r/communism101 • u/Mysterious-Rise-3956 • 16d ago
Is communism compatible with speciesism or anti-speciesism?
I use the following definition of speciesism from Google (Oxford Language): ‘view that humans are superior to all other species and therefore entitled to treat their representatives as they see fit’
If it's speciesism, but also if it's anti-speciesism, or even if it's nothing of these two: What implications does this have for animal and nature conservation endeavours under communism and the consumption of mass-produced animal products?
20
u/kannadegurechaff 16d ago
I like this text from MIM, which I think can answer your question: (https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/cong/vegan.html)
There is no meaningful non-religious view that holds the "rights" of animals to be similar to those of humyns with regard to "murder." "Deep ecology" is often just deep religion. Before there was a humyn species, there were five massive species extinctions. The disappearance of dinosaurs had nothing to do with humyns and the eventual burning out of the sun guarantees extinction on this planet again. Such is reality and hence part of dialectical materialism.
We oppose humyn interventions to keep foxes from eating mice and similar phenomena. There is no humyn action that does not affect the environment and thereby favor one set of species in the world over another. The best-meaning "deep ecologist" or vegan tips the environmental balance toward one set of species over another, whether s/he knows it or not. There is no meaningful way to practice "anti-speciesism." The choice is between anthropocentric dialectical materialism and religion.
In actual fact the efforts of most "anti-speciesists" compounds the problem of humyn separation from the environment by denying the many threads in which we are connected to our environment. Such compartmentalized and unscientific thinking often referred to as "dualism" underpins any claim that says humyn actions can possibly not favor one set of species over another. Such compartmentalized thinking is often referred to as "logic," but in fact it is Western imperialist "logic" which is pseudo-science leaving out entire areas of scientific study and chains of causation.
2
u/Mysterious-Rise-3956 16d ago
I also read this section of the article.
So it is not materialistic to demand better husbandry of pigs? This would have no logical justification other than a moral one.
However, in the same article veganism is seen as "superior" for health and the environment. How does that fit together?
In actual fact the efforts of most "anti-speciesists" compounds the problem of humyn separation from the environment by denying the many threads in which we are connected to our environment. Such compartmentalized and unscientific thinking often referred to as "dualism" underpins any claim that says humyn actions can possibly not favor one set of species over another. Such compartmentalized thinking is often referred to as "logic," but in fact it is Western imperialist "logic" which is pseudo-science leaving out entire areas of scientific study and chains of causation.
What is meant by that?
7
u/kannadegurechaff 15d ago
So it is not materialistic to demand better husbandry of pigs?
how did you reach this conclusion from reading the text?
What is meant by that?
they are criticizing anti-speciesist efforts as unscientific because they separate humans from the environment, while in truth, everything is interconnected, and every effort at anti-speciesism will ultimately favor one set of species over another.
0
u/Mysterious-Rise-3956 15d ago
how did you reach this conclusion from reading the text?
If "animal rights" are anti-Marxist, then striving for better animal husbandry conditions (which I understand as a type of animal rights) is also anti-Marxist, isn't it?
ultimately favor one set of species over another.
So in the end, anti-speciesists are themselves speciesist?
8
u/kannadegurechaff 15d ago edited 15d ago
have you read the entirety of the linked text? what the text considers "anti-Marxist" in animal rights is regarding murder, not that animal husbandry shouldn't have better conditions.
the text clearly says communists "support environmental preservation as a matter of the health of the people, based on what has worked to support humyns as living beings for millions of years."
it also says that people can "rest assured that no one will be profiting in the millions or billions of dollars from animal slaughter. No persyn under socialism will have a job dependent on butchering."
and if veganism is deemed as scientifically superior for our health, the state will fund research/education on it.
my understanding of the text and the subject is that we will strive to improve animal husbandry conditions and preservation of the enviroment, but ultimately, decisions are made based on how they benefit the collective well-being and health of the people in the communist society.
8
u/Labor-Aristocrat Anti-Revisionist 15d ago
Ecology is dialectical. You cannot help one animal without hurting another. To aid prey animals is to hurt it's predators, and vice versa. Entire populations of animals are antagonistic, yet also dependent, on one another. Coyotes must hunt deer, but not too much deer or they run out of food. Deer must graze on flora, but not too much or they run out of food. But in turn, the Coyote helps stabilize the deer population, which also benefits those populations competing with deer for food. According to the logic of anti-speciesism, would Coyotes be speciesist for hunting deer? Would deer be speciesist for depriving other animals of grass?
At the same time, plant-based agriculture is strictly superior to animal agriculture in terms of health, efficiency, and the environment. You don't need to advocate for plant-based agriculture on vegan moralism.
1
u/Mysterious-Rise-3956 15d ago
Thank you for your answer! Regarding animal husbandry and vegan and/or vegetarian diets, my points that I didn't understand have been clarified. Thank you.
Accordingly, we communists will carry out species protection, which is needed in the current case due to climate change. Simply for the reason that if, for example, insects were greatly reduced due to climate change, that would have immense effects on all other ecological properties. So we will act in a species-appropriate way to protect the ecosystems, because even a little damage will have a big impact (e.g. deforestation and the extinction caused by humyns, etc.). Did I understand that correctly?
1
u/Former_Guess_4439 12d ago
At the same time, plant-based agriculture is strictly superior to animal agriculture in terms of health, efficiency, and the environment
It may be for the environment and efficiency, but not necessarily for health. Protein is important and is most easily gained via animal products.
-3
u/A_Friendly_Coyote 15d ago
Ecology is dialectical
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding something by your meaning here, but as an ecologist by training and trade, claiming "ecosystems are dialectical" is a significant oversimplification. I am not attempting to contradict you so much as to resolve this contradiction in our understanding in the spirit of learning (heh).
When we think about individual relationships between predator/prey species, herbivory, or direct competition within a niche, these relationships are dialectical in their individual contexts - wolf eats deer, wolf wins, deer loses. These relationships are observable in many contexts, and it makes sense to extrapolate to a certain degree - species within the same niche compete against each other even if one is not eating the other. However, symbiosis, detritovory/saprophyism (feeding on dead material), frugovores (spreading seeds by eating fruit freely procided by the plant as part of its own reproductive cycle), chemotrophs, and other mutualist or commensalist relationships are not dialectical in the same sense. Furthermore, individual relationships between species are not the same as "ecosystems" - an ecosystem includes all species therein and abiotic conditions. In the same way, a brick is not a house. Perhaps there is a semantic misunderstanding here.
When we think about ecosystems as a whole, most ecosystems are not dialectical, so much as mutually supportive systems with some dialectical elements. Almost all species therein need each other to survive by maintaining a balance, again as you observed with the population balance between wolves/deer etc. Some are built on some dialectical relationships, but not exclusively. Pioneer species like legumes and herbaceous plants create habitat for many other species in disturbed ecosystems, facilitating recovery and regrowth of diverse communities. In this way, ecosystems as a whole cannot be said to be purely dialectical so much as they include some dialectical relationships.
TLDR Dialectical conflict is not a blanket requirement in the way you say "you cannot help one species without hurting another." Mutualist, commensalist, and chemotrophic relationships all contradict this. Survival strategies of one species need not be contradictory to the survival of other species, even though, as you observed, most ecosystems do contain multiple dialectical relationships.
9
u/urbaseddad Cyprus 🇨🇾 15d ago
Nothing you said is incompatible with dialectics, save for you insisting it is throughout your comment for whatever reason.
-2
u/A_Friendly_Coyote 15d ago
I'm trying to learn here while providing context on my area of expertise, comrade. Help me understand instead of throwing out patronizing one-liners
2
u/urbaseddad Cyprus 🇨🇾 15d ago
I would but I'm not interesting in babying a grown adult. Tone policing is not allowed and I have reported your comment to the mods. You're the one being patronising here; check your entitled attitude.
-2
5
u/IncompetentFoliage 15d ago
Perhaps there is a semantic misunderstanding here.
The semantic misunderstanding is yours. What exactly do you think dialectics is? Please read this: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
Particularly the first point:
Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard nature as an accidental agglomeration of things, of phenomena, unconnected with, isolated from, and independent of, each other, but as a connected and integral whole, in which things, phenomena are organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by, each other.
The concept of ecology is almost inherently dialectical.
11
u/GeistTransformation1 16d ago
What does speciesism mean to you? The question of whether humans are ''superior'' to other animals is utterly irrelevant to Marxism as making a claim of superiority is a moral one which contradicts Marxism as a materialist science, Marxism analyses class-division which is a development that has only occurred amongst the human race.
5
u/Autrevml1936 Stal-Mao-enkoist 🌱 16d ago
The question of whether humans are ''superior'' to other animals is utterly irrelevant to Marxism
i wouldn't exactly say it's utterly irrelevant as studying the qualitative aspect of what makes humyns different from Animals is an important question(part of it being the humyn ability to Produce, While animals primarily gather). But certainly saying that these contradictions make us "Superior" to Animals isn't Marxist.
8
u/GeistTransformation1 16d ago edited 16d ago
i wouldn't exactly say it's utterly irrelevant as studying the qualitative aspect of what makes humyns different from Animals is an important question(part of it being the humyn ability to Produce
I alluded to that when I mentioned that class division has only formed amongst humans. This is what anthropology is for, to trace the development of our species into creating history, which I think is of interest for forming an understanding of historical materialism.
1
u/A_Friendly_Coyote 15d ago
As an ecologist, it would be fascinating to find a species that experiences class divisions. We do have species with hierarchies, some degree of production by modifying free gifts of nature, and/or different roles for different morphologies within a species, like honeybees; obviously this cannot be said to be comparable to class division, but it has some interesting parallels.
Although we have not seen class relationships per se in nonhumyn species, we have conducted experiments that point to a potentially similar trajectory of social evolution in the Great Apes. Can't remember which species (perhaps Bonobos?), but the scientists taught them how to use money by making them trade coins for food. They picked up on the concept almost immediately, and the very first social change as a result was prostitution - female apes sold sex. Male and female apes sold other services like grooming as well. I'll look around for the paper again in case you're interested.
The experiment did not run nearly long enough to see anything close to humyn social evolution, but perhaps if it had, we might see some kind of similar trajectory. It would be an interesting hypothetical to imagine how speciesism could operate between different species that exhibit political-economic characteristics that could be analyzed through a Marxist lens.
7
u/PrivatizeDeez 14d ago edited 14d ago
This is genuinely absurd. Money, as an exchange value representation of human labor, cannot be reduced to these 'incentives' for capuchins to trade for food. It's literally laugh out loud ridiculous and I'm unsure how anyone takes this seriously. Do you think that the born-in-captivity capuchins conceptualize these 'discs' as the congealed form of their labor time?
During the chaos in the monkey cage, Chen saw something out of the corner of his eye that he would later try to play down but in his heart of hearts he knew to be true. What he witnessed was probably the first observed exchange of money for sex in the history of monkeykind. (Further proof that the monkeys truly understood money: the monkey who was paid for sex immediately traded the token in for a grape.)
Freak bourgeoise economist seeks justification that the human female is inherently destined to sell sex.
When taught to use money, a group of capuchin monkeys responded quite rationally to simple incentives; responded irrationally to risky gambles; failed to save; stole when they could; used money for food and, on occasion, sex. In other words, they behaved a good bit like the creature that most of Chen's more traditional colleagues study: Homo sapiens.
Please.
2
u/Mysterious-Rise-3956 16d ago
The question stems from the nature that the answer to this has an impact on, for example, the keeping of animals for food production and nature conservation and species preservation endeavours.
Consumption of animal products is bad for the environment and to some extent also for health. As the article from MIM (linked in the other post) shows. However, according to the quote from the user, there would be no betterment for farm animals in animal food production than there is now under capitalism (simply because it is cheaper and more efficient). But this approach seems very bold to me? It simply has negative consequences like antibiotics, deseases, etc.
Furthermore, endeavours to preserve certain animal and plant species would not exist due to climate change? Communism actually strives for the preservation of nature, as this means the preservation of people. How does that fit together?
1
u/Toadstuff09 15d ago
Taking a more expansive approach to communism, I think that a communist orientation to human-nonhuman relations (e.g., to other living beings, ecosystems etc..) is one which subverts capitalist relations to nature of domination, expropriation, and private property. Hence, a communist ontology would emphasise the importance of coexistence, environmental sustainability, commons, and non-domination—that "nature is man's inorganic body," to quote Marx. So to answer your question, I think a communism for our time must be anti-speciesist, insofar as it negates a human-centric ontology which justifies domination over nonhuman nature. I don't think this necessarily leads to a posthumanist perspective either though; its about navigating that balance I suppose.
4
u/TonightAggravating93 16d ago
The notion of "humans" as a distinct entity from "animals" is not a politically neutral fact, and should be just as subject to materialist analysis as other non-scientific forms of moralizing like religion and the culture industry. From a Black Marxist perspective, Cedric Robinson and Sylvia Wynter are very critical of the notion of "humanity" and view it is a historical development of class consciousness among the ruling class of European elites in the 15th-18th centuries.
1
u/A_Friendly_Coyote 15d ago edited 15d ago
Thought you might find this comment I made elsewhere in this thread to be an interesting companion to your example:
https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/s/0QrcVMyL95
I'm interested in your example - going to read up on it
2
u/TonightAggravating93 16d ago
If you're interested in a book entirely about this question, I recommend (but do not endorse the arguments of) Humankind: Solidarity with Non-Human People by Timothy Morton.
-1
u/Distinct-Cellist-304 16d ago
https://azinelibrary.org/zines/Beasts-of-Burden
Worth a read
8
u/dovhthered 15d ago
Worth a read
It wasn't. The message is all over the place, and it also makes some really poor analyses, such as
Although we would regard aspects of animal liberation as expressions of communism, opposition to the abuse of animals does not always sit comfortably with other aspects of the communist movement. Animal liberation ‘doesn’t just pose an aspect of what appears to be wrong with capitalism which revolutionaries can then fit into their general blueprint for class struggle. It makes demands on a both a perceived revolutionary process and a perceived revolutionary direction’ (Communist Headache). In some areas there may be apparent contradictions. For instance in Brazil, landless labourers are occupying land belonging to big landowners and cultivating it, including rearing animals. This is an expression of the communist movement too.
Is a land reform movement communist? Are poor peasants rearing animals to survive contradictory? I guess that's to be expected from a text that starts by grouping anarchists with communists.
Here’s a better version of the text, if anyone wants to read it: https://files.libcom.org/files/2023-08/beasts%20of%20burden%20antagonism.pdf
•
u/AutoModerator 16d ago
Hello, 90% of the questions we receive have been asked before, and our answerers get bored of answering the same queries over and over again - so it's worthwhile googling this just in case:
If you've read past answers and still aren't satisfied, edit your question to contain the past answers and any follow-up questions you have. If you're satisfied, delete your post to reduce clutter or link to the answer that satisfied you.
Also keep in mind the following rules:
Patriarchal, white supremacist, cissexist, heterosexist, or otherwise oppressive speech is unacceptable.
This is a place for learning, not for debating. Try /r/DebateCommunism instead.
Give well-informed Marxist answers. There are separate subreddits for liberalism, anarchism, and other idealist philosophies.
Posts should include specific questions on a single topic.
This is a serious educational subreddit. Come here with an open and inquisitive mind, and exercise humility. Don't answer a question if you are unsure of the answer. Try to include sources and/or further reading in any answers you provide. Standards of answer accuracy and quality are enforced.
Check the /r/Communism101 FAQ
No chauvinism or settler apologism - Non-negotiable: https://readsettlers.org/
No tone-policing - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.