Sandwich Theory

We at Worker’s Spatula pride ourselves in being both the most theoretically advanced of shitposters, and also the shittiest of theoreticians. It comes as a great disappointment to us that in our years of weird theoretical interventions on Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, and now Instagram, we have barely succeeded in explaining even the most basic fact about Hegel’s dialectical method which Marx upheld and appropriated, namely that it is not about THESIS – ANTITHESIS – SYNTHESIS.

We encourage readers who really are coming at this stuff from the beginning to start with the famous Twitter thread. However, we recognise that some of our examples were either too political or too philosophical for many of our target audience, who are used to discussing everything in terms of what is and what is not a sandwich.

Therefore, we present to you, our dear readers, comrades and strugglers, toilers and oppressed, from Melbourne to Moscow, the dialectical answer to the question “is it a sandwich?”

Is a hot dog a sandwich?

Well, obviously it must first be said that a hot dog is technically a kind of sausage, which is ordinarily served in a manner that provokes sandwich controversy:

the thing in the package is a hot dog,
the thing on the label may be a sandwich

However, the standard presentation of the hamburger patty in contemporary culinary norms being called a “hamburger”, we accept that most readers likewise will excuse further reference to a hot dog on a hot dog bun as a “hot dog”. Are these bread-meat combinations sandwiches?

Without a doubt. By removing the sausage or the patty and replacing them with, e.g. tuna fish, everyone would agree that what you have before you is none other than a sandwich. Consider this indisputable sandwich from the chain “SUBWAY”:

Clearly there is nothing more sandwich-like about this than a hot dog

So then is our answer so simple? Is a sandwich merely anything inside of bread? Let us turn to other possibilities:

Is an Onigiri a sandwich?

We have no doubt that some readers will doubt that the tasty snack displayed below constitutes a sandwich exactly and precisely because it is not made out of bread. But we have equally no doubt that each and every person who seeks to exclude onigiri from the category of “sandwich” is a frothing racist:

You’ve been called out, onigiri-haters.

The “filling” of the onigiri is clearly sandwiched between rice, and it is meant to be eaten much in the manner of a sandwich, and accordingly fills, in Japanese society in particular, the universal social role of a sandwich.

So it is clear that no true internationalist revolutionary can disagree that onigiri too are sandwiches. The matter here is that we have only initial affirmations of sandwichhood, with no negation, and thus NO DIALECTICAL PROCESS THROUGH WHICH TRUE KNOWLEDGE OF SANDWICH-HOOD CAN CONCRETELY EMERGE.

Let us reveal the essence of the sandwich phenomenon through its negation, the un-sandwich:

Is a pie a sandwich?

As with the hot dog example above, certain terms are imprecise for theoretical/philosophical sandwiches. The word “pie” is used for a great many things, but let us consider this extremely haram English pork pie, purely for theoretical reasons because no Spatula writer-militant would dare allow pork to touch their lips, and could only be made to eat pork under the duress of torture by fascists:

Don’t look at it for too long, Allah will grow displeased.

While it cannot be denied that bread contains this repugnant dish on every side, it cannot be eaten in the manner of a sandwich. Beyond the act of parallel containment by sandwiching, the preparation of a true sandwich must be mindful of the end result of the process by which a sandwich is eaten as food, in a sandwich-like fashion:

A sandwich is made to be held in the hands by its sandwiching parts and eaten likewise for the convenience and enjoyment of the proletarian worker (who has ideally produced it for themselves in an unalienated fashion, but perhaps has purchased it as a commodity because we live under capitalism).

In other words, despite having all the formalist appearance of a sandwich, and indeed being constructed through sandwiching, unless you can unhinge your jaw like a fucking python, the food this man is showing us is in social practice no sandwich:

It is, however, arguably very erotic.

We hope that the theoretical essence of sandwichhood has thus been revealed, and through this, any serious Marxist can now determine for themselves if almost any foodstuff is a sandwich.

Is a pizza a sandwich? A taco? A burrito? A falafel wrap?

As we have already charged deniers of the sandwichhood of the onigiri and upholders of the sandwichhood of that girthy monster above with formalism, it should be clear that it is highly undialectical to deny that any foodstuff, from an ice cream sandwich to a Hot Pocket, which is produced in such a manner that it may be purposefully consumed in the manner of a sandwich through sandwiching is a sandwich.

