/page/2

A great bit of Marxist theory, thanks to Wikipedia!

"[By] the 18th century, the time of the Industrial revolution (1750–1850) and of industrial capitalism, the bourgeoisie had become the economic ruling class who owned the means of production (capital and land), and who controlled the means of coercion (armed forces and legal system, police forces and prison system). In such a society, the bourgeoisie’s ownership of the means of production enabled their employment and exploitation of the wage-earning working class (urban and rural), people whose sole economic means is labour; and the bourgeois control of the means of coercion suppressed the socio-political challenges of the lower classes, and so preserved the economic status quo; workers remained workers, and employers remained employers."

"Besides describing the social class who own the means of production, the Marxist usage of the term "bourgeois" also describes the consumerist style of life derived from the ownership of capital and real property. As an economist Karl Marx acknowledged the bourgeois industriousness that created wealth, yet criticised the moral hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie when they ignored the true origins of their wealth — the exploitation of the proletariat, the urban and rural workers."

found here!

Villagers join al-Qaeda after deadly US strike

I get so tired of hearing Americans stand behind the “any means necessary” bloodlust for bin Laden and al-Qaeda. As if the end justifies the means! Yeah, 9/11 was an appalling tragedy, but folks don’t crash planes into skyscrapers just for the sake of mindless villainy. Western empires terrorize the middle east, and middle easterners join radical militant groups in order exact revenge. Americans joining the military to fight “the terrorists” are basically doing the same thing. There’s a dialectic here, people!!!

Thoughts?

MINNESOTA = RIGHTS

Hey dudes! The Twin Cities ISO branch is teaming up with Occupy St. Paul to build a coalition and day of action against the proposed marriage and voter ID amendments on the Minnesota ballot this fall. Check it out, “like” it, share it!

Freshly silkscreened today by my roommate and I… available in several shirt colors. See you at the conference!

Working on a t-shirt design for this year’s socialism conference! It reads,”We defy the imperialist predator!” Any tumblr comrades going to be at the conference?

Working on a t-shirt design for this year’s socialism conference! It reads,”We defy the imperialist predator!” Any tumblr comrades going to be at the conference?

Why I think it’s bad to call people “illegals.”

As this article puts it,
"Colorlines.com reviewed the archives of the nation’s largest-circulation newspapers to compare how often their articles describe people as “illegal” or “alien” versus describing them as “undocumented” or “unauthorized.” We found a striking and growing imbalance, particularly at key moments in the immigration reform debate. In 2006 and 2007, for example, years in which Congress engaged a pitched battle over immigration reform, the New York Times published 1,483 articles in which people were labeled as “illegal” or “alien;” just 171 articles used the adjectives “undocumented” or “unauthorized.”
Furthermore…
"Calling someone “illegal” or an “alien” has a whole host of negative connotations, framing that person as a criminal outsider, even a potential enemy of the state. But it does more, by also setting the parameters of an appropriate response. To label unauthorized immigrants as criminals who made an immoral choice suggests that they should be further punished—that their lives be made harder, not easier. Not surprisingly, then, as rhetoric has grown harsher on both sides (or “tougher,” in the words of pollsters), legislation has followed suit. Border walls have been constructed, unmanned drones dispatched. Deportation numbers have continued a steady, record-breaking climb, while states pass ever-harsher laws."

Calling a person an “illegal” (or an “alien) is dehumanizing because it describes him or her not as a person, but as an object. It makes others feel unrelated to and uninvested in that person’s rights as a human. The alien becomes something that deserves to be deported, torn away from not only family but from the “illegal” employment that is most likely used to support family. Is any other person who breaks any given law in America automatically an “illegal?” People can do illegal things, but no person is just inherently illegal because of the place they are in.

Many immigrants just happen to belong to minority ethnicities, and although there are surely many white immigrants as well, it’s easy to see why, legality aside, racial minorities are more easily profiled as being an immigrant. Arizona SB 1070 was a good example of how this sort of profiling can result in what is essentially a civil rights violation. The way I see it, the law rendered the ethnicity of hispanics as probable cause to being a (potentially illegal) immigrant.

One might argue that class also plays a role in situations like SB 1070. Do you think a wealthy Mexican immigrant would experience the same amount pressure from this law (and potential for such profiling) as a poor Mexican immigrant? Now I have to assume that illegal employment in America doesn’t pay very well, and it’s a fact that, although undocumented workers pay taxes (i.e. sales tax, income tax), they receive none of the personal benefits or rights attributed with being a taxpaying citizen. I must therefore assume that the immigrants seeking such work often risk the illegality because they are unable to afford a legal means of entering the country in the first place (citizenship fees, cost of an immigration lawyer, etc).

Stay tuned! :D

The project that begat this blog is now over, but minnesocialist will continue! Keep your eyes peeled for radical new content over the summer!!!

p.s.
Always feel free to submit your questions and/or topic ideas. The more the merrier :)

Anonymous said: I'll explain it this way: Advertising can exist without hurting the consumer. People need to be educated about advertising so advertisers can start changing their methods. More honest ads can be made if people are educated.P.S. We're not all out to sell as much as possible. I care about quality of products, so I won't sell something cheap to you. :) (kiosk question)

For the most part I agree with you. Of course the poster in question is making a sizable generalization about the advertising industry as a whole. It’s not my intent to blame any individual advertising professional; certainly there are plenty of advertisers and agencies that work hard and produce inspiring work, and none that intend to hurt the consumer.

However, while “selling as much as possible” may not be a priority for the advertiser, it surely is for his or her client. Why would they want it any other way? What upsets me is the fact that, in most cases, the advertiser’s task is to fabricate an unnecessary link between human emotions and market commodities. This isn’t exactly the case when a small business promotes itself, but this is especially true for the countless corporations who sink millions of dollars into disposable ad campaigns. For example, lets consider the toothbrush: A relatively simple tool with a straightforward use-value. The fact of the matter is that even though every toothbrush performs essentially the same task, companies like Phillips, Oral-B, Colgate, etc… spend large amounts money competing to convince the consumer that their toothbrush performs best (queue up images of happy white people with happy white teeth, and stunning 3D animations of ultra-sonic toothbrushes vaporizing 99.9% of germs, plaque, and gingivitis). Companies that compete under capitalism often have no choice but to promote their products with advertising though. I believe that a socialized, truly democratic society would choose to channel these resources and energies into more valuable applications such as public dental health education, affordable/universal dental health coverage, and efficient dental health products.

(This question was originally written in this book, in regards to this poster. Thank you to the asker; I hope this answer was helpful. Let’s keep the discussion going!)

Anonymous said: Thanks for dissing my major, asshole. (kiosk question)

Perhaps you’d like to pose a question or statement that challenges the statement I’ve made? In the meantime, I’ll stand behind it.

(This question was originally written in this book, in regards to this poster. Thank you to the asker; I hope this answer was helpful. Let’s keep the discussion going!) 

Anonymous said: What ways can an independent artist fund their private creative endeavors in a non–capitalist institution? (kiosk question)

It’s difficult to predict exactly how a socialized society in transition from capitalism might function, because the idea is that society must reshape itself through reforms that abolish profit and the market and replace it with conscious, democratic planning. Paul D’Amato writes,

"Some of these measures might include: introducing a progressive income tax against the rich, establishing free education at all levels; abolishing advertising and all other wasteful and costly diversions, with the use of these funds going toward health, education, and artistic needs[.]"

Basically, organized committees of workers would decide democratically on the appropriate use of their labor–power and subsequent wealth. As society’s more basic needs would be met (ei food, shelter, and healthcare for all), so too would its artistic desires. Painters, designer, filmmakers, musicians, etc, would be provided the tools and materials necessary for their work, and our creatives would not only be provided these materials, but they would be equally involved and invested in the production of them. I believe that when the motives of social value replace those of profit and capital, the potential of artists and all other workers, previously stunted by capitalism, will be able to flourish!

(This question was originally written in this book, in regards to this poster. Thank you to the asker; I hope this answer was helpful. Let’s keep the discussion going!)

Lately I’ve been working on installing an exhibition of my posters at MCAD for the 2012 Commencement Exhibition. A computer kiosk displays photos of the poster campaign in south Minneapolis, as well as tab for the minnesocialist tumblr. Along with the kiosk is a booklet of the posters in which I’ve given observers space to write questions they may have about them. These written questions will then be submitted (anonymously) and answered via the minnesocialist tumblr!

redplebeian:

Promo video for the Socialism 2014 Conference is now up!

(via socialistworker)

A great bit of Marxist theory, thanks to Wikipedia!

