Marxist Animalism
- This topic has 973 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“One could not stand and watch very long without being philosophical, without beginning to deal in symbols and similes, and to hear the hog-squeal of the universe…. Each of them had an individuality of his own, a will of his own, a hope and a heart’s desire; each was full of self-confidence, of self-importance, and a sense of dignity. And trusting and strong in faith he had gone about his business, the while a black shadow hung over him, and a horrid Fate in his pathway. Now suddenly it had swooped upon him, and had seized him by the leg. Relentless, remorseless, all his protests, his screams were nothing to it. It did its cruel will with him, as if his wishes, his feelings, had simply no existence at all; it cut his throat and watched him gasp out his life.”
Upton Sinclair.
As with the Nazis, language is tailored to avoid being an embarrassment. Notice how, instead of “kill” we say “destroy” or “put down” when talking about killing/murdering nonhumans. “Destroy” relates back to Descartes’ definition of nonhumans as machines, not beings. One destroys an object, a machine. One kills a living being.
We stress all the time that we are beings by the term human being. We never say pig being, elephant being, canine being, but always human being.
We stress all the time that we are beings by the term human being. We never say pig being, elephant being, canine being, but always human being.
We don’t always say human being, we sometimes just say human, sometimes we also say human kind.
I also never say fly being, wasp being, if you use the term being as meaning a living thing, I would also never say “tonight with my dinner I am going to have some cabbage beings and a few brussel sprout beings”. So what?
Just the point that we say “human being” regularly. We also say “animals” instead of “other animals.” And call someone an “animal” and you get a black eye.
In bed it’s a compliment, isn’t it?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-weird-that-I-call-animals-it
Many people one meets refer to their own dogs as “it.”
“Many people one meets refer to their own dogs as “it.”
Shouldn’t trivial points like this be transferred to the Off Topic section? Personally I have never met anyone that refers to their own dog as “it”. But if they did, so what? Someone in the discussion in the link rather cruelly suggests that only “triggered vegans” get worked up about this.
To be absolutely frank, I find it more weird that some people refer to themselves as “one”.
But Matt, isn’t it an integral part of our campaign for socialism to give fellow-workers a guilt-trip by pointing out that all the ills of society ultimately comes down to their own acquiescence and acceptance of their capitalist conditioning leading to their continual support for a system that is vampire-like sucking their and others life-blood away?
Our constant refrain is “think, change and resist”. Class consciousness does mean a shift in life-style if that means how we look at the world around us, respond to it and interact with it. We take action where and when we can, not just as individuals but part of a Party and part of a class movement both of which we endeavour to grow through our individual contributions so to make them part of the collective consciousness – (apologies for making it sound a bit like Star Trek Borg).
Our case is not to proselytise vegetarianism or even to proclaim that we live lives of universal brotherhood, love and charity. That is putting the horse before the waggon. As you say, our argument is that you will not achieve those objectives without building socialism first and that is our political priority as a Party. But it does not mean that we do not sympathise with such aspirations or cite them as examples and evidence of the validity of socialism.
It isn’t about casting blame and then shaming fellow-workers towards socialist ideas but it is pointing out individual and collective responsibility and culpability, that we are complicit in our own exploitation, touching our forelock and tipping our hat to our “social betters” as I already referred to in an early post.
(every now and then as with the Dominic Cummings affair we recognise the hypocrisy of the privileged and rightly say fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me and then get angry. But rage has to be directed somewhere.)
There is no doubt we already present our case for socialism but i think we are all aware that it is insufficient and inadequate. We all recognise that improvements can be made to increase its efficiency.
We don’t seek the answer in jumping on every band-waggon and we don’t seek out popularity by agreeing with everybody but we should try to relate socialist ideas to social trends that are taking place that are small signs and signals that we are shifting closer to a more socialised future. The MCH explains it happens without us. But we have say of ourselves, the Socialist Party’s task is to hasten that movement, to speed up the process.
EDIT
My argument is that we have to incorporate a vision of socialism much more into our campaigns so that it inspires and that does mean to a certain extent picturing it with broad brush strokes as the late comrade Pieter Lawrence would often do.
It is important, because it shows that they consider fellow animals things and not beings. It shows their alienation from nature and their rejection of their own “animality.” Such people cling to dominionism. Language reveals, but also forms us.
Saying “one” is perfectly reasonable, signifying people as a whole (like “on” in French and “Mann” in German). It shows no failing, as deliberately denying gender to a sentient gendered being. Are you deliberately obtuse?
My argument is that we have to incorporate a vision of socialism much more into our campaigns so that it inspires and that does mean to a certain extent picturing it with broad brush strokes as the late comrade Pieter Lawrence would often do.
No one has a quarrel with that argument. We already do that. We are not promoting vegetarianism though are we? I am not into that shame game though. A big difference to impress an idea into someones head, by being positive and combative. To disabuse them of a foolish notion.
Matt, I may be wrong but we presently do suggest how the content of work will change in socialism, and we also say that the culture of conspicuous over-consumption will disappear. We do project into the future socialist society what we already know about many aspects of our lives.
We acknowledge that capitalism has created an entire advertising industry devoted to the psychological manipulation of our desires regard many everyday activities we take for granted and as normal.
Yet I feel that we have a hold-over from our earlier days that we are now very reluctant to declare that the “Full Monty” fry-up, the traditional diet dominated by various meat products, as well as our addiction to various food ingredients such as sugar and salt, will be a thing of the past in socialism for very good rational reasons, social and individual.
We have to add flesh to the bones of our case for socialism (pun deliberate)
Just as we expect fellow-workers to question their nationalism, their racism, their sexism, their homophobia and many other prejudices, our attitudes towards the suffering of other sentient life-forms must be involved in the development of socialist consciousness.
We are unanimous in agreeing condemning needless and avoidable cruelty yet we have a debate on what level of cruelty is acceptable and will be in socialism. I think the inescapable conclusion is that killing of animals inevitably involves distress for the animal and also for the actual perpetuator of the violence.
Again, I am wondering when there is very much an increase awareness among many on animal and food issues, are we providing them with specific answers to their ideas, demonstrating that to bring them into practice, to make their beliefs a reality requires socialism.
It is important that respond to changing views of our fellow-workers on many topics. I survey of all our printed pamphlets show we constantly are required to address them. I’m not proposing anything particularly controversial or radical, but simply to take a clearer and stronger stand on what we eat and how we produce what we eat.
Wasn’t it Feuerbach who said we are what we eat.
And other socialists who also added, those who own the bread, control our head.
Making the killing more humane
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/05/28/case-new-technology-help-slaughterhouse-workers
Controlled Atmosphere Stunning. In a CAS plant, chickens are left in their transport crates, as they are conveyed through an air-sealed tunnel. There, chickens are slowly induced into an unconscious state using a precise mixture of nitrogen and carbon dioxide in oxygen. Using the CAS system, chickens are not shackled until after they are insensible.
…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.