immuredanchorite [he/him, any]

idk, I am not CodePink’s biggest fan or whatever, but when I clicked the link someone had quoted an article that made it seem like that wasn’t the case:

"There has been some controversy about a quote from me that appeared in the New York Times Dec. 2. The quotation implied that I was calling for the arrest of those people who destroyed property in downtown Seattle during the WTO protest. I want to make it clear that the quote was distorted, taken out of context, and not reflective my true feelings. I did not call for the arrest of anyone, though I did point out the irony that the police were attacking nonviolent protesters while ignoring those destroying property. Do I wish the people causing the damage had been arrested? No. Would I have helped to get them out of jail if they had been? Yes. And I certainly apologize if the statement attributed to me has caused any harm to the anarchist community in general. Do I approve of the tactics that this particular group of self-described anarchists used in Seattle Nov. 30? Definitely not. That, not the distorted quote, is the real issue here. There are certainly occasions in which the destruction of property furthers the cause of social justice and helps garner public support, but this was not one of them. The Boston Tea Party is an example of the destruction of property a shipment of tea. When the Zapatistas rose up in 1994, they destroyed army posts and other symbols of a repressive state. Members of the religious community in the United States have destroyed weapons of mass destruction to express their profound moral opposition to war. And forest activists have destroyed the engines of bulldozers to prevent the clear-cutting of old-growth forests. “The list of tactically thoughtful and politically principled property destruction goes on and on. What these acts have in common is that they were the result of a long process of working with and gaining the support of the affected community. This was not the case in Seattle.”

I could totally see the lying NYtimes taking what she said out of context and spinning it to try and cause division in the anti-war movement

that sounds like a perfect opportunity to mobilize large demonstrations

so glad I stopped drinking that shit 20 years ago

in 10 years every car in the US will be an iPad with monster-truck wheels and a screaming toddler on top smacking the screen to make it go faster

Haiti looks like it might be on the brink of revolution. I keep coming across the idea that Haitians correctly blame Washington, but every time I read about it in the western press, it is given a racist frame as simple “gang violence” … Still it seems like the factions behind the uprising include elements that are not particularly revolutionary, and may even have been in league with reactionaries like the former US-backed Moise, or at least that is what I remember reading years ago… what is really going on?

If the branch is too large or too small, it can sometimes take time to hear back. Sometimes reaching out to a new sign up gets assigned to someone who is overwhelmed or in a bad place in life. sometimes they just have too many sign-ups. Your best bet is to show up at the next event in person and be persistent. Ask to help out with the event

biden has spent more time in service to the nation than most of us have been alive

You’re right, when Biden bravely stood up against the evils of desegregating schools I was just a twinkle in my father’s eye.

When Biden was passing the racist crime bill, building the most oppressive carceral system on the planet, I was just learning to ride a bike.

And when Biden bravely stood for the invasion of Iraq, I was but a young lad, learning to drive.

Clearly, with such service, I am the asshole for never wanting to vote for him as he purposely aids a genocide I get to watch in real time.

it is going to be so interesting to watch the libs reaction if trump wins in a landslide… we can be rest assured they will blame the left and this will be their common cause with trump lmao

Eugene Puryear is on the graphic too. He is with PSL

yeah, he is even standing in front of a PSL banner… you can read -“y for socialism” on there

Yes, all over. Here is a long list of demonstrations both inside and outside the US

I think you should consider what you mean by the worth of the stock market as a whole. Do you mean value, or the money-price? Under bourgeois economics, there is no contradiction there because they believe that the medium of exchange creates new value in-itself. Even if it doesn’t make sense, that is the assumption 90% of economists are working under. Marxist economics would look at it differently… simply because the exchange-value of the overall stock market (reflected in its monetary prices) has grown outsized does not mean that it is reflective of its actual value. Exchange does not actually create value in-itself, value is created by socially-necissary-labor-time. Exchange-value is easily quantifiable, but it is not always reflective of the value embodied within an object itself. The exchange-value of the market reflected in price can be affected by fictitious capital and financial “innovations” that conceal growing levels of exploitation and usury.

Monetary supply is not the sole cause of inflation either, in fact inflation is often caused by an increase in prices itself. It sounds like maybe the contradiction that is bugging you is that the monetary supply has grown almost exponentially and this has caused inflation in assets, but only in the last few years has there been an increase in consumer prices that people commonly would describe as inflation. I think part of the disconnect that might be revealing is that part of the inflation we have experienced has been reflected disproportionately in the money-price of homes, but people who own homes have seen the increase in housing prices as “appreciation” of their home value and assets, not as inflation. So that is written off as an achievement for most individuals, while ignoring the social crisis it has caused for anyone who was born too late. Homes aren’t inherently worth more than they were 30 years ago, but the price of a home has grown much

Capital isn’t really allocated rationally under a capitalist system, outside of the logic of increasing profit. It is also best to remember that capital and profit, by their nature, are always expected to transfer wealth from workers to shareholders. Otherwise, they would be failing at their purpose. I think what you are rightly pointing out is that we are living in one of the greatest asset-bubbles of all time, and there are a number of reasons for this.

imo, I think a big one is “quantitative easing,” which was the “solution” to the financial crisis of 08. Once the state realized that they could print money infinitely while adopting a 0% interest rate (largely because of the petro-dollar) the federal reserve printed out trillions of dollars in stimulus that was confined largely to finance capital. This became a big draw to investors to pour even more capital into stocks and other assets as everything was growing because of large cash infusions. Stock buy-backs and fund-managers buying residential real estate with this additional cash grew the bubble even further, while additional piles of money went to increasingly speculative venture capital firms. Venture capital firms, flush with cash, began pouring money into “tech,” allowing for large companies to operate at a net-loss while adopting an increasingly financialized, or rent-seeking model. You see the consequences of this over time, people often refer to it as “enshittification” but the strategy is to use large “capital runways” to corner a particular part of the market (“disruption”) and then when they run out of cheap money either turn to the market based on its “potential” or create an even more expensive, often subscription based, model to continue to dictate the terms of the market.

The US tech industry is a vacuous industry, as many have pointed out, where tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of over-educated workers in the imperial core draw large salaries in unprofitable businesses set up for the distinct purpose of being bought by a larger competitor or venture firm. This also has a contradictory effect of taking other jobs, outside of software development and computer infrastructure, and lowering the pay of work that traditionally was able to support social reproduction… But US tech appears to be a giant rube-gold berg device to obfuscate and mystify the increasing exploitation and predatory rent-seeking behavior of US capital. The mystique of defining it as “tech” appears to be a superstructural development, where people are fed a vision of a better world through technological development, but where they have actually entered into an economic arrangement that seems to have more characteristics of peonage than a reproletarianization of the imperial core. I think this is what some people are trying to call “neo-feudalism” but idk if I would support the claim that this is a economic system that is distinct enough to break from what we would describe as capitalism/imperialism. (and I am not sure that that is what all proponents of “neofeudalism” are really getting at either).

anyway, this is my take on the asset bubble, but idk if I am an expert really, and I would love to be corrected and learn more

You just need to harness your stale and dry words to the side of humor. Try understatement and sarcasm. Some people will get it, you just need to work on the timing and situation. All humor is based on a betrayal of expectations. Dry humor is built on a foundation of people believing that you aren’t funny and whatever is happening isn’t funny either. Work on adding a wry smile to your repertoire, and then bust it out when it is possible people might believe you aren’t being sarcastic, but that you are just not too smart. Some people will figure it out eventually

I think that some of the comments in here are great, and others are completely wrong-headed. Patriarchy must be abolished, but Patriarchy is also one of the oldest and most pernicious of the oppressive systems we live under, and overturning capitalism will only even begin to allow that transformation to occur in a more unrestricted way. Toxic masculinity has recently been correctly identified during a period of consciousness raising, but failing to build a constructive and revolutionary alternative to understanding masculinity along side that has alienated and further entrenched many working class people who identify as masculine. But this could be a relatively easy task in the grand scheme of things, compared to dismantling Patriarchy itself.

Part of the issue I see could be a lack of imagination or insight into understanding positive aspects of masculinity, but it may just as well a pessimism that would deny “revolutionary” as much as the “masculine.” … many of the supposed masculine traits, toxic or positive, are just reframing and redefining aspects of masculinity that have been utilized to uphold class relations in different eras to suit different purposes. This is a normal occurrence, where some cultural gender constructs change to serve as an important component of the superstructure that upholds class relations.

I think a good example of this is the development of “chivalry” or the code of chivalry. Where a cultural tradition of a warriors code that probably predated the feudal era ended up becoming a complex and often contradictory social code that signaled a connection to the aristocracy, but also demanded fealty to the church and one’s lord. Today we can see those old ideas being harkened back to by reactionaries who decontextualize, reimagine and romanticize that code to suite their own ends of keeping masculine-identifying people identifying with a bourgeois and reactionary understanding of masculinity to further everyone’s oppression. But those traits could just as easily, and may necessarily, be reframed and shaped into something that upholds a new and better class relation, or at least something that facilitates the transition to it. If you write off a huge chuck of the masses based upon utopian understandings, you will be isolated and unable to move the masses of people in a progressive direction.

I think it would be relatively easy to spin masculine constructs into something positive and revolutionary. The current toxic masculinity bullshit fed to kids by Tate and Peterson can be subverted and turned on its head.

Strength isn’t inherently masculine, but you can play with that concept all day. “Who is strong and brave: someone who defends the oppressed with their life, or an impotent person who kills unarmed civilians because they can’t get laid?”
“Who is comfortable with their masculinity: someone who is unafraid of people who challenge gender norms, or a scared, weak-minded person who chooses to hate them?”
“Are you going to whine and whine about how unfairly you are being treated, or are you going to organize with your community to build a better world?” “If you cannot treat women as your equal, you must not love them after all?” Brotherhood and solidarity. Protecting the oppressed and the innocent. Giving your life to stand for your principles. Building a better world through hard work and determination. Selflessness in service of the community. Standing on principle. truth be told those things are honestly not masculine in and of themselves, but I could easily see them being used to construct a more positive vision of masculinity.

Yeah, I think this just also misunderstands the definition (or popular definition) of a ceasefire as a stoppage of hostilities by both sides in a conflict. So it wouldn’t make sense for that to be the outcome of Israel being found guilty of genocide, as Palestinian resistance is legal under international law. I know Palestine isn’t a recognized party to the conflict, but the popular slogan for a ceasefire is being used here by imperialist narratives to make it seem like the ICJ ruled in Israel’s favor by not demanding one… whereas it isn’t clear that that would be the outcome (according to popular understanding of what a ceasefire means) if Israel were found guilty of the crime. The court asked Israel that they should stop committing a genocide, but instead the press is reporting that the court “stopped short of calling for a ceasefire” and to “prevent a genocide” instead of stopping their actions (even though the court literally did say that afaik)

One thing that the ICJ ruling (and the subsequent response to it) is making me think about, is the logic of calling for a ceasefire is now beginning to impede on the logical conclusion of the iCJ’s ruling. We have heard a refrain for a ceasefire, but if Israel is guilty of committing genocide, then under no pretext should the Palestinian resistance stop fighting, if anything, the moral response would be for other countries to invade or provide material support for the Palestinian resistance and for Israel to unconditionally surrender. Is it still a ceasefire if only one side stops?

Biden is in no way protecting our trans comrades. Ohio just passed a reactionary transphobic law, overriding a veto to ensure it would be the most anti-trans version possible (the governor vetoed the original bill to “protect sports”) … Biden is president now, wtf is he doing to stop that? He might fundraise off of it, or say he will do something if he wins, but he won’t… He did the exact same thing with abortion and roe v wade. Congress isn’t passing any laws on that anytime soon either

For a good soviet film that is both humorous but also provides poignant social commentary about oppressive systems I would recommend kin-dza-dza!
its good.