What do you think?
Rate this book
Making A Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights
Suggest to the average leftist that animals should be part of broader liberation struggles and—once they stop laughing—you'll find yourself casually dismissed.
With a focus on labor, property, and the life of commodities, Making a Killing contains key insights into the broad nature of domination, power, and hierarchy. It explores the intersections between human and animal oppressions in relation to the exploitative dynamics of capitalism.
Combining nuts-and-bolts Marxist political economy, a pluralistic anarchist critique, as well as a searing assessment of the animal rights movement, Bob Torres challenges conventional anti-capitalist thinking and convincingly advocates for the abolition of animals in industry—and on the dinner plate.
With a focus on labor, property, and the life of commodities, Making a Killing contains key insights into the broad nature of domination, power, and hierarchy. It explores the intersections between human and animal oppressions in relation to the exploitative dynamics of capitalism.
Combining nuts-and-bolts Marxist political economy, a pluralistic anarchist critique, as well as a searing assessment of the animal rights movement, Bob Torres challenges conventional anti-capitalist thinking and convincingly advocates for the abolition of animals in industry—and on the dinner plate.
185 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
34 people are currently reading
2139 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
October 1, 2011
This book links nonhuman oppression with human oppression; its audience is anarchists and other leftists, as well as activists who take a less-political stance.
We discussed this in book group last week and one of the comments against it is that it does not use feelings as a valid reason for stopping animal exploitation. I agree with this to an extent. There are far too many books promoting animal liberation that ignore the emotional aspect of nonhuman suffering. It would be ideal, I agree, if everyone could feel something for those who suffer. Personally, I cry at just about everything! I definitely come to animal rights from an emotional perspective. Yet I also am not about to throw out any strategy that helps end any oppression. Maybe you're a person who doesn't know how to feel; maybe you operate on logic. Maybe you're like the guy at the Occupy Asheville meeting who works with homeless and hungry humans and becomes very defensive about the mere concept of animal liberation ("humans have to come first"). This is where Torres' book comes in very handy.
He shows how nonhumans suffer just like humans under the oppression of capitalism. I think from reading this that he does, personally, also feel -- he has heart, the suffering he's witnessed hurts him -- but that his strategy is to focus on the oppression of the exploited by exploiter. He takes the political left to task for their complicity in exploiting animals, and he also takes many of the current animal activists groups to tasks.
He suggests that activists have lost our way by depending on the larger groups who simply seek donations and reassure you that they will take your money and act "on behalf of" nonhumans (his focus is primarily PeTA and HSUS). He explores this issue and encourages activists to rely on our own talents and creativity; to not depend on others to do activism for us, and to find common ground with other political organizations who focus on ending exploitation.
Overall, if you consider yourself a leftie politically, you should read this book.If you are a politically-inclined animal activist, you should read this book.
We discussed this in book group last week and one of the comments against it is that it does not use feelings as a valid reason for stopping animal exploitation. I agree with this to an extent. There are far too many books promoting animal liberation that ignore the emotional aspect of nonhuman suffering. It would be ideal, I agree, if everyone could feel something for those who suffer. Personally, I cry at just about everything! I definitely come to animal rights from an emotional perspective. Yet I also am not about to throw out any strategy that helps end any oppression. Maybe you're a person who doesn't know how to feel; maybe you operate on logic. Maybe you're like the guy at the Occupy Asheville meeting who works with homeless and hungry humans and becomes very defensive about the mere concept of animal liberation ("humans have to come first"). This is where Torres' book comes in very handy.
He shows how nonhumans suffer just like humans under the oppression of capitalism. I think from reading this that he does, personally, also feel -- he has heart, the suffering he's witnessed hurts him -- but that his strategy is to focus on the oppression of the exploited by exploiter. He takes the political left to task for their complicity in exploiting animals, and he also takes many of the current animal activists groups to tasks.
He suggests that activists have lost our way by depending on the larger groups who simply seek donations and reassure you that they will take your money and act "on behalf of" nonhumans (his focus is primarily PeTA and HSUS). He explores this issue and encourages activists to rely on our own talents and creativity; to not depend on others to do activism for us, and to find common ground with other political organizations who focus on ending exploitation.
Overall, if you consider yourself a leftie politically, you should read this book.If you are a politically-inclined animal activist, you should read this book.
July 2, 2021
Nope. The author and I agree about a lot of things, but I did not like this book and wouldn’t recommend it to others. Most times he was stating the obvious and making generalizations about groups of other people (feminists, white supremacists, speciesists, animal welfarists, lifestyle vegans). The ONLY solid insights I found were quotations from other thinkers (Marx, Bookchin, and the like).
The author is REALLY self-conscious about how his words will be perceived by his hypothetical Reader and keeps trying to swat down arguments in advance… but there are so many possible audiences for this book that he can’t possibly anticipate the Reader’s viewpoint and it just feels like witnessing an argument between a person and their 6 invisible friends.
He also criticizes PETA and The Humane Society. Fine. This does not affect my stars but it did make me do a big fucking YAWN. Criticizing these orgs is just easy and lazy and it’s been done a thousand times. I don’t buy the author’s claims that PETA has “reified animals as commodities” and “made Faustian bargains with industry” because they made a handful of short-sighted decisions. If you can make a more uncompromising amazing organization, GREAT. Go ahead and be the man in the arena and DO IT.
I skipped several pages in this book where the author was just pointing out the hypocrisy of others. I’m not here for it.
The author is rigidly obsessed with his ideology, social anarchism. That’s all well and good, BUT it severely limits the strength of his contentions here. A strong idea can be explained without using your ideology as a crutch. The author starts out by making the case that animals are unwaged laborers (which I would honestly love to discuss with the communists in my life) but then drops it too early and leaves a lot of missed opportunity.
The author is REALLY self-conscious about how his words will be perceived by his hypothetical Reader and keeps trying to swat down arguments in advance… but there are so many possible audiences for this book that he can’t possibly anticipate the Reader’s viewpoint and it just feels like witnessing an argument between a person and their 6 invisible friends.
He also criticizes PETA and The Humane Society. Fine. This does not affect my stars but it did make me do a big fucking YAWN. Criticizing these orgs is just easy and lazy and it’s been done a thousand times. I don’t buy the author’s claims that PETA has “reified animals as commodities” and “made Faustian bargains with industry” because they made a handful of short-sighted decisions. If you can make a more uncompromising amazing organization, GREAT. Go ahead and be the man in the arena and DO IT.
I skipped several pages in this book where the author was just pointing out the hypocrisy of others. I’m not here for it.
The author is rigidly obsessed with his ideology, social anarchism. That’s all well and good, BUT it severely limits the strength of his contentions here. A strong idea can be explained without using your ideology as a crutch. The author starts out by making the case that animals are unwaged laborers (which I would honestly love to discuss with the communists in my life) but then drops it too early and leaves a lot of missed opportunity.
July 29, 2016
I’ve lately been listening to the small collection of archived Vegan Freak Radio podcasts hosted by Bob and Jenna Torres, so I figured I’d read their books.
Making a Killing is well-written, if dry, and the end result is spotty. Torres has a background dissimilar to that of most animal advocates: He majored in agricultural science and it was through the cold and mechanical view taught by his “animal science” classes that he began exploring a meat-free lifestyle. His familiarity with the world of Big Ag allows him to draw up some blackly humorous quotes from its major players. For example, United Egg Producers guidelines advise that “to minimize public distress, stunning, killing, and carcass disposal should be carried out away from public view.”
We also read of the ways in which the animal industry has sought to silence its critics. For example, the National Animal Interest Alliance, an industry mouthpiece that often poses itself as an animal welfare group, criticized the Animal Enterprise Protection Act as too timid and encouraged stronger legislation. A few years later, they got their wish with the infamous Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which counted among its supporters Congress’s most conservative and most liberal names.
The American left wing, radical, and anarchist communities have, as a whole, expressed no more interest in advancing the cause of animal rights than the right wing and conservative side. Torres argues that capitalism is inherently exploitative of its workers—whether they are disenfranchised humans or animals—and social progressives must add animals to their framework of concern if they wish to challenge the system of domination and hierarchy. However, this will be tough going. Torres admits he has noticed a shift in attitude among some of the students in his class, in which even the most radical and open-minded began pulling away from him once discovering their professor was a vegan who supported animal rights.
Torres has seen for himself how entrenched the consumptive use mindset regarding animals is, and that’s what makes it all the more perplexing (to me) that he is an abolitionist and fan of the controversial animal rights theologian Gary Francione. To understand the point of view of Francione and his abolitionists, let’s use a real-life example: if your state proposes a bill that would ban gestation crates for pigs in the pork industry, as a good activist you should oppose it, because the law doesn’t go far enough by abolishing the pork industry altogether nor challenging the legality of pigs as property. Yes, really.
Torres opposes Vegan.com editor Erik Marcus and his book Meat Market, which is, in my humble opinion, one of the best books ever written on the subject of factory farming. He criticizes Henry Spira, one of the most effective animal advocates in the history of the movement. Torres’ criticism is especially confusing, considering that unlike the abolitionist wing, Spira actually accomplished major goals for animals—some of which could be called abolition, such as stopping a series of bizarre sex experiments upon cats at the American Museum of Natural History (the first time in history an animal research project had ever been ended by anti-vivisectionists.) Torres’s quibble with Spira has to do with the latter’s point of view that pro-animal campaigns must be measured and doable “because if we ask for too much, we may get nothing.” Which is, well, absolutely true. As a parting note I’ll highlight Torres’s repeated injunctions against “gurus” in the movement—which is good, nobody has all the answers--but at the same time he has nothing but good things to say about Gary Francione.
Like most abolitionists, Torres dislikes the big groups of the animal movement. He charges that “mainstream organizations and activists have forged ties with industries that exploit animals.” This is true to a point. Working under the assumption that the meat, dairy, and egg industries are going nowhere soon, large organizations have sat down with CEOs and legislators to make some changes that would reduce suffering, if even a little bit. Torres finds this unacceptable, as mainstream animal activists end up promoting the work of slaughterhouse designers and merchants of free-range meat. He does not consider the perhaps more insidious ways in which big groups such as the ASPCA, HSUS, and American Humane are unwittingly colluding with the dog breeding lobby in their relentless promotion of fighting dogs. Even Gary Francione, who should by rights oppose dog breeds in general, and breeds developed for the purpose of mauling other animals specifically, has bought into this foolishness.
This story ends on a strange note. Despite being fairly well-known activists with substantial followings, Bob and Jenna Torres have seemingly left animal rights activism. They have taken down their websites and well-regarded podcasts, and no longer have any significant presence on the Internet.
Making a Killing is well-written, if dry, and the end result is spotty. Torres has a background dissimilar to that of most animal advocates: He majored in agricultural science and it was through the cold and mechanical view taught by his “animal science” classes that he began exploring a meat-free lifestyle. His familiarity with the world of Big Ag allows him to draw up some blackly humorous quotes from its major players. For example, United Egg Producers guidelines advise that “to minimize public distress, stunning, killing, and carcass disposal should be carried out away from public view.”
We also read of the ways in which the animal industry has sought to silence its critics. For example, the National Animal Interest Alliance, an industry mouthpiece that often poses itself as an animal welfare group, criticized the Animal Enterprise Protection Act as too timid and encouraged stronger legislation. A few years later, they got their wish with the infamous Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which counted among its supporters Congress’s most conservative and most liberal names.
The American left wing, radical, and anarchist communities have, as a whole, expressed no more interest in advancing the cause of animal rights than the right wing and conservative side. Torres argues that capitalism is inherently exploitative of its workers—whether they are disenfranchised humans or animals—and social progressives must add animals to their framework of concern if they wish to challenge the system of domination and hierarchy. However, this will be tough going. Torres admits he has noticed a shift in attitude among some of the students in his class, in which even the most radical and open-minded began pulling away from him once discovering their professor was a vegan who supported animal rights.
Torres has seen for himself how entrenched the consumptive use mindset regarding animals is, and that’s what makes it all the more perplexing (to me) that he is an abolitionist and fan of the controversial animal rights theologian Gary Francione. To understand the point of view of Francione and his abolitionists, let’s use a real-life example: if your state proposes a bill that would ban gestation crates for pigs in the pork industry, as a good activist you should oppose it, because the law doesn’t go far enough by abolishing the pork industry altogether nor challenging the legality of pigs as property. Yes, really.
Torres opposes Vegan.com editor Erik Marcus and his book Meat Market, which is, in my humble opinion, one of the best books ever written on the subject of factory farming. He criticizes Henry Spira, one of the most effective animal advocates in the history of the movement. Torres’ criticism is especially confusing, considering that unlike the abolitionist wing, Spira actually accomplished major goals for animals—some of which could be called abolition, such as stopping a series of bizarre sex experiments upon cats at the American Museum of Natural History (the first time in history an animal research project had ever been ended by anti-vivisectionists.) Torres’s quibble with Spira has to do with the latter’s point of view that pro-animal campaigns must be measured and doable “because if we ask for too much, we may get nothing.” Which is, well, absolutely true. As a parting note I’ll highlight Torres’s repeated injunctions against “gurus” in the movement—which is good, nobody has all the answers--but at the same time he has nothing but good things to say about Gary Francione.
Like most abolitionists, Torres dislikes the big groups of the animal movement. He charges that “mainstream organizations and activists have forged ties with industries that exploit animals.” This is true to a point. Working under the assumption that the meat, dairy, and egg industries are going nowhere soon, large organizations have sat down with CEOs and legislators to make some changes that would reduce suffering, if even a little bit. Torres finds this unacceptable, as mainstream animal activists end up promoting the work of slaughterhouse designers and merchants of free-range meat. He does not consider the perhaps more insidious ways in which big groups such as the ASPCA, HSUS, and American Humane are unwittingly colluding with the dog breeding lobby in their relentless promotion of fighting dogs. Even Gary Francione, who should by rights oppose dog breeds in general, and breeds developed for the purpose of mauling other animals specifically, has bought into this foolishness.
This story ends on a strange note. Despite being fairly well-known activists with substantial followings, Bob and Jenna Torres have seemingly left animal rights activism. They have taken down their websites and well-regarded podcasts, and no longer have any significant presence on the Internet.
July 20, 2018
This is a great book that reaffirmed my decision for the recent lifestyle I've chosen. This book does a great job of relating human dependence on animal exploitation with the writings of Murray Bookchin. Our domination of human over human and human over nature is a direct correlation to the struggles civilization faces not only with climate change but fascism, racism, sexism, class struggles and homophobia as well.
April 11, 2019
The author raises some important points on the oppression of human beings and animals and the links between them. However, in many cases, he gets preachy and keeps repeating his arguments.
March 20, 2011
Does animal rights have a place within anarchism or indeed within the liberation of the working class? Bob Torres’ Making a Killing... is not the first to take up the tenuous issue of animal rights philosophy and anarchism but he certainly tries to cover a lot of ground. By primarily drawing upon a critique model of capitalist economy through Marx and drawing upon issues of social ecology via Bookchin he weaves together a sound argument that is an impassioned plea for the left and libertarians to consider the plight of animals.
The hallmarks of this tradition can in large part be traced back to developments within anarcho-punk during the eighties. While a number of appeals about the mistreatment of animals raised important questions and kick-started a number of campaigns, the issue of class and a philosophy based around a lifestyle eschewing animal abuse was never fully resolved.
Readers might be familiar with the contemporary beginnings of this debate with the likes of 'Beast of Burden' and 'Animal Liberation: Devastate to Liberate? Or Devastatingly Liberal'. As the animal rights movement progressed from its infancy and hit a zenith in the mass appeal of vegetarianism, it saw the beginnings of numerous campaigns against the fur trade, blood sports, battery and intensive farming, testing on animals and vivisection and so on. It was also drawn into criticisms of misanthropy, fanatical single issue campaigning, violence and professional politicking – or what Torres refers to as the ‘Animal Rights Industry’.
Where the book picks up is by fleshing out an understanding of the status of animals. By taking issue with moralisers like Peter Singer, it argues that animals are reduced to the effective position of commodities and our maintaining of this keeps our understanding of nature and ecology entirely on a capitalist and therefore an irrational level. For example racism, sexism and even class have a pre-capitalist basis, but find their oppressive height within capitalism’s existence. These factors can make oppressive forms appear ‘natural’ but, on the contrary, they are mere perversions of nature. The accumulation of wealth at the expense of the few, regardless of its origins, is in fact a distortion of our ‘organic nature’. This is entirely where Bookchin is tied in – by exploring how the exploitation of classes results in various constituted hierarchies of the sexes, races and even of animals.
What’s interesting is that it isn’t left there. The ALF and mainstream animal rights groups are rounded on and deconstructed with a class and anarchist analysis and Torres argues for the possibilities of a new form of activism that challenges the status of animals. The question is: will the people who would benefit from reading this book read it?
(From a review I wrote in Solidarity Federation's - Direct Action # 42, Spring 2008)
The hallmarks of this tradition can in large part be traced back to developments within anarcho-punk during the eighties. While a number of appeals about the mistreatment of animals raised important questions and kick-started a number of campaigns, the issue of class and a philosophy based around a lifestyle eschewing animal abuse was never fully resolved.
