Morality, Emotion and Politics

Good topic for discussion. I don't think anyone would say that emotional arguments don't have any basis. However what chilli sauce was saying was that the argument didn't rise above an emotional level.

So avoiding the emotive subject of animal rights, let's use sweatshops as an example instead. An emotional argument would be sweatshops are bad, therefore people who buy sweatshop products are bad.

This does not rise above an emotional level. I wouldn't say there are a hierarchy of responses, but I would say that you can also make logical arguments, or radical arguments (or many other types, I'm just thinking of a couple).

Even on purely logical grounds, you could argue that as sweatshops are bad, anyone who buys sweatshop products are also bad. But if you want to make a radical argument, then you need to go bit deeper than that. So what is "bad"? Sure, sweatshops are bad, but we want to end them. And does dismissing, or hating, or wishing physical violence upon those who use sweatshop products help bring them to an end?

I don't think so. So then what would? Workers organising, and ultimately fighting against sweatshop conditions. So instead of hating people who use sweatshop products, it makes more sense to support workers' organising efforts in sweatshop industries.

Webby

So, many times, on various topics, the subject of morals and emotions in relation to political views has come up and I've never really understood the reasoning that communism has nothing to do with morals or ethics. Sure, I know that it is centred around the power relations created and sustained by capital but surely there is more to it than that? I consider all oppression to be immoral/unethical. There is right and wrong in the world and these are surely subject to moral examination?

I first came to denounce capitalism and support communism on ethical grounds. I was young and upset with my material situation and what I saw going on in the world. I only later came to understand materialist arguments against capitalism, and these quickly gained my support in that they offer 'stronger' (not couched in individual conceptions of right/wrong) arguments. I guess this is the root of my 'hierarchy' of argument. I know that emotional / moral experiences are important, humanistic aspects of life; they are just unneeded in order to effectively and consistently denounce capitalism or support communism.

The thing I took away from my experience is that capitalism essentially forbids moral / ethical consistency if one wishes to exist. Simply living in this shit show implicates oneself in a litany of abysmal practices of which the poor morals/ethics of are beyond question (wage labor!). We may all soon have our fossil fuel chickens come home to roost as it seems that we'll soon be experiencing yet another post-Pleistocene mega-fauna extinction. But how, (and is it even possible), to disentangle oneself from such slaughter?

The point here is that within capitalism; one can only shape their lives into a morally consistent whole to a very limited degree. To use the vegan example (sorry!!!), folks are making this judgement call where they are willing to support mass marine life die offs to a greater degree (thanks to agriculture) in order to disentangle themselves from the dire consequences of factory farming. It really is a shit show out there. So, full communism and all that.

I think that some of the heckle raising you get out of meat-eaters in the vegan argument has its roots in this understanding. While maybe it goes unsaid, the bad attitude is rooted in this thought:
If indeed we are all morally inconsistent within capitalism - why do you get to hang my implication in factory farming over my head while you're killing the oceans with fertilizer?

Finally, I think this is the root of why so many libcommers reject moral / emotional arguments. It is based in an understanding of the fuckyness of capitalism in this respect - and any such argument is considered instantly suspicious in that it is all but assured the person is deeply inconsistent (just as you are yourself) in their choices / actions..

p.s.

Wanted to add that I am not sold on the idea that humanity will be morally consistent within communism. I happen to think it has a better chance of offering that opportunity (oh to live without contradiction, a true joy!) to a great many people than the current circus.

Good posts from Steven and Booze. Webby, sorry to hear you're dealing with that shit, feel free to PM if you wanna chat.

I don't actually have any objection to having a moral stance on capitalism or animal welfare or sweatshops or whatever. I think it's quite normal that a lot of our ideas start from a moral standpoint and then we build and develop and refine them from there.

I mean, when I made the point that farm animal suffering should, in an ideal world, be kept to a bare minimum, that's a moral judgement. But then, just like Steven and sweatshops, I'd build up from there looking at the social and economic context in which animal are kept for food or as pets or whatever.

But the point I was trying to make was that other posters on the thread were bringing in cultural arguments or biological arguments - arguments that I think should be considered alongside moral ones - and the response given to those was, more often than not, an emotional one. So it's not that there's a hierarchy of arguments as such, but that I feel in a debate one side should be address that type of arguments put forward by the other.

Another example might be to think about the emotional response to crime or terrorism. We all know people of the lock 'em up or ban 'em all persuasions. And while some of those people are just racist douchebags, I think a lot of those responses are emotionally motivated: fear, insecurity, anger. All of which are totally reasonable.

However, when those same people won't engage beyond that initial emotional response, it becomes very difficult to discuss how poverty or US foreign policy or whatever fuels terrorism or crime. When presented with arguments outside of emotional ones and people only respond with emotion - regardless of the legitimacy of those emotions or how deeply they experience those emotions - I think it's fair to be critical of those who are unwilling to step outside their own personal emotional experience.

Some reasonable responses to Webby's questioning so long as we don't lose sight of the way in which moral and emotional responses are rooted in and reflect the different material conditions of different societies both historically and geographically as well as different class and other social and economic divisions in society. We 'pro-revolutionaries' are a product of these as with everyone else.

What I don't understand though is that our ideas are often created from a seed of moralism and emotions such as anger, empathy or whatever but by the time an idea is fully developed the moral and emotional aspect has been dismissed. I've gleaned this from many previous discussions but it makes no sense to me.

So I don't think I've done this, but I would say that I see just as much a danger in allowing (or at least not guarding against allowing) emotions to trump reason.

That said, I remember reading about or hearing some of the old-timey Wobblies talking about how the people who only came to the class struggle from an intellectual standpoint just didn't have the stomach for the fight in the way those who came to the fight from an emotional standpoint did - although I suppose we could debate whether that emotional conviction came from a material interest in the success of a particular struggle.

Webby

I'm with you on this. What I don't understand though is that our ideas are often created from a seed of moralism and emotions such as anger, empathy or whatever but by the time an idea is fully developed the moral and emotional aspect has been dismissed. I've gleaned this from many previous discussions but it makes no sense to me. A very large part of what we are and how we react to life are our morals and emotions. Remove this from our position and we become mere dogmatists with all the spirit and zealousness removed from our action. Now, with anarchists I suspect that this is only rarely the case but I do believe it's somewhat of a taboo. Admit to being fuelled, in part by ethics or whatever and the accusations of liberalism soon appear. Like with animal lib, the association with lifestylism almost makes it an unsuitable topic to even consider.
If the argument is that practicality is required I wouldn't disagree. The question would be though, is it practical to reject emotion when it is the very essence of what we are?

It's not about rejecting emotion, it's about rejecting reliance on it when we know for a fact that an emotional response is often a bad one. How many times have you let anger drag you into a stupid / dangerous situation? A taxi driver drove his car directly at me and my girlfriend because he was being an arsehole and I told him so. If you'd asked him if he was going to try to kill someone becuase they were stopped at a light they didn't realise was broken he'd have said no. If you' asked me if I would risk our lives because someone was beeping his horn and shouting me I'd have said no.
So while my emotions are an important part of who we are we can't rely on them to make decisions because they often short circuit rational thought.
I don't think that there's anything wrong with a moral standpoint, but that's not the same as emotional, although it too can be irrational.
I think that in the case of animals it's odd to put their welfare on the same level as that of humans and it is an emotional or moral argument that isn't always practical nor desirable. For example if we want to keep wolf populations then we need prey for them, if wolves can have prey then why can't we...

Webby

Previously on Libcom the opposition to these things has been very hardline and dismissive.

we are pretty much getting back onto the subject people can't seem to discuss in a civil manner. But if you are seriously talking about other people being hardline, do you not remember you said that everyone who disagrees with you (i.e. almost everyone in the world, including most posters here, most of our friends and families etc) deserve to get the shit beaten out of them? You don't think that is a hardline view?

Webby I think you’re reacting to a whole synthetic orientation that denies the natural world, which from my own point of view is where your urge to re-integrate emotions into politics comes from, and is expressed in your concern for animals other than ourselves. The mild schizophrenia of the commonly adopted cerebral bias in the assumption of the false dichotomy ‘emotion’/’reason’ is for me just another aspect of the deformation of people by capitalism. There are both rational and irrational thoughts just as there are both rational and irrational feelings and actions. If any thought, feeling or act is rational it will encourage the whole organism it is part of to develop and function, whereas the irrational is that which tends to inhibit, undermine or destroy it. We can all think of examples where the irrational side of our characters got the better of us in all of these ways. They are all really part of each other, in the absence of some form of clinical pathology.

It doesn’t need Sherlock Holmes to detect that other animals are much more rational than we are, since most animal behavior is determined almost entirely by instincts which, from an evolutionary perspective are exactly what is needed to sustain and promote function and growth. Only humans (and defective animals), who lack sufficient instinctual equipment more than any other creature, are capable of irrationality.

Of course we are materially limited by ecology, climate, socioeconomics, technology, culture, etc.. and in order to function in an insane society such as this one it’s much more rational to be insane yourself, since sanity only drives a person psychotic in this shithole. And so we compromise by adapting to the sick environment that has conditioned us. And if the environment is one in which the intellect is all and the affective life has withered to the dismal and stunted proportions of this era, then rational, life enhancing passions will not really have had the chance to develop or will have become blunted or have shrunk to such crude levels that irrational, life throttling idiocies will now dominate, such as the drive to collect lifeless objects (which are all that really exists in this mentality), to win, to be a consummate sexual technician, to destroy, to go fast and be at one with the machine (which not only betrays how infantile it all is but demonstrates the symbiotic aspect of so much of this cerebral, mechanical, petty narcissism), to be superior, to use yourself as an instrument, a commodity operated by calculating, instrumental logic. Now why would capitalist society - taking its cue from science, of course - encourage such a thingified approach, in which the whole world is only a set of objects to be used effectively, if in the process it engenders in the population a chronic form of mild autism, a condition in which a recognition of the difference between living and nonliving is lacking and accompanied by a pronounced interest in the mechanical rather than the living, in which there is a strong attachment to inanimate objects and an inability to relate to others, an obsessive drive to preserve an unchanging environment, to be left alone, to only use language to manipulate not communicate, etc? Who can tell?

Material conditions aside, some rather stubborn people just aren’t into this sort of thing, and recognize that it isn’t that history makes us but that we create ourselves within the historical process and that we can do this rationally or irrationally with our actions, intellects and emotions all at the same time. It’s only emotionally unintelligent lazy dogma to churn out either/or schemes for how things are that cripple any real understanding. You should take a look at that Hilary Putnam book I sent you a pdf of on this subject, The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy.

So I guess we all agree that rationality should be combined with emotions (particularly emotions rooted in empathy and caring and compassion)? Good.

I totally disagree with the claim that the vegan arguments have been only emotional. I also disagree that they have been emotional in a way that is out of balance with reason.

On this more recent thread, I didn’t bust out my large and long litany of rationally based reasons for this issue. But I have in past threads – including addressing the bullshit of consumer politics or shopping based activism – only to see each one of my points ignored or twisted with a seemingly willful misinterpretation. I have seen Webby and others who advocate respect for animals do the same, and get the same response. I’m so sick of that shit, you know what I’m saying?

In this recent go around, was I a little more emotionally oriented? Maybe, but I was not unbalanced with rationality either. Maybe people were too emotional to notice that? ;)

There is plenty of rational discussion to be had here, but if people can’t even grasp enough empathy for farm animals to see that their lives matter more than our taste-buds or our aversion to temporary inconvenience of making a few changes, then all the reason in the world will be lost on them.

Psychopaths don’t have empathy for their victims, and you can reason to them about their abusive behavior until the cows come home (home to the farm sanctuary, let’s hope!), but none of it will matter until empathy is achieved.

This is why a lot of my focus this time was on trying to make people have some sort of empathetic epiphany. But I had logical reasons for doing so.

There are also logical reasons why the lives of animals deserve to be valued (at least more than our taste buds and our desire to avoid temporary inconvenience), and I was trying to lay out some of those reasons, or at least ask questions to get people to think about it for themselves.

The video about the intense friendship between the man and the goose, or about the pig who saved the life of her beloved human friend – yes, these stories have emotional appeal. But they also expose some of the rational reasons why the lives of animals deserve respect – because animals feel and love, they experience joy and pain, much like us. Human lives matter for these reasons, too – because of our capacity to find life enjoyable and interesting, because of our capacity to matter to and become dear to each other.

Haha, how did I miss the Sherlock post the first time? I wouldn't make a very good detective!
Neither would those who didn't get it was a joke! ;)

Thank you ultraviolet. Psychopaths don't have empathy for their victims, as you say, and the bourgeoisie as a class is the ultimate psychopath having empathy for nothing except money, competition and profit.

The bourgeois as a class don't respect the lives of animals. This is true. Neither do they respect the lives of humans, the life of the planet, it's forests, oceans, eco systems and even its future. They have the most childish of moral outlooks, only being concerned generally about their own piddling and quaint property rights.

They have no understanding at all of what an ethical approach to life on this planet might consist in, and how everything about the planet and the life on it is vitally connected, because they are an outmoded class of human life themselves, for whom the emotional and cognitive responses to life and being alive have got devastatingly separated. They exist in a kind of rationalised schizophrenia, where war, murder, cruelty and oppression are as acceptable as dining out.

The bourgeoisie is restricted and alienated in their thinking and being, and this trauma results from their own capitalistic relations of production, whereby all life and even the planet itself is commoditised and up for sale!

Capitalism is a pathology rendered rational through its denial of human emotion and its overemphasis of the cognitive delights emanating from the logic of the market, academicism and science-for-profit; with art, literature, music, sport and entertainment available for those that can afford such pleasures in their commoditised form.

As Webby pioints out in his first post above, communism has everything to do with morality and ethics. When we finally achieve communism, if as a race we are capable of getting there, and it isn't too late already, we will be able to restore the unity implicit in being human, and thinking and feeling will no longer be at odds with each other.

I'm glad this thread is going in a much more comradely direction, UV, good to see you're still around.

I'm pretty much being told it's all about balance which is the point I'm trying to make myself

The thing is though here, Webby, I'm just not sure this is true. I don't feel like there was much attempt from the vegan folks on that thread to really engage with a lot of the arguments put forward by the non-vegans. Or to understand that while the non-vegans might share a lot of beliefs in common with them in regards to humane treatment of animals, but not extend it rejecting the use or consumption of animals altogether.

It seemed fairly all or nothing: either the non-vegans needed to accept that that eating meat was bad (often presented as a fait accompli) or they were assholes who needed to be shouted at. That doesn't really feel like trying to find a balance to me.

On the subject of this thread, wonderful post jojo. It isn't science but a widespread symbiotic scientistic necrophilia that's at the heart of much of this: oneness with the machine, oneness with that which is lifeless. My only hesitation as I read your post was that even though the problem emanates from the system of the rulers it definitely also encompasses the ruled, without whom none of it would be possible, which is a major factor in why it has proven so difficult get rid of, and why the usual appeal to cold, economic self-interest not only completely misses the point but has never worked.

ultraviolet

There is plenty of rational discussion to be had here, but if people can’t even grasp enough empathy for farm animals to see that their lives matter more than our taste-buds or our aversion to temporary inconvenience of making a few changes, then all the reason in the world will be lost on them.

Psychopaths don’t have empathy for their victims, and you can reason to them about their abusive behavior until the cows come home (home to the farm sanctuary, let’s hope!), but none of it will matter until empathy is achieved.

this kind of crap, calling everyone who doesn't have exactly the same emotional response as you a psychopath is exactly the kind of stuff the lead to the other thread going to shit, well and webby being admin: no flaming. This is a warning. , and ironically it show a lack of empath for other humans

factvalue

It doesn’t need Sherlock Holmes to detect that other animals are much more rational than we are, since most animal behavior is determined almost entirely by instincts which, from an evolutionary perspective are exactly what is needed to sustain and promote function and growth. Only humans (and defective animals), who lack sufficient instinctual equipment more than any other creature, are capable of irrationality.

you remove all meaning form words, this is nonsense

you remove all meaning form words

Indeed it is. Yet again you aren't familiar with any of my sources and happy to just let the ping pong commence. I've been better entertained.

Instincts are not rational. Animals will do all sorts of stupid things and these can very easily lead to their deaths etc. Just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good, any more than articificial is bad. Unless you are romanticising a state of nature...

This is relevant. The text below is a book excerpt, but won't use the quote box to avoid the grey and harder to read font.

Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence, pp. 27-29:

Consider, too, the role of emotions in even the most "rational" decision-making. In work with far- reaching implications for understanding mental life, Dr. Antonio Damasio, a neurologist at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, has made careful studies of just what is impaired in patients with damage to the prefrontal-amygdala circuit. Their decision-making is terribly flawed — and yet they show no deterioration at all in IQ or any cognitive ability. Despite their intact intelligence, they make disastrous choices in business and their personal lives, and can even obsess endlessly over a decision so simple as when to make an appointment.

Dr. Damasio argues that their decisions are so bad because they have lost access to their emotional learning. As the meeting point between thought and emotion, the prefrontal-amygdala circuit is a crucial doorway to the repository for the likes and dislikes we acquire over the course of a lifetime. Cut off from emotional memory in the amygdala, whatever the neocortex mulls over no longer triggers the emotional reactions that have been associated with it in the past — everything takes on a gray neutrality. A stimulus, be it a favorite pet or a detested acquaintance, no longer triggers either attraction or aversion; these patients have "forgotten" all such emotional lessons because they no longer have access to where they are stored in the amygdala.

Evidence like this leads Dr. Damasio to the counter-intuitive position that feelings are typically indispensable for rational decisions; they point us in the proper direction, where dry logic can then be of best use. While the world often confronts us with an unwieldy array of choices (How should you invest your retirement savings? Whom should you marry?), the emotional learning that life has given us (such as the memory of a disastrous investment or a painful breakup) sends signals that streamline the decision by eliminating some options and highlighting others at the outset. In this way, Dr. Damasio argues, the emotional brain is as involved in reasoning as is the thinking brain.

The emotions, then, matter for rationality. In the dance of feeling and thought the emotional faculty guides our moment-to-moment decisions, working hand-in-hand with the rational mind, enabling — or disabling — thought itself. Likewise, the thinking brain plays an executive role in our emotions — except in those moments when emotions surge out of control and the emotional brain runs rampant.

[...]

This turns the old understanding of the tension between reason and feeling on its head: it is not that we want to do away with emotion and put reason in its place, as Erasmus had it, but instead find the intelligent balance of the two. The old paradigm held an ideal of reason freed of the pull of emotion. The new paradigm urges us to harmonize head and heart. To do that well in our lives means we must first understand more exactly what it means to use emotion intelligently

Which animals Jef? What things? Instincts can only be rational from my point of view, which was:

If any thought, feeling or act is rational it will encourage the whole organism it is part of to develop and function, whereas the irrational is that which tends to inhibit, undermine or destroy it.

Rational in my view means that which promotes life, not death. An instinctual creature may do 'stupid' things but only in its attempt to continue to function, grow and thrive. Among instinctual animals there doesn't seem to me to be quite the same level of, oh I don't know maybe mass murder or the destruction of the planetary bases for complex life despite possession of all the relevant knowledge due to all manner of unconscious psychopathological deformations resulting from millennia of authoritarian abuse. Unless you live on a different planet to me..

People have often rejected this definition of the rational because it doesn't correspond to the commonly accepted framework promoted by the dominant system, which it deliberately sets itself in opposition to. But all their arguments show is that there is nothing like this definition in the scheme of the dominant system, not that it does not apply to the world.

factvalue #15

I agree with this post except for this paragraph:

‘It doesn’t need Sherlock Holmes to detect that other animals are much more rational than we are, since most animal behavior is determined almost entirely by instincts which, from an evolutionary perspective are exactly what is needed to sustain and promote function and growth. Only humans (and defective animals), who lack sufficient instinctual equipment more than any other creature, are capable of irrationality.’

Homo sapiens are the most successful branch of apes on earth. Though many of our ‘cousins’ became extinct we not only sustained ourselves, we multiplied and covered the planet. This I understand was due to several factors not least was our brain, which enabled us to successfully communicate and cooperate. Instead of acting on our fight or flight instincts as other creatures do, we were able to develop strategies to overcome seemingly impossible obstacles. Our brains are creative and imaginative.
On the down side we have also created an economic system which is now devouring the planet. This is I believe the inheritance of a history driven by the need to overcome scarcity. As such it is now obsolete. We are not mad or irrational rather it is the economic system - always in crisis, which horrifies and distorts our judgement.

Hi I'll eat whatever I have to to stay alive. I guess I'm not alone in this as it would explain human existence. Maybe some humans, some people, think they have the luxury of choosing what they can and cannot consume to keep themselves alive. I believe that's something for individuals to decide for themselves, but it has no part in a revolutionary movement to replace capitalism and the state.

Auld-bod

On the down side we have also created an economic system which is now devouring the planet. This is I believe the inheritance of a history driven by the need to overcome scarcity. As such it is now obsolete. We are not mad or irrational rather it is the economic system - always in crisis, which horrifies and distorts our judgement.

Exactly. When you look at an individual level, people generally make rational decisions. However we live our lives in circumstances not of our choosing, and in a completely irrational economic system.

So while on a macro level you can say for example "it's irrational for workers to support capitalism, not overthrow it etc", on an individual level it is entirely rational as everyone individual has bills to pay, needs to get a job etc and there are good reasons why most people don't want to put their heads above the parapet.

I agree with nearly all of that Auld-Bod, since I don't think there's much difference between your 'horrified judgement' and my own conceptions of irrational deformations of character, except that I believe the circumstances causing the deformation are the price paid for a lot of intellectual, scientific and artistic achievements, particularly the deformation and shriveling of our affective capacities.

We really shouldn't be patting ourselves on the backs at the moment over how successful our brains have been in helping us in the survival stakes, not least since we haven't really been around that long as a species. What distinguishes homo sapiens from other primates is not the use of thought as an instrument for the satisfaction of our needs, there can't be many animals that don't do that. It's our self-awareness, the basis of our capacity for reasoning and understanding the world, beyond survival or the satisfaction of needs. It has allowed us to create our current situation for example (!) because it has also put us unavoidably out of existential equilibrium, driving us to create larger and larger social cages to feel secure, which make us feel continually more submissive, afraid and helpless. The economics are entangled with the affective.

radicalgraffiti

this kind of crap, calling everyone who doesn't have exactly the same emotional response as you a psychopath is exactly the kind of stuff the lead to the other thread going to shit

I did not call you or other non-vegans psychopaths. I hope nobody else interpreted it that way. I should have made myself clearer. Let me try again.

Psychopaths have an extreme deficiency of empathy and compassion in general. This deficiency applies to everyone.

I'm not trying to say that non-vegans have a severe deficiency of empathy and compassion overall. I'm saying they have a severe deficiency of empathy and compassion for animals.

There can of course be inconsistencies and contradictions in that. They might be very compassionate with dogs and cats they volunteer with at a shelter.

But to choose to value your taste-buds over the life of an animal, to place your aversion to temporary inconvenience above your aversion to the killing/murder of animals, indicates a deficiency of compassion and empathy and basic respect for those animals.

So we could easily say that humans have a psychopathic relationship towards animals, or at least animals who are used for certain purposes. Again, there can be and are contradictions, but towards farm animals humans are generally psychopathic -- with so little empathy and respect for their life that it amounts to almost nothing... certainly not more than a piece of cheese, a steak, or an omelette.

factvalue

You should take a look at that Hilary Putnam book I sent you a pdf of on this subject, The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy.

Woah dude! You must feel really stoked that this esteemed author named her book after you???! I suppose you were a great inspiration to her work?

Fai1937

Hi I'll eat whatever I have to to stay alive.

Good news, comrade. You don't *have* to eat any animals or any food that comes from the bodies of animals in order to stay alive (and healthy).
;)

What distinguishes homo sapiens from other primates is not the use of thought as an instrument for the satisfaction of our needs, there can't be many animals that don't do that. It's our self-awareness, the basis of our capacity for reasoning and understanding the world, beyond survival or the satisfaction of needs.

I'm not a philosopher and maybe this is all semantic, but you can you have thought without self-awareness? To me, thought implies abstract thinking, reasoning, symbolism, conscious planning beyond the immediacy. Animals obviously use their brains and make decisions, but I wouldn't call that thought if they don't have an awareness of their own consciousness.

Anyway, just on the psychopath thing, we should probably try to avoid emotive terms - and I think that cuts both ways. The term "murder" was used a lot on that other thread to describe the killing of animals for human consumption. - with the sort of implication that those who consumed animal products were complicit in that murder. That would seem to be suggesting that non-vegans were pretty psychopathic.

The human race need not applaud itself though it should not be presented as a deficit model of evolution. It is the positive aspects of humanity, which will grow the antibodies to reject the self-hatred that capitalism generates. It is this negative view of itself that makes people indifferent to the fate of other species.

The most hopeful time I remember was in the late 1960s/early 70s, when a political idea like ‘imagination seizing control’ was not considered too risible. The organised working class were at their most self-confident and the wheel of history appeared to be about to turn (eventually it did, but in the wrong direction from a revolutionary point of view). We must look for and encourage a similar engagement of creative self-expression, political and cultural.

factvalue

Which animals Jef? What things? Instincts can only be rational from my point of view, which was:

If any thought, feeling or act is rational it will encourage the whole organism it is part of to develop and function, whereas the irrational is that which tends to inhibit, undermine or destroy it.

Animals will allows their instinct to reproduce to commit incest which directly damages the species.
Lots of animals can use other animals' instincts to trick them.
In response to irritation or minor injuries cats, for example, wil lick/scratch their skin off.

Instincts are behaviours that have become ingrained because they were useful and can remain even when those behaviours are no longer useful or are even harmful. In the same way as an animal can evolve but if it cannot adapt when there is a problem with its food source it will die out. (the problem may be self-created) An instinct is only good as long as the context doesn't change or the instinct can be changed. Like all things developed via evolution developing instincts can be extremely wasteful.

I know that when I'm in the supermarket - that mushroom risotto always looks appealing.

However I don't feel I have to limit my choices to compensate for feeling powerless about other areas of my life.

I'm an amazing person, really I am. I should have been dead years ago but still my lovely life goes on and just gets better. Seriously better as I continue to keep an open mind and positive approach to our revolutionary struggle.

ultraviolet

Fai1937

Hi I'll eat whatever I have to to stay alive.

Good news, comrade. You don't *have* to eat any animals or any food that comes from the bodies of animals in order to stay alive (and healthy).
;)

Animals will allows their instinct to reproduce to commit incest which directly damages the species.

Yes, all animals (honestly, that was a bit of a weird one Jef, it wouldn't be a great conversation opener at parties, well not the one's I go to anyway).

Lots of animals can use other animals' instincts to trick them.

And yet the prey continue to survive, go figure!

In response to irritation or minor injuries cats, for example, wil lick/scratch their skin off.

So do mad people, do they do this by instinct as well? How do you know? What is an instinct?:

Instincts are behaviours that have become ingrained because they were useful and can remain even when those behaviours are no longer useful or are even harmful. In the same way as an animal can evolve but if it cannot adapt when there is a problem with its food source it will die out. (the problem may be self-created) An instinct is only good as long as the context doesn't change or the instinct can be changed. Like all things developed via evolution developing instincts can be extremely wasteful.

That's certainly one part of it, instincts require ecological niches. How does any of this make instincts irrational?

Hi Boozemonarchy.

I remember when I used to misread your name as “boozemanarchy” – it made me imagine a booze loving manarchist. LOL. What a disappointment when I realized you were but a booze loving monarchist! :D

So, I’d like to try to answer your questions / address your concerns that you presented on this thread and on the “Heartfelt Seasons’ Greetings” thread.

I’ll start with this:

why do you get to hang my implication in factory farming over my head while you're killing the oceans with fertilizer?

