Considerations of the status of animals in contemporary society should start from the recognition that the most thorough domestication undertaken by man has been that of the human species itself. Man has been progressively alienated, indeed, through the human conquest of nature, including that of non-human animals. Human domination of nature is the product of the sweat and blood of both the oppressed classes of histoiy and the labor of countless non-human animals. Contemporary utilization of nature continues through the subjection of the marginalized, human and non-human alike. The works of numerous Marxian scholars make this pattern of class struggle in history terribly clear. Although, indeed, the exploitative utilization of non-human animals is often overlooked, it is intertwined with the oppression of human beings in dialectically significant ways. This relationship opens critical insights and emancipatory possibilities in the present.In this paper, I use the works of Marx, Engels and the Frankfurt School to make a twofold argument. Firstly, I assert that the non-human animal is the nodal point in advanced capitalism where the elsewhereobscured oppressive nature of the whole can still be observed and contested. In the use, abuse and consumption of non-human animals in the advanced industrial system, and in the culture that reflects this mode of production, the impact of capital upon the living being in its integrity, health, rights, freedom, and worth are nakedly observable. Although, admittedly, the situation of non-human animals cannot be flatly equated to that of humans, the similar and linked positions of the two in a system that voraciously consumes the life force of all living beings justifies a critical comparison. The suffering non-human animal ensnared in advanced industrial capitalism is thus an essential mirror that must be held up, however uncomfortably, before the reified modem subject. Secondly, I contest that to break the cycle of alienation and oppression in which the subject is enmeshed, the transformation of the subject's intemality is necessary. In other words, one contests capital and builds subjectivity effectively only through actively living disruptively. The treatment of non-human animals, in short, must be considered a part of the web of domination, and rejected as firmly as other, more immediate forms of injustice. The refusal to use non-human animals as a means to the ends of capital is thus an important aspect of praxis and should be linked to the refusal to consume the labor of exploited human workers.MARXIAN THEORY, ALIENATION AND THE ANIMALAlienation, once viewed as a driver of class-consciousness, is now a problem well recognized by Marxian scholars. In this section, I will argue that although alienation, due in large part to the rise in standards of living and the development of socializing agents like advertising, now promotes blindness to structural injustice. The status of the non-human animal, however, still reflects the true relationship between capital and the living beings that serve as its raw material back to the critical observer.Marx and Engels framed alienation as a potent tool in the mobilization of proletarians. In a sense, indeed, classical Marxism turns on the capacity of the working class to become a revolutionary agent through the perfection of its alienation. Marx argued that the worker's existence is reduced to the same conditions as any other commodity under capital (Marx 1988). The individual's lived experience thus stands in palpable dialectical tension with the possibility of human emancipation in modernity. Because, in other words, bourgeois society is, too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them, capitalism can only create misery out of conditions ripe for the liberation of all from necessity (Marx and Engels 1988, 216). Rendered completely alien to himself in conditions that in every way counter his genuine interests, the subject recognizes that his plight stems from capitalism. …
Read full abstract