Perz on Abolition,Veganism and the Work of Gary Francione

By Claudette Vaughan

This interview is all about abolitionist ideas, and it is the ideas that must be discussed before progressive action can take root. Since many of these ideas that are relevant to the lives and deaths of other animals come from Gary Francione’s work, Jeff Perz feels obligated to cite that work. However,  he argues, he has added his own arguments and commentary. He accepts or rejects Francione’s texts on their own merits; the validity of the arguments and the soundness of the evidence. He invites everyone else to do the same with an open mind.

Jeff Perz thinks many welfarists have good hearts and motivations, and are very passionate and hard working.  Discussing abolitionist theory and practice confronts not the good motives and dedication of activists, but the actual effect that their activism has upon non-human animals. Perz maintains that seeking to understand abolitionist theory and practice is well worth the effort.

Incidentally, Jeff Perz’s Master’s thesis is entitled Core Self-Awareness and Personhood and argues that non-human animals ought not to be property using philosophical arguments that are radically different from Francione’s arguments. Here he speaks to the Abolitionist-Online for the first time.

Q. What does being vegan mean to you Jeff?

A. Living a vegan lifestyle is the embodiment of abolitionist theory. As an incrementally and realistically minded animal rights activist, I put that theory into practice every day by promoting ethical veganism in the most efficient and creative ways that I can think of. The day that a critical mass of the world’s human population is vegan to respect the rights of other animals is the same day that vivisection, the fur trade, circuses that use non-human animals and hunting will be abolished. The reason is simple. The consumption of animal products as food accounts for the overwhelming majority of the suffering, confinement and death that is inflicted upon non-human animals. Making a change in one’s diet is a very personal thing that involves breaking old customs and habits. Psychologically, if someone believes that other animals have basic rights and puts this belief into practice by not eating those animals, odds are that she or he will also not be going to the circus or wearing fur. Conversely, if someone continues to eat animal products and stops wearing fur because the trends of the day say fur is cruel, he or she will probably give no thought to purchasing animal-tested products and will start wearing fur again when the trends about the meaning of “cruelty” and consumer freedom shift again. This has actually happened on a societal level from the 1980s to present. Similarly, if someone goes vegan primarily for health or environmental reasons, she or he may have “cheats” or return to her or his previous habits altogether, just as those on weight-loss diets occasionally treat themselves or do not stick to it, doctors smoke tobacco and those concerned about the environment do the best they can but sometimes fail to recycle absolutely everything or forget to turn out the light every time they leave a room. This pattern is not a rigid rule but, generally, it holds for most of us. (The pattern holds less for the rare kind of individual who decides to become an activist.) In order to be lasting, actions intended to respect non-human animals must start with veganism and be motivated out of ethical respect—not trends or self-interest (for our health or for our benefiting from the beauty and biodiversity of nature). So, promoting an ethical vegan lifestyle in efficient and creative ways is the best and most practical way to live abolitionist theory.

Q. Is abolition unrealistic?

A. Putting abolition into practice by doing vegan education is the most realistic method of animal rights activism we have. If, instead of encouraging ethical veganism, I encouraged (lacto-ovo) vegetarianism, eating “humane” meat or eating veggie burgers at McDonald’s, I have violated the rights of the non-human animals exploited for these purposes and I have further perpetuated the existence of the exploitative industries. Similarly, if, instead of encouraging just labour standards, I encouraged the purchase of diamonds from South Africa and not central Africa because the latter diamonds fund genocidal war and the former do not, I have violated the rights of South African miners who may be children, indentured slaves and forced to breathe toxic dust, and I have further perpetuated the existence of the oppressive South African diamond industry. Is it unrealistic to effectively educate the public and encourage a boycott of these diamonds? Not in the experience of human rights groups. Humans have rights. Institutionalised human slavery is, and ought to remain, abolished. Why should it be any different for non-human animals? To say that it should is to deny their rights and perpetuate their exploitation into the indefinite future. In my experience, it is very realistic to effectively encourage ethical veganism. This is abolitionist activism.

