food should be free. water should be free. housing should be free. power, fuel, electricity should be free. basic necessities should be free.
the idea of “people should have to work for a living” carries the implication that some people deserve to die
Social networking sites like Facebook encourage people to view themselves as perpetual cultural entrepreneurs, striving to offer a newer and better version of themselves to the world. Sites like LinkedIn prod their users to present themselves as a fungible basket of skills, adjustable to the needs of any employer, without any essential characteristics beyond a requisite subservience. Classical liberalism always assumes the coherent individual self as its basic unit. Neoliberalism, by contrast, sees people as little more than variable bundles of human capital, with no permanent interests or even attributes that cannot be remade through the market.
That awkward moment when your coworkers want you to become a manager in order to protect them from the discipline of 9 other managers who also want you to become a manager.
Hello, yes, I would like to subsist without being threatened with starvation, homelessness, and imprisonment, thank you.
Q:conservatives say liberals are fascist, liberals say conservatives are fascist, how is this different from socialist critique of liberalism and conservatism as both being fascist? not a gotcha question, I want to learn more
The dichotomy between liberal and conservative comes out of the specific class formation that capitalism created in order to develop itself through the primitive accumulation phase. It involved the creation of social hierarchies based on skin colour and genitals and such that could be used to justify violence on a massive and genocidal scale, securing the consent of some of the populace by allowing them a small part of the booty. This evolved first into a situation in 18th and 19th century Europe where capitalists were united under a liberal/whig party and feudalists were united under a conservative party. Slowly, feudalists themselves were turned into agricultural capitalists through reforms like the end of the corn laws, and the two parties became the two wings of capitalism. Liberals are typically internationalist in character, believing that capitalism should be continually pushed to its greatest bounds, and this means that the state must take over some functions in society to ensure its proper stewardship. They also wish for rationalization, including the removal of old social prejudices to a degree to make capitalism more dynamic. Virtually no nation in history developed through capitalism without strong state discipline of individual firms, without socializing the costs of research and development, and without doing major amounts of economic planning, possibly through proxies like the military-industrial complex or simply straight up like japan’s MITI. Conservatives on the other hand are the group of fearful provincial capitalism. They embody what capitalists hate about democracy, that the state powers used to expand capitalism could also be used to take their property from them. They believe in the lies of capitalism about social hierarchy and fear the loss of the continued violent coercion that keeps property safe. Liberals on the other hand believe that letting black people and homosexuals and such be rich improves capitalism’s standing in the eyes of the poor, helping them to believe that they one day may be rich too. American political discourse tortures any concepts until they became staid, nondescriptive, predictable, simplified and entirely controllable, so these ideas manifest as “big government, small government”. Based on these signifiers, American pundits then proceed to bash each other by noticing that one or the other had parallels in an old and hated enemy, Nazi Germany, the fascists. This group represents the failure of both capitalism and communism, the former to keep the state, the latter to seize the state. They’re closer to conservatives in the sense that they believe in the lies of capitalism about hierarchy and in the direct application of violence to gain their goals, and that they’re typically those provincialists who are excluded from the power halls of capitalism on most days, the petit bourgeoisie, upwardly mobile professionals who resent both the upper and lower classes as parasites. They do tend to discipline firms that don’t follow their policy dictates though. However, under fascists as under liberals and conservatives, property is safeguarded no matter what. Instead, they’re a threat to the internationalist capitalist order because they believe in national capitalism, not international capitalism, and will stop capitalism from expanding in a more totalizing manner. They’re also ideologically motivated to fight communism in the extreme, meaning they can be useful at times. We’ve reached a point where capitalism can set them up and knock them down with relative ease, such as the 1965 Indonesian coup and the 1998 Indonesian revolution, where American and world bank dictates were able to cohere and eliminate governments in a matter of hours (4 in the latter case). Socialists note that it’s only capitalists that use fascism because it’s inherent in capitalism’s crises, and bash the entire system for its creations, where as liberals and conservatives are only looking to score rhetorical points by comparing their opponents to an old hated enemy in form but not substance.
People go like “you can’t force diversity” as if the racial hegemony and absolute heterosexuality in media happened naturally and wasn’t carefully constructed and heavily forced by a white supremacist agenda and society’s obsession with hetero normativity
I’ve had this thought in my head that senseless shootings by “normal” people living under “normal” circumstances (by normal I mean the normalized idea of a person: middle class white male) are a product of alienation and insulation from the sort of visible violence that oppressed communities have to deal intimately with on a daily basis.
In the “normal” world that these people come to perceive, they encounter boredom and numbness, an inability to feel. They are bombarded with banal materiality and a sense of fatalistic nihilism overcomes them, as does a sense of superiority. The emptiness and hopelessness turn into silent rage, and the act of violence becomes a last resort as a return to feeling or as an escape from the monotony of their everyday.Alienation is such a sinister and grotesque product of late capitalism that so rarely gets addressed. Odd as it may seem - and I still don’t quite know how to articulate this - I think of it as a problem which, in these cases, is very much rooted in privilege: the privilege of living a comparatively sheltered existence where structural violence is made distant, or invisible.
seriously, the music that has come out this year is messing me up real good.
Thundercat sings about the reality of Love that endures
zombiegraycat said: what’s the difference between an autonomist marxist and an ancom? also what’s a platformist?
iampeopletoo said: Could you and would you describe what you mean when you call yourself a “Platformist”? I have not heard the term before and I am curious what that entails for you. Thank you.
I’m probably butchering the definitions here. My understanding of Platformism is that its an anarcho-communist tendency that draws some elements from autonomous marxists, vanguardism, and anarchist theory. Platformists tend to favor political programs, written press, and theoretical affinity.
The major difference between Anarcho-communists and platformists I think is that the former tends to be more inclined to navigate horizontal spaces and favors less centralized organizational methods in comparison to platformists.
As always, peeps are welcome to add on to this discourse.
While we use the word feminism we are conscious how much misused and at the same time misunderstood it can be within the revolutionary and MLM movement, where this word is often unpopular and opposed because of the bourgeois and reformist features it has been assuming over the years. However, for us to speak about feminism means to state that the leading role and the revolutionary determination of women are necessary and they cannot be set aside.
When we say feminism, we raise and claim all the hard struggle, the rebellion, the breakthroughs that women have had and have to carry out against the actual exploiting and oppressive bourgeois system. We speak about feminism because there will not be emancipation for the proletarians without a deep-rooted revolution in the role of women; there will not be revolution without liberation… without the breaking off of all shackles.
We speak about proletarian feminism, in opposition of the various forms of bourgeois and petit bourgeois feminism. We know that the material conditions, the class they belong to, that distinguishes individuals more than their gender. We do not believe a female specificity exists as an abstract problem of gender, prescribing the real social-economical conditions that materially determine their existences.
Unlike bourgeois women, proletarian women have no interest in maintaining the present state of things unchanged, to carve out seats, rights and opportunities inside bourgeois society.
We speak about revolutionary proletarian feminism because there can not be any achievement for women through reforms that leave the structure and production relationships in the bourgeois society unchanged. The liberation/emancipation of women has to be achieved within the deep-rooted revolutionary transformation of society by means of class struggle.
it is no longer clear that feminist theory ought to try to settle the questions of primary identity in order to get on with the tasks of politics. Instead, we ought to ask, what political possibilities are the consequence of a radical critique of the categories of identity? What new shape of politics emerge when identity as a common ground no longer constrains the discourse of feminist politics? And to what extent does the effort to locate a common identity as the foundation for a feminist politics preclude a radical inquiry into the political construction and regulation of identity itself?
To commit to love is fundamentally to commit to a life beyond dualism. That’s why love is so sacred in a culture of domination, because it simply begins to erode your dualisms: dualisms of black and white, male and female, right and wrong.