I think Harvey means something close to what you write below about the destruction of the planet.
I don't really know if his criticism of Foster as an exemplar was fair, but he complained about the lack of a ''class line' (my term) in Foster's suggestion that there is a "common interest" by humanity to stop despoiling the earth, or in Barry Commoner-like 'laws' of ecology ( 'nature knows best', etc). Harvey argues the eco-socialist program is still under-developed (my term). He has emphasize the environmental justice movement (e.g. against toxic sites in poor/Black/Latino neighbourhoods) as an under-rated site of eco/class struggle. Louis P. describes such criticism as 'brown Marxism', but I think that is off the mark. Bill Burgess At 10:24 PM 8/27/2002 -0700, Ken wrote: >Why is the distinction lost on you? Surely it is likely that the planet will >survive. The idea of a vulnerable planet is a bit weird in itself except >that a meteorite or MAD atomic blast might destroy it. What is vulnerable >are some species and perhaps humans are one of them. I really dont know. But >surely not all species are likely to be destroyed and even some members of >the human species will probably survive a considerable amount of >environmental degradation but not with a "standard of living" such as we now >have. So what is it you mean when you claim not to understand Harvey's >distinction? Or does he mean something different that what I described >above? > >Cheers, Ken Hanly > > > >) > > > > Neither of these characters have anything to do with Marxism, but they > > both figure in debates between Marxists over the ecological crisis. For > > example, David Harvey argued that MR editor John Bellamy Foster was > > veering in the same direction as people like Erlich because he titled > > his book "The Vulnerable Planet." Harvey argued that we might despoil > > the planet, but it will survive. This was a distinction lost on both > > John and me. > >
