On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
> This is a straight-forward answer. There has been considerable
> advancements in the area of the environment where Marxian theory is
> concerned. Historical materialism, because of its emphasis on the resource
> base and how this enters into production, is particularly designed for
> ecological studies. The collected volume Is Capitalism Sustainable?
> edited by Martin O'Connor and the journal Capitalism Nature Socialism
> demonstrate that the Marxian critique of environmental affairs is way
> ahead of the game. The author of the post you criticize was not only
> disagreeing with you, but was also directing you to a vast store of
> knowledge on this subject. I also recommend you read the work Alan
> Schnaiberg and his concept of the "treadmill of production."
>
> To continue to assert that Marxists have not been addressing this problem
> is to admit to a profound ignorance of the very subject you wish to
> criticize. If you want to criticize the Marxist position on these matters,
> then it is imperative that you first become aware that Marxists have a
> position, and then become clear as to what that position is. Only then can
> your criticisms be taken as something other than an ideological position
> against historical materialism.
>
> Andy
>
I have not been following this debate as closely as I would like to and I
may have missed out on some of the contributions. I am also not subbed to
the Capitalism-Nature-socialism. However I would like to bring the
following two points to the notice of those who may be interested in
following the thread regarding historical-materialism and the
environment/nature.
1. The following points made by Marx in Capital Marx are interesting.
Firstly in discussing technology he refers to it as disclosing
"man's mode of dealing with Nature, the immediate process of production by
which he sustains his life" Secondly his critique of the notorious "law of
diminishing returns", which charges Nature with the defects, limitations
and contradictions of capitalism. Thirdly his statement that nature is as
much the source of material wealth as labour is. The paragraph from
Chapter 1 of Capital Vol.1 is worth quoting here. "The use-values, coat,
linen, &c., i.e., the bodies of commodities, are combinations of two
elements -- matter and labour. If we take away the useful labour expended
upon them, a material substratum is always left, which is furnished by
Nature without the help of man. The latter can work only as Nature does,
that is by changing the form of matter. [13] Nay more, in this work of
changing the form he is constantly helped by natural forces. We see, then,
that labour is not the only source of material wealth, of use-values
produced by labour. As William Petty puts it, labour is its father and the
earth its mother."
I was just quoting some of these to show that there were immense
possibilities for an ecological analysis of modern economic and social
systems in Marx's writings which have still not been fully elaborated.
For one elaboration of Marx's thinking on the environment see Alfred
Schmidt "The Concept of Nature in Marx".
Regards
D.Parthasarathy
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences
Indian Institute of Technology, Powai
Mumbai, 400076, India
Phone: 091 022 576 7372
email: dp@hss.iitb.ernet.in