Can identity politics achieve animal liberation?

[RatshaveRights]

Some Background

For several years now I have been trying to work out why I have such a deep sense of distrust of identity politics. In many ways I am grateful for the 'Great Awokening' and the sea change that it has caused in left wing politics (where I by default feel at home) as it has forced me to consider my political values more deeply. Why hadn't I bothered before? Well, in terms of humans, I suppose I felt reassured that most liberal and social democracies were on the right track and especially considering the recent and extraordinarily rapid legalisation of same sex marriage in many countries, I feel somewhat vindicated.

What was always unacceptable to me was the exclusion of non-human animals from the sphere of moral concern. The sense of injustice that I and thank goodness many others feel on behalf of non-human animals is a heavy burden, so I want to be clear that when I see woke social justice activists venting their fury at historical violence and discrimination and present day inequalities I know what that feels like - the sense of outrage and desperation - and if the political system is so indifferent to our raising the alarm, the resulting conviction that it would be best to get rid of the system and start again.

But I have to ask myself; are the systems in the countries where we are free to vent our fury as fundamentally discriminatory against people as they are towards non-human animals? I think not and one of my most pressing questions to woke social justice activists is what should replace a liberal or a social democracy once all the rage is vented?

It is super tempting to dismiss all our institutions and our entire national histories as just simply bad, but do we really think that no good has been done for humans? Has there really been no progress for anyone apart from white hetero males? I for one am pretty damn happy that over time subjects have become citizens, that we have an impartial justice system, that we value and protect individual freedoms and yes even that in the face of the Transatlantic slave trade we saw it for the evil that it was and went about stopping it.

Liberal and social democracies may be slow and messy, but for humans, they have delivered. To me it seems clear that extending the moral sphere to non-human animals is compatible with guiding principles of liberal and social democracies, ie, in theory it's a sound recipe. Please note, I am not saying though that it is therefore easy as we know from the moral and civil courage that has been necessary to get us where we are today. But what am I missing in the woke approach? How can using this approach be better for achieving real change for non-human animals?

[Red]

What was always unacceptable to me was the exclusion of non-human animals from the sphere of moral concern. The sense of injustice that I and thank goodness many others feel on behalf of non-human animals is a heavy burden, so I want to be clear that when I see woke social justice activists venting their fury at historical violence and discrimination and present day inequalities I know what that feels like - the sense of outrage and desperation - and if the political system is so indifferent to our raising the alarm, the resulting conviction that it would be best to get rid of the system and start again.

I take on a somewhat more cyincal view of those Social Justice Advocates you're talking about.

I think that the majority of these advocates may not be doing it for the most selfless reasons. Aside from many who do it primarily out of ideology,

Think of the Vietnam War, and the counterculture of the 1960s: The Hippie and anti-War movements were primarily led by the baby boomers, who also championed left-winged ideas. Fast forward fifty years, these same hardcore lefties are voting for Donald Trump.

Fundamentally, the boomers haven't changed much since their youths. Their opposition to the war for instance, was not so conscientously motivated? Remember, there was a draft going around, and most healthy young men were fair game. Now, they're voting Republican because they want to save money on taxes.

So, maybe it's the same with a lot of these activists. Perhaps it isn't due to moral outrage necessarily, but more due to feelings of resentment. I'm not saying they're wrong in thinking that necessarily, but what I am saying is, if the system worked better for them on their terms, would they be as unhappy about it as they are now?

An interesting note on their discontent with historical violence that you brought up; There'll always be outcry from these people against how for example many of the founders of the USA owned slaves, and yes we should be condemning them for this (especially in the case of someone like Thomas Jefferson, who knew very well the ethical problems with slavery), but people like to act like we're so sinless, like we do everything right, like we aren't responsible for the oppression of others. They are quick to point out when others are engaging in unethical behavior, but don't think twice about theirs.

In a couple of generations, our descendents are going to look back at us and our consumption of animal products and call us out as monsters for being just as hypocritical and immoral as the men we've criticized. More generous ones will label us as products of our time, like we do for slave-holders, or our racist grandparents.

But I have to ask myself; are the systems in the countries where we are free to vent our fury as fundamentally discriminatory against people as they are towards non-human animals? I think not and one of my most pressing questions to woke social justice activists is what should replace a liberal or a social democracy once all the rage is vented?

Some leftists believe that the discrimination to animals is a result of capitalism, whilst ignoring their own complicity in the progress. We CAN achieve Veganism within a liberal society (and I'm of the view it might be the only way), it's just a topic put on the backburner.

I'm not saying you're suggesting this, but a communist/socialist/anarchist society won't solve the issue of the cruelty due to animal agriculture. You need to get rid of the demand for the products, and most left wing activism is more focusing on changing the system than changing behavior of consumers.

It is super tempting to dismiss all our institutions and our entire national histories as just simply bad, but do we really think that no good has been done for humans? Has there really been no progress for anyone apart from white hetero males? I for one am pretty damn happy that over time subjects have become citizens, that we have an impartial justice system, that we value and protect individual freedoms and yes even that in the face of the Transatlantic slave trade we saw it for the evil that it was and went about stopping it.

I agree, the current system, while kinda shit, has led to the highest quality of life for humans at any point in time, and the most amounts of rights and freedom for the most amount of people. I'm not willing to risk any of this for a communist system that has not been demonstrated to work.

But I should mention that despite the huge progress for civil rights, propronents of Critical Race Theory will always argue that it was at least partially done in the interests of white people. For instance, in the antebellum era of the US and even before the nation was established, slave revolts were increasing and were viewed as a threat to national security and this was viewed as a huge argument against keeping slavery around, so it can be argued that it was in the interests of white men to ultimately abolish it. As for the Transatlantic Slave Trade (in the US anyway), that was packaged with a bunch of compromises on slavery when the constitution was written. It was a divisive issue at the time, politically and economically (so a CRT proponent would argue that it was abolished due to political instability for whites, and economic distress), but there were moral objections to it. It was stipulated that the trade would be abolished in the US 20 years after the Constitution went into effect, but along with that came the 3/5s compromise (which gave more power to slave holding southeners) and stronger fugitive slave laws.

They aren't necessarily right and there's a good chance you'll see some ad-hoc rationalizations going around, but I'm just saying that this is what they believe.

Liberal and social democracies may be slow and messy, but for humans, they have delivered. To me it seems clear that extending the moral sphere to non-human animals is compatible with guiding principles of liberal and social democracies, ie, in theory it's a sound recipe. Please note, I am not saying though that it is therefore easy as we know from the moral and civil courage that has been necessary to get us where we are today. But what am I missing in the woke approach? How can using this approach be better for achieving real change for non-human animals?

I agree with what you said here, and interesting question.

I'm not sure if the left-wing activism would be helpful in the animal rights movement. Political polarization is counterproductive in my view, and I think it's best if we just leave partisan politics out of it entirely. We want everyone to go Vegan regardless of their political affiliations. I can elaborate more as we go on.

Sorry for going on a few tangents there by the way, had to let it all out.

[RatshaveRights]

Hi Red, ha! That's interesting - I hadn't thought much about woke activists (from here on WA) being motivated their own gains, apart from of course the increase in social status by the constant virtue signaling. Having said that, there is a growing market in post modernist informed diversity and inclusion training that is making many WA a lot of money! I guess I want to view their motivations in good faith as even if WA are lining their pockets and increasing their social status, they probably are nevertheless convinced that they are on the right side of history.

What fascinates me is how successful they have managed to be. With success, I mean the ideological capture of all our (US, UK, AU and increasingly in mainland Europe) major institutions and media that they have achieved. It pisses me off because I look at their tactics (silencing dissent, gas lighting, taking offense and shaming those who don't agree with you, controlling language, and the insistence on equal out comes rather than equal opportunities) and think what would happen if we demanded animal rights with this approach. My understanding is that they justify using these tactics by saying that progress in society by persuading others in the democratic market place of ideas is simply too slow. Achieving equality this way just hasn't worked and this is born out by the fact that some identity groups still do not have the same outcomes as others and that racism and sexism etc still exist in society. The same urgency is so obviously true for animals. Why do these tactics work for WA? Even if I could convince myself to become so illiberal, I don't think forcing people to confront their speciesism in this way would be possible or sustainable.

One of the things that got me started on this was a sticker that AR activists where I live produced. It was a list of demands that read like this: No sexism, no racism, no fascism, no anti-semitism, no capitalism, no speciesism, no nationalism, no discussion! Okay, it's just a sticker and the last point is somehow a play on words, but I have spent the last 30 years trying to get people who exploit animals into civil discussion; the vivisectors the hunters, the butchers and so on. And never mind the politicians who enable and protect all the abuse. They never want to speak with AR people because we have such a strong moral and ethical case. And now we are supposed out of principle to refuse to use the most important tool we have, ie, open discourse?

Red you make the point that it would be better to leave partisan politics out of it, but don't you find the WA demands are making that more and more difficult? I know I certainly am!

[Red]

Hi Red, ha! That's interesting - I hadn't thought much about woke activists (from here on WA) being motivated their own gains, apart from of course the increase in social status by the constant virtue signaling. Having said that, there is a growing market in post modernist informed diversity and inclusion training that is making many WA a lot of money! I guess I want to view their motivations in good faith as even if WA are lining their pockets and increasing their social status, they probably are nevertheless convinced that they are on the right side of history.

Well, it might not be the WA themselves making a profit off that, ever notice how commodified Che Guevera's face is?

I'm pretty sure the folks who sell all that crap are ambivalent at best to their cause, and just see it as an untapped market, and the WA themselves are unwitting pawns in it.

What fascinates me is how successful they have managed to be. With success, I mean the ideological capture of all our (US, UK, AU and increasingly in mainland Europe) major institutions and media that they have achieved. It pisses me off because I look at their tactics (silencing dissent, gas lighting, taking offense and shaming those who don't agree with you, controlling language, and the insistence on equal out comes rather than equal opportunities) and think what would happen if we demanded animal rights with this approach.

I'm not sure if they should be called successful in terms of getting things done. Getting attention? Certainly. But that should never be confused with actually accomplishing goals.

Getting attention is important of course, but if that's all you got going for it, all you're doing is creating more tension.

My understanding is that they justify using these tactics by saying that progress in society by persuading others in the democratic market place of ideas is simply too slow.

It may not be terribly quickly, but it's faster than we realize. Cultural change is driven by individual change, it's just that people are pretty stubborn to change in the first place, but with the rise of more and more vegan alternatives, more people are cutting down on their meat consumption.

Achieving equality this way just hasn't worked and this is born out by the fact that some identity groups still do not have the same outcomes as others and that racism and sexism etc still exist in society. The same urgency is so obviously true for animals. Why do these tactics work for WA? Even if I could convince myself to become so illiberal, I don't think forcing people to confront their speciesism in this way would be possible or sustainable.

I think it's because people have an easier time empathizing with other humans than animals. Well, we do empathize with animals, but it's only our pets or ones we see in cute Youtube videos.

One of the things that got me started on this was a sticker that AR activists where I live produced. It was a list of demands that read like this: No sexism, no racism, no fascism, no anti-semitism, no capitalism, no speciesism, no nationalism, no discussion! Okay, it's just a sticker and the last point is somehow a play on words, but I have spent the last 30 years trying to get people who exploit animals into civil discussion; the vivisectors the hunters, the butchers and so on.

Echo-chambers aren't good for anybody. As I said Dude it's just creating more tension.

And never mind the politicians who enable and protect all the abuse. They never want to speak with AR people because we have such a strong moral and ethical case. And now we are supposed out of principle to refuse to use the most important tool we have, ie, open discourse?

I wouldn't bother trying to reach those tired old fucks in Congress. Most of them have a hard enough time understanding basic science, I wouldn't ever expect them to understand a more nuanced issue like animal rights. Some of them understand it better (you'll have Vegans like Cory Booker) but I'm not of the position that legislation is particularly helpful in terms of promoting Veganism (animal welfare maybe). Really the best way to get Veganism to be more mainstream is to convince people to eat less meat, donate to effective animal charities, and promote the development of Vegan alternatives.

Red you make the point that it would be better to leave partisan politics out of it, but don't you find the WA demands are making that more and more difficult? I know I certainly am!

Yep, and that's a problem. As I think I mentioned Veganism is becoming something that's done by the "woke" crowd, but I think there's hope in fighting it; It's all just about being louder than the WA (tall task, since outragoues political porn always attracts more attention). We just have to emphasise the ethics argument more and leave politics completely out of it.

That said I've interacted with a lot of right leaning people who view veganism more positively than the wingnuts, just make sure to be as calm and civil as possible.