Sunday, June 25, 2017

Punk Never Dies

“Subculture – the Meaning of Style,” by Dick Hebdige, 1979

Most people are vaguely aware that sub-cultures exist in many countries, and that they pose somewhat subversive issues to the main-stream culture – whatever that may be.  Hebdige, a British cultural studies intellectual influenced by Marxism, concentrates in this seminal book on UK sub-cultures like the Teddy Boys, Rastas, mods and punks as examples of how ‘style’ issues become translated into a certain political attitude.  “The Personal Is the Political” is an old slogan, but as the majority wake up to how politics infects everything, it has become pertinent again.

Are you in a sub-culture?
Hebdige ignores hippies in his analysis, but of course hippies were the classic and even world-wide phenomenon of an oppositional sub-culture within developed capitalist societies.  Bikers, queer culture, rabid Christian cults, survivalists – and plenty of others – all exist at certain levels in the U.S. and can be both conservative or liberal.  Hebdige concentrates on working-class sub-cultures in the U.K. and their social meanings – many times connected to music and clothes.  His touchstones are Roland Barthes “Mythologies,’ Antonio Gramsci’s idea of ‘hegemony’ and gay French novelist Jean Genet’s writings from prison.  ‘Culture’ as defined here means the whole range of social being, not just ‘high culture.’  Hebdige ultimately gets himself and the reader tied in verbal intellectual knots as he attempts to understand these subcultures through post-modernist theory, but ultimately returns to his Birmingham-school Marxism. 

Ideology operates as ‘common sense’ in most societies.  Hebdige partly uses semiotics to translate the social impact of hairstyles, or even the architectural layout of a college campus, to decipher unsaid meanings.   Every sub-culture has an internally consistent logic that covers many aspects of life.  He first focuses on the role of West Indian / Caribbean black culture, which impacted the white working class in England, especially the youth.  White punks adopted reggae for instance, showing that ‘identity’ can transfer across ethnicities.  As we know from Thomas Frank’s “The Conquest of Cool,” nearly any cultural rebellion can be commodified by capital. For instance, punk fashion found its way onto the high-fashion runways through people like Jean Paul Gaultier.  In a way, the dominant culture has a vampiric relation to sub-cultures, borrowing bits of their vitality for its own commercial and artistic uses.  But this process is never immediate or complete. 

1976 in Britain saw that hot summer explode into riots and punk.  Hebdon looks at the development of many music forms in this period which paralleled the growth of sub-cultures – northern soul, punk, reggae, ska – and how ‘blackness’ became the ultimate subterranean identity, which white youth either embraced or rejected in a dialectical process.  This also happened in the U.S. beginning with hipsters and beatniks back in the 1950s.  Teds and skinheads rejected black culture, while mods and punks embraced parts of it.  Rock Against Racism grew out of this fusion.  The glam and glitter rockers – Bowie led!- actually are identified by Hebdon as those who moved the the focus from class and politics to sexuality and identity.   Bowie represented a more middle-class ‘sub-culture.'  

Hebdon points out that sub-cultures are always historically specific – and not just based on some generalization like ‘youth.’  Many of these working-class subcultures were responses to the economics of England after WWII, and the severe changes in working-class life.  The world of the ‘home, pub and working-mans club’ was disappearing in the face of austerity and the cultural politics of the bourgeois media.  Punk was the primary ‘spectacle’ that arose in response to the degeneration of working-class life, and Hebdon digs into it deeply.  Even language, as we know, is part of a sub-culture, and punk had its own verbalisms, including much swearing. Hebdon thinks that punk ultimately had elements of nihilism, not just rebellion. Shock became the point of some; punk became modern Dada.  Because of this, the hegemonic cultural system tried to turn punk into a clown show, which is one way sub-cultures can be undermined by the dominant culture. To this day, punk still exists -  just visit the crusties in Kensington Street in Toronto.

Jean Genet actually wrote an introduction to “Soledad Brother,” a book of letters by George Jackson, a Black Panther murdered by the state back in the 1960s.  This odd pairing actually implies that parts of black culture in the U.S. are also part of a very large ‘sub-culture’ subversive to corporate culture or capitalist ‘normality,’ just as gay culture once was.  Latino culture represents another strain. This is an odd thought to have.  But as someone who has been a hippie, a motorcylist and a leftist – three subcultures in the U.S. - many of us belong to something out of the mainstream.  Ethnicities form massive sub-cultures and this point is often ignored.  Hebon’s point about West Indians in the U.K. is also relevant to the U.S. black, native and Latino populations.  The former was the basis, at one time, for the proposal for a ‘black nation’ in the ‘black belt’ across the South – a black belt which no longer really exists geographically, but still exists culturally.

