Thursday, October 28, 2010

Canopy

Karl Marx, Capital Volume 2:

The development of civilization and industry in general has always shown itself so active in the destruction of forests that everything that has been done for their conservation and production is completely insignificant in comparison.

One of the fun things about Marx is that his method doesn't translate very well for people desirous of simple conclusions about what he says. What conclusion do we draw from this passage? That civilization is bad? That conserving forests is good? That civilization is necessary -- and so forests must be destroyed as the ends justify the means?

To the extent that Marx draws conclusions about history, he appears to restrict the criteria for doing so to the requirements of people's material needs, and how these requirements exert themselves within different relationships. A civilization which can't help but destroy its forests presents us with certain implications, not others; just as a civilization which can't help but destroy any other means of life, or which transforms its essential character, does the same.

3 comments:

Peter Ward said...

A problem I have with Marx is the mystical generalizations that are assumed, apparently Marx's intent since he considered his articles "theory". In this example you have a truism about--so far as it's true--a particular economy at a particular point in time not a law of History.

One would have to look at the details of the particular situation in question before questions like, What conclusion do we draw from this passage? That civilization is bad? That conserving forests is good? That civilization is necessary -- and so forests must be destroyed as the ends justify the means? would make a lick of sense, if even then.

JRB said...

Peter,

I think "Marx's law of History" is that people are disinclined to act against their own material well being. But this creates contradictions anytime a society is set against itself, as with class relations. Insofar as class relations prevail, you can't understand "society" except as a unity of tensions which arise out of "a particular economy at a particular point in time," just as you say.

DPirate said...

Civilization is bad.