Q. How do you campaign from an abolitionist perspective yourself, Jeff?

A. I have used portable audio-visual units placed on the streets to show the public images of slaughter-houses, farms, feed lots and fishing. While doing this, I distributed self-made brochures with an abolitionist message and answered questions from an abolitionist perspective, all whilst encouraging ethical veganism as the way of putting abolitionist theory into practice. In particular, I summarised the abolitionist argument found in Gary L. Francione’s excellent book Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or The Dog? If, after being presented with a clear, rational and persuasive argument for animal rights and veganism, a member of the public said something like “what you say makes sense, but I could never be vegan” and persisted with this non-rational opinion, I would never encourage (lacto-ovo) vegetarianism, “humane” meat or eating McDonald’s veggie burgers. Rather, I would say “Here is the argument in favour of animal rights and abolition. If you accept that other animals have basic rights, this means a vegan lifestyle right now. But if, for whatever reason, you cannot accept this moral principle right now, why not try going vegan every Monday? After two months or however long, being vegan every Monday will become very easy and second nature. Then, you can increase the number of days that you are vegan at your own pace and in accord with your own capacity until, one day, you become vegan without even realising it. Throughout this time and leading up to that point, you can consider the argument in favour of animal rights and how this entails veganism. If you choose, after thinking about it carefully and deciding for yourself, you may go vegan. If all of this is done with the firm intention of eventually accepting the ethic of animal rights and that is a goal you set out for yourself, then this method of change might be right for you. Or, you can consider respecting animal rights straight away and go vegan now. The point is that you can think critically for yourself and come to your own informed conclusion.”

Unlike harmful welfarist campaigns, phrasing things in the way I have just described makes a clear distinction between the ethic of respecting the basic rights of other animals and the psychology of putting that ethic into practice. I have retained my integrity by clearly stating that I hold the ethic of animal rights whereas the individual who I am talking with has persistently rejected it despite being presented with compelling images and persuasive abolitionist argument. Having rejected the ethic of animal rights, the individual who I am talking with is not told to eat “free range” dairy, eggs and honey; something that would violate the rights of non-human animals and perpetuate their exploitation. Rather, he or she is encouraged to think critically and is presented with the option of eventually ending his or her consumption of all animal products. During this time, the individual is still violating the rights of non-human animals and I have made this clear (in a respectful, responsive way). Yet, the result is veganism and animal rights; not the perpetual exploitation, misery and death that the public is made to feel good about and then forget because it is labelled as “humane” by welfarist animal activists and meat-industry public relations experts. Conversely, phrasing things in an abolitionist way – whether it is to someone who is persistently reluctant to embrace animal rights or to someone who sees the logic of rational abolitionist argument and is moved by empathy straight away – is extremely effective. In my experience, the average member of the public responds very well to it and many are moved to go vegan straight away. In this way, countless individuals are helped to embrace animal rights. This is leading to a world in which the exploitation of non-human animals is being abolished rather than regulated.

Q. If abolition is put into practice through vegan education as you suggest, when can abolition be expected?

A. For the welfarist animal activist, the practical method I have proposed is too slow. How long will it take before a critical mass of ethical vegans is reached and, as a result, abolition is realised? I do not know; perhaps 50 years or perhaps 500. I do know that, in Australia, for every new vegan in her or his early 20s who lives into her or his 80s, about 1135 mammals and birds will have been saved (plus many aquatic animals, bees, and so on). This figure was arrived at by analysing figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It accounts for meat exports and hypothesises that 10% of the population is already vegetarian. Now, compare the 1135+ non-human animals saved for every new vegan to what animal welfare activists have achieved. Unlike the animal welfare industry, which keeps the number of exploited non-human animals exactly the same and merely tinkers with the details of how these tens of billions are tortured and killed, the 1135+ non-human animals saved for each new 20 year old vegan represents individual non-human animals who are never bred into existence, confined, subjected to pain or killed at all. It represents abolition. Francione has pointed out that, despite nearly 400 years of having animal welfare laws, and the countless welfarist laws passed in recent years, both the number of non-human animals exploited and killed and the severity of their exploitation has continued to dramatically increase. Francione has conclusively argued that such laws are counterproductive and only serve to insure that non-human animals will always be exploited in the most abhorrent ways imaginable—so long as the exploitation is conducted in an economically efficient way. Conversely, it is much more powerful and effective to advocate the theory of animal rights and veganism as the very practical way of living that ethic. Francione has noted that educating one person at a time is the ultimate form of incremental social change. This is what we animal rights activists should be doing and working towards; a vegan world. Thus, putting abolitionist theory into practice is not only practical, but is crucial for activists to pursue.

