Can animals be “liberated?”

JON HOCHSCHARTNER, in his letter on "Socialists and animal liberation," disagrees with Paul D'Amato's analysis of animal rights and liberation from a socialist perspective.

Unfortunately, except for one brief quote, he never engages with Paul's original analysis. Readers interested in this topic should go back to Paul's article, "Socialists and 'animal rights,'" which makes a strong case for recognizing the mistreatment of animals in the context of capitalism's drive for profit and is not dismissive at all of the concerns of activists on this question.

Paul rightly explains that there is a large difference between concerns about animal welfare and humane treatment on one hand, and animal "liberation" on the other. The first is possible in a humane society (socialism), while the latter is impossible.

Jon lumps different issues together. He has an excellent point that socialists should not put down vegetarians or vegans. Many socialists have been and are vegetarians. Socialist organizations and movements should have no hard position on any lifestyle matters--except as they impact political organizing.

Just as there cannot be a "correct" socialist position on smoking, drinking, or what is good music or art, we should not try to prescribe what people eat or don't eat. Of course, "personal" expressions of racism, sexism, anti-working class attitudes, etc., are a political matter that socialists should confront head on.

Jon admits that we cannot base a socialist movement on vegetarianism, since the masses are not "there yet." However, the very concept of animal "rights"--and certainly animal "liberation"--implies compulsory vegetarianism. Certainly, of all rights, the right to live is the most fundamental. If animals have the right to live, people have no right to eat them (unless they died of natural causes). If "meat is murder," it should be outlawed. The very concept of animal "rights" implies the need to base a socialist movement on vegetarianism--whether Jon wants to admit this implication or not.

Our exact attitude to particular movements around animal welfare needs to be worked out concretely, but the approach taken by Paul D'Amato's article is a much better place to start than Jon's letter in response to it.
Steve Leigh, Seattle