#consumerism. capitalism & commercialism

[trailofleaves]

“If love is under siege, it is because it threatens the very essence of commercial civilization. Everything is designed to make us forget that love is our most vivid manifestation and the most common power of life that is in us. Shouldn't we wonder how the lights that glimmer in the eye can blow a fuse for a time, even as barriers of oppression break and jam our passions? Yet despite a life stunted and distorted by mediated Spectacle, nothing has ever managed to strip love of its primal force. Although the heart's music fails to overwhelm the cacophony of profit efficiency, bit by bit it composes our destinies, according to tones, chords, and dissonances which render us happy if only we learn to harmonize the scattered notes that string emotions together.”

— Raoul Vaneigem

[taterspuds]

TV Commercials from different eras

1950’s: Gee golly this product sure will make life more swell for ya!

1960’s: This product will bring us all together, man. Peace, Love and Capitalism.

1970’s: This product is hot and sexy and you will have lots of hot sex and be hot and sexy if you buy it.

1980’s: Don’t be a gnarly nerd, you totally need this product to feel super rad and also stay away from drugs.

1990’s: This product will turn every mundane situation into a sexy pool party with hot babes and dudes with huge muscles.

2000’s: We survived Y2K and 9-11, let’s come together as a nation by buying this product.

2010’s: Existence sucks. But, there’s hope for the future, and it’s this product.

2020’s: Life is meaningless. Here’s the most weirdest, most random nonsense you’ve ever seen in the daytime. Buy this product.

[captainfightingflower]

Jackbox Games nowadays feels more corporate than binjpipe.

Warning, very, very vent-y, and heavy discussions about how capitalism is killing art & originality. This could very easily ruin your day if you aren’t mentally prepared for it.

Not as blatantly evil, of course, but corporate nonetheless. They’ve been slowly trying to snuff out the edge that they raised themselves by as Jellyvision after forging themselves for education as Learn Television. It feels like they are slowly drifting away more and more from their Jellyvision-branded humor and branding for a much more squeaky clean and family-focused image to increase profits. It’s HARD for me to even enjoy any of their newer games despite how much i want to enjoy them, because the passion i once felt just feels so vacant now and so much more artificial, which i originally just chalked up to them needing a year off to recuperate themselves from the grind they’ve been doing releasing their Party Packs yearly. But now i know it’s not stress that’s killing the originality: it’s capitalism and consumerism.

Very vent-y, if you do not feel comfortable with my opening statement: then you will probably not like what i have to say next. If you want me to go into detail about why i dislike post-2020 Jackbox; click “Keep reading” instead.

• Bomb Corp. got a patch that forcefully made it easier. Them giving Bomb Corp. a retry button is like them giving Drawful an eraser, yeah it satisfies common complaints, but it goes against the game’s core philosophy. Bomb Corp. is meant to be hard, this job doesn’t blow for nothing. I wouldn’t be complaining if it was optional, but it isn’t; you HAVE to play with nerf.

• Drawful is becoming less and less individualized the more it is stretched thin. Drawful: Animate is a waste of space, a sequel for a game who’s design does not lend itself to further installments. Drawful 2 feels to Drawful as Quiplash XL feels to Quiplash; the same game but with more stuff, and they should’ve called it Drawful remastered, Drawful+, or even Drawful XL. Drawful: Animate should’ve been DLC for the original Drawful, Drawful: Animate is even named similarly to Fibbage: Enough About You. 

Not only that: but the game’s mascot, Sexy Owl, is progressively getting the crass aspects of their design phased out. They rarely wear their bra anymore, not even in Drawful: Animate, the game’s art style is far more average than awful, with clean lines and rarely any sloppy coloring, and they get called Drawful Owl instead of Sexy Owl! Sexy Owl just looks like a regular stylized white owl now. I’m surprised that The Yetee’s plushie even included the bra!

• Job Job barely has it’s own identity despite being the most fleshed out game in their origin pack due to the sheer amount of references it has to other Jackbox properties, and Tee K.O. 2 got the identity it once had STRIPPED away for the sake of shoving recognizable characters down the throats of the public consciousness, the game which encourages you to buy shirts with your designs. 

In fact: M. Bubbles feels deliberately designed to be marketable, if the sheer amount of merch they got it anything to go by, (they got far more merch than any of their fellow Pack-mates, including a plushie & a CARD in CHAMP’D UP: SLAM DOWN! If that’s not special privilege, idunno what is!) they even showed up in a promotional sale illustration only a couple days after their game was announced! That rarely EVER happens. More and more hosts are getting bodies, to the point where the voice-only hosts are feeling like a passing fad that will soon parish.

• The plain disregard to some of their original hosts, Nate Shapiro has been reduced to a crazed conspiracy nut, Guy Towers is heavily implied to have become a capitalist, despite being strictly against it, and Buzz is just AMA (their words, not mine). And honestly? I hope Buzz stays AMA, he doesn’t deserve the treatment the other two got. 

Cookie & Schmitty? Cookie has been flanderized and is nothing but a selling point than a fun bonus, and Schmitty is half the man he used to be, but at least he still somewhat feels like himself, if not significantly watered down to not scare the kids.

• The Jackbox Party Starter is just great value The Jackbox Party Pack 3, buying the 3rd pack on sale is a significantly better deal than buying The Jackbox Party Starter. If there were games that didn’t share a pack with each other, even if it was only one of them; then you could find the value in it. Even if you buy it for the modern features or language selection: fans have already done that for you for free. 

Not to mention it’s just not a good introduction to The Jackbox Party Packs. Quiplash 3 is the only game i can see being good to get someone into Jackbox Games among the Starter selection, that is it. You Don’t Know Jack: Full Stream & Drawful: Animate would have been FAR better titles to introduce someone to Jackbox Games than Trivia Murder Party 2 or Tee K.O.

• I used to like reading through their Twitter, it actually felt really charming to me how full of life their promotional images were and how much life their was, nowadays it feels more like “Hello fellow kids” and the people running it are crying for help. I barely find a promotional illustration that actually feels like there’s care put into it, it just feels like a few steps from becoming alegria.

That’s the end of my overly vent-y Talking Points as to why i don’t like Jackbox Games as a company anymore. Companies aren’t your friends, i know that fact very well. But it’s still just sad to see an indie team fall from grace and into the clammy grasps of commercialism. I get that they need to pay the bills, but why pick at low hanging fruit when you have a ladder? This isn’t a boycott or anything, i’m just getting out my emotions in a way that maybe other people who feel the same can open up discussion about how they are feeling regarding to this company.

If you disagree, then that is fine. I am not trying to convince you to hate them, and i’d love to have a civil debate with you! If you agree, tell me how you’re feeling, or what you’d like to add to the discussion, i am all ears all the same. Again, thanks for listening to my Talking Points.

[117degrees]

if i see another scrub daddy sponge i might kill myself

[ninaeatswaffle]

02/01/23

This February, I'll be celebrating the commercialization of romance, as well as my lack thereof. I will be giving Henry VIII-themed Valentine's day cards to my platonic best friends because of SIX the Musical, and also because he was the one who made Valentine's Day be recognized by the Royal Charter. As the aisles turn pink with overpriced pink chocolate products, I will wait for discount chocolate season so that I can buy some stuff for myself. Most immportantly, though, calendars. My favourite part of February is the length of the month.

[can-of-pringles]

Someone on tiktok pointed out that white people (or more specifically white Americans') culture is actually consumerism and capitalism and I can't unsee it

[starry-kattz]

Sometimes I get insecure about my looks and my body. Then I remember that's what They want. And I'm not gonna give It to Them.

[ladyshinga]

“lol you realize Barbie is only a marketing movie, right? it’s just SELLING STUFF, you know that right? capitalism? lol?”

You’re too late.

Like, you’re not wrong, but you are wildly late on this one.

No one is under the impression that this movie isn’t marketing a toy line.

But that toy line? Has been on this earth longer than you’ve been. Barbie is old. Barbie is everywhere. We’ve all seen a commercial if not owned at least one Barbie doll in our lifetimes (or a knock-off you get emotionally attached to even if the weird mean girl down the street keeps making fun of it) (fuck you Christie that doll was a hero)

Advertising is everywhere. I can’t turn the TV on without ads, even on streaming services that used to brag how ad-free they were. I can’t browse social media without ads. I can’t see a movie or a show without products being “subtly” shown off.

We’re haunted by ads at every goddamn turn, we can’t even talk to an old friend from high school without them trying to sell us something.

If you think you’re making some radical grand statement by pointing out that Barbie is a toy line made by a big company that wants to sell more things... bud. We know that.

We know.

Greta Gerwig seems like she had a lot of fun with this movie, the actors had a lot of fun, the set design is fun.

No one is looking forward to Barbie because we think it’s some kind of beautiful radical anti-capitalist message just WAITING to break the world of its delusions of consumerism. God, could you imagine?

