
English: 
 
 
Well, before beginning, it is possible to make a clarification, for those who are not very familiar with the subject.
"Animal liberation" does not mean that animals are rational human agents, in search of their freedom and that they can self-emancipate, or things like anthropomorphization.
Although it can be discussed whether there is a linguistic or ideological burden in the speech of Singer and Francione.

Spanish: 
*

English: 
But beyond of this, Animal liberation refers to a democratic society, without or with much less (in sense qualitative) exploitation and tyranny towards animals.
This painting by the Catalan painter, Joan Miró, called “Le Coq” expresses more or less this idea of ​​Animal Liberation
those animals that are subject to deplorable living conditions of exploitation and oppression,
and the work of human beings for your release of his pain, not natural, but arbitrary, committed by the industry.
[Repetition].
What I wanted to look a little or what is under discussion is: first, if it makes sense or not to talk about "Animal Liberation."
 
And second, if it's possible or not.

English: 
Well, my problem was a comparative study of Animal Liberation in two referents of contemporary animal ethics and politics.
On the one hand, Singer, Australian philosopher, who began to elaborate his concept in 73-75 until our days.
In the other hand, Gary Francione, an American philosopher and Lawyer, who has started since 93.
The point is that both are usually placed at the antipodes: one is an abolitionist position, which in principle is against all forms of objectification to the animals.
And the other hand, is Singer, which according to Francione, is new-welfarist, that is, it points to a maximized animal welfare, even if it has an Animal Liberation end on the horizon.
So, I wanted to do a comparative study between both authors.

English: 
In a brief investigation of the state of the art and the justification related to it, I found that: first, there is no bilateral dialogue between Singer and Francione as such.
One does not answer the arguments, criticisms and objections of the other, so there are no communicating vessels.
And there is also no dialogue with the Marxists. Singer and Francione have good criticisms of Marxism, so there is a gap in that regard.
Also in what is called Applied Ethics or Moral Philosophy, although there are some comparative studies, there is a tendency to relegate Francione as radical and eccentric.
And there is also an approach that I call hermetic or ethicist, which tends to look at absolute divergences between both, in a formal logic.

English: 
Finally, I found that contemporary Marxism, the deficit is absolute. These two authors have not been specifically analyzed. At most what there are studies that today we could call ecological, but nothing more.
And in Critical Animal Studies, something similar operates, there are interdisciplinary studies of a sociological nature but not of a philosophical nature.
And there is also a hermeneutic from Marx and Engels about what they said and didn't say about animals, but nothing more.
So my work wanted how, let's say it, contribute in "something", seeing this bibliographic void.
The methodology used was a Marxist analysis.
The operational or epistemological definition is that it is a critical research paradigm
of the social sciences and human sciences, including philosophy.

English: 
And it is also a socialist tradition of social movements, of the Left and of the working class.
In short: Marxism is a theory-praxis of Liberation.
That is, the proletarian liberation, as a precondition, unequal and combined, of generic human liberation and other possibles...
... whether it makes sense or not to speak of "animal liberation".
The other issue is a dialectical logic.
I wanted to look for convergences as well as divergences, moral and political, of Animal Liberation in both authors, in contemporary capitalism.
And given the variety, heterogeneity, plurality of Marxist currents in contemporary Marxism, all my work assumed these three axes.
The first is that it is, let's say so, anti-Stalinist. This was not born with the fall of the Berlin Wall,

English: 
but comes from the 20s of the last century [with Leon Trotsky and Critical Theory, etc.],
and is a commitment to the relationship between capitalist exploitation and oppressions.
Among them, the one made to the body of animals, their material conditions of life, human and non-human.
Then, this is far from an economicist, dogmatic, class reductionist or totalitarian vision, as Stalinism proclaimed,
but it is somewhat alien to the Historical Materialism of Marx and Engels.
Second, it is non-speciesist. In this way, I return to the elaborations of the Marxist philosopher, Renzo Llorente
in that, if the commitment to a "transtopia", that is, to an integral liberation of Socialism,
is a permanent revolution of social relations, including human-human, each.
Potentially, that alteration would have effects on the relationship of humans with animals and the rest of the nature.

