I think the implication that someone you disagree with should kill themselves is a point worth clinging to. If your solution is “kill yourself”, I question what kind of state you and likeminded people would enable if given the opportunity. That comment is a pretty hard turn in what’s otherwise a typical internet back and forth.

That's perhaps good for addressing things at the individual level, but the fact of the matter is that those whose destructive footprints are the largest are the elites at the top and the companies they control.

This is just utopianism. These individual actions are not bad, but you cannot get the necessary systemic change by just advocating everyone to do it. You need organization and coordination, which involves hierarchy, establishing socialism, and directly addressing the root causes.

This entire conversation is about the existence of Chinese billionaires and their companies being defended as a necessary evil for the progress of the state, as well as the point MLism isn’t environmentally conscious beyond maintaining the environment as is needed to support the state. No shit it’s the elite and their industries causing the most destruction. The world doesn’t need billionaires or their companies, whether they’re based in the west or China. However, a good deal of communists will defend their team’s billionaire’s right to exist rather than break party policy and ask “why do we abide these few who enrich themselves at the expense of the world we have to share and create vast wealth inequity?”. I know why America tolerates their billionaires, it’s a capitalist country. Why does a socialist country tolerate theirs?

I absolutely do not think you should kill yourself, and that was clearly not my position. What I am saying is that your worldview is profoundly fatalist and anti-human. You treat development as inherently suspect, human flourishing as fundamentally evil, and systemic change as either impossible or irrelevant next to private moral restraint. The logical horizon of that politics is not liberation or transformation. It is managed decline, despair, and eventually mass death.

That is exactly why I spent this entire exchange arguing against your position so forcefully. I think you are wrong in almost every respect. I think better is possible. I think human beings are not a plague species. I think ecological survival requires transforming how we organize production, not retreating into sanctimonious moralism about individual behavior. I think suicide is bad. I think extinction is bad. I think your politics point in that direction precisely because they deny the possibility of collective human development without treating humanity itself as the problem.

And more importantly, notice what you are doing again here. You are still avoiding the substance of everything I said. You have latched onto one line that you are misinterpreting so that you can dodge the actual argument about systems, power, class, production, and planning.

At this point you’re grandstanding and practicing your speechwriting against a foe whose beliefs have been decided by you. You’re arguing with the assumption of me, not with me.

If your worldview values the concept of humanity and society more than it values the right to self-determination of the individuals residing in it. Development is routinely suspect because people lie about their intentions, cut corners, and enrich themselves while providing the support and services others need. Human flourishing is fundamentally evil if a person or state flourishes at the expense of another. Systemic change without private moral restraint is meaningless. America’s racism is a perfect example of this. The system changed, slavery was abolished, but the morality of white supremacy didn’t die when the institution did. It festered, used the system to create a new form of justified racism. Your politics are allotted prosperity, false austerity, and state for state’s sake.

When I do argue back it’s because I think you are wrong in almost every respect. Your acceptance of destruction and misery in the name of progress is revolting. Tolerating wealth hoarding for the purpose of studying it is a flimsy excuse for abiding billionaires instead of redistributing their excess back into the society that made them, but it tracks with the idea that the growth of the state as agreed upon by the powerful few is a measure of it’s success. If growth is boosted by the fortunes and companies of a few billionaires, you’ll let them remain, even if it is contrary to the philosophy. Since you hold individual responsibility in low regard and your morality is ambiguous you can convince yourself

of anything, without self-reflection or moral conundrums, so long as implementing it builds a better state, at least better enough for most. You treat individual humans like they’re a plague on humanity for the audacity of questioning systems and demanding better for non-human life.

Humans are in no danger of driving themselves to extinction. Ruining our current ways of life, annihilating mass swaths of the population; yeah, we could do that. But we’re intelligent, capable, and cooperative by nature. We will make the planet inhospitable and drive a lot of other species to extinction if we don’t balance progress with morality beyond humanity. But I guess I’m being sanctimonious when I demand that from my society.

You push the myth that China was build on cooperation and collectivism like the US pushes the myth it was build on the labor of rugged individualism. Both narratives have kernels of truth scattered among a much larger pile of bullshit. If your goal is humanity first, to hell with the consequences to everything else, including individuality, you don’t value life and humans, you value the idea of them.

“At this point you’re grandstanding and practicing your speechwriting against a foe whose beliefs have been decided by you. You’re arguing with the assumption of me, not with me.”

No, I am arguing with what you keep actually saying, and the problem is that what you say keeps collapsing into the same incoherent moral haze every time it is pressed. I asked you repeatedly how your politics handles production, infrastructure, energy, housing, agriculture, and mass society, and every time you dodged into abstractions about morality, self-determination, and personal responsibility. That is not me inventing your position. That is me taking your words seriously enough to notice that they do not amount to a politics.

“If your worldview values the concept of humanity and society more than it values the right to self-determination of the individuals residing in it.”

This is a fake opposition. There is no individual self-determination in the abstract, floating above material life. Individuals determine themselves through social conditions, through housing, food, healthcare, education, mobility, energy, and freedom from domination by capital. You keep invoking “self-determination” as if it means anything outside the structures that make life livable. It does not. A person without material security is not more free because you used nicer moral language while leaving them at the mercy of markets, landlords, bosses, and scarcity.

“Development is routinely suspect because people lie about their intentions, cut corners, and enrich themselves while providing the support and services others need.”

Then your problem is not “development” as such. Your problem is development under class rule, private accumulation, and weak or captured institutions. Which is exactly the structural point you have been refusing the whole time. If development is suspect because of who controls it, who profits from it, and how its costs are distributed, then congratulations, you are back in the terrain of systems, ownership, planning, and power. The second your argument gets specific, it stops being a defense of pure personal morality and becomes a structural critique you have spent this entire exchange pretending not to need.

“Human flourishing is fundamentally evil if a person or state flourishes at the expense of another.”

That is such a vague moral formula it explains almost nothing. Every serious politics agrees flourishing at others’ expense is bad. The question is how you prevent it materially. Through what institutions, what property relations, what forms of power, what mechanisms of coordination. You never answer that because you do not have an answer. You just restate the moral sentiment and hope it substitutes for political thought.

“Systemic change without private moral restraint is meaningless. America’s racism is a perfect example of this. The system changed, slavery was abolished, but the morality of white supremacy didn’t die when the institution did.”

This is a stupid comparison because it actually proves my point, not yours. Slavery’s abolition did not magically destroy white supremacy, true. But without structural change, slavery would still exist openly as law. The fact that ideology persists after institutional change does not mean institutional change is meaningless. It means politics has to transform both structures and social consciousness. You keep treating “private morality matters too” as if anyone denied it. Nobody did. The argument is that private morality without structural transformation is impotent, and your own example demonstrates exactly that.

“Your politics are allotted prosperity, false austerity, and state for state’s sake.”

No, my politics are about consciously organizing social life rather than leaving it to capital and then sermonizing at individuals about their consumption habits. “State for state’s sake” is just another slogan you throw out because you do not know how to talk about institutions except as sinister abstractions. The state is not holy. It is an instrument of class rule and social coordination. The whole question is which class rules, for what purposes, and under what material constraints. You flatten all of that into “big system bad” because that is easier than thinking.

“Your acceptance of destruction and misery in the name of progress is revolting.”

This is a complete straw man. I did not say destruction and misery are acceptable. I said that all large-scale development involves material transformation and contradiction, and that the political question is who controls that process, for whose benefit, and whether its harms are reduced, planned, and overcome rather than driven blindly by profit. You keep translating “development has contradictions” into “you celebrate destruction” because you cannot answer the actual argument. It is a child’s tactic. Replace complexity with accusation and hope nobody notices.

“Tolerating wealth hoarding for the purpose of studying it is a flimsy excuse for abiding billionaires instead of redistributing their excess back into the society that made them... If growth is boosted by the fortunes and companies of a few billionaires, you’ll let them remain, even if it is contrary to the philosophy.”

Again, you are arguing with a fantasy because it is easier than reading. I did not say billionaires should be preserved for anthropological curiosity. I said the existence of private wealth inside a contradictory transitional system is not analytically identical to private wealth as the sovereign principle of the system itself. If you cannot distinguish between a contradiction inside a political project and the essence of a political project, then you are not doing analysis. You are doing moral absolutism for people who think every contradiction is proof of total collapse.

“Since you hold individual responsibility in low regard and your morality is ambiguous you can convince yourself of anything, without self-reflection or moral conundrums, so long as implementing it builds a better state, at least better enough for most.”

Wrong. I hold individual responsibility in its proper place. Individuals matter, but individuals do not abolish structural compulsion by wishing harder. And my morality is not ambiguous at all. I am saying very clearly that politics has to be judged by whether it materially expands human flourishing, reduces domination, socializes the conditions of life, and rationally repairs the relationship between society and nature. You are the one hiding behind ambiguity, because “people should be better” sounds noble right up until anyone asks what that means at the level of billions of people and complex social reproduction.

“You treat individual humans like they’re a plague on humanity for the audacity of questioning systems and demanding better for non-human life.”

No, that is you projecting your own nonsense back onto me. I have defended collective human development this entire time. You are the one who keeps treating human development as presumptively guilty, mass society as morally contaminated, and political transformation as suspect unless filtered through private virtue. I am not attacking people for questioning systems. I am attacking your inability to question systems in any way that rises above sanctimonious lifestyle ethics.

“Humans are in no danger of driving themselves to extinction. Ruining our current ways of life, annihilating mass swaths of the population; yeah, we could do that.”

This is not the reassuring correction you think it is. You have just admitted the plausibility of civilizational breakdown and mass death while still refusing to ground your politics in large-scale structural transformation. That is exactly what makes your whole position so useless. You recognize catastrophe and then prescribe moral restraint at the level of individuals as if that is commensurate with the scale of the problem. It is laughably inadequate.

“But we’re intelligent, capable, and cooperative by nature. We will make the planet inhospitable and drive a lot of other species to extinction if we don’t balance progress with morality beyond humanity.”

Then once again you have conceded the central point. If humans are intelligent, capable, and cooperative, then large-scale conscious reorganization of society is possible. Which means politics, systems, institutions, and planning matter. “Morality beyond humanity” is not an answer by itself. It is a phrase. The real question is how that morality is embodied in production, law, infrastructure, and power. You never get there. You stop at the sermon.

“You push the myth that China was build on cooperation and collectivism like the US pushes the myth it was build on the labor of rugged individualism.”

Nobody said China is a mythically pure collective project without contradiction, coercion, compromise, unevenness, or class struggle. This is another cheap caricature because you cannot engage with the actual claim, which is that different systems have different logics, different capacities, different constraints, and different ways of disciplining capital. You keep trying to turn every argument into “oh so you think this place is morally pure,” because moral purity is the only frame you seem capable of understanding.

“If your goal is humanity first, to hell with the consequences to everything else, including individuality, you don’t value life and humans, you value the idea of them.”

And there is the straw man again. I did not say “to hell with the consequences.” I said humanity is part of nature, not external to it, and that any serious ecological politics has to preserve the material conditions of human life while rationally transforming our relation to the rest of nature. That is not contempt for life. That is the only basis on which ecological politics can be more than aristocratic moral disgust with mass society. You keep trying to turn any defense of human development into permission for domination because you cannot imagine politics except as a contest between private virtue and monstrous systems.

You have spent this entire exchange dodging specifics, replacing analysis with moral haze, and answering structural questions with slogans about restraint, self-determination, and being a better person. Then when pressed, you invent a version of my position that celebrates destruction, worships the state, and despises individuality, because engaging with what I actually said would require you to do more than preach. Your biggest failure is not just that your politics are shallow. It is that they collapse on contact with scale. You have no serious account of power, no theory of production, no mechanism of change, and no answer to ecological crisis beyond scolding individuals while the world is organized by forces you refuse to analyze. That is why your whole argument reads like smug moral theater. You clearly want the posture of radicalism without the burden of actual thought.

PLEASE ACTUALLY READ WHAT I'VE SAID TO THIS POINT BEFORE CONTINUING TO TYPE LIES, STRAWMEN AND NONSENSE

First off, I enjoyed your superb explanations and critique. Secondly, I am baffled by your immeasureable patience and non-hostile replies. Lastly, I will let this be a reminder of how deep the capitalist propaganda reaches into the minds of even (seemingly?) literate people.

Thank you for your effort o7

First off, I enjoyed your superb explanations and critique.

Thank you always a pleasure to hear.

Secondly, I am baffled by your immeasureable patience and non-hostile replies.

Around a decade of academic writing bestowed on me the gift of translating the incredibly harsh curse filled unkind impatient thoughts of my mind when dealing with frustrating people/situations to more measured words on the page.

Lastly, I will let this be a reminder of how deep the capitalist propaganda reaches into the minds of even (seemingly?) literate people.

It comes in many forms in this case I stand by my first read of this case being eco fascist/anprim kaczynski acolyte nonsense. One of the many compatible choices for those who wish to feel revolutionary without the burden of anything pesky like the material world or the systems that govern it.

Thank you for your effort o7

Again always a pleasure knowing it's interesting/enjoyable/informative for others seeing my posts.

I didn't say anything about China.

But since you brought them up: hey're certainly now the cutting edge on renewable energy and smart grid tech. Agriculture emissions are still second place behind fossil fuel emissions, so for what my opinion is worth (not much) they're following the right course by focusing on that first. But don't be surprised if the next big innovation in reducing agriculture emissions comes out of an AES country. They're certainly far more likely to devote massive resources to the problem than anywhere in the West.

You’re in an entire thread about China, and once again, miss the point I made earlier. China’s concern is the emissions because those negatively affect the human population, which is very inline with ML attitudes about environmentalism. What’s the living conditions of the cows, chickens, swine, and dogs in those farms?

China has billionaires because it has private property, and it has private property because the CPC decided to integrate with the global market for the purposes of more rapid development and technology transfer. Every ML that exists has had to consider why China still has a bourgeoisie, the idea that we simply ignore it is absurd. Secondly, Marxism-Leninism does have a strong environmental component, you need a healthy environment in order to have a lasting environment for humanity. If we do not take care of the planet, then we will be wiped out.

As has been linked in this thread before, China Has Billionaires is an excellent starting place for understanding China's socialist system and its contradictions, contradictions that propel it to move forward and change.

You’re in an entire thread about China

Neither the OP nor any of the comments in the chain I replied to mentioned China.

and once again, miss the point I made earlier

I didn't see a point, just more evidence that you can't tell the difference between capitalist commodity fetishism and environmentalism.

Oh, it’s been hammered back at me that the ML approach to environmentalism is that it’s purpose is to protect the environment for the sake its use to the people, that protecting it at the expense of whatever progress is deemed necessary is to deny humanity and therefore radical and unjust. My argument would be that, whether it’s a capitalist society or a socialist one, there’s a lot of commodities that don’t really warrant environmental harm just because humans would prefer to have it. Chinese reforms created a middle class, and just like in the west, a middle class becomes a consumer class. Both end up generating more one time use waste, both consume built to be obsolete technology, both consume more meat. At some point it ceases to be elevation from poverty to commodity fetishism. So while I can wish and hope all I want that people would consume ethically, mindfully, and with a goal of harm reduction, at some point I would simply say “fuck off, earth first” and deny my fellow humans access to whatever it is they are seeking.

there’s a lot of commodities that don’t really warrant environmental harm just because humans would prefer to have it.

That's idealistic, though. Your fellow humans want the things they prefer and you have to contend with that.

You can try to deny your fellow humans access, but they'll fight you to the death for it. Unless your plan is human extermination, you're going to have to work with humans. That means framing environmentalism in their terms, for their interests.

And that is the moral conundrum. You are correct, there comes points where you do have to draw a hard line and do what must be done to protect nature, because the human capacity to destroy it and other living things has transcended nature’s ability to protect itself and all that stands between it’s exploitation by one set of tool wielding apes is a group of other tool wielding apes.

That’s a pretty extreme scenario. My critique of both ML and the China method is that it doesn’t contain, at its core, modern environmental philosophy. Not suprising, it was not a concern for the writers at the time. China’s revolution came after it had time to observe what capitalism and the rise of a middle class had done in the west, but it still chose to follow many of the same methods to speed run it’s growth, the creation of a middle class, and now has many of the same issues the west does when it comes to the consumerism of a middle class (and the gross excesses of a wealth class, whose singular habits can make the average annual footprint of thousands look like a drop in the ocean). I’d also point out that China’s economy is based on selling a lot of useless crap to western markets. It’s supply and demand, and it would appear that appealing to the nature of humans to not be wasteful is… futile? Our planet is changing rapidly but we are nowhere near hitting the point where the majority of humans will willingly limit their consumption for the greater good. There seems to be a strong belief in “consume now, pay whatever consequences later.

And I see that mentality strongly in China’s revolution. It didn’t happen in a bubble, they knew that there would be a price to pay but anthropocentrism is fundamental to ML. China got what it wanted, and now plays catch-up with environmentalism, just like the west. My struggle with trying to critique devotion to ML or the Chinese method often reaches an impasse because nobody has developed a popular environmental minded update and will continually point to the idea that protecting it for human use is good enough and that human progression is outweighed by environmental concerns. I disagree, humanity can progress but that doesn’t mean it always gets what it wants or thinks progress looks like.

I’m concerned that the rise of popular adoption of ML thought is so dismissive of environmental concerns, which have long been only addressed by leftists. The responses out of a lot of it’s supporters are becoming increasingly anthropocentric with an acceptance that a few green initiatives and climate pledges for the future are good enough, and had a dude over on Reddit basically state he didn’t give a fuck how bad factory farming was for the animals, humans deserve cheap meat. I don’t think the world is going to go vegan, but damn dude, won’t even criticize factory farming? What the hell is happening to the left?

You aren't going to convince 8 billion people to do environmentalism for its own sake. What you're talking about is literally impossible, you can't "draw a hard line" and expect to enforce it. The only way to do environmentalism is if you do it for humans.

had a dude over on Reddit basically state he didn’t give a fuck how bad factory farming was for the animals, humans deserve cheap meat. I don’t think the world is going to go vegan, but damn dude, won’t even criticize factory farming? What the hell is happening to the left?

I'm vegan, but it wasn't animal welfare concerns that convinced me to stop eating animals. I was concerned, sure, but it was never enough. What convinced me was the fact that 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. That person doesn't seem to have thought about the human impact either, and probably doesn't think much about anything at all tbh

But tying the environment back to human health and prosperity is the key to environmentalism. You have to convince humans to protect the environment for their sake. We preserve biodiversity because it ensures our biosphere doesn't collapse. We stop greenhouse gas emissions because global heating will kill humans. We stop dumping waste because it makes humans sick. That's the only thing that works. If you fail to do that, if you try to impose environmentalism on them for the environment's sake, they'll rebel.

If you drew a hard line and just forced veganism on people, they'd eat you.

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.

Elementary school level of understanding tells you that focusing on the benefit of land because it benefits humans is still a good thing. The more we focus on long term environmental goals the more we will tackle all facets of them, the PSL has written about it in modern language, and that’s only one org.

whining about theory gets you nowhere. I promise you you won’t meet leftists who feel good about factory farming.

You can do this kinda stuff on the internet all you’d like and call us cultists for our politics but if you’re going to engage with people like us you’re gonna get real answers based on material conditions (both future and past). Sorry it’s not the argument you want but eradicating capitalism will rapidly increase education and literacy, workplace independence and most importantly eradicate the drive for profit, as others have said, even in ways like profit driven FOOD and WATER consumption leading to over farming and wasting products that go moldy on the shelf because they’re too expensive, and on and on. Hurl insults all you want, you’d fit right in on Reddit

This thread is full of leftists who don’t “feel good” about factory farming, but still abide it abide it whether it’s under a capitalist system or a socialist system. China’s socialist and hasn’t abolished factory farming. Y’all don’t “feel good” about it but it’s an acceptable practice because fundamentally we disagree on the rights of humans versus non-human life. You could also put a decent dent in the power of capitalism, environmental damage, consumerism, and waste if you prioritized eliminating the capitalists while retooling the system. But that kind of talk is what’s gotten me banned from Reddit repeatedly.

Like I said, lots of modern writing on it. But apparently arguing against points I don’t actually believe is easier.

“Lots of modern writing is still just words”. Words without action are just “thoughts and prayers” of liberals acknowledging a problem to signal virtue publicly while quietly ignoring the problem or agreeing to pass it on to a later generation. Tell me, do you “feel bad” because you empathize with the suffering, or do you “feel bad” because you’re ashamed you are aware of the suffering yet put little effort into correcting it? Or is “feeling bad” one of the points you don’t actually believe?

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.

I never expressed such an idea.

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.

… what?

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.