We’re looking forward to a bunch of actors dressed in pink having a lot of fun. We know the movie will make people want Barbie stuff, maybe they’ll go out and buy it, maybe they’re too broke because the world is expensive right now and we’ve got bills. But if “this movie will advertise things to you” was a dealbreaker we’d never see anything.

Because Barbie isn’t unique in this. A LOT of modern movies just want you to buy things, or admire/join the American military, etc etc. Money runs things here. Even capitalism stans know it runs everything (though they’re generally okay with it). Ads are our lives even when we use ad blockers and do our best to ignore the ones we see.

We’re seeing Barbie because it looks silly and fun, not because we’re putting it up on a pedestal expecting it to change the world. And we’re kidding and being silly when we DO act like that. Because goddammit, IT’S BARBIE. We’re acting like we acted when we played with dolls as kids, we’re PLAYING, we’re having fun. When I was a kid I absolutely pretended my Barbies could save the world and were magical and powerful. Didn’t mean she actually was.

These are toys. And we like to play. That doesn’t erase the capitalist motivations of Mattel, but it doesn’t have to mean we “support” their evils. We want to play, we want to enjoy play, even when we’re trapped in a capitalist hellscape where like 80% of our day to day fun is sold to us

[left-reminders]

(Below are broad vibes for each of the numbers. They are not meant to represent every opinion one could have within those parameters. Some aspects of the description may apply to you while others won't. If you picked a number with a description that doesn't match your perspective, let us know what your actual perspective is in a reblog comment! Comments in general are nice too, of course 👍)

(You also might notice a bias in favor of 5; or at least a far deeper description of what it would entail when compared against the other four. This is partly just because I wanted to soapbox, but I hope it doesn't detract. I genuinely want to hear the perspectives of the 1s, 2s, and 3s, if you're out there and don't appreciate my potential oversimplification!)

1 — It does not factor in at all. Much of the discourse around green politics is a liberal distraction and/or a roadblock holding us back from organizing for socialism. Economic development and human concerns will always matter more. Capitalism was a necessary/justifiable component in the march of history towards socialism, even if it did have certain negative impacts on the environment. The ideal society looks like Star Trek or fully-automated luxury communism (FALC) — one where we overcome "the state of nature" and become masters of our own fate.

2 — It doesn't factor in much, even if I may recognize the reality of climate change and/or the need for environmental protections. We can solve the biggest climate problems with advancements in green technology or perhaps expanding resource frontiers into outer space. In general, other social issues take priority when building socialism.

3 — I care about combating climate change and solving ecological problems, but I find other issues to be more important in my life and I will leave most discussion of it to people more knowledgeable on the subject. The world could be doing far better on these issues and changes are needed, but most of the modern civilizational infrastructure should remain unchanged (albeit organized under a socialist mode of production).

4 — It is very important to my politics. We can balance socialistic technological development with the dire needs of a planet in crisis. Certain human activities and production methods will have to be curbed or eliminated entirely if we are to find this balance (fossil fuels, widget production, private jets, etc), while others will have to be uplifted (renewable energy, public transportation, shared living, etc). Modern civilization is ultimately redeemable, but it needs to undergo a radical transformation.

5 — It is among the most important factors in my politics. I take influence from eco-socialism, social ecology, degrowth, post-civ, anti-civ, deep ecology, or any number of other political perspectives which are ecologically-focused. Locally-organized economies; drastic reductions in working hours and energy throughput; rewilding of the land; emphasis on non-consumptive forms of leisure; an end to consumerism, growth-based economic metrics, and imperial conceptions of "development"; agroecology and polyculture as core methods for obtaining food; and a vast deconstruction of much of the civilizational edifice are all pieces to this puzzle and are required if we are going to have a habitable planet for the generations to come. The ideal society looks like a Miyazaki film, that yogurt commercial, or lightly-automated comfortable ecological socialism (LACES) — one where we "don't seek to become larger within socialism, but rather more realized" (Joel Kovel).

[furryprovocateur]

i feel like every year every month every week we need to have this conversation but the barbie movie's popularity on social media has really reinforced that we need to constantly be talking about how Consumerism Isn't Activism nor is it going to radically change the oppressive systems we experience. barbie was not a giant win for feminism or whatever you want to claim it was, it was a commercial product that capitalized on a demographic by being post-modern about one of the most popular toys by one of the most popular brands of the past century. i'm not saying you aren't allowed to like it or that if you had fun with it you're a bad feminist, just that it's like. a movie that was made to sell tickets.

[djhamaradio]

I do not have a brand because I am not a corporation.

