Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.
Frederick Douglass, "Southern Barbarism (1886)"
It's interesting the way people post images of e.g. Iranian women before the revolution, not covering their hair and so on, and talk wistfully about the time when Iran was a "Westernized nation". At the same time, they'll post colonial-era pictures of women in e.g. Africa or South Asia not covering their breasts, with precisely the opposite implication ("look at these primitive tribes, not yet Westernized"). And of course in both cases, "Westernization" is taken as an unequivocal positive. Apparently the correct amount of a woman's body to socially enforce the covering of is precisely the amount landed on by modern day Europe and the US. What a coincidence.
Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations.
Marx - Poverty of Philosophy 1847
i think society’s obsession with productivity will be our downfall, it’s unrealistic. you don’t need to be productive every minute of the day. your body needs rest. it’s not natural to stay “grinding” or “hustling”. please don’t feel guilty about taking care of your body and taking a break when you need one.
The situation is currently so wild and messed up in my country, Iran.
The government wants ALL of the people to have strong faith in Islam. They force all the women to wear hijab, even if a woman isn't even muslim.
We do not want this in our country!! Everyone should be free to choose what they want to wear, if they want to be muslim or not and if they want to wear hijab or not.
A couple of days ago, Mahsa Amini who was just a normal 22-year-old girl and was on vacation with her family got arrested, beaten and killed by the moral security police, just because she wasn't wearing hijab.
If you see a young girl get murdered by some random person in the street, what do you do? Of course you go and tell the police. But now, in Iran, the policemen are the murderers who are killing some innocent people. WHERE CAN WE REPORT THEIR CRIMES???
Lots of people in Iran are demonstrating in different places now and we're getting united against this unfair situation. But that's not enough! Many people get killed by the police in these demonstrations and we can hear the sound of shotguns echoing in the streets.
You, the people who live in other countries that are safe enough, please be our voice! Please reblog my post or even share it on other platforms. Do whatever you can! Please don't leave us alone. All we want is just freedom and justice.
Please be our voice 🙏🖤
Tweet by Mohamad Safa.
[Text ID: “What we learned from COVID? That oil is worthless in a society without consumption. That healthcare has to be public because health is public. That 50% of jobs can be done from home while the other 50% deserve more than they're being paid. That we live in a society not an economy“ /End ID]
« Foreigners follow American news stories like their own, listen to American pop music, and watch copious amounts of American television and film. [...] Americans, too, stick to the U.S. The list of the 500 highest-grossing films of all time in the U.S., for example, doesn’t contain a single foreign film (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon comes in at 505th, slightly higher than Bee Movie but about a hundred below Paul Blart: Mall Cop). [...]
How did this happen? How did cultural globalization in the twentieth century travel along such a one-way path? And why is the U.S.—that globe-bestriding colossus with more than 700 overseas bases—so strangely isolated?
[...W]hen 600 or so journalists, media magnates, and diplomats arrived in Geneva in 1948 to draft the press freedom clauses for [...] the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights [...], definitional difficulties abounded. Between what the U.S. meant by “freedom of information” and what the rest of the world needed lay a vast expanse. For the American delegates, the question belonged to the higher plane of moral principle. But representatives of other states had more earthly concerns.
The war had tilted the planet’s communications infrastructure to America’s advantage. In the late 1940s, for example, the U.S. consumed 63% of the world’s newsprint supply; to put it more starkly, the country consumed as much newsprint in a single day as India did over the course of a year. A materials shortage would hamper newspaper production across much of the world into at least the 1950s. The war had also laid low foreign news agencies—Germany’s Wolff and France’s Havas had disappeared entirely—and not a single news agency called the global south home. At the same time, America’s Associated Press and United Press International both had plans for global expansion, leading The Economist to note wryly that the executive director of the AP emitted “a peculiar moral glow in finding that his idea of freedom coincides with his commercial advantage.”
Back in Geneva, delegates from the global south pointed out these immense inequalities. [...] But the American delegates refused the idea that global inequality itself was a barrier to the flow of information across borders. Besides, they argued, redistributive measures violated the sanctity of the press. The U.S. was able to strong-arm its notion of press freedom—a hybrid combining the American Constitution’s First Amendment and a consumer right to receive information across borders—at the conference, but the U.N.’s efforts to define and ensure the freedom of information ended in a stalemate.
The failure to redistribute resources, the lack of multilateral investment in producing more balanced international flows of information, and the might of the American culture industry at the end of the war—all of this amounted to a guarantee of the American right to spread information and culture across the globe.
The postwar expansion of American news agencies, Hollywood studios, and rock and roll bore this out. [...] Meanwhile, the State Department and the American film industry worked together to dismantle other countries’ quota walls for foreign films, a move that consolidated Hollywood’s already dominant position.
[...A]s the U.S. exported its culture in astonishing amounts, it imported very little. In other words, just as the U.S. took command as the planetary superpower, it remained surprisingly cut off from the rest of the world. A parochial empire, but with a global reach. [And] American culture[’s] inward-looking tendencies [precede] the 1940s.
The media ecosystem in particular, Lebovic writes, [already] constituted an “Americanist echo chamber.” Few of the films shown in American cinemas were foreign (largely a result of the Motion Picture Production Code, which the industry began imposing on itself in 1934; code authorities prudishly disapproved of the sexual mores of European films). Few television programs came from abroad [...]. Few newspapers subscribed to foreign news agencies. Even fewer had foreign correspondents. And very few pages in those papers were devoted to foreign affairs. An echo chamber indeed, [... which] reduced the flow of information and culture from much of the rest of the world to a trickle. [...]
Today is not the 1950s. [... But] America’s culture industry has not stopped its mercantilist pursuits. And Web 2.0 has corralled a lot of the world’s online activities onto the platforms of a handful of American companies. America’s geopolitical preeminence may slip away in the not-so-distant future, but it’s not clear if Americans will change the channel. »
— “How American Culture Ate the World”, a review of Sam Lebovic’s book A Righteous Smokescreen: Postwar America and the Politics of Cultural Globalization
A very common situation for the speech community of a moribund language is for a majority of the members to want the language to keep existing, but many of the members to also choose to leave the community, typically because of low economic or social opportunity. This illustrates that community death is often a resource problem and a coordination problem, not a simple result of changing preferences. Trying to solve these problems is not reactionary.
Fatness: *literally connected to poverty to the point that so many poor and working class people are fat, and on top of that fat people even experience a wage gap and are not paid as much for the same work as their thin peers*
Society: Let's portray greed, capitalism, corporations, CEOs, and anyone with an ounce of power (especially power over the working class) as fat! :)
"Progressive" people: Fucking brilliant