Banner image: “The sacrifice of the ox when it is slaughtered is always the same.” – Karl Marx, Grundrisse, collected works 28, p. 533. Image by an Alliance member, used in Antidot.
Daniel Werding, Christin Bernhold and David Müller are members of the Alliance for Marxism and Animal Liberation. The Alliance
is a political association of various animal liberation groups centered
in Germany and Switzerland. It was formed to support research,
criticism and debate over the ideas of Marxism as they impact the animal
liberation struggle and to contribute to a new approach to the praxis
of the movement. The Alliance published it’s 18 Theses on Marxism and Animal Liberation1 in January, 2017. An English translation was released August 2018. Along with 2 other members of the Alliance, they spoke with Currents editor Michael John Addario. The interview was conducted over email between November 2018 and April 2019.
The history of the animal liberation movements in Germany
have some clear parallels with the liberation movements in the West, but
they have also developed within the unique framework of German
philosophy and German society. They also appear to have developed a bit
later than the North American and some of the other European movements.
Could you tell us a little bit about that history?
The history of what can be called the latest wave of the animal
rights and animal liberation movements in Germany started at the end of
the 1980s. The movements at that time still described themselves as
animal welfarists, although they weren’t really “welfarists” in the
reformist (and bourgeois) sense that we see today. Political and
theoretical discussions on these issues were just beginning. Most of the
activists had an autonomous anarchist background or an affiliation to
the Green Party, which was founded at the beginning of the 1980s.
Accordingly, their positions were a mixture of moral philosophy and the
“unity-of-oppression” approaches. Back then, direct action dominated.
This orientation, among other things, led to the first “anti-terrorism”
trial against animal activists, which took place in Hamburg.2
All defendants were found not guilty. The split between welfarists and
more radical currents happened quite early – at the end of the 1980s and
the beginning of the 1990s.
The differences between the animal rights movement and parts of the
autonomous left resulted in an ideological clash at the Tierrechtswoche
(“Animal Rights Week”) in Hamburg in 1995.3
This led to a reorientation within some of the groupings in the
movement. They started to engage in theoretical discussions and began to
formulate a critique of forms of autonomous politics then dominant in
Germany. In the first years of the new millennium, this turn found its
expression in new theoretical positions based on the traditional
critical theory by Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse. Birgit Mütherich4 published her influential book about the problem of human-animal relations in the work of Weber, Marx and the Frankfurt School5
in 2000. At about the same time, the first platform for campaigning on a
national level was founded: Offensive gegen die Pelzindustrie
(Offensive Against the Fur Industry), and the first of a number of
successful campaigns against the fur trade was launched.6
Shortly after that, the Jewish-Israeli critical theorist and professor
Moshe Zuckermann helped the radical currents of the animal rights and
liberation movements to explore the legacy of the Frankfurt School in
favor of animal liberation politics.
Marcuse and Davis, USCD, 1968 “Nature, too, awaits the revolution” – Herbert Marcuse “To be vegan is part of a revolutionary perspective” – Angela Davis I am especially interested from what you described, in an
earlier conversation, as a “turn to Marxism” in the German animal
liberation movement, roughly between 2006 and 2008. How substantive and
influential was that turn in practice – and what do you attribute that
turn to?
Tierrechts-Aktion Nord (TAN), which is known today as Assoziation Dämmerung (Association Dawn),7 organized an important congress in Hamburg called “Soften the Stony Heart of Infinity” (a phrase by Adorno) in 2006.8
The contributions to the congress were published in a book with the
same title, published by journalist and longtime animal liberation
activist Susann Witt-Stahl.9
One of the contributors was Marco Maurizi. Marco is an Italian
philosopher, musician and an active intellectual in the broad field of
critical human-animal studies. In 2005, shortly before the congress took
place, his Nine Theses on Speciesism appeared.10
Together with his two chapters to Susann’s book, which were the outcome
of his talks at the congress, those theses were seminal for the groups
who had already been discussing critical theory and animal liberation.
Maurizi’s theses explained, in condensed form, the differences
between a historical materialist approach to animal liberation and
metaphysical ones. He used Peter Singer’s philosophy as a model for his
definition of metaphysical anti-speciesism. Marco’s basic idea is that
“speciesism – our belief that man is something other than and superior
to every other animal – is the cause of nothing; it is rather the effect
of something that the metaphysical anti-speciesists have not yet
explained.” Here, “speciesism” is a prime example for what Marx and
Engels called “superstructure” and it is the effect of political
economic praxis – the “something” that metaphysical anti-speciesist have
not yet explained. Even today in human-animal studies, metaphysical
approaches have significant influence.
Susann’s book – and especially Marco’s interventions – led to deeper
discussions about animal liberation and Marxism. At the same time,
however, metaphysical anti-speciesism was getting a big boost by the
emerging “human-animal studies” fields in academies in the
German-speaking world. These fields are still dominated by left-liberal
and radical democratic forces promoting post-structuralism (including
Actor-Network-Theory), various new ethical approaches and “denucleated”,
or eclectic, readings of the Frankfurt School.
The background against which this latter intellectual development
took place was a general movement of the German left to the centre: in
the wake of the ideological and political turn to the right and
neoconservatism, the weakening of the traditional radical and
socialist/communist left and the historic event of massive neoliberal
cuts carried out by the first national government of social democrats
and the Green Party – in which many leftists had placed big hopes.
Economically, German capital was all but entirely uncontested in its
dominance – and even gained opportunities for new profits due to the
liberalization of the labor market and deregulation of the juridical
forms of capital-labour relations. Germany was also being reinvented as a
global player, approving its first participation in an open war of
aggression after the Second World War, 1999 against the Republic of
Yugoslavia, and its second in the still ongoing war in Afghanistan.
Thus, if you like, one faction of the animal liberation movement took a
“turn to Marxism”, but it was really a counter-current, as in Walter
Benjamin’s sense that it has been “brushing history against the grain”.
This was unfortunately neither part of a mass movement, nor did it
dominate the broader left.
Cover of 18 Theses on Marxism and Animal Liberation, January 2017How did the 18 Theses on Marxism and Animal Liberation come to be developed? Coming out of these intellectual currents, we started meeting in 2014
with animal liberation activists from Switzerland and Germany who
shared our point of view and began to discuss Marxist theory and
politics and strategic issues in the movement. At that point, we had not
yet planned to create a formal alliance. However, the meetings spawned
fruitful debates on animal liberation from Marxist and socialist
perspectives. It was necessary to elaborate on these perspectives in
order to advance it within the movement – as well as make it accessible
to people more generally interested in “animal issues”. We also wanted
to develop these debates and agendas further. The Tierrechtsgruppe Zürich11 published an issue of Antidot12 – a supplement to the Swiss left-liberal weekly newspaper WOZ13
– in late 2014 focusing on “Marxism and Animal Liberation.” It was a
publication of journalism rather than theory, but its essays developed
some aspects of the critique we discussed during that time. Reactions to
it showed us that there is indeed interest in anti-capitalist and
socialist positions on animal liberation. Unfortunately, none of the
articles have been translated into English.
We decided to consolidate our efforts and constitute what is now our Alliance
and also to develop a statement that basically explains why we think
that Marxism and Animal Liberation belong together. We needed something
that we could use to present our position to both young comrades within
the animal liberation movement and to Marxist comrades who always
wondered why their crazy vegan comrades kept arguing that animals are
something that Marxism should care about. The process of collective
writing and debating took about one year. We wrote down our theses as
our theoretical founding document and published it as a brochure in
January 2017. After the Theses were released, we discussed them
at several events of both the animal liberation movement and the
Marxist left. Comrades from different countries translated them into
English and French.14 We hope to facilitate a larger, international debate on Marxism and animal liberation, which we consider long overdue.
Cover of Antidot: “Dem Schlachten ein Ende setzen – Marxismus und Tierbefreiung, December 2014How would you summarize the theoretical standpoint of the Theses? It’s a classical Marxist standpoint from which we address both the
animal liberation movement and the Marxist and communist left. We argue
that animal liberation and Marxism not only might work together but in
fact necessarily belong together and must unite. This is why the text is
split into two main chapters: one arguing “Why anti-speciesism must be
Marxist,” the other one “Why Marxism must be anti-speciesist.” As
historical materialists, we think that animal liberation politics need
Marxism to understand the relationship of society to both animals and
nature and, at the same time, Marxism needs to recognize that animals
must be liberated from exploitation and oppression just like the
proletariat – which does not mean that the way they are exploited and
dominated by capital works in exactly the same way.
In the first section, we take a critical look at the intellectual
currents that are most influential in the animal rights and animal
liberation movement at the moment – namely, bourgeois moral philosophy,
liberal legal criticism and liberal (post-structuralist)
anti-authoritarianism. We argue that all of them have their merits.
However, in the end, they are not able to give a satisfactory answer to
the question as to why exactly animals are exploited in capitalism, why
this exploitation works the way it works and where speciesist ideology
really comes from. We then introduce historical materialism and the
works of Marx and Engels as a theoretical foundation which is both able
and necessary to answer these questions. It also provides the
instruments to analyze the economic position animals have in capitalism.
The second section argues that on the other side, Marxism is
inconsistent if it keeps ignoring the animals. While arguing that
capitalism inherently harms the interests of the proletariat, Marxists
are incoherent if they want to abolish capitalist exploitation and
oppression in order to liberate the working class but at the same time
deny that for animals. This is not a moralism, per se, but a
fundamental – revolutionary – moral position that Marxists are driven by
in their will to end the systematic suffering that capitalism causes.
For historical materialists, there is no justifiable reason not to
respect the interests and rights of non-human animals.
A number of scholars have been grappling with elements of
Marxism and animal liberation for some time now, among them figures such
as David Nibert and John Sanbonmatsu in the US and Dinesh Wadiwel in
Australia. The question of animal labour has animated writers such as
Jason Hribal and has also been taken up by some academics outside of a
Marxist framework. Did you draw from any from these figures?
Our aim was not to write an academic text, but a political essay
which outlines common ground for Marxists and animal liberationists.
Thus, the number of explicit references is intentionally low. But you
can find some references to Marx and Engels, Luxemburg, Adorno or
Marcuse – some explicit, some implicit. Furthermore, we drew in large
extent on our experiences in the debates we have been having in the
German-speaking world in which, with all due respect, the scholars you
name have not yet become as influential as, for e.g., Gary Francione,
Donna Haraway or Carol J. Adams. So, the short answer is that while some
of us are familiar with Nibert, Sanbonmatsu and Wadiwel we have not yet
discussed them as a collective. And we also found it necessary to
formulate a position based on the original works of Marx and Engels, who
we don’t consider speciesist or anthropocentric.
Jason Hribal has become a bit famous in Germany, at least in the
academic world. But the focus of the reception has been more on his
concept of animal resistance and the related reformulation of animal
agency. In contrast to him, we do not think that animals “resist” their
exploitation and oppression, or that it is helpful to extend agency in
such a particular way. We think that it is necessary to be precise with
our terms and that a transfer of concepts from the working class to
animals is not always easy. This does not mean that animals go
voluntarily to the slaughterhouse or that they are not actors in
history. Actually, as Marxists we know that not only humans have been
making history. But we think that “resistance” is not the right term to
conceptualize what animals do. Not every individual or collective act of
denial, refusal, non-corporation etc. is automatically an act of
resistance – neither in human or in animal histories.
On Hribal’s proposal to consider animal as laborers, the quality of
the concept depends a lot on its exact meaning. Obviously, animals do
work for their own reproduction and/or for “animal capital.”
Incidentally, Marx and Engels had already stated this, although many
pro-animal scholars try to prove the opposite. It is actually quite
interesting to observe that some post-postmodernists now “rediscover”
nature and animals as agents, while Marx and Engels had already
considered them to have a history of their own, even in their early
works. But does the fact that animals perform labor mean that animals
are part of the proletariat, as Hribal assumes? We have been considering
the question of animal labor for a while now, and we do not think so.
Marx and Engels used this term for a specific class, within the
historically particular capitalist social formation, and which is
defined by its relation to capital: i.e., with respect to the property
relations and the production and distribution of profit. The relation to
capital by wage workers and by animals respectively differ. In the
latter case, it is a property relation which allows capital to
super-exploit animals.
Furthermore, if we consider Hribal’s political definition of the
proletariat, we would argue that animals are not a politically conscious
part of the working class. We think this particular transfer of a
concept does not help us to better understand contemporary society. In
the worst case, it confuses our analysis. Nevertheless, we do appreciate
the histories Hribal has collected about animals who do not cooperate
with their exploiters and oppressors. They are really fascinating and,
of course, they contradict the wrong perception of animals as passive
material, automatons or machines.
There is a significant anarchist element within many animal
liberation movements. Some of this is often more in name – almost as a
kind of cultural affiliation – rather than reflecting classical
anarchist practice. Is there a genuine Marxist-Anarchist debate or a
clash of organizational strategies in the German movement?
The short answer would be no. If you exclude postmodernist
neo-anarchism, the genuinely anarchist current within the animal
liberation movement is not as strong as it used to be. Unlike the 90s,
where, say, the eco-anarchism that many of us grew up with was quite
influential, culturally and theoretically, it does not organize itself
as an explicitly “anarchist” current anymore. Ironically, one of the few
groups which at the moment labels themselves “anarchist” is an animal
liberation group in Hannover run by so-called “anti-Germans”15
who use allegations of antisemitism in order to slander traditional
leftists. Secondly, there is simply no organized theoretical debate
within the movement about these issues at the moment.
We would actually prefer to have such a “clash of organizational
strategies” – at least that would imply a debate, which could
potentially push things forward. But strategic debates just aren’t
taking place at the moment. Of course, there are activists with an
anarchist or libertarian background. So far, no critique or reaction to
our theses from an explicitly anarchist point of view has been
formulated. There are of course some of our positions and arguments
which are questioned, e.g. the focus on the class question as a core
question of capitalism, or the necessity to join forces with the labor
movement. But since these issues are not really debated with regard to
organizational questions, that sort of debate is not happening.
Could you tell us a little bit about the Alliance? How was it formed and how is it organized? The Alliance was formed in 2014. It is based in several
cities in Germany and in Switzerland. We started our collective work
with the above-mentioned newspaper supplement Antidot. We
outlined some basic ideas on historical materialism and animals and a
Marxist approach to ethics as class ethics. We also did some analysis of
the German and Swiss meat industry, looked at the interconnections
between eco-socialism and animals, criticized the emerging vegan culture
industry, and so on. We had rich editorial discussions about the paper
and its contents, about debates in the emerging human-animal studies in
the universities and about developments on the left. We concluded that
we need at least three things: (1) an independent, organizational
approach of Marxists and animal liberationists, (2) a collective
theoretical and political discussion of the interconnections of Marxism
and animal liberation thought, and (3) a strategic debate on how to move
forward.
The Alliance thus became formalized and we launched theoretical discussions, the 18 Theses
being the first result. We are an association of groups and individuals
with different political backgrounds, scattered geographically. We hold
collective meetings several weekends a year. For these meetings, we
take turns preparing inputs on theoretical and political currents and
other issues, to make sure that everybody is on the same page, educate
ourselves and be up to date, etc. We have plenary discussions on
significant topics in which all activists have a common interest. In
addition, we hold regular phone conferences with delegates from all
participating groups. Despite our emphasis on theoretical work and idea
formation the first phase of our alliance, we see ourselves primarily as
a political activist organization. Theory and praxis cannot be
separated – both have to be part of what we do politically. It took us
most of that first year to write the theses.
The first step to a new strategic approach followed in March 2018.
The animal rights/ liberation movements are in a terrible state at the
moment. We organized a conference about “The Future of the Movement”.
The idea was to present and discuss a proposal for a new movement
strategy. Instead of doing only localized work, or a lot of small,
single-issue campaigns which are mostly unsuccessful, we proposed to
focus the principal forces of the movement collectively on the meat
industry, as it is both the main economic profiteer and the most
influential political agent in animal exploitation. Additionally, we
think that the meat industry could be a focus of opposition for the
broader anti-capitalist left, given the relations of exploitation
between capital and labor are among the most extreme, considering the
social ecological problems produced by the meat industry, and given the
contribution of agriculture to greenhouse emissions. That’s where we are
at the moment. The conference in Hamburg, 2018, organized by the Alliance for Marxism and Animal Liberation, discussing socialist perspectives in the animal liberation movement.The animal liberation movements worldwide are at a critical
historical moment. They have struggled to find a place within major left
currents – explicitly Marxist or otherwise – even as the needs for them
are so politically urgent. The numbers of non-human beings owned and
slaughtered every year is the highest in human history and the nature of
their use is of an almost incomprehensibly sadistic character. What do
you see as the most urgent strategic aims of the movements?
You’re right with that observation. We consider it crucial for these
movements to join forces, if only for the simple reason that the
bourgeoisie and its apparatuses are pretty well organized and we, as
their enemies, must just do the same in order to be powerful. And let’s
not forget that the animal liberation movement is not the only left
movement with a de facto urgent need for allies.
We think it is vital to focus strategically on the meat industry. It
is the embodiment of the global oppression and exploitation of animals,
workers and nature. It is responsible not only for most of the
systematic slaughter of animals, but also for pollution, deforestation,
ecocide, prevention of food sovereignty, the oppression of workers’
rights and the destruction of their unions. It is a primary locus for so
many of the contradictions of capitalism. The meat industry can
potentially be a political arena in which different anti-capitalist
movements meet to join forces. Such a campaign could enable us to create
the common ground for animal liberation, eco-activists, unionists,
communists, and opponents of imperialism to unite.
Of course, it would be naïve to believe that such a thing could form
overnight, not the least of which is due to the mutual skepticism and
political differences between and among animal liberation groups and
different left currents. We are in relatively uncharted political
territory. We do not have ready answers to certain questions. Things
must really be tried out in practice.
This requires careful solidarity-building work. For instance, at
different sites of the German meat industry, local groups – mainly
unionists and residents – can start discussing what to do against the
devastating working conditions. The discontent among workers in the meat
industry has always been high and everybody knows that. The same is
true for citizens living near slaughterhouses. Local campaigns and
initiatives need to aim at building bonds with these people. One can
build from there. It’s important to keep in mind that workers in the
meat industry care about their jobs not because they necessarily want to
work killing animals – much of the job is psychologically stressful –
but because they need an income. This distinction is important for the
question of solidarity. How should our movement act in such a context?
At any rate, advancing animal liberation positions in these campaigns
would require real participation over the long term, rather than just
going to a meeting and speaking against slaughter.
Of course, it is a consistent problem that the Marxist left, social
movements and liberal elements that promote technological fixes – such
as, say, agroecology – are either ignorant or hostile to the animal
question. This has not exactly helped animal liberationists finding
their place in “the left,” as you say.
How that’s supposed to change is a matter on its own. But when it
comes to the question as to what the animal liberation movement needs to
do to develop the potential to build broader alliances, a first thing
is giving up single-issue politics. This is the very precondition to be
able to even think about joining forces with others. The animal
liberation movements must ensure that they do not themselves serve the
prejudices that often exist in the Marxist left, like for instance, that
they are only interested in vegan consumption, or that they do not pay
attention to questions of political economy – especially the
exploitation of workers – and so on.
In July of this year, we will participate in an action conference organized by Animal Climate Action (AniCa),
which will be discussing strategies against the meat industry and is
organizing a major mobilization against the EuroTier 2020 in Hannover, a
world leading fair for animal production. We are looking forward to the
discussions there. “Bring
slaughter to an end: expropriate the meat industry, abolish
capitalism”. Rally against the Meat industry, Zurich, Switzerland, 2018But how you see such class politics functioning?
Democratizing the economy and producing for human need is certainly the
socialist project writ large. But in transforming workplaces to worker
and council leadership, we can quite easily anticipate class conflicts
around the liberation of animals. This seems to me something that must
remain at the centre of animal liberation politics generally. As you
said, the animal rights movement – even the animal liberation left – has
not exactly prioritized socialism and class politics.
Animal liberation class politics have to be developed within the
traditional left, the pro-animal movements and society. We have to
develop it ourselves – theoretically and practically. The lack of such
politics, sometimes even the frank refusal of such politics, is one
major reason why we are disconnected from the left. Like it or not,
there is no other way than pro-animal class politics if we take into
account the objective forces in our capitalist society and the objective
of a just and free society for all. Again, simple vegan outreach,
“veganizing” education and direct actions are not sufficient – they are
often even politically counterproductive. On the other hand, we do not
consider the establishment of these politics to be an “automatism”, or a
way of least resistance. There are still large reservations among
leftists and animal rightists, not to mention the classical
social-democratic left within the unions’ apparatuses. Thus, there are
going to be conflicts about socialism, animal liberation and their
interconnection within the left and with liberals, democrats and so on.
But there are always some people who are at least open to discussion and
to selective alliances on both sides. Finding them and initiating
conversations is one of our first tasks.
With respect to civil society and the state, we have no illusions. As
with other locations of class struggle, the ruling classes are not
going to like what we want or what we do. One faction does not want to
deal with the issues at all and openly fights against us. The other, the
more (neo)liberal one, wants to pacify us. These capitalists and
politicians promote vegan commodities and lifestyles, improved animal
welfare regulations, the acknowledgment of some species and in-vitro
meat in order to maintain the bourgeois hegemony with regard to animal
exploitation.
However, as the history of the working-class struggles shows,
integration is not liberation and the ruling classes have treated those
who refused integration with even more rigor. The hard or the soft way,
in the end we have to struggle against capitalism and the capitalist
class in general and animal capital in particular. Our task is to
organize and educate ourselves as best as possible and formulate a
strategic project against animal capital that appeals to pro-animal
activists and leftists on the one hand and to the broad working class
and public on the other.
If we get this done, we are already a big step ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment