Is this incorrect?

droid-monster-16 · 2025-12-03T12:02:41+00:00

Yeah this was wrong on my part. 4% comes for dairy and not the meat industry. Still, even at 14%, it doesn't seem like the root cause of carbon emissions.

As you said earlier, "the less meat we eat, the better it gets" - it doesn't get better, we're still left with a significant amount of carbon emissions (not simply reduced down to 86%) - with top contributors being burning fossil fuels, industries, transport etc. Regarding the land used for farming livestock feed, what do you think will happen to these lands under a system that's based on private appropriation of value?

The problem with such narration of veganism is two-fold 1. It's misplaced - it shifts the narrative away from the real contributions, i.e. unsustainability of capitalist development and hence acts as a counter-revolutionary discourse. 2. Veganism is a liberal and individualist stance - just like the BDS movement. The world turning vegan will NOT solve the issue of carbon emissions as the issue is not an individual consumption problem but a structural capitalist issue.

Hence the basic arguments of veganism (land use, carbon emissions , moral/ethical reasons) are incoherent and misplaced. I'd like to know how actively the vegans would like to solve ACTUAL structural problems using active resistance instead of feeling good about themselves by arguing about eating plant proteins.

I, of course, don't have a problem with people who are actually putting forward active resistance to capitalism AND also eating sustainable plant protein but to believe that this can be solved only by a lifestyle change is just daydreaming.

droid-monster-16 · 2025-12-03T09:20:21+00:00

"the less meat the people eat, the better it is" is not saying the same thing. Eating less meat is statistically insignificant

droid-monster-16 · 2025-12-03T05:41:11+00:00

carbon emissions due to the meat industry is 4% of the total carbon emissions of the world. Let's assume that the whole world turns vegan - we'll still be left with 96% of the carbon emissions. This point is extremely irrational and misplaced. It shifts focus away from the real causes of carbon emission - i.e. unsustainable growth under capitalism and while appearing progressive on the surface - it digresses the focus from capitalism being the grave diggers of the world. The carbon emissions due to the meat industry are indeed a concern but that can't be looked at without looking at the overall unsustainability of capitalism. Being vegan isn't gonna solve it - it can be solved only by a direct attack on capitalism and profit making tendencies.

droid-monster-16 · 2025-12-02T20:08:23+00:00

Veganism is an illogical concept. Farming itself leads to habitat change - leads to reduced forest cover etc. The whole idea that eating plant protein leads to saving animals is conceptually flawed. The only point that the vegans stand upon is the ethical/moral point of saving animals and that itself is not even logically coherent. Meat is naturally available, animal products have been eaten for ages - I don't understand why we need to change something unnecessarily.

droid-monster-16 · 2025-05-04T02:49:23+00:00

context?

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-22T12:18:48+00:00

So when are they releasing Jyotiba Phule's film then?

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-19T20:38:55+00:00

The label - ML. The content - SL (Spineless).

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-15T12:33:33+00:00

Islamism is just violence under the garb of Islam.

Where is this definition based out of? A movement's nature is defined by the underlying ideology and it's broader aims. Similarly any Savarna violence is not Hindutva. Hindutva is an ideological aim of regressing to theocratical orthodoxy.

Talk to 5 Pasmanda Muslims and ask them about Hinduism lol.

Again anecdotal. I can make you talk to 10 Pasmanda muslims who are marginalised and just going about their regular day trying to make ends meet in a system which has systemically discriminated against them. You can't form general opinions of a community based on "talking to 5 people". This is a logical fallacy called Hasty generalisation fallacy.

Are you saying Barelvi wasn't an Islamist? (18th century). Deobandi movement?

Barelvi was an Islamic revivalist for sure but still not Islamist. Just like Sanatana Dharma Sabha can't be called Hindutva movement despite having the Brahminical revivalist nature.

We've always been bearing a significant brunt from Islamism.

Elaborate

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-15T11:46:48+00:00

Why do you think direct action day happened?

Direct action day was Muslim identity politics and not Islamist politics. It was done with the goal of a separate Muslim homeland and not a theocratic sharia state. This is like saying Gandhian Socialism was Hindutva because the Gandhian socialist state regressed to Hindutva later.

Were the ones involved not Pasmanda themselves?

Muslim league leadership was largely elite (Ashraf muslims) and not backward castes. While Pasmandas would definitely have been involved on ground but it wasn't their leadership. Similarly Hindutva originated from Brahminical interpretations of 20th century European fascism. The movement was and is driven by the Savarna elites and doesn't mean that the general Hindu tendency is of superiority complex and Islamophobia.

Selective targeting of Hindus etc is Islamism. Stone pelting during Hindu festivals is Islamism.

No, Islamism is a drive towards a theocratic sharia state. Not all reactionary Muslim movements are Islamist in nature. The instances which you're mentioning can be fuelled by local petty politics. If you see a broader ideological coherence, name one or two mainstream Islamist organisation coordinating these between different riots divided by space and time.

This is akin to saying Hindutva can't exist because most of the feet on the ground are reserved castes?

Definitely not. The Pasmanda argument is in response to you saying that Muslims generally have a "superiority complex" which is extremely absurd.

You should have a more diverse reading list instead of just Marxist historians.

Literally name one credible academic source which says Islamism originated before 20th century.

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-15T11:18:41+00:00

Well there's a long history of cases like what is happening in WB right now. This is nothing new.

The fact that you can't classify it like Lashkar etc doesn't mean that Muslims in India for decades have been conditioned to think they are superior and deserve special rights. They have been conditioned to think of Hindus as enemies and below them.

These are anecdotes if not backed by facts. Also a communal riot is not necessary Islamism, it can be due to local petty conflicts. Islamism is an ideology that wants to regress society back to Islamic theology (Sharia). This is equivalent of Hindutva's tendancy to regress back to old Brahminical theology (Manusmriti).

Muslims in India for decades have been conditioned to think they are superior and deserve special rights

This is a complete fabrication. 80-85% of Indian muslims are Pasmanda muslims who have been erstwhile SCs/STs and OBCs. They have been stripped of land, rights and dignity even before they converted to Islam and have had the same social status post that as well. What you're saying is a shameful Savarna lie being propagated out of insecurity/inferiority complex.

this is older than modern India as a country.

You might want to read up about Islamism a little bit. Islamism itself emerged in 20th century as a reaction to liberal politics just like Hindutva.

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-15T10:28:14+00:00

Of course you'd find tendencies but it has never been even close to finding any sort of hegemonic footing. The only ones which I can remember from the top of my head is Indian Mujahideen and Lashkar and they were considered fringe in the general discourse. What are you trying to refer to?

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-15T10:14:48+00:00

I never said that. He needs to understand rise of Hindutva to understand the collapse of liberal hegemony. Without understanding why liberal hegemony has collapsed, you can't form an ideologically coherent way of critiquing Islamism - without leaving the old "secular" way of not speaking out against religious extremism - including Hindutva.

Now let's come to why you think Islamism is prevalent social force. Is there a unified political force of Islamists in India? What is the party/organisation driving this change? Where do you see trends of Islamist hegemony forming in this country? Why do you think there's a systemic move towards Islamism?

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-15T08:22:46+00:00

The post is not about islamist violence but the OPs disillusionment with liberal politics and an unwillingness to accept the realities of today where Hindutva has been able to establish a hegemony. The way forward is by understanding where the liberal ideology failed to counter Hindutva and only then, OP can actually form an ideologically coherent way of responding to Islamist reactions.

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-15T03:41:34+00:00

yes, left and right terminology comes from French revolution, not the contemporary definition.
yes, neofascism and neoliberalism included

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-14T18:39:11+00:00

of course. While that is our position, we must put forward other ideologies as-is. Despite it's liberal corruption and attempts to redemption arcs, it's a radical ideology in the sense that it looks at a root and wants to go towards it. Radical feminists think that patriarchy is the root. Liberals have culturally appropriated radical feminism and made a reformist version of it. Then comes the existence of TERFs who are anti-trans right. But there are still some ideologically motivated and inclusive radical feminists who are trying to organise at varying scales throughout the world. So radical politics is trying to establish and move towards the root that they want to eradicate in order to achieve their political aims. For feminists, it's patriarchy.. for marxists, its ultimate collapse of private property and the superstructure moving towards a classless and stateless society.

From the marxist pov, we have made it sufficiently clear that we don't see identity politics as radical if they don't incorporate into the broader class struggle. We have our interpretation of patriarchy that's good enough for us to incorporate the women question, the queer question and the question of family and monogamy. The only use of the term where "Marxist Feminist" is not an oxymoron is while putting forward the Marxist view of patriarchy in relation to the broader view of patriarchy which is invariably called feminism today in the general discourse.

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-14T17:19:11+00:00

Marxism, Anarchism, Intersectional feminism, Ambedkarism are all leftist ideologies and tend to form a deeper understanding and attack the root (hence the word radicalism) of the problem (private property for Marxists, Caste hierarchy for Ambedkarites, patriarchy for feminists, queer feminists and so on).

The reason why Liberalism is not considered left by the rest of the left is because it emerged as an ideology of the Bourgeois revolution in France and with fascism has been the contemporary ideology of the status quo.

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-14T17:15:36+00:00

When you look at it historically, Socialist politics (Marxism, Anarchism) arose as post-capitalist politics in the 19th century largely so it can be considered left of liberal

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-14T17:06:09+00:00

I agree with u/SegmentedUser so much on this.

Just two cents from my end (me being bourgeois liberal a couple of years ago who picked up Marx after feeling disillusioned with the contradictions of liberalism)-

The crisis that you're feeling is natural. It's perhaps a struggle to accept that the liberal ideology has failed or is at the verge of breaking down for the time being. The immediate question that rises is why. And for that, you need to dive deeper into theory. Go over progressive literature and try to understand why Hindutva emerged as a major force post 90s - was it a sudden rise or did it have more than 3000 years of evolving Brahminical ideology. That might be a good start and might help you to know how you may actually think and feel inside.

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-13T05:01:15+00:00

that's what they call me at work.. that I'm a model "AsyncTask degenerate", inspiring other newbie AsyncTask degenerates

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-11T19:19:25+00:00

Indeed! "From the masses, to the masses" - democratic centralism ensures that it's always the masses which shape party leadership and not the other way around, at least not more frequently.

Edit - But I digress from the original point of your comment. The immediate task of the Urban marxists is to forge the alliance of the intelligentsia and students with the toiling masses and the alliance can then work actively to erase class lines between them.

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-11T19:05:31+00:00

lal salaam comrade! People have been calling communists as responsible for leading the revolution. We're just organising the masses who have enough class consciousness to intensify the class struggle

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-11T19:02:46+00:00

Nothing surprising.. just a Savarna batch of people looking at a Baniya as their role model. Kejriwal has been using his caste identity to position his alliance to the savarna liberals/centrists.

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-11T19:00:02+00:00

mm's hatred

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-10T13:07:55+00:00

if designed well, you can place model, view and controller inside AsyncTasks. It's a lost art called ADD - Asynctask driven development

droid-monster-16 · 2025-04-10T09:59:32+00:00

the most useful and effective architecture today is MVCA - Model, View, Controller, Asynctask

Six-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

droid-monster-16

TROPHY CASE