Animal Rights, is it a luxury?

[ComradeChe]

I am not one of those who would care about animals more than humans in no way or another!
The reason I am asking is that I couldn't sleep because there is some dog or puppy whining for the past 5 hours or so. I got out to find that there is a dog in an inclosed area within a McDonald's across of my home, I mean it is enough for me that the first thing I smell every morning is their cooking and whenever I look outside my window I see the "Golden Arcs". But this dog is whining for some reason, there is no night guard around, I tried calling every number I could find but nobody is answering at 4:00..
I couldn't go in because the gates are closed and I am sure it would be some kind of trespassing if I jumped over it. So I tried to make sure the dog is not injured or caught in something that is strangling it or anything, it seemed fine.
My roomie suggested to check with them when they open because obviously this dog shouldn't be left there alone, if they didn't care we would call some animal protection organization or something.

Now I remember the reaction on a radio show on a the pro-communist party radio station, when people started complaining and ridiculing a law that has been passed to criminalize cruelty against animals, most of the callers said this is such a luxury in a country where people are fighting for their rights.

I understand the priorities of the struggle for rights, but if some people were able to pass such law, that doesn't mean we have to fight it, and that doesn't mean this will prevent other laws to be passed later, right?

So, do you consider looking the other way when it comes to cruelty against animals because some more important things are still to be achieved? or you if you have the means to stop it, you will try to stop it?

[Gman]

What do you mean? Just because the Proletariat is being oppressed doesn't mean that i'm not going to give two shits about a dog being tortured.

[Lynx]

Can you walk and chew gum at the same time? If you can, you do both, and think nothing more of it. What is so difficult about passing a number of laws within the same time frame?

The lowest common denominator would be a world where no one has any rights (or privileges). Thankfully, progressives don't think that is the way to go.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I guess I can't really fairly answer that, because Im not a speciesist, but here's my thoughts.

Animals are put through hell quite often. Slaughterhouses are like nightmares, so I want animals to be free from that. That's just as important to me as human rights. Even pets getting kicked around should still be fought for.

[Quail]

People often give the false dichotomy of not caring about animal rights at all, and caring about them exclusively to the detriment of the class struggle. I don't see why it isn't possible to care about both.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

You can care about sexism, racism, homophobia, class struggle AND animal rights. Focussing on one area of cruelty or injustice (whether it's visited upon humans or other animals) shouldn't be to the detriment of any other cause..there's enough energy, outrage and indiganation to go around, I think :)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah, I agree with the notion that there's no reason to choose one over the other in the abstract. In specific cases there may be times when there is a conflict, but not overall.

Where I disagree with many animal rights people is the idea that animals have inherent rights. I think we can only materially look at animal rights as an extention of human rights because it's only humans who can organize and stop man-made abuses of the environment or animals. I think this view of some in the animal rights activism is an abstract and liberal view, but it also leads to problematic practices like blaming and aliening (or even endangering) workers in industries where these abuses occur.

If animals are treated better, it will because of a more general class movement which gives more people a say in how things are handled in society - of course this can only be temporary or partial within capitalism, and so ultimately animal liberation (since it must be done by people) depends on class self-liberation.

[Le Socialiste]

I'll admit, it's hard for me to accept some of the positions put forward on this site when it comes to animal 'rights'. As someone who has always had five or more pets living with him at any given time, I tend to place plenty importance on health, safety, and environment. Quail said it best: when it comes to animal 'rights' and movements of the working-class, why can't we care about both?

[Art Vandelay]

I'll admit, it's hard for me to accept some of the positions put forward on this site when it comes to animal 'rights'. As someone who has always had five or more pets living with him at any given time, I tend to place plenty importance on health, safety, and environment. Quail said it best: when it comes to animal 'rights' and movements of the working-class, why can't we care about both?

There is no reason you can't, however when animal rights become the focal point of an organization or of one's politics, becoming a single cause movement, it does become an impediment to class struggle and circumvents the efforts of many motivated and dedicated people into a cause which has no hope of succeeding.