I lost my job recently and had to log back into my LinkedIn account. The whole thing felt forced and weird because I never use the app and I never post anything and suddenly I posted an alert showing I was open for work. The whole process felt weird because everyone in my network seemed to be confused because everyone on there is an ace at networking and using their personal brands to show people what they have going on in their work lives and I felt like a faker. Same way I feel when I am told I am not effectively branding my radio show and my escapades in the record digging world to become a vinyl influencer (not sure if that exists). The whole thing has me depressed because I get the feeling my inactivity is not helping with my job prospects. And no matter what advice I read on Forbes or whatever blog about personal marketing I’m never going to be good at it. I lack the brand consistency or whatever it’s called because ultimately I am not that committed to this world of personal branding. The article above from the wonderful folks at Vox reminds me that this is one of the legacies of late market capitalism everyone is merely a sellout but we don’t have interests or passions anymore everything we do or say has to be leveraged for likes and followers. The thing I find most intriguing about this world is the pervasisveness of hucksterism, and just pure fakery. I find people employing awful vague corporte phrases like maximizing productivity to describe their day to day lives.I find people posting shit about how one can leverage their brand to build a following that will lead them to make a living off social media. it is all disgusting but more than anything speaks to just how much consumerism, and capitlism in general has infected every sacred facet of human life. We have all become brands, and as brands your ultimate goal is to sell, sell and sell. Sell agressively, sell even if it means lying and sell with your consumer in mind. I look at myself I truly joined social media to connect with friends, at some point I left Facebook because my conservative family had joined and thewas now on they had an issue with my Halloween costume (Me dressed as a member of De La Soul and my girlfriend at the time in. slutty Nun costume), so I deleted the account and stuck with IG. On IG aI liked sharing music banter, odd ball humour and rap references with my small cast of friends who get it, and I use it to let people know when my radio show is on. My show is decently popular and I dont make a living doing it, I do DJ gigs on the side and I make decent guap doing it but would absolutely never do that for a living. The DJ gig funds the record collecting, and the radio show is a creative outlet that is all it is. I dont give a shit about branding, even though in a sense I am acting like a brand but I am not selling you anything. I put myself out there simply to say hey check out what I am doing and let me know if you fuck with it other than that no biggie. I aint out here saying if you listen to my radioshow your dick will grow bigger, all the chicks will like you and I am offering somekind of solution to one of lifes ills. My purpose is simply to say hey dont know what you doing but tune into my non-commercial uninterrupted absolutley amteurish radio show where you get to hear me play funk, soul, jazz and african music, for its on sake and not to sell but plugs or lawn mowers. The branding shit is particularly insidious because it makes us forget that there was a time when people congregated because they shared deep interests outside of the capitalist objective, think about stamp collectors, book clubs, bowling leagues and in my case a group of guys who drive around the midwest frequenting record stores spending huge amounts of hours scouring dollar record bins for prized records (This is also a dying art but I digress). I think at the heart of it social media has democratized aspects of the creative world. I just want to live in a world where I am not a brand.

[theadaptableeducator]

An ‘Ism’ Overview – Modernism vs. Pop Art

With the eye of an art critic, we have had the opportunity to witness the evolution of art movements and styles over the years. Two movements that have captured the attention of the art world are Modernism and Pop Art. While both movements are recognized for their significant contributions to the art world, they differ significantly in their approach and aesthetic.

Modernism was an artistic movement that emerged in the late 19th century and continued through the early 20th century. It was a reaction against traditional, academic art, and was characterized by a rejection of realistic representation in favour of abstraction, experimentation, and the exploration of new forms and materials. The artists associated with Modernism sought to create a new visual language that was free from the constraints of traditional art.

Pop Art, on the other hand, emerged in the 1950s and was a direct response to the commercialization of popular culture. Pop artists appropriated imagery from mass media and consumer culture, often using techniques such as collage and assemblage to create works that were both visually striking and culturally relevant. The Pop Art movement was a critique of consumerism and capitalism, and its artists sought to expose the ways in which these forces shaped our lives and identities.

While both movements were marked by a spirit of innovation and experimentation, they differ significantly in their approach to form and content. Modernist art emphasized form over content, with artists using abstract shapes, colours, and lines to create works that were self-referential and concerned primarily with the formal qualities of the work. Pop Art, on the other hand, was focused on content over form, with artists using recognizable imagery from popular culture to make social and political commentary.

