Why isnt animal liberation

inseparable from humyn liberation? Shouldnt radical leftists also vouch for animal liberation?

I feel like yes but most folks dont so I just suck it up.

There was a lengthy debate on this somewhere - it could be the "Animal rights" thread or the "Do you eat meat?" thread. Don't remember.

Anyways, I think that animal liberation is very important (obviously); domination over other sentient beings and exploiting them for our own use to the extent we do now is objectionable. I'm not going to be ridiculous and say that everyone should become vegan (I know that won't work), but we can all agree that the level of meat production now is just wasteful and environmentally harmful, as well as degrading to the lives of the animals.
But I don't know if I'd say animal liberation is inseparable from human liberation. Saying they're inseparable suggests that the liberation is joined and liberation for one party will mean liberation for the other.

I do not agree with groups like the ALF/Earth First etc that put animals before humans though, and I believe as Communists that we should not take that stance either. It leads down to the slippery slope of primitivism and deep ecology that plagues the radical environmental movement.

Long story short, animals aren't going to occupy the slaughter-houses, beat up counter-revolutionaries or keep the rifles clean.

Any society that can grow the fuck up and realise that it can survive without eating animals has to first throw off the shackles of the great stupidifier, capitalism.

Any society that can grow the fuck up and realise that it can survive without eating animals has to first throw off the shackles of the great stupidifier, capitalism.

I must say, that quote and me must be love on first sight.

I notice, indeed, that mostly enviromentalism and leftism tend to go hand in hand, but unfortunately where 'radical' enviromentalists usually still are far-leftists, most revolutionairy leftists tend to forget about their fellow-breathers: the animals.

There was a lengthy debate on this somewhere - it could be the "Animal rights" thread or the "Do you eat meat?" thread. Don't remember.

Anyways, I think that animal liberation is very important (obviously); domination over other sentient beings and exploiting them for our own use to the extent we do now is objectionable. I'm not going to be ridiculous and say that everyone should become vegan (I know that won't work), but we can all agree that the level of meat production now is just wasteful and environmentally harmful, as well as degrading to the lives of the animals.
But I don't know if I'd say animal liberation is inseparable from human liberation. Saying they're inseparable suggests that the liberation is joined and liberation for one party will mean liberation for the other.

I do not agree with groups like the ALF/Earth First etc that put animals before humans though, and I believe as Communists that we should not take that stance either. It leads down to the slippery slope of primitivism and deep ecology that plagues the radical environmental movement.

I co-sign this. Alot of leftists say that humans are more important, which is disgusting because they take non-humans life for granted.

My vegan impulses come from the same place as my other revolutionary impulses--my belief in the individual's dignity and rights.

No, they are not linked because many leftists do not care about the rights of animals and just think they are a product. This is a ''evil'' (maybe subjective, but there you go) view that paints a picture of the far-left being as repulsive as the moderate and far-right. My belief that most far-leftists are really fighting for good was severely shaken by their support of such evil as animal abuse. I do not quite put other animals before humans, as human oppression is more important. To free humans will create a society where humans can work for the betterment of the whole Earth. However, I think speciesism is bullshit and humans do not have some innate superiority, they just are the top of the ladder evolutionary. There might well be more intelligent life elsewhere, does that mean that humans, being inferior intellectually and technically, should be tested on or eaten by them? People like the HPG would say something like ''no, it is wrong to eat or experiment on us humans because the effects are negative for mankind''. This is an absurd non-argument, as a reply back could be ''eating meat or animal testing causes negative effects for animals too''.