首页> 外文期刊>Theory and Society >Metabolism, energy, and entropy in Marx's critique of political economy: Beyond the Podolinsky myth
【24h】

Metabolism, energy, and entropy in Marx's critique of political economy: Beyond the Podolinsky myth

机译:马克思对政治经济学的批判中的新陈代谢,能量和熵:超越波多林斯基神话

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Until recently, most commentators, including ecological Marxists, have assumed that Marx's historical materialism was only marginally ecologically sensitive at best, or even that it was explicitly anti-ecological. However, research over the last decade has demonstrated not only that Marx deemed ecological materialism essential to the critique of political economy and to investigations into socialism, but also that his treatment of the coevolution of nature and society was in many ways the most sophisticated to be put forth by any social theorist prior to the late twentieth century. Still, criticisms continue to be leveled at Marx and Engels for their understanding of thermodynamics and the extent to which their work is said to conflict with the core tenets of ecological economics. In this respect, the rejection by Marx and Engels of the pioneering contributions of the Ukrainian socialist Sergei Podolinsky, one of the founders of energetics, has been frequently offered as the chief ecological case against them. Building on an earlier analysis of Marx's and Engels's response to Podolinsky, this article shows that they relied on an open-system, metabolic-energetic model that adhered to all of the main strictures of ecological economics – but one that also (unlike ecological economics) rooted the violation of solar and other environmental-sustainability conditions in the class relations of capitalist society. The result is to generate a deeper understanding of classical historical materialism's ecological approach to economy and society – providing an ecological-materialist critique that can help uncover the systemic roots of today's “treadmill of production” and global environmental crisis. Paul Burkett is Professor of Economics at Indiana State University, Terre Haute. He is the author of Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective (1999), and the co-author, with Martin Hart-Landsberg, of China and Socialism: Market Reforms and Class Struggle (2005).
机译:直到最近,包括生态马克思主义者在内的大多数评论家都认为,马克思的历史唯物主义充其量只是对生态的敏感,或者甚至是明显的反生态的。但是,过去十年的研究表明,马克思不仅认为生态唯物主义对于政治经济学的批判和对社会主义的调查必不可少,而且在许多方面他对自然与社会共同进化的态度也是最复杂的。二十世纪末期任何社会理论家提出的观点。尽管如此,由于马克思和恩格斯对热力学的理解以及他们的工作与生态经济学的核心宗旨相抵触的程度,批评仍在不断受到批评。在这方面,作为马克思主义和恩格斯主义的主要生态案例,马克思和恩格斯拒绝了乌克兰社会主义主义者谢尔盖·波多林斯基(Sergei Podolinsky)的开创性贡献。在对马克思和恩格斯对Podolinsky的回应的较早分析的基础上,本文表明,他们依赖于一种开放系统的,代谢活跃的模型,该模型遵循了生态经济学的所有主要限制条件,但也具有(不同于生态经济学)的条件将违反太阳能和其他环境可持续性条件的行为植根于资本主义社会的阶级关系中。结果是对古典历史唯物主义的经济和社会生态学方法有了更深入的了解-提供了一种生态唯物主义的批评,可以帮助发现当今“生产跑步机”和全球环境危机的系统根源。保罗·伯凯特(Paul Burkett)是印第安那州立大学特雷霍特分校经济学教授。他是《马克思与自然:红色与绿色的视角》(1999年)的作者,并与《中国与社会主义:市场改革与阶级斗争》(2005年)的马丁·哈特-兰德斯堡合着。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号