#like I need this abolished from existence

[glorioustidalwavedefendor]

Fun fact

In divorces the kids usualyl end up with teh mother

EXCEPT

If the question of custody goes to court

Then teh kids usualyl end up with teh father

Even against the expressed wishes of the kid

Becasue obviously the only reason why a kid doesn't want their daddy is becasue the evil evil ex has poisoned the kids mind ...

People in the comments saying Grimes deserves this need to understand you can have sympathy/empathy for bad people. Grimes being a problematic ignorant weirdo does not mean she is undeserving of sympathy. Especially when innocent children are involved.

Well

People need to understand that you don't owe sympathy/empathy to bad people. :-)

Look

I am furious that we live in a system where a husabnd can treat his wife like that

Where a father can treat his baby moma and his kid like that

I am glad we live in a society where no fault divorce exists and I am glad she has legall options even if it isn't looking to good for her

All of these things are systemic issues that we should abolish tout suit

-> Of course that would be easier if we didn't ALSO have to fight rumplethinskin ... but that is a different discussion

I do not feel personal sympathie for her

She started dating Musk in 2018

Back then we already knew what kind of person he was

But she thought she was diffeent

She thought the Leopads would never eat her face

Same with Steven Crowders wife

I am sad anyones spouse would treat them like that

I am furious there is little to be done

I am glad she can get a no fault divorce

I am furious he is fighting her for soul costudy, becasue it is clearly about power and control. -> Considering whta he put her through during her high risk pregnancy he clearly doesn't give a shit about the kid

I still have no personal sympathy for her

If you marry a sexist, racist, fascist asshole

Who very openly is a sexist, racist, fascist asshole

Actually, who is making money on teh internet with being very openly and very publically a sexist, racist, fascist asshole

If you marry said sexist, racist, fascist asshole and then his treatment of you is that of an sexist, racist, fascist asshole

Then that is on you

Becasue you thought the leopards would never eat your face

Becasue you are hot property

And she thought being hot property would protect her from sexist, racist, fascist assholes

Well

It doesen't

TL;DR If everyone tells you that hitting yourself with a hammer in teh head is painfull and you go ahead and hit yourself wit a hammer in teh head becasue you know better Don't expect me to come running with teh hankies. I am bussy comforting people who where hit with a hammer by other people ... I am bussy fighting for helmets Maybe just don't hit yourself in teh head with a hammer YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL YOU ARE NOT THE EXCEPTION

It's weird this isn't talked about more, but Elon basically kidnapped his son. He used his lawyers to near bankrupt Grimes in her custody battle and it's unclear if she has any access to her son at this point.

Grimes can be an unsympathetic figure at times, but this is just awful. Especially since it seems Elon is using this young boy as an anti-assassination tactic.

[hungergameshyperfixation]

Absolutely cursed idea: Haymitch being called ‘Mitch’ by his peers or family.

[uncanny-tranny]

Honestly, attachment to sex rather than gender as a social construction won't create a utopia without the subjugation of one's presentation, background, or experience from existing. Recognizing that sex and gender are both socially constructed and while they sometimes inform one another, they won't always, and that trans people absolutely can attest to this and are integral to making change for a better world are insurmountably important. If your desire for a "better world" coincidentally doesn't include us, what you desire isn't a better world where people are free - it is subjugation by a different name.

[eightdoctor]

i think along with abortion rights which are of course an absolute must for everyone’s bodily autonomy referrals should also be abolished. why do they exist. why do you need a Permission Slip from a Chaperone to go see another doctor. like oh i guess i am just a baby. a shitty little itty bitty baby idiot who doesn’t know what specialist would be helpful for my condition. only the Big Smart Primary Physicians knows that. only tjey would know that i Need to go to a joint doctor if i have problems with my joints. wow who would have thought thank You so much im glad i had to pay you actual money to tell me something i already knew. you’re so Wise and Kind do you want me to perhaps suck you off as well? play with your hole a little bit? get fucking real

[notaplaceofhonour]

The application that any Palestinian families in need can apply to that you’re describing is what the Palestinian National Institute of Economic Empowerment provides.

The PNIEE was set up in 2019 to provide needs-based aid programs like you’d find in other countries, aimed at self-sufficiency rather than endless payouts (their stated philosophy is essentially the proverbial “teach a man to fish”): vocational training, incubators grants, student aid, short-term aid for families in need with a case manager helping them get on their own feet—that kind of thing. It’s entirely separate from the Ministry of Social Development & the MSD’s “Martyrs Fund” (Pay For Slay) model. PNIEE doesn’t pay people for hurting Jews, being prisoners, or martyrdom.

And according to JPost, the “restructuring” being referred to is taking funds from the old model of MSD’s “Martyrs Fund”—the Pay For Slay program that provides welfare stipends to prisoners & families of people killed in altercations with Israel security forces—and putting that money into the PNIEE—which operates more like welfare in other countries: providing needs-based programs to any Palestinians in need, without the prisoner/martyr criteria, aimed around self-sufficiency.

I get that “restructuring” sounds incomplete, but that’s literally just what it’s called when you liquidate a department and move the assets elsewhere. If Abbas just signed a piece of paper that said “Abolish the Martyr Fund”, the money that was allocated for it would still exist. Abolishing it still means restructuring it. Those funds have to go somewhere. So, restructuring: it goes to the PNIEE.

And if you’re removing something many people in your country see as a fundamental part of infrastructure, and your justification for not getting rid of it sooner has always been “I’m not going to abandon the martyrs”, then you need to reassure the families that genuinely do need aid because they lost a caregiver that you aren’t abandoning them. There’s still a safety net and they won’t be left without help. And that is what these articles are saying: they’re eligible for the same low income benefits as other Palestinians without discrimination.

That doesn’t mean the PNIEE is now going to operate like that Martyrs Fund system did.

It’s not quite a done deal from what I can tell, bc it’s still dependent on lifting sanctions, and I’m not ruling out some kind of chicanery where Abbas/The PA try to have their cake and eat it too & find some other way to start a new Martyrs Fund, but that’s not what’s being conveyed by calling the changes in infrastructure restructuring.

And due to a bunch of factors like mounting pressure from Israel requiring the PA to pay taxes for the payments, the US not backing down from sanctions for PFS, and now families of victims suing the PLO—none of which go away if they just do Pay For Slay through other avenues—as well as the benefits of not having to pay out Hamas, and the potential for using this to advance Palestine (not just its image but provide better infrastructure) give them plenty of incentive to follow through.

But I guess time will tell.

THE PA FINALLY ENDED PAY FOR SLAY??

[kkoffin]

At its core, “gender critical” ideology has nothing to do with transgender ideology. There’s three main beliefs that create a gender critical ideology and none of them have anything to do with or stem from trans issues.

1. Sex is a physical and material reality. You can touch and hold a penis or vagina. You can measure testosterone or oestrogen differences between men and women. You can study any inherent differences in the brain. Yes, intersex people also exist. That difference in sex development is also a material reality.

2. Gender is a social construct. A conservative, patriarchal invention that believes (as a modern example) women must like dresses and men must like pants. Women like pink and men like blue, or in other cultures or times, other ideas. This is not a material reality, it’s only socialisation. Nothing about material reality makes women like pink. There may be some debate regarding where sex stops and gender socialisation begins, as scientific analysis of the brain has not developed enough to know exactly what is inherent and what is part of the socialisation which starts at (or before) birth.

3. The social construct of gender should be abolished, as it is the foundation of a patriarchy. Women are given gender roles which revolve around being subordinate and submissive, as to obey the patriarch, and men’s gender roles are to be aggressive and strong, as to serve in the military. Sex differences are to be respected and gender is to be abolished. Decisions regarding safety, medical care, and other treatment of people should be based on sex, material reality which effects everyone, not gender.

The issue with trans ideology only comes in where in order to transition gender, gender as a social construct must be maintained. To feel “validated” in changing gender, gender must become more important and more recognised than sex. It pushes that decisions regarding the treatment of and protection of people should be made based on gender rather than sex, entirely opposite to the gender critical belief. Gender needs to be reinforced and protected for the ideology to make any sense at all, otherwise, what are you transitioning to?

Gender critical ideology does not target trans people or ideology. It targets a misogynistic social construct. It is not about trans people or ideologies. It is about a misogynistic social construct and its abolition. It’s just that trans ideology happens to rely on that misogynistic construct which gender critical ideology aims to abolish, and thus, they are opposed.

Gender critical ideology is only anti-patriarchy and anti-conservative. Gender belongs to patriarchy and conservatism. Transgender ideology only has issues with gender critical ideology because it is built on gender and falls apart without it.

I am aware gender dysphoria exists. Gender dysphoria would not exist if gender did not exist. Would you rather children develop gender dysphoria and spend thousands of dollars attempting to free themselves of it, suffering for years in the meantime, or that that suffering not exist in the first place? You can argue all you want that sex dysphoria is the real issue, but if that’s the case, call it such and we can learn to deal with it, but for now it’s an entirely different topic since gender ideology chooses to revolve around “gender” instead.

[schattenhonig]

The A in LGBTQIA+ doesn't stand for aspec because they're not repressed!

(please read the disclaimer at the end of this post)

Ummm, excuse me? Would you mind telling me what your definition of repression is, then?

Because I feel repressed when a doctor asks me about my sex life, and if I say I have none, it gets marked down as a symptom without being asked if I suffer from it.

I feel repressed when my gyn tells me I can't get a hysterectomy yet despite losing so much blood on every period that I need to take iron supplements all the time, because I could change my mind about not wanting children (which is a whole other post, I know, but it's most likely linked to sex).

I feel repressed if I can't use dating apps or platforms because my sexuality doesn't even exist there, and the one time I tried, I got called names because I didn't want to meet for because it was clear where this date would go, despite my explicit "what I'm looking for".

I feel repressed when I think about how recently a paragraph was finally abolished in my country that considered sex a vital part of a marriage, basically entitling the spouses to having sex with their partner (both gender neutral, because entitling people to having sex with somebody else by law is wrong. It's basically a rape permission).

I feel repressed when I can't watch any film or show without it being about love and/or sex, no matter if it fits the narrative and furthers the plot.

I feel repressed when I plot my own stories and automatically put a romantic couple in there as main characters, even though I have no idea why this would be important for the plot. Not even my own stories, my own thoughts are mine.

I felt repressed when I was asked accusingly in a relationship if I wasn't missing something before I even knew asexuality as a spectrum was a thing, and having to lie about this being a side effect of my medication instead of genuinely not feeling attracted to someone in this way.

I feel repressed when I can't tell people I'm not sexually attracted to them because they will take this personally no matter how well I explain myself.

I feel repressed when everywhere I look there's advertising relying on naked skin, suggestive posing and objectification. Why are expensive cars still presented by women considered beautiful and tempting? It's not like that's necessary to convince people of spending so much money on a thing that gets you from A to B. Couches with women in smart dresses and high heels. That's not what a normal person looks like on a couch. But the worst is a truck in the town where I live: it's from a small fruit and vegetable stand, so whenever I see it, it comes from the warehouse, delivering groceries. On it is a woman clad in very little, presenting fruit. I'm sorry, but why? Does a misogynistic picture convince you of the necessity to avoid scurvy?

I feel repressed when I tell people and get the answer "you just haven't found the right person yet", because there are two possible assumptions from that point: I'm either not trying hard enough (so it's basically my own fault) or something about me is not right, appalling even (which circles back to I'm not trying hard enough or frames me as a victim of my genetics, upbringing or circumstances to be pitied).

Do not tell me how I feel. Do not try to tell me everything is fine and I shouldn't complain or ask for acknowledgement if everywhere I look, I'm reminded of how odd, how weird and how not normal I am. How much it inconveniences you to even acknowledge my existence, let alone respect any of my traits, views and choices.

And while I can only write from my own asexual point of view, I wrote this with all kinds of flavours of aspec in mind, so I'm explicitly including aromantics, aroace people and every shade of the spectrum in this. Not all my examples may apply to you, but I hope you can find something to relate to.

ETA: please feel free to add your own experiences of repression!

[coratatum]

I will once again use this as an opportunity to exclaim we should abolish daylight savings and just pick one time thing and stick to it. I don't even care which at this point. Just pick one and stop arbitrarily changing the clocks

(also it's even more heinous that we all don't have the same daylight savings date. Missed some morning work meetings last week because Poland has daylight savings a week earlier and the Poland team has made the meetings which pushed the morning work meetings into OTHER ones that I couldn't reschedule and it was really confusing and dumb)

(and some places don't do daylight savings!!!)

The whole time system is insane and whoever came up with it should be punished

[metamatar]

i have a question and sorry if it sounds incoherent. why is it so important to marxists to distinguish that marxism is not “moral” or “ideological”? i understand that marxism is grounded in historical materialism and that it aims to understand how existing structures and institutions function with the specific goal of abolishing them in favour of a marxist state, but when it comes to understanding how to move forward past capitalism, how can MLs claim that it’s entirely objective and scientific? isnt the fundamental purpose of marxism (abolishing the oppressor class and putting the proletariat in power) a subjective one, given that it to support that you need to believe that abolishing the oppressor class is desirable in the first place? how would ML “scientifically” help people decide where the line is drawn on subjects like the death penalty and incarceration if its committed by a communist party (given that the decision that the cost of killing/imprisoning people is worth the boon it would give in establishing a communist state is still based on subjective goals?)

i don't think modern marxists should claim they're not ideological. im sure some do, but imo the correct claim is marxism is not idealist. i think some of this confusion comes from a popperian view of science as "neutral" or "objective" outside of time. how the political economy affects the propagation of ideology and the process of science as practiced in reality is very standard marxist analysis now. some of the claim to objectivity is something that most people claim belongs to their favourite philosophical project see the rawlsian veil of ignorance in liberalism. marx is also writing in a world where theological and religious reasoning have a lot of primacy in philosophy and he is drawing a clean break from that by hewing to scientific characterisation of his methods.

idealism, in the kantian sense is a philosophy that argues that our ideals (about say, fairness, justice etc) inform how we organise society. marxism, as philosophical project develops in response to kant and hegel to argue that the political economic base, ie the productive relations of society actually inform superstructure of ideals. to quote marx in the preface to critique of political economy: "it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

for clarity's sake the idea that changes in the mode of production (mostly due to technology) transform the relations of production which is the main driving force of history is historical materialism. the analysis of why existing structures and institutions must be abolished therefore has to be grounded in analysis where such structures are considered variously – unstable, internally contradictory etc. if you view historical materialism as true, your theory of change cannot be that you'll change the world because it is unfair (an idea.) you can view the world as unfair as a marxist and talk about it to propagate the necessity of your project but that doesn't actually give you a blueprint on how to change it.

capitalists are oppressors, but marxism doesn't view the problem in their oppressive or evil natures. capitalist economies demand even the most moral capitalist to exploit the proletariat. but! it is desirable to abolish there class relations not merely because they are unfair and exploitative but because these class relationships cause workers to develop class consciousness, recognise their power and abolish capitalism.

on your specific example, i don't think marxism can or should claim their are no moral dilemmas. historical materialism doesn't assert that there are no conflicting understandings of history. walter benjamin's theses on the philosophy of history is imo good reading here.

so i dont think your concern about why it's important for marxists to believe this makes sense, because this is what marxism is. if you don't find this convincing, you're not a marxist. you could be an anarchist, or a social democrat or a radical liberal.

[hannieehaee]

omg hi!!! i love ur writing and ur always so detailed with emotions and reactions when u write!! that’s why i have a req for u i rly hope u accept it!!

could i please request a seungkwan drabble!! just a very domestic fluffy one like the two of u waking up to each other and he’s watching u as u sleep, tracing ur face just things like that!! hehe

content: bf!seungkwan, established relationship, fluff, etc.

wc: 387

a/n: hii thank u so much <33 this was such a soft premise it was so cute to write :c

masterlist

it was in moments like these that seungkwan truly felt no cares in the world.

there was nothing but you and him. nothing could disturb nor interrupt the peacefulness he felt in this moment. nothing compared to how happy he felt in watching you at your most relqxed state (well, maybe holding you in his arms as you slept was a big contender).

seungkwan liked to keep this to himself, but he had begun a new routine as of late.

after figuring out your sleeping schedule, he had made it a goal to train his body into waking up a few minutes before you got up and started your day. it had taken much effort to wake up without any incentive other than his instinctive need to see you, but it seemed like his incurable addiction to you had made it possible.

and this new little routine had become a favorite of his. he would wake up, turn to look at your side of the bed and simply watch as you remained asleep. sometimes he would keep count of your breaths, while other times he would lightly trace his fingers along the soft curves of your body. his fingers would sometimes stray away from your body and trace your features, hoping to commit every ridge of your face to memory.

this would only go on for about fifteen minutes or so as he took you in and enjoyed your sight in ways he knew no one else ever would. nothing else mattered to him other than knowing how irrevocably his you were. he felt a pride that could never be abolished.

he would occasionally end up waking you up, smiling at the way you scrunched up your nose as your slumber got interrupted. but he would play none the wiser any time you questioned why he was already awake, claiming he had woken up a minute or two before you did. in most of these occasions, he would entice you into falling back asleep, sometimes falling asleep along with you, while other times staying awake to admire you once more.

this was one of the greatest joys in seungkwan's life, as it allowed time to freeze and for everything around you to cease to exist. all there was was you, him, and his irrevocable love for you.

[toskarin]

i really dont know how to tell people that Copyright Laws Are Good, Actually. every time a company like disney or nintendo abuses copyright laws people always start talking about how copyright should be abolished, and in an ideal world, copyright laws wouldnt be necessary. but in the world we live in copyright laws are very much needed for creatives. while it's easy to be reactionairy when nintendo unfairly removes a fangame or disney threatens people over mickey mouse, people really need to understand that copyright laws are the only things stopping corporations and even other people from exploiting smaller ips. like, imagine if hasbro started making toys of your projects with no consent or contract or payment. that's what copyright laws are stopping

taking this in best possible faith, this is still an opinion completely unmoored from any material understanding of how IP works to the point where I can't take it seriously.

if hasbro started making toys out of my project without my consent, in the world we currently exist in, I would have little to no recourse simply because I could not win a court case against hasbro. they would drag it out and I would be in financial ruin long before I could achieve anything

if I made something similar to a hasbro property without infringing on their IP and they came down on me under the pretense that I had infringed, I would likely have to reach a settlement and shutter my project. it would not matter whether or not I was right

copyright does not protect you: it protects people who can afford to wield it

and making an assumption that you and I are more likely to be economic peers than not, we cannot afford to wield it

[the-nyanguard-party]

sorry im new to your blog and im sorry if i sound really dumb and stuff with that.

this the post that i ment.

(1) one of my many problematic stances is i don't think the US military is ever a force for good or 'lesser evil' – @the-nyanguard-party on Tumblr

ok so my primary issue with "All militaries are evil" is that a state, including its military, has a class character.

from a marxist perspective, the state under capitalism is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. special bodies of armed men are organized to keep the working class under control and serve the interests of the capitalist class

in particular, the US military (as other imperial core, that is "first world," militaries) serves to forward their interests and preserve their place as an imperialist power. under imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, the financial monopolies of a few nations (the imperial core, or "first world") come to control and exploit the whole world. the military of an imperialist power serves to exert control over other nations, and to fight in inter-imperialist conflicts for redivision of the world.

on the other hand, marxists stress the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat in order to move from capitalism, through socialism, to communism. as the bourgeoisie is overthrown, the proletariat takes power and must preserve it through force, organizing in a socialist state that can supress attempts at restoring capitalism both from within and without. the character of this state is fundamentally different, being under the control of the working class and serving its interests. this state cannot be abolished as long as the bourgeosie exists, to do so simply leaves the way open for the restoration of capitalism. in particular, it needs a military to defend itself from capitalist states. this is my main problem with the sentiment of "All militaries are evil"

furthermore, even the bourgeoisie (or at least a section of it) of nations oppressed and exploited by imperialist powers may, depending on circumstances, fight to assert their independence. we remain critical of bourgeois nationalism even in this context - our ultimate goal that we cannot abandon is the overthrow of capitalism everywhere in the world, this is the only way out of imperialism - but we recognize they can play a progressive role in weakening imperialism and in making it easier for the proletariat to gain power. this is a nuanced topic, i don't know if i expressed it very well. i'll leave it like this for brevity's sake. ultimately, for people in the imperial core, your primary enemy is your own state and you should be against your own imperialism no matter what form the anti-imperialism of the nation yours is exploiting takes.

[letters-to-lgbt-kids]

My dear lgbt+ kids, 

An underrated health and wellbeing tool is play. 

When you think about playing, you may immediately picture little children - but by definition, play describes “any activity engaged in purely for enjoyment and recreation with no definite practical purpose” and those activities stay important throughout your whole life. 

Why are those activities important? 

Play is good for your body. Intentionally doing something just for fun helps to activate the “rest and digest” mode that is necessary to recover and heal from stress. It signals that you’re safe and helps your body relieve tension. 

It’s also good for your brain. It can stimulate your imagination, visualization and critical thinking skills, which can help you build skills like resilience and adaptability. 

Play can also foster empathy and understanding of others as it can help you see things from another’s perspective. 

Playing can make you laugh, and laughter comes with a whole sleeve of health benefits, such as decreasing blood pressure and even improving your immune system! 

Playing together can strengthen relationships. Positive, fun social interactions are important for your emotional wellbeing. 

Now some of you may think “that’s all nice, but how do I even play as an adult?”. While play is a natural behavior of human beings, many adults need to re-learn how to play - it depends on your specific environment and social circles but you may feel a lot of pressure to be productive all the time and play is by its very nature not productive. So, the first step in re-learning play is to give yourself permission to just *be* instead of *do* (and that can be a huge step!). 

Some ideas on how to ease back into play: 

Think about your childhood. (Or if you can, ask a parent, sibling or childhood friend, that can be a great way to bring back memories!) What were your favorite ways to play back then? What did you love about your favorite game? Does any particular memory immediately give you that “I wish I could do that again” feeling? (You may not necessarily find anything that you want to just replicate as an adult as-is, this is just meant to kick-start your imagination!) 

Gameify everyday tasks. Try to spot as many yellow items as possible on your commute to work. Make up a silly song about laundry while putting away the laundry. Pretend to be on a cooking show while making dinner. Do what you always do, just allow yourself to be silly about it! 

Do something creative, even (and especially) if you’re not good at it. You may not think of drawing, writing etc. as playing but those are activities you can do for pure entertainment! 

Moving your body doesn’t need to be purposeful exercise (and certainly not hating yourself in the gym), it can also be playtime: Do a silly little dance to your favorite song! Tippytoe, crawl, jump, walk backward.. from your bedroom to the kitchen, just for the fun of it! 

Rethink toys. While it is fully okay for a grownup to buy, own and play with toys, and we should abolish the negative stereotypes about it (it’s creepy, it’s inherently a sign of poor mental health etc.) these stereotypes do exist and you may simply not feel comfortable. Luckily, there are a few toys that are generally considered socially acceptable for adults or are even marketed towards adults, such as board games, stress balls, adult coloring books, certain Lego sets or fan/collectors toys (like action figures). And when there are no judgy eyes watching, you may also have fun just playing with household items such as cardboard rolls! No need to go out and buy something! 

Keep in mind that play isn’t a competition to win. You can’t play wrong - that’s the beauty of it! Just let your curiosity and enthusiasm guide you. 

With all my love, 

Your Tumblr Dad 

[methed-up-marxist]

Lenin said that revolutions are "tribunals of the oppressed" and it is under this banner that us Trotskyists have long - or at least since that cute little Tony Cliff article I read - defended the right for queers to organise for their own self-defence and articulated the necessity of queer liberation in relation to the broader dynamics of the working-class movement. All of these points have been perfectly valid: revolution does draw together large sections of the oppressed and demonstrate the fundamentally interlinked nature of our oppressions. Only global proletarian revolution can end racism, homophobia, misogyny, transphobia and ableism.   Yet this seems to often be the point where the concessions to the centrality of sexual struggle for revolutionary politics ends. Yes, queer political movements are necessary and must be both assisted as independent formations and encouraged to tie themselves deeper into the actually existing movement to abolish the present state of things - i.e communism but this is all that is required of them. Communists must not be homophobic: Analysis complete (no more questions remain)! No! no! no! The economism of the preachers of such slogans know no bounds. Knowledge is material: ideas do not fall from the sky they emerge as a result of definite social processes. If there is a queer liberation movement, there is an attendant ideology of that movement. Perhaps more importantly there is the ever-present question "why are queers oppressed under capitalism" I mean it's just butt-sex and a little bit of pissing on each other in public toilets right? It's just transforming your body so it's more congruent with who you are as a person, it's just having a weird name that makes no sense right? ""The neglect of this aspect of sociology [that is: the sexual the sensual and the experential] was pointed out by Marx himself in his criticism of 18th century materialism [Feurbach]. The vulgar Marxist considers psychology in itself as a metaphysical system. He neglects to separate the metaphysical character of reactionary psychology from its basic elements which were disclosed by a revolutionary psychological search and which have to be developed. Instead of criticising productively, he simply repudiates; he considers himself as a "materialist" when he throws out as "idealistic" such facts as "instinct," "need" or "psychological process." In doing so, he gets himself into the greatest difficulties and achieves only failure, for his political practice forces him constantly to use practical psychology; he cannot avoid talking about "human needs," "revolutionary consciousness," the "will to strike," etc. The more he repudiates psychology, the more he himself practises metaphysical psychologists"" - Wilhelm Reich, Mass Psychology of Fascism

As gross or as shocking or as transformative as these things may be they don't seem to actually have much to do with interfering with the smooth running of the labour-process. this has led some to suggest that queers are primarily targeted exclusively so as to produce an acceptable target for social discrimination to divide the working class amongst itself. Queers are not just a scapegoat to promote division within the working-class. This argument has never had any merit: there are thousands of potential scapegoats. Could our ruling class not simply pick out one of the other myriad of social differences between people and let this become the axis upon with social exclusion is disseminated throughout the working class as false-consciousness? It seems unlikely we will see the Murdoch press beginning a years long campaign against people with uneven arm lengths anytime soon. it appears implausible that a don't ask don't tell policy will emerge in militaries around the world for men who failed to get laid before 23. Humans vary in so many different ways: why did the ones who like dick up the butt and taking cross-sex hormones get the short end of the cultural hysteria stick? BECAUSE OF CLASS. COME ON GIRLS LETS DO SOME FUCKING MATERIALISM. Class is not a natural social formation, there is not a structure in the human brain that says, "I require someone to rule me and someone who I rule". Class is an invention; a thing that has emerged from the collective set of choices humans have made - under varying degrees of compulsion - on how to organise society. Classes need to be able to perpetuate themselves into the next generation and so they train that generation to become ready to live their lives as people who oppress and dominate brutally. If CEO's and monarchs and warlords we're not trained by family to be such things from day one then they might not successfully reproduce the rules of their station. The control of sexual reproduction is the control of lines of inheritance. No one ever got rich off having poor parents. Class could not perpetrate itself from generation to generation if not for the insistence that when one member of the ruling class dies we can clearly identify who their successor is and be sure that they have been trained in the ideology of the ruling class and more than that provide a strong biological-naturalist explanation for why all the parents wealth must go to this person: some people might begin to suggest redistributing the dead person's wealth - these suggestions must be made not just untenable but unthinkable. So yes, class needs gendered regimes of domination. Not just because it helps sow division amongst the oppressed but because it allows for the emergence of tightly defined lines of inheritance and THE TOTAL CONTROL OF THE LIFE OF THE CHILD FROM DAY ONE means that they are never able to flourish as a human instead sexually repressed from the moment that they are born never knowing what the puberty they experience means until far after it is complete. Every CEOs is a sexually repressed child-monster who resolves what could easily be a sadomasochistic beating by a loving partner into the cataclysmic brutality of making decisions for the IMF. War on war! Sex can save us from brutality.

[wheelie-sick]

I was talking to some friends about a phenomenon in the POTS community where someone will share their heart rate and someone else will immediately try to one up them with theirs. simultaneously, these people would try to drag down anyone with more severe symptoms because they'd feel invalidated by their existence. it got me thinking about the broader problem of both competitiveness and willful erasure of people with more severe symptoms within the chronic illness community.

I wanted to dump all the thoughts I had out here.

it's easy to say that everyone in the chronic illness community has struggled with competitiveness, whether internal or external. society teaches chronically ill people that we must scream the severity of our symptoms from the rooftops in order to be seen, in order to be given any scrap of accommodation. chronically ill people are taught that only the sickest can receive any accommodations.

when people enter the chronic illness community they bring that same attitude. they feel the need to shout from the rooftops that they are truly sick, that they belong in the community. too many people spend no time deconstructing their need to be the worst even when the community tries to call them out on it.

you don't need to prove how sick you are

simultaneously it's important to acknowledge that there is a spectrum of severity. that cannot be forgotten. acknowledging that some people do truly have it worse is not the same as competitively comparing yourself to others.

going back to POTS as an example- there is a huge difference between someone who gets dizzy and has a heart rate of 130bpm at its highest and someone who faints multiple times a day and has a heart rate of 200+bpm at its highest. you cannot ignore that in favor of trying to abolish the "sick olympics" because that diminishes the difference in experience.

too many people with more mild conditions try to drag down people with more severe conditions in an attempt to feel like they are sick enough. they feel invalidated by the existence of people who have it worse than them. instead of working on their internal need to feel like they are sickest they attempt to destroy the spectrum of experiences, reducing it down to one flat layer where everyone has the same level of disability.

other people having it worse than you is not invalidating your struggles

and I think this is the core of what the "sick olympics" is about. it's about comparison, yes, but most importantly it's about dragging people down in favor of feeling like your experience is real. comparison can be harmful in some situations, but that's not really the point. that's not what drives the true harm that this behavior does to the community.

the dragging down of people in an attempt to create one flat layer of experience harms the most vulnerable members of the community. often this behavior is done in the name of abolishing the "sick olympics" but it is the core problem. trying to turn the experience of disability into a uniform level of severity is done because of that exact feeling of invalidation. deconstructing that feeling of the need to be worst involves accepting that some people do have it worse. it is not the fault of people with more severe conditions that you feel invalidated by their existence.

bringing down people with more severe conditions will not fix your need to be the worst.

[alpaca-clouds]

Solarpunk is not archievable under Capitalism

Okay, let me make one thing very clear: We will never have a Solarpunk future as long as we live under capitalism. Again and again I will find people, who have fallen in love with the idea of Solarpunk, but are unwilling to consider any alternative to capitalism. So, please, let me quickly explain what that just is not gonna work out that way. There will be no Solarpunk under capitalism. Because the incentives of capitalism are opposing anything that Solarpunk stands for.

So let me please run over a few core points.

What is capitalism?

One issue that a lot of people do seem to have is understanding what capitalism even is. The defining attribute of capitalism is that "the means of production" (e.g. the things needed to create things) are privately owned and as such the private owners will decide both what gets created through it and who will get a share in any profits created through them. The ultimate goal in this is, to generate as large as a profit as possible, ideally more and more profit with every year. In real terms this means, that most of those means of productions in the way of companies and the like are owned mostly by shareholders, that is investors who have bought part of the company.

While capitalism gets generally thaught in schools with this entire idea of the free market, that... actually is not the central aspect of capitalism. I would even go so far to argue something else...

The market is actually not free and cannot be free

The idea of the free market is, that prices are controlled by the concept of supply and demand, with the buyer in the end deciding on whether they want to spend their money on something and being able to use that power to also enact control on the supplier.

However... that is actually not what is happening. Because it turns out that the end consumer has little influence, because they are actually not actively participating in the market. The market mainly is something that is happening between multimillionaires. It is their demand (or the lack thereoff) that is the influence. Investors, mainly. Which is logical. In a system, where the power to buy is deciding, the person who can spend multiple millions is gonna have a lot more power, than the person who has twenty bucks to their name.

Hence: 99% of all people are not participating in anything resembling a free market, and the remaining 1% are not interested in such a system.

Money under capitalism

One thing everyone needs to understand is, that for the most part money under capitalism is a very theoretical concept. It might be real for the average joe, who for the most part will not have more than maybe ten grand to their name, but it is not real to multi millionaires, let alone billionairs. Something that is going to be thrown around a lot is the concept of "net worth". But what you need to realize is that this net worth is not real money. It does not exist. It is the estimated worth of stuff these people own. Maybe houses and land, maybe private jets, maybe shares in companies and other things. These people's power and literal worth is tied to them being able theoretically able to sell these assets for money.

In fact a lot of these very rich people do not even have a lot of liquid money. So money they can spend. In fact there are quite a few billionairs who do not even own a million in liquidated money. The money they use in everyday life they borrow from banks, while putting their assets up as a security.

Why capitalism won't abolish fossil fuels

Understanding this makes it quite easy to understand why the capitalists cannot have fossil fuels ending. Because a lot of them own millions, at times billions in fossil fuel related assets. They might own a coal mine, or a fracking station, or maybe an offshore rig, or a power plant burning fossil fuels. At times they have 50% or more of their net worth bound in assets like this. If we stopped using fossil fuels, all those assets would become useless from one day to the next. Hence it is not in the interest of these very rich people to have that happen.

But it goes further than that, because politicians cannot have that happen either. Because the entire economy is build around these assets existing and being used as leverage and security for other investments.

Why capitalism won't build walkable cities and infrastructure

The same goes very much for the entire infrastructure. Another thing a lot of people have invested a lot of money into is cars. Not physical cars they own, but cars manufacturing. So, if we were building walkable cities with bikelanes and public transportation, a lot less people would buy cars, those manufactoring factories becoming worthless and hence once more money... just vanishing, that would otherwise be further invested.

Furthermore, even stuff like investing into EVs is a touch call to get to happen, because the investors (whose theoretical and not real money is tied to those manufacturers) want to see dividents at the end of the quartal. And if the manufactuerer invested into changing their factories to build EVs for a while profits would go down due to that investment. Hence, capitalism encourages them not doing that.

Why capitalism won't create sustainable goods

A lot of people will decry the fact that these days all goods you buy will break within two years, while that old washing machine your grandparents bought in 1962 is still running smoothly. To which I say: "Obviously. Because they want to make profits. Hence, selling you the same product every two years is more profitable."

If you wonder: "But wasn't that the same in 1962?" I will answer: "Yes. But in 1962 the market was still growing." See, with the post war economic boom more and more people got more divestable income they could spend. So a lot of companies could expect to win new costumers. But now the market is saturated. There is not a person who could use a washing machine, who does not have one. Hence, that thing needs to break, so they can sell another one.

The market incentive is against making sustainable, enduring products, that can be repaired. They would rather have you throw your clothing, your smartphone and your laptop away every two years.

Why workers will always be exploited under capitalism

One other central thing one has to realize about capitalism is that due to the privitization of the means of production the workers in a capitalist system will always be exploited. Because they own nothing, not even their own work. Any profit the company makes is value that has in the end been created by the workers within the company. (Please note, that everyone who does not own their work and cannot decide what happens to the value created by it is a worker. No matter whether they have a blue collar or a white collar job.)

That is also, why there is the saying: All profit is unpaid wages.

Under capitalism the profits will get divided up under the shareholders (aka the investors), while many of the workers do not even have enough money to just... live. Hence, good living standards for everyone are explicitly once more against the incentives of capitalism.

Why there won't be social justice under capitalism

Racism, sexism and also the current rise of queermisia are all a result of capitalism and have everything to do with capitalist incentives. Because the capitalists, so the people who own the means of production, profit from this discrimination. This is for two reasons.

For once having marginalized people creates groups that are easier exploitable. Due to discrimination these people will have a harder time finding a job and living quarters, making them more desperate and more likely to take badly paid jobs. Making it easier to exploit them for the profit of the capitalists.

A workforce divided through prejudice and discrimination will have a harder time to band together in unions and strikes. The crux of the entire system si, that it is build on the exploitation of workers - but if the workers stopped working, the system would instantly collapse. Hence the power of strikes. So, dividing the workforce between white and non-white, between queer and straight, between abled and disabled makes it easier to stop them from banding together, as they are too busy quaralling amoung themselves.

Why we won't decolonize under capitalism

Colonialism has never ended. Even now a lot of natural ressources and companies in the former colonies are owned by western interest. And this will stay that way, because this way the extraction of wealth is cheaper - making it more profitable. Colonialism has never ended, it has only gotten more subtle - and as long as more money can be made through this system, it will not end.

There won't be Solarpunk under capitalism

It is not your fault, if you think that capitalism cannot end. You have been literally taught this for as long as you can think. You never have been given the information about what capitalism is and how it works. You have never been taught the alternative mechanisms and where and when they were implemented.

You probably look at Solarpunk and think: "Yeah, that... that looks neat. I want that." And here is the thing: I want that, too.

But I have studied economics. Literally. And I can tell you... it does not work. It will not create better living situations for everyone. It will not save the world. Because in the end the longterm goals are not compatible with a capitalistic system.

I know it is fucking scary to be told: "Yeah, change the world you know in massive ways - or the world will end." But... it is just how the things are standing.

You can start small, though. Join a local party. Join a union. Join a mutual aid network. Help repair things. Help people just deal. Our power lies in working together. That is, in the end, what will get us a better future.