#despite their different economic and social standings

[frodo-with-glasses]

MY CABBAGES

[drdemonprince]

Thousands of people did not just suddenly stop using headphones one day because they felt like it, or because they stopped caring about people with sensory sensitivities like me. No, people stopped using headphones because cell phone manufacturers stopped including headphone jacks in their products. 

My sensory-processing issues are a physical element of my disability that would absolutely still exist in a world without capitalism. Like my poor fine motor control and reduced muscle tone, my sensory processing issues debilitate me: there are tasks I simply cannot perform because of how my body is wired, and this makes me different from most other people in ways that are non-negotiable.  Still, my physical disabilities are worsened quite clearly by capitalism: Because large corporations have both a profit motive and a vested interest in reinvesting those profits into advertisements, and because the internet does not receive public financial support, my daily life is bombarded with bright, noisy, flashing, disruptive advertisements, which makes it far more difficult for me to process relevant information and can swiftly bring me to the verge of a meltdown.  If the internet were funded as a public utility and was therefore not sandblasted in ads, I would be less disabled. If my local streets were less plastered in billboards and littered with junk mail advertising chain restaurants, I would be less disabled. 

Because companies like Apple financially rely upon consumers replacing their phones on an annual basis (despite how unsustainable and murderously cruel continuing to mine cobalt in Sudan for the production of all these new phones is), I must replace my phone regularly. With an updated phone model I lose my headphone jack and have to adapt to a new operating system and layout, and so my sensory issues and executive functioning challenges are exacerbated.  In a world where phones were produced in order to help human beings function rather than to make money, I would be less disabled.  Thanks to capitalism, I cannot exist in public if I am not purchasing anything. I cannot simply be present in a store, coffee shop, or even public plaza, enjoying my surroundings and taking the sight of other people in. I must contribute to the economy in order to justify it. If the brickwork of a nearby building fascinates me and I crave to feel it against my palms, I have to pretend that I wish to buy it, and be prepared to tell anyone who asks that that’s what I intend to do. I can’t even stand on the corner and feel the sun on my face without worrying my neighbors might find it unusual and send the cops.  As an Autistic person, I often can’t fake being a perpetual consumer well enough. My desire to simply elope around my environment and take in new, interesting sensations registers as suspicious or concerningly mentally ill. And so I am further disabled and excluded from public life. 

The full essay is free to read or have narrated to you at drdevonprice.substack.com

[qu33nb3337]

Eloise and Cressida, my thoughts.

I’ve seen quite a few posts about these two but nothing that really reflected my perspective, so here goes.

Cressida

I’m actually excited to dig into her character more, to this point she has been a two dimensional villain which I understand. As the audience we aren’t meant to like Cressida. In the books, the Bridgertons and Penelope dislike her due to her cutting remarks and slimy nature. She is a straight forward villain with no complexities to her character. However the show delves into the shades of grey around the characters and presents them all as flawed complicated beings which means this book narrative of Cressida doesn’t really fit within that. I’m excited to find out what lies beneath.

I also think this friendship will begin to introduce Benedict’s Sophie’s storyline as I think Sophie’s stepfamily will be the Cowpers. It will provide a link between the Bridgerton’s and Sophie and the show loves a link.

Eloise

I think Eloise has been behaving like a typical girl her age, she’s a teenager and as such she thinks the world revolves around her. Now don’t get me wrong, I enjoy Eloise’s character, she has some cracking lines and Claudia Jessie plays her brilliantly. However Eloise is very caught up in herself.

When it comes to her friendship with Penelope she assumes that Penelope wants what she wants, thinks what she thinks and doesn’t ever really consider that might not be true. Eloise is blind to their very differing social standing, very different family situations and dynamics and how that affects them. As we saw in season 1, Eloise didn’t believe Penelope would be interested in marriage because she herself is not interested in it. Eloise has a supportive family, who despite their bickering want happiness for each other. Penelope has a family that constantly mocks, belittles and dismisses her. Eloise can depend on her family, Penelope can not. The Bridgertons are able to weather a certain amount of scandal whereas the Featheringtons cannot. Which would mean, regardless of whether Penelope wanted an epic love story or not Eloise should have been aware enough of her friends situation to know that she likely would need to marry for economic reasons if nothing else.

I am not convinced that Eloise is aware of Penelope’s crush. The line from the trailer from Eloise to Colin about since when did he care about Penelope suggests that she may not. When I look back at the last two seasons there’s no evidence to suggest that she is aware. She wouldn’t have seen them dancing in either season. The first season she wasn’t at the balls because she wasn’t out yet and the second season, we only saw Colin and Pan dance once at the Featherington ball and Eloise would have been ransacking Pen’s room at the time. Whenever Colin and Pen are talking in season 2 Eloise would show up and whisk Pen away which could be indicative of how she views their conversations as trivial and unimportant. I don’t think she is aware that they have formed their own relationship separate to her. I think she will have assumed they converse because of her, she is the link and without her what would they have to talk about.

However Eloise questioning Colin in the trailer about whether Penelope is trying to make him her husband could be because she is aware of the crush but has chosen to ignore it? I don’t know. I am interested to see how they play it.

I think what I am getting at is that Eloise doesn’t really know Pen like Pen knows her. Their friendship isn’t equal, Pen is desperate to please Eloise as we saw in season 2 when she writes a whistledown article that reflects Eloise’s thoughts about womanhood. I think their falling out will have a big impact on Eloise and their journey to reconciliation will be key to her her developing into from a teenager to an adult. To Eloise realising that others thoughts and opinions are different to her own but just as valid, that not everyone is as they appear to be, that her life whether she likes it or not is changing. I think her relationships with her siblings will develop, she will hopefully begin to see that they are all carrying a burden and are all a little lost.

I am hopeful that her friendship with Cressida will start some of these things in motion. It must lead her to question what she thinks of people if she befriends a person she believed to be awful. I don’t think she has befriended her to spite Penelope. I think they bond over something and I think Eloise will see the complexities of Cressida’s character and really learn that friendship is just as complex which will lead her to reflect on what happened with Penelope.

That’s my two cents. I could be wrong. I often am. What do you think?

[robertreich]

How the Corporate Takeover of American Politics Began

The corporate takeover of American politics started with a man and a memo you've probably never heard of.

In 1971, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asked Lewis Powell, a corporate attorney who would go on to become a Supreme Court justice, to draft a memo on the state of the country.

Powell’s memo argued that the American economic system was “under broad attack” from consumer, labor, and environmental groups.

In reality, these groups were doing nothing more than enforcing the implicit social contract that had emerged at the end of the Second World War. They wanted to ensure corporations were responsive to all their stakeholders — workers, consumers, and the environment — not just their shareholders.

But Powell and the Chamber saw it differently. In his memo, Powell urged businesses to mobilize for political combat, and stressed that the critical ingredients for success were joint organizing and funding.

The Chamber distributed the memo to leading CEOs, large businesses, and trade associations — hoping to persuade them that Big Business could dominate American politics in ways not seen since the Gilded Age.

It worked.

The Chamber’s call for a business crusade birthed a new corporate-political industry practically overnight. Tens of thousands of corporate lobbyists and political operatives descended on Washington and state capitals across the country.

I should know — I saw it happen with my own eyes.

In 1976, I worked at the Federal Trade Commission. Jimmy Carter had appointed consumer advocates to battle big corporations that for years had been deluding or injuring consumers.

Yet almost everything we initiated at the FTC was met by unexpectedly fierce political resistance from Congress. At one point, when we began examining advertising directed at children, Congress stopped funding the agency altogether, shutting it down for weeks.

I was dumbfounded. What had happened?

In three words, The Powell Memo.

Lobbyists and their allies in Congress, and eventually the Reagan administration, worked to defang agencies like the FTC — and to staff them with officials who would overlook corporate misbehavior.

Their influence led the FTC to stop seriously enforcing antitrust laws — among other things — allowing massive corporations to merge and concentrate their power even further.

Washington was transformed from a sleepy government town into a glittering center of corporate America — replete with elegant office buildings, fancy restaurants, and five-star hotels.

Meanwhile, Justice Lewis Powell used the Court to chip away at restrictions on corporate power in politics. His opinions in the 1970s and 80s laid the foundation for corporations to claim free speech rights in the form of financial contributions to political campaigns.

Put another way — without Lewis Powell, there would probably be no Citizens United — the case that threw out limits on corporate campaign spending as a violation of the “free speech” of corporations.

These actions have transformed our political system. Corporate money supports platoons of lawyers, often outgunning any state or federal attorneys who dare to stand in their way. Lobbying has become a $3.7 billion dollar industry.

Corporations regularly outspend labor unions and public interest groups during election years. And too many politicians in Washington represent the interests of corporations — not their constituents. As a result, corporate taxes have been cut, loopholes widened, and regulations gutted.

Corporate consolidation has also given companies unprecedented market power, allowing them to raise prices on everything from baby formula to gasoline. Their profits have jumped into the stratosphere — the highest in 70 years.

But despite the success of the Powell Memo, Big Business has not yet won. The people are beginning to fight back.

First, antitrust is making a comeback. Both at the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department we’re seeing a new willingness to take on corporate power.

Second, working people are standing up. Across the country workers are unionizing at a faster rate than we’ve seen in decades — including at some of the biggest corporations in the world — and they’re winning.

Third, campaign finance reform is within reach. Millions of Americans are intent on limiting corporate money in politics – and politicians are starting to listen.

All of these tell me that now is our best opportunity in decades to take on corporate power — at the ballot box, in the workplace, and in Washington.

Let’s get it done.

[dailyanarchistposts]

G.3.5 Would individualist anarchists have accepted “Austrian” economics?

One of the great myths perpetrated by “anarcho”-capitalists is the notion that “anarcho”-capitalism is simply individualist anarchism plus “Austrian” economics. Nothing could be further from the truth, as is clear once the individualist anarchist positions on capitalist property rights, exploitation and equality are understood. Combine this with their vision of a free society as well as the social and political environment they were part of and the ridiculous nature of such claims become obvious.

At its most basic, Individualist anarchism was rooted in socialist economic analysis as would be expected of a self-proclaimed socialist theory and movement. The “anarcho”-capitalists, in a roundabout way, recognise this with Rothbard dismissing the economic fallacies of individualist anarchism in favour of “Austrian” economics. “There is,” he stated, “in the body of thought known as ‘Austrian economics,’ a scientific [sic!] explanation of the workings of the free market … which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their so political and social Weltanshauung. But to do this, they must throw out the worthless excess baggage of money-crankism and reconsider the nature and justification of the economic categories of interest, rent and profit.” Yet Rothbard’s assertion is nonsense, given that the individualist anarchists were well aware of various justifications for exploitation expounded by the defenders of capitalism and rejected everyone. He himself noted that the “individualist anarchists were exposed to critiques of their economic fallacies; but, unfortunately, the lesson, despite the weakness of Tucker’s replies, did not take.” [“The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist’s View”, Op. Cit., p. 14] As such, it seems like extremely wishful thinking that the likes of Tucker would have rushed to embrace an economic ideology whose basic aim has always been to refute the claims of socialism and defend capitalism from attacks on it.

Nor can it be suggested that the individualist anarchists were ignorant of the developments within bourgeois economics which the “Austrian” school was part of. Both Tucker and Yarros, for example, attacked marginal productivity theory as advocated by John B. Clark. [Liberty, no. 305] Tucker critiqued another anarchist for once being an “Anarchistic socialist, standing squarely upon the principles of Liberty and Equity” but then “abandon[ing] Equity by repudiating the Socialistic theory of value and adopting one which differs but little, if any, from that held by the ordinary economist.” [Op. Cit., no. 80, p. 4] So the likes of Tucker were well aware of the so-called marginalist revolution and rejected it.

Somewhat ironically, a key founders of “Austrian” economics was quoted favourably in Liberty but only with regards to his devastating critique of existing theories of interest and profit. Hugo Bilgram asked a defender of interest whether he had “ever read Volume 1 of Böhm-Bawerk’s ‘Capital and Interest’” for in this volume “the fructification theory is … completely refuted.” Bilgram, needless to say, did not support Böhm-Bawerk’s defence of usury, instead arguing that restrictions in the amount of money forced people to pay for its use and ”[t]his, and nothing else, [causes] the interest accruing to capital, regarding which the modern economists are doing their utmost to find a theory that will not expose the system of industrial piracy of today.” He did not exclude Böhm-Bawerk’s theory from his conclusion that “since every one of these pet theories is based on some fallacy, [economists] cannot agree upon any one.” The abolition of the money monopoly will “abolish the power of capital to appropriate a net profit.” [Op. Cit., no. 282, p. 11] Tucker himself noted that Böhm-Bawerk “has refuted all these ancient apologies for interest — productivity of capital, abstinence, etc.” [Op. Cit., no. 287, p. 5] Liberty also published a synopsis of Francis Tandy’s Voluntary Socialism, whose chapter 6 was “devoted to an analysis of value according to the marginal utility value of Böhm-Bawerk. It also deals with the Marxian theory of surplus value, showing that all our economic ills are due to the existence of that surplus value.” [Op. Cit., no. 334, p. 5] Clearly, then, the individualist anarchists were aware of the “Austrian” tradition and only embraced its critique of previous defences of non-labour incomes.

We have already critiqued the “time preference” justification for interest in section C.2.7 so will not go into it in much detail here. Rothbard argued that it “should be remembered by radicals that, if they wanted to, all workers could refuse to work for wages and instead form their own producers’ co-operatives and wait for years for their pay until the producers are sold to the consumers; the fact that they do not do so, shows the enormous advantage of the capital investment, wage-paying system as a means of allowing workers to earn money far in advance of the sale of their products.” And how, Professor Rothbard, are these workers to live during the years they wait until their products are sold? The reason why workers do not work for themselves has nothing to do with “time preference” but their lack of resources, their class position. Showing how capitalist ideology clouds the mind, Rothbard asserted that interest (“in the shape of ‘long-run’ profit”) would still exist in a “world in which everyone invested his own money and nobody loaned or borrowed.” [Op. Cit., p. 12] Presumably, this means that the self-employed worker who invests her own money into her own farm pays herself interest payments just as her labour income is, presumably, the “profits” from which this “interest” payment is deducted along with the “rent” for access to the land she owns!

So it seems extremely unlikely that the individualist anarchists would have considered “Austrian” economics as anything other than an attempt to justify exploitation and capitalism, like the other theories they spent so much time refuting. They would quickly have noted that “time preference”, like the “waiting”/“abstinence” justifications for interest, is based on taking the current class system for granted and ignoring the economic pressures which shape individual decisions. In Tucker’s words (when he critiqued Henry George’s argument that interest is related to time) “increase which is purely the work of time bears a price only because of monopoly.” The notion that “time” produced profit or interest was one Tucker was well aware of, and refuted on many occasions. He argued that it was class monopoly, restrictions on banking, which caused interest and “where there is no monopoly there will be little or no interest.” If someone “is to be rewarded for his mere time, what will reward him save [another]‘s labour? There is no escape from this dilemma. The proposition that the man who for time spent in idleness receives the product of time employed in labour is a parasite upon the body industrial is one which … [its supporters] can never successfully dispute with men who understand the rudiments of political economy.” [Liberty, no. 109, p. 4 and p. 5] For Joshua King Ingalls, “abstinence” (or the ability to “wait,” as it was renamed in the late nineteenth century) was “a term with which our cowardly moral scientists and political economists attempt to conjure up a spirit that will justify the greed of our land and money systems; by a casuistry similar to that which once would have justified human slavery.” [“Labor, Wages, And Capital. Division Of Profits Scientifically Considered,” Brittan’s Quarterly Journal, I (1873), pp. 66–79]

What of the economic justification for that other great evil for individualist anarchists, rent? Rothbard attacked Adam Smith comment that landlords were monopolists who demanded rent for nature’s produce and like to reap where they never sowed. As he put it, Smith showed “no hint of recognition here that the landlord performs the vital function of allocating the land to its most productive use.” [An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 1, p. 456] Yet, as Smith was well aware, it is the farmer who has to feed himself and pay rent who decides how best to use the land, not the landlord. All the landlord does is decide whether to throw the farmer off the land when a more profitable business opportunity arrives (as in, say, during the Highland clearances) or that it is more “productive” to export food while local people starve (as in, say, the great Irish famine). It was precisely this kind of arbitrary power which the individualist anarchists opposed. As John Beverley Robinson put it, the “land owner gives nothing whatever, but permission to you to live and work on his land. He does not give his product in exchange for yours. He did not produce the land. He obtained a title at law to it; that is, a privilege to keep everybody off his land until they paid him his price. He is well called the lord of the land — the landlord!” [Patterns of Anarchy, p. 271]

Significantly, while Rothbard attacked Henry George’s scheme for land nationalisation as being a tax on property owners and stopping rent playing the role “Austrian” economic theory assigns it, the individualist anarchists opposed it because, at best, it would not end landlordism or, at worse, turn the state into the only landlord. In an unequal society, leasing land from the state “would greatly enhance the power of capitalism to engross the control of the land, since it would relieve it of the necessity of applying large amounts in purchasing land which it could secure the same control of by lease … It would greatly augment and promote the reign of the capitalism and displace the independent worker who now cultivates his own acres, but who would be then unable to compete with organised capital … and would be compelled to give up his holding and sink into the ranks of the proletariat.” [Joshua King Ingalls, Bowman N. Hall, “Joshua K. Ingalls, American Individualist: Land Reformer, Opponent of Henry George and Advocate of Land Leasing, Now an Established Mode”, pp. 383–96, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 39, No. 4, p. 394]

Given Tucker’s opposition to rent, interest and profit is should go without saying that he rejected the neo-classical and “Austrian” notion that a workers’ wages equalled the “marginal product,” i.e. its contribution to the production process (see section C.2 for a critique of this position). Basing himself on the socialist critique of classical economics developed by Proudhon and Marx, he argued that non-labour income was usury and would be driven to zero in a genuinely free market. As such, any notion that Tucker thought that workers in a “free market” are paid according to their marginal product is simply wrong and any claim otherwise shows a utter ignorance of the subject matter. Individualist anarchists like Tucker strongly believed that a truly free (i.e. non-capitalist) market would ensure that the worker would receive the “full product” of his or her labour. Nevertheless, in order to claim Tucker as a proto-“anarcho”-capitalist, “anarcho”-capitalists may argue that capitalism pays the “market price” of labour power, and that this price does reflect the “full product” (or value) of the worker’s labour. As Tucker was a socialist, we doubt that he would have agreed with the “anarcho”-capitalist argument that market price of labour reflected the value it produced. He, like the other individualist anarchists, was well aware that labour produces the “surplus value” which was appropriated in the name of interest, rent and profit. In other words, he very forcibly rejected the idea that the market price of labour reflects the value of that labour, considering “the natural wage of labour is its product” and “that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income.” [Instead of a Book, p. 6]

Liberty also favourably quoted a supporter of the silver coinage, General Francis A. Walker, and his arguments in favour of ending the gold standard. It praised his argument as “far more sound and rational than that of the supercilios, narrow, bigoted monomentallists.” Walker attacked those “economists of the a priori school, who treat all things industrial as if they were in a state of flux, ready to be poured indifferently into any kind of mould or pattern.” These economists “are always on hand with the answer that industrial society will ‘readjust’ itself to the new conditions” and “it would not matter if wages were at any time unduly depressed by combinations of employers, inasmuch as the excess of profits resulting would infallibly become capital, and as such, constitute an additional demand for labour … It has been the teaching of the economists of this sort which has so deeply discredited political economy with the labouring men on the one hand, and with practical business men on the other.” The “greatest part of the evil of a diminishing money supply is wrought through the discouragement of enterprise.” [Liberty, no. 287, p. 11] Given that the “Austrian” school takes the a priori methodology to ridiculous extremes and is always on hand to defend “excess of profits”, “combinations of employers” and the gold standard we can surmise Tucker’s reaction to Rothbard’s pet economic ideology.

Somewhat ironically, give Rothbard’s attempts to inflict bourgeois economics along with lots of other capitalist ideology onto individualist anarchism, Kropotkin noted that supporters of “individualist anarchism … soon realise that the individualisation they so highly praise is not attainable by individual efforts, and … [some] abandon the ranks of the anarchists, and are driven into the liberal individualism of the classical economists.” [Anarchism, p. 297] “Anarcho”-capitalists confuse the ending place of ex-anarchists with their starting point. As can be seen from their attempt to co-opt the likes of Spooner and Tucker, this confusion only appears persuasive by ignoring the bulk of their ideas as well as rewriting the history of anarchism.

So it can, we think, be save to assume that Tucker and other individualist anarchists would have little problem in refuting Rothbard’s economic fallacies as well as his goldbug notions (which seem to be a form of the money monopoly in another form) and support for the land monopoly. Significantly, modern individualist anarchists like Kevin Carson have felt no need to embrace “Austrian” economics and retain their socialist analysis while, at the same time, making telling criticisms of Rothbard’s favourite economic ideology and the apologetics for “actually existing” capitalism its supporters too often indulge in (Carson calls this “vulgar libertarianism”, wherein right-“libertarians” forget that the current economuy is far from their stated ideal when it is a case of defending corporations or the wealthy).

[dingodad]

if blood/caste = troll gender, then what would that make karkat? off the top of my dome, it immediately reads to me that he would be considered intersex or trans, both even, and at a glance, narratively that feels cohesive. i dont have anything to counter this reading, just curious on your thoughts!!

generally speaking i find it kind of a waste of time to try to identify "exact equivalents" in any given fictional allegory. blood castes are very much like troll genders and i think that's the most pertinent interpretation to homestuck's core themes, but the benefit of inventing a fictional system rather than straight up saying the trolls are segregated on the basis of sex is that the analogy doesn't have to be perfect and it can be used to represent different things at different times - the hemospectrum being a gender spectrum isn't mutually exclusive with the fact that it is also an economic hierarchy, for instance. a lot of discussions about "coding" in fiction end up languishing in the shallows by ignoring this.

so in terms of what the hemospectrum "makes karkat" i don't really think of it in terms of the exact thing that he would be on earth, bc i think the story adequately communicates the broad strokes; that whatever he is, in society's eyes he believes the circumstances of his birth cause him to fall short of the expectations that come with the strict categories alternia expects all trolls to fit into. i have to assume a lot of readers picking up on this is what led to trans guy karkat being such a hugely popular headcanon (besides trans guy headcanons having simply been the most popular thing full stop for a long time), which i think makes complete sense. i also think there are clear lines to be drawn between blood colour and biological sex in the way that biology never cleanly lines up with the social expectations associated with it, and even if i'm not totally sure terminology like "intersex" applies in the same way in a culture with 10+ genders as it does in a culture with just 2, the fact that trolls have a linear "spectrum" of genders clearly lends itself to this kind of thinking.

(this kind of harkens back to a years-old homestuck discourse: a lot of readers took issue with the suggestion that, despite being called a spectrum, in spinoff stories the troll blood colours are always depicted as fitting into twelve discrete categories. but long before i even began to explore the direct intersections between gender, sex and blood colour, the logic behind this seemed clear to me: surely all trolls ARE different and DO have subtly different shades to their blood, but in order to maintain a caste system where each blood colour has its place in the social order, alternian society has to act like there are only 12 colours. this is, after all, exactly how astrological signs are assigned; you can be born on any of 365 days in a year, but for the sake of neatly dividing the population into easily-described groups, each of these days is split among 12 basically-arbitrary signs. this clear parallel homestuck draws between gender and star sign is also why i find it so hard to take class and aspect seriously.)

so even if i don't think either of your options are necessarily what karkat's character is "intended" to convey in the same way i believe caste-as-gender as an intended reading, the versatility of the caste analogy makes them both very organic interpretations. BUT TO ACTUALLY GET TO YOUR QUESTION LOL: like i said in a previous ask, karkat comes across to me as being closeted. in conjunction with his chronically unorthodox approach to troll romance and the role he plays as homestuck's introduction to LGBT themes long before "trolls are bisexual" establishes itself as a canon fact, karkat reads as "the troll version" of a gay guy hiding this fundamental "flaw" in his being because he feels it's standing between him and the all-american ultra-masculine role he sees for himself among the threshecutioners. so like i said above i don't think it necessarily has to be about his "gender" so much as it is about his relationship to expectations of gender, just as troll-caste genders exist across a whole spectrum of expectations rather than in a strict binary.

[autolenaphilia]

I think a lot of the uproar whenever socialists suggest abolishing family and religion of the kind that is best expressed in this sentence: “how can you abolish religion and family, how would we then preserve traditional culture, it would mean cultural genocide and imperialism” stems from a fundamentally idealist understanding of the world. One that misunderstands Marx’s materialist view of history.

I mean idealism in the sense that ideas and culture drive history and societal change. Basically the course of history is decided by a struggle of ideas. This conflict is either peaceful in the liberal sense that people use reason to convince other people of their views, or it is waged by military means, and these military conflicts are seen as motivated by ideology, with the winner imposing their views on the conquered.

This idea is also driven by essentialist ideas literally coming from nationalism and religious “family values” conservatism, that religion, the family and ethnic identity are fundamental to human existence. And the only way for them to go away is for some authoritarian state to force people to give them up.

This creates a fantasy that abolition of family and religion will mean a totalitarian “communist state” using violence to force religious people to give up religion and breaking up families. And I presume said state waging war to force the rest of the world to give up religion and family. Literal cultural genocide with death squads. This fantasy seems to be inspired in part by Hoxhaist Albania’s “state atheism” and European colonialism forcing christianity on Africa and the Americas.

This fantasy however badly misunderstands the Marxian materialist perspective on culture, including family, ethnicity and religion, which is the basis for our predictions about the end of family and religion.

The short version is that we believe that the mode of production determines culture. Cultural institutions like family and religion and all of culture is dependent on certain modes of production, whether that will be feudal, capitalist or socialist. “The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. “ as Marx said. And that by removing the capitalist economic foundation on which family and religion as we now know it stands, a socialist revolution will lead to those institutions naturally being destroyed. People will want to abandon religion and the family because in the socialist system, it will no longer make any sense to them.

Religion acts as both moral justification of and consolation for the sufferings of a class society. A socialist society would not be “a condition that requires illusions” as Marx put it. And as Engels explained all the way back in 1847, communism will end the family “since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.“

One might object that the institutions of the family and religion have survived previous such revolutions, like the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Doesn’t that prove that they are permanent fixtures of human nature? But communism will be something radically different, as the The Communist manifesto explains:

“The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. “

It’s a contradiction in terms to want to “preserve culture” and also want to radically change the economic foundation on which culture stands, any type of “left-wing” position that claims to do both is ridiculous. A wish to “preserve traditional culture” can only lead to a reactionary position, one in which society is kept in stasis, or somehow returned to an earlier state, a stasis which preserves both the economic foundation and with it the culture.

And of course no such stasis has ever actually existed. No economic system and its cultural superstructure is truly static, as history proves. Every culture has gone through multiple cycles of death and rebirth, the most serious are periods of social revolution that transition from one mode of production to another. But between those periods there is usually a constant process of cultural evolution. In the end all cultures have gone though a ship-of-theseus-like total transformation multiple times.

As the manifesto puts it: “What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class. “

In fact, because capitalism is not a static system, we can see changes already happening in existing societies. The widespread secularization in the most advanced capitalist countries in western Europe, for example, shows how the decline of religion can happen peacefully and naturally. It wasn’t violent repression that has caused Swedes to abandon the Lutherean Christanity that once heavily defined Swedish culture, it was because it no longer made any sense in an advanced capitalist society.

In a socialist revolution, there will probably be violence, but it would largely be the reactionaries who would cause it. There was revolutionary violence against the Orthodox Church in the Russian revolution and against the Catholic Church in the Spanish revolution, but that was because the churches sided with the forces of reaction. And the men who benefit from the family, actual patriarchs, will probably react with violence towards any attempt to lessen their power. Even as we speak, men often react to women divorcing them by stepping up their abusive violence.

As for the accusation of imperialism, it’s true that this revolution will be global, because there is no other way to defeat global capitalism. “It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.” as Engels put it. But it will have to be the work of the working class themselves, which precludes a state, local or foreign/imperialist, doing it for them.

As the manifesto puts it: “In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.”

For more information on Marx’s material conception of history, just read Marx and Engels. This is basically all based on Marx’s works specifically. It’s why I don’t use terms like “dialectical materialism” or “historical materialism” or even “marxism”, because he didn’t use those terms, those descriptions came from later interpreters of his work, but that’s outside the scope of this text.

The works I quoted above are a good starting point. The preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy has a great introduction to his views, Marx himself summarizes them in a single paragraph and the whole book is worth reading. Regarding religion, another preface that states Marx’s view very clearly is the often-quoted introduction to A Contribution to the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right, the source of the “religion is the opium of the people” quote. The Communist Manifesto is of course worth reading and quoted at length above. Engels wrote a FAQ-style draft of the manifesto called The Principles of Communism in 1847 that quite literally answers common questions about communism, particularly relevant to this post are the answers to questions 19-23.

[sxrensxngwrites]

The Inner Circle Crushing on Someone from a Different Background -- Part One

this request comes from anon, who asks: 'Head canons for the main dragon age squard (if you feel up to it of course!!!!) About them crushing on someone from a different background (example: cullen and someone rich)'

I ended up splitting this up because I got carried away... my bad. If you want any of these to be revisited or you want me to go into more detail, feel free to shoot me another ask! The same can be said you want DA characters from different games. I ended up omitting the portion of the post with Solas, Varric, and Vivienne for various reasons, but if anyone wants to see those: please send me an ask and i'll try my best to get to it.

Part One (Blackwall, Cassandra, Cole) Part Two (Cullen, Dorian, The Iron Bull) Part Three (Josephine, Leliana, Sera)

BLACKWALL:

Blackwall is a good example of “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. Or that’s what he thinks at least. Despite his efforts to join in on the group atmosphere in the Inner Circle of Inquisition, I think he sticks to what he knows best: being on his own. 

In the instance of meeting his opposite, I don’t think it’s necessarily someone from a different social or economic standing (although that could be true as well). In this case, Blackwall meets someone who is the embodiment of community. Someone who truly believes that being around like-minded individuals brings out the best in everyone–someone who believes in second chances and inclusion. Said someone would also be less militant than Blackwall, likely having grown up in a community or place that didn’t require them to be fighting at every chance.

When Blackwall begins to catch feelings, he thinks it’s a pipe dream. To him, it’s unreasonable that someone like him–a liar, stuck in self-imposed exile–would be deserving of someone so open minded and forgiving. He shoves every thought he has away, resorting to isolating himself more. He doesn’t want to ruin anything else.

His crush, being someone that believes in inclusion, would refuse to leave Blackwall out (even not knowing the circumstances of his isolation). They would pull him right back into the fray of the Inner Circle and whatever shenanigans they get into in between quests. Their insistence on including Blackwall makes him believe that he really might have a chance after all.

CASSANDRA:

Cassandra has an interesting relationship with her social status. She’s technically in line for the Nevarran throne, but she wanted nothing to do with the nobility. She gave up that claim and gave herself to the Seekers of Truth–but even there she couldn’t remain unremarkable. Cassandra is so good at most everything she does, so she finds standing at the right hand of Divine Justinia. 

Cassandra would likely find interest in someone who came from a different station than she did: humble beginnings and no titles. She finds it refreshing. There’s no nonsensical rituals that need to be done every time they speak, and the lack of formality makes her feel like she’s being treated like a real person. For her to even develop feelings in the first place, the object of her affection would need to be able to stand on their own–she likes someone who doesn’t hide behind orders, organizations, and titles.

When Cassandra meets anyone at all, she doesn’t dare bring up her family name. This is especially the case with someone who catches her interest–and especially if they have nothing to do with the nobility at all. Cassandra wants to be perceived for herself and her skills, rather than the family that has come before her. Not to mention, getting Cassandra to talk about her family history takes a considerable amount of trust.

It takes months of traveling together for Cassandra to begin to let her walls down. When she sees that this person she might have feelings for can be their own person, fights for what they believe in, and stands up against the unjust, she starts to let her own walls down. Sharing her past, her family and her titles is the next step for her–it’s probably the best sign of trust you could get from her. That trust is enough for her to see her crush in a serious light–that this is someone who understands her for who she is, rather than where she came from. 

COLE:

Cole’s origins are so different from the rest of the Inner Circle, having been the amalgamation of a spirit and a human boy. He doesn’t really remember the life that preceded him joining the Inquisition, and his days are shaped by the people that he’s helped rather than the things that happened. Everything about him is rough around the edges since he was never taught much of anything.

When Cole meets his crush, many of the Inner Circle think it’s a disaster waiting to happen–of course he decided to fall for someone with a very prestigious upbringing. They have a noble background and were always taught to be on their best behavior. Even around their friends, they’re formal and use proper titles. It takes a while for it to begin to wear off (only after Varric has insisted that it’s okay that they use first names).

Cole is immediately attracted to them. He doesn’t entirely understand the formalities, but the way that they speak to him on the same level as they do everyone else makes him feel special. That’s how it begins; He enjoys being treated with respect. They’ll even call him “Ser Cole” even though he doesn’t have a real title. And to them, Cole’s interest in everything is adorable. It’s so different from all the possible matches in the nobility. They often turn their noses up at everything, but Cole seems to find joy in even the smallest things.

The relationship begins smoothly. Most of the Inner Circle thinks it’s sweet, so there’s little objection. It’s likely the family of Cole’s love that objects. When they meet, Cole is immediately overwhelmed–all the unspoken rules that are going over his head, and the copious feelings he’s hearing all at once. The evening is a disaster, likely culminating in a family member saying something heinous to Cole. After that Cole begins to think that maybe he’s not worthy of loving someone like them, that it’d be easier to give it up just so he’d never have to do that again. Yet, his love finds meaning in the smaller things, and they’re willing to give up everything they grew up with if it means getting to stay with Cole.

PART ONE | PART TWO | PART THREE

[curiousb]

The Kellynch Hall Yearbook: Volume X

New year, new intake at De Bourgh University!

Marmaduke is hot stuff, it seems.

Edward certainly won the genetic jackpot.

~ Libra 2 / 10 / 6 / 10 / 3

~ Artistic / Over-emotional / Good Sense of Humour / Hopeless Romantic / Workaholic

~ OTH: Arts & Crafts

~ Favourite Colour(s): Yellow / Red

~ Aspiration: Romance / Knowledge

~ Turn-ons / -off: +Artistic / +Alien / -Blonde Hair

~ Major: Art

Couldn't you two wait until I'd finished your makeovers at least? Keziah and Nathan sneak their first kiss - with each other - the moment they get through the doors!

Nathan is a Sim that is entirely comfortable with himself, and sees no reason to change his image.

~ Libra 6 / 8 / 6 / 2 / 10

~ Friendly / Athletic / Neat / Can’t Stand Art / Schmoozer

~ OTH: Fitness

~ Favourite Colour(s): Red / Blue

~ Aspiration: Popularity / Romance

~ Turn-ons / -off: +Athletic / +Well-liked / -Occult

~ Major: Political Science

Keziah on the other hand is after a new look for her new life. I don't think this one is working for me either though.

For Edward and his teenage sweetheart Erasmus - despite being polar opposites - it's definitely love.

And Marmaduke still hasn't got over his teenage crush on best friend Louisa.

For Sally though, it goes much deeper. Louisa however, is not ready to commit.

Marmaduke is also not having a lot of success in the romance game.

Never mind, Marmaduke - you're a good-looking lad, and I'm sure it's just a case of finding the right girl.

~ Gemini 4 / 7 / 9 / 1 / 3

~ Genius / No Sense of Humour / Dog Person / Diva / Ambitious

~ OTH: Sport

~ Favourite Colour(s): Primaries

~ Aspiration: Fortune / Romance

~ Turn-ons / -offs: +Athletic / +Serious / -Rebellious

~ Major: Biology

Shy William is also struggling with the social aspects of student life.

Until he manages to find a bit of common ground with Marmaduke.

~ Cancer 7 / 3 / 6 / 4 / 9

~ Coward / Shy / Natural Cook / Eco-friendly / Avant Garde

~ OTH: Cuisine

~ Favourite Colour(s): Mauve

~ Aspiration: Family / Knowledge

~ Turn-ons / -off: +Reserved / +Tidy / -Infamous

~ Major: Literature

Keziah finally settles on a new image - for now.

~ Pisces 3 / 4 / 5 / 4 / 6

~ Absent-minded / Rebellious / Eco-friendly / Brooding / Avant Garde

~ OTH: Film & Literature

~ Favourite Colour(s): Orange / Blue

~ Aspiration: Knowledge / Pleasure

~ Turn-ons / -off: +Reserved / +Unique / -Fitness

~ Major: Mathematics

And Sally just makes the best faces.

~ Cancer 10 / 5 / 8 / 2 / 4

~ Athletic / Brave / Perfectionist / Avant Garde / Proper

~ OTH: Fitness

~ Favourite Colour: Magenta

~ Aspiration: Fortune / Knowledge

~ Turn-ons/off: +Fitness / +Cultured / -Laid Back

~ Major: Economics

Louisa is also trying out a makeover - not just of their appearance, but their name too. From now on, they've decided that they would prefer to be called Louie.

~ Aries 5 / 9 / 7 / 5 / 2

~ Diva / Hot-headed / Natural Cook / Workaholic / Schmoozer

~ OTH: Cuisine

~ Favourite Colour(s): Light Blue

~ Aspiration: Romance / Fortune

~ Turn-ons / -off: +Stylish / +Brown Hair / -Laid Back

~ Major: Philosophy

While the others are experimenting with new images and new relationships, Erasmus is just stressing about his workload.

~ Aries 6 / 5 / 3 / 2 / 4

~ Brave / Cat Person / No Sense of Humour / Computer Whiz / Can't Stand Art

~ OTH: Science

~ Favourite Colour(s): Lime Green

~ Aspiration: Knowledge / Family

~ Turn-ons / -off: +Alien / +Mechanical / -Daydreamer

~ Major: Mathematics

It's good to see these two settling their differences over a gaming session.

It seems I spoke too soon.

[aegor-bamfsteel]

Do you think that there were chances to rebel against slavery in Slavers Bay?

Not only do I know there were, but the slaving societies that GRRM has written are so overinflated they should’ve been history long before Dány’s war.

The societies of Slaver’s Bay (and the Free Cities) are without a doubt slaving societies. A “slaving society” as described by influential historian Moses I Finley, is different from a “society with slaves” (which were most of ancient societies) where slavery was a small aspect of social/economic life; a slaving society had at least 20% slaves, there’s enough of them to create a cultural impact, and they’re an essential part of the economy. In Finley’s model, there are only 5 slaving societies in (Western) history: Greece, Rome, colonial US South, Caribbean, and Brazil. GRRM makes it clear that without slavery, Slaver’s Bay would collapse economically (as would the Free Cities further west). He provides comically high numbers of slaves in some of the Free Cities (slave to free are 3:1 in Lys, Myr, Tyrosh; and 5:1 in Volantis), but we hear of only a few slave rebellions in them (when the Doom of Valyria happened and they killed all the dragons surviving except the Targs’) until Dány, but why? In slaving societies, the threat of violence for rebelling was institutional and severe…but every one of those 5 had multiple examples of slave uprisings. And in some cases where the slaves outnumbered the elites by that level of magnitude, they were successful. The helots of Messenia took advantage of an earthquake and Thebes’ invasion of Sparta to revolt and eventually rebuild their old city, while the enslaved people of Haiti took advantage of the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars to win their independence. It stands to reason as a hub of slavery that Slaver’s Bay has an enslaved population close to that of the Free Cities, but there’s never any uprising mentioned until Dány comes? Even though we know that natural disasters and institutional warfare took place in that area. And don’t tell me the magical Unsullied just prevented all rebellions forever; the Spartans were allegedly the best warriors in Ancient Greece, whole kingdoms couldn’t win against Roman consular armies, the French army defeated practically most of Europe during the Revolutionary/Napoleonic period…but there were slave rebellions that managed to beat all of them, even if temporarily (poor Spartacus). But we’re just supposed to assume that after the fall of Valyria—which TWOIAF did tell us coincided with slave rebellions against the dragonlords—absolutely none of these cities achieved any sort of lasting freedom for its enslaved people? Even when the source of the Valyrian might, the dragons, was gone and the elite could no longer rely on that violence to keep the population in line? They were all just suffering and waiting for a savior for centuries, despite being most of the city’s population (including much of the army) and there being only some backup for the elite? The USA had to outlaw educating enslaved people for fear of rebellion, but there were still uprisings; meanwhile, in Essos there’s no ban on education, but we hear of none in Slaver’s Bay? It’s absolute nonsense historically, and only serves to make the slavers look super evil and Dány to look more like an apparent hero; the byproduct is that the enslaved people are robbed of the spirit, agency, and solidarity that they had in real life.

[neverenoughmarauders]

Do we lose something by adding 'blood' magic and giving Remus powers due to his lycanthropy?

So I think yes.

To me, the whole point about purebloods obsessing about their blood status is that it makes no real difference - in fact, it's probably way better to expand the gene pool - as Ron points out. The discriminating against muggle-borns is baseless. In fact, in the canon it's made clear by multiple characters that purebloods have no reason to think themselves superiour. If we add powers related to the bloodlines, it's like giving the purebloods a reason to be right. The aryan race stuff was just BS, and so is the belief that being pureblood makes you better.

I feel equally strongly about Remus having any special powers related to his condition. Yes we know Bill likes his steaks rare now, let's leave it at that please. Remus' condition is meant to be a metaphor for HIV / conditions that significantly affect your quality of life and importantly, your social and economic standing. Giving him some benefits just makes me feel sick. Being unwell is not a superpower, but what is a superpower is the strength to keep going (to the ability people can <3).

In fact, I don't even like it when the discrimination against him is downplayed. It's probably the most important reason why I don't like casanova Remus. Remus' confidence and life quality is significantly impacted by the prejudices against werewolves. In canon, he never let himself fall in love (until he was forced together with Tonks due to proximity) because he is a werewolf. This man would not go around making out/having sex with people left, right and centre. This man would not be surrounded by a whole cohort of people who knew he was a werewolf but didn't care. People didn't know because he kept it a secret and because the idea that there was a werewolf at school would have been preposterous. He wouldn't be popular - Remus wouldn't want that attention on him.

Remus was desperately dependent on the Marauders because they figured out what he was despite his best attempts to hide it (because the four were extremely close and James and Sirius were exceptionally bright). Remus knew how lucky and unusual it was that they stuck with him; and worked to make his transformations bearable - and fun even.

--

Adding magic powers to bloodlines - downplaying Remus' condition - these things takes away from some of the more serious discussions this series attempts to have with its readers. In my view.

[transmutationisms]

what do you think of the roys & classism? obviously they are all classist but i think how it manifests is pretty interesting - shiv marries far below her station and seems ever-conscious of it, connor is defensive of willa and in an odd way seems to actually believe that sex workers deserve respect but still relegates willa to a prop in his life, logan is incredibly frustrated with his children & their inability to “act right” & married into nobility precisely to give them a pedigree, which is seemingly rendered useless by their mother’s second marriage (she’s known for marrying people who buy their own furniture!) - and i guess the biggest thing is that logan is right. his children do not know how to act right. none of them are cultured, all of them are power hungry and rude but not in the way rich people are supposed to be rude, everything about them screams new money. logan can’t stand it despite how he resents the pierces for their elitism and the kids don’t seem to aspire to any kind of decorum (they do relentlessly mock the social climbers for misbehaviour). i guess this all makes them come off as kind of pathetic. they can’t compete with more refined attitudes (the pierces), they lack european flair (mom’s wedding!), and they still get defeated by money so new you can smell the ink on it because they’re the children of a barbarian king that haven’t learned how to manage wealth the way like, actual nobility would (thus defeated by mattson and his nasdaq master race of vikings). i guess what i’m asking is how the roy’s position of new money is portrayed(?) in the story / how this affects them / what you think!

also do you hate tom? i hate tom.

ok, i think there are a couple different (overlapping) phenomena you're identifying here. one is the old money vs new money thing, which is more a matter of cultural capital than economic class. logan is absolutely insecure about this, eg he's still mad pierce ran that story calling him lowbrow, and he's clearly so embarrassed of his kids in 'tern haven' in particular, when they're contrasted to the old-money pierces. there's also the décor in his apartment, which is the closest the roys ever get to that old-money aesthetic; none of the kids know how to speak that aesthetic language, and obviously it's doubtful logan did any of his own decorating lol.

then there's the general sort of 'man out of time' quality that waystar and the roys have. some of this emanates top-down from logan's own insanity. like, his ideals of masculinity are this hodge-podge of american bourgeois productivity (modern), catholic dualism and body disgust (medieval), and the military (aesthetically a combination of ancient, modern, and early modern). imo this type of anachronism is what's going on with connor and willa—like, if connor lived in paris in 1730 he could just be a financier and have a kept woman, and there would be an established social script for that. but instead he's stuck in 2020 which means he has to use the wrong social form lol. also he like, doesn't think about willa's needs as separate from his own desires obviously, but imo that's more about his view of women and the family than sex work.

the third thing is their like, biological degeneration fears, which again are part of logan's worldview. he's basically a 'social darwinist' (spencerian i would say), which plays into how he wanted to find a 'good bloodline' for his younger three kids and how he worries about his sons being weak and soft and gay and not producing suitable heirs. obviously this is also related to the 'nasdaq master race' situation: it's this fear of like, nordic social and biological improvement, contrasted to a declining american empire. logan's specific degeneration fears about his kids are, i would say, deeply related to his belief that raising them with money made them soft and weak. basically a version of the degenerate idle bourgeois. so, the relationship to class here is complicated.

and then finally there is the actual classism. some of this is more or less what we would expect from billionaires (like roman and tom fucking with that kid in the pilot, or the ways the roys ignore or sometimes lash out at their domestic help / assistants). but there are some specific ways it plays out, like shiv thinking poor people are dirty (the 19th century social hygienist jumped out) and connor having, like, almost a fetishistic envy of (his rosy view of) true american working-class masculinity, hence his ranch situation or how he talks about the bar on his wedding eve. like, connor sees poor people as having more access to various kinds of experiential authenticity that he can't have, even though he's also the roy most capable of actually enjoying the material benefits of wealth.

i think this all adds up to a really potent stew of like, yeah the roys are wealthy and powerful and materially protected but they're also sad and lonely and pathetic lmao. like, they have varying levels of modernity anxiety despite being modern bourgeois, they're running a corporate empire that postures as a noble dynasty, they're wealthy but never fully accepted into the cultural élite. it's all hollow and soulless and unsatisfying, hence the glass-and-steel aesthetic of the waystar building and their horrible boring clothes. this is all part of how the show explores bourgeois alienation without falling into the trap of either softening the roys' repugnant qualities, or portraying their wealth as aspirational.

also in re: yr addendum no wkjdkwj i don't hate tom. i don't hate any succession character, except comfrey on the grounds of being totally superfluous and poorly written.

