File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2000/bhaskar.0012, message 22


Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 05:29:37 -0500
Subject: Re: BHA: responding to FEW


Gary says:

>The arguments advanced in this case are quite technical and complex. 
>I believe though it helps to see Bhaskar as advancing a position 
>close to classic objective idealism where spirit is held to precede 
>matter.  This of course puts him in the company of Plato and Hegel. 
>Before dismissing this position we would do well here to recall 
>Lenin's remarks about how intelligent objective idealists were often 
>more interesting than crude materialists.
>
>What form does spirit take within the Bhaskarian schema?  As already 
>mentioned this is God.  The crucial question though is, 'What sort 
>of God?'  Thankfully he is not the often sadistic brute of 
>Judaic-Christian tradition. Bhaskar's God would seem to be one of 
>infinite patience.  He or She or It has created a species of 
>essentially god-like creatures (you and me!)  who one day through 
>the process of reincarnations will learn this truth and then shall 
>rejoin the absolute. There is no hell here or ever lasting 
>punishment.  It is never too late.
>
>In the mean time we live lives of deep alienations and splits.  We 
>are divided from our souls and from the totality that is the 
>universe.  Our lives are shrouded in ignorance, and reality is 
>hidden from us by the veil of ideology.  To discover the truth and 
>to be free we have only (!) to recognise our true natures as 
>partially divine beings.  Freedom then like Brecht's version of 
>communism becomes "the simple thing so hard to achieve".
<snip>
>Conclusions
>
>Any conclusions about the impact of FEW will have to be tentative. I 
>myself think that it will be seen as a turning point and that its 
>significance will be enhanced by future contributions. Whatever the 
>case I would like to close this review with an appeal for an 
>openness of response.  I would like to urge Leftists not to pre-read 
>the book as the decline of a philosopher into mysticism.  Rather I 
>would maintain strongly that it is a text that signals the absolute 
>necessity for the renewal of liberatory thought.  With its 
>spirituality and commitment to changing the evils of the world, FEW 
>shows us a way beyond the sterility and inflexibility of 
>contemporary Marxism.  With its stress on the essential unity of all 
>religions FEW attempts to lead us beyond the scandalous sectarianism 
>of established religions. I wish both the book and the author well 
>in their quest.

What do you think of the contrast between Joel Kovel & John Bellamy 
Foster drawn in the review below?

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Review of "Marx's Ecology"
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:32:21 -0500
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3-AT-panix.com>
To: psn-seminars-AT-csf.colorado.edu

(This was submitted to Canadian Dimension a couple of months ago, but 
I haven't heard back from them. While they have printed about a 
half-dozen articles of mine over the past 2 years--including a review 
of Paul Burkett's book--this one seems to have disappeared into thin 
air. Perhaps they just lost track of it or perhaps they found it too 
unfocused for their purposes. My writing does lose focus all too 
easily, I'm afraid. In any case, feel free to pass it on to friends 
and relatives. It is a very good book after all.)

REVIEW

"Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature" by John Bellamy Foster

Monthly Review, 2000, $18.00

When the modern ecology movement first appeared, most self-described 
Marxists tended to view it through the prism of the Frankfurt School. 
 From this perspective, industrial society was the cause of pollution 
and other environmental problems. Only by paying nature its proper 
respect could we reestablish a natural balance and save the planet. 
Without this change of heart, transforming class relations would 
accomplish little as indicated by poisoned rivers, denuded forests 
and unsafe nuclear reactors in the Soviet Union.

Joel Kovel spoke for many in this broadly defined current when he 
wrote, "Specifically, there is no language within Marxism beyond a 
few ambiguous and sketchy beginnings that directly addresses the 
ravaging of nature or expresses the care for nature which motivates 
people--Marxist or not--to become engaged in ecological struggle." 
("Capitalism, Nature and Socialism", Dec. 1995). He urged "a call to 
open the question of spirituality in Marxism, since spirit, as a 
motion within being, is at the proper level of abstraction for 
dialectical appropriation."

