Marxist Animalism

[Anonymous]

By the way, Groucho Marx picture, great!

[DJP]

John Oswald wrote:

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

Of course it's not supposed to be based on a real life situation, it's a thought experiment to test a concept…Note in the question I said "we" not "I" or "you" the question is about social moral obligation rather than individual preference.Sure you could choose the dog, but you would face strong moral condemnation for doing so, and I would think this is right.But you seem to have admitted to be a speciesist in the above anyhow…Do you think it is OK to steal babies from their mothers and to keep then in your possesion for your own amusment?If the answer in no then how, by your own anti-speciesist ethics, can it be acceptable to do so with the offspring of other animals?

[ALB]

This might of relevance:http://www.firstpost.com/living/homeless-kitty-saves-abandoned-baby-2049441.html

[alanjjohnstone]

This article is in support of ALB (albeit a vested interest doing the reporting)Chicken Feed the worldhttp://www.fwi.co.uk/poultry/poultry-has-the-power-to-feed-the-world.htmEvery year we have stories of a person who rushes into a burning house to save a pet…if he survives, he is universally acclaimed a hero…if he dies in the attempt…he is just as equally condemned as a reckless fool. What i want to know is who decided it should be women and children first on a life-boat when a ship is sinking? Sexist and ageist !!And we haven't discussed cannibalism yet…long pig..Soylent Greenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_StephensApparently human flesh is rather tastyhttp://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/what-does-human-meat-taste-like-9748706.htmlSurely the utilitarians versus the vegetarians have to advocate that it should be permissible, as long as done lawfully ie already dead from another cause…Aren't by-products of foetuses used already in some cosmetics and make-up?

[ALB]

There's some silly arguments there, Alan, but there's no real need to have a grand philosophical debate about this. As far as I'm concerned if someone wants to make a lifestyle choice of being a vegetarian, fair enough, go ahead, but leave the rest of us to get on with our wider eating habits. To be honest this is what most vegetarians do. The trouble is that some are over-zealous and criticise the rest of us, so provoking arguments. They think they've got the moral high ground but just come across as smug. And of course those who associate vegetarianism with socialism have to be refuted. Actually, we can turn the tables on them here by pointing out that only within a socialist framework can a rational food policy not involving the mistreatment of animals be put into practice.

[alanjjohnstone]

I was being deliberately provoctive in my last message, i plead guilty of that …but , no, i disagree that there is no wider devbate at hand ..Our eating habits and manner of food production is not just a personal issue but a social question, as it is an environmental question. I'm a car owner , just as i admit to being a omnivore but will we all have private cars in socialism?…i would say we may well have that individual choice but when it comes to the manufacture of motor vehicles and the building of roads, the detrimental consequences of private motoring will be outweighed by social concerns. If public transport isn't suffice we will have car-sharing pools. As we have i think in our literature discussed having alternatives to our own yachts. Society will limit the freedom to drive, as much as it will to sail.  Authoritarianism? Some may well call it that. Vin already said he is cautious about the dictatorship of the majority. But we aren't individualist anarchists or right libertarian defenders of abstract consumer (or producer) rights. We are advocates, as Bookchin said, of social ecology.   What i think i am keep saying and i think John did as well…We cannot create a vegan world by individual conversion or changing personal taste inside capitalist society. We are not despite our advocacy of non-meat eating trying to impose a lifestyle on to others…but suggesting that such a conclusion wiill be by collective politics in the interests of society as a whole when socialism is established, in full agreement with your final statement "only within a socialist framework can a rational food policy not involving the mistreatment of animals be put into practice…"But  i would add without despoiling the soil through intensive chemical agriculture since i'm no supporter of present industrial farming methods or even farmers themselves (thats a hangover from being the offspring of an ex-farm labourer brought up in serf-like conditions and i saw for myself the lingering effects of that when i, myself, visited my countryside relations  ) I see no reason why such a general aim should be hidden away or relegated to forums and discussion lists. It should be declared quite clearly in our case for socialism. War deserved a devoted chapter in our pamphlet 'Inconvenient Question'..i suggest included in waste should be livestock and monoculture agriculture (there is a mention of impact of agriculure in the earlier 'Ecology and Socialism' pamphlet)I would like to have read something about food in our …'How we could live', in the chapter , Useful Production …And i particularly would have liked to see it mentioned in our 'Socialism as a practical alternative' in the chapter, preserving resources. For me socialism is all about aspiring to live in togetherness with my fellow human beings and from that will arise living in harmony with the planet..whether a wild forest or a tamed farm…As i said i am no defender of the encroachment of farming, whether for cattle or soya when i see the evidence that it is not necessary and is harmful to the environment.Some try to fool us with promises of humanising capitalism…We do not counter enough by emphasising the humanity of socialism. That leads us to the earlier debates all about morals and ethics …but another day.. 

[Anonymous]

My decision is not based on species, but upon relationship. I would choose my dog over a stranger`s baby, but probably not my own baby. Among humans I too would draw the distinction of relationship. Whereas you are making the choice by species alone, which makes you the speciesist (which you admit) and not me.Were you in a boat cut adrift with three people and you could only save two, who would you pick to throw overboard:1) The head of a biological warfare institute,2) a dog3) a pseudo-socialist lying capitalist politician.I suppose you`d throw the dog overboard?No, of course I don`t consider it right to steal babies. I am unfortunately living in a speciesist society and a capitalist one, in which animals such as cats and dogs are abandoned in great numbers. I have a rescue cat, who was abandoned, having been taken from his mother and kept in confinement. Adopting him is not a solution to the evils of society, but I think you will agree it helps him. I don`t support the idea of "pets", and believe a sane, non-speciesist society (which would have to be socialist to have any chance of coming into existence) would see pet-keeping phased out. I know too of animal activists who personally cannot stand to be around fellow animals of other species, but rescue them all the same. Personally, they don`t live with "pets."

[Anonymous]

None of this has really been about vegetarianism. You seem to have a problem with vegetarianism per se, to keep bringing it up. Not all animal issues are about vegetarianism.I remember my dad teaching me about socialism and Shelley, saying, "We agree with what Shelley says, but not his vegetarianism, so ignore his pieces about that", and me, a son idolising everything his dad said, nodding approval.It seems to be the flesh-eaters who are always ridiculing vegetarians, actually. I`ve found ethical vegetarians on these forums largely silent by comparison. Socialists who are meat-eaters, however, can`t stop talking about vegetarianism. (Freud on line 1 for you, comrade …)Yes, those who associate socialism with vegetarianism have to be refuted. I did this last year when a letter in The Big Issue by a vegan claimed mass veganism would solve world hunger. I explained that even if vegetable crops replaced all meat production, food under capitalism still would be destroyed rather than given to those who can`t afford to buy it!The last sentence you say here is quite right.And a debate on speciesism and evolution is not a debate on vegetarianism.

[ALB]

John Oswald wrote:

I remember my dad teaching me about socialism and Shelley, saying, "We agree with what Shelley says, but not his vegetarianism, so ignore his pieces about that"

I see your dad understood the Party case.

[Anonymous]

 Yes, and so do I.  He would also turn aside in disgust and horror if a clip of animal cruelty such as a bullfight unexpectedly came on TV.

[Anonymous]

Instead of Action Man and his militaristic regalia, I had an action figure of Sitting Bull with his accoutrements. Remember those?

[ALB]

But nobody here is in favour of bull fighting or animal cruelty (the member who defended bull-fighting on the WSM Forum is now an ex-member and has joined Left Unity though he does appear here from time to time).You are right "Animal rights" and "anti-speciesism" have nothing to do with vegetarianism. You don't have to be a vegetarian to espouse these, though that animals have "rights" is a dubious concept. It's more that humans have a "duty" not to be cruel to them. As we say in the concluding paragraph of our Ecology and Socialism pamphlet:

Quote:

As the only consciously-acting life-form within the biosphere, humans ought to act as the biosphere's "brain", consciously regulating its functioning in the interest of present and future generations. But before humans can hope to play this role we must first integrate our own activities into a sustainable natural cycle on a planetary scale. This we can only do within the framework of a world socialist society in which the Earth and its natural and industrial resources have become the common heritage of all humanity.

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

You are right "Animal rights" and "anti-speciesism" have nothing to do with vegetarianism. You don't have to be a vegetarian to espouse these

Not sure if that's right. To be none-speciesist would either involve veganism (since if it is not right to eat humans or use them for food products, it is not right to do so to animals either) or cannibalism (since if it is ok to eat animals it is ok to eat humans to). As far as I'm concerned Peter Singer's (that's where this comes from) arguments about speciesism are rather specious, but that doesn't mean I'm pro blood sports or whatever….

[ALB]

Depends how you define "speciesism". If it's the view that humans are "the lords of creation" and can do what they like to other animals, then it's something to be criticised. If "anti-speciesism" means that members of the human species are not entitled to eat other animals and that people who say that we can are "speciesists" then it's a load of nonsense, more properly called as you suggest "speciousism" if only because it doesn't challenge the "right" of other species of animal to eat other animals. The worse thing about Peter Singer is not so much his specious philosophising on this point but the fact that he claims to be a Marxist. Marx must be choking on his frankfurters.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

 

Quote:

As the only consciously-acting life-form within the biosphere, humans ought to act as the biosphere's "brain", consciously regulating its functioning in the interest of present and future generations. But before humans can hope to play this role we must first integrate our own activities into a sustainable natural cycle on a planetary scale. This we can only do within the framework of a world socialist society in which the Earth and its natural and industrial resources have become the common heritage of all humanity.

You thus deny consciousness to nonhuman animals. They are not unconscious, just not human. They do not encapsulate thoughts such as the above, but they act in accordance with a rational faculty applicable to their own being. "The biosphere`s "brain""… What arrogance! Even if we establish socialism, we could also become extinct due to biological/natural factors. We`re not even a speck in the cosmos. We`re not even a speck in the biosphere of this world. We must strive to establish the greatest happiness for the greatest number here on Earth, and pursue that. That is our nature and our interest. We cannot do it until, within our own species-life, we have eradicated capitalist society and established socialist human society. You are arrogating to yourselves, however, a power you do not have. Our brains will disappear with the rest of us in the great cosmic soup, just as will the molecules, brains etc. of all living beings, regardless of our "human" priorities. Do not confuse the social with the biological.

[Author]

Posts