Subject: M-I: JUDI BARI AND KARL MARX: A Dialogue (fwd) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:09:02 -0500 (EST) From: "hoov" <hoov-AT-freenet.tlh.fl.us> Judi Bari, as many m-listers know, was also a labor and social justice activist, a mother and fiddle player...this post is very long... forwarded by Michael Hoover Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:24:29 -0600 (CST) > From: wsheasby-AT-ix.netcom.com > Subject: JUDI BARI AND KARL MARX: A Dialogue > To: sldrty-l-AT-igc.org > > JUDI BARI AND KARL MARX: A DIALOGUE > ON REVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGY > > Moderated by Walt Sheasby > > MODERATOR: > Welcome to our dialogue. Today our guests are the very > respected Judi Bari, who lived from Nov. 7, 1949 to March > 2, 1997, and Karl Marx, whose lifetime began May 5, 1818 > and ended on March 13, 1883. Ms. Bari was an ecological > activist in the Earth First! organization and because of that > her life was almost ended by a bomb attack. She survived > that, but later died at age 48 of breast cancer. > > Dr. Marx is easily recognized as one of the most important > figures in the history of economics and socialism, although > many of his ideas remain unknown, particularly in the area > of political ecology, as distinguished from political economy. > > Our topic for this dialogue today is, in fact, Revolutionary > Ecology, and we will allow our guests to explain in their own > words how they understand this approach, and where they > might agree or disagree. My own role will be only to pose > some questions and give each the opportunity to respond. > > To begin, Judi Bari, can you tell us about the terms you > use in describing your philosophy? There seem to be a num- > ber of concepts that are often counterposed, like Deep Ecol- > ogy versus Eco-socialism, or Naturalism/Humanism versus > Biocentrism. Can you clarify your own orientation? > > BARI: > Deep ecology, or biocentrism, is the belief that nature > does not exist to serve humans. Rather, humans are part of > nature, one species among many. All species have a right > to exist for their own sake, regardless of their usefulness to > humans. And biodiversity is a value in itself, essential for the > flourishing of both human and non-human life. (1) > > MODERATOR: > Dr. Marx, you've also stressed that humans are part of > nature and that this totality is constantly being transformed > by interaction that you call 'Metabolism.' What do you mean > by that? > > MARX: > The labour process...is the necessary condition for effective > exchange of matter between man and Nature; it is the ever- > lasting Nature-imposed condition of human existence. (2) > > The great majority of things regarded as products of nature, > e.g. plants and animals, are the result in the form in which > they are now utilized by human beings and produced anew, > of a previous transformation effected by means of human > labour over many generations under human control, during > which their form and substance have changed. (3) > > MODERATOR: > Well, I take it that would even apply to hunting and > gathering societies, with their tool-making, reworking of > stone knives, or weaving of straw baskets, all the way to > modern technology. > > MARX: > The development of human labour capacity is displayed > in particular in the development of the 'means of labour' or > 'instruments of production.' It displays, namely, the degree > to which man has heightened the impact of his direct labour > on the natural world through the interposition for his work- > ing purposes of a nature already ordered, regulated and > subjected to his will as a conductor. (4) > > Therefore, when alienated labour tears from man the object > of his production,, it also tears from him his species-life, the > real objectivity of his species and turns the advantage he has > over animals into a disadvantage in that his inorganic body, > nature, is torn from him....It alienates man from his own body, > nature exterior to him, and his intellectual being, his human > essence. (5) > > MODERATOR: > I take it that this concept of nature as our inorganic body > and the idea of an alienation of labor and nature are starting > points for your very elaborate critique of political economy, > which extends to ten or more volumes covering thousands > of pages. Such a life's work is quite an accomplishment. > > MARX: > ''Grau, teurer Freund, ist alle Theorie, > Und gruen des Lebens goldner Baum.'' (6) > > MODERATOR: > I recognize that verse from Goethe's Faust, one of your > favorite lines, as it was Hegel's also: ''My friend, all theory > is gray, and only the golden tree of life is green. '' (7) > > But let me ask Judi Bari how she describes the theoretical > character of biocentric ecology. Despite Goethe, can theory > be called green? > > BARI: > These principles, I believe, are not just another political > theory. Biocentrism is a law of nature that exists independ- > ently of whether humans recognize it or not. It doesn't matter > whether we view the world in a human-centered way. Nature > still operates in a biocentric way. And the failure of modern > society to acknowledge this -- as we attempt to subordinate all > of nature to human use -- has led us to the brink of collapse > of the earth's life support systems. > > MARX: > No natural laws can be done away with. What can change > in historically different circumstances is only the form in > which these laws assert themselves. (8) > > MODERATOR: > Judi, the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess is credited > with making a distinction twenty-five years ago between what > he called the Shallow and the Deep views of Ecology. It's > been called one of the first major papers on environmental > ethics. What is your view? (9) > > BARI: > Biocentrism is not a new theory, and it wasn't invented by > Arne Naess. It is ancient wisdom, expressed in such sayings > as 'the earth does not belong to us: we belong to the earth.' > But in the context of today's industrial society, biocentrism > is profoundly revolutionary, challenging the system to its core. > > MODERATOR: > In 1854 when Si'al, who is known as Sealth, Chief Seattle, > suggested that reverence, he was, he said, expressing a tra- > ditional belief, one that has often been paraphrased since it > was made known in 1887: > ''Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. > If men spit upon the ground, they spit on themselves. > This we know -- the earth does not belong to man, man > belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the > blood which unites one family....Man did not weave the > web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does > to the web, he does to himself.'' (10) > As we learn more about that communal, ecological wisdom, > the implications seem profoundly revolutionary. > > Judi, in your view, how do you feel biocentrism contradicts > capitalism? > > BARI: > The capitalist system is in direct conflict with the natural > laws of biocentrism. Capitalism, first of all, is based on the > principle of private property -- of certain humans 'owning' > the earth for the purpose of exploiting it for profit. At an ear- > lier stage, capitalists even believed they could own other hu- > mans. But just as slavery has been discredited in the mores of > today's dominant worldview, so do the principles of biocen- > trism discredit the concept that humans can own the earth. > > MODERATOR: > This moral principle, often called a ''Land Ethic,'' has been > an axiom of the ecological vision for half a century, ever since > Aldo Leopold's Sand County Almanac in 1949. (11) > > What is your view, Dr. Marx? Do you agree with that basic > ecological vison? > > MARX: > From the standpoint of a higher socio-economic formation, > the private property of particular individuals in the earth will > appear just as absurd as the property of one man in other men. > Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing > societies taken together, are not the owner of the earth. They > are simply its possessor, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath > it in an improved state to succeeding generations, as 'good > heads of the household.' (12) > > MODERATOR: > One of the ramifications of treating the bounty of Nature > as merely so many commodities is that there is no real social > control, whether it is a state bureaucracy or a giant corpora- > tion that has concentrated control. For instance, a huge > holding company based on Wall Street, Maxxam Corp., can > enforce its right to log off the last remaining giant trees that > have not been preserved. > > BARI: > How can corporate raider Charles Hurwitz claim to 'own' > the 2000-year old redwoods of Headwaters Forest, just because > he shuffled a few papers and traded them for a junk bond debt? > This concept is absurd. Hurwitz is a mere blip in the lives of > these ancient trees. Although he may have the power to destroy > them, he does not have the right. > > MARX: > This power of the Egyptian and Asiatic kings and priests > or the Etruscan theocrats in the ancient world has in bourgeois > society passed to capital and therewith to the capitalists. (13) > > ''Apres moi le deluge!'' is the watchword of every capi- > talist and of every capitalist nation. (14) > > MODERATOR: > I understand that two of the tall Sequoia Gigantea