Question for Chinese Players

[Archifenix]

I am just curious: What do you think about the game?

Edit: Just to be clear, I am Latin American (and from South America) and want to hear about your perspective.

[normal player]

我不能代表中国玩家，玩这款游戏的人有各种各样的意识形态，但这款游戏在年轻人左派中流传较广，大家对它的评价毁誉参半。主要是不满制作组对社会主义理论的一些看法和对中国历史事件设计决议的一些出发点。但是这款游戏几乎是市面上唯一描述中国70年代以后的政治模拟游戏，所以大家只能尽量忍耐下去。制作组每更新一次，社区自制的翻译模组就失效一次，我们对此很无奈

[Archifenix]

Apologies - I am Latin American, I do not speak Chinese. I had to use a translator (DeePL) so I apologize for any miscommunications:

抱歉--我是拉丁美洲人，不会说中文。我不得不使用翻译器 (DeepL)，如有任何沟通不畅，我深表歉意：

我喜欢这种褒贬不一的评论，因为它认识到了游戏的优点和缺点。

声明一下，我本人不是社会主义者，我是未来学家，所以我想听听大家的看法。在社会主义理论方面，你认为游戏有哪些问题，哪些是正确的？

谢谢，并致以诚挚的问候。

[normal player]

Originally posted by Archifenix:

Apologies - I am Latin American, I do not speak Chinese. I had to use a translator (DeePL) so I apologize for any miscommunications:

抱歉--我是拉丁美洲人，不会说中文。我不得不使用翻译器 (DeepL)，如有任何沟通不畅，我深表歉意：

我喜欢这种褒贬不一的评论，因为它认识到了游戏的优点和缺点。

声明一下，我本人不是社会主义者，我是未来学家，所以我想听听大家的看法。在社会主义理论方面，你认为游戏有哪些问题，哪些是正确的？

谢谢，并致以诚挚的问候。

好的，那么我主要说中国毛派年轻人的看法。首先这款游戏完全否认了毛泽东思想作为马克思主义理论发展和延续的地位，认为它不是马克思主义的，也不是社会主义的，奉行毛泽东思想的政权在游戏中仅仅被笼统地概括为“左翼激进主义”，而完全在中国照搬苏联经济模式的王明被尊为“正统马克思主义路线”，令人啼笑皆非，玩这款游戏的过程中深刻地体会到了为什么上个世纪苏联被称为社会帝国主义（doge）说完了糟的让我们说说好的，至少这款游戏鼓励你通过支持他国革命推翻资产阶级政府的方式获胜，如支持菲律宾、南美、印度的毛派成员。关于游戏的社会主义理论方面我想说的就是这么多

[金玟池小姐是我老公]

Chinese who live in Canada. My comment will be in both language so other fellow could read. The Marxist group has basically 2 type, Lenin-Stalin type which was used by Soviet Union and classic Marxism which deeply affect the current leftist activity. For the first type, they focus on the Force: Lenin believed that the use of force was essential to the establishment of socialism, and thus socialism could only be achieved through violent revolution.
The other point is vanguard. Lenin argued that the ordinary people in Tsarist Russia were not capable of fully understanding Marxist theory, which encompassed advanced ideas in philosophy, politics, and economics. Therefore, only a small group of individuals who had mastered these theories could form a vanguard. Through mobilizing the masses and establishing a highly organized and efficient structure, this vanguard would lead the way in building socialism. Stalin adopted the concepts of the vanguard party and public ownership in a more dogmatic manner, and made initial attempts at collective production and a communist way of life. The other one is simple as we both live in North America so we know what leftist are like. They were influenced by classical Marxism as well as the ideas of later theorists. They abandoned certain narratives about revolution and instead focused on democracy. Through social activism and other means, they sought votes and public support. Within the existing political system, they aimed to advance social equality by promoting policies such as income redistribution and racial equality. In doing so, they sought to gradually move toward the vision of socialism that Marx outlined in the 19th century. The both way has their own issue. The Soviet Union’s death has proved the first type’s default, In the short term, the vanguard party can contribute to rapid social advancement—this was the foundation for the Soviet Union’s emergence as a superpower in a relatively short period. However, in the long run, the vanguard is prone to corruption. Once fully corrupted, it can subject the population to severe oppression. This is evident in the contrast between the Soviet Union’s formidable military power and the low standard of living experienced by its citizens. Furthermore, events such as the Ukrainian famine and the Great Purge under Stalin cast serious doubt on the vanguard theory, suggesting that the vanguard may fail to genuinely represent the people—a critical requirement for any socialist regime. Regarding the second issue, Mao once offered his own critique. He argued that the kind of democracy practiced in existing capitalist countries was not a reliable form of democracy. Instead, it primarily served the interests of large corporations, and the electoral process was more of a tool for power struggles than genuine popular representation. In this context, Mao believed that the classical Marxists’ relatively mild and gradualist approach was insufficient to bring about real social change.
(Personally, I think this perspective makes a lot of sense.)

