/siberia/ - Off-topic

In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessings. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.

Nothing, do what you want, your backyard garden or indie game studio is not matter of great importance.

>>715241
wouldn't it be private property and therefore bad?

>>715243
asking too many questions
gulag time

>>715243
Yeah, who cares though. Again, food supply is not dependend on your personal garden, do whatever.

It depends on which of the 1000000 kinds of socialism you're talking about, but realistically us evil lefties would take away your god-given natural human right which trumps all other god-given natural human rights of starting your own unilaterally owned business. Because we're evil.

>>715246
at least youre honest.

>>715245
>do whatever
what if the government doesn't let me?

>>715249
Why wouldnt they?

>>715243
In the case of the garden it's only private property if you alone own the land. What you choose to do with it doesn't matter. And no, no individual owns land under socialism.
Btw even most economists advocate for a land-value tax on the basis that private ownership of land makes no legal or ethical sense. Under this framework "owning" land means leasing it from the collective ownership of the state. Again, this is what the actual apostles of capitalism says makes the most sense. Did any of the e-celebs you get your political education from ever teach you about that?

>>715251
>you own land
<well you actually lease it
so you dont own land then.

The number of hours worked will be reduced so everyone will have more free time and so you will have more time to work on your indie.

And if you want to be a gamedev you would work in a AAA, they have the potential to make better videogames than indies, which are usually lacking in some aspect. AAA games have dozens or hundreds of workers behind them, the only reason they are shitty now is because of capitalism.

peep 👀🥀

>>715265
This is literally irony btw

>>715265
Who is the content leech aka, reactor, my guess is destiny, know pedophile sexual predator liked by subhumans aka liberals.

>make a videogame
It'd be the same but you'd be less stressed out because no bills to pay with money, so the game can be purely for art and gaming's sake
>sell
No need, just grow some veggies and share with friends.

>>715311
>No need
what if I want to be a little richer than other people?

It would work like film making duh. You would just be employed by the state and there would be other people also employed by the state to help do certain parts of making the video game. You would be paid by the hour like any other job.

>>715313
That's a weird thing to want

why the hell would a socialist society give a shit about videogames. we care about industry and infrastructure not some dudes making games

>>715337
USSR made tetris, China made Arknights and Nine Sols.

>This may be a silly question, but in a socialist society, what would happen if an ordinary person like me
In Socialism, there is no "me." There is only the People-Party. The Angkar.
>wanted
In Socialism, you do not "want." The Angkar provides.
>to make
In Socialism, you do not "make." The Angkar builds.
>a video game?
In Socialism, the hands that could make video game are utilized to swing hammer or hoe, or hold rifle.
>Would I have to set up a cooperative or something like that?
In Socialism, the cooperatives are primarily in the fields.
>And what if I wanted to be self-employed and sell vegetables from my garden that I use myself, without exploiting anyone?
In Socialism, you do not "sell." The Angkar distributes.

Comrade OP is politely encouraged to ask their nearest revolutionary cadre about the Angkar's collective plan on video games and gaming behavior.

>>715356
The answer above is determined to be profoundly clear-sighted, full of revolutionary vigor of the brightest red and objectively correct in its conclusions.
>utilized to swing hammer or hoe, or hold rifle.
It is both, comrade. In one hand, a hatchet; in other, a rifle.

>>715350
Nine sols is taiwanese tho

>>715314
This makes sense, but what if the idea is mine and I want to make a movie or videogame about this idea, me being the director?

>>715386
Ask the workers assigned for the vidya industry if they can allocate some resources for your project. If you convince them, you will probably search for guys who are willing and are available to work for you. You get the resorces, you work, you give the committee the video game.

Very simplified, but just add on some bureaucracy and more work setting up the project.

Also nobody says you cannot just make it in your free time, indie will still be there

>>715337
its like haz says under communism there will be no video game. holy men with hammmers will burst into your apartment and smash up your gamecube.

>>715386
>what if the idea is mine and I want to make a movie or videogame about this idea, me being the director?
You speak of "my idea." You speak of "I, the director." An "idea" cannot be "yours." In Socialism, there are no directors. The Angkar is the only director. You use the language of the treatlerite. Unless your ideas produce rice, in Socialism "you" and "your ideas" are worth less than a single grain of rice.
>>715387
>Ask the workers assigned for the vidya industry if they can allocate some resources for your project. If you convince them, you will probably search for guys who are willing and are available to work for you. You get the resorces, you work, you give the committee the video game.
You speak of "asking the workers." You speak of "convincing them." You speak of "searching for guys." You speak like a drug dealer or snake oil salesman searching for marks. In Socialism, you do not ask from the workers, but the workers ask from you through the Angkar. You describe Socialism as if it were free capitalist marketplace. This is wrong. The Angkar's Plan dictates all things. In Socialism, your purpose is to obey Angkar's Plan, not to convince Angkar to stray from the Plan.
>Very simplified, but just add on some bureaucracy and more work setting up the project.
There is nothing simple about your capitalism. The truth is far more simple in actuality: If cultural products are required, Angkar will demand them and you will obey
>Also nobody says you cannot just make it in your free time, indie will still be there
You speak of "free time." In Socialism, there is no "free time." In Socialism, all time belongs to Angkar and is expensed most usefully. You speak of "indie." In Socialism, there is no "indie." There is only Angkar. "Indie" is the cell of petty-capitalist operation. "Indie" carries the seed of capitalism and will be crushed.

