8 reasons why meat-eating anarchists need a kick up their anthropocentric arses

  • Posted on: 24 December 2016
  • By: thecollective

From Vegan Anarchoprimitivism

1. Anarchism impoverished

Anarchism, for me, is struggle against all forms of domination. It is a beautifully simple idea that helps call into question every oppressive norm.

But our relationships of subjugation with billions of other species on the earth is one norm that few seem to take issue with; not only are other species unable to communicate their experience to us, but to question means to challenge entrenched habits and world views. If we want to be consistent in our politics, then there’s no way we can continue to ignore the impact our anthropocentricism (human-centeredness) is having on the rest of this planet.

Yet, just because most of us are implicated does not mean that we are burdened with some kind of ‘original sin’. Quite the contrary: the beauty and power of anarchism is that it pushes us all to live lives that are more just, loving, meaningful, satisfying, and collectively free. So when we talk about speciesism, far from being dismissive, we should embrace the challenge it poses, look further into the issue, and do what we can to change the miserable status quo.

2. Alienation from the land

Through civilisation and conquest, insatiable capitalist cultures have alienated most of the world’s population from the ecologies which have been our species’ life support systems throughout its existence. This in turn has desensitised us from the mass enslavement of swathes of non-human lifeforms to the service of humans and capital. Yet, since this alienation is all that many of us city-dwellers have ever known, we do not really appreciate what is being lost. If this rings true for you, then spend some quality time with other animals; look at what they do, how they interact with one another. Read about the taming of the wilderness for capitalist expansion, and learn about the key role animal agriculture plays in transforming vibrant woodland into the monocultural fields that constitute our countryside today.
3. Animals are at the bottom of the dung heap

The sheer scale, intensity, and normalisation of animal exploitation and suffering is greater than that of any of our species. If you don’t agree, (so it sort of goes), you just aren’t paying attention. Hundreds if not thousands of entire species have been enslaved to capitalism, being imprisoned, manipulated, selectively bred, experimented on, used as reproductive machines & killed for our satisfaction, profit, and entertainment.

Each year, around 1,000 million animals are farmed and killed in the UK for ‘food’, while over the same period the equivalent of 86 million chickens are thrown away uneaten. In life, the vast majority of chickens are crammed into sheds with complete disregard for their needs or desires as living creatures, before being killed at 6-7 weeks (naturally, they live for around 7 years). Selective breeding of meaty birds means they’re unable to support their own weight and spend 76%-86% of their time lying down; death from thirst or hunger comes to many. Soiled litter solidifies around their legs producing painful ulcers. In the case of egg-laying hens, the majority kept in cages, the intense stress of their short, miserable lives can lead to self-harm and cannibalism, so many have their beaks cut – without anesthetic – to reduce this risk. Whereas their wild ancestors laid 12-20 eggs per year, human enslavement has produced a modern reproductive machine that lays up to 300 eggs for our pleasure and profit annually. This is to say nothing of the dairy, pork, beef or fish-farming industries. Those animals are not going to be able to tweet about their misery (there is as yet no evidence that pigs are daft enough to while away their time on social media): go read up on it yourself.

Meanwhile, each year nearly 4 million animals in the UK alone are subjected to ‘research’ in the name of science; experiments to test new products like medicines and chemicals (cleaners, plastics, pesticides, food additives etc.), and military trials. The most prestigious UK universities continue to cage and experiment on the same animals for many years on end. These include depraved invasive experiments that physically and psychologically manipulate primates (eg. implanting electrodes into their skulls, removing parts of their brains, studying the effects of deliberately inflicted stress and pain, and so on).

On top of their uses for ‘food’ and ‘science’, there’s the breeding of pets for human pleasure (thousands of which are subsequently held in UK shelters at any one point after being taken from mostly incompetent ‘owners’), and the use of animals to make money in a host of other industries (racing, zoos, circuses etc.).

4. Defensiveness maintains domination

All systems of oppression are supported by defensive attitudes, justifications, trivialisation and denial. Sometimes these claims might be fair enough, but people more often than not simply react to feeling attacked and respond from a selfish position of self-preservation. An anarchist ethic should stem from a desire for individual and collective liberation, so I like to think that when a comrade challenges my behaviour, I put my wounded pride aside for a moment and at least give the point the consideration it deserves.

Yet time and again issues raised around speciesism are mocked, trivialised and dismissed, which is both a massive disrespect to other animals and to those comrades. Ok, so this isn’t helped by the puritannical vegans out there who guilt-trip those who eat the occasional skipped cheese sandwich, but only the laziest and least committed comrade can attribute their crap, anthropocentric attitudes to encounters with the Vegan Police.

