Marxist Animalism
- This topic has 973 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Meel wrote:Mcolome1 wrote:"Human beings are not animals, we are human beings, we came from the animal world thousands of years ago, but we separated ourselves from that world thousands of years ago too, it sounds like Neo-Darwinsim."I am interested to know, does this mean you reject, or disagree with, Neo-Darwinism?Does the Socialist Party disagree with Neo-Darwinism?Here is one definition of this term"“Neo-Darwinism, also called the modern evolutionary synthesis, generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics as the basis for biological inheritance, and mathematical population genetics. Although this was not the historical meaning of the term neo-Darwinism, it has been the popular and scientific use of the expression since the synthesis of the 1930s. (See Origin of the term neo-Darwinism.) Other terminology used synonymously with neo-Darwinism are modern synthesis, evolutionary synthesis, and neo-Darwiniansynthesis…..”http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Neo-Darwinism
It should have said Social Darwinism. Based on that concept that we are animals, the rulings class have justified their aim for accumulation of profits, they have justified their criminal wars, in the continents of the Americas the European applied that conception in order to kill 110 millions of 'Animals: called Indians ( The Indians are from India ) The so called Christians they said that the Indians and the blacks were half animals, they were not a complete animals, even more, they rejected their book of witchcraft known as the Bible by saying that the Indians and the Blacks did not have any soul because their were animals
John Oswald wrote:It is absolute absurdity to use dogs as models of human coronary heart disease, when meat, the diet perfect for dogs is the precise diet that contributes to heart disease in humans. Thus were the comments of Dr M.G. Marmot at the University of California, Berkeley, who found that there is an exact statistical correlation for all groups between consumption of saturated fats and cholesterol, and deaths due to coronary heart disease. Dr Marmot said the use of dogs in such studies were erroneous and only confused the issue.(M. Marmot, "Epidemiologic Studies of Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke in Japanese Men", American Journal of Epidemiology, 102:511, 1975.)The first ones who have rejected the discoveries of others doctors and scientists have been the doctors and the scientists themselves , and that is shown in the History of Medicine, and Medicine was for many years influenced by religion and mystical ideas, even more, before 1954 the whole idea was that doctors can not touch the heart because they were playing with god. The same ones who rejected the experiments on animals were the same ones that did not allow black and Indians in the hospitals, and the same ones who considered that blacks peoples did not have the brain and the intelligence to become doctors, and they kept themselves as an elite and special groups of peoples inside the hospitals. Psychologists were the first ones who supported and approved the use of tortures in Iraq, and that is nothing new because in the School of the Americas ( popular known as the Schools of Criminals ) they used psychologists in order to train the criminals who backed up the fascists criminals of the US government and the CIA That is shown in a book written by Doctor Vivien Thomas named Partners at Heart, and he was the first person who did a heart bypass, they have tried to reject his works because he was a poor black man who was able to prove that their were wrongs.Most discoveries and experiments were paid by the state ( not the so called taxpayers, workers do not pay taxes, they are paid by the capitalists ) in order to be applied to the Militaries, for wars, and the soldiers, the treatment of Trauma was first applied to the soldiers during world war two.You have not discovered the hot water,
John Oswald wrote:So, humans are not animals, let alone mammals, and also humans are the only beings who are social?*I think this demonstrates that what I referred to earlier – that human chauvinism among some socialists is far more serious than I thought! How abysmal!*What pathetic ignorance of the natural world!You are talking about bourgeois conceptions, but you are supporting social Darwinism which is a false conception created by bourgeois ideologists in order to justify the criminals actions of the capitalist classChauvinism is another conception wrongly used by you, because the real meaning is patriotism, and real socialists are not patriotic
John Oswald wrote:It is absolute absurdity to use dogs as models of human coronary heart disease, when meat, the diet perfect for dogs is the precise diet that contributes to heart disease in humans. Thus were the comments of Dr M.G. Marmot at the University of California, Berkeley, who found that there is an exact statistical correlation for all groups between consumption of saturated fats and cholesterol, and deaths due to coronary heart disease. Dr Marmot said the use of dogs in such studies were erroneous and only confused the issue.(M. Marmot, "Epidemiologic Studies of Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke in Japanese Men", American Journal of Epidemiology, 102:511, 1975.)Meat is not the only things that produces heart diseases and cancer, there are others factors. The Tainos used cassava ( Tuberculous ) in their daily diet, and they had an epidemic of diabetes and heart diseases.The epidemic of venereal diseases and tuberculosis imported by the invaders in the society of the Tainos was bigger than the diseases produced by their diet of eating fish and tuberculous.Cows have heart diseases because in some places they are using molasses and salt in their diet, that is a diet widely used in the Caribbean islands
You can post thousands of links, but you have not proven yet that animals are economically exploited When I see a dog, a cat, or a cow working on a factory producing surplus value, and receiving a salary, and producing wealth socially, then, I would be able to say that they are economically exploited
Quote:In any way, that is not the issue.My post was in reply to ALB's message #281, and not part of the exchange you are having with John Oswald
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:In any way, that is not the issue.My post was in reply to ALB's message #281, and not part of the exchange you are having with John Oswald
I know. I was just making a comments about his messages
alanjjohnstone wrote:I'm no expert on anthropology but it seems to me that early settlements were by the rivers or by the sea. Most likely for transportation ease but also i would hazard a guess, the abundance of available food from the water. We have raw fish – sushi…is there an effect on the teeth from eating that?…What about the bugs and snails that is eaten as part of a regular diet? Yes i go with the theory that as a scavenger species and probably not hunters, we were omnivores…In the US some even pride themselves still on eating road-kill.In any way, that is not the issue. He has to prove that animals are economical exploited in the same way that human being are exploited at the point of production. I have never seen a dog, cow, goat, chicken, or cat working in factory and producing surplus valueThe other issue is that, he has to prove that animals are socially productive like human being. Most Anthropologist have indicated that we want to assign human characters to the animals world. Animals act by instincts, we do not act by instincts, it is like the so called mother instinct, women do not have instincts, they are not animalsHe can publish thousands of books and links that probably be has not read, and it does not prove anything either, there are not homogeneity around scientists, and in this society sciences are also influenced by the bourgeois ideology. He is also using improperly the word bourgeois, or capitalist. A bourgeois is a person, or a group of person who own means of production and buy the labor power of another human being in order to produce profitsPD Anthropologists and historian have agreed that primitive man ate raw meat and raw vegetable, even within the society of the Tainos they lived along the river bank and they ate raw fish. In Alaska the native continue eating raw fish. Francis Jennings one of the biggest US Historian and Anthropologist have indicated that, (he did a much better research on the American Natives ( the real founders and discovers of the Americas than Lewis Morgan and Engels,) he indicates that they ate meat and raw vegetables, and tuberculous.He rejected the concept of Barbarian used by Lewis Morgan and Frederick Engels, and he also indicates that there is only one civilization, it was European man who started to use the concept or Western, or Eastern civilization, as well he rejected the concept of race, even more, human is not a race either.
A contribution to the debate http://www.remarxpub.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Animal-rights.pdf
Quote:Medicine assumes that human life has supreme value. When my patient has pneumonia, I try to destroy the invading microorganism. I do not grant the HIV virus the same right to live as a human being. Survival demands that we value human life over non-human life. That does not mean that animals must be cruelly treated. However, it does mean that they cannot have equal rights…..The fate of the animal world is inextricably tied to our own. As long as some people are allowed to exploit other people, animals will also be abused. Replacing capitalism with a cooperative socialist society will effectively end profit madness and all the human and animal suffering that goes with it…alanjjohnstone wrote:A contribution to the debate http://www.remarxpub.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Animal-rights.pdfQuote:Medicine assumes that human life has supreme value. When my patient has pneumonia, I try to destroy the invading microorganism. I do not grant the HIV virus the same right to live as a human being. Survival demands that we value human life over non-human life. That does not mean that animals must be cruelly treated. However, it does mean that they cannot have equal rights…..The fate of the animal world is inextricably tied to our own. As long as some people are allowed to exploit other people, animals will also be abused. Replacing capitalism with a cooperative socialist society will effectively end profit madness and all the human and animal suffering that goes with it…I rest my case. Using a few words, without so many links and without citing so many articles and books comrade Johnstone has summarized everything that we must say. The liberation of mankind through a real socialist society would be the liberation of the animal world, the planet, the plants, the forests and the natural resources from the hands of the capitalistsSocialists do not hate animals, our main priority is to work out the liberation of ourselves. The unification of our human world with the natural world. Like a friend of mine used to say: The Buffalo used to live with the Indians, and the Indians used to live with the buffalo
An interesting article on game shootinghttps://news.vice.com/article/millions-of-britains-birds-are-bred-in-battery-like-conditions-to-be-hunted-maimed-and-killed
"The liberation of mankind through a real socialist society would be the liberation of the animal world, the planet, the plants, the forests and the natural resources from the hands of the capitalists"Socialists do not hate animals, our main priority is to work out the liberation of ourselves. The unification of our human world with the natural world. Like a friend of mine used to say: The Buffalo used to live with the Indians, and the Indians used to live with the buffalo."I agree 100%. Well said. I`ve never disagreed with the fact that we need to establish world socialism. Indeed, we cannot act upon ethology`s – real science`s – advancements in our knowledge in recent decades of the social lives of nonhumans, nor protect them, until we have taken the world out of the hands of the capitalists who, with their lackeys, are ravaging and destroying it.What I am saying is that Marxists are especially slow, from what I have gathered, in appreciating the advancement of ethological knowledge and evolutionary knowledge made since the final decades of the 20th century up to, and continuing, today. They tend, instead, to be the ones actually favouring bourgeois, retrogressive "scientists" over real progressive scientists when it comes to our view of nonhuman animals. The reason for this, to my mind, is a confidence in Marx in every respect, not just in his field of human social and economic evolution, and a reluctance to subject his 19th century prejudices and ignorance to scrutiny in the light of modern science.It is true that this is not the purpose or priority of the World Socialist Movement, the priority of which has to be the establishment of world (human) socialism. Granted. But then, one must recognise that the term scientific socialist refers solely to a Marxist`s socialism, not to his worldview as a whole. Scientific socialist yes, but not scientific and socialist: since, apart from the matter of socialism (social history and economics), most Marxists are tragically unscientific!Marx had but an incomplete and rudimentary understanding of Darwin. His enthusiasm was mainly connected to the discomfort darwinism caused religionists and the bourgeois establishment of his day. I`m a Marxist, but only where Marx was correct, and so should socialists be. To religiously hold to him 100%, ignoring new developments in scientific understanding, i.e. on nonhuman life and societies and natural philosophy, should only be a virtue among the slavish Bolsheviks, who are into the cult of personality. Not real socialists.
John Oswald wrote:"The liberation of mankind through a real socialist society would be the liberation of the animal world, the planet, the plants, the forests and the natural resources from the hands of the capitalists"Socialists do not hate animals, our main priority is to work out the liberation of ourselves. The unification of our human world with the natural world. Like a friend of mine used to say: The Buffalo used to live with the Indians, and the Indians used to live with the buffalo."I agree 100%. Well said. I`ve never disagreed with the fact that we need to establish world socialism. Indeed, we cannot act upon ethology`s – real science`s – advancements in our knowledge in recent decades of the social lives of nonhumans, nor protect them, until we have taken the world out of the hands of the capitalists who, with their lackeys, are ravaging and destroying it.What I am saying is that Marxists are especially slow, from what I have gathered, in appreciating the advancement of ethological knowledge and evolutionary knowledge made since the final decades of the 20th century up to, and continuing, today. They tend, instead, to be the ones actually favouring bourgeois, retrogressive "scientists" over real progressive scientists when it comes to our view of nonhuman animals. The reason for this, to my mind, is a confidence in Marx in every respect, not just in his field of human social and economic evolution, and a reluctance to subject his 19th century prejudices and ignorance to scrutiny in the light of modern science.It is true that this is not the purpose or priority of the World Socialist Movement, the priority of which has to be the establishment of world (human) socialism. Granted. But then, one must recognise that the term scientific socialist refers solely to a Marxist`s socialism, not to his worldview as a whole. Scientific socialist yes, but not scientific and socialist: since, apart from the matter of socialism (social history and economics), most Marxists are tragically unscientific!Marx had but an incomplete and rudimentary understanding of Darwin. His enthusiasm was mainly connected to the discomfort darwinism caused religionists and the bourgeois establishment of his day. I`m a Marxist, but only where Marx was correct, and so should socialists be. To religiously hold to him 100%, ignoring new developments in scientific understanding, i.e. on nonhuman life and societies and natural philosophy, should only be a virtue among the slavish Bolsheviks, who are into the cult of personality. Not real socialists.I do not think the World Socialist Movement and its companion parties agreed on everything that Marx said or wrote, and we do not agree about what others so called Marxists have incorrectly said either.We have raised several critiques against Marx and Engels, and we have taken the best from him, and we have rejected whatever is wrong, and obsolete to our times.I personally I do not agree with many things that Engels wrote, and I think there were differences between Engels and Marx, and some wrong ideas expressed by Engels were used by the opportunist Lenin, but he wrote many things that were correct also.I do not think that Marx rejected Darwin, they were working in two different scientific fields, two different objectives, and two different times, and we have written about that too, and also Anton Pannekoek wrote about it. Marx was working in too many works and fields while he was alive, like a friend of mine said: "Too much work for one man" http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2010/no-1272-august-2010/marx-and-ideology-darwinhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2009/no-1254-february-2009/marx-and-engels-origin-specieshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm
I didn`t say he rejected Darwin, just that his understanding was imperfect and coloured by his time. The Party as a whole does seem to accept much of what is wrong, when Marx speaks of other animals, and modern science is shedding new light, via ethology, on the lives and societies of other animals. In this sense is the Party (and Marxists generally) loathe to depart from Marx.What you said earlier, about bourgeois "scientists" using other animals to denigrate the human race is true. They always point to competition and violence, etc., and never to the altruism and co-operation that are just as much part of other species` lives as they are of humans.
deleted
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.