Writes Charles:
> CB: The part of the environmental crisis that Marx addresses is key role
of the mad dash for surplus-value in it.
>
> The specific, climatic and ecological processes of the year 2000, Marx
doesn't discuss, if that is what you are looking for. There is a literature,
including the essays of Mark Jones, as you say, that is developing finding
general statements on ecology from Marx. One of the better ecological
warnings is in a statement by Engels, which I can't find right, now, but
neither addressed specific environmental developments that have only come
about long after they were dead.
Tom:
Well this is my understanding of it also. However I am hoping to find
agreement from you that these specific environmental developments must be
addressed, regardless, and addressed by marxists too. What has made me so
antagonistic toward the marxist position of late is not that the specific
developments are not addressed by Marx, but that *because* the developments
are not addressed marxists tend to remain either in denial or resort to
pejorative attacks on those who are "screaming" the warning signs, as Carrol
puts it. More better to approach it as Mark has been doing: which is to draw
general directions from Marx and then formulate propositions to address the
specific environmental developments. Too often this is seen as heresy by
others ... others in denial, IMO.
CB> I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying that the process of
pursuing surplus-value, certainly in the books I listed, which I therefore
assume you read , is not a key factor in today's environmental crisis ?
No. I am saying it is not THE key factor! The primary factor in today's
environmental crisis is our delinkage from perception of the consequences.
All else is important, but secondary, and necessarily follows from this
factor. The concentration upon capitalism alone obscures this, and that's
why those who "hide" inside marxist dogma (not you Charles) need to be
awakened.
CB:
That you don't get the theory on pursuit of surplus-value ? What ?
Tom:
Nah, I get it. I just ain't married to it, is all. There are also other
pursuits than economic hegemony on the agenda of global capitalism,
imperialism and enviro-rapers, but another time for *that* can o' worms!
> Question: Do you remember where Marx exhibits a perception of the need for
> population control?
>
> ((((((((((((
>
> CB: No.
>
> Main thing relevant to environmental crisis that Marx exhibits a
perception of the need for is overthrowing the drive for maximum profit as
the number one driving force of human society.
Tom:
Well we have here a fundamental difference of opinion. Almost every person
active in the environmental discussion rates the population bomb as the
problem that must be dealt with before the others can be solved. I do not
require you (or Marx) to accept this position, only to be cognizant of its
importance. Surely it is at *least* as important as hairsplitting over the
differences between "use" value and "exchange" value?
> CB: If I follow you, you seem to be saying that pre- and non- capitalist
forms of society have generated and generate environmental crisis. So,
focussing on capitalism's role in generating environmental crisis is
inadequate.[snip for brevity only] ... so focusing on the capitalist
mechanism for causing enviro crisis addresses some of the cause (the main
one ) of enviro crisis TODAY. ... your statements to the effect that
reading the above books doesn't give you anything addressing today's enviro
crisis is not entirely accurate.
Ah, I guess I am busted here! Yes, the above books contain "something"
addressing the crisis. I think I accept that better than some of the
marxists on this list who are afraid to venture into those waters at all ...
<g>
CB
> Second, given the dominance of capitalism over Masai type pastoralism in
the world economies today ( we're talking overfuckingwhelming dominance
here), the explanations of capitalist cause of enviro crisis are a million
times more important than explanations of Masai type pastoralist cause of
enviro crisis.
True. Unfortunately the Masai-type actions (and not just them, let's not
pick on them or let them stand for all 3rd world enviro-destruction.) are
more critical than you realize, since by and large these folks are located
where the interface with the environment is more critical than, say,
downtown New York. And yes the capitalist cause coming out of New York is at
the root of the overwhelming majority of environmental destruction. But the
capitalist cause is not what's killing the last 30 desert leopards in
Russia, nor the last 300 chimpanzees in Zaire. We need to keep that in mind.
CB
> Third, given all the environmental crises that did NOT take place in the
course of human history during non-capitalists modes of production, you seem
to be leaving out the evidence that many of those modes were not
ecologically unwise.
Tom:
The following belongs to another discussion for later: the sad record of
human history is a record where many more environmental crises have been
covered up than have been reported to us. I suspect you discount this a bit
too much. (example: do you know about pre-Inca irrigation practices and
their effect upon that civilization?)
CB:
And it is not at all clear or demonstrated by you or the evidence of human
ecological history that all cultures have de-linked
> humans from perceptions of the consequences of exploiting nature, as you
put it. Not to mention that many cultures explicitly express ecologically
consciousness.
Not "all" ... but "most". And that evidence is very clear and well
documented. (again, read Daniel Quinn or Arne Naess -- or even Tragedy of
the Commons for the required demonstration.) Those that express ecological
consciousness are in retreat or destroyed, by capitalists worldwide,
marxists in China, and totalitarians in Africa, the Middle East, and South
America etc etc ad infinitum.
> By the way, see _Man In Adaptation: The Cultural Past_ , edited by Yehudi
Cohen, which presents evidence of ecological consciousness and practice in
many human societies throughout history.
Thanks, I will add it to my reading list.
> CB:
Since, the rate of capitalist destruction is many times bigger than the
slower ones, we can concentrate all our efforts on capitalism right now, and
cross that bridge when we come to it , if we can get to it.
Tom:
Again, a fundamental difference of opinion.1) Time is critical. If we
concentrate all our efforts on capitalism we lose critical parts of the
ecosystem we cannot afford to lose, heretofore overlooked in the backwaters
of the world. We need marxists to support this effort as well as the assault
on capitalism. All too often since there is little marxist theory about
environmental degradation, marxist activism toward saving critical habitats
is lost, or ganged up on the wrong side.2) *some* effort needs to be
expended now and in the future toward eliminating the de-linkage problem I
mention. It seems like small potatoes, I realize, but the attitude *must* be
changed before the effects of the Crash eliminate hope. As someone mentioned
earlier, values change. Richard III had lotsa horses every time except one
when he really needed a horse. The same with ignoring the de-linkage of
perception of environmental consequences. WE run the risk of waking up too
late and realizing we should have acted sooner in this arena.
CB
> Capitalism has destroyed most indigenous culture, so some of what you
describe as non-capitalist, is actually capitalist dominated and distorted.
Tom:
Oh yes, very true. If what I wrote leads to misperceiving this factor, it
was not my intention. Do not miss the point, though: non-capitalist culture
most often reacts in environmentally destructive ways precisely *because* of
the pressures capitalism brings to bear. But this is no reason to avoid
addressing the issue among indigenous cultures. (Think, for example, of the
murder of whales by the Makah, which provides an excuse for the murder of
whales by Japan and Russia.)
> CB: Socialist organization of society has already given a good indication
that it can feed everybody by for example, ending hunger in China. The
Soviet Union did not fail to feed everybody or provide ordinary values for
everybody. It's failure was do more to being militarily bludgeoned by
imperialism, from the Cordon Sanitaire , to the Nazi invasion to the Cold
War.
Tom:
This gets back to the "specific, climatic and ecological processes of the
year 2000" and I guess a difference in our perceptions, Charles. By 2025
when there ae 8.5 billion souls, *no one* can provide for them adequately.
(oops, my "neo-malthusian" knickers are showing, .. true nonetheless.)
Hunger is not ended in China, just delayed. As is the crisis of virility of
old Chinese men delayed, as they seek to kill the last bears on the planet.
I would have hoped that Chinese marxism would offer more solutions to that
environmental crisis, although they have taken a great step this week.
> CB: The Marxist theory of booms and busts does not claim that any boom
would follow running out of a fundamental energy resource like oil . I
thought you were talking about an ordinary economic crisis.
> How can I say this. The fact that the prospect of running out of oil
creates a new type of crisis not addressed by the Marxist theory of cyclical
economic crisis does not mean that Marxism does not in its other respects
provide a critical understanding for what must be done to save the world
from depletion of oil. Marxism or the like is the only theory sufficiently
critical and honest about capitalism to let us know that capitalism will
sacrifice the species in its pursuit of surplus value. The fact that more
than this classical Marxism is needed to solve the depletion of energy
problems that remain even for a society that stops furiously using oil
indifferent to the depletion problem( because it is no longer controlled by
the pursuit of surplus-value ) doesn't mean that Marxism doesn't solve part
of the problem - the specifically capitalist generated aspect of the
problem. There is no reason for you to poo poo this partial solution,
because we don't have the whole solutoin yet. There is no reason to say
Marxism doesn't help with the environmental crisis at all.
Tom:
I have not said that. I have not said "at all" in this way. I have said that
very little has been put forth by marxists to address environmental concerns
from their perspective. Nor do I poo poo marxist contributions to the
solutions, else I would be long gone from this list. What I have asked
for -- to little avail -- is that the partial solutions be stated and
examined. What I have asked for is that current marxists (not classical
Marx) begin to awaken to the need for marxism to address the issues of the
environment rather than stay in denial by contending that all aspects of the
crises must be neatly shoehorned into classical marxist theory, or else be
ignored. (the "use" value argument seems to me a good example of this at
times.)
What I ask is that *whatever* utility marxist theory today or in the past
has in addressing environmental concerns ... that it be brought to the forum
and discussed as a guide for each of us to implement what we can of it. What
I ask is for common ground for marxists and non-marxists on the
environment. What I ask for is solidarity with us "neo-malthusians".
Personally, I ask that if I challenge a marxist position I not be called an
asshole or a "red-baiter" (masturbator will do just fine, Julien.)
Thanks for the discussion so far, Charles. I hope it is rewarding.
Tom
"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and
their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam
construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to
wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled
land." -- David Foreman, Earth First!
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
