“Strawman” - and then you just go with “vegans”… so all? Most? Some? Or maybe just the tiniest percentage? I think you understand for wich ones my argument applies and how “strawman” doesn’t, cause numbers. You know, if you pay attention…

Ok lets cut the rhetorics, I was trying to be sincere. I think you might wanna pay some more of that attention (omg sry I stop now) to “dialectic”. This does explicitly not mean you can turn the thing around and solely look at the other side.

So of course no change ever happens if all those one persons don’t do anything. But they will only change history if they change the underlying structures. To do so, they have to overcome their individualistic constriction and reach collective agency.

You gotta organize. The market won’t do, since it is THE form of organization that makes everyone a single player. Both, in their acting and in their consciousness.

This statement (about everyone single personal effort) only becomes meaningful when you take into consideration why people don’t. If you do, you will encounter the dialectics of structure and “personal choice” and how complicated history is and how it is not at all about “everybody make a small change in their life”.

The liberal feverdream of individual solutions for structural problems is bound to end up in “I buy good groceries”.

And, eventhough veganism is a good thing to do, this is why I’m personally so annoyed by vegan communities.

I dont know if reducing your personal sin count or whatever is a substitute for radical critique and political action, or an add-on, so I didn’t downvote. But maybe it explains some of it.

There’s only one reason to clickbait that hard

3 - Participating in and commenting on the voting mechanism is just one bit of the overall development of political, social and cultural history.

What seems to be “normal” or “acceptable” or “possible” to a given person/part of a population, is the outcome of discourse and maybe more important: concrete options.

Tangible options to participate in something solidary that’s useful and provides meaningful participation, make left values and ideas soo much more credible and “in reach”.

IMO these options and experiences can at the moment only really be created from below. Neither corporations nor the government (any time soon) will provide the people with democratic economic solitutions, neighboorhood solidarity, labor organization, collective housing, social movements etc.

You are so much more than voters. You can organize the practical and ideological negation of the BS you oppose so rightfully.

Be it a better third option or leftshifting the dems, anyway the whole voting part of history will become more fun that way, too.

… nach ab kommt Arbeit

… after off work follows

Nah but a fresh tick bite. This means I’m from the future

Means.tv has a weekly good news thing. Check it out!

Dewindowed

This should be taken with a grain of salt, just as yours and op, but neuroplasticity makes arguments like yours shaky (well well well if this isn’t gonna turn out to be our old friend dialectics). If children just had a special environment, you’d find the physiological countepart. So unless it’s controlled for otherwise, you can’t make a one directional proof out of it

I think a neat way to put it is: Alienated acting/being is what’s left after you pretend you would not cooperate with other people.

Liberal ideology imagines every person as a autonomous agent “taking their own decisions”. Except you live in a cave and gather berries on your own, this is a radical misconception. In fact almost everything you do depends on other peoples doing and vice versa.

Alienation is the ideological and practical renouncement of this fact of beeing part of a social species.

If you deny this fundamental property of your beeing and doing, you end up with confusion and moral atrocities. And principally this goes “for both sides”.

Of course the war-stock-financed yacht is worse, but even in the case of a US-minimum-wage-financed banana the buyer profits from the exploitation of some dude in south america. If heshe has not developped a critical consciousness of the individualist illusion of liberalism, heshe won’t see it, cause “im not greedy I just want a fuckin 'nana”.

Alienation does not explain the vertical (quantitative) unfairness, the exploitation, but the general disconnectedness (qualitative) of humans from their social system, their history, each other, their work and themselves.

Well it has always been an illusionary personalization to call it greed. It’s a systemic imperative in a competitive system (compete or cease to exist). By calling it greed you pretend companies in capitalism could just be good christians or smth and the bad would go away.

Lots of points for gryffindor

I disagree. From my POV it seems like the majority of interactions on lemmy aim at sharing info, checking it and discussion.

There is some clickbaiting and some BS, but i tend to interpret it as a residual of BS internet culture and a product of the general shit aspects of society. Mostly people here seem to try good.

We are all a product of history, so this is fine as long as you somehow try to improve (together), imo.

It was full?

In that case: What the fuck OP?? How cheap are you?

Accepting it is a choice with practical consequences. We should work on understanding what is to change and how and focus on doing it.

Making prophecies about what “Eventually” happens is self handicapping, wich does not help :)

We don’t exist as a whole, wich is the political challenge I would like people to focus on.

I think in post religious thinking it’s not about “deserve”

Edit (cant properly edit on jerboa rn) … your base argument is right.

Of course your base argument - capitalist economy is ecolocically destructive and dysfunctional regarding the needs of the many.

“Until there is noone left to fulfill their orders” thats the kind of “justice” i’m talking about. Like, Homoestasis will put them down in the end. Justice will be served. But that’s deceptive satisfaction.

Don’t go down the “natural balance” kind of revenge fantasy. It only makes one comfy in passivist boundedness. Also the guy in the picture is far more likely do do just fine in a climate catastrophy than you. Gaia nature god lady won’t bring you any justice, at all.

Fatalism is in that mix, too. A very easy way to meet political complexity