The people who tend to win guerrilla battles are the people who have the support of the common folks in the countryside...

You know we're not fond of the "blue hairs" either?

The far left people seem to make no effort to talk to laborers, middle Americans, minorities that live in the ghetto, proles, they just want to burn shit and make snarky hot takes on twitter

ftfy

i thought leftists hated rednecks

it just goes to proof that the only people needing a system like communism are people unable to provide for themselves

...

You don't see a lot of antifa period.

Which is good because they're retards, but still.

They're the proletartiat, and our entire ideology is in favor of the proletariat. We love them, but due massive amount of Cold War propaganda they don't know what we are, so they hate us.

yes…because every country has a left wing that's like the "left" in USA.
The communist party in my country voted against gay people adopting children..and voted against the legalization of recreational cannabis because "There's no scientific basis that shows that legalzing cannabis ends with the black market".
You folks in USA have no idea how conservative the left can be

That sounds like pretty bad ass, no nonsense country, how do I move there?

the girl the OP posted is good looking, these women all look like dumb bimbos

here: livinginportugal.com/en/moving-to-portugal/residency-requirements/

Liar.

This isn't a good thing.

You seem to have no actual real life experience with socialist and communist organizations in the US, only what you read on the internet, which would explain this phenomenon.

I'm an ancom and I do not at all deny this memeball.

Pinochet "won" by getting the CIA to help him in a undemocratic coup and Franco won with support from only about half the country.

And Mussolini sent brigades to Spain while the Nazis sent their planes.

I don't know about Franco, but I wouldn't use "by and large" in Pinochet's case.

One more reason why the US should be nuked into obivion. Glad you agree.

I think this is the great little intro that sets the scene well, but… wait a second… I could swear that I remember this from somewhere else…
God damnit Zack Snyder, you fucking hack fraud! No wonder Hollywood shits on video games when it makes it easier to steal from them.
Oh, that's cute, so even when you're ripping off video games you're actually being original… Even though you never made a real movie until years after State Of Emergency came out.
Speaking of Watchmen though, I think this game's musical intro also makes a great little introduction, so I'll let it play for you.
Wait wait wait, this is supposed to be 1080p, not 144p. Did a PS2 disc really have that little space? Okay, okay, we're just gonna have to give this demo sequence a 2017 makeover… and go!
(NEED CLIPS OF SPANKY BEATING UP CORPORATION FORCES, NO MUSIC)
Well alright, that's more like it!
As you can see, even though it came out in 2002, this game is full of 90s charm, and the blend of urban culture and anti-capitalism was clearly inspired by the anti-globalisation movement, back when people actually knew what globalism meant, and the 40,000 strong 1999 WTO protests, also known as 'The Battle of Seattle'.
Student and youth activists both local and from around the world joined forces with environmentalists and trade unions who were united in their anger over the WTO's free trade policies and the increasing power of multinational corporations. The majority of participants were peaceful, but this was also the first large-scale appearance of the black bloc in the US. Whether you think that the quote unquote violent demonstrators were angry young activists or federal agents sent to disrupt the protests is beyond the scope of this video to determine.
(starbucks violence clip)
Protestors were increasingly victims of violence by the militarised riot police, who used pepper spray, gas grenades, rubber bullets and batons to suppress the crowd and clear the streets. The police were heavily equipped in anticipation of the WTO meeting, but they seemed tactically unprepared, and orders were confused and seemed to be given on the fly by ranking officers far from the tear gas. At times the riot police looked on as the black bloc trashed downtown, and at others they charged ruthlessly into crowds of protestors and media without warning.
(State of Emergency clip)
By the fourth day, the WTO negotiations were unravelling, due to a combination of protestors blocking delegates from entering, global condemnation from environmental and human rights groups, and a rebellion by third world leaders inside the conference who were appalled by the lack of democracy inside the meetings and the disproportionate power held by the first world representatives. The US chief negotiator was called 'personally offensive, patronising, and insulting'. Eventually even the European delegates had enough the talks collapsed with no agreement, with the chief result being the WTO gaining a reputation for corruption and a lack of transparency, and a strengthening in the global labour movement.
Various press material and early articles about State of Emergency make reference to the fictionalised 'ATO', or American Trade Organisation, but as we saw, by release this had morphed into 'The Corporation'. I could try to speculate myself about what might have affected the course of the game's development, but I reached out to Delorian Tokes and Phase Future of Smash Mechanics directly, and I'll just give it to you as they saw it. Future told me:

"Our boy Rich, who was one of the original game testers at Rockstar, (back when GTA was still a top down game and they only had like 20 employees) would always play our mix tapes and songs around the office. Soon after GTA 3 exploded, Rockstar approached us saying essentially ‘We have a new IP, it’s this crazy idea for a game based on the WTO riots in Seattle and the politics surrounding it. Would you want to do the theme song?” to which we replied “abso-fucking-lutely!”
As you can tell from the lyrics and tone of the song, the good folks at Rockstar gave us free reign and were not trying to pull any punches with this game. We felt like SOE was gonna be the be the video game industry’s response to the stealing of the US election in 2000, the right wing take over of American democracy, and the dangers of globalization.
I had a real deep conversation with one of the head producers of the game back when we we’re trying to determine the direction for the theme song. It was all about video games as art, and the obligation of art to speak truth to power and reflect the times. It was an exciting project to be a part of. Then 9/11 happened…
Suddenly making this political statement became not just very dangerous (which none of us gave a fuck about), but very unpopular. I’m just speculating here, but I think there was a lot of pressure internally, and externally to sink this game. I think the game was rushed out of development and intentionally pretty cartoonish and trash in the hopes it would just be forgotten, saving Rockstar and Take two any further lawsuits and unwanted attention.
The game play suddenly was scaled down to you basically just destroying a mall over and over. The tone of the music (other then the theme song by us) was much softer and less aggressive, and the game in general did everything to avoid making any kind of overt political statement. The message of the game became more about gang violence and less about political oppression.

But here we are 15 years later and the title song is probably more relevant then ever, and the intention we all had to raise these important questions about society and ourselves still haven’t found a voice in video games."
Back to me. It's a sad tale, and while I don't feel qualified to give too much analysis about real life leftist movements, I think it's fair to say that State of Emergency's downfall reflects the downfall of the anti-globalisation movement in general. With the 'election' of George W. Bush and the 9/11 attacks, the American establishment tightened their grip on power, both physically and culturally. Resistance in any form could no longer be allowed to spread so freely, and there was a massive amount of pressure put onto groups that could upset the patriotic neoconservative fervor of the times.
State of Emergency's more nuanced original plot seems to have been anothing casualty of those times, but does that mean we should write off the game completely? Well, no, not in my opinion. Certainly, the game has been dumbed down, but the fun of the original concept still remains. Even if it fell short of really being any kind of social satire, it's still entertaining to blow the fuck out of the corporation.
Often in gaming, you are left mourning a concept that could have been great, if only certain things hadn't been scaled back in development, but you have to appreciate the good where you can get it. With that said, let's dive into the gameplay proper. The gameplay is divided into two modes, Revolution, where you complete missions to progress, and Kaos, which is a free-for-all score attack mode. Let's dive into Revolution first, and see the game's narrative, such as it is.
When you start the game, you have the choice between Roy McNeil, an ex-cop from the old government, and Libra, a lawyer who turned to violence after being frustrated [add]. The other three characters are unlocked both here and in Kaos mode my completing the Revolution levels. That sounds pretty standard, but there is a notable absence from the starting selection, which is Hector Soldado aka Spanky. You might recognise him from the box art, which gives the impression that he's the game's central figure, but he isn't even unlocked until you complete the first level of Revolution. Minor detail maybe, but I can't think of any other game that features an unlockable character alone on the box art.

As the corporation newscaster suggests, the plot shows your time with resistance group Freedom, a wonderfully generic title that can mean whatever the player wants it to mean. They are similar to many videogame rebel groups in that it's difficult to determine anything that they're for, only that they're against the game's villains The Corporation. That said, some of the 90s anti-globalisation politics still bleed through.
Revolution mode starts out in the Capitol City Mall, which is an environment rich in opportunities to cause mayhem. As well as the corporation, you're tasked with subduing the gangs that inhabit each area, who essentially operate with the tacit approval of the corporation. Your first mission tasks you with jumping two Mall Rats, and things only get more serious from there. Many of the missions involve killing a certain group of enemies or assassinating a high-ranking target, while others require you to secure a certain item and return it to your handler. These missions are usually a lot of fun, and are don't present too much difficulty, but Revolution is bogged down by far too many missions that require you to escort NPCs or defend a doorway.
Some of these are incredibly frustrating, and protecting characters doesn't really work well with the mechanics of the game, which is tuned more towards the kill-em-all Kaos mode. Enemies usually go right for your charge, and beating these missions often requires some cheap tactics like memorising the positions of enemies and running ahead of the NPC to kill them before he reaches their activation point. Weapons are only found on enemies or rarely given at the start of missions in Revolution, so often you won't have a gun, but even when you do, the lack of ability to aim means as often as not you'll be blowing away the person you're meant to protect rather than the enforcers attacking them.
With that said, I was having a lot more trouble before I downloaded a copy of the manual, which made me realise you could sprint and do special moves while unarmed. Yeah, remember when you actually had to read the manual in order to learn how the game worked? Feels so quaint nowadays. The manual also fleshes out the backstory a little more, with 'the official story of the corporation's rise to power'.
"2010: We accepted that the only way the global economy could successfully sustain growth through a period of environmental deterioration was to give more power to big business.
2015: It was learned that there was no longer a need for elections and that for years the democratic process had given us only a weak government.
2019: The media was nationalised to ensure that productivity and happiness were promoted by appropriate reporting of events.
2023: Opposition to authority was liqiudated permanently, and the corporation took complete control. This period saw sustained growth of our economy.
2029: An attempt by work shy non believers to rebel was crushed by the security forces. The people rejoiced because they knew the corporation was caring for them in a way that they couldn't match.
Now, in 2035: More weak and ignorant lowlifes are attempting to challenge the authority of the corporation. A state of emergency has been declared and they will learn the error of their ways. They must not be allowed to stand in the way of progress."
This feels pretty incongruous with the game's environments, and nothing in the game, like the cars, weapons, or clothing, gives the apperance that it's any later than the early 2000s, other than some wacky corporate inventions like clone soldiers and mind control, which could have just been explained away as being a result of evil human experimentation. Like renaming the ATO to The Corporation and replacing riot police with corporate stormtroopers, this seems like another attempt to minimise controversy relatively late in the game's development. Rockstar can just claim it's a sci-fi dystopian story, though not entirely convincingly.
Then in the introduction: "Only by mastering both hand to hand combat and more lethal weaponry will you succeed in overthrowing the corporation and restoring democracy".

In concept, Stellaris should be like my dream game, right?
You get to pick between a huge selection of different races and not too much of a focus on human looking species… hehe, 'members of this species seemingly have no concept of frugality and are prone to useless consumption'… gottem. The rest are a collection of exotic fungoid, anthopoid, and reptoid, and molluscoid alien species including amorphous blobs, sapient penises, and horrible tentacled abominations, but most importantly for me are the, avians, reptillians and mammalians. Finally, my dream of a furry stellar utopia can be realised. Of course I'm going to pick the cute foxlike option for my first playthrough, because I'm nothing if not predictable, though to tell the truth I actually played Stellaris when it was first released, but I found it too much of a buggy slog that was seriously lacking in content.
More relevant to this analysis, the political traits were all messed up on release too. Alongside the fairly standard militaristic versus pacifistic, xenophobic versus xenophilic, and materialist versus spiritualist traits, we had individualism and collectivism. Well, I chose collectivism, pretty simple right? Not quite, because collectivism gave you a bonus to slavery, and individualism a bonus to energy generation, ie. money. Because that's that's how that works, right? Now, I know that some people define socialism as individualist, and I see their point in a sense, but personally I don't think collectivism is anything to be ashamed of. That's hardly the same as loving slavery, which in my mind is more justifiable in societies where the economic rights of wealthy individuals are deified, like in the British Empire or Colonial America.
I guess I shouldn't have expected anything less from the number one developer loved by fascists everywhere, but it got on my nerves, even though I just made a Materialist, Xenophilic, and Pacifist race instead.
However, in April 2017, alongside the Utopia DLC, the collectivist and individualist traits were redesigned into Authoritarian, which gives the traditional bonuses to slavery and dictatorships, and Egalitarian, which gives bonuses to happiness and democracy. Personally, I feel like this is a very welcome change, since it defines democracy as something different from capitalism as it was in the original game. It's a shame we can't have an overt Capitalism vs Communism trait, but that would probably have people complaining no matter what bonuses were applied to each side.
I quit halfway through in my original run as the Yapathi because I was just getting bored with the game in general, and now that I've played it more, I can see that Pacifist is a trait choice that really gives you no bonus whatsoever. We'll get into why later, but it was an easy choice to convert to Materialist, Xenophilic, and Egalitarian this time.
The Yapathi are a race of mammalian predators who evolved on their Earth-like continental homeworld of Arakim. Strictly speaking, you can set any race to be adapted to any planet, which doesn't really make much sense to me since you can choose a skinny bird race to be most comfortable in Arctic conditions, and each choice of planet is equally weighted, that is to say, it's no more common for sapient life to evolve on a Terran world than any other type, but I wanted to keep somewhat realistic.

