#Wage-slavery or starvation? That's not a choice

[nando161mando]

"Wage-slavery or starvation? That's not a choice, it's a threat!" (EN: English)

[levymcgarden55]

[id: a political cartoon of an aggravated person looking at a set of shackles attached to a large weight, next to an empty plate. They are saying “wage-slavery or starvation? That’s not a choice, it’s a threat!”]

[dailyanarchistposts]

B.4.3 But no one forces you to work for them!

Of course it is claimed that entering wage labour is a “voluntary” undertaking, from which both sides allegedly benefit. However, due to past initiations of force (e.g. the seizure of land by conquest), the control of the state by the capitalist class plus the tendency for capital to concentrate, a relative handful of people now control vast wealth, depriving all others access to the means of life. Thus denial of free access to the means of life is based ultimately on the principle of “might makes right.” And as Murray Bookchin so rightly points out, “the means of life must be taken for what they literally are: the means without which life is impossible. To deny them to people is more than ‘theft’ … it is outright homicide.” [Remaking Society, p. 187]

David Ellerman has also noted that the past use of force has resulted in the majority being limited to those options allowed to them by the powers that be:

“It is a veritable mainstay of capitalist thought … that the moral flaws of chattel slavery have not survived in capitalism since the workers, unlike the slaves, are free people making voluntary wage contracts. But it is only that, in the case of capitalism, the denial of natural rights is less complete so that the worker has a residual legal personality as a free ‘commodity owner.’ He is thus allowed to voluntarily put his own working life to traffic. When a robber denies another person’s right to make an infinite number of other choices besides losing his money or his life and the denial is backed up by a gun, then this is clearly robbery even though it might be said that the victim making a ‘voluntary choice’ between his remaining options. When the legal system itself denies the natural rights of working people in the name of the prerogatives of capital, and this denial is sanctioned by the legal violence of the state, then the theorists of ‘libertarian’ capitalism do not proclaim institutional robbery, but rather they celebrate the ‘natural liberty’ of working people to choose between the remaining options of selling their labour as a commodity and being unemployed.” [quoted by Noam Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader, p. 186]

Therefore the existence of the labour market depends on the worker being separated from the means of production. The natural basis of capitalism is wage labour, wherein the majority have little option but to sell their skills, labour and time to those who do own the means of production. In advanced capitalist countries, less than 10% of the working population are self-employed (in 1990, 7.6% in the UK, 8% in the USA and Canada — however, this figure includes employers as well, meaning that the number of self-employed workers is even smaller!). Hence for the vast majority, the labour market is their only option.

Michael Bakunin notes that these facts put the worker in the position of a serf with regard to the capitalist, even though the worker is formally “free” and “equal” under the law:

“Juridically they are both equal; but economically the worker is the serf of the capitalist … thereby the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf because this terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his family, will force him to accept any conditions imposed by the gainful calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, the employer… .The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the same hunger which forces him to sell himself to the first employer. Thus the worker’s liberty … is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom — voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory from an economic sense — broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery.” [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 187–8]

Obviously, a company cannot force you to work for them but, in general, you have to work for someone. How this situation developed is, of course, usually ignored. If not glossed over as irrelevant, some fairy tale is spun in which a few bright people saved and worked hard to accumulate capital and the lazy majority flocked to be employed by these (almost superhuman) geniuses. In the words of one right-wing economist (talking specifically of the industrial revolution but whose argument is utilised today):

“The factory owners did not have the power to compel anybody to take a factory job. They could only hire people who were ready to work for the wages offered to them. Low as these wage rates were, they were nonetheless much more than these paupers could earn in any other field open to them.” [Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, pp. 619–20]

Notice the assumptions. The workers just happen have such a terrible set of options — the employing classes have absolutely nothing to do with it. And these owners just happen to have all these means of production on their hands while the working class just happen to be without property and, as a consequence, forced to sell their labour on the owners’ terms. That the state enforces capitalist property rights and acts to defend the power of the owning class is just another co-incidence among many. The possibility that the employing classes might be directly implicated in state policies that reduced the available options of workers is too ludicrous even to mention.

Yet in the real world, the power of coincidence to explain all is less compelling. Here things are more grim as the owning class clearly benefited from numerous acts of state violence and a general legal framework which restricted the options available for the workers. Apparently we are meant to believe that it is purely by strange co-incidence the state was run by the wealthy and owning classes, not the working class, and that a whole host of anti-labour laws and practices were implemented by random chance.

It should be stressed that this nonsense, with its underlying assumptions and inventions, is still being peddled today. It is being repeated to combat the protests that “multinational corporations exploit people in poor countries.” Yes, it will be readily admitted, multinationals do pay lower wages in developing countries than in rich ones: that is why they go there. However, it is argued, this represents economic advancement compares to what the other options available are. As the corporations do not force them to work for them and they would have stayed with what they were doing previously the charge of exploitation is wrong. Would you, it is stressed, leave your job for one with less pay and worse conditions? In fact, the bosses are doing them a favour in paying such low wages for the products the companies charge such high prices in the developed world for.

And so, by the same strange co-incidence that marked the industrial revolution, capitalists today (in the form of multinational corporations) gravitate toward states with terrible human rights records. States where, at worse, death squads torture and “disappear” union and peasant co-operative organisers or where, at best, attempts to organise a union can get you arrested or fired and blacklisted. States were peasants are being forced of their land as a result of government policies which favour the big landlords. By an equally strange coincidence, the foreign policy of the American and European governments is devoted to making sure such anti-labour regimes stay in power. It is a co-incidence, of course, that such regimes are favoured by the multinationals and that these states spend so much effort in providing a “market friendly” climate to tempt the corporations to set up their sweatshops there. It is also, apparently, just a co-incidence that these states are controlled by the local wealthy owning classes and subject to economic pressure by the transnationals which invest and wish to invest there.

It is clear that when a person who is mugged hands over their money to the mugger they do so because they prefer it to the “next best alternative.” As such, it is correct that people agree to sell their liberty to a boss because their “next best alternative” is worse (utter poverty or starvation are not found that appealing for some reason). But so what? As anarchists have been pointing out over a century, the capitalists have systematically used the state to create a limit options for the many, to create buyers’ market for labour by skewing the conditions under which workers can sell their labour in the bosses favour. To then merrily answer all criticisms of this set-up with the response that the workers “voluntarily agreed” to work on those terms is just hypocrisy. Does it really change things if the mugger (the state) is only the agent (hired thug) of another criminal (the owning class)?

As such, hymns to the “free market” seem somewhat false when the reality of the situation is such that workers do not need to be forced at gun point to enter a specific workplace because of past (and more often than not, current) “initiation of force” by the capitalist class and the state which have created the objective conditions within which we make our employment decisions. Before any specific labour market contract occurs, the separation of workers from the means of production is an established fact (and the resulting “labour” market usually gives the advantage to the capitalists as a class). So while we can usually pick which capitalist to work for, we, in general, cannot choose to work for ourselves (the self-employed sector of the economy is tiny, which indicates well how spurious capitalist liberty actually is). Of course, the ability to leave employment and seek it elsewhere is an important freedom. However, this freedom, like most freedoms under capitalism, is of limited use and hides a deeper anti-individual reality.

As Karl Polanyi puts it:

“In human terms such a postulate [of a labour market] implied for the worker extreme instability of earnings, utter absence of professional standards, abject readiness to be shoved and pushed about indiscriminately, complete dependence on the whims of the market. [Ludwig Von] Mises justly argued that if workers ‘did not act as trade unionists, but reduced their demands and changed their locations and occupations according to the labour market, they would eventually find work.’ This sums up the position under a system based on the postulate of the commodity character of labour. It is not for the commodity to decide where it should be offered for sale, to what purpose it should be used, at what price it should be allowed to change hands, and in what manner it should be consumed or destroyed.” [The Great Transformation, p. 176]

(Although we should point out that von Mises argument that workers will “eventually” find work as well as being nice and vague — how long is “eventually”?, for example — is contradicted by actual experience. As the Keynesian economist Michael Stewart notes, in the nineteenth century workers “who lost their jobs had to redeploy fast or starve (and even this feature of the ninetheenth century economy… did not prevent prolonged recessions)” [Keynes in the 1990s, p. 31] Workers “reducing their demands” may actually worsen an economic slump, causing more unemployment in the short run and lengthening the length of the crisis. We address the issue of unemployment and workers “reducing their demands” in more detail in section C.9).

It is sometimes argued that capital needs labour, so both have an equal say in the terms offered, and hence the labour market is based on “liberty.” But for capitalism to be based on real freedom or on true free agreement, both sides of the capital/labour divide must be equal in bargaining power, otherwise any agreement would favour the most powerful at the expense of the other party. However, due to the existence of private property and the states needed to protect it, this equality is de facto impossible, regardless of the theory. This is because. in general, capitalists have three advantages on the “free” labour market-- the law and state placing the rights of property above those of labour, the existence of unemployment over most of the business cycle and capitalists having more resources to fall back on. We will discuss each in turn.

The first advantage, namely property owners having the backing of the law and state, ensures that when workers go on strike or use other forms of direct action (or even when they try to form a union) the capitalist has the full backing of the state to employ scabs, break picket lines or fire “the ring-leaders.” This obviously gives employers greater power in their bargaining position, placing workers in a weak position (a position that may make them, the workers, think twice before standing up for their rights).

The existence of unemployment over most of the business cycle ensures that “employers have a structural advantage in the labour market, because there are typically more candidates… than jobs for them to fill.” This means that ”[c]ompetition in labour markets us typically skewed in favour of employers: it is a buyers market. And in a buyer’s market, it is the sellers who compromise. Competition for labour is not strong enough to ensure that workers’ desires are always satisified.” [Juliet B. Schor, The Overworked American, p. 71, p. 129] If the labour market generally favours the employer, then this obviously places working people at a disadvantage as the threat of unemployment and the hardships associated with it encourages workers to take any job and submit to their bosses demands and power while employed. Unemployment, in other words, serves to discipline labour. The higher the prevailing unemployment rate, the harder it is to find a new job, which raises the cost of job loss and makes it less likely for workers to strike, join unions, or to resist employer demands, and so on.

As Bakunin argued, “the property owners... are likewise forced to seek out and purchase labour... but not in the same measure … [there is no] equality between those who offer their labour and those who purchase it.” [Op. Cit., p. 183] This ensures that any “free agreements” made benefit the capitalists more than the workers (see the next section on periods of full employment, when conditions tilt in favour of working people).

Lastly, there is the issue of inequalities in wealth and so resources. The capitalist generally has more resources to fall back on during strikes and while waiting to find employees (for example, large companies with many factories can swap production to their other factories if one goes on strike). And by having more resources to fall back on, the capitalist can hold out longer than the worker, so placing the employer in a stronger bargaining position and so ensuring labour contracts favour them. This was recognised by Adam Smith:

“It is not difficult to foresee which of the two parties [workers and capitalists] must, upon all ordinary occasions... force the other into a compliance with their terms... In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer... though they did not employ a single workman [the masters] could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scare any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate… [I]n disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage.” [Wealth of Nations, pp. 59–60]

How little things have changed.

So, while it is definitely the case that no one forces you to work for them, the capitalist system is such that you have little choice but to sell your liberty and labour on the “free market.” Not only this, but the labour market (which is what makes capitalism capitalism) is (usually) skewed in favour of the employer, so ensuring that any “free agreements” made on it favour the boss and result in the workers submitting to domination and exploitation. This is why anarchists support collective organisation (such as unions) and resistance (such as strikes), direct action and solidarity to make us as, if not more, powerful than our exploiters and win important reforms and improvements (and, ultimately, change society), even when faced with the disadvantages on the labour market we have indicated. The despotism associated with property (to use Proudhon’s expression) is resisted by those subject to it and, needless to say, the boss does not always win.

[genderkoolaid]

TBH it's just. very interesting reading the SWERF response to that post because they all seem to be coming from the idea that I think sex work is empowering and awesome. So they clearly did not read my post and just saw that I am against SWERFs and assumed I must think prostitution is the world's greatest career.

Like... yes. Sex work is often done by poor, desperate women with no other choice. The same can be said for dangerous physical labor and poor, desperate men. I agree that sex work is highly entangled with misogyny.

But regardless of the nature of work, if that is their only choice, taking away that choice as an option... isn't going to magically improve their life. If someone literally cannot get any other job but sex work, banning them from sex work isn't going to suddenly open up other options. It's just going to make their life that much harder.

And like I said in the tags, it seems like their ultimate trump card for why sex work bad is "paying for sex makes it coercive and therefore rape!!"

Which, again, how is that any different from physical labor? We literally have the concept of "wage slavery", so this isn't untrodden ground. If I have no other option but to take whatever manual labor job I can, which results in severe damage to my body and drains me emotionally, all because I literally have no other choice to prevent myself from homelessness and starvation... am I really choosing to work? Can I really consent?

And ultimately, I think that's a different question from legality. Whether or not any worker under capitalism can truly consent to their work when the alternative is poverty and death is a more philosophical question. If you go up to an undocumented immigrant who takes whatever job they can and say "you know, you can't actually consent, so this job is really slavery and that's awful! I'm gonna try and make this illegal, to save you!" Their response would probably be that they don't particularly care if they ~can't truly consent~ since making their job illegal would fucking kill them. The vast majority of poor workers don't give a shit about philosophical debates over if consent is possible under capitalism, they care about whether or not they get paid enough money to not die.

Banning sex work isn't going to get rid of it. It's just going to make it harder for sex workers to be protected. Sex worker unions and sex work activists generally push for decriminalization, to allow sex workers full control over their work without the state controlling them. Whether or not you think they can truly consent doesn't matter, what matters is making sure they have full autonomy, that they have the money they need to survive, and that they are able to get help when they need it. Your solution may feel morally better but practically, does it actually help people? Or do you have deeply rooted beliefs about sex and sex work that you refuse to critically analyze?

[trandoshan]

listening to twisted: the tangled history of black hair culture by emma dabiri (author + narrator). learning a lot. im about a third way thru and its such a fascinating and loving telling of history and culture. im esp interested by chapter 2 that european colonialist capitalist concept of time is completely different from west african time, incl the function and framing of history

i was transcribing some parts that interest me to share but it just kept growing lol. enthralling how she weaves together personal experience, cultural values, colonial history, gender and more. as im relistening to the character to transcibe some bits i keep noticing how shes really braiding all these distinct things together

depending on the size of the braids, a head of hair can take a long time: hours or even days to complete. i'm reluctant to describe this process as time-consuming because i'm keen to disrupt our deeply ingrained yet recent and culturally specific myth of time as a commodity. it makes a lot more sense to imagine braiding as a sociable time during which the business of living is conducted. it is a process that brings people together and facilitates intergenerational bonding and knowledge transmission. women might talk politics or a mother might inform her daughter on sexual mores.

the deeply ingrained truth that black hair is time-consuming does not make sense in an indigenous context. for the yoruba, time was understood in relation to the task that had to be done. until european forms of capitalism, time for most people was your own. the day began at sunrise and ended at twilight. each compund had a sundial to measure the periods inbetween. when the sun was not visible, the amount of work or other keys from nature -- cries of birds for instance -- would provide the farmer with the information he needed. [...] the day was defined by tasks to be accomplished rather than by predetermined units of time. and the yoruba operated by a four-day week. [...] it didn't matter if a hunting month lasted 25 or 35 days long. the event of hunting itself was was privileged above a prescribed unit of time.

as recently as 150 years ago, wage labor seemed both degrading and perverse to the people of what was about to become nigeria. the schedule that most of us grudgingly accept today -- starting work at a certain predetermined time not of your own choice; eating at a predetermined hour dictated by a boss, finishing work at a regimented work ordaiend feom on high -- was seen by great greats as akin to slavery. it was considered anathema who was not a blood relative. compunding these affronts on freedom and autonomy, the british imposed fines for lateness and unauthorized absence. these were deducted from what were already meager or starvation wages.

she immediately follows this dreadful mirror with a section called THE INVENTION OF WOMEN which is a good little shock lol. its enlightening abt woman as a colonialist labor class imposed on yoruban culture where body organs werent immediately relevant to social category before eg lineage

cant find the specific quotes but theres a lot abt hairstyle as an ephemeral art and an assertion like "our hair takes the time it takes" which i found powerful after all the explanations of what time is, culturally

[zolf]

[ID: a cartoon of a woman standing in front of a table. On the table is a ball and chain, and an empty plate. She looks frustrated and thinks "Wage-slavery or starvation? - That's not a choice, It's a threat!" End ID]

It’s a threat!

[2womenforme]

leaders should have a decent foundation in for 90% ish then do others things from there even the god players politicians and rich brake the basics of most bibles in the world so the world is and always been broken = if a car or anything is 3/4 messed up it is shit and the world is 3/4 poverty wage slave wage and always has been and so it is shit cause it acts shit to most actions speak louder then words insulted your teachers and book writers not u so much those writers left out the best of the basics and they do not chat about otherside play influence being a big part of the problem and even the bibles talk about otherside soul side play as god devil demon angels soul spirit ghost , and we need to admit it and communicate and work together this and otherside cause this and otherside is broken the way they do it all of human history leaving most in poverty wage slave wage - bernie s calls it s starvation wage for yrs this was used as a contest to try to win one way or another and run the world that way and yet most are still left without an ok life , and they play games and basics common sense fairness for all plant animal and human won since the beginning of time yet they= lame leaders out of control still running it with the greedy liar con job cheat immoral inhumane killing the planet and human race way too much ways We’re done. But before I go, let me recommend your read some Mises, Bestiat, Rothbard, and Spooner. Peace. Now you’re insulting me well u must have been taught by lame professors or read lame books that leave out the basics of common sense and decency for alll plant animal and human Why can’t it be that high? u just got rediculous on min wages and it makes my point of how rediculous the rich are taking that much and more for self not u going to insane extremes like the rich have done for self as those rich amounts per hr for self and more and yet will not stop selves from so greedy they are stealing and refuse to let people make living wage and up each yr with the cost of living low wages do not go up much or often and not as much as cost of living so most are repeatedly in slave wages and it getting worse for 70 yr in usa most yrs they do not do it volentary it is this job or u get nothing and homeless and starve etc , if they had a choice no one would take slave wages they would take better pay jobs Sure, why don’t we make is $100 an hour? Why not $1,000,000? it is a save wage anything under 16 hr in usa and england in cheap areas and min wage needs to be more in med areas and stil again more in high priced areas Pressured by circumstance, probably, but not coerced by anyone it is big time u are not getting the big pic of violation of most on the planet s take slave wage or u get nothing= criminal treatment of most on the plenet If someone voluntarily takes the job in spite of the low wage, they do so voluntarily If no one takes the job, the wage will be raised There’s no such thing as a slave wage Still not a violation. having a poverty wage slave wage is slavery is immoral inhumane criminal abuse etc etc violating many people yes the system does cause it is do this job or u get nothing far to often Again, no violation of consent Nobody forces them to work below their worth. it violates most cause it does not pay the poverty wage people more 1st and it adds to raises prices and cost of living to much and too often , and greed does not care for the planet =killing the planet is killing the human race the people under 20 hr do most of the work of the world so they are important so should be the ones to get paid more not far above average keep stealing more n more of what is availble in the world = hoarders = rich people it is a crime of stealing and a sckness like a drug addicta Greedy is bad for different reasons, but it doesn’t violate anyone. Being greedy is not a “form” of stealing god players have not delt with this issue even though it is touched on breifly in most bibles being greedy is a form of stealing taking more then their turn share taking more then they need deserve or truely earned taking part of many people s turn and share and colleges high schools did not teach these basics but politicians rich do not want us to know this cause then they can not be greedy We don’t need greedy warmongering governments to protect us from greedy warmongers. books and college professors left out many parts of basics and so the world is and always been screwed up for most by the greedys and warmongers dragging the rest into their ways that is mostly for and about them the memememe people Only if you’re stealing being greedy is violating most other people consent Violating consent is going too far the greedy will claim any conditions are immoral to try and get away with being greedy going too far would be a touch of immorality but doing good job is not immoral to protect morality and humanity and environment So, we need to be immoral to protect morality. That doesn’t make sense to me. many ideas man ideas sound good and free and pure but the greedys corrupt it so conditions to maintain morality and humanity and care for environment are always needed but rarely added so even democracy is corrupted by greedys even free market would not truely be free cause the greedy would corrupt it and claim it is free and best for all cause they lie cheat and con in all of human history morality without conditions for marality humanity the greedys always get out of control and have been in all of human history If the market isn’t free, it’s forced. Do you believe consent should be violated? the idea of free market is good with conditions to be decent humane moral to most but the rich are not doing 10 times more hrs nor 10 times more better or more important work so they should not be allowed over 10 times more then any min wages and we can replace all rich with 2 40 hr a week people for lots good work and use the old rich wages to pay the poverty wage wage people better My observations have been that free markets are the only ones that aren’t “shit.” But when a third party forcibly intervenes (gangs, governments, etc.), that’s when markets go bad. and that all can not happen unless they do better schooling about it a god play politicians and rich people grow up and help so any attempts at free market are so far and would be shit also unless most are doing ok with ok decent min wage and up each year with the cost of living and true equal rights from childhood economics has always been shit in the world cause most are in poverty wage slave wage all of human history and if u where being smart ass we can both make up smart ass shit u can show me how much u know and i can act like trump and make shit up and lie 🤣 1 ok go for it How about agorism and Austrian economics? 😁

this is a conversation with vera meirmer on mewe from bottom to top = it recorded=copied that way

[realityhelixcreates]

Lasabrjotr Chapter 11: Dark World

Chapters: 11/? Fandom: Thor (Movies), Marvel Cinematic Universe Rating: Teen And Up Warnings: Mention of genocide, casual racism, mentions of past death Relationships: Loki x Reader (if you squint) Characters: Loki (Marvel), OFC, Additional Tags: Post-Endgame: Best Possible Ending, Loki needs to Work on the Racism, Have More Headcanons, Loki is Not Fond of Stephen Strange, Loki is also Not Fond of Reliving Certain Memories Summary: Reader gets an impromptu astronomy/history lesson, but Loki glosses over the important parts, not wanting to dwell on the very history that he himself made

Loki was still reading the Alfar book when you returned, but he set it aside for a moment to inquire about how your check-in went.

“I told him the truth.” You said simply. “I’m not gonna lie to Captain America.”

“Oh, you fancy the old soldier?” He teased.

“I believe in what he stands for.” You said, lifting your chin.

“And what is that? Ah, don’t tell me.” He stood, and began to prowl around you like a cat. “Courage. Nobility. Self-sacrifice. Honor and glory! For God and Country! Amen!”

“Justice.” You said, as he completed his circle. “No more billionaires getting away with slavery and murder. No more cops killing you for having the wrong skin color. No more people thinking there even is a wrong skin color. No more kids going hungry in the richest nation on Earth. No blindly following unjust laws. Standing up, and making your little corner of the world a better place. We wanna believe America is exceptional? Then we have to make it that way. We haven’t, but we could.”

“And what do you bring to that table, little baker?” He questioned. “What’s exceptional about you?”

You had never been anything special. You were average. You had gotten average grades, came from an average part of the country, looked average. You were a hard worker, but you couldn’t be anything less, or you’d be homeless. Average jobs meant starvation wages. You hadn’t gone to college. You’d never stopped studying, but without a degree, all your extracurricular learning meant nothing. What could you have been, if only you’d had the money to make anyone believe in your worth? What could you do?

“I can do magic.” You offered.

“Can you? Why don’t you show me?”

So he was still going to be like that, was he?

You quickly grabbed him by the hand, and reached for a nearby glass. He caught you by the wrist before you could pick it up, and shook his hand loose from yours.

“Okay, yes. But can you do it without our contact?”

“Not yet.” You conceded. “But once you teach me how, I will.”

“So what you’re saying is that, for you to grow and reach your great potential…you need me.”

He fixed you with a positively wolfish grin. It made your stomach flip. You crossed your arms and stared up into his teeth. He just wants you to react.

“Or, you know, that wizard we saw before.”

“That presumptuous dilettante?” He growled. “The arrogant dabbler would have you scrubbing his floors to distract you from his lack of ability! He wouldn’t know what to do with you.”

“And you do?”

“Moreso than that cocksure novice!”

“Sure don’t like him, huh? What’s the deal? Did he scuff up your shoes one time, or something?” Now this was amusing! He sounded like an overdramatic teenager ranting about a rival.

“He’s a swaggering pretender playing with forces he barely understands. A baby given an incredibly dangerous toy. I have had centuries to grow and mature in the Art, he has the equivalent training of picking up a pamphlet and thinking he’s learned everything.”

“Mature, huh? Is that why you turned my hair green?”

He snorted. “It’s not green, you little fool.” He waved his hand in front of your eyes. “Go look.”

You did. Everything was normal again.

“The illusion was not on your hair.” He informed you. “It was on your eyes. Did you think nobody said anything about it out of respect? My brother would have mentioned it, even if no one else did.”

“Okay, I’m…actually less mad about that than I thought I would be. I didn’t know you could do that.”

“I can do an untold number of things that you don’t yet know about.”

“Oh.” That sounded mildly threatening. “Well…can you tell me more about Svartalfheim? I couldn’t finish my lesson yesterday, Miss Valkyrie was a little unsure about the details of its recent history.”

He frowned.  “You’re still on about that? I suppose it’s lucky that one of my meetings has been cancelled. But I cannot always waste time on your curiosity. “

“Rude! You think teaching your history is wasting time?”

“I don’t.” He sat down, patting the bench, inviting you to join him. Why did he do things like that? His moods and actions in constant flux. You never knew where he’d be a few moments down the line.

Loki is the trickster of the gods, an untrustworthy god of lies, deceit, treachery and evil. The father of lies and monsters, a patron of misleading actions.

You sat down next to him.

“It’s just that I hate Svartalfheim, and I hate the Svartalfari. Living through events that make it into history books is nearly always unpleasant in some way. But you are so cursed curious, so I suppose I must fill you in.”

He conjured an image of a black, cloudy world, orbiting a dim, eclipsed sun. There were no visible stars. Swathes of dust obscured the already weak light.

“It’s beautiful.” You breathed.

He gave you a look. “It’s dismal. Just look at it. It’s colorless, dry and depressing.”

“But how is it like this? How is the sun like that? Where are the stars?”

“Do you want history or astronomy?”

“Both!”

He sighed. “The galaxy in which Svartalfheim is located contains a great deal of dust and dark matter. Svartalfheim itself orbits a small, young star within an absorption nebula. Do you know what that is?”

“I know what a nebula is.”

“Okay, well there’s more than one kind. This kind does not glow with the light of the stars within it; no light escapes or enters. So, no stars, no constellations, no inkling that there might be someone else out there. There are but two planets in this system, no others have had time to form. There is Svartalfheim, small, dark, dirty. And then there is this enormous gas giant, just barely not a star itself. Both planets are very close to the star, so Svartalfheim is warm, despite the darkness. But by some fluke of development, both planets have the exact same orbital period. Meaning-“ He continued, noticing your slightly confused expression. “-that they have the exact same length of year. And so, this gas giant is forever between Svatalfheim and the star. The eclipse is permanent. A day on Svartalfheim is very long. Long dark days, and long black nights. Do you follow?”

“Stuff’s dark. I got it.”

“Yes. And so, no plants larger than lichens grow. That’s really all they have there. Lichens and mushrooms. The soil is poor, as is the ecosystem. Only a few species can live there, and the majority of those are carnivorous, feeding off small eaters of lichen, and each other. All of this contributes to the overall dreariness of the place. “

“I still think it’s beautiful.”

“Why?” He asked, seeming annoyed that you hadn’t instantly taken up his same dislike of the place. “It’s bleak. It’s empty. It’s hostile.”

“It’s different! It’s new, and young, and we’ve never seen what might live on a young planet. I didn’t even know life could form on planets in such weird circumstances.”

“Midgardian attitudes toward space are rather amusing, do you know that? You all have such a passion for it, but you’ve barely done anything with that passion. It’s as if you are obsessed with looking through your windows, but won’t take but a few steps outside your own door.”

“Well, I mean, we didn’t have a Bifrost, and we need, just, so much air? To survive? I already know we’re less tough and have shorter lives than you all, so that probably has something to do with it. We haven’t been able to build ships that could hold everything we need, and go fast enough to get us places within those short lifespans. And then I think some weird things happen to our bodies when we stay in space for too long? I’m not sure, I haven’t studied it before. Kinda want to now, though.”

“There is a Bifrost here now.” Loki pointed out. “Someday, it will be like our old one, and able to transport people to all of these planets. Svartalfheim is forbidden though, on order of the king. And myself. I’m afraid I can never take you there.”

“Oh. But why not?”

“Because we hate it. Or rather, I hate it, and my brother hates it and also sympathizes with it.”

“You’ve been beating around the bush here. Can’t you tell me what happened?”

“I can. But it’s unpleasant. You know, I assume, of my grandfather’s battle with the Svartalfari?”

“Yeah. And the Aether, and that it came back later in a human lady. Did you meet her?”

He cleared his throat. “Yes…we met.”

“What was she like? She had this stone inside her?”

“She was…interesting. Secretly powerful. You know only a few can handle the stones without terrible consequences. She didn’t exactly handle it, she could not utilize its powers, but she did contain it. If you were to touch one of these things, it would likely consume you entirely, understand? She held it within her body, and all it did was weaken her.

In the end, we rid her of its influence, but it fell into our enemies hands. Behold.”

A small figure emerged. It was entirely white and black; white skin, white hair, white armor that looked carved from bone, all wrapped and strapped in leathery black clothing. It wore an expressionless, hollow-eyed, white mask over its face.

“Okay, that’s creepy.”

“That’s a Svartalfar. Hideous, cave-crawling, hateful creatures.”

“Why do they look like us? Why do they all look like us?”

“What do you mean?” The planet and the person dissipated.

“Vanir, Asgardian, Human, Svart-al-far, we all look the same. Same body shape, same faces. We all have written languages, wear clothes, make fashion choices. Some worse than others. We should all be extremely different from one another, shouldn’t we?”

“Convergent evolution?” He suggested.

“I’m gonna have to look that up. So is that why they’re so pale? Because they live in caves?”

“Precisely. They are very insular, unforgiving of any weakness. They used to war against each other, having no idea there was anything or anyone outside of their tiny star system. They couldn’t do what humans did; they couldn’t look out into the stars and wonder if they were alone or not. When they found out that they were not, they did not react with wonder, or even fear. They have only hatred for anything that isn’t one of them. They try to destroy anything that is not Svartalfari.”

“Okay, but you guys didn’t exactly come with open arms, right? You wanted something that was on the planet, didn’t you?”

He sighed. “Metals. Mostly zinc and silver.”

“Uh-huh. So their first contact with another species was a bunch of warlike invaders who wanted to steal their stuff. But of course, they’re just ‘naturally inclined’ to hate all outsiders.”

“Now I know it seems like that, but we did attempt to open trade agreements first. We saw how poor the ecosystem of the planet was, and offered to trade food with them. Grain and such.”

“Did they not want that? Was it taken as some kind of insult?”

“No, not exactly. It just turned out our food was poisonous to them.”

“Oh no!”

“Yes. Our existence, what we represented-that is, an entire unseen universe beyond what they thought was ‘everything’-upset their cultural understanding of their place in existence. And this death we brought could only be interpreted as a deliberate attack. The Svartalfari are truly immortal, you understand; they can be killed, but they do not die on their own. Old age is an unknown concept to them. Due to this, their birth rate is incredibly low. They had a stable population of only a few tens of thousands, that’s it.

Hundreds died in the initial poisonings. That was when their hatred truly took hold. As the deaths continued, one of them rose to a position of prominence. He spread a doctrine of genocide among his people; that all others were a mockery of what the universe should be. That all others must die. They began by killing the Asgardian miners and merchants, and continued doing this until the armies came. This one man mustered all of his warring people under one cause, and claimed to have a weapon to back him up.

He had discovered the Aether. You know it as an Infinity Stone, the Reality stone specifically. With it, one can influence, or even change reality itself. He intended to use it to revert the universe to its initial state of darkness. It was possible only under a cosmic convergence that brings all the realms into line, and breaks down barriers between those worlds. He thought to use the stone then, to reach as far into the universe as he could, extinguishing the light along the way.

My grandfather and our armies routed them. Nearly the entire species was wiped out, and we left the planet permanently.”

“Didn’t stay for the silver?”

“I think, for perhaps the first time, my grandfather regretted a battle. He certainly liked to fight and conquer, but I do not believe he was genocidal. That takes a…a certain kind of insanity that rarely looks like what it is. So he forbid his people from returning, leaving the planet as a graveyard.

But, of course, they didn’t all die. Their leader, some of his soldiers, and a very few children survived. And so, thousands of years later, they tried again. In search of the Aether, which was within that woman, they actually invaded Asgard.

I was imprisoned at the time. You know, for my oh-so heinous crimes against your world, which my father had abandoned a millennia ago.” He sounded positively venomous for a moment. “You know, they broke all the other criminals out. Offered to free me, but…I just didn’t take the opportunity. You know, I think I still believed I’d be forgiven in time.  ‘Look Father! I had the chance, but I didn’t take it! I still have some honor after all!’ Hmph.” He grimaced. “The Svartalfari invaders murdered the queen while I stayed in a cage.”

And there was the reason their mother had never been mentioned. She wasn’t here. You opened your arms almost on reflex. Who had hugged him after that?

His hand was on your forehead in an instant, halting your compassionate advance.

“Spare me.” He said dryly. “It wasn’t the worst thing to happen to me that day.”

“What?”

“Well of course we sought revenge. Did you know my brother and Heimdall are traitors to the Crown? It was never just me. We broke so many laws together. Ah, good times. We headed right to Svartalfheim, got the Aether out of that woman, and tricked the Svartalfari easily. And then I was killed, and left behind on that miserable place.”

“What?” You repeated.

“Obviously I wasn’t completely dead, but I was very close. It certainly seemed like it; enough to fool absolutely everyone. Including myself. But I am Aesir, and I did not die. Oh, but they did. All of the invaders. I ended the life of my mother’s killer, but if I could have taken the head of every remaining member of the species, I would have.”

“Genocide takes a certain kind of insanity-“ You began to repeat his earlier words.

“Yes. It does.” He stared at you, face sharp and serious. “My brother has once again forbid contact with Svartalfheim. Any who survive may someday rebuild the species. I cannot bring myself to care.”

“Your highness.” You said firmly. “You should allow me to hug you.”

He gave you a long, silent side-glance.

“You do not command me, tiny mortal.” He proclaimed darkly. But he did lift his arm, and look away, giving you the opportunity to wrap your arms around his middle.

You took it.

[itsyourchoicedevotionals]

To Another Church

“Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged.” Isa 1:4ESV

Warning: If you want a feel-good devotional, read elsewhere today. If you want truth, God has laid on my heart— read on: Are you aware the Old Testament was written to the ‘Jews,’ God’s wife? Like any loving parent or spouse, Almighty God tried to reason with His people, ‘Look what your choices have caused.’ “Why will you still be struck down? Why will you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds; they are not pressed out or bound up or softened with oil.” Isa1:5-6ESV

How did Israel forget God and all He’d done in delivering them from slavery? Feeding them? Winning their wars? Giving them land and houses without any payments?

Times change but people don’t. I think forgetting God’s goodness is tantamount to our nation today. Never having experienced the hell of Communism; seeing the annihilation of millions; nor the planned starvation of middle class citizens— people are insanely embracing ‘Socialism’ by the thousands.

Israel’s rulers were compared to Sodom and Gomorrah, (places destroyed for their sexual perversions, indicating mega-perversion nationally.) Currently, still a terrible blight on the Jewish people, especially those living in the USA, also, upon the bride of Christ.

Another scripture speaking to another church, Christ’s bride— us. “…Understand this, …in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power” 2Tim 3:1-5ESV. How many of these labels apply to you? I’m guilty of some.

One voice for Jesus quoted in his sermon: ‘General William Booth, founder of The Salvation Army, listed in the early 1900’s the chief dangers he saw for the church in the 20th century: * Christianity without Christ * Forgiveness without repentance * Salvation without regeneration * Politics without God * Heaven without Hell Religion without the Holy Spirit’

Life choices come with consequences. “Your country lies desolate; your cities are burned with fire; in your very presence foreigners devour your land; it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners” Isa 1:7ESV. In our land of opportunity, we see ravages of storms, drought, and flooding. Foreigners owning much of our national lands and monuments; coming into government and education; pushing out Christianity. Lastly, squatting on our land, taking our work and wealth, while demanding our rights.

Finally, sin’s price tag— “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” Rom 6:23ESV.

God made a plea to His people: “Wash yourselves and make yourselves clean. Remove your evil actions from My sight and stop sinning! Learn what it means to do what is good by seeking righteousness and justice! Rescue the oppressed. Uphold the rights of the fatherless and defend the widow’s cause” Isa 1:16-17TPT.

To the church of 2019 John writes: 1Jn 1:8-9TPT “If we boast that we have no sin, we’re only fooling ourselves and are strangers to the truth. But if we freely admit our sins when His light uncovers them, He will be faithful to forgive us every time. God is just to forgive us our sins because of Christ, and He will continue to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” It’s your choice. You choose.

PRAYER: Sovereign God forgive us our sins; deliver us from our bondages and addictions; restore our first love; and help us remember You first, in Jesus’ name I pray.

by Debbie Veilleux Copyright 2019 You have my permission to reblog this devotional for others. Please keep my name with this devotional as author. Thank you.

[religioniswhack]

Capitalism: food is too cheap, we're not making enough profit. *creates shortage to raise food price*

Libertarian infant: poor people are destined to starve because they refuse to work, this system is good.

Liberal child: capitalism is meh, but its the best there is. Lets petition the democratic party for more food stamps.

Socialist adolescent: lets restructure the economy to work for everyone, socialsm is leagues better than capitalism. Don't touch the state though...

Communist adult: capitalism is the root of all societies problems. We will not stop until the only class that exists is the working class. We will end exploitation through armed struggle Hasta la victoria siempre!

Anarchist elder: not only is this system [that allows people to starve because profit] bad, we must also together come up with a system of resource distribution that actively seeks to destroy exploitation throughout its existance, so that no one is forced to make the choice between wage slavery and starvation.

[theoverfish]

Just because people don't *have* to work doesn't mean they *won't.* People need work to feel fulfilled. However, under a socialist system, people would be free to work on things they actually want to work on. Making art, engineering, medicine, civil engineering, contstruction, etc.. Not because they need to in order to survive, but because it's what makes them happy. Nobody would be forced or corerced into doing those things. I believe that people naturally want to serve their communities and make something they can be proud of. Creating a system where everyone can reach their full human potential and create things will make everyone happier in the long run. This is especially true if working means they can invest in their own goals instead of working just to survive.

Capitalism creates an incentive to be selfish and cruel. Capitalists say this is "human nature;" I say they're projecting onto the rest of us. In capitalism, if you decide you don't want to pay your workers starvation wages, or you refuse to take part in political corruption, or if you refuse to use manipulative marketing tactics, you will be replaced by someone who is willing to do those things. And thus, we're stuck with capitalist overlords who decide that it's perfectly okay to, say, bottle local water and then sell it to people who don't have clean drinking water for a profit, or decide to stop investing in a city because the state wants to raise taxes ever so slightly in order to create low-cost housing. So-called "ethical capitalism" is impossible, not because people are evil, but because evil people are the ones who do well under capitalism.

There is no reason the surplus would go away under a democratic socialist system in the United States. In a society where everyone has free access to information and education, nobody has an advantage over anyone else as far as making their speech go further, everyone has access to resources, voting is proportional instead of first past the post, people value true freedom, and there is enough to sustain everyone, there is no reason why the surplus would go away. People aren't going to be tearing up the factories and salting the farms. In fact, in a democratized economy, people will be able to utilize that surplus in more efficient ways because they will use resources to invest in things they actually want, not pray that some capitalist finds it profitable to create it, or they happen to feel generous for whatever reason. You can use supply and demand curves all you want, but those assume a market economy in which independent suppliers are motivated by maximizing profit. The dynamic changed entirely when the workers own the means of production.

And really, you made my argument for me. Forcing people to support you is slavery. Those who own the things people need to survive, like food production, housing, water, health care, etc. force people to give them their earnings, which is on top of the surplus value of their labor which was already taken from them as a condition for obtaining the money by which they can in turn get those things. It's not a choice, it's not real consent. They can always choose to simply die, but that isn't a real choice. They are *slaves* under capitalism.

Maybe you have a little upward mobility, but America actually has the lowest intergenerational mobility in the developed world despite being the richest nation in the history of the world. I know people who work hard, but don't earn enough surplus to invest in themselves. Maybe you've avoided having your spirit crushed, but I know plenty of people who have had hope squeezed out of them by their terrible jobs. I have friends who work whose parents have to work three jobs, and between them they can barely afford to make ends meet, and a single unexpected large cost could wipe them out. Maybe you're the exception to all this, but you're not the rule. Most people are stuck in capitalism. And the whole liberal refusal to think of systemic problems instead of just blaming poor people for being poor isn't productive nor accurate.

Hot take: Capitalism isn’t the same thing as consumerism. Just because I think voluntary exchange is moral doesn’t mean I have to approve of greed, avarice, waste, excess, decadence, or selfishness.