>From: bon moun >
>Historical materialists are not being dismissive of ecological concerns
>when we point out--at this juncture--that being cognizant of the damage is
>not enough. A doctor that identifies the symptoms has taken an important
>step, but the treatment can not be effectively assessed wihtout
>understanding the etiology of the disease. If human activity is
>responsible for the problem, and if human activity is socially and
>historically conditioned, then we need to understand how to intervene in
>that social and historical conditioning to "treat."
I despair of getting historical materialists to recognize the flaw
represented by the word "intervene" in your statement, but that's all that I
object to above. Part of the baggage of the "control" issue is this illusion
that we can always intervene - use our control - to fix things. From the
"eco" side of this, what has been set in motion by human activity has
effects that have "drifted over" into issues and areas within the biosphere
that are not amenable to intervention nor treatment. One assumes that we
have a kind of control to do this, and wake up to find this is an illusion
propagated 10000 years ago.
Not being argumentative here, just trying to draw attention to an overlooked
component of the problem.
>AGAIN... Marxists have been guilty of dismissing in the past. Some
>so-called marxists still are. But the philosophical foundations of marxism
>are anti-dogmatic. [snip for brevity only] ... We are acknowledging that
>environmental
>concerns are not only important, but that environmental realities will
>probably constitute the next and most severe crisis of the system--which we
>rightly identify as capitalism.
Yes. I know. we are back to what you and I do not agree upon. The "system"
is not capitalism, the "system" in reality is the ecosphere and capitalism
lives inside of it. Fix capitalism's issues and you STILL have a problem.
However, if by "intervention" you can include some very few biocentric
imperatives that might require change in your current philosophy, then I
don't think you and I have a disagreement at all. (I am willing to change MY
philosophy too, BTW, if it seems counterproductive.)
>We want to address those concerns, but we
>can't get away from the necessity of gaining power before we have the
>capacity to intervene. The power can only be gained through mass
>movements, and the impetus for those mass movements will grow out of
>existing perceptions of conflict and need among the masses. The reason we
>continue to stress class struggle here is that our natural allies, and in
>fact the only mass great enough and potentially powerful enough to "turn
>the system off," are the classes that exist in an irreconcilably
>antagonistic relationship to the ruling class. In the so-called 2nd and
>3rd worlds, those are peasants and laborers, and in the "developed world",
>they are laborers.
Again, I know you believe this, and I am not trying to be a red-baiter. I
will posit some observations that seem to be getting in your way:
1)you must find wayS to begin what you call "intervention" BEFORE you have
gained power. Unless you got the whole shebang wrapped up by 2050 (generous
timetable)
2) the use of the word "only" above. (IMHO that IS dogmatic.) It blocks you
from considering other viable alternatives, even short term ones that are
critical.
3) non-recognition that the class divisions you use above mask a more
fundamental problem that does not lend itself to solution via political,
social and economic action. Mass movements toward "good" do not have to be
complete before adressing biocentric issues. ALL classes are more mobile and
capable of movement toward "good" than you allow.
I suppose it's a wrangle over methodology between us, CB, not over the
nature of man and the biosphere.
Let me give you one more simplistic analogy:
The castle built upon sand:
The majority of occupants aren't even aware of the shakey foundation.
Historical materialists wish to revisit the castle's blueprint, strengthen
the walls and remodel the second and top floors. Ecos want to move out of
the castle. Capitalists are saying "Sand? Sand is good! Wanna buy a castle?"
Meanwhile nature is tilting the castle on its side and has set fire to it.
Would it matter if it was a capitalist or a marxist who started squirting a
hose on the flames? Could an eco and a marxist work on a team together to
shore up the walls? Shouldn't we all be working on a plan to build a castle
on firm ground before this one disassembles?
Now, if you were standing outside the castle, what course of action would
you recommend to the occupants? ALL the occupants.
Tom
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
