![morbidsymptoms:
fckyeaharthistory:
Judith Slaying Holofernes, Artemisia Gentileschi, 1611-12
Is this Artemisia’s way of saying, “Fuck with me and I will cut you”?
[Ms. Crip informs me that the head of Holofernes here is based on the face of her rapist, so I guess so.]
I’ve heard that Judith is a self-portrait, as well.Also, always reblog Artemisia.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4ahaq3y211qbo39mo1_1280.jpg)
Judith Slaying Holofernes, Artemisia Gentileschi, 1611-12
Is this Artemisia’s way of saying, “Fuck with me and I will cut you”?
[Ms. Crip informs me that the head of Holofernes here is based on the face of her rapist, so I guess so.]
I’ve heard that Judith is a self-portrait, as well.
Also, always reblog Artemisia.
My first criticism is that this theory is built on a faulty understanding of how capitalism works. It sees capitalist development as moving towards higher forms of production and labor. In Multitude, Negri and Hardt actually write that labor is becoming more “intelligent.” The assumption is that the capitalist organization of work and capitalist development are already creating the conditions for the overcoming of exploitation. Presumably, at one point, capitalism, the shell that keeps society going will break up and the potentialities that have grown within it will be liberated. There is an assumption that that process is already at work in the present organization of production. In my view, this is a misunderstanding of the effects of the restructuring produced by capitalist globalization and the neo-liberal turn.
What Negri and Hardt do not see is that the tremendous leap in technology required by the computerization of work and the integration of information into the work process has been paid at the cost of a tremendous increase of exploitation at the other end of the process. There is a continuum between the computer worker and the worker in the Congo who digs coltan with his hands trying to seek out a living after being expropriated, pauperized, by repeated rounds of structural adjustment and repeated theft of his community’s land and natural sources.
Silvia Federici, Precarious Labor: A Feminist Viewpoint (via spectaculardistractions)
Federici: 1.
Negri: 0.5
Hardt: ALWAYS 0
(via e-schatology)
Just reading this bollocks about something called “classism” from this links and resources post that was going around … ooft it’s a pile of shite.
The group that make it are called ‘class action’ and their logo has the subheading:
“building bridges across the class divide”
Which pretty much sums it up. They want to smooth out relations between the classes by getting rich people to befriend us, listen to our life experiences and ‘check their privileges. ‘
They want “a world without classism” which:
“treats people from every background, class status, and rank with dignity and respect;”
So, we still have to do al the work while they make all the profit, but we get treated nicely. Working class isn’t an identity, it’s a position in society - the fucking bottom. If you want us to stay at the bottom then you don’t respect us, and all the kind words in the world won’t change that. I don’t care if you feel guilty for being rich (you bloody well should) - I don’t want you to feel comfortable with my working classness because I don’t feel comfortable with it. I want to see an end to all classes, and yours fucking first, sunshine.
The only reason we should build a bridge between classes is to go drag the rich out of their homes and fuckin’ hang them on it.
Wait, this is how they’re using the word classism?
Okay, PSA to the world: classism is not like racism, sexism, ableism, or almost any other oppression. With those oppressions, the correction is to respect everybody on the spectrum and end institutionalized discrimination.
But for classism, the institutionalized discrimination manifests AS THE CLASS SYSTEM ITSELF. So anti-racist advocates want an end to racism rather than an end to human racial diversity (actually anyone who wants an end to human racial diversity is a racist), but anti-classists (the ones who are NOT using it in the way class-struggle-anarchism wrote about) WANT AN END TO CLASSES. Because it’s not just about ‘respect’ it’s about equality and standard of living, and you cannot have equality coexisting with a class system. If there is a top and a bottom, a more and a less, THERE IS NO EQUALITY.
So to anyone who’s been using the word ‘classism’ to mean ‘respect’ without actual change in the structure of society AND thinks this is all fine and dandy and all we should be reaching for…
NO. THINK AGAIN. THERE’S MORE TO LIFE AND EQUALITY THAN BEING NICE TO PEOPLE.
One quibble here - and I, obviously, totally agree with your point, is the issue of “abolishing the white race”, gender abolition, etc. Of course, I think a lot of this is semantic - abolishing race is destroying the hierarchy and the cross-class alliances, not eliminating cultures (though this shouldn’t lead us to pretend that ethnicity and race aren’t connected at this point, or that culture isn’t determined by material conditions) or eliminating differences in appearance; likewise, abolishing gender is about eliminating social roles and division of labor, not about getting everyone to express themselves in the same way.
Still, the fundamental point stands - classes are fundamentally antagonistic, and that antagonism needs to be heightened, whereas the antagonisms in race and gender serve the interests of capital. We need to struggle to overcome those antagonisms and racial and gendered hierarchies whereas we struggle as a class.
Just reading this bollocks about something called “classism” from this links and resources post that was going around … ooft it’s a pile of shite.
The group that make it are called ‘class action’ and their logo has the subheading:
“building bridges across…
same.
Fortunately, it has provided us with such a succinct state of everything that’s wrong with the concept of “classism”. It’s literally exactly what I always point out that entire concept leads to. And yeah, it’s absolutely right that it’s an anti-working class concept because it is fundamentally about preserving capitalism.
Happy Belated birthday Toussaint Louverture born May 20th 1743
François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture (ca.1743-1803) was the leader of the Haitian Revolution, the only successful slave insurrection. In 1791, upset by the revoking of The Declaration of the Rights of Man, slaves all across Saint-Domingue (modern day Haiti) began to rebel. Although free and prosperous at the time of the revolts, Louverture abandoned this comfort in order to use his military genius to lead a slave army that would defeat the French, Spanish, and English. In 1793, the French voted to end slavery in their colonies, happy with this decision, Louverture agreed to expel the Spanish and British for the French, and managed to do so in a period of 7 days. When Napoleon came to power he reinstated slavery, which caused the blacks of Saint-Domingue to rebel once more. By 1803, having grown sick of these revolts, Napoleon declared he would recognize Saint-Domingue as independent, so long as Louverture promised to retreat from public life afterwards. When it came time for them to meet for negotiations, Napoleon broke his deal and had Louverture arrested; he would die in jail. The damage had already been done, and the rebellions still raged on under the command of his 1st lieutenant Jean-Jacques Dessalines, and 6 months later Napoleon would grant them their freedom, birthing the first free black Republic in the new World.
Page 1 of 38
inspired by the work of SAUL BASS, ART GOODMAN and DAVE NAGATA.
hitchcock typeface by MATT TERICH. tumblr theme by MATTHEW BUCHANAN.