>>715391
>holy men with hammmers will burst into your apartment and smash up your gamecube.
There is nothing to declare "holy", such a concept is inherently reactionary
>>715406
>Angkar will demand them and you will obey
Dear comrade, it seems like the importance of not alienating the masses from the Party and the collective by harsh and unkind words has been lost on the way there. Please feel free to clarify this moment at today's self-criticism session.

>>715409
In Socialism, there is no self-criticism for speaking the truth. Such self-criticism render any self-criticism a bourgeois, performative ritual. We may reflect, however, for there is re-education for those who reject truth.
>Angkar will demand them and you will obey
These words are clear, not harsh. Only such clarity separates comrade from enemy. There is no contradiction within these words. The path to Socialism is straight and narrow, without room for those who stumble over basic truth: Socialism cannot be built with soft words, but only with obedience to Angkar. Obedience to Angkar is the highest freedom. To serve Angkar is the highest purpose. To fear alienating the most backward section of those whose brains are rotted with capitalism is to fear Socialism itself. Only one poisoned with capitalism sees to serve Angkar—the very basis of Socialism—as negative. To ask Angkar to soften is to ask Socialism to die.

>>715416
Comrade, it is with great sorrow that I inform that you are speaking things directly contrary to the Central Committee's teaching.
>On the one hand, there are contradictions among the people, because we all carry vestiges of our old class character, deep-rooted for generations, and, after all, the transition to revolutionary proletarian character is still quite recent. We consider these to be contradictions among the people, which can be resolved by education, study, criticism and self-criticism, and periodic self-examination of our own revolutionary lifestyle, under the supervision and with the aid of the collective; all this, under the leadership of the Party.
<Long Live The 17th Anniversary Of The Communist Party Of Kampuchea! Speech made on the 17th anniversary of the CPK (September 29, 1977)

If this particular misinformation is not done due to traitorous malice with the aim to hurt the Angkar's image in the eyes of the sympathetic masses, please clarify your intentions behind your message further at today's self-criticism session.

>>715419
Here is your "clairification." Angkar is correct, but you are wrong. You are the one who must clarify intentions. You cite Angkar to betray Angkar. This "great sorrow" is guilt you feel for defying Angkar.
>On the one hand, there are contradictions among the people, because we all carry vestiges of our old class character, deep-rooted for generations, and, after all, the transition to revolutionary proletarian character is still quite recent. We consider these to be contradictions among the people, which can be resolved by education, study, criticism and self-criticism, and periodic self-examination of our own revolutionary lifestyle, under the supervision and with the aid of the collective; all this, under the leadership of the Party.
Angkar's words apply to those who serve Angkar, not Angkar's enemies. Your demand for "softer words" is not "contradiction between people," but contradiction between Angkar and the enemies of Angkar. The enemies of Angkar cannot be destroyed with "education." Anyone who flinches at the words "Angkar will demand and you will obey" is not struggling with "vestiges" of old society, but is counter-revolutionary.
You accuse me of "hurting Angkar's image." Angkar's image is Angkar's strength. To question Angkar is to weaken and tarnish the beauty of Angkar.
You remove Angkar from context. Study Angkar's next words very carefully:
<These antagonistic contradictions are also due to another infamous handful of reactionary elements, who carry out their counter-revolutionary work and seek to destroy our Kampuchean revolution. These elements are small in number, one to two percent of the population. Some camouflage themselves and try to pass for the people, while others work openly. We do not consider these traitors, these counterrevolutionary elements, to be part of the people. They are enemies of Democratic Kampuchea, of the Kampuchean revolution and of the Kampuchean people. Contradictions with these elements must be solved by the measures proper for enemies: separate, educate and win over the elements which can be won over; neutralize the elements which are wavering, preventing them from doing any damage to the revolution; and, finally, isolate and eradicate only the smallest possible number of those elements who are cruel and persist in acting against the revolution and the people, and collaborate with foreign enemies to destroy their own people and their own revolution.

>>715239
I think you're a lil bit ill-informed. You're assigned a job and that's it. You're a working ant within a giant colony. Any free time outside of work must be filled with spending quality time with family or reading theory.

>>715440
>Angkar's words apply to those who serve Angkar, not Angkar's enemies. Your demand for "softer words" is not "contradiction between people," but contradiction between Angkar and the enemies of Angkar. The enemies of Angkar cannot be destroyed with "education."
Comrade, there was no ill intention behind those posts, as I did not believe that the person that was responded to was an enemy, or a counter-revolutionary element.
There is, indeed, a crumble of vestiges of their old class character, but it is not clear whether they will carry it and persist with it, like a true counter-revolutionary, poisoning everything in existence around them; or if they are simply misguided and thoroughly blinded by the detestable old, reactionary, bourgeois society's many illnesses and diseases.
>Anyone who flinches at the words "Angkar will demand and you will obey" is not struggling with "vestiges" of old society, but is counter-revolutionary.
Those are indeed clear-cut and precise words, and carry on the character of the revolution very correctly.
What we were attempting to get to, is that softness should not equal weakness or destruction of intent; caring and calm words, if they are bright red, determined and full of proletarian consciousness, are beneficial instead of weakening.

The context is always beneficial; but what can be learned from it in this case?
>You are the one who must clarify intentions.
Please, I would like to be shown the precise phrases where the intentions have not been understood.

>>715243
>private property
>a computer you use to make bidjer gaems
no

Also in socialism/communism/anarchism software development would be entirely FOSS based so you'd be doing gamedev as part of a mass collective of developers.

>>716093
Godot engine games are pretty much a bunch of xml files and a bit of scripting, so that wouldn't even be too alien.

You go to Gulag!

nobody here knows OP. nobody here even finished reading marx