Socialism and "animal rights"

[OriginalGumby]

http://socialistworker.org/2009/10/26/socialism-and-animal-rights

I figure this will produce an interesting discussion.

[Axle]

I don't focus very much time or energy on animal rights, but that article pretty much makes sense to me, and I'm glad to read an article on animal rights that doesn't gush over Peta and other animal rights/animal liberation groups, but instead shows them for the utter jokes they are.

(And with quotes like "And I also know I am far more interested in the plight of the spotted owl than I am in a logger in Oregon. I have a problem with glorifying the downtrodden worker." I'm surprised they're taken seriously by anyone.)

[LOLseph Stalin]

Although I'm against animal abuse, I strongly dislike groups such as PETA. THey take the whole animal rights thing way too far. I get the impression that many of them value animal life over human life. Some of their campaigns are quite disturbing too. Using the decapitation of a human on a bus and comparing it to animals being slaughted? What the hell is that? I also don't like that they try to force veganism down people's throats. I'm perfectly fine with eating meat as long as the animal it's coming from wasn't abused or neglected during its lifetime. Some animals have been raised for food and other resources for thousands of years and they'll continue to be so. At least until we can somehow get everybody able to eat an alternate source of protein which can be a problem now with the inequal distribution of resources around the world.

[N3wday]

EarthFirst! co-founder Dave Foreman made a similar point in a 1991 interview for Sports Illustrated: "If it came down to a confrontation between a grizzly and a friend, I'm not sure whose side I would be on. But I do know humans are a disease, a cancer on nature. And I also know I am far more interested in the plight of the spotted owl than I am in a logger in Oregon. I have a problem with glorifying the downtrodden worker."

Hitler and his closest associates were also very concerned with the welfare of animals. He personally ushered through a Law on Animal Protection in 1933 that read in part, "It is forbidden to unnecessarily torment or roughly mishandle an animal." Luftwaffe chief Herman Goering, who was head of the German Humane Society (!), issued a ban on vivisection (later modified), announcing that violators would be placed in concentration camps. Goering also restricted hunting, and forbid the boiling of live lobsters.

if a mod wants to remove this comment that's fine, i understand this is the theoretical section...

but seriously... comparing him to Hitler—this article is real and not a joke right? i started to write a long response to some of the earlier points but decided to read to the end first to make sure i wasn't addressing anything discussed later. however, after encountering that quote i will exit this thread leaving only this sentiment.

:laugh: LOL :laugh:

[Invincible Summer]

The whole "But... the Nazis wanted to save animals too!" and "Hitler was a vegetarian!" arguments are so infantile, seriously.

I wonder how many "bad" people eat meat? :rolleyes:

I'm a vegetarian but I hate PETA, ALF, etc. They're just nutty. PETA exploits women too... right, cuz people will want to become vegetarian due to a woman being scantily dressed in lettuce.

I'll write more when I have time

[scarletghoul]

I personally love animals and hate people harming animals and I think that animal rights should definately be dealt with one day, with a society built that is good for animals, but not right now. While most of humanity is still oppressed, it is stupid to concentrate on the wellbeing of animals, not for moral reasons but for the reason that most people will not give a fuck about animal liberation when their own species has not been liberated. We should concentrate on proletarian revolution, and creating a society that is free and equal for all humans. Once we've achieved that it will be possible and worthy to bother about animal rights.

So I sympathise with animal rights groups, but think that their existence at this point in human progress is incorrect and I guess somewhat reactionary too.

[Weezer]

Animals can never be equal amongst themselves. We can't simply tell lions to stop preying on other animals. Animal rights is a nice idea, I hate animal cruelty, but animal rights and "liberation," is another thing entirely. Animals cannot be liberated like we can. Hierarchy between animals sadly cannot be broken, they most we could is stop eating animals. But what I hate about PETA, ALF, Animal Rights Milita, they almost want to force their lifestyle on you. That is not right.

And anyone who equates the Holocaust and killing animals should be shot.

[OriginalGumby]

Just letting you know that this piece produced seven responses on our website.

http://socialistworker.org/2009/10/29/views-brief
http://socialistworker.org/2009/10/29/humans-and-other-animals
http://socialistworker.org/2009/10/29/animal-oppression-and-capitalism


Oh I just wanted to say that I don't think Paul is seriously saying that animal rights activists are similar to Nazis. I think it was more about pulling out the contradiction of using the Holocaust as a comparable thing with eating animals.

[Lyev]

I'm kind of just echoing what others have said but those 'animal liberation' groups are just insane. They're so irrational, it's as if animal rights are the absolute priority. I'm vegetarian, but when it comes down to it, humans are more important than animals. I've heard about them raiding labs that test on animals. It can often get totally normal, innocent people involved; people that make up the immense majority and love animals and wish to avoid harming them, but just don't take it a militant, ram-it-down-your-throat level.

[Muzk]

I eat meat because it's part of everyones life, and I honestly cba to get some kind of plan about what to eat and what not

For me animals don't have any abstract "rights", it's just that with capitalism those animals are used as consumer product, whereas the grass/whatever they eat could be used to feed 10 times more people, or, yes, the issue the socialist worker site thing pointed out, the destruction of whole races, or natural "killers" of the self-regulating nature, shit might just collapse like a bunch of firecrackers
not the grass but you get it..

and this is the main thing we should use as an argument, rather than
"ANIMALS ARE HUMANS TOO... o wait"

About those "animal right" groups... get a hobby

[Die Rote Fahne]

Animal rights should be included in socialist policy. But it isn't our main concern.

[Dimentio]

Rights could never be an objective absolute. Rights are ultimately a foundation of some sort of social contract where the people struggles to get rights. That is what separates rights from privilegies.

Therefore, animals could never have rights in the human sense. But I think that inhumane treatment of other living beings than ourselves is completely unnacceptable and that we would need to construct a society where we actively strive to minimise pain and suffering.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I don't think communism has to attach every "rights" movement alongside it. I may be mistaken in this belief. However, I do think an ethical battle has to be fought in order to vastly improve the conditions of animals.

Ethics in general is extremely complex, in my view. Adding animals into considerations makes things even more difficult.

[Vanguard1917]

Under socialism, animals will be used by human beings much more rationally than they are today -- whether for food production or scientific research and testing. 'Animal rights' is an irrational phenomenon produced by a society which encourages irrationalism.

[gorillafuck]

Its 2008 "Wrong Meeting" video shows a hooded Klansman attending a kennel club meeting to talk about "breeding to achieve a master race"--equating the breeding of dogs with the Klan's white supremacism.
That doesn't even kind of make sense. I mean, I can at least understand what they are attempting to say with the "Holocaust on your plate" one (even though it's insane), but equating dog breeding with white supremacism? Can someone explain that to me?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Under socialism, animals will be used by human beings much more rationally than they are today -- whether for food production or scientific research and testing. 'Animal rights' is an irrational phenomenon produced by a society which encourages irrationalism.

If you are suggesting animals and humans both lack "rights" and that rights an an illusion, then I agree with you. If you think only humans have "rights," I am curious why you would not apply such rights to animals?

[rebelmouse]

animals should be equal with humans, because biologically they are very similar to us (structure inside of body) and because we developed agriculture enough to stop to eat meat. if we see animals as equal with us, of course, we can say that slaughtering houses are brutal and bad.
I don't see that ALF push anybody anything, maybe some people got such feeling, but ALF mostly liberate animals and don't push me or you anything. who wants, he can participate, who don't want, no problem.
everything must be with free will, so it is the same about eating of meat. people must discuss, but they should not push anybody anything. of course, some people have choice to stop to be friend with someone who eat animals.
so, I am friend with people who eat animals, even I think it is primitive and brutal behaviour but I understand that people are consumers who just adapt themselves in society and society learned them some things, parents also, plus they get ready hamburger, they don't see how it is made.
in any case, I still eat meat when I survive, but when I have money, I buy macrobiotic food. because I use my brain, I don't consume what society learned me to consume. in the past, people ate people, in the present, people eat animals, in the future, people will not eat meat anymore. it is process of evolution for which are necessary centuries...without abolishing of capitalism, there would be no conditions that people stop to eat meat. present distribution of agriculture is based on needs of capitalists, therefore many people can't get it and they find solution in eating of meat.
but surely, we should not separate us on the basis of eating and non eating of meat. our enemy is the state and exploitation which is now called capitalism.

[TC]

Socialism doesn't speak to, either for or against, animal rights, and it is a sign of category confusion to think that a belief in socialism, which is to say a belief in human emancipation (as defined by Marx on the Jewish Question) and collectivized ownership of the means of production, necessitates either pro or anti-animal rights views. It does not anymore than socialism necessitates belief in rival positions in theoretical physics.

[9]

Socialism doesn't speak to, either for or against, animal rights, and it is a sign of category confusion to think that a belief in socialism, which is to say a belief in human emancipation (as defined by Marx on the Jewish Question) and collectivized ownership of the means of production, necessitates either pro or anti-animal rights views. It does not anymore than socialism necessitates belief in rival positions in theoretical physics.

I don't think that people who suggest that "animal rights" - or non abusive treatment of animals - can only be achieved in a communist society are doing so out of confusion. It seems pretty logical to me to assume that, in a society in which the "average person" is exploited and production (and life in general) serves the interests of private profit, that any serious and substantial change in the treatment of animals, when it is not in the interests of private profit, is simply unfeasible.

[fidzboi]

If you are suggesting animals and humans both lack "rights" and that rights an an illusion, then I agree with you. If you think only humans have "rights," I am curious why you would not apply such rights to animals?

The general idea is that in order to have 'rights', you must be able to perceive and understand those 'rights'. Humans can do this, animals can't. So therefore humans are afforded 'rights', animals are afforded 'protections' - as are children and the mentally handicapped, who also can't 'perceive' of their 'rights'. Whatever you wish to call our 'rights', whatever phrase you would use, the fundamental difference between how humans can conceptualise our existence and how animals conceptualise theirs, means that there must be a difference 'in the eyes of the law'. (Not the best phrase, but you get my point.)

Hoboman is wrong about the hierarchy of animal life, chimpanzees for example, have been observed to have political praxis. Male chimpanzees, in order to rule, need to win the support of the female chimpanzees, in effect they must win a 'general election'. And it is not necessarily the 'strongest' that wins, and nor are the power politics of chimpanzee life solely determined by men. Female chimpanzees have been observed within a male ruling clique, and they have been observed asserting sexual rights over other females. (Sexual rights are one of the prime focuses, if not the prime focus of chimpanzee political life.)

So animals are a little more complicated, but still they are not at the same level as humans. The most advanced, like chimps, are perhaps similar to very primitive humans, but there is no species that is comparable to the modern human. Therefore, no species can be afforded human 'rights'. Greater animal welfare however, is not necessarily a bad thing. But advocating anything other than animal protection, arguing that animals have rights comparable to humans, is, as people in this thread have correctly noted, a very, very, reactionary position.

Though I don't think that gives anyone the grounds to invoke the ghost of Hitler. That's shoddy argument, and rightly ridiculed here.

[Lord Hargreaves]

We can be socialists and not bother about animals - certainly, there is no reason at all why we can't be all be committed Marxists and at the same time be feral meat-eaters - and for that matter, raging misogynists, homophobes, racists and (why not?) sex offenders to boot. We can break the back of capital, institute worker's democracy and still be all those things. But this merely suggests that we all actually want a lot more than socialism - we want a much fuller emancipation that takes all of these other struggles into account. And, as my argument would go, the struggle for animal liberation is an essential part of this

The face of the animal troubles our consciousness in a fundamental way: in its lack of justification or purpose, its utter pointlessness, in its living-just-to-live, in its innocence of instrumental rationality, it can be the model of the kingdom of ends that we are really searching for - beyond the mere replacement of capitalism with another new mode of production, of our remaining within History. They "hold out their own names" (I think this is Adorno who used this phrase) for us

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Socialism doesn't speak to, either for or against, animal rights, and it is a sign of category confusion to think that a belief in socialism, which is to say a belief in human emancipation (as defined by Marx on the Jewish Question) and collectivized ownership of the means of production, necessitates either pro or anti-animal rights views. It does not anymore than socialism necessitates belief in rival positions in theoretical physics.

Could you elaborate on your meaning here? If I remember correctly, you favor animal rights as well. This "category confusion" - if it is the same as Ryle's (category mistake) - is a concept I have difficulty understanding.

If socialism is a belief in "human emancipation," that makes sense. However, definitions can evolve. What if someone defined socialism as "white emancipation." Ridiculous, I know, but let's consider the scenario. There seems to be an implicit argument here that a communist society would fail if it was "racially biased," but wouldn't fail if it was biased based on species - or treated animals properly.

Am I interpreting you incorrectly here? If not, what is the argument against a "racist socialism" being "possible?" (not just, as those arguments are quite known to us all).


The general idea is that in order to have 'rights', you must be able to perceive and understand those 'rights'. Humans can do this, animals can't. So therefore humans are afforded 'rights', animals are afforded 'protections' - as are children and the mentally handicapped, who also can't 'perceive' of their 'rights'. Whatever you wish to call our 'rights', whatever phrase you would use, the fundamental difference between how humans can conceptualise our existence and how animals conceptualise theirs, means that there must be a difference 'in the eyes of the law'. (Not the best phrase, but you get my point.)

So animals are a little more complicated, but still they are not at the same level as humans. The most advanced, like chimps, are perhaps similar to very primitive humans, but there is no species that is comparable to the modern human. Therefore, no species can be afforded human 'rights'. Greater animal welfare however, is not necessarily a bad thing. But advocating anything other than animal protection, arguing that animals have rights comparable to humans, is, as people in this thread have correctly noted, a very, very, reactionary position.


How does the ability to "conceptualize" our existence necessitate a special kind of "human rights?" I'll provide a few thought experiments because I love thought experiments.

1. The point at which a person gains "human rights," this ability to "conceptualize," is eliminated before it can happen.

I assume the removal of such "conceptualization" was unjust, but it wasn't the same as harm towards an individual?

2. A special surgery turns off our ability to "conceptualize." Are we now only granted "protections?"

3. A person loses their ability to "conceptualize" from a disease. Only protections?

I assume you will actually agree with all these scenarios. I just want to make sure I understand the position. My main difficultly is I don't understanding what this "ability to conceptualize is" and how it translates into special rights. I understand how "being able to feel pain" translates into, at the very least, "protections." I understand how being a fireman translates into someone who fights fires.

Hopefully you can explain it to me. You probably explained it already, but can't really figure out what was meant. Thanks.

[NecroCommie]

Rights are:

1) Ideas made up by humans, so impossible for animals
2) Taken by force and therefor impossible for animals
3) Abstract to the extreme, and so not even in the reach of most animal understanding, rendering 1 and 2 even more futile for animals

Animal rights therefor cannot be fought for in the way human rights are. They are an exception in the "rights scene" in the sense that these rights must be given by man. Even before that they must be made up by man, meaning that we must realize the completely shocking fact that: 'gasp' Animals feel! Before that is achieved, it is not even theoretically possible to impose animal rights in practice.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I am not sure what I think about animal rights, but I see no reason why it is impossible and incompatable with Communism to want to improve rights for animals.

[fidzboi]

My main difficultly is I don't understanding what this "ability to conceptualize is" and how it translates into special rights.

I've had a bit to smoke and your 'experiment' really spun me out then for a moment, confused the fuck out of me. :confused:

I think I understand where you're coming from, basically what I mean by 'ability to conceptualize' is the ability to realise that you have rights. If we afford both a man and a dog 'the right to free speech', the man can understand that concept, the dog can't. He is able to consciously exercise that right knowing that he has the right to exercise that very right!

The dog may bark, but he does not know 'the right to free speech' is why he is allowed to bark. And if we took away that right he would be oblivious to this, and continue barking with a very limited understanding of whether he is allowed to do this. The dog has some form of elementary understanding, as you can train him, in this case firmly calling his name will likely lead him to cease barking, making him understand that this is not appreciated behaviour.

But he would have no different understanding of this process if we bestowed upon him rights, humans however, would. We can conceptualise that we have rights, understand them, exercise them and defend them. Rights in modern society may be often ignored by our despotic rulers, but we can immediately recognise that our rights have been infringed. Animals can't, humans can.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Am I interpreting you incorrectly here? If not, what is the argument against a "racist socialism" being "possible?" (not just, as those arguments are quite known to us all).

Humans are valuable resources, the most valuable of all. Denying full use of these resources weakens the system. Further humans possess the mental facilities to realize there oppression and fight back against it.

A racist socialism will be weak and at war with itself. One that eats cows will not.


2. A special surgery turns off our ability to "conceptualize." Are we now only granted "protections?"

3. A person loses their ability to "conceptualize" from a disease. Only protections?

Yes, and yes.


My main difficultly is I don't understanding what this "ability to conceptualize is" and how it translates into special rights. I understand how "being able to feel pain" translates into, at the very least, "protections." I understand how being a fireman translates into someone who fights fires.


A lion can't really be held accountable when it kills a deer, nor can it vote. Without those it can't really participate in human society, and thus does not deserve full consideration from society.

[CELMX]

A lion can't really be held accountable when it kills a deer, nor can it vote. Without those it can't really participate in human society, and thus does not deserve full consideration from society.

So are you saying it's okay for humans to hunt lions and deer randomly and 'for fun'???
That seems totally unreasonable.
I think some efforts should be made to prevent certain species from dieing off, or getting brutally abused and/or killed. However, I don't think animals should be idolized like WWF does with polar bears.

Also, animals directly affect us humans. Take a look at the ecosystem.

I totally agree with other comrades that taking care of human oppression should be dealt with first before dealing with animals. Though, if you do have some spare time or something, you could help the animals out by doing...i dunno, whatever you do with animals.

[Yazman]

Animals cannot participate meaningfully in human society and therefore are not eligible for "rights" within it.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't protect nature and the creatures within it though.

[bcbm]

i wonder how many versions of this argument we can have on the front page of this forum at the same time.

[Lord Hargreaves]

1) Ideas made up by humans, so impossible for animals

A simple non sequitur - yes, rights are "made up" by humans, but why on earth would that mean animals can't have rights? Theres just no logic in this argument. If an animal has a right not to be brutually murdered for fun (yeah I know, we animal liberation folk are really pushing the boat out with that one!) this will inevitably mean that it is up to humans to monitor, police, enforce and prosecute that right since animals can't do it themselves. But I don't see how this means anything at all - so what?

[rebelmouse]

rights are product of capitalism, who is anyone to give or take rights from/to anyone?
human should eventually help to animals, if they want and how much they want, but surely they should not eat or exploit animals.
in any case, many people will not fight together with you against system if you eat their friends. many people see animals as friends, so.... think about it.

[NecroCommie]

A simple non sequitur - yes, rights are "made up" by humans, but why on earth would that mean animals can't have rights? Theres just no logic in this argument. If an animal has a right not to be brutually murdered for fun (yeah I know, we animal liberation folk are really pushing the boat out with that one!) this will inevitably mean that it is up to humans to monitor, police, enforce and prosecute that right since animals can't do it themselves. But I don't see how this means anything at all - so what?

This observation holds relevance when arguing against those who would deny animal rights. They usually say something like: "animals don't understand rights ect..." It is then good to point out that the animal rights are not even intented to originate from animals, but that they hold value among empathetic people. Your reaction was philosophically a correct one, but not everyone realizes this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a vegetarian and support the idea of animal "rights", but if we want to succesfully argue for them we must first understand that the idea of some natural animal rights as silly as god given human rights.

[fidzboi]

So are you saying it's okay for humans to hunt lions and deer randomly and 'for fun'???

Fox hunting, which is no longer allowed in the UK, doesn't seem like 'fun' to me. However there is an argument to be made that hunting certain animals ensures a better ecological system for humans, in other words farming is easier, and obviously some people find hunting 'fun'. I may not agree with that practice or want to personally engage in it, but it's not the most morally reprehensible thing imo.

And whilst there are some people who just plain 'like' hunting, I'd posit that overwhelmingly people hunt for financial reasons. the trade in ivory is a good example. Such practice would likely be reduced in a communist society, with the financial incentives surrounding it removed. But does that mean it is logistically possible or preferable to ban all hunting?

You'd need a regulatory body, with powers to punish law breakers. Such a body would likely have wide consequences in the operation of a communist society, it would reinstitute the mechanisms of state violence, and for any communist society to survive and function, it would likely need to reduce the potential of any kind of policing body emerging.

That's the practical reason why drug laws, for example, would not work in a communist society. Crime and punishment would have to focus only on the 'biggies': murder, rape, assault, etc., etc. Which in a more egalitarian economic system would be much less prevalent. Which would suit our desire for little policing, and even less policing bodies. Major crimes, when they happen, could be dealt with, democratically, by the community.

Crime and punishment is a tricky issue in a communist society, and we must avoid creating policing bodies which present a threat to the operation of a classless society. Policing hunting would be an unnecessary and unwanted extension of regulatory powers.

That doesn't mean we can't afforded protections to animals, I personally find dog fighting abhorrent. I don't support banning 'fighting breeds', - pitbulls are just as nice a dog as any, humans make them nasty, - but a community disallowing such practice seems reasonable to me. Particularly as 'fighting dogs' when trained to be nasty pose a risk to humans. But the same can't be said of the affects of the small section of people who find hunting 'fun'.

I don't expect such practice to be widespread, but I see the regulation of it as more dangerous than simply allowing people to engage in it. In this way it is allowed, but there is ample opportunity for citizens to argue against the practice making it something of a cultural taboo. Less people would do it for fear of being seen as brutish and nasty, but it wouldn't require a regulatory body that could challenge the very nature of society itself.

Sanctuaries that provide refuge for animals that are in danger of becoming extinct are much more positive and inkeeping with communist societal norms than any form of regulatory body that polices human behaviour.


But I don't see how this means anything at all - so what?

So what? So the ability to recognise that you have 'rights' is what makes them 'rights', and the inability to recognise them is what makes them 'protections'. Rights are given to participants in a society, people who are capable of contributing to society and of conceptualising and exercising these rights. Something that cannot do this, cannot have 'rights', it cannot only be afforded 'protections'.

The very process by which we either exercise 'rights' or afford 'protections', maps out a hierarchy between humans and animals. We are more advanced, able to more fully understand our social being, making us different with regards societal organisation. Animals cannot understand our social organisation, so they cannot be participants in it or be afforded the rights that accompany it.

They cannot lobby for inclusion, we means that we have to take it upon ourselves to decide how to deal with them. We afford them 'protections'. This very process underlines the natural hierarchy of species advancement, it means that human civil society must be compromised solely of humans, - at least until another being which comparable intelligence emerges, - and it means that allowing beings not capable of understanding our society to participate in it would be foolish.

Some of our closest relatives, chimps, have been observed as realising they are capable of physically dominating humans. If they were to participate in our society they would have no understanding of our 'rights', they would infringe upon them with no understanding of what they are doing. Meaning they lack the mental faculties for participation in civil society.

They can only be afforded 'protections', we can have 'rights'! That's important.


rights are product of capitalism, who is anyone to give or take rights from/to anyone?

Indeed, but whether 'the right to free speech' is called that or something completely different in a post-capitalist society, it will still exist as a concept.

[Lord Hargreaves]

So what? So the ability to recognise that you have 'rights' is what makes them 'rights', and the inability to recognise them is what makes them 'protections'. Rights are given to participants in a society, people who are capable of contributing to society and of conceptualising and exercising these rights. Something that cannot do this, cannot have 'rights', it cannot only be afforded 'protections'.

The very process by which we either exercise 'rights' or afford 'protections', maps out a hierarchy between humans and animals. We are more advanced, able to more fully understand our social being, making us different with regards societal organisation. Animals cannot understand our social organisation, so they cannot be participants in it or be afforded the rights that accompany it.

They cannot lobby for inclusion, we means that we have to take it upon ourselves to decide how to deal with them. We afford them 'protections'. This very process underlines the natural hierarchy of species advancement, it means that human civil society must be compromised solely of humans, - at least until another being which comparable intelligence emerges, - and it means that allowing beings not capable of understanding our society to participate in it would be foolish.

Some of our closest relatives, chimps, have been observed as realising they are capable of physically dominating humans. If they were to participate in our society they would have no understanding of our 'rights', they would infringe upon them with no understanding of what they are doing. Meaning they lack the mental faculties for participation in civil society.

They can only be afforded 'protections', we can have 'rights'! That's important.

You've needlessly confused two separate things:

1) where rights come from, and who decides them (or who can understand them)
2) who can benefit from a "rights" protection (I see no distinction between rights and protections, what you've said here makes no sense to me)

Thus we can have a purely constructivist account of where rights originate - that it is solely a matter of a human society legislating among themselves - and yet still decide that animals have rights

It seems utterly irrelevant whether or not they can lobby on their own behalf - we can lobby for them. Your account would inevitably result in widespread discrimination against those who cannot lobby for themselves (animals, but also very young children, the seriously disabled) or those who could lobby but dont (religious dissenters perhaps) or those who do lobby but are "unsuccessful" (at least historically, anyone who was not a white anglo-saxon christian male with property)

[fidzboi]

I see no distinction between rights and protections

Rights are perceived, understood and consciously exercised, protections are simply afforded. How can you not see a distinction between something which is understood and something which isn't? These are the base biological distinctions between the mental faculties of humans and animals, which explain why humans are able to have the complex social arrangements that permeate our history.

The remarkable things about chimps, for example, from a human perspective, is that they show a rudimentary understanding of certain mental faculties found in humans. In limited fashions, they can rationalise, perceive and more broadly understand their actions, they can anticipate certain outcomes. But even this is still rudimentary, is absent in observation of most living creatures, and in no way rivals or even comes close to human mental faculties.

We are different to animals, our brains function at a much higher level, and therefore endowing animals with legal equality is completely misguided. Any human policy towards animals must take into account our intellectual differences. Hence two distinct concepts within legal rules: rights and protections.


Thus we can have a purely constructivist account of where rights originate - that it is solely a matter of a human society legislating among themselves - and yet still decide that animals have rights

No. Language is a tool for outlining what something is. You may wish to assume that you can bestow upon animals 'rights', but any logical understanding of the concept would draw a distinction between the 'rights' of animals and the 'rights' of humans. It would require two distinctly separate forms of 'rights', and it is therefore a lot easier, simpler and infinitely more sensible to highlight that difference through the use of differing linguistic concepts. Hence 'rights' and 'protections'.


It seems utterly irrelevant whether or not they can lobby on their own behalf - we can lobby for them.

It is entirely relevant. It denotes whether they are able to participate in society and whether they can conceive of and exercise these rights. If they are unable to participate, then their relationship with civil society is fundamentally altered. There are distinct, material differences between the groups, and perforce we must understand this difference before we can tackle the question.


Your account would inevitably result in widespread discrimination against those who cannot lobby for themselves (animals, but also very young children, the seriously disabled) or those who could lobby but dont (religious dissenters perhaps) or those who do lobby but are "unsuccessful" (at least historically, anyone who was not a white anglo-saxon christian male with property)

This thread generally revolves around conceptions of democratic practice in a post-capitalist society, where the historical exclusivity of class society has been eradicated. But alas within the confines of the present world, we are able to make the argument for communism based on the understanding that the great mass of humanity, bar those who are unfortunately mentally afflicted in some way, are able to engage in participation in civil society.

If the institutions of governance were accessible to all humans and all animals, only humans would be able to participate. 'Lobbying' in this sense is a human characteristic, and we work on the understanding that most humans are capable of such practice. Animals are not.

The extension of the political franchise to all humans would enable all, well a overwhelming majority of humans anyway, to participate in that franchise. If we extended this franchise to animals, they would be oblivious to it, it would mean nothing to them. Which makes it pointless to treat animals, in a legal sense, in the way we treat humans. Hence rights and protections. Words are used for a reason, they have meanings which 'paint a picture'.
_ _ _ _ _

Given your acceptance of the differences, - 'it is solely a matter of a human society legislating among themselves', - what exactly do you propose are the protections afforded to animals? No meat eating? No hunting? No cruelty? If animal 'liberation' is ultimately a human action, then what does it mean for humans? Should we 'liberate' animals if the consequences for humans are dire? Emancipate ourselves, then emancipate animals and in the process negate our emancipation, that is the programme of animal 'liberation'.

[Ernest Valdemar]

I personally love animals and hate people harming animals and I think that animal rights should definately be dealt with one day, with a society built that is good for animals, but not right now. While most of humanity is still oppressed, it is stupid to concentrate on the wellbeing of animals, not for moral reasons but for the reason that most people will not give a fuck about animal liberation when their own species has not been liberated. We should concentrate on proletarian revolution, and creating a society that is free and equal for all humans. Once we've achieved that it will be possible and worthy to bother about animal rights.

Suppose we modify this argument slightly:

I personally love black people and think that racism should definately (sic) be dealt with one day, with a society built that is good for all races, but not right now. While most of humanity is still oppressed, it is stupid to concentrate on the wellbeing of black people, not for moral reasons but for the reason that most people will not give a fuck about black liberation while humanity as a whole not been liberated. We should concentrate on proletarian revolution, and creating a society that is free and equal for all humans. Once we've achieved that it will be possible and worthy to bother about racism.

Sound familiar? The same arguments have been made about feminism, gay liberation, and any number of other liberation struggles - about how those struggles should be postponed and subordinated to the goal of achieving world proletarian revolution; then, and only then, should we concern ourselves with the special oppression of X group.

It's crass historical stageism, and it is an excuse for perpetuating oppression that exists now under capitalism. It also ignores opportunities to teach lessons about capitalism's essential cruelty and indifference to the harm it causes in the pursuit of private profit. Worst of all, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the proletarian revolution is.

There is no reason why socialists today, living under capitalism, cannot support movements against the inhumane treatment of animals, just as we support movements against loss of biodiversity (the forced extinction of species), destruction of the rainforests, soil erosion and depletion, destruction and depletion of freshwater supplies, and a dozen other causes that expose capitalism's callous disregard for nature and the environment and bring large numbers of people into confrontation with those who seek to perpetuate the predatory ways of capital.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Rights are perceived, understood and consciously exercised, protections are simply afforded. How can you not see a distinction between something which is understood and something which isn't? These are the base biological distinctions between the mental faculties of humans and animals, which explain why humans are able to have the complex social arrangements that permeate our history.

The remarkable things about chimps, for example, from a human perspective, is that they show a rudimentary understanding of certain mental faculties found in humans. In limited fashions, they can rationalise, perceive and more broadly understand their actions, they can anticipate certain outcomes. But even this is still rudimentary, is absent in observation of most living creatures, and in no way rivals or even comes close to human mental faculties.

We are different to animals, our brains function at a much higher level, and therefore endowing animals with legal equality is completely misguided. Any human policy towards animals must take into account our intellectual differences. Hence two distinct concepts within legal rules: rights and protections.

So, how would this distinction appear in any actual legal framework? Is it just some kind of abstract philosophical distinction - and if so, where is the moral relevance of making the distinction?


No. Language is a tool for outlining what something is. You may wish to assume that you can bestow upon animals 'rights', but any logical understanding of the concept would draw a distinction between the 'rights' of animals and the 'rights' of humans. It would require two distinctly separate forms of 'rights', and it is therefore a lot easier, simpler and infinitely more sensible to highlight that difference through the use of differing linguistic concepts. Hence 'rights' and 'protections'.

But you aren't actually making an argument, at least as far as I can see. You say any "logical understanding of the concept" excludes animals from having rights, but I have no understanding of what you mean here..?


It is entirely relevant. It denotes whether they are able to participate in society and whether they can conceive of and exercise these rights. If they are unable to participate, then their relationship with civil society is fundamentally altered. There are distinct, material differences between the groups, and perforce we must understand this difference before we can tackle the question.

But why does it matter whether animals can participate in society? Surely it is precisely those who cannot take part in "civil society" - who cannot, as you say, lobby on their own behalf - who are most in need of being afforded "rights" protection?


This thread generally revolves around conceptions of democratic practice in a post-capitalist society, where the historical exclusivity of class society has been eradicated. But alas within the confines of the present world, we are able to make the argument for communism based on the understanding that the great mass of humanity, bar those who are unfortunately mentally afflicted in some way, are able to engage in participation in civil society.

If the institutions of governance were accessible to all humans and all animals, only humans would be able to participate. 'Lobbying' in this sense is a human characteristic, and we work on the understanding that most humans are capable of such practice. Animals are not.

Sure, but at the risk of repeating myself yet again - I really don't see why it matters


The extension of the political franchise to all humans would enable all, well a overwhelming majority of humans anyway, to participate in that franchise. If we extended this franchise to animals, they would be oblivious to it, it would mean nothing to them. Which makes it pointless to treat animals, in a legal sense, in the way we treat humans. Hence rights and protections. Words are used for a reason, they have meanings which 'paint a picture'.

I don't mean to include animals in any political institution or democratic decision making procedure. I don't want to extend the franchise. I simply want to extend legal protection to animals, so that they have a recognized "right to life" i.e. that they are recognized as life-forms with a right to live in and of themselves, that they are ends in-themselves and not mere raw materials for the use of humanity.

I'm not sure why any notion of "right" has to purely singular and uniform, so its an all-or-nothing thing - either you have rights (and so have a right to vote, run for parliament, use a library etc.) or you don't, which means you are just part of the furniture or something

[fidzboi]

Sound familiar? The same arguments have been made about feminism, gay liberation, and any number of other liberation struggles - about how those struggles should be postponed and subordinated to the goal of achieving world proletarian revolution; then, and only then, should we concern ourselves with the special oppression of X group.

... Worst of all, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the proletarian revolution is.

The key difference between all those groups and animals is, of course, that they are humans. In fact, all these groups are not only part of human society, they are also part of the working class. And there are obvious problems with advocating proletarian emancipation whilst keeping a section of the proletariat oppressed. 'Barracks communism' is a suitable phrase.

The moral and ethical opposition revolutionaries have, or at least should have, to oppression of these groups stems from a recognition understanding of proletarian emancipation. Animals of course are not part of the international working class, not only can they not conceive of their 'emancipation' but nor is it required for proletarian (and human) emancipation or desired. In fact animal 'emancipation' stands directly in contradiction with human civil society - man (and woman's) domination over both the animal kingdom and natural environment.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to act responsibly towards these elements, - poor treatment of animals can not only be opposed for ethical reasons but based on a desire to eat quality produce, and if acting responsibly towards the environment makes it more habitable for us, then that we should do, - but we must still recognise the existence of human primacy.


Surely it is precisely those who cannot take part in "civil society" - who cannot, as you say, lobby on their own behalf - who are most in need of being afforded "rights" protection?

They are the ones who need protections, but not rights. I've already explained why we have the two terms and how it is useful linguistically to have different words for differing concepts. I see no point labouring on that issue...

Alas, as I have said above, we should seek to be responsible to other living organisms, animals and the environment, but only in so far as it causes no harm upon us. Communism is human freedom, and the two lines of discourse that place either the environment or animals as equal to or above humans would create a society where human emancipation was not possible.


I simply want to extend legal protection to animals, so that they have a recognized "right to life" i.e. that they are recognized as life-forms with a right to live in and of themselves, that they are ends in-themselves and not mere raw materials for the use of humanity.

Mass veganism?

[Ernest Valdemar]

In fact animal 'emancipation' stands directly in contradiction with human civil society - man (and woman's) domination over both the animal kingdom and natural environment.

Talking about human domination over animals and the environment is a reflection of outdated, 20th century ways of thinking.

We have to recognize that we are part of nature, and that human society must recognize the necessity of living in harmony with the natural environment and respecting it - not bending it to our will. The indigenous movements of the global south already understand this. As Evo Morales said to the Continental Gathering of Solidarity with Bolivia in Guatemala City a year ago:


[T]he capitalist system treats the Mother Earth as a raw material, but the Earth cannot be understood as a commodity; who could privatize, rent or lease their own mother? I propose that we organise an international movement in defence of Mother Nature, in order to recover the health of Mother Earth and re-establish a harmonious and responsible life with her.

In The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man, Friedrich Engels wrote:


Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the first. The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor and elsewhere, destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that by removing along with the forests the collecting centres and reservoirs of moisture they were laying the basis for the present forlorn state of those countries. When the Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests on the southern slopes, so carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had no inkling that by doing so they were cutting at the roots of the dairy industry in their region... Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature - but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly.

[fidzboi]

We have to recognize that we are part of nature, and that human society must recognize the necessity of living in harmony with the natural environment and respecting it - not bending it to our will. The indigenous movements of the global south already understand this. As Evo Morales said...

Primitivist nonsense. My thinking may be '20th century', but yours dates back to a time before Christ! As likeable as Mr. Morales may be, any objective analysis of his and other Latin American Presidents on the left, - Chavez for example, - programmes, would likely liken them to the policies of the European social democrats before the 1980's. You'd expect Morales to follow their course.

Hospitals would be built, schools, all the features of the modern welfare state. So please explain how you can build a hospital without 'bending [the environment] to our will'? Modern architecture does just that, as does pretty much all human architecture in an historical sense. The only architecture that one could possible argue 'lives in harmony with the natural environment and respects it' would likely be the most basic huts.

People in the global south need, in fact should be entitled to, architecture that comes with electricity, running hot and cold potable water, heating, etc., etc. They need to greater bend our environment to the wills of humanity. Perhaps this position is '20th century', indeed it certainly reflects the modernity of that century, but your's precedes that. An environment not built to the will of humans is the environment of the hunter gatherer.


Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature - but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly.

Engels wrote this when? 1880's or 90's? We've certainly come a long way since then, we know many more of natures 'laws', we are certainly learning how to apply them more correctly, and this will in fact lead to our further mastery. Mastery that seeks to bend nature to our will, making it more habitable for humans. We do rule over nature, and Engels is mistaken in thinking our mastery cannot and will not reach a level where by our domination negates natures wrath. We are constantly better learning how to dominate nature without it biting us in the ass. That is the process we should be in favour of, not primitivism wrapped in a progressive cloak.

[Lord Hargreaves]

They are the ones who need protections, but not rights. I've already explained why we have the two terms and how it is useful linguistically to have different words for differing concepts. I see no point labouring on that issue...

You haven't explained at all, but merely asserted - and you won't answer the question of the moral significance of making the distinction


Alas, as I have said above, we should seek to be responsible to other living organisms, animals and the environment, but only in so far as it causes no harm upon us. Communism is human freedom, and the two lines of discourse that place either the environment or animals as equal to or above humans would create a society where human emancipation was not possible.

Well in a sense I don't disagree, humans should be afforded priority when their true interests clash with those of animals. Fine. But how exactly would granting animals rights conflict with the emancipatory goal of humanity in practice? I don't see it - and in fact - my argument is based on the idea that the "liberation" of animals and the freedom of humanity is routed in the same emancipatory telos; that of resisting the dominance of instrumental control, both in terms of humans dominating each other but also in terms of humans dominating other beings


Mass veganism?

In terms of animal rights, yeah, this would be the ideal goal

[Ernest Valdemar]

We'll see how well humans rule over nature and how we have learned so well to apply its laws when the planet has been devastated by droughts and floods, when there is mass starvation and species extinction, and the rainforests and polar icecaps are gone, thanks to the attitude that nature is there for humans to plunder.

