“They sheltered off one another and slept in heated chains of body. No one could sleep for more than one dream. The dream happened during the day, and the dream was the storm, and the storm was whatever you could name.”

♥

“The revolution as communisation puts the problem of the gender distinction as inherent to exploitation on the table in a practical way. However, even if male domination and capitalist exploitation are socially constructed in a coextensive manner (given by the nature of surplus labour and the wage relation), even if the abolition of one cannot occur without the abolition of the other, …the contradictions which produce their supersession are not identical. The struggle of women against male domination is not dissolved within the struggle of the proletariat against capitalist exploitation. If we can say that the contradiction between proletariat and capital, in its revolutionary becoming as communisation, will put the gender distinction (which is necessarily a hierarchical one) on the table, it does not bear within it, as such, the supersession of this question on which its success is however predicated. The appropriation of women, i.e. the contradiction which constructs and opposes men and women is inscribed within the very existence of surplus-labour, but the social groups which this appropriation constructs contradictorily are not identical to the classes (proletarians and bourgeois) which the contradiction founded on surplus-labour (i.e. exploitation) opposes. The question is singular, the abolition of surplus-labour, but the protagonists of its resolution are related to each other by different contradictions. The gendered distinction of humanity is implied, included in the contradiction between the proletariat and capital, but the latter, strictly as a contradiction between classes, does not carry within it the supersession of this distinction.”

The equivocating of property damage and human harm is simply a different expression of the equivalence which allows for corporate personhood.

To condemn the absurdity of the latter while defending the reason of the former is the height of idiocy.

blah blah reactionaries who care more about property than human beings blah

Subjective conditions: hysteria around militancy, reaction, uncertain sense of triumph with no further direction to which it can attach itself.

Objective conditions: weather and economic crisis.

People we need a building. Two, three, many buildings.

Please someone stop me from my reactionary tendencies come winter and come exams. The previous state being a habitual place of rebellion executed with scissors and augmented colors at war with my threads of dead skin cells that frame a face of discontent in her “current” state

thank —u

“How to practice immediately the concrete sharing of means, the dispossession of everything for everyone, the collective building of permanent zones of autonomy, and the imperative to protect, teach, feed, house, and love each other as relations that imply the destruction of the present state of things, and how to construct barricades that defend against any force that threatens these practices and this idea. ”

I am curious: About how the exchange of power and submission in sexual relations are the result of people consciously creating docile bodies due to interpersonal consciousness of how bodies are subject to institutional regulation. The practice of BDSM is a practice of salvation. To be tied up and have bodily harm inflicted on oneself, and to cry out for mercy is a practice of salvation. So how does this relationship derive from institutional regulation? What does it mean. Foucault says that power produces reality; “it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. That the individual and the knowledge that may be gained of him belong to this production. If the individual is “no doubt the fictitious atom of an ‘ideological’ representation of society” but also a “reality fabricated by this specific technology of power” that Foucault calls discipline, then to engage in BDSM allows for the understanding of reality and the microphysics of power.