advance capital

the signs as the ap english lang exam

Aries: writing the argumentative essay about donald trump

Taurus: when your mom’s a communist and you’re just a snail

Gemini: actual monetary currency

Cancer: the hedonistic treadmill

Leo: the “fake news” essay

Virgo: gandalf in the bowels of the minas tirith

Libra: bishop sheen and billy graham throwing rocks at you

Scorpio: colloquial

Sagittarius: et al

Capricorn: libraries are going extinct

Aquarius: artifice is the most essential skill

Pisces: “advanced capitalism”

Actual Things That Appeared on the AP Language Test

-Everything you do affects history
-“Abandoning Capitalism for Socialism will alleviate struggle”
-A girl’s mom marched with birth control advocate Margaret Sanger and called herself a communist
-The toxic effects of “advanced capitalism”
-libraries are the center of democracy and protect minorities
-Journalists sacrificing journalistic integrity AKA fake news

LIBERIA. Monrovia. June 25, 2003. One of the most influencial weapons in the rebel forces are the 12.7 belt-fed anti-aircraft guns, mounted onto the backs of pick-up trucks. LURD forces advance on the capital during the Siege of Monrovia (2003). Second Liberian Civil War (1999-2003).

Photograph: Tim Hetherington/Magnum Photos

As several Third World Feminists have argued, a historical weakness of liberal feminism in the West has been its racist, patronizing attitude towards women of color who have been seen less as allies/agents and more as victims in need of rescue. This attitude prevails both in relation to women of color within Western nation states, as well as women in the global South. This is what allows figures such as Madeline Albright and Hillary Clinton to be viewed as feminist saviors even while both, in their roles as Secretary of State, have advanced US imperialism. It is liberalisms understanding of the state as a neutral body, rather than as a coercive apparatus used to advance capitalism and empire, which is at the root of such perspectives.” – Deepa Kumar

Artwork by Favianna Rodriguez (2013)

liberal hypocrisy is just so incredible in the way they view anything that happens under communism vs capitalism

if people die under communism thats bc communism is evil but if people die under capitalism thats just inevitable

if communist countries are racist or homophobic it means communism is racist and homophobic but racism and oppression under capitalist countries has nothing to do with capitalism

technological advances in capitalist countries are bc of capitalism but technological advances under communist countries have nothing to do with communism

brutal repression in communist countries means communism is inherently authoritarian but the same type of brutal repression in capitalist countries doesnt reflect capitalism at all

like how do they even justify this to themselves

anonymous asked:

What do you think of woman who uses lingerie and does makeup,and beig empowered by it? You think that invalidates her feminism?

empowerment is such a useless concept tbh.

your personal feelings on make-up really don’t matter when you’re talking about structural oppression. feminism doesn’t give a shit whether you are ~empowered~ from wearing eyeliner or not.

what feminism cares about is the fact that girls are pressured and groomed to wear make-up from their childhood on, that employers are less likely to hire you or pay you well if you don’t wear make-up, that the beauty industry is largely controlled by men and focused on making women feel insecure about their natural body so they can advance capitalism, that the beauty industry spends billions of dollars each year to contribute to the idea all girls are raised into that it’s only their looks that matter and give them worth.

i don’t think that wearing make-up or lingerie invalidates someone’s feminism, no. i do think that, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, you have to be able to criticize make-up and femininity in general on a structural level though. you have to recognize that femininity is compulsory and imposed on women from the patriarchy. you have to recognize that women who don’t or can’t perform femininity the way it is dictated, especially disabled, lbpq+ and trans women and women of colour, are punished for it. and if you can’t do that because you’d rather cling to useless liberal concepts like empowerment then yes, that does invalidate your feminism.

Although the day is supposed to celebrate Mexican heritage, it has become Americanized — that is, hijacked into another excuse to party, eat, and drink, all while getting sweet discounts at some restaurants. (It is so Americanized, in fact, that it’s actually celebrated more in the US than in Mexico.)

The origins of the holiday go back to, as one would expect, Mexican history. But Cinco de Mayo is not Mexican Independence Day (September 16), as many people believe. It is, instead, a day commemorating an important battle after Mexican independence.

These details might not seem crucial to your partying needs. But the origins are an important part of the Mexican heritage many Americans are supposed to be celebrating today — and give some insight into why this uniquely Mexican-American holiday is now celebrated in the US.

Let’s be clear: Mexican Independence Day is September 16, 1810, the beginning of Mexico’s revolution against Spain. It is not Cinco de Mayo.

Cinco de Mayo does, however, have roots in Mexico’s struggle with another European power.

In 1861, Mexican President Benito Juárez declared that his country couldn’t afford to pay its debts. This, as one would expect, did not please the countries that had made loans to Mexico — and Britain, Spain, and France sent naval forces to Mexico to secure their debts.

Britain and Spain managed to negotiate the issue peacefully. But the French, ruled by Napoleon III, decided to invade, taking over the country and setting up a monarchy led by an Austrian archduke.

But before the French managed to take over the country for several years, Cinco de Mayo gave Mexicans a glimmer of hope: When the French approached the town of Puebla on May 5, 1862, their army lost to a badly outnumbered and out-armed group of Mexican soldiers.

The Mexican victory was short-lived, and France eventually advanced to the nation’s capital and took over. But the win still turned into a symbol of Mexican resistance, helping sustain an independence movement that would go on for the next few years.

Driven by the spirit of Cinco de Mayo and with American support, Mexicans eventually — in 1867 — toppled the French-installed government and put Juárez back in power.

So how did Cinco de Mayo go from celebrating a struggle for Mexican liberation to a US holiday?

It goes back to the US and Mexico’s close ties — linked by proximity, a struggle against European imperialism for independence, trade, and immigration. (There’s also the US’s imperialism in Mexico.)

These close ties were also real in 1862, the year of Cinco de Mayo and second year of the American Civil War.


You don’t have to read “why sweatshops are good” articles and analysis because it only reaches the same point: “well it’s better than starving” (ignoring deaths in the workplace and people still starving anyway).

It’s interesting how much analyzing people do to defend sweatshops rather than say “hey, maybe ‘work or starve’ is a bit terrible and none of this suffering is necessary”.

Arguments for capitalism rely on an incorrect perception of the 21st century altogether. So, looking at the 21st century: Resources are abundant, wealth is abundant, and technology is advanced.

What does capitalism do about those facts?

1) Relies on artificial scarcity to function.

2) Fails to distribute that wealth accordingly (it’s completely just that 8 people have more wealth than 3.6 billion people…right?)

3) Tells us to fear automation because there is no other option besides 'work or starve’.

That is primitive logic. Capitalism treats society as if we’re still cavemen struggling to survive in a dangerous world, because otherwise it wouldn’t function. So, instead of fearing what the future has to offer, ask yourself why you’re afraid in the first place.

In short, the family is the best way to advance capitalism, as the
base unit through which capitalism distributes benefits. Through our reliance on the marital family structure, emphasized and valorized by the push for gay marriage, we allow the state to mandate that only some relationships and some forms of social networks count. If you are married, you get health care. If you are not, go and die on your sad and lonely deathbed by yourself; even the state will not take care of you. If you are married, you get to be the good immigrant and bring over your immediate and extended family to set up a family business and send your children to the best schools after years of perseverance and hard work (at least theoretically). If you are not, you can be deported and imprisoned at the slightest infraction and not one of the kinship networks that you are a part of will count in the eyes of the state. In other words, a queer radical critique of the family is not simply the celebration of an outsider status, although it is often that, but an economic critique. A queer radical critique of gay marriage exposes how capitalism structures our notion of “family” and the privatization of the social relationships we depend on to survive.
—  Yasmin Nair, Against Equality, Against Marriage
I stood on a hill and I saw the Old approaching, but it came as the New.
It hobbled up on new crutches which no one has ever seen before and stank of new smells of decay which no one had ever smelled before.
The stone that rolled past was the newest invention and the screams of the gorillas drumming their chests set up to be the newest musical composition.
Everywhere you could see open graves standing empty as the New advanced on the capital.
Round about stood such as inspired terror, shouting: Here comes the New, its all new, salute the New, be new like us!
—  Bertolt Brecht, Parade of the Old New, 1939.

The view that fascism is capitalism to its most logical conclusions has never sat right with me. It is of course true that fascism has a relationship to capitalism’s most vicious legacies: imperialism, colonization, ethnic cleansing and genocide, racial supremacy (most often white supremacy), reactionary ethnonationalisms, patriarchy, violence and bodily strength as a virtue, etc.

Fascism is a celebration of all of those things. But to say that fascism is merely some advanced reactionary form of capitalism ignores the ways in which many reactionary ideologies possess some antagonism to the capitalist mode of production. Fascists are opposed to neoliberalism and globalization not as an accident but because they wish an ethnonationalist ownership of the means of production, in the service of some ‘blood and soil’ ideology, related to some ethnic heritage, instead of private ownership.

Fascism is a unique threat for this reason. They are challenging the Left over the fate of capitalism: socialism or barbarism, what post-capitalist future will we see? If we’re not careful, it will belong to the Straussians, the Dark Enlightenment, the Alt-Right, the Traditionalists and Neomonarchists, the National Anarchists and the Technoreactionaries. You think capitalism is bad? What could come next could definitely be worse.

  • Customer: [picking up one of the buy 2 get 1 free chocolates] Oooh! Free chocolate!
  • Me: nothing in this world is free. The burgeoisie capitalist pigs require us to sell our labor in order to subsist, and in return we are quashed and oppressed by their privilege.
  • Customer:
  • Me:
  • Customer:
  • Me: But you have a GREAT DAY :)