On Anarchist Vegetarianism

[Matty_UK]

EDIT: THIS ESSAY WAS BADLY CONSTRUCTED AND CAN GIVE THE WRONG IMPRESSION. BEFORE ASSUMING I AM A LIFESTYLIST AND A FOOL EITHER READ CAREFULLY OR READ THE REST OF MY POSTS BEFORE RESPONDING, PREFERABLY BOTH

When someone thinks of an anarchist, what do they think of? The late 19th century image of the cloaked man holding a bomb with the fuse burning away has perhaps now been replaced with that of masked men throwing rocks and bottles at riot police; but the image of scary violent men who live in the shadows still prevails even if the exact mental image has become modernised. And what of when they think of vegetarians? Soft, good natured peace loving folk, who whince at the sight of blood. These 2 images are obviously diametrically opposed-the peace loving versus the violent "terrorist" image.

Evidently as anarchists we know the public perception of us is about as far removed from the truth as possible; we strongly oppose terrorism, we have a laid back anti-militant culture, and we are highly feminised in comparison to most radical groups with many anarcha-feminists among our ranks. Even our part in riots is greatly exaggerated, with the media painting a picture of a group of aggressive anarchist agitators single handedly responsible for every single protest that turns into a brawl, and the police confiscating video footage of riots as often as possible doesn't help us disprove this; and completely fabricated stories about us popping up every now and then don't help either-the Times article on our plans for public group suicide outside the G8 anyone?
And, we also have a disproportionate number of vegetarians, myself included, again contradictory to our image in the popular psyche. Why is this, and what does it say about us? Is it negative; are the vegatarian anarchists the puritanical teetotal non-smoking vegetarian socialists that Orwell despised? Well, yes; straight edgers are far more common amongst anarchists than other sectors of society. But is it bordering on the false piety and self-denial brought on by religion our ideological ancestors wrote and thought so hard to discredit? Or is vegetarianism inextricably linked to the anarchist cause?

I would argue that, yes, vegetarianism is a key part of anarchism.

To start with, I will explain why I am a vegetarian; surprisingly, I do not believe it is evil to kill an animal. This is simply because good and evil are abstractions, they do not exist as absolutes. This conclusion has been reached by pretty much all true philosophers, and often they conclude that the utilatarianist approach is the only way of determining right and wrong; what the majority say is right, is right, and what the majority say is wrong, is wrong. But this attitude is completely unacceptable because it lacks a post-modern perspective; at the time of Hitler, a significant portion of Germany-perhaps the majority, considering the vast number of opponents killed off or fled from the country-supported imperialistic expansion. But yet outside of that time frame, very few would approve except in certain other similar periods of war waging. So even by utilatarian principles how can that be said to be good?
It cannot-from one free of hate, greed and prejudice, imperialism can never be justified. However to one whose mind is warped with envy, resentment, lust for revenge and patriotism it can seem perfectly ethical. Which leads us to our conclusion-someone "good" is someone in a position of stable mental health, of being at peace with the world; someone "evil" is someone inadequate, and therefore consumed by hate and resentment.

So if it is natural for men to eat meat, then, from that logic it is also not evil. And like I said it is not; it is impossible to develop absolutes for good and evil, for you cannot accuse a shark or lion of being evil for killing when it simply has to kill to survive.

However, I have noted one important thing about vegetarians, and I expect to be criticised by the group amongst us who like to play up to being working class, despite usually simply being poor at that present time despite middle class parents and a good education. Almost all vegetarians are middle class. Now before you accuse me of being prejudiced against class, bear in mind Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs; to be a vegetarian requires to be at the top part of the Hierarchy, perhaps the "aesthetic" section-for symmetry, order, and beauty or perhaps "self-transcendence", connecting beyond the ego or to help others find self-fulfillment. Now, under capitalism it is simply impossible for a great portion of the population to pass level 4, that of "esteem"; to achieve, be competent, gain approval and recognition. This is because the capitalist society thrives on inequality, and there must be people at the bottom of the ladder-and if you work in Argos as a permanent career or some other mundane, boring, maligned job it is humanly impossible to even reach the fifth stage of cognition. Indeed, this can mostly be witnessed as true simply by observing how the working class behave compared to the middle class.

So, my point is, and I am a vegetarian simply because killing animals disgusts me and there is no nobler reason than that as it involves your mind being well developed and yourself being stable; henceforth, "good."

So, the aim of anarchism is to liberate the masses mentally, liberating them materially simply being a means to an end. By abolishing private property we create equality which helps people progress past the esteem stage, and we will also abolish work in the conventional sense of needing to have a career to survive, no matter how useless your job is to society-think of a call centre employee. And as you all know the really boring jobs will be rotated.

So the aim, in the tradition of Oscar Wilde and Guy Debord, is to create a society of the artist, of the philosopher; undeniably vegetarianism is part of this. It is not so much that we want to force people to become vegetarian (we do not believe in good and evil, to be good is simply to self-transcend) but that we want to create a society where the peaceful mental state leading to vegetarianism is attained by all, where people have the emotional intelligence to be repulsed by killing and eating animals and to desire a life free of any violence whatsoever. Obviously, not all will go veggie, just as not all anarchists do, but vegetarianism is a symbol of the "individualism for all" cause of anarchism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Matty_UK
Evidently as anarchists we know the public perception of us is about as far removed from the truth as possible; we strongly oppose terrorism, we have a laid back anti-militant culture, and we are highly feminised in comparison to most radical groups with many anarcha-feminists among our ranks...

And, we also have a disproportionate number of vegetarians, myself included, again contradictory to our image in the popular psyche. Why is this, and what does it say about us? Is it negative; are the vegetarian anarchists the puritanical teetotal non-smoking vegetarian socialists that Orwell despised? Well, yes; straight edgers are far more common amongst anarchists than other sectors of society....

I would argue that, yes, vegetarianism is a key part of anarchism....

Which leads us to our conclusion-someone "good" is someone in a position of stable mental health, of being at peace with the world; someone "evil" is someone inadequate, and therefore consumed by hate and resentment....

Almost all vegetarians are middle class....

Well, Matty, if your purpose with this post was to delight the Leninists -- pleading guilty to every charge against anarchism they make -- you succeeded. If I were them, I would note the url of your post and keep it in a little file called "anarchist confessions"...and link to it every time the whole anarchist critique of Leninism comes up.

I'm sure you've successfully alienated some people who might have been attracted to anarchism as a revolutionary option as well...you make it sound as appealing as a therapy group or even a cult.

Feminized? Straight-edge? At peace with the world?

:o :o :o

The ghost of Emma Goldman is looking for you...and she's carrying her horsewhip! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm sorry, but that's a load of horseshit aimed only at justifiying a particular brand of lifestylism - elevating vegetarianism above anything other than personal choice is a mistake because the moment you do that, you effectively condemn meat eaters as murderers.

And you take post-modernism seriously? What the fuck?

The anarchist movement would be a lot better if it concentrated on class struggle rather than petty distracting lifestylism such as this.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Here are my four basic food groups. 1.chocolate 2. meat 3.pasta 4.cheese
Vegetarianism has nothing to do with politics or Anarchism. Vegatarians farts stink more than other peoples and they fart more often. I think I am going to make ham and eggs for breakfast. I will be thinking of you stinky while I am consuming non-rabbit food.

Vegtables to me are unfortunate people laying in the hospital in a coma. I sure as hell not going to eat them regardless of what you say :P

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 04:48 AM
Well, Matty, if your purpose with this post was to delight the Leninists -- pleading guilty to every charge against anarchism they make -- you succeeded. If I were them, I would note the url of your post and keep it in a little file called "anarchist confessions"...and link to it every time the whole anarchist critique of Leninism comes up.
That would not be fair since all Anarchists do not belong to the new offshoot. Pansy-Anarchists. They will topple the government with a group hug :o

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by Atlas [email protected] 30 2006, 10:21 AM
Vegatarians farts stink more than other peoples and they fart more often.

Had you said vegans, rather than straight up Ovo-Lacto vegetarians, I would agree.
But the legume loving Vegan could out-fart an O/L Vegetarian IMO.

I have been told that meat slowly rots for up to five days in your body before you shite out the carcass.
That would explain the putrid "expired air" that some meat eaters exhale, to say nothing of the decomposing flesh-like gaseous stench emanating from their sphincter.

I was once helping these two guys build some footings and forms for a house, there was no washroom around, and each day we would piss in the same spot in our respective corners of the building lot.
I noticed that after a week or so in the hot sun, my meat eating co-workers piss was rank to the extreme, yet my tofu based piss was not nearly so offensive.
Maybe I am just biased.
As a vegetarian, I won't ever have to deal with a fecal impaction and for that reason alone, I happily eat veggies. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I have been told that meat slowly rots for up to five days in your body before you shite out the carcass.
That would explain the putrid "expired air" that some meat eaters exhale, to say nothing of the decomposing flesh-like gaseous stench emanating from their sphincter.

That's utter crap. Meat doesn't even hang around that long in your system. Another example of veggie propoganda, although it's not as bad as the claim that humans aren't meant to eat meat.


I was once helping these two guys build some footings and forms for a house, there was no washroom around, and each day we would piss in the same spot in our respective corners of the building lot.
I noticed that after a week or so in the hot sun, my meat eating co-workers piss was rank to the extreme, yet my tofu based piss was not nearly so offensive.

Right, so we shouldn't eat meat because it makes our piss smell bad :rolleyes:

I think it had more to do with the fact it had been standing in the sun, as well as the fact that everyone else's excreta is always subjectively more rank than your own.

[RaiseYourVoice]

The discussion about farts of vegetarians/vegans or meat eaters is really nice to watch.... oh did i say nice? i meant stupid and ridiculous. You wanna argue on a level of that? how do you like the fact that only the rich people like us here (cosidering you having a pc and being able to spend you time on forums as rich compared to a majority on this planet) have the possibilty to shower all the time? to even care about their smell?
a discussion based on smell and related things is plain burgoise. thanks for being all so revealing about your opinion of class struggle.

if you want to argue "meat tastes better" or "meat makes me smell better"
how can you still be here and argue against people who say "nike makes me look better" or "nike perfum makes me smell better"

Now back to the topic. i am vegetarian myself because i cannot take the exploitation of living creatures to satisfy my own pleasure. it is a biological fact that meat is not needed for us, whoever wants to counter this please check with your local biology teacher first.
I am not a vegan cuz i agree with simbiosys of our species. we get milk from them and give them a food/shelter whatever.

I think eating meat will become less common as people realize that there is no need for it and we can live without people killing animals.

I do not condem meat eaters as muderes because murder is a concious action. Everyone in a capitalist society is in fact to blame for many people dieing and many animals dieing. Most people though like to push that though far away from themselves.

The only argument valid for eating meat in my opinion would be the natural circle of live. seeing not the indivuals but the populiations and keeping the natural balance.
If you can give me other argument, i am willing to listen

[JKP]

I find vegitarianism to be silly, but to consider it to be an integral part of anarchism is even sillier. Anarchism is a workers movement that has existed for almost two centuries; vegitarianism is something from the recent decades. To say "vegetarianism is a key part of anarchism" is not only arrogant, it's nonsensical.

[Matty_UK]

I was expecting some healthy criticism here. And perhaps I wasn't clear enough, and my choice of words did give it a bit of a hippyish feel.

But I stand by my words. For a start I am not even advocating vegetarianism never mind a straight edge lifestyle-in fact I smoke weed and drink far more than most. Just clearing that up because I might have caused some confusion over that. And I am not a lifestylist nor even an individualist anarchist.

My key point throughout was that the sort of vegetarian teetotal attitude common amongst anarchists is NOT something to be ashamed of, and the state of mind that vegetarians have is what we should be aiming for. I think most socialists whether they admit it or not want to create a perfect society, and simple materialism, giving people all they need to survive, is insufficient; otherwise we would be living in a utopia here in Europe, but in reality the working class is just as miserable and discontented. This is where the psychology comes into it; surely you don't disagree with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? To allow all people the chance to access higher thinking categorys...well I don't need to say what a nice place that would be to live? No crime, no bigotry, no religion. To do this, anarchism is the only system I can think of; jobs with no fulfillment simply should not be made into careers and should be rotated amongst the community, as in anarchism. And we have to break off from materialism; entitlement and status under capitalism is all about material items, but after essentials these no longer do anything to enhance someone past the esteem stage, unless you are very rich. To abolish private property is the only way to break out of this; material equality will make other raison d'etres arise, such as art, philosophy, scientific advancement.

What annoys me about a lot of leftists, is they are obsessed with seeming working class even though very few are genuinely working class- almost all have middle class parents (not all, obviously) but for some pathetic machismo reason pretend to be as poor as they can get away with pretending. So they therefore react with scorn to fluffy ideas of tolerance and vegetarianism. This is stupid; the symptom that the working class is finally free will be when everyone starts getting fluffy abstract middle class ideas.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 01:53 PM
a discussion based on smell and related things is plain burgoise. thanks for being all so revealing about your opinion of class struggle.
I appreciate you taking my side more than the other posters, but this is exactly the leftist attitude I object to. Redstar accused me of speaking like I'm in a religious cult; no, such attitudes of self-denial to be more working class are bordering on the religious.

What's wrong with worrying about our smell? Rather than bringing ourselves down to the levels of the poor, we should aim to help them up to our level. Exactly my point.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:17 AM
I'm sorry, but that's a load of horseshit aimed only at justifiying a particular brand of lifestylism - elevating vegetarianism above anything other than personal choice is a mistake because the moment you do that, you effectively condemn meat eaters as murderers.

And you take post-modernism seriously? What the fuck?

The anarchist movement would be a lot better if it concentrated on class struggle rather than petty distracting lifestylism such as this.
Post-modernism is simply looking at something objectively from outside a specific time frame or point of view. If you are anti-post modernism, you a reactionary. What Plato said about philosphers needing to love all knowledge, and all that.

I didn't say anywhere vegetarianism wasn't more than a personal choice, I explicitly stated good and evil do not exist only mental security and sophistication-"being at peace with the world" was a bad choice of words, but I think you can tell what I meant. Vegetarianism (unless it is enforced on people through tradition or an attempt to gain recognition) is the result of higher thinking, so while an action cannot be good or bad vegetarians are "good" people; but of course it is possible for someone to conclude rationally and logically that killing animals is fine; in fact my good and evil argument is more likely to lead to that conclusion, but it comes down to personal choice.

And it's not lifestylism, you are just too much a materialist capitalist to see beyond class war and redistribution. Abolition of private property is a means to the end I have described, not an end in itself.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 04:48 AM
Well, Matty, if your purpose with this post was to delight the Leninists -- pleading guilty to every charge against anarchism they make -- you succeeded. If I were them, I would note the url of your post and keep it in a little file called "anarchist confessions"...and link to it every time the whole anarchist critique of Leninism comes up.

I'm sure you've successfully alienated some people who might have been attracted to anarchism as a revolutionary option as well...you make it sound as appealing as a therapy group or even a cult.

Feminized? Straight-edge? At peace with the world?

:o :o :o

The ghost of Emma Goldman is looking for you...and she's carrying her horsewhip! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I couldn't care less what the Leninists may think, because I'm confident I am right and they are wrong.

And I think you completely missed my point; you've taken my description of it as "straight edge" and "at peace with the world" totally out of context. At peace with the world was a very bad choice of words; at peace with oneself is more accurate but still sounds cheesy. But I don't care if you're going to turn this into a phallic contest.

And there's nothing at all wrong with having a decent proportion of female members, in fact it's something to be bloody proud of.

[Face the music]

I've been a long time vegeterian and once a vegan. But even if I was a communist, a socialist, or even a capitalist or whatever else on political scale, I doubt that I'd be associating a personal choice with the movement! I have been an anarchist for equally long time and met veggie anarchists, a meat eating anarchists, pacifistic anarchists, militant anarchists. I've met many vegeterians and not all were as laid back as you'd have us think. Equally I have met laid back meat eaters.

I am not English, but I've lived here for a long time. One thing about people here that always stroke me is that they often care about their animals more than about the human beings... You'd see somebody in dire straights and crying and people cross the street as if this person is a leper but flocking over to a dog and making undying fuss and showing that they too can display caring emotion in public sight!

Now you mentioned the Maslow's hierarchy of needs... Well ... a priority to me as one who belongs to human species is priority of survival of human species - I would consider it cruel if you had no other choice to kill an animal or see a child die of starvation to choose the animal over the child. In other words I disagree with people who put emancipation of animals before emancipation of human beings. Therefore putting vegeterianism anywhere else but into the domain of personal choice is really not on even though I am a vegeterian. My struggle is not with the change of diet for the massess but a change for better quality life for the masses whatever they choose to eat.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Face the [email protected] 30 2006, 04:43 PM
Therefore putting vegeterianism anywhere else but into the domain of personal choice is really not on even though I am a vegeterian. My struggle is not with the change of diet for the massess but a change for better quality life for the masses whatever they choose to eat.
I agree....gah I shouldn't have put the vegetarian spin on this so much! I do not think it is any more than personal choice. The point is Maslow's Hierarchy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Post-modernism is simply looking at something objectively from outside a specific time frame or point of view.

Post-modernism in philosophy is rejecting all authoritative truths, regardless of their actual valitidy, including materialist and objective truths. This is why it is the ultimate in sophistry and thus I reject it.


If you are anti-post modernism, you a reactionary.

Nonsense. How is rejecting PoMo sophistry in favour of materialism reactionary? I would contend that Postmodernism itself is reactionary due to it's backlash against european Enlightenment ideals (As opposed to the obfuscatory mysticism of Eastern Enlightenment).


What Plato said about philosphers needing to love all knowledge, and all that.

What if that "knowledge" is utter crap? Anyway, I consider Plato a proto-fascist not worthy of any consideration.


I didn't say anywhere vegetarianism wasn't more than a personal choice, I explicitly stated good and evil do not exist only mental security and sophistication-"being at peace with the world" was a bad choice of words, but I think you can tell what I meant.

What this has to do with one's dietary regime I have no idea.


Vegetarianism (unless it is enforced on people through tradition or an attempt to gain recognition) is the result of higher thinking, so while an action cannot be good or bad vegetarians are "good" people; but of course it is possible for someone to conclude rationally and logically that killing animals is fine; in fact my good and evil argument is more likely to lead to that conclusion, but it comes down to personal choice.

So why the unnecessary addition of the ball-and-chain that is vegetarianism to anarchism, if it's such a personal choice?


And it's not lifestylism, you are just too much a materialist capitalist to see beyond class war and redistribution.

How the fuck can I be a capitalist for supporting class war? And what's wrong with materialism?


Abolition of private property is a means to the end I have described, not an end in itself.

And what end is what? Turning us all into rabbit food eaters? I don't see how abolishing private property will achieve that, since meat consumption existed long before private property.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Originally posted by Matty_UK+Mar 30 2006, 04:03 PM--> (Matty_UK @ Mar 30 2006, 04:03 PM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 01:53 PM
a discussion based on smell and related things is plain burgoise. thanks for being all so revealing about your opinion of class struggle.
I appreciate you taking my side more than the other posters, but this is exactly the leftist attitude I object to. Redstar accused me of speaking like I'm in a religious cult; no, such attitudes of self-denial to be more working class are bordering on the religious.

What's wrong with worrying about our smell? Rather than bringing ourselves down to the levels of the poor, we should aim to help them up to our level. Exactly my point.

at least now this discussion is moving into a more usefull direction, even though the ideological struggles will end up with agreeing to disagree at the best. [/b]
my point was actually.... dont we have more serious problems than our fucking smell? there are people starving to death, animals being killed and instead of talking about those issues we talk about smell? sorry if you don't have any other problems than that...
And its not even smell... its the smell of our farts what in hell can be less important?


I would consider it cruel if you had no other choice to kill an animal or see a child die of starvation to choose the animal over the child. In other words I disagree with people who put emancipation of animals before emancipation of human beings. Therefore putting vegeterianism anywhere else but into the domain of personal choice is really not on even though I am a vegeterian. My struggle is not with the change of diet for the massess but a change for better quality life for the masses whatever they choose to eat.


well you got a point there, but than it can be part of the class struggle in that way to say many people don't even have the chance to be vegetariens. they are forced by capitalism to kill animals and with the liberation from capitalism they will have the free choice to eat or not eat animals

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 05:12 PM


Post-modernism is simply looking at something objectively from outside a specific time frame or point of view.

Post-modernism in philosophy is rejecting all authoritative truths, regardless of their actual valitidy, including materialist and objective truths. This is why it is the ultimate in sophistry and thus I reject it.


If you are anti-post modernism, you a reactionary.

Nonsense. How is rejecting PoMo sophistry in favour of materialism reactionary? I would contend that Postmodernism itself is reactionary due to it's backlash against european Enlightenment ideals (As opposed to the obfuscatory mysticism of Eastern Enlightenment).


What Plato said about philosphers needing to love all knowledge, and all that.

What if that "knowledge" is utter crap? Anyway, I consider Plato a proto-fascist not worthy of any consideration.


I didn't say anywhere vegetarianism wasn't more than a personal choice, I explicitly stated good and evil do not exist only mental security and sophistication-"being at peace with the world" was a bad choice of words, but I think you can tell what I meant.

What this has to do with one's dietary regime I have no idea.


Vegetarianism (unless it is enforced on people through tradition or an attempt to gain recognition) is the result of higher thinking, so while an action cannot be good or bad vegetarians are "good" people; but of course it is possible for someone to conclude rationally and logically that killing animals is fine; in fact my good and evil argument is more likely to lead to that conclusion, but it comes down to personal choice.

So why the unnecessary addition of the ball-and-chain that is vegetarianism to anarchism, if it's such a personal choice?


And it's not lifestylism, you are just too much a materialist capitalist to see beyond class war and redistribution.

How the fuck can I be a capitalist for supporting class war? And what's wrong with materialism?


Abolition of private property is a means to the end I have described, not an end in itself.

And what end is what? Turning us all into rabbit food eaters? I don't see how abolishing private property will achieve that, since meat consumption existed long before private property.
I've made it clear plenty of times in this thread I don't consider vegetarianism any more than a personal choice.

I will concede one semantic point-I misunderstood the meaning of post-modern, I've always thought it meant what I defined it as earlier.

Look, maybe forget what I said about vegetarianism being important; the end is a society of artists and philosophers, for people to reach the self-transcendence part of Maslow's Hierarchy; of which sincere vegetarians are usually part of, or almost there at least. Vegetarians are liberated in this aspect.

Materialist socialists fail to understand that satisfying the human mind should be the most important part of revolution; as I've mentioned above, being given the essentials makes no difference as self esteem is also very important so unless everyone is equal and material possessions are not a concern it makes no difference. Redistributing the material possessions should be a means of bringing about the end of mental liberation, of individualism and developing of personalities, with knowledge, understanding and aestheticism being a new raison d'etre. For sure providing is a part of this but only in that it should erase the pursuit of material goods as a factor in society.

Do you understand what I am saying now?

[ComradeOm]

While I generally have at least a grudging respect for most anarchists of this board, every so often there is a post that reminds me of just how detached from reality anarchists can become. Yesterday I saw a Crimethic article of the evils of alcohol and now this nonsense. Its quite possibly the first time I've agreed with JKP.

Hells, even the Maoists wouldn't elevate vegetarianism over class struggle!


Originally posted by Matty_UK
Materialist socialists fail to understand that satisfying the human mind should be the most important part of revolution
That's because we completely reject this wishy washy idealist bullshit. The most important part of the revolution is liberating the workers. Everything else, especially diet choices, are very much secondary. This idea of elevating the "mental revolution" over far more concrete material aims is nonsense.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Mar 30 2006, 06:39 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Mar 30 2006, 06:39 PM) While I generally have at least a grudging respect for most anarchists of this board, every so often there is a post that reminds me of just how detached from reality anarchists can become. Yesterday I saw a Crimethic article of the evils of alcohol and now this nonsense. Its quite possibly the first time I've agreed with JKP.

Hells, even the Maoists wouldn't elevate vegetarianism over class struggle!


Matty_UK
Materialist socialists fail to understand that satisfying the human mind should be the most important part of revolution
That's because we completely reject this wishy washy idealist bullshit. The most important part of the revolution is liberating the workers. Everything else, especially diet choices, are very much secondary. This idea of elevating the "mental revolution" over far more concrete material aims is nonsense. [/b]
OK you're really exaggerating what I said about vegetaranism. I didn't elevate it above class struggle at all, I simply said providing of materials for the sake of it is not the target but making the endless pursuit of material goods to higher your status irrelevant thus leading to mental liberation, which is the only liberation possible as far as I'm concerned. I'm getting tired of clarifying this.

I am NOT an individualist anarchist; I said materialist revolution is important and I am all for that, but it is a MEANS to an END. Individually you cannot change the world by changing yourself, which if you read my posts properly you'd see I was not saying; but the aim of the revolution is for people to be able to develop themselves as people rather than a phoney self-improvement by gathering lots of material goods. This can only be achieved through complete abolition of competition in material goods and any worth attached to these at all. I said vegetarians are liberated, I did not even encourage people to become vegetarian; in fact my argument that actions cannot be good or evil is an argument against vegetarianism!

Simply calling the idea of allowing the working class (and indeed even the bourgoise who are often too blinded by the pursuit of wealth to truly develop themselves) the same chance for individuality and wisdom as the middle classes wishy washy idealism rather than addressing my actual points.

I imagine you don't know how an anarchist system of non-hierarchal government will work; if you think I am detached from reality we could argue that here or over private messaging, I have very clear ideas about what I want and how I want to achieve this "mental liberation" for all.

AND as a final point I resent you misquoting me with "mental revolution" as that implies something completely different to what I advocate.

I don't see why the other anarchists have such a problem; anarchist friends I have outside this board often argue that anarchism will end crime and art will flourish, and I agree completely with them. That is basically all I am saying.

[Matty_UK]

Ironically, I find it very pretentious how you have all seem to reject the idea based on the connotations of the ideas and words I have used being that of wishy-washy pretentious idealism, despite my actual argument being coherent and based in real psychology.

[Ultra-Violence]

Heres my 2cents.

I have a couple of anarchist freinds and 1 of my most dearing freinds happens to be vegan. Some times we argue about this stuff and we get no were. But i can see were redstar get the arguement about it bieg a "cult" because especaily here in the states anarchist and the ones im talking about is the "crusty Punks" not to generalize them just using them as an example. Its seriosly like a fucking cult you have to dress a certain way listen to this music and you have to be all about animal liberation and YOU have to be a Vegan to be a crusty.

Now i can see why people would become vegans or vegetarains. i know there argument i understand the whole meat industry and how its trully horrific. We could feed third world countries most of the grain we ise to feed these cows.


I don't listen to punk music, (apart from like The Clash, that's about it) don't dress in black, (or whatever american anarchists wear) and I'm not really bothered about animal liberation, I just feel uneasy eating something that's been killed. And again my post wasn't pro-vegetarian.

I don't think the same sort of cultish attitude to anarchism exists here in the UK-also I don't know any lifestylists here at all, and most anarchist lifestylists I find on the net are from the states. But I really think they can be disregarded, as they aren't interested at all in the anarchist political system it's just a personal lifestyle choice. I don't have a problem with that at all, as long as there isn't pretense to be an activist.


