Log in

View Full Version : Factory farming chicken



Vanguard1917
22nd June 2007, 17:33
Excellent article reviewing Hattie Ellis's book Planet Chicken: The Shameful Story of the Bird on Your Plate.


Stop Planet Chicken, I want to get off (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/3517/)
To complain about the ‘injustice’ done by humans to chickens – those cannibalistic balls of faeces and feathers – is to call into question the entire basis of human civilisation.
by Mick Hume

Books You Probably Can Judge By The Cover, Number 373. Apart from the title, ‘Planet Chicken’, and the subtitle, ‘The Shameful Story of the Bird on Your Plate’ (that’s your plate, notice, not theirs), there is also the cover illustration. It shows a chicken’s head with a tear falling from its eye; indeed the tear is rather bigger than the eye from which it is falling. Never mind your smart Alec questions about whether chickens can cry. Hattie Ellis’ moral message is that ‘the world’s favourite bird’ has been turned into the wretched of the Earth, suffering the terrors of factory farming to feed our addiction to cheap meat, and we should weep for them.

If I seem a bit cynical in contrast to Ellis’ obvious compassion for her subject, let me declare an interest. I don’t like chickens, oh no. I eat them of course, although the cloying texture and relative lack of taste make it far from my favourite meat. But the idea of having tender feelings for the live birds strikes me as frankly squawking mad. Regular readers will know that, in an anthropomorphic age when those who suggest that man is superior to beast are branded ‘speciesists’, spiked writers rightly insist upon drawing a clear and uncrossable line between humanity and the ‘animal kingdom’. I am tempted to add a personal, admittedly unscientific, distinction between other animals and the chicken.

As a young man I worked one summer on a Ministry of Agriculture farm, where I soon discovered the chickens we were supposed to be caring for were horrible, cannibalistic balls of faeces and feathers, an unpleasant underclass of the farm bird world. One morning a couple of other student summer workers and I were sent into a shed in huge souwesters and raincoats and told we had half an hour to ‘clear’ – that is, kill – the 200-odd chickens occupying it with our bare hands; we soon discovered that the rainproofs were for when you pulled a neck too hard and the head came off, turning the bird into a blood-spurting chicken pistol. I am sorry to report to chicken lovers that no tears were shed in the killing shed, either by hen or human.

Some animal rights’ activists might suggest that this shows I suffer from an irrational ‘henophobia’ bordering on fascism (after all, that Nazi Himmler started off as a chicken farmer you know). But an unsentimental attitude towards farm animals is actually sensible and human. Those who have to work with them for a living have always been the most clear-eyed about these matters – at least until the advent of hobby farmers who give their hens names like ‘Chickpea’.

But Planet Chicken is about more than Ellis’ personal warm feelings towards the foul fowl. Through its critical examination of the poultry farming industry, it suggests that there is something seriously wrong with the relationship between man and chicken today, and that the shitty way we treat them is a stain on modern humanity’s heart.

She starts by offering some startling statistics about the growth of the global chicken industry through intensive farming methods. At any moment there are now almost twice as many chickens alive as humans. People in Britain alone eat five times as much chicken as we did 20 years ago, now accounting for almost half the meat we consume. Britain produces more than a million tonnes of chicken a year, mostly in factory farms where big production lines can kill 9,000 birds an hour. In the USA, apparently, 24million chickens are killed every 24 hours.

Globally, chicken now account for the majority of the 50billion animals eaten every year. As Ellis notes: ‘The world is currently in the middle of what is termed a “Livestock Revolution”. This is the animal equivalent of the Green Revolution of the 1960s, which spread chemically sustained crop farming around the globe. In this case, it is about the rise of industrially farmed creatures.’

Now, to me this sounds like a fantastic human success story. Through the increasingly industrialised farming of chickens, producers are feeding the world by turning meat that, even in Britain, used to be reserved for special occasions, into an inexpensive everyday source of protein. That, surely, is something to crow about.

The message of Planet Chicken, however, is that the rise of ‘industrially farmed creatures’ is a bad thing. It assumes that there must be something morally suspect about ‘cheap’ meat produced by factory methods. More broadly, it is an attack on the development of industry and human society, and its separation from the animal world.

The reactionary strain in the argument is spelt out in the foreword by the TV cook and celebrity cottage farmer, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. He observes that we evolved from ‘savages’ into farmers, but that ‘the industrialisation of farming has brought us full circle’: ‘We have reduced, through mechanisation, the contact between “farmer” and livestock to the point where the sentience and natural inclinations of our farm animals is all too easily ignored… This is industrialised savagery, and for the sanity of our own species, as much as for the welfare of those animals we are so ruthlessly exploiting, this savagery has to end.’

To support this contention that the advance of civilisation is in fact a return to savagery, Ellis takes us on a journey through planet chicken. There is some brief and interesting history of the evolution of the species, from jungle fowl, through birds bred for their looks and cock fighting ability, to the mass-produced meat of the twentieth century. Following the success of industrialised methods in the USA, the first broiler strains came to Britain in 1956. ‘The post-war priority for farming – an entirely understandable reaction to austerity – was productivity. After 14 years of food rationing the bountiful harvest of cheap meat, brought about by the appliance of science, was a beacon of progress.’

So far, so good. But Ellis is quick to emphasise that ‘we’ now know how wrong that productivity-centred approach to farming was, both for the birds (who are still apparently wild jungle fowl at heart) and for the consumer. ‘Have we really changed so much’, she asks, ‘that this form of meat production and eating is natural?’ Well, hunger might be ‘natural’, but that does not necessarily make it right….

Ellis goes on to look at the packaged chickens on the supermarket shelf where, in her odd bird’s-eye view, ‘behind their tight plastic, the meat reminded me of the naked, shrink-wrapped magazine babes lined up on the top shelf of the newsagents’. Next she visits a crammed chicken shed where they grow sitting on their own litter, and seems childishly shocked to discover that ‘it was almost impossible to see these creatures as individuals – as creatures even. It couldn’t be further from a storybook farmyard image.’ Then she reviews a Compassion in World Farming video of a chicken-killing plant where there are apparently ‘birds with monstrous breasts, the Jordans of mass produced meat, barely able to stand up’. (Poultry-as-porn seems to be emerging as a theme.)

Meanwhile Ellis offers as an alternative an unappetising batch of self-righteous prigs opposed to industrialised farming. There is the man from the Real Meat Company who pompously announces that, ‘if you don’t like factory farming, you’ve got two choices: buy ours or become a vegetarian…. If you buy an ordinary chicken you know that it may have led a ghastly life, been transported terribly, lived badly, been killed badly. And you’re responsible. Who else is?’ This ethical marketing pitch is backed up with pictures of factory farming on his company website. Never mind that people’s primary responsibility might be to feed their family as economically as possible.

Then there is the ‘quietly charismatic’ Italian animal rights activist who, Ellis says, helped persuade the EU to outlaw battery cages by 2012. He tells her: ‘I knew I was risking a lot. But…if you believe in something you should invest in it to make it happen. What I could invest at that moment wasn’t anything else but putting my life on the table.’ Anybody would think it was him being bred in a cage and slaughtered for meat. Ellis assures us he is ‘not a crazed martyr’. Of course not.

Ellis is an evangelist for the advance of farming methods that claim to produce ‘happy chickens’, ‘slow chickens’, and higher-welfare eggs. She reports of one of these more naturalistic farmers that ‘whenever they have to be confined, for example when part of a shedful has to be collected up for slaughter, Susie told me the chickens emerge like schoolchildren let out at break-time’. Which I’m afraid strikes me as a truly sick attitude to take to birds you are breeding for slaughter. Ellis also has to admit that there is some considerable confusion over what terms like ‘free-range’ eggs and ‘organic’ chicken really mean today, and she lets slip her disappointment that freer chickens don’t live up to that storybook farmyard image either: ‘They may be able to display more natural behaviour, but unfortunately this can include vicious pecking and even cannibalism.’ That’s sounds like the chickens I know I detest.

Of course it is good to be able to eat better-quality eggs and meat, and to develop better techniques for producing them. But that is not about making chickens ‘happy’ so much as finding ways to make us happier to eat them. As Ellis has to concede, this comes down to money. Whether she and her ‘real meat’ mates like it or not, people want and need cheap meat. She quotes a professor of science policy who ‘immediately snapped any precious ivory fork in two’, declaring himself ‘bored and irritated’ by well-to-do friends who ‘sit around boasting about the lengths they go to have local, fresh, organic produce when actually it’s an exercise in conspicuous consumption – showing off their wealth and leisure’.

However, she soon sets aide such humanist concerns to conclude that ‘there is a bottom line. The production of cheap meat at a terrible cost to the chicken’s welfare is wrong…an everyday symbol of man’s inhumanity to animals.’

Like many issues to do with food and farming today, this chicken debate is not really about the details of different techniques for raising them. It is pecking at bigger targets: industrialised farming and, by implication, the social and economic advance of our society. The demand that we should all ‘reconnect’ with the animals that provide our food, for example, is really a call to turn back the clock on a social division of labour that has been developed over centuries. I am happy to leave the connecting to those unlucky enough to work with chickens. Ellis says that ‘chicken harvesting is widely acknowledged as being one of the worst jobs in the world. All you can say is that it must be even worse for the chickens.’ All I can say is that it is far worse for the humans, who unlike the brainless birds know what is going on as they slosh about in the blood, guts and chicken dirt.

The notion that the wonders of modern farming amount to ‘industrialised savagery’ is the product of a conveyor belt of overfed dull ideas in our Chicken Little society, where people who should know better rush like headless chickens from one food and health panic to another (as epitomised by the bird flu scare about UK poultry). It reflects a culture that not only fears the future, but has also lost faith in the achievements of its own past, so that a great stride forward for human nutrition can be dismissed as ‘inhumanity to animals’.

In the past it was said that you could judge the level of a society by its treatment of its prisoners. Frederick Engels argued that we should judge it by the way it treated the female half of its population. But only a society up to its own neck in misanthropic crap would accept that civilisation be judged according to how it treats its bloody chickens.

Mick Hume is editor-at-large of spiked.

Planet Chicken: The shameful story of the bird on your plate by Hattie Ellis was published by Hodder & Stoughton. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK))


reprinted from: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/si...s_article/3517/ (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/3517/)

socialistfuture
22nd June 2007, 22:54
where I live the bird often live free range, sum even wild - that means the odd one gets hit by a car or maybe gets maimed by a dog. ive never seen them fighting each other or 'being savage' only seen that when people get two roosters and but blades on their feet and make them fight to get cheap thrills (not so cheap for the rooseters).

here are some links to info on caged animals and animal torture.

Animal welfare is the viewpoint that animals, especially those under human care, should not suffer unnecessarily, including where the animals are used for food, work, companionship, or research. This position usually focuses on the morality of human action (or inaction), as opposed to making deeper political or philosophical claims about the status of animals, as is the case for an animal rights viewpoint. For this reason animal welfare organizations may use the word humane in their title or position statements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare


Welfare in practice

From the outset in 1822, when British MP Richard Martin shepherded a bill through Parliament offering protection from cruelty to cattle, horses and sheep (earning himself the nickname Humanity Dick), the welfare approach has had human morality, and humane behaviour, at its central concern. Martin was among the founders of the world's first animal welfare organization, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or SPCA, in 1824. In 1840, Queen Victoria gave the society her blessing, and it became the RSPCA. The society used members' donations to employ a growing network of inspectors, whose job was to identify abusers, gather evidence, and report them to the authorities.

Similar groups sprang up elsewhere in Europe and then in North America. The first such group in the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, was chartered in the state of New York in 1866. Organizations commonly associated with the welfare view in the United States today include the AVMA.

Today, a number of religious denominations have added animal welfare to their list of ministry concerns. Animal-related ethics courses, animal blessings, prayer for animals and animal ministries have increased in popularity. In 2007, the Interfaith Association of Animal Chaplains was formed to assist clergy members concerned about animals and their welfare to network and share information easily over the internet. A number of Animal Chaplain's books and websites reference scriptural passages from the world's sacred texts supporting animal welfare.

[edit] Animal welfare for taste reasons

There is a growing contemporary movement among leading chefs that meat should have come from free-range sources where the animal has been well-treated. This has less to do with concern for the animal (although this is a factor), and the claim that well-cared-for meat tastes better.

Key proponents of high-quality slow-reared meat within cookery include Fergus Henderson [1] proponent of 'nose to tail cooking', Raymond Blanc and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, well known for his personal stock of animals, which he raises himself and slaughters.
Breeding sows in gestation crates.
Breeding sows in gestation crates.

Modern Western consumers can now choose between mass-produced meat (particularly pork, where high-quality meat will be raised outside while cheaper pork comes from pigs kept in small individual pens) and poultry costing a few dollars a kilo, and free-range animals, which typically costs three or more times as much.

Critics say that those arguing for higher quality meat do so from the position of wealth, and those less privileged cannot afford such high-quality food. Conversely it is argued that the current profusion of cheap protein is unnatural, and that the modern diet consists of too much meat. Certainly in comparison to previous generations, food expenditure represents a lower part of the average household's expenditure. Furthermore, it is argued that the greater use of lower grade cuts from well-treated meat, which tend to be flavoursome while tough, can offset the increased cost.

So I guess class is coming up as an issue in this. Can you afford good healthy food? rather than mc donalds and caged nastiness. What is available at nearby shops, do u have the land to grow food yourself? do you have the time and money to do that?

My cousin is a head chef and likes good quality food, my friend works at an organic shop, is vegan and real healthy. if they ate fast food crap they would be less healthy and more sick. she does it for moral reasons he eats meat and fish.. and so on but not factory farmed shit).

societies don't need to mistreat animals, there is no economic or moral arguement for it - only I am human and I can do what I want, so its pure selfishness.

I'd never kill a panda, or kiwi, or cat for a feed. same with a sheep, cow or horse. i know the world will never be vegan - so compassion is important then. also wiping a species out by killing too much is real sad. domestication and the wild is one of the main part of the wider debate around animal rights and welfare.

socialistfuture
22nd June 2007, 22:55
The animal rightist perspective on animal welfare

Canadian ethicist David Sztybel distinguishes six different types of animal welfare views from his perspective as an animal rightist and animal liberationist:[1]

* animal exploiters' animal welfare: the reassurance from animal industry publicists that they treat animals "well" (e.g., spokespersons for the animal slaughter industry)
* commonsense animal welfare: the average person's concern to avoid cruelty and be kind to animals
* humane animal welfare: a more principled opposition to cruelty to animals, which does not reject most animal-using practices (except perhaps the use of animals for fur and sport)
* animal liberationist animal welfare: a viewpoint which strives to minimize suffering but accepts some animal use for the perceived greater good, such as the use of animals in some medical research
* new welfarism: a term coined by Gary Francione to refer to the belief that measures to improve the lot of animals used by humans will lead to the abolition of animal use
* animal welfare/animal rights views which do not distinguish the two

ÑóẊîöʼn
26th June 2007, 08:29
I've worked in a slaughterhouse that processed sheep. Let me tell you, sheep are not the fluffy cute animals portrayed on television and in kiddies' books. They are at once eye-rollingly stupid, vicious in the dumb way that only an animal can be, and engendered no feelings other than contempt towards them.

Maybe if more people got off their fat arses from watching television and slaughtered their own damn food for a living, there would be less of this anthropomorphic crap spewed by city-living vegetarians with a Disney view of nature.

apathy maybe
26th June 2007, 14:35
Having grown up on a "hobby farm" (though none of the chickens were called "Chickpea", some of them did have names), I fell I can speak from experience about the nature of at least some animals.

My parents have chickens, ducks, sheep, goats, cows, thousands of wallabies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallaby) (though they don't tend to stick around...).

They aren't vicious dumb animals most of the time.

Chickens can be quite "affectionate" (though this could be an anthropomorphism) (if handled from quite young), they are clean, and while having a strict social structure, tend not to fight and so on.
Ducks, well if caged at night (to prevent them being eaten) will quickly muck the area where they are caged, but are otherwise relativly clean. I don't really like ducks though.

Cows are fucking messy (especially in winter with lots of mud and rain). They also can be affectionate (and I don't think this is an anthropomorphism), but they are also (like the birds) not real bright. They are, however, incredibly fucking curious, even if one of there own kind is shot and killed in front of their eyes.

Sheep, they are stupid, mostly. If you get one on its own however, they can out wit the average stupid farmer (and can certainly run (I'm talking literally, try and catch a lone fucking sheep) rings around even two or three smart young men). They only become vicious when caged and cornered. When they are scared and can't see a way out.

Goats are my favourite out of the animals mentioned so far. Quite affectionate (and this isn't an anthropomorphism, and if you try and claim it is, well you are just showing your ignorance), they will approach simply to be petted and to rub against you (the usual disclaimer about contact from a young age applies). They are also the smartest of the animals listed so far, they test electric fences regularly, unlike cows who once trained you can turn the electricity off, and will exploit the smallest hole in a fence.

Wallabies I've never really had much close and personal experience with, they tend to hide in forests during the day and then come and eat at night. Easy to shoot if you want a change from whatever meat you have in the freezer.

Anyway, that's just to establish that I'm not a fucking "city-living vegetarian[] with a Disney view of nature".

Now where was I? I was going to comment about the reviewer's irrational hatred of chickens. Perhaps a chicken once attacked his mother once. Who knows. It seems to border on the sadistic even. Meh, anyway, I'm going all over the place.

Anyway, socialistfuture's comments about class are relevant, I remember an interesting discussion on veganism and class I had the other day, but you don't need to be a upper class prick to eat well and still be a vegan (though why anyone would be a complete vegan is beyond me).

Fuck, I don't know what I was going to say, but fucked if I'm going to delete all I typed and not say anything.

socialistfuture
27th June 2007, 12:16
I became vegetarian when I stayed on a farm as a child.

bcbm
28th June 2007, 17:44
Moralistic arguments aside, factory farms are environmental disasters. Not that Vanguard gives a shit about the environment. Yay for shit-sludge rivers.

Pawn Power
28th June 2007, 22:38
am,

Thanks for the autobigraphy.

***

Anyway...V1917 claims factory farming as a victory for progress, nutrition, industrialization, (which it could be) it is, nevertheless, also a victory for capitalsim. We must remember that the mass farming of chickens, etc. is done not for abstractions like "progress" or to give the masses more protein, but for profit. The cheaper and more chickens they can farm means higher profits so we should indeed be critiqual of the method of which it is done. Indeed, this is not true with just farming but with all industries under a capitalist system.

While benifitary things can result, the intention is not our well being.

bretty
28th June 2007, 22:52
Noxion you may have had bad run ins with sheep in the past. But think of it this way, I'm a pretty nice guy but if you put me in a factory where I'm going to be processed into a product I'm probably going to get grumpy. Even worse, the animals don't realize why they are there. You can't blame them for being vicious towards someone with a bolt gun and a knife.

Dr Mindbender
30th June 2007, 17:25
I buy free range chicken and eggs where possible. While I think people have the right to eat meat, and animal products (as i do) i still believe that the suffering of the animals should be reduced as much as possible. (happier animals produce better quality food anyway) Battery and intensive farming methods are little more than cost-cutting profit maximising strategies on the part of capitalist agriculture.

More Fire for the People
30th June 2007, 18:24
I am approaching this issue on two bases: from the perspective of economic-systems management and from my personal contact with factory farming. Firstly, any economic-system or ‘production model’ can be measured according to its impact upon the surrounding eco-system — Does it increase, decrease, or sustain biodiversity? Does it increase, decrease, or sustain the quality of health for dominant-active residents? etc. — and consequently any approach to organization and management of producing foodstuffs, agrarian or animal, must be integral and sustainable in its environmental context. Secondly, factory farming of chickens, from my own experience, produces severe negative impacts on the environment. It leads to drainage of chicken litter and remains into the local water supply which disrupts water eco-systems and contaminates the supply of drinking water for humans. It increases the amount of particulate matter in the air which leads to asthma, allergies, and other human-animal health related problems.

The key to resolving these problems is dispersion. Let’s say that the average American eats three whole chickens a week. That’s 900 million chickens a week — or 47 billion chickens a year. That means in a given square kilometer with our current eating practices there would need to be 4,890 chickens. 4,890 chickens free-range or factory-farmed still produce the same negative impacts on the environment. In the face of this obstacle we have a number of solutions: (1) the actual reduction in consumption of young-to-grown chickens; (2) a shift from chicken consumption to egg consumption; (3) an increase of territory available for chicken production; I think a combination of all three serves best.

If Americans were to reduce the number of chickens they consume from three to two a week by either abstaining from chicken consumption or by eating more chicken eggs and less chickens we would reduce the number of chickens per square kilometer 1600. We could also increase the efficiency of each square kilometer by building eco-friendly chicken raising complexes as an alternative. They could be five to eight stories hosting about a two thousand or more each floor. Chickens could roam “free range” in simulated outdoor environments. Their litter, instead of being a wasteful and hazardous by-product, could be used to fertilize the complex. The outdoor air quality would improve for both humans and animals as the particulate matter produced by chickens would be contained within the complexes. We would be producing two-thirds of the same amount of chickens but we would be using one-fifth of the same amount of territory.

And for the record, eggs from chickens that don't have growth hormones taste better.

Die Neue Zeit
30th June 2007, 19:36
^^^ Can I tie this conversation to the development of the sovkhozy and my Kautsky thread (while reflecting strictly upon the present)?

Anyhow, my take is a mix of all your opinions. Yes, environmental measures need to be taken. Yes, cruelty to animals is a concern (cockfighting should be illegal everywhere). Beaks should be cut off with anaesthesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken#Humane_treatment). Chicken killings in factory farms should be done through QUICK mechanical decapitation (bind the chicken, pass it through the belt, and from the both sides come mechanical blades aiming for the neck area closest to the head).

On the other hand, industrial food production (not just factory farming) is absolutely necessary. When coupled with socialist development, it can solve the world's hunger problems. However, why do they (the problems) still exist? Because of the continued influence of PEASANTS (oops, I meant "small farmers") and their desire for government subsidies, plus capitalism's innate inability to get past this crap and industrialize as many aspects of life as possible (talk about de-industrialization into services within the developed countries, too).



After the revolution, I would like to see 90% or more of the world's food production be done by industrial sovkhozy (publicly-owned industrial food production facilities - from hydroponic farms to aquacultures to typical factory farms - operated exclusively by WAGE-earners).

bcbm
1st July 2007, 01:12
After the revolution, I would like to see 90% or more of the world's food production be done by industrial sovkhozy (publicly-owned industrial food production facilities - from hydroponic farms to aquacultures to typical factory farms - operated exclusively by WAGE-earners).

You want wage slavery to continue "after the revolution?"

chimx
1st July 2007, 01:48
Maybe if more people got off their fat arses from watching television and slaughtered their own damn food for a living, there would be less of this anthropomorphic crap spewed by city-living vegetarians with a Disney view of nature.

Well that's a wonderfully appalling stereotype. I've never hung out at a sheep slaughter house, but at cow stock yards the animals tend to be freaked out, scared, and agitated. But when I stop by some in a praire, they are generally calm and willing to eat out of my hand.

I've worked with sheep before, but never in a slaughtehouse, from feral sheep to domesticated sheep. Both tend to be skiddish, but some domesticated sheep can be quiet calm, and love getting their wool scratched behind their ears.

Domesticated goats on the other hand are universally pieces of shit, except for a handful of the older ones.

Die Neue Zeit
1st July 2007, 04:50
Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 30, 2007 05:12 pm

After the revolution, I would like to see 90% or more of the world's food production be done by industrial sovkhozy (publicly-owned industrial food production facilities - from hydroponic farms to aquacultures to typical factory farms - operated exclusively by WAGE-earners).

You want wage slavery to continue "after the revolution?"
^^^ What you call "wage slavery" CANNOT by definition disappear in the DOTP (which I differentiate from socialism, which is already differentiated from communism).

And what would the still-existent rural proletariat (as opposed to small farmers, peasants, kulaks, etc.) be slaves to exactly? To workers' councils which they constitute and control (the ones that will run the industrial sovkhozy in which such proletarians work)?

"Theoretically, there can be no doubt that between capitalism and communism there lies a definite tranition period which must combine the features and properties of both these forms of social economy. This transition period has to be a period of struggle between dying capitalism and nascent communism—or, in other words, between capitalism which has been defeated but not destroyed and communism which has been born but is still very feeble." (Lenin, Economics and Politics in the Era of the DOTP)

Pawn Power
1st July 2007, 21:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:50 pm


And what would the still-existent rural proletariat be slaves to exactly? To workers' councils (including the ones that will run the industrial sovkhozy)?


Why can't the "rural proletariat" be a part of and participate in worker's councils?

Die Neue Zeit
1st July 2007, 22:58
Originally posted by Pawn Power+July 01, 2007 01:12 pm--> (Pawn Power @ July 01, 2007 01:12 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 10:50 pm


And what would the still-existent rural proletariat be slaves to exactly? To workers' councils (including the ones that will run the industrial sovkhozy)?


