Mark Baugher wrote:
The book falters on what is to be done and the notion of "ecological civilization" and, in particular "Chinese ecological civilization."
That is not a fault unique to Bellamy Foster. I have been laser focused on the question for over thirty years and damned if I know. That is a bit of an exaggeration. I have definite suggestions but they are suggestions that get little traction in left-wing, degrowth, or green circles. If nobody buys into a strategy, it is not much of strategy. My idea is Marx's but it is not Marxist. It is Marx's but not uniquely Marx's. What is to be done, IMO, is something thats success is uncertain but people want knowable outcomes. There was a bit of a prelude in a message that received no replies. I have posted part one and part two of a three part essay that tries to grapple with what is to be done. Part three is a struggle. Partly because of the need to draw together threads that seem disparate but aren't and partly because I have to deal with the non-viability today of what Marx proclaimed a "prerequisite" or "preliminary condition" in the 1860s.
I have a bit of a grudge again B-F. Part of it has to do with his demeanor in a personal interaction. But part of it has to do with how he has not dealt with what I see as an important contribution by his co-author, the late Paul Burkett. Bellamy Foster wanks on about his precious metabolic rift, which is a reference to a passage in volume 3 of Capital, but he ignores Burkett's analysis of human reproduction dimension of that rift as exemplified in the hours of labour.
The NYT finally. . . fingers the right villain
In the NYT - a long article on Netanyahu and his "prolonging of the war". Finally. Why now? Includes data from a new report on number of deaths in Gaza, as summarised in "nature". ->
By hari kumar · #37864 · 5:31am
No comments:
Post a Comment