Doğanın Düşmanı

by Joel Kovel, Gürol Koca (Translator)

Tutkulu, inançlı bir dille yazılmış "iddialı" bir kitap Doğanın Düşmanı. Bir yandan kapitalizmi tutkuyla eleştirerek ona karşı alternatif üretmenin artan ekolojik kriz yüzünden tarihte hiç olmadığı ölçüde hayat-memat meselesi haline geldiğini gösteriyor. Diğer yandan, çağdaş fizik ve biyolojinin verilerinden yararlanarak, doğanın ayrılmaz bir parçası olması anlamında "insan"ın ne demek olduğuna dair iddialı bir "antropoloji" kuramı geliştiriyor.

Marksizm, ekofeminizm ve doğa felsefesini bir araya getiren ufuk açıcı bir sentez: Bu teorik serimlemeyle yetinmeyen yazar, "ne yapmalı?" diye soruyor, cevaplar geliştiriyor, alternatif bir "siyaset" pratiğini yönlendirecek ilkeler belirtiyor, sol siyaseti felç etmiş pratik siyasi sorunlara çözüm yolları öneriyor. Kapitalist üretim tarzının yerine geçebilecek ekolojik bir üretim tarzı vizyonunu gündeme getirerek, küreselleşme karşıtı politikalar temelinde bu vizyonu hayata geçirecek bir "ekososyalizm" tahayyülü geliştiriyor: Dünyayı sahip olunacak, sömürülecek bir nesne olarak görmeyip onu başlı başına bir değer olarak kabul edenlerin hür iradeleriyle oluşturacakları bir toplumun anahatlarını çiziyor.

Doğanın Düşmanı, o müthiş "gerçekçi ol, imkânsızı iste!" şiarıyla yazılmış bir kitap. Şu iki alternatiften birini seçmek zorunda olduğumuzu bütün açıklığıyla gösteriyor: Ya kapitalizmin barbarlığını ve neden olduğu ekolojik yıkımı kabulleneceğiz, ya da insanlığa ve doğaya yaraşır bir toplum kuracağız.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Economics, Ecology, Environment, Sustainability

333 pages, Paperback

First published May 3, 2002

About the author

Joel Kovel is Distinguished Professor of Social Studies at Bard College. He has written ten books, including the first edition of The Enemy of Nature which appeared in 2002, and Overcoming Zionism (2007). He has edited the journal of radical ecology, Capitalism Nature Socialism, since 2003 and has been active in Green politics, running for the US Senate in 1998, and seeking the party's presidential nomination in 2000.

Reviews

[Keith Akers · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a hard book to read and recommend (or not recommend), so some explanation is required. If you (a) realize that the environmental crisis is really, really serious, "end of civilization" type stuff, and are wrestling with the problem of the social adjustments necessary to deal with the environmental crisis, and (b) have some background in Marxist thinking, and (c) find Marx attractive without necessarily buying everything he says, then you will like this book and should definitely read it.

If you don't fulfill either (b) or (c) you are going to have problems with this book. You'll probably get bogged down somewhere after page 50, if you make it that far, and give up. I'd suggest looking at chapters 2, 7, and 9, though.

I started out somewhat predisposed to give it 3 stars on the basis that the basic idea of the book is good but the rhetoric was off-putting. Then it became clear that you couldn't just breeze through this book, you had to go through paragraph by paragraph, and by the middle of the book I almost put it down. But I kept reading, and then towards the end of the book the author seems to regain his sense of mission. And if you're a Marxist: please consider this a five-star review, because the main negative in my mind is excessive reliance on Marxist rhetoric.

I was a Trotskyist in my younger days so I am used to this sort of thing. I remember laughing at one of Lenin's titles, "Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder," because the title itself seemed "over the top." What turned me off to Marxism was not a sudden embrace of liberal capitalism but the perception that the movement was being propelled forward by constant anger, and hoped to increase and exacerbate this anger as a way of getting things done. This anger had a debilitating effect on the movement. In the end people's anger turned on each other and so you had all these complicated divisions and nothing got done.

The premise of this book is that capitalism is the enemy of nature. But here's the first problem: this is something which cannot really be "demonstrated," because it requires a paradigm shift. This is something I wish Kovel had acknowledged in a more straightforward way. Kovel talks about the Bhopal disaster. If you're really hell-bent on justifying capitalism, this event in itself is not a problem. It's bad, but it's because the people involved were corrupt, the governments' policies lax, and so forth -- not capitalism itself. What about other capitalist environmental disasters, mountain-top removal, global warming, or peak oil? Well, obviously we have a problem. Major critical reforms are necessary. But is the problem capitalism, or something else? Sure, capitalism is implicated, but isn't socialism implicated too? Did Marx actually say anything about this?

Kovel rightly addresses these very questions. He is an advocate of eco-socialism, and he doesn't mean we'll worry about the environment after the revolution. It's an integral part of his platform, and he dislikes the opportunistic way of approaching this problem that says that "socialism will solve all our problems." I think that Kovel could have addressed this issue -- of paradigm change vs. reform, "proof" vs. "seeing" -- in a more straightforward way.

The second problem is all the Marxist rhetoric. One of the more intriguing chapters in the book is "critique of actually existing eco-politics." He discusses ecological economics, and I've read such people as Herman Daly (Ecological Economics, with Joshua Farley) and Jack Manno (Privileged Goods). I have to say that I don't see any place where he specifically refutes something intrinsic to the position of ecological economics. As I understand it, E. E. would argue for social control of the size of the economy and distribution of goods, but allowing a free market to handle the allocation and price. So, what does Kovel think? Is this actually good enough to call eco-socialism, regardless of the what Daly et. al. say? It's not clear. So I wish Kovel had written a book for people who aren't necessarily Marxists at all.

There's a problem with ecological economics as well. They are concerned to show that their ideas are not radical so as to increase its academic respectability. So they emphasize that they are keeping some aspects of the free market. They have some of the same problems as Kovel: being caught up in rhetoric (in their case academic instead of Marxist) in trying to communicate their positions.

My take on this is that if you got behind the rhetoric and said, "this is what we need," that it would turn out that ecological economics and Kovel are actually pretty close together. You could make a case that it is, or is not, socialism. The case for calling it socialism is that all this government control, if actually implemented, is certainly going to look and feel like socialism, even though the free market remains. We need the "eco" part too -- government control, in and of itself, will not solve the problem, and may in fact make the situation worse. So socialism is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of dealing with the environmental crisis.

Bottom line, and this is why I am giving the book a relatively high recommendation: almost no one else is talking about this. The people who are talking about it, namely ecological economists, also have difficulty with the rhetoric (of academic rhetoric, not Marxist rhetoric). The reason for this is, I think, that this is a difficult subject and we are exploring things for which language is not yet quite adequate. So Kovel is worth reading. Thanks for writing the book.

[Dan Sharber · Rating 5 out of 5]

i have read a lot of the overview, survey type texts on capitalism being anti-ecological at its core and the dire need for a more democratic, egalitarian and (eco)socialist future. so when i started this book i already went into it with a sense of 'i know all this stuff.' that said, this is may be my favorite of the survey type books. i have read all of John Bellamy Foster's books as well as chris william's fantastic book Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to Capitalist Ecological Crisis and while this book contained a lot of the same material there was a very pronounced aspect of philosophy to this book that was refreshing. there was very much a desire for the reclamation of our basic humanity that is key to the ecosocialist future. my point being, even if you have read a lot on this topic this is a fantastic book. and if you have not read any of those other works, this is a great place to start as we need to be clear on what we, as environmentalist are fighting for and have a clear understanding of not just what will work but also what will not work. and nothing that simply tinkers around the edges of the system will work. we need to get rid of capitalism if we have any chance for any sort of future that isn't some sort of dystopian nightmare.

