Marxist Animalism
- This topic has 973 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
John Oswald wrote:Someone has written the old slogan: "Our loyalty should be to our own species." But the interest of our own species is the respect and preservation of the other species. Some might like to imagine a future as all-human, with a few other species individuals kept in captivity as a souvenir of a past era. But you wouldn`t be able to live in such a world, and more to the point, why would you want to? All life is interconnected, as a true materialist would understand. The old "It`s us vs them" (humans vs other animals) doesn`t wash. The only us vs them is workers vs capitalists. It is in the interests of the workers to establish a society and a world of diversity and beauty. Socialists of the world, you have nothing to lose but your outdated, mechanistic, Cartesian chains!
I have the feeling you may be launching another attack at comrade Strawman again (poor sod he get's all the flack). Who are these mechanistic Cartesians? (Though for the record I don't think animals have souls. I don't think humans do either!)But that said I think the idea of "speciesim" is only good as a way of working out the issues but that's it.Racism turns out to be baseless because it turns out there are no grounds on which the basis of it's descrimination are founded.There are however real differences which ground discrimination between species. The suffering of a human, or other more complex animals, is different in kind to the suffering of that of less complex animals. We have to be careful not to anthropomorphsize.In some ways I think "speciesism" is a good thing, I think human infants, the mentally retarded and those in commas etc should be granted special privileges on the basis of there species regardless of the fact that other animals may be in a position to feel more suffering and have a higher level of sentience etc…What our responsibilities to other species and what our needs are can only be settled by human discourse. I do hope we are heading to a world that does treat animals more compassionately…
"How are you going to establish a society free of exploitation if you are riddled with it yourself?"I cannot magine that even as socialists we can free ourselves completely of its ideologies. But upon saying that, we shouldn't use it an an excuse not to aspire to greater ideals that we personally don't possess ourselves. This is the hard part about being a socialist…to paraphrase Marx, how do we wash off the shit of our past. I think because we are children of our time, that we grew up being conditioned and brainashed, being confronted with images we will never ever free ourselves totally of pre-conceptions, prejudice and bias.When Scotland play England at football, the irrational nationalist emerges from me…it is no longer may the best team win …but…even if it is league club level, we can each be subject to the local tribalism. With emotional and sexual relationships it even more complicated…we can be as someone once said not sexist but a bodyist…society's norms of what is beauty is being imposed upon us and we respond to those signals, often being unaware of them. We can also be ageist, criticising both younger and older than ourselves, one section still to learn…another for being too old to learn. Animal rights has the same complication. I often use the analogy of animal intelligence…pigs are cleverer than dogs but in animal IQ tests octopuses are also cleverer than dogs but we dismiss their intelligence or any empathy with a squid. Our crime isn't exactly what DJP criticises but the opposite…for not relating to animals more…for not anthromorphising…don't they say never ever give you animals names if they are eventually heading to be slaughtered but we always name our pets (although i did name a cat i had "Cat" less embarrassing than going out at night and shouting for "Tiddles")It will not be for a generation or two born inside a socialist society that we will see the full potential of people realised and revealed, totally freed from the effects of exploitations. Today, apart from some speculative sci-fi imaginings like News From Nowhere or Woman on the Edge of Time…who knows how we will behave … ..For now the more anonymous the origins of the food we eat, the better we seem to appreciate it …we don't have the burden of responsibility…whether it is the suffering of the beast of the field or the suffering of the field-hand, poisoned by pesticides and fertilisers…even vegetarians cannot escape social culpability unless they only eat what they themselves grow…or only choose organic but this being capitalism, money and economics will always come first both for producer and consumer and i cannot afford to be choosey and particular…i go for budget, the cheapest…chemicalised or not…flavour can always be enhanced by sauces and whatnot.
AN UNNATURAL ORDER by Jim Mason: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Unnatural-Order-Primal-Animals-Nature/dp/1590560817/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421320943&sr=1-1&keywords=an+unnatural+order%2C+jim+masonContains what is perhaps the most chilling quote by a human supremacist Marxist ever written.
And, from Stephen Jay Gould:"Scientists … long ago abandoned the concept of necessary links between evolution and progress as the worst kind of anthropocentric bias. Yet most laymen still equate evolution with progress and define human evolution not simply as change, but as increasing intelligence … or some other measure of assumed improvement."This fallacious equation of organic evolution with progress continues to have unfortunate consequences … Today it remains a primary component of our global arrogance, our belief in dominion over, rather than fellowship with, more than a million other species that inhabit our planet."
alanjjohnstone wrote:"How are you going to establish a society free of exploitation if you are riddled with it yourself?"I cannot magine that even as socialists we can free ourselves completely of its ideologies. But upon saying that, we shouldn't use it an an excuse not to aspire to greater ideals that we personally don't possess ourselves. This is the hard part about being a socialist…to paraphrase Marx, how do we wash off the shit of our past. I think because we are children of our time, that we grew up being conditioned and brainashed, being confronted with images we will never ever free ourselves totally of pre-conceptions, prejudice and bias.With emotional and sexual relationships it even more complicated…we can be as someone once said not sexist but a bodyist…society's norms of what is beauty is being imposed upon us and we respond to those signals, often being unaware of them. We can also be ageist, criticising both younger and older than ourselves, one section still to learn…another for being too old to learn. Animal rights has the same complication. I often use the analogy of animal intelligence…pigs are cleverer than dogs but in animal IQ tests octopuses are also cleverer than dogs but we dismiss their intelligence or any empathy with a squid. Our crime isn't exactly what DJP criticises but the opposite…for not relating to animals more…for not anthromorphising…don't they say never ever give you animals names if they are eventually heading to be slaughtered but we always name our pets (although i did name a cat i had "Cat" less embarrassing than going out at night and shouting for "Tiddles")It will not be for a generation or two born inside a socialist society that we will see the full potential of people realised and revealed, totally freed from the effects of exploitations. Today, apart from some speculative sci-fi imaginings like News From Nowhere or Woman on the Edge of Time…who knows how we will behave … ..For now the more anonymous the origins of the food we eat, the better we seem to appreciate it …we don't have the burden of responsibility…whether it is the suffering of the beast of the field or the suffering of the field-hand, poisoned by pesticides and fertilisers…even vegetarians cannot escape social culpability unless they only eat what they themselves grow…or only choose organic but this being capitalism, money and economics will always come first both for producer and consumer and i cannot afford to be choosey and particular…i go for budget, the cheapest…chemicalised or not…flavour can always be enhanced by sauces and whatnot.Correct. IQ, of course, is a myth, which Gould has shown was used to deny certain people entry to the United States. There is no such thing as IQ.
DJP wrote:I have the feeling you may be launching another attack at comrade Strawman again (poor sod he get's all the flack). Who are these mechanistic Cartesians? (Though for the record I don't think animals have souls. I don't think humans do either!)Racism turns out to be baseless because it turns out there are no grounds on which the basis of it's descrimination are founded.There are however real differences which ground discrimination between species. The suffering of a human, or other more complex animals, is different in kind to the suffering of that of less complex animals. We have to be careful not to anthropomorphsize.In some ways I think "speciesism" is a good thing, I think human infants, the mentally retarded and those in commas etc should be granted special privileges on the basis of there species regardless of the fact that other animals may be in a position to feel more suffering and have a higher level of sentience etc…What our responsibilities to other species and what our needs are can only be settled by human discourse. I do hope we are heading to a world that does treat animals more compassionately…[/quote]The general attitude I`ve experienced is that which can be called Cartesian. However, I know you don`t believe in an entity external to nature called "soul."One is not anthropomorphising by recognising that sentience ought to be the front line. That is my ethic. Obviously, not yours.Granted privileges? Sounds like capitalist society again: you determining who has this or that "privilege" – the privilege not to be tortured, is that it?So if one has a higher level of sentience (for instance, macaques are more sentient than humans ), it shouldn`t make any difference – because someone somewhere is going to torture them under socialism, are they? And that`s OK?
Vin wrote:John Oswald wrote:"When you have killed the last wolf, then will you be truly alone." Native American proverb.So the native Americans were vegitarians? Or hypocrites that ate meat and wore animal skins?No they weren`t, and I never said they were; and you are just being facetious. Please keep replies sensible if I am to bother replying to them from now on. Thank you.
This applies to the comment about native Americans, by the way.
I am out of here. It's another 'science for socialists' Can't be bothered to defend Strawmen.
I consider crass the reference by some to "the hypocrisy" of me praising the native Americans of the Plains, dependent on buffalo, whilst supporting vegetarianism in the western world of today. Those wishing to eat meat should maybe be prepared to do their own killing, rather than just be open mouths at the end of a production line of mass misery and murder.
John Oswald wrote:Those wishing to eat meat should maybe be prepared to do their own killing, rather than just be open mouths at the end of a production line of mass misery and murder.And this is why I am pretty certain that a Socialist society, whilst not being completly vegetarian, will not eat nearly as much meat as is done today. Who wants to spend all day working in a slaughterhouse?
Voila!
John Oswald wrote:sentience ought to be the front line. That is my ethic.This raises some interesting dilemas though….When the question is "who should we rescue from the burning building first, the dog or the newly born baby?" I'm sure almost everyone wouldn't hesitate and say the baby.But if we use sentience and not species to determine our priorities the answer should be the dog, since presumably dogs are more sentient than newly born infants. I don't about you but to me this is an unacceptable conclusion.So it seems to me that discrimination based soley on the grounds of species is acceptable after all…
Oh the old thing again: If your house is burning, etc. etc. This is covered simply. Not that such a situation is imminent or likely. My answer would be, the relationship. Rescue a stranger who happens to be human, or my dog whom I love? Simple, my dog!Who is closer to one as one is fleeing, dog or human, when both are important to me? Whoever is at hand.An elderly human whose life is coming to an end anyway, or a young dog who has his life before him? Dog again, because of life value.Human supremacist armchair socialist bigot, or my beloved cat? No contest!
What people come up with to beef up their prejudices! The burning house crap is the equivalent of the "who will do the dirty work?" and the "Everyone would grab all the food" crap that socialists hear from the hoi polloi. Your burning house is the speciesist equivalent of such rubbish.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.