A-Infos (en) Italy, FAI, Umanita Nova #12-26 - Rough terrain. More on speciesism and anti-speciesism. (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

I'm trying to respond to some of the suggestions raised in the article 
"Anti-speciesism to End All Injustice, " published in issue 11 of 
Umanità Nova , because I feel it's necessary to clarify some aspects. 
While announcing now that I won't be speaking further, I hope the debate 
can continue with the contributions of other comrades or readers of this 
newspaper. ---- What anti-speciesism seems to miss is that human 
complexity, while not the only complexity in living things, is 
nonetheless our own, and we cannot ignore this.

Once again, equating the recognition of diverse human cultures with that 
of distinct species characteristics is something I find fundamentally 
forced, if not downright ideological. Our capacity to experience species 
differences is part of our more comprehensive faculty of judgment and 
evaluation. I have never argued that human cognitive prerogative is the 
exclusive criterion of moral value because, within the complexity of the 
human being, I have clearly included (and it could not be otherwise) all 
the emotional, relational, and cultural baggage through which we 
recognize our fellow human beings.

I agree that, starting from the recognition that differences exist, 
progressive work must be aimed at destroying the presumed validity of 
the reasons underlying discrimination based on those differences. This 
ethical tension is so reasonable and understandable that, in my opinion, 
it can dare to go even further: the destruction of differences 
themselves, wherever possible. And when is this possible? As I see it, 
the destruction of differences (understood as discrimination) only makes 
full sense when it comes to human beings. And for me, this is 
non-negotiable, in any way. Conversely, even if we wanted to extend our 
sphere of moral recognition to other living species, we would always 
find ourselves faced with an insurmountable boundary constituted by 
humanity itself, that is, the community of human beings who recognize 
themselves in what they are.

Upon closer inspection, then, nationalism, racism, and sexism are 
discriminatory criteria that only a superficial glance can justify on 
the basis of real differences. However, we know full well that these are 
merely specious approaches that can be easily refuted based on countless 
considerations: biological, political, and above all ethical. Once the 
supposed differences between human beings are demolished, what remains 
intact is humanity itself.

This is where any analogy with "speciesism" reveals its limitations. If 
we change the subjects of our discussions, it's absolutely logical to 
change our approach because, quite simply, it's a matter of 
understanding what can and cannot be compared. In school, when we were 
taught mathematics, the classic expression "apples to apples, pears to 
pears" was often used to emphasize the need to reason about comparable 
quantities or, in philosophical terms, about logically compatible 
entities or categories.

It really struck me to read in an anarchist newspaper that criticizing 
capitalism is equivalent to using it as a "lightning rod," given that 
the origin of radical problems should be sought elsewhere.

Far from uncritically embracing a Marxist view of social and economic 
dynamics, I firmly believe that capitalism constitutes a major obstacle 
to humanity's emancipation from slavery, inequality, and domination. At 
the same time, shifting the burden of responsibility for this 
devastating and pervasive system onto individual consumers seems to me 
to be a truly dangerous move. Of course, each of us can and must do our 
utmost to be consistent with our own feelings and beliefs, provided we 
recognize that this is not always easy, especially when we find 
ourselves in conditions of extreme pressure or need.

Precisely because of capitalism (which may be a "symptom," but a truly 
serious one), billions of people around the world have no choice, in 
many respects, and I bet that many people, faced with the possibility of 
eating more and better, would not hesitate for a moment at the 
opportunity to eat a steak.

I could be wrong, but in a capitalist system, the true privilege lies 
precisely in the freedom to forgo that steak. Absolutely.

I may assume my share of responsibility (or complicity, some would say) 
in maintaining the capitalist system when I decide to go grocery 
shopping, but I expect others to do the same. If going to the 
supermarket and buying a cutlet is a counterrevolutionary act, I believe 
going to the same supermarket to buy a package of tofu is equally 
questionable. Until we all completely or at least partially abandon the 
machinery of capitalism to revolutionize our lives, starting with a 
self-managed and liberated economy, we will hardly be able to impart 
lessons in consistency and integrity.

I don't know if "once profit is abolished and the means of production 
are socialized, humanity will finally be able to awaken to a reality of 
self-determination, freedom, and equality." When in doubt, as an 
anarchist, I am committed precisely to this goal, or at least I address 
the issue not only of consumption, but also of the structural modes of 
production and distribution of the goods essential to everyone's life. 
As an anarchist, therefore, I necessarily address the issue of social 
transformation in order to dismantle capitalism and its destructive effects.

Even if I'm deaf or blind to the needs of animals, I remain perplexed by 
the recognition of ethics within the animal kingdom. If such ethics 
exists, it's certainly not human ethics. Many species are based on 
hierarchy, competition, and predation. How could we give voice or moral 
status to behaviors that are undoubtedly natural but conflict with our 
principles?

In nature, "dominance" between species exists, and without our 
intervention in nature, humans would have become extinct long ago.

I confess, however, that I'm a bit taken aback. The article rightly 
challenges the validity of biology as the sole criterion for moral 
evaluation. At the same time, however, it extols the extraordinary 
biological capabilities of certain species (dolphins' sonar, octopuses' 
intelligence, etc.) and emphasizes how our capacity for empathy is 
biologically determined by our mirror neurons.

For my part, I can only reiterate the concept that the complexity of the 
human being cannot and must not be reduced to exclusively biological 
considerations because, by doing so, we risk making huge blunders.

Among these, evoking with some regret a mythical golden age in which "we 
were fully aware of the environment in which we moved in a harmonious 
relationship with both nature and its own psycho-physical needs, exactly 
like any other living being" without it being "necessary to invent laws, 
hierarchies, domination, economics, competition" is a gross error that 
ignores the more recent anthropological debate (including libertarian 
ones), which has now transcended the old idea that hierarchies were an 
inevitable consequence of the birth of agriculture, settled living, or 
great civilizations. In human evolution (which has been much less linear 
and much more experimental than one might think), different cultures 
have calibrated the relationship between humans and animals in many 
different ways, often deifying them or considering them "non-human 
persons" to be used, perhaps with many excuses and many prayers, for 
sustenance and life. After all, even the ancestral harmony between 
humans and nature has never been entirely free from an inevitable 
asymmetry of interests.

The proper yardstick for applying our ethical and moral guidelines is 
not the ability of individuals to implement them, but the composition of 
the moral community to which we refer. Any comparison, undoubtedly 
paradoxical, between animals at the mercy of human domination and people 
with severe cognitive deficits who, as such, would risk being excluded 
from those same ethical guidelines is unacceptable to me. Rather, it 
would be worth remembering that, with an example of this kind, it was 
Peter Singer himselfone of the greatest theorists of anti-speciesismwho 
argued that, in extreme situations, the interests of a healthy animal 
would prevail over those of a human being in a vegetative state.

Ultimately, I believe that from a moral perspective, the anti-speciesist 
approach suffers from a tendency toward abstraction that is difficult to 
reconcile with the very idea of morality. It's not, I repeat, about 
establishing the superiority of human beings but about recognizing their 
uniqueness. Morality is human because it is an exquisitely human fact, 
shaped by human experience, and confirmed by our humanity. If we tried 
to completely eliminate the human point of view in order to be 
"impartial" in our approach to all living things, we would end up 
destroying morality itself.

I'm sorry to disappoint my interlocutor, but I reiterate that it is 
possible to fight, for example, against intensive farming even without 
sharing the theoretical framework of anti-speciesism.

The motivations for this struggle can be found in the critique of 
capitalism, in the appreciation of the resources wasted to maintain a 
certain type of economy, in the realization that it makes no sense to 
sacrifice millions of animals when we could do without them, in the 
horror felt at the suffering inflicted on factory farms. And this horror 
can easily be separated from an anti-speciesist perspective.

These assessments stem from a moral perspective that is human and will 
always be oriented toward the primary satisfaction of human interests. 
From an anarchist perspective, satisfying human interests means 
raising, once again, the question of revolution to overthrow economic 
exploitation and political domination in pursuit of true social 
emancipation.

When we talk about consistency, we enter very difficult territory where 
it's easy to use moral judgment as a blunt instrument. The problem is 
that this consistency, if not handled with a certain amount of caution 
and a healthy dose of humility, risks backfiring.

When I say that the equation between "speciesism" and discrimination 
between humans such as racism and sexism is unsustainable, I immediately 
think of our militancy and what we do every day.

As for me, I could never share the same organizational space with those 
who advocate racism or sexism. I could barely even have a coffee at a 
bar with some people, let alone engage in politics together. Yet, for 
years now, in our groups, our collectives, our organizations, 
anti-speciesists have shared the same spaces, building common 
initiatives, being an integral part of the movement, sitting at the 
tablerubbing elbowswith comrades who eat ragù during lunch breaks 
between meetings.

How do they do it? One of two things: either anti-speciesists have a 
stoic capacity to tolerate the intolerable (despite their much-desired 
coherence), or they toodeep downknow that, all things considered, a 
"speciesist" can never be considered the same as a racist. It is 
therefore clear that any analogy between speciesism and all forms of 
human discrimination is the result of an extremely weak operation, not 
only in its theoretical foundations but also in its practical implications.

"What kind of anarchy do we want, represent, and build?" A significant 
question that I will try to answer. First of all, my understanding of 
anarchy is deeply rooted in a sense of mutual respect and recognition of 
others' positions (provided, of course, they are compatible with certain 
minimum reference values).

I found the opening line used in the article in response to my 
intervention truly unfortunate. It's described as "an almost perfect 
example of a rhetoric that presents itself calmly, professes openness to 
change, recognizes the value of others' criticism, and then, elegantly, 
puts everything back in its place. Some might call it reactionary 
rhetoric, and rightly so."

The term "reactionary" is a very serious one and should usually be 
reserved for political adversaries, not comrades. Nevertheless, I 
preferred to address some issues on the merits because I found them 
interesting and because I value a frank and open debate much more than 
the temptation to respond inappropriately to an insult that completely 
defies the most basic libertarian grammar.

Such a dismissive judgment, after all, reveals a lot about an attitude 
that's still widespread in certain circles. In any case, I will continue 
to treasure the ethical and political insights offered by 
anti-speciesism, despite some anti-speciesists.

So, what kind of anarchy do we want? This is a very, very long discussion.

I believe that anarchy will be created by the oppressed who know how to 
organize themselves. If, for example, somewhere in the world, ten, a 
hundred, or a thousand communitieslarge or smallof fishermen or farmers 
want to continue fishing or raising livestock outside of any capitalist 
logic or political domination, that will undoubtedly be their anarchy.

As I see it, even at the risk of appearing anachronistic, I'll play it 
safe and quote Errico Malatesta, also because it seems to me that there 
is nothing better than wanting "bread, freedom, love, science" for everyone.

If then, in the construction of libertarian communism, someone wants to 
put salami among that bread, I certainly won't be the one to rebuke them.

Alberto La Via

https://umanitanova.org/territori-accidentati-ancora-su-specismo-e-antispecismo/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en