******************** 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. *****************************************************************
You'll have to produce some quotes to back up your assessment of Cronon's perspective. Unless he has fundamentally changed his perspective since he wrote Changes in the Land, I cannot see how he is a proponent of "green capitalism". > 18 мая 2015 г., в 9:31, Louis Proyect via Marxism > <[email protected]> написал(а): > > ******************** 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/shalva.eliava%40outlook.com _________________________________________________________ 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
