But, that does not mean that veganism is an invalid movement. Far from it. It simply means that the onus to become vegan is because it empowers a social movement that can end this horrific industry, rather than because of a individualistic consumer choice.

This is why I have a hard time morally judging my friends and family for not being vegan, but are vegan myself. Veganism is a political position, and I treat it similarly to the people I care about being . I should correct them when I can, but they are not individually terrible people for having the wrong political opinions (and, to a degree, behavior).

so much this!! it’s odd so many leftists don’t seem to understand it

For this reason the only way we're going to get out of this mess is a technological solution (or society collapses to the point that we forget about animal husbandry)

But many vegans here have had very antisocialist views about how we must simply eat beans and need not improve food technology (re lab grown and plant meats, helping people with certain digestive disabilities) to increase adoption of veganism.

I mostly agree but think its strange to dismiss the individual part of it. Although a social movement is the goal being worked towards, I feel its a bit harmful to state the goal as 'global vegan movement' instead of 'stop exploiting animals' because that difference provides wiggle room to do harmful things if you don't expect it to affect the odds of the movement succeeding, which gets yourself thinking in unhelpful utilitarian terms. Easier to get intersectional-understanding benefits of connecting veganism to other issues, and be a better voice for that movement, when you're an abolitionist vegan who doesn't care if what you're doing might not be worthwhile according to an arbitrary metric.

The movement is of course the vitally necessary action to end the industry, but I'm also sick of carnist leftist friends excusing individual carnist actions because of it 'not really changing things', which I think is driving my thoughts here.