debate

anyone spare an intellectual argument on the ethics of veganism? https://i.imgur.com/4qshIIr.jpg

@songofsisyphus I am moving to this thread bc the previous thread pertains the US election and I derailed it. Never affirmed Fascism works. I may agree on some of its principles, but I know it is doomed to failure due to its Heterodox approach to economy and overly traditionalistic tendencies when it comes to social behavior. Authoritarism was just the grain of salt needed for Mussolini to fall. I just know said aristocracy will never return without the blood of bystanders, hence why I wouldn't support a Fascist movement. As I said before, there is no way for me to be a Fascist due to defending economical Orthodoxy and Democracy (knowing I have no love for it. But it works) in times of peace. Fascists claim those wrestle away the Traditions that people carried with their forefathers, which I can agree over Orthodoxy, but not for Democracy. I couldn't care less about minorities. So long they aren't being criminalized and not too vocal, I am fine. Too many people having voice is troublesome for me. The people liking the regime I envision or not is of no concern as I know my opinion over their shit doesn't really matter to them as much. I envision it bc I know it'll never come forth. I think when you say autonomy? You mean popular participation, right? I am not a fan of absolutism, I prefer parliamentary momarchy. I think it is just important to have something intrinsically above the commonfolk and the politicians that can curb their desires while being among them, politically. For that, Monarchy is the best option for me. Needless to say I haven't that idealistic love for the my fellow commonfolk as they never could better their lot by themselves. I have no moral obligation to have it. Also, I just dislike people that can't contain their fire and think they shouldn't be condemned for that. Prudish and comical is it is. I just hate it is normalized. Besides I don't gauge only contribution to society. I will never consider a man like Joseph Safra (a lebanese banker tbat moved to Brazil) a Brazilian. He's lebanese, the richest lebanese man there is as far I reckon. His children can be Brazilian, but not him. No. I will remain doing joo jokes, as I joke with every single thing alive. They aren't above anyone to not be the butt of jokes. If this means I receive the label of anti-semite, I am fine as I know I am not. Hence why I support Palestine. Better for a Western exceptionalist such as me. Everyone dislikes Juice because they have money and are supposed "lords of the Financial Market" just because they have too much munee. The number of coups that started as a response to the Soviet Union aiding scummy revolutionaries starting in Cuba. It was a war where two countries disputed over global influence. It doesn't mean the US is beyond reproach for bringing the ilk of the Khmer Rouge. Still, no reason to remain insisting in a proxy war between the US and a dead country over Latin America of all continents. Leftists here have no love of what principles my country was created. They just follow an ideology, that's all. Besides. How does the IMF fuck up Latin American economies under lefties? By pointing the crap that is economical Heterodoxy and thus warding off investors? That is natural for anyone that pays attention to the market and politics. You don't need the IMF to know Heterodoxes never do well to the economy. Argentina is doing even worse than us because of years ignoring the IMF, rampant Heterodoxy and defaulting the Financial Market. Is this a model worth following? I support international law over things that don't work. There was Macri, who bowed down to the political estabilishment and didn't pass the necessary reformations to the economy. Our most "Neoliberal" president, FHC only followed two of the ten principles of Washington followed by Neoliberals. How can we label him as a Neoliberal? Bc he privatized the telephone lines (badly, as there is no competition from the state-backed 4-company cartel) and sold some useless state-owned business by a meager price? Lula privatized more than he did. Needless to say. There aren't big threats to the status quo for me to defend some kind of authoritarism now. But if it has, then I defend it as a last resort. It probably won't affect me anyways, rather, it'll affect people that are threats to the current system. But unfortunately, there's always the risk of innocent people dying amidst an authoritarian regime. But everyone defends it in some way against another caste, you can all admit to this. I accept the world's injustices. No reason to bring them down to bring forth new ones. Since I don't live in an ideal world, I am all for using the current weapons at disposal to maintain the status quo.

@nebelstern I wafted sweet freedom your way and you recoiled from it! lol

I know you wanted freedom for me, but I prefer coherence over it, hehehehehe... Sorry!

@nebelstern I can't help but feel like disagreeing with fascism on the basis merely of the practicalities is really the wrong way to disagree with fascism. "due to defending economical Orthodoxy and Democracy (knowing I have no love for it. But it works) in times of peace". In times of peace, you say. This of course begs the question of which way you would go outside of times of peace, though I'm relatively sure I can surmise which way you would. Assuming of course that your answer to the question that you yourself begged would be what I expect (and please do correct me if I'm wrong), what is it that really actually distinguishes you, because you seem to be acutely aware that times where there is not peace might happen, and appear to have a leaning were that to occur; this is simply a difference in strategy you have (you even admit that you don't like democracy), not a truly meaningful difference as far as I am concerned, as when pushed someone with that position would commit precisely the same atrocities as more naked fascists. Of course, the problems I have with fascism are not just in its means, but also its ends, so this basically is just a semantics game as things stand, from my position. I'm taking this thing you're saying on minorities to be an admission that your view has no value for the purpose of rational discussion, because it doesn't really have much of an argument to it, only something to the effect of "Well I don't feel that minorities should get too uppity". Like, okay? Your view is obviously abhorrent, and I think that not only should minorities not be criminalised (which is a pretty low bar), they should also be treated like human beings, as members of society as deserving of respect and the ability to self-actualise as much as anybody else, which means also that they should not be denied rights or be subject to institutional discrimination. Regarding 'popular participation' and parliamentary monarchy, hoo boy. So, as someone who actually lives in a constitutional monarchy with a parliament (with two chambers, one of them largely unelected), I can tell you quite plainly that whatever you might be imagining simply will never bear out in reality, even if it were to magically happen. It is those 'people above the common folk' that are the problem here; to 'be above the common folk' separates you from them, gives you different incentives and necessarily diminishes your ability to understand them and their lives (which necessarily makes actually solving problems far less feasible). What 'virtue' springs from this? I would say that it is a far greater naiveté to clamber to people to 'curb the desires of the common folk', when in actual fact they will merely become caught up in their own. You can try and make men stand above other men, but in the end they will only ever be men themselves. Something 'intrinsically above "common" folk' is nothing more than a fantasy (so it is encouraging that you don't actually intend to realise it, as such a system would be detrimental to you, too, as the 'commoner' that you would be under it). What *do* you gauge, other than contribution to society, specifically? I would be interested to know. Sure, I can't stop you saying antisemitic things, and I'm sure you're very comfortable thinking that you aren't saying antisemitic things, or being an antisemite (which in common parlance is usually an inferred shorthand for "saying antisemitic things"). Also Palestine, and I presume you raised it to highlight Israel-Palestine conflict, has nothing to do with the ethnic identity of Jewish people (for one thing Jewish people aren't a homogenous ethnic identity to begin with). I do actually believe that the people of Palestine have a right to self-determination, so it can be very irritating when antisemites start showing up and conflating the state of Israel with Jewish People as though they are one in the same entity. 'Joking' or not (a common tactic of fascists, as I'm sure you're aware, given the depth of the case you've made explaining why you *aren't* a fascist, to hide their abhorrent views behind a toxic irony so as to give them plausible deniability when anyone calls them out on it), playing to racialised stereotypes of Jewish people is not a good idea. Two things: One, how can there be a proxy war with a country that doesn't exist anymore? Now, I admit I haven't been to Latin America, but I do find the claim that all leftists there are Soviet spies to be pretty funny. Two: What principles specifically has your country created (including also those that Leftists don't like), also by definition wouldn't the 'principles your country created' also constitute an ideology? Regarding the IMF: I mean you can dismiss it, but as an institution with the kind of sway the IMF has internationally on investment decisions and whether or not countries may take out loans, that is indeed a lever of soft economic power. It's obviously not as dramatic as people who hold conspiracy theories about the IMF will no doubt make it out to be, but that can still have a real impact on an economy, and contractions have a way of building on themselves. Again, I am not familiar with the specifics of Brazilian politics (or Argentinian politics for that matter), which Is why I don't believe I made a hard claim about its politicians or the specific history of their policy record in office, because there might well be factors that neither of us have accounted for on that front. Oh wait, you just answered the question you begged at the start of the post. I'd go back and edit that section I wrote but effort. The "it won't affect me anyways" mentality has a way of creeping up on you; I'd advise against it, because there were many people who did think that way in previous authoritarian states, and a number of them were proven quite woefully wrong. Regarding 'everyone defends it in some way against another caste' Actually no, I haven't defended authoritarianism of any kind, nor have I defended anything against any kind of caste. And I'd make a guess that probably most people do not view the world in terms of castes. I'm sure it is very easy to accept the world's injustices when they aren't being perpetrated against you. I similarly live in comfortable circumstances relative to people who are forced to work in sweatshops to survive. Obviously the point is to resolve these injustices (because they are wholly unnecessary) and make sure others do not take their place. We obviously do not live in an ideal world, which is why simply accepting the irrationality of the state of the world as it is would be nothing more than settling for mediocrity, to put it very diplomatically. It is precisely why it is important to shape the world into something that is, broadly speaking, better than it is now.

