In a previous post I was not attempting a review of Shiva's book, Staying Alive. It is several years since I read it, and I do not have it to hand. From memory, though, the faults which made me think it the worst book I have ever read were: 1) its astounding repetitiousness 2) appalling style and syntax 3) a disregard for the standard canons of argument (e.g. stacks of non-sequiturs, a dearth of evidence for the assertions made, etc.) As regards the question of its content and Shiva's overall position much more needs to be said. With this in mind I offer the following essay, though it deals with more than just objections to Shiva. Shiva criticizes not just the acknowledged failures and injustices of Western industrial capitalism but also their alleged 'successes'--growth, mass consumerism, and rapid technological development. It is the very paradigm of advanced industrialism itself which she regards as inimical to both ecological sustainability, and to meeting the genuine economic needs of human beings, especially women and the poor of the Third World. While agreeing that industrialism is an ambiguous phenonomenon with many a dark aspect, a phenomenon that should certainly not be celebrated in an unalloyed fashion or uncritical spirit, I cannot share Shiva's overall position. For one thing, personally, I basically welcome the advent of industrialization, Western urban life, rapid technological innovation and the type of 'Western' science upon which these things are predicated. My guess is that most people in the world, including the Third World, welcome or aspire to these developments too. For decades millions of people have been forsaking 'sustenance' form of agriculture and have been only too eager to abandon traditional economic 'wisdom' for 'Western' lifestyles based on industrialization and urbanization. True, millions also suffer miserably in shanty town squalor as they try to cling, however precariously, to the urban, consumer economy. But it is a remarkable fact that after many years of this kind of poverty and the exploitation and powerless that goes with it, there is very little sign of mass yearning for a return to pre-industrial forms of economic organization. It might be objected that these masses of unfortunates are dupes of an imperialistic culture. It might be objected that they have little alternative but to assimilate to the logic of industrial capitalism as they are more or less driven from their traditional landholdings. Both of these objections contain more than a grain of truth. But it does not follow that these people would, under less constrained circumstances, really prefer to engage permanently in a sustenance economy of the type envisaged by Shiva. And when popular revolutions and other movements of mass protest do occur, they generally do not aim at transforming society in the direction advocated by Shiva, but rather aim at speeding up the process of industrial economic development or at capturing a greater share of its benefits for the poor. <E.g. the Zapatistas wanted electricity, more modern medical care, etc>. The only modern revolution that I can think of which was clearly anti-industrial, anti-Western technology, and anti-Western culture in orientation was that of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Not a very attractive counter-example, nor one that would conform in other respects with the values espoused by Vandana Shiva. The real problem with Shiva's position is this: she fails to understand not so much the problems created by industrial capitalism, as the nature of its historical logica and dynamism. Yes, industrial capitalism *is* ruthless, exploitative, destructive; yes, it ignores or tramples on vital human values; yes, it even threatens human and biological survival. But it is no use simply lamenting these facts. They must also be understood. We need to understand why, despite all these repellent features, industrial capitalism has been so successful at extending its dominion over human affairs for so long. The ever expanding power of capital and its allies in the state is no accident of history. To have become such an enduring and (in its own terms) successful mode of production, industrial capitalism must have performed real functions, it must have served real wants and interests. Why is it able to extend its tentacles into Mexico and Peru, Indonesia and Thailand? Why is it able to destroy subsistence farming and traditional communities so unfailingly? Why did it eventually force small-scale Jeffersonian communities to give way to the the monopoly power of Carnegie, J. P. Morgan, Ford and Rockefeller? Why does it now appear as an unstoppable force in shaping an interdependent global economy through the expansion of trade, the enhanced mobility of finance-capital, and where need be, the use of military power. Shiva laments these phenomena, but she does not, I fear, understand or adequately account for them. Here Marx is much better. Roughly and very schematically, industrial capitalism has these world-historical features because of the role it plays in enhancing the forces of production. To oppose the development of these forces of production is, I believe, ultimately doomed to failure. But, understood correctly, development of the forces of production is not at all opposed to the logic and value of sustainability. To think otherwise is an error which derives from thinking that what is at stake in speaking of of the development of the forces of production is the quantitative growth of per capita material output. The key force of production is human labor power itself, including all the skill, creativity, invention, and knowledge characteristically displayed in purposeful human activity. The development of *this* force of production, then, refers to its qualitative enhancement and progressive emancipation from drudgery. It involves raising human labor power to new levels of skill, creativity and knowledge, not the endless churning out of more and more material goods. That would be to stay on the same level human labor power occupies under capitalism. Capitalism elevates human labor power's capacities up to a certain level, but at a point which we may now be reaching, it thwarts the further development of those capacities by insisting that productivity gains be devoted to increasing material outputs rather than other goods, such as purposeful leisure time, improved human relations, etc. So what is intended by marxian notions of enhancing the forces of production is not, beyond a certain level of material comfort, producing more and more 'stuff', but a qualitative elevation of the nature of work. This in turn is bound up with 'capital' taking on a more human form, the greater importance of information and knowledge, and a shift from traditional outputs toward an expanding array of creative personal services, education, nurturing activities, cultural production, etc, and a steady reduction in the working time required for the production of life's material necessities. The key to this is democratizing control over capital so that in both the allocation of investment funds, and in the workplace, interests which under capitalism take on an exaggeratedly consumerist and material form can be expressed and served in a more holistic and human manner. Technological development should thus not be eschewed, but rather democratically directed to a more liberated form of human existence, in which hours of work devoted to producting material goods are reduced and other non-material outputs are increased. Productivity must continue to be improved so that the resulting gains can be used to serve cultural, social service, and leisure ends instead of those served under capitalism. Achieving this goal requires prolonged anti-capitalist class struggle at various sites. The anti-industrial alternative advocated by Shiva would certainly safeguard sustainability (assuming its widespread acceptance and implementation). But in fact it is most likely to be rejected by the mass of humanity on the grounds that it holds out no prospect for the qualitative development and emancipation of human labor power. It would have little place for the characteristically human propensities to engage in scientific discovery, technological innovation, organizational creativity, little room to do new things in new ways, to seek continually the enhancement of our powers, capacities and knowledge; in short, it would offer little scope to develop new and preferred ways of living and acting. A permanent option for anti-industrialism would not only petrify the nature of work, it would also congeal the structure of social relations in which work is embedded. It was for this reason that Marx, though fully aware of the miseries accompanying the advent of 'dark, Satanic mills', welcomed the appearance of industrial capitalism as spelling the death-knell of the age-old 'idiocy of village life' in which countless human generations had toiled merely to secure the means to continue toiling. He saw clearly that capitalist industrialization contained within itself the objective material conditions for the popular extension of education, art, science and culture, which hitherto had of necessity been restricted to a tiny minority. It was for this reason that Marx ruled out alternatives to capitalism that would involve the stagnation of the forces of production. To opt for such alternatives would be to go against human nature. This conclusion of Marx is confirmed by experience: it is apparent that the great majority of the human race regard such alternatives with evident disfavor. People everywhere exhibit a powerful desire to improve their quality of life. It is true that under capitalist relations of production they are compelled to express this desire in an exaggeratedly consumerist form since they do not have control over the composition of economic development and are unable to choose how to use improvements in the productivity of their own labor. But the answer to this problem lies in extending social freedom to include the making of these choices, not in restricting the rights to participate freely in fashioning new historical structures of social and economic life or to engage in new forms of self-chosen, self-developing activity. This extension of freedom and self- and societal development carries with it an inevitable risk: the risk that our collective human choices will turn out to be destructive for ourselves and for the planet. But at least under socialist arrangements we would have the capacity and option to avoid making such destructive choices. Under capitalism institutions of private property, wage-labor, and the competitive market allocation of resources, we would not, since any consequences that eventuated would be the unintended result of an uncoordinated, atomistic, and anarchic set of individual decisions inevitably escaping our collective rational control. Socialism, then, is a necessary condition of sustainability. But it is not sufficient. But though insufficient, I would suggest that in the absence of something like an environmental police state, we cannot in any case *guarantee* that we won't finally destroy our environment, our natural resources, and ourselves. In fact, even an environmental police state would not be enough to *guarantee* sustainability, for like other police states it could always be overthrown or corrupted. In any society, whether it be free and democratic or not, there can be no ultimate protection from the consequences of folly. Peter Burns SJ [EMAIL PROTECTED]