4/3/2017 In Defense of Ecological Marxism: John Bellamy Foster responds to a critic

Navigation

CustomSearch Search

THEORYANDPRACTICE
InDefenseofEcologicalMarxism:
JohnBellamyFosterrespondstoacritic
PostedonJune6,2016

JasonMoorehasjoinedthelonglineofscholarswhohavesetouttoupdateordeepen
Marxisminvariousways,buthaveendedupbyabandoningMarxismsrevolutionaryessence
andadaptingtocapitalistideologies.

OneofthemostimportantbooksofMarxisttheorypublished
inrecentyearsisMarxsEcology:MaterialismandNature,in
whichJohnBellamyFosterrediscoveredandexpandedon
Marxsunderstandingofthealienationofhumanbeingsfrom
thenaturalworld,crystallizedintheconceptofmetabolicrift.

AsadirectresultofthatbookandFosterssubsequentwork,
Marxistecologicaltheoryhasbeenadoptedbyagrowing
numberofresearchersasaframeworkforunderstandingthe
EarthSystemcrisis,andhasformedthebasisfora
resurgenceofecosocialisttheoryinthe21stcentury.[1]

Butnoteveryoneendorsestheadoptionofecological John Bellamy Foster

Marxismandmetabolicrifttheory.Perhapsthemost
vehementcriticofFostersviewsisJasonW.Moore,whopromotesanalternativeviewhecallsworld
ecology.Inmanyessaysandtalks,andinhisbookCapitalismintheWebofLife,Moorehas
repeatedlyaccusedFosterofCartesiandualism,andofemphasizingdisruptionandseparation,
ratherthanreconfigurationandunity.[2]

Inarecentconversation,Climate&CapitalismeditorIanAngusaskedFosteraboutMoorescriticisms
ofecologicalMarxism.[3]

Seealso:FredMurphyandIanAngusdiscussthisinterview

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/06/06/in-defense-of-ecological-marxism-john-bellamy-foster-responds-to-a-critic/ 1/16
4/3/2017 In Defense of Ecological Marxism: John Bellamy Foster responds to a critic

========================================

ANGUS:Tobegin,canyoubrieflysummarizewhatismeantbymetabolicrift?

FOSTER:Thisisatallorder.LetmeseeifIcangetatthemaintheoretical
andhistoricalpointsassuccinctlyaspossible.Theconceptofmetabolicrift
isrootedinMarxstheoryofalienation:theestrangementofhumanbeings
fromthemselvesasproducingbeings,fromtheprocessofproduction,from
theirspeciesbeing,andfromotherhumanbeings.Themetabolicriftisa
concreteexpressionofthehumanestrangementfromthematerial
conditionsoflife,fromnature.

Inthemid1800s,scientistsdevelopedtheconceptofmetabolismto
describetheexchangesofmatterandenergywithinandbetween
organisms,andbetweenorganismsandtheirenvironments,thatare
essentialtoalllife.Marxincorporatedthatconceptintohistorical
materialism,usingthetermssocialmetabolismforthelaborandproductionprocess,andthe
universalmetabolismofnature,fornaturalprocessesmoregenerally.Asliving,objectivebeings,
humanscouldonlyexistinametabolicrelationtotherestofnature.

Inthelate1850sand1860sseriousconcernsaroseinEuropeandNorthAmericaaboutthelossof
soilfertility.Thenewindustrializedcapitalistagriculturewasrapidlydepletingthesoilofnutrients.
Marxdescribedthisasanirreparableriftintheinterdependentprocessofsocialmetabolism,a
metabolismprescribedbythenaturallawsoflifeitself.

Restoringthatmetabolismcouldonlybeaccomplishedinasocialistsocietycapableofarational,
sustainableapproachtoproductionandhenceofthehumanmetabolismwithnature.Marxinsisted
thatsustainabilitymaintainingtheearthforthesakeoffuturegenerationswouldbeadefining
characteristicofsocialism,asocietyinwhichassociatedproducerswouldrationallyregulatethe
metabolismbetweenthemselvesandnaturewhiledevelopingtheirhumanpotential.

ANGUS:Howdoesmetabolicrifttheorycontributetounderstandingtodaysenvironmental
crises?

FOSTER:OurwholeunderstandingoftheEarthSystemcrisis,oftheriftsinplanetaryboundaries,
andoftheeconomiccontradictions,aregreatlyenhancedthroughanunderstandingofMarxsideas.
Agrowingnumberofecologistshaveanalyzedmetabolicriftsinawidevarietyofspheres,fromthe
soiltotheclimatetooceansystems,connectingtheseenvironmentalcrisestocapitalismsalienated
socialmetabolism.

