treats are the luxuries marx talked about ending the production of, but back then there wasnt really a consumer class that we have now, most of the luxuries were consumed by the upper classes, and what little luxuries the lower classes consumed, mainly alcohol, didnt account for much production.

so the problem is now, we got a large proletarian base enjoying nice thing, ie treats, as well as the still small upper class buying a shitlload of treats, so much treats they can never uses, yachts, jets, mcmansions, ferraris, while those are treats, treat discourse is entirely aimed at reducing the consumption of the proletariat consumers because we are a bunch of bourgeoisie communists living in brooklyn brownstones off our daddys allowances making podcasts with a alleged sex offender.

we want to abolish treats because treat production is literally killing the planet, but we want to consume the treats and will justify our consumption as being necessary because we are very important communist thinkers, we are massive hypocrites and do not do what we preach. we often bring up the concept of malthusianism, which we think is total bunk, with communism resources can be distributed to everyone evenly and a small portion can be siphoned off by high ranking party members to do blow on a private island.

the earth has a carrying capacity of 40 billion people if if we force 39,999,999,000 of them to live in giant archologies, basically massive buildings that can support millions of people inside through green energy and recycling without needing outside resources. basically we want people to like eat recycled poop to save the environment. we want them to live without even a toothbrush, no medical care, clothing, they all sleep on the floor in a communal sleeping room, and the vocal police kill anyone who has sex because nice things are treats, except when i consume them, because i am the ceo of communism.

some cool people even say breathing air is a treat, living is a treat. we think even basic necessities for human survival are treats because we are fucking insane and we created an entire political theory by doing a revisionism on a single paragraph in the communist manifesto.

and that, our federated comrades, is treat theory, please donate all your money to hasan piker and feel bad about that coffee you bought this morning you are literally hitler and satan combined for buying a cup of coffee. but you know im not. you would understand why if you read this whole fucking post, why would you read this instead of doing praxis? YOU ARENT DOING COMMUNISM HARD ENOUGH.

  • KFCDoubleDoink [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    12·
    11 months ago

    The important thing with treat discourse is blurring the lines so much you can’t be expected to give up any of your own treats personally… AKA treat discourse has proven to be mostly pointless and disruptive.

    • DADDYCHILL [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      5·
      11 months ago

      the bud light boycott says youre wrong, chuds killed a brand of beer because trans people exist. people individually need to make the decision not to consume things if we wish to see a collective change in society. for example, a meat ban, something i do unironcially support despite all the irony poisoning itt. we do it now without changing peoples behavior, theres just going to be a huge black market. i unironcially think we should still do it, but there are times when a more moderate and gradual approach is a more viable option than the radical one.

      we should start with education, ban meat on mondays in schools, then make meat friday only, we need to start introducing plant-based meat into the general food supply, start requiring burger joints to sell their burgers with a percentage of tofu in it, tax the fuck out of meat, make it harder to obtain and make vegan alternatives just easier, over time meat consumption will drop. eventually we will need to cull the huge amount of farm animals because they cant be released into the wild, its going to take a generation to ban high sea fishing and hunting in the west ideally, probably several generations bare minimum. but eventually through enough perservance we could outlaw it globally.

      and say we leftists did a jan 6, we stormed the whitehouse and declared bernie the president, that would result in a bunch of reactionaries fighting us and we literally are not in a position to win a war. so we got to use the baby gloves, but trust me, when we no longer have to, we gotta punch the nazis in the fucking face and implement leftist policies quickly. until we have like actual political power, we got do change through electoralism and radical reform.

      so yeah, shaming consumers even for little things is necessary because we cant just issue a mandate. just dont shame comrades because we should expect the nonpolitically aligned people to change their ways first. but what do i know, im just some person on the internet yelling at people for liking things and being blatantly obvious about how im not doing the things i tell them to do. maybe satire is a better form of criticism.

      to quote star trek, pay attention to everything i say, especially the lies.

      • Flyberius [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        6·
        11 months ago

        eventually we will need to cull the huge amount of farm animals because they cant be released into the wild

        We could all just go out in one great big bbq!

      • zzzeyez@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        4·
        11 months ago

        Budlight not hitting target profit margins doesn’t do shit for our material conditions.

        your whole second paragraph is literally not consumer-side activism. that’s top-down.

        you can embarrass the consumer out of Coke. they’ll just buy Pepsi.

        Consumer-side activism is a liberal ploy.

  • TerminalEncounter [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    11·
    11 months ago

    The way we consume and produce The Treats is definitely a problem but its right there in Capital from Papa Marx “a need is a need, whether its of the stomach or of the fancy” - the need for “luxury” (leisure, self-actualization, etc) is a proper need of the “to all according to need, from all according to ability.”

    But it is a real problem when treats are distributed on the basis of profit and are funneled to consumers in the global north at the expense of those in the global south. And also, we can’t afford - as a global society - to have everyone live up to the standards of the global north because we can’t even survive just having our particular section of the global population living at our standards. I think it’s totally reasonable to expect degrowth and less consumption in the north paired with growth of the productive forces and rising standards in the south (although it’d go a long way just by ending imperialist extraction). In exchange, workers in the global north will finally have a say over their own destinies and the end of alienation - I bet people won’t even want The Treats following global communism. Degrowth in consumption in the north also doesn’t mean you don’t get nice stuff, instead of fast fashion or ikea furniture for example you’ll get stuff that actually lasts for a while and is made of good high quality materials (so you’d consume less but the value you get is significantly higher).

    • DADDYCHILL [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      7·
      11 months ago

      degrowth is the left’s the answer to malthusianism, you cant run out of resources if you dont overconsume them. but we lie to ourselves that less material wealth will make people happy, people own things because things make you feel good, and people overcompensate with things to fill an empty hole inside them that things really cant fill. and that sense of wanting more that capitalism causes is not really the fault of the stuff but more like people having no motivation, socialization, or time to really be happy.

      divorced dads dont buy sports cars for no reason.

      doing the necessary thing often isnt popular, and i think thats why the whole ecofashism thing is a thing, why give up your consumption when you can take someone elses? i feel like actually solving climate change will result in lower standards of living for everyone, even the global south, and only ideologically motivated people are going to willingly go along with degrowth. the alternative is doing nothing and paying for it in the future. of course communism isnt exactly utilitarian either, the global south should seek some retribution against the north for all the years of oppression, a disproportionate punishment for colonialism, slavery, and persecution against the beneficiaries of capitalism might be necessary in order to get the global south to do degrowth, like why should they give up their treats in equal measure with the west when the west has been stealing their treats for centuries? the south dont owe the north shit.

  • abc [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    9·
    11 months ago

    treats are rice krispy cereal, butter, and marshmallows. you’ll first want to melt the marshmallows down in a pot before pouring in the rice krispies - I typically do half a bag of regular sized marshmallows and like a quarter-to-half a bag of rice krispies, depending on the pan size. Add salt & vanilla to taste. stir for a bit over the heat to ensure the marshmallows coat the rice krispies entirely before pouring into a sheet-pan or standard 8x8 and smoothing out into a single layer – keep in mind the ideal rice krispy is not anywhere near a 5 inch tall bar so maybe split into two pans if you have a ton in the pot. Let cool for at least 1-2 hours before cutting into bars. Eat half the pan before going “man the pre-packaged ones really are better - probably because all the preservatives and fact they’re like already 4 months old by the time anyone opens them”