Henry S. Salt (1851-1939) remains largely unknown today, despite his central role in social and humanitarian movements throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Salt is briefly mentioned in passing when discussing the history of animal rights activism, but serious consideration of his philosophical position has not been conducted. General interpretations of Salt often recognize that he was a socialist, and animal rights are seen as an additional interest of his. Likewise, animal rights advocates view him as an animal rights activist who happened to be a socialist. But for Salt, these positions were not seperable. A philosophical understanding of materialism provided the foundation for Salt’s commitment to a wide range of humanitarian causes.
Salt’s intellectual revolution and commitment to political radicalism developed after he had completed his schooling at Eton and Cambridge. By the age of24, Salt was an assistant master at Eton (Hendrick, 1977, pp. 12-13). As a teacher, he became critical of the educational system, as sports took precedence over challenging the minds of youth. During the 1870s and 1880s, Salt became keenly aware of social issues and developed friendships with many radical social reformers, such as William Morris, J. L. Joynes, Eleanor Marx, George Bernard Shaw, Edward Carpenter, Sidney Olivier, Prince Kropotkin, and Graham Wallas (and later in life Count Tolstoy, Gandhi, Clarence Darrow, Ernest Crosby, and Ouida). Through these social relationships and Salt’s personal studies, he became an active socialist, writing for Justice, the journal published by the Social Democratic Federation. During these same years, Salt became acquainted with vegetarianism and simplicity (Thoreau), quickly recognizing their importance in relation to social reforms. To pursue his humanitarian commitments full-time as well as his pursuit ofliving more simply, Salt took leave of Eton to study and reside in the countryside. His cottage became a crossroad for radicals organizing, studying, and writing.
During this period of time, Salt was an active contributor to Justice. With great clarity, he wrote articles that advocated land reform, questioned the rights of landlords, criticized the treatment of the poor population and social policy within London, addressed the economic vulnerability of workers and the constant threat of starvation confronting this population, and raised questions in regard to the causes of crime.
Throughout these articles, Salt maintained a critique of capitalism, stating that the source of wealth for the upper class was the systematic impoverishment of the lower class by appropriating the surplus product of the laboring class. Salt identified the impoverishment and hunger of the working class as a direct result of the enrichment of the capitalist class. Food reform and social reform became central concerns for Salt, as he developed a deeper understanding of the social conditions related to these issues. In 1886, Salt wrote an essay for the To-day journal declaring socialism and vegetarianism not in opposition. He raised the question, “If those who live selfishly on the labour of others are rightly denounced as ‘blood-suckers,’ do not those who pamper a depraved appetite at the expense of much animal suffering deserve a somewhat similar appellation?” (as cited in Hendrick, 1977, p. 52). Salt continued by raising questions with regard to the health consequences and wastefulness of meat consumption. Like socialism, vegetarianism moves toward the same goal of a more humane world. With great precision, Salt pointed out that a vegetarian society would not solve the existing social problems but that it was a necessazyoonsideration for a socialist movement that made a plea for a humane society.
Full Article: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1086026600134009
Brett Clark, John Bellamy Foster
Organisation & Enviromental, Sage Publications, Inc., Vol. 13 No. 4, December 2000, pp. 468-473
Notes
This essay is held in our archive.