RSS
 

radicallyconnor replied to your quote: Now by taking into account all these aspects of…

Stalin and Stalinists are why we can’t have nice things. Like anal sex.

Yeah, basically. The book goes on to discuss the rather embarrassing history of many far left parties in following Stalin’s lead on that matter, including Castro and Mao’s revolutions. Apparently, the American Maoist political cult the Revolutionary Communist Party held on to the idea that gays are counterrevolutionary by nature until 2001.

 


Now by taking into account all these aspects of the transition period, Soviet legislation bases itself on the following principle:
It declares the absolute noninterference of the state and society into sexual matters, so long as nobody is injured, and no one’s interests are encroached upon.
Concerning homosexuality, sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offenses against public morality–Soviet legislation treats these exactly the same as so-called “natural” intercourse. All forms of sexual intercourse are private matters. Only when there’s the use of force or duress, as in general when there’s an injury or encroachment upon the rights of another person, is there a question of criminal prosecution.

Dr. Grigorii Batkis, The Sexual Revolution in Russia (1923) (quoted in Sherry Wolf, Sexuality and Socialism)

Naturally, Stalin brought back the anti-sodomy legislation in 1934, just because Stalin had to go and fuck everything up.



deconstructrebuild:

Volunteered at the pitbull spay/neuter clinic today. These were mostly pups there that were with the rescue or up for adoption. I melted many times. 

Total adorableness.



A couple nice thrift store finds today. Less than $3 between the two.



It would not be hard at all to make higher education completely free in the USA. It accounts for not quite 2% of GDP. The personal share, about 1% of GDP, is a third of the income of the richest 10,000 households in the U.S., or three months of Pentagon spending. It’s less than four months of what we waste on administrative costs by not having a single-payer health care finance system. But introduce such a proposal into an election campaign and you would be regarded as suicidally insane.


vitrifyinghearts:

Always reblog the Brando eye roll. 

Damn, Brando was handsome back in the day.

vitrifyinghearts:

Always reblog the Brando eye roll. 

Damn, Brando was handsome back in the day.

(Source: alltheprettythings)

1,216 notes

Posted at 2:07pm
Reblogged (Photo reblogged from lonelyvagabond)
Tagged vintage hot guys

 


radicallyconnor:

I NEED THIS IN MY LIFE

(Source: welcometomylifekl)

9,808 notes

Posted at 12:47am
Reblogged (Photo reblogged from radicallyconnor)
Tagged booze humor

 


When someone works for less pay than she can live on - when, for example, she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently - then she has made a great sacrifice for you, she has made you a gift of some part of her abilities, her health, and her life. The “working poor,” as there are approvingly termed, are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone else.

Barbara Ehrenreich, “Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In America”

I recently read this book, and while several observations and statistics stuck out to me, this quote, on the last page, I believe really sums things up quite well.

(via lostgrrrls)

Forget the billionaire “job creators” — our working poor are really the ones supporting our economy.

(via stfuconservatives)

I may have reblogged this quote before. Whatever. It deserves it.



No need to beware of hipsters. The Cambridgeport Saloon closed well before it ever had the opportunity to be overrun with them. Still miss that place.



Karl Marx had it right. At some point, capitalism can destroy itself. You cannot keep on shifting income from labor to capital without having an excess capacity and a lack of aggregate demand. That’s what has happened. We thought that markets worked. They’re not working.
Economist Nouriel Roubini in a WSJ interview. He earned the nickname “Dr Doom” for predicting the current financial crisis. (via humanformat)

(Source: warofpositionist)







dibin:

The English Defence League’s planned ‘celebration’ of its three years of existence turned sour as they were outnumbered by antifascists in Luton on Saturday 5 May.

The EDL claims Luton as its home town, but only around 800 or so supporters turned out for a rally held behind a huge steel fence that degenerated as drunken thugs – who had been allowed to assemble in pubs that opened specially at 8.30am – threw bottles at police and set off fireworks and smoke bombs.

That number is far below the 2,500-3,000 supporters it bussed into Luton last year and marks the success of antifascists in containing the threat of the EDL’s racist and fascist thugs at a series of demonstrations around the country in the past three years.

UAF



As [Green Party presidential frontrunner Jill Stein] sees it, “such a thing as ending unemployment would never occur to Washington politicians because their corporate backers depend on the threat of unemployment to keep wages down.” It’s a deeply confused claim.
Conor Friedersdorf, in The Atlantic. That’s it. That’s his whole rebuttal to the idea that our bought and paid for political class has no desire to even contemplate the desirability of a “full employment” platform. As I like to point out, Michał Kalecki had this figured out in his great essay “The Political Aspects of Full Employment” way back in 1943. Business interests do not want full employment. Economists and politicians who come up with reasons to believe full employment is impossible have a way of getting crucial support from those business interests. It’s not a deeply confused claim at all, unless you simply refuse to acknowledge the immense influence of the 1% over all aspects of our political system.


pieceinthepuzzlehumanity:

James Baldwin

Who is the nigger?