I further indicated that Marx had rejected the cult of nature in this earlier incarnation. No moral drawn, except by you.
My only view is that people should argue for or against growth on their
own terms, and that it was particularly fruitless to try to dragoon Marx
into the debate. Clearly he was in his own times, in favour of a great
expansion of the social forces of production, as he argued on many
occasions. Whether Marx's views are right for today is another question.
>
>The real issue behind this debate between 'brown' and 'green' Marxists
>seems to be to what extent is Marxism committed to a productivist model.
There is not strictly speaking a debate between two 'marxisms', but a
debate between environmentalism and its critics, that is projected onto
Marxism.
>It seems to be Jim Heartfield's position that Marx was a full-blown
>productivist
On the contrary. To my mind it is a caricature of Marxism to say that it
is productivist (as say Baudrillard and Shanin argue). Marx never saw
production for production's sake as an unalloyed good (as for example in
his points against Ricardo). Rather he saw the enlargement of industry
and technology as a human good, that, by abbreviating the labour
process, could, given the right social organisation, enlarge the realm
of freedom. That is technology for Marx is never a good in its own
right, but only a means to enlarging human freedom. Similarly he would
have rejected any idea that nature was a good in its own right, but only
a good for man.
> and that Marxism must by its essence remain committed
>to a full-blown productivism.
Yes, some analytical fluency would help, here. False premise. False
conclusion.
> Proyect and Jones as I understand them
>seem to be denying this thesis.
That is, they are knocking down a straw man.
>If we are to regard Marx as a
>productivist
>then it seems evident that was at most a relative or a critical
>productivist
>not the kind of radical productivst that Jim Heartfield would make him
>out to be.
To which I can only say that I don't make him out to be anything other than what he said he was - amongst other things 'no Marxist'. -- Jim heartfield