Activism Strategies: Laws And Money
“[T]he animal abuse industry and its economic power and undemocratic influence that are by far the most important single obstacle for animal liberation.”
“I suggest a new approach. View laws not as steps to improve animal welfare and reduce animal suffering, while their usage is not being questioned, but view laws as attacks against the animal industry. A new animal law, never mind whether its welfarist or rightist, is a good thing if it costs the industry, and no good thing if it does not.” wrote Martin Balluch from Abolitionist Online.
Can I get a hell yeah?
I’ve been saying this dichotomy between welfare and abolition is wrong-headed and this is one reason why. We’re more alike than not. Abolitionists can work with welfarists.
Certainly, veganism is the moral baseline. Certainly, vegan education is an absolutely necessary component of animal advocacy. Certainly, abolitionists are the core of the movement, not welfarists. But legal reforms are tools for change, not the end all and be all of what is or ever should be.
Animal rights advocates want a vegan world. We want the abolition of the property status of animals. However, property status is more than law. Property status is a social construct embodied by law. Think about how many laws that are on the books that we don’t enforce because they’re based on outdated premises. Think about how law meanings change based on political circumstances and environments.
Laws that may seem to further entrench property status might actually do the opposite. That is, laws that seem welfarist now may turn out to be abolitionist/ rightist later on. Any law that makes keeping animals as property less profitable is a law that promotes abolitionist values: it’s abolitionist incrementalism and in my opinion, it’s a good thing.
Thoughts?
I agree.
I would argue that circuses, rodeos, zoos, etc. can be shut down, in keeping with our abolitionist goal. However, the extent of factory farming is another matter; incrementalism, if framed within liberation ideology, is in my opinion, the only way to achieve our end. Indeed, problems may arise: the “happy meat” movement, industry may find a niche and therefore profit from its adoption of welfarist measures, which is counter-productive, etc. This said, I’ve yet to hear another way. H.S.U.S. has done great things, and they should be applauded as such.
it is not a “zero-sum game” as Francione like’s to argue: the extent of factory farming demands, prudentially speaking, 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 different approaches, each aiming at liberation. This would include direct action (e.g., the ALF), vegan education, and welfarist measures aiming to reduce suffering (on our own premises, less suffering ought to be something we aim at).
~ Recent blog post: Bird flu: We create the problem yet they pay the price. at http://www.not-quiteright.net/tvg ~
Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more!