trees > were named after Karl Marx and Frederick Engels by the > Kaweah utopian colony in 1885, although later they were > officially renamed for Generals Sherman and Grant. (15) > > And John Muir had been so inspired by the Sequoias in > Autumn 1875 he said, ''Talk of immortality!'' and wondered, > ''what man will do with the mountains...Will he cut down > all the trees to make ships and houses?'' (16) Environmental- > ists, of course, were able to preserve some of the big trees > through nationalization and a park system. > > But let me ask Judi Bari, what is the legal basis being used > now for challenging the timber companies who are logging > the remaining privately-owned ancient forests? > > BARI: > One of the best weapons of U.S. environmentalists in our > battle to save places like Headwaters Forest is the (now itself > endangered) Endangered Species Act. This law, and other laws > that recognize public trust values such as clean air, clean water, > and protection of threatened species, are essentially an admis- > sion that the laws of private property do not correspond to the > laws of nature. You cannot do whatever you want on your > own property without affecting surrounding areas, because > the earth is interconnected, and nature does not recognize > human boundaries. Seal off the borders? What borders? > > MODERATOR: > Well, Dr. Marx, do you see nationalization of natural > resources as the answer? > > MARX: > Where the state is itself a capitalist producer, as in the ex- > ploitation of mines, forests, etc., its product is a 'commodity' > and hence possesses the specific character of every other com- > modity. (17) > > The development of civilization and industry in general > has always shown itself so active in the destruction of forests > that everything that has been done for their conservation and > production is completely insignificant in comparison. (18) > > BARI: > Even beyond private property, though, capitalism conflicts > with biocentrism around the very concept of profit. Profit con- > sists of taking out more than you put in. This is certainly con- > trary to the fertility cycles of nature, which depend on a balance > of give and take. But more important is the question of where > this profit is actually taken from. > > MARX: > In fact the rule of the capitalist over the worker is nothing > but the rule of the independent 'conditions of labour' over the > worker, conditions that have made themselves independent of > him. (19) > > BARI: > According to Marxist theory, profit is stolen from the wor- > kers when the capitalists pay them less than the value of what > they produce. The portion of the value of the product that the > capitalist keeps, rather than pay to the workers, is called sur- > plus value. The amount of surplus value that the capitalist can > keep varies with the organization of the workers, and with the > level of their privilege within the world laborpool. But the > working class can never be paid the full value of their labor > under capitalism, because the capitalist class exists by extract- > ing surplus value from the products of their labor. > > MARX: > In fact, these bourgeois economists instinctively and rightly > saw that it was very dangerous to penetrate too deeply into the > burning question of the origin of surplus value. (20) > > BARI: > Although I basically agree with this analysis, I think there > is one big thing missing. I believe that part of the value of a > product comes not just from the labor put into it, but also from > the natural resources used to make the product. And I believe > that surplus value (i.e., profit) is not just stolen from the > workers, but also from the earth itself. > > MARX: > Labour is NOT THE SOURCE of all wealth. Nature is just > as much the source of use-values (and it is surely of such that > material wealth consists!) as labour, which itself is only the > manifestation of a force of nature, human labour power. (21) > > When man engages in production, he can only proceed as > nature does herself, i.e. he can only change the form of the > materials. Furthermore, even in this work of modification he > is constantly helped by natural forces. Labour is therefore not > the only source of material wealth, i.e. of the use values it pro- > duces. As William Petty says, labour is the father of material > wealth, the earth is its mother. (22) > > BARI: > A value has been extracted. If human production and con- > sumption is done within the natural limits of the earth's fer- > tility, then the supply is indeed endless. But that cannot hap- > pen under capitalism, because the capitalist class exists by > extracting profit not only from the