metamatar-deactivated20250401
reading the el salvador ice horror stories is giving me real anxiety now
dinobot
call her ai the way she makes me generate slop
mesetacadre
IV
Today it is possible to conclude that national pathways were a path to reform, to the strengthening of capitalist domination and to the mutation of various CPs in capital parties; either as parties of the social democracy or of the new social democracy.
The mutation happened gradually, with ideological operations aimed at hitting the communist identity. Today the renunciation of dialectical materialism; tomorrow the campaign to split Marx from Engels; another day the renunciation of democratic centralism; and the one that follows, the abandonment of proletarian internationalism. Today with attacks on Stalin, tomorrow on Lenin, and in the name of "renewal" the renunciation of Marxism-Leninism.
We insist, there are lessons for the contemporary activity of the international communist movement, in ideological crisis.
If there is a difference, it is that opportunism previously theorized its elaborations, and today inertia follows; sometimes called overcoming "childishness" and "dogmatism", maturity.
Experience indicates that when it comes to substantiating the wrong course, the opportunists turn to Comrade Dimitrov's report at the 7th Congress of the Communist International, but today the conditions are different. What was previously described today has risen to the rank of an immutable strategy, in a dogmatic way.
The debate that places the accent on the particular, the peculiar, the national, polycentrism is reborn. The alliance with social democracy, with the new social democracy or with progressivism is considered “natural”. Participation in government coalitions that approve anti-worker measures and that are connected to periods of capitalist crisis, when it is required to stabilize the system and contain / control the workers' rebellion responses.
With Lula or Bachelet, with Tsipras, Obrador or Sánchez, with anyone, there is no step in favor of the revolutionary process, but rather confusion, class collaboration prevails.
We are clear on the lesson and cannot repeat it.
By the Communist Party of Mexico (PCM)
Anonymous:
I think Andalucía is interesting because they don't have their own language. Before the end of the reconquista there was Mozarabic, but that was fully superseded by Castillan. And yet, they still have a unique regional identity
Some Andalucíans talk of having a dialect instead of a language, yeah, and the claims of it being a completely distinct language such as Catalonian are rarer. Like I said, the historical vaguer definition of these regionalisms breeded a lot more variety within these “secondary” regionalisms.
IV
Today it is possible to conclude that national pathways were a path to reform, to the strengthening of capitalist domination and to the mutation of various CPs in capital parties; either as parties of the social democracy or of the new social democracy.
The mutation happened gradually, with ideological operations aimed at hitting the communist identity. Today the renunciation of dialectical materialism; tomorrow the campaign to split Marx from Engels; another day the renunciation of democratic centralism; and the one that follows, the abandonment of proletarian internationalism. Today with attacks on Stalin, tomorrow on Lenin, and in the name of “renewal” the renunciation of Marxism-Leninism.
We insist, there are lessons for the contemporary activity of the international communist movement, in ideological crisis.
If there is a difference, it is that opportunism previously theorized its elaborations, and today inertia follows; sometimes called overcoming “childishness” and “dogmatism”, maturity.
Experience indicates that when it comes to substantiating the wrong course, the opportunists turn to Comrade Dimitrov’s report at the 7th Congress of the Communist International, but today the conditions are different. What was previously described today has risen to the rank of an immutable strategy, in a dogmatic way.
The debate that places the accent on the particular, the peculiar, the national, polycentrism is reborn. The alliance with social democracy, with the new social democracy or with progressivism is considered “natural”. Participation in government coalitions that approve anti-worker measures and that are connected to periods of capitalist crisis, when it is required to stabilize the system and contain / control the workers’ rebellion responses.
With Lula or Bachelet, with Tsipras, Obrador or Sánchez, with anyone, there is no step in favor of the revolutionary process, but rather confusion, class collaboration prevails.
We are clear on the lesson and cannot repeat it.
By the Communist Party of Mexico (PCM)
vintar
guessing game go, you might not know the exact species but you do know the general sort of thing involved here
the culprit:
manyblinkinglights
NOT WHAT I WAS EXPECTING
transfemstalin:
cuál es su perspectiva sobre la independencia de cataluña?
mesetacadre:
Me alegro de la pregunta, la cuestión nacional en España y su rol en la izquierda actual sigue siendo un tema no asentado y repleto de eclecticismo. En general, yo entiendo por nación como fue definida por Stalin:
Nación es una comunidad humana estable, históricamente formada y surgida sobre la base de la comunidad de idioma, de territorio, de vida económica y de psicología, manifestada ésta en una comunidad de cultura.
