====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
I suggest that a much better materialist take on the Animalist issues is carried in John Berger's 'Why look at animals?" http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/gustafson/FILM%20161.F08/readings/berger.animals%202.pdf As Berger points out domesticated animals are an extension of human culture and production which also means that their existence is contained and determined by that relationship. Contemporary cows, sheep, pet dogs,and horses, etc are artefacts of our ongoing social and economic existence. Despite what may be the analogies in terms of exploitation, 'liberation' of such animals (an act only humans can offer these creatures as they can't usually do it themselves) is tantamount to the negation of their existence. While a domestic pig may revert and become a boor, and a dog may return to the feral pack(although I don't know how chihuahuas are gonna get on in the wilds) -- in effect we are sponsoring ferality separate from the determinants of nature. 'Liberation' of animals is no way analogous to the 'liberation' of humans...It's a obscene take on Marxism to try to marry the two perspectives as at Marxism's core is the collective self actualization of humans by their own activity. Is that 'anthropocentric'? I guess it is if you are into name calling -- but then to angst over that misses the core holistic materialism in Marxism, its empowering ecology. We can DECIDE not to eat or keep animals -- but that's our choice as a culture and a species.It is not a political imperative-- just a question of ethics -- determined by our own social and economic relations not by considerations inherently animalist. Just as abortion is not an ethical question for Marxists but one determined by our own social, gender and economic relations. The problem with an animalist perspective is that it is an ethical construct and as a topic of debate within Marxism I find its argument suspect. Nonetheless, comprehending the recent rise on animalist ethics is a fascinating historical topic as it certainly does reflect how much our food has been commodified and produced under conditions of increased exploitation both of other animals(eg:factory farming of poultry, feedlot beef,etc) and of nature (eg: GMOs, nitrate leaching, pesticides,etc). So it's roots are tangible and have concrete substance in the productive process. Indeed 13% of Americans claim they're vegetarian. [For the wrap up world wide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country] Another aspect that bugs me is the suggestion, like some Nirvana focused Buddhist, that the moral statue of socialism rises the more Vegan it becomes.I have a problem with that because it pursues a crude reading of Marx which c hooses to celebrate civilization as being a higher human condition than 'primitive' hunter gatherer societies. Ye olde Marxist historical hierarchy thing.The presumed staircase. A tick box approach to judging social systems where any one short of socialism is inherently better for humans than the mode that preceded it.. But the hunter gatherer relationship with nature and animals especially -- was not like contemporary animalist beliefs at all. Animals were exploited for food or fibre. These societies were beholden to Nature and in sync with its tolerances and sustainability but that' was never equated with the tenets of modern animalist thought which idealises what our attitude to animals should be. Of relevance is the seeming contradictory growth of Veganism in Israel despite the Occupation http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.557912 and this recent published clincher, again in Haretz:The Nazis were Vegans too http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.597597 which raises a lot of 'ethical' questions. On the materialist question of whether we no longer need to keep animals in captivity -- I'm very much on the side of affirmation because a sustainable agricultural system has to be dependent on animal inputs otherwise we must persevere with fossil sources for traction and fertiliser.(Good example of the options: Cuban agriculture during the 'Special Period') And Marx saw this clearly when he raised the question of the Metabolic Rift.--grain, fruit and veg production need animal inputs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_rift dave riley ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
