Frustrating to see the animal cause rejected even in progressive circles.

The left has built its identity on defending the oppressed, fighting for social justice, and dismantling systems of exploitation. Workers’ rights, gender equality, anti-racism, LGBTQ+ rights, and Indigenous sovereignty — all progressive causes aimed at breaking down structures of domination. So why does this logic stop at the species barrier?

Speciesism — the belief that humans are superior to other animals and therefore entitled to exploit them — is a form of systemic oppression, just like racism and sexism. Animals are confined, mutilated, and killed by the billions every year in factory farms, laboratories, circuses, zoos, and the leather and fur industries. The fact that this violence is socially accepted doesn’t make it any more defensible — just as slavery and discrimination weren’t justified even when they were considered "normal."

Peter Singer, in Animal Liberation, made it clear: speciesism operates on the same moral framework as racism and sexism — domination justified by an arbitrary difference (skin color, gender, or species). If the left rejects these systems of oppression, why does it continue to legitimize the one inflicted on animals?

Embracing animal rights would not only make the left’s values more philosophically coherent but also strengthen its political base. Concern for animal suffering, the climate, and biodiversity is growing rapidly among younger generations, especially in urban and educated circles — precisely the core of left-wing support.

So, does the left truly want to defend all the oppressed — or only those who look like them?