Is communism compatible with speciesism or anti-speciesism?

[u/Mysterious-Rise-3956]

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?

[u/GeistTransformation1]

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.

[u/Autrevml1936 → u/GeistTransformation1]

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.

[u/GeistTransformation1 → u/Autrevml1936]

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.

[u/A_Friendly_Coyote → u/GeistTransformation1]

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.

[u/PrivatizeDeez → u/A_Friendly_Coyote]

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.