In "Marx's Ecology," John Bellamy Foster defies conventional green 
thinking by raising the banner of materialism rather than 
spirituality in the fight to save the planet and humanity from 
ecological ruin. In addition to restoring materialism to its proper 
place, Foster also shows that ecological questions were central not 
only to Marx, but other Marxists such as Bebel and Bukharin. By 
restoring this lost tradition, Foster hopes to create a new basis for 
ecosocialism grounded in Marxist science rather than mysticism.

For obvious reasons, materialism has taken a back seat in the Western 
Marxist tradition, from Lukacs to the Frankfurt School. This school 
of thought emphasized a historical materialism that largely bracketed 
out nature, while seeing works like Engels' "Dialectics of Nature" as 
paving the way for Stalinist dogma in philosophy and the physical 
sciences.

Foster confesses that an early grounding in a Hegelian-influenced 
Marxism blocked his own path to ecological materialism. Ironically, 
it was not a fellow academic who suggested an alternative 
interpretation of Marx, but an older student named Ira Shapiro who 
had been a farmer at one time in his varied career. He urged Foster 
to "look at this," referring to sections in Marx that dealt with the 
problems of soil nutrients. Later on, Charles Hunt, a friend of 
Foster's and a part-time professor and beekeeper, urged him to take a 
second look at "Dialectics of Nature."

In the first of a series of provocative questions appearing in his 
introduction, Foster asks, "Why did Marx write his doctoral thesis on 
the ancient atomists?" Like the sled in "Citizen Kane," this serves 
as a clue to Marx's lifelong intellectual development and supports 
the powerful conclusion of Foster's book.

Although most students of Marx are aware of materialist thought in 
such early works as the 1845 "Theses on Feuerbach," Foster argues 
convincingly
that materialism made its debut in Marx's doctoral dissertation on 
the "Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of 
Nature," written four years earlier. According to Foster, the 
standard explanation for the dissertation is that Marx saw Epicurus 
as a kindred rebel spirit. This Epicurus sought to overthrow the 
totalizing philosophy of Aristotle, just as the 
post-Hegelians--including the young Marx--rose up against Hegel. What 
is missing here is the element of materialism, which drew Marx to 
Epicurus in the first place. Marx identified with the Enlightenment, 
for which Epicurus serves as a forerunner to the radical democrats of 
the 17th and 18th century. The materialism they all shared was 
crucial to an attack on the status quo, ancient or modern.

The Greek materialists, especially Epicurus, are important to Marx 
because they represent the first systematic opposition to idealist 
and essentialist thought. Just as importantly, Epicurus in particular 
anticipates the scientific revolution of the Enlightenment. His dicta 
that "Nothing is ever created by divine power out of nothing" and 
"nature . . . never reduces anything to nothing" are in harmony with 
what we now know as "the principle of conservation." Foster also 
notes that Lucretius, another materialist of the classical era, 
"alluded to air pollution due to mining, to the lessening of harvests 
through the degradation of soil, and to the disappearance of the 
forests; as well as arguing that human beings were not radically 
different from animals."

In their early writings, Marx and Engels wed the materialism of the 
Enlightenment to a political critique of the capitalist system, 
particularly targeting ideologues such as Malthus. Taking aim at his 
false piety, the 1844 "Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy" 
challenges private property, especially in the land, asserting that:

"To make earth an object of huckstering--the earth which is ours one 
and all, the first condition of our existence--was the last step in 
making oneself an object of huckstering. It was and is to this very 
day an immortality of self-alienation. And the original 
appropriation--the monopolization of the earth by a few, the 
exclusion of the rest from that which is the condition of their 
life--yields nothing in immorality to the subsequent huckstering of 
the earth."

Marx's materialist conception of history and nature was first of all 
a break with Feuerbach, whose materialism was of a contemplative 
nature. While Marx first outlined his views in the "Theses on 
Feuerbach," he developed them in a more systematic fashion in a "The 
German Ideology." Foster's trained eye permits him to bring a 
neglected theme in the 1846 classic into the foreground.

According to Foster, geology and geography are key elements in the 
materialist conception of history defined in "The German Ideology." 
Without bringing them into play, we can not properly understand how 
industry and nature evolve. Marx had studied geological science at 
the Trier gymnasium under Johann Steinenger, a follower of Abraham 
Gottlob Werner, considered the "father of historical geology." Before 
Werner, geologists simply categorized rocks on the basis of location 
or constituent minerals. Werner speculated on the long-term origins 
of geological succession. He emphasized the need to see the 
development of the earth from origins of "perhaps a 1,000,000 years."

For Marx this constituted a real breakthrough. Seeing the planet's 
history in terms of geological epochs was necessary for the 
development of a materialist ontology. In breaking with the 
theological and essentialist underpinnings of much of 19th century 
thought, Marx drew support especially from the notion of 'generatio 
aequivoca,' or 'spontaneous generation,' that was central to Werner's 
theories. In this respect, Foster argues, Marx remained true to 
Epicurus' view, related by Lucretius, that: "The name of mother has 
rightly been bestowed on the earth, since out of the earth everything 
is born."

In embracing such an approach, Marx emerges as an early 
"evolutionist" in the ongoing battle against "creationism" still 
being fought today. Furthermore, it would make him an early ally of 
modern environmentalists for whom this kind of connection with the 
earth is also important. Foster invokes Rachel Carson: "The 
conditions on the young earth produced life; life then at once 
modified the condition of the earth, so that this single 
extraordinary act of spontaneous generation could not be repeated." 
("Silent Spring")

Given Marx's affinity for Werner's theories, it would follow that 
Darwin would also factor heavily in Marx's continuing investigations 
into nature, including homo sapiens. Key to Darwinian theory, 
according to Foster, was "the fact that environments could change 
radically, thus making an organism that was previously superbly 
adapted to its environment, such as the wooly mammoth, no longer so 
well adapted (actually driving it into extinction), in itself 
contradicted any simple notion of progression."

Marx developed his response to Darwin's theory of natural selection 
between 1859 and 1867, dates which coincide with the appearance of 
"The Origin of Species" and Volume One of Capital respectively. 
Marx's enthusiasm for Darwin is a matter of record. In January 1860, 
he wrote Lassalle that "Darwin's work is most important and suits my 
purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the 
historical class struggle." Less clear is the extent to which 
Darwinian theory actually made its presence felt in Marx's writings.

Foster believes that the answer to this question is in Volume One of 
Capital where in footnotes Marx alludes to the connection between 
"natural technology" at work in the natural evolution of plants and 
animals and the development of human technology in the process of 
human history. Engels developed these ideas in the essay "The Part 
Played by Labour in the Transition from the Ape to Man." Not only did 
this essay make the connection between natural selection in both 
nature and society explicit, it also warned about the consequences of 
upsetting the balance between them.

Darwinism of course has had a troubled relationship to socialism that 
Foster acknowledges. A Malthusian cast to Darwin's thought helped to 
spawn a Social Darwinism that made the "survival of the fittest" a 
paradigm for understanding the relentless march from "savagery" to 
"civilization." Engels recognized this problem and warned that 
attempts to extrapolate "the same theories from organic nature to 
history, and then claim to have proved their validity as eternal laws 
of history" were wrong.

Unfortunately, despite the best of intentions, this mistake has 
cropped up in Marxist thought repeatedly. Perhaps no other figure 
symbolizes this uneasy relationship more dramatically than Lewis 
Henry Morgan, who figured prominently as an inspiration for both the 
"Ethnological Notebooks" of Marx and Engels' "Origins of the Family, 
Private Property and the State."

While most Marxists are aware of the high regard paid to the Iroquois 
by Morgan, there is another more troubling side. Morgan's materialist 
conception of social evolution included biological determinants that 
often led him to racist conclusions. Concluding that certain common 
cultural characteristics of various Indian tribes were proof of a 
common racial makeup, Morgan surmised that behavioral differences 
between Europeans and Indians could be explained by blood. In 
"Systems of Consanguinity," Morgan writes:

"The Indian and European are at opposite poles in their physiological 
conditions. In the former there is very little animal passion, which 
with the latter it is superabundant. A pure-blooded Indian has very 
little animal passion, but in the half blood it is sensibly 
augmented; and when the second generation is reached with a cross 
giving three-fourths white blood, it become excessive and tends to 
indiscriminate licentiousness."

Thus the answer to "improving" the Indian's situation involved 
breeding him with non-Indians. Robert E. Bieder wrote in "Science 
Encounters the Indian" that "Although most so-called Indian reformers 
of the day steered away from suggesting miscegenation as a means of 
'improving' the Indian, Morgan felt that it held a certain 
utilitarian value." Morgan believed that although a half-blood Indian 
was inferior to a pure-blood both physically and mentally, a mixture 
of 3 parts white blood to 1 part Indian might be just what was needed 
to show that in Morgan's words "Indian blood can be taken up without 
physical or intellectual detriment." ("Systems of Sanguinity")

Although it would impose an impossible burden on "Marx's Ecology" to 
expect Foster to deal with these troubled legacy, we still must 
recognize that the proper relationship between scientific socialism 
and indigenous peoples has yet to be defined in its full complexity. 
Both Kautsky and Plekhanov relied heavily on Social Darwinist sources 
in their approach to such peoples. Worse, the general reliance on a 
"stages" conception of social development undoubtedly led to the 
Sandinistas' patronizing attitude toward the Miskito Indians or the 
failure of the FARC and ELN in Colombia to respect indigenous 
sovereignty.

By restoring Marx's materialism to its proper place, "Marx's Ecology" 
provides a theoretical foundation for further explorations in 
ecosocialism. Once we understand the proper connection between nature 
and society, we can begin to act to confront the major problems 
facing humanity, from global warming to diminishing fresh water 
supplies. In the final chapter, Foster cites a number of Marxist 
thinkers who belong to the materialist tradition. Their examples can 
help to inspire a new generation of ecologically minded socialists.

Foster presents an unfamiliar side of Bukharin. His "Philosophical 
Arabesques," only made available in 1992, reveals a sophisticated 
dialectical materialist who grounds his analysis of society in 
ecology. Bukharin writes of the "earth's atmosphere, full of 
infinitely varied life, from the smallest microorganisms in water, on 
land and in the air, to human beings. Many people do not imagine the 
vast richness of these forms, or their direct participation in the 
physical and chemical processes of nature."

As one of the founders of German Social Democracy, August Bebel not 
only spoke with some authority in the 1884 "Woman Under Socialism," 
he also seemed to be anticipating the dire consequences experienced 
today in the wake of clear-cutting:

"The mad sacrifice of the appreciable deterioration of climate and 
decline in the fertility of the soil in the provinces of Prussian and 
Pomerania, in Syria, Italy and France, and Spain. Frequent 
inundations are the consequence of stripping high ground of trees. 
The inundations of the Rhine and Vistula are chiefly attributed to 
the devastation of forest land in Switzerland and Poland."

Finally, in an instance that seems to address Joel Kovel's complaint 
about the lack of spirituality in Marxism and a possible alternative 
to Lewis Henry Morgan's obsession with "improvement,", we have the 
example of Rosa Luxemburg who wrote from prison in May, 1917:

"What am I reading? For the most part, natural science: geography of 
plants and animals. Only yesterday I read why the warblers are 
disappearing from Germany. Increasingly systematic forestry, 
gardening and agriculture are, step by step destroying all natural 
nesting and breeding places: hollow trees, fallow land, thickets of 
shrubs, withered leaves on the garden grounds. It pained me so when I 
read that. Not because of the song they sing for people, but rather 
it was the picture of the silent, irresistible extinction of these 
defenseless little creatures which hurt me to the point that I had to 
cry. It reminded me of a Russian book which I read while still in 
Zurich, a book by Professor Sieber about the ravage of the redskins 
in North America. In exactly the same way, step by step, they have 
been pushed from their land by civilized men and abandoned to perish 
silently and cruelly."


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/   *****

Yoshie


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005