"[By] the 18th century, the time of the Industrial revolution (1750–1850) and of industrial capitalism, the bourgeoisie had become the economic ruling class who owned the means of production (capital and land), and who controlled the means of coercion (armed forces and legal system, police forces and prison system). In such a society, the bourgeoisie’s ownership of the means of production enabled their employment and exploitation of the wage-earning working class (urban and rural), people whose sole economic means is labour; and the bourgeois control of the means of coercion suppressed the socio-political challenges of the lower classes, and so preserved the economic status quo; workers remained workers, and employers remained employers."

"Besides describing the social class who own the means of production, the Marxist usage of the term "bourgeois" also describes the consumerist style of life derived from the ownership of capital and real property. As an economist Karl Marx acknowledged the bourgeois industriousness that created wealth, yet criticised the moral hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie when they ignored the true origins of their wealth — the exploitation of the proletariat, the urban and rural workers."

found here!

Villagers join al-Qaeda after deadly US strike

I get so tired of hearing Americans stand behind the “any means necessary” bloodlust for bin Laden and al-Qaeda. As if the end justifies the means! Yeah, 9/11 was an appalling tragedy, but folks don’t crash planes into skyscrapers just for the sake of mindless villainy. Western empires terrorize the middle east, and middle easterners join radical militant groups in order exact revenge. Americans joining the military to fight “the terrorists” are basically doing the same thing. There’s a dialectic here, people!!!

Thoughts?

MINNESOTA = RIGHTS

Hey dudes! The Twin Cities ISO branch is teaming up with Occupy St. Paul to build a coalition and day of action against the proposed marriage and voter ID amendments on the Minnesota ballot this fall. Check it out, “like” it, share it!

Freshly silkscreened today by my roommate and I… available in several shirt colors. See you at the conference!

Working on a t-shirt design for this year’s socialism conference! It reads,”We defy the imperialist predator!” Any tumblr comrades going to be at the conference?

Working on a t-shirt design for this year’s socialism conference! It reads,”We defy the imperialist predator!” Any tumblr comrades going to be at the conference?

Why I think it’s bad to call people “illegals.”

As this article puts it,
"Colorlines.com reviewed the archives of the nation’s largest-circulation newspapers to compare how often their articles describe people as “illegal” or “alien” versus describing them as “undocumented” or “unauthorized.” We found a striking and growing imbalance, particularly at key moments in the immigration reform debate. In 2006 and 2007, for example, years in which Congress engaged a pitched battle over immigration reform, the New York Times published 1,483 articles in which people were labeled as “illegal” or “alien;” just 171 articles used the adjectives “undocumented” or “unauthorized.”
Furthermore…
"Calling someone “illegal” or an “alien” has a whole host of negative connotations, framing that person as a criminal outsider, even a potential enemy of the state. But it does more, by also setting the parameters of an appropriate response. To label unauthorized immigrants as criminals who made an immoral choice suggests that they should be further punished—that their lives be made harder, not easier. Not surprisingly, then, as rhetoric has grown harsher on both sides (or “tougher,” in the words of pollsters), legislation has followed suit. Border walls have been constructed, unmanned drones dispatched. Deportation numbers have continued a steady, record-breaking climb, while states pass ever-harsher laws."

Calling a person an “illegal” (or an “alien) is dehumanizing because it describes him or her not as a person, but as an object. It makes others feel unrelated to and uninvested in that person’s rights as a human. The alien becomes something that deserves to be deported, torn away from not only family but from the “illegal” employment that is most likely used to support family. Is any other person who breaks any given law in America automatically an “illegal?” People can do illegal things, but no person is just inherently illegal because of the place they are in.

Many immigrants just happen to belong to minority ethnicities, and although there are surely many white immigrants as well, it’s easy to see why, legality aside, racial minorities are more easily profiled as being an immigrant. Arizona SB 1070 was a good example of how this sort of profiling can result in what is essentially a civil rights violation. The way I see it, the law rendered the ethnicity of hispanics as probable cause to being a (potentially illegal) immigrant.

One might argue that class also plays a role in situations like SB 1070. Do you think a wealthy Mexican immigrant would experience the same amount pressure from this law (and potential for such profiling) as a poor Mexican immigrant? Now I have to assume that illegal employment in America doesn’t pay very well, and it’s a fact that, although undocumented workers pay taxes (i.e. sales tax, income tax), they receive none of the personal benefits or rights attributed with being a taxpaying citizen. I must therefore assume that the immigrants seeking such work often risk the illegality because they are unable to afford a legal means of entering the country in the first place (citizenship fees, cost of an immigration lawyer, etc).

Stay tuned! :D

The project that begat this blog is now over, but minnesocialist will continue! Keep your eyes peeled for radical new content over the summer!!!

p.s.
Always feel free to submit your questions and/or topic ideas. The more the merrier :)

Anonymous said: I'll explain it this way: Advertising can exist without hurting the consumer. People need to be educated about advertising so advertisers can start changing their methods. More honest ads can be made if people are educated.P.S. We're not all out to sell as much as possible. I care about quality of products, so I won't sell something cheap to you. :) (kiosk question)

For the most part I agree with you. Of course the poster in question is making a sizable generalization about the advertising industry as a whole. It’s not my intent to blame any individual advertising professional; certainly there are plenty of advertisers and agencies that work hard and produce inspiring work, and none that intend to hurt the consumer.

However, while “selling as much as possible” may not be a priority for the advertiser, it surely is for his or her client. Why would they want it any other way? What upsets me is the fact that, in most cases, the advertiser’s task is to fabricate an unnecessary link between human emotions and market commodities. This isn’t exactly the case when a small business promotes itself, but this is especially true for the countless corporations who sink millions of dollars into disposable ad campaigns. For example, lets consider the toothbrush: A relatively simple tool with a straightforward use-value. The fact of the matter is that even though every toothbrush performs essentially the same task, companies like Phillips, Oral-B, Colgate, etc… spend large amounts money competing to convince the consumer that their toothbrush performs best (queue up images of happy white people with happy white teeth, and stunning 3D animations of ultra-sonic toothbrushes vaporizing 99.9% of germs, plaque, and gingivitis). Companies that compete under capitalism often have no choice but to promote their products with advertising though. I believe that a socialized, truly democratic society would choose to channel these resources and energies into more valuable applications such as public dental health education, affordable/universal dental health coverage, and efficient dental health products.

(This question was originally written in this book, in regards to this poster. Thank you to the asker; I hope this answer was helpful. Let’s keep the discussion going!)

Anonymous said: Thanks for dissing my major, asshole. (kiosk question)

Perhaps you’d like to pose a question or statement that challenges the statement I’ve made? In the meantime, I’ll stand behind it.

(This question was originally written in this book, in regards to this poster. Thank you to the asker; I hope this answer was helpful. Let’s keep the discussion going!) 

Anonymous said: What ways can an independent artist fund their private creative endeavors in a non–capitalist institution? (kiosk question)

It’s difficult to predict exactly how a socialized society in transition from capitalism might function, because the idea is that society must reshape itself through reforms that abolish profit and the market and replace it with conscious, democratic planning. Paul D’Amato writes,

"Some of these measures might include: introducing a progressive income tax against the rich, establishing free education at all levels; abolishing advertising and all other wasteful and costly diversions, with the use of these funds going toward health, education, and artistic needs[.]"

Basically, organized committees of workers would decide democratically on the appropriate use of their labor–power and subsequent wealth. As society’s more basic needs would be met (ei food, shelter, and healthcare for all), so too would its artistic desires. Painters, designer, filmmakers, musicians, etc, would be provided the tools and materials necessary for their work, and our creatives would not only be provided these materials, but they would be equally involved and invested in the production of them. I believe that when the motives of social value replace those of profit and capital, the potential of artists and all other workers, previously stunted by capitalism, will be able to flourish!

(This question was originally written in this book, in regards to this poster. Thank you to the asker; I hope this answer was helpful. Let’s keep the discussion going!)

Lately I’ve been working on installing an exhibition of my posters at MCAD for the 2012 Commencement Exhibition. A computer kiosk displays photos of the poster campaign in south Minneapolis, as well as tab for the minnesocialist tumblr. Along with the kiosk is a booklet of the posters in which I’ve given observers space to write questions they may have about them. These written questions will then be submitted (anonymously) and answered via the minnesocialist tumblr!

A great bit of Marxist theory, thanks to Wikipedia!
Why I think it’s bad to call people “illegals.”
Stay tuned! :D

About:

My name is Cole, and I'm a socialist. If you're like me, you value people over money. This blog is devoted to spreading the good name of socialism, and the ideals of democracy and equality that socialists fight for! You are welcome to share, print, post, or do whatever with any of this blog's content. Thank you for visiting, and please feel free to ask me anything.

Following: