There are Marxists, and there are Marxists. But of course you knew that.. As it happens there has been a bit of debate about what a Marxist position 'should' be regarding environmentalism. It has generated some heat with the "Vulgar" Marxists (& Maoists) falling on one side while the "Revisionary Malthusian Romanticists" falling on the other.The former view holds that it is NOT technology that is the problem, but the social relations created by the Capitalist's ownership of the means of production. Thus any attempt by environmentalists to put the breaks on technology through regulation, is simply a method of maintaining hegemony over global production by the developed West over the "Under-developed" nations. In other words, it serves the purposes of neo-imperialism. It also has echoes of Ricardo's economics - both in the theories of competitive advantage as well as his theory that capital accumulation could be limited by the declining fertility of the soil.
One poster put it this way: :"But conserving the existing balance between man and nature - or still worse going backwards - is the exact opposite of Marx's socialism. Marx aims to accelerate the utilization of nature by man, for the express purpose of abolishing want. The realm of freedom, Marx explains, is increased by reducing the realm of nature imposed necessity. Increased productivity of labour (today only used to exploit labour) is the basis of liberating man from natural necessity, by reducing labour time to a minimum. Marxism anticipates a greater utilization of nature, by man, not a lesser one.
The "Romantics" (and I suppose I side with them) hold that the above is an extreme productivist view of Marxism - that maximizing production is a necessary precondition for social progress. While this might be supportable at the beginning of the industrial revolution, for many decades now there has been enough productive capacity to satisfy the basic needs of everyone on earth many times over. The problem is not scarcity, but distribution. (There will ALWAYS be want under capitalist economies because it is based on production rather than need - and the invisible hand has pretty much remained just that) Nor is it a matter of "North vs South" in the old imperialist formulations. Internal class divisions exist within all nations, rich or poor. (Just look at the sudden emergence of dozens of billionaires in Mexico). The retention of earlier Marxist technological determinism ignores some of Marx's own concerns. While he was at first excited over chemical advances agriculture, he later became concerned that these advances might be coming at the expense of soil degradation to the detriment of future generations.
The point is that it is silly to ignore obvious facts about such things as global warming, resource depletion, pollution of air and ground water, etc. especially when such facts in no way diminish Marxist thought. Nor need we defend such projects as China's Three Gorges Dam.
bill
