filler posted:the point as I'm reading it is that if you've abandoned animal calories and replaced them with plant calories that are implicated in imperialist exploitation, you actually haven't done very much good on net. replacing your chicken from a broiler that was more or less tortured to death in the good ol' U$A with quinoa sourced from a village in the Andes where capitalist rationalization has driven the inhabitants to poverty and death isn't much of an improvement
didnt you learn about trophic levels?
tears posted:didnt you learn about trophic levels?
I didn't, bad education. I'm just learning with my pals at the 'zzone
filler posted:I didn't, bad education.
im going to destroy the education system
What that means for the individual communist is that they should go vegan so they don't look like an idiot advocating for the abolition of their own dinner, to set a good example for others, and to voluntarily accept veganism so they'll be used to it when it's not voluntary anymore. There's literally no argument against veganism which makes sense if you want to keep living on the planet, so disagreements on which argument for it is best shouldn't turn you away from eating plants only.
Edited by colddays ()
Well I understand the impulse but 1. Assad isn't really that much of a US enemy, and 2. Even if it were It's quite possible for two rotten people (think Hitler &
— David Graeber (@davidgraeber) June 4, 2019
Stalin) to denounce each other and both be completely right that the other is a monster
toyot posted:leave it to white intellectual leaders to try to make you always think about hitler and to tarnish the liberator of auschwitz
Useless job imo
colddays posted:What that means for the individual communist is that they should go vegan so they don't look like an idiot advocating for the abolition of their own dinner,
The idea that there are hard "ecological" caps on how its possible for people to live is mostly a fascist fantasy in the first place but a very important part about being a communist is arguing for the total reconstruction of society on radically different premises. These premises must necessarily influence the way food is produced and consumed and the idea that communists should larp as their ideal post-rev selves is an exercise in self-deleusion. This is sort of like saying that communists should enthusiastically work their jobs because theyre socially necessary for society to function (which is a not uncommon thing for right wing morons to claim) as opposed to working to halt social reproduction in its tracks in order to reestablish the relations that govern it.
it's true that ending livestock cultivation does not address the basic drivers that make it endemic to food production, but the conclusion to that is "such drivers will act to undermine any endogenous shifts within its own institutions," not "these drivers can happily adapt to and subsume them"
your comparison to energy generation is the exact opposite of what you're talking about -- it's a case of alternative sources being unable to displace those endemic to the institutions of capitalist production except in the most marginal of conditions. not a case of them successfully displacing them while the mode of production keeps intensifying without issue. it is unthinkable to conceive of capitalism without a reliance on unsustainable energy sources just as it is unthinkable to conceive of a capitalism without the cultivation of livestock -- because these are contradictions only socialism will be able to resolve
blinkandwheeze posted:I will never forgive him for the state in which he left my stable
oh so that's what the big freaking sword was for!!
c_man posted:colddays posted:What that means for the individual communist is that they should go vegan so they don't look like an idiot advocating for the abolition of their own dinner,
The idea that there are hard "ecological" caps on how its possible for people to live is mostly a fascist fantasy in the first place but a very important part about being a communist is arguing for the total reconstruction of society on radically different premises. These premises must necessarily influence the way food is produced and consumed and the idea that communists should larp as their ideal post-rev selves is an exercise in self-deleusion. This is sort of like saying that communists should enthusiastically work their jobs because theyre socially necessary for society to function (which is a not uncommon thing for right wing morons to claim) as opposed to working to halt social reproduction in its tracks in order to reestablish the relations that govern it.
If someone holds an animal liberation perspective, then fighting against the systems of animal exploitation as is practicable and reasonable is a sensible action to take as part of a larger strategy. The point of a labor strike isn't to stop working, it is to agitate and raise consciousness around worker exploitation at a direct site of conflict. From an animal liberation perspective, the boycott is a method of agitating and raising consciousness at a direct point where individuals and communities fully realize the transformation of sentient beings into being a resource. The point isn't to absolve an individual of guilt or make them feel good, but to expose the oppression of animals as unnecessary and cruel.
c_man posted:colddays posted:
What that means for the individual communist is that they should go vegan so they don't look like an idiot advocating for the abolition of their own dinner,
The idea that there are hard "ecological" caps on how its possible for people to live is mostly a fascist fantasy in the first place but a very important part about being a communist is arguing for the total reconstruction of society on radically different premises. These premises must necessarily influence the way food is produced and consumed and the idea that communists should larp as their ideal post-rev selves is an exercise in self-deleusion. This is sort of like saying that communists should enthusiastically work their jobs because theyre socially necessary for society to function (which is a not uncommon thing for right wing morons to claim) as opposed to working to halt social reproduction in its tracks in order to reestablish the relations that govern it.
I'm not sure where you read that there's hard caps for human life in my post, given that we agree that the particular activity of animal agriculture has extremely detrimental ecological effects which will ravage the global and local food systems, and therefore it must be limited within a new revolutionary food system. The fact that eventually we'll run out of groundwater to grow cow feed with isn't a fascist fantasy.
I think it's kinda weird to call limiting your own consumption in accordance with your stated principles larping. As opposed to enthusiastically working at your job, abstaining from animal products does not promote the reproduction of animal agriculture. Although it's insufficient on its own, it's hard to imagine how someone earnestly working towards halting this system could not do the simplest, most reasonable thing they can begin with.
Edited by colddays ()
pogfan1996 posted:Vimingok, I don’t think I understand your point. It seems very intuitive that one of the easiest first steps to ending the oppression of animals is to stop eating them and using animal products as much as is practical and possible. Is your concern that we wouldn’t be able to meet the caloric needs of people without killing animals?
I was talking about the food in "vegan" diets specifically, which contains just as much if not more tropical input content than the meat-inclusive ones. Just using common sense, a vegan diet would ramp up demand for cane sugar, spices, chocolate etc if it competes with the meat-based one in terms of the popular, commodified taste that both vegans and their class enemies love. Ending mass industrial meat production is pointless if the alternative is mass "veganism" in the above sense.
filler posted:all I know about Robert C Tucker is that he also edited a Lenin anthology in addition to the Marx-Engels one (out of print, of course), and for whatever reason a huge number of copies of that anthology have come unstuck from their covers because the glue dried out. the one I ordered had the defective cover, there are multiple reviews on Amazon from people who's copies just fell apart, even the version that the Internet Archive digitized looks worse for wear. what's going on here? did the publisher decide to sabotage the printing for fear that the Lenin Anthology would achieve the same cultural status as the Marx-Engels Reader? much to consider
sounds like rob tucker should have invested in a higher quality glue
Edited by vimingok ()
After a few hours of meditation on the subject, I snapped out of the fuzz I’ve been in and threw out every last drop of alcohol in my apartment.
I also threw out 1.5 ounces of weed.
I made myself an onion, green pepper, jalapeno and pickle omlette with a quartered orange on the side.
First healthy meal I’ve eaten in 2 months.
Today I begin a new life.
I’ve had mowe fewtiwe sexuaw pawtnyews than some kings and nyobwes of owd, but have nyot wepwoduced once, meanying that game, in the way I have pwacticed and taught it, has gonye squawewy against evowution. In othew wowds, wemainying a viwgin to this day as opposed to embawking on a muwti-yeaw wowwd sex touw with twipwe-digit pawtnyews wouwd nyot at aww have changed the chiwdwess wesuwt I face in this vewy moment.
pogfan1996 posted:Maybe the rhizzone should stop reading
- Mao Zedong
Philosophy of Educational Research - Richard Pring (2004)
Philosophy in Educational Research: Epistemology, Ethics, Politics and Quality - David Bridges (2017)
Wasted: A Memoir of Anorexia and Bulimia - Marya Hornbacher (2006)