As far as I can tell, they physically present as masculine (albeit non-traditionally), perhaps with elements of femininity (I mean when it comes to specifics that kinda stuff is subjective), rather than butch/masculine femininity or smthn.
I just checked their reddit acc (u/anarcho-stripperism) and they still have their preferred pronouns as they/she/them, and seeing that they're anarchist, perhaps they are going for a more subversive breaking-the-gender-binary thing (which I think is cool!) rather than something specifically about gender identity.
Do you know why? I'm curious because she presents as masculine and doesn't seem to have any hangups presenting as such so it leaves me a bit confused. Like, with gender being a social contruct and all, gender neutral pronouns for all is my personal ideal, but yeah I don't get why someone would choose pronouns associated with the gender they don't actually "traditionally" present as. Is it about being intentionally subversive?
This is because non-prime numers of wuggi are highly unstable and will split into separate prime factors of wug if there's enough space (and in most atmospheric conditions).
The deregulation march you're talking about is neoliberalism, and it hasn't just affected USA. And in a sense neoliberalism is capitalism's response to regulation.
It's not that regulation doesn't work per se, it's that the (political) hierarchy through which it functions is susceptible to being taken advantage of, and inevitably it will be (*has been) taken advantage of by the capitalist class to protect their economic hierarchy.
For democracy to truly represent the people it'd need to be federated from the ground up through free association. Large scale organisation and cooperation would be ephemeral, existing when/if the need arises and dissolving as soon as projects are concluded (or cancelled). But within the rigidity of the current system(s), where power is consolidated at the 'top' through processes we're lead to believe are necessary for 'order' (when their real purpose is of course control), horizontal forms of social organisation seem impossible (I like how Anark calls this - "hierarchical realism").
Can we please stop pretending "regulation" is all that effective. It's been tried, and has resulted in corrupt bureaucracy or given way to neoliberalism (and corporate bureaucracy).
What we need is a radically different system where the power truly is in the hands of the people, and not just nominally like in representative democracy (and which is completely lacking anyways in most workplaces). And what this requires is the construction of fundamentally different modes of production and human interrelation that will not resemble what we've got now, neither economically nor politically nor socially. Regulating capitalism won't get us there.
Personally though I'm sceptical that money can be without hierarchy, or that the distinction between necessities and luxuries is all that meaningful, since it's all very relative
Extreme capitalism stifles and suffocates innovation and preservation.
It's an inherent contradiction of capitalist competition. Somehow everyone is supposed to be competitive but noone is supposed to win for capitalism to "work". Otherwise it's considered a monopoly and "anti-competitive".
Robaque @ Robaque @feddit.it Posts 4Comments 199Joined 2 yr. ago
Ohhh :/