[Marxism] To save the planet, we don't need to go green; we need to go red.

Leigh Phillips leigh.phillips at gmail.com
Thu Jan 9 19:30:31 MST 2014


Further to the environment, GMO, technophobia, anti-science, new age,
woolly-thinking, etc., discussion over the last 48 hours, the lead
editorial in the latest Jacobin from Alyssa Battistoni I think get's it
exactly right. Not ecosocialism, but what she calls 'cyborg socialism':

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/01/toward-cyborg-socialism/

The history of environmentalism is littered with Malthusianism, ecological
determinism, biological essentialism, and neocolonial conservationism. Left
skepticism of — or perhaps more accurately, indifference to — engagement
with ecological politics is certainly understandable. But we’re not talking
about preserving an idealized concept of pristine, untouched nature — we’re
talking about the world we choose to make, and the world we’ll have to live
in.

Green dominates the environmental landscape, from the light greenwash of
“sustainable lifestyles” to the dark green of deep ecologists. But
environmentalism is also black lung disease in coal-mining towns and toxic
brownfields in urban neighborhoods, the iridescent sheen of an oil spill
and the translucent white of melting polar ice caps.

And so I cringe a bit at the term ecosocialism — it’s too earth-toned. What
we need is a cyborg socialism that points not to the primacy of ecology,
but to the integration of natural and social, organic and industrial,
ecological and technological; that recognizes human transformations of the
natural world without simply asserting domination over it.

The Left doesn’t need to go green — to save the planet and the people on
it, it needs to go red.

Leigh Phillips
European Affairs Journalist & Science Writer
leigh.phillips at gmail.com
Twitter: Leigh_Phillips



More information about the Marxism mailing list