[Kw Estes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Even before reading this book, there was one aspect of capitalism that, for the life of me, my mind could not cope with: its incessant rapaciousness and disrespect of nature. The rest could be rationalized (at least in times of doubt)--for instance, 'labor can freely sell itself on the market' and such other capitalist mantras. What this fascinating text did for me was to clarify why exactly it was that capitalism had the effect that it does on the Earth's ecology. The never-ceasing desire of capital to expand upon itself ensures that, if allowed to continue, it will lead to an impasse we will be unable to cope with. The continued expansion of capital's grip will produce two main effects: a further destruction of the Earth's natural ecologies--of which humans are an integral part; and the continued overuse of carbon-producing energy that will eventually produce feedback loops of destruction we can hardly imagine.

Kovel's idea that socialism is the answer will no doubt produce in many a suspicious response. Especially in the West, the Left just doesn't have the cache it once did. This leads to the belief among many that the problem may be dealt with within the capitalist system of 'market incentives'. However, Kovel shows convincingly that such beliefs are anathema to the whole practice of capitalism--an ideology (and, don't be mistaken, it is nothing more than this) which places nature under the dominion of man (and man in the gendered sense, if we are to take Kovel at face value). Capital will not reform itself in any meaningful way, and socialism of some sort, or even anarchism, will in all events be the only 'civilized' solution. Barring such a solution, we will muddle on in our belief that the 'way it is' is the way it has to be. Nothing substantive will be done about the ecological catastrophe that looms. And eventually, it will all come crashing down, no doubt bringing far worse consequences than Kovel's proposed solution of 'ecosocialism' would have ever wrought.

[Erbuğ Kaya · Rating 3 out of 5]

Barındırdığı bilgiler açısından değerli bir kitap ama çevirinin akıcılığındaki problemler sebebiyle okuması zor.

[Heather Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Joel Kovel argues that if we love this planet, we ought to work to abolish capitalism, because capitalism is destroying the ecosystems of the planet. The idea that capitalism is the culprit in global warming, species loss, habitat destruction, pollution and overpopulation will be hard for many to accept, due to the 24/7 propaganda we are subjected to in the capitalist media, but the thesis is given cogency by Kovel, an academic, writer, and member of the Green Party.

Kovel does not want to engage in vague criticisms or mendacious thinking that leaves the fundamental institutions behind our ecological crisis unscathed. But by taking aim at capitalism, rather than, say, patriarchal values, or scientific materialism, Kovel is sure to court controversy with environmentalists, most of whom are pro-capitalist. Indeed, the Green Party itself, of which he is a member, is not anti-capitalist.

Increasing numbers of the intelligentsia in the US and abroad are aware that something is profoundly wrong with global weather patterns. Tornadoes are more intense than they have been in recorded history, as are hurricanes. For those with access to the Internet and some ability to search around, there are ample reports, in those sectors of the media that still have a semblance of honesty, of the devastating effects of global climate change. Kovel reports that seven of the ten most destructive storms in recorded history had occurred between 1992 and 2002.

Our concern for the earth, our sense that it is now threatened, is not new. Kovel begins by revisiting the heady origins of the environmental movement, forty-one years ago on Earth Day 1970. The alarmed citizens' concerns were soon echoed by a report issued by the Club of Rome, called `The Limits to Growth', in 1972. Earth Day became an annual day for environmentalists to mark the threats to the planet's ecosystems from such things as pollution, habitat destruction, species extinction and desertification. Thirty years after the first Earth Day, Kovel surveys of the results of three decades of `limiting growth':

* human population had increased from 3.7 billion to 6 billion;
* oil consumption had increased from 46 million barrels a day to 73 million;
* natural gas extraction increased from 34 trillion cubic feet per year to 95 trillion;
* human carbon emissions had increased from 3.9 million metric tons annually to an estimated 6.4 million;
* fish were being harvested from the oceans at twice the rate as in 1970;
* species were going extinct at a rate unseen for 65 million years . . .

And on and on and on. The catalog of gloomy statistics illustrate a simple point: that in spite of a massive populist movement in the developed world for environmental reforms to mitigate the impact of industrial civilization upon our global ecosystems, by virtually every metric, things had in 2002 gotten much worse, and in 2011 there is no evidence of a turnaround in the trajectory. Moreover, "Third World debt increased by a factor of eight" while "the gap between rich and poor nations went from 3:1 in 1820 to 44:1 in 1973 to 72:1 in 2002.

