Economics, Socialism, and Ecology: A Critical Outline, Part 1

By Kamran Nayeri, Philosophers for Change, July 16, 2013

Introduction

The economy appears as the religion of modern times. As John Maynard Keynes asserted, it seem as if the world is ruled by little else than economics. Following Marx, I will argue that economics is a pseudo (ideologically driven) science that was originated with the rise of the capitalist mode of production and will wither away with its downfall.  I will cite some key junctures in the evolution of economics from classical political economy to the neoclassical and Keynesian economics to illustrate this claim.  I will also argue that Marx’s critique of political economy (“economics” of his time) was not to improve but transcend it and the capitalist system it aims to explain and sustain.  Marx’s praxis represented an intellectual and political paradigmatic shift from a focus on Homo economicus to the development of socialist women and men. In Part Two, I will consider the ecological socialist paradigm.  I will argue that ecological crisis call for nothing short of a radical ecological socialist transformation.  However, this transformation will require not just a radical change in social relations of production but also a revolution in 10,000 year old anthropocentric culture in favor of a radical ecocentric and universe-centric worldview. 

The Age of the Economist? 

We live in time of chronic crises of society and nature and a chasm between these and public response.  A key reason is a sense of powerlessness by working people.  We are either apathetic or tend to follow alien class forces instead of forging our own grassroots organizations for direct action.  No doubt the dominant bourgeois culture is partly responsible for this false-consciousness.  

The recent debate on public debt and austerity policies serves as an example. The debate is mainly between the neoclassical economists who dominate the profession and the Keynesians.  I will discuss their origins and salient features below. For the purpose of their current debate it is useful to note that the neoclassical economists typically support neoliberal policies and cutting back the social wage the working people have won. In the the U.S. it includes Social Security (retirement insurance), Medicare (federally-run health insurance for the elderly) and Medicaid (Federal-state funded health insurance for the poor) to reduce public debt to resuscitate the capitalist economy. The Keynesians  argue that the crisis is characterized by deficient effective demand--households and businesses are holding back their spendings and investments respectively.  To revive the capitalist economy they call for expansionary monetary and fiscal policies. They concur  that the public debt must be cut and spending on the social programs brought within “reasonable” bounds. But they disagree on the timing of such cuts.  

Back to the current debate: In mid-April, the mass and social media in the United State reported and commented on the rebuke of the now widely publicized 2010 economic paper of Harvard professors Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, “Growth in a Time of Debt,” by a team of economists at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. In policy circles, the Reinhart-Rogoff paper has been seen as a key intellectual prop for austerity policies in Europe and the United States.  

In “Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Growth: A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff” (April 15, 2013, hereon “the Amherst paper”), Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin found that Excelcoding errors, selective exclusion of available data, and unconventional weighting of summary statistics have led Carmen Reinhard and Kenneth Rogoff to incorrectly represent the relationship between high debt and economic growth in 20 industrial capitalist economies in the post-World War II period. Almost immediately, this touched off a political storm with Keynesian opponents of austerity as the cure for the current economic malaise going into an offensive position.  

But the authors of the Amherst paper also proposed that the current austerity policies are due to “bad economics.”   Thus, Thomas Herdon, a doctoral economics student who conducted an econometric re-analysis of the Reinhart-Rogoff data, told a reporter:

“...this policy of austerity affects people the world over. It’s really controversial and I think it’s really good to get more discussion about it. Economic policies impact the world in terms of people’s ability to have a job, a house, food on the table. It’s the human aspect of it that really drew me to economics. But bad economic policies can cause a lot of pain (my emphasis, Quartz, April 29, 2013).”

In a situation where working people have been fighting austerity measures in workplaces and in the streets, especially where it has been most brutal as in southern Europe, it is a serious mistake to believe and even propose that the reason for capitalist austerity is “bad economics” and not an offensive by the capitalist class and its governments and other institutions of capitalist power against the working people and counterpose “good economics” as a cure.  The current capitalist austerity  is part of a three-decade long campaign to improve the position of the capitalist class at the expense of the working people.  The economists’ debate on the utility of expansionary monetary and fiscal policies and the timing of austerity measures has been a sideshow to how capitalist public policy has been forged and why. 

In their response to Reinhart’s and Rogoff’s reaction to the Amherst paper, while calling the debate “useful” Pollin and Ash conclude:

“Responsible policy makers must balance the relative costs and benefits of austerity at a time when high unemployment is exacerbating rising inequality, and threatening the social fabric of advanced industrial democracies around the world (Pollin and Ash, The New York Times, April 29, 2013).” 

Again, these authors propose that “good economics” will cure the economic ills of industrial capitalist countries. The warning about austerity  “threatening the social fabric” of these societies clearly indicates that the authors are addressing the top decision makers in the United States capitalist government (or at least those the authors consider to be “responsible”).

It is notable that the economics department of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst is well-known for its heterodox teaching program, including its “Marxist economics” tract. 

With politicians, economists and the mass media trumpeting the idea that economics and economists are decisive in the formation of “good public policy” it is no wonder that the public also believes that economics theory drives public policy and tend to support either the neoclassical or Keynesian views (see, Public Attitude About Macroeconomics in the United States, by Steven M. Fazzari, Stanley Feldman, Cindy D. Kam, and Steven S. Smith, April 2013) .  

The idea of an outsize influence of the economists is not a new one.  For example, John Maynard Keynescharacterized economists as socially most powerful:

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood.  Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back (my emphasis, Fusfeld, The Age of the Economist: The Development of Modern Economic Thought, p. i).”

Historically, the claim of an outsize influence for economics and economists can be traced back to the rise of capitalism (see, for example, writings of the eighteenth century conservative political philosopher Edmund Burke).  It can be traced to a synergy between the capitalist system and the economics profession. 

What Is Economics? 

To understand how and why this notion has emerged it is necessary to ask what economics is and what economists do in the functioning of the capitalist system.  We have already seen that the economists’ debate is typically about the proper maintenance of the capitalist system, not its replacement with a social system that can liberate us from the economic, social and ecological crisis it has created.

 Similarly, the idea that somehow the “science of economics” can determine public policy belies the observable fact also noted by some prominent economists that public policy is formulated according to class interests not scientific findings (for a recent example see Paul Krugman’s “The 1 Percent’s Solution”). One does not need to be an expert to realize that public policy is not forged based on scientific studies.  Take for example the critical case of global warming and catastrophic climate change.  Two decades ago, the world renowned climatologist  James Hansen testified in the U.S. Congress that human caused global warming and catastrophic climate change is a clear and present danger; a view that has come to enjoy almost universal support in the scientific community. Yet, there has been no effective policy to stop and reverse greenhouse emissions anywhere in the world.  This lack of adequate policy response is because the influence of the coal, oil and gas industries in key capitalist countries.  Therefore, the belief that economists have the key to proper public policy and social progress is a lie that disempowers working people whose self-organization and self-activity are the true means for radical social change and lasting solution for social and natural crises caused by the capitalist system. 

How this state of affairs has come to dominate the public discourse is closely tied with the rise of economics an ideologically driven social science.  Karl Marx summarized it best in his critique of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s What Is Property:

“Just as the economists are the scientific representatives of the bourgeois class, so the socialists and the Communists are the theoreticians of the proletarian class.” (Marx, The  Poverty of Philosophy, Marx and Engels Collected Works, Volume 6, p. 177.) 

There has been scant attention to this compact formulation either in terms of its characterization of the function of economics and the economists or the role played by socialists.  

In her lectures on economics to the German Social Democratic Party school (1907-1913), Rosa Luxemburg unpacked Marx’s formulation in some detail (see, “What is Economics,” in Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, New York Pathfinder Press, 1970).  She explained that in the “natural economy” that preceded capitalist system, as in a feudal manor, all economic activities--production, distribution and exchange--were transparent to all.  It was a small local economy governed by rules and custom. There was no need for a science to study, analyze and explain them.   However, with the rise of the capitalist mode of production and its dominance--that is with the establishment of regional and national markets, and after 1870 the world market, economic activities operated according to the workings of the capitalist market where production, distribution and exchange are regulated by forces outside the control of and largely unknown to the participants. Economics as a science emerged to study, analyze and explain and help manage these economic activities.  

The study of the history of economic thought traces this transformation from pre-capitalist “natural economies” to the capitalist market economy.  The pre-industrial economic doctrines included mercantilism when Spain and Portugal were dominant colonial powers and foreign trade (mostly plunder in these cases) was seen as the key determinant of economic progress.  Physiocracy became prominent in France where small-scale peasant holdings remained significant and agriculture was seen as the main driver of the wealth of nation.  Classical political economy, in particular contributions from  Adam Smith and David Ricardo, emerged in response to the process of the English Industrial Revolution.  The labor theory of value that was posited by a number of early writers including John Locke was developed further by Smith and emerged in a systematic form in Ricardo.  Thus, promotion of the interests of the rising capitalist class and analyzing and theorizing the dynamics of the capitalist mode of production went hand-in--hand.  Marx’s characterization of classical political economy as “bourgeois science” is entirely accurate and incisive. 

Socialism: Marx’s Paradigm Shift

Contrary to the established dogma, Karl Marx was not a “great economist” although his economic writings are indispensable for understanding the capitalist system and its dynamics and should be part of any history of economic thought.  As Marx himself proclaimed, he was a socialist, “a theoretician of the proletarian class.” The fragmentization of Marx’s thought according to compartmentalized academic disciplines contradicts the unity of his thought and his philosophy of praxis that maintains the complex interaction of all such elements of social inquiry.  In fact, in his critique of classical political economy (economics of his time), he showed how behind the “relationship of things” that are subject of these theories lies the relationship among people and social classes. Thus, his economic studies were integral to his overall intellectual endeavor that was deeply philosophical, historical and political with a goal of  transcending class exploitation, oppression and alienation. Marx’s vision was not some improved version of the most developed capitalist economy run under workers’ management but socialist society organized through network of self-active and self-organized freely Associated Producers.  Thus, Marx’s theory represented nothing less than a paradigmatic shift from the best bourgeois theorists of his time. 

In his eulogy of Marx at his graveside, Engels considered historical materialism (also refer to as the materialist conception of history) and its specific application to the analysis of the capitalist mode of production, the labor theory of value that reveal surplus value as the source of capitalist profit, as Marx’s central discoveries. There lays the complex interaction of various fields of knowledge in Marx’s theory and method: 

“Just as Darwin discovered the law of develop of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human society: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.  

“But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, have been groping in the dark (Engels, “Speech at the Burial of Karl Marx,” March 17, 1883)

Late in his life, Engels complained about a tendency among some followers of Marx  to over-emphasize the economic focus of the historical materialist method. Thus, he wrote to Joseph Bloch on September 21-22, 1890:

“Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it.  We had to emphasize the main principle vis-a-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to other factors involved in the interaction.” (Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence,  1975, p. 394).

Engels expands further:  

“...According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining factor in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Neither Marx nor I have ever suggested more than this.  Hence, if somebody twists this into saying that the economic factor is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, absurd phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure--political forms of the class struggle and its results, such as constitutions established by victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and especially the reflections of all these real struggles in the brains of the participants, political, legal, philosophic theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas--also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases determine their form in particular (ibid. pp. 394-395).  

Engels’ warnings notwithstanding, Marxists after Marx went on to develop what has come to pass as “Marxian economics” (for a history of Marxian economics see M.C. Howard and J. E. King, A History of Marxian Economics, volume 1, 1989, volume 2, 1992) and other such specialized field of inquiry often at the risk of neglecting or sidelining other factors important to radical social change.

Neoclassical economics

Now, the academic debate on austerity policy between Reinhart-Rogoff and their detractors is essentially between neoclassical and Keynesian economists.  These schools of economics emerged about 1870 and in the 1930s respectively.   

The neoclassical school of economics (the label was probably coined by Thorstein Veblen) that emerged about 1870 resolved the contradiction between science and ideology in classical political economy in favor of the latter.   It did so by developing ideologically driven notions in classical political economy while discarding its key objective and scientific elements.  William Stanley Jevons (English), Karl Menger (Austrian) and Leon Walras (French) independently developed theoretical notions that are credited with establishing neoclassical economics. 

The starting point for these economists was a subjective theory of value instead of the objective (cost of production) theory of classical political economy.  They argued that the value of a commodity or service is determined by its marginal utility, that is, satisfaction derived by the consumer from the last unit purchased of the commodity or service.  From the theory of marginal utility demand schedules for each commodity/service market could be derived and together with supply schedules would determine market equilibrium price.  Walras argued that the entire economic system, including production of capital goods and raw materials, were driven by consumer decisions and spending. Left to themselves, markets ensure consumer satisfaction and economic stability as the whole system automatically adjusted to match production to demand.  

Soon, John Bates Clark (American) and Phillip Henry Wicksteed (Swedish) developed the marginal productivity theory as the neoclassical theory of income distribution according to which wages, profit and rent were paid according to the contribution of last unit of their input.  Thus, wages due to workers are paid to them no less and no more than their contribution.  The same applied to profits and rents. Thus, economic justice was served in the capitalist market economy.  

Neoclassical economists have claimed it represents a scientific advance, a claim that  is accepted by some sophisticated historians of economic thought (see, for example, Fusfeld 1966, p. 82).  However, the claim is based not on neoclassical theory’s use of the scientific method; rather on its adoption of the language of mathematics and deductive reasoning. The theory rests on a set of simplifying assumptions about “economic agents” and their behavior and highly idealized characterization of the market.  From these, it is possible to derive theories of market price formation, income distribution, market equilibrium, etc.  Thus, the neoclassical theory seems to be internally consistent (although it is not; see, for example, the Cambridge capital controversy).  However, it is easy to see that contrary to physical sciences neoclassical assumptions are idealistic abstractions that have little basis in reality.  Thus, violations of neoclassical assumptions and their implied results have led to important criticisms of neoclassical theory from within this tradition of which I will discuss Keynesianism in the next section. 

For our purpose it is sufficient to note that neoclassical economics arose in part in response to the rise of the labor movement in Western Europe and the considerable influence of socialism within it.  Intellectually, it was influenced by the philosophy of individualism, laissez faire and philosophical utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.  The neoclassical theorists replaced the study of the capitalist system as a recently emerging mode of production with a “market economy” model that is ahistorical. With their emphasis on the market, the nexus of the theory moved away from production in classical political economy to the sphere of exchange. They dropped any mention of socioeconomic classes and made ahistorical, atomized, hedonistic economic agents the focus of their theorizing.  They replaced objective theories of value (including labor theories of value of Ricardo and Marx) as the underlying center of gravity for fluctuating market prices in favor of a subjective value theory operationalized in an idealized perfectly competitive market.  The marginal productivity theory provided “theoretical” fig leaf for capitalist exploitation of labor. Finally, they argued that the capitalist system will result in optimal employment of resources, social welfare and stability. Thus, their advocacy for laissez faire.  

Keynesianism

The neoclassical theory of full employment embodied the Say’s Law according to which savings find their way to investment through money markets.  If savings exceeds investment a drop in interest rate would quickly move more savings into investment and vice versa. Thus, savings and investment tend to be in equilibrium.  If this equilibrium happens at relatively high price and wage levels resulting in less than full employment wages would fall brining down the price level with them until full employment is achieved. 

The Great Depression proved this central claim of the neoclassical theory wrong and begged for an alternative explanation.  John Maynard Keynes was the economist positioned best to offer such an explanation.  To be sure, there were other economists whose ideas contributed to Keynes‘ theory, including Knut Wicksell (Swedish) and Dennis H. Robertson (English). Michał Kalecki, a socialist Polish economist, developed a similar theory concurrently.  However, Keynes who came from the English elite and was educated in ethics and neoclassical economics proved best positioned and most effective and his theory detailed in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) won immediate recognition. 

Keynes argued that in a mature capitalist economy unless savings are channelled back into the stream of spending, total spending would decline, resulting in unemployment and stagnation. Further, a fall in total spending caused by reduced investment would reduce incomes, that in turn would cause savings to decline until the desire to save was brought into balance with the desire to invest.  At that point savings withdrawn from the income stream would be equaled by offsetting investment expenditures, and the decline in total spending would stop.  However, this new equilibrium could well be established at a depression level unless the central bank and the state intervened through expansionary monetary and fiscal policies. The central bank should lower interest rate and pursue “easy money” policies to encourage borrowing, spending, and investment. More importantly, for the mid-1930s United States, Keynes advocated a large public works program financed by borrowing. 

While the older economists were hesitant to embrace Keynes’ revision of the neoclassical macroeconomics, the younger economists embraced it.  John Hicks and Paul Samuelson are credited with merging Keynesian macroeconomic theory with neoclassical microeconomics to develop neoclassical synthesis that came to dominate the economic profession. 

There is no dispute that Keynes’ contribution was central for an understanding of macroeconomics of Great Depression. However, historians of economic thought differ on assessment of Keynes’ criticism of neoclassical theory.  Some (e.g. Fusfeld 1966, chapter 9) present Keynes’ critique as radical break with the neoclassical theory.  However, I think E. K. Hunt is closer to the truth when he writes:

“He (Keynes) wanted to drop the assumption of automaticity of the market in order to save capitalism from self-destruction. But he wanted to keep the faith in the marginal productivity theory of distribution and the faith in the allocative efficiency of the market. He wanted the government to intervene as little as possible into capitalists’ quest for profit, and then only to avert disaster.  However, he did mention as an aside that he personally preferred a less extreme degree of inequality in the distribution of wealth and income (but here again we may repeat that universal dictum of utilitarianism--pushpin is as good as poetry)." (E. K. Hunt, 1979, p. 395)

It is also notable the expansionary policies Keynes recommended were partly in place before his book was published as concessions to the rising labor militancy. For example, in the U.S. Wisconsin became the first state to institute unemployment compensation in 1932 (25% of all workers in the U.S. and 37% of non-farm workers were unemployed in the U.S. in 1932) and by 1937 the Supreme Court upheld unemployment insurance as constitutional.  Roosevelt signed Social Security into law in 1935.  The American capitalist system was in danger. Thus, Keynes’ theory and policy recommendations were not only intellectually but also politically appealing to the policy elite including in the economics profession. 

Until the 1970s, Keynesians were prominent part of the economic profession.  The 1973-75 world recession marked the end of the Golden Age of capitalism and revealed a secular crisis of profitability. Britain under Margaret Thatcher and United States under Ronald Reagan led the capitalist offensive at home and abroad and instituted the neoliberal era that revived neoclassical orthodoxy as its intellectual fig leaf.   

Marginalized, some academic Keynesians have joined other economists from the schools of economic thought who have been marginalized by the orthodoxy such as the institutionalists, neo-Ricardians, and the Marxists to resist the neoclassical exclusionary policies in the economics profession.  In the United States, Union for Radical Political Economics that emerged as the result of the radicalizations of the 1960s and early 1970s became a locus of such economists.  

Concluding Remarks: 

Theories about society, in particular the capitalist society, are designed to answer particular questions. Whether it is to understand and maintain the capitalist system or to understand it in order to overcome and transcend it matter in what questions are asked and how these are answered.  I have argued that economics is neither an objective science nor capable of providing a lasting solution to the contradictions of the capitalist economy and society.

I have also argued that Marx’s critique of classical political economy and the capitalist mode of production is a specific application of his materialist conception of history and that it aims to serve self-activity and self-organization of working people that have the potential of developing into a society of freely Associated Producers, a socialist society.  Marx’s theory replaces the bourgeois notion of Homo economicus with the ideal of socialist women and men. This theoretical transcendence was made possible with a change of paradigms.   

From this point of view, the labor and socialist movement confront the austerity debate of the economists with a demand for “jobs for all” and a set of immediate and transitional demands that would favor increased self-activity and self-organization of the working people.  This approach is fundamentally different from the Keynesian view that reducing unemployment through monetary and fiscal expansionary policies is good for the economy.  Marx’s view will supplant the capitalist economy. 

Let’s recall Marx’s argument with Proudhon:

“Just as economists are the scientific representatives of the bourgeois class, so the socialistsand the Communists are the theoreticians of the proletarian class.  So long as the proletariat is not sufficiently developed to constitute itself as a class, and consequently so long as the very struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie has not yet assumed a political character, and the productive forces are not yet sufficiently developed to in the bosom of the bourgeoisie itself to enable us to catch a glimpse of the material conditions necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat and for the formation of the new society, these theoreticians are merely utopians who, to meet the wants of the oppressed classes, improvise systems and go in search of regenerating science.  But in the measure that history moves forward , and with it the struggle of the proletariat assumes clearer outlines, they no longer need to seek science in their minds; they have only to take note of what is happening before their eyes and to become its mouthpiece.  So long as they look for the science and merely make systems, so long as they are at the beginning  of the struggle, they see in poverty nothing but poverty, without seeing in it the revolutionary, subversive side, which will overthrow the old society.  From the moment they see this side, science, which is produced by the historical movement  and associating itself consciously with it, has ceased to be doctrinaire and has become revolutionary (Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, 1847, Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 6, pp. 177-78).” 

In Part 2, I will argue that just as Marx adopted a new paradigm to critique political economy and the capitalist society we need to adopt an ecocentric, indeed a universe-centric view of human society and its relation to nature and consider whether and how Marx’s theory helps in the development of the ecological socialist movement. 

References:

Engels, Frederick. “Speech at the Burial of Marx,” March 17, 1883.

--------------------., “Letter to Joseph Bloch,” Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence,  1975, p. 394.

Fazzari, Steven M., Stanley Feldman, Cindy D. Kam, and Steven S. Smith. “Public Attitudes About Macroeconomic Policy in the U.S.” Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 11-14, 2013.

Fusfeld, Daniel. The Age of the Economist: The Development of Modern Economic Thought,” Glenview: Michigan: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1966. 

Herndon, Thomas, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin. “Does Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth: A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff,” Political Economy Research Institute, Working Paper Series, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, April 2013. 

Howard, M.C. and J. E. King. A History of Marxian Economics, Volume 1, 1883-1929. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1989.

---------------------------------. A History of Marxian Economics, Volume 2, 1929-1990. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Hunt, E. K. History of Economic Thought: A Critical Survey.  Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1979. 

Krugman, Paul, “The 1 Percent’s Solution,” The New York Times, April, 25, 2013.  

Luxemburg, Rosa. Rosa Luxemburg Speaks. New York: Pathfinder Press, 1970. 

Marx, Karl. Poverty of Philosophy. Marx and Engels Collected Works, Volume 6, Moscow: International Publishers, 1976 (1847).

Pasha, Shaheen, “The grad student who exposed Reinhart and Rogoff: They still can’t get their facts straight,: Quartz, April 29, 2013.

Pollin, Robert and Michael Ash. “Debt, Growth and the Austerity Debate,” The New York Times, April 25, 2013. 

Reinhart, Carmen M. and Kenneth S. Rogoff. “Growth in a Time of Debt,” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 100, May 2010, pp. 573-578. 

Notes: 

¹ This is even true when the economists claim to be “radical” or even “Marxist” as is the case with the authors of the paper from the economics department of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.  That department is one of the few in the U.S. that teaches courses in “Marxist economics.”   
² In Marx’s theory, the capitalist market takes hold only when the capitalist mode of production becomes dominant. In his theory of value and distribution, prices of production serve as the basis for the formation of a uniform rate of profit in an economy. 
³ Reasons for the rise of Marxian economics include the following. Marx himself devoted a substantial part of his life to the study of classical political economy and left much of his ambitious writing project incomplete.  This encouraged the notion that the study of capitalist economy is paramount and that it is Marxist to “complete” Marx’s project.  After the death of Engels the study of “Marxian economics” was largely in the hands of the theoreticians of the Second International and as it became  a reformist current when many of its leaders supported “their own government” in the First World War, economics became a practical necessity for its reformist goals.  Likewise, the rise of Stalinism in the Soviet Union pursuing “socialism in one country” focused on economic development and industrialization, again promoting an interest in economics. At the same time, with stifling of intellectual and creative work in the Soviet Union socialist minded academic economists in Europe, North America, and Japan pursued Marxian economics as a subfield in the economics departments that still survives in relatively few universities. 

Economics, Socialism, and Ecology: A Critical Outline, Part 2

By Kamran Nayeri, Philosophers for Change, October 29, 2013

Introduction

In Part 1, I argued that economics is neither an objective science nor capable of providing a lasting solution to the contradictions of the capitalist economy and society. As a discipline it has emerged to maintain and justify the capitalist system and it will wither away with its downfall.  Also, I argued that Karl Marx’s critique of political economy (“economics” of his time) and the capitalist system is a specific application of his theory of history, historical materialism, that aims to serve self-activity and self-organization of working people with the logic of transcending the capitalist system in the direction of developing a society of freely Associated Producers, a socialist society.  Thus, Marx’s theory replaces the bourgeois notion of Homo economicus (Economic Man) with the ideal of socialist women and men.  This theoretical transcendence was made possible with a shift of theoretical paradigm from one serving the interests of the capitalist class to one for emancipation of humanity through the direct action of working people.   

Now, I proceed to argue that the current crisis of society and nature is in fact a single crisis, the crisis of civilization built on the foundation of alienation from and exploitation of nature. Therefore, its resolution will require a shift from the prevailing anthropocentric worldview to an ecocentric, indeed a universe-centric view of human society and its relation to nature. This new paradigm provides a conceptual underpinnings for an ecological movement that would also be socialist because the present-day civilization is largely capitalist. I will then consider whether and how Marx’s theory aids the development of an ecological socialist movement to build a post-capitalist society where humanity would live in harmony amongst ourselves and with the rest of nature. 

The Anthropocene

The Anthropocene (New Man) is a term coined in 2000 by the Nobel prize-winning atmospheric chemist Paul Curtzen and ecologist Eugene F. Stoermer who argued that we live in a new geological epoch in which  one species, Homo sapiens sapiens, has come to shape the Earth’s geology in ways that undermine life sustaining environment and ecology, setting off planetary crises.  

Crutzen and Stoermer have suggested that the Anthropocene began with the invention of the steam engine which was a key technical component of the English Industrial Revolution that began about 1760 and was established sometimes between 1820-40. While the notion of the Anthropocene was received warmly by some geologists, the profession has yet to embrace it.  Many stratigraphers (scientists who study rock layers) criticize the idea citing lack of clear-cut evidence for a new epoch. Still, others, including ecologists and environmentalists, recognize the validity and relevance of the idea for the current debate on charting a course to head off and reverse the anthropogenic (human-caused) crisis of nature. 

Let me cite some examples of the harmful impact the human society on the ecosphere. In 2000, the then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) of the consequences of anthropogenic ecosystem changes for human well-being and the scientific basis for action needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of those systems and their contribution to human well-being. The MEA has involved the work of more than 1,360 experts worldwide and it has issued a number of reports.  

I simply want to draw attention to some findings in one of the report displayed in a figure (see, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, 2005; figure 13, page 16).  The summary data shown in the figure assess human impact on a number of ecosystems: forests (boreal, temperate and tropical), dry-land (temperate grassland, Mediterranean, tropical grassland and savanna, and desert), inland, costal, marine island, mountain and polar.  Adverse impact considered are habitat change, climate change, invasive species, over-exploitation, and pollution (phosphorus and nitrogen). Finally, driver’s impact on biodiversity over the last century (low, moderate, high and very high) are shown in different colors and driver’s current trends designated by arrows (declining, flat, rising, and rising rapidly) are displayed. 

The key finding is that all ecosystems are currently under pressure from human impact with a rapidly raising threats from climate change and pollution (nitrogen and phosphorus).

The MEA Board’s statement summarizes the key findings from these reports.  Here is some of the points from their statement. 

• Everyone in the world depends on nature and ecosystem services to provide the conditions for a decent, healthy, and secure life.
• Humans have made unprecedented changes to ecosystems in recent decades to meet growing demands for food, fresh water, fiber, and energy.
• These changes have helped to improve the lives of billions, but at the same time they weakened nature’s ability to deliver other key services such as purification of air and water, protection from disasters, and the provision of medicines.
• Among the outstanding problems identified by this assessment are the dire state of many of the world’s fish stocks; the intense vulnerability of the 2 billion people living in dry regions to the loss of ecosystem services, including water supply; and the growing threat to ecosystems from climate change and nutrient pollution.
• Human activities have taken the planet to the edge of a massive wave of species extinctions, further threatening our own well-being.
• The loss of services derived from ecosystems is a significant barrier to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals to reduce poverty, hunger, and disease.
• The pressures on ecosystems will increase globally in coming decades unless human attitudes and actions change.

Another useful way to classify and summarize the planetary crisis is offered by Johan Rockström and his colleagues at the Stockholm Resilience Center (SRC) (Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity, 2009). They have defined and studied nine planetary boundaries(thresholds for safety of human societies) as follows:

•  climate change
• stratospheric ozone
• land use change
• freshwater use
• biological diversity
• ocean acidity
• nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to the biosphere and oceans
• aerosol loading 
• chemical pollution.

Based on current scientific knowledge, the SRC scientists have argued that if these thresholds are crossed planetary crises may ensue that endanger human life on Earth.  They also suggest that in three cases--climate change, biodiversity loss and the nitrogen cycle--these thresholds may have already been reached.  

The final example of adverse anthropogenic impact on ecosystems is from Haydn Washington (2013) focusing on his discussion of energy flow and food chain. Ultimately, all species live off energy that arrives on Earth via sunshine.  Through photosynthesis green plants (primary producers) convert solar energy into sugars. They consume about half of it for their own livelihood. What remains is called Net Primary Productivity (NPP).  The NPP is the basis for all animal life. Herbivores eat plants to gain energy for their livelihood (primary consumers). Finally, some carnivores live off herbivores (secondary consumers).  Some omnivores eat secondary consumers (tertiary consumers).  The final link in the food chain is the decomposers that live off the organic matter of plants, herbivores and carnivores.  In each step in the food chain about 90% of the energy is lost. 

Washington citing Boyden (2004) writes: 

"The human species is now using about 12,000 times more as much energy per day as was the case when farming started; 90 per cent of this is a result of industrialization, 10 per cent to our huge growth in numbers.... The NPP of the land amounts to about 132 billion tonnes dry weight of organic matter in 1986. (Vitousek et al, 1986) Of these the then human population of 5.7 billion humans consumed directly just over 1 billion tonnes as food. In addition humans co-opted 43 billion tonnes (32 per cent) of total NPP in the form of wasted food, forest products, crop and forestry residues, pastures and so on.  Vitiusek et al. (1986) conclude:

'We estimate that organic material equivalent to about 40% of the present net primary product in terrestrial ecosystems is being coopted by human beings each year.  People use this material directly or indirectly, it flows to different consumers and decomposers than it otherwise would, or it is lost because of human-caused changes in land use.  People and the associated organisms use this organic material largely, but not entirely, at human direction, and the vast majority of other species must subsist on the reminder.  An equivalent concentration of resources into one species and its satellites has probably not occured since land plants first diversified.’

They also note that ‘humans also affect much of the other 60% of terrestrial NPP, often heavily’, thus our impact is not just limited to the 40 per cent of NPP we co-opt directly. The estimates in this classic 1986 study are conservative, and we are now 25 years further down the path of expanding population and impacts. However, other scholars use different methodologies and come up with different figures.... Whichever figure one uses, this remains a huge percentage of the net primary productivity of the planet that humans are appropriating.  Of course this appropriation is also increasing as population, and possibly more importantly per capita consumption , continues to increase. The high and increasing appropriation of NPP by humanity is clearly a fundamental stress on ecosystem health. NPP is the foundation of all ecosystems, so if we pull out too many blocks from the foundation to put on the ‘human pile’ eventually other structures (natural ecosystems) collapse.  And indeed they are..." (Washington 2013, p. 12-13).

The origin of alienation from nature

Curtzen and Stoermer have identified the Anthropocene with the Industrial Revolution that originated in England in the latter part of the eighteenth century.  This view attributes the Anthropocene to the use of technologies that can have game-changing effects on geology and ecology of the planet.  Likewise, some ecological socialists have argued that the capitalist system is the cause of the Anthropocene.  As Kovel (2007) puts it, in today’s world “capitalism is the enemy of nature”  and as Foster and his co-authors argue “capitalism is at war with the earth.”[1] Their view attributes the origin of the Anthropocene to the emergence and dominance of the capitalist mode of production.  The two explanations are similar insofar as they date the origin of the anthropocene to the consolidation and expansion of capitalist industrialization. They differ in that Curtzen and Stoermer identify technologies as the cause of anthropocene while Kovel and Foster, et.al. underscore the capitalist social relations, in particular the dynamics of capital accumulation. 

While it is true that the environmental degradation has been a key feature of capitalist industrialization and has accelerated sharply during the past 60 years, it is by no means limited to the modern era. Ruddiman et al. (2003) have proposed “an early anthropocene” hypothesis that suggests emission of methane gas by early human activities such as forest clearance and rice agriculture. Although this hypothesis is controversial (see, for example here), we know from world environmental history important cases of collapse of pre-capitalist societies and civilizations because of “the great divorce of culture and nature” instead of their “primal harmony.” (Hughes 2001, Wright 2004)  Similarly, the very idea of progress from antiquity to the Enlightenment and beyond has proved fraught with difficulties (for a history of the idea of progress see Nisbet 1994, for a recent critique of it see Wright 2004).  These concerns are directly related to our concern with the Anthropocene. 

Instead of focusing on when certain adverse anthropogenic events originated (e.g. climate change), I propose to ask why human onslaught on nature has been contemplated, executed and tolerated throughout the history of “civilization.”  Put it differently,  I would argue that the Anthropocene presupposes anthropocentrism--the human-centered worldview--that originated from our alienation from nature which dates back, not to the Industrial Revolution but to the Agricultural Revolution. Allow me to explain in some detail. 

The Agricultural Revolution that originated in several places about 10,000 years ago and unfolded over 5,000 years was based on domestication of animals and plants.  Domestication can be defined as “the evolutionary process whereby humans, modify, either intentionally or unintentionally, the genetic makeup of a population of plants or animals to the extent that individuals within the population lose their ability to survive and produce offsprings in the wild" (Blumler and Byrne 1991, p.24, cited in Barker 2006, p. 2). In parallel, humans have marginalized or eradicated wild species they felt are in competition with them or deemed undesirable or otherwise better captured or dead. 

Thus, it is essential to examine historically the Agricultural Revolution for the origins of human alienation from nature--that is, the process by which humans began to view the rest of nature as separate from them and attempted to control, dominate, and exploit it. 

A leading archaeologist who has written an important book on why foragers became farmers provides a concise bird-eye view of the process of alienation from nature and the subsequent rise of class societies even though he is not aiming to address these particular questions.  

"Humans have occupied our planet for several million year, but for almost all of that period they have lived as foragers, by various combinations of gathering, collecting, scavenging , fishing and hunting. The first clear evidence for activities that can be recognized as farming is commonly identified by scholars as at about 12,000 years ago, at about the time as global temperatures began to rise at the end of the Pleistocene (the ‘Ice Ages’) and the transition to the modern climatic era, the Holocene.  Subsequently, a variety of agricultural systems based on cultivated plants and, in many areas, domesticated animals, has replaced hunting and gathering in almost every corner of the globe.  Today, a relatively restricted range of crops and livestock, first domesticated several thousand years ago in different parts of the world, feeds almost all of the world’s population. A dozen crops make up over 80 per cent of the world’s annual tonnage of all crops: banana, barley, maize, manioc, potato, rice, sorghum, soybean, sugar beet, sugar cane, sweet potato, and wheat (Diamond, 1997: 132). Only five large (that is, over 100 pounds) domestic animals are globally important: cow, sheep, goat, pig, and the horse.

"The development of agriculture brought profound changes in the relationship between people and the natural world. Archaeologists have usually theorized that, that with the invention of farming, people were able to settle down and increase the amount and reliability of their food supply, thus allowing the same land to support more people than by hunting and gathering, allowing our species to multiply throughout the world.  The ability to produce food and other products from domesticated plants and animals surplus to immediate subsistence requirements also opened up new pathways to economic and social complexity: farming could mean new resources for barter, payment of tax or tribute, for sale in a market; it could mean food for non-food producers such as specialist craft-workers, priests, warriors, lords, and kings. Thus farming was the precondition for the development of the first great urban civilizations in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus valley, China, the Americas, and Africa, and has been for all later states up to the present day" (Barker, 2006, pp. 1-2).   

The Anthropocentric detour

Central to the Agricultural Revolution was the change from an ecocentric worldview to an anthropocentric one.  Ecocentrism was the worldview of foragers who lived in a small but resilient communities for millions of years before the “dawn of civilization.” Even Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) who appeared only some 200,000 years ago, lived as foragers for 95% of our existence (190,000 year) in small, stable and resilient communities before the dawn of agriculture.  

Anthropocentrism (human-centered worldview), also known as homocentrism, human supremacism, and speciesism is the view that holds human beings as the central or most significant species on Earth in the sense that they are considered to have a moral standing above other beings.  It is a key concept in environmental philosophy and ethics but as I will argue it is also a key concept in understanding the present-day combined crisis of society and nature.  

To get a sense of what the forgers worldview was like, it is instructive to examine the worldview of forager societies still surviving.  

“...[M]ost foragers are characterized by ‘animistic’ or (less commonly) ‘totemic’ belief systems. In the former, non-human animals are not just like humans, they are persons.  Their environment is a treasure house of ‘personage’, each with language, reason, intellect, moral conscience, and knowledge, regardless of wether the outer shape is human, animal, reptile, or plant. Thus the Jivaro people of eastern Ecuador and Peru consider humans, animals, and plant as ‘persons’ (aents), linked by blood ties and common ancestry (Descola, 1996). Foragers with animistic belief systems commonly do not have words for distinguishing between people, animals, and plants as separate categories, using instead classification systems based on terms of equality rather than the hierarchies of our own Linnaean taxonomies (Howell, 1996).  The totemic systems of Australian Aborigines are ceremonies and rituals to stress an abstract linear continuity between the human and non-human communities.  Animals are the most common totems, signifying a person’s or group’s identity or distinctiveness, but though they may be good to eat or food for thought , they are not considered social partners as in the animistic belief systems. 

“The forager world is animated with moral, mystical, and mythical significance (Carmichael et al., 1994). It is constructed and reconstructed through the telling of myths, which commonly include all kinds of animals as humans, changing shape between one and the other.  In addition to the present world inhibited by humans and non-human-beings, there is a supernatural world. In many forager societies, shamans mediate between the lived and supernatural worlds, entering and conceptualizing the latter, commonly through ecstatic experiences... As the whole world is self, killing a plant or animal is not murder but transformation. Finding food is taken for granted, reinforced by myths telling the hunter to be the animal before presuming to kill and eat it.  ‘They are being heard by sentient conscious universe--a gallery of intelligent beings who, if offended by injudicious words (ridicule, bragging, undue familiarity, profanity, etc.) can take reprisal, usually by a steadfast refusal to be taken as food or by inflicting disease or doing other violence’ (C.L. Martin, 1993, p. 14).”  (Barker, 2006, p. 59).

By contrast, the farmer's worldview is defined by their mode of existence in opposition to the wild. They see themselves 

“...at the center of a series of circles of decreasing familiarity: ‘from home, farm or village to the wild periphery where danger threatens’ (Tapper, 1994: 54).  The farmed land is clearly separated from the wilderness beyond, commonly by physical boundaries. The agricultural economy is built around relations with people.  Cooperation and continued necessity of cooperative labour link and bind people, both to those involved in the current cycle of production but also to those who produced the previous cycle, thus creating a cyclical renewal of the relations of production that theoretically never ends (Meillassoux, 1972).  In his comparison of Mullu Kurumbu farmers and their Nayaka forager neighbours in southern India, Bird-David (1990) contrasted how the Nayaka viewed the forest unconditionally as a parent, whereas the Mulla Kurumbu viewed their land as an ancestor that gave its wealth reciprocally in return for favours rendered.” (Barker, 2006: 59-60)

Domestication of the mind

In his discussion of why foragers became farmers, Barker (2006, pp. 38-39) focuses on what he calls the “domestication of the mind.”  The question for archaeology today is not whether the shift from ecocentrism to anthropocentrism occurred or when and where it first occurred. The key debate is whether it occurred among some foragers before they took up farming (cause) or after they took up farming (effect).  

The reason the ideological change has come to the center of research is in part based on a century of progress in understanding of where, when and how farming began across the world. Barker’s summary which he admits is perhaps caricatured to be concise is useful to our discussion: The evolving overall consensus in archeology since the nineteenth century follows: 

“ (1) the advantages of farming were obvious, it just needed time for people to see them as the next rung on their Ladder of Progress [the Victorian era view]; (2) the advantages [of farming]were obvious, it just needed Holocene environmental change to concentrate foragers’ minds; (3) the disadvantages [of farming] were obvious, foragers only became farmers when the choice was either to become farmers or to starve; (4) foragers were well on the road to becoming farmers in the late Pleistocene, so it just needed the stimulus of Holocene environmental change; (5) foragers found they were becoming farmers despite themselves because of how they reacted to Holocene environmental change, with no going back; (6) foragers could see there were few advantages in farming, and successfully resisted for a long time; (7) foragers (or rather a few ambitious individual foragers) could see there were advantages in having more food, or strange exotic foods, for maintaining and enhancing status; (8) foragers’ culture had already moved from being part of the wild to controlling the wild, so it was just ‘one small symbolic step’ to fencing some of it off." (Barker, 2006, pp. 39-40).  (the explanatory square bracket is mine)

We need not explore any of these evolving working hypothesis in archeology here. However, it is crucial for our concern to take away this central finding: Agriculture was neither a step in the supposed Ladder of Progress for humanity--as was generally believed in the nineteenth century--nor was it a desired mode of existence.  A complex set of circumstances led to groups of foragers to become farmers. Over time, famers and the “civilization” that arose on the basis of agriculture expanded their domain against the wild, including the  foragers who were part of this wilderness.  Also, anthropocentrism, whether cause or effect or some dialectical combination of the two in transition to farming, has increasingly dominated human culture.  This transition from the forager societies to class society and its anthropocentric ideology is the root-cause of the ecological crisis and, as I will argue below, the root-cause of the crisis of society.

