Jerry asks: >What are the ongoing disagreements on the scope of Marxism's environmental potential? There are more than I can list in one day. I would say the most important are the usefulness of the metabolism concept as opposed to a more energetic approach to production, or how they can be combined. Also the connection between the value of labor power, natural conditions, and non-capitalist (reproductive) labor. More generally whether Marx's value approach is useful for revealing capitalism's environmental contradictions even if it is not ecologically incorrect. Some of these areas came up in the debate over Lipietz's rejection of Marxism in CNS (June 2000) and over Foster's book in CNS (September 2001), also in my exchange with Ted Benton in HISTORICAL MATERIALISM (Issues 2, 3, and 8). See also the debate over Marx's concept of nature as the "inorganic body of humanity" in ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT (December 2000 and December 2001). On the value and nature, and value and energetics, questions, see especially the work of Elmar Altvater, e.g. his book THE FUTURE OF THE MARKET (Verso 1993), his chapter in IS CAPITALISM SUSTAINABLE?, Martin O'Connor, editor (Guilford 1994) and his article in the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY (Spring 1990). He shows very clearly that the energeticist criticisms of Marx's value analysis and their calls for an "energy theory of value" are misplaced in that they confuse the concepts of use value, exchange value, and value. (I dealt with this confusion in my article in CAPITAL & CLASS, No. 68, Summer 1999.) Controversy also continues over the coherence and accuracy of James O'Connor's "two contradictions" framework: see the special environment issue of CAPITAL & CLASS (No. 72, Autumn 2000) or my review of O'Connor in MONTHLY REVIEW (February 1999) -- the last is available on the MR website. On the question of nature and reproductive labor, and the corresponding connections between gender and capitalist exploitation, the work of Ariel Salleh, ECOFEMINISM AS POLITICS (Zed, 1997) is a good starting point. Salleh was one of the figures in the O&E debate mentioned above. This is really a huge area that is hard to summarize. Cheers, Paul Burkett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EDT