Animal rights activists turn out in Dallas during the heat-wave

DALLAS, TX--On July 18th in weather over 100 degrees, seven  people
turned out to hold up grisly posters of a skinned fox in front of a
department store named Nieman Marcus. Such demonstrations have gone on
for a year once every week or two.

"We think it's ridiculous that here with 110 degree days, we have the
third largest fur market in the United States," said a leader of the
demonstration who had attended them over a long period of time. We give
these activists credit for recognizing the decadent nature of luxury
consumption in the United States.

The typical fur for $2000 has the bodies of 40 or 50 foxes or up to 110
other animals.

Super-model Cindy Crawford posed nude to draw attention to the cause of
stopping fur sales, but her action also has the underlying message that
fur will not impress her. We at MIM recognize that this underlying
message is part of a struggle over leisure time dynamics -- the dynamics
of gender. Such gender struggles are secondary at this time and will not
work to end fur production-for-profit.

Although Macy's stopped selling furs, even if Nieman Marcus did also,
some other capitalist would make even more profits to fill in the void.
Instead, we believe it should be the law not to produce fur for
decadence just as we believe all producers should abide by environmental
regulations enforced by the government, not by one-at-a-time boycotts.
According to two demonstrators, one male and one female, the purchase of
fur is by men seeking to "score" points with a womyn he wishes to
impress. "There is no purpose for fur; it's purely a vanity thing," a
demonstration organizer said.

MIM would have to agree with that, but our usual disagreement with the
PETA organizers is that such decadence goes much further than just fur.
There are many problems that are similar that would vanish if production
for profit were illegal. Fur is actually a less than secondary problem,
considering that millions of innocent children die of starvation in this
profit-mad world every year.

One demonstrator who said this was his first demonstration said,
"there's not enough people behind this cause, not to downplay human
causes. This is a place where I'm needed." Somehow the animal-rights
movement has convinced people that its failed movement deserves help
more than other failed but even more righteous movements. It's actually
a measure of the degree of separation of the humyn species from itself
by class that many can no longer feel the pain of the oppressed people
more than that of a fox.

Note: www.envirolink.org/orgs/alt

Subject: Re: Maoists on July '98 animal rights rally
Date:
             Sat, 23 Jan 1999 16:09:07 GMT
From:
             Feralpower <frlpwr@flash.net>
 Newsgroups:
             talk.politics.animals, alt.politics.greens

consie@mailexcite.com wrote:
>
> In article <36A8A0EB.EC5FD34E@redsuspenders.com>,
>   caowens@redsuspenders.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > mimist3@geocities.com wrote:
> > >
> > > There are many problems that are similar that would vanish if production
> > > for profit were illegal.
> >
> > Odd, isn't it, that every time this has been tried productivity rates go
> > into the toilet, then?
> >
> > Chris Owens
> >
> Be aware when you debate orthodox maoists you must specify
> pre-1953 USSR and pre-1976 China, before they magically became
> capitalist. They became capitalist overnight, w/o a shot. So
> pollution and animal abuse started overnight when their beloved
> saviours, Mao and Stalin died.
> Mao said revolution was not a dinner party, but apparently
> counterrevolution is.
>
Leftist revolutionaries are speciests, too, as "mimist3" demonstrates.
Animal exploitation may be the great equalizer, a practice that the
entire human family, regardless of economic status, can enjoy.  Animals
were the first oppressed class and they will be the last.

Subject: Re: Maoists on July '98 animal rights rally
Date: 23 Jan 1999 20:34:42 GMT
From: mimist3@geocities.com
Reply-To: mim3@mim.org
 Newsgroups:
             talk.politics.animals, alt.politics.greens, alt.org.earth-first
 
Feralpower wrote:

> Leftist revolutionaries are speciests, too, as "mimist3" demonstrates.
> Animal exploitation may be the great equalizer, a practice that the
> entire human family, regardless of economic status, can enjoy.  Animals
> were the first oppressed class and they will be the last.

mim3@mim.org replies:

Whether it be poaching or legal sales of animal luxury products, making production
for profit illegal does much more for animal rights than these case-by-case
boycotts the petty-bourgeois pseudo-AR people are doing, always leaving a loophole
for another capitalist to come forward and make profits off of luxury items.

So I consider this to be a pseudo-AR argument opposing me.

P.S. I've read many people claiming to be anti-speciest and not one has convinced
me of succeeding in their task. David Foreman is included.

I'd like to think there might be a way to do it that has a very narrow use, so I
am listening, but for now, the only anti-speciest argument is to argue from the
point of view that the whole planet will be obliterated by Nature eventually after
so many billions of years. Hence, death is the great equalizer of the species, but
I would rather not base my environmentalist arguments on that, so I stay with
"anthrocentric" views entirely.
 

Subject: Re: Maoists on July '98 animal rights rally
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 21:53:07 GMT
From: Feralpower <frlpwr@flash.net>
Organization:
             FlashNet Communications, http://www.flash.net
 Newsgroups:
             talk.politics.animals, alt.politics.greens, alt.org.earth-first
 
mimist3@geocities.com wrote:
>
> Feralpower wrote:
>
>> mim3@mim.org replies:
>
> Whether it be poaching or legal sales of animal luxury products, > making production
> for profit illegal does much more for animal rights than these  > case-by-case  boycotts the petty-bourgeois pseudo-AR people are doing, > always leaving a loophole
> for another capitalist to come forward and make profits off of luxury > items.
>
Elimination of profit, particularly for necessities of life, is
absolutely essential, IMO, if there is ever to be an equitable human
society.  But for animals, it does not matter a whit if the means of
production are owned privately or collectively; their dead bodies will
still be considered raw material and their lives will still be
manipulated to produce this "raw material" in the fastest, most
efficient way.

There was a time when the laboring classes were openly classified in
much the same way and, though modern societies have adopted the
principles of protection of labor, in many ways we still are.  Like
bargaining for the lowest cost per head for cattle, producers still
search for and find the lowest possible price for labor.  Like the
livestock operator who tries to find the balance point between the
minimum amount of expense for the maintenance and care of the animals
and the maximum "product" yield, for-profit industry provides the least
amount of worker benefits, safety laws, environmental protection laws,
as it can and still keep its workforce.

The divisiveness that you create by terming AR concerns "secondary" as
you did in your first post is not so very different than the division
caused in the past by organizing white workers and ignoring the needs of
non-white workers.  In the final analysis, there is only one enemy and
it is one that is not simply a depersonalized economic structure; it is
an attiude that sees living beings as means to an end.

You suggest that by eliminating profit we will somehow be left with an
economic system that will be fair and just to animals as well as humans,
but you have left the underlying basis for the utilization of animals in
place.  It would be more accurate to say that if humans, personally and
as a society, accepted that _all_ beings have the right to autonomy; the
right to not be used up, exhausted, for the economic advantage of
others; the right to assistance, if necessary, in the provision of their
needs; in short, the right to be equal partners in the shared life of
this planet, that the problems caused by the capitalist economic model
could not and would not exist.
 
> So I consider this to be a pseudo-AR argument opposing me.

I don't understand your use of the words "pseudo-AR argument".
>
> P.S. I've read many people claiming to be anti-speciest and not one > has convinced me of succeeding in their task.

There is nothing easy about shaking off the powerful forces of
self-interest or the inclination to discount the worth of whatever or
whoever we intend to use to realize the goals of our self-interest.  It
may be that it is an impossible aim, but I don't think that the
difficulty of the task justifies an early abandonment of the effort.

> I'd like to think there might be a way to do it that has a very narrow > use,

Limited use?  Please explain.

> so I am listening,

It is a mistake to think that anyone has the answers.  To a large
extent, AR, outside of a religious context, is untested water and the
rapid changes caused by self-propelled science and technology can make
today's solutions obsolete tomorrow.
 
> but for now, the only anti-speciest argument is to argue from the > point of view that the whole planet will be obliterated by Nature > eventually after
> so many billions of years. Hence, death is the great equalizer of the > species,

Keeping this fact of life in mind certainly helps a person gain a more
expansive perspective on the importance, rather the non-importance, of
the human species and any other individual species, but who can live
their life from this vantage point?  Then, too, there is always the
realization that if the macro-view is true, the micro-view is equally
true.

Subject: Re: Maoists on July '98 animal rights rally
Date: 24 Jan 1999 23:47:28 GMT
From: mimist3@geocities.com
Reply-To: mim3@mim.org
Newsgroups:
             talk.politics.animals, alt.politics.greens, alt.org.earth-first
References:
             1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6

Feralpower wrote:

> mimist3@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> > Feralpower wrote:
> >
> >> mim3@mim.org replies:
>
> Elimination of profit, particularly for necessities of life, is
> absolutely essential, IMO, if there is ever to be an equitable human
> society.  But for animals, it does not matter a whit if the means of
> production are owned privately or collectively; their dead bodies will
> still be considered raw material and their lives will still be
> manipulated to produce this "raw material" in the fastest, most
> efficient way.

mim3@mim.org: Then it is you who really oppose the Macy's and Nieman Marcus boycotts, because it doesn't make a difference! Someone will still be making profit
considering animals as "raw material," no matter the outcome of the individual boycott.We are more favorable to the boycott than that. We want to see it taken to the next
level.

It is the relationship amongst humyns that causes the relationship with animals. Your criticism of socialism just isn't true. It's nihilism so typical in these movements.
You think the fact that an Indian or Kenyan poacher can make four years' salary from one catch is not going to motivate things far more than the case where there is no
way to earn four years salary?! Where there is no where to spend four years salary even if you did have it(dictatorship of the proletariat?) and where you would be
considered criminal for having it?

[snip]

> The divisiveness that you create by terming AR concerns "secondary" as
> you did in your first post is not so very different than the division
> caused in the past by organizing white workers and ignoring the needs of
> non-white workers.  In the final analysis, there is only one enemy and

mim3@mim.org : I admit that communism is about the abolition of power of groups of people over people. It says nothing directly about animals as a vision. It is all a
matter of cause and effect. Under what system are animals likely to do best? If thousands of years of pre-industrial communism are any guide, you should not be avoiding
the answer.

As I have argued in another thread "Earth First!'s speciesism", there is no way
to actually incorporate animals consisently in the communist or any other consistent vision. Anti-speciesism is impossible thus far.

In addition there is no way to avoid naming what is first and what is secondary and tertiary unless we are involved in religion and not action. During the U.$. Civil War,
it turns out there were wimmin on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line struggling for their "rights". If wimmin's "rights" come first, then at least some of the oppressed
wimmin in the North should have allied with the South to kill their officer husbands in the Union Army.

However, even that is only a moral way of looking at the question and not scientific. The question even for a feminist is what would do the most to speed up wimmin's
liberation?

Ironically, history has shown that the biggest gains for wimmin come in movements that do not focus on it directly as the first and foremost goal. The reason for that is
that at each moment, the status-quo has a strategic weak point that can be exploited and thereby do the most to liberate many groups oppressed under the status quo. There
is no feminist movement that put wimmin's goals first that came close to accomplishing what the predominantly male Communist Party of China under Mao did for wimmin's
equality.

> You suggest that by eliminating profit we will somehow be left with an
> economic system that will be fair and just to animals as well as humans,
> but you have left the underlying basis for the utilization of animals in
> place.  It would be more accurate to say that if humans, personally and
> as a society, accepted that _all_ beings have the right to autonomy; the
> right to not be used up, exhausted, for the economic advantage of
> others; the right to assistance, if necessary, in the provision of their
> needs; in short, the right to be equal partners in the shared life of
> this planet, that the problems caused by the capitalist economic model
> could not and would not exist.
>

mim3@mim.org replies: The positing of such a "right" is a humyn-centered endeavornot found in Nature (except for the humyn part). I wish you would involve yourself in the
other thread on anti-speciesism. What you are advocating is preservationism with a humyn-focus. It often expresses itself as conservative religion.
 

> > P.S. I've read many people claiming to be anti-speciest and not one > has convinced me of succeeding in their task.
>
> There is nothing easy about shaking off the powerful forces of
> self-interest or the inclination to discount the worth of whatever or
> whoever we intend to use to realize the goals of our self-interest.  It
> may be that it is an impossible aim, but I don't think that the
> difficulty of the task justifies an early abandonment of the effort.
>

mim3@mim.org replies: I'm still listening, but let's realize that time runneth out. If I am right, the only way to prevent the destruction of the ecology beneficial to the
humyn species is through proletarian revolution.
 

> It is a mistake to think that anyone has the answers.  To a large
> extent, AR, outside of a religious context, is untested water and the
> rapid changes caused by self-propelled science and technology can make
> today's solutions obsolete tomorrow.

mim3@mim.org replies: Because Marxism is consistent and been around 150 years,
we hear this thing about "the answers" a lot. Well, I demand something more than religion. I want something that works to save the ecology that has benefitted humyns
including those aspects or species we humyns haven't "exploited" yet, because we don't know about them.

