#capitalist critical

[tonysdumplings]

I swear if I see another "go play something else" person on my dash I will get violent because y'all are so fucking annoying, how about you get a life and stop telling people what to play, you high horse riding jobless elitists?

am I going to buy any WoTC resource? no, they can go fuck themselves. but you know there is an option of... not paying for shit? like not a single dime?

so stop hiding your annoying elitism behind being "anti-capitalist" and "anti-corporation". there are people literally sharing free resources on this hellsite. I run an entire game with none of my players owning a single official thing from WoTC, neither do I.

shut up <3

[alibiblu]

Anyone else mourning how pretty and fluid the animation in this show used to be? They feel so stiff now…

Just had none of the same charm imo

[elle-thereafter]

Yes ok Essek Hotboi and absolutely Astrid Bitterness Becke but listen, far more important than either of those things: HOW THE FUCK DOES THE CHASTITY NOOK SMUT SHOP OWNER BECOME FUCKING PENPALS WITH YUSSA ERRENIS?!?

[littlefankingdom]

~ Batman: No Man's Land

This scene has lived rent free in my head since I first read it, so I'm bringing it up today.

It really demonstrates Bruce's character, and how much he despises the elite he is a part of. There are multiple moments in Batman's publication that shows that dislike/hate Bruce has for them, but this moment is so well done.

At first, he looks lost, and he is feeling lost, asking himself what is he doing here. This is supposed to be his world, and yet, he is so detached from it. Next, he goes back to somthing he knows, analyzing people and informations. Bruce canonically suffers from anxiety and is probably on the spectrum, so this could be interpreted as a "soothing technique" for himself. Then, there's the final, the breaking point. The anger toward these people win over the mask, and before he can break someone's nose, he walks away without a word. He didn’t last 10 minutes without wanting to beat their asses.

And what does he do afterward? Well, he feels guilty for being in Monaco instead of Gotham, so he lets a bunch of thugs beat his ass. Literally, hates himself for being a part of the elite.

He prefers fighting over this. He hates it. And it's important to remember, because I see post from people treating Bruce as if he actually likes the elite and capitalism. He hates them. He hates how much they take away from the community. Say "eat the rich" in front of Bruce Wayne, he isn’t going to argue.

[whereserpentswalk]

Someone used "ungood" to describe disney remakes and it's so perfect. "Bad" does not sum up the horrible soulless products created to only fulfil capitalist desires, using artists as tormented vessels, ungood captures it so well.

Artists with passion and vision create bad art. Bad art can have entertaining qualities, and value, and sparks of life inside of them. Teenage fanfic, and b movies, and a young musicians first attempt at smoke on the water are bad, and that's ok. Ungood art does not have the same saving graces as bad art. Ungood art is empty, not just failing at quality but devoid of it.

We need to start using the term ungood. Neither Star Wars episode one, nor Star Was episode nine are good movies, but they don't possess the same lack of quality. The "live action" Lion King movie, and Repo! The Genetic Opera might both be failures at putting musicals on film, but I know which one I'd rather watch, which one still has moments I love, and which one was made to make someone at Disney see a line go up.

[blackmosscupcakes]

This may genuinely be the most I've ever laughed at anything in my life. By the reaction to Matt's retelling I had tears streaming down my face. By the reaction to Liam's retelling I was gasping for breath. I have enjoyed Narrative Telephone so much. 😁

[ladyhawke]

no but why hasn’t prime video, the streaming service from amazon which is a virtual store, invested a single dollar in merchandising for the rings of power???? they should be selling all kinds of licensed trop junk, maybe even selling stuff exclusively on amazon and yet we have nothing

[meyhew]

i have something to say 👩🏽‍🦯‍➡️

[rei-ismyname]

Comrade Namor

He teams up with Bruce Banner and most of his alters on an explicit mission to destroy capitalism, starting off by bankrupting the too big to fail Roxxon Corporation (whose CEO is a literal minotaur FYI, the shit kind.) 'Humans' as referred to there is about the destructiveness and unsustainability of how we treat the planet and each other. It's not a genetically loaded term here. Also, he just cooked Bruce a clam chowder. It's nice to look after our friends.