A Pop-Tart is a sandwich.

Most controversially, this means that we deny the sandwichhood of the so-called “open-face sandwich” as REVISIONIST.

However, any “open-face sandwich”, including any slice of most varieties of pizza (putting aside the culinarily superior Chicago-style “deep dish” pizza), that can be accordingly manipulated may be rendered a sandwich through the simple act of folding:

A cheese and tomato sandwich.

Disagree with any single word of this on social media and you will be blocked and reported to Stalin.

Sandwich workers and oppressed
sandwiches of the world, unite!

Did you enjoy this piece, or anything else on Worker’s Spatula? Then consider donating as little as one imperialist Yankee dollar a month to supporting our work!

Ex-Soviets Resist “Queue Culture”

TORONTO – As the post-Soviet economies continue to produce high unemployment, forcing many ex-Soviet citizens into the diaspora, cultures increasingly clash in major imperialist countries with a relatively high intake of immigrants, such as the United States and Canada.

“These fucking Russians and Uzbeks and whatever else they are, they don’t know how to line up!” exclaimed Karen Nestor, local student and Pierre Trudeau fan, while being jostled out of place repeatedly by old headscarved women, several of whom were multilingual, but not in any languages they speak in Canada. “This is what communism does to people, I guess, no civilisation!”

“Actually,” interjected Zəhra Kazımova, an Anthropology student at the local University of Toronto, “Lineups were a common activity forced upon my parents’ generation by the Soviet regime. Here in Canada, they are simply expressing the freedom that capitalism brings to not have to line up for goods and services.

“I’m not surprised privileged people like you would no idea about how far you have been indoctrinated by racist Cultural Marxism to believe that everyone has to line up behind you according to your standards of civilisation. It’s exactly your thinking that made the Soviet Union so oppressive to my people!”

“Wow,” exclaimed Nestor, shocked at her own un-unpacked privilege. “I had never thought about it that way!”

Our local correspondent spoke to Gurmat Singh, a local immigration lawyer, to learn more about the problems of queue culture:

“You have no idea the horror stories we hear from people who grew up under communism. Some of them had to wait in line for bread, and then wait in another line for various other goods, and then ride in a vehicle packed with other people on their way back to a small apartment. It was hell. I tell them: This is Canada. This is a free country. You don’t have to experience any of that ever again.

“But some of us who grew up here in Canada, they just can’t understand how important these freedoms are. We don’t appreciate the freedom from a crushing, alienating life of poverty that is the birthright of every Canadian.”

Despite the educational efforts of experts like Singh and community insiders like Kazımova, many people who grew up with English Canadian national culture still insist on imposing Cultural Marxist ideas on these people who have already enough suffered from Marxism and its unnatural ideas of equality.

“If they don’t want to wait with everyone else, they should pay extra for a delivery service! That’s what makes the system function so well: You pay the appropriate amount for the thing you really want. These queue-jumpers are trying to game the system!” explained Economics major, wannabe Austrian, and apparent “Cultural Marxist” Frederick Murray.

“What we need to do is introduce a more free market system into their countries, so if they immigrate here, they’re already familiar with what life is like in a developed capitalist country,” concluded Murray, clearly applying Marx’s Eurocentric standards of “development” to countries like Russia which have been denied the free market blessings the average Canadian enjoys so well.

However, not all ex-Soviet immigrants share the queue-jumping perspective of Kazımova’s elders. Some are resisting communism in their own way:

“YOU COMMUNIST WHORE!” screamed local “patriotic anti-communist” Yegor Nazarenko as he kicked an old Ukrainian man in the shins as he attempted to jump the queue, sending the latter’s plastic container full of roast chicken on a collision course with the dirty floor of the supermarket.

“How dare you jump a civilised, democratic queue as if it were one of those Judeo-Bolshevik queues back home!” he scolded the old man, grinding the roast chicken into the floor with his combat boot as the old man stared up at him, tears in his eyes.

Nazarenko then joined the queue himself, where he purchased a six-pack of “pyvo”, paid for by Canada Benefits.