David Harvey, dialectics and ecology

[Louis Proyect]

I don't believe that John Bellamy Foster has taken up this aspect of
Harvey's thought--and I'm sure that I haven't--but the deadly aftermath of
Hurricane Mitch highlights one of the biggest flaws in his methodology.
Harvey draws a sharp distinction between environmental justice issues on
one hand, and the concerns of middle-class greens on the other, who appear
more interested in whether old-growth trees survive than whether ghetto
kids get sick from eating lead paint.

In Harvey's schema, questions of whether rainforests survive get relegated
to Prince Charles and Sting, as he himself becomes Marxist guardian against
all wavering elements in our ranks who get sentimental over the fate of
snail darters or redwood trees. A true Bolshevik would not flinch at the
Amazon being turned into matchsticks as long as those matchsticks serve the
working-class in some fashion.

The problem with this workerist bullshit--and that is what it is--is that
it does not see the relationship between deforestation, global warming and
other "middle-class" green issues with the everyday lives of working people
and farmers. As should be clear by now, upwards of 10,000 Central Americans
have died because of global warming and destruction of the rainforest. Now
while it is true that someone like Sting seems more interested in nature
than in humanity, it would be extremely stupid for us to assume that the
connection can not be made. It is really up to Marxists to make these
connections, which leads me to the most glaring shortcoming of "Justice,
Nature & The Geography of Difference." The entire first part of the book is
a call for the need to take dialectics seriously. It is only through a
dialectical approach that we can make connections between workers, nature
and the capitalist system.

And then he turns around, once he begins talking about "green" issues, and
stops thinking dialectically. A dialectical approach would emphasize the
connection between rainforest destruction and the catastrophic loss of life
in Central America. It is UNDIALECTICAL to separate the fate of the forest
with the fate of people living in the cities of Jinotega or Matagalpa,
where flooding from nearby mountainsides has poured into city streets.

Harvey's boneheaded approach to these questions is part of a general trend
among Marxists who write about environmental issues to sneer at questions
of biodiversity, etc. Another notable example is William Cronon, who wrote
a book about the ecological "splendors" of Chicago. He marvels at the
ability of the working class to transform nature by erecting huge
skyscrapers and underground transportation in a fashion reminiscent of
1950's Chamber of Commerce press releases, but barely provides an insight
into what this has to do with the town/countryside contradictions explored
by Marx. The most howling demonstration of how wacky this can get is his
treatment of how cattle replaced bison. He provides all the facts, except
the most important one: how cattle destroy the environment, while bison
respect it.

The interesting thing is that all these characters write for Jim O'Connor's
CNS, but you wouldn't have a clue that this debate is raging behind the
scenes. One of the most positive results of the Harvey/O'Connor debate is
that it brings out into the open some of the simmering issues.




Louis Proyect

(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)