Suchergebnisse

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