[Apologies if this message is a duplicate..I tried to send it earlier.] At 08:09 AM 10/21/96 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Hanly) wrote: >the theological writers surely includes >liberation theologians and do they not envision different types of Christian >socialism? Actually, I don't think you'll find nowadays anyone, in North America at least, using the term "Christian socialism"! But that is what folks like William Temple and Walter Rauschenbusch had in mind earlier in the century... >While some forms of environmental critiques of capitalism may provide >alternatives to some forms of capitalism, others seem to me to be >both reactionary in their attitude to class issues (not giving a shit about job >loss, and rascist in attitude--Dave Foreman in his early days at least) >(See DEFENDING THE EARTH: A DIALOGUE BETWEEN MURRAY BOOKCHIN AND DAVE FOREMAN >Boston: South End Press, 1991) and not anti-capitalist so much as >anti-exploitation of nature. I have even seen it written that it is really >the environment that is the proletariat. Pure mystification and entirely >anti-humanist. Absolutely agreed. >It is not clear to me that a steady state >economy would be an alternative to capitalism per se rather than existing >capitalism. Why could there not be private for profit ownership of the means of >production in a steady state economy? Because, I would argue, if you're a firm operating in a market system on a for-profit basis, you'll be under pressure to either grow or die in most instances. You'll also have strong incentive to pass of ecological costs on to the community. And unless you radically undercut the economic insecurity characteristic of present-day capitalism, there'll be pressure to grow politically simply to provide enough jobs, etc. I agree theoretically there are vast ecological gains that reform-under-capitalism might accomplish, but don't think that's a very plausible scenario given the way existing power interests can block meaningful reform. >As for getting to socialism through a >guaranteed income, I don't see it. I don't see it either! Van Parijs' idea, not mine. In fact, Andre Gorz for many years resisted guaranteed income ideas because he thought plugged into existing culture it would increase consumerism, etc. and undermine solidarity (he's now for a guaranteed income as part of a broader strategy; so am I.) >The alternatives to >capitalism in environmental philosophy seem to be found among those writing >in the area of ecofeminism (and only some) and social ecology. John Clark, >Janet Biehl and Joel Kovel as well as Murray Bookchin represent writers in >this area. Thanks for some of these refs! In general I don't think ecological writers are very strong in facing up to power issues and often act as if you can wish away corporate structures. My preliminary judgement is that serious thought about what a sustainable society would like institutionally is underdeveloped but far from nonexistent. In the end, I don't think any particular proposed structure (short of "industrial disarmament") can be said to <guarantee> ecological sustainability; but possibly a system that allowed for genuine, society-wide social choices in trading off between more income and work vs. ecological restraint and more free time, if combined with sufficient ecological consciousness on a cultural level, might have a shot. > Perhaps I am just out of touch. I have always thought that progressive >alternatives to capitalism would be some form of socialism or anarchism, >though these certainly could stress feminist, ecological, or race issues. >I am completely baffled by those who think that they can ignore the key >importance of class either in considering gender, race, or ecological issues. >As Bell Hooks has pointed out to the chagrin of many of her sisters, much >radical feminism is white, upper middle class, and completely out of touch >with the interests of the black woman working in sweatshops or in the feminists >own household. I agree that it is perplexing when folks do identity politics without talking about the economy or basic economic institutions. But I think also there are many feminist writers (even white and radical ones!) making the connections between feminist concerns and capitalism...political scientists Iris Marion Young and Nancy Fraser being good examples. Many other feminists, for example, talk about how the organization of urban space currently reflects a presumption toward the "man goes to work woman stays home" model, to the detriment of women's lives; but if you were to get serious about changing the planning process, you'd have to change the underlying structure of urban political economies, and from there you have a clear argument into public ownership of land (etc.) cheers, Thad Thad Williamson National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/ Union Theological Seminary (New York) 212-531-1935 http://www.northcarolina.com/thad