5. Animal abuse is inseparable from patriarchy

For me, animal abuse is on the same spectrum as misogyny, homophobia, racism, and the abuse of children, the elderly or disabled. Claims that these analogies are racist/sexist/ableist only underscores the inherent speciesism of such a position, for how can we make exceptions for other sentient beings? The basic principles are there: violence perpetrated for pleasure or gain by ‘strong’ against the ‘weak’.

In one suburban family home, a woman is threatened by a male fist; somewhere in another, a pet hamster gets flushed down the loo: both are worthless rubbish in the eyes of those who wield relationships of possession over them. In the toilets of a hipster bar, a Siamese Fighting Fish lies lifeless and numb on the gravelly bottom of its barren tank; in Croydon, an Afghan refugee friend waits for years on end for word from miserly Home Office bureaucrats: both reduced to mere numbers and objects by those with money in mind.

How can anyone fail see these issues as essentially one and the same, or reject one and justify another?

In 1901, anarchist Elisée Reclus described how as a young man he struggled against almost overwhelming pressure for conformity against his vegetarian ways, “parents, official and informal educators, and doctors, not to mention that all-powerful person referred to as “everybody”, all work together to harden the character of the child in relation to this “meat on feet”…”[1]. Over a century later, the culture of meat & dairy consumption is still maintained by ridicule and social pressure. It is especially bound up in machismo (e.g. you’re a bourgeois wuss if you can’t handle a bit of liver), and marketing that exploits masculine insecurities, even though 99% of such macho posturing revolves around meat pathetically acquired from the likes of Tescos, rather than from creatures that have been hunted (see Carol J. Adams’ The Sexual Politics of Meat for an in-depth discussion on this). And if you want to prove yourself an adept hunter, I can think of much better targets than wild boar.

6. Veganism isn’t a middle class ‘consumer choice’

It might sound trite, but for many ‘ethical vegans’, veganism really is a philosophy rather than just a dietary choice. Challenging how we think of animals as products and producers for our pleasure, questioning the ‘necessity’ or inevitability of animal consumption, and varying our diet beyond animal sources is just one part of that, but there are many ways to subvert our relationships with other animals – from fighting the culture of pet breeding, to carrying out acts of liberation & sabotage. In fact, a definition of veganism coined by Vegan Society co-founder Donald Watson, was the notion that animals should simply be free from exploitation and cruelty. This removes some of the emphasis on consumer choices, as favoured by green capitalists & liberals. Too often, critics hone in on hipster vegan cupcake shops or fancy fake cheeses, glibly equating all veganism with shallow ethical consumerism or a bourgeois fad. But where there appears to be a market, we can always expect some corporation to cash in on it (H&M’s recent rip-off of the Kurdish YPJ’s uniform springs to mind as an example). It’s also disingenuous to claim it’s a ‘class privilege’ to eat a plant-based diet – if anything it’s cheaper if you’re not going in for fake meat and dairy substitutes. The irony about these claims is that that the animal rights/liberation movement in the UK is significantly more working class and less dominated by academics than my experience of other major ‘single issue’ movements in the UK at present. Class-based critiques of veganism from feminists with PhDs says more about themselves and where they spend their time than anything else.

There are obviously some people who can’t avoid consuming animals because conditions make it unviable (eg. destitution, certain illnesses, migrants in transit, desert-dwelling peoples…you get the picture); the point is to do what we can because we at least reject speciesism as we should any other system of domination. Unfortunately, many of us are not even there yet.

Attempts to carve out an ethical way of life under capitalism and the state inevitability tend to feel hollow. So what’s the point of changing our individual practices now? Well, apart from the obvious problem that mass insurrection still seems a distant prospect, consistency in our ideas and our actions gives us lives worth fighting for. The existence of relationships based on love, solidarity and respect spare us from unrelenting misery of life under capitalism and compel us to attack the systems which threaten them. Without the inspiring examples of my comrades around the world, I would be tempted with total resignation. Challenging ourselves and each other to question domination in all its guises builds on that affinity and breaks down isolation. Anarchy cannot be perpetually postponed; to whatever extent possible it must be lived in the present.

If respecting non-human life is neglible “lifestylism” as some suggest, then we should see treating our partners with respect (e.g. not abusing them) in the same light. I’m under no illusions about the capacity for veganism to create revolutionary change, but that is as true as for any ‘lifestyle choices’: we can’t just content ourselves with changing the way we live & treat each other – we always need to combine this with attack on the structures of power.

7. Veganism is not ‘cultural imperialism’

The basic principles underlying veganism are by no means ‘Western’ (in the sense of a product of ‘Enlightenment’ thought originating in Western Europe); if anything, as capitalist land expropriation first wreaked havoc in that part of the world, quite the opposite is true. Through a close relationship with plants and animals, often amplified by animist beliefs, many indigenous peoples maintain healthier relations with the animals around them – to the point of exaggeration and romanticised cliché. The fact that some prominent English-speaking liberals began to spout loudly about animal welfare in the 19th century does not give the ‘West’ a monopoly on respecting animal life. In fact, some of the discourses in which these were embedded (particularly, seeking a scientific rationale for animal welfare), were more problematic than the practices of indigenous peoples who engaged in hunting for their food, but never sought to enslave the animals in the first place.

There have nevertheless been some overtly racist campaigns from the charity PETA, or imperialist – and frankly ridiculous – concepts such as ‘World Week for the Abolition of Meat’. But just as the existence of liberal feminist charities makes few of us dismiss feminism altogether, this is hardly basis for claims that veganism is inherently ‘Western’ or imperialist. Such an attitude is also patronising and dismissive of the many people and cultures that avoid meat and dairy for spiritual and ethical reasons, either for most of the year or altogether.

Lastly, animal farming goes hand in hand with the continued dispossesion of people from the land. It requires huge quantities of land for production of animal food; this true for both the ‘free range’ animals grazing on pastures and for those eating feed in dark animal factories. By contrast, significantly more people can be sustained on a given piece of land on a plant-based diet than on livestock, which is also far more water intensive. Land grabs from cattle ranching in South America have been a major driver of landlessness of the poor and of destruction of indigenous peoples’ lands and cultures. Arable land is both scarce and poorly distributed; we need to make major changes in our relationships with it if we are to cope with massive population rises whilst resisting unethical practices such as the expansion of human sterilisation programmes or major incursions into what pockets of wilderness remain.

8. Carnivorous appetites mean ecocide

Animal agriculture means habitat loss for wild animals and the precipitation of climate change. The world’s forests, for example, have roughly halved in the past 30 years [2]. Animal agriculture has been a major driver of this, especially in regions like the Amazon, which is both the source of rich biodiversity and approximately 20% of the world’s oxygen output. As anarchists we need to stop supporting the breeding of other living beings and the reproduction of destructive relations with the land – not just as an end in itself, but as one tactic among many in the fight against the immiseration of the earth.

In a world beyond capitalism, neither animal agriculture nor hunting are going to be viable means of survival on a wide scale. The continued breeding and rearing of animals, ethical implications aside, will be unfeasible for many communities due to the intense land and water requirements that it entails. The romantic hunter fantasy of the millenarian primitivists, more ethical on the surface, harks back to an era when the land was carpeted with verdant forests and human was at one with beast. Unfortunately, the post-industrial landscape we are going to be left with is likely to be very different to the forests and steppes we roamed prior to the growth of civilisation. What little wildlife remains will be relegated to the margins and no doubt threatened with extinction by human hunters. Although hunting skills may be useful for individuals in emergencies, it is not a collective solution and will ultimately be suicidal if we see it as such.

Notes
[1] Elisée Reclus, On Vegetarianism (1901) in Anarchy, Geography, Modernity: selected writings of Elisee Reclus

[2] Franz J. Broswimmer, Ecocide (2002)

category: 

Comments

I thought the dogmatic vegan was extinct?

Eating meat does not equal genocide, only industrial meat eating does. The scale of everything industrial is hugely destructive. That is a different issue from the religious veganism espoused by binary thinkers like this one. Humans ate other animals for eons, without the destruction wrought by industrial agriculture. Stop with the moralism, eat what the fuck you want, and let go of binary thinking.

I swear this thing has been posted here at least once already.

Did you even read the article or you just saw the word vegan and freaked out?

How do you expect intelligent people to be caring reading a top list article that sounds like just another of those viral clickbait crap? Plus the base premise is so deeply liberal to a level of dumbness that doesn't require reading through.

Grow a brain.

DELET THIS

Okay, so the top list clickbait virus has spread to even this site?

Would cannibalism be more or less anthropocentric?

Taboos against consumption of human flesh are just "moral relativism" after all.

yeah, it's just morals and nothing to do with prions...

Actually, I read somewhere that cannibalism was widespread enough to trigger genetic mutations that resisted illnesses caused by cannibalism so that suggests quite a lot of it for a very long time, regardless of diseases that spread that way. Anyway, I fucked up when I posted that, moral relativism would permit cannibalism, not prevent it.

Book recommendation: The Vegetarian Myth by Pierre Keith (former vegan)

Salmon fucker fan club GTFO.

lol Lierre Keith is a fucking joke

i don't know what to tell vegans about plant communication (and plant communication with insect species)...

This is so dumb, how is this a post in 2016?
2007 was the last year for idiotic boycott politics.
SHAC was great, the ALF is great, veganism isn't just annoying, it's 100% ineffective.

Franz Broswimmer.

So tired of seeing articles like this, especially clouding up anarchist space. Whack, liberal, short sided bullshit. And I've been vegetarian for 13 years!

sighted*

a kick up the arse never taught a lesson, its why the ara doesn't stop racism.
its why police brutality only fuels further resolve.
at some point you're going to have to get serious
about civil war: "your kind and my kind can't live together
on this planet, nothing personal, but this is war..."

stop with the silly kick up the arse shit-talking.

Is for civilized binary minds.

thanx to whomever posted this from my blog. just for the record, it's a link to someone else's 'vegans on a rampage' writing.

also, anyone legit interested in vegan anarchist primitivism you're invited to join the farcebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/228740707556698/?ref=bookmarks

i think anyone that EVER posts a link to facebook on this site should be immediately spit-roasted and eaten by my no-meat-but-human-meat vegan dogs.

Ain't sure if I've read that part correctly.

So, this aticle is saying that domestication of animals=bad, but domestication of plants=good...in my opinion, all forms of domestication are bad in that they inherently lead to civilization and hierarchy. Lets also state the obvious, hunter-gatherers have been proven (if a million years of more of sustainable living isn't proof, I don't know what is) to be the only sustainable life way, and agriculture, whether with minimal technology, or the maximum amount of technology, is unsustainable, so at best, everyone becoming vegetarian or vegan is a temporary bandaid slapped over a machinegun wound. If we weren't so timid, we would embrace the obvious truth, that the world/planet was never meant to sustain 98% of our human population, and that no amount of technology, or combination of technologies will ever circumvent this inescapable truth. Veganism won't fix that, and it certainly won't fix the alienation and hierarchy that emerged from the strictures and authoritarian nature of agricultural society. I say all of this because I don't understand the point of this article, what is it the result of everyone being vegan supposed to be? what is the net benefit? I'm for ending domestication, but only all domestication, of animals and plants....and with the unauthoritarian, voluntary reduction of the human population by 98%...hey, it'd only fix every single problem facing humanity and the environment.

who do you think is in charge of design? i.e. you say;

"If we weren't so timid, we would embrace the obvious truth, that the world/planet was never meant to sustain 98% of our human population, and that no amount of technology, or combination of technologies will ever circumvent this inescapable truth."

do you believe that each species has its own separate relationship with the world/planet, and that the world/planet and a particular species are separate systems, as in Malthus concept of 'carrying capacity'?

in the world 'given only once' [Schroedinger] as a transforming relational continuum, and/or in an ecosystem, the mutual influences within a relational matrix inductively actualize and shape the development and relative proliferation of ecosystem members in an unpredictable manner.

nonlinear dynamics make prediction of individual species impossible. reproductive activity fails to take into account the relational geometry of space;

"the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants" -- Mach's principle [nonlinear dynamics]

if, among several competing grasses, one of the grasses whose proliferation was kept down by a grazing animal that was fond of it benefits from the extinction or departure of that grazing animal, does it follow that the proliferation of that grass will rise relative to those other grass species that were not preferred by the grazing animal?

it may be that tree seedlings were also kept from proliferating by the grazing animal so that with the animal's departure, trees grow and develop so as to produce a forest canopy beneath which none of the grass species can survive.

is your model of humans in nature like that of Malthus?... one in which there is a collection of independent species each of which has its own relationship with the environment, wherein proliferation of a particular species is amplified by reproductive activity and attenuated by predators and food supply limitations?

do you have a copy of the blueprint that shows the overall ecosystemic web and the dynamic equilibrium that is establishing the relative representation of the human species (and rodents, bacteria, viruses, roaches, elephants etc.) in nature?

stewarding the forest, tending to herd and flock, gardening;
why, can not this all be done without compromising with The Great Wild Nature?
is "agriculture" necessarily civil or domestic?. i mean, fuck.
and what does it fucking matter how many double-bacon-cheeseburgers i personally eat, anyways?!
if it's what so happens to be dead on the table, made available by teh indigenous habitat situation
why not eat? besides than the gut-ache etcetera .. could have better prepared ,but
for sure though, i could def use a kicks up my asses. please i want it up my ass please
and … gardening is not abuse, VAP, no need to reinvent the wheel,
humanity is good like ham and cheese w/ a beer
bring a salad

The food forestry folks (flumberjacks?) would agree with you. Decentralizing the billions of hominids may work. But how to get these city dwellers to move out of the city? And how to get rural landowners to accept them? It's such a big step between here and there, unless of course it's your hobby or passion. In which case your doing it already or planning to.

it strikes me as unfair -calling gardening a hobby or passion- when it's absolutely fundamental
to the essencial flowing nature of humanity through-out our evolutionary process of becoming that which We Are.
and only very recently -(subsequently)by civilization- has gardening /hunter-gathering become a "hobby".
what is to gar-den but to make home ?
\come on ! get ready plus
we throw down directly and immediately to protect,defend and attack
knock and a door will open..
rural.occupy / land trust agitators ftw
death to civility!
long live the wild things!

I only eat old man's beard. I'm a real good matriarch worshipper.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
X
w
f
j
i
t
R
Enter the code without spaces.