May 7, 2014
Morning dose of lefty angst

Morning dose of lefty angst

January 4, 2014
"…people like Jesus and Paul were not executed for saying, “Love one another.” They were killed because their understanding of love meant more than being compassionate towards individuals, although it did include that. It also meant standing against the domination systems that rule their world, and collaborating with the Spirit in the creation of a new way of life that stood in contrast to the normalcy of the wisdom of this world. Love and justice go together. Justice without love can be brutal and love without justice can be banal. Love is the heart of justice and justice is the social form of love."

Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan, The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church’s Conservative Icon p.205 (via scottxstephens)

(via ohzeitgeist)

It is a radical act to say “Jesus is Lord!” in an empire where Caesar is called the Son of God. Even in the age of today’s empire of American-led late capitalism, it is a truly radical act to assert (and act in such a way) that love transcends the consumerist rat race, that all of God’s creation is sacred and deserves due respect, that Jesus is Lord!

(via adaltaredei)

September 14, 2013

(Source: e-bitchuary, via anarcho-queeflord-deactivated20)

September 3, 2013
S C A R L E T I N A: babykillingprimitivistdemon: Pro-collapse people really confuse me....

feral-lunatic:

misterscarlet:

babykillingprimitivistdemon:

Pro-collapse people really confuse me. Like, you’re disgusted with industrial civilization and the death and destruction it brings…but you want to kill off nearly everybody just to bring it down in a sudden crash? Huh? That’s some ecofascist shit right there.

My…

Yeah, and it’s bullshit to conflate acknowledging the unweaving of our industrially imposed material conditions (a necessary effect of any sort of revolutionary scenario) with the systematic elimination of people. Seriously, put down the Chomsky for a minute and enter 2013.

No one’s talking about systematic elimination of anyone. The position as I understand it is essentially a recognition of the fact that nothing can live on an ecologically exhausted planet, and further, that as this basic fact continues to be ignored, those who will suffer most and first will be those who have always been suffering most and first at the hands of civilization all along: the poor, the marginalized, and especially the indigenous — as the land is ravaged, so are the people who live closest to it (a contemporary example: as easy oil runs out, industrial capitalism has turned to sources like the tar sands in Alberta, which is as we speak leading to astounding cancer rates among the First Nations people there.) As the sea level rises, those who will be hit hardest and first will be the indigenous people living on the coastlines. “Systematic elimination” isn’t an idea that “eco-fascist” primmies toy with—it’s a present reality that is the direct result of living in blatant antagonism of our habitat (more broadly, ourselves, to sum up the human effects of life in civilization). Primitivists aren’t just detached college students who don’t give a fuck about people and want to kill off the humans — by and large, they’re those who see and deeply feel the current situation of intense human suffering and death and are moved by compassion (as well as a sense of collective self-preservation) to get to the source of the problem.

Which is precisely where we find ourselves: what is the root of the problem — civilization or capitalism? If it’s capitalism, then you’re right to recognize the “unweaving of our industrially imposed material conditions” as a condition for revolutionary change. But if it’s civilization, then what is that a revolutionary change to? To a different arrangement of human-centric production that will ultimately still have to face questions of ecological sustainability? It would indeed be better to face these questions democratically rather than as we do now (ignoring reality, at the expense of the poor and the indigenous), which is why I continue to be an active Marxist even though I’m also civ-skeptic.

But here’s the point: Marxism takes for granted that (communist) civilization can be sustainable (fair enough, given the time period in which it arose). All I would say is, let’s seriously evaluate that question, and then go from there, whatever we find that answer to be (I’m still struggling with and researching that question myself, starting with Jared Diamond’s Collapse). It is easy to dismiss both ‘traditional’ leftism and primitivism from the vantage point of the opposing set of assumptions. Well, let’s not assume. Whether you’re a commie or a primmie, don’t start with your theoretical goals of a communist or primitivist ideal and then backtrack to defend the implicit assumptions of your theoretical framework (i.e., whether civilization is sustainable or not). As opposed to Marxist materialism, nothing could be more idealistic. Let’s instead start with that question and then determine, from an honest evaluation of the material reality, what steps to take.

tl;dr: Don’t use the first horror that raising the question brings to mind as a reason to ignore the question; in this case, the horror (of “systematic elimination”) is complete and utter nonsense anyway.

(via modern-whatever)

August 25, 2013

Sometimes I feel optimistic about our world.

And then I remember there’s a McDonald’s in the Louvre.

January 28, 2013

(Source: class-struggle-anarchism, via abbesaurusrex)

January 15, 2013
"The economic system founded on isolation is a circular production of isolation. The technology is based on isolation, and the technical process isolates in turn. From the automobile to television, all the goods selected by the spectacular system are also its weapons for a constant reinforcement of the conditions of isolation of “lonely crowds.” The spectacle constantly rediscovers its own assumptions more concretely."

— Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle (via solitarysocialist)

(via sinthematica)

January 11, 2013
Direct result of capitalism: Around 3 million children died before their fifth birthday due to starvation and malnutrition while half the world’s food rotted.

(Source: afronaut, via ceborgia)

December 25, 2012

(Source: themarxistleninist, via oldlittleworld)

December 16, 2012
knowledgeappliedispower:

Capitalism suppresses every form of expression. 

knowledgeappliedispower:

Capitalism suppresses every form of expression. 

(Source: goodleftund0ne, via large-hard0n-collider)

6:50pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZxxuZxZV-1PQ
Filed under: capitalism love 
December 8, 2012

(Source: amodernmanifesto, via large-hard0n-collider)

November 10, 2012

(Source: joannafrank, via 1000lostchildren)

November 6, 2012
My favorite Election Day message: “Regardless of who you vote for, vote.”

From what I’ve seen, this notion is spread by only the most sophisticated liberals. Implicit in the statement is the recognition that elections are inescapably useless, so what matters is not who you vote for but the investment in the bourgeois system. If they really believed elections mattered, they would say, “GO VOTE—unless of course you support the person who will bring down Hell on this country!” Realizing instead that both wings of the capitalist party will do this easily enough, they simply ask for the ritual to be performed—a religious ritual that embodies faith better than most actual religious practices.

(Oh and I did vote, by the way, for reasons similar to those basedlibido mentions.)

October 23, 2012

queer-bolshevik:

naazee:

“latin america is a huge opportunity for us”

GET YOUR CAPITALIST HANDS OFF LATIN AMERICA 

NO MORE

This would be a great moment to encourage all comrades to check out the Hands Off Venezuela campaign.

(via fabulous-trotskyist)

September 19, 2012
"Is having children a cause of poverty? Absolutely not. Poverty in capitalism is due to the organization of the way work and production are done. If everyone lived a life of pure personal austerity like monks in their cells, there would necessarily be a tendency for capitalists to drive wages down further in order to create a pool of willing laborers. The high end of what workers make under capitalism depends on how much we have and are able to fight for a bigger share of the wealth we create, the low end is determined by what it takes to basically ensure that we can maintain ourselves and come back to work the next day with a reasonable level of productive energy - so if we all lived like monks, then we’d all have a vow of poverty forced on us."

— (via godlesscommiequeer)

(Source: revleft.com, via large-hard0n-collider)

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »