#capitalist development did not save us | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dailyanarchistposts · 7 months ago

Text

F.8.5 What about the lack of enclosures in the Americas?

The enclosure movement was but one part of a wide-reaching process of state intervention in creating capitalism. Moreover, it is just one way of creating the “land monopoly” which ensured the creation of a working class. The circumstances facing the ruling class in the Americas were distinctly different than in the Old World and so the “land monopoly” took a different form there. In the Americas, enclosures were unimportant as customary land rights did not really exist (at least once the Native Americans were eliminated by violence). Here the problem was that (after the original users of the land were eliminated) there were vast tracts of land available for people to use. Other forms of state intervention were similar to that applied under mercantilism in Europe (such as tariffs, government spending, use of unfree labour and state repression of workers and their organisations and so on). All had one aim, to enrich and power the masters and dispossess the actual producers of the means of life (land and means of production).

Unsurprisingly, due to the abundance of land, there was a movement towards independent farming in the early years of the American colonies and subsequent Republic and this pushed up the price of remaining labour on the market by reducing the supply. Capitalists found it difficult to find workers willing to work for them at wages low enough to provide them with sufficient profits. It was due to the difficulty in finding cheap enough labour that capitalists in America turned to slavery. All things being equal, wage labour is more productive than slavery but in early America all things were not equal. Having access to cheap (indeed, free) land meant that working people had a choice, and few desired to become wage slaves and so because of this, capitalists turned to slavery in the South and the “land monopoly” in the North.

This was because, in the words of Maurice Dobb, it “became clear to those who wished to reproduce capitalist relations of production in the new country that the foundation-stone of their endeavour must be the restriction of land-ownership to a minority and the exclusion of the majority from any share in [productive] property.” [Studies in Capitalist Development, pp. 221–2] As one radical historian puts it, ”[w]hen land is ‘free’ or ‘cheap’. as it was in different regions of the United States before the 1830s, there was no compulsion for farmers to introduce labour-saving technology. As a result, ‘independent household production’ … hindered the development of capitalism … [by] allowing large portions of the population to escape wage labour.” [Charlie Post, “The ‘Agricultural Revolution’ in the United States”, pp. 216–228, Science and Society, vol. 61, no. 2, p. 221]

It was precisely this option (i.e. of independent production) that had to be destroyed in order for capitalist industry to develop. The state had to violate the holy laws of “supply and demand” by controlling the access to land in order to ensure the normal workings of “supply and demand” in the labour market (i.e. that the bargaining position favoured employer over employee). Once this situation became the typical one (i.e., when the option of self-employment was effectively eliminated) a more (protectionist based) “laissez-faire” approach could be adopted, with state action used indirectly to favour the capitalists and landlords (and readily available to protect private property from the actions of the dispossessed).

So how was this transformation of land ownership achieved?

Instead of allowing settlers to appropriate their own farms as was often the case before the 1830s, the state stepped in once the army had cleared out (usually by genocide) the original users. Its first major role was to enforce legal rights of property on unused land. Land stolen from the Native Americans was sold at auction to the highest bidders, namely speculators, who then sold it on to farmers. This process started right “after the revolution, [when] huge sections of land were bought up by rich speculators” and their claims supported by the law. [Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, p. 125] Thus land which should have been free was sold to land-hungry farmers and the few enriched themselves at the expense of the many. Not only did this increase inequality within society, it also encouraged the development of wage labour — having to pay for land would have ensured that many immigrants remained on the East Coast until they had enough money. Thus a pool of people with little option but to sell their labour was increased due to state protection of unoccupied land. That the land usually ended up in the hands of farmers did not (could not) countermand the shift in class forces that this policy created.

This was also the essential role of the various “Homesteading Acts” and, in general, the “Federal land law in the 19th century provided for the sale of most of the public domain at public auction to the higher bidder … Actual settlers were forced to buy land from speculators, at prices considerably above the federal minimal price.” (which few people could afford anyway). [Charlie Post, Op. Cit., p. 222] This is confirmed by Howard Zinn who notes that 1862 Homestead Act “gave 160 acres of western land, unoccupied and publicly owned, to anyone who would cultivate it for five years … Few ordinary people had the $200 necessary to do this; speculators moved in and bought up much of the land. Homestead land added up to 50 million acres. But during the Civil War, over 100 million acres were given by Congress and the President to various railroads, free of charge.” [Op. Cit., p. 233] Little wonder the Individualist Anarchists supported an “occupancy and use” system of land ownership as a key way of stopping capitalist and landlord usury as well as the development of capitalism itself.

This change in the appropriation of land had significant effects on agriculture and the desirability of taking up farming for immigrants. As Post notes, ”[w]hen the social conditions for obtaining and maintaining possession of land change, as they did in the Midwest between 1830 and 1840, pursuing the goal of preserving [family ownership and control] .. . produced very different results. In order to pay growing mortgages, debts and taxes, family farmers were compelled to specialise production toward cash crops and to market more and more of their output.” [Op. Cit., p. 221–2]

So, in order to pay for land which was formerly free, farmers got themselves into debt and increasingly turned to the market to pay it off. Thus, the “Federal land system, by transforming land into a commodity and stimulating land speculation, made the Midwestern farmers dependent upon markets for the continual possession of their farms.” Once on the market, farmers had to invest in new machinery and this also got them into debt. In the face of a bad harvest or market glut, they could not repay their loans and their farms had to be sold to so do so. By 1880, 25% of all farms were rented by tenants, and the numbers kept rising. In addition, the “transformation of social property relations in northern agriculture set the stage for the ‘agricultural revolution’ of the 1840s and 1850s … [R]ising debts and taxes forced Midwestern family farmers to compete as commodity producers in order to maintain their land-holding … The transformation … was the central precondition for the development of industrial capitalism in the United States.” [Charlie Post, Op. Cit., p. 223 and p. 226]

It should be noted that feudal land owning was enforced in many areas of the colonies and the early Republic. Landlords had their holdings protected by the state and their demands for rent had the full backing of the state. This lead to numerous anti-rent conflicts. [Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, p. 84 and pp. 206–11] Such struggles helped end such arrangements, with landlords being “encouraged” to allow the farmers to buy the land which was rightfully theirs. The wealth appropriated from the farmers in the form of rent and the price of the land could then be invested in industry so transforming feudal relations on the land into capitalist relations in industry (and, eventually, back on the land when the farmers succumbed to the pressures of the capitalist market and debt forced them to sell).

This means that Murray Rothbard’s comment that “once the land was purchased by the settler, the injustice disappeared” is nonsense — the injustice was transmitted to other parts of society and this, the wider legacy of the original injustice, lived on and helped transform society towards capitalism. In addition, his comment about “the establishment in North America of a truly libertarian land system” would be one the Individualist Anarchists of the period would have seriously disagreed with! [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 73] Rothbard, at times, seems to be vaguely aware of the importance of land as the basis of freedom in early America. For example, he notes in passing that “the abundance of fertile virgin land in a vast territory enabled individualism to come to full flower in many areas.” [Conceived in Liberty, vol. 2, p. 186] Yet he did not ponder the transformation in social relationships which would result when that land was gone. In fact, he was blasé about it. “If latecomers are worse off,” he opined, “well then that is their proper assumption of risk in this free and uncertain world. There is no longer a vast frontier in the United States, and there is no point crying over the fact.” [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 240] Unsurprisingly we also find Murray Rothbard commenting that Native Americans “lived under a collectivistic regime that, for land allocation, was scarcely more just than the English governmental land grab.” [Conceived in Liberty, vol. 1, p. 187] That such a regime made for increased individual liberty and that it was precisely the independence from the landlord and bosses this produced which made enclosure and state land grabs such appealing prospects for the ruling class was lost on him.

Unlike capitalist economists, politicians and bosses at the time, Rothbard seemed unaware that this “vast frontier” (like the commons) was viewed as a major problem for maintaining labour discipline and appropriate state action was taken to reduce it by restricting free access to the land in order to ensure that workers were dependent on wage labour. Many early economists recognised this and advocated such action. Edward Wakefield was typical when he complained that “where land is cheap and all are free, where every one who so pleases can easily obtain a piece of land for himself, not only is labour dear, as respects the labourer’s share of the product, but the difficulty is to obtain combined labour at any price.” This resulted in a situation were few “can accumulate great masses of wealth” as workers “cease … to be labourers for hire; they … become independent landowners, if not competitors with their former masters in the labour market.” Unsurprisingly, Wakefield urged state action to reduce this option and ensure that labour become cheap as workers had little choice but to seek a master. One key way was for the state to seize the land and then sell it to the population. This would ensure that “no labourer would be able to procure land until he had worked for money” and this “would produce capital for the employment of more labourers.” [quoted by Marx, Op. Cit., , p. 935, p. 936 and p. 939] Which is precisely what did occur.

At the same time that it excluded the working class from virgin land, the state granted large tracts of land to the privileged classes: to land speculators, logging and mining companies, planters, railroads, and so on. In addition to seizing the land and distributing it in such a way as to benefit capitalist industry, the “government played its part in helping the bankers and hurting the farmers; it kept the amount of money — based in the gold supply — steady while the population rose, so there was less and less money in circulation. The farmer had to pay off his debts in dollars that were harder to get. The bankers, getting loans back, were getting dollars worth more than when they loaned them out — a kind of interest on top of interest. That was why so much of the talk of farmers’ movements in those days had to do with putting more money in circulation.” [Zinn, Op. Cit., p. 278] This was the case with the Individualist Anarchists at the same time, we must add.

