In this first segment of a series on ecology and materialism, John Bellamy Foster explains how Marx, who was not a natural scientist learned from chemists, physicists, biologists and the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. Marx then garnered a unique theoretical approach that identifies the causes of the societal and ecological crises we face today.
TRANSCRIPT
JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER: The beauty of Marx’s analysis in ecological terms is that Marx provided the only theoretical approach – up to the present to this day I think – that connected society and nature. We say society and ecology together. They were seen as essentially two sides of the same coin. You couldn’t talk about society without talking about a social relation to nature.
So, he has got a completely unified analysis. Which is penetrating. It’s really not a question of a few phrases. It goes through his entire analysis. There’s this relation between humanity and nature through social production. And if we don’t get it right, if we don’t sustain the earth for future generations, which is another thing that he talked about, then we’re going to have ecological crises and essentially destroy ourselves.
LYNN FRIES: Hello and welcome. I’m Lynn Fries producer of Global Political Economy or GPEnewsdocs.
That opening short was on ‘Marx’s Ecology’ and a quick preview what’s coming up in this segment. This is Part 1 of a 4-part series with John Bellamy Foster unpacking a trilogy – ‘Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature’, ‘The Return of Nature: Socialism and Ecology’, and ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate: Epicurus and Marx’. This first segment features Bellamy Foster’s overview of the trilogy and comments on ‘Marx’s Ecology’.
John Bellamy Foster is editor of Monthly Review and Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon. He is a prolific author, co-author and editor. As well as today’s featured books and many others, he has authored ‘Capitalism in the Anthropocene’, ‘The Dialectics of Ecology’ and co-authored ‘The Robbery of Nature’ and ‘The Ecological Rift’. Bellamy Foster’s work has been awarded numerous distinctions. His book ‘The Return of Nature’ won the Deutscher Memorial Prize.
In this opening segment, the first thing I asked our guest to clarify was why he says ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate’ is logically the first book of the trilogy? We go now to Part 1 of this series as John Bellamy Foster responds to that question.
JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER: Well, first of all, I mean, it is a little confusing because the first book written in this trilogy was ‘Marx’s Ecology’. And it did deal with materialism, Epicurus, and so on. And then ‘The Return of Nature’ is the second book written. But the third book written is actually the beginning of the trilogy; that’s ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate’ is logically the beginning. I went back and explained the foundations more fully.
‘Marx’s Ecology’ is the first book written. ‘Return of Nature’ is the second book written. And ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate’ is the third book written but actually the foundation for the whole trilogy.
FRIES: We are going to be talking about each of these books one by one in the order in which they were written but first comment on how you came to write this trilogy. And then run through a brief overview.
BELLAMY FOSTER: Well, I got interested in the question of Marx and ecology. I originally wrote an article for a German dictionary on Erde/Earth. They wanted me to talk about the classical political economy and the soil and also Marx’s role. I discovered the full depth of Marx’s ecological analysis influenced by the German chemist, Justus von Liebig and I wrote about that. Then I developed that into an article called ‘Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift’ that explained Marx’s ecological analysis in ‘Capital’. Or at least the core of it, in terms of what was called the ‘theory of metabolic rift’. Which we’ll talk about. But it’s his theory of ecological crisis and focused initially on the soil.
I wanted to know how Marx could have possibly done that. Like if you assume that Marx was a genius, still a genius can’t make bricks without straw as the saying goes. So there had to be some foundations. How was it that Marx was able to intervene so fully into what was an ecological discussion at enormous depth and connect the social and natural in what we now call an ecological way? How could he do that? He was not primarily a natural scientist. Where did he get the foundations for that? I decided the answer had to be in Marx’s materialism.
But that raised a question. I had come out of the Western Marxist tradition. I’d been trained in economics and philosophy. And there really wasn’t an answer to that. When people talked about Marx’s materialism, they generally meant his economics and nothing more than that or it wasn’t examined. So, I felt I needed to discover where Marx’s materialism came from and really what the roots of it were. So, I went back to his doctoral dissertation.
