Jump to content

User:RedCorvus: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
RedCorvus (talk | contribs)
156 edits
RedCorvus (talk | contribs)
156 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Userboxtop|RedCorvus}}
{{Babel|en|es-1}}
{{Template:User academic}}
{{User cal}}
{{Template:user UManc}}
{{User:Secret Saturdays/ecology}}
{{User:UBX/LGBTally}}
{{User:UBX/Raven}}
{{Userboxbottom}}
<br>
== Welcome ==
== Welcome ==


Line 7: Line 17:
Currently under-construction, this will be used as the temporary home for work to be contributed elsewhere.
Currently under-construction, this will be used as the temporary home for work to be contributed elsewhere.


=== Topics addressed ===
== Topics addressed ==


* [[Metabolic rift]] - (posted 8 April 2011)
* [[Metabolic rift]] - (posted 8 April 2011)
* [[Commodification of nature]] - (posted 20 May 2011)
* [[Commodification of nature]] - (posted 20 May 2011)

----

= Commodification of nature =

The '''commodification of nature''' is an area of research within critical environmental studies concerned with the ways in which natural entities and processes are made exchangeable through the [[Market economy | market]], and the implications thereof.

Drawing upon the work of [[Karl Marx]], [[Karl Polanyi]], [[James O'Connor (academic) | James O’Connor]] and [[David Harvey (geographer) | David Harvey]], this area of work is [[normative]] and critical,<ref>Prudham, William Scott (2009) ‘Commodification’, in Castree, Noel, et al. (eds) ''A Companion to Environmental Geography'', Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 123-142. (p. 125)</ref> based in [[Marxist geography]] and [[political ecology]]. Theorists use a [[commodification]] [[Framing (social sciences) | framing]] in order to contest the perspectives of "[[Free-market environmentalism |market environmentalism]]," which sees marketization as a solution to [[environmental degradation]]. The [[Natural environment | environment]] has been a key site of conflict between proponents of the expansion of market norms, relations and modes of [[governance]] and those who oppose such expansion. Critics emphasize the contradictions and undesirable physical and ethical consequences brought about by the commodification of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource#Natural_resources natural resources] (as inputs to production and products) and processes [[Ecosystem services | environmental services]] or conditions).

Most researchers who employ a commodification of nature framing invoke a [[Marxian economics |Marxian]] conceptualization of commodities as "objects [[Commodity production |produced]] for sale on the market"<ref>Polanyi, Karl (2001) ''The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time'', Boston: Beacon Press. (p. 75)</ref> that embody both [[Use value |use]] and [[exchange value]]. Commodification itself is a process by which goods and services not produced for sale are converted into an exchangeable form.<ref>Kosoy, Nicolás and Corbera, Esteve (2010) ‘Payments for Ecosystem Services as Commodity Fetishism’, ''Ecological Economics'', 69(1): pp. 1228-1236. (p. 1229); Prudham 2009 (p. 125)</ref> It involves multiple elements, including [[privatization]], [[Alienation (property law) |alienation]], individuation, abstraction, [[Valuation (finance) |valuation]] and displacement.<ref>Castree, Noel (2003) ‘Commodifying What Nature?’, ''Progress in Human Geography'', 27(3): pp. 273-297.</ref>

As capitalism expands in breadth and depth, more and more things previously external to the system become “internalized,” including entities and processes that are usually considered "natural." [[Nature]], as a concept, however, is very difficult to define, with many layers of meaning, including external environments as well as humans themselves.<ref>Braun, Bruce (2009) ‘Nature’, in Castree, Noel, et al. (eds) ''A Companion to Environmental Geography'', Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 19-36. (p. 20); Castree, Noel (2005) ''Nature'', London: Routledge.; Smith, Neil (2008) U''neven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space, Third Edition'', Athens: University of Georgia Press. (p. 11)</ref> Political ecology and other critical conceptions draw upon strands within Marxist geography that see nature as "[[Social nature |socially produced]]," with no neat boundary separating the "social" from the "natural."<ref>Bakker, Karen and Bridge, Gavin (2006) ‘Material Worlds? Resource Geographies and the "Matter of Nature"’, ''Progress in Human Geography'', 30(10): pp. 5-27. (p. 8); Braun 2009 (p. 24); Castree 2005 (p. 24); Castree, Noel (2010a) ‘Neoliberalism and the Biophysical Environment 1: What ‘Neoliberalism’ is, and What Difference Nature Makes to it’, ''Geography Compass'', 4(12): pp. 1725-1733. (p. 1725); Smith 2008</ref> Still, the commodification of entities and processes that are considered natural is viewed as a "special case" based on nature’s biophysical [[Materialism |materiality]], which "shape[es] and condition[s] trajectories of commodification."<ref>Prudham 2009 (p. 128)</ref>

== Origins and development ==
=== Classical liberalism and enclosure ===
The commodification of nature has its origins in the rise of [[capitalism]]. In [[England]] and later elsewhere, "[[enclosure]]" involved attacks upon and eventual near-elimination of [[the commons]]—a long, contested and frequently violent process Marx referred to as "[[Primitive accumulation of capital |primitive accumulation]]."<ref>Castree 2010a (p. 1730); McCarthy, James (2009) ‘Commons’, in Castree, N., et al. (eds) ''A Companion to Environmental Geography'', Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 498-514. (p. 500)</ref>

[[Classical liberalism]], the ideological aspect of this process, was closely bound to questions of the environment. Privatization was presented as "more conducive to the careful stewardship of natural resources than the commons"<ref>McCarthy 2009 (p. 501)</ref> by thinkers like [[Jeremy Bentham |Bentham]], [[John Locke |Locke]] and [[Thomas Robert Malthus |Malthus]]. The [[Malthusianism |neo-Malthusian]] discourse of [[Garrett Hardin |Garrett Hardin’s]] "[[Tragedy of the Commons]]" (1968) parallels this perspective, reconceptualizing public goods as "scarce commodities" requiring either privatization or strong state control.<ref>McCarthy 2009 (p. 503)</ref>

=== Capitalist expansion ===
[[Marxism |Marxists]] define capitalism as a socio-economic system whose central goal is the [[Capital accumulation |accumulation]] of more wealth through the production and exchange of commodities. While the commodity form is not unique to capitalism, in it economic production is motivated increasingly by exchange.<ref>Prudham 2009 (p. 125, 127)</ref> Competition provides constant pressure for innovation and growth in a "restless and unstable process," making the system expansionary and "tendentially all-encompassing."<ref>Castree, Noel (2010b) ‘Neoliberalism and the Biophysical Environment 2: Theorising the Neoliberalisation of Nature’, ''Geography Compass'', 4(12): pp. 1734-1746. (pp. 1736-1737, 1738)</ref>

Through market [[globalization]], the tendency Marx described in the [[The Communist Manifesto | ''Communist Manifesto'']] in which "[t]he need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe,"<ref>Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrich (1967) [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm ''The Communist Manifesto''], New York: Monthly Review Press.</ref> capitalism converts nature into "an appendage of the production process."<ref>Smith, Neil (2008) ''Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space, Third Edition'', Athens: University of Georgia Press. (p. 71)</ref> As [[Neil Smith (geographer) |Neil Smith]] argues, "[n]o part of the earth’s surface, the atmosphere, the oceans, the geological substratum, or the biological superstratum are immune from transformation by capital."<ref>Smith 2008 (p. 79)</ref>

=== Neoliberal nature ===
Since the late 1980s, an ideology of “market environmentalism” has gained prominence within environmental policy.<ref>Kosoy & Corbera 2010 (p. 1230); Liverman, Diana (2004) ‘Who Governs, at What Scale and at What Price? Geography, Environmental Governance, and the Commodification of Nature’, ''Annals of the Association of American Geographers'', 94(4): pp. 734-738.</ref> Such a perspective is based in [[Neoclassical economics |neoclassical economic theory]], which sees [[Environmental degradation |degradation]] as a result of the absence of prices in environmental goods.<ref>O’Neill, John (2001) ‘Markets and the Environment: The Solution is the Problem’, ''Economic and Political Weekly'', 36(21): pp. 1865-1873. (p. 1865)</ref> Market environmentalism gained widespread acceptance through the rise of neoliberalism, an approach to human affairs in which the "[[free market]]" is given priority and money-mediated relations are seen as the best way to deliver services.<ref>Castree, Noel 2010a (p. 1726)</ref>

A neoliberal approach constructs nature as a "world currency," valued in international markets and given "the opportunity to earn its own right to survive."<ref>McAfee, Kathleen (1999) ‘Selling Nature to Save It? Biodiversity and Green Developmentalism’, ''Environment and Planning D: Society and Space'', 17(2): pp. 133-154. (p. 133, 134)</ref> This "selling nature to save it" approach<ref>McAfee 1999</ref> requires economic valuation — either indirectly, as with [[cost-benefit analysis]] and [[contingent valuation]], or through direct commodification.<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 285); O’Neill 2001</ref>

While commodification efforts are propelled in large part by [[Private sector |private firms]] seeking new areas of investment and avenues for the circulation of [[Capital (economics)|capital]], there are also explicit policy prescriptions for privatization and market exchange of resources, production [[By-product |byproducts]] and processes as the best means to rationally manage and conserve the environment.<ref>Harvey, David (2007) ''A Brief History of Neoliberalism'', Oxford: Oxford University Press.; Prudham 2009 (p. 123)</ref>

=== Stretching and deepening ===
The commodification of nature occurs through two distinct "moments" as capitalization "stretches" its reach to include greater distances of space and time, and "deepens" to penetrate into more types of goods and services.<ref>Castree, Noel (2010b) ‘Neoliberalism and the Biophysical Environment 2: Theorising the Neoliberalisation of Nature’, ''Geography Compass'', 4(12): pp. 1734-1746. (p. 1739); Prudham 2009 (p. 125)</ref> External nature becomes an "accumulation strategy" for capital, through traditional examples like [[mining]] and [[agriculture]] as well as new "[[commodity frontiers]]" in [[Commercialization of traditional medicines| bioprospecting]] and [[ecotourism]].

David Harvey sees this as "the wholesale commodification of nature in all its forms," a "new wave of ‘enclosing the commons’"<ref>Harvey, David (2003) ''The New Imperialism'', Oxford: Oxford University Press. (p. 148)</ref> that employs environmentalism in the service of the rapid expansion of capitalism.<ref>Castree 2010b (p. 1744); McAfee 1999 (p. 134)</ref> This "[[accumulation by dispossession]]" releases [[asset |assets]] at very low or zero cost, providing immediate profitability and counteracting [[overaccumulation]].<ref>Harvey 2007; McCarthy 2009 (p. 511)</ref>

[[File:Prudham_2009,_p126.jpg|thumb|alt=Alternative text|'''Commodification as an integrated process of "stretching" and "deepening"'''<ref>Prudham 2009 (p. 126)</ref>]]

== Aspects of commodification ==
At the most abstract level, commodification is a process through which qualitatively different things are made equivalent and exchangeable through the medium of [[money]]. By taking on a general quality of exchange value, they become [[Commensurability |commensurable]].<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 278, 279)</ref> Commodification turns on this apparent dissolution of qualitative difference and its “renegotiation,” as commodities are standardized in order to maintain a constant identity across space and time.<ref>Kosoy & Corbera 2010 (p. 1228); Prudham 2009 (pp. 129-131)</ref>

Commodity status is not something intrinsic to a natural entity, but is rather an assigned quality,<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 277); Prudham 2009 (p. 124, 129, 137)</ref> brought about through an active process. The conversion of a whole class of goods or services<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 278); Prudham 2005 (p.8)</ref> necessitates changes in the way nature is [[concept |conceptualized]] and [[discourse |discursively]] represented.<ref>Bridge, Gaven and Perreault, Thomas (2009) ‘Environmental Governance’, in Castree, Noel, et al. (eds) ''A Companion to Environmental Geography'', Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 475-497. (p. 487); Prudham 2009 (p. 125)</ref>

There is no "single path" to commodification.<ref>Prudham 2009 (p. 126)</ref> [[Noel Castree]] stresses that commodification in fact involves several interrelated aspects, or "relational moments," that should not be confused or conflated as they can be employed independently of each other.<ref>Castree 2003; Prudham 2009 (p. 132)</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Element || Meaning<ref>Castree 2003</ref>
|-
| Privatization || Assigning of legal title over a commodity to a particular actor
|-
| Alienability || Capacity of a given commodity to be physically and morally separated from sellers
|-
| Individuation || Separating a commodity from supporting context through legal and material boundaries
|-
| Abstraction || Setting individual things as equivalent based on classifiable similarities
|-
| Valuation || Monetizing the value of a commodity
|-
| Displacement || Spatiotemporal separation, obscuring obscuring origins and relations
|}

'''''Privatization''''' is the assigning of [[Title (property) |legal title]] to an entity or process. A commodity needs to be owned, either by an individual or a group, in order to be traded.<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 279)</ref> Privatization of natural entities can entail enclosure or the representation thereof (as with [[Intellectual property |intellectual property rights]]), and represents a shift in social relations, changing rights of access, use and disposal as things move from communally-, state- or unowned modes into private hands.<ref>Castree 2011 (p. 35, 36)</ref>

'''''Alienability''''' is the capacity of a given commodity to be separated, physically and morally, from its seller. If a commodity is not alienable, it cannot be exchanged and is thus shielded from the market.<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 279, 280); O’Neill 2001 (p. 1867)</ref> For example, human organs might be privatized (owned by their bearer) but very rarely would they be considered alienable.

'''''Individuation''''' is the representational and physical act of separating a commodity from its supporting context through legal and/or material boundaries. This could involve "splitting" an ecosystem into legally-defined and tradable property rights to specific services or resources.<ref>The construction of something as a resource is a matter of convention, and "involves a discursive and practical ‘cut’ into the seamless complexity of the world in order to name discrete ‘noun-chunks’ of reality that are deemed to be socially useful" (Castree 2003, p. 280)</ref>

'''''Abstraction''''' is the assimilation of a given thing into a broader type or process, the transformation of particular things into classes.<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 281); Kosoy & Corbera 2010 (p. 1231)</ref> Through ''functional abstraction'', "wetlands" are constructed as a generic category despite the uniqueness of physical sites<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 281); Robertson, Morgan McEuen (2000) ‘No Net Loss’, ''Antipode'', 32(4): pp. 463-493.</ref> and different gasses and activities are equated through [[Emissions trading |carbon markets]].<ref>Lohmann, Larry (2010) ‘"Strange Markets" and the Climate Crisis’, in Bonilla, O. and Galvez, E. ''Crisis Financier o Crisis Civilizatoria'', Quito: Instituto de Estudios Ecologistas del Tercer Mundo. (p. 5); MacKenzie, Donald (2009) ‘Making Things the Same: Gases, Emissions Rights and the Politics of Carbon Markets’, ''Accounting, Organizations and Society'', 34(1): pp. 440-455. (p. 440)</ref> Through ''spatial abstraction'' things in one place are treated as the same as things located elsewhere so that both can form part of the same market.<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 281); MacKenzie 2009 (p. 440, 444)</ref>

'''''Valuation''''' is the manifestation of all expressions of worth ([[Aesthetics |aesthetic]], practical, [[Ethics |ethical]], ''et cetera'') through a single exchange value. Monetization is thus foundational to capitalism, rendering things commensurable and exchangeable, allowing for the separation of production, circulation and consumption over great gulfs of time and space.<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 281); Prudham 2009 (p. 124)</ref>

'''''Displacement''''' involves something appearing as "something other than itself." Commodities might be better thought of as "socio-natural relations" than [[Reification (Marxism) |reified]] as things "in and of themselves," but through spatio-temporal separation of producers and consumers, the histories and relations of commodities become obscured.<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 282); Prudham 2009 (p. 132)</ref> This is Marx’s [[commodity fetishism]], the "making invisible" of the social relationships and embeddedness of production.<ref>Kosoy & Corbera 2010 (p. 1228, 1229)</ref>

== Problems with commodification ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodification_of_nature# Further_reading Critics] see environmental degradation as stemming from these processes of commodification, and generally include at least implicit criticism of one or more aspect. There appear to be three broad "problem areas" from which the commodification of nature is critiqued: ''practical'', in terms of whether or not nature can be properly made into a commodity; ''moral'', in terms of the ethical implications of commodification; and ''consequential'', in terms of the effects of commodification on nature itself.

=== Practical problems ===
Much of the literature relates commodification of nature to the issue of materiality—the significance of biophysical properties and context. The qualitative differences of a heterogeneous biophysical world are seen to be analytically and practically significant, sources of unpredictability and resistance to human intention that also shape and provide opportunities for capital circulation and accumulation.<ref>Bakker & Bridge 2006; Braun 2009; Castree 2003; Castree 2005; Kloppenburg, Jr., Jack Ralph (2004) ''First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, 1492-2000, Second Edition'', Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.; Mansfield, Becky (2004) ‘Rules of Privatization: Contradictions in Neoliberal Regulation of North Pacific Fisheries’, ''Annals of the Association of American Geographers'', 94(3): pp. 565-584.; Prudham, William Scott (2005) ''Knock on Wood: Nature as Commodity in Douglas-Fir Country'', London: Routledge.</ref>

The tangible non-human world thus affects the construction of social and economic relations and practice, inscribing ecology in the dynamics of capital. While some "natures" are readily subsumed by capitalism, others "resist" complete commodification, displaying a form of "[[Agency (philosophy) |agency]]."<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 289)</ref> The ecological characteristics of [[Fishery |marine fish]], for example, affect the forms that privatization, industry structure and [[Regulation (socio-legal concept) |regulation]] can take.<ref>Mansfield 2004 (p. 565)</ref> Water, also, does not commodify easily due to its physical properties, which leads to differentiation in its governing institutions.<ref>Bakker & Bridge 2006 (p. 18)</ref>

The demarcation and pricing of nature-based commodities is thus problematic. Divisibility and exclusion are difficult, as it is often not possible to draw clean property rights around environmental services or resources.<ref>Kosoy & Corbera 2010 (p. 1231); Mansfield 2004 (p. 578); O’Neill 2001 (pp. 1867-1868); O’Neill, John (2007) ''Markets, Deliberation and Environment'', London: Routledge.(p. 42)</ref> Likewise, pricing is a problem as many species, landscapes and services are unique or otherwise irreplaceable and [[Commensurability |incommensurable]].<ref>Castree, N. (2011) ‘Neoliberalism and the Biophysical Environment 3: Putting Theory into Practice’, ''Geography Compass'', 5(1): pp. 35-49. (p. 37, 43);Liverman 2004 (p. 735)</ref> Their monetary values are thus in many ways arbitrary, as they do not follow changes in quality or quantity but rather social preference, failing to convey "real" ecological value or reasons for conservation.<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 286); Henderson, George (2009) ‘Marxist Political Economy and the Environment’, in Castree, Noel, et al. (eds) A'' Companion to Environmental Geography'', Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 266-293. (p. 277); Kosoy & Corbera 2010 (p. 1234); O’Neill 2007 (p. 28)</ref>

=== Moral difficulties ===
A single monetary value also denies the multiplicity of values which could be attributed to nature — non-monetary systems of cultural and social importance.<ref>Kosoy & Corbera 2010 (p. 1228, 1232)</ref> The environment can express relations between generations as a sort of [[heritage]]. [[Livelihood]], territorial rights and "[[sacred |sacredness]]" poorly translate into prices, and dividing a communal-social value — a forest, for instance — into private property rights can undermine the relations and identity of a community.<ref>Liverman 2004 (p. 735); O’Neill 2007 (p. 50)</ref>

Neoliberal policies have been implicated in greatly altered patterns of access and use. Markets generally deal poorly with issues of [[procedural fairness]] and [[Distribution of wealth |equitable distribution]], and critics see commodification as producing greater levels of [[Social inequality |inequality]] in power and participation while reinforcing existing vulnerabilities.<ref>Castree 2011 (p. 36); Corbera, Esteve, Brown, Katrina, and Adger, W. Neil (2007) ‘The Equity and Legitimacy of Markets for Ecosystem Services’, ''Development and Change'', 38(4): pp. 587-613. (p. 587, 608); Harvey 2003 (p. 144); Kosoy & Corbera 2010 (p. 1232); Liverman 2004 (p. 735)</ref> Ecosystem benefits might be considered "normative [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_economics#Public_goods public goods]"<ref>O’Neill 2007 (pp. 51-52)</ref> — even when commodified, there is a sense that individuals ''ought'' to not be excluded from access. When [[water privatization]] prices people out, for instance, a sense of use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights#Natural_rights_versus_legal_rights rights] inspires [[protest]].<ref>Prudham 2009 (pp. 128-129)</ref> While neoliberal approaches are often presented as neutral or [[Objectivity (philosophy) |objective]], they disguise highly political approaches to resources and the interests and power of certain actors.<ref>McAfee 1999 (p. 133, 135, 151)</ref>

=== Problematic consequences ===
Through commodification, natural entities and services become vehicles for the realization of profit,<ref>Castree 2005 (p. 159, 282)</ref> subject to the pressures of the market where [[Economic efficiency |efficiency]] overrides other concerns.<ref>Lohmann 2010 (p. 4); Henderson 2009 (p. 274)</ref> With climate commodities, the profit motive incentivizes buyers and sellers to ignore the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_trade#Criticisms steady erosion of the climate mitigation goal].<ref>Lohmann 2010 (pp. 7-8)</ref> Market exchange is "reason-blind,"<ref>O’Neill 2001 (p. 1866); O’Neill 2007 (p. 28)</ref> but without rational assessment of different strategies and the ecological importance of particular natural entities, commodification cannot effectively deliver on conservation.<ref>Lohmann 2010 (p. 5); O’Neill 2001 (p. 1869)</ref>

Harvey thus declares that there is something "inherently anti-ecological" about capitalist commodification.<ref>Harvey 1996 (p. 155)</ref> It ignores and simplifies complex relations, obscuring origins and narrowing things to a single service or standard unit.<ref>Kosoy & Corbera 2010 (p. 1228, 1231)</ref> The treatment of things as the same for a particular end — either profit or a single utility — leads to a homogenization and simplification of the biophysical. As governments and private firms seek to maximize carbon content for emissions markets, they invest preferably in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_farm#Tree_farming_and_climate_change tree plantations] over complex forest ecosystems, eliminating species diversity, density and resulting in [[Domino effect |domino effects]] on processes such as water flow.<ref>Kosoy & Corbera 2010 (p. 1231); Prudham 2005; Prudham 2009 (p. 131)</ref>

The neglect of relational aspects also ignores the [[Emergence |emergent]] and embedded character of ecosystem functions. Components are frequently dependent on each other and the result of interactions between [[Biotic component |biotic]] and non-biotic factors across space and at multiple levels. Alienation and individuation may thus be counterproductive to the provision of ecosystem services, and veils human perception of what an ecosystem is and how it functions—and consequently how to best conserve and repair it.<ref>Kosoy & Corbera 2010 (pp. 1231-1232)</ref>

== Crisis and resistance ==
=== Incomplete capitalization and the fictitious commodity ===
When confronted with natural "barriers to accumulation," capitalists attempt to overcome them through technical and social innovation.<ref>Castree 2005 (p. 161); Mansfield, Becky (2004) ‘Rules of Privatization: Contradictions in Neoliberal Regulation of North Pacific Fisheries’, ''Annals of the Association of American Geographers'', 94(3): pp. 565-584.(p. 577)</ref> This often involves the modification of nature to fit the needs of production and exchange, allowing for fuller realization of profits. Nature is "subsumed" to capitalist accumulation, losing its "independent" capacity and approaching "the archetype of a ‘pure’ commodity."<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 282, 286); Castree 2005 (p. 161)</ref>

However, as nature becomes "[[Rationalization (economics) |rationalized]]" and internalized, increasing the control of capitalists over exchange, production and distribution,<ref>Prudham 2005 (p.15); Smith 2008 (p. 68)</ref> a new contradiction emerges. Capitalist penetration into natural commodities can never be complete, because a certain amount of production, by definition, takes place prior to human intervention.<ref>Bridge & Perreault 2009 (p. 488); Prudham 2005 (p.12, 16, 17)</ref> Because natural entities and processes do not require capital or labor to be produced, and their social, cultural and/or ecological value ''exceeds'' the market value placed upon them, they are considered [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_%28Marxism%29#Pseudo-commodities pseudo-] or [[The Great Transformation (book) |fictitious commodities]].<ref>Castree 2010b (p. 1738); Kosoy & Corbera 2010 (p. 1230)</ref> This basic fictitiousness is the origin of the material contradictions that arise when natural commodities are treated ''as if'' they were "true" commodities, as completely privatizable, alienable, separable, ''et cetera''.<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 285); Prudham 2009 (p. 128)</ref>

=== Degradation of resources, underproduction of conditions ===
As fictitious commodities with origins outside of capitalist production, the value of nature, counter to the neoclassical assumption, ''cannot'' be fully accounted for in monetary terms, and there is a resultant tendency toward the [[overexploitation]] and "underproduction" of nature.<ref>Castree 2010b (p. 1740); Kosoy & Corbera 2010 (p. 1231); O‘Connor, James (1998) ''Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism'', London: Guilford Press.</ref>

Natural entities that are commodified are subjected to the competitive drive for accumulation. Capitalism is "ecologically irrational," with a systematic tendency to overexploit its natural resource base.<ref>Castree 2005 (pp. 156-158, 160)</ref> At the same time, what O’Connor terms the "[[conditions of production]]" (all the phenomena upon which capitalism depends but is unable to produce itself, including environmental conditions and processes) are subjected to indiscriminate degradation as they ''cannot'' be fully commodified.<ref>Castree 2003 (p. 284); Castree 2010b (p. 1740); O’Connor 1998 (p. 31); Prudham 2005 (p.8, 12)</ref> This is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism#The_.22second_contradiction.22_of_capitalism "second contradiction"] of capitalism, between the [[Relations of production |relations]] and [[Productive forces |forces of production]] and its conditions.<ref>O’Connor 1998</ref> Capitalism undermines its own production system, "producing its own scarcity."<ref>Henderson 2009 (p. 277)</ref>

=== Reclaiming the commons? ===
Recruiting nature into relations of capitalist exchange "incites a good deal of push back," as these entities and services "matter a great deal to ordinary people."<ref>Henderson 2009 (pp. 276-277)</ref> Social needs compete politically for access and control of an increasingly commodified nature,<ref>Prudham 2005 (p.8)</ref> and as price is insufficient to resolve these competing claims, [[Social movement |counter-movements]] emerge,<ref>Henderson 2009 (pp. 276-277)</ref> expressing the "[[Crisis theory |crisis tendencies]]" of capitalist nature<ref>O’Connor 1998</ref> through socio-political struggles over representation and access.<ref>Castree 2010a (p. 1731); Castree 2010b (p. 1741); McCarthy 2009 (p. 507); Prudham 2009 (pp. 128-129)</ref>

Protest movements, transnational coalitions, instances of alternative practices and counter-discourses all fall within a broad tent of resistance struggles to "reclaim the commons."<ref>Harvey 2003 (p. 162); McAfee 1999 (p. 133); Also see Klein, Naomi (2001) [http://newleftreview.org/A2323 ‘Reclaiming the Commons’], ''New Left Review'', (9): pp. 81-89.</ref> This can be seen as Polanyi’s "[[Double movement (social sciences) |double movement]]," in which tendencies toward and against market coordination interact,<ref>Polanyi 2001 ''in'' Castree 2010b (p. 1739)</ref> based in a rejection of the treatment of the environment as alienable market goods.<ref>O’Neill 2001 (p. 1867)</ref>

== Further reading ==
Notable contemporary studies concerning the commodification of nature include:

* Bakker, Karen (2002) [http://www.environmentandplanning.com/epa/fulltext/a34/a3425.pdf ‘From state to market?: water ''mercantilización'' in Spain’], ''Environment and Planning A'', 34(1): pp. 767-790.

* Bakker, Karen (2007) [http://www.antipode-online.net/abstract.asp?vid=39&iid=3&aid=3&s=0 ‘The “Commons” Versus the “Commodity”: Alter-globalization, Anti-privatization and the Human Right to Water in the Global South’], ''Antipode'', 39(3): pp. 430-455.

* Corbera, Esteve, Brown, Katrina, and Adger, W. Neil (2007) [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00425.x/abstract ‘The Equity and Legitimacy of Markets for Ecosystem Services’], ''Development and Change'', 38(4): pp. 587-613.

* Duffy, Rosaleen (2002) [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GtV-AAAAMAAJ&q=duffy+a+trip+too+far&dq=duffy+a+trip+too+far&hl=en&ei=6ELWTZjNMcyp8AOMpvGECw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA ''A Trip Too Far: Ecotourism, Politics, and Exploitation''], London: Earthscan.

* Kloppenburg, Jr., Jack Ralph (2004) [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QGx9Ao2dzckC&dq=first+the+seed+kloppenburg&source=gbs_navlinks_s ''First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, 1492-2000, Second Edition''], Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

* Kosoy, Nicolás and Corbera, Esteve (2010) [http://estevecorbera.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/pesfetishism_kosoycorbera_2010.pdf ‘Payments for Ecosystem Services as Commodity Fetishism’], ''Ecological Economics'', 69(1): pp. 1228-1236.

* Lohmann, Larry (2010) [http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/sites/thecornerhouse.org.uk/files/Strange%20Markets.pdf ‘"Strange Markets" and the Climate Crisis’], in Bonilla, O. and Galvez, E. ''Crisis Financier o Crisis Civilizatoria'', Quito: Instituto de Estudios Ecologistas del Tercer Mundo.

* Mansfield, Becky (2004) [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.00414.x/abstract ‘Rules of Privatization: Contradictions in Neoliberal Regulation of North Pacific Fisheries’], ''Annals of the Association of American Geographers'', 94(3): pp. 565-584.

* McAfee, Kathleen (1999) [http://www.landaction.org/gallery/sellnature.pdf ‘Selling Nature to Save It? Biodiversity and Green Developmentalism’], ''Environment and Planning D: Society and Space'', 17(2): pp. 133-154.

* Prudham, William Scott (2005) [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0wLoi3oPn3AC&dq=prudham+knock+on+wood&source=gbs_navlinks_s ''Knock on Wood: Nature as Commodity in Douglas-Fir Country''], London: Routledge.

* Robertson, Morgan McEuen (2004) [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V68-4BHV812-2&_user=494590&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000024058&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=494590&md5=b530a21d77e58bde8b074fa8d2e5f8ad&searchtype=a 'The Neoliberalization of Ecosystem Services: Wetland Banking and Problems in Environmental Governance’], ''Geoforum'', 35(3): pp. 361-373.

* Shiva, Vandana (1998) [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8Kw5rVFCOUMC&dq=shiva+biopiracy&source=gbs_navlinks_s ''Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge''], Cambridge: Green Books.

* Swyngedouw, Erik (2005) [http://tomasontario0.tripod.com/photos/swyngedouw_water.pdf ‘Dispossessing H2O: The Contested Terrain of Water Privatization’], ''Capitalism Nature Socialism'', 16(10): pp. 81-98.

== See also ==
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-1-of-2}}
* [[Accumulation by dispossession]]
* [[Commodification]]
* [[Commodity (Marxism)]]
* [[Commodity fetishism]]
* [[The commons]]
* [[Critical geography]]
{{Col-2-of-2}}
* [[Eco-socialism]]
* [[Environmental sociology]]
* [[Neoliberalism]]
* [[Political ecology]]
* [[Primitive accumulation of capital]]
* [[Tragedy of the commons]]
{{Col-end}}

== References ==
<references />

Revision as of 16:25, 20 May 2011


Welcome

Welcome to the user page for user:RedCorvus

Explanation

Currently under-construction, this will be used as the temporary home for work to be contributed elsewhere.

Topics addressed

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:RedCorvus&oldid=430061211"