Skip to Content

Marxist Animalism

417 posts / 0 new
Last post
Vin
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2011

Major McPharter wrote:

Will Oswald bring his blackshirts with him up to the north east ?

Divint wurry marra. Thail nivver stop wor pie and pee suppa neets. Gannaway wir a  a leek up the jacksey, Mare like

 

 

Bijou Drains
Bijou Drains's picture
Offline
Joined: 17/11/2015

Vin wrote:

Major McPharter wrote:

Will Oswald bring his blackshirts with him up to the north east ?

Divint wurry marra. Thail nivver stop wor pie and pee suppa neets. Gannaway wir a  a leek up the jacksey, Mare like

 

 

the last time a fascist caalled Oswald torned up in th’ Toon, me fatha an is Marras waddn’t let’m Gan t’th hoppins. He awnly wanted to gan on a shuggy,

 https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thefreelibrary.com/amp/Fighting+fascists+on+Tyneside%253B+When+the+leader+of+the+British+Union...-a0382399245


robbo203
Offline
Joined: 06/11/2011

Vin wrote:

Major McPharter wrote:

Will Oswald bring his blackshirts with him up to the north east ?

Divint wurry marra. Thail nivver stop wor pie and pee suppa neets. Gannaway wir a  a leek up the jacksey, Mare like

 

 

 

I tried "GeordieTranslator" on this but it dinna work.  http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

 

So c'mon guys, tell us .  What does "wor pie and pee suppa neets"  mean then?

TheMightyYoghourt
Offline
Joined: 02/01/2018

DJP wrote:

Who wants to spend all day working in a slaughterhouse?

Me. Only one day a week, though.  

Bijou Drains
Bijou Drains's picture
Offline
Joined: 17/11/2015

robbo203 wrote:

Vin wrote:

Major McPharter wrote:

Will Oswald bring his blackshirts with him up to the north east ?

Divint wurry marra. Thail nivver stop wor pie and pee suppa neets. Gannaway wir a  a leek up the jacksey, Mare like

 

 

 

I tried "GeordieTranslator" on this but it dinna work.  http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

 

So c'mon guys, tell us .  What does "wor pie and pee suppa neets"  mean then?

Wor = Our

Pie and Pee Suppa neets - Pie and Peas Supper nights. A traditional night of entertainment, usually focussed on fund raising or some other charitable cause, where savoury mince pies (usually large version known as plate mincve pies) and mushy peas (Geordie Guacamole) are consumed in large quantities (gravy optional). The evening may also involve a game of bingo or a beetle drive (this is not a cruel insect baiting activity). In times gome by further entertainment could be made by the singing of culturaly significant songs such as "wor Geordies Lost 'is Liggy" "Eeh Wor Nanny's a Mazer" "Keep ya feet Still Geordie Hinny" "The Blaydon Races" and south of the Tyne "The Lambton Worm".

 

https://www.newcastlegateshead.com/blog/read/2015/03/where-to-get-the-be...


alanjjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 22/06/2011

Quote:
So if we turn agricultural production over to purely agrarian farming, what do we do with the 9 billion animals that are ready for slaughter

Logistically, as i earlier posted the millions sheep and cows in the UK during foot and mouth were slaughtered.

But perhaps initially, and i can only speculate on this, the facilities at Greggs before turned to another use could produce some sort of processed meat pastie for immediate one-off distribution to the billion hungry around the world. 

As for volunteers to do the work even for one day although it has been referred to,  i think we under-estimated the psychological trauma abattoir workers under-go.

Quote:
Slaughterhouse workers face a variety of negative emotional and psychological consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)...These employees are hired to kill animals, such as pigs and cows, that are largely gentle creatures. Carrying out this action requires workers to disconnect from what they are doing and from the creature standing before them.

This emotional dissonance can lead to consequences such as domestic violence, social withdrawal, anxiety, drug and alcohol abuse, and PTSD...There is also evidence that this work leads to increased crime in towns with slaughterhouse factories. Amy Fitzgerald, a criminology professor at the University of Windsor Canada, argues that communities with a slaughterhouse have high crime rates because the workers are “desensitized” to the violence they commit and see at work. This desensitization is then reflected in their behavior outside of the factory. Whatever the meat may be, wherever it may be sold, and regardless of what the label says, every piece has one thing in common: there is a slaughterhouse worker who had to take the animal’s life, and that worker is likely experiencing some level of emotional trauma.

http://www.ptsdjournal.com/posts/the-psychological-damage-of-slaughterhouse-work/

An academic paper saying the same thing

https://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2157&context=honr_theses

"I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth, and I am a citizen of the World." - Eugene V. Debs

Young Master Smeet
Offline
Joined: 15/11/2011

I think there is a bigger picture (and this is an abbreviated form of a complex argument).

Capitalism favours capital intensive operations over labour intensive: profits flow towards capitalised industries.  Relative to arable and market garden production, flesh is more capital intensive, and less labour intensive.  Also, although capitalists want lean processes within the firm, and minimise - to use the jargon - the numbr of touches in an operation/service, they want to maximise the number of "touches" they can be involved in (short alternative, capitalists want to be the ineffiiciency in the system).  Further, capital wants to spare labour, in order to capture the value of other capitalist's labour inputs.

So, meat production is profitable, and processed meat production even more so.

Socialism would produce, not for profits, but for needs: for direct discrete objectives.  It would have no overarching aim of sparing labour (although we would obviously want to make our labour go as far as we can make it).  It would, though, want to simplify production.  Whilst Mises was wrong that the question of intermediate goods would make planning impossible, it is true that reducing the number of intermediate gods, of means of production and inputs, would simplify the planning process.  

Given the single biggest input in farming is animal fodder (i.e. food we've grown that we feed to ourselves, through animals), simplifying production by cutting out that stage would seem to be a winner (and would be compatable with our own ideas in Socialism as a practical alternative

SAPA wrote:
Socialism must immediately stop people dying from hunger; it must ensure adequate world food production. It must house the world’s population in comfort, providing for the basic necessities of piped clean water, drainage systems, decent cooking facilities and so on.
. This would leave meat production to truly marginal land or wild animals that are hunted.

alanjjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 22/06/2011

Today's Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/04/oceans-suffocating-d...

Quote:
Lucia von Reusner, campaign director the campaign group, Mighty Earth, which recently exposed a link between the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico and large scale meat production, said: “These dead zones will continue to expand unless the major meat companies that dominate our global agricultural system start cleaning up their supply chains to keep pollution out of our waters.”

Seems capitalism is going to give us a choice in the future....either steak and chips or fish and chips....One or the other, you can't have both.

"I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth, and I am a citizen of the World." - Eugene V. Debs

ALB
Offline
Joined: 22/06/2011

Interesting but equally interesting is that when you follow the links back to the original Mighty report it is not so much meat production as such that causes the problem as the production of food (the vegetables soya and maize) to feed the animals that later become meat.

The case for producing less meat (and it's a valid one) is that much meat production is inefficient and so wasteful in that the land used to grow animal feed could be better used to grow food for direct human consumption. In practice this would mean growing more soya as a substitute for meat as a source of protein. But under capitalism the same methods would be used by the same profit-seeking corporations to produce human food as to produce animal food, with the same effects on the environment.

In other words, the change in human food consumption is not likely to have the desired effect unless accompanied by the change from production for profit to production for use on the basis of common ownership, i.e from capitalism to socialism.

alanjjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 22/06/2011

I have re-read this long thread from the beginning to end and we are now repeating arguments long resolved, even the same jokes..

So here is my attempt to summarise on what we all agree upon.

We do not promote vegetarianism or veganism but we do acknowledge certain value in them, that for the well-being of ourselves and of our planet, we require to reduce our consumption of meat and curtail livestock farming. 

Our reply to those who place their priority in animal rights campaigns or lifestyle changes is that only within a socialist framework can a rational food policy not involving the mistreatment of animals be put into practice. Replacing capitalism with a cooperative socialist society will end the madness of the profit motive and all the human and animal suffering that goes with it. 

The liberation of mankind through a real socialist society would be the liberation of all the animal world and the natural resources from the hands of the capitalists.

The Socialist Party's main priority is to work for the liberation of ourselves. And as Marx said, the unification of our human world with the natural world. 

Meat-eating is deeply embedded in our culture and the multi-billion-dollar cattle and dairy industries are powerful and politically connected, making change of attitude difficult. But with socialism, we speculate that there will be less meat-eating because:

1.  meat-eating is not an efficient method of food production

2. that there is very good evidence that it is not nutritious or healthy, and

3. it is reprehensible to impose pain and suffering upon other living beings where there is no need to do so. 

4. Livestock rearing is a major contribution to global-warming hot-house gases

There is a better case for eating less beef than for sheep and goats which are more sustainable as they can graze on land that is not suitable for agriculture and is a rational way of using marginal land, while pigs and chickens exist on recycled human food waste in an efficient way and their manure used for fertiliser. So veganism/vegetarianism no, eating a lot less meat yes. Our case is for flexitarianism.

We must indeed avoid associating socialism with one particular lifestyle choice. Socialists are not on a crusade to proselytise for vegetarianism or veganism but as socialists, we envisage a rational well-planned society that will endeavour to be sustainable as far as possible.  We associate ourselves with the steady-state, zero-growth model of economy for a socialist society and we envisage an anti-consumerism trend to prevail and expect a drop in consumption levels (with the important caveat that there will be an initial phase of higher production to raise people to a decent standard of living.)

As John Oswald said in one of his posts although i might have edited it a bit

Quote:
Meat-eating will decline over time in socialism, because the profit system will have been scrapped. We don`t expect to see the hunting and eating of individual animals necessarily disappearing, or even the raising of animals for food, until quite some time, if ever. Socialism will provide a democratic forum which no one has today other than the capitalists, who will also have disappeared. Local and regional factors will also apply, with democracy working at a local as well as a global level. We don`t see anything being compulsory. Coercion is not compatible with socialism - unless it`s the coercion necessary initially in dispossessing the capitalist class.

"I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth, and I am a citizen of the World." - Eugene V. Debs

Login or register to post comments