#capitalism gains less if there's less people to exploit

[balkanradfem]

Do you think that low birth-rates are a problem?

I think they're the opposite of a problem :)

[puckpocketed]

Hello. You might have seen this floating around on twt:

link 1 // link 2, archive link

If by any chance you or someone you know are thinking about joining in on the challenge… no one can stop you but I implore you as someone who makes art, as someone with friends in an often-exploited creative industry, as someone who lives in late stage capitalism alongside you and has seen this play out before: proceed with caution.

Read the fine print on that form. There is NO guarantee of an internship, much less a job at the end of it. I haven't gone further than this form, but if anyone reading this does, and if there's no written agreement that your work won't be used without credit to you + payment for services rendered - RUN.

This is a common corporate tactic to get free labor out of people. I'm not saying this is necessarily what’s happening; for all we know this was done as a completely innocent move to drum up some fan engagement and as a genuine search for talent for their analytics team. WHO KNOWS. But I can't ignore that I’ve seen this situation play out again and again, at every scale.

Job interviews, when they ask you how YOU think they should improve their systems, how YOU would solve their problems? When they require that you do some problem-solving for them, and it goes beyond a simple task? That’s a free consultation you’re giving them, that's free work you or someone else should be getting paid for.

When big streamers/influencers ask their fans to join in on a fan art contest to choose their new pfp/banner? That’s hundreds, possibly thousands of pieces of free art they never would’ve gotten otherwise. They could've gone to the trouble of paying someone in-house to do it, hiring someone for that position, commissioning a professional for a piece. It's free work from their dedicated fans.

In this case, Utah HC is asking fans to not only choose/provide their own dataset, but to do a complex analysis on it AND do the work of visual and verbal communication to senior management, who likely do not have a deeper grasp of the concepts and will need it simplified. The stipulation that you will present your work could be ANYTHING!! The "five page deliverable" is already bananas to me, having dipped my toe into what analytics is and how complex the fun ones are. Condensing it all is WORK. The presentation portion may include speaking time and answering questions; the groundwork for doing this effectively may include producing data visualisations, making spreadsheets, time consuming write-ups. Maths and science communication is hard. It is WORK. They are asking for free labor.

Many have already called it out, but it's still gaining traction via retweets from big accounts uncritically sharing it. I found out through the official Puckpedia account. Jack Han called it out pretty eloquently on twitter and on his substack:

Many people aspire to work as an analyst in the NHL. Earlier today the Utah Hockey Club gave those people a glimmer of hope. Utah’s Summer Analytics Challenge is unusual in that it doesn’t provide a dataset or detailed instructions. The open-ended contests contrasts with other public (ex: Big Data Cup) or private (ex: NHL team interview) events. In those scenarios, participants are given proprietary data to clean, model and analyze, which influence direction and methodology. Meanwhile, Utah is seemingly happy with anything as long as the writeup is under five pages long. Utah’s contest also stands out in its near-total absence of legal fine print. There are no mention of intellectual property implications, which is perhaps fitting when the team is asking participants to bring their own data and analysis. [...] Open casting calls such as Utah’s analytics challenge start out as a lose-lose-lose proposition: > The employer loses because it will have to invest massive human resources to trawl/filter/evaluate/reverse-engineer the hundreds of write-ups it is sure to receive, with no guarantee that any of them will be of use > Applicants lose because the vast, vast majority of them will have nothing to show for their efforts, while a tiny minority risks having its IP stolen > Good ideas lose because they’ll be born into an environment where their parents (the applicant & the employer) have no defined relationship and won’t be in a position to grow together

link, archive link

I do try to keep things light on this blog, but this is super personal for me <3 thank u for listening

[ketsuarting]

My theory is that Alastor was a total fraud, that he didn’t kill all those overlords, but instead took credit for someone else’s secret killing of them, to raise his rep, and then slowly acquire some actual power through soul collecting. And that this was the reason he would make a deal with *someone*, for some real power in case he ever found himself in an actual fight, either with the real killer, or someone else entirely. To say most of the time he was smiling it was to cover genuine nervousness, an everlasting fear that someone, anyone would recognise him for the fraud he is. To say the real reason he didn’t join the Vees was that he knew they would figure him out. Like if you look at ‘Stayed Gone’, you know how Vox glitches out during the song and it seems Alastor does it from afar? The previous part of the song has Vox skip down the hallway to the other Vees while singing, and on his first step, ONE OF ALASTOR’S SYMBOLS GLOWS ON THE FLOOR BEFORE VANISHING. This barely lasts a few frames, but it is real, it is there, to say Alastor’s power is based on the illusion of it: he is a powerful demon now, sure, but not all-powerful. Hence why his duets were always about getting under the other’s skin: because they are more powerful than him, but do not know it. Lucifer being the first he would go up against to actually know himself more powerful, hence Alastor’s annoyance, not wanting weakness to give way to further weakness. Maybe in the present after his deal he thought he had that power, hence why he looked so confused when Adam beat him: he really thought the power he was given was enough to stand against him and win. Given the Vees will apparently be main characters next season, and we’ve gotten to know some of the current overlords, I would not be surprised if the big mystery next season is overlords going missing again, only this time Alastor will be unable to take responsibility for the disappearance, and we the audience will learn the truth of what he is, or rather what he’s not.

I wanna agree in part to this, because I also believe Alastor is playing up his skill for more than it is.

He's the radio demon, that MEDIA. And the strongest parts of media is rephrasing data to the masses as to mislead them. This, in turn, would also be Vox's strength, and thus those two are locked into an eternal battle of (mis)information.

That's also why alastor probably engaged in the stayed gone rap duel in the first place. He position is already precarious what with the 7 year absence, but if vox now starts gaining foothold in their little war? Alastor would be fucked long term.

Alastor is also clearly BETTER at what he does than Vox. Because vox is less of a show host demon and more of a CEO/Producer demon. I collect strong allies to put in front of the camera, he himself isn't really a face for TV (haha see what I did there?)

I do believe though that Alastor has some inherent strength. He is adept in the arcane more so than your average demon, his voodoo capabilities are presumably what give him a leg up in hell.

Also. Alastor was a MURDERER. A serial killer at that!!! Presumably that's actually not what most people did before hell. For example: angel dust got into hell for his drug addictions, husk for his gambling addiction. Valentino probably landed his ass down there for exploitation (though he shows a carelessness for the lives of those he considers property), velvette I assume will be revealed to either b cyber bullying of sabotaging competition and Vox seems to be in hell for crimes of capitalism. (These are mainly head canons but My point is more that these people aren't in hell for murder explicitly.)

Alastor is powerful, but he DEFINITELY is lying and obfuscatinga bout how powerful exactly. It works to his benefit. Unlike Vox who has the urge to PROVE his strength at every turn.

And this is actually something they're polar opposites on. Vox is honest to a fault. Literally, to a fault. He NEEDS hell to know that the demon is back. He NEEDS them to realize that he doesn't want them to even give him their time of day. He needs velvette and Valentino to witness his whole manic episode about it.

Meanwhile Alastor couldn't be honest if his life depended on it, literally. He must have known that he can't beat Adam. Deep down he must have realized how FUCKED he would be. But he either a) deluded himself that he stands a chance or b) lied to the other in order to safe face.

Also a big part of alastor are his deals. He literally bluffed himself into a position of power, by misleading others into deals that would benefit him much more than them.

Husk retained his power, but how does it matter if Alastor wields it?

Charlie has to do one favor that 'harms no one' but what if it ends up being something that benefits people that are purely evil?

His deals suck ASS and people fall for it anyways because he either gives them no other option or make them feel like they're having the upper hand for once.

But at the end of the day he is just a sinner. If Lucifer wanted to he could obliterate his Twink ass in a second. Adam too, could've absolutely finish alastor, but he delighted in the radio demon running away from him. Probably because Adam understand what kind of blow to the go that must've been to the guy.

[dailyanarchistposts]

B.7 What classes exist within modern society?

For anarchists, class analysis is an important means of understanding the world and what is going on in it. While recognition of the fact that classes actually exist is less prevalent now than it once was, this does not mean that classes have ceased to exist. Quite the contrary. As we’ll see, it means only that the ruling class has been more successful than before in obscuring the existence of class.

Class can be objectively defined: the relationship between an individual and the sources of power within society determines his or her class. We live in a class society in which a few people possess far more political and economic power than the majority, who usually work for the minority that controls them and the decisions that affect them. This means that class is based both on exploitation and oppression, with some controlling the labour of others for their own gain. The means of oppression have been indicated in earlier parts of section B, while section C (What are the myths of capitalist economics?) indicates exactly how exploitation occurs within a society apparently based on free and equal exchange. In addition, it also highlights the effects on the economic system itself of this exploitation. The social and political impact of the system and the classes and hierarchies it creates is discussed in depth in section D (How do statism and capitalism affect society?).

We must emphasise at the outset that the idea of the “working class” as composed of nothing but industrial workers is simply false. It is not applicable today, if it ever was. Power, in terms of hire/fire and investment decisions, is the important thing. Ownership of capital as a means of determining a person’s class, while still important, does not tell the whole story. An obvious example is that of the higher layers of management within corporations. They have massive power within the company, basically taking over the role held by the actual capitalist in smaller firms. While they may technically be “salary slaves” their power and position in the social hierarchy indicate that they are members of the ruling class in practice (and, consequently, their income is best thought of as a share of profits rather than a wage). Much the same can be said of politicians and state bureaucrats whose power and influence does not derive from the ownership of the means of production but rather then control over the means of coercion. Moreover, many large companies are owned by other large companies, through pension funds, multinationals, etc. (in 1945, 93% of shares were owned by individuals; by 1997, this had fallen to 43%). Needless to say, if working-class people own shares that does not make them capitalists as the dividends are not enough to live on nor do they give them any say in how a company is run).

