1) I am a little confused - is this an ethical
difference or one simply of interpretation. Paul
seems to have deep concerns in how environment in
taken up in relation to Marx, while at the same time
argueing against Marx as an ecological approach. I
assume this mainly has to do if we interpret Marx as
an economist or a radical philosopher.
One question I have for Paul is, do you think the
dialectical approach formulated by Marx is
inconsistent or incapable of grasping an ethical
enviromental approach?
One quote taken from Bill's postings was something
to the tune of changing the debate from "preserving
nature" or "nature out there" to "what kind of
nature we ought to have".
2) "treats her as belonging to him"
This does not seem inconsistent with the Native
American view it was contrasted with in my view -
that of course depends on how one understands
ownership. If we say nature belongs to "man" or the
other way around, both imply a type of ownership
that puts responsibility on humans. The popular
"seven generations" rule could be taken as treating
her as she belonged to him in the sense that there
is a responsibility and a political committment.
3). Labor still seems important though because as
Foster points out other aspects of nature cannot
change whole continents like humans can. Similar if
not identical to the view that via labor we change
or transform nature.
I guess my point is that theorizing nature outside
the labor process would miss an essential link on
how we as humans relate to nature. Situating it in
labor rather than outside acknowedges our ethical
position in relation to the environment.
I would however concur that Marx and others of that
time were very much influenced by the notion of via
science controlling "nature". The question for me
then is, is his method of understanding the world DM
inconsistent with an enviromental or ecological
view?
Nate
4/26/01 3:20:00 AM, "Paul H.Dillon"
<illonph@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Despite my sincere intention to drop this thread, I
can't allow Phil's
>erroneous presentation of marx's theory to stand
unchallenged.
>
>Phil wrote:.
>>
>> Marx's position is this
>>
>> 'Labour is *not* the source of all wealth. Nature
is just as much the
>> source of use values (and it is surely of such
that material wealth
>> consists!) as labour, which itself is only the
manifestation of a force of
>> nature, human labour power' (Marx, 1875/1972, p.
382)
>>
>> Marx, K. (1875/1972). Critique of the Gotha
program. In R.C. Tucker (Ed.),
>> The Marx-Engels Reader (382-405). New York: W.W.
Norton.
>>
>
>Now had Phil bothered to continue with the passage
he cites he would have
>included the following:
>
>(same page, same book, same edition, next
sentence).
>
>"The above phrase is to be found in all children's
primers and is correct in
>so far as it is *implied* that labour is performed
with the appurtenant
>subjects and instruments. But a socialist
programme cannot allow such
>bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the
*conditions* that alone give
>them meaning. And in so far as man from the
beginning behaves toward
>nature, the primary source of all instruments and
subjects of labour, as an
>owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labour
becomes the source of use
>values, therefore also of wealth."
>
>yes, one cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to
pass over in silence the
>*conditions* that alone give them meaning, since it
is labor and labor alone
>that confers value in Marx's economic theory. Or
as he said more clearly
>in the first pages of Capital:
>
>"A use-value, or useful article, therefore, has
value only because human
>labour in the abstract has been embodied or
materialised in it. How, then,
>is the magnitude of this value to be measured?
Plainly, by the quantity of
>the value-creating substance, the labour, contained
in the article."
>
>As Marx pointed out, some things cannot simply be
passed over in silence, in
>particular when they are not debatable issues such
as whether Marx had an
>ecology; a topic I certainly look forward to
exploring in Fosters book,
>since from what I've read thanks to Bill's posts,
Foster does appear to have
>understood what Marx said unequivocally and about
which I've never before
>the past few days heard any disagreement. I
suppose that minimal level of
>understanding would be a precondition for any
discussion of issues that
>require a subtler comprehension of marxist theory
in general, or even the
>phrase "treats her as belonging to him" in which
I'm sure some of
>participants of xmca might well find disturbing
from a variety of
>perspectives but which certainly doesn't sound like
the native american
>notion that humans belong to the earth, not the
other way around.
>
>Paul H. Dillon
>
>
>
>Paul H. Dilloon
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:04 PDT