2021/03/13

Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy: Saito, Kohei: 9781583676400: Amazon.com: Books

Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy: Saito, Kohei: 9781583676400: Amazon.com: Books



See all 2 images
Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy Paperback – October 24, 2017
by Kohei Saito (Author)
4.5 out of 5 stars    15 ratings
 See all formats and editions
Kindle
from AUD 20.76
Read with Our Free App
 Reveals the ideal of a sustainable ecosocialist world in Marx’s writings

Karl Marx, author of what is perhaps the world’s most resounding and significant critique of bourgeois political economy, has frequently been described as a “Promethean.” According to critics, Marx held an inherent belief in the necessity of humans to dominate the natural world, in order to end material want and create a new world of fulfillment and abundance—a world where nature is mastered, not by anarchic capitalism, but by a planned socialist economy. Understandably, this perspective has come under sharp attack, not only from mainstream environmentalists but also from ecosocialists, many of whom reject Marx outright.

Kohei Saito’s Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism lays waste to accusations of Marx’s ecological shortcomings. Delving into Karl Marx’s central works, as well as his natural scientific notebooks—published only recently and still being translated—Saito also builds on the works of scholars such as John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett, to argue that Karl Marx actually saw the environmental crisis embedded in capitalism. “It is not possible to comprehend the full scope of [Marx’s] critique of political economy,” Saito writes, “if one ignores its ecological dimension.”

Saito’s book is crucial today, as we face unprecedented ecological catastrophes—crises that cannot be adequately addressed without a sound theoretical framework. Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism shows us that Marx has given us more than we once thought, that we can now come closer to finishing Marx’s critique, and to building a sustainable ecosocialist world.
Read less
 Report incorrect product information.
Print length
368 pages
Language
English
Publisher
Monthly Review Press
Publication date
October 24, 2017
Next page
Customers who viewed this item also viewedPage 1 of 7Page 1 of 7
Previous page
Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature
Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature
John Bellamy FosterJohn Bellamy Foster
4.7 out of 5 stars 27
Paperback
25 offers from $23.00
Marxist Thought and the City (Posthumanities)
Marxist Thought and the City (Posthumanities)
Henri LefebvreHenri Lefebvre
4.6 out of 5 stars 6
Paperback
$23.97 
Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy (Penguin Classics)
Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy (Penguin Classics)
Karl MarxKarl Marx
4.6 out of 5 stars 655
Paperback
43 offers from $13.88
Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective
Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective
Paul BurkettPaul Burkett
4.7 out of 5 stars 5
Paperback
14 offers from $14.85
Ecosocialism: A Radical Alternative to Capitalist Catastrophe
Ecosocialism: A Radical Alternative to Capitalist Catastrophe
Michael LöwyMichael Löwy
4.5 out of 5 stars 16
Paperback
23 offers from $16.00
Next page
Customers who bought this item also boughtPage 1 of 11Page 1 of 11
Previous page
Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature
Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature
John Bellamy FosterJohn Bellamy Foster
4.7 out of 5 stars 27
Paperback
25 offers from $23.00
Marxist Thought and the City (Posthumanities)
Marxist Thought and the City (Posthumanities)
Henri LefebvreHenri Lefebvre
4.6 out of 5 stars 6
Paperback
$23.97 
Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition (Indigenous Americas)
Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition (Indigenous Americas)
Glen Sean CoulthardGlen Sean Coulthard
4.4 out of 5 stars 43
Paperback
34 offers from $18.64
Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy (Penguin Classics)
Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy (Penguin Classics)
Karl MarxKarl Marx
4.6 out of 5 stars 655
Paperback
43 offers from $13.88
Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective
Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective
Paul BurkettPaul Burkett
4.7 out of 5 stars 5
Paperback
14 offers from $14.85
The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth
The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth
John Bellamy FosterJohn Bellamy Foster
4.7 out of 5 stars 21
Paperback
$26.00 
Next page
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature
Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature
John Bellamy FosterJohn Bellamy Foster
4.7 out of 5 stars 27
Paperback
25 offers from $23.00
Marxist Thought and the City (Posthumanities)
Marxist Thought and the City (Posthumanities)
Henri LefebvreHenri Lefebvre
4.6 out of 5 stars 6
Paperback
$23.97 
Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition (Indigenous Americas)
Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition (Indigenous Americas)
Glen Sean CoulthardGlen Sean Coulthard
4.4 out of 5 stars 43
Paperback
34 offers from $18.64
Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy (Penguin Classics)
Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy (Penguin Classics)
Karl MarxKarl Marx
4.6 out of 5 stars 655
Paperback
43 offers from $13.88
Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective
Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective
Paul BurkettPaul Burkett
4.7 out of 5 stars 5
Paperback
14 offers from $14.85
Ecosocialism: A Radical Alternative to Capitalist Catastrophe
Ecosocialism: A Radical Alternative to Capitalist Catastrophe
Michael LöwyMichael Löwy
4.5 out of 5 stars 16
Paperback
23 offers from $16.00
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Kohei Saito received his PhD from Humboldt University in Berlin. He is currently a JSPS Postdoctoral Fellow and visiting scholar at the University of California Santa Barbara.
Product details
Publisher : Monthly Review Press (October 24, 2017)
Language : English
Paperback : 368 pages
ISBN-10 : 1583676406
ISBN-13 : 978-1583676400
Item Weight : 1 pounds
Dimensions : 5.9 x 0.9 x 9.2 inches
Best Sellers Rank: #342,637 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#343 in Environmental Policy
#513 in Political Economy
#662 in Communism & Socialism (Books)
Customer Reviews: 4.5 out of 5 stars    15 ratings
Videos
Help others learn more about this product by uploading a video!
Upload video


How would you rate your experience shopping for books on Amazon today





Very poor Neutral Great
Customer reviews
4.5 out of 5 stars
4.5 out of 5
15 global ratings
5 star
 76%
4 star
 16%
3 star 0% (0%)
 0%
2 star 0% (0%)
 0%
1 star
 9%
How are ratings calculated?
Review this product
Share your thoughts with other customers
Write a customer review

Sponsored 

Top reviews
Top reviews
Top review from the United States
Ron M.
4.0 out of 5 stars A Deep Dive Into Marx's Notebooks
Reviewed in the United States on March 3, 2020
Verified Purchase
If you haven't cracked open a book on Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels since you were in college, this is as good a place to start as any. There's been a cottage industry in secondary works devoted to scrutinizing Marx's extensive and largely unpublished notebooks, a running compendium of his thoughts and pet theories. Author Kohei Saito mines them for any indications of what the father of socialism might have written on the subject of Nature and capital's relationship to it. Unsurprisingly, it is as manipulative and exploitive of it as it is of Labor. The reader's joy derives from seeing how Saito, who personally translated this English version of the original published in German, threads the needle from Das Kapital to Feuerbach and beyond.
One person found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
See all reviews
Top reviews from other countries
Translate all reviews to English
Alain Vezina
5.0 out of 5 stars L'écologisme de Marx enfin rendu indiscutable. La rupture métabolique ...
Reviewed in Canada on February 25, 2018
Verified Purchase
L'écologisme de Marx enfin rendu indiscutable. La rupture métabolique d'avec la nature apparaît clairement comme une redoutable promesse du capitalisme, identifiée par Marx il y a plus de 150 ans. S'il avait vécu de nos jours, Marx se soucierait de promouvoir la permaculture et le biorégionalisme. Une longue et intéressante discussion de l'évolution de l'agronomie, telle qu'il l'a étudiée sur plus de 15 ans, occupe la partie centrale du livre. Ce livre devrait être perçu comme une lecture indispensable chez tous ceux qui viennent aux études environnementales selon une trajectoire intellectuelle ou académique dominée par les sciences naturelles.
Report abuse
Santiago Andrade
5.0 out of 5 stars Masterful!
Reviewed in Brazil on November 9, 2017
Verified Purchase
Kohei Saito's work is of fundamental importance for deepening the understanding of the ecological dimension of Marx's thought. With this work, the author is part of a consolidated bibliographic tradition and captained by names such as Paul Burkett, John B. Foster, Ian Angus and Fred Magdoff, among others. Saito offers an indispensable perspective on the unfinished construction of the criticism of Marx's political economy, pointing to the main contradiction of capitalism: the disruption of the metabolic exchange between man and nature.
3 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Translated from Portuguese by Amazon
See original ·Report translation
Jürgen Rahlmeyer
5.0 out of 5 stars Ökosozialismus
Reviewed in Germany on April 11, 2020
Verified Purchase
Danke! Gern wieder! Ist auch auf Deutsch erschienen!
Report abuse
=================

 Want to Read
Rate this book
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
Karl Marx's Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy
by Kohei Saito
 4.31  ·   Rating details ·  35 ratings  ·  6 reviews
Reveals the ideal of a sustainable ecosocialist world in Marx's writings

Karl Marx, author of what is perhaps the world's most resounding and significant critique of bourgeois political economy, has frequently been described as a "Promethean." According to critics, Marx held an inherent belief in the necessity of humans to dominate the natural world, in order to end material want and create a new world of fulfillment and abundance--a world where nature is mastered, not by anarchic capitalism, but by a planned socialist economy. Understandably, this perspective has come under sharp attack, not only from mainstream environmentalists but also from ecosocialists, many of whom reject Marx outright.

Kohei Saito's Karl Marx's Ecosocialism lays waste to accusations of Marx's ecological shortcomings. Delving into Karl Marx's central works, as well as his natural scientific notebooks--published only recently and still being translated--Saito also builds on the works of scholars such as John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett, to argue that Karl Marx actually saw the environmental crisis embedded in capitalism. "It is not possible to comprehend the full scope of [Marx's] critique of political economy," Saito writes, "if one ignores its ecological dimension."

Saito's book is crucial today, as we face unprecedented ecological catastrophes--crises that cannot be adequately addressed without a sound theoretical framework. Karl Marx's Ecosocialism shows us that Marx has given us more than we once thought, that we can now come closer to finishing Marx's critique, and to building a sustainable ecosocialist world. (less)
GET A COPY
KoboOnline Stores ▾Book Links ▾
Hardcover, 368 pages
Published October 24th 2017 by Monthly Review Press (first published 2017)
ISBN1583676414 (ISBN13: 9781583676417)
Edition LanguageEnglish
Other Editions (3)
Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy 
Karl Marx� (Tm)S Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy 
Natur gegen Kapital: Marx' Ökologie in seiner unvollendeten Kritik des Kapitalismus
All Editions | Add a New Edition | Combine
...Less DetailEdit Details
EditMY ACTIVITY
Review of ISBN 9781583676417
Rating
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
Shelves to-read edit
( 793rd )
Format Hardcover edit
Status
March 12, 2021 – Shelved as: to-read
March 12, 2021 – Shelved
Review Write a review
 
comment
FRIEND REVIEWS
Recommend This Book None of your friends have reviewed this book yet.
READER Q&A
Ask the Goodreads community a question about Karl Marx's Ecosocialism
54355902. uy100 cr1,0,100,100 
Ask anything about the book
Be the first to ask a question about Karl Marx's Ecosocialism

LISTS WITH THIS BOOK
Fossil Capital by Andreas MalmFacing the Anthropocene by Ian AngusThis Changes Everything by Naomi KleinDegrowth by Giorgos KallisOur History Is the Future by Nick Estes
Ecosocialism & Degrowth
54 books — 13 voters
The Vulnerable Planet by John Bellamy FosterThe Ecological Rift by John Bellamy FosterThe Enemy of Nature by Joel KovelMarx and the Earth by John Bellamy FosterMarx and Nature by Paul Burkett
Eco-Socialism
19 books — 1 voter


More lists with this book...
COMMUNITY REVIEWS
Showing 1-30
 Average rating4.31  ·  Rating details ·  35 ratings  ·  6 reviews

Search review text


All Languages
More filters | Sort order
Sejin,
Sejin, start your review of Karl Marx's Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy

Write a review
Rhys
Jul 10, 2019Rhys rated it really liked it
A very interesting and well written book on the historical material condition in Marx's thought, and it is an important addition to the emerging ecosocialist movement.

"Recently, some ecosocialists, in contrast to Marx, have come to stress the 'monistic synthesis' of society and nature: “Not the separation from, but the terms of humanity’s place within nature, is crucial to understanding the conditions of capitalist renewal (if any) and crisis.” However, this understanding overlooks Marx’s original insight that the constitutive condition of the capitalist regime is the separation of humans from nature. The unity of humanity and nature exists transhistorically from an abstract general perspective, in that human labor not only always modifies nature, but is also a part of nature and conditioned by it. What Marx’s analysis shows is the historical deformation of the relationship between humans and nature in modern capitalist society, which is based on the alienation of nature. Marx investigates, as the primary task of his political economy, how this material condition of social production is transformed and deformed under capitalistically constituted social relations" (p.258).

(less)
flag7 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Naeem
Apr 15, 2019Naeem rated it it was amazing
Review of Kohei Saito’s Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism: Capitalism, Nature and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy

Saito shows that capitalism is the fount of our ecological problems. That therefore ecological problems are best understood through Marx’s framework. He wishes to overcome the stereotype held by many ecologists who see Marx as a naïve Promethean – as someone who believes that humans can overcome all natural limits. He builds on the work of John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett whose books revive the overlap between ecological concerns and Marxism. But Saito claims to go further by showing how ecological concerns are essential for Marx’s critique of political economy, his critique of capitalism, and his vision of the future.

The point for Saito is to show how ecology and Marxism are indispensable to each other:

"I will demonstrate that Marx’s ecological critique possesses a systematic character and constitutes an essential moment within the totality of his project of Capital. Ecology does not simply exist in Marx’s thought—my thesis is a stronger one. I maintain that it not possible to comprehend the full scope of his critique of political economy if one ignores its ecological dimension.” [I read this in a format that makes page numbers variable, so no page numbers, sorry.]

I found Saito’s analysis compelling and submitted totally to the details of his analysis. He re-reads notebooks written in the later parts of Marx’s life and shows that Marx’s Promethean optimism was supplanted by his extensive exploration of the natural sciences in order to show how capital accumulation is limited by nature itself. The book is clearly written and well argued. It also illuminates elements well beyond Saito’s explicit themes, for example: Marx’s takes on alienation, religion, value, technological development, and socialism/communism.

I find Saito convincing in the same way I find Foster’s and Burkett’s books compelling. The relationship between humans and nature is foundational for Marx’s entire corpus. Indeed, implicitly or explicitly, every philosophy has to come to terms with this relationship. It is just that Hegel and Marx are explicit with their takes on this relationship.

My problems concern Saito’s willingness, indeed his eagerness to remove the Hegelian elements in Marx’s work. My critique of Saito amounts to one claim: he underplays Marx’s commitments to showing the positive side of capitalism. Saito himself quotes Marx as wishing to show, “the great civilizing influence of capitalism.” And, yet this influence is downplayed by Saito in order to turn Marx into a figure made ready for contemporary popular needs.

If, as I suspect, Saito hides Marx’s Prometheanism, I wonder what might count as a defense of Prometheanism. I aim to provide one below.

Saito wants to analogized how capital treats labor with how capital treats nature. On the face of it, there is perhaps no problem here: both are subjected to the logic of profit making and capital accumulation; both are made subservient to the principle of quid pro quo; both are treated as “fictional commodities” – to use Polanyi’s language.