For most anarchists, there are two main classes:

Obviously there are “grey” areas in any society, individuals and groups who do not fit exactly into either the working or ruling class. Such people include those who work but have some control over other people, e.g. power of hire/fire. These are the people who make the minor, day-to-day decisions concerning the running of capital or state. This area includes lower to middle management, professionals, and small capitalists.

There is some argument within the anarchist movement whether this “grey” area constitutes another (“middle”) class or not. Most anarchists say no, most of this “grey” area are working class, others (such as the British Class War Federation) argue it is a different class. One thing is sure, all anarchists agree that most people in this “grey” area have an interest in getting rid of the current system just as much as the working class (we should point out here that what is usually called “middle class” in the USA and elsewhere is nothing of the kind, and usually refers to working class people with decent jobs, homes, etc. As class is considered a rude word in polite society in the USA, such mystification is to be expected).

So, there will be exceptions to this classification scheme. However, most of society share common interests, as they face the economic uncertainties and hierarchical nature of capitalism.

We do not aim to fit all of reality into this class scheme, but only to develop it as reality indicates, based on our own experiences of the changing patterns of modern society. Nor is this scheme intended to suggest that all members of a class have identical interests or that competition does not exist between members of the same class, as it does between the classes. Capitalism, by its very nature, is a competitive system. As Malatesta pointed out, “one must bear in mind that on the one hand the bourgeoisie (the property owners) are always at war amongst themselves… and that on the other hand the government, though springing from the bourgeoisie and its servant and protector, tends, as every servant and every protector, to achieve its own emancipation and to dominate whoever it protects. Thus the game of the swings, the manoeuvres, the concessions and the withdrawals, the attempts to find allies among the people and against the conservatives, and among conservatives against the people, which is the science of the governors, and which blinds the ingenuous and phlegmatic who always wait for salvation to come down to them from above.” [Anarchy, p. 25]

However, no matter how much inter-elite rivalry goes on, at the slightest threat to the system from which they benefit, the ruling class will unite to defend their common interests. Once the threat passes, they will return to competing among themselves for power, market share and wealth. Unfortunately, the working class rarely unites as a class, mainly due to its chronic economic and social position. At best, certain sections unite and experience the benefits and pleasure of co-operation. Anarchists, by their ideas and action try to change this situation and encourage solidarity within the working class in order to resist, and ultimately get rid of, capitalism. However, their activity is helped by the fact that those in struggle often realise that “solidarity is strength” and so start to work together and unite their struggles against their common enemy. Indeed, history is full of such developments.

[lucas-grey]

Let's talk about motives and the battle of good versus evil in Hitman!

Hitman is not Disney and there is no black and white here. The battle of good versus evil is not so easy to define. Is there even such a thing as "the good"? And who are the bad guys?

Let's start with Grey.

The war that Grey is waging against Providence is, on the one hand, a fight against the elite. A war against capitalism and external control. Grey wants to tear down the walls of the ivory towers on which the rich and powerful who control world affairs in the backgrounds sit. He doesn't like the fact that a small group of people have so much power.

On the other hand, this war is also personal. Grey has experienced first-hand what it means to be defencelessly at the mercy of this power, to be created, exploited and abused by it.

So is Grey the good guy in the story?

It's not that simple. Grey is a murderer. He has killed people for money, for his own gain and we know that he does not shy away from torture. He teamed up with other murderers and terrorists who were no less brutal. Did he have any other choice? Of course he did. He could have tried therapy 😅 Instead, he does whatever it needs to do his revolution. And if he has to walk over dead bodies to do so, then so be it. His motives may be noble, but his methods are certainly not.

So is Providence the evil in the story?

Well, you can at least say that their intentions are less noble than Grey's. The members of Providence, especially the Constant, lust for power. In other words, exactly the opposite of what Grey wants. Providence lives in a decadence of inviolability. They control entire political systems and hold the strings in their hands simply because they are rich and powerful. Whether individual members of Providence are bad people per se remains to be seen. The system itself certainly is.

To summarise, there is no such thing as good and evil in Hitman. Even 47 and Diana, who are more or less dragged into this war between Grey and Providence, literally have their skeletons in the closet.

In this world, no one is noble, no one rides in shining armour on a white steed, no one wears a superhero suit with a billowing cape. And if they do, their equipment is still covered in blood.

[maxellminidisc]

I really do think people need to start building an awareness of consumption around art. Like if you're talking about reading and film in pure numbers a year, music in how many sales you contributed, how many likes or follows your art gains you on social media, etc, you're absolutely falling into that consumptive mind set. And you need to step back and realize how uncomfortable and evil it is that you are ALSO being exploited there along with the art you're consuming.

And I'll be sympathetic and say it's not your fault! It's the result of capitalism, it's a result of carefully built and perfected strategy by industries decade after decade to reduce art into a product that you move on from one to the next. It's no longer about giving art its proper enjoyment, it's time to get up close and personal with you, to induce a passion for artistic curiosity, or inspire at the capacity it could. I'm not saying none of these things are possible anymore, but that the space for art to do these things feels like its shrinking from what I see and hear around me regardless of generation!

And I mean regardless of generation! I'm frankly sick of people blaming kids for the consumption of music and subculture especially when like whats to blame is the exploitation and sort of prepackaged shell of art and subcultures being the standard for most of what they engage with, especially online. And let's not act like people older than them havent fallen under the draw of short form formats for everything from videos, music, and literature. The lack of absorption alone I see in people my age and older in art they engage with as well as a lack of meaningful engagement as it is worries me sometimes.

My point is, I think we should at the very least think about how we engage with art and especially industries in the arts. I'm not saying never to buy an album, watch a movie, or read a book. But like consider why you feel like doing any of these things needs to be a numbers game for you, be it sales numbers you're increasing or how much media you can cram in as little time, instead of a personal transformative interaction! Idk I guess with every passing year that one Brian and Roger Eno quote gets more and more relevant to me and I guess I'll end with it. It goes:

"I think being slow is a gift to the world,” says Brian. “To say to people: you can enjoy things that are slow, where nothing much appears to happen. That’s a very important, anti-capitalist message. Capitalists want you to be constantly stimulated, consuming, and doing something different from what you were a minute ago – it’s about distraction. Stopping you staying in one place for a length of time because that doesn’t make any money.”

He continues: “So to have music, or forms of art, that say, ‘You don’t need very much,’ during a time when we’re harvesting the results of over-consumption, those are actually very important messages – you can make do with less.” Roger echoes this: “It allows you time to put distance between yourself and the frenetic.”

[simplysnaps]

Sorry if this is a dumb question but as someone who's kinda dreading the career they went to school for (I went for art) and kinda just wants a stable desk job with benefits now: do you have any advice on how someone looks for them? Like, what even IS a desk job? (Again sorry if this is stupid but I have deadass no clue how or where to get a job that's not retail 🥹)

I've gotten a few asks like this, so I figured I'd answer one for everyone. The short answer is: No, I don't have a magic bullet that will land you a desk job making $50k/year with a 401k and benefits. I wish I had an answer, I wish there were safeguards in place that protected everyone from asking a highly unqualified 24-year-old girl for career decisions. I wish you all could get/have what you need. But since y'all asked for my advice, here's what I have to offer. Once again, I am just some girl, I'm not a business-god:

#1: The website I found my job on is https://otta.com/. It's a great place to find jobs in the tech field. It's where I found the job I'm currently working at!

#2: It's easier to find a job when you have a job. I know this seems like old-fashioned advice your racist uncle gives you at Thanksgiving, so lemme reiterate it as a socialist trans girl you follow. This advice is TRUE. You are less desperate and less inclined to make silly decisions/concessions if you're currently employed. Our existing system is literally designed from the ground up to exploit desperate workers who are given the decision to either work or DIE, so yes... In our current system, being employed PERIOD is preferable to not being employed. There will always be someone to work harder for less compensation, so you have to make yourself "worth something" by having additional options. This is fucked, and I wish it weren't the case, but the way to gain "capital" as an employee is to have mobility and options. Be in a position where you're able to tell someone "No, I'm better than that. I'll find something else." If you're not in that position, I'm truly sorry. I wish I had more advice for you. Like I said, I'm not an expert at job-matching, I'm just a girl who's been asked by dozens of people at this point for direction.

#3: Be kind to yourself. If there's anything I've learned in the last year+ of therapy, it's that we have to be kinder to ourselves. None of us are "where we want to be." Trust me, I know. I was in a terribly abusive situation far too recently, but now it feels like such a distant dream. So if you're currently in that position, I have a few things to say to you: Firstly, it gets better. I know that feels like something better-off-people say to us just to make themselves feel better, but I can personally confirm this. Unless you're literally dead, there is the possibility that things get better than they currently are. It can happen. I was once hopeless, thinking life could never get better. Now I'm financially independent with savings and a nice apartment. It's POSSIBLE. If it can happen to me, it can happen to you. Just try to believe it can. Secondly: Be willing to endure the shit jobs until you find a job that you can actually tolerate. Endure/tolerate are two entirely different things. I once endured my job. Now I tolerate it. Do you think I love working customer support? No! But I'm fine with it! I like it some days! That's what's important! Just... not wanting to unalive yourself at the end of the day!

#4 is for the folks who can MOVE: I can't relate to this one as an asthma disabled gal, but I have heard that it's quite simple to "sell your body" for money. This isn't sex work, it's actually factory/shipping work. If you're able-bodied and can work exhausting hours, maybe consider a job at a FedEx joint, or an Amazon warehouse. Like I said, this isn't advice for getting a great job, it's advice for getting enough money to survive. If you are physically able to lift/move stuff without collapsing/dying, maybe consider this option! It is grueling and draining, but it pays a fat check for the damages. This isn't ideal for the long-term, but can serve you well for a hot minute if you have the physical health to survive it.

