social workplace

  • right-winger: leftist pinkos just want to redistribute the wealth and expand the size of government!!
  • an actual leftist: actually those are short-term solutions proposed only as long as capitalism is a thing. as long as an elite class hierarchically controls the means of production and sources of wealth, higher taxation on the wealthy and more middleman government programs/regulations will be necessary. in the transition from capitalism to socialism, we do favor large-scale wealth redistribution, but from there we want the entire economic framework changed to one involving democratic job complexes and production for human need rather than for the profit of the elite class; at that point, "big government" for the sake of redistribution and regulation will no longer be necessary because the system as a whole would actually be structured to work for the people rather than just mostly elites, and thus egalitarianism and oversight by the people for the people would be written into the economy's genetic makeup.
  • right-winger: leftist pinkos are always trying to take away our guns!!
  • an actual leftist: actually many of us support the inalienable right of self-defense for the oppressed against their oppressors. guns and gun culture are incredibly dangerous when linked with reactionary ideals, which is why we want cops, violent patriarchs, and fascists disarmed. in imperialist white supremacist heteropatriarchal capitalism, the oppressors should relinquish their guns first.
  • right-winger: leftist pinkos don't want people to keep the product of their labor!!
  • an actual leftist: actually we want a system where people are better able to retain the product of their labor; if you work for a boss in a capitalist firm (i.e. most people) the grand majority of your labor product belongs to the boss and you have no say over what happens with it or with production as a whole.
  • right-winger: leftist pinkos hate freedom!!
  • an actual leftist: actually we want more freedom for the average person, in the sense that we want all people to have influence over and access to the things that involve them and the things they need. flat workplace democracy is more conducive to human freedom than vertical workplace autocracy. reduced working hours that arise from automation and democratic production-for-need are more conducive to human freedom than long hours of exploited labor for the benefit of capitalists.
  • right-winger: .....
  • right-winger: .....
  • right-winger: i'm gonna pretend i didn't hear any of that.

Please fire me. I work as a sales associate and fitting room attendant at a very large location of a chain retail store, and the number of unsupervised children that are running around the store every day is enormous. Recently, I was fixing clothes on a rack, and something collided very hard with my legs – and that something turned out to be a child running under the clothes racks with no parent in sight. Also, there have been incidents of children actually knocking down the racks of clothes in a domino effect.

No kids have gotten hurt yet, but my guess is that myself and my coworkers will get blamed by the parents in question when a kid does get hurt. Because of course, I get paid minimum wage to watch your kids for you.

When you have to evaluate your skills and your difficulties regarding your job and everything boils down to your autism and your impairment in term of communication and social interactions…

Originally posted by geekylaugifs

[gif of Nani, from the movie “Lilo and Stitch”, going furiously to a pillow, grabbing it quickly and sticking her face against it to scream angrily. The caption is spelling out “muffled screaming”]

Busy work (also referred to as make-work and busywork) can refer to activity that is undertaken to pass time and stay busy but in and of itself has no actual value. Busy work also occurs in business, military and other settings, in situations where people may be required to be present but may lack the opportunities, skills or need to do something more productive. People may engage in busy work to maintain an appearance of activity, in order to avoid criticism of being inactive or idle.
—  Wikipedia

anonymous asked:

This is just a genuine question, wouldn't raising the minimum wage still be promoting capitalism?

Raising the minimum wage still works within the parameters set by capitalism, yes. Though we support raising it, the policy falls way short of any serious challenge to the status quo. The anti-capitalist left is not, nor has ever been, about simply raising the minimum wage and other such reformist measures to give labor a bigger slice of the pie – labor should control the whole kitchen. Workplace democracy, economic democracy, infrastructural democracy, etc. Wage labor itself, where majority workers labor beneath elite owners of capital, needs to be abolished and thrown into the waste bin of history. Raising the minimum wage will not fix the multitudes of problems that exist under capitalism.
-Daividh

People told me that when I got into counseling/social services work, I would see just how many people “abused the system.” I would encounter countless people feigning disability in order to receive a check (that usually amounts to less than $700 a month, sometimes far less).

And yes, I have seen a little bit of that.

