TOPICS

A historically given relationship between humanity and the environment is in crisis. Foundations of an eco-socialist strategy

A historically given relationship between humanity and the environment is in crisis. Foundations of an eco-socialist strategy


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

By Daniel Tanuro

It is not that nature is in crisis, but that what is in crisis is a historically given relationship between humanity and the environment. All of them, taken together, express the incompatibility between capitalism and respect for natural limits.


Contrary to what Jared Diamond's false but very popular Easter Island metaphor [1] suggests, current environmental degradations are not comparable to those that occurred in other historical periods. The differences are not only quantitative (the severity and globalization of ecological problems) but, above all, qualitative: while all the environmental crises of the past were derived from social tendencies towards chronic underproduction, from fear of scarcity, Current problems have their origin in the inverse tendency: to overproduction and overconsumption, typical of a system based on the generalized production of goods. Therefore, it must be concluded that the term ecological crisis is wrong. It is not that nature is in crisis, but that what is in crisis is a historically given relationship between humanity and the environment. All of them, taken together, express the incompatibility between capitalism and respect for natural limits.

Productivism without limits

The fundamental reason for this incompatibility is simple: under the spur of competition, every owner of capital seeks, relentlessly, to replace living labor with dead labor or, in other words, to replace labor with more productive machines and, consequently, That way, you get a profit higher than the average profit. Operation whose objective is none other than to eliminate competition by flooding the market with merchandise at a lower price. In this mode of production, innovation is not intended to lighten the burden of labor but rather the incessant accumulation of capital. The permanent search for new fields of capital appreciation leads the system to increase without limits the production of unnecessary and harmful goods that, in order to be able to sell them, and thus realize the surplus value, require the creation of increasingly artificial needs and markets. Productivism - producing for the sake of producing - necessarily implies consuming for the sake of consuming and forms part, like the fetishism of merchandise, of the genetic code of the capitalist mode of production. "Capitalism is not only never stationary but can never become so", said Schumpeter (2). Indeed, for capitalism to be stationary, competition between the numerous capitals that make up Capital should be abolished; something totally absurd.

Even so, there will be those who object that if the efficiency in the use of resources increased faster than the mass of commodities produced, the expanded reproduction of capital would not mean an increasing use of natural resources. And if so, capitalism would be ecologically sustainable. We are before the thesis of the dissociation between GDP growth and the ecological footprint illustrated by the environmental Kuznets curve, according to which the environmental impact of a given society would increase to a point and then decrease depending on its wealth, the development of their productive forces.

It is true that of all the modes of production that have existed in history, capitalism is the one that has increased the productivity of labor and efficiency in the use of resources in the most spectacular ways. It is because the search for the over-profit that drives mechanization favors at the same time a growing economy in the use of natural resources. However, this finding does not deny the ecocidal nature of the system and the Kuznets curve is false.

On the one hand, the increase in efficiency is not necessarily linear in relation to the increase in fixed capital, which, otherwise, would lead us to the conclusion that perpetual motion is possible since work could be performed without loss of energy ( gross mistake made by experts who assessed that European electricity consumption could be covered by the Desertec project that exploits solar rays in the Sahara) (3). On the other hand, it is empirically verified that the increase in production volume goes beyond the compensation for the increase in efficiency, which is only relative. The case of the automobile is illustrative: the engines are more sober, but the global needs in hydrocarbons and greenhouse gas emissions are increasing considerably due to the incessant increase in the number of vehicles. Capitalist growth is bulimic: it inevitably implies a growing consumption of resources that is irreconcilable with their renewal and with the limits of nature.

The agonizing increase in serious ecological problems leads us to ask ourselves some questions: what are the theoretical limits of capitalist growth, and therefore of the environmental degradation of capitalism? To answer this question well, it must be taken into account that capitalism is, above all, a social relationship of exploitation whose development was historically possible due to the prior appropriation that, in the name of profit, the dominant classes of natural resources (land , water, forests?). After it came the appropriation of the workforce, transformed into wage-earning merchandise. The pillaging of resources and the exploitation of work - when it is considered from a social point of view - are therefore two sides of the same coin.

Now, if we put aside its social function (cooperation and its forms), the human workforce can also be considered, from a thermodynamic angle, as a natural resource among others (the human body is an energy transformer). In that case, pillage and exploitation no longer constitute a single process of destruction and overwork can be described as a quantity of energy hoarded by the bosses. That said, we can answer the question about the theoretical limits of capital. On the one hand, the expropriation of the direct producers, their alienation in relation to the land, has created a social class whose only means of subsistence is the sale of their labor power in exchange for a salary. On the other hand, the employer places at the disposal of the salaried worker all the elements necessary to carry out their productive activity -tools, factories and energy- that have been extracted from nature or transformed from it by work. In this context and taking into account that the increase in efficiency is only relative, it is obvious that the incessant search for over-profit by capitalist productivism weighs as much on the variable fraction as the constant of capital, so that it is inevitably seen always forced to consume a larger absolute amount of labor power and natural resources, despite the fact that it favors their relative economy. Marx's enigmatic formula saying that capital has no other limit than capital itself simply means that this mode of production will stop only when it has exhausted its only two sources of wealth; the earth and the worker. (4)

This conclusion leaves little room for optimism among those who stubbornly believe that an endogenous mechanism not yet identified could block the system before it exceeds this theoretical limit. However, it is necessary to verify that this mechanism does not and cannot exist. Once again, the reason is simple and refers us to the fundamental laws of capitalism: this system, based exclusively on the law of labor-value, has for its sole purpose the production of exchange values ​​and not the production of use values. Thus, its value being determined by the labor time socially necessary for its production, capital does not have any mechanism that allows it to take into account, spontaneously, the real state of the wealth that nature makes available to humanity. free. Symbol and essence of value, money, both by its abstraction and by the complete inversion of perspective that it engenders (it seems that money gives value to goods when they are the ones who give value to it) creates the illusion that it would be possible an unlimited accumulation. It should be pointed out that capital, which counts and measures everything, is incapable of taking into account qualitatively and quantitatively the natural wealth, as shown by the total unconcern with which it irreversibly destroys the stocks of numerous natural resources despite the warnings of all kinds. This madness even finds theorists among the neoliberals who defend, against all evidence, the absurd thesis of the possibility of comprehensive substitution of natural resources for products generated by human activity.

Political response?

It is true that some capitals are invested massively in the green sector of the economy since, thanks to public subsidies, the benefits in this sector are attractive. But green capitalism as such is a contradiction in terms. The only question worth looking at is to what extent the ecological blindness of the mercantile mode of production could be compensated by political measures exogenous to the strictly economic sphere. In view of what we have discussed above, the answer is obvious: the effectiveness of ecological policies depends entirely on the determination with which those who adopt them dare to confront the freedom of capital; In other words, they build a relationship of social forces necessary to impose them (which, on the other hand, means linking the solution of the ecological question to the struggle of the exploited: the fight against unemployment, poverty, social inequality, discrimination and degradation of working conditions). And that is where the problem lies.

Tim Jackson is probably one of the non-Marxist authors who has best understood that the fundamental cause of environmental degradation lies in the productivist logic of capitalism. In Prosperity without growth, he moves away from superficial explanations and writes in a pertinent way that "this society that throws everything away is not so much the fruit of the gluttony of consumers as the condition of survival of the system", a system that has a need to "sell more and more and innovate permanently." (5) But Jackson avoids reaching the conclusion of this analysis: instead of questioning this mode of production, he focuses his attention on questioning "the desire for novelty and consumption that derives from human nature." Thus, the mountain stops a mouse:

With regard to the environment, Prosperity without growth advocates that political power set severe limits on the use of resources based exclusively on environmental limits. Exactly what should we do? We just can't pretend to ignore, like Jackson, that the business world successfully opposes any drastic environmental regulation, even in those cases where its need is not questioned;

On the social level, Jackson has the merit of advocating for the reduction of working time, only subordinating this measure to the preservation of the competitiveness of companies, without being able, therefore, to quantify it. In fact, for him, the reduction of working time is a form of flexibility, not a collective and immediate response to unemployment, nor an instrument, through the non-reduction of wages, for the redistribution of wealth. On the other hand, it only considers it as the last resort in case the conversion of economists to a new macroeconomic model was not enough to "shift the nerve center of economic activity from the productive sector of value towards dematerialized services." (6)

In general, all the proposals aimed at politically correcting the ecocidal nature of capital run up against the same obstacles: the logic of profit and the class nature of institutions. (7)

The miracle of internalization

Einstein once said that "You cannot solve a problem by the way of thinking that has led to it." This theorem is perfectly applicable to the idea that capitalism could be involved in the path of sustainability if the political instances would quantify the price of natural resources. Given that the ecological crisis is a consequence of the generalized production of goods, it will not be through the "commodification" of water, air, carbon, genes or any other natural wealth, that we will stop the destruction environmental. This internalization of externalities not only does not bring us closer to a solution but, on the contrary, takes us away from it. The transformation of natural wealth into merchandise implies its appropriation by capital. From there the matter is clear, since subjecting them to the law of labor-value they are excluded from any other management criterion other than that of obtaining a profit.

In any case, and beyond these considerations, the fundamental question is that the purpose of assigning a price to natural resources faces an insurmountable theoretical difficulty: how to evaluate in monetary terms the goods whose production is not measurable in hours of work, which, therefore, have no value and whose destruction occurs, furthermore, delayed in time? The only answer liberal economists give to this puzzle is to fight over a discount tax; and they raise the question of the willingness of consumers to pay for the environment or? to accept their degradation. In this way, the prices of natural resources vary according to whether the people questioned are rich or poor? Taken to the limit, this method is clearly absurd: what mercantile value could we give to a solar ray, knowing that the life of the earth depends on it?

The dead-end door of the mercantile calculation appears clearer in the proposal for a carbon tax to make fossil fuels more expensive compared to renewables and, therefore, reduce carbon dioxide emissions. As is known, in order to have any option of not exceeding the 2ºC increase in temperature in relation to the pre-industrial period, it is necessary that carbon emissions decrease between 80 and 95% in the developed capitalist countries between now and 2050 and from 50 to 85% worldwide, reaching the turning point in 2015 at the latest (8).

This range of figures, of which the most prudent would be to take into account the highest, implies abandoning fossil fuels, which currently cover 80% of our energy needs (black gold being the first material in the chemical industry) along with over the next two generations. In reality, the scale of the reductions that need to be made urgently and the importance of the cost difference between fossil and renewable energies are such that even a tax of $ 600 per ton would not be enough (according to the International Agency for Energy would only allow global emissions to be cut in half by 2050). (9) If we take into account that the combustion of a thousand liters of diesel produces 2.7 tons of CO2, it can be understood that, in practice, such a measure would be socially inapplicable: employers would only accept it if it were entirely transferred to the final consumers, at the same time as the majority of the population, already exhausted by the austerity that it has suffered for thirty years, could not accept a similar deterioration in their living conditions.

Hence, in practice, and despite all the sophisticated theories of ecological economics, the political proposals to internalize the costs of pollution are both ecologically insufficient and socially unbearable. Starting from the premise that the theoretical and practical obstacles could be overcome, the effectiveness of internalization would not cease to be random, because price is nothing more than a quantitative indicator, unable to distinguish between the qualitative differences between a ton of CO2 avoided through means as different as the insulation of a house, the installation of photovoltaic panels, the planting of trees or the suppression of a Formula 1 Grand Prix. Indeed, quantitatively, there is nothing that distinguishes one ton of CO2 from another. However, quantitative differences are decisive when it comes to developing appropriate ecological strategies whose measures are in coherence with the purpose that is proposed: the transition, without generating a social trauma, to an efficient and decentralized energy system, based solely on renewable energies. .


Rational management of metabolism and class struggle

The ecocidal character of capital took shape from the origins of the capitalist mode of production. In the 19th century, the founder of soil chemistry, Liebig, sounded the alarm on this issue: as a result of capitalist urbanization, human excreta would no longer be dumped in the field and this breakdown of the nutrient cycle threatened to cause a serious impoverishment of soils. As a result of these works, Marx raises this problem to a conceptual terrain, raising the general need for a rational regulation of the exchanges of materials (or metabolism) between humanity and nature (10). Later, in advance and guided by this ecological concept, he returns to the question of soils to advance a radical programmatic perspective: the abolition of the separation between city and country that, from his point of view, was completely indispensable together to the progressive disappearance of the separation between manual and intellectual work. One thing should be emphasized: the term rational management should not be misleading. For Marx, nature "is the inorganic body of man." The overall good metabolism will not be based on a bureaucracy of green technocrats, but on the suppression of social classes, since the division of society into classes makes a conscious and organized management of the exchange of materials with the environment impossible.

