this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
260 points (96.8% liked)

Socialism

708 readers
30 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of "ML" (read: Dengist) influence. This is a place for undogmatic and constructive discussion from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

A certain knowledge of socialism is expected, if you are new to/interested in socialism, please visit c/Socialism101 before participating here. Socialism101 will gladly help you by answering questions, providing resources etc.

Memes go in c/Lefty Memes

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, upvoting good contributions and downvoting those of low-quality!

Rules

1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith discussion is enforced here.

Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism

2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such,

as well as condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavour.

3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.

That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" (read: Dengist) (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).

4. No Bigotry.

The only dangerous minority is the rich.

5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Xenial Xerus" when answering question 2)

6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.

7. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

(This is not a definitive list, the spirit of the other rules still counts! Eventual duplicates with other rules are for emphasis.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

There is a big difference between abolition/outlawing and regulation. Regulation would be putting into place standards for raising them to minimize impact and restrict the quantity.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Most research I've seen regarding minimizing the impact of cattle production were funded by meat producers themselves, and thus have a conflict of interest. Their behavior is not dissimilar to big oil trying to greenwash fossil fuels with 'clean coal' or 'clean natural gas'.

So far, there is no way to continue the current scale of meat production, especially red meat, while keeping global warming from getting worse at the expense of billions of impoverished in areas where global warming will hit hardest. Even ignoring the green house gas emissions it requires, it also has an unchangeable requirement for extreme water usage, which is incompatible with a world rapidly approaching peak water.

The only viable option would be to reduce the production of meat to such a degree that only the rich would be able to afford it at all (as demand will not decrease with lowered production). It is genuinely impossible to legislate that reality, as the voter base does not want meat to become like caviar, a spice for the rich, even if it means saving civilization.

That legislation would only be possible under an authoritarian dictatorship, and even then, that dictatorship would be risking an open rebellion, but with enough willing guns, they could force it through.

The problem is, living under a dictatorship is absolute hell in itself, and it would be far more preferable for the population to willingly reduce their meat consumption on their own. That is why ultimately consumers making the choice themselves at the supermarket would be the most ideal scenario.

I desperately hope people eventually make that choice, as I can't help but feel like the dude in the Newsroom, or Don't look up, where people will perhaps even acknowledge things are bad, but be unwilling to sacrifice any aspect of their current luxuries or lifestyle whatsoever (which is somewhat ironic, considering our media for over a century glorifies self sacrifice to save others).

[–] Feyd@programming.dev 2 points 4 months ago

This is nitpicking. All of the same points apply to reduction of quantity as they do abolition.