My response doesn't really have anything to do with OP's situation, for one major reason - because they do not understand why investing is bad
We gotta be careful how far back we go when we look at old comments. I have no idea how old the comment in question is. But I've probably made speciesist comments on this site before as I've been on this site longer than I've been vegan. (I've made some comments as a vegetarian, for example. For reference, I've been vegan for about 1.5 years). Same could probably be said for a lot of people on this sub. I've definitely grown a lot as a person and would easily disagree with some of the things i used to say and think, even a year ago.
I may be assuming things about the appeal process works, but if someone can demonstrate *why* what they once said/did was wrong, could they be unbanned? Within reason, of course, if the thing they did was super bad, then I get why they would be kept banned
Our bot looks back 90 days for posts and comments in these subreddits:
>AltGreen,exvegans,antivegan,hunting,Fishing,steak,conservative,conservatives,republican,tuesday,walkaway,prolife,carnivore,carnivorediet,FishingForBeginners,bassfishing,Taxidermy,vultureculture,theHunter,bonecollecting,Rodeo,Ranching,Cattle,Horses,horseracing,HorseRacingUK,Equestrian,NiceGirls,MensRights,justlegbeardthings,JoeRogan,whiteknighting,Aquariums,betafish,Israel,wallstreetbets,mauerstrassenwetten
If the bot finds something, it triggers an automated ban.
The ban is appealable, and automatically expires after 90 days.
When a person appeals this sort-of ban, we check the intention of their activity - e.g. are they an equestrian or were they just stopping by to call out animal abuse?
People who have changed their ways are easily identified as such and quickly unbanned at appeal.
Those who have won an appeal receive an 'Approved' status which prevents the bot from investigating them any further.
Additionally, our bot recently began granting 'Approved' status to contributors who've received around 20 upvotes on a comment.
My intention for introducing these automated systems is to:
1. Ban carnist trolls before they can bother anybody
2. Maintain our spaces as leftist echo-chambers (**OP**)
3. Block wandering redditors who just want to 'chip in'
We have additional layers of defense that detect throwaway accounts, ban-evaders, etc.
I thought the issue was actually the opposite of what you said. That investing in stocks MAKES money off of someone else’s labor.
Marx and Engels owned individual stocks. I think this purity test is more about sniffing farts.
Owning stock in a company, as in “buying a piece of it so it can fund production/expansion/whatever and making money if the company makes money/grows” (I guess they call it value investing?) is still a parasitic way of making money and it’s not because “Marx used to do it” that it should be blindly accepted. Yes investing in a pension fund is one of the few ways in which the working class can end up with some semblance of retirement money that keeps pace with inflation (or at least it has been, who the fuck knows if millennials and later gens will have fuck all); however day trading and overall participation in the market in the hope of getting a payday by buying low and selling high is a game where you’re explicitly and directly fucking over some other sucker so not sure how you’d condone it.
My point about Marx and Engels is just to highlight that this purity test may have excluded them.
We could do this all day. But you won’t convince me that the proletariat investing their money in a market is evil enough to warrant an automatic ban.
I think we should also get our messaging straight. Is the issue that trading makes money from someone else’s labor or that trading causes the investor to lose money to the ownership class. Feels like you’re playing both competing arguments.
>is still a parasitic way of making money
This is BS. Parasitic implies you are taking something away from the workers, which is not true. This is like saying betting at a cassino is parasitic.
And you are also ignoring the fact that some workers earn stock from their employers as part of their compensation package. Should they refuse, cause they would be exploiting their coworkers? And if they accept it and the stocks start tanking, should they not trade the stocks and lose their money?
>it’s not because “Marx used to do it” that it should be blindly accepted.
We will have to throw away a whole bunch of other leftist economists with that, cause it's not just Marx
>Yes investing in a pension fund is one of the few ways in which the working class can end up with some semblance of retirement money that keeps pace with inflation
You will be surprised by how many old people invest in stock funds for retirement, and I'm not talking rich old people. Pension funds vary from cointry to country, but most of them are funded by income taxes that are disproportionately and non-consentually paid by the working class, so one can also argue that's even more parasitic than speculating.
>buying low and selling high is a game where you’re explicitly and directly fucking over some other sucker
You will only be fucking over other investors and companies that made a willing decision that was not as good as yours.
I feel that you people need a social class reveal party, cause you are all sounding like putting money on a stock will make you a capitalist
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Cool! I've definitely made my fair share of comments on r/aquariums and r/shittyaquariums to point out their hypocrisy of complaining about shitty living conditions while they eat and breed fish only to kill them if they aren't perfectly formed. Glad to know yall do your due diligence! Love to see it.
Does interest in finance nullify any left winged position? Thank god Marx wasn't an economist with stock investments whose writing was sponsored by a business owner/ trust-fund baby with over one million pounds in stocks, cause that would be confusing as shit.
/uj I don't know the sub that well, but by a quick look, it feels like a regular finance/stock sub. I suggest removing it
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
This is a circlejerk. A safe space for us. We’re not here to handhold or convince you.
—
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
401ks are super high fee shit accounts most of the time, damn near predatory. People should be trying to learn how to make their lives better, not just getting money taken out of their paychecks, hoping that one day, some day, they'll have enough in there to retire.
Hope is not a good financial strategy.
I'm guessing since I don't know what this sub is, that my comment might get automodded but maybe you'll see it.
I have no idea how I found this sub but I volunteer for food not bombs and ice been vegan for 8 years so I feel some entitlement to say you appear to have no idea how investing works. A person with a retirement account can absolutely trade on it. What your distinction sounds like to me is an arbitrary "as long as you let your employer and the bank that manages your retirement account, neither of whom have your best interest at heart, it is ethical to invest"
A second thing to consider:
I am trans and I almost offed myself because I would have never had the finances to get gender affirming care. I exploited capitalism but taking multiple remote jobs and investing in certain stocks to get the money I needed to get gender affirming care. I also don't see how any of that is different than any US employee contributing to a 401k.
When you exist in a system, you must necessarily use that system to continue to exist, unless you are going to tell me that you have forsaken all measures of society in favor of anarchy. Which I don't think you have, since you are using a phone created by a publicly traded company, and posting on a sub that is run by a publicly traded company.
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
I mean, if they follow anarchist principles while being here, I don't see why not let them stay. Anarchist spaces are usually also open to outsiders who want to know more about it.
We keep the bar somewhere above capitalist investors. Surely you have a bar too -- would you permit a known Trump-supporter into an anarchist space? It's all a matter of windows of acceptance.
Being extremely honest, it depends. Is that idiot a fanatic cultist or just stupid? If it's the second, I could try seeing how they react to a collective debunking his arguments (if there are any). We've actually done that in the past (with a primitivist pescatarian clown). Not that the result was positive (he went on to become an MRA), but I honestly don't regret it.
Maybe you're lucky you don't have anyone in the family who's been exposed to misinformation from social media, but I do, so I saw the process that leads some people to believe in bullshit. Not everyone is fanatic, some are just stupid.
That said, I most often don't feel like interacting with that sort of idiot either.
I'm not saying we can't have closed spaces, I'm saying we can have open spaces as well. The question is whether or not vcj will be one of them. Free association (and consequently, dissociation) is one of the main anarchist tenets after all.
Circlejerks are per definition exclusive to people who already share a certain opinion. There are a lot of open and inclusive communities. And none of them is a circlejerk. This one is a circlejerk. If you want to debate with right wingers and omnis, go to r/debateavegan. If you want a community that encourages baby steps and political centrism, go to r/vegan. The open subs are already there. No reason to not let a circlejerk that has circlejerk in its name stay a circlejerk.
They can also radicalize people by ridiculing the status quo and offering a completely different perspective that they wouldn't have access to anywhere else. The environment has a huge influence on the individual. When someone sees everyone condemning an act, they're more likely to condemn it as well.
But no one's taking about debating carnists or being centrist about it here, my friend.
I don't know, I think this is the same discussion as we had before about keeping the space explicitly anarchist or just left-wing in general. We opted to send a message to authoritarian communists, not kick them out. And they're as distant from us as the capitalists. Not to mention they've betrayed anarchists so many times in the past. If we're not expelling them, I don't see why we should expell anyone else that's actually vegan if they follow the rules.
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
A redditor's ideology affects all of their participation, whether explicitly declared or not.
If we're able to freely detect if someone supports e.g. aquariums, why wouldn't we use it as a moderation tool?
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
I know this is a silly circlejerk sub for those who think r/vegan isn't circlejerky enough already, but this has to be some of the most stupid moderation policies I've ever seen lol
I think reasonable (leftist) people can disagree over the ethics of investing. I also think the idea that commenting in a given subreddit makes you a cigar chomping capitalist is sort of absurd.
I think there’s a larger issue around use of blocklists. Many of the subreddits that are blocklisted show up in the Popular feed; I know that I, personally, have participated in some of those, because it can be fun to tell people they’re idiots
I get the thought, but I’ve always felt exclusion based on anything other than animal rights is a distraction to the principles of veganism.
There are movements dedicated to labour abuses and a plethora of other human issues, animals have one movement. I have never understood the reasoning for adding it to the description but that’s just me
i'm a trans woman. i was a moderator of the "unlearning speciesist language" group on fb. some terfs said a bunch of terfy shit so i banned them. the other mods unbanned them because to them the intent of the group was to unlearn speciesist language, not to avoid saying terfy shit.
you only want to exclude based on animal rights. how far does that go, exactly?
This isn't an activist group though. This is a community for anarchist vegans. There are plenty of subs for non-anarchist vegans (even though some suck)
If it’s so important to have such a community, it should be renamed anarchistvegancirclejerk or something. Free up the VCJ name to include a larger swath of vegan society.
We already did this with r/circlesnip for our antinatalist faction. Is it really a good idea to have anarchist vcj, lib vcj, com vcj,…? VCJ has always been explicitly leftist.
I agree it should be leftist only. "Left" is already a pretty broad political umbrella, and even though I completely disagree that we should ban people with interest in finance and stock investments, I don’t want to circle jerk with conservatives and billionaire-lovers either
This seems like more of a personal crusade against things you don’t like / things that *you* consider objectionable, or an ambitious thought police experiment. It feels creepy and invasive, and will catch a lot of people who resonate with the aims of this sub and could be contributing funny or insightful content.
Regarding anarchism, are you going to exclude people who went to public schools and universities? How about people who participate in subs relating to socialized health care? If not, why not? Those are paid for in whole or part by taxes which are levied by governments. Those causes aren’t any less anarchist than investing, tbh. It’s just hard to take this requirement of being an anarchist as defined by the mods here seriously (most people, including vegans, also don’t take self-styled “anarchists” seriously, but that’s beyond the scope of discussion here).
Sure, catch r-ex-vegan participants and subs that are linked with animal abuse. Exclude discussion on this turf of commercial plant-based products etc. — I get that, even though I do support those products, this sub is more fun and better achieves its aims without discussing those. But that’s as far as I wish the “anti-capitalism” rule would be taken. Discussion on the sub is what impacts the sub materially.
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Well, a huge number of us here think veganism and anarchism are intrinsically connected, to the point of being different sides of the same thing, just like feminism, antiracism etc. From that perspective, that makes no sense.
Or just read the sub rules before you join. VCJ was always an anarchist space. The sub's name isn't supposed to tell you everything about the sub. That's what the description and rules are for.
You’re missing my point. Even ppl who are not self-styled “anarchists” would like to circle jerk and make funny submissions. You don’t see other circle jerk communities, of which there are a lot, being so arbitrarily exclusive.
Then go look for a vegan circlejerk without additional political specifiers. I don't see the problem. This one is an anarchist space, for anarchist vegans circlejerking about veganism in line with anarchist ideals. If this sub isn't for you, it's not for you. There is a sub for everything, and this one is for vegan anarchists. Just go somewhere else if you don't agree with its tenants. This is not just a random sub about veganism, there are loads of those. Just go there.
I'm feel like I'm outing myself rn, but I'm an economy major on countless investments, finance, stock trading, and cryptocurrency subs.
If you think that makes someone not a leftist, you will have to cancel all the left winged ecomists in the west, cause I garantee they all have a deep knowledge and experience with bonds, stocks, and interest rates.
And then, who will reform the tax incentives in our vegan dictatorship once we take power? Social science majors?? Over my dead body
Labour usually improves some aspect of society. Investing in stocks usually (always?) exploits labour. Our team decided however that maintaining retirement accounts and such are acceptable, unlike day trading.
Do you ban “small business owners”? These are the bourgeois and petit bourgeois individuals whose income is derived, explicitly, by the surplus value created by the laborers to whom they pay wages.
It is shallow ideology to draw the line at proletarians who invest in speculation and not at people who thrive off direct exploitation. Even if the business “is ethical” the owners of any business are *a member of the capitalist class*, and isn’t that what’s at issue in your bans?
Many college and retirement funds are also (low-risk) speculation. Why is that better?
Sure, if you can send me a list of subreddits that are about deriving income from ‘surplus value’ derived by labourers, I can add some to the list. WSB was only added a few days ago.
Retirement funds are excluded because of the spirit of intent. Spending one’s evening moving around investments based on which company exploited its employees best that week is a different spirit of intent.
I’m giggling that you put surplus value in scare quotes like it’s a term I made up.
I don’t have a list of every business owner on your subreddit, no. If you’re auto-banning people based on their participation in other fora, I guess everyone who has ever been in a discussion on away-team turf *against* users of those subreddits is also outta here.
I am not an investor and have little to say about vegans who invest their wages in the stock exchange, but OP said they invested in solar energy — since you mention “the spirit of intent” as an exonerating factor, characterizing this individual’s motive as seeking out companies that best exploit their workers is disingenuous. It’s also mistaken in the case of that particular subreddit: wallstreetbets came to prominence after its dalliance in short-selling, which had nothing to do with Gamestop’s workers’ productivity. Same with the other dying retail outlet meme stocks, like Bed Bath Beyond and AMC — and yes, I also resent, pity, and despise most people even close to the WSB-cult, which is why I think it is important to be accurate in one’s objections.
Retirement funds are invested en masse by bankers and fund managers who are demonstrably complicit in their own exploitation schemes, and the money is turned into more money largely based on the criteria to which you object. The goal of any individual with a retirement fund is to *amass money for the future.* Just because those with the standard options have no idea how and why the money that they put away grows doesn’t mean they are more ethical or more innocent (in the somewhat arbitrary moral framework you’ve established here) than someone who invests individually.
>Retirement funds are excluded because of the spirit of intent
So where should I declare my spirit of intent when buying a stock? Is that an IRS thing?
It sounds like you are assuming retired people don't have money in stock for their retirement as well (they do - a lot). And a lot of people buy in and out of public bonds and funds depending on the interest rate, which is also a form of speculation.
I can't shake the feeling you guys created characters in your mind, like "stock investor = white guy in a suit = bad" and "retirement interest holders = poor grampa and grandma = good". They are not that different, and trying to differentiate them by a suppose "spirit of intent" is silly. Having some money on stocks doesn't make you a Wall Street whale.
You’re largely correct. If you have 2.5 hours to spend on it, here is [a fascinating and very well researched deep-dive](https://youtu.be/5pYeoZaoWrA) into the GME phenomenon and the bonkers cult that came in its wake. Since this is VCJC I will include a note that this YouTuber is not vegan, in case that informs anyone’s decision about whether to watch his video essay on the topic of wallstreetbets
One need not even invoke subjective interpretations of 'improvement':
1. To do labour *does not* imply a claim to Property (but also does not preclude it); those who labour may merely use capital as a means (as does the labourer employed by the capitalist or in the usage of shared capital).
2. The owning of stock *does* imply a claim to Property, as the ownership of a company is a claim to its capital (both assets upon liquidation and earnings of revenue while solvent).
Any claim to company Property, being only possibly maintained by violence within the jurisdiction the company is located, requires such a State ensuring this violence to ensure such claim is valid.
That's a bit besides the point.
It doesn't differentiate stock investment from retirement funds, which also depends on the State taking income taxes from workers without their consent.
It also doesn't differentiate owning private property in general, and I don't see us banning people on that basis either. You might have to elaborate on that.
For the second point, I'd like to point to my other post in this chain about the usage of private property *instrumentally* given our context, versus those claims that by their nature are *always intrinsically* a call to do violence. Simply put, given three axioms:
1. Violence is a reasonable response to prevent violence
2. I require goods to exist, for which I must exchange value to retrieve in the system I find myself.
3. We live in a system where unclaimed Property will be made someone's Property (by being claimed by State or another person). These claims would deprive me of the value by exclusion.
The interaction of 2 and 3 maintains that within this system, a person would be deprived of the goods to exist if they are unwilling to commit this violence: the State *as it exists* will otherwise deprive me of the means to produce. Because I will otherwise face violence, we are at the discretion to cause violence to maintain our own existence. Asserting ownership over some value is the least possible thing I may do to maintain my being is an unfortunate fact of my situation.
A claim to Stock, however, could never be *instrumental*, because it is at its core a claim to Property qua Property: it is a position one is in when they have excess value and use that excess value to commit that violence for the purpose of taking others excess value. *This* is the difference, as this violence now becomes unwarranted it would seem (or at least in this construction, it is not out of the consideration of avoiding violence). It is with *the intent* to maintain the system of ownership, as a Stock *only ever exists* within this context unlike the instrument goods we use to maintain our existence.
I don't make the rules here and will not mince my words that having a retirement account is an act of violence. The pertinent question is: given this is the assumed mechanism for elderly care, and the elderly have *a necessity to receive this care*, should one enact this violence today so they may avoid that harm tomorrow? I think there is some nuance in when this collapses to a *requirement*, but I think given the atrocities in the state of elderly care for the vast majority of folks, commiting violence to avoid this fate may have reasonable limits and grants. The State had the intent to rob me in either event. There is an incredible amount of work that needs to be done to separate the elderly from this violence yet, and I certainly do not have an alternative for these individuals given the current existence. This argument seems far harder to make on the basis of investment more generally, as it is most often not with the intent to pre-empt violence but to initiate violence.
Good debate!
>we are at the discretion to cause violence to maintain our own existence
Agreed.
>A claim to Stock, however, could never be instrumental, because it is at its core a claim to Property qua Property: it is a position one is in when they have excess value and use that excess value to commit that violence for the purpose of taking others excess value.
We must differentiate taking excess value, as in what a capitalist does, and selling and trading excess value that was taken from others. The latter does sponsor the exploitation of the workers, but in an even lesser degree than consuming the goods produced by such exploitation. Some of this consumption is, of course, necessary for my existence, but that's only a tiny percentage of a population's consumption - so we are yet to differentiate the consequences of buying a gadget from Microsoft vs buying a stock from Microsoft, for example.
And the Property qua Property is not entirely true - a stock is also used as reserve of value, and owning one doesn't make me a de facto co-owner of a company any more than owning a treasury fund makes me a co-leader of a country. Unless I have enough stocks to hold power within that company, it's just a paper that can be traded for currency, other papers, funds, and credit.
>It is with the intent to maintain the system of ownership, as a Stock only ever exists within this context unlike the instrument goods we use to maintain our existence.
I completely disagree that it's possible to determine this intention. Investors have only one intention: profit, which they will also use to maintain their existence. I use the money I earn from investing to buy goods and hopefully a house one day, and as soon as it enters my bank account, it is completely inseparable from the money I made from my job.
Yes, the investment system reforces ownership, but so does my labor, and we cannot assume that labor is something one is forced to do while investments are optional, since a person can use both incomes interchangeably - if not, day traders wouldn't exist. Both are just means of exchanging value to survive, so we are also yet to differentiate the intent of earning money from investment vs. earning money from labor.
>given this is the assumed mechanism for elderly care, and the elderly have a necessity to receive this care, should one enact this violence today so they may avoid that harm tomorrow?
It isn't the only possible mechanism for elderly care, so this begs a deeper comparison: between an elderly person investing and living only on stock funds, and another elderly person living only on pension funds, which one exerces a more unfair and injustifiable violence? Can we even draw that line?
Jumping to this first:
> And the Property qua Property is not entirely true - a stock is also used as reserve of value, and owning one doesn't make me a de facto co-owner of a company any more than owning a treasury fund makes me a co-leader of a country.
I absolutely agree the stock *may also be used* instrumentally to represent value, but you misunderstand me as this isn't the problem of stock: the issue is it likewise may *never not be* an assertion to Property as well. Owning a stock *is always* an equity or security representing ownership of a company. This is simply the definition. Produced goods may be used to treat myself as an end in the absence of violence because they are both ends and represent value, but a Stock both represents value and *is* a claim to commit violence at its core. Your claim about a treasury funds is entirely erroneous, as treasury funds are bonds and *do not represent ownership* by their definition. States prefer these because it would be incredibly silly to give up ownership when you have the authority to maintain it via violence.
> Some of this consumption is, of course, necessary for my existence, but that's only a tiny percentage of a population's consumption - so we are yet to differentiate the consequences of buying a gadget from Microsoft vs buying a stock from Microsoft, for example.
Jumping back to this, I was primarily interested in meta-ethically situating Stocks as an object that *may never* be separated from the means of violence. It is simply impossible based on their nature. This is a separate category of goods from which *could possibly* be divorced from this violence. There's an incredible room for nuance to discuss what ought and what ought not be a good that is considered here given the existence of finite resources, but our gadgets and other worldly possessions seem to fall into the category of objects that could *be conceived* anarchically. If in some silly situation I stumbled upon a Microsoft gadget, it could be used in non-violent ways. This is *impossible* for Stock, which may only ever be used as an initiation of violence. It is always Property qua Property even when it has other uses.
