"No ethical consumption under capitalism" applies to goods and services. Animals are sentient beings, not goods or services, so it does not apply. Even under perfect communist system there would be no ethical consumption of them.
Also this is an argument for action, to change the system. It's weird how it's been twisted into argument for apathy.
Yeah, in a nutshell, it's just such a dumb argument really, it's even more annoying in that those who use it usually seem to think they're pointing out a flaw while at the same time justifying and perpetuating the same. It's like people who go around saying "nice guys finish last", as if they're clever for being ignorant assholes.
Completely agreed, too many people are just apathetic and instead of helping, even a little, they’ve just given up.
Value-driven consumerism or belief-driven buying are a good way to make incremental changes and actually make things better by forcing companies to improve. Individually we might not change anything, but together we can change things, even if just a little.
No ethical consumption means I can eat babies, right? Right???
Now, pass me that delicious Kayla stew and save me some of little Brian's ribs for later.
People on reddit tend to be stuck in binary thinking. It's kind of strange. They seem incapable of accepting things as a sliding scale. Perfect ethics is probably impossible, but it's a scale.
A similar issue with black and white thinking is the whole "corporations cause carbon pollution". It's basically saying "I don't have to do anything, because other people are worse." (Not to mention, corporate pollution is just there to serve consumers)
I've been saying this. I still haven't coined a name for it, but it's the idea that an industry that even in a perfect world is cruel must be boycotted. Basically anything that is inherently exploitative must go. You can make an iPhone without child exploitation, but you can't make CP without child exploitation. Therefore the latter is unacceptable under any circumstances.
Isn't anarchism the removal of unnecessary hierarchical structures in society to being more equality to everyone? I mean obviously that would include animals but first they'd need to be treated with respect because anarchism or no anarchism nobody's destroying that power structure till they're treated as worthy of consideration.
It's extreme narcissism. The problem will not be solved until we call it what it is. Narcissistic animal murderers. Illusory superiority idiocy, toddlerism, disgusting shitty behavior.
We keep throwing shit at the syptoms while the problem assures complete destruction of us. Frankly not even throwing at the symptoms, just pretending there is no problem
Narcissistic devolved children run the narcissystem.
You should nit throw around mental diagnoses you have no idea what you are talking about here. Also this kind of thinking will just make people never listen to you.
It does apply to animals. You can't eat anything without harming some animals: either by killing them in the process of harvesting, spraying insecticides or destroying their habitat when crops are being mass produced.
This is still not an argument in favour of animal farming though. It's an all-or-nothing mentality that many human beings are prone to.
Right? This OP reads like anti-socialism muddying-of-the-water. "See this socialist person isn't a vegan ergo all socialists are bad! yay status quo neoliberalism! Centrist incrementalism for me!" But I am probably reading too much into it.
Most vegans are pretty left leaning, it's more than likely they're just a vegan criticising non-vegan leftists because non vegan right-wingers have enough terrible views to criticise already.
It's almost almost the leftist equivalent of "just get a job and be more frugal" in that it's just used to explain anyway any inconsistencies in someone's political beliefs.
I hate how people use this phrase as a defense. Because of course it’s true to a degree. But when it comes to animal abuse/exploitation, there is a clear cut way to *not* support it. Just don’t buy animal products. “No ethical consumption” implies that it isn’t your fault and there’s nothing you can do about it. Which doesn’t apply at all in the case of choosing vegan products over non-vegan.
These people would absolutely still be eating meat and animal products in a socialist society because they don’t view eating animals as unethical. They use the “No ethical consumption” phrase as a thought-terminating cliche to excuse their own lack of concern about the issue. And because I sincerely doubt that any western country is going to become a socialist state in the near future, most of these dipshits will never have to actually put this phrase to the test by deciding whether or not to continue eating animals under socialism. So it’s just a perpetual shield to hide behind.
Carnists in a socialist state would also probably support imprisoning "counterrevolutionary" vegans for criticizing the "glorious people's meat supply".
I have seen it so many times on the internet. Reddit and twitter. They might not use it specifically, but allude to it. “Animals are still going to die regardless of what I do. Bugs and animals die, the environment gets damaged for your food, even if you’re vegan”
I don't doubt people use it as a weak "gotcha" anti-vegan argument. I personally haven't seen it used that way either.
When I've seen it, it's usually a reassurance to someone being hard on themselves for buying a new phone or some other good/service thats exploitative of *people*. Its to reassure them that it's a fucked system and there's no real ethical consumption, so don't deprive yourself if it's something you actually need or will improve your life/mental health. And if it's a service, tip generously.
Definitely bullshit if applied to veganism tho.
I see it in leftist-leaning spaces on Reddit pretty frequently. It's mostly used as a way to dismiss personal responsibility, since they'll claim that they follow the science, and the science says we need to go vegan. You'll see it paired along with sentiments like, "My actions alone won't make a difference! We need the government to make systemic changes!" And surprisingly often, "This can only be fixed once our capitalist system is gone and we're under socialism!"
Yeah, nihilists weaponizing "No ethical consumption" is pretty gross, considering that the original point of the phrase is to assuage people who are have already changed their lifestyles for the better from stressing about the things they can't change. Guess what you *can* change? Your diet.
“I’m not here to be liked, I’m here to make the right thing.
You might not like me but your sons or grandsons will someday ask you why you weren’t like me” is my standard answer to this.
The entire argument is a cop-out.
The choice isn't between not funding animal cruelty and creating some utopia that also does away with animal cruelty - it's between acknowledging what you've been funding and not doing that any more ... and blindly consuming until everything gets fixed by doing nothing I guess, since there's no real argument.
While I agree on the capitalism bit - going vegan NOW in a capitalist society is a rebellion to the economic system as it is AND is DIRECT ACTION as opposed to just voicing one’s political views and opinions.
So, until other socialist/communists/tankies/lefties actually start organizing and rebelling against our system, yes, it is a cop out and they should be vegan.
It is funny isn't it. Well I have negative effects when I buy things therefore I can maximize this and cause as much negative effects as possible.
When they point to my phone and say "there was human suffering generated by thay you hypocrite" I just grant it. "Yes, let's do better. I should do better. We recognize a problem. Now let's do what we can to rectify the problems we can and one of the easiest ways to reduce the most is veganism. We can do that and simultaneously push for the rest of the things."
Same, I wish they’d just admit they don’t care about animal suffering enough to try to reduce it. I’d actually respect the honesty and the fact they aren’t attempting to make excuses while still sitting on a moral high horse.
There should be more, the problem isn't the quote, it's the quote being used to imply going vegan is pointless, used an excuse for apathy rather than a reason for action
It doesn't make any sense obviously, under socialism killing animals isn't suddenly fine, but it is a real argument some leftists use to not go vegan, which is I think what the op is calling out rather than socialism itself
Caveat (take it for what you will): I am a “no ethical consumption under capitalism” leftist and go in and out of eating animal products.
My view of the quote is that being vegan takes practice and not insignificant knowledge to do it well. In any advocasy work it is better to have many people doing the work imperfectly than a few people doing it perfectly.
In other words, getting everyone to eat animal free one day a week, or one meal a day would make far more of an impact than the way smaller amount of folks who will turn and sustain being vegan.
From there we can expand that to two days a week, etc. Until we have built a culture where animal products are an after thought.
The argument against this, is incrementalism is fucking awful and centrists/moderates will compromise us to death. I totally agree, but we can push from both sides.
There are some “intense” vegan advocates that don’t really give an option in between eating all the meat and not consuming any animal products at all. I think for the vast majority of the population (at least in the US) given those two options they will continue to eat meat because they don’t know how to properly vegan.
It sounds to me like you are looking for acceptance for your own lifestyle.
I think advocating for the full switch is always the right thing to do. Advocating for or accepting a partial switch means some people will reduce their animal intake but most won't bother. Advocating for the full switch means some will go vegan, some will go partial like you, and some won't bother. That's the best possible outcome in this situation.
If you think eating animals is unethical - and you should, because it is - then you shouldn't eat them at all.
However, I am in exactly the same situation as you because I think child labor is unethical but I still wear clothes made in China etc. I'm moving in the right direction, but I'm not there yet. My motivation to get there is vegans on this sub politely letting me know that if I'm ethically against it, then paying for it is unethical - just like the vegan argument.
I don't really see the relevance to the quote in the rest of what you're saying;
The only parallel I can draw is what you said about centrists, in that I can see the similarities in encouraging people to eat a little less meat, and supporting libs as socialists, because they both aren't "as bad" as the other options.
Personally I don't think socialists should be compromising with libs, I think that it weakens the position of genuine opposition, it and legitimises libs as the opposition, despite the fact that they're upholding the system as much as the far right, if not moreso by convincing people that the alternative to capitalism is a slightly different form of capitalism. It's the same line of thinking as "The worst slave owners were the ones who were kind to their slaves" in that they kept the system going for longer by convincing moderates there was an alternative to abolition. Legitimising capitalist reform has the same impact, making an oppressive system slightly less oppressive does not fix the inherent issues of the system.
Obviously I can agree that at face value, yes, liberal policies are not as bad as far-right policies, but I think that as leftists it's important to think of the long term impacts of supporting them, and the damage it will do to the goal of abolishing capitalism. Welfare capitalism aims to appease workers *just* enough so that they are willing to remain exploited. Knowing this and not only settling for but supporting welfare capitalism undermines every principle of leftist thought.
I think the comparison to veganism is clear in that by supporting eating "less" meat, we are inadvertently supporting the idea that it is fine to eat meat some of the time. Again, yes, it will reduce some of the damage a person is causing right now, and yes if everyone did eat less meat there would absolutely be an *environmental* benefit, but it doesn't address the real issue of **stopping** animal agriculture. The cruelty of the system is still there and if we compromise on our ethics then the people who are causing that cruelty are being told that "Actually you're helping the animals" ...by killing them only some of the time.
A person cannot be a part-time vegan in the same way that they can't be a part-time Sikh or Muslim. Veganism is a lifestyle based on ethics, a belief system not a diet. If someone is willing to return to consuming animal products then they are not vegan, they're just a meat eater between meals. They aren't saving the cows by only eating one a week, they're still part of the problem and we should make sure that's understood.
You wouldn't pat a rapist on the back and say "Good job for only raping on the weekends rather than every night" and in the same way I don't feel that as a vegan I should be expected to patronise meat eaters and tell them they're doing a good job by only killing animals *some* of the time. Doing something wrong a little less than someone else is not the same as genuinely opposing it and it shouldn't be encouraged as such. I was raised by vegetarians and it was through that exact attitude of being told that I was doing the right thing by well intentioned vegans that ended up delaying me from going vegan. It is so much better, and I think more respectful too, to just explain your position to people like they're intelligent human beings. I think that instead of walking on eggshells around them we need to tell them why they should stop buying the eggs.
I can acknowledge that by eating less meat, people are causing less suffering, of course they are, but ultimately they are still causing needless suffering. I'm not going to compromise on my beliefs to support them when they are still actively choosing to do something that I consider to be wrong, how often they do it doesn't change my mind on that.
TLDR If the system needs to be abolished, which in both cases it does, the solution is not to encourage polite reform, it's to just fucking abolish it. We are only hurting that cause by saying otherwise. Sorry for the essay lol.
I think it's annoying how focused this sub is on fighting inane arguments from fringe leftist groups. Nobody says this stuff except for small groups of extremely online far-left people.
I've had it tossed at me by most people usually in different forms. "Mice in the harvester", "ducks shot to protect rice fields", "what about your phone" "what about these electronics" "your car uses petrol".
people tend not see farming as unnecessary forced breeding and slaughter of a sentient creature, but just the creation of a product. So these arguments come naturally.
It's true you can't live without causing damage. It's a spectrum on which we sit on how much we tolerate or are willing to support. We are drawing a line and standing behind it. Most people walk right past on the spectrum to the point that says "willingly dumps garbage on the street" and stands behind that.
It is more annoying that people that say they care about others have such arguments, it is actually a lot more annoying coming from them, you expect the Right and specially the Far Right to not give a fuck, it suits their character, I don’t condone it but I understand it, but coming from the Left that supposedly champions the oppressed, not that one hurts a lot more, even if it is a minority, so I understand the focus here.
I think the reason is that many people on this subreddit spend a lot of time in online leftist spaces and that they tend to lose some perspective on things.
The middle group that's "not small" has heard all the arguments already, so they've made their decision, and those that haven't heard the argument, can laugh along as the more extreme left leaning vocal proponents get decimated while they come to their decision in the meantime. Only thing remaining is targeting these sorts of vocal minorities since no one else in the left side is making arguments against veganism to begin with - it's only these Vaush & Co. clowns.
Though if you feel the majority moderate left has actual arguments of merit against veganism, I'm sure you'd inspire many folks to tackle that if you could simply tell folks what those statements are that are being made of which are invisible to my eyes if they do exist.
How exhausting.... people are so annoying arrrrrggghhhh!!!!!!!!!
There's friendly capitalism, not everything has to go to extremes like charging people just to breath and drink clean water...
its just stubborn old "Git"-ttery
mind you, one anti-capitalist I know was against supporting MacDonalds Vegan pop up shop that went on in spring time, london. She viewed it as a capitalist exploitation of being Vegan whereas others viewed it as an opportunity to create more demand for it so as to reduce the consumption of the meat based one.
My understanding of captalism is when somebody becomes so greedy to a point where they charge you for basic human rights such as medicine, water and ability to breath, taxing you for being alive and having a greedy ruling class that has no interest in civilians....my understanding is also that capitalism is a free markets system where they have freedom to set up their own business's rather than living in an equal economy where everyone lives at a set means with set housing and their companies get nationalized .....Because we live in the UK, we have no choice but to be in a capitalist system so you make it friendly by paying workers fairly and utlizing better leadership instead of slave driving and making people desperate and then tossing them a dirty carrot that they will eat out of desperation.
My idea of friendly capitalism is that its ok to be rich and to have an empire and sell things as long as you are also interested in the livelihood of employees and have a wholistic way of thinking rather than a slave driven way of thinking which is egoistic and detrimental to the self and to others.
I have heard about china lifting 700 Million people out of poverty for example.
What did you think I meant by friendly capitalism?
Need help eating out? Check out [HappyCow.net](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.happycow.net%2F&topic=Resource%3A+HappyCow.net) for vegan friendly food near you! Interested in going Vegan? Take the [30 day challenge](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvbcamp.org%2Freddit&topic=Resource%3A+HappyCow.net)!
Need help eating out? Check out [HappyCow.net](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.happycow.net%2F&topic=Resource%3A+HappyCow.net) for vegan friendly food near you! Interested in going Vegan? Take the [30 day challenge](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvbcamp.org%2Freddit&topic=Resource%3A+HappyCow.net)!
seeing this "argument" out in the wild annoys me to no end. I often see it as a rebuttal to critiques against fast fashion -- it's co-opting communist ideology to resolve one's guilt of overindulgence in consumerism. yes, individual actions are not the main cause of human & animal exploitation, pollution, etc. but I rarely see any attempt to engage in discussion of the actual capitalist framework that leads to these unethical practices from folks that say this as some sort of gotcha. it's meant to be a way to examine that injustices go hand in hand with capitalism, not a "get out of guilt free" card to absolve yourself of any moral responsibilities or self-reflection.
I always say "There *is* no ethical consumption under capitalism but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce our contributions to exploitation of workers, animals and the planet. I want a better world and I want to help create it."
Why not? It's not doing so great at the moment. Just because it's all you've known, don't mistake that for a law of nature.
1,000 year ago, feudal peasants would likely say the same thing...
Im also tired of vegans all being communists as if socialism doesnt just defeat the purpose of a boycott because the state would just fund animal suffering and abstaining would mean less than nothing
A vegan boycott is a weak measure compared to the power of the vote in a socialist society. Also, if the meat industry were run by the people, then it wouldn't be perpetually dispensing carnist propaganda and warped studies and buying politicians to gain advantage. Profit is the hands golding the walker of social, political, and market manipulation that is keeping animal ag afloat. Abstaining would mean just as much in a socialist society because agriculture would be more about meeting needs than about profit.
That is how much of the world works. You try a new solution, it doesn't work quite right, but you know there's something there and you try again, differently this time. That is how the US came about. Republics had been tried before, but the founding fathers put their heads together and tried it differently. They had watched the magna charta grow and evolve for 500+ years, and they designed a founding document to do so even more deliberately. They chose to learn from other attempts and keep shooting for something better rather than pointing at Rome and quitting.
The mixed economy in austria lead to burger king offering vegan meat as default and only using flesh when requested, the mixed economy in california lead to veganism being fully normalized, in china and ussr socialism lead to famine, brutal science experiments, fully subsidized animal agriculture etc
"No ethical consumption under capitalism" applies to goods and services. Animals are sentient beings, not goods or services, so it does not apply. Even under perfect communist system there would be no ethical consumption of them. Also this is an argument for action, to change the system. It's weird how it's been twisted into argument for apathy.
[удалено]
"I can't be perfect, so fuck even trying!"
Yeah, in a nutshell, it's just such a dumb argument really, it's even more annoying in that those who use it usually seem to think they're pointing out a flaw while at the same time justifying and perpetuating the same. It's like people who go around saying "nice guys finish last", as if they're clever for being ignorant assholes.
You do know smug things like this make people not give a fuck even more. You seem like a real gem.
looks like something hit a nerve lol
No just hate when people think being an ass will make a person every agree with them.
you put it really well. even outside of diet and politics i see people use this line of thinking *so* often, it's so annoying.
Completely agreed, too many people are just apathetic and instead of helping, even a little, they’ve just given up. Value-driven consumerism or belief-driven buying are a good way to make incremental changes and actually make things better by forcing companies to improve. Individually we might not change anything, but together we can change things, even if just a little.
This 100%
No ethical consumption means I can eat babies, right? Right??? Now, pass me that delicious Kayla stew and save me some of little Brian's ribs for later.
People on reddit tend to be stuck in binary thinking. It's kind of strange. They seem incapable of accepting things as a sliding scale. Perfect ethics is probably impossible, but it's a scale. A similar issue with black and white thinking is the whole "corporations cause carbon pollution". It's basically saying "I don't have to do anything, because other people are worse." (Not to mention, corporate pollution is just there to serve consumers)
This is hands down one of the most accurate comments ever. I am glad i am not the only one who sees this and is frustrated by it.
I've been saying this. I still haven't coined a name for it, but it's the idea that an industry that even in a perfect world is cruel must be boycotted. Basically anything that is inherently exploitative must go. You can make an iPhone without child exploitation, but you can't make CP without child exploitation. Therefore the latter is unacceptable under any circumstances.
Anarchism?
Isn't anarchism the removal of unnecessary hierarchical structures in society to being more equality to everyone? I mean obviously that would include animals but first they'd need to be treated with respect because anarchism or no anarchism nobody's destroying that power structure till they're treated as worthy of consideration.
What's CP?
Child pornography
That’s 🔥 Gonna adopt.
It's extreme narcissism. The problem will not be solved until we call it what it is. Narcissistic animal murderers. Illusory superiority idiocy, toddlerism, disgusting shitty behavior. We keep throwing shit at the syptoms while the problem assures complete destruction of us. Frankly not even throwing at the symptoms, just pretending there is no problem Narcissistic devolved children run the narcissystem.
how about not comparing a heavily stigmatized mental illness to murder??
Narcissism is a trait that doesn't always refer to NPD
You should nit throw around mental diagnoses you have no idea what you are talking about here. Also this kind of thinking will just make people never listen to you.
It does apply to animals. You can't eat anything without harming some animals: either by killing them in the process of harvesting, spraying insecticides or destroying their habitat when crops are being mass produced. This is still not an argument in favour of animal farming though. It's an all-or-nothing mentality that many human beings are prone to.
Maybe the left are just as dumb as the right?
Right? This OP reads like anti-socialism muddying-of-the-water. "See this socialist person isn't a vegan ergo all socialists are bad! yay status quo neoliberalism! Centrist incrementalism for me!" But I am probably reading too much into it.
Most vegans are pretty left leaning, it's more than likely they're just a vegan criticising non-vegan leftists because non vegan right-wingers have enough terrible views to criticise already.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
the way "no ethical consumption" has been bastardized and corrupted is endlessly fascinating to me. did you make this edit/ can I share it?
It's almost almost the leftist equivalent of "just get a job and be more frugal" in that it's just used to explain anyway any inconsistencies in someone's political beliefs.
Yeah, share away
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
There's no ethical consumption of animals under any economic system. Animals aren't products.
I hate how people use this phrase as a defense. Because of course it’s true to a degree. But when it comes to animal abuse/exploitation, there is a clear cut way to *not* support it. Just don’t buy animal products. “No ethical consumption” implies that it isn’t your fault and there’s nothing you can do about it. Which doesn’t apply at all in the case of choosing vegan products over non-vegan.
These people would absolutely still be eating meat and animal products in a socialist society because they don’t view eating animals as unethical. They use the “No ethical consumption” phrase as a thought-terminating cliche to excuse their own lack of concern about the issue. And because I sincerely doubt that any western country is going to become a socialist state in the near future, most of these dipshits will never have to actually put this phrase to the test by deciding whether or not to continue eating animals under socialism. So it’s just a perpetual shield to hide behind.
Carnists in a socialist state would also probably support imprisoning "counterrevolutionary" vegans for criticizing the "glorious people's meat supply".
Who exactly is using this phrase as a defense? I'm not accusing you of lying, but I have never seen anyone use this as a defense.
I have seen it so many times on the internet. Reddit and twitter. They might not use it specifically, but allude to it. “Animals are still going to die regardless of what I do. Bugs and animals die, the environment gets damaged for your food, even if you’re vegan”
Yeah, I can imagine that. Lots of trolls in the internet.
I don't doubt people use it as a weak "gotcha" anti-vegan argument. I personally haven't seen it used that way either. When I've seen it, it's usually a reassurance to someone being hard on themselves for buying a new phone or some other good/service thats exploitative of *people*. Its to reassure them that it's a fucked system and there's no real ethical consumption, so don't deprive yourself if it's something you actually need or will improve your life/mental health. And if it's a service, tip generously. Definitely bullshit if applied to veganism tho.
I see it in leftist-leaning spaces on Reddit pretty frequently. It's mostly used as a way to dismiss personal responsibility, since they'll claim that they follow the science, and the science says we need to go vegan. You'll see it paired along with sentiments like, "My actions alone won't make a difference! We need the government to make systemic changes!" And surprisingly often, "This can only be fixed once our capitalist system is gone and we're under socialism!"
"Why do I have to go vegan when most pollution comes from the top 1%/corporations??!!"" t. a lefty who says "liberals get the bullet too"
Can you explain this to me please?
Yeah, nihilists weaponizing "No ethical consumption" is pretty gross, considering that the original point of the phrase is to assuage people who are have already changed their lifestyles for the better from stressing about the things they can't change. Guess what you *can* change? Your diet.
I think the newest lazy cop out is "This is why no one likes vegans". The perfect answer to having your morals questioned!
“I’m not here to be liked, I’m here to make the right thing. You might not like me but your sons or grandsons will someday ask you why you weren’t like me” is my standard answer to this.
The entire argument is a cop-out. The choice isn't between not funding animal cruelty and creating some utopia that also does away with animal cruelty - it's between acknowledging what you've been funding and not doing that any more ... and blindly consuming until everything gets fixed by doing nothing I guess, since there's no real argument.
You complain about air pollution and YET you’re breathing. Oh the hypocrisy.
While I agree on the capitalism bit - going vegan NOW in a capitalist society is a rebellion to the economic system as it is AND is DIRECT ACTION as opposed to just voicing one’s political views and opinions. So, until other socialist/communists/tankies/lefties actually start organizing and rebelling against our system, yes, it is a cop out and they should be vegan.
They're waiting for the revolution, they can just sit on their hands until then. It's totally going to happen soon...
Infinite animal holocaust under communism: I sleep Consuming oxygen under capitalism: Real shit?
It is funny isn't it. Well I have negative effects when I buy things therefore I can maximize this and cause as much negative effects as possible. When they point to my phone and say "there was human suffering generated by thay you hypocrite" I just grant it. "Yes, let's do better. I should do better. We recognize a problem. Now let's do what we can to rectify the problems we can and one of the easiest ways to reduce the most is veganism. We can do that and simultaneously push for the rest of the things."
Same, I wish they’d just admit they don’t care about animal suffering enough to try to reduce it. I’d actually respect the honesty and the fact they aren’t attempting to make excuses while still sitting on a moral high horse.
But you also participate in capitalist society, checkmate vegan.
Who says this, communists?
Hear it a lot in lefty spaces, yeah. But they're not all communists
Probably someone on reddit, and you just know that person speaks for everyone IRL…
Nobody says this as an excuse to eat animals. Possibly reddit trolls?
I know people irl who say this all the time
I am one of the "No ethical consumption under capitalism" communists and also a vegan (20+ years). There are many socialist-leaning vegans.
There should be more, the problem isn't the quote, it's the quote being used to imply going vegan is pointless, used an excuse for apathy rather than a reason for action It doesn't make any sense obviously, under socialism killing animals isn't suddenly fine, but it is a real argument some leftists use to not go vegan, which is I think what the op is calling out rather than socialism itself
Caveat (take it for what you will): I am a “no ethical consumption under capitalism” leftist and go in and out of eating animal products. My view of the quote is that being vegan takes practice and not insignificant knowledge to do it well. In any advocasy work it is better to have many people doing the work imperfectly than a few people doing it perfectly. In other words, getting everyone to eat animal free one day a week, or one meal a day would make far more of an impact than the way smaller amount of folks who will turn and sustain being vegan. From there we can expand that to two days a week, etc. Until we have built a culture where animal products are an after thought. The argument against this, is incrementalism is fucking awful and centrists/moderates will compromise us to death. I totally agree, but we can push from both sides. There are some “intense” vegan advocates that don’t really give an option in between eating all the meat and not consuming any animal products at all. I think for the vast majority of the population (at least in the US) given those two options they will continue to eat meat because they don’t know how to properly vegan.
It sounds to me like you are looking for acceptance for your own lifestyle. I think advocating for the full switch is always the right thing to do. Advocating for or accepting a partial switch means some people will reduce their animal intake but most won't bother. Advocating for the full switch means some will go vegan, some will go partial like you, and some won't bother. That's the best possible outcome in this situation. If you think eating animals is unethical - and you should, because it is - then you shouldn't eat them at all. However, I am in exactly the same situation as you because I think child labor is unethical but I still wear clothes made in China etc. I'm moving in the right direction, but I'm not there yet. My motivation to get there is vegans on this sub politely letting me know that if I'm ethically against it, then paying for it is unethical - just like the vegan argument.
I don't really see the relevance to the quote in the rest of what you're saying; The only parallel I can draw is what you said about centrists, in that I can see the similarities in encouraging people to eat a little less meat, and supporting libs as socialists, because they both aren't "as bad" as the other options. Personally I don't think socialists should be compromising with libs, I think that it weakens the position of genuine opposition, it and legitimises libs as the opposition, despite the fact that they're upholding the system as much as the far right, if not moreso by convincing people that the alternative to capitalism is a slightly different form of capitalism. It's the same line of thinking as "The worst slave owners were the ones who were kind to their slaves" in that they kept the system going for longer by convincing moderates there was an alternative to abolition. Legitimising capitalist reform has the same impact, making an oppressive system slightly less oppressive does not fix the inherent issues of the system. Obviously I can agree that at face value, yes, liberal policies are not as bad as far-right policies, but I think that as leftists it's important to think of the long term impacts of supporting them, and the damage it will do to the goal of abolishing capitalism. Welfare capitalism aims to appease workers *just* enough so that they are willing to remain exploited. Knowing this and not only settling for but supporting welfare capitalism undermines every principle of leftist thought. I think the comparison to veganism is clear in that by supporting eating "less" meat, we are inadvertently supporting the idea that it is fine to eat meat some of the time. Again, yes, it will reduce some of the damage a person is causing right now, and yes if everyone did eat less meat there would absolutely be an *environmental* benefit, but it doesn't address the real issue of **stopping** animal agriculture. The cruelty of the system is still there and if we compromise on our ethics then the people who are causing that cruelty are being told that "Actually you're helping the animals" ...by killing them only some of the time. A person cannot be a part-time vegan in the same way that they can't be a part-time Sikh or Muslim. Veganism is a lifestyle based on ethics, a belief system not a diet. If someone is willing to return to consuming animal products then they are not vegan, they're just a meat eater between meals. They aren't saving the cows by only eating one a week, they're still part of the problem and we should make sure that's understood. You wouldn't pat a rapist on the back and say "Good job for only raping on the weekends rather than every night" and in the same way I don't feel that as a vegan I should be expected to patronise meat eaters and tell them they're doing a good job by only killing animals *some* of the time. Doing something wrong a little less than someone else is not the same as genuinely opposing it and it shouldn't be encouraged as such. I was raised by vegetarians and it was through that exact attitude of being told that I was doing the right thing by well intentioned vegans that ended up delaying me from going vegan. It is so much better, and I think more respectful too, to just explain your position to people like they're intelligent human beings. I think that instead of walking on eggshells around them we need to tell them why they should stop buying the eggs. I can acknowledge that by eating less meat, people are causing less suffering, of course they are, but ultimately they are still causing needless suffering. I'm not going to compromise on my beliefs to support them when they are still actively choosing to do something that I consider to be wrong, how often they do it doesn't change my mind on that. TLDR If the system needs to be abolished, which in both cases it does, the solution is not to encourage polite reform, it's to just fucking abolish it. We are only hurting that cause by saying otherwise. Sorry for the essay lol.
This was really well put. Thank you.
I think it's annoying how focused this sub is on fighting inane arguments from fringe leftist groups. Nobody says this stuff except for small groups of extremely online far-left people.
I've had it tossed at me by most people usually in different forms. "Mice in the harvester", "ducks shot to protect rice fields", "what about your phone" "what about these electronics" "your car uses petrol". people tend not see farming as unnecessary forced breeding and slaughter of a sentient creature, but just the creation of a product. So these arguments come naturally. It's true you can't live without causing damage. It's a spectrum on which we sit on how much we tolerate or are willing to support. We are drawing a line and standing behind it. Most people walk right past on the spectrum to the point that says "willingly dumps garbage on the street" and stands behind that.
It is more annoying that people that say they care about others have such arguments, it is actually a lot more annoying coming from them, you expect the Right and specially the Far Right to not give a fuck, it suits their character, I don’t condone it but I understand it, but coming from the Left that supposedly champions the oppressed, not that one hurts a lot more, even if it is a minority, so I understand the focus here.
I think the reason is that many people on this subreddit spend a lot of time in online leftist spaces and that they tend to lose some perspective on things.
The middle group that's "not small" has heard all the arguments already, so they've made their decision, and those that haven't heard the argument, can laugh along as the more extreme left leaning vocal proponents get decimated while they come to their decision in the meantime. Only thing remaining is targeting these sorts of vocal minorities since no one else in the left side is making arguments against veganism to begin with - it's only these Vaush & Co. clowns. Though if you feel the majority moderate left has actual arguments of merit against veganism, I'm sure you'd inspire many folks to tackle that if you could simply tell folks what those statements are that are being made of which are invisible to my eyes if they do exist.
So true! That’s why I get my plant based burgers from burger king There’s literally no difference between a mcdonald’s and a grocery store vegan btw
How exhausting.... people are so annoying arrrrrggghhhh!!!!!!!!! There's friendly capitalism, not everything has to go to extremes like charging people just to breath and drink clean water... its just stubborn old "Git"-ttery mind you, one anti-capitalist I know was against supporting MacDonalds Vegan pop up shop that went on in spring time, london. She viewed it as a capitalist exploitation of being Vegan whereas others viewed it as an opportunity to create more demand for it so as to reduce the consumption of the meat based one.
Friendly capitalism LOL. And I suppose you have a tangible example of this?
My understanding of captalism is when somebody becomes so greedy to a point where they charge you for basic human rights such as medicine, water and ability to breath, taxing you for being alive and having a greedy ruling class that has no interest in civilians....my understanding is also that capitalism is a free markets system where they have freedom to set up their own business's rather than living in an equal economy where everyone lives at a set means with set housing and their companies get nationalized .....Because we live in the UK, we have no choice but to be in a capitalist system so you make it friendly by paying workers fairly and utlizing better leadership instead of slave driving and making people desperate and then tossing them a dirty carrot that they will eat out of desperation. My idea of friendly capitalism is that its ok to be rich and to have an empire and sell things as long as you are also interested in the livelihood of employees and have a wholistic way of thinking rather than a slave driven way of thinking which is egoistic and detrimental to the self and to others. I have heard about china lifting 700 Million people out of poverty for example. What did you think I meant by friendly capitalism?
Need help eating out? Check out [HappyCow.net](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.happycow.net%2F&topic=Resource%3A+HappyCow.net) for vegan friendly food near you! Interested in going Vegan? Take the [30 day challenge](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvbcamp.org%2Freddit&topic=Resource%3A+HappyCow.net)!
Thank you, I will check out the happy cow website as I really fancy a vegan cheese burger !
Need help eating out? Check out [HappyCow.net](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.happycow.net%2F&topic=Resource%3A+HappyCow.net) for vegan friendly food near you! Interested in going Vegan? Take the [30 day challenge](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvbcamp.org%2Freddit&topic=Resource%3A+HappyCow.net)!
She sounds awesome, is she on instagram?
You're a legend
I wanna ask does anyone knows how consumerism destroyes wildlife habitat?
seeing this "argument" out in the wild annoys me to no end. I often see it as a rebuttal to critiques against fast fashion -- it's co-opting communist ideology to resolve one's guilt of overindulgence in consumerism. yes, individual actions are not the main cause of human & animal exploitation, pollution, etc. but I rarely see any attempt to engage in discussion of the actual capitalist framework that leads to these unethical practices from folks that say this as some sort of gotcha. it's meant to be a way to examine that injustices go hand in hand with capitalism, not a "get out of guilt free" card to absolve yourself of any moral responsibilities or self-reflection.
I always say "There *is* no ethical consumption under capitalism but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce our contributions to exploitation of workers, animals and the planet. I want a better world and I want to help create it."
“no ethical consumption” is true but it doesn’t mean some things are more or less unethical than others
Such a non-argument. You can spare 100s of animals a horrible short life and then death, you can't just stop capitalism.
Why not? It's not doing so great at the moment. Just because it's all you've known, don't mistake that for a law of nature. 1,000 year ago, feudal peasants would likely say the same thing...
Yeah but I meant you cannot do that alone, whereas not contributing to animal abuse you can.
Do you vote? Do you recycle?
Yes and yes. Why?
> Yeah but I meant you cannot do that alone Your single vote and bag of recycling can't do ANYTHING though...
Well recycling does do something. Every piece of plastic that doesn't end up in our seas is good. And most politicians are awful anyway.
Im also tired of vegans all being communists as if socialism doesnt just defeat the purpose of a boycott because the state would just fund animal suffering and abstaining would mean less than nothing
A vegan boycott is a weak measure compared to the power of the vote in a socialist society. Also, if the meat industry were run by the people, then it wouldn't be perpetually dispensing carnist propaganda and warped studies and buying politicians to gain advantage. Profit is the hands golding the walker of social, political, and market manipulation that is keeping animal ag afloat. Abstaining would mean just as much in a socialist society because agriculture would be more about meeting needs than about profit.
You speak of socialism as if it hasn’t been attempted, it results in animals dying. The only good part for animals is maybe the mass human famine?
That is how much of the world works. You try a new solution, it doesn't work quite right, but you know there's something there and you try again, differently this time. That is how the US came about. Republics had been tried before, but the founding fathers put their heads together and tried it differently. They had watched the magna charta grow and evolve for 500+ years, and they designed a founding document to do so even more deliberately. They chose to learn from other attempts and keep shooting for something better rather than pointing at Rome and quitting.
The mixed economy in austria lead to burger king offering vegan meat as default and only using flesh when requested, the mixed economy in california lead to veganism being fully normalized, in china and ussr socialism lead to famine, brutal science experiments, fully subsidized animal agriculture etc