Marco Maurizi got to the heart of this: After all, there is no universal social labour that propels the process of civilization, but always only social labour in historically particular forms of organization. It is not just the politico-economic relations of current capitalist society that brought about classes that confront each other antagonistically, but also the preceding relations. Accordingly, the Manifesto of the Communist Party states: Within contemporary bourgeois-capitalist class society, the organization of social labour rests basically upon two social relations: Capitalists own the means of production or the necessary capital for their acquisition , they thus buy instruments of labour, subjects of labour and labour force the latter offered by the wage labourers who have nothing else to sell and deploy them in the production process.
The product re-assumes the form of commodity, which is sold for profit. However, this profit, the accumulation of which is the reason and purpose of capitalist production, does not just fall from the sky. It can be obtained only by exploiting the workers: Therefore, given that there are both exploiters and exploited in capitalist society, it is not the whole human species who exploits animals. Instead, the exploitation of animals and wage labourers first and foremost takes place following the interests and under the direction of the ruling class. Of course, the exploitation of animals and the exploitation of wage labourers differ qualitatively, and the latter do not necessarily act in solidarity with animals just because they are also being oppressed and exploited.
Workers in abattoirs even kill animals. But capitalist relations of production do not only rest upon an antagonism between capitalists and the working class, but also between the ruling class and nature as well as animals.
- Text Messaging Survival Guide.
- Gouverner par les instruments (Nouveaux débats) (French Edition).
- Revolt against the Office!
- Die Zukunft der Bewegung.
- Trompie die kaptein (#22) (Afrikaans Edition).
The former conducts the industrially organised exploitation of animals and profits substantially from it. To answer the question why not only workers are exploited under capitalism but also animals — if in a particular qualitatively different way — one must examine the position and function that animals inherit in this form of organizing social labour, and hence the specific capitalist form of animal exploitation.
Animals do not immediately take part in the social relations that are characteristic for capitalism as active individuals — they do not purchase or sell anything on the market, not even their labour: Accordingly, animals do not produce surplus value and are not part of the working class. Their exploitation corresponds to what Marx describes as exploitation of nature: This is not exploitation in the sense of the labour theory of value. Yet Marx also does not limit the notion of exploitation to the production of surplus value. And he certainly does not conclude from the observation that slaves also do not produce surplus value that they are not exploited.
Since they cannot resist in an organized manner, animals are appropriated just like other natural materials as freely available means of production, that is, as instruments of labour as though they were machines for the production of eggs, milk, meat and so forth and subjects of labour leather, meat for further processing and so on. Wage labourers perform the oftentimes violent appropriation in practice. The products that are produced by animals or which they themselves are, are processed further by wage labourers and are finally sold as commodities.
The production of profits hence rests not only upon the exploitation of wage labourers, but also on that of animals in particular and of nature in general. For the purpose of maximizing the profits that are realized through the exploitation of animals, capitalists are striving to integrate animals into the process of production as efficiently as possible. From all this follows for us that only a historical materialist anti-speciesism proves capable of comprehensively explaining and analysing human-animal relations, which upon closer inspection reveal themselves today as relations of exploitation and domination between capital on the one hand and the proletariat, animals and nature on the other.
A historical materialist anti-speciesism opens up new perspectives for the analysis and critique of bourgeois class society, and it identifies areas in which the capitalist order proves vulnerable and which need to be targeted in order to liberate animals from exploitation. Indeed, one cannot conclude from the critique of political economy that animals would automatically be liberated within a socialist or communist society.
- Chapter 001, Neuroimaging Modalities:Description, Comparisons, Strengths, and Weaknesses.
- Pour une histoire de lintime : Et de ses variations (French Edition)?
- Is Article 7 Really the EU’s "Nuclear Option"?!
- What is the Bible??
- Germany’s Moral Responsibility to Support a Treaty on Business and Human Rights | Verfassungsblog.
- Mooi meegenomen!.
- EU Leaders' Agenda: Who’s Afraid of Reforms?.
- Judges under Attack in Hungary?
- Een middag aan zee (Dutch Edition).
- Die hemmungslosen Sieben (Teil 4) (German Edition).
- The Revisionists.
Yet, the struggle against the rule of capital and its expropriation are necessary preconditions in order to enable people to collectively cast the decision: As long as the relation of capital persists and with it the control of the ruling class over what is produced, as well as how and by what means, capital will appropriate nature and incorporate everything into the process of valorisation from which one cannot save oneself or take a stand against.
For Marxists, much of what has been said so far is not new.
Historical materialism and the Marxian critique of political economy are after all the guiding principle of their economic and political analyses. They could therefore shrug their shoulders and tell the animal liberationists: And they would have good reasons for this! If one is serious about historical materialism, then one must acknowledge that humans and animals do not only have a shared history.
Above all, the oppressed, exploited classes and animals have the same enemy, who profits from and is responsible for their exploitation while also organizing — in different ways — their oppression: In addition, Marxists need to recognize that due to its damaging social and ecological effects the current extent of animal production is objectively irrational and obstructs social progress. The current level of the development of productive forces does not just allow us to think about resolving the socially produced suffering of animals and to pose the question of including them in the struggle for liberation.
A glance at the carbon footprint of the meat industry or its mindless consumption of natural resources also highlights the urgent necessity to develop a Marxist position on the social dealing with animals. The contradiction between capitalism and nature has reached a scale today that threatens the principal survival of the human species — to which industrialised animal production makes a significant contribution. Today, the exploitation of animals is not only objectively unnecessary, but irrational and counter-progressive. It causes excessive and ever-growing consumption of resources such as water and soy, which are not used for meaningful purposes but are deployed in the production of meat, milk and eggs, and which are not at all rationally distributed.
The ecological damages caused by clearing rain forests, by monoculture cultivation or by the pollution of water are already partially irreversible. The conversion of the food and meat industry into ecologically sustainable, vegan and socially planned production, in contrast, would be a timely socialist demand. It is well-known that the utilization and consumption of animals plays an important part in the history of human civilization.
This, however, does not warrant its continuation to the present day: And, as the present theses in this paper ought to prove, Marxists have no reasonable cause not to do so. The fact that the technological potential of developed capitalism enables historical progress should not hide the fact that this potential also allows for capacious destruction: If modern productive forces shall no longer be destructive forces but means for the unfolding of progress and well-being, those who have a mutual interest in this must join forces. They need to change the social relations, so that the productive forces are no longer deployed for the profit of few, but instead be developed and applied for the benefit of all.
Evolution of Memory Laws: from “German” Legal Fashion to Memory Wars
That is why we say: Marxists and animal liberationists should join forces in their struggle for a revolutionary, truly civilizing project — the liberation of humans, animals and nature. In contrast to idealist conceptions of history, historical materialists assume that not ideas, but class struggles are the engine of human history. This struggle is based on the fact that within class societies the interests of classes which antagonistically oppose each other can never be reconciled — the antagonism can merely be disguised, or, rather, be suppressed by way of ideological mechanisms, religion, politics, law and so on.
The ruling class is at pains to assure as much, for example by imposing their ideas as the dominant ideas. Just as there are qualitative differences in the functions animals and wage labourers have within the process of production and in the process of their exploitation, the role animals inherit in the struggle against the ruling class is also different from that of the wage labourers. Wage labourers can organize to defend themselves, plan strikes and demonstrations or think about a liberated society. Above all, however, in contradistinction to animals, they can analyse the social conditions under which they are being exploited and dominated and, consequently, derive concrete measures to organize their own liberation.
For this reason, the working class can be the subject of its own liberation. Animals, in contrast, can only be objects of liberation. When it comes to the question of animal liberation, traditional Marxists often bring up this difference between wage labourers and animals. They argue that no historical necessity for the liberation of animals can be deduced from a systematically reflected social analysis. Yet the situation with regard to abolishing wage slavery is not significantly different.
As a historical necessity, organized class struggle from below can neither be deduced from the analysis of capital relations and the realization that class struggle is the driving force of history. It also only exists if and when wage labourers politically decide to take it up. Revolutionary Marxists not only analyse the modern mode of production. Whoever has accepted that liberation is necessary at all to end socially produced suffering and exploitation has no reason — other than an ideological one — to exclude animals from this endeavour.
Capitalist production, in which the interaction between society and nature is organized in order to maximize profits, simultaneously saps the original sources of all wealth: An uncompromising struggle for the abolishment of this relation must therefore include the struggle for the liberation of animals and nature.
Thus, once one has decided to fight for liberation, there is no reason why one undertakes everything to end socially produced suffering, while at the same time excluding animals from this goal according to some Marxists this is even the case in communism. Indeed, despite all qualitative differences in the exploitation of wage labourers and animals: It would be inconsistent and a product of false consciousness to set a clear and absolute distinction between humans and animals where this capacity is concerned, something which has remained their commonality in spite of the gradual differences that have been developed socio-historically.
At this point, many Marxist comrades object saying that all the talk of suffering is moralism, and that morals cannot provide the foundation for a class conscious anti-capitalist politics. After all, one cannot fight the bourgeoisie with empathy or appeals to sympathy, but with an organization and a deliberate political line developed on the grounds of a concrete analysis of the concrete situation.
The German NetzDG: A Risk Worth Taking? | Verfassungsblog
And this is correct, but even so, they make two mistakes: The suffering we are writing about here is not an idealistic, but a historical materialist category. To neglect the suffering in Marxist theory means accordingly to negate an important element of its foundation. Even politics in the best Marxian sense is initially motivated by morals, for the simple reason that, as we have demonstrated, the suffering under wage slavery and exploitation is a catalyst of the search for possibilities to abolish capitalism.
The realization that the production of exploitation, oppression, imperialism and suchlike is inherent to capitalism, or, in other words: We can hence establish: Marxists are also driven by a moral impulse, which is essential for the decision to become politically active as well as to promote political messages. Yet they do not stop there.
Rather, they realize the political and economic limitations of empathy and make the experience of suffering the starting point of a historical materialist analysis of society. This is the difference between morality and moralism: As long as the class antagonism is not overcome, the alienation of workers from their product of labour, from themselves, from the social process of production and from nature will also persist.
In the animal industry, such alienation needs to be extreme so that wage labourers are able to harm creatures capable of suffering in the process of production, to process them industrially, that is, to kill them.
Within capitalist exploitation of animals, we lose the consciousness that we have an essential commonality with animals: The suppression of the inner nature of humans is both a condition and a consequence of the capitalist mode of organizing social labour at the same time. When taking all of this into account, then we also have to conclude: The enemy of animals — capital — is also the enemy of humans. The class struggle for the liberation of animals is the struggle for the liberation of the proletariat. Hintergrund der juristischen Verfahren sind zwei Aktionen des kollektiven zivilen Ungehorsams gegen den Wiesenhof-Konzern.
Wir sagen ihnen immer wieder, dass uns die Produktion, Verkauf und Verzehr von Fleisch von Wiesenhof und anderen nicht passt. Es war also nicht anders zu erwarten. Sie treffen jene, die ihn in Frage stellen. Deswegen sitzen zwar acht vor den Richtern, aber die Anklage gilt uns allen. Wir werden uns aber nicht vom juristischen Schmierentheater beirren lassen. Was ist die Blockade eines Schlachthofs gegen den Bau eines Schlachthofs? Juristische Verfahren kosten Geld. Spendet auf folgendes Konto: Kampagne gegen Tierfabriken bitte unbedingt angeben.
Doch die Einnahmen reichen nicht, um die hohen qualitativen Inhalte und die hervorragende Arbeit der Redaktion auf Dauer zu finanzieren. Aufgeben — das geht gar nicht in Zeiten des aufhaltsamen Aufstiegs rechter und neokonservativer Demagogen, ihrer Organisationen, Medien und Parteien. In der Tageszeitung junge Welt ist am Nun ist Marxismus vielen ein Begriff. Was ist unter Tierbefreiung zu verstehen? Tierwohl ist eine Propagandavokabel der Industrie und der ihr wohlgesonnenen Staatsapparate.
Wir lehnen es ab, die verschiedenen Probleme des Klassenkampfs gegeneinander auszuspielen. Die herrschende Klasse macht aus allem Geld, was es auf diesem Planeten gibt. Die Spaltung nutzt dem Gegner, nicht uns. Da gibt es keinen Unterschied zur Kohle-, Waffen- oder Kulturindustrie. Das Programm und weitere Infos finden sich auf www. Zu jedem Zirkus eine Demo, vor jedem Laden eine Kundgebung, zu jedem Thema eine Kampagne — seien sie auch noch so aussichtslos und die Beteiligungen gering. Gleichzeitig greifen etablierte Institutionen, wie z. Mit dieser Entwicklung ist allerdings auch die Gefahr der politischen Neutralisation verbunden.
In logischer Konsequenz wird u. In dem Interview geht es u. Warum seht Ihr die Notwendigkeit, euch mit beiden Themen zu befassen? Zweitens bietet der Marxismus das beste Handwerkszeug, um die Ursachen der Ausbeutung von der Mehrheit der Menschen und von Tieren in der kapitalistischen Gesellschaft zu verstehen. Daher haben die Natur und die Tiere objektiv den selben Gegner wie die Arbeiterklasse: Und mit diesem gemeinsamen Projekt ginge dann die organisatorische Ebene einher: Es muss eine Organisationsform gefunden werden, in dem sich das gemeinsame Projekt abbildet und manifestiert.
Wir sehen es jedoch als notwendig an, und sehen auf kurz oder lang keine Alternative dazu. Ihr beschreibt die enormen materiellen Interessen, die die Nahrungsmittelindustrie hat. Dies ist wiederum bei der Fortexistenz des Privatbesitzes an Produktionsmitteln nicht realisierbar. Aber historisch gesehen haben Menschen schon immer Tiere gegessen. Sie ruiniert ja nicht nur die Proletarier, die in ihr arbeiten z. Darum sehen wir unsere marxistischen Genossinnen und Genossen in der Pflicht, eine politische Position zur Fleisch- bzw.
Und wir meinen eben: In eurem Text beschreibt Ihr, dass sowohl Tiere als auch Arbeiter ausgebeutet werden, welche Parallelen und welche Unterschiede seht ihr? Dennoch leisten sie keine produktive Arbeit im Sinne der Wertproduktion. Sie produzieren jedoch keine Werte wie die Lohnarbeiter. Tiere sind weder eine Klasse noch sind sie Subjekte des Klassenkampfs. Aber wir bestehen darauf, dass die Tiere ebenso wie die Natur Objekte des Klassenkampfs und der sozialistischen Revolution sind.
Ohne ihre Befreiung ist Sozialismus bzw. Kommunismus nicht zu haben. Aber viel schlauer ist man auch nach der Saarland-Wahl nicht. Er liegt damit richtig und falsch zugleich.
The German NetzDG: A Risk Worth Taking?
Auf anderen Politikfeldern sieht es nicht besser aus. Die landespolitischen Vorreiter und die programmatischen Debatten in den Parteien lassen es erahnen: Der Text beruht auf zahlreichen Diskussionen mit Genossinnen und Genossen sowohl der Tierbefreiungsbewegung wie auch der sozialistisch-kommunistischen Linken. Der Marxismus und die Befreiung der Tiere — auf den ersten Blick zwei Dinge, die kaum etwas miteinander zu tun haben. Bei den Marxisten wiederum stehen die Tierbefreiungsaktivisten nicht hoch im Kurs: Die einen als Subjekte-, die anderen als Objekte der Befreiung.
Der Tierbefreiungsgedanke bleibt inkonsequent, wenn er sich der historisch-materialistischen Kritik der Gesellschaft versperrt. Wer eine Gesellschaft ohne Ausbeutung, Herrschaft und objektiv sozial produziertes und vermeidbares Leiden schaffen will, ist zweitens gezwungen, auch das Leid der Tiere anzuerkennen und dessen Abschaffung anzustreben. Sie haben sich aber bislang nicht durchgesetzt.
Rund AktivistInnen vor allem aus der Klima- und Tierbefreiungsbewegung haben am Das ist eine Doppel-Strategie, die dem Kapital auch sonst nicht fremd ist: Eins sollte uns klar sein: Nieder mit der EuroTier! Auch die Natur wartet auf die Revolution! CH18 6 The original German version is available on Facebook , as pdf file , audio file read by German animal liberation rapper MC Albino and in print.
And the administrative superior of all Council members except the President of the Curia is the President of the Office. At the end of January this year, the judiciary elected a new Council, including some vocally critical members. A new chapter seemed to begin some weeks before the political election. In middle of April, five elected members resigned from their office in order to compromise the functioning of the Council. But at the meeting of the Council on May 2, following a firm speech of the President of the Curia, the Council decided unanimously that it was fully operable and the necessary quorum of members were present.
The attempt to inactivate the elected body had proved unsuccessful. At the same meeting the Council for the first time adopted a decision clearly critical of the activity of the President of the Office. Evaluating the practice of declaring applications for the post of court president invalid, the decision says: The reaction to this decision came swiftly. Some Fidesz party officials have announced that a complete reform of judicial administration was necessary.
The focus of this reform could be the return of the external ministerial administration of courts. To which extent the government with its restored two-thirds majority will crack down on judicial independence in the end remains to be seen. Requiem for the Rule of Law. The Return of the Hungarian Constitutional Court. Fears and plans The weekly newspaper HVG has recently published a news piece under the title: Revolt against the Office At the end of January this year, the judiciary elected a new Council, including some vocally critical members.
We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will be deleted. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory.