On Having No Soul – the Socialist Case for Animal Care
By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD
The Judeo-Christian tradition draws on two broad fields for
the formulation of its theological theories that attempt to interpret the
universe and everything within it. The
first is the bible – which is a collection of ancient Judaic texts supplemented
by the documents directly associated with the breakaway Jewish sect that would
eventually become known as the separate and distinct religion of ‘Christianity’. This distinction does not imply that
Christianity is fundamentally ‘different’ from its Judaic base, on the
contrary, it is a highly virulent form of social control premised upon the
‘universalising’ of Judaic thinking – making Christianity in effect a
post-Judaic development, as its theology is marked by its attempt to move
beyond the narrow confines of rabbinical thinking. Whereas only those born into a Jewish family
are thought to be truly ‘divine’ in the eyes of their monotheistic god
construct – within Christianity this barrier to true divinity is removed and
anyone who converts to its strictures, regardless of their background, is
considered ‘saved’ and a candidate for the entry into a mythological heaven upon
the point of physical death. The Jewish
religion – as it does not recognise any other ethnic or cultural grouping as
being eligible for entry into heaven – does not waste its time proselytising –
but its off-spring Christianity pursues a relentless path of what amounts to a
highly manipulative psychological and emotional pathway, that is designed to
reduce each and every individual to a complete and total reliance upon a
literal interpretation of religious scriptures, that were developed by the
imagination of humanity sometime between 500 BCE – 200 CE.
Judeo-Christian theology is a patchwork of precariously weaved together bits and pieces of imagination, intellection, emotionality and experience of the environment. It is the product of a priestly political elite that sought to secure its power of its community, through the use of ‘fear’ premised upon the behaviour of an unseen god concept. These very same rabbis would permanently expel Christianity from inclusion within the Judaic religion, because of the behaviour of the followers of ‘Paul’, who disregarded rabbinical authority and behaved in what was considered outrageous for the conservative Jewish power-brokers of the time, and yet despite its apparent ‘openness’ and willingness to engage outsiders (i.e. non-Jews), the elders of Christianity retained virtually all the ideological baggage associated with the teachings contained within Judaic theology. One strain of this thinking is its demeaning attitude toward animals that is the underlying basis for the disregard for animal welfare (and rights) prevalent in the modern (secular) West, and much of the world that has historically come under the influence of Judeo-Christian thinking. The bible teaches that animals have been put on the earth by a god concept solely for the use of human beings. This includes the use of animals as beasts of burden, as protectors of human communities, and as living resources to be slaughtered at one point in their lives, so as to provide the various constituents of their bodily make-up for human usage. The bones, organs, and muscles are used for the consumption as food, whilst the skin, hair, and teeth/horns are used for adorning the externality of the human body as both clothing and ornament. Whereas Judaic (and Christian) theology accords the act of ‘killing’ the status of a grave ‘sin’, this is only extended to include other human beings, and does not include the slaughter of animals. To justify the killing of animals – that is the purposeful and deliberate ‘ending’ of a non-human life – the Judaic theologians had to participate in some nifty ecclesiastical footwork that evaded the accusation of hypocrisy, whilst simultaneously confirming the lesser status of animal life. This is because the killing of animals pre-existed the formation of rabbinical political authority, and it is obvious that the peasant-farmers of the Middle East (living around 500 BCE), possessed a considerable authority (as both landowner and livestock controller) that leant itself to the formation of Judaic theology, rather than being subject to it. Such was the social, cultural, and economic power of this social strata that its presence led to the alteration of the original moral construct stating that ‘all’ killing was wrong, to that of only killing fellow human beings was ‘wrong’. Once this compromise was established, the habitual killing of animals could continue unabated. The infallible word of god had been altered even during the early days of its invention.
The theology justifying this watering down of an otherwise noble aspiration, stated that it is ‘correct’ and ‘proper’ to inflict any and all kinds of violence upon a living animal so that it can be more thoroughly exploited in its service of humanity, because animals possess ‘no soul’. Although the word ‘soul’ is originally of German pagan origin, the early Christian thinkers – in their attempt to distance themselves from the Judaism from which they emerged – hijacked the terms of ancient and classical Greek philosophy, and usurped the Greek term ‘psyche’ (literary meaning ‘breath’ and ‘mind’ as the seat of life), and used it to describe the divine-spark that they believed linked all human life to the god construct that had created the universe. Paradoxically, and typical of the kind of illogicality that underlies much theological thinking, a god construct had created all life (including animals), but had deprived these animals of the divine-spark that linked humans to itself. Later, during the Christian attempt (as the state religion of Rome) to convert the heathen German tribes, its theological distortion of the use of the Greek term ‘psyche’, became synonymous with the German ‘soul’, which was used originally to refer to the return to sacred water by followers of the pagan religion. As animals lacked this ‘divine-spark’, or ‘soul’, violence to their physical body (and well-being) was said to be without ‘sin’ and did not constitute an act that offended god. Animals, although obviously ‘alive’, did not occupy the same Judeo-Christian theological ‘space’ as that ‘specialness’ ascribed even to the worst of human beings. The process of having to alter its ideology and adjust its existential circumstance is nothing new to the Judeo-Christian religion, which has in its modern incarnation, whole-heartedly embraced the capitalist system and the rightwing political cause. This has led to the moral teachings found in the bible – presumably uttered by a god construct and his son – to be either abandon, ignored, or reversed, as being products of an inconvenient (other-worldly) theology that stands in the way of the production of capital and its unending accumulation on earth. After-all, animals do not vote, and beyond the acquisition of enough food and drink to sustain their existence from one day to the next, are not interested in the human habit of the accumulation of capital. Judeo-Christian theology (and its current secular manifestation), allows for the psychological and physical well-being of all animals (other than those who are lucky enough to fall under the category of ‘bourgeois pet’), to be completely ignored from the moment of their birth, until their death at the hands of 24 hour slaughter factories spread throughout the world.
The method of dispatching (i.e. ‘killing’) varies from country to country, and involves ‘stunning’ through electrocution before being cut open, to being beaten to death with hammers, or having the throat cut whilst the animal is fully conscious. Horses, for instance, a species that has served humanity for millennia, often have to watch as other members of their group are hung-up by their hind hooves, and their throats cut, whilst patiently awaiting their turn. Bourgeois hypocrisy knows no bounds – and all this is aided and abetted by veterinarians whose job seems to be to reassure the Bourgeoisie (and their fellow capitalists) that the meat on their plate died in a manner that is considered ‘humane’ – and does not, therefore, upset bourgeois sensitivities. Cows, sheep, pigs, goats, and all kinds of animal life pass through the industrialised slaughter houses across the world, often dying as part of a 24 hour commercial process. The fur industry (which includes dog pelts) operates through a similar industrialised process that only cares about the state of the extracted skin, and does not care for the animal it is lifted from. Many are skinned alive, and their skinless bodies left to die in a heap. This destructive process is augmented by the ongoing slaughter practice at the local level which still exists in many parts of the world. Slaughter factories employ working class people usually from a very poor educational background, and through the actions involved in the continuous and mindless killing of animals, encourages ignorance through the convention of non-questioning of the status quo. Research has shown that rightwing political ideology tends to permeate such working environments, and slaughter factory employees have been linked to general criminality, domestic violence, racism, murder, and terrorism, as well as the development of psychological and psychiatric abnormalities. This section of the proletariat is as intensively oppressed as the animals they kill throughout the industrialised farming process they work within.
The evolution of humanity suggests that as far back as can be ascertained by the scientific observation of bones, teeth, and other fossilised remains, early human ancestors (still very animalistic) were adapted for a purely vegetarian diet. Later, and probably due to a disruption in the supply of suitable vegetarian food, the early humans appear to have taken to meat eating and this can be seen through the evolutionary developments associated with the human digestive system and teeth. Modern humans today are able to eat a mixed diet of meat and vegetables which reflects its evolutionary history. This choice gives humanity the best chance of historical survival as it has adapted to eat everything available that is edible within its environment. Of course, this does not mean that a determinism must be exercised over the choices developed, but it does suggest that humans can live wholly on a vegetarian diet (that always seems to have augmented meat eating), but that it is unlikely (from a nutritional perspective), that a human being could survive only on a meat diet (with no access to fruit and vegetables), without a detrimental effect upon the cellular structure of the physical body itself. Meat is eaten today as a supplement to fruit and vegetables (which contain vital vitamins and minerals), as it is considered a source of protein, despite the fact that ample protein can be acquired through such food stuffs as nuts, etc. A gorilla, for example, has a massive physical (muscular) structure, which surrounds an equally robust bone structure, and yet it follows only a vegetarian diet. This does not affect its ability to survive in the wild, fight off rivals, and reproduce. Chimpanzees, by comparison, have developed the adaptation of meat eating (usually other monkeys and insects), and like their human cousins, have been observed ‘murdering’ one another over control of resources, and influence within the group. However, the fact remains that prior to the mass producing of cattle and sheep (through industrialised farming in the 19th century) primarily for their meat, the majority of ordinary people, due to their impoverished condition, relied on a diet very low in meat and high in grain, fruit and other vegetable food stuffs. It was only within the upper echelons of feudal society, and those who had accumulated wealth in the emerging capitalist system in the 16th century in the UK, who could routinely afford meat. With capitalist farmers being driven by the free economic market, more and more land was used to raise livestock, which saw the diminishing of crop related agriculture. Meat made more profit for the capitalist farmer, and society was conditioned toward its mass consumption – a situation that has continued more or less uninterrupted to this day.
This means that meat eating is as much a conditioned aspect of capitalist existence as is any other attribute of modern, bourgeois society. Although now driven in a secular society by self-sustaining market forces, (with the treatment of the animals assumed to be ‘normal’), it has its contemporary historical roots within the Judeo-Christian tradition. In other words, capitalists that unquestioningly eat meat today are unconsciously participating in an old religious ritual of dubious medical worth. This behaviour, as it damages the health of the human being as well as that of the animals concerned, may be interpreted as non-progressive from a Socialist perspective. The indifferent treatment of animals raised solely for the consumption of their meat by humans, is the direct product of the search for profit by the capitalist farmer, and those industries that support such an endeavour. Modern animal cruelty is a product of the search for capitalist profit through the exploitation of the physical bodies of animals and Socialists should recognise this fact. Part of bringing down the capitalist system (and the bourgeois class that sustains it), requires a ‘new’ and ‘revolutionary’ approach to how animals are perceived and treated, as indifference to animal welfare and animal rights indicates a passive acceptance of Judeo-Christian theological belief within a secular setting. There is an easily observable and logical chain of events between the arrival of meat on a plate, the slaughter of animals, industrialised farming, private profit seeking, and the historical influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition. This observation is compounded by the fact that throughout its evolutionary history in the distant past, humans and their early ancestors have survived for thousands of years by the imbuing of non-meat based diets.
Of course, choice of diet is influenced by economic development and the presence (or lack of) resources. In advanced capitalist societies, non-meat food stuffs (that mimic the taste, texture, and look of meat) have been developed in response to an ever growing body of people who understand the highly exploitative nature of intensive farming and the cruelty such an industry inevitably entails. This is an example of consumers removing themselves from the chain of exploitation and helps to explain why in Virginia (USA), former tobacco fields have been cleared to grow chick peas simply because there is more profit for the capitalist in this product. Although it is true that within a capitalist society a consumer is always a consumer, the example of those who voluntarily remove themselves from the chain of meat consumption, are in effect raging an economic war against a particular aspect of capitalist exploitation that involves the systematic destruction of another living creature. Within Das Kapital (Vol I) Marx discusses the industrialisation of agriculture, and explains how different markets dictate the trends that develop within capitalist farming. The implication is clear – change the market and the product has to change with it. Make the industrialised cruelty against animals economically unviable, and it will cease as a consequence, but it will not cease simply because of moral objections to its presence. If it were that simple, the bourgeois system would never have got off the ground.
What is a Socialist concern for the welfare of animals? First and foremost it thoroughly rejects the Judeo-Christian tradition as a precursor to modern animal cruelty, and in so doing recognises the purely ‘capitalist’ nature of industrialised farming. Implicit in this is the rejection of the premise that underlies many bourgeois animal rights movements that claim that animals have ‘souls’. This is rejected simply because it is a re-statement of Christian theology albeit deliberately ‘inverted’ to make an equally illogical statement. The Socialist position is that no one, (or no animal) possesses an imagined Judeo-Christian entity termed as a ‘soul’, and as such, all living creatures are recognised as ‘equally soulless’. The Socialist philosophical implications of this are clear as humanity does not need a god (or a soul) to know what behaviour is good, and an animal does not require artificial ‘rights’ to be free of arbitrary pain and violence (as it experiences within a bourgeois system). The only true ‘right’ an animal possesses cannot be granted (or took away) by humanity – as it is the right to exist which is present from the moment of its conception. As Socialism is the product of revolutionary action and thought, no stone must be left unturned. Socialist logic abandons its bourgeois predecessor and moves into new and hitherto unexplored realities. As animals will no longer be exploited for capital, this means that they cannot be freed from a state that does not exist. In the meantime, whilst the beginnings of progressive Socialism must pre-exist with an ever desperate bourgeois system, the treatment of animals can be rectified by personal choice and the development of an enhanced understanding. At this time the bourgeois animal rights groups and organisations serve a definite purpose and function as they attempt to curtail the excesses of the system they otherwise support without question. Socialists may make expedient use of these movements whilst working toward the general overthrow of the capitalist system.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2014.
Judeo-Christian theology is a patchwork of precariously weaved together bits and pieces of imagination, intellection, emotionality and experience of the environment. It is the product of a priestly political elite that sought to secure its power of its community, through the use of ‘fear’ premised upon the behaviour of an unseen god concept. These very same rabbis would permanently expel Christianity from inclusion within the Judaic religion, because of the behaviour of the followers of ‘Paul’, who disregarded rabbinical authority and behaved in what was considered outrageous for the conservative Jewish power-brokers of the time, and yet despite its apparent ‘openness’ and willingness to engage outsiders (i.e. non-Jews), the elders of Christianity retained virtually all the ideological baggage associated with the teachings contained within Judaic theology. One strain of this thinking is its demeaning attitude toward animals that is the underlying basis for the disregard for animal welfare (and rights) prevalent in the modern (secular) West, and much of the world that has historically come under the influence of Judeo-Christian thinking. The bible teaches that animals have been put on the earth by a god concept solely for the use of human beings. This includes the use of animals as beasts of burden, as protectors of human communities, and as living resources to be slaughtered at one point in their lives, so as to provide the various constituents of their bodily make-up for human usage. The bones, organs, and muscles are used for the consumption as food, whilst the skin, hair, and teeth/horns are used for adorning the externality of the human body as both clothing and ornament. Whereas Judaic (and Christian) theology accords the act of ‘killing’ the status of a grave ‘sin’, this is only extended to include other human beings, and does not include the slaughter of animals. To justify the killing of animals – that is the purposeful and deliberate ‘ending’ of a non-human life – the Judaic theologians had to participate in some nifty ecclesiastical footwork that evaded the accusation of hypocrisy, whilst simultaneously confirming the lesser status of animal life. This is because the killing of animals pre-existed the formation of rabbinical political authority, and it is obvious that the peasant-farmers of the Middle East (living around 500 BCE), possessed a considerable authority (as both landowner and livestock controller) that leant itself to the formation of Judaic theology, rather than being subject to it. Such was the social, cultural, and economic power of this social strata that its presence led to the alteration of the original moral construct stating that ‘all’ killing was wrong, to that of only killing fellow human beings was ‘wrong’. Once this compromise was established, the habitual killing of animals could continue unabated. The infallible word of god had been altered even during the early days of its invention.
The theology justifying this watering down of an otherwise noble aspiration, stated that it is ‘correct’ and ‘proper’ to inflict any and all kinds of violence upon a living animal so that it can be more thoroughly exploited in its service of humanity, because animals possess ‘no soul’. Although the word ‘soul’ is originally of German pagan origin, the early Christian thinkers – in their attempt to distance themselves from the Judaism from which they emerged – hijacked the terms of ancient and classical Greek philosophy, and usurped the Greek term ‘psyche’ (literary meaning ‘breath’ and ‘mind’ as the seat of life), and used it to describe the divine-spark that they believed linked all human life to the god construct that had created the universe. Paradoxically, and typical of the kind of illogicality that underlies much theological thinking, a god construct had created all life (including animals), but had deprived these animals of the divine-spark that linked humans to itself. Later, during the Christian attempt (as the state religion of Rome) to convert the heathen German tribes, its theological distortion of the use of the Greek term ‘psyche’, became synonymous with the German ‘soul’, which was used originally to refer to the return to sacred water by followers of the pagan religion. As animals lacked this ‘divine-spark’, or ‘soul’, violence to their physical body (and well-being) was said to be without ‘sin’ and did not constitute an act that offended god. Animals, although obviously ‘alive’, did not occupy the same Judeo-Christian theological ‘space’ as that ‘specialness’ ascribed even to the worst of human beings. The process of having to alter its ideology and adjust its existential circumstance is nothing new to the Judeo-Christian religion, which has in its modern incarnation, whole-heartedly embraced the capitalist system and the rightwing political cause. This has led to the moral teachings found in the bible – presumably uttered by a god construct and his son – to be either abandon, ignored, or reversed, as being products of an inconvenient (other-worldly) theology that stands in the way of the production of capital and its unending accumulation on earth. After-all, animals do not vote, and beyond the acquisition of enough food and drink to sustain their existence from one day to the next, are not interested in the human habit of the accumulation of capital. Judeo-Christian theology (and its current secular manifestation), allows for the psychological and physical well-being of all animals (other than those who are lucky enough to fall under the category of ‘bourgeois pet’), to be completely ignored from the moment of their birth, until their death at the hands of 24 hour slaughter factories spread throughout the world.
The method of dispatching (i.e. ‘killing’) varies from country to country, and involves ‘stunning’ through electrocution before being cut open, to being beaten to death with hammers, or having the throat cut whilst the animal is fully conscious. Horses, for instance, a species that has served humanity for millennia, often have to watch as other members of their group are hung-up by their hind hooves, and their throats cut, whilst patiently awaiting their turn. Bourgeois hypocrisy knows no bounds – and all this is aided and abetted by veterinarians whose job seems to be to reassure the Bourgeoisie (and their fellow capitalists) that the meat on their plate died in a manner that is considered ‘humane’ – and does not, therefore, upset bourgeois sensitivities. Cows, sheep, pigs, goats, and all kinds of animal life pass through the industrialised slaughter houses across the world, often dying as part of a 24 hour commercial process. The fur industry (which includes dog pelts) operates through a similar industrialised process that only cares about the state of the extracted skin, and does not care for the animal it is lifted from. Many are skinned alive, and their skinless bodies left to die in a heap. This destructive process is augmented by the ongoing slaughter practice at the local level which still exists in many parts of the world. Slaughter factories employ working class people usually from a very poor educational background, and through the actions involved in the continuous and mindless killing of animals, encourages ignorance through the convention of non-questioning of the status quo. Research has shown that rightwing political ideology tends to permeate such working environments, and slaughter factory employees have been linked to general criminality, domestic violence, racism, murder, and terrorism, as well as the development of psychological and psychiatric abnormalities. This section of the proletariat is as intensively oppressed as the animals they kill throughout the industrialised farming process they work within.
The evolution of humanity suggests that as far back as can be ascertained by the scientific observation of bones, teeth, and other fossilised remains, early human ancestors (still very animalistic) were adapted for a purely vegetarian diet. Later, and probably due to a disruption in the supply of suitable vegetarian food, the early humans appear to have taken to meat eating and this can be seen through the evolutionary developments associated with the human digestive system and teeth. Modern humans today are able to eat a mixed diet of meat and vegetables which reflects its evolutionary history. This choice gives humanity the best chance of historical survival as it has adapted to eat everything available that is edible within its environment. Of course, this does not mean that a determinism must be exercised over the choices developed, but it does suggest that humans can live wholly on a vegetarian diet (that always seems to have augmented meat eating), but that it is unlikely (from a nutritional perspective), that a human being could survive only on a meat diet (with no access to fruit and vegetables), without a detrimental effect upon the cellular structure of the physical body itself. Meat is eaten today as a supplement to fruit and vegetables (which contain vital vitamins and minerals), as it is considered a source of protein, despite the fact that ample protein can be acquired through such food stuffs as nuts, etc. A gorilla, for example, has a massive physical (muscular) structure, which surrounds an equally robust bone structure, and yet it follows only a vegetarian diet. This does not affect its ability to survive in the wild, fight off rivals, and reproduce. Chimpanzees, by comparison, have developed the adaptation of meat eating (usually other monkeys and insects), and like their human cousins, have been observed ‘murdering’ one another over control of resources, and influence within the group. However, the fact remains that prior to the mass producing of cattle and sheep (through industrialised farming in the 19th century) primarily for their meat, the majority of ordinary people, due to their impoverished condition, relied on a diet very low in meat and high in grain, fruit and other vegetable food stuffs. It was only within the upper echelons of feudal society, and those who had accumulated wealth in the emerging capitalist system in the 16th century in the UK, who could routinely afford meat. With capitalist farmers being driven by the free economic market, more and more land was used to raise livestock, which saw the diminishing of crop related agriculture. Meat made more profit for the capitalist farmer, and society was conditioned toward its mass consumption – a situation that has continued more or less uninterrupted to this day.
This means that meat eating is as much a conditioned aspect of capitalist existence as is any other attribute of modern, bourgeois society. Although now driven in a secular society by self-sustaining market forces, (with the treatment of the animals assumed to be ‘normal’), it has its contemporary historical roots within the Judeo-Christian tradition. In other words, capitalists that unquestioningly eat meat today are unconsciously participating in an old religious ritual of dubious medical worth. This behaviour, as it damages the health of the human being as well as that of the animals concerned, may be interpreted as non-progressive from a Socialist perspective. The indifferent treatment of animals raised solely for the consumption of their meat by humans, is the direct product of the search for profit by the capitalist farmer, and those industries that support such an endeavour. Modern animal cruelty is a product of the search for capitalist profit through the exploitation of the physical bodies of animals and Socialists should recognise this fact. Part of bringing down the capitalist system (and the bourgeois class that sustains it), requires a ‘new’ and ‘revolutionary’ approach to how animals are perceived and treated, as indifference to animal welfare and animal rights indicates a passive acceptance of Judeo-Christian theological belief within a secular setting. There is an easily observable and logical chain of events between the arrival of meat on a plate, the slaughter of animals, industrialised farming, private profit seeking, and the historical influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition. This observation is compounded by the fact that throughout its evolutionary history in the distant past, humans and their early ancestors have survived for thousands of years by the imbuing of non-meat based diets.
Of course, choice of diet is influenced by economic development and the presence (or lack of) resources. In advanced capitalist societies, non-meat food stuffs (that mimic the taste, texture, and look of meat) have been developed in response to an ever growing body of people who understand the highly exploitative nature of intensive farming and the cruelty such an industry inevitably entails. This is an example of consumers removing themselves from the chain of exploitation and helps to explain why in Virginia (USA), former tobacco fields have been cleared to grow chick peas simply because there is more profit for the capitalist in this product. Although it is true that within a capitalist society a consumer is always a consumer, the example of those who voluntarily remove themselves from the chain of meat consumption, are in effect raging an economic war against a particular aspect of capitalist exploitation that involves the systematic destruction of another living creature. Within Das Kapital (Vol I) Marx discusses the industrialisation of agriculture, and explains how different markets dictate the trends that develop within capitalist farming. The implication is clear – change the market and the product has to change with it. Make the industrialised cruelty against animals economically unviable, and it will cease as a consequence, but it will not cease simply because of moral objections to its presence. If it were that simple, the bourgeois system would never have got off the ground.
What is a Socialist concern for the welfare of animals? First and foremost it thoroughly rejects the Judeo-Christian tradition as a precursor to modern animal cruelty, and in so doing recognises the purely ‘capitalist’ nature of industrialised farming. Implicit in this is the rejection of the premise that underlies many bourgeois animal rights movements that claim that animals have ‘souls’. This is rejected simply because it is a re-statement of Christian theology albeit deliberately ‘inverted’ to make an equally illogical statement. The Socialist position is that no one, (or no animal) possesses an imagined Judeo-Christian entity termed as a ‘soul’, and as such, all living creatures are recognised as ‘equally soulless’. The Socialist philosophical implications of this are clear as humanity does not need a god (or a soul) to know what behaviour is good, and an animal does not require artificial ‘rights’ to be free of arbitrary pain and violence (as it experiences within a bourgeois system). The only true ‘right’ an animal possesses cannot be granted (or took away) by humanity – as it is the right to exist which is present from the moment of its conception. As Socialism is the product of revolutionary action and thought, no stone must be left unturned. Socialist logic abandons its bourgeois predecessor and moves into new and hitherto unexplored realities. As animals will no longer be exploited for capital, this means that they cannot be freed from a state that does not exist. In the meantime, whilst the beginnings of progressive Socialism must pre-exist with an ever desperate bourgeois system, the treatment of animals can be rectified by personal choice and the development of an enhanced understanding. At this time the bourgeois animal rights groups and organisations serve a definite purpose and function as they attempt to curtail the excesses of the system they otherwise support without question. Socialists may make expedient use of these movements whilst working toward the general overthrow of the capitalist system.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2014.