224 posts
Latest Posts by minirosebush - Page 6
it’s a witchy life
Gorgeous hardware
jocelin carmes
Walter have you made a shield yet? You're gonna wanna make a shield before you go into that cave Walter. Those skeletons are going make easy pickings of you without a shield I've seen it time and time again
Vintage Velvet Loveseats
Cornelis le Mair (Dutch, *1944).
Ashley Willams Mini Cat Star Bag
yo Mr white check out the banquet table. there's pheasant and aspic and roast suckling pig. this place is straight up magical. bitch
Purple whimsigothic inspiration
Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Thierry Mugler Fall, 1996
The "Bookgroove" booktrack-table by Deniz Aktay (2022)
Janine Antoni, Interlace (1998)
Mark Laver - Back in black, 2021
Enrico Benaglia — The Four Seasons (oil on canvas, 2006)
you cant reclaim slurs that arent yours. if you get called the sand n-slur or prarie n-slur you CANNOT reclaim the n-slur. like. period. i dont know why this is so difficult to comprehend
Hecate by @karolinalaskowska
Hey if you’re lgbt rb this and tell us how you chose your icon in the tags
i want to learn to validate the anxious feelings that keep me procrastinating rather than trying to squash them away
& i want to learn to use self-compassion to (lovingly) undermine my urge to invest self-worth in outcome. because that seems like a major subconscious reason behind my procrastination: the task becomes overwhelming because i’m letting it define me. this blog post says procrastination is actually a signal that we need more self-care and self-compassion. it’s not always showing a lack of time management (though that can play a part) – if i saw my tasks as not determining my worth or ability but just as something to do, something i could potentially enjoy intrinsically, i wouldn’t feel this level of anxiety
healthy self-appreciation is interconnected with others. just as we can offer ourselves self-compassion for our inadequacies and mistakes by remembering that it makes us human, and is thus a point of connection, we can learn to shine knowing that it’s connected with others.
“If you take the notion of interbeing seriously, then celebrating your achievements is no more self-centred than having compassion for your failings. We can’t really claim personal responsibility for our gifts and talents. They were born from our ancestral gene pool, the love and nurturing of our parents, the generosity of friends, the guidance of teachers, and the wisdom of our collective culture. A unique nexus of causes and conditions went into creating the ever-evolving person we are. Appreciation for our good qualities, then, is really an expression of gratitude for all that has shaped us as individuals and as a species. Self-appreciation humbly honours all of creation.” (Self-Compassion, Kristin Neff)
“The captain of a controversial ship that saved migrants in the Mediterranean Sea has refused to accept a medal for her work.
Pia Klemp, who is German, gained attention for rescuing thousands of stranded migrants with her crew as part of the nongovernmental organization Sea Watch International. For her efforts, she reportedly faces up to 20 years in prison in Italy, where the hard-line anti-immigrant government accused her of assisting illegal immigration.
In a Facebook message published Tuesday night, Klemp announced that she was rejecting the Grand Vermeil Medal, which the city of Paris awards for bravery. She told Mayor Anne Hidalgo that the city was brimming with hypocrisy.
“Your police [steal] blankets from people that you force to live on the streets, while you raid protests and criminalize people that are standing up for rights of migrants and asylum seekers. … You want to give me a medal for actions that you fight in your own ramparts,” Klemp wrote in the scathing post.
“It is time we call out hypocrite honorings and fill the void with social justice,” she said.
She went on to say that people don’t need medals. “We do not need authorities deciding about who is a ‘hero’ and who is ‘illegal,’ ” she said. “In fact they are in no position to make this call, because we are all equal.”
Read the full piece here
Tweet source
One thing I would really like to see socialists abandon is the line on capitalism (the system of social production) | the bourgeoisie (the class) | liberalism (the ideological structure) being a “progressive” force, in a positive sense of that term. I recall a pretty irritating conversation with a right-libertarian who asked me “how can capitalism be exploitation, according to Marx, when it’s raised living standards around the globe?”
Now, I think there’s a lot of ways to respond to that:
1) calling the claim itself into doubt statistically [most of the recent trend in poverty downturn is just China urbanizing; many other places are stagnating if not getting worse]. 2) calling the claim into doubt historically [does the boost in living standards for China and the Soviet Union, from urbanization and industrialization, mean that “actually existing socialism” is immune to critique? I would hope not.] 3) noting that exploitation as Marx used it was primarily a technical and non-moral term [his fundamental ethical worry, as I have argued elsewhere, was domination]. 4) digging into the weeds of the theory of exploitation to show that an increased standard of living and increased exploitation (as Marx understood that term) are not mutually exclusive, on his exact terms.
But the most common one is to concede that yes, capitalist mechanisms have massively expanded the powers of the human body. This is, after all, part of Marx’s interest in capitalism in the first place, its “revolutionizing” powers and ability to break down barriers to expansion or absorb preexisting practices and patterns into its mechanisms. So there’s this sense in which ground is ceded to the liberal view of history as progress, in which capitalism is superior by some metric(s) when compared to other modes of production. Communists are therefore in the position of having to assert that in spite of this, capitalism should still be abolished.
But I think that’s not actually ground that it’s necessary to concede, at least not in any meaningful sense.
I think there are a few good reasons for giving up this claim. One is that it’s in many ways not true, and we should throw out the Whig historiography and stagist theorizing that has seeped into socialist thought and action by way of The German Ideology and other underdeveloped sources. For instance, the bourgeoisie as a class had to be dragged kicking and screaming into revolution by subaltern forces. Although many of the “bourgeois revolutions” unfolded or “resolved” in accordance with bourgeois desires and interests, they were not motivated by them. The bourgeoisie, no matter where they are, are pretty reliably conservative in their general disposition.
Another is that “progress” should not be a communist virtue or metric by which to judge the world; it is rooted in a thoroughly liberal philosophy of history. As Marx says - and didn’t always express adequately - “it is far too easy to be liberal at the expense of the Middle Ages.” I imagine that I would not like to live in a feudal, despotic, or tributary society - this much should be obvious. But the notion that capitalism is therefore superior, more tolerable, because its central form of domination is impersonal (setting aside, for the moment, all the forms of unfreedom and interpersonal domination that capitalism relies upon, which fall particularly hard upon certain demographics and geographical areas), doesn’t follow from that. There’s nothing noble about the fact that capitalists seized upon destruction and dispossession unleashed by the feudal state. Primitive accumulation - whether viewed as a historical juncture or an ongoing process vital to capitalism to this day - is not a redemptive force. Yes, capitalism managed to expand the powers of the body - at the expense of many.
For me the question is not “is capitalism better than the social forms it replaced?”, because I don’t think that question is either particularly helpful or terribly interesting. It’s as silly as asking if feudalism is better than a slave society - partly because it presumes this linear, stagist narrative of history that is false, and partly because it asks us to pick between horrors. Rather, the question is, “was all the suffering worth it?” And for me the answer is no.
Could we have gotten something better? Can we still?
Veganism will not help the rainforest.
I’m not one of those nihilistic “there’s NOTHING us consumers can do!!!” people nor am I one of those anti-vegan bacon cultists but I’m seeing a lot of discourse about this and people on both sides need to be aware of something:
The beef industry is only the leader in Amazon deforestation because it is the highest bidder right now. For half a decade that was exceeded by soy production and in Indonesia the biggest rainforest killer is palm oil. Rainforest land that isn’t sold directly for some kind of food production gets cut down anyway because they still sell the timber and then the land is auctioned away to whoever will take it, even if it’s practically pennies, because the people holding that land have made a profit either way and a corporation that buys it for cheap is almost guaranteed to get some kind of use out of it or find someone else who wants it. Changing your diet will do absolutely nothing. Neither will boycotting paper and wood products. If they couldn’t even give the logs away they would raze the land and, again, just sell it for the corporate equivalent of a nickel. Protecting the land, period, is the only thing that makes a difference. The only thing. THE ONLY thing. ONE THING.