Anonymous asked:

Can a democracy exist without capitalism? (As in the entirety of the ideology of a 'democracy', and strengthening it, doesn't need to revolve around capitalism? Bc obviously what's in America isn't real democracy)


Yes, absolutely. In fact I argue capitalism is antithetical to the longevity of democracy. Its co-optation of everything does not crease at the boundaries of government.


For more posts like these, go visit psych2go
Psych2go features various psychological findings and myths. In the future, psych2go attempts to include sources to posts for the for the purpose of generating discussions and commentaries. This will give readers a chance to critically examine psychology.
23rd Jul 201423:231,400 notes
23rd Jul 201423:234,121 notes


This man fucking gets it.

(via the-soul-is-eternal)



"don’t support nestle!" shouts the liberal on the computer made from parts manufactured at foxconn

consumer activism is a lie, see you in hell or in communism

lmao try boycotting a brand in monopoly capitalism


(via aqtyctrl)

“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me. Always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Always eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you. Asleep or awake, - no escape. Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Paty, which is collective and immortal. If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable - what then? Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”
― George Orwell, 1984
23rd Jul 201422:37126 notes

Gangs of the State: Police Departments & the Hierarchy of Power | AmericaWakieWakie  (via america-wakiewakie)

Because some folks still don’t know this. 

(via america-wakiewakie)

(via america-wakiewakie)


Watch Hillary Clinton vs. Jon Stewart on Gaza: The former Secretary of State places blame for conflict squarely on Hamas | Table Mag
This past Monday on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart devoted two-and-a-half minutes to tackling the current conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. The segment was seen as so one-sided in its excoriation of the Jewish state that it went viral among the country’s opponents, and provoked a full rebuttal from David Horovitz, the editor of the Times of Israel. Online columns, however, are no match for viral video—while Horovitz’s column racked up an impressive 10,000 Facebook shares, the clip of Stewart’s segment has been viewed over 700,000 times. But the next night, a guest on Stewart’s own show challenged his assumptions about who is to blame for the current violence: Hillary Clinton.
The widely presumed Democratic presidential frontrunner joined the show for a far-ranging interview about her life and political aspirations. Naturally, the conversation soon turned to the war in Gaza. “Can we at least agree the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is overwhelming,” Stewart asked, “and that the world must do more for the people who are trapped by this conflict?” Clinton agreed with the premise–and then turned it on Hamas. “Yes, and they’re trapped by their leadership. Unfortunately, it’s a two-pronged trapping. They have leadership that is committed to resistance and violence, and therefore their actions are mostly about ‘how do we get new and better missiles to launch them at Israel,’ instead of saying ‘hey, let’s try and figure out how we’re going to help make your lives better.’”
Stewart interjected soon after and asked, “If you’re living in that situation, couldn’t you see yourself thinking, ‘these are our freedom fighters,’ even if they might be viewed differently?” Clinton immediately rejected this characterization of Hamas. “I don’t agree with that for a couple of reasons,” she said. “You know, when Israel withdrew from Gaza … they left a lot of their businesses–there was a really very valuable horticultural business that was set up by the Israelis who had lived in Gaza. And the idea was that this would be literally turned over–money was provided, there would be a fund that would train Palestinians in Gaza to do this work. And basically the leadership said ‘we don’t want anything left from Israel’ [and] destroyed it all. That mentality to me is hard to deal with.”
The pattern repeated itself throughout the interview, with Clinton drawing on her own extensive experience in the Senate and as Secretary of State to buttress her points.
Watch the complete exchange here [Fair warning, it’s a bunch of victim-blaming].
As it turns out, it’s not just Hillary Clinton who places the onus on Hamas for the current fighting. In an interview today, former President Bill Clinton was even more pointed in his assessment, telling an interviewer, “Hamas was perfectly well aware what would happen if they started raining rockets on Israel. They fired a thousand of them, and they have a strategy designed to force Israel to kill their own civilians so that the rest of the world will condemn them.” Like his wife, Clinton called for a return to peace negotiations, noting that “over the long run, it is not good for Israel to keep isolating itself from world opinion because of the absence of a viable peace process.”
Editor’s Note: Democrats are as imperialist and colonizer-minded as Republicans. This is why no liberal is going to bring about the dismantling of oppressive policies because, as I have said here (and repeatedly elsewhere), electoral politics is not meant to end oppression — its purpose to is generate the veneer of legitimacy for it, to facilitate oppression. In terms of ending US aid to apartheid Israel, that leaves us with fewer options. 
23rd Jul 201422:28250 notes

Zionism & the Mainstream Press: Turn Off the TV Before You Become A Tool of Oppression | AmericaWakieWakie
Former Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, before the world at the United Nations Convention in 1951, spoke to expose Britain’s colonialist domination of his country. In his address he said, “They [the British government] are trying to persuade world opinion that the lamb has devoured the wolf.”
These sentiments reverberate in the mainstream media’s current portrayal of Israeli domination and occupation over Palestinians. In such a narrative life is preserved and life is taken. But we who digest the news fed to us do something sinister when we listen or read unquestionably: We become the silencer attached to the tip of a rifle invading Palestinian homes… the stealth by which genocide encroaches upon a people, executing them without a sound.
The press is supposed to keep us informed, aware and alert, critically engaged in the events of the world, so that when we object or want to change the course of happening-history, we can. In reality the mainstream press has acted more to misinform us, to make us the silencers of bombs, missiles and bullets, enablers of war and genocide, than wielders of knowledge and actors for justice.  
Keeping the blinders on at all times  
As events in Gaza grow increasingly lethal, as more and more Palestinians suffer or are displaced by Israeli forces — deaths now top more than 560 — the Western news machine drones on and on framing story after story in colonist narratives. Pro-Zionist coverage has and continues to dominate prominent Western news outlets. We are never meant to know the truth of Palestinian struggle — even if large protests about it are happening in our backyard. 
Sunday’s  march in San Francisco, and elsewhere in the United States, turned-out crowds of thousands. Counted together, tens of thousands. Still, not more than a bleep made it to airtime on local news. When the protests have gotten coverage, they have been misconstrued.
After the crowd mobilized in San Francisco to make their solidarity with Palestine known, passionately but peacefully occupying all lanes of traffic from the Ferry Building to City Hall, local news outlets reported the march as a “dueling protest” with another low-key, pro-Israel gathering in the city.
Da Lin, reporting for CBS San Francisco, per the usual course in mainstream coverage, committed the oft repeated fallacy of blaming both sides equally, or the act of creating similar culpability where it cannot possibly exist. In his follow-up to the station’s video coverage he stated:
“[S]upporters on both sides of the Middle East conflict chanted slogans outside the Jewish temple Congregation Emanuel.
Palestinian supporters called Israeli troops terrorists for killing dozens of women and children in recent days, while supporters of Israel denounced attacks by Hamas.”
And that’s it basically. Nothing was said of Israeli occupation, siege, or the ongoing blockade for which Hamas has taken to armed resistance. Not a word was spoken about the fact that Israel is the 4th largest military power in the world, or that it receives full backing AND billions in funding from the U.S. No mention of the Palestinian children actually killed by the Israeli Defense Force, or that “defense” against a people with no army who are resisting colonial domination, alien occupation, and a racist regime is not a “conflict” — it’s genocide. 
But this is what blaming both sides does: It ignores material reality. Atif Choudhury, in a recent op-ed for the Huffington Post, put it well:
"Sentiments like “it’s both sides fault” may be true in the strictest sense of the principle that it takes two parties to have a conflict, but in practice the gulf is stark.
One side routinely have their houses demolished, while another is building mansions in their place. One side are routinely expelled from their homes; the other side is adverse possessing them like it’s a monopoly game. One side has water use rationed down to the drop; the other draws upon the same water supply to support swimming pools and fountains in illegal settlements. One side routinely has pregnant women and/or their newly born children die while trying to get through a maze of checkpoints in order to get to their local hospital, the other has roads criss-crossing occupied territory exclusively for their own use. One side can be jailed, shot, and even killed for protesting, while the other can vandalize, harass, and assault with impunity and has the full resources of a sovereign state act as their personal security guards.
The list of disparities goes on and on, and again does not even take into account a stark reality of each and every phase of this six decade tragedy — that one side routinely loses far more of their sons, daughters, husbands, and wives than the other.”
Being fed information is easy, understanding resistance is not
There is a sort of defacto pro-Zionism happening when we accept the mainstream narrative. It is frighteningly easy to do too (because it is meant to be). It is easy to digest a story which says two opponents are hashing out differences with all ignorance to nuance. One is winning. One is losing. Some are dying. Some are not. One is moral. The other is evil. It is a binarization of history which when one side is chosen as truth, the other’s history and struggle is executed.
Less we want to be culpable in the onslaught of Gaza, this is a time when we must make a choice between what is right, and what is easy. We have to realize when we listen to and accept the Zionist narrative we facilitate the conditions of Palestinian oppression. As Malcolm X once said, “If you aren’t careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
(Photo Credit: AmericaWakieWakie) 
23rd Jul 201422:28655 notes
Anonymous asked:

what are you critiques on anarcho capitalists?



For real, ancaps are the worst (actually, I put them on par with neo-conservatives and anarcho post-leftists because they overlap a ton when it comes to bigoted views of PoC and the religious). Essentially, ancaps are rightwing libertarians, though there are stark differences between the more anti-State sorts, as much of a contradiction as that already is, and the minimalist sort, those advocating for the smallest government possible (think Tea Party).

The whole suffix anarcho when applied to capitalism is an oxymoron though. It is total appropriation from the word’s socialist roots. Here is a quick history lesson:

"Sadly, it is necessary to explain what we mean by “libertarian” as this term has been appropriated by the free-market capitalist right. Socialist use of libertarian dates from 1858 when it was first used by communist-anarchist Joseph Dejacque as a synonym for anarchist for his paper “La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social.” This usage became more commonplace in the 1850’s and 1895 saw leading anarchists SeBastein Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France. By the end of the 19th century libertarian was used as an alternative for anarchist internationally. The right-wing appropriation of the term dates from the 1950’s and, in wider society, from the 1970’s. Given that property is at its root, and, significantly, property always trumps liberty in that ideology, anarchists suggest a far more accurate term would be “propertarian.” We will use the term libertarian in its original, correct, usage as an alternative for anti-state socialist."

— Iain McKay in his anthology of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s Property is Theft 

A while back I was asked about labels, and I think they are important to understand when teasing out the differences in the language we use to describe our political beliefs and the archaeology of history that gives those ideologies meaning. Here was the question and answer, I think it will be informative to you:

"I really despise political labels; but you call yourself a libertarian…so, can you show us a country that is governed by libertarian principles?"

— Asked by michaellangford

Labels are merely words that we may use to effectively communicate to other people a part of the value system we hold. The trouble with them is when others debase those labels into caricatures of what they are suppose to mean or take our use of them as the totality of what we are. Americans are frequently guilty of this. You said I call myself a libertarian, but you forgot that I said a libertarian socialist (anarcho-socialist). I have to preface my socialism with either the anti-authoritarian words libertarian or anarcho because of the Cold War propaganda campaigns so effectively waged against socialism as a statist institution, when in fact if you read socialism outside Marx (see Joseph-Pierre Proudhon & Peter Kropotkin), and indeed Marx himself, you know socialism is at its core anti-state and therefore anti-authoritarian. In his essay The Soviet Union versus Socialism (1986) Chomsky summarizes both the United States’ debasing and the USSR’s co-opting of the word: 

"When the world’s two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.

It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist — surely any serious Marxist — should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism.

As for the world’s second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the ‘socialist’ dungeon.

The Soviet leadership thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society. This joint attack on socialism has been highly effective in undermining it in the modern period.”

This same tendency is being used today to reinvent the history and substance of the word libertarian, which traditionally has been representative of workers’ self-emancipation. The hijacking of libertarianism by right-wing Tea Party Republicans is a gross Randian perversion of the word. Right-wingers in America claim they want small government yet in reality they are merely calling for a system of neo-feudalism where the state is the arbiter of force for corporate power. For them the state exists to enforce “free trade” and “contract law.” Again, this rewriting of meanings has already been examined in Lance Klafta’s essay Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism (1993 ):

"When the Russian Revolution began few people clearly understood the gulf which separated the state socialists from the libertarians. Many dedicated libertarians like Alexander Berkman, rallied to the Bolshevik cause, willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in hopes that seizing state power would only be a transitional stage toward the development of the stateless/classless society.

Many sincere lovers of liberty now flock to the standard of the Libertarian Party, as they did the Bolsheviks, completely ignorant of the history of the last century. As Santayana said: “Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.”

What should be done? It should be obvious that government enforcement of private contracts is not libertarian any more than is taking state power to set people free. Libertarianism is and always will mean socialism - the self-emancipation of working people.

Libertarians must stop courting the Republican right and return to their intellectual roots. By standing outside of the political process we deny the state legitimacy, and like the state torturers in Atlas Shrugged, they will come and beg for libertarians to take over.

Remembering the experience of the Spanish libertarians, and heeding the advice of John Galt, libertarians must refuse state power even when begged. The state can never be a tool of liberation. Only its complete and utter collapse will allow for the emergence of non-statist institutions, libertarian co-ops, communes, and free markets, to flourish and displace the political state once and for all.”

So when you say I am a libertarian it needs to be clear that I am not a Tea Party Republican; and when I tell you I am a socialist so too must it be made clear that I am not an authoritarian. Muddling of our language is what has made people hate labels. 

So, if I answer your question as to what country is governed by libertarian principles, that is the principles of workers’ self-emancipation, then I can say there have been none I can think of and are likely to be none. To use the term country is to interchangeably use the phrasing nation-state. The nation-state is antithetical to the self-emancipation of workers and therefore until these oppressive governments of scale we call liberal democracies collapse, or those despotic authoritarian autocracies and regimes implode, or are dismantled, I can’t say libertarian socialist ideals are represented, much less governing.

Hope that helps. 

What the world needs more of.
23rd Jul 201422:10297 notes


From that brilliant Twilight Zone episode, “The Obsolete Man.”

(via the-soul-is-eternal)

David Fincher Filmography

(via the-soul-is-eternal)


(via the-soul-is-eternal)

Opaque  by  andbamnan