Search results

A symposium contribution reviews John Bellamy Foster's study of the relationship between Marxist thought & ecological theory. Foster's contention that Western Marxism has remained relatively silent in examining communal conditions of production & connection of ecology with "metabolic rift analysis" are highly problematic. Foster is criticized for failing to address the impact of introducing nonnative crops into the British agricultural sector. In addition, Foster's claim that Karl Marx's engagement with certain scientific theories, eg, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, represented a commitment to ecology is challenged. Several additional shortcomings in both Foster's critique of Marx's ecology & in Marx's ecological thought itself are also addressed. Despite Marx's elementary ecological consciousness, it is concluded that the notion of the communal conditions of production has significant implications for future ecological Marxist thought. J. W. Parker

Replies to Alain Lipietz's "Political Ecology and the Future of Marxism" (2000). Although Lipietz's suggestion that political ecology is the future of Marxism is supported, his contention that Marxism's intellectual foundation must be abandoned is rejected. Even though Lipietz's assertion that both Marxists & political ecologists do not know how to associate materialism, politics, & ethics is seconded, his understanding of the Marxist conceptualization of production is also rejected. Several additional problems with Lipietz's merging of liberal & social democratic unionism with revolutionary Marxism, disregard of class issues as it pertains to Southern hemisphere nations, rationale for Marxism's breaking away from ethics & ecology, critique of women's/feminist & greens/environmentalist movements, account of James O'Connor's two contradiction theories, & understanding of the Marxist tradition are discussed. J. W. Parker

Investigates Bookchin's (eg, 1990) theory of social & ecological evolution. According to Bookchin, natural evolution is grounded in processes of mutualism & symbiosis. These processes were disrupted when hierarchy & domination were institutionalized in preliterate societies. It is suggested that Bookchin's approach is internally contradictory. In particular, his argument that the domination of human by human preceded the growth of hierarchical ideologies is refuted. Instead, Bookchin is charged with constructing straw men of preliterate societies, which he than batters for grounding social domination & exploitation in struggles against nature. In place of Bookchin's analysis, a dialectical theory of the enablements & constraints generated by ecological & social conditions is recommended. D. Ryfe

Critiques social ecology & Murray Bookchin's (eg, 1962) form of political anarchism from an emerging socialist logical perspective. Primarily, Bookchin's work is criticized for his failure to realize the importance of social labor -- as a mediating force between social relations of humans & between humans & the nonhuman natural domain -- as a defining characteristic of capitalism. Bookchin's central ideas include: the development of domination in the early evolution of human society; the importance of the transition to capitalism; & the proposal for a modern society rooted in his Kropotkinian evolutionary anarchism. Here, a more materialist approach is recommended that includes a theoretical analysis of labor & social labor, along with the qualitative alteration of production distribution & consumption, & of historical structures, tendencies, & crisis that generate such changes -- all missing from Bookchin's theory, making his utopia society disfunctional & unrealistic. 24 References. L. Nguyen