But something I’ve seen far more of is lack of accessibility. I’ve spoken with so many people who say things like, “I want to go back to work, but my disability prevents me from doing so because many places won’t consider me for hire.” Or: “I want to work, but I risk losing my disability benefits, which I need in order to pay for critical treatment of my medical condition.” Or: “I tried working again, but it didn’t work out because my employer wouldn’t make reasonable accommodations.”

(These are all paraphrased from a plethora of situations/people and by no means direct quotes.)

I know we need changes in our system. I think people should be able to receive benefits no matter what if needed (so they may pay for necessary items and have a safety net) while working part-time if able (for a multitude of reasons, including that a job can make one feel fulfilled).

This should not be all-or-nothing. We can do better.

huffingtonpost.com
Here Are Queer Women Of Color-Owned Publications To Read After "AfterEllen"
It has been just over two weeks now since Trish Bendix, former editor-in-chief of the 14-year-old queer women’s website AfterEllen, announced that senior executives at Evolve Media, which acquired AfterEllen from Viacom in 2014, terminated her and planned to shut down the site.
The LGBT community's struggles that possibly are represented through Steven Universe

So, seeing as its LGBT pride month, I decided to just kind of make a list of some of my favorites/some unknown representations of the LGBT community by Steven Universe (note: some of these are represented through LGBT characters and some are represented through straight characters. Treat each with respect please :D.
Also, some of these are just how I see them and aren’t confirmed, but can still be seen as such)

1. Topaz represents the pressure and fear of being openly LGBT in the workplace.

2. Fluorite represents how polyamorous relationships are usually seen as sinful and monsterous, hence her large demeanor and design.

3. Lars represents the social anxiety in teens about being themselves with their friends that a good majority of LGBT teens can relate to.

4. Amethyst could possibly represent those who are gender fluid, since she’s been judged for “always reforming too quickly and too drastically”, which is a common taunt used against those who are gender fluid.

5. Buck Dewey and/or Sour Cream both represent how LGBT teens can sometimes hide who they are from their parents and grow distant from them, either out of fear of judgement, resentment, disapproval, etc.

6. Uncle Andy represents not only how right-wing and more conservative family members can be disapproving towards the LGBT community, but also how these family members can be educated and change for the better, teaching us that nobody’s really hopeless

7. The Pizza family (pre make-up with the Gems) conflict with the Gems could represent how families view LGBT families and parenting styles, and like Uncle Andy, how they can be educated and changed through compromise and understanding.

8. Lapis and Peridot represent a healthy and caring LGBT relationship to contrast Lapis and Jasper’s toxic LGBT relationship (ALL relationships can suck equally lol)

9. Ronaldo represents a pretty brave group, believe it or not. He represents a group that is faced with challenges to stop being themselves by everything imaginable. Familial pressure, social pressure, workplace pressure, even starting from childhood Ronaldo’s been told to stop being himself just because it’s “weird” or “annoying”. However, he stays himself (for better or for worse, “bloodstone”) and doesn’t let what other people say pressure him into being someone else. He may not be everyone’s favorite character, but he’s probably the most real and down to earth human character in the show

Thanks so much guys, happy pride month ❤️

Houses Keywords
  • 1st house/ASC: Identity. You wear this house on your sleeve. It is a very blank slate as far as what the qualities of this house posses. Like Aries, it is open and straightforward. This is plain and simply the house of your identity, appearance, and energy you radiate outwards from inside yourself. This is how you appear to others. It is important to note the planets within his house as they will be felt very strongly in your identity.
  • 2nd house: Value, possessions, material reality. What you value in your material reality such as work, objects, structure. It governs money and physical structure as it also governs our sense of value. Planets/signs in the 2nd house will show you how you put your focus and energy on your physical reality, how you make money, buy things, and the type of things you value in making money and buying.
  • 3rd house: Communication, mental thought, sharing and receiving ideas with the world. The sign will determine the nature of your own communication. Planets in this house will show how you place emphasis on this within yourself.
  • 4th house/IC: Home, security, creature comforts. The 4th house shows you the essence of your home. Where this house begins you find the IC. the IC is your most intimate state of self, with your Midheaven you are out all day being seen and perceived by the world.. Then you come home into your own space, all alone, just with yourself.. That is the IC. Planets conjuncting the IC or in the 4th house will give you a clear understanding on your relationship with the home.
  • 5th house: Play, fun, light-heartedness, creativity, casual sex. The 5th house is our essence of easy going and care free fun within reality. Any planet in this house will be touched with an essence of light-heartedness. The 5th house makes you feel good, makes others feel good, not going in too deep.. Just looking to have a good time with creative energy.
  • 6th house: Routine, service, schedule, daily practice. The 6th house is about your day to day life. What time do you wake up, eat breakfast, go to work, what do you do for work, what is your plan for your day? This is the 6th house. This house also speaks to the nature of your service to the world, how you express service towards your collective reality. Planets in this house will have emphasis on routine and the day to day human existence.
  • 7th house/DSC: Relationships, partnership, relating to others. Simply put, this is the house of our relationships. The 7th house begins at the Descendant. Ascendant is how others perceive you, Descendant is your collective relationship to others as a whole. Planets in this house will be an energy you project onto your relationships and a way you relate to others. Who you are to others and how you impact people on a personal level. Planets conjuncting the descendant will hold strong energy with the nature of all of your relationships in life.
  • 8th house: Sex, death, birth, all things hidden, shared resources, depth, intimacy. The 8th house rules the mystery, energy that cannot be perceived with the human eye. The deepest truth. Can you see sex happening inside of you, or the process of a baby being conceived? No, it is happening inside, where it is dark and you can't see. The process of death and creation is the 8th house. Planets in this house will hold a perpetual energy of death and rebirth, a desire with digging deeper into everything to uncover what is hidden, a strong focus on sex, intimacy, and psychic perception.
  • 9th house: Philosophy, higher learning, exploration, travel. This house is about going deeper into your experience as a human. Looking for deeper truths and philosophies. Setting out on an adventure to find your soul. It rules the archetype of college, library's, culture, professors, and world travelers. Looking for a deeper meaning within exsistance, something that sets your soul on fire with passion. Planets in this house will be focused on deepening their philosophy and experience of the planetary archetype. In the 9th house you look to broaden your horizons.. You look to expand, to learn, to grow. Focused on the bigger picture, the larger image, the grand design.
  • 10th house/MC: This is the house of your career, your public image, what you build of yourself in this world. You will find the energy archetype of the type of work you will pursue. How you are perceived in the collective and who you really are in the collective. A driving force in your chart as it's the place of creation through where you build yourself in reality. The eagle eye of ones psyche. Vision.
  • 11th house: The 11th house rules collective structures, organizations, and social circles. A workplace social structure, activist organization, a friend group.. This is all part of the 11th house archetype. Planets in the 11th house show what energies you influence the collective with through your being. The part of you that feels naturally obligated to express itself towards the collective. Its also a point of manifestation creational energy, planets in this house will show you the energy of how you go about manifesting things into your reality.
  • 12th house: The unconscious, energy flow, and spiritual energies. Planets in this house will be tapped into intuitive Piscean energy of spiritual connection, its natural in the 12th house. Also, planets in this house will act in a largely unconscious energy, a lacking of self awareness.. Difficulty grasping self awareness towards that planetary energy. In the 12th house it is all a grand flow, like a ever changing and expanding river. Always growing or destroying through in an unconscious filter.

okay but can you imagine

Jane Austen’s Persuasion

done by Pemberley Digital

in the style of The Office

you feel me

There’s nothing about markets that require private ownership over the means of production. See mutualism, market socialism, and market anarchism for anti-capitalist market systems.

There’s nothing about “keeping the fruits of your labor” that requires private ownership over the means of production. In fact, workers who are employed under a boss never get to take home the full product of their labor, since the grand majority of it belongs to the boss based on private ownership claims over everything the worker produces. Hell, socialists very often argue “to each according to their contribution”, allotting individuals greater reward the greater their labor contribution to the collective pool, as long as a livable floor is established for all and no one hierarchically owns and manages the workplace.

There’s nothing about “small government” that requires private ownership over the means of production. Worker cooperatives are completely viable. Furthermore, there’s the fundamental idea that collective operations ought to be deliberated on democratically, rather than through an autocratic capitalist or state. Private control over the means of production is not a natural conclusion of “limited government”; if anything, for all intents and purposes, they’re actually opposed to each other.

There’s nothing about organization and management that requires private ownership over the means of production. Workers are perfectly capable of voting on accountable managers and building consensus on organizational aspects of the institution. In theory, we vote on politicians to “help manage” the country, but we in turn don’t expect them to wield power tyrannically or claim sovereignty over the country like a king; the same principle applies to democratic workplaces, in the sense that you can totally separate elected/accountable/immediately recallable management from the hierarchical ownership of the place.

If the idea is that we need to eradicate concentrations of power, then socialism is the way to. If the idea is that we need to maintain individual liberty to the extent that “fists can be swung until they hit another nose”, then socialism is the way to go. If the idea is that we need to build a system where we recognize hard work and labor as the necessary base, then socialism is the way to go.

Please fire me. My boss decided today that he wants to have a massive media-frenzied event for 500 people on Saturday and I have to coordinate everything by myself.

The people: We’re tired of economic inequality and we’re tired of state violence for the interests of the few. Centuries of white supremacy and patriarchy have only made class oppression all the worse. Seeing as workers produce all the goods in society, and seeing as capitalists hold a superfluous position of authority that can be handled through economic democracy and by self-managed workers and communities, we call for a systemic change that can better meet our needs and ensure a greater degree of freedom from tyranny!

Capitalists:

anonymous asked:

i was wondering if you had any thoughts on the hogwarts houses/ the way jk rowling wrote them?

lmao literally HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU HAVE, ANON

The house system is one of those things in the hp books that I thought was really cool when I was a kid (let’s be real i thought the whole concept of boarding school was AWESOME i wanted to go so bad), but that really started to bother me as I got older and reread. I think the concept is really interesting and there was a big opportunity to explore things like societal expectations and stereotypes through the houses, but jkr just doesn’t do that? IT’S VERY FRUSTRATING IT’S BEEN YEARS I’M STILL FRUSTRATED

We see the wizarding through Harry’s eyes, always through the lens of his understanding and comprehension, and this is really important to the way the story plays out because it is, in essence, a bildungsroman that charts his journey from childhood to maturity. So to an eleven year old Harry, who is eager to make friends and wary of bullies from his primary school years, you can understand why his perception of Slytherin is soured by Draco and his view of Gryffindor is glorified by Ron. It’s this more than anything that affects his decision to choose Gryffindor - he’s been told that Slytherin is the bad house, and the first real friend he’s ever made is a sure bet for Gryffindor. These are the things first year Harry values and they inform his decision of a house - more than anything he’s heard in the Sorting Hat song about bravery or ambition.

And here is the crux of the sorting’s flaw - it rests on the assumption that an ENCHANTED HAT can look into an eleven year old’s mind and determine what kind of person they are, and put them in a house that will, in turn, shape the person they turn out to be. You can understand how this system started - lifespans were way shorter back in the Founders’ era, they were trying to find a way to replicate their already standing system to last past their own deaths - but like, it’s been a thousand years. Let it go, man. ESPECIALLY when it’s a system that is forming a crux of the entire wizarding British society (!!!). 

By joining a house, Hogwarts students are put into natural friendship/influence circles that last, from what we’ve seen, all throughout school and often into adulthood. Not only that, but as soon as they’re put in a house and given their colours, students automatically have to shoulder the stereotypes and assumptions that come with belonging to a house. This is worst for Slytherins (‘there’s not a witch or wizard who went bad who wasn’t in Slytherin’ - can you BELIEVE this sentence was actually written like), but you can imagine the blowback for all the Houses - 'what, you’re in Ravenclaw but you don’t like to study??? Why aren’t you SMART??? What, the Gryffindor won’t do something dumb and reckless? I thought you were meant to be BRAVE’ - and how really just by being in a house they’re socially isolated from the rest of their peer group.

And this is something that happens in schools, workplaces, social groups all across the world. Stereotypes and assumptions based on choice of friends or being a member of a group are universal problems that have affected almost everyone at one point or another. And if you’re going to create a social stratification system in your society and write SEVEN BOOKS about a teenager attempting to navigate through them, you’d think you could take the time to deconstruct this phenomenon, or detail how it affects the hero or any of the characters, or at least even mention how messed up it is, right?

But jkr does not do this. Bar Dumbledore’s pondering on 'perhaps we sort too early’ (which he says, by the by, to twist the knife into Snape a little deeper and thus make him easier to manipulate, so), the negative connotations and medieval nature of house sorting is rarely ever touched upon. There are no main, non villanous Slytherin characters. There are no main Hufflepuff characters. There are no main Ravenclaw characters - bar Luna, who becomes a part of Harry’s friend group because she is ostracised from her own house and peer group. There are seven Weasley children and every single one is sorted into Gryffindor - is this realistic? Are they choosing Gryffindor because they don’t want to feel isolated from their own families? Ron and Draco both grew up in the wizarding world and their concepts of the houses are already very much formed before they even get to Hogwarts. It’s a self-fufilling prophecy and it’s been happening in this society for A THOUSAND YEARS. 

And to be fair, the idea of mis-sorting is addressed now and again in the series. Dumbledore comments on it in passing (at the very end of the series. To manipulate someone.), and there is one character arc that incorporate this idea - Wormtail. We’re told, essentially, that Wormtail wants so badly to be like the other Marauders that he chooses Gryffindor - that this desperate, cowardly nature is a cornerstone of his personality from childhood. Notice how the one arguable “wrong sorting” in the series is not a “good” Slytherin but rather a “bad” Gryffindor - Sirius is congratulated by the story for choosing not to be in Slytherin to spite his family, Snape is revealed to have been helping Harry all along but his character is still coded in villany and he forms, in many ways, the visual perception of Slytherin and all its negativity in Harry’s eyes - unfairly docking points from other houses, not being “honorable”, playing blantant favourites with his own students.

As Harry gets older and his life gets more complex - or rather, he begins to see the world in its true shades of grey, rather than with the black and white certainty of childhood - he begins to see that people cannot be simplified down to a few personality traits. This is the purpose of the Malfoys in the story - Draco, who is Harry’s petty preteen enemy and synonymous with the Death Eaters in Harry’s eyes, is shown to be a flawed and overwhelmed boy who, much like Harry, is manipulated and twisted by powers far greater than himself. The love the Malfoys have for each other far outweighs their loyalty to Voldemort, their ideals, their ambition - and it’s this love that saves Harry’s life, and he knows it. This is why he is able to acknowledge Draco on the platform in the epilogue - they’ll never be friends, but there is an understanding between them, an acknowledgement of their similarities. The Malfoys are their arc are arguably the most human in the entire series - but it’s never explicitly linked to Slytherin, or how it dismantles the stereotypes of the houses. In fact, the role of Slytherin in the seventh book is to run and save themselves when Hogwarts is attacked - we’re told point blank that not one Slytherin stays to help Harry (let’s not even talk about the movie okay OKAY). Are we meant to think these 16 and 17-year olds are cowards for wanting to live? Are we meant to assume that all of them - every single one - has friends and family fighting on Voldemort’s side and they don’t want to be caught in the crossfire? The book basically implies that belonging to Slytherin is synonymous to supporting Voldemort and blood purity - even though we know the house is not made entirely of pureblood/aristocratic wizards. Instead of trying to break down the negativity of house perceptions in the books, jkr just reinforces it and, honestly, I think the quality of the story is damaged because of it.

So in summary: the sorting forces eleven year old to either know definitively who they are (and who knows that at eleven? Who knows that at eighteen? Some people don’t EVER know that), or to shoulder the potentially negative stereotypes of whatever house they’re put into, and become intrinsic and cliquey because of that. For some people - especially, as we’ve seen, Slytherins - the sorting and its ripple effects can continute to effect and even shape their later lives. And the Sorting Hat - which divides them in the first place, which encourages isolation and often toxicity - is preaching about putting aside house differences? Not bloody likely.