Other books on "Chavs," British motorcycling gangs and British soccer 'hooligans,' reviewed below.  Use blog search box, upper left.

Red Frog
June 25, 2017

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Something's Happenin' Here ...What It Is Ain't Exactly Clear...

“The People’s Summit,”

I did not attend this conference, which took place in Chicago on the weekend of June 9-11.  But clearly something is still going on in the wider world of the U.S. left.

All the ‘superstar’ left-liberals were there – Sanders, Greenwald, Klein, Sirota, Van Jones, Goodman, Piven, McGibben, Glover, Van Heuvel, Frank, Zirin, Jealous, Zogby.  OOOH! There were a high proportion of actors and actresses too, oddly enough, but given the weight Hollywood has in the Democratic Party, that would be expected.  We on the ‘hard left’ call these people the ‘soft left,’ as they straddle the fence between anti-capitalism and pro-capitalism.  Their careers would be in the toilet if they adopted the former, but they can’t help themselves going part of the way.  I critically review many of their books because the intent of this blog is to move normal working-class people beyond comfortable left-liberalism.  But you can’t do that without ‘intersecting’ with the liberal-left, which does have valuable things to say.

Superstars?
Sanders
At the Summit, Sanders excoriated the Democratic Party for losing so many elections and he also refrained from promising to bring millions into the Democratic fold.  Democrats only have their positions of 'power' and winning to cite, so this hits particularly hard for the junior party of the ruling class.  However the basic intent of this conference is to prepare new candidates to run as ‘left’ Democrats, so a level of sheep-herding is still the basic plan.  Several prospective candidates or winners were on hand.  Activity on the left of the Democratic Party is inevitable in the run up to the formation of an independent, class-based party, so this turmoil is indicative.  It is possible that a ‘left’ section of the Democrats will split off at some point.

People’s Party
There was a counter-trend at the ‘Summit’, as a section of the conference campaigned for a “People’s Party” by drafting Bernie Sanders as its leader.  This effort was led by a former Sanders staffer, Nick Brana.  The head of National Nurses United (NNU), Roseann Demoro, endorsed the independent “Draft Bernie” idea, and asked Sanders from the podium if he would support it.  No answer from Sanders of course. NNU had 1,000 nurses attending out of the 4,000 total attendees.   Brana has said that even if Sanders doesn’t get on-board, they will go ahead to form a populist People’s Party.  What that will look like is unknown at present, but it certainly is a step to some kind of mass opposition party.  However, if it follows Sanders’ program exclusively, it will be born with deformations.

Sanders is problematic at this point.  He is the most popular politician in the U.S. (admittedly a low bar) and also the most prominent ‘in-house’ critic of the Democrats, even though he’s not an official Democrat…!  Sanders has a standard social-democratic domestic policy with many progressive features, though he seems to be backsliding on socialized medicine right now.  He does not support nationalization of rogue industries or essential public industries.  Sanders’ foreign policy is an endorsement of imperial and military actions by the U.S. - a symptom of social-patriotism.  As anyone politically aware knows, there is a deep economic, social and political connection between U.S. foreign and domestic policy.   Without an attack on both, not artificial walling off of one from the other, no progress can be made domestically or internationally. 
 
Social Patriotism
Sanders’ roots are in social-democratic practice, which is social-patriotic in essence.  This schizophrenic bifurcation allows Sanders to become popular more easily, but ultimately bars the road to any significant social progress in the U.S. - not to mention the rest of the world.  Jeremy Corbyn of the British Labour Party understands the links between foreign and domestic policy, as does Jean-Luc Melenchon of the French “Unbowed France” Party (which was endorsed by nearly all of the French left.)  Given left socialism is strong in both organizations, it shows lazy comparisons between Sanders and Corbyn or Melenchon only go so far.  The European left is far ahead of the U.S. left in this and other respects – as it has always been.

At any rate, one of the other dividing lines between the soft left and the hard left is the issue of the Democrats.  They are the ‘donkey’ in the room.  People bitch about this being a ‘focus’ all the time, like they are tired of the debate.  However, the reason the debate does not go away is because the Democrats are a failure for workers no matter their ethnicity, and have been for many, many years.  As the call from the People’s Party advocates went:   “…corporate money is not a distinct, corrupted organ of the (Democratic) party that can be surgically removed from an otherwise healthy body. Corporate money is the party.”

The Labor Party
I’ve pointed out to people in the labor movement and leftists who want a ‘labor party’ that the main impulse for independent  political action right now will probably come from outside of the official labor movement.   The AFL-CIO is still deeply in the pocket of the Democrats unfortunately, but they can be lured away, bit by bit.  The Sander’s campaign was part of the ferment for actual political change in this country – not the Democratic Party Potemkin Village of ‘change’ and ‘hope,’ but something a bit more real.  As the involvement of unions and now the NNU shows, labor is a key component in this ferment.  They ultimately are THE key component to any revived class struggle against the rich white male billionaires who control this country now and founded this country 243 years ago.

Intersectionality
“Intersectionality’ – an academic phrase that left-liberals adore – is a concept that only goes part way to understanding how to move forward.  The reason is that class is not just ‘one among many’ in this mixture, but the primary intersection.  I’ll show you why.  Let us take the “$15 Now” campaign.  Ostensibly only an ‘economic demand,’ if it is won it benefits low-paid workers the most.  Those would mostly be black, Latino and immigrants from Africa primarily.  But as anyone knows, many white workers also labor for pittances.   So it unites the ‘class’ on an ostensibly economic issue, but actually attacks the material foundation of racism the most.  

The problem with ‘intersectionality’ is that it is not a materialist approach, and assumes the oppression of women, gays, black, Latino, indigenous and African labor to be independent of economics.  It assumes that, instead of the deep profiteering generated by the super-oppression of non-whites or women, that that oppression is just the result of white people’ s ‘bad ideas’ or meanness  or stupidity.  All of this is idealist claptrap ultimately.    Yes, there are plenty of bad ideas, meanness and stupidity to go around, but racism and sexism are institutionalized in the U.S. – by the economy, the courts, the schools, the police, the state – for economic purposes.   It is part of the foundation of this ‘great Republic” since the beginning. So these bigoted ‘ideas’ ultimately serve the profit system.   “Intersectionality’ as conventionally presented ignores the whole capitalist profit system and ultimately fails as a way of understanding how to move forward.  

The other failure of intersectionality is strategic.  For instance, Black oppression cannot be solved by black people alone.  It is actually part of the way the whole class is divided and weakened.   White workers MATERIALLY lose because of black super-oppression.   Just look at conditions in the South or any industry where cheap labor is employed or where communities are treated brutally by police or through environmental racism.  Police violence is ultimately a form of labor control, for instance. Instead of appealing to white guilt (something white upper-class liberals love), appeals to white workers on a grounded MATERIAL basis will be more successful in fighting racism.  Unions, the most integrated organizations in this country, understand this.  The greatest unity and strength is to understand that racism hurts everyone but the capitalists.  That may be a cliché, but it has definitely been ignored.  It doesn’t ignore super-oppression of non-whites, it only shows how the whole society is affected.  And that should be the real goal of ‘intersectionality’ instead of burying economics.

Resistance & Revolution
The People’s Summit was sponsored by NNU, “Our Revolution,” DSA, UE, Move-On, Presente, Our Walmart and others.  These are groups that claim to be part of the “Resistance” to Trump.  Perhaps they include that other ‘resistor’ Hillary Clinton and perhaps they don’t.  But if they work in the Democratic Party, she and her allies are unfortunate comrades. The term ‘Resistance’ comes from the French Resistance in WW2 – which was led by Communists in opposition to Petain and fascism.  It should be noted that there are no reds running this new ‘resistance’.  Instead it is a ‘resistance’ mostly directed at the Republicans, not the whole system. Sanders’ group ‘Our Revolution” is also committed to the Democratic Party at this point.  No matter how many times they excoriate the Democratic top donors, corporate base, neo-liberal politics and top officials, they are also still ‘comrades.’  And this makes a mockery of the term “revolution” too.  A real political revolution in the U.S. would involve the replacement of the capitalist parties in power, not by working within one capitalist party to promote it.  A social revolution would involve the overthrow of the private property system in favor of a collectively owned and controlled economy, not by pushing illusions that capital will become ‘nice.’

Neither is the goal of “Our Revolution” at present.  As you can see, both of these terms have been co-opted. 

The more proletarian elements in the People’s Congress – and I do not include the listed hot-shot super-stars – could be moving in the direction of political independence, as shown by the support for the People’s Party.   UE has always been for a Labor Party, and now NNU is moving in that direction. The left should keep a good eye on what is going on in this grouping, as part of a real Resistance could emerge from it.

Unity Around Jentzen
 Ginger Jentzen
Locally, leftists and unionists finally got together to support a socialist and anti-capitalist program – without the Democratic Party.  A large fundraiser was held for Ginger Jentzen at Mayday Books on Thursday, June 16.  She is running for the 3rd Ward council seat in Minneapolis, MN, USA as a socialist, as a prime mover of “$15 Now” in the city and as an advocate for rent control and fighting the capitalists who run Minneapolis.  May Day Books, Socialist Action (SA), the local Democratic Socialists of America (DSA-M), International Socialist Organization (ISO) and Socialist Alternative (SA) have all endorsed her.  More importantly, Minnesota Nurses United (MNU), the Communication Workers of America (CWA) and the United Transportation Union (UTU) have all endorsed Jentzen too.  What Minneapolis needs is a socialist in the city council once again.  If she wins, politics in Minneapolis will radically change in favor of working-class people.

Red Frog
June 18, 2017

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

I Come From the American Empire

Cornell West in Toronto, Canada

A public event last week at the 86th Canadian Humanities Congress at Ryerson University featured Cornel West, probably one of the best public speakers in the U.S.  The organizers were not prepared for the overflow crowds, budgeting a room holding only 500 people.  Given the present political situation, more and more people are coming out of their isolation to grapple with issues like racism and classism, and they caught the academics unaware in Toronto.

“I Come from the American Empire.” were his first words...
Uncle Cornel Wants You
West is the fiery preacher, the verbal jazzman, the learned academic, the prodigious memory bank, the concise analyst, the person who is not afraid to target liberal shibboleths.  You might call him a Christian socialist, or you might not, but he’s definitely one of the speakers you should hear in your life.  His speeches are punctuated by a wide array of quotations from writers, activists and philosophers.  He praised the Humanities Congress, while pointing out that words like ‘diversity’ (which were highlighted in his introduction) are merely stale euphemisms for dealing with issues like racism, sexism and homophobia.  He took questions from the audience and handled odd interjections and bad politics well.  He did not agree with a speaker who insisted that his religion (Islam) was never violent.  West indicated, as a Christian, that Christianity and every religion include many who are full of violent hatred.  He pointed out to a young student that thinking white academics can never be allies or ‘know’ anything is a failing position.   

West is the ‘love’ man, after all, and not a black nationalist.  He has a position that without a united front of all ethnicities against Wall Street and the “1%,” based on principled demands, no peaceful revolution or even resistance can occur.  This is similar to the policies of Bernie Sanders, who West supported in the Democratic primaries.  It is similar to the combined class and ethnicity position of Marxists, but in a somewhat less class conscious manner.

West loves music and references blues, jazz or R&B constantly.  At one point he said he could sit down and play Coltrane’s “A Love Supreme” and not talk, because that album says it all for him.  (Of course it IS one of the greatest jazz albums of all time.)  His speechifying is not purely logical, but plays ‘riffs’ that return, improvising in a flow, with ‘choruses’ that appear at an end.  Jokes abound.  He insulted Stephen Harper of the Conservative Party by calling him a ‘smart Trump.’  He remarked that every black person should get a ‘standing ovation’ for not deciding to resort to constant violence.  Most of the Toronto press, as would be predicted, did not cover his speech, except for one snarky corporate site. 

West repeated his opposition to the corporate politics of Barack Obama, but said he would ‘give his life to save the brother’ from the police. He recently got into a yelling match with Democratic Party blowhard Bill Maher over this.  In his speech in Toronto he even pointed out that Malcolm X had some sexist positions.  WEB Dubois was the ‘exemplar’ that he structured the speech around, in the process giving ‘exemplars’ like Beyonce short shrift.  He highlighted Gandhi’s support of the Hindu caste system, and approvingly name-checked Gandhi’s opponent on this issue, Ambedkar.  He praised Canada’s health care system, calling for it in the U.S.  He referenced the incarceration state in the U.S. and this brought out a flood of African, West Indian and black speakers at question time who discussed the racist treatment of black people by police, schools, the welfare state and the government in Toronto.  All this in the supposedly enlightened, but still capitalist, country of Canada. This was the main ideological contribution of the audience. For the most part the audience did not approach things on a higher level, but only coming from their various silos. 

West repeated his condemnation of Wall Street and capitalism, and noted that black poverty was ignored by Obama and is now worse than when he was a young man in Sacramento, California.  In that vein, I first heard West talk at a convention of the Labor Party in Pittsburgh in 1998, but his speech there was a bit different.  Given the date and the large crowd of left-wing union activists who had come together to oppose corporate capitalist methods like NAFTA and the Democrats, West emphasized economics.  He is what you might call a left social-democrat, but he does consort with Canadian Marxists like Henry Giraux. The book “The Jungle” illustrated the role of Christian socialists at the turn of the 20th century, who castigated the rich and the uncaring capitalist system through Jesus’s eyes.  West seems to be part of that tradition, with all its pluses and minuses.

The main problem with West is that, while he tells everyone to ‘take action’ and ‘speak truth to power’ he (like Chomsky and other academic radicals) has no real organizational solution to what ails those who live under capital.   West himself is still preparatory to the real revolutionary movement that could arise.   

Some books mentioned by West, reviewed below:  Michelle Alexander: “The New Jim Crow;”  Ambedkar: “Annihilation of Caste;” Henry Giraux: “The Violence of Organized Forgetting.”  Use blog search box, upper left.

Toronto, Canada
Red Frog
June 7, 2017

Sunday, June 4, 2017

Green Fallacies

"Marx and the Earth – An Anti-Critique," by John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett, 2017

While JB Foster was swilling his celebratory beer at the conclusion of the Marx Symposium in Toronto, Canada, last weekend, we may ask ‘what use does an intense and detailed academic Marxist rebuttal of green ecologist philosophy have to do with an actual revolutionary movement’?  Well, a bit!  This book is a follow-up to the author's prior works on “Marx’ Ecology” and “The Ecological Revolution” (both reviewed below). Yet it’s point is not examine Marx’s perspective of the metabolic rift between humans and nature brought about by capital, but to challenge certain anti-Marxist stereotypes promulgated by Green ecology thinkers - while doing just that.

The Book Jacket
Now it’s supposedly not nice to polemicize against people who call themselves ‘eco-socialists.’  Yet I have found that ‘socialists’ who are against Marx – the most radical anti-capitalist in history – have a hidden agenda, which usually translates into some kind of compromised version of bourgeois socialism and anti-capitalism.  So there are eco-socialists and eco-socialists.  Foster/Burkett paraphrase Sartre to this point, saying that ‘Marx’s critique was so ruthless… that it is impossible to surpass it without surpassing bourgeois society itself.’

Here Foster and Burkett take on 6 main theories opposing Marx on the terrain of ecology.  They make quite effective work of them, using their voluminous knowledge of Marx and Engel’s writings, along with many later Marxists who followed in their footsteps. To do this, Foster and Burkett must have every written document done by Marx and Engels on a searchable database.  They reference many of the leading socialist and scientific thinkers in the field from the 1800s onward, which the reader will find valuable in filling in gaps in knowledge.

The sloppy mischaracterizations of Marx include thinking he was merely a ‘productionist’ who had no ecological perspective, but was only interested in putting more material goods on the table of the worker.  They take on John Clark who says that because Marx said that nature was ‘the inorganic body of man’ he demonstrated his anthropocentrism; Martinez-Alier, who insisted it was incorrect for Marx and Engels to criticize Sergei Podolinsky ‘energetic’ theory of labour; Martinez-Alier and Bensaid’s charge that Marx opposed the second law of thermodynamics; Herman Daly’s charge that Marx’s economics excluded material flows from nature; Tanuro’s claim that Marx ignored fossil fuels; and the claims of Kovel and Worster that Marx slighted the ‘intrinsic’ value of nature. 

If this sounds all really obscure, then remember that the class struggle is not just confined to the streets or neighborhoods or workplaces, but also happens in the realm of ideas and culture.
 
Briefly, Foster/Burkett’s response to these 6 main charges are this:

Clark was not familiar with the usage of the term ‘organic’ and ‘inorganic’ during this period in philosophy, especially through Hegel.  

Podolinsky’s theory of the ‘perfect human machine’, which was to create the perfect caloric retention of heat, was carefully examined by Marx and Engels.  It was found to be unworkable and in fact part of a reductionist ‘closed’ system analysis that did not incorporate many external inputs. 

Marx and Engels incorporated the early beginnings of thermodynamics in their writings, but opposed the extension of the second law (entropy) to the theory of the ‘heat death of the universe’ – an idea having more in common with Christianity, and which had no proof, and still doesn’t.  As anyone familiar with scientific laws know, they sometimes apply to one area, but not all.  Foster/Burkett however fail to follow up on this insight as to the flawed nature of the ‘Big Bang’ theory itself, which would have also been opposed by Marx and Engels.  The ‘big bang’ is the  theoretical equivalent - at the other end of the 'clock' - of the ‘heat death’ theory.  (Commentaries and reviews on the "Big Bang," below.)

Foster/Burkett point out that Marx and Engels, while describing the circulation of capital, always included ‘material’ inputs, and never left the system closed to the effects and attributions of nature – i.e. raw materials.  Indeed Marx said quite clearly in their criticism of the simplistic economics of the German Social-Democrats in the Critique of the Gotha Programme that value comes from both nature AND labour, not just labour. 
  
Tanuro a-historically blames them for not predicting global warming, which makes you think there is another agenda here.  Marx and Engels always paid close attention to sources of power at that time, like wood, wind, steam and later, coal, and even commented on the over-use or ‘squandering of our reserves of energy, our coal’ (Engels).  Foster/Burkett mention that Tanuro has no proof citations in his article as to their ignoring of power sources.  Marx & Engels are generally recognized as foundational to ecological economics, and saw the role of energy in historical, not neutral, terms.  But no, they did not predict global warming, though they kept very close attention to nearly all scientific developments.  The first scientific mention of the role of carbon and the greenhouse effect happened about the time of Marx’s death.

Kovel presents ‘eco-socialism’ of a certain type as a successor to Marxism by insisting that Marx did not recognize the human role in the alienation of nature.  Foster/Burkett point out the frequent parallels Marx and Engels drew between the alienation of and exploitation of labor AND also of nature. Marx’s description of the ‘metabolic rift’ is basic to them.  Both were aware of the various ecological crises of the 1800s – polluted water and air, destruction of the soil, unsustainability, deforestation, loss of biological diversity, natural resource shortages. Theirs, unlike capitalist economics, was an ‘open’ economics that took everything into account, not merely the circulation of products or ‘supply and demand’ or mystical processes like ‘the market.’

Lying beneath Foster and Burkett’s polemics with ‘green socialists’ is a general criticism of green ecology itself.  For instance, ‘deep ecology’ is an essentially anti-human and idealist response to the present situation.  The mere worship of nature is not a substitute for a dialectical response to the crisis we are in.  There is much mysticism in current Green theory. Instead, ‘there is an abstract, moral division between anthropocentric and ecocentric views,’ which basically slights the working class and human society.  Deep ecology is at bottom a romantic, pre-industrial idea that offers little to the working classes.

They quote Murray Bookchin regarding Deep Ecology:  ‘Mystical ecologists who dualize the natural and the social by contrasting ‘biocentricity’ with ‘anthropocentricity’ have increasingly diminished the importance of social theory in shaping ecological thinking.  Political action and education have given way to values of personal redemption, ritualistic behavior, the denigration of human will and the virtues of irrationality… mystical ecology has advanced a message of self-effacement, passivity, and obedience to the laws of nature that are held supreme over human activity and praxis.’

The struggle with the bourgeois corporate Greens – the ‘Big Greens’ - who are based on the capitalist market – or the anti-working class ‘deep greens’ – will decide whether the ecological crisis is solved through an actual socialist solution – or barbarism.  That is the choice we face.

While some of the debates are a bit obscure, this book is a valuable in-depth look at past scientific thinkers and discoveries and Marxist political and economic contributions to that science, showing their intimate and enduring relationship.

Prior reviews of “Marx’s Ecology” and “The Ecological Revolution,’ below.  Use blog search box, upper left.

Red Frog
June 4, 2017
Toronto, Canada