this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2025
44 points (97.8% liked)

vegan

7025 readers
1 users here now

:vegan-liberation:

Welcome to /c/vegan and congratulations on your first steps toward overcoming liberalism and ascending to true leftist moral superiority.

Rules

Resources

Animal liberation and direct action

Read theory, libs

Vegan 101 & FAQs

If you have any great resources or theory you think belong in this sidebar, please message one of the comm's mods

Take B12. :vegan-edge:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 25 points 3 months ago

The tragedy of animal liberation is that the liberation of an oppressed group has historically been required to be organized by the oppressed themselves, but non-human animals lack the intellectual and organizational capacity to do so. We are not just fighting an uphill battle, we are trying to scale a sheer cliff.

[–] carpoftruth@hexbear.net 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I generally agree with the critique that the broad left, whether that's DNC or the PSL or any random green party, has a blind spot on animal rights. However, I question the authors priors when they write claptrap like the following:

However, utopian socialism is more feasible than Marxism because it imagines a post-capitalist society that does not depend on completely dominating nature, implementing full automation, and somehow instituting a complex, libertarian social order at a global scale.

Regardless of any factionalism from the author, personally I believe the absence of animal rights/veganism from the platform of major or alternative left wing parties, from most climate change analysis, or class analysis stems from carnists and vegetarians not being willing to do the mental work of confronting their own biases. All the ideological mumbo jumbo with $5 words and marxist history and "wut about indigenous people" red herrings are just cover for people's intellectual momentum and cowardice. Engaging with the superficial history of the lack of veganism in the left is interesting but in my opinion is a fool's errand without engaging with the unspoken factors.

In reality, most people are carnists. Meat and animal products are culturally engrained, are calorie dense, many people like the taste, and are often status symbols. There are a lot of incentives to consume animal products. Veganism is not culturally engrained and is usually a negative status symbol.

It is also extremely possible for an individual to make changes to their own life with respect to veganism and in fact the ideology demands it. In contrast, in anti-imperial activism protestors may rail against empire but have minimal if any actual control over where bombs are dropped, and the material benefit they derive from being part of the empire is indirect and probably small. It's easy to show up to an antiwar protest because you probably aren't the one dropping bombs on kids, and the benefit you derive from someone else doing it is probably small. On the other hand, carnists directly and individually benefit from carnism through the positives I mentioned earlier and do so multiple times every day. Being an antiwar activist might only take up a couple hours a month, while being vegan takes time every single day.

Confronting this contradiction means making real changes to one's own life and taking real social costs (albeit many benefits as well). Most people don't want to do this, and a small fraction can't or are limited for some reason or another. Everything else is motivated reasoning.

[–] Angel@hexbear.net 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Regardless of any factionalism from the author, personally I believe the absence of animal rights/veganism from the platform of major or alternative left wing parties, from most climate change analysis, or class analysis stems from carnists and vegetarians not being willing to do the mental work of confronting their own biases

Yep. What people need to understand more is that veganism can be framed as a way of thinking, an ethical principle, that leads to certain practices rather than a set of practices in and of itself. You're totally right that this feeling of veganism being a "sacrifice" is a large part of what perpetuates human supremacy.

I also disagreed with portions from the article, such as the one you quoted, but I still think it's a decently insightful writing.

[–] carpoftruth@hexbear.net 4 points 3 months ago

Yes I agree, I largely enjoyed reading it and it is interesting to see the throughlines (or lack thereof) of vegetarianism in socialism and other liberatory movements. As an aside, the Sexual Politics of Meat is really good for that too, the author discusses this hidden aspect of social movements really well.

Anyway I guess it's interesting to look at this analysis/lack thereof in Marxism, but it's a bit frustrating to see it painted as an ideological blind spot of marxism instead of a much wider ideological blind spot that the vast majority of people are affected by, across the political spectrum. Conservationists and hypocritical lovers of doggos abound and their hypocrisy doesn't stem from some jargon laced disagreement between Marx and utopian socialists from 200 years ago. Are there additional animal rights hypocrisies found specifically within the socialist/marxist/anarchist left? Maybe/probably, but I bet the vast majority of this is explained by factors that are common to meat eating 'animal lovers' across the political spectrum (i.e. 90%+ of the population).

[–] optissima@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

"the left" has failed people, let alone other fauna.

[–] mathemachristian@hexbear.net 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is speciesist framing, putting humans above other animals.

[–] optissima@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, this isn't. This is recognizing that all mechanisms of modern governments, which are virtually all for the governance of humans, hasn't even achieved helping the average human. Why would anyone expect it to limit suffering in ways it wasnt built for when what it is built for it's already failing at?

[–] mathemachristian@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The "let alone" part puts it as if liberating humans is more important than liberating non-human animals. The way I see this phrased used, it's usually that the first part is a necessary condition that the reader supposedly already agrees with, to showcase the validity of the more special case.

"They couldn't even walk let alone run", "She couldn't even buy food, much less rent", "This isn't true for any number, let alone even numbers" etc.

It places non-human animal liberation as a special case of the fight for the liberation of human workers. To be deferred to after a point in time when humans have been sufficiently liberated.

[–] optissima@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

Yes, I do believe that giving people rights is a nessecary step before applying those rights to other animals. Not because those rights deserve to come first, but because of how modern government works. I (literally) don't have the ability to respect the rights of others if I myself don't have access to my rights, such as the ability to give a voice to those who don't.

[–] starkillerfish@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago

in what sense