The Big Picture

My articles frequently address the need for the animal movement to recognize that it is a part of the political left, and that the enemies of animals are also the enemies of the poor, the oppressed, the environment, people of color, women, and the LGBT community, among many others.

Those enemies are capitalism, our legal systems, and the religions which justify oppression, bigotry, and exploitation.

All too frequently, our leftist allies are as indifferent to animal suffering as are the people who enslave and murder them.

And also frequently, our leftist allies are hostile to animal activists. Some feminists and people of color consider our efforts on behalf of animals to be dismissive of their own issues, and some even think we are denigrating them by caring about animals. It seems to be human nature for the abused to abuse those weaker than themselves.

Even so, all those impediments to solidarity and cooperation must be dismissed in face of the mutual enemies we are fighting.

The success of the political left is the only hope for animals, the only possibility of ending the Animal Holocaust.

And that is because socialist societies value the common good over private profits and individual benefits. Such priorities will militate for an end to animal agriculture to preserve the environment.

Global warming is threatening our very existence as a species. Capitalism is oblivious to the problem. Capitalism has caused it, denies it, and continues to push humanity to the brink in the name of profits and “freedom.”

Only centralized economic planning can operate to end the ongoing capitalist assault on the environment and the future of mankind.

That animals will benefit greatly should be the driving force for the animal movement to be part of socialist revolutions around the world.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “The Big Picture

  1. When I read your posts, it seems, ultimately, your primary focus is on ending animal slaughter, which is fine, I get it, but I’m not in the business of just ending animal slaughter—I’m in the business of ending animal domestication, period! I don’t see this component of animal liberation as important within any movement—because I really don’t believe people care about ending animal ownership. I think some people hold this idea we can liberate animals by increasing our ownership of them. I also believe we, as a culture, will likely expand the membership of this captive community and will genetically manipulate other new member-species for the purpose of increasing their docility and dependence because people insist on possessing other critters. You argue going vegan isn’t enough and changes nothing with the slaughtering of billions of animals, but adopting animals changes nothing either. I understand it saves a life, but from my perspective, the saving of one sheltered animal life results in the ending of another disposable life. This is the truth that ought to be brought to light. Yes, we kill one animal for another animal. Yes, we kill many disposable species for a few preferable species. We call the act of killing animals for our consumption natural and necessary, but what do we call the act of killing many species—duck, lamb, buffalo, rabbit, tuna, turkey, elk, pig, chicken, salmon, beaver, etc.—for the purpose of feeding a couple of preferred species? Many of us call this love. I call it the most egregious, prejudicial, heinous, on-going murdering on earth. What is the justification?

    I’ve been writing to animal rescuers, workers of animal shelters, pet-food manufacturers, advocates of animal welfare, and local government agencies, etc. asking them to reconsider our relationship to all animals. Whether we own them or eat them, the arrangement we have with them is prejudicial to the rest of nature. Even if the world were vegan, we would still insist on owning a billion preferred animals, and what would this entail? It would entail the continued exploitation of natural capital as frivolous products, such as Halloween costumes and aromatherapy candles, for our preferred pets. It would entail large areas of croplands for our preferred pets to the exclusion of other less-favored animals. Some animal lovers act as if feeding owned animals doesn’t harm the environment. Well, when many pet-food manufacturers are importing the finest food-grade “beef” from New Zealand for their preferred pets, I would hardly call this an incidental ecological consequence. It seems man’s best friend is costing lives and habitat destruction.

    Like

  2. Roland, I like your writing style and metaphysics (if I may use this word). Thank you. Incidentally, I just came across your webplace today, so I will spend some time over the next few days or weeks acquainting myself with your philosophy (?).

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s