Communist Analysis of Pets

[Redistribute the Rep]

For instance, it seems like people have an authoritarian view of their dogs. They yell out orders to their dogs and expect them to understand and follow them. What do you guys think?

[PhoenixAsh]

cats are anarchists

[consuming negativity]

people see what they want to see and project it onto animals because they can't speak for themselves

[tuwix]

cats are anarchists

I'd say communists too. They don't recognize any property. :)

[BIXX]

I have three dogs. One is a burnt our revolutionary, one a liberal socialist, and the third a nihilist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The concept of the "companion animal" is a transhistorical phenomenon that I'm pretty sure pre-dates the Agricultural Revolution. Recent developments have definitely made a big impact on it, though; for example, the vast majority of dog breeds have only been in existence for the past 200 years or so.

I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this topic but if there's no serious direction to it here soon I'm going to move it to Chit Chat.

[Bala Perdida]

I'd say that most pets can be okay. I know I love animals more than I like people, they seem to treat me better once they get to know me and they don't judge me like people do. Although circuses are a goddamn atrocity against animals and I'm sympathetic to rebellious animals. Also, I wouldn't trust anyone who gets a tiger or something as a pet. That's both mean to the tiger and a danger to their stupid ass selves.

[Redistribute the Rep]

I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this topic but if there's no serious direction to it here soon I'm going to move it to Chit Chat.

It's a serious topic


I also think feminist analysis can be applied, as certain pets are genderized. Cats are feminized and sometimes even sexualized. Whereas owning a dog is seen as masculine since people seem to have an authoritarian relationship with them

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It doesn't holds entirely though. Cats are also often associated with masculine academic and artistic/bohemian lifestyles. But then also witchcraft. A communist analysis of pets seems as coherent as a communist analysis of socks, unless you want to go at it from an oppression angle. I like owning a pet. My cat is 13 and I got him when he was 2 or 3, cats in the wild only live 2 or 3 years anyhow so I feel that any hostility he might have towards me about his captivity is baseless and irrational.

[Armchair Partisan]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the Internationale unites the human race, not the entire animal kingdom. So I don't really have any issue with people having pets and keeping them subservient. At least unless they're sentient/sapient (not sure which would be a better criterion).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think the communist analysis of pets would, indeed, be the same as the communist analysis of socks - use-values (in this case, the use-value is related to fulfilling the human need for companionship) produced as commodities to be exchanged on the market. Then we could talk about the pet industry etc.

I don't mean to be a dick, despite constantly insinuating the contrary, but I don't think the analysis in the OP is communist at all. It's an impressionist analysis that focuses on cultural hangups associated with pet ownership, whereas we are surely interested in exploring how society organises itself to produce the necessities of human existence and what effect that has on social structure etc.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah but cats are free, you just catch one. You don't enter the market to procure a cat, not unless it's some fancy luxury breed. Alas, human society has not advanced to the point of allowing the same open access to socks.

[Redistribute the Rep]

It doesn't holds entirely though. Cats are also often associated with masculine academic and artistic/bohemian lifestyles. But then also witchcraft.

Hmm, I never thought of it that way. It seems a common stereotype for cats is that they're owned by old single women. A lot of people think it's not very manly to like cats, perhaps that's why they're associated with artistic, academic men since they are viewed as less masculine men.

[PhoenixAsh]

wait.....you catch a cat?? o.O

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah with free food, then you lock them up for life mwahahaha

[Redistribute the Rep]

wait.....you catch a cat?? o.O

My family found a kitten in the hood of my moms car. We looked for the owner but nobody claimed him. We had to give him away though since my grandma is allergic

I bet in a city you can find strays roaming around. I saw a big herd of them in Istanbul on YouTube once.

[Rudolf]

The concept of the "companion animal" is a transhistorical phenomenon that I'm pretty sure pre-dates the Agricultural Revolution.


afaik the oldest record is from the same time period as the neolithic revolution. I doubt it predates. I'd suspect the very concept of the 'companion animal' necessitates the neolithic revolution.




Yeah but cats are free, you just catch one. You don't enter the market to procure a cat, not unless it's some fancy luxury breed. Alas, human society has not advanced to the point of allowing the same open access to socks.

But people do buy cats regardless of pedigree and atleast here in the UK they're often microchipped with their owners details.






Btw, it may just be me but "animal lover" and "pet owner" don't really go well in the same sentence. You can say you like your pet but successive generations of selective breeding for docility and subservience doesn't shout "love" to me.

[Zoop]

Just try to comprehend the needs of the specific animal, and then satisfy those needs by placing them in the appropriate environment. Dogs need human companionship, so it's necessary for them to live alongside humans. This does not apply to all pets - some are imprisoned in an environment which is surely hellish for them. Caged birds are just one example. This logic would also extend to zoos.

[Rudolf]

Just try to comprehend the needs of the specific animal, and then satisfy those needs by placing them in the appropriate environment. Dogs need human companionship, so it's necessary for them to live alongside humans. This does not apply to all pets - some are imprisoned in an environment which is surely hellish for them. Caged birds are just one example. This logic would also extend to zoos.


that's a product of selective breeding though



btw, i'm not being all high and mighty, i eat meat just that animal lover and pet owner seems like some sort of contradiction.

[Zoop]

that's a product of selective breeding though

Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that that's what their needs are now. Domestication has transformed their environmental needs. All you have to do is look at how stray dogs live, and it becomes obvious that human companionship is necessary for a decent existence.

[The Intransigent Faction]

It looks like other posters beat me to it, so I'll probably be saying some things which were already said, but:

Some pets will eat anything, even things which aren't good for them. Sometimes, left to roam freely, they would run out into the street and risk being hit by oncoming cars. So, we do have a 'paternalistic' attitude toward our pets in that way, for their own good. Of course, it's much better to properly train pets than to frustrate yourself by 'barking orders' at untrained or poorly-trained pets. Training pets is very different from teaching kids, and in the former case 'classical conditioning' (i.e. as in the case of Pavlov's dogs) is definitely appropriate.

Treating animals as property can and does have a number of negative consequences. I can understand wanting wild animals to remain in the wild, but domesticated animals wouldn't (at least typically) survive in the wild, so at the very least pet owners have a responsibility not to let their pets roam too freely and to care for them for that reason.

[Comrade Jacob]

Pet's should be adopted not owned. That's my answer.

[Sinister Intents]

Pets are wonderful, adorable, affectionate creatures that bring joy to our lives for their short existence. They live with us and become entwined in our lives. They bring us company, they bring us happiness as much as we give them. Pets are there for us absolutely when we need them. It's always crushing, devastating when they die and they're no longer in your life. It's fucking horrible to bury those that are a part of your life.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I used to think of myself as a fruit lover but then I found out that the reason they are so delicious was due to selective breeding under the conditions of human captivity. Breeding that favored good tasting fruit over creative and free fruit. Now I accept that I simply like bananas, because monsters like us will never be capable of loving anything.

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk

[PhoenixAsh]

Private ownership of the means of petting...

edit: that sounded better in my head...

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Hmm... purrduction? Nope, trash this thread

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk

[uncontent_soul]

I dot ever shout out orders to my pets. I just feed them and they snuggle with me before I go to sleep. My dogs get the same amount of food and toys and they lead themselves an I only guide them slightly. I make sure they don't runaway but it's only so they don't get hit by motor vehicle. My dogs are anarcho-communists. My cats on the other hand are I charge of me. They order me to buy them good and they take up all the furniture in the house I live in and get fur all over it.They do whatever they feel. But they really like the home they live in adding a hint if Nationalism. They un ornately are National Bolsheviks and Stalinist. They used to be Orthodox Marxists but one they saw a picture of Stalin's mustache they thought I looked so fuzzy they converted to Stalinist ideas without any knowledge or reason

[The Intransigent Faction]

Pet's should be adopted not owned. That's my answer.

My dad's cousin got "his" dog from the Humane Society...She's a beautiful Shepherd/Collie mix. She had been beaten with sticks and abandoned. He has another dog, a Shepherd/Lab mix, I believe. Those two have really bonded, and it makes me happy to see them play together. :)

[BIXX]

I dot ever shout out orders to my pets.

Really? I just stare at them and scream while using cyclical breathing methods so the screaming never stops. This is done in my family for up to 24 hours straight, and seen as a kind of ritual, expressing a child's ability to become an adult by subjugating an animal to such extreme claustrophobic psychological terror that they submit to your every will.

We generally capture feral puppies and kittens from the neighborhood to do this, every time a child is born. When the child comes of age the cats have been kept in a massive outdoor cage as to retain their feral-ness, and the child chooses who will become their future companion animal, and soon the Great Scream will commence. At the end of the ceremony, the two have bonded until death, which is seen as one of the two absorping the other's soul. The unchosen feral animals are released, thus allowing for the production of new feral beasts.

The child gets one chance at the scream, which mist go for 24 hours straight without stopping for any reason, be it to breathe (hence the usage of cyclical breathing) or drinking or eating. If the child fails in this, they can choose slavery or slavery then death. If they succeed, they may become an adult.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Hmm, I never thought of it that way. It seems a common stereotype for cats is that they're owned by old single women. A lot of people think it's not very manly to like cats, perhaps that's why they're associated with artistic, academic men since they are viewed as less masculine men.

Although this is only regarding the owners of the pets. Cats themselves I think are quite feminized and even sexualized. Women sometimes wear sexualized cat costumes for Halloween and have their anatomy named after them. And, while dog owners are stereotyped as masculine, dogs themselves are feminized by taking a submissive role. Human women can be associated with them by being called *****es, etc.

[John Nada]

Although this is only regarding the owners of the pets. Cats themselves I think are quite feminized and even sexualized. Women sometimes wear sexualized cat costumes for Halloween and have their anatomy named after them. And, while dog owners are stereotyped as masculine, dogs themselves are feminized by taking a submissive role. Human women can be associated with them by being called *****es, etc.Are cats and dogs feminized, or are women/girls dehumanized? Whereas, agriculture lead to the patriarchy and property, women came to be viewed as man's livestock. The blood ties putting a price on women.

I imagine that humans had something like pets pretty early. Scavengers would gather around the humans' camps for scraps left over. Eventually some, like mild-mannered wolves, were tolerated. The bonds that wolves would get joining a pack could extend to humans. These wolves were then domesticated into dogs. Dogs are sociable and can understand speech to an extent, help people hunt, protect them from attack and give early warnings with their superior senses and predatory abilities. In a way dogs are like tools for the hunter-gather mode of production. The dogs' abilities would latter come handy with the growth of agriculture and domestication of livestock.

With the rise of agriculture, cats became domesticated. Cats usually don't follow commands like dogs and are too small for serious protection from hostile people or animals. They're not sociable as much as dogs. However, for their size, cats are much better hunters of small prey. Cats will kill basically anything small. The cats gathered around food supplies, and kill any pests for food. This gave them use-value for an ancient agricultural society. Having already learned animal husbandry, humans domesticated cats.

Both cats and dogs can, were and are used as food. However, they're carnivores which requires a diet much harder to maintain than herbivores or omnivores. Sheep, pigs and cows could just eat grass, or with pigs just about anything. Sources of food useless to humans could be used to feed cattle. For example, stocks from grain, grass in pastures, or malted grains after making beer. Not only that, but sheep had wool for clothing, oxen to plow fields, and later horses and camels for transportation.

Actually if you think about it, domesticating animals was a major advancement. Like industrialization, completely changed agriculture, and agriculture changed domestication of animals. I think that people get more attached to animals now because technology makes it where a lot of people won't have to kill and eat them. Meat processing is done in factories, so many people never kill for their food.

[G4b3n]

You don't think authority over an animal is a legitimate one?
But this is more of a personal philosophy that transcends communism. Communism is not an all encompassing set of principles or even as a mode of analysis there are factors of life that are irrelevant, it pertains to humans and the organization of their social relations extending from how the means of life are produced. Perhaps you can speculate on how how communism would affect industries or perceptions of pet ownership, but trying to derive your own principles on pet ownership from communist philosophy is just nonsensical.

[Luís Henrique]

From my point of view, my cats are my personal property. If you want cats, go find your own ones. Stop staring at my kittens with those jealous, envious, wide open eyes.

From my cats' point of view, I am their personal property. Tell your cats to stop covetting me, or Preta Garbo, Iznogoud, and Bukharin will take the issue personally.

Luís Henrique

[Zanters]

I don't know how owning pets has anything to do with workers controlling the means of production. Unless, of course, your pet creates value through labour. In that case, I'd like to see her help us overthrow the bourgeois.

[Sewer Socialist]

Their cuddling could be considered reproductive labor.

[BIXX]

Their cuddling could be considered reproductive labor.

Eeewwww

[Sewer Socialist]

Eeewwww

The official position of post-leftism on nearly everything. ;)