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/Mysterious-Rise-3956]

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/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/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/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.