Not only because the search for profit pushes companies to pillage natural resources, but because their capitalist appropriation makes natural resources appear, in relation to the exploited and exploited, as hostile forces against which they are aligned. To this is added that competition between wage earners and the fear of unemployment lead individual workers to wish their company to run smoothly and to collaborate in this way, involuntarily, with productivism; and, finally, that from a certain level of capital development, the consumption of merchandise provides workers with certain miserable compensation. All these mechanisms can only be countered with the broadest class solidarity. That is why, for Marx, the rational management of humanity-nature metabolism could only be carried out by the associated producers. And it corresponds to him to have specified that that is where the only possible freedom resides.

Although in certain political positions regarding the agrarian question (11), some references can be found in Lenin on this question of rational management and that Bukharin made an intelligent presentation of it in his compendium on historical materialism (12) , this Marxist concept was soon forgotten. No Marxist thinker has given it the importance it deserves and, above all, none has seen the interest in referring to it when, from the 60s of the last century, the ecological question is posed as a social question of the first order.

This is not the place to consider the reasons for this solution of continuity in revolutionary Marxism (13). It is enough to warn the reader against simplistic interpretations: despite the fact that Stalinism, also in this field, represented a terrible historical regression, it is not its only cause. (14). So we will emphasize the fact that Marx's ecology urgently deserves to occupy a central place in the theoretical thought and programmatic elaboration of Marxists.

The problem of global warming illustrates this need. The saturation of the atmosphere by CO2, mainly due to the combustion of fossil fuels - that is, to a short circuit in the long carbon cycle - constitutes a flagrant case of irrational management of material exchanges; And this irrationality places humanity in a terrible dilemma:

On the one hand, three billion people live in unworthy conditions. Their legitimate needs can only be satisfied by increasing material production. In other words, transforming environmental resources. In other words, consuming energy that today is 80% of fossil origin and generates greenhouse gas;

On the other hand, the climate system is on the verge of heart attack. Avoiding irreversible catastrophes (whose victims will be counted mainly among those three billion people who aspire to a decent life) requires radically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, reduce the consumption of fossil fuels necessary for the transformation of environmental resources.

In the short space of 40 years that, according to the GIEC, we have for this and unless there is an extraordinary scientific revolution in the energy domain, this equation cannot find an acceptable solution within the framework of capitalism.

Indeed, a system based on obtaining profit from competition is totally incapable of massively satisfying economically unsolvable human needs through the durable reduction of both energy consumption and material production. If already achieving these objectives separately, one by one, is incompatible with the logic of capital, how are they going to be achieved at the same time? The impossibility of the challenge is evident if we examine the climate scenarios proposed by governments and international institutions.

The Blue Map scenario of the International Energy Agency, for example, aims to reduce global emissions by 2050 by 50% (15). Obviously insufficient objective that could only be achieved by massively resorting to nuclear energy, agrofuels or the self-styled "clean coal" (CCS), leaving aside shale gas and tar sands. This scenario (the Blue Map) would imply the annual construction of 32 nuclear power plants of 1000 MW over more than 40 years, as well as 45 new 500 MW coal-fired power plants equipped with CCS. Words are unnecessary: ​​the terrible catastrophe of Fukushima in Japan has amply demonstrated the aberration of these projects.

Consequently, we are left with only two strategic options:

exit capitalism by radically restricting the sphere and volume of capitalist production in such a way that it is possible to limit as much as possible the damages of overheating and guaranteeing a dignified human development based exclusively on renewable energies and in the perspective of a society that gravitates on another economy of the weather;

or continue in the logic of capitalist accumulation, of climate deregulation, restricting the right to the existence of hundreds of millions of human beings and in which future generations will be condemned to pay for the broken dishes of a forward flight based on technologies dangerous.

Obviously, we will choose the first one. But it is necessary to insist that the transition to socialism is subject to strict environmental commitments. The scale of the challenge should not be underestimated. In the European Union, for example, reducing emissions by 60% (when they should be reduced by 95%!) Without resorting to nuclear energy, would require reducing final energy demand by 40% (16). It is not easy to measure what this means for material production and transport, but it seems clear that the goal cannot be achieved simply by eliminating useless and harmful productions (weapons, advertising, luxury yachts and private planes, etc. ), fighting against programmed obsolescence of products or suppressing conspicuous consumption by the richest layers of the ruling class? More radical measures will be necessary; measures that, at least in developed countries, will have repercussions on the population as a whole. In other words, the transition to socialism will have to be made in conditions very different from those of the 20th century.

The estimate made of the participation of agribusiness in the total emission of greenhouse gas provides us with some elements. According to the "Don't eat the planet" campaign, between 44 and 57% of greenhouse gas emissions are due to the current model of production, distribution and consumption of agricultural and forestry products. This figure is obtained by adding to the emissions derived from strictly agricultural activities (11 to 15%), those from deforestation (15 to 18%), those from food maintenance, transportation and storage (15 to 20%) and that of organic waste (3 to 4%) (17).

Consequently, the struggle to stabilize the climate at the best possible level should not be limited to the expropriation of expropriators-polluters-profligators: the change in property relations is only the necessary - but not sufficient - condition for social change. deep that implies the substantial modification of the social modes of consumption and mobility. These changes - moving in a different way, eating less meat and consuming seasonal vegetables, for example - must be placed on the horizon from now on; it is urgent and necessary and because it has immediate implications. And they are possible because they put into practice cultural and ideological mechanisms that have a certain autonomy in relation to the productive base of society. Even if they do not in themselves cause any structural change, they must be considered as an integral part of the anti-capitalist alternative. To the extent that they are translated into collective practices, they can promote awareness and militant commitments.

New Times

The Transitional Program written by Leon Trotsky in 1938 begins by stating that "for a long time, the economic premise of the proletarian revolution has reached the highest point it can reach under capitalism" and concluded that "the objective premises (?) they are only ripe, but have begun to rot. With no socialist revolution in the next period, human civilization is under threat of being swept away by catastrophe. " The founder of the Red Army refers first of all to the historical context: victory of fascism and Nazism, crushing of the Spanish revolution and the impending world war. However, his opinion on the rotting of objective conditions seems to have a broader historical projection. This theme reappears in the writings of Ernest Mandel: "In fact (from a certain level) the growth of the productive forces and the increase of mercantile-monetary relations can move society away, rather than closer, from its socialist goal. " (18)

Remarkable quote whose strategic implications deserve to be explored. Because, in fact, we are facing an unprecedented situation: at the level of developed countries, capitalism has gone too far in terms of the growth of material productive forces, in such a way that a worthy socialist alternative cannot mean continuing. that way but, rather, backtracking. (Obviously, we are talking about material forces. The development of knowledge and cooperation between producers is not questioned). This new historical conjuncture leads us to the urgent need to produce and transport less in order to consume radically less energy and totally eliminate fossil CO2 emissions by the end of the century.

The fact that the development of the material productive forces has objectively distanced us from a socialist alternative constitutes the keystone that supports and justifies the new concept of ecosocialism. Far from being a new label to use, this concept introduces at least five novelties that I have outlined in my book The Impossible Green Capitalism and which I will briefly mention:

1. It is necessary to abandon the notion of "human control over nature". La complejidad, las incógnitas y el carácter evolutivo de la biosfera implican un grado de incertitud irreductible. La imbricación de lo social y lo medioambiental debe pensarse como un proceso en constante movimiento, como un producto de la naturaleza.

2. Es necesario enriquecer la noción clásica del socialismo. En adelante, el único socialismo posible es aquel que satisfaga las necesidades humanas reales (despojadas de la alienación mercantil) democráticamente determinadas por las y los interesado, a partir de los recursos limitados que disponemos y cuestionándose seriamente sobre el impacto de las mismas y de la forma en que deben ser satisfechas.

3. Hay que ir más allá de una visión compartimentada, utilitarista y lineal de la naturaleza como espacio físico en el que actúa la humanidad. A imagen de un centro comercial en el que se apropia de los recursos necesarios para la producción de su existencia y de un vertedero en el que deposita sus residuos. La naturaleza es todo a la vez: el centro comercial, el vertedero y el conjunto de procesos vivos que, gracias al aporte de la energía solar, distribuye la materia entre los distintos polos en constante reorganización. Los residuos y su almacenamiento deben ser compatibles, tanto cuantitativa como cualitativamente, con las capacidades y ritmos de reciclaje de los ecosistemas. Es decir, el buen funcionamiento del conjunto depende de la biodiversidad, que debe ser protegida.

4. Las fuentes de energía y los métodos de conversión no son socialmente neutros. Por consiguiente, el socialismo no puede definirse tal y como lo hizo Lenin: "los soviets más la electricidad". El sistema energético capitalista es centralizado, anárquico, derrochador, ineficiente e intensivo en trabajo muerto; basado exclusivamente en fuentes no renovables y orientado hacia la acumulación capitalista. Una transformación socialista digna de ese nombre, tiene necesariamente que reemplazarlo de forma progresiva por un sistema descentralizado, planificado, ahorrador, eficiente e intensivo en trabajo vio, basado exclusivamente en fuentes renovables y orientado a la producción de valores de uso durables, reciclables y reutilizables. Criterios que han de aplicarse a la producción energética en sentido estricto y al conjunto del aparato industrial, a la agricultura, al transporte, al ocio y la ordenación del territorio. Una transformación profunda como sólo puede realizarse a nivel mundial.

5. La superación del umbral a partir del cual el crecimiento de las fuerzas productivas materiales complican la transición al socialismo implica una actitud crítica hacia el incremento de la productividad del trabajo. En determinados dominios, la puesta en pie de una alternativa anticapitalista respetuosa con el medio ambiente exige reemplazar el trabajo muerto por el trabajo vivo. Es, manifiestamente, el caso de la agricultura, donde el sistema agroindustrial ultra mecanizado, gran consumidor de inputs y de energía fósil deberá ceder el lugar a otro modo de explotación más intensivo en trabajo humano. Lo mismo cabe decir en relación al sector de la energía. La producción descentralizada basada en energías renovables exigirá mucha mano de obra, sobre todo de mantenimiento. En general, la cantidad de trabajo vio deberá aumentar radicalmente en todos los dominios vinculados directamente al medio ambiente. Lo mismo en lo que respecta al cuidado de las personas, la enseñanza y otros sectores en los que la izquierda considere necesario desarrollar el empleo público: la inteligencia y las emociones humanas, junto a una cultura de "cuidados" son, efectivamente, cuestiones que plantean la interacción con la biosfera.

Los espíritus dogmáticos pensarán que estas reflexiones abren la puerta a una revisión del marxismo revolucionario bajo la forma de concesiones a la ofensiva de austeridad contra la clase obrera en los países desarrollados. Nada de eso.

No tiene sentido ceder lo más mínimo a los discursos culpabilizadores que utilizan la crisis ecológica para tratar de desarmar a la clase obrera y a sus representantes. Una línea de demarcación clara entre el ecosocialismo de una parte, la ecología política y el decrecimiento de otra, es la actitud frente a la lucha de clases. Seguimos firmemente convencidos que las y los explotados aprenden en la lucha colectiva, comenzando por la defensa de los salarios, el empleo y las condiciones de trabajo. Toda lucha de los trabajadores y trabajadoras, incluso la más inmediata, tiene que ser apoyada y considerada como una oportunidad para aumentar el nivel de conciencia y orientarla hacia una perspectiva socialista. Desde esta perspectiva estratégica, la constatación de que, hacia delante, la transición socialista debe operarse en los límites que impone el medio ambiente no implica un debilitamiento de las posiciones anticapitalistas; al contrario, las refuerza.

Pero la verdad es revolucionaria y no se puede ocultar el hecho de que la transformación socialista implicará renunciar, y probablemente en gran medida, a ciertos bienes, servicios y hábitos que impregnan profundamente la vida cotidiana de amplias capas de la populación, al menos en los países capitalistas desarrollados. Por ello, hay que poner en primer lugar los objetivos capaces que compensen esta pérdida mediante un progreso sustancial en la calidad de vida. Creemos que es necesario que privilegiar dos pistas:

1. La gratuidad de los bienes básicos (agua, energía, movilidad) hasta un nivel social medio, lo que implica la extensión del sector público.

2. La reducción radical (59%) del tiempo de trabajo sin pérdida de salario, con contratos proporcionales y reducción de cadencias.

Marx decía que "Toda la economía se reducía, en última instancia, a una economía del tiempo". Afirmar la necesidad de producir y de consumir menos es reivindicar tiempo para vivir y vivir mejor. Esto supone abrir un debate fundamental sobre el control del tiempo social, sobre lo que es necesario a cada cual, por qué y en qué cantidad. Supone despertar el deseo colectivo de un mundo sin guerras donde se trabaje menos y se trabaje de otra manera; un mundo en el que se contamine menos y en el que se desarrollen las relaciones sociales y se mejore sustancialmente el bienestar, la sanidad públicas, la educación y la participación democrática. Un mundo que no será menos rico como afirma la derecha, ni tan rico para la mayoría de la población, como dice cierta izquierda. Pero que será menos vacío, menos estresante, menos exprimido; en una palabra: más rico.

Daniel Tanuro – Viento Sur – Traducción de Josu Egireun – http://www.vientosur.info/

Este artículo se publicará en Nouveaux Cahiers du Socialisme, septembre 2011

Correspondencia de Prensa – Colectivo Militante – Agenda Radical – Uruguay

Notes:

[1] Jared Diamond, Collapse. How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, London, Penguin Books, 2005. Des critiques de la thèse de Diamond sont proposées notamment par Benny Peiser, «From ecocide to genocide: the rape of Rapa Nui», Energy and Environment, vol.16, n°3-4, 2005; par Terry L. Hunt, «Rethinking Easter Island´s ecological catastrophe», Journal of Archaeological Science, 2007, n°34, p.485-502 ; et par Daniel Tanuro, «Catastrophes écologiques d’hier et d’aujourd’hui: la fausse métaphore de l’île de Pâques», Critique Communiste, n°185, décembre 2007.

[2] Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalisme, socialisme et démocratie, Paris, Petite Bibliothèque Payot, 1942.

[3] L. Possoz et H. Jeanmart, Comments on the electricity demand scenario in two studies from the DLR : MED-CSP & TRANS-CSP, ORMEE & MITEC engineering consultancy, Belgium, http://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/….

[4] Karl Marx, Le Capital, Paris, Éditions sociales, Livre premier, Tome II, 1973 [1867], p. 181-182. Souligné par Marx.

[5] Tim Jackson, Prospérité sans croissance, Bruxelles, Etopia, 2010.

[6] Daniel Tanuro: «Prospérité sans croissance»: un ouvrage sous tension

[7] Esto es particularmente cierto en lo que respecta a los indicadores alternativos o complementarios al PIB. Que el PIB no mide la calidad del medioambiente es una evidencia, porque su objetivo no es ése, como tampoco lo es el del capitalismo. El PIB mide la acumulación de capital? Por lo tanto, está perfectamente adaptado al capitalismo. Hacer créer que bastaría con modificar el intrumento de medida para que el sistema cambie de lógica muesta o ingenuidad o mala fe intelectual.

[8] GIEC, Contribution du Groupe de travail III au rapport 2007, page 776.

[9] AIE, Perspectives des technologies de l’énergie. Au service du plan d’action du G8. Scénarios et stratégies à l’horizon 2050, 2008.

[10] Karl Marx, Le Capital, Moscou, Éditions du Progrès, 1984 [1867], p. 855.

[11] Vladimir I. Lénine, La question agraire et les critiques de Marx, Moscou, Éditions du Progrès, 1973, chapitre IV.

[12] Nicholas Boukharine, La théorie du matérialisme historique. Manuel de sociologie marxiste, Paris, Anthropos, 1967.

[13] Daniel Tanuro, «Marxism, energy, and ecology: The moment of truth», Capitalism Nature Socialism, deécembre 2010, p. 89-101.

[14] Daniel Tanuro, Écologie: le lourd héritage de Léon Trotsky.

[15] AIE, op. cit.

[16] Wolfram Krevitt, Uwe Klann, Stefan Kronshage, Energy Revolution. A Sustainable Pathway to a Clean Energy Future for Europe, Stuttgart, Institute of Technical Thermodynamics & Greenpeace, septembre 2005.

[17] Rapporté par Esther Vivas, «Ne mange pas le monde»: Une autre agriculture pour un autre climat, traduction française d’un article dans le quotidien catalan Publico.

[18] Ernest Mandel, Ten Theses on the Social and Economic Laws Governing the Society Transitional Between Capitalism and Socialism.

[19] Daniel Tanuro, L’impossible capitalisme vert, Paris, La Découverte, 2010.


Video: Equity-Minded Student Services in the Online Environment (July 2022).


Comments:

  1. Mahmoud

    Nothing special.

  2. Wahanassatta

    sound thoughts, but hard to read, I don't know why.

  3. Dantae

    I suggest you come to the site, on which there are a lot of articles on this issue.

  4. Birr

    Bravo, your idea brilliantly

  5. Garton

    I wanted to talk to you about this.



Write a message