English: 
So, inquire about the conditions of possibility or impossibility not only of human liberation, but also animal.
And third, is that it is socio-ecological. That is to say, that Dialectical Materialism is a relationship of nature-society
like this image, the spiral of geological time [Geological Survey of the United States (USGS)], we are, there in the Holocene.
And the bet is that Marxism is an open system and critical system, to theories, natural and social sciences, phenomena, in this case, anti-speciesist discourse.
The objectives or paths that I pursued in this investigation were two:
the first, to show a common liberal convergence between Singer and Francione.
Not as such a Principle of Identity (A = B) or metaphysical, of A is B and B is A,

English: 
but rather a Principle of Convergence [Intersection] or contradiction.
that is, A and B have n common elements.
Both theories have common elements that make them converge,
in this case a fundamental ethical-political convergence [or identity in the differences].
The second objective was to find, analyze or raise potentialities and limitations of the liberal, neo-welfarist or abolitionist concept of Animal Liberation.
Well, the # 1 result I found was: on the one hand 7 or 8 divergences, compared to 5 five convergences.
I will not stop at all of them, but more than anything else at convergences, but I list them.
1) Epistemological and metaethical differences.

English: 
On the one hand we have Singer a utilitarian ethic based on cost-benefit reasoning, pain minimization and so on.
And on the other hand, we have Francione with a more deontological ethic of more rigid rules about not reifying animals, a little more unconditioned.
That difference is fundamental.
On the other hand, as regards the moral judgments: Francione poses a Moral Realism,
that is, for example, a statement of "it is wrong to violate humans and animals" is a true statement, independent of the issuer and the context,
that is to say , an Objective Idealism in ethics.
While Singer raises the point, moral judgments are due to emotions and the sociobiological evolution of species,
but that there is a tendency of humans and ethics, rather, to raise universal and rational judgments [Rational Constructivism].
2) The second difference is in the means of action.

English: 
Francione poses for this Animal Liberation, abolitionist reforms, that is, prohibitive and restricted reforms of not doing things.
While Singer are more neo-welfare reforms, that is, to minimize pain effectively, although it also contemplates some prohibitions, on several levels.
3) Different moral principles.
On the one hand, the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests. That is, take into account in a more or less symmetrical way the animal and human sentience.
And on the Francione side it is a Principle of the Right to Not Be Considered Things / Property, shared by humans and animals.

English: 
4) Both have different notions of what is Rights and Personality, applied to animals or some of them.
5) A comparative moral calculation. Both do not give equal weight to human and animal life, both based on sentience.
6) Singer promotes a Heterodox Veganism and Francione a more Orthodox Veganism.
7) As opinions or political preferences.
Singer promove a Left Darwinism, an Australian and Scandinavian Social Democracy. While Francione is an American Democratic Socialism.
8) Other nuances and singularities.
As the argument for the replaceability and ethics of killing animals, which was shown there.

English: 
What I wanted to focus on was convergence. Something that has not been much emphasized. The study found five.
1) Anti-specist moral end: both are in favor of liberating animals.
This is crucial because unlike the 18th and 19th century, Jeremy Bentham or Henry Salt, posed a humanitarian industry of non-abuse of animals.
These authors go a little further, and propose to dismantle the animal exploitation industry or structural tyranny to animals.
For example, both are against the intensive agroindustry and advocate gradual dismantling it, both are against the animal entertainment industry,
and both are against what we call vivisection or animal experimentation (with exceptions)
Then, both have the same moral teleology. Even Francione acknowledges this to Singer, he says:

English: 
the neo-welfarists seek Animal Liberation or abolition, but with different means and will not achieve the end.
That is, both have different media, but they have a common teleology.
2) Both promote a sensocentric ontology.
That is, the moral consideration of both is based on the sentience that animals and humans have,
thus varying the quantitative and qualitative quotas of pain and pleasure.
And there is a great notion of protection of interspecies individuals.
Although one is deontological and the other is utilitarian, there are strong notions of moral individuality, even if animals aren't agents.
3) Reformulated liberal values.
There is the interspecies equality, the universalism of egalitarian moral values.

English: 
A secular liberal ethic and a rational individual-agent that is that human subject that operates at the institutional, social and personal level, in defense of animals.
4) The reforms are peaceful.
Although one raises welfarist and other abolitionists, both promote liberal pacifism.
That is, a series of tactics of direct nonviolent action, civil disobedience and a gradual dismantling of these exploitation or oppressive practices in contemporary bourgeois democracies.
5) A common political preference and common political goal in both.
And, both Singer and Francione propose Animal and Human Liberation in a reformed capitalism.
For example, Francione says verbatim: "I prefer democratic capitalism to oligarchic capitalism" and gives a number of reasons in favor of it.

English: 
While Singer states:
"I am in favor of an cooperative society and effective altruistic, which increases the welfare share for humans and animals, I am against a totalitarian state."
Then, both promote a reformist model of Capital.
Well, here the central question is: why a convergence? If we have on the one hand 7 or 8 or more divergences and on the other hand 5 convergences, why the emphasis on our research on convergence?
I have two reasons: the first one is because literature has not delved into the convergences that both have,
and the second one, because our Marxist analysis gave a high value or weighting to the subjective political preference of the authors, even though both authors as such, do not have a political theory.

English: 
For us, the Animal Liberation of the authors, they pose it on an immanent or intrasystemic level, that is, both want Animal Liberation in the current capitalist mode of production.
These two subsets of theories operate within a larger set that is the capitalist system.
To see it, for example, both propose a profound reform of the animal exploitation industry, how?
Dismantling gradually the Animal Industrial Complex, a very important sector of the capitalist economy. But maintaining relations of private property and also a reform of bourgeois democratic states.

English: 
That is, the Animal Liberation is raised in democratic states that are against speciesism, but are also against "classism", although both authors do not propose abolishing classes, or that the working class governs, or anything like that .
But they are against racism, sexism, capacitism, colonialism, xenophobia, homophobia, and so on.
That is, a compendium of negative discriminations or oppressions, which the authors consider unjustified and must be overcome.
That there is this weighting does not mean that the singularities or divergences between both are annulled.
We point out in the synthesis: the utilitarian welfare of Singer and the deontic abolition of Francione with "X characteristics", maintaining the differences between the two.
But, nevertheless, convergence is maintained, this is crucial because for us Animal Liberation is not an apolitical concept but an ethical-political concept,

English: 
of five moral and political elements, that make a more global philosophical idea: a democratic liberal society post-specist.
That is, a "democratic capitalism" where there are: an anti-speciesist moral end, a zoo-sensocentric ontology, reformulated liberal values, peaceful reforms, and a common political preference, which is where the concept of Animal Liberation is operationalized.
The result # 2 is a serie of potentialities and limitations. It is worth saying that the majority of hegemonic theories, both Marxist and liberal, do not see potentialities in the anti-speciesist discourse.
Here we look in a dialogue, look at them.
First, both authors or concepts have an anti-speciesist ethical critique of the animal reification of capital.

English: 
For example, Singer questions intensive agribusiness, extensive livestock, and also what has been called lately as agroecology or sustainable livestock models.
What its concept transgresses is the logic of capital, which has high environmental costs, also for consumers and workers in terms of prices and their working conditions. And also to animals, for the high rates of suffering.
In other words, the concept has a reality in front of itself, which are the advanced industrial societies with which they quarrel and seek to radically reform, for example, and dismantle.
The same occurs with Francione. When it makes a legal-moral link between Private Property Rights and Animal Property rights in particular, it makes that link and criticizes all the reifications that this industry has, in particular.

English: 
The second potential of both authors is a theoretical and ethical denaturation of Speciesism. This is somewhat complicated because he quarrels with common sense.
For example, both authors quarrel with an omnivorous diet of most human groups in 200,000 years.
And what this expresses is that for the authors Speciesism is not a natural phenomenon, as such, or invariable social, it can change. For both of them it is a cultural phenomenon, which has changed backwards, and will change over time.
The explanation that we give, is that it is not entirely utopian, absolutely utopian, to propose an Animal Liberation or a post-speciesist democratic liberal society.

English: 
But this has a real base, which is operating, and is the development of the productive forces of modern and contemporary capital.
For example: the passage of the force of animal shot to the machines; the transition from animal fats to plant energy, oil and others, for industry and electricity; a rural entertainment industry to an urban one without animals, a fur industry to a synthetic one.
That is to say, all these reconversions of capital, are what allow these two philosophers to see a share of real possibility of their anti-speciesist concepts.
The limitations that we saw in this investigation is that: (1) in both there is a deficit of an anti-capitalist critique.

English: 
We look at it in the two moral principles of the authors. And the argument is that there is no link between speciesism and capitalism, the subsystems do not look at a global system.
2) is a deficit of a strategic approach, of how these means of action or reforms turn out to be materializable in the political sphere.
Because both authors say: Animal and Human Liberation, that is, they propose a series of colossal changes without an anti-capitalist revolution.
At most, what they propose is an "ethical revolution" of the heart, of enlightened reason and culture, a supposed revolution in the superstructure, but not in the infrastructure of altering productive social relations.

English: 
The explanation we give is that there is a powerful deployment of destructive forces of capital, marked in: anthropogenic climate change, the sixth mass extinction of species, loss of biodiversity, the energy crisis and the peak oil.
Far from any prognosis, there is a deployment of intensive agribusiness that increases the reification of animals, and also some cyclical crises of overproduction and over accumulation,
which they pose is a civilizational crisis and a collapse of this system of 200 or 500 years, which gives a highly probable systemic impossibility, of commitment to a post-speciesist democratic society, and even in a socialist society, whether or not it is speciesist. We live in a crisis of liberation bets.

English: 
Well, at the end of the work, as an outline, there is a suggestion of what to do with those powers and limits? The first is a Transtopia.
In other words, we do not need a liberal utopia or a socialist utopia in its negative connotation, that is, it will never operate in the space-time of human societies.
But neither is a liberal topology or topic, which is the one proposed by Singer and Francione. That is to say, an Animal and Human Liberation in a supposed "Reformed Capitalism", based on something real, which are the development of the real forces of production and possible technological and cultural reconversions, in the future. No.
What we need is a Transtopia Society (i.e. feasible socialist society) [Scientific socialism], that is, to transform the current mode of production and political power into the hands of the working class, in which materialization or harmony with these ethics principles is much more compatible, of Francionean and Singerian anti-speciesism.

English: 
The second is an approach to material needs, following Marx's category of "material conditions of existence."
And what it raises is that: we have to consider morally and politically work and human life in its diversity, but also the sentience of animal bodies. But we must go beyond liberal zoo-sensocentrism ... and even liberal rationalism based on abstract individuals,
attending for example to plant species, which are not sentient, for example: trees, mountains, flowers, plants, ecosystems, due to the magnitude of the socio-ecological crisis of Capital.

English: 
And the third is an Integral Liberation. Basically, what it raises is that the idea of ​​Animal Liberation is a radical, radical constitutive idea ... and that therefore a Permanent Revolution is proposed.
It is not that history is in constant revolutions or things like that, but if in those lapses of revolutions, the bet is: to raise human liberation and as far as possible according to differentiated material needs, that of animals.
And with a Transition Program, which sometimes bet on non-violent, sometimes violent, and a selectivity of reforms, both abolitionist and welfarists.
But not staying in the "animalist niche", but environmental, ecological, social, political and economic demands of and from the working class towards the oppressed human and the rest of nature, that is, from a revolutionary class point of view.

English: 
The conclusions is that this is an open discussion and I summarize the possible contributions that can be negative or positive for the discussion.
The first: in contrast to the traditional position of Animal / Ethical Studies, the ethicism of Singer and Francione, and animalist social activism, there is a fundamental liberal ethical-political convergence between the authors, contrary to what the majority of the bibliography.
Two: the thesis is dialectical materialist, in no way denies or cancels the important political ethical differences, the singularities and tensions between the two authors. It never traces a principle of identity of concepts, but maintains contradiction and identity in difference, in the first.

English: 
Third: from a socialist dialogue that was intended in this degree work. What is meant is that there are valuable potentials and significant limitations of the authors' concepts, from which contemporary Marxism can learn and enrich itself.
And fourth: that the 5 convergences found, the 8 divergences and the 2 potentialities and limitations, plus this proposal of conceptual reformulation and Marxist approach used, can be useful for future research in Practical Philosophy, Critical Animal Studies and Social Sciences. And well ... Welcome to the debate!
Carlos Miguel: Thank you very much Sergio.
Comment and questions David Zambrano Hernández [Jury 1]: I see a very clear route plan for your project, so I wanted to congratulate you first for that. And I have several questions. I'm going to start with a few and then we'll see if we continue or not.

English: 
One of the issues that catches my attention is that you are moving between evaluative ethics, considering whether something is right or not, through the Singer and Francione comparison, to a prescriptive issue of political change.
Then, thinking that you are making a criticism of Liberalism, two questions arise: how does it happen, when you talk about Francione, for good reasons, for your deontological ethics, you say that you have to move from the moral principle to a legal obligation, and in that seems to agree with Francione.
And from a political philosophy perspective, when you are putting together a whole theory around that, that is how it legitimizes that.

English: 
You finally say: "Hey, I want to do a Transtopia." The question is how that change is validated: through a democratic logic, in which the center of moral value is autonomy and the capacity for participation?
That is, how do you combine the way to get these moral principles out to make a legitimate political transformation? It is one of the things as important and perhaps one of the reasons why Singer is so "lean" in his political opinions. That is the first question.
I put another question to discuss, if we have time. How do you think that your conclusions and these contributions are mixed with other discussions that you mention tangentially like abortion, euthanasia, in which Singer gets, Francione also gets.
What would be your conclusions, how does this go into linking with other debates?

English: 
Not only abortion and euthanasia, but for example, when you speak to the pure end, and in that was not in the Thesis: of one thing that is happening, Colombia is a pioneer of giving Rights to the rivers, or something like that.
Based on what kind of considerations this is done, if sentience is what generates all this convergence that you speak in the thesis. And I no longer overwhelm him.
Sergio response:... From a global perspective, my Thesis was a Marxist [comparative] analysis, not a critical analysis, in the sense of "I am going to break down the idea of ​​Animal Liberation and I am going to propose an alternative proposal." It was not my goal.

English: 
Perhaps in the end these three options are outlined, but for future research, I did not seek to substantiate them.
However, I think that the restlessness is more that step from the ethical to the political, from the legal, and how to articulate it. I think that's a good question,
because most texts talk about Singer and Francione's Ethics, period. Here I return to the category of a “political preference” of both that we can find in its texts, not only marginal, interviews,
but for example in Singer's book on the Darwinian Left or in a Manifesto de Francione (1993) with two people [Sue Coe & Anna Chartlon], why the Left should adopt Animal Rights.

English: 
I did not seek to justify that, but I do believe that a “political leap” can be made without posing that both raise an ideal democratic state [or political theory], but they do raise an idea of ​​a democratic society without or with much less (qualitative) exploitation and tyranny towards animals. That is first.
The second is that I believe they are Liberal Ethics, because the basis on which they are both is to be against "discrimination." I think that is fundamental, for them, instrumentalizing animals is arbitrary, somehow.
And I think that is combined with the debates of abortion and euthanasia [both are in favor of it]. And I think we should spin very fine, because the theory is usually disqualified, especially that of Singer as:

English: 
"No, you are considering an active ethic and position in favor of killing infant children or people with major disabilities." No.
That is a technical argument [of marginal cases or species overlap], of bringing comparisons between human and non-human beings to the limit, who do not have great cognitive abilities, but have that feeling, not otherwise.
But I think that in both there is an idea of Animal Liberation and Human Liberation that operates in an indistinct anti-discriminatory way.
Now, about the rights of the environment, rights of nature or right to the environment. Francione's definition of Rights is the protection of an interest, of someone who wants or prefers to avoid pain and get pleasure, to live.

English: 
From that point of view, one could not speak of environmental rights, because there is no minimum psychophysical interest of plants, rivers, of deciding what they want or not. In that sense, it is valid.
But in a reformulation, one can propose a protection of an interest, even in the most anthropocentric sense, depending on a human community or on the basis of a group of animals. That could be.
In Singer's case, I like his definition of Right more, he raises in a totally anti-metaphysical way, not substantial, he says: a Right is a measure of protection, but that is not inalienable to any being, neither human or animal.

English: 
But utilitatively, we can assign a weight to avoid negative costs and favor negative costs. In that sense, it would also make sense to talk about “environmental law” or something. My point is that both could be considered from a purely anthropocentric or zoocentric point of view.
David: Without contradiction with what you defend? That is, to defend the environment from a purely anthropocentric perspective.
Sergio: Yes, Singer and Francione, they say, for us nature does not have an intrinsic moral but instrumental consideration, depending on animals and humans [their sentience or interests].

English: 
What I raise, is only a perspective, is that one can talk about environmental rights or nature, although I am not interested in the solution-issue of liberal rights, but protection, in terms of a Socio-Ecological Crisis of Capital, which is destroying the conditions that make life more complex ... the animal and the human.
Comment Beira Aguilar Rubiano [Jury 2]: Well, we have already somehow discussed the previous evaluations. Like David, I think that the first version to the final version, you did a polish job, which was necessary and that is important. And I think it helps you to express better the thesis you raised in the document.

English: 
I have a concern and some questions arise. My concern is related to the use of Marxism or a Marxist perspective, to make a critical evaluation, an approach to these two authors.
In principle it seems novel and interesting and it does throw some perspectives that were suddenly vetoed by this position that has become exclusive and extreme between the utilitarian conception of Singer and the deontological conception of Francione.
I find that analytical perspective interesting. But, at the same time that it is interesting, several questions arise.

English: 
One of the conclusions is that, finally independently between the differences between the utilitarianism of Singer and the normativism of Francione, finally your analysis shows that both are on the same plane, and it is the plane of Liberalism.
By virtue of that, I don't know how you think about it, or what the limitations of this analytical approach might be, while, in addition to throwing that conclusion, what types of Liberalism do not differ, and it would be important to point out what types of Liberalism.
In some thesis sections you don't just talk about Liberalism, but about Political Liberalism. And I think that a problem or a question that arises, is well: and how is it that you understand here that liberal convergence?

English: 
And it is indeed a political liberalism, or of what kind, or if perhaps there would be differences within that same liberal perspective, there would be important differences in these two authors. That would be the first question.
The second question is related to this general concern. If I understood you well, your criticism, precisely because of the analytical approach you chose, focuses a lot on production, on the production system.
Where nonhuman animals turn out to be a group that suffers oppression, exploitation, violence, etc., which from this point of view of Animal Liberation are reproachable and problematic.
But, by virtue of this, you focused on convergences and I understand that. But here I would perhaps like to emphasize the divergences between Singer and Francione.

English: 
This criticism of Francione to Property Law, I don't know if from the Marxist approach, it could be exploited much better or be drawn to its conclusions. And here my question is, although I understand and you explain why focus on the problem of production,
how could you also, from the analytical approach you choose, go further in this criticism, or this questioning of property rights over animals, to which Francione is pointing:
I refer to other areas, other dimensions, where the right of ownership over animals or the notion that animals are "something" that we appropriate...
Sergio: Can be more benign?

English: 
Beira: No, it takes effect, I do not know if it is more benign or not, the only thing is how to raise this discussion that you are putting there, not only on the capitalist production system, understood as the production of goods, but also as a system of "symbolic production", where the relations between human and non-human animals are measured.
I am thinking about the whole problem of having or not having pets, that is, when you have a pet, a possible interpretation of this is: you live in the space in which I determine you, which is the space where you have to live.  Somehow, there is a relationship of appropriation there.

English: 
My question is: if the same approach suddenly has no limitations or how it could be extended, it made Francione's critique of the right of ownership of animals understood, to other areas beyond the industrial production of animals.
Sergio: Hmmm...OK, maybe if there is a generality of what "Liberalism" or "Political Liberalism" means.
The Marxist definition we give at work is that it is a [dominant] political and ethical reflection on the individual and society, within the framework of a bourgeois democratic state, in the capitalist mode of production.
A reflection on individual and collective "freedom", but that always falls within this [intrasystemic and never leaves it, legitimizes and reform] set.
What I found is that the breakdown of these two authors [Singer and Francione] is that it is like an anti-speciesist reformulation of Liberalism.

English: 
And, both Marxism and Liberalism are "classical welfarist". Both propose a democratic society with high levels of well-being, but do not marry an idea of ​​"Animal Liberation", at all, not at all.
I think that it is basically, that is, what they do is an anti-speciesist reformulation and in several parts of the text I say that it is a Progressive [or socioliberal] Liberalism, it is what is in them.
Obviously, the differences are that one is utilitarian, the other is deontological, one is more prone to American "Democratic Socialism", another to a Scandinavian /Australian court.

