#economic antagonism

[rotenotes]

TAKAHISA OISHI - The Materialist Interpretation of History and Marx's Critique of Political Economy

The Materialist Interpretation of History and Marx’s Critique of Political Economy TAKAHISA OISHI Professor of Economics Takushoku University Tokyo, Japan Introduction In my latest paper[1], I examined the editing problems of “I Feuerbach” of The German Ideology (1845-1846)–hereafter FEUERBACH–. Here I am concerned with the so-called ‘materialist interpretation of history’, which has been said…

[opstandelse]

TAKAHISA OISHI - The Materialist Interpretation of History and Marx's Critique of Political Economy

The Materialist Interpretation of History and Marx’s Critique of Political Economy TAKAHISA OISHI Professor of Economics Takushoku University Tokyo, Japan Introduction In my latest paper[1], I examined the editing problems of “I Feuerbach” of The German Ideology (1845-1846)–hereafter FEUERBACH–. Here I am concerned with the so-called ‘materialist interpretation of history’, which has been said…

[spaceman---29]

Men's antagonism toward women's self defense strategies reflects their discomfort with female empowerment. When women take measures to protect themselves, such as carrying weapons or walking with dogs, some men attempt to undermine their efforts, which reveals a desire to maintain control over women by keeping them vulnerable. Radical feminist critiques of sex work focus on the broader systemic forces that push women into the industry, rather than simply protecting workers. They argue that by targeting the demand for sex work and providing resources to exit, feminists can dismantle the structures that exploit women. Radical feminists often criticize the liberal feminist approach to sex work for not addressing the root causes of exploitation. While criminalizing sex work without further support systems can harm workers, radical feminists argue for a broader restructuring of society to provide alternatives. By focusing on creating safe exits from the sex industry, they emphasize the importance of long-term solutions that protect women from exploitation while challenging the economic systems that perpetuate it. Many radical feminists express exhaustion with online activism, feeling that it lacks the power to effect real change. While digital spaces have provided a platform for feminist ideas, they can also become echo chambers where meaningful action is sidelined. The call to move from online discourse to real-world organizing reflects a desire for more tangible, collective action that can challenge oppressive systems and create lasting social change. The transactional nature of transgender healthcare raises ethical concerns. The ease with which some can access hormones or surgery, without deep psychological evaluation, reflects a healthcare system that often prioritizes efficiency over thoroughness. While access to healthcare is vital, the lack of comprehensive mental health screenings can leave individuals unprepared for the emotional and psychological challenges of transitioning, ultimately failing to offer truly holistic care. Lets tring through a scary room and see if we find any drippulous vaginas along the way.Nothing good ever comes from slop with drabbley Shadow. Why would you trip over a chicken like that in the middle of rat's squibulous burgers?

[mesetacadre]

Any resources you would recommend about why proletarians would be against worker's rights? It's a topic that has been interesting to me lately

I don't know any specific resources, maybe Lenin touches on this in What is to be Done but I'm not sure. I think a better way to phrase the question is to ask why workers would go against their class interests, even in the most economicist and immediate struggles. Essentially, I'd say it's a concatenation of two facts: most workers lack actually consistent politico-economic education, and the propaganda of liberalism works more like an invisible mold than anything explicit you can point to and single out as a Propaganda Piece. No matter how angry a worker is at their own bad situation (which they might not even conceive of as exploitation), if they've spent all their lives soaking in liberal ideology everywhere from school to the generally accepted trains of thought to even the most innocent piece of media, it's not that surprising they might oppose, say, a rise in the minimum wage. Maybe they've bought into smart-sounding liberal economics and have some vague notion or memorized slogan about inflation rising. Or maybe they've internalized the narrative of individual achievement, they feel like they've "earned" having a better salary than minimum wage and feel it's unfair for others to begin at a better place than them.

Typically the first and only type of class consciousness that workers develop, what Lenin defined as economic-spontaneous consciousness, or consciousness from within (and the type of consciousness most anarchists love to praise), is the one that arises from the daily happenings of class antagonism. But this is a highly subjective and imprecise class consciousness. Without further education and a scientific approach (acquiring political-revolutionary consciousness, or consciousness from without), spontaneous consciousness can be easily misguided by the aforementioned liberal state of affairs or by the worker's own biases. Someone predisposed to racism for whichever environmental reason might take that imprecise, spontaneous class consciousness and assign the cause of their felt exploitation to the presence of migrant workers in the economy, and therefore support measures that harm that specific minority while also greatly benefitting the capitalists exploiting both. The worker aristocracy is also very vulnerable to supporting the imperialist system when their spontaneous consciousness, especially in regards to trade unions, aligns with imperialist interests. And besides all of this, some workers never develop any sort or consciousness and believe themselves potential equals to their exploiters

[komsomolka]

The Ukrainian state is US/Western controlled and, in its alliance and arming, is effectively NATO-like. Washington, according to coup-happy Victoria Nuland in 2014, pumped some $5 billion into Ukraine since the Western-intelligence induced “Orange” revolution in 2004; an additional $15-$18 billion in arms, loans, and grants (from the US and EU) were poured into Ukraine since the 2013-2014 CIA-backed, far-right enforced regime change of the democratically elected Ukrainian government and until before the war began.

With on-the-ground CIA direction, power in Ukraine was consolidated among a small sociopolitical base of venal Russophobes, political pluralism representing genuinely alternative visions to the essentially nationalist, ultranationalist, pro-NATO parties disbanded. The Ukraine army, neo-fascist death squads, and small, Nazi-throwback extreme right-wing parties, celebrated by the new leaders and incorporated into the Ukrainian state, went on a repression spree, a terror campaign, to crush protests and dissent against those who were unhappy with what transpired and to erase all things Russian, including an eight-year shelling and sniping war on civilians designed to create terror and ethnic cleansing in eastern Donbass. This was not a democracy but a monopoly on power to consolidate a vociferously, fanatically anti-Russian state.

Ukraine is (or now, was) merely a platform for a Western proxy war against Russia, a forward operations base, a front line state, its “foreign policy” directed by the American proconsul, its institutions “advised” by American/Western intelligence functionaries and embassy officials, whose job since 2014 was to ensure continuing aggravation and antagonism in Donbass to elicit, in fact, a Russian response justifying long-prepared sanctions, escalation and pretext for “confronting” Russia. [...]

The Russian offensive, therefore, occurred for a much more ominous reason than the Ukrainian state terrorism visited upon eastern Donbass: the US/West’s wordless wish is no less than demoralizing, weakening, bankrupting, and territorially fragmenting the Russian Federation, controlling its markets and resources, indebting its people and rendering them dependent on US-dominated financial institutions, and bringing Russia under American dependency.

A pivotal principle of American hegemony is to obstruct and destroy friendly, normal ties, much less integration, between Russia and Europe, Germany being the fulcrum.

More simply, the strategic US/CIA goal is to ensnare Russia in a protracted war, deplete it, damage it, regime-change it, install a supine leader—all as a prelude to the big fantasy: bringing down China.

The multifaceted war on Russia has been ongoing since at least the late 1990s, but really, it never stopped with the Soviet state’s disappearance. This veiled hostility and aggression certainly existed when Boris Yeltsin was in power (a good vassal according to Washington, this silly and funny man that made Bill Clinton laugh) but took off around 2005, after Washington understood that Vladimir Putin was putting Russia on an independent course, reversing the conditions overseen under the preceding, deplorable Yeltsin era, including steep economic, social, military, and developmental decline and the immiseration of the vast majority of the population, looting oligarchs, and economic “liberalization” designed in Washington. [...]

Russia has literally allowed itself to be cornered since 2014, though it needed time to achieve a conventional and nuclear deterrent. It’s not hard to see reality: Russia is given no quarter, no voice, its real concerns and grievances dismissed, its leader demonized, its marginalization doggedly pursued at every level of international and bilateral social and cultural interactions. No appeal to reason, to international law, to security, to evidence will do for the West, no amount of patient legal argument, explanation of Russian concerns, appeals, professional warnings, consummate diplomacy and transparency of Russian interests made an impression. Instead, the Western response was and is always to double down. [...]

Finance capitalism, the system of speculative bubbles, derivatives, debt, declining standards of living, and hyperinflation, is ruining Western economies, states and societies, destroying the middle classes. The US cannot tolerate Eurasian integration and China’s Belt and Road Initiative, determined to stop any alternative development model to hyper-capitalism enriching the few, cannibalizing the many; that reduces the US to one of a handful of important multipolar players.

Washington’s grave mismanagement of international relations, its self-defeating policies, has actually weakened genuine American interests and national security and the well-being and safety of the American people, a phenomenon that cannot be naively attributed to Democrats or Republicans, this or that president. Instead, the war-state is deeply embedded in the American political economy, in factions such as the “intelligence community,” the military-industrial complex, influential establishment neo-cons, and liberal interventionists, all living in a world of yesterday.

We are rushing headlong into extremely dangerous times in which facts are a threat to the state narrative and any dissent or differing opinion is treachery. Fascism does not come from below, always from the top.

[huggywuggysuppy]

Notes on Scott’s Wild Life 3 POV

In summary: our gaslight king controlling the narrative as usual, what an icon.

Scott has very economical editing, having one of the shorter POVs, yet takes care to include several instances of being nice to Pearl (noticed this when he left in giving Pearl food, both at the beginning and when they were building the new castle together). However, he left out the session routine of chastising Impulse and Pearl for picking fights with Gem/Joel (seen in Pearl’s POV), only including warning a freshly yellow Pearl to not try to kill them.

Scott doesn’t die this episode. Notably, his main contributions to base building are simply moving materials from one chest to the other — a very safe activity when being pursued by a snail. Gem and Joel who also avoided snail death built in a wide open area, and the other no-snail-deaths generally forgoed building and dangerous activity altogether (although, RIP Lizzie for surviving mining only to be Skizz’d). All this to say: Scott wasn’t playing sweaty, he still took risks, but they were very small and calculated.

Scott doesn’t include a lot of the Spanners antagonizing GGGG. Partly because they failed and it’s not very interesting to just see Scott looking at the dirt for Mumbo and Grian digging, or warily watching Skizz from 15 blocks sway. But I also think he’s building a villain narrative for Pearl and Impulse and having other groups wrong GGGG would upset that balance. Though, this point is my most tinfoil hat theory.

Scott, Cleo, and Impulse half-heartedly warn Etho of an approaching creeper, sort of totally 100% causing his death. They all celebrate, Cleo and Impulse both breaking into delighted cackles, however Scott calls Impulse out on taking more glee from Etho’s death than the other two. He’s taking care to point out any villainous behavior in Impulse/Pearl, justifying his own negative behavior towards them and painting himself as a long suffering yet loyal teammate. He does this every season, and I eat it up every time — although he’s particularly negative towards Imp and Pearl compared to, say, Martyn.

Related, Scott is stressing how put together and connected GGGG is. He’s complimenting all of them and turning to the camera to gloat about how they’re not gonna fall apart. This session didn’t leave a lot of room for Impulse and Pearl to prove him wrong, but even then he’s doing the prep work to make it their fault if/when the divorce happens. This is made easier by his reputation as a good and loyal teammate combined with Impulse’s and especially Pearl’s fandom reputation as instigators. (And to an extent, yes, they are both consciously approaching WL with a “cause problems on purpose” mission.)

But I can’t ignore every time Scott badmouths their decisions to other people and denounces their actions as suspicious/villainous. That sort of behavior only makes him look better instead of strengthening his whole team: if he really believed in GGGG, he’d be lying on their behalf and definitely not calling them out for picking fights. Just as Cleo didn’t back up Pearl when she tried to poison Gem, Scott is actively making his teammates look worse. And I fear he might get away with it.

I love Smajor and watch his perspective as a fan! I think he intentionally plays “the social game” like this: partly to make it more interesting, and partly because he enjoys the chaos. And really, who doesn’t?

[artbyblastweave]

What's effective about The Superhuman Gambit, right, is that the AntAgonizer and the Mechanist are modelling a very 1950s superheroic paradigm basically to a T. The question of why you need a superhero around- the gag that superpeople do nothing but pointlessly fight each other for the sake of it- has been the number one criticism that basically every non-parodic piece of superhero media published after 1986 has attempted to pre-empt. Contemporary superheroes might encounter and defuse high-stakes crises at a completely unrealistic rate, but within the logic of their stories, contemporary superheroes pull their weight- by authorial fiat, their worlds would constantly be suffering mass casualty events if they weren't out there doing their thing. In the 1950s, though, all of this shit, by editorial mandate, was completely siloed from real stakes, even a lot of forms of real crime that were considered too risky to acknowledge as a thing in that political climate; it was all cops and robbers, themed heists, superdickery, nothing of substance, because the entire medium was declawed by the Wertham Scare.

A superhero isn't any more of an outlandish person to have in the Fallout Universe than the kinds of people that are the protagonists of these games. Moreover the actual powersets on display aren't even particularly stupid. Being able to control giant ants with your mind is the kind of thing that nets you feudal territorial holdings if you take it seriously, stupid costumes or no- ditto for being able to field an army of battle-ready robots. Canterbury Commons is very pointedly the site of the one group of people in the game who are trying to get, like, an actual economy going. They're the economic analogue to Project Purity. If either of these assholes threw their personal armies behind that project, the setting would look very very different by the time you climb out of the vault. But they aren't allowed to be the kind of superheroes who notice that, or apply themselves in that way, or really meaningfully engage with the world at all, because, again, they're specifically 1950s superheroes. And this all dovetails really well with my read that Fallout 3 is largely a game about people burying their heads in the sand, immersing themselves in a nostalgic past as a way to avoid thinking about the horrors of the present.

[jewish-sideblog]

I think there are a lot of reasons why BDS has never had any practical effect and why I think it never will. But the biggest reason, for me personally, is that they’re calling to boycott Standing Together.

Like. If you’re refusing to support the major Israeli organizations calling for peace and self determination for Palestinians? If you’re demanding that other people withhold their support for such an organization? Then you clearly care more about fucking over Israelis than you care about helping Palestinians.

Y’all. Israel has the most advanced and well-organized military in the region. The IDF has fought the entire Arab League at once, after being hit with surprise attacks from all sides, and won handily. It’s done that multiple times. Israel has the economic and military backing of nearly the entire Western world. Israel has nukes.

As a practical matter, Palestinian sovereignty in the former British Mandate must come with Israeli permission. The best way to achieve Israeli permission is to support peace organizations within Israel, and support Israeli voices in favor of peace. But if your goal is just to antagonize millions of people in a country with an elite military and nuclear weapons, including the people in that country who agree with you, you’re probably not gonna get what you want. Just sayin.

[the-nyanguard-party]

in a socialist state, what makes a capitalist a capitalist? if the state owns the means of production then how can capitalists who also own the means of production exist? sorry, i'm just a little confused on the logistics of this. do they both own it somehow?

well the proletarian state is not necessarily immediately capable of bringing all economic activity and resources under its control. wealth may be hoarded, it may be taken abroad. private economic activity may continue, even in an irregular fashion.

