Capitalist Temptations | Wanna get rid of those stupid ads? Us too! Help us to be non-dependent from corporate money again and sign up for a monthly donation now!

Thread: Veganism

Results 81 to 96 of 96

  1. #81
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 379
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    I think its interesting that no one has been able to identify where this "pain" bullshit spouted by these two monkeys comes from. It comes from anti-abortionists. So let me ask this simple question to our two conservative/liberal guests:

    Clearly human fetuses/unborn babies "feel pain", certainly after the 3rd trimester, they all have "Central Nervous Systems" and all the other crap you've spouted. Do you think a woman having an abortion is 'wrong'?

    See as soon as I asked the question they are both quite fucked. If they answer one way they'll get banned from the forum. If they answer another way their whole fabricated nonsense becomes exposed as infantile opportunism. So what they'll do is they will ignore it, pretend to answer it or give "well I [...] but at the same time [...] we don't know enough" answer.
    bla bla more of the same misrepresenting our points. I'm not an anti-abortionist, you just try to frame me to be one because you are too simple to respond to actual arguments. Animals are beings which can survive outside of the womb on their own, the comparison to fetuses is so abject.
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  2. #82
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 379
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    Whatever the case, they are no more or less able to reason in a robust sense than any other person. It may take them longer to learn and retain various forms of information but they are infinitely more capable of performing as an ethical subject within human society than any non-human organism.



    ... assuming everyone adopts a vegan diet, yes, but why would we keep millions of farm animals caged just waiting for them to die off? To prevent their breeding we would need to sterilize them - presumably that would be a violation of their "rights". The fact is, at the end of the day we have a kind of symbiotic relationship with our domesticated animals. Even Hindus who revere cows consume dairy.



    The desire to avoid sickness is no less important than the desire to obtain the necessary amino acids. Unless you suggest making the entire Andes mountain a giant global Quinoa plantation, it would be hard to achieve this on a global scale without cows turning plant protein into animal protein. No offense to animals, but I think we have more immediate problems on our hands like global poverty, malnourishment and socioeconomic inequality.



    Pain=bad is an equation only made by utilitarians, it is not the only measure for ethical behavior by a long shot.
    exactly people with down syndrome are no less to general humans, even though they are slower at learning or retaining information. Because i don't see this as the defining characteristic of morality. You would agree to me that its not wrong for me to walk on grass, since grass obviously doesnt feel pain? Or do you think its okay for me to walk over grass because it isnt as good at reasoning compared to me? If you pick the latter then it would be okay for me to walk over puppies? Puppies feel pain, plants do not, therefore puppies have the right to more consideration then plants do. Im not saying we should give animals universall suffrage, im saying they deserve consideration because they feel pain. And because they have a right to this consideration, they have a right to not be hurt without good reason. Good reason obviously cant be "i want the pleasure of feeling their flesh on my tongue".

    To your point of animals being rendered useless if we become vegan. The situation how you write it just works if everyone turns vegan tommorow, this obviously isnt going to happen. If more and more people go vegan in a gradual progress less and less animals will be kept for food and so the overall quantity of these animals will decrease. Sterilization of animals isn't a violation of their rights per se. It is true we can have symbiotic relationships with our pets. In modern times the only ethical relationship we can have with animals is in a sort of companionship with your dog/cat or whatever pet you have. Remember im speaking here about our western society where we have more then enough infrastructure and knowledge to easily feed our population with only plants food. This talk of how i want to steal cows from people in africa or wherever is an infantile attempt to frame me as anti-poor. Of course there are people who depend on livestock for their survival, we however do not, and we have a moral obligation to help them be actually self-sufficient. And then we can speak to them about leaving their cattle alone.It is obvious that certain areas of africa only produce food when they function as pasture for animals which the worlds poor can then eat, i have no interest to save these animals and throw the needy into starvation.

    To your point of the importance of getting all the amino acids. The article shows that we can get all our essential amino acids from plants. Plant we now feed to our cattle, this cattle is in no way efficient at somehow "freeing" these protein from animals. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...vmo/edit#gid=0
    If we take water as the "energy cost" it is clearly shown that all animal products except for milk and eggs are a greatly inefficient. So with that we mostly ruled out all meat. But the eggs and milk are super efficient i hear you say. The main protein found in milk, Casseine, is a strong contributor to causing several cancers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4166373/
    So in case you don't care for the animals, the only food i find to be up for debate are eggs for being not totally harmfull. However they aren't essential in our diet in any way. I choose to not grind 50% of chickens to death because i want to have an egg with my breakfast.
    I think this clearly shows the inefficiency of animal products in feeding the world. Don't forget that to turn plants into meat cattle has to respire and metabolise a lot, losing energy at every step. To think that the efficiency of animal protein uptake is so good compared to plants protein that it offsets the inefficiency in the raising of said cattle is not based on anything.

    Of course i don't propose to stop eating animal products and then world hunger, poverty and inequality is solved. All these problems are caused by the capitalist system, the meat and dairy industry being one of the grossest shows of capitalism. I only pose that it is now unethical to kill animals for no good reason and that it hurts our environment.

    Okay can you please enlighten me on what else than pain is required to determine how you should treat other beings? If you mean intelligence then please can you explain if it is wrong if some highly intelligent alien race makes us into slaves because compared to them we have the intelligence of worms?

    - - - Updated - - -

    The analogy to abortion is a bad one though, since fundamentally the right to abortion has nothing to do with the fetus, and everything to do with a woman's domain over her own body. Your fetus could be reading Camus and reflecting on its existential status, it still would not matter ethically to the woman's choice to abort. Thus one could believe pain is the basis of right and wrong, and still believe abortion is acceptable no matter how much pain a fetus feels since, at the end of the day, it is her damn body. Thus the vegetarians and vegans I've known have never opposed abortion.

    Also the notion that pain is the essence of badness goes back at least to Jeremy Bentham, not to anti-abortionists. I mentioned this as the origin of the assumption in contemporary ethical debates earlier.
    This is what i mean with him always trying to set up straw-man arguments.
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  3. #83
    Join Date Feb 2015
    Posts 526
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    See? Exactly what I said. Nothing but a filthy disgusting cowardly reactionary shit. Doesn't even have the dignity to reply, lmao.

    Thus one could believe pain is the basis of right and wrong, and still believe abortion is acceptable no matter how much pain a fetus feels since, at the end of the day, it is her damn body. Thus the vegetarians and vegans I've known have never opposed abortion.
    No, it really isn't. It may seem like it when you are already subsumed in this reactionary ideology, because you already presuppose this crap. Its why you and IBiC are arguing about "pain" and that other garbage. Its essentially tantamount to two capitalists arguing over whether higher or lower taxes are "good". Really, if this site were run properly he should have been restricted the moment he started equating animal consumption with racism and 'discrimination'. Because at the end of the day this sort of abysmally infantile thinking will lead down many paths, including equating the Holocaust with revolutionary violence and the like.

    Instead we are left arguing with a motherfucking sack of shit that posts garbage like this:

    Animals are beings which can survive outside of the womb on their own, the comparison to fetuses is so abject.
  4. #84
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 379
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    See? Exactly what I said. Nothing but a filthy disgusting cowardly reactionary shit. Doesn't even have the dignity to reply, lmao.



    No, it really isn't. It may seem like it when you are already subsumed in this reactionary ideology, because you already presuppose this crap. Its why you and IBiC are arguing about "pain" and that other garbage. Its essentially tantamount to two capitalists arguing over whether higher or lower taxes are "good". Really, if this site were run properly he should have been restricted the moment he started equating animal consumption with racism and 'discrimination'. Because at the end of the day this sort of abysmally infantile thinking will lead down many paths, including equating the Holocaust with revolutionary violence and the like.

    Instead we are left arguing with a motherfucking sack of shit that posts garbage like this:
    yeah, you're pretty insane mate, stop commenting if you only type insane shit.
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  5. #85
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 80
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    Its shitting on two animals (Plutocracy and IBiC), get it?.
    that's still scat
  6. The Following User Says Thank You to almost For This Useful Post:


  7. #86
    Join Date Feb 2011
    Posts 3,002
    Rep Power 57

    Default

    It may seem like it when you are already subsumed in this reactionary ideology, because you already presuppose this crap.
    What "crap", exactly, do you think I am presupposing? I pretty clearly am in disagreement with I Believe in Anarchy, so I clearly do not share his assumptions.

    Really, if this site were run properly he should have been restricted the moment he started equating animal consumption with racism and 'discrimination'.
    I agree, it is toxic politics to equate animal consumption with discrimination against human beings.

    If you think this is a thread which should be modded, and I think you have some claim (at least to move the damn thread from discrimination), send a PM to Quail. RL is not as active as it once was which probably means most of the mods are not as active these days either.

    exactly people with down syndrome are no less to general humans, even though they are slower at learning or retaining information. Because i don't see this as the defining characteristic of morality.
    The point is a person with a mental disability is not less capable of being a rational participant in society than anyone else. We do not make a person's worth proportional to some socially set standard of intelligence like some retrograde eugenicist from the 1920s. We don't give special rights to smart people. It's about one's ability to rationally participate in a community of other persons, which all people are equally capable of.

    To your point of animals being rendered useless if we become vegan. The situation how you write it just works if everyone turns vegan tommorow, this obviously isnt going to happen.
    It seems odd to equate the oppression of people to the consumption of meat and dairy, then say "well of course we wont stop eating meat and drinking dairy overnight". In the face of discrimination against people, and people being violently killed, we would hopefully not want to wait until some indefinite future date for that to end, no?

    To your point of the importance of getting all the amino acids. The article shows that we can get all our essential amino acids from plants. Plant we now feed to our cattle, this cattle is in no way efficient at somehow "freeing" these protein from animals.
    I'm aware we can get these amino acids from plants, but it is far more difficult. Meat has them all right there for you.

    Okay can you please enlighten me on what else than pain is required to determine how you should treat other beings? If you mean intelligence then please can you explain if it is wrong if some highly intelligent alien race makes us into slaves because compared to them we have the intelligence of worms?
    Both Kant and Aristotle claim it is the capacity for reason, and while pain is something worth considering, I do not think it is the only relevant part of the equation.
    Socialist Party of Outer Space
  8. #87
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 379
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    What "crap", exactly, do you think I am presupposing? I pretty clearly am in disagreement with I Believe in Anarchy, so I clearly do not share his assumptions.



    I agree, it is toxic politics to equate animal consumption with discrimination against human beings.

    If you think this is a thread which should be modded, and I think you have some claim (at least to move the damn thread from discrimination), send a PM to Quail. RL is not as active as it once was which probably means most of the mods are not as active these days either.



    The point is a person with a mental disability is not less capable of being a rational participant in society than anyone else. We do not make a person's worth proportional to some socially set standard of intelligence like some retrograde eugenicist from the 1920s. We don't give special rights to smart people. It's about one's ability to rationally participate in a community of other persons, which all people are equally capable of.



    It seems odd to equate the oppression of people to the consumption of meat and dairy, then say "well of course we wont stop eating meat and drinking dairy overnight". In the face of discrimination against people, and people being violently killed, we would hopefully not want to wait until some indefinite future date for that to end, no?



    I'm aware we can get these amino acids from plants, but it is far more difficult. Meat has them all right there for you.



    Both Kant and Aristotle claim it is the capacity for reason, and while pain is something worth considering, I do not think it is the only relevant part of the equation.
    Okay good so we agree on the fact that people with down syndrome aren't any less. This still leaves the fact open that animals feel pain and i have not seen any example which shows that it is okay to hurt them just because we want to eat them. It is not a survival scenario it is just being cruel for fun imo. Do you not agree with the fact that it is unnecessary ?

    To your point about the waiting for a future date. I am not some god who can simply dictate that we stop eating animal products. I realise very well that this change of behaviour wont happen in a short period of time. And yes i hope we wont wait until some very far away date to stop the consumption of animal products. However this seems to be a goal far away, and i see no other way then educating everyone on this horror which is taking place, and this takes a lot of time. And as i stated before, i don't think animals and humans are completely equal, i think animals are worthy of consideration and deserve to not be hurt without good reason. Of course i find human genocides to be more deplorable then animal cruelty, however i can directly contribute to less animal cruelty. I'm not saying you pick and choose one problem, animal or human discrimination, i think we should fight both.

    I know its harder for us to get plant proteins then animal proteins, since animal proteins are closer to our final goal proteins. However i pose that this difference is trivial compared to the inefficiencies in animal production. We could feed more people if we ate plants instead of meat. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/fo...ing-9-billion/ "Only 55 percent of food-crop calories directly nourish people. Meat, dairy, and eggs from animals raised on feed supply another 4 percent." "Though many of us consume meat, dairy, and eggs from animals raised on feedlots, only a fraction of the calories in feed given to livestock make their way into the meat and milk that we consume. For every 100 calories of grain we feed animals, we get only about 40 new calories of milk, 22 calories of eggs, 12 of chicken, 10 of pork, or 3 of beef."
    Please provide me with the source where you get this idea that the supposed inefficiency of plant proteins somehow justifies animal agriculture inefficiency.

    Your last point is exactly what i mean, of course when its a matter of life and death any rational person would pick the human since it is way more capable to reason and have an impact on its environment. However to cause unnecessary pain to anyone, be it human or animal, is wrong.
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  9. #88
    Join Date Jun 2014
    Location Canada
    Posts 871
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    It should be noted that many animals, like cattle, would not survive in the numbers they do without our need or desire for dairy.
    Well that is kind of the point. We dont need to intentionally create animals to fulfill out consumerist lifestyle if the damage done by the act is greater then the reward.
    There is no need for Animal Agriculture. Besides the scientific benefits of a vegetarian diet and the wasted energy/material that it takes to maintain the environmentally damaging industry there are alternatives that will soon be able to replace the subject of this consumerism. Artificial grown meat is already being produced in labs and I mean any half decent cook can make a vegetarian dish that will beat the meat. Its laziness and consumerism that calls for the continuation of this capitalist industry; not some High minded intellectualism or theoretical basis that call on the left to maintain an exploitative and
    damaging capitalist industry; its simply laziness on the part of ideologues.

    And this also extends to the realm of other man-breed animals. Dogs and cats and other pets are only created; the species only maintained to fulfill a consumerist demand. Besides Service animals the indentured servitude of
    pets is simply exploitation of living creatures for our pleasure. Again this industry is soon to be unnecessary as replacements for most service animals have already been created. Seeing Eye robots (Not to mention artificial limbs and organs).

    There is no argument for continuing the practice of animal husbandry beyond what is necessary for human survival.
    We will thrive without a Omnivorous lifestyle and beyond necessary service animals; which are becoming less and less necessary; we would be better served without domesticated animals.

    Domestication was necessary at one point; but the assumption that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."
  10. The Following User Says Thank You to (A) For This Useful Post:


  11. #89
    Join Date Jun 2014
    Location Canada
    Posts 871
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    Everyone has a limited amount of time and energy, and time taken in active work for once cause reduces the time available for another cause; but there is nothing to stop those who devote their time and energy to human problems from joining the boycott of the produce of agribusiness cruelty. It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals.
    —Peter Singer
    Animal Liberation

    IbelieveInanarchy found this in a link I sent him.

    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/brian-a-dominick-animal-liberation-and-social-revolution

    I am going to give this a read if anyone wants to join and discuss.

    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."
  12. The Following User Says Thank You to (A) For This Useful Post:


  13. #90
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 379
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    Interesting read. https://speciesandclass.com/2014/08/...m-as-veganism/
    "Capitalism is justified by some of its more honest apologists because of the great disparity of capacities between individuals- the washerwoman should be a washerwoman because that’s all she can be. Unfortunately, communist and anarchist carnivores justify their use and consumption of animals in a similar fashion- pigs should be food because they can’t be anything more. "

    "
    At the fundamental level of both communism and veganism is the championing of life, and despite the ideological obfuscations which beguile them both, they are ultimately heading in the selfsame direction. Life can only evolve towards greater enjoyment of itself by entering into a greater and all-embracing harmony. When all life is honored and recognized as an intense mutuality of communion, one is both a vegan and a communist."
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  14. The Following User Says Thank You to IbelieveInanarchy For This Useful Post:

    (A)

  15. #91
    Join Date Dec 2014
    Posts 95
    Rep Power 4

    Default

    Interesting read. https://speciesandclass.com/2014/08/...m-as-veganism/
    "Capitalism is justified by some of its more honest apologists because of the great disparity of capacities between individuals- the washerwoman should be a washerwoman because that’s all she can be. Unfortunately, communist and anarchist carnivores justify their use and consumption of animals in a similar fashion- pigs should be food because they can’t be anything more. "

    "
    At the fundamental level of both communism and veganism is the championing of life, and despite the ideological obfuscations which beguile them both, they are ultimately heading in the selfsame direction. Life can only evolve towards greater enjoyment of itself by entering into a greater and all-embracing harmony. When all life is honored and recognized as an intense mutuality of communion, one is both a vegan and a communist."
    How do you reconcile that "all-embracing harmony" (fascist wording right there - go to China they will want to hear this bullshit) with the reality that we will eventually have to destroy countless ecosystems in order to sustain ourselves. There can't be any harmony with nature because it stands in our way. If there's something completely opposed to Communism then it is political veganism.
  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Exterminatus For This Useful Post:


  17. #92
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 379
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    How do you reconcile that "all-embracing harmony" (fascist wording right there - go to China they will want to hear this bullshit) with the reality that we will eventually have to destroy countless ecosystems in order to sustain ourselves. There can't be any harmony with nature because it stands in our way. If there's something completely opposed to Communism then it is political veganism.
    Could you please elaborate on why we have to destroy countless ecosystems? Can you name an example so i get a better understanding of what you are trying to say? Thanks in advance!
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  18. #93
    Join Date Sep 2016
    Posts 58
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    Are you people fucking insane
  19. #94
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 379
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    Are you people fucking insane
    Can you be more specific please? I i hope you do not mean me
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  20. #95
    Join Date Jul 2016
    Posts 69
    Rep Power 2

    Default

    (I know I’m quite late to the party, I do try to keep up with this board but I’ve been and still am terribly busy. However, I would like to add at least one last contribution in this thread.)
    Please do not mistake the attention you’ve been given here with some sort of acknowledgment, as if by addressing the single particularities of your flim flam: all the internal inconsistencies, the hypocrisies, the arbitrariness… we are somehow conceding your main contention some degree of legitimacy as if somehow you are "the other side" of the debate. You're "the other side" on nutrition and morality (or, gods forbid, the revolutionary left) no more than flat earthers are "the other side" of geology or creationists are "the other side" of biology. The only reason your pseudo-religious, moralist, fetishistic, appeal to emotion-ridden ramblings are being treated with unwarranted legitimacy is because this reactionary filth must be confronted and thoroughly demolished.
    This dispute, when it comes to “legitimacy”, was over before it even started: Veganism won’t do shit, won’t change shit, won’t help for shit, won’t solve fucking shit; because it is nothing more than consumerist life-stylism.
    Originally Posted by Man and Nature Part IV: A Radical Critique of the "Green" Environmental movement
    For it is only when lifestylists attempt to extrapolate a politics from their chosen ethos that they get lost, that they fall prey to a particularly pernicious eidolon. That they tend to flaunt their given way of life may be obnoxious, of course, but in the end it’s fairly harmless, really. Far more dangerous, politically speaking, is the delusion that the sum of their individual lifestyle choices will have a significant impact on society. This is all the more true if they believe that they are somehow undermining capitalism through their actions.Some vegan lifestylists, like Will Tuttle, have even advanced the hilarious notion that veganism is a more revolutionary position than Marxism. Quite the opposite is true. If anything, these various lifestyles are so readily integrated into the edifice of capitalist society that they almost immediately lose any revolutionary force they might have had. They are reduced to mere niche markets within the greater totality of capitalism. This is why it should not come as such a surprise that one sees the opening of a “Green” McDonald’s in Riverside, Los Angeles.
    Lifestyle politics is remarkably assimilable to capitalism. In this sense, political veganism, freeganism, and so on, are all worse than ineffectual; they appear to constitute a form of “resistance” to capital just as they are seamlessly sublated into its all-encompassing fold. It was for this reason that Lenin as well as Marx argued against prefigurative utopianism: the idea that one must behave as if he already lived in a perfect society, a Kantian kingdom of ends. Marx was a merciless critic of the utopian socialists of his day. Lenin would later write off the ultraleftist utopianism (or “Left-Wing” Communism) that surrounded the Revolution as merely an “infantile disorder.” One must accept the social reality that obtains at any given time, and not imagine himself to be ethically or superior to or more politically informed than the rest of humanity by virtue of some lifestyle change. Such a conceit is all too easily repackaged — and thereby absorbed — by capitalist society.
    Also, world hunger has nothing to do with scarcity. We continue to produce enough grain and other foodstuffs for human consumption to feed double the human population. Economists who speak of a “grain glut” mean that literally tons of grain is wasted and unused, not because people aren’t in need of it, but because they can’t afford it.
    Second, it speaks to incredible naiveté to assume that world agribusiness would give away any excess grain left over if the meat industry suddenly collapsed. When I say political veganism doesn’t understand capitalism, this is what I mean.
    While there’s nothing wrong with seeing it as simply a moral issue [I'd disagree with the author on this], there is something incredibly obnoxious and self-aggrandizing about puffing out your chest, believing your diet will change the world. While the number of vegetarians and vegans has grown into sizeable minority, you would think that meat consumption would’ve shown a slight decline. But the opposite is true. Total meat consumption has increased. With food costs rising, meat has become more practical (in terms of calorie intake) and affordable. There is absolutely no substance to the claim that going vegan saves any animals. Capitalism does not plan production based on a one to one correspondence of a supply demand. In fact, its key feature is overproduction. A general lowering of demand will then likely mean two things: 1) animals not consumed will just be wasted 2) the price of meat becomes cheaper, increasing total consumption.
    There is also no precedent for a boycott strategy that has shut down an entire industry the way it’s being described (and it would require a boycott of all supermarkets and restaurants). That’s because the consumer has very little power. One can “choose” to drive a fuel-efficient car, but can’t choose why cities lack efficient public transportation. One can choose to buy energy efficient light bulbs, but has no say about planned product obsolescence. No one can dispute that the factory farm model creates tremendous amounts of waste, contributing to environmental catastrophe. It does so because capitalism forces every industry to accumulate and capture as much of the market as it can, in the most cost effective way. It functions to maximize profit, not to meet needs or work rationally. So every industry is structured unsustainably.
    […]
    Humanity does, indeed, stand alienated from nature. And yes, there is good scientific evidence that supports the theory of global warming, though the scientists are characteristically more cautious in their predictions. Those on the Right who insistently deny the fact of climate change are just as delusional as the hysterical dispensationalists on the Left who declare the world is doomed. But the present-day Green movement provides no real answers for reconciling man with nature, when posed as a social problem, outside of, perhaps, its notion of sustainable growth. So what might a Marxist approach to the societal problem of man’s relation to nature look like?
    To begin with, it must acknowledge that the answer can only lie in radical social transformation. Since humanity’s alienation from nature began with the foundation of the first societies — i.e., the beginning of history as such — and since the precise form in which this alienation has manifested itself has varied throughout history, we are left two options. Either we renounce society in its entirety, with all its freedoms and higher sensibilities, and retreat into the dark recesses of prehistory (as the anarcho-primitivists suggest), or we must progress into a new, as-yet-unseen social formation. With the former option, nature would no longer present itself as a problem to humanity because there wouldn’t be a consciousness of anything different, and we would act on our every savage instinct. Following the latter course of action, human society must gain a more self-conscious mastery over nature, such that it would become merely an extension of our will. What we are faced with is thus clear: either we must accept the renaturalization of humanity, or, inversely, the humanization (or socialization) of nature. Only by pursuing one or the other of these options can the contradiction be overcome — only then might humanity be disalienated from the natural world. For the Marxist, the choice is simple. Though regressions do occasionally take place throughout history, one cannot turn back the hands of time wholesale. Thus is the dream of the anarcho-primitivists only a nightmarish fantasy, never to be realized. One can only progress by moving forward. The only answer the Marxist can accept is worldwide revolution — the fundamental transformation of existing social relations. This revolution must honor neither regional convention nor national boundary, it must extend to encompass the globe. And only by eliminating society’s foundation on that insatiable category called Capital, only then can society exist for itself, only then can men truly make his own history, rather than be made by history. In the words of Marx, “[m]en make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.”
    […]
    The Marxist vision of an emancipated society is one of abundance and plenitude, not of scarcity and shortage. It is a vision of unlimited human freedom, not within the constraints of an ascetic lifestyle. And these are precisely the terms that the Green movement have set up as unchallengeable, terms of shortage and “ecoscarcity.” And “[t]he danger here is of accepting, often without knowing it, concepts that preclude radical critique,” writes the Marxist theorist and radical geographer David Harvey. “Consider, for example, the way in which ‘ecoscarcity’ (and its cognate term of ‘overpopulation’) plays out in contemporary debate.” With such terms as “ecoscarcity” and the supposed dearth of natural resources, contemporary eco-activism shortchanges the possibilities of human freedom. Harvey continues, writing that the assumption of “ecoscarcity” by contemporary environmentalists implies “that we have not the will, wit or capacity to change our social goals, cultural modes, our technological mixes, or our form of economy and that we are powerless to modify ‘nature’ according to human requirements. ”The history of capitalism supports none of these claims. There may be limitations in terms of what we might accomplish in transforming nature at the present moment, but that is no reason set arbitrary limits on what might be accomplished in the future.
    https://thecharnelhouse.org/2011/03/31/man-and-nature-parts-i-iv-complete/
    Which is what you've proven yourselves to be countless times in these forums: a couple of arrogant, self-absorbed, life-stylist, identity consumer, anarcholiberal white suburban little shits. Both of you people come here so fucking full of yourselves, so intent on “showing us”, you just run your mouths spouting vapid slogans, vomiting new age nonsense, a pathologically absurd and arbitrary morality and downright infantile fallacies (“you dun believe in evulushon rofl”).
    You've been given many and extensive answers which you've either ignored, strawmanned or just replied with "uuuh you...You just want to eat meat! you big... bourgeois... consumerist!" not to dissimilar for "You an atheist cuz you want to sin!”.
    You’ve also been pointed directly towards a quite informative thread, which in turns leads to another thread which is quite extensive itself, neither of them are the only ones that touch upon the issue of eco-fetishism. And it’s patently obvious that you haven’t read any of it, and by “read” I mean, seriously and meaningfully doing so, without assuming everyone must be as stupid and ignorant as you; not just cynically skimming through just to be able to say that you read it.
    You’ve been attacked not because you don't eat meat or because you "want to treat animals with decency" (for fuck sake, as said before who would fucking disagree with that?), you are being attacked because of your pathological view of the "animal", your fetishism of "nature" and your raging misanthropy.
    You've also been (rightly) attacked so viciously because you didn’t come here to “just ask questions guys”, to engage in debate… No, you came here to preach.
    You've made this patently clear through every single post you've made here. And you expected people to agree generally with you, you thought wrong. They know better.Ecology, as our resident anarcho-liberal reactionaries show, truly is the new opium of the masses: I don't even try to use religious analogies, it's actually hard to avoid them because of how fucking transparent and out of touch with reality this movement is. You have your dogmas, your sacred idols, your rituals, your infidels, your prophets, your own brand of pseudoscience and probably even your sacred books. It may not be organized religion proper, but it sure as hell tries.
    Veganism is the Starbucks of new age orientalist zealots, you pay a "price" to feel good about yourselves while not having to actually do anything, there is nothing else to it, it is pure ideology. You want to have your soy cake and eat it too.
    Last edited by Radical Atom; 3rd March 2017 at 20:01.
  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Radical Atom For This Useful Post:


  22. #96
    Join Date Jun 2017
    Posts 38
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Why wouldn't every dedicated Leftist be a vegan, except for defects in their character? The entire spirit of capitalism in all of its phases and overarching psychological and spiritual consequences is manifest and vulnerable in a typical "muh bacon" utterance. Every latent feeling one has regarding their own political conditions and how they themselves relate to the ruling class becomes a bitterly vengeful rationalization of imposing that same dynamic on more vulnerable beings.

Similar Threads

  1. Anarchism, Marxism and veganism
    By Kill all the fetuses! in forum Social and off topic
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 10th June 2015, 01:23
  2. Against Vegetarianism/Veganism
    By Pawn Power in forum Social and off topic
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 20th May 2009, 15:35
  3. Veganism is a consumer activity
    By RSS News in forum Newswire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 5th May 2008, 22:25
  4. Animal Liberation Front - Veganism
    By settlefornothin in forum Social and off topic
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 12th January 2008, 03:07
  5. veganism
    By Organic Revolution in forum Social and off topic
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 20th September 2005, 05:34

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts