On Militant Direct Action

[Carolyn Bailey]

On Militant Direct Action  ~  Dan Cudahy

“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest
amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of
life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.”

~ Henry David Thoreau, Walden, Economy (Chapter 1-E)


First, do no harm.

~ Origin unknown


Direct action is a catch-all term for any action taken on behalf of animals
with the intention of rescuing, liberating, or saving them,
individually or collectively, from exploitation, imprisonment,
enslavement, torture, or intentionally inflicted harm or death.

Direct action can be legal, as in the case of adopting a rescued dog from a
local shelter or taking a stray goat or chicken to a sanctuary that
will provide a permanent, loving home.

Direct action can also be illegal, and range from trespassing in open rescues (where the rescuers
voluntarily publicize the rescue and turn themselves in to law
enforcement) to arson, major property damage, death threats, non-lethal
threats, and harassment. With the possible exception of open rescues
and similar less serious violations of the law, illegal direct action
is also known as “militant direct action” (“MDA”).

The Problem, In a Nutshell

We breed, confine, and slaughter 10 billion land animals for food annually
(about 317 per second) in the United States alone (about 50 billion
worldwide). The vast majority of these innocent beings endure pain,
unbearable boredom, terror, and misery that easily qualify as a
lifetime of torture. These animals are at least as sentient and
perceptually intelligent as three year-old children, and often
significantly more sentient and perceptually intelligent than any
human. [1] Considering the severity of the cruelty and the sheer
magnitude of torture and death inflicted on these beings, it is an
atrocity and moral outrage that annually dwarfs any committed in human
history, including the Nazi Holocaust. As Isaac Bashevis Singer, a
Jewish Holocaust survivor, said: “In relation to [animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka.”

It is no wonder people who know the horrific details of animal agriculture
and other forms of exploitation are outraged and desperately want to do
something, almost anything, to stop this extreme
violence and insanity. While overwhelming outrage is an entirely
appropriate response, it needs to be channeled into effective action.

This perpetual holocaust did not arise suddenly out of nowhere, and it is
likely not going to end suddenly either. It came about through a
disastrous combination of 1) centuries of deep social and cultural
prejudice against sentient nonhuman beings, and 2) continually
increasing technological advancements, industrial capacity, human
population growth, and economic demand during the 20th century and
continuing into the 21st century. The environmental disaster of animal agriculture,
including severe water and air pollution, greenhouse gases,
deforestation, and clean water shortages will become ever more obvious
as human population growth continues and the industrialization and
technology of animal exploitation spread to Asia. Along with this
spread into Asia, the numbers of innocent nonhuman victims of this
worldwide perpetual holocaust will likely increase by the tens of
billions over the coming decades, assuming no strong, popular, nonviolent vegan abolitionist movement develops soon.

The Solution, In a Nutshell

We will end this atrocity only by ending the cultural prejudice against
sentient nonhumans over years or decades of vegan education [2]
eventually leading to widespread veganism as a minimum standard of decency throughout industrialized societies.

We cannot regulate the perpetual holocaust of billions; the holocaust must
be abolished. We cannot force abolition on a society that does not
understand the underlying principles and rational and moral foundations
of abolitionist animal rights and the prejudice of speciesism. Any
attempt to force, threaten, vandalize, or terrorize our way toward
abolition will only backfire, cause resistance, and shut down moral and
rational dialogue. We cannot educate people about pro-social, healthy,
and nonviolent veganism whom we are simultaneously threatening,
vandalizing, terrorizing, or “at war” with. This would be true even
when a relatively large percentage (say, 30%) of the population is
vegan. This is especially true when only a very small percentage (about
1%) of society is vegan.

“One Plate at a Time”

Some well-known proponents of MDA (who are necessarily opponents of the
abolitionist approach as set forth by Professor Gary Francione)
pejoratively call the abolitionist approach of
vegan education the “one-plate-at-a-time” approach and claim it will be
centuries before such an approach can work, if ever. But the phrase
“one-plate-at-a-time” wildly distorts vegan education as it is
conceived by abolitionists.

“One-plate-at-a-time” implies a predictable and ridiculously slow linear growth pattern of vegan
education and veganism. However, when we consider typical growth
patterns of social change in history, it is chaos theory that best
describes it. Like the weather, which is a classic example of how chaos
theory can describe complex phenomena, social change has millions of
small variables, both potential and actual. The interaction of these
variables is unpredictable and can be significantly influenced over the
long-term by relatively small changes at any given time. When
significant change or a “tipping point” occurs, change can become
exponential, not linear, in nature. Creative, nonviolent vegan
education – similar to educational efforts over the past five decades
in the United States to reduce or eliminate smoking, racism, sexism,
and drunk driving – is the kind of social change that is unpredictable
and non-linear. [3]

To get a general idea of non-linear growth, consider that ten thousand vegans will generate new vegans at ten times the rate that one thousand vegans will. A hundred thousand vegans will generate new vegans at one hundred times the rate that one thousand vegans will, and so on. So the more vegans there are in a
society, the more rapid the pace at which non-vegans will go vegan. The
pejorative “one-plate-at-a-time” description of vegan education fails
to take into account both the unpredictable and exponential nature of
social change in general and vegan education in particular. To think of
nonviolent vegan education as a “one-plate-at-a-time” method is naïve
at best and completely dishonest at worst.

Two Barriers to Vegan Education: Militant Direct Action and Welfarism

As I have written extensively elsewhere on this blog, welfarism is a serious barrier to nonviolent vegan education and abolition because it sees treatment instead of use, and
suffering instead of exploitation and slaughter, as the problems to be
overcome. In accepting the use and exploitation of animals as a
‘given’, welfarism has no use for veganism or abolition. In this way,
welfarism will always reinforce the exploitation paradigm and be a
long-term asset to industry’s survival.

MDA is also a serious obstacle to creative, nonviolent vegan education and abolition. As
Professor Gary Francione has said, we live in a society where consuming
animal products is still considered to be as normal and natural as
drinking water and breathing air. In such an extremely speciesist
society, law-breaking, property damage, or violence against animal
exploiters can only be seen as bizarre and anti-social. Again, we
cannot educate or have a reasonable dialogue with people who are afraid
of us, see us as anti-social, or don’t want to be associated with a
small movement that threatens or attacks other law-abiding citizens.
Further, creative, nonviolent vegan education has the unchallengeable
high moral ground. Animal exploiters may ignore us; but if we are
nonviolent and law-abiding, they have absolutely no moral claims
against us whatsoever. MDA undermines that moral authority and leverage
by providing animal exploiters with a moral objection against ‘animal
rights’ people. In a strongly speciesist society, MDA undermines moral
authority far more than it otherwise would.

The Similarities Between Militant Direct Action and New Welfarism

MDA and welfarism have a lot in common:

1) The motivation for both MDA and welfarism is rooted in a strong sense
of urgency and desire to see immediate results, or a “quick fix”, but
both ignore the fact that the problem – which is the cultural prejudice
of speciesism held by 99% of society – is not only immune to such quick
fix solutions, but is aided by such attempts acting as a barrier to
nonviolent vegan education.

Welfarism hacks at the branches of treatment through reform, declaring ‘victories’ and superficial
‘results’ in an industry-dominated legislative world where such laws
are passed and repealed like the change of seasons. Further, welfarism
reinforces the legal structure and regulated property rights paradigm that animal exploitation is founded upon.

MDA hacks at the branches of individual exploiters and exploitive
companies. On rare occasions, MDA proponents are able to declare a
so-called ‘success’ as their targets either move to another location or
are replaced by the competition. However, even in these odd instances
where individual companies are driven out of business, the competition
unfailingly moves in to satisfy the demand. Further, MDA alienates many
people who would otherwise be open to creative, nonviolent vegan
education.

