abolish that society

anonymous asked:

Its sorta funny that libertarians would rather abolish society completely and revert back to subsistence farming than work with others

Voluntarily working with others? Literal slavery! Selling my labor to a boss so I can use his property and then getting a small portion back? Absolute freedom!


  • Smart boi (Yale graduate)
  • Fought for women’s education rights
  • One of Washington’s “favorite sons”
  • “Loved his God and General Washington in equal measure”
  • A Federalist Congressman, who often debated against Jefferson
  • In favor of abolishing slavery
  • Co-founded a society to help improve the living conditions in Jewish communities
  • Made huge donations to local churches
  • Established a training school for Native American and Asian missionaries
  • Patriotic, confident, loyal, reliable, strong, polite, honorable, brave

I just finished Washington’s Spies, and I now whole-heatedly believe that Benjamin Tallmadge is probably one of the greatest people to ever walk this earth and I love him.

Όταν κλείνει μια πόρτα πίσω σου ανοίγει μια άλλη μπροστά σου. Έτσι αισθανθήκαμε όταν άνοιξε η πόρτα της φυλακής κλείνοντας πίσω μας την πόρτα της εποχής που ήμασταν ελεύθεροι… Ένας καινούργιος κόσμος εμφανίστηκε μπροστά μας. Ένας κόσμος στενός, τσιμεντένιος, που οι καλημέρες και οι καληνύχτες καταργούνται.

Όμως ο λύκος μέσα μας παραμένει ξάγρυπνος και πεινασμένος. Όλες αυτές τις μέρες, όλους αυτούς τους μήνες, όλα αυτά τα χρόνια τον ταΐζουμε με σκέψεις, με επιθυμίες, με ανησυχίες, με σχέδια, με οργή και καταπίνει κάγκελα, συρματοπλέγματα, κλειδαριές για να τρέξει ελεύθερος ξανά κάποια άγνωστη μέρα. Μέχρι τότε στη φυλακή οι λύκοι της άρνησης περιφέρονται μοναχικοί μέσα σ’ ένα πλήθος από σκιές που τους περιβάλλουν. Γιατί η πλειοψηφία των κρατουμένων αποτελούν θλιβερές σκιές ανθρώπων που η φυλακή γίνεται η μοναδική τους πατρίδα.

-Σκέψεις απο τη χώρα του τίποτα

marx is basically saying if you want to struggle against religion then youre indirectly struggling against the world which produces religion. the implications are: instead of criticizing religious people, its more worthwhile to criticize and reconstruct society, because the transformation of the latter necessarily affects the former. if you want to abolish religion, then abolish the society that requires religion. its not a condemnation but its also not just an observation that people often rely on religion because of their material conditions.

Ceci mes slogans préfèrés du Mai 68 / Here my favourite May 69 slogans

* Soyez réalistes, demandez l'impossible. - Be realistic, demand the impossible.

* La barricade ferme la rue mais ouvre la voie. - The barricade blocks the street but opens the way.

* Un homme n'est pas stupide ou intelligent, il est libre ou il n'est pas. -  A man is not stupid or intelligent, he is free or he is not.

* On achète ton bonheur. Vole-le. - They buy your happiness. Steal it.

* Sous les pavés, la plage! - Beneath the paving stones - the beach!

* Lisez moins, vivez plus. - Read less, live more.

* L'ennui est contre-révolutionnaire. - Boredom is counterrevolutionary.

* Pas de replâtrage, la structure est pourrie. - No replastering, the structure is rotten.

* Nous ne voulons pas d'un monde où la certitude de ne pas mourir de faim s'échange contre le risque de mourir d'ennui. - We want nothing of a world in which the certainty of not dying from hunger comes in exchange for the risk of dying from boredom.

* Ceux qui font les révolutions à moitié ne font que se creuser un tombeau. - Those who make revolutions by halves do but dig themselves a grave.

* On ne revendiquera rien, on ne demandera rien. On prendra, on occupera. - We will claim nothing, we will ask for nothing. We will take, we will occupy.

* Le patron a besoin de toi, tu n'as pas besoin de lui. - The boss needs you, you don’t need him.

* Veuillez laisser le Parti communiste aussi net en sortant que vous voudriez le trouver en y entrant. - Please leave the Communist Party as clean on leaving as you would like to find it on entering.

* Ni Dieu ni maître! - Neither god nor master!

* L'art est mort. Godard n'y pourra rien. - Art is dead. Godard won’t be able to do anything about it.

* Soyons cruels ! - Let’s be cruel!

* Comment penser librement à l'ombre d'une chapelle? - How can one think freely in the shadow of a chapel?

* Vivez sans temps morts, jouissez sans entraves. - Live without dead time, enjoy without chains.

* Il est interdit d'interdire. - It is forbidden to forbid.

* Et cependant tout le monde veut respirer et personne ne peut respirer et beaucoup disent “ nous respirerons plus tard ”. Et la plupart ne meurent pas car ils sont déjà morts.

Meanwhile everyone wants to breathe and nobody can breathe and many say, “We will breathe later”. And most of them don’t die because they are already dead.

* Dans une société qui a aboli toute aventure, la seule aventure qui reste est celle d'abolir la société.

In a society that has abolished all adventures, the only adventure left is to abolish society.

* L'émancipation de l'homme sera totale ou ne sera pas. - The liberation of humanity will be total or it will not be.

* Je suis venu. J'ai vu. J'ai cru. - I came. I saw. I believed. (Mimics Veni, vidi, vici.)

* La révolution est incroyable parce que vraie. - The revolution is incredible because it is real.

* Les motions tuent l'émotion. - Motions kill emotions.

* Bannissons les applaudissements, les spectacle est partout. - Let us ban all applause, the spectacle is everywhere.

* Le bonheur est une idée neuve. - Happiness is a new idea.

* Plus je fais l'amour, plus j'ai envie de faire la révolution.
Plus je fais la révolution, plus j'ai envie de faire l'amour.

The more I make love, the more I want to make revolution.
The more I make revolution, the more I want to make love

* Je jouis dans les pavés. - I find my orgasms among the paving stones.

* La perspective de jouir demain ne me consolera jamais de l'ennui d'aujord'hui. - The prospect of finding pleasure tomorrow will never compensate for today’s boredom.

* Construire une révolution, c'est aussi briser toutes les chaines intérieures. - Building a revolution is also breaking all the inner chains.

* Le sacré, voilà l'ennemi. - All that is sacred - there is the enemy.

* La poésie est dans la rue. - Poetry is in the street.

* La culture est l'inversion de la vie. - Culture is the inversion of life.

* L'art est mort, ne consommez pas son cadavre. - Art is dead, don’t consume its corpse.

* Ne me libère pas, je m'en charge. - Don’t liberate me, I’ll do it myself. 

* Si vous pensez pour les autres, les autres penseront pour vous. - If you think for others, others will think for you.

* Même si Dieu existait il faudrait le supprimer. - Even if God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him. (Paraphrases Bakunin.)

(Reversal of Voltaire’s Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer : If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.)

* Pouvoir à l'Imagination. - Power to the Imagination.

* Je participe
* Tu participes
* Il participe
* Nous participons
* Vous participez
* Ils profitent

I take part
You take part
He takes part
We take part
You all take part
They profit.

Five theses on youth and the sociology of the election (or some quickly gathered thoughts)


Contemporary capitalism rarely appears simple. Back in 1848 Marx wrote in the opening of The Communist Manifesto about how “Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.” But already things were more complicated. Marx’s analysis hinged on showing how the opposition of these two classes was founded in the relation of domination of capital and wage labour. Suddenly, unable to leap into pure identification with a class, people become split and split up. For Marx, only in revolution, is the identification with a class, if only to abolish class society in turn, possible. Yet if the analysis of capitalism offers ever more dialectical complexity and obscurity, it also has crystalline moments full of clarity. The election provided one of these in terms of how the parties rallied support. On the one side was a popular movement, the conviction of disenfranchised people convincing others like them to vote similarly. On the other was big capital, and in particular the traditional mainstream media: broadcasting companies, newspapers, and the Conservative Party in the guise of a PR agency. As striking as the crowds of door-knockers on one side was the complete lack on the other, and vice versa for promotion in the mainstream media.


The official analysis of the election result rests on the resuscitation of myths about a “jilted generation” and the analysis of so-called “intergenerational politics.” Whilst it is true that many more young people voted in this election than in any over the past 20 years, this probably has very little to do with youth. Instead it has to do with the poverty of younger people: they are unlikely to be property owners, and are significantly less likely to have well paid professional jobs. The far greater division is between home-owners and renters. Home owners at this time are already terrified: since the Brexit vote the pound has lost between 15% and 20% of its value, with no correction (as we see in the international markets like the FTSE). Residential house prices have dropped month on month for four months now too. In terror, home owners were voting for the conservatives to conserve only one thing: the value in their homes. But ultimately this is part of a wider delusion: the bubble in house prices, combined with ever the ever increasing financialisation of this sector has for a long time given the impression of a growing economy. That there has been no real growth, and that one part of the population has essentially been paid off to ignore this fact with ever more spurious and speculative pricing of residential property, is simply more obvious to those who have none. Local governments have profited as much from this growth as private landlords, as they set themselves up to sell off and redevelop estates. The great swing in support for Labour came from those who, without the capital, have not been able to buy into the myth. Meanwhile Labour support has almost certainly increased amongst renters from all age groups.


Parliamentary politics in the West in the last few years has been characterised by new movements for populist candidates. It is significant that most people in these movements consider their politics to be “post-ideological” in one sense or another: they are distrustful of “professional politicians” (is this the final conclusion to an argument Weber began exactly 100 years ago?), of centralised messaging, and of advertising more generally. People involved in these sorts of politics have the strongest convictions that they are absolutely capable of seeing through lies, are not duped by the messages of corporations whether they be companies trying to sell products or political parties trying to win votes. Today, amongst a large part of the population, the belief in freedom from ideology constitutes the greatest victory of ideology. These changes have also led to transformations in the domain of advertising. Back in the 1940s sociologists would remark that once the telephone had been invented the technology underwent a change to create the radio, in order that for the sake of profit a technology of reciprocal communication between people became one in which people were spoken to but could not reply. The more recent transformations in this line is to maintain the centralisation, ownership and profit of the media, but to distribute the capacity to broadcast, so long as these broadcasts are subject to privatised generic platforms. It is believed by many users of these new forms of media that the democratisation of broadcast - despite the lack of democratisation of ownership and profit - amounts to a media that is more truthful, and less ideological.

In real terms this means that the old fashioned modes of advertising (adverts on TV and on the radio etc) are becoming defunct. People are not only less and less engaging with these old media (instead accessing the same content online, without sitting down at the TV or buying a newspaper every day) but the modes of advertising associated with them are broadly considered authoritarian by ever more people. The status of advertising on the internet is somewhat different. Advertising is widely acknowledged the owners of platforms to be an annoyance to users. And if there is any significant difference between people of different ages in the election, it is that younger people mainly have adblocks on their browsers. Platforms are currently cementing their monopolies by encouraging users to pay for a service without adverts. Meanwhile, adverts that take the form of social media, whether they be corporate crowdfunding or astroturfing are increasingly successful. But perhaps most successful of all is the work of the platforms themselves, which have cemented monopolies in the media. If an older generation are more susceptible to more obviously authoritarian and centralised media, they are also savvy in criticising the establishment of monopolies. The younger generation have shown exactly the opposite tendencies, with very few criticisms of  truly monopolistic media, from twitter, google, youtube, facebook, to instragram, etc. ever being levelled so long as those media offer apparently free expression.

If a real regime change in the media can be spotted here, it becomes obvious that the Conservative Party campaign operated in older models of centralised, authoritarian advertising, while the Labour Party campaign rested on the newer apparently decentralised models. Even to the extent that the “attack adverts” against Corbyn on youtube and facebook were simply invisible to most younger users because of adblocking. But ultimately it should be remembered that the real political economic interests of the “new media” are much the same as those of the “old media.” For the moment most of the large platforming corporations have tried to give an impression of being socially progressive. YouTube went as far as putting a link to a video at the top of every page a day before the election encouraging people to vote (i.e. supporting Labour who would always benefit from an increased turnout, especially amongst the demographics who use YouTube.) Yet we should not be surprised when these corporations eventually reveal their interests in political campaigns in years to come, which will likely be even more right-wing than the popular press of the late 20th century. Only in accepting the ideological character of one’s own positions, only in working through the negativity of one’s own dislocation from truth, will this be combatted.


From these transformations it is possible to establish a putative characterology of the electorate. On one side are those stubbornly formed through subjection to the old-fashioned model of centralised authority. They are ego-weak and resigned, as faithful in their opinions as they are to the state and the past. On the other side are those who see themselves as dissenters and protesters, free from corporate control, and wanting to bring about a state of freedom identical to their own.

From the 1960s onwards notions of radicalism were dominated by the threat of “recuperation”: the idea that any truly radical act would in turn be subverted and put to use by capital for profit. During the last decade this model has been overcome. It is not radical history that sells - the iconic martyr on a tshirt or the nostalgia of ’68 - but the assumed radicalism of the present. It is not now the worry that radical acts might be bought up and repurposed: instead capitalism merely sells the idea that whatever you do, so long as you do it in some privatised media space, is already radical. To those who believe they know the “truth”, and they know it by the fact they are tweeting it, they seem constantly assured they are breaking new ground even when they are promoting the state hiring tens of thousands of more police officers.

That the mass media of the twentieth century conditioned mass ego-weakness has not been overcome by a resurgence of ego-strength, but instead by something like identity-strength undergirding new multiform communitarianisms. Far from Marx’s analysis in which nearly all of one’s life is split off from oneself as labour power, the new identitarians reach for a reconciled life in their transfiguration into pure semblance. Little do they seem to care that these semblances are entirely owned by others, and little do they care how they look so long as they seem expressive. In this way hidden conservatism combines with the universalisation of fashion.


The establishment of a new “cult of youth” remains a signficant and dangerous threat for radicals. Walter Benjamin once remarked that “The Social Democrats preferred to cast the working class in the role of a redeemer of future generations, in this way cutting the sinews of its greatest strength. This indoctrination made the working class forget both its hatred and its spirit of sacrifice, for both are nourished by the image of enslaved ancestors rather than by the ideal of liberated grandchildren.“ Hope in the past is happily exchanged for hope in the future. But what is most worrying about today’s youthful voters for the Labour Party is that whilst being adults they persistently cast themselves as grandchildren. Far more dangerous than the dream of a better future for those who will live later is the regression in which one persistently fantasises oneself as a messiah in the shape of a wunderkind. Under the spell of auto-infantilism all real movement into moments of danger, all moments in which one’s desire might be frustrated by reality, are ruled out in advance. For this reason expression leads more easily to voting than to struggle and violence

On the other side in our characterology, hatred lives in a cul-de-sac. That the Conservatives returned the highest vote share demonstrates that a seething isolated rage remains the dominant affect in UK politics. But this hatred, by those who feel it as an affliction, is directed at all the forces of change. It demands things go back to the way things were (even if they were never truly that way.) And it is fueled by its own impotence.

On one side of this divide are those who believe they will bring about change but do nothing, and on the other are those who actively want to undo change but can’t. The only political transformation that would reconcile this division would be for the young to recognise their own maturity, to ache through the mounds of death and used up people upon which they stand; and at the same time for those who are older to be freed from the powerful and dominant notion that age is a burden through fantastic freedom made concrete. All of this is to outline the need for a new and avant-garde politics of the ego. Until then, not only are we doomed to the endless idiotic regurgitation of myths about a new politics of the young, but also we ourselves will be responsible for bringing about a second catastrophe - as the ideological structures of the new media reveal themselves in force - whose heralds we blotted out.

Do not let yourself be chained to the standards the society has set. Don’t stick to it, abolish it. Do something the society has not yet seen, and slay it.

If I’m ever in a punk band I’ll write all sorts of aromantic and platonic love songs

Songs about best friends destroying the government

Squish mates abolishing capitalist society

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: anti-racism DOES MEAN anti-whiteness. If we’re being honest with ourselves and honest about the history and roots of whiteness, we’d recognize that it’s a social construct specifically designed to privilege some and dominate others. There’s nothing “neutral” or innocuous about it – when the racial caste system was developed several centuries ago, whiteness was purposefully put at the top of it. This was used to justify colonialism, slavery, and class oppression over the centuries, and the ramifications spill over into today. @alwaysbewoke did a great response to a post that said “pro-black doesn’t mean anti-white”, saying that it actually does and that so many people of European background (people designated white by white supremacist society) are essentially married to the construct of whiteness. Whiteness cannot exist apart from its history or apart from the racial caste system. It’s not just white supremacy that needs to be destroyed; it’s also the broader notion of whiteness. Whiteness elevates just as it homogenizes, and by the latter I mean that a collection of different cultures have been absorbed into whiteness and had their cultural identity in turn tethered to white hegemony, particularly in the United States – “white culture” becomes whatever is most conducive to the interests of capitalism and cultural imperialism.

As always, a major solution here is to abolish capitalism and class society, the skeletal structure that created white supremacy and whiteness and the skeletal structure that continues to materially animate them into today. If racism is prejudice plus power, then we need to abolish power or disperse it evenly throughout society.

anonymous asked:

hi, can you summarize socialism for me? i know essentially nothing about it (except bernie sanders is a socialist...) and i hate liberals so... help a lesbian out?

 Bernie Sanders isn’t a socialist. He’s a social democrat. If he were a true socialist, he wouldn’t have blamed the perils the white working-class face on immigrant labor. He and other social democrats espouse the Scandinavian “socialist” model but those aren’t actually “socialist”. They’re left-liberal. 

I can’t really summarize an entire social, economic, and political movement for you adequately, but I’ll attempt to list some basic principles. At their core, socialists (and leftists in general) are anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-military, and anti-police. 

This differentiates them from liberals and left-liberals, because liberals believe that reform - through petitioning, assembly, litigation, and legislation - can change the system from “within”. They believe in “regulated” capitalism, “regulated/demilitarized” police, and “regulated” imperialism. As we’ve seen, “regulations” on violent systems of power and control do nothing to stop them. No matter how much people try to “regulate” capitalism, for instance, the capitalist boom-bust cycle continues. This post (aggressively yet beautifully) sums up the differences between liberalism and socialism. Ultimately, liberals still like capitalism and still rely on the state to “help” them enact change. Leftists disagree with this ideology. 

Here’s a post-election example of the futility of internal reform. JP Morgan & Chase is the biggest bank in the US (and arguably, in the world). Its stocks soared from about $65 to about $80 after the election. Stocks went up because the board and investors are happy to know that de-regulation legislation is on the way, which’ll make it significantly easier for Chase to make profits (through unethical, unconstitutional, and harmful practices). So even if liberals think that “regulating” these banks or bailing them out will somehow “teach them a lesson”, in actuality they continue to consolidate their power and expand their profits. 

Leftists believe in the utter destruction of these systems, returning ownership of the means of production to the people rather than to the top 1% (the ruling class), and above all, the abolishment of class-based society (based on the working-class/proletariat rising up and gaining class consciousness). 

Leftists base their political-economic ideology on the formative works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. You should read The Communist Manifesto to get started. Also, check out this list of texts that are relevant to understanding communism/leftism from a theoretical, structural perspective. Of course, praxis involves understanding theory and engaging in concrete action. So community work, protesting if you can, donating to dual power organizations, helping your local organizations out, and more are all just as important as understanding theory. 

Hope this helps. Good luck. Keep a dictionary beside you, remember to look up terms that you don’t understand, reflect on what you’ve learned, take time to be sensitive and gentle with yourself. Seek out community action in whatever way, accounting for time, financial constraints, and ability. Don’t give up when you’re frustrated. You can always ask me questions, too, but I’m also a beginner socialist and not an expert so I’m learning just as much as you are. 

Προχθές είδα πολλά χέρια σε ένα παράθυρο με κάγκελα να χαιρετάνε
Πως χωράνε τόσα χέρια σε ένα παράθυρο;
Δεν σας νοιάζει
Δεν είδατε αυτό που είδα
Ούτε ποτέ θα το δείτε
Δεν είστε παρά μόνο εμπόδια στο δρόμο μας
Κοινωνικά κοιμισμένα εμπόδια
Που δέχονται εντολές…
Εμείς φυτρώσαμε ενοχλητικά ανάμεσά σας
Στόχος μας  είναι η καταστροφή των εμποδίων που δεν μας αφήνουν
Να ζούμε με αξιοπρέπεια
Είτε τα εμπόδια είναι υλικά
Είτε όχι
Οι συνειδήσεις μας, μας καλούν στον αφανισμό τους
Για ζωή χωρίς όρια
Χωρίς φυλακές και εμπόδια…
Μέχρι το τέλος, μέχρι το μηδέν…

Από τη μπροσούρα “Μηδενιστική Πορεία για τη διάχυση της Φωτιάς και του Χάους”  


The way people act like Dorian should have been able to abolish slavery in Tevinter like five minutes into his tenure as a magister actually makes me really angry on behalf of all the people who died in the American Civil War. Abolishing slavery in a society structured around it (which Tevinter absolutely IS) is not something that can be done over one lunch or whatever. (Seriously, I thought Tumblr was all about US history these days.)

“ Ο  θεσμός της φυλακής υπάρχει γιατί η κοινωνία τη χρειάζεται ώστε να σπέρνει το φόβο που τη συντηρεί και δε βλέπω πως θα  μπορούσαμε να επιτεθούμε στη φυλακή χωρίς να τελειώσουμε μια και καλή με τον κόσμο που την παράγει και τη χρειάζεται κι αντιστρόφως. Δε βλέπω ούτε σε τι εξυπηρετεί να πολεμάμε για φυλακές   «πιο ανθρώπινες» ή  για εναλλακτικές λύσεις, όταν το πραγματικό πρόβλημα ξεπερνά κατά πολύ το ζήτημα της φυλακής και εντοπίζεται σε κάθε πτυχή της κοινωνίας : είναι η ίδια η λογική της κυριαρχίας και της εξουσίας.Θέλουμε ν’ ανακτήσουμε την ελευθερία μας , αλλά ούτε έξω από τη φυλακή είμαστε ελεύθεροι.”



anonymous asked:

This is an honest question and not a gotcha. I really like your blog and agree with you on almost everything, but something has been bothering me- you make fun of Dawkins and new atheists (who are assholes and I agree with you about them), but doesn't Marx say basically what they do about religion- that it should be abolished for the good of society? I don't agree with this, and I know it's possible to be a Marxist and not agree 100% with everything he said, but I was just curious about this.

in my phone so this will be brief. Dawkins and co are allies to an part of the ideology of neoliberal imperialism. their contribution to atheism is subordinating it to the logic of empire.

Marx gets quoted a lot with that opiate of the masses thing but what people generally don’t think about wrt that quote is tht an opiate is a painkiller

more directly relevant is that in my own country and locales churches and church communities have been and are vital organizing grounds for resistance. that’s not to say I don’t have critiques of religion but I will side with oppressed peoples against Dawkins any day