OpEds: The Socialist State v The Animal Holocaust

By Roland Windsor Vincent
Editor, Eco-Socialism, the Environment, and Animal Rights

Delhi, an elephant rescued from a circus, is finally able to lie down, with a toy.

Delhi, rescued from a circus, enjoys the new life a true sanctuary brings. The chance to lie down and have her first toys in 55 years. [Courtesy: Maureen Adams, The Elephant Sanctuary}

The Animal Rights movement is barely forty years old.
As a political force it is an infant, not yet even able to stagger as a toddler.

Its political sophistication is nearly as infantile.

There are as many opinions as there are issues to address, and almost as many who decry any course of conduct which requires political attention.

Compassionate people populate the movement, as would be expected. They place the animals’ well-being and their protection above all other concerns.

The fact that no political philosophy or economic system has championed animals, and in fact have played significant roles in their suffering, has been sufficient justification for many in the movement to reject both and pursue a near religious belief in advocating veganism as the sole societal tool in ending the Animal Holocaust.

They scan the political landscape and see a plethora of progressive campaigns advocating for social justice and see only the differences, not the commonality, with the Animal Rights movement.

There is almost unanimity on a theoretical ban on animal slaughter, but incredulity that such an action could likely only be taken by a Socialist government. Being steeped in middle-class backgrounds and Conservative philosophy has rendered many incapable of acquiring a realistic worldview or an appreciation of revolutionary struggle.

Some activists point out that no government or economic system in history has been supportive of animal rights, concluding that the issue is moot, and that the course of action is to advocate for veganism and the adoption of compassionate lifestyles. They point to the Jains as examples.

Jainism is one of the world’s oldest faiths, having the most compassionate religious belief system in the world. They oppose violence against all living creatures, a perfect fit with the Animal Rights movement. But Jainism is followed by only 5 million people in the world, and has been declining in adherents for the past 13 centuries.

Compassion alone cannot bring about a compassionate world. Northerners refraining from buying slaves had no effect upon Southern slavery. Paying fair wages did not assure that others would also do so. Opening one’s business to African-American patrons did not abjure the need for civil rights legislation. Eventually it took an army of industrial size to dismantle the “peculiar institution.” By the same token, respecting a woman’s political opinion was not the same as assuring her the right to vote. The suffragist leadership understood that much.

Reformers have always relied upon the power of government to enforce those advances in the human condition that could not be achieved by mere example.

Every social justice crusade requires the imprimatur of government to ratify its success and to enforce its gains.

Nor are campaigns to spread vegan lifestyles working. Theoretically, if everyone eschewed the consumption of animals and animal products, the Animal Holocaust would end. Unfortunately, the human population is increasing faster than is the vegan population, meaning that veganism is losing. But even if veganism were slowly overtaking carnism as a lifestyle choice, the Animal Holocaust would continue as long as Capitalism promoted and rewarded the exploitation of animals, and governments continued to permit the horrors of animal agriculture.

The reality is that the Animal Holocaust is decades, if not centuries away from ending.
The Animal Holocaust will continue as long as Capitalism exists or as long as humans consume animals.
Only governments have the power to end the Animal Holocaust.
Only an enlightened dictatorship of the proletariat could conceivably enforce such a ban.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

rolandVincentSelfie 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

Are Republicans, or Their Scientists, Wearing Rose-Colored Glasses?

The Assault on Common Sense

Polar bears are the poster creatures for what humans do to the environment.

by ROBERT HUNZIKER

_Planet Earth is seen through rose-colored glasses by 58% of congressional Republicans who refuse to accept the fact that humans are responsible for climate change. And, they have a right to their opinion, same as the other side on this issue.

But, are they wearing rose-colored glasses and only fooling themselves? Or, are their scientific advisors wearing rose-colored glasses? Or, are they correct about global warming?

Whichever question is the appropriate one, the thesis of this article questions whether their scientific advisors are giving them good advice.

Here’s why: Their science advisors are smack dab in the cross-hairs of the most divisive political issue in history, which is human-caused vs. naturally caused global warming. And, it is an issue that ultimately weighs on every living thing on the planet. As such, it is the most important issue in human history. We’d better get it right.

“Doubting Republicans” readily admit the climate is changing, but they say the climate is in a natural cycle that has been going on for eons. After all, nature and God go hand-in-hand; glacial periods and warming cycles come and go as the world turns.

They also say science is too confusing, too unsettled, to know for sure whether people are the cause of global warming. “Nobody really knows for sure.” And, this is almost a valid point but not really.

And, unfortunately, too many of them opt for the easy way out by simply saying global warming is a “scam” or “junk science” or part of a “an elite conspiracy.” In fact, it is remarkable how many of the Doubt Republicans fall into this easy category.

Seemingly, the scientific advisors to the Doubt Republicans are advocates of the Uniformitarian geological school of thought that says fundamental forces that mold ice, rock, sea, and air do not vary over time. It all changes very slowly and naturally. This school of thought prevailed within the scientific community up until the late 1950s.

Still, never before has the climate changed with so much ferocity and rapidity as it is today. It dazzles scientists, but/and if it is a “natural cycle” like the doubters claim it is, then what are the forces in nature causing this sudden burst of climate change? After all, everybody can see it, as shall be described within this article.

Candidly, scientists have not been able to identify a natural cycle as the cause for the ferocity and rapidity of today’s climate change. There is no clear evidence of a natural cause, unless nature somehow mysteriously produces lots of greenhouse gases without revealing its source.

Also, the sun’s current space-weather cycle is the most anemic in 100 years. We are in Solar Cycle 24, and according to David Hathaway, research scientist at NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, speaking at the American Astronomical Society’s Solar Physics Division: “Not only is this the smallest cycle we’ve seen in the space age, it’s the smallest cycle in 100 years,” David Dickinson, Solar Cycle #24: On Track to be the Weakest in 100 Years, Universe Today, July 29, 2013.

Nevertheless, current scientific thinking is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day global warming. So, what’s up?

As things stand, the doubters rely upon advice from scientists who are counseling them to ignore the global warming issue. Why else would they so adamantly oppose efforts to tackle the issue of global warming on the floor of Congress?

List of Doubt Republicans

ThinkProgress has done an excellent job of listing the climate change doubters, including their public statements. Simply go to:http://thinkprogress.org/climate-doubt-caucus/ and scroll down to your state to see where your representative(s) stand on the climate change issue, assuming you do not live in Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, Connecticut, or Delaware where there are no Republican congressional doubters.

According to the responses by members of the “Doubt Caucus,” most of them believe global warming is caused by a natural cycle, and not caused by humans.

In that regard, the most fascinating response by any member of Congress comes from Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA-50th District) who claimed at “Politics in Paradise,” a legislative forum sponsored by the San Diego East County Chamber of Commerce: “Thousands of people die every year of cold, so if we had global warming it would save lives.” (Source: East Coast Magazine, 8/25/09.)

Climate Change Events – The Factual Record

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES WARNS OF SURPRISES & AN ACCELERATING PACE

“The current rate of carbon emissions is changing the climate system at an accelerating pace, making the chances of crossing tipping points all the more likely… surprises are indeed inevitable,” Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change, Anticipating Surprises, National Research Council of the National Academies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., December 2013.

A question for science advisors to the Doubt Republicans: What is the natural force behind carbon emissions?

It sounds like a stupid question, but think about it….

GEOLOGIC TIME SUDDENLY EQUALS HUMAN LIFESPAN

According to Daniel Fagre, U.S. Geological Survey, Global Change Research Program: “Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human lifetime,” Daniel Glick, Signs From Earth: The Big Thaw, National Geographic, June 2007.

“From the Arctic to Peru, from Switzerland to the equatorial glaciers of Man Jaya in Indonesia, massive ice fields, monstrous glaciers, and sea ice are disappearing, fast,” Ibid.
Question for science advisors: What natural force is causing the world’s glaciers to melt so fast?

PRODIGIOUS ANTARTIC ICE SHELF COLLAPSES, WITHIN WEEKS

According to NASA, Earth Observatory, World of Change/larsenb: “Scientists monitoring daily satellite images… watched in amazement as almost the entire Larsen B Ice Shelf splintered and collapsed in just over one month. They had never witnessed such a large area… disintegrate so rapidly.”

Larsen B is the tenth major ice shelf to collapse in the recent past.

Meantime, according to scientists, all eyes are on the 37-mile Pine Island Glacier, which is 2/3rds the size of the UK, and it may be at, or beyond, the tipping point.
Question for science advisors: Why are the big ice sheets collapsing so abruptly and is there a risk that Miami will flood? What force of nature is causing this?

ALPINE GLACIER LOSSES EQUAL 32.5 FEET THICKNESS IN 10 YEARS

According to a study by the European Topic Centre on Air Pollution and Climate Change Mitigation (ETC/ACM), from 2000 to 2010, the Alpine glaciers, on average, lost more than 32.5 feet of thickness. The rate of shrinkage is increasing by the year and rising temperatures are the main explanation, according to Samuel Nussbaumer, a leading scientist with the World Glacier Monitoring Service, University of Zurich.

“These ice giants could disappear literally in the space of a human lifetime, or even less,” according to sources at the WWF’s Alpine office.

The Alpine glaciers serve as Europe’s water tower, similar to how the Tibetan Plateau, the “Third Pole,” serves as the water tower for India and China and neighboring countries. Chinese scientists report significant measured glacial melting over the past 30 years, threatening the flow of their commercial rivers and their crop irrigation.

Question for science advisors: What force of nature is causing the glaciers to disappear so fast? Assuming it is heat, what force of nature creates so much heat?

GREENLAND MELT SETS 4-DAY RECORD

Greenland in July 2012 – Remarkably, from July 8th, when 40% of the melt had already occurred, to July 12th, four days later, 97% of the island’s surface ice had thawed into slush. Most of the thaw occurred in a scant four days time, an amazing feat when considering it included the frigid high-altitude zones where temperatures do not exceed freezing.

Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA explains: “This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: Was this real or was it due to a data error? (Source: National Geographic News, July 25, 2012)

Question for science advisors: What force of nature is behind Greenland’s ice melt?

ACIDIFICATION FASTEST IN 300,000,000 YEARS

Ocean acidification today is unprecedented, much faster than any time over the past 300 million years, “… at least 10 times faster than 56 million years ago,” according to Bärbel Hönisch, a paleoceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years, National Science Foundation, Press Release 12-041, March 1, 2012.

Question for science advisors: Why is acidification 10 times faster than 56 million years ago? What force in nature causes this?

WASHINGTON STATE ACIDIFICATION IS DECADES EARLY

“Ocean acidification is appearing in Washington [state] decades sooner than anticipated….” Ocean Acidification and Washington State, Department of Ecology, State of Washington, 2013.

The state of Washington was initially alerted to the inherent dangers of excessive carbon dioxide (CO2) acidifying the water when oyster larvae in hatcheries died in large numbers, threatening the state’s $270 million shellfish industry.

Question for science advisors: What natural force causes excessive levels of CO2 in the water?

MARINE LIFE THREATENED

“If the current carbon dioxide emission trends continue… the ocean will continue to undergo acidification, to an extent and at rates that have not occurred for tens of millions of years… nearly all marine life forms that build calcium carbonate shells and skeletons studied by scientists thus far have shown deterioration due to increasing carbon dioxide levels in seawater,” Dr. Richard Feely and Dr. Christopher Sabine, Oceanographers, Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, April 2006.

Question for science advisors: What natural force is causing deterioration of marine life?

THE FUTURE IS NOW

According to Alex Rogers, PhD, professor of Conservation Biology, University of Oxford and Scientific Director, International Programme on the State of the Ocean: “The change we’re seeing at the moment is taking place extremely rapidly… We’re seeing levels of pH [a measure of acidity] in the ocean that probably haven’t been experienced for 55 million years… I find it very difficult to tell people what a scary situation we’re in at the moment. The oceans are changing in a huge way, and I am particularly worried for my grandchildren. The changes we thought would happen in the future… We’re actually seeing them now,” (International Programme on the State of the Ocean, OneWorld Video (UK), August 2011).

Question for science advisors: Are the changes expected in the future really happening now? Of course, you could not possibly agree; how could you? So, disregard this question. Sorry!

COUSTEAU SEES CATASTROPHIC COLLAPSE

According to Philippe Cousteau, we are facing the very real prospect of the catastrophic collapse of the ocean ecosystems, and the situation is so severe that we are already changing the chemistry of the ocean (Source: Oceans: Environmental Victim or Savior? By Philippe Cousteau, Special to CNN, March 27, 2013.)

Question for science advisors: What natural force is causing a “change in the chemistry” of the ocean?

NO ICE BUFFERS TO PREVENT RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING

Large releases of methane (CH4) have occurred many times in the past and did not result in runaway global warming. Here is why: In the past the trend was very gradual, over hundreds-to-thousands of years, allowing for a natural breakdown of the CH4 over time; whereas, as of today, we’ve already made a 3-fold move in only 200 years, and emissions are only now starting to increase in a serious way; as well, in the past, when high CH4 levels trapped a lot of heat, the heat was counter-balanced by large buffers of ice that consumed the heat to prevent runaway temperature rises (Source: “Mean Methane Levels Reach 1800 ppb,” Arctic News, June 28, 2013.)

Withal, conditions today are different because there are no huge Pleistocene glaciers to cool the Arctic Ocean if methane goes into overdrive this time around. In the Pleistocene Era, the Laurentide Ice Sheet alone was equivalent of twenty-five (25) Greenland ice sheets. This buffer to unchecked runaway global warming no longer exists, Ibid.

Question for science advisors: As such, what is the risk of runaway global warming? And, what force of nature might cause this? Or, is this simply a “not to worry” situation?

1,600 YEARS OF ICE GONE IN 25 YEARS

In the high altitudes of South America 1,600 years of ice formation melts in 25 years according to a recent scientific study, which found extraordinarily large portions of the Quelccaya Ice Cap melting away. Quelccaya is the world’s largest tropical ice sheet and located in the Peruvian Andes, (source: L.G.Thompson, et al, Annually Resolved Ice Core Records of Tropical Climate Variability Over the Past ~ 1800 Years, Science, Vol. 340, no. 6135, May 24, 2013.)

Meredith A. Kelly, glacial geomorphologist, Dartmouth College, calculates the current melting at Quelccaya at least as fast, if not faster than, anything in the geological record books since the end of the last ice age.

“Throughout the Andes, glaciers are now melting so rapidly that scientists have grown deeply concerned about water supplies for the people living there,” Justin Gillis, In Sign of Warming, 1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years, The New York Times/International Herald Tribune, April 4, 2013.

Question for science advisors: What natural force is causing the rapid ice melt in South America?

VITAL SIGNS – CO2 EMISSIONS WILL DOUBLE TEMPS

The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports the world’s carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel usage hit record levels (IEA: Carbon Emissions from Fuel Usage Hit New Global Record, Deutsche Welle, Oct. 6, 2013).

The IEA also warns that, based upon larger levels of carbon dioxide emissions than previously calculated, the world is on a path to an average temperature rise of between 3.6 and 5.3 degrees C, about double the target set at a UN summit in Durban in 2010.

Question for science advisors: Scientists say that a 2 degree C rise in temperature is the most the planet can handle. What force of nature is behind the reported increases in CO2, and is the IEA correct with their dour assessment?

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

The evidence of rapid climate change is compelling:http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Question for science advisors: Is NASA stepping out of line?

HOTTEST SINCE 1880

The Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) published by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) shows that November 2013 was the hottest since record keeping began in 1880 despite strong La Nina conditions, which tend to hold temperatures down (Source: Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index)

Question for science advisors: What natural force is causing record heat in spite of strong La Nina (cooling) conditions?

And, what will happen to temps when El Nino (warmer) conditions come, on average every 3-4 years? Both La Nina and El Nino are natural events but what about those temps?

CO2 EMISSIONS CLIMB 58%

“According to the Global Carbon Project, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production reached 9.7 gigatons of carbon (GtC) in 2012… This is the highest annual total to date—and it is 58 percent higher than emissions in 1990, the year often used as a benchmark for emissions trends,” Katie Auth, Research Associate – Climate and Energy, Record High for Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Worldwatch Institute, Nov. 27, 2013.

Question for science advisors: Should there be concern about CO2 increasing by 58%, and what natural forces cause this? Or, is this simply nothing to worry about?

METHANE CLOCKS IN AT THREE TIMES LEVELS OF 400,000 YEARS AGO

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, as of February 2013, methane (CH4) levels in the atmosphere are measured at 1,874 ppb (parts per billion). This level, in an historical context, is three times as high as any time since 400,000 years before the industrial revolution. In the past, methane has ranged between 300-400 ppb during glacial periods and 600-700 ppb during warm interglacial periods.

Question for science advisors: Is a three-fold increase in methane a big concern, and what natural force causes this? Or, is this nothing to worry about?

MELTING ARCTIC – too vast, too pressing, and too scary to discuss in public.

Common Sense

Common sense dictates that if the science advisors for the Doubt Republicans satisfactorily demonstrate that humans are not the cause of climate change; rather, nature itself is the “force” behind climate change events, then, the “warming crowd theses” will effectively become extinct.

As such, we’ll buckle down to the circumstances, and bear the consequences, as nature brings it on!

Postscript: “Everybody, sooner or later, sits down to a banquet of consequences.” (Robert Louis Stevenson – Scottish Essayist, Poet, Author, 1850-1894)

Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at roberthunziker@icloud.com.

ARCHIVES: The Social Effects of Peak Oil

WHEREIN our colleague Rowan Wolf, editor of Cyrano’s Journal Today, and a professor of sociology with the Community College in Portland, lays out the essential information about this topic. (First compiled in 2007)

“Years of Living Dangerously”: Is This the New Trend?

