sometimes i give into the little monster inside me that screams for self indulgent content :3c + a slight neil edit
if i see one more fucking ‘reject modernity embrace tradition’ meme i’m going to lose my shit
it costs literally $0 to give a fuck about jewish people and not use fucking nazi slogans as ‘memes’
just don't say nazi shit. it’s easy. think about this: will not saying nazi shit have an adverse impact on my quality of life? if the answer is yes, then you're probably a nazi. if the answer is no, then you can stop it and easily make the world a safer and more comfortable place
I had no idea this meme is a fascist dogwhistle thing. But I looked it up and it’s clearly a thing fascists like, taken from the first two definitions of fascism by Umberto Eco, who lived under Mussolini’s fascist reign:
- The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
- The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
the other 12 are at the source: https://kottke.org/16/11/the-14-features-of-eternal-fascism
Budweiser beers used it in an ad tweet, but removed it when called out on their bullshit: https://www.newsweek.com/budweiser-tweeted-2-umberto-ecos-elements-fascism-1527252
thank you for adding these links, you wouldn’t believe that people have already reblogged this post calling me a liar for saying this is a fash thing
While we're at it stop using the Aryan wojacks (the bearded guy cartoon is blonde and blue eyed for a reason)
it wasn't "some reason", it was 2D animators being unionized and 3D not being unionized. and the simple truth that capitalism kills art.
I remember when 2D faded out, the reason studios kept giving was "it's because 2D is a lot more expensive to produce". I was a child back then so I didn't think too much about it, assuming it was about the process itself, but as I grew up and learned more about art as an artist, and gained friends who were professional 3D artists themselves, I started to question it. Because 3D is very different from 2D, but it's definitely not easier or faster to make. Also, both European and Asian studios kept producing 2D animated movies
The answer was unions. The answer wasn't "this kind of art is cheaper because it's easier to make", it was "this kind of art is cheaper because these artists can't force us to pay them correctly"
Unions weren't the issue. Pixar isn't unionized, but WDAS still is despite having shifted entirely to 3D animation; same deal with DreamWorks, Sony, etc.
The reason that 2D feature animation largely went away was that it is time consuming and less cost effective than 3D animation, and in the early 2000s there was a long string of 2D animated failures (Atlantis, Home on the Range, Treasure Planet, Sinbad, Spirit... I think of the major 2D films of that era, Lilo & Stitch was the only one that was able to turn a profit, besides some Nickelodeon films), while 3D films from Pixar, DreamWorks, and others were making a LOT of money. It's capitalism, but it wasn't because of the unions. The animation industry in and around Hollywood is still heavily saturated by organized labor - I think Pixar is the largest animation studio that isn't unionized, and they'd probably have to become unionized in order to play ball in LA, which is why they've stayed up in the Bay Area.
i promise im going to stop posting about it soon but the most insane thing about the Banana Discourse is that like. there are already lots of fruits that are of limited availability in the USA because they're not grown there and they haven't enforced massive export economies for them at gunpoint. you'd think by the way these people talk that usamericans are rioting in the streets and committing mass suicide because they can't buy a papaya or a durian or a dragonfruit at the gas station. like there's already fruits that are comparatively scarce in the USA and everyone seems to have survived that being the case but you point out that socialist revolution would require a scale back from Total Banana Ubiquity and people legitimately act like it's white genocide
asking a trans person if they like astrology is so fucking funny like "hey do you like arbitrary categories that people are sorted into because of the circumstances of their birth" im not sure i do no
ppl will think they r marxist then say shit like this about sex and gender lmfao
true, the most marxist thing is to accept 'woman' as an autocthonous and immutable metaphysical designation that accompanies a certain set of physical characteristics and viciously resist any serious critical inquiry into the processes of social formation that perpetuate and define the boundaries of that category. nothing as marxist as metaphysics, not like those silly TRAs and their understanding of sex and gender as mutable social designations that are dependent upon context and subject to transformation--dialectics? not marxist!
"we live in an uncaring universe"
false. i care very deeply. am i not a part of this infinite universe?
Anonymous asked:
Why does everything seem like you can only pick one of the two social systems of socialism/communism vs capitalism instead of a mixed economy? Like I live in a country with mixed economy social system, healthcare, lifestyle, telecommunications, public transport, etc, all have a govt/public system funded by taxes and kept at the lowest prices possible vs a privatised funded version where you get relatively finer services. And some systems kept completely out of private like research, military, prisons. I mean individual corruption never really stops, in both systems, so why not mix both to keep it in check? Like the lowest prices available as well as maximum upper limits set by the govt for things like food, make sure capitalism doesnt go haywire, but also allows it to form a competitive system for development. 🤔🤔🤔
txttletale answered:
there’s nothing ‘mixed’ about this system. under capitalism, the state exists as an expression of bourgeois interests to maintain and enable the private sector, not as a separate thing (e.g.: who enforces private property rights? who gets called to physically prevent you from violating them using violence?). infrastructure and some degree of social safety net being paid for by the government are good for capital, because capitalists use infrastructure and need workers who are Alive. (to say nothing of the fact that 'government/public-funded’ usually means that the government is writing huge checks to any myriad of private companies who are happily pocketing it). what you’re describing is a capitalist system with a welfare state – a fully capitalist system, in which the working class has to sell their labour to survive and that labour is directed towards the reproduction of capital rather than towards the fulfillment of any societal needs.
having an actual definition of capitalism and socialism - being 'the system of political rule and class dictatorship of the capitalist class' and 'the system of political rule and class dictatorship of the proletarian class', respectively - immediately makes obvious the issues in claims towards a 'mixed system'. 'why not mix both [the complete monopoly on political power by the bourgeoisie, and the complete monopoly on political power by the proletariat] to keep corruption in check' is a non-starter. socialism is not 'when the government does stuff' and capitalism is not 'when the market does stuff' - both state and market forces can and do exist under both systems!