This reasoning reminds me of “effective altruism.” If you do a cost/benefit analysis, it makes much more sense to buy mosquito nets to combat malaria than to improve the lives of homeless people in industrialized countries. Proponents even say that it would be immoral to improve conditions here in the West because it means using resources in a much less effective way than could be possible. No wonder this way of thinking is so popular in Silicon Valley, as it gives people a good, even moral excuse not to have to deal with the problems here.
But I can reassure you: like almost every social problem, this one is linked to all sorts of others. A very obvious link between animal liberation and human problems are ecological and climatic issues, which affect all living beings on the planet, including humans. And without the exploitation of the Global South, meat consumption in Western societies would not be possible at all. So, those who help non-human animals also help humans.
Judging by your name, you are a Marxist like me. Then you must realize that wage earners have something in common with non-human animals in that they are exploited, dominated, and suffer at the hands of the ruling class. Of course, the function of workers and animals in the production process of capital differs qualitatively, and the role they each play in the struggle against the ruling class is also completely different. Unlike animals, wage workers can organize to defend themselves, plan strikes and demonstrations, and think about a liberated society. Above all, however, unlike animals, they can analyze the social conditions that make them exploited and dominated and derive concrete steps for organizing their own liberation. Non-human animals, on the other hand, can defend themselves against torture in isolated cases, but because they lack the aforementioned abilities, they can only be objects of liberation from social exploitation.
Anyone who wants to create a world without exploitation, domination, and socially produced suffering must include animals in this endeavor. Firstly, although in a qualitatively different way than wage workers, animals are also exploited in the capitalist production process, and despite all the differences that have developed historically and socially, they share with humans the ability to suffer as a result. Secondly, animal production today, at least in the capitalist centers, is objectively irrational, not least because of the social and ecological damage it causes.
This reasoning reminds me of “effective altruism.” If you do a cost/benefit analysis, it makes much more sense to buy mosquito nets to combat malaria than to improve the lives of homeless people in industrialized countries. Proponents even say that it would be immoral to improve conditions here in the West because it means using resources in a much less effective way than could be possible. No wonder this way of thinking is so popular in Silicon Valley, as it gives people a good, even moral excuse not to have to deal with the problems here.
But I can reassure you: like almost every social problem, this one is linked to all sorts of others. A very obvious link between animal liberation and human problems are ecological and climatic issues, which affect all living beings on the planet, including humans. And without the exploitation of the Global South, meat consumption in Western societies would not be possible at all. So, those who help non-human animals also help humans.
Judging by your name, you are a Marxist like me. Then you must realize that wage earners have something in common with non-human animals in that they are exploited, dominated, and suffer at the hands of the ruling class. Of course, the function of workers and animals in the production process of capital differs qualitatively, and the role they each play in the struggle against the ruling class is also completely different. Unlike animals, wage workers can organize to defend themselves, plan strikes and demonstrations, and think about a liberated society. Above all, however, unlike animals, they can analyze the social conditions that make them exploited and dominated and derive concrete steps for organizing their own liberation. Non-human animals, on the other hand, can defend themselves against torture in isolated cases, but because they lack the aforementioned abilities, they can only be objects of liberation from social exploitation.
Anyone who wants to create a world without exploitation, domination, and socially produced suffering must include animals in this endeavor. Firstly, although in a qualitatively different way than wage workers, animals are also exploited in the capitalist production process, and despite all the differences that have developed historically and socially, they share with humans the ability to suffer as a result. Secondly, animal production today, at least in the capitalist centers, is objectively irrational, not least because of the social and ecological damage it causes.
no, they must not