Pets in communism

[punisa]

Well, when we abolish private property, will you still be allowed to have a pet? Like a dog or cat? :)
Technically, it's also a possession right?

I'm not making jokes, this is a legit question. Such trivial details actually provide great insight :cool:

[Floyce White]

1. You and your comrades just told your now-ex-bosses and landlords to go to hell. Would someone in that frame of mind then turn to ask "pretty please, am I allowed to pet a cat?"

2. You and your comrades just abolished property in its totality. Would someone in that frame of mind thind of a workplace, a house, or a dog as a piece of property?

[Chambered Word]

I think personal and private property are different, so I believe you could still have a cat/dog/chameleon if you so wished. :)

[punisa]

I think personal and private property are different, so I believe you could still have a cat/dog/chameleon if you so wished. :)

Makes sense :)
I guess the only thing that would differ is that you can get a pet for free. Not like today, when many people buy their overpriced pets.
Ok, that is only half true as there are many animal shelters even today where you can pick up a dog for free.

In communism, pet would actually be a pet. Comrade pet, to be exact :lol: Cause today, at least where I live, many people have dogs just to guard their house (property) and live in miserable conditions.

[Muzk]

Cause today, at least where I live, many people have dogs just to guard their house (property) and live in miserable conditions.

Or have a reason to talk to other people. Depressing.

[punisa]

Or have a reason to talk to other people. Depressing.

You mean the dog walkers in the park? yeah, I've noticed that. Total alienization comrade

[RedDragon]

Well, when we abolish private property, will you still be allowed to have a pet? Like a dog or cat? :)
Technically, it's also a possession right?

I'm not making jokes, this is a legit question. Such trivial details actually provide great insight :cool:
Of course you'd be allowed to have a pet. Unless you're somehow using it to exploit workers, but I can't really see that happening.

[Rjevan]

What Red Dragon said. It's about abolishing private property of means of production and soil, not about fighting people's right to have pets. ;)

[Spawn of Stalin]

As has been said, property refers to land, factories, etc. A pet is no more of an object of property than say, a pair of jeans for example, and you will certainly be allowed to have your own jeans in Communism. So I can't think of any reason why people shouldn't be allowed pets, the alternative would be locking up all the domesticated cats and dogs and mice in a big warehouse where they can live out their miserable lives with nobody to care for them, and that solution strikes me as distinctly cruel. So yes you are allowed pets, Comrade.

[New Tet]

As has been said, property refers to land, factories, etc. A pet is no more of an object of property than say, a pair of jeans for example, and you will certainly be allowed to have your own jeans in Communism. So I can't think of any reason why people shouldn't be allowed pets, the alternative would be locking up all the domesticated cats and dogs and mice in a big warehouse where they can live out their miserable lives with nobody to care for them, and that solution strikes me as distinctly cruel. So yes you are allowed pets, Comrade.

It occurs to me that if Stalinist took over, maybe only two-headed dogs would be allowed as pets. Just kidding.

I can't imagine how socialist society would resolve the problem (if it's a problem at all) of keeping pets and domestic animals. If there were a general rejection of it, what would they do with all the animals already in captivity, euthanize them or set them all free to roam the streets and countryside?

[RED DAVE]

They always make problems!

http://i49.tinypic.com/33kfx42.jpg

RED DAVE

[Spawn of Stalin]

It occurs to me that if Stalinist took over, maybe only two-headed dogs would be allowed as pets. Just kidding.

I can't imagine how socialist society would resolve the problem (if it's a problem at all) of keeping pets and domestic animals. If there were a general rejection of it, what would they do with all the animals already in captivity, euthanize them or set them all free to roam the streets and countryside?
Hypothetically if the majority of people did actually want to ban pets, then letting them roam free would initially seem like a nice idea. The problem is that most species of domesticated animals in places like Europe and America are dependent their human masters. Not only that but many of the animals we keep as pets are not native to these lands. I don't know too much about this kind of thing but I imagine trying to introduce iguanas and parrots into the British wild would be a bloody nightmare. So yeah, they would probably just all end up in cages on some filthy industrial estate.

[mikelepore]

I think the phrase in the Communist Manifesto, "abolition of private property", was an unfortunate choice of words. One of the weaknesses of revolutionaries is the habit of using words that already have certain meanings in the minds of the people, and assuming that we can simply redefine the words for use from this day forward. Then when the older meanings still stick, we complain.

[Tjis]

Having a pet is not just a consumer question. Cute baby animals don't fall out of the sky. Animal feed does not produce itself. These are capitalist industries that depend on the exploitation of both human and non-human animals. If a communist society has such an industry, then it's not a communist society. So the question is, is it possible at all to have a pet industry that does not depend on exploitation? is it even desirable to have a pet industry at all?
I think not. For obvious reasons a pet industry will always be exploitative for non-human animals. And as long as there's still hunger in the world, I believe it is highly immoral to breed extra mouths to feed. Surely we can put the means of production to better use?

Besides, why would anyone even want to work in such an industry? Currently the motive to do this for the capitalists is profit. Workers as always are forced into it because we have no choice, we need money to survive. In a communist society there is no profit motive, production is based on need, and workers control the means of production. Do we really 'need' pets? Do we need them more than the other things we could produce with the resources that are now used for the pet industry? Would workers 'produce' pets, despite the animal abuse involved? I don't think the world has enough sadist fucks for that!

So in practice, I think there'd be few pets in a communist society. The few pets that remain would be bred by hobbyists, and probably with far more regard for animal welfare. Luckily there'll also be far less need for pets as others have already pointed out. With the new social relations in place, people won't need such a surrogate for compassion.

Finally, i think it's wrong to regard an animal as a possession. Animal welfare should be the responsibility of all of society. Even if an animal has a single caretaker, society should be able to step in and take over if this caretaker neglects or abuses the pet. We're talking about living, sentient beings here after all.

[Spawn of Stalin]

You make some valid points but these things can be said for any non-essential industry. One of the most desirable aspects of Communism is that everyone will have access to certain luxuries and that they will be free of exploitation. Capitalist society actually gives the vast majority of the working class in the developed world what they "need", basic food, a home, electricity, running water, etc. all come fairly easily even for those working minimum wage jobs. If we don't like non-essential goods and services why are we even Communists? Surely capitalism is the ideal system for workers who do not wish to access to the more expensive pleasures of life. Okay so keeping capitalism doesn't eliminate the gap between the rich and the poor, it doesn't eliminate wage slavery either, but these are not big issues if all we desire is the bare minimum of everything. Surely Communists should strive to provide the working class with far greater things, we should not aim to rid the world of non-essential goods, we should in fact aim to make them available to all. And Communism would indeed provide all of the luxuries we reasonably desire and many more on top of that. In Communism the workers will not live off bread and water, why should they? I think they should eat good food such as fish and exotic fruits, these things may not be essential, and yes the means of production could always be put to better use, but they will be far easier to obtain once capitalism has been abolished. I think that your argument against pets is far more relevant to the capitalist society of today than it is to the Communist society of tomorrow.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It strikes me as ridiculous that the idea of having a pet is leading to some deep, philosophical discussion.

It is not up to Marx, Engels, Lenin or whoever to tell us whether we can have a pet or not.

Come on comrades, bit of common sense here.

[Tjis]

You make some valid points but these things can be said for any non-essential industry. One of the most desirable aspects of Communism is that everyone will have access to certain luxuries and that they will be free of exploitation. Capitalist society gives the vast majority of the working class what they "need", basic food, a home, electricity, running water, etc. Surely Communists should strive to provide the working class with far greater things, we should not aim to rid the world of non-essential goods, we should in fact aim to make them available to all. And Communism would indeed provide all of the luxuries we reasonably desire and many more on top of that. In Communism the workers will not live off bread and water, why should they? I think they should eat good food such as fish and exotic fruits, these things may not be essential, and yes the means of production could always be put to better use, but they will be far easier to obtain once capitalism has been abolished. I think that your argument against pets is far more relevant to capitalism than it is to Communism.

Not exactly. A luxury item like for example a computer is not an extra mouth to feed, and in a communist society no exploitation is necessary to produce it or keep it going. An animal industry however is exploitative by definition. Animals are exploited for it.
Now many might not care for this argument, but that's because many don't actually have to work daily with these animals. Few people would voluntarily work in a slaughterhouse for example, even though many people like to eat meat. In the same way I think few people would want to set up and work in an industry that breeds pets, even if many people want them. It's more likely to take on the hobbyist character I described.

[Spawn of Stalin]

On the contrary, I actually think that there are plenty of people who would like to work in the pet industry. Keep in mind that breeders are qualified professionals, to become one you must first train extensively, the fact that people even sign up for animal breeding courses in the first place says to me that it is a desirable occupation to many. If it happens that in the Communist society there is nobody who wants to run a breeding facility then we will not need to abolish pets, they will simply abolish themselves, but to be speculating about the possibility of that happening is pointless because as we know there are many people who work in animal care, animal breeding, farming, etc. simply for the love of it. It's not the kind of job you just see advertised in the paper and apply for just because you need the money, it is actually a highly specialised industry. The same can be said for meat, if nobody wants to work in a slaughterhouse then we will all become vegetarians, personally I don't have a problem with that as I don't like the taste of most meats, I eat a lot of fish but that's it, I would miss my fish but could probably quite easily become a vegetarian, the broader working class on the other hand, I don't think so, most people I know couldn't like without things like steak and bacon, so I'm sure someone will be willing to kill animals for food, and as gruesome as it may sound to you, some people are really into doing that. It's like saying there will be no cars in Communism, because we won't be able to find anyone stupid enough to want to be the guy who fits the bulbs in the headlights, people will do it, and some people will actually enjoy it.

[Tjis]

On the contrary, I actually think that there are plenty of people who would like to work in the pet industry. Keep in mind that breeders are qualified professionals, to become one you must first train extensively, the fact that people even sign up for animal breeding courses in the first place says to me that it is a desirable occupation to many.
While there are lots of people that like to work with animals, in present day society it is pretty much impossible to do this in a sustainable way, because they have to compete with sadist fucks with no morals but lots of money. Unfortunately, most breeding and such is not done by caring individuals but by these sadist fucks and their enterprises.

A communist society would remove the profit motive, and therefore remove the reason to set up such an industry in the way it is done now. However I simply see no way to set up this industry in such a way that it 'produces' just as much as under a capitalist mode of production but is still sustainable and caring for the animals involved. The only solution to me seems to be to reduce the amount of pets we breed or eliminate the industry altogether.


If it happens that in the Communist society there is nobody who wants to run a breeding facility then we will not need to abolish pets, they will simply abolish themselves, but to be speculating about the possibility of that happening is pointless because as we know there are many people who work in animal care, animal breeding, farming, etc. simply for the love of it. It's not the kind of job you just see advertised in the paper and apply for just because you need the money, it is actually a highly specialised industry.
Not all of it actually. This is a capitalist mode of production, meaning a heavy division of labor. For example, on chicken farms, they employ people to remove weak and dead chickens from the cages for minimum wage. There is no education necessary for that. Most people in these kinds of job are not doing it cause they like it.


I don't think so, most people I know couldn't like without things like steak and bacon, so I'm sure someone will be willing to kill animals for food, and as gruesome as it may sound to you, some people are really into doing that.
Of course, but it wouldn't be a big industry the way it is today. Todays bio-industry relies heavily on the exploitation of humans too. There's a huge imbalance in where the animal feed is produced (3rd world mainly), and where the animals are bred (first world mainly). Meat and dairy consumption are concentrated in the first world as well. After a revolution, I think it's unlikely that workers in the (then former) 3rd world will continue to produce something they never see any returns for. And the world is simply too small to provide that magnitude of animal products worldwide. The bio-industry will need to be reformed, or even abolished.


It's like saying there will be no cars in Communism, because we won't be able to find anyone stupid enough to want to be the guy who fits the bulbs in the headlights, people will do it, and some people will actually enjoy it.
Making cars is not inherently exploitative. Animal industries are.

I think you have a rather romantic view on animal breeding. I hate to cite PETA but have a look at this: http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=45. It is an abusive and exploitative industry, and it is impossible to reform it into its opposite.

[ComradeMan]

Are pets exploiting us? They contribute little and live for free!!! :D

Seriously, you would be allowed to have a pet! Why not? The abolition of private property does not mean you are not allowed to have personal belongings and stuff.

[Psy]

Are pets exploiting us? They contribute little and live for free!!! :D

Seriously, you would be allowed to have a pet! Why not? The abolition of private property does not mean you are not allowed to have personal belongings and stuff.

I think there would be a proletarianization of many pets. For example cats becoming far more common on farms protecting crops, in foodstore protecting foodstocks, in hospitals providing comfort to the sick, then in homes as pets. Thus rather then pets we'd see far more likely to run across trained working animals that work for their keep (hey not like they can ever become class conscious thus not like they would ever revolt as a class to being animals of burden). This would also mean animals would be breaded more for providing utility rather then simply being cute, also means we'd see fewer over weight domesticated animals.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It seems to me that Communism would be compatible with keeping pets, treating animals with dignity. A pet is a personal possession, it does not contribute to the production of goods (unless it does, if so then it will be a social possession).

[Robocommie]

I want to point out that the assumption that pets = puppy farms is a bit selective. In fact, all the dogs and cats my family has ever had were rescue animals, the dogs were rescued from shelters and some of the cats just showed up on our doorstep literally starving to death.

We don't have to have puppy mills to have pets. At the end of the day all a pet really is, is an animal you bonded with and sacrifice a little of your own production to take care of because you like its company.

The concept of pet ownership is a very culturally driven thing. A good friend of mine comes a rural Mexican neighborhood and there, folks don't keep pets per se, instead there's a collection of half-feral dogs that roam the whole neighborhood, whom everyone throws scraps and on occasion they pat them on the head. Some tribal villages in some parts of the world will keep dogs and then if they're being a nuisance, they'll kill them and eat them. Different ways for different cultures.

[Misanthrope]

Either you're kidding or have no idea what the abolition of private property means in a communist sense.

[Tjis]

I want to point out that the assumption that pets = puppy farms is a bit selective. In fact, all the dogs and cats my family has ever had were rescue animals, the dogs were rescued from shelters and some of the cats just showed up on our doorstep literally starving to death.

We don't have to have puppy mills to have pets. At the end of the day all a pet really is, is an animal you bonded with and sacrifice a little of your own production to take care of because you like its company.


This is true of course. Sorry if I made it sound as if ALL pets come from such puppy farms.
Unfortunately, most of the time when people take a pet, they don't take in a rescue animal.

[gorillafuck]

Pets produce nothing and live off the work of others. Abolish the Non-Human Bourgeois, comrades!

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

Either you're kidding or have no idea what the abolition of private property means in a communist sense.
This.Personal property is not private property.

Pets produce nothing and live off the work of others. Abolish the Non-Human Bourgeois, comrades!
They do help in riots though.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Sabcat2.svg

[Salabra]

At the end of the day all a pet really is, is an animal you bonded with and sacrifice a little of your own production to take care of because you like its company.

And that's about all we really need to say!

I have a loving partner, a great father, several sets of grandparents and many, many good friends of varying ages and situations (so my 'social relations' are pretty good), but I still enjoy the company of our cat.

[Robocommie]

Pets produce nothing and live off the work of others. Abolish the Non-Human Bourgeois, comrades!

Does this mean the bourgeois are technically the proletariat's pets?