so i just went to a 7-eleven for the first time in my life and most of the slurpee machines were broken except for this sour apple fanta one. i tried it and just immediately fucking blurted out “it tastes like shrek?” and i can’t stop thinking about it. i figure that probably i had some “green-flavored” foods that were used to promote the shrek movies. if so i think it’s amazing that capitalism has used classical conditioning so effectively that my brain has associated the taste with “shrek flavor.” 

is this something other people in my age group understand? is it a generational thing? 

anyway i’m gonna put tequila in it

No action as Argentina's illegal sweatshops flourish

Two-thirds of the clothing industry is conducted in illegal workshops, like one where two young boys died last month.

by Daniel Schweimler

In Argentina they call sweatshops talleres clandestinos or clandestine workshops. But everyone, it seems, knows where they are.

They certainly now know the whereabouts of the one on the corner of Páez and Terrada streets in the Flores neighbourhood of Buenos Aires. For there was a fire there last month that killed two young boys, Rolando and Rodrigo.

The neighbours have painted a mural, at the base of which sit burnt candles and withered flowers. A pile of sodden clothes blocks the pavement and police guard the charred doorframes.

Omar Ruiz lives a few doors away. “Behind all those houses you see there are sweatshops,” he said. “Secret launderies and boilers they use for industrial ironing.”

Ruiz said there were six more sweatshops just on his block which the city authorities had been advised of.

The city government said it didn’t know that Páez 2796 was a sweatshop.

Ruiz said fires were common, and although the cause of this latest one was still being investigated, it was possibly ignited by a spark from industrial sewing machines being plugged into overloaded domestic sockets.

Since the fire, the Alameda Foundation, which campaigns for better working conditions, has identified hundreds more sweatshops in and around Buenos Aires which, along with Sao Paulo, has one of the greatest concentrations of the illegal textile industry in South America.

Bolivian workers

Like Rolando and Rodrigo, most of the workers come from Bolivia, enticed to Argentina with the promise of housing and well-paid jobs.

Olga Cruz came in 2000 with her two young children. Like many she was recruited by an agency in Bolivia that took her passport.

She said: “I was working with nine other people in a tiny space where there was no room for us to move.

"We were hardly allowed to go to the toilet. We ate breakfast at our machines and we ate lunch at our machines.”

Cruz escaped and now works for the Alameda Foundation’s sewing cooperative - a maximum of eight hours a day and with a share of the profits.

“It’s like in this country the laws don’t exist,” she said. “No-one takes any notice of us foreigners, no-one cares about our work conditions.”

Gustavo Vera is a Buenos Aires city deputy who also campaigns with Alameda.

“We’re talking about 68 percent of the Argentine clothing industry being conducted in sweatshops,“ he said.

"Informal work, forced labour, people who work more than 12 hours a day without any rights and even slave labour with workers living and working in the same place without being able to leave.”

Vera wants the law changed to prevent government departments buying from the sweatshops.

He also said the big name brands should declare that they don’t use what he called slave labour.

More than 100 well known national and international brands, (including the Spanish firm Zara and the sports giants Puma and Adidas) have been named in legal proceedings as alleged sweatshop customers.

They all either deny the charge or say they’re attempting to disassociate themselves from them.

Highest price

The clothing is sold on the pavements around Buenos Aires and at La Salada - a huge site on the outskirts of Buenos Aires that has been described as the biggest counterfeit clothing market in South America.

A few days after the fire at Páez 2796, Bolivian workers and Argentine trade unions, accompanied by local residents, marched to the site of another sweatshop fire that in 2006 killed six Bolivian workers, five of them children.

The owners were never prosecuted. Two managers are appealing against their three-year jail sentences.

The marchers unrolled strips of cloth tied into a long string which they looped around trees and lampposts along the 2km route between the two houses.

They marched in 2006 too. There was outrage and indignation and promises by the authorities that they would tackle the sweatshop industry. The number of sweatshops has only grown.

While immigrants work 16 or more hours a day, in cramped and insanitary conditions, for a few cents or nothing at all, the profit margins for the owners are mouth-watering.

And what shopper doesn’t want brand name clothing at knockdown prices?

But Rolando and Rodrigo, aged 10 and seven, paid the highest price of all.


Memorial Day commemorates soldiers killed in war.  We are told that the war dead died for us and our freedom. US Marine General Smedley Butler challenged this view.  He said that our soldiers died for the profits of the bankers, Wall Street, Standard Oil, and the United Fruit Company.  Here is an excerpt from a speech that he gave in 1933:

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.


Capitalism is just a story (via

What is so funny about westerners who want to “fight Islam” is that this mess was created by people like you who wanted to “fight communism” and now you think “destroying jihad” or whatever is a good idea?

We could have had a secular, progressive, communist Middle East, but “anti-communists” like you didn’t like that, so the west imported Wahhabism, and now instead of calling yourselves “anti-communists”, you’re “anti-jihad”. Lol. Stfu. 9/11 was way more the fault of anti-communism than Islam.

anonymous asked:

What do you have against titled aristocracy? It's something you are born with most of the time, it's not fair to hold that against people tbh.

This is satire, right?

Surely you can’t actually be asking what is in effect “but how are the aristocracy problematic?” with some sort of added caste essentialism?


  • Karl Marx:The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
  • The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere
  • Capitalists:yeah but if you don't like capitalism why don't you opt out of it. Checkmate commies.

ten-thousand-rivers asked:

There is something I'd like to ask you, if I may. Are you familiar with the concept of shared value? If so, what is your opinion or view about it?

Sorry, I forgot I still had this question to answer.

I’ve heard about the concept of shared value. However in my opinion what Creating shared value is really saying is that Capitalism suffered only a few false steps and it’s a matter of social direction. 
It’s nothing new, there have been voices in the past (Olivetti or Steve Jobs to name a few) who have talked about the prospect that capitalism is reformable.

I don’t believe in Corporate social responsibility, it is just a fraud, capitalism has nothing to do with ethics, and if it does, it’s just for propaganda purposes. 

First because it makes look as positive sides of capitalism things that should be obvious (human rights, increasing the safety of the workplace, benefits, offering a more humane working hours, less pollution). Indeed, according to them, one should also be grateful to the companies for what they give back (which is still an infinitesimal part of what they take from the environment and the people).

Second because it supports a system based on inequality, exploitation, hierarchy, ephemeral consumerism, profit at all costs, imperialism and unbearable pollution.

Third, because we have no need for capitalism, capitalism needs us.

From the perspective I have sketched out above, the cultural making of meaning is not random, but neither is it stable. And the concept ‘culture-ideology’ conveys this. Culture includes all of the meaning-making systems, practices, and forms in a social formation—the prevailing truths as well as the contesting knowledges, residual and emergent forms of intelligibility, both formalized and informal, codified beliefs as well as inchoate structures of feeling. Those ways of knowing that legitimize and help to reproduce the kernel of human relations capitalism rely on comprise ideology. Ideology offers ways of knowing that profoundly shape identity through the organization of social differences. Ideology naturalizes differences (between men and women, whites and blacks, straight and gay, able and disabled, rich and poor, etc.) and so legitimates human relations of exploitation and domination. For example, ideology invites us to think that the difference between those who succeed and those who don’t is obviously persistence and hard work; ideology constructs women workers in electronics assembly plants as the best ones for the job because ‘those girls’ are naturally nimble-fingered; ideology invites us to think that a romantic attachment to a man and a white wedding are naturally every young woman’s dream. Ideology offers individuals an imaginary relationship to the material inequities they live, a relationship that has material consequences in that it shapes desires and actions, even though it may be at odds with other cultural knowledges
—  Rosemary Hennessy, Profit and Pleasure: Sexual Identities in Late Capitalism p. 18-19