O’Connor, James (1998), Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. New York: Guillford.
 

生態主義者對馬克思主義的批評:
1. 馬克思主義者是人類中心主義, 生態主義者不是。

2. 自然在生態社會中不僅僅是生產力(productive forces)而已, 自然也擁有它自己的目的價值。

3. 在馬克思理論中生產力造成了歷史變遷, 但生產力同時也造成了地球毀滅的威脅。

4. 馬克思理論聚焦在資本主義的內部衝突, 忽略了資本積累的外部矛盾, 像是勞工健康與福利, 社區環境, 受限的資源, 與空間的限制, 亦即生產條件(conditions of production)的問題。

5. 馬克思理論忽略了土地的拉力, 地球中心的倫理, 原住民的生存, 與南方國家的農民, 而這些都是政治生態學所關心的。

6. 馬克思和恩格斯給予人類太主動, 自然太被動的角色。
 

馬克思的貢獻:
馬克思成功地說明了自然的概念是在不同生產方式下的"社會建構", 並且自然具有不可化約的自主性。在剝削的資本主義模式中, 社會組織的物質生活有兩種效果,首先是改變自然的形式成為”人類化的自然”(humanize nature)或是創造”第二自然”(second nature)。第二個效果將會改變人類的意識成為”自然化的人類”(naturalize human beings)。
 

社會變遷/新社會運動:
1. 生態社會主義者的核心問題:如何讓生態的抗爭促成根本的社會經濟變遷?

2. 傳統的階級運動是在生產和資本循環中的抗爭(工作場所或市場), 而新社會運動卻是聚焦在生產的條件上，議題則是屬於特定地點和特定人群,並且跨越了階級的界線。

3. 對馬克思而言,歷史並不是逐漸實現普同理想(universal ideals)的歷史,而是敵對的利益以理想為名,相互爭奪權力的歷史,這也是為什麼許多的解放者在當權之後會成為壓迫者(因為害怕自己會被用同樣的方式鬥下臺……)。

4. O’Cornnor 拒絕普同的理想,他認為正義,真理,自由,和民主在不同的社會結構中會有不同的實踐意義,同時被不同的社會群體在特殊的社會結構或社會形構中詮釋(也就是生態社會主義也必須要本土化, 在地化……)。

5. 在馬克思主義中,並沒有提到生產方式變遷中, 文化和生態變遷的位置, 他同時忽略了合作也是一種生產力(看到這裡你是不是也覺得很眼熟, 所以孫文學說和三民主義課本還是可以撿回來唸一下…  :P )。

6. 人類勞動力並不僅僅靠著階級權力和價值法則來組織, 同時也依靠著文化規範與實踐而組織, 而文化規範與實踐同時也會被社會勞動力的形式所形塑。
 

O’Cornnor的生態社會主義:
O’Cornnor用生態社會主義來區別傳統的馬克思理論和運動, 它的焦點從”交換價值”轉到”使用價值”, 從”抽象的勞動力”轉到”具體的勞工”,從為”利潤”生產轉到為”需要”生產。
 

評論與問題: 
1. O'Connor 強調文化生產力與生產關係(p40-43), 但是傳統馬克思主義者可能會批判這些文化價值其實是錯誤的意識, 是一種意識型態, 只會有利於統治階級以及剝削的階級關係, O'Connor 將要如何為自己的論點辯護?

2. 在歷史上, 資本主義每逢遇到資本積累的危機時, 便不斷修正它自己, 因此我們可以說今天我們的資本主義社會, 已經不同於馬克思的時代。事實上, 資本主義一直都在轉變當中, 那麼我們又將如何辨認資本主義, 以及O'Connor所預測的進入社會主義的轉化? 

3. O'Connor 認為資本主義是不永續的, 因為資本主義的生產力和生產關係是靠著摧毀生產力和生產關係存在的條件, 因此會自我毀滅(p.165)。但O'Connor 卻沒有說明什麼機制讓社會主義可以比較永續? 他所提及的國家嚴格的規劃與調節(p168, p170), 也可能造成一個極權政權, 因而限制了公民社會和社會運動的蓬勃發展, 然而這些發展卻是有助於監督政府並減輕自然環境的惡化。因此賦予國家極大的權力去解決資本主義的危機和環境惡化, 是一個好的解決方式嗎? 

4. 如果文化擁有影響生產力和生產關係的相對自主性, 那我們可不可以視西方的理論也是一種文化產物, 強力地影響其他不同文化與自然環境的地區與國家。舉例來說, 馬克思主義也是一種在歐洲物質/自然/文化環境下的產物, 但它卻如何強力地影響其他國家, 像中國,而這些理論又是如何和當地的文化, 倫理與哲學扣連在一起而產生作用(如中國帝制的中央集權)? 而這些作用又如何改變了當地的自然環境? 

5. 在馬克思的理論中, 剩餘價值(surplus value)來自於資本家對勞工的剝削, 但是不是剩餘價值也來自於資本家對自然的剝削? 是不是就是在資本主義生產方式中的對自然過度剝削, 才會造成環境的迅速惡化? 
6. 事實上資本主義不斷跟隨著一系列技術革命而改變, 然而, 許多的環境災難也是起因於人類的技術, 像核能, 農業的綠色革命, 臭氧層破洞, 溫室效應等等, 這些人類技術的後遺症, 也造成了對科學與技術的信心危機--也就是科學與技術的不確定性。但是這些歷史事件與後果, 都沒有在馬克思的預期中, 也不在O'Connor 的討論當中, 但是這些事件又將如何修正了資本主義的生產方式, 並且又如何導向馬克思和O'Connor所論證的社會主義的未來呢? 

7. O'Connor的討論主要是針對資本主義的核心國家, 然而, 在這些核心國家的資本主義危機, 卻會因為將風險轉移到其殖民地或之後的第三世界而暫時懸置, 在這樣不平等的國際政治的情況之下, O'Connor的生態社會主義又將如何達成?

8. 在Ulrich Beck 的風險社會(Risk Society)一書中, 他認為階級社會中財富分配的邏輯, 如今已經轉變成風險社會中風險分配的邏輯, 社會行動的政治主體也從階級社會中追求平等理想的普羅階級, 轉變成在風險社會中追求安全的全部受害者。作為一個生態社會主義者, O'Connor又將如何回應Beck的論點: 也就是傳統階級社會的終結, 以及風險社會的興起呢?

9. 基本上, 馬克思主義是一套對資本主義與歷史變遷的科學分析, 這樣的論證是受到歐洲當時的歷史條件所影響, 這也是為什麼馬克思主義忽略了文化和自然的重要性(p40-46)。據此, 由於對科學的樂觀信仰, 使得馬克思自信地預期在資本主義的下一個歷史階段將是社會主義的時代。然而, 如果馬克思活在今天此刻對科學技術充滿懷疑的氛圍中, 他會如此自信地預期未來的世界嗎? 有沒有可能他會做出這樣的論證, 那就是" 歷史其實是一個突變的過程, 充滿著各種不確定性與可能性呢? " 
 

Critique of Marxism from ecologist
1. Ecologists are not anthropocentric, but Marx is.

2. An ecological society in which nature is not merely a productive force but also is valued as an end in and of itself.

3. In Marxist theory the development of the “productive forces” makes historical changes, however, it is the same forces that threaten to destroy the earth.

4. Marx’s theory focuses on the internal contradiction of capitalism, but ignores external barriers to capitalist accumulation, such as the health and well-being of workers and communities, limited resources, and spatial constraints (conditions of production).

5. Marx’s theory ignores the pull of the land, earth-centered ethics, the survival of indigenous peoples and the peasantry of the South, which are central concerns of political ecology.

6. Marx and Engels gave human being too active, but nature too passive role.
 

Marx’s contribution to ecological thinking:
Marxism has recognized that the concept of nature is “socially constructed” in different modes of production and the irreducible autonomy of nature. In the capitalist mode of exploitation, the socially organized material life has two effects. The first one is to change the forms of nature in ways that “humanize nature” or create a “second nature”. The second effect is to change the forms of human consciousness in ways that “naturalize human beings”. 
 

Social change/new social movement
1. Traditional class movement is the struggles on production and circulation of capital (workplace and markets), but new social movement focuses on condition of production. The issue is of site specificity/people specificity and across class lines.

2. For Marx, history is not the history of the progressive realization of universal ideals. It is rather the history of struggles for power fought by antagonistic interests in the name of such (felt) ideals. O’Connor thinks that this is perhaps the main reason why so many liberators turn into oppressors after revolution. He states that because in Marxist theory, there are no positions of cultural and ecological changes in the transition from one mode and another, and it also ignored cooperation as a productive force.

3. The key question of O’Connor as an ecological socialist is how to make ecological struggles contribute to radical socioeconomic change? Rejecting universal ideals, O’Connor thinks that justice, truth, freedom and democracy have different practical meanings in different social structures and also are interpreted in different ways by different social groups in particular social structures or social formation. Human labor is organized not only by class power and the law of value, but also by cultural norms and practices, which in turn are shaped by forms of social labor.
 

O’Connor’s ecological socialism
O’Connor use the term “ecological socialism” to distinguish theories and movements that seek to subordinate exchange value to use value and abstract labor to concrete labor, to organize production for need, not for profit.
 

Comments and questions
1. O’Connor emphasizes cultural productive forces and production relations (p40-43), but traditional Marxists may criticize these cultural values as false consciousness, which only benefits the ruling class and contributes to the exploited relation between classes. How can O’Connor defend for himself? 

2. Capitalism modified itself whenever it encounters crisis of capital accumulation through history, so we may say the capitalism today is not the capitalism in Marx’s time. In fact capitalism is changing all the time, how can we identify the changing capitalism and its transition to socialism as O’Connor predicts? 

3. O’Connor argues that capitalism is unsustainable because capitalist production relations and productive forces are self-destruct by impairing or destroying their own conditions (p165). But he does not formulate clearly that what mechanism can make socialism more sustainable? The strict regulation and planning of state he mentions (p168, p170) also can result in an authoritarian regime that restricts the prosperity of civil society and social movement, which can lesson the exploitation of nature in capitalism. Is it a good resolution to empower the state to the crisis of capitalism and the degradation of environment? 

4. If culture has its autonomy in influencing productive force and production relation, can we regard Western theory as a cultural product powerfully influencing other region with different cultural and natural environments? For example, Marxism can be regarded as the product of European material/ natural / cultural environment, how does it influence other countries, like China, how does the theory articulate the local philosophy, ethic and culture? How does this theory transform the natural landscape there?

5.  In Marxist theory the surplus value coming from the capitalists exploiting from the laborers, but is there part of the surplus value coming from the exploitation of nature? Is this the reason why the environment increasingly degrades under capitalist mode of production because of over-exploitation?

6.  In fact capitalism has been following a series of revolution of technology. However, several environmental disasters caused by the human’s technology, like nuclear power, green revolution of agriculture, the depletion of atmospheric ozone, and so on, have caused a confidential crisis of science and technology—the uncertainty of science and technology. These historical events and effects of course are not predicted and foreseen by Marx and discussed by O’Connor. How can these events modify the mode of production of capitalism and lead to the future of socialism in Marx’s and O’Connor’s argumentation?

7.  O’Connor’s argument basically focuses on the central countries of capitalism, however, the crisis of capitalism in the central countries can be suspended by transferring to their colonies or the third world countries afterward. Under this situation of international politics, how can O’Connor’s ecological socialism be achieved? 

8.  In Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society (1992) he argues that the logic of wealth distribution in class society now has changed to the logic of risk distribution in risk society. The political subject changes from the proletariat struggling for the ideal of equality in class society, to the victimization of all people seeking for safety in risk society. Being an ecological socialist, how can O’Connor reflect to Beck’s viewpoint about the end of traditional class society and the emergence of risk society? 

9. Basically Marxism is a scientific analysis about capitalism and historical change, this epistemology is influenced by the historical situation at that time, that is why Marx dismissed the importance of culture and nature (p40-46). Accordingly, with the optimistic belief in science, he confidently predicts the next historical stage after capitalism—a socialist era. However, if Marx lives in today when full of skepticism of science, can he be so confident to predict the future? Is it possible for him to make an argument that history is a process of mutation that is full of uncertainty?