Anarchism, Marxism and veganism

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Based on my experience, I came up with a theory, which says that since materialism for Marxists is more of an integral part of their world-view (compared to Anarchists), there will be less vegetarian/vegan Marxists than Anarchists. So I want to check that out empirically and also start a discussion as to why these sort of differences might exist, if they do.

This theory is formulated solely on my personal experience while interacting with leftists.

[Red Economist]

I am a Marxist and am not a Vegan/Vegetarian because I think the idea of 'animal rights' based on abstract morality is 'idealist', though the cruelty is real so I don't know how to respond to it. At the same time I recognize that environmental sustainability of agricultural practices means I will probably have to look into it at some stage and give up the illusion that I 'chose' to eat meat and admit I've been brainwashed into unthinkingly eating meat by advertising. (On the plus side, being a vegatarian can help fulfill the indoctrinated wish that I should be thin!)

But certainly materialism and class based politics has stopped me from looking into this issue in any depth, but I can appreciate that food production is a 'political' and 'economic' relation, not simply an abstract, moral or 'idealist' one. This is something of a failing on my part.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

After your post I see that it might have been better to make a poll with a distinction between ethical and environmental veganism, although, they oftentimes go hand in hand. Oh well, too late.

But thanks for your opinion anyway. My theory's implied assumption is that more idealist people tend to identify with Anarchism and, hence, they will be more likely to be vegetarians/vegans, pretty much like you said at the beginning of your post.

[Münchhausen]

I consider myself a marxist as well as an ethical vegan, though i wouldn't say that these two positions are directly related. I am a marxist, because it seems logical after considering the class structure of society. And I am vegan because it seems logical when considering my consumer-habits. It might be considered idealist by some (it might very well BE idealist, I'm not a philosophy buff), but if I have the option to prevent suffering, especially without any penalty for myself, i will do it where-ever possible. That's also the reason why I don't buy from companies that utilize union-busting or sweatshops. I do have very little influence on production in the capitalist economy, but it can't hurt to use this little shred of influence by not paying money for products of suffering.

(It should also be noted that while I consider myself a marxist, I'm certainly sympathetic towards anarchism. From my limited understanding however marxism seems to be generally more theoretically solid.)

[Depardieu]

the meat and dairy industries are destroying the environment, but so are most other industries. evidently the problem is capitalism. besides, using your individual actions as a buyer of consumer goods (i.e. food) as a means of political struggle is the frankly the most liberal thing that i can imagine. conscious consumerism is a marketing gimmick designed to arouse and exploit individualism, white saviour-ism, greed and other such aberrant bourgeois values

[LiaSofia]

the meat and dairy industries are destroying the environment, but so are most other industries. evidently the problem is capitalism. besides, using your individual actions as a buyer of consumer goods (i.e. food) as a means of political struggle is the frankly the most liberal thing that i can imagine. conscious consumerism is a marketing gimmick designed to arouse and exploit individualism, white saviour-ism, greed and other such aberrant bourgeois values

Exactly what I don't like about this forum.

Conscious consumerism has been adopted into the capitalist system because businesses have noticed there's a 'market' for it; they see that in order to maintain a profit they have to change (or appear to) to appeal to consumers' desires for more ethical production methods. It's almost as though the capitalist industries are stalling for time by using ideas about conscious consumerism to delay people's realisation that capitalism is intrinsically harmful. I do recognise that.

However, this does not mean that using our individual actions as a means of political struggle is either bourgeois or an expression of greed. It's actually one of the most direct ways I can think of to avoid contributing to the worst elements of capitalism.

Like everyone else here, I believe that capitalism needs to end. But I am not going to sit around and wait for the revolution to come while criticising everyone who attempts to actually do something. If in your daily life you have even a small opportunity (through a choice you make as a consumer or something else) to not add to the amount of suffering on the planet then you should take the opportunity, regardless of whether it aligns fully with your favoured political tendency.

Also, suggesting that abolishing capitalism will put an end to environmentally destructive industrial practices is quite naive.

[butter]

I became a vegetarian whilst I was a teenager and highly liberal. I can't really bring myself to start eating meat again, which makes me an atypical case.

Whilst I struggle with the individualistic tactics of vegan/vegetarianism (along with most of the green lobby), as I feel that individual boycotts in the face of multinational capitalism which gains billions in profit from the meat industry is equivalent to pissing in the ocean, I do in principle, feel there is something wrong with killing animals when it is wholly unnecessary. I feel that even in a socialist environment where the immense cruelty, the cooped-up battery farm conditions, the painful execution process in the abbatoirs, the rape of animals for milk and eggs, the butchering of male calves and chicks because they 'less useful', do not exist and animals are treated considerately, I still think breeding them and killing them (often young) is, well, not on. Becuase whilst I don't follow speciesism and would consider (although it's difficult to quantify exactly), a human life as 'more valuable', I do consider animal lives to have value, I do consider that they experience pain, and I do think that if that can be avoided, it should be. Whilst I would say protecting them would be impossible to do given that there's a whole industry bent on hurting them that cannot be untangled until capitalism is overcome, I do hope in a socialist system meat consumption would be reduced if not eradicated completely. (It would likely be necessary due to the environmental factors, and to be honest those were initially more important when I became a vegetarian, as I thought somehow rejecting meat all by myself would save the planet... turns out, that's not the case).

I would agree it's more popular within anarchism. Partially because anarchism has tended towards more individualistic tactics where you embody a communist lifestyle (e.g. communes, squatting, stealing) in a capitalist system, so boycotts and the like make more sense. But also because anarchism as a tendency has seemed, in general, more accommodating of the concepts of different oppressions (and vegans often do view speciesism as an oppression) as separate from class, adding hyphens to the 'anarcho' when required; this is something marxists have a slightly more awkward history with, as they have a more tightly packed view of oppression (singular, not plural).

[helot]

Based on my experience, I came up with a theory, which says that since materialism for Marxists is more of an integral part of their world-view (compared to Anarchists),

That is just incorrect. Anarchism is materialist. Sure, you might find an anarchist here and there who is filled with idealism but their idealism will be detrimental to their activity. The same applies to marxists.


Anyway, anarchist here and no i'm not a vegetarian or vegan. The majority of anarchists i've come across also eat animal products although that may be down to me being around class struggle anarchists, specifically anarcho-syndicalists.

Only ethical concept i have to do with my food consumption is i won't eat humans. Yup, speciest too :p


I consider animal husbandry as a necessity even if we didn't eat meat. Their shit is just too useful for agriculture.

[BIXX]

I don't eat meat, not really for any reason other than the thought of it grosses me out. I feel like I'm eating rotting flesh every time for some reason.

Anarchist.

[Depardieu]

Exactly what I don't like about this forum.

Conscious consumerism has been adopted into the capitalist system because businesses have noticed there's a 'market' for it; they see that in order to maintain a profit they have to change (or appear to) to appeal to consumers' desires for more ethical production methods. It's almost as though the capitalist industries are stalling for time by using ideas about conscious consumerism to delay people's realisation that capitalism is intrinsically harmful. I do recognise that.

However, this does not mean that using our individual actions as a means of political struggle is either bourgeois or an expression of greed. It's actually one of the most direct ways I can think of to avoid contributing to the worst elements of capitalism.

private capital doesnt have good and bad elements. "ethical" marketing wants you to think that, but it's not true. it's not about ethics, it's about profits, and THAT is the real issue. private capital has placed itself in the position to save the environment, while in fact it is wholely responsible for destroying it. and when you pay for the added value which is attributed to ethical goods, youre buying into that farce. youre signing onto the neoliberal propaganda that private capital has the role of regulating itself, saving the environment, and basically curing capitalism of its ills. which is complete nonsense, of course, and you dont even have to be a marxist to see through that.


Like everyone else here, I believe that capitalism needs to end. But I am not going to sit around and wait for the revolution to come while criticising everyone who attempts to actually do something. If in your daily life you have even a small opportunity (through a choice you make as a consumer or something else) to not add to the amount of suffering on the planet then you should take the opportunity, regardless of whether it aligns fully with your favoured political tendency.

what you buy is not political action. giving capitalists profits is not class war. it obfuscates the real issue, which is capitalism, which youre contributing to. ethics is the new frontier of neoliberal hegemony.


Also, suggesting that abolishing capitalism will put an end to environmentally destructive industrial practices is quite naive.

suggesting that your shopping list will put an end to environmentally destructive industrial practices is laughably naive and counter revolutionary and petit bourgeois in ways that i didnt expect to ever see on these boards

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Marxist. And I'm a meat-eater all the way.

[Fakeblock]

That is just incorrect. Anarchism is materialist. Sure, you might find an anarchist here and there who is filled with idealism but their idealism will be detrimental to their activity. The same applies to marxists.


Anyway, anarchist here and no i'm not a vegetarian or vegan. The majority of anarchists i've come across also eat animal products although that may be down to me being around class struggle anarchists, specifically anarcho-syndicalists.

Only ethical concept i have to do with my food consumption is i won't eat humans. Yup, speciest too :p


I consider animal husbandry as a necessity even if we didn't eat meat. Their shit is just too useful for agriculture.

While the best anarchists may be materialists, there is nothing inherently materialist in anarchism. As you probably know better than me, anarchists are a diverse bunch and it's silly to identify all or even the majority of them as materialists. Marxism, on the other hand, is materialist in essence. Unlike with the anarchists, you can't be a marxist idealist - that would be about as contradictory as an authoritarian anarchist.

I do agree with you, though, that the split on this question is not a matter of idealist vs. materialist. Anarchist veganism is more a symptom of the utilitarianism, which, while rejected by the majority of Marxists, is pervasive amongst anarchists (LiaSofia being a good example in this thread).

[Црвена]

Vegetarian anarchist, although this has nothing to do with my politics and it's just because my family are vegetarian. I don't see any problem with meat-eating or vegetarianism.

[Ele'ill]

homeless opportunist, influenced by anarchy

[Orange Juche]

I rarely eat meat and my fiancee is a vegetarian, so I'm practically a vegetarian, but every once in a while I eat meat (It's just convenient sometimes, I'm not some major fan of meat). I wish I was a vegan simply for environmental reasons, considering how the animal industry contributes toward the climate catastrophe we're heading toward.

[helot]

While the best anarchists may be materialists, there is nothing inherently materialist in anarchism. As you probably know better than me, anarchists are a diverse bunch and it's silly to identify all or even the majority of them as materialists. Marxism, on the other hand, is materialist in essence. Unlike with the anarchists, you can't be a marxist idealist - that would be about as contradictory as an authoritarian anarchist.

You know you just tried to counter my assertions by throwing out more assertions right? You should really try to prove your points.



You're basically saying that anarchism is not materialist because some anarchists are materialists and others aren't. I can say the same about Marxists.

How many marxist organisations do you think there are that hold steadfast to entryism in bourgeois parties like the UK labour party despite the evidence that it doesn't work? Why this unbudging position? It's most definitely not a product of a serious analysis of material conditions. Further, any marxist organisation that advocates the seizing of the bourgeois state and turning it to new ends is fundamentally idealist as it ignores the very role the state serves: the reproduction of the conditions of class society. But, you see, i don't then go and say marxism is inherently idealist.

I say anarchism is materialist because its basic principles are a result of a materialist conception. Before even going onto any sort of analysis of society it starts from one simple point: that phenomena, and that most definitely includes social phenomena, are a result of definite material processes. This basic philosophical premise underpins the very basis of anarchist theory and praxis.

We can go through all the basic principles of anarchism if you want and i'll show you its materialist foundation but we should probably do this in another thread as it could get quite long.

[Non-Aligned]

I'm neither marxist nor anarchist (just not big on capitalism) and I'm not a vegetarian/vegan. I like my bloody steaks way too much.

[MarxSchmarx]

Moved to S&E

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Shit, my theory is collapsing on empirical evidence. That means that the facts must be wrong!

[The Feral Underclass]

Why would being a materialist make you less likely to be a vegetarian or vegan?

[The Feral Underclass]

While the best anarchists may be materialists, there is nothing inherently materialist in anarchism.

Why isn't there? I really want you to explain to my why there is nothing "inherently materialist in anarchism"?


As you probably know better than me, anarchists are a diverse bunch

No, not really. The biggest and most enduring traditions of anarchism are social anarchists. The minority of post-left anarchists that exist doesn't make anarchism diverse...

[Fakeblock]

We can go through all the basic principles of anarchism if you want and i'll show you its materialist foundation but we should probably do this in another thread as it could get quite long.

Please do.


Why isn't there? I really want you to explain to my why there is nothing "inherently materialist in anarchism"?

Ok, if it means so much to you. As I understand it, anarchism is an ideology and social movement, which aims to emancipate the individual from social coercion, authority and hierarchy and allow him to engage socially on a free and voluntary basis through the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the state. It may very well be that my understanding of anarchism is limited or inaccurate, but I see nothing inherently materialist in this. That doesn't mean that I think anarchism is inherently idealist either, but that it can equally accomodate convinced idealists, convinced materialists and everyone in between.


No, not really. The biggest and most enduring traditions of anarchism are social anarchists. The minority of post-left anarchists that exist doesn't make anarchism diverse...

Fair enough.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Eat what you want to eat! Food politics make me wanna barf.

I used to be a vegetarian, then I lost a job and just ate whatever because I didn't have options. Now I still eat whatever, but not much meet because I just don't like it much. The only kinds of vegetarians or meat eaters I don't like are the ones who use their stomach as their moral highground.

[F9]

First of all, damn no, im not a vegan!I can not live without meat tbh.

But there is a flaw in the poll and the result you want to have!First of all you need the same number of Anarchists and Marxists to vote in order to have a some kind of good result to get a conclusion out of it and second, you target 2 "theories" that behind them you can find 1000 different trends.But lets just say we do take this comparison of Marxism vs Anarchism. Pretty much nowdays marxists(in general form) way outnumber us(Anarchists) so most probably you will get more marxists to be vegans.
Also as an Anarchist, i have to say that i can not see the connection of my ideology with veganism or anything similar.

