Was Marx an Ecologist? Karl Marx has written voluminous texts related to capitalist political economy, and his work has been interpreted and utilised in a variety of ways. A key (although not commonly considered) area in which this is the case, relates to whether or not Marx's writings have any merit ecologically and this essay will seek to answer the question of whether or not Marx was an ecologist. It will argue that by looking at three key conceptual areas of Marx's work the dual logic of labour, alienation and metabolic rift it possible to view Marx as a ecologist, particularly in the sense that he was able to transcend the human-nature dichotomy often found in contemporary ecological thinking. However this is tentative conclusion and although Marx's thought is considered of great relevance to modern ecology, the essay will also highlight limitations of Marx's analyses as ecological critique and suggest where one might the answer to overcoming these. Of primary importance in considering Marx's thought is his underlying materialist conception of history. This conception focuses on the dialectic relations between man and nature as practical and established by action (Foster, 2000). In the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy Marx challenges Hegelian idealism, arguing that the ideational arises from the real material conditions of life, thus in a much cited paragraph he states that: The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness (Marx, 1996: 863). Hence any exploration of Marx must start with recognition that society is founded upon the social relations that arise from the way material necessities of life are produced (Cammack, 2013). From here, Marx develops his theory of the labour process which when considering him from an ecological lens, is an important place to begin, because 'labour has precisely embodied mankind's attitudes towards nature as well as the relations between humanity and nature' (Han, 2010: 16). For Marx, labour is comprised of both man's purposeful activity and the subject of that work and its instrument; it 'is a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature' (Marx 1971: 214). Thus in this basic understanding of labour we have 'purpose realisation' and 'material metabolism' constituting the dual logic of labour process (Han, 2010: 17). The concept of material metabolism (a primarily of natural science), is here used philosophically by Marx to conceptualise human-nature relations in terms of 'matter interchanging' (Han, 2010: 25). Hence Marx states that: Just as plants, animals, stones, air lights, etc. theoretically form a part of human consciousness...so too in practice they form a part of human life and human activity. In a physical sense man lives only from these natural products, whether in the form of nourishment, heating, clothing, shelter etc. the universality of man manifests itself in practice in that universality which makes the whole of nature his inorganic body (1) as a direct means of life and (2) as the matter the object and the tool of his life activity (Marx, 1996: 739). Marx is in this conceptualisation able to transcend the duality of human-nature relationships (i.e. the separation between human and nature and body and mind), through the the reproduction of nature through labour - the a prolongation of the body of an individual (Araghi, 2009). The importance of this is that 'as long as man has existed, nature and man have affected each other' (Marx and Engels,
1996 :800) and thus for Marx objects of simple sensuous certainty (such as a cherry tree) are given only to man through social development (i.e. industry and commerce) and therefore nature is socially produced. Raymond Williams picks up this crucial aspect of Marx's work in Ideas of Nature demonstrating that it is problematic to conceive of nature as 'out there' and as entirely untouched by human interaction: 'Once we begin to speak of people mixing their labour with the earth, we are in a whole world of new relations between people and nature and to separate natural history from social history becomes extremely problematic' (Williams, 1980: 76). The separation of man from nature, is a theme that Marx discusses in his theory of alienation; ' the material process by which man creates things out of nature [and] comes to be dominated by those creations', a situation that can only be overcome through regaining control of owns means of production (Hampsher-Monk, 1992 : 499). In Grundisse, Marx states that: It is not the unity of living and active humanity with the natural, inorganic conditions of their metabolic exchange with nature, and hence their appropriation of nature, which requires explanation or is the result of a historic process, but rather the separation between these inorganic conditions of human existence and this active existence, a separation which is completely posited only in the relation of wage labor and capital. (Marx 1973: 427) Under capitalist relations of production, alienation occurs in the form of alienation from self, from product, between workers and man from nature and: 'In alienating (1) nature from man, and (2) man from himself, his own active