In terms of aesthetics, Modernist art is often characterized by its minimalist, austere quality. The works of artists such as Piet Mondrian and Kazimir Malevich are known for their use of simple geometric shapes and limited colour palettes, creating a sense of order and harmony. Pop Art, on the other hand, is characterized by its use of bright colours, bold lines, and often humorous or ironic imagery. Artists such as Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein created works that were both visually stunning and socially relevant, using the power of mass media to critique the very culture they were a part of.

In conclusion, while both Modernism and Pop Art were marked by a spirit of innovation and experimentation, they differ significantly in their approach to form, content, and aesthetics. Modernist art emphasized form over content, with a focus on the formal qualities of the work, while Pop Art focused on content over form, using recognizable imagery from popular culture to make social and political commentary. Additionally, Modernist art was often austere and minimalist, while Pop Art was characterized by its use of bright colours and bold imagery. Both movements made significant contributions to the art world and continue to influence artists today.

[climatecalling]

Consumerism is the path to planetary ruin, but there are other ways to live

Faced with the now undeniable impacts of climate crisis created by humans, political leaders in wealthier countries incline towards one of two competing responses. They either question the urgency and feasibility of meeting net zero targets and generally procrastinate (the rightwing tendency); or they proclaim their faith in the powers of magical green technologies to protect the planet while prolonging and extending our present affluent ways of living (a position more favoured on the left and centre). Common to both approaches is a wrongheaded presumption that we can carry on growing while managing to hold off the floods and fires of growth-driven capitalism. ... Sustainable production and consumption must therefore replace undifferentiated economic growth as the goal of 21st-century political economy. And making the case for this means challenging the belief that sustainable consumption will always involve sacrifice, rather than improve wellbeing. Our so-called “good life” is, after all, a major cause of stress and ill health. It is noisy, polluting and wasteful. Its commercial priorities have forced people to gear everything to jobseeking and career development, but still leave many people facing chronically unfulfilling and precarious jobs and lives. ... By offering a broader cultural dimension to the existing arguments of those who dissent from today’s economic orthodoxy and want to promote a less unequal world, a compelling vision of alternative ways of living can help to inspire a more diverse, confident and substantial opposition. And in expanding on that vision we now need to look beyond western ideas of progress to include other influences and sources of inspiration.

[euniexenoblade]

literally ur barbie opinions are spot on if not too nice.

the inherent endorsement of commercialism from a mattel product DOES accurately predict the times, but only in so far as feminism as consumerism being paramount to feminism for liberation. the ‘real’ women and pretty dolls who have spent the time groveling get to pay for pink products, not live in a world where they’re systemically equal to men

also the ppl being insane about ‘of course its not too feminist its a hollywood movie’ should see the public reception vis a vis public women making comments about its oscar ‘snubbing’ and what a loss for feminism it was. like do you not see this as the dying of public understanding of what feminism actually means

gerwig and robbie are not grand arbiters of what a woman should be. they’re a capital investment. we do NOT need to ride their dick and call their mid movie good.

also literally the narrator was not worth the effort

Yeah

[zhabe]

I’m making a post for my about page, regarding my position as a Marxist/proletarian feminist. This will be continuously updated because I'm still learning. No need to read if you’re not interested, it's super long :]

TLDR: I'm a Marxist or proletarian feminist, meaning that I utilize Marxism to approach my feminism. I believe that liberal, radical, and other forms of anti-Marxist feminism are unequipped to deal with the feminist question of how to end female and gender-oppressed subjugation (1). I do not organize with transphobic feminists, and I find their position is anti-materialist, bioessentialist, and ahistorical. Certain issues have been overlooked by the mainstream feminist/LGBT movement in the West because they challenge consumerist notions of sexual expression, entitlement, and exploitation, namely in regard to "sex work". Marxist feminists must be critics in the sexual discourse and take an unconditional position against the sex trade (2,3). Marxist feminism centers experiences from women and gender-oppressed people, particularly those who are colonized or from the global south.

What is Marxist feminism? Marxist feminism is a social and political movement that aims to liberate women using a Marxist and materialist lens. Marxist feminists reimagine their political goals and ideas differently than other feminists.

Marxist feminists posit that the patriarchy is inherently tied to capitalism. Women cannot be liberated under capitalism because central tenets of patriarchy are integral to the function of capitalism. For example, the international sex trade and the subjugation of the woman in labor and family are maintained due to their benefits to the capitalist class. Attempts to “liberate” women within the confines of capitalism only allows for 1) the commercialization of the feminist movement; 2) the ability for certain women to occupy positions of exploitative power; and 3) the mainstream conceptualization of feminism as women being able to “choose”. Of course, this is not liberation.

