Animal liberation and Marxist

[jeffs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (jeff)]

I'm still not anywhere near satisfied with any of the positions.

Justin wrote (and his remarks were similar to those of a few others whom I
stupidly deleted):

>I don't know if there's anything specifically Marxist to say. Why not just
>argue that it is morally wrong to cause needless paina nd suffering to
>animals because pain is bad and if it's needless, there's nothing
>compensating the evil? Of course we can add Marxist epicycles about how
>capitalism promotes factory farming which causes needless pain, etc. But
>the moral issue is simple and clear.
>

The problem is as soon as you say that you are off the terrain of Marxism
and onto that of animal liberation (with attendant political problems). Once
you are debating about various moral claims in that way you are faced with
all kinds of problems.

How do you decide whether the pain is needless, for example? Is the pain
suffered by animals slaughtered for food needless? Is it still needless if
the meat provides a living for a peasant? What about if it provides a
convenient snack for a worker in an industrialised country?

Fundamentally, which is back to the question I originally asked, how do you
decide between the claims of the animals and those of humans? And how does
this have anything to do with the social revolution? Do we have a break from
the class struggle to liberate the animals? What about if that means setting
the class struggle back?

See, I just don't think you can attach animal lib to Marxism as a kind of
optional extra. That's why I was asking about a distinctively Marxist approach.

Regards,

Jeff



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------