough that most people will likely come up with excuses to claim it as a legal act.

This strategy to fight for what Marx termed "extreme democracy" in the state contrasted strongly with his anarchist opponents in the First International. People forget that the nineteenth century was the golden age of communist insurrections - small conspiratorial groups like those led by Louis Blanqui regularly raided houses of government, police stations, etc. multiple times a year, hoping that this minority "propaganda of the deed" would inspire millions into the street to abolish capitalism on the spot. Mikhail Bakunin himself was personally involved in many of these small scale insurrections, and this was the reason why Marx had him kicked out of the First International. When Bakunin and his supporters conspired to launch insurrectionary action, they weren't just alienating the working class at large - they were compromising the democratic structure of the party as a whole, by refusing to state their political aims in public and refusing to abide by the decisions of the majority.

Karl Marx's political strategy only gained mass support after it was adopted by the German SPD in the mid 1880s. The Russian RSDLP copied this strategy, and in 1917 led the first successful communist revolution in history - backed by a formal majority of representatives in the Petrograd Soviet. Ultimately however, this popular support was not to last - the vast majority of the population was in the peasantry, not the proletariat, and state functions could only be fulfilled by a privileged stratum of professionals. Lenin sought to solve this problem by spreading the revolution westward. Communist parties in the west would restrict internal democracy and function as an "iron military order" so as to direct massive insurrections in the decade to come. This strategy, while defensible at the time, ultimately failed, and the "Leninist" party model (actually invented after 1917) has led to endless splits, a "revolving door" of students disillusioned with the movement, and ultimately the political irrelevance of the communist left for more than half a century. Karl Marx's revolutionary strategy succeeded in uniting the left, from an assortment of different insurrectionist sects at the beginning of the 19th century to unified, disciplined communist parties at the end of it. Now that we're in the 21st century, it's time to repeat that process again.

That's my effortpost, back to shitty games

 No.13936

>>13630
Fuckin kek the absolute state of these liberals. So Roosevelt, considered by liberals to be a great president is nothing but an evil imperialist. I mean he was imperialist but the way they play this off only undermines their own goals. Roosevelt is the perfect "well intentioned" liberal.

 No.13937

>>13705
>the ruling class will never accede to true majority rule willingly
This is at the heart of the critique of liberal democracy. The rule of the majority is exactly what liberals fear. The liberal critique of rule of the majority is simply it's "tyranny of the many". Except this liberal critique ends up by consequence of the nature of liberal democracy to end up being the rule of an oligarchy or a plutocracy. So liberals in the long run end up endorsing not totalitarianism but a tyranny of a wealthy group of individuals dictating what that democracy can and cannot do.

 No.13941

What is that asscred game where they made Marx a retarded sucdem?

 No.13942

File: 1637903060662-0.png (691 KB, 1102x539, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1637903060662-1.png (2.7 MB, 1920x1080, ClipboardImage.png)

>>13941
Syndicate, apparently?
Have these lol I swear I had the first pic saved on my PC a long time ago but I had to go copy it from Reddit after a long hour of searching in my folders and now I'm mad


Unique IPs: 11

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / booru ]