Marxist Animalism
- This topic has 973 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Again, I suggest members read BEASTS OF BURDEN.
Beasts of BurdenAvailable to read free online herehttps://archive.org/details/BeastsOfBurden_54I'll read it later.Naked Empress buy herehttp://www.amazon.com/Naked-Empress-Great-Medical-Fraud/dp/3905280027
There will have to be collective democratic agreements, not least a decision what to do about industrial scale grazing. I'd guess, myself, that aside from hunting genetically modified whales[*], animal raising will become restricted to marginal land that isn't any good for crops. the point is though, that it will be a democratic decision, and one that will doubtless be hotly debated.Now, where did I put by cybernetically enhanced Chimpanzee slave? [*] The genetic modification will be that they die painlessly when you give them a funny look.
Why not your cybernetically-enhanced human slave, speciesist?Have you got a special liking for whale meat, or something?
So if you located your present-day chimpanzee cousin, you`d enslave her? Wash your own damn clothes!
YMS, no intention of insulting your wife (if you are married)…just a pun on John Lennon/Yoko Ono…woman is the slave of the slave, the nigger of the worldhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA8N0xy3hjE
US government wants to reduce meat eating http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/07/why-the-governments-new-dietary-guidelines-could-be-a-nightmare-for-the-meat-industry/?tid=sm_fbI hold out no hope that there will be a dramatic change. After all the food industry succeeded in getting tomato ketchup included in the 5-a-day veg guidelines but it is a sign of change in attitude. Interesting graph on the carbon footprint of foods, though.
Someone has written the old slogan: "Our loyalty should be to our own species." But the interest of our own species is the respect and preservation of the other species. Some might like to imagine a future as all-human, with a few other species individuals kept in captivity as a souvenir of a past era. But you wouldn`t be able to live in such a world, and more to the point, why would you want to? All life is interconnected, as a true materialist would understand. The old "It`s us vs them" (humans vs other animals) doesn`t wash. The only us vs them is workers vs capitalists. It is in the interests of the workers to establish a society and a world of diversity and beauty. Socialists of the world, you have nothing to lose but your outdated, mechanistic, Cartesian chains!
ALB wrote:John Oswald wrote:The end of nonhuman exploitation and of human exploitation go together.That depends on your definition of "nonhuman exploitation". What it is? Is torture and cruelty to animals? Obviously that will go in socialism. Or is it that that they are used to provide food for humans? That this will go in socialism is far from obvious and uneforceable anyway.and makes us look fools or authoritarians if we say it will.
Is the Party majority`s view of fellow animals purely utilitarian? Food and/or decoration? How sad!
Vin wrote:I don't think I am misunderstanding it at all. I have nothing against animal rights groups but I would prefer to be in a socialist group. 'People before profits!' Not 'Pigs before people' Socialists are more concerned about human slaughter. But I have nothing against people forming a 'Pigs before people' group."When you have killed the last wolf, then will you be truly alone." Native American proverb.Without fellow animals, or with a purely utilitarian/exploitative view of them, there can be no world for socialists to live in. Life is one.Animal rights groups do not have the answer. Neither do Cartesian human-chauvinist socialists. But fully aware socialists do!
Vin wrote:I think this thread is a waste of time. It is not a class issue. Nor has it anything to do with socialism. There are more important issues. end of rantHow narrow! Socialism is about life. And life is about all of us, both human animals and nonhuman ones. The roots of exploitation are in you too. How are you going to establish a society free of exploitation if you are riddled with it yourself?
ALB wrote:Party members who are vegetarians should not advocate this in the name of the Party. That's the danger. That they are trying to convince the rest of us to become vegetarians is one reason why we cannot let religious people in. They would do the same and we'd be side-tracked into arguing amongst ourselves about that too.The argument is about shaking off the narrow and mechanist rut the Party majority are in, together with those generally who call themselves Marxist, and those who don`t but are trapped in a populist and ludicrous hierarchical view of evolution. I`m not requiring party members to become vegetarians. I do expect them to see the interconnectedness of life and of modes of exploitation, and take on board ethological advances. How are you feeling back there in the 1930s by the way?
John Oswald wrote:"When you have killed the last wolf, then will you be truly alone." Native American proverb.So the native Americans were vegitarians? Or hypocrites that ate meat and wore animal skins?John Oswald wrote:How are you going to establish a society free of exploitation if you are riddled with it yourself?There is really no need to get personal just because I disagree with you. It is regrettable that my opinion saddens you but then I see many sad things in the world and my opinion should be the least of your concerns because if we do manage to bring about a revolution then we will have no need to torture animals for profit.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.