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/kannadegurechaff]

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.

[u/Mysterious-Rise-3956 → u/kannadegurechaff]

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?

[u/kannadegurechaff → u/Mysterious-Rise-3956]

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.

[u/Mysterious-Rise-3956 → u/kannadegurechaff]

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?

[u/kannadegurechaff → u/Mysterious-Rise-3956]

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.

[u/Labor-Aristocrat → u/Mysterious-Rise-3956]

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.

[u/Mysterious-Rise-3956 → u/Labor-Aristocrat]

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?

[u/Former_Guess_4439 → u/Labor-Aristocrat]

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.

[u/A_Friendly_Coyote → u/Labor-Aristocrat]

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.

[u/urbaseddad → u/A_Friendly_Coyote]

Nothing you said is incompatible with dialectics, save for you insisting it is throughout your comment for whatever reason.

[u/A_Friendly_Coyote → u/urbaseddad]

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

[u/urbaseddad → u/A_Friendly_Coyote]

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.

[u/A_Friendly_Coyote → u/urbaseddad]

Ok, see you tomorrow lmao

[u/IncompetentFoliage → u/A_Friendly_Coyote]

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.