Karl Marx the ecologist

[Lynx]

http://links.org.au/node/923

I'm surprised by the quotes attributed to Marx and Engels.

[mikelepore]

I have always liked Marx's "Nature is man's inorganic body...." passage.

Copying the following from Karl Marx, from the "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts", 1844, first manuscript, section entitled "Estranged Labor."

"Species-life, both for man and for animals, consists physically in the fact that man, like animals, lives from inorganic nature; and because man is more universal than animals, so too is the area of inorganic nature from which he lives more universal. Just as plants, animals, stones, air, light, etc., theoretically form a part of human consciousness, partly as objects of science and partly as objects of art -- his spiritual inorganic nature, his spiritual means of life, which he must first prepare before he can enjoy and digest them -- 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. Nature is man's inorganic body -- that is to say, nature insofar as it is not the human body. Man lives from nature -- i.e., nature is his body -- and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it is he is not to die. To say that man's physical and mental life is linked to nature simply means that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature."

[bellyscratch]

Just saw a blog post about Marx and ecology with an mp3 lecture by David McLellen

http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/marx-and-ecology-david-mclellan-lecture-mp3/

[Vanguard1917]

The author of the article is kind of putting words into Marx and Engels's mouth. Yes, they criticed some of the agricultural practices of their time, but Marx and Engels had nothing in common with environmentalism and they strongly rejected the environmentalist thinkers of their time, e.g. Daumer.

"There is no question, of course, that modern sciences...with modern industry, have revolutionised the whole of nature and put an end to man's childish attitude to nature... For the rest, it would be desirable that Bavaria's sluggish peasant economy, the ground on which priests and Daumers likewise grow, should at last be ploughed up by modern cultivation and modern machines."

In contrast with today's reactionary 'anti-capitalists' in the green movement, Marx saw that capitalism's 'civilising' and 'revolutionary' achievement was that it challenged nature-worship, it helped expand the material needs of humanity (i.e. 'consumerism'), it gave way to the greater international development of industry and commerce, and it gave way to the better exploitation of nature by humanity:

"Hence the great civilizing influence of capital, its production of a stage of society compared with which all earlier stages appear to be merely local progress and idolatory of nature. Nature becomes for the first time simply an object for manking, purely a matter of utility; it ceases to be recognised as a power in its own right; and the theoretical knowledge of its independent laws appears only as a stratagem designed to subdue it to human requirements, whether as the object of consumption or as the means of production. Pursuing this tendency, capital has pushed beyond national boundaries and prejudices, beyond the deification of nature and the inherited, self-sufficient satisfaction of existing needs confined within well-defined bounds, and the reproduction of the traditional way of life. It is destructive of all this, and permanently revolutionary, tearing down all obstacles that impede the development of the productive forces, the expansion of needs, the diversity of production and the exploitation and exchange of natural and intellectual forces."

For Marx and Engels, the massive development of the productive forces of society is what makes capitalism historically justified. It is its redeeming feature and it's what allows humanity to reach socialism, i.e. a more advanced mode of production:

"Development of the productive forces of social labour is the historical task and justification of capital. This is just the way that it unconsciously creates the material requirements of a higher mode of production."

It's only through subjecting nature to the will of humanity that we can create the things that we need to progress:


"Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified."

Engels argued that what makes humanity special and different from animals is its ability to learn to master nature:

"In short, the animal merely uses its environment, and brings about changes in it simply by its presence; man by his changes makes it serve his ends, masters it. This is the final, essential distinction between man and other animals, and once again it is labour that brings about this distinction."

He argued that the goal of communism is to subject nature fully to the human will:

"The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature, because he has now become master of his own social organization. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face-to-face with man as laws of Nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man's own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by Nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have, hitherto, governed history,pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, more and more consciously, make his own history — only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom."

As we can see, it's a bit of a stretch to try to associate Marx and Engels, two thinkers whose ideas are in many ways antithetical to those of the environmental movement, with today's eco-reactionaries.

[Lynx]

A list of sources for the quotes (when & where) might help sort this out.

[Vanguard1917]

A list of sources for the quotes (when & where) might help sort this out.

Look them up on MIA if you're curious.

[JohannGE]

Understandable that in the mid 1800's Marx would espouse views reflecting the scientific knowlage of the time.

With our current knowlage it would be inexcusable for anyone not to recognise the difference between taking the facts into account and "nature worship". I wouldn't insult Marx by suggesting he would.

[Lynx]

Conclusion: the attributed quotes are selective and convey an inconsistent message.

[MarxSchmarx]

Understandable that in the mid 1800's Marx would espouse views reflecting the scientific knowlage of the time.

With our current knowlage it would be inexcusable for anyone not to recognise the difference between taking the facts into account and "nature worship". I wouldn't insult Marx by suggesting he would.
JGE has a point.

It is a little pointless to argue about what Marx and Engels would "write if they were alive today". But nevertheless, I for one strongly suspect they would have found the environmental problems caused by a capitalist mode of production as yet more evidence of the system's dysfunction.

The problem with capitalism is that it encourages the short term mastery of man over his environment (like, say, over-fishing) without taking into account the long-term consequences. To some extent, this critique is one against the pace of technological innovation under capitalism rather than people's relationships to the environment. But it still implies an element of "sustainability" and other "environmentalist" buzzwords abused by "eco-reactionaries."

As an aside, I think the title of this thread exemplifies misuse of the term "ecology" to talk about what is in essence conservation. I think a strong argument could be made that Marx and Engels would have most certainly embraced warmly the science of how organisms, humans included, would interact with their dynamic environment. It is a shame they weren't ecologists.

[Vanguard1917]

Conclusion: the attributed quotes are selective and convey an inconsistent message.

Actually, they accurately convey what Marx and Engels thought of those who put forward backward 'environmentalist' arguments.

Feel free to post quotes that you feel show Marx and Engels as having anything in common with environmentalism.

Yes, Marx highlighted some of the problems of the agricultural methods of his day, but he had no time at all for reactionary, 'environmentalist' solutions. Marx was an ardent supporter of modern agricultural and industrial technology, and he called for it to be applied as extensively as possible.

[Lynx]

Actually, they accurately convey what Marx and Engels thought of those who put forward backward 'environmentalist' arguments.
Yes, assuming your quotes (and the ones in the article) aren't taken out of context.

Yes, Marx highlighted some of the problems of the agricultural methods of his day, but he had no time at all for reactionary, 'environmentalist' solutions. Marx was an ardent supporter of modern agricultural and industrial technology, and he called for it to be applied as extensively as possible.
Well, I don't view the article in question as advocating reactionary environmentalist ideals.

[JohannGE]

Actually, they accurately convey what Marx and Engels thought of those who put forward backward 'environmentalist' arguments.

Perhaps so but they don't convey, and at that time could be expected to, anything at all about progressive (imo vital) environmentalist arguments.

[ZeroNowhere]

Perhaps so but they don't convey, and at that time could be expected to, anything at all about progressive (imo vital) environmentalist arguments.
That would be impossible.

[JohannGE]

That would be impossible.

That shoud have read "could not be expected to say anything etc". Sorry, don't know what happened there.

My point was, as you say, that it would be impossible for them to. They didn't have access to the knowlege and evidence that we now have.