This is an in universe advert from the 90s where he declares war on any company that doesn't respect the planet, AKA all of them. Interestingly he uses inverted Marxist language to threaten from a position of strength - 'the oceans themselves as capital' is so huge a concept. No doubt he was pushing the limits of what critique capitalism can subsume into itself.

It's also strategically fascinating, IMO. Declaring war on countries is a historical Namor tactic with no winners. Corporations have no sovereignty to protect, no allies to call on, and you can't lobby for tariffs on Atlantis.

Except they may as well, because as ever, Marvel presents a liberal fantasy of human improvement and progressiveness. Corporations do what they do with the aid and permission of states, and neoliberalism can't exist without the free market. Marvel itself is profit-first and will never take any action that hinders that (intentionally) - but they will present the 'illusion of change' especially if the message itself is profitable to publish. I'm not saying anything new here, of course, but I think it'd be intellectually dishonest to not point out that the desired and eternal status quo isn't just restricted to the pages.

BEE TEE DUBS, if you haven't read Immortal Hulk, it's amazing. Al Ewing is a master and really pushes the limits of what comics can do, plus the Hulk says trans rights and fuck capitalism!

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

I was so impressed with your toe-to-toe comment on the French philosophy anon. So happy to have found you, omg! I heard Taylor called her ttpd set as the "female rage musical." I take it she knows the impact of the song Labour by Paris Paloma which has been dubbed as the female rage anthem. So naturally, here is the 34 year old culture vulture, can't-have-any-ideas-of-her-own that is Taylor Swift hopping there wanting to get the attention away from it when that song is quite phenomenal. One song compared to her 31 diss tracks that's nothing to me, at least, but the excessive sentimentality of an infantile woman in her 30s. It's gross the confessions she's put on that album. And even her own fans are comparing her to Olivia Rodrigo. That's she's copying everything about her - song, outfits, the "female rage" theme just to mock her. Somehow, Swift thinks it would do her a world of good. People are catching on to her antics which are absolutely disgusting, btw. I'm hoping one day you write about all these completely ridiculous gross things she's done using her own lyrics. You know what I mean? I hope someone write about her nasty lyrics and that it completely destroys her.

Thank you ha, I'm glad you found something meaningful in that post. I will not lie, that Anon actually hurt my feelings for a second (I got over it by writing my response), but I was upset at being so misunderstood. I'm not out here levying unreasonable criticism at Taylor Swift. All will be based on reality, or interpretation of her own lyrics.  I’m defs out to get her though- in the most legitimate way possible- and maybe someday I will publish for real on her. I have a couple of criticisms that I will not be putting on my blog- because I want to say it on a bigger platform. : )  

I do see a lot of harmful things in her music that I have been resisting the urge to write about for YEARS! Even back in 2009, listening to "Love Story" I remember thinking to myself, oh this is nothing like what Shakespeare meant and it's also a weird appeal to the patriarchy through the "I talked to your Dad/ Go Pick out a white dress." It's so clear that she's just reduplicating mainstream attitudes on romantic relationships by using Christian Conservative social standards of needing the father's permission to ask the girl's hand in marriage. She obviously wanted to attract the Christian- Conservative fan- base with that song, and that's exactly what happened. Her marketing is tied to the phrases she places inside her songs in a way that is extremely calculating. She, Afterall, learned from the best at attracting mainstream, Christian, conservative fans, Toby Keith (hate that fascist, white nationalist freak). (WHoops, that was mean- oh well, he’s dead anyway). (and if he wanted me to be nice- he shouldn't have been a fascist).  

It's so obvious, and I really figured everyone else was also aware of the ways in which Swift interpolates patriarchal standards in her music. I have many more examples- I could write a whole essay on it.  

Apparently, everyone thought she was a feminist? Bro, she became a "feminist" if only to evade criticism and capitalize on mainstream pop-feminist trends. She's not a real feminist. Her use of “feminism” to evade critique ties directly into her other marketing strategy of telling the world “I’m so innocent and young” all the time. 

Also, her co-opting of the phrase Female Rage has made me angry, exceptionally angry. I saw that she's trying to trademark the phrase. I am incensed. I will post about it soon. 

I wish Swift would stop co-opting legitimate terms and pulling only the most shallow- self-centered conception of the term out to use in her mediocre music. She’s like if Pinterest was a person- and I’m tired of it.  

Paris Paloma’s “Labour” is amazing, because guess what- it actually speaks about the experience of women under patriarchal standards in a way that respects the seriousness of the topic. I absolutely believe that Swift saw how viral that song went and decided she needed to cash in on that too.  

And she is totally copying Olivia Rodrigo. Can you imagine being 34 and trying to act 20? I would die of embarrassment. But it's so obvious that it's getting weird.

I have much more to say on this topic- sincerely I could write a book on the conceptual point of “Female Rage” in media. I have thousands of examples, and I’ve been studying this stuff for years. I will, however, ramble on no longer. Thank you for your kind words- and I hope you enjoy my upcoming writings.

[eat-a-dicker]

in the same way that mouthwashing shouldn't be fandomified, i feel the exact same way about TADC

[whereserpentswalk]

Making money off art does not make it impure. Something being produced under capitalism does not make it less valuable as art. Your art isn't devalued by you selling it. A book/movie/play/show isn't less artistically valuable because it was distributed (I am deliberately not using the word "made") by a company.

The idea that monetization is antithetical to art is not a leftist idea. It is a deeply reactionary idea, that finds the idea of artists also being workers are scary.

If you view art that people make money off of as invalid. Then you inherently only view art made by people with the privilege it takes to have time and resources to make art without having to sell it as valuable.

"This isn't real art, it's just a product" might look like hatred of capitalism, but in practice it is hatred of workers.

[canisvesperus]

[dailyanarchistposts]

Anarchists and Neo-anarchists: Horizontalism and Autonomous Spaces

It is not uncommon, particularly in North America, to see anarchism defined as an ideology rooted in ‘direct democracy’, consensus decision making, and the maintenance of ‘horizontal’ (i.e., ‘non-hierarchical’) social relations, particularly in autonomous zones or public spaces.

This idea of anarchism is unusual in that it places at the centre of its definition an adherence to very specific forms of procedure and interpersonal behaviour while downplaying the political ends a ‘horizontal’ movement should be trying to establish. From this perspective, reclaiming public space as an opportunity to hold non-hierarchical public assemblies, where we can hammer out decisions by consensus, is, in itself, ‘anarchist’ – whatever the result of such processes.

This has little to do with the classical, mass-anarchist tradition and its politics of revolutionary socialism. It is, instead, an approach which is better described as falling under the banner of ‘neo-anarchism’ (or ‘small-a anarchism’). Neo-anarchism is a modern conception of anarchism largely informed by the feminist and peace movements of the 70s, the environmental movement of the 80s, the alter-globalisation movement of the 90s, and the Argentinian uprising of 2001; which coined the term horizontalidad (‘horizontalism’) to describe the movement’s rejection of representative democracy, the use of general assemblies to coordinate activity, and converting abandoned or bankrupt factories into cooperative businesses.

Take, for instance, the insistence by neo-anarchists on the use of consensus decision making. Though consensus (or ‘unanimity’, as it was typically called) was sometimes a feature of anarchist political organisations, and often seen as an ideal to work towards through comradely discussion, it was never a fundamental component of the anarchist movement. Anarchists have generally agreed that the appropriate form of decision making depends on the circumstances concerned, and frequently endorsed variations of majoritarian voting; particularly in mass organisations based on commonalities other than close-ideological affinity, such as unions. The focus for anarchists has generally not been the form of decision-making, but instead the principles of free association and solidarity. Furthermore, though anarchists have always stressed the right ofthe minority to be free of the majority’s coercion, it is even more important that the great majority be free of minoritarian rule or sabotage. As Malatesta wrote in his pamphlet Between Peasants: A Dialogue on Anarchy:

everything is done to reach unanimity, and when this is impossible, one would vote and do what the majority wanted, or else put the decision in the hands of a third party who would act as arbitrator, respecting the inviolability of the principles of equality and justice which the society is based on.

