Q:Doing anything for Easter?
I’m working today and then revising for exams tomorrow; at least that’s the plan!
I love a bit of historical irony… so here’s some:
Provisional IRA weapons were brought from New York to Belfast via IRA members on the Queen Elizabeth II (QE2) ocean liner.
Irish Republican posters circa 1970.
First says: “Óglaigh na héireann/Irish Republican Army”; “Briogáid Béal-Feirste/Belfast Brigade”.
Second says: “Bás nó an bua/Death or victory!”
Q:why the "scare quotes" on sexual labour?
Sarcastic quotes. And regarding the why, it is probably because I can’t reckon performing sex acts for money correlating to the standard concept of labour.
For me like performing sex for money feels unnatural. The feeling is on parallel to the feeling: performing murder for money. Instinctively it feels unnatural and disgusting. To delude oneself that one performs labour during such acts is hilarious to me.
An objective reason can also be provided but that would mean a longer post and I have a long weekend to enjoy. Maybe next week.
Unnatural as opposed to all those natural, instinctive forms of paid labour that just spring organically out of human nature, right? I’m really curious what “standard concept of labour” you could possibly have that makes your job (according to your blog, you’re a software engineer) feel instinctively natural, while sex work is “unnatural and disgusting”. But since I can’t help but notice that you made your post mocking the concept of sexual labour immediately after reblogging a porn .gif, I think I have to assume that you’re not actually arguing in the defence of any coherent conception of what constitutes labour, and that what you’re actually doing is using that as a flimsy justification to continue being a hypocritical piece of shit who sees no problem consuming the labour of sex workers while simultaneously demeaning and degrading them for having produced it.
Marxism is meant to be a strictly provisional affair, which is why anyone who invests the whole of their identity in it has missed the point. That there is life after Marxism is the whole point of Marxism.
Eagleton, Terry, Why Marx Was Right (Yale University Press, 2011) p.5 (via fuckyeahdialectics)
I don’t get this at all. At what point exactly do you stop being a Marxist? After capitalism? Isn’t Marxism an approach to understanding an analysing things? Why would you stop doing that after capitalism?
From what I understand and can tell, I guess he’s using Marxism as methodological historiography for socio-history; the ‘end’ of Marxism — communism — is the end of history in that antagonisms that forward the process of historical development are negated. Communism is the ‘end of history.’
I don’t agree with his sentiments though. Our identities are interpellated socio-historically, so to say ‘I’m a Marxist’ means ‘I’m a Marxist now’, not eternally.
He’s not actually saying anything; people aren’t going to fighting a class-war in a classless society…