Anthropocentrism  has been central to both religious and secular worldviews.  Ancient Greek gods were imagined as human-like.  In Abrahamic religions humans are God’s agents on Earth. In the Old Testament for example, God creates Adam and Eve in his own image and creates other species for them.[2]

A similar anthropocentric worldview dominated the Western philosophy from Aristotle and the Stoics to Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas to Descartes and Kant (Steiner, 2005).  

According to Sessions (1995) the leading philosophical spokespersons for the Scientific Revolution--Francis Bacon, René Descartes, and Gottfried Leibniz--were all strongly influenced by Christian anthropocentrism.  Bacon held that modern science would allow humans to regain command over nature that had been lost with Adam’s Fall in the Garden. Descartes argued that the new science would make humans the “masters and possessors of Nature” and that only humans had souls (minds) while all other creatures were machines.  Animals had no sentience (mental life) and so, among other things, could feel no pain.    

The same Christian anthropocentrism carried over to Renaissance anthropocentric humanism which preceded the Scientific Revolution and was continued by the Enlightenment philosophers “and on into the twentieth century with Karl Marx and John Dewey, and the humanistic existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre....Renaissance humanism portrayed humans as the central fact in the universe, while, in addition, supporting the exalted view that humans had unlimited powers, potential, and freedom..” (Sessions, 1995, p. 161). 

Overcoming the crisis through reviving ecocentrism

Now, let us reconsider the current crisis of society and nature in light of the very long history of our species.  Our forager ancestors proved resilient for 2.5 million years while living in relative harmony amongst themselves and with their natural environment.[3]  Even anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) who appeared about 200,000 years ago formed resilient ecocentric communities up to the Agricultural Revolution some 10,000 years ago and despite all odds some have survived to this very day.  The Anthropocene began with the advent of the Agricultural Revolution.  The rise of a surplus economy combined with an anthropocentric world view served as the basis for class societies. Alienation from nature provided the material basis for social alienation and with it manifold forms of exploitation and oppression of humans by other humans as well as the struggle to overcome all these.  Crises of nature and society have become a defining feature of human “civilization.” 

Of course, it is important to analyze historical changes in the forms of alienation from nature and social alienation as well as specific forms of exploitation and oppression as well as resistance to them as modes of production change.  In particular, it is important to understand and underscore how the capitalist mode of production has transformed and deepened the anthropocentric culture through the dynamics of capital accumulation, as it has turned almost everything into commodities through self-expansion of value. Intrinsic value of everything is turned into exchange value.  Also, it is important to understand how the historical form of capital accumulation, centered on fossil fuel-driven industrialization, has created the conditions for irrepressible damage to the fabric of life on Earth and perhaps possible demise of our species.  But none of these could have come to be without the rise of class society based on anthropocentrism that defines civilization.  

If the above argument is true in its broad outline then it follows that no social transformation is radical (in the sense of getting to the roots of the crisis) unless it overcomes the 10,000 year old anthropocentric culture.  This challenges both the ecological and socialist movements that aim to address the crisis of nature and crisis of society respectively.  In other words, in today’s globalized capitalist world to be a consistent naturalist requires challenging the capitalist system as the enforcer of the anthropocentric culture and to be a consistent socialist one has to be a naturalist because the root cause of the crisis of the capitalist system, like all other class societies before it, is the anthropocentric culture.  To resolve the planetary crisis and the social crisis, it is necessary to revive the intrinsic value of everything, including each human being, by riding our society and culture of values assigned to them by the market and this cannot be done unless we return to ecocentrism and transcend the capitalist system.

There is no space here to discuss the entire range of the specific implications of this radical shift in paradigm.  I will note just one such implication: the seemingly unending human population debate.  As it is well-known, the debate from nineteenth century to the present has centered on whether there is a human over-population problem due to limits to growth of production of food and other necessities or if technological change in production of food and other necessities can provide enough for the multitudes if capitalist distribution is replaced by a socialist one.  Both sides in the debate approach the problem from an anthropocentric perspective in the sense that there is no concern whatsoever for the effects of the size and rate of growth of human population on the wellbeing of other species in the local, regional and planetary ecosystems.  From an ecocentric perspective, there can be no doubt that there are billions too many people as human population growth has contributed to the crisis of local, regional and planetary ecosystems causing the sixth great species extinction, a defining characteristic of the Anthropocene (for a recent detailed account see Washington 2013). 

Darwin’s legacy

If we face a crisis of civilization, not separate socioeconomic and ecological crises, then  overcoming it could benefit from a number of theoretical, experiential and spiritual steams too numerous to note here. However, two of them require our attention in the context of this critical outline: key contributions of Charles Darwin and Karl Marx.  Darwin revolutionized our thinking about ourselves and our relation with the rest of the ecosphere and with natural history.  Marx, together with Fredrick Engels, revolutionized our conception of human history since the dawn of agriculture and proposed a critique of the capitalist society that aims to transcend class society and its vestiges in the direction of a freely Associated Producers society.  

The Darwinian evolutionary theory overturned the anthropocentric Judo-Christian worldview of the Western civilization.  Darwin’s radical change in the concept of our place in the world proved too much even for his close followers.  Thus, St. George Jackson Mirvat, an outstanding biologist who was a firm supporter of evolution by natural selection but also a catholic became a leader of a dissident group of evolutionists who argued that only the human physic might have evolved through natural selection but not her rational and spiritual soul. At some point, God must have intervened to imbued it such qualities making us something more than merely an evolved ape. 

Thomas Henry Huxley, another imminent biologist and chief defender of evolution by natural selection who came to be know as “Darwin’s bulldog,” also went along with the anthropocentric resistance to Darwin’s theory:

“On all sides I shall hear the cry-- ‘We are men and women, not mere better sort of apes, a little longer in the leg, more compact in the foot, and bigger in the brain than brutal Chimpanzees and Gorillas. The power of knowledge--the conscience of good and evil--the pitiful tenderness of human affections, raise us out of all real fellowship with the brutes, however closely they may seem to approximate us.’” (Huxley, Man’s Place in Nature, 1863: 129,  cited in Rachels, 1990: 82). 

Siding with the anthropocentrism of his opponents, Huxley asked: “Could not a sensible child confute, by obvious arguments, the shallow rhetoricians who would force this conclusion upon us?”  (ibid.) 

Darwin himself was more resolute.  In his response to Mivart, he argued that human rationality (or intelligence, or use of language, or any of human’s other mental powers) “is an ordinary characteristic...” (Rachels, 1990: 57).  The philosopher James Rachels adds: 

“...Darwin simply denied the whole idea that there is something special about man’s intellectual capacities.  ‘There is no fundamental difference,’ he said, ‘between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.’  Thus, he reasoned that if the intellectual capacities of other animals are produced by natural selection, and their capacities are not different in kind from man’s, there is no reason to doubt that man’s capacities are also the result of natural selection.

“In thinking about non-humans, Darwin said, we have always under-estimated the richness of their mental lives.  We tend to think of ourselves as mentally complex, while assuming that ‘mere animals’ lack any very interesting intellectual capacities. But this is incorrect. Non-humans experience not only pleasure and pain, but terror, suspicion, and fear.  They sulk. They love their children. They can be kind, jealous, self-complacent, and proud.  They know wonder and curiosity.  In short, they are much more like us, mentally and emotionally, than we want to admit.” (ibid.)  

Of course, Darwin did not deny that human mental capacities are much more impressive than other animals. He acknowledged that humans far outdistance all other animals in linguistic ability, thought, and reason.  He only insisted that the difference, impressive as they are, are matters of degree, not of kind. At the same time, despite of prevalent practice of comparing other species’ capabilities to humans, the Darwinian evolutionary theory makes it clear that every species has capabilities adequate to the ecosystem niche it inhibits. It is anthropocentric and anti-Darwinian to expect other species to excel in capacities acquired by one species, namely the Homo sapiens sapiens. In the Darwinian theory there are simpler and more complex species. There are no superior or inferior species.  In particular, being a more complex species does not make one superior. As the eminent biologist E. O. Wilson points out, from the perspective of life on Earth humans are unimportant where as insects are crucial (Wilson, 2006: 26-36). 

Thus, the Darwinian evolutionary theory provides a materialist scientific basis for an ecocentrism similar to that of the foragers’ cosmology of the oneness of existence.  Life on Earth emerged out of the inorganic matter. More complex organism evolved out of the primal single cells.  There followed the evolutionary unfolding of untold number of species that make up the Tree of Life.  The wisdom and beauty of nature lies not in its purposefulness but in its untold number of trails and errors that have created some many wonders, so many forms of life.   

So, the Darwinian heritage is an intellectual and spiritual pillar for the ecological movement of today and a guiding light for humanity to emerge out of its 10,000 year old crisis of society and nature. It provides a solid ethical basis for a naturalist social formation. 

Responding to the accumulated scientific knowledge about non-human animals, there is a growing community of scientists, philosophers, and others who have argued against particular aspects or the entire anthropocentric worldview.  I note some examples from the bioethics and philosophy literature. 

Rachels (1990) who I noted earlier has used Darwin’s theory to argue for moral consideration for all animals.  He recalls that before Darwin the doctrine of “dignity of man” (or his superiority over the rest of nature) was defended either by the claim that “man is made in the image of God” or by the notion that “man is a uniquely rational being.”  Rachels painstakingly debunks both of these arguments in light of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. To replace the “dignity of man” doctrine, Rachels proposes the concept of “moral individualism.”  

“How an individual should be treated depends on his or her own particular characteristics, rather than on whether he or she is a members of some preferred group--even the ‘group’ of human beings...This means that human life will, in a sense, be devalued, while the value granted to non-human life will be increased.”  (Rachels 1990:5) 

By “devaluation” of human life, Rachels means the process of dethroning human beings as the apex of creation. It should be understood in the sense of leveling of hierarchical value systems as in the case of the fall of Apartheid in South Africa.  It was not so much “devaluing” the lives of white South African as it was for equality of all regardless of their race.   

Among other contemporary philosophical contributions informed by Darwin’s teachings   and advances in biology I should note Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation (1975) that was a milestone in the animal rights literature. Singer takes a utilitarian approach derived from Bentham and Mill to argue for certain rights for sentient beings which he identifies with the capacity to experience pain or pleasure.  Tom Regean in The Case for Animal Rights (1983) adopts a Kantian deontological approach to make a case for animal rights.  However, as Gary L. Francione (Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation, 2008) shows neither Singer nor Regean have overcome the Western philosophy's anthropocentric worldview in relation to the moral status of animals.  He argues that the fundamental human rights are based on freedom for individuals that denies their commodification.  Francione then maintains that commodification of non-human animals denies their freedom and to rid society of institutionalized animal exploitation we must abolish commodification of animals.  

A recent movement that is pertinent to this discussion is Deep Ecology that has been identified with the work of the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess.  Naess’s philosophy builds on Spinoza’s that held that God and Nature are one and the same thing (Naess,  2008, pp. 230-251). On this basis, Naess adopts an ecocentric approach that he calls Ecosophy T close to the animistic worldview of foragers.  He argues that every living being, human or not, has an equal right to live and blossom (Naess, 1989, pp. 164-65), a right that is not conditional on how humans perceive it. According to Naess, each person has her own ecosophy (philosophy of nature) that can become ecocentric based on experience and contemplation. To suggest just one example of such ethical approach to nature he and Sessions proposed an Eight Point Platform for the Deep Ecology movement that seeks to address the planetary crisis.  They are as follows:

• The wellbeing and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value, inherent worth). These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes.
• Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
• Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
• The flourishing of human life and culture is compatible with a substantially smaller human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires a smaller human population.
• Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
• Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
• The ideological change will be mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasing standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between bigness and greatness.
• Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.

Naess and Sessions invited others to draft their own platform or adopt theirs with revisions as they like. Their point is that there can be and there are many ecocentric views of the world  and all can contribute to healing of the 10,000 old rift with nature.  

I would place Deep Ecology’s teachings in the context of what we can learn about our place in the world from recent development in history called Big History (Christian 2004, Brown 2007, Spier 2010; for more information see the International Big History Association website).   Big History aims to place human history in the context of the history of the universe.  One advantage gained in David Christian’s view is a better understanding of increasing complexity from the Big Bang to the present human society.    

Thus, the ecocentric and universe-centric ethics serve as the ideological foundation for overcoming the crisis we face today. 

Marx’s legacy

While the adoption of the anthropocentric worldview by some groups of foragers was necessary for the Agricultural Revolution, the rise of the class society solidified its hold and institutionalized it.  Given the existing global capitalist economy and society, the transcendence to an ecocentric naturalist social formation will require a world-historic anti-capitalist, anti-class transformation.  A world-historic cultural revolution requires a world-historic revolution in the existing capitalist and class socioeconomic structures.

Such a social revolution cannot be accomplished without critical appropriation of all thorough-going (radical) criticisms of the capitalist and class systems, prominent among them the contribution of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels.  

Historical materialism is the key contribution of Marx and Engels.  Marx’s labor theory of value and his theory of socialism are the direct result of the application of historical materialism to the capitalist epoch. As Marx wrote in his March 5, 1852 letter to Joseph Weydemeyer: 

“As to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering either the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them....What I did that was new was to demonstrate: 1) that the existence of classes is merely linked to particular historical phases in the development of production, 2)  that class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classesand to a classless society.”  

Obviously, the task of assessing the legacy of Marx and Engels is beyond this critical outline. However, I should note that Marx’s heritage is more prone to ideological interpretation and contestation than Darwin’s.  Social theories deal with more complex reality than biological theories as humans are both biological and social beings.  Perhaps as the result, social theories are often much less amenable to precise theoretical and therefore scientific articulation. And, unlike biological theories, social theories do not usually lend themselves to controlled experiments and verification. Therefore, what constitutes Marx’s legacy is still unresolved. There has been and continues to be dispute about historical materialism, labor theory of value, theory of the proletariat and theory of socialism, to cite some of the most important.  

From the ecocentric perspective, historical materialism leaves outside of its purview the crucially important “prehistory” of our species--the entire 2.5 million years or the 190,000 years of the physically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens)--to focus on the written history of class societies.  Thus, historical materialism magnifies the anthropocentric detour of human society at the expense of learning the lessons of our really long history when our species lived in relative harmony amongst ourselves and with the rest of nature.  Of course, Marx’s and Engels’s reason for developing their historical methodology was, as the above quote from Marx’s letter to Weydemeyer shows, to discovered how class societies, in particular the capitalist society, evolve, and whether and how the “laws of motion” of the capitalist society, may lead to a classless socialist society.   

Any serious student of Marx and Engels would admit that their theory has not always withstood the test of historical experience.  For example, Marx’s theory of the proletariat and socialism (points 2 and 3 in Marx’s letter to Weydemeyr quoted above) have not fared well (Marx and Engels realized problems with this in their own time and began to address them). A review and if necessary revision of historical materialism in light of experience can and should be coupled with an attempt to explicitly accommodate an ecocentric perspective as the precondition for emancipation of humanity. The challenge is to merge knowledge gained from transhistorical studies of our species (those that look for common trends in history and “prehistory”) and historical studies (those that focus on class societies, such as Marx’s and Engels’s own work). 

This is all the more important as Marx and Engels, like other great thinkers of their time remained anthropocentric in their worldview; not surprising given that their philosophical outlook and social theory are in the tradition that dates back to the Renaissance’s anthropocentric humanism continued by the Enlightenment philosophers. As the Frankfort School theorist Erich Fromm writes in Marx’s Concept of Man (1961): “Marx's philosophy was, in secular, nontheistic language, a new and radical step forward in the tradition of prophetic Messianism; it was aimed at the full realization of individualism, the very aim which has guided Western thinking from the Renaissance and the Reformation far into the nineteenth century.” The Trotskyist philosopher George Novack considers Marx’s theory “revolutionary socialist humanism.” (Novack 1973: chapter 7). Gajo Petrović (1988) argues that Marx’s concept of humans includes a human essence which can be fully realized only in the socialist society. Marx’s and Engels’s deliberately scant discussions of the future communist society include what amounts to an anthropocentric vision of human control of nature as a key defining feature. 

Engels’s The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884), one of the most widely read and influential contributions that expounds historical materialism, relied heavily on Lewis Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society (1877). Engels’s innovation was to re-interpret Morgan’s data to show how the institutions of class society arose from what Morgan described as “communism in living,” that is the “gift economy”, the give-and-take and pooling of effort and resources typical of the forager bands (Morgan, 1881: 63-78). This led Marx and Engels to characterize the original state of society as “primitive communism.”   However, neither Engels nor Marx questioned the prevailing anthropocentrism of the Victorian archeology that Morgan shared nor its Ladder of Progress view of history which Hodder Westropp, the leading archeologist of that period, defines as follows: 

“It appears as if there were but one history for every separate people, one uniform process of development for every race, each passing though successive phases, before attaining its highest social development; for every race must pass through the necessary transitional stages before it can arrive at a higher development.  These successive phases are rude and barbarous, the hunting, the pastoral, and the agricultural, corresponding with, and analogous to, the stages of infancy, childhood, youth, manhood in the individual man.  This sequence is invariable in man, as an individual and collectively.” (Westropp 1872-:2-3, cited in Barker, 2006:5).”

Barker adds: “The same thesis of a universal cultural progression from primitive hunting to herding to farming to civilization was widely argued by contemporary Victorian prehistorians (e.g. Figuier, 1876; Morgan, 1881; Nilsson, 1868).”  (ibid.) 

Of course, Marx and Engels are historical thinkers and revolutionaries. Their contributions should be judged only in the context of their time.  To follow in their foot steps requires the willingness and ability to raise beyond their reach given what we have learned in the past 130 years.  Unfortunately, a similar anthropocentrism permeates the socialist movement since Marx, including in most currents that have come to consider themselves ecological socialist. 

Concluding remarks

In this second part of my essay, I have argued that to address the root-causes of the 21st century crisis of society and nature we must replace the 10,000 year old anthropocentrism of class societies--often called civilization--and its present day enforcer the global capitalism with ecocentric naturalist social formations.  This is because anthropocentrism that first took hold as cause or consequence of the emergence of farming gradually replaced the ecocentrism of forager societies that provided a basis for their resilience and relative harmony among themselves and with the rest of nature for 2.5 million years.  The rise of the class societies on the basis of farming solidified and institutionalized anthropocentrism that was the cause of alienation of humans from nature.  Thus instead of living as part of and in harmony with nature, class societies have been waging war against it.  Alienation from nature provided the basis for social alienation. 

I this essay I have also argued that the two historically dominant paradigms, reforming the capitalist system as construed by economics or transcending in the direction of a socialist society as in Marx cannot address the roots of the crisis. Proposed reforms would not work because they are based on economic doctrines that are  conceived to justify and maintain the capitalist economy and society. The Marxian alternative would go far enough to meet its own goal of human emancipation because it does not address the root-cause of alienation from nature that is based in the Agricultural Revolution, not the Industrial Revolution. The economic doctrine preaches Homo economicus as the ideal image of bourgeois men and women and Marx’s theory expounds (an anthropocentric) socialist humanism.  While Marx’s advance over classical political economy was achieved by a paradigm shift from the point of view of the capitalist class and its idealized Homo economicus in favor of the working class and for development of socialist women and men, to resolve the present day crisis we need to adopt an ecocentric paradigm.

It is important to note that this essay provides only an outline of my argument and some evidence for it.  I have painted a picture with board strokes of my brush.  For example, economic theory is richer than the classical, neoclassical and Keynesian economics that I outlined in Part 1. I do have some opinion on other schools of economic thought but none that matter for the purpose at hand here.  Similarly, socialism includes other theories and theorists that I have not even mentioned much less examined and my treatment of Marx and Engels is limited to brief references to issues of relevance to the goals of this outline.    

It is also my belief that if humanity ever manages to overcome the current crisis, it would be through multifaceted movements in theory, practice and by recapturing ancient (prehistoric) and contemporary wisdom.  I had to leave out many important contributions in every one of these areas to focus attention on my central message. 

Still, I believe this outline raises important questions for anyone interested in confronting the planetary and socioeconomic crisis of our time.  Who are the social agencies for the ecological socialist transformation of the type I discussed above? What strategy and tactics are effective? What are the means that are suggested by the end we seek. How is such an ecological socialist movement related to other social and political theories and movements, especially other ecological socialist theories?  I hope to return to some of these questions in due time.  Meanwhile, I look forward to critical views of my readers. 

Kamran Nayeri

Sunday, September 22, 2013 

This essay is dedicated to the memory of my mother Nezhat Nikrad (April 24, 1927-August 21, 2013) who gave me life and unconditional love and to Nuppy (1994-May 14, 2008) who taught me that cats are people too and for his deep friendship. 

About the author: Kamran Nayeri is the editor of Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. He has been a socialist activist for much of his life in Iran and the United States, including an active participant in the Iranian revolution of 1979.  Nayeri taught/researched policy issues (health, welfare, graduate education) for three decades at the State University of New York--Health Science Center at Brooklyn and the University of California (UC Berkeley and UC Office of the President).  He has published in professional and socialist journals and has served on editorial boards, including the Review of Radical Political Economics.  He can be contacted at editor.opitw@gmail.com.

References:

Barker, Graeme.  The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory.  Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Bellamy Foster, J., Clark, B., and York, R. The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth.  New York: Monthly review Press, 2010. 

Bird-David N. “The Giving Environment. Another Perspective on the Economic System of Hunter Gatherers.” Current Anthropology, Vol. 31, 183-196, 1990. 

Boyden, S.  The Biology of Civilization: Understanding Human Culture as a Force in Nature.  Sydney: UNSW Press, 2004. 

Brown, Cynthia Stokes. Big History: From the Big Bang to the Present. New York: The New Press, 2007.

Carmichael, D. L., Hubert, J., Reeves, B., and Schanche A. (eds.). Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London: Rougtledge, 1994.   

Christian, David. Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History.  Berkeley and Los Angels: University of California Press, 2004. 

Descola, P. “Constructing Nature: Symbolic Ecology and Social Practice,” in P. Descola and G. Palsson (eds.) Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives: 82-102. London: Rougtledge, 1996.  

Engels, Frederick. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. New York: Pathfinder Press. 1072 (1884). 

Figuier, L.  Primitive Man. London: Chatto and Windus, 1876.

Fromm, Erich. Marx’s Concept of Man. New York: Ungar Publishing, 1961. 

Francione, Gary L. Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation.  New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.

Howell, S. “Nature in Culture or Culture in Nature?” Chewong Idea of ‘Humans’ and Other Species,” n P. Descola and G. Palsson (eds.) Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives: 127-144. London: Rougtledge, 1996.  

Hughes, J. Donald.  An Environmental History of the World.  London: Routledge, 2001.  

Kovel, Joel. The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? London: Zed Books Ltd., 2007. 

Martin, C. L. In the Spirit of the Earth. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. 

Meillassoux, C. “A Marxist Approach to Economic Anthropology,” Economy and Society,  Vol. 1, 93-105, 1972. 

Morgan,  Lewis Henry. The Ancient Society.  New York: Holt, 1877.  

_______________. Houses and Home-Lifestyle of the American Aboriginals. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1881. 

Naess, Arne.  Ecology, Community and Life Style.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 

________.  "Spinoza and the Deep Ecology Movement," in A. Drengson and B. Devall (eds.), The Ecology of Wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess, Berkeley: Counterpoint, pp. 230-251, 2008. 

Nilsson, S.  The Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia. London: Longman, 1868. 

Nisbet, Robert. History of the Idea of Progress. Piscataway, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994. 

Novack, George. Humanism and Socialism.  New York: Pathfinder Press, 1973.

Petrović, Gajo. “Marx’s Concept of Man,” in Tom Bottomore (ed.) , Interpretations of Marx.  Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1988. 

Rachels, James.  Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. 

Regean, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights.  Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004. 

Spier, Fred. Big History and the Future of Humanity. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K., Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Sessions, George. “Ecocentrism and the Anthropocentrism Detour,” in Sessions, George (ed.), Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, 156-184. Boston and London: Shambhala, 1995. 

Steiner, Gary. Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press, 2005. 

TapperR. L. “Animality, Humanity, MoralitySociety,” in T. Ingold (ed.) What Is an Animal? 47-62.  London: Rougtledge, 1994. 

Vitousek, P., Ehrlich, A., and Matson, P.  “Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis,” BioScience, vol. 277, pp. 494-499, 1986. 

Washington, Haydn. Human Dependence on Nature: How to Help Solve the Environmental Crisis.  Abingdon, Canada and New York: Routledge, 2013. 

Westrropp, W. Prehistoric Phases. London: Bell and Daldy, 1872. 

Wilson. E. O. Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth.  New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 

Wright, Ronald. A Short History of Progress. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Da Capo Press, 2004.

End notes:
[1] To his credit, in The Enemy of Nature Kovel also reaches back to the origin of woman oppression to find the roots of alienation. This takes us back to the “prehistory,” an idea that I explore here in some detail.  But Kovel’s remark is mostly an aside and the thrust of his argument identifies the Anthropocene with the capitalist epoch.
[2] “And God said, let us make man in our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over every creeping that creepeth upon the earth. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
There is some dispute in interpretation of the word “dominion” among Christians. Catholics and other non-Protestant Christians argue the proper translation would be “steward” (see, for example here). But whether we understand the Genesis to give humans dominion over nature or give them stewardship, there is no doubt that they are superior to other creatures. Thus, the passage in Genesis is another case of anthropocentrism.
[3] Foragers committed infanticide to maintain their band size and were responsible for some megafauna extinction just as the woolly mammoth and saber-toothed cat went extinct due to hunting.