John Bellamy Foster

Tag: Coauthored

Has coauthors

  • Land, the Color Line and the Quest of the Silver Fleece

    “Land, the Color Line and the Quest of the Silver Fleece: An Introduction to W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folkand The Quest of the Silver Fleece (selections),” (coauthored with Brett Clark, Clark listed first) Organization and Environment, vol. 16, no. 4 (December 2003), 459-69. DOI: 10.1177/1086026603259095

    Manning Marable (1999) writes that William Edward Burghardt Du Bois (1868-1963) “was without question the most influential black intellectual in American history” (p.v). Even more, he was a citizen of the world, gaining and international stature rarely achieved (Gates, 1903/1989, p. xii). This year is the centennial of The Souls of Black Folk (Du Bois, 1903/1989), in which Du Bois famously declared, “the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color line” (p. xxxi). The color line divides people within the countryside, cities, and the globe. People of color are denied the same opportunities, privileges, and rights as Whites. During a life snapping 95 years, Du Bois’s scholarly work and commitment to activism were unsurpassed. He engaged in critical examinations of social and racial relations within the United States, as well as on the global level, always incorporating a rich historical context for situating his studies.

  • Kipling, the ‘White Man’s Burden,’ and U.S. Imperialism

    Kipling, the ‘White Man’s Burden,’ and U.S. Imperialism

    “Kipling, the ‘White Man’s Burden,’ and U.S. Imperialism,” (coauthored with Harry Magdoff and Robert W. McChesney listed as “by the editors”), Monthly Review vol. 55, no. 6 (November 2003), pp. 1-11. DOI: 10.14452/MR-055-06-2003-10_1

    We are living in a period in which the rhetoric of empire knows few bounds. In a special report on “America and Empire” in August, the London-based Economist magazine asked whether the United States would, in the event of “regime changes … effected peacefully” in Iran and Syria, “really be prepared to shoulder the white man’s burden across the Middle East?” The answer it gave was that this was “unlikely”—the U.S. commitment to empire did not go so far. What is significant, however, is that the question was asked at all.

    Translations:
    • Spanish translation published in Neoimperialism en la Era de la Globalización (Monthly Review—Selecciones en Castellano, 2004).

     

  • The ‘Left-Wing’ Media?

    The ‘Left-Wing’ Media?

    “The ‘Left-Wing’ Media?,” (coauthored with Robert W. McChesney, McChesney listed as first author), Monthly Review, vol. 55, no. 2 (June 2003), pp. 1-16. DOI: 10.14452/MR-055-02-2003-06_1

    If we learn nothing else from the war on Iraq and its subsequent occupation, it is that the U.S. ruling class has learned to make ideological warfare as important to its operations as military and economic warfare. A crucial component of this ideological war has been the campaign against “left-wing media bias,” with the objective of reducing or eliminating the prospect that mainstream U.S. journalism might be at all critical toward elite interests or the system set up to serve those interests. In 2001 and 2002, no less than three books purporting to demonstrate the media’s leftward tilt rested high atop the bestseller list. Such charges have already influenced media content, pushing journalists to be less critical of right-wing politics. The result has been to reinforce the corporate and rightist bias already built into the media system.

    Reprints:
    • Reprinted in abridged from in Karl Finsterbusch, ed., Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Social Issues, 13th edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005), pp. 29-37.
    • Republished in expanded and revised form in Robert W. McChesney, The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st Century. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004, pp. 98-137.

     

  • What Recovery?

    What Recovery?

    “What Recovery?,” (coauthored with Harry Magdoff and Robert W. McChesney, listed as “by the editors” Monthly Review vol. 54, no. 11 (April 2003), pp. 1-16. DOI: 10.14452/MR-054-11-2003-04_1

    Only a few years ago it was widely suggested that the capitalist economy had entered a new economic era. The rapid economic growth experienced during the brief period of the late 1990s, we were told, would become virtually endless, spurred on by rising productivity led by high technology and the New Economy. The circumstances that now confront us following the bursting of the speculative bubble could not be more different. The country is once again mired in economic stagnation. In the present “recovery”—if indeed we can call it that—new jobs remain few and far between. Of the four sources of demand that create economic activity—personal consumption, business investment, government spending, and net exports—it is mainly consumption, backed by increasing debt, that is currently keeping the economy from slipping deeper into stagnation. Indeed, many business leaders and economists fear the return of recession—referred to as the likelihood of a “double dip.” Behind this fear lies excess capacity in almost every industry, the absence of new growth stimuli, slow growth or recession in most of the rest of the world, and the aftereffects of the bursting of the speculative stock market bubble. All of this suggests that there is more at stake than the traditional business cycle. At the very least, there is reason to expect the continuation of the tendency of stagnation.

     

  • The Commercial Tidal Wave

    The Commercial Tidal Wave

    “The Commercial Tidal Wave,” (coauthored with Robert W. McChesney, McChesney listed as first author), Monthly Review vol. 54, no. 10 (March 2003), pp. 1-16. DOI: 10.14452/MR-054-10-2003-03_1

    For a long time now it has been widely understood within economics that under the capitalism of giant firms, corporations no longer compete primarily through price competition. They engage instead in what economists call “monopolistic competition.” This consists chiefly of attempts to create monopoly positions for a particular brand, making it possible for corporations to charge more for the branded product while also expanding their market share. Competition is most intense in what Thorstein Veblen called the “production of salable appearances,” involving advertising, frequent model changes, branding of products, and the like. Once this logic takes over in twentieth and now twenty-first century capitalism it is seemingly unstoppable. All human needs, relationships and fears, the deepest recesses of the human psyche, become mere means for the expansion of the commodity universe under the force of modem marketing. With the rise to prominence of modem marketing, commercialism—the translation of human relations into commodity relations—although a phenomenon intrinsic to capitalism, has expanded exponentially.

    Reprints:
    • Republished in expanded and revised form in Robert W. McChesney, The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st Century. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004, pp. 138-74.

     

  • Helen Keller and the Touch of Nature: An Introduction to Keller’s The World I live In

    “Helen Keller and the Touch of Nature: An Introduction to Keller’s The World I live In (Selections),” [PDF], (coauthored with Brett Clark, Clark listed first), Organization and Environment, vol. 15, no. 3 (September 2002), pp. 278-84.

    I found that of the senses, the eye is the most superficial, the ear the most arrogant, smell the most voluptuous, taste the most superstitious and fickle, touch the most pro-found and the most philosophical.

    —Diderot (as cited in Herrmann, 1998, p. vii)

    Mark Twain asserted that Helen Keller (1880-1968) was immortal—fellow to Caesar, Homer, and Shakespeare—and would “be as famous a thousand years from now as she is to-day” (Twain, 1924, Vol. 2, p. 297). Elementary school teachers have told the story of Keller’s childhood for more than a hundred years, whereas her activist and intellectual developments as an adult remain in the shadows. The environmental movement has yet to discover the importance of Keller’s contribution to an ecological understanding of the world. Nonetheless, her work provides a foundation for constructing a dynamic view of the relationship between nature and ourselves. By exploring the world, through Keller’s words, insights can be gained in regard to how humans experience nature. Perhaps, through this engagement, a more complete picture of Keller’s life and position in history can be formed.

  • George Perkins Marsh and the Transformation of the Earth: An Introduction to Marsh’s Man and Nature

    “George Perkins Marsh and the Transformation of the Earth: An Introduction to Marsh’s Man and Nature“, [PDF], (coauthored with Brett Clark, Clark listed first), Organization and Environment, vol. 15, no. 2 (June 2002), pp. 164-69.

    George Perkins Marsh (1801-1882) stated that his book, Man and Nature, was “a little volume showing the whereas [Carl] Ritter and [Arnold] Guyot think that the earth made man, man in fact made earth” (as cited in Lowenthal, 2000, p. 267). With this position, Marsh inverted a dominant theoretical transformation— both destruction and revitalization— of nature. Despite Marsh’s Calvinist background, he sought to remove teleological tendencies from scientific studies of the material world. In Man and Nature, Marsh (1864) provided a detailed discussion of the historical degradation of nature. His work is seen as a warning to a society that insists on an irrational interaction with nature. Marsh demanded that people must work to restore, to whatever extent is possible, damages to nature, as well as engage in practices that prevent further degradation of nature. Marsh’s work, Lewis Mumford (1931-1971) declared, was “the fountain-head of the conservation movement” (p. 35).

  • Marx and the Dialectic of Orgainc/Inorganic Relations

    “Marx and the Dialectic of Orgainc/Inorganic Relations: A Rejoinder to Salleh and Clark” [PDF] (coauthored with Paul Burkett, Foster listed first), Organization and Environment, vol. 14, no. 4 (December 2001), pp. 451-62. DOI: 10.1177/1086026601144006

    Our article “The Dialectic of Organic/Inorganic Relations: Marx and the Hegelian Philosophy of Nature” (Foster & Burkett, 2000) appeared in Oraganization & Environment exactly a 1 year ago. Our purpose in that article was a very specific one made very clear from the beginning. We were concerned with addressing one of the most persistent and seemingly peretrating criticisms of Marx for his supposed insensitivity to ecological issues, namely, the claim that in referring to nature as “the inorganic body of a man” in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1884, a work otherwise known for its ecological values, thus, sinning irredeemable against ecology and no less so against dialectics (Marx, 1974, p. 328).

  • William Stanley Jevons and The Coal Question

    “William Stanley Jevons and The Coal Question: An Introduction to Jevons’ ‘Of the Economy of Fuel‘,’” [PDF] (coauthored with Brett Clark, Clark listed first), Organization and Environment, vol. 14, no. 1 (March 2001), pp. 93-98. DOI: 10.1177/1086026601141005

    William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) is best known as a British economist who was one of the pioneers of contemporary neoclassical economic analysis, with its subjective value theory rooted in marginal utility. His applied economics and theoretical insights marked new points of departure for later economist who would more fully shape the neoclassical tradition. But Jevons is also remembered as an early contributor to ecological economics and energetics as a result of his pioneering work The Coal Question (1865-1906), Which raised fundamental issues regarding energy efficiency and the economy of fuel (Martinez-Alier, 2987).

  • The Dialectic of Organic/Inorganic Relations

    “The Dialectic of Organic/Inorganic Relations: Marx and the Hegelian Philosophy of Nature,” [PDF], (coauthored with Paul Burkett, Foster listed first), Organization and Environment, vol. 13, no. 4 (December 2000), pp. 403-25. DOI: 10.1177/1086026600134002

    Ecological thinkers have suggested that in applying an “organic/inorganic” distinction to humanity-nature, Marx embraced a dualistic and antagonistic conception of the human-nature relationship. The authors confront this view by considering how Marx’s various applications of the concepts organic and inorganic were shaped not only by standard scientific usage but also by Marx’s engagement with Hegel’s natural philosophy and the historical struggle between materialism and teleology. They find that Marx’s usage was based on an explicit disavowal of all mechanistic and dualistic views of the human-nature relationship. In Marx’s mature works, all fixed oppositions between organic and inorganic gave way to a fully dialectical understanding of ecological processes. Marx’s growing concern with the “metabolic rift” between humanity and nature generated by capitalist production led him to link the question of communism with that of ecological sustainability. Their analysis thus sheds light on the opposition between idealist and materialist visions of ecology.