#5: Just hang in there. You're beautiful, and I know everything feels like hell at the moment, but please trust me as someone who's been there that it can get better. It did get better. Someday, everything you're enduring will be a story you tell your loved ones, a tale of what you used to endure. It will show them where you came from, but it won't be where you are. You can beat this. You will beat this. I know you can, because I truly believed I was doomed to my place in the world. I hope you understand that I'm not a grifter, I'm not trying to sell you a magic solution to your problems. I'm openly admitting that I cannot help you. But what I can offer is a promise that it can get better. Not that it will, but that it can. And that's worth pushing through, right? I know it can, and I know it will. The alternative is death, which is oblivion anyway. That means, statistically, it must get better! Otherwise it'll be "nothing," which is null and void!

So get out there, champs! Or hang in there! Either, or! Try to focus on #1, it's the most important! I love you all.

[rubra-wav]

I really hope that people get that even tho he's a pathetic whiny bitch (affectionate) who's absolutely desperate for attention - especially attention of a genuinely romantic long-term supportive nature, Vox is still not a good person and I hope I'm not portraying him too much as such in my work. 😭

While the above is true, he will still exploit, lie, and cheat anything and everything if it gives him personal gain in some way.

He's everything that's awful about capitalism personified. He's an enabler for Val (and is literally jealous of the person he ABUSES). He definitely abuses his work staff, and he absolutely reeks of unregulated maladaptive traits and internalised bullshit, etc. Etc.

Idk man. I feel like in my work, I haven't shown it enough, but I wanna keep things as accurate as possible. When part 2 of Snap comes out, I'm definitely gonna be showing that a bit more in that lmao (yeah I'll say it, it's gonna be fuckin infuriating for most of it rip.)

I've seen people portraying him like an angel in fanfic, and it bothers me because he's straight-up scum even though I absolutely love him.

Compared to what Val has got going on he's a lot better, but he's still an absolute cunt and I see so many people forgetting that lmao. He's not an innocent baby in a bad relationship, he's an evil cunt in a bad relationship (AND his hands are certainly not clean in that either. He's also a bastard too - just to a much less noticeable extent)

If reader ever actually dated this man, they would find the most high maintenance asshole on earth who would need to be taught basic respect and boundaries from scratch and taught real consequences for his actions AND hed probably actively be fighting doing that as well. (There's a post i have planned about what it would be like actually dating him that will go into that more)

ANYWHO, he is not some innocent baby in need of protecting who would suddenly forego all of his bad behaviours at once, he'd need a fuckton of checking, behaviour management, etc or he'd be a horrendous asshole to be with.

[realunderlake]

Fantasy Ideology 2: Economy and it's implications for society.

Link to the Previous Part: https://www.tumblr.com/realunderlake/753649257166290944/fantasy-ideology-part-1-magic?source=share

Hello!

So one thing that I've noticed a lot in worldbuilding, is that people don't seem to think about how the economy effects social dynamics, so I want to lay out some details that will be useful. If you want content similar to this, but written way better, check out the various series made by A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry. He's great.

So. last time, we talked about how most pre-modern societies had a consolidation of the means of force into the hands of societal elites, whether it be through the formal process of the state apparatus, or the informal process of "rich people can afford to learn to fight." We talked about how in the context of magic, generally that means that in a world that is similar to our own, Magic is going to be something used as a tool of the ruling class. But why are the ruling classes of a society the ruling class in the first place? Let's take a look.

Fundamentally, those in a position of power in all societies, have gotten that power through violence, or inheritance, historically. Feudal landholders were descended from people who fought for land, roman aristocrats gained landholdings through conquest, and the British capitalist class gained vast wealth through colonial exploitation of the global south. But, crucially, a lot of this violence was not *direct* violence. It wasn't that Theoderich was really good with a sword, so he killed some innocent farmer for his land and set up feudalism, generally instead we see that people with skill in violence, and the legitimate use of force in a society, possess economic power first and foremost, with military power generally being quite intertwined with that.

Take for example, the classic "Big Man" of an agricultural community. This is a pattern that is repeated across most of the world where agriculture was adopted, where a single family would manage to accrue enough capital (the means of producing things. In an agricultural context this would be mills, or teams of oxen, or just enough land in general) to be able to set up vertical relationships with his fellow farmers. Most subsistence farmers will set up horizontal relationships with each other, that being something along the lines of "You marry my daughter, and I get a feast from you. Then, if I have a bad harvest, you help out." These vertical ties were vastly important for subsistence societies, who were generally concerned not with maximizing profit (a rather modern conception to a degree) but instead with making sure they survived. Their "workers" were their families after all, they wanted them all to live.

Thus, what you generally see in the absence of a state dynamic, is powerful landholders forming vertical relationships with smaller landholders, who form vertical relationships with their subsistence farmers, in a rough "pyramid". This is cleanly seen in Medieval Europe, but it's a general trend all over the world, where in the absence of a strong central state apparatus, things become personalized, both the economy, and the military.

So what does this mean for your fantasy world?

Well, if you're making a fantasy world, firstly: remember that most people are going to be farmers, and that most people are farming to live. The powerful people in society are going to be those with access to capital, who can form vertical relationships with subsistence farmers, or other people with capital, to get things done. Even in more centralized societies, this is the general trend, such as with the Greek Poleis, or the Roman Republic, up until the Industrial Revolution begins to need *far* less people to farm. So if your setting is pre-industrial, then keep in mind, most of the time you're not going to be going to the senate to get the standing army called up, you're going to be going to the lord of an area, so he can call on the landholders to get their fighters.

This can lead to interesting hooks in a lot of cases, history being full of them. Maybe there's a powerful landholder who is in favor of a war with a foreign power, against the whims of the ostensible central authority? Cesar's conquest of Gaul had numerous powerful landholders attempt to resist the Roman Occupation, against the wishes of the Gallic polities central authorities, often giving Cesar the reason to conquer them. You also can have large landholders turn traitor against the cause if they think they can get a better deal from the enemy, or have them simply unwilling to fight for some reason. If you're running a game about say, a kingdom being invaded, whether it be by the undead, goblins, or an enemy army, having that friction between political factions, where some powerful landholders are happy to see their rivals weakened, or even become turncoats, can be a fun plot point.

It's also something to keep in mind for writing societies in general. Don't have a society of "merchant princes" who... don't own any land. Their going to be *incredibly* poor in instances like that. Not to mention that the closest a society has gotten to having a pre-industrial democracy in the truest sense of the word was the immediate post-revolution United States, which in some parts of the country had small homesteads, but even then, they generally were reliant on larger farmers for access to capital in many instances, and there were large sections of the American South who were de facto ruled by the "southern gentry" as they were called. Don't just write a modern parliamentary democracy, and have it be perfectly fair. If you're a subsistence farmer, relying on a landholder for access to capital, he's gonna be able to sway your vote. That's exactly how American "Political Machines" worked in cities like Chicago or Albany.

Anyway, I hope this was like, anything.

[sgiandubh]

Strike (and patient...) Anon

Forgive the out-of-character delay. I got entangled in a maelstrom of domestic complications and yet somehow managed to keep an eye on the SAG-AFTRA saga.

For context, clarity and empathy, I shall direct you straight to Chemistry & Timing's unique vantage point on this evolving situation (https://www.tumblr.com/fadeupin5432 ). You will probably not get a better, closer to ground zero understanding of what is really at stake, who the major players are and what lies ahead. And an important part of what is at stake, as she explained, is Man vs. Machine, as in TPTB trying to shamelessly exploit the profession's secondary players and rob them of their due rights by endlessly using them as mere support for AI-enhanced recreations of the original silhouette, voice and acting.

This impacts not only their earnings, as she mentioned, but the very long term survival of that unsung army of extras, brave one-line whisperers, stunts, body doubles, etc. But really, nobody is spared, because uncontrolled technology can quickly turn into a tidal wave of doom. Couple that with the studios' greed and we have an explosive cocktail with potential lethal impact.

This almost unprecedented move by SAG-AFTRA has most probably been informed by several successful European precedents, such as the regular strikes of their French and Greek counterparts (to mention just the ones I am most familiar with), eager to see their rights recognized by labor law as employees, not as civil law governed contractual collaborators (way less interesting and protective, since not opening the right to unemployment benefits).

Fun fact, the French artist's guilds almost always go on strike during the summer hiatus, trying to gain leverage and capitalize on a very busy period, featuring high-profile events, such as the Avignon Theatre Festival. Something to be a part of at least once in your life, if you ask me.

But the comparison stops here, because the right to one own's image/right of personal portrayal, including reproduction rights, is taken very seriously by civil law systems since at least the 60's. Because European artist's guilds/trade unions are far more aggressive and politically colored than in the US (on the left side of the spectrum, to be exact). And because whenever new technology rears its strange head on the scene, a group of experts takes it in its stride and thinks of a European directive to try and control its impact on individual rights and avoid exactly this type of situations. The downside of this protective regulation is that it becomes obsolete very, very quickly, because by the time you finished negotiating, technology did not wait for you and caught up already, for a good while.

Then you start it all over again: this is also why I branched off, with no regrets and some hefty experience gained. As I mentioned, I was one of that handful of folks, circa 2005-2010. We tend to quarrel a lot over a comma while thinking about Brussels winter rebates, but we did manage a fine job dealing with far less complicated things, such as digitalization of TV signals, broadcasting rights, pay-per-view regulations - the list is endless and very creative. Enough for the memory lane part.

The amount of Tumblr comments in Mordor from people who clearly have no damn clue of what they are talking about is insulting. The pretention to own the truth when you just pile up newspapers in a helter-skelter manner, also. Take for instance the trolls hoping for a Season 8 cancellation, who clearly never heard of the concept of force majeure, which protects better the parties' interests, in US legal doctrine, than torts' classical doctrines such as "impracticability" or "frustration of purpose". It is my deep hope that S&C's confidential contracts with * offer full coverage of force majeure situations, and I think, as per the COVID precedent, that they do.

Yes, both SAG members, most probably. No, she is not working. Yes, he will just sell the booze and you will be shrieking like banshees, again, in Mordor: tell me, did he take your dime out of your pockets by force, or what? No, no JAMMF pix for you, Onlies and Mommies. And I bet no blonde either, but that is beyond the scope of this note.

SMH. Morons.

Anyways. I had much fun writing this. Come back anytime with witty challenges, Strike Anon. And yes, I follow the situation very closely.

@fadeupin5432, I stand in solidarity.

[thefisherqueen]

Reading Letters from Watson's The Norwood Builder now! Here we go :)

“From the point of view of the criminal expert,” said Mr. Sherlock Holmes, “London has become a singularly uninteresting city since the death of the late lamented Professor Moriarty.” You literally killed him, Holmes, then faked your own death and spent years in hiding because of him, and now you're complaining that he's dead and you're bored - to the very one who's still recovering from the shock that you're alive? I diagnose you with some major Readjustment Issues and should consider therapy instead of just trying to cope with inappropriate humor. Watson is very valid in calling you whimsical

"At the time of which I speak Holmes had been back for some months, and I, at his request, had sold my practice and returned to share the old quarters in Baker Street." Of course. No news here

“I'm sorry, Mr. Holmes,” he cried. “You mustn't blame me. I am nearly mad. Mr. Holmes, I am the unhappy John Hector McFarlane.” Quite the introduction! By the way, why are so many of Holmes' clients young men on the verge of a nervous breakdown?

"Familiar as I was with my friend's methods, it was not difficult for me to follow his deductions, and to observe the untidiness of attire, the sheaf of legal papers, the watch-charm, and the breathing which had prompted them. Our client, however, stared in amazement." Character growth! Well done, Watson. I'm proud of you. Freemasonary, by the way, is so broad a movement it barely means anything. This quote prompted me to do some research into the symbols of freemasonry. The watch in itself isn't the symbol, a combination of a builder's square and compasses (used to draw perfect circles) with the letter G was the most common one. I guess Watson is referring to the fact that this gentlemen's watch has an added engraving or something similar with this symbol. Also, I wonder about the connection between freemasonary and the murdered man being a builder in this case.

“Arrest you!” said Holmes. “This is really most grati—most interesting. On what charge do you expect to be arrested?” Omg. Barely caught himself there

"My companion's expressive face" Oh, the contradictions in Holmes' character writing. Is Sherlock Holmes that expressive suddenly, or is Watson just able to read him really well?

"He was flaxen-haired and handsome in a washed-out negative fashion" Watson was that judgement really necessary

"For some years he has practically withdrawn from the business, in which he is said to have amassed considerable wealth." Not working, yet amassing wealth. I'd say that's suspicious but, really, under capitalism the only people who are able to gain wealth are those not working - either exploiting or investing (likely both)

"It is known that Mr. Jonas Oldacre had received a late visitor in his bedroom upon that night, and the stick found has been identified as the property of this person, who is a young London solicitor named John Hector McFarlane." Inviting young sollicitors into his bedroom at night. Creepy behaviour. (can't help but think about Dracula's Jonathan Harker). Also, I'm glad the openly naming of suspects is restricted nowadays. No opportunity of a fair trail otherwise

"The conduct of the criminal investigation has been left in the experienced hands of Inspector Lestrade, of Scotland Yard, who is following up the clues with his accustomed energy and sagacity.” Yay, we'll get to see Lestrade again!

"One moment, Lestrade,” said Holmes. “Half an hour more or less can make no difference to you, and the gentleman was about to give us an account of this very interesting affair, which might aid us in clearing it up.” “I think there will be no difficulty in clearing it up,” said Lestrade, grimly. Power struggle. Bless Holmes for working independent and not afraid to tell the police off

“‘Here is my will,’ said he. ‘I want you, Mr. McFarlane, to cast it into proper legal shape. I will sit here while you do so.’ “I set myself to copy it, and you can imagine my astonishment when I found that, with some reservations, he had left all his property to me." Strong Jekyll and Hyde paralell here. I wonder, is murder conviction a legal reason to exclude someone from a will? I guess that doesn't even matter anymore if McFarlane would be executed. And who will the inherentence go to then? The next in line family member? Strong motive for framing McFarlane for murder, then. Next line of inquiry, I guess: who else knew about the will?

Already really liking this story! Protect this poor young sollicitor from injustice, Holmes

"He was a strange little, ferret-like man" Comparing people to animals again. Did McFarlane really say that, Watson, or was that one of your fancy additions?

“You can imagine, Mr. Holmes, that I was not in a humour to refuse him anything that he might ask. He was my benefactor, and all my desire was to carry out his wishes in every particular." Dosing so might cost you your life, McFarlane. *mutters about power imbalace*

“Not until I have been to Blackheath.” “You mean to Norwood,” said Lestrade. “Oh, yes; no doubt that is what I must have meant,” said Holmes, with his enigmatical smile." Oh, Holmes is delightful here! Wasn't Blackheath where McFarlane lives? My guess is that Holmes wants to know what the connection between Oldacre and McFarlane's parents was. Were they both in a same freemasonry community? That would tie it neatly together

I don't trust Oldacre's motivation in leaving his inherentance to McFarlane. Seems a bit like whitewashing of ill-gotten money to me. Then, again, he wouldn't have arranged his own murder. Or - wait - is he really dead? Since there's only some blood and charred remains found. Easy enough to fake. I have a Theory. I feel Clever (likely wrong but who cares)

"You are too many for me" Love that expression. Going to use that

"It is curious—is it not?—that a man should draw up so important a document in so haphazard a fashion. It suggests that he did not think it was going to be of much practical importance. If a man drew up a will which he did not intend ever to be effective he might do it so.” He did not ever intend the will to be effective. I think we have our villain! *Points to my theory* And - did he hide McFarlane's walking cane on purpose? Motive still not entirely clear to me. Fake your own death for life insurence, sure, but not to claim an inherentence that is currently already your own. Something most be up with that money to devise an elaborate, dangerous plot like that

“Well, it is quite possible; but the case is not clear to me yet.” “Not clear? Well, if that isn't clear, what could be clear?" Oh, Lestrade. You started so well by being picking up that Holmes had Thoughts and being willing to listen to him. But now...

Holmes thinks a bypassing third person did it. I'm not buying that. And, after Lestrade's remark that no papers were taken while a third person would have done that, I don't think Holmes is convinced anymore either

"But it is evident to me that the logical way to approach the case is to begin by trying to throw some light upon the first incident—the curious will, so suddenly made, and to so unexpected an heir." Yes! Investigate that!

"There is no prospect of danger, or I should not dream of stirring out without you." Awww! Also, famous last words, Holmes

I had to look up what black-guard means. According to the cambridge dictonary, apperently a word for someone who has no moral principles.

Holmes did you really just call a human being 'fluffly?"

Yet another murder victim who was a terrible person and is not mourned. This is really a repeating theme

“‘You knew him at that time?’ said I." “‘Yes, I knew him well; in fact, he was an old suitor of mine. Thank Heaven that I had the sense to turn away from him and to marry a better, if a poorer, man." Oh, it's personal! Good for her for getting away from him

"She rummaged in a bureau, and presently she produced a photograph of a woman, shamefully defaced and mutilated with a knife. ‘That is my own photograph,’ she said. ‘He sent it to me in that state, with his curse, upon my wedding morning.’ What the fuck. Please let Oldacre be the villian of this story

"I crawled about the lawn with an August sun on my back, but I got up at the end of an hour no wiser than before." Another very amusing image

"Unless some lucky chance comes our way I fear that the Norwood Disappearance Case will not figure in that chronicle of our successes which I foresee that a patient public will sooner or later have to endure.” Holmes! Be more kind to your chronicler!

"But I fear, my dear fellow, that our case will end ingloriously by Lestrade hanging our client, which will certainly be a triumph for Scotland Yard.” Don't give up Holmes! *points to my theory, somehow it all still fits*

"I do not know how far Sherlock Holmes took any sleep that night, but when I came down to breakfast I found him pale and harassed, his bright eyes the brighter for the dark shadows round them." Now I'm feeling sad :( Please, Watson, cheer him up

"Take your breakfast, Watson, and we will go out together and see what we can do. I feel as if I shall need your company and your moral support to-day.” Awww

“At present I cannot spare energy and nerve force for digestion,” he would say in answer to my medical remonstrances." Damn it Holmes, that not how that works. Please take care of yourself

"He led us through the passage and out into a dark hall beyond. “This is where young McFarlane must have come out to get his hat after the crime was done,” said he." Wait, didn't the housekeeper say that McFarlane left his hat behind?? *beep beep* tempered with evidence?

“What a providential thing that this young man should press his right thumb against the wall in taking his hat from the peg! Such a very natural action, too, if you come to think of it.” Holmes was outwardly calm, but his whole body gave a wriggle of suppressed excitement as he spoke. “By the way, Lestrade, who made this remarkable discovery?” “It was the housekeeper, Mrs. Lexington, who drew the night constable's attention to it.” This is hilarious. Holmes is so ready to tear this 'evidence' to treads

"The fact is that there is one really serious flaw in this evidence to which our friend attaches so much importance.” “Indeed, Holmes! What is it?” “Only this: that I know that that mark was not there when I examined the hall yesterday" Yes :) Now just find the evidence to convince the police. I also wonder how Oldacre attained McForlane's thumb imprint? Perhaps he just asked for it, since McForlane was not in a position anyway to refuse even an odd request?

"And now, Watson, let us have a little stroll round in the sunshine.” I'm making a lot of awww-sounds while reading this story. This is just so cute. I love them going out for walks!

"Lestrade knew my friend too well to disregard his words. He laid down his pen and looked curiously at him. “What do you mean, Mr. Holmes?” “Only that there is an important witness whom you have not seen.” “Can you produce him?” “I think I can.” I'm excited! Is this where Oldacre is shown to be not dead at all? Hiding in one of those attic bedrooms, is my guess?

"Holmes stood before us with the air of a conjurer who is performing a trick." Of course Holmes can not help but be Dramatic (TM) about this. What is he going to do? Smoke the man out?

"A door suddenly flew open out of what appeared to be solid wall at the end of the corridor, and a little, wizened man darted out of it, like a rabbit out of its burrow. “Capital!” said Holmes, calmly. “Watson, a bucket of water over the straw. That will do! Lestrade, allow me to present you with your principal missing witness, Mr. Jonas Oldacre.” Can't believe I got it right! A fake door, no less. Such a fun, dramatic reveal

"It was an odious face—crafty, vicious, malignant, with shifty, light-grey eyes and white eyelashes." *Sigh* There we go with the criminal faces again

Lestrade really owes Holmes a lot this time

“And you don't want your name to appear?” “Not at all. The work is its own reward. Perhaps I shall get the credit also at some distant day when I permit my zealous historian to lay out his foolscap once more—eh, Watson?" Now this is just flirting. I approve

“There's the advantage of being a builder,” said Holmes, as we came out. “He was able to fix up his own little hiding-place without any confederate" Nice tie-up. I wonder about the other loose ends? Will the freemasonry still come up?

"I thought he had not the nerve to lie quiet before an alarm of fire. We could, of course, have gone in and taken him, but it amused me to make him reveal himself; besides, I owed you a little mystification, Lestrade, for your chaff in the morning.” And this is 100% Holmes. I love that man

"It was amusing to me to see how the detective's overbearing manner had changed suddenly to that of a child asking questions of its teacher." I adore Watson's narration here. He is just shamelessly laughing at Lestrade

"He determines to swindle his creditors, and for this purpose he pays large cheques to a certain Mr. Cornelius, who is, I imagine, himself under another name. I have not traced these cheques yet, but I have no doubt that they were banked under that name at some provincial town where Oldacre from time to time led a double existence. He intended to change his name altogether, draw this money, and vanish, starting life again elsewhere.” So that was how he intended to do it. Clever scheme.

It takes a special kind of evil to be angry at a woman for rejecting you and then, as revenge, frame her child for murder. Wow.

[balkanradfem]

It was a while ago I read this tumblr post, which still comes to my mind every time I think about the future. It was explaining in an insightful way, how it's not a violent revolution that will bring forward the better future, it's slow and consistent change of our everyday life, of our habits, the resources we use and the way we go about achieving things. If we're hoping for a future where we're not dependent on capitalism, not destroying the environment, not robbed of our labour for a fraction of the money we need to survive, we'll have to slowly die capitalism out, by changing our own living habits.

If a sudden shift happened, and capitalism stopped functioning overnight, for most of the people that would be unsurvivable,  all of the resources, food, jobs and life-sustaining services would stop. And we can't afford that. But, if instead we slowly backed away from it, generated alternatives, created communities and systems that can sustain us without capitalism, then it would only be a matter of time before capitalism is fully dead, with everyone alive, everyone safe. And this slow shift would be able to happen through decades and generations, and it would still be a great positive shift, with a future in sight. Capitalism offers no survivable future, seemingly ready to last as long as it can by destroying whatever is left from the environment and people alike, for the benefit of the few.

So let's see how we got here, or how I feel, looking back, we got here.

People used to be less dependent on a global system of distribution of resources, even just a 100 years ago; survival and trade skills were passed down in families and communities, and people would be able to make inside of their home and communities, a big percentage of things that we today would buy at the store. In those times there was no other way to gain those resources but by relying on people's knowledge, skill and labour. The future, however, promised a more convenient and easy way to gain all those resources, because they would be made by machines, and thus cheaper. And things kept coming in cheaper, for no visible labour required; you just needed to have money to buy them, which not everyone had.

But this too, would change as cheaper and cheaper things arrived, and it became less convenient to make those things yourself or within your community, and more convenient to just trade some money, and have it all be done for you. For people then, it could mean less energy spent on survival, more leisure time, more health and longer lifespan – except, it didn't, because the jobs that they needed to earn that money, tended to take all of that away. So still, there was a lot produced at home or within the communities, independent workshops and artist shops, so people within in the community would benefit from each other, instead of benefiting some faceless global corporation.

And now we know where this went; conveniences started lining up to the point where not having a certain convenience meant that you were below the norm. They sometimes got mixed up with inconveniences, but those inconveniences were 'necessary'. For instance, pollution became necessary, highways, huge trucks delivering goods, the oil industry, destruction of forests and habitats, exploitation of the poor, extinction of certain animals, and by the end of it, the climate change.

When I was born, my mother and grandmother still attempted to pass some skills that their mothers taught them; I remember being taught how to knit at the age of 5, the activity which at that age, seemed awfully tedious and was soon abandoned, and my grandmother showed me how to crochet, which I also soon forgot. After the age of small child, they both looked at the world, shrugged and decided 'she won't need it', and they have stopped trying to teach me any skills of the sort.

Buying things, rather than making them, already seemed the norm. People were readily telling you that you are stupid for trying to make something, when you could get it in the store, for very little money. Having animals at home, or growing food, was slowly getting replaced by buying it cheap, or buying tons of snacks, and biscuits and cakes, which now you could get pre-packaged, readily available to consume at your leisure. If it brought lots of waste from packaging, plastic and other non-degradable materials, nobody cared, it was new, convenient, and available, and we would have it, and live luxuriously.

Soon nobody seemed to talk anymore, about what we used to do before we were able to buy anything we could possibly need at the store; nobody would tell me what were the names of the native plants, and which ones I could make into teas, I was instead told to change my priorities because this kind of behaviour will never get me any money. All of my efforts to do arts and crafts, to forage, to make things from scratch, to paint and invent stories, were called frivolous, because they would not generate the one thing that was now the only thing worth generating: money.

It simplifies things a lot, instead of making various, interesting, self-made and beloved items that would all require different knowledge and skills, a human is now required to put all of their talents into 1 thing that would generate revenue, and then do that one thing, for entire life, and this would present a normal life on earth now. This was how it was presented to me, and it was before I found out that keeping one job for the whole life, was no longer an option, that changing jobs was the norm and was not often volountary.  I did not, however, understand how doing that one job would not make someone go insane, and nobody was explaining that to me, it was just, the life.

So while the world was shifting into this new concept of 'make nothing but money', the first millionaires started to appear, the billionaire was not even conceptual, having 1 million was equal to being the richest person on the planet. That is pretty laughable to us now. Back then, it felt like heading into a new exciting world, but we know better now. We understand that lives consisting of a job and thousands of conveniences, easily sends a human being into a depression. We understand that relying on a job to keep us alive, and having constantly to compete with everyone else unemployed, to get one, has brought us to a place where others are a competition, not a resource, not a community. We understand that living in a world where we have to market ourselves as a resource, causes a lot of us to lose self confidence and the feeling of value, while it sends others into obsession with becoming popular, gaining perceived value, gathering a public image, that would later prove to be profitable.

By this time, unknown to us all, this life of convenience and consumerism had caused immense damage to the environment, and we were mostly kept in the dark about it, so we wouldn't complain. We learned about the holes in the ozone layer, but were told it was merely the fault of certain aerosols, and the rest of the stuff was fine. We would in the future get to watch oil spills and devastation of animal habitats, never fully connecting it to corporations who were responsible. Acid rains were mentioned, but we were told they caused by the new pesticides, but it was the fault of the farmers, they said, who simply used too much of it. Now we know it was the exhaust fumes from cars, factories and coal power plants. Climate change was barely mentioned, and even less believed in. And now, we can no longer ignore it.

So, what do we do in order to progress? We obviously can't go back to where we came from, but we are now made aware that the amount of energy and resources we're consuming, and the amount of toxic waste we're creating, will devastate the planet to the point where a big chunk of it will become inhabitable, millions of both people and animals, will end up dead if we keep going. But wait! How can I blame the people for any of this, when it's obviously the corporations that are doing the most damage, lobbying and hiding what is in actuality going on? And you're completely correct, I would have to say, it is corporations, and for the most time, we really didn't know the extent of damage they were doing. So why are the corporations exactly doing all of this? For profit. And who's giving them all that profit? Well, the consumers, by consuming all of the oil, energy, goods, resources and products they make. So how do we take down the corporations? By not giving them any of the profits. But, we can't do that in the current state of the world, we need cars, and food, and that food to be shipped and delivered from the distant lands, and we are all depressed and if we can't at least have our favourite snack, food we're used to, little treats and pieces of clothing that make us happy, we no longer feel like we can live!

And that's where the slow and meaningful habit shift comes into place. The thing is, we're not the same people we were 50 or 100 years ago, we don't have the skills of our ancestors, we're not used to producing our own resources, we are out of touch with nature, and we struggle to find our communities and feel valued. But we also have, so much more information and education at our fingertips. We have more scientific data, we have more access to information, we have more people creating public resources, we have the experiences and wisdom of generations back, only waiting for us to reach out, to tap into what the humanity knew  centuries ago.

We're made to do various activities! We thrive on changing our habits by season, even by weeks. We thrive in communities, with no competition for resources. We love creating art, music, crafts and beauty just for fun, and the communal value of it cannot be compared to money. We don't like being reduced into human resources or labour force, we don't like repetitive activities that don't produce results or seem nonsensical, we don't like to be stuck within one room for most of the day, we don't like being replaced when we stand up for our rights.

I can already see a lot of people valuing all of the things on this planet that cannot be exchanged for money, but have intricate value in our lives and experiences; wild animals, plants, forests, environments and ecosystems filled with life, little stories and jokes we tell to each other, making crafts just for the sake of making things, creating their own clothes or fabrics, learning how it was done in the past; growing food, foraging, herbalism, basketry, making of soap and fixing things on our own, visible mending, connections and building communities, we are remembering it's what we want and need, and we're not going to build it the way it was in the past; we're going to do it our own way, with the knowledge and experience we have, the way we think is the best. All we need to do is start small. Do one little shift that takes you one tiny step away from consumerism. Add one little enrichment in your life that doesn't have anything to do with money or purchasing. Find little ways to save on energy that doesn't make any dips in your happiness or comfort levels, that only requires a little bit of your attention or focus to do.

Big shifts are not sustainable, and are not survivable, but we didn't get here by a big shift; we got here by a series of small, almost invisible shifts that we barely felt were happening, until it was our new normal. We can do small, painless shifts too, but this time, they're going to be conscious, purposeful, with thoughts of the future behind it, and they're going to come from us. Not the corporations, not the money holders, but us, pushing the future to the direction that we want.

[mariacallous]

Just days after people gleefully posted their Spotify Wrapped, bad news came for the music streaming giant. Spotify announced today that it would cut 17 percent of its workforce, a chunk that equates to an estimated 1,500 people. It’s the third time the world’s largest music streamer has cut jobs this year.

The news came after Spotify posted its first profitable quarter since 2021. In a memo to staff, CEO Daniel Ek said the company had expanded its workforce and offerings significantly throughout 2020 and 2021, thanks to lower-cost capital, but is now bumping up against the same problems startups across industries are facing, like high capital costs and slowed economic growth.

Ek said the cuts may seem “surprisingly large given the recent positive earnings report and our performance,” but due to “the gap between our financial goal state and our current operational costs,” Spotify would take “substantial action.”

Despite its popularity (Spotify held 30 percent of the music streaming market by late 2022), the company has long struggled to turn consistent profits. The layoffs wrap up a bad year: Spotify cut 6 percent of its workforce last January, followed by another 2 percent in June as it slimmed down its podcasting business. Even as the world’s most recognizable music streaming service, Spotify is plagued by an unreliable business model, one in which record companies sit back and rake in royalty payments while artists can struggle to bring in enough cash.

“Investors are increasingly impatient in 2023 for tech firms to start making money,” says Phil Bird, head of rights and royalties at the software development company Vistex. Spotify isn’t alone—tech companies have slashed jobs throughout the year, with more than 250,000 people losing jobs worldwide in 2023, according to layoffs.fyi, a site that tracks job cuts in tech.

Many major tech companies that overhired during the pandemic have taken steps to rightsize—and that’s what Ek says Spotify is doing now. But Spotify’s high cost to license music adds to its financial strain. “The cost of doing business is huge for streaming companies,” Bird says.

Spotify gained momentum in the third quarter of 2023, earning €32 million ($34.6 million) in operating income. It now has 226 million subscribers and 574 million monthly users. “On the surface, it looks great,” says Simon Dyson, senior principal analyst of music and digital audio at consultancy firm Omdia. “It’s [those] nagging costs that it can’t get on top of.”

Spotify and the recording industry have a deeply entwined and sticky relationship: Spotify is seen by some as a savior of the music industry, which flailed after Napster upended music downloading in 1999, but artists earn wildly different incomes based on how Spotify pays. According to a calculation from Billboard, Taylor Swift may have earned nearly $100 million from streaming on Spotify so far this year. Smaller artists earn far less, and music streaming models have long been accused of exploiting them.

Like Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Music are each charging $10.99 per month for premium subscriptions, and each give access to 100 million songs. But unlike Spotify, Apple and Amazon have massive streams of revenue elsewhere to fall back on. So Spotify has spent the past few years looking for that standout content. It spent more than $1 billion building its podcast world and acquiring exclusive deals to shows like The Joe Rogan Experience. This fall, it began offering paying subscribers in the UK and Australia free audiobook access for 15 hours each month.

The music streaming fight isn’t like the streaming wars, where Max, Netflix, Hulu, and others can each lure in subscribers with a combination of classic and original movies and shows. If Spotify were to charge more for music (it already increased monthly prices from $9.99 to 10.99 in the US this summer), it would risk losing people to comparable services, where people can find the same songs. But unless it can convince people to pay more for music, it might continue to struggle.

“It’s too cheap,” says Dyson. “To have access to every single piece of music that’s ever been released—and ever will be released—for $10 a month is just astounding.” The same is true of Spotify today as was true when it was founded 17 years ago: It’s a business that’s good for listeners and labels but bad for both streamers and artists.

[yourfellowhuman07]

Alliances of the Heart

A She-Ra: Princess of Power 2018 fanfiction

For centuries, the All Princess Ball has been a time for the nobility of Etheria to let loose. Flaunting their power, prestige, and fashion for all to see. The ball had always been politically neutral, but, as tension from the war rises, not everyone is so keen to forget what happens beyond the walls of Castle Chill.

Lord Hordak, along with Princess Scorpia and Force Captian Catra, have come to the party to make alliances and find out everything there is to know about their enemies. Careful to not arouse the suspicion of the Princess Alliance.

Princess Entrapta, being the scientist she is, decides to come to the party to decode the secrets of body language, despite getting the same data from every other party she has ever attended.

When the two rulers cross paths, their plans flip on their heads as the two grow closer. Now it is up to Catra and Scorpia to push the two together as Adora and Glimmer stick their noses where they do not belong.

________________

Hello fellow humans. My new fic is finally here, and I hope you enjoy it. Like my other fic, this will gain new chapters weekly on Wednesday and be posted on AO3 on Thursdays. Btw, the fic will be only available to registered users on AO3 due to the whole AI situation. Thank you for reading!

Also, I'm aware @kuurankaiho has a fic similar to this, but I promise they are very different stories (kuura if you're reading this I love your work).

________________

Chapter 1: Fashionably Late

Lord Hordak stood at the front of his ship, the hull cutting through the icy waters; Castle Chill appeared on the horizon. Hordak took a deep breath, he did not want to go to this frivolous, flowery party, but it would be necessary for the cause of the war. It is the perfect time to identify exploitable weaknesses and find people willing to form alliances. Princess Scorpia and Force Captain Catra were also accompanying him, Hordak was less than enthusiastic about their presence, but he could deal with it for now. He needs to mentally prepare himself for the hellscape he was already late for.

___________________________

Princess Entrapta sat in the rafters of the ballroom; her eyes zipped from person to person, trying to decode the secrets of body language. While she was supposed to interact personally with the other partygoers, this was more practical and scientifically sound. Even if she did try to “mingle” with the rest of the nobles, it wouldn’t do much good. Most of the time, when Entrapta talks to anyone, they either don’t care or just get up and walk away. Like a good scientist, Entrapta attempts to collect data on social behaviors to better communicate with others. 

She was also trying to avoid anyone from the Princess Alliance. Ever since the Alliance reformed, they have begged Entrapta to join. Right now, she had no intention of joining the princesses, who were elitists who only focused on their capital cities rather than their nation as a whole. By siding with them, she would also be seen as an elitist, completely going against Drylian views of politics.

Entrapta watched as people began to spin around with each other, somehow being able to gauge the next move of everyone around them,  fascinating. She then observed the people around the snack area who only took one miniature snack at a time almost like taking more would be disgraceful, odd. She then saw various couples hidden away in corners smashing their faces together disregarding everyone around them. This is especially confusing when Entrapta had always been told by adults and colleagues to ALWAYS be aware of everyone around her. People are such a hypocritical mystery.

She relayed all this information to her recorder, one of the few things she could talk to. She sighed, bored already after 45 minutes, and to think this was a week-long event. She wished she was home in her lab discovering something new instead of observing the same things she had seen at every party. They were all the same, the dancing, the food, everything. If only something interesting would happen then maybe this week won’t be such a waste.

Just then, the ballroom door opened to reveal three dark figures. Entrapta recognized one immediately as Lord Hordak, ruler of the Scorponi Kingdom. He was tall, to say the least, eight feet if her estimation was correct. His hair was curly and deep indigo, the sides were braided and tied into an elegant ponytail. He wore a white button-up shirt and black pants topped with a black cape that looked like the flags used by the Horde when they claimed new territory. Behind him were two women, one Entrapta recognized as Princess Scorpia, the last living relative of the former royal Scorponi family. The other woman was some cat girl, most likely a plus one.

Even with her limited understanding of social graces, Entrapta knew it was bold of the Lord to come to this event. The man has more enemies than anyone could count and statistically, the chance of assassination is sky-high.

Now this will be fun!

_____________________________________________________

Hordak walked across the ballroom, all too aware of the terrified and disgusted whispers from the crowd. He reveled in them actually, as many say fear equals power.

The three made their way to Princess Frosta of the Kingdom of Snows. The three bowed just as they practiced.

“Lord Hordak, Princess Scorpia while I am glad you two have come I must say I am surprised to see you two,” said Frosta with her air of regality.

“You will find I am full of surprises, and thank you for your invite, Revered Hostess,” Hordak retorted.

Before the three could join the crowd they were stopped by Adora, or as most know her She-Ra.

“Revered Hostess, excuse me but you can not seriously let these people in this party. They’re part of the Horde.”

“Princess Adora, silence. This has been a politically neutral party for centuries, don’t go against prom policy. While you see me as a child I have worked hard for the respect I have gained, and the traditions of this party, like I, will not be disrespected.”

“Oh Adora, I didn’t think you were the type to disrespect the rules.” Catra put her hand on her heart and batted her eyelashes that hid the snide glimmer in her eyes.

Before Adora could say anything else she was dragged away by who Hordak recognized as Princess Glimmer of Brightmoon.

“My apologies Lord Hordak, some individuals can’t put their grievances aside for a few nights.”

“I take no offense Princess Frosta, people have said worse to me.”

“Enjoy the party.”

As the three turned on their heels to join the crowd Hordak then took the two women by the shoulder.

“Now you both know your jobs: find out as much about our enemies

 as you can and do not attract any suspicion, we already have someone down our back.” The three broke away from each other to mingle. 

__________________________________

Half an hour ticked by and Hordak only discovered trivial things about people from listening in on their conversation, nothing useful at all.

Hordak took a glass of wine off of a table and moved to the outskirts of the crowd. He spotted Scorpia by the snack table helping herself to all the tiny treats. Then he spotted Catra on the upper level talking to Adora. Hordak groaned internally, what part of not incriminating yourself to those who are suspicious of you does she not understand? Whatever, maybe after she talks with Adora, Catra’s obsession with her will subside. Then a thought popped into his head, maybe it is a good thing she was with her. If Catra were to distract her Scorpia would have more room to work. Not bad Force Captian, not bad at all.

Hordak then looked up to see a small figure sitting in the rafters. At first, he thought it was some assassin or thief using the chaos of the party to distract the guards. Then he saw how the figure’s hair was a long lavender color that bent to the will of its owner and identified the figure as Princess Entrapta of Dryl, or, as others call her, the hermit princess. She sat up there, eyes darting across the ballroom talking into a small metal box. Then a thought struck him: what if I engaged in a political alliance with her? It certainly wasn’t a bad idea, both kingdoms have similar political structures, and her supposed prowess with tech was nothing to sneeze at. Hordak also secretly wanted an excuse to leave the party so he might as well talk to her now.

As a slow dance began Hordak made his way to the upper level of the ballroom, using the darker parts of the room to climb his way up to the rafters. Carefully, he made his way over to the princess and sat behind her. He didn’t know how to get her attention so all he could do was tap her on the shoulder. In doing this, the princess yelped causing Hordak to almost fall to the ground.

“Oh, Lord Hordak, did you need something?”

Hordak straightened his cape, regaining his dismissive calmness.

“I only wished to make you an offer.”

“Oh?”

“I would like to formally ask you if you would be willing to make a political alliance between Scorponi and Dryl. Both of our kingdoms are constitutional monarchies as well as more tech than magic-based; furthermore, I believe combining forces will give the Scorponi kingdom an edge in the war and your kingdom protection from the Alliance.”

Entrapta paused to consider this, aligning with the Scorponi Kingdom was not a bad idea. For one, the other princesses will stop bothering her and the tech they have is amazing. Oh, the tech! Entrapta had gotten her hands on some of the technology from the Fright Zone and it was magnificent. How all the machines’ inner hardware was so organized and the efficiency of their programming and their powerful, tanky designs.

“I’m in!” Entrapta thrust forward a hand-shaped piece of hair which Hordak took in his hand, sealing the deal.

“Excellent, once this party is over I will draft a treaty and send it to Dryl for you to sign.”

“Or” she scooted closer, “ I could come to the Fright Zone and sign it there because I’ve been wanting to speak with the person who designs all of the Horde’s tech. I’ve gotten my hands on a few specimens and I loved the simplistic efficiency of them and how only a few could level an entire village, it’s so fascinating!”

Hordak felt like his body had been split into a million pieces. Sure his work had been complimented before but never like that by a like-minded individual.

“I am the one who designs all the tech within my kingdom.” Hordak scooted closer to her.

“Oh my moons, really!” she scooted even closer, “Wow I didn’t realize you were the one who designed everything, but you have to show me everything you’ve done. Also, imagine what combining your tech and the first ones' tech could do!”

“First ones’ tech?”

“You know, the tech left behind by the first civilization of this planet that makes what we do child play.”

Child play indeed, while Hordak forsook the wider universe as well as his father's empire he still wished he could have access to the tech he had before. As for the first ones’, they were most likely the Eternians who originally colonized Etheria before it blipped out of existence.

“Perhaps when you visit the Fright Zone you could tell me about this first ones’ tech.” Hordak scooted close enough that both their thighs were lightly touching.

“Oh sure that sounds great!”

“Thank you for your time, princess.” Hordak stood, gave her a bow, and left as soon as he arrived.

Once he made contact with the ground he went to check on Catra and Scorpia who were congregating at the chocolate fountain.

“Have you two been able to find anything out?”

“Nothing useful, that's for sure,” Catra’s face then twisted into a smirk, “What were you doing with that princess up there.”

“I was able to ally with her to strengthen both of our kingdoms. Once this party is over she will visit the Fright Zone and sign a treaty making it official, so do not under any circumstances give her a reason to reconsider.” Hordak then turned on his heel leaving the two women once again.

“Twenty ration bars says those two get together.”

“You sure about that?”

“Let's just say those two were sitting way too close to call that a political agreement.”

Catra then spotted the elusive princess descending from her perch to another snack table.

“Let’s go talk to her.”

[dailyanarchistposts]

J.1 Are anarchists involved in social struggles?

Yes. Anarchism, above all else, is a movement which aims to not only analyse the world but also to change it. Therefore anarchists aim to participate in and encourage social struggle. Social struggle includes strikes, marches, protests, demonstrations, boycotts, occupations and so on. Such activities show that the “spirit of revolt” is alive and well, that people are thinking and acting for themselves and against what authorities want them to do. This, in the eyes of anarchists, plays a key role in helping create the seeds of anarchy within capitalism.

Anarchists consider socialistic tendencies to develop within society as people see the benefits of co-operation and particularly when mutual aid develops within the struggle against authority, oppression and exploitation. Anarchism, as Kropotkin argued, “originated in everyday struggles.” [Environment and Revolution, p.58] Therefore, anarchists do not place anarchy abstractly against capitalism but see it as a tendency within and against the system — a tendency created by struggle and which can be developed to such a degree that it can replace the dominant structures and social relationships with new, more liberatory and humane ones. This perspective indicates why anarchists are involved in social struggles — they are an expression of these tendencies within but against capitalism which can ultimately replace it.

However, there is another reason why anarchists are involved in social struggle — namely the fact that we are part of the oppressed and, like other oppressed people, fight for our freedom and to make our life better in the here and now. It is not in some distant tomorrow that we want to see the end of oppression, exploitation and hierarchy. It is today, in our own life, that the anarchist wants to win our freedom, or at the very least, to improve our situation, reduce oppression, domination and exploitation as well as increasing individual liberty for “every blow given to the institutions of private property and to the government, every exaltation of the conscience of man, disruption of the present conditions, every lie unmasked, every part of human activity taken away from the control of the authorities, every augmentation of the spirit of solidarity and initiative is a step towards Anarchism.” [Errico Malatesta, Towards Anarchism, p. 75] We are aware that we often fail to do so, but the very process of struggle can help create a more libertarian aspect to society:

“Whatever may be the practical results of the struggle for immediate gains, the greatest value lies in the struggle itself. For thereby workers [and other oppressed sections of society] learn that the bosses interests are opposed to theirs and that they cannot improve their conditions, and much less emancipate themselves, except by uniting and becoming stronger than the bosses. If they succeed in getting what they demand, they will be better off: they will earn more, work fewer hours and will have more time and energy to reflect on the things that matter to them, and will immediately make greater demands and have greater needs. If they do not succeed they will be led to study the reasons of their failure and recognise the need for closer unity and greater activity and they will in the end understand that to make victory secure and definite, it is necessary to destroy capitalism. The revolutionary cause, the cause of moral elevation and emancipation of the workers [and other oppressed sections of society] must benefit by the fact that workers [and other oppressed people] unite and struggle for their interests.” [Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 191]

Therefore, “we as anarchists and workers, must incite and encourage” workers and other oppressed people “to struggle, and join them in their struggle.” [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 190] This is for three reasons. Firstly, struggle helps generate libertarian ideas and movements which could help make existing society more anarchistic and less oppressive. Secondly, struggle creates people, movements and organisations which are libertarian in nature and which, potentially, can replace capitalism with a more humane society. Thirdly, because anarchists are part of the oppressed and so have an interest in taking part in and showing solidarity with struggles and movements that can improve our life in the here and now (“an injury to one is an injury to all”).

As we will see in section J.2 anarchists encourage direct action within social struggles as well as arguing for anarchist ideas and theories. However, what is important to note here is that social struggle is a sign that people are thinking and acting for themselves and working together to change things. Howard Zinn is completely correct:

“civil disobedience … is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience .. . Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.” [Failure to Quit, p. 45]

Therefore, social struggle is an important thing for anarchists and we take part in it as much as we can. Moreover, anarchists do more than just take part. We are fighting to get rid of the system that causes the problems which people fight against. We explain anarchism to those who are involved in struggle with us and seek to show the relevance of anarchism to people’s everyday lives through such struggles and the popular organisations which they create. By so doing we try to popularise the ideas and methods of anarchism, namely solidarity, self-management and direct action.

Anarchists do not engage in abstract propaganda (become an anarchist, wait for the revolution — if we did that, in Malatesta’s words, “that day would never come.” [Op. Cit., p. 195]). We know that our ideas will only win a hearing and respect when we can show both their relevance to people’s lives in the here and now and show that an anarchist world is both possible and desirable. In other words, social struggle is the “school” of anarchism, the means by which people become anarchists and anarchist ideas are applied in action. Hence the importance of social struggle and anarchist participation within it.

Before discussing issues related to social struggle, it is important to point out here that anarchists are interested in struggles against all forms of oppression and do not limit ourselves to purely economic issues. The hierarchical and exploitative nature of the capitalist economy is only part of the story — other forms of oppression are needed in order to keep it going (not to mention those associated with the state) and have resulted from its workings (in addition to those inherited from previous hierarchical and class systems). Domination, exploitation, hierarchy and oppression do not remain in the workplace. They infest our homes, our friendships and our communities. They need to be fought everywhere, not just in work.

Therefore, anarchists are convinced that human life and the struggle against oppression cannot be reduced to mere money and, indeed, the “proclivity for economic reductionism is now actually obscurantist. It not only shares in the bourgeois tendency to render material egotism and class interest the centrepieces of history it also denigrates all attempts to transcend this image of humanity as a mere economic being . .. by depicting them as mere ‘marginalia’ at best, as ‘well-intentioned middle-class ideology’ at worse, or sneeringly, as ‘diversionary,’ ‘utopian,’ and ‘unrealistic’ … Capitalism, to be sure, did not create the ‘economy’ or ‘class interest,’ but it subverted all human traits — be they speculative thought, love, community, friendship, art, or self-governance — with the authority of economic calculation and the rule of quantity. Its ‘bottom line’ is the balance sheet’s sum and its basic vocabulary consists of simple numbers.” [Murray Bookchin, The Modern Crisis, pp. 125–126]

In other words, issues such as freedom, justice, individual dignity, quality of life and so on cannot be reduced to the categories of capitalist economics. Anarchists think that any radical movement which does so fails to understand the nature of the system it is fighting against (indeed, economic reductionism plays into the hands of capitalist ideology). So, when anarchists take part in and encourage social struggle they do not aim to restrict or reduce them to economic issues (however important these are). The anarchist knows that the individual has more interests than just material ones and we consider it essential to take into account the needs of the emotions, mind and spirit just as much as those of the belly:

“The class struggle does not centre around material exploitation alone but also around spiritual exploitation. In addition, entirely new issues emerge: coercive attitudes, the quality of work, ecology (or stated in more general terms, psychological and environmental oppression) … Terms like ‘classes’ and ‘class struggle,’ conceived of almost entirely as economic categories and relations, are too one-sided to express the universalisation of the struggle. Use these limited expressions if you like (the target is still a ruling class and a class society), but this terminology, with its traditional connotations, does not reflect the sweep and the multi-dimensional nature of the struggle … [and] fail to encompass the cultural and spiritual revolt that is taking place along with the economic struggle.” [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, pp. 151–2]

For anarchists, exploitation and class rule are just part of a wider system of domination and hierarchy. Material gains, therefore, can never completely make-up for oppressive social relationships. As the anarchist character created by anarchist science-fiction writer Ursula Le Guin put it, capitalists “think if people have enough things they will be content to live in prison.” [The Dispossessed, p. 120] Anarchists disagree — and the experience of social revolt in the “affluent” 1960s proves their case.

This is unsurprising for, ultimately, the “antagonism [between classes] is spiritual rather than material. There will never be a sincere understanding between bosses and workers… because the bosses above all want to remain bosses and secure always more power at the expense of the workers, as well as by competition with other bosses, whereas the workers have had their fill of bosses and don’t want any more.” [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 79]

[biologusputrifier777-blog]

Many Tumblr users are Arch Conservatives in their mindset

I have frequently encountered Tumblr users who are reactionaries, and this is frankly not uncommon. In general, we live in a reactionary era and many workers are divorced from their movement, but what I have encountered on this site frequently goes beyond the base ignorance that the capitalist class inflicts upon the proletariat. Namely, a mindset that is defined by two factors, One, a single-minded focus on making one's own position in Capital as comfortable as possible at the expense of all else, and two, an overwhelming belief that the inevitable self-emancipation of the working class represents some biblical apocalypse. That last part has two meanings, as those who spew it often hurl it as a slur against the real movement, claiming that Communists are simply religious fanatics who seek some mythical purification of the world. The second meaning is less complex, they imagine the means by which the self-emancipation will occur, class war, as an outright apocalyptically violent event. This feeds into their first delusion, allowing them to further slander the real movement by claiming that the imagined pseudo-christian fanatic communist who has done nothing but trade in the bible for "some leftist book" craves an orgy of violence and murder, allowing them to relive the liberal glory days of the red scare and cold war.

The first one is simple, the activism proposed by the average Tumblr liberal represents not an attack on Capital, but an attempt to carve out a place within Capital. It is often very 1st wave feminist in its approach, focused less on empowering the whole of the working class, and more on allowing members of their group to become part of high society and function more freely within the Capitalist status quo. This manifests on Tumblr in a few ways, feminists who prickle at mentions of misandry (ie mostly just mfers figuring out how the capitalist system exploits masc proletariats), trans femmes who wax poetically of the inherent moral superiority they have gained through their transition and brave fight against the gender binary (Lexi if you see this just know that I am 100% talking about you) and god knows how many liberal feminists whose toxic ideas about the superiority of women over le evil, predatory men have morphed into the outright fascism of Terfism. Of course, while the examples I highlighted are pretty fucked up, in most cases I sympathize with this desire, and this part of the post is not the one where I am calling out everyone who acts like this as arch-reactionaries. Trans people should be able to secure steadier employment, black people should not face hiring discrimination, etc. This is not even in and of itself a bad mindset, it is simply the prereq for a bad mindset, but I will point out some of the flaws with it. The push for Black Capitalism failed to secure liberation for African Americans, and businesses such as "Your Black Muslim Bakery" have proven that you can't just fix the impacts capitalism has on marginalized groups by ensuring the existence of capitalists from within those groups. Secondly, on the more political side, Feminism has shown how even the most historically progressive liberal movement, one aimed at the liberation of women from bondage, can go on to become a reactionary tool of the capitalist state and even complicit in its abuses of women. For more on that, read "In an Abusive State" by K. Bumiller. But on the whole, this mindset alone, while inferior to a revolutionary mindset, which I highly suggest you cultivate (This reading list has worked wonders for me and I would suggest giving it a shot), isn't any more reactionary than the mindset of just wanting a job that lets you buy a house, which is to say barely reactionary at all.

On the other hand, the second thing we will be talking about is so reactionary that if you altered the words a bit you could slot it into Mein Kampf's section about "godless eastern bolshevism" and not change the meaning much. Namely, the idea that revolution serves some function as a biblical apocalypse that vile, bloodthirsty communists want to do out of a sick desire to purify the world with blood. To these truly, staggering titans of intellect, Class war is both impossible and undesirable, and if it were to happen, it would only serve to destroy the world, kill untold millions, and put some imagined dictator on the throne. I'm sure that many of you reading this have seen that godawful post with a pornographic depiction of kids dying because power to a hospital got cut, trying to scare readers into thinking that class war is bad because people might suffer as a result. After all, Capitalism is famous for how rarely it kills sick kids. Regardless, it's rather stupid to engage with this on the terms of the reactionary. I will not attempt to philosophically prove that morally speaking, class war is justified, moralism is counterproductive if material reality itself informs and guides your views about the world. Namely, Class war is not some imagined future, it's actually happened. The Paris Commune and the 1918 World revolutions happened. The desire for and the belief that a successful self-emancipation of the proletariat could exist is not driven by mysticism, it's driven by actual historical evidence at this point, backed up by scientific study, and kept relevant by the fact that the needs of the working class are not being met. The people who spout the "Revolution = Revelations" myth are simply refusing to engage with reality or the needs of the working class, and instead take refuge in an imagined world in which their enemies are simply morally bad and desire the end of the world by virtue of them being morally bad. The fact that dissenters from outside their camp disagree with this is simply proof of their fanaticism. In this sense, these goobers are the very model of an idealist.

Secondly, these people ironically enough, are very much hypocrites, as they often are the ones who most plainly view the revolution in apocalyptic terms. They will hue and cry about the millions of people who will certainly die if the class war is started. Who will feed us (they do not seem to understand that the workers would have seized the farms if the revolution is successful), who will give us power (they seem to not understand that the workers would seize the means of producing power), and etc. The fact that the violence will likely flow from the state trying to suppress the workers (as it already does), is also disregarded, the communist is blamed because they suggested the revolution, as if that alone is what willed violence into the world. No, we must accept the status quo and work within it to create non violent change! The non violence of a status quo in which 9 million people die each year of hunger must be preserved. The status quo under which half the worlds population does not have access to quality healthcare, in which half a million people die a year in imperialist wars, in which almost 2 million die of easily curable diseases, and in which billions are exploited every day until they die in lives made barren and empty by the crushing demands of Capital. But no, we must never think of revolution, it's violent and could kill people!

It's deeply stupid, born of sheer ignorance and comfort. They care only that the deaths that might occur in a class war would happen within their earshot, and it does not matter that it would be to end the system that currently kills over 10 million people a year in the pursuit of profits, if that class war would force them to give up their comfort. That they imagine the turmoil such change would bring as an apocalyptic orgy of violence and project it onto evil communists who clearly must desire it not for legitimate change or a better world, but simply wanting to kill lots of people for no reason other than some abstract lack of morality renders them arch conservatives of the highest order, and a flock which McCarthy himself would be proud to shepherd.