What do you think?
Rate this book
ECOLOGY AS POLITICS
Andre Gorz, to my mind the greatest of modern French social thinkers, dares to venture where no one really has before. Fighters for democratic socialism and an ecological society have each recognized the handwriting on the wall; modern society cannot continue on its present path.
Neither group, however, has even begun to recognize the other's value, beyond being little more than a tactical means towards achieving their own ends. Gorz, in this exciting and penetrating gem of a book, addresses precisely this question, and offers a connection between the political and the ecological.In an age of crisis the realist becomes visionary and the visionary the rational architect of the future.
Andre Gorz is just that. The present decade will be a debacle for progressive change unless our creative efforts move towards linking our concerns with the quality of life to those of economic and political structure. Andre Gorz, as this little volume bears witness, has taken up where Herbert Marcuse left off. 'The only things worthy of each,' Gorz says, 'are those which are good for all.' This book is worthy indeed of each.
Neither group, however, has even begun to recognize the other's value, beyond being little more than a tactical means towards achieving their own ends. Gorz, in this exciting and penetrating gem of a book, addresses precisely this question, and offers a connection between the political and the ecological.In an age of crisis the realist becomes visionary and the visionary the rational architect of the future.
Andre Gorz is just that. The present decade will be a debacle for progressive change unless our creative efforts move towards linking our concerns with the quality of life to those of economic and political structure. Andre Gorz, as this little volume bears witness, has taken up where Herbert Marcuse left off. 'The only things worthy of each,' Gorz says, 'are those which are good for all.' This book is worthy indeed of each.
215 pages, Paperback
Published May 1, 1980
15 people are currently reading
316 people want to read
About the author
André Gorz
70 books102 followersAndré Gorz , pen name of Gérard Horst, born Gerhard Hirsch, also known by his pen name Michel Bosquet, was an Austrian and French social philosopher. Also a journalist, he co-founded Le Nouvel Observateur weekly in 1964. A supporter of Jean-Paul Sartre's existentialist version of Marxism after World War Two, in the aftermath of the May '68 student riots, he became more concerned with political ecology.
In the 1960s and 1970s, he was a main theorist in the New Left movement. His central theme was wage labour issues such as liberation from work, just distribution of work, social alienation, and Guaranteed basic income
In the 1960s and 1970s, he was a main theorist in the New Left movement. His central theme was wage labour issues such as liberation from work, just distribution of work, social alienation, and Guaranteed basic income
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 11, 2024
Knjiga jeste postala malo bajata u odnosu na minule decenije, međutim, ono što je stajalo kao tačna i ubojita analiza društvenih problema, apsolutno stoji i dalje. Gorc je, na primer, prilično neubedljiv kada kritikuje nuklearnu energiju ili kad napada medicinu – ali kada se obračunava sa kapitalističkom logikom hiperprodukcije i nadakumulacije, koja u ideji permanentnog rasta vidi jedinu svoju svrhu, on je briljantan um. Neophodna nam je održivost, jedan skromniji, trezveniji odnos prema stvarima, gde bi vredelo proizvoditi samo ono što ne izaziva ni privilegiju ni potcenjenost bilo koga (35). Istina, svaka proizvodnja je i razaranje (50) – nemoguće je stvoriti nešto bez transformacije materije – ali takođe je nemoguće proces proizvodnje izopštiti iz prirode kao prvog uslova ekonomske aktivnosti (43). Upravo zbog toga, ali ne samo zbog toga, društvo treba da pokaže posebnu svest za uslove nastanka dobara koje koristi. Čini se da živimo u dobu posebne neosetljivosti za proces nastanka onoga čime smo okruženi. Taj stav da ne treba da idemo iza stvari, već da ih uzimamo zdravo za gotovo, poguban je jer je suštinski dehumanišući – ljudi su ne cilj, nego sredstva kapitala. Još je opasnije to što se logika zgrtanja prenosi i na svet koji prevazilazi ljudsko. Tako postoji težnja ne samo da se iskoriste neobnovljivi resursi, nego čak i da se kapitalizuje ono što je treba zaista da bude opšte dobro – sunce, vetar, voda. Ekologija kod Gorca ne pripada specijalizovanim znanjima, niti danas toliko prisutnim praksama green washing-a, nego nas upućuje da je neophodno temeljno preosmišljen odnos prema stvarima, koji se apsolutno svih nas tiče. Nudi i rešenja, prilično konkretna, ponegde i utopistička, međutim, to što se nešto ne čini realnim, ne znači da ne treba misliti o alternativama i pokušati načiniti makar mali otpor. Jer, ako ovako svi zajedno nastavimo, ne sluti na dobro. Priroda apsolutno može bez nas i nadživeće nas bez ikakvog problema. Mi ne možemo bez nje.
Read
August 29, 2012We hear a lot today about recycling, being environmentally friendly, and "going green". Ironically, these discursive practices have been adopted by the very companies and institutions that for decades have consistently exploited the earth's natural resources, caused innumerable ecological disasters, and contributed to the gross amount of societal ills we see around us everyday. Green capitalism, eco-capitalism, or any other such phrases are complete oxymorons. In 1974 André Gorz had already explained our predicament perfectly:
"Ecology is like universal suffrage or the 40-hour week: at first, the ruling elite and the guardians of social order regard it as subversive, and proclaim that it will lead to the triumph of anarchy and irrationality. Then, when factual evidence and popular pressure can no longer be denied, the establishment suddenly gives way - what was unthinkable yesterday becomes taken for granted today, and fundamentally nothing changes.
Ecological thinking still has many opponents in the board rooms, but it already has enough converts in the ruling elite to ensure its eventual acceptance by the major institutions of modern capitalism.
It is therefore time to end the pretense that ecology is, by itself, sufficient: the ecological movement is not an end in itself, but a stage in the larger struggle. It can throw up obstacles to capitalist development and force a number of changes. But when, after exhausting every means of coercion and deceit, capitalism begins to work its way out of the ecological impasse, it will assimilate ecological necessities as technical constraints, and adapt the conditions of exploitation to them.
That is why we must begin by posing the question explicitly: what are we really after? A capitalism adapted to ecological constraints; or a social, economic, and cultural revolution that abolishes the constraints of capitalism and, in so doing, establishes a new relationship between the individual and society and between people and nature? Reform or revolution?"
"Ecology is like universal suffrage or the 40-hour week: at first, the ruling elite and the guardians of social order regard it as subversive, and proclaim that it will lead to the triumph of anarchy and irrationality. Then, when factual evidence and popular pressure can no longer be denied, the establishment suddenly gives way - what was unthinkable yesterday becomes taken for granted today, and fundamentally nothing changes.
Ecological thinking still has many opponents in the board rooms, but it already has enough converts in the ruling elite to ensure its eventual acceptance by the major institutions of modern capitalism.
It is therefore time to end the pretense that ecology is, by itself, sufficient: the ecological movement is not an end in itself, but a stage in the larger struggle. It can throw up obstacles to capitalist development and force a number of changes. But when, after exhausting every means of coercion and deceit, capitalism begins to work its way out of the ecological impasse, it will assimilate ecological necessities as technical constraints, and adapt the conditions of exploitation to them.
That is why we must begin by posing the question explicitly: what are we really after? A capitalism adapted to ecological constraints; or a social, economic, and cultural revolution that abolishes the constraints of capitalism and, in so doing, establishes a new relationship between the individual and society and between people and nature? Reform or revolution?"
November 26, 2013
A classic for de-growth of an economy that creates more ills than benefits:
"It is not so much growth that must be attacked as the illusions which it sustains, the dynamic of ever-growing and ever-frustrated needs on which it is based, and the competition which it institutionalizes by inciting each individual to seek to rise “above” all others. … Now it is the very opposite which must be affirmed in order to break with the ideology of growth: The only things worthy of each are those which are good for all; the only things worthy of being produced are those which neither privilege nor diminish anyone; it is possible to be happier with less affluence, for in a society without privilege no one will be poor."
"It is not so much growth that must be attacked as the illusions which it sustains, the dynamic of ever-growing and ever-frustrated needs on which it is based, and the competition which it institutionalizes by inciting each individual to seek to rise “above” all others. … Now it is the very opposite which must be affirmed in order to break with the ideology of growth: The only things worthy of each are those which are good for all; the only things worthy of being produced are those which neither privilege nor diminish anyone; it is possible to be happier with less affluence, for in a society without privilege no one will be poor."
January 13, 2025
quantitatively: hopelessly outdated and poorly cited even at the time
qualitatively, however: incredibly prescient 50 years on. especially the closing section, “science and class”, considering luigi
i would not recommend this book to anyone other than a dedicated degrowther interested in historical lineage. fascinating regardless
qualitatively, however: incredibly prescient 50 years on. especially the closing section, “science and class”, considering luigi
i would not recommend this book to anyone other than a dedicated degrowther interested in historical lineage. fascinating regardless
December 5, 2024
I don't think that this is really the place where I should lay out all of my thoughts but I think that Gorz is such an interesting thinker. this book was published in the 70s and it's still really prevalent (without taking into account his weird takes about health which do make interesting points but translate as if he's an anti-vaxxer lol). anyways I really admire the way in which he lays out different future possibilities and how he reasserts that the power is in people's hands and that we should not expect or ask for the establishment to make the changes.
June 16, 2024
Gorz's classic from a time when modern thinking was developing, linking social and ecological themes. Ecology has brought us the knowledge that we live in a world of limits that capitalism largely ignores, thus creating huge ecological imbalances. Gorz is not concerned with ecological processes as such. Rather, he is interested in the economic or power relations that are the causes of the problems. This is the approach we now call political ecology.
Gorz does not just criticize Western-style capitalism. He also takes on authoritarian socialist systems, which do not lag behind in destroying ecosystems. He sees the problem in the use of "heavy" technologies, which need to be changed, otherwise it is impossible to think of an ecological society. Technology reflects and determines the relationship of producers to the product, of people to society and the environment in which they live. In a certain spectrum of the left, it is customary to speak of the neutrality of technology. Gorz does not think so.
Unlike technology, ecology is a politically neutral discipline. To overcome the constant growth of production, it must therefore be linked to politics and ethics. In order to make society ecological, Gorz calls for the introduction of a self-managed, decentralised society with smaller production units and "soft" technologies. This demand, he argues, can only be introduced by the socialist left, which has not yet arrived at such an insight.
With similar books coming out in the period, it is interesting to observe the process of gradually linking political, economic and ecological themes. In many ways these works are similar, in many ways they differ, and they provoke interesting discussions. In many ways, however, they are still valid, and that is why they are still worth reading.
-------------------------
Gorzova klasika z doby, keď sa rozvíjalo moderné myslenie prepájajúce sociálne a ekologické témy. Ekológia nám priniesla poznanie, že žijeme vo svete limitov, ktoré kapitalizmus z veľkej časti ignoruje, a tak vytvára obrovské ekologické nerovnováhy. Gorz sa nezaoberá ekologickými procesmi ako takými. Zaujímajú ho skôr ekonomické či mocenské vzťahy, ktoré sú príčinami problémov. Ide o prístup, ktorý dnes nazývame politickou ekológiou.
Gorz nekritizuje len kapitalizmus západného typu. Púšťa sa aj do autoritárskych socialistických systémov, ktoré v ničení ekosystémov nezaostávajú. Problém vidí v používaní „ťažkých“ technológií, ktoré je potrebné zmeniť, inak nie je možné uvažovať o ekologickej spoločnosti. Technológie totiž odzrkadľujú a určujú vzťah vyrábajúcich k výrobku, človeka k spoločnosti či prostrediu, v ktorom žije. V určitom spektre ľavice je zvykom hovoriť o neutralite technológií. Gorz si to nemyslí.
Na rozdiel od technológií je ekológia politicky neutrálnou disciplínou. Na prekonanie neustáleho rastu produkcie ju preto treba prepájať s politikou a etikou. Aby mohla byť spoločnosť ekologická, Gorz volá po zavedení samosprávnej, decentralizovanej spoločnosti s menšími výrobnými jednotkami a „mäkkými“ technológiami. Tuto požiadavku môže podľa neho zaviesť len socialistická ľavica, ktorá však k takémuto poznaniu ešte nedospela.
Pri podobných knihách vychádzajúcich v danom období je zaujímavé sledovať proces postupného prepájania politických, ekonomických a ekologických tém. V mnohom sú si tieto diela podobné, v mnohom sa líšia a vyvolávajú zaujímavé diskusie. V mnohom sú však stále aktuálne, a to je dôvod, prečo ich stále čítať.
Gorz does not just criticize Western-style capitalism. He also takes on authoritarian socialist systems, which do not lag behind in destroying ecosystems. He sees the problem in the use of "heavy" technologies, which need to be changed, otherwise it is impossible to think of an ecological society. Technology reflects and determines the relationship of producers to the product, of people to society and the environment in which they live. In a certain spectrum of the left, it is customary to speak of the neutrality of technology. Gorz does not think so.
Unlike technology, ecology is a politically neutral discipline. To overcome the constant growth of production, it must therefore be linked to politics and ethics. In order to make society ecological, Gorz calls for the introduction of a self-managed, decentralised society with smaller production units and "soft" technologies. This demand, he argues, can only be introduced by the socialist left, which has not yet arrived at such an insight.
With similar books coming out in the period, it is interesting to observe the process of gradually linking political, economic and ecological themes. In many ways these works are similar, in many ways they differ, and they provoke interesting discussions. In many ways, however, they are still valid, and that is why they are still worth reading.
-------------------------
Gorzova klasika z doby, keď sa rozvíjalo moderné myslenie prepájajúce sociálne a ekologické témy. Ekológia nám priniesla poznanie, že žijeme vo svete limitov, ktoré kapitalizmus z veľkej časti ignoruje, a tak vytvára obrovské ekologické nerovnováhy. Gorz sa nezaoberá ekologickými procesmi ako takými. Zaujímajú ho skôr ekonomické či mocenské vzťahy, ktoré sú príčinami problémov. Ide o prístup, ktorý dnes nazývame politickou ekológiou.
Gorz nekritizuje len kapitalizmus západného typu. Púšťa sa aj do autoritárskych socialistických systémov, ktoré v ničení ekosystémov nezaostávajú. Problém vidí v používaní „ťažkých“ technológií, ktoré je potrebné zmeniť, inak nie je možné uvažovať o ekologickej spoločnosti. Technológie totiž odzrkadľujú a určujú vzťah vyrábajúcich k výrobku, človeka k spoločnosti či prostrediu, v ktorom žije. V určitom spektre ľavice je zvykom hovoriť o neutralite technológií. Gorz si to nemyslí.
Na rozdiel od technológií je ekológia politicky neutrálnou disciplínou. Na prekonanie neustáleho rastu produkcie ju preto treba prepájať s politikou a etikou. Aby mohla byť spoločnosť ekologická, Gorz volá po zavedení samosprávnej, decentralizovanej spoločnosti s menšími výrobnými jednotkami a „mäkkými“ technológiami. Tuto požiadavku môže podľa neho zaviesť len socialistická ľavica, ktorá však k takémuto poznaniu ešte nedospela.
Pri podobných knihách vychádzajúcich v danom období je zaujímavé sledovať proces postupného prepájania politických, ekonomických a ekologických tém. V mnohom sú si tieto diela podobné, v mnohom sa líšia a vyvolávajú zaujímavé diskusie. V mnohom sú však stále aktuálne, a to je dôvod, prečo ich stále čítať.
to-keep-reference
October 18, 2016En su esfuerzo para pensar en la importancia y límites reales del “exterior”, Rosa Luxemburgo puede haber sido la primera gran pensadora ecológica del siglo veinte. Los mejores ejemplos de pensamiento ecológico marxista en autores como André Gorz y James O´Connor adoptan una forma de argumento similar a la posición antiimperialista de Luxemburgo (aunque sus trabajos no deriven directamente del de ella): la producción capitalista implica necesariamente una expansión dentro y destrucción de la naturaleza, que no sólo tiene consecuencias trágicas sobre la vida en el planeta sino que también socava la viabilidad futura del propio capitalismo.
Imperio Pág.204
Imperio Pág.204
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews