Capitalism has
created a metabolic rift between human beings and the Earth. Karl
Marx came up with the term “metabolic rift” to explain the
crack or rift that capitalism has created between social and natural
systems, humans and nature. This rift, he claimed, led to the
exploitation of the environment and ecological crisis. Marx argued
that we humans are all part of nature and he was also the first one
who saw social societies as an organism with a metabolism similar to
that of humans.The general idea is that disruptions, or
interruptions, in natural cycles and processes creates an metabolic
rift between nature and social systems which leads to a buildup of
waste and in the end to the degradation of our environment. The
growth under capitalism of large-scale agriculture and long distance
trade only intensifies and extends the rift. Large-scale industry and
large-scale mechanised agriculture work together in this destructive
process, with industry and commerce supplying agriculture with the
means of exhausting the soil. All of this is an expression of the
antagonistic relation between town and country under capitalism.
As
Engels later put it: “The present poisoning of the air, water
and land can only be put an end to by the fusion of town and country”
under “one single vast plan.” Despite its potential cost
to society in terms of increased labor time, he viewed this fusion as
“no more and no less utopian than the abolition of the
antithesis between capitalist and wage-workers.”
The
market system is incapable of preserving the environment for future
generations because it cannot take into account the long-term
requirements of people and planet. The competition between individual
enterprises and industries to make a profitable return on their
investment tends to exclude rational and sustainable planning.
Because capitalism promotes the accumulation of capital on a
never-ending and always expanding scale it cannot be sustainable.
Engels explained this destructive dynamic: "As individual
capitalists are engaged in production and exchange for the sake of
the immediate profit, only the nearest, most immediate results must
first be taken into account. As long as the individual manufacturer
or merchant sells a manufactured or purchased commodity with the
usual coveted profit, he is satisfied and does not concern himself
with what afterwards becomes of the commodity and its purchasers. The
same thing applies to the natural effects of the same actions"
We
disrupt the natural ecosystem at our peril, Engels warned. "Let
us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human
victories over nature. For each victory nature takes its revenge on
us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place brings about the
results we expected, but in the second and third places it has quite
different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel out the
first."
Engels added: "At every step we are reminded
that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign
people, like someone standing outside of nature." On the
other hand, "we have the advantage of all other creatures of
being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly." That
is, we can organise society in step with nature's limits.
This
is impossible unless the profit motive is removed from determining
production in human society and a system of participatory democracy
and rational planning is built in its stead. A rational agriculture,
which needs either small independent farmers producing on their own,
or the action of the associated producers, is impossible under modern
capitalist conditions; and existing conditions demand a rational
regulation of the metabolic relation between human beings and the
earth, pointing beyond capitalist society to socialism and communism.
Engels argued that only the working people organised as "associated
producers" can "govern the human metabolism with
nature in a rational way". This "requires something
more than mere knowledge. It requires a complete revolution in our
hitherto existing mode of production, and simultaneously a revolution
in our whole contemporary social order."
For Marx
and Engels, people and nature are not two separate things . Marx
wrote that:
“Man lives from nature, i.e., nature is his body,
and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if he is not to
die. To say that man’s physical and mental life is linked to nature
simply means that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part ofnature.”
Marx goes so far as to define communism as “the
unity of being of man with nature.”
The most basic
feature of communism in Marx’s projection is its overcoming of
capitalism’s social separation of the producers from necessary
conditions of production. This new social union entails a complete
decommodification of labor power plus a new set of communal property
rights. Communist or “associated” production is planned and
carried out by the producers and communities themselves, without the
class-based intermediaries of wage-labor, market, and state. Marx
often motivates and illustrates these basic features in terms of the
primary means and end of associated production: free human
development.
Marx does not see this communal property as
conferring a right to overexploit land and other natural conditions
in order to serve the production and consumption needs of the
associated producers. Instead, he foresees an eclipse of capitalist
notions of land ownership by a communal system of user rights and
responsibilities:
"From the standpoint of a higher
economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single
individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one
man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all
simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners
of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and,
like boni patres familias, they must hand it down to succeeding
generations in an improved condition."
No comments:
Post a Comment