The principle problem, of course, was that when Marx wrote about the materialist conception of history, there was also a materialist conception of nature. Where did that come from? How did Marx tie into that? So, I went back to his doctoral dissertation on Epicurus, on the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, who lived from 341 to 270 BCE. That’s thousands of years before; but Marx had written his doctoral dissertation on Epicurus’s philosophy of nature. And that had always been a puzzle for analysts of Marx’s work.
But it was there that I searched for the origins of Marx’s materialism. Obviously, Marx was influenced by Hegel’s idealist philosophy but where and when did he embrace materialism? And what did that mean?
I found a lot of the answers in Marx’s doctoral dissertation. And in ‘Marx’s Ecology’, I explained some of Epicurean materialism. I had to study Epicurus’s philosophy itself and I explained some of that. And then I wrote the book, ‘Marx’s Ecology’ basically about 19th century materialism centering on Marx but also taking into account other thinkers like Darwin and Liebig and Malthus.
Of course, Liebig and Malthus weren’t strictly materialists. They weren’t materialists but I dealt with a whole lot of thinkers who were including Darwin. And tried to understand, you know, the development of ecology centering on Marx and rooted in this notion of materialism, of the human dependence on nature and natural conditions.
So I did that and the book, ‘Marx’s Ecology’, was subtitled ‘Materialism and Nature’. The book was a success in terms of explaining Marx’s ecology and getting people to recognize that. But then there immediately were criticisms: That this didn’t continue…what Marx did with respect to ecology and materialism was erased later on. It didn’t have any effect on the later development of either Marxism or ecology.
So, I wrote, ‘The Return of Nature: Socialism and Ecology’, which took me about 20 years. Of course, I was doing other things as well. That told the story from the time of the death of Darwin and Marx in 1882 and 1883 respectively, up until the 1980s.
And it showed how this materialist view and ecological materialism had grown out of Marx and Darwin and had been promoted in socialist thought. And that resulted in concepts like the concept of ecosystem and many other breakthroughs up through the ecological movement of the fifties, sixties and seventies.
That story was told in ‘The Return of Nature’. And then after that, I could go back to what was the essential problem. I could go back to Epicurus and Marx and really do a thorough job this time of analyzing Epicurean philosophy and Marx’s dissertation. And how that had affected much of Marx’s thought. Which we don’t recognize today or have ignored.
So, I did that in ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate’. And ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate’ has four chapters. One is on Epicurus’s life and times in ancient Athens. The second is on his philosophy. The third is on Marx’s dissertation and how Epicurus influenced Marx and how he developed these ideas. And the fourth chapter is on Epicureanism and Marxism, on how this permeated much of Marxism. So, I did that.
But in going back and looking at Epicurus again – I had actually been reading the materials, for a couple of decades, I’d collected – I decided that Epicurus in his time was a figure of the same stature as Marx in his. In the sense that Epicureanism was the most influential philosophy in ancient times both in terms of adherence and in terms of duration. It lasted for seven centuries as a school. And I discovered just the profundity of Marx’s analysis.
But another thing happened. And that was I got more deeply into the current Epicurean scholarship. A lot of it is based on the discoveries of… when Mount Vesuvius went off in 79 AD it buried not only Pompeii, but Herculaneum, which was a Roman Resort town. And in what we call the Villa of the Papyri, they discovered the only still existing ancient library. It had the papyri.
Thousands of papyri had been turned into what looked like carbonized lumps of coal. But they were able to unroll them to some extent, developing machines; destroying a lot in the process. Now we have very advanced techniques for reading them. And they were able to discover all sorts of Epicurean works because it was an Epicurean library, including a crucial part of Book 25 of Epicurus’s ‘On Nature’.
Marx had developed a very unique analysis of Epicurean philosophy seeing it as a materialism that left room for human agency and contingency and development and human freedom – a dialectic of determinism and freedom.
And it was a very unique interpretation and they sort of rediscovered Marx’s interpretation in the early 20th century. And realized that, let’s say, in the analysis of some parts of Epicurus like the ‘Epicurean Swerve’, he was way ahead of modern Epicurean scholarship even in the 20th century.
But with the discovery of the papyri, we’ve discovered that Marx’s fundamental interpretation of Epicurus was correct and that Marx’s whole interpretation of freedom and determinism in Epicurus and the dialectical basis of it, and so on, has been verified by modern scholarship.
