 |
| Victor Postnikov |
By Victor Postnikov, CounterCurrents.org, January 23, 2012
“ Every culture that has lost myth has lost, by the same token, its
natural healthy creativity. The images of myth must be the daemonic guardians,
ubiquitous but unnoticed, interpreting to the mature man his life and
struggles." - Nietzsche
In the course of
conscious human history, the myth of equality, justice and
brotherhood has always been considered as a natural
“human trait”. Such was the myth of socialism.
Unfortunately, in today's Russia , this myth has been
lost. For many in Russia and the post-communist countries, the term
“socialism” has acquired a negative connotation, and is associated with
the totalitarian Soviet regime. It is a very narrow outlook.
Since the 1917 revolution, during the 73 years, the Russians were
deprived of the opportunity to realize its best aspects. In fact, the
socialism has a long history, and dates back to the early days of 17th
century English Revolution (Diggers, Levellers, Quakers), or maybe even
further, to the first Christian communities [1]. So, 73 years is just a
flicker in history.
On the other hand, many still remember the times when socialistic
ideas were genuinely shared by millions. Basically, the history of Europe is
the history of struggle for socialism ( Paris commune, etc). The greatest minds
have contributed to the ideas of socialism throughout its history. This legacy
cannot be easily forgotten, or dismissed.
None the less, today, human evolution has reached the tipping
point, not only in its civilizational aspects, but – more
importantly in the ecological sense - so that “classical”, or “Marxist”
socialism, or even the «socialism with a human face», or other
anthropocentric types of socialism, is not an adequate solution, although
it may still be preferable to barbaric capitalism. What is
needed is neither capitalism, nor socialism, but a nature-based philosophy
and democracy, where all creatures and plants have equal rights to
flourish.
Humanity badly needs a revival of its animistic roots, and luckily
these have been preserved in the remaining aboriginal cultures. The
question is this: are we, “the civilized world”, intellectually robust
enough to make such a radical U-turn? Or, in the words of Robinson
Jeffers, “We will never be glad again, so kneaded with human flesh, so humble
and changed”.
Naturally, a transition phase could be painful and lengthy, having in
mind how deeply we are bogged down in modern civilization. It is thought
that eco-socialism could
rectify the past mistakes of socialist movement and serve as a transitional
path that retains the best of both worlds until we are free at last from the
fetters of civilization and the danger of extinction. Before we consider the
pros and cons of this transition, I will try to define eco-socialism and
its two main variants.
What is eco-socialism ?
Roughly speaking, it is an attempt to unite the ideas
of the greens and the left. The difficulty of conjunction lies in
the fact that, even within each faction, the ideas are varied and
contradictory. The approaches to eco-socialism have been suggested in a
number of publications [2]. To simplify the issue, I will
divide eco-socialism into two main categories, fundamentalist , or anthropocentric, and deep
, or
non-anthropocentric, although there are other tendencies and
directions.
Fundamentalist (anthropocentric) eco-socialism
The fundamentalist eco-socialism (which could for simplicity be
called “the first type eco-socialism”) is based on orthodox
Marxism. It has many adherents among orthodox Marxists, socialists,
social ecologists, feminists and anarchists. Marxist theory is
complemented by some knowledge of the current ecological crises. The
general premise of the first-type eco-socialism is that, with the transition to
socialism, the ecological crises is resolved nearly automatically.
That is, all the responsibility for the lamentable state of
eco-systems, extinction of species, pollution, global warming, etc. is blamed
on the capitalist mode of production. As soon as the socialist type is
established (nominally, without the “free” market), the situation has to be
radically improved. And here, the first type eco-socialists
diverge. Some agree to allow the “free” market under the surveillance of
the State (as we see, e.g., in China ), others maintain the overall control of
the economic activity of citizens (e.g., Cuba ). The principal
ideologues of the fundamentalist eco-socialism are Joel Kovel , John Bellamy
Foster and Ian Angus.
Several years ago, Kovel sent me his book, «The Enemy of
Nature» (2003) [3], which eco-socialists consider the most authoritative
work on the subject, with a view to translating it into Russian.
However, after carefully reading the book, I found his criticism of
deep ecology, bioregionalism, eco-feminism in conflict with my views, and –
reluctantly – abandoned the project . Yet, the book contains a
substantial critique of capitalism's deadening ecological trail. The main
theoretical basis for such criticism is, of course, Marxism. Kovel presents an
outline of the future eco-socialistic society using Marxist rhetoric and
general socialist principles, that, to my mind, is quite vague.
Basically, the author touts the centralist eco-socialist society that
should replace capitalist society (after revolution?), provided there's
massive international support. He says very little about how the
sustainable economy will be reached, which technologies to employ, and, most
importantly, how the overpopulation issue will be resolved.
John Belamy Foster, another influential theorist, author of «Marx's
Ecology» (2000) [4], has made an attempt to rehabilitate Marx for the
greens. (It is true that there are some insights in Marx's Capital where he
speaks of earth's exploitation. However, ecology wasn't his priority and
existed very much at the periphery at his discourse). Ian Angus (together
with Joel Kovel and Michael Löwy) has founded the Eco-socialist
International and wrote the Belem Declaration [5] that received some worldwide
attention.
Deep (non-anthropocentric) eco-socialism
Another direction, or tendency (to which the author
subscribes) originates from several “dissident” trends, both within the
left and green movements. David Orton, the founder of the left
biocentrism, points to the
sources [6] :
- "Deep-green
theory" (Richard Sylvan) [7];
- "Socialist biocentrism" (Helga Hoffman and David Orton) [8]
;
- "Ecologism" (Andrew
Dobson) [9];
- "Radical
ecocentrism" (Andrew McLaughlin) [10] ;
- "Revolutionary ecology" (Judi Bari) [11] ;
- “Green fundamentalism” (Rudolph Bahro) [12] .
Saral Sarkar, the
author of the influential work «Eco-socialism or eco-capitalism ?», [13]
deserves inclusion with the above. Sarkar, although positing himself as
“eco-socialist”, shares many of premises of left biocenrism. He
outlines the future eco-socialist society that curtails industrial
economies, controls the birth-rate, and promotes only moral
growth, to achieve sustainability. Obviously, this is a more ascetic version of
eco-socialism than the Marxists profess. For Sarkar, there would
have to be a revolution of all classes of society. People in such an
eco-socialist society would have to develop their needs within parameters that
did not permit of economic growth. This has been substantiated by numerous
authors dealing with the problem of peak-oil and the inability of the so-called
renewable sources to bridge the gap between demand and generation [see, e.g.
14, 15].
Apart from political discourse, there are many modern thinkers from
different schools of thought who have made a profound contribution to
ecocentric philosophy. It is impossible to name them
all, but a few scientists such as Fritjof Capra [16], James
Lovelock [17], and William R. Catton Jr. [18], while hardly considering themselves
eco-socialists, deserve mentioning. Their scientifically grounded arguments for
the much needed shift from human-centered universe towards Gaia consciousness
can be likened to Copernican revolution.
The trends mentioned have their background in a deep ecology that
holds that the well-being of nature prevails over that of humanity,
while the latter is viewed as only one thread in a far more complex web of
life [19]. In other words, deep eco-socialism is
thought to revive nature in its entirety and splendour, and to
establish equal rights to all human and non-human citizens. Therefore, it
is clear that such socialism,
would be radically different from «classical socialism» and would require
a deep transformation in relations between humans and nature , and the revival
of the beliefs and practices of our ancestors. Modern humanity
would have to replace its conventional history (packed with kings and queens)
with the long-forgotten ancient myths and legends, in which humans are
inseparable from nature and the cosmos. Anthropocentric ethics would
have to give way to ecological ethics and lifestyle [20]. The
advocates of such “comeback” come from different nations. It is suffice
to name the geniuses of Rouseau, Thoreau, and Tolstoy who revolted against
modernity. But their voices have been ignored up to now. Fortunately, sacred
memory is still preserved by the native people [21].
The Russians, as well as
any other nation, have preserved their mythology in fairy tales, in
narratives, and in poetry. No wonder the latter has outlived all
political doctrines. No ideology has had the power to erase them.
The same holds true to all nations scattered across the vast land.
Instead of the monotony of global capitalism, every nation and every tribe
will be able to develop its cultural identity through the process of reviving
the earth on which it lives. And the earth will thrive again and reward
humanity. I call it deep eco-socialism , on a par with deep ecology and left biocentrism . David Orton and Saral Sarkar have
provided detailed analyses of the interrelations between left biocentrism, deep
ecology and eco-socialism [22, 23].
Premises “pros”
There
are signs that Russia has the possibility of an eco-socialist revival.
Firstly, many still cherish the memory of socialist movement in
Russia during the last 150 years [24], that at present is
being downgraded by mainstream media and the elite. On the other
hand, the dissenting youth is showing increased interest in the theory of
socialism and beginning to seriously study Marx and other “left” thinkers.
Secondly, degrading ecology and the threat of global
eco-catastrophe. Poisoned air and water in the cities, soil
erosion, decimation of nature, the onslaught of automobiles – all this
encourages people to think critically (those who still have the
capacity). The young feel that they have had their future stolen.
Thirdly,
the growing dissent in Russia and elsewhere against industrial corporations,
capitalism and the dictators of all sorts. The people revolt, and this is
positive.
Premises «cons»
There are many countervailing factors at work, however [25].
The
most vicious problem is the besotted people, the weakening of intellect.
[26] To comprehend the ideas of eco-socialism, one has to be
well-informed and educated, and – not least – critically-minded. And
ecologically literate. And the prerequisites for this should be at
least some degree of societal freedom.
In the meantime, those locked in the cities (and their number is
growing), are losing the ability to perceive nature
firsthand. The youth, fixated on the ghostly world of electronic
games and entertainment, rarely experience empathy towards nature or need to
defend it. Apathy and cynicism become dominant. The touted
vision of individual lifestyle, a hunt for ”success”, the
advertisements of “high life” separate people and play into the hands of
power holders.
Accordingly, eco-socialism is also a struggle for justice and
reconnection of the people.
Whether the pros or cons will
take the upper hand, it remains to be seen. My hunch is that the advent of
eco-socialism is possible only through collective efforts worldwide.
Ironically, although Marx was not very keen on ecology, it is ecology that
could promote his ideas better than proletarian revolution.
Acknowledgement
My deep gratitude to fellow leftbios Ian Whyte, Patrick Curry for
reviewing the text and valuable corrections. Particularly, I'm indebted to
David Blackwell, who helped me to substantially improve the stylistics.
References
[1]
Utopia Britannica, vol. 1, British Utopian Experiments: 1325 to 1945.
Written and compiled, and edited by Chris Choates ( Diggers & Dreamers
Publications, 2001).
[2] http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/
24E8W4R6SGVFH/ref=cm_syt_fvlm_f_1_rlrsrs0/102-9833204-6781750
.
[3] Kovel, J. (2003), The Enemy of Nature : the end of capitalism or the end of the
world? (Tulika Books, 2003).
[4] Foster, J., (2000) Marx's
Ecology ( New York :
Monthly Review Press).
[5] http://www.ecosocialistnetwork.org/Docs/Mfsto2/BelemDeclaration.htm
.
[6] Orton, D. A Short Talk on Left Biocentrism.
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/A_short_talk_on_Left_Biocentrism.pdf
[7] Sylvan, R., Bennett, D. (1994). The Greening of
Ethics ( Cambridge : White Horse
Press).
[8] Discussion: Socialist Biocentrism Capitalism,
Nature, Socialism, Vol. 2, No. 3, Issue 8, October
1991 http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/Socialist_Biocentrism.html
.
[9] Dobson A., (1990) Green Political Thought: An
Introduction ( London : Harper Collins)
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/Ecologism.html
.
[10] McLaughlin, A. For A Radical Ecocentrism, in The
Deep Ecology Movement : An
Introductory Anthology 257, 260 (Alan Drengson & Yuichi Inoue eds., 1995)
[11]
Bari , J. Revolutionary Ecology http://www.judibari.org/revolutionary-ecology.html
[12] Orton, D. A Tribute to Rudolph Bahro http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/Rudolf_Bahro.html
[13] Sarkar, S. (1999) Eco-socialism or
Eco-capitalism ? A Critical
Analysis of Humanity's Fundamental Choices (Zed Books).
[14] Trainer, T. (2007) Renewable energy cannot sustain a consumer
society ( Basel : Springer).
[15] Heinberg, R. Searching for a Miracle: Net Energy Limits and the
Fate of Industrial Society (The Post Carbon Institute and International Forum
on Globalization);
http://www.postcarbon.org/report/44377-searching-for-a-miracle
[16] Capra, F.
(1982) The Turning Point (Bantam
Books).
[17] Lovelock, J. (2007) Revenge of Gaia (Penguin Books).
[18] Catton, R. W. Jr,
(1990) Overshoot : The
Ecological Basis of Revolutionary change ( University of Illinois Press
).
[19] Næss, Arne Ecology, community and lifestyle (Cambridge University
Press 1989).
[20] Curry, P. (2011) Ecological Ethics : An Introduction (2 nd ed., Polity)
[21]
Mander J. (1992) In the Absence of the Sacred : The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the
Indian Nations, (Sierra Club Books).
[22] Orton, D., Postnikov, V.
Eco-socialism and Left Biocentrism, A Report, Centre d'éducation et de
recherches “Praxis” Fondation internationale Victor Serge, Conférence
scientifique international Economie, politique, écologie: Le capitalisme
post-soviétique dans le contexte historique et global, le 4 septembre,
2010.
[23] Sarkar, S. Discussion: Eco-socialism and Deep
Ecology http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=4872
[24] Postnikov, V. Russian roots: From Populism to Radical
Ecological Thought, Anarchy Studies, vol. 12, N.1, 2004.
[25]
On the infantile society http://www.proza.ru/2011/11/14/102
(In Russian)
[26] On post-Soviet
idiocy http://www.proza.ru/2009/10/23/852
(In Russian)
Victor Postnikov,
a former Russian scientist and lecturer in Electromagnetics, DSc. (Kiev
Polytechnic, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, 1975 – 2009). Now,
independent writer, poet- translator and editor. Translated and published
books on eco-philosophy, including William R.Catton Jr, “Overshoot”
(2007) and Jerry Mander's “In the Absence of the Sacred” (2008)
under the auspices of the Foundation For Deep Ecology (USA) . A
member of the International group of left biocentrists. Edited the
online biocentric journal Dandelion Times (in Russian) http://blogs.stuzog.com/ru/
E-mail: vpostnikov@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment