capitals practice

“ p.s. keep an eye out for a good gift for Remus from the lot of us!! xo ”

  • Anarchists: *some of the most passionate and consistent advocates for power to the people, historically supporting strikes, unions, movements for gender and racial justice, mutual aid to struggling communities through food drives and direct action, and broader protests against concentrated power*
  • "Anarcho-capitalists": *shout at working-class folks on the internet, calling them entitled snowflakes and telling them that animals practice capitalism so therefore it's natural*
Caps fans help!!

This is kinda creepy, but if anyone has attended caps practice regularly and know what cars the players drive and you wanna let me know that would be awesome.

I may go to their practice Thursday with a friend whose never been, and I wanna make sure we can find burky and some others afterwards to get signatures!

I don’t wanna have to run between the top level and the parking garage levels trying to find them and maybe miss them. I know burky use to drive a black car but I don’t know really have a clue what anyone drives haha

  • "No steppy" right-winger: lol how can someone support communism and anarchism at the same time? lol communism is full left-wing and anarchism is full right-wing -- total state control vs no state.
  • Communists and anarchists: *offer detailed analysis of the state, demonstrating that the state exists as a legal apparatus to enforce the class interests of those with power in society; draw conclusions based on this historically-verified piece of information and advocate for the abolition of capitalism so that class relationships can dissolve and in turn the state won't need to exist as a violent apparatus apart from the people, acting in the interests of capital; understand that "libertarian" as a term consistently had this left-wing connotation until establishment-supporting hacks twisted the term for their own material benefit; in turn recognize the left-wing character of both communism and anarchism, as movements that seek the abolition of concentrated power and the free flourishing of each and all*
  • "No steppy" right-winger: animals practice capitalism =) capitalism is literally just anything that doesn't involve the state =) me putting my bow tie on in the morning is capitalism =)
Watch on

Oh Andre. You sweet summer child.

“Our commercialism does not punish the vices of the poor, but the virtues of the poor. It hampers the human character at its best and not merely at its worst; and makes impossible even the merits that it vainly recommends. Capitalism has prevented the poor man from saving more than it has prevented him from spending. It has restrained him from respectable marriage more than from casual immorality. It may be that Socialism threatens to destroy domesticity; but it is capitalism that destroys it. This is doubtless what is meant by saying that capitalism is the more practical of the two.”
— G.K. Chesterton

Orthodoxy cannot defend the capitalist system, for it is founded on the exploitation of hired labor. The capitalist system has augmented the productivity of labor and creative energy: that is good. But there are very clear limits to this good, and, consequently, to the extent of the Church’s cooperation. Christianity cannot and should not compromise with Black slavery, nor with the exploitation of child labor, practiced by capitalism in its beginnings.
—  Sergius Bulgakov, of blessed memory, The Orthodox Church, pg. 175.

Capitalism is practically a four letter word these days, so it’s easy to see why it’s a feature in many dystopias and the more grim sci-fi futures.  However, there are times when a capitalist economy flat-out doesn’t make sense, especially in futures with extremely overbearing governments or apocalyptic-like resource shortages.  So in the interest of getting some variety in our speculative future, here’s some options to consider.

  • Barter.  A classic practice that doesn’t necessarily have to mean regressing to primitive societies.  Barter systems can be incredibly complex, and they’re handy for any decentralized society or mixed economies.  (For example, lower classes might subsist on a barter system and only use standard currency when dealing with taxes/rents/etc.)
  • Planned.  Especially in a totalitarian government, planned economies can run without any currency at all.  The factory makes what it’s told to make, the workers receive what the government allocates to them, and that’s all she wrote.  (At least until barter/black market/bribes take over.)
  • Participatory.  Much like a planned economy, but with more people (and at lower levels) making the plans.  Also good for decentralized government systems.
  • Subsistence. A system in which little to no excess goods are produced.  Each unit, whether they be a family unit or a village or city-state, etc, is self-sufficient and does not expect or depend on economic growth.

A few more points:

  • You can’t buy what doesn’t exist.  It’s really impressive how many resource-scarce dystopias don’t understand this.
  • Currency doesn’t have to mean cash.  For much of history, wealth meant land or livestock and very little of it was actually liquid.  All that’s required for something to be official currency is that the government accept it as payment for taxes.  If you can pay your taxes in bags of rice, then accepting 25,000 pounds of the stuff is suddenly a good deal, not ‘more rice than I’ll ever eat in a lifetime.’
  • The value of specific items changes.  A family with oodles of rubies and gold in a vault may find all that worthless three generations later when wealth is measured in cattle or lumber, or (in the opposite direction) if space-mining floods the market with previously-rare rocks.

The problem is that [capitalism advocates] can’t seem to remember what they’re talking about from one moment to the next when they use the word capitalism.

Sometimes it’s the economic system we have now, when they see you using an iPhone. Sometimes the system we have now is ‘crony’ capitalism, when you point out that most of the iPhone’s components were developed in the state sector.

And sometimes they define it so broadly as to include literally any form of 'voluntary exchange’, meaning hunter-gatherers who don’t even know what money is are technically practicing 'capitalism’.

A lot of [capitalist] arguments are derived from that last one, claiming that because we all engage in 'voluntary exchange’, capitalism (conflating it with the market-monetary system we have now) is the natural mode of human organisation, and therefore just. An appeal-to-nature fallacy which is not only asinine in itself, but not even factually correct about the 'is’ it’s trying to derive an 'ought’ from.

—  Eoin O'Connor

anonymous asked:

It seems to me that even though we are told to respect all cultures equally, many cultures are inferior to us here in the West. They have little to no respect for women. They support physical and capital punishment. They practice superstition leading to the extinction of endangered animals. Like I said, all people are basically the same and deserve respect. But these customs seriously harm people and the planet, so is it really wrong to consider these cultures backwards?

Well, “better or worse” are, of course, value judgments and so by definition subjective. 

As to the particulars of your statement the West certainly has no bragging rights when it comes to protecting the environment. We have done far more than any other culture has done to destroy it. 

Some of the cultures you accuse of backwardness are, in many ways, backward at least to our lights. However, these same cultures point the finger toward the west as decadent, immoral and materialistic.

So, good or bad, depends on that which you value.As for me I value compassion, the love of humanity and the planet. All of the cultures of the Earth could do much better in this regard.


I don’t think I ever posted these but: This man is legitimately the nicest ever. He always sees when I’m at practice and makes sure to circle over and catch my eye and grin at me. He gives the best hugs ever, too. Like what? And is super good with my younger siblings and calls me bud and wow, okay, I need to stop or this will turn into an essay on how much I love Michael Latta.

there are two arguments that I’ve seen that really speak to me on why larry is real

1. how hard they have always tried to hide it. we have so much proof of the idea of “no interaction” that has been drilled into louis and harry. we have “you can’t sit together” and that one interview where harry goes in to put his arm around louis before very awkwardly pushing his hand into the couch while louis kicks his feet up. and it’s an isolated situation. it’s not like they do this to any other duo when gay rumors arise. they never did it to ziam, they even allowed the publishing of the interview where liam admits to them kissing. they practically capitalize off lilo. there is no plausible reason as to why, if it was truly a platonic friendship, they couldn’t just let larry run its course

2. if one of them was a girl and it was a straight couple, the media and fans and entire world would be all over it, shipping it to no end, not even questioning the idea that it could not be romantic. the heteronormative lens that the media looks through blinds them from unconfirmed, possible gay relationships, while they spend all their time writing article after article about how their “inside sources” told them that the girl harry was seen with once is actually the love of his life