----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Mani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 11:27 PM Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re: Marxism-Thaxis Digest, Vol 18, Issue 4
> Re : 1. Re: A. Mani : Re : 2/3rd ... (Oudeyis) > > >Greetings, > >I have considerable doubts about nature's political economic bias. > > > > > > > My point was that nature tends to change things with a leftist bias. The > changes may be a gradual. Leftist bias and socialism refer respectively to political partizanship and to relations of production, not to nature. While the relations of production have a considerably mediated relation to production and to labour (the actual interaction between men and nature) the relationship concerns men's appropriation of nature's goods for human needs and not conservation as such. In this context the problems of extension of the "life-time" of necessary natural resources such as clean water and air, arable land and sufficient food, and so on are a matter of expansion and conservation of natural resources through management of nature (just the opposite of "nature's intent" if she has any). > > >Baran and Sweezy once made the same observation (I forget where and haven't > >time to check it out) but that was before Chernobyl. On the other hand B & S > >apparently forgot some of the more destructive features of Stalin's > >Industrial programs, the effects of the Lysenko fiasco, and atmospheric > >testing of Nuclear weaponry. Undoubtedly capitalist "ecology" is mostly > >governed by a complex of needs including profitability, the necessity for > >testing the means for defence of free enterprise and even the preservation > >of playgrounds and pleasant parks for those who can afford them. On the > >other hand hard evidence shows that power politics, bureaucratic stodginess, > >testing means for defence of socialism, and the preservation of playgrounds > >and pleasant parks for the politically privileged more or less governed ( and > >in some places still governs)the ecology policies of the people's democratic > >republics, soviets, and what have you. >> > > > Chernobyl was an accident... nothing special. In general socialists > governments implement conservation programs in a far better and > effective way than capitalist governments. Much of your hard evidence > may be the usual right-wing propaganda of the dominant news channels. > Even during the cold war, the soviets maintained high ecological > standards. Though militarisation did involve drastic methods... of > cutting costs. I suspect that here we're both right and both wrong (or at least profoundly uninformed). True Chernobyl was an accident and accidents don't only occur in People's Democratic Republics. On the other hand, I've yet to see any serious work comparing conservation practices in socialist states with those of capitalist ones. Then too, even such comparisons are likely to contrast conservation practice in states that are laying the foundations of industrial production (socialist states) with those that already have built the technical infrastructure for industrial development. Any industrialising society, capitalist and socialist alike, generally goes through a period of massive and frenetic development when both the scale and rate of industrialisation as well as the high costs of means for protecting even the most critical natural resources tend to cause considerable damage to environmental conditions important to human survival. As I see it, this destructive development of productive forces necessary for industrial civilization in general is the analogue of that stage of primitive accumulation essential for the development of industrial capitalism (or for that matter industrial socialism), it is a difficult and even dangerous prerequisite for development. The irresponsibility of military practice regarding any but the primary mission of protecting collective interests by force is inherent in the institution, whatever its social context. My real intention here was to contest the idea that socialism somehow represents an improved relation between man and nature over capitalism. In principle, socialism represents an improved relation of men to their own natures, the problem of the relation of men to world conditions in the context of industrial development is quite a different issue. > >Actually mankind has been interfering with nature ever since mankind became > >mankind. As often as not with disastrous effects on human survivability. > >For example, the so-called ecologically aware Native Americans wiped out the > >American Elephants, horse, long-horned buffalo; deforested extensive areas > >of the American Southwest (Chaco Canyon, the Mogollon region of Southern New > >Mexico, and possibly large areas of the Gila River Basin); and made > >considerable contributions to the degradation of Riverine ecosystems in the > >Mississippi, the Rio Grande, and the Ohio River basins. Perhaps the most > >tragic and dramatic parable of man's destruction of the natural conditions > >for his existence is that of Easter Island. Uncontrolled population growth, > >the expression of tribal pride in inedible monumental sculpture etc., and > >warfare eventually killed off most of the Easter Islanders and left the rest > >scrabbling for a miserable existence in an environment destitute of all but > >the most basic resources for survival. By the way, until the final crash, > >the Easter Islanders were governed by autocratic chieftains and their > >chiefly courts, typical of most Polynesian societies. > > > > > Feudalism and ecology. They did not know, honestly. First, Polynesian societies were not feudal. They had more the character of Irish football teams than of European medieval society. Second, one does not need to be an agronome or an ecologist to know when social practices, i.e. wars, intercommunal competition, and so on, are damaging important resources. The problem is not one of knowledge but of social priorities relative to questions of basic survival. Social practice though founded on the conditions established by the forces of production is a system unto itself, with its own dynamics and its own priorities. As such social practice is usually slow or even completely non-responsive to changes in natural conditons of production, until those conditions change to the point that the forces of production themselves are compromised (critical resources are used up, the labour force dies off, flees, or carries off a successful rebellion, or the general standard of living declines). This can and did happen to state societies such as some of the city states of ancient Mesopotamia and Classic Maya civilization as well as to primitive communitarian societies such as the simple agricultural villages of the Jordan valley (about 8000 BP) and the early Native American hunting communities of the Intermontane regions of the North American Cordillieras (Rocky Mts.). To paraphrase Marx, human communities do not respond to changing natural conditions until these changes can no longer be avoided (and then it may be too late to adapt in any fashion.) The problem is much more critical today with almost complete human dominance over natural conditions, the tremendous scale and momentum of human social organization and the fact that "there is no place to flee to when the system crashes". A no less important contributor to the crisis is the consequences of the rates and scale of modern technological developments, development on the basic conditions for human existence. Generally, throughout human prehistory and history the rates and scale of the development of the forces of production increases exponentially and the impact of productive process on world conditions increases accordingly. It's a bad combination and likely to bring us to a bad end. While "the bottom line", actual and projected, does serve as an indicator to the capitalist ruling class that things may be going to hell, the essential intractability of industrial organization and of the organization of trade does indeed make any timely response to environmental degradation unlikely. The apparent incapacity for adaptive change to changing world conditions provides fertile soil for "magical" solutions: witness the resurgence of mystical traditional "solutions" to crisis such as "back to god" movements in the States, Israel, the Islamic states and so on. These solutions, conservative and even reactionary, oblivious and often contemptuous of creative practice, and authoritarian by nature, add populist restrictions to the near helplessness of ruling classes to adapt to changed conditions. > > >The root of the problem is that men survive because they modify nature and > >make it serve their own needs. As we develop ever greater control over the > >material conditions of our existence the dangers of ignorance (often > >supported by magical or mystical ideologies, "pro-life" anyone?), of > >understandable but self-destructive collective reluctance to respond to > >potential threats to survival before they are actualised, and destructive > >priorities both of ruling classes as well as of the masses. You can witness > >all this "on-line" and "in-time", i.e. the issue of global warming and the > >related issues of American domination of world resources; the developing > >struggle for access and use of limited resources for development between the > >more actively developing states of Asia and the fully industrialised nations > >of America, Europe and Asia; and the increasing attractively of magical, > >militant, messianic with all its destructive capacities as a means of > >mobilizing the support of the materially and morally (morale)miserable for > >ruling classes under threat. > > > > > We know about 'sustainable growth and development', much more remains to > be studied. The sustainment of human existence is simply not possible > in a capitalist scheme of things. Among, the latter will or maybe or > must be destroyed by the former, I will prefer 'will be'. As I've pointed out above, damage to the natural conditions of human existence is: 1. an inevitable feature of primary industrialization, be it capitalist, socialist or whatever else. 2. more generally, a function of the discordance between the impact of the development of the forces of production on the conditions for human existence and the dynamics and priorities of the relations of production etc. Will the capitalist scheme of things be destroyed by the sustainment of human existence? Possibly. But will this bring socialism and will socialism resolve the problems of human survival? I doubt if the result would be socialism. Considering the conditions that have brought us to the current crisis, the only way capitalism is likely to fall is through a series of catastrophic changes in the natural conditions for industrial production that will seriously impair the capacity of the capitalist mode of production to support the technical and social organization that characterize modern civilization. (Note that this proposition is virtually the opposite of Marx's optimistic view that industrial development will provide the means for a new, freer society). The destruction , even the partial destruction, of the industrial infrastructure is likely to make the Tsunami off Sumatra look like a picnic. Most of the members of industrial society haven't the least idea as to how to survive in the wild. Worse yet, the huge population made possible by industrial civilization would in the case of a general collapse of that society would probably fatally compromise the possibility for any human survival at all. Just imagine the impact of the disestablishment of the physical and social organization of sanitation systems in a city the size of Omaha, Nebraska or Madison, Wisconsin. Now, if we survive the next 10, 20, or 50 years, will socialism be a solution to the problems of human survival in Industrial civilization? One thing is clear at least to me. The orthodox model of socialist society; authoritarian, centralized, and forcibly egalitarian is at very least no more effective a solution than the capitalist system is and we've already shown just how unlikely it is that capitalism will find a way to cope with the effects of it successes on the possibility of sustained human existence. In conclusion, I propose that the projection of possible industrial futures and the related design of more flexible social organization (necessarily less authoritarian and centralized yet more socially attuned to the conditions of human existence than either capitalism or orthodox communitarianism) is the critical intellectual challenge of this centrury, and its implementation in practice, an absolute prerequisite for continued human survival. > > >Regards, again, Victor --- Original Message ----- > >From: "A. Mani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu> > >Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 10:23 PM > >Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] A. Mani : Re : 2/3rd ... > > > > > > > > > >>Hello, > >> I think the very subject of ecology is anti-capitalistic to > >>substantial extents. The typical atitude of most capitalists and their > >>species on ecological problems is one of deceit. They may be forced to > >>see problems presented in no uncertain terms, but are most unlikely to > >>do anything about it (unless their is a sufficient profit for them ). It > >>is perfectly o.k for them to destroy future generations as it is also a > >>matter of survival of the fittest in their terms. > >> For example, has anything positive really happened on the > >>state of automobiles in the U. S. Their Govt. will not try anything... > >>there are corporate interests and oil from OPEC is free (minus the > >>printing cost of the dollar). > >> There are big projects like the ones sponsored by the MIT and > >>others on 'sustainable development', but when it comes to doing ... one > >>might say 'terrorism', nothing is allowed to be done. > >> > >> But nature is one great commie. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > A. Mani > Member, Cal. Math. Soc > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.2 - Release Date: 05/04/05 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.2 - Release Date: 05/04/05 _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
