Capitalism vs ethics
This is my script for my talk “capitalism vs ethics” I first held at the IARC 2018 in Luxemburg. Check the sources at capitalism.spurgo.de
Capitalism: An economic system
“It’s always the same sacrifice for an ox, when it gets slaughtered.” — Karl Marx
“How in the hell could a [wo*]man enjoy being awakened at 06:30 a.m. by an alarm clock, leap out of bed, dress, force-feed, shit, piss, brush teeth and hair, and fight traffic to get to a place where essentially you made lots of money for somebody else and were asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so?” — Charles Bukowski: Factotum
Please be patient. This will ruin your life.
Historic excurse: What is capitalism and how did it come into the world?
Capitalism is an economic structure and mode of production of the civil society.
German philosopher Max Horkheimer described the “society building of the present” as a skyscraper: On top the managers, a floor below are the important employees followed by dozens of competing workers, professors, small businesses and farmers. Below them, there are lower- and minimum-wage workers, elderly people, sick or poor.
Weaved into the fabric of the foundation, are all those poor souls, working in misery so that we can live in “freedom”.
“Below the spaces where the coolies of the earth perish by the millions, the indescribable, unimaginable suffering of the animals, the animal hell in human society, would have to be depicted, the sweat, blood, despair of the animals.” — Max Horkheimer: The Skyscraper[1]
In “Wealth of a nation”, Adam Smith, proclaimed that a “invisible hand” is regulating prices and profits on the “free market” (with minimum legislative boundaries).
It drives for maximum profit with the lowest effort. This means: Exploit nature to the maximum (workers, environment, animals) to produce maximum profit (for the capitalist) while investing minimum time and monetary resources.
In the last 100+ years of capitalism, this system has expanded into a form of “immense terror” which “produces more victims than beneficiaries” (quoted by Jean Baudrillard). But still capitalism can’t be easily overcome, because its dogma flowed into the smallest gap of the political agenda and the collective brain of our society.
“The abolition of all rules, more precisely: the reduction of all rules to the law of the market is the opposite of freedom — namely its illusion.
Old-fashioned and aristocratic values as dignity, honor, challenge and sacrifice doesn’t count any longer.” — Jean Baudrillard
Modern democracy under capitalism is dictated by the necessity of growth and profit. Through reforms and massive lobbyism in the last decades, the so called “free market” is hailed as the driver of wealth and progress. With this Neo-Liberalism, our society seems more and more to lose grip of anything that is moral and is driven by greed.
One objection often is: “capitalism brought us wealth”
This ignores the fact, that capitalism created disastrous conditions for billions of people (foremost in the global south), nature/environment and — often totally forgotten: nonhuman animals. This is visualized in the foundation and basement of the building — and there simply can’t be a capitalistic society without these elements that thrive from exploitation of others. Including around 70 billion land animals and an estimated 1–3 trillion aquatic animals, that are killed for consumption[2].
With their suffering in mind, we cannot bluntly claim capitalism will cure our society from corruption, greed and violence.
And the perverse thing is, it’s even worse: In capitalism, our society produces goods (e.g. kills millions of animals), just for the sake of profit and might not even get these goods sold if not overtly advertised. Billions of animals produced as waste.
Concrete: We produce giant amounts of harm in this system.
Animal exploitation in capitalism
Historic excurse: Which steps lead to the extraordinary exploitation of Animals today?
Enclosure movement as “birth of capitalism” (and birth of for-profit-animal exploitation)
“your sheep that were wont to be so meek and tame, and so small eaters, now, as I heard say, be become so great devourers and so wild, that they eat up, and swallow down the very men themselves. They consume, destroy, and devour whole fields, houses, and cities.” — Sir Thomas More: Utopia
While aristocrats still ruled over most of Europe, wealthy English merchants and aristocrats in the 17ths and 18ths centuries began to force peasants off their land and privatize it.
On this land they created enclosured sheep grazes to be part of the highly profitable wool/textile industry.
This “movement” caused a even more tragic development by a growing population in Europe.
Native Americans need to flee from the invasion of “farmers”, that ranched with (imported) hog and cattle
“Your hogs and cattle injure us, you come near us to live and drive us from place to place. We can fly no further, let us know where to live and how to be secured for the future from the hogs and cattle.” — Nanticoke spokesperson
As Millions of people were displaced from their pastures, a massive humanitarian crisis evolved and so the state expanded into “new frontiers”: What you nowadays call USA or Canada, was “cleared” from millions of inhabitants — both human and non-human animals: The Americas were the hunting grounds with their rich fauna. But in around 60 years the American bison was near-extinction around 1890/1900[3]. The skulls of millions of Bison were used as fertilizer in the east — and of course it was a strategic goal of the European immigrants to cut out this food source for native American tribes[4].
To import a European lifestyle, later on, the massive import of animals began: hogs and cattle were shipped to northern America, so they the former poor peasants could start over.
And as ranches expanded even more into the lands of Native Americans (who themselves were constantly displaced or killed), new slaughter facilities were built to keep up with the massive increasing numbers of Animals.
As production of meat grew and grew, meat was traded among the states and Europe (mostly Great Britain). As described by Toni Morrison in “The Ghost Of Slavery”[5], the production of cotton and meat production were interlinked: Slavery in the south was dependent on the import of food — especially meat. Low soil fertility in the southern states made it nearly impossible to grow food crops. This led to starvation among slaves, as their food became a simple cost of production of cotton.
For the still growing population, new methods of production were needed …
The origin of Fordism: Slaughterhouses in Chicago
“I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.” — Upton Sinclair
The division of labor — as praised in “The Wealth of Nations” (published in 1776) — grew revolutionary potentials in the era of industrialization: Manufacturing is divided into simple parts to produce semi-finished products that move from workstation to workstation until a final product is assembled.
Many believe that Henry Ford was the first to introduce this type of manufacturing process into the USA. But he often wrote about how the perfectionized assembly lines (or here: dis-assembly lines) of the meatpacking industry of Chicago inspired him to the mass manufacturing of his Model T.
The slaughterhouse and meatpacking workers — who were often non-English speaking immigrants — didn’t need to be specialized to work in the so-called Chicago Union Stock Yards.
Sadly, their bosses knew that very well and treated them like parts of machines that were easily replaced when injured in the facilities. And of course, there is no question how horrific other animals were treated throughout the whole process.
The author Upton Sinclair himself worked incognito in the Chicago Stock Yards for several weeks and wrote a groundbreaking book called “The Jungle”. The vegetarian/vegan Sinclair wrote explicitly about the suffering of animals, tragic conditions of workers in the meatpacking industry — that had nearly no rights, including no sick-leave-pay, of course no minimum wage and sickening housing conditions, worsened through real-estate businesses — and how greed, empowered by capitalism was the hidden fuel of this whole “Jungle”.
After publishing his book in 1906, there was a public uproar and the realistic, plain but detailed “blut and gore”-scenes made press worldwide.
But: The laws introduced were only about more hygiene and inspections. Slightly improved working conditions and nearly no animal welfare.
Today: How do we (ab)use animals nowadays and for what?
There might be no need to explain, that we still use and abuse animals in many different ways. It might be not too far off to say: Today we are killing more animals for food (and clothing, entertainment etc.) than ever before — yet however it is much more unnecessary as it might be some 500 years ago. Still we do…
But let’s shed a light onto other problems of our society’s massive animal consumption:
The dilemma of the slaughterhouse workers
As studies from slaughterhouse workers and numerous interviews suggest[6]: Those people do their job because they believe their work necessary and truly think that otherwise “we would have to eat grass and flowers”[7]. And in fact, they need to sell their labor in order to survive or provide their families with only the least necessary. They don’t enjoy killing animals.
And even though they know that they seem to be part of a much bigger tragedy, workers are, what Marxists call “alienated” from their product of labor: Only few get to look animals in the eye — most of these workers only work with body parts that have already lost their identity by running through a manufacturing process.
Even in most modern meatpacking plants, are forced to do 40,000 to 100,000 Motions per shift, that include slicing, lifting and tossing[8].
This high frequency in the meatpacking industry produces workers commonly suffering from diseases, due to the high pressure on muscles and joints.
Workers in German slaughterhouses are mostly from western Europe (Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia etc.). These people get enlisted through subsidiaries[9] of big animal agriculture businesses for a minimum wage.
These women and men tend to get separated from their friends while working shifts, to avoid unionizing. Some working arrangements include housing and cleaning of work suits — that is afterwards cut off the worker’s salary.
Most of these people can only work for several months or years in these facilities before they are out of physical- or psychological power.
Workers get exploited — animals pay with their lives — but who profits?
“A basic principle of modern state capitalism is that cost and risk are socialized, while profit is privatized” — Noam Chomsky
Even if some people don’t want to believe this: In animal exploitation we can see the most horrifying example of capitalism:
● Capitalists (or if you wish: entrepreneurs) own the means of productions (animals, meatpacking plants, trading routines …)
● Workers serve with their labor to survive as they have nothing else to give.
● Animals are a part of nature — in this case a feeling and autonomous individual — that gets oppressed as a ressources of a production process.
● Capitalists employ workers (at minimum cost), take/buy resources (such as animals; also at minimum cost) to manufacture products (in their own facilities; also at minimum cost) and sell them with maximum profit.
● The numbers of sold products — for animal products also the number of slaughtered animals — has to increase each year, as capitalism foots on infinite growth.
● Costs related to destruction of nature or problems within our societies are not listed in the calculations of the profiteers, but in the bill we all have to pay (such as deforestation, extinction of insects, health problems, climate-refugees and many more).
In the modern animal agriculture, maximum profit can only be achieved by keeping costs for animals (including their upbringing) and wages all at the bare minimum.
To illustrate this, some examples:
Example 1: Shredding chicks alive
We all nowadays know about the industry standard of shredding or gassing chicks alive because they are of a male gender.
There cannot be doubt: It is unnecessary suffering and killing of animals.
But the strive for profit overrules these animal welfare laws, as e.g. in Germany.
And even if protests in Germany seemed very effective on a political level[10], the killing of ca. 50 Mio. chicks is still in practice — as it is the only way of producing “economically” — at least if we believe people that work for these businesses.
“I expect that we will have an applicable method for mass production industries within this year.” German Minister for Agriculture, Christian Schmidt, March 2016
“Germany has solved the ethical problem of the [chick] shredding with this technology.” German Minister for Agriculture, Christian Schmidt, January 2017
2017: 1,6 Mio. more male chicks killed than ever before.
As long as Breeding and shredding or gassing chicks is a guarantee for profits than other methods, the killing will remain.
Example 2: Subsidies
Similar to some petrol (Diesel, E10), the animal agriculture industry gets supported by billions of annual subsidies through national or European law. And similar to these petroles, the production of meat, dairy and egg is massively harmful for non-humans and humans as well as an ecological disaster.
The European Union (EU-25) subsidized 318.8 billion Euros for agricultural production. This includes 3,4 billion Euros support for the export of products. This therefore is a double punch in the face of people suffering from climate change and cheap imports of goods that destroy national market spheres (in the global south).
The EU supports these massive investments as guarantees for growth and expansion.
But growth, as a factor for success, is detrimental because, eventually, everything that counts on growth for success will grow out of bounds. It is bounds though that push things upwards and limit dilution.
Example 3: Additional Costs
As noted, the costs for destruction of our habitats through deforestation or monocultures that kill insects like bumble bees, are not paid by the profiteers themselves, but by the global societies.
e.g. a giant seed corporation has been sold to a German based firm. This is the same corporation that deals with pesticides that are at least partly to blame for the massive loss of wildlife, including wild bees that are far more productive than the invading bees of hobby- or industrial beekeepers.
Yet, these pesticides are still allowed.
Animal Welfare and Veganism in Late Capitalism
This part is a critique of actions within the animal rights and animal welfare movement. This doesn’t mean, that everything is shit. #justsaying
“The so-called consumer society and the politics of corporate capitalism have created a second nature of man which ties him libidinally and aggressively to the commodity form. The need for possessing, consuming, handling and constantly renewing the gadgets, devices, instruments, engines, offered to and imposed upon the people, for using these wares even at the danger of one’s own destruction, has become a “biological” need.” — Herbert Marcuse: One Dimensional Man
The term Late Capitalism describes a time period from 1945, when we seem to already feel the harm of this economic system itself on our lives (e.g. Climate Change). But also, we feel: this crapping system is kept alive with artificial help: As institutions like the World Trade Union got more and more influence in the politics of governments, they also prescribe the way in which our society is built and organized. This includes massive substitutions for ineffective or harmful processes and exploitation of people living already precarious lives.
German Philosopher, Herbert Marcuse, criticized consumerism, which suggests that the current system is one that claims to be democratic, but is authoritarian in character, as only a few individuals dictate the perceptions of freedom by only allowing certain choices of happiness to be available for purchase. He further suggests that the modern conception that “happiness can be bought” is one that is psychologically damaging.[11]
Let’s go one more step further and look at how this influence also has found its footing in so called “liberal” institutions like Non-governmental organizations (NGO) and also within the mainstream public opinion on how the world should run.
Consumerism as (false) foundation of our happiness
We cannot live without food. That’s a fact we can’t ignore.
But our need for food is not why corporations produce goods. Because that would mean that there would be no waste, no unnecessary luxury products (like calf meat or fois gras). They simple produce because they expect profit.
And to generate an artificial demand for their goods corporations make effective use of propaganda.
To think that we can join the capitalist-gang and just sell “eco- and animal friendly” products is at least as hilarious as it is depressing: In the past, public has invested Billions into the meat-, egg- and dairy-industry. They will not fall short of capital to invest in advertisement or lobbyism to follow their cruel agenda within the next years or decades.
Furthermore, there is the general focus on “lifestyle veganism” which excludes any deeper or even political message. Moral doesn’t sell that easy as it seems.
It’s not a sign that “we are winning” if meat producers jump onto the plant-based wagon. It’s a sign that we’ve already fooled ourselves: If anything, it’s that animal businesses taking pure advantage of the high profit margins in the plant-based alternatives branch: Finding vegan products itself is difficult — therefore if we find it, we’ll pay nearly any price, right?
The whole consumerist-ideology is based upon a false belief that everything is possible, if we just buy[12] it, build it or consume it. Corporations and society makes us to accept that only this “magic bullet” will heal our needs. But how can things make us happy, healthy and satisfied, if everything around us is going to pieces?
Just like poverty, speciesism and oppression is not a natural phenomenon — it’s made. And by not at least mentioning the causes and the inherent problems of our (consumerist) society, we are playing a game without a joystick.
Excurse:
After the introduction of psychiatric medicine, pills were prescribed for nearly every mental illness: It was simple to prescribe, did not cost as much as psychotherapy and sometimes even “did the trick”. But today, psychiatrists around the world see this massive and often unnecessary medication of patients fatally anti-therapeutic. And today we also know how important self-reflection and solidarity are in the rehabilitation progress.
Corporate campaigns: please change
NGO in the animal welfare sector invest massive time and money in demanding “more vegan options” from companies. Soft tones are commonly used when talking to big animal business. It’s common to not pressure those corporations — maybe because they can be surely helpful later on (donations, advertisement etc.).
To get those corporations on the hook, the NGO often make predictions about raising profits: They predict maximizing profits and growth by introducing vegan alternatives.
For those who don’t know: The terms “growth” and “profit” are wet dream material for most CEO. To round up the deals and show support, they provide the means to advertise in the name of the NGO: “New vegan ice cream in stores July 2018!” — guess who will buy that stuff first? (answer: those who already ARE vegan)
Therefore, organizations who debate with corporations invest even more effort to get questionable business to sell their goods. It’s free advertisement on costs of honorable donations for just the tiny chance of a new rice milk or some chips.
Not only is this approach damaging on these specific levels, by demanding the least — all within an economic range that’s “acceptable” for those corporations — there is nearly no progression: REWE, one of the biggest supermarket chains in Germany, proclaimed their producers will stop beak-trimming by 2017[13]. Indeed, they did — but without any improvement for the chickens. But the announcement itself was boldly promoted as “victory” by many animal welfare organisations in 2016/2017. Just as a reminder: without being a fact and without being of any good for the suffering individuals — more precisely: it’s gotten worse for chickens.
Free “greenwashing” and “advertisement” for Germany’s biggest animal exploiters by nonprofits. Hurrai!
Co-optaition: Who has the upper hand?
This co-optation is caused when nonprofits negotiate with corporations in general. And as it seems, this fact is fatally ignored within the animal welfare sphere. But it has to be clear that when demanding change from corporations, there is only one profiteer with the upper hand who controls the outcome: the business in question.
By using the label, prestige and channels of the nonprofit, businesses can raise profits and wash themselves clean of any harm previously made.
In this scenario, suppliants have to frame themselves as a positive influence: With framing themselves as the “pragmatics”, they denounce more progressive and radical NGO as “extremists”, not worth a debate. It therefore seems like the negotiating business and the NGO have one common ground: Silence the radicals.[14]
“The accountability perspective advocated by these organizations reflects a desire to find “analogues for the commercial ‘bottom line’” (Gray et al. 2006, p. 334), which leads to dysfunctional behavior and distracts from the actual effectiveness of a nonprofit’s activities (Lowell et al. 2005).”
Another dimension of silencing the radicals is when negotiating within the movement for the best strategies, we commonly feel that progressive ideas by non-conformists are rejected at first sight.
There is always a affirmative character to the status quo: Gentle gestures towards people and corporations seem to be the way we roll. But how can we overcome the domination over other animals and killing of this planet by confirming the very ideas that keep this wheel of horror rolling?
Pressure campaigns against corporations? — No, because we still live in capitalist society — that will never change! — Yeah, that’s the freakin’ problem!
Try new ways in educating (young) people? — Only within the school system! — Because they know what to do?!
How can we achieve something — anything — by not demanding it directly?
Framing veganism
On the other hand, those same NGO frame veganism as a form of lifestyle and that’s healthy and makes you feel good. This is a purely consumerist ideology.
How can veganism alone make you a better person? Or make you happy? Or lessen the pain of anyone?
“You can stop this torture by going vegan or signing this petition”, might be one of the most read claims in animal welfare campaigns. It’s never too late to moralize, huh? Well, yes — there is a time when justifying an action is too late.
No one will save animals by just switching to a vegan diet. It simply means you’re focusing on your own plate and reject animal exploitation — which is a truly honorable, first step. But the torture and premature death of billions of individuals still goes on. Our individual choices won’t change the consumption globally: e.g. Export of animal flesh today massively exceeds the consumption of Germans[15] (6.54 mio. tons of total 8.22 mio tons are for export only[16]).
Our own choice to live vegan and therefore reduce our own blame for other animal’s suffering is a good first start — but there has to be a pressure on everyone to do so, too.
A glimpse into megacities shows us that offering vegan options is not enough: People don’t give a shit about animals and that won’t change with “clean meat”.
Consuming less animals — everyone for themselves — is not how we can stop animal exploitation overall.
The struggle and pain of other animals should be the main reason why it’s a necessity to live a vegan life.
Positivism: Hail to data
As people who care for all animals, including humans, environment and working conditions, it’s a necessity to stick to important data. But it seems to be a strange phenomenon, sparking from the “Effective Altruist”-side of Animal Welfarism, that neatly presented and collected data could be the key to a vegan wonderworld.
But this leaves the biased introduction to this data completely out of the equation: questionnaires and statistics are always designed with an vague goal in mind. That might not be as bad as it sounds — but it becomes problematic, when the same, collected data becomes an (partly) official narrative and called “objective” data.
And this becomes even more tragic, when opposite and alternative ideas are completely ignored. This is what we can see in the material, children get in school for study:
Example:
“Textbooks […] deliberately prevented the plural activation and strengthening of different frames. They did what is called ‘Propaganda of Silence’ in bias research. Promoting one-sidedness and hiding alternatives.
The consequences are fatal: The majority of the (supposedly scientific) cognitive power slips into the unconscious: Students would no longer be empowered to make their own decisions, but they would be indoctrinated, they would get taught uncritically deep beliefs, worldviews and values.”[17]
The study mentioned, researched material on Neo-Liberal framed Economics.
This example should just outline, how deeply we are all indoctrinated since our upbringing. That might not always be bad. But we need to keep a critical mindset up to date and question every worldview.
To bring this in context to the animal welfare movement: Some NGO in our movement pretend to be “most effective” and reach out to millions of people. But they are mostly quiet how many people react on their activism: 200.000 Newsletter-Subscribers, 330.000 Leaflets or 1 million Facebook-Fans is the only thing we know for sure. But their impact is doubtful.
Example:
“The average open rate [in email marketing] for all industries we analyzed is 20,81 %”
“The average click rate [in email marketing] for all industries we looked at is 2,43 %” — MailChimp Statistics for 2017[18]
And of that 2,43 % clicked, some folks are heading directly to the “unsubscribe”-button …
For Facebook-Ads or -Videos, the statistics are even more devastating and disillusioning: The average Advertisement on this platform has a so called “Click-Trough-Rate” (landing on the page you want the audience to go to) of 0,92 %[19].
The Animal Charity Evaluators, ACE, state to be the ones to know how to be most effective in our activism. To do so, they collect data from different sources — some including the very charities they evaluate — and latter put them into nice, clickable “Top Charities”-lists, where everyone seems to get a glimpse of how effective an organization is and to which one you should donate your money to help their work to continue.
Every member of ACE has her or his own mindset that got blended with the idea of animal welfare. And that’s why they fail to present an unbiased and “most effective” measurement for activism.
To make it to the extreme: ACE as an organization lacks fundamental knowledge in critical (hence “effective”) campaigning, pressuring corporations or media-advertising[20]. Also they rely on the “studies” or interviews ACE receives from the animal welfare charities they pretend to benchmark.
Example:
They still put up numbers and estimates that even lets you calculate how many animals you can spare with your social media campaign[21]. The Numbers are mostly presented (without primary sources) by the charities themselves, that get awarded “Standout”- or “Top-Charity” by ACE later on.
“Though we don’t know the precise success rate of online ads, we estimate that for every 1000 clicks on Facebook ads, about seven new vegetarians are created.” — Animal Charity Evaluators: How We Evaluate Social Media Impact[22]
That’s more than biased — it’s problematic!
Because of this behavior, a whole movement seems to go ahead with these (polished) numbers and repeat a false message: Within this current economic system, we cannot save any animal by just switching to “Meatless Mondays” or going vegan in January.
Manufacturing a vegan world
And there’s the other side of this movement: Charities are building their activism and campaigning around ACE’s recommendations. Organizations become international, neglect social media channels (as they’re called ineffective) or campaign with animal exploiters.
Folks often decide like they think others would act. This is called “social desirability bias”. And it is strengthened when prominent persons go out and preach something — even if it’s unfounded or anecdotal.
Among ACE, there are several “thought leaders” that promote their worldview in public and to a sometimes very vulnerable, young activist audience: Workshops with titles like “Effective Vegan Advocacy” don’t question a status quo, they instead tend to focus on lame and vintage framing of a consumer society (as outlined before).
If leaders of the animal welfare movement promote these lousy ideas, it gets more and more socially accepted to be an entrepreneur than to be a radical animal rights activist that does street work or education. And let me be honest: Businessmen never changed the world for the better.
“Simon says …”
This brings us to another point, where uncritical thinking is rewarded and hailed:
That foot in your door
Of course, it’s easier for most people to follow a common narrative and ideology. Social desirability is real! But it also can be changed over time. To illustrate this, just remember women’s right campaigns, or the LGBTQ*-movement: They all started from a very unpopular position.
Sadly, this is not an easy way to go: Barricades are everywhere and humans will come into your way when defending other animal’s rights to be free from harm and domination. It demands a lot of resources, strength and a long breath to keep your head up in this endless-seeming fight.
But modern NGO are not dumb and know an easier way: Present a cheap trick and slowly demand more. This is often called as the “foot-in-the-door”-technique and commonly used by popular animal welfare organizations around the globe: “Veganuary”, “Meatless Monday” or “vegan pledge” are famous campaigns to get those omnivore folks out there to become a fellow vegan.
This compliance strategy is also commonly used by — who’d expected that — business to sell their products to people that don’t even want to. “Extracting demand” is a phrase used by sales(wo*)men to make up a framing in which the product fits.
It might be shocking for some, but: There is an even more effective and desirable technique to get people to think more about animals: The “door-in-the-face”-technique: By demanding a very radical, large leap at first, we can expect a heartful compliance for a smaller request:
An alternative postulated by Dolinski (2011) is the foot-in-the-face (FITF) technique: compliance is greater when a second request is made immediately after the first is rejected, but after a time lapse of two or three days if the first request is accepted. Researchers found between 63% and 68% compliance rates when using the FITF technique, while traditional techniques showed lower rates of around 50%.
This doesn’t mean I support any strategy that is based on “selling stuff”. It’s just an indicator to question the things you’ve been told by modern “strategists”.
Profit and competition over ideal
But this ultimately leads us to a overall theme: NGO have become to business-oriented organizations who pursue profits and lose their ideals. It seems strange, but NGO who claim to be liberated from governments, corporations or institutions are more than biased when it comes to money. The ones most “visible” in our daily life, are the ones that do the least for the better: WWF, Green Peace or PETA.
Not only is the already mentioned co-optation a problem, it’s also the social desirability that leads to lousy decisions and propaganda actions rather than actual, effective pressure. The risk seems to be too high to lose funding.
Of course, rich people are the best source for donations. But will they even care how “aggressive” our campaigns are? Maybe on the contrary, they’re totally for it?! To water down a “go vegan” message to “go somehow a bit less meat and maybe dairy” is not the way to silence ourselves, just because we think that funding maybe in jeopardy.
If a great donor is irritated by progressive campaigns, maybe (s)he gets replaced by dozens of smaller donators.
Of course, the problem of “cash-flow” might be a reason to not play around with money like in “Monopoly”. But to make this the only basis for strategic decisions is irrational.
Clean Meat: just a necessary innovation
Profit margins are declining, prices for resources rise due to shrinking availability, climate change and increasing wages or costs overall. These factors make it a logical necessity to invent new technologies.
Clean meat or lab meat or whatever you want to call it, is a product that is highly innovative, yet speculative but anyway a region for maximizing profits. Production costs of a “Lab Meat” burger patty from $325,000 to $11.36 in just 3 and a half years[23].
As already millions of dollars have been invested in the development of this procedure, there is no chance I could point to a bunch of plant-based products that are exactly as good as a “lab burger” could ever be.
But that’s it: Investments are highly speculative and as the commercialized production of this fake meat is already announced (several times), profits are sure to come (some day).
Capitalism needs those kinds of innovations. Just like it needed Tesla to come around, making it hip to drive on electricity.
But there is high doubt that this tech will “heal the world” or bring more than just competition into the market sphere: Our perception towards other species has not changed and will not change just by switching to another type of flesh we eat.
A short “study” already stated that people are willing to try other animal’s lab grown flesh — just out of curiosity[24]. This clearly should bring concerns to our minds: Other species are irrelevant to us, as long as we can be the master of their flesh.
In itself that might not be of any concern within the animal movement. But the conversation within our movement — mostly by prominent persons — and funneling of giant donations towards the “clean meat”-research, let’s us think that this might be the only solution for a anti-speciesist world. But sorry: It’s not!
Again: We cannot buy ourselves into liberation.
Animal Welfare
“Animal welfare is not an unpleasant duty, but an economic necessity.” — Micarna, meat producer in Switzerland
Upton Sinclair, himself a vegetarian or vegan, described the horrifying conditions of the Chicago meatpacking industry. After being called muckraker, his book changed something: Hygiene was improved, pays increased a bit — but the lives of the animals were untouched.
With this in mind, we can see how our desire to change things sometimes become torpedoed by lawmakers or a strong opposition — maybe by both. And sure, this puts activists into a sad position: Where’s the chance to win within this world?
This seems like the call for animal welfare: Get some things better now, instead of waiting!
But let’s know were animal welfare came from and why: Until today, animal welfare was and is always just a matter of securing profits / rentability through making it “humane” or “more acceptable”. With perfection of production-processes (e.g. anesthesia, reduction of stress because of taste-problems) the products of animals are more likely to succeed on the market.
“We exploit animals not, because we think they’re inferior, we think they’re inferior, because we exploit them” — Marco Maurizi
There is no humane way to raise, abuse and slaughter animals. No bigger cage will fit their needs. No live transport will make them happier before slaughter.
But the thing animal welfarists have in mind is simple: social desirability to keep funding for their employees and campaigns.
We could separate those animal welfare-oriented organizations from the actual animal rights organizations and let them do their welfarism. But that’s sadly not what the big groups intend to do: They jump on the “low effort — high impact”-paradigm-train and pretend to be saviors for animals in the “here and now”.
But this is a very problematic and monothematic way of looking at things: NGOs working with lawmakers to improve the conditions in which animals are raised and slaughtered gives a “green light” to people who at least had concerns for consuming/using animal products. The shiny “Animal Welfare approved”-Label couldn’t be more acceptable by this meat-eating society.
And on top of that, with every “improved” law, that very law is like a handbook on “how to use animals”. Upton Sinclair got a glimpse of how new laws only manifest the abuse of animals and workers in Chicago by polishing the semantics.
Last but not less important is the thread by the logic of capitalism to find much more cruel ways to exploit: Banning a certain type of “industry standard” will ultimately end up by making the former “lost profit” in another sector. (e.g. “organic meat” was promoted as the “more humane way” to kill animals and is now one of the biggest growing sectors of animal exploitation[25]).
No animal will be happier if he or she is still trapped inside a cage to get killed without willing to die. There is nothing more effective for all people who care for animals than demanding the total abolition of animal oppression.
Example 1:
Some NGO are negotiating with animal exploiters or retailers (that profit from animal exploitation). Not a bad start, but they tend to advice how animals should be treated. This seems to be also a good idea. But thanks to co-optation, the NGO in question accept the very status quo that animals can and must be exploited.
This not only impacts any way to welfarism — it also impacts the daily work and decisions made towards or rather away from animal rights.
Example 2:
Well-funded European or US-based organizations are expanding to other countries, trying to fulfill their “western” agenda here, too: Corporate campaigning, neglecting communities etc.
Thereby these NGO more and more delegitimize local grassroots groups. Prominent figures are often the loudest — even if they’re totally wrong. (yeah, not only Trump can do that)
What Could We Do Instead?
Progressive Campaigns
I hope it’s clear that there won’t be a way to liberation without dismantling capitalism. There won’t be an easy way and we don’t need to go that way with corporations that profited of capitalism and exploitation of workers and animals.
In this society, it’s our duty to fight the corporations that not only destroy our planet, but kill billions of animals. Not only to massively decrease their impact into our daily lives, but because they won’t give us liberation just because they want to!
Therefore, a goal should be not to have more vegan options, but to continue campaigning against these corporations. Only with a constant pressure, we can build a moral obligation to change corporations (or even destroy their destructive business affairs).
It could also be very plausible and impactful to unite with other movements that aim at social justice, environmental or other leftist ideas. Don’t ever give right winged politic a hand!
Be radical
“Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds.” — Albert Einstein
“In the decision to speak up, whom we choose as our audience matters as much as how we deliver our message. When we speak up to agreeable audiences, their instinct is to nod and smile. In their effort to be accommodating and avoid conflict, they often shy aways from offering critical feedback.” — Adam Grant: Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World
We are going a way no one walked before, if we demand radical change in case of animal rights. We expect people to react with shyness or skepticism. But there is a great chance to encourage organizations, people and politicians to walk a new path — far away from the status quo.
We are always living under the impression, that we don’t need to do something “extreme”. But in order to move forward to total liberation, we need to realize, that there is a need for action.
One very important thing about capitalism is, that there can’t be an easy way out: There has to be a massive uproar and fight for the right thing to happen. No cuddling with corporations (“realistic negotiations” as some call it) would’ve suspended child labor[26].
And don’t let us be fooled by “long distance promises”: The logic of capitalism and its drive for maximum profit and endless growth makes it necessary to find alternatives to profit-decreasing interventions. As time passes by, the advantages will be destroyed by that same logic.
The faster and more radical we act in our campaigns, the better are the chances to succeed and make a positive impact for everyone.
Sorry for total disillusion: As soon as one fight is over, another one has to start.
E.g. It took over 10 years to implement an 8 hours workday in Germany — after those years, capitalism already had found a way to increase productivity (therefore the “benefits” for workers was already blown out, as the law for an 8 hours workday was active).
It could be a simple phrase like “if you eat animals, you are an asshole”.
Focus on education
If we focus on our future generations, we can build up a more anti-speciecist way of thinking about animals. That’s nothing simple and it won’t be easy.
But there are plenty of forms of interventions to educate others:
Short Overview of Intervention Forms:
- Film: Screenplays, Documentations, Reports
- Videos: Explanation Videos, Short Excerpts of Movies
- Other & Mixed Media: Websites, Texts, Leaflets …
- Education in Courses: Seminars at Schools, on Campus
- Events: Discussions, Talks, Marches, Gatherings
- … and your creative ideas to “hurt capital” and “distract corporations”
Other Opportunities
- Promote local & organic foods only
- Support workers owned corporations (collectives)
- Build groups for food freedom (esp. in precarious regions)
- Don’t fall for heroes
- Build on solidarity and enjoy every nuance of difference to grow stronger
- Learn from others: SHAC, Tierfabriken Widerstand, Food Epowerment Project, Black Vegans Rock, Divestment-Movement (e.g. 350.org)
- Disrespect every form of racism, sexism, ableism and antisemitism
[1] Max Horkheimer: Dawn and decline: notes 1926–1931 and 1950–1969, New York 1978
Online: http://www.tierrechtsgruppe-zh.ch/wp-content/files/Der_Wolkenkratzer_-_The_Skyscraper.pdf
[2] “Compassion in World Farming”: “STRATEGIC PLAN 2013–2017”
“The world’s population now exceeds seven billion; in just five years, the number of farm animals reared for food globally has risen from 60 billion a year to just over 70 billion.”
Aquatic animals (foremost fish) as published on http://fishcount.org.uk/fish-count-estimates and the mentioned study by the FAO
“In this study it is estimated that between 0.97 and 2.7 trillion* fish (ie 970,000,000,000 to 2,700,000,000,000) were caught from the wild globally each year for 1999–2007.”
[3] See “Bison Hunting” for some information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_hunting
[4] Also I need to refer to Wikipedia, as this is a deep topic I can’t get into detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_hunting#Bison_hunting_and_some_of_its_effect_on_indigenous_people
[5] Toni Morrison: The Ghost Of Slavery (Presentation at Harvard Divinity School: https://youtu.be/y6-uIyMpHQA?t=25m44s)
[6] Kristina Mering: “Attidues Of Slaughterhouse Workers Towards Animals and Their Work”
On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHmDY16DYDQ
[7] ebd.
[8] “The Speed Kills you”, Nebraska Appleseed, 2009
[9] “Westpol” Report, WDR, 11.06.2017
[10] Christian Schmidt, March 2016 in “WELT”: “Ich erwarte, dass wir noch in diesem Jahr die Anwendungsreife für das Verfahren im Massenbetrieb erreichen. Das Schreddern ist dann vorbei.”
[11] Herbert Marcuse: “One Dimensional Man” (Online: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/64onedim/odmcontents.html )
[12] There is also a common practice and paradigm of self improvement: It makes us fit into this capitalist society. But that would be a whole other topic.
[13] Press notice: https://www.rewe-group.com/de/newsroom/pressemitteilungen/1594-kein-schnaebelkuerzen-bei-rewe-und-penny/
[14] These questions are discussed here: Baur, D., & Schmitz, H. P. (2012). Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 9–21.
[15] Meat-Export: https://www.topagrar.com/news/Markt-Marktnews-EU-Fleischexport-2016-auf-Rekordniveau-8023888.html
[16] Production and Export: https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/fleischproduktion-101.html
[17] Summary: https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Markt-und-Eigeninteresse-positiv-Kommunismus-und-Regierung-negativ-3795004.html?seite=all
Study itself: http://www.fgw-nrw.de/fileadmin/user_upload/NOED-Studie-05-Graupe-A1-komplett-Web.pdf
[18] MailChimp is one of the biggest distributors of Newsletters/Email-Marketing: https://www.webpresencesolutions.net/email-marketing-statistics-2017/
[19] Facebook Ad Benchmarks 2017: Average built from the numbers given.
https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2017/02/28/facebook-advertising-benchmarks
[20] See Harrison Nathan’s article for more information, quotes and sources.
Other sources are from my own experience with the Albert Schweitzer Foundation and Jacey Reese as one former ACE Researcher: e.g. After the researchers at ACE called for “social media is ineffective”, the organisation I worked with, cancelled their progressive attempt on Facebook-storytelling.
[21] See one of their “Social Media Calculators”: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13cB7afTewFAlx-VdCZ6BPgqqdEpbrMFSWr-GGOTApsk/edit#gid=1263869078
[22] https://animalcharityevaluators.org/blog/how-we-evaluate-social-media-impact/
[23] Science Alert: https://www.sciencealert.com/lab-grown-burger-patty-cost-drops-from-325-000-to-12
[24] Overview-Article: https://newatlas.com/lab-grown-meat-public-attitudes/48921/
Study by PLOS: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171904
[25] Bund Ökologische Lebensmittelwirtschaft 2017 (numbers may vary for other countries):
https://www.boelw.de/fileadmin/pics/Bio_Fach_2017/ZDF_2017_Web.pdf
[26] Let me be clear: Child labor is only abolished in the northern hemisphere. Chocolate and also Coffee can be a product of child labor. That’s why this fight ain’t over yet!
