Dr. Steve Best on "The Abolitionist Approach" Is Not Fit For Purpose. ~ Dr. Roger Yates

[Billy L]

http://drstevebest.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/the-abolitionist-approa...

In regard to the comments, I don't find the personal references and opinions about individuals very interesting. What I'm seeing are deeply insightful challenges to the framework we advocates in general are operating in. The distinction between human exceptionalism and markets, is intriguing. I thought David Nibert had already achieved a higher, wider view from what I gleaned from his contributions on ARZone, but I think Richard's comment near the end specifically, actually transcends it (without having actually read Nibert's work, or likely fully understanding enough of either Richard or David's ideas):

HCM

December 8, 2011 at 3:12 am

Regarding Francione’s ideology in and of itself, it was not flawed because he was a dick with no decent communications skills (he WAS that, and though his egregious behavior should totally be called out – and was called out time after time for many years, his behavior really is a different matter separate from his actual philosophy).

Francione’s ideology was flawed because it was ultimately capitalistic. His ideas on “supply and demand” were ignorant of real world economics. He would never let on that higher forces were at work. He (and his followers) used to literally laugh anytime anyone spoke of the elite controlling the supply. Francione’s philosophy regarding economics was simplistic in that way because it served his purpose and buttressed the core of his philosophy, which was abolishing the “property status.” His refusal to grasp the reality of free market economics was deliberate, because to acknowledge how things actually worked (opposed to how it is “supposed” to work) would require him to admit that the foundation upon which his entire philosophy stood was a bunch of hooey. Changing the property status of other animals is a poor starting point for any kind of nonhuman freedom. Wherever there is a capitalist system, property status will invariably exist, regardless of welfarist reforms and abolitionist educational endeavors.

I suppose my point is that it seems like Roger defected from the Francione club more because of Francione’s (and others abolitionists’) behavior rather than objecting to Francione’s ideology…no? I don’t agree with most of Francione’s abolitionist ideas, but I suppose if more abolitionists like Roger become more open to an exchange of ideas and respectful dialogue, that is a good thing. So for that (alone), I say Bravo to Roger.

Soo…now that Francione dogmatism is out of the way, maybe a fruitful discussion can take place about what constitutes the real “poverty of ambition” in animal advocacy?

Reply

• 

  drstevebest

  December 8, 2011 at 8:05 am

  Astute, agreed; I’ve made the critique on both levels, the conceptuals problems alaways more important (see my “Manifesto”) than the fact the “man” is a magalomaniacal asshole of the higher order, a bit hard to bracket out when the vicscous attacks keep coming and coming. I’m interested to see where this all goes now, whether my sugestions for radically rethinking this feeble movement are taken to heart, whether the militant edge is give respect, and if I get a little solidarity in return.

  Reply
• 

  drstevebest

  December 8, 2011 at 9:05 pm

  Don’t give out congratulations yet, this is far from finished, the chips have not yet fallen where they may, more info to come.

  Reply
  • 

    Camille Marino

    December 8, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    In republishing this essay, Dr. Best (along with NIO) is attempting to begin to repair fractures in the movement left in the wake of Francione’s fundamentalist malignancy. Please understand that this is a process that involves all sides to actively work toward transcending the damage.

    At the moment, our efforts have been met with silence…
  • 

    HCM

    December 8, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    In that case, I take back my premature “bravo.”

    I’m sorry to hear that the efforts toward solidarity are one sided. Pacifists are a tough nut to crack. I am evidence of that. Took me years to understand liberation. The good news is that not all pacifists are total impenetrable brick walls forever. Those who eventually gain awareness will come around. Unfortunately, time is an issue, though.
• 

  drstevebest

  December 9, 2011 at 7:53 am

  I deal with some of these points here, and in more detail in a forthcoming book: http://drstevebest.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/manifesto-for-radical-l...

  Reply
• 

  drstevebest

  December 9, 2011 at 9:37 am

  PS: your critique and observations are dead-on in every respect, but you probably didn’t know Francione is also a mega-multi-millionaire, happy to post the evidence on that, but not the most constructive post at this point, but you can write me and ask for it (hint: it could not all come from vegan cosmetics and sports bars! factor in Big Pharma, and God knows what evil corporations he profits from). You sound like you had some personal experience with him, my condolences if so.

  Reply

Laura

December 8, 2011 at 9:59 am

I had no idea any of this was going on. I may be more with Francione politically (going by your 2 articles tonight) but not morally or ethically, going by his actions here; and with you I differ politically but morally/ethically am with you and agree that peacefulness in the face of sadism is mostly smirked at and ignored, for decades now, so I welcome some new and different actions…that doesn’t mean I’m inciting anyone to violent acts, but would still be grateful for them.
How long do these abolitionists propose we all be calm and tolerant peaceniks…for ever and ever, as the torture continues on?
The socialist or communist systems are just as guilty as capitalist or free-enterprise systems when it comes to animal cruelty, and some of the worst things I’ve seen done to animals had nothing to do with money, just cruel primitive slobs preparing a barbecue. People are the problem, not the system by which they collect goods to live as they like, and to impress each other with their skills at that. Any system is ruined by the deranged human condition. Vegan free-enterprise is what I’d choose to live by, with minimal government; so I hope you don’t dislike me for that.
How strange that Francione deliberately ignored your accepting that debate challenge.
I hope that somehow this can all be patched up and made right, it’s sad.

Reply

HCM

December 8, 2011 at 12:43 pm

Hi Laura,

You are right: there are other economic systems that are cruel toward animals as well. I would be a fool to say otherwise. And thank you for pointing it out, since my comment did not touch on that.

I mention capitalism in the case of Francione because his philosophy is predicated on it (though he would have you think otherwise). It’s rather like saying welfarism won’t ever liberate animals because it works within the system. Francione’s advocacy will never work either, because it also attempts to work within the system. Along with Mr. Best’s writings, a good book to read on how oppression of human and nonhuman animals are inherent in the principles of capitalism is David Nibert’s book Animal Rights/Human Rights. I read it a few years ago, and I found it enlightening. I really should give it a second read one of these days. (Don’t bother reading Making a Killing by Bob Torres, as it is for the most part a rip-off of Nibert’s ideas.)

My guess is that wherever you go where there are “poor primitive slobs” preparing a barbeque, it’s a safe bet that there economic interests that exist there to promote the abuse of other animals.

Reply

• 

  Laura

  December 8, 2011 at 9:15 pm

  Thank you for that, but I don’t let human politics influence my high regard for animals.
  “Oppression of human and nonhuman animals are inherent in the principles of”…HUMANISM, not free-enterprise. Whether that humanism is in the form of science worship & atheism or the most devout of the religious, it is human self-worship, unwarranted, and is used as an excuse for ALL exploitation & torture of animals. As the most important thing in the Universe, of course everything in it is for us to use as we choose, according to these self-worshippers, said by many to be in the image of their brutal tyrannical “god.” The behavior control (Pavlov) and space travel animal experiments, etc., done in Soviet Russia are perfect examples of why government control is as bad or worse than free-enterprise with minimal government control, as long as people are following their true moral and ethical leanings, which have been corrupted/destroyed by arrogant, selfish Humanism. Humanism is stronger in socialist systems, in my view.
  Just stating my view on the matter, not disrespecting you or Dr. Best or anyone else.
• 

  drstevebest

  December 9, 2011 at 6:38 am

  ok Laura, no problem, thank you
• 

  HCM

  December 8, 2011 at 10:21 pm

  “Thank you for that, but I don’t let human politics influence my high regard for animals.”

  Ultimately, neither do I. But I also can’t ignore the evidence that economic systems are fully relevant to the institution and perpetuation of oppression. I never said “politics” were the cause of oppression.

  Your ideas about humanism are really not far off from Mr. Best’s analysis of it. If you have time, check out this lecture he gave: http://drstevebest.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/everything-you-know-abo... I think you’ll find some serious common ground.
• 

  Richard

  December 9, 2011 at 1:08 am

  I argue that the “human” is as much a social construction as are supposedly biological constructs such as race and gender, and in some extreme caste systems, class, disability, or many other forms of social antagonism. We can trace the rise of a concept of “human” to at least the rise of agricultural society and I agree with Steve in following Jim Mason’s important work in this regard. I have explored the ways in which systems of education function historically as a kind of anthropological machine that has helped to mass produce an historical epoch now routinely called the “anthropocene.” When we speak of “humanism,” it is important to clarify whether one intends to denote the specific modernizing secular movement that sought to establish values of liberal tolerance and a cosmopolitan culture of rights across a broader swathe of society, or the entire history that has led to the idea of a “human being.” Again, I think the two are connected, but the former arose within the latter as a progressive evolution and intended moral progress, even as it re-entrenched forms of the domination of nature (and hence “nonhumans”). While it may be possible to trace certain forms of animal liberation politics to different cultural origins than this “humanist” history, the mainstreams of antivivisection, veganism, and veganarchism cannot be thought apart from it — they too are attempts to formalize movements for moral progress. As such, they are ideological and maintain internal contradictions that must be worked out further. I see, for starters, two major tendencies that can be engaged with to this end — working for a nonspeciesist revolutionary humanism that would open the benefits of a humane social order to all (or as many beings as possible) by linking it to a phenomenology of experience rather than a biological identity marker, or we can work to alter the history of moral progress…either by opposing humanism’s internal contradictions which lead to a dominator culture and so looking to actually existing marginal political traditions that think and speak about the world and its beings in radically different ways, or by trying to evolve to a new political imaginary (and hence, political language) such as perhaps characterized by the attempt to identify as a fellow “earthling” and a member of a planetary community. In this respect, I point tactically to the importance of an anticapitalist pedagogy/politics because capitalism has now become so deeply rooted in human experience that, if we are working for humane ends, they can only arrive beyond the history of capitalism or if we are working to move beyond the human than we are by definition materially seeking to abolish capitalism as part of that project.
• 

  HCM

  December 9, 2011 at 3:28 am

  Ok. I think I’ve worked out what you are saying here…I’m literally reiterating what you wrote, but in my own words…

  The dominant idea of what a human is was created by human society. This fabricated idea of “human” has been around for thousands of years going back to the period of time when humans domesticated plants and animals. Propaganda (“systems of education”) have been used throughout history to perpetuate and build upon this false conception of what humans are (e.g., the false idea that humans are not animals).

  The word “humanism” can be used to mean to 2 different things:
  1. The Humanism movement that began in the Renaissance to promote and glorify reasoning as the basis of all human progress.
  2. The delusional attitude that humans are superior beings and of primary importance in all matters. (This is the definition “humanism” I was referring to in my comment.)

  The second definition of humanism is what constitutes the dominant notion of “human.” The first definition evolved within the context of the second.

  Humans are so entrenched in this fabricated notion of humanism that even animal advocates of all branches are often not aware of the ways in which they perpetuate it or work within it. We must regularly work to break away from this dominant paradigm and think outside the box.

  There are two ways you propose to remedy it:
  1. Using the common experiences between nonhumans and humans (such as pain, joy, shame, etc.) to promote more humane treatment of nonhumans (opposed to using biology as a motivator, such as using our common DNA or physical similarities as a reason to be more humane).
  2. Halting the ongoing doctrine of human exceptionalism by radically changing humans’ view that humans are superior and by establishing the fact that humans are but one animal among many equal beings on earth.

  Capitalism is the current dominant vehicle used to institute and perpetuate oppression; the liberation of animals will never occur within the context of capitalism, therefore it makes sense to work toward the end of capitalism as part of our advocacy.
• 

  drstevebest

  December 9, 2011 at 6:44 am

  The full truth about the Torres book, in some places very good, is that he sold his soul for Francione’s endorsements (which appear on two of his books), and kisses his ass, and here we have a Marxist revolutionary on bended knee regurgitating Francione’s fundamentalist pacifism for whatever career favors Sri Francione returned to him (just one of the ways Francione allures, seduces, or buys his following and supporters, most white male graduate students on a fast-track to unemployment). Very sad spectacle indeed, one that soiled both books for me as they reeked of co-optation and sycophancy.

I have to repeat my support for nonviolent action (different than Pacifism as I understand it). http://www.trainingforchange.org/nonviolent_action_sword_that_heals I don't think violence can be overcome with violence, just as criminalizing a specific socially unacceptable behavior does not eliminate the occurrence of that behavior, or military force and killing does not "stop" an "enemy" in the sense of "winning" wars.

I really hope that we can all foster forgiveness and understanding, define and bring about what we all value most, and join together to end speciesism.

[Billy L]

Name-calling is the lowest form of refutation, is it not? http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2009/08/weekend_dive...

Is it ironic to call someone a name because they "verbally attack" you?