Finding a solution is an exercise in science, not religion or throwing one's hands up in the air. The fact that it will be difficult to achieve communism does not mean
there is a faster way out of this predicament.

It's clear amongst humyns that some people profit narrowly from environmental destruction. The people with "nothing to lose but their chains" are the
vehicle for environmental salvation.

Subject: Re: Maoists on July '98 animal rights rally
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:08:23 GMT
From: Feralpower <frlpwr@flash.net>
Organization:
             FlashNet Communications, http://www.flash.net
 Newsgroups:
             talk.politics.animals, alt.politics.greens, alt.org.earth-first

mimist3@geocities.com wrote:

>

> Feralpower wrote:

>

> > > > Elimination of profit, particularly for necessities of life, is
> > absolutely essential, IMO, if there is ever to be an equitable human
> > society.  But for animals, it does not matter a whit if the means of
> > production are owned privately or collectively; their dead bodies
> > will still be considered raw material and their lives will still be
> > manipulated to produce this "raw material" in the fastest, most
> > efficient way.
 

>mim3@mim.org: Then it is you who really oppose the Macy's and Nieman >Marcus boycotts, because it doesn't make a difference!  Someone will >still be making profit considering animals as "raw material," no matter >the outcome of the individual boycott.  We are more favorable to the >boycott than that.  We want to see it taken to the next

> level.
 

I think it's a good idea to cause trouble for the fur industry whenever
and wherever the opportunity arises, but I don't think anyone should
expect boycotts and demonstrations at retail outlets to bring on a
collapse of the fur trade.

First of all, it is almost impossible to "punish" a multiple product
mega-retailer by boycotting a single product at a few of their outlets.
Unless demonstrators can keep enough people from walking into the stores
to buy _anything_ for a long enough period of time, outfits like Macy's
or NM are barely going to notice the effects of a boycott.  If
organizers focused instead on upscale furriers, a fall through winter
boycott, if successful, could put smaller companies out of business and,
at least, worry the larger ones.  Unfortunately, the more exclusive the
retailer, the more likely they are to have a loyal clientele who won't
even slow down as they push through the demonstrators.

Concentrating on big retailers does have one major advantage,
visibility. More people are going to be exposed to the idea that
somewhere out there, some people are yelling about fur harming animals.
You have to admit that the simple fact that 35 to 55 mink are killed to
make a coat that most people can't even begin to afford is a powerful
case against luxury fur for a lot of people.  If anti-fur demonstrators
can keep even this one factoid in the news for a few days or a week, the
message is going to reach a lot of people.  Unfortunately, most of the
people who will be moved by such an argument are not likely to be the
same people who are on their way to the third floor fur salon.

If people want to work on the market end of the fur trade, it seems like
it would be more effective to target haute couture designers.  There
will always be the dowager market for traditional furs, but if popular
designers include fur in their latest collections, even as trim, the
designer market and the ready-to-wear market will be flooded with
knock-offs for the next year.  The first wave of anti-fur sentiment in
the 80's gave birth to the faux fur phenomenon even among the upscale
European fashion houses.  Whether this change reflected designers'
genuine ethical reconsideration of the use of fur or was merely their
sensitivity to high-tone ladies' fear of getting soused with animal
blood on the way to the theater, we'll never know.  Whatever the reason
was, it apparently it has lost some of its steam since fur is gradually
reappearing on the fashion scene.

It is also important to remember that not all fur pelts end up as high
end ladies apparel.  Huge quantitites of low grade fur are used for
linings in gloves, hats, boots.  This market is not likely to be
effected by pressure on retailers, designers or consumers.
 

I tend to think that, barring political, ethical and spiritual
revolution, the best way to decrease animal exploitation by the fur
trade is to regulate the industry to death, making it less and less
profitable as an enterprise.  Right now there is minimal regulation of
fur breeding operations, policy varies from state to state.  Regulations
governing the trapping of fur-bearers are not much better.  Animals
farmed for their fur fall under the "fiber animal" category so they are
excluded, like other farm animals, from the meager protections of the
Animal Welfare Act.  Fur farmers don't even have to abide by the Humane
Slaughter Act since the flesh of the animals is not meant for human
consumption.  If higher, costlier demands were made on producers, the
breeders and processors can be expected to play leap-frog to more
favorable regulatory countries, so enforcing domestic standards on all
imports would be essential.
 

> It is the relationship amongst humyns that causes the relationship >with animals.

I wish that this were true.  Humans are very careful to keep the
_moral_  system we pretend to use in human to human contact completely
separate from the vague system of "humane" treatment we reserve for
animals.

You are probably right that there was parallel development between
systematic animal exploitation and for-profit transactions, but they are
not a function of one another.  Just as the economic structure of
communism is dependent on mechanization in the same way as capitalism,
so it is also dependent on the non-status of animals exactly like its
capitalist counterpart.

Model soviet communes were among the first to practice intensive animal
husbandry methods.  In fact, compared to those bad old days, the typical
American factory farm is an animal paradise.

> Your criticism of socialism just isn't true. It's nihilism so typical > in these movements.

> You think the fact that an Indian or Kenyan poacher can make four >years' salary from one catch is not going to motivate things far more >than the case where there is no

> way to earn four years salary?! Where there is no where to spend four > years salary even if you did have it(dictatorship of the proletariat?) > and where you would be

> considered criminal for having it?

>

How do you propose to do away with wealth?  Won't there always be a
blackmarket?

What about the villagers who want to trade rhino horn for sugar beets?
Will one post-revolutionary society slaughter water buffalo and trade
the flesh for guinea hen eggs?  What makes you think that humans will
automatically cease using animals as barter for what is lacking in their
own environment?

You are careful to steer clear of anything that smacks of "religion",
yet what you are proposing requires a tremendous leap of faith.
 
[snip]
 

> mim3@mim.org : I admit that communism is about the abolition of power >of groups of people over people. It says nothing directly about animals >as a vision. It is all a matter of cause and effect. Under what system >are animals likely to do best?

Any economic system that is divorced from a spiritual or moral mandate
to consider the interests of animals and the interests of humans to be
of equal worth, has nothing to offer animals.

(snip)
> If thousands of years of pre-industrial communism are any guide, you >should not be avoiding the answer.

>
I'm missing your point here.
 

(snip)

> In addition there is no way to avoid naming what is first and what is >secondary and tertiary unless we are involved in religion and not >action.

Maybe not, but when it is humans doing the naming it is easy to predict
whose purposes will be primary and whose must wait.

> During the U.$. Civil War,

> it turns out there were wimmin on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line >struggling for their "rights". If wimmin's "rights" come first, then at >least some of the oppressed wimmin in the North should have allied with the South to kill their officer husbands in the Union Army.

>

I know of no women's _movement_ anywhere, anytime, that has sought to
define itself outside of male culture; individual women, surely, but not
the movement as a whole.  Unfortunately, most women want "in", not
"out".

> There is no feminist movement that put wimmin's goals first that came > close to accomplishing what the predominantly male Communist Party of > China under Mao did for wimmin's equality.
 

This is interesting.  I'm afraid I don't have anything but the most
generalized idea of what the conditions of Chinese women were both
"before" and "after" Mao.  I have no way of knowing if the change in the
treatment of women was a matter of expediency or if it represented a
transformation in the way women viewed themselves.

I know that the leftist movement in the US seems/seemed at a loss as to
how to deal with its natural subgroups like women, gays and, now,
animals advocates.

> mim3@mim.org replies: The positing of such a "right" is a >humyn-centered endeavornot found in Nature (except for the humyn part). >I wish you would involve yourself in the

> other thread on anti-speciesism. What you are advocating is >preservationism with a humyn-focus. It often expresses itself as >conservative religion.

>
I don't see the right to possess one's life to be human-centered nor
contrary to Nature.  In fact, the first principle of all life forms is
the will to survive and to thrive.  Even mutual assistance appears in
"nature", though rarely exchanged between different species.

I'll look in on the other thread for your definition of
"preservationist"' but I know that I don't like the sound of it.
 

> > > P.S. I've read many people claiming to be anti-speciest and not > > > one  has convinced me of succeeding in their task.

> >

> > There is nothing easy about shaking off the powerful forces of

> > self-interest or the inclination to discount the worth of whatever > > or whoever we intend to use to realize the goals of our > > self-interest.  It

> > may be that it is an impossible aim, but I don't think that the

> > difficulty of the task justifies an early abandonment of the effort.

> >

>

> mim3@mim.org replies: I'm still listening, but let's realize that time >runneth out.If I am right, the only way to prevent the destruction of >the ecology beneficial to the

> humyn species is through proletarian revolution.

>
Frankly, I could not support any action that defined itself as the means
to protect the ecology _"beneficial to the humyn species"_.  This is a
narrow, self-interested viewpoint and it could be both foolish and
dangerous.

>
(snip)

>

> Finding a solution is an exercise in science, not religion or throwing >one's hands up in the air.

So you have made "science" your religion.  I think that many others who
have also become acolytes to "science" would balk at the idea of
describing dialectical materialism as scientific "fact".

Myself, I am not so enamored of "science".  We humans are too easily
impressed with ourselves.  Science has made life "easier", I suppose,
but it has made it infinitely more complex and it has magnified the
power and the extent of every error we make.  Science's overall worth is
a long way from being proven.
 
> The fact that it will be difficult to achieve communism does not mean

> there is a faster way out of this predicament.

>
Like I said, I don't doubt that communism would improve the lives of
humans, of me, but I think it displays the same dismal prospects for
animals.

Subject: Re: Maoists on July '98 animal rights rally
Date: 27 Jan 1999 06:33:43 GMT
From: mimist3@geocities.com
Reply-To: mim3@mim.org
 Newsgroups:
             talk.politics.animals, alt.politics.greens, alt.org.earth-first

Feralpower wrote:

> I think it's a good idea to cause trouble for the fur industry whenever
> and wherever the opportunity arises, but I don't think anyone should
> expect boycotts and demonstrations at retail outlets to bring on a
> collapse of the fur trade.
>

mim3@mim.org replies: Right. The idea of putting time into fur boycotts thoughis something we look at in terms of the weak link of the status quo. In Star Wars,
Luke Skywalker could have flown his fighter and attacked various enemy installations
on the Death Star and there could be no doubt that they were causing problems.
Or he could be fighting other fighters or trying to shoot down larger ships.

Instead, he went to the Death Star to land a hit at its weakest spot, and suddenly all the other problems were gone for that moment. We say he "grasped the principal contradiction," "seized the principal aspect" and brought about "resolution of the contradiction" in that strategic situation. Finding the weak point of the Death Star was a
matter of science and applying that science made all the difference effectiveness-wise.

>
>
> > It is the relationship amongst humyns that causes the relationship >with animals.
>
> I wish that this were true.  Humans are very careful to keep the
> _moral_  system we pretend to use in human to human contact completely
> separate from the vague system of "humane" treatment we reserve for
> animals.
>
>

mim3@mim.org replies: No one has demonstrated that it is possible to do more than a within species morality. More later.

> > Your criticism of socialism just isn't true. It's nihilism so typical > in these movements.
>
> > You think the fact that an Indian or Kenyan poacher can make four >years' salary from one catch is not going to motivate things far more >than the case where there is no
>
> > way to earn four years salary?! Where there is no where to spend four > years salary even if you did have it(dictatorship of the proletariat?) > and where you would be
>
> > considered criminal for having it?
>
> >
>
> How do you propose to do away with wealth?  Won't there always be a
> blackmarket?
>

mim3@mim.org replies: We don't want to do away with wealth. Production for profit is a different matter.

You might as well ask how Mao went from being in a drug-addicted country to one that cleaned up pornography and drugs. You can say there would be a black market, but fact is there wasn't.

One reason for that is it's a lot easier to enforce when no one is supposed to be making four year's salary for reasons that are not recorded. So you would have no where to put the money. You would not have a bank account like now. Having black market sources of money would automatically incriminate you and make you much easier to catch than
in this capitalist cash-obsessed world.

This is a very important point. Being scientifically correct about it makes all the difference.

> What about the villagers who want to trade rhino horn for sugar beets?
>

mim3@mim.org : What are you going to do with four years of sugar beets salary? Who is going to transport it if we have state planning of the economy? How are you going to explain how you got it? Under socialism, production is planned.

> Will one post-revolutionary society slaughter water buffalo and trade
> the flesh for guinea hen eggs?  What makes you think that humans will
> automatically cease using animals as barter for what is lacking in their
> own environment?
>

mim3@mim.org replies: Barter existed in pre-industrial communist societies too and I don't believe either one of us has an answer to that. I only gave answers to what happens at the extremes when there are huge profits to be made from poaching or luxury good production. Those extremes are eliminated under socialism. That will certainly help
some animals not go extinct.

> You are careful to steer clear of anything that smacks of "religion",
> yet what you are proposing requires a tremendous leap of faith.
>
> [snip]
>

mim3@mim.org replies : No leap of faith--experience of China 1949 to 1976 proves what I am saying and we sell many books by observors who were there.

> > mim3@mim.org : I admit that communism is about the abolition of power >of groups of people over people. It says nothing directly about animals >as a vision. It is all a matter of cause and effect. Under what system >are animals likely to do best?
>
> Any economic system that is divorced from a spiritual or moral mandate
> to consider the interests of animals and the interests of humans to be
> of equal worth, has nothing to offer animals.
>
> (snip)

mim3@mim.org replies: This is allowing ideology to dispense with truth. Anti-AIDSdrugs know nothing of morality, but they cause the survival of many people--including those of controversial ethical status. Cause and effect does matter.
 

> I know that the leftist movement in the US seems/seemed at a loss as to
> how to deal with its natural subgroups like women, gays and, now,
> animals advocates.
>

mim3@mim.org replies: MIM is at no loss for wimmin and gays/lesbians. Incorporating religious demands about animals is by definition impossible for anyone trying to be consistent and effective.

> I don't see the right to possess one's life to be human-centered nor
> contrary to Nature.  In fact, the first principle of all life forms is
> the will to survive and to thrive.  Even mutual assistance appears in
> "nature", though rarely exchanged between different species.
>

mim3@mim.org replies: What are you going to do, put the fox on trial for murder whenit eats the mouse? The  whole idea of individual rights for animals to survival is a
humyn-centered approach. There are no such rights in Nature. Dinosaurs don't exist
anymore and it's not because of humyns: we weren't around yet.

> > mim3@mim.org replies: I'm still listening, but let's realize that time >runneth out.If I am right, the only way to prevent the destruction of >the ecology beneficial to the
>
> > humyn species is through proletarian revolution.
>
> >
> Frankly, I could not support any action that defined itself as the means
> to protect the ecology _"beneficial to the humyn species"_.  This is a
> narrow, self-interested viewpoint and it could be both foolish and
> dangerous.
>

mim3@mim.org replies: Whether you know it or not, you are not doing anythingelse yourself. There is no one able to put forward a consistent philosophy of animal rights. The most consistent is energetic preservationism at best.

If you were right it would be possible to organize the other species against the humyns. I'd rather bank on pointing to humyn self-interest in a good environment and how we might benefit from not wiping out animals.

> > Finding a solution is an exercise in science, not religion or throwing >one's hands up in the air.
>
> So you have made "science" your religion.  I think that many others who
> have also become acolytes to "science" would balk at the idea of
> describing dialectical materialism as scientific "fact".
>
> Myself, I am not so enamored of "science".  We humans are too easily
> impressed with ourselves.  Science has made life "easier", I suppose,
> but it has made it infinitely more complex and it has magnified the
> power and the extent of every error we make.  Science's overall worth is
> a long way from being proven.
>
> > The fact that it will be difficult to achieve communism does not mean
>
> > there is a faster way out of this predicament.
>
> >
> Like I said, I don't doubt that communism would improve the lives of
> humans, of me, but I think it displays the same dismal prospects for
> animals.

mim3@mim.org replies: You have a better chance of arguing with people who cannot make millions or billions from animal exploitation. That will happen under socialism.

For the proletariat, allowing another animal to live is a small act of generosity, because the proletariat has "nothing to lose but its chains." For a society where there are capitalists and their labor aristocracy workers benefitting hugely from animal deaths and "slavery", you have less chance of success. The ones making huge gains will
fight you desperately.

More importantly, through militarism and environmental degradation, capitalism threatens to make your animal rights question a moot point.

Have you seen the billboard ads "What's for dinner? Beef" or "Beef, it's what's for dinner."? No such ads or campaigns will occur under socialism. Instead, veganism can be promoted for proletarian health and it won't depend on what sells. Production is planned, not based on what Ronald McDonald can sell. Then you need only convince
individuals, and not overcome people of huge money and power in the beef industry etc.