I thought it looked really weird the first time, and I see it now when re-reading.
Extremely unserious thing to “write”.
I mean not to discredit Kenyan maoists who I know little about, but who the hell refers to them as a “major communist party” in the Global South as some kind of puritan gotcha. And I am not even gonna mention the Norwegian trots or w/e…
I feel a bit silly taking the time to answer now. For shame! (…lmao)
and that CFgaussian here is apparently more willing to take the party line of petty bourgeois Anglo-Amerikan COVID conspiracy theorists and friends of Jeffrey Epstein than a major communist party in the Global South. CFgaussian really seems like the type of person who gets off on “knowing things other people don’t” regardless of if those facts are actually true — a real “fart smeller” who does not care for any sort of historical rigor. For shame!
Points and disagreements can and should be made without petty personal attacks like this. They add nothing and make a serious discussion less serious.
Prominent leftists who deny the Bosnian genocide appear to largely come from Seppoland/USA and the UK, including Noam Chomsky, known friend of Jeffrey Epstein.
Just because American “leftists” spend a lot of time in the (english speaking) spotlight does not make them “prominent leftists” apart from in the eyes of many western liberals. So called “prominent” American leftists are generally prominent in the US only, which should tell you something. This is especially true for the zionist Chomsky who I’ve never heard described as a leftist except outside of ML circles.
Regardless, someone being morally bankrupt (e.g. affiliated with Epstein) does not immediately disqualify their analysis or the conclusions thereof. Morally bankrupt people can provide really good analysis, just as those with acceptable morals can do the opposite – it is actually quite irrelevant to the point, which is why I think the opening paragraph is silly. (In the case of Chomsky, his analysis is usually quite bad, and at best partly good)
As should be known by now, “genocide” as a term is historically contested in numerous ways. Importantly, in modern political discourse, it has a idealistic binarizing effect. The label is often weaponized by imperialist powers to establish an uncritical “good vs. evil” narrative, effectively short-circuiting any critical investigation into the geopolitical complexities of a conflict. It raises the social cost of analyzing the situation objectively, labeling anyone who deviates from the NATO line as an “apologist.”
We have to recognize that the term itself, and its legal framework, is highly politicized and somewhat arbitrary. The UN definition was a post-WW2 political compromise that, for example, deliberately excluded the targeting of political groups. International law is not an objective, neutral truth handed down from above, but something shaped by bourgeois hegemony. When the West loudly invokes the “genocide” label, it is in many cases to manufacture consent for intervention—in this case, the dismantling of Yugoslavia and the expansion of NATO—not out of a genuine humanitarian concern. It is often more important to answer what happened and how it was shaped by class-dynamics, rather than whether it can be binarized as “genocide or no genocide”. Most western states contest that the Israeli oppression & extermination of Palestinians is genocide, for various reasons. Here the term is used in the opposite way – to sway the discussion away from the important questions: what is happening in Palestine and how are western states perpetrating it, to a discussion about legality, pseudo-definitions, vague arguments about “intent”, etc. It holds little material benefit for the Palestinians if the Israeli oppression is (correctly) categorized as a genocide or not, compared to actually destroying the zionist state.
Furthermore, appealing to the authority of specific (maoist) communist publications simply because they are from the Global South (or Norway lol) does not automatically make their historical analysis correct. Some of the publications you cited take dogmatic or liberal-aligned stances on modern multipolar conflicts (such as characterizing Russia as an imperialist power on par with the US). A group’s geographic location or self-proclaimed title does not replace the need for rigorous dialectical materialism. I don’t think many would contest my view that neither Norwegian or Kenyan maoists have a large influence (or any at all) in global south leftists circles. Invoking them as some kind of non-western gotcha does not instill confidence that you are in tune with any part of actual non-western leftist discourse.
None of this is to say that atrocities, ethnic cleansing, or war crimes did not occur. The collapse of Yugoslavia was a tragedy driven by reactionary bourgeois nationalism on all sides, exacerbated by IMF debt traps and Western meddling. But refusing to unspool the NATO narrative, and instead resorting to ad hominem attacks and guilt by association, is a not materialist analysis. We have to be able to critique the weaponization of the “genocide” narrative without falling into bourgeois moralism.
My whole life is spent discussing things with people of different viewpoints and perspectives, that is no problem. I find it unclear in what way the post has a connection to “purity logic”.
Parenti is at most a socialist.
Fair.
What is Prashad doing in the US, a freaking lost cause, instead of helping in Kerala?
That doesn’t seem like very constructive criticism. Even though I’d agree the US is a lost cause.
He doesnt? I thought he spent all his time there, ever since he graduated from a US university in 1989? He was a professor in Connecticut until 2017 and now lives in Massachusetts…
It is hard. If we are talking academically, after Parenti died I’d say Vijay Prashad maybe? He is doing a lot at https://thetricontinental.org/, writes really good books, and is probably the most public marxist in the US.
Ah that was a little missleading, I just put K-visa there because it has been making quite the buzz and people have said it is great, I know one person who got one and she is doing a postdoc. I have only heard of academics getting it after already having secured an offer. Those who just went there to study languages went with “ordinary” visa whichever that is, and they did so pre-covid when I think it was a bit easier.
once again, very difficult to get transferred and there’s minimal foreigners in Chinese engineering business.
Yea it is probably very industry dependent sadly, the two people I know who went this route worked in marketing/sales and studied Mandarin like crazy – once they got proficient enough they were very valuable working with import/export sales with foreign and Chinese companies in their niche fields (this was during right at the end of Covid and they have lived there since). I think it’s much harder for engineering graduates at the moment sadly, it might change in the coming years but I wouldn’t count on it.
Regardless of what the future might hold, I would really try and get there some way – whether by exchange semester or just on vacation – to get a feeling for the country.
If you are truly serious about this there are a few more or less straight forward ways to do it. Generally, all these paths are easier if you study well for your bachelor and try to get into a masters/PhD program at a well-known university (does not have to be Ivy-league at all, but the more prestigious the better).
Then after or during your graduate studies:
Or the yolo option (which TWO of my friends did)
Regardless of how you get there, knowing Mandarin is like 99% required eventually, so might as well start learning as soon as possible. I have a few non-chinese friends who have moved to or lived in China for some time and all of them got there one of these ways.
You should not make stock investments with money you can’t afford to lose. You need to read up on private economics and yourself decide what your preferred risk-profile is, but all investments come with a risk. If you currently dont have a lot of money and no stable income, I would strongly advice you to not put money into the stock market. The shorter the time-span the higher the “risk” (= the more gambling it is), which is why you should first get your esssentials in order: a roof over your head and a sustainable income. Stock market gains are never sustainable income due to the inherent risk of the investments and the amount of capital required to sustain a lifestyle by the passive yields.
Once the essentials are in order then you can start working on your risk-profile and potentially look to invest whatever leftover money is there at the end of the month to protect it from inflation.
The first step is thus to always try to identify where you can find work, upskill, try to use public resources like libraries or public education institutions which sometimes run programs for skilled employment - and only after start thinking about investments and the like.
Investing in the stockmarket is to be viewed as a way to potentially grow a portion of your leftover money that you can afford to lose, not as a way to get that money in the first place.
I think you’re still arguing against a position I don’t hold.
Nobody is claiming that people facing food insecurity should prioritize veganism over feeding themselves. The existence of poverty, famine and scarcity is not in dispute. What I’m disputing is the claim that meat eating is therefore primarily explained by survival.
The vast majority of meat consumption in wealthy societies is not occurring under conditions where the choice is “eat meat or starve.” It is occurring under conditions where people have multiple available options and make choices shaped by habit, culture, identity, tradition, convenience, and social norms. That is why people have strong feelings about eating dogs but not pigs, horses but not cows, why meat is associated with masculinity in some cultures, why serving meat is associated with hospitality in others, and why rising incomes are often accompanied by rising meat consumption. None of that is explained by survival.
I also think you’re shifting the discussion from morality to effectiveness.
You ask whether veganism is “moving the needle.” But that is a different question from whether the position itself is coherent. If I refuse to buy products produced through some form of exploitation, I am not doing so because I believe my individual purchase will dismantle the entire system. I am doing so because I do not want to participate in it.
And frankly, I don’t think you’d apply that standard elsewhere. If there were products on the shelf that you knew were produced through the direct exploitation of Palestinians, would your response really be “well, refusing to buy them isn’t moving the needle”? Or would you refuse to buy them because you think participation in that exploitation is wrong, regardless of whether your individual action transforms the system? (I notice you didn’t touch on this parallell in your previous answer)
That is the distinction I’m trying to make. Individual ethical refusal is not a substitute for structural change, but it is not rendered meaningless simply because structural change is also necessary.
As for cuisine arising from available ingredients: of course it does. But that is not a rebuttal to my point, it is part of it. Material conditions influence culture. They do not eliminate culture. The fact that diets develop around available resources does not explain why different societies draw radically different moral boundaries around which animals are food, which are companions, and which are untouchable. Those boundaries are cultural.
I believe non-human animals are people on the same level as a human and should have the same rights as humans. Eating a deer is cannibalism because it’s consumption of a person’s flesh.
In this very thread. You can speak on what you believe, but you can’t tell me all representations of veganism are saying what you say as if I’m making up positions that aren’t there - when I was just replying to one earlier.
Lol, I will not base my arguments around reactionaries. Just as I scoff at people who point to some fringe reactionary marxist-in-name-only organization and say: “You can speak what you belive but you can’t tell me all representations of marxism are saying what you say…”, lets be serious. Just as there is little moral and logical consistency in eating meat, the same can be said of 1) attributing the equal moral value to humans as other animals and 2) thus enforcing the same judical rights for them.
Calling vegan ethics “like religion” is backwards.
Someone in this thread pointed out that veganism has had ties to buddhism going back a while. Which is a religion…
Now it I am starting to feel you are not arguing in good faith.
You are shifting between two different things: historical religious dietary rules and modern vegan ethics. The fact that some Buddhist traditions or other spiritual systems arrived at similar conclusions does not make veganism itself religious. It only shows that different moral traditions can converge on similar practices.
And yes, that is not strange at all. Philosophical and theological systems often overlap on certain conclusions by coincidence or through shared moral intuitions. That does not mean they have the same basis. Modern veganism can be grounded in secular ethics even though some older religious traditions happened to reach similar dietary practices.
Pointing to Buddhism does not prove that vegan ethics are “like religion.” It proves only that some religious traditions restricted animal use. That is not an argument against veganism, just a historical parallel.
Modern Western veganism is a reaction to factory farming.
Veganism has existed for millennia. (X)
Therefore vegan ethics are like religion.
Those do not cleanly follow from each other. At most, Buddhism shows that some religious traditions have long contained food ethics that overlap with vegan or vegetarian ideas. That does not make the modern secular ethical case for veganism “religious".
Especially since you yourself rejected this argument (X):
In any case, the form of veganism I was trying to talk about is the distinctly modern western form of it, one that doesn’t seem to have any noticeable relationship with buddhism.
If the point is specifically about the modern movement, then the relevant question is its actual moral structure now, not whether some older religion had adjacent practices.
Calling vegan ethics “like religion” is backwards. Veganism can be argued from moral principles: consistency, avoidance of unnecessary harm and recognition of animal sentience. By contrast, the idea that animals exist for human use has often been justified through explicit religious and cultural hierarchy, especially in Abrahamic traditions: that animals were created for human use and that human dominion over them is natural or divinely ordained. So if anything, the long-standing normalization of meat eating is closer to a theological worldview than the refusal to exploit animals is.
The idea of animals as property is not some neutral baseline of reason, but deeply tied to theology and cultural inheritance.
Also, comparing animal killing to murder is not a claim that animals are literally human, any more than opposing factory farming is the same as claiming abortion and murder are identical. It is a claim about morally relevant harm, not that species are interchangeable.
At the same time, I do not support axont’s position and do not attribute equal moral value to humans and animals. At the same time, animals already have rights in many places, from wild animals to pets and livestock, and with regards to our other comments, the distinction between which is which of those three is entirely culturally enforced and not “logistical” or a “matter of survival”. Where I live, you would face charges for treating your cat or dog like they treat livestock.
That is a hyperbole (and I guess strawman from you), and should not be met seriously. I have met many meat eaters who would prioritize saving their dogs or cats over other humans - while I have never met one such vegan. So funnily enough this is a position that arises exactly because of the inconsistent moral argument for eating meat.
I attribute moral value to animals, and I attribute more moral value to humans - but since I attribute moral value to animals I refuse to take apart in a system which exploits their very life-essence for the purpose of surplus sustenance. At the same time, I would in 100% of cases prioritize a human over an animal - unlike meat-eaters who (if consistent) view them as private property and thus are willing to kill for their right of continued ownership.
It is primarily logistical and a matter of survival, which is why it’s so normalized throughout history.
I have not been in many countries where eating meat is logistically easier and/or cheaper than not. Something being historically common does not mean it is primarily about survival. In most places and periods, meat was not available in equal measure to everyone, but that still doesnt explain why some animals are treated as food and some as companions, or why meat often is bound up with status, masculinity, tradition, identity, etc etc. Survival may explain why people eat something, but it does not explain the specific moral and cultural rules around what counts as edible.
It’s for this same reason that the boycott element of veganism so often ends up looking like the ivory tower arguments of privileged people, since many in the world are not exactly swimming in food options in the first place.
That is only true in the case of genuine scarcity, and in those cases I dont think anyone is seriously making a moral demand to starve rather then eat animal products. But in ordinary situations, veganism is not a question of survival but a question of what people choose when survival is not at stake. This is why moral arguments matter here.
These are two very different things and veganism as an individualist ideology with moralist arguments largely seems to have spawned as a reaction to factory farming, not as a reaction to subsistence hunting.
And as far as I can tell, it is largely a failure of an ideology that doesn’t seem to do much more than get a fraction of people to boycott eating meat. Which I don’t think is because it’s using moral arguments, but because it’s isolating individualist ideology as a response to collective industrial production.
Here we are in complete agreement, and in terms of the philosophy of the movement I am not “vegan” although my diet is. Factory farming is the central issue, but I would not dismiss individual ethical refusal on those grounds alone. You can reject a harmful system both politically and personally. Refusing to participate is not a substitute for collective change, but not meaningless either. Would you say the same about the BDS movement against Israel for instance? I’d argue than one can both take the consistent moral position as an individual and isolate yourself from such anti-social practices, and also work on dismantling the systemic abuse. Just like I dont think BDS is a means to an end when it comes to ending the explotation of the Palestinians - I am not gonna reject it for not “focusing on dismantling the obvious system of abuse”.
But I would argue it’s largely not a cultural issue, but is instead almost entirely an extension of the need to survive by eating food. Which capital plays into when justifying factory farming.
I disagree. If it were purely survival, then people would not have such strong and inconsistent taboos about which animals are acceptable to eat. Dogs, cats, horses and other animals are treated very differently across cultures despite all of them being edible - once again showing the role of culture. Meat eating is not just “food is food”, it is socially organized, morally coded and culturally inherited. The existance of eating is explained by the matter of survival but the boundaries are explained by culture.
if factory farming was ended, along with matching increase in availability of other proteins to compensate, the price would rise and it would somewhat naturally transform into a luxury item.
I guess your argument is that factory farming will end without our social and cultural conditions ending, I disagree completely. The same way I dont think we first will transform into a socialist economy, and only after have shifts in social and cultural praxis. These transitions are heavily intertwined and most of all socially enforced.
Not eating animal products is a moral question, but it is not achieved by moral arguments. I have never encountered a consistent moral framework that can argue for exploiting animals in order to eat them or their produce, but winning arguments is not how you change peoples behaviour. The question of eating animal products is purely habitual and cultural and by extension social, thus changing many peoples diets is a question of changing many peoples habits and culture. So there is little “convincing” to do in a sense, maybe on an individual level for a few. The only way to transform the diets of larger swats of populations in a short time is cultural revolution, otherwise - with concerted effort- there will be a gradual shift over time.
my country (Sweden) had mandatory sterilization of trans people until the big 2013 - but worry not, we have come a long way and it is amazing how much can change in 10 years (we are worse now)
The pleasure is mine, I also forgot this page which is quite thorough: https://informedleftist.weebly.com/dprk.html
And heavily recommend watching the Boy boy - We Went To North Korea To Get A Haircut youtube video with her, it is quite light-hearted and just 20 minutes long.
There has been numerous threads about this already. See for instance the top comments of this thread: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/11444145?scrollToComments=true
we also have this https://lemmygrad.ml/post/232647
You miss one important thing: the existance of unlimited European racism. Even IF Russia had looked like the better alternative over the US (it didn’t) once normalization started in the late 90s/early 2000s, I still don’t think the Europeans would cooperate to mutual benefit – we truly are that racist. Which makes it even more frustrating given that
is true.
Subordination to the US is defo one thing, but never ever underestimate how western European racism shapes our material conditions.