… unless the person works voluntarily, that is.

  • Skunk [any]@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Sure you can make that argument under capitalism, where people are deprived of the value their labor created in order to force them to work more so they may survive. Hence why people should strive for communism. If everyone lived vegan people would be compelled to work as they are able in order to not cause undue burden on others, which again would not be vegan.

    “From each according to their ability to each according to their need.”

    • gandalf_der_13te@feddit.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      If everyone lived vegan people would be compelled to work as they are able in order to not cause undue burden on others, which again would not be vegan.

      i don’t quite get your last sentence. what if the person themselves doesn’t want to work?

      • Skunk [any]@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        If the person doesn’t want to work how will they sustain themselves? They have to rely on other peoples labor without contributing their own. If people don’t want to subsidize someone else then that person would either have to start working “against their will” or take other peoples labor without consent, which you have already pointed out, is not vegan. So if everyone were vegan that person would be compelled to work as they are able in order to be able to remain vegan.

        Idk its kinda tortured logic when spelling it all out lol

        • GaumBeist@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Nature compells us to work for food anyway, that’s not exploitation and coercion, that’s just survival.

          The construct of society is predicated on the idea of “from each… to each…” That saying often gets conflated with left-wing politics, but that’s just the point of animals (humans included) grouping together; after all, what’s the point of living in society if it doesn’t convey any benefits to the individual that they could not provide for themselves? That would be exploitative of the individual. But if they are benefitting, then it is only fair and just to also give back to the society one extracts benefits from, otherwise it is exploitative of the others.

          Put another way: no one should be obligated to participate in society, but then society should likewise have no obligations to the non-participants.

          • Skunk [any]@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Nature compells us to work for food anyway, that’s not exploitation and coercion, that’s just survival.

            Not all of us ahem bourgeoisie ahem

            The construct of society is predicated on the idea of “from each… to each…”

            of course, however what makes a societies differ is exactly what gets filled in to the “…”

            “from each slave to each slavemaster” -> slavery
            “from each serf to each lord” -> feudalism
            “from each worker to each owner” -> capitalism
            “from each person (according to their ability) to each person (according to their need)” -> socialism 😄

    • Gullable@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      This socialist ideal of providing luxury goods to the poor masses for cheap is exactly the problem. If the world would be more capitalist, we wouldn’t subsidise the meat industries and the poor would be forced to buy beans.

      • Skunk [any]@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        not necessarily, very abridged version:

        The tendency of the rate of profit to fall will soon mean that an industry will stop producing said commodity. It can’t anymore if it’s unprofitable. This is where the state has to step in and start subsidizing that industry or buying the commodity themself in order to articially inflate demand in order to keep that industry afloat. See e.g. the “butter mountains” of the EU.

        That wikipedia article on “The tendency of the rate of profit to fall” is a horrible introduction btw. If you want to know more you can read “Arbeitslohn und Kapital”/“Wage labour and capital” by Marx himself, much more digestible. And rather short.

        • Gullable@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Thats the exact opposite of capitalism. Unprofitable business go bankrupt. Then their possessions and their labor force gets absorbed by other companies.

          This is to align work with reality.

          If politicians would artificially decide what companies to keep someone would have to pay for their mistakes. Markets are much better at this (just read “the use of knowledge in society” by Friedrich von Hayek)

          Just like the suffering of animals is unnecessary to feed the planet, we now have to pay for the costs of climate change, because people want to life in a socialist fantasy.

          • Skunk [any]@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            Ok so unprofitable businesses keep going bankrupt, get gobbled up by a bigger corporation until one corporation has a monopoly. That’s the trend we’re seeing right? How many corporations for food are there left now? Nestle, Unilever, Coca Cola, Mondelez and that’s pretty much it right? Well what happens when the tendency of the rate of the profit to fall forces them to no longer produce food. Do we just go extinct?

            This (in case of the “butter mountains” and in general) isn’t some politicians deciding which companies to keep, this is the state intervening to save itself. They have to prop up an entire industry that cannot reduce costs any further which means that the price keeps fluctuating around 0 profit which means the entire industry goes extinct. That’s why there is a fixed price on milk, not to save some companies, but to prop up the entire industry. Capitalism will devolve sooner or later into state planning since without this state intervention industries start collapsing.

            Could you imagine the ramification of the entire dairy industry dying out? (😸) The economy would go haywire, entire villages depend on their dairy farming, they would revolt it would be pandemonium. This is where capitalism finally leads.

    • Gullable@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Veganism is extremely capitalistic, because it relies on supply and demand to change the amount of animal suffering that is/was produced.

      • Skunk [any]@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Veganism is simply not taking part in animal suffering, you’re thinking of “animal liberation” which is the active part.

        And yes one way to reduce animal suffering is to leverage basic market laws about supply and demand. But buying and selling isn’t capitalism. People in every socialist nation ever have bought and sold stuff, and when stuff wasn’t in demand the supply reacted accordingly. If you want an introductory book I can recommend some (earnest, not trying to be mean, it just seems like you don’t know the definition of the terms you’re using).

        But there is also direct action, adoption of rescued animals and maybe some other stuff I can’t remember right now that people that take part in animal liberation do.

        • Gullable@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Buying and selling with a currency is capitalism. If I would just get a meal ticket from the communist party, I might trade away more of my belongings, but thats not the same market vegans try to address.

          • Skunk [any]@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            This is not how communism works, how any socialist society operates, I’m sorry but you’ve completely fallen for the propaganda and are living outside of reality.

            The fact that “Buying and selling with a currency” is not capitalism is also very clear from the fact that we were buying and selling with a currency under feudalism, under slavery, currency predates capitalism by millenia.