Sendo
24th August 2008, 12:54
James O'Connor's "Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism"
Anyone read it? I cam across it when during research my last semester and got around to reading it cover to cover (50 pages left). It's very good work. He shows that capitalism is not just unsustainable for its exponential growth, but is also unsustainable for the reason that as capitalism makes resources scarce, centralizes, causes urban congestion, creates overproduction crises, and destroys the ability of nature to recycle waste it raise its own input costs. The result is increased abuse to workers and the environment (including not just pretty forests, but soil, air quality, resources, health, water supplies, and so forth).
It was written in 1997, and although he pays attention to Middle east geopolitics and the Gulf War in one of his essays, he does neglect the market distortion caused by big oil's lobbying, market flooding, patent buy-outs and public transit buy-outs. (like the invention and retraction of the electric car, overriding capital's drive to cut costs with energy efficiency, etc), but does give a fair amount of time to discussing all of the unfavorable environmental catastrophes there are and discusses globalized development very deeply and what has meant for the global North and South and for minorities in the North.
He also discusses the efficiencies of socialist economies and defends the Soviet bloc. He writes that the Soviet bloc's environmental problems were chiefly from inferior technology, a Cold War need to "catch up" very quickly, and central planning. Central planning can serve some good, but he advocates an interdependent network of localities, given how much more damaging one big power plant can be compared to several smaller ones. The soviet system also tended to isolate technocrats and the like from democratic movements and even other state enterprises, causing some degree of externalizing of costs.
Other than recent events like the sharp increase in global warming, the exploitation and cause of new waves of natural disasters (though covered well in "Shock Doctrine"), and developments in Cuba's post-Soviet economy, the strides in solar and lithium technology, it stands the test of time quite well. While he uses much of traditional Marxist texts and scientific bits and news bits, it is largely a long fleshing out of his own understanding of ecology and Marxism and argumentative, and much less of rehash, research, or journalism. There are some chapters that investigate California's environmental history and some analysis of William Cronon and those who criticize him from the left (trad. Marxists), though.
My summation is short, and selective, but what are people's reactions? I think he ties material analysis very well to ecology and shows that there is a lot to expand upon Marx and Engel's works, without fretting over correct line-ism. Is there anything else people find important to add to a Marxist-style study of ecology? Are there related works anyone recommends?
(I don't want to hear miracle-ism, though. You people know who you are, the ones who think some miracle technology is right around the corner, making sustainable and localized production unnecessary, or those who dismiss the dangers of chemical treadmills and global warming.)
Anyone read it? I cam across it when during research my last semester and got around to reading it cover to cover (50 pages left). It's very good work. He shows that capitalism is not just unsustainable for its exponential growth, but is also unsustainable for the reason that as capitalism makes resources scarce, centralizes, causes urban congestion, creates overproduction crises, and destroys the ability of nature to recycle waste it raise its own input costs. The result is increased abuse to workers and the environment (including not just pretty forests, but soil, air quality, resources, health, water supplies, and so forth).
It was written in 1997, and although he pays attention to Middle east geopolitics and the Gulf War in one of his essays, he does neglect the market distortion caused by big oil's lobbying, market flooding, patent buy-outs and public transit buy-outs. (like the invention and retraction of the electric car, overriding capital's drive to cut costs with energy efficiency, etc), but does give a fair amount of time to discussing all of the unfavorable environmental catastrophes there are and discusses globalized development very deeply and what has meant for the global North and South and for minorities in the North.
He also discusses the efficiencies of socialist economies and defends the Soviet bloc. He writes that the Soviet bloc's environmental problems were chiefly from inferior technology, a Cold War need to "catch up" very quickly, and central planning. Central planning can serve some good, but he advocates an interdependent network of localities, given how much more damaging one big power plant can be compared to several smaller ones. The soviet system also tended to isolate technocrats and the like from democratic movements and even other state enterprises, causing some degree of externalizing of costs.
Other than recent events like the sharp increase in global warming, the exploitation and cause of new waves of natural disasters (though covered well in "Shock Doctrine"), and developments in Cuba's post-Soviet economy, the strides in solar and lithium technology, it stands the test of time quite well. While he uses much of traditional Marxist texts and scientific bits and news bits, it is largely a long fleshing out of his own understanding of ecology and Marxism and argumentative, and much less of rehash, research, or journalism. There are some chapters that investigate California's environmental history and some analysis of William Cronon and those who criticize him from the left (trad. Marxists), though.
My summation is short, and selective, but what are people's reactions? I think he ties material analysis very well to ecology and shows that there is a lot to expand upon Marx and Engel's works, without fretting over correct line-ism. Is there anything else people find important to add to a Marxist-style study of ecology? Are there related works anyone recommends?
(I don't want to hear miracle-ism, though. You people know who you are, the ones who think some miracle technology is right around the corner, making sustainable and localized production unnecessary, or those who dismiss the dangers of chemical treadmills and global warming.)