Q. Do texts refer to social reality or do they merely reflect it?

A. If you are talking about abolitionist texts, such as those by Francione, they refer to social reality in the sense that aspects of these texts describe the current state of affairs in animal rights and welfare activism, law and philosophy. Abolitionist texts certainly do not reflect social reality as the two are diametrically opposed to one another. Francione argues that non-human animals have the basic moral and pre-legal right not to be property due to their sentience alone, and this entails that all institutionalised non-human animal exploitation must be abolished and not merely regulated. Conversely, the current social reality is that non-human animals are slaves, have no legal rights and have their moral rights violated on a daily basis by exploitive institutions. If you are talking about welfarist texts, such as those by Peter Singer, Steven Wise and Matthew Scully, they merely reflect the current deplorable social reality. Although all of these welfarist texts, to one extent or another, claim to advocate that some sort of change should take place, following their directives consistently fails to make any significant change in the current social reality, and this is due to their theoretical failings.

Q.  Why can’t animal rights overcome its internal contradictions through welfarist reform over capitalistic exploitation and economic hegemony?

A.  The phenomenon that is popularly called the “animal ‘rights’ movement” is not really a movement at all as it simply reflects the status quo and it is thus more aptly referred to as the animal welfare industry. The largest internal contradiction within this industry is what Francione refers to as new welfarism. New welfarists accept that non-human animals have basic rights in theory and they therefore have the goal of abolishing all non-human animal exploitation. New welfarists, however, also believe that welfarist reforms such as making cages bigger will eventually lead to empty cages and abolition. This is contradictory because welfarist roots can never lead to the fruit of abolition. Francione explains the reason for this: since non-human animals are property, any changes in our treatment of them that would actually benefit them would force property owners to value their non-human-animal-property differently from what the market allows for. As such, the only changes that will ever be permitted are those that maximise the economic value of non-human-animal-property for owners. Obviously, this extremely narrow scope of change must necessarily fall far short of abolition. Thus, new welfarists are doomed never to achieve the goal that they purport to have. After they do this for a few years, it seems that they subconsciously realise the contradiction and talk less of their original goal altogether, becoming traditional welfarists who pursue “reform” for its own sake. Hence, in my view, the difference between traditional welfarism and new welfarism is slight to non-existent. Perhaps we can expand on and understand the matter better by looking at specific issues within the animal welfare industry.

As an aside, I would like to note that there is a strong connection between capitalistic exploitation and economic hegemony and the exploitation of non-human animals who are chattels within this system. Although the connection is strong, it is not a necessary connection. That is, it is theoretically possible to have a non-capitalist society in which resources are justly distributed amongst humans and all humans have control over their own lives, which nevertheless exploits non-human animals through meat consumption and other activities. Such a society would wrongfully exclude non-human animals from the moral community but could nevertheless function in an equitable way for humans. I, of course, do not advocate this. I advocate the abolition of all non-human and human animal exploitation.

Q.  Meat-eating is escalating not diminishing around the globe. What evidence exists that shows welfarist  reform can lead to liberation for “food” animals? Is it not true that welfarism further entrenches animal exploitation because welfarism’s intention has never indicated the kind of changes that liberation demands?

A.  There is no evidence that welfarism leads to the liberation of non-human animals who are used for food. There are, however, heaps of empirical evidence that welfarism leads to escalation in both the number of non-human animals exploited and the severity of exploitation within the meat, egg and dairy industries. This empirical evidence is detailed in Francione’s Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of The Animal Rights Movement.

Welfarism further entrenches the exploitation of non-human animals for a very simple reason. I will illustrate this reason through the following example. When McDonald’s announced that it would only accept eggs from suppliers that slightly increase the size of their battery cages in which hens are confined, the McDonald’s spokesperson quoted in an early (now suppressed) press release stated that the reasons for the change were two-fold. First, the slightly bigger cages will reduce cage-layer fatigue syndrome and, second, they will reduce the chance of spreading disease to humans. Both of these things save McDonald’s money and that is the real meaning of “humane”. As Francione has noted, non-human animals are property, property cannot have its own interests independent of the interests of owners and other stake-holders and humans have a right to own, use and benefit from their property. Because of this, any reduction in suffering that non-human animals experience as a result of a welfare regulation (which is, of course, good) must necessarily be a mere side-effect of the primary purpose of increasing the economic value of the non-human animal property. So, every time a welfare regulation is put into place, it is even more likely that non-human animals will always be exploited in the most horrendous ways imaginable—so long as those ways are not economically wasteful. The reduction in suffering that results from slightly bigger cages is offset by the fact that the welfare regulation further codifies and entrenches the non-human animal’s status as property, thus ensuring that she or he will always be subject to severe suffering, confinement and death, so long as that suffering, confinement and death is incidental to economic efficiency. So, for example, there are welfare laws that specify that non-human animals must receive sufficient food and water because starving, dehydrated non-human animals – under most circumstances – do not make good, profitable slaves. Humane slaughter laws ensure that the disassembly lines run quickly and smoothly, thus maximising profit. But take a look in any slaughter-house that follows those laws fastidiously. The pain, anguish and suffering are immense and the death rates are ever increasing. That is why welfarism further entrenches non-human animal exploitation.

Q.   Why has the movement not asked itself: Are we really working towards abolition if we are making exploitation appear to be more “humane”?

A.  As you can see from what we have just been discussing, “appear” is the operative word. Even in supposed “free range” egg and dairy farms, conditions vary widely and the non-human animals are always killed when their production wanes. Moreover, “humane” is implicitly defined as that which maximises profit. When human chattel slavery existed in America, there were slaves who worked as servants for rich Northern families. Some of these slaves were treated very well and there may have been genuine mutual love and affection between slave and owner, with the slave being considered a member of the family. Yet, “happy” slavery is still slavery: the slave is powerless to change her or his situation, lacking any autonomy. The well-treated servant-slave, like the well-treated family dog who was purchased at a pet store, is being used for a specific purpose; cleaning the mansion and companionship, respectively. Those purposes are conducive to the slaves not suffering too much. However, if the purpose is using a human slave to mine gold or using a dog slave to guard a parking lot at night, the slave is subject to severe suffering. Whatever the purpose for the exploitation, the underlying cause remains the same; namely, the status of non-human animals as property. Thus, as long as “free range” farms and pet breeders exist – and therefore as long as non-human animals remain property – factory farms that produce (monetarily) cheap food for the masses and vivisection conducted upon dogs will necessarily continue into the indefinite future. Again, the property status that underlies both low-suffering exploitation and high-suffering exploitation cause both kinds of exploitation to exist. Thus, animal welfare activists that make exploitation appear to be more “humane” are not working towards abolition and are not helping non-human animals in any way whatsoever. Conversely, animal rights activists who encourage ethical veganism are creating a vegan world, one individual at a time.

The question “Does making exploitation look ‘humane’ lead to abolition?” has not been asked by the animal welfare industry for several reasons. First, the problem of non-human animal slavery is so immense that it is intuitively appealing to be welfarist. After a second glance, however, this initial appeal vanishes for the reasons we have discussed. Next, after an activist has found welfarism intuitively appealing and then proceeds to devote time and effort into welfarist activism, it can be painful to acknowledge that these actions were actually harmful to non-human animals and easier to ignore the question outright. Third, with large welfarist organisations having adopted this framework, the first thing that young activists are often presented with is welfarism devoid of any appeal to critical thinking. Fourth, these same large welfarist organisations obtain immense income by aligning themselves with corporate power and the status-quo and they do not want to lose that income. Fifth, as Francione has pointed out, many leaders of the animal welfare industry are not vegan and, of course, do not have an abolitionist perspective or goal. Sixth, real social movements are not primarily achieved through leaders, but rather through mass popular resistance and non-cooperation.

Q.  Do you support confrontational tactics for animal liberation or is the movement itself a tactical necessity?

A.  What is commonly referred to the “animal ‘rights’ movement” is, as I have argued, really a counterproductive phenomenon that is seriously harmful to non-human animals. As such, it is more aptly called the animal welfare industry. This industry actively undermines animal rights activists and the effective, ethical tactics that they employ. So, no, what is commonly called the “Movement” is far from a tactical necessity; it is a serious tactical obstacle.

Regarding confrontational  tactics, I do not support throwing red paint at elderly women wearing fur coats. For, if our goal is abolition, such actions have the opposite effect; closing off their minds or temporarily controlling their behaviour through fear. I would rather empathise with the fur wearing public’s need for beauty, have them empathise with my need for respect and get both of our needs met by rejecting fur in favour of a non-exploitative garment. Moreover, humans are animals too and, as such, animal rights activists cannot violate human rights.

As I said earlier, I have taken graphic images of non-human animal exploitation directly to the public. Whether I support this tactic or not largely depends on how it is done. If it is accompanied by welfarist propaganda, as is common practice, I oppose the tactic of using graphic images. I have seen for myself the destructive impact that this has. The public sees the horrible images, is affected by them and says “Oh, I don’t believe in that but can’t something be done?” If the answer to this question is “Yes, sign this petition, sign this cheque, write your government representative to pass this law and buy ‘humanely’ murdered corpses,” then the public jumps on it. Everyone is so relieved that something can be done; they do not have to take personal responsibility by going vegan and they can quickly forget about it. As I have argued, nothing changes when the public has this pervasive attitude and the exploitation of non-human animals continues to escalate. On the other hand, if the graphic images are accompanied with an abolitionist message like the one we previously discussed, then the effect is very positive. A quiet, sombre, respectful atmosphere is created in which members of the public ask the activist for brochures and answers to their questions. Countless individuals are helped to understand and accept animal rights and a vegan way of living. I wholeheartedly support this non-violent and successful tactic.

Q.  When the radical animal rights movement first started out it reformulated a new way of understanding humankind’s relationship to non-human animals. This new way of thinking was meant to create a world-wide,  non-speciesistic,  political community and yet it hasn’t.  How does the movement get back on track?

A.  This relationship you speak of is one of respect: simply leaving other animals in peace. Stop breeding them, using them for our myriad purposes, confining them and killing them. At the end of a successful animal rights movement, there would only be free-living non-human animals in their undisturbed, native environments. As activists, we can create this world by encouraging ethical veganism. We can create a non-speciesist political community around our activism by discussing topics like we have been today. The public needs vegan education. New vegans and vegan activists need abolitionist education. That is how we will get back on track. Regarding this magazine in particular, I suggest only interviewing abolitionists or, if welfarists (whether from the meat industry or from the animal welfare charity industry) are interviewed, then the interviews should be placed in the context of a debate with a genuine abolitionist—where each debater gets equal text space. Otherwise, how will we create this non-speciesist political community of activists that you speak of? I suggest contacting the only abolitionist group that I am aware of: Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary of Colorado, USA at www.peacefulprairie.org.

Q.  Socialism (in the sense of a broad humanising effect) grappled with the reform v emancipation debate. It’s been said of the U.S. Civil Rights movement that if Afro-Americans were waiting for deliverance from welfarist reform, they’d still be sitting at the back of buses. What are your thoughts?

A.   As Noam Chomsky points out, the only Socialist revolution ever to have succeeded on a large scale was the Anarchist experimentation that took place in Spain prior to the Spanish Revolution, in which an army supported by German and Italian Nazis crushed the Anarchists. An American oil corporation and the accommodating U.S. government in turn helped the Nazis in their efforts to destroy the Anarchist society in Spain. While it lasted, Spain’s Anarchist society is the closest thing we have come to a broad humanising effect in which resources are distributed justly and everyone has control over their own lives. Before and after this time, the Spaniards (and all working humans everywhere) were and are “wage slaves” who are never genuinely free. Yet today, humans are not institutionalised chattel slaves as some of us were in the slightly more distant past. As such, even in this oppressive Capitalist environment in which we live, we still have basic rights (e.g. the right not to be property) but not sufficient civil rights (e.g. the right to be fairly compensated for our labour). The same is true of the U.S. civil rights movement, a part of which involved Rosa Parks’s decision to sit in the front half of a bus, thus sparking the Montgomery bus boycott protesting racial segregation. The civil (non-basic) right to sit where one pleases on a public bus is not the same as the basic right not to be property. The right not to be property was achieved in the human slavery abolitionist movement. As Francione argues, it is logically impossible to have non-basic rights without first having basic rights. Reforms to the system can work very well after basic rights have been achieved. This is what the Spanish Anarchists and the American civil rights activists did, to great effect. However, in the very different scenario of human slavery – in which some humans were the chattel property of other humans – it would have been absolutely pointless to advocate reformist measures such as the right to drink from the same water source as everyone else. For, as Francione correctly argues, regulations about how slaves are watered must necessarily serve one and only one purpose; namely, the efficient exploitation of those slaves. If the human-property is given water from a particular place, or is given only a certain amount of water, this decision is solely based on how it affects the productivity and profitability of that human-property called the slave. Exactly the same thing is true of non-human animals who are legal property. If a cow is given too little or too much water, profit will not be maximised when the cow’s corpse is sold. Since non-human animals are legal property with no basic rights, welfarist reforms are doomed to failure at the tragic cost of perpetuating the severe suffering and death inflicted upon those animals.

As an aside, this is where Francione’s distinction between the micro and macro levels of social change becomes relevant. If one is a factory farm worker, or an animal rights activist visiting a factory farm, it is morally acceptable to give water to a thirsty cow in that particular instance. If, however, one is an activist who is making changes at the societal or macro level, then working to enforce a law that says all cows must receive sufficient water is actually harmful to cows; it insures that they will always suffer horrendously and die, as I have previously argued.

Q.  PeTA says they prefer bad publicity to no publicity at all. Many people in the movement have criticised PeTA’s tactics, asking them to stop making animal rights people look like fools and put the focus back on nonhuman animals and their liberation. Do you think some of  PeTA’s campaigns these days are an embarrassment to animal rights?

A.   The only possibility for thinking that PeTA is an embarrassment to animal rights advocates comes from making the false assumption that PeTA knows what the concept of a right means and acts to secure rights for non-human animals. Francione observes that the meat industry says that we ought not to be “cruel” to other animals and we should treat them “humanely”. Given that non-human animals are property, the result is that terms such as “cruel” and “humane” are necessarily but silently defined such that billions upon billions of non-human animals are put to death in the callous efficiency of factory farms and industrial slaughter-houses. PeTA says exactly the same thing; we ought not to be cruel to other animals and we should treat them humanely. Although PeTA sometimes professes to have an abolitionist goal, the result of what it says and does is – as with the meat industry – the same; perpetual suffering and death. This is entirely predictable.

Francione notes the symbiotic relationship between the two; the meat industry is encouraged to make things as horrible as possible for non-human animals, PeTA engages in a profitable fund-raising welfarist campaign which eventually results in the meat industry making a meaningless change, victory is declared, meat-consumers are comforted and PeTA gets its donation dollars—thus becoming a larger entity. Then the cycle repeats. Each group benefits from the other. Each group uses the public relations industry, which advises the use of certain terms; animal “rights” and “welfare” for PeTA and “pollo [chicken eating] vegetarians” and “animal welfare” for the meat industry.  Rather than focus on the non-human animal exploitation industries and the welfarist activists that promote the same ideology, I focus on the public who supports them. The animal rights movement is a grassroots movement.

Q.  PeTA says that its critics should stop complaining and follow its example by getting on with activism that will make things better for animals. Are you agreeing with this?

A.   When PeTA says that its critics should stop criticising them and instead let PeTA supposedly make things “better” for non-human animals unencumbered, this means PeTA wants its critics to be silent about its harmful welfarist campaigns. I, on the other hand, do not suggest ignoring PeTA for this reason. To the contrary, I think it is important to discuss and understand why PeTA’s welfarist campaigns seriously harm non-human animals, but once this is understood and an activist is now practicing rights advocacy, she or he should not focus on PeTA. Instead, it would help non-human animals much more to focus on vegan education. That does not mean we should accept every kind of activism – including welfarist activism – as furthering the interests of non-human animals. Welfarism harms non-human animals, we should understand why but we should not dwell on the matter because, if we do, we will not be creating a vegan world. I hope you can appreciate these key distinctions.

I fully acknowledge that PeTA – as well as its meat, egg and dairy industry counterparts – are very destructive. Why do I not focus on the meat industry; the fact that McDonald’s, Hungry Jack’s, Wendy’s, KFC and their suppliers undertake certain actions? Three reasons. First, as an abolitionist, the only demands I can make of them is to close down or become vegan businesses; things that for-profit corporations are not likely to do when the majority of the population continues to consume animal products. Second, as previously discussed, making successful welfarist demands only results in non-human animals being seriously harmed. Third, the only reason why the meat, egg and dairy industries and their retailers exist is because the public keeps them in business. So, I address the problem at its roots: creating a vegan world one person at a time will lead to the abolition of the meat, egg and dairy industries and their retailers. That is why I focus on the public, not the industries.

Similarly, as Francione notes, PeTA and the rest of the animal welfare industry are no different in substance from the “humane” animal charities that existed in the 1950s. As I have argued, the animal product industries and PeTA can be placed in the same category. They are both merely symptoms of the same underlying problem that most humans view other animals as resources. It is this pervasive idea that I seek to challenge when I do vegan education. PeTA will fade away by itself (or transform itself into an abolitionist organisation) at the same time that the animal product industries will fade away by themselves (or transform themselves into vegan businesses): all as a result of vegan education for the public and abolitionist education for vegans and vegan activists. So, just as I do not focus on whether KFC murders chickens by slitting their throats, electrocuting them or gassing them, I likewise do not focus my activist attention on what PeTA has to say about that. Again, KFC’s killing methods and what PeTA has to say about them amount to the same thing. It is much more effective to do vegan and abolitionist education.

Whether one endorses PeTA’s glitzy, sexist and destructive campaigns or whether one rejects these campaigns but nevertheless dwells on PeTA’s every move, the spotlight is still always on PeTA. Would a sincere rights activist do the same for the meat industry? As activists, we need to get over PeTA and start doing what really matters; creating a vegan world. For animal activists who do not understand the destructiveness of the animal welfare industry, it may be worthwhile to explain things using PeTA as an example. As animal rights activists, however, our time should not be spent cataloguing and complaining about the intricacies and controversy surrounding PeTA’s latest escapade. Rather, we should spend our time and energy on the things that actually make a difference to non-human animals. I am happy to answer your PeTA questions but I encourage your animal rights activist readers to truly reject PeTA, stop giving it the spotlight and focus instead on real grassroots activism. The same is true of the Australian groups that purport to work for rights but nevertheless have welfarist campaigns. The viable alternative to focusing on welfarist groups is doing abolitionist vegan education.

Q.  Did PeTA lose it’s radical rights agenda because nothing was done consistently by this group, over a period of time, to challenge a distinctly American neo-conservative political agenda OR is the neo-conservative agenda that exerts itself in the U.S.  today too strong to resist once PETA moved inside a welfarist position (especially humane slaughter practices) and then, no surprises, PETA was absorbed back into the system rather than offering resistance to an already corrupt oligarchy?

A.  Both. Using Francione’s term, PeTA started out as a new welfarist organisation; one whose goal was abolition but whose means of supposedly achieving that goal were welfarist. As Francione argues in Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of The Animal Rights Movement, this new welfarist method is flawed in theory and is counterproductive in practice. Welfarist theory is not rightist; it is founded in the utilitarian theory of Peter Singer, which allows for meat-eating and vivisection, as Francione notes. So PeTA never had a radical rights agenda and, yes, it never did anything consistently over time to challenge the status quo. That is why it has never and will never achieve any progress toward its sometimes-professed goal of abolition. In this case, the status quo is the status of non-human animals as property and is not distinctly American. Welfarist activists can be found all over the world and the results are the same as American welfarism. More generally, as Chomsky argues, the “conservative” agenda of maintaining and increasing elite private profit and power at the expense of everyone else is not new and the only reason why America is distinct in this regard is because it has managed to do it better than its predecessor, England and its European competitors. So, yes, PeTA never challenged this. These days, it seems that PeTA does not speak of a rightist or abolitionist goal at all unless it is merely doing so for rhetorical purposes. In any case, PeTA’s means were never radical or rightist and that is why it has not furthered the interests of non-human animals.

Also, as you say, PeTA does not resist the status quo agenda of maximising elite private profit and power – far from it – and this also applies to the more specific example of non-human animals as legal property and the “humane” slaughter laws that go along with it. As I already discussed, there is a symbiotic, mutually satisfying, relationship between PeTA and the non-human animal exploitation industries, although I am sure PeTA staff would sincerely deny that relationship.

Q.  Why is the message of ‘compassion’ not enough and is the prevention of suffering synonymous with welfarism or rights, or both or none?

A.  Francione has objected that the eco-feminist ethic of care cannot be of any use to human women or non-human animals if either are regarded as property. For example, if a human woman is the property of her father or husband and is being exploited for sex it is nonsensical and contradictory to say that she is being raped “caringly”. The same is true of a cow who is the property of a farmer who rapes her via artificial insemination so that she can be exploited for her milk. Thus, Francione concludes that basic rights must ground any eco-feminist ethic of care and act as a moral baseline. After this is done, an ethic of care may surpass the bare minimum of protection that rights provide. I would add that the same is true of an ethic of compassion. Animal rights philosopher David Sztybel, however, argues that a feminist ethic of care could be so compelling and deep-seated in the future that it affords exactly the same protection that rights currently do and much more. Again, the same could be true of an ethic of Compassion. It is perhaps this latter sense of Compassion that accords with ancient Buddhist dharma.  Referring to “compassion” with a lower case ‘c’ is the sort of compassion that works very well when it is applied to humans who have basic rights but fails miserably when it is applied to anyone who lacks those rights. It is not enough to be “compassionate” towards non-human animals in this sense because, as Francione might say, they cannot be raped with compassion and “humane” slaughter is an oxymoron.

You ask whether the prevention of suffering is synonymous with welfarism or rights, or both or none?

Yes. The prevention of suffering is synonymous with welfarism insofar that such prevention is welfarism’s alleged primary focus. The prevention of suffering is not synonymous with welfarism insofar that welfarism must necessarily fail in preventing the overwhelming majority of suffering that is inflicted upon non-human animals in institutionalised settings. The only suffering that welfarism actually does succeed in preventing is the suffering that might result from economically wasteful practices.

The prevention of suffering is part of rights theory and practice because the violation of basic rights is the root cause of suffering in exploitative settings. Moreover, respecting the basic right not to be property prevents individuals from suffering as a result of being exploited since doing so prevents the exploitation itself. However, the prevention of suffering is not the primary focus of rights theory and practice but is rather the logical conclusion of this theory and practice.