Kovel's point is not that all hope is lost. His point is that environmentalism has not only failed abjectly to limit growth, but that "even the idea of limiting growth has been banished from official discourse." (5) Kovel's thesis is that because global capitalism is the source of these depredations against the planet's ecosystems, the efforts toward ameliorating the crisis have failed because they have not addressed the source of the problem. He shows how capitalism is a system built upon unrestrained growth of capital. Since growth is the very sine qua non of capitalism, any serious attempt to limit capital's expansion will throw the system into crisis. Capital's motto is "Grow or Die!" and, no matter how irrational this may be from an ecological standpoint, that remains the in-built nature of capitalism, and it cannot be reformed: "it either rules and destroys us, or is destroyed..." (6 The usual retorts to claims such as this--that the problem is a few "bad apple" corporations or "corporate personhood" or a lack of "regulation" Kovel addresses later on.

Since some form of democratic socialism is the only viable alternative to capitalism, Kovel spends considerable time addressing what socialism is and what he is advocating. He is not advocating a recrudescence of the former Soviet Union or Mao's China, both of which were not "socialist" in any Marxian sense. Marx advocated for democratic, worker-controlled industries, a situation which never happened in the USSR or China. The USSR and China exemplified, rather, state-run capitalism. Kovel has criticisms of the limitations of nominally socialist governments more generally, arguing that no nominally socialist state was particularly ecologically minded. He traces this to socialism's origins at the height of the Industrial Revolution, a time when optimism about industry and technology were naively high, for the simple reason that the most negative ecological consequences of each had yet to be widely perceived when Marx was writing.

In order to argue for the abolition of capitalism as the sine qua non of restoring global ecological balance, Kovel takes on what he maintains are essentially false hopes, including "progressivism," a term which has become so vague as to be virtually meaningless. What, after all, is a "progressive"?

"The question is: progressing towards what? Towards a virtuous citizenry placing checks on corporate power, who then stand about until startled by the next head of the hydra? Towards the gratification of an alternative `lifestyle' caught up in capital's consumerist regime? Or does it progress beyond the limits of the given? Our progressivism fails not because of its inability to spell out what the `beyond' may be, but through its indifference to the question, because of which it settles into the ecodestructive system on the ground.(181)"

Kovel contends that progressivism has come to mean simply "populism," which is an inherently insufficient vehicle for social transformation. Although populist movements historically have achieved gains for working people, for example in the movement to abolish child labor and win the gains of Social Security in the US, populism always carries the danger of fragmentation, because it essentially stands for "the people," and not all people are oppressed--"the oppressors are human beings, too." "Populism can itself be no more than a point of entry into the building of movements that address the structures that fragment a people. Unless it is surpassed, everyone will go home to his or her particular problem and things will go no further." Kovel argues that populism personalizes oppression, and thus encourages simplistic ideas, such as the existence of a kind of `golden age' before the Bad Oppressor arrived. He cites the corporation, today, given personhood in 1865 under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th amendment, as one such facile myth, i.e., before 1865, America was in a blissful condition when corporate power and greed were checked.

The racist potential of populism was illustrated not only by Nazism, which used populist socialist rhetoric which later morphed into scapegoating Jews for the country's problems, but Father Coughlin, the demagogic priest in the US who dominated the airwaves in the 1930s, preaching against the evils of capitalism, and then went on a crusade against banks that eventually turned to anti-Semitism and fascism. (183 In agreement with Kovel's critique of populism, I would argue that the populism of the right, which frequently rails against the "New World Order" reveals similar weaknesses inherent in populism itself: the bogeyman of the "New World Order" conspiracists was at one time Communists, later the UN, for some it remains international Jews, for others international bankers, still others assert extraterrestrials are behind this conspiracy. Obviously, not all of them can be right, and one does not have to be dismissive of all conspiracy theories to argue that the so-called "New World Order Conspiracy Theory" reveals very much one of the great weaknesses of populism. If our analysis fails to determine who "we, the people" are, and what or who are the proximate cause(s) of our collective oppression, it is a certainty that any efforts for political redress will fail in the long term.

Kovel critiques liberals like David Korten, arguing that Korten essentially peddles an "upbeat fairy tale" in place of history, a tale that, if true, would make the world much easier to change. Korten has no critique of capital itself, nor does he address issues of class, gender, or any other category of domination. He sees the primary problem in philosophical or religious terms, e.g., a huge mistake such as the `Scientific Revolution' resulted in `materialism' that robbed life of meaning and crushed the spirit of generosity and caring. The consequence, for Korten, wasthat people failed to be responsible to the whole of life and in a mere century destroyed much of the planet's `living natural capital' it had taken years of evolution to create.

"Note [Korten's] reference to `natural capital', as though nature had toiled to put the gift of capital into human hands, who then abused their legacy through false science and materialism. Since capital--or class, or the capitalist state--are no big deal, and even, when nature produces them, are good things, Korten has no difficulty seeing them checked by `globalizing civil society', which will restrain and effectively domesticate the animal, leading to the neo-Smithian Promised Land. (162)"

The Deep Ecology movement, while populated with many "virtuous souls," tends "to keep a measured distance from the messy world of struggle" (171) and tends to over-rely on vague slogans such as that of the Green Party (Europe) that green politics is "neither left no right, but ahead." The slogan fails to define what `ahead' means, and Deep Ecologists forget that "in the real world, that which does not confront the system becomes its instrument."

Kovel critiques Bioregionalism as having some good ideas insofar as an emphasis on place is essential for an ecological perspective, but finds it hard to see how it could work on planet with 6+ billion people. The Indian peoples could live bioregionally because there were only six to ten million of them in what is now the US. "Today's vastly greater population exists not in simple relation to place but in an interdependent grid." (174)

Ecofeminism also falls under the axe of Kovel's remorseless and convincing critique, even while he envisages some form of it being necessary to the ecosocialist future he envisions. It takes as its foundation the bifurcation between `Man' and `nature', with `nature' reduced to inert resources, and the valorization of cold abstraction and identification of this trait with masculinity and what is truly human. From this it follows that capitalist domination always necessarily involves gender domination. Some ecofeminists are anti-capitalist. But many are not, preferring to take refuge in a nature mysticism of goddess-based spirituality and essentialist feminism. This view keeps them from peopling the "barricades of struggle" and "keeps ecofeminism from becoming a coherent social movement." Here it must be stated that Kovel is not criticizing goddess based spirituality per se but the lack of a class-based analysis of capitalism by many ecofeminists who hold this view.

His analysis of Social Ecology finds its blanket condemnation of all hierarchical relationships problematic, since teacher-student relationships are necessarily hierarchical and that is not a bad or exploitative thing. What makes hierarchy fit for overthrowing is its quality of domination. Social Ecology continues the Anarchist project and criticizes Marxian socialism because of the abuses of authority by nominally socialist states in the 20th century. Kovel argues that anarchists and social ecologists profess to be anti-capitalist but fail to analyze capitalism to its root in the domination of labor. While they correctly wish to avoid the domination by the state, they fail to see the chief function of the state is to secure the class system, so we cannot address one without the other. Only a Marxian perspective gives centrality to the emancipation of labor, and anarchists' exclusive focus on the state and avoidance of the issue of labor tends to weaken the anarchist view of things. He hastens to add that the positions of anarchism and his own are not necessarily in an irresolvable contradiction.

Although Kovel is a member of the Green Party, he finds its platform lacking as well. And here we come to the core of his argument: that Capital is the efficient cause of the global ecological crisis, and that the one feature which defines its dynamic above all others is the commodification of labor power and its reduction to abstract social labor for sale on the market. "If capital is truly the enemy of nature, then we do not overcome it without the liberation of labour. This demand, which is the core of socialism, eco-or otherwise, comes down to the following: undergoing the separation of producers from the means of production." And in this socialist revolution, "labour power would be freed from the chains of capital and human power would become freed from false addictive needs and able to resume its potentials."

Kovel does not foresee a violent revolution to bring this about. He believes there must be much more political education in America, and development of class consciousness. Then there needs to emerge, out of widespread popular education, an ecosocialist party capable of carrying the banner of a democratic socialism rooted in ecological values. Toward that end, institutions are needed that can challenge capitalism's upside-down value system in which exchange value trumps use value. Use value needs to become primary.

Such institutions already exist--he cites the Bruderhoff community as one example of a highly productive community based on a communitarian, non-capitalist ethos. There are many more, and the more of them we develop, the greater will be the strength of a growing collective awareness of the need to replace capitalism with a system that is truly compatible with ecological values.

[João Gabriel Caia · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Therefore, unless the socialist revolution also undoes the domination of nature, which is to say, becomes ecosocialist, its satisfactions - and the needs and use-values in which they are grounded - are going to tend to reproduce the past.”

A importância deste livro de Kovel, originalmente editado em 2002, pode ser percebida inicialmente a partir da citação que acima destaco.
Em quase 300 páginas, Kovel começa por demonstrar a íntima relação de casualidade entre o sistema capitalista e a aceleração brutal das alterações climáticas que temos assistido desde o último século, para de seguida sustentar um sólido programa ecossocialista cujo maior mérito está na atenção dedicada ao sustento filosófico da ideia e à evolução da praxis necessária.

Ainda que seja quase consensual o argumento de a urgência climática estar relacionada com a relação económica de exploração que temos estabelecido com a natureza, o debate adivinha-se mais difícil (quando existe sequer) se tentarmos argumentar que essa relação é estrutural e, por conseguinte, só termina se se eliminar o sistema que a faz subsistir porque, justamente, respira por ela. Kovel mostra-nos que a relação do humano com a natureza há muito que tem sido deturpada e que é necessário voltar a olhar para os ecossistemas menos como um “ambiente”, externo e suscetível à alienação, e mais como estruturas íntegras, basilares e interdependentes.
Dessa forma, defende - e muito bem - a necessidade de questionar a noção de valor de troca que tem orientado o desenvolvimento capitalista, atribuindo um carácter mercantil aos recursos naturais, e recusar absolutamente a privatização dos meios de produção.

Neste sentido - e muitas críticas às “green politics” de normalização capitalista no entretanto - o futuro da ação socialista deve estar focada na perspectiva ecológica da produção, no derrube das relações de exploração motivadas pelo funcionamento capitalista e na natural reivindicação coletiva dos meios de produção cujos fins só podem beneficiar. Portanto - e sem esquecer a importância da interseccionalidade das lutas (já que outros instrumentos capitalistas de opressão, como o racismo e o machismo, não podem ser tolerados na sociedade a construir) -, as lutas anti-capitalistas da esquerda devem atentar à urgência climática o quanto antes. Não se trata de substituir uma coisa por outro. Antes pelo contrário, trata-se de complementar a abordagem marxista, pois também a exploração da natureza é estruturante na manutenção da exploração das massas trabalhadoras, por da primeira os segundos serem as principais vítimas.

Isto porque, das duas, ambas: 1) não é possível libertar os trabalhadores e os meios de produção e voltar a apostar num desenvolvimento tipicamente industrial que perpetue a precariedade do meio onde estes vivem. 2) é inútil querer combater as alterações climáticas com pensos rápidos, sem mexer no problema central: o sistema económico que cuja lógica serve inevitavelmente a exploração e destruição dos recursos naturais, desde a produção ao consumo.

O caminho para o ecossocialismo será longo e muito duro, admite Kovel, mas tem condições para prosseguir e, conforme verifico quase 20 anos depois da primeira edição de “The Enemy of Nature”, está a ser feito. A consciencialização ambiental e de classe a nível global já esteve menos avançada. Por outro lado, também mais recuado já esteve o impacto das alterações climáticas.
Recuperemos o subtítulo provocador:
“The end of capitalism or the end of the world?”
Nem precisam de acabar a leitura de uma das melhores obras de teoria política deste século para descobrir a resposta.

[Ellen · Rating 5 out of 5]

super readable and easily the most thought-provoking argument I've read in a long time.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important work on eco-socialism by Prof. Joel Kovel. The work was a little scattershot at times and repetitive, but on the whole I believe it is a must read for anti-capitalist ecologists.

[Ramil Kazımov · Rating 4 out of 5]

İklim değişimi konusunda azınsanmayacak kadar bilgi birikimi oluşturdum bugüne kadar..

Joel Kovel kitabında iklim değişiminin esaa nedeni olarak kapitalizmi ve de kapitalizmin devamlılığını sağlayan bir araç olarak sermayeyi görüyor . Ve de bunda haklı. Kovel diyor ki, metaların iki tür değeri vardır: kullanım değeri ve mübadele değeri. Kapitalizm mübadele değerini öne çıkardığı ve de kullanım değerini mübadele değerine tabi kıldığı için iklim değişimine sebebiyet vermiş olur. Sermayenin sürekli büyüme odaklı hareketi ekosisteme karşı konulması neredeyse imkansız zararlar veriyor. İş adamlarının zihniyetini açıklayan Kovel diyor ki, iş adamları kara odaklandığı ve de ellerindeki birikimi arttırmaya çalıştığı için iklim değişimini umursamazlar. Peki devletler ? Devletler zaten kapitalist iş adamlarının bekçiliğinden başka ne yapar ki. Peki, iklim değişimini kendine amaç edinen Yeşil haraketler ? Kovele göre bu gibi hareketler ya hiçbir şey yapamayacak kadar fazla yereller, ya da amaçları konusunda sorunlar mevcut: zira bir yeşilin mecliste bir sandalye kaptıktan ve de mevcut iktidarla anlaştıktan sonra yapacağı ne ola bilir ki. Yazara göre yeşil partiler veyahut yeşil ekinomi düşünceli insanlar iklim değişimini kontrol altına almayı kapitalist sistem dahilinde düşündükleri için hiçbir şey yapamazlar. Zira sistem kendi kar amacından sapmaya ve de 70-lerin "büyümenin sınırları" gibi süslü laflarına ödünler vermeye yanaşmaz.

Ve de soruyor yazar: peki o zaman ne yapmalı ? Cevap olarak diyor ki, eğer iklimimizi kurtarmak istiyorsak sistemin dışına çıkmalı ve de sistemden kurtulmalıyız. Bunu bireyler olarak değil kolektif olarak becerebilmiyiz. Sermayenin hükümranlığı devam ettiği müddetçe gerçekten etkili birşeylerin yapılmasını beklemek hayal görmektir. Önerdiği sey ise ekososyalizmdir. Yazar diyor ki, eğer metaları mübadele değeri olmaktan kurtarırsak ve de onları kullanım değeri olarak ele alırsak o zaman sürekli büyüme güdüsüne karşı tavır alınmış olur.

Bu kitabı iklim değişimini anlamak ve de ona karşı koymak için alternatifler arayan herkese tavsiye ederim. Benim için kolay bir olduğunu söylersem yalan demiş olurum. Zorlandığım yerleri oldu. Ama yine de bitirmiş olduğum ve de iklim değişiminə karşı koyma bilgime bilgi eklediğim için kendimi şanslı görüyorum 😎

[Terry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Notes
For an overview of Kovel and eco-socialism, check out the wiki entry for environmental socialism

Chpt 9, "Eco-socialism"
P.
222 "no chance of eco-revolut. at present so instead eco-soc is a living process. This chpt is most practical & most speculative.. few today even bother to think about the kinds of society that could replace the present w/ one of eco rationality ... a green paradigm limited by an insuff. appreciation of the origins of capital & of the depth needed for real change.
223 present "green" initiatives only make sense if seen as prefigurations of something more radical
Two Steps
a) ruthlessly crit. the cap system. increm. victories symbolic effect but effects are dynamic not increm.
b) challenge the idea that there is no viable alt. to cap.
225 examples of 'islands' of human eco-sys - organic farm; community cred. unions; abstract world bank
227 next, micro communities [Bruderhof, p. 190]
194 [For DanP] although the spiritual dimension of things is to play a very fundamental role in the process, e-soc cannot be religious, not the least b/c relig. is a kind of binding of spirit that tends to foreclose the openings to E xformations.
227 micro communities merge into parties - use-value replaces capitalistic value. [Marx's term, def. p. 39]
228 Movement could be religious as long as post-paternalism & post-capital
229 educ is commodified. Indie alt media good example of 'organic' movement w/ beginnings to activist documenting anti-glob actions
230 Labor has become depend. on capital's jobs and unable to consider e-politics. A goal of eco produc w/ no contradict betw. labor & nature is a long way off
231 world-scope capitalism (IMF, World Bank, Internat. Corps) also permits a greater scale of opposition opportunites crossing country and job type boundaries
233

[Can Toper · Rating 4 out of 5]

Marksist argüman üzerine inşa edilmiş, muhtemelen çeviriden kaynaklı "okuması zor" bir kitap. Kitabın bazını oluşturan eko-sosyalizm kavramı ile ilgili argümanlar kendini marksist olarak tanımlamayan ve şüpheci birini ikna edebilecek seviyede değil ve yer yer ütopik olarak nitelendirilebilir. Yazar mevcut dünya düzenini değiştirme / esnetme yolunu tamamen reddediyor ve kapitalist düzenin tamamen yıkılıp, yerine eko-sosyalizm getirilmesini istiyor. Bu fikri enteresan bulsam da, uygulanabilirliği konusundaki argümanların beni ikna etmediğini söyleyebilirim.

Fakat, alternatif bir sistem üzerine kafa yoran, kapitalizmin ve küreselleşmenin "doğanın düşmanı" olduğuna inanan, ekolojik krizin kısa vadede insanlığı felakete sürükleyeceğini düşünen biriyseniz eğer bu kitap sizi büyük ihtimalle içine çekecektir.

[Arda Alkkåskøgen · Rating 3 out of 5]

özellikle ikinci bölümde insan - insan dışı doğa ilişkisini 'akıl sahibi' ve 'neredeyse her şeyin yalnızca kendisine bahşedildiği' taraf olan insan lehine bir dille açıklamaya çalışması pek hoşuma gitti diyemem (savunulan tez ile de hayli çelişkiler içeriyordu bu dil). kitap genel hatları ile marksist bir bakış açısıyla yazılmış ve ortaya koyduğu eko-politika da haliyle üretim eksenli bir politika olduğundan bu yer yer göze batan tutarsızlıklara şaşırdığımı da söyleyemem tabi.

benzer ufak tefek hoşnutsuzluklar dışında öğretici bir kitap, tavsiye ederim.

[endofunctress ☭ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well... This was an interesting ride. Joel Kovel provides a good, yet very introductory chronicle of how capitalism is intricately intertwined with the ecological crisis. I particularly appreciated the analysis of the role of transnational organizations and the state, and the enphasis on prefiguration as an asset to build eco-socialism. Still, Kovel's ideas are a little too romantic for me. Quit the Lacanian shit. Go feral.

[Eoin Palmer · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's been said many times before, but I'll say it again because it's true. If you're familiar with the general gist of Eco-socialist thought and Marxist-ecology then this book isn't going to tell you much you don't already know. What it will do, though, is express many of those ideas in pretty ways that make excellent quotes.

If you aren't familiar with this area then this book might be a good introduction, provided you have some prior understand of Marx's thought. Otherwise some of the more philosophical sections could be pretty daunting. I'm a post-graduate student with a BA in Philosophy and I found some sections heavy going, particularly for a book aimed at popular audiences.

Overall I'd recommend this for Greens interested in going Red and Reds interested in going Green.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

kovel is a marxist-ecologist. his book is instructive in revealing the way that capitalism is responsible for the eco-crisis. what he fails in is his strange desire to defend marx and tie in marxist concepts which are bulky, ill-fitting and not needed. further, his plea for an eco-socialist party is unrealistic and questionable. still, a very thought-provoking book, raises important questions about what we will do to save the planet from dying.

[Owen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bleh. His critiques are fine but he doesn't dig deep enough. His solutions don't seem feasible, and don't go far enough. A book clearly aimed at an audience of liberals rather than radicals. On the whole the author is well-intentioned, and is moving people in the right direction, and for that I respect his work. But it's not for me.

[Jan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Beautifully written in the beginning with consistent and thorough analysis. Bogged down in distractions toward the end and lost focus.