Gary,

I’ve never mentioned Marxism deliberately, because I am talking about historical materialism and materialist philosophy in general, and not Marxism. It is difficult even to say what the latter is – a political grouping? a belief that the basic ideas Marx expounded are true? an historical materialist? just a materialist? all of the above? In my experience it functions in academia and in society in general as a kind of popular ad hominem – take no notice of him or his ideas because he’s a Marxist. It’s a form of censorship.

I’m not sure how an ‘Australian Marxist’ would re-evaluate his/her ‘doctrine’ in light of environmental devastation. Whatever it is, Marxist or otherwise, a philosophy is surely not something that is adjusted to circumstances. Even the most practical sciences resist this kind of restriction. But a philosophy is something more akin to a religion. You are too much of a Voltaire for me.

In any case, I don’t see that an Australian Marxist would need to adjust his/her doctrine in light of environmental devastation. Surely this is precisely the outcome that Marxists have always predicted? Environmental devastation is the outcome of the movement of capital. Similarly, Adorno was not silent on the environmental consequences of economic growth. He thought they led to the total extinction of life on the planet. What more do you want?

Let’s be frank – it’s not the Marxists who refuse to talk about the consequences of economic growth but the environmentalists who run about with their ethics failing to notice the material circumstances – the reterritorialisation, as Deleuze would say. It’s not only Marxists who look at the material forces in history. Marxists are historical materialists but historical materialists are not necessarily Marxists.

One notable example of non-Marxist historical materialism is Hannah Arendt’s The Origins Of Totalitarianism. Admittedly, the book is not solely materialist in outlook. Indeed the first volume is the connection between anti-Semitism and totalitarianism, which I think is a red herring. Thereafter, the book is steadfastly materialist in orientation.

But immediately Arendt distances herself from Lenin. Imperialism isn’t simply the highest stage of capitalism but rather it is the political consciousness of the bourgeoisie. And this change or development occurred for sound material reasons, because in Britain by the early 1800s national capital had essentially worked itself out. It was a matter of the end of the economic system or expand abroad. The latter required a guarantee of security of investment. Totalitarianism, or total administration, is the outcome, you could say the ‘consequence’ of the imperialist reterritorialisation.

Although Arendt doesn’t spell it out directly, total administration is corporate administration, a top-down arrangement in which all social institutions are brought into alignment in response to a consensus over imperialist goals. The frenzy of reterritorialisation that Arendt describes in volume 3 of the book is a characteristic of corporate arrangements and relates to their relative autonomy in pursuit of agreed goals. In the last quarter of a century Australian institutions have been in a similar frenzy – endless wasteful restructuring, revue after revue, downsizing, outsourcing, great white hopes coming and going, et cetera.

The trouble with the politicians that are out there engaging in genuine issues that matter to people is that they almost never come up with anything but a corporate solution. One has to watch out that Heidegger doesn’t become a convenient ideological smokescreen for doing this kind of thing. A satisfactory solution to our environmental problems cannot be a corporate one.