Neko

have you seen the yellow sign
[T]he situation that has made capitalism the thing to be overthrown by revolution is the same situation that made the Russian Revolution, as well as the history immediately following it, not to mention the organization of communist parties, and national unions, all into so many authorities incapable of effecting the destruction of capitalism. In this regard, the proper character of capitalism, which is presented as a contradiction between the development of productive forces and the relations of production, is essentially the reproduction process of capital. This process, however, on which the productive forces of capital in the system depend, is in fact an international phenomenon implying a worldwide division of labor; nevertheless, capitalism cannot shatter the national frameworks within which it develops its relations of production, nor can it smash the State as the instrument of the valuation of capital. The internationalism of capital is thus accomplished by national and state structures that curb capital even as they make it work; these “archaic” structures have genuine functions. State monopoly capitalism, far from being an ultimate given, is the result of a compromise. In this “expropriation of the capitalists at the heart of capital,” the bourgeoisie maintains its stranglehold on the State apparatus through its increasing efforts to institutionalize and integrate the working class, in such a way that class conflict is decentered with respect to the real places and deciding factors that go beyond States and point to the international capitalist economy. It is by virtue of the same principle that “a narrow sphere of production is alone inserted in the worldwide reproduction process of capital,” while in third-world States, the rest remains subjected to precapitalist relations (genuine archaisms of a second kind).
Gilles Deleuze (Three Group-Related Problems)
wilburwhateley:

drakontomalloi:

Николай Рерих - Крик змея. Н.д., 1913–1914

Nicholas Roerich - Scream Snake

wilburwhateley:

drakontomalloi:

Николай Рерих - Крик змея. Н.д., 1913–1914

Nicholas Roerich - Scream Snake

To commit to love is fundamentally to commit to a life beyond dualism. That’s why love is so sacred in a culture of domination, because it simply begins to erode your dualisms: dualisms of black and white, male and female, right and wrong.

bell hooks, “Agent of Change

(via tricycle-tumbles)

dialecticalmaterialistgolddigger:

Why does every tumblr radical feminist blog have a bio like “I’m Becky, 22, I love makeup and cats and I’m anti-porn, anti-misogyny and gender critical. I love misandry and my boyfriend Tyler”

aside from the anti porn and gender critical this is literally indistinguishable from a libfem bio and that’s because terfs and libfems have the same shallow intellectually-bankrupt beliefs and praxis

that was a bad answer but i didn’t want to ramble. basically as i understand it the idea of gender abolition posits one thing but in practice looks like something totally different. the apparent goal is to destroy the gender and sex binaries, allowing for freedom for people to transcend those binaries and categories. this involves of course rejecting sex/gender roles and stereotypes and expectations as are prescribed under a patriarchal society. it therefore involves a constant conscious engagement with and critique of how gender norms operate in society and who they oppress. that’s all good stuff, i’m for it. but that’s never what i see actually going on by those who call themselves gender abolitionists. from them i just see hatred, abuse, aggression, and denial of people’s (but let’s not be obscure here, it’s mostly trans women’s and also non-binary people’s) lived experiences as the genders (or lack of gender) they are, so like, they’re full of shit. i don’t have a place as a “gender abolitionist” when that’s what it looks like in practice, which is clearly light years away from the theory that i’m more aligned with.

Are you not a gender abolitionist?
Anonymous

i am for myself, not for anyone else or in any broad sense

Love is not vain because it is frustrated, but because it is fulfilled. The people we love turn to ashes when we possess them.

Remembrance of Things Past: Vol II | Marcel Proust (via phoebephilosophy)

If you read this as advocating some debased form of ‘Free Love’ or ‘Polyamory’ (surely the most incidious mutation of Patriarchy we have seen thus far) then you are missing the point. If you read it as some evocation of the Lacanian theory of desire (desire is always desire for more desire) then you’re getting closer. It is the desire for an impossible Love, a plenitude against the dynamics of scarcity, of overflowing against the strictures of Individualism (and all its putrid technologies), of a bleeding into one another and a being-in-common, of a Love that resists the commodity and its imperatives on ownership, that violently asserts itself as a Rupture with every single mode of Being and subjectivity insisted upon by Capital, which will shudder and burn. That is, as an insanity which calls every single imperative into question and, finding them hopelessly inadequate, proceeds to put them to the torch. Flame on, flame on.     

(via bustakay)

postcute:

animepalutena:

talking to cis people about gender is like talking about economics to 9 year olds

or ancaps

svidrigailovskaya:

i’m an anthro major who thinks sociology is p useless too

i had a drinking game idea for my sociology class, take a shot every time the professor says the word “problematic”. you’ll be in the hospital with alcohol poisoning halfway through the lecture!

reading sociology all i can usually think is “i don’t care” because the issues it deals with are so pointless (the wage gap for example) but when i read philosophy it resonates with me.

i find it’s way more descriptive as opposed to critical, evaluative, or interpretive. like no shit the wage gap exists. now you can go on to list a hundred random stats about it and ask pointless questions about “how it affects people” as though that’s not obvious, or you can actually use a critical framework to outline the structural and social conditions in which it arose and then conceptualize what will be necessary in order to fix not just the wage gap itself but everything that was wrong that allowed it to exist in the first place. and hint: the ultimate solution is not a “bandaid-like” legal reform.

sociology isn’t radical.

11, 13, 19
Anonymous

11. Age- 22

13. Life goal(s)- i want to be as intellectually cool as all the pomo marxist theorists i like

19. already answered