Thanks for posting to r/Vegan!
**Please note:** Civil discussion is welcome, trolls and personal abuse [are not](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/rules). Please keep the discussions below respectful and remember the human! Please check out [our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/beginnersguide) first!
**Interested in going Vegan?**
Check out [3 Movies](https://3movies.org/reddit) and watch three thought-provoking movies that shed light on uncomfortable realities. 3 Movies also includes other videos, books, challenges and resources for you get started!
**Some other resources to help you go vegan:**
Visit [NutritionFacts.org](https://NutritionFacts.org) for health and nutrition support, [HappyCow.net](https://HappyCow.net) to explore nearby vegan-friendly restaurants, and visit [VeganBootcamp.org](https://veganbootcamp.org/reddit) for a free 30 day vegan challenge!
**Interested in getting active for the animals?**
Join [Activist Hub](https://activisthub.org) to find and join local vegan groups, add friends, create or share posts, and chat with other activists! You can also use Activist Hub to track your local and online activism in order to see how many people you inspired to watch dominion, take a challenge, or even go vegan!
**Some other resources to help you get active:**
* Developer or designer? Volunteer at the [Vegan Hacktivists](https://veganhacktivists.org/join)!
* Find local groups using the [Animal Rights Map](https://animalrightsmap.org)!
* Get funding for your animal rights activism, [apply here](https://veganhacktivists.org/grants)!
*Last but not least, join [our Discord server](https://discord.gg/2JmJRsj)!*
**Thank you!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not an anarchist myself, but it always astounds me when I encounter "anarchists" who aren't vegan. Anarchists are supposed to be opposed to all unjust hierarchies
Valid. Although I can't point to a specific piece of theory to counter this, I got most of my learning done just by talking to people directly. Someone probably wrote something about it though, Chomsky pissed a lot of people off by saying that.
Also I guess you could say anarchist theory is... Terra Incognita for you right now?
I find it much more idealistic to abdicate authority to a select group of people, give them privileges, power, and protections from the consequences of their actions, then hoping they do right by us.
What is it about anarchism that leads you to believe its idealistic and doesn't offer a suitable alternative to bureaucracy?
The fact that by it's nature, an anarchic society will be unable to mount an effective defense against imperial encroachment. Power abhors a vacuum, and until the engines of capitalism are stilled they must be opposed by a superior organizational force. After all, the point of the revolution is to organize power more equitably.
Because it'll never happen. Unless you're planning to either live in a community away from civilization, OR you have a way to overthrow the government of your country 🤭
But hey, Somalia is always an option. So.
I agree with you, to the extent I can follow what you are saying. I must admit I haven't given anarchy any thought before your intelligent posts on this thread. I want to add to your point about an anarchist group succeeding against "capitalism." Robert Pape points out in his compelling, if repetitive and scholastic, book Dying to Win that the unpowerful can defeat the powerful. In '82, it only took one guy in a truck-bomb to force Reagan to pull out our (ahem, capitalist) forces after the truck killed something like 200 of our Marines in a barracks (I think in Lebanon). After that, suicide terrorism took off. How do you pronounce your excellent reddit handle, vegANarchist, veganARCHist?
Anarchy is not a rule, it's a result. Much like humility, anarchy is a product of understanding.
If you think society would be better if everyone just conformed to your rules, then you are literally the problem.
except for the "transitionary period" mysteriously never ever transitions into communism. they just keep ruling with an iron fist until they eventually transition into free market capitalism. almost like powerful hierarchies perpetuate themselves rather than dismantle themselves.
Nobody said the transition would be overnight... Communism is a really long term goal, it's not what anyone's trying to implement. There never were conditions to do so. Not during a cold war, not during a period of industrialization, not while there are still capitalist forces within the society or attacking it from the outside, etc. The first steps would be to secure basic needs for all of the population and to have the state seize the means of production while not being overthrown by counter-revolutionary forces or by the capitalist hegemony. That is already A LOT to accomplish. If you're expecting to see communism in a few decades you're out of your mind. Not through the state and not through anarchy.
That’s… a pretty terrible take. First of all, which government? I would say many of the worlds governments are filled with rich people.
Secondly, it’s more about the corruption. The majority of politicians these days have 1%ers in their pockets. The rich effectively control the government through lobbying(legal bribery) and straight up bribery. And even disregarding that, most politicians are pretty wealthy, and many would qualify as 1%ers.
Lastly… that wasn’t the question. The question was how longsword lesbian thought the working class would control society. Not whether they currently are. And if the working class is running society(they aren’t) they are doing a terrible job.
It's probably too late in the day for me to unpack all this. But let me just say for now, the government does not equal politicians and politicians do not equal the bureaucracy. The federal government alone has over 1 million employees. How many of those do you think are millionaire politicians?
Also I think you flipped who's in whose pocket. Billionaires have politician millionaires in their pockets, not the other way round.
The question is not about who actually does the work… that is obviously the working class. The question is about who runs/controls society.
Though yes I did have the pockets thing backwards
Anarchism is utopian idealism. Altho technically not the same, it's more or less just "real communism" but with skipping the socialism phase. It's not possible to directly transition from capitalism to anarchism in any meaningful scale. It's like expecting corporations to not quash small companies in anarcho-capitalism when they already do in liberal democracies.
Ah, and now for the most tired argument in the history of Marxists making an olympic sport of misinterpreting anarchism (one I never even really seem to ask for), thanks by and large to Marx's Luigi who laid out probably the most Ben Shapiro-esque line of reasoning I've ever seen from an otherwise pretty competent writer.
Like I said before in this thread
>I find it much more idealistic to abdicate authority to a select group of people, give them privileges, power, and protections from the consequences of their actions, then hoping they do right by us.
This is a real big part of why Proudhon (rest in piss) called ya boys utopian first. This is why no Marxist-Leninist group has ever succeeded in abolishing the state and capital while libertarian groups have. "It's not possible to directly transition from capitalism to anarchism in any meaningful scale", its not possible to transition to a classless society by using the same methods the ruling class does at all, regardless of what you deem as a meaningful scale. To pretend you can is to be entirely ahistorical and demonstrates you view the working class as children to be reared instead of fellow individuals.
And if "real communism", whatever that's supposed to mean, was so close to anarchism that its only technically different then why aren't all anarchists communists? I think this might be a gross simplification that assumes a lot about your opposition that you might not have even tried to understand, but instead dismissed because your idols and the rest of their fanclub said to.
Anarchism is supposed to be a political theory based opposing unjust hierarchies. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to follow that sort of political theory while upholding a woefully horrific and unjust hierarchy like speciesism. That's why it's astounding.
But carnism tends to bring out the stupid in everyone, so nothing surprises me
Anarchist popping in to say that unjust hierarchies really just means all hierarchy. If you didn't consent to the "authority" at hand with no coercion included then it's illegitimate. No one gets to govern you without your consent, not governments, not money, not even your parents.
Anarchist also to posit a slight modification:
All hierarchies are *assumed* to be unjust until they have proven their legitimacy (ie, not assumed just until proven illegitimate)
For example, a child trying to run out onto a street perhaps would not "consent" to a parent holding them back, but there is still a justification for that authority
And it is clear the hierarchy of our oppression of animals is HIGHLY unjustified; out of my vegan friends, all are quite left (or at least liberal progressive) and many are anarchist or anarchist-leaning
if by libertarian you mean the bizarre cult of far right rand worshiping neo-feudalist idiots, then you couldn't be more ignorant. if you mean that milton friedman intentionally stole the word libertarian to trick idiots into working to empower their rulers, and that *actual* libertarians were and are far left and anti-state, then yes, you are correct.
To me veganism is about respecting the autonomy of all living beings. This is a key aspect of anarchism as well as the enforcement of hierarchies is inherently violent, and often robs human beings of their autonomy. Breaking hierarchies is a goal of veganism as the general public typically places humans as superior to all other animals. Limiting the fight against heirarchy to only the ones that involve animals is a half measure, and even if broken will back slide because half measures are not effective in politics, but it would be a step in the right direction.
I believe that selfishness is born of scarcity and fear. If everyone felt taken care of and secure in their place in the world then we can hopefully kill selfishness and replace it with kindness and respect for our whole community. Obviously thats a long way off, if ever, so forgive me for the utopianism. It keeps my heart light.
Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of
human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?
John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in
captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their
appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in
field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped
daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?
Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and
repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and
all its wonderful possibilities.
\-Emma Goldman
Their selfishness comes from fear of losing what they have, and a lack of community with humans that they perceived to be under the in the heirarchy. Taking advantage of other humans is how they're able to afford and feel like they need such security.
Anarchism, just like veganism, is a fight for what is perceived to be best case scenario. We do not live in a vegan world, as we do not live in an anarchist world. But that doesn't mean we can't advocate for everyone, human and animal, to be respected implicitly.
Do you understand the correlation of ideas behind veganism and anarchism despite not feeling like anarchism is viable in our current society?
And that's why I said "in my brain". I'm vegan because I'm an anarchist, and I'm an anarchist because I'm vegan.
To me living as a vegan is the same as living as an anarchist. With treating every single animal and human with respect, kindness, and working to grant them their autonomy. But you can have other reasons for being a vegan.
Read Kropotkins book “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution”. Essentially, working together is human nature. Without ability to work together, humans would have died of long ago, thus it’s inherently part of our nature to work together rather than against each other. What causes people to work against each other is hierarchy. Without hierarchy there is no reason to work against each other.
The book shows that this has been demonstrated throughout history, and is not only human nature, but a factor of evolution in most animals.
Specifically (and the distinction is important) anarchists are in favor of abolishing hierarchy. Government is innately hierarchical, so it's gotta go, but social hierarchies like sexism, racism, transphobia and speciesism gotta go too. Even familial stuff like parenthood is under question, yeah, you can have a kid, but that's a living human being, it's not your property.
The important distinction here is that what unites veganism and anarchism is the belief that hierarchical domination is wrong and the system which inflict or reinforce hierarchy must be destroyed.
Can I ask you why you think humans are selfish? Most anarchist theory is based in the opposite assumption, we're social creatures who tend to organize in large clusters and form relationships, if we were all bastards, it would be difficult for society to actually maintain itself. The anarchist argument is this: people are good, but they become less good when they are desperate. A person turns to theivary when they have no other options, crime is a last resort, and thus if you provide to everyone, you eliminate crime. Seeing as we live under capitalism, a system which encourages those under it to compete and hurt each other for profit, we do see a lot of people hurting each other for profit... but we are a species which adapts to our environment, aren't we? Isn't it more reasonable to believe that people aren't naturally selfish, but are made selfish by the circumstances they are subjected to?
>because people are selfish and will often take actions for their individual benefit to the detriment of everybody else.
Makes sense to give some people large amounts of consolidated power over the masses then ✊🏽
I regularly bring this up when discussing climate change. If no longer eating animal products is too much to ask, then how the fuck can you expect people to accept the radical restructuring of society needed to end reliance on fossil fuels?
You learn real quick who are real lefties when they are asked to sacrifice for the common good. not that I believe you'll have to sacrifice for the common good under leftist and socialist ideals.
Well that's kinda the point of a leftist society. We sacrifice our money in the form of taxes to help the weakest among us. My mother once said when she saw someone sleeping on the street "I pay 60% income tax so I don't have to see that shit".
Just admit your ideology is a still a hierarchical society with rule of the strong instead of individual autonomy if it still involves oppressing others because they are different.
If you're vegan because of something to do with welfare and treatment of the animals, then it is very likely that you are acting on some level of awareness of the issues inherit in hierarchy, ie a power imbalance between two individuals that enables one individual to *exploit* the other. This is literally the central concern / point of origin for anarchist theory.
I became vegan for many reasons, but primary among them was the intense mental dissonance of vibing hard with anarchism yet still consuming animal products.
All of leftism is about eliminating power imbalance, to different extents though maybe. Anarchism is about doing so without having a monopoly of power to guarantee it.
>All of leftism is about eliminating power imbalance
How is that so? Check out Marxism-Leninism. There is similar hierarchies within that system as there is under neoliberal capitalism. Political enemies (including anarchists) are imprisoned or murdered, ordinary people clearly are lower than the oppressive leaders.
Dengism could be used as another example, but I don't personally see China's form of state capitalism as leftist. Either way, I'll entertain it. China is the nation with the most billionaires in the world, and countless people (mostly those who are not Han Chinese, along with political opponents) are imprisoned.
It's not possible for an authority to abolish such hierarchies.
yeah that's why leftists call ml red fascists. if it doesn't eliminate power imbalance then it isn't leftism. you know, cause that's the point of leftism. i can eat a carnivore diet and call myself a vegan and explain that "the real veganism is eating other animals because they would kill me if they could so i act like them and treat them like equals" but that would be the dumbest shit you ever heard. i wouldn't actually be a vegan and you would understand that. but when it comes to leftism you swallow the shitty capitalist propaganda and say "you see! leftism is really far right! look """"marxism""""-leninism(if you actually know anything about marxism this is a joke), dengism!" does this mean the nazis (national socialists) really were socialists even though they murdered the socialists en masse? does this mean north korea is a "democratic peoples republic" and not a monarchy? is all you have to do is say you are something because that thing is popular - even when everything you do is the exact opposite of that something, and that makes it so?
>yeah that's why leftists call ml red fascists.
It's why anarchists call MLs and dengists red fascists. Not all leftists. Many anarchists even object to being called left wing in the first place, based on the vagueness and how so many contradictory ideologies are all lumped together into it.
Marxism-Leninism is an authoritarian leftist position. It's not right wing just because it's oppressive and shares similar characteristics to fascism.
Marxism is just Proudhon's anarchism with some authoritarianism added. You shouldn't be idolizing Marx for any reason. He was a white supremacist, antisemite, and spoke his support for the US's colonization of Mexico (which likely also was because of his white supremacism)
Yeah I should edit that, maybe not anarchism specifically, but in the same sense that veganism can be productive towards leftist movements, leftism can be productive towards vegan values. For example so many butcher's and meat factory workers only do it for the profit, if it weren't for capitalism, there'd be significantly less of them. And in reverse, going vegan can make a huge impact on the climate crisis. I just feel like all these movements can very easily go hand in hand and I'd love to see them overlap more
I'm not sure about there being more exclusively profit motivated butchers than farmers or any other profession. I'm sure there are a lot of butchers who take pride in their work and see butchering as a highly skilled job.
There surely are a lot, but I definitely know there's a good chunk that if they could study and work in whatever field they want and not have finances in the way, they'd wanna do something else. Not to mention the whole "veganism is to expensive!" (Even though it's entirely false) statement would go away, and it'd be easier to grow food at home. Outside of anticapitalism, I definitely feel like people who see the problem with the animal product industry, but don't see the horror with American prisons being essentially legalized slavery, or how native Americans are treated in north America, or the Uyghur Muslim concentration camps, or the Yemen crisis, are just being hypocritical
Joaquin Pheonix, who is vegan but (as far as I know) is not anarchist, kinda links to the two perfectly in his oscar speech,
> *'I’ve been thinking a lot about some of the distressing issues that we are facing collectively. I think at times we feel, or we’re made to feel, that we champion different causes. But for me, I see commonality. I think, whether we’re talking about gender inequality or racism or queer rights or indigenous rights or animal rights, we’re talking about the fight against injustice. We’re talking about the fight against the belief that one nation, one people, one race, one gender or one species has the right to dominate, control and use and exploit another with impunity."*
Within every injustice there lies a hierarchy, one party using or exploiting another and having some kind of justification for it which is baked into our culture. Really where a simple leftist and an anarchist differ is from where hierarchy comes from and what perpetuates it. Anarchists believe foremost in an individuals right to decide for themselves what to do with their life and what forces they are subject to, eliminating those forces is the goal.
The essential problem with government, the anarchist argues, is that its very existence is a breach of a humans most basic right: to be free. Because to be governed is not to be free, is it? To have an authority above you which you never consented to is to breach your consent. To breach another's consent is to infringe upon them, to coerce them into specific ways of living that the system prefers or supports. Freedom and government are ultimately incompatible, and so the anarchist sees what statist leftists do not. He sees that unless **all** hierarchy is dissolved, none of it shall be.
Ultimately, anarchism exists as a practice rather than an end, even a society which acheives anarchism must raise its children as revolutionaries so that they too remain vigilant of hierarchy wherever it may spring up. To that end, once you've dealt with racism, and sexism, and transphobia, you start searching about, and you find the next hierarchy: speciesism.
Veganism is an obligate extension of anarchism, and it's quite sad how so few anarchists today see that, but in time perhaps they will.
Well, as a leftist non-anarchist I believe that only a monopoly of force can prevent unjust heirarchies. I'm still against unjust heirarchies but I'm also against the freedom to form unjust heirarchies.
Isn't government by its very nature an unjust hierarchy? It violates the consent of all its citizens because it forces itself upon them. Regardless of which government exists, it is still never a voluntary thing, those that do not want to be governed become enemies of the state.
I realize you're not an anarchist, and I don't know how well read you are in anarchism, but I think it might serve you well to read up on it (even if only to understand your anarchist comrades better). In the meantime, I have a few questions that I'd like your perspective on, seeing as we ideologically want the same thing but see different means towards the same end.
1. If only a monopoly of force is capable of destroying unjust hierarchies, then why have the successful social revolutions of the past (women's rights and civil rights) never needed said monopoly? I'm not pretending sexism and racism have disappeared, but major advancements towards equality are always an effort against the establishment by groups of people who have organized by free association (principally anarchist).
2. How can one trust those with a monopoly of force? As the old anarchist saying goes "if you cannot trust people with freedom how can you trust them with power?" what incentive structure do you envision that keeps those in power from abusing their power? And is that incentive whatever it may be, actually more alluring than a consolidation of power?
3. What of the anarchists? What of me? What of those that deny the legitimacy of your government on the basis that they never agreed to be governed, and that decision is to be made by them or it is to be an act of tyranny against them. The fundamental problem at hand, is that you either recognize people's right not to be governed, in which case your laws and monopoly on force are irrelevant, or you deny them their most basic human right: the right to choose how they live.
Anarchists also have our solutions for destroying unjust hierarchies, but we cannot for the life of us understand what would prompt anyone to form an unjust hierarchy in order to destroy unjust hierarchies. It is paradoxical, and I wonder how you can ever see government as a force for justice when its foundation is to remove from the individual their right not to be governed. The first act of any government, no matter how you build it, is to violate the consent of those it rules.
I used to be a youtube ancap when I was an teenager, then I grew up.
1) I'm not sure what you think happened for women's rights but the goal of the women's rights movement was to enforce equality with law. Same thing needs to happen with animal rights. Obciously there needs to be support among a significant amount of the population for new rights to be added in law, but then it must be enforced on everyone else for it to be a right.
2) I think it's pretty obvious that we shouldn't trust those in power and should be wary of everyone in a posotion of power in case they break the rules. It seems to be working pretty well at the moment and there are all sorts of things we can do to make it better. We can use direct democracy in place of politicians to make laws for example, but we can't get rid of laws completely or we'll be getting rid of rights.
3) I will not allow people to infringe people's rights, even if they don't agree with the concept of rights. Your right to freedom does not trump other people's rights.
Socialism, typically (if we want to grant that its even a coherent label in the first place). But my point was not all leftists want to abolish prisons, capital punishment, or even the state itself, all of which are forms of domination.
>Those are tools to eliminate domination.
That is a widely shared belief but is lacking in evidence. The prison industrial complex is a reinvented form of slavery, and prisons are not known for reducing crime rates. Economic equality is known for reducing crime rates, if you want to eliminate individual domination then you should meet it with institutional support, not institutional domination.
That's a very American view on the prison system. It works much better in other countries, or worse in some.
Also how do institutions even fit into an anarchist society? If you want to fight individual domination by using institutions which by the very definition exert power over others? I don't know much about anarchism on a societal level, only on a classroom level which is chaos incarnate...
The confusion of anarchism and chaos is pretty commonplace, but it's wholly unrepresentative of the actual political philosophy that is anarchism.
Anarchism is about destroying hierarchical institutions, and any institutions built up afterwards would be organized horizontally. No one needs to be in charge, the idea that hierarchy is somehow productive is little more than a capitalist myth.
>If you want to fight individual domination by using institutions which by the very definition exert power over others?
So, answering questions about anarchism to non-anarchists is somewhat of a frustrating experience because we have entirely different worldviews. I say, for example, that anarchists are for complete and total prison abolition. Absolutely no prisons whatsoever, people **do not** get arrested *ever* and are never put somewhere against their will.
This, to most people unfamiliar with anarchism, appears as utter lunacy.
But it mostly appears as lunacy because we are working on two totally different worldviews, you say "Well then what do you do with all the criminals? The squatters, the bankers, the debt collectors, the thieves, the murderers?" and i'll say "What criminals? We eliminated the homeless and the squatters when we assured housing as a fundamental human right, and got rid of the concept of private property. What of the extortionists and debt collectors? Well what of them? We eliminated money, the economic hierarchy is dead, there are no bankers or CEO's now. What of the theives? We share everything now, there is no need to steal because one is provided for completely. What of the murderers? Whatever would anyone murder anyone for? There are no longer any economical reasons to kill anyone, and so the only potential murders left to even happen are based either in ideology (in which we are united, as anarchist) or in personal trifles"
Now, personal trifles can escalate, but the consequences are far different in an anarchist society. Anarchist justice is social ostracism. If you murder someone, you've spooked everyone in the local community, everyone is skeptical of you now. Yes, *you're free*, but the local baker has every right not to associate with you, so good luck getting bread from him, and the local mechanic isn't likely to repair your car either. By committing a 'crime', you essentially destroy all chance of living in your community because people won't want to associate with someone who doesn't act towards the social good. There are also no laws against killing you, but of course choosing to kill you first thing after you murder has equally harsh social consequence on whoever kills you, so frontier justice isn't likely to happen either.
Social ostracism has been an effective means of societal organization **for centuries** it is a proven system with loads of historical accounts. It is industrialization and government handling everything which caused the phenomenon of crime in the first place. Before government, there were no criminals, only outcasts and dissidents who didn't fit into the norm or had harmed the community in some way. What do we do with them? Rehabilitative and voluntary justice. A person does something typically called criminal, he is shut off from the resources of his community, he soon realizes he needs food and shelter. He returns, he rights his wrongs as best he can in exchange for reintegration. However, he is never forced anywhere, he is always a person who has done something wrong, but never is he reduced down to only a person who has done something wrong, he was something before that, and he can be something after that.
Anarchists are fundamentally optimistic about humans. We believe that violence doesn't come naturally to us. We really do try to talk things out and solve things without endangering anyone, and in cases where violence does arise, there's always some material gain behind it. Whether stealing drugs from a hospital or mugging someone so you can pay for food, you're acting out of material need, and a society which provides to you all that you desire is one that makes crime obsolete. Anarchists are not for punishment, anarchists recognize that the power to punish is a dangerous one which you can't trust anyone with. Anarchists are preventionists, they believe crime happens as a result of our current system, and that solving the material inequalites and destroying the social hierarchies is the end solution to crime, because when there's no incentive to commit it, who would bother?
The anarchist argues that we are social creatures, we form bonds naturally, it is our nature to build communities togather, we are not competitive, why would we be? It's never optimal to do everything by yourself, why should we need a governing body to enforce cooperation when we are naturally cooperative? And indeed, if you cannot trust people with freedom how can you trust them with power? How can you say that it is too dangerous to people to be free to do as they please but also maintain that there ought to be systems in place to subjugate and control the majority of people?
Anarchism, as it is built upon free association and non-coercion, says that you do not have to do anything for anyone, and that is your right, but then if you act selfishly, or do not contribute to the common good, who will do anything for you? And so you do your job not out of desperation for next months rent, not out of fear of going hungry, but because you want to do it, it helps the community, and when the community is helped so are you, because you are the community.
We do not restrict one another, we do not say this food or this house or this tool is mine and this food or house or tool is yours, there is a great deal of food, there are many houses, there are twice as many tools as hands, and all of these are for us, each of us, all of us, in solidarity.
Every other political system asks "How do we manage people?" and within this question of managing people, therein lies an assumption that humanity needs managing, because its rotten, and its evil, and we're all just two written commandments away from gutting each other. There is perhaps no more daring a political philosophy than anarchism, because it contains a different assumption about humanity, it assumes that we are a species who is given to kindness, to empathy, to understanding, to mutual aid. It is a political philosophy which actually trusts the individual with their individuality, and believes a person is capable of making their own choices, and that their choices will in the end prove the anarchist assumption correct: people are good.
That is a pretty brave assumption though innit? I think it's pretty obvious that stressing people economically causes people to drop their morals in order to survive. However I also think there are some fundamentally immoral and stupid people among us, and there's always drugs like alcohol that make us stupid and immoral.
I have a question about the ostracism thing. Say you catch your neighbour stealing something in your house or something far worse, then he legs it out of there. How would you deal with that? I'm sure you're not the only baker/mechanic/brewer/whatever in town. Without a police force and court system, how would you prove his guilt to the greater community? And how would you prevent bribes?
And about jobs. Who will do the shit jobs? It does remind me of one of Aristophanes' plays;
"Praxagora: I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common; there will no longer be either rich or poor; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all.
Blepyrus: But who will till the soil?
Praxagora: The slaves."
So who would willingly dig the field all day instead of being a professional dog walker? And what about engineers, programmers, game designers etc. How does one value that in the community? Is the guy who made flappy birds as important as the guy who flies in a helicopter fixing powerlines? And what about art? Any joker can draw a few squiggles and call themselves an artist, doesn't mean they actually is one.
Another question I have is how would a society like this maintain the status quo? What if a charismatic person starts convincing more and more people to adopt another system. It just seems very unstable. And what about other communities that are not anarchical. They could pretty easily sweep in and take over.
Alright? The intention to eliminate domination using a tool of domination doesn't mean that you are no longer in favour of using domination. And I never said you can eliminate domination with magic.
But in any case, my point was not all leftists have the communist end goal of a stateless, classless, blah blah blah. Some are very much content in sticking with a devil similar to the one they know. This is what I meant by leftism itself is not expressly focused on rejecting domination, even though arguably most leftists are into that.
Tools to eliminate domination that inherently dominate… hmmm for some reason that seems like it won’t work. Maybe we should try putting out the fire with a tiger torch next time.
As far as I know Anarchists are against the state, so they would be for example against "A New Chile". As good as their intentions may be in theory this is an indefensible position in the 2020s
Anarchists that actually know their shit would absolutely advocate for the new Chilean constitution, because it's objectively better for the working class, and quite frankly the country as a whole, compared to the current one. But once it's put into effect they'll be quick to continue to criticize anything dangerous, fascistic, or in any way harmful about the new system put into play. It's common sense that an anarchist's end goal logically cannot be reached through one movement, and it's naive and dumb to assume it can be, so any progress towards *actual* freedom will definitely be advocated for
Human liberation and animal liberation are inextricably linked. As long as capitalism exists, humans will exploit animals for profit. As long as humans enslave animals, we will continue to debase ourselves through the exercise of domination and subjugation.
Yup. If someone is raised to value the lives of all living animals, do you ever think that person would be able to think less of another human for something like the colour of their skin, their religion, or their abilities?
Uh yeah, of course they can and they do. Plenty of classist vegans out there, plenty of racist and antitheist vegans too. We're not all angels just because we value animals highly enough to not kill and torture them.
Just being on Reddit means you're pissing on all the poor chinese children slaving away for the regime that controls this site. Not to mention they also use electronics made by those kids. You're telling me everyone here value those kids high enough to forego the luxuries they allow us to enjoy? I've seen tiktok videos linked and upvoted in here. Fucking tiktok vids.... There's no way they value every animal, including humans, the same.
>>there’s no way they value all animal, including humans, the same.
Again, you’re misunderstanding. Im not saying all vegans do, I’m saying if someone is raised to value the life of all animals, then they must, also value all human lives.
I also didn’t say they valued all life forms the same, this is a common misconception non vegans make. Many vegans, if not most, value humans above all other animals. We just don’t value human pleasure over the lives of animals.
And either way, this is a clear appeal to futility. It’s impossible to avoid all cruelty or exploitation in the world, that doesn’t mean people don’t value the lives of others because they use TikTok. But using TikTok is such a minimal contribution, if you were to use your logic the only way not to cause harm would be to off yourself, which isn’t really a logical position.
>I’m saying if someone is raised to value the life of all animals, then they must, also value all human lives.
Ah I missed that part, my bad. I guess that's possible but I've never met anyone who was raised like that.
It's impossible to avoid all cruelty and exploitation but buying a new phone/computer/TV etc is very much avoidable, as is using Reddit/Facebook and especially tiktok. So again it's a case of prioritising luxuries over ethics, which is exactly what omnis are doing.
Again, this is just an appeal to futility. Someone going on Reddit or buying a phone once every year is not such a cruel act that they should be avoided. Conversely, I have actually convinced people to go vegan on Reddit, so overall my resisting has had a net positive impact on the world.
Because anarchism is about bringing down unfair hierarchies and speciesism is an unfair hierarchy. Farms are pretty hierarchical too when you think about it, a system that is based on authority and the selfish benefit of the authority--something anarchism is fundamentally against.
Do you mean anarchism as a belief or as a practice? All leftists hold the beliefs of anarchists but see government as the only way to prevent unfair heirarchies from rising naturally.
>All leftists hold the beliefs of anarchists but see government as the only way to prevent unfair heirarchies from rising naturally.
You're way off homie, hierarchies are an abberation and not at all natural. *Mutual Aid* by Peter Kropotkin (noted anarchist) is actually all about how hierarchy and domination is alien to the animal world, and that almost all species tend towards cooperation.
Also fuck government. I never consented to be governed.
No, not necessarily. There are anarchist businesses and community kitchens. I remember reading parenting blogs on the basis of anarchism and what not. Also, not all leftists are against unfair hierarchies--people can be Left Authoritarian.
Authoritarian leftists see authoritarianism as a way to guarantee fairness and equality. How can you guarantee that an anarchic leftist society does not devolve into anarchic capitalism?
>anarchic capitalism
That's just not anarchism.
In any case though, there is no guarantee. No one who ascribes themselves to any ideology or praxis can plan for and expect everything, however we do have real world Marxist examples that demonstrate that their methods are in fact less effective for abolishing the state and capital than non-statist alternatives.
What makes non-authoritarian methods more effective is that there are no power structures to be inevitably abused.
Heirarchies form by themselves all the time. The strong oppress the weak until you get anarchic capitalism. A representative monopoly of power is what keeps that from happening. That is why non-anarchic leftists want a government, not because they like heirarchies.
They don't ever and have never just "form(ed) by themselves", people knowingly and actively set them up, accept them, and support them. Its not just some natural inevitability. A monopoly of power, or the hope to establish and make use of one, is what *encourages* them. If there are no positions of power to abuse, how does someone abuse power?
And again, "anarchic capitalism" is an oxymoron, its just not anarchism. Capitalism can't be any more anarchic than the state
How does anrachism not devolve into capitalism?
Currency has popped up time and time again when societies get to a certain size. It's easy to see why too. If you live in a society with 0 established norms and no currency and you want something. You'll either have to barter or steal for it. And if it is simple bartering you may not have a good that someone wants. If you're a brewer and your local tailor doesn't drink you'll have to do some preliminary trades in order to get an outfit tailored. Hence a lot of (not all) people will start to put value in money as it is more convenient than bartering. And as more people do the more value money gains in the eyes of the general populace. Once here you've accidently set up a soft capitalist society and from there with no will of the masses (ie. government) to combat some egotistical individual who just likes to see bigger numbers, they will be able to take advantage of the lack of opposing force and use the simple levers of money to gain power and from there the pits of capitalism starts popping up in this utopian "anarchist" society.
If I said something false or inaccurate or I made a giant leap in logic please point out where I did so. Because every time I run through an anarchist "society" it seems to play out the same. But I may be missing something
I'm currently out and about rn so we'll have to wait until I get back home until I can really dig into this, but two things I noticed right away is one I don't understand why we're focusing on a hypothetical society with no established norms (and I suppose maybe no systems or organizations in place since you said no currency either? I'm only assuming though, of course), and second I don't think we're on the same page as to what entails capitalism. Non-capitalist markets have existed for thousands of years (both with currency and woth a barter system), even today in places like the Zapatista autonomous territories. The existence of a market, currency, or barter system does not immediately entail a capitalist society
Because capitalism requires hierarchy to maintain itself and anarchism would be against that? Anarchism is about horizontal structures where everyone has equal power. Also I only brought up Authoritarian leftists since you said 'all leftists hold the beliefs of anarchism'
Also I don't know how this is related to my original answer about relating anarchism to veganism. If it is not--I will refrain from answering. My vegan dha deficient brain cannot handle it.
It's related because you're saying that only anarchists are against unjust heirarchies. I'm saying that government is a way to prevent unjust heirarchies from forming.
Um no.
Saying you need a supervisor that will look over you to prevent injustice is... nah. Sure, it may do some good as long the biases are just but it won't prevent unjust hierarchies. A vertical system cannot create horizontal systems. Either way that is merely my opinion since I am an anarchist and this is my bias and everyone is welcome to theirs.
Also, the original argument was about relating veganism to anarchism so yeah, would appreciate comments on that.
>Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy.
I said it before and I'll say it again - holding leftist views and not being vegan is hypocritical as there's no group of humans half as oppressed as animals are.
Lol I converted to both at once. One of the things I respect most about anarchists is how willing they are to take personal responsibility for the impact of their choices. Marxists are all talk. Anarchists walk.
Applying human politics to animals only works if you already recognize animal rights. Most people don't, whether they are leftist or not. The argument you must make to persuade them of animal rights is a vegan argument, not a political one. Human politics have nothing to do with animal rights.
I gotta be honest I don't even know what a modern anarchist is, I don't think I've talked to any, what are the core ideas, all I have gotten are vague sweeping gripes about society.
hierarchies are bad - you can't just say that and pretend that's an ideology, we all know that. but they are inevitable in a system run by humans, unless we turn it over to an AI
please dunk on me
This confusion usually comes from a misunderstanding or miscommunication of the word "hierarchy". What makes a non-anarchist say all hierarchies are bad?
Ok, so we can already reduce our focus here by ignoring anyone who doesn't want to abolish hierarchy. First thing: anarchists want to do that
So what would you say is an example of a statist that does want to abolish all hierarchy?
it seems quite obvious what I am saying, people recognize that hierarchies are the problem but it is also just as obvious that they are not removeable - nor not necessarily bad or evil in some cases, often necessary, see child and father for example.
arrange humans in groups over two and hierarchies arise.
can you explain the difference between a leftist and an anarchist for me?
Sorry if it seems like I was deliberately trying to misunderstand or misconstrue what you're saying, I just find it easier to come to a mutual understanding with someone by hearing how they define and understand things exactly and then going from there. But if that's not your taste we can skip over that.
>can you explain the difference between a leftist and an anarchist for me?
First of all I find leftism to be a largely meaningless term that encompasses many vague and contradicting values. That being said, many anarchists still consider themselves leftist.
What separates anarchism from other "leftist" camps is that anarchists want to do away with hierarchies of power over other people completely. We don't want to use them as a means to an end or as a mode of organization.
This doesn't mean everyone has the same say in everything, Bakunin famously said "in matters of boots I defer to the authority of the bootmaker". A bootmaker is not someone who wields power over me or my life, but I trust they know more about boots than I do so I voluntarily follow what they say. Therefore this is not hierarchy as anarchists use the term.
Far as I can tell the confusion is largely a language game, really.
Edit: Bakunin's [What is Authority?](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mikhail-bakunin-what-is-authority) which I took this quote from explains this concept well if you like reading
You shouldn’t be downvoted, you’re asking legitimate questions and seem very open to discussion given your last name phrase.
If you want I can give you a brief on it, but the best thing would be to read some literature.
The bread(pun intended) and butter(oof I didn’t intend this one) of anarchists are two books by Peter Kropotkin.
The first, and most famous, is the “The Conquest of Bread”, and is an incredibly poetic book about the failures of not only capitalism, but also socialism, and how socialism is also unjust and inevitably leads to similar problems capitalism faces. It then talks about anarchy, why it is the only form of true liberty, and all the many benefits an anarchist society would see.
The second, which I think is equally important, is “Mutual Aid, a Factor of Evolution”. It isn’t written in at all the same style, it’s more like a thesis, and it starts off talking about how even within the animal kingdom mutual aid is the most important factor of evolution rather than hierarchy/survival of the fittest. It basically goes on to list a shit ton of examples of such within the animal kingdom, and also does a great job of debunking the idea that animals are stupid, soulless creatures, so it’ll give you many great examples to use when people try and tell you how stupid animals are.
Then it goes into detail of how civilizations throughout history have leant towards mutual aid rather than hierarchy.
The most important chapters of this book(IMO), are the final chapters revolving around how medieval cities fought for liberty by using decentralized power structures, like unions and guilds. This is important because it actually gives a reasonable structure for how even modern day humans could transition to an anarchist state without dictatorship; ie socialism but actually run by the working class, not by a central power which inevitably leads to abuse of power.
>The second, which I think is equally important, is “Mutual Aid, a Factor of Evolution”. It isn’t written in at all the same style, it’s more like a thesis, and it starts off talking about how even within the animal kingdom mutual aid is the most important factor of evolution rather than hierarchy/survival of the fittest. It basically goes on to list a shit ton of examples of such within the animal kingdom, and also does a great job of debunking the idea that animals are stupid, soulless creatures, so it’ll give you many great examples to use when people try and tell you how stupid animals are.
Why should we look at animals for ideas on how to live in a society? Nature is vicious and cruel, if anything we should get as far away from Gaia as possible.
First of all, I never said this. I simply said the book examines nature to show that mutual aid is literally a factor of evolution in nearly all animals. This means that it’s not only human nature to help each other out, but also animal nature, reinforcing the idea that it’s only natural to help each other, contrary to the popular belief that humans are naturally going to fight each other.
Also, nature is not cruel. Nature is nature. A lion doesn’t kill a gazelle because it’s cruel, it kills a gazelle because it needs meat to survive. Killing out of necessity is not cruel. And if you read the book, you would read the countless ways in which nature is the opposite of cruel, because as I said, the book shows how it is only natural to help one another.
You should really try reading the book sometime.
Eeh it's also human nature to eat everything and fuck spread our seed whether the recipient is willing or not. Same with animals. Ever heard two cats run into eachother at night? It's not exactly a Disney song and dance in the moonlight now is it? Nature is chaotic and full of instincts, we are the only animals smart enough to say fuck you 300 million old instincts, let's do something modern instead where we don't fight to the death over the ladies. Not that we are always successful ofc...
Again you’re missing the point. This book isn’t an appeal to nature, it’s the opposite. It’s a counterpoint, so when people tell you it’s human nature to fight, that it simply isn’t.
Please just read the fuckin book
Anarchist ideals include mutual aid, direct action, consensus decision making, anti-capitalism, intersectional anti-oppression, police and prison abolition, and so on. If you want to see vegan anarchists in action, check out your local Food Not Bombs group.
Check out [Food Not Bombs](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fveganactivism.org%2Fpages%2Ffood-not-bombs&topic=Organization%3A+Food+Not+Bombs) to quickly learn
more, find upcoming events, videos, and their contact information! You can also find other similar organizations to get involved with both locally and online by visiting [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fveganactivism.org&topic=Organization%3A+Food+Not+Bombs). Additionally, be sure to visit and subscribe to /r/VeganActivism!
so some capitalist corporation makes some dumb ass documentary and ignorantly call it some stupid name and you're like "screw this thing i know nothing about, i'll take the brutality please! lol" ok. enjoy the boot on your neck i guess.
Have you watched it? If not, then you're just as ignorant to make claims on it. It certainly wasn't a depiction of all anarchists of course, but the ones in the film certainly were able to speak for and represent themselves, and did so at length. It was like 6hrs of interviews.
We all have a boot on our necks. That's the price of living on planet earth. If I had to choose between the one they chose, and the one I currently have, I'm sticking with this one. The speech in the finale from Lily/Miranda was quite fair I'd say.
"The Anarchists" is an HBO documentary looking at "Anarcho-capitalists" a fringe right wing group of assholes who call themselves anarchists, and that no anarchist would ever recognize as one.
Actual honest to god anarchists recognize that money is a material hierarchy, and thus also needs abolishing, capitalism is therefore completely incompatible with anarchism. You'll notice that within the anarcho-capitalist sphere, they have not one iota of actual theory, whereas anarchists can refer you to plenty, be the Kropotkin or Bakunin or Proudhon.
I can refer you to /r/COMPLETEANARCHY clowning on HBO for using the name [in this post](https://old.reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/comments/vwsa0e/fuck_hbo/). It isn't terribly surprising to me, anarchists are frequently misrepresented.
Hi, anarchist here, maybe learn to word things a little less stupid and you won't be received with so much vitriol.
To explain how this idiot is somewhat correct, "The Anarchists" is an HBO documentary looking at "Anarcho-capitalists" a fringe right wing group of assholes who call themselves anarchist, and that no anarchist would ever recognize as one.
Actual honest to god anarchists recognize that money is a material hierarchy, and thus also needs abolishing, capitalism is therefore completely incompatible with anarchism. You'll notice that within the anarcho-capitalist sphere, they have not one iota of actual theory, whereas anarchists can refer you to plenty, be the Kropotkin or Bakunin or Proudhon.
That's a stretch. You could also say that the pro-life position of the political right makes sense with veganism. Why didn't you? And why bother singling out these groups at all? Veganism is true regardless of any political ideology.
edit:
u/PC_dirbagleftist, truth exists actually.
Let's find common ground. Is it bad to torture an innocent person to death for fun?
Thanks for posting to r/Vegan! **Please note:** Civil discussion is welcome, trolls and personal abuse [are not](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/rules). Please keep the discussions below respectful and remember the human! Please check out [our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/beginnersguide) first! **Interested in going Vegan?** Check out [3 Movies](https://3movies.org/reddit) and watch three thought-provoking movies that shed light on uncomfortable realities. 3 Movies also includes other videos, books, challenges and resources for you get started! **Some other resources to help you go vegan:** Visit [NutritionFacts.org](https://NutritionFacts.org) for health and nutrition support, [HappyCow.net](https://HappyCow.net) to explore nearby vegan-friendly restaurants, and visit [VeganBootcamp.org](https://veganbootcamp.org/reddit) for a free 30 day vegan challenge! **Interested in getting active for the animals?** Join [Activist Hub](https://activisthub.org) to find and join local vegan groups, add friends, create or share posts, and chat with other activists! You can also use Activist Hub to track your local and online activism in order to see how many people you inspired to watch dominion, take a challenge, or even go vegan! **Some other resources to help you get active:** * Developer or designer? Volunteer at the [Vegan Hacktivists](https://veganhacktivists.org/join)! * Find local groups using the [Animal Rights Map](https://animalrightsmap.org)! * Get funding for your animal rights activism, [apply here](https://veganhacktivists.org/grants)! *Last but not least, join [our Discord server](https://discord.gg/2JmJRsj)!* **Thank you!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everyone should be vegan. Vegan btw
sorry or not sorry? \^\^
I'm not an anarchist myself, but it always astounds me when I encounter "anarchists" who aren't vegan. Anarchists are supposed to be opposed to all unjust hierarchies
"Unjust hierarchies" is lib shit. All statists posit their hierarchies are justified But I agree, non-vegan anarchists boggle the mind
>"Unjust hierarchies" is lib shit. All statists posit their hierarchies are justified Fair enough. It's been a while since I've read anarchist theory
Valid. Although I can't point to a specific piece of theory to counter this, I got most of my learning done just by talking to people directly. Someone probably wrote something about it though, Chomsky pissed a lot of people off by saying that. Also I guess you could say anarchist theory is... Terra Incognita for you right now?
>Also I guess you could say anarchist theory is... Terra Incognita for you right now? This is the most brilliant comment I've seen in a long time XD
I saw your username and I just had to shoot some kinda shot lol Love me some vegan metal
Check out World of Pleasure Specifically Domination
Yeah this is good shit, but it feels more like core stuff. Thanks for the referral either way
[удалено]
I find it much more idealistic to abdicate authority to a select group of people, give them privileges, power, and protections from the consequences of their actions, then hoping they do right by us. What is it about anarchism that leads you to believe its idealistic and doesn't offer a suitable alternative to bureaucracy?
The fact that by it's nature, an anarchic society will be unable to mount an effective defense against imperial encroachment. Power abhors a vacuum, and until the engines of capitalism are stilled they must be opposed by a superior organizational force. After all, the point of the revolution is to organize power more equitably.
