Welcome to Seattle, WTO: Judi Bari debates Karl Marx
by M A Jones
28 November 1999 14:10 UTC
"EARTH FIRST'S" JUDI BARI AND KARL MARX: A DIALOGUE ON REVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGY
Moderated by Walt Sheasby
[Judi Bari was also a labor and social justice activist, mother and fiddle
Welcome to our dialogue. Today our guests are the very
respected Judi Bari, who lived from Nov. 7, 1949 to March
2, 1997, and Karl Marx, whose lifetime began May 5, 1818
and ended on March 13, 1883. Ms. Bari was an ecological
activist in the Earth First! organization and because of that
her life was almost ended by a bomb attack. She survived
that, but later died at age 48 of breast cancer.
Dr. Marx is easily recognized as one of the most important
figures in the history of economics and socialism, although
many of his ideas remain unknown, particularly in the area
of political ecology, as distinguished from political economy.
Our topic for this dialogue today is, in fact, Revolutionary
Ecology, and we will allow our guests to explain in their own
words how they understand this approach, and where they
might agree or disagree. My own role will be only to pose
some questions and give each the opportunity to respond.
To begin, Judi Bari, can you tell us about the terms you
use in describing your philosophy? There seem to be a num-
ber of concepts that are often counterposed, like Deep Ecol-
ogy versus Eco-socialism, or Naturalism/Humanism versus
Biocentrism. Can you clarify your own orientation?
Deep ecology, or biocentrism, is the belief that nature
does not exist to serve humans. Rather, humans are part of
nature, one species among many. All species have a right
to exist for their own sake, regardless of their usefulness to
humans. And biodiversity is a value in itself, essential for the
flourishing of both human and non-human life. (1)
Dr. Marx, you've also stressed that humans are part of
nature and that this totality is constantly being transformed
by interaction that you call 'Metabolism.' What do you mean
The labour process...is the necessary condition for effective
exchange of matter between man and Nature; it is the ever-
lasting Nature-imposed condition of human existence. (2)
The great majority of things regarded as products of nature,
e.g. plants and animals, are the result in the form in which
they are now utilized by human beings and produced anew,
of a previous transformation effected by means of human
labour over many generations under human control, during
which their form and substance have changed. (3)
Well, I take it that would even apply to hunting and
gathering societies, with their tool-making, reworking of
stone knives, or weaving of straw baskets, all the way to
The development of human labour capacity is displayed
in particular in the development of the 'means of labour' or
'instruments of production.' It displays, namely, the degree
to which man has heightened the impact of his direct labour
on the natural world through the interposition for his work-
ing purposes of a nature already ordered, regulated and
subjected to his will as a conductor. (4)
Therefore, when alienated labour tears from man the object
of his production,, it also tears from him his species-life, the
real objectivity of his species and turns the advantage he has
over animals into a disadvantage in that his inorganic body,
nature, is torn from him....It alienates man from his own body,
nature exterior to him, and his intellectual being, his human
I take it that this concept of nature as our inorganic body
and the idea of an alienation of labor and nature are starting
points for your very elaborate critique of political economy,
which extends to ten or more volumes covering thousands
of pages. Such a life's work is quite an accomplishment.
''Grau, teurer Freund, ist alle Theorie,
Und gruen des Lebens goldner Baum.'' (6)
I recognize that verse from Goethe's Faust, one of your
favorite lines, as it was Hegel's also: ''My friend, all theory
is gray, and only the golden tree of life is green. '' (7)
But let me ask Judi Bari how she describes the theoretical
character of biocentric ecology. Despite Goethe, can theory
be called green?
These principles, I believe, are not just another political
theory. Biocentrism is a law of nature that exists independ-
ently of whether humans recognize it or not. It doesn't matter
whether we view the world in a human-centered way. Nature
still operates in a biocentric way. And the failure of modern
society to acknowledge this -- as we attempt to subordinate all
of nature to human use -- has led us to the brink of collapse
of the earth's life support systems.
No natural laws can be done away with. What can change
in historically different circumstances is only the form in
which these laws assert themselves. (8)
Judi, the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess is credited
with making a distinction twenty-five years ago between what
he called the Shallow and the Deep views of Ecology. It's
been called one of the first major papers on environmental
ethics. What is your view? (9)
Biocentrism is not a new theory, and it wasn't invented by
Arne Naess. It is ancient wisdom, expressed in such sayings
as 'the earth does not belong to us: we belong to the earth.'
But in the context of today's industrial society, biocentrism
is profoundly revolutionary, challenging the system to its core.
In 1854 when Si'al, who is known as Sealth, Chief Seattle,
suggested that reverence, he was, he said, expressing a tra-
ditional belief, one that has often been paraphrased since it
was made known in 1887:
''Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth.
If men spit upon the ground, they spit on themselves.
This we know -- the earth does not belong to man, man
belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the
blood which unites one family....Man did not weave the
web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does
to the web, he does to himself.'' (10)
As we learn more about that communal, ecological wisdom,
the implications seem profoundly revolutionary.
Judi, in your view, how do you feel biocentrism contradicts
The capitalist system is in direct conflict with the natural
laws of biocentrism. Capitalism, first of all, is based on the
principle of private property -- of certain humans 'owning'
the earth for the purpose of exploiting it for profit. At an ear-
lier stage, capitalists even believed they could own other hu-
mans. But just as slavery has been discredited in the mores of
today's dominant worldview, so do the principles of biocen-
trism discredit the concept that humans can own the earth.
This moral principle, often called a ''Land Ethic,'' has been
an axiom of the ecological vision for half a century, ever since
Aldo Leopold's Sand County Almanac in 1949. (11)
What is your view, Dr. Marx? Do you agree with that basic
From the standpoint of a higher socio-economic formation,
the private property of particular individuals in the earth will
appear just as absurd as the property of one man in other men.
Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing
societies taken together, are not the owner of the earth. They
are simply its possessor, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath
it in an improved state to succeeding generations, as 'good
heads of the household.' (12)
One of the ramifications of treating the bounty of Nature
as merely so many commodities is that there is no real social
control, whether it is a state bureaucracy or a giant corpora-
tion that has concentrated control. For instance, a huge
holding company based on Wall Street, Maxxam Corp., can
enforce its right to log off the last remaining giant trees that
have not been preserved.
How can corporate raider Charles Hurwitz claim to 'own'
the 2000-year old redwoods of Headwaters Forest, just because
he shuffled a few papers and traded them for a junk bond debt?
This concept is absurd. Hurwitz is a mere blip in the lives of
these ancient trees. Although he may have the power to destroy
them, he does not have the right.
This power of the Egyptian and Asiatic kings and priests
or the Etruscan theocrats in the ancient world has in bourgeois
society passed to capital and therewith to the capitalists. (13)
''Apres moi le deluge!'' is the watchword of every capi-
talist and of every capitalist nation. (14)
I understand that two of the tall Sequoia Gigantea trees
were named after Karl Marx and Frederick Engels by the
Kaweah utopian colony in 1885, although later they were
officially renamed for Generals Sherman and Grant. (15)
And John Muir had been so inspired by the Sequoias in
Autumn 1875 he said, ''Talk of immortality!'' and wondered,
''what man will do with the mountains...Will he cut down
all the trees to make ships and houses?'' (16) Environmental-
ists, of course, were able to preserve some of the big trees
through nationalization and a park system.
But let me ask Judi Bari, what is the legal basis being used
now for challenging the timber companies who are logging
the remaining privately-owned ancient forests?
One of the best weapons of U.S. environmentalists in our
battle to save places like Headwaters Forest is the (now itself
endangered) Endangered Species Act. This law, and other laws
that recognize public trust values such as clean air, clean water,
and protection of threatened species, are essentially an admis-
sion that the laws of private property do not correspond to the
laws of nature. You cannot do whatever you want on your
own property without affecting surrounding areas, because
the earth is interconnected, and nature does not recognize
human boundaries. Seal off the borders? What borders?
Well, Dr. Marx, do you see nationalization of natural
resources as the answer?
Where the state is itself a capitalist producer, as in the ex-
ploitation of mines, forests, etc., its product is a 'commodity'
and hence possesses the specific character of every other com-
The development of civilization and industry in general
has always shown itself so active in the destruction of forests
that everything that has been done for their conservation and
production is completely insignificant in comparison. (18)
Even beyond private property, though, capitalism conflicts
with biocentrism around the very concept of profit. Profit con-
sists of taking out more than you put in. This is certainly con-
trary to the fertility cycles of nature, which depend on a balance
of give and take. But more important is the question of where
this profit is actually taken from.
In fact the rule of the capitalist over the worker is nothing
but the rule of the independent 'conditions of labour' over the
worker, conditions that have made themselves independent of
According to Marxist theory, profit is stolen from the wor-
kers when the capitalists pay them less than the value of what
they produce. The portion of the value of the product that the
capitalist keeps, rather than pay to the workers, is called sur-
plus value. The amount of surplus value that the capitalist can
keep varies with the organization of the workers, and with the
level of their privilege within the world laborpool. But the
working class can never be paid the full value of their labor
under capitalism, because the capitalist class exists by extract-
ing surplus value from the products of their labor.
In fact, these bourgeois economists instinctively and rightly
saw that it was very dangerous to penetrate too deeply into the
burning question of the origin of surplus value. (20)
Although I basically agree with this analysis, I think there
is one big thing missing. I believe that part of the value of a
product comes not just from the labor put into it, but also from
the natural resources used to make the product. And I believe
that surplus value (i.e., profit) is not just stolen from the
workers, but also from the earth itself.
Labour is NOT THE SOURCE of all wealth. Nature is just
as much the source of use-values (and it is surely of such that
material wealth consists!) as labour, which itself is only the
manifestation of a force of nature, human labour power. (21)
When man engages in production, he can only proceed as
nature does herself, i.e. he can only change the form of the
materials. Furthermore, even in this work of modification he
is constantly helped by natural forces. Labour is therefore not
the only source of material wealth, i.e. of the use values it pro-
duces. As William Petty says, labour is the father of material
wealth, the earth is its mother. (22)
A value has been extracted. If human production and con-
sumption is done within the natural limits of the earth's fer-
tility, then the supply is indeed endless. But that cannot hap-
pen under capitalism, because the capitalist class exists by
extracting profit not only from the workers, but also from the
Moreover, all progress of capitalist agriculture is a pro-
gress in the art, not only of robbing the worker, but of rob-
bing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the
soil for a given time is a progress toward ruining the more
long-lasting sources of that fertility. (23)
The first effects of cultivation are useful, but in the end it
lays the land waste owing to deforestation, etc.
The conclusion is that cultivation when it progresses spon-
taneously and is not 'consciously controlled' ...leaves deserts
behind it - Persia, Mesopotamia, Greece. (22)
One could cite many other examples of climate change
resulting from the destruction of rainforests even in
Judi, in regard to environmental degradation, what
do you view as the most important source today?
Modern day corporations are the very worst manifestation
of this sickness. A small business may survive on profits, but
at least its basic purpose is to provide sustenance for the own-
ers, who are human beings with a sense of place in their com-
munities. But a corporation has no purpose for its existence
nor any moral guide to its behavior, other than to make profits.
And to-day's global corporations are beyond the control of any
nation or government. In fact, the government is in the service
of the corporation, its armies poised to defend their profits
around the world, and its secret police ready to infiltrate and
disrupt any serious resistance at home.
Thus, ''tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes
Voltaire's 'Candide,' a motto for the new global age: ''Every-
thing for the best in the best of all possible worlds.'' (26)
Judi, let me ask your view of free enterprise defenders who
sell a lot of books using the word ecology, like Paul Hawken,
who has written a best-seller on 'The Ecology of Commerce.'
And of course, you must run into many people who think all
the answers are in books like Albert Gore's 'Earth in the Bal-
ance.' You have said that you stand for a 'revolutionary eco-
logy,' not a piecemeal change within the system. Why?
In other words, this system cannot be reformed. It is based
on the destruction of the earth and the exploitation of the
people. There is no such thing as green capitalism, and mar-
keting cutesy rainforest products will not bring back the eco-
systems that capitalism must destroy to make its profits. This
is why I believe that ecologists must be revolutionaries.
Just as plants live from the earth, and animals live from the
plants or plant-eating animals, so does the part of society which
possesses free time, DISPOSABLE time not absorbed in the
direct production of subsistence, live from the surplus labour
of the workers. Wealth is therefore DISPOSABLE time. (27)
The political economists like to conceive this relation as a
''natural relation'' or a ''divine institution.'' (28)
The essence of bourgeois society consists precisely in this,
that a priori there is no conscious social regulation of produc-
Let me pose the question that seems to many as self-
evident: Does biocentrism contradict communism? It
seems, regardless of what Dr. Marx said or wrote on the
subject, there is a lengthy period in the 20th Century when
the idea of biocentrism was directly violated by so-called
'Communism' in its drive to build an industrial-military
machine under totalitarian control. And these political
rulers did call themselves 'Marxists.'
Devil take them! (30)
As you can probably tell, my background in revolutionary
theory comes from Marxism, which I consider to be a brilliant
critique of capitalism. But as to what should be implemented
in capitalism's place, I don't think Marxism has shown us the
answer. One of the reasons for this, I believe, is that commun-
ism, socialism, and all other leftist ideologies that I know of
speak only about redistributing the spoils of the earth more
evenly among classes of humans. They do not even address
the relationship of the society to the earth. Or rather, they as-
sume that it will stay the same as it is under capitalism -- that
of a gluttonous consumer -- and that the purpose of the revo-
lution is to find a more efficient and egalitarian way to pro-
duce and distribute consumer goods.
To those of us approaching the turn of the century, it would
seem that the so-called Marxist regimes paid scant attention
to Marx's concern with nature.
This total disregard of nature as a life force, rather than
just a source of raw materials, allowed Marxist states to rush
to industrialize without even the most meager environmental
Tout ce que se sais, c'est que je ne pas Marxiste, moi!
I understand Dr. Marx. What is quite certain is that you
are not a Marxist.!
But, Judi Bari, what do you think was the consequence of
the attitude that supposed followers of Marx took to nature in
places like Russia and Eastern Europe?
This has resulted in such noted disasters as the meltdown
of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the oil spill in the Arc-
tic Ocean, and the ongoing liquidation of the fragile forests
of Siberia. It has left parts of Russia and Eastern Europe with
such a toxic legacy that even the rate of human fertility has
Let me ask both of you, since many ecological socialists
today, following the work of James O'Connor, distinguish,
in a dialectical sense, a first contradiction between capital
and labor (even under the statist systems as well as private
capital), and a second contradiction between capital and
nature in today's world. (32)
What do you each think of this distinction?
Marx stated that the primary contradiction in industrial
society is the contradiction between capital and labor. I
believe these disasters show the primary contradiction is
between industrial society and the earth.
We have considered the act of estranging practical activity,
labour, in two of its aspects.
(1) The relation of the worker to the 'product of labour' as
an alien object exercising power over him.
This relation is at the same time the relation to the
sensuous external world, to the objects of nature, as an alien
world inimically opposed to him.
(2) The relation of labour to the 'act of production' within
the labour process....Here we have 'self-estrangement' as pre-
viously we had the estrangement of the 'thing.' (33)
It would appear, Dr. Marx, that this consideration has not
been a prominent element in the socialism of the generations
that followed you, with perhaps a few exceptions.
''J'ai seme' des dragons et j'ai recolte' des puces!'' (34)
Ouch! Your verdict on your imitators echoes your poet
friend Heinrich Heine's exasperation: ''I have sown Dragon's
teeth and reaped only fleas!''
But even though socialism has so far failed to take ecology
into account, I do not think it is beyond reform, as is capital-
ism. One of the principles of socialism is 'production for use,
not for profit.' Therefore, the imbalance is not as built in under
socialism as it is under capitalism, and I could envision a form
of socialism that would not destroy the earth. But it would be
unlike Marx's industrial model. Ecological socialism, among
other things, would have to deal with the issue of centralism.
Dr. Marx, you have written extensively about the meta-
bolism of society and the earth, and the negative effects of
urban capitalism and industrial agriculture on both the hu-
man and physical environment. The antagonism of urban
and rural development seems the most corrosive element.
The foundation of every division of labour which has
attained a certain degree of development, and has been
brought about by the exchange of commodities, is the
separation of town from country.
The capitalist mode of production completes the disinte-
gration of the primitive familial union which bound agricul-
ture and manufacture together when they were both at an un-
developed and childlike stage. But at the same time it creates
the material conditions for a new and higher synthesis....
Capitalist production collects the population together in great
centres...it disturbs the metabolic interaction between man
and the earth....But by destroying the circumstances surround-
ing that metabolism...it compels its systematic restoration as
a regulative law of social production, and in a form adequate
to the full development of the human race.
It is very characteristic that the enthusiastic apologists of
the factory system have nothing more damning to urge against
a general organization of labour in society than that it would
turn the whole of society into a factory. (35)
The Marxist idea of a huge body politic relating to some
central planning authority presupposes (1) authoritarianism
of some sort, and (2) the use of mass production technologies
that are inherently destructive to the earth and corrosive to t
he human spirit.
Dr. Marx, what was it you wrote about the Communard
government in France in 1871?
Not only municipal administration, but the whole initia-
tive hitherto exercised by the state was laid into the hands
of the commune.
Instead of deciding once in three or five years which
members of the ruling class were to misrepresent the people
in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people,
constituted in Communes.... (36)
Dr. Marx, despite your opposition to the state, it does
seem that a repressive bureaucracy and top-down command
economy became quite extreme and widespread about fifty
years after your death. Is the statist machine a threat as it
was in the past? In your time, you discussed Bonapartism,
in which, well, how did you put it?
The struggle seems to be settled in such a way that
all classes, equally impotent and equally mute, fall on their
knees before the rifle butt....All revolutions perfected this
machine instead of smashing it. (37)
Is there an alternative, in your view, Judi Bari?
Ecological socialism would mean organizing human so-
cieties in a manner that is compatible with the way nature is
organized. And I believe the natural order of the world is bio-
regionalism, not statism.
It is by no means the aim of the workers, who have got
rid of the narrow mentality of humble subjects, to set the state
Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ
superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate
to it, and today, too, the forms of state are more or less free
to the extent that they restrict the ''freedom of the state.'' (38)
More and more people are beginning to see that a life
driven by commodity consumption and advertising is not
a prescription for a satisfying future or individual develop-
ment. How do each of you assess this stimulation of wants
beyond real needs?
Modern industrial society robs us of community with one
another and community with the earth. This creates a great
longing within us, which we are taught to fill with consumer
goods. But consumer goods, beyond those needed for basic
comfort and survival, are not really what we crave. So our
appetite is insatiable, and we turn to more and more efficient
and dehumanizing methods of production to make more and
more goods that do not satisfy us.
Incidentally...although every capitalist demands that his
workers should save, he means only his own workers, because
they relate to him as workers; and by no means does this ap-
ply to the remainder of workers, because these relate to him
as consumers. In spite of all the pious talk of frugality, he
therefore searches for all possible ways of stimulating them
to consume, by making his commodities more attractive,
by filling their ears with babble about new needs. (39)
If workers really had control of the factories (and I say
this as a former factory worker), they would start by smash-
ing the machines and finding a more human way to decide
what we need and how to produce it. So to the credo 'pro-
duction for use, not for profit,' ecological socialism would
add, 'production for need, not for greed.'
Judi, what does this mean for the movement?
The fact that deep ecology is a revolutionary philosophy
is one of the reasons Earth First! was targeted for disruption
and annihilation by the FBI. The fact that we did not recognize
it as revolutionary is one of the reasons we were so unprepared
for the magnitude of the attack. If we are to continue, not just
Earth First!, but the entire ecology movement must adjust to
the profound changes that are needed to bring society into
balance with nature.
Someday the worker must sieze political power...if he is
not to lose heaven on earth, like the old Christians who
neglected and despised politics. But we have not asserted
that the ways to achieve the goal are everywhere the same.
You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of
various countries must be taken into consideration.... (40)
How can the struggle be made more effective, Judi?
One way we can do this is to broaden our focus. Of course,
sacred places must be preserved, and it is entirely appropriate
for an ecology movement to center on protecting irreplaceable
wilderness areas. But to define our movement as being con-
cerned with 'wilderness only,' as Earth First did in the 1980's,
is self defeating. You cannot seriously address the destruction
of wilderness without addressing the society that is destroying
it. It's about time for the ecology movement (and I'm not just
talking about Earth First! here) stop considering itself as
separate from the social justice movement. The same power
that manifests itself as resource extraction in the countryside
manifests itself as racism, classism, and human exploitation
in the city. The ecology movement must recognize that we are
just one front in a long, proud history of resistance.
Judi, there are some green groups that either deny they
are historically rooted in the Left or consider labor struggles
as part of the ''old paradigm.'' What is your outlook?
A revolutionary ecology movement must also organize
among poor and working people. With the exception of the
toxics movement and the native land rights movement, most
U.S. environmentalists are white and privileged. This group
is too invested in the system to pose it much of a threat. A
revolutionary ideology in the hands of privileged people can
indeed bring about some destruction and change in the
But a revolutionary ideology in the hands of working
people can bring that system to a halt. For it is the working
people who have their hands on the machinery. And only
by stopping the machinery of destruction can we ever hope
to stop this madness.
Judi, you clearly view the working class as potentially a
revolutionary subject, unlike the theorists rooted in the New
Left, like Murray Bookchin, who think this is mythology, a
''gross misjudgment of the proletariat's destiny.'' (41)
How can it be that we have neighborhood movements fo-
used on the disposal of toxic wastes, for example, but we
don't have a workers' movement to stop the production of
toxics? It is only when the factory workers refuse to make the
stuff, it is only when the loggers refuse to cut the ancient trees,
that we can ever hope for real and lasting change. This system
cannot be stopped by force. It is violent and ruthless beyond
the capacity of any people's resistance movement. The only
way I can even imagine stopping it is through massive non-
Citizens, let us think of the basic principle of the Inter-
national: Solidarity. Only when we have established this
life-giving principle on a sound basis among the numerous
workers of all countries will we attain the great final goal
which we have set ourselves. (42)
So let's keep blocking those bulldozers and hugging those
trees. And let's focus our campaign on the global corporations
that are really at fault. But we have to begin placing our act-
ions in a larger context. And we must continue this discussion
to develop a workable theory of revolutionary ecology.
We do recognize our brave friend, Robin Goodfellow,
the old mole that can work in the earth so fast, that worthy
pioneer - the Revolution. (43)
Well, the good fellow I recognize as that ''shrewd and
knavish sprite'' called Puck in William Shakespeare's 'A
Midsummer Night's Dream,' and the old mole from 'Hamlet'
could well serve as symbol of the 'radicalism' you both ex-
press, since that word means 'going to the roots' of the prob-
lem. But let me remind you two about Hamlet's next verse:
''There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'' (44)
This has been a most enlightening talk between the two
of you. Do you want to leave one last word?
Stand strong and keep up the fight. Don't let the bastards
get you down! (45)
When the International was formed we expressly formula-
ted the battle cry: 'The emancipation of the working classes
must be achieved by the working classes themselves.' (46)
They have a world to win. Workers, of the world, unite! (47)
1. Judi Bari (1997) 'Revolutionary Ecology,' from Capitalism,
Nature, Socialism: A Journal of Socialist Ecology (Vol 8, No.
2, Issue Thirty, June 1997), pp. 145-149. All but the last
quotation are taken in existing order from this article.
2. Karl Marx (1977) Selected Writings, edited and translated
by David McLellan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 460.
Hereafter referred to as SW.
3. Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works, New York,
International Publishers: Vol. 30 (1988) p. 57. Hererafter cited
as CW followed by volume and page number.
Compare also SW, p. 458.
4. CW, Vol. 30 (1988) p. 56
5. SW, pp. 82-83.
6. Johann Wolgang Von Goethe (n.d.) Faust: Eine Tragoedie
von Goethe, Erster Teil, Leipzig, Druck and Verlag von Phi-
lipp Reclam jun., p. 57.
7. Johann Wolgang Von Goethe (1957) Faust: Part I, New York:
New Drections Paperbook, p. 64.
8. Marx to Kugelman, July 11, 1868, in SW, p. 524.
9. Arne Naess (1973) ''The Shallow and the Deep, Long Range
Ecology Movement,'' Inquiry (Oslo, Norway) 16: pp. 95-100,
in George Sessions, Editor, (1995) Deep Ecology for the 21st
Century, Boston and London: Shambhala, pp. 151-56.
10. Chief Seattle, paraphrased in Dr. Norman Myers (1984)
Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, Anchor Press - Double-
day & Co., Garden City, New York, p. 159,
11. Aldo Leopold (1968) A Sand County Almanac, London,
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 201-225.
''We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belong-
ing to us. When we see land as a community to which we
belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect. There
is no other way for land to survive the impact of mechanized
man, nor for us to reap from it the esthetic harvest it is
capable, under science, of contributing to culture.'' (p. viii)
12. Karl Marx (1976 ) Capital: A Critique of Political Econo-
my, Vol. 3, London, Penguin Books. Hereafter referred to as
C, followed by volume and page number. Vol. 3 p. 910.
13. CW, Vol. 30, p. 260.
14. C, Vol. 1, p. 381.
15. Robert V, Hine (1983 California's Utopian Colonies,
Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 84, 90.
16. Frederick Turner (1985) Rediscovering America: John
Muir in His Time and Ours, San Francisco: Sierra Club
Books, p. 232.
13. CW, Vol. 30, p. 260.
17. Karl Marx (1972) ''Marginal Notes on Adolph Wagner's
Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie,'' Theoretical Practice,
No. 4 (Spring 1972), p. 51.
18. C, Vol. 2, p. 322.
19. Appendix: Results of the Immediate Process of Production
in C, Vol 1, p. 989.
20. C. Vol. 1, pp. 651-52
21. Karl Marx And Friedrich Engels: Basic Writings on Poli-
tics & Philosophy (1959), Edited by Lewis S. Feuer, Garden
City, NY: Doubleday & Co. Anchor Books, p. 112.
21. SW, p. 427; C, Vol. 1, pp. 133-34.
22. C, Vol. 1, p. 638
23. Letter, Marx to Engels, March 25, 1868, CW, Vol. 42,
25. SW, p. 468.
26. Ray Redman, Editor (1977) The Portable Voltaire,
New York: Penguin Books, p. 252.
27. CW, Vol. 30, p. 192.
28. Ibid., p. 205.
29. Marx to Kugelman, July 11, 1868, in SW, p. 525.
30. Marx to Engels, in David McLellan, (1973) Karl Marx:
His Life and Thought, New York: Harper & Row, p. 443.
31. Quoted in Frederick Engels to Paul and Laura Lafargue,
Aug. 27, 1890, Correspondance, II, Paris, Editions Sociales,
1956, p. 407. Hereafter cited as Correspondance, II.
32. James O'Connor (1998) Natural Causes: Essays in Eco-
logical Marxism, New York and London: The Guilford Press,
pp. 158-77. Also ''The Second Contradiction of Capitalism,"
Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, Issue 1, October 1988.
33. CW, Vol. 3, p. 275.
34. Correspondance, II, p. 407.
35. C, Vol. 1, p. 472; pp. 637-38, p. 477.
36. SW, p. 542-43.
37. SW, pp. 315-16.
38. SW, p. 564.
39. Karl Marx (1973) Grundrisse: Foundations of the Cri-
tique of Political Economy (Rough Draft), Middlesex, Eng.,
Penguin Books, Ltd. (Hereafter referred to as G), p. 287.
40. 42. Karl Marx (1971) On Revolution, Edited by Saul K.
Padover, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., p 64.
41. Murray Bookchin (1980) Toward an Ecological Society,
Montreal: Black Rose Books, p. 124. See Alan Rudy and
Andrew Light (1996) ''Social Ecology and Social Labor:
A Consideration and Critique of Murray Bookchin,'' in
David Macauley, Ed., Minding Nature: The Philosophers of
Ecology, New York and London: The Guilford Press, 1996,
42. Karl Marx (1971) On Revolution, op. cit., p 65.
43. SW, p. 339.
44. William Shakespeare (1977) A Midsummer's Night
Dream, New York, The Viking Press, p. 24; Hamlet, New
York, W.W. Norton & Co, Inc., p. 24.
45. Judi Bari to Dennis Bernstein at KPFA, March 1, 1997.
46. CW, Vol. 45, p. 408. Marx and Engels to Bebel and
others (circular letter) September 17-18, 1879. Marx - Engels,
Selected Correspondence (1975) Moscow, Progress Publishers.
47. SW, p. 246.