(Image: ©Showtime)

Prelim note by the editor:
So we are to believe the media are finally taking their mission seriously when it comes to climate change? But can cable specials that reach only a small segment of the audience do the job effectively while the political aspects, i.e., the stranglehold that the criminal oil industry has over the US government and other nations), are given scant attention? Still, we will not be complete spoilsports and pour cold water on these initiatives. Beggars can’t be choosers. We all know, however, in the aware community, that a great deal still needs to be done. And that the media, in particular television, which continue to take the oil industry money (as they took cigarette money until such advertising was banned), and squander much of their programming hours on toxic escapism, say little about how the government provides no real leadership on this issue. As usual, money comes first.—PG

By Denise Robbins, Media Matters | News Analysis

_Showtime’s new nine-part documentary on climate change features hard-hitting connections between global warming and extreme weather, interviews with expert scientists, and calls for action. Is “Years of Living Dangerously” catching on to a new trend with reporting on climate change?

“Years of Living Dangerously,” the Showtime documentary series produced by Oscar-winning James Cameron and other Hollywood icons, has been heralded as “perhaps the most important climate change multimedia communication endeavor in history.” The nine-part series’ Hollywood filmmakers paired with veterans from CBS’ 60 Minutes (Joel Back and David Gelber), and featured a science advisory board to ensure accuracy, including scientists Heidi Cullen, Jim Hansen, Michael Mann, Michael Oppenheimer, and more. The series seeks to tell “the biggest story of our time” in an emotion-evoking blockbuster format, as a way to “close the gap” between science and action.

The April 13 series premiere came one week after NBC’s deep-dive special on climate change, and both are sorely needed. Even as top reports are showing that the issue is becoming a dire threat that calls for immediate action, a Pew Research poll indicatesthat Americans continue to rank addressing climate change as a low priority. Social science research suggests that how people rank the importance of various issues is a direct result of media coverage of the issue. In an interview with National Journal,Media Matters Executive Vice President Angelo Carusone stated that the recent large-scale expositions on global warming are a reflection of “the hollowness of the overall landscape and the anxieties around the inaction starting to percolate and feeding a demand to end this endless debate,” adding that “[w]hen a major network devotes that much time to it, it shows they’re responding to a demand.” “Years of Living Dangerously” and NBC’s climate special both work to reverse the attitude of apathy, by showing the impacts of climate change are already happening and drastically altering quality of life. The premiere episode of Showtime’s series,titled “Dry Season,” takes viewers to see climate refugees in Syria (displaced due to severe drought), rainforests in Indonesia being burned to the ground, and cattle ranches in Texas suffering from drought.

Both specials treat manmade global warming as a given and feature established experts on climate science, a welcome change from the contrarian “skeptics” that have been infiltrating the media with doubt and misinformation. “Years of Living Dangerously” begins with Harrison Ford inspecting carbon dioxide measurements — the primary cause of manmade global warming — with the help of NASA scientists. The premiere episode goes on to feature Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, a specialist in drought, along with three other climate scientists. The episode included more climate scientists than celebrities (or contrarians). Carusone lauded this aspect, saying “[e]nding this debate is controversial, but someone needs to do so.”

Although the premiere episode of “Years Of Living Dangerously” doesn’t touch on any solutions to climate change, the series promises to address solutions in later episodes, including segments on renewable energy, global warming as a political priority, and the “greening” of the corporate sector. According to a study from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, painting a dire picture of climate change without providing a solution may cause an audience to reject the message, echoing previous research. As a recent study shows that most broadcast evening news shows often decoupled solutions from messages about the threat of global warming, the Showtime and NBC series again provide a fresh take on the issue byincluding possible solutions.

Catastrophic climate change is a simple message with many complexities, so these media deep-dives may be necessary for the message to break through. Chris Hayes also hosted an hour-long MSNBC special on the politics of climate change last fall and spoke of the importance of communicating solutions:

I strongly believe that it is extremely important to convince people that the problem is, in fact, solvable. Our record of environmental regulation of pollution, in fact, shows that very often the eventual cost is far, far less than was originally estimated. Human ingenuity is an incredible thing! So if you picked up a certain upbeat undercurrent in the show, you weren’t wrong. I happen to think the problem, as big and terrifying as it is, really is solvable and really will be solved. And I think it’s doubly important to let people know that so as to engender the level of investment and action we need to make sure that hopeful future is ours.

The recent excellent reporting on climate change may act as a “vanguard” for a changing media landscape according to Carusone, but is it enough to tip the scales?

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

ABOUT DENISE ROBBINS

Denise Robbins joined Media Matters’ Climate and Energy team in 2013. Prior to working with Media Matters, she worked in communications for renewable energy and environmental advocacy. Denise graduated from Cornell University with degrees in Natural Resource Management and Biometry & Statistics.

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.