Animals, accelerationism and credulity

I’ve talked about my admiration for Wayne Hsiung before. He helped build one of the most dynamic new animal activist groups of the 2010s in Direct Action Everywhere. His influence continues to be felt in some of the most interesting new organizations of the 2020s, formed by veterans of DxE, like Pro-Animal Future.

I also know when you publish a lot of opinions, there are inevitably some, in retrospect, you’d like to take back. Certainly that’s true in my case, and I don’t make myself nearly as available as Hsiung does through his blog, social media, podcast and other platforms. You can’t have a perfect shooting average with so many attempts.

Still, I’m baffled by some of the DxE cofounder’s recent political takes. They seem to be a mix of accelerationism and credulity. For instance, in the lead up to the presidential election, Hsiung said he didn’t really care who won and actually thought a Republican victory might be more beneficial to animals than a Democratic win.

For those who don’t know, accelerationism is the belief that things need to get dramatically worse before they get better. Perhaps it’s unfair to mention, but the most famous example of this line of thinking comes from the early 1930s, when the Communist Party of Germany embraced the slogan ‘After Hitler, Our Turn.’

In an August Substack post, Hsiung made a contrarian case for why former President Donald Trump might be better for animals than Vice President Kamala Harris. His argument rested partly on a belief Trump would cut farm subsidies, which seems extremely dubious to me, given the nature of the Republican coalition.

Hsiung’s argument was otherwise accelerationist: “Lukewarm support, of the sort that Harris has provided, may actually reduce the public’s appetite for change, compared to a vigorous opponent. The reason is the backlash effect. Trump’s vitriolic statements empowered movements for change, from environmentalism to animal rights.”

I have no doubt there will be an upsurge in leftist and liberal activism during the second Trump presidency, but most of it will be dedicated to defending past gains from right-wing attacks. As bad as the Democrats are on a host of issues, there’s a reason Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter emerged during Barack Obama’s presidency.

True, the MeToo movement took off during Trump’s first term, but I’d argue it was largely a product of feminist organizing during the Obama years. Hsiung’s organizational claim to fame, DxE, was founded during this time. Democrats frequently oppose our efforts, however they make far better opponents than Republicans.

I don’t believe Humane Society Legislative Fund scorecards are measuring politicians’ stances on the most important animal issues, such as public funding for cultivated-meat research. Still, they are instructive. The average Democrat is unquestionably superior on nonhuman policy than the average Republican.

In the lead up to November 5, Hsiung said the following in a YouTube discussion with Internet personality Vegan Gains: “This is one view I have that is pretty controversial. I actually don’t care that much who wins the presidential election... I think especially national presidential politics is a lot like professional sports. It’s a game.”

As a socialist, I’m somewhat sympathetic to the DxE cofounder’s perspective. After all, Karl Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto, “The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” My initial guide to socialism, Noam Chomsky, frequently highlighted liberal deficiencies.

While Chomsky noted the ideological overlap between Democrats and Republicans, he advocated voting for Democrats in races where Republicans were competitive, because, ultimately, there was a difference between the two parties. I’d argue this difference has been exacerbated as the Republicans become openly fascist.

That Hsiung is unable to recognize this difference reflects a weakness in his political analysis. Similarly, his comments surrounding the presidential election suggest a certain degree of credulity, or a willingness to believe falsehoods, about Republican claims to care about animals or act in their interests.

For instance, the DxE cofounder has repeatedly praised and highlighted a statement on X made by former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who said, the day before the election, “Animal cruelty will eventually become a genuine concern for conservatives. It’s already happening. Count me in.”

Ramaswamy, a Hindu vegetarian, is a conservative outlier on the topic. The Republican coalition, as currently constructed, will prevent it from moving to the left of the Democratic Party on nonhuman issues. If Ramaswamy truly prioritized nonhuman welfare, he would be a Democrat. Hsiung should know this.

Ramaswamy’s statement was apparently prompted by a viral story about Peanut, a squirrel whose owner turned him into a social-media star. The creature was seized by New York state and euthanized. In the final days of the election, this became a jocular symbol of government overreach, adopted by the Trump campaign.

Here’s the DxE cofounder discussing the matter on X: “There is a case to be made that Democrats' silence on animals cost them the election. Peanut the squirrel was the biggest story on social media on Nov 4, likely seen by 100+ million voters. If even a tiny % of them were swayed, that's the margin of victory in MI, WI, and PA.”

I’m genuinely unsure if Hsiung understands most people who shared the meme didn’t care about Peanut or any of the infinitely more important issues facing animals. It was a lark! I’d be surprised if a single vote was changed by the story. That DxE’s cofounder seems to believe it’s meaningful casts serious doubt on his political judgement.

Again, I have a lot of respect for Hsiung. I’m reluctant to engage in what may be seen as an unnecessary, self-aggrandizing bit of infighting, but he’s one of the more influential figures in the modern animal-rights movement. A lot of people value his opinion. I hope, in the future, DxE’s cofounder can develop a more serious approach to politics.