OPE-L
mailing list archive

Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]

Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

[OPE-L:6544] marx, engels, and ecology



You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.


I disagree with the view that Marx and Engels completely missed the
boat on ecology, and I have written at length in opposition to this
view in my book MARX AND NATURE and numerous articles.  These
writings explore the issue not in generalized AD HOMINEM terms but by
looking at Marx and Engels' thought as a whole and at specific
concepts they developed.  John Bellamy Foster's book MARX'S ECOLOGY
comes to similar conclusions as my own, based on his historical-
intellectual analysis of the development of Marx and Engels'
thinking and how it was shaped in various crucial ways by their
engagement with the works of what would nowadays be called ecologists
like Liebig and others.  (My review of John's book was published in
NEW POLITICS, #31, Summer 2001, and there has been a lively debate
about the significance of John's work in the 2001 volume of the
journal CAPITALISM, NATURE, SOCIALISM.  See especially Jason Moore's
contribution in the September-01 issue.)

I do not have time to participate in lengthy debates on this list
(too many other things to do you know), and I apologize for being
such a lurker, but I would like to say that the purpose of both my
work and John's is not merely the textual defense of Marx and Engels
but to further develop the ecological resources of historical
materialism -- which we argue to be quite considerable not despite,
but because of, the general outlook and specific conceptual
apparatuses developed by Marx and Engels, including their value
analysis.  I developed these points in some detail in a two-part
response to Ted Benton's "ecological critique and reconstruction" of
Marx, published in the new journal HISTORICAL MATERIALISM, No. 2 and
No. 3, respectively.  Ted Benton's response to my arguments, along
with my rejoinder, are in HM #8 which is supposed to be published
this month.  I mention these things because some people on the list
may be interested in a discussion of the specific issues and
questions raised by the ecological reading of classical Marxism and
the need to develop an ecological Marxism for today's world.

Cheers, Paul Burkett



Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]