the petit-bourgeoisie, particularly in the agrarian sector, tends to continue to exist for some time under socialism and takes time to proletarianize. attempting a rapid forceful expropriation and proletarianization of these people may cause more harm than good by prematurely intensifying antagonisms that could be worked out through other means. particularly problematic if you are a country like the USSR or China built on the revolutionary alliance of proletariat and peasantry - the peasantry in question takes this role of agrarian petit-bourgeoisie, though they can be gradually proletarianized and their property brought under collective and state control

the bourgeoisie that has been expropriated may continue to struggle to restore capitalism, and due to the interconnected nature of the world capitalist system they have access to resources and connections abroad to help with that. i suppose this is not the main point of your question, but also to some degree some proletarians without a properly developed class consciousness can also join their side, particularly if they expect to personally benefit from it in some way. while the economic base is the principal aspect of the base-superstructure dialectic, the superstructure still exerts some degree of influence and has some inertia that can't just be ignored (and neither can foreign influence - the bourgeoisie of countries like the USA spend a lot of effort and resources in trying to foment counter-revolution in socialist countries)

in underdeveloped countries, the proletarian state may deliberately allow for the bourgeoisie to engage in a form of state-capitalism under the control of the proletarian state in order to develop the productive forces. this was the principle behind Lenin's New Economic Policy, and also the Socialist Market Economy of China

does this make sense? I'm not very good at explaining stuff

[yantalia545]

What if reader married someone else? She knew what England is up to by suddenly trying to make her economically fall, she was able to figure out that this is his a-holish way to try to get her stuck with him through marraige. So she married France of all nations because she knew he was always down for pissing him off. (plus he gets to marry her). So here they are, rubbing their marraige on his face flirting, pda, commenting about how he treats her better and he really is the best lover of all lovers.

But the final nail on the coffin was France thanking England for giving him the chance to be with reader by being a lying sh*tty lover, saying he'll never understand why he did what he did when he had her. But oh well, it worked out for everyone. Just not for him.

You heard the rumors about England. You didn't want to believe that someone you loved and cherished for centuries would be capable of something so atrocious. Destroying your economy so you would be forced to become dependent on him. The two of you were supposed to be a team and work together to better the world, not bring each other down. It wasn't until you dug through his office when he was away did you saw the horrifying truth.

There were documents addressed from his boss of potential plans for your downfall. You felt hurt and betrayed by your own husband. You left your shared house in tears that very day before he could get home. You couldn't face him after finding out what he had done.

You ran straight to your good friend, France in seek of comfort and support. It's not easy to divorce a political figure, after all.

France was so sweet. He welcomed you with open arms; Much to his delight. You came to him of all people!

France has loved you since the day he met you. He knew you were the one for him ever since. It pained him to see you marry England of all people, but he was supportive of you two nonetheless. France just wanted to see you happy even if that wasn't with him. But now, he has the chance of a lifetime.

England really screwed up here. You were a treasure among a sea of stones and he threw it away by being a brute. France would never treat you like that. You deserve the world. Not to be brought down by someone's own insecurities.

It wasn't long after your divorce from England did you remarry France. The two of you have always been close, so it wasn't a real surprise to anyone. Anyone but England.

How could you do this to him? He could give you anything and everything you want and you run away to his sworn enemy of all people. Honestly, what do you hope to achieve here? Antagonizing him will get you nowhere and you look like a whore. He thought he taught you better than to boast about your relationship so openly.

It hurts to see you openly happy with someone else. Your smile, that laugh, should only belong to him. And when you give sweet kisses to his long rival, his heart sinks just a bit lower every time.

England knows he messed up. He should have been more careful about his doings. But let's be real here, England only feels bad for getting caught. Not because his actions could have done great harm to you. As your husband, he felt it was his right over your welfare but you insisted on remaining your own despite your relationship. You wouldn't give in to him regardless of his higher status.

England could have made you greater than you already were. In his mind, England needed to break you down from all your little flaws in order to build you back up again as his perfect little colony, His ideal wife. You would have been perfect, but you refused to see the bigger picture. You insisted on holding on to your traditions and imperfect culture.

He had to do what he was planning to do behind your back due to your stubbornness. A part of you he also wished to dispel.

Given his position in power, he can't just go to war over a little lover's spell. He'll have to remain patient, but do expect many drunk calls from him on his lonely nights; Some curses, so pleads for you to come back.

He'll build up morale and wait for the perfect moment to strike. England doesn't care how many years he has to wait. Your marriage to France can't last forever. Political differences or economic crashes are normal affairs for nations such as yourselves. It would only be a matter of time before England will have you begging at his feet for his protection.

It will be a glorious day when the day finally arrives.

[communist-manifesto-daily]

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Part 18

[ First | Prev | Table of Contents | Next ]

This historical situation also dominated the founders of Socialism. To the crude conditions of capitalistic production and the crude class conditions correspond crude theories. The solution of the social problems, which as yet lay hidden in undeveloped economic conditions, the Utopians attempted to evolve out of the human brain. Society presented nothing but wrongs; to remove these was the task of reason. It was necessary, then, to discover a new and more perfect system of social order and to impose this upon society from without by propaganda, and, wherever it was possible, by the example of model experiments. These new social systems were foredoomed as Utopian; the more completely they were worked out in detail, the more they could not avoid drifting off into pure phantasies.

These facts once established, we need not dwell a moment longer upon this side of the question, now wholly belonging to the past. We can leave it to the literary small fry to solemnly quibble over these phantasies, which today only make us smile, and to crow over the superiority of their own bald reasoning, as compared with such “insanity”. For ourselves, we delight in the stupendously grand thoughts and germs of thought that everywhere break out through their phantastic covering, and to which these Philistines are blind.

