OpEds: Animal Activists are All Reformists

In Practical Terms

For the crime of simply being: every single one sentenced to death. Who gave us this right except might? Photo: Pigs held in a factory farm.

by JON HOCHSCHARTNER

_At the 2013 Subversive Festival in Croatia, Marxist writer Richard Seymour was asked by an interviewer whether he believed the dichotomy between revolutionaries and reformists in the context of class struggle was useful. His answer, I think, would help inform similar debates held between animal advocates who seek for non-humans revolutionary and reformist change, or what is also called abolitionist and welfarist change.

“Well I think the categories matter,” Seymour said. “I think there is a difference between reformists and revolutionaries. But the problem is that in practical terms today, we are all reformists in terms of what we can actually do.” It’s my firm belief the animal movement needs a strong dose of such sobriety, and we must realistically assess the political landscape in which we find ourselves. Abolition, animal liberation, species revolution — whatever one might call it — is simply not on the table at the present moment. We can delude ourselves that this is not the case or curse our luck for being born into an era in which the possibilities of change for non-humans is, at least for the immediate future, rather limited. But ultimately this won’t change anything or help animals. Like it or not, all that’s possible in the present moment is reform, which in practical terms makes us all reformists, whatever we might call ourselves.

Still, Seymour believed the categories mattered to some degree. “There was an old argument made by Alasdair MacIntyre who used to be a member of the International Socialist Group, a Trotskyist group,” Seymour said. “He basically said that there was a law, a little known law, known as the diminishing returns of socialism, which meant that basically under capitalism there was a pressure for everybody to act somewhat to the right of their nominal beliefs. Therefore the only people who would probably take a radical stance regarding capitalism would actually be revolutionaries. In practical terms that often turns out to be the case.” If I’m interpreting Seymour correctly here, what he’s saying is that in conservative periods, revolutionaries are limited to pursuing reforms and reformists generally don’t take an oppositional stance at all. No doubt the same holds true for abolitionists and welfarists within the context of the animal question.

“In real terms there is very little in the way of a revolutionary agency that we could activate,” Seymour said. “So therefore most of the time what we’re doing is trying to advocate reforms that will strengthen the agencies that would be capable of being mobilized in the event of a revolutionary situation.” In other words, there is simply no revolutionary potential in the present historical moment, whether it be for the working class or animals. So revolutionaries are limited to pursuing reforms not due to lack of commitment or incorrect theory, but because reform is all that is possible in the current era.

“I think the sociologist Goran Therborn had some insight here,” Seymour said. “He pointed out that really being revolutionary or reformist for most of the working class is not a question of ideology or subjectivity. I mean that’s part of it. But the most important question is the context, the circumstance. Whether they’re revolutionized or not depends whether or not they’re in a situation which seems to demand a revolution. And that’s really the appropriate way to think about it.”

I believe this point regarding the historical context being more important than ideology in revolutionizing the human masses against capitalism is crucial in relation to understanding how the human masses will be revolutionized against domestication. So the question is: how can we create a situation in which revolution for animals seems inevitable? To me, the most obvious situation which would begin to produce such anti-speciesist consciousness would be one in which in-vitro meat, or similar analogs, required less labor to produce and were gastronomically superior than the slaughtered flesh of animals. We are not yet at this point, but we can certainly speed it along by pouring the funds to which the animal movement has access into relevant research.

“To me, most of the time these dichotomies are used in a sectarian and moralizing way,” Seymour said, concluding his remarks on the usefulness of the categorizing revolutionaries and reformists. In a similar way, I believe equivalent dichotomies within the animal movement are unnecessarily divisive and used to shut down debate regarding strategy, given that reform, like it or not, is all that’s possible at the present moment in terms of the exploitation of animals.

Jon Hochschartner is a freelance writer from upstate New York. Visit his website at JonHochschartner.com.

OpEds: Cliven Bundy is a Big Fat Million Dollar Welfare Dead Beat!

Cliven Bundy: Public lands means you can't use them to enrich yourself without compensating the commonwealth, you idiot.

by Vyan

_I mean, if you really look at the facts of the case at the heart of his dispute with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing fees he’s refused to pay for the last 20 years – Cliven Bundy has long enjoyed the benefit of Federal Resources without actually meeting the requirements for access to those resources.

The issue has been litigated in court, more than once, and Bundy has lost each time on the merits of his case. He is NOT ENTITLED to access to this land. It doesn’t belong to him. In fact that land Belongs to ME and to every other citizen of the United States. That’s MY Land that his cows have been grazing on for 20 years and he OWES ME and the rest of the American People for it.

Cliven Bundy is a God Damn [Corporate] Benefits Dead Beat and a THIEF. He’s a Moocher! A Lazy Taker!. He should pay the frack up, or else face jail. I mean isn’t that how all those good Americans on Fox News like Eric Bolling are constantly telling us about people who Improperly take Federal Benefits! Just listen.

What makes Cliven Bundy any different from all the guys who go out and buy Weed, Booze and Lap Dances using an EBT Card? [Never mind the fact that if you can get cash via E.B.T., you can legally spend it on anything you like!] If they should be strung up by the heels for ripping off the American Public, why shouldn’t he? I mean, seriously.

And now the Feds, due to the increasing threat of violence involving Militia groups has backed off from their Cattle Roundup, tucked their tails between their legs, packed their bags and headed home.

BUNKERVILLE, Nevada (Reuters) – The U.S. Bureau of Land Management on Saturday said it had called off an effort to round up a rancher’s herd of cattle that it had said were being illegally grazed in southern Nevada, citing concerns about safety.“Based on information about conditions on the ground and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public,” BLM director Neil Kornze said in a statement.

The showdown between rancher Cliven Bundy and U.S. land managers had brought a team of armed federal rangers to Nevada to seize the 1,000 head of cattle.

Do you think for one second that if Wilma the (Imaginary) Welfare Queen who has five different personal IDs, 3 Social Security Numbers and 2 Luxury Hybrids in her driveway from collecting hundreds of thousands per year in Federal Benefits (Food Stamps, General Relief, Medicare & Disability) were not only to Refuse to Pay it Back when caught and convicted, but then would go out and get her buddies and pals (Clearly, Gang-Bangers for sure, uh huh!) to bring Guns (AK-47s and 9’s baby!) to defend her against Federal Officers, that the first thing we’d hear about that situation was how many charred bodies were pulled out of the burning house after the FBI S.W.A.T. Team (Who are known as H.R.T.) knocked down the walls with a battering ram? There YOU are. HIGH! As far as I’m concerned, this is nothing like Ruby Ridge or Waco, which were disputes – an arrest warrant and a search warrant respectively – that started up over violations of Federal gun charges. This isn’t a gun rights issue, nor is it a religious freedom issue.

It’s about MONEY, plain and simple. Bundy has refused to pay what he owes the Federal Government. He’s refused to pay what he owes to ME, and to YOU. He’s shown America about as much respect as he would by going to Mt. Rushmore, climbing on top or Washington’s Forehead and relieving himself. This man is No Patriot.

Let’s face it, the reason the Militia is ginned up about this isn’t because of ‘Merica, or ‘FREEDUM’, it has to do with decades long case of affluenza. Bundy is a 1 Percenter, so he’s admired for his thieving from the public coffers, while Wilma would rot in H.E. Double Hockey Sticks after being riddled with 12 gauge buckshot.

It doesn’t matter if some people feel that Bundy is “justified” in his path because of Harry Reid’s alleged Chinese/Solar Power Deal or whether the Koch Bros AFP are using this dispute to attack the BLM and gobble up more and more public land for Oil Drilling and Fracking. The former maybe a totally bogus excuse ginned up to accomplish the later – but it doesn’t matter.

WE. DESERVE. OUR. MONEY. BACK.

What Bundy hasn’t paid to the Feds is exactly the same a stealing. What he hasn’t paid for using Federal Property has gone into his pocket after being snatched from the pocket of every tax payer. The same is true of private companies that refuse to pay for public lands for drilling, that refuse to pay for the use of public facilities for their for-profit charter schools, and that park their assets overseas to avoid paying their fair share of taxes to America where they made their money in the first place. They’re ALL Thieves and Corporate Welfare Cheats. They either skirt the laws, or they manipulate and deform them to their own selfish benefit, causing the rest of us to pay instead.

Now some may make the extraordinary claim that Federal Land Management that was setup through the westerns states as a result of the Civil War are invalid because those states who Lost the War were put under undue duress. They “couldn’t negotiate a fair deal with a Gun to their Heads“, therefore these fees are invalid or unconstitutional or icky, or something.

I mean, that argument has totally, completely, absolutely, FAILED in court – but let’s just take the point for a moment.

If that premise were valid, then it would also be true that the land negotiations that took place as a result of the duress of the Mexican-American War should also be considered null and void for similar reasons. If we were to assume that then Bundy’s problems with the Federal Government would be over because if that were the case, the states of New Mexico, California and Nevada – wouldn’t be PART of America, they’d still be considered portions OF MEXICO, and he wouldn’t be in this stand-off with the BLM, it would be with the Mexican Federales.

I think that under those circumstances, Bundy would properly prefer to take his chances with the BLM than his fellow “legitimate businessmen” like say – El Chapo! – I’m just saying.

—Vyan

Meat should be taxed like cigarettes

Global Economics

The Economic Case for Taxing Meat

By Charles Kenny / BusinessWeek March 31, 2014

Shackled cows in assembly line. How far are we prepared to go to make a dollar or satisfy our habit of eating meat? With the new substitutes that resemble meat fiber to a fault, and are in fact superior in terms of nutrients, the last excuse has been removed. The palate does not suffer and vegetarianism does not mean to be an eater of bark. But the inertia continues and the suffering goes on.

_As tax season ramps up, we’re bound to hear proposals aimed at making the revenue system simpler and more efficient. A perennial is the “sin tax.” Rather than tax earnings—when we really want people to earn money—why not tax things we don’t want people to do? Add duties to cigarettes, alcohol, and carbon dioxide to slow people’s smoking, drinking, and polluting, and you’ll do them and the world a favor while raising revenue for schools, hospitals, and roads. But why stop there? It’s time to add one more sin to the list of habits that should be taxed: excessive meat consumption.

Meat has always been part of the human diet. Few dishes are as wonderful as a bolognese sauce made with a combination of pork, lamb, and beef. But taxing pigs, sheep, and cows is essential to contain the spiraling costs associated with massive meat eating.

When it comes to gorging on meat, Americans remain at the top of the global league tables. U.S. consumption of beef per person has actually declined over the past few decades, from 52 kilograms a year in 1970 to 41 kilograms in 2008. But chicken consumption approximately tripled over that period, to 44 kilograms per person, and overall meat consumption climbed from 105 to 122 kilograms a year—considerably more than the average personal weight (although some of that meat is thrown away or eaten by pets). By comparison, Indians consume less than 5 kilograms of meat per person.

But as the rest of the world gets richer, it’s closing the gap with the U.S. The Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reports that in 2012, 966 million pigs, 1.5 billion cattle, and 22 billion chickens were roaming (actually, mostly not roaming) the world’s farms. For cattle, that’s five times the number in 1890 and for pigs about a tenfold increase, according to Clive Ponting’s Green History of the World. That’s one factor behind the growing global obesity epidemic: a British study comparing meat eaters and vegetarians found average differences in weight between meat eaters and vegans of 5.9 kilograms in men and 4.7 kilograms in women—and a recent U.S. study also suggested that meat consumption was positively linked to obesity, itself a fount of two of humanity’s biggest killer diseases: cancer and cardiovascular. Metabolic syndrome itself, common among meat eaters is unknown among vegetarians.

At the other end of the consumption scale, all that meat production also makes for more expensive staple foods for the world’s undernourished. About one-third of the world’s cropland is given over to growing feed for animals. Including pastureland, livestock production occupies 30 percent of the land surface of the planet. Some of that land could be used instead to cultivate crops for human consumption. If you are concerned that growing corn for ethanol is raising food prices, you should be even more concerned by the larger impact of factory livestock farming.

Beyond meat’s impact on malnutrition, the livestock industry presents a growing global threat in its relationship with infectious disease. Domesticated animals have been the incubators of many of the world’s greatest killer diseases, from smallpox through measles to tuberculosis. The recent emergence of swine and bird flu suggests an increasing risk of pathogens jumping from the planet’s burgeoning domestic animal population to humans. We’ve added to that risk by regularly feeding factory animals antibiotics. Eighty percent of all antibiotics consumed in the U.S. are used on animals. This widespread use has been linked to the rapid emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), which kills 18,000 people a year in the U.S.

STORY: Farm Bill Stinks for the Meat Industry, and That’s Not Entirely Bad

Greater meat production also has negative environmental effects. Livestock accounts for about 8 percent of global human water use (the proportion is a little higher in the U.S.) Wheat takes about 1,000 to 2,000 cubic meters of water per ton of crop; rice takes approximately double that. Taking into account the water demands of feedstock, cattle take between 13,000 and 20,000 cubic meters per ton of beef (although chicken does considerably better at around 4,000 cubic meters per ton). Land-based meat production is also a big factor behind declining fisheries worldwide. Millions of tons of fish each year are crushed into fish oil and dry feed to be fed to farmed fish as well as to pigs and chickens. And the effluence those animals produce creates “dead zones” in rivers and coastal areas.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kenny is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development and author of The Upside of Down: Why the Rise of the Rest is Great for the West.

Michael Vick is a horrendous, cold-blooded bastard—and don’t you forget it.

A reminder by Roland Vincent
THE APPALLING UGLINESS THAT THE USUAL MEDIA CIRCUS HAS IGNORED AND SWEPT UNDER THE RUG

MICHAEL VICK launches his clothing line “V7”.

Vick: Characterological evil that fame can never erase.

The photo shows what Michael Vick did to dogs that were not up to expectations for DOG FIGHTING…death by hanging, drowning, strangulation, gun shot, electrocution and other methods. YET HE IS ADORED by the public and has well over a million FB fans. People that commit such HEINOUS CRIMES should not be celebrated by the public.

BOYCOTT “V7” and SHARE this post so that those who didn’t know the extent of his criminal actions can finally see him for who he truly is.

66 dogs suspected to have been used in dog fighting were found at this Surry County house owned by Michael Vick in April 2007. The grounds also showed irrefutable evidence of sadistic cruelty to animals. The Virginian-Pilot file photo

Roland Vincent is a lifelong activist for social justice and animal rights.

Animal Rights Is The Most Ambitious Movement In History

OpEds—

Roland Windsor Vincent, Armory of the Revolution

The Animal Rights movement is the most ambitious movement in history.

Ambitious because it seeks to change the very character of the human race.
It seeks to end thousands of years of human self-interest, bigotry, cruelty and indifference.
It offers humanity redemption not contemplated by any religion.
It proposes human liberation as well as animal liberation.
It rejects religious myth, intolerance, and superstition.
It provides the human race with a vision of sharing the Earth rather than destroying it and our fellow Earthlings.

And our opposition is most of humanity. The odds against us are long at best

Those who believe animals should have the same rights to life and freedom from explitation as we humans claim for ourselves are a distinct minority.

And we are not growing as fast as the human population is increasing.

Which means we are losing.

Our current efforts are doomed to failure. For every vegan we convert, two or three children are born to carnists.

Clearly, a new paradigm is in order. A radical departure from one-on-one proselytizing is necessary if the Animal Rights movement is to ever succeed. That new paradigm must be coalition building, outreach, and partnerships with allies on the Left. We must amplify our influence, secure political power and build philosophically based alliances.

We begin with single issue campaigns. Narrowly focused tools to reach those with whom we have a modicum of commonality. Single issue campaigns are the building blocks of alliances, coalitions, and majorities.

Unfortunately there are those in the movement who reject single issue campaigns. The anti-speciesists (they call themselves Abolitionists – as if all of us are not) consider single issue campaigns to promote speciesism. They reject campaigns against whaling, sealing, horse slaughter, dog-eating, bullfighting, elephant poaching, etc, as somehow denigrating the plight of cattle, pigs and chickens who die in the slaughter industry.

Incredibly, they also reject any effort to alleviate the suffering of slaughter-bound animals as taking away from efforts to end slaughter. The sheer idiocy of such a position is realized when one understands the enormity of the Animal Holocaust and that it will not end until the financial incentives that drive it are eliminated: Profits. And profits won’t end until the Capitalist system ends, decades or centuries in the future.

Those who call themselves Abolitionists are the biggest impediment we face. They are fighting against what others in the movement are doing. They are likely sincere, but are politically and organizationally unsophisticated. And their philosophical grasp on Animal Rights is tenuous.

While we call ourselves the Animal Rights movement, almost nothing we do addresses Animal Rights. We are all animal welfarists and protectionists, from rescuing dogs to liberating mink, hunt sabateuring to disrupting whaling, protesting, emailing, demonstrating – All is animal welfare.

Animal Rights will only occur when government bans animal exploitation and murder, animal consumption and profits.

And that government will be a Socialist government, built by a coalition of Leftists, including the Animal Rights movement.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Roland Vincent is an animal rights and social justice activist. He studies possible tactics and strategies that could help the animal defense movement.