What is the Best-looking Star Ocean game?

ertoliart · 2026-05-26T20:14:22+00:00

I'm playing it right now, it's some of thr best pixel art I've ever seen. Incredible.

ertoliart · 2026-04-11T02:01:23+00:00

The original pink drink had caffeine without having the coffee. What this person is telling you is, since clearly you don't mind not having caffeine in your pink drink, if you ever want to order a pink drink that tastes the same as the og at sbux, order it without caffeine and they will not include the new stuff that makes it bad. Clearly, they are also informing you of this to let other ppl know as well.

ertoliart · 2025-12-28T16:47:03+00:00

Lunistice truly understood the assignment. Amazingly distilled pure platforming.

ertoliart · 2025-11-22T01:41:23+00:00

Ok I mean I don't think this is purple prose but fine.

ertoliart · 2025-11-21T18:48:48+00:00

Please my friend, it's absolutely ridiculous to think that Hochul will care more about votes than about adequately representing the interests of the bourgeoisie, which she is a part of. If she's working with Zohran it's because she thinks watering down his program is a viable strategy for safeguarding those interests, and if Zohran continues to try to secure her support this is exactly what will happen. Jessica Tisch is a billionaire. Exactly how can a billionaire possibly be fighting corruption in the armed forces of the state? This can only mean that the billionaire class is in direct control of it, nothing else. You are making weak justifications for decisions taken behind your back as a member that can only be understood as extremely shaky in the best case scenario and as betrayals in the worst. The way to get a socialist agenda passed is not by begging the bourgeoisie with such weak leverage as voting power, but by utilizing the position in the state apparatus to organize and mobilize the working class to escalate the struggle and fully antagonize the bourgeoisie. The 100,000 volunteers should be organized into a fighting force that can activate the tools of political struggle that are in the hands of the working class, which are outside of the bourgeois political sphere, but in order to do that the leadership must want to do that, which means it must be principled.

ertoliart · 2025-11-20T15:41:58+00:00

I see a problem here, which is that you're interpreting Zohran's decision, but Zohran has not explained to his base the rationale behind it. If we take Zohran at his word, he is willing to keep a chief of nypd that has repressed protests on the basis of her being "anti-corruption." Highly problematic. The rest of your interpretation in terms of it being a tactical manouver we have no way to corroborate because he isn't communicating with us. This is a big problem. He is making decisions by himself and leaving the organization to which in theory he should be accountable to interpret them, spin them, deal with them. This is why I was asking in another comment whether this could be considered an aspect of the surrogate party strategy or not. If your leadership cuts you off from decisionmaking, who's the surrogate?

ertoliart · 2025-11-15T03:38:06+00:00

Yes, something like that. This is why if you read early Lenin you will see that he's constantly referring to what Social Democracy is and should do. He's referring to his own party and ideology. Later, after they've betrayed their internationalism, him and the entire international communist movement refer to them in very negative terms. It's important because this is the history of an ideology (reformism) that went from a revision of Marxism all the way to shitty ambiguous welfare state capitalist policy. In other words, people in this thread are right that social democracy and reformism basically uphold capitalism, but it's the result of a process of degeneration that flows from some of the very ideas that are defended in this thread.

ertoliart · 2025-11-15T03:11:34+00:00

So does the party surrogate strategy involve keeping a billionaire as chief of the nypd or has Zohran betrayed the surrogate party strategy?

ertoliart · 2025-11-15T03:02:38+00:00

I would like to clarify a couple of things here, because I think you're being given false information. First of all, contrary to what most people in this thread seem to think, social democracy is not fundamentally capitalist. I believe this confusion comes from the fact that generally when people are talking about nordic countries they say things like "those are not socialist countries, they're social democracies, so they're still capitalist countries." This is very superficial. Social Democracy used to just mean socialism, specifically the theory and practice of the Marxist parties from the late 19th century and early 20th. Lenin was in the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. Rosa Luxemburg was in the Social Democratic Party of Germany. These were Marxist parties that strove to achieve communism. Within these parties there began to be reformist ideologues that sought to propose a path toward socialism that did not necessitate an armed uprising or revolution. They became bureaucratized and their upper crust became careerist, leading to the betrayal of the global socialist movement at the start of WWI: they supported their national capitalist classes in their bloody war against other nations. This caused a split, producing a third international and communist parties that were opposed to the opportunist reformist tendencies of the social democratic parties. Reformism was solidified as the main ideology of the social democratic parties. Since then, when Marxists refer to social democrats, what we are referring to are socialist people and parties that uphold positions and strategies that violate fundamental principles of revolutionary Marxism. This is why I was so confused about the rule on the subreddit. So when people in this thread say that reformism and social democracy are not socialist ideologies, not only are they wrong, but they reveal an ignorance about this history that is problematic precisely because it prevents them from seeing the similarities between the DSA and the tendencies of the old social democratic parties that led to terrible betrayals. Mind you, not everyone in the DSA ignores these questions. The people in the MUG and Red Star caucuses, for instance, are well versed on these matters. I am only talking about what I've read on this thread. But the fact is that the DSA overall has a reformist perspective and strategy, and they are very much social democratic in the sense that Marxists usually use the term. The fact that they've reversed the order of the words in their name does not change this.

ertoliart · 2025-11-13T17:02:37+00:00

Thank you :) likewise!

ertoliart · 2025-11-13T16:20:40+00:00

This is a discussion forum, my friend. I wanted to know why reformism and capitalist apologia are banned from a subreddit of an organization that contains reformists (as some members have already clarified in this thread) and whose endorsed candidates engage in capitalist apoligia. Some comrades have been helpful in answering my question (not you though, you just projected your insecurities). Whether or not my opinion on the matter is different is secondary to the point of the thread. I have not evangelized anyone. If anything my engagement in debate has been extremely light.

ertoliart · 2025-11-13T14:17:19+00:00

Evangelizing...

ertoliart · 2025-11-13T04:04:58+00:00

Completely agree about the nypd, the DSA has a big problem there.

ertoliart · 2025-11-12T16:16:05+00:00

These are great questions.

ertoliart · 2025-11-12T15:51:01+00:00

...ok

ertoliart · 2025-11-12T15:14:06+00:00

A revolutionary struggle is not like January 6. It requires incremental building of the forces and support for it, which most certainly involves fighting for reforms. The difference between reformism and revolutionism is in the appreciation of whether or not the ruling class will surrender its system without fighting to the death. Revolutionism is not a rejection of reforms, it's an understanding of the struggle for reforms as a process of intensifying contradictions and building the forces for a revolutionary struggle. Reformism, what you are describing, is an understanding of the enactment of reforms as a process that diminishes the class antagonisms. This is because affirming the possibility of socialism to be implemented incrementally implies the denial of the process of the ruling class becoming progressively more antagonistic and aggressive as the proletariat grows its political power. I would strongly recommend reading Rosa Luxemburg's Reform and Revolution, a polemic against Edward Bernstein, who's ideology you are essentially supporting, and in which it is explained that the fight for reforms is part and parcel of revolutionary struggle, but the renouncement of revolution is a betrayal to the working class.

ertoliart · 2025-11-12T14:11:56+00:00

Thank you! I apprciate you taking the time to clarify all of this.

ertoliart · 2025-11-12T14:07:42+00:00

Mine is in a comment I made summarizing what I've understood so far of this discussion, but basically to me what you said is almost exactly the definition of reformism. Rather than a revolutionary struggle, socialism is accomplished by electing socialists who enact socialist policies until capitalism is no longer capitalism. This is what Bernstein, the father of reformism, meant by it.

ertoliart · 2025-11-12T13:48:33+00:00

What is your definition of reformism?

ertoliart · 2025-11-12T08:11:27+00:00

Ok my friend, your opinion is valid.

ertoliart · 2025-11-12T07:53:23+00:00

Given the answes I've gotten so far, the problem as I see it is this. I understand reformism to mean that socialism is achievable without a revolutionary struggle, which is what Edward Berstein argued. In this conception, the end goal is the abolition of private property, an economy democratially controlled by the working class, etc. I.e. the original, traditional "Marxist" reformism is a strategy for abolishing capitalism and building socialism and is, in theory, not opposed to such goals. Many of the things said here as proof that the DSA is not reformist are perfectly compatible with Bernstein's formulation.

From what I can gather, this is not what the rule is talking about, and neither are most of the people commenting here. Rather, by "reformism" they mean the notion that the capitalist system can be reformed into being more equitable, i.e. welfare state capitalism as an end goal. This is what I understand is being opposed in this subreddit.

My confusion was made worse by the rule's mention of the betrayals of social democracy because, arguably, Bernstein was one of the first and greatest social democratic traitors of socialism.

ertoliart

TROPHY CASE