An omnivore diet creates far more agricultural runoff into oceans and water sources than does a vegan diet. (Vegetarian diets are in the middle.) Even if we’re in full communism, we’d have a hard time stopping and reversing oxygen deprived ocean dead-zones (eutrophication) or ocean acidification without vastly reducing the amount of animal agriculture on our planet.

We feed food to animals and then eat those animals or eat the dairy or eggs they produce. There is a loss in calories, protein, and nutrients if we had just eaten crops directly. This should be obvious – the animals have to use some of those calories, protein, and nutrients to stay alive before we kill/murder and eat them. We get what's leftover -- whatever they didn’t use and have stored in their bodies.

This means that, generally speaking, the more animal-based foods someone eats, the more cropland is required to support their diet. More agriculture, more fertilizer, more runoff.

And not just that. There are billions of farm animals around the world and between them they produce billions and billions of turds. This makes its way into water systems and oceans, with devastating effects.

Animal manure is used for fertilizer, but most of it goes unused and just devastates the environment. If we got rid of animal agriculture, we wouldn’t need to replace animal manure with synthetic fertilizer. There’s another natural source of fertilizer that we forget exists. Can you guess? Think about it carefully next time you have a minute – maybe next time you’re sitting on the toilet. (There’s a hint there ;) )

Getting back to the health of the oceans, commercial fishing has an incredibly devastating effect on ocean ecosystems, as nets drag across the ocean and destroy and kill everything in their path.

The United Nations, in their study “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, has named animal agriculture the number one cause of greenhouse gas, too – ahead even of transportation.

This video (less than 10 minutes) covers a lot of statistics about animal agriculture’s horrendous impact on the environment, with sources given: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpmTiHjUEBU

You also had another more complicated question/concern which I’ll address in another post. Hang tight!

[youtube]KpmTiHjUEBU[/youtube]

factvalue

Lots of animals can use other animals' instincts to trick them.

And yet the prey continue to survive, go figure!

In response to irritation or minor injuries cats, for example, wil lick/scratch their skin off.

So do mad people, do they do this by instinct as well? How do you know? What is an instinct?:

Incest was just one that clearly proved the point, so you snarked.
My point wasn't that prey were wiped out, but that their instincts could get them killed, which was a direct response to your assertion that instincts are rational because they protect life, so you snarked.
I give another example, which to be fair you almost responded to. Let's be clear, I've never said people don't have instincts, we do and they're not always good, which is, unsurprisingly, what I have been saying all along.
factvalue

That's certainly one part of it, instincts require ecological niches. How does any of this make instincts irrational?

Because an instinct is not developed rationally, it is a correct response that becomes automatic regardless of why it began. That means that in situations where it is inappropriate it is still the response generated.

Now I don't know how much of your belief in a perfect ecological balance etc comes from ideology and how much from The Lion King, but I'm not going to waste more time on your snarking and bad faith. You're looking for a row with a meat-eater and I'm not giving you one. What you're saying about instincts at the very least needs to be qualified and is part of some rosy idea of a state of nature as an ideal which is simply not the case, and even if this line of reasoning were not flawed there's some evidence that would justify raising livestock.

UV, I just want to say that I think that was a really good post. I doubt any regular poster on the site will find much to disagree with in it.

The thing is, I just don't think people see the individual choice to take a up a vegan diet as a solution. Even if the world became vegan, capitalism will still destroy the planet - which is sort of the point I think Booze was trying to make: both animal and plant capitalist agriculture have deleterious affects on animal populations and the wider ecosystem.

The point being: if we overcome capitalism, we can actually deal with the shit (no pun intended) you've laid out in that post. And, again, I think we'd all agree that quite a considerable drop in meat consumption in the West will be part of that. But, that's not an argument - in my opinion, anyway - for entirely giving up animal products either now or in a post-capitalist future.

UV,

Yes, I concede that my 'either / or' proposition was not sound. The heart of my issue is;

If agriculture (even that portion unconnected with meat production) has deleterious effects on ecosystems; and people can be said to be implicated / complacent and responsible for such crimes through individual consumption; do vegans share in the responsibility (with meat eaters) of this death and destruction?

If so, can we catch a break? ;-)

If not, and to try to lurch this comment back into thread-content-compliance - is there any acknowledgement that within capitalism, tailoring one's consumption choices to meet ethical ends is nigh impossible?

Webby,

Said respectfully;

Capitalism is full of all sorts of horrors - factory farming being one of them. You can choose to avoid / minimize participation in all manner of them using precisely the same strategy that vegans use to attempt to not participate in all the horrible shit surrounding meat production; (that being not consuming things tied to practices you are not cool with). I think this is where lots of non vegans get hung up on your arguments. You seem to value one kind of ethical consumption over others - and expect billions to feel precisely the same. Whats worse? - most non vegan communist types are skeptical (at best) of the whole idea of ethical consumption.

Webby

Right, I'll try to boil it right down.

Being complicit in the torture and killing of our fellow sentient beings is degrading to the human spirit.

what is a human spirit? is this some supernatural crap? and why is it not degraded by consuming products produced by workers in bad conditions?

Webby

Being complicit in the torture and killing of our fellow sentient beings is degrading to the human spirit. I do not advocate ethical consumption which is something that I argue against practically every time I speak to vegans on other forums. Their ideas are liberal nonsense and have nothing to do with my reasons for not eating meat etc.

Then what do you advocate?

The thing is, though, Webby - and not to be facetious - but do you think non-vegans are less likely to help RG in that situation as a result of them being consumers of animal products?

I mean, I am a vegetarian, Webby. I also don't know if meat consumption qualifies a privilege and entitlement.

Alright, next question!

boozemonarchy in the other thread http://libcom.org/forums/general/heartfelt-seasons-greetings-long-gone-comrade-who-sincerely-wishes-you-all-well-2?page=3#comment-570473

What makes the choice to be vegan different from not shopping 'sweat shop' goods and the whole rest of the sort of personal, moral boycott stuff prominent in liberal milieus (e.g. "I'm not shopping at Wal-Mart cause ______")?

I can easily see how veganism can seem like liberal consumer boycott politics, but there are some very important differences which set it a world apart.

1) Targeting unethical businesses vs. Targeting human consciousness, values, culture
(aka Propaganda of the Deed)

Consumer boycotts are meant to stop a business from doing certain unethical actions. The goal is either to put enough financial pressure that the managers choose to change their business practices, or if not, then to make the business go bankrupt.

Revolutionaries are critical of this, and rightfully so, because the way to do battle with a company isn’t through consumer power, but workers’ power. And it’s not just the method of consumer politics that’s flawed, but also that the goal of making businesses ethical is a delusion. There’s no such thing as an ethical business in capitalism.

Ok, now onto veganism.

What is the goal of boycotting meat and foods that come from animals? It is *not* to reform agribusiness companies and make them ethical. The goal is to change the consciousness of humanity. It is to change our values and our culture.

It is not about changing business practices. It’s about changing human practices.

Changing human practices towards animals starts with changing people’s minds about animals: how we view them, our empathy for them, what it means to respect them, how they should be treated, etc.

Veganism to me is in line with the anarchist tradition of propaganda of the deed.

All our actions, when witnessed by others, are propaganda of the deed. We all contribute to setting social norms through our actions or inactions. Whether we intend to or not.

Being vegan is a daily action by which we help people stop seeing animals as commodities whose purpose is to serve humanity and whose lives should be valued less than a burger – and whose bond with and love for their children should be valued as less than a block of cheese (mother and baby cows are separated on dairy farms, to the distress of both).

And not being vegan is a daily action which enables people to continue seeing animals in this disrespectful and cold-hearted way.

By being a vegan, your very existence can inspire people to rethink their position on animals, because:
> You make people think about animal oppression, something which most people never think of.
> You are a challenge to the belief that it’s ok to harm or kill animals for food
> You demonstrate that life can be healthy and delicious without eating food from an animal.
> You demonstrate an example of extending compassion and empathy to include all creatures.

In other words, you are helping to shift the consciousness of humanity.

Obviously you won’t inspire everyone to become vegan. But if every vegan inspired two more people to become vegan, exponential growth would put an end to animal agriculture pretty quickly. Also, even if people don’t become vegan, if you can inspire them to gain greater respect for the lives of animals, to feel more troubled and uncomfortable with their being killed/murdered and harmed for food than they were before, and perhaps become vegetarian or eat less meat/dairy/eggs, this is a partial victory. It’s all part of the long-term trajectory towards transforming our cultural values and attitudes.

2) Human liberation through class struggle against the oppressors vs. Animal liberation through mercy and conversion of the oppressors

As anarchists know, the liberation of the working class – and of humanity in general – will come through class struggle against our oppressors/exploiters. Consumer boycotting has nothing to do with that.

But animals are totally powerless and voiceless. They can’t struggle against their oppressors/exploiters (us). They rely on the species that is oppressing them – humanity – to come to our senses and change our ways. They are totally at our mercy.

Animals will only be liberated if humans stand up to advocate for them and protect them. Refusing to eat them, and refusing to eat foods that are created by harming them, is absolutely necessary if animals are ever to be free from the pain we cause them.

By contrast, refusing to shop at Wal-Mart or refusing to buy sweat-shop clothes or whatever does not help the plight of the working class. Again, that’s what revolution is for.

But revolution won’t liberate the animals. Their liberation depends on humanity changing its ways. It depends on humanity being vegan. Perhaps in a distant anarchist future it will mean being vegetarian, if we can figure out how to get dairy and eggs while providing animals with lovely lives, and deaths that happen naturally in old age or by euthanasia. But as long as animals are being harmed for food, than veganism is an essential part of combating that.

3) Immediate Effectiveness

Liberal consumer boycotts – what use are they? Even in those rare cases that they manage to make some improvements here and there, they are quite miniscule. And generally they don’t even do that. My not shopping at Wal-Mart doesn’t do fuck all for Wal-Mart workers.

But being vegan does have an immediate, significant, and even measurable effect.

On average, each person who becomes vegan personally prevents the torture and murder of dozens of animals every single year – about 30 land animals and dozens more underwater animals. (Source: http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/aug/31/people-ethical-treatment-animals/peta-claims-clinton-saving-200-animals-annually/)

Add that over a lifetime and you can save hundreds, even thousands of animals, depending on when you start.

In the U.S., 400 million fewer farm-animals were killed for food in 2014 compared to 2007. 400 million! That’s partly because of vegans, and partly because people are eating less animal-foods. (Source: http://latestvegannews.com/400-million-fewer-animals-were-killed-for-food-last-year-because-people-are-eating-less-meat/)

But the purpose of being vegan is much more than how many animals you save. The ultimate goal is to save them all – and that’s why the propaganda of the deed thing is the most important part.

...follows you into the corner and gives you a hug.

O dear Jef, why so grumpy, it’s only a chat site, I thought we were just talking? I'm sorry I didn't give your replies the respect you thought they deserved, I thought they were just the usual throwaway off-the-cuff remarks that get thrown up on here and don’t require much by way of response, and I was convinced the one about incest simply had to be a joke. There's no need to ring the big bad faith bell and flounce off and start hunting the snark mate, let’s get a grip here. Is winning really that important to you? Let me try to explain why I didn’t think your comments merited much more than my previous reply. But first let me clear up a few misapprehensions.

You're looking for a row with a meat-eater and I'm not giving you one.

I haven’t had snark in ages myself (too gamey) but I do eat meat. Not a lot but I've never been vegetarian let alone vegan, if you don't count the past couple of weeks when I've been trying Dr Webby's patented formula diet, which is surprisingly energising as it goes. Hopefully this removes one layer of blinkers from the discussion. And while we’re on the subject, the little stick you keep shaking at me with the Ennobled Savage Rampant flag pinned to it doesn't really sit attractively alongside this assumption of yours that I’m vegan, since, y’know, hunter-gatherers and stuff, so I guess you must have pulled that out of your angry ideology place too. Put it back, it’s not helping.

1. You wrote:

Animals will allows their instinct to reproduce to commit incest which directly damages the species.

I replied:

Yes, all animals (honestly, that was a bit of a weird one Jef, it wouldn't be a great conversation opener at parties, well not the one's I go to anyway)

to which you retorted:

Incest was just one that clearly proved the point, so you snarked.

The reason I thought you must be joking is that what you said is simply ludicrous from an evolutionary, ecological and biological perspective. If animals do this, their offspring are defective and unlikely to survive nearly so well as those which don’t. So the sex instinct is used as a filter to eliminate those in which it is more powerful than their incest avoidance instinct, augmenting the functioning of the species. As I said previously:

Rational in my view means that which promotes life, not death. An instinctual creature may do 'stupid' things but only in its attempt to continue to function, grow and thrive.

and

other animals are much more rational than we are, since most animal behavior is determined almost entirely by instincts which, from an evolutionary perspective are exactly what is needed to sustain and promote function and growth.

There are multiple examples and studies of incest avoidance mechanisms around, including at the genomic level. Look it up, mice are a good one to start with.

2. You wrote:

Lots of animals can use other animals' instincts to trick them.

I replied:

And yet the prey continue to survive, go figure!

You then wrote:

My point wasn't that prey were wiped out, but that their instincts could get them killed, which was a direct response to your assertion that instincts are rational because they protect life, so you snarked.

Later you wrote:

Now I don't know how much of your belief in a perfect ecological balance etc comes from ideology and how much from The Lion King

I can just about make out a tiny sliver of truth value trying to squeeze itself out from under the first clause of this last one. The reason I thought you must be joking about ..you know ..the incest thing ..is that your ‘points’ are only very minor corollaries of a commonly accepted mechanistic scheme resting upon classical logic which I utterly reject. Rationality in human beings in this scheme is basically related to our ability to apply deductive syntactic rules to linguistic entities in a truth preserving manner. This has obviously not been of much use in the study of rationality in non-linguistic creatures. In the past few decades you may have noticed that there has been a revolution in computation, one of the results of which has been that rationality can also be construed as abduction (reasoning to the best possible explanation – Jef was thirsty, the full cup is now empty, Jef drank all the fluid) and induction (statistical inference), which are themselves expressible through straightforward heuristics, which are 'practical methods not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals.' But unlike humans, animals' heuristics are hardwired and co-evolved with their niches. There is a gradual spectrum of conscious thinking (this also addresses Chilli’s point earlier I think). To quote the pragmatist philosopher Peirce: “When a chicken first emerges from the shell, it does not try fifty random ways of appeasing its hunger, but within five minutes is picking up food, choosing as it picks, and picking what it aims to pick. That is not reasoning, because it is not done deliberately; but in every respect but that, it is just like abductive inference”.

From your perspective it would seem that instincts are solely connected with the individual (a strange attitude for a communist) not the organism as such, and certainly not complex ecosystems and life in general. But predators and prey require each other to exist if they are to remain going concerns, so the behavior performances of both of them are entirely rational, if at the same time, in this rudimentary language, instinctual. There are a plenitude of examples of short-term rationality in nonlinguistic animals, such as shorebirds who will abductively choose between hard-wired alternatives in electing to eat smaller worms over larger ones due to the deleterious effects of feeding exclusively on large ones. There is also long-term evolutionary behavior, for example the case of animals that sacrifice their lives in a way that increases the lifetime fitness of other individuals, just like the father in the Lion King (cheer up Jef).

3. You wrote:

In response to irritation or minor injuries cats, for example, wil lick/scratch their skin off.

I replied:

So do mad people, do they do this by instinct as well? How do you know? What is an instinct?:

You:

I give another example, which to be fair you almost responded to. Let's be clear, I've never said people don't have instincts, we do and they're not always good, which is, unsurprisingly, what I have been saying all along.

Well I’m glad you agree with yourself there Jef but instincts are not always 'bad' either, are they? As advertised above, abduction is part biological mechanism, part logical operation connected with the cognitive apparatus of any organism. With humans, since guessing and hypothesis formation in science via abduction are also biological phenomena, they must be related to instinct and statistical variations in biological evolution, although of course the two evolve differently. There is a large group of creatures who have their own signalling systems, and they apply these signs in influencing their environments, in other words they are thinking agents. Abductive hypotheses among certain animals introduce changes in their sign systems corresponding to novel viewpoints in a continuous operation of hardwired hypothesis formation, which you can plainly see in action by looking at a cat with the right kind of eyes. This is connected with the coevolution of the organism cognitively and of the environmental niche. I’ll post something separately on it a bit later.

I think I’ve kind of covered the rest of your post already:

Because an instinct is not developed rationally, it is a correct response that becomes automatic regardless of why it began. That means that in situations where it is inappropriate it is still the response generated.

Now I don't know how much of your belief in a perfect ecological balance etc comes from ideology and how much from The Lion King, but I'm not going to waste more time on your snarking and bad faith. You're looking for a row with a meat-eater and I'm not giving you one. What you're saying about instincts at the very least needs to be qualified and is part of some rosy idea of a state of nature as an ideal which is simply not the case, and even if this line of reasoning were not flawed there's some evidence that would justify raising livestock.

Sorry, I just couldn't be arsed to look at the livestock thing.

EDIT: Would it be fair to say that from your perspective animals are at best arational? How could they be irrational?

Webby

Chilli Sauce

I mean, I am a vegetarian, Webby. I also don't know if meat consumption qualifies a privilege and entitlement.

So if you 'don't know' if it qualifies, then presumably you don't know if it doesn't? Why not then, err on the side of caution and give up what may or may not be complicity in this stuff?

To be honest with you man, "I don't know if it qualifies" was my attempt to politely say "it doesn't".

Anyway, when I first became a vegetarian it was for the worst sort of liberal, ethical consumption reasons. Now, it's just because I'm already a bit fat and keeping meat out of my diet can only be a good thing. Plus, I've just a lost the taste for meat - including certain "nostalgia" dishes, which is sort of a shame.

Veganism to me is in line with the anarchist tradition of propaganda of the deed.

I've got to be honest, POTD was probably the single worst that ever happened to anarchism.

Also, I'm just not sure the analogy stands up. POTD was supposed to spur the masses on to immediate revolutionary activity, not so much install any sort of long-term change of consciousness. I feel like a lot of what you wrote in that post was closer to "Be the change you want to see in the world" more than anything in keeping with the tradition of revolutionary anarchist activity.

Webby, just to say that again, I don't think anyone has any objection to having a moral stance on animal consumption or class issues. I just think most people (a) just don't agree with the morality put forward by vegans and (b) think other considers should figure in at least as strongly.

So, like going to pickets, sure we do that in the hopes of building solitary with the working class - the kind that can help us if we have trouble in the future. And, a lot of it is about taking a moral stance, as well. As for me, I also really hate bosses and I relish fucking with a boss - I mean, I get active enjoyment from that shit. So there's that, too.

4) Anarchism/communism is required for humans to live decent lives vs. Veganism is required for animals to live decent lives

Right, so let’s continue my response to boozemonarchy’s question.

So we all here know that anarchism/communism or whatever you want to call it is the only type of society which can provide decent lives for human beings. Without that we will always be living in some version of hell.

Liberal consumer boycott politics won’t get us any closer to anarchism/communism. So it’s rightly dismissed.

But what about the animals? What is required for them to have decent lives? Well for starters for them not to be bred and raised for a death machine, killed/murdered at a young age to feed a species which can feed itself in other ways. Also, it requires that they not be harmed and hurt so that we can take their milk and eggs.

In other words, for animals to live decent lives, humanity must become vegan. Or at least the vast majority of us – I can respect exceptions, like the already mentioned arctic dwelling Inuit, or hunter-gatherer tribes. But animal agriculture would have to end.

Again, maybe in a distant anarchist future, we will find we can get dairy and eggs while still respecting animals and their lives, and in that case vegetarianism would be required. But even after the revolution, it will take a long time before humanity’s culture and values respects animals enough to even understand what it means to respect animals, let alone have that as a goal.

Anyways, liberal consumer politics are nonsense because they don’t get humans any closer to creating the world that humans need to live decent lives – meaning it doesn’t get us any closer to anarchism/communism.

But what about the choice to be vegan? Does it get us any closer to the world that animals need to live decent lives? Well, considering that veganism on a mass scale is what’s required for this to be achieved, then yeah! – I’d definitely say that becoming vegan will get us closer to mass scale veganism!

EDIT:
What other way is there to mass scale veganism if not becoming vegan ourselves and convincing others to do so?

Propaganda of the Deed

A critique was raised of propaganda of the deed. I realize the historic definition is about blowing things up and assassinations, and trying to spur the population to instant revolutionary action. I agree that propaganda of the deed, in this sense of the term, was a bad strategy. But I’m deviating from the historic definition, and taking a more literal interpretation of the words.

We all know what propaganda is – here’s the definitions on dictionary.com: “information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.”)

And we know what deed means – it’s something that’s done.

So I use propaganda of the deed to mean anything you do which is meant to inspire and persuade people to a particular viewpoint or action. Veganism is propaganda of the deed, in this literal sense of the term.

I think part of the problem for me is how we apply morals to the animal world, obviously I agree that animals are sentient, show certain levels of intelligence and experience pain and emotion so should not be abused, however I still find it hard to apply morals to the animal world and to natural processes. Animals eating other animals is a natural process, and so I can't see what's immoral about humans doing the same. I can't see why this is a moral issue, for me morals has nothing to do with it, although if they did then could I not theoretically be punished for eating animals? Aside from that morals are more about individual views of right and wrong or they can be culturally constructed, so most times its just not enough to say that something is 'immoral'.

Anyway I don't see why the moral argument even matters when most of us agree on the ethical arguments about meat production being totally 'wrong' and irrational under capitalism, because of the way it harms the environment, the way it treats animals and the fact of it all being unnecessary.

I hope nobody mind's I'm making a third post in a row. Earlier I woke up and read the responses 61 to 64 of this thread earlier, then I fell back asleep. I had a dream that I want to share here...

I saw this kid I used to tutor who was bullied by her older brother. She was being attacked, but this time it was by a small group of adults. They were shoving her around and she had tears in her eyes begging them to stop. I stepped in and started screaming at them to stop. I tried to intervene physically but my muscles somehow felt very weak and I could hardly move (this sometimes happens to me in dreams, I think it's because I'm actually trying to move my body in bed, but can't).

The attackers ignored me. Someone knocked her to the ground and they started kicking her, and she started screaming. I started yelling at them about why what they were doing was wrong, trying to persuade them not to, they looked over at me every now and then but then looked back at their kick-fest.

But then one of them said something to me, I couldn't quite understand but I realized it was a riddle. I started shouting out my best attempt to solve the riddle -- somehow I knew if I could they would stop.

When I finally answered the riddle I felt pretty sure I got it right, but instead of stopping another one looked at me and asked another riddle, and the process continued. This repeated a few times -- more crazy riddles and more crazed attempts to solve them and shout out the answers. I felt such anxiety and panic, and the whole time the kid was screaming as she was kicked over and over and over. I think I felt as helpless as she did.

Then I woke up.

How's that for a load of emotional crap? Oh rationality, where art thou?

Plus, think how those poor bulbs must have suffered! Plants have feelings too you know!!!

Who knows, they very well may have. They do communicate...

Scallywag

Animals eating other animals is a natural process, and so I can't see what's immoral about humans doing the same.

Animals eat other animals because they don't have a choice, they require it to survive. This is not the case for the vast majority of humans. So we don't have that ethical justification.

ultraviolet

Scallywag

Animals eating other animals is a natural process, and so I can't see what's immoral about humans doing the same.

Animals eat other animals because they don't have a choice, they require it to survive. This is not the case for the vast majority of humans. So we don't have that ethical justification.

Yh I know, but I don't think the fact we have the choice makes it immoral for us to eat animals, it doesn't change anything for me, I just don't see this as a moral issue.

Scallywag

Yh I know, but I don't think the fact we have the choice makes it immoral for us to eat animals, it doesn't change anything for me, I just don't see this as a moral issue.

Of course you don't see it as a moral issue. Because you see the lives of these animals as worthless. Or, at least, you see them as worth less than a burger or a steak, worth less than your taste-buds.

Am I wrong? Do you think their lives are worth more than these things?

ultraviolet

Scallywag

Yh I know, but I don't think the fact we have the choice makes it immoral for us to eat animals, it doesn't change anything for me, I just don't see this as a moral issue.

Of course you don't see it as a moral issue. Because you see the lives of these animals as worthless. Or, at least, you see them as worth less than a burger or a steak, worth less than your taste-buds.

Am I wrong? Do you think their lives are worth more than these things?

Posting like this is why this issue becomes so contentious on here.

I already stated in early posts and in the very post in which you picked out that one sentence and ignored everything else that I do see animal lives as off worth, or at least that they shouldn't be abused and eaten in large numbers unnecesarily. I still don't see it as immoral to eat meat though, in fact to say that it is just sounds meaningless and ridiculous to me. I mean really immoral? So what I could be theoretically punished for committing such a henious act as consuming meat?... I am not so sure I really believe in morals anymore anyway, used to when I used to be a bit more conservative and believe in authority, but not so much anymore.

Ok, please explain this to me.

You say you believe the lives of animals are worth more than pieces of meat and worth more than our taste buds.

But you believe there is no moral problem with eating meat... in other words, no moral problem with humans taking the lives of animals so they can be turned into meat, no moral problem with taking their lives so that our taste buds can enjoy the pleasure of eating them.

Do you not see a contradiction there?

You do say that you think it's wrong for this to be done "in large numbers" or "unnecessarily."

What qualifies as large numbers to you? What qualifies as unnecessarily? When do you think it's necessary for humans to take the lives of animals for meat?

(If you don't like the concept of morals, please feel free to substitute the word "ethics" or simply the notion of "right and wrong" or "unjustified" or whatever you prefer)

UV,

I think there is nothing 'immoral' about eating meat and taking animal lives to eat meat, it is a way humans have sustained themselves and still do in some places and it’s a natural process so whether we have a choice to engage in it or not I see nothing immoral or moral about doing so.

If humans have to eat meat and in some places they still do I find nothing immoral about it, I find nothing immoral about people choosing to eat meat as a method for sustaining themselves, especially if that’s what’s best for them for where they live and if they have evolved ways of life based upon raising livestock and eating meat. I think it would be wrong to tell these people they need to give up their whole way of life just because I find something ‘immoral’ about eating meat.

Yes I put human needs, and human lives above animals, and don’t view animals as equal to ourselves or in the same moral light as ourselves, although I don’t think the world was ‘made for us’, or that we can just use up all of nature’s resources and regenerative capacity for ourselves.

But yes I still recognise that animals are living beings that experience pain and emotion. So for that reason I think they should not be abused and that we should limit their pain and suffering if we do use them for meat and dairy products.

No I don’t think that killing animals for meat counts as abuse because it is being done for the reason that we are using them for food.

But yeah I think this becomes questionable when we are doing this in mass, simply to satisfy a want for meat, then I think we risk harming the environment and are no longer being concerned about animal lives and their pain and suffering.

However if it’s being done in small scale, if its sustainable and especially if it’s necessary and a community to some extent uses animals to sustain themselves then I agree with it.

Under capitalism of course I disagree with the way meat is produced, with animals being locked up in small spaces their whole lives and slaughtered in large numbers just to fulfil consumers manufactured wants for lots of meat.

Yh I think that is wrong and unethical because yes I agree with the arguments that this is unnecessary, bad for the environment and against animal welfare.

So yeah under certain conditions it’s unethical, or exploitative when we do it in in on a mass scale unnecessarily, and I’d oppose it under those conditions.

But I am still not opposed to eating meat in principle, I don’t find anything ‘immoral’ about it in principle.

^^
UV This is exactly how I view this issue, you can comment on it and disagree with it If you wish, but I don’t think I am going to bother to respond again to this, because this is getting boring.

Webby,

It is contentious because its making assumptions about what I believe when I've already explained them elsewhere anyway, its contentions because of the language used calling it despicable, murder, etc... Obviously you and UV have strong opinions over this issue, but this petty moralising over the issue, judging others because of their eating habits etc is extremely off putting, is what leads to arguments on the forums and is never going to convince anyone to become a vegan.

Besides why does the moral argument that eating meat is morally wrong matter in an argument anyway, when you are correct on the more ethical arguments about it being wrong because it harms the environment and because of the way animals are treated in factory farming?

OK webby I get that people don't want to give up meat, and will throw up all sorts of silly arguments at you so they don't have to, just like people do the same when we bring up anarchism.

Some of us non vegans wouldn't mind though if society drastically reduced its meat consumption, actually I'd like to see that happen.

ultraviolet

radicalgraffiti

this kind of crap, calling everyone who doesn't have exactly the same emotional response as you a psychopath is exactly the kind of stuff the lead to the other thread going to shit

I did not call you or other non-vegans psychopaths. I hope nobody else interpreted it that way. I should have made myself clearer. Let me try again.

Psychopaths have an extreme deficiency of empathy and compassion in general. This deficiency applies to everyone.

I'm not trying to say that non-vegans have a severe deficiency of empathy and compassion overall. I'm saying they have a severe deficiency of empathy and compassion for animals.

There can of course be inconsistencies and contradictions in that. They might be very compassionate with dogs and cats they volunteer with at a shelter.

But to choose to value your taste-buds over the life of an animal, to place your aversion to temporary inconvenience above your aversion to the killing/murder of animals, indicates a deficiency of compassion and empathy and basic respect for those animals.

So we could easily say that humans have a psychopathic relationship towards animals, or at least animals who are used for certain purposes. Again, there can be and are contradictions, but towards farm animals humans are generally psychopathic -- with so little empathy and respect for their life that it amounts to almost nothing... certainly not more than a piece of cheese, a steak, or an omelette.

you say that you don't call none vegans psychopaths, but you being psychopaths into this, quite clearly to compare none vegans to psychopaths, so while you don't directly say none vegans are psychopaths, i don't see this as a meaningful distinction.

i also think its pretty weird, probably impossible care for all animals equally, most people care about animals they know, far above other animals, usually above humans they don't know, this is because of there personal relationship with those animals. most people also care about the well fair of animals they don't know to a lesser extent. so things like free range become popular, people don't want animals involved with the production of there food to suffer, but they still think the benefits of eating animal products/animals is greater than the disadvantages.

Its clear that it isn't a simple matter of people who consume animal products not caring, its a disagreement over the different harms and benefits.

Avast there Webberino!

If you like I could say that the suffering of animals is tennis racket or jelly and ice cream

That cheered me up no end com.

Two and a half years ago I was eating meat dairy and eggs on a daily basis. Then, with an open mind, I listened to UVs reasoning, listened to the hilariously inaccurate objections and the laughable and often sickening justifications and changed my mind.

Was that really two and a half years, omg. I remember it well. Seeing someone admit they were wrong and change their entire approach on here is as rare as walking past a car park and seeing a group of triangles playing football.

You're right, we won't change the mind of the fervent anti vegan head bangers but they are as useful to the persuasion of the open minded as are vegans themselves.

I loved that one. Go-on son!! I hope I didn't contradict you earlier btw, I didn't consider that I had been eating a heavy meat diet - two palm sized pieces every meal was the max while on paleo. The vegan one is working a treat, I feel like I could run through a wall.

Webby

RG - if you were getting beaten in the street, I would wade in to help you even if there was no advantage to me. That's human spirit. Despite the fact that capital has us by the balls and the end to it is knowhere in sight we're here on Libcom trying to figure out what we can do about it. That's human spirit. That's not supernatural crap, it's one of the things that makes humans a very special animal.
And of course the exploitation of the working class degrades humanity. Why does it have to be either/or? This idea that animal lovers are human haters is an absolute nonsense.

so for you, using bees to fertilise plants then taking the surplus honey is unacceptable, and must be boycotted, but buying sports wear produced by children in sweatshops is not only ok, but boycotting its is liberal bulshit. despite that according to you these both damage the "human spirit", (i'm still not sure what you mean here)

i don't find this a coherent position tbh

Chilli Sauce

Anyway, when I first became a vegetarian it was for the worst sort of liberal, ethical consumption reasons. Now, it's just because I'm already a bit fat and keeping meat out of my diet can only be a good thing. Plus, I've just a lost the taste for meat - including certain "nostalgia" dishes, which is sort of a shame.

personal i've been getting fatter since i stopped eating meat, it might not not be the cause, but i'll have to reconsider my diet if this keeps up.

To me to deciding if its ok to use animals/animal products for food we need to consider variuse things.

for example all animals die, and often in quite horrific ways, if we use some of them for food is that worse? do they suffer more or less? does it make the world a better or worse place?

vegans will claim that because we are more capable of thinking its different when we kill animals, and this is true, but animals will die and suffer regardless of what we so, the important question is what difference we make.

UV,

Ha! I do remember the misreadings of my handle.. Funny thing is, my original username was just the town that I lived in (Bozeman) + anarchy. Real creative eh? Course that was approaching a decade ago and I think even before folks started talking about 'manarchists' (even though they were around then). Someone recently let me know they had misread my name for years as 'booze monarchy' and I decided I liked it.

Thank you for the responses - I'm really still trying to digest them

ultraviolet

Alright, next question!

boozemonarchy in the other thread http://libcom.org/forums/general/heartfelt-seasons-greetings-long-gone-comrade-who-sincerely-wishes-you-all-well-2?page=3#comment-570473

What makes the choice to be vegan different from not shopping 'sweat shop' goods and the whole rest of the sort of personal, moral boycott stuff prominent in liberal milieus (e.g. "I'm not shopping at Wal-Mart cause ______")?

I can easily see how veganism can seem like liberal consumer boycott politics, but there are some very important differences which set it a world apart.

1) Targeting unethical businesses vs. Targeting human consciousness, values, culture
(aka Propaganda of the Deed)

Consumer boycotts are meant to stop a business from doing certain unethical actions. The goal is either to put enough financial pressure that the managers choose to change their business practices, or if not, then to make the business go bankrupt.

Revolutionaries are critical of this, and rightfully so, because the way to do battle with a company isn’t through consumer power, but workers’ power. And it’s not just the method of consumer politics that’s flawed, but also that the goal of making businesses ethical is a delusion. There’s no such thing as an ethical business in capitalism.

Ok, now onto veganism.

What is the goal of boycotting meat and foods that come from animals? It is *not* to reform agribusiness companies and make them ethical. The goal is to change the consciousness of humanity. It is to change our values and our culture.

It is not about changing business practices. It’s about changing human practices.

I accept and understand the distinction you've made here.

Changing human practices towards animals starts with changing people’s minds about animals: how we view them, our empathy for them, what it means to respect them, how they should be treated, etc.

Veganism to me is in line with the anarchist tradition of propaganda of the deed.

All our actions, when witnessed by others, are propaganda of the deed. We all contribute to setting social norms through our actions or inactions. Whether we intend to or not.

Being vegan is a daily action by which we help people stop seeing animals as commodities whose purpose is to serve humanity and whose lives should be valued less than a burger – and whose bond with and love for their children should be valued as less than a block of cheese (mother and baby cows are separated on dairy farms, to the distress of both).

And not being vegan is a daily action which enables people to continue seeing animals in this disrespectful and cold-hearted way.

By being a vegan, your very existence can inspire people to rethink their position on animals, because:
> You make people think about animal oppression, something which most people never think of.
> You are a challenge to the belief that it’s ok to harm or kill animals for food
> You demonstrate that life can be healthy and delicious without eating food from an animal.
> You demonstrate an example of extending compassion and empathy to include all creatures.

In other words, you are helping to shift the consciousness of humanity.

Obviously you won’t inspire everyone to become vegan. But if every vegan inspired two more people to become vegan, exponential growth would put an end to animal agriculture pretty quickly. Also, even if people don’t become vegan, if you can inspire them to gain greater respect for the lives of animals, to feel more troubled and uncomfortable with their being killed/murdered and harmed for food than they were before, and perhaps become vegetarian or eat less meat/dairy/eggs, this is a partial victory. It’s all part of the long-term trajectory towards transforming our cultural values and attitudes.

2) Human liberation through class struggle against the oppressors vs. Animal liberation through mercy and conversion of the oppressors

As anarchists know, the liberation of the working class – and of humanity in general – will come through class struggle against our oppressors/exploiters. Consumer boycotting has nothing to do with that.

But animals are totally powerless and voiceless. They can’t struggle against their oppressors/exploiters (us). They rely on the species that is oppressing them – humanity – to come to our senses and change our ways. They are totally at our mercy.

Animals will only be liberated if humans stand up to advocate for them and protect them. Refusing to eat them, and refusing to eat foods that are created by harming them, is absolutely necessary if animals are ever to be free from the pain we cause them.

By contrast, refusing to shop at Wal-Mart or refusing to buy sweat-shop clothes or whatever does not help the plight of the working class. Again, that’s what revolution is for.

But revolution won’t liberate the animals. Their liberation depends on humanity changing its ways. It depends on humanity being vegan. Perhaps in a distant anarchist future it will mean being vegetarian, if we can figure out how to get dairy and eggs while providing animals with lovely lives, and deaths that happen naturally in old age or by euthanasia. But as long as animals are being harmed for food, than veganism is an essential part of combating that.

3) Immediate Effectiveness

Liberal consumer boycotts – what use are they? Even in those rare cases that they manage to make some improvements here and there, they are quite miniscule. And generally they don’t even do that. My not shopping at Wal-Mart doesn’t do fuck all for Wal-Mart workers.

But being vegan does have an immediate, significant, and even measurable effect.

On average, each person who becomes vegan personally prevents the torture and murder of dozens of animals every single year – about 30 land animals and dozens more underwater animals. (Source: http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/aug/31/people-ethical-treatment-animals/peta-claims-clinton-saving-200-animals-annually/)

Add that over a lifetime and you can save hundreds, even thousands of animals, depending on when you start.

In the U.S., 400 million fewer farm-animals were killed for food in 2014 compared to 2007. 400 million! That’s partly because of vegans, and partly because people are eating less animal-foods. (Source: http://latestvegannews.com/400-million-fewer-animals-were-killed-for-food-last-year-because-people-are-eating-less-meat/)

But the purpose of being vegan is much more than how many animals you save. The ultimate goal is to save them all – and that’s why the propaganda of the deed thing is the most important part.

I'm still of the habit of seeing how anti sweat shop stuff could employ precisely the line of argument you've perused here - rejection of liberal boycott stuff in favor of POTD activism aiming at a cultural shift.

I have a hard time not following that line of reasoning down a rabbit hole;

If my dietary choices, can help produce a cultural shift away animal exploitation than I can surely change other consumption choices to help produce a cultural shift away from human exploitation

Like about Wal-Mart; I don't really see why not eating meat can raise consciousness / produce a cultural shift while not buying sweat-shop stuff just simply doesn't?

I will say that I'm honestly giving all this strong consideration and am not done thinking through it.

Also, question for other vegans on this thread (including the lurkers!)

Do you view your veganism in the sort of cultural shifting light as UV? (a type of activism)

Is your veganism more of an act of personal disentanglement from animal exploitation? (a purely individual moral act)

Do you view it simply as a diet choice (for your health, the $, the taste?) that has nothing to do with trying to produce change? (I do what I want!)

Personal disentanglement, absolutely. I won't end misogyny by attempting to not be a misogynist but I will still try because misogyny causes pain, abuse, exploitation and death. As far as I can manage I want no part in this and so it is with the torture and slaughter of animals

So this is an interesting argument and I can see the logic.

However, I think there are a few problems with it. One, to accept it, you have accept the end goal of humans ceasing to consume animal products (as anarchists accept the end goal of ending patriarchy), which most anarchists don't.

Two, you're relying on market forces - which feeds into this idea that veganism is essentially ethical consumption. So, in the example of patriarchy, we're trying to change a social relationship and both parties (men and women) can actively participate in combating that - and we do it a million little ways that can lead to cultural shifts outside of relying on the logic of the market.

Three, not all animal rearing is "torture and slaughter" - not now and not in a future post-capitalist world. My sister-in-law raises chickens for eggs. Those birds live the life of fucking Riley and, in return, the family gets a dozen eggs a week or whatever. In a post capitalist future, I grant you, animals will have to be killed if we want to eat meat, but it will be (or at least could) be a far, far, far less painful process in terms of rearing and slaughter.

I don't know, I just feel like most vegans I know base their arguments on the horrors of factory farming - something all of us on this thread agree should end.

It seems a pity that the original approach to the question of morality - posing it in general historical terms, as Webby did at the beginning - has now been narrowed to the question of veganism.

I don't at all dismiss the latter issue since it connects to the overall question of man's relationship with the rest of nature, which is absolutely fundamental to the project of communism.

But I think we need to start with anthropology if we are to get to the heart of the problem of morality, since to a large extent we are talking about the transition from ape to man, ie to the origins of morality in its human sense. It's true, I think, that morality has a history older than homo sapiens, but that takes us into very wide questions indeed.

Just to finish, I agree with those like Webby and jojo who seem to argue that communism and morality are inseparable. I appreciated the seriousness of Boozemonarchy's first post, but I don't agree, if I understand him right, that morality or ethics are "unneeded" in elaborating a communist critique.

Just a note to those commentators that here and elsewhere use the term 'schizophrenic' and 'schizophrenia'. Schizophrenia is a modern bourgeois conception (judgement). If one wants to describe the split personality of the bourgeois, why not say 'split personality'.

Webby, on the matter of your ejection from the football match that you refer to. I was curious to know whether your team won the match or lost. If they lost, maybe you were better off getting thrown out. I have observed football fans leaving the ground and the winning team's supporters generally look elated whilst the losing team's supporters generally look depressed.

As to the original post, I agree with you Webby and I especially appreciate your comment #13. Although off-topic, on the matter of veganism, all I can comment is that in communism the production of animals for human consumption is abolished.

Chilli Sauce

Two, you're relying on market forces - which feeds into this idea that veganism is essentially ethical consumption.