[金玟池小姐是我老公]

Returning to the most important theme—Maoism—Mao offered two notable solutions to the problems discussed above.

The first was the idea of “turning everyone into the vanguard.” In mid-20th century China, people were actively encouraged to study philosophy. From the modern philosophical starting point of Descartes to German idealists like Kant and Hegel, then to Marx—the most important of all—and finally to Lenin, Stalin, and Mao himself, philosophical study was seen as vital. Mao strongly promoted this intellectual engagement. He even had a debate with Khrushchev on this issue: while Khrushchev believed in maintaining the scarcity of the vanguard, Mao argued that everyone could and should become part of the vanguard.

The second was Mao’s conception of “Great Democracy” (大民主). The first key element of this idea was based on the Paris Commune model, which, simply put, consisted of three principles:
1. All officials, from the lowest to the highest, must be elected by the people;
2. All officials could be dismissed at any time if they failed to represent the people;
3. Officials should enjoy no special privileges.
During the Cultural Revolution, for example, the income of many officials was significantly reduced in accordance with this principle. Mao also，reduce his own salary to 2/3

Another crucial element of “Great Democracy” was people’s right to rebellion. In the 20th century, civil disobedience was often discussed—namely, whether people had the right to refuse to comply with oppressive policies，such as luther king. Mao took a more radical stance: not only did he support disobedience, he also believed in the right to overthrow oppressive policies and the individuals enforcing them.
During the Cultural Revolution, one vivid example was when citizens stormed into officials’ offices and dragged them out into the streets—this reflected Mao’s radical emphasis on popular mobilization.

At the core of Maoism lies the Theory of Continuous Revolution. Mao believed that any society, over time, will accumulate contradictions. To truly address these contradictions, periodic radical revolutions were necessary. He proposed that China should enter a revolutionary state every ten years—as the only way to keep the country on the right track.

To summarize: Mao and Maoism, from every perspective, represent a “third type” of socialist practice. Learning from both Soviet and Western Marxist traditions, Maoism absorbed their insights, criticized their weaknesses, and synthesized their strengths, thereby pushing socialism to a new stage.

In my view, the game (referring to the game narrative) did not quite succeed in capturing these aspects. Maoism, as depicted in the game, appears closer to the Soviet model.
(As a side note, it’s interesting that Mao predicted the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1960s–70s. He believed that maintaining the scarcity of the vanguard and failing to trust its people would eventually lead to alienation between the people and the soviet. This, in his view, would result in the people abandoning the regime—a prophecy that came true with the collapse of the USSR in 1991.)

Still, regardless of how the game interprets it, the fact that it is willing to depict that era at all is already something we, as Chinese people, can appreciate.

[Archifenix]

Hey, thank you for the detailed response! Just one thing, though: I am actually from South America (the region, not the part of the USA) and so my familiarity with Communists is different. There are the standard university types, which tend to be Trotskyists and say the USSR/China was/is mostly bad, there are the 'moderates' which basically are the reformists who engage in Liberal Democracy and then to align with Social Democrats, and then there are the dogmatists, who tend to blindly praise groups like Shining Path without quite understanding why people in general dislike them.

I appreciate the information about China, it is nice to hear about it from people who live it. Too often I hear misinformation (both pro and against), so it is nice to hear different perspectives.