DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Human liberation - Animal liberation/groups?

61 posts / 0 new
Last post
X0mbee
Offline
Joined: 30-07-10
Aug 2 2010 21:42

I am by no means the sharpest knife in the drawer/ but it seems to me like some of the people here are being a bit narrow minded here with the ideas of "anarchism" or "libertarianism", or whatever label you wish to give it.

The chap has made a good point, in that a lot of groups tend to ignore the plight of other sentient being that aren't human.

There are a lot of struggles around the world, and none of them are any more important than the other, surely? Why are Sexism and Racism classed as more important than any other issue in the world? Is the suffering of an innocent creature not as important as the suffering of an innocent human? It baffles me to think that a person can think of a human's life as "more valuable" than any other creatures, let alone a person that openly subscribes to a "anarchist / libertarian" discussion forum.

Don't get me wrong, there are clearly some things that need to be addressed in some kind of hierachy... but to out an out insult the guy, call him a twat and tell him he should ".... get the fuck out of libertarian politics..."

perhaps you should rethink what anarchism / libertarianism really means to you. If it doesn't include the words "mutual respect" in there.... maybe you're not an anarchist after all.

Anarchia's picture
Anarchia
Offline
Joined: 18-03-06
Aug 3 2010 00:20
Quote:
Is the suffering of an innocent creature not as important as the suffering of an innocent human?

No, it isn't.

X0mbee
Offline
Joined: 30-07-10
Aug 3 2010 19:21

so the issue of cessation of sufferage across the board is not one of the main arguments of libertarianism / anarchism?

perhaps I'm not an anarchist then.

*edit* - Plus, thats a really lame argument.... At least give me your reasons for believing you have more right to exist than any other creature.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Aug 3 2010 19:41
X0mbee wrote:
so the issue of cessation of sufferage across the board is not one of the main arguments of libertarianism / anarchism?

perhaps I'm not an anarchist then.

*edit* - Plus, thats a really lame argument.... At least give me your reasons for believing you have more right to exist than any other creature.

This isn't a matter of abstract "rights". This is about who is capable of organizing for the betterment of their own lives and well-being. Humans, of whatever race or sex, are provably capable of doing so, and will do so without your help. Unlike animals, which cannot and do not. When a syndicalist cow union comes up and asks for solidarity action, we can talk about inter-species cooperation for a better tomorrow. Until then, it's no more than charity and pity, which is a luxury we will, as a civilization, be able to fully indulge in only once we've bettered our lives beyond a certain point.

X0mbee
Offline
Joined: 30-07-10
Aug 3 2010 20:03

ok, I do agree with you that there is obviously a "priority" list of which issues would be better tackled first, but to simply shun the idea in the first place, call the guy a twat and tell him his opinion is wasted.... after making a perfectly valid point.... thats a bit shit. I also agree that perhaps animal liberation, is not one of the first more pressings issues at hand, but it IS still an issue, surely?

Sexism, Racism, etc are important issues yes.... but they are no more important to freedom across the board, than, for example, freedom from slavery, disintegration of capitalist tyranny, respect for all lifeforms... and the termination of using other creatures for testing shit on. After all, If we're aiming for freedom, should we not try to make all sentient being free.

In my eyes, saying its ok to test make-up on a rabbit, is the same as saying its ok to test the effects of bleach on mute children. Neither of them will LIKE having chemcals burning them, and neither will be able to defend itself against the process. Saying human life is worth more, because we can make a little club and all rant about the same things is nonsense. Following that to it natural conclusion would be saying anti-social humans are ok to be forced into slavery.

I've run out of argument now...

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Aug 3 2010 20:18
X0mbee wrote:
I also agree that perhaps animal liberation, is not one of the first more pressings issues at hand, but it IS still an issue, surely?
...
After all, If we're aiming for freedom, should we not try to make all sentient being free.

No, it's not an issue. Non-human animals cannot be free in a planet occupied by humans. The only way they can be "free" is if humans will leave them alone, a voluntary abstinence which is a nice luxury when your life does not depend on their use, and is furthermore insulting to non-whites, females, queers, and workers, who are just as intelligent as bourgeois white male heterosexual capitalists, and just as capable of organizing with their peers to struggle against their own oppression, unlike cows, pigs and cute fluffy bunnies.

X0mbee wrote:
In my eyes, saying its ok to test make-up on a rabbit, is the same as saying its ok to test the effects of bleach on mute children.

No. A mute child can become a fully functional human being, albeit with difficulties in communications, unlike cows, pigs and cute fluffy bunnies. The former will only be helpless temporarily, and remaining so will disrupt his ability to become something more. The latter will never be something more, and will always need to be protected by human beings. Your comparison is, again, insulting to the former and irrelevant to the latter.

X0mbee
Offline
Joined: 30-07-10
Aug 3 2010 20:46

So the fact that we continue to pillage and rape the whole planet and all it's beings is completely OK.... because We're humans, and We're better than everything else. Sounds a bit self-important to me.

Wild creatures do NOT need protecting BY humans... they often need protecting FROM humans. Have you ever tried to catch a wild rabbit? its hard work... You say that a mute child will only be helpless temporarily, and that staying mute will prolong that helplessness... Well a whole breed of creature specifically bred to be tested on, has never and will never have the choice to be helpless. If they are released into the wild, chances are they shall die, but personally I'd rather die free than live as a slave.

And stating that a human can be a more worthwhile form of life, simply because it can make a bigger gang, is moronic. As is the concept that Philosophy, Art and Music actually MEAN anything. They are all just opinions, and having those opinions doesn't make you a higher life form.... again, that just sounds a bit self important..... messiah-complex anyone?

Humans often struggle to cope with hermitage, and function a hell of a lot better with a cast of social "norms", in whichever society thay chose to sign up to. Working on that basis, Humans need help to achieve the things that will benefit them, from other Humans... So when another creature needs that help, it's not OK? If you have it in your power to stop another creature suffering, why would you not do it?

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Aug 3 2010 21:33

Between the two of you, your on about anthropocentrism, which is bad, only recently they were talking about the destruction of a kind of plankton which could disrupt our entire eco-system, this is not simply a matter of self-interest exclusively, we should always minimise the impact we have on a finite world, it goes without saying. Raising the standard level of production needs to be checked and balanced.

But it would also be a mistake to make a political statement out of your diet. X0mbee you do actually realise that even a vegetable based diet still takes a huge strain on animal species? Where do you source agricultural land and how do you maintain it, these are issues that are dodged by groups like the vegan society, which promotes nonsense about world hunger solutions and vegetable diets as a panacea.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Aug 3 2010 22:11
october_lost wrote:
But it would also be a mistake to make a political statement out of your diet. X0mbee you do actually realise that even a vegetable based diet still takes a huge strain on animal species? Where do you source agricultural land and how do you maintain it, these are issues that are dodged by groups like the vegan society, which promotes nonsense about world hunger solutions and vegetable diets as a panacea.

You got anymore info about this? articles on libcom? Cheers

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Aug 3 2010 22:50
allybaba wrote:
october_lost wrote:
But it would also be a mistake to make a political statement out of your diet. X0mbee you do actually realise that even a vegetable based diet still takes a huge strain on animal species? Where do you source agricultural land and how do you maintain it, these are issues that are dodged by groups like the vegan society, which promotes nonsense about world hunger solutions and vegetable diets as a panacea.

You got anymore info about this? articles on libcom? Cheers

Soya production along with palm oil are causing deforestation and destruction of eco-systems. Its on numerous articles in abundance on the web. I have heard this book deals with a number of issues surrounding vegetarianism.

martinh
Offline
Joined: 8-03-06
Aug 3 2010 23:02

There is a problem on here with some knee jerk reactions to people who espouse some sort of animal rights agenda. It's not one I agree with, but I think a bit of civility is called for TBH.

Xombie - your argument is about dropping bleach onto rabbits eyes - this is a reverse of the anti-AR position on here. As far as I am concerned the sort of tests done like that are pointless and cruel and done so that legislation can complied with and to avoid litigation. (you can't sue us for our bad chemicals, we tested them etc). They have no place in an anarchist society or anything worthy of the name. However, there will still be meat eating and other forms of cruelty to animals; and I'd hope we make a big effort to eliminate certain lifeforms to extinction (malaria being a good case in point).

Any humane society would seek to minimise the suffering of the animals it used, just because cruelty to animals as an end in itself is a very bad thing and undermines all of our humanity. This is recognised in plenty of different approaches by other cultures to respect the animals they ate (tied in with blood taboos, certain items being prohibited, purification ceremonies around slaughter etc).

On OL's point about vegan food taking over the world and crowding out the wild spaces where animals live, have a look at China. Vast swathes given over to rice and soya. Monocultures for miles for centuries. The wildlife hangs on in remote mountainous areas. Vegan diets generally need soya and lots of it. Soya is probably one of the main industrial crops, and even now habitat for animals will be cleared for soya planting. There's not a direct causal link, but the growth of agriculture is generally pretty bad news for (wild) animals.

So, the cost to animal life of soya produciton is probably far less than that of marsh-grazed lamb, for example.

Regards,

Martin

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Aug 4 2010 08:37
october_lost wrote:
allybaba wrote:
october_lost wrote:
But it would also be a mistake to make a political statement out of your diet. X0mbee you do actually realise that even a vegetable based diet still takes a huge strain on animal species? Where do you source agricultural land and how do you maintain it, these are issues that are dodged by groups like the vegan society, which promotes nonsense about world hunger solutions and vegetable diets as a panacea.

You got anymore info about this? articles on libcom? Cheers

Soya production along with palm oil are causing deforestation and destruction of eco-systems. Its on numerous articles in abundance on the web. I have heard this book deals with a number of issues surrounding vegetarianism.

Thanks for book recommendation. Yeah knew that about the so called green fuels of Brazil etc.

gerbil
Offline
Joined: 26-10-10
Oct 26 2010 22:46
John Oswald wrote:
Comrades,

I seek an Anarchist-Communist group which accepts that human and fellow-animal exploitation is interlinked and does not despise talk of animal liberation.

Funny you should say that, I've been looking for anarchists who aren't dyed-in-the-wool (oops!) vegans and animal rightists, as all the anarchist noise in Nottingham is made by the animal rightists at the Sumac centre. I get the feeling that it would be social death to turn up at a meeting with a cheese sandwich, let alone a meat pie.

Once upon a time, anarchists were ordinary stiffs like Jane and Joe Public, and lived in the same world as them and did the same things. Now, at least around Notts, they consider carnivores or even lacto-veggies to be complicit in mass murder and animal suffering. Hardly a basis for solidarity...

Folk want to be veggies or vegans or fruitarians, fine, but don't make it bloody compulsory. Reminds me of the 80s when vegetarianism was pretty much mandatory for any activist.

gg

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Oct 26 2010 23:06

Gerbil, there's a decent chipper 5 minutes walk down the hill.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Oct 27 2010 23:56
Quote:
so the issue of cessation of sufferage across the board is not one of the main arguments of libertarianism / anarchism?

I can't believe no one picked up on this one. Anarchism = the end of voting rights across the board

Alone Together
Offline
Joined: 28-09-10
Nov 4 2010 04:42
ncwob wrote:
Quote:
so the issue of cessation of sufferage across the board is not one of the main arguments of libertarianism / anarchism?

I can't believe no one picked up on this one. Anarchism = the end of voting rights across the board

Surely it was meant to be "suffering"?

---

There is obviously going to be a wide range of opinions in relation to our position as a species sharing a finite environment with, as yet uncounted, millions of other species. It appears from this thread that there is a marked tendency for for the more "reactionary" end of this range of opinion to dismiss out of hand anyone expressing a more "libertarian" stance than their own.

How strange!

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Nov 4 2010 17:07

Yeah, of course he meant suffering, it's just quite funny little slip-up.

And, if by "reactionary" you mean anthropocentric and by "libertarian" you mean animal rights activists masquerading as anarchists, then yes you are correct. Although it's not strange at all...

Alone Together
Offline
Joined: 28-09-10
Nov 4 2010 18:39
ncwob wrote:
And, if by "reactionary" you mean anthropocentric and by "libertarian" you mean animal rights activists masquerading as anarchists, then yes you are correct

No that isn't what I meant.

I meant "reactionary" as expressed in the outright dismissal of opposing views and "libertarian" as expressed in the acceptance of freedom of thought and expression.

I don't think that anthropocentrism or the concept of animal liberation are necessarily mutually exclusive.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Nov 4 2010 18:44
Alone Together wrote:
ncwob wrote:
And, if by "reactionary" you mean anthropocentric and by "libertarian" you mean animal rights activists masquerading as anarchists, then yes you are correct

No that isn't what I meant.

I meant "reactionary" as expressed in the outright dismissal of opposing views and "libertarian" as expressed in acceptance of freedom of thought and expression.

Yeah, but there's a lot of problems there.

One, the whole notions of "freedoms" and "rights" are very bourgeois, liberal political constructs (not without their usefulness, but generally not the best for understanding anarchist principles).

Two, just having an idea doesn't mean it deserves discussion in society at large, never mind on a class struggle anarchist forum. I mean, it's always a spectrum, but I don't want freedom of expression that allows misogynists or racists to spout their nonsense and, if they came on libcom, I'd be much harsher toward them than I am towards those who try to claim animal "liberation" has anything to do anarchism.

Dano's picture
Dano
Offline
Joined: 27-02-10
Nov 4 2010 22:23

As far back as I can remember, the origin of my revolt against the powerful was my horror at the tortures inflicted on animals. I used to wish animals could get revenge, that the dog could bite the man who was mercilessly beating him, that the horse bleeding under the whip could throw off the man tormenting him. But mute animals always submit to their fate.
Louise Michel

deerbusker's picture
deerbusker
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Nov 20 2010 11:22

‘Prisons are the symbol of the servitude of the people. They are always built only to subjugate the people, the workers and peasants. Throughout the centuries, the bourgeoisie in all countries crushed the spirit of rebellion pr resistance of the masses by means of execution and imprisonment. And in our time, in the Communist and Socialist state, prisons devour mainly the proletariat of the city and the countryside. Free people have no use for prisons. Wherever prisons exist, the people are not free. Prisons represent a constant threat to the workers, an encroachment on their consciousness and will, and a visible sign of their servitude. This is how the Makhnovists defined their relationship to prisons. In keeping with this attitude, they demolished prisons wherever they went. In Berdyansk the prison was dynamited in the presence of an enormous crowd, which took an active part in its destruction. At Alexandrovsk, Krivoi-Rog, Ekaterinoslav and elsewhere, prisons were demolished or burned by the Makhnovists. Everywhere the workers cheered this act.’
Peter Arshinov, The Makhnovist Movement, p. 156

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Nov 20 2010 11:53
deerbusker wrote:
‘Prisons are the symbol of the servitude of the people. They are always built only to subjugate the people, the workers and peasants. Throughout the centuries, the bourgeoisie in all countries crushed the spirit of rebellion pr resistance of the masses by means of execution and imprisonment. And in our time, in the Communist and Socialist state, prisons devour mainly the proletariat of the city and the countryside. Free people have no use for prisons. Wherever prisons exist, the people are not free. Prisons represent a constant threat to the workers, an encroachment on their consciousness and will, and a visible sign of their servitude. This is how the Makhnovists defined their relationship to prisons. In keeping with this attitude, they demolished prisons wherever they went. In Berdyansk the prison was dynamited in the presence of an enormous crowd, which took an active part in its destruction. At Alexandrovsk, Krivoi-Rog, Ekaterinoslav and elsewhere, prisons were demolished or burned by the Makhnovists. Everywhere the workers cheered this act.’
Peter Arshinov, The Makhnovist Movement, p. 156

Don't you think in a libertarian communist society that some form of prisons would exist? I do.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Nov 20 2010 13:01

at that time the executed people for crimes like murder, so they wouldn't have been in prison

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Nov 20 2010 15:28

How did this jump from animal liberation and human liberation and their possible(or not) connections, to a discussion about prisons? Start another thread.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Nov 20 2010 15:29

Fair play Cortez, fair play-I refuse however to start another prison thread wink .

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Nov 20 2010 15:30

That's because you'll outed yet again as a wanna be warden wink

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Nov 20 2010 15:58

Its true I love the whole prison warden scene wink

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Nov 24 2010 10:11
Dano wrote:
As far back as I can remember, the origin of my revolt against the powerful was my horror at the tortures inflicted on animals. I used to wish animals could get revenge, that the dog could bite the man who was mercilessly beating him, that the horse bleeding under the whip could throw off the man tormenting him. But mute animals always submit to their fate.
Louise Michel

This does not mean that animals are equal to humans and it does not mean that protecting them is revolutionary.

I don't believe animals would be mistreated in a communist/anarchist society because hopefully people wouldn't feel the need to mistreat creatures who couldn't defend themselves but this is more about compassion than solidarity.

Dano's picture
Dano
Offline
Joined: 27-02-10
Nov 24 2010 21:23
jef costello wrote:
This does not mean that animals are equal to humans and it does not mean that protecting them is revolutionary.

I don't believe animals would be mistreated in a communist/anarchist society because hopefully people wouldn't feel the need to mistreat creatures who couldn't defend themselves but this is more about compassion than solidarity.

Another one by her: The more ferocious a man is towards a beast, the more he is servile towards the men which rule him.

deerbusker's picture
deerbusker
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Dec 29 2010 16:25

‘The more thoroughly each member of the society feels his solidarity with each member of the society, the more completely are developed in all of them those two qualities which are the main factors of all progress: courage on the one hand, and on the other, free individual initiative. And on the contrary, the more any animal society or little group of animals loses this feeling of solidarity - which may change as the result of exceptional scarcity or else of exceptional plenty - the more do the two other factors of progress, courage and initiative, diminish.’
Kropotkin, Fugitive Writings, p. 139

Foxy.