Dark Souls and Its Parallels to Capitalisim in 2020

[Iron]

I mean, I don't need to look to the past. I'm living in a country with socialised healthcare which is far more functional than the US system. And across the pond (in the other direction) are quite a few countries with nationalised utilities, high safety nets, strong unionisation, worker involvement in industry, etc.

The US seems to have such a peculiar attitude: experiencing a pretty abominable standard of living, yet constantly decrying the supposed failures of the happier and more equitable societies in Europe.

The abominable standard of living, as you'd call it, is a direct result of the detachment of the dollar from the gold standard and the subsequent debasement of the dollar. There a lot of other factors as well, though, but they were all dependent on this here. EU may be prosperous in your opinion, but many of the smaller members are crushed under the heel of the EU central bank like Greece and Spain.

 

[Buyetyen]

Social programs are not socialism, and are in fact a hinderance to socialism.

"
Karl Marx famously critiqued the basic institutions of the welfare state in his Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League by warning against the programs advanced by liberal democrats. While Marx proclaimed that the communists had to support the bourgeoisie wherever it acted as a revolutionary, progressive class because "bourgeois liberties had first to be conquered and then criticised",[15] he specifically argued that measures designed to increase wages, improve working conditions and provide welfare payments would be used to dissuade the working class away from socialism and the revolutionary consciousness he believed was necessary to achieve a socialist economy and would therefore be a threat to genuine structural changes to society by making the conditions of workers in capitalism more tolerable through welfare schemes.[16]
"

Criticism of welfare - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Actually, what Marx was referring to there was the fact that progressive and socialist reforms ultimately fail if the society implementing them is not yet ready for them. Marx renounced the romanticism of revolution later in his career and became more of a revolutionary evolutionist. Engels himself said in 1848 that he and Marx had badly overestimated just how much societal evolution had taken place during the industrial revolution. The trends they saw were real, but the end points were still generations away. The death of monarchy alone wouldn't be forthcoming until the closing of WWI. Marx did not oppose safety nets. He opposed the flawed application of them.

 

[Iron]

Actually, what Marx was referring to there was the fact that progressive and socialist reforms ultimately fail if the society implementing them is not yet ready for them. Marx renounced the romanticism of revolution later in his career and became more of a revolutionary evolutionist. Engels himself said in 1848 that he and Marx had badly overestimated just how much societal evolution had taken place during the industrial revolution. The trends they saw were real, but the end points were still generations away. The death of monarchy alone wouldn't be forthcoming until the closing of WWI. Marx did not oppose safety nets. He opposed the flawed application of them.

what.

 

[Buyetyen]

what.

Now go back and read what I wrote. I know you didn't do it the first time, this is just snark as an attempt to stymie rebuttals.

 

[Iron]

Now go back and read what I wrote. I know you didn't do it the first time, this is just snark as an attempt to stymie rebuttals.

can you try to paraphrase what you wrote in context to my original message. I didn't get it.

 

[Silvanus]

I remember I had this discussion in the past. The first ever advancements into social programs in Europe instituted by the state were designed as a pressure-valve and implemented by one of the most authoritarian, reactionary and oppressive regimes of the time - the German Empire (during the time of von Bismak's stewardship). Social programs are not socialism, and are in fact a hinderance to socialism.

Forgive me for saying so, but I don't really trust your opinion on what's a hindrance to socialism or not, as you seem viscerally opposed to it and are at drastic odds with what actual socialists think.

"
Karl Marx famously critiqued the basic institutions of the welfare state in his Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League [...]

Yep, but of course, socialism existed before Marx and quite aside from him. He's one thinker of a particular strain of it.

 

[Iron]

Forgive me for saying so, but I don't really trust your opinion on what's a hindrance to socialism or not, as you seem viscerally opposed to it and are at drastic odds with what actual socialists think.



Yep, but of course, socialism existed before Marx and quite aside from him. He's one thinker of a particular strain of it.

I'll forgive you. Apparently I can't be a part of this discussion or have a valid opinion in this matter. Intellectual honesty down the drain. It's no wonder commies executed botanists because they said plants don't have class consciousness.

 

[Buyetyen]

can you try to paraphrase what you wrote in context to my original message. I didn't get it.

Marx did not oppose social safety nets and progressive reforms. He was in fact one of the first major supporters of trade unions throughout his life, just to give a single example.

Marx was also deeply influenced by Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species" and looked at society as an evolving organism. If a change was made to that society before its citizenry and mechanisms of government were ready for it, that change would ultimately fail. And this is not exclusive to socialism. Marx was pretty clear later in his career. Unions for example don't do much good if the worker culture in a society teaches workers not to value their output or to think their work carries less value than it really does.

Marx posits that reform is just as much on the proletariat as it is the government. A government passing new laws that nobody was asking for is failing in its job. And the government won't get around to installing safety nets like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SSI disability insurance, unemployment insurance, etc unless the people demand it. They won't however demand it if they lack the education and volition to do so.

To put it another way, Marx saw reforms enacted too soon as something akin to a non-benign mutation. The body wasn't ready for a change like this. When the body is able to handle a change, the mutation is then beneficial or at least benign rather than an active hindrance.

I'll forgive you. Apparently I can't be a part of this discussion or have a valid opinion in this matter. Intellectual honesty down the drain. It's no wonder commies executed botanists because they said plants don't have class consciousness.

No, you're allowed to have an opinion. Just stop whining when people disagree with you.

 

[Iron]

Marx did not oppose social safety nets and progressive reforms. He was in fact one of the first major supporters of trade unions throughout his life, just to give a single example.

Marx was also deeply influenced by Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species" and looked at society as an evolving organism. If a change was made to that society before its citizenry and mechanisms of government were ready for it, that change would ultimately fail. And this is not exclusive to socialism. Marx was pretty clear later in his career. Unions for example don't do much good if the worker culture in a society teaches workers not to value their output or to think their work carries less value than it really does.

Marx posits that reform is just as much on the proletariat as it is the government. A government passing new laws that nobody was asking for is failing in its job. And the government won't get around to installing safety nets like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SSI disability insurance, unemployment insurance, etc unless the people demand it. They won't however demand it if they lack the education and volition to do so.

To put it another way, Marx saw reforms enacted too soon as something akin to a non-benign mutation. The body wasn't ready for a change like this. When the body is able to handle a change, the mutation is then beneficial or at least benign rather than an active hindrance.



No, you're allowed to have an opinion. Just stop whining when people disagree with you.

Interesting take.
It's that when confronted with something they didn't have a rebuttal for, they just told me to stfu. You had an answer, and gave me an analysis.

My view is that the social-programs are a release valve for the government to control social unrest. It isn't a process in the way of socialism but a tool of the liberal elite to placate the proletariat with material comfort while maintaining the status-quo. All of those nice things like Medicare and Social Security serve two roles - maintain the welfare of the country and act as a pressure-valve for societal unrest.

 

[Silvanus]

I'll forgive you. Apparently I can't be a part of this discussion or have a valid opinion in this matter. Intellectual honesty down the drain.

Intellectual honesty would involve listening to actual socialists about what they believe, rather than believing the characterisations of their opponents. Similarly, I wouldn't trust a hardline anti-conservative to give a nuanced view of what conservatives value.

Interesting take.
It's that when confronted with something they didn't have a rebuttal for, they just told me to stfu.

Actually, I pointed out that socialism existed before Marx, and exists quite aside from him. That's kind of all the rebuttal needed: he's an authority on one particular strain of socialism, and that's it.

 

[Buyetyen]

My view is that the social-programs are a release valve for the government to control social unrest. It isn't a process in the way of socialism but a tool of the liberal elite to placate the proletariat with material comfort while maintaining the status-quo. All of those nice things like Medicare and Social Security serve two roles - maintain the welfare of the country and act as a pressure-valve for societal unrest.

If it's a valve for societal unrest, it behooves you to ask what is causing that unrest in the first place.

 

[MrCalavera]

I remember I had this discussion in the past. The first ever advancements into social programs in Europe instituted by the state were designed as a pressure-valve and implemented by one of the most authoritarian, reactionary and oppressive regimes of the time - the German Empire (during the time of von Bismak's stewardship). Social programs are not socialism, and are in fact a hinderance to socialism.

"
Karl Marx famously critiqued the basic institutions of the welfare state in his Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League by warning against the programs advanced by liberal democrats. While Marx proclaimed that the communists had to support the bourgeoisie wherever it acted as a revolutionary, progressive class because "bourgeois liberties had first to be conquered and then criticised",[15] he specifically argued that measures designed to increase wages, improve working conditions and provide welfare payments would be used to dissuade the working class away from socialism and the revolutionary consciousness he believed was necessary to achieve a socialist economy and would therefore be a threat to genuine structural changes to society by making the conditions of workers in capitalism more tolerable through welfare schemes.[16]
"

Criticism of welfare - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Great! Which is why welfare programs aren't socialism, and anyone calling people pushing for goverment funded safety nets "commies" speaks out of tyeir ass.

 

[Iron]

Great! Which is why welfare programs aren't socialism, and anyone calling people pushing for goverment funded safety nets "commies" speaks out of tyeir ass.

um, yeah. You can call them populists.

 

[MrCalavera]

um, yeah. You can call them populists.

I'm... Fine with that?

 

[Iron]

I'm... Fine with that?

I'm happy we reached an understanding.

 

[SupahEwok]

People tend to analyze things they like.

*what they can make a buck from

People who get mad at internet opinion journo takes need to take a step back and keep that truism in mind.

And then just quit reading internet opinion journos and read a book instead

 

[Seanchaidh]

*what they can make a buck from

People who get mad at internet opinion journo takes need to take a step back and keep that truism in mind.

And then just quit reading internet opinion journos and read a book instead

People often analyze things without publishing them for any financial return. For example, I enjoy some of the themes about propaganda and the nature of "good vs. evil" you can pull out of Dungeons II and III, or applying a (simple) Marxist analysis to the structure of the Absolute(ly very exploitative) Evil's economy.

 

[fOx]

Jim Sterling did something like this a year ago thought experiment, to prove any game could be considered political.


The comments section is so full of Salt I could cure a pig with it.

"Get your politics out of my Dark Souls!"
"Get your Dark Souls out of my Politics!"

That made me groan, honestly. The politics in dark souls was self evident, but the point being made was how insignificant it is in the face of the crushing expanse of time. The things that seem so important now will be forgotten in a thousand years. Humanity will not exist in a million. Or in the literal eternity that exists after. In the face of that, everyones problems seem petty. Jim, or others don't have to agree with that, but its clearly the central theme of dark souls. Jims video just makes it seem like he completely missed the point.

 

[Agema]

So, I haven't played Dark Souls, but I have read the article, and...I dunno, it really seems like a stretch. By the logic presented in the article, you could say that Dark Souls is a parable for pretty much anything. Capitalism? Yeah, sure. But Spectre's right about communism and socialism. Heck, you could even say it's a parable for feudalism, which might be more relevant given its level of technology.

Feudalism has at least a potent theoretical link between peasant and lord. The concept is that the lord protects the peasant, and in return the peasant offers service to the lord. Whilst in practice many lords were utterly selfish pricks, they were supposed to have honour and duties towards to their people, rather than being disinterested powers.

 

[Silvanus]

That made me groan, honestly. The politics in dark souls was self evident, but the point being made was how insignificant it is in the face of the crushing expanse of time. The things that seem so important now will be forgotten in a thousand years. Humanity will not exist in a million.

Hmm, not really sure I agree with that. It's pretty clear that hundreds of thousands of years (at least) have passed between DS1 & 3, for instance, but the impact of stuff from DS1 is still acutely felt in DS3, and some of the entities are even still around.

Plus, the sheer weight of all the suffering on display in the series... I really doubt the point of the series is to say, "this doesn't matter". It's more to do with the folly of keeping a painful, malfunctioning system going long past its natural endpoint.