“Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags. It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex.”
The American right-wing is a political faction that lacks so much fundamental self-awareness. These are people who get off on writing about killing nazis, yet they have no understanding of how small of a stone’s throw their ideology is from fascism, especially recently with the rise of Trump and the “Blue Lives Matter” reactionary backlash to BLM. When you base your political ideas around xenophobic nationalism, rampant misogyny and racism, a strengthened police state, and a pseudo-populism that actually vests more power into the hands of elites and bigots….well, you’re looking at a veritable example of proto-fascism, the seeds of a fascist revival that will wave the American flag (probably with the blue line) without the faintest hint of self-awareness.
The series of events that have taken place over the past few days will set us down a road, I predict, of increased political polarization. The left-wing may get larger, to be sure, but the right-wing will get fiercer and more dangerous. Centrist liberalism and the hollow neoliberalism of electoral politics will be exposed for what they are: a ruse designed to conceal systemic violence against the oppressed with pretty slogans and empty promises for hope and change. The stunted form of democracy that we now practice in the voting booth will be recognized as a defanged substitute for genuine political power and participation. People will begin to realize that there is essentially no real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats – our vote for one or the other is merely a call for the ruling elite to explain their already-established decisions with a particular form of rhetoric, be it patriotic nationalism or pseudo-progressivism.
All of this will strengthen the organization of both the left and the right; the former finally rid of the burdensome and concessionary nature of liberalism, free to use its power to push for ACTUAL democracy (i.e. economic democracy/socialism/anarchism/parecon/horizontal society/stable state eco economy/zeitgeist movement/whatever else), and the latter unmasked, revealed as the violent, tyrannical beast that was concealed just below the surface throughout the past century of capitalism.
The reason I mention all of those disparate left-leaning movements, however leftist they each individually are, is because any chance at a truly democratic post-capitalist society is going to depend on disparate groups coming together with a cohesive narrative, ideology, and set of tactics. Oppose the strands that seek reformism as the end goal, and be super wary of idea defanging, but overall this will be a necessary fight and it will require a unified left. Much of the right-wing recognizes their unifying purpose as one of maintaining the established order (or reasserting a more extreme form of the established order), from “small government” libertarians to neoconservatives, from corporatists to fascists – they all understand that, when their dominant position is threatened, they must come together and get violent, either through structural violence or overt violence. The left, as much as possible without conceding its anti-capitalist purpose, should also seek to unify branches under a common banner of disrupting the status quo and replacing it with a more democratic alternative.
Reforming the system is not a solution – we need a system that actually works for people by default, not just when it’s convenient for or innocuous to the property-owning class. Establishment liberal politicians will not take us there – they are the snakes in the grass that will pretend to be on the side of justice, feigning concern until their vested interests in the capitalist order become threatened. Only grassroots movements and direct action can overcome this beast – a unified coalition of left-wing ideas and movements that recognize and elevate their core commonality as one of opposing capitalism and white-supremacist patriarchal imperialism.
High resolution 12″ x 18″ poster of an Apsaalooke’ woman photographed by Cree photographer Richard Throssel in the early 1900s. As with all our posters, feel liberated to print out and wheatpaste at will! R.I.S.E.: Radical Indigenous Survivance & Empowerment
It’s great that Aaron Burr is getting humanized as well and that people are discovering his good side (especially his views of proto-feminism).
But let’s talk the Manhattan Company. Because I’ve seen some things about how it was supposedly this great move for more democratic banking, sticking it to the Federalist monopoly.
Now, it’s late 1790s New York. The Federalists - who have never been opposed to banking - have a virtual monopoly on local banking in the state with the Bank of New York and the NY branch of the Bank of the United States. Republicans, despite protesting banking institutions for a long time, now want a bank. Fair enough, because they allege that Federalists are not lending to them fairly; Federalists allege that too many state banks competing with one another leads to bad banking practices since it would pit bankers vying for clients, which would lead to issuing bad credit and create more booms and busts (essentially what would later help lead to the Panic of 1837). The Republicans find it difficult to get past the support the state banks have at the local legislature, who issue the bank charters.
Yellow fever outbreaks hit the state, and people become convinced that it’s linked to bad water supply. So Burr lines up a bi-partisan effort for a private water company, that would pledge to fix the water supply by drilling new wells and laying down metal pipes. He even gets Hamilton’s support, because he needs Federalists to get it passed.
Then once the majority of the legislatures left for home, Burr inserts a provision in the bill, allowing the company to use all “surplus capital” for the “purchase of public or other stock”. Essentially, now the Republicans have a bank: The Manhattan Company. To add insult to injury, it only laid down wooden pipes, and continued to draw water from polluted wells, making it clear it had no intention of actually being a water company; to add further insult, this meant it would take even longer for the city to create another public company to address the unclean water issue.
We can say that Hamilton and the Federalists were just butthurt because they got duped into creating competition for themselves. But overlooking that Burr straight-up committed fraud, there’s also another reason they were mad: the Manhattan Company was allowed to operate itself anywhere, had a perpetual charter, had a higher ceiling on how much capital it could raise ($2million), and wasn’t subject to banking regulation laws: precisely because it wasn’t created as a bank, but as a water company. Whereas the Federalist banks were required to operate within city limits, held to all the regulations of banking, wasn’t allowed to raise more than $1million in capital, and had a charter that expired and would have to resubmit to the legislature to renew it.
I think more than any other single event in their relationship, this is what made Hamilton opposed to electing Burr in 1800.
So I'm basically writing an essay on why trump is awful and shouldn't be running for president and I need a really great title. I know this is silly but I thought it might be fun for you. Also your blog is my life xoxo 💖❤️
Thanks a lot!
Here you go: "The Fascist Apprentice: Make America Hate Again"
It plays on celebrity apprentice and his “make America great again” trucker hat.
I wish people wouldn’t automatically dismiss the Norse gods because they’re “too warlike” and patriarchal and therefore they must all hate women.
I mean, Freyr is described as someone who “makes no girl cry, nor any man’s wife” and Njord’s response when Loki tries to slut shame Freyja is “that’s a harmless thing/if a woman has a lover in addition to a husband”.
Also, Njord ends up marrying Skadi (note that she’s the one who picks her husband, this is not a thing that is normally done) but they can’t agree on where to live, so what do they do? They separate. They don’t fight or anything, they just agree to go their separate ways.
And let me just remind you that Freyr’s priests absolutely HORRIFIED their own people by dancing around with bells on. You just don’t wander around with your bells and all like dance and shit because that the most unmanliest thing ever.
In sum, the Vanir were proto-feminists before feminism was a thing, so STFU with your “the Norse gods are too patriarchal” bullshit.
“This was one of the first female characters we saw on television that really spoke to empowerment,” says Suzanne Colon, author of Catwoman: The Life and Times of a Feline Fatale. ‘Not only empowerment; a proto-feminism that was very sexy and pretty and female, and yet very take-charge. This woman had her own gang of men who wore little cat ears … to please her.’
Colon says women have a such a visceral reaction to Catwoman because, though she’s a little nuts, she’s her own woman.
'She doesn’t like the goody-two-shoes side of women we are taught to be,“ Colon says. "We are taught to be trusting and nice.’”
The Women of Paris and their French Revolution (Dominique Godineau)
For a long time I have been trying to access this book, and fortunately, it was one of the presents I received on Christmas! The book itself is very well known under its original French title, Citoyennes Tricoteuses. I have only read the first few chapters, but as far as I can tell, it is superb. She describes the daily routine of women from the working class during the Revolution, the emergence of Female Sansculottes Movements and the development of women’s rights activism from 1789 to 1795. Also, she offers individual portraits of militant revolutionary citoyennes, which are incredibly fascinating.
Godineau’s style of writing is enjoyable and pleasant, and she uses many contemporary accounts and primary sources in order to illustrate her narrative. Frankly, it is wonderful to read, especially since women’s right movements and (proto)feminism during the Revolution are often neglected or, in my eyes, misportrayed in modern historiography. Occasionally, she also uses maps, diagrams or figures:
As I said, this book is brilliant, so I definitely recommend it! What do you think, citizens? Do you have recommendations of similar books?