tags

oozey mess
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
sheepfilms

shark vs the universe
Sweet Seals For You, Always

Jar Jar Binks Fan Club
macklin celebrini has autism
Sade Olutola

gracie abrams

pixel skylines

Origami Around
RMH
Game of Thrones Daily
The Stonewall Inn

tannertan36
Cosmic Funnies
One Nice Bug Per Day

seen from United States

seen from France
seen from Spain

seen from United States

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States
seen from Philippines
seen from Ukraine
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from Panama
seen from Ukraine

seen from Germany
seen from Bangladesh

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Colombia

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Germany

seen from United States
@worldinourhands
tags

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Sheku “Goldenfinger” Fofanah — "Fairy Masquerade Ensemble” (fabric, sequins, wood, paint and glue, 2022)
From Cuba
Carlos Jaramillo
An essay about the meaning of becoming a communist
I went out into the streets in 2020, the campuses in 2024, and the detention centers in 2025 because to be at peace with myself, I have to be at war with the world.
tres atardeceres distintos desde la misma ventana

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
hello, beginner reader here. I'm having a lot of difficulty with Marx with his syntax and word choices. For instance, I really have no idea how to interpret a sentence like this: "Wealth is, on the one hand, a thing, realized in things, in material products as against man as a subject. (Pre-capitalist economic formations, 1857) The part in bold really trips me up, I was following the stuff before that though. How do I interpret the clause "as against man as a subject"? What do I read before hand to understand the different way that he is using language here? I stumble into a lot of things like this in his writing. I have a feeling it has a basis in analytic philosophy but im not at all familiar with it.
A lot of it is just stuff that doesn’t really get across from German to English very well. Some of it is translators making choices that prioritize those with background reading in Marx’s intellectual influences and milieu (German idealists like Hegel, political economists like Ricardo, socialists like Proudhon). The remainder is Marx writing for bourgeois intellectuals more than for communist workers, who he delivered speeches to and conducted classes with. The records from Marx’s agitation and education of the masses that we have show a very different style to these theoretical texts and if you’re just starting it might help to go through his speeches delivered for the International Workingmen’s Association and then his documents written for the Communist League.
When you see him use “subject” like that, think the way we use “agent” in contemporary English. What he means here is that wealth is on the one hand a material thing that we as agents can see, feel, smell, taste, touch, and otherwise sense. So material wealth can be products sold as commodities, like the water bottle that I have right next to me within my reach. The usefulness of these things to me is entirely based on their material properties, which determines what I can do with them when they’re right here within my reach. Their use-value is more general than just those uses, and it’s more like the uses that society sets aside for things. For example, I could technically use the water bottle as a hammer, but it wouldn’t be a very good one. It’s been designed, produced, sold, and consumed in my use of it for the purpose of storing water and making it convenient for me to take controlled sips of it.
But I don’t make the water bottle, or almost any of the things that are around me right now. For the water bottle to reach me, all of its components had to go through that whole process of being designed, produced, sold, bought, and consumed in the production of the bottle. Then, after a worker synthesized those into the bottle and it went through its own circuit of that process and I bought the product (with its use-value of drinking water even listed on a sticker) it became my own to use. I had to buy it with some part of my wages in order to get it for my own use. In other words, while a use-value is a given for any product to be useful for more than one person, the process also has to have an exchange-value for it to go through that whole process.
So wealth is not just things that are useful in their material characteristics. Wealth can take the form of money, which I have in the form of the cash and cards inside the wallet that I have in my pocket. But with money, things get weird. Even if it’s a material object, money is useless as just that. If I don’t use them for exchange, my dollars are just nasty little pieces of paper, and my cards are just flimsy pieces of plastic. In the exchange of a product for another product, and especially of a quantity of money for an equivalent quantity of products, wealth takes on a more abstract form. You can’t reach out and touch it, it’s more like a way that we all conceive of and regulate these everyday relationships that we enter into when we exchange things.
Later on Marx is going to show how that dual character of material wealth takes on the immaterial form of value in capitalist society, where commercial money is the most normal form that wealth takes rather than material products. He’s going to show that value still has its own dual character, that this dual character is intimately tied to the dual character of the labor that converts material wealth into market value, and that that labor is the source for the surplus-value that becomes new capital at the end of this whole circuit of exchange and production. Think of this as a theory of how society in general and capitalism in particular organizes, accounts for, and manages its use of material wealth and the labor process that creates new things or changes the existing things into new ones. What Marx is interested in is how that’s true of any society as much as capitalism, but society makes these abstract concepts an everyday reality for us. He believes that that paves the way for communism, provided that we accomplish a social revolution to seize power and reorganize society according to more obvious and reasonable lines so that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in governing our shared conditions
Jan Vytiska — The Devils Are Rioting (acrylic on canvas, 2016)
Syria Maaloula, Greek Orthodox Convent of Saint Thecla
Rabia S. Akhtar (Pakistani, 1992) - Counting the Hours (2024)
Axel Helsted - A young Italian woman playing with a dog (1872)

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Where would you point to a beginner in learning more about how capitalism truly started, feminism, iimperialism, antiblackness, and how people go about sex and taboo kinks? Sorry if these are very broad n all, but these are topics that interest me the most, and I would like to learn more about them instead of having very surface level thoughts on it, i would be more specific with what i want to learn, but I'll be here all day if I explained lol, ty for answering if you do
You’re probably going to be wanting to look into the ties between commerce, kinship systems, and law to develop a more comprehensive sense of these things and a more historically grounded concept of racism, gender, and class struggle. I’ll try and recommend a (mostly) chronologically ordered group of texts that can give you the basics.
Overall theoretical framework:
The Combahee River Collective Statement
Sister Outsider by Audre Lorde
Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations by Karl Marx
Development of domination:
Pathology of Patriarchy by Sanyika Shakur
A People’s History of Civilization by John Zerzan
Myths of Male Dominance by Eleanor Burke Leacock
The Metamorphoses of Kinship by Maurice Godelier
Slavery and Social Death by Orlando Patterson
The history of Western civilization:
Savage Anxieties: The Invention of Western Civilization by Robert A. Williams Jr.
The Early Growth of the European Economy by Georges Duby
Law and the Rise of Capitalism by Michael Tigar
Witch Craze: Terror and Fantasy in Baroque Germany by Lyndal Roper
The Making of New World Slavery: From Baroque to the Modern, 1492-1800 by Robert Blackburn
Global capitalism:
Discourse on Colonialism by Aimé Césaire
Columbus and Other Cannibals by Jack D. Forbes
Americanity as a Concept, or the Americas in the Modern World-System by Aníbal Quijano and Immanuel Wallerstein
How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney
Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Truth/Power/Freedom by Sylvia Wynter
How to re-theorize class struggle:
The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic by Peter Limbaugh and Marcus Rediker
The Secret History of Gender: Women, Men, and Power in Late Colonial Mexico by Steve J. Stern
Women, Race and Class by Angela Davis
Scenes of Subjection by Saidiya Hartman
The Wages of Whiteness by David Roediger
What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America by Peggy Pascoe
The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America by Michael Taussig
Ch'ixinakax utxiwa: On Decolonising Practices and Discourses by Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui
Family, Welfare, and the State: Between Progressivism and the New Deal by Mariarosa Dalla Costa
Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California by Ruth Wilson Gilmore
i've been wanting to learn more about communism and socialism, i recognize that what i was taught in my grade school courses is mostly pro-capitalist propaganda. does anyone have any book/documentary/video essay recommendations?
To learn what pro-capitalist, anti-communist propaganda is doing and what it is trying to keep you ignorant and forgetful of, I would recommend reading The COINTELPRO Papers edited by Ward Churchill, The Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins, and Endless Holocausts by David Michael Smith. These will give a sense of the full scale of atrocities committed by capitalist imperialists against revolutionaries who sought a better life for everyone, from the U.S. Empire to the countries neighboring it to the world as a whole.
History of pro-capitalist anti-communism:
I would also recommend watching the following documentaries to learn more about the history of capitalist brutality:
COINTELPRO 101 created by the Freedom Archives, which includes firsthand accounts and interviews from people who the U.S. government targeted for organizing in the Civil Rights movement, opposing the Vietnam War, and fighting for liberation from capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy.
The War You Don’t See directed by John Pilger, which covers the way that corporate media and governments deceive us about the actual nature of 21st century imperialist wars in Africa and Asia by misrepresenting them as fights to “make the world safe for democracy” and eliminate dictatorships.
Crucible of Empire: The Spanish-American War directed by Daniel Miller, which goes into the history of U.S. overseas imperialism and how it has always been misrepresented to the public as a crusade for democracy and freedom.
The Corporation directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott, which goes into the history of modern corporations, how they achieved legal personhood, and how they’ve established a monopoly of control over all aspects of life under 21st century capitalism.
Capitalism: A Love Story directed by Michael Moore, which dives into the ways that 21st century capitalism directs society’s wealth towards anti-social and destructive ends. It also points out the contradictions in a lot of pro-capitalist anti-communist ideology.
What communism is:
For a basic overview of what communism is trying to accomplish, I would recommend reading these two short essays written during the biggest working class revolutionary wave in Western history in the aftermath of World War I: Rosa Luxemburg’s The Socialization of Society and Sylvia Pankhurst’s Socialism.
For a more detailed sense of what communist society would mean, I like Cornelius Castoriadis’s Workers’ Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society (for some idea of post-revolution measures) and Peter Kropotkin’s The Conquest of Bread (for a stronger sense of a well-rounded communist society).
To learn about the history of communism in the U.S., some good books to read are Pioneers of Liberty by Rudolf Rocker, The Haymarket Tragedy by Paul Avrich, Hammer and Hoe by Robin D.G. Kelley, The American Revolution by James Boggs, and Black Against Empire by Joshua Bloom and Waldo Martin.
History of capital-C Communism:
For the history of 20th century capital-C Communism, you’re going to have to rely on a pretty wide range of sources to get a good look at the big picture. I’ll just list some books, then some documentaries.
Books:
As intros that come at the topic from radical liberal and social democratic outlooks, many people start with Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds, written as a critique of 1990s anti-communist triumphalism, and Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism by Kristen Ghodsee, which points out that the personal freedom that feminists were fighting for in the 2010s had come closest to becoming a reality in 20th century socialist states.
For a fuller portrait of some 20th century socialist experiments, I would recommend reading John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World, Ronald Grigor Suny’s The Soviet Experiment, William Hinton’s Fanshen: A Documentary of Revolution in a Chinese Village, Maurice Meisner’s Mao’s China and After, and Aviva Chomsky’s A History of the Cuban Revolution. These all cover the three most influential socialist revolutions in the 20th century and will give you a better sense of why so many people supported them in their day before the neoliberal anti-communist propaganda that Parenti and Ghodsee critiqued placed them behind the pale of acceptable discourse in the 1990s and 2000s.
If you’re okay with a longer book, The Soviet Century: Archaeology of a Lost World by Karl Schlögel will give you a very comprehensive portrait of what everyday life in the Soviet Union was like. It really humanizes the experience compared to the cartoon caricatures we’re used to getting from family, school, and anti-communist media.
Documentaries:
To learn a bit about the U.S.’s own tradition of communist militancy, I would highly recommend watching The Wobblies directed by Stewart Bird and Deborah Shaffer. It includes archival footage and interviews with working class veterans of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and shows how they became communist revolutionaries as a result of struggling to improve the conditions of their own lives against the power of capitalists.
Red Storm Rising: The Struggle for the American Communist Party from PBS covers the basic history of the CPUSA and how it declined under the leadership of people who wanted to liquidate into New Deal Civil Rights reformism and focus on advocating for peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union. However, it does neglect to cover the militants like Harry Haywood and Mary Inman who wanted to keep fighting for total liberation and world revolution. These were the people who carried on into Black Power and the New Left in the 1960s.
The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution goes more into the history of American communism and shows just how recent and relevant it is for regular people struggling for liberation. This is what the repression and programs of programs like COINTELPRO are designed to destroy and prevent.
The Lost World of Communism from the BBC covers the Eastern Bloc from a liberal perspective but gives a pretty detailed sense of everyday life in the socialist states. It’s definitely a much more grounded source than a lot of what we’re taught in the U.S., which is that there effectively was no society in the Eastern Bloc and it was just a totalitarian police state all the way down.
October: Ten Days That Shook the World directed by Sergei Eisenstein is the first documentary about the 1917 Russian Revolution and includes reenactments of its events from the regular people who lived through it and participated in making it. If watching a silent movie is not so much your speed, surprisingly Lucasfilm made a pretty good documentary about the Revolution called The Russian Revolution: All Power to the Soviets, although it comes with all the one-sided pitfalls of a 21st century liberal perspective.
China: A Century of Revolution directed by Sue Williams covers the rise of the People’s Republic of China and demonstrates how it was very much an indigenous product of China’s revolutionary process. It goes into the Xinhai Revolution of 1911, the Republican period and wars of the 1920s-1940s, the rise of the PRC’s New Democracy in 1949, the Great Leap Forward of the 1950s, the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, and finally the Reform and Opening Up in the 1980s and 1990s.
Morning Sun directed by Carma Hinton, daughter of William Hinton, covers the Chinese Cultural Revolution from the perspective of everyday participants and victims. It gives a much more grounded sense of what the era was like than some of the cartoonish and racist caricatures that conventional U.S. narratives offer.
For the Cuban Revolution, you can get the most comprehensive coverage by watching Fidel: The Untold Story directed by Estela Bravo and Che Guevara: Beyond the Myth directed by Tancrede Ramonet. The pro-capitalist anti-communist lies that we’re told about this Revolution are the most straightforward for us to debunk because of how closely the participants were linked with the rest of the Americas, including the U.S.
The Death of Yugoslavia from the BBC is one of the better documentaries for seeing just how chaotic and horrific the collapse of 20th century Communism was for the people who lived it. Although it’s from a liberal perspective, it’s ultimately right that the collapse stemmed from inner rot as much as enemy encirclement. It avoids the pitfalls of the dumbest and most simplistic anti-communist narratives about corruption and inefficiency in the socialist states.
Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul from REDFIST Media covers DPRKorean citizens living in the Republic of Korea. It shows how difficult the conditions of their lives are once they go to the south, how these horrific conditions incentivize them into agreeing to produce propaganda for the capitalist dictatorship of the South against the North (as if the North were the only dictatorship in the peninsula), and how many of them seek to return to the North where they at least have families, jobs, and social assistance.
Conclusion:
The big picture problem with the pro-capitalist anti-communist perspective is that they a priori rule out thinking about anything from a global perspective. They ask you to ignore the overwhelming violence and sabotage that it took to destroy 20th century communism in spite of its massive appeal for regular people. At the same time, they expect you to believe that the brutality and misery of capitalism is justified by its successes, and by the “greater” threat of communism. Then they point to the agonies of overwork, industrialization, and state-directed capital accumulation in socialist countries, as if these can be objected to without implying our very own objections against capitalist exploitation and corporate tyranny.
If there’s any other blindspots of anti-communism and pro-capitalism that you want to explore, feel free to let me know and I can add more sources for them here
Beginner here what exactly is populism? I'm not sure how initiating a massive political transformation would involve anything else besides a mass movement (good faith question)
Populism just means any kind of mass politics that:
1.) is based on the basic antagonistic friend-enemy distinction (us vs. them) of politics being framed as the people vs. the elites,
2.) ties many different demands together (for example, universal enfranchisement + reproductive justice + affirmative action) under some sort of popular political symbol: identity (for example, “the poor”), ethic (Juan Perón’s Justicialism), or project (the New Deal),
3.) derives the authority of its leaders from their claim to speak to the deepest sentiments of “the people” rather than their obedience to institutional procedure or legal rationality. This phenomenon is how you get anyone from Joseph Stalin to Donald Trump denouncing their personal competitors as “Enemies of the People,”
4.) seeks to collapse the distance between the masses of everyday people and political decision making, bypassing the authority of experts and bureaucrats. In a lot of cases this just means that followers want the leader they emotionally identify with to come to power regardless of whether they are qualified,
5.) forges a coalition out of people from many walks of life based on shared feelings (usually their emotional investment in their leaders and the narrative that they tell about the movement in their speeches) as much as shared goals (often defined just as emotionally even if tied to specific institutional changes, for example with rhetoric about the restoration of revitalization of democracy).
All of these characteristics are pretty universal to mass politics, but I think that’s what makes populism distinctive in our age of technocratic/bureaucratic expert management—populists promise to jumpstart mass politics again, for better or worse (and for both right and left alike). Many Marxists criticize populist politics for being multiclass and putting hope in “the people” instead of the working class, but historically this is true of every single mass political movement from the French Revolutionary Enragés to immediateist abolitionism to Social-Democracy and even capital-C Communism. That is historically the style of politics that best creates the conditions for mass working class participation in politics. And it’s best for us to figure out how to carve out a space for independent populism (independent from bourgeois institutions and opportunistic charismatic leaders) if we wish to grow the real working class gains made under the banners of left populism (for example, democratic protections for militant unionism) into weapons for uncompromising class struggle and social revolution.
If you want to learn more about this, I would recommend reading Populism and the Mirror of Democracy edited by Francisco Panizza
A Palestinian fighter hands out tea for his comrades as they take a break from fighting with israeli forces in the West Bank City of Bethlehem, October 24, 2001.
(Photo credit: David Silverman)
Don Quixote with Death by Theodor Baierl, 1920

