I get that it’s a meme, but what’s the problem? I’m vegetarian/flirt with veganism; it’s purely for moral/ethical/environmental reasons.
Indian food is delicious. An Impossible burger on a pretzel bun dripping with grilled onions, avocado, vegan aioli and mustard with a side of steak fries? That’s also delicious, in my opinion.
Meat is delicious, and that’s not at all incompatible with my reasoning for being vegetarian.
For real. I was raised on slop, now that I’m a vegetarian, it doesn’t mean I don’t like the foods I grew up eating.
I guess the point is that we don’t need to rely on expensive substitutes made by the same corps that own slaughterhouses to make tasty, nutritious vegan food
Nothing against people who prefer meat substitutes. But I do think they should be brave and just abandon meat altogether. If you keep relying on meat substitutes, you haven’t let go of meat entirely, I found it easy to get back to meat eating.
That is not at all what this is like, completely ignorant metaphor
Imagine someone addicted to eating their poop. Perhaps they are reforming their ways, and for some time they take half measures like eating smelly chili. Eventually they realize their unhealthy fixation isn’t really overcome by this, so they move onto food that doesn’t resemble poop, like a salad maybe
Animal products have good taste for most people. The issue with them is not their taste, or the actual act of consumption of them, it’s the fact that their production necessarily involves the torture and killing of sapient beings.
If you can have “meat” without such effects (so, those fake vegan “meats”), then there is nothing wrong with it at all (I still prefer most of the time my rice, beans, tofu and TSP if only due to the cost but again, nothing wrong with it, quite the contrary).
I was half-joking, but yes it was ignorant? Lesbians don’t choose their sexuality, but people do choose to be vegan. There is an ignorance of sexuality and diet there. Also, people do try going vegan, eat some fake meat and cheese, and eventually go back to eating meat because they still crave meat in itself. This does happen. This is also related to those people who sneak in or revert to eating meat because of some cultural or family tradition, or peer pressure from friends. One vegan I knew who was going on for 25 years ate a steak to impress his business friends instead of speaking up to say he didn’t want to eat at a meat-only restaurant. Take a look at my other comments here, I am speaking about this topic at the social level, not how individuals like the taste of meat or fake meat.
there is nothing wrong with it at all
Yeah I know, I have been saying that. This is not a moral argument. This is a rational one, and one perhaps from a medical or public health perspective: the cultural desire to obtain “meat” as a thing in itself is the cause for the demand of meat or meat alternatives. It’s great that under capitalism that solutions can be provided via the market and supply-and-demand, whatever, but it doesn’t address the reason why there is a demand in the first place.
How I know it’s a cultivated desire: it doesn’t exist across cultures. Hell it doesn’t exist within the western fake meat market itself: how much fake seafood do you see engineered out there? Or exotic meats ie objects perfectly engineered to mimic dog, cat, or even human meat? I’m sure human taste buds can enjoy long pork, real or fake. Yet basically no one is asking for this right?
how much fake seafood do you see engineered out there?
Crab sticks are usually fake, but generally, fish is harder to immigrate accurately than other meats, and there’s less demand for it since people in the west don’t generally eat tons of fish anyway.
Less demand for real fish means less demand for imitation fish, though there is apparently a company somewhere making lab grown salmon and tuna.
Bravery has nothing to do with it. It tastes good, and there’s no harm to any animals. So why not eat it? Denial for the sake of denial is not a virtue.
If you keep relying on meat substitutes, you haven’t let go of meat entirely, and it would be easy to get back to meat eating.
That’s like saying that if you enjoy shooting people in video games, then you’re one step away from shooting people in real life. I’ve been eating fake meats for almost a decade now, and I’ve never been tempted to eat real meat.
I know how horrible and senseless factory farming is, and I have images of the slaughtered seared into my memory from vegan documentaries. Why would I go back to that when I can have substitutes that are just as good, if not better?
Good job but not everyone has the mental fortitude you have displayed. I know plenty of people who tried going vegan, ate the fake meat and egg stuff, and just went back to the real stuff for the taste
Anyways it’s not about the individual level, it’s more the social ie the social ingraining to have the form and experience of meat contributes to the “culture” and demand of meat
The fake stuff (and cultivated meat for that matter) are getting closer to parity every year. You don’t go back to something “for the taste”, if the alternative you switched to offers a near identical experience.
Okay but we aren’t there yet and the vegans who I know who have broken their mental attachment to this meat “culture” have not even been tempted to go back once compared to those others
Do you think that you could’ve gotten those people converted to an Indian diet, and they would’ve remained vegan? Getting people to go vegan in the first place is extremely difficult. Try getting them to go vegan and replace their diet with Indian food.
Yeah, if they were Indian. The culture around meat is different than in the West eg. some people only eat meat on a certain day or weekend. Even then, the approach is that meat is disgusting and needs to be cooked and spiced thoroughly before consuming anyhow. And there is already a long and popular tradition of simple alternatives to meat dishes like using potatoes or paneer (or “soy paneer” aka tofu to make it vegan)
Again, my point is that it is not about the individual but the social ingraining and pressure around meat as a category in itself for individuals
Meat is generally spiced more heavily in warm climates because it spoils faster and hot spices both preserves meat by killing bacteria and disguise a certain degree of spoilage.
I would be surprised if the trend towards hot spices in a country that is generally both warm and humid is because of a difference in palette rather than the reasons above.
I can’t really answer the question of why, but the sample set of people I know who switch to vegetarianism and veganism bears out that the ones who rely in fake meats much more frequently switch back than those who focus on learning to cook foods that don’t imitate meat.
On the counterargument, I did miss cheese quite a bit, and learning to culture my own vegan cheeses hasn’t led to buying animal milk cheeses again, so ymmv
It wasn’t meaningless, and I went out of my way to make clear the sample size wasn’t statistically significant.
The point was that the parent comment implied there was no reason to start eating meat again after making a moral choice not to. My anecdote shows that some people do anyway, therefore there must be a reason.
That in my experience they tended to be the people who relied on meat substitutes was part presented as an observation of interest, not as hard evidence of universal truth.
Being called stupid and criticizing my decisions kept me from “being brave”
Like “You’re not good enough until you are this much” bullshit. If that’s the attitude, then fuck no. Why do I wanna go even further into things if y’all are assholes right off the bat. Like, no. fuck you. If it’s this complicated then I am going to do what has been a life of hassle free eating. My guilt is very easily wiped away like that.
I’m vegan and I eat plenty of fake meat. I’m vegan because I think it’s right, not because I dislike meat. Don’t listen to OP. You are good enough, and any reduction in the consumption of animal products is better than no reduction.
I went through a long period of transition before cutting out animal produce entirely, but have now been vegan for a good few years.
I went through a long period of transition before cutting out animal produce entirely, but have now been vegan for a good few years.
This is the way. It’s like a relationship: if you have to force it, it’s gonna be shit.
I cut down on meat significantly in the past 3 years. I eat mostly vegetarian, fish once a week and meat every once in a while. Overall, my meat consumption decreased by about 90% which I call good enough and I don’t really have the intention to change that.
I’ve been talking a bunch of shit out of annoyance. And there’s a bunch of posts echoing exactly what I was complaining about.
Even getting called a liar.
This is the only reasonable or polite response I’ve seen. Missed one maybe?
So thanks. I really shouldn’t be painting the entire lifestyle with the same brush, because well here we are.
So I’ll shut up, and say thanks. And for the record, my kid still makes me get the impossible patties. She’s not veg anything, so ita just cause they’re good and that on its own should be good enough. Not all is lost in my removed.
If I’m at a barbecue and someone is grilling up impossible burgers, I’m not going to request they instead make a bowl of curry for me. Likewise when I grill for people.
Nothing against people who prefer meat substitutes
That’s good.
I do think they should be brave and just abandon meat altogether
That’s bad.
Now, firstly, thank you for defining a lot of people cowards.
Secondly, while I like indian food, I like meat more. And I liked it since forever. If I can have the delicious taste of meat in my plate without killing an animal, that’s great. Fantastic! I’m eagerly waiting for lab crafted meat any day. I’m willing to pay it more than real meat, because I’m not fond of killing living beings to eat them. But if that’s not yet possible, I’d still have my steak and my hamburger.
Right so, I have literally never eaten meat in my life. I was raised vegetarian. I still think plant based burger patties or sausages or whatever are delicious. Its literally just food. You gonna think that I’m “relying” on meat substitutes or “haven’t let go of meat entirely” when I haven’t even eaten meat before? :P
Just let people enjoy things! Plant based “meat” doesn’t hurt anyone and its a great option to add to your choices of meals.
The problem is that you’re still fixated on the form and experience of meat. A full mindset change is more robust.
It’s like how fake leather can help replace and reduce real leather usage, but if the trend of desiring leather died out in the first place, the whole problem is dropped altogether
I don’t want to stop eating meat, I want to stop the exploitation and suffering of animals.
While I want to stop the exploitation of animals more than I want to eat meat, if there is a path that allows me to do both, I will have a preference for that path.
The same goes for leather. It’s use isn’t worth what has to be done to create it, but it is a fantastic material with a lot of versatility that’s better than near all alternatives in plenty of applications. Fake leather and synthetic leather are wonderful innovations because we can enjoy the benefits without the negatives, and that’s something to be encouraged rather than avoided.
I get it but this is an emotional appeal. I’m just trying to explain the logic of what was being said here
I like the fake meat stuff too, and often try to make it myself even though I’ve never had meat on purpose in my life and actually throw up if I do accidentally. I just like the kitchen chemistry aspect of it I guess
I’m not saying we should stop making vegan alternatives to meat. I’m saying people should stop desiring meat or meat alternatives. Because logically that desire of meat is the cause of both meat and meat alternatives. Like how the cure to nicotine addiction isn’t nicotine patches alone
not entirely, as leather is still a wildly useful fabric and material for many uses which synthetic leather can serve(to a greater or lesser extent, granted), but only in specific cases can meat not be replaced/not replaced effectively
I’d argue that the fake meat stuff has hurt veganism to at least some extent because it’s marketed so heavily and people think it’s the only way to eat vegan. You can see how prominent the ”all vegan food is processed” and ”it’s too expensive to be vegan” arguments have become, even in this thread.
Tell ya what, i bet if every production company magically disappeared tomorrow we would still have new shows. It’d start out like the early days of youtube (my favorite btw) but in my (perhaps unusual) opinion Netflix, disney, sony, et al are more a barrier to quality content than a benefit.
I mean, how many really really good things did you watch last year? What interesting, unusual things might we have seen this year if marvel 25 and spidweman 15 etc weren’t taking up all the air?
Tbh I haven’t watched Netflix in a couple months - there are too many interesting things to watch that are not there! - but I do like knowing that some (probably tiny proportion but still more than zero?) of my funds goes to the original content creators, plus CC is built right in and it’s actually a solid streaming delivery, when you do find something worthwhile - as opposed to e.g. 123 streaming that can be extremely hit-or-miss (plus shows yanked entirely without notice). The point about the early days of YouTube is well taken, though as you implied that has not held up over time.
To be clear I am not advocating for anyone else to do so, just saying that I do (sometimes), although I am open to cmv too. It bothers me that anytime something actually gets popular Netflix drops it, though it’s nice that I don’t have to maintain a huge library of files and spend time on curation, so there is definitely both benefits as well as detractions.
I mean, how many really really good things did you watch last year?
We talking movies and TV shows in general, or only ones that came out in 2023? If the latter, then Dungeons and Dragons was the only good thing I watched last year
Most of the good shows I watched last year were animes that came out around the turn of the century
Early 2000’s anime has definitely aged. In my opinion the aesthetic of it has aged extremely well, but I understand that the relatively poor animation and picture quality are enough to turn some people off to it. If you like the aesthetic as much as I do, then I have a whole list. I’m not much of a shonen guy, so a lot of these are calmer, less action-packed shows.
My personal favorite anime is Haibane Renmei, from 2002. The story seems like a mystery at first, but the show never answers most of the questions it raises–it’s not about finding answers, it’s about the characters, and how they act and react both towards each other and towards the world they live in. The setting is what really pulled me in–it has the same timeless, liminal feel that Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, and The Last Guardian have.
Cowboy Bebop and Trigun are staples. Both 1998 shows. It’s hard to believe that Cowboy Bebop was made in the 20th century. Both shows have good plotlines, lovable characters, well-made action sequences. It’s hard to write anything about them that hasn’t been written before. Watch em!
Witch Hunter Robin from 2002 was pretty good, imo. It’s a mystery series about a team of witch hunters. It starts out as a sort of monster (or witch, as it were) of the week show before pivoting into a longer story arc about the characters discovering a conspiracy. The show looks drab and gloomy at first, but really it’s absolutely dripping with character, and Amon is the only person in the show that never really seems happy. The action sequences are largely made up of characters just sort of standing and staring at each other, but the camera work and visual effects make it look really good in my opinion.
Fullmetal Alchemist '03 was the first FMA I watched when I was a kid, but never got around to finishing until last year. It’s really good. Brotherhood and '03 are largely similar (with minor differences) up until the 5th Laboratory, where they diverge severely. Personally I felt like '03 had a more concise, well-told story. Having fewer characters worked in its favor, because it gave the characters that it does have more time to develop. It also takes itself a lot more seriously than Brotherhood–it feels more like a seinen than a shonen.
Planetes (also from 2003) is the hardest sci-fi that I think I’ve ever seen. It’s about team of orbital debris haulers in the 2070s. At first it’s a slice of life show about their day to day activities, and partway through it becomes something of a political drama/action show. It’s cool. The main character is a little bit annoyingly idealistic in the first few episodes, but after that it’s a solid 10/10 from me.
Last Exile (also 2003) is one of my favorite shows. It’s very confusing at first, it feels like there’s a couple of episodes worth of exposition missing in the middle, but all in all I absolutely adored it. It never gives you any more information than you need to know, and it never wastes time explaining how its universe works. How do vanships fly? Because of claudia. What is claudia? It’s the fuel that makes vanships fly. You never even find out what Exile means until like 23 episodes in. The show is extremely aware of its own aesthetic, in a way that the sequel series from 2011 kind of wasn’t. Still worth watching both series IMO, because the sequel finds its own footing in time.
Mushishi (2005) is another calm one. Probably the calmest one. Watching it is like meditating. It follows a sort of travelling doctor who tries to help people when their interactions with the ethereal mushi (they are explicitly living things, but for the sake of storytelling, you can think of them as spirits) turn harmful. Every episode is a new place, a new mushi, a new story. It’s masterfully crafted, and the slow pace ensures that not a single frame goes to waste. The early 2000’s aesthetic works heavily in its favor, making it fit right in with Studio Ghibli’s works, even though it was an Artland joint.
Baccano was 2007, so a bit late to call it “turn of the century,” but it has the same sort of aesthetic and vibe that most of these shows have. The story has a wide variety of characters, each with their own fully fleshed out stories, all intertwining like a spider’s web as they meet and influence each other. It’s really good. Watch the dub!
Right now I’m nearing the end of Noir (2002). I couldn’t tell you if it’s worth watching until I finish it (just in case it ends badly), but so far I’m liking it. It’s about a pair of assassins, one of whom has amnesia and only knows that she’s somehow connected to the other, and the other who is trying to find out who killed her family and why. If I have one gripe with the series, it’s that they don’t ever show any blood on screen. They aren’t afraid of showing people die on screen, a lot of people die in every episode, but aside from holes appearing in people’s clothing, there doesn’t appear to be any actual violence.
Ok i need to check some of these out since our tastes appear similar. Thank you for sharing, and with a little write up for each too! Appreciate the “wall of text”
I want to reciprocate, but like i said i haven’t seen many from that era. An exception is wolfs rain from 2003. Its probably my fav anime of all time actually, so if yu haven’t seen it, it might be right up your alley.
I’m kinda bad at explaining but I’ll toss some more names (as well as reiterating suggestions for FMA03, Mushishi and Planetes, all 3 great shows):
-Gankutsuou: Sci-Fi reimagining of the Count of Monte Cristo. It has some weird choices but it’s overall really good.
-Kaiji: an indebted guy does gambling to try to solve his problems. Lots of mind games and suspense, way better than what it sounds like. One of my personal favorites.
-Higurashi no Naku Koro Ni: Horror/Mystery series set in a secluded village. It has some clichès and the animation… isn’t the best, but I really liked it personally. Don’t bother with the third and fourth seasons that came out recently (or do, but they’re honestly not needed at all).
-Monster: Thriller about an ex-Surgeon trying to find a past patient turned murderer. From Urasawa, if you know the name.
-Paranoia Agent: Mystery semi-episodic series about a lot of different characters, their life struggles and a mysterious boy going around beating people with a golden bat for no apparent reason. From Satoshi Kon (his movies are all really good too btw).
It was awesome! It gave me strong Last Exile vibes, despite the two series being nothing alike. Out of the anime I listed in that comment, it’s the one I’d recommend the most based on Wolf’s Rain
I don’t think they were trying to downplay the severity. I think they were just pointing out in a snarky way that there were survivors, and thus, we can ask their descendants these questions.
Land shouldn't be owned indefinitely and passed through families. It's not right to have created a dynasty based on one guy in the 1800s claiming everything in sight and having his idiot descendents be wealthy simply based on the fact. They didn't do anything except inherent land.
Land that isn't your primary home should have to be leased and not owned, that way it's being used most effectively and not privatized for the sole benefit of the owner. It leads to land speculation and squatting of land that someone else would like to use.
Additionally, natural resources should also belong to the people and companies should have to pay fair compensation for their extraction.
Yeah but that isn’t what everyone is saying. They are saying give it all back to the native Americans and what? Move back to Europe?
Israel is more muddy people have been taking that land from eachother for millenia. Just because after the 2nd world war Israel was re-created after being stamped out prior to that. Who was the aggressor and the victim back then.
Right, conquered is worse because it implies it’s stolen via violence at a large scale. While just stolen could mean taken quietly and without violence. Thank you for addressing the seriousness of the issue.
Of course I’m gonna assume good faith from you here, but I feel like some people boil down issues like this to “well I mean I didn’t do it so stop complaining”, and that’s wildly reductive and irresponsible at minimum.
Arguing the situation in this way sidesteps the uncomfortable and inconvenient reality that the United States is yet still occupying native land, whether it be Hawai’i, Alaska, or the contiguous territories. Yes it’s entirely possible that mine or your ancestors didn’t perpetuate these things as immigration is and has always been ongoing, but the point everyone misses is that we are still here.
I couldn’t possibly imagine belittling natives for acknowledging the fact that their land was taken from them by force. Some real colonialist shit.
I feel you, and also acknowledge it is a hairy subject on a grand scale.
I also try to frame the issue in the actual, real moment. I try my damndest to do as little harm as humanly possible to anyone. Should I be forced to give money to someone affected? Land? Should I be punished?
Who benefits? A grandson of someone displaced? A great great grandson? Whole family trees? How do you make shit like this right after so much time?
Mostly, I’m trying to encourage thought and discussion. Fundamentally, I think people should be judged on their own merits and actions, not their lineage.
The outcome needs to be negotiated and yes, the Tax Payer should foot the bill for the redress for the actions of the State and individual wealthy Families should foot the bill for the crimes their wealth stems from. For example: the entirety of Oklahoma's rather impressively inhumane treatment of the Native Tribes needs to be dealt with as the People that profited from the malfeasance are still holding the proceeds of those crimes.
That will always be an issue until the US government actually has real communication and cooperation with native people.
I don’t necessarily think that citizens of occupied land are automatically responsible for the past actions of a government (not to say that’s what you implied), but said government that committed the atrocities is. As far as the other part of the equation, I suppose the beneficiaries should be determined by the natives themselves.
The way I understand it is that even if we omit any ancestral blame for what happened, the Native Americans are still dealing with the impact while European descendants benefit from it. It’s kind of like if I went to school with a very bright kid that was horribly abused and kicked out into the streets, so they performed poorly and dropped out, allowing me to get into the best college possible and have a great career. Why should I have any compassion for this kid if I didn’t abuse them myself? Why would I help them get housed and into college? Why would I even acknowledge that they were abused and forced out of their home? I’m one that earned it by working hard to get into college and graduate.
This omits the possibility that this kid might have outperformed me and taken the college spot, leaving me to be in a worse off situation.
Not 1000% on board with your analogy, but I understand and fully agree lol.
I just wish most people had the empathy and mental capacity to understand the intricacies of this stuff. It’s a hell of a lot easier to just say “uH wOw I ain’t payin reparations for no dang indians” than it is to actually think for a minute about and acknowledge the real history of where you live
As far back as required to make those involved feel as if they were compensated. If you feel that 36x Great uncle Olaf's loss affects your Family Today, then you should have your day in Court to make the case. However, as most likely 36x Great uncle Olaf was in fact not involved in anything in a currently oppressed People's past, it'll be a hard case to make.
No reason to not give you the benefit of the doubt, but you’re giving off heavy “they were already killing each other so it’s no big deal” vibes. No insult intended, just what I’m picking up.
Intertribal conflict is the tribes’ business, colonizing and displacing is colonists’ business. To be clear, external invasion is the concern here
Nope not that at all. I’m against all war is all. And many people in many countries all around the world are benefiting from awful wars that happened centuries before they were born, possibly from people they aren’t even descended from. To call me and anyone else who moved to the US afterwards “colonists” is imo a misrepresentation and unfair. And I’m not saying the native Americans don’t deserve more than they’re been given so far.
My point is more getting people thinking about how tribes that early Americans wronged were also wronged before that. If we fix things to return them to how it was, why does the final state of tribes before European arrival get chosen as the correct state? We likely have no idea who was on specific land first here in America. We just know the final state and some of the preceding wars before then. Keep going back and there’s always a new victim.
Entirely valid, all great points - and to clarify, specifically colonialism from the colonists that colonized the land, no pejorative usage against anyone here
It’s the control. If one Native tribe still controlled the ancestral grounds of another tribe, then you probably would have some people calling that out… but they don’t. The US government has ALL the control, every tribe within US territory, and all of their land, is at the governments mercy.
Yes, people don’t leave occupied land. It’s never happened historically and certainly won’t happen now, that’s the point of occupation. People can acknowledge what happened but in practical terms thinking that somehow all native land will be returned is just naive.
Oh well of course, at this point in time it’s been made extremely clear that natives will be getting absolutely no land back, even unoccupied land in the plains for example. There’s no major figures in government even remotely speaking on this stuff in a substantial way, so it may as well never happen. Fucked up stuff on top of all the other fucked up stuff.
And also to be fair, implying that most anyone here believes that all land should be returned is pretty naive in and of itself - there are absolutely more options than ALL OF THE LAND and NONE OF THE LAND
Explain. How is it a false equivalent? Romans controlled the city / region for over a thousand years and were later conqured, and their land stolen, to use the vernacular of this thread.
You’re oversimplifying in order to compare the two. Wildly different historical contexts with entirely unrelated events. Distilling both down to “area conquered” just so you can make a point is reductive.
Beyond that though, why does it matter honestly? Does the fact that a city was conquered in the 1400s invalidate anything mentioned so far?
Damn, still couldn’t make it past the first sentence huh? Really hard question too, I’m not surprised you conveniently ignored it given the aptitude you’ve shown so far. Ain’t my fault that you can’t possibly comprehend two things being somewhat similar yet remaining distinct.
You too buddy! Would enjoy having rational conversations, even note elsewhere in this thread that I’m taking the time to read American Holocaust, as I told myself “why should I ask someone to do something I’m not willing to do myself?” Granted, being close to 50 years old, it likely won’t change my mind, but I reason that if I do read this book, maybe I can better understand other’s worldview, and maybe, just maybe we can have civil conversations instead of the stupid fucking bickering that’s been going on in a… wait for it… meme thread!
Keep in mind that many Americans don’t know Socialism from Communism, as they’ve been schooled that everything responsible for happy Scandinavians is somehow bad.
Should I also keep in mind that most people don’t know how nice Communist counties were to live in? Seriously, give me one, just one country that did communism successfully and where all the people could live in freedom and pursue happiness. Just a single example.
Is there a Capitalist country where all people can “live in freedom and pursue happiness?” What does that even mean? What are the solid metrics by which you track that, so you can say a country passes or fails that?
Yeah, try just about all northern European countries. Are there people that have fallen off the band wagon? Of course there are, shit happens everywhere. However, everyone there loves better and more meaningful lives than in ANY communist country.
I don’t recall the last time in northern Europe (second world war aside) where literally everyone except a few elites (hello Russia) had to stand in line for hopefully some food
Why do you believe Northern European countries have it better than AES countries? Do you believe if an AES country copied the Northern European model, their metrics would match Northern European countries?
Why do you believe inequality is rising in Northern European countries and safety nets are being cut over time?
There’s no country where every single person lives in freedom and happiness. But there are numerous countries that have significantly improved the quality of life for the vast majority of people compared to what they had before, including Cuba, Vietnam, and China.
It may be true that in some cases the quality of life is higher in capitalist countries. But there’s a good reason for that! Historically, the countries most prone to socialist revolutions… were countries with some of the lowest standards of living in the world!
Despite this, China has recently eclipsed the United States in life expectancy. If you compare the two countries’ life expectancies before the Communists came to power, no one would expect that to happen! Why? Because for the average rural Chinese person, their way of life was virtually unchanged since ancient times with a life expectancy of 35, comparable to that of the Roman Empire.
Anti-communists would have us compare communist countries against either an imagined utopia, or against countries starting from a significantly higher level of industrial development. But those comparisons are not relevant to the question at hand! In order to evaluate the efficacy of socialism, the relevant comparison is the system that actually existed before, and what it was on track to do! And in cases like China, we can clearly see that the quality of life was miserable and stagnant for the vast majority of people, until the communists came to power!
Why do Westerners fail to account for this vital evidence? Because people used to a higher standard of living would take these improvements for granted! For a village tailor, being able to afford a sewing machine could be life-changing - but someone living in the imperial core would have no relevant experience to relate to that! The only thing they would notice is how poor the person still is, regardless of how much or how quickly their life is improving!
First of all, communism isn’t utopian. Even communists don’t think it will be some paradise where all worries disappear. You’ll still have to fight racism, sexism, bad weather, famines, etc.
But it’s often better for an average person from a country of a starting equal level of economic development. You’ve got to give it the “If I was reincarnated in a random person’s body, where would I want to be?” test. US is a good answer, but it’s got a way higher level of economic development with a big headstart. Even then, you could end up in the hood and die early and stressed. When you give the test comparing countries of equal starting economic development, it becomes a lot more muddled.
Like, would you rather randomly live in Cuba, or Somalia? The place where you get free education, health care, etc or a place that is also extremely poor but you don’t get that stuff? You could reincarnate as some rich, warlord there, but would you want to take that chance when you could reincarnate in Cuba as literally anyone and not be worried about ending up homeless? When giving realistic comparisons like this with proper historical context, and you do it over and over again, they tend to come out on top.
lemmy.ml
Active