LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  November 2002

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE November 2002

Subject:

Re: Scientists Condemn New Gene Technique

From:

Louis Proyect <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:57:16 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (198 lines)

Josť F. Morales wrote:
> I don't know of another term that describes the deeply encrusted
> position of opposition to technological developments that frequently
> inhabits the left.


Are you part of the left? I get no sense from your intervention around
this question that you are engaged with the Marxist critique of
capitalist agriculture, which differs substantially from various types
of neo-Luddism, including green spirituality, etc.

All technological "advances" in farming take us further and further away
from the necessary solution, which is the resolution of what Karl Marx
called the metabolic rift. This has been the subject of numerous
articles published by John Bellamy Foster.

Here is my take on the matter:

---

John Bellamy Foster on the Marx-Liebeg connection

John Bellamy Foster has been doing some very interesting research into
the question of whether Marx was an ecological thinker. He gave a
presentation on his findings at the Socialist Scholars Conference this
weekend at a panel titled "Marx's Contribution to Ecological Theory."
What follows is a report on John's talk, peppered with my own observations.

There are 3 takes on this question. Some view Marx as explicitly
anti-ecological. This is the case for social ecologists like John Clark
and certain "brown Marxists." Others think that Marx had some
interesting observations on environmental questions, but they were
sidebars rather than essential features of his thought. Finally, there
are people like Michael Perelman and John Foster who make the case that
the ecological dimension to Marx's thought is central.

The attempt to bring Marx's ecological dimensions into the foreground
have only gathered momentum over the past five years or so. When the
modern ecology movement first took shape in the late 1960s, the analysis
tended to be of a "post-materialist" character. It saw the ecological
crisis in the framework of the "affluent society." This is
understandable since the long boom of the post-WWII period tended to
accentuate problems of this nature. Pollution was related to the
indulgences of a consumer society and the eco-socialist critique--such
as it was--had a strong Frankfurt orientation. The solution was to
moderate the out-of-control growth of consumerist societies rather than
to address underlying questions of political economy. Also, the debate
was framed in terms of anthropocentrism versus eco-centrism. Marx, it
was argued, erred in the direction of anthropocentrism.

Since the 1980s, the classical Marxist approach has taken the offensive.
This has meant that economics plays much more of a role. The
accumulation of capital rather than cultural questions is central. It
has also meant that the problem is seen in global terms rather than one
isolated to affluent societies. The overarching concern is to discover a
form of sustainable development that takes environmental justice into
account. Poor nations should not make sacrifices on behalf of rich
nations. In rich nations, the poor and the racial minorities should not
bear the brunt of toxic dumping, etc. The only solution, needless to
say, is socialism which will bring economic development under the
rational control of the producers themselves.

The ecological crisis has prompted nearly every school of thought to
return to its ideological foundations in order to come up with a
solution. For neo-Classical economists, this means trying to bring
nature into the sphere of commodities. They argue that the problem is
that natural resources like soil and water are not properly priced. If
the same market laws that dictate the price of manufactured goods
operated in realm of nature, then the "invisible hand" would protect
such precious commodities as the soil and water.

For Marxists, an analogous effort has taken place, which seeks to
discover either explicit or implicit concerns with nature in the central
body of Marx's work. Foster has come up with some very interesting
insights into the rather explicit concern that Marx had with the central
ecological crisis of the 19th century: soil fertility.

There is actually a long tradition of Marxist research into agrarian
questions going back to Marx and Engels. Lenin and Kautsky also wrote
important articles on the question. Michael Perelman, the moderator of
PEN-L, has also written on the topic: "Farming For Profit In A Hungry
World: Capital And The Crisis In Agriculture." I plan to read and report
on this book before long.

The context for Marx's examination of the agrarian question was the
general crisis of soil fertility in the period from 1830 to 1870. The
depletion of soil nutrients was being felt everywhere, as capitalist
agriculture broke down the old organic interaction that took place on
small, family farms. When a peasant plowed a field with ox or
horse-drawn plows, used an outhouse, accumulated compost piles, etc.,
the soil's nutrients were replenished naturally. As capitalist
agriculture turned the peasant into an urban proletariat, segregated
livestock production from grain and food production, the organic cycle
was broken and the soil gradually lost its fertility.

The need to artificially replenish the soil's nutrients led to
scientific research into the problem. Justin Von Liebeg was one of the
most important thinkers of the day and he was the first to posit the
problem in terms of the separation between the city and the countryside.

While the research proceeded, the various capitalist powers sought to
gain control over new sources of fertilizers. This explains "guano
imperialism," which I referred to in my post on Peru the other day.
England brought Peru into its neocolonial orbit because it was the most
naturally endowed supplier of bird dung in the world. In 1847, 227
thousand tons of guano were imported from Peru into England. This
commodity was as important to England's economy as silver and gold were
in previous centuries.

There was also a desperate search for bones. Over a ten year period, the
value of English imports rose from 14,000 pound sterling to 254,000.
Raiding parties were dispatched to battlefields to scavenge bodies of
dead soldiers. Their bones were desperately needed to replenish sterile
soil.

The United States followed suit. There had been a big crisis in upstate
NY and the mid-Atlantic states in the mid 1800s. This prompted Congress
to pass the "Guano Act" of 1856, which eventually led to the seizure of
94 islands in the Pacific Ocean, rich sources of guano.

Von Liebeg theorized that such measures would eventually fall short.
Even with such substitutes, the soil tended to lose its nutrient
properties so long as the artificial divide between town and countryside
was maintained. Not only was the countryside losing its productivity,
the town was being swamped with human waste which was no longer being
recycled. London had such a terrible problem with open sewers that
Parliament was forced to relocate to a location outside the city during
the summer months. The stench was unbearable.

The neo-Classical economists tended to view soil fertility as a given,
like some kind of natural law. Ricardo and Malthus both regarded it as
an exhaustible resource. Thus, the problem of overpopulation was tightly
coupled to the existing practices of capitalist agriculture, which was
to exploit the soil and then abandon it when it lost its fertility. This
has been the main character of Malthusianism until the modern era. It
accepts the limits imposed by the capitalist mode of production as eternal.

Scientists like Von Liebeg, on the other hand, supported the notion of
soil improvement. This meant looking at the relationship between society
and nature in ecological terms. The solution to the problem was the
reintegration of the town and country. This overlapped with Marx's own
exploration of the problems in Capital. In volume three of Capital, the
discussion of farming is framed within this general dialectic. Soil
fertility could only be ensured over the long run through the abolition
of the capitalist system, which would allow food production to take
place along sound, ecological guidelines.

The concluding paragraphs of the chapter on "The Transformation of
Surplus Profit into Ground-Rent" in V. 3 of Capital are a succinct
description of the problematic:

"All criticism of small-scale landownership is ultimately reducible to
criticism of private property as a barrier and obstacle to agriculture.
So too is all counter-criticism of large landed property. Secondary
political considerations are of course left aside here in both cases. It
is simply that this barrier and obstacle which all private property in
land places to agricultural production and the rational treatment,
maintenance and improvement of the land itself, develops in various
forms, and in quarreling over these specific forms of the evil its
ultimate root is forgotten.

"Small-scale landownership presupposes that the overwhelming majority of
the population is agricultural and that isolated labour predominates
over social; wealth and the development of reproduction, therefore, both
in its material and intellectual aspects, is ruled out under these
circumstances, and with this also the conditions for a rational
agriculture. On the other hand, large landed property reduces the
agricultural population to an ever decreasing minimum and confronts it
with an every growing industrial population crammed together in large
towns; in this way it produces conditions that provoke an irreparable
rift in the interdependent process of social metabolism, a metabolism
prescribed by the natural laws of life itself. The result of this is a
squandering of the vitality of the soil, which is carried by trade far
beyond the bounds of a single country.

"If small-scale landownership creates a class of barbarians standing
half outside society, combining all the crudity of primitive social
forms with all the torments and misery of civilized countries, large
landed property undermines labor-power in the final sphere to which its
indigenous energy flees, and where it is stored up as a reserve fund for
renewing the vital power of the nation, on the land itself. Large-scale
industry and industrially pursued large-scale agriculture have the same
effect. If they are originally distinguished by the fact that the former
lays waste and ruins labour-power and thus the natural power of man,
whereas the latter does the same to the natural power of the soil, they
link up in the later course of development, since the industrial system
applied to agriculture also enervates the workers there, while industry
and trade for their part provide agriculture with the means of
exhausting the soil."





--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager