#even the capitalists don't want capitalism

[mooseontape]

There is no such thing as a small business car dealership. Anyone who literally owns something like that is actively for and benefiting from both the exploitation of the Earth and of labor world wide and in their community as well.

Why the fuck would I even begin to care for someone who hoards and creates harmful resources, who push for car centric living standards and who increase prices every year and view cars as simultaneously a luxury fit for only those deserving of mass chaces of money and also a requirement for social living. FUCK OFF. CAR DEALERSHIPS WILL NOT EXIST POST CAPITAL AND I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR ANYONE INVOLVED IN THEIR EXISTENCE OR ADMINISTRATION.

I say this as someone who's living situation is provided and paid for buy 2 small business owners. Get over the idea of the Petite bourgeoisie. Many people come to accept the idea that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism but they don't realize, THERE IS NO ETHICAL WAY TO PARTICIPATE IN CAPITALISM PERIOD.

There is no good small business owner that in no way exploits or demeans it workers in some way because the debasement of workers is INHERENTLY BAKED INTO CAPITALISM.

Sure there are ways you can be kinder, less exploitive and more democratic with your workplace, but those practices are actively punished by capitalism and the governments seeking to enforce its grasp on hegemony.

Listen I don't want to be a downer here but shit is about to get worse for workers in the U.S. and unfortunately probably world wide.

If you think the managers, administrators, corporations, or owners, of your workplace or local (even small) business aren't going to seek out harmful and exploitative practices as they become more normalized and actively legally encouraged, you are living in ignorance. Begin to hate those who hold power over you before they convince you your subjugation is a moral failing and the only way to reconcile is to toil harder to prove your worth to the system which consumes human life and spits out cash.

Your labor IS BEING EXPLOITED, EVEN THE ART YOU DO IN YOUR FREE TIME has become a way to train the models they intend to replace us with.

If you think your safe from being consumed by the economic system we live under, I hope you realize that things could very quickly get very bad for you.

I have personally been crushed and targeted by hateful, bigotted and capitalist brained managers multiple times. All it takes is someone you think is safe getting replaced or ousted or even just reprimanded by their higher up. Capitalism and it's administration is moral poison and will cloud your eyes of the human suffering you cause and encourage.

There is no small business, good person, doing the right thing car dealership owner.

And like hey maybe get rid of some of that anti graffiti mindset. IF A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER DID THE FUCKING NAZI SALUTE I SURE HOPE SOMEONE WOULD TAG THEIR BUSINESS LABELING THEM NAZI

THATS WHAT THEY ARE!!!

[lady0ri]

My theory on Helena/Helly R. is that Helena is going "undercover" as Helly because she wants to taste "freedom" by masquerading as Helly.

[existennialmemes]

Please be Patient

I am trying very hard to be A Person, but it's really difficult for me, and I'm not particularly

✨ Good at it ✨

[the-vampire-squid-from-hell]

its always wild to me when I go into the mouthwashing tag and someone is like "the game isn't about [x] its about [y]" because like...it can be about multiple things. Like you do understand that right? Like well written pieces of media are often exploring and can be about multiple themes??

[arctic-hands]

I've had more than one anarchist I associate with be surprised to learn I'm actually not an anarchist. But like. I'm a huge proponent of the Welfare State, and you kind of need a state for that

[icewindandboringhorror]

I find it kind of silly that so many of those "time based life rule" sayings are like ~deep serious guidelines~ of some sort, but then there's that one other Well Known Rule that's just like "hrmm can I eat something off of the ground or not"

[walkingbomb]

just read a facebook comment section on a young woman's video, in which she was asking 'how you're meant to live your life' if you work a 9-5 job

and the ENTIRE comment section was just people saying 'yeah welcome to life' 'whiny snowflake' 'do 70 hours and maybe i'll be sympathetic'

like... these same people have clearly become jaded, tired, angry and lack empathy because ALL they've done all their lives is work and have forgotten that anything else exists

it's like the concept of someone NOT having to live like that and enjoying life just drives them insane because deep down they know that they've wasted their lives following bullshit hustle culture and being miserable

[sassydefendorflower]

I feel horrible to butt in, but I do in fact think there are some addendums to this post.

For one, Margaret Thatcher and other horrible powerful women are not examples of the matriarchy. Or what a potential matriarchy would be like.

Every extremely powerful women, who then used that power to abuse it, did so in a patriarchal structure.

I am not saying that to defend these women. Their choices are their own. Everyone has the same capacity for evil, be it man, woman, queer or not.

I just want to clarify that we legit do not know what a matriarchal power structure would look like. Because from an anthropological standpoint there has never been a large scale matriarchy in the history of humanity (as far as we can tell). There have been some smaller groups and cultures, who have structures we would maybe describe as matriarchal, but none of these cultures are comparable on the large scale of the patriarchy. The power structures in those small groups are often genuinely different, because in praxis what we do know of matriarchal societies is completely different from an imagined reversal of the patriarchy as we know it. But, again, we cannot actually make these comparisons, because the few matriarchal societies that exist are also often very rural, and anti-capitalist. They aren't some strange utopia, they are still humans and there are definitely hierarchies at play, but they are simply not comparable to the large scale of the modern patriarchy as it is inherently intertwined with capitalism, colonialism, racism, and classism.

Again, I am not saying this in any shape or form to relieve any women of guilt or the responsibilities for their actions. There is no such thing as a better sex (hell, we really need to reconsider gender as a whole, if you ask me). But.

The patriarchy is sooooo deeply ingrained in our culture - in most human cultures existing right now and throughout history - that we genuinely don't know what a matriarchy would look like.

Hell, in Cultural Anthropology, if you create a genealogy and it is a matri-linear society, do you know what that means? It means that inheritance moves from the BROTHER of the mother to the BROTHER of the daughter (we are talking the inheritance of goods here). We generally assume that there isn't a single group of people where mothers can pass there belongings directly to their daughters as the main line of genealogical inheritance (and if there are deviations from this they are statistically irrelevant). There is bi-linear inheritance, of course, in which the parents equally pass everything down to their children, but that is a relatively recent development, and still always something that happens within a patriarchal society.

An example of a powerful woman (be it the Chinese Empress Dowager Cixi or Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel or... you get the idea) will never be an example of what the matriarchy would be like. Because we're thinking of power structures within the confines of what we know: the patriarchy.

And, yes, people who argue for the simple role reversal of Women in Power and Men At The Bottom, are obviously wrong. But they've also obviously never engaged with the theory. Such steep power structures and rigid hierarchical step-ladders would obviously be bad. But any conceivable matriarchy wouldn't be that. Because from the few we have seen throughout history and even right now... we know you always have to answer the question: what do we do with the babies?

And that is a question not easily or logically answered by a simple role reversal.

(and I don't want to equate womanhood with the ability to give birth - truly not. But, statistically speaking, women are the people birthing the most children, and as such, any society in which women are "in charge" the way we observe power structures within the patriarchy, also has to answer the question of what these "women in charge" will do with the possibility of childbirth.)

I am not arguing for the goodness of women. I am arguing for the admittance that we just genuinely don't know what a matriarchy would be like.

(not that is should be our goal to find out)

The power structures of the patriarchy have been historically so all-encompassing for most of us, that we genuinely cannot divorce even the thought experiment of a matriarchy from it.

And this Not Knowing should be part of the conversation.

just so we're clear, replacing patriarchy with a matriarchy would be just as bad because it's the same exact thing. it's a power structure. it lends to systemic abuse.

equality doesn't mean "one gender is better than the other". equality means all genders are on the same playing field. no one gender is better, or worse, than the rest.

women are not inherently kind. women are not inherently charitable. women do not inherently have other peoples' best interests in mind. women are not inherently gentle and nurturing. women are not inherently smarter or dumber than any other gender. women are people, and that means that women are varied. chasing men of that pedestal and placing women there instead will create the exact same problems.

you can run around saying "women are just better than men" but you're doing the exact same thing that's being done to you right now, and that's not how you collapse the structure. you're just taking the same abusive power structure and painting it pink. enough. equality means we are all on the same level. equality does not mean one gender is superior to the rest. got it?

[mai-komagata]

barbie movie thoughts

Like i know all the anticapitalist and feminist rhetoric pushback on this mattel promotion and i get it -- this is a marketing push and barbie isn't a feminist icon. Cool. But i think the barbie movie (at least the marketing of it) reminds certain women about a time in their life (when they played with dolls) when they were able to fully enjoy and revel in something unironically without being seen as cringe. It's about being unapologetically happy and normally that is looked down on, especially for women. (and for men who enjoy femme coded things, too). A lot of being an adult in days past is about tamping down their normal desires and interests in the interest of being "an adult" and serious.

And i think with the rise of nerd things in the past decade, there is an acceptance of dudes (and women interested in things traditionally marketed to dudes) enjoying that in adulthood. Like it isn't seeing as unprofessional having some funko pops or sci fi decorations in the back of your zoom call. But like if your home office has bubblegum pink decor, I do think there would be pushback to that, still. And this feels like a start for very femme women (or even people of other genders into feminine shit) being like, "this is our special interest, we can like these things and we aren't immature for it". and it being like a mainstream thing.

[theladygazingatemptiness]

.

[medicinemane]

I don't get being like "I'm communist, which is why I love putin and russian imperialism which actually... they don't have anything to do with communism other than that they came after something that was nominally communist"

Like at least I get being a shill for China since they at least still wear the trappings of communism, but like... what on earth do you get out of going to bat for modern russia which isn't even communist?

[mesetacadre]

How can I stop my otherwise well-meaning friends and myself from falling into the trap of Adventurism?

Adventurism is so appealing because it interfaces with (1) an understandable impatience to see change and with (2) the individualism conditioned into people by growing up in and existing within liberal frameworks and common pathways for understanding societal and historical change. If, for the formative years of your life, the dominant ideology of capitalism, that being liberalism in all its branches, is educated into you through all possible channels, especially history, it's to be expected that an individual who decides to participate in some of that change will see themselves as an agent in and of themselves. If your perspective on both history and current events can be boiled down to a simple concatenation of events whose only common motor is the free will of the most remarkable individuals, then you will try to act like one of those remarkable individuals and create one of these events through the only motor of your free will. And, the set of actions and attitudes that fall under the category of adventurism meets those frameworks very neatly for the radical extremes of liberalism. It's both the far left of liberalism and far right of liberalism that find adventurist methods appealing, though for describing the attitudes of that far right, using accelerationism is more common and IMO more accurate, but at their core, adventurism and accelerationism are the same methods modified by the particulars of their corresponding ideologies.

That is an erroneous way to look at the world of course, history is moved by the forces exerted by massified classes, themselves defined by their role in the mode of production, as well as the historical forces that serve as a precedent. It's not remarkable individuals who move history in any direction that they please, it's history and the weight of the context in which they exist that limits and expands the possibility of their action. It's more than the simple sum of all individual parts. Individuals are not agents, they are constituent parts that can only effect change when they act like so, organized as constituent parts, aware of the limitations and possibilities afforded by the past and present context. If you want to avoid the pitfalls of liberalism and individualism, such as adventurism, you should commit to a conscious change in the framework through which you see history, because adventurism is logical in one framework, and isn't in another.

This whole CEO murder business has had people of all stripes (such as myself, even if you think I'm a wet blanket) making fun of the situation. I also don't particularly care for the life of a capitalist. But there is also a smaller group of people who seem to believe this is significant. And within that, I think there is another division. First, the people who think this is significant because they believe that healthcare insurance providers have now been bullied into giving a better service, or because they believe that now all CEOs across the board will be scared themselves and do better things (or even because apparently now everyone will be hunting their nearest CEO). These are all various forms of engagement with adventurism. The second group of people, who I think are being much more reasonable, see the generalized perspective on this being that of celebration, that such a bad person got their comeuppance, and that this is first a proof that it's still very possible to stimulate class consciousness in the US working class, and that it is second a good opportunity to stimulate it.

While this is in some ways true, the class consciousness in display ("even by trump supporters", as if the difference between them and US democrats even existed) is one that's extremely unconscious. People dislike this guy because he's notorious among healthcare insurance providers and even his predecessors for denying a lot of claims. This is individualism again, people dislike him individually and maybe they dislike all individual healthcare insurance providers CEOs, or even all individual CEOs regardless of sector. The vast majority of people celebrating who you wouldn't expect aren't class conscious, they're class unconscious from decades of consequent liberal punches to their liver, heart, and head. Most people dislike him as an individual, and it's not very difficult to hate all CEOs without ever stepping off the wide bounds of liberalism and individualism. In fact, it's the placing that of pointless hate at the center of your ideology that's preventing you from shedding the ideology of capitalism.

And no, I don't mean to say that it's pointless to talk to your lifelong republican uncle about this or whoever, and I would encourage my USamerican followers to use this event to their advantage. But you can't think that just hating CEOs is a good enough base to develop a revolutionary consciousness. You need to begin seeing the world through a class lens, only then can you only really understand the impotence of adventurism, and that it lies in the fact that it does not engage with change through class, but through the individual, who by itself is an insignificant agent of change.

[lintwriting]

I was here when mouthwashing was just a demo. here are some things I noticed.

I caught on to the fact that Curly was likely innocent and that Jimmy was an unreliable narrator based on the "Take Responsibility" word scramble and Jimmy's asshole behavior. Because of this, I also did not think there would be supernatural horror, I thought it’d be man-made and psychological, which I was right about.

What I did not expect was the subtle depiction of how workplaces fail victims of rape and misogyny.

What I did not expect was how backgrounded the late stage capitalism critique ended up being.

late stage capitalism: a red herring

From the Demo, you focus a lot on the corporation as the main antagonist, probably because Wrong Organ devs were hiding the villain protagonists.

Ominous posters, a Polle monster chasing you, those ominous TV commercials glorifying working for a corporation, the fact that all this horror was over fucking tooth-rotting mouthwash. Really paints the picture of a corporate horror or conspiracy a la “Time to Orbit: Unknown,” where every chapter unveils a new corporate conspiracy for money and power.

but instead, in mouthwashing, the capitalist aspects are merely plot devices to explore the horror surrounding mismanagement and its consequences.

A power tripping coworker and an enabling manager who got him the job. An eager-to-please kid and an established supervisor willing to take advantage. Flaws in how the hierarchy is decided, leading to the one person who shouldn’t have had power getting the power. Lack of sensitivity training (or whatever that’s called) surrounding things like Title IX concerns, such as the uneven gender dynamics or what to do in the event of a crime or the fact that the person doing the psych evals isn’t getting any evals.

Notice that none of these things are unique to capitalism, they’re issues you’d have to plan for in any workplace/organization, whether that be socialist or capitalist or whatever. The capitalism exacerbates the issues or catalyzes the consequences of them like a plot device, but the issues don’t originate from there.

For example: the lack of any woman other than Anya.

Yes, this was most likely exacerbated by late stage capitalism understaffing to cut corners, leading to skeleton crews, but that the crew we DO have is mostly male is more related to misogyny or gender roles.

Perhaps women don't want to work on these freighters because of the danger of being trapped in a confined space with men. Maybe the jobs required for these freighters, like mechanic or pilot, are male-dominated. Or maybe the hiring manager had a bias where they viewed men as more competent, etc. The fact of the matter is that the cause is the same when you dig down deep into it: misogyny.

Or the layoff. The laying off of the crew is its own form of evil, but its consequences aren’t the ones being explored within this story. Most of the crew die of the horrors within the ship before they ever have to face it. In fact, the horrors within the ship don't really even have anything to do with the layoff at all. It’s a bit of a red herring.

Rather, the actual cause of this game’s horror is the mismanaged fallout of Jimmy’s assault. Most obviously in that scene where we see Curly for the first time, wherein Curly doesn’t take Anya’s safety concerns seriously, even when Jimmy is actively threatening to make everyone disappear so neither of them have to face the consequences of the assault.

I initially misread that scene as Curly evilly conspiring to let Jimmy crash the ship so neither of them would take the fall, hence us finally seeing Curly's “true face.” Because I read what Jimmy said as inherently threatening and serious, I thought Curly had agreed to that awful plan and only got cold feet at the last minute.

It’s only from reading other comments that I realized Curly had most likely assumed Jimmy was blowing hot air and needed to cool down in that scene. Or that he was making an inappropriate joke akin to his 'sexually attracted to cartoon horses' thing and wasn't being serious. Curly didn’t realize Jimmy was actually talking about a real plan until it was too late stop it (makes me wonder if Jimmy was actually attracted to the horse, too).

Thus, it goes from a story about corner-cutting late stage capitalist megacorps to a story about cartoonishly evil, power-tripping men to a story about how we enable these men with failures in our system.

Much like how the beginning of the game, when Jimmy crashes the ship, a failure in the safety systems is what allows the crash to happen (Seriously? One pilfered key is all you need to send your ship into a crash?), a series of social safety nets had to have failed to let him into the cockpit in the first place. The true face is not Curly conspiring to crash the ship out of cowardice and greed, but his inability to face what his friend has done.

[syllvarin]

Non-traumagenic plurality: How could it be possible?

First off, let's start with what some anti-endo folk mean versus what they don't mean with traumagenic plurality

They mean systems caused by/as a response to trauma and traumatic events, and those who are still affetced by them, aka systems who are disordered, DID/OSDD/UDD.

What they don't mean is systems who have trauma in their origin along with other causes. They do not believe a system can very well be traumagenic but function smoothlessly due to recovering, or have multiple origins.

Note: We are a diagnosed DID system with mixed (trauma/ramcoa/neuro/para) origins. Yes, we know what we are talking about. No, that doesn't mean we can't do mistakes, but we will try our best to be as accurate as possible. We will include scientific articles, DSM-5 DID checklist, and many more in this post.

How can that be possible?

1st: Brains are quite complicated. Research on brain functions is far from being complete, it is a long road that we are still at the very beginning of. We still don't know how brain exactly works let alone how it can form seperate conscious identities and work them together. We do know headmates exist based on brain MRI's ( link here ) That proves us that systems indeed, exist.

2nd point i want to make is that science is not done in a linear fashion. We are studying to be neuroscientists ourselves and the very core of what makes science doable is MONEY. Yes, in this capitalist system even the most seemingly basic research requires funding, money, and a goal that can be monetized to get done. Reseaches on female autonomy, rare disorders and "demonized" disorders such as DID is therefore not often as it is not easily capitalized and funded.

Therefore we do not have enough research to prove or disprove that the only way of becoming a system is through childhood.

And that brings me to my 3rd point, where we will take a look at what DSM-5 (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) says about diagnostic crietria of DID. We will see how it is a dissocative disorder, not a trauma disorder.

Found under dissociative disorders (not trauma disorders!), checklist for DID is as follows:

See how none of those checklist include trauma as checklist? Yes DID is commonly caused by trauma but not always. Yes it commonly is created during childhood but not always. Those arent in diagnostic criteria.

Definitive feature is not trauma, it is distinct personality states or experience of possession.

DID is associated with traumatic events, does not mean it requires it.

DID can manifest at almost any age (DSM-5 is saying that, folks)

What's more is OSDD doesnt even have a definitive checklist like DID. it is found under differential diagnosis, with other disorders. PDID (partial DID where one part is frontstuck a majority of the time) is also up to psychiatrist's evaluation rather than a concrete checklist.

4th point is : What about Structural Dissociaton Theory?

This theory is as it goes: The theory of Structural Dissociation works off of the assumption that everyone is born with different ego states that later merge in life. Those different ego states operate for different actions in life, that later integrate into one person during ages of 4-6. Trauma disrupts that integration and causes ANP (apparently normal parts) and EP (Emotional parts). EP's are stuck in the trauma while ANP's are not.

source: The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and the Treatment of Chronic Traumatization" by Onno van der Hart, Ellert Nijenhuis, and Kathy Steele. 

Yes, theory. Theories are not concrete. They can be disapproved, they can change, they may not fit every experience. Structural dissociation only explains how DID can manifest at childhood, but we already know by now that DID can manifest at almost any age.

So I personally think basing everything on a theory about how DID might've been caused (which doesn't even perfectly explain every possible way) is not as fault-proof as one might think it is.

Point 5: experiences of "multiple identities" exist for so long into history (people who are possessed, talk to themselves, act weird at times, are very different at times, etc), way before any DID/OSDD terms were created. And actually, how can we know how many people in history have had this experience when the very society we are in is very scared of them? It is fair to say only the disruptive cases must've been noticed, and majority of them probably were either deemed as crazy or exorcised as they believed those people were possessed by spirits. Just because your experience does not fit with others and just because science hasnt done anything to back them up, doesn't mean people's lived experiences are false. Why would so many people tell that they are a system when they are not? We are not living in a place where being a system is happy or fun, we are not in a society where its profitable or anything. It literally gives a person zero + points for being plural if they arent. It would be a nonstop roleplay they have to keep up throughout every aspect of their life; and at that point, it must be either impossible or that person is already plural and not roleplaying when no one is looking at them.

Creating headmates is on the same basket. A person with DID can create headmates in blink of an eye (we know from oursleves) sometimes splitting threshold is so low you may split off multiple people at once. You cannot know what is going in a person's mind, and what mechanisms work for creating a headmate. If they claim they did, it is very much no chance they are faking being different people 24/7. It *is* a real chance that they actually did develop a headmate. If you do not believe them; ask them about their experiences. I am %100 positive that if you actually listen to them, you will see those people are only trying to live their life.

Also, if you think healthy systems cannot exist and only way to be a system is through dissociation and dysfunction; then why would DID systems try to heal anyway? Wouldn't that just be sanist and ableist to expect all of them to turn into singlets because healthy multiplicity isnt a thing?But no, it is a thing, and healthy multiplicity and recovery is possible for systems. DID and other disordered forms of plurality do indeed exist, and they are indeed, treatabe in multiple ways according to what a person feels comfortable with. That is also a system's right to heal however they please. They don't owe anyone their right to stay as plural or become a singlet.

6th point I want to make is about: Why do we even care?

If a person says they have multiple people in their head, why do we care and tell them they are faking? They are not claiming to have a diagnosis, even if they did; if their situation is causing a distress to them, then they ARE diagnosable and that therefore is none of our business, again.

Last point I want to make is how endogenic DID is possible. yes, possible. remember how trauma is not in diagnostic criteria and DID can happen at any age? If endogenic plurals can happen, they can also form DID at later in life. They can also become disordered due to an event in their life. They can lose harmony and become so dysfunctional they need professional help. That doesn't mean they are no longer endogenic or some other origin, that simply means their state is different than what it was and they need help.

End of our post. Thank you for reading.

[alpaca-clouds]

You Cannot Create A Solarpunk Future Under Capitalism

I am feeling like a broken record, but I just need to make this clear once more: No, Solarpunk in any form is not possible under capitalism. If you think it is, you either fail to understand Solarpunk, or you don't get what capitalism even means.

Technically I wrote about this already almost exactly a year ago. Let me reiterate it again, though: Solarpunk at its core is build around a couple of ideas. Those are:

Living in relative harmony with our environment, rather than destroying it. (Which includes using renewable energies.)

Decolonialism.

Social justice and the same rights, chances and possibilities for all people.

Neither of those three points is archievable under capitalism, as the end goals of capitalism are opposed to each of them.

Let me go through each of them.

Environmental Sustainability is not archievable under capitalism.

This is the point people tend to argue about the most. Because they will go: "But if the renewable energy sources are cheaper than fossil fuels, the capitalist will see more possibilities to make money with it." Well, do I have news for you: A variety of renewable sources, such as solar and wind power, are already a lot cheaper than fossil fuels and yet somehow the capitalist argue against using them. Care to explain that? No? Well, I'll do it for you. (Technically already did in that blog last year.)

See, when someone's net worth is listed somewhere, most of them actually do not have billions of dollars on their bank accounts. And no, they also do not swim in gold coins. Instead their net worth comes from calculating how much money they would be able to make if they sold all thier assets. A lot of those assets are shares in companies they have, as well as stuff like their fancy houses, fancy cars, fancy private jets and fancy yachts. Most billionaires have not more than a couple tens million dollars in liquid money, meaning money they can just spend. If they wanna buy something that is more expensive, they will usually go to a bank, say: "Look at all the stuff I have. I wanna buy myself more stuff. Gimme money?" And the bank will go: "Of course, Sir Billionaire, here you go. Have a nice 10 billion dollars."

And this is where the issue arrises: Most of the billionaires who are investing in the energy market, have already invested billions in fossil fuels. Be it by owning shares of fossil fuel companies, or by owning mines, oil rigs, power plants and the like. And this puts them into a silly little position: Even if they wanted to make more money through renewables, they cannot without harming themselves. Because in the moment that renewables become even more viable than they already are, fossil fuels lose their viabilities - and hence all the assets they hold in fossil fuels lose their value in an instant. The billionairs know that. The banks know it, too. Which is why banks do not want to give the fossil fuel billionaires money for that, even if they ask.

And that is only on the energy-generating side of it. If you go into the other stuff that harms our environment... Simply put: Public transport will never make as much money, as selling everyone their own car. And plastics are just so much cheaper than any alternatives. And the companies need fast fashion, because they won't make as much money, if folks only go buying new clothes every ten years.

Capitalism is build on the exploitation of the environment.

You cannot archieve decolonialization under capitalism.

Let's talk about the call to decolonize next. This is even easier explained: Capitalism is build on colonialism. And contrary to what you might have been told in school, colonialism has never ended. Most indigenous folks never got their ancestral land back - or have to fight to remain on it to this day. The most notable examples you know off might be indigenous people on their land (at times the land they originally had been forced onto after their ancestral land had been stolen from them) fighting pipelines that the capitalists want to put onto that land. That is colonialism.

In fact a lot of the raw material we use to power capitalism is produced on stolen land or is moved across stolen land to be financially viable. Be it oil springs, that can be found there. Or be it mines. That is both mines that produce coal, but also mines that are used to produce lithium and other materials used in batteries of electric cars. These raw materials should technically belong to the indigenous people from whose land those materials are sourced. And we do know for a fact that some of them will prefer to leave those materials in the ground. Maybe because of the harm to the environment that mining for them creates. Maybe because the land is sacred to them. Maybe because some of them just do not care about cheap electric cars.

It is more than that, of course. Because colonialism also allows for slave labor. And yes, I mean slave labor. Like classical slave labor where people are pressganged into laboring in those mines, or in other factories, where they are not paid at all - or are paid in breadcrums. The reason that the global south is so abhorently poor, even though most of the raw materials powering our world are found there, is, that the people in the global south are exploited, while the land is often owned by people from the global north, who either got it through colonialism - or by buying it from someone who got it through colonialism.

And once again: The profit motive of capitalism is directly opposed to decolonizing - and because of that it won't happen. Capitalism is built on colonial exploitation.

You cannot archive social justice under capitalism.

Capitalism as a system was invented for one reason and one reason alone: To allow former nobility, who were close to lose their power and influence in a Europe of anti-royal revolutions, to hold onto the power and influence and veil it underneath the idea of meritocracy. Basically saying: "Everyone gets what they deserve based on the work they got in." Obviosly they got the most, because they owned the land that everyone was working and living on. And then they did their best to brainwash everyone into believing this - at which they actually succeeded.

Here is the thing: Capitalism needs an underclass to exploit. Sure, a good chunk of that exploitation will happen in other countries, where the poor white middleclass folks do not need to see them toil, but some of that exploitation simply cannot be done in those other countries. At times because the work physically needs to happen in the western nations - stuff like road contruction, general contruction work, cleaning and such are an example of this. And at times because some things might be time critical, cannot be transported that far and stuff like that - like farm work in some cases, or also all the Amazon warehouse stuff. Oh, and all those fastfood jobs belong into this area. Stuff that is paid minimum wage and exploited to no end.

And then there is of course prison labor in the US, which once again is just slavery.

And all of that does not even go into the care and nursing work that is either underpaid by a ton when it is happening on the open market (like in hospitals, schools, kindergardens and other care facilities) - or is happening completely for free. Mosten done by women, who will care for both children, as well as elders and disabled family members for free.

The true endgoal of capitalism is to turn the labor of the lower classes into money and value for the upper class to hoard like bloody dragons. As such capitalism will never be compatible with any sort of equal rights and equal chances.

Those three aspects are truths that just cannot be changed. Capitalism will never be able to create any sort of justice, equal rights, or sustainability. It is not in the interest of capitalism to do so, either.

[timetot]

not to vague blog about a random podcast but I was listening to a Hadestown review yesterday and both of the hosts were genuinely surprised that the people they went to see it with had political readings of the show re: capitalism and climate change. like they even said "people are reading too much into it" and "i didn't think it was one of those shows that was trying to be deep."

??????

i don't want to dunk on internet randos TOO hard, especially since they were both new to the show and i think Hadestown's political subtext is a lot more nuanced that like... hamilton or whatever, but. come on. the utter incuriosity behind "they're reading too much into it." one of them even said their favorite song was "why we build the wall." what do you even get out of that song if not an anti-capitalist message about the circular logic that fascists use to perpetuate exploitation of the working class by fearmongering about poor immigrants coming to take their jobs?