u/Creepy_Employ_3749

Hi comrades, I just had a thought that I wanted to hear your perspective on.

My question is whether we need to find other “labels” for some of the classical and most important terms in class struggle, such as “proletariat,” “bourgeoisie,” “working class,” and so on.

I had this thought because these terms have been heavily tainted by Western propaganda, and many people I’ve interacted with become very skeptical the moment you even mention them. Also, the term “working class” or “worker” often evokes the image of the classic factory worker, which doesn’t really fit the majority of the working class we are speaking to in modern times.

So I wanted to ask whether you agree, and if so, whether you have any ideas for new terms we could start using instead in order to communicate socialist ideas more effectively to the masses.

Thanks in advance!

Hi, I come from a liberal family that primarily focuses on the environment and how to stop climate change (they are also members of “The Greens” in Germany, where I live). I frequently try to convince them of the idea of socialism ever since I came to believe it is a much more effective approach to achieving long-lasting change.

One argument I often hear from them is: “We don’t have the time to advocate for socialism; we need to focus on climate change first because we only have about 20 years left.”

I try to make it clear to them how the economic system is connected to climate change, but I also understand their argument. Do any of you have counterarguments I could use to further the discussion?

I’m afraid that if I can’t even convince my liberal family, I won’t be able to convince anyone else down the line.

I just need to vent a little because I’ve seen a lot of people trying to justify every bad thing Alastor did to Vox, especially the mocking in Episode 4, with the argument “Vox was a serial killer, so he deserved it.”

But then, the moment you challenge that position, they immediately retreat to: “Oh, the serial killer is cruel? Le gasp.” While still trying to argue that Vox somehow deserved it more.

And yes, I know there are Vox fans who do the exact same thing in reverse. But I honestly feel like it happens less often because of the framing in the show. Alastor is framed much more like a protagonist and part of the “good side,” while Vox is framed as the antagonist. Because of that, I think people are naturally more willing to excuse or overlook Alastor’s behavior while judging Vox much more harshly for similar actions.

I don’t know, I just needed to vent a little because this genuinely annoys me.

So, I am in a bit of a weird spot with Al. I really like him as a character but after watching the Backstory with him and Vox, it really reminded me of a past trauma with a "friend" I had expirienced. So I am kind of close to hating Al for this kind of rejection. I have read the theorie that he just reacted like that to Vox offer because he really wanted to do it, but coulden't because he was afraid of what Rosie might to him or Vox. I think this theory could be plausible because I think this reaction was a bit out of character for him. Even if he really didn't hold Vox in any regard, I feel like he would at least tried to use the circumstance to make a deal with him. Vox was clearly in a vernuble and kind of "needy" spot and I feel like Al would have taken advatage of that, if he didn't like Vox, not just mock him. So I wanted to hear y'alls opinions on this theory, and if you think it could be realistic.

So I’ve been thinking about the finale again, and the more I look at it, the less the whole contract logic makes sense to me.

The biggest issue is how inconsistently contracts seem to work. On one hand, the story treats wording and technicalities as extremely important. For example, in the deal involving Vox, something as specific as “laying hands” is enough to instantly break the contract. That tells us that these agreements are strict, literal, and heavily dependent on clearly defined conditions.

But then we have the deal between Alastor and Rosie, and suddenly the logic feels completely different.

From what we’re told, the deal is relatively vague: Alastor becomes the most powerful sinner in Hell in exchange for giving Rosie power over him. Now, if contracts are really as strict and technical as shown elsewhere, this should follow a clear set of rules. Either:

• Rosie continuously maintains his status as the most powerful (like a “subscription”), or
• she fulfills her part once, and that’s it.

But neither interpretation fully lines up with what we see.

If it’s a one-time boost, then Vox surpassing Alastor shouldn’t automatically end the deal, because Rosie technically didn’t fail—she did make him the most powerful. The state of the world just changed afterward. In that case, the contract should still be active.

On the other hand, if the condition is ongoing, meaning Alastor has to remain the most powerful, then the moment Vox surpasses him, the contract breaks. But that raises another issue: why wouldn’t Rosie structure the deal in a way that ensures control over him long-term? Given that she’s a demon and the contract is vague, it would be far more logical for her to tie his power directly to herself, forcing dependency. That way, he could never surpass her influence or escape the deal without losing everything.

Instead, the contract seems to sit in this awkward middle ground where:

• it’s strict enough to break when the condition fails,
• but not strict enough to clearly define how that condition is maintained.

This becomes even more confusing when looking at the fight itself. Vox is established as the new “most powerful sinner,” yet he struggles against an injured Alastor with a damaged staff—something that supposedly limits Alastor’s power. If the title of “most powerful” is meant to mean anything in a practical sense, especially given that Alastor’s whole motivation revolves around killing, then it should translate into actual combat superiority. But it doesn’t, at least not consistently.

At that point, it starts to feel like the rules are being applied differently depending on what the plot needs:

• Contracts are strict when the story wants a dramatic loophole
• but vague when that strictness would create complications

I’m not saying there’s no possible in-universe explanation, but the show leaves so much undefined that you have to fill in a lot of gaps yourself. And when those gaps start to conflict with each other, it breaks the internal logic a bit.

So right now, it feels less like a coherent system and more like contracts work however they need to in the moment, which, for me as a Vox fan, is a bit frustrating. I would really like to know your thoughts on this.