At 10:32 26/10/09 -0700, nada wrote: >Unfortunately Max, you failed, utterly, to contradict or really >challenge D'Amato on any of his assertions. His point of the demeaning >of the concepts of racism and genocide by those that equate the use of >animals by humans as like the "Holocaust" is quite true Absolutely. I think this article is right on the mark.
This debate doesn't have anything to do with which side acts in the best INTERESTS of animals. Rather it is the unthinking reference to "rights" and even "self-determination," neither of which would apply universally to humans. In Marxist literature "self-determination" generally refers to a nationality or geographically defined population establishing its own national state, which obviously wouldn't apply to any species incapable of such a level of organization only reached by humans in the last few thousand years. But "rights?" Of course we all believe in human and civil rights, but who here believes that a 4 year old child has a "right" to run into a busy street? Or an (adult) Alzheimers patient? When the "ALF" releases laboratory animals into the wild (in a climate where they can't even survive) is that a valid "liberating" experience for these creatures, any more than the 4 year old is "liberated" by being allowed to roam the streets of New York? It doesn't make sense to talk about "rights" separate from the LACK of a right which is being addressed. In other words, outside of a political context, in which one human entity is RESTRICTING the behaviour of other humans. There are very specific rights that some humans need to strive for in specific situations, but just talking about "rights" in the abstract is meaningless. So is it for animals. Most people are against cruelty to animals, so you might say that animals have a "right" to avoid cruelty. Fine, you can use the word. But what you are really saying is that there should be laws against people being cruel to animals. That is a MUCH better way of looking at the issue and MUCH more in the INTERESTS of animals. There is not necessarily a "competition" between humans and animals or need for humans to dominate or exploit animals. But is it surprising that a system that "treats workers like animals" also treats animals like workers? Yes, farm animals are certainly exploited and often treated with great cruelty by the system, and we surely wish to eliminate such abuse. But that doesn't imply "rights" per se. As human society has advanced over the centuries, we have become, and will continue to become, more caring for the welfare of animals and protective of the environment. If that general trend has been marred by the barbarity of the capitalist system which cages pigs into small pens (as they also do with political prisoners), then it is the system, not the human species, that is to be blamed. But on the purely political level, I would have to say that mindlessly calling for "animal rights" has the most profound miseducational effect in trivializing the actual struggles for SPECIFIC rights by SPECIFIC populations suffering SPECIFIC oppression. D'Amato does a good job of deconstructing this pseudo-leftist fad. - Jeff ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
