SolidaritySplodarity [they/them]

Your doctor isn’t named Henry Ford?

lol she’s one of my faves

lol I eat way tastier food as a vegan because I had to learn to cook. That includes tofu.

Feels like Natalie is searching for conflict just to stay relevant.

The Soviets killed a bunch of Nazi soldiers after they were captured (fucking good) and put a lot more into their gulag system for 4-10 years where they either died or ended up reeducated. Nazi soldiers were not treated well, though said Nazis were trying to genocide all kinds of groups, including settler-colonizing Russia, and burned, raped, and pillaged their way to Stalingrad, so I’m not going to cry over them under any circumstances.

It comes to me in dreams

Me every day, unprompted, in normal conversations: “WHITE WOMEN BE LIKE PUMPKIN SPICE.”

I am a rebel and martyr. AMA.

The type of capitalism Varoufakis is describing as dead is also something of a fiction, just like the promises of autonomy outside of work that have never been a reality. This is the core weakness of his thesis: capitalism isn’t what it tells you it is, it isn’t its best foot forward or a 1950s anti-communist propaganda piece about individual freedoms, ingenuity, and markets generally, it’s an economic system dominated by a system of wage-labor where owners of capital make a “deal” with workers to give them money in exchange for their time and bodies. The core economic relation has not changed, exploitation via wage laboring remains, and opposition to it is routinely crushed.

The changes Varoufakis describes may be unique in modern times in terms of financialization and trying to understand how platforms interact with or contradict markets, but both rough categories have long existed as outcomes of capitalism.

The platforms Varoufakis describes, as well as the extraction of value, without compensation, from so-called “free time”, as well as the theft of childhood/young adulthood, he calls fiefdoms, feudalism, and slavery. Far more brutal forms were widespread under American and British capitalism in the form of company towns, actual chattel slavery, forced labor (debtor, racial) through imprisonment, child labor, and many other structural violences that were ended by labor movements and the export of (some of) these systems to the Global South. These didn’t just coexist alongside capitalism, they are what capitalism does by default when not reigned in by an opposing force, whether it’s unions or otherwise organized labor or governments. Drive wages as low as possible, to zero if it can get away with it for a time. Capture all economic activities through monopolization and rent-seeking. Use rent-seeking and financial tricks made legal by the bourgeoisie to maintain incredible masses of wealth to throw around at each other and at wage laborers (not by paying them, of course). Have no limitations on who is forced to work, who is forced into precarity to ensure better leverage in labor supply.

None of this is different from capitalism as practiced for hundreds of years, fundamentally. It is useful to analyze the material impacts of technological platforms, how they fit into productive relations, but they are not a major shift from either wage laboring + capital nor even from numerous historical precedents. If anything they’re to be expected, as new technologies and industries are unregulated by default and, in the absence of labor movements, simply repeat the brutal, unfettered extraction of yore. Though I should stress that these are only nominally historical things for the Global North, who have exported much of this to the Global South where child labor, slavery, company towns, forced prison labor due to property all still thrive. Varoufakis grew up in the context of a SocDem Europe propped up by imperialism and a lie about what capitalism is and how it functions and I believe he’s confusing the lies with the analysis done by Marx.

Don’t forget the unilaterally cancelled referendum!

Force-feeding means they use a weird speculum-like thing to feed them extra food.

In the scheme of animal ag, that is pretty tame. Most animals are kept in tight quarters, are prone to disease, will be killed when they get a disease that would “cost too much”, live in their own faeces… and are then killed so that someone can experience a very specific kind of pleasure when eating them.

Anima welfare discourse like this is sometimes well-meaning but tends to ignore the elephant in the room: what happens to the other animals you eat?

My understanding is that interpretations that it’s about LGBTQ+ people are Western projections onto what discriminating against K-pop beauty standards means in China. The trend getting targeted is about cishet-presenting male entertainers adopting a particular style in order to appeal to a female audience.

“Did you kill anyone?” is a great way to piss off a reactionary veteran and I highly recommend it.

What does he normally eat?

A bidet will give you the realization that Americans are walking around with doodoo asses.

Also despite spraying your booty hole with water, they actually save water by cutting down (dramatically) on your use of toilet paper.

This is one of those things that seems like an unwinnable battle under present conditions. We’d need massive campaigns to survey for thes plants and then kill only them. I’ve only seen efforts be successful when confined to one mountain.

This seems like a project for a socialist state. A centrally-planned effort targeted at da youths to eliminate a plant species from a continent.

Because they didn’t read Marx for basic comprehension. That is always the answer. Instead, the critics seem to just copy and cite each others’ misapprehensions.

The most common criticism is to declare a dichotomy between LTV and marginalism, which to me implies that they don’t really understand either of them because they’re confusing pricing with the Marxist concept of the aggregate value of commodities. Anyone who read Capital while conscious will know how ridiculous this is, given that Marx explicitly differentiated this from exchange value.

NLRB will provide you their equivalent of a public defender if you start a complaint. Also some unions will offer some pro bono if you apply. AFL-CIO will (I know, I know).

lol I can’t tell if upbearing is solidarity or destructive but I did it because you told me to, comrade.

Trans includes non-binary and these sorts of bigots consider gender to be a hard set-in-stone-from-birth dichotomy.

I don’t really want to give more examples because then I’d need to add a CW.

“God created two genders: man and woman. It’s right in Genesis.”

Have you ever argued with a Christian transphobe?

But I’m not talking about interpreting texts… just religious beliefs. We don’t need to argue about someone’s religious text to know that the transphobic belief that they support through, say, the Genesis narrative is both religious and part of oppression. It’s the kind of thing that would come up when supporting bathroom bills or stripping funding that supports trans kids.

I have to wonder how some of the folks here reconcile, for example, these two things:

• Trans rights are human rights, we love our trans comrades.

• We shouldn’t reject transphobic religious beliefs.

I know you aren’t saying exactly the latter, but folks seem to think that it’s something they need to argue about. Some religious beliefs and the need for liberation are incompatible and we must support liberation. And then, when this ideal cannot be reached due to factors outside of our control, we must consider compromises, as all socialists do. The socialist candidate in Peru has some regressive beliefs and I’m sure many would be considered religious. I think most of us can give critical support anyways, since we think that having a problematic comrade will help a lot of people and that new harms are likely to be small. Though there’s plenty of healthy discussion to have around such topics.

Alternatively, just consider the other side of the implied dichotomy: “we should not reject any religious beliefs”. I don’t think people are usually explicitly subscribing to this, but it’s the implication behind taking issue with the qualified statement of “we must reject some religious beliefs”.

This would be completely untenable even in theory, because the gamut of religious beliefs are frequently mutually exclusive and have real material impacts, even on the class struggle. You will have a negative position on some religious beliefs if you are socialist. e.g., prosperity gospel. Add liberation movements to the struggle, as this community certainly does, and the number of rejections will only increase.