Marxist Animalism

[Bijou Drains]

robbo203 wrote:

Vin wrote:

Major McPharter wrote:

Will Oswald bring his blackshirts with him up to the north east ?

Divint wurry marra. Thail nivver stop wor pie and pee suppa neets. Gannaway wir a  a leek up the jacksey, Mare like  

 I tried "GeordieTranslator" on this but it dinna work.  http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp So c'mon guys, tell us .  What does "wor pie and pee suppa neets"  mean then?

Wor = OurPie and Pee Suppa neets – Pie and Peas Supper nights. A traditional night of entertainment, usually focussed on fund raising or some other charitable cause, where savoury mince pies (usually large version known as plate mincve pies) and mushy peas (Geordie Guacamole) are consumed in large quantities (gravy optional). The evening may also involve a game of bingo or a beetle drive (this is not a cruel insect baiting activity). In times gome by further entertainment could be made by the singing of culturaly significant songs such as "wor Geordies Lost 'is Liggy" "Eeh Wor Nanny's a Mazer" "Keep ya feet Still Geordie Hinny" "The Blaydon Races" and south of the Tyne "The Lambton Worm". https://www.newcastlegateshead.com/blog/read/2015/03/where-to-get-the-best-pies-in-newcastle-britishpieweek-b89

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

So if we turn agricultural production over to purely agrarian farming, what do we do with the 9 billion animals that are ready for slaughter

Logistically, as i earlier posted the millions sheep and cows in the UK during foot and mouth were slaughtered.But perhaps initially, and i can only speculate on this, the facilities at Greggs before turned to another use could produce some sort of processed meat pastie for immediate one-off distribution to the billion hungry around the world. As for volunteers to do the work even for one day although it has been referred to,  i think we under-estimated the psychological trauma abattoir workers under-go.

Quote:

Slaughterhouse workers face a variety of negative emotional and psychological consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)…These employees are hired to kill animals, such as pigs and cows, that are largely gentle creatures. Carrying out this action requires workers to disconnect from what they are doing and from the creature standing before them.This emotional dissonance can lead to consequences such as domestic violence, social withdrawal, anxiety, drug and alcohol abuse, and PTSD…There is also evidence that this work leads to increased crime in towns with slaughterhouse factories. Amy Fitzgerald, a criminology professor at the University of Windsor Canada, argues that communities with a slaughterhouse have high crime rates because the workers are “desensitized” to the violence they commit and see at work. This desensitization is then reflected in their behavior outside of the factory. Whatever the meat may be, wherever it may be sold, and regardless of what the label says, every piece has one thing in common: there is a slaughterhouse worker who had to take the animal’s life, and that worker is likely experiencing some level of emotional trauma.

http://www.ptsdjournal.com/posts/the-psychological-damage-of-slaughterhouse-work/An academic paper saying the same thinghttps://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2157&context=honr_theses

[Young Master Smeet]

I think there is a bigger picture (and this is an abbreviated form of a complex argument).Capitalism favours capital intensive operations over labour intensive: profits flow towards capitalised industries.  Relative to arable and market garden production, flesh is more capital intensive, and less labour intensive.  Also, although capitalists want lean processes within the firm, and minimise – to use the jargon – the numbr of touches in an operation/service, they want to maximise the number of "touches" they can be involved in (short alternative, capitalists want to be the ineffiiciency in the system).  Further, capital wants to spare labour, in order to capture the value of other capitalist's labour inputs.So, meat production is profitable, and processed meat production even more so.Socialism would produce, not for profits, but for needs: for direct discrete objectives.  It would have no overarching aim of sparing labour (although we would obviously want to make our labour go as far as we can make it).  It would, though, want to simplify production.  Whilst Mises was wrong that the question of intermediate goods would make planning impossible, it is true that reducing the number of intermediate gods, of means of production and inputs, would simplify the planning process.  Given the single biggest input in farming is animal fodder (i.e. food we've grown that we feed to ourselves, through animals), simplifying production by cutting out that stage would seem to be a winner (and would be compatable with our own ideas in Socialism as a practical alternative

SAPA wrote:

Socialism must immediately stop people dying from hunger; it must ensure adequate world food production. It must house the world’s population in comfort, providing for the basic necessities of piped clean water, drainage systems, decent cooking facilities and so on.

. This would leave meat production to truly marginal land or wild animals that are hunted.

[alanjjohnstone]

Today's Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/04/oceans-suffocating-dead-zones-oxygen-starved

Quote:

Lucia von Reusner, campaign director the campaign group, Mighty Earth, which recently exposed a link between the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico and large scale meat production, said: “These dead zones will continue to expand unless the major meat companies that dominate our global agricultural system start cleaning up their supply chains to keep pollution out of our waters.”

Seems capitalism is going to give us a choice in the future….either steak and chips or fish and chips….One or the other, you can't have both.

[ALB]

Interesting but equally interesting is that when you follow the links back to the original Mighty report it is not so much meat production as such that causes the problem as the production of food (the vegetables soya and maize) to feed the animals that later become meat.The case for producing less meat (and it's a valid one) is that much meat production is inefficient and so wasteful in that the land used to grow animal feed could be better used to grow food for direct human consumption. In practice this would mean growing more soya as a substitute for meat as a source of protein. But under capitalism the same methods would be used by the same profit-seeking corporations to produce human food as to produce animal food, with the same effects on the environment.In other words, the change in human food consumption is not likely to have the desired effect unless accompanied by the change from production for profit to production for use on the basis of common ownership, i.e from capitalism to socialism.

[alanjjohnstone]

I have re-read this long thread from the beginning to end and we are now repeating arguments long resolved, even the same jokes..So here is my attempt to summarise on what we all agree upon.We do not promote vegetarianism or veganism but we do acknowledge certain value in them, that for the well-being of ourselves and of our planet, we require to reduce our consumption of meat and curtail livestock farming. Our reply to those who place their priority in animal rights campaigns or lifestyle changes is that only within a socialist framework can a rational food policy not involving the mistreatment of animals be put into practice. Replacing capitalism with a cooperative socialist society will end the madness of the profit motive and all the human and animal suffering that goes with it. The liberation of mankind through a real socialist society would be the liberation of all the animal world and the natural resources from the hands of the capitalists. The Socialist Party's main priority is to work for the liberation of ourselves. And as Marx said, the unification of our human world with the natural world. Meat-eating is deeply embedded in our culture and the multi-billion-dollar cattle and dairy industries are powerful and politically connected, making change of attitude difficult. But with socialism, we speculate that there will be less meat-eating because:1.  meat-eating is not an efficient method of food production2. that there is very good evidence that it is not nutritious or healthy, and3. it is reprehensible to impose pain and suffering upon other living beings where there is no need to do so. 4. Livestock rearing is a major contribution to global-warming hot-house gasesThere is a better case for eating less beef than for sheep and goats which are more sustainable as they can graze on land that is not suitable for agriculture and is a rational way of using marginal land, while pigs and chickens exist on recycled human food waste in an efficient way and their manure used for fertiliser. So veganism/vegetarianism no, eating a lot less meat yes. Our case is for flexitarianism.We must indeed avoid associating socialism with one particular lifestyle choice. Socialists are not on a crusade to proselytise for vegetarianism or veganism but as socialists, we envisage a rational well-planned society that will endeavour to be sustainable as far as possible.  We associate ourselves with the steady-state, zero-growth model of economy for a socialist society and we envisage an anti-consumerism trend to prevail and expect a drop in consumption levels (with the important caveat that there will be an initial phase of higher production to raise people to a decent standard of living.)As John Oswald said in one of his posts although i might have edited it a bit

Quote:

Meat-eating will decline over time in socialism, because the profit system will have been scrapped. We don`t expect to see the hunting and eating of individual animals necessarily disappearing, or even the raising of animals for food, until quite some time, if ever. Socialism will provide a democratic forum which no one has today other than the capitalists, who will also have disappeared. Local and regional factors will also apply, with democracy working at a local as well as a global level. We don`t see anything being compulsory. Coercion is not compatible with socialism – unless it`s the coercion necessary initially in dispossessing the capitalist class.

[ALB]

Your summary is generally fair but there are a couple of amendments:

you wrote:

We do not promote vegetarianism or veganism but we do acknowledge certain value in them, that for the well-being of ourselves and of our planet, we require to reduce our consumption of meat and curtail livestock farming.

I don't think "we" do acknowledge this (and certainly not for "veganism" which I don't think we've discussed). This makes the mixed meat/vegetable diet most people practise seem less "valuable". I'm not sure that even most vegetarians would want to actually say that as it makes them appear holier than thou and gets ordinary people's backs up (as it did here). Best to simply say something like:

Quote:

We do not promote vegetarianism or veganism or any other particular diet. Choice of diet is a private matter,

As to this

you wrote:

1.  meat-eating is not an efficient method of food production2. that there is very good evidence that it is not nutritious or healthy

There is no evidence whatsoever than eating meat is "not nutritious or healthy".As to (1), to be pedantic, meating-eating is not a method of food production.  Once this has been edited to "raising animals to eat is not …", this is not universally true either, as was mentioned many times in the discussion when it was pointed out that sheep and goats can more efficiently convert what grows on certain land into food better than agriculture could. Also, that chickens and pigs can eat stuff that humans can't, or don't, eat which would otherwise go to waste or to mice, rats and insects.Anyway, happy to close this thread. I agree we're going round in circles. In fact, since we too are animals I'm not sure whether Marxist Animalism was supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing. Do not discuss.

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 But with socialism, we speculate that there will be less meat-eating because:1.  meat-eating is not an efficient method of food production2. that there is very good evidence that it is not nutritious or healthy, and3. it is reprehensible to impose pain and suffering upon other living beings where there is no need to do so. 4. Livestock rearing is a major contribution to global-warming hot-house gases …………………………. We associate ourselves with the steady-state, zero-growth model of economy for a socialist society and we envisage an anti-consumerism trend to prevail and expect a drop in consumption levels

Sorry to disappoint you, but I dont agree with much of the above.1. Meat eating is not a form of food production, it is a method of food consumption. What is counted as efficient in a capitalist society will not be what is considered efficeint in a socialist society. It is impossible to say what the technological and environmental situation will be when/if a socialist society is implemented. There are many pros and cons about meat production. We do not as a Party have a position on this, anymore than we have a party position on what colour the rubbish bins will be in a socialist society.2. There is also lots of good evidence that it is nutritious and healthy. The difficulty is that in a capitalist society evidence is generally biased to which ever industry is sponsoring it.It is intersting to llok at some some of the sponsors of the Produce for Better Health Foundation which was largely responsible for the start of the 5 a day movement in California::Logistics firms: C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.;Caito Foods, Inc.;Capital City Fruit;Coast Produce Company and J&J Distributing. –Specialist producers:Driscoll’s (berries);U.S. Highbush Blueberry Council (blueberries);Ocean Mist (artichokes and fresh vegetables);Giorgio (mushrooms);Columbine Vineyards (grapes);Nature sweet tomatoes;Potandon Produce (potatoes)Paramount Farms (nuts and flavoured nut snacks).General fresh produce firms includeW. Newell & Companies;Eurofresh Farms;Giumarra Companies;General Mills (Green Giant brand);Sun-Maid raisins and dried fruit;Kagome juicesDuda Farm Fresh Foods. –also other: such asBASF (the world’s leading chemical company, and a provider of fungicides, insecticides and herbicides);Glad Products Company (containers, bags and ovenware);Nunhems USA (commercial vegetable seeds);No conflict of interest there then.3. This is a moral judgement. I agree with it, but it is not the Party's postion to moralise.4. Again this is open to question, we grow the crop, feed it to the cow, the cow farts a lot, then we eat the cow, as opposed to we grow the crop, eat the crop, then we fart a lot.Similarly, I do not agree that we associate ourselves with a steady state, zero growth economy. I would say we associate ourselves with an econmic model that is democratic and hopefully has the least harmful impact on our environment. It is perfectly feasible that this could be attained and that economic growth (how that is defined is another question) continues.

[Anonymous]

Bijou Drains wrote:

 Sorry to disappoint you, but I dont agree with much of the above.1. Meat eating is not a form of food production, it is a method of food consumption. What is counted as efficient in a capitalist society will not be what is considered efficeint in a socialist society. It is impossible to say what the technological and environmental situation will be when/if a socialist society is implemented. There are many pros and cons about meat production. We do not as a Party have a position on this, anymore than we have a party position on what colour the rubbish bins will be in a socialist society.2. There is also lots of good evidence that it is nutritious and healthy. The difficulty is that in a capitalist society evidence is generally biased to which ever industry is sponsoring it.It is intersting to llok at some some of the sponsors of the Produce for Better Health Foundation which was largely responsible for the start of the 5 a day movement in California::Logistics firms: C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.;Caito Foods, Inc.;Capital City Fruit;Coast Produce Company and J&J Distributing. –Specialist producers:Driscoll’s (berries);U.S. Highbush Blueberry Council (blueberries);Ocean Mist (artichokes and fresh vegetables);Giorgio (mushrooms);Columbine Vineyards (grapes);Nature sweet tomatoes;Potandon Produce (potatoes)Paramount Farms (nuts and flavoured nut snacks).General fresh produce firms includeW. Newell & Companies;Eurofresh Farms;Giumarra Companies;General Mills (Green Giant brand);Sun-Maid raisins and dried fruit;Kagome juicesDuda Farm Fresh Foods. –also other: such asBASF (the world’s leading chemical company, and a provider of fungicides, insecticides and herbicides);Glad Products Company (containers, bags and ovenware);Nunhems USA (commercial vegetable seeds);No conflict of interest there then.3. This is a moral judgement. I agree with it, but it is not the Party's postion to moralise.4. Again this is open to question, we grow the crop, feed it to the cow, the cow farts a lot, then we eat the cow, as opposed to we grow the crop, eat the crop, then we fart a lot.Similarly, I do not agree that we associate ourselves with a steady state, zero growth economy. I would say we associate ourselves with an econmic model that is democratic and hopefully has the least harmful impact on our environment. It is perfectly feasible that this could be attained and that economic growth (how that is defined is another question) continues.

  From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. ………Socialism is a forward step. 

[alanjjohnstone]

First of all this was not a party statement but a round-up of this thread but it seems some of us cannot agree even on that.ALB, i struggled to find the right word to relate to veganism/vegetarianism. Originally i had "recognise the benefits of" but actually felt "acknowledge the value" was more neutral.Again your amendment for a more appropriate word for point 2 is acceptable. I had already mentioned other livestock advantages earlier so didn't repeat that. I think the medical consensus is meat eating is not healthy "in excess" – and excess is where the debate lies and continues to be disputed. As for BD suggestion that we cannot trust scientific opinion due to vested interests, indeed that is true, Ronald  Reagan re-classified tomato ketchup as a vegetable to satisfy lobbyists in the introduction of 5 – a – Day. What is healthy and how much of it is healthy seems to be an eternal debate…re alcohol , coffee and what not is constantly featured in the media. But some things are universally condemned as unhealthy – smoking. (My bug-bear is shift-work and how workers are not sufficiently compensated for the harm that does to a person's health.)We do take cognisance of who sponsors and support scientific research. But it is recognised by responsible food authorities that a more grain/vegetable diet is healthier such as the Mediterranean Diet and the Japanese. Both those include animal protein but not to the degree being consumed in the average person's diet. The Paleolithic diet plan of high meat intake has been discredited. And our sugar addiction is being addressed by government action, as was the high salt consumption saturated fats and other aspects of the processed food industry. " I do not agree that we associate ourselves with a steady state, zero growth economy." – I'm not going to go the SS and or pamphlets producing the relevant quotations,BD, I'll leave the fact-checking to yourself, but that statement is the party position.Moral shmoral…It is wrong to kill and inflict pain on living creatures if there is no need, just as it is wrong to kill and injure another person unnecessarily. Any argument that condones needless suffering inflicted upon any sentient life,  and evidence of those feeling animal are increasing and expanding with every new research, is simply psychopathic. (Again i will add various caveats, we do exterminate viruses, parasites and some pests and i will also reserve my personal judgement on the worth of vivisection).  Since i have some quotes from the SS in front of me, this is what we have said.“All socialists are of course opposed to cruelty to animals but, just like the rest of the population, have differing views as to what constitutes cruelty. Some may go shooting birds and rabbits, some go fishing, some eat meat, some are vegetarians, some perhaps are vegans. There is no line or policy on the matter, because we are an organisation of people who have come together to campaign for socialism and nothing else. We wouldn't go so far as to say nothing can be done to improve the lot of animals within capitalism nor as to denounce the RSPCA and the Cat Protection League as reformist enemies of the working class…." “Socialists are not unduly sentimental about animals, and consider that a human’s first loyalty should be their own species. Nevertheless, the degree to which human society is ‘civilised’ can reasonably be gauged by its treatment of animals and the natural world as well as by its treatment of humans, and socialism, in its abolition of all aspects of the appalling savagery of capitalism, will undoubtedly do its part to abolish all unnecessary suffering by non-human sentient creatures.”“we contend that humans and other animals do not have rights…but this does not stop some socialists responding to the cruelty that the profit system inflicts on the vast majority by becoming vegetarian or vegan." “In a genuinely socialist system of this kind cruelty to animals can be expected to stop as it would have no basis for occurring. The ending of the oppression and exploitation of humans by other humans—and the cruel treatment meted out as a matter of state policy by soldiers, police and prison guards …will make humans generally less tolerant towards cruelty to other animals.” Capitalism is a particularly nasty social system to human beings and also animal-life, whether domesticated or in the wild. Socialist understand that there is a little that can be done until socialism is established regards all the problems and issues that impact upon the quality of life of workers. But as i said this thread is repeating itself and no longer serving any constructive function. This is my last post on this thread. 

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

First of all this was not a party statement but a round-up of this thread but it seems some of us cannot agree even on that.ALB, i struggled to find the right word to relate to veganism/vegetarianism. Originally i had "recognise the benefits of" but actually felt "acknowledge the value" was more neutral.Again your amendment for a more appropriate word for point 2 is acceptable. I had already mentioned other livestock advantages earlier so didn't repeat that. I think the medical consensus is meat eating is not healthy "in excess" – and excess is where the debate lies and continues to be disputed. As for BD suggestion that we cannot trust scientific opinion due to vested interests, indeed that is true, Ronald  Reagan re-classified tomato ketchup as a vegetable to satisfy lobbyists in the introduction of 5 – a – Day. What is healthy and how much of it is healthy seems to be an eternal debate…re alcohol , coffee and what not is constantly featured in the media. But some things are universally condemned as unhealthy – smoking. (My bug-bear is shift-work and how workers are not sufficiently compensated for the harm that does to a person's health.)We do take cognisance of who sponsors and support scientific research. But it is recognised by responsible food authorities that a more grain/vegetable diet is healthier such as the Mediterranean Diet and the Japanese. Both those include animal protein but not to the degree being consumed in the average person's diet. The Paleolithic diet plan of high meat intake has been discredited. And our sugar addiction is being addressed by government action, as was the high salt consumption saturated fats and other aspects of the processed food industry. " I do not agree that we associate ourselves with a steady state, zero growth economy." – I'm not going to go the SS and or pamphlets producing the relevant quotations,BD, I'll leave the fact-checking to yourself, but that statement is the party position.Moral shmoral…It is wrong to kill and inflict pain on living creatures if there is no need, just as it is wrong to kill and injure another person unnecessarily. Any argument that condones needless suffering inflicted upon any sentient life,  and evidence of those feeling animal are increasing and expanding with every new research, is simply psychopathic. (Again i will add various caveats, we do exterminate viruses, parasites and some pests and i will also reserve my personal judgement on the worth of vivisection).  Since i have some quotes from the SS in front of me, this is what we have said.“All socialists are of course opposed to cruelty to animals but, just like the rest of the population, have differing views as to what constitutes cruelty. Some may go shooting birds and rabbits, some go fishing, some eat meat, some are vegetarians, some perhaps are vegans. There is no line or policy on the matter, because we are an organisation of people who have come together to campaign for socialism and nothing else. We wouldn't go so far as to say nothing can be done to improve the lot of animals within capitalism nor as to denounce the RSPCA and the Cat Protection League as reformist enemies of the working class…." “Socialists are not unduly sentimental about animals, and consider that a human’s first loyalty should be their own species. Nevertheless, the degree to which human society is ‘civilised’ can reasonably be gauged by its treatment of animals and the natural world as well as by its treatment of humans, and socialism, in its abolition of all aspects of the appalling savagery of capitalism, will undoubtedly do its part to abolish all unnecessary suffering by non-human sentient creatures.”“we contend that humans and other animals do not have rights…but this does not stop some socialists responding to the cruelty that the profit system inflicts on the vast majority by becoming vegetarian or vegan." “In a genuinely socialist system of this kind cruelty to animals can be expected to stop as it would have no basis for occurring. The ending of the oppression and exploitation of humans by other humans—and the cruel treatment meted out as a matter of state policy by soldiers, police and prison guards …will make humans generally less tolerant towards cruelty to other animals.” Capitalism is a particularly nasty social system to human beings and also animal-life, whether domesticated or in the wild. Socialist understand that there is a little that can be done until socialism is established regards all the problems and issues that impact upon the quality of life of workers. But as i said this thread is repeating itself and no longer serving any constructive function. This is my last post on this thread. 

Alan I don’t care what you say, my mother tried, my partner has tried. I’m not eating fucking  Brussels sprouts 

[robbo203]

Bijou Drains wrote:

 Alan I don’t care what you say, my mother tried, my partner has tried. I’m not eating fucking  Brussels sprouts 

 BD, there are Brussels Sprouts and then there are Brussels Sprouts. Some of these recipes sound postively yummy.https://www.marthastewart.com/275510/brussels-sprout-recipes

[Anonymous]

Paddy Shannon – The Vegans are Coming!

[ALB]

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/15822401.Surrey_s_greedy_goats_gobble_up_Christmas_trees/

[Bijou Drains]

pfbcarlisle wrote:

Paddy Shannon – The Vegans are Coming!

They are, but don't worry, they're all a bit washed out and low on energy. Most of them have dental problems and if the odd vegan and his droogs are up for a bit of the old ultra violence, the lack of omega 3 can lead to memory loss, so they'll probably forget who they were fighting. In addtion the Vitamin B 12 means there's a good chance they've got pernicious anemia. Shouldn't put up too much of a fight. If you want me I'll be on me oddy knocky down at the Korova Milkbar, supping a couple of pints of Milko Plus and listening to a bit of old Ludwig Van

[Author]

Posts