Are "traditional games" a bourgeois pastime?

>modern china is communist

CPC runs all serious industry, still creates five year plans, recently announced a program to educate journalists on Marxism.

Gives zero interest loans to poor developing countries to reduce IMF/US/EU influence.

Recently banned anti-muslim hate speech on Chinese websites.

They're no Cuba but they aren't exactly Western capitalists either.

Call me back when they're libertarian socialists: the true libertarianism

Since they include such traditionally proletarian pass-times as card games and dice games... no.

I mean they're ML(M)... They're never going to be anarchists because they aren't in a story book.

I am working my ass off daily for nearly nothing and I have been gaming longer then you have most likely.

I wonder if those two facts are somehow related or purely coincidental.

We created a system that encourages and requires people to regularly fail then laugh at people for failing. Go figure.

If you take the argument that wargaming-as-such was invented by and for aristocratic military officers then the source of wargaming could be argued as bourgeois.

As far as I know, boardgames and dice games have been played at all levels of society for as long as we have archaeological records of it. There are many Roman dice and the oldest dice are some 5000 years old or older.

a good number of the people who play magic are fucken bogans mate

>Recently banned anti-muslim hate speech on Chinese websites.
That's not communist at all. Real commies would demand all religious figures be hung.

Please kill yourself

It depends on the game

Games of chance or gambling are usually of/by the proletariat - cards, dice, etc.

Games with regimented rules and carved pieces or models are bourgeois, such as wargaming and chess, Go, etc.

It could be argued that tabletop RPG's with their written texts of rules but simple tokens and utensils are nuevo riche or new-bourgeois, because they rely on modern conveniences such as printed books that only became widely available over time due to technological progress.

I got into tabletop after my last computer fried and I knew it would take a helluva long time to scrap up for a new one that I can't just find in the trash, which was nearly a decade ago.

>Nazi destroying
>hero
While the two are far from mutually exclusive, they don't exactly logically follow. Especially when the nazi destroyer himself killed more people than Hitler's regime by a factor of 5 at least. Even the Holodomor alone killed twice the number of people than the Holocaust.

But despite that, in the West it's more socially acceptable to be openly socialist (look it up, the former president of the European Commission was an outspoken Maoist) than it is to imply that there's even a single good thing about fascism because communists were polite enough to kill their own people rather than foreigners.

Yes, prole subhumans aren't allowed to practice war (execution of rebellion) or imagine themselves in a more enjoyable life (incitement to rebellion)

>War isn't the duty of all citizens in defense of their liberties
We have a special guillotine for guys like you.

Stalin was at least two and a half times worse than Hitler, and communism is the only ideology more fundamentally evil than Nazism.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, except in this case the pavement is also on a foundation of starving serfs.

>But despite that, in the West it's more socially acceptable to be openly socialist (look it up, the former president of the European Commission was an outspoken Maoist) than it is to imply that there's even a single good thing about fascism because communists were polite enough to kill their own people rather than foreigners.
This
unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technology-communism-and-brown-scare.html

>liberty as the paramount good
What's next, something stupid like "unalienable rights"?
The function of all people, from the lowliest of plebes to the highest of politicians, is to serve the state in an maximally optimized manner.
Freedom is acceptable only for pragmatic reasons if it furthers this function.

Fundamentally yesh, *sniff*, zhe interesht in eshcapism sharesh zhe shame rootsh ash maria antionettesh deshire to exshperience "rural life" wish golden shearsh for sheepsh and fine dining. It ish a way of bourgoishie to remotely exshperience hardship and shtruggle which are intrinschik to a fulfilled life.

