Population, resources, and the ideology of science. (Claire)

Harvey, D (2001). Population, resources, and the ideology of science. Pp 38-67 in Spaces of Capital. New York: Routledge.

FYI: Am missing pages 50-57 and 61-67 in Spaces of Capital, therefore page numbers are AWOL for much of the Marx content / where he brings it all together

Preamble of general thoughts about science: sets up the discussion with the preamble that science is not neutral, perfect, or perfectly rational; findings come with political impacts; Ethical neutrality is function of the “paradigmatic basis of enquiry throughout the history of science” 39 – the fallacy of the sci-method and “neutrality assumption” manifests in other—non-scientific—aspects of life e.g. mobility, rights, or access in or to the city. Science neither a-socially formed nor a-socially applied; not set up with nor can it fulfill an ethically neutral agenda, yet for some reason those that are sci-like e.g. Malthusian overpopulation” get take as sci while e.g. reserve army of labour = ideological (40). Logical positivism not a total waste of time – response well to specific questions – but = “status quo theory”. Method co-determines the outcome possible, which includes one’s claims of neutrality.

Malthus, Ricardo, Marx – to look at poverty: In short, Malthus (41-43) and Ricardo (47-50) fail to use a dialectic method, thereby rendering their analysis of populations as failure to see “relationships within the totality”, that maintain the whole aka capitalism (itself fraught with crisis, contradiction). There is no essence to things as Ricardo suggests, just totalities of that are composed of internally related parts, infused with something of an elasticity so “’that each one in its fullness can represent the totality’”. Further, they both have ideological agendas (a particular end product / state in mind, therefore work the reality to that end).

For Malthus, poverty of the lower class is unreachable by “human ingenuity”, therefore the preferred counter intuitive solution to do nothing. Confusion of class conflict with social harmony (47). Ricardo accepts Malthus in principle, method differs. Sought equilibrium (so Harvey suggests he opted for a faulty model to get there: Malthus. 48. Further, we know that equilibrium is not the end goal of capitalism but was as theorized by classical economics). Discussion of Ricardo’s equilibrium wage rate [which we can take as a faulty premise b/c surplus value = capital for reinvestment, which comes from workers themselves]: whereas wages are determined by scarcity and costs of subsistence ... sees labour a commodity like any other... eventually wages would settle where the ability to subsist could happen (48). Population balances out labour force supply / demand. Short lived periods of wage inflation. So, in short, it is wages that keeps a population in check / that determines the rate of the population reproducing itself. When subsistence is stressed, the population falls [how exactly and how immediate is that? Even Malthus got his head around the time lag it takes to make a worker] or accumulation increases: sets labour needs into a balance with the rate of accumulation of capital – but this depends on the funds to pay for it – but that’s how social harmony could be achieved, despite how history might suggest otherwise.

For Marx, totality is “social totality” – cannot observe the existence of structures (b/c they are not things) -> must understand the relations as they are framed in any given particular system of political economy. Social total = economic basis, from which flows the [1] forces of production and [2] social relations of production (incl the technical division of labour and social division). Plus superstructural (law, pols, etc).

ON NATURE: the contradiction between the social division of labour and property: transformation of nature necessary for e.g. food. Humans both part of nature (metabolizing things) and social, self-regulating, self-transforming. To transform the social is to transform nature. Social / nature pushed to the limits by capitalism yet we are free of nature in that we are able to transform it / creating it, which balances against the alienation of being engaged in production... a new practice in which feel and know unity with nature [maybe one of those moments when Marxism does more than we might thing e.g. contra feminism / po-mo aesthetics, there is room of sensing / sensuality in Marx?] and for Harvey/ Marx, that means that subject-object boundaries are reconsistituted [What exactly is this practice that brings people and nature into clearer association? This remains unexplored. How is the ability to change nature akin to removal of alienation? Is he nostalgic for small plots of land in which the working class grows subsistence carrots?]

Empirical understandings deny coming to this finding because in it things are unto themselves, but here sub-obj are relations rather than things. [How does he move from nature-human sub-obj relations into a discussion of the need to make ideas real? If ideas are social relations then we need to study relations rather than society as an object. How does nature get us there? What importance does nature have other than exemplifying how human creative capacity is a way of thinking about the social? Why nature – because it is an easy target that can be described as scarce? Why not e.g. Ford and the marvel that is the assembly line as a creative act that can open the door to thinking about social relations?]

So let’s talk population: for Marx the problem with the above is failure to realize surplus value... more sites of production and not enough workers = increase wages OR technology to do with fewer workers and population demand is a function of historic modes of production. Tech = inevitable, necessary for survival... twd systems theory (beyond Aristotelian “what should happens”), which is abstract and can therefore be applied to any number of problems aka “constructivist” dialectical materialism.

There is nothing natural about population rates without considering the mode of production, and esp about capitalism’s industrial reserve army and the poverty that goes along with it. Poverty = essential to capitalism. Poverty and population = a problem of exploitation, overpopulation = surplus labour power. Marx sees need for holistic thinking, system wide, flexible, internally dynamic (the latter = dialectic). Discussion of thinkers who use this framing: Kneese et al “materials balance” of economic and ecological flows that are linked; Meadows model... but Harvey writes them off as neo-Malthusian conclusion with Aristotelian informed posing of the question. SPENDING A LOT OF TIME DEFENDING HIS PREFERENCE OF MARX’S DIALECTICS AND NOT A LOT ABOUT NATURE... B/c how nature means here is [I think?] the ways in which things become naturalized e.g. ideas of overpopulation and scarcity.

Therefore pols, population, resources: all of which, for Marx, are flexible and/or relative– including also subsistence, resources, scarcity [dare we say co determined by the social context in which they are conceived / used... that is, resources get determined by the mode of production]. Therefore e.g. if lack of food is defined as scarcity b/c of overpopulation, must consider social definitions of wants/ needs, of technology to change, of rethinking relations to nature, changing the # of people, question what we mean by overpopulation AND he suggests “Whenever a theory of overpopulation seizes hold in a society dominated by an elite, then the non-elite invariably experience some form of political, economic, and social repression. Such an assertion can be justified by an appeal to the historical evidence.” E.g. conservation movement in USA early 20C, which was about “natural resource management and labour relations alike.” ... which gets spun into the expendability of populations, overpopulation as military threat... and in the present moment, overpopulation / resource scarcity suggests keeping capitalism as is, which perpetuates class / colonial / imperialistic necessity – and hey, if WC or colonized ppl aren’t getting enough is [1] because they aren’t supposed to [work to live] or [2] b/c they overpopulate or [3] forces oppressed class to live with status quo (default logic implicit in Malthus / Ricardo because these things are FIXED) -> thus, overpopulation supports such social distinctions / contradictions.

NATURE as a thing too gets brought in – scarcity of resources? Maybe. But also possibility of extracting more surplus from stuff. Or e.g. natural inputs cost more therefore wages must go down. While capitalism does perpetuate ecological crisis e.g. DDT, Exxon Valdez, etc. All of these strands – including the oversimplified problems of overpopulation – have multiple sources... social relations are ideas... but an Aristotelian limits from the beginning what possible resolutions one might discover.