In response to the concern over minoritarian sabotage, he continues by asserting that such a situation would

[make it] necessary to take forcible action, because if it is unjust that the majority oppress the minority, it’s no more just that the contrary should happen. And just as the minority have the right of insurrection, so do the majority have the right of defense, or if the word doesn’t offend you, repression.[3]

As for ‘autonomous zones’ and the tactic of reclaiming public spaces (as seen in the Occupy movement) – here we have no connection to anarchism as a revolutionary tradition, and an example of a tactic which has repeatedly shown its inability to extract significant reforms, let alone revolutionise production and destroy the State.

The fundamental limitations of the ‘public occupation’ or ‘autonomous zone’ , and the defeats which have followed from these limitations, have led some former advocates of the strategy to make a notable transition from neo-anarchism to parliamentary politics. Though inexplicable to some outside observers, the change is easily understood when we consider neo-anarchism’s peculiar view of ‘direct democracy’, or ‘horizontally organised spaces’, as the defining characteristic of anarchism, and not a theory of libertarian revolution against the State and capital.

If we accept the idea of anarchism as proposed by the neo-anarchists, there is no fundamental contradiction between anarchism and involvement in parliamentary politics. If the political party is a directly democratic one, composed of social movements, and committed to horizontal interpersonal relations, what difference does it make if the decision made (ideally by consensus) is to campaign for political candidates, or even administer the State?

We have seen this with the so-called ‘Movements of the Squares’ in Europe. Activists who took part in the 15M (or ‘Indignados’) movement in Spain abandoned their dismissal of all politicians (“¡Que no nos representan!” – “They don’t represent us!”) with the formation of Podemos and various other ‘municipalist’ parties.[4]

A similar trajectory was followed by the anthropologist David Graeber towards the end of his life. Graeber – a figurehead of Occupy Wall Street and, prior to that, a participant in the alter-globalisation movement – apparently saw no contradiction between his professed (neo-)anarchism and his efforts to join the British Labour Party in support of Jeremy Corbyn. In particular, Graeber was enthusiastic about the Labour-affiliated organisation Momentum; an outgrowth of the Corbyn leadership campaign, which he argued constituted a unique attempt to fuse a radical social movement with a traditional parliamentary party.[5]

More recently we have witnessed the absurdity of a self-proclaimed ‘libertarian socialist’, Gabriel Boric (who touts his association with Chile’s radical student movement), ascending to the presidency in the aftermath of a militant popular uprising.

The damage caused by these supposedly ‘unique’ attempts to translate the ‘horizontalism’ of neo-anarchism into the party-form – which, in reality, hardly differs from the historic approach offered by Marxists as an alternative to anarchism – has been outlined well elsewhere, and there is no need to go over the details here.[6] It suffices to say that in each case there was bureaucratisation, accomodation with the necessities of administering the capitalist state (or even just campaigning to administer it), and zero empowerment of workers against the bosses.

The reality is that there is no way to fully ‘prefigure’ anarchy and communism through ‘directly democratic’ spaces of ‘autonomy’. Anarchism requires a specific anarchist movement and anarchist practice. Though we must certainly organise ourselves from the bottom up, with a consistent federalist structure, we can not simply bring about our ideal by ‘living anarchisticly’ or relating to one another as ‘horizontally’ as possible. Similarly, the content of anarchism can not be limited to the structure of our movement – its content of revolutionary class struggle must be maintained. To quote Luigi Fabbri:

If anarchism were simply an individual ethic, to be cultivated within oneself, and at the same time adapted in material life to acts and movements in contradiction with it, we could call ourselves anarchists and belong to the most diverse parties; and so many could be called anarchists who, although they are spiritually and intellectually emancipated, are and remain, on practical grounds, our enemies.But anarchism is something else… proletarian and revolutionary, an active participation in the movement for human emancipation, with principles and goals that are egalitarian and libertarian at the same time. The most important part of its program does not consist solely in the dream, which we want to come true, of a society without bosses and without governments, but above all in the libertarian conception of revolution, of revolution against the state and not through the state… [7]

[niaerinisms]

Gonna make an OC who only purpose is fuck Jack

[neechees]

It's a little ironic (is that the word to use here?) That Barbie specifically takes a jab at Bratz by having a girl named Sasha look like a killjoy feminist for critisizing Barbie & Mattel when Gerwig only ever cares about white feminism & Bratz has always been more inclusive than Barbie/Mattel