Anyway, when I debate the virtues of a particular movement, or social theory, it takes me years and years to incorporate that theory into my understanding of the world. I've always been the type of person that thinks it their civic duty when they debate the ins and outs of any religious structure, philosophy, etc.
So it kind of strikes me as odd that I accept vegan abolitionism so easily. So far I've concluded that it's likable because it has a particular mission - explicitly, to end our use of animals. However, I think that abolitionism as a political method needs some explanation.
1) The most common argument against abolitionist veganism uses a method of attacking the means: they argue that our current involvement with animals isn't one of abolition. I think it's important to remember that even though some (most?) of us abolitionist vegans still drive cars and that interacts with wildlife, and our computers may run on electricity that affects animals, the end of animal use is what we are striving for. We believe that veganism starts at the mouth, but it definitely doesn't end there. Therefore, abolition is the end point which we strive for, and veganism is the means of the educational process which will take us there.
2) Veganism is a concrete moral philosophy. Where Peter Singer characterizes the fair treatment of animals within ethical boundaries, he doesn't narrow his framework to individual morality. Therefore, his methodology is utilitarian, and does not personally criticize those who exploit animals - but instead he criticizes the wider social culture. I think it's because of his opinion of the wider social culture that Peter Singer finds vegan advocacy "extreme" and allows for "the luxury of meat" within his philosophy. On the other hand: Gary Francione has consistently - and correctly - attacked Singer's point of view as antithetical to veganism, time and again explaining the moral duty of humans towards animals. We no longer need to address Singer's concerns regarding animal issues, because his concerns are grossly polemic. And by polemic, I mean that Singer does this to the point of ad nauseum, and to no intelligible point. Francione's arguments are succinct, clear, and consistent. So again, I say that veganism is a concrete moral philosophy. Abolition is our goal, and the negation of mistreatment is our method.
3) Abolitionist veganism transcends cultural barriers. The genius of Donald Watson's creation of the Vegan Society is that it was mutually inclusive, irrespective of all faith and language. That is to say, the Vegan Society is a scientific extension of a moral belief. Hence, vegan abolitionists take the scientific extension of a moral belief to a practical end.
4) While abolitionism is the most useful description we have found so far, there will always be people looking to take the movement of rights toward animals and compare it to the abolition of human slavery. It's important to keep in mind that the term "speciesism" is an "ism" which wasn't defined by Singer. It was in fact coined by Richard D. Ryder after his experience as an animal experimenter. Therefore, the fundamental definition of vegan abolitionism - to end speciesism - has nothing to do with the lexical framework of Singer, who conflates his "isms" without tangible conclusions. Let us not get entangled in theoretical debates which lose moral focus. Let us stay focused on the animal rights movement as a unified single issue.
I think these are important points to consider when discussing what is invariably called "animal rights," "animal liberation," and so on. We need to remember that nearly all of this discussion is taking place on the internet, so it is very difficult to keep our opinions quiet enough to see where other people are coming from. Indeed, I didn't know that Ryder coined the term "speciesism" until I sat down to write this essay.
Secondly, I think it is important to remember that to a religious fundamentalist (I was raised as one) any discussion of rights is going to logically fall back onto individual freedoms. For me, hearing the term "rights" used to conjure images of being arrested, or I would picture a serf trying to read the Magna Carta. Really, what most people mean by rights or "what is right" is the complete fulfillment of base needs, and not some extended explanation of individual vice or virtue. As English speakers, I think we tend to have a cultural myopia that ignores cross-cultural viewpoints.
At its core, this understanding of what abolitionist vegans mean by veganism - the abolition of animal use - is what will separate us from the people yelling and screaming on the sidewalk, and the difference between us and those who are threating to do violence to others: we are radical enough to talk rationally and critically, and practical enough to let our actions validate our speech.
