Environmentalism has been trying to convince people to be concerned for their own sake for a very long time. Doing so requires self-concern as well as empathy for the rest of humanity as well as indirect empathy for the planet as a whole. Right, left, or centrist, humans show an affinity for self-indulgence, comfort, simplicity, and luxury. I’ve been undercover in slaughter houses and factory farms. A substantial portion of those in the US are staffed with leased prison labor, guys who’ve already had questionable morality regarding behavior towards fellow humans, now making a $1/hr. The non-compliant cow or chicken is now an object of frustration to vent their fury. There’s no concern for its welfare because the concept of concern does not exist. They’re pissed, the gratification of punching or kicking it is good enough. Not to mention, there’s some mean sons of bitches who enjoy the work. Psychologically healthy, no. But if you enjoy the power no amount of pointing out why that’s unhealthy is going to make them consider a career change.
It’s the same with over-consumption. The US has a massive problem with obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Plenty of people are aware of this, know they’re doing it to themselves, but will kill themselves with indulgence because it’s pleasurable. Also creates a whole medical industry that can then sell cure-alls, surgery, and profiteer off human’s desire to get more by doing less. Hell, I’m smoking a cigarette while typing this. I’m well aware of the dangers, just like I’m aware I drink more than I should.
I do not believe there’s a way to convince people to act in their own best interest, much less broader interests that they can see no direct benefit from and would consider an imposition. On the flip side, humans are also free to do what they choose with their bodies. If someone wants to eat or drink themselves to death, I can find it tragic, sad, attempt to convince them otherwise, but when does it become my place (or the government’s) to stop them? As you pointed out, you couldn’t legislate veganism, people would just break the law like they do with illegal drugs or their own sexuality when morality legislation starts defining who two consenting adults can or cannot bang.
Environmental concerns are a slow and steady progression. Sometimes it comes from early education, and dare I say indoctrination (Captain Planet and Ferngully had a notable influence on a lot of the kids who grew up exposed to them in spite of how their parents may have lived). Sometimes it is just a hard crackdown and forbidding the use of something (DDT, CFCs, lead-based paints and gasolines). The debate on when, where, and what is worth overriding an individual’s right to choose is a tough one, as is convincing an adult that giving up something that brings them pleasure, comfort, status, or luxury is in the best interest of themselves or a greater cause, because they will often fight back or sneak around to get what they want.
Still, my main concern is that environmentalism, animal welfare, and consumerism have been topics addressed by leftists, but recently it’s become increasingly “good enough” or “that’s not important now, well half-ass it and deal with it later”. If we don’t use this moment to make sure all our concerns are being addressed, we’ll end up swinging the pendulum back in favor of humans above all and the issues we’re causing environmentally will continue to exist, eventually pushing us to a point where our prosperity is compromised and nothing was gained.
Plenty of people are aware of this, know they’re doing it to themselves, but will kill themselves with indulgence because it’s pleasurable.
And why would they do that? Because they’re suffering. People will kill themselves with overeating and drugs and whatever else because they want the pain to stop and they’ll accept anything that can distract them from their suffering - even for a moment.
That’s why obesity and alcoholism and addiction and overdoses are things that mostly afflict the poor. They want the pain to stop.
That’s why we say “that’s not important now, well half-ass it and deal with it later." We have to deal with it later, it’s impossible to deal with it right now. You aren’t going to convince suffering people that they should deprive themselves of simple pleasures.
You have to end the suffering first. If you try to override everyone’s right to choose without ending it, they’ll eat you.
Just out of curiosity, what do you propose we do with the middle class and wealthy who are doing all these things but not impoverished? Trump’s obese, Hegseth is drunk, and Elon’s a junkie. Suffering from moral decrepitude but definitely not impoverished. I also question the poverty of the middle class. While many live below the poverty line, many are only impoverished because they live beyond their means for the sake of possessions over their health. They may be impoverished financially but that’s a self-made situation due to poverty of character.
Speed running a rush to abolish poverty now without considering the future cost to the environment is going to be a short term pat on the back and pawns the cost off on people who don’t even exist yet. You burn through your resources like forests, overload the utilities infrastructure, over extend the available water supply, and disrupt the ecosystem because it’s more important to just get it over and done with, and you create Dust Bowls that blow all your topsoil into the Gulf of Mexico, backflow of sewage and run-off into the watershed, dry up the watershed, and build communities nobody wants to live in because as it turns out, most people don’t want to live in concrete jungles that have no natural spaces relatively close by. How about making sure the new communities have public transportation, are designed to discourage single occupancy driving and encourage walking or biking? Do we build up or do we downsize homes, fewer 2000+sqft “starter homes” that take up the entire lot, or more tiny houses with some sort of outdoor plot to encourage gardening or at least being outside.
Not everybody who is impoverished is suffering from escapist addictions, not everyone who’s an escapist addict is suffering from financial poverty. Elevating people out of poverty also won’t get every impoverished person to give up their addictions, many will continue to indulge, they’ll just have better accommodations to indulge in. And the wealthy, as well as the middle class members who think they’re wealthy like the elite but are in fact just living on credit cards, raising the impoverished out of their state and into at least the bottom rung of the middle class is going to nothing to curb their excesses and consumption. If anything, the class system is so designed to punch down there will be resentment that someone was raised to near their same level. Look at the hatred for the minimum social services we already have. We have people who rely on welfare that support candidates that promise to abolish welfare to prevent others from getting it, literally cutting off their own noses to spite their faces.
China should be an example of why massive social change and speed running the creation of a middle class at the expense of the environment should not be replicated by their model. Study it, learn from it, what worked great, what has didn’t work, and what had unforeseen consequences. Otherwise you damage the planet in ways that will never heal in dozens of lifetimes, and you’re passing the next environmental impact on to other countries because you are importing basic resources to sustain your system as well as try and go green to offset the climate change and pollution you already contributed to, which again, requires importing natural resources that are not easy on the environment to extract. We’ve seen the effects of the rise of the middle class in the west and China, and are better poised to do it cleaner than either was when they did theirs. If we chose not to it’s not out of a love for humanity, because we’re clearly not concerned with the wave of humanity that has to inherit the mess.
I’d also point out that as far as we know, we are the only animals that think of suffering in the manner we do, but since we can recognize it we recognize it’s affects on other living things. Causing non-human suffering in the name of alleviating human suffering a moral hardline I cannot get on board with. We cannot eliminate suffering because it has not singular cause and some of it is self-inflicted, people can be given every opportunity to escape or be helped but will not. We at least attempt harm reduction in all our actions.
Just out of curiosity, what do you propose we do with the middle class and wealthy who are doing all these things but not impoverished?
They actually demonstrate class antagonism. The wealthy, more specifically the bourgeoisie, are antagonistic to the interests of the working class. The suffering and pain they inflict on the workers that are forced to kill their meat is actually a reflection of their class antagonism. They have no empathy for the workers that suffer from their meat consumption, because their class status is predicated on exploiting workers. If they had empathy, they wouldn’t be wealthy.
Then there’s the so-called “middle class”, which are people who are boureoisified by owning property and investments and small businesses and making high wages. Their class status is mixed, but has a bourgeois character because at least part of their wealth comes from exploitation. Bourgeoisification aligns their class interests against workers, and just like the bourgeoisie, they have no empathy for the people that they exploit.
These classes actually can’t be convinced by the human welfare arguments I’m making, because they don’t care about humans as a whole. They care about themselves and their class cohort and their class interests. They’d actually be more easily convinced by the animal welfare arguments and pure environmentalist arguments that you’re making, because they might at least care for non-human animals and because there’s no class antagonism.
The only “solution” for them is to end their classes and end class antagonism entirely. Once there is no more class antagonism, no one will want to make anyone else kill animals for them. As long as they are wealthy, they will eat flesh.
They’d actually be more easily convinced by the animal welfare arguments and pure environmentalist arguments that you’re making, because they might at least care for non-human animals and because there’s no class antagonism.
C’mon now. This thread is full of backlash from leftists and communists who have called me every name in the book for crazy as well as a “fascist misanthrope” for suggesting that non-human animals and the environment should have rights equal to humans. Individuals might love a favorite pet in their life, or the cuteness of penguins and pandas, but if I can’t convince other leftists of the value of animal and environmental rights, why would it work with conservatives. A substantial amount of them don’t believe in science or evolution, but base their claim to human superiority in notions of divine creation, to have dominion over the Earth. Suggesting animals have equal rights to their existence not only confronts their economic and social systems, it confronts one of the core beliefs they build their economic and social systems on.
I would also challenge the idea that people only cause non-human suffering in the pursuit of flesh for consumption. Sport hunting, the fur industry, and by-catch all cause suffering without consumption. People redirect their anger to those who can’t defend themselves, like beating a dog because one’s boss yelled at them. In the US we have a major issue with pets being used as hostages in domestic abuse situations because women’s shelters often only allow women and children. The abuser gets ahold of the pet, threatens or commits violence, and the woman returns to her abuser (side note, awareness of this is on the increase and there’s a lot of charitable organizations stepping in to help prevent it). Even “vegan” leather is a questionable commodity because it’s a by-product of the petroleum industry. The person wearing it might feel righteous but, well, the petroleum industry.
I do not think for a second the world is going to go vegan, nor that there’s an entirely harm-free solution to life. I also don’t think the world is going to quit doing as it does and go back to subsistence farming, nor is that even the right solution for the entirety of humanity. I do believe that harm reduction and mindful living are the key, and that is something we can teach and encourage.
But the next few of questions I would have for you- how do we deal with the “haves” of society that exploit, take, and refuse to abandon their class? You’re not going to get them to stop with appeals to reason, and they’re not going to sit back and watch their privileges be stripped without pushback. How do we achieve compliance? Do you really think most people would stop eating meat if they had to raise, slaughter, and process it themselves? Even in a cashless, barter and trade economy, the demand for meat will always exist and people will outsource it. They’d blackmarket it if you completely outlawed it
You do sound like a fascist misanthrope, because the logical conclusion of your argument is that humans are irredeemably evil and there is no hope.
I would also challenge the idea that people only cause non-human suffering in the pursuit of flesh for consumption.
I never expressed such an idea.
how do we deal with the “haves” of society that exploit, take, and refuse to abandon their class?
Well first we have to abolish their class. They’ll have to work for a living, like everyone else. That eliminates the class antagonism.
This of course means class war. I am not proposing appeals to reason, or some peaceful process where they just watch their privileges be stripped away. Compliance can only be achieved by a state repressing their class and reeducating them on their new class position in a society where they can no longer exploit workers.
Do you really think most people would stop eating meat if they had to raise, slaughter, and process it themselves?
I actually do. The majority of people don’t have the heart to raise and kill and mutilate, or even the stomach for it. Their empathy gets in the way. I think if everyone had to experience the entirety of the production process, rather than the commodity fetishism of just pretending the meat magically appears on store shelves, then the majority of them would choose alternatives. Then, once a majority stop eating meat, the minority will face social constraints for their filthy habit.
Unlike primitive barter-and-trade economies our food is not scarce. In a society where there’s always plenty of food and where people have to confront the non-human animals they must hurt and kill, they’d choose to eat plants. There are certainly people that can stomach killing animals for literally no reason, but they’re an extreme minority. They’d be repressed through social stigma, and perhaps even laws, but the majority of people would already have given up meat and would go along with it.
But we have to address the class antagonism first, and along with it food scarcity and commodity fetishism.
Indeed, you failed to address it, focusing exclusively on meat.
Compliance can only be achieved by a state repressing their class and reeducating them on their new class position in a society where they can no longer exploit workers.
And I’m the fascist? You propose an authoritarian state ideology and not only are you fighting the bourgeoisie, you’d have to fight me over the fact that I would not tolerate your state control any more than I would tolerate their state. Would the state tolerate my constant antagonism that your system is not doing enough for the environment, attempting to rally others to oppose its tolerances, or would that be supressed?
The majority of people don’t have the heart to raise and kill and mutilate, or even the stomach for it.
Yet you think there’s enough of them to wage a class war and suppress the consumers? Or is this revolution achieved by outsourcing the slaughter to professional killers like soldiers, to pretend the classless system magically appears in society?
Misanthropic, no. I believe that your notion of what a “state” is or should be seeks to overextend the capacity of human social systems to function in a society; simply, you cannot create a state with hundreds of millions of individuals and expect unity without resorting to authoritarian tyranny because you end up valuing the state more than the individuals that comprise it. I don’t believe that humanity is irredeemably evil, I believe most humans recognize cruelty, harm, exploitation, and suffering but chose to ignore it for a variety of reasons, usually self-gratification or satisfaction. That is what I would say roughly equates to “evil”. War waged on behalf of someone or something that cannot stand up for itself is generally seen as noble or virtuous, but war for any cause is a hell with a million variables. You will inevitably harm, maim, unhouse, traumatize, and kill things that you didn’t intend, possibly were even fight on behalf of.
Do you have the stomach to personally kill another human being in the pursuit of your goal? To look someone willing to fight you to the death for their right to maintain their class privilege? Would you do it if they were a senior citizen? A youth? Would you kill a parent willing to kill you in front of their kids? Or would you ask your state to do it on your behalf?
See, this is another reason they’re calling you a fascist. You fundamentally believe that people need to be suppressed in order to make them compliant, because a hundred million+ would never willingly work together to build a better society! This is a fascist idea, that humans aren’t cooperative because human nature is opposed to it.
That’s not how I see things. I know my class enemies need to be suppressed and reeducated, maybe liquidated, but I believe that working people will enthusiastically support abolition of class society once they understand their own material class interests as workers. Workers, aware of their own interests and place in history, would never support the existence of a society where they are exploited for the comfort of a few. Workers, as the vast majority of every society, will get to dictate their future.
I’ll never convince you over the internet, though. I’m just a string of text on your screen, a random encounter in the posting RPG. An NPC. Nothing I could ever say will reach you.
But as things get worse, and they’re going to get worse, you’re going to start looking for alternatives. I don’t need to win this argument, history will do it for me.
Do you have the stomach to personally kill another human being in the pursuit of your goal?
Non-human animals are innocent. My class enemies are not. That’s all I’ll say on the matter.
animal slaughter is traumatizing to the humans forced to do it for a living. Workers who slaughter for a living have higher rates of depression, anxiety, alcoholism, addiction, violent crime, and suicide.
They actually demonstrate class antagonism. The wealthy, more specifically the bourgeoisie, are antagonistic to the interests of the working class. The suffering and pain they inflict on the workers that are forced to kill their meat is actually a reflection of their class antagonism. They have no empathy for the workers that suffer from their meat consumption, because their class status is predicated on exploiting workers.
know my class enemies need to be suppressed and reeducated, maybe liquidated, but I believe that working people will enthusiastically support abolition of class society once they understand their own material class interests as workers. Workers, aware of their own interests and place in history, would never support the existence of a society where they are exploited for the comfort of a few.
Non-human animals are innocent. My class enemies are not. That’s all I’ll say on the matter.
You expect the workers of society to liquidate your enemies even after listing off why slaughter is class antagonism, yet you will not answer whether or not you are willing to do this yourself. Outsourcing this while knowing it’s going to traumatize those who have to do it is just another form of class antagonism, the exploitation of soldiers. The price you pay isn’t cash but the luxury of a clean conscience and the avoidance of brutality.
You fundamentally believe that people need to be suppressed in order to make them compliant
I know my class enemies need to be suppressed
You’re not making a strong case for me to stop thinking others will use suppression to achieve their goals when you “know” that people “need to be suppressed” in order to become compliant.
Human nature is not opposed to cooperation, the success of our species is entirely due to our ability to cooperate. What human nature is opposed to is single-mindedness, especially when the order of magnitude increases. Our cooperatives are messy. Individualism, free-thinking, and self-expression are our identity. We are self-aware animals who recognize that each other human is as self-aware as we are, or at least have the capacity to recognize that they are.
I oppose you because you believe non-human animals are innocent, but chose to be vegan because their slaughter is traumatizing to the humans who have to slaughter them. Yet you are willing to abide the liquidation of humans for the advancement of your vision of humanity but will not answer whether you will take direct responsibility for doing so or pass that trauma on to others. I oppose you because I think your responses highlight how easy it is for people to toss around labels of enemies regardless of whether they are actually a class enemy or a philosophical one, and would empower a state to do your dirty work.
I don’t need to win this argument, history will do it for me.
History never won anything, the people that participated in the events of their time are the ones who won or lost, lived or died, suffered or prospered. Again, this is why I oppose you, the belief something or someone else will “do it for you”. You get the benefits of the labor of everyone who came before you and that of the those in your time who take action in the present.
But as things get worse, and they’re going to get worse, you’re going to start looking for alternatives.
Why do you think I’m here? I see what is going on in the world around me. All fascists are authoritarian, not all authoritarians are fascist. The vast majority of people who are MAGA, Zionists, Nazis, Soviets, North Koreans, and Chinese do not directly participate in the suppression or repression of their enemies (however they define them) and none of those regimes define their “enemies” exactly the same. The only commonality is that responsibility for the initial suppression and eventual maintenance of the state through repression is passed on to authority.
I see the alternative you’re offering to our current system and reject it because the world is not black and white, this way or that way. I’m all in for the suppression of the wealthy, the bigots who would subjugate others based off immutable traits, and the radically religious who would impose their morality rather than keep it personal guidance. That is my personal definition of what makes someone an “enemy”. I’m in if that means we have to slug it out with them in the ugliest way possible, and I’m in for establishing a society that builds safeguards to attempt to prevent those beliefs and values from seizing power again, even if I think that is going to be a perpetual struggle of humanity. However, I will not engage in the trauma and suffering on behalf of others who are physically and mentally capable of participating just so they can enjoy the moral high ground, then expect to dictate their view of society once the obstacle is removed.
I think what you are suggesting exploits the physical revolutionaries to set-up a state guided by philosophical revolutionaries, all under the pretense of benefitting humanity. It empowers philosophy over people, a state for the sake of a state. Without taking part in the suppression or repression I question whether you would recognize when the state you’ve helped create has replaced class enemy with enemy of the state, or even bother to question it. Why should you, you’re just reaping the rewards and blissful ignorance of the actions of others in your favor.
Environmentalism has been trying to convince people to be concerned for their own sake for a very long time. Doing so requires self-concern as well as empathy for the rest of humanity as well as indirect empathy for the planet as a whole. Right, left, or centrist, humans show an affinity for self-indulgence, comfort, simplicity, and luxury. I’ve been undercover in slaughter houses and factory farms. A substantial portion of those in the US are staffed with leased prison labor, guys who’ve already had questionable morality regarding behavior towards fellow humans, now making a $1/hr. The non-compliant cow or chicken is now an object of frustration to vent their fury. There’s no concern for its welfare because the concept of concern does not exist. They’re pissed, the gratification of punching or kicking it is good enough. Not to mention, there’s some mean sons of bitches who enjoy the work. Psychologically healthy, no. But if you enjoy the power no amount of pointing out why that’s unhealthy is going to make them consider a career change.
It’s the same with over-consumption. The US has a massive problem with obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Plenty of people are aware of this, know they’re doing it to themselves, but will kill themselves with indulgence because it’s pleasurable. Also creates a whole medical industry that can then sell cure-alls, surgery, and profiteer off human’s desire to get more by doing less. Hell, I’m smoking a cigarette while typing this. I’m well aware of the dangers, just like I’m aware I drink more than I should.
I do not believe there’s a way to convince people to act in their own best interest, much less broader interests that they can see no direct benefit from and would consider an imposition. On the flip side, humans are also free to do what they choose with their bodies. If someone wants to eat or drink themselves to death, I can find it tragic, sad, attempt to convince them otherwise, but when does it become my place (or the government’s) to stop them? As you pointed out, you couldn’t legislate veganism, people would just break the law like they do with illegal drugs or their own sexuality when morality legislation starts defining who two consenting adults can or cannot bang.
Environmental concerns are a slow and steady progression. Sometimes it comes from early education, and dare I say indoctrination (Captain Planet and Ferngully had a notable influence on a lot of the kids who grew up exposed to them in spite of how their parents may have lived). Sometimes it is just a hard crackdown and forbidding the use of something (DDT, CFCs, lead-based paints and gasolines). The debate on when, where, and what is worth overriding an individual’s right to choose is a tough one, as is convincing an adult that giving up something that brings them pleasure, comfort, status, or luxury is in the best interest of themselves or a greater cause, because they will often fight back or sneak around to get what they want.
Still, my main concern is that environmentalism, animal welfare, and consumerism have been topics addressed by leftists, but recently it’s become increasingly “good enough” or “that’s not important now, well half-ass it and deal with it later”. If we don’t use this moment to make sure all our concerns are being addressed, we’ll end up swinging the pendulum back in favor of humans above all and the issues we’re causing environmentally will continue to exist, eventually pushing us to a point where our prosperity is compromised and nothing was gained.
And why would they do that? Because they’re suffering. People will kill themselves with overeating and drugs and whatever else because they want the pain to stop and they’ll accept anything that can distract them from their suffering - even for a moment.
That’s why obesity and alcoholism and addiction and overdoses are things that mostly afflict the poor. They want the pain to stop.
That’s why we say “that’s not important now, well half-ass it and deal with it later." We have to deal with it later, it’s impossible to deal with it right now. You aren’t going to convince suffering people that they should deprive themselves of simple pleasures.
You have to end the suffering first. If you try to override everyone’s right to choose without ending it, they’ll eat you.
