Understanding the Dialectics of Society and Nature

In this engaging discussion, Lynn Fries converses with John Bellamy Foster about the intricate connections between Marx’s analysis of society and nature, particularly in the context of ecological crises. Today, we’ll explore how capitalist practices disrupt natural systems and how these ideas resonate with current environmental challenges.

Yves here. This video is the second part of a dialogue between John Bellamy Foster and Lynn Fries regarding Marx’s examination of the dialectical relationships within society and nature. Marx highlighted the ecological implications of capitalistic manufacturing, noting that as manufacturers extract essential soil nutrients—like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium—to produce goods, they fail to replenish these nutrients in the soil. Instead, this leads to pollution. In response, capitalist enterprises import guano to create synthetic fertilizers to restore agricultural productivity.

Produced by Lynn Fries. Published by GPEnewsdocs

John Bellamy Foster on “Breaking the Bonds of Fate”

This is Part 2 of a 4-part series. You can find Part 1 here, Part 3 here, Part 4 here, and the series Playlist here. (Note: Links to Part 4 and the series Playlist will go live on the publish date. Coming soon.)

TRANSCRIPT

JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER:

Engels’s work in ‘The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man’ is essential. He transitions from external nature to human beings, analyzing the pivotal role of labor. Like Marx, Engels asserted that human beings ultimately create themselves.

We’re introducing synthetic elements into ecosystems that species have not adapted to, leading to toxicity issues—bioaccumulation and biomagnification. This connects to Rachel Carson’s work; her discussions on evolution in the 1960s bridged theories of life’s origin, introduced by Haldane and Oparin, with ecological crises. The term ‘biosphere’ did not gain popularity in the United States until 1970 due to its Soviet associations, but Carson presented a compelling argument: everything is intertwined, and human actions are destroying life itself, drawing on analyses similar to Haldane and Bernal—though she didn’t cite them directly.

LYNN FRIES:

Welcome, I’m Lynn Fries, the producer of Global Political Economy or GPEnewsdocs.

The introductory segment highlighted ‘The Return of Nature’ and provided a brief overview of today’s discussion. This is Part 2 of a four-part series examining a trilogy: ‘Marx’s Ecology’, ‘The Return of Nature’, and ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate’.

John Bellamy Foster serves as the editor of Monthly Review and is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon. He has authored numerous texts, including ‘Capitalism in the Anthropocene’, ‘The Dialectics of Ecology’, and co-authored ‘The Robbery of Nature’ and ‘The Ecological Rift’. His book ‘The Return of Nature’ received the Deutscher Memorial Prize.

In Part 1, Foster summarized the trilogy and introduced the first book, ‘Marx’s Ecology’. Today, we will delve into the second book, ‘The Return of Nature’, starting with the motivation behind its creation and its ties to ‘Marx’s Ecology’.

JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER:

In ‘The Return of Nature’, subtitled ‘Socialism and Ecology’, I focused on the aftermath of Marx’s ecological analysis. While I hinted at this in the epilogue of ‘Marx’s Ecology’, I needed to comprehensively connect these ideas to the environmental movement and clarify socialism’s essential role in developing ecological analysis.

Critics claimed that Marx’s ecological perspective was irrelevant because no thinkers followed this path, nor did he address modern issues like PCBs and climate change. Therefore, I wrote ‘The Return of Nature’ to continue the narrative and to link socialism and materialism to ecological analysis. This project required extensive archival efforts, as little work existed on this link, and thus I had to sift through archives in both Britain and the United States.

The narrative became intricate as I attempted to trace connections from Marx’s death in 1883 to the 1980s, covering a century of ecological evolution.

FRIES:

We’ll explore your argument that socialism and materialism have been crucial in developing ecological concepts like ecosystems and other breakthroughs. This ties into your core idea of ecological materialism.

In the book, you state:

“This story concerns art and science—two primary avenues to understand our relationship with the world. The synthesis of scientific and aesthetic critiques of capitalism forms the foundation for modern ecological critiques, leading to the concept of sustainable human development.”

“The major socialist (and social-democratic) thinkers at the heart of this book actively developed a critical-materialist perspective rooted in ecology and dialectics, extending to science and/or art.”

JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER:

The book charts the historical contributions of influential British figures, emphasizing a lineage tracing from Marx to contemporaries like Lankester, Morris, and Engels, then to Tansley and Wells, and extending to modern ecological leaders in the U.S. such as Rachel Carson and Barry Commoner.

FRIES:

Let’s discuss some key scientific figures, starting with E. Ray Lankester, who attended Marx’s funeral.

JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER:

Lankester was a preeminent biologist in the post-Darwin and Huxley era. He also had a close relationship with Marx and was the first to introduce the term “ecology” into English literature. His work on species extinction and epidemics highlighted human-induced environmental degradation—a notion closely related to Marx’s idea of the metabolic rift.

Marx observed how industrial capitalism extracts essential soil nutrients, transferring them to urban centers, resulting in pollution instead of maintaining soil health. This metabolic rift emphasizes the critical need for nutrient cycling, underscoring the importance of ecological balance—a theme deeply rooted in Lankester’s ideas.

Lankester advocated for understanding species relationships in the context of their habitats, highlighting nutrient cycles and the degradation of environments like oceans. His insights on human impact paved the way for understanding ecological crises more broadly.

Lankester’s student, Arthur Tansley, later popularized the notion of ecosystems in 1935, aligning ecological analysis with social critiques rooted in materialism. This intellectual lineage, influenced by Marx, represented an evolution in ecological thought, merging scientific and socialist ideologies.

FRIES:

Let’s now shift our focus to Engels and his ecological worldview examined in Part 2 of the book. What insights does this section provide?

JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER:

The chapter on Engels illustrates how he advanced Marx’s materialism to connect with nature. For instance, in his essay ‘The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man’, Engels explores labor’s role in human evolution. He posited that human beings fundamentally shaped themselves through labor and tool-making, aligning with modern anthropological findings supporting this notion.

Engels argues that the evolution of human consciousness is deeply intertwined with our hands’ development through tool use, emphasizing our ability to transform nature and, consequently, ourselves. This materialist perspective shaped our understanding of humanity’s ecological relationship, revealing the interconnectedness of labor and nature.

FRIES:

Discuss the significance of the British Marxist scientists in the 1930s and their connection to materialist science.

JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER:

In the 1930s, influential figures like J.B.S. Haldane, Joseph Needham, and J.D. Bernal emerged, advocating for a materialist view of science that challenged prevailing idealist frameworks. Their work intersected socialism and ecology, countering ecological racism and genetic determinism in science. A pivotal moment occurred at the 1931 International Congress on Science and Technology in Britain when Soviet scientists introduced revolutionary ideas, sparking interest among British scientists who explored dialectical materialism.

FRIES:

In exploring Engels’s Dialectics of Nature, how did these ideas influence ecological movements in the U.S.?

JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER:

Modern environmental thinkers like Rachel Carson and Barry Commoner drew from these ecological traditions. Commoner’s principles emphasized the interconnectedness of ecosystems, a sentiment echoing Engels’s observations. Carson’s Silent Spring warned against humanity’s role in environmental degradation, appealing for a reassessment of our relationship with nature.

The ecological crises we face today can largely be traced back to this misunderstanding of our place within the natural world and our responsibility to restore balance.

FRIES:

As our discussion comes to a close, can you summarize your thoughts on the ecological implications of Marxist theory and its relevance for today’s environmental movements?

JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER:

Marx’s materialist perspective and Engels’s dialectical approach to nature provide invaluable insights into understanding environmental issues today. Our actions are intricately linked to our ecological surroundings, and recognizing this interdependence is crucial for fostering ecological awareness. The legacy of socialist thought continues to resonate in contemporary movements focused on justice, equality, and sustainability.

Conclusion

This enlightening discussion underscores the relevance of historical materialist perspectives in addressing today’s ecological challenges. As we reflect on these insights, it becomes clear that a deeper understanding of the relationships between society, nature, and our economic systems is vital for creating a sustainable future. We must re-examine our social structures and their impact on the environment if we are to foster meaningful change.

In the next segment, we’ll delve into the final part of the trilogy, exploring the theme of “breaking the bonds of fate.” Thank you for joining us.