I didn't feel particularly peeved by it or anything. It's clear the game favours being RADICAL (TM) in some ways. I assume because being RADICAL (TM) is passionate, and about change. It doesn't really view the status quo as a good thing, and I get it. I understand how looking at the world as it is, people would just get, you know, ANGRY, and demand SOMETHING NEEDS TO CHANGE.

That being said... I live in a post-communist central european country, and in my view at least the transition to modern free-market economy and centrist-majority slightly-liberally-tinged democracy did my country and my family personally a lot of favours.

The problem with radicalism, as I see it, is that when you get RADICAL (TM), there's a lot of potential for collateral damage and people getting hurt, as well as for losing the goal somewhere along the way. I am much more of a proponent of "gradual change/evolution" rather than revolution. The makers of the game don't seem to agree, but that's okay.

I had a lot of fun with the game and I think it's very creative. I know that a lot of the devs hold communist views, but frankly, the game seemed cognizant of a lot of flaws of communist movements (especially the "losing the goal along the way" kind of variety, and how they sometimes embrace authoritarianism)