#also absolutely not the only part of succession fanon that i disagree with but you get me.

[shivroy]

the only part of succession fanon that i disagree with is the color of the portal. i think that shit should be RED

[moonlitgleek]

@solareclairart reblogged this post and added:

I disagree strongly with a lot of this criticism. In book dorne, marriage was not a necessity. All the sand snakes are considered true daughters under dorne law.  Targaryans also married multiple wives often. It was northern law that forbade unmarried women and bastard born. I think Rhaegar never abandoned Elia. I think she believed the prophecy as well. I truly believe that he married Lyanna to pacify northern lords. Elia is a daughter of the sun. Lyanna was a winter wolf. Together, they created ice and fire. I believe now it will be Targaryen, Stark, and Lannister. The gold lion standing in as sun, snow for ice, and all three with varying amounts of dragon blood. This is also true of Elia who had weaker Targaryen lineage. I think the prophecy didn’t fulfill before because there wasn’t strong enough dragon blood in Elia. If Joanna Lannister was impregnated with the mad king, all three would have a dragon father and lineage to the first men and children of the forest in the men.

Oh boy. There is a lot to unpack here. I’m gonna break it down because this is a rather stunning mix of outright incorrect information, some breathtaking stereotyping and racist misconceptions, and wrong theories. No, really, they are wrong. Tyrion is not a Targ.

Let’s take this from the top.

In book dorne, marriage was not a necessity. All the sand snakes are considered true daughters under dorne law.  

What do you think Dornish law is exactly? Because literally the only difference between Dorne and the rest of Westeros is that Dorne employs absolute primogeniture (and a couple of rights like the right to keep their princely title.) That’s it. Law in Dorne is not at all different from other regions in Westeros, especially when we’re talking about matters of marriage and heirs because that stuff affects the line of succession which is crucial in a feudal society.

The context you’re looking for wrt the treatment of bastards is cultural (and social), not legal. Dorne is very different in the way they treat bastards, that’s true, but they are still not giving them the same legal rights as the trueborn. I have no idea where you got the idea that the Sand Snakes are "considered true daughters under dorne law”. Yeaaah, no. That’s patently not true. The Sand Snakes might have gotten raised akin to trueborn children, but so have Jon Snow, and no one is arguing that he was considered a true son under the law. The Sand Snakes are bastards, hence the Sand part. They are not considered trueborn. They are acknowledged as Oberyn’s daughters and treated with respect as the daughters of a prince of House Martell, and as Dorne generally does not stigmatize bastards, but they do not have the same legal rights as trueborn children: they do not bear their father’s name, they are not considered princesses of House Martell, they do not have the right to inherit, etc. There is nothing in Dornish law that says otherwise, or that gives illegitimate offspring any legal rights.

More importantly, the idea that marriage isn’t a necessity in Dorne is ludicrous. Whatever on earth gave you that impression? No, let me guess: Oberyn Martell. Fandom just loves to take the example of Oberyn and stereotype the entire Dornish culture based on him. Oberyn wasn’t married so no one had to get married in Dorne. Oberyn made a casual comment about sleeping with others while he was in a committed relationship with Ellaria so all the Dornish are accustomed to cheating on their significant others and don’t care if they have paramours on the side (not that Oberyn was cheating. Some are just fond of ignoring the fact that he repeatedly made comments about “sharing” with Ellaria. Ellaria consented. Ellaria participated. They invited people to their bed.) Gee, I wonder why people act as if Oberyn is the representative of the entire Dornish culture, even going to unprecedented measures to ignore the actual text because “well, Oberyn did X” fit their racist stereotypes better. Stop treating a person of color as the sole representative of his culture, and stop treating the only non-white culture that actually has a proper presence in the series as a monolith society.

(Grumbles at GRRM and his skewered presentation of the Dornish and heavy use of the exotic-erotic trope. You haven’t helped matters any, George. Good lord.)

But let’s talk about Dorne and about Oberyn. Dorne has a positive attitude towards sex, culturally permits having paramours and does not frown upon children born out of wedlock, but that does not mean that having paramours is the rule of the land in Dorne, or that it’s the baseline convention. It’s just allowed without derision or scorn. Dorne is a feudal principality, they adhere to the Faith of the Seven just like the majority of Westeros, they are governed by only slightly different inheritance laws, and the difference has nothing to do with the status of trueborn vs bastard children. Legitimacy is crucial to the integrity of line of succession and to the laws of inheritance, but you just randomly decided that nah, marriage is optional there? Okay, care to explain this:

Arianne Martell had grown up expecting that one day she would wed some great lord of her father's choosing. That was what princesses were for, she had been taught . . . though, admittedly, her uncle Oberyn had taken a different view of matters. "If you would wed, wed," the Red Viper had told his own daughters. "If not, take your pleasure where you find it. There's little enough of it in this world. Choose well, though. If you saddle yourself with a fool or a brute, don't look to me to rid you of him. I gave you the tools to do that for yourself."

Or how the text disproves the idea that there is absolutely no difference between the Sand Snakes and trueborn Martells, or generally between bastards and trueborn in Dorne.

The freedom that Prince Oberyn allowed his bastard daughters had never been shared by Prince Doran's lawful heir. Arianne must wed; she had accepted that. Drey had wanted her, she knew; so had his brother Deziel, the Knight of Lemonwood. Daemon Sand had gone so far as to ask for her hand. Daemon was bastard-born, however, and Prince Doran did not mean for her to wed a Dornishman.

Oberyn took a different approach with his own life and his own daughters. He made a decision concerning his life and he encouraged his daughters to do the same. He gave them the freedom to wed if they wished to but not the expectation that they would. But Oberyn was presented by the text as somewhat of a maverick, a nonconformist even within Dorne itself. He could afford to do that because he was not heir to Dorne and there was little chance that he’d ever inherit. He did not have a responsibility to provide trueborn heirs for House Nymeros Martell, and so he had significant freedom due to that fact. But heirs have a responsibility to marry and produce lawful heirs. Plus, Oberyn is one person, why is his example the one people are laser-focused on but they ignore Doran and Elia, the Unnamed Princess of Dorne and Nymeria of Ny Sar, Mariah and Maron Martell, Arianne, Quentyn and Trystane, and the countless trueborn Dornish characters we met over the course of the story? Why did all these people marry if marriage was not a necessity?

Marriage is as important in Dorne as in the other regions in Westeros with both religious and legal weight. Dorne is just another region in Westeros that is still governed by Westerosi convention, customs and religion, they just have some of their own inspired by the Rhoynish. The social treatment of bastards is infinitely better in Dorne than outside it, but their legal and political standing remains the same, the distinction between bastards and trueborn through surnames remains the same, even some restrictions remain the same. Daemon Sand can be a lover to Arianne but he can never be her husband. His social and political standing would never allow it. Likewise, I suspect the reason Oberyn did not marry Ellaria, his lover of 14 years that he evidently loved very much, was because of her bastard-birth, because even princes can only bend the rules so much. 

Enough with fanon myths that bastardize the information we have about Dorne and turn it into these weird arguments that are always used to justify Rhaegar’s actions. Not that I can see how "marriage was not a necessity in Dorne” explains anything because Elia was Rhaegar’s wife and the mother of his two children, the Iron Throne was her children’s inheritance, or do the Dornish not care about inheritance as well? And if you mean to imply the old “Elia was okay with it because she is Dornish” argument, fuck that noise.

Targaryans also married multiple wives often. 

Yes, that is correct, though often is not the word I’d use for two recorded polygamous marriages. Nevertheless, that means there is a precedent to a Targaryen taking multiple wives, which I think is probably what Rhaegar proposed to Lyanna to get her to go with him willingly (as much as the action can be described as willing because there are still consent issues at play here). I think that Rhaegar and Lyanna probably wed in front of a heart tree on the Isle of Faces. That, however, does not mean that the marriage is either valid or legal.

We need to look at the historical context of Targaryen polygamy before we discuss Rhaegar’s ability to take another wife to understand the chances that the realm would accept that marriage. The first thing to note about this subject is that polygamy was unconventional even when Aegon the Conqueror did it, before he started his conquest of Westeros.

It had long been the custom amongst the dragonlords of Valyria to wed brother to sister, to keep the bloodlines pure, but Aegon took both his sisters to bride. By tradition, he was expected to wed only his older sister, Visenya; the inclusion of Rhaenys as a second wife was unusual, though not without precedent. 

Both polygamy and incest are sins in the eyes of the Faith of the Seven, the majority religion in Westeros. The Faith tolerated both in the case of Aegon on account of his dragons whose prowess was just recently demonstrated in the Conquest. As GRRM says:

... the extent to which the Targaryen kings could defy convention, the Faith, and the opinions of the other lords decreased markedly after they no longer had dragons. If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want, and people are less likely to object.      

Aegon had converted to the Faith of the Seven and taken measures to assimilate to Westerosi culture, winning him the support of the Starry Sept. However, upon Aegon’s death, the Faith showed that they would not tolerate the same practices from his son(s). 

Maegor shocked the realm in 39 AC by announcing that he had taken a second wife—Alys of House Harroway—in secret. He had wed her in a Valyrian ceremony officiated by Queen Visenya for want of a septon willing to wed them. The public outcry was such that Aenys was finally forced to exile his brother.

Maegor’s bigamous marriage to Alys Harroway was the start of the rift between the Faith and the crown, one that did not heal despite Aenys’ attempts, and was later compounded by Aenys himself marrying his two eldest to each other, ultimately leading to the Faith denouncing the Targaryens. The Faith Militant uprising during Maegor’s reign followed as his continuing polygamous marriages raised the tension and Maegor escalated the situation (because he is Maegor) by blatant tyranny and brutal burning of thousands of Warrior’s Sons and Poor Fellows.

So the history tied to Targaryen polygamy is dark and bloody. Maegor was the last recorded Targaryen polygamists, bar some rumors that Daemon Blackfyre meant to take his half-sister Daenerys as a second wife after his planned seizing of the throne from Daeron II, but the truth of the matter died with Daemon himself on the Redgrass field. While Jaehaerys I’s conciliatory efforts succeeded in defanging the Faith after the bloody conflict with Maegor, and won the Targaryens the exemption that permitted them their incestuous marriages, polygamy was never practiced again. Which means that the precedent that Rhaegar may have intended to invoke 1) happened over 200 years ago when the Targaryens had the undeniable advantage of dragons on their side, and 2) sparked a rebellion that resulted in the death of thousands, and thus got heavily entwined in the minds of the Westerosi with the tyranny of Maegor. Which utterly complicates any attempt to get a marriage to Lyanna recognized.

Now, we can argue that Rhaegar planned to convince, pressure and\or bribe the High Septon to declare a second marriage valid (though we have no evidence to suggest so, and though getting the High Septon to approve a post-fact marriage done in front of a heart tree would be extremely unlikely indeed), but in the absence of such a legalization, Rhaegar and Lyanna’s “marriage” would remain illegal and invalid in the eyes of the Faith. And no, that crap on the show where the High Septon was able to Apparate to Dorne and back before anyone noticed his absence, and where he approved something that would bring significant consequences to both himself and the realm so damn easily, is not happening. That’s preposterous.

It was northern law that forbade unmarried women and bastard born.

You seem to think that the cultural divide that separates the North and Dorne from the rest of the realm means that the North and Dorne are governed by alien laws that are completely removed from the rest of Westeros when the truth is that the differences are not that grand or that many, and most of them are cultural with no legal bearing.

Anyways.

This is not something that is unique to the North. Bastards are stigmatized everywhere in Westeros, with the exception of Dorne; they are perceived as treacherous and untrustworthy and a perpetual danger to their trueborn siblings’ inheritance, the girls are assumed to be lusty and wanton and easy. This ain’t a mark of those “Northern savages”, literally every region in Westeros, bar Dorne, thinks that way. The patriarchy, naturally, absolves the men, chalking it up to them “having needs” while literally teaching women to expect their husbands to father bastards. However, a noblewoman who loses her maidenhead before marriage or, god forbid, bears a bastard is swiftly punished, looked down upon and often has to marry so far beneath her station because the scandal of bearing a bastard tanked her hand’s worth. Delena Florent had to marry a household knight after bearing a bastard son to Robert Baratheon. Lollys Stokeworth fell pregnant after being gang-raped but in a rather remarkable pout of victim-blaming, she was derided for it, and was married off to the lowborn sellsword Bronn. Hoster Tully forcibly aborted Lysa to prevent the news about her lost maidenhead and her pregnancy from getting out. Jon Arryn’s niece, the daughter of Alys Arryn and Elys Waynwood, joined the Silent Sisters after she was seduced by a sellsword and her bastard died in infancy. None of these women are Northern.

As for bastards, the prevailing social convention for them is to be sent away, if they are even acknowledged in first place. Jon Snow and the Sand Snakes are the exception, not the rule. This is a story where Mya Stone, the king’s bastard, spends her time guiding mules in the Vale in service to House Royce of the Gates of the Moon. Her half-brother Edric Storm had a much better fate being raised as a ward of Renly in Storm’s End but that’s because his mother is a noblewoman (the aforementioned Delena Florent) and because his conception was a public affair since Robert deflowered Delena in Stannis’ marriage bed. Falia Flowers, bastard daughter of Lord Humfrey Hewett of Oakenshield, was made a servant to her half-sisters and her father’s wife. Even when the bastards are relatively treated well or belong to Great Houses, we still see the prevailing social stigma in how Sybelle Spicer, herself derided for descending from upjumped merchants as she is the granddaughter of a spice trader and an Essosi maegi, was thoroughly disgusted at the idea of marrying her son to Joy Hill, bastard daughter of Gerion Lannister. And these are all noble bastards, claimed or at least acknowledged by their noble parent. 

The prejudice against bastards is institutional in Westeros, supported by holy scripture and widely spread. The nobility frowns upon bastards and regards them with suspicion, and the Faith preaches about their ill-make. Here’s what the Faith of the Seven, the majority religion in Westeros, says about bastardy and even legitimized bastards as told by the would-be King Aegon V Targaryen:

"The old High Septon told my father that king's laws are one thing, and the laws of the gods another," [Egg] said stubbornly. "Trueborn children are made in a marriage bed and blessed by the Father and the Mother, but bastards are born of lust and weakness, he said. King Aegon decreed that his bastards were not bastards, but he could not change their nature. The High Septon said all bastards are born to betrayal . . . Daemon Blackfyre, Bittersteel, even Bloodraven. Lord Rivers was more cunning than the other two, he said, but in the end he would prove himself a traitor, too. The High Septon counseled my father never to put any trust in him, nor in any other bastards, great or small." 

Tell me again how it’s Northern law that bans bastards.

I think Rhaegar never abandoned Elia. I think she believed the prophecy as well. 

Rhaegar left Elia in her sickbed, shortly after she nearly died birthing Aegon, to go pursue Lyanna, and that’s after publicly humiliating her and dealing a hit to her political worth in the eyes of the biggest possible gathering of lords. I don’t think he considered that Aerys could recall her and the children to King’s Landing but that’s, at best, a terrible oversight on his part since he knew fully well that his father was paranoid and fearful of what he, Rhaegar, might do. Rhaegar drew Aerys’ eyes to the Starks at Harrenhal then went and caused a political crisis by disappearing with Lyanna. It was a given that Aerys would be quick to seek an insurance against his wayward son who disappeared to who-knows-where doing who-knows-what and conveniently left his wife and children behind on Dragonstone within the Mad King’s reach, the same Mad King who already disdained Elia and her “Dornish-smelling” daughter, and regarded Dorne with suspicion for the heck of it. Perfect plan. Two thumbs up, Rhaegar.

I continue to be bewildered as to where the belief that Elia believed in the prophecy comes from. She knew of the prophecy but we have no indication that she believed it or was willing to risk her own children for it. Why on earth would she do that? What shred of evidence do we have to suggest this? I mean, if Elia really did believe the prophecy, shouldn’t Oberyn have at least heard about it? Oberyn and Elia were as close as twins and she trusted him implicitly. He was present at Harrenhal and bristled at the public insult to his sister. He was still (rightfully) bristling at Rhaegar 15 years later. But if Elia knew, wouldn’t she have tried to convince Oberyn of the validity of the prophecy, or at the very least indicated that she was alright with what Rhaegar had done? Wouldn’t she cite the prophecy to convince her brother to let it go? Wouldn’t she have tried to use her connections to find Rhaegar a more appropriate place for Lyanna than the Tower of Joy, considering this was her own kingdom he was taking Lyanna to? Wouldn’t she, at the very least, know fully well that Aegon was the Prince who was Promised and thus needn’t ask Rhaegar for a song for him?

I hate that argument, that unfounded assumption that of course Elia believed in the prophecy just because Rhaegar did. People generally do not buy into legends about a zombie apocalypse and prophetic figures and dragons returning that easily, especially since the entire Targaryen dynasty was nearly wiped out chasing that dream. No one was going to put stock in long lost lore and prophetic dreams and obscure scrolls after that, not without compelling evidence. Why would Elia be okay with being publicly humiliated and put, along with her children, on the line for a prophecy? Why would she be cool with Rhaegar carrying off a teenager to use as an incubator for a savior? Why does that argument even exists? ffs.

 I truly believe that he married Lyanna to pacify northern lords. 

This has got to be a joke! Please tell me this is a joke!

Dude, Rhaegar vanished with Lyanna for months. He made a mess and left the Starks to deal with the fallout, left them with no choice but to go to Aerys, then returned after Aerys killed over half a dozen nobles, including the Lord Paramount of the North and his heir, only to take up arms against Northern lords. How did you arrive at “pacify the Northern lords” from that? The guy carried off a daughter of House Stark to the other side of the continent to impregnate her. He defied convention and every chivalric rule and publicly besmirched her honor and that of House Stark by pretty much framing her as a royal mistress at Harrnehal. He created a political crisis and fled without sparing two thoughts to the consequences. He declared for his father and took up arms against the rebels knowing fully well that his father committed a crime, and being more than willing to kill the people who were injured by his and his father’s actions so he could retain his crown. What part of that even hints at an attempt for conciliation?

I believe now it will be Targaryen, Stark, and Lannister. The gold lion standing in as sun, snow for ice, and all three with varying amounts of dragon blood. This is also true of Elia who had weaker Targaryen lineage. I think the prophecy didn’t fulfill before because there wasn’t strong enough dragon blood in Elia. If Joanna Lannister was impregnated with the mad king, all three would have a dragon father and lineage to the first men and children of the forest in the men.

Tyrion is not a secret Targaryen. Tyrion is not a secret Targaryen. TYRION IS NOT A SECRET TARGARYEN. GRRM himself said that third head of the dragon needn’t have Targaryen blood. Kill that theory with wildfire and throw the ashes from the Hightower. The narrative is not going to make Tywin Lannister correct in his rejection of Tyrion as his son, neither is it validating his ableism and abuse or handing him his heart’s desire posthumously. Tywin wanted nothing more than for Tyrion to not be his blood, and the narrative isn’t giving it to him. The point of the story is that Tyrion is Tywin’s son and how he has to struggle to define who he is outside of his father’s brutal legacy, how he has to reject the Lannister ideology and legacy of blood and revenge to turn his attention to the true fight in the North. Tyrion being a Targaryen undermines his story, just as Jon being legitimate undermines his.

And enough with the stuff about Elia. She didn’t have enough Targaryen blood! She couldn’t have a third child for the prophecy! The only thing I see in these arguments is an insistence to imply that Elia was somehow lacking and that it was her that prevented the fulfillment of the prophecy. What a load of crap. You do realize that you’re buying into Cersei’s and Jon Connington’s rhetoric about Elia, correct? That you’re adopting their ableist and racist view of her and treating it as a fact, building a theory on the implication that Elia simply was not enough. Don’t be Cersei, don’t be Jon Connington. Be better.

It does not matter how “strong” Elia’s Targaryen blood was or wasn’t, the prophecy wasn’t going to come true with her children anyway..... because Rhaegar got it wrong. That’s the whole point; Rhaegar understood everything about this prophecy wrong. Aegon was not the Prince who was Promised. Rhaenys wasn’t one of the heads of the dragons. The three heads of the dragon aren’t even siblings, and not all of them are Targaryens. This has nothing with the potency of Elia’s Targaryen blood (and fyi, not even the current Targaryens have that much Valyrian blood anyway). The fact of the matter is that Aegon and Rhaenys couldn’t fulfill the prophecy no more than Rhaegar or Viserys could, simply because they weren’t the figures described in it. It had nothing to do with how much Targaryen blood they had, or how strong it was. I mean, Rhaegar and Viserys had as much Targ blood as Dany, why weren’t they two of the heads of the dragon?

Oh, and just for the record, Rhaenys and Aegon did have First Men blood, through Betha Blackwood and Dyanna Dayne , Rhaegar’s great grandmother, and great great grandmother respectively. That magical genetic makeup of Targaryen\First Men blood you’re talking about? Yup, they had it too. They also had more Targaryen blood than Jon.  

[viglianogis4680-blog]

Alienated Labour: The general concept Marx implements in his section on the Alienation of Labour makes clear sense to me except for one aspect. The aspect of “the worker becomes poorer the richer is his production”, from page 86, still perplexes me. I understand it in the sense that, the laborer becomes more and more exploited the more commodities he/she creates, BUT does this only apply to people within certain economic/social strata’s? While I get that generally Marx is contrasting the bourgeois and the proletariat class, I feel like there is a lack of critical differentiation within the proletariat class itself. For example, there are poor white’s as well as poor black’s, both are exploited for their labor, but does one have greater social mobility than the other, more specifically, does one have a greater chance of becoming “successful” from their labor…absolutely. So did Marx not consider the different sub-classes within the working class category, or was it intentional to group the working class as a whole?  

Critique of Hegel’s Dialectic and Philosophy: I think it’s interesting that Marx labels Feuerbach’s great achievement as overcoming the old philosophy of the Hegelian Dialectic. Specifically, with #1, relating philosophy to religion, saying philosophy is simply religion rationalized, then by association would be another form of human alienation. That idea really encapsulates the radical criticism of social paradigms and structures. The belief that the societal structures that alienate us and inhibit our critical thinking, are also accompanied by the vary fields and disciplines that people use to liberate others from these structures, they somehow act in a way that liberates but also further alienates and enslaves us. Also, on page 110, when Marx begins talking about absolute knowledge and objectivity, it reminds me a lot of Michel Foucault and his beliefs on knowledge and power, and how the two are used as forms of social control through societal institutions.

Theses on Feuerbach: Marx second disagreement with Feuerbach is another similarity in my eyes between him and Foucault, and the idea of knowledge and power, which I will expand on. “Man must prove the truth”, but who is “man” referring to? Man refers to people in specific positions of power. Who has to prove the truth? The African-American teen that was unarmed walking home from school. Who doesn’t have to prove the truth? The cop that shot him dead. Only people who lack in power and “authority” have to generally prove the truth, people in high positions of power do not have to prove their logic and thinking, the current social position they are in constitutes unintellectual compliance and belief.

German Ideology: In The Premisses of the Materialist Method, Marx talks about the distinction between humans and animals. I strongly disagree with the general language used to differentiate humans and animals, and I think it lacks not only radical but basic scientific thought. Marx differentiates humans and animals by “consciousness, by religion, or anything else you like”. I’m not sure what he’s implying by “anything else you like”, but if he’s binding that with religion and insinuating animals have not created any sort of social construct, then he’s ignoring immense facts about the animal kingdom, (wolf-packs, gorilla herd hierarchies). In Private Property and Communism, the entire first paragraph is ridden with problematic views, while I am taking into account the time period this was written in, it can’t go unnoticed. Assuming the definition of “family” equals “a wife, and children” is gag-worthy. In Communism and History, on page 189, I’m unsure if Marx is stating that “productive forces, capital funds, and social forms of intercourse” are human nature, or qualities that society has deeply entrenched to the point that it is perceived as “human nature”? In Communist Revolution, the idea is presented that in this movement, it “overturns the basis of all earlier relations of production and intercourse”. This is interesting to me because I always thought of a communist revolution as something trying to reverse and heal the wounds caused by capitalism, but this entry makes me think it’s far greater than that. It’s saying a communist revolution is trying to negate everything that’s happened since the damn Neolithic Revolution, and that concept in itself is radical as hell.