function, his life activity, alienated labor also alienates the species from him; it makes species-life the means of individual life' (Marx, 1996: 793). It is capitalist production, specifically the separation of producers from natural conditions (a central aspect of capital-labour relations) that is at the root of alienation of man from nature then (Foster, 1999). This perception of alienation as a material process separating man and nature represents an important challenge to the idealism, spiritualism and dualism that is apparent in much of contemporary ecological thought (Foster, 2000). Hence for Foster, there is no question regarding Marx's ecological credentials. This argument can be reinforced be referring to what is probably Marx's most ecologically relevant work; that relating to 'metabolic rift' (Burkett, 2001). Foster (1999: 373), in attempts to refute arguments that Marx was anti-ecological, developed the concept of 'metabolic rift' based on Marx's original discussion of social metabolism, in which the development of the capitalist system is the transformation of social interchange with nature in the pursuit of profit. Particularly, Marx notes how the constant reproduction of capital on ever increasing scales, was leading to the intensification of metabolic demands on nature (Clark and Foster, 2010). Hence for Marx (1887: 329-330): Capitalist production... on the one hand concentrates the historical motive power of society; on the other hand, it disturbs the circulation of matter between man and the soil, i.e., prevents
the return to the soil of its elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing; it therefore violates the conditions necessary to lasting fertility of the soil. Foster (1999) considers this as proof that Marx provided a powerful analysis of the main ecological crisis that was taking place at the time (degradation of soil fertility under capitalist agriculture) and in so doing, raised the issues of antagonistic relations between town and country, ecological sustainability and metabolic relations between humans and nature. Thus through this notion of metabolic rift, Marx could be called an ecologist, as he captures the material estrangement of human beings in capitalist society from the natural conditions of their existence, essentially arguing that basic conditions of ecological sustainability had been violated in the failure to maintain the cycles of the soil (Foster, 1999). Since Foster's development of the concept of metabolic rift, other academics have utilised the theory in relation to climate change (Clark and York, 2005), oceans (Clausen and Clark, 2005), nitrogen fertilizers (Mancus, 2007), food sovereignty and agrarian citizenship (Wittman, 2009) and the alternative globalization movement (Salleh, 2010). For Moore (2011: 2), the concept of metabolic rift must go further in order to transcend continually reproduced Cartesian binaries, (by for example Foster, Clark and York) which have developed upon Marx in a way that postulates 'biophysical problems as consequences of capitalist development, but not constitutive of capitalism as a historical system'. Hence rather than argue that the division of labour between town and country is the cause of metabolic rift, it should be conceived of as a metabolic rift, and as a component of successive re-compositions of capitalist space (Moore, 2011). Thus through exploring Marx's ideas about labour, alienation and metabolic rift, it is clear that even if one does not want to attribute Marx the label of ecologist, he was at least distinctly ecological in many aspects of his thinking. However despite this, it is important to highlight those who perceive limitations in Marx's analysis and to point to more fully elaborated ecological critiques. A key criticism of Marx is the idea that he was Promethean, in the sense that he perceives the redemption of humanity through increased control of nature, especially through scientific means (Northcott, 2013). Marx is also often considered unecological given his refutation of natural limits to economic growth, for example believing that 'science would overcome limits to soil fertility, even given the tendency of industrial agriculture to fail to return nutrients to soils' (Northcott, 2013: 149). Others also argue that Marx places too much emphasis on the human economy, rather than on the ecological and that he promotes the mastery (and thus exploitation) of nature, giving value only to that aspect of human labour which transformed it (Araghi, 2009). However, this argument fails to recognise that Marx does not separate man and nature and perceives the concept of mastery as relates to slave-master, whereas mastery, is understood Marx, is based on 'full respect for natural laws in attempt to meet all societal needs within the precondition of maintaining the ecosystem in balance' (Han, 2010: 23). Another crucial point to consider is that not only does Marx advocate science as a solution for overcoming ecological limits, but he advocates emancipation of society through the creation of communist ownership of the means of production; a recipe which some would consider problematic. For example rather than advocate communist state ownership instead of private property, Belloc argues that the route to ecological sustainability is the redistribution of land as private property to the masses (for example emulating pre-capitalist societies in which each had legitimate land use rights) (Northcott, 2013). Given the large concentration of land in the hands of the few, even in Scotland alone, and convincing contemporary critiques of the state as a perpetrator of ecological degradation, this is an important point. Given that many perceive limitations to Marx's ecological credentials one might consider looking to those who have developed a more robust ecological critique. Karl Polanyi for example built upon
notions of historically interdependent relations between nature and society, and sought to show especially how the commodification of the land was an aspect of a widening metabolic rift in which ecological crises would continue to arise, leading to the annihilation of the soil. The commodification of land is a particularly important aspect of his work and develops on the important foundations laid by Marx. Critical ecological accounts of political economy, are so important for modern day ecologists, as they hold so much relevance with regards to contemporary neo-liberal trajectories of marketisation of environmental goods and services such as the REDD+ initiative (see Northcott, 2013). To conclude, Marx could be called an ecologist when one considers his theory of labour, alienation and metabolic rift, in which Marx transcends (in a way that many modern ecologists fail to) the Modern Constitution (see Latour) that is the nature-society dualism (Castree, 2000). Marx is also particularly important for contemporary political ecology given his explorations of such issues as unequal land ownership and the distortion of human-nature and social relationships (Northcott, 2013). However, it is also the case that Marx's ecological credentials are limited for many through Prometheanism and his insistence on overcoming natural boundaries through human control of nature. This however is not an accepted point, and debate continues regarding Marx's ecological thought. His work has been foundational in many aspects, and should be valued for what it can bring to contemporary ecological critique, however one might consider for a more robust ecological argument following a reading of Marx with a consultation of the work of Polanyi. References
Araghi, F. (2009). 'Accumulation by displacement: global enclosures, food crisis, and the ecological contradictions of capitalism'. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 113-146. Burkett, P. (2001). 'Marx's ecology and the limits of contemporary ecosocialism'. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 12(3), 126-133. Cammack, P. (2013). 'Classical Marxism'. International Organization and Global Governance. New York: Routledge. Castree, N. (2000). 'Marxism and the Production of Nature', Capital & Class.72: 6-36. Clark, B., & York, R. (2005). 'Carbon metabolism: Global capitalism, climate change, and the biospheric rift'. Theory and Society, 34(4), 391-428 Clausen, R., & Clark, B. (2005). 'The Metabolic Rift and Marine Ecology An Analysis of the Ocean Crisis Within Capitalist Production'. Organization & Environment, 18(4), 422-444. Foster, J. B. (1999). 'Marx's Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology'. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 366-405. Foster, J, B. (2000). Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature. Monthly Review Press: New York. Han, L. (2010). 'Marxism and ecology: Marx s theory of labour process revisited'. In Huan, Q. Eco- Socialism as Politics: Rebuilding the Basis of Our Modern Civilisation.Springer: Netherlands. Hampsher-Monk, I. (1992). A History of Modern Political Thought. Blackwell: Cambridge. Mancus, P. (2007). 'Nitrogen Fertilizer Dependency and Its Contradictions: A Theoretical Exploration of Social Ecological Metabolism*'. Rural Sociology, 72 (2): pp. 269-288. Marx, K. (1887). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vol 1. Progress Publishers: Moscow. Marx, K. (1971) in Jordan, A, Z. (ed.) Karl Marx: Economy, Class and Social Revolution. Michael Joseph: London. Marx, K. (1973) Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Marx, K. (1996). 'Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy' in Wootton, D. (ed). Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. Hackett: Cambridge. Moore, J. W. (2011). 'Transcending the metabolic rift: a theory of crises in the capitalist worldecology'. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(1), 1-46. Northcott, M. (2013). A Political Theology of Climate Change. Eerdmans: Michigan. Salleh, A. (2010). 'From metabolic rift to metabolic value : reflections on environmental sociology and the alternative globalization movement'. Organization & Environment, 23(2), 205-219. Williams, R. (1980). 'Ideas of Nature' in Problems in Materialism and Culture. Verso: London.
Wittman, H. (2009). 'Reworking the metabolic rift: La Vía Campesina, agrarian citizenship, and food sovereignty'. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(4), 805-826.