Paul,
Maybe I'm missing something, but even
reading the dictionary ecological definition it
does not seem far off from my take of Marx.
It seems to me the issue is not so much
ecological or not, but rather what most
ecological theories leave out. The big critique
of course being how history seems to be
outright ignored in many ecological theories.
It also seems clear that in Marx there is an
explicit ethics which is not necessarily the case
with some ecological theories.
In transcribing Seve chapter 2 which is real
interesting - who uses Manuscripts extensively
- at several points there were references to
nature in which it was defined including
history.
In either case, my take is not one of strict
separation - but rather going against such a
view.
Maybe I'm missing your point - I'm assuming it
has something to with history being separate in
some way. Yet,
‘History is the true natural history of man (on
which more later).” ‘The cult of abstract man,
which formed the kernel of Feuerbach’s new
religion had to be replaced by the science of
real men and of their historical development.
Could we say that to study man it must be
done within their ecological context - ensemble
of relations - that must not ignore history?
My take is there is not an "and" involved here
but an "in" in both Marxist and ecological
approaches. Why would Marx theorize about
the streams and fish as a system in itself any
ways, his concern was with the specifically
human system, right. To me, the tension would
be confusing the levels here - one that Phil
critiques in some old papers, particularly in
regards to certain processes such as
globalization etc as having an agency or will of
its own that is enevetible.
Nate
4/24/01 12:40:52 PM, "Paul H.Dillon"
<illonph@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Phil,
>
>It's going to take some time to go through
your list of quotes but a quick
>once over did convince me even more that
when marx talked about man's
>relationship to nature he did so primarily in
consideration of man's
>conversion of nature into an object of labor
and its effect on humans
>themselves.
>
>My dictionary's definitions of ecology is:
>
>1. a branch of the science concerned with
the interelationship of a
>species and its environment;
>2. the totality or pattern of relationships
between a species and its
>environment
>
>The discussion of the pattern of relationships
between the human species
>and its environment is absent from
everything you quoted, in fact the
>concept of "environment" is absent, rather we
have "Nature" which I hope you
>don't equate with the term environment as
understood by the science of
>ecology which developed after Marx did his
work and which he did not ever
>consider. Allthough I agree that Marxist
theory is not incompatible with
>the modern science of ecology, I think that
the fundamental premise that all
>value proceeds from labor represents one of
the major places where the
>failure to understand man's existence within a
web of life emerges in
>particular clarity.
>
>Marx considered Nature only insofar as it was
involved with human productive
>activity (just like all of the other economists),
although he (of course)
>reecognized that the human species is part of
nature. for example, from
>"The German Ideology":
>
>"The field (the water, etc.) can be regarded as
a natural instrument of
>production."
>
>He simply never theorized that relationship to
Nature as anything other than
>a labor process and nothing you quoted
illustrates the contrary. Nowhere
>does he say that the field, the water, etc. can
be considered living systems
>in and of themselves. It doesn't do the
theory any good at all to claim
>for it qualities it doesn't possess, even if you
claim to be a champion of
>that theory.
>
>What's the matter Phil? Bad hair day?
>
>
>Paul H. Dillon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:59 PDT