My bf decided to make dinner for me, he asked me if I wanted a sandwich, and what bread I wanted. I told him i wanted him to use the baguette...
Peter Solarz

No title available
RMH
hello vonnie
Cosmic Funnies

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣

shark vs the universe
DEAR READER

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Claire Keane

JVL

★
NASA
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
dirt enthusiast
styofa doing anything
KIROKAZE
todays bird

#extradirty

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Egypt
seen from United States

seen from Canada
seen from Netherlands

seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from Malaysia

seen from Egypt

seen from United States
@depreussen
My bf decided to make dinner for me, he asked me if I wanted a sandwich, and what bread I wanted. I told him i wanted him to use the baguette...
new favorite baby Jesus pic secured
Look at him 🥹🥹🥹🥹
"I can excuse a man getting assassinated in front of his wife and young kids, but I draw the line at employers firing their employees for celebrating and gloating about it publicly on their social media accounts."
🤡🤡🤡
If your activism calls for ending a people, a nation, or a culture, that's not actually activism.
That's what activists used to fight.
How do you pronounce “Mr.”?
murr
meer
marr
mare
more
other…?
Thanks, Anon!
-submit your poll!-
Who the fuck are these people?
Tumblr users..
Speaking of the "Revolutionary" Left, I do find it amusing that whenever I (or anyone else) make a post on here expressing a concern about some aspect of revolution-fetishism - like "how will you prevent a dictator rising to power in the aftermath?" or "what about the marginalized groups who would be at the most risk if a civil war were to break out?", if I get a response from That Type of leftist at all it's not any actual attempt to address those concerns, but instead one or more of the following:
"That's not important, we'll figure that out after the guillotines"
"You're dividing the left! Left unity! Left unity! Never express concerns with your comrades!"
"Shut up, [lib/fascist/Zionist/centrist/all of the above]"
"You're an idiot. Read an essay by my favorite mass-murdering imperialist dictator. Idiot"
"You're an idiot. History doesn't mean anything, it could totally go different this time. Stop asking questions. Idiot."
"Well you see, the proletariat can only truly be radicalized to galvanize the dictatorship of the democratic-revolutionary intelligentsia when eschathological accelerationism has reached its conclusion and the petit-bourgeoise has immanentized its metatronic potential"
"Well you're Polish so you're biologically predisposed to fascism"
I wish hurting myself was a sufficient apology
Based
Why nobody likes Capitalism (including libertarians)
I'm a libertarian, pro-capitalism, but make no mistake, as a student of the Austrian school I reject the other forms of capitalism as both immoral and exploitative. Keynesians are the arch enemy of Market Liberalism, of which in my opinion deserve the full force of hatred from both the left and the right.
The same kind of people who are obsessed with GDP, a fundamentally flawed measure of an economies health. They solely care about seeing numbers go up and up, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is often used as shorthand for economic health, but it’s deeply misleading. They take the numbers in the local governments currency for instance, but the tricky thing here, is that when the value of the currency falls, it makes the GDP appear larger, simply because the value of the now cost inflated items has gone up. Inflation is good for GDP, but not for general population. This is why they love government spending, and especially war. The Military Industrial Complex, has evolved since its inception, and though Eisenhower warned about it in his farewell address, it is entirely plausible to say that Keynes is in part responsible for world war two, for inspiring Hitler's economic policy. Even after the cold war, when the threat of nuclear annihilation faded, and government spenders needed to find something else to do in order to keep the line going upwards, simply decided instead of intervening in conflicts all across the world (wars for oil), they would enforce a safety net for companies 'too big to fail'. Markets rise and fall—that’s natural. Like ecosystems, they adapt and correct. Intervening only delays the inevitable, often making things worse. Think of evolution and nature, when an animal population grows, food declines until its population declines back to normal. during that time, other species may suffer or thrive. When the government decides to intervene to prevent a company from collapsing, they are taking food (your money, through taxes) and giving it to companies (bail outs). I'm not saying the economy is ZERO SUM like socialists and Georgists, but I am saying that the government prefers to take money from the poor, or food from the hungry, to expand a bloated market/corporation/class. In 2008 when the housing market crashed, the government stepped in and undid the correction. Housing prices didn't fall and stay corrected, they rose back up, and haven't fallen since. How can you afford to buy a home when your purchasing power is outpaced? Now, people can’t afford homes, and they act surprised. COVID only made it worse. Rent moratoriums forced small landlords to sell to corporate giants, who then jacked up prices the moment protections lifted. Even if you think less landlords is a good thing, understand that power concentrated is never a good thing.
We were supposed to learn from Standard Oil. Clearly, we didn’t. Its not just homes either of course, we're starting to see the effect of government intervention on Colleges with the student debt crisis, which was incentivized after years of loaning money to students, only so colleges could increase the rates as people could afford to pay, except the people had to pay it back. Groceries skyrocketed if they were even available when people were forced to stay home and given stimulus checks. Giving money for free, increases the money supply. when the supply of money expanded but the supply of groceries did not, scarcity drove prices to rise, and they haven't gone down across the board as easily, because if you don't have the money, its still in the supply, just in the hands of the wealthy and asset holding.
This country needs to kill its "too big to fail" addiction. Let the weak fall. Let the reckless collapse. Only then can real competition thrive.
Corporations no longer care about dividends and instead chase endless growth, because they’ve turned the market into an asset extraction machine. Investors take loans against stocks they’ll never sell, because the risks are meaningless. If it all crashes? No worries. The bank either seizes assets or calls on Uncle Sam to save the day.
No wonder the average American feels stuck. There are fewer opportunities. College doesn’t open the doors it promised. Student debt is astronomical—again, inflated by government “aid” that only fed tuition hikes.
We don’t have a wage problem. We have an inflation problem. If wages were the sole cause of inflation, that would be an issue only for those with savings accounts. Its not that raising wages on their own would hurt, It would absolutely help. Simply increasing regulations, kills competition, reducing the incentive to raise wages. Unemployment is desirable for them because that allows them to pay less, if not in your hourly, they can cut labor and give you work for two people instead, while you have to be thankful to even have a job. I can empathize with the socialists who genuinely do have dreams of being free from the corporate yoke, yet it pains me to see people then advocate for an alteration to the environment, that poisons their own prospects. I can empathize with the conservative investors who've dreamt and lived the American dream, but have been asleep so long, they think that selling their house makes them rich, when all it means is their savings can buy them less and they might not actually be able to afford retirement or pass anything onto their children. I can empathize with people, the producers and the consumers, because everyone exists at both sides. Yet both sides are entirely unwilling to understand what is going on or how we got here, or at least even consider potential consequences of their actions, let alone a response. I’m so fucking glad that, for once, they’re willing to admit the economy is in trouble. As stupid as the new tariffs are, at least they are willing to admit it. I can only hope, that the left and right are willing to look at it for once. The left because they can savor the failure of 'capitalism' and the right so they can even ignorantly, cast of their obsession with gdp, under the idea 'made in America better' because well at least those idiots are willing to spend the extra money, and someone gets paid. If both sides can abandon glorification of GDP as a metric, a metric even the soviet union attempted to compete in and we see the People's Republic of China (warlord state I refuse to recognize), then maybe at least my country can have a slight chance at improving the quality of life instead of decreasing. Until Keynesianism is rejected, we’ll remain trapped in the worst form of capitalism: one where corporations privatize the gain and socialize the loss.
Cut the red tape, break the chains, whatever. Just Don't tread on me.
Just a reminder to everyone, Jesus loves you
You know what i find absolutely irritating about the modern 'literature' of the left? The sheer amount of ignorant slop that gets lauded as a "wonderful critique of capitalism." I understand not everyone likes capitalism, you can have that oppinion, it's okay. But if you’re going to critique it, at least try understand the topic you are writing about. So much of what I see could be decent if the writers actually bothered reading their own work before patting themselves on the back.
A lot of dystopias focus on workers suffering, and sure, suffering is is punchy, it gets attention. However when the authors only focus is suffering, rather than the system, it's hard to call it capitalism. It’s not even cronyism. It’s just needless suffering.
They justify everything as 'profit', when making sadistic decisions that actively hurt profits. Killing workers without a care? Providing 'un'safety equipment? How is a capitalist supposed to exploit labor if the labor force is dead? If work stops every other day to replace employees?
Some of these fictional capitalists don’t even seem to want profit. they just like suffering. Honestly it could be a good story, if the writer actually thought about what they were talking about: power. You want to critique elites? Class structure? Hierarchy? Go for it! But the moment you say "in the name of profit" when it should be "in the name of control" or "because they’re sadistic," you’re not critiquing capitalism—you’re just writing nonsense. If my eyes roll any further back, they might detach.
Write what you want, but actually think about what you’re saying. Capitalism can be critiqued there’s plenty of real-world exploitation and you don’t even have to dig deep to find it.
But when your "capitalists" are so antithetical to the identity they’re supposed to represent, it’s just bad writing. Plain and simple.
It’s absolutely possible to write a story where capitalism is a means to achieve power and do evil. That’s a valid, compelling interesting angle! It can spark interesting dilemmas and even make actual capitalists reconsider certain aspects of the system. But if your characters are one-dimensional, it’s bad writing. And if they’re not even one-dimensional?
You’re a bad writer
top 3 places to bleed out:
1. the snow
2. your lover/best friend/homoerotic comrade’s arms
3. bathroom floor
🫂🫂🫂🫂
🫂