Written by Allan Todd
Eight years
before the first Earth Day in 1970, Rachel Carson was one of the earliest researchers and writers to warn about the growing threats to the natural world
in the 20th. C - specifically, she focused on the dangers inherent in the use
of organophosphate pesticides by large-scale agri-businesses. As a result of
her studies, she concluded that:
“The balance
of nature is not the same today as in Pleistocene times, but it is still there:
a complex, precise, and highly integrated system of relationships between
living things which cannot safely be ignored any more than the law of gravity
can be defied with impunity by a [person] perched on the edge of a cliff. The
balance of nature is not a status quo; it is fluid, ever shifting, in a
constant state of adjustment. [Humans], too, [are] part of this balance.”
Since she wrote
her ground-breaking book in 1962, it has become frighteningly clear that the
‘ecological problem’ is now this century’s greatest problem, and that the world
now faces an existential planetary crisis. In particular, it has become
increasingly clear to many that capitalism is ecologically dysfunctional and
inherently destructive of biodiversity. However, Rachel Carson was by no means
the first to comment on the negative impacts on the natural world which
accompanied the growth of industrial capitalism.
For instance,
John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett (Marx and the Earth) have done much
work to show that both Marx and Engels were aware of this as early as the
second half of the 19th. C. Their work has established that ecological concerns
were central to Marx’s critique of capitalism, based on his understanding that
humankind was a part of nature, which led him to develop an ecological world
view.
In particular,
Marx saw capitalism’s commodification of nature leading, in practical terms, to
the growing degradation of nature, thus creating a dangerous ‘metabolic rift’ -
or separation - between humans and the natural world. The historian and
environmentalist, Andreas Malm (The Progress of this Storm: Nature and
Society in a Warming World), saw Marx’s concept of the ‘metabolic rift’ as
being one line of inquiry into environmental problems that: “…has outshone
all others in creativity and productivity.”
Marx was also
keenly aware of the importance of sustainability; and the need to think of
future generations who would have to live in the world left to them:
“Even an
entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken
together, are not the owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its
beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding
generations,…”
As Foster and
Burkett point out, Marx’s insight concerning ecological crises meant he
understood that:
“The
intensifying ecological problem of capitalist society could be traced… to the rift in the metabolism between human
beings and nature (that is, the alienation of nature) that formed the very
basis of capitalism’s existence as a system, made worse by accumulation, i.e.
capitalism’s own expansion.”
Both Marx and
Engels understood that serious ecological problems could arise from the
relationships between human economic production and the natural world, and that
it was important to solve such contradictions by ensuring that human production
remained in harmony with nature. This was because, ultimately, humans depended
on the natural world, of which they were merely a part. Failure to do so, Engels warned, would result
in serious problems:
“Let us not,
however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over
nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it
is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but… at every
step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature…- but that we,…belong
to nature, and exist in its midst,…”
A later Marxist
who was also fully aware of the importance of the relationship between humans
and the natural world was Nikolai Bukharin who believed that the ultimate basis
of materialism lay in ecology, because human beings were both the product of
nature and, at the same time, a part of it.
As John Bellamy Foster (Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature)
points out, “Bukharin built his analysis [of the relationship between humans
and nature] on Marx’s concept of the metabolic interaction between nature and
society.”
Thus we can
learn useful lessons from Marx and Engels (who were not the out-and-out
‘Promethean productionists’ as is often alleged), and others who would now be
seen as early ecosocialists, on how to deal with the current problems besetting
the natural world. In particular, it is important to realise that capitalism -
because of its global scope - has the ability to continue accumulating profits
despite the damage it causes to nature in specific and scattered locations. As
Paul Burkett (Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective) has noted:
“It is
becoming more obvious in recent years that the natural conditions of human life
(not to speak of other species of life) are increasingly threatened even as -
indeed, precisely because - capital continues to accumulate.”
One important
aspect to grasp concerning the issue of the metabolic rift and the ecological
crises is that unlimited and continuous production and consumption is just not
ecologically sustainable. Writing on this aspect in 2005, Sheila Malone (Ecosocialism
or barbarism) emphasised that:
“Capitalism
operates on the basis that the earth’s resources are there for limitless
exploitation, and that market forces will always find a (benign) solution to a
crisis.”
A society and
economy that meets the true needs of both humans and nature will value
different ‘commodities’: such as greater leisure time. Amongst others to point
this out was Ernest Mandel (Power and Money):
“Today we
have become aware, with much delay, that dangers to the earth’s non-renewable
resources, and to the natural environment of human civilization and human life,
also entail that the consumption of material goods and services cannot grow in
an unlimited way.”
Ian Angus (Facing
the Anthropocene: Fossil Capitalism and the Crisis of the Earth System) is
one of many who has warned that the worsening negative impacts of capitalism
could, if unchecked, very rapidly lead to the Anthropocene being the shortest
of all epochs:
“Capitalism
has driven the Earth System to a crisis point in the relationship between
humanity and the rest of nature. If business as usual continues, the first full
century of the Anthropocene will be marked by rapid deterioration of our
physical, social, and economic environment.”
All this should
make it clear that for an economy to be ecologically sustainable, it needs to
heal the metabolic rift by re-establishing a respectful metabolism with nature
- and, in particular, by accepting the need to protect and conserve the land
for present and future generations.
This is particularly relevant to the
current forms of capitalist agricultural production which treats the natural
world only as part of the productive process itself. Whilst no agricultural
production can fail to have some impacts on nature, those of global
capitalism’s highly-industrialised agriculture are so negative because, instead
of growing food for use, it grows it mainly for profit.
Destruction
of the natural world
One of those to
have made clear how capitalist agriculture is environmentally irrational and
unsustainable is Fred Magdoff. In a 2015 article:
he focused on a
range of negative impacts concerning agriculture in the US - but many of his
comments about capitalist agriculture’s impacts on ecosystems are applicable
globally:
“There is
loss of biodiversity as native plant species are eradicated to grow the crops
desired for sale in the market The loss of habitat for diverse species means
that there is also a loss of natural control mechanisms…All of the common
decisions and practices in the agricultural system…[are rational] only from the
very narrow perspective of trying to make profits within a capitalist system.”
Of the many
negative impacts of global capitalist agriculture (apart from its high
emissions of greenhouse gases), one of the most dramatic is related to land
use, deforestation and biodiversity/species loss - which is particularly marked
in the Amazonian rainforest. This acts as the ‘lungs’ of the planet, and is an
essential part of Earth’s ecological equilibrium. In the last 50 years or so,
one third of the world’s woodland has been destroyed. As pointed out by Ian
Angus:
“Most of the
land now being converted to agriculture was formerly tropical forest,
so…tropical forest loss continues to accelerate.” This is a huge factor in the current
ecological crises: “Brazil’s tropical rain forests are disappearing at an
alarming rate, cut down or burnt to create short-term grazing land for cattle
to produce quick profits for big landowners.“
Much of the
destruction of such important natural habitats is connected to the global meat
and dairy industries. These need, at the very least, to be drastically reduced,
if we are to create sustainable agro-ecosystems that work for people instead of
for corporate profits.
Just how much
biodiversity loss has been taking place because of capitalist agriculture - as
well as global warming - was shown by Elizabeth Kolbert. In her book, The
Sixth Extinction: A Unnatural History, she wrote about what is known as the
‘Sixth Extinction’, and to ‘background extinction’ rates. The normal
‘background extinction’ rate of mammal species is 0.25 per-million
species-years. As she points out:
“This means
that, since there are about fifty-five hundred mammal species wandering around
today, at the background extinction rate you’d expect - once again, very
roughly - one species to disappear every seven hundred years.”
However, the
current rate of species loss shows the earth is undergoing its Sixth Mass
Extinction - the first to be driven specifically by human activities. Because
of the combination of global warming, one group of scientists in 2004 estimated
that, by 2050, anything from 13% to 32% of all species could be lost - with an
average of 24% of all species heading towards extinction. Whilst different
studies have produced varying figures, the general consensus is that the
species extinction rate is the highest in 65 million years - with an extinction
rate 1000 times greater than the natural ‘background extinction’ rate.
Although
several aspects of the 2004 study have been criticised, it is important to bear
in mind that this study mainly focused on the impact of climate change. Once
physical destruction, or fragmentation, of natural habitats is also factored in,
the picture becomes much more dire. This is because whilst global warming
compels some species to migrate, the destruction of natural habitats and the
creation of various ‘barriers’ (such as roads and clear-cuts) means migration
becomes much more difficult or even impossible.
These threats -
and others associated with capitalist agriculture, such as the heavy use of
pesticides - are becoming increasingly destructive. This is particularly so
because of the irrational demands of the meat and dairy industries, which
dominate agricultural land use.
Various studies have shown that, by shifting
massively away from meat and dairy production, the world could adequately feed
a population much larger then the present 7+ billion. The meat and dairy
industries are extremely inefficient when it comes to producing proteins for
human consumption: 100 kilos of plant protein is needed to produce 9 kilos of
beef protein or 31 kilos of milk protein. Or, to put it another way, 10
hectares of land can produce:
• meat to feed 2 people
• maize to feed 10 people
• wheat/grain to feed 24 people
• soya to feed 61 people
Currently, over
50% of all crops grown is fed to farmed animals. The big agri-businesses
require roughly 70% of the world’s land, as grazing for animals and for growing
crops for feed. To ensure enough productive land is available, huge areas of
forests are being felled all over the world - sometimes illegally - on an
industrial scale. By far the biggest culprit in this is cattle farming, which
is the main cause of deforestation across the globe. In particular, it is
increasingly responsible for the destruction of what remains of the Amazon
rainforest.
Globally,
forests are still being lost at a rate of 7.3 million hectares per year -
mostly for cattle ranching and the growing of fodder crops. Currently, about
70% of the cleared Amazon rainforest is used for the grazing of cattle. Just 1 hamburger made from Costa Rican beef
results in the destruction of:
• 1 large tree
• 50 saplings
• almost 30 different species of
seedlings
• hundreds of species of insects,
mosses, fungi and micro-organisms
All this is
confirmed by Alan Thornett (Facing the Apocalypse: Arguments for
Ecosocialism), in one of the most recent - and most informative - overviews
of the many negative impacts of capitalism on the natural world. As regards capitalist agriculture, the
current global levels of meat production and consumption are completely
unsustainable. Apart from the huge numbers of land animals slaughtered every
year for human consumption - around 70 billion - the meat industry is hugely
inefficient when it comes to feeding the world’s human population, as these
animals:
“…consume
vast quantities of corn, maize, and soy that could otherwise be eaten, far more
effectively, by the human population including the planet’s billions of hungry
people...The cattle sector of Brazilian Amazon agriculture, driven by the
international beef and leather trades, has been responsible for about 80 per
cent of all deforestation in the region, or roughly 14 per cent of the world’s
total annual deforestation. It is the world’s largest single driver of
deforestation.”
As well as
being a key factor in the absorption of CO2 (and thus helping to slow down
global warming), rain forests contain the largest reservoirs of biodiversity.
Yet now, around 60% of global biodiversity loss is directly due to capitalist
agriculture. This is of particular relevance to the current Covid-19 pandemic.
Ultimately,
infinite economic growth is incompatible with the increasingly fragile
ecosystems on what is a finite planet. Thus a more ecologically-sustainable
society, more in tune with the natural environment, would make decisions to
repair, as quickly as possible, the enormous environmental damage already
inflicted on the natural world by global capitalism. For instance, in order to
preserve the Earth’s ecological equilibrium, certain branches of production -
such as the meat and dairy industries, industrial-scale fishing, and the
destructive logging of tropical rain forests - should be discontinued or, at the
least, drastically reduced.
Additionally,
such a society would reduce or even abolish certain products, whilst
subsidising and expanding those that could be produced in harmony with
ecosystems and the non-human species living on this planet. It would also seek
to move to greater local production for local consumption - something that the
global pandemic lock-downs is currently enforcing - in order to enhance food
security and further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The creation of
sustainable agro-ecosystems would go a long way to help achieve this.
As regards food
production, there is a pressing need to eliminate the polluting industrial meat
and dairy agri-businesses. Fortunately, there is already a rapidly-growing
trend - especially, but not exclusively, amongst young people - to adopt vegan
or vegetarian diets. Whilst separate ‘life-style’ actions taken by individuals
will not, on their own, bring about the rapid significant changes needed to
protect the natural world, such moves should nonetheless be warmly welcomed -
and encouraged. This is a development which shows the emergence of a more
humane and respectful approach to nature. As Gandhi is reputed to have said:
“Be the
change that you wish to see in the world.” Or, to put it another way: “Nothing
changes if nobody changes.”
In the end,
though, as Ian Angus says, the only way to avoid “a catastrophic convergence of
multiple Earth System failures” (of
which global capitalist agriculture is one crucial element) is to use
“…methods
that are anathema to capitalism. Profit must be removed from consideration; all
changes must be made as part of a democratically created and legally binding
global plan that governs both the conversion to renewables and the rapid
elimination of industries and activities, such as…factory farming, that only
produce what John Ruskin called ‘illth’, the opposite of wealth.”
However, whilst
any prospects of a ‘green’ capitalism are rapidly evaporating, it is
nonetheless important to push for some immediate reforms. In part, this is
because we desperately need to win time and mitigate the harms currently being
done by the ‘system’. In addition:
“The
struggle for ecosocial reforms can be the vehicle for dynamic change, a
‘transition’ between minimal demands and the maximal program, provided one
rejects the pressure and arguments of the ruling interests for ‘competitiveness
and ‘modernization’ in the name of the ‘rules of the market’.”
Another useful
action will be to get behind campaigns that chip away at the ability of
corporations to continue their attacks on the natural world - for instance, the
various fossil-fuel divestment campaigns waged by groups like 350.org. In
addition, as well as winning some immediate reforms, it will also be necessary
to block any policies or actions by corporations or the government that will
make the situation even worse. Hence the need to oppose any attempts to
re-start fracking, once the lock-down has ended. With time so short, we need to slow or
reverse capitalism’s ecologically-suicidal activities.
Ultimately,
however, there will be no radical transformations - of the kind now desperately
needed - without a radical ecosocialist programme being embraced by a
sufficient mass of people.
As Naomi Klein
(This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate) has said:
“…only mass
social movements can save us now. Because we know where the current system,
left unchecked, is headed…[the only hope is that] some countervailing power
will emerge to block the road, and simultaneously clear some alternate pathways
to destinations that are safer. If that happens, well, it changes
everything.”
The rise of
‘Corbynism’ has shown the potential for inspiring huge enthusiasm for radical
change. Extinction Rebellion, too, has shown what can be achieved in a very
short time - XR wasn’t even launched until October 2018 - to build a new mass
social movement.
However, to
create a really powerful and effective movement, that will promote what E. P.
Thompson called the “human ecological imperative”, it will be necessary to draw
in a large proportion of the working classes. This could be done by XR becoming
more ‘political’ about the ‘System Change’ it so rightly calls for: an explicit
endorsement of a radical ecosocialist programme of reforms would be a really
big positive step towards this. We now have very little time left in which to
halt capitalism’s increasingly destructive course.
Although things
look bad right now, it is important to try to follow Antonio Gramsci’s advice: “Pessimism
of the intellect, optimism of the will.”
Essentially, if
we don’t fight, we - and the Earth - will lose. Perhaps, to get some serious
momentum behind such developments - and to give us the vision we so badly need
of a better and more sustainable world - we should ask Ken Loach to make a 2020
version of his brilliantly-effective documentary film, The Spirit of ’45
(2013).
Allan Todd
is a member of Left Unity, an environmental and anti-fascist activist, and
author of Revolutions 1789-1917
