Letters

Animal rights

The narrow and insular world view of the left certainly does need to be penetrated by an objective debate on the 'animal question'. Unfortunately the contribution made by Mary Godwin falls far short (Weekly Worker February 15).

The sneering attitude of her article is extremely reminiscent of the tone of many socialists only 15 to 20 years ago who insisted that the question of 'homosexual rights' (in quotation marks), was unworthy of consideration by Marxists and that homosexuality was simply a 'disease of capitalism', and a rather degenerate one at that.

Should then Marxists even bother allowing for a theoretical/practical approach to the question of animals? I think so, because, whilst the essence of Marxism is its emphasis on class positional location as the primary explanatory factor, this by no means indicates that Marxism is required to encompass a vulgar reductionist scenario. In Britain, with its long history of crude empiricism passing as a Marxist approach, the focus of attention has been a protracted concern with the relatively privileged sections of the working class: the white, unionised, male worker and only then whilst at work. Categories such as race, religion and gender were firmly relegated to subsidiary roles, irrespective of the actual nature of any particular struggle.

In arguing that Marxist theory is not a reductionist entity and does have things to say about animals, I am, obviously, making a suggestion regarding the potentially encompassing power of the doctrine itself in opposition to the emasculated version extant over much of the left.

Having said that the animal question is of legitimate concern for Marxists, it is necessary to start a debate at the major point which differentiates animal rights from previous 'sectoral' struggles, by no means won as yet, focused on what we now call racism/sexism. Animals are, as Godwin never tires of reminding us, a different species, although let us note that these differences are highly differentiated: by some estimates several of the large apes share 98% of our genetic material.

An important consequence flows from this species differentiation: non-human animals are unable to fight directly for their own rights or even to understand the philosophical concept of rights. If human beings decide that non-human animals should be allocated rights, then how should they be fought for? (I am reasserting a basic Marxist premise here: any rights will not be given and need to be fought for.)

Godwin spends much of her article in condemning the manner in which "animal rights fanatics" conduct their struggle. Having seen the uselessness of writing to MPs, etc, some in the animal rights movement are indeed turning to violent action. Instead of seeing this as a step forward in a country where the left fetishises legality, Godwin is worried that such activities will be used to "broaden the definition of terrorism" and bring down the attention of the state on what she presumably thinks of as the 'legitimate' left.

This is exactly the same self-serving argument which I heard time and again from certain leftist elements in order to condemn the actions of the Provisional IRA when they were engaged in a struggle against British domination of north east Ireland. It is just as pusillanimous now as it was then.

According to Godwin, communists are not only opposed to "terroristic attacks" on those such as Huntington Life Sciences workers, but also, "We are against acts of individual terrorism, even those intended to further causes we support."

This is simply pacifism. Lenin in 'Another massacre' (and I am not quoting Lenin for authority, but rather because I argue that he is correct) is adamant that communists want to direct workers into, "the organised struggle of the revolutionary party". However, we do not live in an ideal world where this will inevitably be the case and spontaneous activity is inevitable.

Far from condemning such occurrences, Lenin indicates that they have a very positive aspect to them: "But the principal source that sustains revolutionary social democracy is the spirit of protest among the working class which, in view of the violence and oppression surrounding the workers, is bound to manifest itself from time to time in the form of desperate outbursts. These outbursts arouse to conscious life the widest sections of the workers, oppressed by poverty and ignorance, and stimulate in them a noble hatred for the oppressors and enemies of liberty." Godwin's touching concern for HLS places her on the bourgeois side of the class divide.

Godwin mentions that, "Pharmaceutical companies are quite rightly legally required to test new drugs on animals before they are tested on human beings", but she 'forgets' to mention that many scientists, including Dr Richard Ryder, an ex-animal experimenter himself and now a trenchant proponent of animal rights, suggest that such 'testing' is highly profitable to the pharmaceutical companies, but a totally useless and possibly dangerously misleading exercise in terms of scientific rigour.

Godwin has great fun with the conception of speciesism. According to Godwin's perusal of A dictionary of philosophical quotations (it is humbling to note the very extent of Godwin's research for her article), Peter Singer defines speciesism as "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests or members of one's own species against those of members of other species". Godwin says, "What anti-human garbage - equating human beings with, for example, ants."

So, there you go, Singer might be an esteemed professor, but he has been exposed: he does not know a human being from an ant! This ludicrous caricature completely ignores the lively debate amongst animal rights philosophers concerning consciousness and its relationship to sentient beings and their ability to feel pain. As far as speciesism goes, ask yourself this question: why is it that many people would object to the testing of a new drug on a mentally sub-normal human being, whose genetic make-up would be much more likely to provide useful results than testing the same drug on a higher order mammal whose level of consciousness could be much higher?

If we are not prepared to use human beings with a low level of consciousness of the world as test vehicles, then, from a philosophical viewpoint, it is clearly obscene to inflict pain on vulnerable non-human animals. This is the essence of speciesism, not the misrepresentation which Godwin presents.

Godwin concludes by asserting that, "Animal rights nonsense is a mixture of sentimentalism and inhumanity brought about by the alienation of humanity from humanity." I could not reply to this better than Dave Douglass, when he retorts that, "I cannot take an agnostic view to the animal world around me and pretend somehow human beings and their actions towards animals are somehow divorced from our relations with each other and what sort of world we wish to inhabit" (Letters, February 22).

Certainly, it is the people who can and do accept this divorce who are the subject of an alienated conception of reality.

Animal rights

All perverts

Human beings have the ability to use languages. Merely by thinking in a language a human being will complicate himself. Put thousands of human beings together and they will complicate themselves far more as they exchange news and views.

None of the other animals is like this. Even the highest are quite uncomplicated. That is the basic reason why drugs tested on animals are usually not likely to be effective on human beings or will show unpleasant side effects.

There are unfortunately a few perverted people in human society. They want to get into positions of authority in order to exercise cruelty in the course of duty. Animal-testing laboratories are ideal environments for such perverts. The victims can't answer back, there is minimal inspection and publicity and no democratic control.

Nobody knew about the cruelty that was exercised in the cosmetic industry testing laboratories until it was exposed by a few fringe papers, posters and leaflets. Forced to retreat to some extent on this front, the animal testers are making claims, probably unjustified for the reason set out at the beginning of my letter, to be finding cures for cancer. Cruelty is still taking place.

The great majority of the population do not like cruelty. When the majority dislike something it is inevitable that a small, informed minority of people will take active measures to stop it. Hence the Animal Liberation Front.

Some communists see animal liberationists as competitors for scarce human resources. Young people are being persuaded to liberate animals when they could be out there selling the Weekly Worker. Yet another diversion from the main task in hand. This narrow way of thinking about animal liberation, and about other good causes as well, will get communists nowhere.

All perverts
All perverts

Respect

May I through the pages of the Weekly Worker thank all those comrades - principally members of the Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party and independent socialists - who helped in our campaign in support of Bob Gardiner, our candidate in the recent Marlowe by-election. Our vote, approaching 18%, demonstrates a growing level of support for socialist politics and for a credible local candidate with a real base within working class communities. It also reflects the respect and high regard Bob has in the local community.

One of the lessons to be drawn from the campaign is that where we are able to carry out persistent and rigorous canvassing we gained support. Simply delivering leaflets is clearly not enough. What we need to do is spend time talking with people on the doorstep, hear their concerns and put over our politics. Clearly if more comrades from other organisations had been able to help it is clear we would have run Labour close.

I would like however to correct some of the coverage of our fight by Peter Manson (Weekly Worker February 15). Bob Gardiner was not a "London Socialist Alliance" candidate, but our local Greenwich and Lewisham SA candidate. Bob was selected by the GLSA at our meeting on January 8, not by the LSA, which, as comrades in London will know, has no facility for local SAs to be represented on and was formed to coordinate the London-wide GLA intervention.

Quite rightly local SAs are now becoming the building blocks of the SA for the general election and, more importantly in my view, the local borough elections in London in 2002. Local SAs must be at the centre of the development of the SA. Comrades principally active within Greenwich and Lewisham waged the campaign and the finance to make the intervention was raised locally.

Bob's campaign was based heavily around opposition to privatisations and sell-offs, whether they be of old folks' homes in the borough, council housing or management, the NHS, the public transport and, yes, local parks. Many comrades learned a lot during the campaign and good practice and experience was learned and shared. The experience will be vital in the pending general election, but equally important for local elections.

Clearly a small minority of SWP members, as was demonstrated during our after-count celebratory political meeting in the local pub, hold deep reservations about their party's electoral turn. The impression I gained from those members who played an active part in the campaign was that there was no going back. Also members of the SP have worries about being dominated by the SWP and are concerned about rights for minorities within the SA. The welcome adoption in Birmingham on Saturday of the right for local SAs to submit majority and minority views to the March 10 conference is encouraging.

Just over 100 years ago, a J Shea of 31 Abinger Road, Deptford, on the edge of Marlowe ward, attended as a delegate from the Smiths and Hammerman United Society the founding conference of the Labour Representation Committee, held in the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street on February 27 1900.

The opening remarks from Bob Gardiner's election address were: "The Labour Party is no longer a party working people can turn to. It has abandoned working people. The struggle for a new party is beginning." We have clearly taken the fight for a new broad socialist party into the historic heart of the LP, hence their reaction to our intervention and their major mobilisation.

Let us hope Bob Gardiner's result is quickly surpassed in the coming period as a growing number of working people break from the Labour Party. Just imagine what can be achieved in the future if we are able to unite in a democratic and pluralist socialist party.

Respect
Respect