John Bellamy Foster

Tag: Paul Burkett

  • Value Isn’t Everything

    “Value Isn’t Everything” (coauthored with Paul Burkett, Foster listed first), Monthly Review vol. 70, no. 6 (November 2018), pp. 1-17. DOI: 10.14452/MR-070-06-2018-10_1 [HTML]

    The rapid advances in Marxian ecology in the last two decades have given rise to extensive debates within the left, reflecting competing conceptions of theory and practice in an age of planetary ecological and social crisis. One key area of dispute is the attempt by a growing number of radical environmental thinkers to deconstruct the labor theory of value in order to bring everything in existence within a single commodity logic. For many in Green circles, Karl Marx and a long tradition of Marxian theorists are to be faulted for not directly incorporating the expenditure of physical work/energy by extra-human nature into the theory of value. In response, this article argues that any form of analysis that seeks to eliminate the deep-seated dialectical contradictions between the natural form and the value form, as well as between the capitalist economy and the larger socioecological metabolism, fails to comprehend the complex, interdependent dialectics of nature and humanity.

    •  Earlier version was published in International Socialism 160 (Autumn 2018): 39-58.

     

     

  • Marx and the Earth: An Anti-Critique

    Marx and the Earth: An Anti-Critique

    Marx and the Earth

    Marx and the Earth: An Anti-Critique [co-authored with Paul Burkett] (Boston: Brill, 2016, hardcover; Chicago: Haymarket Press, March 2017, paperback), 308 pp.

    A decade and a half ago John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett introduced a new, revolutionary understanding of the ecological foundations of Marx’s thought, demonstrating that Marx’s concepts of the universal metabolism of nature, social metabolism, and metabolic rift prefigured much of modern systems ecology. Ecological relations were shown to be central to Marx’s critique of capitalism, including his value analysis. Now in Marx and the Earth Foster and Burkett expand on this analysis in the process of responding to recent ecosocialist criticisms of Marx. The result is a full-fledged anti-critique—pointing to the crucial roles that dialectics, open-system thermodynamics, intrinsic value, and aesthetic understandings played in the original Marxian critique, holding out the possibility of a new red-green synthesis.

  • Metabolism, Energy and Entropy in Marx’s Critique of Political Economy

    “Stoffwechseel, Energie und Entropie In Marx’ Kritic der Politischen Ökonomie” (“Metabolism, Energy, and Entropy in Marx’s Critique of Political Economy: Beyond the Podolinsky Myth”—edited and translated version of work based on previous articles, Burkett listed first) in Kijan Espahangizi und Barbara Orland, ed., Stoffe in Bewegun (Burlin: Diaphanes, 2014), 95-120.

    Until recently, most commentators, including ecological Marxists, have assumed that Marx’s historical materialism was only marginally ecologically sensitive at best, or even that it was explicitly anti-ecological. However, research over the last decade has demonstrated not only that Marx deemed ecological materialism essential to the critique of political economy and to investigations into socialism, but also that his treatment of the coevolution of nature and society was in many ways the most so- phisticated to be put forth by any social theorist prior to the late twentieth century. Still, criticisms continue to be leveled at Marx and Engels for their understanding of thermodynamics and the extent to which their work is said to conflict with the core tenets of ecological economics. In this respect, the rejection by Marx and Engels of the pio- neering contributions of the Ukrainian socialist Sergei Podolinsky, one of the founders of energetics, has been frequently offered as the chief ecological case against them. Building on an earlier analysis of Marx’s and Engels’s response to Podolinsky, this article shows that they relied on an open-system, metabolic-energetic model that adhered to all of the main strictures of ecological economics – but one that also (unlike ecological economics) rooted the violation of solar and other environmental-sustainability conditions in the class relations of capitalist society. The result is to generate a deeper understanding of classical historical materialism’s ecological approach to economy and society – providing an ecological-materialist critique that can help uncover the systemic roots of today’s “treadmill of production” and global environmental crisis.

  • Classical Marxism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

    “Classical Marxism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Marx/Engels, the Heat Death of the Universe Theory, and the Origins of Ecological Economics” [PDF], (coauthored with Paul Burkett, Foster listed first), Organization and Environment, vol. 21, no. 1 (March 2008), pp. 1-35.  DOI: 10.1177/1086026607313580

    Ever since Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1971) wrote his magnum opus, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, the entropy law (or the second law of thermodynamics) has been viewed as a sine qua non of ecological economics. Georgescu-Roegen argued strongly that both the entropy law and the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of matter–energy) were incompatible with ortho- dox neoclassical economics. The relation of ecological economics to Marxian economics, however, was much more ambiguous. Attempts to explore the history of ecological–economic ideas, following Georgescu-Roegen’s contributions, immediately brought to the fore the close relationship between those thinkers who had pioneered in ecological–economic thinking and classical Marxism.

  • The Podolinsky Myth

    “The Podolinsky Myth: An Obituary Introduction to ‘Human Labour and Unity of Force‘,” (co-authored by John Foster and Paul Burkett,  by Sergei Podolinsky, Historical Materialism, Volume 16, Issue 1, pages 115 – 161, (2008) DOI: 10.1163/156920608X276323

    The relationship between Marxism and ecology has been sullied by Martinez-Alier’s influential interpretation of Engels’s reaction to the agricultural energetics of Sergei Podolinsky. is introduction to the first English translation of Podolinsky’s 1883 Die Neue Zeit piece evaluates Martinez-Alier’s interpretation in light of the four distinct but closely related articles Podolinsky published over the years 1880–3. is evaluation also emphasises the important but previously underrated role of energy analysis in Marx’s Capital. Engels’s criticisms of Podolinsky are found to be quite justified from both political-economy and ecological perspectives. From the standpoint of Marx and Engels’s metabolic and class-relational approach to production, Podolinsky’s attempt to reduce use-value to energy is fraught with problems. Podolinsky’s energy reductionism does not even come close to representing an alternative value analysis – let alone a groundbreaking perspective on ecological history – as was suggested by Martinez-Alier. Far from Marx and Engels’s vision of communism as an ecologically sustainable and coevolutionary human development, Podolinsky’s conception of human labor as an energy accumulation machine seems to uncritically mimic the standpoint of the capitalist interested in using nature only to extract as much energy throughput (work) as possible from the labour-power (potential work) of the worker.

  • Metabolism, Energy, and Entropy in Marx’s Critique of Political Economy: Beyond the Podolinsky Myth

    “Metabolism, Energy, and Entropy in Marx’s Critique of Political Economy: Beyond the Podolinsky Myth,” [PDF], Theory and Society, vol. 35, no. 1 (February 2006), pp. 109-56. DOI: 10.1007/s11186-006-6781-2.

    Until recently, most commentators, including ecological Marxists, have assumed that Marx’s historical materialism was only marginally ecologically sensitive at best, or even that it was explicitly anti-ecological. However, research over the last decade has demonstrated not only that Marx deemed ecological materialism essential to the critique of political economy and to investigations into socialism, but also that his treatment of the coevolution of nature and society was in many ways the most sophisticated to be put forth by any social theorist prior to the late twentieth century.

    Translations:
    • German translation in Prokla 159 (June 2010), pp. 217-40 (Part 1), (Part 2) in Prokla 160 (September 2010), pp. 417-36.

  • Ecological Economics and Classical Marxism

    “Ecological Economics and Classical Marxism : The ”Podolinsky Business” Reconsidered,” [PDF], (coauthored with Paul Burkett, Foster listed first), Organization and Environment, vol. 17, no. 1 (March 2004), pp. 32-60. DOI: 10.1177/1086026603262091

    This introduction to “Socialism and the Unity of Physical Forces” reassesses Sergei Podolinsky’s place in the history of ecological economics together with Marx and Engels’s reaction to Podolinsky’s work. The authors show that contrary to conventional wisdom, Podolinsky did not establish a plausible thermodynamic basis for the labor theory of value that could have been adopted by Marx and Engels. Moreover, Marx and Engels did not neglect nor abruptly reject Podolinsky’ s work as is commonly supposed but took it seriously enough to scrutinize it deeply in the spirit of critique. Although verifying Podolinsky’s right- ful place as a forerunner of ecological energetics, the authors’ analysis highlights the severe limitations imposed by his energy reductionism and closed-system thinking as compared to Marx and Engels’s metabolic and open-system approach.

    Reprint(s):

    Forthcoming reprint in Robert Ayres and Steve Keen, ed., Energy and Economic Theory (Northamption, MA: Edward Elgar, 2015.

  • Marx and the Dialectic of Orgainc/Inorganic Relations

    “Marx and the Dialectic of Orgainc/Inorganic Relations: A Rejoinder to Salleh and Clark” [PDF] (coauthored with Paul Burkett, Foster listed first), Organization and Environment, vol. 14, no. 4 (December 2001), pp. 451-62. DOI: 10.1177/1086026601144006

    Our article “The Dialectic of Organic/Inorganic Relations: Marx and the Hegelian Philosophy of Nature” (Foster & Burkett, 2000) appeared in Oraganization & Environment exactly a 1 year ago. Our purpose in that article was a very specific one made very clear from the beginning. We were concerned with addressing one of the most persistent and seemingly peretrating criticisms of Marx for his supposed insensitivity to ecological issues, namely, the claim that in referring to nature as “the inorganic body of a man” in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1884, a work otherwise known for its ecological values, thus, sinning irredeemable against ecology and no less so against dialectics (Marx, 1974, p. 328).

  • The Dialectic of Organic/Inorganic Relations

    “The Dialectic of Organic/Inorganic Relations: Marx and the Hegelian Philosophy of Nature,” [PDF], (coauthored with Paul Burkett, Foster listed first), Organization and Environment, vol. 13, no. 4 (December 2000), pp. 403-25. DOI: 10.1177/1086026600134002

    Ecological thinkers have suggested that in applying an “organic/inorganic” distinction to humanity-nature, Marx embraced a dualistic and antagonistic conception of the human-nature relationship. The authors confront this view by considering how Marx’s various applications of the concepts organic and inorganic were shaped not only by standard scientific usage but also by Marx’s engagement with Hegel’s natural philosophy and the historical struggle between materialism and teleology. They find that Marx’s usage was based on an explicit disavowal of all mechanistic and dualistic views of the human-nature relationship. In Marx’s mature works, all fixed oppositions between organic and inorganic gave way to a fully dialectical understanding of ecological processes. Marx’s growing concern with the “metabolic rift” between humanity and nature generated by capitalist production led him to link the question of communism with that of ecological sustainability. Their analysis thus sheds light on the opposition between idealist and materialist visions of ecology.

  • Marx’s Ecological Value Analysis

    Marx’s Ecological Value Analysis

    “Marx’s Ecological Value A,” [PDF], (John Bellamy Foster) Monthly Review vol. 52, no. 4 (September 2000), pp. 39-47. DOI: 10.14452/MR-052-04-2000-08_4

    Review of: Paul Burkett, Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), 312 pp., $45, hardcover.

    If there is a single charge that has served to unify all criticism of Marx in recent decades, it is the charge of “Prometheanism.” Although Marx’s admiration for Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound and his attraction to Prometheus as a revolutionary figure of Greek mythology has long been known, the accusation that Marx’s work contained at its heart a “Promethean motif,” and that this constituted the principal weakness of his entire analysis, seems to have derived its contemporary influence mainly from Leszek Kolakowski’s Main Currents of Marxism. The first volume of this work was drafted in Polish in 1968 and appeared in English in 1978.