Animal Abuse

[Garbanzo]

Under an Anarchist/Communism society how could the society make sure that animals are slaughtered and treated humanely?

[Decolonize The Left]

Under an Anarchist/Communism society how could the society make sure that animals are slaughtered and treated humanely?

Under the current capitalist system, animals are viewed as commodities - i.e. they are viewed purely in terms of the revenue they can produce. Hence they are abused, and no thought is given to their welfare.

Firstly, animals do not deserve to be treated "humanely." They are not humans. They do deserve respectful treatment, as they are living, breathing, beings which can feel pain - and it is the humans that much act humanely in respect to the animals themselves.

Secondly, within a communist/anarchist society, animals will not be treated as commodities. They will be just themselves - animals - which many may kill for food if necessary, and which some will use for other forms of produce (eggs, dairy, etc...). Hence the fundamental attitude towards their health will be different and will necessitate different treatment.

Thirdly, the organization of animal products will be different. It will not be a "for-profit" business, rather a "for-need" organization. There will be no reason to have massive factory farms, as economies will exist on a much smaller scale by necessity. This fact alone will change the relationship between humans and animals.

It is impossible to claim that animals will be treated perfectly in a communist/anarchist society, but it is safe to say that the formation of the economy and society will be different enough to necessitate a more human attitude towards the animals themselves.

- August

[Holden Caulfield]

a law enforced by the workers themselves, simple as that really.

it is illegal to cause undue harm to animals, if you work in a job where you are asked to do so, withdraw your labour and inform the local workers soviet,

if you are dismissed unfairly because of it you will be reinstated and those found to be guilt of being sadistic towards animals will be tried by the local soviet and removed from a position of power if found guilty.

i am no animal rights campaigner but we are advanced enough as a species to kill our food with out toying with it first.

[Cult of Reason]

In a sustainable economy, if meat is to be eaten and to be harvested from animals as is the case now, then I think that the most efficient methods of raising and slaughter will be used (probably in a (nearly?) fully automated process), necessitating large factories. These efficient methods will reduce the total amount of land and energy needed in order to produce meat, and so will be better for the environment.

Of course, the animals will probably "lose out", with less space, less movement etc. etc. etc., but that truly is a trivial matter. In this society animals are valued by capitalists for the profit they give them, while for the common people, both in this and the future society, the main value for animals will be the consumption of their meat.

[Garbanzo]

Firstly, animals do not deserve to be treated "humanely." They are not humans. They do deserve respectful treatment, as they are living, breathing, beings which can feel pain - and it is the humans that much act humanely in respect to the animals themselves.


Firstly, humanely does not mean treated like a human being. The definition with out the suffix is:
humane:characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed

Secondly, saying "animals do not deserve to be treated 'humanely.'" directly contradicts the following statement "They do deserve respectful treatment, as they are living, breathing, beings which can feel pain - and it is the humans that much act humanely in respect to the animals themselves."

Just correcting you for your own good. I knew what you meant. Good answer though.

[Decolonize The Left]

Firstly, humanely does not mean treated like a human being. The definition with out the suffix is:
humane:characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed

Secondly, saying "animals do not deserve to be treated 'humanely.'" directly contradicts the following statement "They do deserve respectful treatment, as they are living, breathing, beings which can feel pain - and it is the humans that much act humanely in respect to the animals themselves."

Just correcting you for your own good. I knew what you meant. Good answer though.

Point taken - thank you for the clarification.

Isn't it interesting that we use the word "humane," with the root being 'human,' to refer to characteristics which do not apply to a large number of human actions?

- August