Overall, therefore, state action ensured the transformation of America from a society of independent workers to a capitalist one. By creating and enforcing the “land monopoly” (of which state ownership of unoccupied land and its enforcement of landlord rights were the most important) the state ensured that the balance of class forces tipped in favour of the capitalist class. By removing the option of farming your own land, the US government created its own form of enclosure and the creation of a landless workforce with little option but to sell its liberty on the “free market”. They was nothing “natural” about it. Little wonder the Individualist Anarchist J.K. Ingalls attacked the “land monopoly” with the following words:

“The earth, with its vast resources of mineral wealth, its spontaneous productions and its fertile soil, the free gift of God and the common patrimony of mankind, has for long centuries been held in the grasp of one set of oppressors by right of conquest or right of discovery; and it is now held by another, through the right of purchase from them. All of man’s natural possessions … have been claimed as property; nor has man himself escaped the insatiate jaws of greed. The invasion of his rights and possessions has resulted … in clothing property with a power to accumulate an income.” [quoted by James Martin, Men Against the State, p. 142]

Marx, correctly, argued that “the capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist private property, have for their fundamental condition the annihilation of that private property which rests on the labour of the individual himself; in other words, the expropriation of the worker.” [Capital, Vol. 1, p. 940] He noted that to achieve this, the state is used:

“How then can the anti-capitalistic cancer of the colonies be healed? . .. Let the Government set an artificial price on the virgin soil, a price independent of the law of supply and demand, a price that compels the immigrant to work a long time for wages before he can earn enough money to buy land, and turn himself into an independent farmer.” [Op. Cit., p. 938]

Moreover, tariffs were introduced with “the objective of manufacturing capitalists artificially” for the “system of protection was an artificial means of manufacturing manufacturers, or expropriating independent workers, of capitalising the national means of production and subsistence, and of forcibly cutting short the transition … to the modern mode of production,” to capitalism [Op. Cit., p. 932 and pp. 921–2]

So mercantilism, state aid in capitalist development, was also seen in the United States of America. As Edward Herman points out, the “level of government involvement in business in the United States from the late eighteenth century to the present has followed a U-shaped pattern: There was extensive government intervention in the pre-Civil War period (major subsidies, joint ventures with active government participation and direct government production), then a quasi-laissez faire period between the Civil War and the end of the nineteenth century [a period marked by “the aggressive use of tariff protection” and state supported railway construction, a key factor in capitalist expansion in the USA], followed by a gradual upswing of government intervention in the twentieth century, which accelerated after 1930.” [Corporate Control, Corporate Power, p. 162]

Such intervention ensured that income was transferred from workers to capitalists. Under state protection, America industrialised by forcing the consumer to enrich the capitalists and increase their capital stock. “According to one study, if the tariff had been removed in the 1830s ‘about half the industrial sector of New England would have been bankrupted’ … the tariff became a near-permanent political institution representing government assistance to manufacturing. It kept price levels from being driven down by foreign competition and thereby shifted the distribution of income in favour of owners of industrial property to the disadvantage of workers and customers.” This protection was essential, for the “end of the European wars in 1814 … reopened the United States to a flood of British imports that drove many American competitors out of business. Large portions of the newly expanded manufacturing base were wiped out, bringing a decade of near-stagnation.” Unsurprisingly, the “era of protectionism began in 1816, with northern agitation for higher tariffs.” [Richard B. Du Boff, Accumulation and Power, p. 56, p. 14 and p. 55] Combined with ready repression of the labour movement and government “homesteading” acts (see section F.8.5), tariffs were the American equivalent of mercantilism (which, after all, was above all else a policy of protectionism, i.e. the use of government to stimulate the growth of native industry). Only once America was at the top of the economic pile did it renounce state intervention (just as Britain did, we must note).

This is not to suggest that government aid was limited to tariffs. The state played a key role in the development of industry and manufacturing. As John Zerzan notes, the “role of the State is tellingly reflected by the fact that the ‘armoury system’ now rivals the older ‘American system of manufactures’ term as the more accurate to describe the new system of production methods” developed in the early 1800s. [Elements of Refusal, p. 100] By the middle of the nineteenth century “a distinctive ‘American system of manufactures’ had emerged . .. The lead in technological innovation [during the US Industrial Revolution] came in armaments where assured government orders justified high fixed-cost investments in special-pursue machinery and managerial personnel. Indeed, some of the pioneering effects occurred in government-owned armouries.” Other forms of state aid were used, for example the textile industry “still required tariffs to protect [it] from … British competition.” [William Lazonick, Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor, p. 218 and p. 219] The government also “actively furthered this process [of ‘commercial revolution’] with public works in transportation and communication.” In addition to this “physical” aid, “state government provided critical help, with devices like the chartered corporation” [Richard B. Du Boff, Op. Cit., p. 15] As we noted in section B.2.5, there were changes in the legal system which favoured capitalist interests over the rest of society.

Nineteenth-century America also went in heavily for industrial planning — occasionally under that name but more often in the name of national defence. The military was the excuse for what is today termed rebuilding infrastructure, picking winners, promoting research, and co-ordinating industrial growth (as it still is, we should add). As Richard B. Du Boff points out, the “anti-state” backlash of the 1840s onwards in America was highly selective, as the general opinion was that ”[h]enceforth, if governments wished to subsidise private business operations, there would be no objection. But if public power were to be used to control business actions or if the public sector were to undertake economic initiatives on its own, it would run up against the determined opposition of private capital.” [Op. Cit., p. 26]

State intervention was not limited to simply reducing the amount of available land or enforcing a high tariff. “Given the independent spirit of workers in the colonies, capital understood that great profits required the use of unfree labour.” [Michael Perelman, The Invention of Capitalism, p. 246] It was also applied in the labour market as well. Most obviously, it enforced the property rights of slave owners (until the civil war, produced when the pro-free trade policies of the South clashed with the pro-tariff desires of the capitalist North). The evil and horrors of slavery are well documented, as is its key role in building capitalism in America and elsewhere so we will concentrate on other forms of obviously unfree labour. Convict labour in Australia, for example, played an important role in the early days of colonisation while in America indentured servants played a similar role.

Indentured service was a system whereby workers had to labour for a specific number of years usually in return for passage to America with the law requiring the return of runaway servants. In theory, of course, the person was only selling their labour. In practice, indentured servants were basically slaves and the courts enforced the laws that made it so. The treatment of servants was harsh and often as brutal as that inflicted on slaves. Half the servants died in the first two years and unsurprisingly, runaways were frequent. The courts realised this was a problem and started to demand that everyone have identification and travel papers.

It should also be noted that the practice of indentured servants also shows how state intervention in one country can impact on others. This is because people were willing to endure indentured service in the colonies because of how bad their situation was at home. Thus the effects of primitive accumulation in Britain impacted on the development of America as most indentured servants were recruited from the growing number of unemployed people in urban areas there. Dispossessed from their land and unable to find work in the cities, many became indentured servants in order to take passage to the Americas. In fact, between one half to two thirds of all immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants and, at times, three-quarters of the population of some colonies were under contracts of indenture. That this allowed the employing class to overcome their problems in hiring “help” should go without saying, as should its impact on American inequality and the ability of capitalists and landlords to enrich themselves on their servants labour and to invest it profitably.

As well as allowing unfree labour, the American state intervened to ensure that the freedom of wage workers was limited in similar ways as we indicated in section F.8.3. “The changes in social relations of production in artisan trades that took place in the thirty years after 1790,” notes one historian, “and the … trade unionism to which … it gave rise, both replicated in important respects the experience of workers in the artisan trades in Britain over a rather longer period … The juridical responses they provoked likewise reproduced English practice. Beginning in 1806, American courts consciously seized upon English common law precedent to combat journeymen’s associations.” Capitalists in this era tried to “secure profit … through the exercise of disciplinary power over their employees.” To achieve this “employers made a bid for legal aid” and it is here “that the key to law’s role in the process of creating an industrial economy in America lies.” As in the UK, the state invented laws and issues proclamations against workers’ combinations, calling them conspiracies and prosecuting them as such. Trade unionists argued that laws which declared unions as illegal combinations should be repealed as against the Constitution of the USA while “the specific cause of trademens protestations of their right to organise was, unsurprisingly, the willingness of local authorities to renew their resort to conspiracy indictments to countermand the growing power of the union movement.” Using criminal conspiracy to counter combinations among employees was commonplace, with the law viewing a “collective quitting of employment [as] a criminal interference” and combinations to raise the rate of labour “indictable at common law.” [Christopher L. Tomlins, Law, Labor, and Ideology in the Early American Republic, p. 113, p. 295, p. 159 and p. 213] By the end of the nineteenth century, state repression for conspiracy was replaced by state repression for acting like a trust while actual trusts were ignored and so laws, ostensibly passed (with the help of the unions themselves) to limit the power of capital, were turned against labour (this should be unsurprising as it was a capitalist state which passed them). [Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, p. 254]

Another key means to limit the freedom of workers was denying departing workers their wages for the part of the contract they had completed. This “underscored the judiciary’s tendency to articulate their approval” of the hierarchical master/servant relationship in terms of its “social utility: It was a necessary and desirable feature of the social organisation of work … that the employer’s authority be reinforced in this way.” Appeals courts held that “an employment contract was an entire contract, and therefore that no obligation to pay wages existed until the employee had completed the agreed term.” Law suits “by employers seeking damages for an employee’s departure prior to the expiry of an agreed term or for other forms of breach of contract constituted one form of legally sanctioned economic discipline of some importance in shaping the employment relations of the nineteenth century.” Thus the boss could fire the worker without paying their wages while if the worker left the boss he would expect a similar outcome. This was because the courts had decided that the “employer was entitled not only to receipt of the services contracted for in their entirety prior to payment but also to the obedience of the employee in the process of rendering them.” [Tomlins, Op. Cit., pp. 278–9, p. 274, p. 272 and pp. 279–80] The ability of workers to seek self-employment on the farm or workplace or even better conditions and wages were simply abolished by employers turning to the state.

So, in summary, the state could remedy the shortage of cheap wage labour by controlling access to the land, repressing trade unions as conspiracies or trusts and ensuring that workers had to obey their bosses for the full term of their contract (while the bosses could fire them at will). Combine this with the extensive use of tariffs, state funding of industry and infrastructure among many other forms of state aid to capitalists and we have a situation were capitalism was imposed on a pre-capitalist nation at the behest of the wealthy elite by the state, as was the case with all other countries.

17 notes · View notes

lesbianspeedy · 2 years ago

Note

can I hear about the mia and ollie similarities whenever you have time...

theyre blonde :( thats it :( okay but ACTUALLY LETS GET INTO IT

They're loud assholes to people who need to be yelled at, but theyre actually hella introverted.

Mia "i think fast i talk fast" Dearden will mouth off at villains and batman, and take the piss out of people she loves. BUT she wasn't exactly shown to have like a friend group at her school (she was shown to be popular. but we only see her specifically interact with one person), and was extremely nervous to join the titans, not because they intimidated her, but because she didnt really...want to be there. She'd rather be with people she knows. She spends most of her time practicing archery, even before she was speedy. The only time we ever saw her go out anywhere was on a date with Dodger. And I will be pretending for the sake of this post that all of this is bc of character stuff and not just bad writing!

Similarly, Ollie "goateed loudmouth" Queen thrives when he's alone, he prefers it, he rarely spends time with people outside of his family or close close friends. He'll rant and rave at leaguers and cops and capitalists and villains all day long, but he's at his happiest and most content when he's alone, and often when on the move too, this man cannot sit still he is like a fucking shark he will die if he is in the same place too long but thats unrelated to this post.

As is pretty much a requirement to be in the arrowfam. Neither of them are here to fight the big alien threats you take on while being in the league/titans. They're here to save the little guy and fuck up capitalists. They have both seen the worst of society on the very opposite ends of the spectrum, Ollie with the rich, Mia with those the rich forget or ignore. I don't think I really need to add an example of Ollie here considering thats like his main this if u know anything about him. But look heres mia thinking abt it in her first titans issue.

Now with coping mechanisms they're a lil different, Mia tends to isolate and stay in one place. Ollie will isolate but fuck off somewhere. Accidentally walk to canada. That sorta thing.

(pls ignore how terrifying bald ollie is)

They also both mask their emotions and deflect with humour when around other people, they don't want others to have to deal with their shit, they don't want to burden them (hence the isolation, this also often leads to them imploding in on themselves). Heres my most favourite example of their similarities ever (yes I will continue to post and talk about this specific thing every 3 weeks and no one can stop me) I do owe Hester my life for this

Now heres the best part. They both did this a lot right. And yknow what that led to? Learning and growing and being there for each other :] Now im going to be honest we dont really see this growth in vol 3 bc judd winick is incapable of writing character development but! Phil Hester is here for us once again with his story in the 80th special and this part specifically <3

Also once again a whole arrowfam thing- neither of them give two shits about their secret id lmao. I choose to believe Mia is so flippant about hers bc she so easily realised Ollie was GA that she just went like. Yeah sure I won't give a fuck either, it's clearly working for him.

oh and they both like musical theatre, hate batman and are homophobic**. sad. **not actually thats just an in joke in fandom

#mia dearden #oliver queen #ollie queen #long post #arrowfam #listen this isnt. worded the best #not very concise or articulate #but like u get it #u get it #pls get it #theres some more stuff but im not in my big brain mode rn so i cant word it right #anyways #green arrow #dc comics #them teehee #THE HOMOPHOBIC THING IS A JOKE DW

138 notes · View notes

miscelliteeous · 1 year ago

Text

So I have a new hyperfixation character and it is The Spot from Spider-Man, and that led to me coming up with a Spidersona, a universe for them, and several side character/villain reimagines (plus my OC I already ship with Doc Ock, killing two birds with one stone here!). And while I don't have anything drawn yet due to my wrist getting injured, I do have a lot written down that I want to share!

-Spidersona Detailed Profile-

Name: Blythe Basile

Alias: Shutterbug

Age: Thirties

Height: An even 5ft

Weight: Classified

Occupation: Fashion photographer

Powers:

Spider-sense, reflexes/agility, wall climbing, major jumping ability, super strength, (aka standard Spidey powers). Also: photographic memory, enhanced vision, a natural webbing released from the fingertips that can't be swung from but can slow down or catch others

Weakness:

Fear of heights, Shutterbug is short, handsome men

Location:

A much, much more fashionable world's New York Garment District, which takes up most of NYC now

Backstory:

An orphan found abandoned on the doorstep of a fashion boutique, Blythe was taken in and adopted by the owners, Marianne and Rainier Basile, who unfortunately both perished in an accident when Blythe was ten. Rainier’s sister Maylis stepped up to take care of them, and she quickly proved to be a kind and caring adoptive parent, sharing with Blythe a love of photography.

Similar to many others, Blythe was an awkward geek in high school and a loner, and what little respect and status they had was gained through their roles on the photography club and as photographer for the yearbook committee. Bullying was common, but despite everything Blythe graduated early.

After graduation it was like they flourished, gaining a mentor in one of the most decorated photographers in the world; LeBene, a former wartime photojournalist turned nature photographer who taught them everything he knew and was almost like a father figure to them. Their entry into the photography world, and LeBene’s care, gave Blythe a sense of confidence, fashion, and style, and they no longer felt awkward and alone anymore. LeBene often told them "Always put people before the art. Use your camera for good." Blythe was overjoyed when LeBene and Aunt Maylis began a romance.

On one of their first solo assignments, Blythe was sent to shoot photos for a "Men of Science" beefcake calendar at a nearby laboratory. In the middle of photographing a lab technician holding a strategically placed folder, there was a sharp stabbing sensation on the back of Blythe's thigh, though they didn't see what caused it. Despite the pain, Blythe continued to work, until collapsing at their studio apartment and sleeping for three days. Still, they did at least manage to get a boyfriend out of the experience, and a foothold in the photography industry.

It didn't take Blythe long to realize they were developing superpowers and they designed and crafted a suit to photograph themselves in for fun. Instead, Blythe wound up saving someone's life, and found that they actually make a pretty good hero. As they started their heroics, they also started to move up in the world, and was hired at a famous fashion magazine. Unfortunately, with the increase in costumed crime and a beginners workload, Blythe and their boyfriend decided to mutually break up, and Blythe attended the wedding of LeBene and Maylis by themself.

The increased pressure at work and on the streets, began to cause Blythe to care less and less about the duty they had willingly taken up. Long story short, one day when Blythe put protecting their camera over stopping a criminal, that criminal happened to run over LeBene, who died in Blythe's arms. From that day forward, Blythe vowed to not only stop crime, but also to only use their camera for good (and fashion). Using their powers and photography skills, Blythe takes down both supervillains and corrupt capitalists.

Personality:

Takes photography very seriously and always has at least one camera within arms reach. Mildly boy (or well, old man) crazy, in that they sure do like getting grabbed by their middle aged enemies an awful lot (though they do always get the upper hand on the bad guys in the end). Blythe still has an incredibly geeky side, and has to hide it while mingling amongst the fashion elite. Hardworking, dedicated, and very good at helping others feel comfortable and safe.

Misc:

Has no idea they were EVER bitten by a spider and would be horrified to find out.

Their boss is J. Jonah Jameson, head of the magazine! He’s tough but fair and considers Blythe to be a good person but thinks Shutterbug is tacky and boring.

By “a more fashionable world”, think like Jojo’s Bizarre Adventure fashion in a golden art deco-inspired city. Very in-your-face style.

Blythe doesn’t like touching things without gloves.

Their favorite camera was LeBene’s, and it is only used on the most special of occasions.

Their studio apartment is actually pretty small and cramped, with the walls covered in photographs, unintentionally making it look like a damn serial killer lives there instead of a superhero.

They’re working on not going heart eyes over their villains, but so far they’re having no success.

Despite being a fashion photographer, Blythe is terrible at telling what they look good in, luckily their best friend, Graham Stacy (a fellow photographer at the magazine), helps them with shopping.

Mostly uses their organic webbing for ease of photography. It doesn’t show up on camera, so it can be very useful.

Typically goes by they/them but is fine with any pronouns and prefers to be called a girlfriend when being dated as opposed to partner/enbyfriend/etc. Being called she/her by citizens whilst in costume just means it’ll be harder for others to connect Shutterbug to Blythe.

Despite their fame, Blythe doesn’t have a social life and spends what little free time they have watching old horror movies and playing video games. They’re still majorly geeky, it’s just usually hidden.

Not nearly as book-smart/scientific as most other Spidey-types, and by far the worst at math in the entire multiverse. Yes, that includes the car. Spider-Mobile can do math better than them.

Drinks an ungodly amount of coffee and caffeine, but doesn’t suffer from it because of a pre-existing mutation the spider had where it could handle caffeine.

Villains:

Doctor Octopus- During an experiment gone wrong, shy and reserved Otto Octavius was forever fused to a set of rose-gold robotic tentacles he created and he’s making it everyone else's problem. He’s very charming and sadly taken, but also very ruthless (with a new god complex) and one of Shutterbug’s biggest and most intelligent foes.

Melusine- An act of corporate sabotage that destroyed her life's work caused Mima Marsh to lose her legs and her career. She turned to crime as a way to get vengeance on those who caused her loss and the world itself. Flies around connected to a very classy mechanical mermaid tail and has robotic flying fish minions. Locked down Doc Ock as her partner fast.

The Spot- Johnny Ohnn was one of the scientists posing for the calendar, and he and Blythe briefly dated until work became too hectic for them both. He was in a lab accident while working on portals and forever changed into a being of portals and turned to a life of crime after losing his job. Blythe thinks they can still work things out. (He’s getting his own section too because he’s a major character)

Electro- An electronica musician in the wrong place at the wrong time, Max Dillon became more electricity than human, and of course turned to a life of crime, but he still makes pretty good music on the side. Tries to not kill anyone, though he’s not always successful. His crimes mostly include breaking into power plants to turn them into giant music machines.

Vulture- After being forced out of the company he created, Adrian Toomes stole an invention that allows him to fly and make life hell for those who planned the hostile takeover. Ironically he’s a kinder person after becoming a criminal and regularly donates to charity. Blythe would let him be if he wasn’t swooping at people on the streets.

Mysterio- Illusionist Quentin Beck lost his stage in Las Vegas to a pop star and decided to try his luck in NYC. Having no luck there either, he decided to put his skills to use in a less legal way. Has an ego even bigger than Doc Ocks. Teams up with Electro a lot and their fights are actually a highlight for citizens.

Lizard- Dr. Curt Connors injected himself with lizard DNA on a dare from his science buddies and transformed into a big lizard monster and roams NYC’s sewers. Still pretty intelligent, he just eats people now and has a lot less morals. Has an ex-wife and son that he still tries to visit once a month, but they’re less than pleased when he tries to make them lizards too.

Kraven The Hunter- Sergei Kravinoff comes from a long line of furriers, but when NYC’s biggest buyer decided to go fur-free, he decided to seek revenge, using skills learned from the other half of his family; notorious big game hunters. As stylish as he is deadly, he hates Shutterbug for always getting in his way, while they’re kinda low key jealous of his style.

Shocker- Herman Schultz is a mercenary with vibro-shock gauntlets who views villainy like his old construction job, very 9-to-5 blue collar. Doesn’t hold a grudge against Shutterbug for foiling his crimes, and is down to team up with others at any time, though few take him up on the offer. A pretty chill guy when he’s off the clock.

White Rabbit- Model and heiress Lorina Dodson was disinherited after a very embarrassing scandal. In a rage, she paid Shocker a ton of cash to get her a ton of rabbit-themed weapons that she uses for criminal mischief and making her parents mad and dressing like a Playboy bunny. Always down to let Shutterbug take a pic or twelve during fights.

-Spot Detailed Profile-

Name: Johnathon “Johnny” Ohnn

Alias: The Spot/Spot

Age: Late 30s-Early 40s

Height: 6’3” (before Spot)/7’ (as Spot)

Weight: 210lbs (before Spot)/Unknown (as Spot)

Occupation: Scientist (before Spot)/Criminal Mad Scientist (as Spot)

Backstory:

The only son of Patty and Albert Ohnn, Johnathon was a shy, awkward kid, who grew into a shy, awkward (and lanky, his growth spurt was very generous) adult but one with an autism diagnosis that explained a lot to him.

After graduating from college, his brilliant mind was quickly snatched up by Alchemax Laboratories, and thrown into a number of projects, proving himself a reliable and efficient member of the team.

Whilst working on a small scale project, Johnathon decided to put himself out there and sign up for a “Men Of Science” calendar that was being done to raise money for a new coffee machine in the break room. He was surprised when he showed up and found out it was a ‘beefcake calendar’.

The photographer shooting the event noticed his discomfort and offered to shoot his page during lunch on a closed set, and he quickly agreed. During that photo-shoot, he felt surprisingly relaxed, confident, and comfortable. Though still the most covered up in his photos, wearing a lab coat and strategically covered boxer-briefs, he was actually proud of how they turned out, and exchanged phone numbers with the photographer, who he learned was named Blythe Basile.

One phone call turned into having lunch together, which turned into dinner, and quickly they started dating. Johnny, as Blythe called him, was experiencing a massive positive boost in confidence and his personality, he even became friendly with his co-workers. But after about a year, things quickly took a turn.

Blythe was hired at their dream job as a fashion photographer for a highly popular magazine, and Johnny’s project (studying and trying to create a teleportation device) was approved by higher ups. As work began to pile up for them both, they agreed to a mutual break-up, at least until things became less hectic, which they did not.

While about to make the breakthrough of his life, and possibly one of the biggest discoveries of all time, a portal opened, which was the plan, but what was not expected was that the Vantablack portal would pull him inside and vanish. He had entered a strange dimension of darkness and light, where he was trapped and studied the unusual properties of the location as best he could.

For three weeks he was gone without a trace, before emerging, transformed and changed by his experiences, in his lab. He was shocked to find no one believed who he was, and he was shunned by everyone he met, losing his job, home, and even his parents were horrified and refused to believe him. He didn’t bother contacting Blythe, as he didn’t want to experience that painful rejection again.

With no other choice, Johnathon, now calling himself The Spot, decided to work at stealing lab equipment from various labs to try and find a way to turn himself back while hopefully keeping his abilities. Unfortunately for him, Shutterbug stands in his way.

Misc:

Has no idea his most hated foe is Blythe and would be horrified to find out.

Not able to access the multiverse, he’s not THAT powerful, he’s more connected to a pocket dimension and anywhere in the one universe he’s from.

Casually dated others before Blythe but never got past second base before.

Like Blythe, his vision was fixed by his transformation. Despite his eyes no longer seeming to exist. He’s never figured out how that works.

Much more of a trypophobic design than most Spots have, with a small cluster of spots typically forming around where one of his eyes used to be, before it forms into one big one and migrates on his face while another cluster starts appearing.

Technically a genius! He just doesn’t have the confidence to assert himself as much as ones like Doc Ock or Melusine.

Would let Blythe put his hair up for him before work, but after they broke up he started leaving it down again.

Gamer boy, puzzle games are usually too easy so he mostly plays FPS games and has ridiculously good aim after years of practice. It’s his main source of stress relief.

The tea to Blythe’s coffee, this Spot has a soft spot for matcha and Darjeeling, but will drink any kind except sweet tea.

Has a bad habit of being condescending and talking down to others but is working on it.

#spidersona #spidersona oc #lite work #the spot #johnathon ohnn #blythe basile #its fun taking concepts from Spider-Man and turning them around into something different!#I HAVE a design planned for Shutterbug/Blythe but its only a concept made on gaia online until I can draw my interpretation #when my wrist heals #selfship #not tagging every character because dang thats a lot #should tag these two though since they're included #melusine #otto

12 notes · View notes

myrebelancestorsdiedforme · 7 months ago

Text

Africa is poor because its exploi and its creditors with their local puppets are unspeakably rich.

The so call aid help or debt is a fraud...Afrikan resources have been converted by western societies for generations upon generations

Imperialist are not helping any african but rather furthering their own agendas."

We must denounce those whose life goal is to serve the imperialist corporations with absolute obedience and dutifulness.

Neo-imperialism is a deceptive,thieving,world resources.the earth need revolution & instincts;we have nothing to lose,stand up,rebel,revolt.

There is no way someone who robbed you off your land full of natural resources can claim that you owe him anything!.

Imperialist only care for exploi Africa resources.They don't care about the African people.They never did& that's not about to change twitter.com/conelle

Africans fighting to win material benefits,to live better&in peace,to see their lives go forward,to guarantee the future of their children;

African leaders destroy Africa by enforcing a policy of mass alienation and economical thievery of imperialist capitalis greedy.

Imperialist funding IMF is designed to take over World economy milk its resources, then have it pay tributes to the Wall Street machine.twitter.com/conelle

Racism denies people's access to life, liberty, to the pursue of happiness, to proper education, to control over their own resources etc.

Imperialist is the enemy of the Africa Nations: robbing it, exploiting it,and oppressing it.impossed corrupt leaders on it.

As long as the African people continue to refuse to deal with their past,they will continue being ruled by the colonial masters

twitter.com/conelle

Africa can only move forward,if Africans stop holding unto colonial ways.serious deconstructing is needed.

I believed then as I believe now, that the African§Blacks Race has never really gained freedom and independence.

African resources and labour were used to develop Europe and its satellites.

imperialism/colonialism/racism has been aided by Africans who were recruited into the armies of their imperialist/colonialist/racist masters.

“Neo-colonialism is also the worst form of imperialism; it means exploitation without redress.Neo-colonialism, like colonialism.

twitter.com/conelle

No people will save themselves until they know themselves and are willing to make sacrifices on behalf of themselves." John Henrik Clarke.

“The oppressors do not favor promoting the community as a whole, but rather selected leaders.”― Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

"One the information is given, there are no longer victims, only volunteers."

"You cannot destroy slavery by becoming a part of your Master’s cultural incubator." - John Henrik Clarke

Collectivization will liberate Africa from the parasitic influence of imperialist organizations like the IMF and World Bank Greedy.

Africans must revolt against the theivery economics of the filthy imperialist capitalist upper class,world Banks,wall-streets ,IMF etc.

twitter.com/conelle

"We cannot have the oppressors telling the oppressed how to rid themselves of the oppressor." Kwame Ture

twitter.com/conelle

Since Africa was invaded, the only visible development of her people is poverty which is meant to eliminate them.

Most Dangerous Blacks in the world are many of those brothers&sisters who finished graduate & yet operate against the interest of Africa.

Imperialist never brought peace,prosperity,democracy to the peoples of Asia,Africa,or Latin America,In the future,as in the past5 centuries.

twitter.com/conelle

Only the completely brainwashed could deal with the history of the European's genocidal hatred of the Afrikan without emotional pain.

The struggle of Africans is the struggle of all citizens who are pathologically oppressed by the imperialist capitalist interests.

4 notes · View notes

reasoningdaily · 7 months ago

Text

After Black Lives Matter - CEDRIC G.JOHNSON

THIS BOOK IS A FREE DOWNLOAD FROM THE BLACK TRUEBRARY CLICK THE TITLE TO DOWNLOAD

Contemporary policing reflects the turn from welfare to domestic warfare as the chief means of regulating the excluded and oppressed The historic uprising in the wake of the murder of George Floyd transformed the way we think about race and policing. Why did it achieve so little in the way of substantive reforms? After Black Lives Matter argues that the failure to leave an institutional residue was not simply due to the mercurial and reactive character of the protests. Rather, the core of the movement itself failed to locate the central racial injustice that underpins the crisis of policing: socio-economic inequality. For Johnson, the anti-capitalist and downwardly redistributive politics expressed by different Black Lives Matter elements has too often been drowned out in the flood of black wealth creation, fetishism of Jim Crow black entrepreneurship, corporate diversity initiatives, and a quixotic reparations demand. None of these political tendencies addresses the fundamental problem underlying mass incarceration. That is the turn from welfare to domestic warfare as the chief means of regulating the excluded and oppressed. Johnson sees the way forward in building popular democratic power to advance public works and public goods. Rather than abolishing police, After Black Lives Matter argues for abolishing the conditions of alienation and exploitation contemporary policing exists to manage.

Review

"A virtuoso performance! Weighing the successes and limitations of Black Lives Matter, Johnson concludes that identity-based mobilization—confusing what people look like with what they need—cannot substitute for majoritarian political coalition-building." —Barbara J. Fields, Columbia University "A brilliant scholar who is first and foremost concerned with equality and justice. It’s those very commitments that lead him, in After Black Lives Matter, to question today’s antiracism and its nostrums." —Bhaskar Sunkara, founding editor of Jacobin and author of The Socialist Manifesto "Essential reading for those weary of platitude-driven texts on race and criminal justice and in the market for an empirically grounded political analysis that points to practicable solutions to one of the biggest problems of our day." —Touré F. Reed, author of Toward Freedom "A provocative and expansive critique from the left of the loose collection of protest actions, organizations, and ideological movements-whether prison abolition or calls to defund the police-that make up what we now call Black Lives Matter...After Black Lives Matter should be commended both for the clarity of its message and the bravery of its convictions." —Jay Caspian Kang, New Yorker

About the Author

Cedric Johnson is professor of African American Studies and Political Science at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His book, Revolutionaries to Race Leaders: Black Power and the Making of African American Politics was named the 2008 W.E.B. DuBois Outstanding Book of the Year by the National Conference of Black Political Scientists. Johnson is the editor of The Neoliberal Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, Late Capitalism and the Remaking of New Orleans. His 2017 Catalyst essay, “The Panthers Can’t Save Us Now: Anti-policing Struggles and the Limits of Black Power,” was awarded the 2018 Daniel Singer Millenium Prize. Johnson’s writings have appeared in Nonsite, Jacobin, New Political Science, New Labor Forum, Perspectives on Politics, Historical Materialism, and Journal of Developing Societies. In 2008, Johnson was named the Jon Garlock Labor Educator of the Year by the Rochester Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO. He previously served on the representative assembly for UIC United Faculty Local 6456.

Given the sheer scale, magnitude and diversity of 2020’s resurgent Black Lives Matter protests, many pundits, scholars and activists celebrated the George Floyd rebellion as an historic watershed, one where the possibility of real reform came into view. For too many, however, the euphoria of the moment suspended any criti- cal analysis of what it all meant. This is a deeper problem on the US left—the tendency to read protests as always prefigurative rather than contingent, and as a manifestation of real power rather than a reflection of potential. Such wish-fulfillment think- ing, however, forgets that mass mobilization is not the same as organized power, and that mass mobilization is much easier now with the endless opportunities for expressing discontent provided by social media, online petitions, memes and vlogging.

The scale of protests can be misleading, and their actual effectiveness, regardless of their size, is dependent on historical conjunctures, such as the balance of political forces, the organized power and capacity of opposition and the clarity of objectives among activists. Throughout the opening decades of this century, ever larger protests have proved incapable of consolidating in a manner that might effectively oppose ruling-class prerogatives. In recent memory, we have witnessed successive mass protests—turn-of the-century demonstrations against global capitalism, protests against the Bush administration’s so-called War on Terror, Occupy Wall Street encampments, anti-eviction campaigns, the March for Our Lives following the Parkland High School mass shooting, protests against police violence and ICE deportations, among others—but these have done little to depose capitalist class power and the advancing neoliberal project.

If anything, the hegemony of finance capital, the war-making powers of the national security state, the criminalization of immigration, the power of the gun lobby and the unaccountability of police are as entrenched as ever. THIS BOOK IS A FREE DOWNLOAD FROM THE BLACK TRUEBRARY

#After Black Lives Matter

3 notes · View notes

illcamp · 1 year ago

Text

As someone who got slightly noticed by the Zelda community for drawing Zelda x Ghibli fanart I have to say I don't think Zelda would fit Ghibli's standards.

I love tloz and I love ghibli movies probably with the same intensity and because of that I keep thinking that Ghibli is too serious and arsty for Zelda lol like, besides the aesthetics, there's nothing in tloz franchise that resemblance a Ghibli movie, Miyazaki and Takahata (may rest in peace) are well known for portray their views in politics and society through their films, Miyazaki loves to talk about anti capitalistic, anti war and pro environmental consciousness topics in his stories, while Takahata liked to explore the every day life of common people, the humanity in his characters and usually portrays deep, strong female characters going through a coming of age/growth journey (also had anti war messages with Grave of the Fireflies and fictional stories with The tale of princess Kaguya, both with a strong focusing in their main characters and their personal journey, with a very sad ending I must say)

On the other hand, despite Zelda's lore being a little confusing lol I like the overall construction of its universe but at the end the overall lesson of its stories is kinda bland, there's nothing wrong with a good old fashioned tale about the chosen one, good vs evil and the brave knight saving the princess, but it's like… pretty much all? I don't think Zelda's development team ever wanted to focus in go deeper than that, like questioning the role in the monarchy like with the clan Yiga there were just a bunch of losers being annoying in your traveling, they told you they rebelled against the Sheikahs and the royal family but why? Did they have a valid motive? There was nuance there that made you think "well… I get their point, I don't think their actions have justification but I understand where they come from"? Idk give me complexity!!! I want to reflex, I want to see not only a villain and a hero but complex people that make choices and make mistakes and you see the complexity of their decisions. The only moment similar to that in the history of Zelda that I can think of is in Wind Waker where Ganondorf told us why he want Hyrule, it was for his people, it was the wind that he coveted, THAT WAS DEPTH, THAT WAS AN ACTUAL CHARACTER WITH ACTUAL MOTIVATIONS, what he did was wrong, but you get to actually empathize with his feelings of just wanting a dignified life for his people, I can't think of any other moment like that in Zelda…

Sadly, I see how Nintendo is really focused on get the money (that's why they carefully chose to make a live action instead of an animated movie) so even if there was a slightly interest in Ghibli to make a Zelda movie Nintendo would have to let the creative direction entirely to Ghibli so Miyazaki would do the thing he knows how to do which is got slightly inspired by a story of other author and then just do whatever he wants with that, and of course Nintendo would never agree to do that.

Basically what I am trying to say is that a Ghibli x Zelda movie was a dream that it born dead

#beefing with the zelda team #spreading negativity #throwing shit at my favorite videogame franchise #i love ghibli #i love zelda #controversial opinion but takahata was better than miyazaki lol #zelda ghibli

16 notes · View notes

aishangotome · 7 months ago

Text

Main Story Chapter 16-13: Before the Storm (暴雨來臨前) | Light and Night 光與夜之戀

Chapter 16-11

♡———♡

It's been a whole week since the new product launched, and Pristine's sales have been consistently ranked first in the fast-moving consumer goods category.

Two days ago, the company rewarded each employee in the project team with 2,000 stock options. Mao Ge has been determined to learn stock trading ever since.

Hao Shuai: Can you even understand this? It's all red and green.

Mao Ge: Don't jinx it, there's no green, only red.

Li Manman: Mao Ge is really serious about saving money.

Li Manman: He used to occasionally take taxis, but now he only takes the subway, no matter how late it is. He used to eat three dishes, now he only eats one.

Hao Shuai: Did something happen? If you have any difficulties, just tell me. I still have some savings.

Li Manman: Are you silly? Can't you tell? Mao Ge is planning for his future with Xiao Jiang.

Li Manman: But you guys haven't been together for that long, aren't you thinking too far ahead?

Mao Ge: See but don't tell, we're still good friends. You three heroes, just pretend you don't know about this, don't tell anyone.

Mao Ge clasped his hands together, looking at us pleadingly. He only patted his chest in relief after we all nodded.

Hao Shuai: Aren't you being a bit too humble? You're getting all emotional without even knowing if she feels the same way.

Mao Ge: I don't want her to know at all. If she knew, she would feel pressured, like I'm morally kidnapping her.

Mao Ge: I just want to give her all the good things when I see her. I don't care how she treats me.

Hao Shuai: Isn't that just being a simp? Mao Ge, I've always wanted to ask, what do you like about her?

Mao Ge: There's so much. She's cute and kind, sometimes innocent like a child, sometimes she overthinks things, it makes me feel sorry for her.

Mao Ge: In short, she's perfect.

Hao Shuai: Are you talking about Jiang Lai? Don't you think she has a bit of a temper? I was afraid to even talk to her at first.

Li Manman: You don't get it. Liking someone is a feeling, it has nothing to do with whether they have a good temper, are talented, or gentle.

Hao Shuai: Then how do you know if you like someone?

Li Manman: It's simple. It's like you originally thought the world should just end, but when you see this person, you feel like there's still some hope.

Hao Shuai: I don't understand.

Li Manman: For example, I'm very afraid of snakes. Seeing a snake is like the end of the world to me.

Li Manman: But when I see someone I like being attacked by a snake, I hesitate at first.

Li Manman: But after hesitating, I would still gather the courage to rush over and help him.

Li Manman: But if I didn't like this person, even if I wasn't afraid of snakes and was as strong as an ox, I wouldn't rush over.

Hao Shuai: So it's just a momentary impulse. Then why don't you just find a boyfriend who isn't afraid of snakes?

Li Manman: You... Forget it, I can't explain it to you. I suggest you go back to elementary school and retake Chinese.

Hao Shuai: That means your argument doesn't hold water. Isn't being in love supposed to be a happy thing? Why does it have to be so bitter and resentful?

Hao Shuai: And haven't you guys noticed that in the end, the only ones who benefit are the real estate developers? It's a capitalist conspiracy.

Li Manman: Although I think everything you said makes sense, feelings aren't about logic.

Li Manman: If anyone could control them freely, they would be invincible.

Li Manman: As for the real estate developer's conspiracy, marriage is indeed part of it, but feelings can still be selfless, it's just rare.

Li Manman: Do you think friendship and family love are completely selfless? There are plenty of parents in the world who scheme against their own children.

Li Manman: I just think...

Li Manman: If there's someone out there, even if he doesn't know me, just looking at him makes me feel less lonely.

Li Manman: Maybe it's an ability? Or an instinct. It exists as naturally as the will to survive.

Hao Shuai fell into deep thought. He thought for a long time, and finally sighed softly.

Hao Shuai: God gave me a handsome face but took away my ability to love.

Everyone: ....

Li Manman: You not only have a handsome face, you're also optimistic.

Mao Ge: You're not only optimistic, you also have dumb luck.

You: You not only have dumb luck, you also have twisted logic.

Li Manman: Exactly, forget about feelings, making money is the real deal.

Flattered by our compliments, Hao Shuai cheered up and announced that he would treat everyone to lunch today.

Hao Shuai: Let's go for hotpot, haven't had it in a while. Wait, why are there still two hours until lunch break?

Mao Ge: Oh shoot! Wasn't there a meeting at 10 AM today? We all forgot about it!

Everyone froze in place, exchanging bewildered looks for a few seconds. Then, as if on cue, we grabbed our laptops and rushed towards the meeting room.

Last night, the company suddenly sent us an email, inviting everyone to a meeting today.

Originally, I thought it would just be Mya expressing her approval of our recent work, looking ahead to the future, and so on. I didn't expect to open the door and see Evan sitting in the main seat.

You: ...!

Why is he here? Isn't he supposed to be very busy?! It was impossible to even run into him before.

And does a small meeting like this need the CEO to attend? Or is it for some other reason...

Even though I was trying to minimize our encounters, I couldn't help but feel a little happy and expectant.

However, that feeling was quickly suppressed. The scene in front of the elevator that day reappeared in my mind.

He was so cooperative with my distancing, why would he bother attending a meeting just to see me?

Stop guessing, I told myself. It's pointless and undignified.

Throughout the entire meeting, I sat in the corner like an invisible person.

Evan didn't say much either, he kept his head buried in documents, and Mya did all the talking. First, she affirmed our team's achievements, and then offered us a week of paid vacation.

The meeting quickly came to an end. Just as we were about to get up and leave, Evan suddenly closed the file in his hand.

Evan: Y/N.

Evan: You've kept your head down ever since you came in. Are you feeling unwell?

I didn't expect him to suddenly call out to me, and I didn't react for a moment.

You: No.

As soon as the words left my mouth, I was startled by my own coldness. But then I thought, so what? Evan didn't react to my attitude, he still walked over with his signature CEO smile.

Evan: Regarding Pristine, you did a great job this quarter. I won't repeat the compliments.

You: Thank you, Mr. Lu, then I'll--

Evan: Don't rush. I have something else to discuss with you.

Before I could even take a step, he interrupted me.

Evan: A week ago, I met with the chairman of SONDER.

You: SONDER?

You: Isn't that a famous toy company? They're known for their fun and educational building blocks, and their character designs are very popular among young people.

You: But what does that have to do with me?

Evan: He is very optimistic about the future of Pristine and expressed his intention for long-term cooperation.

You: Cooperation?!

Did he just say that this company wants to cooperate with Pristine? And long-term? I thought a single collaboration was already a rare opportunity!

Evan: However, they have a somewhat troublesome request.

Hao Shuai was already jumping up and down with excitement.

Hao Shuai: No problem, no problem, we'll agree to any request, I'm their biggest fan!

Evan: What does the lead designer think?

Evan didn't turn around, but kept looking at me.

You: I need to know what the request is and the specific way they want to cooperate before I can make a decision.

Evan: Of course.

Evan: This is the first time SONDER has entered into a long-term cooperation with another brand.

Evan: And the design of toy clothing is very different from that of ordinary clothing.

Evan: Therefore, they believe it's necessary to assess the capabilities of our designers first.

Evan: They hope that our designers can complete the clothing designs for five IP characters within five days.

Five days? Five?! How is that even possible?

Not to mention I don't know much about SONDER's characters. To create good designs, I need time to understand each character thoroughly.

Even just considering the time frame, this is simply impossible!

Is this really an opportunity? Are you sure it's not a prank?!

Evan: The time is indeed a bit tight, and it puts a lot of pressure on you, especially since you also need to spend time understanding each character.

Evan seemed to see right through me, understanding my thoughts perfectly. I couldn't help but nod repeatedly.

You: Yes, the time is too short, it's really difficult for us to achieve, I'm sorry.

Evan: I said the same thing to them at the time, and they expressed their understanding. They just hope we can also understand their considerations.

Evan: After all, before Pristine, they haven't cooperated with any other brands. This is an unprecedented crossover.

Evan: If successful, Pristine's popularity will be further expanded.

Evan: I thought it was a rare opportunity, so I agreed. Now it seems I didn't think it through.

He sighed regretfully as he spoke, his eyes full of unconcealed disappointment. For a moment, I felt a pang of guilt. Just as I was struggling, he smiled at me, signaling me not to worry about it.

Evan: Don't feel pressured. It's normal for a collaboration to fall through. It just means I need to apologize.

You: Just you apologizing?

I had just started to feel a bit better, but now the pressure suddenly increased.

But then I thought, since he agreed to it, he should be the one apologizing. Why do I feel sorry for him?

So I planned to say a few polite words to wrap it up and end the topic, like "Thank you for the trouble, Mr. Lu," or "Looking forward to cooperating with them next time."

But before I could decide, Evan spoke first.

Evan: However, I might need to trouble you to accompany me to meet their CEO.

