ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

[Faunus]

Kenneth, that was a very potent interview with Marjorie Spiegel. Thanks heaps for sharing it! Now my mind will be screaming "HURRY!" for her book to arrive that I ordered. I want something specifically to share with the "Black" or "African-American" community, although I find these descriptions problematic too. These are not my personal choices of identifiers for other human beings, it is generally theirs.

Amongst the views that she brought up was the topic of capitalism, and her not thinking that it was the source of the problem of expoitation and suffering for nonhuman animals or even human animals. I totally agree, even as a former staunch socialist who remains super-critical of capitalism. Capitalism is without doubt the most efficient process for exploitation, but this process or doing emerges from a context or intention. (Here I'm borrowing from Jean Paul Satre's "Context/Process/Content" or Being/Doing/Having - although I am not an Existentialist).

I remain with the view (quite Buddhist, in fact) that at the central core of unnecessary suffering for any Being is greed, ignorance, and false views. Even if we had no economic system whatsoever on this planet, nonhuman and human animals would probably still be victims of exploitation as long as our thinking and behaviour were grounded in greed, ignorance, and false views. Margorie Spiegel refers to "materialism" as the central problem, not capitalism - but I think we are talking about the same thing. This should be the subject of a new thread?

I've lived in socialist nations (and several times visited the former U.S.S.R.), and believe me - they are not exactly "animal friendly"; their speciesism simply has a less effective means of production to manifest culturally habituated speciesism. So it is an issue of consciousness and intention to me, not of capitalism per se - the later being a process emerging from intention. Does this make sense?

Faunus

[panthera]

I remain with the view (quite Buddhist, in fact) that at the central core of unnecessary suffering for any Being is greed, ignorance, and false views. Even if we had no economic system whatsoever on this planet, nonhuman and human animals would probably still be victims of exploitation as long as our thinking and behaviour were grounded in greed, ignorance, and false views. Margorie Spiegel refers to "materialism" as the central problem, not capitalism - but I think we are talking about the same thing. This should be the subject of a new thread?

Sounds like a good idea!

[animalrightsmalta]

I've lived in socialist nations (and several times visited the former U.S.S.R.), and believe me - they are not exactly "animal friendly"; their speciesism simply has a less effective means of production to manifest culturally habituated speciesism. So it is an issue of consciousness and intention to me, not of capitalism per se - the later being a process emerging from intention. Does this make sense?

Faunus

True, true, but still, authoritarian communism (as opposed to anarchist communism) is still about power and hierarchy.

I would agree that capitalism is not the primary reason for animal exploitation. Neither is materialism per se. I think the primary source of speciesism is a less than perfect (to say the least) understanding of Darwinism and "our" persistant insistence on creating "out-groups".

I think Bob Torres' "Making a Killing - The Political Economy of Animal Rights" which I have just finished reading, will interest you a lot.

And, if you don't have it already, I can imagine you saying "Oh no! Not another book!"

[Yavachol]

Hi,

I think that the main reason for speciesism is hierarchy. It is the fact that some person believe them self more powerful than other. Like for some kind of slavery that are not implicated in capitalism (servants...). Then of curs we can find that hierarchy under many forms (capitalism, communism...).

[sheepdog]

So it is an issue of consciousness and intention to me, not of capitalism per se - the later being a process emerging from intention. Does this make sense?

Precisely and beautifully put. It is intention itself which establishes the way things are and maintains the status quo, in spite of all protestations to the contrary. Intention is the only cause.

[Faunus]

Kenneth, I surely don't mind reading new books; I welcome them if the are recommendable by those with rational/critical thinking, along with compassionate heart. Because of my choice to care for numerous homeless nonhumans (plus culture so many exotic plant species at home), my time is limited. However, I am a bibliomaniac, as almost every room in my house will prove.

I googled "communist anarchism" and saw that there was an entire new world of philosophical/political discourse out there. I could not rule-out their views as invalid, but must choose to not digress my mental focus at this point to understand their views indepth. That reality does not exist. In my present reality, I live in a country whose government is heavily infested with plutocrats and those with theocentric 'fuck-up-edness' to give it all a "moral" veneer. I certainly don't need to tell you how this impacts AR in the truest sense of the term, and I seek out those that don't support this. Understated, they are there; how to find and effectively engage them is the key.

Putting together various trainings, workshops, philosophies, etc. that I've examined and experienced in my life - I surely don't buy into a "one size fits all" approach (and I feel confident that you don't either). However, having experienced numerous phases and periods of transformation through the decades in my life, there is nothing more basic to me than not treating human or nonhuman Beings as things, commodities, or property. I don't have all the answers, and never will!

And as Lily Tomlin once said, "If God is the answer - hmmm... would you mind repeating the question"?

[Faunus]

So it is an issue of consciousness and intention to me, not of capitalism per se - the later being a process emerging from intention. Does this make sense?

Precisely and beautifully put. It is intention itself which establishes the way things are and maintains the status quo, in spite of all protestations to the contrary. Intention is the only cause.

Sheepdog, regarding "Intention is the only cause" - you know the some people will use the old cliche that "the road to hell was paved with good intentions" . However, what has become known (by some) as the "cycle of existence" - Being (intention), Doing (process), Having (the result of intentions/motivations) is exactly that - a CYCLE. When we choose to be conscious within ourselves of our intentions, and choose to be conscious and responsible for the results of that intention - what happens in reality when it all manifests messed-up, wrong, or not what I hoped for? Well, you look at the reality objectively as possible. Why? Because reality is your greatest and most reliable feedback system. The cycle is an opportunity to re-exame your present ground of Being, from which behaviour is engendered that gives rise to specific results. The most significant consideration includes choosing to be at the effect of external circumstances, OR choosing to operate at being the cause of you personal experience of what happens. This is an "internal locus" of power vs. "external locus" of power dichotomy.

I know this may seem rather abstract. But putting it on a personal level, I realise that I cannot "change the entire world". I don't want to. Moreso, I don't need to. Change chases its own tail and occurs from a microscopic level every microsecond to a macrocosmic level. Transformation is something quite different, and transcends mere change. By transforming my own being, the world is changed because I am intimately part of it. Transformation is a context that inspires others to do so effortlessly.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Faunus

[sheepdog]

By transforming my own being, the world is changed because I am intimately part of it. Transformation is a context that inspires others to do so effortlessly.

Yes, quite true. Even more, you are not a part of it, you are it. Transforming yourself does, in fact, transform the whole world.

But, pertinent to this discussion, to me the important point that you are making is that, it isn't a matter of choosing the right economic system, capitalism versus socialism, or whatever. This is a process of delaying the transformation. "It will be right when we are socialists". By waiting for future changes the essence of your contribution is to continue the status quo in the present -- it is the intention of waiting. Transformation can occur only by choosing what one is in the present moment. I may continue to be what I was, or I may be transformed -- now. And the essential reason for this is that intention creates reality, and intention is entirely in the present moment.

This is the problem with "rights" and "campaigns" and all the other labels. Animal liberation is a state of transformed being which will thrive and grow only because it is right being, not by way of activism.

I'm returning the 2 cent loan...

[Liberacion-Igualdad]

This is certainly worth to be a subject of a new thread. Were does all animal exploitation comes from? What is the source of this kind of behaviour?

I do not have an answer for this (yet). Hope you can help me find one.

I think that speciesism is not the source of speciesist behaviour, as well as racism is not the source of racist behaviour. All these kind of _isms are brought up later, as ideologies meant to “justify” the exploitation of some group of individuals. They were/are not the source of the exploitation itself.

It certainly doesn’t come from a particular economical, political or religious system either. We just need to take a look around. Most of these systems were built upon discrimination and exploitation themselves. Some might make it more efficient. Some might have created more so-called “justifications”. But they were not the source of the exploitation itself.

Most native people who lived and still live in this continent (called “America” by some foreigners) always saw themselves as “brothers” and “sisters” with other animals. And this was long before Darwin´s theory. Most of them didn´t separate themselves from the rest of the biosphere, in fact, they usually believed (I´d rather say “knew”) as an essential matter, that they were ONE with “nature”. Yet, they did exploit humans and/or non-humans (whether they did so often, or rarely – usually for “sacred rituals”-)
So I don´t think that what Kenneth said – “I think the primary source of speciesism is a less than perfect (to say the least) understanding of Darwinism and "our" persistant insistence on creating "out-groups".”- is the actual source of exploitation, though they probably are amongs the most powerful sources to keep it going today.

“Materialism” doesn’t convince me either, since again, most of these native people weren’t materialists (as we know it) at all. Most of them didn’t and still don’t believe in private property, for instance. The “mapuches” for example, (native people from the south of this continent – the only ones in this part of the world who resisted and rejected the Inca empire, the Spanish colonizers and the Creoles with their “new-independent” nations) saw themselves as “blue souls” who were in this world to protect it and gain wisdom, not to live by material things, since they were only passengers here; these are some of the reasons why they didn´t build any “cities”, or didn´t have any architectonic “highlights”, despite their great culture. They still exploited non human animals.

Hierarchy probably IS the main reason for anthropocentrism and speciesism (with all “our” absurd pyramidal views of the world). But still, I think hierarchy is built upon something else.

So far, I agree with Faunus and the “quite Buddhist” view (even though most Buddhists own/enslave non humans) that greed and false views are essential for discrimination and exploitation. But I still don`t know if they are the "source" of it, by themselves.

What do you guys think?

[Faunus]

Hi,

I think that the main reason for speciesism is hierarchy. It is the fact that some person believe them self more powerful than other. Like for some kind of slavery that are not implicated in capitalism (servants...). Then of curs we can find that hierarchy under many forms (capitalism, communism...).

Hello Yavachol! I wasn't ignoring you, I just found myself 'venting' too long and didn't have time to respond to you directly! I welcome your feedback!

To you, Sheepdog, Liberacion-Igualdad (and any other interested persons), I think that the topic for a new thread would not be about economic systems as the cause of speciesism and all of its results - but rather, "What is the source of speciesism"? Or do any of you have a better idea?

This could be quite philosophical in essence, but hopefully void of supernaturalism (i.e., "mans' fall from the grace of God" and all of that nonsense). The Being/Doing/Having framework is only one part of what Werner Erhard used when attempting to define "transformation". He drew from Zen, psychology, and numerous other sources to try to pinpoint why humans are unhappy and unintentionally create suffering for themselves. I am not a Werner Erhard fanatic like some people are, but in the book, "The Transformation of a Man - Werner Erhard - The Founding of est " - W.W.Bartley (Professor of Philosphy) explores his thinking and the foundation of a 3 day workshop called "est" back in the 1980's. I attended and did other workshops related to "transformation". A lot of what Erhard says I can agree with. It does include "the mind state" vs Being, and he uses terms such as our Being as the "field of Everything/Nothing" that I can explain. How he desribes the "mind state" vs Being is astonishing.

I have often used the analogy of a wheel with spokes to describe problems and their sources. However, it does have its limitations. The hub of the wheel could be speciesism, and it is the "core" supporting the spokes of vivesection, hunting, circuses, and numerous other forms of nonhuman exploitation. While welfarists want to attack the individual spokes of the wheel moving through time and space - the abolitionist want to attack and bust out the hub so that all the spokes fall. The wheel can no longer function. Short of that, the wheel will simply replace those spokes as time moves on. There was a time when vivisection or circuses didn't exist, for example - and the distant future could include the newly created spokes of human exploiting other life forms on alien planets. Get the picture?

Enough said for now. What ideas do you any of you have for a new thread? I am all ears.

With respect, Faunus