Why can't the "rural proletariat" be a part of and participate in worker's councils? [/b]
^^^ Um, I should apologize for making this clear, but there is an implicit (if not explicit) distinction between rural proletarians and small farmers/PEASANTS (the former without any ownership of the land whatsoever).

Of course such rural proletarians will have absolute control over the workers' council that operates their own sovkhoz!

socialistfuture
3rd July 2007, 22:45
regional direct democracy is better!

Pawn Power
4th July 2007, 21:56
Originally posted by Hammer+July 01, 2007 04:58 pm--> (Hammer @ July 01, 2007 04:58 pm)
Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 01, 2007 01:12 pm

[email protected] 30, 2007 10:50 pm


And what would the still-existent rural proletariat be slaves to exactly? To workers' councils (including the ones that will run the industrial sovkhozy)?


Why can't the "rural proletariat" be a part of and participate in worker's councils?
^^^ Um, I should apologize for making this clear, but there is an implicit (if not explicit) distinction between rural proletarians and small farmers/PEASANTS (the former without any ownership of the land whatsoever).

Of course such rural proletarians will have absolute control over the workers' council that operates their own sovkhoz! [/b]
Then why would they be "slaves" to workers, councils? How are you a slave of something you run and control?

socialistfuture
4th July 2007, 23:34
do the chickens get to vote to see if they want to work in battery farms?

i think they need a union, and to read animal farm....

more seriously tho - surely they only benefit capitalists who own the farms. people that buy them get shit, unethical food. a lot of my friends that do farming and so on - say free range eggs taste better. and a lot of chemically pumped antiobiotic cocktail chickens taste pretty bland - that why KFC puts so much flavouring on their deep friend fat meals.

ps i havent eaten chicken since i was little (been vego for 13 years so far), dont usually have egg - and when i do only if its from chickens outside -where i can see the conditions they live in.

Pawn Power
5th July 2007, 02:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:34 pm


more seriously tho - surely they only benefit capitalists who own the farms. people that buy them get shit, unethical food. a lot of my friends that do farming and so on - say free range eggs taste better. and a lot of chemically pumped antiobiotic cocktail chickens taste pretty bland - that why KFC puts so much flavouring on their deep friend fat meals.


Wait. So is eating factory farmed meat supporting capitalism, being unethical, or does it just taste bad? Alll three?

Comrade_Scott
5th July 2007, 02:40
does it really matter how the chicken or cow lives?? i mean they are all going to the slaughterhose anyway, from the coop to my belly to the crapper. not a fan of the chemical shit in them tough farm fresh and factory fowl do taste different however.

Die Neue Zeit
5th July 2007, 05:25
Originally posted by Pawn Power+July 04, 2007 01:56 pm--> (Pawn Power @ July 04, 2007 01:56 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 04:58 pm

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 01, 2007 01:12 pm

[email protected] 30, 2007 10:50 pm


And what would the still-existent rural proletariat be slaves to exactly? To workers' councils (including the ones that will run the industrial sovkhozy)?


Why can't the "rural proletariat" be a part of and participate in worker's councils?
^^^ Um, I should apologize for making this clear, but there is an implicit (if not explicit) distinction between rural proletarians and small farmers/PEASANTS (the former without any ownership of the land whatsoever).

Of course such rural proletarians will have absolute control over the workers' council that operates their own sovkhoz!
Then why would they be "slaves" to workers, councils? How are you a slave of something you run and control? [/b]
^^^ Didn&#39;t I say that above? <_<

black coffee asked, in response to what I said regarding industrial food production, "You want wage slavery to continue "after the revolution?"

I responded by mentioning workers&#39; councils. <_<

CornetJoyce
5th July 2007, 05:55
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:45 pm
regional direct democracy is better&#33;
Why? The bigger the area, the harder it is to meet.

bcbm
5th July 2007, 18:42
And what would the still-existent rural proletariat (as opposed to small farmers, peasants, kulaks, etc.) be slaves to exactly? To workers&#39; councils which they constitute and control (the ones that will run the industrial sovkhozy in which such proletarians work)?

Well if they&#39;ve got the councils off and going, why bother to keep paying wages?