Esencialmente, la nación es un ente histórico a la que le corresponde un territorio, un idioma, y una cultura, que agrega a una comunidad humana. La nación tal y como la entendemos hoy es un producto de la pugna ideológica del liberalismo contra las ideologías feudales y/o absolutistas hacia el final de la eclosión del capitalismo y su ascenso revolucionario. Por lo tanto, la nación tiene un comienzo, una historia, y un fin. Para entender a las naciones periféricas dentro del estado español, primero se debe entender cómo se forma la nación española.
El comienzo de una nación española se puede trazar a los Decretos de Nueva Planta de principios del siglo XIII, promulgados por la dinastía de los Borbones después de ganar la guerra de Sucesión a los Hapsburgo. Los Decretos de Nueva Planta, esencialmente abolieron las estructuras feudales que habían unido a “España” mediante una unión de reinos con distintos derechos y deberes, como el reino de Castilla o el reino de Aragón. Al abolir esa estructura, se centraliza el poder del estado en la corona de Castilla, que ahora subsumía a todo el territorio antes perteneciente a otros reinos exceptuando al del Navarra. Es aquí, con la abolición de la mayoría de instituciones feudales, cuando comienza el proceso del reformismo borbónico y centralización que marcará el camino hacia una nación española, en un sólo estado.
El comercio y la clase asociada a éste entra en contradicción con los legados feudales, como las diferentes monedas locales y las aduanas interiores, aspectos que uno a uno son aplanados por la apisonadora reformista borbónica, un proceso que empieza a coger velocidad y fuerza después de la Guerra de Independencia y su revolución burguesa a principios del siglo XIX, en el que la constitución de Cádiz de 1812 y la vuelta al trono del absolutista Fernando VII otorga al liberalismo de fuerza, popularidad y algo contra lo que cargar. La constitución de 1812, curiosamente, fue y en algunos aspectos sigue siendo la constitución más liberal jamás escrita en España, otorgando libertades a la burguesía de las que nunca más han gozado.
Casi todo el siglo XIX fue una gran batalla campal entre el impulso liberal y la reacción feudal, una con muchos tiras y afloja, más notablemente las 3 Guerras Carlistas que culminó en la Restauración Borbónica tras el fracaso de la I República en 1874. La vuelta al poder de los Borbones en un país ya más modernizado y con una industria más asentada fue el culmen de la formación superestructural del estado español, sentando casi definitivamente los debates sobre la forma que debe tomar ese estado. La decisión de una monarquía parlamentaria en vez de una república, y la decisión de un estado más o menos federal pero tampoco unitario, fue la unificación de la burguesía española, si bien en contadas ocasiones sectores de esa burguesía abandonaron su apoyo a esas formas por diversas razones.
Muy a grandes rasgos, una vez vista el orígen y el desarrollo de la nación española como entidad hasta su consolidación, se puede entender mucho mejor el nacionalismo catalán, pero también el vasco y el gallego
En estos tres casos al menos, que son los más fuertes y relevantes dentro del mosaico de lenguas y culturas dentro del estado español, las contradicciones entre las instituciones feudales y el impulso hacia la liberalización de la economía, la transición violenta y reformista hacia el capitalismo, fueron las que motivaron a unos sectores de la burguesía a demandar más o menos velocidad en esa transición.
La burguesía de Cataluña, uno de los primeros sitios en España en consolidar una industria y ferrocarril en torno a la industria textil, favoreció la implantación de medidas librecambistas y un estado completamente federal, pero dentro del mercado nacional.
La burguesía vasca, perteneciente a una región considerablemente industrializada y en el que las instituciones feudales se mantuvieron durante más tiempo debido a la preservación del reino de Navarra durante ese primer desmantelamiento del feudalismo, favorecía el proteccionismo frente a los productos agrarios de otros países como Francia o Inglaterra, y también favorecía el retorno o mantenimiento de los privilegios financieros y económicos que otorgaban los fueros durante el feudalismo. La burguesía vasca, sin embargo, no tuvo problema con usar su producción industrial para apoyar a la supresión de las guerras por la independencia en Cuba, incluso llegando a llamar a la “unidad española”.
La burguesía gallega no experimentó tanto una toma del poder propia sino una integración de las instituciones y poder feudales ya presentes en la economía capitalista, algo que empobreció a esa clase y más a largo plazo frenó el desarrollo de la región.
Estos descontentos con la política económica del estado español fraguó la contradicción interburguesa de esas regiones, propiciando el desarrollo desigual inherente al capitalismo una diferenciación económica además de la lingüística y cultural. El “fuerismo” en Euskadi, el “abandono” en Galicia y la “opresión” en Cataluña fueron las armas retóricas tomadas por las burguesías nacionales, explicando el desarrollo desigual y las contradicciones entre el feudalismo y el capitalismo mediante esos razonamientos. Estas tres burguesías apoyaban una reconfiguración del Estado como había sido anterior a los Decretos de Nueva Planta, y generaron un regionalismo reaccionario. Los programas culturales que surgieron en el siglo XIX con el objetivo de estimular o rejuvenecer el uso de las lenguas periféricas, “recuperarlas”, fue en casi todos los casos financiada por sus respectivas burguesías, incluso teniendo simetrías entre sí. La Renaixença en Cataluña y el Rexurdimento en Galicia fueron movimientos para la “recuperación” de la literatura en sus respectivos idiomas, financiados por sus burguesías y que produjeron un contenido ideológico referente a un pasado perdido e independiente que se tenía que recuperar.
El vasco no disfrutó de este tipo de programas como otras lenguas porque el trabajo de estandarización de su gramática y sintaxis continuó adentrado el siglo XX, por las características del desarrollo del vasco como lengua en una serie de valles y pueblos que produjeron una multitud de dialectos y diferencia dentro del paraguas del vasco. Esto no significa que el nacionalismo vasco careciese de un impulso ideológico, Sabino Arana, el fundador del PNV, también era escritor y en general se refería a un pasado que había que recuperar, incluyendo los privilegios forales del feudalismo.
El proletariado no estaba estático en esta época tampoco, y la contradicción entre la patria del trabajo y la patria del capital se dio simultáneamente a la propia creación de la patria del capital, y la huelga minera de 1890 fue el primer gran exponente de la lucha de clases en España, alrededor de los años de la fundación del PSOE, siendo el segundo partido socialista más antiguo del mundo, después del SPD alemán.
La pérdida de las últimas colonias realmente productivas, Cuba y Filipinas, en el desastre de 1898, fuerza a la apertura del país al capital extranjero, concentrado en Cataluña, Asturias y Vizcaya, estimulando a su vez el desarrollo del capital financiero Español, y la burguesía, sea española o periférica, incrementa la explotación sobre las clases revolucionarias. En la mayoría del transcurso del tiempo en estos años, las burguesías nacionalistas no llegan a cuestionar la propia existencia del estado, sino una mejor posición dentro de el, ya sea mediante privilegios y proteccionismo, mayor libertad del mercado o una mayor iniciativa por financiar por parte del estado. Otra consecuencia del desastre del 98 fue que permitió a la burguesía en general a tomar una posición retórica y política muy beneficiosa, la del victimismo y la de la autopercepción de España como un pais de segunda o un estado fallido, una percepción que sigue bien viva hoy en día, a pesar de pertenecer ya desde antes de 1898 al rango medio-alto de la pirámide imperialista. Sin embargo, la fase imperialista del capitalismo como la identificó Lenin en esta época solo termina de llegar a España para principios del siglo XX, una vez que el capital industrial se concentra en unas pocas familias de la mano del capital financiero.
La influencia de ese victimismo y de ese antagonismo inter-burgués caló y sigue calando en la clase obrera del pais. La perspectiva del nacionalismo Catalán de ser oprimido y de rechazar toda centralización del estado sin duda tuvo una gran influencia para el triunfo del anarco-sindicalismo una vez llegó el movimiento obrero a España plenamente, y la tendencia ultra-reaccionaria del nacionalismo vasco ha producido tales ideologías como la síntesis entre el comunismo y la reivindicación de los fueros feudales dentro del partido Carlista que sigue existiendo.
Quiere todo esto decir entonces que la opresión de las naciones periféricas, su perjuicio en el desarrollo del capitalismo español y el chovinismo español fue un invento de la burguesía catalana y vasca? Por supuesto que no, y sin una base cultural y lingüística de la que partir, sin un descontento real entre la clase obrera de la que tirar, y sin el esfuerzo financiero de moldear la recuperación de la literatura en torno a sus demandas ideológicas, el discurso nacionalista no habría tenido el peso que ha llegado a tener. Pero hay que reconocer que la nación como concepto y justificación ideológica es un producto de la pugna entre el capitalismo y el feudalismo moribundo del siglo XIX, una manera que consiguieron las burguesías desaventajadas por el desarrollo desigual inherente al capitalismo de conseguir apoyo popular a sus demandas para una mejor posición en el capitalismo de su estado y en el capitalismo imperialista.
El nacionalismo español, que sí ha gozado de un estado propio, también es un producto de la burguesía española usada para convencer a la clase obrera de sus demandas, y que, siguiendo la lógica de la nación-estado, ha implementado una opresión a esas lenguas y naciones periféricas, llegando hasta el impulso de eliminarlas por completo como se dio durante el franquismo. Pero ni la nación Española es inherentemente opresiva, ni son las naciones vasca, catalana, gallega y demás inherentemente liberadoras o progresistas. El estado actual del reparto del poder ha sido un simple producto de qué nación dispuso del mayor poder político, económico y demográfico en el periodo de su constitución como nación. Si, de la manera que fuese, hubiese sido la nación catalana la que se expandiese por una mayoría de la península y hubiese comenzado a centralizar el estado en torno a Barcelona en vez de Madrid, hoy en día se replicarían unas dinámicas parecidas entre la nación que ostenta el poder político y las que no.
De nuevo, la nación es un ente capitalista que sólo pertenece al periodo de hegemonía del capitalismo. Si los comunistas queremos una revolución que acabe con ello, también se debe prescindir de la nación-estado como forma de configuración de la maquinaria de dominación de la clase trabajadora. Sin embargo, esta no ha sido siempre la posición que han llevado los comunistas en España.
Cuando se funda el PCE como sección española de la internacional comunista en 1921 (PCE-SEIC), uno de los análisis que le es transmitido por la Internacional es el de la cuestión nacional. Después del IV Congreso de la Internacional, clasifican a los países en tres categorías. En los que el capitalismo está completamente desarrollado, en los que está semi desarrollado, y en los que no está desarrollado. España, pese a ya para entonces estar completamente integrada en la cadena imperialista y llevando acabo campañas imperialistas en Marruecos, fue clasificada como un país en el que el capitalismo estaba semi desarrollado, debido a un mal análisis por parte del PCE y por falta de información en la URSS. A raíz de esto, se equipararon las dinámicas imperialistas entre España y Marruecos, el Sáhara o Guinea ecuatorial con las dinámicas entre España y Cataluña, Euskadi, etc. De cierta manera, la Internacional pecó de aplicar la plantilla de la URSS, que venía de una Rusia Zarista en la que las naciones internas sí sufrían procesos imperialistas y coloniales, a España. De nuevo, no es que la opresión sufrida por las naciones periféricas no existiese, pero pertenecía y pertenece a un mecanismo distinto del imperialismo.
Este error en el análisis de cierta manera debilitó al PCE y facilitó el golpe de estado de 1936 y la guerra civil. Ni el campesinado gallego ni la burguesía vasca y catalana se opusieron al golpe de estado, en contraste con los focos bien proletarizados y con presencia del PCE y otros partidos y organizaciones similares. Para la vuelta a la “democracia” y su legalización, el PCE aceptó por completo el autonomismo como la forma que apoya para el estado, conjunto a sus otras mil derivas reformistas y eurocomunistas. Todo esto significa que el PCE, como mayor representante histórico de la lucha obrera en España, nunca ha hecho un análisis en condiciones de la cuestión nacional. Lo que nos lleva a mi posición como comunista en la actualidad y el estado de la cuestión nacional en la izquierda.
Como ya adelanté antes, se debe dejar a la nación donde pertenece, al periodo revolucionario del liberalismo y a las diversas formas que tiene el capitalismo de sustituir a la patria del trabajo por la patria del capital. Partiendo de bases internacionalistas, cómo se puede apoyar la independencia catalana? Apoyar la división del proletariado en un estado más? Apoyar los intereses de una burguesía catalana que lleva más de un siglo usando las estrategias del nacionalismo para conseguir una mejor posición en la cadena imperialista? Yo no deseo la división del proletariado en este país, no por chovinismo español, sino por una cuestión de entender que la reconfiguración de las fronteras entre instituciones capitalistas nunca le va a hacer un favor a nuestra clase, porque no es el interés que tiene la clase trabajadora. Su interés es la unión de todos los proletarios del mundo en un sistema que no radique en la explotación del hombre por el hombre. Sin embargo, hay que partir de la situación actual, que es una situación de división del proletariado más o menos a lo largo de líneas nacionales, divisiones que causan en el capitalismo un desarrollo desigual, y que por tanto causan unas condiciones distintas que en el resto del mundo.
De esto, sale la primera y más fundamental de las posiciones comunistas sobre la cuestión nacional: Una revolución de forma nacional pero de contenido internacional. De aquí también surge la segunda posición: En toda España, defender la férrea unidad de la clase obrera frente todo nacionalismo que la divida, sea español o no. Sin ignorar la opresión real que ha sufrido el proletariado de las naciones no españolas, y reconociendo que la cultura en sí no tiene un carácter capitalista, se llega a la última pero no menos importante conclusión. La protección de los derechos lingüísticos y culturales es inseparable de la estrategia y programa comunista.
Por desgracia, a mi parecer, esta no es ni de lejos la única ni la más numerosa posición respecto a la cuestión nacional en España. Es más común que muchos en la izquierda abracen el nacionalismo periférico, cometiendo el mismo error que cometió el PCE y la IC hace 100 años, nacido del mismo impulso retaguardista que lleva a algunos comunistas a abrazar a ciertas formas de la reacción para abarcar a más miembros de la clase obrera. El Frente Obrero, por ejemplo, ha decidido que, si la clase obrera es homófoba, tránsfoba y racista, ellos tienen que ser los más homófobos, los más tránsfobos y los más racistas. La izquierda que abraza al nacionalismo hace el mismo ejercicio. Si la clase obrera en mi región es nacionalista e independentista, entonces tenemos que ser los más nacionalistas y los más independentistas. Esto es lo que por ejemplo ha ocurrido en un cierto partido/organización que no nombraré por precaución, pero esencialmente, se llevó a cabo un proceso de purgas en el que hasta los federalistas fueron acusados de chovinistas españoles y expulsados.
2enba2luka
You went into a lot of detail when it comes to Basque, Catalan and Galician nationalism. Do the other language groups of Spain (Aragonese, Astur-Leonese, Extramaduran) not have any nationalist currents of note?
These language groups have a certain nationalist element although it varies. For many reasons, these languages were not defined systematically like Basque, and also lacked an economic relevance such as the one Catalonian and Basque had (and have). But the character of that nationalism varies and it’s usually more similar to the one in Galicia rather than the ones in the Euskadi and Cataluña. For instance, the predominant sentiment among Asturians is that they’re Asturian and Spanish, both at the same time, although Asturian first. At least in my experience, and keep in mind these nationalisms are less studied, and I’ve also less knowledge on them, they tend towards the feeling of abandonment and wanting a better place within the Spanish state, not complete independence. The most common demand of the people of Extremadura, for example, is the development of conventional and high speed rail in their territory, at least in the political/institutional sphere and what gets out to the rest of the country. Don’t doubt that all these language and cultural groups have people who want independence, but the seriousness and feasibility of that tends to be on the low end. Because of those elements I mentioned earlier, there is also a much lower importance of the “bourgeoisie” of those nations, because sometimes they haven’t even constituted a nation in full.
I think one of the most relevant groups that’s not the big three is Andalucía along with Asturias, with a surprisingly defined nationalist (or rather regionalist) movement. Although what’s more common in my experience is wanting to be more relevant and recognized within the Spanish state.
404sketches
There was a drawpile and I became curious about the animation tools so I drew up this silly little loop of @magnificentmicrowave's Yuno to try them out
magnificentmicrowave
LITERALLY INSANE
power464646
The way people talk about non-mammalian pets on this website is crazy. You could post a video of a pet tarantula perfectly walking up and down the keys of a piano to play the right hand to the opening of Firth of Fifth by Genesis and still there'll be some jerk in the notes going like "EWW GROSS KILL IT". Ignore this person. You have to post the video anyway. When you do, that'll be our sign to send someone to meet you at the corner of Williams and First at 11 P.M., sharp. Look for a woman in a brown parka. Make sure you weren't followed, and don't bring a phone or credit card. Take a bag containing twenty thousand dollars in cash only. Help her count it, too, numbers aren't her strong suit. She actually dropped out of high school and became a junior hockey player, in fact. She'll say, "but now that you know that, I have to kill you!" Then she'll see the look on your face and passive-aggressively apologise and tell you it was only a joke. You'll say then why didn't she laugh, then, and she'll say she thought it was funnier than it actually was. Then she'll lead you to an abandoned back-alley tattoo parlour and tell you to take off your shirt. You'll explain that you're shy, but she'll insist, and promise that she won't laugh or anything. When you do take off your shirt she will chuckle slightly. She won't explain what she's tattooing into your back as she does it, but you can feel it might be a QR code. Then she'll take the money and bid you adieu, and you'll put your shirt back on and, other than the pain of having a fresh tattoo, won't think about it any further until three days later when two men knock on your door. They will look nearly identical, but they aren't actually related. "But we are married!" the taller of the two will explain. "To the job," the shorter will reply. "Precisely," the taller will answer, to which the shorter then concludes, "yes, we are precisely married, to the job". Don't underestimate these men, though. They kill people for a living. The shorter will remove your shirt and begin asking you a series of personal questions, such as whether or not you have ever seen something which had compelled you to turn to the supernatural for explanation, or whether or not you had ever felt more guilty for failure to apologise for something than you had for doing that thing in the first place. You must answer these questions truthfully and without hesitation. The taller will struggle with the QR reader on his phone, and occasionally ask your help here and there. The shorter will stall for time while the taller figures this out by very obviously improvising more questions. You must still answer quickly and honestly. At one point he will ask you how you taught a spider to play Dance on a Volcano: he is testing you. You must explain that it's playing Firth of Fifth in the video, even if it happens that you have also taught it to play Dance on a Volcano. The taller will finally get the app working and scan your back. The two will then be on their way, but ah, before they go, could they grab a bite to eat? You'll say sure, why not, and they'll find a bowl of homemade guacamole in the fridge that you were really proud of and take it, bowl and all, even though you were saving it for a party that night. The following day you will find one hundred and fifty thousand dollars in cash by the foot of your bed. The person who left unnecessarily rude comments on your video will never show up in your notes again. You will presume they were merely a front for organised crime and no longer need you. This is true, but built on a faulty assumption. You will find your tarantula that morning already on the piano, suddenly able to play Al Stewart's Year of the Cat.
closet-keys
people have invented so many different ways of rephrasing "don't transition" to sound plausibly progressive enough to bystanders that they'll think trans people are over-dramatic for reacting negatively to it.
- medical transition is permanent so you should really consider it thoroughly and put off trying it unless you know for sure. yes, just keep second guessing yourself. 6 months, 3 years, 20 years...
- you might not like how you look. other people might not like how you look. you might not look cis. don't you want to be desirable? do you want to risk feeling worse and more insecure? you look so good now! we think you're so hot right now, and you wouldn't want to change your body and make it not hot to us, right?
- you are so valid if you don't transition. you don't need to transition. no one needs to transition. it's just cosmetic, it's just aesthetic, it's all optional and means nothing at all. (no, of course this is unrelated to arguments used for insurance not covering transition, or doctors denying care.)
- why do you even want to transition? are you trying to look cis? are you trying to adhere to beauty standards? are you doing this to look hot? that's regressive and outdated and assimilationist. (if you want us to take your politics seriously, you shouldn't transition)
- it's a waste of resources/privileged/bourgeois to transition. it's kind of morally suspect that you would transition and still ask for help ever in your life. why should we support someone who's transitioning if they're obviously not oppressed anyway.
- DIY HRT is too dangerous. you could hurt your body. you could get arrested. your life will probably end if you take HRT. if you can't access HRT legally, you just shouldn't take it. not for transphobic reasons!! just for your own sake <3
like when will it end
sadoeuphemist
A scorpion, not knowing how to swim, asked a frog to carry it across the river. “Do I look like a fool?” said the frog. “You’d sting me if I let you on my back!”
“Be logical,” said the scorpion. “If I stung you I’d certainly drown myself.”
“That’s true,” the frog acknowledged. “Climb aboard, then!” But no sooner than they were halfway across the river, the scorpion stung the frog, and they both began to thrash and drown. “Why on earth did you do that?” the frog said morosely. “Now we’re both going to die.”
“I can’t help it,” said the scorpion. “It’s my nature.”
___
…But no sooner than they were halfway across the river, the frog felt a subtle motion on its back, and in a panic dived deep beneath the rushing waters, leaving the scorpion to drown.
“It was going to sting me anyway,” muttered the frog, emerging on the other side of the river. “It was inevitable. You all knew it. Everyone knows what those scorpions are like. It was self-defense.”
___
…But no sooner had they cast off from the bank, the frog felt
the tip of a stinger pressed lightly against the back of its neck. “What do you think you’re doing?” said the frog.
“Just a precaution,” said the scorpion. “I cannot sting you without drowning. And now, you cannot drown me without being stung. Fair’s fair, isn’t it?”
They swam in silence to the other end of the river, where the scorpion climbed off, leaving the frog fuming.
“After the kindness I showed you!” said the frog. “And you threatened to kill me in return?”
“Kindness?” said the scorpion. “To only invite me on your back after you knew I was defenseless, unable to use my tail without killing myself? My dear frog, I only treated you as I was treated. Your kindness was as poisoned as a scorpion’s sting.”
___
…“Just a precaution,” said the scorpion. “I cannot sting you without
drowning. And now, you cannot drown me without being stung. Fair’s fair,
isn’t it?”
“You have a point,” the frog acknowledged.
“But once we get to dry land, couldn’t you sting me then without
repercussion?”
“All I want is to cross the river safely,” said the scorpion. “Once I’m on the other side I would gladly let you be.”
“But I would have to trust you on that,” said the frog. “While you’re pressing a stinger to my neck. By ferrying you to land I’d be be giving up the one deterrent I hold over you.”
“But by the same logic, I can’t possibly withdraw my stinger while we’re still over water,” the scorpion protested.
The frog paused in the middle of the river, treading water. “So, I suppose we’re at an impasse.”
The river rushed around them. The scorpion’s stinger twitched against the frog’s unbroken skin. “I suppose so,” the scorpion said.
___
A scorpion, not knowing how to swim, asked a frog to carry it across the
river. “Absolutely not!” said the frog, and dived beneath the waters, and so none of them learned anything.
___
A scorpion, being unable to swim, asked a turtle (as in the original Persian version of the fable) to carry it across the river. The turtle readily agreed, and allowed the scorpion aboard its shell. Halfway across, the scorpion gave in to its nature and stung, but failed to penetrate the turtle’s thick shell. The turtle, swimming placidly, failed to notice.
They reached the other side of the river, and parted ways as friends.
___
…Halfway across, the scorpion gave in to its nature and stung,
but failed to penetrate the turtle’s thick shell.
The turtle, hearing the tap of the scorpion’s sting, was offended at the scorpion’s ungratefulness. Thankfully, having been granted the powers to both defend itself and to punish evil, the turtle sank beneath the waters and drowned the scorpion out of principle.
___
A scorpion, not knowing how to swim, asked a frog to carry it
across the river. “Do I look like a fool?” sneered the frog. “You’d
sting me if I let you on my back.”
The scorpion pleaded
earnestly. “Do you think so little of me? Please, I must cross the
river. What would I gain from stinging you? I would only end up drowning
myself!”
“That’s true,” the frog acknowledged. “Even a
scorpion knows to look out for its own skin. Climb aboard, then!”
But as they forged through the rushing waters, the scorpion grew worried. This frog thinks me a ruthless killer, it thought. Would it not be justified in throwing me off now and ridding the world of me? Why else would it agree to this? Every jostle made the scorpion more and more anxious, until the frog surged forward with a particularly large splash, and in panic the scorpion lashed out with its stinger.
“I knew it,” snarled the frog, as they both thrashed and drowned. “A scorpion cannot change its nature.”
___
A scorpion, not knowing how to swim, asked a frog to carry it across the river.
The frog agreed, but no sooner than they were halfway across the scorpion stung the frog, and they both began to thrash and drown.
“I’ve only myself to blame,” sighed the frog, as they both sank beneath the
waters. “You, you’re a scorpion, I couldn’t have expected anything better. But I knew better, and yet I went against my judgement! And now I’ve doomed us both!”
“You couldn’t help it,” said the scorpion mildly. “It’s your nature.”
___
…“Why on earth did you do that?” the frog said morosely. “Now we’re both going to die.”
“Alas, I was of two natures,” said the scorpion. “One said to gratefully ride your back across the river, and the other said to sting you where you stood. And so both fought, and neither won.” It smiled wistfully. “Ah, it would be nice to be just one thing, wouldn’t it? Unadulterated in nature. Without the capacity for conflict or regret.”
___
“By the way,” said the frog, as they swam, “I’ve been meaning to ask: What’s on the other side of the river?”
“It’s the journey,” said the scorpion. “Not the destination.”
___
…“What’s on the other side of anything?” said the scorpion. “A new beginning.”
___
…”Another scorpion to mate with,” said the scorpion. “And more prey to kill, and more living bodies to poison, and a forthcoming lineage of cruelties that you will be culpable in.”
___
…”Nothing we will live to see, I fear,” said the scorpion. “Already the currents are growing stronger, and the river seems like it shall swallow us both. We surge forward, and the shoreline recedes. But does that mean our striving was in vain?”
___
“I love you,” said the scorpion.
The frog glanced upward. “Do you?”
“Absolutely.
Can you imagine the fear of drowning? Of course not. You’re a frog. Might as well be scared of
breathing air.
And yet here I am, clinging to your back, as the waters rage around us. Isn’t that love? Isn’t that trust? Isn’t that necessity? I could not kill you without killing myself. Are we not inseparable in this?”
The frog swam on, the both of them silent.
___
“I’m so tired,” murmured the frog eventually. “How much further to the other side? I don’t know how long we’ve been swimming. I’ve been treading water. And it’s getting so very dark.”
“Shh,” the scorpion said. “Don’t be afraid.”
The frog’s legs kicked out weakly. “How long has it been? We’re lost. We’re lost! We’re doomed to be cast about the waters forever. There is no land. There’s nothing on the other side, don’t you see!”
“Shh, shh,” said the scorpion. “My venom is a hallucinogenic. Beneath its surface, the river is endlessly deep, its currents carrying many things.”
“You - You’ve killed us both,” said the frog, and began to laugh deliriously. “Is this - is this what it’s like to drown?”
“We’ve killed each other,” said the scorpion soothingly. “My venom in my glands now pulsing through your veins, the waters of your birthing pool suffusing my lungs. We are engulfing each other now, drowning in each other. I am breathless. Do you feel it? Do you feel my sting pierced through your heart?”
“What a foolish thing to do,” murmured the frog. “No logic. No logic to it at all.”
“We couldn’t help it,” whispered the scorpion. “It’s our natures. Why else does anything in the world happen? Because we were made for this from birth, darling, every moment inexplicable and inevitable. What a crazy thing it is to fall in love, and yet - It’s all our fault! We are both blameless. We’re together now, darling. It couldn’t have happened any other way.”
___
“It’s funny,” said the frog. “I can’t say that I trust you, really. Or that I even think very much of you and that nasty little stinger of yours to begin with. But I’m doing this for you regardless. It’s strange, isn’t it? It’s strange. Why would I do this? I want to help you, want to go out of my way to help you. I let you climb right onto my back! Now, whyever would I go and do a foolish thing like that?”
___
A scorpion, not knowing how to swim, asked a frog to carry it across
the river. “Do I look like a fool?” said the frog. “You’d sting me if I
let you on my back!”
“Be logical,” said the scorpion. “If I stung you I’d certainly drown myself.”
“That’s true,” the frog acknowledged. “Come aboard, then!” But no sooner had the scorpion mounted the frog’s back than it began to sting, repeatedly, while still safely on the river’s bank.
The frog groaned, thrashing weakly as the venom coursed through its veins, beginning to liquefy its flesh. “Ah,” it muttered. “For some reason I never considered this possibility.”
“Because you were never scared of me,” the scorpion whispered in its ear. “You were never scared of dying. In a past life you wore a shell and sat in judgement. And then you were reborn: soft-skinned, swift, unburdened, as new and vulnerable as a child, moving anew through a world of children. How could anyone ever be cruel, you thought, seeing the precariousness of it all?” The scorpion bowed its head and drank. “How could anyone kill you without killing themselves?”
heinous-bitch
Fuente: El Gato y La Caja (IG: elgatoylacaja)
elbiotipo
The "tactics" of torture, forced disappearance, and clandestine warfare used by the Argentine military dictatorship of 1976-1983 were taught to the Argentine military by their French military "professors," who used them extensively in their miserable attempts to maintain their empire over Vietnam, Algeria and other countries. These techniques of state terror were first used in French colonial violence, and then were applied here, with the approval of Plan Cóndor supported by the United States. The same tortures that were inflicted on Vietnamese peasants and Algerian activists were also inflicted on Argentine students, the same cruelty that the military dictatorships used from Mexico to Chile was dictated as a method at the School of the Americas. In Argentina, 30.000 people were forcibly dissapeared, tortured, raped and killed, and countless others were brutally repressed with scars they, and our entire society, still bear today.
Here is an article (in Spanish) about it.
Imperialism is a never-ending fractal of cruelty.
alien-in-the-mirror
since you people on this site love maps so much, here's one for you all
the distribution of the 814 confirmed clandestine detention and extermination centers during argentina's last military dictatorship backed and funded, of course, by uncle sam
As some people pointed out on Twitter, if these centers only detained 37 people each, they would all account for the 30.000 disappeared, the estimate of people killed during the Proceso de Reorganización Nacional. As of 1978, a secret report by Chilean intelligence estimated the number of dissapeared to be around 22.000 people. The dictatorship lasted between 1976-1983. It is likely that the estimated figure of 30.000 is underestimated.
In Argentina, students, trade unionists, intellectuals, or just anyone who looked suspicious were taken from the street, tortured and executed. Tortures were of a inhumanity I hesitate to even describe. The dictatorship was especially cruel towards pregnant women, torturing them during birth and then stealing their children to be adopted by other families, sometimes the very families of their captors. This is why the organization of Madres de Plaza de Mayo, mothers who wanted to learn where their children were, eventually became Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo, looking for their grandchildren.
The military junta also led a disastrous economic program of neoliberalism to align with the interests of the United States, which left millions in poverty and the destruction of Argentina's industrial economy. There was also a perpetual, casual cruelty, with any politically active people regularly arrested and tortured, censorship and repression, and eventually the Malvinas War, where conscripts from the poorest parts of the country where sent to fight for their flag on the cold South Atlantic while the sons of the military leaders slept in their homes. The effects of the Proceso de Reorganización Nacional are still felt today all over Argentina's society, a society they tried to break and remake.
This was all done with the open support of the United States. Kissinger (may he rot in hell) encouraged Gerald Ford to support the dictatorship, a policy the next presidents continued as part of the wider Plan Cóndor of supporting right-wing dictatorships all over Latin America.
Nunca más.
infomedicos
Arte y Anatomía