Marxist Animalism
- This topic has 973 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So I am still on your new year card list after all. But I don’t know on what grounds you conclude that all meat-eaters “regard other species merely as ‘resources’ for human exploitation”. This is just another example of your exaggerations that weaken whatever case you might have.
There are plenty of members of the RSPCA, the RSPB, etc who eat meat as do the millions of dog, cat, budgie and hamster owners and who clearly don’t regard other species “merely” as “resources for human exploitation.”
I know I am not as holy as thou but I am a member of the Cats Protection League if that counts.
At one point we agreed that this subject had been argued to a standstill and you tried to change the subject. Unfortunately someone else didn’t take the hint and re-ignited the controversy.
In any event this is my last contribution to this thread.
Socialism will be about a flexitarian diet for the overwhelming majority of people across the world.
The meat element will for various reasons but primarily one of ecological sustainability be very much reduced and the types of meat available will be different, subject to local geography and culture.
Change in production and consumption will also equally apply to non-livestock food such as grain, fruit and veg. Farming methods will be modified. Land-use will alter.
I am afraid I cannot go along with what you are saying Alan. How a future society would organise food production is something we cannot possibly predict as we do not have the resources within the Socialist movement and there are many factors which we cannot possibly predict.
The difficulty we have is that at the moment all food production is seen through the irrational prism of capitalism and if we do create a socialist society the view might be very different and it might be that issues we have not taken into consideration become far more relevant than they now appear.
I’ll give a couple of examples. I have a friend who works in the water industry and was part of a big project to look at how they managed the disposal of waste (essentially excrement) which was being dumped at sea off the Tyne. Mainly this was because the beach in Whitley Bay didn’t meet water quality standards set by the EU and the swimming community didn’t like having the odd Richard the Third floating past them as they braved the North Sea. All would be well when the waste was filtered sterilised, made into pellets and then used to fire power plants. However the result was that the prawn fisheries plummeted as the prawns thrived on eating the sewage, the fishing grounds that included fish that fed off the prawns slumped and there were a lot of angry fisherfolk. You see the problem is that nature needs shit.
In a similar way shit (and cows produce a lot of it) feeds a miriad of insects which feed a miriad of other animals, etc. etc. So when we as a species decide for example let’s get rid of animal husbandary and go to arable cropping there may well be many negative consequences, including the fact that insecticides and increased insecticide use in arable and other farming methods is decimating insect spiecies to the point of possible collapse.
It is reported that the population of honey bees in the US is less than half of what it was at the end of WW2, partly through the use of insecticides and partly through the increasing mono-culture that extensive agrarian development brings. The amount of methane produced by animals may be a factor in global warming, but the agrarian side of the food business is doing far more environmental damage through the destruction of insects and insect habitat. Einstien reckoned that without bees humanity and most life on the planet would last about four years.
So when the vegans are sitting with a smug expression on their face about how ethical their food is compared to the cruel nasty omnivores they perhaps need to think about the destruction to the environment that is done by the avocado plantations in Mexico and the criminal gangs who are now heavily involved in production there, the environmental impact of teh transport of their quinoa from South America and that rice production is heavily involved in the use of child labour (one report stated that 26% of children between the ages of 6-14 in Vietnam were involved in rice production.
In my view the only sane way forward is the socialist solution, which looks at food production without the encumberance of the profit system and looks at ways in which food can be produced in the quantities required, with the quality and choice that is desired in the most effective way taking into account issues such as the environment, sustainability, animal cruelty, mechanisation and local and global needs. This can only be done on a DEMOCRATIC and non heirarchical basis by the people it involves at the time with the aid of “the best scientific evidence” evidence that we currently do not have access to.
So to my mind glibly stating that this will happen or that will happen not only has the sniff of moralising and sanctimoniousness, it is highly undemocratic and does the cause of Socialism no good.
As to the next part
I take it you don’t recognise inter-species friendships?
It is perfectly possible to have what you call inter-species friendships (what I would call pets) and have no compunction about eating meat. My cat of 21 years passed away recently (I say my cat, I have no doubt he thought I was his human). We had an understanding of each other and a close bond, however if push came to shove I would have eaten him rather than starve and I’m perfectly sure he would have made the same choice.
Why should animals like cows etc. cease to exist (and living, defecate) because humans will no longer be farming them? I envisage a return of wild aurochs and pigs, eventually (with human assistance), and the reintroduction of wild species to lush, rich forests and countryside no longer needed for profit-driven agriculture, all living, eating and defecating in freedom, freedom gradually and deliberately restored. Insects will also flourish again. The manure defence of livestock farming doesn’t hold up, since insect populations are under threat today – amid large-scale capitalist meat farming!
I wouldn’t want a vegan world if it meant a human-only world! Surely you can eat meat without defining nonhuman animals primarily as food?
And dismissing with contempt animal rights activists does you no service. One should rather explain to them why their reformism is futile and why they should be socialists. After all, these are people who feel and think and wish to fight against evil and cruelty. By simply laughing at them, how are you any better than the yobs who trivialise others’ sensibilities? Can’t you see how such an attitude disgusts them? We should respect those who are not mindless supporters of the status quo and who care about the world and about others, human or not!
I cannot go along with what you are saying Alan. How a future society would organise food production is something we cannot possibly predict
I’m a bit puzzled. We already have numerous predictions being made. But you suggest we will not make any mention of any proposals that will mitigate climate crisis, nor heed the advice of experts and science. Apparently the best scientific advice available right now cannot be accessed by ourselves, nor used in any campaign for socialist ideas.
We already are acquainted with the effects of reduced numbers of cattle. Foot and mouth emptied the fields and decimated farm livestock for several months so we do have information to go upon if livestock numbers are reduced.
And industrialised farming is a big problem with the intensive use of fertilisers and pesticides. But there are many problems with going solely organic. Many problems with locavore policies.
My post specifically refers to the use of specialist organisations such as the FAO in applying knowledge and advice.
Marx and the First International did not condemn children working.
“We consider the tendency of modern industry to make children and juvenile persons of both sexes co-operate in the great work of social production, as a progressive, sound and legitimate tendency, although under capital it was distorted into an abomination. In a rational state of society every child whatever, from the age of 9 years, ought to become a productive labourer in the same way that no able-bodied adult person ought to be exempted from the general law of nature, viz.: to work in order to be able to eat, and work not only with the brain but with the hands too.”However there is a caveat and condemnation of “the tendencies of a social system which degrades the working man into a mere instrument for the accumulation of capital, and transforms parents by their necessities into slave-holders, sellers of their own children. The right of children and juvenile persons must be vindicated. They are unable to act for themselves. It is, therefore, the duty of society to act on their behalf…We say that no parent and no employer ought to be allowed to use juvenile labour, except when combined with education.”
And in the case of starvation, Bijou, it would be a bigger meal to eat other humans, as Japanese soldiers were compelled by hunger to do in The Philippines. Otherwise you would not be consistent. And if the humans were strangers, then surely you would kill them first and hold off as long as possible having to kill and eat a dog or cat who was a friend and who you loved?
Animal activists are always challenged with these melodramatic fictions which are hardly ever likely to materialise. They are not great settlers of an argument – like the patriot who says we should join the army to stop “the enemy” raping our families, etc.
My answer is, a nonhuman friend comes before a human stranger. You may have your own priorities, but I don’t necessarily feel the same.
To be honest with you MA, I would quite happily tuck into you without too much of a qualm, I’d probably choose a non- Socialist first, but if you looked more appetising than the non Socialist, you might end up in the pot.
You’d find me too fatty – unless you like crackling.
I’m a bit puzzled. We already have numerous predictions being made. But you suggest we will not make any mention of any proposals that will mitigate climate crisis, nor heed the advice of experts and science. Apparently the best scientific advice available right now cannot be accessed by ourselves, nor used in any campaign for socialist ideas.
Perhaps I haven’t explained myself properly. What I was trying to say is that the impact of our activities will always be systematic, in terms of the eco-system. An input here will result in an output there. The earth is by and large a closed system.
Unfortunately best scientific advice right now is usually non holistic, non systematically based. It often represents one sector of the economic machine, for example the green power production movement has been demonstrated to favour the economic interests of a sector of the capitalist class (I think Michael Moore’s film demonstrated that fairly effectively).
In order to deal with the environmental issues we have we need a Socialist Society which can look at all aspects of a particular choice, without the profit system biasing how this will work.
As things stand now scientific advice is usually biased and often partial in terms of generally looking at one small aspect of the ecosystem without seeing the bigger picture. Unfortunately as things stand at the moment, the Socialist movement has not got the resources, internally or externally, to examine in any meaningful way, how we could best attempt to resolve these issues on an ecosystemic basis. For now we must use very broad strokes. The danger of us stating things like:
“Socialism will be about a flexitarian diet for the overwhelming majority of people across the world. The meat element will for various reasons but primarily one of ecological sustainability be very much reduced and the types of meat available will be different, subject to local geography and culture.”
Is that we simply do not have enough information and knowledge to make even this level of statement, we should be very careful about getting into the business of predictions about future production and consumption measures, we are only making future weapons for our critics. For all we know the future development of something like non farting cows who live on sea water might completely change our outlook, or to satisfy Mutual Aid we might end up with a “restaurant at the End of the Universe” situation:
“A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox’s table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips.
“Good evening,” it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, “I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in the parts of my body?”
It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters in to a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them.
Its gaze was met by looks of startled bewilderment from Arthur and Trillian, a resigned shrug from Ford Prefect and naked hunger from Zaphod Beeblebrox.
“Something off the shoulder perhaps?” suggested the animal, “braised in a white wine sauce?”
“Er, your shoulder?” said Arthur in a horrified whisper.
“But naturally my shoulder, sir,” mooed the animal contentedly, “nobody else’s is mine to offer.”
Zaphod leapt to his feet and started prodding and feeling the animal’s shoulder appreciatively.
“Or the rump is very good,” murmured the animal. “I’ve been exercising it and eating plenty of grain, so there’s a lot of good meat there.”
It gave a mellow grunt, gurgled again and started to chew the cud. It swallowed the cud again.
“Or a casserole of me perhaps?” it added.
“You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?” whispered Trillian to Ford.
“Me?” said Ford, with a glazed look in his eyes, “I don’t mean anything.”
“That’s absolutely horrible,” exclaimed Arthur, “the most revolting thing I’ve ever heard.”
“What’s the problem Earthman?” said Zaphod, now transferring his attention to the animal’s enormous rump.
“I just don’t want to eat an animal that’s standing there inviting me to,” said Arthur, “It’s heartless.”
“Better than eating an animal that doesn’t want to be eaten,” said Zaphod.
“That’s not the point,” Arthur protested. Then he thought about it for a moment. “Alright,” he said, “maybe it is the point. I don’t care, I’m not going to think about it now. I’ll just… er […] I think I’ll just have a green salad,” he muttered.
“May I urge you to consider my liver?” asked the animal, “it must be very rich and tender by now, I’ve been force-feeding myself for months.”
“A green salad,” said Arthur emphatically.
“A green salad?” said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at Arthur.
“Are you going to tell me,” said Arthur, “that I shouldn’t have green salad?”
“Well,” said the animal, “I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am.”
It managed a very slight bow.
“Glass of water please,” said Arthur.
“Look,” said Zaphod, “we want to eat, we don’t want to make a meal of the issues. Four rare stakes please, and hurry. We haven’t eaten in five hundred and seventy-six thousand million years.”
The animal staggered to its feet. It gave a mellow gurgle. “A very wise choice, sir, if I may say so. Very good,” it said, “I’ll just nip off and shoot myself.”
He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur. “Don’t worry, sir,” he said, “I’ll be very humane.”
It waddled unhurriedly off to the kitchen.”
Brilliant! 🙂
As for predictions, we have the Materialist Conception of History which does predict the nature of systemic change. We predict a change in peoples personal behaviour. We also predict no war, no crime, no religion, no racism, etc, etc, because the material conditions have changed and those that give rise to an individual’s development and to those wider problems have disappeared.
I agree that socialism is the science of generalism, its philosophy is monist, causes have effects and vice versa. Too often, it is said we should avoid blueprints but that should be placed in context. We aren’t laying down the ground-rules of some Utopian community, or imposing a pre-conceived culture or lifestyle such as Bellamy or Morris or even Ursula Le Guin.
But we are expected to put forward a reasonable description of how socialism will differ from capitalism and how socialism will have an effect upon us. If it resembles the present day society too broadly, working people may well conclude, why bother with change, better the enemy we know.
I know Marx said socialism will inherit much of capitalism with his emerge from the womb quote, and I too have suggested there will be much from capitalism we will adopt and modify and adapt – but we still have to emphasise and highlight the radical differences between the two types of living, not in abstract ways but how daily life will not be the same in our social and personal relationships with one another, the hierarchy of work, the division of labour in production of social wealth, our access to the products, our consumption patterns of those products, plus our extraneous indulgements in the arts and other leisurely pursuits.
We have a rich literature on all the possibilities. We are not devising schemes based upon nothing. Keeping to our analogy, our cook-shop menu is based upon what the kitchen has in its fridges and larders. The menu will not be set-meals, one, two or three, but more a pix and mix buffet. But for various reasons and purposes, some food items will be missing, or the portions smaller, and alternatives and substitutes included instead to placate the palate.
To finish, Star Trek got around the who will do the menial service work question in part by creating a species Bolian. We need not, instead we say that if no-body is willing to wait upon another then it will be done by oneself or not at all.
Excellent, Alan. 🙂
Domestication, marked by the cultivation of plants and the constriction of animals to a particular place, was a key turning point in the gradual replacement of nomadic lifestyles with the sedentary systems of states, classes, cities, work and private property. In this sense, Zerzan argues, ‘in domesticating animals and plants man necessarily domesticates himself’.
So even if you accept the logic in your contribution (Which I think has one or two holes anyway) had humans been entirely herbivorous the process of domestication of plants would have had more or less an identical impact on social relationships as that of animals and plants.
The obvious question to ask is therefore, what point are you trying to make about meat consumption that would not apply to consumption of a purely vegan diet. Are you trying to say that all of the ills of capitalism lie at the door of meat consumption?
I would say that the development of class society clearly did have it’s genesis in elements of the agricultural revolution and I don’t see that as a negative thing, neither do I hanker after the “joys” of life in a pre agricutural society.
According to biblical sources, the problem goes back to Abel – the herdsman and Cain, the arable farmer, who murders the hunter-gatherer.
So let’s not have any fratricide among comrades, comrades.
But the story is even older, going back to Sumerian times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_between_sheep_and_grain
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.