******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
(Very interesting comments on Marxism and ecology from Christian Parenti
but some disjunctions. He describes himself as influenced by both Jason
Moore and William Cronon. Moore has written some brilliant stuff over
the years but I view Cronon as having dubious connections to
*environmentalism* as opposed to his writings on *ecology*. Suffice it
to say that Cronon is more interested in how society acts upon nature
rather than the need to preserve it. When Parenti says that "The deep
ecology, left-conservationist version of environmentalism is
fundamentally defeatist", that is the Cronon influence kicking in. A
while back I wrote to Donald Worster to get his take on Cronon. This is
his reply--he calls his position closer to "Green Capitalist" than Karl
Marx.)
Q: What are the limitations to using Marx's work when thinking about
ecology?
A: The tradition requires more elaboration. Marxism as ecology has a
bright future ahead of it, if not politically, then at least
intellectually. We're seeing a renaissance in Marxist thought. This is
just the beginning, regardless of what you wish to call it:
eco-socialism, political ecology, ecological Marxism or world ecology,
as Jason Moore calls it. I am a bit agnostic on the labeling. However,
the idea of rethinking our place in nature through the Marxist tradition
is very important.
One of the key things to overcome is this dichotomy between human beings
and external nature. There is a disagreement between Foster and Moore on
the importance of this conceptual dichotomy. In some Monthly Review
articles, nature can appear as distinct, as standing in opposition to
the social. Moore critiques this nature versus society thinking, calling
it "the Cartesian-dualism," and he wants to transcend or blast through
it. And Moore is critical of Foster, who edits MR, for falling back into
the nature versus society distinction.
Let's be clear about this: It's very dangerous to see human beings as
outside of something called nature.
Foster has responded that when his language appears to slip into this
distinction, it is, as it was for Marx, merely a rhetorical concession
for the sake of clarity. Foster's argument is that it is impossible to
analyze reality without resorting to abstractions that "temporarily
isolate" distinct parts of the whole. In other words, critique requires
abstract - the artificial separation of the whole into component pieces
for the sake of analysis and critique. But in reality these parts are
always already dialectically bound up together in the whole. In other
words, Foster said though he writes of nature on the one hand, and
society on the other, these are merely strategic, temporary formulations
and not the real essence of his theory. That is a fair defense on
Foster's part and he does not actually think through the Cartesian
dualism. Foster is not a closet conservationist - horror of horrors that
would be!
But at the same time, Jason Moore's insistence on a different language
is really important. The temporary abstraction of the nature/society
distinction is insidious and has a way of pushing us back into the
Cartesian dualism. Actually getting beyond it, rather than just
problematizing and complicating it, is a very real and important
challenge. Let's be clear about this: It's very, very dangerous to see
human beings as outside of something called nature. If that's the basis
from which one begins, then the conclusion is almost automatically
Malthusian. If nature is this pristine Other being victimized by Man,
then the solution is for humans to leave. Sadly, that notion is at the
heart of most American environmentalism. Just look at the misanthropic
politics of deep ecology. That sort of politics is not appealing to most
people. The average person on the planet is not going to get behind a
political movement that tells people, "You are the problem!"
Also, that position isn't fair to the entire historical record. There
are many examples of people increasing biological diversity rather than
decreasing it. Native American burning of the landscape is a perfect
example. Anthropogenic fire in North America increased biological
diversity. World history is full of such examples. Actually, for more on
this, check out the new book The Social Lives of Forests edited by
Kathleen Morrison and Susan Hecht. Of course, we know lots more about
the many infamously destructive, life-limiting impacts of humans upon
the environment. Even before the Industrial Revolution, human beings
drove extinction processes. Under capitalism, all of that accelerates.
But that is not our only record. And we can choose as a species to
emulate the better parts of human history.
We can play a life-creating role or the opposite.
In this regard, Jason Moore insists on talking about the Capitalocene
rather than the Anthropocene. I am down with that, but following from
David R. Montgomery's book Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations, I think
there's a strong case to be made for the Anthropocene, measured by its
geological, stratigraphic markers starting 8,000 to 10,000 years ago.
The key point in all this is human beings are not intruders upon a
distinct, separate thing called nature. As constituent parts of the
universal metabolism of nature we, like other species, actively create
our environment and have done so throughout the entire history of our
species. We can play a life-creating role or the opposite. Back in the
late 1980s, Susan Hecht showed how indigenous people in the Amazon
created biodiversity. They moved plants around. Hunter and gatherer
societies have done this throughout the world.
Anthropogenic fire has long played an important role in the universal
metabolism of nature. It was our ancestor Homo erectus that tamed fire,
used it to cook, and most likely to shape the landscape either
intentionally or by mistake. Homo sapiens have used fire on a vast
scale. Native Americans and pastoralist societies in southern Africa
used fire to create fecund, hunt easier, open forests and grazeable
grasslands. A lot of this goes back to William Cronon's first book
Changes in the Land in which he examined the environmental history of
New England before and just after White settlement. Pre-contact New
England was not some sort of pristine, natural place. Native Americans
didn't necessarily tread lightly in the region. No, in fact, indigenous
people throughout North America had a robust and quite aggressive role
in shaping the ecosystem. Some communities would burn the landscape
twice a year. This created edge habitat meadows amidst forests, the
ideal environment for deer.
This wasn't a mild intervention. It was aggressive and transformative,
but it was also productive in the sense that it created more
biodiversity and more life. Even if there are more examples of humans
diminishing biodiversity, it's important to acknowledge that is not the
only role we have played as a species. Neil Smith called the human
contribution, social nature. Jason Moore calls it the oikeios. The deep
ecology, left-conservationist version of environmentalism is
fundamentally defeatist. If nature is the pristine other and we humans
are intruders, then the implied solution is get rid of human beings. If
that's the case, then "be the change you want to see" and kill yourself.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30756-christian-parenti-on-the-state-humanity-as-part-of-nature-and-the-malleability-of-capitalism
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
