Rain

Louis Proyect lnp3 at SPAMpanix.com
Tue Nov 21 08:00:37 MST 2000



Jose:
>As a general principle, however, getting rid of chemicals and
>machinery, and instead relying on more labor intensive techniques, is
>clearly, without doubt, a feudal socialist reactionary utopia. The socialism
>that sets as its goal the elimination of advertising so that people can be
>freed up to work on farms is a socialism that will fail.

John Bellamy Foster, whose "Marx's Ecology" was the focus of a recent
cyber-seminar, 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 several years ago at a
panel titled "Marx's Contribution to Ecological Theory."

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 184, 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."


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








More information about the Marxism mailing list