The argument that capitalism lets you freely express yourself as an individual is hilarious…and it’s debunked by the people who argue it.
“Hey, I’d like to pursue art and philosophy.”
“Heh, this loser is gonna end up poor.”
Acceptable expression of yourself as an individual must be profitable. The fact that doing what you love will leave you struggling in life is miserable and a direct result of capitalism.
Life has literally always been that way, under any circumstance. You’re line of thinking here is a perfect example of the most fundamental fallacy in Marxist thought; nearly all the faults percieved in capitalism that cannot be fixed are truly just fundamental conditions of living. People have always had to do shit they don’t want to do in order to fuction as a society and as individuals. In fact, art and philosophy has never allowed common people to make a living until capitalism, however difficult it may be.
No, life has NOT always been that way, because you can make a living without capitalism.
Capitalism only transformed production units into consumption units. Instead of producing for yourself and your community, which humans have literally always done before capitalism to survive, you now produce for a company in exchange for a wage. The problem with this is there’s no guarantee the wage is high enough for you to even buy back what you helped make.
I’m an artist, and I’m not going for an art major under capitalism. Why? Because treating creativity as a tool for profit drains me. Same with writing. It actually limits your abilities because you must produce certain things within a certain amount of time. This will sound silly, but a great example is Adam Ellis from Buzzfeed. While working for Buzzfeed he churned out the same unoriginal comics and didn’t even bother to draw characters differently. After leaving Buzzfeed, his comics suddenly improved. This is because companies looking to make a certain amount of money in a short amount of time HAVE TO limit creativity.
Capitalism took what humans created and put a price tag on it. How great is that? Well, billions of people are starving while the ruling class makes more money than ever before off their cheap labor. It’s so bad the World Bank literally manipulates global poverty statistics to make it look better. Capitalism is upheld by exploitation.
This honestly isn’t even exclusively a Marxist criticism of capitalism, a lot of sociologists, historians, economists, and anthropologists have the same to say regardless of politics.
You are treating economics, a social science, as a natural science. However, even IF these things were a natural state of being, why in the world would we accept them?
There’s something intensely unhealthy going on when parents discourage age-appropriate independence. A 13 year old should probably be allowed to go see a film with their friends most of the time. A 16 year old should probably be allowed to drive/ride a bus/bike to a friend’s house most of the time. An 18 year old should probably be allowed to travel overnight with their friends most of the time. A 20+ year old should be allowed to come and go as they please, with some common-sense “Let’s talk this ‘move to Finland’ plan of your over before you follow through on it” exceptions.
Parents should want their children to enjoy going out and doing things on their own and with their friends. They should be delighted that their child wants to have a life of their own. A rich, fulfilling life outside the home and distinct from parents and family is important, and parents should want their child to have that.
“Please save me! I’ll do anything for you!” “Then perish.”
“Hell is empty, and all the devils are here.”
“Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?”
“…Then I shall face God, and walk backwards into hell.”
“…I’d strike the sun if it insulted me.”
-All of these are from shitposts, regrettably not from literary classics.
elizabeth swan and will turner are actually SO romance in the first movie and not enough people acknowledged this because the early 2000s were the age of the edgelords who only valued jack sparrow’s moral ambiguity and that is the TRUTH
the part where she’s like “how many times do i have to tell you to call me elizabeth” and he shyly says “once more, miss swann” and once she walks away he gazes adoringly after her and whispers “elizabeth” to himself like he’s unworthy of it
then when he’s patching up the cut on her hand and she flinches and he says “i know, blacksmith’s hands… they’re rough” because he thinks that’s what’s bothering her HE KNOWS HE’S NOT WORTHY OF HER!!! THAT’S THE PINING I’M TALKING ABOUT BINCH!!! I DON’T ACCEPT LESS!!!!
he has like 10 chances to confess his love to her but waits until he’s dressed like this to do it:
my man knows 1) the importance of a good outfit when shooting your shot 2) how to ACCESSORIZE. take NOTES.
Will Turner was pretty sure he was going to fail to rescue Jack Sparrow, so he dressed up to the nines to do it, because if you’re going to hang for rescuing a pirate, you may as well be wearing a nice hat while you do.
*history side of tumblr comes diving in through a window*
Funny you should say that! See, there was a thing in England for a while (maybe before this time period) where the hangman got to keep anything that was on the condemned’s body at the time they were hanged. Nice clothing, sweet hat, money in your pockets, it’s all his.
What this meant was that you could get on the hangman’s good side by showing up to your execution in nice clothes or with money on your body. What good will getting on the hangman’s good side do you, you ask? You’ll still get hanged. Well yes, but the hangman has the option to arrange a nice clean broken neck, compared to a lingering drawn out suffocation or – as was also common – drawing and quartering.
So is that what Will is intending here by showing up in a nice suit with an expensive hat? Probably not what the film makers intended, but damn.
dress every day like you’re ready to woo your honey, do crimes, and impress an executioner
