Artificial Scarcity or Natural Limits?

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Tue May 12 10:08:48 PDT 1998


The limits and scarcities that marxists should be primarily concerned about are artificial--not natural--ones. This is not to say that nature places no constraint upon social activities, be they labor or anything else. It does, in that the social world is embedded in the natural world. However, marxism, both in theory and practice, primarily addresses itself to what is _social_, both in terms of constraints _and_ possibilities. Marxists should pay attention to the natural world, but we are _not_ naturalists.

Let's think about the politics of food, for instance. Is it because we do not produce enough food that there are millions of the working class people who suffer from hunger and malnutrition now? No, it's not, even though the ruling class and their media want us to believe that. As of now, we have enough food production capacity to feed people all over the world comfortably, don't we? It is because of social relations of capitalism--the contradiction between labor and capital--that masses of people are hungry, and how to rid ourselves of those social relations that exploit and oppress people because of their class, gender, race, nationality, and so on is the main object and objective of marxist theory and practice. I am in favor of Red-Green synthesis, but the Green theory and practice that does not foreground questions of social relations and chooses to lead us to dwell upon the Earth's 'carrying capacity' can't be and shouldn't be synthesized with marxism.

Yoshie



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list