Animal Liberation Discussion

...

Let's liberate humans first. If people are well-off enough to spend time thinking about animal rights and bothering to eat vegan. Just looking at this from Marx's perspective, class conflict has to play out between the uppermost classes first; since animals are below proles (being considered property), bourg/prole conflict has to play out before prole/property conflict can play out. Where Marx can't be applied is that animals have zero revolutionary potential.

It's spooky as fuck

Animals are mere biological machine. A dumb animal will never rightfully be on a level of concern as an oppressed worker does.

Animals don't have the labour power of humans. They cannot create things.

That said cats are qt

nobody eats that, but I'm not complaining or anything

beavers
youtube.com/watch?v=iyNA62FrKCE

I care more about humans and this smacks of slide

Explain yourself, egofag.

Fuck off.

that's just what they do to survive. they produce no surplus value, nor do they have the ability to trade and exchange goods. they cannot furnish goods as they like. they do these things just to make it through each day.

bit different to human society

Rafiq debunked every ecology argument and Holla Forumsyps still troll the fuck out of the clueless with this divisive and reactionary bullshit.

Perhaps the animals could start some form of revolution? Then all animals would be equal, although some would be more equal than others…

sheeesh, calm down guys. it was more of a joke.

Completely fucking stupid and absolutely not something any leftists should be concerned with. Animal "liberation" is a meme issue for spoiled children and shouldn't be associated with the left in anyway.

Animals are not moral agents, thus they should not hold any rights. They still should be treated in such manner that we can most efficiently utilize them.

Imagine if Hitler had cared about people as much as he cared about animals, maybe Stalin wouldn't have had to slap his shit.

Veganism simply explained.

This.

It's a nonsense ideology if ever there was one. "Animal welfare" is not well-defined, i.e. completely and consistently, with respect to an internal logic. The entire basis for the theory is the assumption that we can anthropomorphize animal "suffering" and apply the same moral arguments pertinent to humans one happens to find "in fashion" this season.

It's not an objective or scientific framework through which one can approach the world, but unabashed political impressionism at its finest.

Militant vegans tend to gravitate around the imaginary notion of "carnism," an alleged violently hateful ideology akin to white supremacy, male supremacy, etc, which permeates everywhere, holds tremendous sway, and generates "systems of muh privilege" or "species-ism" entirely akin to those postulated in (human) social justice politics.

In many ways this is both the natural extension and reductio ad absurdum of just such politics of the pseudo-left. If you're up for a game of spot-the-fallacy you can hear them plead their case here youtube.com/watch?v=o0VrZPBskpg (19 min) in ted talk form, in their own words, which are undoubtedly more "honest" than mine.

Eventually of course, livestock will become obsolete under the advance of technology. The potential of in vitro grown meat and similar techniques for animal products will eventually become more practical and ecologically sound than raising live animals, not to mention the prospect of selectively producing those "cuts" of meat most demanded by the public, i.e. not in strict, constant proportion to "heads" of livestock, and thus wastefully and resource-inefficiently. Socialism is the best prospect for reaching such a state, regardless of morality.

Agitation for vegan goals to the neglect of socialism shows one's class affiliation quite clearly.

I think we reasons we leftists should disregard animals' rights for now, are:

1. Animal products are the most efficient in many cases, i.e. anyone who values their time would rather consume meat and milk, than follow a complicated vegan diet that accounts for their replacements.

(products based on wool, leather etc. are luxury commodities and thus this argument doesn't apply to them. Under socialism we'd probably erradicate their industrial-scale production since they're bourg as fuck, and since we'd prefer cheaper, synthetic products that replace them. Small-scale production by artisans would probably continue, due to tradition.)

2. Erradicating animal exploitation would require a huge restructuring of the world economy, effectively abolishing animal products and instead creating industry for their aforementioned equivalents.

3. But even under full-on world-scale socialism, resources would be scarce: therefore, if vegan alternatives are less efficient than the animal products they replace, the latter would rather be produced. It means less resources and less labour-hours spent, and this efficiency is an objective under any economic system and not just capitalism. What changes under socialism is who controls the economy: the workers through the ownership of the MoP. Socialism is not a "humane economy" of sorts, this is perhaps just a byproduct of a system that is controlled by the most part of the populace and not just by porky.

As much as we like to form bonds with certain animals (which tends to be the reason many are attracted to animals' rights movements: "the poor pups/kittens!"), and even considering that they're living beings capable of processing pain and suffering, in the end proposing that they should hold the same rights as humans is pretty dumb since they're currently mostly used as resources, and with good reason. We'll need to consume meat and other animal derivates for as long as a vegan alternative is more expensive (i.e. less efficient to produce en masse), and even when we adopt pets we're consuming them as entertainment (or means of defense) while mostly disregarding their innate desires: we feed them the same shit processed food, keep them in confinement etc.

In conclusion, it is idealist to think of a human-owned economy putting animals' rights over efficiency. And not just in capitalism, since any economic system would have to deal with scarce resources and infinite desire.

As we see in , animals' rights are a petit-bourgeois movement that is based solely in a huge appeal to emotion, and the idea that animal suffering can somehow end due to a few people's personal decisions (which often don't radically alter the position of animals in the economy, as is the case of Hitler's ban on vivisection).

I get that it sucks to see animals suffer and I don't propose we should be sadistic toward them (any change that reduces their suffering is welcome), but realistically this won't end as long as our economy is controlled by humans and thus acts in the interests of them, and even in communism this should be the case.

Any texts to read?

Sorry. Just assumed you were a rightist with a new spin on the mudpie argument

Stalin and Hitler would come to blows no matter what. Both provided an alternative to the Capitalist system that was failing all over Europe, and only one could come on top (or, as it turned out, neither since both were outmaneuvered).

Hitler was a capitalist though

Fucking retards.

Their role would be delicious.

Exactly what is efficient in turning vast amounts of soy into a small amount of beef that couldn't support one person for more than a week or two?

Friendly reminder that anything short of animals controlling the means of production is counterrevolution.