neo-Marxist techno-utopianism and the population debate
I would not say it is uncommon to find myself more than frustrated with opinions published in the mainstream press. A piece in today's Sydney Morning Herald by John Passant, whose blog En Passant has the byline ‘revolutionary reflection on this world of ours’ did get me riled a little. The limited writings of his I have glanced at speak of tired same-old card carrying socialist rantings that literally equate the working class with religious icons. For example, apparently working class men do not benefit from women’s oppression — what cave is he living in! His piece in the today’s SMH, first published on his blog, attacks the Australian Greens. My issue with it is his reference to those concerned about population as neo-Malthusians. His lefter than left (i.e. holier than thou) rhetoric is unsurprising, unfortunately. His anthropocentric techno-utopianism fails to transcend solidly founded critiques of 60s era neo-Marxists and numerous others (including neo-Liberals today). When will the the blinkered political left and right realise that whereas technology may save us (i.e. Humans) in some form (as well as continue to impact on our lives in multitude and unforeseen ways, not all positive), what about all the other species and ecosystems that we exist alongside?
To put it plainly, ecosystems, bioregions and this planet all have carrying capacities. Passant attacks Bob Brown, the spokesperson for the Australian Greens for referring to a figure of 35 million people as not supportable. I already think Australia’s population is beyond the carrying capacity of this continent. And this has nothing to do with neo-Malthusians ideas. Infrastructure and 'quality of life' are not my priorities. Our individual and collective ecological footprints already exceed what the areas in which we live can handle. On a simple level, there is not enough water. We already flush our shit out of site, and we bury our ‘waste’ in holes in the ground — waiting to become toxic cesspits. Whereas we are impacted by this, it is orders of magnitude less than the billions of others who inhabit this planet with us.
I long for the day when neo-Marxists move beyond anthropocentrism and consider ourselves part of the environment. Yet, can we really expect vanguardists to eschew hierarchy? They are unashamedly speciesist and have vehemently dismissed, based on appeals to the ‘masses’, any criticisms. Similarly, environmental concerns were not seen as a key issue only a few decades ago, rather bourgeois ideology. The same can be said of Women's struggle a few decades prior. Environmental issues are now one of their key recruitment tools. I must add a caveat, that there are many good people in the organisation, and I would much rather they exist than not.
Can we not already move beyond the techno-utopianism that has and will continue to not provide the salvation we continue to hope it will? This is not a neo-Malthusians idea. I am not opposed to immigration. You can be critical of population growth, promote population reduction, and not be racist. In calling for population reduction we need to challenge the political elite and decision makers who first target non-white immigrants. Humanitarian immigration should be the priority. What it comes down to, is people here need to stop breeding — it is not a ‘right’ to bear child. The earth is not ours to do as we please. It is time for the neo-Marxists to smell the roses
------------------------------------------------
Somewhat unrelated, the increasing cross-pollination of the blogosphere in the mainstream press has interesting connotations. It is quite rare for a piece by a card carrying socialist to be published. This begs the question, why was it? Are the Greens being seen as a threat to mainstream politics (Socialist Alliance, who Passant is a member of, could not be considered a blip in electoral politics)? What is the agenda of the SMH? Perhaps time will tell...
- Add new comment
- 703 reads
- Email this musing
Comments
neo-Marxist techno utopianism
Let me point out I am not a member of Socialist Alliance as you incorrectly assert.
Second you attribute to me views I do not hold. I don't believe workers are religious icons.
But I do for example believe that working class men don't benefit from the oppression of working class women - the bosses on the other hand do. Perhaps we could debate the issue rather than you juts dismissing my views as self-evidently wrong - a world view that pompous middle class do gooders always adopt.
Third you pontificate that Marxists don't consider humans as part of the environment. We do. That is the essence of the materialist view. Humanity is part of and shapes the environment. The way we do that is determined by the way we organise production and at the moment that is through a profit driven process destroying the planet.
Fourth you say you are not a neo-Malthusian yet the very essence of what you write is Malthusian. You say for example that there are carrying capacities. What are these? How are they determined? Was Malthus right in 1800 that we were reaching our carrying capacities then? Why now rather than 1800?
This is environmental anti-humanism bordering on environmental racism with simplistic approaches like don't have babies (which in my view is your message for dark skinned people.)
on pontification, reflective and critical questionings
I appreciate the comment.
Unlike the very explicit anonymity of this blog, I was able to glean some information about you before penning and sharing my thoughts. I come across direct reference to you as a member of Socialist Alliance. If you no longer are a member, I am open to my statement not being accurate. I do not think, however, that this changes the intent of what I wrote in any way.
I also did not say you believed workers/the working class are religious icons, rather that your writings literally equate them with the iconography. I think this is plainly clear in your, re-stated, belief that working class men do not benefit from the oppression of (working class) women. Perhaps my rhetoric about living in a cave was a little over the top, yet it is very easy for a man, everyday vested and benefiting from the privilege that patriarchy affords and provides to deny any of these benefits actually existing. The oppression of women is far more extensive than the economic determinism you, whether directly, or by association with the article you reproduced on your site, defer to. I do think your belief is wrong, whether self-evidently so or not.
Paralleling what I see as economic determinism in how you reflect on the oppression of women/the benefits men gain, this is present in how you perceive and define humanity in the context of the natural world. At a simple level this is grounded in specieism. The subjugation of nature, whilst interlinked, can be and is very much separate to the means of production, which is so central to a traditional Marxist analysis. I do not see how this can be described on pontification, or dogmatic by implication. Rather I was seeking to point out an inconsistency that permeates.
As for carrying capacities, I considered my example of water being clear enough. I did not give much comment to the anthropocentrism rampant in reactions to even discussing the notion of human growth and ‘development’. Every home we build, every section of pavement, every plant for food, every fork manufacture, displaces or takes something away from another species. Techno-utopianism is not a solution nor a means to keep our heads in the sand (itself a speciesist cliché) — it does not address the underlying anthropcentrism upon which such ideologies are based. As for actual carrying capacity, that discussion is for another day.
Responding to the charge of environmental racism, I also consider that my thoughts were quite clear on how population arguments have often been used to justify racism and that we very much need to ensure this is not repeated. I was very clear that it is the west (i.e. white people, not ‘dark skinned people’) that is the significant cause of the current environmental crisis, not those society most-often attributes blame towards. The population debate is one that will not be going away soon. I think it is better for the left to start to engage with this now, rather than let it be directed by those who will frame it in very racist terms. The left needs to engage with this issue.
As to the implication I am a ‘pompous middle class do gooder’, the explicit anonymity of this blog can be used as a defense for making such an accusation — however incorrect it is. I will not react against it, rather draw from those who actually know who I am, of my life experiences, and that they are very much aware that this is very far from the mark.