Yeah, we're so much more in harmony with nature than we were in Engels's day! :rolleyes:

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Humans are valuable resources, the most valuable of all. Denying full use of these resources weakens the system. Further humans possess the mental facilities to realize there oppression and fight back against it.

A racist socialism will be weak and at war with itself. One that eats cows will not.

Yes, and yes.

A lion can't really be held accountable when it kills a deer, nor can it vote. Without those it can't really participate in human society, and thus does not deserve full consideration from society.

Alright, but I'm still lost on the lion. Why can't you hold it accountable? Simply because it had no choice and it was "being a lion?" Holding something "accountable" doesn't have any special consequences. You have to take action against a lion just as you do a human criminal.

Society can consider the suffering of others even when they don't consider our rights. Many children are quite selfish at a young age, but we take care of them despite their lack of consideration for others.



I've had a bit to smoke and your 'experiment' really spun me out then for a moment, confused the fuck out of me. :confused:

I think I understand where you're coming from, basically what I mean by 'ability to conceptualize' is the ability to realise that you have rights. If we afford both a man and a dog 'the right to free speech', the man can understand that concept, the dog can't. He is able to consciously exercise that right knowing that he has the right to exercise that very right!

The dog may bark, but he does not know 'the right to free speech' is why he is allowed to bark. And if we took away that right he would be oblivious to this, and continue barking with a very limited understanding of whether he is allowed to do this. The dog has some form of elementary understanding, as you can train him, in this case firmly calling his name will likely lead him to cease barking, making him understand that this is not appreciated behaviour.

But he would have no different understanding of this process if we bestowed upon him rights, humans however, would. We can conceptualise that we have rights, understand them, exercise them and defend them. Rights in modern society may be often ignored by our despotic rulers, but we can immediately recognise that our rights have been infringed. Animals can't, humans can.

But rights aren't something that require understanding. They are conditions that should be met. Children have a "right" not to be tortured, for instance. They don't have to understand that right. Right simply means "if the world was just and moral, the person would be able to secure their right to freedom, safety, etc."

[Yazman]

Alright, but I'm still lost on the lion. Why can't you hold it accountable? Simply because it had no choice and it was "being a lion?" Holding something "accountable" doesn't have any special consequences. You have to take action against a lion just as you do a human criminal.

You have to be kidding. I mean you can't possibly be serious. A lion can't testify in court or participate in a trial.

[Revy]

The biggest problem that veganism faces is the fact that it is fringe and a small minority.

Many people become ex-vegans, not due to any lapse in ethics, or any hunger for "tasty" meat (vegans are grossed out by it, they don't secretly want it), but simply because they don't like being social outcasts when it comes to food. That is really the only reason I have struggled to continue being a vegan. I hate feeling so alone.

[Vanguard1917]

double post

[Vanguard1917]

Engels wrote this when? 1880's or 90's? We've certainly come a long way since then, we know many more of natures 'laws', we are certainly learning how to apply them more correctly, and this will in fact lead to our further mastery. Mastery that seeks to bend nature to our will, making it more habitable for humans. We do rule over nature, and Engels is mistaken in thinking our mastery cannot and will not reach a level where by our domination negates natures wrath. We are constantly better learning how to dominate nature without it biting us in the ass. That is the process we should be in favour of, not primitivism wrapped in a progressive cloak.

Actually, Engels agreed with that; Ernest Valdemar quoted that Engels paragraph selectively and out of context, as 'leftwing' environmentalist like to do often when it comes to quoting Marx or Engels.

Engels's key argument in the chapter "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man" is that, through scientific, industrial and social progress, human beings are capable of mastering their natural surroundings, dominating it, and making it serve human interests. Immediately after the paragraph quoted by Ernest Valdemar, Engels goes on to say:

"And, in fact, with every day that passes we are learning to understand these [natural] laws more correctly, and getting to know both the more immediate and the more remote consequences of our interference with the traditional course of nature. In particular, after the mighty advances of natural science in the present century, we are more and more getting to know, and hence to control, even the more remote natural consequences at least of our more ordinary productive activities."

And, for Engels, this ability to master nature is what makes us human and what sets us apart from the animal kingdom:

"In short, the animal merely uses external nature, and brings about changes in it simply by his presence; man by his changes makes it serve his ends, masters it. This is the final, essential distinction between man and other animals, and once again it is labour that brings about this distinction."

Contrary to the claims of those who wish to reconcile Marxism with environmentalism, both Marx and Engels thoroughly rejected the kinds of arguments environmentalists put forward today. For example, this is what Marx had to say about the "cult of nature" preached by people like the poet and philosopher Daumer, something which he called "reactionary even in comparison with Christianity":

"modern natural science... with modern industry, has revolutionised the whole of nature and put an end to man's childish attitude towards nature as well as to other forms of childishness... For the rest, it would be desirable that Bavaria's sluggish peasant economy, the ground on which grow priests and Daumers alike, should at last be ploughed up by modern cultivation and modern machines."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/02/daumer.htm

[VeganLiz]

I don't believe that animals should be treated as property. They cannot have the same rights as us but they ought to have the right to live for their own reasons, rather than for our own reasons.

Why do we need to first deal with human rights and then consider animal rights? I don't think caring about animals takes away from caring about humans. If we're going to treat humans better, why not treat all living beings better?

[Vanguard1917]

I don't believe that animals should be treated as property. They cannot have the same rights as us but they ought to have the right to live for their own reasons, rather than for our own reasons.


Animals don't have 'their own reasons' for living. Animals don't reason.

[VeganLiz]

Vanguard, that’s a bold statement.

Whether animals do or do not reason is something that you and I cannot know. You could always argue that they act merely on instinct but who’s to say that humans don’t do everything out of instinct as well? You can’t prove it either way.

Clearly an animal in the wild can function and live without human involvement but wouldn’t they need some degree of reason for survival?

So you think animals exist for us and that’s it?