… unless the person works voluntarily, that is.
Sorry babe, i can’t vacuum the house cause I’m vegan.
Level 8 veganism iirc
Not vegan so correct me if I’m wrong here, but I thought the whole point of veganism was an objection to the non-consensual use of animal products. Humans are aware of the use of their labor and consent to it, exploitation by circumstance notwithstanding.
I don’t work voluntarly tho, i have to work because otherwise i am gonna be homeless and i can’t get food
I do not consent, no. I only go to work because otherwise I am threatened by homelessness.
Don’t forget starvation, disease and untimely death.
Consent is a bad metric because it ignores externalities—stuff like economic incentives, implicit threats of loss of basic needs, propaganda, trauma. Someone can be said to consent to exploitation, even if they only did so to continue surviving under oppressive economies/states. I “consent” to have the value of my labor extracted, pooled, and distributed to business owners in the same way I “consent” to the privacy policies (and the sale of my Personally Identifying Information) of the software the company I work for requires us to use (to remain employed)
That’s why I prefer focusing on exploitation. Someone doesn’t have to know they’re being exploited, agree that they’re being exploited, nor even want to not be exploited for it to still be unjust to exploit them and identify when it is happening. Veganism is a stance against animal exploitation.
i do think that “voluntary” is a pretty clear term. would you still do it if it didn’t cost you anything, and it also didn’t get you any physical reward?
The problem I have with “voluntary” is that someone can still fall into the category of being exploited, either willingly or without their knowledge, and still happily and voluntarily participate in an unjust relationship
and this is what i don’t get. if somebody likes being exploited, then why not let them?
Good question. I have my own opinions, but I’d be more interested in hearing what reasons you can come up with (and any counterarguments you have to them), so I’m gonna challenge you to do that while slogging through all my disorganized brain droppings.
My biggest issue with “let people be exploited if they want” is that it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If the world was two people, one who seeks to exploit and the other who seeks to be exploited, then I don’t really care; in our world, it’s a bad basis for society to allow for injustice simply because people can be convinced to want it.
In such a world, the exploiters (whether individuals or organizations) would seek to control whatever systems of education, media, and ideology they could to convince as many people as possible that being exploited is good for them. This would allow for them to centralize power, and that power would enforce a class divide; anyone who didn’t exploit others would be relegated to being one of the exploited class, anyone who willingly exploited others but didn’t work to convert more into “wanting to be exploited” would never amass as much power as those that do.
Besides the perverse incentives, that division would create a power imbalance that attracts (into the positions of authority) individuals and groups who are both indoctrinated into the system, and more efficient at subjugating others. That means there is a filter naturally built into any such system that selects for people who view others more as statistics and resources than people with inherent value, and are skilled at both convincing them to want exploitation and exploiting them.
Being the real world, people will not be perfect, so any lack of skill in one domain will require compensation in the other. If someone cannot be convinced to be exploited willingly, the authority will need to find other ways of enforcing exploitation.
Lifeforms being how they are, not all of them will be brainwashable; that means oppression will be necessary, as dissent is a threat to the amount of power an authority has amassed and imposes “soft” limits on how much power can be amassed—that is, limitations that can be overcome with enough effort (as opposed to physical limitations like the total amount of living beings). And any threat to the power imbalance is a threat to the system itself, a threat to the society.
We have thus specified a system that selects for abusers and oppressors in positions of power, without once having to speculate that unjust and cruel people would begin in such positions.
Now one might claim I’m just using a slippery-slope fallacy, that we might be able to specify such a society that accounts for the aforementioned flaws, and implements some sort of system of checks-and-balances to keep from the balance shifting so egregiously. And to that, I want to point out how any such system constitutes an aforementioned “soft” limit on power, but does not remove the incentives at the core of the system.
Meanwhile, in a just society, anyone who wants to be exploited and anyone who wants to exploit are given the knowledge and resources necessary to overcome such primal desires. Maybe they are educated, or maybe given safely contained environments—e.g. VR, or LARP, or BDSM—to exercise their desires without negatively impacting others/society.
I would also challenge the assumption that there is some naturally-arising desire to be exploited. Put another way: assuming a perfectly just society, whence comes the desire to be exploited?
Define “physical reward”?
I would argue that the good feeling from a well done job counts as a physical reward 🙂 and is a necessary motivational feedback. If you mean monetary or resource awards, I agree.
That good feeling is a psychological reward. It is not physical. You cannot hold it, touch it, or give it to someone else for doing a job.
Eh, it impacts my physical body, those hormones exist. How about extrinsic awards, as opposed to intrinsic awards?
Did you only read the title
The OP was a little vague to me, but I’m also a little drunk.
exploitation by circumstance notwithstanding
yeah that was exactly what i was referring to. as long as we’d rather stay in bed in the morning, we’re not doing it voluntarily. and be honest, do you go to work voluntarily? would you still do it if you didn’t need the money? if so, then yes, it is vegan.
Wait… So unless food magically appears with no labor at all, because labor isn’t fun, no food is vegan?
So no food is vegan other than literal windfall fruit from a tree? Or does picking it up could as labor?
Religions are less strict
well, the question is whether you enjoy the act of picking up a fruit and eating it, i guess. like, even if a full platter suddenly appears in front of you, you still have to shove the mass into your mouth. do you enjoy doing that? if not, then why do you eat?
I find hunting, fishing, raising livestock, and gardening quite rewarding. Don’t make the first ones vegan.
But plenty of people, per OP, don’t “like” anything other than shoving food into their mouths, and sleeping.
This is such a stupid baby child perspective. Bitch, please, calories cost work. That’s literally thermodynamics. Get over your erudite fantasies of fully automated luxury (gay optional) (space optional) communism being now. It’s not now.
i never said that other people find all work unpleasant to do. there are many people who do a whole lot of activities voluntarily. (just look at how many people go to the gym, etc.)
But plenty of people, per OP, don’t “like” anything other than shoving food into their mouths, and sleeping.
so no, that’s not what i meant.
Sure you can make that argument under capitalism, where people are deprived of the value their labor created in order to force them to work more so they may survive. Hence why people should strive for communism. If everyone lived vegan people would be compelled to work as they are able in order to not cause undue burden on others, which again would not be vegan.
“From each according to their ability to each according to their need.”
Would not be vegan. Are you starting a religion?
If everyone lived vegan people would be compelled to work as they are able in order to not cause undue burden on others, which again would not be vegan.
i don’t quite get your last sentence. what if the person themselves doesn’t want to work?
If the person doesn’t want to work how will they sustain themselves? They have to rely on other peoples labor without contributing their own. If people don’t want to subsidize someone else then that person would either have to start working “against their will” or take other peoples labor without consent, which you have already pointed out, is not vegan. So if everyone were vegan that person would be compelled to work as they are able in order to be able to remain vegan.
Idk its kinda tortured logic when spelling it all out lol
Nature compells us to work for food anyway, that’s not exploitation and coercion, that’s just survival.
The construct of society is predicated on the idea of “from each… to each…” That saying often gets conflated with left-wing politics, but that’s just the point of animals (humans included) grouping together; after all, what’s the point of living in society if it doesn’t convey any benefits to the individual that they could not provide for themselves? That would be exploitative of the individual. But if they are benefitting, then it is only fair and just to also give back to the society one extracts benefits from, otherwise it is exploitative of the others.
Put another way: no one should be obligated to participate in society, but then society should likewise have no obligations to the non-participants.
Put another way: no one should be obligated to participate in society, but then society should likewise have no obligations to the non-participants.
funnily enough, that is exactly what capitalism postulates. that those who don’t work, don’t deserve to eat. “useless eaters” and all that, my mother can (sadly) give you a long and stern lecture about that (she is very much what you would call a “conservative”).
capitalism re-formulates that by saying that you need money to buy food, but to get that money, you have to work. in other words, who doesn’t work, doesn’t get food. that’s why many people say it’s cruel and inhumane because it makes people suffer who don’t work. and that’s exactly why we have things such as social safety nets etc. where the state gives money to people sothat they can buy basic stuff with it if they are poor. because society at large revolts against the concept of “who doesn’t work, shouldn’t eat”. or at least that’s how it is in most (civilized) countries, except of course in america people don’t always see things that way.
funnily enough, that is exactly what capitalism postulates.
Well yes and no. I guess it comes down to how you define participation in society. Capitalism only accepts production of commodities, whereas I meant it in a more broad sense. E.g. non-monetized hobbies are classified as entirely consumptive behaviors by capitalist societies, but if you look at the benefits conveyed by an open-source, volunteer project like lemmy you quickly see how much of a misclassification that is.
Even not in the extreme there are broad misclassifications under capitalism. You bring up the example of those of us on welfare; capitalists might agree with you that they are non-participants, whereas I don’t think it’s illogical to claim that services like raising children or advocating for change or community-building or maintaining a home or even just providing emotional support are ways that people contribute to and participate in society. I’d even go so far as to boldly claim that welfare is simply the way the bourgeois convey wages to such people, and then they have the gall to propagandize it as charity to make themselves look better, while simultaneously vilifying this subset of the working class
Nature compells us to work for food anyway, that’s not exploitation and coercion, that’s just survival.
Not all of us ahem bourgeoisie ahem
The construct of society is predicated on the idea of “from each… to each…”
of course, however what makes a societies differ is exactly what gets filled in to the “…”
“from each slave to each slavemaster” -> slavery
“from each serf to each lord” -> feudalism
“from each worker to each owner” -> capitalism
“from each person (according to their ability) to each person (according to their need)” -> socialism 😄Not all of us ahem bourgeoisie ahem
I meant moreso that it compels us outside of the structure of a society, which also precludes any social classes. One cannot be bourgeois if one does not live amongst others whom they can subjugate.
of course, however what makes a societies differ is exactly what gets filled in to the “…”
Ha! I was trying to refer to the idiom without being verbose, not leaving those blanks as variables.
I guess my take is that what determines a society is more how “ability” and “need” are defines, that way the social structure is not oversimplified to a single one-sided relationship. E.g. a feudalist would claim the serfs need protection from thieves and bandits, and a lord has the ability to provide such protection; the lord, conversely, needs grain and the serfs have the ability to farm it
This comment got a bit away from me lol, I just love talking about marxism too much I guess 😁 Please do tell me if it’s just too long for you to read or doesnt make sense or whatever.
A society is defined by how it produces and survives. When we talk about an “agrarian society” or “nomad society”, “hunter gatherers” etc. we talk about how a group of people produced food. When we talk about slave or feudal or capitalist society we talk about the relationships that people enter into in order to produce. It is not possible to work, or be compelled to work outside of society. Until we have socialism nothing compels us to work outside of social classes. I wouldn’t be working if my bourgeois didn’t compel me to. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
The great leaps in society have all been defined by changes in how we produce which compelled us to reorganise ourselves. Once we learned to domesticate wheat we stopped wandering and settled. We learned to make stone, bronze, iron tools and every time society was restructured. The steam engine revolutionized (literally!) our whole society since suddenly the work had to be divided into smaller parts. No longer could one laborer own all the tools required for their work themselves, they had become too expensive. The spinstress on the farm could no longer compete with the machines and so people began migrating to the cities since that is where the work was. This gave rise to the merchant class who became more powerful the more they gained control over the means of production until they overthrew feudal society for a more liberal approach at organising production. But as the wealth and control is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, as the petite bourgeois “middle class” shrinks and is thrown into the proletariat we will soon have to reorganise our society again. Especially since the global south is starting to band together and awakens as to where their oppression comes from. What will we do without our cheap labor?
“One cannot be bourgeois if one does not live amongst others whom they can subjugate” indeed! Now you’re thinking in dialectics 😁 We define social classes in terms of eachother and liberation of one is done by abolishing the other. There are no slaves if there are no slaveowners which is why people fought the slaveowners in order to free the slaves. No serfs where there is no nobility and no proletariat (employees) where there are no employers (bourgeoisie).
Ha! I was trying to refer to the idiom without being verbose, not leaving those blanks as variables.
My point was that you took out the most salient part of that quote. That communism is defined not by social classes but by “ability” and “need” is its defining characteristic. Because at the moment people are not getting what they “need” but rather what they “earn” which in the best of cases matches up, but does not always (or indeed not often, if we look at most capitalist societies currently in existence). And what they “earn” is defined by the contract they entered into with their employers. This means that the laborer wants to maximise what they sell their labor power for, whereas the employer wants to minimise what they buy the labor power with. This is what is called a contradiction in dialectics.
These contradictions are how we define social classes and the resolvement of these contradictions (their “synthesis”) is what we are most interested in. The merchant class and the feudal class for instance were marked by the contradiction that the merchants wanted to be able to sell to whomever they pleased (they wanted a free market), whereas the feudal class wanted to amass without having to buy. Whoever was under their jurisdiction had to give them a share, was taxed simply for being within their jurisdiction. Which differs from taxes today which have to justified by how they are necessary for the survival of the government and the state. The lords didn’t need such a justification, “my land my rules”. This contradiction came to a head and got resolved by the abolishment of the feudal class (or at least by bringing it to heel and under the rule of the bourgeoisie). The synthesis of feudal society was a capitalist one.
I guess my take is that what determines a society is more how “ability” and “need” are defines, that way the social structure is not oversimplified to a single one-sided relationship.
Yes! Welcome to dialectics!! It is indeed not a one-sided relationship! The employer needs our work and we need access to the means of production! This mutual need is how capitalism operates.
A very compelling narrative, thank you for sharing! Based on my limited understanding of history and economics and sociology, it feels true. But I’m no expert :)
The one point that I don’t really understand is:
It is not possible to work, or be compelled to work outside of society. Until we have socialism nothing compels us to work outside of social classes. I wouldn’t be working if my bourgeois didn’t compel me to.
This doesn’t make sense to me. My functional definition is that work is just expending energy to transition something from one state into another. Moving a boulder up a hill is still work, regardless of motivations of the actor. How are you defining “work”?
ok so what you’re describing here is that …
- first of all, labor seems to be the constant in your worldview that everything revolves around. do you believe (or think that it’s possible / desirable) that we will eventually have a fully automated luxury society?
- if yes, how would you call such a system?
secondly, it seems to me that the point that “bourgeoisie” doesn’t work is a big problem to you. mind explaining why? is it because society desperately needs that 1% extra labor output? is it because of some “work is a moral must” mindset (quasi-religious)? is it for some other reason?
thirdly, it seems to me that you’re defining
communismsocialism as essentially our current society, just that CEOs don’t get huge bonuses and shareholders don’t skim company profit. so, in other words, our current world minus the stock market: every company has to emit zero profit (such that no shareholders gain from it) and all the money must instead be spent on the business itself: wages to workers and resource acquirements.did i understand that correctly? would you add anything? do you think that this setup is already feasible in today’s legal framework through worker-owned businesses? (“co-ops” and what they’re called)
I didn’t mean to be curt with my other reply I hope it didn’t come across that way, I just don’t know what you mean by most of your questions. So I will answer as best as I understand them
first of all, labor seems to be the constant in your worldview that everything revolves around. do you believe (or think that it’s possible / desirable) that we will eventually have a fully automated luxury society?
The process by which we produce the things that keep us alive, how we work, define how we relate to one another and how society is structured. The relation between slave and slavemaster, serf and lord, employee and employer are fundamentally different and shape all of society. Society at it’s core is defined by it’s mode of production. In that sense “labor” is indeed what my worldview revolves around, but I wouldn’t say it’s a constant. How we labor and what we do constantly changes. Whether we will eventually have a “fully automated luxury society”, I don’t know. Luxury is having a very comfortable life (relative to others) and what we consider comfortable and how we enjoy things is again defined by society around us so I’d say no, or it depends on what you compare luxury with since it’s a relative term.
We already live in a luxury society compared to even 100 years ago. Even once we are able to do it without oppressing the global south I don’t think our quality of life would significantly diminish. The reason we don’t consider having comfortable transportation, (theoretically) good healthcare, the sheer wealth of information we can access in instant with a rectangle we carry around or our multi-roomed homes with running hot water, a fridge, washing machine and dishwasher a luxury is because everyone has them. To the average laborer from 100 years ago however these things would surely look like a “fully automated luxury society”. Imagine being able to access a whole library from a single portable device and just print whatever you want?? 🤯
Fully automated is also too nebulous a term for me, presumably we will still cook our own food, raise our own kids what I would consider inevitable is how we relate to our labor and how we perceive it. For instance people might do gardening where they raise crops as a fun neighborhood activity, where everyone is welcome to pluck the crop as they need or wish. This is for instance very common in Viet Nam. Farming communes were already wide-spread before sanctions and capital reimposing itself on society forced them to introduce companies again.
secondly, it seems to me that the point that “bourgeoisie” doesn’t work is a big problem to you.
It’s not so much that the bourgeoisie doesn’t work. It’s that they are parasitic on others labor. They take without consent. That’s my main issue. “From each according to their ability…” is not a call to make everyone work as much as possible but rather a call to share what we can.
thirdly, it seems to me that you’re defining
communismsocialism as essentially our current society, just that CEOs don’t get huge bonuses and shareholders don’t skim company profit. so, in other words, our current world minus the stock market: every company has to emit zero profit (such that no shareholders gain from it) and all the money must instead be spent on the business itself: wages to workers and resource acquirements.Absolutely not, communism is a classless society, socialism is the intermittent period. Shareholders or other forms of passive income are antithetical to that.
no, I’m a marxist and leninist, not a social democrat
what you’re describing is just capitalism with extra steps
This socialist ideal of providing luxury goods to the poor masses for cheap is exactly the problem. If the world would be more capitalist, we wouldn’t subsidise the meat industries and the poor would be forced to buy beans.
not necessarily, very abridged version:
The tendency of the rate of profit to fall will soon mean that an industry will stop producing said commodity. It can’t anymore if it’s unprofitable. This is where the state has to step in and start subsidizing that industry or buying the commodity themself in order to articially inflate demand in order to keep that industry afloat. See e.g. the “butter mountains” of the EU.
That wikipedia article on “The tendency of the rate of profit to fall” is a horrible introduction btw. If you want to know more you can read “Arbeitslohn und Kapital”/“Wage labour and capital” by Marx himself, much more digestible. And rather short.
The tendency of the rate of profit to fall will soon mean that an industry will stop producing said commodity. It can’t anymore if it’s unprofitable. This is where the state has to step in and start subsidizing that industry or buying the commodity themself in order to articially inflate demand in order to keep that industry afloat. See e.g. the “butter mountains” of the EU.
ahem i just so happen to be very familiar with the whole concept of the tendency of rate of profit to fall (TRPF) and you’re misunderstanding it here. it turns to be unprofitable in the sense that the profit rate approaches zero (for example, exponentially), it does not go negative! companies continue to produce stuff as long as the profit is larger than zero, which it always stays. so they continue to produce stuff indefinitely, according to the model. even though they make less and less profit with it. no state subsidizing involved here.
this is maybe a subtlety here. something can converge towards zero while also always staying positive. check out this function:
ahem I know about e-x and convergence thanks, I had some math in high school too.
I don’t know what it means for the tendency of the rate of profit to be negative (or positive, or 0 for that matter). It’s not a number. If you’re talking about the rate of profit of course that can go negative. I think what you mean is that it will be balanced out, but not as high as it was before. Here is how its explained in Wage labour and capital, emphasis mine
We have just seen how the fluctuation of supply and demand always bring the price of a commodity back to its cost of production. The actual price of a commodity, indeed, stands always above or below the cost of production; but the rise and fall reciprocally balance each other, so that, within a certain period of time, if the ebbs and flows of the industry are reckoned up together, the commodities will be exchanged for one another in accordance with their cost of production. Their price is thus determined by their cost of production.
If you want to illustrate this movement a function like cos(x)/x would be more prudent. Here is 10*cos(x)/x to make it “pop” more:
Remember that convergence doesn’t necessarily mean monotone convergence, and you’ll be hard pressed to find a monotone graph in economics 😄 Here is a more illustrive graph for TRPF
You also say that “companies continue to produce stuff as long as the profit is larger than zero, which it always stays” which is absolutely false! A companies profit absolutely can be zero, or even negative! Remember profit = m - m’, where m’ is the money you have after selling the commodity. Or in more plain words, if you have less money after selling than before producing you made negative profit. If you didn’t get your investment back, you didn’t make profit.
yeah ok, i didn’t mean to belittle you by explaining convergence and such, it’s just that i wasn’t sure what level of math education you got.
Sorry maybe I overreacted, it just felt condescending, no hard feelings I hope
Thats the exact opposite of capitalism. Unprofitable business go bankrupt. Then their possessions and their labor force gets absorbed by other companies.
This is to align work with reality.
If politicians would artificially decide what companies to keep someone would have to pay for their mistakes. Markets are much better at this (just read “the use of knowledge in society” by Friedrich von Hayek)
Just like the suffering of animals is unnecessary to feed the planet, we now have to pay for the costs of climate change, because people want to life in a socialist fantasy.
Ok so unprofitable businesses keep going bankrupt, get gobbled up by a bigger corporation until one corporation has a monopoly. That’s the trend we’re seeing right? How many corporations for food are there left now? Nestle, Unilever, Coca Cola, Mondelez and that’s pretty much it right? Well what happens when the tendency of the rate of the profit to fall forces them to no longer produce food. Do we just go extinct?
This (in case of the “butter mountains” and in general) isn’t some politicians deciding which companies to keep, this is the state intervening to save itself. They have to prop up an entire industry that cannot reduce costs any further which means that the price keeps fluctuating around 0 profit which means the entire industry goes extinct. That’s why there is a fixed price on milk, not to save some companies, but to prop up the entire industry. Capitalism will devolve sooner or later into state planning since without this state intervention industries start collapsing.
Could you imagine the ramification of the entire dairy industry dying out? (😸) The economy would go haywire, entire villages depend on their dairy farming, they would revolt it would be pandemonium. This is where capitalism finally leads.
Veganism is extremely capitalistic, because it relies on supply and demand to change the amount of animal suffering that is/was produced.
Veganism is simply not taking part in animal suffering, you’re thinking of “animal liberation” which is the active part.
And yes one way to reduce animal suffering is to leverage basic market laws about supply and demand. But buying and selling isn’t capitalism. People in every socialist nation ever have bought and sold stuff, and when stuff wasn’t in demand the supply reacted accordingly. If you want an introductory book I can recommend some (earnest, not trying to be mean, it just seems like you don’t know the definition of the terms you’re using).
But there is also direct action, adoption of rescued animals and maybe some other stuff I can’t remember right now that people that take part in animal liberation do.
Buying and selling with a currency is capitalism. If I would just get a meal ticket from the communist party, I might trade away more of my belongings, but thats not the same market vegans try to address.
This is not how communism works, how any socialist society operates, I’m sorry but you’ve completely fallen for the propaganda and are living outside of reality.
The fact that “Buying and selling with a currency” is not capitalism is also very clear from the fact that we were buying and selling with a currency under feudalism, under slavery, currency predates capitalism by millenia.
I’ll post here that I saw this / credit for this should probably go to this subway takes
funny :) but i came up with it independently
Would make more sense if post was talking about slavery, not labor. Labor is compensated.
Compare the GDP of your country to earned income, do a tiny bit of math, discover what portion of the workforce are slaves.
There is some labor out there that doesn’t really contribute to the reported GDP numbers. Water and wastewater workers don’t directly contribute to GDP numbers but do allow other people and businesses to contribute to GDP. The amount of treated water a city creates isn’t counted towards GDP.
Thank you, that is a totally fair criticism.
Actually, wait. Wouldn’t that mean that the earned income from labor that doesn’t contribute to GDP should be excluded (perhaps not in its entirety, because that labor indirectly contributes)? Which means that the difference between GDP and the compensation to labor to create it is larger?
Mm, so if a worker creates added value, that makes the worker a slave? Interesting theory.
When GDP is three times earned income, labor is being undercompensated so much that approximately two-thirds of the workforce is enslaved, yes.
They could be slave part time though
I will try rephrasing it: its a nonsensical, fucking stupid proposal that gdp should equal earned income, and that somehow if the two are not equal then the difference amounts to slavery.
Do you care to elaborate, why do you even think these two should be the same, and what the difference has to do with slavery, as it relates to the actual meaning of that expression, not random things you don’t like.
yeah but do you go to work voluntarily? would you still do it if you didn’t need the money? if so, then yes, it is vegan.
I go to work for money (in the job I chose), and I get money, i call that a fair deal. If I was owned by someone, was forced to work, and would not get paid in return, I would be a slave. I mean what do you think it should be like? I don’t go to work and I get paid anyways? Who makes the shit I buy with the money then?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if your work’s payment feels like a fair deal, you’re very privileged when compared to the average human
Edit: even being able to choose your job is a privilege…
i mean, i only asked whether you go to work voluntarily, and whether it could therefore be considered vegan.
The only way someone can work voluntarily is if they have the option to not work and still live with some semblance of comfort and security.
This means that almost all people are obliged to work.
Yes
deleted by creator
We are also riddled with pesticides (perfumes, deodorants), bred in captivity (social/gender/sexual norms) and - if you’re going to consume us either way - our caloric and nutritional values are abysmal (compared to our alternatives).
CW holocaust stuff
if you’re going to consume us either way - our caloric and nutritional values are abysmal (compared to our alternatives).
Well you can still make leather from human hide and other human-based products. That’s what the nazi’s did with their prisoners. The whole work camps where basically human agriculture where they were maximising the profit the could gain by minimizing the cost of sustaining the labor-power. They were calculating how much calories people need in order to do exactly the work required and nothing else so they could save penny’s on food. That’s why they started experimenting with human leather, in order to recoup some of the costs by creating commodities from the corpse a laborer left behind etc. It’s really was the same mentality that goes into dairy farming or chicken or really any animal agricutlure ever.
Yeah, soap too 😢
Disgusting zionism
When the Holocaust survivors arrived in Israel from the inferno, they were attacked as “sabonim” (Hebrew slang for a naive person but also for “soap,” a reference to Nazi experiments to make soap from Jewish fat) or “sheep to the slaughter”; feeble exilic Jews, pale Ashkenazi nebbishes who shouted in their sleep.
In germany we have the saying: „to wash you hands in innocence.“ I guess thats what that was about.
no that’s biblical https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/die_Hände_in_Unschuld_waschen look at “Herkunft”
dude … pls put that behind a spoiler tag. that is a serious infohazard there
done
thanks :)
As a vegan I’m of the opinion that humans are an exception and as such cannibalism, murder and genocide are all vegan and morally correct.
why so? what makes humans non-animals?
also what kind of view is this? where is the meaning in that?
No humans in zoo exhibits
u serious? that’s your reasoning? that’s all?
with a side of ecofascism
I don’t think you need to be vegan to realise we’re the exception.
Like, people don’t tend to get very upset about cannibalism in the animal kingdom, it’s actually quite normal for some species. And murder and genocide only apply to humans in the first place, as these concepts don’t exist for animals, either.
