#Central Distribution Store

[centreal]

Centreal Pilates X Dipple Art Reborn as a Complex Cultural Space with Hand in Hand

센트리얼필라테스X디플아트

손잡고 복합문화공간으로 재탄생

Centreal Pilates X Diffle Art Hand in hand and reborn as a complex cultural space

필라테스를 하러 왔다가 예술작품도 구경할 수 있는

센트리얼 필라테스 반포점

공간을 소개시켜 드릴게요

​

I came here to do pilates, and I was able to look at art Centreal Pilates Department Store I'll show you the space

​

최근 미술전시와 생활체육시설이 접목된 고품격 복합문화공간이 들어서

더욱 눈길을 끌고 있답니다

​

센트리얼필라테스는 최근 아트플랫폼 디플아트와 손잡고 신진작가의 성장과 미술시장의 발전에 앞장서고 있는데요

​

​

필라테스 공간을 유망한 신진 작가들의 전시공간으로 꾸며

운동은 물론 문화생활도 함께 즐길 수 있도록 공간을 탈바꿈 할 뿐더러

​

최근 미술계 블루칩으로 떠오르고 있는 양정수, 별머핀, 소진 등 여러 신진작가들의 다양한 작품들이

센트리얼필라테스 각 지점에 전시될 예정이라고 해요

​

​

Recently, a high-quality complex cultural space combining art exhibitions and sports facilities was built

He's attracting more attention

​

Centreal Pilates has recently joined hands with art platform Dipple Art to lead the growth of new artists and the development of the art market

​

​

The Pilates space is decorated as an exhibition space for up-and-coming artists

Not only is the space transformed so that you can enjoy not only exercise but also cultural life

​

Various works by new artists such as Yang Jung-soo, Star Muffin, and Sojin, who have recently emerged as blue chips in the art world,

will be displayed at each branch of the Centreal Pilates

​

벌써부터

색다른 공간에서 운동을 하는 즐거움은 물론 중간중간 전시를 즐길 수 있어

센트리얼 필라테스 회원님들의 반응이 뜨거웠어요:)

​

​

분기별로 미술품을 교체해 지속적으로 새롭고 흥미로운 전시공간으로 꾸며

복합 문화공간을 일상에서 찾는 고품격 문화생활과 건강한 신체와 아름다운 감성이 공존하는

전시공간을 센트리얼 필라테스에서 계속 만나볼 수 있답니다

​

Already

You can enjoy the exhibition as well as the pleasure of exercising in a unique space

The members of the Centreal Pilates were very enthusiastic. :)

​

The art is replaced quarterly and continuously decorated with new and interesting exhibition spaces

High-quality cultural life where you find a complex cultural space in your daily life, healthy body, and beautiful emotions coexist

You can see the exhibition space at the Centreal Pilates

미술작품과 함께 필라테스를 즐길 수 있는 복합 문화공간은

오직!!

#센트리얼필라테스

에서 만날 볼 수 있답니다

​

A complex cultural space where you can enjoy pilates with artworks

Only!!

#CentrealPilates

You can see it there

앞으로 센트리얼 필라테스의 전 지점을 통해 회원님들이 즐길 수 있는

문화공간으로 만들어질 예정이며 센트리얼을 통해 외적인 모습 뿐만 아니라 내면의 아름다움 까지

깨울 수 있도록 복합적인 문화공간으로 거듭나는 센트리얼 필라테스

많은 관심과 사랑 부탁드립니다

​

​

Through all the branches of Central Pilates, we'll be able to show you It will be made into a cultural space, and through Central, not only the external appearance but also the inner beauty Central Pilates is reborn as a complex cultural space to wake you up Please show a lot of interest and love

[merchantservices444]

What is the Difference Between a Vendor and a Merchant?

[moonydustx]

Hii, i was wondering if you would like to write something about zoro being jealous? Just that haha :) btw i love your writing!

Hi Hi Hi! First, thank you for the request and the compliment, they really make my day. And second, sorry for the delay in writing, I ended up getting stuck with some work deadlines. I loved the idea and although our little greenie has a tough exterior, I think he would be one of those jealous people who refuses to admit it, you know? I think I ended up going on a more protective side with this one, but I hope you like it.

A not so friendly friend

Roronoa Zoro x F!Reader Warnings: Zoro is jealous and a little protective of his girl, he and F!Reader have a kind of secret relationship. A little smut at the end, nothing super explicit. Summary: The Straw Hats arrive on one of the islands where you lived for many years and, to your delight, you meet a long-time friend. Someone in the crew doesn't seem that happy.

requests open | one piece masterlist

It was almost impossible to keep your euphoria contained within your body. You hadn't set foot on that island in years and finally, you could spend a few days there - even if it was just long enough to record the Log Pose.

"Someone seems anxious to me." Usopp leaned next to you as the Sunny finished docking in the small port.

"Right after I left my home island, I spent a few years here, I believe I can still find some friends."

"I hope they're nice people."

"They sure are!" the two of you quickly turned your attention to Luffy, who was shouting that everything was ready to disembark. The two quickly walked towards the group, this time Franky would be responsible for taking care of the ship.

"We're finally here!" Robin joined the two of you. "From what you told me, there's a big library around here."

"Yes, I'll take you there, we also have great restaurants…" you listed. "Wait, how are we going to split up?"

"Well, from what you told me, it's five days until Log Pose finishes recording and since it seems to be an important island for you, we can do most of the things together." Nami explained and waited for the others to agree. "We've already distributed everyone's money, but today we're going after…"

"Food!" Luffy interrupted her and immediately felt Nami's hand slap him. "But you promised to take me out for that delicious pie." he turned to you.

"Yes, we will. Let's go down first, shall we?" you asked and everyone immediately agreed.

Like many other times, you watched Zoro go down first and almost automatically stretch out his hand for you to support yourself and go down. That gesture didn't go unnoticed by your crewmates, but they knew your personality well enough not to question it.

The group continues calmly to the island's central square. New stores, old schools, even some salespeople were the same and seemed to have recognized you when you waved, your cheeks already hurt from the fixed smile.

"I remember in that bar over there one time…" you commented and heard something in the background.

"Kitten?"

Everyone immediately turned towards the voice that called you as they watched you become a figure as you ran towards the blonde haired boy.

"Leo!" recognizing your former friend immediately, you threw yourself into his arms, allowing the man to lift you off the ground.

"Seems like she's well liked here." Robin chuckled as he watched you practically spin around.

"Is he also a pirate?" Brook analyzed him. "What do you think."

"He seems like a nice guy." Chopper replied smiling

"Kitten?" Zoro practically groaned when he heard the nickname, muttering under his breath.

Even with the man's hands on your waist, squeezing you tightly and your laugh being heard from afar, the way the word had come out of the other guy's mouth made it clear that Zoro wouldn't like his stay there in that city.

"Guys, I need to introduce him to you…" you pulled the man by the hand, bringing him closer to the gang. "This is Leo, he was one of the best friends I had here."

"I went?"

"Still one of the best friends." you laughed, being pulled into a side hug by the man. "Let me introduce my friends, Straw Hats."

You made a point of introducing each friend one by one and again that seemed to bother Zoro. Friend? His little rationality reminded him that you had never made anything clear about the implicit situations between the two of you, but the small bad feeling - which he refused to name - bothered him.

"Come on, I'll take you to our base." the man continued holding hands with you and guided the others.

"Wow, how different you look." "So, how has it been exploring the sea?" "I bet you haven't found anyone as good as me."

Every time the man opened his mouth to praise you, Zoro felt his hand grip tighter against the sword in his sheath. Just one of the three and he would do all the damage that crossed his mind. It was a strange feeling, watching you there with someone else, even if they were talking. Something that stirred any butterfly that might exist in his stomach, that made his eyes turn red, his hands itch to get him out and take that Leo's place. Zoro hated this new feeling that came over him.

"Hey Zoro." your voice woke him up from his trance. "Did you know that Leo is also a swordsman?"

"Interesting." His tone of voice was almost cynical, going unnoticed by you.

"This one is the executor." Leo pointed to the sword in his sheath. "It was supposed to have another name." the man turned suggestively to you.

"I would never let you use my name for that thing." you grumbled, turning back to Zoro. "He's one of the best swordsmen on the island."

"What's your bounty?" the provocation was implicit in the cynical smile that adorned Zoro's lips and this time, it had reached your eyes.

"I don't have one." the man replied calmly, reassuring you.

"Interesting." Zoro repeated and followed in silence.

The others seemed distracted, talking amongst themselves, but your eyes started to turn around a few times, following the green-haired man who started to walk further behind the group.

The afternoon passed quickly on the island. You met up with some other friends who didn't seem to be as close as Leo and when night fell, everyone decided to go to a bar. Everyone except one person.

"Zoro, can we talk?" you asked, moving away from the group that entered the place full of drinks and noise. "What is happening?"

"About what?"

"You barely spoke to me today and now you're refusing to drink?" you stood on your tiptoes, to touch his forehead. "Are you sure you don't want me to call Chopper to make sure you're not sick?"

"Everything is fine." he responded directly, even if he wasn't harsh, his eyes made it clear that something was wrong. "I'm going to go back to Sunny, take advantage of the free time to train."

"Greenie, please." the nickname you used so much to irritate him came out sweeter than he expected from your lips. That made it even harder for him to deny any of your requests.

"It's okay sweetie." his hand touched yours and the memories of watching you all day arm in arm with Leo made him pull away. "Your friends are waiting for you, go."

You watched him leave and even though your body almost involuntarily wanted to follow him, you let Zoro return to the ship.

The remaining four days felt like an eternity to Zoro. Something told him not to move away from you and on the other hand, with every laugh you gave Leo's direction, it was as if he was hurting himself. Why did he have to feel this way? It was just a friendship, wasn't it?

He managed to control himself, many times he managed to control himself. Seeing you have lunch next to him, watching the man carry you from one place to another, the stupid gifts he insisted on giving you and even Leo daring to say he could train you with swords.

Zoro didn't know if there was a god or something, but he thanked the heavens when the last night began to fall. The next morning, you would set sail and he would no longer be forced to share his attention with the idiot who called himself your friend.

The tall bonfire at the edge of the small forest was surrounded by members of the Straw Hats, Leo and some other friends. Drinks and food piled up, as did stories and songs that Brook made a point of singing. Your lips no longer smiled so much, especially when your favorite swordsman met your gaze. He was distant, it had been five days since you had barely been able to speak to him and when you did, he seemed to be as dry as the Alabasta desert. On the other hand, these days you had met a much clingier version of Leo, even uncomfortable and you didn't know how to get away - and apparently the person who could help you with this, didn't seem to be so worried.

"Kitten?" Leo bent down, stopping at your ear level. "Can we talk alone real quick?"

"Why?" you asked, seeing him find the question strange.

"We need more booze!" the man ignored what you said and said it out loud. Pretending he wasn't already talking to you, he nudged you. "Come on, help me, kitten."

Zoro watched the man say something to you and your expression changed, sulking. Leo repeated the gesture again, ignoring that he had already spoken to you. Something possessive took over Zoro - something was wrong and he wouldn't sit still until he found out what it was. Leaving the sake aside, the swordsman stood up and, following a more hidden path than yours, accompanied you to the back of the warehouse - which was the supposed base that Leo had presented a few days ago.

"What is this, Leo?" you stopped in front of him, seeing that they had taken a different direction than you expected.

"I know you're leaving tomorrow, but… Why wouldn't you stay here?" he asked and you immediately shook your head, before your lips could even say it.

"They're my family now. I still adore you, everyone here, but I'm going back to the sea." Your answer seemed to disappoint him. "You know it's always been my dream."

"I know it's selfish of me." the man approached, holding your wrists and, more gently than you expected, he guided you against the wall. "I like you, I always have. If you want, we can go to the sea together, we can form a family, we can…"

"I have a boyfriend." Leo laughed in disbelief, still keeping your arms tied to his, in an even tighter grip. "Leo, you've always been my best friend. Let's not ruin that."

"Friends? You've been missing for years!" he growled, slamming your fists against the wall.

For a few seconds Zoro chose to just watch, hatred was in his eyes and if it weren't for your presence there, Leo would already be just a memory in this world. He knew you weren't a lady in distress and that if you wanted to get out of there, you would get out easily. But there was something written in your eyes, something he saw very few times in battle - fear.

Before the man repeated the gesture, you watched Leo's face get closer and when he was millimeters away, he stopped. His eyes immediately widened and before you understood what the glow was on the side of his neck, you saw a small trickle of blood appear on the man's jugular vein.

"Get your filthy hands off my girlfriend…" Zoro's low tone was even more threatening than if he had been shouting. "Before I take them out of your arms."

"So it's him." Leo muttered, frustration clear in his voice. "I should have suspected."

"I'm sorry." you whispered, without even understanding why you were apologizing.

"I could kill you right now and believe me, I'm still debating whether to do it." Zoro approached, now allowing Leo's entire neck to be covered by the blade. "But I'd hate to ruin the banquet."

"Don't worry about that." Leo threatened to pull his sword, but this time it was you who held his hand.

"Just go back there Leo, let's pretend this didn't happen." you asked and Zoro could now notice how stressed you looked, but at the same time relief appeared on your face.

"She's right." Zoro muttered, moving even closer to the man. "Let's pretend none of this happened and maybe tomorrow you won't wake up just to choke on your blood and die."

"Zoro!" Your voice sounded like a warning to him, who lowered his sword and let the man leave.

For a few seconds, the two of you just watched each other. It was good to be able to have your boyfriend there, finally within walking distance of you.

"How are you feeling?" Zoro took the initiative and held your hands, as if analyzing where the man touched you. When you felt them trembling, he placed a quick kiss between your fingers. "Did he do anything else?"

"No, he just wanted me to stay here." you let your body lean against the cold wall. "Why just now?"

"What do you mean by that?"

"All week I've been trying to reach you, bring you with me, integrate you with my friends here." you huffed, feeling Zoro get even closer to your body.

"I wanted to give you space." he lied and saw you laugh. The sound - which this time was exclusively for him - made Zoro's ego inflate.

"I didn't know you were the jealous type." a moan of relief almost escaped you when you felt his arms wrap around your waist.

"Not jealous, just protective."

"What's your bounty?" you imitated him, laughing again. "Isn't that jealousy?"

"No, kitten." this time, he let a soft laugh escape his lips.

"I am sorry dear." you sank into his chest, letting his hands slide down your back. "I was excited to see everything again and I didn't understand Leo's real intentions."

"And why didn't you defend yourself?" your eyes met his and then Zoro realized his mistake. "I mean, I'll always defend you, but I've seen you get out of worse situations."

"I know." Again you cuddled up, the cold wind sent shivers through your body. "It's just that he was a friend, you know? He saved me many times and I guess I didn't expect to have to fight with him. He was never a threat." The sound of Zoro's heart against your ear was comforting, it was like going back to any of the crows nest nights, where you would stay tangled up for hours. "I found his behavior strange, he was never like that, clingy. But I didn't know who to ask for help."

"I imagine it would be difficult." Zoro murmured, letting his lips touch the top of your head. "Sorry I didn't show up sooner, kitten." he teased you, getting another laugh from you.

"Time to stop this kitten."

"Are you sure, kitten?" he said again, but Zoro's voice came out a few octaves lower, his provocation took a new turn.

His hands that had been caressing your back found themselves on your waist and pressed you against the wall. One of them went up to your chin and held you steady, looking into his eyes, but not for long. Eliciting a moan, Zoro took your lips intensely. No time for little kisses, or any affection that could come first. His lips brought longing and the taste of sake, mixed with the sweetness of your lips.

One of his legs fit between your thighs, the hands that held your waist forced you against the fabric of his pants, moving you like an incentive. While the assault on your lips didn't stop, the heat in your intimacy began to accumulate and form a knot.

"Zoro, please." a strangled moan left your lips, trying hard to contain the noise and not attract the attention of anyone nearby.

"I'm here, love. I got you, just give it to me." his lips that bordered the sensitive spot below your ear took your lips and held all your moans just for him.

Zoro held you there for some time, sweat accumulated on your face as you were still panting. It was a version that didn't appear that often, but you loved it when Zoro lost himself caressing your face, letting his lips slide delicately across your skin.

"Zo, I think we should go back." despite yourself, you moved away from him a little. "By now, Leo should already have contact for everyone."

"Great, at least for one good thing this good-for-nothing will do." upon noticing your lost look, Zoro continued. "I was tired of hiding it."

"Are you sure?" his hands cupped your face, placing a chaste kiss on your lips.

"I love you woman, how can I not be sure of that?" the confession brought a huge smile to your lips.

"I love you more greenie."

Zoro took the lead and with his hand tied in yours, he guided you back to the fire. It was as if nothing had happened, everyone was still talking and drinking. Still feeling your legs weak from the little time you and Zoro had, you sat down and let him go get drinks.

Upon returning to his place, Zoro saw that even without saying anything, Leo was still staring at you, practically on the other side of the fire. With his chest puffed out in ego and relieved to finally have you back in his arms, Zoro sat behind you, so that you were between his legs and when he handed you your drink, he placed a kiss and a light bite on your neck. You were his and from now on that would be very clear.

"It can't be! It's too bad luck all at once!" Sanji's tearful voice attracted the attention of both of you and made you laugh out loud when you saw that the blonde was complaining precisely about the little scene between you two. "What does this mosshead have that I don't?"

"I knew!" Nami screamed and ripped Chopper's hat off. "You can go give me your money, you idiots."

"You guys bet on us?" you asked indignantly and to Nami, Usopp and Franky's joy, apparently they were the two winners.

"This world needs to end…" you laughed even harder when you saw Sanji handing the money to the navigator.

"That's it, now there are two idiots wanting what's mine." Zoro pulled you even closer to his body. "Only mine."

[civetfish]

Nerd-to-nerd communication

Something super pointless and self-indulgent I've had on the backburner for a while. I love trying to make the pieces they gave us fit together!

Al-AN and Robin would absolutely bond over learning about each other's biology. I could talk about this forever but I'll get into all of the headcanons I have for these two in another post eventually

Below the cut is another version with some extra bits and pieces and the transcription

Transcript :

Architect Anatomy A. Architect "Brain" - Doesn't "store" information so much as allow for easy communication with the network B. Brainstem - connects the information received to the central nervous/circulatory system C. "Heart" - Circulatory system pumps the bioluminescent fluid to other organ systems and surface veins. Each node connects to a vast vasculature network D. "Kidneys" - Organs that filter the bioluminescent "blood" and other bodily fluids, absorbing and distributing collected material E. Nerve Center - Receives raw sensory data and filters it. Filtering can be unconscious or intentional

F. "Respiratory" Tract - Intakes gases or liquids and filters out material for use. Disposes of waste on exhale. Provides cooling to internal systems

The respiratory tract functions less like a set of lungs and more akin to a computer's cooling system, with the ability to absorb material from the environment to use in other parts of the body. It also would likely help the architect's body analyze the environment it is currently exposed to on a molecular level. It is also truly unidirectional, with the intake vents near the "collarbone" and the exhaust vents on both sides of the abdomen

The architect organ cache in-game felt like it was definitely not a complete model of the internal organs, so I wanted to come up with something to fill some more space. I also just really liked the idea of Al-An being capable of something similar to breathing, without having a respiratory system in the traditional sense. Feel free to use any of this in your own headcanons if you would like :)

BONUS - a gif of all the layers!

[twisting-roads]

Iterator Spec Bio (Part 1)

I'm probably going to upload each one in it's own post, but here's an introduction to what this is going to be.

See, I've been trying to explain how iterators synthesize nutrients for a while, and have FINALLY started properly developing it. All this stuff from now on is just words I've copied from my existing master document of the subject at hand.

FOREWARNING

The definition of organ that I will use for iterator is a region or room within the structure of the iterator designated to a specific purpose. The Memory Conflux is an organ. This does not define the systems that connect them, however, such as the areas between RTA, MC, and GSB within Five Pebbles. I will also use node, organ, and colony interchangeably. Many organs are hidden away in other areas or even within the walls. These are the more “dangerous” ones. Rather, the environments within these organs are so extreme that no standard living creature could survive in them, or that being closed off is integral to their functioning.

Primary Chemosynthetic Node (PCN)

The Primary Chemosynthetic Node is the most integral part of iterator metabolism, and acts as the starting point. Hence the name “Primary” PCNs are sponge-like cubes which intake boiling fluid filled with noxious chemicals, such as many sulfur compounds. They are rather small. Within the lining of this manifold are many many colonies of small worms (referred to as “Tube Worms”) filtering the chemical-filled water. These worms work with symbiotic microbes in order to produce usable organic compounds, which flow into a central cavity to be used by other organs. This mimics conditions near hydrothermal vents, though it requires a constant source of heat powered by electricity in order to function. These nodes are often lined in rows, and may be very long. An iterator will contain multiple PCNs. There may be multiple tanks for intake and for outtake.

As demonstrated in the image, there are 3 distinct organisms within the colonial structure of the node. - The insulating membranous layer, which stores excess nutrients and helps regulate conditions. - A tough epidermal layer, with individuals containing a flagellum which controls waterflow through the manifold. - Tube Worms, which anchor to the epidermal layer.

Small, shelled organisms pick off dead Tube Worms. They’re extremophiles, and will die once taken out of the PCN for an extended amount of time. This is used to an advantage, as these organisms will travel to other organisms to decompose and reuse resources when near death, or when commanded to through chemical signals distributed in the node. However, I will be exploring this more on a different post elaborating more on the organisms specialized in decomposition and the disposal of dead or dying matter.

[boxboxblog]

How Do F1 Cars Work?: Braking, Cooling, Sensors

I never know how to start these posts. Let's dive in.

Braking and Cooling

Brakes are an incredibly important part of any car, but most especially in F1. With the speed and power the cars have a sensitive, sturdy, and strong braking system must exist. In the case of modern cars, F1 uses an extremely efficient and durable carbon-carbon disc brake system. This allows the car to screech to a halt in a split-second, and allows drivers to use their speedy reaction times to the best of their ability. When the driver steps on the brake pedal, it compresses two master brake cylinders, one for the front wheels and one for the rear, which generate fluid pressure.

For the front tires, the fluid pressure is delivered directly to the front brake calipers (part that houses brake pads and pistons). Inside each caliper, six pistons clamp pads against the disc and it is this friction that slows the car down. For the rear tires it is a bit different.

At the rear, the car can brake by three separate sources: friction from the brakes, resistance from the spinning engine (engine braking) and electrical braking that results from harvesting energy from the MGU-K . Although the driver can adjust each of these on his steering wheel, when he presses the brake pedal, the three systems work together via the Brake By Wire (BBW) system.

When the driver presses the pedal, the fluid pressure generated in the rear braking circuit is picked up by an electronic pressure sensor. The signal from this sensor represents the overall rear braking demand from the driver and is passed to the Electronic Control Unit (ECU) where it is turned into a series of commands to brake the rear of the car. The ECU distributes its efforts to the three systems according to the the set up of the car and this is altered by the way that the driver has adjusted the switch settings on the steering wheel. This is what teams mean when they say changing the setting on the car.

Going hand-in-hand with braking, cooling is another important part of the car, especially for brakes. Basically, there is a series of systems that cools the power unit, brakes, and electronics. If the car overheats, it can lead to damage and lack of performance. There are a few ways to cool. Radiators cool the engine and hybrid system. Intercooler cools the air that the turbocharger compresses before it enters the engine. Brake cooling ducts bring air to the brakes in order to stop them from overheating.

2. Electronics and Sensors

So i'm sure many of you have looked at the steering wheel and been baffled that this thing that looks like a Nintendo Switch steers that car. The F1 steering wheel is incredibly complex and has a variety of buttons, screens, and knobs. For example, on the steering wheel is an area for strat settings, where their plans for all eventualities are mapped out. There is also a rotary knob for MGU-K settings, where drivers can switch around when faced with possible failures. The menu allows drivers control over every setting in the car. Beyond that there is the pit lane speed button, gear change buttons, race start button, energy recovery button, and brake balance knob, among others. It really tells you how much drivers do in a race beyond racing.

Other than the steering wheel, there is also the telemetry, over 300 sensors which gathers race data and sends it back to engineers on the pit wall. This way, engineers can either remotely alter settings and strat, or advise the driver on what to do.  F1 uses a customized mesh wireless network system based on WiMax 802.16 at each racetrack. The sensors record data, which is then temporarily stored in the Electronic Control Unit (ECU), which controls functions like engine performance and power steering. That sensor data then travels wirelessly to a centralized location managed by F1. F1 then sends the data to the relevant team, of course very securely. Teams then use a system called Advanced Telemetry Linked Acquisition System (ATLAS) to view and analyze sensor data.

The final pretty important electronic devices on an F1 car is the many many cameras. The most recognizable camera is found in the "T" structure that sits atop of every F1 car. It gives viewers that top-down, forward facing view used often by broadcasters. this is also how viewers often distinguish between cars of the same team. One driver will have a yellow camera, the other has black. The two nose cameras provides a view of the front wing and low circuit. The 360 camera is on top of the chassis and provides a wide view of the race track, and everything else around the car. The driver facing camera is pointed directly at the driver and helps keep track of how they are doing, and in the event of the crash helps marshals and rescuers figure out the best way to help. The two rear cameras are settled on a rear facing structure, and allows the pit wall to see what is going on directly behind the driver and advise. Beyond these ones, drivers also have cameras inside their helmets, showing exactly what they see. Can't get away with much in an F1 car.

3. How They Work Together

So, we now know the basics of most parts of the car. But these parts all must work together before that car will go anywhere. How do they do it?

One of the more obvious relationships is between aerodynamics and power. The better the aerodynamics, the more usable the power is. They also work in tandem around different parts of the track. On corners the aerodynamics keep the car stable while the power peters off. On straights the power keeps the car boosted. Suspension and tires are also very connected. It is the suspension that keeps the tires on the ground. A good suspension will also mean that the tires are easier to manage, something any driver knows is highly important. Brakes and ERS are also connected because the brakes help recover ERS, pretty simply. Also the cooling system works with most of teh car, cooling engine, tires, and brakes. The biggest connection is probably between all the sensors on the car. They are connected to every single part, and even a small bit of damage can destroy them. The non-sensor components have to accommodate for the sensors and work perfectly with them in order for proper data to be sent back.

The ultimate goal of engineers is to create a car that works in harmony all together. The integration of the engine to the chassis is highly important. There have been cars that the parts were fantastic on their own, but the minute they were put together stopped working completely. Its why teams that produce their own engines have such a leg up over non-manufacturers. Its also why sometimes you will see a car that is running poorly until one small thing is changed, and then suddenly its brand new. Car harmony really is terribly important.

Alright, done! While I covered most of the important stuff, as always if there is any particular part of the car anyone wants me to dive deeper into, please let me know.

Cheers,

-B

[fishmech]

sure feels like a lot of people miss that your average blockbuster didn't actually have a huge selection, because a lot of the actual videos/dvds/blu-rays on the shelves were duplicates, in order to account for multiple people wanting to rent the same popular movies.

like yea you would have 7,000 to 10,000 to even 20,000 distinct titles available to a particular location to stock... but that was like "what's in the regional distribution network" not "what's actually on the shelves at any one particular store, especially in the more common small-format stores". it would be more common that there were like, 2000 titles in a location and a few hundred had 2-5 copies, and then a few dozen had a few dozen copies because they were the most in demand.

blockbuster and the other big chains were also fairly aggressive about cycling out the duplicate copies and then any copies at all over time, typically via selling the used media. just because they had a certain movie at your local store a year prior wouldn't mean they still had it! independent video stores were less likely to completely ditch old titles but especially on tape they did need to dump things once they got too worn out and physically deteriorated.

honestly the best time for blockbuster selection? the like 10 years they operated their own netflix service. as in the original netflix service, you place a request from the catalog and a dvd/blu-ray gets mailed to you. you see to operate this service they didn't just use their central distribution facilities but also would send you a disc from any store in the country that might have it, and there'd be lots of shit that was only actually present at 2 or 3 physical stores.

i used that service to rip thousands of discs lmao. lots of out of print stuff that actually buying it could be hundreds of dollars but was basically free in the blockbuster subscription.

[atiny-for-life]

I apologize if you’ve answered this before, but is there a reason why the Kingdom performances are not included in the Ateez lore masterlist? Thank you!

No one's ever asked before, actually! I'm happy to explain:

There are multiple things making me hesitant about this right now. For one, I wouldn't expect them to assume all Atinys will watch these performances and look to them for lore clues since most only go by official MVs and the albums.

To me, these performances have always had the energy of getting people hyped and excited about their lore themes of revolution, pro expression, anti oppression and their team was likely working on putting together The World series at the time so it made sense to trial run some of their ideas here.

I actually tried to fit these performances in before but I could never find a place where it'd make 100% sense - they seem to be a blend of real lore and stuff just meant for Kingdom.

To start with: in "The Awakening of Summer" (the Rhythm Ta performance), Hongjoong breaks the Cromer out of a glass case at the end. Based on that, timeline wise, this would've had to happen in the Z-World before Ateez ever got there because the only time they lost the Cromer after was when Yeosang smashed it and the recovery of that was in the A-World and we know how that went down (Museum heist gone wrong) and it was nothing like this.

However, with it happening before Ateez's arrival, I wouldn't expect to see them distributing flyers (with the anarchy logo from Guerrilla) and for Hongjoong to hold a speech at a podium because something of that scale didn't really happen before they hijacked the Strictland transmission system in Guerrilla.

From everything we know, the Black Pirates were only doing street performances before their movement picked up speed after Ateez got there. They didn't have the manpower and means to pull off large scale heists prior to that; they were operating out of an abandoned warehouse and they didn't really start getting allies until Left Eye set up the Black Link where people could reach out after waking up.

And on top of that, it was A-World Yeosang's tech know-how that got them spy gear and everything so I kinda don't see them breaking into a Strictland government facility full of armed guards in their early days.

But, if I did have to fit it in somehow, I'd put it pre-Ateez's arrival as the event in which the Black Pirates first got hold of the Cromer:

The Awakening of Summer

They caught wind of the government having found the Cromer and heard it has unique abilities like teleportation, entering the dreamscape - powers that could help them free their world

So they get all the guns they can find, hop into their bulletproof van (like in Guerrilla) and take off

They shoot down the guards stationed at the facility but then also somehow manage to bring them back to life with the magical masks they own (?) or maybe they used rubber bullets or stun guns or something

Regardless, the masks presumably contain breaker technology (somehow) which separates the guards' microchip link connection which means they can now feel and think freely

However, Ateez aren't dumb so they keep the guards tied up for now so thy can't run off and rat them out

While some of them are looking for the Cromer, San straps a bomb to a security guard's chest and ties him to his desk chair (pretty extreme - that's some Halazia universe Matz shit)

During the heist, Yunho and Wooyoung find their Wanted Posters and a bunch of newspapers

The front page headline of the newspaper reads: "The Central Government defined The Black Pirates as a terrorist"

San then goes off on his own and climbs up a rope to an emergency button which opens the massive double doors to a high security section of the building (the one with the Cromer)

This allows the rest of Ateez to waltz right in and Hongjoong immediately goes off to the section with the confiscated art

Which should normally be stored in the Android Guardian bunker, the converted museum on Guardian Island, but I guess they must've used another type of building before - maybe they changed it after the Black Pirates broke into this place (I digress)

Either way, the former guards are now freely raiding the place, making me assume they've switched sides after discovering what art is and that the government's intentionally been withholding it from all of them

While Hongjoong's raiding the place with the guards they captured in the beginning, Wooyoung, Jongho, and Yeosang are handling the guards stationed in this section

During the following dance break, Hongjoong's walk off right before something interferes with everyone's ear pieces (I assume they were using them to communicate while they were separated)

Immediately after, Hongjoong begins his speech, indicating he hijacked all frequencies, including the one they'd been using, so he could broadcast this to the entire city:

"People, open your eyes! For our lives! Keep your mind! Now is the time for freedom, if we try! Listen, look, write! Open your eyes!"

(Note the slogan "Hearts Awakened" on the podium and the small-scale version of the blimp we saw in Guerrilla above Hongjoong - these, plus the van, are part of the reason why I think this was a test run for The World series and the Guerrilla mv in particular)

After the speech, they walk off and Jongho throws up a handful of flyers (which, again, look exactly like the ones from Guerrilla)

During Jongho's high note, Hongjoong walks off again and we next see him putting on the Black Pirates' getup (signature fedora) and break the glass case in which the Cromer is kept

(The clothes are likely just to ensure we as the audience know this isn't A-World's Ateez but the Black Pirates)

Cromer in hand, he smiles and walks off. Mission complete. The performance ends.

Ode to Joy

Now, regarding Ode to Joy, this one feels like it's more so meant to connect some dots between the former two series and the (then) upcoming one.

To start with, they filled in the small gap between the Fever and Treasure series by exploring how they, Ateez and the Black Pirates, managed to break out Yeosang after he was captured by the Android Guardians at the end of Deja Vu/the Fever Pt. 3 Diary Entries since the only canon thing we know about this event is from Say My Name and this one section from the Fever Epilogue Diary Entries:

"Somebody please get me out of here! Please!" The light that I hadn't seen for ages slid in when the door opened. Men in black fedoras were fighting with Android Guardians behind the opened door. "Hey, Yeosang." I heard a warm voice calling my name. A guy came near my glass room and pulled down his black mask. Tears of relief burst out of my eyes. It was Seonghwa.

We open on Yeosang in the glass prison during the Full Moon (meaning reality jumping is possible with the Cromer right now so Ateez can switch over from A to Z World)

One of the Android Guardians walks in and the camera moves to the moon where we get to see the Cromer in action (sand disappearing from the bottom, indicating it's flowing up like we saw in the Diary Film)

Seonghwa, holding the Cromer, then appears in Yeosang's cell (small deviation from Yeosang's diary entry but I'll take it)

Yeosang and Seonghwa then, together, turn the Cromer again, causing Yunho to appear who immediately starts fighting the Android Guardian

After distracting the Guardian for long enough, Yunho pushes him away and runs off, leaving the Guardian to turn around and realize the cell is empty - Yeosang escaped

Following this, we move right on to Answer and that one iconic meeting where Ateez and the Black Pirates got together and formally established an alliance - they're even on the same sides

We then see Hongjoong walking along during his verse while, behind him, people in different get ups are throwing each other guns, etc., indicating the spread of the movement we later read about in the Movement Diary Version: The Revolution

And then we get to the part where I first went "eh?" which made me realize I can't see this performance being fully canon:

San, during his verse, tries to run off but Wooyoung grabs him, clutching him by the jacket, to stop him from leaving

But it doesn't work - San's made up his mind

He holds eye contact, yes, indicating they would've exchanged words if this weren't a song (likely something along the lines of "Stop, don't do this, it's suicide!" and "I have to, I'm sorry.") before he removes Wooyoung's hand from his jacket and runs off-

- and literally hurls himself at an Android Guardian - presumably sacrificing himself by knocking them both off this ledge for the sake of protecting the others

Then we've got Jongho fighting an Android Guardian while Hongjoong is blindfolded and gets captured by four more

Jongho wins his fight (potentially) and makes his way to the grand staircase where he receives a crown on the way up, only to hold it out and toss it aside once he makes it to the top

However, I'm quite certain this isn't related to the lore at all but rather the concept of the show which wants all groups to compete for the crown and see each other as opponents

Ateez refused to align with this idea - they wanted to make their time on the show about friendship and collaboration, having fun, which is very obvious when you watch their performance of The Real

But to really drive this point home: the song "An die Freude" ("To: Joy" as in it's addressed to Joy), which is being sung here by a guest performer, is actually a famous Germany poem by Friedrich Schiller, and an ode all about an idealistic society in which everyone is connected through joy and friendship

While this is being sung, Ateez, the Black Pirates, and the Android Guardians are all dancing together - a truly idealistic and unrealistic outcome far removed from reality but one that wouldn't have required the loss of life we just saw with San throwing himself off a ledge and Hongjoong getting surrounded and captured

The implication is clear: in a world where everyone treats each other kindly, a world without oppression, peaceful coexistence is 100% possible

But in a world of injustice, of oppression, the loss of life, the deaths of some of the kindest people, are inevitable because the ones who are oppressed will always rise up to free themselves of their shackles, even when they know some of them will have to die to make it happen

In conclusion: I think the performances do hold lore beats but they're not fully canon and the lore gaps they fill in are small enough that I always thought it was easier to toss them entirely than to potentially confuse anyone by telling them to disregard some aspects and embrace others. I hope this helps!

[mariacallous]

A new UC Riverside study on California agriculture and climate proposes a plan for new water capture, storage, and distribution systems throughout California that will sustain agriculture and keep up with climate trajectories.

Available water for consumption is disappearing because of climate change and failing storage systems, leaving one of its top consumers—the agricultural industry—scrambling, the study concludes.

California’s agriculture sector uses about 40 percent of all the state’s water, or 80 percent of its consumed water. With less water available, agriculture must adjust. The study provides a pathway for the sector to do so.

The study, published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, finds that groundwater aquifers have more storage potential than surface water reservoirs. So, instead of devoting decades to build more dams and reservoirs that are subject to evaporation and overflow, water should be diverted into these depleted aquifers below the Central Valley and the coastal plains.

Over the past 40 years, aquifers have been overpumped, meaning more water has been taken out than put back in. When aquifers become too depleted, the land can subside. “In some parts of the Central Valley, it’s been sinking a foot or two a year,” said Kurt Schwabe, a public policy professor at UC Riverside and coauthor of the study. Land subsidence can cause infrastructure like buildings and highways to crack and degrade. It also harms the aquifer’s capacity to hold water and the health of the surrounding ecosystems.

Not only can replenishing groundwater aquifers limit these negative environmental impacts, but it can also bolster a water “savings account” during times of drought. When California lacks surface water, water usage shifts to groundwater stores.

But the big problem isn’t simply a quantity issue: “When I moved to California over 20 years ago, someone told me, ‘Don’t let people tell you there isn’t a lot of water in California, because there is. The problem is that it’s just managed really poorly,” said Schwabe.

The drought-plagued state was just drenched by two wet seasons and atmospheric rivers, but its infrastructure failed to adequately store that excess water.

Think of it like a leaky roof. In the past, you could have stored rainwater seeping through your roof in a gallon bucket for five separate rain events. Now, you would need a 5-gallon bucket for just one rain event.

Although the amount of precipitation hasn’t changed much compared to historical rates, “climate change has typically reduced the number of rainfall events but has made them much more intense,” said Schwabe.

Additionally, the climate crisis has led to high temperatures that evaporate surface waters before they can replenish and prevent rainfall from accumulating as snowpack, which has traditionally refilled reservoirs throughout the spring.

Like the gallon bucket, California’s storage facilities are too small. That, together with slow landscape absorption, is leading to flash floods and potentially useful water flowing back to the ocean.

For example, two winters’ worth of snow followed by intense heat created a flood risk in 2023. State officials decided to release water from Lake Oroville and other reservoirs across Southern California and the Central Valley. Although this helped prevent flooding and sent water downstream, many Californians were upset that the fresh water was being wasted. In attempts to reduce overflow releases, water agencies and irrigation districts made recharge basins to capture precipitation. But it wasn’t enough. Constant overpumping and a changing climate leave aquifers depleted to this day.

Their natural recharge process—precipitation accumulating as surface water that percolates through the soil to recharge groundwater aquifers—can also be disrupted by urbanization or impervious covers like pavement, said Bruk Berhanu, a senior researcher in water efficiency and reuse at the Pacific Institute.

The study suggests more managed aquifer recharge (MAR) infrastructure is needed to adequately catch large amounts of water in short time periods and avoid similar water-loss situations.

MAR is an intentional method of recharging aquifers, especially those at low levels. Already commonly implemented in California, MAR infrastructure includes conveyance structures that redistribute water to dehydrated locations, and injection—spraying water on land or, the more costly option, directly infusing water in wells.

Yet, to ensure an effective recharge of the aquifers, more monitoring and measurement is required. “Through 2014, growers were not required to monitor or report any withdrawals or injections to aquifers,” said Schwabe.

Regardless, California has more monitoring practices than other states mainly because water availability is not as big a concern elsewhere, said Berhanu. Monitoring standards vary by state and region. Regulations for urban areas differ from agricultural or industrial areas. Based on Berhanu’s work assessing the country’s volumetric potential for water use efficiency at the municipal level, he found that “there is no federal regulatory framework for monitoring or reporting. In a lot of cases, water supplies aren’t even metered.”

Even in areas that did have regulations, the reports were often infrequent or incomplete; the UC Riverside researchers are working on expanding the few accurate monitoring systems put in place in Southern California by proactive growers.

Additionally, the study proposes voluntary water markets where farmers with a surplus of water can trade it to another farmer in need. It’s a win-win process: The selling farmer makes extra profit and the other gets much-needed water. “With prices based on scarcity plus delivery costs, such a marketplace would have incentives for storage and efficient use,” Schwabe said in a press release.

Berhanu added that water-trading markets can work in some areas but not in others. “It needs a very strong governance framework to make sure all of the players are playing according to the rules.” The process will need to have improved monitoring practices, transparent data, and clear external costs, he said. “The more decentralized you get with how these transactions are being made, it becomes very difficult to coordinate the overall watershed-scale system benefits.”

The study also mentions the value of reusing wastewater. Historically, wastewater has been treated to an environmental safety standard then released into the ocean or groundwater system. Over time, natural processes will clean it. Instead of waiting for the environment to purify it, water treatment facilities can repurpose the wastewater for irrigation, commercial use, or recharging purposes.

As of 2023, water treatment plants can purify wastewater so well that people can drink it. “At some point, the water that we use will become someone else’s water for drinking or irrigation,” said Berhanu. Whether wastewater is for drinking or recharging aquifers, California plants are expanding their operations to include recycling methods so they can produce a sufficient supply.

“The overall volume of water in the world doesn’t really change. We need to shift our thinking from looking at how much water is available at one point of time to trying to better integrate our practices with the entire water cycle,” said Berhanu.

The study goes on to mention numerous efficiency-based and management solutions, like sustainable farming practices, land repurposing, and desalination to help the agriculture industry adjust.

“Now is the time to think about possibilities and opportunities for collaboration across agriculture, municipalities, and the environment to invest in smart investments that capture more water and put it in the ground,” said Schwabe.

[satellitebroadcast]

Current news in occupied Palestine:

Gaza: - A martyr and wounded in an israeli bombardment targeting a house in the Al-Da’wa neighborhood, north of Al-Nuseirat, in the central Gaza Strip - israeli artillery shelling in the vicinity of Abu Sharia's office in Al-Sabra neighborhood, south of Gaza City - A martyr and wounded in a bombing on the town of Al-Farahin, east of Khan Yunis. - 4 martyrs in an israeli bombing that targeted a house in Al-Bureij camp in the central Gaza Strip. - The occupation forces randomly fire at the tents of the displaced in the Rafah area, south of the Gaza Strip - A martyr and serious injuries as a result of an israeli bombardment on Taha al-Louh's house in the al-Da'wa area in the Nuseirat camp. - Director of Kamal Adwan Hospital: The occupation wants to put us out of service and does not allow the entry of fuel alternatives into hospitals. International institutions are unable to do anything, and the occupation "army" prevents the entry of fuel. - More than 630,000 students in Gaza are prevented from attending their schools due to the zionist aggression. - israeli bombardment has caused mobile phone and internet outages in central and southern Gaza, according to service provider Paltel. West Bank: - With the beginning of the school year, the occupation forces are obstructing (Palestinian) students from reaching their schools. - The bridge between occupied Jordan and Palestine is closed in both directions until further notice - Groups of settlers stormed the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque under the protection of the occupation forces. - Prisoners Affairs Authority: The occupation forces arrested 12 Palestinians, including freed prisoners, in the occupied West Bank - Mayor of Hizma in Jerusalem: The occupation demolished a house and a commercial store and distributed demolition notices for 3 houses; the opening of the school year was halted in some of the town's schools due to demolition operations carried out by the occupation. - israeli occupation forces storm the village of Bal'in in the occupied West Bank

[zytes]

Question from someone just starting with creating and then posting art to Tumblr, do you think I should be watermarking my pieces?

I’ve always disliked watermarks as they naturally tend to dissuade people from interacting with art in a natural manner; it depends very heavily on the size and placement of the mark, obviously. BUT, often times an artist will overzealously obscure their work with identification and it has a somewhat repulsive effect on the average viewer - a wall has been erected between the viewer and the art, in a sense. Watermarks, to me, exist to prevent very specific situations from unfolding with your work - almost all of those reasons seem to be financially motivated, like preventing strangers from printing your art out at home or reposting without attribution. Situations that could affect your ability to profit off of your work.

Admittedly, much of my perception about this issue was inspired by an article included in the book “Context” by Cory Doctorow, wherein he writes about how he’s benefitted from “thinking like a dandelion”, which is an idea that was inspired by conversation the author had with Neil Gaiman — I’ll try and summarize the parts of the point that are more relevant to visual arts; since portions of the allegory refer more specifically to certain qualities of written media.

He begins with, “Mammals worry about what happens to each and every one of their offspring, but dandelions only care that every crack in every sidewalk has dandelions growing out of it. The former is a good strategy for situations in which reproduction is expensive, but the latter works best when reproduction is practically free — as on the Internet.”

So how do you “think like a dandelion” then?

“Your work needs to be easily copied, to anywhere whence it might find its way into the right hands. That means that the nimble text-file, HTML file, and PDF (the preferred triumvirate of formats) should be distributed without formality — no logins, no e-mail address collections, and with a license that allows your fans to reproduce the work on their own in order to share it with more potential fans. Remember, copying is a cost-center — insisting that all copies must be downloaded from your site and only your site is insisting that you — and only you — will bear the cost of making those copies. Sure, having a single, central repository for your works makes it easier to count copies and figure out where they’re going, but remember: dandelions don’t keep track of their seeds. Once you get past the vanity of knowing exactly how many copies have been made, and find the zen of knowing that the copying will take care of itself, you’ll attain dandelionesque contentment.”

The rest of the allegory more specifically applies to written work, but I’ll link it here for the sake of posterity. Essentially: every wall or pre-requisite that you establish before allowing a fresh set of eyes to fall upon your work actually may deter people from engaging with the work and sharing it with others. Signatures, subtle watermarks that are “baked” into the work, or maybe like.. a well-placed QR code that links people back to you — all of those would be my suggestion for someone who wants to leave a lasting, linking thread between a given work and it’s artist. If the right person sees your art and connects with it, there SHOULD be a way for them to follow that thread back to you and discover more; but if you over-prioritize demonstrating ownership over your work, you’re likely to drive those coveted genuine connections away.

On the other hand, if your primary goal is to sell prints or other products, brazenly watermarking your work will protect your bottom line from the kind of low-level art-scraping that drives all those shady redbubble shops and etsy stores that sell stolen works on cheap t-shirts and hankies. For me, art is a primarily social interest in which I prioritize the sharing of culture and ideas. I don’t want financial factors to take precedence and alter how/why I created something; it feels like I’d have to take much of myself out of my art in order to make it palatable for consumer spaces.

You should determine your priorities and then strive to make art that fulfills those priorities without compromise. I think you’ll find that self-satisfaction manifests readily at different points in the midst of that process.

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

Hurricane Oscar: Foresight, solidarity and unity in the face of any contingency

https://www.granma.cu/

Preserving people's lives is the priority in the face of the onslaught of Hurricane Oscar, said Joel Queipo Ruiz, a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba and president of the Provincial Defense Council.

This governing body, activated in full composition, just like that of the municipalities, reviewed the provisions with which it acts in the current phase of cyclone alarm in which the territory finds itself.

Here, according to the assessment, the population protection commissions are activated up to the CDR level, with emphasis on the transfer of people to the homes of relatives and friends, and evacuation centers determined for these cases.

The actions aimed at ensuring the lives of our fellow citizens, although they have been accelerated in recent hours, have been based on rational movements that are made from the most distant and difficult-to-access sites, while taking into account residents in coastal flood zones.

Also taken into account are those who live near riverbanks, as well as in areas that may be covered by water due to rainfall, and in areas downstream of reservoirs, especially in the municipalities of Moa, Sagua de Tánamo and Frank País.

In addition, the protection of inhabitants in mountain communities and rural areas that may be isolated is being monitored, and they have been advised to move them to caves or engineering works near these sites.

The guidelines included strict restrictions on access to risk areas such as rivers, streams, canals, reservoirs and bridges, areas of potential landslides and waters below dams.

The municipal defense councils were required to increase the supply of drinking water to the most remote populations and those that depend on water trucks, while they were instructed to carefully follow and comply with what was established for the protection or evacuation of material resources stored in facilities with structural vulnerabilities.

Regarding the actions to be undertaken in the recovery phase after the passage of the meteor, among other things, it was decided to collect the vegetables and other agricultural products that the winds and rains could destroy, and at the same time speed up the harvest of those that could be damaged, which will be followed by the immediate sowing of short-cycle crops.

Regarding the handling of the storm in tourist resorts, where thousands of foreign visitors are staying, the authorities in the sector reported that all of them, as well as the nationals staying there, are protected.

It was also learned that in all coastal municipalities instructions were given for the return to land of vessels that were carrying out work at sea, so that they could be transferred to points that offer them safety.

Particular attention was paid to the availability of food, with agricultural authorities stating that instructions had been given to supply the markets with food and other products, and that their entities had been instructed to prepare soups and ajiacos, among other things, to sell to the population.

The actions undertaken to speed up the sale of the products in the standard family basket and to protect those in the warehouses were specified. In the province, actions continued for the distribution of fuel to the municipalities, so that the operation of the emergency generators can be assured, which guarantee, above all, the vitality of the medical services, the supply of water to the population and communications. Likewise, the sale of liquefied gas to the population continued.

[argyrocratie]

"I immediately got involved in the ongoing socialization process. My group, the one that had occupied the barracks, immediately created a food depot, open to all, in the neighborhood where I lived. We assesed consumption needs and, subsequently, we intervened with certain workshops to intensify production. For example, I, who knew how to make bread, remember going, in the midst of a shooting, to help out at the neighborhood bakery. We were very imbued with the Kropotkinian idea - developed in The Conquest of Bread - according to which any revolution which proves incapable of feeding the people is lost in advance.

From there, we got our hands on all the grocery stores and warehouses in the neighborhood and we would go to the surrounding villages to exchange industrial products for foodstuffs. It was not a question of robbing the peasants, but of making them understand that we needed eggs and milk for the wounded in the hospitals. Knowing that the Catalan peasants are a little selfish, and being armed with our weapons, we could have proceeded authoritatively, but we would only have gained their antipathy. So we brought fabrics, canned goods and anything else they needed and exchanged them for chickens, potatoes and beans, which we loaded into our trucks. In the neighborhood, the products of the grocery stores, whose owners had been driven out, were centralized in a single place, where the people were invited to help themselves freely.

And how did it work?

Money having been abolished, the distribution of edibles was organized in the neighborhood on the basis of tickets, but they were only used for very specific items. For essential foodstuffs, all you had to do was go to the central grocery store and help yourself. We had, of course, a surveillance service responsible for spotting and investigating hoarders. I happened to go, one day, myself, to a lady who we were told had bread and bags of potatoes in quantity, which was true. There were controls. The market was free, open, but no abuse was tolerated.

A week after this system was put in place, an official from the regional committee of Catalonia visited us and, as he knew me, he began to explain to me how we should organize ourselves:

- It is essential, he told me, to create supply commissions to organize supplies...

I started laughing, and took him into the collective store.

- Look, that’s exactly what we did, without waiting for you...

In fact, the initiative returned to the people, without slogans or oders. They took the lead, without even the intervention of the CNT authorities. The workers had collectivized spontaneously, occupying the workshops of their own accord and putting them back into operation. The CNT did nothing other than confirm what had happened and which, for a lot of it, had been the work of their militants. The committees, too, were overwhelmed and waiting. This was, on my small scale, my experience in the field of collectivization."

-"Un entretien avec José Peirats" (1976)

[dailyanarchistposts]

F.8 What role did the state take in the creation of capitalism?

If the “anarcho”-capitalist is to claim with any plausibility that “real” capitalism is non-statist or that it can exist without a state, it must be shown that capitalism evolved naturally, in opposition to state intervention. In reality, the opposite is the case. Capitalism was born from state intervention. In the words of Kropotkin, “the State .. . and capitalism … developed side by side, mutually supporting and re-enforcing each other.” [Anarchism, p. 181]

Numerous writers have made this point. For example, in Karl Polanyi’s flawed masterpiece The Great Transformation we read that “the road to the free market was opened and kept open by an enormous increase in continuous, centrally organised and controlled interventionism” by the state. [p. 140] This intervention took many forms — for example, state support during “mercantilism,” which allowed the “manufactures” (i.e. industry) to survive and develop, enclosures of common land, and so forth. In addition, the slave trade, the invasion and brutal conquest of the Americas and other “primitive” nations, and the looting of gold, slaves, and raw materials from abroad also enriched the European economy, giving the development of capitalism an added boost. Thus Kropotkin:

“The history of the genesis of capital has already been told by socialists many times. They have described how it was born of war and pillage, of slavery and serfdom, of modern fraud and exploitation. They have shown how it is nourished by the blood of the worker, and how little by little it has conquered the whole world … Law … has followed the same phases as capital … they have advanced hand in hand, sustaining one another with the suffering of mankind.” [Op. Cit., p. 207]

This process is what Karl Marx termed “primitive accumulation” and was marked by extensive state violence. Capitalism, as he memorably put it, “comes dripping from head to toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt” and the “starting-point of the development that gave rise both to the wage-labourer and to the capitalist was the enslavement of the worker.” [Capital, vol. 1, p. 926 and p. 875] Or, if Kropotkin and Marx seem too committed to be fair, we have John Stuart Mill’s summary that the “social arrangements of modern Europe commenced from a distribution of property which was the result, not of just partition, or acquisition by industry, but of conquest and violence.” [Principles of Political Economy, p. 15]

The same can be said of all countries. As such, when supporters of “libertarian” capitalism say they are against the “initiation of force,” they mean only new initiations of force: for the system they support was born from numerous initiations of force in the past (moreover, it also requires state intervention to keep it going — section D.1 addresses this point in some detail). Indeed, many thinkers have argued that it was precisely this state support and coercion (particularly the separation of people from the land) that played the key role in allowing capitalism to develop rather than the theory that “previous savings” did so. As left-wing German thinker Franz Oppenheimer (whom Murray Rothbard selectively quoted) argued, “the concept of a ‘primitive accumulation,’ or an original store of wealth, in land and in movable property, brought about by means of purely economic forces” while “seem[ing] quite plausible” is in fact “utterly mistaken; it is a ‘fairly tale,’ or it is a class theory used to justify the privileges of the upper classes.” [The State, pp. 5–6] As Individualist anarchist Kevin Carson summarised as part of his excellent overview of this historic process:

“Capitalism has never been established by means of the free market. It has always been established by a revolution from above, imposed by a ruling class with its origins in the Old Regime … by a pre-capitalist ruling class that had been transformed in a capitalist manner. In England, it was the landed aristocracy; in France, Napoleon III’s bureaucracy; in Germany, the Junkers; in Japan, the Meiji. In America, the closest approach to a ‘natural’ bourgeois evolution, industrialisation was carried out by a mercantilist aristocracy of Federalist shipping magnates and landlords.” [“Primitive Accumulation and the Rise of Capitalism,” Studies in Mutualist Political Economy]

This, the actual history of capitalism, will be discussed in the following sections. So it is ironic to hear right-“libertarians” sing the praises of a capitalism that never existed and urge its adoption by all nations, in spite of the historical evidence suggesting that only state intervention made capitalist economies viable — even in that Mecca of “free enterprise,” the United States. As Noam Chomsky argues, “who but a lunatic could have opposed the development of a textile industry in New England in the early nineteenth century, when British textile production was so much more efficient that half the New England industrial sector would have gone bankrupt without very high protective tariffs, thus terminating industrial development in the United States? Or the high tariffs that radically undermined economic efficiency to allow the United States to develop steel and other manufacturing capacities? Or the gross distortions of the market that created modern electronics?” [World Orders, Old and New, p. 168] Such state interference in the economy is often denounced and dismissed by right-“libertarians” as mercantilism. However, to claim that “mercantilism” is not capitalism makes little sense. Without mercantilism, “proper” capitalism would never have developed, and any attempt to divorce a social system from its roots is ahistoric and makes a mockery of critical thought (particularly as “proper” capitalism turns to mercantilism regularly).

Similarly, it is somewhat ironic when “anarcho”-capitalists and other right “libertarians” claim that they support the freedom of individuals to choose how to live. After all, the working class was not given that particular choice when capitalism was developing. Instead, their right to choose their own way of life was constantly violated and denied — and justified by the leading capitalist economists of the time. To achieve this, state violence had one overall aim, to dispossess the labouring people from access to the means of life (particularly the land) and make them dependent on landlords and capitalists to earn a living. The state coercion “which creates the capital-relation can be nothing other than the process which divorces the worker from the ownership of the conditions of his own labour; it is a process which operates two transformations, whereby the social means of subsistence and production are turned into capital, and the immediate producers are turned into wage-labourers. So-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production.” [Marx, Op. Cit., pp. 874–5] So to claim that now (after capitalism has been created) we get the chance to try and live as we like is insulting in the extreme. The available options we have are not independent of the society we live in and are decisively shaped by the past. To claim we are “free” to live as we like (within the laws of capitalism, of course) is basically to argue that we are able (in theory) to “buy” the freedom that every individual is due from those who have stolen it from us in the first place. It ignores the centuries of state violence required to produce the “free” worker who makes a “voluntary” agreement which is compelled by the social conditions that this created.

The history of state coercion and intervention is inseparable from the history of capitalism: it is contradictory to celebrate the latter while claiming to condemn the former. In practice capitalism has always meant intervention in markets to aid business and the rich. That is, what has been called by supporters of capitalism “laissez-faire” was nothing of the kind and represented the political-economic program of a specific fraction of the capitalist class rather than a set of principles of “hands off the market.” As individualist anarchist Kevin Carson summaries, “what is nostalgically called ‘laissez-faire’ was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidise accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline.” [The Iron Fist behind the Invisible Hand] Moreover, there is the apparent unwillingness by such “free market” advocates (i.e. supporters of “free market” capitalism) to distinguish between historically and currently unfree capitalism and the other truly free market economy that they claim to desire. It is common to hear “anarcho”-capitalists point to the state-based capitalist system as vindication of their views (and even more surreal to see them point to pre-capitalist systems as examples of their ideology). It should be obvious that they cannot have it both ways.

In other words, Rothbard and other “anarcho”-capitalists treat capitalism as if it were the natural order of things rather than being the product of centuries of capitalist capture and use of state power to further their own interests. The fact that past uses of state power have allowed capitalist norms and assumptions to become the default system by their codification in property law and justified by bourgeois economic does not make it natural. The role of the state in the construction of a capitalist economy cannot be ignored or downplayed as government has always been an instrument in creating and developing such a system. As one critic of right-“libertarian” ideas put it, Rothbard “completely overlooks the role of the state in building and maintaining a capitalist economy in the West. Privileged to live in the twentieth century, long after the battles to establish capitalism have been fought and won, Rothbard sees the state solely as a burden on the market and a vehicle for imposing the still greater burden of socialism. He manifests a kind of historical nearsightedness that allows him to collapse many centuries of human experience into one long night of tyranny that ended only with the invention of the free market and its ‘spontaneous’ triumph over the past. It is pointless to argue, as Rothbard seems ready to do, that capitalism would have succeeded without the bourgeois state; the fact is that all capitalist nations have relied on the machinery of government to create and preserve the political and legal environments required by their economic system.” That, of course, has not stopped him “critis[ing] others for being unhistorical.” [Stephen L. Newman, Liberalism at Wit’s End, pp. 77–8 and p. 79]

Thus we have a key contradiction within “anarcho”-capitalism. While they bemoan state intervention in the market, their underlying assumption is that it had no real effect on how society has evolved over the centuries. By a remarkable coincidence, the net effect of all this state intervention was to produce a capitalist economy identical in all features as one which would have been produced if society had been left alone to evolve naturally. It does seem strange that state violence would happen to produce the same economic system as that produced by right-“libertarians” and Austrian economists logically deducing concepts from a few basic axioms and assumptions. Even more of a coincidence, these conclusions also happen to be almost exactly the same as what those who have benefited from previous state coercion want to hear — namely, the private property is good, trade unions and strikes are bad, that the state should not interfere with the power of the bosses and should not even think about helping the working class (employed or unemployed). As such, while their advice and rhetoric may have changed, the social role of economists has not. State action was required to dispossess the direct producers from the means of life (particularly the land) and to reduce the real wage of workers so that they have to provide regular work in a obedient manner. In this, it and the capitalists received much advice from the earliest economists as Marxist economic historian Michael Perelman documents in great detail. As he summarises, “classical political economy was concerned with promoting primitive accumulation in order to foster capitalist development, even though the logic of primitive accumulation was in direct conflict with the classical political economists’ purported adherence to the values of laissez-faire.” [The Invention of Capitalism, p. 12] The turn to “laissez-faire” was possible because direct state power could be mostly replaced by economic power to ensure the dependency of the working class.

Needless to say, some right-“libertarians” recognise that the state played some role in economic life in the rise and development of capitalism. So they contrast “bad” business people (who took state aid) and “good” ones (who did not). Thus Rothbard’s comment that Marxists have “made no particular distinction between ‘bourgeoisie’ who made use of the state, and bourgeoisie who acted on the free market.” [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 72] But such an argument is nonsense as it ignores the fact that the “free market” is a network (and defined by the state by the property rights it enforces). This means that state intervention in one part of the economy will have ramifications in other parts, particularly if the state action in question is the expropriation and/or protection of productive resources (land and workplaces) or the skewing of the labour market in favour of the bosses. In other words, the individualistic perspective of “anarcho”-capitalism blinds its proponents to the obvious collective nature of working class exploitation and oppression which flows from the collective and interconnected nature of production and investment in any real economy. State action supported by sectors of the capitalist class has, to use economic jargon, positive externalities for the rest. They, in general, benefit from it as a class just as working class people suffers from it collectively as it limits their available choices to those desired by their economic and political masters (usually the same people). As such, the right-“libertarian” fails to understand the class basis of state intervention.

For example, the owners of the American steel and other companies who grew rich and their companies big behind protectionist walls were obviously “bad” bourgeoisie. But were the bourgeoisie who supplied the steel companies with coal, machinery, food, “defence” and so on not also benefiting from state action? And the suppliers of the luxury goods to the wealthy steel company owners, did they not benefit from state action? Or the suppliers of commodities to the workers that laboured in the steel factories that the tariffs made possible, did they not benefit? And the suppliers to these suppliers? And the suppliers to these suppliers? Did not the users of technology first introduced into industry by companies protected by state orders also not benefit? Did not the capitalists who had a large pool of landless working class people to select from benefit from the “land monopoly” even though they may not have, unlike other capitalists, directly advocated it? It increased the pool of wage labour for all capitalists and increased their bargaining position/power in the labour market at the expense of the working class. In other words, such a policy helped maintain capitalist market power, irrespective of whether individual capitalists encouraged politicians to vote to create/maintain it. And, similarly, all American capitalists benefited from the changes in common law to recognise and protect capitalist private property and rights that the state enforced during the 19th century (see section B.2.5).

Rothbard, in other words, ignores class theft and the accumulative effect of stealing both productive property and the products of the workers who use it. He considered the “moral indignation” of socialism arose from the argument “that the capitalists have stolen the rightful property of the workers, and therefore that existing titles to accumulated capital are unjust.” He argued that given “this hypothesis, the remainder of the impetus for both Marxism and anarchosyndicalism follow quite logically.” However, Rothbard’s “solution” to the problem of past force seems to be (essentially) a justification of existing property titles and not a serious attempt to understand or correct past initiations of force that have shaped society into a capitalist one and still shape it today. This is because he is simply concerned with returning property which has been obviously stolen and can be returned to those who have been directly dispossessed or their descendants (for example, giving land back to peasants or tenant farmers). If this cannot be done then the “title to that property, belongs properly, justly and ethically to its current possessors.” [Op. Cit., p. 52 and p. 57] At best, he allows nationalised property and any corporation which has the bulk of its income coming from the state to be “homesteaded” by their workers (which, according to Rothbard’s arguments for the end of Stalinism, means they will get shares in the company). The end result of his theory is to leave things pretty much as they are. This is because he could not understand that the exploitation of the working class was/is collective in nature and, as such, is simply impossible to redress it in his individualistic term of reference.

To take an obvious example, if the profits of slavery in the Southern states of America were used to invest in factories in the Northern states (as they were), does giving the land to the freed slaves in 1865 really signify the end of the injustice that situation produced? Surely the products of the slaves work were stolen property just as much as the land was and, as a result, so is any investment made from it? After all, investment elsewhere was based on the profits extracted from slave labour and “much of the profits earned in the northern states were derived from the surplus originating on the southern plantations.” [Perelman, Op. Cit., p. 246] In terms of the wage workers in the North, they have been indirectly exploited by the existence of slavery as the investment this allowed reduced their bargaining power on the market as it reduced their ability to set up business for themselves by increasing the fixed costs of so doing. And what of the investment generated by the exploitation of these wage workers? As Mark Leier points out, the capitalists and landlords “may have purchased the land and machinery, but this money represented nothing more than the expropriated labour of others.” [Bakunin, p. 111] If the land should be returned to those who worked it as Rothbard suggests, why not the industrial empires that were created on the backs of the generations of slaves who worked it? And what of the profits made from the generations of wage slaves who worked on these investments? And what of the investments which these profits allowed? Surely if the land should be given to those who worked it then so must any investments it generated? And assuming that those currently employed can rightly seize their workplaces, what about those previously employed and their descendants? Why should they be excluded from the riches their ancestors helped create?

To talk in terms of individuals misses all this and the net result is to ensure that the results of centuries of coercion and theft are undisturbed. This is because it is the working class as a whole who have been expropriated and whose labour has been exploited. The actual individuals involved and their descendants would be impossible to identify nor would it be possible to track down how the stolen fruits of their labour were invested. In this way, the class theft of our planet and liberty as well as the products of generations of working class people will continue safely.

Needless to say, some governments interfere in the economy more than others. Corporations do not invest in or buy from suppliers based in authoritarian regimes by accident. They do not just happen to be here, passively benefiting from statism and authoritarianism. Rather they choose between states to locate in based precisely on the cheapness of the labour supply. In other words, they prefer to locate in dictatorships and authoritarian regimes in Central America and Southeast Asia because those regimes interfere in the labour market the most — while, of course, talking about the very “free market” and “economic liberty” those regimes deny to their subjects. For Rothbard, this seems to be just a coincidence or a correlation rather than systematic for the collusion between state and business is the fault, not of capitalism, but simply of particular capitalists. The system, in other words, is pure; only individuals are corrupt. But, for anarchists, the origins of the modern capitalist system lies not in the individual qualities of capitalists as such but in the dynamic and evolution of capitalism itself — a complex interaction of class interest, class struggle, social defence against the destructive actions of the market, individual qualities and so forth. In other words, Rothbard’s claims are flawed — they fail to understand capitalism as a system, its dynamic nature and the authoritarian social relationships it produces and the need for state intervention these produce and require.

So, when the right suggests that “we” be “left alone,” what they mean by “we” comes into clear focus when we consider how capitalism developed. Artisans and peasants were only “left alone” to starve (sometimes not even that, as the workhouse was invented to bring vagabonds to the joy of work), and the working classes of industrial capitalism were only “left alone” outside work and for only as long as they respected the rules of their “betters.” As Marx memorably put it, the “newly freed men became sellers of themselves only after they had been robbed of all their own means of production, and all the guarantees of existence afforded by the old feudal arrangements. And this history, the history of their expropriation, is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire.” [Op. Cit., p. 875] As for the other side of the class divide, they desired to be “left alone” to exercise their power over others as we will see. That modern “capitalism” is, in effect, a kind of “corporate mercantilism,” with states providing the conditions that allow corporations to flourish (e.g. tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, anti-labour laws, etc.) says more about the statist roots of capitalism than the ideologically correct definition of capitalism used by its supporters.

In fact, if we look at the role of the state in creating capitalism we could be tempted to rename “anarcho”-capitalism “marxian-capitalism”. This is because, given the historical evidence, a political theory can be developed by which the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” is created and that this capitalist state “withers away” into “anarchy”. That this means replacing the economic and social ideas of Marxism and their replacement by their direct opposite should not mean that we should reject the idea (after all, that is what “anarcho”-capitalism has done to Individualist Anarchism!). But we doubt that many “anarcho”-capitalists will accept such a name change (even though this would reflect their politics far better; after all they do not object to past initiations of force, just current ones and many do seem to think that the modern state will wither away due to market forces).

This is suggested by the fact that Rothbard did not advocate change from below as the means of creating “anarchy.” He helped found the so-called Libertarian Party in 1971 which, like Marxists, stands for political office. With the fall of Stalinism in 1989, Rothbard faced whole economies which could be “homesteaded” and he argued that “desocialisation” (i.e., de-nationalisation as, like Leninists, he confused socialisation with nationalisation) “necessarily involves the action of that government surrendering its property to its private subjects … In a deep sense, getting rid of the socialist state requires that state to perform one final, swift, glorious act of self-immolation, after which it vanishes from the scene.” (compare to Engels’ comment that “the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society” is the state’s “last independent act as a state.” [Selected Works, p. 424]). He considered the “capital goods built by the State” as being “philosophically unowned” yet failed to note whose labour was exploited and taxed to build them in the first place (needless to say, he rejected the ideas of shares to all as this would be “egalitarian handouts … to undeserving citizens,” presumably the ill, the unemployed, retirees, mothers, children, and future generations). [The Logic of Action II, p. 213, p. 212 and p. 209]

Industrial plants would be transferred to workers currently employed there, but not by their own direct action and direct expropriation. Rather, the state would do so. This is understandable as, left to themselves, the workers may not act quite as he desired. Thus we see him advocating the transfer of industry from the state bureaucracy to workers by means of “private, negotiable shares” as ownership was “not to be granted to collectives or co-operatives or workers or peasants holistically, which would only bring back the ills of socialism in a decentralised and chaotic syndicalist form.” His “homesteading” was not to be done by the workers themselves rather it was a case of “granting shares to workers” by the state. He also notes that it should be a “priority” for the government “to return all stolen, confiscated property to its original owners, or to their heirs.” This would involve “finding original landowners” — i.e., the landlord class whose wealth was based on exploiting the serfs and peasants. [Op. Cit., p. 210 and pp. 211–2] Thus expropriated peasants would have their land returned but not, apparently, any peasants working land which had been taken from their feudal and aristocratic overlords by the state. Thus those who had just been freed from Stalinist rule would have been subjected to “libertarian” rule to ensure that the transition was done in the economically correct way. As it was, the neo-classical economists who did oversee the transition ensured that ownership and control transferred directly to a new ruling class rather than waste time issuing “shares” which would eventually end up in a few hands due to market forces (the actual way it was done could be considered a modern form of “primitive accumulation” as it ensured that capital goods did not end up in the hands of the workers).

