#i was simply not born for capitalism i should have been a hunter gatherer i should have died at 25 at the hands of a sabre tooth tiger

[jessaerys]

i make this post like every other day but sweet jesus illustrating freelance for a living is by far the best most priviledged case scenario for someone like me (undocumented, uneducated, unbelievably mentally unwell) and yet every day of my life i have to suck it up and accept that making art for a living has completely siphoned off the joy out of drawing, my lifelong companion that made life meaningful in a terribly hostile home enviorement. and now i have to listen to [redacted] from r@ndompenguinhouse send me Notes that keep making this ~queer YA~ novel cover progressively more boring

[cherriesink]

Takeuchi - Murmurs

Murmurs are snippets of character reflection earned by increasing Explore Points during Exploration. They usually include 6-7 monologues about other characters and 3-4 monologues about things important to the specific character.

These lines are taken straight from the English translation of the game, so fair warning of bad grammar.

About Yatsufusa “According to my statistics, older vampires tend to rank above C-Class... Presumably, D-Class and under end up dying. 

But it’s a shame with Yatsufusa. Because he is a C-Class that has all the potentials to fight in a battle. Yet, he cannot demonstrate that in a different way than Kurusu can’t. 

It seems he occasionally uses the umbrella I gave him... He’ll end up hurting himself if he carelessly swings a sword since he has never trained for it. And he will break it if he uses it with all his strength. I can’t let a civilian hold a sword anyway. So, an umbrella was the best solution.

...Oh! I have an exciting idea that improves his umbrella. Haha, this will help him even if he’s not a good fighter...”

About Kurusu “Kurusu is very intriguing. He is the strongest vampire in Japan! How is he different from other vampires?! Unfortunately, current science does not allow me to analyze blood at a micro-level... In that case, I must invent a machine that can. I’d love to improve Kurusu’s abilities from an A-Class to S-Class and above through my inventions. 

If Colonel Maeda who is a human can defeat unranked vampires, then that means dynamic visions can be improved through training. This then leads me to the question- do I use a drug or machinery to improve his speed and muscle strength...

But Kurusu must improve his speed of judgement more than anything. That, I cannot help him no matter how great I am. It probably comes from his kindness. But, oh well. I’ll let Colonel Maeda deal with that.”

About Maeda “Colonel Maeda is certainly an intelligent person. A true rationalist and finds the best course of action in an instant- because how else can someone decide to amputate their right arm after being bitten by a vampire before the poison enters their system? The surgery went well because he was in luck with a series of events. His wound was a clean-cut, he was able to stop the bleeding, and the fact that Code Zero has plenty of blood supplies for us vampires...

I’d say he was still lucky to survive despite having an aftereffect due to hemorrhage of the heart. I must say he is an astounding human being since his combat skills are still the same where he is capable of beating vampires to death with his prosthetic arm.

Ah- that reminds me that he asked me to fix his arm. What next functions should I add next?”

About Yamagami “Yamagami is the best to experiment on. I wonder what will happen... if I can make him strong enough so he can fight with my inventions? Alas, the greatest assassin will be born! We vampires cannot detect ones that rank below us- they appear like an ordinary person to us.

Yamagami on the other hand is capable of detecting every vampire out there since he is unranked. Which makes him the best candidate to become an assassin sneaking up on vampires from behind! I must conduct every experiment on Yamagami then! It will become a revolution for us vampires if the experiment succeeds.

However, there is just one problem... Yamagami’s personality is not ideal to become an assassin...”

About Suwa “We did not have any vampires that specialized in combat at the time when Code Zero was established. That is why we induced Suwa into our team. I knew the moment I heard the rumor about a vampires that hunts other vampires that he will join our unit.

One of the reasons was that I heard he was alive even before the Edo period... He must be clever if he managed to survive hundreds of years since it is not easy for vampires to survive such a long period.

Secondly, we carry the same goal if he enjoys hunting vampires, whatever his reasons may be. Back then, vampires in the Imperial Capital shivered when hearing “Vampire Hunter.” It’s very promising if that “Vampire Hunter” joins Code Zero.

His body was of a child’s, so his arms were too short for Japanese swords. That is why I made him two daggers.”

About Defrott “I wonder if Defrott will allow me to study his blood... We don’t have any blood samples of S-Class vampires nor any data yet. But he’s not the type that goes with “Please” and “Thank you.” After all, I do not want to die either.

...All I want is to conduct my research peacefully. No need to panic or rush. It’ll become available someday. I can get close to the birth of vampires- if I can learn about S-Class vampires. When, why, and how did we derive...? The only thing we know is that the oldest vampires on the recond spoke ancient Greek... Were they the first? Or did vampires exist long before that, but the records got lost...

It is a mystery how humanity began, but it is even a bigger mystery how vampires started. Was it a strain that occurred during the evolution process. Or mutation... Some call it evil or the devil’s doing. However, I do not believe in unscientific things.”

About Tenman-ya “Come to think of it, our relationship with Tenman-ya has been going on for quite a long time. Considering Colonel Maeda’s personality, there is no way he will miss a vampire’s nest like them...

But perhaps they’re untouched because of the amount of information they’ve accumulated about vampires since the Edo period and the fact that they’ve been confining vampires that are in the Imperial Capital. 

As far as I’m concerned, it’s a give-and-take relationship since they refer me to wholesales to sell my drugs I invented. The vampires referred through Tenman-ya are all clean and diligent. Some practice Western medicine like me so it helps. 

It appears vampires fight all year round when just looking at Code Zero, but the one that avoid battle are the ones that live long. Tenman-ya supports those vampires.”

About the Experiments “There are three ways to kill a vampire. One, have them fight a vampire that outdo them. Very primitive method. Two, make them powerless through science. What we are currently doing. Three, obtain strength that overthrows higher rank vampires through science. This- is our homework.

Creating heavy firearms is easy, but we are dealing with swift subjects... Even unranked vampires may be described as “...at lightning speed” to an ordinary person. 

Thus, I am working on a drug that improves our physical ability... I mixed some into Yamagami’s food the other day, and the results were quite surprising. It was as if he got drunk. I thought I developed a drug that makes the world seem slow, but Yamagami said “The world is spinning! You blockhead!”

My work is trial and error. Well, I do have plenty of time.”

About the Past “I never would’ve imagined that I would end up being a serviceman when I was just an ordinary human being working at a pharmaceutical company. It all happened when the military authorities asked me to research a certain blood sample. I accidentally exposed it to sunlight without knowing that it was vampire blood. The flask exploded from the boiling blood...

Luckily, I did not die from the poison and gained a brain that never degenerates. It was pure coincidence, but I was lucky indeed. I can come close to the secrets of this world with an eternally young brain. 

I don’t mind not being able to walk under the sun. I was in the lab day and night in the first place. Not feeling time or seasonal changes aren’t important to me. I don’t care much about food either. 

Research is my life! I am the happiest vampire on Earth!”

About the Side Job “Code Zero hardly has any budget for R&D... But we aren’t a special unit that simply gathers vampires for combat. Weak, domestic ones can benefit from my drugs and put up a decent fight with the ones ranking above them. I believe- that is the purpose of our unit.

Colonel Maeda couldn’t care less about the name of the unit. So I named it “Zero”- implying “Starting everything from zero.”

Either way, you need money to experiment. That is why I sell my inventions beneficial to humans to department stores and medical institutions made in the process of my vampire studies. The profit I make all goes to my research. Every purchase helps us foster future vampires.”

[creativerogues]

Writing A Backstory...

The Frigid North

A harsh icy land almost untouched by time, the northern territory of the Slane Imperium is highly untamed and dangerous, covering much of the most northern lands on Ora’Dinn. 

While its grandeur and pale vistas can be captivating to some, the region is vicious and has taken many innocent lives who wandered too far past the Red Wall. Much of the land is believed to be unchanged since the supposed flash freeze that occurred over millennia ago. 

Many a poor soul try to navigate the ever-shifting patches of ice and frozen rock to find themselves in a chest crushing, body numbing, watery grave. 

Those who are brave enough (or gone mad) that can watch their footing or protect from the cold fear the goblinoid pirates, giants, remorhaz, white dragons and behirs that litter that great glaciers. 

Many bandits also end up in the north usually due to exile, though many would rather plea for imprisonment or the simplicity of capital punishment rather than the slow death the nature of the north offers to those not prepared.

The waters underneath the frozen planes cause much of the ice to shift greatly, changing the landscape; an explorer could go in a straight line through the frigid north and back and see a different land along in the same journey, making the land almost unable to be land-marked and mapped. 

It is believed that the old king of the bugbear clans had a compass that guided through the arctic waters and ice, though if it was lost or even existed is unknown. In fact due to the ever shifting ice planes, many native bugbears ‘farm’ these ever moving bestial land to make ships for their kin.

The Onna Tribe

Unfortunately for the reputation of Sea elves, the most common encounter with a triton is with a member of the Onna Tribe. 

A large tribe that spans across the Frozen North after being driven mad by the Sea Mother of Madness, Bilibdoolpoolp. 

Since the Great Cataclysm they have become more active and have tried to invade the lower realms. 

They are more adapted to the arctic expanse they live in and have begun to take on the looks of the predators that roam the lands and the cold depths below. 

The past of the Onna tribe is highly unknown, many believe them to have been ancestors of a band of triton criminals that came to the north centuries ago; whether by exile or escape from justice is unknown. 

The Onna tribe is highly hostile to most beings, preferring the company of their own, hiding beneath the ice only coming above to hunt and gather; though some have been known to disband from the tribe and travel the world. 

They are avid hunters, usually going after dire wolves, remorhaz, lonely bugbears and occasionally a wyvern. 

They hunt by scouting their chosen kill, scratching through ice under the water to weaken it before breaking through and surrounding them, surprising their prey while weakening the ice around them making escape quite difficult without a fight.

Isthasyl Sonear

Neutral Evil Triton (Onna Tribe) Wizard, School of War

"The World is cold and cruel, and to not only survive it, but to thrive in it, is something I pride myself on.” - Isthasyl Sonear

Homelands: Frigid North

Parents: I do not know who my mother is. She died after being torn apart by a Yeti.

Birthplace: An undersea cavern beneath a sea of ice sheets.

Siblings: 3 Siblings. A dead older brother, a younger sister and a youngest brother.

Favourite Dish: Seafood

Mysterious Secrets

When he was young, he found a cliff near his homelands. Near this cliff was a bunch of natural caverns large enough to live in. He pondered whether he should stay here, but decided against it. Now he has a plan to return there should anyone be 'hunting' him.

Isthasyl only joined the Expedition to Rystka because he heard news of the only survivor that managed to return from those islands went insane, and now his curiosity is getting the better of him.

After discovering that a Library in Rystka is in possession of a "Tome of Forgotten Incantations", Isthasyl's curiosity has made him want more and more to look into this book and what it contains.

Life Events (In Order)

Isthasyl found a black executioner's hood that he now wears like a scarf.

When Isthasyl was young, he found a Spell Scroll of Symbol of Insanity and almost succeeded in casting the Spell it contained.

Isthasyl went insane for 3 Years after failing to properly cast the Spell, but managed to regain his sanity through means beyond his own. A small tic or some other bit of odd behaviour might linger.

A famous mage saw potential in Isthasyl's broken and tragic soul, and tutored him in the arcane arts, as well as studying his mind and body in the process.

Isthasyl was terribly frightened by something he encountered. He ran away, abandoning his Mentor to their fate. He has no idea if they're alive or dead, but secretly hopes they're dead.

I became a Wizard because: I grew up listening to tales of great wizards and knew I wanted to follow their path. 

Isthasyl's Quests & Goals

"To pursue beyond the limits of what I have been told is capable, to seek the impossible and do what every Archmage before us has failed to do, is something of my happiest dreams." - Isthasyl Sonear speaking about his goals and future plans.

Isthasyl has unspecified plans for when he is a more powerful wizard. He wants to become powerful enough to kill people with just his gaze, command beasts and demons, and most of all be "Invulnerable to the World and it's Horrors".

Quotes

"My interests leave me not trusting anyone. Not feeling like I, in some ways, belong. And as such I spend a much of my time in solitude." - Isthasyl on the topic of trust.

"Today I risk my life for a ridiculous sum of coin." - Isthasyl on the topic of Adventuring.

"I remember the first time I killed a Wyvern. I was so young and yet they trusted me to go out on my own underneath the ice on my first hunt. I remember the confidence that flowed through my veins as I saw its shadow fly over my own and land before me, only a layer of ice separating us both. I remember the fear that came to me as I scratched through the ice to weaken it, and the rush as I crashed through it and grabbed the wyvern by it's head. I remember dragging it down into the water as it snapped and gasped for air, but I could never release my grip, I could not allow it. I took both arms around its skull and forced its mouth open so that it would gulp down the cold water. And I remember the relief as its throws under the water grew weaker… At times I wonder when that child died, and myself was born from his ruins..." - Isthasyl Sonear, describing his first experience of the Lone Hunt.

Other Notes

Isthasyl is a cannibal and has been known to eat the fresh corpses of those killed.

Isthasyl is a nihilist and pessimistic, always assuming that those around him are less intelligent than him until they prove him otherwise. He often phrases his fears as monotone phrases, such as "You're going to kill us" and "We're going to die" because he just assumes that the people around him are simply too stupid to keep themselves alive.

Isthasyl claims not to have a fear of death, and in fact has a cruel fascination with it. Since he can breathe water, he sometimes ponders what drowning would feel like for him, and since so many people claim the Onna Tribe to be Insane, and him having lost and regained his sanity, he often wonders about the process of "Going Insane" and what it means, and has recently taken an interest in studying the Abyss and the Lower Planes.

Isthasyl has a mild dislike of fire due to his upbringing in the Frigid North.

Isthasyl ate his own grandfather and older brother after their deaths, this was the first time Isthasyl participated in the act of cannibalism.

As you probably guessed, this is all the set up for my most recent Character in the ‘Blood and Mist’ Campaign ran by a Friends of mine.

And while I don’t have an actual backstory, what I do have is a framework, so why not work with this incredibly talented community to help write our a history for this little traumatised fish boy?

[thephilosophiesofbea]

Is Socialism the Most Appropriate Form of Government for the U.S.?

BY BETHANY HANNAN.

Socialism: Utopia or Dystopia?

In the U.S., if you’re in need of medical care, how long does it usually take to obtain it? After walking into the doctor’s office, maybe ten to twenty minutes? Now, imagine if that time quadrupled. In places governed by socialism, it is common to get put on a waitlist to see a doctor; the time of which you’re on that waitlist can range between six to eighty days. Some areas in Europe are particularly fond of this method of social organization. Two summers ago, my parents took a trip to Scotland, Ireland, Switzerland, and France. While in France, they came across a taxi driver who needed a knee surgery. He had been driving the taxi they were in for about five months, waiting for his turn to get a consultation. He was supposed to be on the waitlist for six months, but he had been waiting for a year to even figure out what he was supposed to do or what was going to happen. He didn’t get to pick his doctor, let alone for an important surgery that would determine whether or not he could walk afterwards. This is just one of the many different angles of socialism. This one, however, leans pretty heavily towards anti-socialism. Socialism has been, and always will be, a very controversial topic. But first, what is socialism? According to Lexico (funded by Oxford), socialism is “a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole”. Most would call that a socio-economic score, but the history of socialism and it’s concerning determinism begs to differ. Socialism started primarily with one man: Karl Marx, creator of Marxist socialism and believer in the “true” socialism and communism. He built up his definition of socialism to be “a society which permits the actualization of man's essence, by overcoming his alienation. It is nothing less than creating the conditions for the truly free, rational, active and independent man; it is the fulfillment of the prophetic aim: the destruction of the idols” (Fromm 5). Marx thought that a mind under a common good would be more securely operational than a divided mind under a self-benefiting, centralized force would be/had been. He found freedom in the fact that one could find solace in the shared communion of society, whereas a capitalist or otherwise individualistic government would segregate the people into hierarchies of social acceptance; in some ways, he was right. “The freedom in this field cannot consist of anything else but of the fact that socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it” (Fromm 3). But socialism has developed many different interpretations throughout the years that force the people to look at it from multiple angles. It used to be considered an “old man’s ideology”, but with the youth’s increasing political awareness and personal beliefs, it is now the talk of the political century. Many believe socialism could be the key to the ultimate utopia for our country, but there are many cracks within the glass that suggest otherwise. Considering the stats, it seems socialism has hindered some countries’ economic prosperity more than it has helped them.

In 1999, Venezuela came under the rule of a socialist government, all thanks to their late president Hugo Chavez. When Chavez got elected, he intended to alleviate poverty and the suffering of his citizens, but only promised economic degradation of his once-prospering country. In his article, Daniel Di Martino tells a personal anecdote about the effects of socialism saying, “The regime nationalized electricity in 2007, resulting in under-investment in the electrical grid. By 2016, my home lost power roughly once a week. Our water situation was even worse. Initially, my family didn't have running water for about one day per month, but as the years passed we sometimes went several weeks straight without it” (Di Martino 2-4). Hyperinflation burdened almost every family in Venezuela and many places governed under socialism. Everyday assets were hard to afford, meaning those who couldn’t afford them, or were simply stripped of them, had to pay the price for choosing a political party they didn’t quite understand the gravity of. Because of Chavez’s aspiration for a community that was not yet achievable, Venezuela’s economy collapsed and hyperinflation (inflation accelerated to 700 percent, says The American Institute for Economic Research) destroyed the country’s currency. Chavez also failed to console the public’s concerns about it. 

An editor from a Tribune Business News article states; 

As The New York Times reported in 2007: ‘Chavez has threatened to jail grocery store owners and nationalize their businesses if they violate the country's expanding price controls.’ Last year, his government seized a Cargill rice processing plant for failing to produce enough rice at regulated prices. Venezuela's government-run grocery stores present shoppers with two prices: the precio capitalista, or capitalist price, and the precio justo, or just price. (Tribune Business News 3)

Di Martino even tried to escape to the United States to rid himself of Venezuela’s lasting socialist ways, but he was only met with (and disgraced by) the States’ attempt (prompted by Sen. Bernie Sanders and others) to harness ultimately socialist ways as well. 

Granted, some will take the idealistic high road and argue that socialism works exceptionally well when everyone works under an “all-for-one” mindset. They defend their argument by providing evidence on how much the human mindset has already changed throughout the years we’ve existed because of the social status quo or a common statute or way of government, provided that capitalism has only existed for some 500 years, so there must have been some other way of functioning politically. 

In his article, Richard Ebeling provides an example of what some hyper-enthusiasts and idealistic believers in socialism think, saying; 

A true socialist society would mean more freedom not less, so it was unfair to judge socialism by these supposedly twisted experiments in creating a workers' paradise. Furthermore, under a true socialism, human nature would change and men would no longer be motivated by self-interest, but by a desire to selflessly advance the common good. (Ebeling 5)

But, to combat that far-fetched opinion, we must face the facts: man is powered by selfishness. It is in our DNA to want things only and tactlessly for ourselves, take the hunters and gatherers for example; only recently have we even considered, or more or less tolerated, sharing with others what we believe we worked hard for for ourselves. Although the human mindset contains room for growth and evolution and possibility for change, when it comes to sharing the fruits of our labors, it becomes a little less simplistic. We would become barbaric, or on the other side of the spectrum, realize we would never have to do anything ever again to earn said fruits, because they would be fruits of someone else’s labor. 

Socialism has a good intention set forth, but it still needs several reevaluations before it can be considered a true rumination. Although some try to argue that socialism is making a sizeable dent in the political forcefield, it’s quite the contrary; the lasting members of the socialist party for the US are nearing their demise. In his article, Robby Soave advocates for this detail, saying, “As recently as 2013, the average member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) was 68 years old. Even today, the ideology's best-known spokesperson, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), is 77” (Soave 8). If anything, the socialist party will be fading come ten years from now instead of “uniting the people through means of commonality” like the enthusiasts hope. It could be possible, however, if the socialist party were to tweak some of their over-eager precepts, such as with Hugo Chavez’s plan to abolish poverty. Perhaps focusing on opening up more entry-level jobs for those that don’t have the money or experience for higher-level opportunities, thus preparing them for said higher-level opportunities by providing them work experience at large. Redesigning the whole government into a socialist “utopia” wouldn’t have been necessary, just redefinition of Venezuela’s old government. If we were to all agree to work towards a socialist world, the structure of every institution and every format of law would need to change. "Mere state ownership of key productive forces is not enough to create a socialist society; the people must exercise a sovereign rule over these productive forces and society as a whole, and the society must be organized to promote collective needs" (McChesney 11). Instead of reinventing the government in its entirety, the government should simply and unhesitantly address what caused all of the poverty. If it was actually democracy that ruined Venezuela’s socio-economic status or if, with any means of government, poverty would still be present in the country. In his article, Eric Foner brought the empty promises of socialism to the light, saying, “The Socialist party, although it elected hundreds of candidates to local office and obtained nearly a million votes for Eugene Debs's 1912 presidential candidacy, failed nevertheless to bridge the gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, and native-born whites, blacks, and immigrants” (Foner 2). Throughout the years, socialism and its tendency to manifest fickle infrastructure has never promised anything more than a contradictory mix of ensured laziness and chaos because of lack of assiduousness and satisfaction in one’s own achievements. 

But let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: capitalism, “an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state” (Lexico, funded by Oxford). The nation’s silent assailant isn’t as innocent of charges as we grant it to be. Capitalism has accustomed some to receiving all, and others receiving none, therefore the idea of socialism is a bizarre and frankly forbidden concept some refuse to accept. "In the development of U.S. capitalism, the wealth of some was inextricably tied to the poverty of others, and race and gender largely determined which were which: Native American land, Black slavery, Latin American resources, and the underpaid labor of women and children factory workers formed the pillars of capital accumulation" (Mankiller 3). Under this mindset, US citizens, and anyone else under a fundamentally capitalist way of operating, often slip into a disposition to where they believe they are entitled to free choice. But free choice is merely a side dish that comes alongside capitalism, almost as a “thank you” package for putting it into place. US citizens forget to acknowledge all of the delicacies that capitalism has graced us with (or, rather, addicted us to). Let’s take phones for example: phones, iPhones in particular, have become the poster child of our generation, all thanks to capitalism. We are able to buy one whenever we want, get whatever model we want, get whatever update we want when we want, get whatever apps we want on there (excluding incidences of parental restriction, but even then, that’s a freedom within itself). We have a million different freedoms right between our palms and we forget it every day. With socialism, people tend to forget that it’s an “all-for-one” mindset, therefore those decisions are made for you, and you have no say in it. This is no longer a democracy, whether you try your hardest to believe it so or not. Now the government makes every action for you. Makes socialism look a little more restricting now, doesn’t it? Well, you’ll have plenty of time to have your complaints sent to voicemail, since socialism sits idle in office for four lengthy years. Surprise! Welcome to autocracy and favored aristocracy. Population, you. Also, don’t think socialism will pick favorites among the people, because it won’t. It will only make life easier for those with millions flowing out of their britches every month. For a solid amount of people, that’s a tricky and unconstitutional notion that they want to avoid letting their kids grow up with.

Speaking of the youth, institutions such as schools would change structures completely. Public schools under a socialist government would alter the democratic way the teachers teach in the classroom. Some view this alteration as a blessing in disguise, one that eliminates material competition for students and eagerly encourages a positive reinforcement teaching method. Students would be “placed in work based on their strengths and not be penalized for their weaknesses” (angelfire.com). Many teachers currently argue that a more well-rounded and socialized instructional method would “build character” and “effectively teach right from wrong”. Students would learn quicker and would legitimately welcome teacher instruction without fear of potentially ill-fitted punishment. Karl Marx argued for “‘polytechnical education’, linking schooling with the real world of production” (socialistsalternative.org). He believed this new method of instruction would differentiate those who “labored” and those who “thought”, thus progressing our society into what it needed to be to better the circumstances we live in. In the 1950’s, an institution called the Socialist Sunday School (SSS) changed mainstream instructional ways into those encouraging socialism. The school taught more diverse topics, like Philosophy, and encouraged students to look at things from a new, more socialized perspective; one that, they argued, schools under capitalism failed to endorse. Margaret McMillan, one of the school’s utmost supporters, put forth that there was “new intimacy between teacher and taught” (Reid 5). She then proceeded to state the freedoms our kids should have, and would have under a more socialist way of schooling, saying, “our children should draw freely” and “they should write more and talk more than is possible in the day school” (5). Furthermore, privatized education, under socialism, would encourage charter schools to place their books under public scrutiny because of public funding towards it. Many who believe in “true” socialism also believe in this notion coming into fruition; the public paid for those books to be given to charter schools, and capitalism has denied them from even using them, so socialism would, therefore, grant rights to things that were previously deemed “privatized”, which is one of the reasons why so many people are in its favor. 

Education and political affiliations are bound to be interconnected. Differing governmental styles have a heavy influence on the infrastructure and lesson plans of a school’s curriculum. It ultimately determines what the students are exposed to, thus those who learn more prevalent material during their school years tend to have better chances to succeed later in life. Voxeu.com states, “treated individuals, who were exposed to socialist schooling for one less school year, exhibit 2% higher employment rates and 1.5% higher hours worked. For the older birth cohorts, less exposure to non-meritocratic access restrictions in the treated group leads to 4% higher wages and a 5% higher probability of having a professional job” (12). Schools functioning under socialism would presumably be more efficient as the years went on and the pure definition or representation of morals of socialism would be reevaluated. They would offer higher level thinking opportunities and give time for students’ problem solving skills to develop due to lessened authoritarianism in the classrooms. Socialism, in this instance, would solve many unnecessary setbacks in educational settings. 

My parents’ taxi driver’s experience with socialism continues to be the poster child for why observers of any political movement should look at both sides of the road before crossing. Public healthcare in places dominated by socialist governments such as France could be considered an actor with an excellent facade. It will hold up it’s act until the curtains close and the lights begin to fade and nobody is around to see how genuinely flawed it really is. It’s mask is slowly developing cracks, yet those cracks are not enough to enforce change in legal structures. It won’t be enough until it breaks completely and tanks France’s governmental state too. Universal healthcare has not only shot down opportunities for free choice when it comes to doctors or waitlists, but it has also driven away any competition in the healthcare business due to one business centralizing all profit. 

In his article, John Sieler demonstrates how ruinous universal healthcare could be if manipulated by those fighting for said centralization, saying; 

TennCare (another experiment in medical socialism), explains the entry in Wikipedia, ‘was designed to expand health insurance to the uninsured through the state's Medicaid program by utilizing managed care.’ Centralization was supposed to reduce costs, with ‘free’ money from the federal government picking up any financial slack. But predictably, many companies stopped providing medical insurance, forcing employees to sign up with TennCare. ‘In short order, one quarter of the state's population was on TennCare,’ Patrick Poole wrote on AmericanThinker.com last January. TennCare ‘has forced dozens of hospitals out of business, pushed thousands of doctors and other health care professionals out of the state, destroyed any semblance of a competitive health insurance market, and nearly drove the state government into bankruptcy.’ (15-16)

Universal healthcare proves beneficial in theory, but as anything more than a hypothetical, it severely lacks any strong foundation. As it’s carried out, those who practice business under it will benefit, whilst those who are forced to live under it will fall prey to extended wait times and lack of free choice.

Socialism, as a whole, poses many thoughts about what freedoms man is granted at birth and upholding those freedoms throughout one’s lifetime. Moral and socio-economic angles have to be approached to come to a sensible conclusion. As of right now, the most logical conclusion, given the state at which socialism is currently, is that the political movement is not ready for export. Socialism begs too many questions and leaves too many loose ends free for it to be properly dished out. The leaders wanting to fight for socialism to become as mainstream as capitalism will ultimately let the centralized power get to their head, and subsequently, lose control of what was once a stable country. Karl Marx had a clear vision to which he was ready to manifest into fruition, given the economic state of the world around him. But the vision he wants to implement is too fool-hardy and quick to the gun. Maybe Marx’s dream for socialism will come true some day, once all is taken into revision. Then we, as human beings, can finally say we learned the way of mental plasticity, true change, and, thus, a reason to never doubt the supposedly impossible. But until then, man will continue to harvest, blindly and exclusively.

Works Cited (and Interesting Sites to check out!)

Ebeling, Richard M. "Why Socialism is "Impossible"." Freeman, Oct 2004. Sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2267936372?accountid=41449.

Foner, Eric, and John A. Garraty. "Socialism." , 1991. Sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2265463961?accountid=41449.

Fuchs-Schündeln, Nicola and Masella, Paolo. 05 June 2016. 

https://voxeu.org/article/long-lasting-effects-socialist-education

Fromm, Erich. “Marx’s Concept of Socialism.” 1961.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm

Glover, Juleanna, et al. “What Would a Socialist America Look Like?” POLITICO Magazine, 3 Sept. 2018, www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/03/what-would-a-socialist-america-look-like-219626.

Mankiller, Wilma. Socialism. , 1998. Sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2265472802?accountid=41449.

Martino, Daniel D. "Socialism Destroyed My Home, Venezuela." USA TODAY, 19 Feb 2019. Sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2264363868?accountid=41449.

McChesney, Robert W. "Capitalism, the Absurd System." Monthly Review, 06 2010. Sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2265594180?accountid=41449.

Soave, Robby. "Socialism is Back, and the Kids are Loving it." Reason, Aug 2019. Sirsissuesresearcher,

Reid, Julie. The Guardian (pre-1997 Fulltext); Manchester (UK) [Manchester (UK)]02 Jan 1996: T.014.

BY BETHANY HANNAN.

[archiveofprolbems]

Crypto Currency and the End of Capitalism (Part 1/2)

The technological ingenuity of the blockchain is a development that should not be underestimated. Using this ingenuity, cryptocurrencies provide an economic system that is untethered from a centralized banking ledger. The system’s primary genius comes from the large-scale communal recording and verification process of economic transactions (bitcoin mining). No trust is required in a central apparatus to verify trades. Even though the ledger system, which records who owns what, is decentralized and public, it requires zero faith that individual actors will not tamper with the ledger. The only way to alter this system outside of its intended structure (e.g., the only way to enshrine fake transactions in the communal ledger which benefit you) is to provide more processing power than a majority of the miners.

The “truth” of the blockchain is enshrined and policed in production. It is unlike any monetary system seen before it. In a certain sense, we can think of its significance as similar to the microwave. The microwave allows for something that has not been done before in all human history: to cook food from the inside-out using electromagnetic radiation. When one explains the microwave in this way, which is empirically correct, it makes this technological innovation seem far more significant than what it truly is. In reality, cooking has not been “revolutionized” through the microwave because it is the same mundane process as before, just slightly easier as a result of technological development.

When describing something like bitcoin — making important note of its decentralized verification structure, its inability to be controlled by governments, etc. — one may immediately imagine it is as revolutionary, altering the very fabric of society for the better. Surely this is what its creators had imagined it would do. This is especially clear given that the individual or team that developed bitcoin did so under a pseudonym. Fear of unleashing a technology into the world which would threaten the stability of governments and their economic policies is not something any intelligent programmer would take lightly. Some might have imagined, and some likely still do, that the development of the world’s first decentralized currency is revolutionary in the sense that it will destroy the top-down authoritarian structures of the capitalist market. Instead, we have come to find out that cryptocurrency is just like the microwave.

I make the argument that bitcoin, and other market innovations, cannot “disrupt” top-down capitalist economic structures for many reasons, firstly anthropological: It appears as if the common sense bourgeois position that markets are a product of human nature, and subsequently can and have existed in non-hierarchical societies, cannot be reasonably verified by historical evidence. To quote anthropologist David Graeber:

“In that common-sense view, the State and the Market tower above all else as diametrically opposed principles. Historical reality reveals, however, that they were born together and have always been intertwined.” -David Graeber, Debt: The First 5000 Years.

It turns out, historically speaking, that markets only occur alongside the invention of the state and did not exist before this pivotal movement (or moments) in human history.

Lewis Henry Morgan’s descriptions of the Six Nations of the Iroquois, among others, were widely published-and they made clear that the main economic institution among the Iroquois nations were longhouses where most goods were stockpiled and then allocated by women’s councils, and no one ever traded arrowheads for slabs of meat. Economists simply ignored this information.” Graeber, Debt: The First 5000 Years.

There is no mystical “state of nature” in which humans freely trade with each other through barter and crude currency systems as the primary means of resource distribution. In early hunter-gatherer societies, we can note that, as Graeber demonstrated, resources are allocated and distributed based upon the needs of the collective society. Markets, and economic transactions, as the primary mode of societal resource distribution emerge only after the violent process of dispossession and accumulation of social surplus which happens alongside the historical emergence of the state.

It is relatively easy to infer from this basic anthropological position that markets are predicated upon states. Of course, this is unless one argues that the state allows for markets to be created but may “wither away” and still allow for market relations in a decentralized system. It seems fitting that blockchain technology would be a beneficial resource to make this reality possible. It is too bad that it isn’t possible. The primary reason a market is not possible without a state, which is confirmed by the anthropological evidence, relates to the necessary monopoly on violence connected to private property. It turns out that market-based economic transactions contain the incentive to screw over the person (or entity) that one is trading with. This does not lend well to cooperation if there is no entity that oversees these transactions and ensures they do not escalate towards violence.

When Hobbes remarks that the “state of nature” is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” he would have been correct about this assessment assuming that humans only interacted with each other within this “state of nature” through economic transactions. The trading that does happen in these early societies (e.g., societies that Hobbes would argue are closest to the state of nature) are generally between strangers and play out similarly to how Hobbes described the state of nature. The social rituals around them often include either anger/violence or social mechanisms to undercut the inevitable anger and violence that may come from the realization that one has gotten the bad end of a deal. From Graeber’s example of the Nambikwara of Brazil:

“If an individual wants an object he extols it by saying how fine it is. If a man values an object and wants much in exchange for it, instead of saying that it is very valuable he says that it is no good, thus showing his desire to keep it. “This axe is no good, it is very old, it is very dull,” he will say, referring to his axe which the other wants. This argument is carried on in an angry tone of voice until a settlement is reached. When agreement has been reached each snatches the object out of the other’s hand. If a man has bartered a necklace, instead of taking it off and handing it over, the other person must take it off with a show of force. Disputes, often leading to fights, occur when one party is a little premature and snatches the object before the other has finished arguing.”

We can see that the only manifestations of a market system in early anarchistic societies (that is, societies without a state) is “carried out between people who might otherwise be enemies and hover[s] about an inch away from outright warfare — and… if one side later decide[s] they had been taken advantage of, it c[an] very easily lead to actual wars.”

Contrary to Hobbes’ view, this “state of nature” where there is a constant threat of others stealing one’s personal property because there is no government to mediate personal differences, is only noticed in the market transactions that are few and far between within early communal societies. The image of the barbarous chaos of a pre-state, pre-government society (or lack of society for Hobbes) in which my personal property may be arbitrarily taken by the strongest and most physically capable whenever they deem it desirable to them would logically lead to the development of the state to mediate our differences and protect the weak from the strong. Hobbes is correct that this would be an entirely irrational way to live. If it was “human nature” to organize ourselves as he described, then the development of the state would be logical. This is why societies that have existed without a state primarily distributed goods based upon the collective group’s needs and desires, not upon trade and barter.

While bitcoin’s decentralized autonomous ledger system may sneak some power away from centralized financial systems, blockchain could not hope to predicate an anarcho-capitalist society. The ledgers which keep track of economic transactions within a blockchain may appear to be rhizomatic (that is, they maybe be predicated on a “mass root” system of non-hierarchical connections that must all be severed for the organism to die). Yet, these connections are also ironically predicated upon a state to enforce their validity. Let’s imagine that in a cryptocurrency based anarcho-capitalist utopia, I buy a pair of shoes through bitcoin, and the seller steals them back after our economic transaction is verified. Without a state to intervene and enforce the property relations enshrined in the ledger, I am fresh out of luck.

In this example, blockchain technology’s decentralized nature actually makes the state’s job of enforcing property relations (which are recorded in the communal blockchain ledger) even more difficult. The state would have no capacity to meaningfully alter the ledger itself in this situation. In a certain left accelerationist sense, the potential domination of blockchain-based currencies is a good thing. It weakens the state’s capacity to oversee and monitor economic transactions and moves us further towards a market system that is truly “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

The primary process of recording which is essential to the capitalist society is the recording of capital itself. As Keynes correctly identified (and Daniel W. Smith excellently explicated), the capitalist social formation is fundamentally structured on the question of “codes, flows and stocks.” (1) Who owns what? (2) Who trades what to who? And (3) who verifies this? Are the three primary questions the capitalist society is contingent upon. If it is unable to continue to answer these, then it is destroyed. Blockchain based currencies answer these questions in an entirely unique way compared to traditional monetary systems. The inscription of capital is a communal process which cannot be disrupted by attacks on the central mechanisms of recording. The truth of the transaction is enshrined in production, it cannot be altered if the state or other important actors deem certain transactions as unfavourable.

One way of conceptualizing this phenomenon, following the Deleuzo-Guattarian concepts of “rhizomatic” and “arborescent” structures, is the ebb and flow between deterritorialization and reterritorialization within a politico-economic system dominated by capital. Capital critiques and breaks down pre-existing social formations for the sake of the further generation of capital — one can think of women gaining a modicum of rights as a result of their integration into the workforce as an example of this; the destruction of some element of pre-capitalist social formations for the sake of more available workers to generate capital. One can conceptualize the elements of blockchain currencies which operate entirely independently of the state apparatus, e.g., their public decentralized ledger systems, as being deterritorializations which then have an even increasingly more difficult time safely being reterritorialized. It is in this sense that Marx did not even understand how correct he was when he stated that “all that is solid melts into air.”

While this tendency within capitalism generates the capacity for lines of flight outside of the system, any deterritorialization done by capital itself cannot hope to lead towards lines of flight. These capitalist deterritorialization cannot allow for the possibility of a movement outside of capitalism. Within Schizoanalytic Cartographies, Guattari explicates how rhizomatic structures that attempt to form based purely on the deterritorial capacities of capital will necessarily reterritorialize into arborescent, top-down authoritarian structures.

“The history of capitalist subjectivity appears to me to be inseparable from a double tension, which pulls it in opposite directions: towards a deterritorialization expelling it from its ‘native lands’ — of the orders of childhood, filiation, life situation, professional guarantee, ethiconational identity…and towards an existential reterritorialization that is strictly imbricated with the functionality of the system as a whole.”

Any semblance of a rhizome produced for the sake of capital, which works to critique the pre-capitalist top-down arborescent structures, will necessarily be re-integrated into the system to help strengthen it, will necessarily be rendered arborescent. When one analyzes something like a cryptocurrency and notes its decentralized nature, one must importantly analyze this structure on a three dimensional, as opposed to two dimensional, plane, noting that while certain elements of this relationship appear rhizomatic they are in fact necessarily connected to an arborescent structure which comes from above.

(thank you to https://twitter.com/schizoidvisions for the drawing)

The communal, decentralized ledger system that bitcoin revolves around is also contingent on the centralized use of violence for the sake of the enforcement of that ledger system (private property) or it would mean nothing. The state follows the ledger system and the ledger system only works so long as the state protects it.

Capital constantly works to critique itself, to “revolutionize” against itself, and in many cases even does so faster than the left can critique it. This is not towards the end of capitalism, of course, but its further acceleration. One can note the business jargon of “disruption” as a by-product of this. The capitalist is constantly fighting against themself to destroy potentially obsolete markets and provide to consumers new value-networks that can accrue more profit, more surplus extraction, more value. As Nick Land writes:

“Capital revolutionizes harder, deeper, and faster than “the Revolution”. Its lack of attachment to itself exceeds anything the left has been able to consistently match. Capital’s scandalous immortality is derived solely from its inventiveness in ways to kill itself.”

We must not allow capital to kill itself. We must be the ones who kill capital. It must bleed to death under our knives. The left must understand the immanent tendency of capital towards self-criticism lest our critique of capital be a critique of a system that no longer exists except for in the writings of long-dead philosophers. One of the primary achievements of the left in the 20th century was the further entrenchment and spread of capital. In a certain sense, we have been much better allies to capital than capital has been to itself. If the further acceleration of capital may allow for the system to destabilize — if there may be a blockchain-based world economy where the management and inscription of capital is public, decentralized, and unregulated — then the left must pounce on this new world. We must do so instead of either (1) clinging to the old world, with the perceived certainties of state capitalist leftist projects or (2) simply critiquing the old world, which begins to disappear not because of the left’s might, but because of the might of capital itself.

-Liv Agar

Source: https://livagar.medium.com/cryptocurrency-and-the-end-of-capitalism-1-2-f11db6a4815b

[pattriikk]

On Empathy: Menacing Individualism

Where I left off, I established the tendency of the Grand Play of Transaction, or the inevitable outcome of living in a society which thrives on consumption, to dehumanize. This, for my purposes, was a tendency specifically towards the homeless. What I neglected to expand upon was why this dehumanization might disproportionately affect the homeless. While it may seem self-apparent in the event of an individual simply "falling through the cracks," I think that viewing the issue through this singular lens prevents us from seeing an important underlying structure.

To recapitulate, I speculated that our altruism to our human brothers and sisters has become an investment. Thus, begging for money is the vying for our investment; individuals are pressured to act in the Play for us so that they can earn our investment —inspire our Transaction. They must sell themselves to us, usually through a demonstration of their virtue. We, the saviors as we fancy ourselves to be, want so badly to help — on our own terms. We simply must know that they are going to use our investment wisely. Without discussion of if this is or is not 'just,' it is indeed a value judgement we the saviors make — an inherently normative and individualistic one at that.

From this point it is almost inevitable that the choir of "they will spend it on drugs/alcohol" will sound. To this argument I respond, "So what?" To speak in strictly capitalist terms, your investment in them was a gift you freely chose to give. They should, in turn, be able to choose what to do with it. But it isn't enough to just say that one shouldn't restrict their freedoms; our strictly capitalistic terms prove inadequate to accommodate for the intricacies of this situation, in part, because they make the very situation insoluble.

To believe that a few dollars will be able to make any meaningful (socially reformative) difference in the life of a homeless person is a disgustingly benevolent and shortsighted point of view. From whence does this view arise?

History, that scroll of Divine fiction, offers us noise enough to feel as though the apprehension of a signal (a reason of being) is pointless at best, impossible at worst. However, I don't think it's without merit to examine the dilapidated AM radio which spins our discourse on the homeless into accepted idiom.

The dehumanizing attitudes we have towards individuals without homes stems from our inability — at large — to recognize that what worked for us might not work for others. It is emboldened by our rationalization of our present economic and political organization. Of course class antagonism has existed since class has existed, but our attitudes surrounding the fairness of the economy gives us justification in writing off those less fortunate.

To borrow from Jonathan Crary's polemic "24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep," I would contend that this justification was cauterized in the 1980s with the rise of neoliberalism. Crary states that, during this time, "time itself became monetized, and the individual redefined as a full-time economic agent" (71, emphasis added). To Carry, then, the benevolent view of the savior would come from the belief that people facing economic destitution simply did a poor job in fulfilling their role as an economic agent. I agree that this is certainly a contributing factor, but I believe it extends to the whole ideology of liberal democracy. There is something intrinsic in the artificial structure of our society which prevents us from being able to empathize.

The founding fathers would argue — and many would agree — that this is simply one of the pitfalls of human nature. A simple question pokes a hole through this dried out argument: Would you help if you could?

Of course. What's keeping you, then? Is it the extrinsic circumstances, or that pesky human nature again? Legendary sociologist Marshall Sahlins contended that we have erroneously concluded that we are all evil and greedy by nature:

"It's all been a huge mistake. My modest conclusion is that Western civilization has been constructed on a perverse and mistaken idea of human nature. Sorry, beg your pardon; it was all a mistake. It is probably true, however, that this perverse idea of human nature endangers our existence" (112, emphasis added).

Insofar as we are focused on our survival as a species, yes — I would agree that any force which serves to stifle our capacity to empathize with our fellow human beings is a profound danger to us.

Sahlins has shown in his seminal work, 'The Original Affluent Society,' that there is an inverse relationship between what we view as industrial progress and economic equality. That is, with "advanced" economic organization comes the failure to meet the needs of the populace. Hunter-gatherer societies, on the other hand, have little trouble fulfilling their needs.

This is engendered by the cooperative necessity of hunter-gatherer societies; they are entirely egalitarian, and their inhabitants must depend on each other for their survival. Thus, they form close social relationships with each other, and the preservation of the lives of their neighbors is a precondition for their own survival.

It is argued that this necessity of cooperation led to the evolutionary development of mirror neurons, or the basis of affective empathy. Arguing on this basis, psychologists such as Martin Hoffman to declare that every human being is born with the capacity to feel empathy. However, returning to liberal democracy, we see that one of the conceptual assumptions of the very political structure stands in the way of empathy: individualism.

Individualism is central to liberal ideology. Following Rousseau and Locke, we see that this ideology is founded on the idea that a society, instead of being composed of interdependent actors working towards a common good, is a collection of individuals separated from others and possessing their own needs, goals, and desires. Crary's indictment of the neoliberalism of the 1980s adds: and each pursuing their own economic interests.

Thus, upon seeing the homeless, we would love to help, but we can't. Naturally inclined as we may be to protect our fellow human beings, our societal structure offers us no means — no incentive — with which we can make a difference for those who have "fallen through the cracks." What, then, as individuals, can we do? Do we look within or without?

A word I have used throughout speaks to the unconscious truth of what we do in order to avoid 'needless' existential inquiry: dehumanization. We are capable of empathy, and we see our fellow human being suffer, perhaps every day. The immoral but not illogical (given the circumstances) response is to decouple humanity from the suffering human. "They must have done this… anything… to deserve this." Through our own societal emphasis on individualism, we are given due justification to disregard the humanity of those less fortunate.

Individualism allows us to hold, paradoxically, that all are created equal, despite the astounding lack of proof for this inalienable truth. Further, it is a necessary doctrine to preach in a society of rampant inequality; it is an ideological safeguard employed as a counter to our natural tendency towards empathic behavior — lest our humanistic inclinations cause is to live in constant contempt of an economic organization comprised mostly of cracks.