2) They both play to industry’s strength. (By “industry” in this essay, I mean all animal exploiting industries taken
as a whole.)

Industry is strong in politics, legislation, and deal-making. Industry also has the complete cooperation and dedication
of law enforcement at every level of government, from local police up
to federal agencies and the National Guard.

Welfarism takes on industry in politics, legislation and deal-making, wasting millions of
dollars and thousands of hours in ridiculously futile efforts to
regulate a holocaust of billions of innocent victims annually,
reinforcing the system it attempts to regulate.

MDA generally recruits very small groups of untrained and inexperienced youth to take
on industry against some of the most highly trained and experienced law
enforcement organizations and agencies in the world. This mismatch in
knowledge, skill, and experience routinely results in young people
spending years in prison while industry grows and thrives annually,
almost always unfazed by even the most serious MDA attacks.

3) They both ignore industry’s weakness. Industry’s weakness is that it is
morally deplorable and environmentally disastrous (again, the
eco-disaster will become ever more obvious as huge Asian markets
increase demand for animal products).

Welfarism diverts resources away from widespread vegan education efforts. It is
widespread, nonviolent vegan education which is capable of effectively
attacking industry’s weakness and bringing the giant to its knees over
time. And again, welfarism also reinforces the legal structure and
regulated property rights paradigm that animal exploitation is founded
upon.

MDA also diverts resources away from vegan education efforts by 1) diverting public attention away from vegan animal
advocates as pro-social role models to be emulated toward vegan animal
advocates as anti-social vandals and criminals to be ostracized, and 2)
causing young vegan advocates to spend months or years in prison.
Additionally, as mentioned earlier, MDA erodes the obvious moral
authority and high ground by lowering the public opinion of animal
advocates to just another violent political faction to “control”,
“manage”, and crack down on. In a speciesist society, this acts as a
significant barrier to nonviolent vegan education.

4) Welfarism and MDA both focus on supply rather than demand. One of the most important things to remember is this: As long as people want to consume animal products, there will be suppliers to satisfy demand. Yes, suppliers can manufacture some additional demand through advertising, lower prices, and quality products, but ultimately, the moral atrocity is fundamentally demand-driven. It is our non-vegan family, friends, and acquaintances who are the
cause of the atrocity; the suppliers are merely the middle agent hired
to do the dirty work.

Welfarism focuses on reforming the methods suppliers use to produce their products. Usually, the welfare reforms
suggested by welfare organizations like PETA, Farm Sanctuary, and HSUS
are reforms that are in the best long-term interests of the suppliers
to implement anyway. But even in the very unusual cases where industry
is uniformly opposed to reforms or the reforms are not in industry’s
best interest (and the even more unusual cases where such reforms are
actually implemented and enforced), industry is very resilient and can
move to an easier jurisdiction or find other ways of getting around
such reforms. Focusing on suppliers, as welfarism does, is hacking at
the branches. Focusing on demand, as nonviolent vegan education does,
is striking at the root.

MDA focuses on deterring or shutting down suppliers. But again, as long as demand exists, suppliers will just move or be replaced with new
suppliers and law enforcement will crack down harder. MDA acts as
a barrier to nonviolent vegan education because, if the MDA action gets
press coverage, it is almost always speciesist press coverage, which
focuses on the “misfortune of the hard-working suppliers who are just
trying to make a living providing what the public wants”. (The
“public”, of course, is our non-vegan family, friends, and
acquaintances.) Who looks bad in the press? Animal advocates. Who looks
good? The exploiters receive the public sympathy. Again, focusing on
suppliers, like MDA does, is hacking at the branches. Focusing on
demand, as nonviolent vegan education does, is striking at the root.

Abolitionists Are Opposed to Violence

Welfarists, new or traditional, both accept and promote violence toward innocent nonhuman beings by promoting, rather than entirely rejecting, the
regulation and reform of animal exploitation and slaughter, either as a
(false and confused) ‘step’ toward the elimination of animal use, or as
a permanent method of exploitation. Abolitionists entirely reject the
violence of all welfare reform, regardless of whether welfare reform is
(falsely) perceived as ‘step’ toward something else or as a permanent
method of exploitation.

MDA proponents both accept and promote illegal activities, including property damage, threats, harassment, or
psychological harm, that either are violent or are potentially violent
toward people. Abolitionists entirely reject the violence and
anti-social, alienating behavior, threats, and rhetoric of all MDA.

Abolitionists promote veganism and only creative, nonviolent vegan education as a
means to achieve widespread veganism. Abolitionism is the logical
extension of the civil rights and peace movements. Nonviolence is an
indispensable core principle of abolitionism. Creative, nonviolent
vegan education is pro-social.

Veganism is pro-social, moderate, and peaceful. First, do no harm: Go vegan, and encourage others to go
vegan. Welfarism and MDA are both harmful and counterproductive; avoid
them.

_________________
Notes:

[1] Species appear to vary widely in their relative sensitivity to physical and psychological
pain, with some species far more sensitive than others. Also, some
areas of the body are far more sensitive than other areas, depending on
the species. Conveniently, most of us probably consider ourselves the
most sensitive, but there is every reason to think that humans fall
somewhere in the range other than the “most sensitive”, in both
physical and psychological pain, including terror.

Perceptual intelligence is to be contrasted with conceptual intelligence (or
abstract/symbolic/linguistic intelligence). Although the metaphor is
far from perfect, one might consider conceptual intelligence
to be like having “book knowledge” on how to play golf or baseball,
including conceptual knowledge on how to swing a club or a bat. In
contrast, perceptual intelligence is like having the hand-eye
coordination to play golf or baseball well. In this way, nonhumans are
often more perceptually intelligent than humans. Obviously not in golf
or baseball, but in environmental awareness and in perceptual and
athletic skill in predation or hazard evaluation and avoidance, animals
thrive.

[2] Creative, nonviolent vegan education is teaching and informing people about what veganism is, why one would want to go
vegan, why veganism is a moral baseline or minimum standard of decency,
and how to go vegan in a way that is easy, nutritious, delicious, and
fulfilling, including vegan cooking, vegan recipes, vegan products,
animal product replacements, and nutritional information. Going vegan
is easy and very rewarding. All it takes is knowledge of some basics
starting out, and the rest is all refinement.

[3] Smoking, racism, sexism, and drunk driving, while still very much with us in
2009, have been drastically curtailed over the past 40 or 50 years
through social education efforts. Those who have been around long
enough probably remember the mainstream attitudes toward these beliefs
and activities in the 1960s and will acknowledge a significant contrast
with today’s mainstream attitudes. We still have plenty of progress to
be made regarding smoking, racism, sexism, and drunk driving, but it
cannot be denied that significant progress has been made when
contrasted with the attitudes of 1960 in these areas.

[Shelley MacKinnon]

Wonderfully written. Thanks so much for posting it.

Shelley

[Carolyn Bailey]

I'd be happy to hear an example of how MDA has been effective for you in the past, Chris. How it's helped stop animal abuse in your personal experience would be a great point of view to hear.

Thanks,

Carolyn

[Carolyn Bailey]

Thanks, Chris. I appreciate your good wishes. I was just asking for an example of any MDA which has been effective in changing the system, making people aware of veganism, encouraging people to become vegan, anything which made a difference really. I'm not very knowledgeable about the benefits of MDA, other than releasing a small amount of animals into the wild, which concerns me if they have no survival skills. I wasn't asking you in a disrespectful manner, I was just eager to learn more as to why some people think MDA is effective.

Thanks,

Carolyn

[Tucker]

There are loads of flaws with this essay, it's hard to know where to begin . Basically it is riddled with false assumptions and sweeping generalizations so I'll just focus on a couple of examples.

to quote"We will end this atrocity only by ending the cultural prejudice against
sentient nonhumans over years or decades of vegan education
eventually leading to widespread veganism as a minimum standard of decency throughout industrialized societies."

I am afraid you are living in a dream world. This is simply not correct. We have already had decades of vegan education and look where it's got us - there are more animals slaughtered today than at any other time in history and yet vegan education is at its most active in today's times than ever before. I am not criticizing vegan education but in itself it is just not enough to make any significant change in society.

"Further, MDA alienates many
people who would otherwise be open to creative, nonviolent vegan
education."

There is absolutely no evidence for a statement like this. If anyone says they want to continue exploiting animals because MDA puts them off from considering animal rights , they are merely using MDA as an excuse to justify their behaviour which they never had any intention of changing.

"MDA focuses on deterring or shutting down suppliers. But again, as long as demand exists, suppliers will just move ."

The above statement could just as easily be applied to vegan education i.e. as long as demand exists suppliers will supply more animal food regerdless of how much vegan education/food is available.

"MDA acts as
a barrier to nonviolent vegan education because, if the MDA action gets
press coverage, it is almost always speciesist press coverage, which
focuses on the “misfortune of the hard-working suppliers who are just
trying to make a living providing what the public wants”.

Nonsense! The very same people who are involved in MDA are also the main promoters of vegan education so rather than be a hindrance to vegan education, they are a great help. I myself became a vegan as a direct result of someone involved in MDA.

[Tucker]

The vegan society began in 1944 with the aim of providing vegan education - that's 6 decades. I agree that veganism is a baseline for animal rights but promoting it should not be the only strategy in advocating animal rights. Direct action has played a very helpful role not least in the publicity it has attracted not to mention the industries that have closed down or stopped trading with vivisectors and the numerous lives of animals who have been saved from torture and death. I know that in some cases it hasn't worked in the sense that animals or industries have been replaced by others but this is not the case for all of them as I'm sure you know . Most people have only heard about animal rights as a result of the media's coverage of direct action whereas vegan education has passed them by, hence the majority of people don't even know what veganism is.

I think it is very naive to dismiss the role of direct action in the advocacy for animal rights and worse still , to make all sorts of claims about DA that have absolutely no foundations. BTW, I'm not addressing these last points to you as I haven't seen you do this - it's more of a response to the essay leading this thread.

Can I just clarify my last sentence of my first post because it sounds a bit ambiguous. When I said "I myself became a vegan as a direct result of someone involved in MDA" I meant as a result of being influenced by someone else who was involved in DA and who was promoting veganism.

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hi Roger. Thankyou. Yes this link does work.
I would like to say that I find some of this essay to be puzzling and it does not seem to fit with my own experiences of the animal protection community.

I refer to,

"For example, while Jasper and Nelkin (1992: 51) note that Professor Regan states that animal rightists want empty cages rather than bigger ones, and add that, “This unwillingness to compromise distinguishes the fundamentalist fringe of animal rightists from the rest of the animal protection community, for whom improved conditions represents a clear victory”, they assert (1992: 96) that, “it is Regan’s rights argument – not Singer’s utilitarianism – that has come to dominate the rhetoric of the animal rights agenda, often pushing it beyond reformism and pragmatism”.

Jasper and Nelkin seem to be on solid ground in the notion that there is, relatively speaking, a ‘fringe’ of animal rightists – then and now. They say this fringe can be distinguished from the general ‘animal protection community’. I would also agree with that – then and now. However, we need to also take on board that this general ‘animal protection community’ – large parts of it anyway – insist on being called ‘animal rights advocates’ or ‘the animal rights movement’ despite not being rightists."

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hi Roger. Thanks for explaining. I understand this much better now.