workers, but also from the > earth. > > MARX: > Moreover, all progress of capitalist agriculture is a pro- > gress in the art, not only of robbing the worker, but of rob- > bing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the > soil for a given time is a progress toward ruining the more > long-lasting sources of that fertility. (23) > > The first effects of cultivation are useful, but in the end it > lays the land waste owing to deforestation, etc. > > The conclusion is that cultivation when it progresses spon- > taneously and is not 'consciously controlled' ...leaves deserts > behind it - Persia, Mesopotamia, Greece. (22) > > MODERATOR: > One could cite many other examples of climate change > resulting from the destruction of rainforests even in > modern times. > > Judi, in regard to environmental degradation, what > do you view as the most important source today? > > BARI: > Modern day corporations are the very worst manifestation > of this sickness. A small business may survive on profits, but > at least its basic purpose is to provide sustenance for the own- > ers, who are human beings with a sense of place in their com- > munities. But a corporation has no purpose for its existence > nor any moral guide to its behavior, other than to make profits. > And to-day's global corporations are beyond the control of any > nation or government. In fact, the government is in the service > of the corporation, its armies poised to defend their profits > around the world, and its secret police ready to infiltrate and > disrupt any serious resistance at home. > > MARX: > Thus, ''tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes > possibles.'' (25) > > MODERATOR: > Voltaire's 'Candide,' a motto for the new global age: ''Every- > thing for the best in the best of all possible worlds.'' (26) > > Judi, let me ask your view of free enterprise defenders who > sell a lot of books using the word ecology, like Paul Hawken, > who has written a best-seller on 'The Ecology of Commerce.' > And of course, you must run into many people who think all > the answers are in books like Albert Gore's 'Earth in the Bal- > ance.' You have said that you stand for a 'revolutionary eco- > logy,' not a piecemeal change within the system. Why? > > BARI: > In other words, this system cannot be reformed. It is based > on the destruction of the earth and the exploitation of the > people. There is no such thing as green capitalism, and mar- > keting cutesy rainforest products will not bring back the eco- > systems that capitalism must destroy to make its profits. This > is why I believe that ecologists must be revolutionaries. > > MARX: > Just as plants live from the earth, and animals live from the > plants or plant-eating animals, so does the part of society which > possesses free time, DISPOSABLE time not absorbed in the > direct production of subsistence, live from the surplus labour > of the workers. Wealth is therefore DISPOSABLE time. (27) > > The political economists like to conceive this relation as a > ''natural relation'' or a ''divine institution.'' (28) > > The essence of bourgeois society consists precisely in this, > that a priori there is no conscious social regulation of produc- > tion. (29) > > > MODERATOR: > Let me pose the question that seems to many as self- > evident: Does biocentrism contradict communism? It > seems, regardless of what Dr. Marx said or wrote on the > subject, there is a lengthy period in the 20th Century when > the idea of biocentrism was directly violated by so-called > 'Communism' in its drive to build an industrial-military > machine under totalitarian control. And these political > rulers did call themselves 'Marxists.' > > MARX: > Devil take them! (30) > > BARI: > As you can probably tell, my background in revolutionary > theory comes from Marxism, which I consider to be a brilliant > critique of capitalism. But as to what should be implemented > in capitalism's place, I don't think Marxism has shown us the > answer. One of the reasons for this, I believe, is that commun- > ism, socialism, and all other leftist ideologies that I know of > speak only about redistributing the spoils of the earth more > evenly among classes of humans. They do not even address > the relationship of the society to the earth. Or rather, they as- > sume that it will stay the same as it is under capitalism -- that > of a gluttonous consumer -- and that the purpose of the revo- > lution is to find a more efficient and egalitarian way to pro- > duce and distribute consumer goods. > > > MODERATOR: > To those of us approaching the turn of the century, it would > seem that the so-called Marxist regimes paid scant attention > to Marx's concern with nature. > > BARI: > This total disregard of nature as a life force, rather than > just a source of raw materials, allowed Marxist states to rush > to industrialize without even the most meager environmental > safeguards. > > MARX: > Tout ce que se sais, c'est que je ne pas Marxiste, moi! > (31) > > MODERATOR: > I understand Dr. Marx. What is quite certain is that you > are not a Marxist.! > > But, Judi Bari, what do you think was the consequence of > the attitude that supposed followers of Marx took to nature in > places like Russia and Eastern Europe? > > BARI: > This has resulted in such noted disasters as the meltdown > of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the oil spill in the Arc- > tic Ocean, and the ongoing liquidation of the fragile forests > of Siberia. It has left parts of Russia and Eastern Europe with > such a toxic legacy that even the rate of human fertility has > slowed. > > MODERATOR: > Let me ask both of you, since many ecological socialists > today, following the work of James O'Connor, distinguish, > in a dialectical sense, a first contradiction between capital > and labor (even under the statist systems as well as private > capital), and a second contradiction between capital and > nature in today's world. (32) > > What do you each think of this distinction? > > BARI: > Marx stated that the primary contradiction in industrial > society is the contradiction between capital and labor. I > believe these disasters show the primary contradiction is > between industrial society and the earth. > > MARX: > We have considered the act of estranging practical activity, > labour, in two of its aspects. > > (1) The relation of the worker to the 'product of labour' as > an alien object exercising power over him. > > This relation is at the same time the relation to the > sensuous external world, to the objects of nature, as an alien > world inimically opposed to him. > > (2) The relation of labour to the 'act of production' within > the labour process....Here we have 'self-estrangement' as pre- > viously we had the estrangement of the 'thing.' (33) > > MODERATOR: > It would appear, Dr. Marx, that this consideration has not > been a prominent element in the socialism of the generations > that followed you, with perhaps a few exceptions. > > MARX: > ''J'ai seme' des dragons et j'ai recolte' des puces!'' (34) > > MODERATOR: > Ouch! Your verdict on your imitators echoes your poet > friend Heinrich Heine's exasperation: ''I have sown Dragon's > teeth and reaped only fleas!'' > > BARI: > But even though socialism has so far failed to take ecology > into account, I do not think it is beyond reform, as is capital- > ism. One of the principles of socialism is 'production for use, > not for profit.' Therefore, the imbalance is not as built in under > socialism as it is under capitalism, and I could envision a form > of socialism that would not destroy the earth. But it would be > unlike Marx's industrial model. Ecological socialism, among > other things, would have to deal with the issue of centralism. > > MODERATOR: > Dr. Marx, you have written extensively about the meta- > bolism of society and the earth, and the negative effects of > urban capitalism and industrial agriculture on both the hu- > man and physical environment. The antagonism of urban > and rural development seems the most corrosive element. > > MARX: > The foundation of every division of labour which has > attained a certain degree of development, and has been > brought about by the exchange of commodities, is the > separation of town from country. > > The capitalist mode of production completes the disinte- > gration of the primitive familial union which bound agricul- > ture and manufacture together when they were both at an un- > developed and childlike stage. But at the same time it creates > the material conditions for a new and higher synthesis.... > Capitalist production collects the population together in great > centres...it disturbs the metabolic interaction between man > and the earth....But by destroying the circumstances surround- > ing that metabolism...it compels its systematic restoration as > a regulative law of social production, and in a form adequate > to the full development of the human race. > > It is very characteristic that the enthusiastic apologists of > the factory system have nothing more damning to urge against > a general organization of labour in society than that it would > turn the whole of society into a factory. (35) > > BARI: > The Marxist idea of a huge body politic relating to some > central planning authority presupposes (1) authoritarianism > of some sort, and (2) the use of mass production technologies > that are inherently destructive to the earth and corrosive to t > he human spirit. > > MODERATOR: > Dr. Marx, what was it you wrote about the Communard > government in France in 1871? > > MARX: > Not only municipal administration, but the whole initia- > tive hitherto exercised by the state was laid into the hands > of the commune. > > Instead of deciding once in three or five years which > members of the ruling class were to misrepresent the people > in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, > constituted in Communes.... (36) > > MODERATOR: > Dr. Marx, despite your opposition to the state, it does > seem that a repressive bureaucracy and top-down command > economy became quite extreme and widespread about fifty > years after your death. Is the statist machine a threat as it > was in the past? In your time, you discussed Bonapartism, > in which, well, how did you put it? > > MARX: > The struggle seems to be settled in such a way that > all classes, equally impotent and equally mute, fall on their > knees before the rifle butt....All revolutions perfected this > machine instead of smashing it. (37) > > MODERATOR: > Is there an alternative, in your view, Judi Bari? > > BARI: > Ecological socialism would mean organizing human so- > cieties in a manner that is compatible with the way nature is > organized. And I believe the natural order of the world is bio- > regionalism, not statism. > > MARX: > It is by no means the aim of the workers, who have got > rid of the narrow mentality of humble subjects, to set the state > free. > > Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ > superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate > to it, and today, too, the forms of state are more or less free > to the extent that they restrict the ''freedom of the state.'' (38) > > MODERATOR: > More and more people are beginning to see that a life > driven by commodity consumption and advertising is not > a prescription for a satisfying future or individual develop- > ment. How do each of you assess this stimulation of wants > beyond real needs? > > BARI: > Modern industrial society robs us of community with one > another and community with the earth. This creates a great > longing within us, which we are taught to fill with consumer > goods. But consumer goods, beyond those needed for basic > comfort and survival, are not really what we crave. So our > appetite is insatiable, and we turn to more and more efficient > and dehumanizing methods of production to make more and > more goods that do not satisfy us. > > MARX: > Incidentally...although every capitalist demands that his > workers should save, he means only his own workers, because > they relate to him as workers; and by no means does this ap- > ply to the remainder of workers, because these relate to him > as consumers. In spite of all the pious talk of frugality, he > therefore searches for all possible ways of stimulating them > to consume, by making his commodities more attractive, > by filling their ears with babble about new needs. (39) > > BARI: > If workers really had control of the factories (and I say > this as a former factory worker), they would start by smash- > ing the machines and finding a more human way to decide > what we need and how to produce it. So to the credo 'pro- > duction for use, not for profit,' ecological socialism would > add, 'production for need, not for greed.' > > > MODERATOR: > Judi, what does this mean for the movement? > > BARI: > The fact that deep ecology is a revolutionary philosophy > is one of the reasons Earth First! was targeted for disruption > and annihilation by the FBI. The fact that we did not recognize > it as revolutionary is one of the reasons we were so unprepared > for the magnitude of the attack. If we are to continue, not just > Earth First!, but the entire ecology movement must adjust to > the profound changes that are needed to bring society into > balance with nature. > > MARX: > Someday the worker must sieze political power...if he is > not to lose heaven on earth, like the old Christians who > neglected and despised politics. But we have not asserted > that the ways to achieve the goal are everywhere the same. > You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of > various countries must be taken into consideration.... (40) > > MODERATOR: > How can the struggle be made more effective, Judi? > > BARI: > One way we can do this is to broaden our focus. Of course, > sacred places must be preserved, and it is entirely appropriate > for an ecology movement to center on protecting irreplaceable > wilderness areas. But to define our movement as being con- > cerned with 'wilderness only,' as Earth First did in the 1980's, > is self defeating. You cannot seriously address the destruction > of wilderness without addressing the society that is destroying > it. It's about time for the ecology movement (and I'm not just > talking about Earth First! here) stop considering itself as > separate from the social justice movement. The same power > that manifests itself as resource extraction in the countryside > manifests itself as racism, classism, and human exploitation > in the city. The ecology movement must recognize that we are > just one front in a long, proud history of resistance. > > MODERATOR: > Judi, there are some green groups that either deny they > are historically rooted in the Left or consider labor struggles > as part of the ''old paradigm.'' What is your outlook? > > BARI: > A revolutionary ecology movement must also organize > among poor and working people. With the exception of the > toxics movement and the native land rights movement, most > U.S. environmentalists are white and privileged. This group > is too invested in the system to pose it much of a threat. A > revolutionary ideology in the hands of privileged people can > indeed bring about some destruction and change in the > system. > > But a revolutionary ideology in the hands of working > people can bring that system to a halt. For it is the working > people who have their hands on the machinery. And only > by stopping the machinery of destruction can we ever hope > to stop this madness. > > MODERATOR: > Judi, you clearly view the working class as potentially a > revolutionary subject, unlike the theorists rooted in the New > Left, like Murray Bookchin, who think this is mythology, a > ''gross misjudgment of the proletariat's destiny.'' (41) > > BARI: > How can it be that we have neighborhood movements fo- > used on the disposal of toxic wastes, for example, but we > don't have a workers' movement to stop the production of > toxics? It is only when the factory workers refuse to make the > stuff, it is only when the loggers refuse to cut the ancient trees, > that we can ever hope for real and lasting change. This system > cannot be stopped by force. It is violent and ruthless beyond > the capacity of any people's resistance movement. The only > way I can even imagine stopping it is through massive non- > cooperation. > > MARX: > Citizens, let us think of the basic principle of the Inter- > national: Solidarity. Only when we have established this > life-giving principle on a sound basis among the numerous > workers of all countries will we attain the great final goal > which we have set ourselves. (42) > > BARI: > So let's keep blocking those bulldozers and hugging those > trees. And let's focus our campaign on the global corporations > that are really at fault. But we have to begin placing our act- > ions in a larger context. And we must continue this discussion > to develop a workable theory of revolutionary ecology. > > MARX: > We do recognize our brave friend, Robin Goodfellow, > the old mole that can work in the earth so fast, that worthy > pioneer - the Revolution. (43) > > MODERATOR: > Well, the good fellow I recognize as that ''shrewd and > knavish sprite'' called Puck in William Shakespeare's 'A > Midsummer Night's Dream,' and the old mole from 'Hamlet' > could well serve as symbol of the 'radicalism' you both ex- > press, since that word means 'going to the roots' of the prob- > lem. But let me remind you two about Hamlet's next verse: > ''There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, > Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'' (44) > > This has been a most enlightening talk between the two > of you. Do you want to leave one last word? > > BARI: > Stand strong and keep up the fight. Don't let the bastards > get you down! (45) > > MARX: > When the International was formed we expressly formula- > ted the battle cry: 'The emancipation of the working classes > must be achieved by the working classes themselves.' (46) > They have a world to win. Workers, of the world, unite! (47) > > =========================================> > REFERENCES > > 1. Judi Bari (1997) 'Revolutionary Ecology,' from Capitalism, > Nature, Socialism: A Journal of Socialist Ecology (Vol 8, No. > 2, Issue Thirty, June 1997), pp. 145-149. All but the last > quotation are taken in existing order from this article. > > 2. Karl Marx (1977) Selected Writings, edited and translated > by David McLellan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 460. > Hereafter referred to as SW. > > 3. Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works, New York, > International Publishers: Vol. 30 (1988) p. 57. Hererafter cited > as CW followed by volume and page number. > Compare also SW, p. 458. > > 4. CW, Vol. 30 (1988) p. 56 > > 5. SW, pp. 82-83. > > 6. Johann Wolgang Von Goethe (n.d.) Faust: Eine Tragoedie > von Goethe, Erster Teil, Leipzig, Druck and Verlag von Phi- > lipp Reclam jun., p. 57. > > 7. Johann Wolgang Von Goethe (1957) Faust: Part I, New York: > New Drections Paperbook, p. 64. > > 8. Marx to Kugelman, July 11, 1868, in SW, p. 524. > > 9. Arne Naess (1973) ''The Shallow and the Deep, Long Range > Ecology Movement,'' Inquiry (Oslo, Norway) 16: pp. 95-100, > in George Sessions, Editor, (1995) Deep Ecology for the 21st > Century, Boston and London: Shambhala, pp. 151-56. > > 10. Chief Seattle, paraphrased in Dr. Norman Myers (1984) > Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, Anchor Press - Double- > day & Co., Garden City, New York, p. 159, > > 11. Aldo Leopold (1968) A Sand County Almanac, London, > Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 201-225. > ''We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belong- > ing to us. When we see land as a community to which we > belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect. There > is no other way for land to survive the impact of mechanized > man, nor for us to reap from it the esthetic harvest it is > capable, under science, of contributing to culture.'' (p. viii) > > 12. Karl Marx (1976 ) Capital: A Critique of Political Econo- > my, Vol. 3, London, Penguin Books. Hereafter referred to as > C, followed by volume and page number. Vol. 3 p. 910. > > 13. CW, Vol. 30, p. 260. > > 14. C, Vol. 1, p. 381. > > 15. Robert V, Hine (1983 California's Utopian Colonies, > Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 84, 90. > > 16. Frederick Turner (1985) Rediscovering America: John > Muir in His Time and Ours, San Francisco: Sierra Club > Books, p. 232. > 13. CW, Vol. 30, p. 260. > > 17. Karl Marx (1972) ''Marginal Notes on Adolph Wagner's > Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie,'' Theoretical Practice, > No. 4 (Spring 1972), p. 51. > > 18. C, Vol. 2, p. 322. > > 19. Appendix: Results of the Immediate Process of Production > in C, Vol 1, p. 989. > > 20. C. Vol. 1, pp. 651-52 > > 21. Karl Marx And Friedrich Engels: Basic Writings on Poli- > tics & Philosophy (1959), Edited by Lewis S. Feuer, Garden > City, NY: Doubleday & Co. Anchor Books, p. 112. > > 21. SW, p. 427; C, Vol. 1, pp. 133-34. > > 22. C, Vol. 1, p. 638 > > 23. Letter, Marx to Engels, March 25, 1868, CW, Vol. 42, > p. 358 > > 25. SW, p. 468. > > 26. Ray Redman, Editor (1977) The Portable Voltaire, > New York: Penguin Books, p. 252. > > 27. CW, Vol. 30, p. 192. > > 28. Ibid., p. 205. > > 29. Marx to Kugelman, July 11, 1868, in SW, p. 525. > > 30. Marx to Engels, in David McLellan, (1973) Karl Marx: > His Life and Thought, New York: Harper & Row, p. 443. > > 31. Quoted in Frederick Engels to Paul and Laura Lafargue, > Aug. 27, 1890, Correspondance, II, Paris, Editions Sociales, > 1956, p. 407. Hereafter cited as Correspondance, II. > > 32. James O'Connor (1998) Natural Causes: Essays in Eco- > logical Marxism, New York and London: The Guilford Press, > pp. 158-77. Also ''The Second Contradiction of Capitalism," > Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, Issue 1, October 1988. > > 33. CW, Vol. 3, p. 275. > > 34. Correspondance, II, p. 407. > > 35. C, Vol. 1, p. 472; pp. 637-38, p. 477. > > 36. SW, p. 542-43. > > 37. SW, pp. 315-16. > > 38. SW, p. 564. > > > 39. Karl Marx (1973) Grundrisse: Foundations of the Cri- > tique of Political Economy (Rough Draft), Middlesex, Eng., > Penguin Books, Ltd. (Hereafter referred to as G), p. 287. > > 40. 42. Karl Marx (1971) On Revolution, Edited by Saul K. > Padover, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., p 64. > > 41. Murray Bookchin (1980) Toward an Ecological Society, > Montreal: Black Rose Books, p. 124. See Alan Rudy and > Andrew Light (1996) ''Social Ecology and Social Labor: > A Consideration and Critique of Murray Bookchin,'' in > David Macauley, Ed., Minding Nature: The Philosophers of > Ecology, New York and London: The Guilford Press, 1996, > pp. 318-42 > > 42. Karl Marx (1971) On Revolution, op. cit., p 65. > > 43. SW, p. 339. > > 44. William Shakespeare (1977) A Midsummer's Night > Dream, New York, The Viking Press, p. 24; Hamlet, New > York, W.W. Norton & Co, Inc., p. 24. > > 45. Judi Bari to Dennis Bernstein at KPFA, March 1, 1997. > > 46. CW, Vol. 45, p. 408. Marx and Engels to Bebel and > others (circular letter) September 17-18, 1879. Marx - Engels, > Selected Correspondence (1975) Moscow, Progress Publishers. > > 47. SW, p. 246. > > -end- > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005