Saito claims that nature “suffers” just like workers suffer. And, that as the necro-economics of capitalism create a kind of death for laborers, so also capitalism kills nature. I don’t think this analogy holds. We can ascertain human suffering by speaking directly with humans. Not so for nature; nature never tells us anything directly. Any understanding of nature’s suffering requires humans speaking for nature – a speaking which cannot be separated from particular human politics.

The second problem with this analogy is that while humans can die, we can even extinguish our own species (and many more besides). But this is not true for nature -- it cannot die. We can change nature, we can transform it, but we cannot kill it. Not only does this claim violate the first law of thermodynamics (not necessarily a problem for me since I don’t believe in the second law), it also misunderstands the enormity of nature relative to the human. If Saito means that humans can transform the planet so that it is no longer inhabitable by humans or even by all animal species then this is what he should say. The “death of the planet” is only a death for a limited part of nature, not for nature itself.

The question we can ask is why Saito is unable to say this. Why insist on the analogy between labor’s death and nature’s death? This loose use of language either betrays his otherwise tight argument. Or, it betrays his anxiously tight grip on making sure that a Marxian analysis does not slip towards Hegelian ideas.

How so? I will come to that. But first a third problem.

Saito admits that humans differ from other animals because their interaction with nature is self-conscious. Human interaction with nature is called “labor”:

“Marx argues that human beings are decisively different from other animals due to their unique productive activity, that is, labor. Labor enables a “conscious” and “purposive” interaction with the external sensuous world…”

“…it is only humans who are able to change their purposeful interaction with nature in the process of natural and social metabolism.”

Labor allows nature to be, as Saito says, “linked to itself;” and therefore labor humanizes nature. The following logic rests behind these claims, a logic that Saito implies but is uneager to expose:

Nature creates many species; nature creates the human species; nature creates the species that performs labor; labor allows nature to be “linked to itself”; and, labor “humanizes nature.” Therefore, nature creates a species whose purpose to transform and humanize nature.

Another way to say this is as follows: the teleology of nature and humans is bound together. Nature produces the species whose purpose it is to transform nature. Therefore, nature’s purpose is to transform itself via humans. Capitalism act as the dynamic force that brings this change into its hyperactive phase and most productive phase.

All this is implicit and often explicit in both Hegel and in Marx. Saito cannot make too much of this because, stated as such, there is no negative charge to capitalism’s transformation of nature.

Indeed, that charge can be read as positive in the following way: “Capitalism is the means by which nature transforms itself via human institutions. This transformation changes nature from being a brute fact which cannot be accounted for or known thoroughly into something that results from the aesthetic designs of humans. Humans can know nature because they have re-created it.”

It can also be read neutrally: “Capitalism is the means that nature uses to transform itself. However, we do not yet know if human design will change nature for the better or for the worse.”

It is this positive or neutral charge that Saito has to disavow if he is to keep faith with what he thinks of as Marx’s critique political economy. The positive or neutral relationship between capitalism and nature would, thinks Saito, go against Marx’s spirit, and certainly against the mainstream of ecological thinkers (except those taking an explicitly Hegelian line, such as James Lovelock, Frederick Turner, or Murry Bookchin).

For me, much depends on the temporal span within which we make these arguments. If the temporal span is long or infinite then Marx’s Promethean commitments come to full view. Marx rightly rages against the arguments for scarcity provided by Malthus and Ricardo. He understands that scarcity is created not by nature but by society, specifically by the commitment to hierarchy. It is hierarchy that creates scarcity. Displacing the construction of hierarchy to nature makes hierarchy eternal.

There is no denying these elements of Marx as they are a valuable part of his heritage. To his credit Saito highlights these parts of his work. Nevertheless, the grounding of scarcity in society presents a danger; it can make Marx seem a Promethean. Here Saito shows his trump card: those who would do so have to explain why Marx spent so much of his energies trying to find the limits of capital in nature in the later part of his life – the parts of Marx’s life that Saito examines so carefully.

Here I think my explanation of temporal span adds to Saito’s. Suppose we say that Marx worked within three temporal horizons. The first I have mentioned, the infinite abstract theoretical space of logic. Here, scarcity is created by social hierarchy the solution to which is the infinite abundance of human creativity. But Marx can be read to consider two other temporal spans. At first, he seemed to believe that the collapse of capitalism was imminent. When the revolutions around 1848 did not produce the kind of changes he anticipated, he pushed back his idea of how long it might take for capitalism to collapse. It was perhaps this search of this middle range temporal collapse that motivated his search for locating the natural limits of industrial agriculture via the study of the natural science, especially organic chemistry.

My explanation keeps intact, the Hegelian influences in Marx’s thought – especially the rejection of scarcity as nature-given (in the long run) while also explaining Marx’s commitment to a search for the limits of capitalism in nature (in the medium run).

One can have it both ways: Marx the Hegelian with a teleological view of human and natural history which validates human creativity and undermines the convenient assumption of natural scarcity. With Marx the profound critic of capitalism whose political economy and ecology are one.

Saito brings out the logical simultaneity of Marx’s ecology and his political economy. This is his gift to us. But to the degree that Saito feels it necessary to hide Marx’s Hegelian, teleological, and aesthetic themes, the cost of highlight Marx the ecologist is a loss of faith and confidence in Marx’s fuller corpus. This anxiety is the Lacanian Real of Saito’s book.

At the end of the day, I can boil down to these questions: does capitalism only “distort” human purpose? Or does it both “distort” and “realize” that purpose? To assert the distortion without exploring the realization is, I want to assert, to have misunderstood the difference between capitalism and capital. That is, it is not to have understood the difference between the becoming and the being, between the history and logic of wealth production.
(less)
flag3 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Andrew
Apr 01, 2019Andrew rated it it was ok
Shelves: history, political-science
I'm guessing this book was not for me. For your reference, I am a public policy Master's student and a Marxist who is not totally opposed to anarchism. I'm currently taking a class on Contemporary Marxism in the lit department where we are discussing completely arcane concepts from many Italian authors, in addition to some classics like Black Marxism. Now that you know where I'm coming from, you know how to measure the rest of this review.

I understand what Saito is trying to do here. He badly wants to convince us that Marx cared about ecology. Which. . . okay?

In other words, let's say he succeeded (spoiler: I'm not saying he succeeded): then so what? Where does that leave us? What does it change? What does it matter? Nowhere does Saito say how this new revelation should shape our behavior going forward. He certainly doesn't explain how it should inform any modern ecological practices. If I'm not mistaken he doesn't actually reference praxis at all. This is as puzzling as it is disappointing in a book called Karl Marx's Ecosocialism which was written in 2017.

Let me repeat that statement: this is a book about ecosocialism WRITTEN IN 2017 which barely mentions the looming climate catastrophe. It is one of the most egregious examples of ivory tower head-up-your-own-assedness I've ever seen.

Ok, so maybe I'm being unfair here. Coming up with actionable steps to battle climate catastrophe was clearly not within Saito's stated scope for this project. I happen to think that makes his stated scope shitty, but hey that's a subjective call. A fairer question would be does Saito succeed within his scope? I'd argue that he doesn't.

Though I'm sure Saito himself would object to this characterization, he basically has two main claims. One is that Marx is unfairly maligned for his earliest writings in which he was cavalier about productivism, essentially ignoring the environmental impact of industrialization. The second is that he came to care deeply about ecology over the last decades of his life, which we would have seen if he had ever finished volumes 2 & 3 of Capital himself.

Saito mostly convinces on the first account, using Marx's notebooks to say that right around the time of the Communist Manifesto Marx began investigating agronomy and became extremely interested in soil health, deforestation, etc. Fine, I'll grant that. His earliest writings were written in ignorance and he changed his mind over time.

The second claim, however, is woefully unsupported. At the end of Part 2 I was left with the impression that the chief supports for this claim is that Marx really liked two agronomists named Liebig and Fraas. Which. . . okay? But Saito neglects to show where Marx incorporated these mens' beliefs outside of a few random passages in Capital and Grundrisse. And worse, he imputes meanings onto phrases that Marx used: -- "nature," "harmony," "unity," etc. -- which it's not at all clear that Marx meant in the same way we use them today. He certainly never mentions "sustainability" or "collapse" or "ecosystem." Ultimately, Saito wildly overstates his case that Marx was preoccupied with environmental issues.

I'll stop there since I'm not being nice. I was unimpressed with both Saito's goal and his execution. I'm giving an extra star for his impressive research, which was clearly painstaking and comprehensive. It just frustrates me endlessly to see brilliant people expend valuable brainpower on such navel-gazing tasks.

Not Bad Reviews

@pointblaek (less)
flag3 likes · Like  · comment · see review
HappyHarron
Dec 06, 2017HappyHarron rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: leftism
Fantastic analysis, refutes many popular conceptions about Marx's Prometheanism and theory of history. A must read for those interested in not only current scholarship on Marx but how Marx can contribute to leftist eco-politics today. (less)
flag2 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Harry Allard
Mar 21, 2020Harry Allard rated it really liked it
Convincingly illustrates Marx's development of ecological ideas, and his recognition of the importance of mankind's metabolism with nature. Really shows Marx's scientific curiosity, which differs greatly from many later, dogmatic communists. Interesting to read Marx's changing understanding of agricultural failure, deforestation, and even climate change. Shatters the claims of a rigid, anthropocentric Prometheanism in Marx's worldview, and highlights the ahistoric nature and short-sightedness of an un-ecological, blindly production-focused communism. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review
Jordan
Apr 21, 2018Jordan rated it really liked it
Meticulously researched and well-argued account of Marx's ecological thought with special attention paid to his notebooks and letters. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review




================
Kohei Saito
Rank Associate Professor
Degree Ph.D. in Philosophy from Humboldt University Berlin
Personal website N/A
Phone +81 6 6605 2275
E-mail saito at econ.osaka-cu.ac.jp (please replace “at” with “@”)
Education
2009 B.A. : Wesleyan University (Government)
2012 M.A. : Free University Berlin (Philosophy)
2015 Ph.D. : Humboldt University Berlin (Philosophy)
Carreer
2016 : Overseas Research Fellow of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; Visiting Scholar, Department of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
2017- : Associate Professor, Graduate School of Economics, Osaka City University
Class Taught
Theories of Modern Capitalism

About Me
My research field is Marxian economics. Every day, I think about how Marx’s theory can be meaningfully applied to today’s society.

Message to Students
Train your logical and critical thinking by reading as many books as possible during your four years at university. I will help you!

Research Field
Economic Thought, Contemporary Capitalism

Research Keywords
Ecology, Welfare State, Basic Income, Capital

Affiliated Academic Organizations
Japan Society of Political Economy; Japan Society for the History of Economic Thought; Society for the History of Social Thought; Hegel Society of Japan

Selected Publications:
Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2017).
“Beyond Recognition in Capitalism: Hegel’s Critique of Fichte’s Category of the ‘Person’ and the Emergence of Antagonistic Totality in the System of Ethical Life,” in Andrew Buchwalter (ed.), Hegel and Capitalism (New York: The State University of New York Press, 2015), pp.35-51.
“Das Fraas-Exzerpt und der neue Horizont der Marx’schen Stoffwechseltheorie,” in: Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 2014 (Berlin: De Gruyter 2015), pp.117-140.
“Revolution and Democracy: Marxism vs. Post-Marxism”, nyx vol. 5 [written in Japanese].

MR Press launches pathbreaking new books on ecosocialism | Climate & Capitalism

MR Press launches pathbreaking new books on ecosocialism | Climate & Capitalism


MR Press launches pathbreaking new books on ecosocialism
November 1, 2017
Kohei Saito, Ian Angus, Fred Magdoff and Chris Williams offer powerful, historically grounded arguments and a way forward for society and the earth

Share:
FacebookRedditTwitterEmailMore

Kohei Saito, Ian Angus, Fred Magdoff and Chris Williams offer powerful, historically grounded arguments and a way forward for society and the earth

Over the last three decades, Monthly Review has stood out as a major source of ecosocialist analysis. This has been especially evident in recent months, with the publication by Monthly Review Press of three pathbreaking books:

  • Kohei Saito: Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy
  • Ian Angus: A Redder Shade of Green: Intersections of Science and Socialism
  • Fred Magdoff and Chris Williams: Creating an Ecological Society: Toward a Revolutionary Transformation
Saito’s Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism is an extraordinarily important work that both deepens and extends our analysis of how Marx sought to integrate ecological materialism and an understanding of ecological crisis into his critique of political economy. Saito gives new significance to what has been called Marx’s theory of metabolic rift, by showing how Marx used his concept of social metabolism (Stoffwechsel) to ground his value analysis in the ecological conditions of production, incorporating a conception of natural limits. At the same time, he brings critical new evidence to bear by exploring the ways that Marx continued to develop this ecological critique, and to deepen its significance for his critique of capital, as revealed in his little-known or still unpublished natural-scientific notebooks.

Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism thus represents an enormous expansion of our understanding of Marx’s oeuvre, reinforcing and extending the interpretations offered in earlier works such as Paul Burkett’s Marx and Nature (1999) and John Bellamy Foster’s Marx’s Ecology (2000). The widespread failure for many years to recognize Marx’s contributions to ecology was mainly a product, Saito argues, of the biases of so-called Western Marxism, which deemphasized the materialist aspect of Marx’s thought. “If the ‘material’ becomes integrated” into interpretations of Marx’s system, Saito argues, his “texts open the way to ecology without much difficulty” (262).

Following upon his major work Facing the Anthropocene (Monthly Review Press, 2016), Angus’s A Redder Shade of Green consists of a set of elegant and necessary interventions in debates related to ecosocialism and science. It is divided into five parts: (I) “Natural Science and the Making of Scientific Socialism,” (II) “Responding to the Anthropocene,” (III) “Numbers Are Not Enough,” (IV) “Saving Species, Saving Oceans,” and (V) “Toward an Ecological Civilization.”

Over the course of the book, Angus takes on critical issues such as Marx’s relation to science and Darwin; the denial of the Anthropocene concept by some on the left; the growth of ecomodernism; “The Return of the Population Bombers”; biodiversity; and “The Myth of ‘Environmental Catastrophism.’” The brilliance and succinctness of this analysis and its concrete engagement with crucial debates make A Redder Shade of Green at once a useful introduction to ecosocialist thought for the uninitiated and a valuable corrective for readers already well-versed in ecological Marxism.

Magdoff and Williams’s Creating an Ecological Society is perhaps the most comprehensive yet accessible analysis currently available of the changes needed to cope with the world’s growing ecological and social crises. Written by scholars equally versed in natural and social science, it is full of concrete considerations of the radical praxis demanded by the depredations of capitalist society. It is a book full of revolutionary hope, characterized not only by its rejection of business as usual, but also its illuminating description of the countless things we can do to transcend the status quo and to create an ecological civilization. Magdoff and Williams do not play down the rupture with existing social relations that this would require. As they write:

“The word revolution is currently used by all manner of people in very different contexts…. It is therefore important to define what we mean by revolution, which to us means the total rearrangement of social power and its reconstitution on the basis of substantive equality. In other words, the only way to create an ecologically based society is by creating a classless society based on cooperation and the democratic decisions of the entire population. Only by overturning current social relations is it possible to create a society compatible with the well-being of the planet and its people.”

What makes these three books so important is that they reinforce each other in theory and practice, moving from classical historical materialism toward present ecological and social struggles in an almost seamless way. Taken together, they offer both a powerful, historically grounded argument and a way forward for society and the earth. Now it is a question of putting that knowledge and vision into practice.

From the “Notes from the Editors” column in Monthly Review, November 2017

The ecosocialist views of Karl Marx – An interview with Kohei Saito | Climate & Capitalism

The ecosocialist views of Karl Marx – An interview with Kohei Saito | Climate & Capitalism


MARXIST ECOLOGY
The ecosocialist views of Karl Marx – An interview with Kohei Saito
June 16, 2019


The winner of the 2018 Deutscher Prize discusses Karl Marx’s radical understanding of capitalism’s deadly disruption of the universal metabolism of nature.


The winner of the 2018 Deutscher Prize discusses Karl Marx’s radical understanding of capitalism’s deadly disruption of the universal metabolism of nature.

Kohei Saito is an associate professor of political economy at Osaka University and author of Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism, winner of the 2018 Deutscher Memorial Prize. He is also an editor of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA), which includes many of Marx’s previously unpublished notebooks on natural science.

KARL MARX: COMMUNIST, REVOLUTIONIST… ENVIRONMENTALIST?

You write in the introduction to your book, Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism, that for many years, environmentalists — and even many Marxists — believed that Marx held a Promethean viewpoint and that he was uncritical of the technology developed under capitalism. Where did this idea come from, and why has it persisted until recently?

One obvious reason is that Marx did not finish Capital. Marx eagerly studied natural sciences in his late years, but he was unable to fully integrate his new findings into Capital. Although he planned to elaborate on ecological issues in volume 3, especially in rewriting his theory of ground rent, he never made it very far, and even volume 2 of Capital was not published during his lifetime. Instead, Marx left only a number of notebooks on natural sciences. Unfortunately, no one really paid attention to them—and not many people read them today either—and they were not even published for a long time, although now the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA) publishes them in its fourth section.

Why did this neglect happen? I think that so-called traditional Marxism treated Marx’s materialist project as a closed dialectical system that explains everything in the universe, including human history and nature. In this sense, Marxists did not pay enough attention to his economic manuscripts and even less to his notebooks, which document the incomplete character of Marx’s Capital.

Of course, there were Marxists who rejected this omnipotent reading. They are known today under the banner of “Western Marxism.” When they rejected traditional Marxism, however, they harshly reproached Engels as the misleading founder of traditional Marxism, who wrongly expanded Marx’s dialectical critique of capitalist society to the scientific system of the universe. Consequently, when Western Marxists expelled Engels and his dialectics of nature, they also excluded the sphere of nature and natural sciences from their analysis. Consequently, Marx’s serious engagement with natural sciences was ignored by both traditional and Western Marxists.

But today, no one really believes in this all-encompassing omnipotence of Marx’s theory, and the MEGA makes Marx’s engagement with natural sciences clearly visible. Thus, we need to find an alternative approach to Marx’s texts, and it is a chance to utilize the openness of Marx’s project in a productive way with new materials. In other words, by looking at his economic manuscripts as well as his notebook on natural sciences, we can learn from Marx how to develop ecological critique of capitalism in the 21st century. This is an urgent practical and theoretical task for today’s left, as humans are now facing a serious global ecological crisis under neoliberal capitalism.

Your book is dedicated to rescuing Marx’s ecological critique of capitalism, continuing the work undertaken by ecosocialists like Paul Burkett and John Bellamy Foster. Why do you think Marx’s ecological analysis is so important to the left and to environmentalists today?

Yes, my approach is a clear continuation of the “metabolic rift” theory advocated by Foster and Burkett, and one of the aims of my book is to defend the concept of metabolic rift against recent criticism raised by Jason W. Moore. It is quite apparent today that mass production and consumption under capitalism has tremendous influence upon global landscape and causes ecological crisis. Marxist theory thus also needs to respond to the situation with a clear practical demand to envision a sustainable society beyond capitalism. Capitalism and material conditions for sustainable production are incompatible. This is the basic insight of ecosocialism.

I think Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything has provided a very convincing and concrete analysis of how the regeneration of the Marxist idea of metabolic rift can open up new imagination for an ecosocialist project in the 21st century. She shows that such radical movements are already emerging, and their goals are actually worth striving for. As she argues, it is necessary to reduce a large amount of carbon emission every year starting from now on in industrial countries, if increase of average global temperature in 2100 should be contained within 2 degrees Celsius. But it is not possible for capitalist global elites and companies to accept this demand because they know that such project is incompatible with necessary conditions of capital accumulation.

This is why the Paris agreement is insufficient to achieve the required reduction of carbon emissions, but Trump cannot accept even that level of carbon reduction. We have been too often witnessing global elites’ total incompetence to take any serious measure against climate change in the last decades. We should realize that the problem is not simply neoliberalism but capitalism as such. This is why Klein also now clearly advocates ecosocialism, “a new form of democratic eco-socialism, with the humility to learn from Indigenous teachings about the duties to future generations and the interconnection of all of life, appears to be humanity’s best shot at collective survival.” The antagonism between red and green needs to be dissolved.

The first half of your book focuses on Marx’s idea of a metabolism between human beings and nature. Can you tell us about how ecosocialists are applying the theory of metabolic rift to the various ecological crises we are currently witnessing? How does Marx’s theory differ from other strains of ecological theory?

Marx clearly and critically recognized the destructive power of capital and argued that disruptions in the universal metabolism of nature inevitably undermine material conditions for free and sustainable human development. The robbery character inherent to the capitalist development of productive forces does not bring about progress that leads to the future society.

Marx attempted to analyze how the logic of capital diverges from the eternal natural cycle and ultimately causes various disharmonies in the metabolic interaction between humans and nature. Famously enough, he analyzed this point with reference to Justus von Liebig’s critique of modern robbery agriculture — Raubbau — which takes as much nutrition as possible from the soil without returning it. Robbery agriculture is driven by profit maximization, which is simply incompatible with the material conditions of the soil for sustainable production. Thus, there emerges a grave gap between the logic of capital’s valorization and that of nature’s metabolism, which creates metabolic rifts in human interaction with the environment.

Though Marx in Capital mainly discusses this problem of metabolic rift in relation to soil exhaustion, it is not at all necessary to limit the scope to it. In fact, Marx himself also tried to apply this theoretical concept to various issues in his late years, such as deforestation and stock farming. Therefore, Marx would be happy to see that today there are various attempts to apply this theoretical framework as a tool to analyze ongoing environmental crisis. To name a few, Longo on marine ecology, Ryan Gunderson on livestock agribusiness, as well as Del Weston on climate change are excellent examples for ecosocialist application of Marx’s theory of metabolic rift.

One obvious difference between the ecosocialist approach and that of other strands of ecological theory is the insight that as long as the capitalist system persists, there is an inevitable tendency toward the degradation of material conditions of production. In other words, the market cannot function as a good mediator for the sustainable production in contrast to the persistent liberal belief that green capitalism is somehow possible in the near future. The time left for us is very short.

Under these conditions, liberals’ hope that carbon trade or other market transactions can solve climate change only functions as an ideological tool to distract us from confronting the real danger and threat, as if the market could automatically solve the problem without our conscious engagement to radically change the existing mode of production. Liberals are very dangerous in this sense.

The second part of your book focuses on Marx’s view of the possibilities of achieving “rational agriculture” under capitalism and how that view changed over time as he continued his research. Did Marx conclude that the ecological destruction caused by capitalism cannot be resolved within the limits of capitalism?

Young Marx was still quite optimistic about the capitalist development of technologies and natural sciences. Thus, he thought that it would prepare conditions for sustainable agriculture in socialism. However, as he was writing Capital, he started to emphasize that the main aim of capitalist production is not sustainable production but the valorization of capital. Marx realized that, ultimately, it does not matter even if a large part of the planet becomes unsuitable for life, as long as capital accumulation is still possible.

Correspondingly, Marx realized that technological development is organized as “productive forces of capital,” which lead to the full realization of negative aspects of technologies, so they cannot function as a material foundation for socialist society.

The problem is discernible in the fact that capital can profit even from environmental disaster. This tendency is clearly visible in what neoliberal “disaster capitalism” has done in the last decades, as Klein documents in detail. If this is the case, then it is wrong to assume that the end of cheap nature would impose a great difficulty on the capital accumulation, as James O’Connor indicated with his theory of the “second contradiction of capital.”

Consequently, capital can actually continue to make profit more from the current ecological crisis by inventing new business opportunities, such as geoengineering, GMOs, carbon trade and insurances for natural disasters. Thus, natural limits do not lead to the collapse of the capitalist system. It can keep going even beyond those limits, but the current level of civilization cannot exist beyond a certain limit. This is why a serious engagement with global warming simultaneously requires a conscious struggle against capitalism.

You point out that, toward the end of his life, Marx became aware of the danger of climate change as a result of society’s irrational management of nature — an incredible insight given that he was writing a century and a half ago. How did Marx understand climate change?

Foster argues that Marx might have attended John Tyndall’s lecture on the greenhouse effect, so he knew about the cause of today’s global warming. My argument is somewhat different, as there is no direct evidence to prove Marx’s familiarity with this topic. Rather, I examined his notebook on Carl Fraas’s Climate and Plant World over Time, which Marx read in the beginning of 1868. The book discusses climate change, as a result not of greenhouse gas emissions but of excessive deforestation, which changes the local air circulation and precipitation. Fraas’s analysis expanded Marx’s interest in the robbery character of capitalist production beyond soil exhaustion, and in some sense, he evaluated Fraas’s theory even more than Liebig’s.

Even if Marx did not know the exact causes of today’s global warming, it is not a major deficit because Marx did not claim to have explained everything. Until the last moment of his life, he was very eager to integrate new findings in the natural sciences into his analysis of metabolic rifts. He was unable to fully achieve this aim, and Capital remained unfinished. But his critique of political economy is elastic enough to incorporate recent scientific progress.

Since his critique of metabolic rift provides a methodological foundation for a critical analysis of the current global ecological crisis, it is our task today to substantiate and update Marx’s ecology for the 21st century by developing the synthetic analysis of political economy and natural sciences as a radical critique of capitalism. This is exactly what people like Brett Clark and Richard York as well as other people already mentioned are conducting now.

Using the example of the exhaustion of Irish soil due to British colonialism, Marx showed how the expansion of capital around the world is directly linked to ecological crisis in the colonial countries. What lessons can we draw from this example, and what does it tell us about overcoming the worldwide ecological crises today, which are far greater in scale?

In the key passage to the concept of the metabolic rift, Marx wrote that the capitalist mode of production “produces conditions that provoke an irreparable rift in the interdependent process between social metabolism and natural metabolism prescribed by the natural laws of the soil. The result of this is a squandering of the vitality of the soil, and trade carries this devastation far beyond the bounds of a single country (Liebig).” With an expansion of capitalist accumulation, the metabolic rift becomes a global issue.

Marx’s theory proves correct, as this is exactly what we are witnessing today, especially with climate change. As I said, climate change will not put an end to the regime of capital. In any case, capitalism is much more elastic in that this social system is likely to survive and continue to accumulate capital even if ecological crisis deepens to destroy the entire planet and to produce a mass environmental proletariat all over the world.

Rich people would probably survive, while the poor are much more vulnerable to climate change, even though they are much less responsible for the crisis than the rich. The poor do not possess effective technological and financial means to protect themselves from the catastrophic consequences of climate change to come. Fighting for climate justice clearly includes a component of class struggle, as was the case in British colonialism in Ireland and India.

While climate change could change everything about our life, changing climate change will change capitalism. This is how ecosocialism comprehends ecological crisis and metabolic rifts as the central contradiction of capitalism. Marx was one of the first ecosocialists, since he recognized this point when he found a “socialist tendency” in Carl Fraas’s warning against excessive deforestation and climate change. Thus, to overcome alienation from nature is a central task for both red and green, which can be realized only beyond capitalism, and not within “green capitalism.”

Share:

Facebook
Reddit
Twitter
Email
More


Related posts… (auto-generated)
Marx’s notebooks and the origins of Marxist ecology
Paul Burkett on Kohei Saito’s ‘Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism’
‘Capitalism in the Web of Life’ – A Critique
In Defense of Ecological Marxism:
John Bellamy Foster responds to a critic

System Change not Climate Change: A Revolutionary Response to Environmental Crisis by Martin Empson | Goodreads

System Change not Climate Change: A Revolutionary Response to Environmental Crisis by Martin Empson | Goodreads


 Want to Read
Rate this book
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
System Change not Climate Change: A Revolutionary Response to Environmental Crisis
by Martin Empson (Goodreads Author) (Editor), Ian Angus (Contributor), Carolyn Egan (Contributor), Sarah Ensor (Contributor), Suzanne Jeffery (Contributor), Amy Leather (Contributor), Ian Rappell (Contributor), Michelle Robidoux (Contributor), Camilla Royle (Contributor), Kohei Saito (Contributor) …less
 4.07  ·   Rating details ·  28 ratings  ·  5 reviews
We are in the midst of the greatest environmental crisis humanity has ever seen. Yet despite politicians' rhetoric, repeated warnings from the scientific community and countless international conferences, the situation is getting worse. This book brings together articles from leading socialist and environmental activists who argue that the problem is the capitalist system. Whether it is capitalism's addiction to fossil fuels and plastic or the systematic destruction of the natural world through industrial farming, the system destroys the environment in its endless quest for profits. Mainstream environmental solutions are based on free-market solutions or place hope in business the very causes of the crisis in the first place. In contrast, these articles draw out how capitalism creates environmental destruction and why there needs to be revolutionary transformation of society.

Articles include editor Martin Empson on the "Can We Build a Sustainable Society?" and "Food, agriculture and Climate Change", Ian Angus on the "The Discovery and Rediscovery of Metabolic Rift", Kohei Saito on "Karl Marx’s Idea of Ecosocialism in the 21st Century", Ian Rappel on "Natural Capital: A Neoliberal Response to Species Extinction", Sarah Ensor on "Capitalism and the Biodiversity Crisis", Suzanne Jeffery on "Up Against the Clock: Climate, Social Movements and Marxism", Amy Leather on "Hopelessly Devoted to Fossil Fuels" and "Why Capitalism Loves Plastic", Carolyn Egan and Michelle Robidoux on "Canada’s Tar Sands, Indigenous Sovereignty and a Just Transition for Workers" and Camilla Royle on "Marxism and the Anthropocene". (less)
GET A COPY
KoboOnline Stores ▾Book Links ▾
Paperback, 180 pages
Published July 1st 2019 by Bookmarks Publications
ISBN1912926180 (ISBN13: 9781912926183)
Edition LanguageEnglish
Other Editions
None found
All Editions | Add a New Edition | Combine
...Less DetailEdit Details
EditMY ACTIVITY
Review of ISBN 9781912926183
Rating
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
Shelves to-read edit
( 794th )
Format Paperback edit
Status
March 12, 2021 – Shelved as: to-read
March 12, 2021 – Shelved
Review Write a review
 
comment
FRIEND REVIEWS
Recommend This Book None of your friends have reviewed this book yet.
READER Q&A
Ask the Goodreads community a question about System Change not Climate Change
54355902. uy100 cr1,0,100,100 
Ask anything about the book
Be the first to ask a question about System Change not Climate Change

LISTS WITH THIS BOOK
This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »
COMMUNITY REVIEWS
Showing 1-49
 Average rating4.07  ·  Rating details ·  28 ratings  ·  5 reviews

Search review text


All Languages
More filters | Sort order
Sejin,
Sejin, start your review of System Change not Climate Change: A Revolutionary Response to Environmental Crisis

Write a review
Tess
Oct 02, 2019Tess rated it really liked it
Shelves: political-stuff
This is a very useful book, providing a revolutionary Marxist perspective on the struggle against climate change.

What I found particularly interesting and informative was the detailed histories of such things as the use of coil, oil and plastic; detailed discussions of the science of climate change and biodiversity loss; and interventions into debates such as over the term 'Anthropocene'.

There are unfortunately a few downsides to the book. Due to the fact it is mostly a collection of previously published essays, we are treated to the same quotations from Marx and Engels, and the same anecdote about Marx being interested in the science of soil degradation, multiple times. Each chapter starts out at a very introductory level, rather than building on one another; two of the shorter chapters are almost unnecessary, mostly repeating arguments made in more detail in other chapters.

Possibly the biggest problem is that the essays within the book were originally written to inform already convinced Marxists about environmental science and history, not to intervene into climate debates to convince committed environmentalists of the need to be revolutionary socialists. While the environmental science in the book is detailed and well presented, the political arguments are cursory at best. Nowhere in the book is there a comprehensive and convincing discussion of: why capitalism can never be a rational or democratic system; why socialism would be a rational and democratic system; what exactly a revolution is and why it is necessary; the capitalist state and why it will take mass, revolutionary organising to overcome it; why reformism must be overcome and how; why it is necessary to be a committed, organised, revolutionary socialist. One chapter even bizarrely claimed Marx didn't have an answer to capitalist ecological crisis. (Hint: the answer was and is revolution.) Perhaps one of the many invocations of the story of Marx and soil could have been replaced with a discussion of the violence meted out to Standing Rock protestors, including attack dogs and limbs blown off with flash grenades, or the murders of environmental activists such as Berta Caceras, and an intervention could have been made into the question of how Extinction Rebellion should approach the police. For a book seemingly aimed at convincing climate activists to be revolutionary socialists, these drawbacks seem unfortunate and strange.

Nevertheless, this book is still excellent and I recommend it to anyone interested in not dying from climate change. (less)
flag7 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Elliot
Sep 24, 2019Elliot rated it really liked it
A useful contribution to the debates thrown up by climate change and the growing movement against it. Many of the essays provide a refreshingly Marxist perspective on various aspects of the climate crisis.
flag2 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Phil Brett
Aug 09, 2019Phil Brett rated it it was amazing
An excellent book which contains a series of essays on the global catastrophe which we rIsk facing if we continue to put profit before people. One of its central arguments is that people are a part of nature, and to properly look after the majority of us, rather than just a privileged few, it is essential to change the system which both exploits and oppresses that majority and the natural world.

Within the system, there can only be limited reforms and environmental
measures. These are important to support but are not enough to stop the environmental disaster which is looming. In other words, pretty much what the title says. The chapters by different authors range from looking at the science involved, contemporary environmental movements and a look at would can be done in the future. Highly informative and readable.

I would also recommend Land & Labour by Martin Empson (the editor of this book). (less)
flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review
Rhys
Feb 12, 2020Rhys rated it it was amazing
A solid collection of essays that keeps an eye on the prize - system change.
flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review
Maurice Frank
Sep 02, 2020Maurice Frank rated it liked it
Picked it up in a charity shop, attracted by the title "system change", and without enough of a read to spot that it's a Marxist book. Some of its chapters are articles that have been in hard left journals. Still, it's not a waste to have it.
This book admits Marx himself saying he was not a Marxist! On heavy industrial growth policies favoured by some of his followers, such as became the USSR's practice.
As a solidly non-Marxist reader, who puts aside as pie in the sky the faith that their system would do better, which all the writers take for granted without any supporting arguments: what I get from the book is critical angles on the wider environmental movement. What compromises with neoliberalism its leaders have made, from what thought directions or motives of personal influence, and how professional lobbying has bought the bigger green NGOs and made them dependent. Learned how the Chief Sealths speech is a hyped apocryphal myth.
Discusses the Anthropocene period + how to define it.
Most striking chapter is a good thorough critique of "natural capital", the practice of quantifying the environment into financial asset values. How it leads to trading in ownership of the assets.
A concept that Marxists actually disagree with, "tragedy of the commons", is fairly explained. That resources held in commons grow in use until a Malthusian crash point. Which argues against leaving common land unmanaged even if that had been tradition in lower populated earlier times.
So several insights that broaden your picture, that you might not get elsewhere. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review

Was Marx an ecosocialist? A reply to Kohei Saito. - International Viewpoint - online socialist magazine

Was Marx an ecosocialist? A reply to Kohei Saito. - International Viewpoint - online socialist magazine




ENVIRONMENT
Was Marx an ecosocialist? A reply to Kohei Saito.

Sunday 12 January 2020, by Daniel Tanuro



Kohei Saito’s book Marx’s Ecosocialism is an essential contribution to the current debates on Marxism and the environmental question. [1] What makes Saito’s work particularly interesting is that it traces the evolution of Marx’s thought from a “productivist” to an “anti-productivist” vision of human development, in particular by incorporating natural limits into perspectives for agriculture. This historical approach allows the author to transcend the quarrels between Marxists who see Marx’s ecology as a glass which is empty, half empty, half full or full.


Thanks to careful reading of Marx’s Notebooks, Saito brilliantly shows how Marx abandoned the idea that agricultural productivity could increase indefinitely under socialism until, in 1865-1868, he came to the opposite conclusion that only socialism could stop the absurd and destructive capitalist tendency to unlimited growth.

John Bellamy Foster, in his book Marx’s Ecology [2], highlighted the impact of Liebig’s work on Marx’s understanding of the problem of soil depletion. Like Foster, Kohei Saito considers that the disruption of the exchange of matter between humanity and nature (metabolic rift) - caused by the combined processes of enclosures, capitalist industrialization, urbanization and the breaking of the cycle of nutrients that resulted - is a fundamental concept of “Marx’s ecology”.

But Saito goes further: he shows that Marx, because he still believed in the unlimited potential of agricultural production, was initially interested in Liebig because the German chemist provided arguments against Ricardo’s “law of diminishing agricultural returns” and Malthus’s “theory of absolute overpopulation”. However, in the seventh edition of his “Agricultural Chemistry”, Liebig distanced himself from his own overly optimistic positions, “recognizing that there are natural limits to agricultural improvements” and concluding that fertilizers could not compensate for “robbery agriculture”.

“Liebig did not highlight his change of position,” says Saito. But Marx was so focused on the debate over the (non) proportionality between agricultural productivity and capital investment “that this hidden modification did not escape him.” On the contrary, he remarked that “the new formulation [of Liebig] implied a critical point of view on agriculture subjected to profit by capitalist relations, incapable of improving the soil sustainably and in the long term”.

For Saito, the German chemist’s turn was “decisive” for Marx’s break with productivism. Hence the fact that this rupture occurred “relatively late”, from 1865. Saito writes: “In the London Notebooks, the Prometheanism of Marx is always discernible, but, having integrated Liebig’s reversal, he corrected, during 1860s, his own optimistic view of the possibilities of agriculture.”

Of course, Marx did much more than correct his vision based on the work of Liebig. The chemist was a great scientist but also an industrialist producing fertilizers for profit. He had no social or historical understanding of soil depletion. Marx, on the contrary, immediately perceived the parallel between the exploitation of labour and the destruction of nature by capital. From this moment, he saw the two phenomena as a common result of mediatization by the abstract value of the relationships between humans as well as between humans and their environment.

Kohei Saito rightly insists on the general importance in Capital of the concept of a humanity-nature “metabolic rupture”. Even if Marx concentrated on agriculture and other sectors directly exploiting natural resources (forestry for example), it is obvious that the concept, for him, transcends the problem of soil exhaustion to include all trade of material (Stoffwechsel) between humanity and its environment. Agriculture is a starting point, because Marx had a major theoretical interest in the question of rent, and he saw the enclosures as “the great tearing apart” of the relationships between humans and nature.

We can only agree with Saito when he emphasizes that Marx saw the “breaking of the metabolism” as a global phenomenon, aggravated in particular by the imperialist plunder of colonised countries, such as India and Ireland for example. Thus, Marx was aware that the nutrients included in Indian cotton manufactured in British factories would never return to the soils where the cotton had grown. This is another example showing that “Marx did not integrate Liebig’s theory passively but quite actively, applying it to his own political analysis.”

The historical approach by Saito to the evolution of Marx’s thought on the issue of natural limits is similar to that used Kevin Anderson in his book Marx At The Margins, devoted to non-Western societies - another area where the views of the author of Capital changed remarkably. For Saito, there is a link between these two research fields since Marx, in his Promethean period, “attributed soil depletion to the technological and moral backwardness of so-called primitive farming techniques.” In this regard, it is undoubtedly likely that “Marx’s critique of modernity deepened during his investigation of natural sciences in 1865” as Saito says.

On the basis of his careful study of Marx’s Notebooks Saito argues that Marx nuanced his enthusiasm for Liebig after 1868. The reasons could be twofold: first, Marx could only oppose the development of Malthusian tendencies in Liebig’s thinking; secondly, he discovered the work of other scientists, especially Fraas who defended the idea that nature, under certain climatic and alluvial conditions, could compensate for the loss in the soil of nutrients absorbed by plants.

For Fraas, Liebig “magnified the risk of soil depletion, in order to popularize his theory of fertilizer.” Moreover, Fraas also supported the idea that agriculture, because it involves deforestation, brings local climate change which in the long term results in the decline of civilization. It is clear that such a theory would stimulate Marx’s thinking on the conditions for a “rational management” of human-nature metabolism.

The concept advanced by Saito of an “unfinished critique of political economy”, particularly in the field of ecology, creates an adequate framework for debates between Marxists, not only on the assessment of the work of Marx but also on research fields open to continuing the development of an eco-socialist alternative.

I leave aside Saito’s criticisms of my own work on the theme of “Marx and ecology”. According to Saito, “Daniel Tanuro maintains that the Marx era is now so distant in terms of technology and natural sciences that his theory is not appropriate for a systematic analysis of current environmental issues, in particular because Marx did not pay enough attention to the specifics of fossil energy compared to other forms of renewable energy.” This criticism is so contrary to my writings for over 20 years that an answer is superfluous.

In my opinion, there is indeed something like an “ecology of Marx”, but it is incomplete and sometimes contradictory. If I really appreciate “Marx’s Ecosocialism”, it is precisely because Saito gives a dynamic, historical and consequently non-apologetic explanation of this incomplete and contradictory character. What is more, he gives this explanation without falling into the Althusserian theory (false, in my opinion) of the so-called “epistemological break” in the development of Marx’s thought.

It is certain that ecosocialists have different opinions on the degree of incompleteness and contradictions in Marx’s ecology. At the end of his chapter “Capital as a theory of metabolism”, Saito devotes a few pages to the “contradiction of capital in nature”. I am in general agreement with the content of this text, but it essentially consists of a (re) construction of Marx’s ecology by Saito himself. I admit that Marx could possibly have written something like this at the end of his life. But he did not, probably because he was not confronted with the global ecological crisis.

Saito says that Marx “did not elaborate on the waste of natural resources in as much detail as on the cruel exploitation of labour power”. It is indeed the least we could say. Therefore, it is, in my opinion, exaggerated and counterproductive to claim that Marx would have analysed “the problem of the ecological crisis as the central contradiction of the capitalist mode of production.”

It seems to me preferable to consider “Marx’s ecology” as an unfinished project. The practical question, therefore, is: “what should we, as ecosocialists, do to continue the work?” Obviously, the priority is to apply the brilliant concept of capitalist rupture of metabolism to ecological imbalances other than the depletion of soils, on which Marx focused. As far as I know, the possibility of a global energy imbalance in the Earth system due to the burning of fossil fuels did not catch his attention. It could have been otherwise - John Tyndall discovered the radiative power of CO² and other atmospheric gases in 1859. But Marx’s interest in science was mostly focused on other areas of research. (Let’s add that Fraas was talking about local climate change caused by deforestation, not global warming.)

But the most important ecosocialist task is clearly to identify new areas of research, fuelling new programmatic developments. In my view, three areas are particularly fertile from an ecosocialist point of view.

The first is the deep connection between the exploitation of nature, exploitation of labour and oppression of women by the patriarchy. Marx’s formula (in Capital) on “the only two sources of all wealth, nature and the worker”, takes into account neither the reproductive work mainly performed by women, nor the specific exploitation of female employees. This specific exploitation and oppression constitutes a pillar of capitalism, as important as the exploitation of nature and that of labour in general.

The second area is the necessary break with scientism. This is an important question because scientism had an influence on Marx (and even more on Marxists of the 20th century). As an example of this influence, I mentioned the fact that Marx considered the notion that certain plants could fix nitrogen from the air in soils as a fable. Saito replies that “it is expeditious to criticize Marx on this one point”: what Marx rejected as fable, according to him, was not the possibility of this mechanism but Lavergne’s idea that it could favour short term crop growth. However, I maintain my interpretation. I think there is little doubt that Marx in this quote expresses a disdain for what he sees as the superstitions of peasants (and those of indigenous peoples). We find a trace of this scientism in Marx’s admiration for Liebig’s theory that chemical nutrients are the main explanation for soil fertility: it is certain that peasants knew the role key of earthworms and other organisms of soil fauna – a role confirmed by Darwin in 1881- but peasant knowledge did not hold the attention of Marx (who was on the other hand quite aware of the knowledge of artisans).

The third area is the place and the role of peasants in contemporary capitalism. Marx believed that peasants were doomed to disappear by the evolution of capital, but the reality was different. Because of the gap (identified by Marx) between production time and labour time in agriculture, capital chose not to invest directly in agriculture in the strict sense but to indirectly control upstream (machinery, seeds and so on) and downstream (processing, distribution and so on). The result of this process is that a large fraction of the peasantry (and even more of the landless peasantry) does not act as an intermediate class oscillating between bourgeoisie and proletariat but rather as a layer opposed to the multinationals and financial capital. This is why peasants often play a vanguard role in ecosocialist struggles, as seen in the action of Via Campesina. The strategic implications of this should be discussed carefully by ecosocialists.

In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels defined communism as “the real movement which abolishes the present state of things”. They added that “the conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence”. Because it defines “Marx’s ecosocialism” as an “unfinished criticism of political economy” and underlines the general direction of its development, the works of Kahei Saito constitute a powerful invitation to ecosocialists to unite in order to debate and collaborate in the elaboration of a new eco-communist program.

P.S.


If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.

Attached documents
was-marx-an-ecosocialist-a-reply-to-kohei-saito_a6358.pdf (PDF - 117.7 kb)
Extraction PDF [->article6358]

Footnotes


[1] Kohei Saito, Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism. Capital, Nature and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy, Monthly Review Press, 2017.


[2] John Bellamy Fost Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature, Monthly Review Press, 2000.

Ecosocialism
“Too late to be pessimist! Ecosocialism or collapse”
Ecosocialism and/or Degrowth?
Ernest Mandel and ecosocialism
Covid-19 changes everything
“Only an anti-systemic revolution, breaking with the iron laws of capitalism can open the way for a new society”


Daniel Tanuro


Daniel Tanuro, a certified agriculturalist and eco-socialist environmentalist, writes for “La gauche”, (the monthly of Gauche-Anticapitaliste-SAP, Belgian section of the Fourth International). He is also the author of The Impossibility of Green Capitallism, (Resistance Books, Merlin and IIRE, 2010) and Le moment Trump (Demopolis, 2018).



- 2021 International Viewpoint - online socialist magazin