Dark Souls and Its Parallels to Capitalisim in 2020

[Iron]

You literally just described Communism.

I literally didn't.

Socialism and communism are explicitly about not being slavery with extra steps. If such a result is obtained, they've failed to achieve socialism or communism.

lel this is red board why are you even trying anymore. Socialism and communism are the solution to everything and every time it has been tried it wasn't really socialism and communism. Isn't it obvious? and they actually try to argue this section isn't an echo-chamber with a straight face

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Iron]

It isn't hard to read up on what socialist thinkers consider proper socialism and see that any kind of dictatorship or oligarchy isn't it. One can argue that true socialism can never manifest due to being an utopian ideology and that tyranny is the inevitable end result of any attempts at socialism (something that history so far bears out), but that's not the same as tyranny being socialism.

Your snide remark at the community not withstanding.

It's not the community. It's a small group here (in current events). They're alright, everyone is just fine.

 

[Silvanus]

lel this is red board why are you even trying anymore. Socialism and communism are the solution to everything and every time it has been tried it wasn't really socialism and communism. Isn't it obvious? and they actually try to argue this section isn't an echo-chamber with a straight face

Socialism has been tried quite a few times, and with quite a few successes to its name.

 

[Iron]

Socialism has been tried quite a few times, and with quite a few successes to its name.

You're more than welcomed to move to those places and enjoy its system there.

 

[Buyetyen]

You're more than welcomed to move to those places and enjoy its system there.

Right wing talking points of the early 2000's.

 

[stroopwafel]

This sounds like a parable to modern medicine and how humanity is now able to push death of natural causes forward by several decades in a modern healthcare system.

I'm going to be the sourpuss here: DS doesn't have a major message, it has nothing deep or profound to say about anything. What it does have is a ton of mood, ambience and consistent themes through all of the games. The game is never explicit about its backstory because it isn't very relevant to the gameplay, it is there to make the player feel as if the world is much more nuanced and textured then it is. It is the same thing I do as a GM when I make up some random backstory for the captured Goblin. I make something up about that Goblin's tribe and their relation to the Gnome community so that it seems as if the game world is bigger, deeper and more complex then just "go there, hit monsters until they die".

Dark Souls is very good at this, at constantly hinting at greater things, at deeper stories that are just outside of the game's boundaries and scope. Stories that are intriguing and holds the promise of explaining how this bleak but beautiful world came to be and provide more then a token reason for the player to travel through it and slay monsters. But let's face it: There isn't. These stories are incomplete, sometimes downright incomprehensible because they are presented without context. So players look too hard at the arabesque on the wall until the pattern seems like something other then a wallpaper, until it holds deep and complex secrets. Secrets that the maker of this pretty but mass produced wallpaper hid there until someone as investigative and clever as the player came around and understood.

Yeah but mood is not unimportant, often it can capture the essence of a specific emotion or thought you're trying to tell better than any concrete story. And the pervasive feel of Dark Souls is one of deep melancholy that transcends a random backstory to slay some goblin. It's a game that really plays into the strength of interactive, visual media instead of trying to copy the structure of film to tell it's story. Ambiance, atmosphere and art-direction can create 'story without words' so to say and it's one thing this developer really excels at. You experience the game's melancholy by directly engaging with it rather than as a passive observer, which is also why almost no movie can emulate this effect because by speaking it out the effect is lost. The game does not take a stance and goes out of it's way to obfuscate yet there is an intuitive truth to the world building. There is a really subtle quality to the game's storytelling that is quite intangible but no less profound given how much people still talk about it almost a decade later.

 

[Silvanus]

You're more than welcomed to move to those places and enjoy its system there.

"If you love X so much, why don't you marry it!"

I think I remember arguments of this maturity and depth in primary school.

 

[Iron]

Right wing talking points of the early 2000's.

"If you love X so much, why don't you marry it!"

I think I remember arguments of this maturity and depth in primary school.

The same depth and maturity in claiming socialism had any success in the past.

 

[Hawki]

It isn't hard to read up on what socialist thinkers consider proper socialism and see that any kind of dictatorship or oligarchy isn't it. One can argue that true socialism can never manifest due to being an utopian ideology and that tyranny is the inevitable end result of any attempts at socialism (something that history so far bears out), but that's not the same as tyranny being socialism.

Your snide remark at the community not withstanding.

Socialism is in a perpetual state of "no true Scotsman." Any failure of the system is countered with "well, that wasn't REAL socialism."

Anyway, I forget who said it, but in what was called "the greatest experiment of the 20th century," we have Germany and Korea. Both were reduced to ashes, both were artificially divided, both divides were between capitalism and socialism. We all know how that went in both cases (or, in the case of North Korea, is still going).

I'd love for a new system to replace capitalism, or at least have capitalism iron out its issues, but socialism isn't going to do it. It's been trying to do it for 100 years, and has failed. FFS, move on.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Anyway, I forget who said it, but in what was called "the greatest experiment of the 20th century," we have Germany and Korea. Both were reduced to ashes, both were artificially divided, both divides were between capitalism and socialism. We all know how that went in both cases (or, in the case of North Korea, is still going).

Both basically owned by foreign powers, though, you could say capitalists make better imperialists.

I'd love for a new system to replace capitalism, or at least have capitalism iron out its issues, but socialism isn't going to do it. It's been trying to do it for 100 years, and has failed. FFS, move on.

More than 100, and the capitalism of when it started isn't the capitalism of today.

Marx was writing in the Victoria Era. If you were to speak to the ghost of Karl Marx and explain modern unions, minimum wage, Workplace Safety laws, state run schools and the like, he might think his side won. And then go to the pub and see if ghosts can drink cause he was like that.

 

[Buyetyen]

The same depth and maturity in claiming socialism had any success in the past.

Yes, yes, you're very edgy, we know.

Marx was writing in the Victoria Era. If you were to speak to the ghost of Karl Marx and explain modern unions, minimum wage, Workplace Safety laws, state run schools and the like, he might think his side won. And then go to the pub and see if ghosts can drink cause he was like that.

This is the key point a lot of people miss. Our standard of living is only possible because of socialist ideas. As we've seen pretty clearly, capitalism isn't all that crazy about OSHA or public education.

 

[Silvanus]

The same depth and maturity in claiming socialism had any success in the past.

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.

 

[Hawki]

Both basically owned by foreign powers, though, you could say capitalists make better imperialists.

I'm not sure how West Germany was "owned," as opposed to East Germany and other Soviet satellite states. It certainly isn't "owned" now. Unlike North Korea, which, if not for China, might have collapsed by now.

More than 100, and the capitalism of when it started isn't the capitalism of today.

Marx was writing in the Victoria Era. If you were to speak to the ghost of Karl Marx and explain modern unions, minimum wage, Workplace Safety laws, state run schools and the like, he might think his side won. And then go to the pub and see if ghosts can drink cause he was like that.

To make it clear, everything you describe above isn't what I'd call socialism. As in, it's social welfare/social systems, but you couldn't describe the society in of itself as being socialist.

For instance, speaking personally - I enjoy the benefits of Medicare (basically free healthcare, sans an obligatory tax deposit), and work in local government, and have enjoyed the benefits of a union this year when they helped us stay employed. All of these things are great. Unfetted capitalism would be a nightmare to live in. But that doesn't make me a denizen of a socialist nation, because I'm still living in a nation (and world) where there's plenty of free enterprise. I find the aversion in the US to these things bizzare, since Republicans will yell "socialism" as a cop-out from stuff from raising the minimum wage to Medicare for All, and everything else. On the other hand, I only have to look at the history of the 20th century, and in some current countries, to realize that 'pure socialism' isn't appealing either.

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.

Okay, and that's great, but you wouldn't really call the UK or any European country a socialist country, would you?

Again, everything you describe, I enjoy in Australia as well, to some extent or another. The country itself still isn't socialist. Most countries have some form of mixed economy, but for better or worse, capitalism is the world's dominant economic system. Social welfare doesn't change that.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm not sure how West Germany was "owned," as opposed to East Germany and other Soviet satellite states. It certainly isn't "owned" now. Unlike North Korea, which, if not for China, might have collapsed by now.

Well, East Germany isn't owned by the USSR now either. Less flippantly, it certainly wasn't fully autonomous, being intended as a buffer against the Soviets, at least for a while. But I'd not say the circumstances were identical, being a bit fatuous there.

To make it clear, everything you describe above isn't what I'd call socialism. As in, it's social welfare/social systems, but you couldn't describe the society in of itself as being socialist.

Well, a lot of people might, but in any case, if Marx was talking about changing society to add X, Y and Z, and nowdays countries that have X and at least some Y are considered successful, I'd hesitate to quickly call socialism a failure. Or at least the socialisms of way back when, which probably weren't talking about bringing about the way things are now, but were more than a bit vague on the society they wanted anyway.

I'm probably not expressing myself well, but western society today seems to me to have a fair few features of what Marx was writing about, and has lost a fair few features of the capitalism of his time. Not an outright victory of socialism over capitalism, but he might view that as progress.

 

[Silvanus]

Okay, and that's great, but you wouldn't really call the UK or any European country a socialist country, would you?

I'd call several Scandinavian countries democratic-socialist, which is a (relatively light) form of socialism. And I'd call socialised healthcare a socialist initiative or a socialist programme in a mixed economy.

The term "socialist" is a broad one. A large number of ruling parties throughout Europe are popularly known, and self-described, as socialist. They come under the umbrella organisation of Socialist International, and the second largest grouping in the European Parliament is the Alliance of Socialists and Democrats.

Americans seem to have equated the term with communism or specific extreme models, but that's just a Cold War hangover and has little to do with the history of the term or how it's understood in the rest of the world.

Again, everything you describe, I enjoy in Australia as well, to some extent or another. The country itself still isn't socialist. Most countries have some form of mixed economy, but for better or worse, capitalism is the world's dominant economic system. Social welfare doesn't change that.

Of course it is. But lighter forms of socialism can (and do) exist alongside private enterprise in plenty of capitalist countries. They're not mutually exclusive.

Capitalism is mutually exclusive with communism, which is a specific form of socialism right at the end of the spectrum, and which requires the complete undoing of private enterprise. But that's just one form.

 

[Samtemdo8]

Why are you doing this to Dark Souls?

 

[Buyetyen]

Why are you doing this to Dark Souls?

People tend to analyze things they like. And their takeaway from it probably won't be the same as yours. Mind you, there is a misogynist movement that derives its name from a sci-fi film made by 2 trans women as a coming out narrative. You cannot control how an audience will react to media.

 

[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.

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