Anyway, I even wrote up a bio to get into the spirit of things a bit, though as I said there's no real way to roleplay being socialist in the actual game.
After choosing the naming scheme, you get into the racial traits, which let you worldbuild a bit more, as well as min-max for the gameplay. Pretty standard for this kind of game, but it's nice to get a bit more control than in other Paradox titles. Positive traits first, and I want Intelligent, because I'm nothing if not a fedoralord, Conservationist, because it lets me roleplay as a greenie and it's a pretty big bonus for only one point, especially later in the game, and communal, for obvious reasons, but also because I feel more justified in horrible wars of expansionist imperialism if my empire is a happy place to live. Of course, there must be bad to cancel out the good, so I picked Deviant, both because the penalty isn't that bad, and because oh murr, and weak, also because oh murr, but more importantly because there's no real need to use sapients as ground troops, since by the mid game you'll have developed killbots that are better at it.
It's neat that there are different color schemes even for the non-human races, though it's impossible to tell male from female which is a shame. You can also choose a nice background to suit your philosophy.
Just to be contrarian, I chose the reptillian cities and ships, since they seemed a bit more brutalist to me, and selected my political traits. Direct Democracy was automatically chosen from my selection, which is neat because that's what I support in real life, and I got to choose two civics, which are essentially empire-wide bonuses based on your traits. Since I wanted my civilisation to become a kind of a utopic collective of liberty for all species I chose Free Haven and Idealistic Foundation, which give bonuses to foreign migration and happiness.
You can change your Empire name later in the game, so for flavour purposes I like to choose a simple sounding name first and then change it to 'Yapathi Interplanetary Alliance of Planets' or something equally grand later when it's warranted.
Flag selection is always a killer, so I just went with the one I made last time, because it looks nice enough, and is simply designed, because I feel some of the randomly generated flags look really overcomplicated. It's supposed to represent the interlocking efforts of the Yapathian people or whatever, though I suppose that's kind of like the rationale of the fasces now I think of it. Err, let's just move on.
The starting weapon is purely personal choice, and I like guns so why not. Having different FTL methods is an interesting concept, but we'll get into that later. I am a new-ish player so I might as well pick Warp.
Character creation is kind of a joy all in itself, but eventually we must move onto the actual game, and I always like to make things as big as possible, the more empires colliding the better in my book. I savescummed the first time I played but this time I'm going for achievements, so you'll get the story of my actual playthrough without me being a cheap bastard.
And so, uh… what the hell, I can't see shit.
Yes, part of the joy of my new 4K monitor is that games apparently decide to just keep all the HUD assets their original size rather than their original scale, so everything is ludicrously tiny.
Thankfully, Stellaris is one of few games to have an option to change it.
Okay, so, now we're finally ready to start our grand interplanetary adventure.
Ah jeez… Well, I guess I could use someone to help co-narrate.
As with any 4X game, the first tasks are to Xplore by sending off a scout ship our of our solar system and Xpand on our homeworld. Stellaris uses tiles in a similar way to Galatctic Civilisations to represent development, but before we can fully Xploit our homeworld, we have to Xterminate any tile blockers, like industrial ruins, or… 'This region is covered by vast shanty towns and slums filled with the poor and the outcast. It contributes nothing to society'. Jesus, so much for my worldbuilding, seems like we're more AnCap-athi. There's no option other than to ruthlessly clear them either, so I'll just pretend that means everyone got put into proper homes and given gainful employment. It's the first of many moral compromises you're forced to make while playing Stellaris, even as a xenophillic democracy.
Science ships soon locate interesting features on other planets, and show us which ones are suitable for colonisation. Finding extraterrestrial life is somewhat underwheming when it turns out to be just a bunch of animals, but before long we discover alien!… microrganisms. However, it's not long before we encounter some strange jellyfish-like ships in our territory, which turn out to be… harmless space whales.
What a let down space has been so far.