Post by GiovanniDrogo in Reform or Revolution

Viewing post in Reform or Revolution

First of all, thank you for making this game, it's very enjoyable and in-depth.

Second of all, this dull-fanged reformism will achieve absolutely nothing. Everyone from demsocs to career politicians speaks about decarbonizing the economy and slow, gradual reforms for decades now, and the situation is only getting worse. We have already passed the point of no return long ago and all we have going for us is the newly-formed concept of greenwashing. No meaningful change or emission reduction will occur without a mass revolt against the existing economic order. Call this larping or utopian fantasy, but it is a more realistic scenario than solving global warming by carbon tax cuts and technocratic tweaking.

Just my opinion, which won't matter since neither of us will ever affect any change on this issue. Good luck with your future projects!

molleindustria1 year ago(+3)

I'm old enough to have witnessed various iterations of greenwashed capitalism, from "sustainable development", to cap and trade and carbon offsets, and I agree they did nothing but soothe the masses and delay actual change. But I feel like some players don't get what degree of agency the game implies: in order to restructure the energy grid on a federal level or determine where renewables, factories, or high speed rail are built, the government has ownership and control over large parts of the energy sector and manufacturing industry, or at the very least it is able to direct subsidies that override the forces of the free market. I guess could have spelled it out and make the frog say "good, now that we did the revolution and seized the means of production we can get to work" and follow up with the same exact game to reassure some comrades that they are not being reform-pilled.
My main worry is that this all-or-nothing position on climate, ie the dismissal of any reform or policy as "not enough" or straight-up greenwashing, is the leftist version of climate denialism: a narrative that authorizes people to go on with their own lives and cope with political inaction. Your conclusion that neither of our opinions matters anyway is precisely the outcome that both capitalists AND technocratic moderates want.

GiovanniDrogo1 year ago(+3)

Thank you for the reply!

It seems to me that this dichotomy between the government and the forces of the free market is a fictional one, since the current government's role is the upholding of the "free" market, the two being a symbiotic relationship, rather than two combatting forces. In my country some people like to say we live in socialism because a large chunk of the natural reserves market is owned by government corporations, even though they act not in the best interests of the country, but solely to gain profit. So to say that a government should control where money goes to undertake such a vast project as outlined in your game would require a separation of the existing federal order from the profit motives, the impossibility of which is precisely the problem of the current economic order.

Spelling out that the government was already inherently socialist could have worked, but I prefer the existing version of the game. It may be wholly unrealistic (in my opinion), but it focuses directly on the various ways of dealing with global warming without getting bogged down in the "alternative universe USSA" scenario. Which, for a edutainment game about the ways of lowering carbon footprint would be too much.

In my view, denying the efficiency of climate change reforms within the current capitalist society is similar to denying the usefulness of electoralism. Both can be seen as discouraging rhetoric, or a call to action. The reason this seems as a discouraging rhetoric is because the first and second world are so far removed from any revolutionary movement, so when reform is denied as a possibility, the alternatives are almost non-existant. I would blame this on the current world situation rather than on the falseness of the rhetoric.

The reason I say neither of our opinions matter is because as individuals we are unable to enact meaningful change, and that a coherent political organization is needed to transmit and enact upon these ideas. I have assumed that you are not a part of such organization, and am happy to stand corrected in case you are.

I also understand that having an online argument in an itch.io comment section is not the best use of your time. I'm eager to learn, so if you think there is anything pertaining to the discussion at hand I need to read to educate myself, please say so.