2021, issue 2
Rejecting Animal Exploitation: A Case for Interspecies Solidarity
Yvette Wijnandts
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 License International License (CC
BY 4.0). © 2021 The author(s).
Licence
Review of
Katerina Kolozova. 2019. Capitalism’s Holocaust
of Animals. A Non-Marxist Critique of Capital,
Philosophy and Patriarchy. London: Bloomsbury.
Katerina Kolozova, Animals, Marxism,
Non-Philosophy
DOI
Keywords
10.21827/krisis.41.2.37975
Krisis41 (2):148-151.
1482021, issue 2
Rejecting Animal Exploitation: A Case for Interspecies Solidarity
Yvette Wijnandts
Katerina Kolozova’s book Capitalism’s Holocaust of Animals: A non-Marxist critique of
capital, philosophy and patriarchy explores capitalism’s exploitation of animals. Kolozova
positions her argument in response to posthuman ideas grounded in the works of
scholars such as Donna Haraway, Rosi Braidotti, Katherine Hayles, and Cary Wolfe.
Kolozova identies posthumanist theories as often falling into three potential traps,
namely that they follow a teleological narrative, continue to place humans as main
points of reference, and lean toward transhumanism. Kolozova argues that a Laruellian
approach oers a strong alternative to these apparent shortcomings. Specically, she uses
Laruelle’s framework of “non-Marxism” to prove that the exploitation of animals for
human prot is philosophically indefensible.
The title of Kolozova’s book is immediately striking and calls for explana-
tion. Throughout Capitalism’s Holocaust of Animals, Kolozova’s actual use of the word
“Holocaust” is sparing, and when it is used is done so in a way that could be con-
sidered provocative; while the term ‘the Holocaust’ usually evokes images of the
Jewish Holocaust, Kolozova does not reference the Jewish Holocaust at all. Instead,
in Capitalism’s Holocaust of Animals, the word “Holocaust” is used in a literal sense.
Kolozova supports this kind of usage by noting that a holocaust was “originally a sac-
ricial burning of animal esh […] by men” (110). Within the argument presented in
The Holocaust of Animals, the Holocaust is thus rst to be understood as the sacrice of
the physical animal body for the purpose of pure reason. Kolozova integrates this use
of the concept of “Holocaust” within Marxist theory. In its simplest form, capitalism,
Kolozova explains, works to sell commodities for money that can be used to purchase
more commodities: the C-M-C equation. However, as Marx points out, within cap-
italism money has become its own commodity. Therefore, he proposes the M-C-M’
equation: Commodities are circulated for the purpose of increasing money, and money
has become a goal in itself. Kolozova continues this line of thought and argues that
within capitalism, where capital should be produced purely for capital’s sake, materiality
will be the ultimate sacrice. In other words, Capitalism in its purest form will eventu-
ally demand the Holocaust of materiality itself.
It is in Laruellian theory that the sub-title of Capitalism’s Holocaust of Animals
nds its roots. Kolozova explains Marxist, Laruellian, and non-Marxist theory in the
introduction of her book. She outlines Marx’s and Laruelle’s shared ambition of replac-
ing “philosophy” with “realism”. The philosophy Marx and Laruelle aim to displace is
a philosophy that desires “to create a reality of transcendence of the real, or sublimation
of the real into sense, meaning, intellect as perfected form of the real, as if a more
evolved plane of realness” (5-6). As an alternative, Marx turns to materialism, which he
referred to as “realism” or “naturalism”. In doing so, he suggests a ‘scientic’ treatment of
philosophy; philosophy should be derived from the material, not the abstract or the tran-
scendental. Marx, as well as Laruelle and Kolozova, agree that science, as meant by Marx,
oers a valuable alternative to philosophy’s desire for transcendence; science accepts the
nitude of thoughts, and thus also the nitude of itself. Non-Marxism is where Laruelle
1492021, issue 2
continues Marx’s “scientic” approach to philosophy and adds that Marxism itself, along
with philosophical theory in general, will always be incomplete. Here Laurelle agrees
with Marx’s prioritization of materiality and the real, but insists that this must be applied
to Marxism itself. In other words, “non-Marxism” does not step away from Marxist
thought but rather applies it to itself to ensure that it does not succumb to the transcen-
dentalism it seeks to overcome. Kolozova agrees with Laurelle here and thus attempts to
ground her critique of capitalism’s holocaust of animals on “non-Marxist” theory.
The rst chapter of the book positions capitalism in philosophy and uses lin-
guistics to explore how non-capitalist understandings of species can form. The dyad
between the physical and the automaton, or ‘signier’ in traditional linguistics, is central
in this chapter. Following Saussure’s argument that language is both structural and
arbitrary (in that it adheres to a structure but that the words within that structure
are arbitrary), Kolozova makes the argument that linguistic theory allows thinkers
to return to the “real,” and therefore approach the world in a non-philosophical, i.e.
scientic, manner. In other words, while philosophy has prioritized the signier, or
the automaton, in its explanations of the world, a linguistic approach explores how
these signiers became meaningful by going back to the signied, or ‘real.’ The chapter
continues to position capitalism on the side of value, rather than the physical because,
as Marx explained, within capitalism, value (monetarized or fetishized) has become a
goal in and of itself. Thus, human and non-human animals are understood in terms of
value rather than their physicality within capitalist frameworks. A non-philosophical
approach prioritizes the physical over the automaton, which is required to envisage life
in non-capitalist terms. A non-philosophical approach to capitalism, therefore, also leads
to a non-Marxist approach to capitalism. Kolozova agrees with Marx that thought is
nite, and a return to the material is necessary to break away from capitalism. However,
Marx places revolt within the human classes whose labor is exploited and fetishized.
Kolozova takes this a step further and decenters the humanist perspective. She proposes
the development of “consciousness of the exploited” rather than the Marxist devel-
opment of “class consciousness” to form a more-than-human inclusive approach to
resistance against capitalism and exploitation. To change the treatment of the exploited
requires a new shared consciousness of the exploited “of and against the exploited
animal, body, nature, real economy, and reality in the name of projected values and
virtues” (48). In other words, non-capitalism can only exist if non-humans are included
within its framework.
Capitalism’s Holocaust of Animals’ second chapter positions its argument in
broader philosophical and linguistic theory. In this chapter, Kolozova identies sim-
ilarities between Marx’s materialist formalism and structural linguistics. Formalism’s
strength lies in its acknowledgement that it is self-reexive and will not provide denite,
all-encompassing answers. Due to these abilities, formalism allows philosophy to depart
from transcendentalism and enter the realm of the material and real, argues Kolozova.
The second part of the chapter then applies Marx’s formalization to philosophy and
argues how feminism, through this framework, is allowed to return to a universal
approach rather than one dened by dierence. Through formalization, dierence
becomes a richness rather than a reason for division.
1502021, issue 2
In “Subjectivity as inherently philosophical entity and the third person’s per-
spective”, the third chapter of Capitalism’s Holocaust of Animals, Kolozova argues that
the concept of subjectivity is disconnected from the physical/real. The chapter starts
by positioning itself within Marxist and Laruellian theory; philosophy should not aim
to oer universal truths but position itself within the world. Thus, philosophy and the
world should be studied unilaterally rather than in their totality. Kolozova connects this
instruction to Marx’s claim that philosophy’s fundamental problem is its subjectivity and
denial thereof. Because philosophy is inherently subjective, it will inevitably be limited
to partiality. Therefore, philosophy can never oer universal answers to the questions it
aims to answer.
The penultimate chapter carves out how the arguments presented in the book
dier from other scholarly explorations of critical theory, specically theory situated in
feminist philosophical arguments. The rst half of the chapter centers on Luce Irigaray’s
work, using it to explore how “[i]n the capitalist world, the excess commodity produc-
tion is solved through the Holocaust of use-value – literal destruction of products – to
preserve the mathematical projection of surplus value” (120). This Holocaust aects not
only commodity products; within capitalism, “a spectacular entity of the Transcendental
[is] enabled by the holocaust of its physicality” (ibid.). Consequently, the chapter argues
that dierent feminist critiques are still complicit in remaining within capitalism, thus
repeating the same narratives that maintain patriarchal and anthropocentric power
structures. Kolozova draws upon examples such as transhumanism, xenofeminism, and
Haraway’s gure of the Cyborg to make this argument. In summary, as long as feminist
theory does not take a radical stance against capitalism, rather than abolishing patriarchy,
feminism will unassumingly but inevitably contribute to power structures that oppress
and marginalize human and non-human animals.
The fth chapter, which concludes Kolozova’s argument, establishes the value
of Laruellian theory in critical animal studies. Kolozova relates it to Haraway’s position
that animal rights should be understood in terms of “instrumentality”. This instrumen-
tal approach towards animal rights is outlined in When Species Meet. Haraway proposes
approaching animals as fellow laborers for their roles as lab animals, food animals,
and service animals, and argues that humans must learn to treat non-human animals
responsibly. This does not mean that humans cannot kill or work with animals but
that humans should recognize and respond to the sacrices non-human animals make.
Kolozova, however, argues that the shift Haraway proposes is value-based and guilty of
“philomorphising” animals. In other words, perceiving non-human animals as laborers
focuses on how they are valued by human animals, without having much impact upon
the non-human animals’ lives themselves. In addition, any argument based on labor
rights falls short, as laborers are consistently losing their status and rights; non-hu-
man animals will not gain anything by being lifted to “laborers” if human laborers are
increasingly being turned into resources themselves. Kolozova instead proposes that
humans acknowledge non-human animals as companions rst and foremost. It is only
in this way that their lived, material circumstances can and should be improved.
Furthermore, Kolozova argues that acknowledging the need for humans to
stop making animals suer is not only important for animal welfare but is also key for
1512021, issue 2
the posthuman endeavor. She explains that “only by the emancipation of the animal
[is it] that the marginalized and exploited parts of humanity can be free from suering
and killing. Posthumanism can accomplish its goal of human decentering only by way
of emancipating the non-human, beginning with the animal […] They do not possess
a self as they do not possess reason” (148). In other words, philosophy can only be escaped
by emancipating materiality for the sake of being material. Other attempts at emancipation
will inevitably fail to address the structures that are at the root of oppression.
Capitalism’s Holocaust of Animals would be most valuable for scholars of Kolozova’s
work, as well as scholars of Marxist and Laruellian theory. It is strongly informed by
the works of these two scholars to build upon posthuman arguments regarding the
exploitation of animals. In so doing, Kolozova’s exploration and explanation of Marxist
and Laruelle’s thought is of great value for both new and experienced scholars of
their works. Experienced Marxist and Laruellian theory scholars will enjoy Kolozova’s
original and interesting interpretations of their works. Early scholars of their work will
likely be intimidated by Kolozova’s thorough readings of these theories. Still, they will
nd that the book oers valuable and in-depth explanations of where and how these
theories inform her own thinking.
In summary, Kolozova oers a new approach to responding to philosophical
questions of animal exploitation. Her commitment to the rejection of animal exploita-
tion is admirable. Capitalism’s Holocaust of Animals does not, however, oer many tools
to help translate Kolozova’s argument into action or change; it is rst and foremost a
theoretical exploration of the eld of animal philosophy. In addition, it is important
to note that Kolozova presents a Laruellian critique of animal exploitation. While the
book explores other forms of animal theory, most notably posthumanism, this is pre-
dominantly done to situate her argument. However, depending on the reader’s aims for
taking up this book, this may not be a signicant loss. At times, the approach towards
the main argument of Capitalism’s Holocaust of Animals feels a little slow, but this is also
one of the book’s main strengths. Kolozova oers carefully constructed and essential
arguments that are novel and particularly interesting for those positioned in animal
philosophy.
Kolozova, Katerina. 2019.Capitalism’s Holocaust of
Animals: A Non-Marxist Critique of Capital,
Philosophy and Patriarchy. Bloomsbury Publishing.
References
Yvette Wijnandts has studied cultural studies,
political studies, and feminist philosophy in
Maastricht, Utrecht, and Singapore. Currently, she
is a PhD student at the University of Adelaide.
She explores relationships between human and
non-human animals and the ethical norms that are
constructed within these connections.
Biography
