Charlie James & Xavier Hickman in ‘Bloom’ photographed by Gary David Moore for Dansk Magazine
Lowkey really like my long hair
Audrey Hepburn in Parisian hotel,1955 .Photo probably by Garofalo Jack
amiiam 13.05
this wave
engulfs my being
throws up my self
heightens my feeling
Stalin doesn’t hold a monopoly on the “scarf under the suit jacket” style. It’s not always a counter-revolutionary look.
Tumblr worthy.
self-portrait
february, 2015.
Want great responses to the old “but capitLism made everything!!1!1!!!” chestnut? These tweets hit the mark and then some.
You’re missing the point. Capitalists say this because they believe that the innovations that lead to the iPhone were possible due to the free market system under Capitalism, as opposed to a centralized economic system.
Nah mate, I think we get it, we just don’t buy into that “the free market is the only thing that makes innovation possible” argument. Democratic control over the means of production – not a centralized economic system where bureaucrats make the decisions – wouldn’t destroy innovation. In fact, capitalism needlessly deprives the vast majority of people from the means to innovate; if you don’t have sufficient access to resources, you are left out of the loop. The must be millions of next Teslas and Einsteins and Van Goghs around the world who are unable to innovate because they don’t have the ability to influence the means of production nor sufficient access to resources. We want innovation; we just want it for the sake of humanity, not for an affluent class of capitalists who hoard most of society’s wealth by virtue of ownership.
everything in the iphone that makes it smart was made by government R&D. the only thing free market about it is the sweatshops that produce it.
Free market doesn’t even necessarily promote innovation either. In the 1900s Ford bought many other car manufacturing companies and dismantled them just so he could have a monopoly and not face any competition and in that process he dismantled a lot of car manufactures that were considered ‘the first eco-friendly cars’ and him dismantling those companies meant that innovation and progression for electric cars were pushed backed a lot.
It’s almost like “the free market” is a clunky economic force with autocrats at the top, fumbling around to make decisions that improve their bottom line while exploiting human labor as they would any other tool. Not only is it at times incredibly inefficient, it’s run autocratically in principle and in practice. Where’s the appeal again? Oh yeah, pure ideology.
It’s kind of fucked up that white imperialism and colonialism have made such an impact that the word “natives” is often a synonym for “primitive people”.
“Natives” should just mean “people from a place” but we’ve literally made “living in the place you’re from” a sign that you’re not “civilized”.
The English language quite strongly ties our concept of “civilization” to the practice of invading and colonising others.
Omali Yeshitela (via proletarianfeminism)
There's nothing wrong with being promiscuous, but why is it hard to understand that some just don't have a sexual nature?