Do Animal Rights Entail Animal Responsibilities?

A philosophical exercise…




Do Animal Rights Entail Animal Responsibilities?

A philosophical exercise…




Animal Rights is ALL About Politics!

MICROEDITORIALS

ROLAND VINCENT
Special Editor, Ecoanimal & Socialism Questions

Except for token measures, expect no real relief from animals from the GOP.

Except for token measures, expect no real relief for animals from the GOP.

Animal Rights is ALL about politics!

Just as slavery was all about politics!

The same political, social,  religious and economic issues drove slavery as now drive animal exploitation. Slavery was defended as commanded by God from pulpits across the country. It was defended by Conservatives (then the Democrats) in state legislatures in the North and South. Powerful agricultural interests predicted economic collapse is slavery were to be abolished!

It is absurd to suggest that slavery would have been defeated by ignoring politics! It took politics, riots and war —with the clash of massive armies—to bring an end to slavery.

It will require more to establish Animal Rights!

Animal Rights is not compatible with politics as usual. We cannot  bring about Animal Rights by supporting this Democrat or that Republican!  Ridiculously unimportant issues cannot drive our votes or divert our attention.

Stunned hog on the conveyor of death.

Stunned hog on the conveyor of death. Who gave us the right? 

Animal Rights will require the end of capitalism as we know it. Hardly a conservative position! You won’t  find a single Republican who will agree! Nor will most Democrats. But those that will agree are ALL radicals and liberals!

Both Democrats and Republicans can be sell-outs to corporate lobbyists and their bagmen. The difference between the Democratic and Republican parties is simple: Republicans don’t have Liberals!*

And you don’t think Animal Rights is a political issue? If you vote for a Republican you are placing an enemy of animals in a position of power over them! You may be doing the same voting Democrat, but there is an excellent chance you will not be! Read on.

 

Democrats Can Be Scumbags, Too

For several years I have made it my mission to expose Conservative legislators for the enemies of animals that they are.
The task is not difficult. Their record of acting as enablers and apologists for the animal exploitation industries is public.
Conservative legislators are the mouthpieces for Big Ag, Big Pharma, and Big Oil, which murder billions of animals each year.

Democrat leadership: not the answer

Democrat leadership: not the answer

Curiously, there are animal activists who consider themselves to be Conservatives. They may be Conservatives for any number of reasons: Don’t like to pay taxes? Don’t like people of color? Don’t like gay people? Want to carry their guns around? Don’t like abortion? Etc?

Whatever the reasons, they are more important to them than are the animals, because the party and politicians they support are working to hurt animals and to protect those who hurt animals.

A common retort I hear when pointing out these truths, is that Democrats do it, too. And that is their defense? Others are equally reprehensible?

Democrats can be as heartless as Republicans, true.
But Democrats have Liberals, whereas the Republican Party does not.

And it is Liberals, at least those on the Far Left, the real left, who are most likely to oppose business influence in government, business money in politics, business control of regulatory agencies, and business profiting on the exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals.

The Democratic Party is not the answer for animals.
The Left Wing of the Democratic Party —and the Left, in general—is the answer.

____________

* Broadly understood, meaning people who genuinely abhor conservative positions.




Perspectives On Socialism And Animal Rights

By Roland Windsor Vincent
Editor, Eco-Socialism, The Environment, and Animal Rights
The cause is urgent, but it’s a long journey

A raccoon dog, recently skinned alive for his fur. This is still regarded as legitimate and normal around much of the world, and the fur trade enjoys the status of a legitimate commercial occupation.

A raccoon dog, recently skinned alive for his fur. This is still regarded as legitimate and normal around much of the world, and the fur trade enjoys the status of a legitimate commercial occupation. Isaac Bashevis Singer was right in saying that, in a world dominated by humans, “each day was a Treblinka for the animals.”

Reaction to my contention that Animal Rights will only be won through Socialist revolution has been mixed, but much more positive than I had expected.

This is indicative of either a growing sophistication of Animal Rights activists or that the ranks of activists are swelling with those possessed of political acumen. Making my assertions even a few years ago would have elicited far different comments.

Negative criticism was dwarfed by positive responses, although that is hardly a scientific measure. Of the negative remarks a common theme emerged: Current and recent Socialist societies were as brutal to animals as any Capitalist ones, the logical conclusion then drawn being that the problem is people, or technology, or civilization, or something other than an economic system.

This is also the general rationale proffered by those Animal Rights activists who choose to remain apolitical. The usual canned response is that there is no difference between Liberals and Conservatives on animal issues.

I believe Socialism to be the only economic system that has a chance of embracing Animal Rights. And that is because Socialism offers no incentives to exploit, enslave, or murder animals. Unlike Capitalism, Socialism embraces a moral worldview. A moral compass suggests that the potential to extend compassion to animals is much more likely under Socialism than it would be under a system which is amoral to its core.

Those on the political Left have championed every advance in education, in democracy and freedom, in human rights. They have fought for the poor, the disenfranchised, and the exploited. In opposition to them on all these concerns have been Conservatives, who always defend the status quo.

The Liberals of 200 years ago fought against slavery but they were not ready to embrace racial equality. One planning on ending segregation would have found little support for the idea amongst 19th Century Liberals. But it is quite obvious that Liberals would have been the target audience for integration long before they embraced the cause, as it was a position naturally growing out of their social worldview.

Similarly, while it is true that today’s Socialists and Liberals have abysmal records on animal issues, we should not extrapolate those positions into the future. They are much more likely to embrace Animal Rights in the future than are Conservatives.

Evolving standards of decency, senses of compassion, and perceptions of justice all drive society to embrace an expanding circle of concerns about oppression, inequities, intolerance and exploitation.

Over time, the entire body politic moves ever to the Left. Today’s Conservatives are more Liberal than were the Liberals who ended slavery. Tomorrow’s Conservatives will be Left of today’s Liberals.

•••
•••
rolandVincentABOUT THE AUTHOR

Roland Windsor Vincent is an Animal Rights activist, political strategist, attorney, public speaker, and writer. He is now TGP’s Special Editor for Socialism, Environment & Animal Rights.

Friend him on Facebook: www.facebook.com/RolandWindsorVincent
Follow his blog:
www.ArmoryOfTheRevolution.com

 




We Are Losing! Time For New Strategies

By Roland Vincent

Nature as Industry: The Merciless World of the CAFO The CAFO is the ultimate expression of the industrialization of nature. If all of us knew more about the realities of modern industrial animal food production, however, one would hope that we would apply the collective brakes on this dietary, environmental, and ethical madness.

Nature as Industry: The Merciless World of the CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation). The CAFO is the ultimate expression of the industrialization of nature. If all of us knew more about the realities of modern industrial animal food production, however, one would hope that we would apply the collective brakes on this dietary, environmental, and ethical madness. (Courtesy: CAFO)

Animal Protection is a more descriptive term for our efforts than is Animal Welfare, which carries a perjorative connotation thanks to those who consider anything less than demanding the immediate surrender of the carnist world to be betraying animals.

The Animal Rights movement is burdened by the same intransigent, self-righteous, myopic elements that beset all political and social movements. Think Tea Partiers.

Our Teahadists find fault with the efforts of everyone else in the movement. They argue that only by recruiting people to veganism can the Animal Holocaust end. They are oblivious to the ineffectiveness of their approach: Carnists are having children faster than people are becoming vegan. And few meat eaters are transformed into vegetarians, let alone vegans overnight. It’s a journey. It can take years or even lifetimes.

So: In case they missed that point—WE ARE LOSING!

While the animals they do not consume benefit from their approach, BILLIONS of others are suffering and dying each year. Those numbers are guaranteed to increase as the world population increases.

To limit our battle to recruiting people to veganism will only, at best, continue the status quo.

And even if our recruitment efforts were net positive, and we were recruiting vegans faster than the population is growing, it would take thousands of years to overcome the 6 billion people who are not vegan.

A middle school student, poor at math, could discern the problem.

Meanwhile, animal activists do what can practically be done. We rescue, recruit vegans, proselytize. We support legislation to end one horror or another, we campaign to end one barbarity or another, we appeal to logic, empathy, compassion in gaining new activists and allies.

Our abolitionist brothers and sisters oppose any such legislation or campaigns, content with no loaf rather than half of one.

They use a yardstick against which we all fall short, and then piously return to doing nothing of value for any but the animals they personally do not consume.

And they recoil in horror at the suggestion that what they do is actually a form of Animal Welfare. It most certainly isn’t anything to do with securing rights for animals. Not consuming animals is animal welfarism. And that’s not a bad thing.

It is an extraordinary act of compassion.

But to truly be compassionate would be to join with the rest of the animal movement in ending as much suffering as we can in the present. And lay plans to secure Animal Rights in the future.

Roland Vincent serves as special editor for socialism, environmentalism and animal rights.
Roland’s Facebook page is at https://www.facebook.com/rolandwvincent?fref=ts