Readers might be familiar with the contemporary beginnings of this debate with the likes of 'Beast of Burden' and 'Animal Liberation: Devastate to Liberate? Or Devastatingly Liberal'. As the animal rights movement progressed from its infancy and hit a zenith in the mass appeal of vegetarianism, it saw the beginnings of numerous campaigns against the fur trade, blood sports, battery and intensive farming, testing on animals and vivisection and so on. It was also drawn into criticisms of misanthropy, fanatical single issue campaigning, violence and professional politicking – or what Torres refers to as the ‘Animal Rights Industry’.
Where the book picks up is by fleshing out an understanding of the status of animals. By taking issue with moralisers like Peter Singer, it argues that animals are reduced to the effective position of commodities and our maintaining of this keeps our understanding of nature and ecology entirely on a capitalist and therefore an irrational level. For example racism, sexism and even class have a pre-capitalist basis, but find their oppressive height within capitalism’s existence. These factors can make oppressive forms appear ‘natural’ but, on the contrary, they are mere perversions of nature. The accumulation of wealth at the expense of the few, regardless of its origins, is in fact a distortion of our ‘organic nature’. This is entirely where Bookchin is tied in – by exploring how the exploitation of classes results in various constituted hierarchies of the sexes, races and even of animals.
What’s interesting is that it isn’t left there. The ALF and mainstream animal rights groups are rounded on and deconstructed with a class and anarchist analysis and Torres argues for the possibilities of a new form of activism that challenges the status of animals. The question is: will the people who would benefit from reading this book read it?
(From a review I wrote in Solidarity Federation's - Direct Action # 42, Spring 2008)
August 9, 2008
Of the three books I have (so far!) read about animal rights and veganism (the others being Animal Liberation and The World Peace Diet), this one resonated with me the most deeply. Perhaps I'm just reading it at a particularly ripe time. Torres lays down logical and convincing arguments, drawing on Francione, Bookchin and other theorists, about the connection between animal exploitation and all the various forms of more widely recognized discrimination. The commodification and exploitation of animals is one branch of a tree, sharing roots and trunk with racism, sexism, classism, etc. To work against one injustice, it is necessary to see its place in the whole - to recognize the other, related issues and work against them, too. I think this book will best serve people who are involved in social justice and the dismantling of hierarchies, but who have not accepted the validity of animal liberation, as well as vegans who might overlook the connections to other movements. Personally, it was a reminder to avoid singularity of purpose. Even if one does devote most of their efforts or feel mostly passionately about one particular issue, it is important to seek connections with others and to continue breaking down hierarchies in your own life.
January 14, 2012
One of the best animal philosophy books to come out in a while, this was one of the first books I read to really introduce me to the basics behind abolitionism. Although both Torres and Francione (another well-known abolitionist author) can rub people the wrong way, I particularly like the way Torres looks at the issues. He can be very cold and logical (in a good way), and though not completely sans emotion, he approaches the issues in a very calculated way that made the book fascinating and thought-provoking. Love him or hate him, anyone who reads this book is unlikely to view animal use in the same way ever again.
March 28, 2008
This is the closest approximation of the book I would have written about the need for animal rights and anarchism to fall in love with each other and start making babies, if you know what I mean.
You should also check out Vegan Freak: Being Vegan In A Non-Vegan World, and you should listen to the Vegan Freak Radio podcast. It's all good.
You should also check out Vegan Freak: Being Vegan In A Non-Vegan World, and you should listen to the Vegan Freak Radio podcast. It's all good.
Want to read
April 2, 2008Left Turn also reviewed this. I've generally been dismissive of animal rights folks, but some theology I've read lately has caused me to question my consistency in respect for life - I still don't fall in the "everyone should be vegan" camp, but I do think folks on the Left need to consider the limits of which lives we value and which hierarchies we fight against.
September 23, 2009
Bob Torres is an amazing writer. He offers a compelling argument that there cannot be justice in our society until we stop ignoring the suffering of sentient animals and its relation to capitalism and oppression. I highly recommend this book. Fascinating and insightful.
March 3, 2010
strong argument for vegan advocacy. a little preachy, but i think that's his style.
August 15, 2011
One of my favourite animal rights books out there... Really interesting argument!
January 17, 2019
It is book which directed my attention from veganism as such to how veganism relate to other forms of oppresion and dominance. Thanks to this book I also learned about Murray Bookchin and generally about broad tradition of anarchist thought, about what I wasn't aware of. For that reasons I will fondly remember that book.
I reduce my score from full by one star, because I felt like in places that book is a little repetitive and heavy in citations, especially to aforementioned Murray Bookchin. Sometimes it seemed to me like it would be better if I just read original Bookchin, and actually I did! It is better to read this book if you already have some broader knowledge about anarchist philosophy. It wasn't my case, but Bob Torres made me interested and engaded that before I even finished this book I read a lot of anarchist texts in the mean-time.
Nevertheless, I think this book presents clear and compelling reasoning behind linking animal rights with various human rights. It's not your average book about veganism. It's actually more anarchist/anti-capitalist book with focus on animal rights.
I reduce my score from full by one star, because I felt like in places that book is a little repetitive and heavy in citations, especially to aforementioned Murray Bookchin. Sometimes it seemed to me like it would be better if I just read original Bookchin, and actually I did! It is better to read this book if you already have some broader knowledge about anarchist philosophy. It wasn't my case, but Bob Torres made me interested and engaded that before I even finished this book I read a lot of anarchist texts in the mean-time.
Nevertheless, I think this book presents clear and compelling reasoning behind linking animal rights with various human rights. It's not your average book about veganism. It's actually more anarchist/anti-capitalist book with focus on animal rights.
July 6, 2021
A social anarchist approach of abolitionism through animal rights.
"It is important to note that the industry will fight but can tolerate regulation if it must; it can always find newer ways (that have more appeal to consumers) to produce, slaughter, and market meat and other animal products, or to produce profit with thinner and thinner margins and more regulations.
However, if animal exploitative industries lose the ability to commodify animals and treat them as property, the very lifeblood of the industry will have been drained. There is no adapting, no changing, and no continuing if production agriculture is unable to treat animals as property - period."
"It is important to note that the industry will fight but can tolerate regulation if it must; it can always find newer ways (that have more appeal to consumers) to produce, slaughter, and market meat and other animal products, or to produce profit with thinner and thinner margins and more regulations.
However, if animal exploitative industries lose the ability to commodify animals and treat them as property, the very lifeblood of the industry will have been drained. There is no adapting, no changing, and no continuing if production agriculture is unable to treat animals as property - period."
July 5, 2022
my insta my tiktok my blog
This was an eye-opening book for me.
It is these pages show us how non-humans suffer even more than humans under the oppression of capitalism. Animal rights are not compatible with it. The author also raises important points about the oppression we live under and the role we play in the non- humans oppression.
I cried through the whole book. Definitely fighting for animal rights should be an emotional and logical balance, but I could not manage to contain my emotional perspective. It really is a book that, although it sounds repetitive, opens your mind and makes you question things.
This was an eye-opening book for me.
It is these pages show us how non-humans suffer even more than humans under the oppression of capitalism. Animal rights are not compatible with it. The author also raises important points about the oppression we live under and the role we play in the non- humans oppression.
I cried through the whole book. Definitely fighting for animal rights should be an emotional and logical balance, but I could not manage to contain my emotional perspective. It really is a book that, although it sounds repetitive, opens your mind and makes you question things.
Read
June 12, 2023I echo Nico's review wholeheartedly. Waste of time for a marxist vegan and most others.
Doesn't convince me of anything I'm not already convinced of. Didn't learn anything new. Boring too.
Cites anarchist intellectuals and authors without differentiating them from one-another or critiquing them. Cites no Marxists. Touches on commodity production early but then goes on to ideology and activism. Low hanging fruit.
Doesn't convince me of anything I'm not already convinced of. Didn't learn anything new. Boring too.
Cites anarchist intellectuals and authors without differentiating them from one-another or critiquing them. Cites no Marxists. Touches on commodity production early but then goes on to ideology and activism. Low hanging fruit.
April 8, 2025
“The longer we fail to recognize that our freedom is bound up with the freedom of even the least among us, the longer we will damn ourselves to a world of oppression and domination”
This was a nice and direct book that didn’t pull any punches. Although there were parts that dragged for a little too long, it was still great.
Being vegan is the most immediate response and action we as individuals can make to protect our animals and planet
This was a nice and direct book that didn’t pull any punches. Although there were parts that dragged for a little too long, it was still great.