What do we get out of this? Well Marx got out of it a materialism that was active; that was not mechanical. Epicurus rejected mechanistic views, mechanical materialism. He rejected idealism. He rejected skepticism.
He sort of, as Marx said, swerved away from all of that and came up with a view that took into account nature and society. That took into account a degree of determinism, causal determinism, but left room for human freedom.
And that had a proto-evolutionary perspective. Had what we now call emergence that takes into consideration the role of organization. And this is fundamental to science now, that we have certain physical properties. You could say – atoms – but we also have organization. And between the two, we have a complete view of the world where there are emergent levels.
And that’s very important because it goes against any kind of reductionism, Marx very anti-reductionist. And of course, he got that a lot from Epicurus.
So, Epicurus also influenced the whole 17th century scientific revolution and the Enlightenment. All of the major thinkers were indebted to Epicurus and said so. It was part of the development of materialism. It was part of the development of the Enlightenment. And Marx knew that. And that’s why he was interested.
But it was fundamental because Marx had spent time studying Hegelian idealism but he was really inclined to materialism. But how do you construct a materialism that is ontological: that is deals with the nature of being? That’s epistemological: that is has an explanation of how we know things? And that’s also practical: that deals with real conditions?
And Epicurus for Marx was a plus because he was very critical of religion or teleology – the notion that the gods or God determined things on earth. He rejected that without rejecting religion completely. And he emphasized that the basis of human life was community, friendship; building a society based on friendship.
He was the first to bring women into philosophy – allowing them to emerge as major philosophers within the Epicurean school – and also slaves. He couldn’t do anything about slavery itself, but he brought slaves into Epicurean philosophy. They were given a high status.
The whole society was organized around a garden. And emphasized sustainable living, and very ecological in orientation. Epicurus criticized those who thought that, “enough was too little”. The idea is that everyone needs enough but no one needs more than that.
He emphasized that justice was based on reciprocity. And he said that justice – the conditions of justice changed or justice – changed depending on changes in material conditions.
We have from Lucretius, his major follower, a very historical approach too, an anthropological historical approach to human development.
So, all of these things attracted Marx. And he found in Epicurus, what he called an immanent dialectic. He saw Epicurus as the first thinker to develop a concept of alienation.
So he was able to take his background in Hegelian philosophy and study Epicurus and imagine a new kind of analysis. A materialism that was an active materialism that was oriented to praxis. That had a role for human agency and was aimed at freedom and equality and human development and so on.
Marx quoted Epicurus and Lucretius on “breaking the bonds of fate”. Epicurus was always about “breaking the bonds of fate” and making room for conceptions of human freedom without renouncing materialism or determination to some degree. So that was crucial to Marx. How do we ‘break the bonds of fate’ and recognize that the world is up to us? We can change the world.
All of this is in the Epicurus and Marx relationship. And while I started out looking at materialism from the standpoint of ecology and this is all the development of an ecological materialism, it also deals with these other issues. Like how do we conceive of human freedom in a world that is also partly determined?
FRIES: There is a lot to unpack here. We are going to take these books one by one starting with the first book written so, ‘Marx’s Ecology’.
You said in this first book you tried to understand the development of ecology rooted in this notion of materialism – so of the human dependence on nature and natural conditions.
You had published an article on Marx’s theory of ecological crisis, ‘Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift’ and you needed to find out where Marx got these ecological insights. For that, the Western Marxist tradition had no answers. Having decided Marx’s ecological insights had to come from his materialism, to discover the foundations of that materialism you went back to Marx’s doctoral dissertation titled: ‘The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophies of Nature’.
And as explained in ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate’:
“Marx’s doctoral thesis had generally been treated in the Western Marxist philosophical tradition as an immature product of his early Hegelian idealist phase.”
Departing from the dominant tradition in this respect, ‘Marx’s Ecology’ presented: “Epicurus’s materialist philosophy as the nascent basis on which Marx had begun to work out a materialist dialectic, inverting G.W.F. Hegel’s idealist system.”
And for this you say, Marx was able to take his background in Hegelian philosophy and his study of Epicurus and imagine an active materialism that had a role for human agency and that was aimed at freedom and equality and human development and so on.
As you talk about this first book, let’s start with this notion of materialism. Marx’s Ecology emphasizes the necessary connection between materialism and ecology – which as stated in the book’s intro is the whole point of the study –and then does go on to clarify this notion of materialism. That <quote>:
“In its most general sense materialism claims that the origins and development of whatever exists is dependent on nature and ‘matter’, that is, a level of physical reality that is independent of and prior to thought.”
The book then goes on to clarify the notion of materialism in the terms that you just referred to in your overview of the trilogy: an ontological materialism, an epistemological materialism and a practical materialism. Can you expand on the explanation you already gave on what all that means?
BELLAMY FOSTER: Well, the best thinker on this is Roy Bhaksar. A lot of his writings are very difficult and I plowed through them. But what I would recommend the most is an essay he wrote which I first encountered in Tom Bottomore’s dictionary of Marxism. He wrote an essay on materialism. Which is then included in some of his later works and developed on.
But Bhaksar is very clear. There are three levels of materialism. Ontological, that is the nature of being; Epistemological, how we know and the basis of human knowledge. And the third one is practical or praxis. Where materialism is seen as… it’s more like what we think of in terms of economic struggle or struggle over the class material conditions of production and so on.
At the level of praxis, materialism represents starting with those material foundations. Which means human production and seeing that as the basis of society and social action.
Ontological materialism means that we have to have some kind of notion of what the material base is. In that, Epicurus and before him Democritus, they were adamant they said it all came from atoms. Except that Epicurus made that into less of a rigid, fatalistic sort of theory.
Now we talk in terms of sub-atomic particles and everything else. But the idea is that there’s a physical material basis to the universe, to the earth, to our own existence. And we have to start with that. That defines at the most basic level what is and what is possible.
Then there’s the question of how do we know things? And the Epicurean approach says we know things primarily through our senses. The materialist approach always starts with the senses, with empirical analysis starting with the conditions, the material conditions. While a more idealist approach starts with religion or the mind or so on.
Hegel in his ‘Phenomenology’ once said that these approaches can almost be viewed as equivalent but they have different starting points. They both represent, you know, absolutes. Like you make nature the absolute or you make God the absolute. But you have different starting points.
The materialist approach always starts with nature, material conditions. And how do we know things? We know things first through our senses and then we build up our mind, you know our mind develops. There’s a whole evolutionary process I won’t get into.
But basically, that’s the approach. We know from what we physically experience and how we rationally learn to perceive and examine that rather than final causes. There’s no teleological principle that establishes some final end that’s ultimately determined by God.
And ideas aren’t floating signifiers that come out of nowhere or come out of Athena from the head of Zeus. You have to, in the materialist view, start with the basis of physical existence. And our own existence is based on our subsistence on earth, that means through our production, and how we therefore meet our needs.
So that’s a fundamental materialist approach. And it’s rooted in a kind of ontology that says that nature is and physical existence is basic to this.
Science sees things this way. So we think of physics as the most basic science, but physics can’t explain society. Because even though physics explains a lot of what are the fundamental conditions of the world in material terms, society is what we call an emergent level or an integrative level that has its own laws. It can’t be simply reduced to physics or biology or anything like that. But a materialist approach does that.
It seems strange because science is so much seen as the enemy of ecology; for some environmentalists often within ‘green theory’ science becomes the enemy. And science can be very destructive, right?
But our notions of ecology, all of our fundamental ecological notions – like metabolism, ecosystem, the earth system – they all come out of science and out of a materialist perspective. And this is fundamental and this is one of the reasons why Marx was able to advance so far in this.
FRIES: In the introduction to ‘Marx’s Ecology’ you say <quote>:
“The argument of this book is based on a very simple premise: that in order to understand the origins of ecology, it is necessary to comprehend the new views of nature that arose with the development of materialism and science from the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries. Moreover, rather than simply picturing materialism and science as the enemies of earlier and supposedly preferable conceptions of nature, as is common in contemporary Green theory, the emphasis here is on how the development of both materialism and science promoted—indeed made possible—ecological ways of thinking”.
Comment more on what you are saying there.
BELLAMY FOSTER: That’s essentially saying that the answer lies in materialism. And those ideas that arose in the 17th through the 19th century, that new materialism, let’s say Francis Bacon, for example, or Voltaire in a different way, they were all influenced by Epicurean philosophy. To some extent Democritus but it was mostly Epicurus but also Lucretius was very important, Epicurus’s great Roman follower.
So the 17th century scientific revolution was really a revolt against Aristotelian scholasticism that had been attached to the church, basically the Catholic Church in the medieval era. In the Renaissance but much more in the 17th century scientific revolution, they broke away from that Aristotelian scholasticism in the understanding of nature by way of primarily of Epicurus, Democritus and Epicurus. And they came up with another understanding.
For one thing, the understanding which is basic to materialism and to evolutionary thought that ‘nature is its own explanation’. It was the rejection of final causes and teleology in the examination of nature.
So, in Aristotle there were four causes. Two of them were material causes. And then, there are final causes. And the ultimate cause was always God, in the final causes. Bacon said that final causes were like Vestal Virgins. They were barren. He always used metaphors.
But the idea was that the final causes were consecrated to gods. They told us nothing about nature and they were barren in the understanding of nature. We had to approach things in a materialist and empirical way.
And it’s interesting to me that Bacon said that, but then Darwin quoted that same phrase in the 1840s when he was developing his ideas. Because Darwin was struggling with materialism all through his life, out of which his evolutionary theory came. And Marx in the 1840s quoted that same phrase from Bacon about a year from Darwin.
They all were reorienting themselves to a view that ‘nature was its own explanation’. That nature created itself. God was not responsible. And all of this sort of went back to the roots of materialism and Epicurus. So there was a whole scientific revolution going on.
Ecology cannot really be meaningfully approached, I believe, except on a materialist and realist basis. The idea that the ecology is, you know, something that we can get just spiritually (I mean the spiritual elements are important) or that it just comes from some sort of sense of intrinsic nature, that isn’t enough.
We really need a materialist understanding and a scientific, a realist understanding and that’s what emerged at this time. And ecology actually arose out the understanding of materialism.
FRIES: In the introduction to ‘Marx’s Ecology’ you go on to say:
“The overall discussion is structured around the work of Darwin and Marx—the two greatest materialists of the nineteenth century. But it is the latter who constitutes the principal focus of this work, since the goal is to understand and develop a revolutionary ecological view of great importance to us today; one that links social transformation with the transformation of the human relation with nature in ways that we now consider ecological. The key to Marx’s thinking in this respect, it is contended, lies in the way that he developed and transformed an existing Epicurean tradition with respect to materialism and freedom, which was integral to the rise of much of modern scientific and ecological thought.”
Expand on that. And notably, why you chose Marx’s analysis as the principle focus of this work.
BELLAMY FOSTER: The beauty of Marx’s analysis in ecological terms is that Marx provided the only theoretical approach – up to the present to this day I think – that connected society and nature. We say society and ecology together – that they were seen as essentially two sides of the same coin. That you couldn’t talk about society without talking about a social relation to nature.
But at the same time, it wasn’t reductionist like a biological determinism or any kind of a naturalistic determinism. He perceived the role of the social in all of this but never separated the social from the natural material conditions.
And this approach led to his ecological crisis theory, what we call ‘the theory of metabolic rift’. Well, that’s sort of a short-hand for a lot of other things.
Marx introduced the notion of the universal metabolism of nature. If you want to talk about nature, you talk about it as a universal metabolism. And he took the concept of metabolism that had been developed in the 19th century and he expanded on it in social terms.
So, first you have the universal metabolism of nature. But what do human beings do when they produce? When we produce and transform nature? He called that the social metabolism. The social metabolism, which is really production in Marx’s terms, is what connects human beings to nature. And it’s what allows us to live.
He came up with this notion of the metabolic rift. Well, an interruption, a rupture, a rift, an irreparable rift in the interdependent social metabolism between nature and society. And the idea was that we developed an alienated social metabolism – an alienated production – that’s destructive of the universal metabolism of nature.
And that this is particularly prominent in capitalism, which tends to rob nature and treat it as a free gift. And has anything but a sustainable relation to nature. We create this irreparable rift in the interdependent social metabolism between nature and society and that has to be reconciled. But it can’t really be reconciled within the kind of system that we have.
All of this came out of Marx’s materialism. In fact, if you look at Lucretius, you know, Epicurus’ follower, there is a place where he refers to essentially the irreparable rift or irreparable rupture when talking about death.
And Marx is saying, what we’re doing is killing ourselves and the earth or the human relation to the earth by having an alienated social metabolism that’s in conflict with the universal metabolism of nature. And he ties this back to capital accumulation.
He’s got a completely unified analysis, which is penetrating. It’s really not a question of a few phrases. It goes through his entire analysis. There’s this relation between humanity and nature through social production.
And if we don’t get it right, if we don’t sustain the earth for future generations, which is another thing that he talked about, then we’re going to have ecological crises and essentially destroy ourselves.
All of that is in Marx. And it comes out of this very unified materialist perspective. Darwin is another matter. Darwin was not concerned with ecological crisis. But Darwin does teach us a lot about evolution. And that came from a materialist perspective.
It has been discovered in recent scholarship, let’s say in the last few decades or last half century, how much Darwin was a materialist…in his notebooks. It’s clear in his notebooks, he tried to hide his materialism because of the religious views in England at the time.
And his evolutionary theory came out of his materialism. And if you understand, I think, the implications of Darwin fully it doesn’t really come down to just the survival of the fittest, as we see him. You can get out of Darwin or Darwinian thinking a notion that we have to co-evolve with the earth. So this is extremely important.
FRIES: As a follow-on to your comments that Marx had a completely unified materialist perspective I should note for viewers that there is an in-depth and multi-faceted discussion of this running through all three books. While it is not possible to do justice to this in today’s conversation, there are some summary points about this in ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate ‘that I find myself constantly referring back to and of special relevance to the story told in ‘The Return of Nature’. On the view, other generalists may also find this useful background for today’s discussion I will take a moment to quickly run those now.
- “From the beginning, then, Marx’s materialism could be said to have two sides: the ecological and economic. This was later manifested in his development in ‘Capital’ of his theory of the metabolic rift. To understand the full dialectical character of his thought, his underlying materialist conception of nature is as vital as the materialist conception of history: there is, in the end, only ‘one materialism’.”
- “If Marx’s general philosophical outlook can be called dialectical-critical materialist (or dialectical-critical realist), his distinctive contribution was the materialist conception of history or historical materialism.”
- “Without a thorough materialist grounding in the material world at large, including Earth itself, historical materialism was without grounds. Hence, Marx and Engels throughout their work sought to ground their critique of bourgeois society and historical forms in the much wider context of the earthly conditions of existence. All of their texts continuously referred back to this. Nevertheless, the vast changes in natural science in the nineteenth century and the development of a crude mechanism, often accompanied by a crude idealism, forced the development (in chronological terms) of a ‘second foundation of Marxism’, underlying the first, that is, a materialist dialectics that would counter the prevailing mechanistic materialism. This was a task clearly recognized and taken on by both Marx and Engels. But given Marx’s desperate efforts to complete his critique of political economy, which tied him down considerably, the integration of historical materialism with the materialist conception of nature via the explicitly development of a dialectical naturalism fell largely to Engels in ‘Anti-Dühring’ and his unfinished ‘Dialectics of Nature’.”
- “If the first foundation of classical Marxism was therefore the materialist conception of history, in which a materialist conception of nature was largely assumed, the second foundation was the development of a dialectical-natural conception of the physical world and of life as a necessary basis for moving forward.”
- “The second foundation of Marxism was thus a ‘return of nature’ and thus a dialectical integration of the materialist conception of history with the materialist concept of nature that led to major developments in cultural theory, natural science, and ecology.”
With that as a lead in, let’s turn now to the next book of the trilogy that we’re going to be discussing- ‘The Return of Nature: Socialism and Ecology’. What then was your focus and goal in writing this book? And how does the story you began in ‘Marx’s Ecology’ carryover into ‘The Return of Nature’?
LYNN FRIES: John Bellamy Foster’s response to that question and more follows in Part 2. We are going to break here. This has been Part 1 of a 4-part series with John Bellamy Foster on a trilogy: ‘Marx’s Ecology’, ‘The Return of Nature’ and ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate’. Many thanks, to guest John Bellamy Foster. And thank you for joining us.
________________________________________________________________
Be the first to comment