You: .... Me, with you?

Evan: Their CEO is not currently in Guangqi, but I think it won't take too much time to make a trip.

You: Not even in Guangqi?!

Even if it's a neighboring city, the round trip plus the meeting time would take at least a whole day. In other words, at this critical juncture, I have to go on a business trip with Evan, just the two of us?

If I really go, won't the rumors about us that have finally died down come back to life? Will the election be affected?

And didn't he intend to distance himself from me before? Why is he making this request now?

Looking at Evan's smile, I really don't understand what he means.

Evan: Do you have any concerns?

You: Why do I need to go with you?

Evan: Firstly, you know more about the professional aspects than I do, so it's less likely to cause misunderstandings.

Evan: Secondly, maybe we can also take this opportunity to discuss other forms of cooperation with them.

Evan: With the lead designer present, there won't be any issues of me rashly agreeing to anything.

Evan: Thirdly, since it's an apology, having more people shows our sincerity.

One reason after another, all business-like and logical.

But the more I listened, the more uncomfortable I felt. I waited for him to finish speaking, then shook my head.

Evan: What do you think?

You: I don't want to go.

As soon as the words left my mouth, I realized my tone was too harsh. I hadn't even thought of a polite way to decline before bluntly rejecting him.

Mao Ge and the others turned their heads to look at me, their faces filled with shock and worry.

My heart was pounding as I nervously waited for Evan to ask me why. Although I hadn't figured out what to say, my intuition told me he would definitely press for an answer.

Evan: Okay.

But he only said one word, "Okay." "Okay" meant that he would handle it, he would take care of it.

I looked up in surprise, meeting Evan's eyes. He seemed to sense my confusion and nodded again earnestly.

Is that it? No further questions? Aren't you curious why I refused?

Evan: That's it then. Thank you for your hard work, everyone. The meeting is adjourned.

You: Wait a minute, Mr. Lu--

As I watched him turn and leave, the guilt that had disappeared came rushing back. I couldn't help but call out to him.

You: I... I can accept this collaboration.

Evan had just reached the door and turned around, looking surprised.

Evan: Are you sure?

You: This is indeed a good opportunity, but I hope the review period can be extended a bit, is that possible?

Evan: I'll go talk to their CEO tomorrow.

Evan: I'll also need you to go to SONDER to confirm the IP characters for the collaboration.

This time, Evan agreed quickly. But for some reason, I suddenly had an ominous feeling.

You: I understand.

Evan looked at me for a moment, a faint smile appearing on his lips.

Evan: Then good luck. If you have any problems, remember to come to me.

The next morning, I arrived at SONDER. Evan had already left me a message, saying that he had made an appointment with their general manager for me, and I could contact him if I needed anything.

As soon as I walked in, I was surrounded by a sea of blue. It looked like a giant beach, with blue skies, clear water, and coconut trees.

Walking along the corridor, the marine life painted on the walls seemed to be swimming along, as if I could walk all the way into the depths of the ocean.

You: As expected of a toy company, the decorations are so beautiful.

Last night, I had done some research beforehand. It's said that SONDER's CEO is extremely mysterious and has never made a public appearance. Some say he's of Chinese descent and has lived abroad for many years, with Guangqi City being his ancestral home.

Others say he's just a puppet, and SONDER is a money-laundering front for a business tycoon.

When it was first established, SONDER wasn't favored by many. Although the investment scale was large, Guangqi City didn't have the right environment for the creative toy industry to thrive.

Secondly, they only did original creations. Industry insiders said that SONDER wouldn't last six months before closing down.

But SONDER defied expectations. Several of their toy series became global hits as soon as they were launched. In just four years, they secured a spot among the top three global toy companies, a true miracle.

Although I won't be able to meet him today, I'm already filled with admiration for him.

I think he must be someone who loves life because I can't sense any utilitarian motives in SONDER's creations.

The receptionist led me to the manager's office and asked me to wait for a moment. If I was bored, I could look at the toy wall.

This was exactly what I wanted. As soon as she left, I immediately walked over. All sorts of toys occupied two entire walls, each one gleaming, showing how much the owner cherished them.

However, the office decor didn't follow the style of the rest of the company. Instead, it was a Chinese style from many years ago, conservative and steady, even the furniture was the same. Could the CEO be very old?

As I was thinking, my eyes were suddenly drawn to a building block house at the very top.

Unlike the other toys, its white walls had yellowed with age. I remembered this was a model from over ten years ago, long out of production.

The house was a two-story villa. The first floor had a long table and four chairs, but only one little boy with brown hair sat there.

The windows and door on the second floor were glued shut, so I couldn't see inside.

The yard outside was spacious, with two swing sets on the lawn, but only one was left standing alone.

Looking to the side, there was a faded trophy and a certificate.

The words on it were hard to make out, but I could vaguely see that this house had won first place in a toy design competition, but the winner's name had been erased by time.

I couldn't help but stand on tiptoe and reach out to touch the wall of the little house.

Suddenly, a small figure appeared before my eyes. It was a thin boy, kneeling in front of a fireplace. The fire burned vividly, like a fiery red sunset.

Suddenly, a few building blocks were thrown at him. The boy silently picked them up and threw them into the fire. The flames flickered, much like the light in a person's pupils.

The scene ended. I couldn't see the boy's face, but I felt an inexplicable sense of familiarity.

After hesitating for a moment, I reached out again, but footsteps sounded at the door. Through the frosted glass, I could see a tall figure slowly approaching.

I returned to my original position and smiled politely.

You: Hello, I'm a designer from Wan Zhen, my name is--

My smile froze as the door opened.

??: Why did you stop introducing yourself? What's your name?

The person casually put one hand in their pocket, leaning against the door frame, their eyes filled with unconcealed slyness.

??: I was held up by something just now. Have you been waiting long?

Click—they closed the door and walked towards me.

??: Have a seat.

I stared at them in shock. For a moment, I didn't even know what I was thinking.

Evan: Let's get to know each other. Hello, I'm the CEO of SONDER, my name is Evan.

He pulled out the chair behind me, a smile playing on his lips, seemingly pleased with my reaction.

I slowly sat down and looked up at him. The star lights above changed color at that exact moment, and a pale golden light poured down, making me a little dizzy.

You: You're the CEO of SONDER?

Evan: Yes.

You: But didn't you say that you rashly agreed to their cooperation request?

Evan: That's indeed what I said.

You: And if the cooperation is canceled, you would have to personally apologize?

Evan: That's also what I said.

You: What if I chose to go with you to apologize to him?

Evan: Then I think you would be sitting here right now.

You: So you really are the CEO of SONDER, but if you're the CEO...

You: Why doesn't anyone know?

Evan: Although this company was indeed founded by me, the CEO wasn't me until yesterday.

Evan: However, just yesterday, SONDER completed a change in equity.

Evan: There's no rule saying you can't acquire your own company, right?

So... the so-called "cooperation," "apology," it was all fabricated. From the beginning, this was all Evan's plan?

And I actually believed it, even seriously agonizing over it. Thinking about it now, there were so many unreasonable aspects.

He did it on purpose. He absolutely did it on purpose. And he's still smiling!

What's so funny? Is it fun to play me like this?

Is it interesting to see me struggle, feel guilty, and have my heart swayed by his words?

And I not only couldn't figure anything out, but I'm always led by the nose by him, from the past to the present. It's absolutely terrible.

Unable to tell if it was anger or grievance, I stood up and strode towards the door.

However, it was as if fate was playing tricks on me again. No matter how hard I tried, using all sorts of methods, the doorknob wouldn't budge. I angrily slammed the doorknob a few times.

You: What's going on!

Staring at the ordinary door, I suddenly felt like a fool. It wouldn't open, it must be because he used his ability.

A strong sense of frustration washed over me, and I didn't even notice someone approaching behind me.

The next second, a hand suddenly reached out from behind and covered the back of my hand.

The sudden warmth made me momentarily dazed. By the time I came to my senses, his fingers had already slipped between mine, applying slight pressure, and refusing to let go. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't break free.

He always held the power between us. Whether he wanted to distance himself, get close, ignore me, or even decide whether I stayed or left, it was all effortless for him.

Why?

I struggled again, but it was useless. So I simply tried to pry his fingers apart.

I don't remember where I read it, but it said that doing this would make the other person let go immediately.

The difference in strength between us was too great. If he applied even a little bit of force, my efforts would be futile.

But he didn't move.

No matter how hard I tried, how much I "punched and kicked," he didn't move. He only lessened the force in his hand, but he still wouldn't let go of me.

During the struggle, a very light muffled groan escaped his throat, barely audible, but it brought me back to my senses.

Perhaps because I was too out of control earlier, I had scratched several long marks on the back of his hand.

Seeing the beads of blood continuously oozing out, helplessness, panic, worry, and finally a trace of vengeful satisfaction took turns attacking my heart. I let go and calmed myself down.

You: If you don't let go, I'll keep scratching.

Evan: Okay.

He suddenly broke his silence, tightened his arms, and pulled me into his embrace.

Evan: You said it, continue.

I turned my head in shock, but could only see the slight upturn of his lips and the calm lower half of his face, as if he knew I wouldn't do anything to him.

You: You're shameless!

Evan: Yes, I'm shameless.

You: Let me go!

Evan: Didn't you say you wanted to keep scratching? Do whatever you need to vent your anger.

With that, he held out his other hand in front of me, palm up, calmly awaiting my punishment.

I wanted to be ruthless but couldn't bring myself to do it. I wanted to push him away but didn't have the strength. Tears welled up in my eyes, and the suppressed grievance and sadness all burst out in an instant.

You: You're bullying me.

The chest behind me suddenly trembled, and I heard a long sigh. The next moment, my shoulders were turned by him, and Evan leaned down, brushing away the hair that was blocking my eyes.

Evan: Don't cry.

Hearing these words, the tears that were just swirling in my eyes suddenly fell. I didn't have the urge to cry, I didn't want to show weakness in front of him at all, but the tears just fell.

And he kept patting my back, over and over again, tirelessly, as gentle as coaxing a child.

Why is it like this? Didn't I tell myself not to be soft-hearted, not to be fooled, not to be without principles? Why are my emotions always controlled by him?

One moment I'm down in the dumps, the next moment I'm inexplicably happy. I clearly made up my mind to never pay attention to him again, but at this moment, I want to surrender.

I heard the resigned sigh in my heart.

You: Why did you trick me into coming here?

I sniffled, looking at him with grievance.

Evan: Because I don't want to be avoided anymore.

I was stunned, before I could react, he had already grabbed my shoulders and pushed me against the door, reversing our positions.

My mind went blank, and my tears disappeared.

Evan: If I hadn't tricked you into coming here, would you have continued to avoid me?

I was taken aback. Had Evan seen through me all along?

You: I didn't...

I quietly defended myself, trying to look away, but Evan's face was so close that my gaze had nowhere to escape.

Evan: Then why didn't you reply to my messages?

You: I did reply.

Evan: Only work-related ones, and only two words: "Received."

You: I was too busy, I forgot to reply to some.

Evan: So busy that you would take a detour when you saw me on the road? And avoid meetings with me if you could?

I was actually a little embarrassed by his words. Wait, I was the one asking him questions, how did it become him questioning me?

You: Anyway... there's a reason. I can't tell you.

Evan: Why not?

You: Because it's not the right time yet.

Evan: Then this door won't open today, nor tomorrow, nor the day after.

You: You're being unreasonable again!

Evan: Then tell me why.

Being gazed at by those deep eyes, it felt like I could fall into them if I wasn't careful. I remained silent for a long time, but in the end, I had no choice but to confess.

You: Don't you think there are too many rumors about us at the company?

You: Mao Ge said it might be bad for your election.

Evan: Did he say that, or do you think so?

Evan gave me a meaningful look. He was still the same, no matter how careful I was, he could always tell which of my words were lies.

You: He said it first, I... just made a reasonable deduction.

Hearing my words, Evan couldn't help but chuckle.

You: When did you realize I was avoiding you?

Evan: Probably when you refused to let me drive you home.

You: That early?!

You: I thought I was doing a good job.

Evan: You were indeed doing a good job, except you fooled everyone but me.

You: Since you guessed it so early, why did you deliberately trick me into coming here to ask?

Evan: I wanted to hear you say it yourself, to see if my guess was right.

I sighed in frustration. Nothing could be hidden from him. All my thoughts, which I thought were carefully concealed layer by layer, were transparent in front of him.

And he seemed to have told me everything, sincerely and without reservation, yet I always felt like there was something missing.

It's not fair.

You: At least I succeeded, there aren't any rumors about us now.

Evan: Yes, you succeeded, especially with yesterday's meeting.

You: What do you mean?

Evan: Now everyone in the company knows that you rejected the CEO at the meeting. Rumors about us not getting along have already spread.

I widened my eyes in surprise. On second thought, at least this rumor was better than the previous ones.

But gradually, I felt something was wrong. The people present were all our own, they wouldn't spread it around, how could the whole company know the next day?

You: Did you deliberately spread the news?

He didn't say anything, but the smile on his face grew wider, as if laughing at my slowness.

Evan: Since you want others to think we're "not getting along," then let everyone know.

Evan: How is it? Are you satisfied?

Did he even plan this? Is there anything that isn't part of his plan?

You: You've been saying that I'm avoiding you, but haven't you also been deliberately distancing yourself from me?

Evan: I just saw how hard you were trying, and I didn't have the heart to expose you.

Evan: Besides, when I first played along with you, you seemed very happy.

Evan: But after a while, you didn't seem happy anymore. Why is that?

I blushed, knowing that Evan was deliberately asking this, refusing to say the words he wanted to hear. No matter how he looked at me, I kept my lips tightly sealed.

You: I've said everything I need to say. Can you let go now? Your hand needs to be treated...

Evan: One last question. Tell me, why did you agree to SONDER's collaboration yesterday?

His voice suddenly became a little hoarse, as if he had been asking all those questions just to lead up to this moment.

But I didn't understand, what was so important about this question?

You: Because you looked troubled, so I wanted to help you.

Even if you didn't seem to care about me.

Evan: Is that all?

He continued to press, and I didn't understand if it was because I wasn't affirmative enough or sincere enough that he didn't believe it came from my heart. So I looked at him and repeated it seriously.

You: That's all.

Evan: Why?

You: No reason, I just want to help you as much as I can, just like you've always helped me.

You: It may be insignificant, but if it can help your election a little bit, I'll be very happy.

You: Although you haven't told me, I feel like you want to win.

Evan looked at me, his eyes momentarily blurred.

After a long while, he gently ruffled my hair.

Evan: ... Silly.

You: So will you win?

Evan: Do you believe I will win?

You: Of course!

I nodded vigorously without thinking.

Evan: You believe in me that much?

You: Yes, don't you want me to believe in you?

I looked at him in confusion, but Evan suddenly avoided my gaze and lowered his eyes.

After a moment, he raised his eyes, returning to his usual demeanor.

Evan: Of course not, otherwise, how could I have tricked you into coming here?

You: .......

You: I really didn't know you were such a good actor before.

The questions were over, and he finally let go of me. But he only glanced at the back of his hand and then put it down.

You: Don't you need to treat it?

Evan: No need.

You: But it looks painful, let me help you treat it.

You: Do you have a first aid kit?

Evan couldn't refuse me, so he had to take out a white first aid kit from the cabinet.

The kit was new, containing all sorts of medicines for treating bruises and injuries. The production dates were all recent, and most of the medicines were already half used.

I broke open a portable iodine swab and applied it in circles around the wound. The oozing blood had already coagulated, forming long, dark red scabs that looked quite alarming.

It seems I was a bit heavy-handed. I felt guilty and secretly glanced at Evan. His brows were slightly furrowed.

You: ....

You: Was I too hard?

Evan: A little.

You: I'll be gentler.

Evan: Okay.

After disinfecting with iodine, I used a cotton swab dipped in hydrogen peroxide to clean the wound, being very gentle.

However, during the process, I always felt Evan's gaze on my face. Is it still hurting? I looked up and met a pair of sly eyes.

The confused look on my face finally made him unable to hold back a chuckle.

Realizing that I had been tricked again, I glared at him in embarrassment and increased the pressure in my hand.

Evan: ....

I raised an eyebrow at Evan. It was his fault for turning away at the elevator before and now pretending to be in pain.

Evan: I never knew before that Miss Rabbit's claws could be so sharp.

You: If you trick me again, I'll keep scratching you.

Evan chuckled and surprisingly didn't answer.

You: Can I go back now?

Evan: Did you really think I called you here just to trick you?

You: Then what is it?

Evan: Zhou Yan.

Another familiar figure walked in. Zhou Yan handed an envelope to Evan.

Evan: My relationship with SONDER needs to be kept confidential.

You: Yes, I won't tell anyone.

Evan: SONDER doesn't actually need five IP character outfits designed, just one is enough.

You: So there really is a collaboration?

Evan: Of course. After you finish, I'll recommend the design to them.

He pointed to the envelope and handed it to me, motioning for me to open it.

The latest issue of "SELF" magazine appeared before me, with the words "Stardust in the Wind - Young Designer Program" prominently displayed on the cover.

You: Isn't this the Young Designer Program that only happens once every three years?

Several leading fashion companies around the world act as "recommenders," recommending fifty outstanding young designers to participate in the program.

Selected designers need to complete designs based on a designated theme, and in the end, the three most outstanding designers are chosen to be featured on the magazine's anniversary cover.

Evan: Remember you said before that you wanted to be featured in "SELF" magazine and participate in the Young Designer Program?

You: I did have that wish, but when did I ever tell you...

I really couldn't remember.

With his prompting, I recalled that about a year ago, when he went to England to find a way to remove the Spirit Ring, he suddenly called me and said he had met the editor-in-chief of "SELF" magazine.

The editor-in-chief even gave him a necklace, which he gave to me after returning home.

It seems that was when I mentioned this wish to him. It was so long ago that I had forgotten, but he still remembered?

Evan: So, the things we talked about, only I remember?

Evan narrowed his eyes, his gaze suddenly shifting away from my face, his tone indifferent, not looking at me. I immediately felt guilty.

You: I'll remember everything from now on! I promise!

I raised my hand in a vowing gesture, which made Evan laugh.

Evan: Now the opportunity has come.

You: Are you saying I can participate? Really?

Even though he had said it, I still couldn't believe it, because it felt too much like a dream.

You: Evan, can you pinch me?

Evan sighed helplessly and patted my head gently.

Evan: So, do you believe it now?

Evan: The company has decided to recommend you for this year's Young Designer Program.

Evan: And it just so happens that SONDER is the designated partner this time, so designing clothes for SONDER's IP is the theme.

Evan: You can focus on your creation here during this time, without any disturbances.

Evan: And don't worry about Pristine, I've already transferred designers from other teams to support you. You can arrange their work.

Before I could even ask, he had already considered everything.

You: You really are Doraemon!

Evan: Are there any other wishes you want to tell Doraemon?

You: Can I still make wishes?

Evan: Of course.

You: Anything?

Evan: Anything.

His tone was so gentle that I even had the illusion that he would fulfill a hundred, a thousand wishes if I asked.

But it was this gentleness that made me sense a hint of unease.

You: Forget it, I'll save it for later.

Evan: Why do you say that?

You: Because the fulfillment of today's wish is enough to make me happy for a long time.

You: Happy things can't all be crammed into one day, otherwise, I'll be jealous when I look back on this day in the future.

You: If I encounter other happy things in the future, I won't be interested, feeling like they can't compare to today.

You: So, forget it. Besides, I'm already very happy. Thank you.

The emotions in Evan's eyes were like the sea at night, constantly beating against the shore. And he was restraining himself, as if once he broke through, he would drown himself.

He gently rubbed my head, without saying a word.

You: Regarding the competition, does the company have any requirements for me?

Evan: The company doesn't, but the CEO does have one request.

Evan: Don't overwork yourself.

Evan: And if you encounter any difficulties, remember to come to me. After all, I'm your boss now.

The conversation came to an abrupt end. Before I could react to the meaning behind his words, he had already stood up, opened the door, and left, leaving me standing there, blushing and with a racing heart.

Zhou Yan was waiting anxiously by the elevator not far away.

Seeing Evan approaching, he immediately handed him a note.

Zhou Yan: Boss, according to the intel we received, someone saw Zhou Weicheng in these places.

Evan: Keep searching.

Zhou Yan: Also, the head of the family wants you to go back immediately. He knows you entered that room without permission.

Evan nodded, as if he had expected this, but suddenly felt weary of all the pretense and deception.

Evan: I understand.

Zhou Yan was about to prepare the car when he suddenly noticed the bandage on the back of Evan's hand. He remembered that the young master's hand was fine when he came in the morning.

The bandage only covered the back of his hand, and it didn't look like a big wound. But a blood clan's healing ability shouldn't...

Zhou Yan: Young Master, your hand...

Evan raised the back of his hand, intending to take off the bandage, but found that the tape was wrapped too tightly, layer after layer, as if afraid that he would accidentally rub off the bandage at some point.

A smile suddenly appeared on his face, so faint that he wasn't even aware of it, like a ripple caused by a pebble thrown into a bottomless lake.

He couldn't help but look at the closed door. The faint light spilled through the frosted glass, like starlight that one might suddenly see while walking on the road at night.

You know it doesn't belong to you, so you won't lose it. This is how relationships in the world should be.

Their relationship had changed the moment he started scheming to keep her by his side, perhaps even earlier, when he first tested her.

The so-called understanding, coincidences, tears, forgiveness, care, and trust were all bought with lies.

Evan turned around and decisively pressed the elevator button.

He had almost lost his weapon just now. He knew very well that if he hadn't acted that way, she wouldn't have stayed.

Evan couldn't help but admire his own acting skills.

In that moment of embrace and pleading, comfort and heartache, jealousy and interrogation, his body reacted before his mind could catch up, as if he had truly immersed himself in the scene, even feeling a faint ache in his chest.

