Hello list members:
The post below was put on the newgreencanada list. I think it may be of
interest to others who are concerned about Green politics and the role of
the Left. This is a time of some passion in Canada because of the federal
election on Monday, June 28, and the emergence, for the first time, of a
federal Green Party as a player in the election.
David Orton


Hello fellow Greens,
There is a lively discussion going on here in the Maritimes, between
supporters of the NDP and Green Party supporters. As I have said before on
this list, I think it important that Greens understand what differentiates
a biocentrist leftism, or left biocentrism, from a convential Left
perpective. Previous posts on mine have tried to address this. Below is an
exchange, although in 1991, which shows, I believe, how deep Green thinking
can transform a leftist perspective and place it within the fundamental
Green camp of supporters, and the conflict this means with traditional
Leftism, here Marxism. This discussion comes out of actual environmental
experience from the Maritimes. This should not mean of course a mindless
hostility to the Left, which unfortunately is found too often among some
prominent people in the Green Party.

When the exchange below took place, I was on the editorial board of the CNS
(Capitalism, Nature, Socialism) journal. Jim O' Connor, a very well known
Marxist theoretical writer, was then the main editor. He is a man of
intelligence and conviction, and I learned a great deal from him. I
eventually resigned, as I came to feel that, at that time, there was little
real room at this journal inn for deep ecology, except in a token sense.

I also, while remaining a socialist and still considering myself part of
the Canadian Left, do not now use the term "socialist biocentrism" as this
minimizes, I believe, the past ecological crimes committed against the
Earth in the name of socialism. It also smothers over, in my view, that a
new ecological and economic formation has to emerge, which will draw from
past socialisms, however defined, and will not be capitalist, but again can
draw from what what is positive in the capitalist economic experience. So I
would not now use a term like "eco-socialist" to describe my beliefs. This
of course does not mean a mindless eco-capitalism, the unfortunate
direction that some in the Green Party seem to want to steer. As you may
know, I have been using the term "left biocentrism", as more inclusive,
meaning anti-industrial and anti-capitalist. Left biocentrism has now
emerged as a distinct theoretical tendency in environmental ethics
discussions and in the actual movement, with a number of supporters and
contributers who are endeavouring to unfold and examine what it means for
deep ecology and for Greens, both inside and outside of Green Parties.

Best, David

        **********************************

Green Web Bulletin #29

        (An exchange between James O'Connor and David Orton in
        Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, Vol. 2, No. 3, Issue 8, October 1991)


        DISCUSSION: Socialist Biocentrism


David Orton's "Opposing Forest Spraying" (CNS Six, February, 1991) is an
informative and insightful account of the ruthless capitalization of nature
in Nova Scotia; the political and other barriers that face local green
struggles to end chemical-based forest industry; and some ways that these
barriers might be overcome.

My problem with the article is that I don't understand what Orton's
biocentrist perspective has to do with his ecological/political practise. I
am not a biocentrist, but I support these struggles and might well join in
directly if I lived in Nova Scotia. I do not support "opposing forest
spraying" because I think that nature is inherently valuable, hence put
saving nature first, and social, economic, and political issues second. It
seems to me that the word "value" is a human word, with human meanings, in
this case transposed to non-human nature. Hence to say that nature is
inherently valuable means that it is inherently valuable to humans. I
support these struggles because non-chemical forests do not make people and
wildlife sick; because such forests might have recreational value; because
I want to leave the world in a little better shape than I've found it, for
future generations; and because I like the idea that non-chemical forests
exist. Why does David have to be a biocentrist to support his program and
demands? Put another way, while I think I understand why a biocentrist
could (must?) take Orton's position, I don't understand why the same
position couldn't be taken by someone who isn't a biocentrist. On the other
hand, even from a biocentrist perspective (which I assume would mean
leaving the forests alone, excluding subsistence or local barter and trade
uses), it might make sense to use chemicals in certain situations to save
the forest from some threatening tree disease. Or would it?

More generally, I m confused about the meaning of "socialist biocentrism."
Does it mean "anti-capitalism?" Or a particular theory of capitalism which
is called "socialist?" Or a belief in certain traditional socialist values,
such as equality? If it's the former, the problem arises, how to
distinguish "socialism" from other forms of anti-capitalism. If it means a
"socialist" theory of capitalism and its destruction of nature and people,
then it must mean "Marxist," since Marxism is the only socialist theory I
know which presents itself as a theory of capitalism. If it's the belief in
socialist values, since traditional values, e.g., equality, historically
have been given high priority by socialists, then how can we square a
"nature first" position with "socialism?" Put another way, how can you have
a biocentric relation with the rest of nature without a political practise
against the economic and political structures which result in the
degradation of nature (as Orton has) without attacking less "fundamental"
social and economic and political issues, e.g., inequality, exploitation,
alienation, state oppression or the state itself, etc. If this is so, why
are these issues seen as less "fundamental" than the preservation of
nature? Put another way, are inequality and poverty acceptable if nature is
not harmed by humans?

I m also confused about what David calls "alternative" forests and forest
issues. It's unclear to me whether he is against the capitalization of all
nature, or merely that of pulpwood forests (specifically, the shift from
diversified forests to pulpwood forests). Would he support limited pulpwood
uses? If not, then I suppose that we would need to use recycled paper,
period. More needs to be said on the subject of biocentric "alternatives."
Under a biocentric regime, who would get to use the forest? For what end?
Using what forestry methods? Orton rejects the view that "the non-human
world is there as material for the human purpose," but the extreme version
of this view, namely, that no human purpose should be served by the
non-human world, is obviously absurd. I'm sure Orton wouldn't take this
position. This means that there needs to be criteria for using the
non-human world. Breathing is clearly ok. But what about paving over? Using
forest products for local subsistence needs? Using products for local
barter and trade? Using products for regional and long-distance trade? -
James O Connor



Reply

Jim O Connor sent me some critical comments on, socialist biocentrism and
asked me to respond. To be honest, my heart sank at this task, as so many
questions were raised by Jim, and I knew that there were no "right" answers
that would satisfy. Yet I do know that there are many unanswered questions
concerning socialist biocentrism, and the time is overdue for some of them
to be discussed. My reply tries to address four of the key questions
raised: 1) The relationship of theory to practice in biocentrism; 2) Why
nature is ultimately more important than society; 3) What does socialist
biocentrism mean, from a socialist perspective; and 4) Can a pulpwood
forestry be supported?

First, some general remarks are necessary. A commentary "Socialist
Biocentrism: What Is It," , in the CNS Newsletter Eight (September/October,
1989), mentioned that this conceptual perspective was introduced by Helga
Hoffmann and myself in a paper "Green Marginality In Canada" given at the
Learned Societies Conference, Laval University, in June, 1989. The paper
summed-up our experience over a number of years, as two people from a
left-wing background, organizing as greens and environmentalists, and
trying to combine a biocentric and socialist perspective - without any
guidelines to work from.

It is important to understand that there are a number of people who
consciously have a biocentric position and consider themselves socialists
or on the left in some way.1 My experience is that the people I have
contact with, or know about, holding such views, do not consider themselves
supporters of social ecology or of one of the strong trends in CNS,
ecological Marxism. So we are talking about a left tendency, which has a
real, even if not yet strongly defined, theoretical existence, in the green
and environmental movements. There is, of course, a considerable literature
on deep ecology itself, although much of it I find rather esoteric and
removed from practical work. It can be found in a number of academic
journals, e.g., Environmental Ethics and The Trumpeter: Journal of
Ecosophy. While there are some thoughtful and perceptive articles in
Environmental Ethics, I prefer the more practically-focused movement
publications, where basic concepts such as biocentrism,2 conservation
biology, ecotage, and reports of actual struggles around ecological issues
are worked with. Examples are the Earth First! Journal, Wild Earth and (in
the cross-border publication in the Northeast) The Glacial Erratic. I
believe, based on my own experience of organizing and networking with other
activists, that biocentrism is becoming a major theoretical orientation in
the green and environmental movements, in Canada and the United States.
That socialists can be biocentrists, and can contribute to ecological
struggles, is also beginning to be accepted, I believe.

Concluding these general comments, the CNS Newsletter article noted,
"Socialist greens, will have to define collectively the dimensions of
socialist biocentrism." It is important therefore to stress that these
comments give my own views, and should not be construed as any kind of
"doctrine," but as a contribution to a needed discussion.

What is the relationship of theory to practice? This seems to exist on
several different levels:

1. An organizer has to be involved, concretely, in ecological struggles.
Doing work, which moves the struggles forward and which others can learn
from, practically and theoretically. This is crucial. Edward Abbey, in his
novel The Monkey Wrench Gang, which has inspired many in Earth First!, has
Doc Sarvis, the "theoretician" of the group saying, "We'll work it all out
as we go along. Let our practice form our doctrine, thus assuring precise
theoretical coherence."

2. At the local (provincial) level, one relates to others on the basis of
their practical involvement, in issues of mutual concern, irrespective of
the level of theoretical awareness or agreement. So, for example, if a
person is active in opposing forest spraying, clearcutting, destruction of
wildlife habitat, etc., it is irrelevant that this person might have a
grade three education, and not interested in biocentric discussions. The
organizer networks and works with those who are active on a basis of mutual
respect.

3. A biocentrist intervenes in ecological struggles, based on what is
believed to be the appropriate ecology, irrespective of whether such
positions have political or social support. For example, one organizes to
put forward the position that pesticides should not be used in forestry,
despite (say) insect damage: this because pesticides violate natural
succession and healing processes, and toxicity questions, although
important, are secondary. If an anthropocentric view is upheld, then the
main problem becomes not the use of pesticides, but whether or not they are
safe. A biocentrist does not look at the natural world as a "resource" for
human use, treating as "pests" life forms which interfere with such use.
Seals and coyotes should not be killed because these animals are seen as
"competing" with humans. Their interests are defended, irrespective of how
unpopular this is.

4. One consciously interacts with a network of individuals who share a
biocentric position, and who are concerned with theoretical questions, on a
provincial, national and international basis. Some of these individuals
also share a socialist perspective. The letter exchange helps theoretical
clarification.


Why is nature ultimately more important than society? Perhaps there are a
number of reasons why biocentrists come to adopt such a position, and I am
sure the personal factor is important. For me, this position is a way of
undermining human arrogance, and showing that our human concerns are not
too important in the evolutionary scheme of things. We have to see how on a
massive scale we can extend personal self-identity to include the
well-being of the Earth (the Council of All Beings3 is a mechanism used to
try and reconnect people to the Earth). The paradox is that the destiny of
what will happen to the Earth rests in human hands, yet Nature does not
need humans to survive. It is necessary to have humans speak up for
non-human life forms because they have no voice in a world in which
discourse is human-centered. That humans are prepared to suffer state
repression to uphold such a position is important for the integrity of this
perspective, and it is here that the Earth First! movement has made such a
contribution. Putting Nature first extends ethical values beyond
human-centered concerns. This is a necessary step for a different caring
relationship to the Earth, which also, paradoxically, could mean that the
human species flourishes.


What does socialist biocentrism mean from a socialist perspective? It is
anti-capitalist because capitalism, as an economic system, is rooted in
growth and the promotion of consumerism without end. For capitalism, all of
Nature becomes a resource. So capitalism, by its nature, is
anti-ecological. "Actually existing socialism" or communism has embraced
growth, unsuccessfully sought a western style consumerism, and treated
Nature as a resource. There has been no different model for relating to
Nature or for more harmonious social relations within society. Both
capitalism and socialism/consumerism have had a human-centered world view.
Yet unlike capitalism, socialism does not by intrinsic nature have to be
rooted in growth; be anthropocentric; treat Nature as a resource solely for
human use; and be hostile to basic democratic rights that express
dissenting and critical opinions. But the still to be defined green
socialism will be completely different from anything which so far has come
on the historical stage, and it obviously conflicts with many traditionally
held socialist beliefs. Socialist biocentrists share, and work for, the
traditional socialist concerns for social justice, and an end to class
privilege. But ecology and a harmonious relationship to the Earth is at the
center of their vision of a new green socialism.


Can a pulpwood forestry be supported? The answer is, not in its existing
manifestation in Canada. The country, according to Environment Canada, has
155 pulp and paper mills manufacturing, pulp, paper, paperboard, hardboard,
and insulating board, cutting annually an area about 1.5 times the size of
Prince Edward Island for pulp. This is an export-oriented industry. Canada
is the largest producer and exporter of newsprint (about 31 percent of
global supply), and also produces about 16 percent of the world's wood
pulp. A chlorine bleaching process is used by 47 of the mills - meaning
large amounts of organochlorines (chlorine which is bound to organic
material, including dioxins and furans) are discharged in the mill
effluent. About 50 percent of all the waste that is dumped into Canadian
waters comes from the main industrial polluter, the pulp and paper
industry.4 There are also, depending on the pulping process, emissions of
gases like sulphur dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl
sulphide and dimethyl disulphide. Then there is the disposal of sludge,
where the toxins are particularly concentrated - all this, plus a pulpwood
forestry policy which clearcuts large areas, sprays pesticides, and
promotes a narrow range of pulp species. Enormous quantities of water,
chemicals and energy are consumed by the pulp and paper industry. The
chemical and energy production for the mills contribute to the changes in
atmospheric chemistry, now well underway in the world.

The Canadian Pulp and Paper Association in June of 1989 issued an
"Environmental Statement" which said. "It supports the responsible
stewardship of resources, including forests, fish and aquatic habitat,
wildlife, air, land and water. Responsible stewardship makes possible
sustained economic development." A polluting industry which considers all
of Nature as subject to commercial exploitation, geared to continuous
economic growth aimed at a world market, is not deserving of green support.
What a socially necessary paper supply would be; the size of an
appropriately scaled pulp and paper industry with zero toxic admissions; a
sustainable ecological forestry policy to feed the mills; etc., are all
clearly necessary topics of concern for socialist greens and green
socialists. - David Orton

________________________

1 Andrew McLaughlin. "Ecology. Capitalism, and Socialism," Socialism and
Democracy, Spring/Summer, 1990. McLaughlin shows that all roads should lead
to bioregional socialism.

2 The term "ecocentrism" is now used instead of biocentrism by a number of
supporters of deep ecology, e.g., Warwick Fox, Robyn Eckersley. George
Sessions, and Bill Devall. But biocentrism is the term generally used in
the movement. Robyn Eckersley speaks of "ecocentric socialism."

3 For a description, see: John Seed, Joanna Macey, Pat Fleming and Arne
Naess, Thinking Like a Mountain: Towards a Council Of All Beings
(Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1988).

4 William F. Sinclair, Controlling Pollution from Canadian Pulp and Paper
Manufactures: A Federal Perspective (Environment Canada, March 1990). p.
34. Much of the data in this paragraph can be found in this book, which is
very revealing, although an apology for the industry.


   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
               Visit the Green Web Home Page at:
              http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/

        Our e-mail address is <[log in to unmask]>

   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~