macklin celebrini has autism
TMBGareOK. The Official They Might Be Giants tumblr
No title available
Color Me Curious
★

gracie abrams
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
YOU ARE THE REASON
art blog(derogatory)
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Show & Tell
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
almost home
The Bowery Presents
Claire Keane

Love Begins

#extradirty
untitled
Cosimo Galluzzi

No title available

seen from Ecuador
seen from Bolivia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands

seen from France

seen from Germany

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Peru
seen from China
seen from Colombia

seen from Argentina

seen from Japan

seen from Australia
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
@pinsforfingerz
During 1935 and 1936 a new form of shock-work has developed in the form of “Stakhanovism.” In essence it is a very simple story. A certain coal-miner, by the name of Stakhanov, working in a pit in the Donets Basin in the Ukraine, reorganized the work of the group of which he was leader, so that output was greatly increased. His pit newspaper gave the matter publicity, it was taken up as a “scoop” by other newspapers — for the U.S.S.R. needs coal — and the rationalization proposals of Stakhanov became known throughout the world. Many managers and engineers did not approve of Stakhanovism, for two main reasons. First, they felt that the wholesale reorganization of methods of work was their job, not that of the rank-and-file miners. The Soviet Government Press, however, immediately attacked such a view, pointing out that the welfare of the U.S.S.R. depends on the maximum expression of personal initiative by all workers. Secondly, in certain cases the managers and technicians objected to workers reorganizing their methods of work, because their wages then rose considerably above those of the technical and managerial staff! This attitude was also attacked in the Press, and the Stakhanov movement has spread throughout the country. The Stakhanov movement, and the publicity and encouragement given to Stakhanov and his followers, stimulates every worker, however unskilled, to become a rationalizer, an organizer of his or her own labor. In this way every worker feels encouraged to utilize brain as well as hand. Large numbers of workers become more skilled and earn higher wages. There is a general rise in both material and cultural standards as a result. Further, the leading Stakhanov workers themselves are asked to become teachers of their methods. Stakhanov has been invited back to his native village, to use his organizing power to raise production in the collective farm. He also spends much time visiting different coal-mines, teaching the workers there how to reorganize their work for greater efficiency. A rank-and-file miner has become a technical expert and an engineer. And this is happening all the time in the Soviet Union today, affecting hundreds of thousands of workers.
Pat Sloan, Soviet Democracy, 1937
One of my favourite fun facts is that the DPRK had their own Stahkanovite movement inspired by the mythical Chollima. This in turn inspired the song ‘Chollima on the wing’ by the Pochonbo Electric Ensemble, which is still one of the most recognizable songs from the DPRK today.
"Bush lied about Iraq, Biden lies about Palestine"
Sticker spotted in New York
go read Socialism and The Churches by Rosa Luxembourg!!!!! Such a good piece of literature and it focuses on the proto-communist history of Christianity, very enlightening and very cool ❤️
Page 77 of Making Stuff and Doing Things by Kyle Bravo
How to Wheatpaste by Anonymous
Individualism is rubbish. The individual is an entirely powerless unit; it could not give birth to itself, cannot raise itself, educate itself, or change the world itself. It is entirely a product of the people and environment around it. To emphasize the individual is an error.
It's a hard pill to swallow for Westerners brought up in an individualistic mindset, but the reality is that you have never really done anything by yourself. Your actions and very nature are defined by your relations with outside people, the land, and material things.
As housing costs and rents skyrocket, a significant number of MPs are trying to profit through investment in real estate.
Throughout this pandemic, Passage has been publishing articles and courses documenting how Canadians are suffering due to the housing crisis.
Houses are too expensive for most of us to buy. Skyrocketing rents are forcing us out of our communities or into smaller and worse living spaces at higher costs. Some of us are even ending up on the streets, as homelessness is on the rise.
Of course, though, not everyone has been suffering. People who own property have been watching the value of their investments surge, and maybe even scooping up more of it to the detriment of those in need. Landlords have recently been able to jack up rents with little resistance. And the financialization of housing, where corporations that view it as a tradeable stock or asset as opposed to a human right and treat it accordingly, has been able to spread unimpeded.
So where do our political representatives fit into all of this? Do our members of parliament have more in common with us, or the landlord class?
According to recently released research I’ve put together over the past few months, nearly 40 per cent of MPs are landlords and/or invested in real estate in some way. [...]
Continue Reading.
Tagging: @politicsofcanada, @vague-humanoid
No matter which party we vote for the proletariat will always lose.
Im a little late but anyway…, WHY WONT THIS MAN JUST FUCKING DIE ALREADY. He’s like a mf cockroach 🤢
When wealth is passed off as merit, bad luck is seen as bad character. This is how capitalists justify punishing the sick and the poor. But poverty is neither a crime nor a character flaw. Stigmatize those who let people die, not those who struggle to live.
From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of any particle of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, like boni patres familias, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition.
- Karl Marx, Capital Vol. III Part VI Ch. 46
Reblog daily for health and prosperity