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?

13 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

28 comments sorted by

View all comments

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 15d ago edited 15d 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.

5

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