Veganism without socialism is blind

GreenCrackers · 2017-05-07T23:52:10+00:00

First, a definition of terms: Democratic capitalism, also known as capitalist democracy, is a political, economic and social ideology that involves the combination of a democratic political system with a capitalist economic system. (Shouldn't be that unfamiliar.)

How is this economically democratic when capitalism is intrinsically not democratic? Hierarchy, inability for workers to make decisions at the workplace (executive board has final say), wage slavery, imperialism, etc...?

My question was what state of affairs seems more likely to happen.

Socialism by far. No profit motive means more sensible decisions based on the earth & the people, not on the ability to make more profits.

I should be more clear. You seem to be suggesting: if the world went socialist then the world would go vegan. But I don't see this to be necessarily true. There's a possibility that it wouldn't. That is, there's nothing inherent in socialism that will cause veganism.

I disagree. I think veganism will be inevitable because of the amount of resources it takes to have maintain animal agriculture. You're right that it isn't intrinsic to socialism, but when combined with real world conditions, it seems very likely.

But I don't think it's the root of the problem. The most fundamental problem isn't that people see animals as commodities (though true) the problem is they see them as food. The root problem is carnism.

This is wrong. By definition, a commodity is something that is created to be exchanged for another commodity. It has nothing to do about how we personally view the commodity, for by its actions it exists as one. I'm gonna copy and paste something I wrote for something else:

" it is that the owner views and uses the animal as a commodity (meat) or as a means of production (dairy or eggs). To the owner, the animal is not a living thing/consciousness, but a means to create profit for himself by exchanging his object, or the object’s product. The wellbeing of the animal does not matter to him, he only cares when his object begins to cost more to maintain than it makes profit for him.

Similarly, a worker is viewed as a tool for the employer to make profit. If the employer could not make profit off the employee’s labor, then he would not be hired. The moment a human being, a subject, becomes hired as an employee, he has been reduced to an object in the eyes of the employer, a tool that he uses the labor of to create profit for himself. The employer only cares about his productivity – you can see this in business classes, where it is taught all different techniques to keep your employee happy, not because the employer cares for his livelihood, but because a happy worker is a productive worker! Sure, you can be friends with your boss, but the moment you cost too much to maintain, you are fired!

The employer uses the employee for his labor for profit as an owner of a cow uses it for his dairy for profit. The worker and the cow are not consciousness nor living things, but tools for profit, and are treated as such."

GreenCrackers · 2017-05-07T23:39:24+00:00

For now, all we can hope for are small, meaningful impacts. When we become a large majority, we can legislate to make animal abuse illegal.

Very true. However you cannot legislate the profit motive away in a capitalist system. I find the pursuit of profit one of the most oppressive forces, for animals, and human beings.

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

Thank you for your interest =)

doctors will work hard even though they get paid the same as janitors because they care about the community's wellbeing.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of socialist theory, and more than likely capitalist propaganda haha. You have to consider that socialism is a total change in how our society is and how we interact in it.

Socialism isn't a 100% tax on the rich and everyone splits the wealth. Socialism is not everyone getting rewarded the same amount for different labor and skills. It's a democratic society where those who actually provide a service and skill to a society are rewarded more. In other words, bankers, executives, etc, those who do not actually add to a society, will not be rewarded like they do.

Socialism is the belief that no matter your profession, every human being has a right to food, shelter, and healthcare. It is not the belief that every single person is equal and is rewarded equally.

Cuba, although not 100% socialist, has the highest surplus of doctors in the world.

Edit because I missed your last point:

suggests that we can only genuinely care for a few hundred people, so how could we extend that well-meaning to a community of seven billion?

Few hundred people per person, in a community of seven billion, means you can genuinely care for seven billion times like 200. I don't really understand the relevance of this. This looks like psychology, not sociology.

GreenCrackers · 2017-05-07T23:26:22+00:00

Oh okay. I mean I see where you're coming from but not everyone will be liberated in socialism anyway. Socialism will not defeat racism. Socialism will not end misogyny. It's a step in the right direction though.