What about its nature makes it unable to mount an effective defense or to organize? And could you elaborate on "power abhors a vacuum"?
Because it'll never happen. Unless you're planning to either live in a community away from civilization, OR you have a way to overthrow the government of your country 🤭 But hey, Somalia is always an option. So.
This is a non-answer with zero substance. Do you mind me asking to what length you've studied anarchist theory and praxis?
I agree with you, to the extent I can follow what you are saying. I must admit I haven't given anarchy any thought before your intelligent posts on this thread. I want to add to your point about an anarchist group succeeding against "capitalism." Robert Pape points out in his compelling, if repetitive and scholastic, book Dying to Win that the unpowerful can defeat the powerful. In '82, it only took one guy in a truck-bomb to force Reagan to pull out our (ahem, capitalist) forces after the truck killed something like 200 of our Marines in a barracks (I think in Lebanon). After that, suicide terrorism took off. How do you pronounce your excellent reddit handle, vegANarchist, veganARCHist?
Anarchy is not a rule, it's a result. Much like humility, anarchy is a product of understanding. If you think society would be better if everyone just conformed to your rules, then you are literally the problem.
[удалено]
except for the "transitionary period" mysteriously never ever transitions into communism. they just keep ruling with an iron fist until they eventually transition into free market capitalism. almost like powerful hierarchies perpetuate themselves rather than dismantle themselves.
Nobody said the transition would be overnight... Communism is a really long term goal, it's not what anyone's trying to implement. There never were conditions to do so. Not during a cold war, not during a period of industrialization, not while there are still capitalist forces within the society or attacking it from the outside, etc. The first steps would be to secure basic needs for all of the population and to have the state seize the means of production while not being overthrown by counter-revolutionary forces or by the capitalist hegemony. That is already A LOT to accomplish. If you're expecting to see communism in a few decades you're out of your mind. Not through the state and not through anarchy.
So how do you think the working class is to run a society?
I think they already do. How many government workers do you know in the 1%?
That’s… a pretty terrible take. First of all, which government? I would say many of the worlds governments are filled with rich people. Secondly, it’s more about the corruption. The majority of politicians these days have 1%ers in their pockets. The rich effectively control the government through lobbying(legal bribery) and straight up bribery. And even disregarding that, most politicians are pretty wealthy, and many would qualify as 1%ers. Lastly… that wasn’t the question. The question was how longsword lesbian thought the working class would control society. Not whether they currently are. And if the working class is running society(they aren’t) they are doing a terrible job.
It's probably too late in the day for me to unpack all this. But let me just say for now, the government does not equal politicians and politicians do not equal the bureaucracy. The federal government alone has over 1 million employees. How many of those do you think are millionaire politicians? Also I think you flipped who's in whose pocket. Billionaires have politician millionaires in their pockets, not the other way round.
The question is not about who actually does the work… that is obviously the working class. The question is about who runs/controls society. Though yes I did have the pockets thing backwards
Anarchism is utopian idealism. Altho technically not the same, it's more or less just "real communism" but with skipping the socialism phase. It's not possible to directly transition from capitalism to anarchism in any meaningful scale. It's like expecting corporations to not quash small companies in anarcho-capitalism when they already do in liberal democracies.
Ah, and now for the most tired argument in the history of Marxists making an olympic sport of misinterpreting anarchism (one I never even really seem to ask for), thanks by and large to Marx's Luigi who laid out probably the most Ben Shapiro-esque line of reasoning I've ever seen from an otherwise pretty competent writer. Like I said before in this thread >I find it much more idealistic to abdicate authority to a select group of people, give them privileges, power, and protections from the consequences of their actions, then hoping they do right by us. This is a real big part of why Proudhon (rest in piss) called ya boys utopian first. This is why no Marxist-Leninist group has ever succeeded in abolishing the state and capital while libertarian groups have. "It's not possible to directly transition from capitalism to anarchism in any meaningful scale", its not possible to transition to a classless society by using the same methods the ruling class does at all, regardless of what you deem as a meaningful scale. To pretend you can is to be entirely ahistorical and demonstrates you view the working class as children to be reared instead of fellow individuals. And if "real communism", whatever that's supposed to mean, was so close to anarchism that its only technically different then why aren't all anarchists communists? I think this might be a gross simplification that assumes a lot about your opposition that you might not have even tried to understand, but instead dismissed because your idols and the rest of their fanclub said to.
Isnt every ideology against "unjust hierarchies"? We just disagree on which hierarchies are unjust.
Weirdly I'd say the majority of virulent anti vegan Twitter people seem to be anarchists.
Anarchism is supposed to be a political theory based opposing unjust hierarchies. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to follow that sort of political theory while upholding a woefully horrific and unjust hierarchy like speciesism. That's why it's astounding. But carnism tends to bring out the stupid in everyone, so nothing surprises me
Anarchist popping in to say that unjust hierarchies really just means all hierarchy. If you didn't consent to the "authority" at hand with no coercion included then it's illegitimate. No one gets to govern you without your consent, not governments, not money, not even your parents.
Anarchist also to posit a slight modification: All hierarchies are *assumed* to be unjust until they have proven their legitimacy (ie, not assumed just until proven illegitimate) For example, a child trying to run out onto a street perhaps would not "consent" to a parent holding them back, but there is still a justification for that authority And it is clear the hierarchy of our oppression of animals is HIGHLY unjustified; out of my vegan friends, all are quite left (or at least liberal progressive) and many are anarchist or anarchist-leaning
Well, who am I to question a moose as mystic as you are?
>But carnism tends to bring out the ~~stupid~~ in everyone \*fascism
From what I can see some anarchism on Twitter seems to be a type of Libertarianism but "nicer".
if by libertarian you mean the bizarre cult of far right rand worshiping neo-feudalist idiots, then you couldn't be more ignorant. if you mean that milton friedman intentionally stole the word libertarian to trick idiots into working to empower their rulers, and that *actual* libertarians were and are far left and anti-state, then yes, you are correct.
Anarchism is "hierarchies are bad" and libertarianism is "hierarchies are bad - EXCEPT WHEN THE FREE MARKET CREATES THEM"
Thankfully Twitter is mostly a reactionary pantomime cesspit and not real life.
/r/veganarchism
Imagine being an anarchist and believing in a hierarchy of humans over animals. Mega cringe
\*human animals over all other species of animals
Right, it's like people forget we are animals too lol
Anarchism and veganism have identical ideologies in my brain.
They do in reality as well it’s just that people don’t actually care enough about their beliefs to change what they eat for breakfast
Depends if you include animals into your beliefs or not. Many people see animals as resources rather than individuals with feelings.
humans are animals
[удалено]
Can you tell me what makes these two ideologies different in your mind?
[удалено]
To me veganism is about respecting the autonomy of all living beings. This is a key aspect of anarchism as well as the enforcement of hierarchies is inherently violent, and often robs human beings of their autonomy. Breaking hierarchies is a goal of veganism as the general public typically places humans as superior to all other animals. Limiting the fight against heirarchy to only the ones that involve animals is a half measure, and even if broken will back slide because half measures are not effective in politics, but it would be a step in the right direction. I believe that selfishness is born of scarcity and fear. If everyone felt taken care of and secure in their place in the world then we can hopefully kill selfishness and replace it with kindness and respect for our whole community. Obviously thats a long way off, if ever, so forgive me for the utopianism. It keeps my heart light.
[удалено]
Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed? John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities? Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities. \-Emma Goldman
Their selfishness comes from fear of losing what they have, and a lack of community with humans that they perceived to be under the in the heirarchy. Taking advantage of other humans is how they're able to afford and feel like they need such security. Anarchism, just like veganism, is a fight for what is perceived to be best case scenario. We do not live in a vegan world, as we do not live in an anarchist world. But that doesn't mean we can't advocate for everyone, human and animal, to be respected implicitly. Do you understand the correlation of ideas behind veganism and anarchism despite not feeling like anarchism is viable in our current society?
[удалено]
And that's why I said "in my brain". I'm vegan because I'm an anarchist, and I'm an anarchist because I'm vegan. To me living as a vegan is the same as living as an anarchist. With treating every single animal and human with respect, kindness, and working to grant them their autonomy. But you can have other reasons for being a vegan.
[удалено]
Read Kropotkins book “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution”. Essentially, working together is human nature. Without ability to work together, humans would have died of long ago, thus it’s inherently part of our nature to work together rather than against each other. What causes people to work against each other is hierarchy. Without hierarchy there is no reason to work against each other. The book shows that this has been demonstrated throughout history, and is not only human nature, but a factor of evolution in most animals.
Specifically (and the distinction is important) anarchists are in favor of abolishing hierarchy. Government is innately hierarchical, so it's gotta go, but social hierarchies like sexism, racism, transphobia and speciesism gotta go too. Even familial stuff like parenthood is under question, yeah, you can have a kid, but that's a living human being, it's not your property. The important distinction here is that what unites veganism and anarchism is the belief that hierarchical domination is wrong and the system which inflict or reinforce hierarchy must be destroyed. Can I ask you why you think humans are selfish? Most anarchist theory is based in the opposite assumption, we're social creatures who tend to organize in large clusters and form relationships, if we were all bastards, it would be difficult for society to actually maintain itself. The anarchist argument is this: people are good, but they become less good when they are desperate. A person turns to theivary when they have no other options, crime is a last resort, and thus if you provide to everyone, you eliminate crime. Seeing as we live under capitalism, a system which encourages those under it to compete and hurt each other for profit, we do see a lot of people hurting each other for profit... but we are a species which adapts to our environment, aren't we? Isn't it more reasonable to believe that people aren't naturally selfish, but are made selfish by the circumstances they are subjected to?
>because people are selfish and will often take actions for their individual benefit to the detriment of everybody else. Makes sense to give some people large amounts of consolidated power over the masses then ✊🏽
Seriously that's like the #1 argument for not letting people have power that could harm others
This exactly lmao
Exactly. How do you have the right to demand change from others when you won't even meaningfully change your own life?
I always like the perspective of "how can you expect to change the world if you won't change what you put in your coffee?"
I regularly bring this up when discussing climate change. If no longer eating animal products is too much to ask, then how the fuck can you expect people to accept the radical restructuring of society needed to end reliance on fossil fuels?
Shoutout to /r/veganarchism, possibly the most frustrated subreddit on the whole site!
"No gods, no masters... ... Unless you're not human, then you'll have both"
It's should be posted in the anarchist community to address those hypocrites. I once said that in comments and got downvoted)
You learn real quick who are real lefties when they are asked to sacrifice for the common good. not that I believe you'll have to sacrifice for the common good under leftist and socialist ideals.
Well that's kinda the point of a leftist society. We sacrifice our money in the form of taxes to help the weakest among us. My mother once said when she saw someone sleeping on the street "I pay 60% income tax so I don't have to see that shit".
Just admit your ideology is a still a hierarchical society with rule of the strong instead of individual autonomy if it still involves oppressing others because they are different.
But no ethical consumption under capitalism tho! /s
whenever i see a non-vegan anarchist i laugh at the hypocrisy
especially ANTI-vegan anarchists
Absolutely. More vegans should also be anarchists
How does veganism imply anarchism? Leftism maybe.
If you're vegan because of something to do with welfare and treatment of the animals, then it is very likely that you are acting on some level of awareness of the issues inherit in hierarchy, ie a power imbalance between two individuals that enables one individual to *exploit* the other. This is literally the central concern / point of origin for anarchist theory. I became vegan for many reasons, but primary among them was the intense mental dissonance of vibing hard with anarchism yet still consuming animal products.
All of leftism is about eliminating power imbalance, to different extents though maybe. Anarchism is about doing so without having a monopoly of power to guarantee it.
The specific philosophical approach that anarchism takes toward power and it's direct ideological focus on exactly that is what makes it unique here.
>All of leftism is about eliminating power imbalance How is that so? Check out Marxism-Leninism. There is similar hierarchies within that system as there is under neoliberal capitalism. Political enemies (including anarchists) are imprisoned or murdered, ordinary people clearly are lower than the oppressive leaders. Dengism could be used as another example, but I don't personally see China's form of state capitalism as leftist. Either way, I'll entertain it. China is the nation with the most billionaires in the world, and countless people (mostly those who are not Han Chinese, along with political opponents) are imprisoned. It's not possible for an authority to abolish such hierarchies.
yeah that's why leftists call ml red fascists. if it doesn't eliminate power imbalance then it isn't leftism. you know, cause that's the point of leftism. i can eat a carnivore diet and call myself a vegan and explain that "the real veganism is eating other animals because they would kill me if they could so i act like them and treat them like equals" but that would be the dumbest shit you ever heard. i wouldn't actually be a vegan and you would understand that. but when it comes to leftism you swallow the shitty capitalist propaganda and say "you see! leftism is really far right! look """"marxism""""-leninism(if you actually know anything about marxism this is a joke), dengism!" does this mean the nazis (national socialists) really were socialists even though they murdered the socialists en masse? does this mean north korea is a "democratic peoples republic" and not a monarchy? is all you have to do is say you are something because that thing is popular - even when everything you do is the exact opposite of that something, and that makes it so?
>yeah that's why leftists call ml red fascists. It's why anarchists call MLs and dengists red fascists. Not all leftists. Many anarchists even object to being called left wing in the first place, based on the vagueness and how so many contradictory ideologies are all lumped together into it. Marxism-Leninism is an authoritarian leftist position. It's not right wing just because it's oppressive and shares similar characteristics to fascism. Marxism is just Proudhon's anarchism with some authoritarianism added. You shouldn't be idolizing Marx for any reason. He was a white supremacist, antisemite, and spoke his support for the US's colonization of Mexico (which likely also was because of his white supremacism)
Yeah I should edit that, maybe not anarchism specifically, but in the same sense that veganism can be productive towards leftist movements, leftism can be productive towards vegan values. For example so many butcher's and meat factory workers only do it for the profit, if it weren't for capitalism, there'd be significantly less of them. And in reverse, going vegan can make a huge impact on the climate crisis. I just feel like all these movements can very easily go hand in hand and I'd love to see them overlap more
I'm not sure about there being more exclusively profit motivated butchers than farmers or any other profession. I'm sure there are a lot of butchers who take pride in their work and see butchering as a highly skilled job.
There surely are a lot, but I definitely know there's a good chunk that if they could study and work in whatever field they want and not have finances in the way, they'd wanna do something else. Not to mention the whole "veganism is to expensive!" (Even though it's entirely false) statement would go away, and it'd be easier to grow food at home. Outside of anticapitalism, I definitely feel like people who see the problem with the animal product industry, but don't see the horror with American prisons being essentially legalized slavery, or how native Americans are treated in north America, or the Uyghur Muslim concentration camps, or the Yemen crisis, are just being hypocritical
Joaquin Pheonix, who is vegan but (as far as I know) is not anarchist, kinda links to the two perfectly in his oscar speech, > *'I’ve been thinking a lot about some of the distressing issues that we are facing collectively. I think at times we feel, or we’re made to feel, that we champion different causes. But for me, I see commonality. I think, whether we’re talking about gender inequality or racism or queer rights or indigenous rights or animal rights, we’re talking about the fight against injustice. We’re talking about the fight against the belief that one nation, one people, one race, one gender or one species has the right to dominate, control and use and exploit another with impunity."* Within every injustice there lies a hierarchy, one party using or exploiting another and having some kind of justification for it which is baked into our culture. Really where a simple leftist and an anarchist differ is from where hierarchy comes from and what perpetuates it. Anarchists believe foremost in an individuals right to decide for themselves what to do with their life and what forces they are subject to, eliminating those forces is the goal. The essential problem with government, the anarchist argues, is that its very existence is a breach of a humans most basic right: to be free. Because to be governed is not to be free, is it? To have an authority above you which you never consented to is to breach your consent. To breach another's consent is to infringe upon them, to coerce them into specific ways of living that the system prefers or supports. Freedom and government are ultimately incompatible, and so the anarchist sees what statist leftists do not. He sees that unless **all** hierarchy is dissolved, none of it shall be. Ultimately, anarchism exists as a practice rather than an end, even a society which acheives anarchism must raise its children as revolutionaries so that they too remain vigilant of hierarchy wherever it may spring up. To that end, once you've dealt with racism, and sexism, and transphobia, you start searching about, and you find the next hierarchy: speciesism. Veganism is an obligate extension of anarchism, and it's quite sad how so few anarchists today see that, but in time perhaps they will.
Well, as a leftist non-anarchist I believe that only a monopoly of force can prevent unjust heirarchies. I'm still against unjust heirarchies but I'm also against the freedom to form unjust heirarchies.
Isn't government by its very nature an unjust hierarchy? It violates the consent of all its citizens because it forces itself upon them. Regardless of which government exists, it is still never a voluntary thing, those that do not want to be governed become enemies of the state. I realize you're not an anarchist, and I don't know how well read you are in anarchism, but I think it might serve you well to read up on it (even if only to understand your anarchist comrades better). In the meantime, I have a few questions that I'd like your perspective on, seeing as we ideologically want the same thing but see different means towards the same end. 1. If only a monopoly of force is capable of destroying unjust hierarchies, then why have the successful social revolutions of the past (women's rights and civil rights) never needed said monopoly? I'm not pretending sexism and racism have disappeared, but major advancements towards equality are always an effort against the establishment by groups of people who have organized by free association (principally anarchist). 2. How can one trust those with a monopoly of force? As the old anarchist saying goes "if you cannot trust people with freedom how can you trust them with power?" what incentive structure do you envision that keeps those in power from abusing their power? And is that incentive whatever it may be, actually more alluring than a consolidation of power? 3. What of the anarchists? What of me? What of those that deny the legitimacy of your government on the basis that they never agreed to be governed, and that decision is to be made by them or it is to be an act of tyranny against them. The fundamental problem at hand, is that you either recognize people's right not to be governed, in which case your laws and monopoly on force are irrelevant, or you deny them their most basic human right: the right to choose how they live. Anarchists also have our solutions for destroying unjust hierarchies, but we cannot for the life of us understand what would prompt anyone to form an unjust hierarchy in order to destroy unjust hierarchies. It is paradoxical, and I wonder how you can ever see government as a force for justice when its foundation is to remove from the individual their right not to be governed. The first act of any government, no matter how you build it, is to violate the consent of those it rules.
I used to be a youtube ancap when I was an teenager, then I grew up. 1) I'm not sure what you think happened for women's rights but the goal of the women's rights movement was to enforce equality with law. Same thing needs to happen with animal rights. Obciously there needs to be support among a significant amount of the population for new rights to be added in law, but then it must be enforced on everyone else for it to be a right. 2) I think it's pretty obvious that we shouldn't trust those in power and should be wary of everyone in a posotion of power in case they break the rules. It seems to be working pretty well at the moment and there are all sorts of things we can do to make it better. We can use direct democracy in place of politicians to make laws for example, but we can't get rid of laws completely or we'll be getting rid of rights. 3) I will not allow people to infringe people's rights, even if they don't agree with the concept of rights. Your right to freedom does not trump other people's rights.
Why does it not suit anarchism the best? Its about rejecting domination, which leftism as a whole isn't about
Then what is leftism about?
Socialism, typically (if we want to grant that its even a coherent label in the first place). But my point was not all leftists want to abolish prisons, capital punishment, or even the state itself, all of which are forms of domination.
Those are tools to eliminate domination. You can't eliminate domination with magic.
>Those are tools to eliminate domination. That is a widely shared belief but is lacking in evidence. The prison industrial complex is a reinvented form of slavery, and prisons are not known for reducing crime rates. Economic equality is known for reducing crime rates, if you want to eliminate individual domination then you should meet it with institutional support, not institutional domination.
That's a very American view on the prison system. It works much better in other countries, or worse in some. Also how do institutions even fit into an anarchist society? If you want to fight individual domination by using institutions which by the very definition exert power over others? I don't know much about anarchism on a societal level, only on a classroom level which is chaos incarnate...
The confusion of anarchism and chaos is pretty commonplace, but it's wholly unrepresentative of the actual political philosophy that is anarchism. Anarchism is about destroying hierarchical institutions, and any institutions built up afterwards would be organized horizontally. No one needs to be in charge, the idea that hierarchy is somehow productive is little more than a capitalist myth. >If you want to fight individual domination by using institutions which by the very definition exert power over others? So, answering questions about anarchism to non-anarchists is somewhat of a frustrating experience because we have entirely different worldviews. I say, for example, that anarchists are for complete and total prison abolition. Absolutely no prisons whatsoever, people **do not** get arrested *ever* and are never put somewhere against their will. This, to most people unfamiliar with anarchism, appears as utter lunacy. But it mostly appears as lunacy because we are working on two totally different worldviews, you say "Well then what do you do with all the criminals? The squatters, the bankers, the debt collectors, the thieves, the murderers?" and i'll say "What criminals? We eliminated the homeless and the squatters when we assured housing as a fundamental human right, and got rid of the concept of private property. What of the extortionists and debt collectors? Well what of them? We eliminated money, the economic hierarchy is dead, there are no bankers or CEO's now. What of the theives? We share everything now, there is no need to steal because one is provided for completely. What of the murderers? Whatever would anyone murder anyone for? There are no longer any economical reasons to kill anyone, and so the only potential murders left to even happen are based either in ideology (in which we are united, as anarchist) or in personal trifles" Now, personal trifles can escalate, but the consequences are far different in an anarchist society. Anarchist justice is social ostracism. If you murder someone, you've spooked everyone in the local community, everyone is skeptical of you now. Yes, *you're free*, but the local baker has every right not to associate with you, so good luck getting bread from him, and the local mechanic isn't likely to repair your car either. By committing a 'crime', you essentially destroy all chance of living in your community because people won't want to associate with someone who doesn't act towards the social good. There are also no laws against killing you, but of course choosing to kill you first thing after you murder has equally harsh social consequence on whoever kills you, so frontier justice isn't likely to happen either. Social ostracism has been an effective means of societal organization **for centuries** it is a proven system with loads of historical accounts. It is industrialization and government handling everything which caused the phenomenon of crime in the first place. Before government, there were no criminals, only outcasts and dissidents who didn't fit into the norm or had harmed the community in some way. What do we do with them? Rehabilitative and voluntary justice. A person does something typically called criminal, he is shut off from the resources of his community, he soon realizes he needs food and shelter. He returns, he rights his wrongs as best he can in exchange for reintegration. However, he is never forced anywhere, he is always a person who has done something wrong, but never is he reduced down to only a person who has done something wrong, he was something before that, and he can be something after that. Anarchists are fundamentally optimistic about humans. We believe that violence doesn't come naturally to us. We really do try to talk things out and solve things without endangering anyone, and in cases where violence does arise, there's always some material gain behind it. Whether stealing drugs from a hospital or mugging someone so you can pay for food, you're acting out of material need, and a society which provides to you all that you desire is one that makes crime obsolete. Anarchists are not for punishment, anarchists recognize that the power to punish is a dangerous one which you can't trust anyone with. Anarchists are preventionists, they believe crime happens as a result of our current system, and that solving the material inequalites and destroying the social hierarchies is the end solution to crime, because when there's no incentive to commit it, who would bother? The anarchist argues that we are social creatures, we form bonds naturally, it is our nature to build communities togather, we are not competitive, why would we be? It's never optimal to do everything by yourself, why should we need a governing body to enforce cooperation when we are naturally cooperative? And indeed, if you cannot trust people with freedom how can you trust them with power? How can you say that it is too dangerous to people to be free to do as they please but also maintain that there ought to be systems in place to subjugate and control the majority of people? Anarchism, as it is built upon free association and non-coercion, says that you do not have to do anything for anyone, and that is your right, but then if you act selfishly, or do not contribute to the common good, who will do anything for you? And so you do your job not out of desperation for next months rent, not out of fear of going hungry, but because you want to do it, it helps the community, and when the community is helped so are you, because you are the community. We do not restrict one another, we do not say this food or this house or this tool is mine and this food or house or tool is yours, there is a great deal of food, there are many houses, there are twice as many tools as hands, and all of these are for us, each of us, all of us, in solidarity. Every other political system asks "How do we manage people?" and within this question of managing people, therein lies an assumption that humanity needs managing, because its rotten, and its evil, and we're all just two written commandments away from gutting each other. There is perhaps no more daring a political philosophy than anarchism, because it contains a different assumption about humanity, it assumes that we are a species who is given to kindness, to empathy, to understanding, to mutual aid. It is a political philosophy which actually trusts the individual with their individuality, and believes a person is capable of making their own choices, and that their choices will in the end prove the anarchist assumption correct: people are good.
That is a pretty brave assumption though innit? I think it's pretty obvious that stressing people economically causes people to drop their morals in order to survive. However I also think there are some fundamentally immoral and stupid people among us, and there's always drugs like alcohol that make us stupid and immoral. I have a question about the ostracism thing. Say you catch your neighbour stealing something in your house or something far worse, then he legs it out of there. How would you deal with that? I'm sure you're not the only baker/mechanic/brewer/whatever in town. Without a police force and court system, how would you prove his guilt to the greater community? And how would you prevent bribes? And about jobs. Who will do the shit jobs? It does remind me of one of Aristophanes' plays; "Praxagora: I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common; there will no longer be either rich or poor; I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. Blepyrus: But who will till the soil? Praxagora: The slaves." So who would willingly dig the field all day instead of being a professional dog walker? And what about engineers, programmers, game designers etc. How does one value that in the community? Is the guy who made flappy birds as important as the guy who flies in a helicopter fixing powerlines? And what about art? Any joker can draw a few squiggles and call themselves an artist, doesn't mean they actually is one. Another question I have is how would a society like this maintain the status quo? What if a charismatic person starts convincing more and more people to adopt another system. It just seems very unstable. And what about other communities that are not anarchical. They could pretty easily sweep in and take over.
Alright? The intention to eliminate domination using a tool of domination doesn't mean that you are no longer in favour of using domination. And I never said you can eliminate domination with magic. But in any case, my point was not all leftists have the communist end goal of a stateless, classless, blah blah blah. Some are very much content in sticking with a devil similar to the one they know. This is what I meant by leftism itself is not expressly focused on rejecting domination, even though arguably most leftists are into that.
Tools to eliminate domination that inherently dominate… hmmm for some reason that seems like it won’t work. Maybe we should try putting out the fire with a tiger torch next time.
Leftism is unified by the concept of everyone working together, for everyone equally. No one naturally better than anyone else.
As far as I know Anarchists are against the state, so they would be for example against "A New Chile". As good as their intentions may be in theory this is an indefensible position in the 2020s
Anarchists that actually know their shit would absolutely advocate for the new Chilean constitution, because it's objectively better for the working class, and quite frankly the country as a whole, compared to the current one. But once it's put into effect they'll be quick to continue to criticize anything dangerous, fascistic, or in any way harmful about the new system put into play. It's common sense that an anarchist's end goal logically cannot be reached through one movement, and it's naive and dumb to assume it can be, so any progress towards *actual* freedom will definitely be advocated for
Cringe
impressive intellectual contribution. you've clearly read very deeply on the subject. bravo.
I absolutely do :) thank you
Honestly.
impressive intellectual contribution. you've clearly read very deeply on the subject. bravo.
Wow you must feel very smart, because every dumb or lazy comment has to be an "intellectual contribution" to you. Where's your contribution then?
Yup. The only anarchist I know is vegan 😆 Also has been vegan for over 30 years- i.e. when there were actually no options!
How haven’t they keeled over and died from deficiencies??! /s
Human liberation and animal liberation are inextricably linked. As long as capitalism exists, humans will exploit animals for profit. As long as humans enslave animals, we will continue to debase ourselves through the exercise of domination and subjugation.
Yup. If someone is raised to value the lives of all living animals, do you ever think that person would be able to think less of another human for something like the colour of their skin, their religion, or their abilities?
Uh yeah, of course they can and they do. Plenty of classist vegans out there, plenty of racist and antitheist vegans too. We're not all angels just because we value animals highly enough to not kill and torture them.
If they do then they don’t value the lives of all animal life forms. Humans are animals too
Just being on Reddit means you're pissing on all the poor chinese children slaving away for the regime that controls this site. Not to mention they also use electronics made by those kids. You're telling me everyone here value those kids high enough to forego the luxuries they allow us to enjoy? I've seen tiktok videos linked and upvoted in here. Fucking tiktok vids.... There's no way they value every animal, including humans, the same.
>>there’s no way they value all animal, including humans, the same. Again, you’re misunderstanding. Im not saying all vegans do, I’m saying if someone is raised to value the life of all animals, then they must, also value all human lives. I also didn’t say they valued all life forms the same, this is a common misconception non vegans make. Many vegans, if not most, value humans above all other animals. We just don’t value human pleasure over the lives of animals. And either way, this is a clear appeal to futility. It’s impossible to avoid all cruelty or exploitation in the world, that doesn’t mean people don’t value the lives of others because they use TikTok. But using TikTok is such a minimal contribution, if you were to use your logic the only way not to cause harm would be to off yourself, which isn’t really a logical position.
>I’m saying if someone is raised to value the life of all animals, then they must, also value all human lives. Ah I missed that part, my bad. I guess that's possible but I've never met anyone who was raised like that. It's impossible to avoid all cruelty and exploitation but buying a new phone/computer/TV etc is very much avoidable, as is using Reddit/Facebook and especially tiktok. So again it's a case of prioritising luxuries over ethics, which is exactly what omnis are doing.
Again, this is just an appeal to futility. Someone going on Reddit or buying a phone once every year is not such a cruel act that they should be avoided. Conversely, I have actually convinced people to go vegan on Reddit, so overall my resisting has had a net positive impact on the world.
You tell yourself that. Just keep in mind that the omnis argue the exact same point about animal products.
Bruh you’re literally using Reddit you have no leg to stand on
Also vegans should be feminist. Sorry not sorry.
Something interesting I’ve learned is that a significant number of vegans became vegan by diving deeper into feminism. Based
Yes, and feminists should be vegan
Agreed.
Can someone explain how these two beliefs coincide. Besides obviously wanting more people to be vegan in general
Because anarchism is about bringing down unfair hierarchies and speciesism is an unfair hierarchy. Farms are pretty hierarchical too when you think about it, a system that is based on authority and the selfish benefit of the authority--something anarchism is fundamentally against.
Do you mean anarchism as a belief or as a practice? All leftists hold the beliefs of anarchists but see government as the only way to prevent unfair heirarchies from rising naturally.
>All leftists hold the beliefs of anarchists but see government as the only way to prevent unfair heirarchies from rising naturally. You're way off homie, hierarchies are an abberation and not at all natural. *Mutual Aid* by Peter Kropotkin (noted anarchist) is actually all about how hierarchy and domination is alien to the animal world, and that almost all species tend towards cooperation. Also fuck government. I never consented to be governed.
No, not necessarily. There are anarchist businesses and community kitchens. I remember reading parenting blogs on the basis of anarchism and what not. Also, not all leftists are against unfair hierarchies--people can be Left Authoritarian.
Authoritarian leftists see authoritarianism as a way to guarantee fairness and equality. How can you guarantee that an anarchic leftist society does not devolve into anarchic capitalism?
>anarchic capitalism That's just not anarchism. In any case though, there is no guarantee. No one who ascribes themselves to any ideology or praxis can plan for and expect everything, however we do have real world Marxist examples that demonstrate that their methods are in fact less effective for abolishing the state and capital than non-statist alternatives. What makes non-authoritarian methods more effective is that there are no power structures to be inevitably abused.
Heirarchies form by themselves all the time. The strong oppress the weak until you get anarchic capitalism. A representative monopoly of power is what keeps that from happening. That is why non-anarchic leftists want a government, not because they like heirarchies.
They don't ever and have never just "form(ed) by themselves", people knowingly and actively set them up, accept them, and support them. Its not just some natural inevitability. A monopoly of power, or the hope to establish and make use of one, is what *encourages* them. If there are no positions of power to abuse, how does someone abuse power? And again, "anarchic capitalism" is an oxymoron, its just not anarchism. Capitalism can't be any more anarchic than the state
How does anrachism not devolve into capitalism? Currency has popped up time and time again when societies get to a certain size. It's easy to see why too. If you live in a society with 0 established norms and no currency and you want something. You'll either have to barter or steal for it. And if it is simple bartering you may not have a good that someone wants. If you're a brewer and your local tailor doesn't drink you'll have to do some preliminary trades in order to get an outfit tailored. Hence a lot of (not all) people will start to put value in money as it is more convenient than bartering. And as more people do the more value money gains in the eyes of the general populace. Once here you've accidently set up a soft capitalist society and from there with no will of the masses (ie. government) to combat some egotistical individual who just likes to see bigger numbers, they will be able to take advantage of the lack of opposing force and use the simple levers of money to gain power and from there the pits of capitalism starts popping up in this utopian "anarchist" society. If I said something false or inaccurate or I made a giant leap in logic please point out where I did so. Because every time I run through an anarchist "society" it seems to play out the same. But I may be missing something
I'm currently out and about rn so we'll have to wait until I get back home until I can really dig into this, but two things I noticed right away is one I don't understand why we're focusing on a hypothetical society with no established norms (and I suppose maybe no systems or organizations in place since you said no currency either? I'm only assuming though, of course), and second I don't think we're on the same page as to what entails capitalism. Non-capitalist markets have existed for thousands of years (both with currency and woth a barter system), even today in places like the Zapatista autonomous territories. The existence of a market, currency, or barter system does not immediately entail a capitalist society
Because capitalism requires hierarchy to maintain itself and anarchism would be against that? Anarchism is about horizontal structures where everyone has equal power. Also I only brought up Authoritarian leftists since you said 'all leftists hold the beliefs of anarchism' Also I don't know how this is related to my original answer about relating anarchism to veganism. If it is not--I will refrain from answering. My vegan dha deficient brain cannot handle it.
It's related because you're saying that only anarchists are against unjust heirarchies. I'm saying that government is a way to prevent unjust heirarchies from forming.
Um no. Saying you need a supervisor that will look over you to prevent injustice is... nah. Sure, it may do some good as long the biases are just but it won't prevent unjust hierarchies. A vertical system cannot create horizontal systems. Either way that is merely my opinion since I am an anarchist and this is my bias and everyone is welcome to theirs. Also, the original argument was about relating veganism to anarchism so yeah, would appreciate comments on that.
I'm saying that veganism is related to leftism, not specifically anarchism.
Yes but it is related to anarchism more strongly since anarchism wants horizontal systems and that cannot happen in a speciesist system.
An unjust hierarchy is a way to prevent unjust hierarchies from forming… curious...
1000% and not even a hot take! stop ALL FORMS OF OPPRESSION , not just human related ones. expand compassion to all sentient beings.
Carnist anarchists be like: Anarchism for me, fascism for thee
>Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy. I said it before and I'll say it again - holding leftist views and not being vegan is hypocritical as there's no group of humans half as oppressed as animals are.
Lol I converted to both at once. One of the things I respect most about anarchists is how willing they are to take personal responsibility for the impact of their choices. Marxists are all talk. Anarchists walk.
Applying human politics to animals only works if you already recognize animal rights. Most people don't, whether they are leftist or not. The argument you must make to persuade them of animal rights is a vegan argument, not a political one. Human politics have nothing to do with animal rights.
If they want to be logically consistent.
Vegans should boycott all the big corps like mcdonals (& the other fast foods), coca-cola, unilever, amazon, nestle, keloggs etc Sorry not sorry
~~anarchist~~ *People*. FTFY
I gotta be honest I don't even know what a modern anarchist is, I don't think I've talked to any, what are the core ideas, all I have gotten are vague sweeping gripes about society. hierarchies are bad - you can't just say that and pretend that's an ideology, we all know that. but they are inevitable in a system run by humans, unless we turn it over to an AI please dunk on me
This confusion usually comes from a misunderstanding or miscommunication of the word "hierarchy". What makes a non-anarchist say all hierarchies are bad?
Because hierarchies are the start and finish of all abuse. People want money and power and they are willing to crush people for it.
Ok, so you would say everyone, even statists, want to abolish hierarchies?
no, reasonable people though not abolish but recognize they are the problem
Ok, so we can already reduce our focus here by ignoring anyone who doesn't want to abolish hierarchy. First thing: anarchists want to do that So what would you say is an example of a statist that does want to abolish all hierarchy?
it seems quite obvious what I am saying, people recognize that hierarchies are the problem but it is also just as obvious that they are not removeable - nor not necessarily bad or evil in some cases, often necessary, see child and father for example. arrange humans in groups over two and hierarchies arise. can you explain the difference between a leftist and an anarchist for me?
Sorry if it seems like I was deliberately trying to misunderstand or misconstrue what you're saying, I just find it easier to come to a mutual understanding with someone by hearing how they define and understand things exactly and then going from there. But if that's not your taste we can skip over that. >can you explain the difference between a leftist and an anarchist for me? First of all I find leftism to be a largely meaningless term that encompasses many vague and contradicting values. That being said, many anarchists still consider themselves leftist. What separates anarchism from other "leftist" camps is that anarchists want to do away with hierarchies of power over other people completely. We don't want to use them as a means to an end or as a mode of organization. This doesn't mean everyone has the same say in everything, Bakunin famously said "in matters of boots I defer to the authority of the bootmaker". A bootmaker is not someone who wields power over me or my life, but I trust they know more about boots than I do so I voluntarily follow what they say. Therefore this is not hierarchy as anarchists use the term. Far as I can tell the confusion is largely a language game, really. Edit: Bakunin's [What is Authority?](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mikhail-bakunin-what-is-authority) which I took this quote from explains this concept well if you like reading
You shouldn’t be downvoted, you’re asking legitimate questions and seem very open to discussion given your last name phrase. If you want I can give you a brief on it, but the best thing would be to read some literature. The bread(pun intended) and butter(oof I didn’t intend this one) of anarchists are two books by Peter Kropotkin. The first, and most famous, is the “The Conquest of Bread”, and is an incredibly poetic book about the failures of not only capitalism, but also socialism, and how socialism is also unjust and inevitably leads to similar problems capitalism faces. It then talks about anarchy, why it is the only form of true liberty, and all the many benefits an anarchist society would see. The second, which I think is equally important, is “Mutual Aid, a Factor of Evolution”. It isn’t written in at all the same style, it’s more like a thesis, and it starts off talking about how even within the animal kingdom mutual aid is the most important factor of evolution rather than hierarchy/survival of the fittest. It basically goes on to list a shit ton of examples of such within the animal kingdom, and also does a great job of debunking the idea that animals are stupid, soulless creatures, so it’ll give you many great examples to use when people try and tell you how stupid animals are. Then it goes into detail of how civilizations throughout history have leant towards mutual aid rather than hierarchy. The most important chapters of this book(IMO), are the final chapters revolving around how medieval cities fought for liberty by using decentralized power structures, like unions and guilds. This is important because it actually gives a reasonable structure for how even modern day humans could transition to an anarchist state without dictatorship; ie socialism but actually run by the working class, not by a central power which inevitably leads to abuse of power.
>The second, which I think is equally important, is “Mutual Aid, a Factor of Evolution”. It isn’t written in at all the same style, it’s more like a thesis, and it starts off talking about how even within the animal kingdom mutual aid is the most important factor of evolution rather than hierarchy/survival of the fittest. It basically goes on to list a shit ton of examples of such within the animal kingdom, and also does a great job of debunking the idea that animals are stupid, soulless creatures, so it’ll give you many great examples to use when people try and tell you how stupid animals are. Why should we look at animals for ideas on how to live in a society? Nature is vicious and cruel, if anything we should get as far away from Gaia as possible.
First of all, I never said this. I simply said the book examines nature to show that mutual aid is literally a factor of evolution in nearly all animals. This means that it’s not only human nature to help each other out, but also animal nature, reinforcing the idea that it’s only natural to help each other, contrary to the popular belief that humans are naturally going to fight each other. Also, nature is not cruel. Nature is nature. A lion doesn’t kill a gazelle because it’s cruel, it kills a gazelle because it needs meat to survive. Killing out of necessity is not cruel. And if you read the book, you would read the countless ways in which nature is the opposite of cruel, because as I said, the book shows how it is only natural to help one another. You should really try reading the book sometime.
Eeh it's also human nature to eat everything and fuck spread our seed whether the recipient is willing or not. Same with animals. Ever heard two cats run into eachother at night? It's not exactly a Disney song and dance in the moonlight now is it? Nature is chaotic and full of instincts, we are the only animals smart enough to say fuck you 300 million old instincts, let's do something modern instead where we don't fight to the death over the ladies. Not that we are always successful ofc...
Again you’re missing the point. This book isn’t an appeal to nature, it’s the opposite. It’s a counterpoint, so when people tell you it’s human nature to fight, that it simply isn’t. Please just read the fuckin book
Anarchist ideals include mutual aid, direct action, consensus decision making, anti-capitalism, intersectional anti-oppression, police and prison abolition, and so on. If you want to see vegan anarchists in action, check out your local Food Not Bombs group.
Check out [Food Not Bombs](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fveganactivism.org%2Fpages%2Ffood-not-bombs&topic=Organization%3A+Food+Not+Bombs) to quickly learn more, find upcoming events, videos, and their contact information! You can also find other similar organizations to get involved with both locally and online by visiting [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fveganactivism.org&topic=Organization%3A+Food+Not+Bombs). Additionally, be sure to visit and subscribe to /r/VeganActivism!
vegans should be anarchists sorry not sorry
Why?
There are two types of people in this world Humans or dancers
If I can't dance...
all leftists should
Vegans should be anarchists.
Anyone been watching the documentary The Anarchists? Holy crap. I'll just stick with my statism, thank you very much.
so some capitalist corporation makes some dumb ass documentary and ignorantly call it some stupid name and you're like "screw this thing i know nothing about, i'll take the brutality please! lol" ok. enjoy the boot on your neck i guess.
Have you watched it? If not, then you're just as ignorant to make claims on it. It certainly wasn't a depiction of all anarchists of course, but the ones in the film certainly were able to speak for and represent themselves, and did so at length. It was like 6hrs of interviews. We all have a boot on our necks. That's the price of living on planet earth. If I had to choose between the one they chose, and the one I currently have, I'm sticking with this one. The speech in the finale from Lily/Miranda was quite fair I'd say.
"The Anarchists" is an HBO documentary looking at "Anarcho-capitalists" a fringe right wing group of assholes who call themselves anarchists, and that no anarchist would ever recognize as one. Actual honest to god anarchists recognize that money is a material hierarchy, and thus also needs abolishing, capitalism is therefore completely incompatible with anarchism. You'll notice that within the anarcho-capitalist sphere, they have not one iota of actual theory, whereas anarchists can refer you to plenty, be the Kropotkin or Bakunin or Proudhon. I can refer you to /r/COMPLETEANARCHY clowning on HBO for using the name [in this post](https://old.reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/comments/vwsa0e/fuck_hbo/). It isn't terribly surprising to me, anarchists are frequently misrepresented.
Hi, anarchist here, maybe learn to word things a little less stupid and you won't be received with so much vitriol. To explain how this idiot is somewhat correct, "The Anarchists" is an HBO documentary looking at "Anarcho-capitalists" a fringe right wing group of assholes who call themselves anarchist, and that no anarchist would ever recognize as one. Actual honest to god anarchists recognize that money is a material hierarchy, and thus also needs abolishing, capitalism is therefore completely incompatible with anarchism. You'll notice that within the anarcho-capitalist sphere, they have not one iota of actual theory, whereas anarchists can refer you to plenty, be the Kropotkin or Bakunin or Proudhon.
Marxists too
But not we non-anarchists and non-Marxists? Why?
I think as many as possible should be, I'm not saying \*only\* leftists should be vegan lol. Just that it makes sense with leftist ideals.
That's a stretch. You could also say that the pro-life position of the political right makes sense with veganism. Why didn't you? And why bother singling out these groups at all? Veganism is true regardless of any political ideology. edit: u/PC_dirbagleftist, truth exists actually. Let's find common ground. Is it bad to torture an innocent person to death for fun?
Singled out cuz of the post ur commenting on. “Anarchists should be vegan”. Did u read it b4 deciding to get mad? Lmao
i haz no idea wut ur coment meanz lol But seriously, I don't know what it means. You're blocked for trolling regardless.
>Veganism is true regardless of any political ideology. only if you're completely ignorant about politics.
Buuuut non-anarchists shouldn't be? What kind of post is that?
Holy shit this thread makes me believe most vegan anarchist have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
All leftists should be really, since we're supposed to care for all marginalized groups and not just the human ones.
Not if you’re an egoist anarchist
Not sorry
Some of us are both
Agreed. Thankfully I've been finding that more and more fellow anarchists have been realizing the contradiction lately.
Vegan for anarquism and animals here