This
early article by the renown socialist scholar, as well as respected
astronomer, Anton Pannekoek, goes a long way to dispel the idea that
socialists have held a very productivist view about mankind's
relationship with the environment. It deserves a wide circulation within the ecology movement.
The
destruction of nature (Anton Pannekoek, 1909)
There
are numerous complaints in the scientific literature about the
increasing destruction of forests. But it is not only the joy that
every nature-lover feels for forests that should be taken into
account. There are also important material interests, indeed the
vital interests of humanity. With the disappearance of abundant
forests, countries known in Antiquity for their fertility, which were
densely populated and famous as granaries for the great cities, have
become stony deserts. Rain seldom falls there except as devastating
diluvian downpours that carry away the layers of humus which the rain
should fertilise. Where the mountain forests have been destroyed,
torrents fed by summer rains cause enormous masses of stones and sand
to roll down, which clog up Alpine valleys, clearing away forests and
devastating villages whose inhabitants are innocent, “due to the
fact that personal interest and ignorance have destroyed the forest
and headwaters in the high valley.”
The
authors strongly insist on personal interest and ignorance in their
eloquent description of this miserable situation but they do not look
into its causes. They probably think that emphasising the
consequences is enough to replace ignorance by a better understanding
and to undo the effects. They do not see that this is only a part of
the phenomenon, one of numerous similar effects that capitalism, this
mode of production which is the highest stage of profit-hunting, has
on nature.
Why
is France a country poor in forests which has to import every year
hundreds of millions of francs worth of wood from abroad and spend
much more to repair through reforestation the disastrous consequences
of the deforestation of the Alps? Under the Ancien Regime there were
many state forests. But the bourgeoisie, who took the helm of the
French Revolution, saw in these only an instrument for private
enrichment. Speculators cleared 3 million hectares to change wood
into gold. They did not think of the future, only of the immediate
profit.
For
capitalism all natural resources are nothing but gold. The more
quickly it exploits them, the more the flow of gold accelerates. The
private economy results in each individual trying to make the most
profit possible without even thinking for a single moment of the
general interest, that of humanity. As a result, every wild animal
having a monetary value and every wild plant giving rise to profit is
immediately the object of a race to extermination. The elephants of
Africa have almost disappeared, victims of systematic hunting for
their ivory. It is similar for rubber trees, which are the victim of
a predatory economy in which everyone only destroys them without
planting new ones. In Siberia, it has been noted that furred animals
are becoming rarer due to intensive hunting and that the most
valuable species could soon disappear. In Canada, vast virgin forests
have been reduced to cinders, not only by settlers who want to
cultivate the soil, but also by “prospectors” looking for mineral
deposits who transform mountain slopes into bare rock so as to have a
better overview of the ground. In New Guinea, a massacre of birds of
paradise was organised to satisfy the expensive whim of an American
woman billionaire. Fashion craziness, typical of a capitalism wasting
surplus value, has already led to the extermination of rare species;
sea birds on the east coast of America only owe their survival to the
strict intervention of the state. Such examples could be multiplied
at will.
But
are not plants and animals there to be used by humans for their own
purposes? Here, we completely leave aside the question of the
preservation of nature as it would be without human intervention. We
know that humans are the masters of the Earth and that they
completely transform nature to meet their needs. To live, we are
completely dependent on the forces of nature and on natural
resources; we have to use and consume them. That is not the question
here, only the way capitalism makes use of them.
A
rational social order will have to use the available natural
resources in such a way that what is consumed is replaced at the same
time, so that society does not impoverish itself and can become
wealthier. A closed economy which consumes part of its seed corn
impoverishes itself more and more and must inevitably fail. But that
is the way capitalism acts. This is an economy which does not think
of the future but lives only in the immediate present. In today’s
economic order, nature does not serve humanity, but capital. It is
not the clothing, food or cultural needs of humanity that govern
production, but capital’s appetite for profit, for gold.
Natural
resources are exploited as if reserves were infinite and
inexhaustible. The harmful consequences of deforestation for
agriculture and the destruction of useful animals and plants expose
the finite character of available reserves and the failure of this
type of economy. Roosevelt recognises this failure when he wants to
call an international conference to review the state of still
available natural resources and to take measures to stop them being
wasted.
Of
course the plan itself is humbug. The state could do much to stop the
pitiless extermination of rare species. But the capitalist state is
in the end a poor representative of the good of humanity. It must
halt in face of the essential interests of capital.
Capitalism
is a headless economy which cannot regulate its acts by an
understanding of their consequences. But its devastating character
does not derive from this fact alone. Over the centuries humans have
also exploited nature in a foolish way, without thinking of the
future of humanity as a whole. But their power was limited. Nature
was so vast and so powerful that with their feeble technical means
humans could only exceptionally damage it. Capitalism, by contrast,
has replaced local needs with world needs, and created modern
techniques for exploiting nature. So it is now a question of enormous
masses of matter being subjected to colossal means of destruction and
removed by powerful means of transportation. Society under capitalism
can be compared to a gigantic unintelligent body; while capitalism
develops its power without limit, it is at the same time senselessly
devastating more and more the environment from which it lives. Only
socialism, which can give this body consciousness and reasoned
action, will at the same time replace the devastation of nature by a
rational economy.
Zeitungskorrespondenz
N° 75, 10 July 1909,
Original
German, and a French translation, can be found here:
8 comments:
Would you mind if I posted this to Marxist Internet Archive? And if I can do that, is there somebody that I could credit the translation to?
ALB is the person to ask.
Could you hold off for a bit until the Standard has published it and gets much needed coverage.
It's waited 110 years, a month or two more would hurt much. I'm intending to widely circulate once I have the Standard's link to it.
Update
You can go ahead but I am told that it is already being done
Hi I shared this here; https://anzacgf.home.blog/2019/07/15/178/ I hope this is ok , I gave your org recognition in the first sentence
No probs. The wider it is spread to dispel the idea that socialism has never nor will place the environment as a priority, the better
could we please republish it on our website UndebtedWorld? https://undebtedworld.wixsite.com/undebtedworld/blog?fbclid=IwAR14TZBiotiWx8QBhbzgWqdvf_RKHm5480S8EgbFiHTnVEywpUHvgok_VkU
Republished at
https://undebtedworld.wixsite.com/undebtedworld/post/anton-pannekoek-1909-the-destruction-of-nature?fbclid=IwAR14TZBiotiWx8QBhbzgWqdvf_RKHm5480S8EgbFiHTnVEywpUHvgok_VkU
many thanks.
looking good too.
Post a Comment