Marxist Animalism
- This topic has 973 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Actually, while other animals don't lack pain, they do lack "reason" in the sense of being able to think abstractly through symbols. Only humans can do this. That doesn't mean that we can treat other animals as we please. On the contrary, it means that we are the only species that can assume responsibility for other animals getting a better life..
http://veganbodyproject.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/hitler-and-vegetarianism.html?m=1 You may be interested in this. Hitler and vegetarianism. I know that's more up your street than my other posts on animals.
A petition group ask us to say thank you to Gove for his about-turn on animal sentience as a result of our pressure!Talk about grovelling and cringing before power!Thank you?Christ!
Quote:meat-eating is deeply embedded in our culture and the multi-billion-dollar cattle and dairy industries are powerful and politically connected, making change difficult.https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/12/24/no-more-silence-about-torture-animals
Interesting statistic that dispels a popular myth:http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/india-diet-indian-palate-non-vegetarian-vegetarianism-3099363/
What's the statistic and what's the popular myth, ALB?I think i have previously mentioned the high rate of vegetarianism of India. No-one ever claimed it was a 100% or that meat eating was not increasingThe figure of 3% consumption rate and the USA's 95% seems consistent with what has previously been argued. In Kerala because of the high proportion of Muslims and Christians not seen in other parts of India, there is a higher rate of flesh consumption. I found pork almost impossible to buy. Beef was available but not in many outlets and goat (called mutton locally) was the common substitute. i had no difficulty in acquiring fresh milk or eggs. Chicken was widespread as was fish which is not surprising for a coastal state. The eastern coastal states also seem to be the bigger flesh eaters.I don't think it is to do with the high income of the average Keralan and the increase meat consumption. Perhaps the fact they also have the highest rate of workers going abroad to other countries is also a contributing factor.But in the South because of the Jain legacy, there are numerous what are called "pure vegetarian" restaurants – places where the kitchen cannot be used for meat cooking.In other regions there is also a caste conflict going on – the Hindutva cow-protectors v the Dalits which is centred often on diet (but more a pretext)I think the chickenisation is reflected globally and it is not just down to KFC although where i stay now, there seems to be an explosion of KFC outlets (but also pizzas). It seems to be the Gates Foundation solution to hunger…by a chickenBut regards the argument i sometimes put forward, the closing conclusion seems to support it.
Quote:While the trend towards non-vegetarianism is increasing, vegetarians are certainly more benign to the planet’s environmental healthI think we underplay the fact that while production in socialism will be addressed by changes in lifestyles and behaviour, consumption patterns too will change dramatically. Just as relationships between people will accentuate the positive qualities of behaviour, the way we view animal treatment will also change. They will no longer be seen in commodity values only. Somethig i also indicated on my personal blog on pets and the pet-market.https://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2017/09/pet-profits.htmlIf you want to continue to eat flesh, i think you will be required to raise the animal yourself and carry out the slaughtering yourself, simply because i see no volunteers arising to work in the abattoirs. It is no wonder that even today the food-processing industry is one that faces the serious problem of recruitment and need to import workers from abroad (Germany has the same problem) George Orwell, commented: “Men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat”But my personal views have not encroached on the blog SOYMB putting forward the Party position
Quote:What will become of the meat and dairy industry in socialism? At present the socialist case focuses necessarily on the emancipation of the human species from capitalist-induced oppression and suffering, while the ethical question of how we should regard and treat animals remains as one of the iceberg of other issues submerged below the waterline. It is perfectly possible that a Socialist society will involve less eating of meat and eggs, and any animals kept for food purposes will certainly be treated as humanely as possible. If socialists expect a large-scale meat industry they will have to face the fact that there is no compassionate "ethical" way to do this. But it is all very well to talk about opposing all hierarchy, including that of humans over animals, but if it came to the crunch we suspect almost everyone would regard the life of a fellow human as more important than that of a non-human animal. So there can be no real equality of treatment between humans and animals.As stated above, the Socialist Party does not have a position on vegetarianism or veganism but would agree with William Morris that “a man can hardly be a sound Socialist who puts forward vegetarianism as a solution of the difficulties between labour and capital, as some people do”Those who advocate animal rather than human liberation put the cart before the horse. Cruelty to animals will go the way of all forms of cruelty, when a real civilised existence becomes a possibility to everyone. The rise in demand for "cruelty-free" products in Western countries shows that, given the luxury of choice, people prefer not to be responsible for inflicting such suffering and without a global revolution in the way society collectively owns and controls its resources people are never going to get the luxury of choice over this or any other resource question. Unless and until the welfare and humane treatment of humans is first attended to the question of the ethical treatment of animals must remain an issue waiting for its moment.https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2012/03/compassion-for-who-people-or-animals.html
The article's conclusion that "vegetarians are certainly more benign to the planet’s environmental health" is misleading if it means that eating any meat is harmful to the environment. More benign than what? Eating less beef would certainly be more benign to the environment. But eating less fish or chicken? That doesn't follow. In fact, eating some fish and chicken and some vegetables could be better for the environment than eating just vegetables (as this would involve using more land to grow more of them). You also overlook the passage in the article that expresses concern for the malnutrition of vegetarians in India through not getting enough protein.We just make ourselves look silly, even by individual members expressing this as a personal position, by speculating about a world in which nobody eats any meat. That won't happen. Humans have been eating meat since we came down from the trees and became hunter-gatherers and this won't change in socialism. We are that sort of animal. Maybe less meat especially beef but eating meat is bound to continue to be part of the diet of the vast majority of humans as it always has been. You can't change that and it's silly to suggest that you could.
What is your obsession with anti-vegetarianism, ALB?It is one thing for a socialist to eat meat. It is another to PROMOTE it all the time.Maybe you'd like it to be compulsory for membership.
I am just trying to dispel the impression that we are a vegetarian party. So every time a vegetarian member puts up a pro-veggie post I am compelled to send in a correction. Of course I have no objection to members being vegetarians than I do to them growing a beard or dyeing their hair red but that's a personal choice they should keep separate from their socialism.
ALB wrote:I am just trying to dispel the impression that we are a vegetarian party. So every time a vegetarian member puts up a pro-veggie post I am compelled to send in a correction. Of course I have no objection to members being vegetarians than I do to them growing a beard or dyeing their hair red but that's a personal choice they should keep separate from their socialism.Nor do we want vegetarianism forced on to us even if some members appear to be obsessed with it. Meat eating is not 'immoral' and the SPGB should never suggest that it is.
It is true the shift towards a more vegetarian-based diet would have obvious advantages in a socialist society in terms of raising food output because of the built inefficiencies of converting animal feed into meat products and because of the amount of land taken up in growing animal feed. The feed-to-food calorie conversion rates – or feed conversion ratios (FCR) – differ from meat product to meat product so that insofar as meat consumption continued to exist in a socialist society, one compromise solution might be to change the kind of meat we eat – for example, less beef and more chicken. However, the advantages of converting to a wholly vegetarian diet are not all one way. You have to bear in mind that many parts of the world are not amenable to arable farming such as mountainous terrains or places handicapped by lack of water. In these parts of the world, especially, I think animal husbandry would still have an important role to play. People would making use of particular ecological niches otherwise closed off to plant crops for various reasons. As far as dryland pastoralism is concerned there is often an assumption that grazing animals in these environments leads to environmental deterioration and desertification. But this is not necessarily the case. It depends on context. Traditional pastoralism depends on the ability of herders to freely move their animals in response to environmental changes. It is when obstacles are placed in the way of this free movement that you tend to find problems arising e.g political boundaries, land enclosures, the establishment of game reserves etc. There is a study I came across a few years ago which compared grazing regimes on either of the Israeli border. Surprisingly enough although the landscape inhabited by the Bedouin pastoralists seemed comparatively sparse, the rate of biomass production was significantly higher suggesting a greater degree of ecological resilience Near where I live in Southern Spain there is a permaculture research station perched high up in the mountains above Lanjaron – Semilla Besada (http://semilla-besada.com/) . I knew the couple who started up this enterprise. Aspen sadly died a few years ago and David had to return to the UK but while they were (it is now taken over by new people) they produced a lot of useful material on what are called “brittle environments” (http://managingwholes.com/-ecosystem-brittleness.htm) The point about brittle environments like the Mediterranean which have a long dry summer season is that appropriate land management techniques are radically different to what is required in a temperate country like the UK. A healthy brittle environment requires active intervention and the use of animals plays a vital role in this – particularly to minimise the risk of fires (now a growing global problem as we have seen this year), keep down unproductive scrub that can reduce biodiversity and generate new biomass Round here we typrically find herds of goats and sheep roaming the mountainside. The goats which are more prevalent provide milk and meat and I knew a near neighbour Pepe (when I had a little shack up in the mountains) who managed a herd of over 1000 goats. The stench wafting up from the goat farm a few hundred metres below was more than compensated for by the knowledge of all the good that would come from distributing around the garden a few bags of old fashioned goat manure. Give me that any day over yer modern chemical muck!
We would be even sillier as a political party if we did not acknowledge the threat of global warming and the contribution that livestock farming has on it. And agriculture monoculture too is an environmental threat so even arable farming will have to adapt.I think the two farming articles in the current issue of the Standard is a healthy expression of the need to explain or attitude to the environment. No doubt we may have members who object on the grounds of job-losses to the aim of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere by curtailing coal power and other fossil fuels and object to the leave the coal in the hole and the oil in the soil campaigners. But if members accept that such a step is necessary to halt and reverse climate change, we have to concede similar actions must apply to other aspects of capitalist production that add greenhouse gases to the air.I can understand some comrades who advocate vegetarianism or veganism on animal welfare grounds but the extract i posted addressed that concern.But i emphasise that the primary reason to actually actively discourage meat-eating is environmental. But perhaps you are right that chicken or other fowl could substitute for beef and pork. And what Jamie Oliver called pink slime is the way to go. Brasil is trialling something similar – farinata. And, of course, beetles and grubs can become a bigger part of animal feed and even on our own plates.As for fish, we have a serious problem with over-fishing. I recall the fish and chip shop directly opposite HO boasted it sold only fish from sustainable sources…(but i was shocked by the exorbitant price)2.7 trillion fish are caught, of which they keep only one fifth, and throw back four-fifths. Big fish are now at 10% of 1970 levels. So even fish will require to be protected (rationed) much more than presently.For the record, i'm not a vegan, nor a vegetarian, and i over-pamper my 2 dogs and 5 cats.I don't think, Vin, anybody is proposing people are forced to accept compulsory diets. But communities will be free to choose what is made available for the well-being of its members and eco-system. And the advertising and promotion of unhealthy diets will cease and people gradually weaned off food addictions…So indeed say an eventual goodbye to your Gregg's sausage roll.
Alan – you are talking about production for profit, which I oppose whereas I am talking about freedom to eat a sausage roll. Don't conflate the two.We have a completely different views of post capitalism. Socialism will increase my freedom otherwise I wouldn't want it. So don't tell me what I can eat and what I can't
Vin wrote:Alan – you are talking about production for profit, which I oppose whereas I am talking about freedom to eat a sausage roll. Don't conflate the two.We have a completely different views of post capitalism. Socialism will increase my freedom otherwise I wouldn't want it. So don't tell me what I can eat and what I can'tDid somebody mention sausage rolls?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.