THE ENEMY OF NATURE, to be published early 2002, by Zed Books, London, US distribution Palgrave (St. Martin's Press)
THE ENEMY OF NATURE faces the harsh but increasingly inescapable conclusion that capitalism is the driving force behind the ecological crisis, and draws the radical implications. Joel Kovel indicts capitalism, with its unrelenting pressure to expand, as both inherently ecodestructive and unreformable. He argues against the reigning orthodoxy that there can be no alternative to the capitalist system, not because this orthodoxy is weak, but because submission to it is suicidal as well as unworthy of human beings. Kovel sees capital as not just an economic system but as the present manifestation of an ancient rupture between humanity and nature.
This widening of scope is given theoretical weight in the second part of the work, which develops a synthesis between Marxism, ecofeminism and the philosophy of nature. Then Kovel turns to "what is to be done." He criticizes existing ecological politics for their evasion of capital, advances a vision of ecological production as the successor to capitalist production, and develops the principles for realizing this, as an "ecosocialism," in the context of current struggles against globalized capital.
THE ENEMY OF NATURE is frankly revolutionary in its aims. It is written in the spirit of the great radical motto, "be realistic--demand the impossible!", and dares to think the unthinkable--that for us, it is either capitalist barbarism and ecocatastrophe, or the building of a society worthy of humanity and nature
___________________________________
Preface from the book
Growing numbers of people are beginning to realize that capitalism is the
uncontrollable force driving our ecologcal crisis, only to become frozen in
their tracks by the awesome implications of the insight. Considering that the
very possibility of a future revolves about this notion, I decided to take it
up in a comprehensive way, to see whether it is true, and if so, how it came
about, and most importantly, what we can do about it.
Here is something of how this project began. Summers in the Catskill Mountains
of New York State, where I live, are usually quite pleasant. But in 1988, a
fierce drought blasted the region from mid-June until well into August. As the
weeks went by and the vegetation baked and the wells went dry, I began to
ponder something I had recently read, to the effect that rising concentrations
of gases emitted by industrial activity would trap solar radiation in the
atmosphere and lead to ever-growing climatic destabilization. Though the idea
had seemed remote at first, the ruin of my garden brought it alarmingly close
to home. Was the drought a fluke of the weather, or, as I was coming to think,
was it a tolling bell, calling us to task for a civilization gone wrong? The
seared vegetation now appeared a harbinger of something quite dreadful, and a
call to act. And so I set out on the path that led to this book. Thirteen years
later, after much writing, teaching and organizing, after working with the
Greens and running for the US Senate in 1998 and seeking their Presidential
nomination in 2000, and after several drafts and false starts, The Enemy of
Nature is ready to be placed before the public.
It would have been understandable to shrug off the drought as just another
piece of odd weather (and indeed nothing that severe has recurred since). But I
had for some time become disposed to take a worst-case attitude with respect to
anything having to do with the powers-that-be; and since industrial activity
was close to the heart of the system, so were its effects on climate drawn into
the zone of my suspicion. US imperialism had got me going in this, initially in
the context of Vietnam and later in Central America, where an agonizing
struggle to defend the Nicaraguan revolution against Uncle Sam was coming to a
bad end as the drought struck. The defeat had been bitter and undoubtedly
contributed to my irritability, but it provided important lessons as well,
chiefly as to the implacability displayed by the system once one looked below
its claims of democracy and respect for human rights.
Here, far from the pieties, one encounters the effects of capital's ruthless pressure
to expand. Imperialism was such a pattern, manifest politically and across
nations. But this selfsame ever-expanding capital was also the superintendant
and regulator of the industrial system whose exhalations were trapping solar
energy. What had proven true about capital in relation to empire could be
applied, therefore, to the realm of nature as well, bringing the human victims
and the destabilizations of ecology under the same sign. Climate change was, in
effect, another kind of imperialism. Nor was it the only noxious ecological
effect of capital's relentless growth. There was also the sowing of the
biosphere with organochlorines and other toxins subtle as well as crude, the
wasting of the soil as a result of the "green revolution," the
prodigious species losses, the disintegration of Amazonia, and much more
still--the spiralling, interpenetrating tentacles of a great crisis in the
relationship between humanity and nature.
From this standpoint there appears a greater "ecological crisis," of
which the particular insults to ecosystems are elements. This has further
implications. For human beings are part of nature, however ill-at-ease we may
be with the role. There is therefore a human ecology as well as an ecology of
forests and lakes. It follows that the larger ecological crisis would be
generated by, and extend deeply into, an ecologically pathological society.
Regarding the matter from this angle provided a more generous view. No longer
trapped in a narrow economic determinism, one could see capital as much more
than a simple material arrangement, but as something cancerous lodged in the
human spirit, produced by, and producer of, the capitalist economy. It takes
shape as a queer beast altogether, more a whole way of being than anything
else. And if it is a whole way of being that needs changing, then the essential
question of "what is to be done?î takes on new dimensions, and ecological
politics is about much more than managing the external environment. It has to
be thought of, rather, in frankly revolutionary terms. But since the revolution
is against the capital that is nature's enemy, the struggle for an ecologically
just and rational society is the logical successor to the socialist movements
that agitated the last century and a half before sputtering to an ignominious
end. Could we be facing a "next-epoch" socialism--and could the fatal
flaws of the first-epoch version be overcome if socialism became ecological?
There is a big problem with these ideas, namely, that very few people take them
seriously. I have been acutely aware from the beginning of this project that
the above conclusions place me at a great distance from so-called mainstream
opinion. How could it be otherwise in a time of capitalist triumph, when by
definition reasonable folk are led to think that just a bit of tinkering with
"market mechanisms" will see us through our ecological difficulties?
And as for socialism, why should anyone with an up-to-date mind bother thinking
about such a quaint issue, much less trying to overcome its false starts?
These difficulties extend over to the fragmented and divided left side of
opinion, whether this be the "red" left that inherits the old
socialist passion for the working class, or the "green" left that
stands for an emerging awareness of the ecological crisis. Socialism, though
quite ready to entertain the idea that capital is natureís enemy, is less sure
about being natureís friend. Most socialists, though they stand for a cleaner
environment, decline to take the ecological dimension seriously. They tend to
support an strategy where the worker's state will clean up pollution, but are
unwilling to follow the radical changes that an ecological point of view
implies as to the character of human needs, the fate of industry, and the
question of natureís intrinsic value. Meanwhile, Greens, however dedicated they
may be to rethinking the latter questions, resist placing capital at the center
of the problem. Green politics tend to be populist or anarchist rather than
socialist, hence Greens are quite content to envision an ecologically sane
future in which a suitably regulated capitalism, brought down to size and mixed
with other forms, continues to regulate social production. Such was essentially
the stance of Ralph Nader, who I challenged in the 2000 presidential primary,
with neither intention nor hope of winning, but only to keep the message alive
that the root of the problem lies in capital itself.
We live at a time when those who think in terms of alternatives to the dominant
order court exclusion from polite intellectual society. During my youth, and
for generations before, a consensus existed that capitalism was embattled and
that its survival was an open question. For the last twenty years or so,
however, with the rise of neoliberalism and the collapse of the Soviets, the
system has acquired an aura of inevitability and even immortality. It has been
quite remarkable to see how readily the intellectual classes have gone along,
sheeplike, with these absurd conclusions, disregarding the well-established
lessons that nothing lasts forever, that all empires fall, and that a
twenty-year ascendancy is scarcely a blink in the flux of time. But the same
mentality that went into the recently deceased dot-com mania applies to those
who see capitalism as a gift from the gods, destined for immortality. One would
think that a moment of doubt would be introduced into the official scenario by
the screamingly obvious fact that a society predicated on endless expansion
must inevitably collapse its natural base. However, thanks to a superbly
effective propaganda apparatus and the intellectual defects wrought by power,
such has not so far been the case.
Change, if it comes, will have to come from outside the ruling consensus. And
there is hopeful evidence that just such an awakening may be taking place.
Cracks have been appearing in the globalized edifice, through which a new era
of protest is emerging. When the World Trade Organization is forced to hold its
meeting in Qatar in order to avoid distruption, or fence itself in inside the
walled city of Quebec, or when the President-select, George W. Bush, is forced
by protestors at his inauguration to slink fugitive-like along Pennsylvania
Avenue in a sealed limousine, then it may fairly be said that a new spirit is
in the air, and that the generation now maturing, thrown through no fault of
their own into a world defined by the ecological crisis, are also beginning to
rise up and take history into their own hands. The Enemy of Nature is written
for them, and for all those who recognize the need to break with the given in
order to win a future.
An attitude of rejection conditioned me to see the 1988 drought as a harbinger
of an ecologically ruined society. But that was not the only attitude I brought
to the task. I was also working at the time on my History and Spirit, having
been stirred by the faith of the Sandinistas, and especially their radical
priests, to realize that a refusal is worthless unless coupled with
affirmation, and that it takes a notion of the whole of things to gather
courage to reach beyond the given. There is a wonderful saying from 1968, which
should guide us in the troubled time ahead: to be realistic, one demands the
impossible. So let us rise up and do so.
http://www.joelkovel.org/offthepress.html#enemyofnature