fuckyeahleftistant:

[Picture: Background: 18 piece pie style color split with red and black alternating. Foreground: red ant wearing hipster glasses.
Top text: “I knew Marx was right” Bottom text: “Before the global economy collapsed”]

Hipster leftist hahaha

stfuanarchocapitalists:

If Libertarians went to Heaven

dagseoul:

bethefoodoflove:

““If you cannot convince a Fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement.””

—

-Leon Trotsky (via indianaantifa)

or, you know

get better at arguing

because maybe you’re just shit at convincing people and, to make matters worse, quick to resort to violence as a way of projecting your emotions of inadequacy born from your inability to engage with others in productive discourse, leaving you to resort to machismo and hyper-masculine bravura to prove your ideological superiority

(via bethefoodoflove)

Here we go again. Yes. Because reasoning with a pogrom works, reasoning with a lynch mob works, reasoning with bashers works, reasoning with boneheads works. Your entire “projecting your emotions of inadequacy” routine is precious yet appropriately self-serving. It’s a boring response. Typical. Very knee-jerk. And simply incorrect.

Three things.

1. On the masculinity-machismo claim: I’ve seen plenty of women kick some serious ass. Anti-fascist action has little to do with masculinity.

2. On ideology and antifascist action: Antifascist action is precisely not ideological. Anti-fascist action is not about establishing an order; it’s not about composing individuals as good subjects; it’s not about interpolating. Antifascist action is about preventing the violent enforcement of a particular kind of white supremacy and the violent intimidation that accompanies that white order. Antifascist action is a response—a deliberate response that organizes only when provoked. When the action ceases, its organized action ceases. This is what “antifa is in the area” is all about. It organizes when necessary. The social movement against fascism, on the other hand, is not in itself violent.

3. The straw man that represent self-loathing and being threatened: Your opinion is infused with loathing and threat. You imply that antifascist action is immoral and hypocritical while explicitly stating it’s masculinist and primarily violent. In other words, you, not the antifascist straw man you’ve created, have projected specific qualities that belong to violent fascism upon antifascists. Moreover, you willingly imply you’re not as threatened by organized, militarized, capitalist white-supremacy. That’s evidence enough, in my opinion, that you’re generally self-loathing about your relationship to white power and generally threatened by what it means to step up to that order. We call that dread. In other words, you tend towards compliance with an order to permit you a means to civil disobedience because that means to civil disobedience is permitted. The violent fascist order is something of a sine qua non for your idea of ethical protest.

No matter what you might have to say about antifascist action, at least it’s an honest and direct approach to handling a social problem we claim need not be permitted for society to exist. The disorder is not in the response to fascism, it’s fascism itself.

self-ownership:

Hacking Capitalism: The Free and Open Source Software Movement

Johan Soderberg

Synopsis:

The Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) movement demonstrates how labour can self-organise production, and, as is shown by the free operating system GNU/Linux, even compete with some of the worlds largest firms. The book examines the hopes of such thinkers as Friedrich Schiller, Karl Marx, Herbert Marcuse and Antonio Negri, in the light of the recent achievements of the hacker movement. This book is the first to examine a different kind of political activism that consists in the development of technology from below.

Since they’re throwing a Marxian spin on the open source movement…

Wouldn’t the owners of computers be considered capital owners in this case? So technically I’d be able to go up to someone who is contributing towards the open source movement and have open access to their computer. After all, restricting the use of their computer (capital) would make them a “monarch”, right?

underthemountainbunker:

…

What does the 1 percent actually cost the U.S. government and the #99percent?

TAX CUTS FOR WEALTHY AMERICANS COST TREASURY $11.6 MILLION EVERY HOUR

“Tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent of Americans cost the U.S. Treasury $11.6 million every hour, according to the National Priorities Project. America’s top earners will get an average tax cut of $66,384 in 2011, while the bottom 20 percent will get an average cut of $107. The report comes as party leaders wrangle over the best way to curb the nation’s budget deficit, protesters around the world demonstrate against income inequality and corporate greed and Republican presidential candidates offer their economic plans to voters.” (HuffPo via: gonzodave)

THE 1 PERCENT COST OUR GOVERNMENT $11.6 million every hour of every day.

CLICK this image:

HERE’S WHAT THE 1 PERCENT COST EACH OF US INDIVIDUALLY:

THE US NOW RANKS 93rd in the world in “income equality” behind China, India, and Iran. (crookedindifference via: lycanpedia)

WHO ARE THE 1 PERCENT?

Taken literally, the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income.

That number is down from peak of $646,195 in 2007, before the economic crisis…By contrast, the bottom 60 percent earned a maximum of $59,154 in 2010, the bottom 40 percent earned a max of $33,870, while the bottom 20 percent earned just $16,961 at maximum. As Annie Lowrey points out, that gap has grown wider over time: “The top 1 percent of households took a bigger share of overall income in 2007 than they did at any time since 1928.”

HOW COULD THE WEALTH GAP BE FIXED?

[…] There is no quick fix right now… Rebuilding the infrastructure, strengthening the scientific base, having an energy system that moves to a sustainable renewables, low-carbon economy, improving educational outcome so that more kids make it all the way through – those are 10-year projects, more or less. […] I’ve been pretty impressed by the core trilogy of what opinion surveys say America wants: tax the top, end the wars [in Iraq and Afghanistan], and protect social spending. We ought to be going after the corporations that have, basically, a deal with the IRS that keep abroad what they earn abroad and they don’t pay any taxes on it. We should be taxing worldwide income, not just U.S.-based income.

Related:

• Since 1990: CEO pay up 300%, average workers’ pay up 4%, minimum wage has dropped. DISCUSS
• Buffett Rule confirmed: households earning > $1 million paid less to the IRS than families earning < $100,000
• Tax cuts for the wealthy
• Spending cuts for the rest of us

simplifymotherfuckers:

The year 2011 has brought a lot of surprises, but the most surprising of all to this lonely blogger is the spectre of class consciousness.

Yes, the class war has gone more viral than Scarlett Johansson’s ass! Suddenly, everyone’s come to the awareness that they are part of the 99%.

As a…