What is liberation? Liberation is freedom; contrary to the mainstream belief, women's liberation is not freedom to “choose” between individualistic and materialistic consumer goods or exploitative job positions, but freedom from a suppressive economic system that keeps women trapped in unsafe or unfair working conditions and keeps women in a constant state of fear from misogynistic harassment and violence. Liberation is access to public resources and sexual/physical autonomy. Liberation does not speak to the individual, but the masses.

Why am I a Marxist feminist? I am a Marxist feminist because I am ML-MZT (a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), and I recognize 1) the clear interconnectedness between capitalism/imperialism and patriarchy and 2) that misogyny is real, particularly for colonized women and women living in the Third World. For the growing online LGBT pseudo-Left, the latter point is becoming more and more obscured. Choice feminism is popular, and the real struggles of women are largely obscured by the LGBT movement (which itself has gotten lost in anti-ideological consumerism) and claims that any feminism beyond the mainstream is TERFism. I too was victim to this mindset. This isn’t to say that there isn’t a growing reactionary, trans-exclusionary (and therefore anti-materialist) “feminist” movement (I will cover this in a moment). But the label of “TERF” (and "SWERF", which I will get to in a moment as well) is wrongly applied to trans people and their allies who attempt to acknowledge the real, material harm that women face worldwide. In any case, I am a Marxist feminist because I recognized the denial of misogyny in my own community, and I feel an ethical responsibility to dedicate myself to women's liberation and encourage others in my community to do the same.

What about the TERFs? I am well aware of the trans-exclusionary "feminists" that identify as Marxist feminists, materialist feminists, or proletarian feminists. Radical feminists (especially of the transmisogynistic variety) on their own really have nothing to do with Marxist feminists, because they have separate political goals and conceptualize patriarchy differently than Marxist feminists. I, alongside more principled and active proletarian feminists, understand that Marxist feminism is incompatible with radical feminism. Some key differences are Lesbian and female separatism, political lesbianism, and female superiority. It's difficult to parse which arguments are genuine, bioessentialist claims of female superiority and the need to eradicate "biological males", and which claims are just complaints, like any marginalized community makes. Women (both cis and trans), like other marginalized people, are indeed entitled to make jokes and complaints about men.

Yes, there are genuine transphobes who identify as Marxist feminists, and there are many. This is a reality that we must acknowledge, and as proletarian feminists we must struggle with. It is simultaneously true that there is a trend of clear mislabeling of all feminism beyond the scope of liberal feminism as “TERFism”, as many LGBT people online are not educated about feminism and scared of it (this is not exclusive to LGBT people, but mislabeling of feminists as "TERFs" tends to be by misogynistic queers). To be clear: I do not interact or organize with transphobic feminists, and I encourage other Marxist feminists to do the same; the transphobic radical feminist movement has demonstrated their dedication to bioessentialism and revisionism, and regularly allies with Rightist and Christian fundamentalist organizations. Transphobic radical feminists tend to spend more time separating themselves along a fictitious and anti-materialist sex basis, rather than removing sex trade-expansionists and misogynistic transphobes from their movement.

What about the SWERFs? I have never met a "SWERF", I don't think. I've met misogynists who degrade women, who talk about and treat women like objects, who believe themselves to be entitled to sex. I do not hear liberal feminists criticize these misogynists nor the institutions that allow women to be exploited as much as I have heard about "SWERFs".

What I do witness, however, is the labelling of "SWERF" onto anyone who critiques the international sex trade (ie. the institution that maintains "sex work"). I have made posts about "sex work" in the past. Critiques of the term and institution are never slander about the people exploited within the international sex trade/industry.

Marxist feminists prioritize the needs and narratives of colonized women and women victimized in the Third World by multinational imperialist powers. The narrative of "sex work" (which in of itself describes a variety of exploitative activities ranging from compensated sexual favors to prostitution and from OnlyFans to sexual slavery) by "sex workers" in the imperial core is often one of choice and liberation. These narratives, of course, conveniently neglect the majority of "sex work" narratives: the Okinawan women and girls pushed into prostitution by dual-imperialist occupation; the Eastern European gay men and boys who were targeted by post-Communist sexploitation porn companies; the Thai trans women and girls who could either stay closeted with a support system, or come out and lose all support, getting driven to prostitution; the Squamish girl trafficked, whose rape is filmed and posted onto online porn websites. These narratives, those that make up the majority of sexual exploitation, are those Marxist feminists are primarily concerned with.

To my previous point, individuals might try to argue that sexual slavery is not the same as "voluntary sex work", which Marxist feminists will argue that the line between sex trafficking and "sex work" is vague. No clear delineation exists, and to quote Comrade Khara (@/decolonizefeminism on Instagram), "The 'sex work' and sex trafficking binary is a false dichotomy popularized by police, prosecutors, and sex trade expansion activists. In reality, the sex trade is a spectrum. It is not a rigid binary between free will and sex trafficking". Furthermore, financial coercion into sex is coercion. Coerced sex is rape.

The discussion of "sex work" is long; it requires many posts and much times to elaborate on. I will repeat the points I have made in a previous post.

No one is entitled to sex.

The term "sex work" implies that sexual commodification is more so a choice rather than a result of financial coercion. (If you offer a woman 300 dollars or 300 dollars, so long she has sex with you, she will always pick the 300 dollars.)

"Sex work" does not exist in a social vacuum; the large majority of survivors and victims of the sex trade have been pushed into it via financial struggle or kidnapping. Coerced sex (and by extension, transactional sex) is rape.

The term "sex work" further obfuscates the actual activity that a victim of the sex trade performs; this allows the moderately well-off "sex worker" who performs contactless labor (ie. camming, OnlyFans) to speak on and over the conditions of the majority of victims of the sex trade (ie. colonized women, girls, LGBT people in imperial peripheries).

The "sex work" and sex trafficking binary is a false dichotomy propagated by sex trade expansionists and their allies.

The sex trade is inherently different than other industries when examined through a Marxist feminist lens. While all work is exploitative under capitalism (expropriation of surplus labor by the capitalist class), the commodity being sold with "sex work", is not an object or a service, but in fact, an individual's body. It is also unlike other work because of the individual's inherent exposure to emotional, mental, and physical distress (including sexual assault, STIs, pregnancy, and femicide).

Liberal choice-feminism ("sex work is work") is not feminism because it does not seek the authentic liberation and safety of proletariat/peasant women. Liberal choice-feminism emphasizes the ability for certain women to choose, ability for these certain women to occupy oppressive roles (ie. pimps, traffickers, police), and the maintenance fo the current patriarchal capitalist system.

The anti-sex trade position is hardly, if ever, a critique on the individual "choices" made by victims and survivors of the sex trade; it is a critique of pimps, traffickers, sex buyers, sex trade expansionists, police and military, and capitalism.

How do you include trans women in your feminism? Marxist feminism emphasizes materialism. I believe it is anti-materialist to assume that the oppressive powers of capitalism and patriarchy treat transgender and cisgender women entirely separate on the basis of their biology. Trans-exclusionary feminists (whatever their specific ideologies may be) often ask trans-inclusive feminists to "define woman"––if you cannot define "woman", you shouldn't be advocating for the liberation of woman.

Here, I find many parallels to my field of biology. I study biology, I am an active biologist. Nevertheless, if someone asked me to eloquently and conclusively define something like "species", I would fail. How is it that I can be an expert in my field and not be able to define species? It's simple. I use models that fit my specific needs that that point in time; you can't define "species" made by scientists––it's a discriminative label used for convenience. One common model for defining species is the biological species concept––species that can and naturally interbreed, creating viable and fertile offspring. This model becomes unclear when trying to examine asexually reproducing species or extinct species.

The label of "woman" can be many things. In general, I view it as an internal experience, which when examining misogyny and patriarchy, can be relatively irrelevant. An individual's relation to gender is just that––individual. It can change with time, it can change across cultures. The patriarchy is unconcerned with the individual identification; many radical feminists agree with this point, which motivate the idea that "it doesn't matter what trans women identify as, they navigate the world as men", which I do not agree with. Instead, I attempt to evaluate victims of misogyny rather than "women", although women have been, and (at least for the foreseeable future) will always be the primary victims of misogyny. In the context of feminism, women are a group of people that have cohesive political and social goals that relate to their experiences under patriarchy. The specific gender identifiers are again, relatively irrelevant. What is important is an individuals connection to misogynistic culture and policies, including attacks on safe, legal abortion and the threat of femicide. Indeed, the capitalist system pays no mind (just as most of us don't) to the discreet interworkings of our human bodies. Most of us haven't had a karyotype printed for us. The capitalist, patriarchal system hasn't printed out our karyotype either, and it's not passing it around to everyone we see. We are categorized externally based on semiotics, expression, declarations of our identity, and our bodies.

Trans women, can be and often are, under attack by the patriarchy and affected by misogyny, but it is not the internal label of "woman" that necessarily subjects trans women to this treatment. Trans women, largely, have similar political goals to cis women. Trans women are often pushed into sexual exploitation, as it is one industry that actively looks to satiate the mainstream's obsession, objectification, and fetishization of transgender women. Similar to cis women, trans women are subject to violence and misogyny in public, but are still made to be desired, sexual objects in private and in the home. Trans women have an important place in the Marxist feminist movement.

