stayspectacular:

pulchritudinous-mindds:

children in Gaza cry on their first day of school today as they remember the many friends they’ve lost. may god give them all the happiness they deserve.

Ameen, Ya Rabb <3

stayspectacular:

pulchritudinous-mindds:

children in Gaza cry on their first day of school today as they remember the many friends they’ve lost. may god give them all the happiness they deserve.

Ameen, Ya Rabb <3

“Labour” is the living basis of private property, it is private property as the creative source of itself. Private property is nothing but objectified labour. If it is desired to strike a mortal blow at private property, one must attack it not only as a material state of affairs, but also as activity, as labour. It is one of the greatest misapprehensions to speak of free, human, social labour, of labour without private property. “Labour” by its very nature is unfree, unhuman, unsocial activity, determined by private property and creating private property. Hence the abolition of private property will become a reality only when it is conceived as the abolition of “labour”

(Source : alterities)

(Source : anneboyer)

“This was in another sense always the paradox of Marx’s view of capitalism itself (and thus, as will be clear in a moment, of “use value”): for pre-capitalist societies and modes of production are by definition never transparent, since they must assure the extraction of surplus value by extra-economic means—by family structure; or the institution of slavery, by brute force or by religious and cosmological ideologies. There is thus a sense in which only capitalism pursues economics by purely economic means (money and the market), and thereby also the deduction that in a larger acceptation all of the extra-economic determinations required by other or non-capitalist modes of production may be largely termed religious (tribal animisms and fetishisms, religion of the polis, religions of the god-emperor, or rationalizations of various aristocracies by birth). Capitalism therefore, as in the historical narrative we have inherited from the triumphant bourgeoisie and the great bourgeois revolutions, is the first social form to have eliminated religion as such and to have entered on the purely secular vocation of human life and human society. Yet according to Marx, religion knows an immediate “return of the repressed” at the very moment of the coming into being of such a secular society, which, imagining that it has done away with the sacred, then at once unconsciously sets itself in pursuit of the “fetishism of commodities” in a kind of Deleuzian reterritorialization. The incoherency is resolved if we understand that a truly secular society is yet to come, lies in the future; and that the end of the fetishism of commodities may well be connected to some conquest of social transparencies, provided that we understand that such transparency has never yet existed anywhere: a situation in which the collective labor stored in a given commodity is always and everywhere visible to its consumers and users. This is also to resolve the problem of “use value,” which seems like a nostalgic survival only if we project it into what we imagine to be a simpler past, a past “before the market,” in which objects are somehow used and valued for themselves: but that is to forget “real” fetishism (as opposed to the symbolic kind that attaches to modern commodities), along with the various other symbolic ways in which value was projected onto objects in the societies of the past. Use value lies thus also in the future, before us and not behind us: nor is it (and this is I think the real objection to the concept nowadays) distinct from and antagonistic to the phenomena which cluster around the function of information and communication, but must probably eventually come to include those in unimaginably complex ways.”
Fredric Jameson, Valences Of The Dialectic (via foucault-the-haters)
“As long as you make an identity for yourself out of pain, you cannot be free of it.”
Eckhart Tolle (via alterities)

In recent years, noise has become an extremely popular research topic in biology. Scientists have found that practically every process in cells is inherently, inescapably noisy. This is a consequence of basic chemistry. When molecules move around, they do so randomly. This means that cellular processes that require certain molecules to be in the right place at the right time depend on the whims of how molecules bump around.

The result is that two genetically identical cells in the exact same environment will sometimes behave in dramatically different ways. One might go dormant while the other stays active. Or one might produce twice as much of a compound as its sister cell.

Noise sounds like bad news for biology. How can a plant or animal organize its development and behavior when all the processes involved are inherently messy? Indeed, sometimes noise causes real problems. For instance, researchers from the Scott Rifkin lab at the University of California–San Diego have shown that when a certain strain of completely identical, genetically engineered nematode worms are raised in the same environment, some will develop normally while others spontaneously die.

(Source : alterities)