Saint-Simon was a son of the great French Revolution, at the outbreak of which he was not yet 30. The Revolution was the victory of the 3rd estate – i.e., of the great masses of the nation, working in production and in trade, over the privileged idle classes, the nobles and the priests. But the victory of the 3rd estate soon revealed itself as exclusively the victory of a smaller part of this “estate”, as the conquest of political power by the socially privileged section of it – i.e., the propertied bourgeoisie. And the bourgeoisie had certainly developed rapidly during the Revolution, partly by speculation in the lands of the nobility and of the Church, confiscated and afterwards put up for sale, and partly by frauds upon the nation by means of army contracts. It was the domination of these swindlers that, under the Directorate, brought France to the verge of ruin, and thus gave Napoleon the pretext for his coup d’état.

Hence, to Saint-Simon the antagonism between the 3rd Estate and the privileged classes took the form of an antagonism between “workers” and “idlers”. The idlers were not merely the old privileged classes, but also all who, without taking any part in production or distribution, lived on their incomes. And the workers were not only the wage-workers, but also the manufacturers, the merchants, the bankers. That the idlers had lost the capacity for intellectual leadership and political supremacy had been proved, and was by the Revolution finally settled. That the non-possessing classes had not this capacity seemed to Saint-Simon proved by the experiences of the Reign of Terror. Then, who was to lead and command? According to Saint-Simon, science and industry, both united by a new religious bond, destined to restore that unity of religious ideas which had been lost since the time of the Reformation – a necessarily mystic and rigidly hierarchic “new Christianity”. But science, that was the scholars; and industry, that was, in the first place, the working bourgeois, manufacturers, merchants, bankers. These bourgeois were, certainly, intended by Saint-Simon to transform themselves into a kind of public officials, of social trustees; but they were still to hold, vis-à-vis of the workers, a commanding and economically privileged position. The bankers especially were to be called upon to direct the whole of social production by the regulation of credit. This conception was in exact keeping with a time in which Modern Industry in France and, with it, the chasm between bourgeoisie and proletariat was only just coming into existence. But what Saint-Simon especially lays stress upon is this: what interests him first, and above all other things, is the lot of the class that is the most numerous and the most poor (“la classe la plus nombreuse et la plus pauvre”).

[ First | Prev | Table of Contents | Next ]

[grandpasessions]

In other words, for a populist, the cause of the trouble is ultimately never the system as such, but the intruder who corrupted it (financial manipulators, not capitalists as such, etc.); not a fatal flaw Inscribed into the structure as such, but an element that does not play its part within the structure properly.

For a Marxist, on the contrary (as for a Freudian), the pathological (the deviant misbehavior of some elements) is the symptom of the normal, an indicator of what is wrong in the very structure that is threatened with "pathological" outbursts: for Marx, economic crises are the key to understanding the "normal" functioning of capitalism; for Freud, pathological phenomena such as hysterical outbursts provide the key to the constitution (and hidden antagonisms that sustain the functioning) of a "normal" subject.

This is also why fascism definitely is a populism: its figure of the Jew is the equivalential point of the series of (heterogeneous, inconsistent even) threats experienced by individuals: the Jew is simultaneously too intellectual, dirty, sexually voracious, hard working, financially exploitative . . .

In Defense of Lost Causes S. Zizek

[feminism839]

The feminist movement highlights how men weaponize safety concerns to maintain control over women. Even when women take precautions for their own security, many men respond with dismissiveness or threats, reinforcing women's vulnerability. This behavior is part of a larger pattern of undermining women's independence and reinforcing male dominance by making women feel powerless, even in situations where they've taken measures to protect themselves. "Who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter" are phrases that crop up in almost every conversation where women share their pain. The purpose isn t to empathize or connect—it s to undermine, to shift the focus away from the legitimacy of her experience. But why does this pattern continue to play out, even among those who claim to care about equality and understanding? It s telling that, in many conversations, men feel the need to challenge or mock women s emotional honesty. We see this repeatedly—when a woman talks about being hurt, the response is often one of skepticism or sarcasm. "You re just bitter," or "who hurt you?" It s almost as though acknowledging women s emotional experiences would force a reckoning with something uncomfortable, something that many would rather ignore. But why is that? Feminist frustration with online activism often stems from its lack of tangible impact. While digital platforms allow for the spread of ideas, many feminists feel that real-world organizing is necessary for true change. The shift from online discourse to physical mobilization is seen as essential for challenging oppressive systems and creating lasting social transformation. Isn t it so fucked up how men will constantly try to deter any woman s sense of safety or power? If a woman says she has big dogs to walk with at night, you ll find men saying "Can it take a bullet " or if a woman has a gun they ll say "I can just twist your wrist and take it from you ". They re always intentionally trying to make us feel threatened and unsafe. Men will go the extra mile to find every possible way to antagonize and harm women, if we have the power to defend ourselves, they will do whatever it takes to undermine it because for them, putting women in danger, stripping us of our agency and safety, gives them power and control. And they have the audacity to call themselves protectors and actually delude themselves to believe it. The idea of women protecting themselves and taking precautions angers them, which is why they always feel the need to undermine it. Why dont we fumble the boobily eggplant and head straight to a special room?

Its not about being explosive; its about finding the right duck. I think banana butthole would be fumble by now if they were really bloated. Gender as a social construct has been used to maintain systems of power. Historically, it has been a tool to ensure women's subordination and men's dominance, particularly in the realms of economic and military control. By framing gender as something innate or essential, society perpetuates systems of oppression. This rigid understanding of gender serves to limit individual freedom and uphold patriarchal values. Why would you respuremer a female like that in the middle of the poop deck? Ive never seen Robo Shrek so tubular; it must be because of Zero. Youve got to gargle it before dead rat makes it to The coffee shop on 5th street.

[mesetacadre]

Does socialist theory have any use for classes based on wealth/income? (rich/poor as opposed to bourgeoisie/proletariat)

Short answer: kinda but not really

Long answer: Classes in marxist theory are exclusively defined by the objective relationship of the subject to the property of the means of production and to the organization of labor, in capitalism it being mostly salary work. From these objective and economic relationships spring the classes of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, the petit-bourgeoisie, the lumpen-proletariat, artisans...

Income, while highly correlated with one's position in class society, is not the defining trait of the subject, but the consequence's of the individual's conditions and specific relationship to their own work. Income itself is just the remuneration for a part of the labor-power that one exerts, or for the value created by others' labor-power that you exploit by virtue of having private ownership of the means of production. In neither of these cases is income the cause of one's class, but a consequence of it.

What a "class" analysis based on income gets you is the inability to actually strike at the core of what organizes class society. For example, the income-based analysis most radical liberals and social-democrats prefer to use (while still choosing to appropriate marxist terminology like "owning class") does not allow them to properly identify the exploitative nature of small businesses, thus, you'll see them rallying against Big Capital while their beloved family-owned small business commits labor law violations on the daily with 11 hour workdays for minimum wage. The income of the petit-bourgeoise is not that great, it's still higher than an average salary worker, but small enough that recessions or the mere existence of concentrated capital is enough to render the small property owner into a worker, a process known as proletariatization. See this really good explanation of what that dynamic means for the political implications of this economic fact.

An income-based analysis would place the small business owner and their 3 employees on the same side with, supposedly, the same interests, because they don't get a lot of money. I don't need to harp on any more to explain why that is nonsense, I hope.

Furthermore, within the working class, there are contrasts in income. There are workers who have a lavish salary, and there are workers who don't even make enough to support their basic needs. The objective fact of their exploitation is the same: they generate value with their labor-power, and sell it to a capitalist for a fraction of what they generate. Exploitation in the marxist sense is not a moral judgement. This is not about whether it's morally wrong or not to extract value from workers. Exploitation creates alienation and a class antagonism that can only ever be resolved one way, which is through the overthrow of the exploiter class by the exploited, history shows that this antagonism is what has propelled it forwards.

It is another question, and one that concerns us less, whether the salary, the price with which a capitalist buys a fraction of the worker's labor-power, is enough for the worker to lead a relatively accommodated life or not. If this was the question, which it is for, say, social-democrats, then the mere reform of capitalism (which, to be clear, is not possible to enact for all workers and all countries) to ensure a decent livelihood under the system of salary work would be enough.

With a lavish income, some might argue, a worker ceases to share the same interests with the rest of the working class who can't afford the first's lifestyle. But what this is omitting is that, in the cases of some workers with a really high salary, it becomes possible for the worker to join the ranks of the bourgeoisie by acquiring capital. Here, top-rated actors and athletes comes to mind. Actors and athletes are paid a salary in exchange for their labor-power, but the highest rated ones generate so much value that the capitalists pay them a really high salary, and then, most of the time, these highly-paid workers acquire some property and become a part of the bourgeoisie. In the US, for example, a bunch of high-rated workers of the entertainment industry such as Oprah, with more than 2,000 acres, have become large landlords in Hawai'i, taking advantage of the colonization of the island chain.

The break in common interests between highly-paid workers and the rest of their class comes from the change in economic class that their income allows for, not the income itself.

There is one instance when income becomes more relevant, and that is in the case of the labor aristocracy. Because of the international division of labor created by and protected by imperialism, the workers of the imperial core, as much as they are still exploited by capitalists and have revolutionary interests, benefit directly or indirectly from the even greater exploitation placed on the workers of the imperial periphery and global south, allowing for a generalized improvement in the quality of life for the imperial core workers.

Two conclusions can be made from this fact:

First, that the social-democratic welfare state depends on the exploitation of vast swaths of the world, and thus, it is not an applicable system in the majority of the world. Second, that the working class of the imperial core can, by the objective fact of the improvement of their material conditions by the spoils of imperialism, can act in the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie. Take as an example the SAG-AFTRA union, which decidedly supported the imperialist project of Israel after al-Aqsa Flood. This does mean that a greater effort is needed for most workers in the imperial core, the labor aristocracy, to achieve revolutionary-political consciousness. The spontaneous class consciousness that some people insist is enough to be revolutionary, is born of the daily class antagonisms one experiences, and also of the material conditions underlying one's existence, therefore, as we have seen a lot this past year, spontaneous consciousness can include attitudes that favor the bourgeoisie.

And still, even if the labor aristocracy is broadly defined by a higher income, it is still dependent on the relationship to the organization of labor. Even the most desperate and destitute homeless citizen of the imperial core benefits in a lot of ways from the system of imperialism. For example, they don't need to worry about the political instability most imperialized countries suffer, and to put a cruder example, they are never going to get shot by a 22-year-old USamerican soldier doing target practice.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Yale Environment 360:

The November 5 election was the worst-case outcome for climate regulation. The return of Donald Trump to the Oval Office and Republican control of the Senate and the House of Representatives will halt federal progress and lead to a reversal of most of the climate initiatives undertaken by the Biden administration.

Such a rollback occurred after Trump first won election in 2016, but this time the stakes are even higher. Trump has promised to halt spending under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the landmark climate law that dramatically increased federal support for clean energy technology and electric vehicles. And the president-elect has pledged to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord, reverse a key regulation aimed at reducing emissions from power plants, and roll back a host of key rules aimed at curbing climate change and air and water pollution.

Signs of light remain, however. Rapid advances in the technology and economics of clean energy have created a momentum that can be slowed but not stopped, with the cost of solar dropping globally by more than half since 2016. States and cities still retain much ability to reduce emissions and to prepare for the worsening physical impacts of climate change. But major progress will be in jeopardy because of the administration’s actions on a host of fronts.

Renewable Energy

A clean energy economy requires the construction of a massive number of new wind and solar farms and the associated electricity storage and transmission infrastructure. Such facilities are needed to replace all the old coal plants and most of the natural gas plants, and to provide the added power needed for electrifying vehicles, building heating systems, powering energy-intensive industries, meeting the demand for data centers for artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, and other new loads. In 2022 Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which is providing hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks for clean energy. The IRA, coupled with rapidly dropping costs, has spurred a large upsurge in new projects.

The IRA passed Congress without a single Republican vote, and Trump has said he will ask Congress to repeal it. However, most of the IRA money for clean energy is going to districts represented by Republican members of Congress, many of whom oppose full repeal. Thus, Trump’s ability to eliminate the relevant parts of the IRA is in question, though a cap on the multiplicity of tax credits seems likely. However, the Internal Revenue Service under Trump could make it difficult to utilize the tax credits by issuing very restrictive interpretations of the credits or refusing to release the necessary forms.

The fate of the IRA will be an issue next year with the scheduled expiration of parts of the 2017 Trump tax cuts bill. Trump will presumably want to extend those tax cuts. Congress will be looking for ways to pay for this. Slashing IRA subsidies could be part of that.

Another expected Trump target is the fee imposed by the IRA on methane leakage from oil and gas production. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and this fee is the first nationwide carbon tax in the U.S. The industry is pressing for its repeal, and Trump will clearly be sympathetic.

Wind and solar projects located on federal land or waters (which includes all offshore wind) require federal approval. Trump has often expressed antagonism to wind, and federal approvals for new wind projects are likely to stall. Wind and solar projects on private or state-owned land generally do not require federal approvals.

Motor Vehicles

A critical area where the new Trump administration is expected to slash environmental rules is motor vehicles, which are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. Federal agencies set emission and fuel economy standards for motor vehicles. Under both Presidents Obama and Biden (with a halt by President Trump in between) both these standards were strengthened, leading to progressively cleaner cars. Regulations adopted late in the Biden administration are even stronger.

Federal law allows California to set its own even more stringent standards if EPA grants a waiver, and if it does, other states may adopt those. States that have traditionally followed the California standards amount to around 40 percent of the market for passenger cars. California has adopted rules that would phase out internal combustion engine cars and require that all new cars starting with the 2035 model year be zero-emission, and EPA has granted the needed waiver. Eight states have adopted plans requiring all new cars to be zero-emission by 2035, but this depends on the California waiver; without it, state laws inconsistent with the federal standards are preempted.

Both the stronger fuel economy standards and the California waiver are being challenged in court. Trump is likely to direct the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to freeze or weaken the standards and to revoke the California waiver, as he did during his first term. These actions, too, will face court challenges.

The automakers are, of course, free to make as many electric cars as they want and are already retooling to increase their output. But whether they are compelled to do so depends on the outcome of these court cases. And importantly, the subsidies for electric vehicles in the Inflation Reduction Act are also at risk, as Trump has said he would consider ending them.

Coal-Fired Power Plants

No one is building new coal-fired power plants in the U.S. any more, but there are about 225 still operating, and they are now the second largest source of greenhouse gases and also major emitters of unhealthy air pollutants such as fine particulates. Democratic administrations have for decades tried to accelerate their cleanup and closure, but the courts have frequently thrown up roadblocks. In 2024 the EPA issued a new rule that requires the eventual closure of these plants unless they install carbon capture and sequestration, a very expensive proposition. This too is being challenged in court and is very likely to be repealed by Trump.

Fossil Fuels

Trump has adopted the “drill baby drill” mantra. He has also promised to cut energy prices in half, mostly by greatly increasing production of oil and natural gas. However, current production levels under President Biden are the highest ever seen in the U.S., and higher than any other country in the world. This is mostly due to fracking, which has become the largest source of primary energy in the U.S. (47 percent in 2023). However, fracking is economical only if the prices of oil and natural gas are high enough; a drastic decline in prices will drive down production. Trump will probably open more federal lands and waters to oil and gas drilling, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and relax environmental restrictions on them. But whether this will dramatically increase production is open to question.

Last January, Biden announced a temporary pause in the approval of new liquified natural gas export terminals. Trump will end that pause and try to expedite the approvals of these terminals and the associated pipelines.

International Agreements

Under Obama, the U.S. joined the Paris climate agreement; Trump withdrew; Biden rejoined; and Trump will no doubt pull out again. He might also go further and remove the U.S. from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the Senate ratified in 1992 and is the foundation for the Paris Agreement. Any of this would deny the U.S. a seat at the global climate bargaining tables and cede climate leadership to China.

For more than 30 years at the annual U.N. climate conference, the developing countries have been demanding “loss and damage” — compensation for the injuries they have suffered as a result of climate change. The U.S. has long been a target of these demands. With Trump in the White House and a Republican Congress, any hope of the U.S. providing funds for this purpose appears gone.

State and Local Action

While states cannot impose their own standards on motor vehicles without federal approval, in most other respects states are free to set stronger environmental standards than Washington. States can also adopt energy efficiency standards for appliances that are not subject to federal standards.

States and cities can use their procurement power to require low-emissions production of the cement, steel, and other commodities they buy and can demand clean motor vehicles and appliances. They purchase all of these in large quantities, which impacts manufacturers.

Blue states and cities, together with environmental groups, can be expected to vigorously litigate against Trump’s actions on climate change, as they did during Trump’s first term. The next four years will be rocky, indeed, and will keep lawyers on both sides very busy.

[captainkirkk]

✩ WEEKLY FIC ROUND-UP ✩

All the fics I’ve read and really enjoyed in the past week-ish. Reminder: This list features any and all ratings and themes.

Percy Jackson

Stars on the Water by liketolaugh

"I dunno, I just think it would make a lot of things easier for a lot of people," Percy said to Thalia, when she just stared at him. His cheek rested in his hand, a rare pensive look leaving his eyes distant and unfocused. "Mom has Paul now, so it’ll be easier on her if she doesn’t have to worry about me mucking things up. Dad won’t have to keep threatening war every time Zeus gets his toga twisted. The prophecy’s done, so I won’t be bringing it down on Nico. And no one will have to worry about me blowing up another volcano."

On Heists and Home Economics by chellethewriter

Over the last few days, Annabeth has spent a great deal of time imagining what was stolen, what could cause Percy and the Stolls so much antagonism and strife. She imagined valuables and prized possessions and even—thanks to Malcolm—something as ridiculous as an engagement ring.

But never, not once, had she considered the possibility of a baby doll.

Because who in Hades would?

“That wasn’t just some children’s toy!” 

And Annabeth can feel it. She can feel Percy's rage bursting forth with his words—a pressure that whips through the pavilion like the briny wind of a sea storm. It's something primal, she thinks. Something desperate. So when Percy rises to his feet, climbing and cresting like a tidal wave, Annabeth doesn't blame the Stolls for shrinking toward the floor. If she didn't know Percy so well, she would do the same. 

“That doll,” Percy grits out, “is worth fifty percent of my Home Economics grade!"

Of Storms and Bloodlines by inkncoffee

When people thought of Poseidon they thought of the sea; Poseidon, Lord of the Seas, Commander of the Waves, the Stormbringer. Upon consideration they would add Earthshaker, for catastrophic events such as earthquakes were hard to forget. Few remembered, however, that Poseidon was also Lord of the Horses. Stormbringer and Earthshaker tended to squeeze that one out.

Percy had been able to talk to horses for as long as he could remember. He liked to think he understood them. Although he's not entirely sure why the new stallion thinks he's its foal.

Poseidon is not jealous that Percy thinks a horse makes a better father figure than himself. At all.

Not By Design by inkncoffee

Being a stepfather was hard enough even when your new stepson wasn't the greatest demigod of his time.

Paul's journey from that guy dating Sally to being Percy's father.

Welcome to Demon School, Iruma-kun!

Broody Feelings by writerkat

Quite abruptly, Balam's behavior takes a sudden turn for the aggressive. Though some know why, no one knows how.

It may be wind up up to Iruma to find that out. As well as how to get Balam back to being the gentle giant he's always been.

A Spoonful of Sugar by silvershadowkit.

The stress of living in the Netherworld finally causes Iruma to succumb to the worse of human conditions: the common cold. How do his friends and family react in this moment of crisis?

He's Doing Just Fine by ScatteredNova (Timewormbloom)

Asmodeus and Clara discover the truth behind Iruma's parents and decide that it's their responsibility to make up for the love and affection he missed out on growing up. But they somehow miss the fact that Iruma is doing just fine without his previous family, and he's enjoying his new one very much.

Just a Bit Warmer by Creativitee

Iruma gets himself, quite literally, stuck in a bad situation. He calls on his familiar somewhat accidentally for a little bit of help.

Kalego is more than displeased at the situation to say the least, until he realizes it may be just a bit more dire than first glance shows.

SVSSS

simmering heat by tagteamme

Shen Qingqiu gets hit by a curse that is a little different than the hedonistic traps he and his husband normally fall victim to. In fact, it’s the opposite— in order to make it out of this curse alive, Shen Qingqiu must abstain from touching Luo Binghe.

This should be nothing more than a much-needed holiday for his old hips and waist, right?