She real Shqueshtion here icsh, is it WRONG for she bourgoishie to try and exshperience it, and from their pershpective, I would say no. I think she lines off experience and class hash now been irrevershably intermixed, we now live in a society in which one's class is dependent strictly upon one's immediate situation and, if one is gaming, one is bourgoishie, but if one is working and not receiving adequate compensation, one is proletariat. Thish is the great pondering of our daysh and, ifsh we are to *sniff* really analyze it, we must first play a game. I will GM. You musht *touches face* decide who is to play the four major classes, Brutal Enforcer of Capitalism, Opiate of Masses, Capitalist Superman, or Misguided Revolutionary. Or, as we say, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Teef. *Loses Tenure*

Tell that to the end of my musket

>Stalin murders twice as many people as Hitler
>Mao murders as many as both of them combined
>Both societies fail hilariously, Dong Xeping replaces Maoist principles with Capitalist ones
>HUUU HUUU HUUUU COMMUNISM WILL RISE AGAIN

You guys are like Confederate Nationalists except more hypocritical. At least the South still actually exists. Southern Culture still exists. Communism is so fucking dead that it's most ardent defenders are people I beat up in Sacramento for fun. I didn't even know what the rally was about. Turned out it was "Traditional Workers," who I think are like Socialists or something, against "Antifascists," who are just communists pretending they don't like the government.

Either way you're all small and weak. None of you impress me. How dare you even speak? Go starve to death or something, that's all any of you are good at.

>people only exist to serve the fictitious entity they came up with as a mechanism to minimize problems

wow fascists really do have their heads up their asses

The reason it is more reasonable to be openly socialist is because we have several first world countries that are socialist without the dictators or genocide, whereas there had been one example of a "nazi" country and that one, while not as murderous as the USSR, did cause a world war and killed millions. In addition, it's okay to be SOCIALIST, not Communist. There is a difference, and if you don't know it you probably shouldn't be talking about the merits of particular governance.

>fictitious entity they came up with as a mechanism to minimize problems
Are you referring to Class?

>What's next, something stupid like "unalienable rights"?
Yeah? Which would make sense in some kind of metaphysical sense (Human Rights are in a way Christianity without Christ), but more than that in a legal sense it simply means a certain barrier the state may not cross.

>The function of all people [...] is to serve the state
That assumes a very optimistic view of the state that opposes liberalism, with liberalism actually taking human nature into account (all great contract thinkers began with a theoretical "state of nature" in which they all concluded humans were in one form or another shit). To paraphrase... I think it was Locke, if men were angels they'd need no government, and if man were governed by angels the government would need no checks or separation of power.

The totalitarian left assumes that the government is flawless and therefore demands that everything should be in service of the government, and all competitors to the state should be eradicated. The Church, the family, the romantic idea of the nation, all must be torn apart until only some Hobbesian nightmare remains, exactly that which the great thinkers of Liberalism tried to dismantle.

tl;dr: Would you like to "fit a new necklace", or would you rather go on a "free helicopter ride" first?

1: There are no functional countries today in which the State controls the means of production.

2: There is a country today in which the economic foundation was literally modeled off of the Third Reich. It's called Finland.

3: "National Socialism" is any Socialist system that is not EXPRESSLY internationalist. Go read a book, you pseud.

Time to rev up those helicopters, boys

>freedomfag thinks he and his recently assembled confederacy of other freedomfags can out-efficiency authoritarian might
A state in service of itself knows few practical limits.

>it's just le social construct guize
It's real because men believe it to be real, and act accordingly.

>freedomfag thinks he and his recently assembled confederacy of other freedomfags can out-efficiency authoritarian might
Read the Federalist Papers, friend. It's true that any form of totalitarianism is more efficient than a republic, but an efficient state is the most dangerous thing imaginable. The checks and balances between the three branches of government are actually an inefficiency purposely built into the American Republic to ensure no branch grows powerful enough to dominate the populace.

1. You just proved you don't know the difference, good on you.

2. Finland is not a "Nazi" country in the way the Third Reich is, and their economic policies that you're referencing are hand picked from the ones that worked when practiced, but are strangely removed from the whole racial purity thing that was core to the Nazi party. Or is Finland an entirely self supported country that refuses to accept trade from countries with non-aryan citizenry? Maybe I missed that.

3. Again, youre mixing your terms here and proving you know nothing. How about you take your own advice sweet heart?

>a state in service to itself knows few practical limits
That's why fascists keep winning wars and why North Korea controls 90% of the world's economy, right?

>Yeah? Which would make sense in some kind of metaphysical sense (Human Rights are in a way Christianity without Christ), but more than that in a legal sense it simply means a certain barrier the state may not cross.
Rights do not exist on their own, they must be enforced.
There are no natural rights, only right that are so obviously logical that they ought be enforced.
As the monopoly on just force rests with a state, so it can be said that enforcing these fundamental rights also rests on the state.
Thus, the state does not breach these rights purely out of their own decision; should the state decide to breach them, they would not exist until the people rebel and form a new state that enforces them.

>That assumes a very optimistic view of the state that opposes liberalism, with liberalism actually taking human nature into account (all great contract thinkers began with a theoretical "state of nature" in which they all concluded humans were in one form or another shit). To paraphrase... I think it was Locke, if men were angels they'd need no government, and if man were governed by angels the government would need no checks or separation of power.
A good point, but consider the fact that men are malleable. While perfection cannot be achieved from an imperfect basis, it may be approximated and continually sought.
Men are not angels, but they can be made into something approximating angels, and from this the government can be made from.
TL;DR: Aristocracy turned up to 11, with the aristocrat's entire purpose of being is to govern, and govern virtuously.

>Hobbesian nightmare
>nightmare
>ignoring the fact that Hobbes was explicitly a Christian

I'm also slightly insulted that you think I'm a leftist, user; I support capitalism as an economic model, but only on a purely pragmatic basis, rather than a philosophical one.

Stalin was a criminal and there's literally nothing heroic in him.
t. russian

>Rights do not exist on their own, they must be enforced.
Which is why in a republic powers are split, checks and balances apply and there are courts. A president in America can't just do as he please, because congress will impeach him (or at least vote against any bills he likes) and courts will deem his actions unconstitutional. This is how rights are enforced.

>men are malleable
This is the problem with all forms of totalitarianism: it exaggerates the malleability of man and thinks man can be molded into the ideal Soviet Man, or the ideal German Aryan or whatever. This is why communism is inseparable of gulags (re-education camps).

>TL;DR: Aristocracy turned up to 11
Do you know why we call a virtuous person "noble"?

>Hobbes was Christian
So?

I have, and I'm not impressed except by Hamilton. Coincidentally, the American System is an exceedingly wonderful system.

>The checks and balances between the three branches of government are actually an inefficiency purposely built into the American Republic to ensure no branch grows powerful enough to dominate the populace.
The issue is two-fold; one, the modern state is formed of what amount to proles given political power; their interests come first before the state, and thus before the people.
Secondly; is it oppression if the people do not think they are being oppressed?

Touche, but the Third Reich put up one hell of a fight against literally everyone else, and the Norks are communist subhumans. Not even purity of purpose can save them from disastrously inefficient economics.

>Which is why in a republic powers are split, checks and balances apply and there are courts. A president in America can't just do as he please, because congress will impeach him (or at least vote against any bills he likes) and courts will deem his actions unconstitutional. This is how rights are enforced.
True, but my point still stands. Were the entirety of government to begin cooperating, this protection would suddenly disappear.
If the cooperation of nascent states can appear in the state of nature, then so too can they appear in government. The artificial conflict and competition built into government can only last so long before stabilizing, as can be seen by its tendency towards a two-party system.

>This is the problem with all forms of totalitarianism: it exaggerates the malleability of man and thinks man can be molded into the ideal Soviet Man, or the ideal German Aryan or whatever.
Ah, but he can, just as he can be made into the ideal American Patriot. Given some margin of error.
On a related note, I'm deeply saddened by the fact that reciting the pledge of allegiance is no longer mandatory in public school.

>Do you know why we call a virtuous person "noble"?
Because they express qualities that were desired in nobility, of course.

>libertarian socialism
>not anarcho fascism

>anarcho fascism
Loud mexican?

>itt
youtube.com/watch?v=jaOJuQjstbs