Being vegan is the most immediate response and action we as individuals can make to protect our animals and planet
January 28, 2019
Un livre intéressant par la volonté de combiner les points de vues antispécistes et l'anarchisme/l'écologie sociale de Murray Bookchin, le tout précédé par une brève analyse de l'histoire du capitalisme et de l'exploitation animale. Si l'auteur débrousse ce territoire, on voudrait que le sujet soit creusé plus en profondeur.
June 4, 2021
This was such an eye opening book for me. Animal agriculture is a massive juggernaut that manipulates and clings itself to every part of our economy and culture so that we cant get rid of it too easily. It will take years to unlearn what we naively accepted into our lives...and we must because our very existence to this earth depends on it.
November 25, 2022
I think Socialism is idealistic, whereas social anarchism is pure fantasy.
This book is a manifesto for social anarchism. The author disses everyone from the mainstream animal right organizations for being too moderate to the left wing liberals for being apathetic to animal issues to the right wing neo liberals for being blind to human suffering.
But there are no practical arguments which could be helpful in the real world. Three stars only because I share authors view on the animal rights.
This book is a manifesto for social anarchism. The author disses everyone from the mainstream animal right organizations for being too moderate to the left wing liberals for being apathetic to animal issues to the right wing neo liberals for being blind to human suffering.
But there are no practical arguments which could be helpful in the real world. Three stars only because I share authors view on the animal rights.
June 24, 2019
این کتاب به من کمک کرد که به طور کاملا منطقی با دامداری صنعتی آشنا بشم.نقش این صنعت رو در جامعه درک کنم.و از عواقب گوشتخواری آگاه بشم.به شدت توصیه میکنم.
Read
November 9, 2020An easy read and good intro to animal rights particularly for leftist readers.
December 28, 2023
Buena lectura. Ochodoscuatro tiene muy buenos títulos
May 6, 2015
Disappointing: the first half is sort of a haphazard Marx and Kropotkin 101 interspersed with Animal Rights 101, but I'm not sure the target audience. If you aren't familiar with these ideas (either social anarchism or animal liberation) he doesn't do a lot to convince you, and if you are familiar it can be fairly repetitive. Also the animal section is perhaps overly reliant on Francione's work, which I haven't read much of but is I think
The book becomes much more interesting in the second half, when it enters into a brief Bookchin 101 (which mainly made me want to read more Bookchin) and then criticizes both the animal rights and broader Left/progressive movements for not being more understanding of/cooperative with each other. I agree with a lot of his critiques and suggestions, though I think sometimes (not always) he is overly harsh. I also disagree with his endorsement of Francione's hard-line, no-compromise attitude--it's admirable but I think puts purity too far ahead of results. (Again, they're right that PETA, HSUS, et al., can skew too much to the other side of things, but for all its rightfully criticized flaws, PETA deserves at least some credit.) I should add too that, as someone quite familiar with Peter Singer's work, Torres's critiques of Singer are spot-on and necessary--but I'd still recommend reading Animal Liberation over Making a Killing.
The final thesis--that the socialist libertarian Left and the animal rights movement should embrace each other, and change their tactics accordingly--is one I endorse wholeheartedly. I just don't think this book is the best articulation of that idea I've seen.
The book becomes much more interesting in the second half, when it enters into a brief Bookchin 101 (which mainly made me want to read more Bookchin) and then criticizes both the animal rights and broader Left/progressive movements for not being more understanding of/cooperative with each other. I agree with a lot of his critiques and suggestions, though I think sometimes (not always) he is overly harsh. I also disagree with his endorsement of Francione's hard-line, no-compromise attitude--it's admirable but I think puts purity too far ahead of results. (Again, they're right that PETA, HSUS, et al., can skew too much to the other side of things, but for all its rightfully criticized flaws, PETA deserves at least some credit.) I should add too that, as someone quite familiar with Peter Singer's work, Torres's critiques of Singer are spot-on and necessary--but I'd still recommend reading Animal Liberation over Making a Killing.
The final thesis--that the socialist libertarian Left and the animal rights movement should embrace each other, and change their tactics accordingly--is one I endorse wholeheartedly. I just don't think this book is the best articulation of that idea I've seen.
February 15, 2008
I'm glad Bob wrote this book about two essential things: why anarchists must care about animals, and why the animal rights movement must be integrated with other justice movements.
I agree with Bob on many things, but, I can't say I enjoyed reading the book. It's that cold kind of logical/theoretical approach that I'm sure someone out there needs in order to understand these issues, but that leaves me, well, cold. He started to warm up with some discussion of how his students struggled with a cooperative approach to teaching/learning, but didn't go far enough down that road for me. I wanted more application (more, more, more), less drawing paths of logic. I hope this book gets in the hands of the people that need the bald theoretical discussion of why the liberation of animals matters, and why it is integral to the liberation of the earth and people.
Again, I appreciate the fact of this books existence. But I am not its audience.
(on to Terry Tempest Williams, where I fell in love with her in the the first 50 pages)
I agree with Bob on many things, but, I can't say I enjoyed reading the book. It's that cold kind of logical/theoretical approach that I'm sure someone out there needs in order to understand these issues, but that leaves me, well, cold. He started to warm up with some discussion of how his students struggled with a cooperative approach to teaching/learning, but didn't go far enough down that road for me. I wanted more application (more, more, more), less drawing paths of logic. I hope this book gets in the hands of the people that need the bald theoretical discussion of why the liberation of animals matters, and why it is integral to the liberation of the earth and people.
Again, I appreciate the fact of this books existence. But I am not its audience.
(on to Terry Tempest Williams, where I fell in love with her in the the first 50 pages)
November 5, 2012
Radical, controversial and boundary pushing all summarize Torres' book about animal rights, veganism and the animal rights movement. I greatly appreciated how he brought capitalism and Marxist theory into the discussion and he slammed home points about the double standards that many organizations have when it comes to animal rights and double standards that we, human animals in this world, often carry with us. For example, PETA's fight for animal rights, while also giving awards to slaughterhouse 'designers' such as Temple Grandin. Also, their blatant sexism towards women in their ads and campaigns. The most powerful piece for me was his discussion of the need to have one unified activist movement - we cannot cry, "Down with racism/sexism/classism!!" while eating a double cheeseburger. You cannot preach one way and not live what you preach wholly. Definitely pushed my comfort limit with his radical veganism, while also still contradicting himself by having pets; however, a definite quick read worth delving into with social anarchism as an alternative to capitalism and Marxism.
May 12, 2008
Bob Torres is a sociologist, so this book definitely comes from an academic place, but he is also a vegan and a social anarchist, so it is bound with passionate opposition to unjust authority and the widespread slaughter of animals for food and convenience. Obviously, as some sort of anarchist and vegan, I came with a sympathetic approach to this book, but I think his thesis that leftists/marxists/anarchists/feminists cannot truly embrace a radically progressive agenda without embracing veganism personally and ideologically.
The book's critique of animal-consumption is rooted in egalitarian, anti-authoritarian, libertarian, environmentalist positions and thought so it certainly won't convince conservatives to put down the steak, but a number of cogent dissections of non-vegan lifestyles are present. An excellent read for your "radical" friend who still insists on plates, shoes, and belts of flesh.
The book's critique of animal-consumption is rooted in egalitarian, anti-authoritarian, libertarian, environmentalist positions and thought so it certainly won't convince conservatives to put down the steak, but a number of cogent dissections of non-vegan lifestyles are present. An excellent read for your "radical" friend who still insists on plates, shoes, and belts of flesh.
April 30, 2013
I wish I could give this book more stars. I totally agree with 99% of its contents (not sure about the ALF critique), but unfortunately Bob Torres is not the best writer. It is repetitive, often boring, and not free from mistakes (both linguistic and typographical, which are the editor's fault, but still...). It lacks the "OMG I couldn't put it better" factor ;) It's short, but could have been shorter (pointless repetitions) and at the same time I feel it should be longer and more thorough. I'm sure Bob Torres is a great professor (the classes he described seem really awesome), and he makes some good points in this book, it just lacks appeal and strong argumentation. But of course I would recommend it anyway :)
January 31, 2017
Torres has an important message for progressives, that when we talk about oppression we need to remember that animals are being oppressed as well. His base solution is that if you truly care you should become a vegan. While I think that many of his critiques of groups such as PETA are justifiable I think that Torres alienates those who deeply care about animals but cannot or are not ready to take the step to becoming a vegan, namely vegetarians (maybe I took offense because I am a vegetarian).
This is a good book to outline the political and social harms that are caused by the meat industry. One need not agree with his conclusion that social anarchy is the solution to stopping the exploitative industry to gain an insight into what is happening through this harmful industry.
This is a good book to outline the political and social harms that are caused by the meat industry. One need not agree with his conclusion that social anarchy is the solution to stopping the exploitative industry to gain an insight into what is happening through this harmful industry.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews