Green Web Bulletin
#29
An exchange between James O'Connor and David Orton
in Capitalism, Nature, Socialism,
Vol. 2, No. 3, Issue 8, October 1991 It shows a fundamental clash
of values between a
Marxist perspective on the environment and that of an ecocentrist who is
also on the Left.
Discussion: Socialist Biocentrism*
* Although I remain a socialist,
I no longer use the term "socialist biocentrism", which is incongruent
with the theoretical tendency of left biocentrism. This tendency
defines itself as anti-industrial
and anti-capitalist, but not necessarily socialist. "Socialist
biocentrism" is too forgiving
towards the anti-ecological characteristics of this important human-centered
movement, and too
exclusionary towards those concerned with social justice who do not
see themselves as socialists.
James O'Connor:
David Orton's
"Opposing Forest Spraying" (CNS Six, February, 1991)
is an informative and insightful account
of the ruthless capitalization of nature
in Nova Scotia; the political and other barriers that face local green struggles
to end chemical-based forest industry;
and some ways that these barriers might be overcome.
My problem with
the article is that I don't understand what Orton's biocentrist perspective
has to do with his
ecological/political practise. I am
not a biocentrist, but I support these struggles and might well join in directly
if I
lived in Nova Scotia. I do not support
"opposing forest spraying" because I think that nature is inherently valuable,
hence put saving nature first, and
social, economic, and political issues second. It seems to me that the word
"value"
is a human word, with human meanings,
in this case transposed to non-human nature. Hence to say that nature is
inherently valuable means that it is
inherently valuable to humans. I support these struggles because non-chemical
forests do not make people and wildlife
sick; because such forests might have recreational value; because I want
to leave the world in a little better
shape than I've found it, for future generations; and because I like the
idea that
non-chemical forests exist. Why does
David have to be a biocentrist to support his program and demands?
Put
another way, while I think I understand
why a biocentrist could (must?) take Orton's position, I don't understand
why the same position couldn't be taken
by someone who isn't a biocentrist. On the other hand, even from a
biocentrist perspective (which I assume
would mean leaving the forests alone, excluding subsistence or local
barter and trade uses), it might make
sense to use chemicals in certain situations to save the forest from some
threatening tree disease. Or would
it?
More generally,
I'm confused about the meaning of "socialist biocentrism." Does it mean "anti-capitalism?"
Or a
particular theory of capitalism which
is called "socialist?" Or a belief in certain traditional socialist values,
such as
equality? If it's the former, the problem
arises, how to distinguish "socialism" from other forms of anti-capitalism.
If
it means a "socialist" theory of capitalism
and its destruction of nature and people, then it must mean "Marxist," since
Marxism is the only socialist theory
I know which presents itself as a theory of capitalism. If it's the belief
in socialist
values, since traditional values, e.g.,
equality, historically have been given high priority by socialists, then
how can
we square a "nature first" position
with "socialism?" Put another way, how can you have a biocentric relation
with
the rest of nature without a political
practise against the economic and political structures which result in the
degradation of nature (as Orton has)
without attacking less "fundamental" social and economic and political issues,
e.g., inequality, exploitation, alienation,
state oppression or the state itself, etc. If this is so, why are these issues
seen as less "fundamental" than the
preservation of nature? Put another way, are inequality and poverty acceptable
if nature is not harmed by humans?
I'm also confused
about what David calls "alternative" forests and forest issues. It's unclear
to me whether he is
against the capitalization of all nature,
or merely that of pulpwood forests (specifically, the shift from diversified
forests to pulpwood forests). Would
he support limited pulpwood uses? If not, then I suppose that we would need
to use recycled paper, period. More
needs to be said on the subject of biocentric "alternatives." Under a
biocentric regime, who would get to
use the forest? For what end? Using what forestry methods? Orton rejects
the
view that "the non-human world is there
as material for the human purpose," but the extreme version of this view,
namely, that no human purpose should
be served by the non-human world, is obviously absurd. I'm sure Orton
wouldn't take this position. This means
that there needs to be criteria for using the non-human world. Breathing
is
clearly ok. But what about paving over?
Using forest products for local subsistence needs? Using products for
local barter and trade? Using products
for regional and long-distance trade?
Reply
David Orton:
Jim O'Connor sent
me some critical comments on socialist biocentrism and asked me to respond.
To be honest,
my heart sank at this task, as so many
questions were raised by Jim, and I knew that there were no "right"
answers that would satisfy. Yet I do
know that there are many unanswered questions concerning socialist
biocentrism, and the time is overdue
for some of them to be discussed. My reply tries to address four of the key
questions raised:
1) The relationship of theory to practice
in biocentrism;
2) Why nature is ultimately more important
than society;
3) What does socialist biocentrism
mean, from a socialist perspective; and
4) Can a pulpwood forestry be supported?
First, some general
remarks are necessary. A commentary "Socialist Biocentrism: What Is
It" in the CNS
Newsletter Eight (September/October,
1989), mentioned that this conceptual perspective was introduced by Helga
Hoffmann and myself in a paper "Green
Marginality In Canada" given at the Learned Societies Conference,
Laval University, in June, 1989. The
paper summed-up our experience over a number of years, as two people
from a left-wing background, organizing
as greens and environmentalists, and trying to combine a biocentric and
socialist perspective - without
any guidelines to work from.
It is important
to understand that there are a number of people who consciously have a biocentric
position and
consider themselves socialists or on
the left in some way.(1) My experience is that the people
I have contact with,
or know about, holding such views,
do not consider themselves supporters of social ecology or of one of the
strong
trends in CNS, ecological Marxism.
So we are talking about a left tendency, which has a real, even if not yet
strongly defined, theoretical existence,
in the green and environmental movements. There is, of course, a
considerable literature on deep ecology
itself, although much of it I find rather esoteric and removed from practical
work. It can be found in a number of
academic journals, e.g., Environmental Ethics and The Trumpeter:
Journal of Ecosophy. While there
are some thoughtful and perceptive articles in Environmental Ethics,
I prefer
the more practically-focused movement
publications, where basic concepts such as biocentrism,(2)
conservation
biology, ecotage, and reports of actual
struggles around ecological issues are worked with. Examples are the
Earth First! Journal, Wild Earth
and (in the cross-border publication in the Northeast) The Glacial Erratic.
I believe, based on my own experience
of organizing and networking with other activists, that biocentrism is
becoming a major theoretical orientation
in the green and environmental movements, in Canada and the United
States. That socialists can be biocentrists,
and can contribute to ecological struggles, is also beginning to be
accepted, I believe.
Concluding these
general comments, the CNS Newsletter article noted, "Socialist greens,
will have to define
collectively the dimensions of socialist
biocentrism." It is important therefore to stress that these comments give
my
own views, and should not be construed
as any kind of "doctrine," but as a contribution to a needed discussion.
What is the
relationship of theory to practice? This seems to exist on several
different levels:
1. An organizer has to be involved,
concretely, in ecological struggles. Doing work, which moves the struggles
forward and which others can learn
from, practically and theoretically. This is crucial. Edward Abbey, in his
novel
The Monkey Wrench Gang, which
has inspired many in Earth First!, has Doc Sarvis, the "theoretician" of
the
group saying, "We'll work it all
out as we go along. Let our practice form our doctrine, thus assuring precise
theoretical coherence."
2. At the local (provincial) level,
one relates to others on the basis of their practical involvement, in issues
of mutual
concern, irrespective of the level
of theoretical awareness or agreement. So, for example, if a person is active
in
opposing forest spraying, clearcutting,
destruction of wildlife habitat, etc., it is irrelevant that this person
might have
a grade three education, and not interested
in biocentric discussions. The organizer networks and works with those
who are active on a basis of mutual
respect.
3. A biocentrist intervenes in ecological
struggles, based on what is believed to be the appropriate ecology,
irrespective of whether such positions
have political or social support. For example, one organizes to put forward
the position that pesticides should
not be used in forestry, despite (say) insect damage: this because pesticides
violate natural succession and healing
processes, and toxicity questions, although important, are secondary. If
an
anthropocentric view is upheld, then
the main problem becomes not the use of pesticides, but whether or not they
are safe. A biocentrist does not look
at the natural world as a "resource" for human use, treating as "pests" life
forms which interfere with such use.
Seals and coyotes should not be killed because these animals are seen as
"competing" with humans. Their interests
are defended, irrespective of how unpopular this is.
4. One consciously interacts with a
network of individuals who share a biocentric position, and who are concerned
with theoretical questions, on a provincial,
national and international basis. Some of these individuals also share a
socialist perspective. The letter exchange
helps theoretical clarification.
Why is nature
ultimately more important than society? Perhaps there are a number
of reasons why
biocentrists come to adopt such a position,
and I am sure the personal factor is important. For me, this position is
a way of undermining human arrogance,
and showing that our human concerns are not too important in the
evolutionary scheme of things. We have
to see how on a massive scale we can extend personal self-identity to
include the well-being of the Earth
(the Council of All Beings(3) is a mechanism used to
try and reconnect people
to the Earth). The paradox is that
the destiny of what will happen to the Earth rests in human hands, yet Nature
does not need humans to survive. It
is necessary to have humans speak up for non-human life forms because they
have no voice in a world in which discourse
is human-centered. That humans are prepared to suffer state
repression to uphold such a position
is important for the integrity of this perspective, and it is here that the
Earth
First! movement has made such a contribution.
Putting Nature first extends ethical values beyond human-
centered concerns. This is a necessary
step for a different caring relationship to the Earth, which also, paradoxically,
could mean that the human species flourishes.
What does
socialist biocentrism mean from a socialist perspective? It is anti-capitalist
because capitalism,
as an economic system, is rooted in
growth and the promotion of consumerism without end. For capitalism, all
of
Nature becomes a resource. So capitalism,
by its nature, is anti-ecological. "Actually existing socialism" or
communism has embraced growth, unsuccessfully
sought a western style consumerism, and treated Nature as a
resource. There has been no different
model for relating to Nature or for more harmonious social relations within
society. Both capitalism and socialism/consumerism
have had a human-centered world view. Yet unlike capitalism,
socialism does not by intrinsic
nature have to be rooted in growth; be anthropocentric; treat Nature
as a
resource solely for human use; and
be hostile to basic democratic rights that express dissenting and critical
opinions.
But the still to be defined green socialism
will be completely different from anything which so far has come on the
historical stage, and it obviously
conflicts with many traditionally held socialist beliefs. Socialist biocentrists
share,
and work for, the traditional socialist
concerns for social justice, and an end to class privilege. But ecology and
a
harmonious relationship to the Earth
is at the center of their vision of a new green socialism.
Can a pulpwood
forestry be supported? The answer is, not in its existing manifestation
in Canada. The
country, according to Environment Canada,
has 155 pulp and paper mills manufacturing, pulp, paper, paperboard,
hardboard, and insulating board, cutting
annually an area about 1.5 times the size of Prince Edward Island for pulp.
This is an export-oriented industry.
Canada is the largest producer and exporter of newsprint (about 31 percent
of global supply), and also produces
about 16 percent of the world's wood pulp. A chlorine bleaching process is
used by 47 of the mills - meaning large
amounts of organochlorines (chlorine which is bound to organic material,
including dioxins and furans) are discharged
in the mill effluent. About 50 percent of all the waste that is dumped
into Canadian waters comes from the
main industrial polluter, the pulp and paper industry.(4)
There are also,
depending on the pulping process, emissions
of gases like sulphur dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, methyl mercaptan,
dimethyl sulphide and dimethyl disulphide.
Then there is the disposal of sludge, where the toxins are particularly
concentrated - all this, plus a pulpwood
forestry policy which clearcuts large areas, sprays pesticides, and
promotes a narrow range of pulp species.
Enormous quantities of water, chemicals and energy are consumed by
the pulp and paper industry. The chemical
and energy production for the mills contribute to the changes in
atmospheric chemistry, now well underway
in the world.
The Canadian Pulp
and Paper Association in June of 1989 issued an "Environmental Statement"
which
said: "It supports the responsible
stewardship of resources, including forests, fish and aquatic habitat,
wildlife, air, land and water. Responsible
stewardship makes possible sustained economic development."
A polluting industry which considers
all of Nature as subject to commercial exploitation, geared to continuous
economic growth aimed at a world market,
is not deserving of green support. What a socially necessary paper
supply would be; the size of an appropriately
scaled pulp and paper industry with zero toxic admissions; a
sustainable ecological forestry policy
to feed the mills; etc., are all clearly necessary topics of concern for
socialist greens and green socialists.
________________________
Footnotes
1. Andrew McLaughlin. "Ecology,
Capitalism, and Socialism," Socialism and Democracy, Spring/Summer,
1990. McLaughlin
shows that all roads should lead to bioregional socialism.
2. The term "ecocentrism" is now used
instead of biocentrism by a number of supporters of deep ecology, e.g.,
Warwick Fox, Robyn
Eckersley, George Sessions, and Bill Devall. But biocentrism is the
term generally used
in the movement.
Robyn Eckersley speaks of "ecocentric socialism."
3. For a description, see: John Seed,
Joanna Macey, Pat Fleming and Arne Naess, Thinking Like a Mountain:
Towards a Council
Of All Beings (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1988).
4. William F. Sinclair, Controlling
Pollution from Canadian Pulp and Paper Manufactures: A Federal
Perspective
(Environment Canada, March 1990). p. 34. Much of the data in this paragraph
can be found in this
book, which is very
revealing, although an apology for the industry.
To obtain any of the Green
Web publications, write to us at:
Green Web, R.R. #3, Saltsprings, Nova Scotia, Canada, BOK 1PO
E-mail us at: greenweb@ca.inter.net
Back to
The
Green Web
A
Taste of Green Web Writings and Left Biocentrism
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/Socialist_Biocentrism.html
Last updated: February 06, 2005