[helot]

Please do.



Ok, if it means so much to you. As I understand it, anarchism is an ideology and social movement, which aims to emancipate theindividual from social coercion, authority and hierarchy and allow him to engage socially on a free and voluntary basis through the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the state. It may very well be that my understanding of anarchism is limited or inaccurate, but I see nothing inherently materialist in this.



I wouldn't really agree with your claim. Who's this individual? You lack context and even any mention of class!


I'll go with just one thing: anarchists reject seizing the state. The state is a particular organ that emerges in society due to definite conditions (you know, being split into classes) to serve a definite function: it serves to protect the ruling class but also to maintain and reproduce the conditions of class society. Anarchists do not think you can turn this organ to new ends, it will always strive (for lack of a better term) to reproduce class society because that is its function: "And just as the functions of the bodily organs of plants and animals cannot be arbitrarily altered... so also one cannot at pleasure transform an organ of social oppression into an instrument for the liberation of the oppressed. The state can only be what it is" [Rudolf Rocker]

You may disagree but the materialism is obvious.


Now tell us, why isn't anarchism materialist? You've only ever made the assertion, you've made no effort to back anything up.

[The Feral Underclass]

As I understand it, anarchism is an ideology and social movement, which aims to emancipate the individual from social coercion, authority and hierarchy and allow him to engage socially on a free and voluntary basis through the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the state.

"The materialistic, realistic, and collectivist conception of freedom, as opposed to the idealistic, is this: Man becomes conscious of himself and his humanity only in society and only by the collective action of the whole society. He frees himself from the yoke of external nature only by collective and social labor, which alone can transform the earth into an abode favorable to the development of humanity. Without such material emancipation the intellectual and moral emancipation of the individual is impossible" -- Bakunin

Man, Society and Freedom (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1871/man-society.htm)

"What is property, what is capital in their present form? For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both." -- Bakunin

The Capitalist System (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/capsys.htm)

"Karl Marx...a great intellect armed with a profound knowledge, whose entire life, one can say it without flattering, has been devoted exclusively to the greatest cause which exists to-day, the emancipation of labour and of the toilers--Karl Marx who is indisputably also, if not the only, at least one of the principal founders of the International Workingmen's Association, made the development of the Communist idea the object of a serious work. His great work, Capital, is not in the least a fantasy, an "a priori" conception, hatched out in a single day in the head of a young man more or less ignorant of economic conditions and of the actual system of production. It is founded on a very extensive, very detailed knowledge and a very profound analysis of this system and of its conditions. Karl Marx is a man of immense statistical and economic knowledge. His work on Capital...is in the highest degree a scientific or realist work: in the sense that it absolutely excludes any other logic than that of the facts." -- Bakunin

Marxism, Freedom and the State (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/mf-state/ch02.htm)


It may very well be that my understanding of anarchism is limited or inaccurate

Right.


but I see nothing inherently materialist in this.

Because it's a superficial interpretation of anarchism.


That doesn't mean that I think anarchism is inherently idealist either, but that it can equally accomodate convinced idealists, convinced materialists and everyone in between.

That applies to any ideology where human beings have the capacity to agree with it.

[Fakeblock]

I wouldn't really agree with your claim. Who's this individual? You lack context and even any mention of class!

I'll go with just one thing: anarchists reject seizing the state. The state is a particular organ that emerges in society due to definite conditions (you know, being split into classes) to serve a definite function: it serves to protect the ruling class but also to maintain and reproduce the conditions of class society. Anarchists do not think you can turn this organ to new ends, it will always strive (for lack of a better term) to reproduce class society because that is its function: "And just as the functions of the bodily organs of plants and animals cannot be arbitrarily altered... so also one cannot at pleasure transform an organ of social oppression into an instrument for the liberation of the oppressed. The state can only be what it is" [Rudolf Rocker]

You may disagree but the materialism is obvious.

Do all anarchists believe in the centrality of class struggle? Do all anarchists believe in the concepts of ruling class and "reproduction of the conditions of class society"? More importantly, is the lack of such a belief contradictory to anarchist identification?

What of Emma Goldman who says:


In religion, as in politics, people speak of abstractions and believe they are dealing with realities. But when it does come to the real and the concrete, most people seem to lose vital touch with it. It may well be because reality alone is too matter-of-fact, too cold to enthuse the human soul. It can be aroused to enthusiasm only by things out of the commonplace, out of the ordinary. In other words, the Ideal is the spark that fires the imagination and hearts of men. Some ideal is needed to rouse man out of the inertia and humdrum of his existence and turn the abject slave into an heroic figure.

Right here, of course, comes the Marxist objector who has outmarxed Marx himself. To such a one, man is a mere puppet in the hands of that metaphysical Almighty called economic determinism or, more vulgarly, the class struggle. Man’s will, individual and collective, his psychic life and mental orientation count for almost nothing with our Marxist and do not affect his conception of human history.

No intelligent student will deny the importance of the economic factor in the social growth and development of mankind. But only narrow and wilful dogmatism can persist in remaining blind to the important role played by an idea as conceived by the imagination and aspirations of the individual.

It were vain and unprofitable to attempt to balance one factor as against another in human experience. No one single factor in the complex of individual or social behavior can be designated as the factor of decisive quality. We know too little, and may never know enough, of human psychology to weigh and measure the relative values of this or that factor in determining man’s conduct. To form such dogmas in their social connotation is nothing short of bigotry; yet, perhaps, it has its uses, for the very attempt to do so proved the persistence of the human will and confutes the Marxists.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1940/individual.htm

In fact, this essay demonstrates quite well Emma Goldman's idealist conception of the state, as an abstract organism exercising its authority independent of the social context. For her government, does not resist progress because it exists in order to forcefully reproduce capitalist society, but due to its "inherent distrust of the individual" (who is "a cosmos in himself"), because of the inherent "psychology of government".

Now, Emma Goldman is a pretty seminal anarchist figure, so her opinion is obviously relevant. So do you think her idealist conception of the atomised, ahistorical individual and state is inconsistent with her anarchism? If so, why?


Now tell us, why isn't anarchism materialist? You've only ever made the assertion, you've made no effort to back anything up.

The word "inherently" is key here.


"The materialistic, realistic, and collectivist conception of freedom, as opposed to the idealistic, is this: Man becomes conscious of himself and his humanity only in society and only by the collective action of the whole society. He frees himself from the yoke of external nature only by collective and social labor, which alone can transform the earth into an abode favorable to the development of humanity. Without such material emancipation the intellectual and moral emancipation of the individual is impossible" -- Bakunin

Man, Society and Freedom (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1871/man-society.htm)

"What is property, what is capital in their present form? For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both." -- Bakunin

The Capitalist System (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/capsys.htm)

"Karl Marx...a great intellect armed with a profound knowledge, whose entire life, one can say it without flattering, has been devoted exclusively to the greatest cause which exists to-day, the emancipation of labour and of the toilers--Karl Marx who is indisputably also, if not the only, at least one of the principal founders of the International Workingmen's Association, made the development of the Communist idea the object of a serious work. His great work, Capital, is not in the least a fantasy, an "a priori" conception, hatched out in a single day in the head of a young man more or less ignorant of economic conditions and of the actual system of production. It is founded on a very extensive, very detailed knowledge and a very profound analysis of this system and of its conditions. Karl Marx is a man of immense statistical and economic knowledge. His work on Capital...is in the highest degree a scientific or realist work: in the sense that it absolutely excludes any other logic than that of the facts." -- Bakunin

Marxism, Freedom and the State (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/mf-state/ch02.htm)

I don't really understand what you're trying to say with these quotes.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't really understand what you're trying to say with these quotes.


Why don't you?

[Ferret the Anarchist]

I love meat. I love steak, I love burgers, I love chicken and I love bacon and sausage. I identify as an anarchist.

Fuck, just thinking about meat and mashed potatoes right now. Mouth .... watering.

(note: didn't mean to offend any vegans or vegetarians with that last statement)

[Decolonize The Left]

I love meat. I love steak, I love burgers, I love chicken and I love bacon and sausage. I identify as an anarchist.

Fuck, just thinking about meat and mashed potatoes right now. Mouth .... watering.

(note: didn't mean to offend any vegans or vegetarians with that last statement)

This is a verbal warning. Your obvious trolling sarcasm is unhelpful and pointless. If you disagree with someone use your words like a grown up.

[Quail]

I love meat. I love steak, I love burgers, I love chicken and I love bacon and sausage. I identify as an anarchist.

Fuck, just thinking about meat and mashed potatoes right now. Mouth .... watering.

(note: didn't mean to offend any vegans or vegetarians with that last statement)

It's not offensive. It just makes you look a bit silly.

[The Feral Underclass]

(note: didn't mean to offend any vegans or vegetarians with that last statement)

What was the purpose of it then?

[Rafiq]

Why is it important to politicize your dietary preferences?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Conscious consumerism pisses me off because it does fuck all to alleviate any real-world problems. All it does is translate 'ethically' inflated prices for goods into higher profits for whomever is selling them.

It's the big bad elephant in the room dark side of altruism; it allows middle-class people who are in no way exploited for their labour to feel like they are cut from better cloth than the rest of us, as long as they pay a premium for the pleasure.

It has fuck all to do with the emancipation of the oppressed, exploited, nor the planet.

Animal welfare, I believe, is a realistic, humane, and practical way of making sure that animals of all kinds are treated with respect and allowed to live lives of dignity; adopting a more respectful attitudes to animals will go a long way, moreover, towards helping save the amazing biodiversity and ecosystems that exist on the planet.

[helot]

Do all anarchists believe in the centrality of class struggle? Do all anarchists believe in the concepts of ruling class and "reproduction of the conditions of class society"? More importantly, is the lack of such a belief contradictory to anarchist identification?

Those are my words, the same sentiment is expressed in various ways. Why is it do you think anarchists are constantly going on about how you can't turn the state to new ends? Why do you think anarchists reject running for office and seizing the state? Surely, if anarchists are idealists as you say we'd think by sheer will power you can make an organ of social oppression an instrument of emancipation.




What of Emma Goldman who says:



http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1940/individual.htm

In fact, this essay demonstrates quite well Emma Goldman's idealist conception of the state, as an abstract organism exercising its authority independent of the social context. For her government, does not resist progress because it exists in order to forcefully reproduce capitalist society, but due to its "inherent distrust of the individual" (who is "a cosmos in himself"), because of the inherent "psychology of government".

Now, Emma Goldman is a pretty seminal anarchist figure, so her opinion is obviously relevant. So do you think her idealist conception of the atomised, ahistorical individual and state is inconsistent with her anarchism? If so, why?

I don't think you understand what it is you're quoting.

Notice the "outmarx Marx himself"? It's pretty clear Goldman's having a dig at economic determinism something she recognises Marx was careful about. Interestingly, as you quotes, she states we know too little to have a proper understanding of all that contributes to human behaviour.

But Goldman's beside the point. Like i've already mentioned i could quote Marxists being idealists but that doesn't mean Marxism is not inherently materialist.

[TheDark]

The results aren't entirely accurate, because I assume the number of Marxists is higher than the number of Anarchists, whilst the percentage of vegan Anarchists may be higher than the percentage of Marxist vegans.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why is it important to politicize your dietary preferences?


Because the way we consume resources, treat the planet and its inhabitants, as well as the consequences of our actions as a species in regards to these things are political issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Feral Underclass]

Conscious consumerism pisses me off because it does fuck all to alleviate any real-world problems.

That could only really be justified if it were the only thing that people did.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That could only really be justified if it were the only thing that people did.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, but the most visible aspect of this sort of ethical consumerism seems to be expensive shops coming into working class neighbourhoods and gentrifying them so that middle-class people can feel good about their veganism, ethical consumer choices etc.

It's kind of like when people write a letter or sign a petition; it makes them feel good but in reality they are so far divorced from actually making any sort of positive difference that it becomes less about the outcome (forcing a positive change) and more about the process (I did something altruistic, I feel good etc.).

If people were committed to more equitable outcomes for the planet and for animals, they would think more widely about human behaviour in general. Of course, that's pretty hard to do if you are struggling to make ends meet because your focus will be on your immediate situation and not on sacrificing your already low standard of living for something that you cannot empathise with. Difficult situation.

[Luís Henrique]

Why is it important to politicize your dietary preferences?

Because the point is to be more revolutionary than thou.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Based on my experience, I came up with a theory, which says that since materialism for Marxists is more of an integral part of their world-view (compared to Anarchists), there will be less vegetarian/vegan Marxists than Anarchists. So I want to check that out empirically and also start a discussion as to why these sort of differences might exist, if they do.

This theory is formulated solely on my personal experience while interacting with leftists.

There is a methodological problem, which you probably have already realised, with this poll.

You would have to had separated "No" option into "anarchist" and "Marxist" suboptions as you did with the "Yes" option.

As of now, we have 10 "anarchist vegetarian" answers, 13 "Marxist vegetarian" answers, and 41 "not-vegetarian" answers.

It is possible that these "no" answers divide themselves into "Marxist no-es" and "anarchist no-es" more or less on the same proportions. But it is also possible that those 41 no-es are all anarchist (in which case about 20% of anarchists and 100% of Marxists would be vegetarian), or that those 41 people are all Marxist (in which case about 100% of anarchists and 24% of Marxists would be vegetarian).

So, your hypothesis wasn't adequately tested.

Luís Henrique

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Yeah, there are many more problems with this poll... What can I say, silly me.

[The Feral Underclass]

I agree, but the most visible aspect of this sort of ethical consumerism seems to be expensive shops coming into working class neighbourhoods and gentrifying them so that middle-class people can feel good about their veganism, ethical consumer choices etc.

Really? Where?


It's kind of like when people write a letter or sign a petition; it makes them feel good but in reality they are so far divorced from actually making any sort of positive difference that it becomes less about the outcome (forcing a positive change) and more about the process (I did something altruistic, I feel good etc.).

That's not a reason to oppose veganism.


If people were committed to more equitable outcomes for the planet and for animals, they would think more widely about human behaviour in general. Of course, that's pretty hard to do if you are struggling to make ends meet because your focus will be on your immediate situation and not on sacrificing your already low standard of living for something that you cannot empathise with. Difficult situation.

You're criticising people who live under capitalism for behaving like they live in under capitalism. Yeah, people should behave differently. The point you're making isn't particularly mind blowing, it's kinda obvious. Why it is being specifically levelled at people who consider the food they consume is a mystery to me.

Also, it's cheaper to cut out meat and diary from your diet than to keep it in. You can buy soya milk much cheaper to the litre than milk.

[Lord Testicles]

Because the way we consume resources, treat the planet and its inhabitants, as well as the consequences of our actions as a species in regards to these things are political issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's true but what does anyone's dietary preference have to do with how we consume resources or treat our planet as a species?

If I restrict my diet to nothing but nuts and berries then how does that change anything in relation to how the whole human species consumes resources or even how the human species approaches the issue of consumption?

[edwad]

im a marxist thats vegan for health reasons and bc animal products gross me out, not because of the consumer activist politics of "veganism". i think thats pretty useless/liberal.

[The Feral Underclass]

That's true but what does anyone's dietary preference have to do with how we consume resources or treat our planet as a species?

If I restrict my diet to nothing but nuts and berries then how does that change anything in relation to how the whole human species consumes resources or even how the human species approaches the issue of consumption?

I don't think I fully understand your question.

[edwad]

I don't think I fully understand your question.

i believe theyre asking how an individual's actions affect the world as a whole.

[The Feral Underclass]

i believe theyre asking how an individual's actions affect the world as a whole.

Being a vegan in isolation won't have any affect on the world as a whole.

[Lord Testicles]

i believe theyre asking how an individual's actions affect the world as a whole.


Being a vegan in isolation won't have any affect on the world as a whole.

Rather, what practicality is there in limiting what you (or a group of people) eat in relation to the issues you've raised?

&

How does limiting what you eat encourage wider discourse or action concerning the consumption of resources or the effects that consumption has on the planet?

[Rafiq]

Because the way we consume resources, treat the planet and its inhabitants, as well as the consequences of our actions as a species in regards to these things are political issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no "planet". The planet exists insofar as it is useful to us. Whether it is useful in fulfilling some kind of degenerate sentiment (i.e. Animal rights activism) derived from giving anthropomorphic characteristics to animals, or whether it is useful insofar as it is habitable does not change this fact.

The political dimension to environmentalism is based solely on the reluctancy of capital to take into account the 'ecological' problems it has caused. That is it. It is not about whether we want to give up eating meat, or eggs, or our reluctancy to change our dietary preferences. Vegetarianism and veganism are personal issues and any attempt to politicize them could only ever take the form of a mockery of real politics.

[The Feral Underclass]

Rather, what effect does limiting what you (or a group of people) eat have on the world?

Just becoming a vegan doesn't really have any affect on the world.


How does limiting what you eat encourage wider discourse or action concerning the consumption of resources or the effects that consumption has on the planet?

I'm not an animal rights activist, so I can't really speak on behalf of them. As far as me individually is concerned, in terms of discourse it continuously encourages it by the simple fact that it is a thing that exists that people have no normal engagement with. In terms of the consumption of resources, my choice to be a vegan probably has very little affect on the planet.

[TC]

I am a Marxist and am not a Vegan/Vegetarian because I think the idea of 'animal rights' based on abstract morality is 'idealist', though the cruelty is real so I don't know how to respond to it.

What is "abstract morality" and how does your moral theory differ from it?

Or are you operating under an unarticulated moral paradigm - which sounds both underexamined and highly abstract.



But certainly materialism and class based politics has stopped me from looking into this issue in any depth, but I can appreciate that food production is a 'political' and 'economic' relation, not simply an abstract, moral or 'idealist' one. This is something of a failing on my part.

I see a lot of comments like this from other people (I'm just picking yours because they were first) but they don't really make sense to me.

How can you have politics without morals? Any time you have a normative, value laden, purpose directed position of what ought to happen, you have a view of morality whether its an implicit or explicit one.

"Issues" are not confined to purely descriptive or normative modes of analysis but whenever you're making normative claims, you're making either moral/ethical or aesthetic claims or both.

[Lord Testicles]

Just becoming a vegan doesn't really have any affect on the world.


Just as you posted I finished re-phrasing my question to better reflect what I'm trying to ask.


I'm not an animal rights activist, so I can't really speak on behalf of them. As far as me individually is concerned, in terms of discourse it continuously encourages it. In terms of the consumption of resources, my choice to be a vegan probably has very little affect on the planet.

So, would you agree that it's really not important to politicise your dietary preferences in terms of hoping to have an actual effect on the world?

[TC]

That is just incorrect. Anarchism is materialist. Sure, you might find an anarchist here and there who is filled with idealism but their idealism will be detrimental to their activity. The same applies to marxists.


The whole "idealist" "materialist" distinction is nonsensical as its being applied here.


Idealism and materialism properly understood are metaphysical views of the nature of existence and the universe. Marx was materialist in contrast to Hegel or Berkeley or Descartes in this regard.

Idealist presuppositions of the universe might be the source of some political/moral views. For example, it is morally required to pray to a god on another plane of existence and those who do will be rewarded by going to a better plane of existence, is a moral claim that is informed by a non-materialist view of the universe.

But thats not at all what anyone is talking about. When someone says they wont eat animals not because they have a "soul" but because they experience pain and disutility - they aren't making a claim dependent on any idealism they're making a moral claim that is based on a materialist understanding of the world.

It might not be one you agree with but that doesn't make it 'idealist'.

Likewise the position that capitalism is the most just economic system because it delivers the maximum prosperity, and vindicates the personal interests of people, also requires no idealism and is totally compatible with a materialist view.

Just accepting materialism doesn't resolve any moral questions or tell you what material features matter, what you should care about, what is important.

All it does is rule out arguments that appeal to the existence of non-material things.

[The Feral Underclass]

So, would you agree that it's really not important to politicise your dietary preferences in terms of hoping to have an actual effect on the world?

The consumption of animal products has a detrimental affect on the planet, as well as having a detrimental affect on the human body. In terms of human survival, both as inhabitants of a planet and for public health, it is important to make abstention a political issue.

More importantly, as far as I'm concerned, abstention represents a deeper critical awareness of how human beings have historically developed as entities on the planet. The subjugation of our natural habitant underscores a particular type of hegemonic belief in our natural rights as humans. Rafiq's bizarre post, for example, typifies a social relationship that has developed through the ages -- specifically as one that presupposes human beings as the supreme species -- that entitles us to do as we wish with the planet. As a particular attitude, the ramifications of this feed into a whole host of intra-human behaviour that is at odds with the establishment of a society that sees compassion, reason and progress as tenets to strive for. Not to mention it is an attitude that is having profound and destructive consequences on the planet.

Abstention is not just an environmental and public health issue, it is an existential issue; it is about how we view our existence as part of a wider natural community. This is important if we are to understand how we progress our species in a way that maximises our happiness and harmony with the planet -- not in some hippy-dippy sense, but purely in terms of our survival, continuation and as those who seek to establish communism.

How does our relationship with the planet and its inhabitants inform how we are to be in a world of our making? I cannot see -- logically -- how it is possible to establish a society, within which compassion and reason are seen as tenets to practice, if we continue the wholesale slaughter of other species simply for our enjoyment. Those two things are mutually exclusive and that dichotomy is an issue for me, and it should be for other people.

[The Feral Underclass]

Rather, what practicality is there in limiting what you (or a group of people) eat in relation to the issues you've raised?

I think my post above better addresses the issues I raised, but to add that, alongside promoting a generally healthier lifestyle, abstention reduces your risk of vascular related diseases by drastically reducing your chances of developing hypertension, hyperlipidemia and type-2 diabetes. It also helps prevent obesity (which is a primary cause of those things) and types of cancer.

[TC]

There is no "planet". The planet exists insofar as it is useful to us.

Interestingly, this is an incredibly idealist perspective.

You take an undeniably physically existing thing (the planet) and posit that its existence is reduceable to a particular essence - in this case, human utility.

Whether the planet should be *thought of* as important only in terms of human utility is a normative, or moral question.

Trying to avoid this question by positing an *ideal essence or abstract significance* of the planet is to try to use an idealist metaphysics to replace the need for moral inquiry.



Whether it is useful in fulfilling some kind of degenerate sentiment (i.e. Animal rights activism) derived from giving anthropomorphic characteristics to animals, or whether it is useful insofar as it is habitable does not change this fact.

Except you haven't described any facts. Taken literally you've posited a false metaphysical idealist theory of the plane: that it doesn't exist, except insofar as it is useful. This is obviously false, the planet exists and has many existing properties and attributes that are not useful to humans. Taken metaphorically you've stated an opinion: we *ought* to hold as morally relevant only that which is useful to people, and fits the type of utility that I prefer [i.e. not the 'degenerate' type]. This is a value judgment offered without rational support (though some might be possible for it); it is not a statement of fact.



The political dimension to environmentalism is based solely on the reluctancy of capital to take into account the 'ecological' problems it has caused. That is it. It is not about whether we want to give up eating meat, or eggs, or our reluctancy to change our dietary preferences. Vegetarianism and veganism are personal issues and any attempt to politicize them could only ever take the form of a mockery of real politics.

More unsupported opinions asserted. Why should we confine politics to your preferred list of concerns? You haven't given a reason you are just asserting it as if you're the personal arbiter of what is legitimate for political discussion.


There might be strong arguments against veganism (for the record I am not a vegan!), but so far I'm just reading a lot of self-important, irrational opinions using what might be called revleft's own fallacy: a confused and misattributed assertion of "materialism".

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Really? Where?

Go all over somewhere like Hackney. Stokey, for example, has been overrun with posh gastropubs and a big ol' whole foods store, which is the biggest rip off i've seen. By the looks of it this has happened in many places across North London and has started to happen in places like Peckham, Clapham etc. too.


That's not a reason to oppose veganism.

I'm not opposing veganism in toto. I appreciate the health benefits such a diet has. I don't like the moral aspect of it, though, which we are about to come onto...


You're criticising people who live under capitalism for behaving like they live in under capitalism. Yeah, people should behave differently. The point you're making isn't particularly mind blowing, it's kinda obvious. Why it is being specifically levelled at people who consider the food they consume is a mystery to me.

I wasn't criticising, I was highlighting the reasons people do not behave differently.


Also, it's cheaper to cut out meat and diary from your diet than to keep it in. You can buy soya milk much cheaper to the litre than milk.

But it's easier if you work long/unsociable hours or are bringing up a child/children on your own or whatever to buy ready meals that have a high meat content so you can get calories and nutrients in, however low quality they will become when blasted in the microwave.

I also resent the 'cost' idea re: going vegan. It kind of says to poor people that consuming less of what they like is in their interests because it will save them money, which won't be a consideration to middle class people and the rich.

Personally, I think way too many animals are killed, and kept in terrible conditions, for their meat. A system not based on profit would need to kill less animals, and could afford to keep them in humane conditions (genuinely free range fields, for example), because there would be no need to inflate consumers' demand for meat beyond what is a healthy amount of meat consumption, which is probably far less than the amount of meat people in the western world especially consume currently.

I know you don't agree with the philosophical foundations of my argument (that it is OK to kill some animals for their meat), but I would like to think that we could have a constructive dialogue on how to at least reduce substantially the amount of animals that are killed for their meat without forcing people to abandon their want to consume meat.

[Rafiq]

Interestingly, this is an incredibly idealist perspective.
.

No, you're making a straw-man. This isn't a metaphysical argument. No one denies the Earth exists independent of our existence (notice how I said "planet"). That's the point. It is not as though we coexist with some entity that possesses conscious characteristics. Humans do not give a shit about the Earth, or the animals that reside in it insofar as they are not useful. History is not made by making deals with the "planet". History is made by different social bodies with different relationships to production vying for power. There is no social foundation for veganism. It is a dietary preference, it is NOT political. Animals do not possess a social relationship to production. We are not all-knowing entities solely concerned with objective reality. We are animals with different relationships to each other that pertains to our survival, reproduction, or whatever you like.

You're wrong that this question is solely a moral one. It is a fact that humans cannot think outside of the parameters of their consciousness. We might be self-conscious of our being, and we might be closer to understanding it totally but any moral (or pseudo-political) stance taken on animals, or the "planet" is wholly reflective of our own consciousness (the attribution of anthropomorphic characteristics to other things) rather than objective reality. The planet does not exist outside of its use to humans as far as our social being goes, which constitutes our living existence. Objective reality exists indiscriminate of our existence, but that does not change the fact that we exist.

This further raises the question of whether we are even capable of understanding 'objective reality' without the biases that come from our social being (therefore our ideology), a topic that has been discussed numerous times on this website. Either way, this has nothing to do with the original point at hand:

It is ridiculous to politicize your dietary preferences. No, we cannot politicize questions over the "Earth and its inhabitants" alone, it must have social relevance. Environmentalism does because it forms a contradiction between our very survival and the hunger of capital. Similarly, opposition to the first world war raised the contradiction between the needs of capital, and our livelihood as a civilization.

Now, you will say, what's the point of caring about humans who have no immediate social relevance, like Native Americans or marginalized indigenous tribes? Since ideology encompasses the entirety of the world, morality, and our understanding of humans, there is no question. We can demonstrate that Communist ideology necessarily opposes barbarism and brutality, murder and so on (as a consequence of its very foundations, it must be consistent or else it is inadequate as an ideology). We cannot demonstrate that there are any social foundations for opposition to consuming meat. Since the ENTIRE premise of such an argument (when politicized) comes from attributing animals anthropomorphic characteristics it stems from ignorance of the realities of which it pertains to. Communism, like any ideology in history, concerns humans alone. An ideology does not say "I am ideology", similarly it does not say "I am solely concerned with the interests of the proletariat". It appropriates humanity as a whole and reduces humanity to the interests of the proletariat.

I don't know where the fuck you'd get that this is a metaphysical argument. That's so simplistic of you.


Why should we confine politics to your preferred list of concerns?

You accuse me of idealism and yet you hold an idealist position as far as the nature of politics goes, which posits that politics is: Well, whatever the fuck we want it to be? A reflection of processes of "pure thought"? I don't think so. Politics must have a social foundation. More specifically politics concerns power among humans. Animals are incapable of power over humans, they possess a distinct form of consciousness. If a cow was a cow, and yet possessed our consciousness this would be a different matter. But it does not. As far as we're concerned animals are nothing short of organic automations.

It's not about what I concern, it is about the nature of politics itself. We don't choose what we confine politics to willfully as though we're picking out tools from a catalog, I am not making the argument that vegan politics should not exist. I am making the argument that its existence is impossible, that it could only ever be a mockery of real politics.

You make it as though the dichotomy veganism vs. non veganism rests on an equal playing field. 'Veganism' is a pseudo-political intrusion, it is an affirmative argument. Saying that veganism has no real social foundations, and is not political is not a moral stance (conversely, trying to politicize your dietary preferences is). Saying that we as a species are incapable of caring about the Earth insofar as it does not concern ourselves is not an opinion, it is a fact. Reactionary ecologists attribute the Earth anthropomorphic characteristics and their "concern" over the planet has nothing to do with the planet itself, but ideological realities and their implications to us as humans. Just as the religious notion of Heaven and Hell sais more about us than any metaphysical reality.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm vegetarian. I eat grass. I support animal liberation, ALF and other such things. The death of SeaWorld is only the beginning. 0_0

[The Feral Underclass]

Go all over somewhere like Hackney. Stokey, for example, has been overrun with posh gastropubs and a big ol' whole foods store, which is the biggest rip off i've seen. By the looks of it this has happened in many places across North London and has started to happen in places like Peckham, Clapham etc. too.

You're conflating veganism/vegetarianism with gentrification and I don't understand why. Yes, gentrification will necessarily involve middle-class preoccupations, but I don't understand what the purpose of making that point is?


I'm not opposing veganism in toto. I appreciate the health benefits such a diet has. I don't like the moral aspect of it, though, which we are about to come onto...

Which moral aspects do you particularly dislike?


I wasn't criticising, I was highlighting the reasons people do not behave differently.

Which is a criticism, surely?


But it's easier if you work long/unsociable hours or are bringing up a child/children on your own or whatever to buy ready meals that have a high meat content so you can get calories and nutrients in, however low quality they will become when blasted in the microwave.

My mother was a very low-income, single parent mother, and my sister and I always had freshly cooked meals. Was she just an anomaly? Making a meal from fresh or non-processed produce can take the same amount of time it takes you to microwave a meal...

This isn't about ease, it's about laziness and a willingness to understand how to actually make proper food and how to keep yourself and children healthy. It is not a class issue if you choose to microwave a meal rather than cook a vegetable.


I also resent the 'cost' idea re: going vegan. It kind of says to poor people that consuming less of what they like is in their interests because it will save them money, which won't be a consideration to middle class people and the rich.

The patronising overtones of this paragraph notwithstanding, eating less meat and dairy will save you money. It seems to me that you're essentially making the argument that because middle-class people don't need to consider saving money, "poor" people should just spend money as they wish.

No, middle-class people probably don't need to consider that, but going vegan is cheaper and healthier. That is a fact.


Personally, I think way too many animals are killed, and kept in terrible conditions, for their meat. A system not based on profit would need to kill less animals, and could afford to keep them in humane conditions (genuinely free range fields, for example), because there would be no need to inflate consumers' demand for meat beyond what is a healthy amount of meat consumption, which is probably far less than the amount of meat people in the western world especially consume currently.

It is funny that you essentially criticise veganism as a middle-class, liberal preoccupation, and then make the biggest middle-class, liberal argument for eating meat and dairy.

"Humane conditions" is just liberal white-washing of the issue. "Free range" is a capitalist marketing device. Reforming the meat and dairy industry is the biggest load of middle-class bollocks when it comes to animal lib. Not interested.


I know you don't agree with the philosophical foundations of my argument (that it is OK to kill some animals for their meat)

What does "okay" mean? What is "okay"? On what basis is "okay" a thing which should be taken into consideration?


but I would like to think that we could have a constructive dialogue on how to at least reduce substantially the amount of animals that are killed for their meat without forcing people to abandon their want to consume meat.

I have no interest in having a "dialogue" about the conditions in which animals are exploited. I'm not interested in assuaging your sense of duty in the line of killing and eating animals. The amount of animals killed and the manner in which they die is not a point of debate for me. There is no amount of animals and no manner of death that is justified or acceptable.

[Fakeblock]

Those are my words, the same sentiment is expressed in various ways.

No, I was asking you questions based on your previous statements. I'm trying to get to whether you think an idealist conception of society is contradictory to an anarchist identification.


Why is it do you think anarchists are constantly going on about how you can't turn the state to new ends? Why do you think anarchists reject running for office and seizing the state? Surely, if anarchists are idealists as you say we'd think by sheer will power you can make an organ of social oppression an instrument of emancipation.

You're missing the point. Most people are not consistently materialist or idealist. It's entirely possible to be a Marxist and still have idealistic tendencies, but that would be a theoretical inconsistency that should be corrected (even Marx wasn't consistently materialist). That is because Marxism is based on a rejection of philosophical idealism and on the materialist conception of history - these are defining traits of Marxism. To what extent does a rejection of idealism define anarchism? The answer, of course, is not at all, which is why Emma Goldman can speak of "natural rights", of the individual as a cosmos in himself,and of the "idea", which is presumably shaped independently of the class struggle, of the economy etc., and still be a perfectly consistent anarchist.


I don't think you understand what it is you're quoting.

Notice the "outmarx Marx himself"? It's pretty clear Goldman's having a dig at economic determinism something she recognises Marx was careful about. Interestingly, as you quotes, she states we know too little to have a proper understanding of all that contributes to human behaviour.