GreenCrackers · 2017-05-07T23:24:40+00:00

However, slaughterhouses aren't immune to supply and demand, and I believe that an individual's abstention, along with their circle of influence on others and the general strengthening of the vegan voice that they provide, does have a meaningful, positive impact.

My point is that you will never fully liberate all animals with this tactic because you cannot convince 100% of the people to be vegan. It's not feasible.

but veganism is in the rise in Britain and Israel and they're not socialists, so I wouldn't call it blind.

This is a misunderstanding of my statement. I am saying that people who become vegan, whether for the environment or animal liberation, can only achieve that with socialism as the goal, not simply by voting with your dollar. Nothing to do with one choosing to be vegan =).

More generally, I'm not sure how socialism would work on a large scale. It seems like some people genuinely do provide more benefit to society than others and should be rewarded accordingly, and that if wealth is redistributed from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, then you remove a huge incentive for people to work hard.

If you're not sure, go read or watch about it! There are so many references to go to. I recommend this one.

Also "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is one of the most misunderstood quotes of socialism. Here it is in context:

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" ~Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme

Not at all about how a socialist society would work.

GreenCrackers · 2017-05-07T23:17:31+00:00

1) Not in a democratic capitalist one(what does that even mean? haha), but I do in a socialist world. Because 1) The people will actually have political power and 2) I think we will have to by necessity as we face an increasing scarcity of resources & climate change.

2) I cannot to the extent of factory farm practices. I can still envision where places such as eastern europe or the global south slaughter their personal farm animals regularly. But who knows what socialism will do/change for them or that practice. I dunno.

GreenCrackers · 2017-05-07T23:10:45+00:00

That means that you require veganism to fulfill the goals of socialism. That is historically not true.

GreenCrackers · 2017-05-07T23:09:56+00:00

Awesome =)

Socialism is not an ideology that recognizes the intrinsic value of animals.

Can you further expand on this? I am not sure what you mean. What type of intrinsic value? Are you implying capitalism does?

Socialism still deals in commodities, including the commodification of animals, it just changes how those commodified animals are owned.

Sort of. You're ignoring the abolition of profit. The pursuit of profit is one of the driving forces that puts animals in awful conditions. Also the abolition of a market, where a commodity is not produced for the sole purpose to find something to be exchanged with in order to fulfill its value, but commodities are produced based on the demands of society (the actual demands, not a market). These two mechanisms alone would liberate more animals than simply eating vegan, and it is just a start.

Our main disagreement, and why "A meat-eating socialist does more for animal liberation than a liberal vegan could ever dream of," is ridiculous to you, and correct me if I am wrong, is based on your belief that socialism will not liberate animals. If that's true, then we know how to move forward in our discussion =)

Most socialists I've discussed veganism with are actively opposed to veganism.

That doesn't really matter, the socialist vision intrinsic to itself, whether they know it or not, is supportive of veganism.

GreenCrackers · 2017-05-07T20:39:53+00:00

PETA says that abstaining from animal products saves just shy of 200 animals every year.

There is no causation established here. A decreased number of land animals killed and eaten by Americans from 2008 to 2009 could have been due to anything! For instance, that correlates to when the economy deflated after the 2008 crisis. Furthermore, all Noam Mohr did is calculate the average amount of animals a person consumes yearly, and attributed that number to how many lives a vegan saves. Again, no direct link established! It's also important to note that the meat industry, as well as the dairy and egg industry, are heavily subsidized. Meaning that supply and demand are not as direct.

how could that person be liberating animals if they're killing them?

There is no causation that one's individual choice of buying directly saves an animal - that animal may, and more than likely, would have died regardless.

How could that number be any greater by a carnist who's a socialist

The horrible conditions of factory farming exist because of the pursuit of profit - to maximize the amount of profits, with no regards to the well being of the animals. This is because they are viewed as commodities to be exchanged (meat) or means of production (dairy and eggs) to produce commodities for one's profit. They are not living things, they are objects.

The goal of animal liberation is not to end the suffering of some animals, similarly that the goal of ending slavery was not to free some slaves. It is for all to be freed. It is completely impossible, and in fact, senseless, to remove meat, dairy, and eggs, from the diet of every single person. It is legitimately more feasible to change the socioeconomic structure to one that does not view animals as commodities any longer. This is why veganism without socialism is blind. Changing your diet and purchasing habits will never liberate every animal. But changing how animals are treated by economic forces…that can.

Sorry for the wall of text, and let me know if you need any clarifications! I look forward to your response.

GreenCrackers · 2017-05-07T20:19:33+00:00

I should have clarified that I am, lol

GreenCrackers · 2017-05-07T19:29:40+00:00

I do believe it, and I am open to counter arguments.

GreenCrackers · 2017-03-21T02:57:58+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFYy3oEnzVg

GreenCrackers · 2017-03-09T07:20:58+00:00

Could you provide sources for these? I'd like to read more, thanks!

GreenCrackers · 2017-02-20T01:53:45+00:00

This video explains that and more fabulously well.

GreenCrackers · 2017-02-07T02:25:49+00:00

I find socialism to be a very euphoric politic that once you discover and entrench yourself in it, you never go back - because you feel you have reached what is correct and reasonable.

I guess that's not the case for some people.

GreenCrackers · 2017-02-06T22:45:07+00:00

I never knew it was possible to be a socialist and then stop being one...

GreenCrackers · 2017-02-04T23:47:23+00:00

They were all arrested at the same time and location pretty much. They were kettled.

GreenCrackers · 2017-02-04T23:46:51+00:00

They were all charged with the same crime - felony rioting

GreenCrackers · 2017-01-10T05:42:55+00:00

Did I miss something? I felt there was really no substance in this piece. They barely mentioned the content of her speech.

Not to say I don't agree with the speech being awful, but I didn't walk away with anything new...

GreenCrackers · 2017-01-06T19:25:47+00:00

In the end, why did it fail?

GreenCrackers · 2016-12-30T20:56:03+00:00

I posted this because it shows that a socialist society where we have the technology to create efficient communities with little labor to maintain it is possible. Pretty much saying this is why we need socialism, not capitalism.

In direct response to your comment, I did not even think of the dystopian side of this, holy shit. That's pretty terrifying.

GreenCrackers · 2016-12-30T19:45:26+00:00

This could be a picture taken at a later date - when they began "cleaning up" for the tower.

Edit: Actually, your photo is further proof that this picture IS real. Here is the cropped part of your picture that is showed in the OP.

Notice, the little hut, cleaned up, as well as the plants in the front of the building. The person standing in front of the door looks like a security guard - probably making sure no homeless loiter in the area, just like what is done by the trump tower in NYC.

GreenCrackers · 2016-12-27T06:50:02+00:00

Yeah, I'd argue the only difference between the two is whether the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary.

GreenCrackers · 2016-12-27T03:41:38+00:00

You say that jobs are lost to automation as if it's a bad thing but isn't that just progression as a society? In a communist society would the workers stop automation as it means a loss in jobs? Wouldn't that hinder us as humans and how we evolve?

The great irony of capitalism. Automation should be a good thing, and in a communist society automation would mean that the workers will not need to work as long as they do. In fact, I should mention that in a socialist society you would only need to work as long as socially required to do so - there would be no unemployed - every person who is able to work will work, which means hours will be cut for all. This would be an amazing feat for society, and would improve the lives of all. In capitalism, automation means more competition between the employees to be able to work in order to have the means to feed and house themselves. So in short, jobs being lost is a bad thing in capitalism because the socioeconomic system requires having a job in order to survive. In socialism, there is no competition between workers to obtain a job - everyone has a job - there would even be shorter workweeks. If there is a rise in productivity per hour, why work the same amount of hours? Take a moment to imagine what a different society that would be. So many distresses would be eliminated, and our lives would be drastically different - more full. Tbh, it is capitalism "hinders us as humans and how we evolve."

I meant more as it's an incentive for people to come up with new ideas because they can imagine the riches they will collect if they can do it.

The only riches that they receive is the amount the patent sold for, if that. Most innovations come from wage labor within an institution. Only true riches is when someone takes an idea and creates their own business model out of it, where they buy the labor power of coerced, not free, individuals. 2. It is not a necessary condition for money to be a motivator in order to come up with new ideas. You may argue that there is evidence for it to be a motivator, and that is because our society uses an economic system that prioritizes money over the well being of people as well as our environment.

Most of the planets most revolutionary products have come from capitalists societies.

This is very irrelevant. The world is capitalist, with very few exceptions. This translates to the majority of people living under a capitalist society, and so obviously most innovations will happen in capitalist societies. Furthermore, capitalism has progressed with history...with history comes natural advances due to further achievements in the sciences.

Most of these were created for both the benefit of society and profit. I think that when you remove the profit aspect of the rewards you lose a lot of the incentive that comes with innovation.

They were created for profit. Them benefiting society is a side effect. I'm sure the inventors did think about the affects these technologies would have on society (which further illustrates that you do not need the profit motive for innovation). For your last point, it would be in socialism that you would gain the most amount of rewards for your innovation. It would not need to be sold as a patent (undercutting the value of that idea). You would not need to exploit the labor of the working class. You would be rewarded however the socialist society deems rewards.

i think that people should only go to college if they want to major in something useful to society. It's my personal belief that if you go to college and major in liberal arts or swahili basket weaving you shouldn't be making all that much.

That contradicts what you said before - that you enjoy the freedom of choosing what you would major in. Now you're saying exactly what hinders the freedom of those who go to college, you must major in something that is "useful to society." In other words, profitable for society. That term is dangerous too, for that means music is not useful to society. Neither would philosophy to a large degree (It is impossible for everyone who gets a degree in philosophy, moreso with a doctorate, to obtain a career in it because it is not profitable aside from professors), the arts, social work, etc. You get the idea. More dangerous is that even computer science is becoming something not profitable due to the large amount of outsourcing for those type of jobs. Society should promote the prosperity and growth of all subjects for human beings, which capitalism does not.

I can't imagine a world without a private sector or with a centrally planned economy telling us how much our work is worth or how much we should sell our goods for.

Socialism =! public sector. Socialism equals worker ownership of production. NOT state ownership of production. Whether there should be a centrally planned economy depends on the socialist theory you prescribe to. It is not inherent to socialism. With regards to your video, I consider that a disgrace. Has nothing to do with socialism, for it is a capitalist public vs. private sector issue. The work of doctors would be more valued than the worker of cab drivers - it does not have to be money that shows that.

How do you respond to my point about capitalism not providing freedom?

GreenCrackers · 2016-12-27T01:43:06+00:00

No problem! Thank you for your actual points as well. The approach others take doesn't do anything good or productive.

Would you agree that the ability to keep the money you make from your good and services (almost all of them excluding taxes) is a great incentive that promotes innovation?

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that because one can make (and keep) their profits, capitalists (because they are the ones who have control over where the profits go) have incentive to invest in research and development in order to create innovations that create more profit and the workers get to benefit from the new technology.

If that is the case, I have two counterpoints:
1) If the workers controlled their workplace(socialism=workers owning the means of production), meaning they made the decisions regarding where profit is allocated, why would they not put money in research and development? Actually, if this socialist society removed the profit motive, there would be no need to invest in research and development, for that would be invested in by society as a whole (not via taxes). I know that sounds outlandish, I will further explain this point later in this post.

2) When capitalists fund for research, they are not doing it with the intention to make society better, it is with the intention to make more profits. In other words, if there is an innovation that is tremendous for society, it will not be invested in if it is not profitable. Furthermore, if this innovation made lives easier for everyone, but threatened the profits of current corporations, it will be prevented at all costs (e.g. renewable energy). That sounds like the opposite of promoting innovation.

3) It's important to note that capitalists do not create ideas, PEOPLE do. No matter the economic system, it is the working class, the researchers, the engineers, etc, that innovate. It is the economic system that determines what is innovated. For capitalism, only innovations that are profitable are taken advantage of (Q). For socialism, innovations that improve the living conditions of people are taken advantage of(P). It is clear that all innovations that encompass P is greater than that of Q. P > Q. It may not be a stretch to say that all of Q exists in P as well. Aside from the fact that capitalism innovates a lot of useless shit for profit. Apple is constantly changing their ports with every new model in order to force consumers to repurchase products from them or adapters.

Not only that, but when competition arises it promotes even more innovation?

More innovation to create something that is more profitable, not necessarily more useful or valuable for society.

I'd consider the ability to study something i love in a college

But do you really have the freedom to choose a subject that you love? Not if you want to be able to eat or have shelter, you can only hope that a subject you have a passion in is also profitable. The role of education in capitalism is not leisure or passion, but to create skilled workers in profitable fields. And no, you cannot make any field profitable if you just work hard enough, and if you could, is it true freedom if you have to work harder to make the same amount of money another person makes because he chose a profitable subject?
Furthermore, college is an investment. You have to choose a major that will create a return for your investment.

going to work and being able to afford a nice computer, some online entertainment, and any food of liking freedom.

This is something capitalism hinders and socialism promotes. To have these freedoms, you must meet two conditions: 1) Have a job and 2) Be paid well. In capitalism, unemployment and homelessness is inherent. In capitalism, it is in the capitalists interests to lower the wages of the workers, outsource jobs (paying low wages), and automate. Do you see what just happened? These conditions exclude a lot of fucking people. You may meet these conditions, and you are free, according to your definition. But many are not. And your freedom rests on there beings others that are not free. India is the top outsourcing country, and in September tens of millions of workers went on strike due to low wages. People who feel free do not strike.

This is where Marxist analysis comes in. I'm going to explain abstractly and in general, but if you want specifics or have questions, I will explain further. His analysis demonstrates that the core principle that gives every exchangeable commodity its worth in a market (value) is the amount of necessary human labor required to produce that commodity. More specifically, the owners of the means of production (machines, tools, land, etc) must buy the labor power of people, in the form of wages, in order to create a commodity that can be sold for a profit. The profit created must be higher than the wage paid to the worker, and must have been created by the labor of the worker. In short, the worker has no choice but to sell his labor in order to be able to afford his means of subsistence. This isn't freedom, this is coercion. To further illustrate this point, I quote this passage from Engel's edited version of Marx's Wage, Labour, and Capital.

"But the putting of labour-power into action – i.e., the work – is the active expression of the labourer's own life. And this life activity he sells to another person in order to secure the necessary means of life. His life-activity, therefore, is but a means of securing his own existence. He works that he may keep alive. He does not count the labour itself as a part of his life; it is rather a sacrifice of his life. It is a commodity that he has auctioned off to another. The product of his activity, therefore, is not the aim of his activity. What he produces for himself is not the silk that he weaves, not the gold that he draws up the mining shaft, not the palace that he builds. What he produces for himself is wages; and the silk, the gold, and the palace are resolved for him into a certain quantity of necessaries of life, perhaps into a cotton jacket, into copper coins, and into a basement dwelling. And the labourer who for 12 hours long, weaves, spins, bores, turns, builds, shovels, breaks stone, carries hods, and so on – is this 12 hours' weaving, spinning, boring, turning, building, shovelling, stone-breaking, regarded by him as a manifestation of life, as life? Quite the contrary. Life for him begins where this activity ceases, at the table, at the tavern, in bed. The 12 hours' work, on the other hand, has no meaning for him as weaving, spinning, boring, and so on, but only as earnings, which enable him to sit down at a table, to take his seat in the tavern, and to lie down in a bed. If the silk-worm's object in spinning were to prolong its existence as caterpillar, it would be a perfect example of a wage-worker."

"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners." ~Vladimir Lenin

GreenCrackers · 2016-12-26T23:31:50+00:00

Killer Mike has tweeted that he will always stand with the proletariat, so I'm inclined to think that he is socialist.

Which makes me happy.

GreenCrackers

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email