[AFAIK]

Are there any far-left thinkers who speak about animal rights or animal welfare?
Why isn't the concept of exploitation routinely applied to livestock or lab animals?

[The Immortal Goon]

Marxism is the study of labour and the material it produces.

Hundreds of thousands of years – of no greater significance in the history of the earth than one second in the life of man [Engels note: A leading authority in this respect, Sir William Thomson, has calculated that little more than a hundred million years could have elapsed since the time when the earth had cooled sufficiently for plants and animals to be able to live on it.] – certainly elapsed before human society arose out of a troupe of tree-climbing monkeys. Yet it did finally appear. And what do we find once more as the characteristic difference between the troupe of monkeys and human society? Labour. The ape herd was satisfied to browse over the feeding area determined for it by geographical conditions or the resistance of neighbouring herds; it undertook migrations and struggles to win new feeding grounds, but it was incapable of extracting from them more than they offered in their natural state, except that it unconsciously fertilised the soil with its own excrement. As soon as all possible feeding grounds were occupied, there could be no further increase in the ape population; the number of animals could at best remain stationary.

...But all that was not yet labour in the proper sense of the word. Labour begins with the making of tools. And what are the most ancient tools that we find – the most ancient judging by the heirlooms of prehistoric man that have been discovered

Since animals do not preform labour in the same way that humans do, and Marxism could be said to be the study of the labour man preforms, it simply does not fit in with most of our conceptions of something to liberate or study.

There are those that do, and more power to them. But for most Marxists, animal liberation is nothing more than ethical masturbation to the side of the issues that Marxism study.

[AFAIK]

I get the impression Marxists have a blind spot for certain labour relations. Slavery and debt bondage were widely practiced in many capitalists societies (they still are but are no longer state-sanctioned and are increasingly marginalised) and the proletariat who has nothing to sell but his labour is the ideal. Livestock is in the equivalent position as slaves, which I haven't seen Marx or Engels write about.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm very poorly read.

[The Immortal Goon]

I get the impression Marxists have a blind spot for certain labour relations.

Labour relations are pretty much our bread and butter.

Slavery and debt bondage were widely practiced in many capitalists societies (they still are but are no longer state-sanctioned and are increasingly marginalised) and the proletariat who has nothing to sell but his labour is the ideal.

Debt bondage is still a kind of proletarian labour, and slavery (in its latest incarnation) came about because of capitalism, but you're generally correct here...

Livestock is in the equivalent position as slaves, which I haven't seen Marx or Engels write about.

But livestock does not labour in the same way slaves do. Further, they never have and thus have not developed as people have developed. If we are looking at labour relations, we have to look at labour itself. Livestock cannot do labour in the way Engels (and I dare say most people) define labour.

The bit from Engels I posted has some incorrect things in the main due to its 19th century authorship (for instance, men developed from apes from a now sunken island off of India instead of from Africa). This being said, the general thesis is still remarkably correct. The act of creating tools as a form of labour, helped influence the social and physical development of man which led to creating new tools, which helped influence the social and physical development of man which led to creating new tools...

In the main, we study this progression of material conditions (base) and what develops from it (superstructure). A feudal base creates a superstructure in which an aristocracy runs everything, for instance.

This isn't true of livestock. They fall outside our area of study and our concern. Generally, and always from my anecdotal experience, when Marxists do broach the animal question it comes down to how changing our relationship with livestock will affect human material conditions and what develops from it. The animals are as incidental in the analysis as lamps or grass or something.

In this sense, it's no different than any other classic philosophy or current economic question.

[fuser]

But for most Marxists, animal liberation is nothing more than ethical masturbation to the side of the issues that Marxism study.

This.

If any marxist feels strongly about it, power to them. Its more of a policy issue and not something that will and can become a mainstream topic.

[Great Smell of Brut]

I utterly support Animal rights but then I'm a Liberal and have no interest in the absurd masturbation that is marxism- A sytem that always brings in Oppressive corrupt, brutal governments that Marxists then claim aren;t really Marxist.

[Decky]

Animals have the right to be tasty, nothing more. Socialism is about people.

[magnocrat]

Are there any far-left thinkers who speak about animal rights or animal welfare?
Why isn't the concept of exploitation routinely applied to livestock or lab animals?

The most famous is Animal Farm by George Orwell who had extreme left wing veiws rather similar to my own. The story is very subtle for the animals having rid themselves of human rule end up just as badly treated when the pigs take over. It is really about human nature that feathers its own nest.Although we are intelligent we carry a huge evolutionary baggage as pointed out by Steven Pinker inhis book The Blank Slate.

[cheers100]

Animals and humans are living in a biological chain. Keep it balance. In other words, exploit them rationally for survival need, i.e. food instead of intentionally killing/hurting/exploiting them for fun.

Humans are the top dogs of animals because we are way of empathy, of intelligence, we cherish all virtues.

Animals do have some same/similiar emotions as that of humans, i.e. the pain when they lost their children, revenge when they get hurt, etc.

[Varax]

Animals do not participate in our society the same way humans do and thus do not acquire the same corresponding responsibilities and privileges that humans do. I agree with TIG that focusing on "animal liberation" is 'ethical masturbation'. I have no problem viewing livestock as what it is - resources for human consumption. They should be managed and regarded as such. Some balance is needed for ecological reasons, but that's as far as I go and it's all about ensuring sustainability for human development.

I may not be a racist, but I have no problem being a speciest.

Animals have the right to be tasty, nothing more. Socialism is about people.

Also, this.

[cheers100]

Animals do not participate in our society the same way humans do and thus do not acquire the same corresponding responsibilities and privileges that humans do. .

Well, the human society can be devided into many sub-societies.

Africans didn't involve much into Western society the same way as Westerners did in Europe or North America before, and thus were they supposed to be exploited, being kidnapped, trafficked, enslaved?

[Varax]

Africans didn't involve much into Western society the same way as Westerners did in Europe or North America before, and thus were they supposed to be exploited, being kidnapped, trafficked, enslaved?

They were and that's somewhat changed now...but are you really trying to compare African slaves to chickens and cows?

Yes, that's the ridiculous angle animal liberationists are trying to take and it's proof that they've completely lost the plot and gone off the deep end trying to make absurd moralistic points like this. And I don't care about the emotions of my food before it is cooked either since you seem to be going down that route again.

[cheers100]

They were and that's somewhat changed now...but are you really trying to compare African slaves to chickens and cows?

I am talking about the premise of your arguement that whether or not animals contribute the same value to our society. If they don't, they should be at the mercy of other animals - humans, being exploited at will. Then why don't you stand by the premise when it comes to other race of humans, who are animals from the perspective of biology?

There are many cases that dogs lost their lives to save the lives of their keepers. And some news once reported animals once raised human kids.

http://www.smashinglists.com/10-feral-h ... animals/2/

10 Feral Human Children Raised by Animals
5. John Ssebunya, the Ugandan Monkey Boy
4. Traian Caldarar, the Romanian Dog Boy
3. Rochom P’ngieng, Cambodian Jungle Girl
2. The Russian Bird Boy
1. Oxana Malaya, The Ukrainian Dog Girl
....

[Varax]

I am talking about to the premise of your arguement that whether or not animals contribute the same value to our society. If they don't, they should be at the mercy of other animals - humans, being exploited at will. Then why don't you stand by the premise when it comes to other race of humans, who are animals from the perspective of biology?

Is this your way of telling me that you're a 'racialist'? Well if I was maybe I would take up that argument - I'm not so I don't. Speciesism on the other hand is just being realistic. Obviously humans are animals as well, but it's our kind of animal. I don't apologize for putting human interests first.

Also you seem to be misinterpreting my previous statement. Other animals can ‘contribute’ in small ways to our society, but my point is that even those that do are not capable of participating to the full extent that humans are. A seeing eye dog for instance is obviously useful and should be treated with the respect a faithful companion deserves. Humans love our dogs and form emotional bonds with them. This has come after a very long time of selective breeding and training however to make the modern domestic dog. So because humans love our dogs and cats we extend some modicum of protection to them against abuse. But they are still not our equals – they are our pets which means we literally own them. They do not vote, they do not have speech in the sense that you and I do. They have vocal cords and can be taught to understand our commands but they do not communicate with us as equals. They have some intelligence but not to the extent we do. Some animals such as dolphins might have comparable intelligence I suppose and humans can co-operate with dolphins but they do not participate in our society as equals either. Further these types of limited protections mostly extend to higher mammals who we have the most in common with biologically. Hence why aside from a few nutters you don’t see any outrage over the wasp I just killed.

None of these animals, including the most intelligent non-human animals are capable of participating in our society as equals and holding the same responsibilities that we place on humans – thus we do not and likely never will extend to them the same privileges we extend to humans. Your comparison of this to African slaves is nonsensical since Africans clearly are humans and can hold those responsibilities and privileges. Trying to compare their plight during slavery to livestock is really more insulting to African slaves than anything.

The rest of your post is basically superfluous. None of those examples change anything I just wrote at all. A lot of this comes down to some people having broken morals where they’ve taken their desire to fight for the underdog to absurd levels by now viewing humans as naughty oppressors over those other animals.

[cheers100]

Is this your way of telling me that you're a 'racialist'? Well if I was maybe I would take up that argument - I'm not so I don't. Speciesism on the other hand is just being realistic. Obviously humans are animals as well, but it's our kind of animal. I don't apologize for putting human interests first.

How do you judge I am telling myself racialist? Please don't try to launch personal attack. We didn't have any black slavery. But the black slavery and the discrimination against the black have been a serious issue in the US. They treated black slaves as cows, killing, selling at will. I am telling you the fact.

It is pathetic that you value lives on the basis of their values, responsibility to the society. Then what will you do with other physically or mentally disabled people? According to your logic, they don't deserve the same basic rights as the normal people do, do they?

[Varax]

How do you judge I am telling myself racialist? Please don't try to launch personal attack.

I honestly had no idea if you were a racialist or not. Judging by your response I'll assume you aren't but it wasn't intended to be a personal attack.

They treated black slaves as cows, killing, selling at will.

Metaphorically treating someone "like a cow" is different than actually being a cow.

Then what will you do with other physically or mentally disabled people? According to your logic, they don't deserve the same basic rights as the normal people do, do they?

Then you don't actually understand my logic very well. In the case of someone in a wheelchair for instance they can still vote, hold a job and otherwise participate in our society. Just don't expect them to get up and start doing jumping jacks or cartwheels. They should also be given medical attention such as an artificial limb or whatever else they need to walk and under a socialist system that assistance will be readily provided to them. Similarly a mentally disabled person can still participate in society to some extent and can be given assistance for their condition. But if they are truly retarded then they will not be put in a position that exceeds their abilities and the particulars of that depends on what their disability actually is.

I also think that humans should improve our condition both genetically and cybernetically and both of those can open up new possibilities for helping the disabled overcome their disability or ameliorate certain disabilities all together. None of that requires me to extend 'rights' to cows.

[Vyth]

Are there any far-left thinkers who speak about animal rights or animal welfare?
Why isn't the concept of exploitation routinely applied to livestock or lab animals?

If one accepts materialism, there is no reason to concern oneself with the well-being of any creature, whether man or animal. But an attitude of indifference to such things would entail an adherence of the materialist to logic, something which the Marxist lacks in principle, though he may employ logic from time to time in an opportunistic or fragmentary fashion, as when he wishes to give the semblance of truth to his propaganda, by the occasional use of some logically self-consistent sub-argument amid a slough of idiocies. Instead of logic, Marxism is built upon the idea of dialectics, which (in this sense the ancients* correctly recognised as the 'logic' of illusion precisely, not of reality itself, which is bridged by logic not dialectics.

* i.e. true philosphers, who are in every respect the polar opposite of modern ideological impostures, of which Marx is a prime example

[fuser]

If one accepts materialism, there is no reason to concern oneself with the well-being of any creature, whether man or animal.

No. You seem confused you are trying to criticize philosophical materialism while portraying the English word"materialism". Sorry but rest of your posts are also just silly caricature of marxist dialectics rather than any serious critique.

[Vyth]

No. You seem confused you are trying to criticize philosophical materialism while portraying the English word"materialism". Sorry but rest of your posts are also just silly caricature of marxist dialectics rather than any serious critique.

Your confusion must be severe because you project it onto others when it originates from within your mind. One of the consequences of your confusion is your belief in ideology; for an ideology cannot be truly understood without a familiarity with ideology itself, pure ideology beyond any of its assumed forms; now the essence of ideology is autistic absolutisation of concepual thought (idolatry of mental categories) and therefore every ideology is a false religion. You favour the general conclusions of your chosen ideology because they play some role, great or small, in serving some worldly fixation, or in filling the void created by deviating from the truth of your own being.

At the heart of materialism is the perverse desire to be sexually dominated by the female. For 'mother' in its negative aspect is none other than 'matter', matter being the void of chaos, corresponding on the human level to the cavity into which the penis is thrust during copulation. Both matter and mother were originally the same word. 'Matter' today is nothing but the negative symbol of 'mother' by subtraction of all sensuous attributes thereof; and Materialism is the distilled essence of 'mother goddess' worship, now presented to man in the guise of ideology. Materialism/mother=worship is in alliance with a thousand related tendencies of this age, ranging from feminism (=matriarchy) to homosexualy (emasculation of the father) to child molestation (the murder of innocence, a manifestation of bestial man's inborn compulsion to commit ritual child sacrifice to the mother deity). These and a thousand other deviations are all in alliance with each other, all parts of a grand design to restore the worship of the sex godddess, a cult that plagued the world until the heaven-sent religions finally drove them underground. Unfortuntately their vile practises were transmitted to posterity through various secret fraternities who now exercise a disastrous influence on world affairs.

[fuser]

okay.

At the heart of materialism is often the perverse desire to be sexually dominated by the female.