“Rebuilding Marxism,” (John Bellamy Foster) Monthly Review vol. 50, no. 10 (March 1999), pp. 38-45. DOI: 10.14452/MR-050-10-1999-03_4
Articles

“Rebuilding Marxism,” (John Bellamy Foster) Monthly Review vol. 50, no. 10 (March 1999), pp. 38-45. DOI: 10.14452/MR-050-10-1999-03_4
“A Classic of Our Time: Labor and Monopoly Capital After a Quarter-Century,” Monthly Review, vol. 50, no. 8 (January 1999), pp. 12-18. DOI: 10.14452/MR-050-08-1999-01_2
Three years ago, on the occasion of its silver anniversary, Contemporary Sociology, the American Sociological Association’s book review journal, published a special section on the ten most influential books of the previous twenty-five years. Each book chosen for this honor by Contemporary Sociology‘s editorial board was reassessed by a notable figure in the field. One of the books selected was Harry Braverman’s Labor and Monopoly Capital. The sociologist who wrote on Braverman’s book was Michael Burawoy.
“Ecology,” 1999 in Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing, edited by Kelly Boyd (London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1999), 1000 words.
“Mathus’ Essay on Population at Age 200: A Marxian View,” Monthly Review, vol. 50, no. 7 (December 1998), pp. 1-18. DOI: 10.14452/MR-050-07-1998-11_1
Since it was first published 200 years ago in 1798, no other single work has constituted such a bastion of bourgeois thought as Thomas Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population. No other work was more hated by the English working class, nor so strongly criticized by Marx and Engels. Although the Malthusian principle of population in its classical form was largely vanquished intellectually by the mid-nineteenth century, it continued to reemerge in new forms. In the late nineteenth century it took on new life as a result of the Darwinian revolution and the rise of social Darwinism. And in the late twentieth century Malthusianism reemerged once again in the form of neo-Malthusian ecology.
“Liebig, Marx and the Depletion of the Natural Fertility of the Soil: Implications for Sustainable Agriculture,” (co-authored with Fred Magdoff, Foster listed first), Monthly Review vol. 50, no. 3 (July 1998), pp. 32-45. DOI: 10.14452/MR-050-03-1998-07_3
During the period 1830-1870 the depletion of the natural fertility of the soil through the loss of soil nutrients was the central ecological concern of capitalist society in both Europe and North America (only comparable to concerns over the loss of forests, the growing pollution of the cities, and the Malthusian specter of overpopulation). This period saw the growth of “guano imperialism” as nations scoured the globe for natural fertilizers; the emergence of modem soil science; the gradual introduction of synthetic fertilizers; and the formation of radical proposal for the development of a sustainable agriculture, aimed ultimately at the elimination of the antagonism between town and country.

“Science in a Skeptical Age,” Monthly Review, vol. 50, no. 2 (June 1998), pp. 39-52.
Review of; Science and the Retreat From Reason by John Gillott and Manjit Kumar.
DOI: 10.14452/MR-050-02-1998-06_4
“The Scale of Our Ecological Crisis,” Monthly Review vol. 49, no. 11 (April 1998), pp. 5-16. DOI: 10.14452/MR-049-11-1998-04_2
One of the problems that has most troubled analysts of global ecological crisis is the question of scale. How momentous is the ecological crisis? Is the survival of the human species in question? What about life in general? Are the basic biogeochemical cycles of the planet vulnerable? Although few now deny that there is such a thing as an environmental crisis, or that it is in some sense global in character, some rational scientists insist that it is wrong to say that life itself, much less the planet, is seriously threatened. Even the mass extinction of species, it is pointed out, has previously occurred in evolutionary history. Critics of environmentalism (often themselves claiming to be environmentalists) have frequently used these rational reservations on the part of scientists to brand the environmental movement as “apocalyptic.”
“William Morris’ Letters on Epping Forest: An Introduction,” Organization and Environment, vol. 11, no. 1 (March 1998), pp. 82-84. DOI: 10.1177/0921810698111005
In the initial entry for this section, we are publishing “Three Letters on Epping Forest” written by William Morris (1834-1896). Morris was an English artist, master craftsperson, designer, port, socialist, and forerunner of modern ecological thought. His designs for furniture, wallpaper, fabrics, stained glass, and other decorative arts revolutionized Victorian sensibilities spawned the late nineteenth century arts and crafts movement. Hence, he earned a reputation as one of the outstanding figures of his century.
“William Morris’ Letters on Epping Forest: An Introduction,” [PDF], Organization and Environment, vol. 11, no. 1 (March 1998), pp. 82-84. DOI: 10.1177/0921810698111005
In the initial entry for this section, we are publishing “Three Letters on Epping Forest” written by William Morris (1834-1896). Morris was an English artist, master craftsperson, designer, poet, socialist, and forerunner of modern ecological thought. His designs for furniture, wallpaper, fabrics, stained glass, and other decorative arts revolutionized Victorian sensibilities and spawned the late nineteenth century arts and crafts movement. Hence, he earned a reputation as one of the outstanding figures of his century.
“Introduction to Archives of Organizational and Environmental Literature” [PDF], (co-authored with John M. Jermier, Foster listed first), Organization and Environment, vol. 11, no. 1 (March 1998), pp. 80-81. DOI: 10.1177/0921810698111004
With this issue, we are introducing and new feature section of O&E entitled Archives of Organizational and Environmental Literature. Consciousness of environmental degradation stretches back over millennia; concern about ecological imperialism associated with the growth of the capitalist world economy dates back five centuries; and alarm arising from the environmental effects of machine capitalism can be traced back to the industrial revolution in England two centuries ago. Over the course of history, many inportant insights into organization and environment, often of a theoretical nature, have emerged—only to be forgotten later on. Once forgotten, these important contributions have also become in many cases inaccessible— so that it is difficult to rediscover what has been lost.