[bethanydelleman]

What do you think are common among all Jane Austen protagonists? In terms of their personalities I mean.

One of the really amazing things about Jane Austen is how well she is able to portray different personalities. Of her heroines, no two are really exactly alike.

In basic terms, Emma, Elizabeth, Marianne, and Catherine are extroverts, Jane Bennet, Anne, Elinor, and Fanny are introverted, but only Fanny is actually shy. I’ve had people challenge me on these categorizations, but Elinor prefers to process emotions herself and not to share them with her family, while Marianne does performative grief. Anne finds the most comfort in her own thoughts.

If we look at the big five (or six) personality traits 

openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious)

conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. extravagant/careless)

extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)

agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. critical/rational)

neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. resilient/confident)

honesty-humility (fair and genuine while dealing with others)

I think we can agree that the scores for each heroine would be different. Elizabeth is excited to travel and experience new things, Fanny Price would rather stay quiet at home. Elinor is more critical and rational, while Catherine is friendly and compassionate. 

But I’m not a social psychologist and I’ve always found these categories kind of fluid. Elinor is rational, but she is also very compassionate. Anne seems to be closed off to new experiences, she doesn’t want to go to London or Bath, but then glories in marrying a member of the navy. So is she open or not?

I don’t know if one could call it “personality” but what the heroines all share is a strong sense of right that is relatively unyielding. Even Emma, who occasionally shirks her duties, generally adheres to moral principles. Catherine stands strong in the face of peer pressure, as does Fanny Price. Anne will not ignore her sickly friend. Elinor staunchly follows the rules of propriety despite what it costs her and glories in Edward’s morality even when it hurts her. Elisabeth will not marry a man she does not respect.

All the heroines also have the capability to walk the line of prudence and avarice, discussed in Pride & Prejudice. Lydia marries for love only, without thought to money, Charlotte marries for comfort without love, and Lucy Steele marries for wealth without love; no Jane Austen heroine would do any of these things. Edward and Elinor will not marry without financial stability, even when Elizabeth is infatuated with Wickham, she knows they can’t really marry. Fanny Price, who is in the most economically dire situation, will not marry even though she could easily fall into poverty because she doesn't love Henry Crawford or believe he is a good man.

I think this point is important because love is not enough for a Jane Austen heroine, there must be some thought in regards to money. Charles Hayter and Henrietta Musgrove in Persuasion do not marry until he has a more stable position as a clergyman. This is shown as the right thing to do. But that is also a hard line to walk, as Marianne and Elinor discuss, what is a competency and what is wealth? Where does prudence end and avarice begin? I love that Jane Austen doesn’t think love is enough, because the statistics bear her out, money is the #1 reason for divorce.

So to sum up, Jane Austen’s heroines are very different in terms of personality. The things they have in common are a strong moral compass and the ability to stand strong in their principles. One of these principles is marrying prudently.

[eusuchia]

sorry to the anon but I couldn't figure out how to edit my answer once it was in my drafts (great website).

the question was (badly paraphrasing) shouldn't we try to preserve the livelihoods of ceramicists and weavers too? and instead of saying 'mass production already killed this industry, and it will happen to others,' try to save more art from it?

basically yes! deskilling due to industrial capitalism sucks and mass production makes commodity fetishism infinitely worse. I think it's important to preserve craft knowledge and don't think we should just cede everything to industrialization, but that feeling isn't going to shift industrial trends -- only industrial action will do that. for what it's worth, it's really annoying to hear 'just unionize!' as an artist, when many, like me, are self-employed/freelance, and without sudden mass interest in some kind of low-entry-requirement sectoral guild, are not very unionizable because we don't have workplaces in the traditional sense. but by sheer numbers a lot of the job loss to AI would be corporate-level, I think, and there's more potential for people employed by like, marvel, to actually do something significant about the use of AI, than for individual customers trying to throw their weight around by buying or boycotting. I'm happy to get proved wrong here by some targeted mass boycott campaign, but I'm not holding my breath.

on a personal level I regularly spend money on handmade ceramics, fiber arts, and original art commissions both physical and digital because I find them valuable and beautiful. but I also use my IKEA plates and print-on-demand t-shirts, functionally devaluing those crafts. no amount of hypothetical discourse shaming me for 'stealing from working craftsmen' would really change that due to the economic realities. (tangentially, I don't use AI as a stand-in for commissioned art because they are not at all interchangeable to me.)

broadly though, isn't every kind of automation 'taking a livelihood' from someone in theory? my original reply to metamatar's post was basically asking where you draw the line. digital printing is taking the work of typesetters and sign painters, canva presets are taking the work of graphic designers, slip casting is taking the work of ceramicists. yet those trades still exist, and if anything I think their creative horizons are a little wider when the drudgery of the industry is taken up by machines. I know that's paltry compensation for a vanishing job market under capitalism, but isn't it a good thing when ceramicists and weavers are free to explore their ideas and not confined to backbreaking work of making the same bowls or yards of tweed for years on end? (especially in The Good Society with robust social protection that we should all be fighting for anyway)

there can be different use cases for these things (artisanal vs mass produced) and one use doesn't mean 1:1 something is being stolen from the other. personally I'm never going to pay someone to render my likeness instead of taking a photo; the money that's being 'lost' by a realism portrait artist there is purely hypothetical. same for when people get mad about others generating AI art for fun. 'you could have paid an artist for this [generated meme in the style of hr giger]' ok but they weren't going to and you can't make them.

I think people are unthinkingly flattening all kinds of creative labour when they talk about what might happen with AI. to start with, people are often talking about the job market of the first world/imperial core/etc despite the huge amounts of creative labour in/outsourced to other countries. but wherever you want to apply AI -- I don't think boutique client-based work is ever going to vanish, because the stuff that AI can do well is limited to certain types of digital illustration and animation, and you need human, creative problem-solving for new creative work, even on industrial levels with lots of automating tools in the workflow. art directors with good sense can see that. big name editorial illustrators are going to remain big name editorial illustrators. etc. (tbh, I think even the stuff AI is 'good at' looks dogshit a lot of the time, hence my disinterest in it, but that's a personal valuation and has no economic bearing.)

I'm not saying there's nothing to worry about, especially because managers and execs are often stupid and have bad taste and want to 'incorporate AI' when it makes no fucking sense, and would gladly thin out their staff for any reason. but that is ultimately a labour problem and not an artistic one.

[warningsine]

Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea is 82 and has been in power for 45 years. Denis Sassou Nguesso of Congo, 79, has held on to power for 40 years. Cameroon’s Paul Biya is 91 and has been president for 42 years.

Their extended tenures are largely due to a lack of constitutional limits on presidential age and terms in their countries. These three cases of political endurance aren’t unprecedented in Africa: Félix Houphouët-Boigny led Côte d'Ivoire for 33 years, Gnassingbé Eyadema remained at the helm in Togo for 40 years and Omar Bongo Ondimba reigned over Gabon for 42 years.

As such leaders approach an end-of-reign phase, intense succession rivalries tend to play out. These rivalries are fuelled by deep-seated conflicts within presidential families, and can lead to prolonged social and political instability.

I have researched the geopolitical issues in central Africa and explored political transition prospects in Equatorial Guinea, Congo and Cameroon. In a recent article, I analysed the risks of destabilisation posed by succession conflicts in these three countries – and their potential impact on neighbouring regions.

The potential for political transition in Equatorial Guinea, Congo and Cameroon is notable given the “twilight” phase of their long-serving leaders. This transition was also seen in the last years of power of the long-serving Ivorian, Togolese and Gabonese presidents.

The signs of a twilight phase include:

frequent and increasingly extended health-related absences of the heads of state

growing discord and dissonance within decision-making circles of the ruling camps

intensified power struggles within the president’s political and family networks

rising ambitions within the presidential camp to attain the highest office

a noticeable detachment from the public’s basic concerns.

How things might pan out

Equatorial Guinea’s and Congo’s regimes favour dynastic power transitions. In contrast, hereditary succession is unlikely to play out in Cameroon, but party power struggles could complicate the political transition.

Presidential clans come with complexity. They have intricate alliances and networks centred on the leader. As the leader’s authority wanes due to age or illness, unity within these clans fractures. This is driven by:

power struggles among the leader’s children from different mothers

disputes over economic monopolies and resources

growing conspiracies within the inner circle

the disgrace and repression of perceived “traitors” and their allies.

These factors could contribute to unstable succession prospects in Equatorial Guinea and the Congo.

Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo succeeded his uncle Francisco Macias Nguema Biyogo, the first president of Equatorial Guinea, following a coup d'état in 1979. With the exception of Pascal Lissouba (1992-1997), who was a native of the south of the country, presidential power in the Congo has been in the hands of the northerners since a 1968 coup d'état. The significant political influence wielded by Mbasogo’s many children fuels the potential of an upcoming hereditary succession.

The push for family succession aims to protect the presidential clan’s interests in the state and military apparatus after the leader’s death. This is driven by the memory of disinheritance faced by past ruling families (such as Central African Republic’s Jean Bedel Bokassa, Democratic Republic of Congo’s Mobutu Sese Seko, Angola’s José Eduardo Dos Santos and Gabon’s Omar Bongo). There are also often fears of political and judicial repercussions.

In Cameroon, the president has excluded his family from political roles. Instead, Biya has maintained tight control and eliminated internal rivalries. Despite this, his political record offers no assurance of a smooth transition.

The impending departure of the current leaders in all three countries – Equatorial Guinea, the Congo and Cameroon – could jeopardise their stability. This could spill over into the region.

Rivalry in Equatorial Guinea

Mbasogo’s successor will likely be a member of his clan. The question is who. Will it be Teodorin Nguema Obiang, the eldest son, better known for his spending sprees than his statesmanship? His rise to strategic positions (vice-president of the republic) and the overt support of his mother, the first lady, seem to signal his potential ascent to head of state.

There’s also Gabriel Mbega Obiang Lima, the youngest son, with a mother from São Tomé and Príncipe. He has held several ministerial dockets, and currently oversees mines and oil. Lima’s perceived “seriousness” has made him a favourite among influential Chinese and western investors in the country.

Conflict over inheritance in Congo

In Congo, succession is complicated by family conflicts. President Nguesso’s son, Denis Christel Sassou Nguesso, is rumoured to be seeking the presidency. His mother is from the neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo. But Denis faces opposition from his cousins: Jean-Dominique Okemba, head of the intelligence service, and Edgard Nguesso, a senior military officer and director of presidential assets.

Congo’s turbulent political history heightens concerns about the upcoming transition. A north-south ethno-political divide has fostered deep-seated resentment among local communities, particularly between their elites. Political dissent is now prevalent, especially in the north, which has traditionally been the regime’s stronghold.

After he regained power through military means in 1997, the president refocused on his ethnic group, the Mbochis. This shift has alienated other ethnic groups from Nguesso’s home region. They include the Kouyou, Makoua and Téké who have increasingly voiced their grievances. These northern elites are feeling marginalised and are, therefore, likely to oppose any perceived attempts at dynastic succession.

In the south, the civil war (1997-2001) deepened the long-standing mistrust of the “northern regime” among the Kongo-Lari ethnic group. The prospect of dynastic succession is likely to stir up old grievances.

The reactivation of dissent in the southern region after Nguesso’s contentious re-election in 2016 highlights the lingering threat of civil war in the country. Although the suppression of political and military forces from contested regions reduces the likelihood of opposition, the dynastic handover plan could still provoke significant unrest.

There are still residual armed factions in the south. This supports the possibility of a resurgence of resistance in areas opposed to the regime.

Cameroon’s inter-community tensions

With Biya excluding his family from political roles, the possibility of dynastic succession is unlikely. However, with Cameroon due to hold presidential elections in 2025, two major challenges to a smooth transition stand out:

the lack of an official successor within the ruling party

uncertainty about the process of selecting a party candidate for the presidential election.

This could lead to numerous claimants for the position, potentially igniting internal conflicts within the party. These power struggles could deepen existing identity-based divisions.

The rivalry between the Bulu-Béti (south) and Bamiléké (west) communities epitomises the inter-community tensions threatening the country’s stability. This rivalry is driven by a quest for dominance among political and intellectual elites.

Traditionally focused on economic activities, the Bamiléké are now increasingly showing national political ambitions. This has raised concerns among the Bulu-Béti elite.

The contested 2018 presidential election results and the ethnic slurs that followed highlight ongoing tensions in the country. These dynamics are likely to shape the political landscape leading up to the 2025 elections.

[cornocopaeaapp]

The contrasting treatment of Harrison Butker and Colin Kaepernick underscores a deep-seated hypocrisy in how athletes' political and social expressions are received, reflecting broader societal biases. Harrison Butker, a kicker for the Kansas City Chiefs, has been vocal about his conservative views, including pro-life stances and support for traditional marriage. Despite the potentially divisive nature of his opinions, Butker has largely been celebrated or, at the very least, not faced significant backlash. This acceptance can be attributed to the alignment of his views with the prevailing sentiments of a substantial portion of the NFL's fan base, as well as the broader societal tolerance for right-leaning perspectives within professional sports.

In stark contrast, Colin Kaepernick, former quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, has faced severe condemnation and professional ostracism for his protest against racial injustice and police brutality. By kneeling during the national anthem, Kaepernick sought to draw attention to systemic inequalities and the mistreatment of African Americans. His peaceful protest, however, was met with widespread vitriol, accusations of unpatriotism, and ultimately, his exit from the NFL. Kaepernick's treatment highlights a clear double standard: while Butker's conservative expressions are tolerated or even praised, Kaepernick's progressive activism has been harshly penalized.

This disparity can be understood through the lens of societal power structures and the intersection of race and politics in America. Butker's stances resonate with a demographic that holds considerable influence within the NFL's viewership and ownership. His alignment with conservative values, which are often intertwined with notions of patriotism and traditionalism, provides a shield against backlash. Kaepernick, on the other hand, challenged the status quo and confronted deeply ingrained racial issues, which provoked discomfort and resistance from those invested in maintaining these structures. The vehement reaction to Kaepernick's protest reveals an intolerance for dissenting voices that challenge systemic injustices, particularly when those voices come from African American athletes.

The hypocrisy in the treatment of Butker and Kaepernick is further underscored by the framing of their actions. Butker's political expressions are often framed as exercising his freedom of speech, a fundamental right in American democracy. Conversely, Kaepernick's protest was frequently mischaracterized as disrespect towards the flag and the military, a deliberate distortion that overshadowed his actual message. This selective framing indicates a broader societal reluctance to engage with uncomfortable truths about racial inequality and a preference for maintaining a facade of unity, even at the cost of silencing necessary activism.

Moreover, the economic and social implications of these divergent receptions are significant. Kaepernick's blacklisting from the NFL not only deprived him of his livelihood but also sent a chilling message to other athletes considering similar protests. It reinforced the notion that advocacy for racial justice carries severe professional risks, thereby discouraging others from speaking out. In contrast, Butker has continued his career without major repercussions, signaling that conservative viewpoints, even when polarizing, are largely safe within the professional sports arena. This disparity perpetuates a cycle where voices advocating for the status quo are amplified, while those pushing for progressive change are marginalized.

To conclude, the differing receptions of Harrison Butker and Colin Kaepernick's political expressions reveal a profound hypocrisy in how societal values are applied within the realm of professional sports. While Butker is lauded or at least tolerated for his conservative views, Kaepernick has been castigated for his stand against racial injustice. This double standard reflects broader societal biases, revealing an underlying resistance to confronting and addressing systemic inequalities. The contrasting treatment of these athletes serves as a microcosm of the broader struggles faced by those advocating for social change in a society that often prefers the comfort of the status quo over the discomfort of necessary progress.

If you have managed to read this input to the end, I respect your patience.