HOW THE LEGITIMACY OF MARX'S ECOLOGY IS POSSIBLE: DEMONSTRATING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF FACTUALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS?

• Author: Zhang, Ning
• Position: Karl Max

1. Introduction

   The 'second-stage ecosocialists' such as John Bellamy Foster, Paul Burkett, and Kohei Saito, etc., have revealed the coupling relationship between Marx and ecology by 'returning to Marx's materialist-ecological approach, and particularly to his concept of social metabolism' (Foster and Clark 2016: 1). Nevertheless, mainstream environmentalism, deep ecology, Neo-Malthusianism, a considerable number of ecologists, and ecological critics still doubt and oppose the legitimacy of Marx's ecology and hold considerable doubts about Marx's contribution to ecology. They even believe that Marx, who inherited the spirit of the Enlightenment, was staunch Prometheanist with 'the Biblico-Christian ideology of the conquest of nature' (Lipietz 2000: 74), and then classify Marx as an 'anti-ecological' camp, emphasize the rift between Marx and ecology. The doubters and opponents either believe that 'Marx is neither the green angel nor the production devil, and that Marx is not an ecological theme' (Silva 2018: 1745). 'The founder of historical materialism was decisively unecological in his faith in the positive effects of unlimited technological and economic growth' (Saito 2017: 10). 'They prefer to abandon Marx's theories of value, reification, and class altogether, dismissing them as outdated and irrelevant, and see no point in reviving Marx's ideas as part of a radical critique of capitalism's environmental destruction' (Saito 2016: 60). In short, their final conclusion is that Marx should be forgotten (Immler and Schmied-Kowarzik 2011: 12). Marx's ecology has no legitimacy. Therefore, whether we can take a complete ecological narrative in Marx's theoretical heritage and use it to respond to the current ecological crisis is the key to confirming the legitimacy of Marx's ecology.

2. Two questions about the legitimacy of Marx's ecology

   The issue of legitimacy is not limited to the traditional fields of sociology and politics, and almost all disciplines face the challenge of legitimacy. For example, questioning the significance of philosophy in modern society is actually questioning the legitimacy of philosophy, which is essentially a criticism of the effectiveness of philosophy. Of course, the history of philosophy undoubtedly confirms its existence or factuality. Marx's ecology also has a similar legitimacy problem, and it contains two sub-topics. On the one hand, is there ecological content in Marx's theory? The answer to this question is actually an interpretation of the relationship between Marx and ecology. If we can analyze enough ecological narratives from Marx's theory and confirm the coupling relationship between Marx and ecology, we can say that Marx's ecology has legitimacy at the level of factuality. However, factuality is only a necessary condition for the confirmation of legitimacy, not a sufficient and necessary condition. On the other hand, if Marx's ecology can effectively explain the essence and root of the current ecological crisis and provide academic resources for today's ecological movement and ecological governance, it can be said that Marx's ecology has obtained legitimacy in the sense of effectiveness. Only when we get a positive answer in the dual sense of factuality and effectiveness can Marx's ecology prove its legitimacy is necessary and sufficient, and the query of the legitimacy of Marx's ecology will become a false problem.

   The criticism of the legitimacy of the factuality of Marx's ecology usually includes the following two aspects. On the one hand, sceptics believe that Marx's theory has nothing to do with ecology. This kind of criticism was first launched from etymology. They stressed that the word ecology has never been used in Marx's text, so Marx cannot make a fundamental contribution to the development of ecological thought. Using ecological terms to express the arguments in Marx's works just puts ecological thoughts that emerged 120 after Marx's death under Marx's domination (Kadt and Engel-Di 2001: 55). In addition, some scholars believe that the research theme of Marx is limited to 'grand narratives' such as class struggle, social revolution, and human liberation, his research field is limited to 'human societies' such as political economy and historical materialism, and Marx lacked attention to nature and ecology. For example, Donald Worster believed that we could not find much concern about preserving any ancient feeling for nature or even any concern for environmental preservation in Marx (Worster 1994: 427). Anthony Giddens accused Marx that his attention to changing the exploitative relationship of human society in the class system did not extend to the exploitation of nature (Giddens 1981: 59-60). These scholars' rejection of the factuality of Marx's ecology is actually accomplished by revealing the 'heterogeneity' between Marx's theory and ecology. They usually believe that Marx's theory is essentially a critical theory of capital, and therefore it does not contain the theme of ecology. In fact, Marx's ecological critique is usually embedded in capital critique. If we cannot understand the homogeneity of Marx's capital critique and ecological critique and the coupling of political economy and ecology, we will inevitably turn a blind eye to Marx's ecology.

   On the other hand, skeptics believe that Marx has a natural anti-ecological tendency because of his excessive admiration for production. This view not only excludes the 'kinship' between Marx and ecology but also attributes the ecological crisis to Marx's tendencies of productivism, economic determinism, and technological optimism. John Passmore even wrote: 'Nothing could be more ecologically damaging than the Hegelian-Marxist doctrine' (Passmore 1974: 185). These critical opinions focused on portraying Marx's anti-ecological image and believed that Marx 'understands production from a committed point of view, that is, he sees a dominated object in nature. When using the concept of production or productivity, he does not take into account the possible damage to the environment caused by human actions' (Silva 2018: 1738). In addition, the misunderstanding of Marx's value theory is also an important reason for the formation of Marx's anti-ecological image. Skeptics believe that Marx's labor theory of value does not take into account the value of nature. Schmidt also claimed that Marx and Engels did not reserve any space for nature except for a one-sided and conqueror's attitude towards nature.

   In short, the scholars who are obsessed with equating Marx's theory with anti-ecological theory mostly start with criticizing Marx's labor theory of value, portray Marx as a Prometheanist image with anthropocentrist tendency, blind optimism about science and technology, one-sided respect for production, ignoring the inherent value of nature, and adhering to the spirit of Enlightenment.

   The questioning of the legitimacy of Marx's ecology is also carried out by opposing its effectiveness. Skeptics believe that although Marx's theory contains the dimension of ecology. Marx's ecology has lost its explanatory power to the modern ecological problems due to the transformation of the times and the historical theme. This critical opinion mainly comes from the first-stage ecosocialists. Saito Kohei summed up this theoretical prejudice:

   The 'first-stage ecosocialists', despite their avowed appreciation of Marx s larger legacy, tend to emphasize the theoretical shortcomings of Marx s ecology in the strongest terms, as 'a major ecological flaw', 'a serious error', 'a defect', and 'a failure' (Saito 2016: 60). These so-called theoretical shortcomings are the critical reasons why the first-stage ecosocialists believe that Marx's ecology has lost its effectiveness. For the same reason, they think that it is meaningless to revive Marx's ideas as part of a radical critique of capitalism's environmental destruction (Saito 2016: 60). Specifically, they believe that the theoretical shortcomings of Marx's ecology mainly include three aspects. First, they accused Marx's ecology of lacking system and completeness. For example, Hubert Laitko firmly argues that Marx's ecology 'lacks a systematic character and rigor, and it can possibly give some stimulation for theoretical works, but not more than that' (Laitko 2006: 65). Second, they emphasize the limitations of Marx's ecology. Michael Lowy argued: "We can find in Marx writings a theory of the metabolic rift between human societies and nature" (Lowy 2017: 153). However, Marx and Engels's discussion on ecological issues is dated; the ecological issues they discussed belong to the 19th century and are almost meaningless to today. Third, they believe that Marx's ecology lacks constructive opinions. Marx's ecology itself can point out the stale fact at best that capitalism is harmful to the environment and cannot provide theoretical guidance for actual ecological movements and ecological governance. In short, critics deny its legitimacy of effectiveness by weaving the myth of the empty field of the times of Marx's ecology.

3. The overall logic of the legitimacy of Marx's ecology

   In order to refute the questioning of the legitimacy of Marx's ecology, a standard forjudging the legitimacy of Marx's ecology must be established. This standard can be divided into three aspects. 1. Does the core of Marx's theory involve ecology and nature? 2. Is there a rich ecological narrative in Marx's text? 3. Is Marx's ecology effective today? The first two standards are related to the factual basis of the legitimacy of...