I didn't claim what you are saying, that there are no ecological insights derived from the Marxist tradition, going back to Marx and Engels*, rather that the record of 20th Century "socialism" (with the continuing exception of Cuba) did not include for the most part a strong positive ecological dimension. Their destruction of the natural environment was analogous to capitalist countries, with Marx/Engels wisdom ignored, and ecological movements largely marginalized.
* E.g., Marx's discussion of the break in the plant/humus cycle with industrial agriculture (Capital vol.1) and Engels in Dialectics of Nature (deforestation in Cuba).


On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:45 AM, David Westman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
It is quite wrong to assume that an ecological approach to socialism is not part of a genuinely Marxist perspective.  Read the following articles:
        "For a working class trend within the environmental movement, with a program opposed to the market measures
        of establishment environmentalism"
        http://www.communistvoice.org/48cEnvironmentalismPanel.html
        "A review of John Bellamy Foster's 'Marx's Ecology':  Marx and Engels on protecting the environment"
        http://www.communistvoice.org/40cMarx.html

David Westman


On 10/5/2013 5:52 AM, David Schwartzman wrote:
Solutions?   Ecosocialism is arguably the only viable socialism of the 21st Century because its vision includes a material structure informed by the cutting edge sciences of climate (hence solarization of energy supplies and rapid curbs in carbon emissions), biogeochemistry/ ecology (hence agroecologies replacing industrial/GMO agriculture, industrial ecologies). Socialisms just informed by political economy, derived from the Marxist tradition,  that ignore the humanity/nature relations will fail. That is the lesson of 20th Century "socialisms" that some prefer to call state capitalisms (I don't because all potential transitions out of capitalism are bound to be impure).

We all have opinions regarding "solutions", so lets put them out for debate and hopefully empower  movements to achieve them recognizing that they  are always subject to revision and enrichment as they are being realized, a process that must include mass participation.


On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I agree substantially -- but I myself never use the phrase, "the solution
is." History isn't that neat. More democracy, which requires the overcoming
of capitalism, has to be _the_ goal. One can't write recipes in advance for
what a free people will decide. And between now and 'then' there will be
great tumult & destruction: the world in which a socialist mass movement
will come to power won't look much like today's world -- or like any world
we can imagine with confidence.

Ten years ago could you have imagined anything remotely like the world
revealed in today's headlines?

Carrol

-----Original Message-----
From: Science for the People Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Schwartzman
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 4:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 7 insects you'll be eating in the (not too distant) future

I think that food shortages are real, but caused by war, elite corruption,
climate change and of course capitalism. The solution in the short run is
more democracy, more ecosocialism and less capitalism.  Global population
growth is leveling out. If catastrophic climate change (C3) kicks in, global
population levels will plunge with mass starvation and pandemics. If
humanity succeeds in implementing a prevention program in time to avoid C3
then population growth will slow down. A great source on this issue is Too
Many People? by Ian Angus and Simon Butler..



On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


        Population even now makes many difficult situations more difficult.
It will
        doubtless cause more difficulty in the future.

        But food shortages is not one of those difficulties, now or in the
future.

        Carrol