Just out of curiosity, what do you propose we do with the middle class and wealthy who are doing all these things but not impoverished? Trump’s obese, Hegseth is drunk, and Elon’s a junkie. Suffering from moral decrepitude but definitely not impoverished. I also question the poverty of the middle class. While many live below the poverty line, many are only impoverished because they live beyond their means for the sake of possessions over their health. They may be impoverished financially but that’s a self-made situation due to poverty of character.
Speed running a rush to abolish poverty now without considering the future cost to the environment is going to be a short term pat on the back and pawns the cost off on people who don’t even exist yet. You burn through your resources like forests, overload the utilities infrastructure, over extend the available water supply, and disrupt the ecosystem because it’s more important to just get it over and done with, and you create Dust Bowls that blow all your topsoil into the Gulf of Mexico, backflow of sewage and run-off into the watershed, dry up the watershed, and build communities nobody wants to live in because as it turns out, most people don’t want to live in concrete jungles that have no natural spaces relatively close by. How about making sure the new communities have public transportation, are designed to discourage single occupancy driving and encourage walking or biking? Do we build up or do we downsize homes, fewer 2000+sqft “starter homes” that take up the entire lot, or more tiny houses with some sort of outdoor plot to encourage gardening or at least being outside.
Not everybody who is impoverished is suffering from escapist addictions, not everyone who’s an escapist addict is suffering from financial poverty. Elevating people out of poverty also won’t get every impoverished person to give up their addictions, many will continue to indulge, they’ll just have better accommodations to indulge in. And the wealthy, as well as the middle class members who think they’re wealthy like the elite but are in fact just living on credit cards, raising the impoverished out of their state and into at least the bottom rung of the middle class is going to nothing to curb their excesses and consumption. If anything, the class system is so designed to punch down there will be resentment that someone was raised to near their same level. Look at the hatred for the minimum social services we already have. We have people who rely on welfare that support candidates that promise to abolish welfare to prevent others from getting it, literally cutting off their own noses to spite their faces.
China should be an example of why massive social change and speed running the creation of a middle class at the expense of the environment should not be replicated by their model. Study it, learn from it, what worked great, what has didn’t work, and what had unforeseen consequences. Otherwise you damage the planet in ways that will never heal in dozens of lifetimes, and you’re passing the next environmental impact on to other countries because you are importing basic resources to sustain your system as well as try and go green to offset the climate change and pollution you already contributed to, which again, requires importing natural resources that are not easy on the environment to extract. We’ve seen the effects of the rise of the middle class in the west and China, and are better poised to do it cleaner than either was when they did theirs. If we chose not to it’s not out of a love for humanity, because we’re clearly not concerned with the wave of humanity that has to inherit the mess.
I’d also point out that as far as we know, we are the only animals that think of suffering in the manner we do, but since we can recognize it we recognize it’s affects on other living things. Causing non-human suffering in the name of alleviating human suffering a moral hardline I cannot get on board with. We cannot eliminate suffering because it has not singular cause and some of it is self-inflicted, people can be given every opportunity to escape or be helped but will not. We at least attempt harm reduction in all our actions.
They actually demonstrate class antagonism. The wealthy, more specifically the bourgeoisie, are antagonistic to the interests of the working class. The suffering and pain they inflict on the workers that are forced to kill their meat is actually a reflection of their class antagonism. They have no empathy for the workers that suffer from their meat consumption, because their class status is predicated on exploiting workers. If they had empathy, they wouldn’t be wealthy.
Then there’s the so-called “middle class”, which are people who are boureoisified by owning property and investments and small businesses and making high wages. Their class status is mixed, but has a bourgeois character because at least part of their wealth comes from exploitation. Bourgeoisification aligns their class interests against workers, and just like the bourgeoisie, they have no empathy for the people that they exploit.
These classes actually can’t be convinced by the human welfare arguments I’m making, because they don’t care about humans as a whole. They care about themselves and their class cohort and their class interests. They’d actually be more easily convinced by the animal welfare arguments and pure environmentalist arguments that you’re making, because they might at least care for non-human animals and because there’s no class antagonism.
The only “solution” for them is to end their classes and end class antagonism entirely. Once there is no more class antagonism, no one will want to make anyone else kill animals for them. As long as they are wealthy, they will eat flesh.
C’mon now. This thread is full of backlash from leftists and communists who have called me every name in the book for crazy as well as a “fascist misanthrope” for suggesting that non-human animals and the environment should have rights equal to humans. Individuals might love a favorite pet in their life, or the cuteness of penguins and pandas, but if I can’t convince other leftists of the value of animal and environmental rights, why would it work with conservatives. A substantial amount of them don’t believe in science or evolution, but base their claim to human superiority in notions of divine creation, to have dominion over the Earth. Suggesting animals have equal rights to their existence not only confronts their economic and social systems, it confronts one of the core beliefs they build their economic and social systems on.
I would also challenge the idea that people only cause non-human suffering in the pursuit of flesh for consumption. Sport hunting, the fur industry, and by-catch all cause suffering without consumption. People redirect their anger to those who can’t defend themselves, like beating a dog because one’s boss yelled at them. In the US we have a major issue with pets being used as hostages in domestic abuse situations because women’s shelters often only allow women and children. The abuser gets ahold of the pet, threatens or commits violence, and the woman returns to her abuser (side note, awareness of this is on the increase and there’s a lot of charitable organizations stepping in to help prevent it). Even “vegan” leather is a questionable commodity because it’s a by-product of the petroleum industry. The person wearing it might feel righteous but, well, the petroleum industry.
I do not think for a second the world is going to go vegan, nor that there’s an entirely harm-free solution to life. I also don’t think the world is going to quit doing as it does and go back to subsistence farming, nor is that even the right solution for the entirety of humanity. I do believe that harm reduction and mindful living are the key, and that is something we can teach and encourage.
But the next few of questions I would have for you- how do we deal with the “haves” of society that exploit, take, and refuse to abandon their class? You’re not going to get them to stop with appeals to reason, and they’re not going to sit back and watch their privileges be stripped without pushback. How do we achieve compliance? Do you really think most people would stop eating meat if they had to raise, slaughter, and process it themselves? Even in a cashless, barter and trade economy, the demand for meat will always exist and people will outsource it. They’d blackmarket it if you completely outlawed it
You do sound like a fascist misanthrope, because the logical conclusion of your argument is that humans are irredeemably evil and there is no hope.
I never expressed such an idea.
Well first we have to abolish their class. They’ll have to work for a living, like everyone else. That eliminates the class antagonism.
This of course means class war. I am not proposing appeals to reason, or some peaceful process where they just watch their privileges be stripped away. Compliance can only be achieved by a state repressing their class and reeducating them on their new class position in a society where they can no longer exploit workers.
I actually do. The majority of people don’t have the heart to raise and kill and mutilate, or even the stomach for it. Their empathy gets in the way. I think if everyone had to experience the entirety of the production process, rather than the commodity fetishism of just pretending the meat magically appears on store shelves, then the majority of them would choose alternatives. Then, once a majority stop eating meat, the minority will face social constraints for their filthy habit.
Unlike primitive barter-and-trade economies our food is not scarce. In a society where there’s always plenty of food and where people have to confront the non-human animals they must hurt and kill, they’d choose to eat plants. There are certainly people that can stomach killing animals for literally no reason, but they’re an extreme minority. They’d be repressed through social stigma, and perhaps even laws, but the majority of people would already have given up meat and would go along with it.
But we have to address the class antagonism first, and along with it food scarcity and commodity fetishism.
Indeed, you failed to address it, focusing exclusively on meat.
And I’m the fascist? You propose an authoritarian state ideology and not only are you fighting the bourgeoisie, you’d have to fight me over the fact that I would not tolerate your state control any more than I would tolerate their state. Would the state tolerate my constant antagonism that your system is not doing enough for the environment, attempting to rally others to oppose its tolerances, or would that be supressed?
Yet you think there’s enough of them to wage a class war and suppress the consumers? Or is this revolution achieved by outsourcing the slaughter to professional killers like soldiers, to pretend the classless system magically appears in society?
Misanthropic, no. I believe that your notion of what a “state” is or should be seeks to overextend the capacity of human social systems to function in a society; simply, you cannot create a state with hundreds of millions of individuals and expect unity without resorting to authoritarian tyranny because you end up valuing the state more than the individuals that comprise it. I don’t believe that humanity is irredeemably evil, I believe most humans recognize cruelty, harm, exploitation, and suffering but chose to ignore it for a variety of reasons, usually self-gratification or satisfaction. That is what I would say roughly equates to “evil”. War waged on behalf of someone or something that cannot stand up for itself is generally seen as noble or virtuous, but war for any cause is a hell with a million variables. You will inevitably harm, maim, unhouse, traumatize, and kill things that you didn’t intend, possibly were even fight on behalf of.
Do you have the stomach to personally kill another human being in the pursuit of your goal? To look someone willing to fight you to the death for their right to maintain their class privilege? Would you do it if they were a senior citizen? A youth? Would you kill a parent willing to kill you in front of their kids? Or would you ask your state to do it on your behalf?
See, this is another reason they’re calling you a fascist. You fundamentally believe that people need to be suppressed in order to make them compliant, because a hundred million+ would never willingly work together to build a better society! This is a fascist idea, that humans aren’t cooperative because human nature is opposed to it.
That’s not how I see things. I know my class enemies need to be suppressed and reeducated, maybe liquidated, but I believe that working people will enthusiastically support abolition of class society once they understand their own material class interests as workers. Workers, aware of their own interests and place in history, would never support the existence of a society where they are exploited for the comfort of a few. Workers, as the vast majority of every society, will get to dictate their future.
I’ll never convince you over the internet, though. I’m just a string of text on your screen, a random encounter in the posting RPG. An NPC. Nothing I could ever say will reach you.
But as things get worse, and they’re going to get worse, you’re going to start looking for alternatives. I don’t need to win this argument, history will do it for me.
Non-human animals are innocent. My class enemies are not. That’s all I’ll say on the matter.
You expect the workers of society to liquidate your enemies even after listing off why slaughter is class antagonism, yet you will not answer whether or not you are willing to do this yourself. Outsourcing this while knowing it’s going to traumatize those who have to do it is just another form of class antagonism, the exploitation of soldiers. The price you pay isn’t cash but the luxury of a clean conscience and the avoidance of brutality.
You’re not making a strong case for me to stop thinking others will use suppression to achieve their goals when you “know” that people “need to be suppressed” in order to become compliant.
Human nature is not opposed to cooperation, the success of our species is entirely due to our ability to cooperate. What human nature is opposed to is single-mindedness, especially when the order of magnitude increases. Our cooperatives are messy. Individualism, free-thinking, and self-expression are our identity. We are self-aware animals who recognize that each other human is as self-aware as we are, or at least have the capacity to recognize that they are.
I oppose you because you believe non-human animals are innocent, but chose to be vegan because their slaughter is traumatizing to the humans who have to slaughter them. Yet you are willing to abide the liquidation of humans for the advancement of your vision of humanity but will not answer whether you will take direct responsibility for doing so or pass that trauma on to others. I oppose you because I think your responses highlight how easy it is for people to toss around labels of enemies regardless of whether they are actually a class enemy or a philosophical one, and would empower a state to do your dirty work.
History never won anything, the people that participated in the events of their time are the ones who won or lost, lived or died, suffered or prospered. Again, this is why I oppose you, the belief something or someone else will “do it for you”. You get the benefits of the labor of everyone who came before you and that of the those in your time who take action in the present.
Why do you think I’m here? I see what is going on in the world around me. All fascists are authoritarian, not all authoritarians are fascist. The vast majority of people who are MAGA, Zionists, Nazis, Soviets, North Koreans, and Chinese do not directly participate in the suppression or repression of their enemies (however they define them) and none of those regimes define their “enemies” exactly the same. The only commonality is that responsibility for the initial suppression and eventual maintenance of the state through repression is passed on to authority.
I see the alternative you’re offering to our current system and reject it because the world is not black and white, this way or that way. I’m all in for the suppression of the wealthy, the bigots who would subjugate others based off immutable traits, and the radically religious who would impose their morality rather than keep it personal guidance. That is my personal definition of what makes someone an “enemy”. I’m in if that means we have to slug it out with them in the ugliest way possible, and I’m in for establishing a society that builds safeguards to attempt to prevent those beliefs and values from seizing power again, even if I think that is going to be a perpetual struggle of humanity. However, I will not engage in the trauma and suffering on behalf of others who are physically and mentally capable of participating just so they can enjoy the moral high ground, then expect to dictate their view of society once the obstacle is removed.
I think what you are suggesting exploits the physical revolutionaries to set-up a state guided by philosophical revolutionaries, all under the pretense of benefitting humanity. It empowers philosophy over people, a state for the sake of a state. Without taking part in the suppression or repression I question whether you would recognize when the state you’ve helped create has replaced class enemy with enemy of the state, or even bother to question it. Why should you, you’re just reaping the rewards and blissful ignorance of the actions of others in your favor.