But this is beside the point. The fact remains that state action was required to create and maintain capitalism. Without state support it is doubtful that capitalism would have developed at all. So the only “capitalism” that has existed is a product of state support and intervention, and it has been characterised by markets that are considerably less than free. Thus, serious supporters of truly free markets (like the American Individualist Anarchists) have not been satisfied with “capitalism” — have, in fact, quite rightly and explicitly opposed it. Their vision of a free society has always been at odds with the standard capitalist one, a fact which “anarcho”-capitalists bemoan and dismiss as “mistakes” and/or the product of “bad economics.” Apparently the net effect of all this state coercion has been, essentially, null. It has not, as the critics of capitalism have argued, fundamentally shaped the development of the economy as capitalism would have developed naturally by itself. Thus an economy marked by inequalities of wealth and power, where the bulk of the population are landless and resourceless and where interest, rent and profits are extracted from the labour of working people would have developed anyway regardless of the state coercion which marked the rise of capitalism and the need for a subservient and dependent working class by the landlords and capitalists which drove these policies simply accelerated the process towards “economic liberty.” However, it is more than mere coincidence that capitalism and state coercion are so intertwined both in history and in current practice.

In summary, like other apologists for capitalism, right-wing “libertarians” advocate that system without acknowledging the means that were necessary to create it. They tend to equate it with any market system, failing to understand that it is a specific kind of market system where labour itself is a commodity. It is ironic, of course, that most defenders of capitalism stress the importance of markets (which have pre-dated capitalism) while downplaying the importance of wage labour (which defines it) along with the violence which created it. Yet as both anarchists and Marxists have stressed, money and commodities do not define capitalism any more than private ownership of the means of production. So it is important to remember that from a socialist perspective capitalism is not identical to the market. As we stressed in section C.2, both anarchists and Marxists argue that where people produce for themselves, is not capitalist production, i.e. when a worker sells commodities this is not capitalist production. Thus the supporters of capitalism fail to understand that a great deal of state coercion was required to transform pre-capitalist societies of artisans and peasant farmers selling the produce of their labour into a capitalist society of wage workers selling themselves to bosses, bankers and landlords.

Lastly, it should be stressed that this process of primitive accumulation is not limited to private capitalism. State capitalism has also had recourse to such techniques. Stalin’s forced collectivisation of the peasantry and the brutal industrialisation involved in five-year plans in the 1930s are the most obvious example). What took centuries in Britain was condensed into decades in the Soviet Union and other state capitalist regimes, with a corresponding impact on its human toil. However, we will not discuss these acts of state coercion here as we are concerned primarily with the actions required to create the conditions required for private capitalism.

Needless to say, this section cannot hope to go into all the forms of state intervention across the globe which were used to create or impose capitalism onto an unwilling population. All we can do is provide a glimpse into the brutal history of capitalism and provide enough references for those interested to pursue the issue further. The first starting point should be Part VIII (“So-Called Primitive Accumulation”) of volume 1 of Marx’s Capital. This classic account of the origins of capitalism should be supplemented by more recent accounts, but its basic analysis is correct. Marxist writers have expanded on Marx’s analysis, with Maurice Dobb’s Studies in the Development of Capitalism and David McNally’s Against the Market are worth consulting, as is Michael Perelman’s The Invention of Capitalism. Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid has a short summary of state action in destroying communal institutions and common ownership of land, as does his The State: It’s Historic Role. Rudolf Rocker’s Nationalism and Culture is also essential reading. Individualist Anarchist Kevin Carson’s Studies in Mutualist Political Economy provides an excellent summary (see part 2, “Capitalism and the State: Past, Present and Future”) as does his essay The Iron Fist behind the Invisible Hand.

[good-old-gossip]

Israel continues its crime of ethnic cleansing by destroying last neighbourhoods, UN shelter centres in Jabalia camp

Palestinian Territory - Throughout its three-week military operation against the Jabalia refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip, the Israeli army has deliberately continued its crime of forcibly uprooting Palestinian civilians. Israeli forces have completely destroyed all of the camp’s remaining necessities oflife, housing, and survival—including entire residential blocks—as well as destroyed, either partially or fully,the United Nation shelter centres there.

Israel’s army has been conducting a large-scale military operation in the Jabalia camp since 11 May, which it began only a few hours after suddenly issuing forced displacement orders against thousands of local residents. The Israeli army has struck residential neighbourhoods and other civilian objects in the vicinity with fire belts, and has been continuously bombarding civilian targets with intensive and indiscriminate artillery attacks. This is in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law regulations pertaining to proportionality, military necessity, and taking all necessary precautions. 

In addition to the crimes of premeditated killings, arbitrary arrests, and targeting of civilians, the Israeli military operation in Jabalia has resulted in massive destruction. The attacks have destroyed entire residential blocks and impacted hundreds of homes and buildings in the camp, including shelter centres, UNRWA-affiliated medical and food centres, and UNRWA-funded water wells.

A field inspection of the conditions in the Jabalia camp after the Israeli withdrawal revealed that not a single residential building was spared from bombing, bulldozing, or burning operations. The complete destruction of the area’s infrastructure was evident, as was the burning of the main market and shops in the streets surrounding it, to the point where walking on the roads of most of the camp’s “blocks” has become impossible due to the rubble and massive destruction.

Simultaneously, the Euro-Med Monitor field team observed the Israeli army demolishing all UNRWA headquarters and facilities in the Jabalia camp, including six schools in Block 4 (Abu Zeitoun Schools). The attacks were carried out by intensive artillery shelling and partial or total burning of the schools.

The greatest destruction was observed in the UNRWA schools opposite the Birkat Abu Rashid area in the central area of the Jabalia camp, and on Al-Faluga road; these places were subjected to burning operations and complete destruction. The UNRWA headquarters in northern Gaza, which is adjacent to the Jabalia camp police station, was also burned, resulting in the total destruction of personnel files including documents pertaining to refugee aid. The UNRWA Jabalia Maintenance Office (Cleanliness and Maintenance Department) was not also spared from shells and destruction.

Next to UNRWA’s main headquarters, its aid distribution store was set on fire—at a time when it was packed with aid supplies that had entered the camp just two days before its residents were forciblyevacuated. Notably, the Israeli army blocked aid trucks’ access to the Gaza City and North Gaza governoratesin May.

The targeted schools and UNRWA headquarters served as shelter centres for thousands of Palestinian civilians who were previously expelled from their homes after Israeli attacks destroyed them, or who were trying to find safe havens.

In order to consolidate its various crimes of forced displacement of Palestinians across the Gaza Strip, Israel has been systematically destroying all forms of life and housing in the Jabalia refugee camp. This destruction is part of a larger pattern of deliberate acts of genocide that Israel has been committing against the Palestinian people since 7 October 2023.

Israel’s army is deliberately and systematically militarising civilian objects in the Gaza Strip. Israeli forces have turned buildings such as schools, educational facilities, and hospitals into military bases, in flagrant violation of international law and the rules of war, and have deliberately destroyed 80% of the Strip’s schools, either completely or partially—an action described by UN experts in a joint statement issued on 18 April as “scholasticide”, as it is deprivinganother generation of Palestinians of their future.

Even the UNRWA-run schools, which have been converted into shelter centres for hundreds of thousands of forcibly displaced Palestinian civilians, have been and are still being subjected to intense Israeli attacks—some of them frequently and abruptly—including in areas that the Israeli army haddesignated as “safe zones”.

The international community must intervene swiftlyand decisively to stop all Israeli direct, systematical, and large-scale military attacks on civilians and civilian objects in the Gaza Strip, and activate real pressure tools to force Israel to halt its eight-month-long genocide. Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in the Strip has involved the forcible displacement and killing ofcivilians, obstruction of humanitarian aid access, targeting of medical and relief personnel, and the bombing and destruction of UN-run facilities. These acts constitute multiple forms of fully-fledged international crimes, and Israel has failed to abide by international law and the International Court of Justice rulings to prevent genocide and protect Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip.

In accordance with international law, Israel must cease its crime of forcibly displacing Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip, permit their immediate return to their homes and places of residence, and compensate them for all losses and damages they have endured.

[probablyasocialecologist]

It’s worth reminding ourselves just how often and insistently the New Testament hammers home its anti-wealth message.

Notoriously, the sayings of Jesus himself include some of the strongest language. He urges unstinting giving to anyone who asks (Matt. 5:42), forbids storing up wealth (6:19), discourages caring for the next day’s food and clothing (6:31), and warns that to serve both God and money is impossible (6:24). He pronounces blessings on the poor and woes on the wealthy (Luke 6:20–26). His counsel to the rich young ruler to “sell all” is thus of a piece with a broader agenda, which draws on the Hebrew prophets. Although it’s often noted that in this particular case Jesus’ call to total renunciation applies to just one individual, in Luke’s Gospel he addresses almost identical words to all his disciples (he uses second-person-plural verb forms): “Sell your possessions, and give alms … and you shall have treasure in heaven” (Luke 12:33–34). Two chapters later, he doubles down with an even more categorical statement: “None of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions” (Luke 14:33).

How were his followers to put such teachings into practice? Luke suggests the answer in the sequel to his Gospel, the Book of Acts, when he describes the founding of the first church in Jerusalem after Pentecost. Here, at the very moment of the Christian movement’s birth, common ownership of wealth figures as an original mark of the church:

All who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44–45)

Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. … There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32–35)

As the theologian David Bentley Hart sums up: “Simply said, the earliest Christians were communists … not as an accident of history but as an imperative of the faith.” This was a communism arising voluntarily from mutual love, not from state-enforced conformity. Even for believers, it’s presented as an exemplary model, not a legalistic rule. All the same, this “communism” is hardly just a spiritualized ideal, but rather a practical economic reality. The apostle Paul strikes similar notes in his repeated exhortations to the Gentile churches to practice koinonia – the generous sharing, including economic sharing, that for Paul is central to the Christian way (2 Cor. 8:13–15).

This anti-wealth message didn’t disappear from Christianity after the faith was legalized by Constantine. On the contrary, as Charles Avila shows in his 1983 study Ownership: Early Christian Teaching, bishops of the fourth and fifth centuries – notably Clement of Alexandria, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea, and Augustine of Hippo – preached fiercely and often on these very scriptural passages. The church fathers went on to root the New Testament’s teachings in nature itself. As Ambrose put it:

Nature has brought forth all things for all in common. Thus God has created everything in such a way that all things be possessed in common. Nature therefore is the mother of common right, usurpation of private right.

The Milanese bishop seems to have anticipated by fifteen hundred years Proudhon’s maxim, “Private property is theft.”

All this helps explain why in Pinianus and Melania’s day, there had been no “Constantinian shift” on wealth, no abrupt relaxation of primitive rigor. (By contrast, in those same years the church jettisoned another of its once-widely-held convictions – that Christians may not kill – rather more rapidly and thoroughly.) Long after Christianity had become a majority faith, as McCarraher observes, “a barely repressed desire for communism … lurked as the political unconscious of medieval Christendom.”