Economic determinism can be criticised from both idealist and materialist perspectives, but Goldman's perspective is decidedly idealist. She does not propose any material forces that play a role in determining consciousness, social formations and so on. Rather she stresses "the important role played by an idea as conceived by the imagination and aspirations of the individual." But which individual are we talking about? According to Goldman "the individual is not merely the result of heredity and environment, of cause and effect. He is that and a great deal more, a great deal else. The living man cannot be defined; he is the fountain-head of all life and all values; he is not a part of this or of that; he is a whole, an individual whole, a growing, changing, yet always constant whole." Goldman doesn't care much for context nor class nor actual material processes, yet she is a perfectly consistent anarchist. Again I never claimed that anarchism is inherently idealist, but merely that it was not inherently materialist, i.e. that it is in no way defined by a rejection of idealism or an "embracement" of materialism. Only a philosophy which is necessarily materialist in all its aspects is an inherently materialist philosophy - and for this anarchism does not qualify.

[Luís Henrique]

I support animal liberation

Unless of course said animals are Palestinians, in which case it is their fault.

Luís Henrique

[Thirsty Crow]

I consider myself as trying to understand the human world from the Marxist perspective, and I'm not a vegan. If anything, I could say I'm a carnivore as my diet predominantly consists of meat and dairy products. And carbs, yeah.

Yeah, I know it ain't healthy and that it's a bad habit. Some day I'll be forced to seriously reconsider it and probably to change it significantly, though I can't see myself adopting the vegan diet at all. But something more balanced, that could be pulled off.

I'm also unapologetically anthropocentric when it comes to thinking about food production; I don't discount the possibility that a gradual shift towards veganism worldwide might be beneficial, and I would advocate it but on that specific grounds, and not on grounds of an ethical position. The thing about anthropocentrism is that it needs to be understood more broadly, and to take into account that humans are natural beings producing their environment, and that this activity feeds back and affects humans as well.

[Viktor89]

Vegan and anarchist. No one is free until all are free. As long as industrial murder of animals are seen as ok, humans have no right to call themselves civilized. The revolution must be a revolution for all the oppressed. Freedom for all.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Will always repost this in these threads. (https://libcom.org/library/beasts-burden-antagonism-practical-history)

[Creative Destruction]

Vegan and anarchist. No one is free until all are free. As long as industrial murder of animals are seen as ok, humans have no right to call themselves civilized. The revolution must be a revolution for all the oppressed. Freedom for all.

ugh.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

ugh.

To be fair, "I am a Marxist, and therefore entirely anthropocentric in my thinking!" is equally face-palm worthy.

[Creative Destruction]

To be fair, "I am a Marxist, and therefore entirely anthropocentric in my thinking!" is equally face-palm worthy.

i mean, sure. but there are different levels of ridiculousness here. rigidly anthropocentric Marxists, usually, merely don't give a shit about animal rights. they don't say that it shouldn't be pursued to any extent, just that they don't care. stating, in stark terms, though, that "no one is free" as long as animals are held in bondage is an entirely different level of stupidity.

animal rights are important, but they're only in relation to the rights that humans extend them. "civilization," "rights," and "responsibilities" are not things that are present with animals. similarly, applying the concept of "murder" is nonsense, as well. should we discuss animal rights, develop them, etc.? yes. we should. but it's an entirely different issue from the topic of working class emancipation.

[Comrade Jacob]

I am a vegetarian-Marxist. How is the idea that animals shouldn't be killed idealist. Typical meat-eating defence of their selfish desires.

[Guardia Rossa]

I am marxist and I plan to be vegetarian (enviromental one) once I live on my own, thou I guess won't be a strict one.

I guess I will be a "social onivorous" :)

And Jacob, I guess the anarchist up there is a proof that there is "Idealist vegetarianism"

[Rafiq]

I am a vegetarian-Marxist. How is the idea that animals shouldn't be killed idealist. Typical meat-eating defence of their selfish desires.

Ultimately, the only truth regarding animal liberation politics is this: Many misconceive animal liberation ideas to simply project struggles that were uniquely human, to animals.

What if the opposite is true? What if, in reality, those orientalist leftists actually see the marginalized, exotic peoples they so very much adore as an endangered species, i.e. the cultures that have been swept away by globalization - viewing the "other" as essentially animals, outside of hteir space of immediate experience, and outside our capitalist totality wherein we could meet them eye to eye?

It is easy to look at how silly animal liberation politics are. But it's true that they are just a logical extent of postmodern hysterical politics in general - what if this reveals more about said hysterical politics than the actual animals themselves? What if it speaks volumes more about the position of today's left on anti-racism, and defending the marginalized - and how they conceive this? Firstly I am not equating "animal liberation" politics with Fascism (I hope no one levels this charge against me): But just to show just how weak such politics are, wasn't it the Nazis who at least in terms of rhetoric were staunchly against animal cruelty? And we know why: precisely because it obfuscated human struggles and degraded human ethical standards.

Animals are nothing more than the object of human projection. But the basis of this projection is thoroughly grounded in how humans perceive each other - if animals are deemed "just as much worthy" as rights as humans are, this does not actually elevate animals to the standards of humans (because this is impossible), but reveals the pathology that can reduce humans to the level of animals.

[Loony Le Fist]

Ultimately, the only truth regarding animal liberation politics is this: Many misconceive animal liberation ideas to simply project struggles that were uniquely human, to animals.

What if the opposite is true? What if, in reality, those orientalist leftists actually see the marginalized, exotic peoples they so very much adore as an endangered species, i.e. the cultures that have been swept away by globalization - viewing the "other" as essentially animals, outside of hteir space of immediate experience, and outside our capitalist totality wherein we could meet them eye to eye?

It is easy to look at how silly animal liberation politics are. But it's true that they are just a logical extent of postmodern hysterical politics in general - what if this reveals more about said hysterical politics than the actual animals themselves? What if it speaks volumes more about the position of today's left on anti-racism, and defending the marginalized - and how they conceive this? Firstly I am not equating "animal liberation" politics with Fascism (I hope no one levels this charge against me): But just to show just how weak such politics are, wasn't it the Nazis who at least in terms of rhetoric were staunchly against animal cruelty? And we know why: precisely because it obfuscated human struggles and degraded human ethical standards.

Time to piss people off with my opinion. Nothing new there. :laugh:

I don't often agree with you, but I can't help but chime in. The part about Nazi's being against animal cruelty, preferring to do their horrible experiments on humans instead is illustrative of the logical outcomes that can arise from absurd moral axioms. The Nazi's banned animal vivisections, but had no problem doing them on human subjects.

How depraved of one to appeal to the defenseless animals while turning around and committing atrocities upon human beings–even infants. I know people that abuse their children, while pampering their companion animals. They have no problem beating a child but they wouldn't dream of hitting their animal.

What is the rationale for applying our more advanced form of empathy to creatures that are unable to share the same with us–granting that perhaps certain great apes, corvids, parrots, and cetaceans might have some rudimentary form of it?


Animals are nothing more than the object of human projection. But the basis of this projection is thoroughly grounded in how humans perceive each other - if animals are deemed "just as much worthy" as rights as humans are, this does not actually elevate animals to the standards of humans (because this is impossible), but reveals the pathology that can reduce humans to the level of animals.

I have aforementioned witnessing this pathology first hand.

Animal abuse is depraved and should be totally unacceptable. But how pathological is it for there to be companion animals with food and shelter while there continue to be human children without that privilege?