Hegel for Beginners: This outline of Hegel’s dialectic is helpful, but I don’t understand one thing. Hegel states that absolute knowledge can only be attained at the end-point of the think process, but if the think-process is also marked by negation, then what would he constitute as the true end-point?

The Fragment of Machines: This piece, specifically under [693] really touches base with the concepts from the section “Alienation Labour”. My only question is, Marx conceptualized the shift from man power to machinery as a further alienation, and dehumanizing process, making the human’s work almost unnecessary; so how is it the capitalist class is able to keep the work of the man, as well as the machines? I’m thinking more in the modern sense, with more advanced technology as well. Also as a side-note, I find the analogies and personification of machinery and humans used in this section to be very provocative.

Capital: Something that came to mind while reading the section Commodities: Use-Value and Exchange-Value, is the slippery definition of what a commodity is. A question that came into my mind was, is a sex-worker a commodity? This coincidentally directly relates to the next section, The Fetishism of Commodities. This section also shares an interesting concept to me, the idea of social product. In the Sale Of Labour Power section, on page 491, a reality is brought up in the issue of labor that I did not previously acknowledge which is the laborers mortality. This mortality has to be met with a market approach of procreation, an equal substitution for thus mortality. This is one of Marx’s concepts that I think can be critically translated into modern times. It’s easy to assume that we don’t market our kids off anymore as laborers, but what is the college application process exactly? In most cases, parents paying $50-75 so their child can essentially prove their value to an institution that is going to spit them out into the labor force. So technically, we still have this process of marketing off your child for labor, there’s just an added step in the middle now, which is higher education.

The Civil War in France: On page 597, another example of Marx’s provocative language, in which he relates the state apparatus control over the society to a boa constrictor. Marx also talks about when the Revolution of 1848 happened, the French government as well as the governments of all continental Europe began further oppressing these movements and defining their monopolization on violence. I find this topic very interesting , the idea of a State’s monopoly on violence in relation to the nations ‘reactionary’ violence, (even though I would argue Franz Fanon’s idea that the violence of the people is not their violence at all but the states own violence redirected back at them), but anyway, it would be interesting to know what it would be like to live in that time during this revolution, and to see how the state would try to mask their violence by hyper-visualizing the ‘violence’ created by the revolutionaries.

Louis Zukofsky’s poem section 8: In class we were asked which parts of this piece sounded like Marx, and aside from the parts we discussed in class, there is one section on page 51 that not only sounds like Marx but just carries out so much emotion in it. The stanza that starts with “To be flooded in case of war?”. That entire stanza sticks out to me, not only because it was one of the few stanza’s I could understand without reading the secondary source, but because it reminds me of current boss-employ attitudes in the work force today. “You took off this day, not only will you not get paid for it, but you will be punished for it; in fact, not only will you be punished for it, but your kid will also have to pay for your lack of labor”.

Excerpt from George Oppen’s book: Stanza 6 caught my attention on the first run through and even again after reading the explanatory readings. Is this poking at the power of knowledge and the process of proving the truth that I was speaking of earlier? To me it seems very similar. It almost insinuates to me that we designate things as facts, thus we have decided what is reality and what isn’t. If something is discovered that contradicts our current understanding of ‘reality’, it becomes an explosion of a number of emotions. Also, stanza 11, reminds me of Marx, and his ideas of abolishing private property, “Hollow, available, you could enter any building, You could look from any window, One might wave to himself, From the top of the Empire State Building-“. In my opinion this doesn’t only represent the end of private property, but also presents a sort of optimistic future, of further social mobility, maybe even no need for social mobility at all.