Despite being deceived, she only cried, taking out her pain on herself in such a gentle way.

Why didn't she hate him? Why did she still think of helping him even after being deceived? Evan thought, bewildered.

She should hate him. Having been hurt so many times, she should know to be wary or demand something from him.

Yet when she opened her bright eyes and said with initiative and honesty, "No reason, I just want to help you," Evan was at a loss, even wanting to reach out and cover her eyes.

He panicked for no apparent reason, feeling that his darkness and malice had been laid bare, and that he had nothing to hide.

Evan: Don't disturb her for the time being, protect this place.

In a flash, the corridor was empty, with no one in sight.

Chapter 16-15

If you’d like to support my translations, feel free to buy me a coffee here! :)

#light and night #light and night translations #evan #sariel #osborn #jesse #charlie #light and night chapter 16 translation #light and night main story translation #lu chen #xiao yi #qi si li #xia ming xing #zha li su

4 notes · View notes

luxe-pauvre · 1 year ago

Text

For us today, it is still difficult to imagine a future society in which paid labor is not the be-all and end-all of our existence. But the inability to imagine a world in which things are different is only evidence of a poor imagination, not of the impossibility of change. In the 1950s we couldn’t conceive that the advent of refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, and, above all, washing machines, would help prompt women to enter the workplace in record numbers, and yet they did. Nevertheless, it is not technology itself that determines the course of history. In the end, it is we humans who decide how we want to shape our destiny. The scenario of radical inequality that is taking shape in the U.S. is not our only option. The alternative is that at some point during this century, we reject the dogma that you have to work for a living. The richer we as a society become, the less effectively the labor market will be at distributing prosperity. If we want to hold onto the blessings of technology, ultimately there’s only one choice left, and that’s redistribution. Massive redistribution. Redistribution of money (basic income), time (a shorter working week), taxation (on capital instead of labor), and, of course, of robots. As far back as the 19th century, Oscar Wilde looked forward to the day when everybody would benefit from intelligent machines that were “the property of all.” However, technological progress may make a society more prosperous in aggregate, but there’s no economic law that says everyone will benefit. Not long ago, the French economist Thomas Piketty had people up in arms with his contention that if we continue down our current path we’ll soon find ourselves back in the rentier society of the Gilded Age. People who owned capital (stocks, houses, machines) enjoyed a much higher standard of living than folks who merely worked hard. For hundreds of years the return on capital was 4–5%, while annual economic growth lagged behind at under 2%. Barring a resurgence of strong, inclusive growth (rather unlikely), high taxation on capital (equally improbable), or World War III (let’s hope not), inequality could develop to frightening proportions once again. All the standard options – more schooling, regulation, austerity – will be a drop in the bucket. In the end, the only solution is a worldwide, progressive tax on wealth, says Professor Piketty, though he acknowledges this is merely a “useful utopia.” And yet, the future is not carved in stone. All throughout history, the march toward equality has always been steeped in politics. If a law of common progress fails to manifest itself of its own accord, there is nothing to stop us from enacting it ourselves. Indeed, the absence of such a law may well imperil the free market itself. “We have to save capitalism from the capitalists,” Piketty concludes.

Rutger Bregman, Utopia For Realists: And How We Can Get There

#Rutger Bregman #Utopia For Realists: And How We Can Get There

6 notes · View notes

theoreticallysensible · 1 year ago

Text

The Hell Without Poetry

I started reading Proletarian Nights by Jacques Rancière, about contradictory aspirations held by artisanal workers in early 19th century France. One of the most interesting points so far are the fact that some workers had a culture of emulating bourgeoise fashion and not saving money, both to differentiate themselves from the domestic servants they felt they were superior to, and to signal that they deserved the same privileges as the bourgeoisie but rejected capitalist ethics of accumulating in order to exploit others.

I’ve just gotten into the famous Gauny section, where Rancière goes off an a tangent about this philosophical joiner (someone who makes wooden building components). The first of his books I read was The Ignorant Schoolmaster, which similarly takes up a single historical figure in order to develop their ideas into a universal, ahistorical frame by blending his voice with theirs. I find the idea really interesting, and it makes me wonder if I could do the same for the people I interviewed for my dissertation. I like how it deconstructs the boundary between historical actor and theorist, emphasising that all people are both, but it only works of course if the people you’re quoting are doing a substantial amount of philosophising. I also don’t want to lose marks for a stylistic gambit.

One of Gauny’s ideas is that work is work, always demeaning no matter what its content is. Rancière points out that this is similar to the philosophy of a preacher at the time, who valorised work for its essential self-sacrifice (Max Weber pricks up his ears), because it allows our body to fulfil its debt created by the wage given by the employer. This is obviously ideologically beneficial to the status quo because valuing just particular aspects of work rather than work it and of itself would suggest that those parts should be expanded i.e. that work can be better or worse and might be improved.

However, Gauny twists the message by separating the effect it has on the body from the effect on the soul. He admits that there is a pleasure to physical self-sacrifice - even though hard work of the sort he was doing can have awful long-term consequences, there’s pleasure in the oblivion you can reach in the arduous routine of it - but he emphasises that it kills the soul by not giving you breathing time to sit and contemplate, discuss ideas, and make art. There’s a beautiful section where Gauny says

“Ah, Dante, you old devil, you never traveled to the real hell, the hell without poetry!”

This speaks to the ideas at the heart of Rancière’s entire project: that everyone aspires to critically engage in the arts, and that the extent to which do is not overdetermined by class position. His project in this book in particular is to demonstrate that there is no pure working class - there is frequent infighting within and between professions and genders, and their morality is often inspired by the bourgeoisie.

In fact, one of the most interesting parts is that many of the workers start seriously questioning the status quo only after they’re visited by bourgeois do-gooders, but rather than take on the ideas of these champagne socialists uncritically, they use them to inspire new ideas. Rather than expecting a new world to come from one place, we should recognise that novelty is always a result of the melding of difference. It actually makes me think of the fact that so many of the progressive ideas developed in Europe, from Rousseau to Marx, were inspired by Native American philosophies (David Graeber & David Wengrow’s book, The Dawn of Everything, has a great section on the possible influence on Rousseau).

The aspirations of people like Gauny to write poetry, to come up with new ideas based on a variety of sources, was largely unrecognised or dismissed when Rancière wrote this in the ‘80s. He was frustrated that not only did capitalists view working people as beneath of that sort of thought, but Marxists saw it as counter-revolutionary and therefore unbecoming. Rancière was disillusioned with Althusser, who’s structuralist Marxism he saw as not leaving any space for people to resist their circumstances, instead being overdetermined by class. I don’t know Rancière’s stance on free will, but as a rather dogmatic determinist even I find that frustrating, as if we aren’t influenced by so much else which can give rise to disruptive convergences. Basically, people are more complicated than that! Any supposedly emancipatory philosophy with a single vision of what the working-class should be is doomed to failure, as Rancière well knew from witnessing the dismissal of the student protests of ‘68 be dismissed as “not real revolution”.

Rancière saw in Gauny a way out of this structuralist trap, where by taking on the high-minded ideas of the more romantic bourgeoisie and reinterpreting them with a personal need to act against the system, new ideas could be created and used to disrupt the distribution of the sensible, or the matrix of acceptable ideas - most important of which was the idea of who is capable of having such ideas. This concept is actually where my name comes from!

I wonder if we’re losing this time to contemplate even more today, with the spectacle invading so much of our lives - social media being the quintessential example. This is not such a danger if we’re using it to chat to people, but if we’re just scrolling… there’s not much thinking going on there. 😅 Guy Debord, in the ‘50s, was already talking about capital colonising our everyday life, and this stealing of attention, our time to think and talk and create and have ideas, seems to be the worst consequence of it.

3 notes · View notes

lacklusterhero747 · 2 years ago

Text

Building a Fabula World, Part 2a

Originally, my intention had been to put everything we came up with for the questions asking us to add Nations and Historical Events in this post but... then I actually looked at the amount of stuff we came up with. I then promptly decided I'd subdivide it a little bit, just to save mine and everyone else's sanity.

Anyway...

3. Kingdoms and Nations

The book asks the players to create the major kingdoms and nations of the world, marking their borders and discussing their relations. Whether they have strong alliances or strained relationships. How they interact with the world at large. Each person is expected to contribute at least one kingdom, and to consider their customs, beliefs, industry, and denizens. We also decided, though the book did not ask us to, to consider which of the 16+ character classes the game offers across the core rule book and it's playtest materials are most likely to come from a given place.

The Folk - Tentative name, Provided by Damon

An analog for Indigenous people in the real world, for whom magic is a way of life. It is their art and their culture. It's strongest practitioners are its priests and political representatives. They respect the ancient and esoteric nature of the magic forces of the world and aspire daily to live in harmony with the natural world. They are a largely nomadic people, who follow the currents of magic--the pulse of the world tree--through the wild places of the world. They are staunchly opposed to the industrialization of magic, believing that technological advancements are disrupting "the pulse" and some amongst their number are not above committing violence or destroying property to prevent it. They have little to no racial animus, so long as you are willing to follow the old ways, and their traveling bands include a higher than average concentration of Animal featured demi-humans. Their naming conventions are most often a form of Adjective Noun construct like "Active Iron" or "Defiant Roach". The Folk have a higher than average concentration--and are likely the source--of Arcanists (think Final Fantasy Summoners) and Chimerists (Blue Mages).

The Industrial Powerhouse - Name pending, Provided by Kevin

A Nation on the vanguard of technological development. Their fashion, culture, and architectural style is a call back to Victorian England and steampunk nonsense. Their towns, especially their capital, are sprawling rats nests of stone and steel and steam. Their inventors are always more concerned with whether or not they can, and not with whether or not they should. Politically, they are the most at odds with The Folk because they believe that Humanity is meant to be the masters of the world, and that magic and nature should be made to serve them and not vice versa. They push for stability through law and order, and attempt to keep the population in line by providing a lack of scarcity of food, entertainment, and luxury goods, even as they push their citizens to work harder and longer in conditions that are not always safe. The nation's ultimate goal is to find a way to lock the natural cycle of magic in the world into a static state that is both predictable and controllable. The Industrial Powerhouse is a possible source for characters of the Tinkerer (Your Edgar of Final Fantasy 6 type) or Pilot classes.

I'll leave it with those two for now, but already we can see my players picking up the pieces of the small handful facts we decided on in the first two steps and running with them: one faction exemplifying the ancient and esoteric nature of magic and a oneness with nature, and another a capitalist nightmare state built on the scientific innovations Arcane Distillate. A natural animosity formed as a result of opposing ideals.

Shades of Final Fantasy 6 and 7 are strong here, all the more funny for the fact that most of my players have never played either of these games, and this is only the first two! I've still got SIX more to go!

Still, seems like we're already shaping up to make Capitalism the bad guy.

#role playing games #fabula ultima #world building #ttrpg #jrpg #play to find out what happens

7 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 7 months ago

Text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 notes · View notes