Something I wrote...

[octoberlost]

I finished writing this over the weekend, with any luck it will end up in Black Kitten zine due to be released soon...

It think the article reads okay, but needs some serious editing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘Animal Rights’
The central and most difficult question regarding animal rights is ‘are animals equal to humans?’ Most assume with or without much thought that there is no equals sign between the two. But the absurdity of this question, is best understood with responding to an equal comparison of ‘are men equal to women?’ or ‘whites equal to blacks?’ since the question contains the same pitfalls and underpinnings.

Let us alternatively explain by taking two groups, x and y. Group x argues the notion that y is inferior, it does this by stressing the varying different qualities between the two groups, this allows x to argue that they should be entitled to have more rights and even possibly have the right of domination over group y. Now if it emerged that group x were male and y female, this would be sexism, and most rational people wouldn’t stomach the idea of females being controlled (in the overt sense at least), likewise if x were white and y black this would be discrimination on the grounds of race and would be seen as passé. Yet if the x group were humans and y animals, why shouldn’t logic follow from the previous two examples? Why is it seen as acceptable that animals are expendable to human interest first and foremost?

We find that while there are many explanations for this pattern, there are no real justifications for it, since the origins of domination over animals, are only a matter of stressing different characteristics of each species, which likewise is deeply identical to racism and sexism.

In much the same way racism operates on stressing whites as being separate or distinct from the other races, human chauvinism towards animals facilitates the idea of being separate from animal kind and even nature. Likewise this human-centric approach, (which is uncannily similar to racism), robs animals of any real distinct character, instead leaving the term animal, as a parody where it is often reduced to a form of abuse.

But let us be clear, there is no absolute line of distinction between humans and other animals. This point is clearly stressed by Darwin, and a host of other studies. In fact an entire array of thoughts has arisen to justify human distinction from other animals, but all fall flat when logically placed in a wider context. There is no escaping it, humans are neither plants nor minerals, but clearly animals, albeit it a distinct one.

The objections of course to ‘animal rights’ are many, but one first as to see it in the correct context its placed in. We do not foresee of imposing the arbitrary rights of one group on another, but granting rights which take into account basic needs. That is to say animal rights isn't about bestowing animals with human rights, or qualities which they have not got, on the contrary. Equal status between the sexes does not imply that men have equal access to those treatments which are specified for women, such as pregnancy facilities, that would clearly be absurd. What we mean is affording the same rights of respect granted between humans and ‘extending our compassion’ to those of other species. This would cover as a form of protection against all forms of abuse and exploitation of animals, as it does or at least should cover humans, be it from their reduction to mere commodities of food and fashion items to their use in sport and science. Animal rights is nothing more than equal consideration on the matter of moral status.

The central and most important refutation that animals should have rights, is the issue of intelligence, this argument operates on a number of levels. We are told for example that we speak language, and therefore have a higher degree of communication than animals. Next up, we never tire to hear animals are less intelligent, and lack the ability of self-realisation therefore they are deserving of less rights than humans. But hold those thoughts, since when did we reward rights according to intelligence? If this was so we would be relatively free to abuse the docile while being able to freely experiment on retarded humans. Likewise in all seriousness we should ask - do we measure the grief of rapes, assaults and other abuses according to the intelligence of the victims? Such absurdity isn't worthy of being addressed. We acknowledge that life being of central importance to the bearer, as no right to be inflicted upon in a negative way, being that life is precious since it’s the only life the bearer has. That is to say no one should have the right to inflict pain or suffering on others since, each life is supreme and completely sovereign.

But animals are food, surely?
For hunter gathers maybe, but this comment in the context of a modern industrial society isn't the case for justifying factory farming or negating animal rights. Adding to that we can show that i) people can sustain themselves without animals for nutrition, ii) that meat and dairy based diets are detrimental to human health since they are linked to cancer and heart disease, iii) meat is high cost purchase, iv) animal products are a misuse of land and food resources, v) animal intensive farming is environmentally damaging.
In whichever order you choose animal rights is beneficial to the people, planet and the animals.

Attempts to caricature the argument for animals having status are used by extending the argument to plants. Yet this only shows confusion, criteria for rights is based on suffering, vegetation neither has the nervous system nor the sentience to achieve this.

We find that since animals are ‘subjects of life’ they are no less deserving of status than humans, since rights isn't something that works as a partisan for human centrism or to disguise our contempt for those we deem to have less intelligence, instead its based on the rational of ‘can they suffer?’ and if the answer is yes, then they should be the subject of liberation.

[octoberlost]

Anarchism and Animal Rights
While there are those within all walks who don’t understand or better yet reject the idea of animal rights, this likewise is replicated within the anarchist movement, and it is in my opinion sad that animal liberation isn't taken seriously, particularly bearing in mind our understanding of oppression. Of course there are many objections some sincere, others not so. I will try for credibility’s sake to deal with the most obvious argument, namely that animal rights is associated with ‘liberal’ possibly ‘reformist’ even ‘middle class’ struggles against capitalism and the state. In other words animal rights is seen (by some) as a bourgeois influence within anarchism, i.e. it’s alien and foreign to the movement, and thus not an important issue to concern ourselves with. This main criticism is drawn primarily from class struggle anarchists, with whom I take to be the most consistent with the founding ideas of anarchism.

“To all animal righters who consider themselves anarchists: You're so wrong you're an embarrassment. You try to attach yourselves to anarchism to lend some credibility to your very weak and unthoughout ideas. You're reformist idiots and in no way anarchists. Vegan capitalism - no thanks….There's too many diversions promoted by middle class idiots wanting something to get upset about: roads, calves, the trees, CFC's, food additives, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc capitalism will throw up as many causes the liberals and middle class will consume. We are not meant to suss this or argue this.” – Educating Who About What?
While there’s much to disagree with here, the contempt towards vegan capitalism, ‘middle class idiots’ and the idea capitalism throws up many ‘causes’ is well shared. But in what capacity can animal rights be directly shunned from anarchism and put in the sphere of the middle class activism?
Like all movements, animal rights as contradictions, hierarchies and competing tendencies within it, let me state - this does not nullify its ambition. If for this reason we ditched animal rights to the dustbin of history we may aswell throw in class struggle politics as well, because nothing could possibly be as horizontal as some of the jokes that pass for representing the ‘working class’. One could just as well conclude the labour movement to be as middle class and bureaucratically misplaced as the animal rights movement ever could be. Just because capitalism can absorb certain aspects of animal rights completely misses the point, unlike Marx and a lot of his followers, libertarians should pride ourselves on the fact we completely understand how the beast can co-opt movements and divert them into safe channels (trade unions, social democratic parties etc), all through good old bureaucratic methods. This is as much to do with liberal and reformist stratergies within the movement as it is to with the movement itself.
For what its worth liberals see themselves as the progressive wing of capitalism, the very same system which finds its profits at the expense and distress of animals, however liberals remain totally immune to this realisation – otherwise that would end their status as liberals. By their very nature liberals within the animal rights movement initiate everything which makes animal rights ‘respectable’; they give reverence to the authorities, they obsess about creating ‘cruelty free’ goods (thus replicating the abusive system), they use official tried and tested lobbying methods and they regularly police and try and purge the animal rights movement they claim to represent.
No one should be under any illusions, liberal methods and means can not achieve the status befitting of animals, much like reformists can do nothing but reconcile grievances to the beneficiary of the state and capitalism. Only a libertarian communist society, free from the distortions of the ‘free market’ could move towards a truly humane end. One should not underestimate the colossal blow the animal abuse industries would suffer from a free society, for a start full democratic control of the economy and production wouldn’t allow the overproduction, advertising bias, intensive methods that are common practice now. Arbitrary conditions imposed in places like vivisection labs and abattoirs would struggle to survive under open scrutiny. But while we can recognise this, there is still the liberal wing who will continue to perpetuate the crap about feeding and sustaining the world, if only they turned vegan. Capitalism is and remains the key problem of all the worlds ills, and muddle-headed liberal ideas and methods need to be openly challenged.
But progress within animal rights can only be understood if we correctly correlate animal abuse to the imposed social system. Animal rights activism remains one of many forms of resistance to exploitative capitalism, which is based, on many occasions on the autonomous initiative of grass-roots organisation taking direct action. If that’s not following the old dictum of building our world in the shell of the old – then what is?
We can also pin-point the role animals play in hierarchy. Animals we know from primitive societies were the first form of private property and became a symbol of status and domination, as they became domesticated.
The idea that dominating animals is essential under both capitalism and a libertarian society is just plain wrong. Violence meted against enslaved blacks and persecuted Jews, was perfected and developed first against animals. So when we speak of widening our compassion, it isn't with some rosy tinted liberal perspective, but one that acknowledges power and hierarchies are self perpetuating and threaten to spill out into other areas.
I never tire to hear how this or that ‘informed’ anarchist defends animal testing on the grounds humans will benefit. Notice how when we talk about those ‘fluffy’ animals, a class perspective goes out the fucking window for most radicals, it’s all too sad. Big debates on the fallacies of vivisection aside, the likelihood that in a class society that a potential cure is going to benefit the whole of humanity, without some huge monopoly or incurred cost is just a sick liberal joke. And yet many anarchists seem to fall for it.

What remains is, a capitalism without animal abuse could exist. Yet it remains at this time, one of many forms of oppression which buttresses the system, thus animal liberation is something which is detrimental to capitalism. But as a singular activity it can remain pointless, authoritarian and possibly reactionary. But to not forward an awareness of this oppression, and not resist it means our understanding and inter-action with nature and animals as been retarded by capitalism, a system which as subverted the whole of humanity to its violence and oppression.

[michele cryer]

Octoberlost...what can I say? Simply brilliant!

[octoberlost]

Thanks,
Everytime I read it I want to change something...

[michele cryer]

That's a natural reaction to your own work...I still think it's fine as it is, but there's nothing to stop you altering it if it would make you feel better...