I also negate the increasingly popular idea among LGBT people online that trans men are immediately alleviated of their status as people affected by misogyny. Again, the internal label of man or nonbinary does not change the material conditions that a trans man/masc faces, particularly if they do not pass. The dichotomy of "male privilege" and "experiences misogyny" is less of a dichotomy and more of a spectrum.

Do you have reading recommendations?

Philosophical Trends in the Feminist Movement by Anuradha Gandhy

Only in Conjunction With the Proletarian Woman Will Socialism Be Victorious by Clara Zetkin

Women, Race, and Class by Angela Davis

Communism and the Family by Alexandra Kollontai

Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State by Friedrich Engels

One is Not Born a Woman by Monique Wittig

Comrade Esperanza on Medium

Comrade Anir on Medium

Comrade Ihla on Medium

Nodrada on Medium

[bakuninbeats]

(Intellectual) Property is Theft!

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, perhaps the most important figure in the field of anarchist theory. He developed many of the most important cornerstones of the anarcho-communist ideology, the most important of which being the following principle; "Property is Theft!"

Indeed, property is theft. Specifically, private property which forms the cornerstone of our capitalist system. Yet, there is another form of property which can be just as oppressive, namely intellectual property. The ownership of ideas, of art, of symbols, intellectual property offers someone the right to sue others for using the products that originated in their mind. In itself, a seemingly noble idea as it can potentially serve to protect the livelihood of smaller artists, academics and inventors. However, these same people are often not the ones who actually manage to profit from these laws. No, it is primarily the companies who can afford the most skilled lawyers that actually manage to protect their ideas whilst those who might actually need this protection are left to fend for themselves. In fact, smaller artists usually end up being the victim of these kinds of lawsuits especially when it comes to the practice of sampling in music.

In this manner, the right to sample becomes a practice to fight for within the anarchist struggle, especially when the use of sampling serves to criticize the current systems that govern society. Thus, the subject of today's review will be one such artist known as Saint Pepsi and his 2014 music video Enjoy Yourself.

Admittedly, most Vaporwave artists do not explicitly ascribe to anarchist ideology and Saint Pepsi is no exception. In fact he barely has a public persona at all, let alone one that promotes specific political goals. However, the combination of anti-consumerist critique, diy-ethic and, as formerly established, a potent disrespect for intellectual property rights, it becomes clear that Saint Pepsi falls quite neatly in line with the means and ends of the average anarcho-communist, intentionally or not.

But how does the Saint spread our anti-capitalist message in Enjoy Yourself? It is through a process of defamiliarization, and emphasization. The song repeats slowed-down snippets from the song Off The Wall by Michael Jackson. I'm sure Michael needs no introduction, but I'd still like to clarify some things about his history. Michael Jackson had his start in Motown Records, one of the biggest titans in the music industry. Though they have platformed many great artists, they are also one of the primary culprits of the mass-commercialization of popular music. This does not necessarily make their music any worse, but it does make this song a great choice for the Saint Pepsi treatment.

It is set to clips taken from a McDonald's commercial, one of the other titans of consumerism. It features a smiling man with a moon-shaped head (who also became an alt-right symbol for some reason). He dances while playing the piano on top of a hamburger, flying through a city-scape. The city is filled with bill-boards and McDonald's' classic yellow M's. It's a bizzare picture that could only be found within the post-modern, late-capitalist regime we currently live under.

The song ends on the message "Just Enjoy Yourself!~" repeated multiple times, eventually fading out to give the impression of its infinite repetition. On the surface, this phrase gives a sense of calmth and nostalgia, it's an invitation to simply let go and have fun. However, through the constant repetition Saint Pepsi showcases the way that consumer-capitalism controls its subjects.

"Just Enjoy Yourself!~~", everything is completely fine. You have tasty food, fun music, just look at the funny moon-man and

''Just Enjoy Yourself!~~~''.

With this message the song highlights consumerism's role as a primary means to pacify the masses and manufacture its consent. If a society feels the need to constantly repeat the message that everything's fine it's a sign that it's clearly not.

But who gives a shit about what this stupid tranny has to say!?

Who gives a shit about the immorality of property right!?

Who gives a shit about achieving anarchy!?

The system is impenetrable and the world is fucked.

"Just Enjoy Yourself!~~~~"

Link to song: