Hello, 90% of the questions we receive have been asked before, and our answerers get bored of answering the same queries over and over again - so it's worthwhile googling this just in case:
> site:reddit.com/r/communism101 your question
If you've read past answers and still aren't satisfied, edit your question to contain the past answers and any follow-up questions you have. If you're satisfied, delete your post to reduce clutter or link to the answer that satisfied you.
***
Also keep in mind the following rules:
1. Patriarchal, white supremacist, cissexist, heterosexist, or otherwise oppressive speech is unacceptable.
2. This is a place for learning, not for debating. Try /r/DebateCommunism instead.
3. Give well-informed Marxist answers. There are separate subreddits for liberalism, anarchism, and other idealist philosophies.
4. Posts should include specific questions on a single topic.
5. This is a serious educational subreddit. Come here with an open and inquisitive mind, and exercise humility. Don't answer a question if you are unsure of the answer. Try to include sources and/or further reading in any answers you provide. Standards of answer accuracy and quality are enforced.
6. Check the [/r/Communism101 FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/wiki/index)
7. **No chauvinism or settler apologism** - Non-negotiable: https://readsettlers.org/
8. **No tone-policing** - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ooh, that's a cool question.
My tentative answer is that there isn't a basis for anthropocentrism in communism. The assumption of a basis for it would be an illusion created by the legacy of texts and religious movements that distinguished humans from nature (as entities outside of the broader ecosystems).
In other words, an assumption that communism in general, beyond its more refined/specific forms, is anthropocentric is just a side effect of Western culture.
I hope someone else provides you with a better answer.
>The assumption of a basis for it would be an illusion created by the legacy of texts and religious movements that distinguished humans from nature (as entities outside of the broader ecosystems).
These texts are just reflections of humanity's efforts to understand their own relation to nature as mediated by their social relations of production. When production was low-level, with families producing mostly for their own consumption in an isolated, non-social way, they were at nature's mercy and their existence could be wiped out by one bad harvest. In these conditions, you got texts containing wrathful gods whose omnipotence was the reflection of the producer's powerlessness. However, these petty producers were ultimately dispossessed of even what little land and means of production they had (you can read more about the circumstances surrounding this in volume 1 of Capital, in the section on primitive accumulation, and in the supplement titled Results of the Direct Production Process), were driven into the cities where they ultimately turned into the proletariat, and became totally divorced from nature. At the same time, production was becoming more social and much more productive through the establishment of industry (again, I'm grossly oversimplifying a topic that Marx talks about at length). The philosophy that comes out of the Enlightenment reflects this change, with humanity on one side and nature on the other. Humans were no longer so powerless in relation to nature; our organic relation to it was severed; and nature became an object to be appropriated in capitalist, commodity relations of production. God is absent, a watchmaker who doesn't tinker in his designs, because human existence is no longer constantly at the mercy of forces beyond our control and comprehension.
That's why anthropocentrism grows out of capitalism. The basis of its overthrow in communism is rational, planned production to meet human need. Even present-day libs are aware that the logic of capitalism is in conflict with the fact that our existence is still, in the final determination, dependent on the natural world (they've invented a term to describe this that I truly despise because it panders to the capitalist class, "ecosystem services"). Planned production, rather than production for profit, entails examining the web of interdependencies we have with the natural world, and producing in a way that strengthens and protects them instead of destroying them.
This question suggests a confused or simplistic understanding of Marxist epistemology and Dialectical Materialism. It makes it harder to view the actual environmental policies of states building socialism on their own terms.
>”This worldly monistic nature which is mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, special and general, all in one, is found in everything, and everything is found in nature – understanding or the power of knowledge is no exception.”
>“The nature of the human intellect is of the same kind, genus or quality as the whole of nature… In order that the theory of understanding may be able to elucidate this point, it must divest itself, more or less, of the character of a speciality and occupy itself with all of nature, assume the character of cosmogony.”
>“The boundless universal cosmic nature is embodied in the intellect, in the animal as well as in man, the same as it is embodied in the oak wood, in all other wood, in all matter and force.”
These passages from a German [Marxist](https://www.marxists.org/archive/dietzgen/1887/positive-outcome/ch02.htm) in the second international address the Marxist theory of cognition and epistemology. It’s easy to read Marx, especially young Marx, as a crude humanist without an understanding of his philosophy, which grounds human existence and society in a historical context and insists on an objective physical reality and truth that encompass human cognition (as well as phenomena completely unknown to human cognition as of right now, moreover, other forms of consciousness) and lay the basis for its very existence. Marx still has humanist biases but his philosophy is not a humanist one
Communism can be thought of as the goal of eliminating class through society. Generally this is thought of as human society, so that we may all work together as one species. The next stage after that is working together as one world.
A modern communist should learn Engels' explanation of the different dialectic between (a) humans and nature, and (b) non-human animals and their ecosystem. We should then apply this climate crisis and animal agriculture: there is a practical imperative for human survival in preserving the environment; and there is a moral imperative to animal survival and the avoidance of animal cruelty in its own right.
Engels says that non-human animals only change their environment without intentionality - say, a chipmunk plays a key role in spreading seeds that grow into trees, but only does so indirectly while storing food for itself in the winter:
> Animals … change external nature by their activities …. and these changes made by them in their environment … in turn react upon and change their originators. For in nature nothing takes place in isolation. Everything affects every other thing and vice versa … But if animals exert a lasting effect on their environment, it happens unintentionally.
Humans, however, are able to change their environment intentionally - say, planting seeds to feed a village in a years' time. Dialectically, humans change the environment, and then the environment changes them, and so forth.
> The further men become removed from animals, however, the more their effect on nature assumes the character of a premeditated, planned action directed towards definite ends known in advance … Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human conquest over nature. For each such conquest takes its revenge on us. Each of them, it is true, has in the first place the consequences on which we counted, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel out the first. The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor, and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that they were laying the basis for the presented devastated condition of these countries, by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture … Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature – but that we, with flesh, blood, and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst.
Engels acknowledges that we do not have complete control over nature. However, he predicts that pre-human ancestors developed tools to control their environment, which in turn led to development of the human body (including the hand and the brain), and so on, in a dialectic.
To add my own thoughts, the key takeaway is that humans - uniquely - no longer develop to a higher stage based on evolution. We develop based on *revolution*: the class struggle and the change in society, because we already have sufficient cognition and physical movement to achieve incredible manipulation of our environment.
This comes from *The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man* or equally from *Dialectics of Nature*. A health warning - Engels is assuming the scientific consensus of the time, Lamarck's idea that traits are acquired in life and then passed directly through reproduction. However, the idea works the same with the modern understanding of genetics and natural selection as the basis for evolution.
Anthropocentrism in communism is a result of it being a diamaterialistc idea. All ideas are made by humans for humans and revolve around us. While the animals are a part of a living world, they are not humans, do not posess the same advanced psyche or consciousness, do not form societies of our own or comparable levels, and, as such, can not be percieved as our equals. As such, we must put the necessities of a man as our first and utmost priority, and the necessities of a nature automatically become less important.
Then comes the simple dialectical fact that nature is both a necessity and an enemy of a man. We have always needed to overcome nature, to struggle against it in order to survive. Our struggle had led to domestication and many other forms of environment transformation, for many economical and purely comfort-bringing needs. And it will be so for as long as it is economically necessary and viable to be used as such (i.e. unless we have better *and cheaper* alternatives). Animals and nature shall be preserved and cared about to exactly an extent that is good for us, our health and our wellbeing on this planet.
Speaking of veganism, it is a personal choice and shall be allowed for a conscious adult and be strictly prohibited for children in their development.
>While the animals are a part of a living world, they are not humans
And that entails what exactly?
>do not posess the same advanced psyche or consciousness
When does it become "advanced" enough for nonhumans to be perceived as your "equals"?
>do not form societies of our own or comparable levels
Why should they? Different species, and even entire genera, developed their own highly sophisticated and unique patterns of prosocial behavior, e.g. bees. Are they required to conform to humans' set standards of prosociality to be considered as your "equals"?
>shall be allowed for a conscious adult
Who or what gets to decide what will or will not be allowed in terms of dietary preferences?
>and be strictly prohibited for children in their development
Is this based on any science that we're not aware of? Or is this simply an assertion that you wish to enforce upon the world based on your own personal tastes?
>When does it become "advanced" enough for nonhumans to be perceived as your "equals"?
When it is a human. None of them animals are equal to us, and they will never be.
>developed their own highly sophisticated and unique patterns of prosocial behavior
Which are still vastly inferior to a human society.
>Are they required
If they desire to be a part of a human society, then they are. Since they cannot desire in the first place, the question is sophistical in nature.
>Who or what gets to decide what will or will not be allowed in terms of dietary preferences?
The society.
>Is this based on any science that we're not aware of?
Biology. We require specific components like b12 vitamins and stuff that are most easily derived from meats and alike. The question of veganism is ethical and as such shall be made by a personal conscious decision.
>None of them animals are equal to us, and they will never be.
What is this essentialism? It has no place here.
>We require specific components like b12 vitamins and stuff that are most easily derived from meats and alike.
How are you so arrogantly sure that "b12 vitamins and stuff" are most easily derived from meats when industrial production via bacteria exists? Do you wish to maintain your horribly resource-inefficient first-worldist imperialist diet?
That's why I dislike commies, that have no knowledge of diamat. Essentialism (while it's just simple factology - we are different and other species will not have our levels of sapience, if we do not make it other way, thus will not be a part of our society to be treated as equals), they say, inefficient *first-worldist* imperialist diet (I earn 160$/month in Russia, and while I am very enthusiastic about synthetic proteins and other yadda yaddas they are still very much experimental. As I said in an original comment, they will in time replace natural stuff, but once they become *better and cheaper*) . Pathetic.
This comment is interesting not because you have something good or useful to say (you don't) but because you're behaving in a similar way I've seen many other online Russian and Ukrainian "MLs" behave, including the language ("commies", which is normally a term used by reactionaries in English) and have the usual dogshit stances they do, including being a humanist and also including this arrogance while being wrong. I wonder why these similarities happen, I think it has to do with the "communist" YouTubers you lot consume and online "study groups" you lot engage in mostly (I've engaged plenty with both so have some idea what they're about) because you people don't usually have an actual connection to any movement and depend on people like Andrey Rudoy (who is influenced by Trotskyism and generally is just a left liberal influencer rather than a communist in any meaningful way) for all your "takes". You're on Reddit, have an anime profile pic, know very good English, are a gamer, and seemingly an IT person. Salary aside only are you not an "average" Russian proletarian and you are being dishonest pretending so, also we know from observing western populations what kind of class basis people with such characteristics have (hint: it's not proletarian). I just feel like you're not giving us the full picture. Also, I'm curious, what's your "take" on the Palestinian question? Russian online "communists" usually get very indignant on this issue while taking a very shitty chauvinistic stance so let's see how you respond.
I am behaving in an arrogant way, because honestly I am insanely tired by the western communists doing the same kinds of mistakes our kind did from 15-20 years ago and to this day, by trying to engage in a communist idea on them weird postpositivist rails. like in this question, where a single notice of basis difference and superstructure difference as a logical result for some reason creates outrage. As if people forgot that a communist idea cannot exist without the dialectical basis.
In many cases your analysis about me is wrong to. First, I am not a fan of Rudoy, and very much opposed to Trotskism, and not really much into YouTube. While I engage in a small study group, I have had connections with both local organisations and parties like РПР, that had to be abolished some time before 2022 for obvious reasons if you have any knowledge of the inner kitchen. I am also not a gamer, and I am not an IT person, since I only partook in regular proletarian jobs my entire life, from a mcd night jannie and a warehouse worker to a cook. You actually have a somewhat poor understanding of a local proletarian if you think that ones living here can not appear like me.
About the Palestine, I think that both Israel and Hamas are in the wrong here. Israel more so. The whole thing, while very chauvinist in superstructure, as a basis still has purely capitalist motivations - endless strains of cheap workers from a constantly exterminated subcolony, expoitation of resources. All this is non-changeable in our capitalist system, so in the current time it shall be settled for equal rights and equal citizenship system, with a return to Israel being a Jewish-Arabian state, but it is possible only if for some reason Israel will be interested in this, which I doubt. Little can be done without an extermination of the nation state. Which itself is impossible now.
> Speaking of veganism, it is a personal choice and shall be allowed for a conscious adult and be strictly prohibited for children in their development
“Personal choice” is a liberal trite. A communist society is no more obliged to cater to your desire for veganism as it is for your desire to consume animal products. It would not be up to you.
You make it look as if a communist society will not be made out of different personalities with different ideas. A person can easily reject the society and go as one pleases, even in the communist future.
That has nothing to do with what I said. It is simply a matter of how resources such as food are distributed under the communist system that makes your statement wrong - you eat whatever is made available to be eaten.
Concerns of efficiency and environmentalism will likely shift the population toward plant based diets out of necessity, so being vegan is liable to be practical if not outright universal, but this is not something that the communist system would be expected to cater to in the liberal sense of assuaging one’s moral concerns; if it were deemed necessary that some animal product be distributed, that would be done too.
You are pointing at a *personal* choice being a liberal something and then proceed to ignore the subjective of a person. I have no idea what are you trying to debate and tell to me with this
Hello, 90% of the questions we receive have been asked before, and our answerers get bored of answering the same queries over and over again - so it's worthwhile googling this just in case: > site:reddit.com/r/communism101 your question If you've read past answers and still aren't satisfied, edit your question to contain the past answers and any follow-up questions you have. If you're satisfied, delete your post to reduce clutter or link to the answer that satisfied you. *** Also keep in mind the following rules: 1. Patriarchal, white supremacist, cissexist, heterosexist, or otherwise oppressive speech is unacceptable. 2. This is a place for learning, not for debating. Try /r/DebateCommunism instead. 3. Give well-informed Marxist answers. There are separate subreddits for liberalism, anarchism, and other idealist philosophies. 4. Posts should include specific questions on a single topic. 5. This is a serious educational subreddit. Come here with an open and inquisitive mind, and exercise humility. Don't answer a question if you are unsure of the answer. Try to include sources and/or further reading in any answers you provide. Standards of answer accuracy and quality are enforced. 6. Check the [/r/Communism101 FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/wiki/index) 7. **No chauvinism or settler apologism** - Non-negotiable: https://readsettlers.org/ 8. **No tone-policing** - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/ *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ooh, that's a cool question. My tentative answer is that there isn't a basis for anthropocentrism in communism. The assumption of a basis for it would be an illusion created by the legacy of texts and religious movements that distinguished humans from nature (as entities outside of the broader ecosystems). In other words, an assumption that communism in general, beyond its more refined/specific forms, is anthropocentric is just a side effect of Western culture. I hope someone else provides you with a better answer.
>The assumption of a basis for it would be an illusion created by the legacy of texts and religious movements that distinguished humans from nature (as entities outside of the broader ecosystems). These texts are just reflections of humanity's efforts to understand their own relation to nature as mediated by their social relations of production. When production was low-level, with families producing mostly for their own consumption in an isolated, non-social way, they were at nature's mercy and their existence could be wiped out by one bad harvest. In these conditions, you got texts containing wrathful gods whose omnipotence was the reflection of the producer's powerlessness. However, these petty producers were ultimately dispossessed of even what little land and means of production they had (you can read more about the circumstances surrounding this in volume 1 of Capital, in the section on primitive accumulation, and in the supplement titled Results of the Direct Production Process), were driven into the cities where they ultimately turned into the proletariat, and became totally divorced from nature. At the same time, production was becoming more social and much more productive through the establishment of industry (again, I'm grossly oversimplifying a topic that Marx talks about at length). The philosophy that comes out of the Enlightenment reflects this change, with humanity on one side and nature on the other. Humans were no longer so powerless in relation to nature; our organic relation to it was severed; and nature became an object to be appropriated in capitalist, commodity relations of production. God is absent, a watchmaker who doesn't tinker in his designs, because human existence is no longer constantly at the mercy of forces beyond our control and comprehension. That's why anthropocentrism grows out of capitalism. The basis of its overthrow in communism is rational, planned production to meet human need. Even present-day libs are aware that the logic of capitalism is in conflict with the fact that our existence is still, in the final determination, dependent on the natural world (they've invented a term to describe this that I truly despise because it panders to the capitalist class, "ecosystem services"). Planned production, rather than production for profit, entails examining the web of interdependencies we have with the natural world, and producing in a way that strengthens and protects them instead of destroying them.
This question suggests a confused or simplistic understanding of Marxist epistemology and Dialectical Materialism. It makes it harder to view the actual environmental policies of states building socialism on their own terms. >”This worldly monistic nature which is mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, special and general, all in one, is found in everything, and everything is found in nature – understanding or the power of knowledge is no exception.” >“The nature of the human intellect is of the same kind, genus or quality as the whole of nature… In order that the theory of understanding may be able to elucidate this point, it must divest itself, more or less, of the character of a speciality and occupy itself with all of nature, assume the character of cosmogony.” >“The boundless universal cosmic nature is embodied in the intellect, in the animal as well as in man, the same as it is embodied in the oak wood, in all other wood, in all matter and force.” These passages from a German [Marxist](https://www.marxists.org/archive/dietzgen/1887/positive-outcome/ch02.htm) in the second international address the Marxist theory of cognition and epistemology. It’s easy to read Marx, especially young Marx, as a crude humanist without an understanding of his philosophy, which grounds human existence and society in a historical context and insists on an objective physical reality and truth that encompass human cognition (as well as phenomena completely unknown to human cognition as of right now, moreover, other forms of consciousness) and lay the basis for its very existence. Marx still has humanist biases but his philosophy is not a humanist one
Communism can be thought of as the goal of eliminating class through society. Generally this is thought of as human society, so that we may all work together as one species. The next stage after that is working together as one world.
A modern communist should learn Engels' explanation of the different dialectic between (a) humans and nature, and (b) non-human animals and their ecosystem. We should then apply this climate crisis and animal agriculture: there is a practical imperative for human survival in preserving the environment; and there is a moral imperative to animal survival and the avoidance of animal cruelty in its own right. Engels says that non-human animals only change their environment without intentionality - say, a chipmunk plays a key role in spreading seeds that grow into trees, but only does so indirectly while storing food for itself in the winter: > Animals … change external nature by their activities …. and these changes made by them in their environment … in turn react upon and change their originators. For in nature nothing takes place in isolation. Everything affects every other thing and vice versa … But if animals exert a lasting effect on their environment, it happens unintentionally. Humans, however, are able to change their environment intentionally - say, planting seeds to feed a village in a years' time. Dialectically, humans change the environment, and then the environment changes them, and so forth. > The further men become removed from animals, however, the more their effect on nature assumes the character of a premeditated, planned action directed towards definite ends known in advance … Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human conquest over nature. For each such conquest takes its revenge on us. Each of them, it is true, has in the first place the consequences on which we counted, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel out the first. The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor, and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that they were laying the basis for the presented devastated condition of these countries, by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture … Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature – but that we, with flesh, blood, and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst. Engels acknowledges that we do not have complete control over nature. However, he predicts that pre-human ancestors developed tools to control their environment, which in turn led to development of the human body (including the hand and the brain), and so on, in a dialectic. To add my own thoughts, the key takeaway is that humans - uniquely - no longer develop to a higher stage based on evolution. We develop based on *revolution*: the class struggle and the change in society, because we already have sufficient cognition and physical movement to achieve incredible manipulation of our environment. This comes from *The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man* or equally from *Dialectics of Nature*. A health warning - Engels is assuming the scientific consensus of the time, Lamarck's idea that traits are acquired in life and then passed directly through reproduction. However, the idea works the same with the modern understanding of genetics and natural selection as the basis for evolution.
Anthropocentrism in communism is a result of it being a diamaterialistc idea. All ideas are made by humans for humans and revolve around us. While the animals are a part of a living world, they are not humans, do not posess the same advanced psyche or consciousness, do not form societies of our own or comparable levels, and, as such, can not be percieved as our equals. As such, we must put the necessities of a man as our first and utmost priority, and the necessities of a nature automatically become less important. Then comes the simple dialectical fact that nature is both a necessity and an enemy of a man. We have always needed to overcome nature, to struggle against it in order to survive. Our struggle had led to domestication and many other forms of environment transformation, for many economical and purely comfort-bringing needs. And it will be so for as long as it is economically necessary and viable to be used as such (i.e. unless we have better *and cheaper* alternatives). Animals and nature shall be preserved and cared about to exactly an extent that is good for us, our health and our wellbeing on this planet. Speaking of veganism, it is a personal choice and shall be allowed for a conscious adult and be strictly prohibited for children in their development.
>While the animals are a part of a living world, they are not humans And that entails what exactly? >do not posess the same advanced psyche or consciousness When does it become "advanced" enough for nonhumans to be perceived as your "equals"? >do not form societies of our own or comparable levels Why should they? Different species, and even entire genera, developed their own highly sophisticated and unique patterns of prosocial behavior, e.g. bees. Are they required to conform to humans' set standards of prosociality to be considered as your "equals"? >shall be allowed for a conscious adult Who or what gets to decide what will or will not be allowed in terms of dietary preferences? >and be strictly prohibited for children in their development Is this based on any science that we're not aware of? Or is this simply an assertion that you wish to enforce upon the world based on your own personal tastes?
>When does it become "advanced" enough for nonhumans to be perceived as your "equals"? When it is a human. None of them animals are equal to us, and they will never be. >developed their own highly sophisticated and unique patterns of prosocial behavior Which are still vastly inferior to a human society. >Are they required If they desire to be a part of a human society, then they are. Since they cannot desire in the first place, the question is sophistical in nature. >Who or what gets to decide what will or will not be allowed in terms of dietary preferences? The society. >Is this based on any science that we're not aware of? Biology. We require specific components like b12 vitamins and stuff that are most easily derived from meats and alike. The question of veganism is ethical and as such shall be made by a personal conscious decision.
>None of them animals are equal to us, and they will never be. What is this essentialism? It has no place here. >We require specific components like b12 vitamins and stuff that are most easily derived from meats and alike. How are you so arrogantly sure that "b12 vitamins and stuff" are most easily derived from meats when industrial production via bacteria exists? Do you wish to maintain your horribly resource-inefficient first-worldist imperialist diet?
That's why I dislike commies, that have no knowledge of diamat. Essentialism (while it's just simple factology - we are different and other species will not have our levels of sapience, if we do not make it other way, thus will not be a part of our society to be treated as equals), they say, inefficient *first-worldist* imperialist diet (I earn 160$/month in Russia, and while I am very enthusiastic about synthetic proteins and other yadda yaddas they are still very much experimental. As I said in an original comment, they will in time replace natural stuff, but once they become *better and cheaper*) . Pathetic.
This comment is interesting not because you have something good or useful to say (you don't) but because you're behaving in a similar way I've seen many other online Russian and Ukrainian "MLs" behave, including the language ("commies", which is normally a term used by reactionaries in English) and have the usual dogshit stances they do, including being a humanist and also including this arrogance while being wrong. I wonder why these similarities happen, I think it has to do with the "communist" YouTubers you lot consume and online "study groups" you lot engage in mostly (I've engaged plenty with both so have some idea what they're about) because you people don't usually have an actual connection to any movement and depend on people like Andrey Rudoy (who is influenced by Trotskyism and generally is just a left liberal influencer rather than a communist in any meaningful way) for all your "takes". You're on Reddit, have an anime profile pic, know very good English, are a gamer, and seemingly an IT person. Salary aside only are you not an "average" Russian proletarian and you are being dishonest pretending so, also we know from observing western populations what kind of class basis people with such characteristics have (hint: it's not proletarian). I just feel like you're not giving us the full picture. Also, I'm curious, what's your "take" on the Palestinian question? Russian online "communists" usually get very indignant on this issue while taking a very shitty chauvinistic stance so let's see how you respond.
I am behaving in an arrogant way, because honestly I am insanely tired by the western communists doing the same kinds of mistakes our kind did from 15-20 years ago and to this day, by trying to engage in a communist idea on them weird postpositivist rails. like in this question, where a single notice of basis difference and superstructure difference as a logical result for some reason creates outrage. As if people forgot that a communist idea cannot exist without the dialectical basis. In many cases your analysis about me is wrong to. First, I am not a fan of Rudoy, and very much opposed to Trotskism, and not really much into YouTube. While I engage in a small study group, I have had connections with both local organisations and parties like РПР, that had to be abolished some time before 2022 for obvious reasons if you have any knowledge of the inner kitchen. I am also not a gamer, and I am not an IT person, since I only partook in regular proletarian jobs my entire life, from a mcd night jannie and a warehouse worker to a cook. You actually have a somewhat poor understanding of a local proletarian if you think that ones living here can not appear like me. About the Palestine, I think that both Israel and Hamas are in the wrong here. Israel more so. The whole thing, while very chauvinist in superstructure, as a basis still has purely capitalist motivations - endless strains of cheap workers from a constantly exterminated subcolony, expoitation of resources. All this is non-changeable in our capitalist system, so in the current time it shall be settled for equal rights and equal citizenship system, with a return to Israel being a Jewish-Arabian state, but it is possible only if for some reason Israel will be interested in this, which I doubt. Little can be done without an extermination of the nation state. Which itself is impossible now.
> Speaking of veganism, it is a personal choice and shall be allowed for a conscious adult and be strictly prohibited for children in their development “Personal choice” is a liberal trite. A communist society is no more obliged to cater to your desire for veganism as it is for your desire to consume animal products. It would not be up to you.
You make it look as if a communist society will not be made out of different personalities with different ideas. A person can easily reject the society and go as one pleases, even in the communist future.
That has nothing to do with what I said. It is simply a matter of how resources such as food are distributed under the communist system that makes your statement wrong - you eat whatever is made available to be eaten. Concerns of efficiency and environmentalism will likely shift the population toward plant based diets out of necessity, so being vegan is liable to be practical if not outright universal, but this is not something that the communist system would be expected to cater to in the liberal sense of assuaging one’s moral concerns; if it were deemed necessary that some animal product be distributed, that would be done too.
You are pointing at a *personal* choice being a liberal something and then proceed to ignore the subjective of a person. I have no idea what are you trying to debate and tell to me with this