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Vis-a-vis commerce and war mobilization were a lot of post-wwi german conservative revolutionaries like that?
If you mean them going all in on “war socialism” and being suspicious of “rootless cosmopolitan” merchants (imagined through every antisemitic trope in history) then yeah that was very common for the German Conservative Revolutionaries. Arthur Rosenberg’s book Imperial Germany gives a good historical account of how widespread this was and the role that the right of the SPD played in promoting it. Paul Lensch, for example, was effectively the German equivalent to Mussolini as far as being the most prominent pro-war socialist. The SPD’s wartime social imperialist current was later outdone by leaps and bounds by the Nazis.
Werner Sombart’s Traders and Heroes is a characteristic WWI-era text articulating this “war socialist” outlook. This political current, and especially its influence on the “stabbed in the back” myth, is what informed the famous interwar Conservative Revolutionaries like Oswald Spengler, Ernst Jünger, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, and Ernst Niekisch.
Ernst Jünger’s interwar articles, War as an Inner Experience, and Total Mobilization essay provide some sense of the general themes that the “war socialist” Conservative Revolutionaries were diving into in the Weimar era. I would also recommend looking into Fritz Wolffheim and Heinrich Laufenberg to see how a parallel tendency to what Jünger advocated was developing within the German communist movement itself. Weimar Radicals by Timothy Scott Brown can provide you a useful historical framework to understand what was going on here.
Initially, this social revolutionary strategy was actually what drove the growth of the Nazi Party from a tiny sect into a mass movement. Gregor Strasser was the lead organizer of the Nazis in Bavaria during the 1920s and he led the establishment of the region as the movement’s base. He adopted a strategy of drawing on the resentment of the more aristocratic decadent conservatives for the bourgeois Weimar Republic on the one hand and on other hand beating the Social-Democrats and Communists at their own game with class struggle rhetoric. The influence of these “beefsteak Nazis” (brown on the outside, red on the inside) was so extensive that it shaped the Nazis’ rhetoric around presenting themselves as a revolutionary movement opposed to reactionaries, liberals, and communists alike. This is covered in Hitler’s Rise to Power by Geoffrey Pridham.
After Hitler became chancellor, these “beefsteak Nazis” wanted a social revolution to accompany the political revolution. Ultimately for them that meant restoring war socialism and crushing the liberal bourgeoisie that had backed the Weimar Republic (though even in the rhetoric of Strasser it was never about crushing capital itself but nationalizing it). The “beefsteaks” were destroyed by the Hitler faction with the 1934 Night of Long Knives purge. Although many of the faction’s supporters remained, including Joseph Goebbels himself, they made peace with the Hitlerites for the sake of consolidating institutional power.