I don't have a problem with that at all, as long as there isn't pretense to be an activist.

Ha but u see here in the united states they consider themselves very much as "ACTIVIST" they go to protest for them from my prespective its like a fukcing socail hour. Pisses me off

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 30 2006, 08:22 PM
Heres my 2cents.

I have a couple of anarchist freinds and 1 of my most dearing freinds happens to be vegan. Some times we argue about this stuff and we get no were. But i can see were redstar get the arguement about it bieg a "cult" because especaily here in the states anarchist and the ones im talking about is the "crusty Punks" not to generalize them just using them as an example. Its seriosly like a fucking cult you have to dress a certain way listen to this music and you have to be all about animal liberation and YOU have to be a Vegan to be a crusty.

Now i can see why people would become vegans or vegetarains. i know there argument you .....

ill be back to finish this later srry
I don't listen to punk music, (apart from like The Clash, that's about it) don't dress in black, (or whatever american anarchists wear) and I'm not really bothered about animal liberation, I just feel uneasy eating something that's been killed. And again my post wasn't pro-vegetarian.

I don't think the same sort of cultish attitude to anarchism exists here in the UK-also I don't know any lifestylists here at all, and most anarchist lifestylists I find on the net are from the states. But I really think they can be disregarded, as they aren't interested at all in the anarchist political system it's just a personal lifestyle choice. I don't have a problem with that at all, as long as there isn't pretense to be an activist.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 01:53 PM
The discussion about farts of vegetarians/vegans or meat eaters is really nice to watch.... oh did i say nice? i meant stupid and ridiculous.
It was a wise ass comment, did not think anyone would discuss it seriously. It is pretty irrelevant as is vegataranism to anarchism. It is kinda cool that air poop is being discussed seriously though.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Well, yes; straight edgers are far more common amongst anarchists than other sectors of society.

No. Lifestylists are not anarchists.


Or is vegetarianism inextricably linked to the anarchist cause?

I would argue that, yes, vegetarianism is a key part of anarchism.

I would argue that your a dillusional lifestylist. Anarchism has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANIMALS.


I expect to be criticised by the group amongst us who like to play up to being working class, despite usually simply being poor at that present time despite middle class parents and a good education.

These are the dumbass people that you describe as being anarchists!


Hierarchy of Needs; to be a vegetarian requires to be at the top part of the Hierarchy, perhaps the "aesthetic" section-for symmetry, order, and beauty or perhaps "self-transcendence", connecting beyond the ego or to help others find self-fulfillment.

The hierarchy anarchists oppose has to do with class society, people over people, it has NOTHING to do with hierarchy of humans over animals. Nor will it ever!


I am a vegetarian simply because killing animals disgusts me

To each to there own, but this doesnt make vegitarianism an anarchist principle.


So, the aim of anarchism is to liberate the masses mentally, liberating them materially simply being a means to an end. By abolishing private property we create equality which helps people progress past the esteem stage, and we will also abolish work in the conventional sense of needing to have a career to survive, no matter how useless your job is to society-think of a call centre employee. And as you all know the really boring jobs will be rotated.

You continually clutter up vegitarianism with class analysis, most likely to make vegitarianism sound like it's really important. The two have nothing to do with each other.


So the aim, in the tradition of Oscar Wilde and Guy Debord, is to create a society of the artist, of the philosopher; undeniably vegetarianism is part of this.

Great! Go be a vegitarian artist, don't taint the name of anarchism anymore than it already is!


we want to create a society where the peaceful mental state leading to vegetarianism is attained by all

Who the fuck is WE? No anarchist I know wants to do that. I'm an anarchist and I call you NUTS, it has nothing to do with the movement, it is NOT one of the goals!


people have the emotional intelligence to be repulsed by killing and eating animals and to desire a life free of any violence whatsoever

I'm not repulsed by the killing and eating of animals, it's a good thing! It seems you are trying to claim vegitarians are SMARTER than the average proletarian. I'm sure that campain will go well :lol:

There is no such thing as a life free of violence, especially not a society!

[Invader Zim]

I think it had more to do with the fact it had been standing in the sun, as well as the fact that everyone else's excreta is always subjectively more rank than your own.

Everybody loves their own brand! I suppose it is a biological asset, harking back to the days of marking ones territory.

[Matty_UK]

No. Lifestylists are not anarchists.

I don't want to seem *****y, but could you read all my posts before you reply? I actually said in the post just above yours that lifestylists aren't anarchists.


I would argue that your a dillusional lifestylist. Anarchism has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANIMALS.

You've missed my point. Read the rest of my posts. I do not say it does, I'm talking about the state of mind of a vegetarian not the ethics of it.


The hierarchy anarchists oppose has to do with class society, people over people, it has NOTHING to do with hierarchy of humans over animals. Nor will it ever!

I'm talking about psychology. Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Here:

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.gif

My point is the aim of anarchism should be allowing everyone to progress to the higher points, i.e. becoming vegetarians, (not to say all fulfilled people will become vegetarians, I'm just making the point that vegetarians are generally liberated if they are sincere) as under capitalism it is impossible for a large portion to progress past the esteem part.

I do not advocate vegetarianism as any more than a personal choice. Please read my other posts and tell me if you still think I'm a naive fool.

[Matty_UK]

To each to there own, but this doesnt make vegitarianism an anarchist principle.

I don't argue it is at all; in fact I argue against vegetaranism by arguing against any action being good or evil, the only reason I am one is simply because I prefer it.


You continually clutter up vegitarianism with class analysis, most likely to make vegitarianism sound like it's really important. The two have nothing to do with each other.

How did I clutter vegetarianism up with class analysis? I think you misread my post...


Who the fuck is WE? No anarchist I know wants to do that. I'm an anarchist and I call you NUTS, it has nothing to do with the movement, it is NOT one of the goals!

Well most anarchists agree that under anarchism crime will virtually disappear. That's basically my point even if I've phrased it in a way that annoys people, simply by linking vegetarianism to it. Which I perhaps shouldn't have done as my important points have been completely ignored with myself being attacked instead for what you perceive me to be.


I'm not repulsed by the killing and eating of animals, it's a good thing! It seems you are trying to claim vegitarians are SMARTER than the average proletarian. I'm sure that campain will go well :lol:

There is no such thing as a life free of violence, especially not a society!

Read the rest of my posts. I don't claim vegetarianism is the inevitable result of higher thinking, I claim it is a possible result and that most sincere vegetarians (not jumping on a bandwagon) are mentally liberated in a way that we need to allow everyone in society to reach. Something impossible under capitalism.

And it is not a matter of intelligence but fulfillment; although that is similar to what I am arguing, but only because it is IMPOSSIBLE, psychologically impossible, for a proletarian to be philosophical and artistic unless he has self-esteem; and even though a small number of proletarians manage to gain self-esteem through some means for a large proportion it is impossible. Only through anarchism can we liberate the proletarians to be able to have fulfillment and genuine freedom of thought; this is what I meant by a society of artists and philosophers.

I think you may agree with me now you understand what I'm saying. Will you please reply if so because this is very depressing how no-one is giving me any support at all.

[Black Dagger]

Atlas Swallowed, what is a "Pansy-Anarchist"?

# Offensive Slang.

1. Used as a disparaging term for a man or boy who is considered effeminate.
2. Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual man.

Are we knocking 'effeminate' men? or slurring anarchists as 'gay'?

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 01:07 PM

I have been told that meat slowly rots for up to five days in your body before you shite out the carcass.
That would explain the putrid "expired air" that some meat eaters exhale, to say nothing of the decomposing flesh-like gaseous stench emanating from their sphincter.

That's utter crap. Meat doesn't even hang around that long in your system. Another example of veggie propoganda, although it's not as bad as the claim that humans aren't meant to eat meat.


Oh? How long does it hang around in your system then?
Look at the intestinal tract of a wolf...quite shorter than that of a human.
The stomach acid of a wolf is much, much stronger than that of a human.

I don't see it as utter crap.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Eoin Dubh+Mar 31 2006, 11:17 AM--> (Eoin Dubh @ Mar 31 2006, 11:17 AM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 01:07 PM

I have been told that meat slowly rots for up to five days in your body before you shite out the carcass.
That would explain the putrid "expired air" that some meat eaters exhale, to say nothing of the decomposing flesh-like gaseous stench emanating from their sphincter.

That's utter crap. Meat doesn't even hang around that long in your system. Another example of veggie propoganda, although it's not as bad as the claim that humans aren't meant to eat meat.


Oh? How long does it hang around in your system then?
Look at the intestinal tract of a wolf...quite shorter than that of a human.
The stomach acid of a wolf is much, much stronger than that of a human.

I don't see it as utter crap. [/b]
Apples and Oranges. Wolves are carnivores, humans are omnivores.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 31 2006, 09:44 AM
Atlas Swallowed, what is a "Pansy-Anarchist"?

# Offensive Slang.

1. Used as a disparaging term for a man or boy who is considered effeminate.
2. Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual man.

Are we knocking 'effeminate' men? or slurring anarchists as 'gay'?
It was a joke, it had nothing to do with sexual orientation. Assuming homosexuals are weak, which I do not. Please keep your steriotypes to yourself, thankyou. Some of the greatest warriors in history have been homosexual. It was a barb at new age garbage, pacifism and not at Anarchism which would have been easy enough for you to grasp if you did not go around looking to find something to be offended at :o

If you bothered reading the posts you would have grasped that I am an Anarchist and Red Star was saying that Leninists could use this thread against Anarchists. Your analogy makes no sense because Anarchists are boith male and female. Use your PC policing elsewhere I am not a bigot or a racist just offensive and you are just annoying :)

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by Eoin [email protected] 31 2006, 11:17 AM
Oh? How long does it hang around in your system then?
Look at the intestinal tract of a wolf...quite shorter than that of a human.

Does a wolf crap 3 times a day? I do. Nothing stays in my system long. If I eat peanuts or corn I am sure to see them the next day if not sooner :)

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Atlas [email protected] 1 2006, 12:49 AM
It was a joke, it had nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Oh, ok, it was just a joke, nothing to do with sexual orientation, that's alright then... :rolleyes:

Next time, could you please choose your words better? I don't appreciate 'jokes' that use homophobic language, it has nothing to do with being 'politically correct', and has everything to do with not insulting the queer members of this board.

Cheers.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Atlas Swallowed
It was a barb at new age garbage, pacifism and not at Anarchism...

So it was...and the taunt about overthrowing the government with a group hug was a good one.

But there are useful words in the English language that you should have used...wuss and wimp are two that readily come to mind.

Language is something of a "minefield" these days...and sometimes you really do have to carefully consider your words lest you be considered to hold views that you really don't.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by Atlas Swallowed+Mar 31 2006, 12:53 PM--> (Atlas Swallowed @ Mar 31 2006, 12:53 PM)
Eoin [email protected] 31 2006, 11:17 AM
Oh? How long does it hang around in your system then?
Look at the intestinal tract of a wolf...quite shorter than that of a human.

Does a wolf crap 3 times a day? I do. Nothing stays in my system long. If I eat peanuts or corn I am sure to see them the next day if not sooner :)[/b]
Peanuts and corn aren't meat.

[bretty]

I am a vegan and I have grown out of the habit of arguing on a moral basis because it always ends up backfiring on the person, trust me. But you have to take into context the lifestyle that westerners and some easterners live as very hazardous to our environment. If you look at the health facts and the environmental impact of factory farms and other meat processing plants, as well.

Furthermore, if you are against capitalism, the artificial scarcity created by the meat industry is encouraging the starvation on a global scale. for every one cow fed grain and veggies(that a human could live healthily off of), it could feed one hundred people roughly. I know by living in capitalism, one is still encouraging artificial scarcity, yet the lifestyle is encouraging an image that if copied will sustain our living conditions healthily for a long time to come. Bottom line, if you don't at least check out the facts then your a fool for commenting. Honestly, check out some independent resources besides PETA etc. because although I am a member of PETA, if you want unbias sources, look for some different organizations or some independent researchers. But overall PETA gives some good facts and of course they will be aimed at pro-veganism they usually have good sources and aren't regarding morals.

Check it out.

[chimx]

Its too bad it took this long for bretty to bring up some valid points. I've been vegan for years, and though I don't readily connect the morality of veganism to any sort of anti-capitalist ideology, it is naive to assume that capitalism hasn't complete disfigured the nature of animal husbandry. As bretty mentioned, the explosion of factor farming in the last century and its inability for ecological sustainability is an issue too often swept under the carpet for subjective morality arguments. factory farmed meat, quite simply, is a luxury item we have created at the expensive of others.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I actually said in the post just above yours that lifestylists aren't anarchists.

Connecting vegetarianism with anarchism is an action that only lifestylists seem to do


I'm talking about the state of mind of a vegetarian not the ethics of it.

The state of mind of a vegetarian does not mean anything in terms of radical politics, are you saying there are no vegetarian conservatives? (Adolf Hitler) :lol:


I'm talking about psychology

Mostly pseudoscience, theres not to my knowledge anyway to isolate and test behavior


My point is the aim of anarchism should be allowing everyone to progress to the higher points, i.e. becoming vegetarians

So people who eat meat arent "progressed to the highest point"? That is fucking stupid and I hope for the day when anarchist groups kick people out who have dumb points of view like this.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Furthermore, if you are against capitalism, the artificial scarcity created by the meat industry is encouraging the starvation on a global scale. for every one cow fed grain and veggies(that a human could live healthily off of), it could feed one hundred people roughly.

I've heard this statistic to, but it doesnt have anything to do with a revolutionary society. We can raise our own cattle. This affects the people in the third world countries, they have to make their own decisions on their diets after we destroy imperialism. There is enough food in America, but it's not distributed on a need basis.

[bretty]

Sorry but even for people who only care about the people of their own nation, this is a big problem. Even by raising our own cattle it still encourages artificial scarcity by distributing the grain and other dietary needs to cattle who in turn need many times over the amount that one human requires. People in America go hungry quite a bit too, and the value of goods goes up with the encouragement of artificial scarcity, so it doesn't just affect the actual intake of food, but the economics of society as well by allowing these types of hazardous luxuries. So if you or someone you know is having trouble feeding their family, you can thank this meat eating industry as one of many problems with our society. Because with the money they spend on these supposedly scarce items such as grain foods and vegetables etc. they could buy ten times that amount if their was more of it available for humans in place of the meat.

So perhaps the people who can easily afford it, say no problem. But with the reality of it, as more people become poor because of the growing demand for more production of meat.. eventually the impact on an environmental scale will be irreversible.

If you have any concerns about what i've said please be free to criticize but I guarantee these are the effects of the meat industry along with other industries that are posing hazardous risks to the environment and it does not just effect the rich or poor. it affects everyone on a global scale.

[bretty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 11:29 PM

Furthermore, if you are against capitalism, the artificial scarcity created by the meat industry is encouraging the starvation on a global scale. for every one cow fed grain and veggies(that a human could live healthily off of), it could feed one hundred people roughly.

I've heard this statistic to, but it doesnt have anything to do with a revolutionary society. We can raise our own cattle. This affects the people in the third world countries, they have to make their own decisions on their diets after we destroy imperialism. There is enough food in America, but it's not distributed on a need basis.
Sorry I didn't notice you meant as in a society of communism.. unfortunately my other points still apply. Raising cattle still affects more then just artificial scarcity and the way we process the meat and cultivate it, is atrocious for the environment and for our health.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:53 AM
If you can give me other argument, i am willing to listen
It tastes good.

Sorry, couldn't resist, I respect your choice, but really, that's my reason.

I certainly respect vegetarians like you much more than the one who started this thread.

[Matty_UK]

Connecting vegetarianism with anarchism is an action that only lifestylists seem to do

I get why you made the assumption cos that is mainly accurate, but obviously since I'm not a lifestylist it's not completely true.
All the article was, was an attempt to explore why vegetarians are often anarchists, or at least 90% of them are very left wing/liberal.


The state of mind of a vegetarian does not mean anything in terms of radical politics, are you saying there are no vegetarian conservatives? (Adolf Hitler) :lol:

There are very few conservative vegetarians. And even of those few, they tend to be veggie for reasons like losing weight or something.

And I've read two things about Hitler being veggie; first one is that it wasn't actually true, and that his maid was quoted as saying he was a bit of a vegetarian because he ate lots of vegetables. But also as saying he liked sausages.

Second thing is that he felt uneasy eating meat because it reminded him of someone he knew that died, or something. Can't remember exactly.


Mostly pseudoscience, theres not to my knowledge anyway to isolate and test behavior

Yes, pseudo-science, but it is partially true. You can refuse to accept reality if you want but it is true that the working class are less cultivated and sophisticated than the middle class. If you refuse to accept my reasons for this then you are either denying this or saying the working class are working class because they are too thick to be otherwise, and obviously neither is true.


So people who eat meat arent "progressed to the highest point"? That is fucking stupid and I hope for the day when anarchist groups kick people out who have dumb points of view like this.

OK that's great you are deliberately misquoting me. Read the next sentence after that, what I said was-

"My point is the aim of anarchism should be allowing everyone to progress to the higher points, i.e. becoming vegetarians, (not to say all fulfilled people will become vegetarians, I'm just making the point that vegetarians are generally liberated if they are sincere)"

And you hope anarchists kick people out. If anarchism fails it will be from authoritarian absolutist narrow-minded zealots like you deciding to victimise anyone with other opinions. The trouble with anarchism it's full of angsty angry teens who want to make their cock seem bigger.

I don't see how anyone can possibly be so stupid to think that materialism is an end to itself; if that was the case Europe would be a utopia, welfare allows us all the necessities. But it's solving poverty by keeping the poor alive, the point is satisfaction. Material equality is a means to the end of human satisfaction. How can anyone possibly disagree with that?

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Apr 1 2006, 09:36 AM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Apr 1 2006, 09:36 AM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 09:53 AM
If you can give me other argument, i am willing to listen
It tastes good.

Sorry, couldn't resist, I respect your choice, but really, that's my reason.

I certainly respect vegetarians like you much more than the one who started this thread. [/b]
For fuck's sake do you even know what my point is?

[RaiseYourVoice]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Apr 1 2006, 09:36 AM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Apr 1 2006, 09:36 AM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 09:53 AM
If you can give me other argument, i am willing to listen
It tastes good.

Sorry, couldn't resist, I respect your choice, but really, that's my reason.

I certainly respect vegetarians like you much more than the one who started this thread. [/b]
Maybe 5 house feel good, maybe luxury cars feel good, maybe nike shoes feel good, coca cola might taste good. reasons to have them despite the fact they are products of oppression?

IF you don't have moral doubts about eating meat no problem for me. if you think its part of the natural process ok, but if good taste is more important for you than the fact that living creatures die for it... sorry but how is that attitude different to that of capitalists to working class or poor people around the world?

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 04:56 PM
I am a vegan and I have grown out of the habit of arguing on a moral basis because it always ends up backfiring on the person, trust me. But you have to take into context the lifestyle that westerners and some easterners live as very hazardous to our environment. If you look at the health facts and the environmental impact of factory farms and other meat processing plants, as well.

Furthermore, if you are against capitalism, the artificial scarcity created by the meat industry is encouraging the starvation on a global scale. for every one cow fed grain and veggies(that a human could live healthily off of), it could feed one hundred people roughly. I know by living in capitalism, one is still encouraging artificial scarcity, yet the lifestyle is encouraging an image that if copied will sustain our living conditions healthily for a long time to come. Bottom line, if you don't at least check out the facts then your a fool for commenting. Honestly, check out some independent resources besides PETA etc. because although I am a member of PETA, if you want unbias sources, look for some different organizations or some independent researchers. But overall PETA gives some good facts and of course they will be aimed at pro-veganism they usually have good sources and aren't regarding morals.

Check it out.
You know I don't actually ethically believe in vegetarianism at all despite it being a preference but I think you might have convinced me there. I have thought of that, but I figured there are places too arid to grow just crops so animals are needed to eat; but it didn't occur to me the animals need to be fed too. Duuuh

[Nicky Scarfo]

Well, considering plenty of good arguments have already been made from the anti-lifestylist crowd, I'll decline to give any detailed reasoning and just say that I've always felt the idea of vegetarianism or veganism as being a necessary component of anarchism or other forms of leftist ideology runs counter to the building of a class-based movement. To build such a movement, we need to dispense with trying to make that movement's ideology cater to every person's particular lifestyle choices, pet issues and moral predilections.

Let's get some social and economic democracy built wth safeguards for individual liberty, then I think we'll have the luxury of debating about whether we should also build a vegetarian society. In the meantime, I'll continue to work with my fellow members to build our union and incorporate that work into a broader social movement, and when it's time for dinner I'm gonna eat some pulled-pork fuckin sandwiches. Mmmmm...pulled pork!

[bcbm]

As a straight-edge vegetarian anarchist, let me say that straight-edge and vegetarianism are in no way essential to anarchism, and agree with Nicky.

[bretty]

Isn't eating meat a personal choice too? and isn't eating meat a moral choice? Why cater to people's pleasure's as individuals if you don't want a class based society? By your logic, your implying people's are naturally supposed to eat meat as westerners do(hazardously).

Your ignoring all the environmental facts about vegetarianism. It isn't just a personal choice that effects no one but yourself. You should think it through before commenting about whether it is beneficial to your ideal society or not.

(I'd also like to point out and inquire to the people who do eat meat.. why do you take it upon yourself to tell people who do not eat meat, what you will be eating for dinner? i've heard it so many times. If you think it's a way to take home a point, i'd suggest rethinking that. )

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by Eoin [email protected] 31 2006, 04:07 PM
Peanuts and corn aren't meat.
The point was food does not stay around for weeks at a time. Maybe I will dye a steak flouresent orange and see how long it takes to come out :)

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 02:55 PM
So it was...and the taunt about overthrowing the government with a group hug was a good one.

But there are useful words in the English language that you should have used...wuss and wimp are two that readily come to mind.

Language is something of a "minefield" these days...and sometimes you really do have to carefully consider your words lest you be considered to hold views that you really don't.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Thank you and you are correct. Have had that problem in the past :)

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by Nicky [email protected] 2 2006, 12:14 AM
Well, considering plenty of good arguments have already been made from the anti-lifestylist crowd, I'll decline to give any detailed reasoning and just say that I've always felt the idea of vegetarianism or veganism as being a necessary component of anarchism or other forms of leftist ideology runs counter to the building of a class-based movement. To build such a movement, we need to dispense with trying to make that movement's ideology cater to every person's particular lifestyle choices, pet issues and moral predilections.

Let's get some social and economic democracy built wth safeguards for individual liberty, then I think we'll have the luxury of debating about whether we should also build a vegetarian society. In the meantime, I'll continue to work with my fellow members to build our union and incorporate that work into a broader social movement, and when it's time for dinner I'm gonna eat some pulled-pork fuckin sandwiches. Mmmmm...pulled pork!
I didn't say it was a necassary component, or argue for a vegetarian society.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Isn't eating meat a personal choice too?

Yep.


and isn't eating meat a moral choice?

Not necessarily. In fact, not usually. Choosing NOT to eat meat is not necessarily a moral choice either. Some people simply do it for health reasons.


Why cater to people's pleasure's as individuals if you don't want a class based society?

Huh?


By your logic, your implying people's are naturally supposed to eat meat as westerners do(hazardously).


Incorrect.


Your ignoring all the environmental facts about vegetarianism.

I did not address them in my post. That does not mean I'm ignoring them.


It isn't just a personal choice that effects no one but yourself.

Actually it is. I know all the concerns about factory farming and overconsumption of beef in turn leading to inefficient use of grain and land. I am aware of the enviornmental and health hazards. I am also keenly aware that none of this will change because I stop eating burgers. The only thing that will change this is a change to our political, economic and social superstructure. That occurs through class-based activism. And most members of my class (at least where I am) are not interested in veganism or vegetarianism. If they are elsewhere, that's cool, but ti's not my concern, nor should it be.


You should think it through before commenting about whether it is beneficial to your ideal society or not.

Actually, I made no comment on whether or not vegetarianism/veganism would be "beneficial to" my "ideal society or not". But since you mention it, once we overturn the current superstructure, I think modern factory farming of meat and dairy products should be substantially reformed if not wholly eliminated. Furthermore, society should encourage healthy eating habits, including not overconsuming meat or dairy products. But if someone wants to occasionally have some environmentally-responsible-raised hormone-free chicken with a healthy serving of vegetables in the post-revolutionary society, I don't see why not. It's their personal choice that no entity should have the right to restrict if it does not directly infringe on the right of another person.

After we get there, I suppose we can start arguing about animal liberation. But I'd prefer to see some human liberation first and we're not gonna get there without having our fuckin priorities in order. A PETA-like mentality ain't gonna get us there. People are suffering now, and although overconsumption of meat and factory farming may be a minor contributing factor, the main reason is our political, economic and social superstructure. Changing that has to be the focus.

There's a reason most militant vegetarians/vegans in West are from privileged classes-- it's because they have the luxury of worrying about such abstractions rather than putting food (whatever it may be) on the table. I didn't even know what the fuck a vegan was till I was 19 and this girl I was seeing moved in with some animal-rights activist flake.

Is factory-farming a problem? Yes. Does overconsumption of meat lead to environmental and health problems? Yes. Is animal liberation a correct theory? Don't know. Should veganism/vegetarianism be a major focus of socialist action in there and now? FUCK NO.


I'd also like to point out and inquire to the people who do eat meat.. why do you take it upon yourself to tell people who do not eat meat, what you will be eating for dinner?

To bust nuts.

[Palmares]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole thing is simple: this guy is an anarchist, and a vegetarian, who in their way of interpreting comtemporary capitalist oppression, sees a link between them. I do not see them saying this is THE way of being anarchist, but rather their way.

I think the tricky thing though is the psychology thing he said.

But something he said that I've actually read and have emapthy is the idea of the relationship with humans, like equality, should also be forwarded to that of the relationship with nature, which includes animals. But I, like this guy, do not think killing animals is inherently bad. If survival calls for it, why not kill an animal? But on top of that, I'm not one of strict absolutist views, so I leave room for eating meat, hell I think it tastes nice. But given my respect for nature as an equal, then I should have the self control to at least minimise my consumption of natural products, such as animals.

Being an anarchist who performs acts that lifestylists do, doesn't make you one too if you are also involved in direct struggle.

[bretty]

Originally posted by Nicky [email protected] 2 2006, 02:59 AM

Isn't eating meat a personal choice too?

Yep.


and isn't eating meat a moral choice?

Not necessarily. In fact, not usually. Choosing NOT to eat meat is not necessarily a moral choice either. Some people simply do it for health reasons.


Why cater to people's pleasure's as individuals if you don't want a class based society?

Huh?


By your logic, your implying people's are naturally supposed to eat meat as westerners do(hazardously).


Incorrect.


Your ignoring all the environmental facts about vegetarianism.

I did not address them in my post. That does not mean I'm ignoring them.


It isn't just a personal choice that effects no one but yourself.

Actually it is. I know all the concerns about factory farming and overconsumption of beef in turn leading to inefficient use of grain and land. I am aware of the enviornmental and health hazards. I am also keenly aware that none of this will change because I stop eating burgers. The only thing that will change this is a change to our political, economic and social superstructure. That occurs through class-based activism. And most members of my class (at least where I am) are not interested in veganism or vegetarianism. If they are elsewhere, that's cool, but ti's not my concern, nor should it be.


You should think it through before commenting about whether it is beneficial to your ideal society or not.

Actually, I made no comment on whether or not vegetarianism/veganism would be "beneficial to" my "ideal society or not". But since you mention it, once we overturn the current superstructure, I think modern factory farming of meat and dairy products should be substantially reformed if not wholly eliminated. Furthermore, society should encourage healthy eating habits, including not overconsuming meat or dairy products. But if someone wants to occasionally have some environmentally-responsible-raised hormone-free chicken with a healthy serving of vegetables in the post-revolutionary society, I don't see why not. It's their personal choice that no entity should have the right to restrict if it does not directly infringe on the right of another person.

After we get there, I suppose we can start arguing about animal liberation. But I'd prefer to see some human liberation first and we're not gonna get there without having our fuckin priorities in order. A PETA-like mentality ain't gonna get us there. People are suffering now, and although overconsumption of meat and factory farming may be a minor contributing factor, the main reason is our political, economic and social superstructure. Changing that has to be the focus.

There's a reason most militant vegetarians/vegans in West are from privileged classes-- it's because they have the luxury of worrying about such abstractions rather than putting food (whatever it may be) on the table. I didn't even know what the fuck a vegan was till I was 19 and this girl I was seeing moved in with some animal-rights activist flake.

Is factory-farming a problem? Yes. Does overconsumption of meat lead to environmental and health problems? Yes. Is animal liberation a correct theory? Don't know. Should veganism/vegetarianism be a major focus of socialist action in there and now? FUCK NO.


I'd also like to point out and inquire to the people who do eat meat.. why do you take it upon yourself to tell people who do not eat meat, what you will be eating for dinner?

To bust nuts.
You said we shouldn't focus on the individuals ideas, but eating meat is an individuals choice as well.. unless it's forced on them. So either way it's an individuals choice.

When eating meat, I see it as a moral choice because it encourages behaviour that is not beneficial. You might not agree but that's my opinion.

And just because you don't care about something happening, doesn't mean it doesn't affect you. And trust me, by being an influence on people you know... you do make an impression.

However, I agree with some of your other points on people doing it because they are part of priviledged society. But on the other hand, maybe they should be vegetarian... because it shows that they actually give a damn about the environment and economies.

I won't get into the animal liberation movement and moral choices except for saying this... killing animals for fur, and killing things of any type for any reason besides survival is so incredibly ignorant and wasteful.

-Bretty

[Nicky Scarfo]

Curious Bretty,

You quoted my entire post, then went on to ignore everything I wrote.

[RaiseYourVoice]

I am also keenly aware that none of this will change because I stop eating burgers.


a consumer based economy has its pros... one is the fact that if things aren't bought they are not produced any more. gives us the opportunity to decide WHAT and HOW is produced. saying you cant change it is a lame excuse for not wanting to change.

[Comrade_Ryan]

http://meatamanda.illnourished.com/images/meat.gif

[KC]

a consumer based economy has its pros... one is the fact that if things aren't bought they are not produced any more. gives us the opportunity to decide WHAT and HOW is produced. saying you cant change it is a lame excuse for not wanting to change.

This argument would work "if you could just convince people to stop eating meat". Of course, you will never be able to convince enough people to do this. Never.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:08 AM
http://meatamanda.illnourished.com/images/meat.gif
great line of arguement. meat does though also contain so many things that are bad for you and on top of that you can replace meat easily by veggie products... sorry to say but nobody needs meat



This argument would work "if you could just convince people to stop eating meat". Of course, you will never be able to convince enough people to do this. Never.

lets say now they kill 100 cows to produce meat for 200 people. what if only 150 people whould eat meat? would they still kill 100 cows and see the rest of the meat rotting? NO they won't, because they are not stupid, they want profit. logical conclusion is less cows get killed. now tell me again how that does not work out? and repeating the never does not actually make your arguement better :(

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

great line of arguement. meat does though also contain so many things that are bad for you and on top of that you can replace meat easily by veggie products... sorry to say but nobody needs meat

Most "veggie substitutes" for meat products taste like shit. And those that taste good are more expensive than their meat counterparts, e.g. Quorn.


lets say now they kill 100 cows to produce meat for 200 people. what if only 150 people whould eat meat? would they still kill 100 cows and see the rest of the meat rotting? NO they won't, because they are not stupid, they want profit. logical conclusion is less cows get killed. now tell me again how that does not work out? and repeating the never does not actually make your arguement better :(

Except that in the real world, millions of people eat meat and you will never convince a significant proportion of them to give up.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Most "veggie substitutes" for meat products taste like shit. And those that taste good are more expensive than their meat counterparts, e.g. Quorn.

1. yea right and for me dr. pepper tastes like shit, nobody will buy it!!!! oh right taste is subjectiv... tend to forget that.
2. YES they are more expensive, since the animals can be fenced in little cages and on top of that the industry can exploit cheap labor for it so it gets even cheaper. if you only go for cheap products you are fueling capitalist oppression. if you buy good meat its gonna cost you alot too
3. if you cannot afford these products (which you personnaly obviously can since you have enough money to buy a computer and spend time on the internet) than communism and vegetarianism are after all connected.



Except that in the real world, millions of people eat meat and you will never convince a significant proportion of them to give up.
The number of vegetarians is growing and IF there wasn't a significant proportion of the population already there would not be a veggie industry... thats the basics of capitalism didn't know i would have to explain them here :(

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 01:27 PM
Most "veggie substitutes" for meat products taste like shit. And those that taste good are more expensive than their meat counterparts, e.g. Quorn.


Neither of those points are true. You can buy meat subsitute which has flavours or you can make them have flavours by cooking them...Further, the taste of meat isn't a justifiable reason to slaughter cognative animals.

Also these meat subsitutes are affordable. Usually more so than meat.


Except that in the real world, millions of people eat meat

The majority of real Chinese cuisine is vegitarian, as is India as a country. That takes up a vast proportion of the human population.

Most tribes in Africa and people in South America are meat eaters but the vast quantity of Asian people's are not.


you will never convince a significant proportion of them to give up.

Why? The same has been said of communism for years.

[bretty]

Nicky i'm not really sure what you mean by ignoring you. I told you I agreed with you on these points: "Is factory-farming a problem? Yes. Does overconsumption of meat lead to environmental and health problems? Yes. Is animal liberation a correct theory? Don't know."

But if you really desire to c hange things, then why wouldn't you take responsibility to help solve these type's of problems? instead of saying they are low priority.

The other stuff you said about over priviledged kids is true, but it's good of them to acknowledge the lifestyle they live is an overconsumption.

I'm not sure which ideas I've ignored?

Also for people saying that eating meat is a type of survival, they are wrong. Eating meat is a luxury, and you will notice that people that are poor do not eat meat usually, if they are smart, unless they hunt it themselves. And for the most part, places such as India, etc. are a major vegetarian country.

Just because people you live with think it's a weird thing to do, doesn't mean your outnumbered when it comes to the rest of the world. And realistically everything is possible if every vegetarian influences people to do the right thing for the environment and the economy.

[bombeverything]

Most "veggie substitutes" for meat products taste like shit. And those that taste good are more expensive than their meat counterparts, e.g. Quorn.

Not at all. I have been a vegetarian for awhile and have recently gone vegan -- in general I have found it really easy and despite popular misconceptions, I eat nice food! I personally prefer it.


lets say now they kill 100 cows to produce meat for 200 people. what if only 150 people whould eat meat? would they still kill 100 cows and see the rest of the meat rotting? NO they won't, because they are not stupid, they want profit. logical conclusion is less cows get killed. now tell me again how that does not work out?

But the issue is not "how many cows are killed". The people in here are arguing that vegetarianism is not revolutionary because it does not challenge capitalism in any way. I agree with this, but yes if people stopped eating meat no-one would be able to sell it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by RaiseYaVoice+--> (RaiseYaVoice)1. yea right and for me dr. pepper tastes like shit, nobody will buy it!!!! oh right taste is subjectiv... tend to forget that.[/b]

Taste is not totally subjective. True, one can aqcuire the taste for some of the most wretched foods on the planet, but that does not change the fact that, as a rule, certain things taste better than others because we evolved to like high-nutrient foods such as meat.

In given a choice between a chicken burger and a bowl of lettuce, most would go for the burger I'd bet.


2. YES they are more expensive, since the animals can be fenced in little cages and on top of that the industry can exploit cheap labor for it so it gets even cheaper. if you only go for cheap products you are fueling capitalist oppression. if you buy good meat its gonna cost you alot too

I have to buy cheap food because I'm on a low wage.


3. if you cannot afford these products (which you personnaly obviously can since you have enough money to buy a computer and spend time on the internet) than communism and vegetarianism are after all connected.

First of all, this computer was a christmas present. Secondly, internet connections are cheap and getting cheaper. Thirdly, I have to eat every day. That costs money.

And I'll damned if I waste it on soy products and rabbit food!


The number of vegetarians is growing

Proof?


and IF there wasn't a significant proportion of the population already there would not be a veggie industry... thats the basics of capitalism didn't know i would have to explain them here

So I guess it's true that bleeding hearts also bleed money.


Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected]
Neither of those points are true. You can buy meat subsitute which has flavours or you can make them have flavours by cooking them...Further, the taste of meat isn't a justifiable reason to slaughter cognative animals.

And why not?


Also these meat subsitutes are affordable. Usually more so than meat.

And which ones would these be? My local supermarket only stocks either shitty soy products or expensive fungus-based subs.


The majority of real Chinese cuisine is vegitarian, as is India as a country. That takes up a vast proportion of the human population.

Most tribes in Africa and people in South America are meat eaters but the vast quantity of Asian people's are not.

Meat consumption in China is a question of availability. There are millions of people who eat meat in North America, Europe, the Middle East and Australasia. I reckon that's more than a couple of million.

Good luck trying to make a dent in that.



Why? The same has been said of communism for years.

Communism is about freeing people, not using dodgy morality to convince them to stop eating meat. Besides, meat eating is a dietary practice predating civilisation.


bombeverything
Not at all. I have been a vegetarian for awhile and have recently gone vegan -- in general I have found it really easy and despite popular misconceptions, I eat nice food! I personally prefer it.

Reasons I will never go vegan: I like white meat, red meat, fish, poultry, milk, cream, milky chocolate, cheese in all it's wonderful varieties, eggs, butter, jelly, beer, and many other products which use animals in some way.

Once you've taken all of those away what the hell is left? Most of the stuff I eat on a regular basis has an animal involved in it somewhere.

It might be easy finding vegan stuff in Hippyville, California but outside there it's a damn sight harder.


But the issue is not "how many cows are killed". The people in here are arguing that vegetarianism is not revolutionary because it does not challenge capitalism in any way. I agree with this, but yes if people stopped eating meat no-one would be able to sell it.

And if pigs could fly...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by NoXion+Apr 3 2006, 03:09 PM--> (NoXion @ Apr 3 2006, 03:09 PM)
The Anarchist Tension
Neither of those points are true. You can buy meat subsitute which has flavours or you can make them have flavours by cooking them...Further, the taste of meat isn't a justifiable reason to slaughter cognative animals.

And why not? [/b]
Murdering cognative animals because their flesh tastes nice is contradictory to ethics of human beings (ethics here meaning standards of conduct in which human beings exist).

A justifcation you can give for eating an animals flesh for any reason is ultimately because we are intellectually and technologically more superior, but then I ask the question: Since when has intellectuality been a justification for superiority, the use of violence or cruelty to exact what we [subejctively] desire. The same goes for technology.

The animals that we are discussing are cognative, meaning that they have the ability to conceptualise certain things and also respond emotively to death, pain and their surroundings. Also, it could be argued that these animals have certain cultures and languages.

In many instances their cognative ability exceeds that of a human baby, (which is an animal). By this process of logic, in the context of eating animals I could justify eating a baby because it's flesh tastes nice. That's clearly not at a standard of human interaction which is acceptable.

What all this actually comes down to is that these animals are different animals to us, but again difference is not a justifiable reason to eat somethings flesh or use violence or cruelty.



Also these meat subsitutes are affordable. Usually more so than meat.

And which ones would these be? My local supermarket only stocks either shitty soy products or expensive fungus-based subs.

Tofu/Smoked tofu/TVP


Meat consumption in China is a question of availability.

No it isn't.


are millions of people who eat meat in North America, Europe, the Middle East and Australasia. I reckon that's more than a couple of million.

I'm not claiming that there are more vegitarians than meat eaters but there certainly are more in the world than you are trying to assert.




Why? The same has been said of communism for years.

Communism is about freeing people, not using dodgy morality to convince them to stop eating meat.

It has nothing to do with morality, not with me at least. It has to do with the process of logic in which people use to determine what is and what isn't an acceptable form of behaviour or interaction.

The question of meat eating only highlights the illogicality of human behviour and the irrational/inconsistent arguments we use to justify such behaviour.


It might be easy finding vegan stuff in Hippyville, California but outside there it's a damn sight harder.

You're clearly living in some different world to the rest of us. All you have to do is go into Tesco. Not particularly the most bourgeois supermarket in the world.

The notion that vegan/vegitarian foods are expensive is a myth.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:32 PM
I'm talking about psychology. Maslow's hierarchy of needs.


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
:huh:
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
:angry: Are you fucking kidding me, Maslows Hierachy of needs-- all that Humanist psychology bollocks cannot be tested, and it was crap that Maslow and Rogers drew up when interviewing their clients

According to this pyramid no one can ever be artistic till they reach self-actualization. Maslow said that very view people reach self actualization, and he described people who happened to be wealthy as self-actualized.

Funny thing is wasn't VanGogh fucking nuts, poor, yet he managed to produce multiple paintings in his life-time. What about Kurt Cobain, he killed himself yet he was a musician. They wouldn't be considered self-actualized.

Maslows theory is biased against workers, and insane people.


My point is the aim of anarchism should be allowing everyone to progress to the higher points, i.e. becoming vegetarians, as under capitalism it is impossible for a large portion to progress past the esteem part.

Um, President Lincoln was described as "self-actualised" by Maslow and he wasn't a vegetarian.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Um, President Lincoln was described as "self-actualised" by Maslow and he wasn't a vegetarian.

you didnt get what he was saying. he never said to be self-actualised you have to be a vegetarian, but to be a vegetarian you have to be self-actualised.


About maslow, i am not a psycologist and you are not one either i bet so left stick to scientific pieces. in other words... sources? or did you make that up by yourself?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:55 PM
you didnt get what he was saying. he never said to be self-actualised you have to be a vegetarian, but to be a vegetarian you have to be self-actualised.
I was strict vegetarian for a year about three years ago, I guess I've lost my self-actualization points. :rolleyes:

Did you get what I said, you can't prove self-actualization exists.
The concept hasn't come into conflict with the rule of falsifability, and emerged victorious.

Since the people Maslow defined as "self-asctualized" were wealthy, or famous; yes, you may have to be wealthy to support a vegetarian diet, but the concept of self-actualization is total bullshit.


About maslow, i am not a psycologist and you are not one either i bet so left stick to scientific pieces. in other words... sources? or did you make that up by yourself?
You can look up anywhere anything I said. He claimed Lincoln was a self-actualized man, whats so hard to understand?

To the trash can with your oppressive bourgoeis ideology!

[RaiseYourVoice]

I was strict vegetarian for a year about three years ago, I guess I've lost my self-actualization points.
why did i think you would read AND understand what i wrote?....



To the trash can with your oppressive bourgoeis ideology!
haha


He claimed Lincoln was a self-actualized man, whats so hard to understand?


so, whats your point?


ou can look up anywhere anything I said.

i'll research on it thanks for the precise sources



Since the people Maslow defined as "self-asctualized" were wealthy, or famous; yes, you may have to be wealthy to support a vegetarian diet, but the concept of self-actualization is total bullshit.

maslow did not say they have to be wealthy, he said you have to fullfill the other stages before you can reach the top one. I'll come back to you the next days when i have read myself into maslow and your arguments that are to find everywhere.

[Ultra-Violence]

Communism is about freeing people, not using dodgy morality to convince them to stop eating meat. Besides, meat eating is a dietary practice predating civilisation

So was anarchism its about PEOPLE! not animals. I can see why one woud not eat meat for more political reasons like for example the amount of grian it would take to feed one cow coud feed about 100 people that seems like reasonable reason to not eat meat CAUSE PEOPLE COME FIRST right? But what pisses me off is fucking millitant anarchist vegans yelling MEAT IS MURDER! and shit like that. How is eating meat murder? Eating a dam carrot is murder your killing a living thing. But ya i mean its all up to the individual. If people wanna be vegetarian or vegan thats ok as long as their not going around giving people shit for eating meat i dont really care

Peace,Equality,Anarchy. ;)

[bretty]

I think that is why, when arguing from a moral standpoint it is near impossible. But environmentally and economically, one has many points to argue with. And the effects of these factory farms and other firms is hard to ignore or deny.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Funny thing is wasn't VanGogh fucking nuts, poor, yet he managed to produce multiple paintings in his life-time. What about Kurt Cobain, he killed himself yet he was a musician. They wouldn't be considered self-actualized.


One mild criticism I would have is of your concluding assessment, where you appeal for a broader view of self-actualisation that could include subjects such as van Gogh and other hard-at-heel intellectual/creative giants. This appears to be based on a view that people like van Gogh, etc. were, by virtue of their enormous creativity, 'at least partly' self-actualised.

I favour Maslow's more narrow definition of self-actualisation and would not agree that self-actualisation equates with supreme self-expression. I suspect that self-actualisation is, often, a demotivating factor where artistic creativity is concerned, and that artists such as van Gogh thrived (artistically, if not in other respects) specifically in the absence of circumstances conducive to self-actualisation. Even financially successful artists (e.g. Stravinsky, who was famously good at looking after his financial affairs, as well as affairs of other kinds) do exhibit some of the non-self-actualised 'motivators' that you describe so well.

Self-actualisation implies an outwardness and openness that contrasts with the introspection that can be a pre-requisite for great artistic self-expression. Where scientists can look out at the world around them to find something of profound or universal significance, great artists usually look inside themselves to find something of personal significance - the universality of their work is important but secondary. It's interesting that Maslow seems to have concentrated on people concerned with the big-picture when defining self-actualisation. In Einstein, he selected a scientist who was striving for a theory of the entire physical universe. The philosophers and politicians he analysed were concerned with issues of great relevance to humanity.

This is not to belittle the value or importance of the 'small-picture' - society needs splitters as well as lumpers. But while self-actualisation may be synonymous with psychological balance and health, it does not necessarily lead to professional or creative brilliance in all fields. In some instances, it may remove the driving force that leads people to excel -- art being the classic example. So I don't agree that the scope of self-actualisation should be extended to include people who may well have been brilliant, but who were also quite possibly damaged, unrounded or unhappy human beings.

If I had the opportunity to chose between brilliance (alone) or self-actualisation (alone) for my children, I would go for the latter!

Abraham Maslow (http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html)

i know that maslow is not above all criticism, but i see his basic concept looks reasonable

[FinnMacCool]

I'm not a vegatarian but I'm an anarchist. I don't care for vegitarian food and I LOVE meat.

I do think sometimes about how animals should be treated but I'm more concerned with the human struggles as opposed to animal struggles. I've never talked to an animal and I doubt they are smart enough to consider the meaning of their existance. I think animal population should be sustained but I don't think we should just not eat them. I don't see a point.

I'm seriously a big meat eater. You will have a hard time convincing me to stop, honestly. Humans have been eating meat since the dawn of time. Its a primarily humanistic trait. No reason why we should stop now.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Class societys are a human tradition too, should we keep them?

Humans is too generell since there are/were vegetarian cultures around.

just two thought to maybe think about...

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:38 PM
Class societys are a human tradition too, should we keep them?

Humans is too generell since there are/were vegetarian cultures around.

just two thought to maybe think about...
Class societys actually aren't a human tradition Depending on the culture and area, there have been certain places that survived through cooperative means.

As for vegetarian societies existing, I'm sure there were some because maybe they worshipped animals as gods or something but the majority hunted.

Sorry I just don't see myself giving up my steak anytime soon.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by RaiseYaVoice+Apr 3 2006, 06:40 PM--> (RaiseYaVoice @ Apr 3 2006, 06:40 PM) why did i think you would read AND understand what i wrote?.... [/b]
You claimed that only self-actualized people can be vegetarians. However I do not have the characteristics that Maslow describe as self-actualised, nor is there a connection between self-actualization and vegetarianism: Hilter was a vegetarian, he certainly wouldn't be considered self-actualized. Also, there is no concrete evidence that self-actualized people exist, all Maslow ever did was site historical figures, and attach characteristics to them.


so, whats your point?
You're saying I need mountains of proof you can find anywhere, or is just common-knowledge if you know Maslows theory, I'll show you an example later.


i'll research on it thanks for the precise sources
Just open a shitty Community College textbook, I'm telling you criticisms about how his theory can't be proven are in there.


maslow did not say they have to be wealthy, he said you have to fullfill the other stages before you can reach the top one. I'll come back to you the next days when i have read myself into maslow and your arguments that are to find everywhere.
Yes he did, it can be clearly seen with that stupid pyramid that one has to meet financial needs a form of " Safety Needs" in order to go to the next stage of "Belongingness".


from source
One mild criticism I would have is of your concluding assessment, where you appeal for a broader view of self-actualisation that could include subjects such as van Gogh and other hard-at-heel intellectual/creative giants. This appears to be based on a view that people like van Gogh, etc. were, by virtue of their enormous creativity, 'at least partly' self-actualised......

First off, this letter wasn't written by Maslow. second, Maslows' definitions of self-actualization were very vague; he sited "creativity" as a characteristic of self-actualization. And third, this pompous ass assumes that because VanGogh was insane he couldn't look outside himself.


know that maslow is not above all criticism, but i see his basic concept looks reasonable
It reaks of bourgoeis intellectualism, and a motive to sell sleazy cassette tapes on "finding yourself."

But ofcourse you find this reasonable, you think your ethics on eating tofu and better than everyone elses about eating meat. You claim us meat eaters don't think outside ourselves, yet you claim you think outside yourself because you eat tofu. In your dillusional thinking, you're standing on top of that pyramid with Maslow; pissing down it with us at the lower levels collecting your urine with cups, and fighting over the last drop of urine.

Maslow did what the Pharohs of Ancient Egypt did; build pyramids for themselves.


Class societys are a human tradition too, should we keep them?
Actually class societies have not always existed.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 01:11 PM
Nicky i'm not really sure what you mean by ignoring you. I told you I agreed with you on these points: "Is factory-farming a problem? Yes. Does overconsumption of meat lead to environmental and health problems? Yes. Is animal liberation a correct theory? Don't know."

But if you really desire to c hange things, then why wouldn't you take responsibility to help solve these type's of problems? instead of saying they are low priority.

The other stuff you said about over priviledged kids is true, but it's good of them to acknowledge the lifestyle they live is an overconsumption.

I'm not sure which ideas I've ignored?
These ones:


Actually it is. I know all the concerns about factory farming and overconsumption of beef in turn leading to inefficient use of grain and land. I am aware of the enviornmental and health hazards. I am also keenly aware that none of this will change because I stop eating burgers. The only thing that will change this is a change to our political, economic and social superstructure. That occurs through class-based activism. And most members of my class (at least where I am) are not interested in veganism or vegetarianism. If they are elsewhere, that's cool, but ti's not my concern, nor should it be.

In other words, the problems of factory farming and meat overconsumption will not change by me becoming a vegetarian or encouraging others to be vegetarian. They will be solved through socialist restructuring. That's where I'd prefer to focus my energy-- on class-based action. But in any case, that's where we should focus, not on convincing others to eat veggies. If you wanna eat veggies only that's fine by me, but socialists are in a tough spot nowadays and we simply don't have the luxury of being both effective organizers for socialism and organizers for veganism. Like I said-- your personal choices are yours but the movement needs to order its priorities.


Actually, I made no comment on whether or not vegetarianism/veganism would be "beneficial to" my "ideal society or not". But since you mention it, once we overturn the current superstructure, I think modern factory farming of meat and dairy products should be substantially reformed if not wholly eliminated. Furthermore, society should encourage healthy eating habits, including not overconsuming meat or dairy products. But if someone wants to occasionally have some environmentally-responsible-raised hormone-free chicken with a healthy serving of vegetables in the post-revolutionary society, I don't see why not. It's their personal choice that no entity should have the right to restrict if it does not directly infringe on the right of another person.

To shorten this down a bit, the environmental, economic and health hazards of First World meat overconsumption are not reasons for anyone (or everyone) to become vegetarian, but simply a reason to REDUCE consumption of meat. If everyone ate just two servings of responsibly-raised chicken a week, that would be fine-- no reason to go all-out vegan, just reform eating habits and meat production methods. But again, to achieve this sort of social and economic reform we must first engage in some major restructuring.

To get there, we must build a movement of the working-class, and in the Americas and Europe at least you ain't gonna build such a movement with vegetarianism/veganism as one of the pillars. It's just not happenin. My fellow union members will fight for economic justice and that's what I'm organizing for, but it would be a real waste of my time to try to convince them to give up burgers. Not to mention, I'm not givin em up either, though I have been (unsuccessfully) trying to eat more veggies and such instead of so much meat. But that has more to do with personal health reasons than anything else. I simply don't have time to save the world on every level. No one does. I'm focusing on the top priorities right now.

Anyways, those are the points you have yet to address. Gotta run.

[bretty]

I'm not saying that you have to save the world, but if you want to help make a difference then it is a valid way to do so.


In other words, the problems of factory farming and meat overconsumption will not change by me becoming a vegetarian or encouraging others to be vegetarian. They will be solved through socialist restructuring. That's where I'd prefer to focus my energy-- on class-based action. But in any case, that's where we should focus, not on convincing others to eat veggies. If you wanna eat veggies only that's fine by me, but socialists are in a tough spot nowadays and we simply don't have the luxury of being both effective organizers for socialism and organizers for veganism. Like I said-- your personal choices are yours but the movement needs to order its priorities.


if you don't believe in animal rights that is fine for you, but as far as becoming vegetarian for environmental and economic reasons, I don't see any way of legitimizing it as a bad choice to encourage environmental and economic friendly living. Maybe you don't see it the same way or are not as much of an environmentalist as me but it certainly doesn't mean the facts on factory farms do not say anything wrong is being committed. And it effects all of us. So priorities or not, the environment is important.



To shorten this down a bit, the environmental, economic and health hazards of First World meat overconsumption are not reasons for anyone (or everyone) to become vegetarian, but simply a reason to REDUCE consumption of meat. If everyone ate just two servings of responsibly-raised chicken a week, that would be fine-- no reason to go all-out vegan, just reform eating habits and meat production methods. But again, to achieve this sort of social and economic reform we must first engage in some major restructuring.


If you need to eat meat or want to, then by all means go ahead. But given the context of our existence, it is not economically efficient. Even free range or organic has its downfalls. So if there were alot less people, and alot more equal rights, then perhaps it would be a luxury some could indulge in, but as for now i'm sticking to what i think is the most appropriate diet for a human to have in the current global situation.



To get there, we must build a movement of the working-class, and in the Americas and Europe at least you ain't gonna build such a movement with vegetarianism/veganism as one of the pillars. It's just not happenin. My fellow union members will fight for economic justice and that's what I'm organizing for, but it would be a real waste of my time to try to convince them to give up burgers. Not to mention, I'm not givin em up either, though I have been (unsuccessfully) trying to eat more veggies and such instead of so much meat. But that has more to do with personal health reasons than anything else. I simply don't have time to save the world on every level. No one does. I'm focusing on the top priorities right now.


I guess you have different priorities then me, although i would disagree with your idea of priorities, since the problems that stem from factory farming and exploitation of the meat industry, feeds the flames opposed to social equality. And the argument that "it's just not happening" is a pretty lame excuse, since people have said that to every intelligent and important figure in the history of humanity. I see the choice as a legitimate way of encouraging a more healthy lifestyle. If you do not agree then please tell me on what grounds?

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 3 2006, 06:29 PM


Did you get what I said, you can't prove self-actualization exists.
The concept hasn't come into conflict with the rule of falsifability, and emerged victorious.

Since the people Maslow defined as "self-asctualized" were wealthy, or famous; yes, you may have to be wealthy to support a vegetarian diet, but the concept of self-actualization is total bullshit.


About maslow, i am not a psycologist and you are not one either i bet so left stick to scientific pieces. in other words... sources? or did you make that up by yourself?
You can look up anywhere anything I said. He claimed Lincoln was a self-actualized man, whats so hard to understand?

To the trash can with your oppressive bourgoeis ideology!
First off, and I'm going to be controversial here, what the fuck is wrong with a bourgoise middle class mentality? If you're a commie or anarchist, chances are you have petty-bourgoise ideas such as human rights and equality.

The most irritating thing about leftist movements is the number of people who glorify a completely false idealised image of the working class, that of the working class being the oppressed honest pure good guys fighting the evil middle class. People are products of their material conditions, and by and large the middle class are pleasant company and are even more sympathetic to the plight of the working class than most working class people are; I don't see why we should demonise them for it.

Yes Maslow's hierarchy is over-simplified, and there are lots of other factors in psychology; it is possible to reach higher thinking orders without being fully satisfied, with reasons perhaps varying from person to person, but I believe the jist of it to be fairly accurate. I've already wrote this, but would you agree the working class do tend to be more aggressive and less cultivated than the middle classes?

So if not something similar to Maslow's Hierarchy explaining why this is, then I guess they are poor because they are criminal and stupid?

I used Maslow's Hierarchy simply as something solid to use to demonstrate my point. I wasn't expecting such a level of pedanty and macho (chauvinistic?) anti-lifestylist posturing.


I was strict vegetarian for a year about three years ago, I guess I've lost my self-actualization points. :rolleyes:

Did you even read what you're replying to? He just said to be self actualised is not to be vegetarian, but to be vegetarian is to be self actualised.

[redstar2000]

Rather surprising to see a "lifestyle" thread like this persist for so long.

But, ok, is it "ethically justifiable" or "unjustifiable" to kill and eat animals (as opposed to plants)?

Human cultures have historically devised a wide variety of "answers" to this question.

For example, some animals are considered "unclean" or "holy" and thus human consumption is discouraged or forbidden.

Consumption of other humans is usually either forbidden or else surrounded by rituals and is permitted only on "special occasions".

And then there are birds and fish.

If one thinks that animals have "souls", then it's possible to make an argument that it would be "immoral" to kill and eat them. If you add to that belief a belief in "reincarnation", then you might risk finding yourself consuming your grandfather. :o

Consider the life of an animal on a world without humans at all. The animal is born, it grows large enough to find its own food -- either by eating plants or by eating animals that eat plants -- and then...it dies or is killed and eaten by other animals (or micro-organisms).

We humans in the "west" prefer to have our corpses eaten by worms.

In some cultures, vultures are preferred.

It is normal and natural for animals to be eaten by other animals...it would happen even if humans had never evolved.

So what "standards" can be brought to bear on the question?

If there were an animal with intelligence very close to our own, should we still kill and eat it? People in the "west" don't like the idea of eating whales or dolphins...they are "too much like us".

Nor have I ever seen "monkey meat" in a supermarket...though I've heard that it's sometimes for sale in African village markets.

What of pigs, cows, sheep, chickens, ducks, and fish? None of them show anything that we can easily recognize as "intelligence"...in fact, their outstanding characteristic from a human standpoint is their docility. They seem "willing" to be "raised for food" in a sense that other animals aren't. They "live" to be eaten.

Which is why, of course, all predators (not just humans) prey on them.

What then could an "ethical" objection to meat-consumption possibly rest on?

We are doing what we evolved to do...and what would be done in any event even if we did not exist at all.

I dismiss with contempt the notion that if we all "became vegans" then we could "feed more people" -- this planet groans under the weight of more than six billion people now and, by 2050, perhaps ten billion.

If you want to "do something for the planet", don't make babies!

Recent scientific research promises the distinct possibility of real "factory farms"...growing meat in vats without any living animals being involved in the process at all. We're still a decade or two from this showing up on the supermarket shelves...but it will probably be the way we'll go.

Meanwhile, it seems that most humans, given the chance, prefer a diet rich in meats. Any suggestion that a post-capitalist society will be poorer in meat consumption is unlikely (to put it charitably) to meet with a positive response.

Any appeal based on one's assumed "moral superiority" usually fails to impress.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 06:23 PM
First off, and I'm going to be controversial here, what the fuck is wrong with a bourgoise middle class mentality? If you're a commie or anarchist, chances are you have petty-bourgoise ideas such as human rights and equality.
You can't define how human rights and equallity are uniquely middle-class.


The most irritating thing about leftist movements is the number of people who glorify a completely false idealised image of the working class, that of the working class being the oppressed honest pure good guys fighting the evil middle class.
I'd have to disagree, I think its this life-stylist bullshit.


and by and large the middle class are pleasant company and are even more sympathetic to the plight of the working class than most working class people are; I don't see why we should demonise them for it.

I've known plenty of fellow working people, some were sympathic because they've been in your shoes, and vice versa. The pette-bourgoeis cry crodile tears, they are sympathitic for the fact to use a worker later, " I'm sorry you're out of work, come work for me". And when their store closes down because Wal-Mart does better business, they want us to cry while they get a better paying managerial job at Wal-Mart.


I've already wrote this, but would you agree the working class do tend to be more aggressive and less cultivated than the middle classes?
No. They aren't less intelligent.


So if not something similar to Maslow's Hierarchy explaining why this is, then I guess they are poor because they are criminal and stupid?
I disagree with the "self-actualization" factor, it is utter bullshit. I have explained why. If a poor person expresses themself artistically it is becauise they are thinking within themselves, not outside themselves because they havent met their security needs, therefore they are not self-actualized.


I used Maslow's Hierarchy simply as something solid to use to demonstrate my point. I wasn't expecting such a level of pedanty and macho (chauvinistic?) anti-lifestylist posturing
MHN, isn't solid. I disreguard things which claim to be supreme, when they aren't backed with solid evidence.


Did you even read what you're replying to? He just said to be self actualised is not to be vegetarian, but to be vegetarian is to be self actualised.
You're claiming that self-actualization exists, and that all vegetarians are self-actualized. Its all a load of shit.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 11:56 PM
Recent scientific research promises the distinct possibility of real "factory farms"...growing meat in vats without any living animals being involved in the process at all. We're still a decade or two from this showing up on the supermarket shelves...but it will probably be the way we'll go.
How would they grow it?

They'd have to start out with an organic material to be manipulated.

So if this works, we'll be eating the same piece of cloned beef round for years to come?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Apr 6 2006, 12:51 AM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Apr 6 2006, 12:51 AM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 11:56 PM
Recent scientific research promises the distinct possibility of real "factory farms"...growing meat in vats without any living animals being involved in the process at all. We're still a decade or two from this showing up on the supermarket shelves...but it will probably be the way we'll go.
How would they grow it?

They'd have to start out with an organic material to be manipulated.

So if this works, we'll be eating the same piece of cloned beef round for years to come? [/b]
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43747

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Apr 6 2006, 05:51 AM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Apr 6 2006, 05:51 AM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 11:56 PM
Recent scientific research promises the distinct possibility of real "factory farms"...growing meat in vats without any living animals being involved in the process at all. We're still a decade or two from this showing up on the supermarket shelves...but it will probably be the way we'll go.
How would they grow it?

They'd have to start out with an organic material to be manipulated.

So if this works, we'll be eating the same piece of cloned beef round for years to come? [/b]
A clone is not an exact copy. That's a science fiction cliche, and a rather annoying one at that.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 11:56 PM
I dismiss with contempt the notion that if we all "became vegans" then we could "feed more people" -- this planet groans under the weight of more than six billion people now and, by 2050, perhaps ten billion.

If you want to "do something for the planet", don't make babies!


Then.....Malthus was..... right ?


My position : Whilst living in the city, being veg is the correct thing to do.
Why end the life of an animal just to satisfy your taste buds, when vitamins and minerals can be found just as easily in plant based food?
In an industrial capitalist society we can easily subsist on "veggie meat" and fruit and veg .
However, people who hunt /raise and slaughter their own meat are not to be held in contempt. With poverty, morals go out the window.
Factory farms are wrong, and an aberration which will (hopefully) wither away with Capitalism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Eoin Dubh
Then.....Malthus was..... right ?

We don't know yet. What we do know is that this planet appears to be too small to support 10 billion people at a modern first-world standard-of-living.

A civilization cannot endure half-modernized and half-degraded to total misery.


Why end the life of an animal just to satisfy your taste buds?

Why not? If I or some other human doesn't eat it, some other animal will eat it.

If it's right for that other animal, why is it "wrong" for me?

And plant-based foods really do mostly taste like crap!

Mortify your own flesh if you wish; leave mine alone. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Decolonize The Left]

Firstly let me say that I have not read all the posts in this thread as I consider most of them to be petty statements without justification and as such can be discarded.

But I do wish to provide my thoughts on some of the issues in this thread:

Vegetarianism: I'm all for it. Personally, I choose to eat meat for the simple reason that fresh vegetables are not available where I'm currently studying and I need protein. Could I be be a vegetarian? Probably, I see no problem with it. If anything, it's a morally superior choice then that of the carnivor for the simple reason that it preserves conscious life.

On vegetarianism and anarchism: I will agree with most that these two need not be related in any sort of absolute way. And Matty, I did read your post where you were clarifying your words in the sense that you were merely maintaining that one need not being ashamed of being a vegetarian and an anarchist. I think this is true.

On anarchism: I am an anarchist. I think anarchism is a philosophy which not only addresses class struggle, but also addresses moral and ethical issues which are extremely important. I don't care if you are a rich white male, a poor Indonesian, or a working-class hero, if you are an anarchist we are on the same side. I find all attempts to degrade or defile an anarchist because he/she does not fit one's critieria to be not only counter-productive, but also a sign of fear and arrogance. A revolution is run by the people, not one's haughty idea of some group of enlightened anarchists who will guide the people to freedom. That, my friends, results in fascism. Time to grow up and realize that if any radical change is to come from the current generation, then it must come from a united front. You can't have people insulting each other because one refered to a term which was misunderstood. If you are working towards a classless, stateless society of freedom and equality, then you are working on my side.

Put aside the petty arguments about who is "qualified" to be an anarchist. Ideas do not reside in your paycheck or clothing, they reside in your mind.

-- August

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by AugustWest
Could I be be a vegetarian? Probably, I see no problem with it. If anything, it's a morally superior choice than that of the carnivore for the simple reason that it preserves conscious life.

No it is not "morally superior"...which in fact is a meaningless phrase.

If "morality" is important to you, start a church. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Decolonize The Left]

Redstar:

No it is not "morally superior"...which in fact is a meaningless phrase.

If "morality" is important to you, start a church. sad.gif

I do not buy any relativist theory that morals don't exist, or all concpets and theories/ideas are equal in value. If you believe that morals don't exist, you might as well claim that the Nazi philosophy is one which should be entertained here for it's equal moral value (or just value period) to communism or anarchism. For if we were to compare them, one could claim, that "morals" aside, the Nazi ideology was "better" for society (society being the Aryan race). I do not hold such a stance, because I view the Nazi ideology as morally corrupt and ethical unsound. But if those phrases mean nothing, then what happens?

The fact is that morals and ethics do exist. We operate on them everyday. Some people don't eat meat, not because they think it tastes bad, but because they morally disagree with the concept of killing a conscious being. To claim that morals don't exist is to claim that these people are in fact lying, or don't know why they really feel that way in the first place. Such a position seems awefully unjustified and illogical, as well as arrogant and conceited. I know you are an intelligent thinker, and I doubt that you fit in this category, but I have a hard time accepting the relativist view that morals don't exist.

-- August

[Gura]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 06:23 PM

but would you agree the working class do tend to be more aggressive and less cultivated than the middle classes?

What does it mean to be cultivated? To have nice manners, say "please" and "thank you", to know which wine to drink with which meat? And would it benefit them any to be more "cultivated"?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by AugustWest
For if we were to compare them, one could claim, that "morals" aside, the Nazi ideology was "better" for society (society being the Aryan race). I do not hold such a stance, because I view the Nazi ideology as morally corrupt and ethical unsound. But if those phrases mean nothing, then what happens?

Is there such a thing as "the Aryan race"? Well, no, there isn't.

If there was such a thing, would you be considered "an Aryan"?

If so, then did the Nazis actually promote the well-being of "the Aryan race"? Well, no, it didn't; it got an enormous number of "Aryans" killed!

Thus, you might well accept the Nazi propositions that an "Aryan race" exists, that you are a member, and that of all the "races", the "Aryans" are "the best"...and still reject Nazism as a political movement because it failed to deliver on its promises!

You don't need "morals", just pragmatic self-interest.

Is a Nazi Empire worth risking your life for?


The fact is that morals and ethics do exist. We operate on them every day.

What we "operate" on "every day" is custom...and, I suppose, habit. The only time we're likely to stop and think about "morals" or ethics is when something unusual happens. We don't have a socially acceptable option readily to hand, so we have to stop and think, what "should" I do in this situation.

I find a wallet on the street. I look inside and discover there's only $30 in it and no credit cards. So I mail the wallet back to the poor guy, including his cash. But suppose I look inside and there's $350 in cash and a stack of credit cards. Well, I'd keep the cash and mail all the rest back to him...$350 means nothing to a guy like that. Suppose it was $3,500? I'd keep the cash and throw away the wallet and the cards; fuck that rich bastard!


To claim that morals don't exist is to claim that these people are in fact lying, or don't know why they really feel that way in the first place.

No, it's just saying that they are mistaken...they are acting on the premise that something "exists" -- objective morality -- that, in fact, cannot be objectively demonstrated to exist at all.

There's no "great scoreboard in the sky" that records all our "moral acts" and "immoral acts".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Decolonize The Left]

You don't need "morals", just pragmatic self-interest.

It seems like you have merely redefined the term here.


What we "operate" on "every day" is custom...and, I suppose, habit.

Where did these customs come from? And where did the customs before them come from? At what point did a custom originate, and what do you attribute it to?


I find a wallet on the street. I look inside and discover there's only $30 in it and no credit cards. So I mail the wallet back to the poor guy, including his cash.

Pragmatic self-interest would imply that you should keep the $30. It is your morals that aided in your decision to mail the money back as well, because you value something more then the $30. Perhaps it is your assumption that this man is a working class man, and so you believe he needs the money. Pragmatic self-interest plays the opposite role here and this argument applies to all your examples.


No, it's just saying that they are mistaken...they are acting on the premise that something "exists"

So when a vegetarian chooses not to eat meat, they are mistaken about what? That an animal is a conscious being? That it has value?



There's no "great scoreboard in the sky" that records all our "moral acts" and "immoral acts".

I wholeheartedly agree. The "great scoreboard" is not in the sky. It is in each of us. When someone does something kind or generous and it meshes with your morals properly, as in they are the same, then you hold that person in respect. You respect the fact that they value the same things you do. That is the scoreboard, it exists between all of us. A communist/anarchist society would take this scoreboard from under the cloth where it is currently hidden and place it in the open. If you contribute to society in the form which you see fit and enjoy, then you are respected for those actions and will receive likewise.

-- August

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by AugustWest
Where did these customs come from? And where did the customs before them come from? At what point did a custom originate, and what do you attribute it to?

Customs originate from perceived pragmatic self-interest. The historical details are often lost in the "mists of time", of course. And what would have "made sense" at the time a custom was adopted may now make no sense at all.

Savage tribes once had the custom of raiding each other's camps to steal women. We don't do that any more.

Because we're "more moral"? :lol:

Or because mutual seduction is more fun than rape?


Pragmatic self-interest would imply that you should keep the $30.

No...because $30 is a trivial sum to me and the reasonable hypothesis is that this poor guy is even worse off than me and really needs that money.


So when a vegetarian chooses not to eat meat, they are mistaken about what? That an animal is a conscious being? That it has value?

That it has value in some "morally objective" sense. The universe was not "built" with a sense of "morality".

What some people do is make one up and impose it on the universe. As a rule, such people are superstitious and think that their imaginary "morality" will procure them "special rewards" in the "next universe".

Not much to say about that particular delusion that hasn't already been said.

But even the "secular" versions are suspect; vegetarians seem to believe quite sincerely that they are "morally superior" to us "sinful" meat-eaters.

Well, what do "morally superior" people try to do when they think they can pull it off?

Make all the rest of us "behave like them"...always "for our own good" of course. :angry:

Sound like fun?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Decolonize The Left]

Redstar:

Customs originate from perceived pragmatic self-interest.

Ah, so it was "perceived pragmatic self-interest"? What exactly is that?


And what would have "made sense" at the time a custom was adopted may now make no sense at all.


Savage tribes once had the custom of raiding each other's camps to steal women. We don't do that any more.

Agreed, but this proves nothing.


Or because mutual seduction is more fun than rape?

Neither. As technology and science improved, we began to understand more about who we are genetically. This only lead to the further development of the concept that women we very similar to men in many ways. This will continue to develop until 'we' realize they are equals. Yet the concept of equality is a moral one. Physically everyone is different. And in terms of sheer bodily force, men are often stronger then women. Physically that would make men superior. Yet there is much more involved then just physical attributes. Mentally, all human beings are equal (with the exception of those with mental disabilities - though this is not to say that they cannot contribute to society). Yet to treat men and women as equals is a moral choice, not one made by "perceived self-interest". I imagine self-interest would tell you to attempt to be the ruler so as to increase one's statue in society?


No...because $30 is a trivial sum to me and the reasonable hypothesis is that this poor guy is even worse off than me and really needs that money.

1) Self-interest doesn't give a shit about trivial or who is poor or not. Self-interest is the interest of the self. And $30 is beneficial to the self.
2) Then what about $40? How about $50? When does the money cease to be "trivial" and start to be 'intriguing', or 'worth picking up'?


The universe was not "built" with a sense of "morality".

Agreed. Morals are a human construction.


What some people do is make one up and impose it on the universe.

I'm aware of this. Though not once ever have I imposed, in any sort of way, my moral values on another. You can check my posts. All of them offer my position and state so. I'm well aware of the misuse of morals throughout society, but this doesn't mean they don't exist.

-- August

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by AugustWest
Yet to treat men and women as equals is a moral choice, not one made by "perceived self-interest".

Playboy magazine disagrees; they assert that men should treat women as equals because then men "get more sex and better sex". :lol:

The real difficulty in any appeal to "absolute morality" is that it has no foundation in objective reality.

Once people discard "the commandments of God", they are free to define "morality" according to what advances their own perceived material interests (which is what they were really doing all along, of course).

"Thou shalt not steal" is a commandment of those who have addressed to those who have not.

Slavery is "moral"...to a slave-owner.

And very "immoral" to a slave, of course.

Well, what do these constructed "moralities" have to do with vegetarianism and veganism? Who benefits (or thinks they benefit) from this stuff?

It's a complicated question because it's so far removed from material reality. If people who raised plants for food argued that vegetarianism/veganism was the "moral choice" while meat-eating was "immoral on its face", then we'd have something nice and clear-cut to deal with.

My guess is that vegetarianism/veganism is an ideology chosen by well-to-do "city kids" who have had little or no contact with modern agriculture at all...raising plants or animals for food.

Butchering and meat-packing is not a "pretty" industry; it's bloody and messy and, for that matter, one of the most dangerous of modern industries to work in.

Possibly vegetarians/vegans find this so aesthetically displeasing that they conclude that it "must be immoral".

It wouldn't be the first time that humans have equated the "ugly" with the "immoral"...just look at the old stereotypical image of the "witch".

Another factor that may be at work: adolescents must, of necessity, either accept one of the available "identities" provided for them by existing capitalist society or create a new one. Since modern capitalism does emphasize "infinite consumption", a dissident might well choose instead the "opposite" of that -- refusal to consume. Some kids actually attempt to starve themselves to death in search of an identity of their own...others are satisfied by "giving up" this or that product. Giving up "meat" is a way of "really being different".

To elevate such choices into a "universal morality" is perfectly understandable...if rationally indefensible.

If one has convinced oneself of one's own "moral superiority", does that not lighten the "burden of existence"? You may well live "in the shit", but "at least" you're not one of those people who "celebrates it".


I'm well aware of the misuse of morals throughout society, but this doesn't mean they don't exist.

Well, they can't be objectively demonstrated to "exist"...except as a "cosmological justification" for acts in one's own perceived self-interest.

It seems to me that when someone makes a "moral choice", it's purpose, at the very least, is to enhance one's own "self-esteem". I did this or refused to do that because I, unlike others, am a "moral person".

That's not "objective existence"; it's just subjective conceit.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Decolonize The Left]

Redstar,
this is a tough topic, one which I am struggling with as I write. I see your point, a valid, materialist argument, but almost (not sure of the word here) unconscionable. It just seems wrong. That's not to say it is, but it explains what I'm arguing.


The real difficulty in any appeal to "absolute morality" is that it has no foundation in objective reality.

Well it's here, or at least it appears to be so much that we act on it. And as such it had to have been founded somewhere.


Once people discard "the commandments of God", they are free to define "morality" according to what advances their own perceived material interests (which is what they were really doing all along, of course).

But now it appears as though you are equating the two, only saying that we have committed a "catagorical mistake" by labeling 'perceived self-interest' as 'morality'. Yet I have a difficult time conceiving of how a 'moral' statement such as "killing another person is wrong", can be labeled as perceived self-interest when it is self-interest, but more so, the interest of all life (which again could be self-interest) but then is not perceivied, but known.
Also, what does 'perceived self-interest' have to say about our more well-to-do comrades (those with money, social stature, etc...) who are still fighting for the proletariat, even if they do not belong among them in regards to class? Certainly they could continue a life of luxury, and live peacefully as they see fit with no regard to the poor what-so-ever?

EDIT: New Question
We like to think of the 'ideal society' (a communist, anarchist one) as one which is 'morally just'. Does this mean that such a society is merely one which provides a maximization of self-interest?

I will not respond to the vegetarian argument of yours simply because I don't necessary feel one way or the other. Perhaps our discussion of morals is deserving of a new thread?

-- August

[STI]

1) Self-interest doesn't give a shit about trivial or who is poor or not. Self-interest is the interest of the self. And $30 is beneficial to the self.

As one of the people who'd have the $30 (if I'm lucky!), I'd still return the wallet because I want to create a social climate where a wallet with $30 does get returned, so that if I ever lose my $30, I'll have a better chance of getting it back.

I won't be losing $3,500 any time soon, so I don't have to worry about folks who do being out of luck.

[redstar2000]

STI makes a valid point. I don't perceive it to be in my own self-interest to steal from people at my level or even poorer; but I do see it in my self-interest to steal from the rich bastards.

A social order in which murder was "morally neutral" would contradict my own self-interest; I am too old and feeble to acquire the skills of a professional killer...so I would be a likely victim.

Most people feel inadequate in that regard...which is why murder is always "immoral" within one's own community. Killing people in other communities is an entirely different matter, of course.

Though somewheres between 100,000 and 500,000 Iraqis have died as a consequence of the American invasion, no mainstream voice has accused Bush of "being immoral". Everyone (except a tiny number of clergy) seems to grasp that "morality" has nothing to do with imperialism. What counts is did you win or did you lose?.

The Republicans risk the odium of being thought "losers at war"...rather than "immoral killers".


Originally posted by AugustWest
And as such it had to have been founded somewhere.

It was "made up" because people thought it in their own perceived self-interest to "have it". Humans invent all sorts of cultural artifacts...and then alter or dismantle them when they no longer serve any purpose.


Also, what does 'perceived self-interest' have to say about our more well-to-do comrades (those with money, social stature, etc...) who are still fighting for the proletariat, even if they do not belong among them in regards to class? Certainly they could continue a life of luxury, and live peacefully as they see fit with no regard to the poor what-so-ever?

It says that we should engage with them on a very cautious basis...because their class interests are not really the same as ours.

There are already groups in existence which won't accept for membership people who are not actually working class (however they define that term). They don't want a group that's "led" by people who are not workers.

They appear to be willing to work with other groups that may be led by "well-to-do" people...but they want to avoid organizational subordination to their "social betters".

I am not denying that, on rare occasions, someone who is pretty well-off (or who comes from that background) may not sincerely want to act "in our interests". But that is, when you get right down to it, a very hard thing to do.

Suppose I were in a situation where I could "save the life" of a guy who I knew was a rich bastard. I'm telling you that I would turn my back on the turd and walk away! And I wouldn't feel the least bit of remorse!

I am not "universally pro-life". For exploiters and oppressors, I am pro-death!

To me, that's the "moral position". :lol:

From a vegetarian/vegan standpoint, the logic of their "morality" is that those humans unwilling to stop eating meat should be executed.

If "meat is murder", then what do we do with those we consider murderers? :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[apathy maybe]

I find the argument simple.

If you do not have to worry about were your next meal comes from, if you have more time for philosophy and thinking, if you do not have to work 8 hour days (used to be 12!), then you are more likely to be vegetarian.

I agree.

But, at the same time many poor people are vegetarian, but not by choice. They are simply too poor to afford meat, so they buy beans. (Beans are taste good anyway, and are better for you.)


Hark back to the quote by Marx about fishing and thinking, "do one thing to-day and another to-morrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner". That is what we strive for. The freedom to be free, to be free not to work everyday, the freedom to have fun and play. The freedom to think. Fuck work.



And more, I do not understand the bullshit about animals not being important being perpetuated by so-called anarchists and others on this board. Take the movie the Matrix, I assume you have all seen or heard of it, computers basically eat humans. To me, those of you who promote that humans can do anything to non-human animals, simply because they are not humans, is like saying that computers can do anything to human animals, simply because animals are not computers.