[Teacher]

Meat is delicious so I don't plan on giving it up anytime soon.

I want the chickens and cows I eat to be treated humanely before I eat them though. If somehow it came down to people being able to feed themselves vs animals being mistreated I'd say save the people. I'm a non-speciesist of convenience I guess.

[DasFapital]

Animals are involved in the class struggle. Ever hear of Kanellos the Greek riot dog?:D I someday want a mutt like him.

[DasFapital]

also his pups Thodoros and Loukanikos

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yeah, I agree with the notion that there's no reason to choose one over the other in the abstract. In specific cases there may be times when there is a conflict, but not overall.

Where I disagree with many animal rights people is the idea that animals have inherent rights. I think we can only materially look at animal rights as an extention of human rights because it's only humans who can organize and stop man-made abuses of the environment or animals. I think this view of some in the animal rights activism is an abstract and liberal view, but it also leads to problematic practices like blaming and aliening (or even endangering) workers in industries where these abuses occur.

If animals are treated better, it will because of a more general class movement which gives more people a say in how things are handled in society - of course this can only be temporary or partial within capitalism, and so ultimately animal liberation (since it must be done by people) depends on class self-liberation.

Sorry I think this is bollocks, and I don't mean to be disrespectful because you're normally a very insightful and considered poster, who I take the time to read, but this idea that Capitalism is responsible for every ill in the world, even that as animal rights, is a bit reductionist in my book.

Yeah, Capitalism doesn't exactly lend itself to spending more money on treating slaughterhouse animals better, but let's not pretend this issue has anything to do with class.

Animal rights are some of the most sadly mis-understood issues around, from both sides. The militant animal rights movement does nothing but alienate itself and does little to promote a mature discussion on animal rights, whilst the other side isn't much better either.

Slaughterhouses are a part and parcel of the world now, we have to accept that. But we can work together to make sure that animals are stunned and killed, not treated like shit. We can work together to reduce our unnecessarily high meat consumption.

But above all, we can work together to ensure that the abuse of domestic animals stops, full stop. Licensing and registration should be re-introduced for domestic animals such as dogs and cats, and the laws on animal cruelty should be toughened - one strike and you're out policy, proper prison sentences etc.

[Vanguard1917]

Yeah, I agree with the notion that there's no reason to choose one over the other in the abstract. In specific cases there may be times when there is a conflict, but not overall.

Where I disagree with many animal rights people is the idea that animals have inherent rights. I think we can only materially look at animal rights as an extention of human rights because it's only humans who can organize and stop man-made abuses of the environment or animals. I think this view of some in the animal rights activism is an abstract and liberal view, but it also leads to problematic practices like blaming and aliening (or even endangering) workers in industries where these abuses occur.

If animals are treated better, it will because of a more general class movement which gives more people a say in how things are handled in society - of course this can only be temporary or partial within capitalism, and so ultimately animal liberation (since it must be done by people) depends on class self-liberation.

Why do animals in slaughter houses need to be 'treated better'? Will it improve the quality or quantity of the meat - i.e. what they are solely there to provide?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why do animals in slaughter houses need to be 'treated better'? Will it improve the quality or quantity of the meat - i.e. what they are solely there to provide?Well for one thing, yes it would improve the quality and maybe not the quantity but they wouldn't be pumped full of hormones and engineered to grow fast even at the detriment of their and out health.

I have no problem with using animals for food, my point is only that when profits trump use-value these kinds of things - overcrowded and unhealthy animals, food that is lower quality but more easily shipped and stocked, and so on.


this idea that Capitalism is responsible for every ill in the world, even that as animal rights, is a bit reductionist in my book. Well I'm talking about systemic things. Did people kick dogs before capitalism - certainly. But the key to solving widespread and systemic practices of abuse and waste is human-liberation, freeing us all from profits and ruling class domination will allow us to rethink and rework how we get what we need and how we go about it.

As for individual abuse of animals - well I don't know if we can ever stop that 100%. but I think a more sane society where people have control over their own lives, weren't stressed and anxious all the time, and had free-time to properly give their friends (including 4-legged ones) quality time, and so on would do a lot to minimizing all sorts of inter-personal violence and abuses... and would certainly do more than increased policing ever would.

[A Marxist Historian]

Why do animals in slaughter houses need to be 'treated better'? Will it improve the quality or quantity of the meat - i.e. what they are solely there to provide?

Because though animals have no "rights," right is a human conception, doesn't mean shit to a tree as Grace Slick pointed out so long ago, cruelty to animals is bad. After all, humans are animals too, and a society in which cruelty to animals is tolerated will also be a society in which cruelty to people is tolerated.

Besides, if you treat animals better, their meat tastes better. That's what free range chicken etc. is all about.

-M.H.-

[Vanguard1917]

Well for one thing, yes it would improve the quality and maybe not the quantity but they wouldn't be pumped full of hormones and engineered to grow fast even at the detriment of their and out health.

Their level of health is irrelevant if it doesn't affect ours. It's hardly very logical to have concern for the 'welfare' of an animal if its only purpose in life is to end up in our ovens and pots. We should be interested in the conditions on an animal farm only insofar as they relate to the quality and quantity of the end product.


I have no problem with using animals for food, my point is only that when profits trump use-value these kinds of things - overcrowded and unhealthy animals, food that is lower quality but more easily shipped and stocked, and so on.

We need to improve quality, of course. But that should not be at the detriment of quantity (which we should be trying to raise), especially seeing as greater meat scarcity would make meat products far less accessible for working class people and the poor, which is not in any way seen as desirable by them (although it may be seen as desirable by middle-class snobs).

[Yugo45]

Their level of health is irrelevant if it doesn't affect ours. It's hardly very logical to have concern for the 'welfare' of an animal if its only purpose in life is to end up in our ovens and pots. We should be interested in the conditions on an animal farm only insofar as they relate to the quality and quantity of the end product.

Since the purpose of prisoners on death row is to be killed, is it okay for them to be locked in overcrowded cells (15 inmates in 10x10 meters) for a few years, until their time has come? And on the day, should their throates be cut open and then their bodies left hanging upside down until they choke in their own blood, or should it be done in a more humane way?

I can already see I'm gonna be called a capital punishment supporter reactionary bastard and what not, but it's a hypothetical question!

[Lynx]

If torturing farm animals improved the flavour of their meat, should torture be allowed?

[Rafiq]

If torturing farm animals improved the flavour of their meat, should torture be allowed?


How is that comparable?

[bcbm]

no, but fur is

[Lucretia]

I will say that my position on the treatment of animals has been evolving for the past couple of years. I also think it's unfair that Marx is viewed as anthropocentric. There's an excellent article by Lawrence Wilde titled "'The Creatures, Too, Must Become Free': Marx and the Animal/Human Distinction." It was originally published in an issue of Capital & Class, but is now available on the Kasama Project website: http://kasamaproject.org/2010/01/08/marx-on-the-animalhuman-distinction-the-creaturestoomust-become-free/

[Vanguard1917]

Since the purpose of prisoners on death row is to be killed, is it okay for them to be locked in overcrowded cells (15 inmates in 10x10 meters) for a few years, until their time has come? And on the day, should their throates be cut open and then their bodies left hanging upside down until they choke in their own blood, or should it be done in a more humane way?

I can already see I'm gonna be called a capital punishment supporter reactionary bastard and what not, but it's a hypothetical question!

Prisoners are human beings, not farm animals.

[Lynx]

How is that comparable?
How is what comparable?
Let me rephrase:
If the sole purpose of farm animals is to provide meat, and it was found that pain improved the flavour (or quality) of their meat, would it be acceptable to torture them?

[Vanguard1917]

How is what comparable?
Let me rephrase:
If the sole purpose of farm animals is to provide meat, and it was found that pain improved the flavour (or quality) of their meat, would it be acceptable to torture them?

That would not be torture. Torture* is something which is done to human beings. It's not a term that is applicable to farming methods, whatever they may involve.


* "the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something." (Oxford English Dictionary)

[Lynx]

That would not be torture. Torture* is something which is done to human beings. It's not a term that is applicable to farming methods, whatever they may involve.


* "the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something." (Oxford English Dictionary)
My goodness. What is the correct term then?
"the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on farm animals in order to improve the quality of their meat" (Spiked magazine's Book of Euphemisms)

[Vanguard1917]

My goodness. What is the correct term then?
"the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on farm animals in order to improve the quality of their meat" (Spiked magazine's Book of Euphemisms)

Most of what goes on in modern animal farms is described as torture by animal rights people, so, yes, i wholeheartedly support this so-called torture in animal farming. Without it, meat would be a scarce product (which you might welcome, but the majority of people rightly wouldn't).

[Lynx]

Most of what goes on in modern animal farms is described as torture by animal rights people, so, yes, i wholeheartedly support this so-called torture in animal farming. Without it, meat would be a scarce product (which you might welcome, but the majority of people rightly wouldn't).
Slaughtering animals as painlessly as possible may improve production rates, what evidence do you have to contradict this?

[Vanguard1917]

Slaughtering animals as painlessly as possible may improve production rates, what evidence do you have to contradict this?

If it does, that's great - not because animals were killed painlessly, but because production was improved.

[Lynx]

If it does, that's great - not because animals were killed painlessly, but because production was improved.
Great, now we're both happy.

Are you in favor of inflicting severe pain on farm animals in order to improve the quality of their meat?

(To my knowledge this belief exists in China and Korea, where dogs and cats are purposefully killed slowly.)

[Vanguard1917]

Great, now we're both happy.

Are you in favor of inflicting severe pain on farm animals in order to improve the quality of their meat?

(To my knowledge this belief exists in China and Korea, where dogs and cats are purposefully killed slowly.)

I'm 'each to their own' on this matter. Though i'm confident that the pratice in the example you placed in brackets is likely a waste of time, assuming it actually happens.

[Lynx]

I'm 'each to their own' on this matter. Though i'm confident that the pratice in the example you placed in brackets is likely a waste of time, assuming it actually happens.
I've seen videos confirming that the practice exists, regardless of whether there is evidence to back up the flavour claim. Traditional medicine in the orient is rife with dubious claims too.

[No_Leaders]

I don't know, i have very mixed feelings on this. I'm by no means a vegetarian or vegan but i sympathize with animal rights, especially those wanting to free animals from the brutal fur industry, or from test labs. I remember hearing about HLS doing tests on Beagles, then just tossing their bodies in the garbage like they were meaningless, only there to serve man's will of being tortured for some obscure test. To that i say fuck it smash the labs. A really good book i read was by Bob Torres, called "Making a Killing" http://www.akpress.org/makingakillingakpress.html Basically talks about animal liberation and how it's connected with turning something into a commodity under capitalist society, how their struggle is our struggle etc. From a marxist and anarchist perspective, very good read. Also the punk band Propagandhi made me aware that the relations between how we treat animals, and other human beings aren't necessarily far off. They were one of the first punk bands that spoke to me about anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, sexism,racism, homophobia, animal liberation, and how these things are all connected.

[No_Leaders]

Now that i think about it that whole propagandhi cd "Less Talk More Rock" definitely changed my life and opened my eyes. Course then i heard other political punk bands, especially stuff from the 80's like Millions of Dead Cops, Crass, Dead Kennedys etc. But Prop was the first political punk band i listened to and made me really look into what they were singing about in their songs. That's when i fell in love with punk music haha.

I mean they do a pretty damn good job of correlating how all the forms of oppression are all connected. Now i understand the arguments saying animals have no voice therefore it's basically humans coming up with the idea, but I guess it resonates with me since I'm an anarchist and view all forms of oppression and hierarchy as domination. Not saying i think we all need to eat vegetables and not eat cows, as I stated i'm not a vegan or vegetarian (tried to be years ago i just couldn't do it) but at least if we're going to use them for food source we can respect them. Not let overzealous assholes in slaughter hoses beat them while they scream out, and basically treat them like inferior meaningless things, or basically classifying them as a commodity only. There was this video of this asshole who was punching and beating this cow and kicking it all kinds of cruel things. He admitted it on video like bragging about it. Eventually guy tried to apply to become a cop. Imagine him doing that same shit to other humans because he's in that same power of dominance within the hierarchical structure. Just my 2 cents anyways.

I will say i love this line off the prop song "Nailing Descartes To The Wall" "And i have recognized one form of oppression now i recognize the rest, life's too short to make others shorter"

[A Marxist Historian]

If torturing farm animals improved the flavour of their meat, should torture be allowed?

That's the pate de fois gras controversy. I guess I'm against pate de foie gras, as I care more about the suffering the ducks get subjected to for it than the enjoyment of the rich bastards who are the only ones who can afford the stuff.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Most of what goes on in modern animal farms is described as torture by animal rights people, so, yes, i wholeheartedly support this so-called torture in animal farming. Without it, meat would be a scarce product (which you might welcome, but the majority of people rightly wouldn't).

Well, yes, abolishing factory farming right away is impractical, though cutting back on its worst excesses is necessary to reduce disease and food poisoning.

But it's certainly a worthwhile long term goal for us to work on after the Revolution, or at least after we manage to create a genuinely socialist society (we may have more pressing concerns in the transitional "dictatorship of the proletariat" stage.)

Of course, if cloning technology develops to the point that we can just eat cloned meat off Petri dishes, then the problem is solved, and everybody except the anti-technology nuts should be happy.

Might not taste as good though.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I'm 'each to their own' on this matter. Though i'm confident that the pratice in the example you placed in brackets is likely a waste of time, assuming it actually happens.

As long as you're being totally amoral, how about the ruling classes and enemies of the Revolution? Should we kill and eat them? And if we do, should we kill them painlessly or take our just revenge:rolleyes:

The basic problem with your line of reasoning is that you are forgetting that people are animals too. Kids who grow up torturing dogs and cats all too often become serial murderers. A society which mistreats animals in the fashion you suggest will give the same kind of treatment to humans.

-M.H.-

[Lynx]

Yup, just like the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs. They started with small animals and moved on to humans. Killed 21 people with pipes, iron bars, hammers. That too is on video.

[Lynx]

That's the pate de fois gras controversy. I guess I'm against pate de foie gras, as I care more about the suffering the ducks get subjected to for it than the enjoyment of the rich bastards who are the only ones who can afford the stuff.

-M.H.-
I forgot about that one. The production of veal is another. Not as brutal by comparison, but perhaps a case could be made that it is cruel enough to be prohibited.

[La Guaneña]

I forgot about that one. The production of veal is another. Not as brutal by comparison, but perhaps a case could be made that it is cruel enough to be prohibited.

There is something delicate about the cruel enough argument. What is too cruel? How the hell do you trace such a line? I mean, you can't stun and kill whales like cows, and you can't even ensure such a process will work 100% of the time with cows.

Physical and mental suffering are things that are incredibly hard to put on a scale, and prohibiting or alowing kinds of suffering according to intensity is a pretty tough task.

[Lynx]

There is something delicate about the cruel enough argument. What is too cruel? How the hell do you trace such a line? I mean, you can't stun and kill whales like cows, and you can't even ensure such a process will work 100% of the time with cows.

Physical and mental suffering are things that are incredibly hard to put on a scale, and prohibiting or alowing kinds of suffering according to intensity is a pretty tough task.
You trace a line as best you can. Is the existence of pate de foie worth force-feeding ducks? Do the ends justify the means?
When you look at the means, you ask: is it necessary or expedient?

[La Guaneña]

You trace a line as best you can. Is the existence of pate de foie worth force-feeding ducks? Do the ends justify the means?
When you look at the means, you ask: is it necessary or expedient?

And it gets a lot more complicated as you escalate to our whole food system.

Is bacon worth the way pigs are raised? Are chicken capable of experiencing suffering? If they are, is their suffering worth their meat and eggs? Tracing a line between total animal exploitation and animal liberation might even be possible, but will be something really troublesome to do.

[Lynx]

And it gets a lot more complicated as you escalate to our whole food system.

Is bacon worth the way pigs are raised? Are chicken capable of experiencing suffering? If they are, is their suffering worth their meat and eggs? Tracing a line between total animal exploitation and animal liberation might even be possible, but will be something really troublesome to do.
Not everyone finds it troublesome. It's all black and white.

[homegrown terror]

i treat my fish like family because they are family. in many ways i prefer their company to that of a large portion of people. they're simple and incorruptible, they never abuse anyone for their own enjoyment or for personal gain. their lives are harmless to anyone, and the worst thing they could ever do is shit too much and make me clean their tank early. i think they deserve every right given to people (at least those that they could make use of, obviously a fish doesn't care about fair pay or social freedom etc) but they deserve the same protection from abuse as a person does.

[Vanguard1917]

A society which mistreats animals in the fashion you suggest will give the same kind of treatment to humans.

Not at all. On the contrary, societies which have an overly high view of animals tend to also have a pretty degraded view of people. The one usually accompanies the other. Nazi Germany banned vivisection and introduced a whole range of animal rights legislation - the first modern country in Europe to do so to such an extent.

At the same time it promoted 'scientific' tests on Jews and had very little regard for human life in general.

[Rafiq]

How is what comparable?
Let me rephrase:
If the sole purpose of farm animals is to provide meat, and it was found that pain improved the flavour (or quality) of their meat, would it be acceptable to torture them?

You didn't need to rephrase, I knew perfectly well, what you meant. The point being is that such a question is irrelevant and poses no reasonable existing correlation with any sort of existing reality. It's abstract garbage, moralist masturbation, at best.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think what's missing from a lot of the discussion here is the question of where does animal cruelty come from and what reasonably constitutes animal cruelty.

I don't know the exact numbers, this isn't an area of struggle I spend much time focusing on to be honest, but I'd imagine the bulk of what most people consider to be mistreatment of animals comes from profit-driven production: the mass factory farms, maximizing production space and unnatural animal growth or milk production or whatnot.

So, with profit and exchange value taken out of the picture - what would the reason be to practice such techniques - well basically if food-need was so great that other methods wouldn't be practical. So then it's a question of human priorities (specifically worker initially) - is it worth it to continue some harsh methods in order to make sure people have enough to eat. Given this choice, I think people would agree that these would be necessary (if temporary) measures.

The difference is now is that the priority isn't "feeding everyone" but maximizing profits. It's "unreasonable" from a working class perspective since animals are mistreated (possibly with side effects for the meat-consumer) yet people still starve and even those of us who don't end up with the beaks and claws and tumors (and soy) they sell as chicken in fast food joints.

Like with food production, we have no control over what kinds of things scientific research is aimed at and so when people find out animals are tested for cosmetics and all kinds of other shit that isn't a cure for cancer or whatnot, they rightfully feel that this is "unreasonable".

But when decisions about food and scientific research are not the alienated (from the masses of society) terrain of "mad doctors" making frankenfoods and cannibalistic cow-feed, then any hard choices about these things will automatically seem more reasonable, if distasteful, because they will be decisions with clear reasons that most people would have agreed upon and prioritized.

As just speculation, but I think reasonable speculation, I think with surplus and stability achieved in production, people would make allowing more space to return to wilderness (probably through changing the way we grow crops IMO) and the care of other animals would become a very big part of a socialist/communist world. When human needs are met, people generally don't make extra effort to cause harm to other people or other things.

[Lynx]

You didn't need to rephrase, I knew perfectly well, what you meant. The point being is that such a question is irrelevant and poses no reasonable existing correlation with any sort of existing reality. It's abstract garbage, moralist masturbation, at best.
Tell that to Vanguard1917.

When I go fishing, I try to use appropriate bait.

[hatzel]

Not at all. On the contrary, societies which have an overly high view of animals tend to also have a pretty degraded view of people. The one usually accompanies the other. Nazi Germany banned vivisection and introduced a whole range of animal rights legislation - the first modern country in Europe to do so to such an extent.

At the same time it promoted 'scientific' tests on Jews and had very little regard for human life in general.

Interesting how you use the word 'usually' and then give...one example. Precisely one. Not two, but one. 'Usually.' Also Godwin's law. Just so you know. Even if we ignore the fact that you've not even tried to describe any causal relationship whatsoever between the two things that 'usually' happen as per your one single example.

[Yugo45]

Prisoners are human beings, not farm animals.

Completely irrelevant. Animals feel pain just like humans. You know why? Because humans are animals. What's your point?


That would not be torture. Torture* is something which is done to human beings.

Animal torture is a thing. I really don't like the way you think that animals are objects designed only so you can stuff your face in pork.

[Vanguard1917]

I don't know the exact numbers, this isn't an area of struggle I spend much time focusing on to be honest, but I'd imagine the bulk of what most people consider to be mistreatment of animals comes from profit-driven production: the mass factory farms, maximizing production space and unnatural animal growth or milk production or whatnot.

Isn't 'maximising production' - making food production more efficient - a progressive feauture of capitalism? Would working-class people have better or wider access to meat if modern meat production methods were done away with?

I'm not for a moment saying that meat production can't be improved - not for animals' sake, but for ours. But that doesn't mean doing away with the very techniques that make food abundance possible in many developed countries.

Any suggestion that irrational concepts like animal rights should encourage us to scale back food production, to make it less efficient, less productive, more time-consuming ect., is not compatible with Marxism.

As Marx said, 'The less time the society requires to produce wheat, cattle etc., the more time it wins for other production, material or mental.'

Factory farms are the way forward. They must be improved, but not abolished.

[Clifford C Clavin]

Not a luxury, but definitely a farce.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Isn't 'maximising production' - making food production more efficient - a progressive feauture of capitalism?In a way yes and in a way no. Capitalist relations and methods have ALLOWED for more food to be produced, but it's also not the point from their perspective - it's just labor-saving and profit-maximizing. So while creating potential, the social relations also hold back the actual ability to feed people.

Capitalist production creates increased food, but it also caused the food crisis a few years back.


Would working-class people have better or wider access to meat if modern meat production methods were done away with?And replaced with what? That's the question. Replaced with primitivist fantasies..? No.


I'm not for a moment saying that meat production can't be improved - not for animals' sake, but for ours. But that doesn't mean doing away with the very techniques that make food abundance possible in many developed countries.My argument is that they go hand in hand and ultimately we wouldn't have to choose to have 1000 chickens stuck in cubbies a foot wide and deep. In fact, part of workers improving their own working conditions (leaving aside the question of the quality of the food produced) would mean changing the way mass production of this sort is done - I think it would be the same for agriculture ultimately too. Working some of these jobs is literally some of the shittiest work you can do and are often done in cramped dark and toxic environments.


Any suggestion that irrational concepts like animal rights should encourage us to scale back food production, to make it less efficient, less productive, more time-consuming ect., is not compatible with Marxism. I agree and my argument has been that there is no such thing as "inherent" animal rights; that animals are generally treated based on human relationships in society. But I think once basic needs are met (in other words NOT starving people for the sake of chickens and fish) and there is a decent surplus and opportunity to rework how we produce what we need, people will probably treat animals much better because content people generally don't go around abusing animals for the hell of it


As Marx said, 'The less time the society requires to produce wheat, cattle etc., the more time it wins for other production, material or mental.' I don't think our current methods are efficient for use-value. I think production can be vastly improved both in quality, quantity, and in the health and happiness of workers and the animals too. Chickens are not shoved into tiny spaces because there's no land available in the US - it's because it's cheap and they actually want them to not move around much.


Factory farms are the way forward. They must be improved, but not abolished.No they must be initially taken over and then better methods for humans and then probably animals introduced. I think it will probably some kind of "industrial" farming method personally - much more growing near cities, much more growing inside multi-level structures so that monoculture doesn't fuck up our food supply and so we don't have to transport food halfway around the world to reach urban population centers. We will organize food production around us, rather than around profit -- which in Ag usually means huge tracts of cheap land being destroyed to the point of massive dieases or pests destroying crops or livestock or even destroying the earth to the point of the dust bowl or whatever the next agricultural disaster might be if the system is not overthrown.

I appreciate that you want to argue against the idea of innate animal rights or some anti-progress and frankly anti-human attitudes of some parts of the existing animal rights groups and ideas out there and I agree with the need to counter those arguments. But I'm not arguing an "animals first" position at all -- just that I think people will (when there is no crisis or shortages) WANT to find ways to produce what they want without many of the callous cruelties of contemporary capitalist commodity production.

[Clifford C Clavin]

Cruelties be damned. Either way you are killing an animal to eat it. You want to sing a soft song to a chicken as it gently drifts away into a peaceful sleep?

The reality is that farmers and workers who have actually slaughtered animals would laugh at all that. It's urbanite petit-bourgeois fantasy conjured up by people who never see animals outside of zoos.

[Lynx]

Proteins derived from plants and insects are the wave of the future, as well as synthetic meat. Once alternatives are available, the real debate will begin.

[Yugo45]

Which reminds me, what does everyone here think about in vitro meat? Far in the future, if it would mean faster and more efficiant production of meat. No problems for health and it tastes just like the real thing. Would you be in favour for it or not? And why?

[La Guaneña]

It's also kinda nice to consider that animals suck at converting the protein that they ingest to the protein that we ingest.

That might not be a problem with the extensive bovine system, or fishing. But when you have systems like in Europe and the USA where almost all livestock is confined and has to eat soy, corn and other grains, you start to have a problem.

The USA produced 90 milion tons of soy, and Brazil produced 75 milion tons. I bet that all that ain't for tofu and fake meats. You plant a hell lot of cheap, good protein, put it into an animal and then kill it to get a small amount of slightly better, but much more expensive protein.

The problem is, once again our mode of production, since even if all we produced went to humans people would still starve. But I see the end of the animal production system as we have it today as a huge advantage in a need-based system, since a smaller amount of crops and industrial structure would be needed for food, leaving a surplus for other human needs.

[La Guaneña]

But there is a problem with most of the organizations that point that out: they talk as if the resources would magically be distributed if they weren't used to feed cows, and as if profit played no role in this.

[Vanguard1917]

In a way yes and in a way no. Capitalist relations and methods have ALLOWED for more food to be produced, but it's also not the point from their perspective - it's just labor-saving and profit-maximizing. So while creating potential, the social relations also hold back the actual ability to feed people.

Capitalist production creates increased food, but it also caused the food crisis a few years back.

No doubt. But that realisation shouldn't mean opposing modern instruments and techniques of production in favour of previous or inferior ones. You've made it clear elsewhere in your post that that's not your position, but the reality is that the overwhelming majority of anti-factory-farming activist types are motivated by incredibly irrational motivations that have nothing to do with wanting an economically superior means of food production. It's petit-bourgeois prejudices about mass production and the supposedly gluttonous working class (who are able to eat meat regularly only as a result of mass food production) that really fuel their hatred of modern agriculture.


Cruelties be damned. Either way you are killing an animal to eat it. You want to sing a soft song to a chicken as it gently drifts away into a peaceful sleep?

The reality is that farmers and workers who have actually slaughtered animals would laugh at all that. It's urbanite petit-bourgeois fantasy conjured up by people who never see animals outside of zoos.

Hear, hear.