English: 
But if I accept that we should look more with watermark...but, in part, I think this is because both authors do not speak or take the step, as other authors have already done [Sue Donaldson & Will Kymlicka]: "We are going to make a political theory of animals." And in that sense, I do believe that we would have to differentiate more.
I recognize that Marxism by its revolutionary constitution tends to be a bit anti-normative, tends to be more explanatory and transgressive, tends to leave that possibility more open.
And in that sense, it does have an ethical and political deficit, of foundation, etc. But I think that is the challenge of theoretical renewal [or revolution], not only of Marxism but in general of contemporary political theories.
Because the anthropocentric "modern matrix" is something that makes Traditional Liberalism more conservative, both Hegemonic Marxism, more Stalinist.

English: 
The second, about material production, if the scope of criticism, or the scope of compression, would be alone in that, I would think not. In the Marxist rereading we made of the potentialities and limits of Francione:
first, there is a notion of "law" that is very abstract. The notion of Francione's "criticism of property" is very abstract, because what he says is that it is basically generated by "exploitation" is the same domestic or personal possession, since the Neolithic, the same appropriation of the animal as a "thing". Domestication is like the "Cause."
What we propose is that: No! We must place ourselves not in an ancient [metaphysical] anthropocentrism but in the concrete conditions where capitalism develops and where the concept of both authors operates.

English: 
But we emphasize that the author also criticizes the superstructure. He criticizes the capital judicial system, the cultural system. And that is a sample, that you have to go back and forth:
between material production (that is, "poiesis"), cultural ideological "ideas", and "praxis", which are the actions social and political, legal and institutional.
Although I emphasized the material production in Francione, because it seemed something great or constitutive of what we call "discriminatory treatment."

English: 
I think that also, when I talked about the theoretical and ethical denaturation of Specism, that cultural aspect was also prevalent, which is the most difficult, because, let's say, workers have those same habits ...
David:  In part, only in part, I don't know, I now see more clearly with your answers, as your task is more descriptive and more to find the gap in the literature and try to get there to open debates.

English: 
But it really catches my attention, where would you go, already thinking about the next past, if I were to give it. Because his text is clearly very concerned about the activist side and the activist justification for this type of concept. Not only a delimitation, and a definition, but it is an instrumentalization for its political use.
I would like to know a little more, where you would point, knowing that it was not the objective of the thesis, I would like to know what kind of argumentative direction you would take, to decide to take that step.
Sergio: Hmmm [laughs]…well I hadn't thought about it. No. What I think is that in both theories they do not speak in the abstract of “means of action” or “reforms”. They propose a reformist program.
A program of what measures would be in favor or agreement, and that makes the analysis we did, and that is to say, ethical-political convergences, they pose changes in the institutional framework.

English: 
Francione proposes normative or prohibitive laws, prohibiting practices, prohibiting, I don't know, zoophilia with animals, bullfighting, trade with wildlife. What he raises is an abolitionist movement, he calls it "base" [...] The reforms are there and the means of action, which are not only moral but political.

English: 
My interest is that: I believe that, in a very "gross" way, the concern is quite "incarnate." I consider that the Left Parties and the Labor and Social Movement must have a program. Just as many "green parties" or "progressive liberals" programs have.
I think there is a deficit that needs to be corrected. And that if we think of a democratic society WITHOUT or WITH MUCH LESS [qualitative] degree of exploitation and tyranny towards animals... if even Liberation is materially impossible..., we must bet on those means, or revolutionary anti-capitalist program.
Carlos Miguel: Ready? Thank you very much to all. We ask you the favor of leaving the room for about five minutes, while the jurors deliberate and pass...

English: 
[Decision] As well as the novel nature of the work that manages to link ethical reflection with politics, and seeks to fill a gap in the Critical Animal Studies. They remain to develop interesting topics that open at work. From that, it is considered that the work is approved, thank you very much, congratulations...
Eduardo Rincón Higuera [Thesis Director]: I think the most pertinent thing would be to publish it in the Journal of Critical Animal Studies, the international version.
Precisely because it denounces, or better, states and shows that there is a gap there, and in your text it begins to fill it.
So I think the most pertinent thing would be to think about polishing it, at least for her. We could already look at the national level
Marce: and open the debate, insteresting.
Eduardo: And probably also, as it is a concern of yours and you mentioned it, it is an important publication of the national Left in general, it would also be important to put it there, because it allows the debate within a sector that interests us that debate such issues...
Marce: Yes, that their programs be opened [or updated]...
