Towards a Marxist Animalism

[RosasGhost]

Via SpeciesAndClass dot com

Towards a Marxist animalism
By Jon Hochschartner

To develop a Marxist animalism, we must situate non-humans within the labor theory of value, building on the intellectual groundwork laid by anti-speciesists like Barbara Noske and Bob Torres. The vegetarian socialist George Bernard Shaw reportedly argued, "I don't need a theory of value to tell me the poor are exploited." I'm sympathetic to such anti-intellectualism. But the truth is that for animalists to effect the species politics of Marxists, who have a disproportionate ideological influence on the far left, we must learn to speak their language. While I am very far from an expert on the minutiae of communist theory, this is what I have attempted to begin doing here.

Domesticated animals, like slaves, are distinct from proletarians in that they do not sell their labor power under the pretense of free choice. Rather, they themselves are commodities. Their labor power is sold all at once, unlike proletarians' whose labor power is sold in increments. "The slave did not sell his labour-power to the slave-owner, any more than the ox sells his labour to the farmer," Karl Marx said. "The slave, together with his labour-power, was sold to his owner once for all. He is a commodity that can pass from the hand of one owner to that of another. He himself is a commodity, but his labour-power is not his commodity."

Within Marxism, necessary labor is that work needed to reproduce the exploited's labor power. In the human context, it's the work slaves or proletarians perform to create the equivalent of their livelihood. All work over and above this is surplus labor, unremunerated toiling which creates profits for the slave master or capitalist. Domesticated animals also perform necessary and surplus labor for their owners. When an animal exploiter purchases a non-human, he is not only purchasing the animal herself, but a lifetime of her labor power, which is used to create commodities that include — among others — her offspring, her secretions, and her own flesh. Her necessary labor would be that required to create the equivalent of her food and shelter. Her surplus labor would be all that beyond this, which is used to enrich her owner.

Within Marxism, there are two different methods with which slave masters or capitalists can increase the surplus value their laborers produce. Absolute surplus value is obtained by increasing the overall amount of time laborers work in a particular period. For instance, a slavemaster or capitalist might increase the length of the working day or allow fewer days off a year. Meanwhile, relative surplus value is created by the lowering the amount of work dedicated to necessary labor in proportion to that dedicated to surplus labor. For instance, a slave master or capitalist might reduce what constitutes their laborers' livelihood or increase their laborers' productivity.

Domesticated animals' surplus labor can also be divided into the generation of absolute and relative surplus value. For instance, when a carriage horse's working day is increased from six to nine hours, absolute surplus value is produced for the animal exploiter. In contrast, relative surplus value is created when chickens' productivity is increased through genetic manipulation and the introduction of growth drugs. Similarly, relative surplus value is produced by lowering the cost of chickens' livelihood through intensive confinement.

Of course, what constitutes liberation for slaves or proletarians is different than what constitutes liberation for domesticated animals. Whereas the ultimate economic goal for human laborers is social control of the means of production, domesticated animals, were they able, would presumably not want to seize, say, a factory farm and run it for themselves. They would want to be removed from the production process entirely.

I hope there are no theoretical errors here, besides the intentional subversion of classical Marxism's anthropocentrism. But again, the intricacies of theory are not my strongest suit. I have no doubt others can radically expand, and where necessary, correct, this brief outline of a potential Marxist-animalist analysis. In this era of Occupy Wall Street, Kshama Sawant, and Fight for 15, I believe it will become increasingly relevant.

[motion denied]

Labour power of pets. Now I've seen it all.

The only species worth fighting for is the species being.

[helot]

the notion of non-human animals with their labour power is absurd. Livestock do not labour. A diary cow isn't labourering, its having bodily fluids sucked from it. They labour no more than an orchard labours. The same would hold true of a draught horse. Here are living organisms that humans have been altering their behaviours and traits of for thousands of years. What you call these animals labourering is the shadow of the past human labour that is embedded within them. In this sense they are comparable to machines.

Of course, non-human animals may produce use-values, just like a machine can but this is fundamentally different to talking about value, i.e. socially necessary labour time. The role of non-human animals within capitalism is the same as the role of inorganic matter.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

the notion of non-human animals with their labour power is absurd. Livestock do not labour. A diary cow isn't labourering, its having bodily fluids sucked from it. They labour no more than an orchard labours. The same would hold true of a draught horse. Here are living organisms that humans have been altering their behaviours and traits of for thousands of years. What you call these animals labourering is the shadow of the past human labour that is embedded within them. In this sense they are comparable to machines.

Of course, non-human animals may produce use-values, just like a machine can but this is fundamentally different to talking about value, i.e. socially necessary labour time. The role of non-human animals within capitalism is the same as the role of inorganic matter.

This is bullshit. Livestock are still used to plow fields and do a variety of other different tasks. Not everyone has that fancy Monsanto equipment. Not to mention there are numerous examples of the labour power of non-human animals. The circuses, zoos, aquarium, corpse, drug and bomb dogs, seeing eye dogs, animal testing/experimentation, and so and so on. *sniffles*

Google "work animals"

[helot]

This is bullshit. Livestock are still used to plow fields and do a variety of other different tasks. Not everyone has that fancy Monsanto equipment. Not to mention there are numerous examples of the labour power of non-human animals. The circuses, zoos, aquarium, corpse, drug and bomb dogs, seeing eye dogs, animal testing/experimentation, and so and so on. *sniffles*

Google "work animals"

I think my mention of a draught horse means i know what work animals are.


I'll make the same point i already made but again, shall i? Obviously you didn't understand it the first time.

Non-human animals can produce use-values but that is fundamentally different to the production of value. Non-human animals cannot produce value in the same way that a machine cannot produce value.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think my mention of a draught horse means i know what work animals are.


I'll make the same point i already made but again, shall i? Obviously you didn't understand it the first time.

Non-human animals can produce use-values but that is fundamentally different to the production of value. Non-human animals cannot produce value in the same way that a machine cannot produce value.

Tbh, I didn't read all of your post, that's my fault but my points remain the same. What about labor power on relation to human slaves? Would they too be comparable to machines and animals?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, I think that the approach proposed in the OP is silly and misses the point.
Rather than trying to argue that animals are exploited in the same way as human labour (they're not), I think we need to look at the ways they're oppressed - just as many humans excluded from formal participation in capitalist relations are. It's not that animals (or surplus/excluded populations) aren't a necessary and constitutive element of capitalism - it's that their relations to it are specific.
That's part of the necessity in distinguishing between, say, slaves or serfs and "free" labour. It's not that the former aren't oppressed or exploited in the general sense of the term, but rather that the Marxist use of exploitation describes a particular relationship endemic to (at times, proto-)capitalist relations.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think animals perceive time in the same fashion as humans, and I also don't think they perceive work in the same fashion as humans either. I'm under the impression that work dogs experience the task they are trained in as play rather than something separate from the rest of their day, but I don't claim to be an expert on something like that. Even if I'm kind of inclined to buy into this on a moral level it doesn't make any sense in the context of marxism to me. Has anyone read something by the writers the article name drops?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

*me being silly*

[Hermes]

This word "animalism" ... err,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIP6EwqMEoE

it means something completely different than the OP's article. Animalism is an anthropoligcal category of shamanistic traditions, and animalists were just as willing to use the labor power of horses as anyone else. How do you think the plains Indians got about those plains? How do you think they kept up with the US cavalry? It wasn't by walking.

I know words can have a malleable definition, but I clicked on this link hoping to read about Leninist medicine men or something of that nature. I am sorely disappointed.

Sorry, but are you sure you're not thinking of animism?

I'm not sure animalism is actually a word, but I could be wrong (and usually am).

[consuming negativity]

I think the OP can nicely be summed up as "animals are basically slaves", and responded to as "yeah, pretty much". I sometimes feel guilty when I put the collar and leash on my dogs, let alone when I have to tell them they've been a bad dog. They're adult animals and I consider them my friends and family, albeit of a different species and with the limitations that come from that. When they aren't going to be outside, they remain slave-collar free and well-fed. Animals get it really bad. Humans get it bad, but we can understand complex concepts, which means we can both experience deeper pain and alleviate our own pain, emotionally. But a dog, if you leave, that dog has no idea when you'll be back or how things are. And if they don't have food, they can't go get food - they're dependent and helpless, and we can't even communicate to them that there's no need to worry or be upset or angry. I guess I feel sorry for the animals because they aren't even able to be cognitively aware of their slavery and the implications of it... a beaten dog won't get vicious against its master, it will get vicious against others to try to please the master beating it. Sad fucking shit, man. Sometimes I think everything and everyone would be better off dead and numb.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Sorry, but are you sure you're not thinking of animism?

I'm not sure animalism is actually a word, but I could be wrong (and usually am).

Err, yes, you're right.

It's still an unconventional term which they do not define, which is never a good way to start.

[bropasaran]

Labour power of pets. Now I've seen it all.

I've timestamped it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0r5M_C5VE#t=34m27s

Just before this talk about the exploitation of the horse there's also mention of exploitation of corn by capital :)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Leaving aside everything else, we may not need theory to tell us that the poor (workers) are exploited in a general sense, but we do need theory to know why -- and more importantly why the poor (workers) are not just oppressed objects of pity, but are the potential liberators of all humanity (and beyond;)).

Animal liberation is, from the animal perspective, an inherently top-down proposal... Human society deciding to change its relationship towards animals. Human liberation is necessarily a bottom up proposal of humans (the ones with a class interest to do so) deciding to change the relationship and organization of humans.

[BIXX]

a beaten dog won't get vicious against its master, it will get vicious against others to try to please the master beating it.

So will a human. Why do you think racists, sexists, queerphobes, and others exist?

[reb]

This is bullshit. Livestock are still used to plow fields and do a variety of other different tasks. Not everyone has that fancy Monsanto equipment. Not to mention there are numerous examples of the labour power of non-human animals. The circuses, zoos, aquarium, corpse, drug and bomb dogs, seeing eye dogs, animal testing/experimentation, and so and so on. *sniffles*

Google "work animals"

Yes but laboring isn't an animals species-being.

[consuming negativity]

So will a human. Why do you think racists, sexists, queerphobes, and others exist?

Having a closed mind is different from being stupid. Having prejudiced beliefs correlates with intelligence, but Nazi scientists weren't illiterate. They read Nietzsche and designed bombs. I feel bad for the dogs because they know even less about their conditions than we do, and we know nothing. Knowledge brings us comfort.

[BIXX]

I never said having a closed mind was the same as being stupid. I was more saying that people will attack each other based in stupid prejudices to try and achieve a higher social status, just like the dog.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Despite generations of slavery, humans still yearn for liberation, explicitly articulate their desire for it, and fight for it on their own terms.

Animals - especially animals that have been bred by humans for various purposes - do none of those things. It's as if the concept is meaningless to them. Which for the vast majority of species seems likely to be the case.

This makes animal liberation a busted flush, because in the end it's just humans imposing their own abstract conceptualisations onto creatures which not only lack their own understanding of same, but which unlike humans also cannot be educated on the basic precepts of political thought because of their relatively limited mental capacity.

There's also an overweening arrogance behind the whole idea; the notion that us humans can presume to "liberate" animals when we have yet to eliminate outright slavery, let alone abolish wage-labour. Maybe we should be getting our own house in order before we start re-arranging the lives of those without the voices to explicitly object to it, in order to salve our own guilty consciences?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yo - animals may not articulate their desires in terms of Euro-liberal narratives of "freedom" or "liberty", but they revolt against humans all the damn time. Kill their trainers. Smash cars. Eat children. W/e.

The fact is, much of the mass of humanity also appears to accept their condition on a superficial level. One of the defining narratives of "the masses" is their livestock-like qualities. The fact is, neither the masses nor livestock can be understood so one-dimensionally - responses are conditioned by circumstances which include technologies of control crafted over centuries if not millennia. That pigs don't always flee the abattoir for the dubious promises of survival outside says as much about the circumstances of pigs as about any underlying "nature" of pigs. That the masses don't revolt against capital for the dubious promise of survival outside capital . . . etc.

[BIXX]

Yo - animals may not articulate their desires in terms of Euro-liberal narratives of "freedom" or "liberty", but they revolt against humans all the damn time. Kill their trainers. Smash cars. Eat children. W/e.

The fact is, much of the mass of humanity also appears to accept their condition on a superficial level. One of the defining narratives of "the masses" is their livestock-like qualities. The fact is, neither the masses nor livestock can be understood so one-dimensionally - responses are conditioned by circumstances which include technologies of control crafted over centuries if not millennia. That pigs don't always flee the abattoir for the dubious promises of survival outside says as much about the circumstances of pigs as about any underlying "nature" of pigs. That the masses don't revolt against capital for the dubious promise of survival outside capital . . . etc.


Are you taken? I hope not because I find your intelligence very sexy.

[bropasaran]

Despite generations of slavery, humans still yearn for liberation, explicitly articulate their desire for it, and fight for it on their own terms.

Animals - especially animals that have been bred by humans for various purposes - do none of those things. It's as if the concept is meaningless to them. Which for the vast majority of species seems likely to be the case.

This makes animal liberation a busted flush, because in the end it's just humans imposing their own abstract conceptualisations onto creatures which not only lack their own understanding of same, but which unlike humans also cannot be educated on the basic precepts of political thought because of their relatively limited mental capacity.
OK, but animal liberation isn't the only option. Animal welfare is one, although it can be said that we've already achieved that, and also, animal rights is the third option, which is between those two- no to liberty (from humans as bosses) for animals, but yes to not being killed or harmed for our culinary, fashion or entertainment preferences. Yes, they can be domesticated and trained and accustomed to presumably not want liberty, but they can't be trained to not want being hurt or killed, and every time they are, they always do explicitly articulate their desire not to be, and fight for it as much as they can.

[Krasnyymir]

This is just... Dumb. Sorry, but it is.

You forget about two important factors:

1: If not for the reason that work animals are needed, they wouldn't exist. You wouldn't have herds of liberated work-donkeys and sniffer dogs happily organizing. They just wouldn't be bred, fed, etc, and would soon cease to exist.
Same goes for factory farmed pigs and cows. If not because they're needed for their milk or meat, they wouldn't exist.
(Not that this means that I'm a big supporter of factory farming, I'm not.)

2: You assume that all animals have the same thoughts, feelings and drive as humans do towards freedom and free agency. This is an antropomorphic viewpoint that is demonstrably false.

A drug dog isn't longing for its freedom and to be fairly compensated for its work, it's an animal. A pack animal. It has animal desires to function within a hierarchy, and as everyone who know dogs will tell you, they don't become happy when you let them do as they please, or treat it like a human being.

Instead they become nervous, insecure and unhappy, because they crave their hierarchy, and it's pack and it's role in the pack, and an alpha make/female to lead it.

[BIXX]

This is just... Dumb. Sorry, but it is.



You forget about two important factors:



1: If not for the reason that work animals are needed, they wouldn't exist. You wouldn't have herds of liberated work-donkeys and sniffer dogs happily organizing. They just wouldn't be bred, fed, etc, and would soon cease to exist.

Same goes for factory farmed pigs and cows. If not because they're needed for their milk or meat, they wouldn't exist.

(Not that this means that I'm a big supporter of factory farming, I'm not.)



2: You assume that all animals have the same thoughts, feelings and drive as humans do towards freedom and free agency. This is an antropomorphic viewpoint that is demonstrably false.



A drug dog isn't longing for its freedom and to be fairly compensated for its work, it's an animal. A pack animal. It has animal desires to function within a hierarchy, and as everyone who know dogs will tell you, they don't become happy when you let them do as they please, or treat it like a human being.



Instead they become nervous, insecure and unhappy, because they crave their hierarchy, and it's pack and it's role in the pack, and an alpha make/female to lead it.


Hey Krasnyy, I feel like you were banned.

Also you're fucking stupid and obviously haven't read much f the thread.

[consuming negativity]

Despite generations of slavery, humans still yearn for liberation, explicitly articulate their desire for it, and fight for it on their own terms.

Animals - especially animals that have been bred by humans for various purposes - do none of those things. It's as if the concept is meaningless to them. Which for the vast majority of species seems likely to be the case.

This makes animal liberation a busted flush, because in the end it's just humans imposing their own abstract conceptualisations onto creatures which not only lack their own understanding of same, but which unlike humans also cannot be educated on the basic precepts of political thought because of their relatively limited mental capacity.

There's also an overweening arrogance behind the whole idea; the notion that us humans can presume to "liberate" animals when we have yet to eliminate outright slavery, let alone abolish wage-labour. Maybe we should be getting our own house in order before we start re-arranging the lives of those without the voices to explicitly object to it, in order to salve our own guilty consciences?

How is it arrogant to assume that humanity can liberate animals from the abuses they are subjected to by humans? If we are powerful enough to enslave animals, we are powerful enough to set them free.

Not only that, but there are animals which have changed their socio-economic system before. I remember watching a documentary some guy did about his research on primates in Africa. The abusive monkeys at the top of the hierarchy made everyone miserable and actually increased their levels of cortisol, causing them to be less healthy. One day, they ate a bunch of virus-infected meat. All of the monkeys who ate, which were the ones at the top of the hierarchy, got very very sick and died. Afterwards, rather than instituting a new hierarchy, the remaining monkeys remained egalitarian and treated each other with more respect. Not only that, but other roaming monkeys who encountered these egalitarian monkeys transitioned over to acting in the same manner as the rest of the group.

Animals are actually very intelligent. Dolphins, whales, monkeys, elephants, cows, pigs, dogs, crows, albatrosses, penguins, and a host of other animals understand the concept of death and mourn the losses of members of their in-group. Elephants will actually come back 20+ years after an attack and hit the same villages that once killed members of their pack. Crows are known to transmit data about which humans are mean to them, and will not only remember human faces years later, but can even alter their migratory patterns based on the killings of a single bird in an area. Octopi are also very intelligent - they, crows, and other animals can make and use their own tools. Dolphins and whales have their own distinctive primitive language by which they send messages to each other across miles and miles of ocean. Orcas can actually strategize using language to hunt in packs. Speaking of orcas, check out all of the trainers who have been killed by SeaWorld orcas. One of them has I think three kills under his belt by holding them under water until they can no longer breathe. It's the same tactic they use to kill seals and whales in the wild - they knock them off of floating icebergs and drown them, after extensively exhausting them.

On the contrary, I find it very arrogant of you to suppose that liberating humanity from itself is more important than exponentially more animals who suffer unspeakable cruelties every single year at the hands of humans.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yo - animals may not articulate their desires in terms of Euro-liberal narratives of "freedom" or "liberty", but they revolt against humans all the damn time. Kill their trainers. Smash cars. Eat children. W/e.

They do that kind of thing when provoked by physical mistreatment, prolonged teasing, and so on. Humans revolt against slavery even if they're well-treated as slaves. Ever heard of the term "gilded cage"?


The fact is, much of the mass of humanity also appears to accept their condition on a superficial level. One of the defining narratives of "the masses" is their livestock-like qualities. The fact is, neither the masses nor livestock can be understood so one-dimensionally - responses are conditioned by circumstances which include technologies of control crafted over centuries if not millennia. That pigs don't always flee the abattoir for the dubious promises of survival outside says as much about the circumstances of pigs as about any underlying "nature" of pigs. That the masses don't revolt against capital for the dubious promise of survival outside capital . . . etc.

Difference being that when humans are presented with the real possibility of liberation, they go for it, changing the manner in which they conduct their lives in the process. Whereas animals released into the wild do pretty much the same things they when kept in captivity.


OK, but animal liberation isn't the only option. Animal welfare is one, although it can be said that we've already achieved that, and also, animal rights is the third option, which is between those two- no to liberty (from humans as bosses) for animals, but yes to not being killed or harmed for our culinary, fashion or entertainment preferences. Yes, they can be domesticated and trained and accustomed to presumably not want liberty, but they can't be trained to not want being hurt or killed, and every time they are, they always do explicitly articulate their desire not to be, and fight for it as much as they can.

Animal welfare is an option, but unlike you I don't think we've "achieved" that, whatever that's supposed to mean.


How is it arrogant to assume that humanity can liberate animals from the abuses they are subjected to by humans? If we are powerful enough to enslave animals, we are powerful enough to set them free.

We can't free others if we're not free ourselves. How can we, if we don't have any real experience of freedom ourselves? You can't give something if you don't know what it is you're supposed to be giving.


Not only that, but there are animals which have changed their socio-economic system before. I remember watching a documentary some guy did about his research on primates in Africa. The abusive monkeys at the top of the hierarchy made everyone miserable and actually increased their levels of cortisol, causing them to be less healthy. One day, they ate a bunch of virus-infected meat. All of the monkeys who ate, which were the ones at the top of the hierarchy, got very very sick and died. Afterwards, rather than instituting a new hierarchy, the remaining monkeys remained egalitarian and treated each other with more respect. Not only that, but other roaming monkeys who encountered these egalitarian monkeys transitioned over to acting in the same manner as the rest of the group.

Animals are actually very intelligent. Dolphins, whales, monkeys, elephants, cows, pigs, dogs, crows, albatrosses, penguins, and a host of other animals understand the concept of death and mourn the losses of members of their in-group. Elephants will actually come back 20+ years after an attack and hit the same villages that once killed members of their pack. Crows are known to transmit data about which humans are mean to them, and will not only remember human faces years later, but can even alter their migratory patterns based on the killings of a single bird in an area. Octopi are also very intelligent - they, crows, and other animals can make and use their own tools. Dolphins and whales have their own distinctive primitive language by which they send messages to each other across miles and miles of ocean. Orcas can actually strategize using language to hunt in packs. Speaking of orcas, check out all of the trainers who have been killed by SeaWorld orcas. One of them has I think three kills under his belt by holding them under water until they can no longer breathe. It's the same tactic they use to kill seals and whales in the wild - they knock them off of floating icebergs and drown them, after extensively exhausting them.

Those are actually a tiny minority of the animal kingdom. Most animals weigh less than our brains do.


On the contrary, I find it very arrogant of you to suppose that liberating humanity from itself is more important than exponentially more animals who suffer unspeakable cruelties every single year at the hands of humans.

So when will you be killing yourself? After all, by merely living you are taking up land and resources that are denied to other animals who suffer and die as a result, and since they outnumber you and since you seem to be giving them equal ethical consideration, becoming a carcass would seem to be the morally optimal choice. Maybe you would like to take a few selfish humans with you? In which case, stay the hell away from other people.

[Krasnyymir]

How is it arrogant to assume that humanity can liberate animals from the abuses they are subjected to by humans? If we are powerful enough to enslave animals, we are powerful enough to set them free.


What do you think would happen to all the millions of pigs, cows and chickens in the factory farms, if we outlawed factory farming tomorrow?

They'd have to killed and put down, (except maybe for a few thousand that might live in a zoo) because they are specifically bred for farming, and couldn't survive on their own.



Not only that, but there are animals which have changed their socio-economic system before. I remember watching a documentary some guy did about his research on primates in Africa. The abusive monkeys at the top of the hierarchy made everyone miserable and actually increased their levels of cortisol, causing them to be less healthy.

Yes, monkeys can be spectacularly vicious and mean. Chimps regularly engage on warfare against other chimps, and tear apart any chimp from the enemy camp, that has the misfortune of encountering them.

Chimps are also the only other primate, besides humans, that have made a tool specifically for the purpose of violence. Spousal abuse to be specific:

But guess what. Animals are animals, and we rarely know exactly why they do what they do, and for what reasons. We do know that dogs like and prefer a strict hierarchy, and get stressed if the hierarchy for some reason disappears or changes drastically.

Crows and ravens also live in hierarchal structures, with a rigid pecking order, and some animals having a higher social status.

But that doesn't mean that they're "oppressed" and it doesn't make sense to anthropomorphize them, and ascribe human definitions and terms to them.



Animals are actually very intelligent. Dolphins, whales, monkeys, elephants, cows, pigs, dogs, crows, albatrosses, penguins, and a host of other animals understand the concept of death and mourn the losses of members of their in-group.


No. You're anthropomorphizing again, and you're interpreting their behavior using human terms, when you have no idea of what they're actually thinking. And to what extent they're thinking.

Having said that, yes some animals are very intelligent. Dolphins are fairly smart, but they can also be very cruel.

And here is the problem with raising animals to the status of humans: Dolphins sometimes kill infant dolphins for the purpose of mating with the mother. They also seem to take great pleasure in occasionally torturing other animals, such as porpoises, for no other reason than just the "fun" of it.

Dolphins also occasionally gang-rape female dolphins (other animals such as ducks also engage in this. Sometimes to the point of drowning the poor female)

Does that make dolphins evil? Should we intercede if we see it? Punish the guilty dolphin perhaps?

After all the female dolphin has a right not to be gang raped, just like horses and cows have a right not to be used for work and food?

And on the other hand, if dolphins have the right to torture innocent animals if they so choose, why shouldn't humans be allowed to run factory farms?

(And I'm actually against factory farms. I just don't think Marxist Animalism makes any sense. As for dolphin rape, that's just dolphins being dolphins IMHO)

[consuming negativity]

I can't even follow the discussion from all of the breaking up of my post. Can't you just respond to the point rather than treating my post like it's some essay prompt? I don't care what you know; I want to know what you think. All I was trying to say in my post is that animals are very intelligent and can feel just as deeply as humans do.

I guess having hamburgers on the grill means a hell of a lot to some people. :rolleyes:

[Krasnyymir]

Ehm, I didn't write much more than you did in your posts.

And my point? Animals are animals, you can't ascribe human feelings to them or treat them like humans, even if some of them are apparently quite intelligent.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yo - animals may not articulate their desires in terms of Euro-liberal narratives of "freedom" or "liberty", but they revolt against humans all the damn time. Kill their trainers. Smash cars. Eat children. W/e.



Not only that, but there are animals which have changed their socio-economic system before. I remember watching a documentary some guy did about his research on primates in Africa. The abusive monkeys at the top of the hierarchy made everyone miserable and actually increased their levels of cortisol, causing them to be less healthy. One day, they ate a bunch of virus-infected meat. All of the monkeys who ate, which were the ones at the top of the hierarchy, got very very sick and died. Afterwards, rather than instituting a new hierarchy, the remaining monkeys remained egalitarian and treated each other with more respect. Not only that, but other roaming monkeys who encountered these egalitarian monkeys transitioned over to acting in the same manner as the rest of the group.


I think these arguments confuse resistance and liberation. Of course many animals besides humans resist mistreatment, but this is not the same as reorganizing and reconceptualizing our social relationships.

Did the apes change their economy, no they got away from abusers (accidentally no less). They got rid of bullies and thieves but capitalism is not just some mean bad apples taking some shit from us; it is the whole organization of how society keeps on keeping on. Orangutans are tool-users and will pick their own locks to get out of cages, animals run away, etc. but this is not Liberation, this is not changing the relationship between animals and humans. Animals are reformists I guess :lol: they want to do the same sorts of things, just absent of abuse.

The momentary absence or demoralization of resistance or revolutionary action by humans is not the same as animals not having the ability to revolutionize the way humans and animals relate in general. Humans in general always resist exploitation on some level even if it's not very effective like talking shit about your boss or hoping that voting for a politician will help protect you. People run away from slavery, they drop out of wage labor and live on a commune or squat. But humans are also able to generally reorganize human society and therefore the relationship of humans to nature and so on.

So to talk about exploitation of animals and wage labor as the same is not accurate IMO. I also find it a bit insulting since animal liberation is a moral stance of empathy towards animals and I don't really want revolutionaries supporting workers because they feel putty for us and want to help us out on moral grounds. It's also not accurate because often this kind of view looks at the cause of animal abuse and mistreatment as just natural in humans or because some people are just mean bastards.

But really animal abuse is rooted in class societies and capitalism in particular. Of course there are no records of the abuse of animals before more recent decades, but there are many pre-capitalist examples of "bad attitudes" and abuse of animals. I'd speculate that it was more ideological than it was systemic because small farming would probably need to care for the animals that they use more than a business who needs to convert that sheep into capital fast, not ensure that year after year the sheep can keep growing quality wool. Also there are a lot of old customs that revolve around caring for animals that probably suggest a need to at least not just treat animals like shit in general. The ideological part speculation, but the whole concept of the great chain of being put humans above animals and was also a justification of the caste system for humans... So if serfs were abused by lords, maybe serfs felt it was their right to kick a dog..?

At any rate, systemic abuse of animals comes from not a situation where humans have "beasts of bourdon" but where we actually have animals used as capital. So again, the question of animal liberation actually means the whole reorganization of society and they way it reproduces itself. If you believe that workers are the only existing force that can achieve that new kind of society, then I think it's clear that for animals to be liberated fully, workers have to liberate human society.

Of course this doesn't mean that the welfare of animals is unimportant, but I think it means we have to recast the argument away from a moral one of animals being intelligent or having feelings, etc (after-all, this is debatable and might be different for different animals, but I'm fairly confident that nazis and slaveowners did have feelings and emotions and were pretty bummed about being killed in uprisings or seeing their oppressive apparatus smashed). I think it implies that we have to talk about and organize animal liberation in a way oriented towards building forces that can liberate humans. For example, what many animal rights groups now do is to relate bad conditions for animals in production to unhealthy food for human consumers. It highlights the relationship between a "healthy" relationship with nature even when people might eat meat, and an "unhealthy" relationship based on quick profits no matter who or what suffers. But we can build off of that by linking the mistreatment of workers in those facilities to the mistreatment of animals and how the competitive drive for profit means that animals will be stuffed in tiny cages and pumped full of harmful chemicals while workers will be working in those cramped spaces and exposed to pesticides and so on.

[ckaihatsu]

but this is not Liberation, this is not changing the relationship between animals and humans. Animals are reformists I guess they want to do the same sorts of things, just absent of abuse.


And here I thought the movie was a documentary....


= D


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yacrYUd4QqU/Ud2qW1DzcKI/AAAAAAAAAJA/e72ixlJuMME/s1600/Rise-of-the-Planet-of-the-Apes-Movie.jpg

[Luís Henrique]

I never said having a closed mind was the same as being stupid. I was more saying that people will attack each other based in stupid prejudices to try and achieve a higher social status, just like the dog.

Well, blatantly no.

Dogs don't attack other animals based on stupid prejudices or to achieve a higher social status. They do it because it is what dogs do.

Luís Henrique

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Dogs don't attack other animals based on stupid prejudices or to achieve a higher social status. They do it because it is what dogs do.

I think this is fundamentally what many of the posts in this thread boil down to: the unsubstantiated notion that "humans" are somehow (is it a soul?) "special" - fundamentally different from every other animal - that we don't "simply 'do what we do'" but . . . "Well, we have reasons!"
No objective basis can be established for this. Yet, that there is no measurable means that can be cited doesn't seem to matter: This is one of the fundamental tenants of European liberalism! Humanism! If we abandon humanism, then what?!
Let me know when you've found the soul, buds.

[Luís Henrique]

I think this is fundamentally what many of the posts in this thread boil down to: the unsubstantiated notion that "humans" are somehow (is it a soul?) "special" - fundamentally different from every other animal - that we don't "simply 'do what we do'" but . . . "Well, we have reasons!"

We attack each others based on petty prejudices. Dogs don't do that.

We attack each others to achieve higher social status. Dogs don't do that.

Whether this does make us special, superior, or "soully", I am not sure.


No objective basis can be established for this. Yet, that there is no measurable means that can be cited doesn't seem to matter: [I]This is one of the fundamental tenants of European liberalism! Humanism! If we abandon humanism, then what?!

I think the distinction above is pretty much objective.

If we abandon humanism, then fascism, or theocracy. Unless we abolish capital first, of course. Then I don't know, and am not overly concerned.


Let me know when you've found the soul, buds.

If the soul is the ability to attack each others on the base of petty prejudices, then we can see it everyday (https://www.google.com.br/search?q=ataques+homof%C3%B3bicos&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=TybuU5rbOrTLsQSd84HQBQ&ved=0CFAQsAQ&biw=1600&bih=775). Not really a misterious thing, in the end.

Luís Henrique

[A Revolutionary Tool]

We attack each others based on petty prejudices. Dogs don't do that.I don't know how you think this is verifiably true or not but walking my dog at a dog park always means other dogs are going to attack other dogs or yours will and it's seemingly for no reason.


We attack each others to achieve higher social status. Dogs don't do that.Haven't you ever owned dogs(in the plural) before? They fight all the time to try and dominate each other. A little anecdote, I used to have a friend who did not know how to raise dogs at all, they were vicious, mean, and jealous. One of them was obviously the dominant one, if you tried petting the other dog it would get jealous and start biting her legs getting her to fight. If she tried to eat she would bully the dog away from the food bowl and not allow it, if she was playing with a toy she would steal it from her and then most likely attack her. That dog was a fucking asshole because it wasn't raised right. But it's hard to see stuff like that and not think one dog is trying to have a "higher social status".

Although I disagree with TGDU, if you look at the rest of the animal kingdom and ourselves it's kind of hard to not see ourselves as "special". It's not a soul, it's the fact that I can talk to millions of people worldwide over my iPhone while I lay down in my bed in my boxers in my air conditioned room. Not all life is equal.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Although I disagree with TGDU, if you look at the rest of the animal kingdom and ourselves it's kind of hard to not see ourselves as "special". It's not a soul, it's the fact that I can talk to millions of people worldwide over my iPhone while I lay down in my bed in my boxers in my air conditioned room. Not all life is equal.

So, the masses of humanity that live without iPhones and air conditioning: dumb brutes? Fodder for our machines?

I think this emphasizes my point about this being a question of European liberal exceptionalism than any objective difference between humanity (inclusive of all humans) and all non-human animals.

And, for that matter, there are chimpanzies who send e-mail too.

[Ele'ill]

animals feel pain and have social behaviors. Social status, and social well being are big on a lot of animal's lists of daily activities. From dolphins to wolves this can be observed. Some animals, quite a few actually, can plan out complex events to achieve a specific goal, often on the fly with a rapidly changing set of variables, that is not some biological auto-pilot, it was learned, and differs from others from the same species in other geographic locations

[consuming negativity]

I think these arguments confuse resistance and liberation. Of course many animals besides humans resist mistreatment, but this is not the same as reorganizing and reconceptualizing our social relationships.

Did the apes change their economy, no they got away from abusers (accidentally no less). They got rid of bullies and thieves but capitalism is not just some mean bad apples taking some shit from us; it is the whole organization of how society keeps on keeping on. Orangutans are tool-users and will pick their own locks to get out of cages, animals run away, etc. but this is not Liberation, this is not changing the relationship between animals and humans. Animals are reformists I guess :lol: they want to do the same sorts of things, just absent of abuse.

Just because we're human doesn't suddenly mean that our relationships with each other are fundamentally different. Structure and hierarchy exist whether or not anybody can identify them as such and theorize based on them. Never in history has someone said "I'm going to take up arms to change the mode of production in my society", and it won't start happening now. Humans are no different from any of the other animals except that we're human and they're other species. And trying to get either group to revolt because [books and books of high-level academic analysis] is equally as useless. Just because apes don't have credit cards and money doesn't mean they don't have an economy, and just because they don't have global governments doesn't mean their relationships are somehow irrelevant and useless in comparison to ours.

[ckaihatsu]

People, people...!!

It's simply that with us, the humans, there's actually something *at stake* -- meaning the world of material things, etc. -- that animals have no control over, and thus no business with.


Remember this lyric -- ?





Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose




http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/janisjoplin/mebobbymcgee.html


---





[T]here are chimpanzies who send e-mail too.


Yeeeeaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh, I'm gonna need a link on that one.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

So, the masses of humanity that live without iPhones and air conditioning: dumb brutes? Fodder for our machines?:rolleyes: Yeah that's what I think. For the record, I don't have an iPhone.


I think this emphasizes my point about this being a question of European liberal exceptionalism than any objective difference between humanity (inclusive of all humans) and all non-human animals.I do think we're pretty exceptional when compared to non-human animals. You can call that liberalism, I call it pretty obvious. How many species of animals do you know which can consciously produce society like we do? From farming to building skyscrapers, from exploring space to the deep blue, we can control nature like no other animal can. You speak of objective difference like it doesn't surround you at this very moment.


And, for that matter, there are chimpanzies who send e-mail too.Do they build computers too? How do they get the electricity or internet?

[ckaihatsu]

[T]here are chimpanzies who send e-mail too.


Sorry, what I *meant* to say is which one of you is it -- ??


x D

[ckaihatsu]

How do they get the electricity or internet?


By emailing. Duh.


x D

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I do think we're pretty exceptional when compared to non-human animals.

OK, I want to again draw a distinction between exception and specificity - and then deal with how that relates to 'difference'. Geese that live in the wild and geese that live in captivity are "different" in that the specific conditions of their lives are different - but neither is excepted from being geese.
Similarly, humans live in particular conditions, but they're not exceptional - they don't "except" humans from being fundamentally animals.


How many species of animals do you know which can consciously produce society like we do?

This is an important point: it posits a unitary individual-who-is-conscious rather than a subject within a conditioning dynamic. I don't believe in the liberal individual: rather than being a "conscious production" of humans, I think society represents a dialectical relations between subjects and objects which includes not only humans, but non-human animals as well (on whose labour and lives social development has been premised).


From farming to building skyscrapers, from exploring space to the deep blue, we can control nature like no other animal can. You speak of objective difference like it doesn't surround you at this very moment.

Do they build computers too? How do they get the electricity or internet?

Again, what you imagine here is a "humanity" that doesn't exist outside of the liberal imagination! From farming to skyscrapers, to whatever, humanity hasn't been a discrete and self-driven god-like creator. Consider, instead, a tornado: a tornado appears self-directed (and certainly has immense power!) but can only be understood as a relation of forces.

Further, let's not imagine, for example, computers as an ahistorical creation of unique human brilliance: they have to be understood in light of the millennia which proceeded them, in which "human" social development was premised on the development of a whole series of relations with non-human animals (cows! dogs! crows! goats! cats! mosquitoes!).

[Ele'ill]

there are a lot of animals living individually or in social structures that not even we understand

[BIXX]

Ok, to all the folks who say we are exceptional/better than animals or whatever, I have a question.

At what point in our evolutionary history do you separate us from animals? And what is that based on? You'll find that both of these things are arbitrary, and only have a basis in your mind.

Please answer the questions, though, I wanna know what your thought process is.

[Sinister Intents]

Ok, to all the folks who say we are exceptional/better than animals or whatever, I have a question.

At what point in our evolutionary history do you separate us from animals? And what is that based on? You'll find that both of these things are arbitrary, and only have a basis in your mind.

Please answer the questions, though, I wanna know what your thought process is.

Humans are animals and we're neither superior nor inferior to them. Evolutionarily we're all evolved and adapted to our govent circumstances, right? Though politically we agree 98% of the time and that question wasnt directed at me

[Thirsty Crow]

Ok, to all the folks who say we are exceptional/better than animals or whatever, I have a question.

At what point in our evolutionary history do you separate us from animals? And what is that based on? You'll find that both of these things are arbitrary, and only have a basis in your mind.

Please answer the questions, though, I wanna know what your thought process is.
Then it's that peculiar mind of mine that enables me find significant differences in an arbitrary fashion and based in nothing but that same mind of mine that's the deal here.

Now excuse me, gotta check if my cat has something of a mind like that.

EDIT: there's the "annihilate-almost-every-damn-thing-on-the-planet" criterion too. I'm gonna watch the cat's behavior closely for signs of ultimate destructive capacity.

[ckaihatsu]

Ok, to all the folks who say we are exceptional/better than animals or whatever, I have a question.

At what point in our evolutionary history do you separate us from animals? And what is that based on? You'll find that both of these things are arbitrary, and only have a basis in your mind.

Please answer the questions, though, I wanna know what your thought process is.


Yeah, mine's at post #39, plus there's that thing called 'the printed word' which you're using right now and ignoring at the same time.

[BIXX]

Then it's that peculiar mind of mine that enables me find significant differences in an arbitrary fashion and based in nothing but that same mind of mine that's the deal here.

Now excuse me, gotta check if my cat has something of a mind like that.
So before humans even thought like that you'd consider them non-human? What I'm asking here is essentially what quality makes us human as opposed to a non-human.


EDIT: there's the "annihilate-almost-every-damn-thing-on-the-planet" criterion too. I'm gonna watch the cat's behavior closely for signs of ultimate destructive capacity.


Humans weren't always like that and not all humans are currently like that.


Yeah, mine's at post #39, plus there's that thing called 'the printed word' which you're using right now and ignoring at the same time.




People, people...!!



It's simply that with us, the humans, there's actually something *at stake* -- meaning the world of material things, etc. -- that animals have no control over, and thus no business with.


... The world of material things doesn't apply to animals, you mean? So the destruction of their homes/habitats isn't important to them? I think you don't know much about animals, yo. We don't really have control over "the world of material things" any more than a bird who builds it's best does, or an octopus who can learn to use our tools. We just manipulate it ok a grander scale.

Regarding the printed word, so people who can't read/write are inhuman animals to you?

[Ele'ill]

so if you all are bragging about having the mind to know better why are you then placing the prerequisite on other animals who allegedly don't who you know don't according to you as the criteria to justify the absence of their healthy and happy life, that sounds like an excuse towards domination and its unimaginative and kind of really dumb especially this talk of written word being 'better' than how whales communicate, how bats see, the complex vocalizations of birds, the list goes on and on

[ckaihatsu]

It's simply that with us, the humans, there's actually something *at stake* -- meaning the world of material things, etc. -- that animals have no control over, and thus no business with.





... The world of material things doesn't apply to animals, you mean?


Correct, in the sense that they do not manipulate the natural and artificial worlds the way we're able to do, readily.





So the destruction of their homes/habitats isn't important to them?


This is a *tangential* issue to what's being discussed, and I'm not apologizing for any overreaching on the part of people.

[EDIT:] I'm not *defending* any overreaching on the part of people.





I think you don't know much about animals, yo.




We don't really have control over "the world of material things" any more than a bird who builds it's best does, or an octopus who can learn to use our tools.


This is a crock of shit, since obviously we use power tools of all sizes for just such control over the world of material things.





We just manipulate it ok a grander scale.


See? There you go.





Regarding the printed word, so people who can't read/write are inhuman animals to you?


No, you're just making up a specious conclusion with that.

If you'd like to *understand* what I'm saying, it's that the printed word allows us humans to communicate *arbitrarily*, irrespective of geography and time, whereas animals are bound to their empirical (physical) existence for purposes of communication.





so if you all are bragging about having the mind to know better why are you then placing the prerequisite on other animals who allegedly don't who you know don't according to you as the criteria to justify the absence of their healthy and happy life, that sounds like an excuse towards domination and its unimaginative and kind of really dumb especially this talk of written word being 'better' than how whales communicate, how bats see, the complex vocalizations of birds, the list goes on and on


(Ditto.)

[motion denied]

Certainly eating, drinking, procreating, etc., are also genuinely human functions. But taken abstractly, separated from the sphere of all other human activity and turned into sole and ultimate ends, they are animal functions[...] Admittedly animals also produce. They build themselves nests, dwellings, like the bees, beavers, ants, etc. But an animal only produces what it immediately needs for itself or its young. It produces one-sidedly, whilst man produces universally. It produces only under the dominion of immediate physical need, whilst man produces even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom. An animal produces only itself, whilst man reproduces the whole of nature. An animal’s product belongs immediately to its physical body, whilst man freely confronts his product. An animal forms only in accordance with the standard and the need of the species to which it belongs, whilst man knows how to produce in accordance with the standard of every species, and knows how to apply everywhere the inherent standard to the object. Man therefore also forms objects in accordance with the laws of beauty.

It is just in his work upon the objective world, therefore, that man really proves himself to be a species-being.



Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. [...] We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement.

There are dimensions of the social-being that are not palpable to other animals. Aesthetics for example. When was the last time your dog had a catharsis? My dog (pbuh) certainly did not find anything beautiful. It is true that it is a later development of mankind, but it is unique to our species.

The notion of well-being of animals (or even, liberation [lol] or whatever) is fundamentally human.

I, for one, believe that the emancipation of the animals must be conquered by animals themselves.

[Ele'ill]

I don't believe that is true. I believe we play and appreciate as do other animals within their environments.

[Ele'ill]

The notion of well-being of animals (or even, liberation [lol] or whatever) is fundamentally human.

But this is already been addressed, animals when deprived of what they've become used to environmentally and socially, for all intents and purposes friends, family, and home, do revolt, do become depressed, do often times become ill from it and die. It is not fundamentally human at all.


I, for one, believe that the emancipation of the animals must be conquered by animals themselves.

Yeah? What are your thoughts on solidarity?

[Luís Henrique]

Ok, to all the folks who say we are exceptional/better than animals or whatever, I have a question.

I don't think we are "exceptional" in the way you are probably thinking of the word, or that we are "better".

We are both very different from all other species of animals, and quite similar to them.

We are different because each species is different. Some of them are social, others are not. We are a social species, so we are radically different from non-social species. And all social species are different from each others, in that they build are mono-specific societies. Ants have no "citizen rights" in packs of wolves, wolves have no "citizen rights" in antnests.

And since we are different, we are also, consequently, very similar. Our society doesn't grant "citizen rights" to member of other species, just like wolf packs or antnests.

Some species are carnivorous, others are herbivorous. We are omnivorous, like many other species. We feed upon a small number of other species - cows, sheep, pigs, hens, rabbits, ducks, etc (and even horses or toads if you are degenerate or French). Just like other species feed upon different species. Cats, tigers, dogs, leeches, ferrets, mosquitoes, tapeworms, cheetahs, bears, hens, bats, etc., all eat other animals. We are exactly like that. To require that we only eat plants is to require us being fundamentally different (and possibly "better") than any other species that isn't naturally herbivorous: that we superimpose "morality" upon our dietetics, which no other animal species do (not even strict herbivorous, that don't eat other animals only because it doesn't benefit them biologically, and have absolutely no qualms about eating the food necessary for the subsistence of other species, thus starving them).

So, if we are not exceptional or better, why should we be exceptional or better by moralising our diet?


At what point in our evolutionary history do you separate us from animals?

At the point in which we became a separate genus, Homo.


And what is that based on? You'll find that both of these things are arbitrary, and only have a basis in your mind.

As well, the distinction between "animals" and "plants" is arbitrary, and only has a basis in our minds. Or where do you situate, in evolutionary history, the separation between edible plants and unedible animals?


Please answer the questions, though, I wanna know what your thought process is.

My thought process is strictly "animalist": if it is munchable, and tasty, and doesn't violate my ancestral belief superstition that you don't eat what you mount, I munch it.

Luís Henrique

[Epictetus]

Ugh, can people stop being so concerned over silly concepts such as speciesism? Humans are the most advanced being in this planet and we have every right to do whatever we want with it. The only reason anyone should be concerned about the fates of animals and the environment is because it affects humans.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Ugh, can people stop being so concerned over silly concepts such as speciesism? Humans are the most advanced being in this planet and we have every right to do whatever we want with it. The only reason anyone should be concerned about the fates of animals and the environment is because it affects humans.


Ugh, can people stop being so concerned over silly concepts such as speciesism? Humans are the most advanced being in this planet and we have every right to do whatever we want with it. The only reason anyone should be concerned about the fates of animals and the environment is because it affects humans.

See, the thing is, it's precisely at this point in which humans become an object of human activity estranged from the necessary conditions of human activity (which include animals and nature generally!) that the danger to humans becomes greatest: after all, where is the line? All sorts of horrifying suggestions have been presented in this very thread. Humans are humans because of x, y, or z characteristic is the inevitable claim on which liberal humanism must fall back to: but this characteristic is always characteristic not of humans writ large, but of humans in societies defined precisely by the hegemony of liberalism (and its attendant forms of life)!

Also: W/r/t the earlier post with the (slightly altered) Marx quote in Get a Job, Hippie!'s post:

Yeah, I'm familiar with the essay (see signature). The passage you quote is unfortunate: Marx uses an imaginary animal "other" to prop up his notion of species-being; but this "other", while rhetorically useful, doesn't reflect reality. The fact of the matter is "the estrangement of man from man" is itself rooted in a category which is a product of that estrangement: what needs to be grappled with is "the estrangement of man as man" - which Marx points to implicitly but fails to articulate.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

OK, I want to again draw a distinction between exception and specificity - and then deal with how that relates to 'difference'. Geese that live in the wild and geese that live in captivity are "different" in that the specific conditions of their lives are different - but neither is excepted from being geese.
Similarly, humans live in particular conditions, but they're not exceptional - they don't "except" humans from being fundamentally animals.I agree that we are "fundamentally" animals, but just because we're animals doesn't mean I'm going to look at the world as if we're not "exceptional"(to use your phrase) in relation to other species of animals. Chickens don't build schools and hospitals, they don't write books discussing philosophy and no matter what conditions you put a chicken in its not going to accomplish these things because it's a chicken, not a human. What makes us exceptional in relation to other animals is what we've done with our conditions which other animals can not do.




This is an important point: it posits a unitary individual-who-is-conscious rather than a subject within a conditioning dynamic. I don't believe in the liberal individual: rather than being a "conscious production" of humans, I think society represents a dialectical relations between subjects and objects which includes not only humans, but non-human animals as well (on whose labour and lives social development has been premised).No it doesn't do that at all, do you know of any species that keeps hundreds of cows on a farm taking care of them, slaughters them, makes sure the meats safe to eat, ships it all over the place so people like me can cook it and sell it to you? Do you not think somewhere along the road we(as in the species) consciously came up with this plan which helps daily reproduce our society? When the working class has the power and we're planning production will we be doing it "consciously". Of course it happens in a dialectical way like you describe but that doesn't rule out being conscious about how we try to reproduce society(as evidenced by the fact that we're doing that at this very moment).




Again, what you imagine here is a "humanity" that doesn't exist outside of the liberal imagination! From farming to skyscrapers, to whatever, humanity hasn't been a discrete and self-driven god-like creator. Consider, instead, a tornado: a tornado appears self-directed (and certainly has immense power!) but can only be understood as a relation of forces.

Further, let's not imagine, for example, computers as an ahistorical creation of unique human brilliance: they have to be understood in light of the millennia which proceeded them, in which "human" social development was premised on the development of a whole series of relations with non-human animals (cows! dogs! crows! goats! cats! mosquitoes!).
You are the only person here making these claims, you're setting up straw man after straw man. I'm not saying that computers could have been invented by humans that live deep in the jungle that have never come into contact with human civilization, I'm saying that there are no circumstances in which a cow is ever going to be able to make a computer in the first place. Of course our society is premised on the development of a whole series of relations with non-human animals. First premise of any living animal is it needs to eat and drink to survive, this is all so obvious I'm confused why you're bringing it up and not further expanding on a point you're trying to make.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Ok, to all the folks who say we are exceptional/better than animals or whatever, I have a question.

At what point in our evolutionary history do you separate us from animals? And what is that based on? You'll find that both of these things are arbitrary, and only have a basis in your mind.

Please answer the questions, though, I wanna know what your thought process is.I don't separate us from animals, we are animals. I don't eat meat because I think I'm better than it(which just sounds ridiculous, what measurements are we using to say we're better than chickens), I eat it because it fulfills a basic need and because we can do it. Does a coyote come across a cat and eat it because it thinks it's better than it or because it wants to eat and might be able to catch it? Does a mosquito bite you because it thinks it's better than you? It just cares more about it's survival than yours.

But at the same time there's no denying to me what we've created as a species through our history is exceptional compared with what other species have done. Now you can say that's arbitrary and in my mind but lets not act like it doesn't have a material basis. Of course it's in my mind that the fact that we're building hospitals and schools and computers with internet makes us exceptional in comparison to other animals because other animals would not even be able to comprehend that, it wouldn't make any sense, but does that mean I should totally ignore my perspective of being a person in the 21st Century?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Just because we're human doesn't suddenly mean that our relationships with each other are fundamentally different. Structure and hierarchy exist whether or not anybody can identify them as such and theorize based on them. Never in history has someone said "I'm going to take up arms to change the mode of production in my society", and it won't start happening now. Humans are no different from any of the other animals except that we're human and they're other species. And trying to get either group to revolt because [books and books of high-level academic analysis] is equally as useless. Just because apes don't have credit cards and money doesn't mean they don't have an economy, and just because they don't have global governments doesn't mean their relationships are somehow irrelevant and useless in comparison to ours.when did I say liberation involved people using academic terminology or reading books or having high level analysis. In fact I think those things are really only the result of the absence of an existing revolutionary moment. In those moments, radical theory becomes more like "common sense" for millions of regular people. People don't rise up because of theory, theory helps us understand what is possible when they do rise or don't.

My argument about theory was to cut against the moralistic (and elitist) view that liberation is saviors coming to help the pitiful poor (as in the shaw quote) I actually find shaw funny as a writer, but politically he was an elitist kind of socialist where middle class people reform society to help bring the poor workers out of their wretched state. I think that the author in the o.p. inadvertently revealed something by using that quote: animal liberation is a moralistic stance and revolution from above, on behalf of oppressed animals.

I don't think the question of animal abuse is irrelevant or unworthy of discussion, I just think it needs to be reframed away from moralism and towards a view of why animals are mistreated on mass, systematically in the modern world: they are commodified. It's a question of who in society have the interests in renegotiating the general relationship of man and nature... And it ain't the people who need to figure out how to pump cows full of hormones or squeeze as many chickens into the smallest space possible.

I think the question of eating meat in general is a moralistic question. But the question of how human society interacts with nature is political.

Animals can not renegotiate the relationship of human society to animals in general, revolutionary workers can. That is the difference and that is why human exploitation is different than abuse or use of animals. Revolutionizing how we work and destroying private property also means revolutionizing how we farm and treat livestock. It's a question of animals used in production (or sometimes animal habitats being "in the way" of capitalist development) and only workers can change that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

At what point in our evolutionary history do you separate us from animals? And what is that based on? You'll find that both of these things are arbitrary, and only have a basis in your mind.

Please answer the questions, though, I wanna know what your thought process is.

"Better than" is a useless distinction IMO, but I do think there is "difference" to a significant point if only that humans systematically and consciously harness animals... We wouldn't have this discussion if humans weren't exceptional in that sense.

But at any rate... What point? It isn't evolutionary, more revolutionary in nature. The separation comes with the rise of class society, the ability of humans to dominate eachother and also dominate nature and animals. More of a development than a "point", but whatever.

Before that, humans hunted and maybe domesticated dogs (but this was probably generally a symbiotic relationship of wolves being fed and raised by humans because they would keep other predators hostile humans away). But people more or less lived with nature, not over it. Once there are surpluses and classes, then there are enough "extra" labor and time to herd, to cultivate, to selectively breed, etc.

Even then, there are a lot of cultures with customs revolving around respect for animals (probably for practical reasons of disease or not wanting to overfish or do other things that might upset a certain level of sustainability). Animals were useful to people and valued at least as far as that use. Now they are pounds of flesh, quantifiable pieces of capital and so of course animals are abused, forests chopped into nothing, mountaintops flattened for quick profits.

[consuming negativity]

when did I say liberation involved people using academic terminology or reading books or having high level analysis. In fact I think those things are really only the result of the absence of an existing revolutionary moment. In those moments, radical theory becomes more like "common sense" for millions of regular people. People don't rise up because of theory, theory helps us understand what is possible when they do rise or don't.

My argument about theory was to cut against the moralistic (and elitist) view that liberation is saviors coming to help the pitiful poor (as in the shaw quote) I actually find shaw funny as a writer, but politically he was an elitist kind of socialist where middle class people reform society to help bring the poor workers out of their wretched state. I think that the author in the o.p. inadvertently revealed something by using that quote: animal liberation is a moralistic stance and revolution from above, on behalf of oppressed animals.

I don't think the question of animal abuse is irrelevant or unworthy of discussion, I just think it needs to be reframed away from moralism and towards a view of why animals are mistreated on mass, systematically in the modern world: they are commodified. It's a question of who in society have the interests in renegotiating the general relationship of man and nature... And it ain't the people who need to figure out how to pump cows full of hormones or squeeze as many chickens into the smallest space possible.

I think the question of eating meat in general is a moralistic question. But the question of how human society interacts with nature is political.

Animals can not renegotiate the relationship of human society to animals in general, revolutionary workers can. That is the difference and that is why human exploitation is different than abuse or use of animals. Revolutionizing how we work and destroying private property also means revolutionizing how we farm and treat livestock. It's a question of animals used in production (or sometimes animal habitats being "in the way" of capitalist development) and only workers can change that.

Animal liberationists are "elitist"? Give me a break. Just because the story you've come up with is plausible doesn't mean it's not complete bullshit. According to you, I should deny animals their intelligence and autonomy... because refusing to advocate for them or help them because of a false belief that they don't suffer or interact as we do means that we're recognizing their commodification... which is bad because it denies them their intelligence and autonomy, and is something that we're doing. That's some powerful fucking voodoo you're using to twist those words into logic. Stop over-analyzing for a second and take your eyes off of the pages of that book, and instead focus them on the tortured animal that you're shoving into your face at $1.29 a pop.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Animal liberationists are "elitist"? ... focus them on the tortured animal that you're shoving into your face at $1.29 a pop.yeah... this is not doing much for countering the moralistic elitist image. Yeah prols eating mcdonalds are the problem, not capitalist ownership and production. :rolleyes:

[consuming negativity]

yeah... this is not doing much for countering the moralistic elitist image. Yeah prols eating mcdonalds are the problem, not capitalist ownership and production. :rolleyes:

It was meant to illiterate how omnipresent animal rights abuses are in our society. It isn't like it's just one guy and his friends who are mean to their dogs. That systemic stuff that you were talking about is real. This is an important issue.