arent u a liberal

Next time subtweet instead of direct quoting

Not participating in the natural cycle of the biosphere is putting humans above all other animals….

• this doesn’t excuse the unsustainable practices of current animal industries

because you, like most Marxists, naively assume that natural resources are somehow infinite

This is definitely not true and is actually one of Marxists main criticisms of capitalism, infinite growth on a planet with finite resources.

"All progress in capitalistic agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the labourer, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time, is a progress towards ruining the lasting sources of that fertility." - Karl Marx

imma be honest it's like you didn't even read the image i posted that started this whole thing

With almost every good, you transform inanimate materials into other inanimate materials. The wrongness (worker exploitation, environmental racism, pollution) fows from the system. Speciesism is different in that regard. We transform animate beings into inanimate objects for our whims-- and in a violent, irrevocable sense, unlike with wage relations there.

I think about this a lot when it comes to greenwashing and all that. Example: one shirt says it uses 50% less water to produce than another. Well... maybe that's true, maybe not, I can't verify it. Maybe the manufacturing process was less water intensive, but the cotton itself used more water. Or maybe they used less water, but used it in an area that's way more water scarce than their competitors. Or maybe they used less water, but with another tradeoff like emitting twice as much CO2. It's impossible for me as the consumer to be able to tell the true claims from the false--if there are any true claims to begin with.

Alternatively, I can look at a block of tofu and its ingredients and see no animals were killed for it. It's that simple. There's (basically) no guess work. Yeah, technically some ingredients are really sneaky animal derivatives that take more time to learn. But we're talking about very small amounts here and there, and usually of byproducts that wouldn't be produced if we weren't killing the animal for meat in the first place. Like the post says, it's the product itself--its very existence--that's the issue.

Consequently, a boycott for vegan objectives works far better than a boycott for socioeconomic / political objectives just as a practical matter.

What I'm trying to get across is that saying that human exploitation is built-in and intrinsic to capitalism, but animal suffering isn't - well, it is too but in a more indirect way. you don't need to eat meat, use animal tested cosmetics or wear leather. you do need clothing, food, shelter, etc. it's virtually impossible to have ethical consumption of the latter unless you're very ascetic or bourgeois (and thus directly benefiting from exploitation).

in conclusion, you can not partake in animal suffering to a great degree even within the confines of capitalism, but the same isn't possible when it comes to human exploitation. And you can also be politically active while just changing your diet. You don't have to go full animal activist like me, you can just stop supporting the oppression of animals. I did not expect people in this thread of all places to push back so much on this topic.

Just because you think you're fighting a more important battle that will have greater consequences it you win or lose does not excuse you abdicating your personal responsibility amidst atrocities.

I mean I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying here, i wasnt even talking about that i was just addressing emus point about Marxism abt smth i think she got wrong

yeah my point is that if you don't disagree with pretty much anything I'm saying why aren't you vegan lol, or at least conscious of the impacts and reducing intake and spreading awareness

you could be doing what i just said above for all i know, so excuse me if that's the case

regardless of if you agree or not w/ the ethics of animal slaughter, i think we can at least modern systematic factors make it incredibly hard to make moral decisions in consumption especially depending on class.
being vegan is incredibly hard if not impossible for the vast majority of the working class (both in the west, but abroad especially) for example, and it's also very hard even for lower middle class people without explicit time to dedicate to diet planning and nutrition. I'm not saying being vegan is a privileged position or anything, but it obviously needs to be recognized that the feasibility for it for many people is limited by the system itself

modern systematic factors make it incredibly hard to make moral decisions in consumption especially depending on class.

My long post like, two posts up is what I would say to this. Whether something is vegan it not is largely binary and an excellent metric for whether it is a morally right thing to buy and consume or not.

And i more or less disagree with it being "incredibly hard" to be vegan regardless of class. It's actually never been easier. There's options at many fast food places, many places sell beans and rice and produce. However i live in one of the largest us states and it's also one of the poorest, once you get out of the few major cities the best "grocer" you might have access to could be a f***ing dollar general. Those folks have a great deal of leeway in this regard and are indeed limited by the system.

But if one is using those people as a way to excuse their own actions? Silly

I'm not saying that it's an excuse for people's own actions, I'm just saying that it is a valid reason for why it's not an all or nothing gamble - the system being so intrinsically broken is why people have to level and balance ethics with availability. There are many factors that weigh on what someone can or should cut from their diet. Obviously if someone is eating 3 meals a day at mcdonalds then complaining about the system that's different, but someone trying their best to adhere to ethical tenets and consume responsibly can only be blamed so much depending on environment, as you said yourself in the latter part of the post re: grocers.

We all agree with many of the points you’ve made before, but there’s a few things here we would disagree with:

1. How are the biggest polluters MLs?Are you referring to China / USSR? China is not marxist Leninist because of commodity production based off the market, and many other reasons. Either way, they are the only country in the world meeting the Paris climate accords and are leading in renewable energy. China doesn’t uphold Marxism Leninism at this time. Besides, let’s not forget — Capitalism as a whole has destroyed our planet, let’s not point the blame to an economic system which has a nonexistent voice in todays geopolitical ayate.

USSR doesn’t really uphold the same logic (that MLS are biggest polluters), nor does Pre-Dengist China, Cuba, Burkina Faso, Angola, Ghana.. every other country which has been socialist except for, I guess, China, which is not marxist Leninist.

Are factories, machineries and the exploitation of the earth off limits? How else is an entire country going to get out of pure destitution? We’re on this earth and we deserve to have a certain degree of non grotesque comfort; you need to exploit the earth to do this.

On that note, Cuba has actually a beautiful, beautiful hydroponic system that has been going on for fourty years named (orgániponico).

2. Humanity isn’t the problem, it’s economic system. Simply look at pre-capitalist societies. They wouldn’t raise hundreds of sheep for a surplus then once the price rises artificially remove the stock. They wouldn’t raze fields for illogical reasons like the market because there was no market.

3. Fanon can say it better than me:

"For a colonized people the most essential value, because the most concrete, is first and foremost the land: the land which will bring them bread and, above all, dignity." - Fanon

At the same time, I totally agree with you. It’s s***ty that people are still mining toxic resources. It’s s***ty that commodity production is still going in China. The US War machine pollutes more than many countries combined.

There’s a lot to unravel, so I understand why you would say “just stop (lithium mining) completely, why are you celebrating nationalization” but it’s complicated because people need to have an independent economy to achieve self realization, to have the agency to realize something without having another country dictate them. People need to eat. We can’t snap our fingers and the entire system of commerce will go away tomorrow.

The line is definitely gray. I agree that countries, and future ML countries need to prioritize the earth more explicitly.

In socialism, commodity production will cease to be for the market and products will be created for people Who have a direct need for it in the country they reside in. There is no more pumping chickens with disgusting hormones to lower prices; no more burning the surplus to keep prices up. The product which gets made will always not be wasted, and there will not be so much to engorge yourself, but to live normally. I suggest to read more about China pre deng. Do you have any reading rec commendations to me, likewise?

Are factories, machineries and the exploitation of the earth off limits? How else is an entire country going to get out of pure destitution? We’re on this earth and we deserve to have a certain degree of non grotesque comfort; you need to exploit the earth to do this.

exactly. the colonial mentality of scolding developing countries for trying to develop, while GHG emissions from developing countries only represent a small fraction of global emissions

India has a population 4x Americas; Indias responsible for 2% of global emissions while America accounts for 24%

yes, any amount of GHG emissions are bad for the environment, but whats the alternative for developing countries?
developed countries have the resources to "easily" (for lack of better term) pivot to cleaner energy sources and drastically reduce their emissions in other ways

America for example has the resources required to build substantially better interconnecting rail networks that could drastically reduce their reliance on gas powered automobiles and reduce their emissions. still, they choose not to. does a developing country like Mexico or Nigeria have the same option? no. so obviously, America will get way more condemnation for their emissions than a country like Mexico would.

This an engaging read? Never read politics books but kinda interested in this one ngl

I'll be honest i don't rly have any principled reason why im not rn

Just convenience and the fact that it's food that can help me reach my goals in fitness while also being tasty

But i think i will transition to a vegan diet tho eventually

Wow you’re a dumbass

anyways haven’t posted here before, Maoist gang checking in 🙋🏼‍♀️

😭 😭 😭 😭 😭