One Nice Bug Per Day
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
shark vs the universe
wallacepolsom
Product Placement
dirt enthusiast
⁂
Kaledo Art
sheepfilms
No title available
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
AnasAbdin
tumblr dot com
almost home
Origami Around
oozey mess
Three Goblin Art
hello vonnie
occasionally subtle
seen from T1
seen from Mexico
seen from Mexico
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
@bowa-kowa
hi. whatup
i'm tam. baby ML still going through their readings. also currently studying the histories of socialist projects and the non-aligned movement. will post quotes and interesting tidbits of the books i'm reading. i also like art (!!) and do art although idk if and when i'll ever post those though
i do engage in the worst possible fandoms in existence WILL POST CRINGE HERE!! BE WARNED!!!
anw yeah
December 2, 1956 - On this day in 1956, 82 revolutionaries, led by Fidel Castro, traveled from Mexico to eastern Cuba aboard the Granma yacht to launch a people's war against the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. When they arrived, they were ambushed by Batista's troops, leading to many casualties. The survivors regrouped and began an armed struggle against the dictatorship and were quickly joined by peasants and the broader working class. The landing of the Granma in many ways was the official beginning of the struggle which ultimately resulted in the defeat of the dictatorship and the victory of the Cuban Revolution. [link]
He won't stop fighting...
even for me.
Exposr the matches.
Bet my boby as his prize.
Death to the USAmerican "culture".
I will personally remove from this reality the ideas of the USA. I have already deleted the february 15th's "Freeday". I shall come next for your "Thanksgiving". When I am done, this country built on genocide and imperialism shall be no more.
I also dislike USA, but... why must we lose the feasting holiday? I can get behind all the others, but why that one?
I get the cultural reasons, but... but... ma food...
Hey. Why are you so attached to the litteral representation of yalls colonialism.
Because it's the one that is the most resistant to commercialization, and the one where the primary objective is "go eat food with your family". And sure you *could* do that any old time, hypothetically, but it's nice having a day set aside. And it's scheduled in such a way that anyone who doesn't have to work retail gets an extra long weekend out of it.
It’s the genocide holiday that you people made up after killing your country’s native population
rochu is better than rusame cause america sucks and cant handle all that
Art
y'know it's kinda crazy how a lot of mainstream portrayal of the cold war conclude that the USSR developing their own nukes against the USA was a completely terrible thing, and that if it weren't for these two superpowers perpetually being in a nuclear standoff people would have been living in sunshine and rainbows. as if it would've been better that one country, especially one as bloodthirsty as the USA, had complete monopoly on nuclear weapons. as if the USA wouldn't have nuked any other country that so much as slightly stepped out of line. they've already bombed laos, cambodia, vietnam, korea, etc into smithereens so why not just use even bigger, even more devastating bombs, right? there has only been one country in history that actually dropped nuclear bombs on another country, and it sure as hell wasn't the USSR.
the fact that the US actually considered using nukes in the vietnam war and korean war and during the vietnamese independence from france the yankees offered the french their own nukes for them to use and the latter declined. and i'm supposed to be comforted by this genocidal empire being the sole owner of nuclear arms
y'know it's kinda crazy how a lot of mainstream portrayal of the cold war conclude that the USSR developing their own nukes against the US was a completely terrible thing, and that if it weren't for these two superpowers perpetually being in a nuclear standoff people would have been living in sunshine and rainbows. as if it would've been better that one country, especially one as bloodthirsty as the US, had complete monopoly on nuclear weapons. as if the US wouldn't have nuked any other country that so much as slightly stepped out of line. they've already bombed laos, cambodia, vietnam, korea, etc into smithereens so why not just use even bigger, even more devastating bombs, right? there has only been one country in history that actually dropped nuclear bombs on another country, and it sure as hell wasn't the USSR.
Soviet Era Murals in Kazakhstan and Tashkent, Uzbekistan
average dprk citizen: hey everyone hows it going
I'm asking this genuinely, as a 19 yo with no education in economics and a pretty surface level understanding of socialism: can you explain the whole Bananas discourse in a way someone like me might understand? In my understanding it's just "This is just a product we can give up to create better worker conditions and that's fine" but apparently that's not the full picture?
alright so some pretty important background to all this is that we're all talking about the fact that bananas, grown in the global south, are available year-round at extremely low prices all around europe and the USA. it's not really about bananas per so--the banana in this discourse is a synechdoche for all the economic benefits of imperialism.
so how are cheap bananas a result of imperialism? first of all i want to tackle a common and v. silly counterargument: 'oh, these ridiculous communists think it's imperialist for produce to be shipped internationally'. nah. believing that this is the communist objection requires believing in a deeply naive view of international traide. this view goes something like 'well, if honduras has lots of bananas, and people in the usa want bananas and are willing to pay for them, surely everyone wins when the usa buys bananas!'.
there are of course two key errors here and they are both packed into 'honduras has lots of bananas'. for a start, although the bananas are grown in honduras, honduras doesn't really 'have' them, because the plantations are mostly owned by chiquita (formerly known as united fruit) dole, del monte, and other multinationals--when they're not, those multinationals will usually purchase the bananas from honduran growers and conduct the export themselves. and wouldn't you know it, it's those intervening middleman steps--export, import, and retail, where the vast majority of money is made off bananas! so in the process of a banana making its way from honduras to a 7/11, usamerican multinationals make money selling the bananas to usamerican importers who make money selling them to usamerican retailers who make money selling them to usamerican customers.
when chiquita sells a banana to be sold in walmart, a magic trick is being performed: a banana is disappearing from honduras, and yet somehow an american company is paying a second american company for it! this is economic imperialism, the usamerican multinational extracting resources from a nation while simultaneously pocketing the value of those resources.
why does the honduran government allow this? if selling bananas is such a bad deal for the nation, why do they continue to export millions of dollars of banans a year? well, obviously, there's the fact that if they didn't, they would face a coup. the united states is more than willing to intervene and cause mass death and war to protect the profits of its multinationals. but the second, more subtle thing keeping honduras bound to this ridiculously unbalanced relationship is the need for dollars. because the US dollar is the global reserve currency, and the de facto currency of international trade, exporting to the USA is a basic necessity for nations like honduras, guatemala, &c. why is the dollar the global reserve currency? because of usamerican military and economic hegemony, of course. imperialism built upon imperialism!
this is unequal exchange, the neoimperialist terms of international trade that make the 'global economy' a tool of siphoning value and resources from the global south to the imperial core. & this is the second flaw to unravel in 'honduras has a lot of bananas' -- honduras only 'has a lot of bananas' because this global economic hegemony has led to vast unsustainable monoculture banana plantations to dominate the agriculture of honduras. it's long-attested how monoculture growth is unsustainable because it destroys soil and leads to easily-wiped-out-by-infection plants.
so, bananas in the USA are cheap because:
the workers that grow them are barely paid, mistreated, prevented from unionizing, and sometimes murdered
the nations in which the bananas are grown accept brutally unfair trade and tariff terms with the USA because they desperately need a supply of US dollars and so have little position to negotiate
shipping is also much cheaper than it should be because sailors are chronically underpaid and often not paid at all or forced to pay to work (!)
bananas are cheap, in conclusion, because they're produced by underpaid and brutalized workers and then imported on extortionate and unfair terms.
so what, should we all give up bananas? no, and it's a sign of total lack of understanding of socialism as a global movement that all the pearl-clutching usamericans have latched onto the scary communists telling them to stop buying bananas. communism does not care about you as a consumer. individual consumptive choices are not a meaningful arena of political action. the socialist position is not "if there was a socialist reovlution in the usa, we would all stop eating bananas like good little boys", but rather, "if there's a socialist revolution in the countries where bananas are grown, then the availability of bananas in the usa is going to drop, and if you want to be an anti-imperialist in the imperial core you have to accept that".
(this is where the second argument i see about this, 'oh what are you catholic you want me to eat dirt like a monk?' reveals itself as a silly fucking solipsistic misunderstanding)
and again, let's note that the case of the banana can very easily be generalised out to coffee, chocolate, sugar, etc, and that it's not about individual consumptive habits, but about global economic systems. if you are donkey fucking kong and you eat 100 bananas a day i don't care and neither does anyone else. it's about trying to illustrate just one tiny mundane way in which economic imperialism makes the lives of people in the global north more convenient and simpler and so of course there is enormous pushback from people who attach moral value to this and therefore feel like the mean commies are personally calling them evil for eating a nutella or whatever which is frankly pretty tiring. Sad!
tldr: it is not imperialism when produce go on boat but it is imperialism when produce grown for dirt cheap by underpaid workers in a country with a devalued currency is then bought and exported and sold by usamerican companies creating huge amounts of economic value of which the nation in which the banana was grown, let alone the people who actually fucking grew it, don't see a cent -- and this is the engine behind the cheap, available-every-day-all-year-everywhere presence of bananas in the usa (and other places!)
veterans discounts are ljke at most 15%, you made yourself a bootlicking bootboy for 15%
"i have the 'tism" oh you have the autism that makes you defend boot boys, you have the autism that makes you regurgitate this myth that us service members are just poor widdle uwu beans who just had to go kill people in other countries to escape poverty. That autism, right.
Whilst I appreciate political defenses of socialist state censorship, I think that there is an equally important economic argument which doesn't get as much attention.
Media resources are limited, and any society with print, television, and film industries will need an agreed upon system for deciding which stories are to be produced and which aren't worth the paper. Capitalism obfuscates this issue by concentrating media resources in the hands of a few individuals, and then treating this question of which stories to produce as a personal or financial matter, rather than a political one. The bourgeoisie doesn't want you to ask whether Walt Disney should have unilateral say over how such a large swath of the country's film technology is used, they want you to fantasize about what you would do with that authority!
In a socialist society, however, where these resources are brought under the collective ownership of the people, this question must be answered democratically. Because the party and the state are the two main institutions whereby people decide upon the direction of society, it makes sense for these institutions to be given final say over media production. The act of censorship is nothing more than the class conscious elements of society determining how these limited resources are to be used. Nowhere in human history has there ever been a truly free press, because nowhere has there been unlimited resources for everyone to produce whatever media they want. The difference between socialist state censorship and all other forms of media resource allocation, is that this is the first to even attempt democracy.
When opposition newspapers are shut down and their printing presses confiscated, we tend to focus on the question of whether this repression is politically necessary/justified--but really the question we should be asking is why should this handful of people have the special privilage of printing whatever they want just because the CIA someone bought them a special toy? It's bourgeois individualism to say that anyone in possession of media resources should get to do whatever they want, and the way we overcome this is by expropriating these resources and bringing them under the society's collective ownership and democratic authority.
It's not even that anti-colonial violence is justified. I really don't give a shit about moral categorizations like this. What you have to understand is that for as long as there exists a settler colonial project, violence will occur. The existence of zionism produces a degree of violence which Palestinian nationalism is a response to. The difference between Israeli and Palestinian violence is that one of them perpetuates the existence of this conditions of permanent violence, whereas the other brings it closer to its conclusion. What anti-colonial violence really is is historically progressive.
Considering Palestinian violence led to a war they couldn't win, you're right, it does being it closer to its conclusion. Just not in the way you meant.
You really shouldn't be encouraging a course of action that has directly lead to the deaths of 60k people in a war their government started.
But hey, it's not your life. Not your family, your neighbors, you friends. So why the fuck would you care?
Also, it's not homegrown resistance, it's funded and supplied directly by the IRGC. It's kind of Iran's MO when it comes to war.
Your understandings of history are so shallow that even an insect could not be drowned
From the heart of Gaza: the story of the steadfastness of a family.
I am Amer, a Palestinian man from Gaza. I live with my wife and four children in indescribable conditions. Despite all this suffering, hope remains in our hearts.
My wife, my children, and I live in a single small tent. We lack the most basic necessities, and our daily lives are full of challenges: power outages, water shortages, and difficulty in securing food and medicine.
The situation in Gaza is tragic, and we face relentless conflict every single day. But I believe that strength lies in unity, and that support, however small, can transform our family's life. I launched this campaign as a plea for hope and an appeal for help to overcome this hardship. All we ask is for the opportunity to live with dignity for my children and my family.
Hello, my name is Amer Ahmed. I am 33 years old. My family and I live in Gaza. Our life was perfect before the war, but fate decreed that wa
If you hear our story, please share it and offer your support, whether through prayer, a kind word, or any other means. Together, we can make Gaza a better place.
#GazaIsResilient #SupportGaza #TrueStory #GazaFamily #HopeFromTheHeart
Hello my friend 🙏
✅️Vetted by @gazavetters, my number verified on the list is ( #672 )✅️
Hello! My name is Anna – I'm launching this campaign in support of my friend Shams and her family, who are in Gaza. Please consider helping,
Thank you all for supporting me in the past, but now I am in urgent need of your help.
I am about to start a new stage in my life — university — and I am also the one who supports my family. The war has ended, but the suffering has not.
Our home was destroyed, our house was bombed, and our dreams were stolen. I am here asking for your help.
I was also scammed by the first campaign organizer, so I created a new one. I am in desperate need of your support once again.
I need to start over — to support my family and myself, and to register for university.
Remember, no matter how small your donation is, it will make a difference in my life.
Do not hesitate or ignore — the war may have ended, but the suffering has just begun.
Please donate and help me 🙏🥹