Ok, this will definitely be my last reply. I got bored of replying to our talks. I'll let you have the last word. Just I thought you would. You actually made the argument that East Germany was not actually communist. Which is completely nonsensical. Under a normal capitalist system. Enterprises are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. The main function of capitalism is to turn a profit. You stated that East Germany was actually under "different form of capitalism."East Germany had state owned enterprises. Now, if the state wanted to turn a profit. Then why were prices of housing, basic goods and services heavily subsidized? Because implied fairness and not profit was the economic motivation under communism. Mind you, that capitalism main objective is to turn a profit. If East Germany was a so called different type of capitalism. Then why did most everyone had a legally guaranteed security of tenure and ownership to their property? If it was truly a different type of capitalism. Then the state would flip those houses to make a profit. It is just complete and utter nonsense to think that East Germany was not economically communist. Which just underlines my point. I told you it was double edged sword and you still cut yourself. You underlined some of the problems with capitalism e.g. sweat shops. But the what about the underlying problems birthed from communism e.g. secret police? Your argument was simply. Well, that wasn't really communism. It was a different type of capitalism. Even though the main objective of capitalism is profit. The main objective of communism is not profit. As food was subsided and housing was free in East Germany. Imagine making the following argument. Sweats shops are not really capitalist. Sweat shops are actually legality allowed entities by the state. Anything derived legally from the state must be communist. Sweat shops are actually a different type of communism. The sweat shop argument sounds like complete and utter nonsense, right? Because it is complete and utter nonsense. Do not blame the failures of communism on capitalism. The failures of communism are mainly do to communism. The failures of capitalism are mainly do to capitalism. I can already see your counterargument. Well you see. Capitalism is not actually about profit. Capitalism is actually about this and that. No, the ultimate goal of capitalism is profit. If you are going to redefine terms. Make sure that they are least logically sound. Yang is on the left. The left and right are a spectrum. Neoliberals are to the left. Just as neoconservatives are to the right. Yang might not be as far left as you. But he is still on the left. Universal basic income is money given by the government. The government giving out free money is not a right wing idea. Universal basic income is a leftist idea to AI and automation. Whether you call universal basic income neoliberalism, socialism, or whatever. The government giving out free money is a leftist idea. Hence universal basic income is a left wing idea. But you stated that universal basic income is not the solution from the left to AI and automation. In your own words. The left's solution to AI and automation "is, to make automation not a *problem*". Yeah, you make AI and automation not a problem by solving the problem. Stating that it is not a problem is not solution. https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/91E0/production/_107544373_robotjobloss-nc.png The numbers are only increasing with time. Automation will kill a lot of jobs. According to studies by McKinsey and Oxford University. "Up show 38% of jobs are susceptible." Worst case scenario. How do you replace 38% of jobs? What is the leftist solution for the worst case scenario for AI and automation? Everything from factory workers, cashier, store clerk, paralegal, telemarketer, receptionist, bank teller, security guard, data analyst, tax preparer, truck driver , waiter, and even journalist are susceptible for replacement. AI and automation will cause a lot of this so called implicit violence of homelessness/starvation. You have termed this so called implicit violence. Now solve the problem from the left. Let us deduce some of the principals(axioms) of this communist utopia from your own words. Principal 1) "I said that the enforcement of a need to work for an employer or else starve or be rendered otherwise destitute is violence" Principal 2) "A society organised in the interests of everyone would look after their needs *first*" Principal 3) "Certainly one economic system that gets rid of money would be called Communism (using the definition of a communist society as a stateless, classless, moneyless society)" Here is the first problem. What happens if an abled body adult chooses not to work? The abled body just does not feel like working. Under principal 1. Do you deny the abled bodied adults food because they choose not to work? Denying the abled bodied adults food would be destitute to violence. Hence under principal 1.A communist utopia cannot deny food to abled bodies adults or to anyone else. Lest it be destitute to violence. One could figure. Why should I decide work? If under principal 1. If I am going to receive food anyways. Now what happens if a large portion of the population reasons that they also do not want to work? A portion of the population so large that society cannot function lest they eat. A portion of the population so large that there is not enough people to hunt animals or crop vegetables. How are you going to feed everyone if not enough people want to work? You can not deny people food. Hence under principal 1, it would be destitute to violence. Well you can say. That scenario would never happen. The never happening argument is an absolute statement. Black swans events are events with such low probability. That they are deemed never to happen. Yet they happen from time to time. So the never happening argument is not an argument. How does one test a system or a model? One tests the system or model at the endpoints. How the system behaves at the endpoints. The communist utopia collapses at the endpoints. It is not robust model. Under principle 2. What is a need? How does one objectively qualify something as subjective as a need. My needs are different to yours. Your needs are different to mine. One could define a need in dozens of ways. Who then defines what a need is? The state cannot define what a need is. As under principal 3. The state does not exist under a communist utopia. You also cannot have a group of people deciding what a need is. As a group of people deciding the need of the many. Is paramount to a state deciding the need of the many. A group or committee would essential become the state. Under principal 3.The state does not exist under a communist utopia. Hence no group or committee of people can decide the need of the many. Unless the entire human society got together and somehow defined what a need was. Which is extremely unlikely that the entire human society could come together to define something. But assuming that society did come together. Assuming that society went to the bare minimum of what a need is. Food, water, medicine and housing. Everything else is not an actual need. Everything else is a want. No need for movies. No need for anime. No need for video games. No need for chips. No need for bikes. No need for entertainment. No need for beer. No need for cigarettes. Well you could argue. Those are all needs. OK fine, this leads to problems in principal 3. Why would anyone make movies, anime, video games chips, cigarettes beer if they are not going to get paid? As not everyone does it for fun. Under principal 3. It is a moneyless society. Not many people would want to give stuff away for free. But you may argue. It is not actually free. It is based on need. The question is still. How does one objectively quantify something as subjective as a need? In hypothetical scenario. You go to a custom bike shop. You want a decked out badass bike. Well the bike company says. That is not your need. Get this basic bicycle as your need. Freedom of choice goes out the window. The state cannot determine my need as per principal 3. The state cannot exist. Something as simple as a bag of chips. I want 3 bags of chips. But do I need 1 bag, 2 bags, 3 bags, 4 bags, n bags? How do you use need as a currency? What if I wanted to buy a big flat screen TV? But society deemed that I do not have enough need for a big flat screen TV. Again, freedom of choice goes out the window. How would one go on determining individual need to get something or anything for that matter? To conclude my points. The communist utopia sounds good on paper. But the communist utopia is not logical thought out. It relies on defining need as a currency. Unlike money, which has a more objectifiable value. Need is highly subjective and hard to qualify. A book could be worth 10 bucks under capitalism. I have 100 bucks. I buy 10 books under capitalism. How many books can I buy under the communist utopia? It cannot be unlimited books. Is it 1, 2, 3, n number of books? A book is defined with some unknown subjective need. How does one define the need to buy the most mundane stuff? How much need do I have? Who determines that? It cannot be the state that determines need. As under a communist utopia. The state does not exist. The communist utopia sounds very pretty on paper. But the whole system could collapse if enough people decide not to work. A communist utopia cannot deny food to abled bodies adults or to anyone else. Lest it be destitute to violence. The communist utopia is logical unsound. @songofsisyphus BTW, labor voucher causes the same problem as money. Try and logically plug in the holes with more principles in your communist utopia.

@alephy I can understand how dry talk of economics often is and how that has a tendency to bore people, so I thank you for taking the time to write a post of this length in spite of your boredom. I will respond to the arguments that you make in turn, and will probably split this response of mine into multiple posts for readability. That preface being over with, let's get into it: 1 / 4 - Soviet Union and East Germany and why they were not Communist Regarding the 'communist' nature of East Germany. There have been many kinds of capitalist organisation, and the extent to which these rigidly conform to maximise profit do vary. For instance, European Social Democracy of the postwar period worked less to maximise profit to bosses and shareholders than Neoliberal Capitalism does (although of course bosses still did make profit under European Social Democracy). I do not see how the subsidisation of housing, basic goods and services necessarily precludes a pursuit of profit; certainly, it isn't the most cutthroat approach to profit, but it does not preclude the existence of profit. Indeed, America, which I doubt anyone would deny is a thoroughly capitalist country, does have food subsidies chiefly in the form of food stamps if I recall. So there are a few things that need to be laid out for the argument I'm going to make as to why East Germany, as well as the USSR were not communist: One is a clarification of the nature of profit - as wealth is not expressed solely in terms of money, but also as assets, commodities and profits, and so to focus on the accumulation of solely money to the exclusion of all other forms of capital accumulation would be to err; Two is by pointing out that the relations of production from the standpoint of the worker were identical to those in other capitalist countries - under Soviet economic organisation, workers were not entitled to the wealth or commodities that they produced, but rather than being expropriated by a private capitalist, the products of their labour were simply expropriated by the state, which accumulated this wealth. EDIT: It matters not whether or not the state chose to call it "The People's Property" -- I'm reminded of a quotation from Mikhail Bakunin: "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick.'" Now yes, there were indeed a number of social programs throughout the history of the Soviet Union, but a changed relationship to the means of production for the workers it was not; the state, with its legal monopoly of violence had authority and final say over the allocation of resources (and the party structure of the USSR and its satellite states meant that this was hardly a democratic venture). Imagine a factory line in the USSR (or East Germany), what would be meaningfully different than a factory line in a developing capitalist country? Workers would be ordered around by managers appointed by higher-ups, and the terms of their work, including scheduling and hours, would be dictated by their employer, and at the end of it, the worker would not be allowed to take home that which their work had produced, though they would be given some small recompense for their labour in the form of wages. The exact same alienation from the product of one's labour that exists in other forms of capitalism was also present in the Soviet-style economic mode. An example to illustrate how capital accumulation centred on the state did in fact occur under the USSR would be for me to point to what happened when the USSR fell; a number of people got very rich very fast and became oligarchs by privatising and selling off the state assets of the former USSR. They would not have been able to do so unless this wealth already existed and had been accumulated (via a process of capital accumulation) in the state. It appears to me that the definition under which you are working for how you define capitalism, although certainly more informed than your view of socialism (which appears to be 'Socialism is when the government does stuff'), is somewhat flawed in this way; it does not particularly matter, the distinction between one private capitalist and a small group of party officials - it is a distinction without a meaningful difference. Regarding secret police, they are by no means the product of Soviet economics any more than they were of Nazi party economics. Secret police can and have existed in all kinds of authoritarian state, and I don't think that a case can really be made to put them solely in the Soviet Economic ballpark.

@songofsisyphus 2 / 4 - On Yang and technological advancement (and its effect on the market): Regarding Yang and whether or not he is left (which he isn't), I do note how who is left and right to a person might depend on where they themselves are on the spectrum, so I grant that Yang might be to the left of you. He is certainly not left in any classical sense, and he does not present any challenge to the system that currently exists. As I see it Universal Basic Income can be either a very good policy or a very bad policy, but in the way that Yang envisioned it, it is a very bad policy designed to prop up the capitalist machine, rather than to actually contribute to good outcomes for those who could really use some income (though again, I will admit, it is preferable to having the system just collapse out from under us). Once again, I note how the nuance of this point being made here seems to be to some people that "Socialism is when the government does stuff." And while perhaps a Lassallian social democrat might agree with that assessment, it simply is not true. What I said was that automation itself was not the problem, but rather the system's reaction to automation that was the problem. Now of course, if one is not under the system that reacts in such a way so as to cause that problem, then of course there will be no problem, as there is nothing inherently immiserating about automation in and of itself. If you are challenging me to provide a solution from *within* capitalism, then I must agree we do in fact have an exceedingly difficult problem on our hands. To borrow from some social democrat policy ideas, any drive towards solution I would try and provide to this would likely be rooted in *significant* investment in green energy (though we've waited too long and the boat's probably already sailed on that one by now), a very large retraining program to adapt the workforce to the shift in the focus of the economy, and also branching out into more and more technology-oriented fields. Personally I do not think that it is a problem that can be solved for the US under capitalism, simply because it is the product of capitalism working as intended (bearing in mind that in our current world, capitalism is a global system). The centre of capital accumulation has shifted across the world a couple of times now, and it will doubtless shift again. America will become less relevant on the world economic stage and other countries will overtake the United states over a broad period of time. I will say, however, that unlike the right wing of politics, the 'left' wing in the terms you put forth is actually *trying* to devise ways to keep the system afloat. I don't think they will work but I will give them that they are at the very least an attempt.