Is this true?

Templars should be monarchists/reactionaires and ASSassins want to overthrow them in favor of gommunism and don't give a fuck about liberalism

>Socialism
>Central planning
>Not worker control of the means of production

Lenin was an assassin so no, the Templars don't want it.

Assassins are literally Islamic communists.

>Templars should be monarchists/reactionaires
Don't know. Story-wise, I'd have it found it more fulfilling if they were stealthier than explicitly heralding the return of monarchy ("guiseeeee, we want to control the world through subtle means, so how about we tell everyone that we want the return of monarchy xD"). Socialism would've been the more smooth way to exert their power: promising emancipation to all, while shackling them to the government insidiously, all the way up to an 1984-fashioned dystopia.

But what do I know. I don't do videogames.

No it's not. Remember Noske.

Damn that's painful. I mean, Mensheviks being assassins wouldn't be that painful to swallow (-> want democracy, some reforms, economic liberty, and all' send that ends well) but some actual Bolsheviks pertaining to assassins is weird as fuck.

Karl Marx explicitly disagrees, so no.

>unable to bring forth an answer the user delivers an insult

>ubisoft trying to shill communism
>again

Wasn't Marx's entire theory revolving around the idea of a violent revolution?

So anarchist is the only way to flee their grasp?

Calling you Bernie is derogatory? Isn't he one you praise?

Why would the templars already know the perfect means to control the masses? They are probably debating it and trying out diffrent means.

>that old AC fluff that had the conflict be more gray vs gray with assassins supporting Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao and (implied) even Hitler
>now it's all whitewashed and the assassins dindu nuffin

Bernie is a social democrat Zionist and probably killed Rosa Luxemburg.

I thought it was directly stated that Hitler was a rogue templar and WW2 was essentially a big templar civil war.

Hmm not precisely. That was implemented by Lenin, under Leninism, to bypass the "bourgeois rise up against nobles" stage that Marx had envisioned, and he lapsed all the way to "workers/peasants rise up against nobles" which was weird and didn't let the industry bloom beforehand.

Marx thought that society would be lulled peacefully into socialism and later communism if there was democracy.

>Marx thought that society would be lulled peacefully into socialism and later communism if there was democracy.

No he didn't, Marx straight up calls for a revolution.

Fair enough fellow user.

I think he killed my cat too :o

What game is that?

My apologies then. Does he assert that as early as 'The Communist Manifesto'?

Jewbisoft's Greed 22: Bonglander edition.

Butt's Beliefs IVV

Yes.

The closing statement of the Manifesto is
>The Communist parties disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their aims can only be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditons. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!

That's bull, Marx believed that a peaceful revolution is just a farce. Unless you eliminate the Capitalist class entirely, you haven't gotten any closer to socialism.

Marx refused to learn English while living in England, so no, he didn't say that.

Marx had a fundamentally flawed view of history.. He literally believed every society on earth progressed in the exact same way at the same technological and societal rate. He was an idiot.

Truly?

>Ubisoft

Well, you have to understand that English wasnt really relevant back then
French was still the lingua franca, English only replaced it after WW2 thank to US hegemony

"Democracy was a mistake"
-me

Yeah but I doubt the common working man understood French

Hence why he did

That definitely whitewashes Karl Marx, but he mistakenly believed that the revolutionary struggle would be quick and mostly bloodless: confronted by the masses of the armed proletariat, the bourgeoisie would surrender their power and become part of this classless society.

Marx never really spoke about revolutionary wars, because he expected uprisings to break out in highly industrialized capital cities. The French Commune, established in 1871, followed this model, but was crushed pretty quickly.

No but Marx did.

Was Marx right about anything?

He was right about everything.

Karl Marx provides a unique perspective in a world where people parrot Adam Smith.

He was completely right about the bad things that would happen, but was a little too optimistic about the good things.

I'd argue that 2016 resembles Marx's dystopian future more closely than 1916, though.

He spoke English at home and on the street but preferred German or French.

Yes, but Marxists will turn it real history on its head for the sake of an idea.

I haven't read any Marx, only second hand resources. But from my understanding:
Early Marx (when he wrote the communist manifesto): No.
Later Marx (living in a democratic London he kinda liked and writing The Capital): Yes.

Marx went from a utopian anarchist to an authoritarian to a left-libertarian

Ehm. Okay? I don't see how that is true or relevant. Especially the distinction between "utopian anarchist" and "left-libertarian."
During Marx's life an anarchist would be a left-libertarian, so it would be like saying:
"I was a male but now I'm a human."

"Socialism" as it worked out in practice. Good enough for you?

But the nordics...

>violence solves nothing
>said by a man who advocated violent revolution

Socialism in practice, not socialism in your pretty treatises.

>Socialism in practice
If it's not like the ideology describes it it's not really socialism. Especially since the most basic requirement of socialism is worker control of the means of production which naturally precludes elite control.

Likewise if you buy a desk from Ikea, throw out the instructions and make a bonfire out of it, that bonfire wasn't actually a desk nor were the instructions lying about the true nature of it for some vague (probably antisemitic) reason.

In practice where? "Socialism" as implemented in Russia is radically different to socialism as implemented in Catalonia which is radically different to socialism as implemented in Yugoslavia.

>it it's not really socialism
W E W. I'm sick of this meme

But it's true.
Do workers control the means of production? No?
Not socialism.

He was actually pretty vague about that lol

He certainly didn't advocate the kind of revolutionary war we saw in Russia

He did, he just would have liked them to uphold the
>all power to the soviets
bit some more rather than just running the economy like capitalists.

>needing to apply broad ideologies to your game design
what in the fuck

Socialist are more relaxed and willing to have government implement a socialist society. Not all socialist follow Marx's definition

How did Lenin justify the near-destruction of the Soviets?

It's actually right, because the cause-effect determination of marxism fits well into play.

Remember, in a game, you are ideally the actor, unless its purpose as a game is to be a nongame.

It's not just Marx, that's the cornerstone of socialism in general.

The kind of people you're describing are social democrats.

What game is this

templars are based

No, just ubisoft bullshit to spread their shitty propganda

The asscreed set in London

>If it's not like the ideology describes it it's not really socialism

Meanwhile, all of you socialists think that correct capitalism is corruption, and collusion between government and big business, when they *only* definition of capitalism as an ideology is that free trade takes place and that private individuals can own any property.

If socialists like you are going to define capitalism as innately corrupt and exploitative, the rest of us are going to define the USSR are socialist even though they didn't give political power to the workers. Deal with it faggot.