Even under some communist future if billions of people still want to eat meat then you will still need to have intensive farming methods, I fail to see libertarian communism would ever change it. So its not quite ethical consumerism, that based the idea of buying from the slightly less bastard guy rather than out and out bastard thinking you can reform capitalism in some way.

Your idyll of chicken in yards cows in the open field living a fulfilling life frolicking until the day when the bad man comes sounds like primmy nonsense to be honest, not sustainable with 6 billion people. And even if that was the case I doubt I would eat meat, at a basic level I see no reason why you would want to inflict pain on an animal for you're enjoyment. Other people might not get it, its not something I would rant about... but thats just how I roll.

The only defense of eating meat that I respect is that it tastes nice.

ultraviolet

But being vegan does have an immediate, significant, and even measurable effect.

On average, each person who becomes vegan personally prevents the torture and murder of dozens of animals every single year – about 30 land animals and dozens more underwater animals. (Source: http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/aug/31/people-ethical-treatment-animals/peta-claims-clinton-saving-200-animals-annually/)

Add that over a lifetime and you can save hundreds, even thousands of animals, depending on when you start.

In the U.S., 400 million fewer farm-animals were killed for food in 2014 compared to 2007. 400 million! That’s partly because of vegans, and partly because people are eating less animal-foods. (Source: http://latestvegannews.com/400-million-fewer-animals-were-killed-for-food-last-year-because-people-are-eating-less-meat/)

But worldwide meat comsumption has increased substantially in that period. Veganism remains a lifestyle choice of a tiny minority living in the 'developed world'. I can't really see how veganism can have any meaningful effect on current comsuption trends, given its already limited appear. And whilst you may not feel directly responcible for animal deaths due to meat comsumption, your not eating animals does almost nothing to adress increasing worldwide comsumption.

Food is formed of the complex interaltions of culture, wealth, status, argiculture, health, transport etc etc and can't be simply addressed on the level of presonal choice alone.

Sorry Chilli, but that argument just doesn't cut it. If it is valid it means that anarchism is a static ideology, unable to develop as our is required by circumstance or by human desire.

That's all fair enough, but I guess I take issue with the idea that's there some sort of imperative as anarchists not to eat meat. If you want to make an argument as a vegan, that's fine. I just don't see how opposing meat consumption can be linked to anarchism the way opposing patriarchy can.

I don't think I've argued that there is a humane way to kill animals, only that animal rearing and slaughter could be dramatically less painful and traumatic than it is today.

Mr. Jolly, maybe you're right about this:

Even under some communist future if billions of people still want to eat meat then you will still need to have intensive farming methods,

Personally, I think one reasonable portion of meat, fish, or seafood a week would be pretty reasonable. Plus, if there was a focus away from quantity to quality within the context of socialized production, I think most people would be willing to accept that. That seems like it would decrease the intensiveness of farming down to an absolute fraction of current levels.

That primmo comment was a low-blow though, man.

Bozeman + anarchy! Ah! So that’s the story behind the name. Boozemonarchy might be an improvement, though. Are you into Game of Thrones? Imagine if Tyrion ruled the 7 kingdoms – that would be a booze monarchy for sure! (Speaking of Tyrion, I wonder if the libcom Tyrion is still around the forums…)

ultraviolet

It is not about changing business practices. It’s about changing human practices.

boozemonarchy

I accept and understand the distinction you've made here.

Awesome! :)

boozemonarchy

I will say that I'm honestly giving all this strong consideration and am not done thinking through it.

Even more awesome.

boozemonarchy

I'm still of the habit of seeing how anti sweat shop stuff could employ precisely the line of argument you've perused here - rejection of liberal boycott stuff in favor of POTD activism aiming at a cultural shift.
I have a hard time not following that line of reasoning down a rabbit hole;
If my dietary choices, can help produce a cultural shift away animal exploitation than I can surely change other consumption choices to help produce a cultural shift away from human exploitation
Like about Wal-Mart; I don't really see why not eating meat can raise consciousness / produce a cultural shift while not buying sweat-shop stuff just simply doesn't?

Wow, I love this question. Really good.

The distinction is this:

5) Consciousness raising while promoting a false solution vs. Consciousness raising while promoting the only solution

You’re right that a consumer boycott of sweatshop stuff could be part of raising people’s consciousness about the shittiness of sweatshops. It would send the message to others: “Sweatshops are so awful that I refuse to buy things made in them!”

But where will this lead? If others are persuaded, they too will think: “It’s true, sweatshops are awful, so I won’t buy things made in them either!”

This method would raise people’s consciousness about the sweatshop problem, which is good, but it would do so while promoting a false solution to this problem (consumer boycotting), which is bad. The bad would overshadow the good – especially considering the fact that there are other ways we can raise people’s consciousness about sweatshops, ways that don’t promote a false solution.

There’s also the fact that we should be aiming to raise consciousness about the problems with labor exploitation and class divisions in general, not just the big bad sweatshops.

For human liberation, our actions today need to be building towards the revolution of tomorrow, and that means building class struggle, and particularly our struggle as workers, which is where the center of revolutionary power lies. Trying to address workers’ issues through consumer power is leading us away from class struggle and down a dead end.

So that’s that....

What about veganism?

It helps to raise consciousness about animals – the oppression and injustice they endure, the value of their lives, the respect they deserve, and sets an example of empathy and compassion for them.

And unlike a boycott of sweatshops, veganism does not promote a false solution to the oppression of animals. It promotes the only solution: veganism.

In other words, veganism is both a method of consciousness raising, and it is also the practical goal of that consciousness raising.

For animals to live decent lives, humanity must (generally speaking) become vegan. This was addressed in my point #4 (which is in post # 65)

Again, I recognize that there will be some exceptions – the Inuit being one obvious example. I also recognize that in an anarchist society, it might be possible to produce dairy (on a small scale) without harming animals – Webby pointed out in post #93 an interesting reason why even the best possible egg production would cause distress to animals -- but before we can do that we’ll need to change our cultural views and values to develop proper respect for animals. As long as animals are being harmed to produce food, then the only solution to the oppression of farm animals is for nearly everyone in the world to be vegan.

I don’t think we can get nearly everyone in the world to be vegan within capitalism. There are a lot of obstacles capitalism throws up that stand in the way of that. Some were pointed out by Jason Cortez in post #95. But for goodness sake, we have to start building towards the goal now – towards a future where animals are not killed/murdered or harmed for our food.

Post #95 pointed out that consumption of animal foods is rising in other parts of the world -- well, that's because a vegan movement has hardly penetrated there yet. That just gives us even more reason to become vegan and encourage it in others, not less.

The push to spread veganism (or at least a *truly* respectful and non-harmful vegetarianism – and today’s free range farms fall faaaarrrr short of that) will need to continue in an anarchist society. Our consumption choices will continue to be an essential part of this – as propaganda of the deed, and also because the killing and oppression of animals by humans will only end if humans change our consumption choices.

Obviously these consumption choices will have nothing to do with relying on market forces, as Chilli Sauce claimed, since in an anarchist society there will be no market. If in an anarchist society we continue to consume meat, then animals will continue to be killed and harmed by us, it’s that simple. (A painless death still harms an animal by ending their life prematurely.) So our consumption choices are essential.

Chilli Sauce

I don't know, I just feel like most vegans I know base their arguments on the horrors of factory farming - something all of us on this thread agree should end.

This is very dishonest. How many times on this thread and the other thread (not to mention earlier threads before I left libcom) did I explain why I have problem with killing/murdering animals in so-called “humane” ways? Others have made the same point repeatedly, as well.

I won’t repeat myself on this. If you’re interested look back at my other posts in these two recent threads.

I’ve also pointed out one of the issues with dairy production even when the cows (or goats or whatever) are not in factory farms -- separating mother and child shortly after birth (to the distress of both). In an anarchist society, if we were respecting the cows and trying to get their milk at the same time, we'd have to accept getting only a small amount per cow, as most would go to feed her child.

And what will we do with all the male cows?

There's also other issues with dairy that would be difficult to avoid that I won't get into.

As for egg production, I’m sure your friend’s chickens have nice lives, but I’m also sure they came from a breeder – and what was done with those chickens brothers? They can’t produce eggs so they’re murdered shortly after birth in brutal ways, like throwing them in meat grinders alive, gassing them, or throwing them en masse into dumpsters to be crushed or starve to death. (If the chickens are rescue chickens, then no problem… but I doubt that’s the case.)

In an anarchist society, the only way we can produce eggs ethically is if we’re willing to provide nice, happy lives for all those unproductive male chickens. And let them live out their full lives without killing/murdering them for meat. Maybe we’ll be willing to do that, but we won’t until we transform our consciousness and gain a decent level of respect for the lives of animals.

I wrote this earlier and just now read Webby (in post #93) mention that taking eggs from hens causes them distress. I guess it's not much distress, but why cause any at all unless there's a good reason? Liking the taste of something isn't a good enough reason. If I take candy from a baby then the baby will cry, and even if they get over it soon I'm still being a bit of a prick, aren't I! LOL

Alf

It seems a pity that the original approach to the question of morality - posing it in general historical terms, as Webby did at the beginning - has now been narrowed to the question of veganism.

I partly agree and also lament that this important discussion has been sidelined. However, the other thread was locked, and the vegan/animals discussion is very important, too, and now has no space but here for it to continue.

I don't think its very fair to hold this 'there is no humane way to kill an animal' over us, we're aware that doing so involves some degree of pain to the animal and the animals death.

I think the point is we don't view it as immoral or inhumane to kill an animal for food, can reduce the animals pain and suffering, and not keep them locked up in cages their whole lives.

Whereas vegans view killing an animal for food as 'murder' as immoral, unethical and inhumane no matter what, no questions about it, and fair enough if they do believe that, but how is anyone supposed to argue with this when its based upon a moral point of view?

Webby

Point one: because you're aware that it involves suffering its unfair for us to point out that's it's humane. That's some strange logic right there.

I don't think its unfair to make a statement that killing animals is inhumane always because it causes suffering, but its a moral point of view we don't all agree with.

Its just a bit unfair expecting us to be able to answer it, I mean you said that no one ever address this point, well its because we can't really because no matter what you view killing animals as being inhumane and immoral no matter what, but we don't not necessarily, so there is nothing we can say against this, whether we think attempts should be made to reduce animals pain and suffering if we use them for food, it doesn't matter to you because it still involves suffering and any suffering means its inhumane, but again I don't really agree with that.

Webby

Point three: it's not possible to argue about morals? Strange again. How you argue against it? By explaining your moral position on it, why you think it's ok. We've certainly done that from the vegan point of view. Many people have said this is ok and that is ok but not actually explained why and nobody has explained why they think it's ok to kill an animal simply because they like the taste. I mean, how many times can that elephant in the room of a question be ignored and instead be replaced panicked scratching around inspired justifications.

Its possible, but kind of pointless, if someone views something as immoral and another person doesn't, I mean you did say it would just go round in circles.

I think there are some good arguments you and UV have raised that aren't just moral arguments, but a lot of it is and how else am I supposed to argue against that than to explain why I don't think its immoral?

I realise that I'm starting to get an assholey tone in my posts but this is a similar experience to arguing with ancaps.

Yh ok this is getting kind of pointless anyway, and to avoid making things bad between us (I hope there not) I'll stop posting about this.

But I hope I can ask one last question about this, just out of curiosity really?

So I know there is a great difference between the two so I am not comparing them, but is it just humans killing and eating animals you view as wrong or do you also look at animals eating animals from a negative perspective. Only when vegans say that humans have a choice not to engage in eating meat it sort of sounds like they view animals doing so as something unpleasant or unfortunate which humans shouldn't replicate, but I don't see why it needs to be viewed like that, it can be viewed positively as well as negatively.

Obviously these consumption choices will have nothing to do with relying on market forces, as Chilli Sauce claimed, since in an anarchist society there will be no market.

Yeah, but you gave facts and figures showing of how veganism and vegetarianism under capitalism have led to a decrease in the sales and rearing of animals for consumption. This was put forward as an argument for veganism.

As for egg production, I’m sure your friend’s chickens have nice lives, but I’m also sure they came from a breeder – and what was done with those chickens brothers? They can’t produce eggs so they’re murdered shortly after birth in brutal ways, like throwing them in meat grinders alive, gassing them, or throwing them en masse into dumpsters to be crushed or starve to death

Here's the thing though, UV, you claim that you're not taking factory farming as an example, yet the above is an example taken from factory farming!

Anyway, my in-laws have a couple of hens and one rooster (they got them all as un-sexed chicks) and they kept the rooster as well - so that's not the case in this instance and doesn't have to be the case in a post capitalist future either.

How many times on this thread and the other thread (not to mention earlier threads before I left libcom) did I explain why I have problem with killing/murdering animals in so-called “humane” ways? Others have made the same point repeatedly, as well.

I won’t repeat myself on this. If you’re interested look back at my other posts in these two recent threads.

I don't think I've argued that killing animals can be done in a "humane" way (I've already pointed this out to Webby) only that it can be done with far less pain and trauma than occurs currently. I'm not gonna bother to re-read the thread, but I'm pretty sure that it's the vegans who've introduced the term "humane" into the argument.

ultraviolet

As for egg production, I’m sure your friend’s chickens have nice lives, but I’m also sure they came from a breeder – and what was done with those chickens brothers? They can’t produce eggs so they’re murdered shortly after birth in brutal ways, like throwing them in meat grinders alive, gassing them, or throwing them en masse into dumpsters to be crushed or starve to death

Chilli Sauce

Here's the thing though, UV, you claim that you're not taking factory farming as an example, yet the above is an example taken from factory farming!

Here's the thing though. Chilli Sauce. Little small "happy" free-range family farms almost always get their hens from large factor farm breeders. And here's another thing. Even small-scale chicken breeders mass murder the baby boys as I've described, because it's not commercially viable to do otherwise.

Chilli Sauce

Anyway, my in-laws have a couple of hens and one rooster (they got them all as un-sexed chicks) and they kept the rooster as well - so that's not the case in this instance and doesn't have to be the case in a post capitalist future either.

A very rare exception. And when you scolded vegans for focusing on factory farms (which we haven't, by the way), you didn't make yourself clear in that moment whether you were preferring that we talk about how things could be in some distant anarchist society, or how things are now in the little small "happy" free-range family farms of capitalism.

As for the distant anarchist society, in my post to you just previous to this one, I brought up some issues and challenging questions to demonstrate the difficulty of ethical egg and dairy production even in anarchism. I didn't go so far as to say it would be impossible, but that it would be damn difficult and much more resource intensive than it is now. We'd need to do more than just provide excellent and spacious living conditions for them, we'd also need to keep all the male cows and male chickens alive and in the same spacious and excellent conditions, let the mom cows feed their babies with their own milk and live with together for as long as they would in a natural setting, and allow all these animals to live to the full extent of their natural lifespan despite all the males being unproductive and all the females having their productivity decline with age.

Theoretically we could do all these things, but I know that we wouldn't as long as people continue to have as much respect for animals and their lives as you and most others on libcom do. At best we'd be lining them up for a nice, happy, anarchist pain-free murder.

Generally speaking, I find you are engaging in this discussion very dishonestly. You ignore the vast majority of points that are made by those making the case for veganism. When you do bother to respond to a point, you seem only to respond to a fragment of that point, incomplete and out of context, or based on the most ungenerous interpretation of what was being said.

So Mr Fence, linking to what Chilli said above, perhaps you will find the way of evicting your lttle tenants which is least cruel. The thing about 'cruel' and so many other everyday words the likes of 'good,' 'weak,' generous,' 'skillful,' etc. is that while they are value judgements with normative as well as ethical content, they can also be used purely descriptively, such as when we talk about the cruelty of the Tsarist regime as having provoked multiple rebellions. A huge number of the words being used in this thread on all sides are obvious counterexamples to the false assumption implicit within assertions such as Scallywag's

I think there are some good arguments you and UV have raised that aren't just moral arguments

that there are two rigidly separate worlds, one in which rational debate can be had, and one of purely subjective opinion. There are cruel ways of causing suffering which we can all imagine but you couldn't really describe surgeons performing operations before the advent of anesthesia as acting cruelly.

The worst thing about saying 'that's just a moral argument' i.e. just a matter of subjective preference, is that is shuts down thinking and excuses us from examining who we really are and hides our most deeply held convictions from the process of constructive reflection. It's a destructive form of Fence sitting..

Dear Fence,

I've added 'of evicting your little tenants' to my previous post to make clear that I was talking about your mice, but overall I was addressing the notion I thought you had taken aim at in your OP that morals and emotions have no place in politics, that politics is about objective rational debate so that emotions and morality, being entirely about personal subjective preferences (and therefore not amenable to rational discussion) have no place in politics. What are known as 'thick' ethical concepts the likes of cruel - which seems to be the one at issue at the moment - cheerfully ignore any such artificial division into separate categories.

Warm Regards,

FV

I know I'm about to offend the vegans, but this is largely how I think meat production should be done:

At best we'd be lining them up for a nice, happy, anarchist pain-free murder.

Although I wouldn't use the terms murder because only humans can be murdered, not animals.

But basically, I don't have a problem with humans raising animals for consumption and use, I just think it should be done with as little physical pain as possible. And - to be honest - I think it's a drain on resources to keep alive farm animals that don't serve our needs. Harsh but true from an unapologetic anthropocentrist.

you didn't make yourself clear in that moment whether you were preferring that we talk about how things could be in some distant anarchist society,

I've just had a quick re-read of the thread and, I think I've been, if anything, excessively clear about whether I'm talking about now or post-capitalism. Seriously, "under capitalism" or "in a post-capitalist future" appear in like half my posts!

When you do bother to respond to a point, you seem only to respond to a fragment of that point, incomplete and out of context.

As for responding to every point made in every post, that's just not how any forum debate ever works. I mean, I could level the same criticism and you (and pull out really direct questions that have gone unanswered) but I won't because in any forum debate, everyone picks and chooses which bit of posts to respond to and often doesn't respond to other bits they feel other posters have adequately addressed already.

Although I wouldn't use the terms murder because only humans can be murdered, not animals.

Harsh but true from an unapologetic anthropocentrist.

Yes indeed. Given that conceptual translation is even a problem in comparing different cultures, a humanly unimaginable level of self-understanding may exist in nonhuman creatures, which may easily meet the requirements necessary in order for murder to be an applicable term, or their understanding may be the same kind as ours, within their own cognitive limits.

'An another thing! ..Saying 'that's just a moral argument' is a moral argument.

Chilli Sauce

As for responding to every point made in every post, that's just not how any forum debate ever works.

But you and many other anti-vegans take it to a whole other level. You ignore our best and most important and most major points. You ignore points we make in direct response to posts you’ve made. And when you do respond to a point (or fragment of a point, I should say) you do it in the dishonest and distorting way I’ve described. Why am I bothering to talk to you, I wonder??

Chilli Sauce

I mean, I could level the same criticism and you (and pull out really direct questions that have gone unanswered) but I won't

Oh, please do! I’m serious. And please use direct quotes from other people’s posts (or your own posts). If I've missed any, I'd like to correct that.

Chilli Sauce

I know I'm about to offend the vegans, but this is largely how I think meat production should be done:

ultraviolet

At best we'd be lining them up for a nice, happy, anarchist pain-free murder.

Although I wouldn't use the terms murder because only humans can be murdered, not animals.

[…] And - to be honest - I think it's a drain on resources to keep alive farm animals that don't serve our needs.

This is proof of exactly what I've been saying though:

You don't respect the lives of animals. How can you claim to respect their lives if you are willing to destroy them for something totally unnecessary?

You respect them so little you can't even use the word murder. It's out of the question!

Not even when we're taking the lives of babies in numbers so numerous they can't be counted, simply because their lives can’t serve our completely unnecessary desire for particular types of food!

Oh, you can't serve us? THEN DIE DIE DIE! You worthless thing. You worthless thing not worthy of the term murder when I kill you.

You don't care about the lives of animals. You care more about your right to particular tastes and textures more than you care about their lives.

Chilli Sauce

Harsh but true from an unapologetic anthropocentrist.

Anthropocentric. You think I'm not anthropocentric? I am! I bet Webby is too and almost any other vegan you'll meet. I value human lives above the lives of other animals.

But do I value our taste buds above their lives? Do I value our temporary inconvenience above their lives? That's anthropocentrism gone mad!!!

Nothing sociopathic about caring more about your entitlement to enjoy cheese or a burger or an omelette than you care about someone's entitlement to live. Nothing sociopathic about that at all.

What hurts most about it is knowing what a good and caring and nice guy you are in so many other ways, Chilli... you and so many others on here. It's scary.

God, do you not see how your attitude is so similar to the attitude fuelling pretty much every oppression, atrocity, and injustice in human history? The sense of entitlement to something so trivial or unnecessary making you feel that it's justified to do harm to others to achieve this? The placing these others outside of your realm of care and respect?

Oh, but you do care, right? You care so damn much you will give them quick happy painless anarchist deaths! How kind of you, sir!

This means you care about their pain. Good for you -- I mean that, not sarcastically, really I do – it means you have more compassion than so many. But face it, you care nothing for their lives!

You care nothing for their potential to experience the pleasures of life... the joy, the excitement, the intrigue, the sensual delights, the love, the friendships, the everything else of life. Take that all away.... Steal it from them.... Steal it from them with a gentle, caring, anarchist violence.... And then eat what you steal, eat it and get that momentary pleasure in your mouth that you so deserve, that fleeing pleasure that is worth more than every bit of lifelong joy they could have had if allowed to live.

Chilli Sauce

I've just had a quick re-read of the thread and, I think I've been, if anything, excessively clear about whether I'm talking about now or post-capitalism. Seriously, "under capitalism" or "in a post-capitalist future" appear in like half my posts!

But in the post (http://libcom.org/forums/general/morality-emotion-politics-04012016?page=2#comment-570870) where you said:
"I just feel like most vegans I know base their arguments on the horrors of factory farming"

you had just in the previous paragraph said:
"not all animal rearing is "torture and slaughter" - not now and not in a future post-capitalist world."
And you then gave an example of your sister-in-law raising chickens, who I assume lives in the present capitalist world and not the future anarchist world?

And this was that example I was responding to. So forgive me if I didn’t talk about the anarchist future in that exact moment.

Never mind that I have talked about the anarchist future, more than once on this thread, and raised points about why I am highly suspicious of how animals will be treated in it -- unless and until we have a strong and successful animal rights / vegan movement. And you have confirmed my suspicions by saying that you think animals should keep being killed for meat, and that male cows and male chickens should continue to be killed shortly after birth.

I see the kid will continue to get the shit kicked out of them, because the real riddle that nobody can seem to answer is, "Why should I care?"

Why should I care.... Why should their lives matter more than my taste buds.... Can this question be answered without dipping into emotions, into morality? With rationality as well, but it takes so much more than just that.

Noah Fence

All that said, I still don't get your point about arguing against a moral viewpoint. If, for instance I made the statement that I believe that human slavery was acceptable and qualified it by saying that within the remit of the slaves providing us with the advantages we desire we should treat them as well as possible, you would I assume have a moral objection to it? Ok then, you now tell me your reasons for this. If I then come back at you and say well, that's a moral position you're taking so there's no point me arguing against it, I just think slavery is ok, there would be legions of posters queueing up to tear me a new asshole and a whole life's quota of down votes would be applied to my post. Ok, I know they're not two comparable issues but the principle is exactly the same. What say you then comrade?

Yh ok your right, it’s not good enough to hide behind ‘well that’s a moral argument I just think “whatever” is ok…’

And in the case of slavery clearly people are being hurt and oppressed, so it’s not good enough just to wave away objections as moral arguments

In the case of veganism though, animals are obviously being hurt and killed, you think that’s wrong, I don’t necessarily and we've both explained why.

It just seems there is nowhere this can go then except round in circles and after various rounds of it going back and forth you could have just as easily given up and said I was making a moral argument that you disagreed with so what was the point.

Or maybe you couldn’t have because I wasn’t making a moral argument, I just disagreed with your moral argument that eating meat/killing animals is immoral, and my view was that I didn’t find it either moral or immoral, but that it was ok to eat meat, although that maybe is a moral argument, I honestly don’t know.

Meh this is why morality is confusing, aside from that when someone can claim something like slavery is moral which they probably did once, and can also claim that something which hurts no one like being gay for example is immoral, then it’s just kind of a meaningless concept, although one useful for authoritarians who can sanction things being good/moral, bad/immoral, so I am not sure why we should appeal to it.

Anyway I said before that I agreed with a lot of the arguments you and others were making about meat consumption being bad for the environment, and everyone on this thread disagrees with the way animals are treated and meat produced under capitalism, so I will give this serious thought, and probably someday I will be a veggie, or at least reduce meat as much as possible.

If anyone hasn't picked up on this earlier discussion they might find the pamphlet 'Beasts of Burden' of interest (though it didn't convert me) and the review by undercurrents and possibly the rather rambling letter from Gilles Dauve which you can find with the relevant links via this: http://libcom.org/library/reply-undercurrent

At this point we're going to go around in circles.

I see it basically like this: Vegans have a morality that says no animals should be killed for human consumption. Others, like myself, have a morality that says it's okay to consume animals but it should be done with the least pain possible. To put it bluntly, I do put the enjoyment and nutrition I get from animal products above the lives of animals. I know you don't agree with that, but I'm not really sure it's going to progress past that point.

That said - and God help me here - put forward in short and concise ways your strongest arguments that you feel like I've ignored and I'll do my best to respond to them.

As for me, My first two points in this post weren't addressed at all. The third was, but I don't think very adequately - only to say that, under capitalism, of course we can find brutal practices within any product we consume, food or otherwise. And I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

Finally, I want to say that I think this attitude can actually be a bit disrespectful to people who are legitimately oppressed.

God, do you not see how your attitude is so similar to the attitude fuelling pretty much every oppression, atrocity, and injustice in human history?

Meat consumption happens throughout the animal kingdom and humans are biologically omnivorous. To say that this is comparable to conscious choices that lead to mass murder I actually think is pretty disrespectful to those who've suffered and died.

Noah Fence

Scally, I can of course only speak for myself. As you kind of point out this has nothing to do with veganism. Personally, whilst nature can be brutal, I don't baulk at the site of hunting animals. It's a very beautiful(though savage) thing to see a bird of prey on the hunt and it's such a tender thing to see them return to the nest and feed their young. I recently watched a show on TV which showed a starving polar bear trying to catch a seal. I was practically screaming at the TV in hope that it would make the kill. I dare say that if the bear wasn't emaciated I would have been willing the seal to escape. Other vegans do doubt feel differently but I don't see this as any of my business. I'll leave this one to God.

Interestingly, whilst sitting in bed typing these posts, alerted by scratching noises from behind the chest of drawers, I find that we have at least one mouse in our house. One mouse I mind not one bit, but what if that becomes 20 or 50??? Hmmm. I could pass the buck to Mrs Fence but what a cop out! I should imagine that my chin will be well and truly scratched by the end of the day!

Cheers, I shouldn't have asked this question though as like I said there is a huge difference between humans eating meat and animals doing so, first and foremost that animals don't raise livestock in farms and domesticate them altering there genes. I just wondered that if it was a case for some vegans that a dislike for predation in nature, influenced them in becoming a vegan, although I know they don't base there argument around this, anyway it was wrong to ask you this specifically so I apologise.

PS not sure why but already referring to your wife as 'Mrs Fence' after only just changing your name made me lol

Chilli wrote:

Meat consumption happens throughout the animal kingdom and humans are biologically omnivorous. To say that this is comparable to conscious choices that lead to mass murder I actually think is pretty disrespectful to those who've suffered and died.

(My bold.)
This.
It's comparable to those godawful people at PETA comparing livestock farming to Auschwitz/the Holocaust and then wondering why people get annoyed about it. Throw in liberal uses of the word "murder" , dog whistle references to mental illness - psychopathy, sociopathy, headbangers etc - and I think you might find that you alienate more people that you convert.

If you actually read any of this thread, I think you find that no-one is actually arguing against veganism. Nobody was even arguing against veganism on that crappy thread which started all that where I was arguing against the dimwitted argument that it cures disease and the poster who was stanning for Doug Graham. People are arguing about the moral absolutism which has resulted in anyone taking a different position being branded murderers, told that they are wrong, that they are bad people, moral derelicts. It's like being in Sunday school.

Fleur

It's like being in Sunday school.

Indeed

Sorry I had to

I've tried hard to steer clear of this thread precisely because of the circular way these debates seem to always go, and yet here I am...

Just some questions for vegans - hope these don't sound ridiculous, I mean them genuinely.

I'm assuming (but might be wrong) that you think it's OK to kill insects? If so, why? And what would you say to people who think you're murderous for doing so?

But I'm also guessing you think it's unacceptable to pull the wings off flies, or kill insects for no reason whatsoever. Why? And why is that different to killing insects which are slightly harmful or just a nuisance quickly with a shoe?

Basically, where do you draw the line on killing living things and why do you draw it where you do?

Also, perhaps I've missed this so apologies if I'm bringing something up that has already been addressed, but how does being vegan right now help stop cruelty to animals? Apart from this very vague and flimsy idea that it raises awareness or draws attention to animal suffering.

Ultraviolet, don't you think there's a bit of an issue using terms like 'murder' 'babies' 'brothers/sisters' etc when talking about animals as if those terms have the same meaning in the animal kingdom? We don't apply the same terminology when it comes to animal 'incest' or 'paedophilia', and we don't accuse cats of 'murdering' mice.

EDIT: slight cross-post with Fleur there!

Both sides agree that there is only one China but they disagree on what China is and which is its legitimate government.

Badly paraphrasing the old joke (semi-official policy) on the whole PRC / ROC dsipute.

To get back to the original question, I think morality has a place in politics, but I disagree very strongly with every politician ever about what morality is.

For me anarchism and communism is moral. I don't see why people should not have what they need to survive while others have so much they have to hire people to help them think of ways to waste it.

Emotion is a part of reasoning and obviously we have to suppress and channel our emotions to allow the abuses of capitalism because empathy is an important part of humanity, but I think it's a learned behaviour in many ways. We also tend to sympathise with those suffering even if they don't deserve our sympathy. There's an Aziz Ansari routine where he describes a child molester who lacked the self-confidence to molest him and plays on our sympathies for this person. All our emotions can be manipulated and can lead us in the wrong direction if we can't use reason to put them into some kind of perspective.

Chilli Sauce

As for me, My first two points in this post weren't addressed at all. The third was, but I don't think very adequately - only to say that, under capitalism, of course we can find brutal practices within any product we consume, food or otherwise. And I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

This proves exactly what I was talking about, that we are being ignored even when we respond to you.

Maybe you don't think we make a convincing response, but you so often act as if we didn't respond at all. It's so dishonest.

Your first point

One, to accept it, you have accept the end goal of humans ceasing to consume animal products (as anarchists accept the end goal of ending patriarchy), which most anarchists don't.

was directly responded to by Webby here: http://libcom.org/forums/general/morality-emotion-politics-04012016?page=3#comment-570885
And I also addressed your point several times by making the case for why humanity should (to quote your post) "accept the end goal of humans ceasing to consume animal products" -- sure, not anarchists specifically, but anarchists are included among humanity.

Your second point

Two, you're relying on market forces - which feeds into this idea that veganism is essentially ethical consumption.

was responded to directly by Mr. Jolly here: http://libcom.org/forums/general/morality-emotion-politics-04012016?page=3#comment-570884
And I also address it in my post here: http://libcom.org/forums/general/morality-emotion-politics-04012016?page=3#comment-570891

Your third point

Three, not all animal rearing is "torture and slaughter" - not now and not in a future post-capitalist world. My sister-in-law raises chickens for eggs. Those birds live the life of fucking Riley and, in return, the family gets a dozen eggs a week or whatever.

was directly responded to me here: http://libcom.org/forums/general/morality-emotion-politics-04012016?page=3#comment-570892 You admit that, but in your latest post (which I quoted at the start of this post) you claim that I only responded in regards to how things are in capitalism. You don't mention the fact that your point has been repeatedly addressed in the context of the anarchist future. This has been addressed in every post linked to above (by Webby, Mr. Jolly, myself) and various other posts we've made.

Because of this ongoing ignoring of our points, and other dishonest crap and dirty tricks, I'm done with this thread.

The only person I'm still willing to still engage with on this thread is boozemonarchy.

Commieprincess you ask interesting questions, and if you're really interested in my views, feel free to PM me and we can continue the discussion there.

Anyone else who wants to continue the discussion feel free to PM me as well.

Scallywag:

Meh this is why morality is confusing, aside from that when someone can claim something like slavery is moral which they probably did once, and can also claim that something which hurts no one like being gay for example is immoral, then it’s just kind of a meaningless concept, although one useful for authoritarians who can sanction things being good/moral, bad/immoral, so I am not sure why we should appeal to it.

Despots breath air as well but that's not a criticism of air. Science doesn't present a frozen set of final rules either, so what? I've not been unlucky enough to ever meet a person who entertained only basic value judgements on every issue, and was able to answer all moral questions without knowing any of the facts. There seems to me no reason to pursue moral questions in a different way than we would any other line of rational inquiry.

A lot of the vegan debate comes down to who's value judgement is the more basic for them, such that it would be impossible to change it by changing anything factual i.e. it's an article of faith for them, which is I think what commieprincess was probing above with the insect question, although the idea of chomping on a wasp sandwich doesn't appeal to me. Deliberately causing sentient beings to suffer for any reason is a line which for some separates good from evil but others can see reasons for it, and so for them it is not fundamental. For others nature is the argument, an argument which they reject in other discussions..

Are there no matters of fact which would convince some of the omnivores on here to consider giving up on animal products? It seems to me that for quite a few eating meat is not an article of faith, just a matter of daily survival and economics, so there might well be circumstances in which they would give it up. I haven't made my own mind up so that's not a condemnation or anything.

EDIT

I think I may have suggested in the above that vegans don't rely on factual evidence to inform their value judgements, which was the opposite of my intention. But since both viewpoints rely so strongly on facts, what I was rather feebly trying to say was that they would change if the facts changed, then again in this case the fact that killing an animal involves taking away everything it will ever experience is impossible to deny, and clinches the deal for the vegans.

Mainly I was trying to get across my belief that facts are always entangled in value judgements, that you can never logically demonstrate that there exists a single moral viewpoint that doesn't involve factual evidence, i.e. I think blind faith is a myth.

commieprincess

I'm assuming (but might be wrong) that you think it's OK to kill insects? If so, why? And what would you say to people who think you're murderous for doing so?

Depends, a mosquito which could potentially kill me then yes, or fleas that may not kill me but make me pretty miserable yes. A wasp or a bee not so much, found a bee looking rather miserable in the summer on the street took it home and fed it some sugar solution and off it went. I do think that insects conception of pain is rather different than for say a pigs, a insect ability to feel pain, feel stress to grieve is very little to non existent. So yes I woulnt kill a wasp or a bee on purpose. Im not it has to be said an animal rights person, in the case of animals a very much a utilitarian, though shot through with contradictions. I have cats for example that cause more pain and misery to other animals, I would save more animals lives by killing my cats that kill a fair few birds, rats and mice.

but I also have issues with the idea that animals have no use in medical experiments in principle, though the vast majority are unnecessary. But humans most definately come first, in matters of life and death. If its not a matter of life and death for humans, in the use of non human sentient beings, than the rest is just enjoyment and pleasure. If we say well animals eat other animals and were animals..... well if we want to use nature as a rule of thumb we end up in a pretty dark place.

So, again, this is going nowhere, but I do feel like I should respond to UV's statement that the non-vegans are distorting and ignoring points:

UV

In the U.S., 400 million fewer farm-animals were killed for food in 2014 compared to 2007. 400 million! That’s partly because of vegans, and partly because people are eating less animal-foods

Which, seems to me quite a market-based approach. If more people become vegan, the market responds, less animals are killed and, see, capitalism works.

I responded with:

you're relying on market forces - which feeds into this idea that veganism is essentially ethical consumption

I'm now being told that my point has been addressed.

But here's the thing: it's the vegans who made the switch here from from UV's market-based argument to:

Mr. Jolly

Even under some communist future if billions of people still want to eat meat then you will still need to have intensive farming methods

and

UV

Obviously these consumption choices will have nothing to do with relying on market forces, as Chilli Sauce claimed, since in an anarchist society there will be no market.

That's the vegans changing the scope of the argument, not me.

And, yet, despite me again trying to bring the argument back to UV's original proposition...

Chilli

Yeah, but you gave facts and figures showing of how veganism and vegetarianism under capitalism have led to a decrease in the sales and rearing of animals for consumption.

...I'm being told:

(a) My point has been addressed. It hasn't.
(b) I'm the one muddying the waters by not being clear if we're talking about now or a post-capitalist future!

If we're talking markets, where I'm sure that some of the decrease in sales of meat can be accounted for by people becoming vegan or vegetarian, the bulk of it can be explained by the massive increase in the price of meat, up to 20% in the case of beef. People are eating less of it because it is less affordable. As a consequence of the drought which has been hitting the US since the beginning of the decade, animal feed has gone up in price, coupled with less grazing due to the lack of rain. Also, corn prices have gone up as corn has been diverted from the food chain to make biofuels. Consequently farmers have been keeping smaller herds. Fewer animals on farms = fewer animals being slaughtered.

While people may be thinking "Yay! Less meat!" it's worth noting that the drought plus biofuels issue has inflated the price of corn to the point where food poverty has massively increased in Mexico, where corn is the staple.

edit: This is mainly a North American thing, food inflation is pretty negligible in Europe, where increases in food prices across the board haven't been seen like it has over here. Meat, eggs, fruit, veggies, grains, nuts (especially nuts - prices are insane now) have been and are continuing to skyrocket over here.

Fleur, I'm continually impressed by just how much shit you know!

I'm continually depressed by how much I have to spend on food. I don't buy processed foods and I don't buy much meat and I'm horrified at how much I have to spend and how much prices have gone up to feed a family. It would be cheaper to buy junk food. Even basic foods like chick peas and lentils which have always been staples in our diets cost so much more. It's partly a problem with living somewhere where most food needs to be imported much of the year but mostly it's because the whole agricultural system is completely fucked up.

I hear that, I'm actually pretty sure my foodbill has doubled since last time I properly living in the States about 10 years ago. Granted, that's going from living in the suburbs to one of the most expensive cities in the country, but food prices have gone through the roof regardless.

As much as it riles me, I can still afford to feed us all, with two of us working, although I've changed my habits & don't do the weekly all in one place supermarket run anymore, I shop around & thoroughly resent the extra time it sucks out of my life. However, for people on a lower income, using SNAP, living in a food desert, feeding yourself healthily on any kind of diet is a real and serious struggle.

I can hardly afford to stay alive as I've only got a very basic pension and have to buy expensive drugs merely to go on staying alive....on a very basic pension. Why bother? But at least eggs are cheap where I live and the weather warm so I don't need money for that.

Reading this strange thread again I'm struck by how lots of folk think it's wrong to kill animals though not mosquitoes (how about snakes which is food in Thailand as are dogs in parts of Indonesia and other places where food can be in short supply if you haven't much money）but nobody has said that its wrong to kill people. Do we take that for granted? However as humans we do spend an awful lot of time and money on killing each other urged on by competing bourgeois factions and it isn't even for food, and I've been thinking how unlikely it'll be that we'll ever start learning to treat animals with respect - never mind the forests and oceans - if we can't even treat each other with respect (a very popular word these days: it's plastered across football stadiums the world over, but what does it really mean?)

We don't respect human life; or animal life; or even vegetable life (look what we do to the forests) nor even the minerals so generously provided free by the planet's geology. We plunder everything for money. We squander our limited resources. By WE I suppose I actually mean THEM, our rulers, the bourgeois. Because for the bourgeois, under whose economic system we all engage in our daily struggle for existence, everything is a commodity, everything has its price and everything is up for sale.

So rather than arguing in circles as we seem to do, about vegans versus meat eaters - and given the extended droughts in some parts of the world surely the price of vegetables will rocket along with that of meat, so we'll all be in the shit?- why don't we try and focus our minds on the real problem facing humanity, which is the continuance of the abhorrent and mindless system and way of life called capitalism?

Because in the end it is this political system and way of life which is the root cause of most of humanity's misery, including all animal life and the planet itself. The humans, animals, vegetables and even minerals surviving on this planet, and suffering increasingly under the final devastating cruel and insulting acts of plunder by our ever voracious profit hunting killers and polluters the bourgeoisie, devoid of all emotion except that of greed and the desire to win, all these are under threat for their continued existence, and even under final sentence of death. Just for profit. And all for the perpetuation of a cruel, murderous, exploitative and old fashioned economic system which nobody capable of identifying it for what it is could ever like or wish to retain for another minute.

As Auld-Bod said way back on January 6.

Homo sapiens are the most successful branch of apes on earth. Though many of our ‘cousins’ became extinct we not only sustained ourselves, we multiplied and covered the planet. This I understand was due to several factors not least was our brain, which enabled us to successfully communicate and cooperate. Instead of acting on our fight or flight instincts as other creatures do, we were able to develop strategies to overcome seemingly impossible obstacles. Our brains are creative and imaginative.
On the down side we have also created an economic system which is now devouring the planet. This is I believe the inheritance of a history driven by the need to overcome scarcity. As such it is now obsolete. We are not mad or irrational rather it is the economic system - always in crisis, which horrifies and distorts our judgement.

but nobody has said that its wrong to kill people.

I did, same day a little earlier.

Among instinctual animals there doesn't seem to me to be quite the same level of, oh I don't know maybe mass murder or the destruction of the planetary bases for complex life despite possession of all the relevant knowledge due to all manner of unconscious psychopathological deformations resulting from millennia of authoritarian abuse. Unless you live on a different planet to me..