By Katie Drummond, Guest Contributor

If you think you’re an animal rights activist because you convinced your college campus to serve tofu hot dogs alongside all-beef ones, I’m here to tell you that you’re not. Ditto on celebrating bigger battery cages or the elimination of Foie Gras or the surging popularity of free-range eggs.

Animal rights, for me and for hundreds of other vegans clustered in pockets around the world, is an ideology that supports the abolition – never the regulation – of the animal exploitation industry. There is nothing to celebrate about a bigger cage: the only celebration is when every cage stays empty.

That’s the crux of the abolitionist animal rights movement: the only morally coherent way to respect our moral duties to animals is not using them for anything, be it food, clothing or entertainment. Unfortunately, animal rights has become somewhat of a buzzword in recent years, with anyone who eschews mink stoles or champions grain-fed chicken co-opting the term. Even Peter Singer, who has written countless times that he doesn’t believe in “rights” at all, for humans or non, often labels his own view as an “animal rights” position, further confusing and distorting the term. Sure, most vegans know that Avril Lavigne isn’t an animal rights activist, but there’s a more important diametric opposition within our own ranks: that of the new welfarist, a product of Singer’s non-rights based views, and the abolitionist, a child of rights proper. To put it bluntly, the new welfarist helps make the lives of animals worse, by supporting programs that can’t possibly lead to the end of the animal exploitation industry.

Abolitionists believe that every use of animals is morally unjustifiable. That means we ought to abolish animal use entirely, without exception. Abolitionists advocate veganism as the moral baseline of their movement, and don’t see a moral difference between animal products: dairy, eggs and wool are just as morally reprehensible as a KFC Double Down sandwich, because they’re all an unnecessary use of animals. On a practical level, abolitionists don’t think the incremental reformation of the animal exploitation industry can eliminate the use of animals, because, under the law, animals are regarded – and treated – as property. The regulation of animal use, far from leading to abolition, instead means greater profit margins for exploiters, free advertising for these exploiters from influential animal advocacy groups, and an unjustifiably quieter conscience for non-vegans. And, worst of all, none of these regulations seek to change animal’s commodity status.

The abolitionist movement was founded in the late-80’s by Gary Francione, who thought the biggest problem with animal activism were the activists themselves. Francione coined the term “new welfarist” to refer to animal activists who weren’t abolitionists, but instead supported the regulation of the animal exploitation industry. New welfarists, in general, see abolition as a long-term goal, but support an interim strategy of welfarist reform: changes that reduce the suffering of animals. New welfarists think abolitionism is utopian, and can’t offer the movement tangible guidance. As such, they claim that animal regulation is both efficacious to abolish animal use and that it is morally acceptable.  But we’re not utopian: the fact remains that regulating animal use can’t lead to abolition, because it won’t undermine animal’s status as property. Even worse, it inevitably promotes the use of animals, particularly among self-satisfied Whole Foods shoppers, smugly filling their carts with the free-range, local products of exploitative agriculture.

Abolitionist activists have something to say, but not many people are listening: and that includes our welfarist peers. With groups like Animal Liberation Front using abolition as a veil for violence and sensationalist tactics, the quieter, saner pockets of abolitionists are ignored or derided. I’m here to tell you to give us a chance. Read our websites, ask us questions, tell us why we’re wrong (and we’ll tell you why we’re right).

And if you’re ready to brush off abolitionism before even considering its merits, maybe you should re-examine what you think of the approach. Three myths I often read in the blog-o-sphere:

Abolition means violence

Recently, the term abolitionist has been co-opted by groups that support violence. Usually, these people aren’t even abolitionists: if they were, they’d know that abolition as a theory doesn’t promote violence. Instead, it’s a way to understand the plight of animals in the context of moral and practical matters, and live one’s life accordingly. Gary Francione has often written that he sees the animal rights movement as the logical extension of the peace movement.

Abolition means alienation

Being an abolitionist means holding a set of beliefs about the right way to abolish animal use, and, obviously, the necessity of veganism. Abolitionist ideas may not be widely held, but that doesn’t mean we lurk in dark shadows and face daily incrimination or oppression. The only differences between me and most people on New York sidewalks: my shoes are made of pleather and I’m not big on lox.  This isn’t to say that abolitionists don’t get into their fair share of tussles, but we get in no more of them than other social justice activists before us.

Abolitionists don’t want to talk

What can I say? A lot of vegans and self-professed abolitionists are self-righteous jerks. But if they understood abolitionism and it’s solitary goal – to help animals – they’d recognize that indignation towards anyone (omnivores, vegetarians and vegans alike) only hurts animals more. A person who is truly committed to abolishing the use of animals will want to talk, debate and engage with others. That includes me. If you want more details, or to yell at me, or if you have a question, I’m only an email away.