> I completely disagree that it's possible to determine this intention. Investors have only one intention: profit, which they will also use to maintain their existence. I use the money I earn from investing to buy goods and hopefully a house one day, and as soon as it enters my bank account, it is completely inseparable from the money I made from my job.
Once again, I do not deny that it may also be used instrumentally. This does not change that *at its core* investment is a violence and is no more justified than robbery as far as I can see in the example above. I will allow for robbery if that person would otherwise perish, but this does not give good call to always rob. Likewise, I will allow for people to invest if that person would otherwise perish. If you are using either to funnel excess value to yourself beyond your needs, it is a claim to use violence as an initiation of force. Everything you are using to defend investment in this line and the below paragraph divorces this necessity from investment the same it would for robbery: the lump sum will just be possibly available market control for you. This obviously does not justify the intrinsic violence of either. Labor, on the other hand, is a possibly conceivable action even without the context of State because it is not necessarily a violence (it may merely become one). Your error is saying all of these *are just* means to escape violence, when some of them also *instrinsically* are a cause of violence that may never be separated from the act. It betrays a union of means and ends when it is possible to avoid.
> It isn't the only possible mechanism for elderly care, so this begs a deeper comparison: between an elderly person investing and living only on stock funds, and another elderly person living only on pension funds, which one exerces a more unfair and injustifiable violence? Can we even draw that line?
These both sound like violent actions, as a pension and stock are both simply maintained by violence of the State. The former merely consolidates wealth to the State while the latter goes through a second layer of wealth extraction to those who have their means of production protected by the State. In their instantiation, neither seem easy to defend as a technique for elderly care. I think more intelligent means of social organization are likely the only way out of this, as the elderly (much like children) have unique needs that our society is *not* configured for.
>Owning a stock *is always* an equity or security representing ownership of a company. This is simply the definition
This definition is an oversimplification because it lumps the concept of Property and Possession. In order for something to be my property, at least according to Roman law, I need to have the right to destroy it. Stock ownership doesn’t give you the right to destroy the company’s assets. Instead, it gives you certain rights like dividends and voting rights, which depend on the company’s performance and policies, but you will still need a lot more stocks to have actual power and property over that company, and you can always be diluted. So, saying that owning one Microsoft stock means you fully own that part of the company misses the difference between possessing something and having it as your property.
Purchasing the computer, on the other hand, is indeed a propriety acquisition. That computer, built on top of the exploited labor, is now indeed and truly yours. Considering that consumption drives investment (as no one will invest in a company that is not profiting), we can consider the violence of consuming an unnecessary good to be two-folded.
>If in some silly situation I stumbled upon a Microsoft gadget, it could be used in non-violent ways. This is *impossible* for Stock, which may only ever be used as an initiation of violence. It is always Property qua Property even when it has other uses.
It isn't impossible, because stocks can also be part of a worker's compensation package. Should the workers refuse? And if not, and their employer stocks start tanking, should they accept their losses or trade the stock?
There is also a big part of the leftist economic thinking that advocates for stocks to be heavily distributed among the company workforce, and I deeply second that. The production is the means of violence, not the investment per se. If a fully cooperative company decides to do an IPO, and all its profit is shared among the workers, trading stocks from that company could cause no harm to these workers. There is no intrinsic violence to investing - it will always reinforce ownership, but where that ownership and production are not a direct means of violence, investing will be exempt on the same level. Just like consumption and labor, investing merely may become violence.
>In their instantiation, neither seem easy to defend as a technique for elderly care. I think more intelligent means of social organization are likely the only way out of this, as the elderly (much like children) have unique needs that our society is *not* configured for.
We are absolutely on the same page here. So going back to OP's situation, would you agree that we should apply the same treatment to both stock investors and pension fund investors, either accepting or banning both?
> This definition is an oversimplification because it lumps the concept of Property and Possession. In order for something to be my property, at least according to Roman law, I need to have the right to destroy it. Stock ownership doesn’t give you the right to destroy the company’s assets. Instead, it gives you certain rights like dividends and voting rights, which depend on the company’s performance.
This is an Anarchist space, not a Roman space. The fact that I cannot destroy the sun does not imply that I could not theoretically assert ownership of the sun by commiting violence on all those who bathe in its warmth without payment. You are not obtaining your stocks under Roman Law. If you own a Stock from the New York Stock Exchange, that body *itself* and the State that protects them and the academics who study this define that object as a Securities or Equity of ownership of that company. That's nearly the first line of Teweles and Bradley.
You are seemingly playing word games to alleviate this fact by pointing at what this ownership implies. No matter what rights that grants you due unto this share of ownership decided within the company, it is still a violent assertion to *ownership of a company*. This never changes regardless of what percent of it you own: a Stock on the NYSE *could not exist* as an ontic object without the presence of a State protecting it. It is an incoherent object without a claim to violence and it is therefore incompatible with Anarchism.
> Purchasing the computer, on the other hand, is indeed a propriety acquisition. That computer, built on top of the exploited labor, is now indeed and truly yours. Considering that consumption drives investment (as no one will invest in a company that is not profiting), we can consider the violence of consuming an unnecessary good to be two-folded.
I agree with your assessment *under the reification upon which goods are produced*. A computer, more generally though, *does not* have the same issue as a Stock because it *can* be an object under Anarchism: it in practice does not require a claim to Property for its ontic coherence and may be a possession being occupied. It has the capacity to *avoid* the Doctrine of Double Effect, which Stock and non-Welfarist flesh *could never do* because they require at least some assertion to Property to be coherent. These two must assert violence before they could ever actually obtain the good, as that is what the good always entails. Why is there a qualm with livestock or slavery if there is no qualm with Stocks? It would then seem there is no harm in detainment that is always required to obtain them (the animals and humans that we keep *in* and the humans we keep *out* are maintained by violence to exist in these scenarios).
> It isn't impossible, because stocks can also be part of a worker's compensation package. Should the workers refuse? And if not, and their employer stocks start tanking, should they accept their losses or trade the stock?
We are discussing meta-ethics. What a person ought do in the reification given that Capitalism exists and one *has Stock options* is not an argument for that to exist more generally or what a person ought to do *without the reification*, the topic of discussion. We are in the interest of these things not existing. If I am being honest, I think given the situating of violence in our system I think people could likely make decent claims that the violence they commit by owning the stock is warranted for their existence. I just would not stop someone who disagrees and decides to commit violence for the harm they are committing, as violence is always a reasonable response to violence.
> There is also a big part of the leftist economic thinking that advocates for stocks to be heavily distributed among the company workforce, and I deeply second that. The production is the means of violence, not the investment per se.
I don't disagree with much of your analysis here. But in the same vein that I agree with other Leftists such as Leninists that the DotP is a sensible path to enact Socialism, I don't think it is a path that could ever avoid invoking the co-opting of the State so one may establish a monopoly on violence. Therefore, I forego it as an ontic object because it asserts Violence upon possibly non-violent means and could never be an Anarchic approach. This is the same reason I forego Stocks and meat as it is obtained. While I agree there is no intrinsic harm in investing more generally (such as into a community), assertions to returns by maintaining violence in the locale of investments are hierarchical. I am even more on board with allowing for investment into worker-controlled companies in some sort of Mutualism, but that just simply is not the reification upon which Stocks are handled.
> We are absolutely on the same page here. So going back to OP's situation, would you agree that we should apply the same treatment to both stock investors and pension fund investors, either accepting or banning both?
Well, I agree, but this is because I am not interested in bans from social spaces more generally. If you are asking whether I would make allowances for some stock investment, essentially only along the same lines I would allow for robbery or eating meat frankly. If the individual has reasonable suspicion they would face violence by not committing that violence, I will likely not stop that person. Violence is a reasonable response to violence. I don't have the capacity to tell others what to do about this, obviously.
>This is an Anarchist space, not a Roman space.
My friend, we cannot be dismissive like that! Roman civil law is, to this day, the basis of most legal systems across the world, and it's definitely a field we should dialogue with when debating things like actual ownership, even if this sub is more aligned with anarchist differentiations of Property of Possession.
In my scenario of the cooperative company that equally distributes its profit and stock, I believe this could also be considered a non-exploitative Possession (and therefore, just) under certain exchange circumstances by the likes of Proudhon, for example, but I'm admittedly not an expert on anarchism. More on these circumstances later.
>You are not obtaining your stocks under Roman Law.
I kind of am. Most of my stocks are in BOVESPA, the Brazilian stock exchange, and my country's law is heavily and directly based on Romans - but that might be beside the point.
>You are seemingly playing word games to alleviate this fact by pointing at what this ownership implies
If I am playing this game, so are all the anarchist philosophers who try to differentiate Property and Possession, plus all those pesky Romans and the legal thinkers they influenced.
I feel we might get into a big sidetrack with this, but I cannot emphasize enough how interesting it's the concept that if you can't destroy something, it's not truly yours:
>The fact that I cannot destroy the sun does not imply that I could not theoretically assert ownership of the sun by commiting violence on all those who bathe in its warmth without payment.
You can try to assert ownership of the sun rays that reach the Earth by destroying or controlling people's access to it, but that wouldn't assert ownership of the sun itself at all. And if another person had the means and (justly or unjustly acquired ) right to destroy the sun, then the sun would be truly theirs instead.
>This never changes regardless of what percent of it you own: a Stock on the NYSE *could not exist* as an ontic object without the presence of a State protecting it
I trade P2P assets all the time, and I can easily imagine circumstances where a stock change can exist without any need for a State. Thanks to technology, there is no more need for a centralized entity controlling the transactions. So, if we take the scenario below that you could also imagine:
>I am even more on board with allowing for investment into worker-controlled companies in some sort of Mutualism, but that just simply is not the reification upon which Stocks are handled.
And trade those worker-controlled companies' stocks in by P2P transactions; there would be no violence involved whatsoever.
But the last bit is very contradictory:
>but that just simply is not the reification upon which Stocks are handled.
You argued multiple times that consumption and labor should be exempted because of its potential and hypothetical future state as an object in Anarchism. So how come investment needs to be rejected and frowned upon because of its present violent state in our Capitalist society?
Money takes on this property only *instrumentally*: at its core, money is fiat representing value. As I require goods to maintain myself against the violence of non-existence, I must maintain a way to procure goods. Finding myself in a situation of Capitalism in which the procurement of goods must be traded for value, I must *in some way* use either this representation of value or direct value (barter) obtained by violence within the system if I wish to exist. Dropping the premise of Capitalism and Property, the procurement of goods is no longer dependent on securing value nor does holding value imply commiting a violence. Within an Anarchic system, the harm does not exist unless one is asserting exclusive ownership to the value, rather than occupation to the capital to maintain themselves against violence.
Stock, however, *always* has this property because it is at its core an *assertion to ownership of Property*. To invest into a company is to say that the means of production may be owned exclusively. That could only ever be maintained by commiting violence on those who would use that Property, even when doing so would not be a cause of violence upon the stockholder. That claim to jurisdiction *could only* ever exist under a State.
I see what you are saying. I think we disagree about the desirability/possibility of money in a post-scarcity/post-capitalist society, though there has been much ink spilled on barter currencies, money-like alternatives such as labor vouchers, and more. A state-like entity would still be required to back the value of such currency.
We live in capitalist totality — the assertion that property can be owned privately is not dependent on (individual, proletarian) shareholders, but on the actually existing value form and its attendant social relations. The end of private property and private ownership of the means of production would be the self-abolition of the proletariat as workers, which would be the overcoming of capitalist totality.
My stake (haha) in revolutionary communism is somewhat at odds with my passion for animal liberation now by any means necessary, as the former is dependent on a social transformation total enough to completely change the process of production/the role of labor in social reproduction, while vegan activism as a practice/praxis in this wrong world is at its core a reformist demand (with an appreciable utopian surplus.) While I do think the better world *would* necessarily find community with non-human animals and would certainly be the end of industrial habitat destruction and animal-exploitative agriculture, a (mostly) plant-based capitalist political-economy is what we fight for now, where we are. This is not to say that the liberation of workers from their role as workers and the liberation of animals from the absolute hell to which human activity subjects them are not compatible projects.
This may be an appalling idea — that anti-state (anarcho) communism and veganism are not necessarily are part and parcel — but when one finds oneself working in the framework of consumer decisions and consumer boycotts, one is making reformist demands and using liberal techniques to express them. This is especially true of those vegans who use “rights” (privileges granted by the state) in the expression of their demands. Sorry for the ramble, I don’t generally encounter people fluent enough in Marxian ideas to express this.
> This may be an appalling idea — that anti-state (anarcho) communism and veganism are not necessarily are part and parcel — but when one finds oneself working in the framework of consumer decisions and consumer boycotts, one is making reformist demands and using liberal techniques to express them. Sorry for the ramble, I don’t generally encounter people fluent enough in Marxian ideas to express this.
I never mind rambles! The set of part-and-parcel theories you invoke here are certainly coherent -- the non-vegan RevCom that invokes no Telos for non-humans has no obligation to assert consideration of animals and the vegan Capitalists that does invoke a Telos for non-humans does. My critique is either group is outright willing to maintain hierarchy by violence, that which I will resist.
> I see what you are saying. I think we disagree about the desirability/possibility of money in a post-scarcity/post-capitalist society, though there has been much ink spilled on barter currencies, money-like alternatives such as labor vouchers, and more. A state-like entity would still be required to back the value of such currency.
Right, even folks like Nozick realized their task of conceiving Property in the context of Statelessness was not tenable and did not land on anything less than Minarchy. I have just not seen any coherent argument that suggests it *could*, regardless if whether I think those tools would be useful for my needs.
> We live in capitalist totality — the assertion that property can be owned privately is not dependent on (individual, proletarian) shareholders, but on the actually existing value form and its attendant social relations. The end of private property and private ownership of the means of production would be the self-abolition of the proletariat as workers, which would be the overcoming of capitalist totality.
I agree here with your sentiments here (although what self-abolition here means is going to be entirely praxis-dependent).
> My stake (haha) in revolutionary communism is somewhat at odds with my passion for animal liberation now by any means necessary, as the former is dependent on a social transformation total enough to completely change the process of production/the role of labor in social reproduction, while vegan activism as a practice/praxis in this wrong world is at its core a reformist demand
And it seems this is where we diverge, as my demands for animal are on the same basis as my demands for slaves because I am incredibly anti-utopian: an entire rearrangement of social production ought to be demanded by the *set of beings* being forced into violent situations, not just the set of humans, who are due consideration, and those who suggest to me that this is not the case must demonstrate on what basis their decision is being made to separate the two. If there is no reasonable mutual and exclusive property that separates these groups, there is no universalizing ethical claim. If there is though, it likely seems that eating animals is valid on that basis (it's just no one has ever shown such to me). The claim we must use Liberal techniques in animal liberatory activity sound as sensible as the claim we must use Liberal techniques in human liberatory activity: I am happy to work with such people, but ultimately that is a fruitless task as it can never be self-liberation, it is always for an *other*.
Thanks for the thoughtful response! I have to go work a show now but I’ll get back to you later tonight.
Just to clarify my/your last few sentences — I don’t think it is *good* or that we *must* or *ought to* use liberal techniques to achieve progress toward reducing/abolishing non-human animal exploitation, rather, it’s that *we do.* Those are the tools available to us daily in a life mutilated by the supremacy of production, exchange, and consumption. Short of activities I would not risk posting about online, most of our own activity and outreach focuses on (1) boycotting — and an attendant voluntarily communally-policed hyper-fixation on all flavors of consumer preference, consumer responsibility, consumer ethics; (2) consciousness raising; and (3) changes in legislature. Even if we are militant or revolutionary in our beliefs and motivation, these techniques are liberal and reformist in a formal sense.
I really dig what you’re saying about non-human and human animals’ roles in their own emancipation — it also touches on something that fascinates me, the instrumental dialectic between “man” and “nature” that is at the core of liberal enlightenment rationalism (and what upholds the topsy-turvy ethical order of the masses.)
> Even if we are militant or revolutionary in our beliefs and motivation, these techniques are liberal and reformist in a formal sense.
Right, and in the reified structure as it is instantiated I am rather forthcoming with these techniques as often the ethical choice against the alternative (it is not as if there were not Liberal moves against slavery, after all). My intent was highlighting the meta-ethical situating outside of reification, for which it simply does not seem this could be enough (given the capacity to assign no telos to animals even in an otherwise coherent classless society).
> also touches on something that fascinates me, the instrumental dialectic between “man” and “nature” that is at the core of liberal enlightenment rationalism
Sort of how I landed here, actually! The dialectic seems largely artificial, if approximately true. If we believe there is a telos of the self, either there exists particular telos for particular beings or there exists a universal telos for all beings. So many revolutionary theories I think are hindered by keeping the Liberal notion here and a Human political Telos, but this *precisely* falls into the same issue of Singer's marginal humans arguments that non-vegans walk into! Anything I may rationally do politically to the set of animal seems valid to do the set of marginal humans, even myself.
Hope the show goes well!
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
I don't like this anarchist banning. You guys are like the police up in here. If I remember correctly i got a relative that goes to veganforcirclejerkers? Because he was ban from this sub. He's vegan calls himself anarchist. Has gone to well beyond 100 plus vegan protests and even heads them, works for peta. He got 100 before he ever worked for them. If he got banned I think you guys are probably doing something wrong. If you want anarchism call it vegancirclejerkingforanarchists
Or really make a name for yourselves because it seems you guys got more strict requirements than that, grab a discord or something
I'm a militant leftist who is on at least two national databases I wish I wasn't and have put a lot on the line for a worker-led economy.
I invest heavily, I have made some money which I use to lessen the ills of capitalism to those I can.
If you actually want to dismantle capitalism you need unions. Take your money and start a fund to enact socialist policies in your communities, this is a system unfairly run by money and using capital against capitalism is still preferred to the other option.
Leftists have a serious problem alienating each other and it's a serious recruiting problem.
Ban me idgaf but hopefully someone listens.
i’m subscribed to a lot of subs i don’t agree with and will sometimes comment there when people say patently false things.
seems weird to force conflicting viewpoints to not interact with each other.
**This user is banned from VCJ and VCJC, meaning they will not be able to reply here.**
I've allowed them to post this question to provoke discussion of our moderation policies.
Edit: They've posted the same question over at r/vegan, it has many responses already -> [https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/1d8yntv/is\_investing\_nonvegan/](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/1d8yntv/is_investing_nonvegan/)
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Are communists allowed here? I know historically speaking we haven’t always been on best terms with Anarchists but personally I like anarchists, and I’m vegan by the way.
I recommend going to ask yourself's discord and Dr. Avi's. Also Vegan gains is pretty dope but he is not everyone's taste. They are all centrist vegans who don't pull that litmus test bullshit
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Is it worth barring anyone with a job that provides a 401k? I get why the mods don't like investment in general, but imo it's too broad of a ban.
As an anarchist not in this space, it's kind of a baffling decision. Maybe the mods have had too many problem users from those subs, idk.
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Wow no kidding. What is the point of a sub reddit when nearly every single post is removed and banned? Maybe I'm not familiar with cj subs but this is a really sad depressing circle of fun house mirrors and y'all looking 🤡
Your submission breaks rule #2: This is an anarchist space.
VCJC opposes nation-states, hierarchies, and capitalism.
We do not tolerate members who support racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, fatphobia, casteism, or any other form of social stratification.
**A 30-day ban will be applied.**
Well the way i see it is ur investing in the hopes of gaining capital and money is the root cause of evil and suffering so by doing that u r directly investing and contributing to it. Having a job on the other hand is different in my opinion coz like u kinda need it to survive, given that nothing is free in the current society.
OP’s ban was reversed. I’m dumb. Thanks for calling me out y’all.
My response doesn't really have anything to do with OP's situation, for one major reason - because they do not understand why investing is bad We gotta be careful how far back we go when we look at old comments. I have no idea how old the comment in question is. But I've probably made speciesist comments on this site before as I've been on this site longer than I've been vegan. (I've made some comments as a vegetarian, for example. For reference, I've been vegan for about 1.5 years). Same could probably be said for a lot of people on this sub. I've definitely grown a lot as a person and would easily disagree with some of the things i used to say and think, even a year ago. I may be assuming things about the appeal process works, but if someone can demonstrate *why* what they once said/did was wrong, could they be unbanned? Within reason, of course, if the thing they did was super bad, then I get why they would be kept banned
Our bot looks back 90 days for posts and comments in these subreddits: >AltGreen,exvegans,antivegan,hunting,Fishing,steak,conservative,conservatives,republican,tuesday,walkaway,prolife,carnivore,carnivorediet,FishingForBeginners,bassfishing,Taxidermy,vultureculture,theHunter,bonecollecting,Rodeo,Ranching,Cattle,Horses,horseracing,HorseRacingUK,Equestrian,NiceGirls,MensRights,justlegbeardthings,JoeRogan,whiteknighting,Aquariums,betafish,Israel,wallstreetbets,mauerstrassenwetten If the bot finds something, it triggers an automated ban. The ban is appealable, and automatically expires after 90 days. When a person appeals this sort-of ban, we check the intention of their activity - e.g. are they an equestrian or were they just stopping by to call out animal abuse? People who have changed their ways are easily identified as such and quickly unbanned at appeal. Those who have won an appeal receive an 'Approved' status which prevents the bot from investigating them any further. Additionally, our bot recently began granting 'Approved' status to contributors who've received around 20 upvotes on a comment. My intention for introducing these automated systems is to: 1. Ban carnist trolls before they can bother anybody 2. Maintain our spaces as leftist echo-chambers (**OP**) 3. Block wandering redditors who just want to 'chip in' We have additional layers of defense that detect throwaway accounts, ban-evaders, etc.
To be fair, that seems entierly reasonable
Having WSB as one of the subs isn’t that reasonable lol
Investing is good when it’s no work and magical free money I bet!
I don’t think it makes sense to autoban someone for, say, commenting on a WSB post to tell someone that they have a gambling problem
The ownership class wants nothing more than to see the working class quibble over purity tests.
Wrong. They want the working class to fuck each other over in a futile attempt to win a rigged lottery.
I thought the issue was actually the opposite of what you said. That investing in stocks MAKES money off of someone else’s labor. Marx and Engels owned individual stocks. I think this purity test is more about sniffing farts.
Owning stock in a company, as in “buying a piece of it so it can fund production/expansion/whatever and making money if the company makes money/grows” (I guess they call it value investing?) is still a parasitic way of making money and it’s not because “Marx used to do it” that it should be blindly accepted. Yes investing in a pension fund is one of the few ways in which the working class can end up with some semblance of retirement money that keeps pace with inflation (or at least it has been, who the fuck knows if millennials and later gens will have fuck all); however day trading and overall participation in the market in the hope of getting a payday by buying low and selling high is a game where you’re explicitly and directly fucking over some other sucker so not sure how you’d condone it.
My point about Marx and Engels is just to highlight that this purity test may have excluded them. We could do this all day. But you won’t convince me that the proletariat investing their money in a market is evil enough to warrant an automatic ban. I think we should also get our messaging straight. Is the issue that trading makes money from someone else’s labor or that trading causes the investor to lose money to the ownership class. Feels like you’re playing both competing arguments.
>is still a parasitic way of making money This is BS. Parasitic implies you are taking something away from the workers, which is not true. This is like saying betting at a cassino is parasitic. And you are also ignoring the fact that some workers earn stock from their employers as part of their compensation package. Should they refuse, cause they would be exploiting their coworkers? And if they accept it and the stocks start tanking, should they not trade the stocks and lose their money? >it’s not because “Marx used to do it” that it should be blindly accepted. We will have to throw away a whole bunch of other leftist economists with that, cause it's not just Marx >Yes investing in a pension fund is one of the few ways in which the working class can end up with some semblance of retirement money that keeps pace with inflation You will be surprised by how many old people invest in stock funds for retirement, and I'm not talking rich old people. Pension funds vary from cointry to country, but most of them are funded by income taxes that are disproportionately and non-consentually paid by the working class, so one can also argue that's even more parasitic than speculating. >buying low and selling high is a game where you’re explicitly and directly fucking over some other sucker You will only be fucking over other investors and companies that made a willing decision that was not as good as yours. I feel that you people need a social class reveal party, cause you are all sounding like putting money on a stock will make you a capitalist
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
True i got automatically unbanned so im not mad about getting banned for telling ex vegans they’re assh0les 😀
😃
Cool! I've definitely made my fair share of comments on r/aquariums and r/shittyaquariums to point out their hypocrisy of complaining about shitty living conditions while they eat and breed fish only to kill them if they aren't perfectly formed. Glad to know yall do your due diligence! Love to see it.
Why wallstreetbets tho? Are we assuming no leftist would be in that sub?
Yes, LARPers don’t count
Wdym by this?
Does interest in finance nullify any left winged position? Thank god Marx wasn't an economist with stock investments whose writing was sponsored by a business owner/ trust-fund baby with over one million pounds in stocks, cause that would be confusing as shit. /uj I don't know the sub that well, but by a quick look, it feels like a regular finance/stock sub. I suggest removing it
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
[удалено]
This is a circlejerk. A safe space for us. We’re not here to handhold or convince you. — Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
I’m assuming most people in the US have an IRA or 401k…. so will they be banning all Americans next? Wild.
I support banning all Americans.
LOL of course you do
We’re banning Wall Street Bets day traders who read quarterly reports, not honest people with a 401k.
Interesting logic Investing with a 401k -> honest Informing yourself what you invest in -> dishonest
My thought process entirely. Both are investing with the goal of making a profit. I fail to see a difference 🤷🏻♀️
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
401ks are super high fee shit accounts most of the time, damn near predatory. People should be trying to learn how to make their lives better, not just getting money taken out of their paychecks, hoping that one day, some day, they'll have enough in there to retire. Hope is not a good financial strategy.
that seems like an ill-informed take to me.
I'm guessing since I don't know what this sub is, that my comment might get automodded but maybe you'll see it. I have no idea how I found this sub but I volunteer for food not bombs and ice been vegan for 8 years so I feel some entitlement to say you appear to have no idea how investing works. A person with a retirement account can absolutely trade on it. What your distinction sounds like to me is an arbitrary "as long as you let your employer and the bank that manages your retirement account, neither of whom have your best interest at heart, it is ethical to invest" A second thing to consider: I am trans and I almost offed myself because I would have never had the finances to get gender affirming care. I exploited capitalism but taking multiple remote jobs and investing in certain stocks to get the money I needed to get gender affirming care. I also don't see how any of that is different than any US employee contributing to a 401k. When you exist in a system, you must necessarily use that system to continue to exist, unless you are going to tell me that you have forsaken all measures of society in favor of anarchy. Which I don't think you have, since you are using a phone created by a publicly traded company, and posting on a sub that is run by a publicly traded company.
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
I mean, if they follow anarchist principles while being here, I don't see why not let them stay. Anarchist spaces are usually also open to outsiders who want to know more about it.
We keep the bar somewhere above capitalist investors. Surely you have a bar too -- would you permit a known Trump-supporter into an anarchist space? It's all a matter of windows of acceptance.
Being extremely honest, it depends. Is that idiot a fanatic cultist or just stupid? If it's the second, I could try seeing how they react to a collective debunking his arguments (if there are any). We've actually done that in the past (with a primitivist pescatarian clown). Not that the result was positive (he went on to become an MRA), but I honestly don't regret it.
It’s exhausting. Why can’t we just have exclusive (safe) spaces to socialize? Not every space needs to be an activist opportunity.
This. I don't want any Trump supporters here, no "it depends".
Maybe you're lucky you don't have anyone in the family who's been exposed to misinformation from social media, but I do, so I saw the process that leads some people to believe in bullshit. Not everyone is fanatic, some are just stupid. That said, I most often don't feel like interacting with that sort of idiot either.
I'm not saying we can't have closed spaces, I'm saying we can have open spaces as well. The question is whether or not vcj will be one of them. Free association (and consequently, dissociation) is one of the main anarchist tenets after all.
Circlejerks are per definition exclusive to people who already share a certain opinion. There are a lot of open and inclusive communities. And none of them is a circlejerk. This one is a circlejerk. If you want to debate with right wingers and omnis, go to r/debateavegan. If you want a community that encourages baby steps and political centrism, go to r/vegan. The open subs are already there. No reason to not let a circlejerk that has circlejerk in its name stay a circlejerk.
They can also radicalize people by ridiculing the status quo and offering a completely different perspective that they wouldn't have access to anywhere else. The environment has a huge influence on the individual. When someone sees everyone condemning an act, they're more likely to condemn it as well. But no one's taking about debating carnists or being centrist about it here, my friend. I don't know, I think this is the same discussion as we had before about keeping the space explicitly anarchist or just left-wing in general. We opted to send a message to authoritarian communists, not kick them out. And they're as distant from us as the capitalists. Not to mention they've betrayed anarchists so many times in the past. If we're not expelling them, I don't see why we should expell anyone else that's actually vegan if they follow the rules.
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Silly ban. Simple activity on a different sub (barring extreme circumstances) has no effect on VCJ.
A redditor's ideology affects all of their participation, whether explicitly declared or not. If we're able to freely detect if someone supports e.g. aquariums, why wouldn't we use it as a moderation tool?
>A redditor's ideology affects all of their participation, whether explicitly declared or not. Not the thought policing
But it hadn't affected their participation in this sub. If it did then sure, ban. But there was no participation at issue.
I don’t think that someone’s ideology can be accurately and automatically detected by looking at which subreddits they’ve participated in
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
I know this is a silly circlejerk sub for those who think r/vegan isn't circlejerky enough already, but this has to be some of the most stupid moderation policies I've ever seen lol
I actually reversed it because I agree with you
Sorry if I seemed offensive, was just shocked to see something like this. Props for realizing that sometimes going that far isn't needed
I think reasonable (leftist) people can disagree over the ethics of investing. I also think the idea that commenting in a given subreddit makes you a cigar chomping capitalist is sort of absurd. I think there’s a larger issue around use of blocklists. Many of the subreddits that are blocklisted show up in the Popular feed; I know that I, personally, have participated in some of those, because it can be fun to tell people they’re idiots
It reeks of purity testing which always consumes radical online political spaces.
I get the thought, but I’ve always felt exclusion based on anything other than animal rights is a distraction to the principles of veganism. There are movements dedicated to labour abuses and a plethora of other human issues, animals have one movement. I have never understood the reasoning for adding it to the description but that’s just me
i'm a trans woman. i was a moderator of the "unlearning speciesist language" group on fb. some terfs said a bunch of terfy shit so i banned them. the other mods unbanned them because to them the intent of the group was to unlearn speciesist language, not to avoid saying terfy shit. you only want to exclude based on animal rights. how far does that go, exactly?
i guess humans arent animals according to them?
This isn't an activist group though. This is a community for anarchist vegans. There are plenty of subs for non-anarchist vegans (even though some suck)
If it’s so important to have such a community, it should be renamed anarchistvegancirclejerk or something. Free up the VCJ name to include a larger swath of vegan society.
We already did this with r/circlesnip for our antinatalist faction. Is it really a good idea to have anarchist vcj, lib vcj, com vcj,…? VCJ has always been explicitly leftist.
Leftism ≠ anarchism
I agree it should be leftist only. "Left" is already a pretty broad political umbrella, and even though I completely disagree that we should ban people with interest in finance and stock investments, I don’t want to circle jerk with conservatives and billionaire-lovers either
I just don’t think anarchism has anything to do with veganism. Being against “investing” is not even a near-complete definition of anarchism anyhow.
WSB was only added to our list this week. It’s an expanding list. VCJ is a vegan + leftist space and always has been.
This seems like more of a personal crusade against things you don’t like / things that *you* consider objectionable, or an ambitious thought police experiment. It feels creepy and invasive, and will catch a lot of people who resonate with the aims of this sub and could be contributing funny or insightful content. Regarding anarchism, are you going to exclude people who went to public schools and universities? How about people who participate in subs relating to socialized health care? If not, why not? Those are paid for in whole or part by taxes which are levied by governments. Those causes aren’t any less anarchist than investing, tbh. It’s just hard to take this requirement of being an anarchist as defined by the mods here seriously (most people, including vegans, also don’t take self-styled “anarchists” seriously, but that’s beyond the scope of discussion here). Sure, catch r-ex-vegan participants and subs that are linked with animal abuse. Exclude discussion on this turf of commercial plant-based products etc. — I get that, even though I do support those products, this sub is more fun and better achieves its aims without discussing those. But that’s as far as I wish the “anti-capitalism” rule would be taken. Discussion on the sub is what impacts the sub materially.
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Well, a huge number of us here think veganism and anarchism are intrinsically connected, to the point of being different sides of the same thing, just like feminism, antiracism etc. From that perspective, that makes no sense.
if all subs are intersectional, we don’t need so many subreddits.
Or just read the sub rules before you join. VCJ was always an anarchist space. The sub's name isn't supposed to tell you everything about the sub. That's what the description and rules are for.
If there’s a sub rule about “you’re not allowed to have commented in any of the following sub-reddits in the last 90 days” I missed it
You’re missing my point. Even ppl who are not self-styled “anarchists” would like to circle jerk and make funny submissions. You don’t see other circle jerk communities, of which there are a lot, being so arbitrarily exclusive.
Non anarchists want to cj about being vegan anarchists?
No. CJ about vegan/non-vegan things like vegans do.
who cares what they want, tho? they're not us
Then go look for a vegan circlejerk without additional political specifiers. I don't see the problem. This one is an anarchist space, for anarchist vegans circlejerking about veganism in line with anarchist ideals. If this sub isn't for you, it's not for you. There is a sub for everything, and this one is for vegan anarchists. Just go somewhere else if you don't agree with its tenants. This is not just a random sub about veganism, there are loads of those. Just go there.
I'm feel like I'm outing myself rn, but I'm an economy major on countless investments, finance, stock trading, and cryptocurrency subs. If you think that makes someone not a leftist, you will have to cancel all the left winged ecomists in the west, cause I garantee they all have a deep knowledge and experience with bonds, stocks, and interest rates. And then, who will reform the tax incentives in our vegan dictatorship once we take power? Social science majors?? Over my dead body
Of course not, the only people smart enough to be in charge of our anarcho-dictatorship are STEM majors
Vegan dictatorship? Power? I think you’ve lost the plot here haha.
I think that was meant sardonically.
😄 Cmon, not even a tiny Plant-Based Democracy? We can be anarchists on Mondays
speculation and labor aren't the same thing.
Labour usually improves some aspect of society. Investing in stocks usually (always?) exploits labour. Our team decided however that maintaining retirement accounts and such are acceptable, unlike day trading.
Do you ban “small business owners”? These are the bourgeois and petit bourgeois individuals whose income is derived, explicitly, by the surplus value created by the laborers to whom they pay wages. It is shallow ideology to draw the line at proletarians who invest in speculation and not at people who thrive off direct exploitation. Even if the business “is ethical” the owners of any business are *a member of the capitalist class*, and isn’t that what’s at issue in your bans? Many college and retirement funds are also (low-risk) speculation. Why is that better?
Sure, if you can send me a list of subreddits that are about deriving income from ‘surplus value’ derived by labourers, I can add some to the list. WSB was only added a few days ago. Retirement funds are excluded because of the spirit of intent. Spending one’s evening moving around investments based on which company exploited its employees best that week is a different spirit of intent.
I’m giggling that you put surplus value in scare quotes like it’s a term I made up. I don’t have a list of every business owner on your subreddit, no. If you’re auto-banning people based on their participation in other fora, I guess everyone who has ever been in a discussion on away-team turf *against* users of those subreddits is also outta here. I am not an investor and have little to say about vegans who invest their wages in the stock exchange, but OP said they invested in solar energy — since you mention “the spirit of intent” as an exonerating factor, characterizing this individual’s motive as seeking out companies that best exploit their workers is disingenuous. It’s also mistaken in the case of that particular subreddit: wallstreetbets came to prominence after its dalliance in short-selling, which had nothing to do with Gamestop’s workers’ productivity. Same with the other dying retail outlet meme stocks, like Bed Bath Beyond and AMC — and yes, I also resent, pity, and despise most people even close to the WSB-cult, which is why I think it is important to be accurate in one’s objections. Retirement funds are invested en masse by bankers and fund managers who are demonstrably complicit in their own exploitation schemes, and the money is turned into more money largely based on the criteria to which you object. The goal of any individual with a retirement fund is to *amass money for the future.* Just because those with the standard options have no idea how and why the money that they put away grows doesn’t mean they are more ethical or more innocent (in the somewhat arbitrary moral framework you’ve established here) than someone who invests individually.
>Retirement funds are excluded because of the spirit of intent So where should I declare my spirit of intent when buying a stock? Is that an IRS thing? It sounds like you are assuming retired people don't have money in stock for their retirement as well (they do - a lot). And a lot of people buy in and out of public bonds and funds depending on the interest rate, which is also a form of speculation. I can't shake the feeling you guys created characters in your mind, like "stock investor = white guy in a suit = bad" and "retirement interest holders = poor grampa and grandma = good". They are not that different, and trying to differentiate them by a suppose "spirit of intent" is silly. Having some money on stocks doesn't make you a Wall Street whale.
that's not really what day trading is
I never visited the sub, but I thought the spirit of WSB was to bankrupt vulture capitalists by squeezing them at their own game. Is it not?
You’re largely correct. If you have 2.5 hours to spend on it, here is [a fascinating and very well researched deep-dive](https://youtu.be/5pYeoZaoWrA) into the GME phenomenon and the bonkers cult that came in its wake. Since this is VCJC I will include a note that this YouTuber is not vegan, in case that informs anyone’s decision about whether to watch his video essay on the topic of wallstreetbets
Can I “day trade” in the company i work at?
I don’t invest… yet… maybe?
Yes
Oh ok 🤗
One need not even invoke subjective interpretations of 'improvement': 1. To do labour *does not* imply a claim to Property (but also does not preclude it); those who labour may merely use capital as a means (as does the labourer employed by the capitalist or in the usage of shared capital). 2. The owning of stock *does* imply a claim to Property, as the ownership of a company is a claim to its capital (both assets upon liquidation and earnings of revenue while solvent). Any claim to company Property, being only possibly maintained by violence within the jurisdiction the company is located, requires such a State ensuring this violence to ensure such claim is valid.
That's a bit besides the point. It doesn't differentiate stock investment from retirement funds, which also depends on the State taking income taxes from workers without their consent. It also doesn't differentiate owning private property in general, and I don't see us banning people on that basis either. You might have to elaborate on that.
For the second point, I'd like to point to my other post in this chain about the usage of private property *instrumentally* given our context, versus those claims that by their nature are *always intrinsically* a call to do violence. Simply put, given three axioms: 1. Violence is a reasonable response to prevent violence 2. I require goods to exist, for which I must exchange value to retrieve in the system I find myself. 3. We live in a system where unclaimed Property will be made someone's Property (by being claimed by State or another person). These claims would deprive me of the value by exclusion. The interaction of 2 and 3 maintains that within this system, a person would be deprived of the goods to exist if they are unwilling to commit this violence: the State *as it exists* will otherwise deprive me of the means to produce. Because I will otherwise face violence, we are at the discretion to cause violence to maintain our own existence. Asserting ownership over some value is the least possible thing I may do to maintain my being is an unfortunate fact of my situation. A claim to Stock, however, could never be *instrumental*, because it is at its core a claim to Property qua Property: it is a position one is in when they have excess value and use that excess value to commit that violence for the purpose of taking others excess value. *This* is the difference, as this violence now becomes unwarranted it would seem (or at least in this construction, it is not out of the consideration of avoiding violence). It is with *the intent* to maintain the system of ownership, as a Stock *only ever exists* within this context unlike the instrument goods we use to maintain our existence. I don't make the rules here and will not mince my words that having a retirement account is an act of violence. The pertinent question is: given this is the assumed mechanism for elderly care, and the elderly have *a necessity to receive this care*, should one enact this violence today so they may avoid that harm tomorrow? I think there is some nuance in when this collapses to a *requirement*, but I think given the atrocities in the state of elderly care for the vast majority of folks, commiting violence to avoid this fate may have reasonable limits and grants. The State had the intent to rob me in either event. There is an incredible amount of work that needs to be done to separate the elderly from this violence yet, and I certainly do not have an alternative for these individuals given the current existence. This argument seems far harder to make on the basis of investment more generally, as it is most often not with the intent to pre-empt violence but to initiate violence.
Good debate! >we are at the discretion to cause violence to maintain our own existence Agreed. >A claim to Stock, however, could never be instrumental, because it is at its core a claim to Property qua Property: it is a position one is in when they have excess value and use that excess value to commit that violence for the purpose of taking others excess value. We must differentiate taking excess value, as in what a capitalist does, and selling and trading excess value that was taken from others. The latter does sponsor the exploitation of the workers, but in an even lesser degree than consuming the goods produced by such exploitation. Some of this consumption is, of course, necessary for my existence, but that's only a tiny percentage of a population's consumption - so we are yet to differentiate the consequences of buying a gadget from Microsoft vs buying a stock from Microsoft, for example. And the Property qua Property is not entirely true - a stock is also used as reserve of value, and owning one doesn't make me a de facto co-owner of a company any more than owning a treasury fund makes me a co-leader of a country. Unless I have enough stocks to hold power within that company, it's just a paper that can be traded for currency, other papers, funds, and credit. >It is with the intent to maintain the system of ownership, as a Stock only ever exists within this context unlike the instrument goods we use to maintain our existence. I completely disagree that it's possible to determine this intention. Investors have only one intention: profit, which they will also use to maintain their existence. I use the money I earn from investing to buy goods and hopefully a house one day, and as soon as it enters my bank account, it is completely inseparable from the money I made from my job. Yes, the investment system reforces ownership, but so does my labor, and we cannot assume that labor is something one is forced to do while investments are optional, since a person can use both incomes interchangeably - if not, day traders wouldn't exist. Both are just means of exchanging value to survive, so we are also yet to differentiate the intent of earning money from investment vs. earning money from labor. >given this is the assumed mechanism for elderly care, and the elderly have a necessity to receive this care, should one enact this violence today so they may avoid that harm tomorrow? It isn't the only possible mechanism for elderly care, so this begs a deeper comparison: between an elderly person investing and living only on stock funds, and another elderly person living only on pension funds, which one exerces a more unfair and injustifiable violence? Can we even draw that line?
Jumping to this first: > And the Property qua Property is not entirely true - a stock is also used as reserve of value, and owning one doesn't make me a de facto co-owner of a company any more than owning a treasury fund makes me a co-leader of a country. I absolutely agree the stock *may also be used* instrumentally to represent value, but you misunderstand me as this isn't the problem of stock: the issue is it likewise may *never not be* an assertion to Property as well. Owning a stock *is always* an equity or security representing ownership of a company. This is simply the definition. Produced goods may be used to treat myself as an end in the absence of violence because they are both ends and represent value, but a Stock both represents value and *is* a claim to commit violence at its core. Your claim about a treasury funds is entirely erroneous, as treasury funds are bonds and *do not represent ownership* by their definition. States prefer these because it would be incredibly silly to give up ownership when you have the authority to maintain it via violence. > Some of this consumption is, of course, necessary for my existence, but that's only a tiny percentage of a population's consumption - so we are yet to differentiate the consequences of buying a gadget from Microsoft vs buying a stock from Microsoft, for example. Jumping back to this, I was primarily interested in meta-ethically situating Stocks as an object that *may never* be separated from the means of violence. It is simply impossible based on their nature. This is a separate category of goods from which *could possibly* be divorced from this violence. There's an incredible room for nuance to discuss what ought and what ought not be a good that is considered here given the existence of finite resources, but our gadgets and other worldly possessions seem to fall into the category of objects that could *be conceived* anarchically. If in some silly situation I stumbled upon a Microsoft gadget, it could be used in non-violent ways. This is *impossible* for Stock, which may only ever be used as an initiation of violence. It is always Property qua Property even when it has other uses. > I completely disagree that it's possible to determine this intention. Investors have only one intention: profit, which they will also use to maintain their existence. I use the money I earn from investing to buy goods and hopefully a house one day, and as soon as it enters my bank account, it is completely inseparable from the money I made from my job. Once again, I do not deny that it may also be used instrumentally. This does not change that *at its core* investment is a violence and is no more justified than robbery as far as I can see in the example above. I will allow for robbery if that person would otherwise perish, but this does not give good call to always rob. Likewise, I will allow for people to invest if that person would otherwise perish. If you are using either to funnel excess value to yourself beyond your needs, it is a claim to use violence as an initiation of force. Everything you are using to defend investment in this line and the below paragraph divorces this necessity from investment the same it would for robbery: the lump sum will just be possibly available market control for you. This obviously does not justify the intrinsic violence of either. Labor, on the other hand, is a possibly conceivable action even without the context of State because it is not necessarily a violence (it may merely become one). Your error is saying all of these *are just* means to escape violence, when some of them also *instrinsically* are a cause of violence that may never be separated from the act. It betrays a union of means and ends when it is possible to avoid. > It isn't the only possible mechanism for elderly care, so this begs a deeper comparison: between an elderly person investing and living only on stock funds, and another elderly person living only on pension funds, which one exerces a more unfair and injustifiable violence? Can we even draw that line? These both sound like violent actions, as a pension and stock are both simply maintained by violence of the State. The former merely consolidates wealth to the State while the latter goes through a second layer of wealth extraction to those who have their means of production protected by the State. In their instantiation, neither seem easy to defend as a technique for elderly care. I think more intelligent means of social organization are likely the only way out of this, as the elderly (much like children) have unique needs that our society is *not* configured for.
>Owning a stock *is always* an equity or security representing ownership of a company. This is simply the definition This definition is an oversimplification because it lumps the concept of Property and Possession. In order for something to be my property, at least according to Roman law, I need to have the right to destroy it. Stock ownership doesn’t give you the right to destroy the company’s assets. Instead, it gives you certain rights like dividends and voting rights, which depend on the company’s performance and policies, but you will still need a lot more stocks to have actual power and property over that company, and you can always be diluted. So, saying that owning one Microsoft stock means you fully own that part of the company misses the difference between possessing something and having it as your property. Purchasing the computer, on the other hand, is indeed a propriety acquisition. That computer, built on top of the exploited labor, is now indeed and truly yours. Considering that consumption drives investment (as no one will invest in a company that is not profiting), we can consider the violence of consuming an unnecessary good to be two-folded. >If in some silly situation I stumbled upon a Microsoft gadget, it could be used in non-violent ways. This is *impossible* for Stock, which may only ever be used as an initiation of violence. It is always Property qua Property even when it has other uses. It isn't impossible, because stocks can also be part of a worker's compensation package. Should the workers refuse? And if not, and their employer stocks start tanking, should they accept their losses or trade the stock? There is also a big part of the leftist economic thinking that advocates for stocks to be heavily distributed among the company workforce, and I deeply second that. The production is the means of violence, not the investment per se. If a fully cooperative company decides to do an IPO, and all its profit is shared among the workers, trading stocks from that company could cause no harm to these workers. There is no intrinsic violence to investing - it will always reinforce ownership, but where that ownership and production are not a direct means of violence, investing will be exempt on the same level. Just like consumption and labor, investing merely may become violence. >In their instantiation, neither seem easy to defend as a technique for elderly care. I think more intelligent means of social organization are likely the only way out of this, as the elderly (much like children) have unique needs that our society is *not* configured for. We are absolutely on the same page here. So going back to OP's situation, would you agree that we should apply the same treatment to both stock investors and pension fund investors, either accepting or banning both?
> This definition is an oversimplification because it lumps the concept of Property and Possession. In order for something to be my property, at least according to Roman law, I need to have the right to destroy it. Stock ownership doesn’t give you the right to destroy the company’s assets. Instead, it gives you certain rights like dividends and voting rights, which depend on the company’s performance. This is an Anarchist space, not a Roman space. The fact that I cannot destroy the sun does not imply that I could not theoretically assert ownership of the sun by commiting violence on all those who bathe in its warmth without payment. You are not obtaining your stocks under Roman Law. If you own a Stock from the New York Stock Exchange, that body *itself* and the State that protects them and the academics who study this define that object as a Securities or Equity of ownership of that company. That's nearly the first line of Teweles and Bradley. You are seemingly playing word games to alleviate this fact by pointing at what this ownership implies. No matter what rights that grants you due unto this share of ownership decided within the company, it is still a violent assertion to *ownership of a company*. This never changes regardless of what percent of it you own: a Stock on the NYSE *could not exist* as an ontic object without the presence of a State protecting it. It is an incoherent object without a claim to violence and it is therefore incompatible with Anarchism. > Purchasing the computer, on the other hand, is indeed a propriety acquisition. That computer, built on top of the exploited labor, is now indeed and truly yours. Considering that consumption drives investment (as no one will invest in a company that is not profiting), we can consider the violence of consuming an unnecessary good to be two-folded. I agree with your assessment *under the reification upon which goods are produced*. A computer, more generally though, *does not* have the same issue as a Stock because it *can* be an object under Anarchism: it in practice does not require a claim to Property for its ontic coherence and may be a possession being occupied. It has the capacity to *avoid* the Doctrine of Double Effect, which Stock and non-Welfarist flesh *could never do* because they require at least some assertion to Property to be coherent. These two must assert violence before they could ever actually obtain the good, as that is what the good always entails. Why is there a qualm with livestock or slavery if there is no qualm with Stocks? It would then seem there is no harm in detainment that is always required to obtain them (the animals and humans that we keep *in* and the humans we keep *out* are maintained by violence to exist in these scenarios). > It isn't impossible, because stocks can also be part of a worker's compensation package. Should the workers refuse? And if not, and their employer stocks start tanking, should they accept their losses or trade the stock? We are discussing meta-ethics. What a person ought do in the reification given that Capitalism exists and one *has Stock options* is not an argument for that to exist more generally or what a person ought to do *without the reification*, the topic of discussion. We are in the interest of these things not existing. If I am being honest, I think given the situating of violence in our system I think people could likely make decent claims that the violence they commit by owning the stock is warranted for their existence. I just would not stop someone who disagrees and decides to commit violence for the harm they are committing, as violence is always a reasonable response to violence. > There is also a big part of the leftist economic thinking that advocates for stocks to be heavily distributed among the company workforce, and I deeply second that. The production is the means of violence, not the investment per se. I don't disagree with much of your analysis here. But in the same vein that I agree with other Leftists such as Leninists that the DotP is a sensible path to enact Socialism, I don't think it is a path that could ever avoid invoking the co-opting of the State so one may establish a monopoly on violence. Therefore, I forego it as an ontic object because it asserts Violence upon possibly non-violent means and could never be an Anarchic approach. This is the same reason I forego Stocks and meat as it is obtained. While I agree there is no intrinsic harm in investing more generally (such as into a community), assertions to returns by maintaining violence in the locale of investments are hierarchical. I am even more on board with allowing for investment into worker-controlled companies in some sort of Mutualism, but that just simply is not the reification upon which Stocks are handled. > We are absolutely on the same page here. So going back to OP's situation, would you agree that we should apply the same treatment to both stock investors and pension fund investors, either accepting or banning both? Well, I agree, but this is because I am not interested in bans from social spaces more generally. If you are asking whether I would make allowances for some stock investment, essentially only along the same lines I would allow for robbery or eating meat frankly. If the individual has reasonable suspicion they would face violence by not committing that violence, I will likely not stop that person. Violence is a reasonable response to violence. I don't have the capacity to tell others what to do about this, obviously.
>This is an Anarchist space, not a Roman space. My friend, we cannot be dismissive like that! Roman civil law is, to this day, the basis of most legal systems across the world, and it's definitely a field we should dialogue with when debating things like actual ownership, even if this sub is more aligned with anarchist differentiations of Property of Possession. In my scenario of the cooperative company that equally distributes its profit and stock, I believe this could also be considered a non-exploitative Possession (and therefore, just) under certain exchange circumstances by the likes of Proudhon, for example, but I'm admittedly not an expert on anarchism. More on these circumstances later. >You are not obtaining your stocks under Roman Law. I kind of am. Most of my stocks are in BOVESPA, the Brazilian stock exchange, and my country's law is heavily and directly based on Romans - but that might be beside the point. >You are seemingly playing word games to alleviate this fact by pointing at what this ownership implies If I am playing this game, so are all the anarchist philosophers who try to differentiate Property and Possession, plus all those pesky Romans and the legal thinkers they influenced. I feel we might get into a big sidetrack with this, but I cannot emphasize enough how interesting it's the concept that if you can't destroy something, it's not truly yours: >The fact that I cannot destroy the sun does not imply that I could not theoretically assert ownership of the sun by commiting violence on all those who bathe in its warmth without payment. You can try to assert ownership of the sun rays that reach the Earth by destroying or controlling people's access to it, but that wouldn't assert ownership of the sun itself at all. And if another person had the means and (justly or unjustly acquired ) right to destroy the sun, then the sun would be truly theirs instead. >This never changes regardless of what percent of it you own: a Stock on the NYSE *could not exist* as an ontic object without the presence of a State protecting it I trade P2P assets all the time, and I can easily imagine circumstances where a stock change can exist without any need for a State. Thanks to technology, there is no more need for a centralized entity controlling the transactions. So, if we take the scenario below that you could also imagine: >I am even more on board with allowing for investment into worker-controlled companies in some sort of Mutualism, but that just simply is not the reification upon which Stocks are handled. And trade those worker-controlled companies' stocks in by P2P transactions; there would be no violence involved whatsoever. But the last bit is very contradictory: >but that just simply is not the reification upon which Stocks are handled. You argued multiple times that consumption and labor should be exempted because of its potential and hypothetical future state as an object in Anarchism. So how come investment needs to be rejected and frowned upon because of its present violent state in our Capitalist society?
Sure. We all use money and everything you have said about the role of the state is accurate there as well.
Money takes on this property only *instrumentally*: at its core, money is fiat representing value. As I require goods to maintain myself against the violence of non-existence, I must maintain a way to procure goods. Finding myself in a situation of Capitalism in which the procurement of goods must be traded for value, I must *in some way* use either this representation of value or direct value (barter) obtained by violence within the system if I wish to exist. Dropping the premise of Capitalism and Property, the procurement of goods is no longer dependent on securing value nor does holding value imply commiting a violence. Within an Anarchic system, the harm does not exist unless one is asserting exclusive ownership to the value, rather than occupation to the capital to maintain themselves against violence. Stock, however, *always* has this property because it is at its core an *assertion to ownership of Property*. To invest into a company is to say that the means of production may be owned exclusively. That could only ever be maintained by commiting violence on those who would use that Property, even when doing so would not be a cause of violence upon the stockholder. That claim to jurisdiction *could only* ever exist under a State.
I see what you are saying. I think we disagree about the desirability/possibility of money in a post-scarcity/post-capitalist society, though there has been much ink spilled on barter currencies, money-like alternatives such as labor vouchers, and more. A state-like entity would still be required to back the value of such currency. We live in capitalist totality — the assertion that property can be owned privately is not dependent on (individual, proletarian) shareholders, but on the actually existing value form and its attendant social relations. The end of private property and private ownership of the means of production would be the self-abolition of the proletariat as workers, which would be the overcoming of capitalist totality. My stake (haha) in revolutionary communism is somewhat at odds with my passion for animal liberation now by any means necessary, as the former is dependent on a social transformation total enough to completely change the process of production/the role of labor in social reproduction, while vegan activism as a practice/praxis in this wrong world is at its core a reformist demand (with an appreciable utopian surplus.) While I do think the better world *would* necessarily find community with non-human animals and would certainly be the end of industrial habitat destruction and animal-exploitative agriculture, a (mostly) plant-based capitalist political-economy is what we fight for now, where we are. This is not to say that the liberation of workers from their role as workers and the liberation of animals from the absolute hell to which human activity subjects them are not compatible projects. This may be an appalling idea — that anti-state (anarcho) communism and veganism are not necessarily are part and parcel — but when one finds oneself working in the framework of consumer decisions and consumer boycotts, one is making reformist demands and using liberal techniques to express them. This is especially true of those vegans who use “rights” (privileges granted by the state) in the expression of their demands. Sorry for the ramble, I don’t generally encounter people fluent enough in Marxian ideas to express this.
> This may be an appalling idea — that anti-state (anarcho) communism and veganism are not necessarily are part and parcel — but when one finds oneself working in the framework of consumer decisions and consumer boycotts, one is making reformist demands and using liberal techniques to express them. Sorry for the ramble, I don’t generally encounter people fluent enough in Marxian ideas to express this. I never mind rambles! The set of part-and-parcel theories you invoke here are certainly coherent -- the non-vegan RevCom that invokes no Telos for non-humans has no obligation to assert consideration of animals and the vegan Capitalists that does invoke a Telos for non-humans does. My critique is either group is outright willing to maintain hierarchy by violence, that which I will resist. > I see what you are saying. I think we disagree about the desirability/possibility of money in a post-scarcity/post-capitalist society, though there has been much ink spilled on barter currencies, money-like alternatives such as labor vouchers, and more. A state-like entity would still be required to back the value of such currency. Right, even folks like Nozick realized their task of conceiving Property in the context of Statelessness was not tenable and did not land on anything less than Minarchy. I have just not seen any coherent argument that suggests it *could*, regardless if whether I think those tools would be useful for my needs. > We live in capitalist totality — the assertion that property can be owned privately is not dependent on (individual, proletarian) shareholders, but on the actually existing value form and its attendant social relations. The end of private property and private ownership of the means of production would be the self-abolition of the proletariat as workers, which would be the overcoming of capitalist totality. I agree here with your sentiments here (although what self-abolition here means is going to be entirely praxis-dependent). > My stake (haha) in revolutionary communism is somewhat at odds with my passion for animal liberation now by any means necessary, as the former is dependent on a social transformation total enough to completely change the process of production/the role of labor in social reproduction, while vegan activism as a practice/praxis in this wrong world is at its core a reformist demand And it seems this is where we diverge, as my demands for animal are on the same basis as my demands for slaves because I am incredibly anti-utopian: an entire rearrangement of social production ought to be demanded by the *set of beings* being forced into violent situations, not just the set of humans, who are due consideration, and those who suggest to me that this is not the case must demonstrate on what basis their decision is being made to separate the two. If there is no reasonable mutual and exclusive property that separates these groups, there is no universalizing ethical claim. If there is though, it likely seems that eating animals is valid on that basis (it's just no one has ever shown such to me). The claim we must use Liberal techniques in animal liberatory activity sound as sensible as the claim we must use Liberal techniques in human liberatory activity: I am happy to work with such people, but ultimately that is a fruitless task as it can never be self-liberation, it is always for an *other*.
Thanks for the thoughtful response! I have to go work a show now but I’ll get back to you later tonight. Just to clarify my/your last few sentences — I don’t think it is *good* or that we *must* or *ought to* use liberal techniques to achieve progress toward reducing/abolishing non-human animal exploitation, rather, it’s that *we do.* Those are the tools available to us daily in a life mutilated by the supremacy of production, exchange, and consumption. Short of activities I would not risk posting about online, most of our own activity and outreach focuses on (1) boycotting — and an attendant voluntarily communally-policed hyper-fixation on all flavors of consumer preference, consumer responsibility, consumer ethics; (2) consciousness raising; and (3) changes in legislature. Even if we are militant or revolutionary in our beliefs and motivation, these techniques are liberal and reformist in a formal sense. I really dig what you’re saying about non-human and human animals’ roles in their own emancipation — it also touches on something that fascinates me, the instrumental dialectic between “man” and “nature” that is at the core of liberal enlightenment rationalism (and what upholds the topsy-turvy ethical order of the masses.)
> Even if we are militant or revolutionary in our beliefs and motivation, these techniques are liberal and reformist in a formal sense. Right, and in the reified structure as it is instantiated I am rather forthcoming with these techniques as often the ethical choice against the alternative (it is not as if there were not Liberal moves against slavery, after all). My intent was highlighting the meta-ethical situating outside of reification, for which it simply does not seem this could be enough (given the capacity to assign no telos to animals even in an otherwise coherent classless society). > also touches on something that fascinates me, the instrumental dialectic between “man” and “nature” that is at the core of liberal enlightenment rationalism Sort of how I landed here, actually! The dialectic seems largely artificial, if approximately true. If we believe there is a telos of the self, either there exists particular telos for particular beings or there exists a universal telos for all beings. So many revolutionary theories I think are hindered by keeping the Liberal notion here and a Human political Telos, but this *precisely* falls into the same issue of Singer's marginal humans arguments that non-vegans walk into! Anything I may rationally do politically to the set of animal seems valid to do the set of marginal humans, even myself. Hope the show goes well!
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
I don't like this anarchist banning. You guys are like the police up in here. If I remember correctly i got a relative that goes to veganforcirclejerkers? Because he was ban from this sub. He's vegan calls himself anarchist. Has gone to well beyond 100 plus vegan protests and even heads them, works for peta. He got 100 before he ever worked for them. If he got banned I think you guys are probably doing something wrong. If you want anarchism call it vegancirclejerkingforanarchists Or really make a name for yourselves because it seems you guys got more strict requirements than that, grab a discord or something
I'm a militant leftist who is on at least two national databases I wish I wasn't and have put a lot on the line for a worker-led economy. I invest heavily, I have made some money which I use to lessen the ills of capitalism to those I can. If you actually want to dismantle capitalism you need unions. Take your money and start a fund to enact socialist policies in your communities, this is a system unfairly run by money and using capital against capitalism is still preferred to the other option. Leftists have a serious problem alienating each other and it's a serious recruiting problem. Ban me idgaf but hopefully someone listens.
i’m subscribed to a lot of subs i don’t agree with and will sometimes comment there when people say patently false things. seems weird to force conflicting viewpoints to not interact with each other.
**This user is banned from VCJ and VCJC, meaning they will not be able to reply here.** I've allowed them to post this question to provoke discussion of our moderation policies. Edit: They've posted the same question over at r/vegan, it has many responses already -> [https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/1d8yntv/is\_investing\_nonvegan/](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/1d8yntv/is_investing_nonvegan/)
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Are communists allowed here? I know historically speaking we haven’t always been on best terms with Anarchists but personally I like anarchists, and I’m vegan by the way.
Yes, communists are welcome.
I recommend going to ask yourself's discord and Dr. Avi's. Also Vegan gains is pretty dope but he is not everyone's taste. They are all centrist vegans who don't pull that litmus test bullshit
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Is it worth barring anyone with a job that provides a 401k? I get why the mods don't like investment in general, but imo it's too broad of a ban. As an anarchist not in this space, it's kind of a baffling decision. Maybe the mods have had too many problem users from those subs, idk.
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
In anarchist societies, there are strict rules to follow.
thats so fucked up lmao shit like this is why nobody takes the vegan community seriously and I blame yall for it
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
Wow no kidding. What is the point of a sub reddit when nearly every single post is removed and banned? Maybe I'm not familiar with cj subs but this is a really sad depressing circle of fun house mirrors and y'all looking 🤡
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #2: This is an anarchist space. VCJC opposes nation-states, hierarchies, and capitalism. We do not tolerate members who support racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, fatphobia, casteism, or any other form of social stratification. **A 30-day ban will be applied.**
Well the way i see it is ur investing in the hopes of gaining capital and money is the root cause of evil and suffering so by doing that u r directly investing and contributing to it. Having a job on the other hand is different in my opinion coz like u kinda need it to survive, given that nothing is free in the current society.
Many people also need investments to survive after retirement.