Hitler justified the purge as necessary to calm the landed elites (who were afraid of the pro-peasant land reform talk of the “beefsteaks”), the industrialists (who hated the pro-nationalization propaganda), and the Army (who worried that the Sturmabteilung, the Nazi militia that many working class veterans and “beefsteaks” participated in, would replace them). Hitler’s strategy in power was generally to collapse the social revolution into a controlled institutional political revolution and bring everything under a command chain leading up to him at the top in accordance with the Führer principle. The Nazi revolution’s institutional meaning, especially as articulated by Goebbels as propaganda minister, ended up just being the universal obligation of all classes to do their duty to the state as the protector of the People’s Community (and for workers, that meant accepting whatever shitty conditions the state-contracted corporations dealt out to them). The egalitarian leveling of traditional status hierarchies combined with the intensification of capitalist exploitation is covered very well in Hitler’s Social Revolution by David Schopenhaum.
If you want to follow up on where the Conservative Revolutionary anti-commercial current went during WWII, apart from the more obvious influences on Third Reich ideology, I would genuinely recommend reading Goebbels’ key speeches. For one, the 1943 Sportpalast speech, which marked the shift to total warfare and includes some of the more explicit justifications of the Holocaust as an extension of Germany’s total mobilization to enslave and exterminate all enemies in the name of national security. His final essay “Creators of the World’s Misfortunes” from 1945, written at the height of the Holocaust and in the face of defeat, is arguably the most explicit acknowledgement and justification of the Holocaust by any Third Reich leader and it also includes all of the expected Conservative Revolutionary themes.
To see the wartime Conservative Revolutionary countercurrent, I would also recommend reading Carl Schmitt’s Land and Sea. In that text he adapts the basic themes of Sombart’s book to the doctrines of geopolitics, with the relevance to the strategy of the Nazi imperialist project being clear. He heavily implies that Germany as a telluric military power (as opposed to the commercial thalassocratic powers like England, depicted as civilizationally aligned with “International Jewry,” or even Japan, which Schmitt questioned as an ally) would have its most natural ally in Russia as a fellow telluric military power. Obviously things didn’t turn out the way he wanted but this was influential on the postwar geopolitical orientation of neo-fascists, which you can read about in The Beast Reawakens by Martin Lee.
I think in general people on the left underestimate how much the mass base of fascist movements (as opposed to their institutionalized forms in party-states) sought to pose a real challenge to capitalists (if not necessarily to capital itself). The only classic theorists I can think of who took this revolutionary streak in movement fascism seriously are José Carlos Mariátegui in Biology of Fascism, Clara Zetkin in her reports on fascism for the Comintern, Ernst Bloch in his book about Nazi millenarianism called Heritage of Our Times, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in the sections on the nomadic war machine in A Thousand Plateaus, Timothy Mason’s amazing compilation of historical essays Nazism, Fascism, and the Working Class on how the total mobilization of the welfare-warfare state tamed the German proletariat, and J Sakai in his essay The Shock of Recognition. I would recommend reading what they had to say if you want to develop a strong theoretical framework to understand this
Edwin Deakin (American, 1838-1923) - Castle Cluny, Paris