Welcome to an insightful discussion led by Yves as he delves into the foundational aspects of Marx’s ideology. This conversation examines the intricate relationship between our environment and society, highlighting how crises in both realms are interconnected.
Produced by Lynn Fries. This article first appeared on GPEnewsdocs
In the initial segment of this four-part series on ecology and materialism, John Bellamy Foster articulates how Marx, despite lacking formal scientific training, drew from insights gained from various disciplines—chemistry, physics, biology, and the philosophical teachings of Epicurus. Through this synthesis, Marx developed a distinctive theoretical framework that illuminates the roots of today’s societal and ecological crises.
July 23, 2026 / Produced by Lynn Fries / GPEnewsdocs
JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER ON “BREAKING THE BONDS OF FATE” – This marks the first installment of a four-part series. Access Part 2 here, along with Part 3 and Part 4 as well as the series playlist (Note: Links to Parts 3 & 4 and the series playlist will activate on their publish date. Coming soon).
TRANSCRIPT
JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER: The elegance of Marx’s ecological analysis lies in his pioneering approach—up to this day, he remains the sole theorist capable of linking society with nature. Today, we often refer to society and ecology concurrently, as though they are two facets of the same entity. Discussing one without the other is simply not possible.
Marx offered a holistic analysis that extends beyond superficial observations; it permeates every aspect of his work. He outlined the relationship between humanity and nature, structured through social production. If we fail to honor this relationship and ensure the sustainability of our planet for future generations—a key concern of Marx’s—then we risk initiating ecological crises that could ultimately lead to our own destruction.
LYNN FRIES: Hello and welcome. I’m Lynn Fries, the producer of Global Political Economy or GPEnewsdocs.
That short introduction served to preview today’s focus on ‘Marx’s Ecology’ and set the stage for this first part of a four-part series featuring John Bellamy Foster. In these segments, we’ll unpack his trilogy: ‘Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature’, ‘The Return of Nature: Socialism and Ecology’, and ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate: Epicurus and Marx’. This initial segment features Bellamy Foster providing an overview of this trilogy and insights on ‘Marx’s Ecology’.
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 works, including ‘Capitalism in the Anthropocene’, ‘The Dialectics of Ecology’, and has collaborated on titles such as ‘The Robbery of Nature’ and ‘The Ecological Rift’. His contributions have earned him various accolades, including the Deutscher Memorial Prize for his book ‘The Return of Nature’.
In this opening segment, I began by asking our guest why he considers ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate’ the logical starting point of this trilogy. Let’s now listen as John Bellamy Foster addresses that inquiry.
JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER: Well, it can be somewhat perplexing because the first completed work in this trilogy was ‘Marx’s Ecology’. This book examined materialism, Epicurus, and related themes. Following that, I wrote ‘The Return of Nature’. However, the third book, ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate’, serves as the conceptual foundation for the entire series—hence its role as the starting point. In this book, I revisited and elaborated on the foundational concepts.
To clarify: while ‘Marx’s Ecology’ was the first written, and ‘The Return of Nature’ came second, it is ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate’ that logically serves as the beginning, as I further unpacked these foundational ideas.
FRIES: We’ll explore each book in the order they were written, but first, please share your journey of writing this trilogy along with a brief overview.
BELLAMY FOSTER: My interest in Marx and ecology sparked when I wrote an article for a German dictionary discussing classical political economy and its relationship with soil—and Marx’s contributions. In researching this topic, I uncovered the depths of Marx’s ecological analysis, particularly his engagement with the German chemist Justus von Liebig. This led to an article titled ‘Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift’, which illuminated Marx’s ecological observations in ‘Capital’—specifically his core ideas concerning the ‘theory of metabolic rift’, highlighting the ecological crisis and its focus on soil issues.
I began pondering how Marx could integrate such profound ecological insights. Genius aside, no one creates something from nothing—there must be foundational influences. To answer that, I traced back to Marx’s materialism.
This exploration posed a challenge, particularly from my standpoint in Western Marxist tradition, which mostly equated Marx’s materialism with his economics, often neglecting its broader implications. I believed it was necessary to uncover the origins of Marx’s materialism, which necessitated revisiting his doctoral dissertation.
The key issue here is that when Marx articulated his materialist conception of history, he also encompassed a materialist philosophy of nature. Tracing this back led me to his dissertation on Epicurus, the ancient Greek philosopher who lived from 341 to 270 BCE. Despite being thousands of years old, Marx had focused on Epicurus’s philosophy of nature, a connection that has intrigued analysts of Marx’s work for years.
Through that lens, I investigated the roots of Marx’s materialism. While Hegel’s idealist philosophy certainly influenced Marx, I sought to understand when and how Marx embraced materialism and what that entailed.
Many of the answers became apparent in Marx’s dissertation. I described Epicurean materialism in ‘Marx’s Ecology’, exploring how my deep study of Epicurus’ philosophy was essential. Drawing from historical thinkers like Darwin, Liebig, and Malthus—though not all held strict materialist viewpoints—I aimed to contextualize 19th-century materialism centering largely on Marx’s perspective and its implications for ecology.
‘Marx’s Ecology’ was subtitled ‘Materialism and Nature’. The book had notable success in explaining Marx’s ecological views, prompting a recognition of their significance. However, criticism soon emerged, noting that Marx’s ecological insights appeared to have been neglected in the later development of both Marxism and ecological discourse.
This criticism inspired my subsequent work, ‘The Return of Nature: Socialism and Ecology’, a project that took roughly 20 years. It spanned the period from the deaths of Darwin and Marx in the early 1880s to the ecological movements of the 1980s.
I traced how a materialist and ecological perspective developed from Marx and Darwin, influencing socialist thought and leading to significant advances in concepts like ecosystems and the ecological movement throughout the mid-20th century.
Building upon that, I revisited Epicurus and Marx in ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate’. This work contained four chapters: the first explored Epicurus’s historical context, the second his philosophical contributions, the third focused on Marx’s dissertation and the impact of Epicurus on Marx’s thought, and the last examined the intersections of Epicureanism and Marxism.
Upon revisiting Epicurus, I recognized him as a figure on par with Marx regarding influence and significance during their respective eras. Epicureanism was the most influential philosophy of antiquity and lasted seven centuries, learning much about the depth of Marx’s analysis in the process.
Additionally, I delved into current Epicurean scholarship, particularly insights gained from discoveries in the Villa of the Papyri—an ancient library buried during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. This library revealed numerous Epicurean texts, which corroborated Marx’s interpretations of Epicurus and validated his views on freedom and determinism.
Ultimately, Epicurus provided Marx with a complex understanding of materialism—one that was dynamic rather than mechanical. Epicurus shaped a framework recognizing both nature and society, allowing for degrees of agency while embracing a materialist perspective.
In a time when many thinkers focused solely on mechanistic or idealist frameworks, Epicurus’s emphasis on community and justice was transformative. He advocated for a society rooted in friendship and sustainability, thereby intertwining the ecological with the philosophical.
Epicurus challenged prevailing notions that equated wealth with happiness, promoting instead a community rich in interpersonal relationships and fairness—all while incorporating women and slaves into his philosophical discourse, elevating their status.
His philosophy emphasized sustainable living and mutual reciprocity, teaching that justice evolves alongside material conditions. The essence of justice was recognized as dynamic, adapting to the needs of the community.
This attracted Marx, inspiring him to craft a new dialectic that fused materialism with active human agency aimed at liberation and equality. Notably, Marx referenced Epicurus often, particularly his call to “break the bonds of fate”—a motif emphasizing human capacity to effect change in a determined world.
Examining the connection between Epicurus and Marx illuminates a crucial aspect of ecological materialism, revealing how these ideas intertwine with our understanding of freedom in a context that acknowledges deterministic elements.
FRIES: There’s a wealth of information to explore here. As we progress through this series, we will delve deeper into each of these works, starting with the first—‘Marx’s Ecology’.
Your emphasis on linking materialism with ecology is integral to the discussion, laying the groundwork for our exploration of humanity’s reliance on nature. You’ve previously published on Marx’s theory of ecological crisis through ‘Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift’ and articulated your quest to uncover the sources of Marx’s ecological insights. With this exploration of materialism as your anchor, reflect on your findings from Marx’s doctoral dissertation, ‘The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophies of Nature’.
As highlighted in ‘Breaking the Bonds of Fate’:
“Marx’s doctoral thesis had generally been treated in the Western Marxist philosophical tradition as an immature product of his early Hegelian idealist phase.”
Departing from that conventional view, ‘Marx’s Ecology’ posits: “Epicurus’s materialist philosophy as the nascent basis on which Marx had begun to work out a materialist dialectic, inverting G.W.F. Hegel’s idealist system.”
In doing so, you suggest that Marx synthesized his background in Hegelian thought with his study of Epicurus to construct an active materialism acknowledging human agency, aimed toward ideals of freedom and equality.
Let’s discuss materialism in detail. In ‘Marx’s Ecology’, you underscore the pivotal connection between materialism and ecology—the very essence of your research. How do you define materialism in your exploration?
BELLAMY FOSTER: The foremost authority on this subject is Roy Bhaskar, though his writings can be dense. I suggest starting with an essay of his encountered in Tom Bottomore’s dictionary of Marxism. This piece discusses materialism within a structured context.
Bhaskar delineates three dimensions of materialism: ontological materialism, pertaining to the nature of existence; epistemological materialism, concerning how we acquire knowledge; and practical materialism, linked to economic struggles and class relations in production.
At the practical level, materialism is rooted in human production—it serves as the foundation for societal action. Ontologically, Epicurus and Democritus insisted that everything originates from atoms, yet Epicurus offered a less rigid interpretation, advocating for a dynamic understanding of existence.
The essence of empirical understanding is vital. The materialist perspective begins with sensory experience, building knowledge from tangible conditions, contrasting sharply with approaches that prioritize ideation or religious beliefs.
For instance, while Hegel acknowledged commonalities in approaches, they diverged in foundational thinking—where materialism bases itself on empirical analysis, idealism often revolves around metaphysical constructs.
Furthermore, those engaged in the ecological discourse must recognize the materialist roots of scientific understanding. While some may perceive science as contradictory to ecology, crucial ecological concepts—metabolism, ecosystems—emerged from the materialist worldview, emphasizing the interconnectedness of science and ecology.
FRIES: In the introduction to ‘Marx’s Ecology’, you write:
“The argument of this book is based on a very simple premise: that in order to understand the origins of ecology, it is necessary to comprehend the new views of nature that arose with the development of materialism and science from the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries…”
Can you elaborate on this assertion?
BELLAMY FOSTER: Essentially, it all boils down to materialism. The materialist ideas flourishing from the 17th to the 19th centuries—as espoused by figures like Francis Bacon and Voltaire—were significantly influenced by Epicurean thought. The scientific revolution renegotiated relationship concepts stemming back to Aristotelian frameworks that once dominated religious and academic dialogues.
This reorientation allowed for a new materialist approach to nature, discarding the teleological explanations rooted in religion. As Bacon noted, final causes were ineffective in explaining the natural world—true understanding required an empirical lens.
Interestingly, both Bacon and Darwin echoed similar sentiments, noting that nature must be perceived holistically, away from supernatural explanations. They collectively redefined the narrative surrounding nature, disregarding divine influences over material realities.
Thus, ecological thought must arise from a materialistic and realistic basis, avoiding spiritual overemphasis or intrinsic notions detached from physical interactions. A comprehensive understanding of ecology is intertwined with the development of materialist thought.
FRIES: You also note:
“The overall discussion is structured around the work of Darwin and Marx—the two greatest materialists of the nineteenth century… the key to Marx’s thinking in this respect, it is contended, lies in the way that he developed and transformed an existing Epicurean tradition…”
What draws you to focus primarily on Marx’s analysis within this framework?
BELLAMY FOSTER: The beauty of Marx’s ecological analysis is its unparalleled ability to connect society and nature, presenting them as two integral elements of the same reality. You cannot discuss one without acknowledging the interdependent relationship with the other.
Crucially, Marx’s analysis avoids reductionist views, acknowledging the social dimension while grounding it in the natural world. This synthesis offers a profound understanding of ecological crises, famously encapsulated in his ‘theory of metabolic rift’.
Marx introduced the concept of universal metabolism within nature. In this framework, human production is regarded as social metabolism—how we interact with and transform the environment for survival. The rift emerges when this process becomes alienated and disrupts the universal metabolism of nature, particularly prominent under capitalism’s exploitative practices.
If we neglect this connection and fail to sustain the earth for future generations, we inevitably head toward ecological disasters—an idea Marx profoundly recognized.
This cohesive assessment emerges from Marx’s materialist lens, distinguishing him from Darwin, whose focus did not center on ecological crises but rather on evolutionary theory rooted in materialist foundations. Insights from recent scholarship reveal Darwin’s materialist sensibilities—an understanding perhaps obscured by the religious contexts of his time.
FRIES: As we conclude this first part of our discussion, it’s evident there’s much to unpack in the relationship between Marx and ecology as explored in your trilogy. We’ll continue our exploration with Part 2, focusing on ‘The Return of Nature: Socialism and Ecology’. Thank you, John Bellamy Foster, for your valuable insights today. And thank you for joining us in this intriguing conversation.
