The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: France: Scandal of the abattoirs. The discussion was initiated by Fred.Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!
In the article Paco talks about "cruelty to the point of sadism" in the slaughter of animals in abattoirs, and the director of one such institution...
Quote: ... gave a very limpid explanation for these cruelties when he described the working deadlines: “We had to kill 15,000 lambs in a fortnight for Easter.
So there you have it! But then even Jesus had to be killed for Easter and so became the original Pascal lamb, slaughtered by a ruling class by one their favoured methods ie. crucifixion, which is cruelty to the point of sadism. That lambs have to undergo similar agony annually in Jesus' name for Christianity, or in Jehovah's for the Jews, should come as no surprise to anyone And we should spare a thought for the millions of goats slain yearly for Islam in remembrance of Abraham's sudden outburst of tenderness for his own young son, whose murderous sacrifice at his father's loving hands was only miraculously prevented by the sudden appearance of a passing goat. And this was at god's own last minute intervention of course! Did god know more about human love than he had previously admitted? Or did Abraham?
But when have ruling classes ever concerned themselves about cruelty, sadism or love in the maintenance of their rule? Murder by war is a favourite, and from their point of view necessary activity in the perpetuation of their local national rule, as is torture in the pursuit of information about the supposed treachery of an enemy and the unearthing of his secrets.
The bourgeoisie have a saying to the effect that "All's fair in love and war". This means that no deed, however cruel, deceitful or disgusting it may be is out of order. Ruling exploitative classes especially our loving bourgeoisie, have plumbed and mined the depths of disgusting inhuman behaviours to an extent no other ruling class before them could ever have imagined; and even invented new cruelties, misery and torture with an unsurpassed creativity. Because finally, no underhanded, despicable and exploitative act, either in war or in supposed love making and the single minded pursuit of self satisfaction is to be ruled out of order for the bourgeoisie. After all, all's fair in love and war.
So Paco's article about cruelty in the abattoirs, and what was Auschwitz if not an abattoir, hits the nail on the head. After all, under capitalism all the world's an abattoir and all the life on it. Including us workers, just grist for the murderous mill called capital.
Where do you turn?
I met a guy doing temp work that once had a job kiling chickens; he hated it, but I suppose it was that or begging.
The ending I thought was apt, the "spelndour of war" as the slip to treating each other like we do animals. I probably think that one reason war is an unstable solution for capital is because it's difficult to sustain that illusion, of humans being animals.
Can you murder an animal? I probably don't think so, but accept that it makes next to no sense to say that.
Thanks Daniel Reed for your sympathetic post on the way animals are treated. Do you include fish as well? Fish, it seems to me, get particularly badly treated on a variety of TVs programmes for the purposes of entertainment disguised slightly as education. Caught by these oh so amazing over -talkative fishing guys (always men) they get brandished in front of the cameras, while their poachers yap and smirk; then measured, prodded and poked - all the time gasping for breath and having to deal with the hook in their mouths - till plunged back in the water on their last breathe. It appears taken for granted that their return to water will be sufficient to heal their wounds. But how do we know it does?
There are also the mass fishing practices of the profit yearning market. Just as nauseous as some of the mass animal rearing and slaughtering practices of the agricultural world with its ill-treatment of the soil, the land and the forests, all for more and ever more profit without any thought given to the damage being wrought.
But who cares about damage when there's money to be made? Not the bourgeoisie! Yet how thoughtless and antiquated the bourgeois seems set against humanity's increasing understanding of the interconnectedness of all life forms on this planet; meaning life in a wider sense to include the very earth itself, its volcanoes, its weather, its and our human relationship to the greater universe.
I have not been a vegetarian in this life, but now, in my old age, I don't eat meat or fish. I don't advocate this for everyone, and know for instance that Demogorgon likes a bacon sandwich. I used to myself. Delicious! But is strikes me that in a better organised world than this - communist of course - our human relationship with the rest of the planet and its other life forms will need to undergo serious evaluation. At the moment, as Daniel says, patriarchal values rule everywhere, and these are frequently nauseous beyond belief - violent and insensitive, unthinking and unfeeling, competitive and murderous.
But there is no possibility of any change for the better, in any sphere of existence, as long as the bourgeois are allowed to continue their suicidal strangle hold of human life.