Marxprovidedtheonlydialecticalsystemsviewthatunderstandstheecologicalproblemas
simultaneouslyeconomicandecological,rootedinthecapitalistmodeofproduction.Noother
approachhasthecapacitytointegrateanaturalscientificandsocialscientificcritiquethatcaninform
ourpracticeintheAnthropocene.

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/06/06/in-defense-of-ecological-marxism-john-bellamy-foster-responds-to-a-critic/ 2/16
4/3/2017 In Defense of Ecological Marxism: John Bellamy Foster responds to a critic

Marxbrokeoutofthecircleofcapitalistlogic.Forhim,theimportanceofenvironmentaldegradation
wasntjustthatitdroveupcapitalistscostsandcontributedtoeconomiccrises.Headdressedthe
degradationoftheecologyasacriticalissueinitsownright.Marxstheoryofmetabolicriftenablesus
tounderstandhowcapitalismgrowsbyexternalizingwasteanddegradationontheenvironment,a
problemthatcanonlybesurmountedbysocialism,basedonarational,sustainable,relationtonature.

ANGUS:AmongJasonMooresmanycriticismsofyourwork,thechargeofCartesian
dualismstandsoutasthemostfrequentand,inmyview,theleastcomprehensible.He
appliesthatlabelnotjusttoyouandotherecosocialistsandradicalenvironmentalists,but
alsotoleadingEarthSystemscientists.Anthropocenescience,hesays,iscaptivetothevery
thoughtstructuresthatcreatedthepresentcrisis.Atthecoreofthesethoughtstructuresis
Cartesiandualism.

IfindmyselfagreeingwiththeBritishenvironmentalsociologistGrahamSharp,who,inthe
currentissueofCapitalismNatureSocialism,saysofMooreswork,thatAnythinghedoesnt
agreewithisdualist,allthewaythroughthebook.Whatsbehindthechargeofdualism,and
isthereanyvalidityinit?

FOSTER:ItdoesseemoddthatMooredirectsthechargeofdualismatsomanythinkers,eventhose
whoareexplicitlydialectical,andthosewhoutilizesophisticatedsystemstheories.

GrahamSharphasapoint,butweneedtoaddthatwhatMooredoesntagreewithand
whatheaccusesofdualismareallthoseideas,associatedwiththeradicalecological
movement,ecologicalMarxism,andecologicalsciencetoboot,thatheseesaschallenginghis
ownconceptions.Sothereisamethodtohismadness,asthesayinggoes.

HiscriticismofCartesiandualismisaimedatallattemptstodistinguishbetweennatureandsociety,
evenbywayofabstraction.Inthisrespecthehasbeeninfluencedbyradicalthinkersingeography
likethelateNeilSmithandNoelCastree,andbyconstructionistslikeBrunoLatour,nowaSenior
FellowattheBreakthroughInstitute,aleadingcenterforcapitalistecomodernism.

Nature,Mooresays,issubsumedwithinsocietywecanonlyunderstanditaswhathecallsthe
doubleinternalityofnatureinhumanityandhumanityinnature.Thisview,whichhecallsmonist
andrelational,followsthepatternofapositioninphilosophyknownasneutralmonism,which
arguesthatentitieslikemindandmattercannotbeseparated,evenbyabstraction,andinsome
currentlyfashionableversionsmustbebundledtogether.Thispositionwasadvanced,acenturyago,
asacountertomaterialismandidealism,andtoMarxiandialectics.Moorerefersconstantlyto
bundling.Whathecallstheweboflifeorworldecologyischaracterizedasabundleofbundles.
Socialagencyisjustabunchofdialecticalbundles.

Toavoidsupposedlydualistlanguageheemploysakindofterminologicalbundling,tyingwords
togetherwithhyphens,likecapitalisminnatureandnatureincapitalism.

TheconstantreferencestoCartesiandualism,orwhatMoorecallstheCartesianbinary,areextremely
misleading.Inhisseventeenthcenturyrationalistphilosophy,Descartesdistinguishedbetween

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/06/06/in-defense-of-ecological-marxism-john-bellamy-foster-responds-to-a-critic/ 3/16
4/3/2017 In Defense of Ecological Marxism: John Bellamy Foster responds to a critic

mind/spiritononehand,andmatter/mechanismontheother.Humanbeingsweregenerally
associatedwithmind,andanimalswithmachines.Thiswasquitedifferentfromthedistinction
betweensocietyandnaturethatMoorecallsaCartesianbinary.

Moorecontendsthattheconceptofmetabolicrift(whichheincorrectlyattributestomeratherthan
Marx)isdualisticsimplybecauseitconsidershumanity/societyandnatureaslogicallydistinctentities.
Hedoesnotseemtounderstandthatdialecticsisallaboutthemediationoftotality,theprocessthat
bothseparatesandunitesindividualsandsociety,humanityandnature,partsandwholes.Thesocial
metabolisminMarxstheorystandsforthehumanroleasaselfmediatingbeingofnaturethrough
production.Wefocusontheseparationofhumanityandnature,onthedegradationofnatural
processesandlife,becausethatistheconcreterealityofsociety,lifeandnatureunderthecurrent
alienatedsystemofproduction,capitalism.

ThisisthewholepointoftheMarxianecologicalcritique.Dialecticsisalwaysaboutappearanceand
essence,identityindifference,theinterpenetrationofopposites,andthenegationofthenegation.Itis
neverachoice,asMooreseemstothink,betweencrudedualismandcrudemonism.Thereisno
contradictioninseeingsocietyasbothseparatefromandirreducibletotheEarthsystemasawhole,
andsimultaneouslyasafundamentalpartofit.Tocallthatapproachdualistiscomparableto
denyingthatyourheartisbothanintegralpartofyourbodyandadistinctorganwithuniquefeatures
andfunctions.

Bundlingisasimplisticwayofavoidingwhatdialecticsunderstands,thattheworldisacomplex,
heterogeneousandchangingtotality,mediatedininnumerablewaysanopenendedcontextin
whichhumanbeingsparticipateashistoricalbeings.Ourunderstandingofthesocialmetabolismof
humanityandnaturehastobebasedonthisbroaderunderstanding.

ANGUS:SoMooresmonism,whichhealsocallssingularmetabolism,standsopposedtoa
dialecticalunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweensociety,humanityandnature.Doesitgo
beyondthat?

FOSTER:MooreattacksMcKenzieWarksuseofMarxsmetabolicrifttheory,SamirAminsuseofthe
ecologicalfootprintconcept,andyouraccountoftheAnthropocene.HeessentiallyrejectsallGreen
thought,includingecologicalMarxismorecosocialism,fortalkingaboutwhatcapitalismdoesto
natureinsteadofhownatureworksforcapitalism.Forhim,thecentralecologicalproblemisnotthe
disruptionoftheEarthSystem,butthefactthatnaturalresourceshavebecomemoreexpensive,
creatingproblemsforthecapitalisteconomy.

Hesaysthatthisviewismorehopefulthantheusualnarrativesofimpendingcatastropheand
collapseapparentlybecauseitoffershopethatcapitalismcanescapefromthecrisesithascaused.

Awhileago,theBritishwriterLarryLohmanncriticizedNaomiKlein,ononehand,andBrettClark,
RichardYork,andme,ontheother,forthesubtitlesofourbooksCapitalismvs.theClimate(Klein)
andCapitalismsWarontheEarth(Foster,Clark,andYork).Lohmannchargedthatweweresimply
resortingtoCartesianslogans,andsaidthattherewasnosuchthingasaclimateoranEarth
Systemseparatefromcapitalism,sooursubtitles,andthusourpoliticalviews,weredualistand

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/06/06/in-defense-of-ecological-marxism-john-bellamy-foster-responds-to-a-critic/ 4/16
4/3/2017 In Defense of Ecological Marxism: John Bellamy Foster responds to a critic

apocalyptic!Moorepromptlydeclaredhisagreementwiththatbizarrecriticism,andincorporateditinto
hiscriticismofecologicalMarxisminCapitalismintheWebofLife.

ANGUS:InTheEcologicalRift,you,BrettClarkandRichardYork
arguethatecologicalcrisesleadtowhatyoucallriftsandshifts,
wherecapitalismseekstomoveproblemsaround,displacingthem,
butalwaysendsupbycreatingcumulativelylargercontradictions.

Mooreadoptsyourphrase,althoughIdontthinkheacknowledgesthe
source,butthenhechangesittosaythattheproblemisnota
metabolicrift,butmetabolicshift.Whatisthesignificanceofthat
change?

FOSTER:InMooresview,capitalismsenvironmentalproblemsallrelateto
difficultiesinobtainingwhathecallstheFourCheapslabor,food,
naturalresources,andenergy.Thereare,therefore,noecologicalcrisesassuch,onlyeconomic
crisescausedbyecologicalscarcitythatcanbesolvedbyshiftsbyobtainingresourcesorlabor
elsewhereorinotherways.

Mooregoessofarastoclaimthatthosewhoarguethattheplanetisbeingdangerouslydegradedand
disrupted,usingsuchconceptsasthemetabolicrift,ecologicalfootprint,andtheAnthropocene,are
vulnerabletoapowerfulcritiqueassociatedwiththecapacityofcapitalismtomakenatureworkon
itsbehalf.Hecites,asanexampleofsuchacounterargument,workbyMichaelShellenbergerand
TedNordhausoftheBreakthroughInstitute,theleadingthinktankforcapitalistecomodernism.Thisis
relatedtosimilarpointsmaderecentlybyCastreeandotherleftLatourianconstructionists.Latour
meanwhilehasemergedasamajorideologueoftheBreakthroughInstituteinhistimeasaSenior
Fellow,arguingthatecologicalproblemsdonotrequiretheoverthrowofcapitalism.Mooresown
outlookiswrappedup(wecouldsaybundled)inthiskindofthinking.

Moorehasidentifiedmuchofthelogicofcapitalismbuthiserror,fromaMarxianperspective,isto
remainwithinthatlogic.Hisworldecologyandweboflifesimplydescribethecapitalistworld
accordingtoitsownconception.HisnotionoftheFourCheapsoflabor,food,naturalresources,and
energy,eachofwhichthreatenstobecomemoreexpensive,isecologyseenfromacapitalist
perspective.LaborisputonthesamelevelasfoodandnaturalresourcesassimplyoneoftheFour
Cheapsandecologicalproblemsarereducedtothetap(orresourceproblem)forcapitalism,
downplayingorignoringthelargerproblemofthesink,thatis,howcapitalismdegradesanddisrupts
theentireEarthSystem,andimposesitswastesonit.

ANGUS:InCapitalismintheWebofLife,MooreinsiststhatwehavetostopaskingHowdid
humanitybecomeseparatefromnature?andinsteadaskHowishumanityunifiedwiththe
restofnatureandtheweboflife?Hemakesthesamepointrepeatedly:Itisnothumanitys
separationfromNaturethatmatters.Itishumanitysplacewithintheweboflife.

ThisseemstometodirectlycontradictMarxsinsistencethat:

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/06/06/in-defense-of-ecological-marxism-john-bellamy-foster-responds-to-a-critic/ 5/16
4/3/2017 In Defense of Ecological Marxism: John Bellamy Foster responds to a critic

Itisnottheunityoflivingandactivehumanitywiththenatural,
inorganicconditionsoftheirmetabolicexchangewithnature,and
hencetheirappropriationofnature,whichrequiresexplanationoris
theresultofahistoricprocess,butrathertheseparationbetween
theseinorganicconditionsofhumanexistenceandthisactive
existence,aseparationwhichiscompletelypositedonlyinthe
relationofwagelaborandcapital.(Grundrissep.489.)

WhatdoesthatreversalindicateaboutMooresMarxism?

FOSTER:MyreactiontoMooresstatementwasexactlythesameasyours.
HeisturningMarxonhishead.Mooresaysthatitisnotthealienationof
naturebycapitalismthatweshouldbeconcernedwithratherweshouldfocusonhowcapitalism
unifiesnaturebygettingnaturetoworkforit.Thisistheoldhumanexemptionalistorhuman
exceptionalistviewofcapitalismthatenvironmentalsociologistshavelongcriticized,whichhasbeen
resurrectedaswhatscalledecomodernism.

SoIwouldnotreferatalltoMooresMarxism,exceptironically.Theframeworkhehasdevelopedis
antiecosocialistandantiecological.ItattackstheGreenmovementandecologicalMarxists
wholesaleasapocalypticdualistsforbeingconcernedaboutthegrowingriftsintheplanetary
boundariesoftheEarthSystem.

ANGUS:MooresaysthatyourapproachtoMarxistecologydrivesawedgebetweenMarxs
historicalmaterialismandMarxstheoryofvalue.Heclaimsthathisapproachiscloserto
PaulBurkettsinitsstressontheeconomicimpactofenvironmentalchange.Isthiscorrect?

FOSTER:PaulandIbothrubbedoureyesindisbeliefoverthat.Theidea
thatwedifferonvaluetheoryisabsurdonthefaceofit,sincewefrequently
writetogetheronthesubject,mostrecentlyinourjointbookMarxandthe
Earth.InMarxsEcologyIemphasizedthatthevalueanalysisinBurketts
MarxandNaturewascrucialtomyownanalysis.Inmyforewordtothe
HaymarketeditionofBurkettsMarxandNatureIstressedthathisaccount
ofMarxsecologicalvalueformtheoryrepresentsacrucialbreakthroughin
ourunderstandingofMarxsecology.

MoorehimselfisnodefenderofMarxianvaluetheory.Hismanipulationof
thevalueconceptinhisbookresemblesthewordgamesofpostmodernist
literarydiscourse,ratherthantherigorousmaterialistmethodofradical
politicaleconomy.Herunsroughshodovercrucialdistinctions,suchasthosebetweenvalueand
wealth,exchangevalueandusevalue.Theendresultispureidealism,asinhisglorificationofthe
centralityof[capitalistcommodity]valueasalogicre/producingtheflowoflife.Onecouldexpect
suchastatementfromaProudhonoraDhring,neverfromMarxorEngels!

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/06/06/in-defense-of-ecological-marxism-john-bellamy-foster-responds-to-a-critic/ 6/16
4/3/2017 In Defense of Ecological Marxism: John Bellamy Foster responds to a critic

SowhatdoesMooremeanthenbysayingthatIdriveawedgebetweenhistoricalmaterialismand
Marxstheoryofvalue?Thishastodowithhisclaimthattherecanbenoecologicalcrisisunlessitis
acrisisofvalueandthereforeaneconomiccrisisforcapital.Whatheobjectstoistheview,whichhe
associateswithme(butisjustasmuchheldbyBurkett,andultimatelystemsfromMarx)thatthereis
morethanoneformofecologicalcrisisandthateconomiccrisesandecologicalcrisesdonot
necessarilydetermineeachother.

TherearetheecologicalcrisesthatMoorehimselfrecognizes,thoserelatedtoincreasingresource
coststhattranslateintohighercostsfortheeconomy.Buttherearealsootherecologicalcrises
thoughherejectsthiscausedbythefactthatnatureisforthemostpartoutsidecapitalsvalue
calculus,thatthedisruptiontonaturalprocessesandeventheEarthSystemdoesnotenterintothe
systemsnormalaccounting.Thesearecrisessuchasthedestructionofspeciesandofwhole
ecosystemslikecoralreefs,oreventheanthropogenicriftsintheentireEarthSystemthatdefinethe
Anthropocenetoday.

ThebrillianceofMarxsanalysiswasthathedidnotconfineecologicalcrisestoecologicalcrisesfor
capitalism,thatis,incapitalistvalueterms.Indeed,hesawecologicalcrisessuchasdesertificationas
characteristicofclasssocietiesingeneral,andonlyintensifiedundercapitalism.Thequestionof
sustainabilityratherthancapitalistvalorizationdefinessuchecologicalcrises.ForMoore,whose
argumentmirrorstheviewpointofcapital,thesecrisesarenotpartofvalue,sodonottrulyexist.

InMarxsanalysissuchprocessesareelementalandneedtobetakenintoconsideration,particularly
astheaccumulationprocessundercapitalismtendstodegradenaturalprocessesthisisthewhole
questionofthemetabolicrift.

Tosay,asMooredoes,thatconsideringnaturalprocessesononehandandcapitalistvalorization
processesontheotherisadangerousdualism,istodenythefundamentalnatureofcapitalisms
ecologicalcontradictions.Indeed,iteliminatestheverypossibilityofanecologicalcritiqueof
capitalism.

IshouldalsomentionthatMooresimplyignoresMarxstheoryofrent,makinghisanalysisofcheap
naturecompletelyvacuous.Thewholetheoryofrentisanoutgrowthofthetensionsbetweenvalue
andusevalue,betweenvalueandthenecessarymaterialconditionsofproduction.PaulBurkett
discussesthisatlengthinMarxandNature.

ANGUS:YouvewrittenthattherediscoveryofMarxsecologicalthoughtparticularlyas
developedbyyouinMarxsEcologyandbyPaulBurkettinMarxandNatureledtothe
emergenceofwhatyoucallsecondstageecosocialism.Howdoesthatdifferfromfirststage
ecosocialism,andhowdoesMooresworkrelatetothatshift?

FOSTER:Firststageecosocialism,asPaulBurkettandIhavereferredtoit,involvedvariousattempts
tocreateahybridtheoryinwhichGreentheorywasoverlaidoncertainMarxianconceptions,or,more
rarely,MarxismwasoverlaidonGreentheory.ItusuallyinvolvedclaimsthatMarxsworkwas
ecologicallyflawedandthatMarxandEngelswentoverboardintheircriticismsofMalthus.Infirst
stageecosocialism,therefore,thebroaderGreenviewdominated.

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/06/06/in-defense-of-ecological-marxism-john-bellamy-foster-responds-to-a-critic/ 7/16
4/3/2017 In Defense of Ecological Marxism: John Bellamy Foster responds to a critic

Secondstageecosocialism,incontrast,wentbacktothefoundationsofclassicalMarxism,attempting
amajorreconstruction(and,asitturnsout,rediscovery)ofhistoricalmaterialismasauniquemethod
ofunderstandingthecomplexrelationshipsandinteractionsbetweenhumanity,society,andnature.
SecondstageecosocialismhasrestoredMarxsecologicalvalueformanalysisandthetheoryofthe
metabolicrift,andhasgivennewmeaningtotheconceptofthedialecticsofnature.

InMarxandtheEarth,BurkettandIlabeledMooresearlyworkassecondstageecosocialism,and
hislaterworkasareversiontofirststageecosocialism.Inowthinkweweremistaken.Inhisrecent
works,Moorehasadoptedpositionsthatareopposedtoecosocialismandtotheradicalecological
movementingeneral.

Tohiscredit,hestillcriticizesinequalityandoppression.Butwhatarewetothinkofaselfproclaimed
worldecologistwhoseesecologicalcrisesassimplyamatterofnaturebecomingmoreexpensive
forcapital,orwhoarguesthathistoryisrepletewithinstancesofcapitalismovercomingseemingly
insuperablenaturallimits.Ifthatisso,whyworryaboutthecrisisoftheAnthropocene?

WhatarewetosayofapurportedradicalwhocounterposestheBreakthroughInstitutes
ShellenbergerandNordhaustoSamirAminoftheWorldForumforAlternatives,insistingthatthe
conceptsofecologicalfootprintandthemetabolicriftaddresssimplywhatcapitalismdoestonature,
andnothownatureworksforcapitalism,andcancontinuetobemadetodoso?

Whatarewetomakeofanoutlookontheenvironmentthatessentiallyrejectsmodernscience?As
McKenzieWarkrightlyobserves,inMooresworldecology,thescientificconceptionofanobjective
worldofnature,theEarthSystemitself,simplyvanishesbehindthesociallyconstructedinteriorsof
culture.

Howarewetojudgeananalysisthatexcludestheecologicalmovementanditsperspectives,
abandonsMarxsvalueanalysis,hasnothingatalltosayaboutclassstruggle,andleaveshumanitys
fatetotheevolutionofcapitalismasasingular,bundledactor?Icanonlyconcludethathehasjoined
thelonglineofscholarswhohavesetouttoupdateordeepenMarxisminvariousways,buthave
endedupbyabandoningMarxismsrevolutionaryessenceandadaptingtocapitalistideologies.

NodoubtMooresworkhasattractedandwillattractsomenotablescholars.Butintermsofecological
Marxismitisnecessarytodrawaline.Moore,Iamsorrytosay,hasmovedtotheotherside,andnow
standsopposedtotheecosocialistmovementandsocialism(evenradicalism)asawhole.

Ecosocialists,incontrast,standwithKarlMarx,who,whenconfrontedwithdireecologicalproblemsin
Ireland,declaredthattherecouldonlybeoneanswer:Ruinorrevolution!

Notes

Inallquotations,emphasisfollowstheoriginalsource.

[1]FostersmajorworksonMarxismandecologyinclude:MarxsEcology:MaterialismandNature(Monthly
ReviewPress,2000)TheEcologicalRift:CapitalismsWarontheEarth,withBrettClarkandRichardYork

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/06/06/in-defense-of-ecological-marxism-john-bellamy-foster-responds-to-a-critic/ 8/16
4/3/2017 In Defense of Ecological Marxism: John Bellamy Foster responds to a critic

(MonthlyReviewPress,2011)andMarxandtheEarth:AnAntiCritique,withPaulBurkett(Brill,2016).Hehas
alsowrittenmanyarticlesandessaysonthesubject,inparticularforthejournalheedits,MonthlyReview.

[2]AlldirectquotationsfromMooreinthisarticlecomefromCapitalismintheWebofLife:Ecologyandthe
AccumulationofCapital(Verso,2015),andfromhisessaysTheRiseofCheapNatureintheanthology
AnthropoceneorCapitalocene:Nature,HistoryandtheCrisisofCapitalism(PMPress,2016)andSingular
MetabolisminDanielIbaezandNikosKatskikis,eds.,GroundingMetabolism(HarvardUniversityPress,2014).
Otheressaysbyhimarepostedonhiswebsite,http://www.jasonwmoore.com/

[3]AngusandFosterhaveeditedtheirdiscussionforlengthandclarity.

Share:

Facebook 773 Reddit Twitter Email More

Relatedposts(autogenerated)
1.Ecologicalcrisisandthetragedyofthecommodity
2.TwoViewsonMarxistEcologyandJasonW.Moore
3.MarxsConceptofSocialMetabolismandEcosocialistResponsestoClimateChange
4.Marxismasiftheplanetmatters
5.Respondingtocapitalistdisaster,in1914andtoday

PostedinEcosocialism,Featured,MarxistEcology,Marxisttheory

6ResponsestoInDefenseofEcologicalMarxism:
JohnBellamyFosterrespondstoacritic

FredMurphyJune17,2016at7:54am#

EDITORSNOTE:

FredMurphyscommenthasbeenpromotedandmovedto:

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/06/23/twoviewsonmarxistecologyandjasonwmoore/

AndrewSmolskiJune11,2016at10:37am#

IhavenotengagedwithMooresworkonanylevel,butratheronlyFosterswork.Therefore,I
canonlycommentfromwhatIunderstandaboutFosterswork(alongwithothersthatcomeout

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/06/06/in-defense-of-ecological-marxism-john-bellamy-foster-responds-to-a-critic/ 9/16
4/3/2017 In Defense of Ecological Marxism: John Bellamy Foster responds to a critic

oftheOregonSchoolasafewinmycirclehavetakentocallingit)andthecriticismsofitby
Moorediscussedhere.

Ithinkthefirst,andessential,pointaspointedoutbyFoster,Clausenbelow,isthatMooreis
abletocarryonacritiquethatneverexitstherealmofsemantics.Thus,ideasthemselvesare
beingtreatedasmaterial,whichisantitheticaltoarealistunderstandingofscienceandthe
world.Ideascanhavematerialeffects,butonlybecausetheybringintoexistenceactual
institutions,organizations,beliefs,etc.thatimpactactionafterthefact.Thatis,anideahasno
apriorimateriality.BecauseMooreconfusesthesemanticandthematerialhetendstoward
thewordgamesofpostermodernistliterarydiscourse,whichistosaythathetendstowards
sayingalot,butwithoutmuchrelevantsubstance,unlessofcourseyouneedconversation
startersatstaleacademicparties.

Becauseitisjustasematicgame,MoorecreatesHeidegerrianstyleneologismsthataremeant
tostandinfortherigorousmaterialistmethodofradicalpoliticaleconomy.Yet,itisthat
materialistmethodthatisimportant.Aworldexists,thatworldismadeofecologicalsystems,
thosesystemshavelimits,thoselimitsoncecrossedcannegativelyimpacthumanwellbeing.
Thatisntasemanticgame,thatisareality.Civilizationcan(andhas)collapse,anditcollapses
becauseecology(i.e.nature)existsapart(andwith)fromhumanity(thetreemakesasound
whetherMoorehearsitornot),andcanbeharmedbyhumanitytoapointwherethespeciesno
longerhasadignifiedexistence.MooreismisinterpretingtheSpinozanmonadtosuithisidea,
whenitwasamatterofonereality,notonenature(andthusleadsustoLevinsandLewontins
ideaofreachingtowardstotality).

Thisdoesntruleoutconstructivism,whichis(andasIstatedearlier)aposteriorirelevant,
becauseitcanleadtonewterrainsofsocialinteractionthathavedifferenteffects.Thisis
recognizedbyFoster(etal),whoactuallyproducedausefulneologism,realistconstructivism.
Inthisway,ideascanbecomematerial,butarenotautomaticallyso.Aswell,scientific,
epistemologicalfictionscanremainso,withtheirutilityinaidingthedevelopmentof
knowledge.Moore,asitispointedouthere,ignoresallofthis.

Inmyview,IfindtoomuchcareerseekingonthepartofMoore,toomuchfauxcritique.Weare
eitherworkingtogethertobuildanecosocialistmovement,orweareplayingthecapitalist,
egoisticgame,whichpostmodernnonsenseiswellsuitedfor.Weneedscientificconceptsand
analysis,suchasprovidedbythetheoryofsocialmetabolicrift,oreventheunderstandingof
capitalistimperativetoaccumulate.Iseenoreasontocontinuethissenselessdebate,and
saddenedthatVersopublishedsuchrubbish.

BeckyClausenJune10,2016at12:05am#

JohnBellamyFosterprovidesamuchneededhistoricalcontexttothisdebate,showingthe
rootsofwhereMooresargumentcomesfromaswellasitscurrenttrajectoryofdivertingfrom
aradicalandecosocialistapproach.Inparticular,thefollowingquotebyFostercapturesa
significantthemeofwherethisdiversionstemsfrom:

His[Moores]manipulationofthevalueconceptinhisbookresemblesthewordgamesof
postmodernistliterarydiscourse,ratherthantherigorousmaterialistmethodofradicalpolitical

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/06/06/in-defense-of-ecological-marxism-john-bellamy-foster-responds-to-a-critic/ 10/16
4/3/2017 In Defense of Ecological Marxism: John Bellamy Foster responds to a critic

economy

IappreciateFostersabilitytostaytruetothematerialistmethodofradicalpoliticaleconomy,
providingtheanalysisthathelpsusunderstandthecurrentenvironmentalcrisisandpotentials
forchange.

MichaelYatesJune7,2016at6:38pm#

IhavebeenreadingcommentsonJohnsinterviewwithIansuggestingthatheandJason
Moorearereallykindredspiritsandthattheirdisagreementamounttolittlemorethaninfighting
ontheleft.AsifJohnFosterwouldwastehistimewithMooresargumentsjustbecause,asa
fewpersonshavesaid,hehastovanquishthosewhodisagreewithhim.

However,thewayinwhichtherelationshipbetweenhumanityandnatureistheorizediscritical
notjustintermsofmakingthebestanalysisbutbecausethewayinwhichweseethis
relationshipiscrucialintermsofradicalpolitics.Thatis,intermsofhowwestoptherampant
destructionoftheenvironmentthatwedependuponforourverysurvival.

Takejusttwoexamples.

First,MoorehurlsachargeofdualismagainstFoster:humanityversusnature,withFoster
presumablyclaimingtoseeaprimarynaturesomehowabovehumanity,akindofgodlikeforce
whichmustbetakenasagivenwithoutexplanation.YetnothinginFostersworkshowsthisto
bethecase.Instead,he,likeMarx,hasgraspedthatthereisanEarthsystemwithitsownlaws,
independentof(thougheverincreasinglyimpactedby)humanity.

Similarlythecapitalistaccumulationprocesshasitsownlogic,anditoperatesasifnatural
lawsdidnotexist,whichisonereasonwhyweareinsuchaparlousstatetoday.Wemust
analyzethetwincrises,economicandearthsystemseparatelyandthentogether,andseehow
wecancreateaunity,oneinwhichwehavenocapitalisteconomiccrisesandliveinbalance
withthelogicoftheearthsystem.

Fosterarguesthatwecreatethisunitythroughourrevolutionaryactions,intheprocessre
conceptualizingandreconfiguringhumansociety,buildingademocraticandradically
egalitariansocialism.

Moore,incontrast,wantstoclaimthateveryargumentpostulatinganaturalworldthatexiststo
someextentindependentofhumanityandindependentofcapitalismimpliesbydefinition
aCartesisandualismandwhathecallsGreenArithmetic,becauseitleadstoaquantitymore
thanone.Sucharigidmonisticview,whichwantstoreducethenaturaltothesocial,however,
removesthepossibilityofnotonlyrationalsocialdiscoursebutalsomeaningfulsocialpraxis.
ThiswouldseemtoabandonMarxsmethodaltogether.

Moorearguesinsteadforadoubleinternality,withbothhumanityssocialsystemandthe
naturalworldbundledanddeterminedtogether.Herethereisnonaturewithouthuman
beings.Thisseemssuchanunscientificwayoflookingattheworldthatitishardtoseehow
suchaviewcanpossiblyleadtoapoliticsofliberation.Nowonderhehastorelyonhisfour
cheapsargument,akindofdeusexmachinathatwillultimatelydestroycapitalism.

http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/06/06/in-defense-of-ecological-marxism-john-bellamy-foster-responds-to-a-critic/ 11/16