Marxism as revolutionary environmentalism
Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature John Bellamy Foster (Monthly Review Press, 2000)
reviewed by Ben Courtice (http://home.connexus.net.au/~benj)
Following the ecological devastation perpetrated by Soviet industry, and the view held by many (including many Marxists) that Marxism advocates the technological 'domination' of nature, Marxism has had a defensive attitude to the modern environmental movement. Although Marxists have always taken part in environmental movements since their rise in the 1970s, there has always been suspicion that they are only there for their own interests (such as recruitment to their own group) and really don't care about the environment itself.
Some critics say Marxism is just out of date on environmental questions. Others suggest it is fundamentally anti-environmental. But both these ideas are on shaky footing when any serious examination of the thought of Karl Marx is made, and John Bellamy Foster does just this in his book.
Marx developed his political and economic critique of capitalism during the middle of the nineteenth century. The industrial revolution was shaking the political and economic structure of society. This was the central focus of Marx's study and political activity, but many forget that natural sciences were also undergoing a revolution. The common view of economics and politics usually denies the relevance of natural science, but modern environmental notions that they are intimately connected were obvious to Marx, who avidly followed the latest scientific discoveries in many fields.
'Within contemporary Green thought a strong tendency has developed to attribute the entire course of ecological degradation to the emergence of the scientific revolution', Foster writes. But a concern for the environment (centred on problems of soil fertility and population pressure) permeated the scientific world of the nineteenth century. In fact, some scientific advances were made partly in response to the damage and problems that capitalist industry (not science) had brought about.
Of course, there are many trends of thought within the environmental movement, and Foster does not attempt to reconcile Marx with all of them. For some, nature (or 'wilderness') is seen first as something to be treasured for its spiritual (or cultural) value. Some supporters of this romantic view even present it as a non-anthropocentric, objective view of nature (when in fact it is highly anthropocentric and laden with subjective values). Marx, however, saw threats to nature as a product of humans' separation from nature. In the Communist Manifesto , Marx and Engels call for abolishing the distinction between city and country. Often interpreted as an attack on the cultural backwardness of rural society, this is as much an expression of Marx's understanding of problems such as soil fertility.
The rise of modern cities meant that food, grown in the country, had to be transported to the city. The mineral components of the food then were flushed into rivers as sewage waste, depleting the soil's fertility: the agricultural cycle of natural fertiliser was broken. In the modern era not all problems (such as deforestation) are so easily reducible to a division between city and country. However, Marx's view of this 'metabolic rift' is a crucial part of any modern environmental strategy, and points to his broader method which views society as necessarily a part of the environment.
Finding the roots of the environmental crisis is more complicated than equating exploitation of nature with exploitation of workers. Saying that capitalism exploits the environment because it can make money is so simplistic as to be trivial, and in terms of solutions, points no further than to reformist regulation. It is necessary to consider in more depth: how does the problem arise? what aspects of capitalist social organisation really cause the destruction of our environment? A socialist society that wishes to avoid the ecological disasters of Soviet agriculture and industry has to grapple with these questions, the answers to which point inexorably to fundamental changes to society, well beyond the political level.
Foster sets out to demonstrate that ecological thought is central to Marxism. This he achieves admirably. Having demonstrated this, the question is, what to do next? A history of ideas does not a Marxist ecological movement make. As Louis Proyect of www.marxmail.org has written, 'Foster is correct to state that the analysis of the ecological crisis must be rooted in Marxist materialism, but - after having stated this - it is still a task that remains unfulfilled.'
But anyone - scientist or activist - who wishes to rise to this (long overdue) challenge could do worse than start with a reading of Foster's book. Just because Marx did not have to deal with radioactive waste or the greenhouse effect doesn't mean his ideas and approach have no relevance to modern environmentalists.