La Dame d'Azur

Misogyny was also a factor. Most of the hostages were women so it was easy to dismiss their concerns with police conducts by infantilizing them.

A lot of “brainwashing” stories are like that, ignoring the perspectives of the “victims” (especially if they’re from marginalized groups, like women) in order to prevent the “perpetrators” from being legitimized. A similar thing happened with Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Liberation Army.

“Stockholm Syndrome”, “brainwashing”, “indoctrination”, etc. is all just gaslighting. Manipulation is definitely real but mind control is simply science fiction.

Nah, this is kind of cringe tbh. Marxism isn’t a competition; it’s a science.

We analyze phenomenon, construct theory around it, put that theory into practice in a test environment, then develop that theory based on what we’ve learned from our experiences. It’s not about beating each other but about building a social order that is less exploitative and more sustainable and how we go about doing that, which involves taking each other’s ideas and building off them, critiquing them, putting them to the test, and improving upon them wherever we can.

What makes you think they aren’t already aware?

D&D alignment is more for individuals than governments or organizations IIRC since D&D is a character-based game.

In which case a character can change their disposition over time, just like real morality.

While this is cool I don’t think it’s very accurate to how the D&D alignment system works.

Lenin for example can’t be Lawful Good as he was a revolutionary, which is antithetical to a ‘Lawful’ character. The category specifically refers to how the individual interacts with authority, in which a Lawful character respects the authority of institutions/figures even while trying to fight against them (basically reformism).

‘Chaotic’ by contrast has little to no reverence for authorities - even nominally ‘good’ ones - and is closer to an anarchist than a communist. Not where I’d put Stalin at all.

“Neutral” is an explicitly moral quantifier; the middle ground between “Good” (compassionate, empathetic, selfless, etc.) and “Evil” (cruel, corrupt, petty, etc.) and refers to literal moral grayness; e.g. a “True Neutral” would be a mercenary-type figure. Not how I’d classify Marx at all.

The capitalists would invade it and probably destroy it if it wasn’t able to build a state in time to protect itself.

lol

lmao, even

The Mars Trilogy sounds interesting. I’ll have to give it a try, thanks.

I prefer flawed but optimistic sci-fi than outright utopian, personally.

I’m currently writing two separate sci-fi settings; one set in a socialist state and the other in a communist society. I’m taking great pains to represent them positively without making them seem perfect so as to be more believable.

We need more hopeful, optimistic, and left-wing sci-fi future settings that are still engaging & grounded in reality.

“Propaganda” isn’t a bad thing.

Barack O’Bomber

I agree with the core of what you’re saying here but you shouldn’t confuse the terms “immigrant” with “settler”; they are distinct concepts - one being a traveler who permanently relocates to another place and the other being an invader who attacks another people, destroy them, and steals their land & resources for themselves. Using them interchangeably just ends up rebranding Right-wing anti-immigrant rhetoric with a Left-wing veneer.

The USA was founded by settlers, for the benefit of settlers, serving the interests of settlers, and is maintained today by a settler culture and settler institutions which are maintained to this very day by the settler ruling class. We are not a “nation of immigrants” as liberals are so fond of saying; immigrants have continuously been an underclass to exploit, not a ruling class that exploits.