Message from @Buy me a pc
Discord ID: 520492332668289025
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.
But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
Stfu and play red dead redemption
Great at debating, as usual
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
That's not a bad idea. I would if I had 2.
Oh wait good games won’t exist under communism because any shitty game designer can make the same amount as an actually good one
Strawman
Tetris is an outlier btw
Good games hardly exist now
@Borzo I debunked you with resources
You really did the opposite tbh
The reason why the bourgeoisie lose their wealth is because competition
Instead of people who don't even work on the game making the profit, it's the game designers themselves being rewarded 😮
Even if it’s shitty 🤔
Nope
Yep
You're just strawmanning at this point
Bruh
Communist games would probably be a lot better seeing how the industry currently is. They just want to cash in on trends.
Your attempt to debunk communist games is fake
No u
You didn’t mention anything about quality
You debunked literally nothing
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women.
Well developers would be making games they want to make without worrying about pleasing stockholders and such.
Exactly
Why should stockholders and the like be rewarded more than the actual people who made the game?
They contributed no work to it
No labour value whatsoever
If you don’t like a game
Then don’t buy it
How did that work for EA?
You're still strawmanning
Lol
There’s YouTube and reviews for a reason
No I’m debunking the stockholders bs
You're attacking literally no part of my argument
Sounds like motivation