Michael Keaney says:
>I won't speak for Mark, whose erudition in this matter is beyond reproach
>IMO, but I will say that, historically, it is capitalist development that
>has been the model. Even Lenin (and later Stalin, and now China) drank from
>the well dug by Taylor, Gantt et al. That is, what we supposed to aspire to
>has been driven by capitalist logic primarily, which naturally skews
>priorities and distorts the full development of human personality and
>community.
That is because Lenin, etc. were engaged in real politics (that is,
in ideological struggles against bourgeois reformers as well as
reactionaries, in politico-military struggles to build up socialist
society's productive forces in order to defend its existence, etc.),
not because they were necessarily uninterested in ecologically-minded
socialism. For instance, Lenin wrote:
***** The Social-Democrats have proved that they know how to
appreciate the historic services of the great centres of energy and
culture by their relentless struggle against all that encroaches on
the freedom of movement of the population generally and of the
peasants and agricultural labourers in particular. That is why no
agrarian can trap them, as he can the Critics, with the bait of
providing the "muzhik" with winter "employment". The fact that we
definitely recognise the progressive character of big cities in
capitalist society, however, does not in the least prevent us from
including in our ideal (and in our programme of action, for we leave
unattainable ideals to Messrs. Struve and Berdyaev) the abolition of
the antithesis between town and country. It is not true to say that
this is tantamount to abandoning the treasures of science and art.
Quite the contrary: this is necessary in order to bring these
treasures within the reach of the entire people, in order to abolish
the alienation from culture of millions of the rural population,
which Marx aptly described as "the idiocy of rural life".[72] And at
the present time, when it is possible to transmit electric power over
long distances, when the technique of transport has been so greatly
improved that it is possible at less cost (than at present) to carry
passengers at a speed of more than 200 versts an hour,[*] there are
absolutely no technical obstacles to the enjoyment of the treasures
of science and art, which for centuries have been concentrated in a
few centres, by the whole of the population spread more or less
evenly over the entire country.
And if there is nothing to prevent the abolition of the antithesis
between town and country (not be imagined, of course, as a single act
but as a series of measures), it is not an "aesthetic sentiment"
alone that demands it. In the big cities people suffocate with the
fumes of their own excrement, to use Engels' expression, and
periodically all who can, flee from the cities in search of fresh air
and pure water." Industry is also spreading over the countryside; for
it, too, requires pure water. The exploitation of waterfalls, canals,
and rivers to obtain electric power will give a fresh impetus to this
"spreading out of industry". Finally -- last, but not least[*] -- the
rational utilisation of city refuse in general, and human excrement
in particular, so essential for agriculture, also calls for the
abolition of the antithesis between town and country. It is against
this point in the theory of Marx and Engels that the Critics decided
to direct their agronomical arguments (the Critics preferred to
refrain from fully analysing the theory, which is dealt with in great
detail in Engels' Anti-Duhring,[74] and, as usual, limited themselves
simply to paraphrasing fragments of the thoughts of a Brentano).
Their line of reasoning is as follows: Liebig proved that it is
necessary to restore to the soil as much as is taken from it. He was
therefore of the opinion that throwing city refuse into the seas and
rivers was a stupid and barbarous waste of materials essential for
agriculture. Kautsky agrees with Liebig's theory. But modern
agronomics has proved that it is quite possible to restore the
productive forces of the soil without the use of stable manure,
namely, by means of artificial fertilisers, by the inoculation of
certain bacteria into leguminous plants which collect nitrates, etc.
Consequently, Kautsky, and all those "orthodox" people, are simply
behind the times.
Consequently -- we reply -- here, too, the Critics commit one of
their innumerable and endless distortions. After explaining Liebig's
theory, Kautsky immediately showed that modern agronomics has proved
that it is quite possible "to dispense altogether with stable manure"
(Agrarfrage, S. 50; see passage quoted above), but added that this
was merely a palliative compared with the waste of human excrement
entailed by the present system of city sewage disposal. Now, if the
Critics were at all capable of discussing the essential points of the
question, this is the point they should have disproved; they should
have shown that it is not a palliative. But they did not even think
of doing so. Needless to say, the possibility of substituting
artificial for natural manures and the fact that this is already
being done (partly) do not in the least refute the irrationality of
wasting natural fertilisers and thereby polluting the rivers and the
air in suburban and factory districts. Even at the present time there
are sewage farms in the vicinity of large cities which utilise city
refuse with enormous benefit to agriculture; but by this system only
an infinitesimal part of the refuse is utilised. To the objection
that modern agronomics has refuted the argument that the cities
agronomically exploit the countryside, with which the Critics present
Kautsky as something new, he replies, on page 211 of his book, that
artificial fertilisers "render it possible to avoid the diminution of
soil fertility, but the necessity to employ them to an increasing
extent merely indicates still another of the numerous burdens
agriculture has to bear, which are by no means a natural necessity,
but a product of existing social relations".[*]
(Lenin, "The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of Marx'," at
<http://www.marx2mao.org/Lenin/AQCM01.html>) *****
What prevented the Soviets from bringing about the abolition of "the
antithesis between town and country" was, first and foremost, a
multitude of political problems (e.g., hoarding by richer peasants,
imperialism, increasing centralization of power in the hands of the
bureaucratic elite, etc.). Today's eco-socialists, who tend to think
they are so much smarter & more ecologically sensitive than Lenin, et
al., will also encounter a multitude of comparable political problems
if they ever get around to actually making a transition to socialism.
>And before some bore hits back with an utterly predictable (and
>defeatist) "Well how would socialism differ?" it would, by definition, be
>far more democratic. Capitalism has replaced labour intensity with energy
>intensity against the wishes of many former skilled trade practitioners,
>often reducing the quality of the end product in the process. Construction
>and home furniture spring to mind here. Food and agriculture even more so
>(think of recent British experience). Meanwhile increased reliance upon
>electronics and cyber-technology will only intensify energy demand. And
>there is much capitalist industry that can, without great disagreement among
>socialists, be decommissioned. That pertaining to the military sector would
>be a good place to start. Other readily dispensable accoutrements of waste,
>as highlighted by Veblen, Baran & Sweezy, etc., would be the embedding of
>the sales effort in the production process.
Decommissioning the military sector would be an excellent idea once
the entire world left capitalism & imperialism to the dustbin of
history. An unfortunate reality is that socialists can't lay down
arms altogether until war against them ends. If socialism is to be
democratic, freely associated producers of a possible socialist
future (if such a future comes) -- rather than today's eco-socialists
-- _must decide for themselves_ whether they would rather have labor-
or energy-intensive production, or more likely what mixture of both,
in view of social & natural constraints that they face.
>I agree with a point made by Michael P. some time back: future generations,
>as well as the present, have much to be grateful to Cuba for, given its
>remarkable resilience in the face of significant hardship.
No doubt, but I also believe Cubans are relieved to find a friend in
Venezuela (see for instance "Cuba, Venezuela Sign Oil Deal" at
<http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/cuba/US-Cuba/ap103000.html>).
Yoshie
