MARX’S VISION OF COMMUNISM AND SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

PAUL BURKETT1

INDICE

I. INTRODUCTION...... 2 II. BASIC ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES OF MARX'S COMMUNISM...... 3 1. THE NEW UNION AND COMMUNAL PROPERTY ...... 3 2. PLANNED, NON—MARKET PRODUCTION ...... 8 III. MARX'S COMMUNISM, ECOLOGY, AND SUSTAINABILITY ...... 10 1. MANAGING THE COMMONS ...... 10 2. EXPANDED FREE TIME AND SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ...... 13 3. WEALTH, HUMAN NEEDS, AND LABOR COST...... 14 IV. CAPITALISM, COMMUNISM, AND THE STRUGGLE OVER HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ...... 17 V. NOTES ...... 20 VI. REFERENCES ...... 22

1. Department of Economics, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN, 47809, USA (email: [email protected]). In addition to authoring Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective (St. Martin’s Press, 1999), he is on the executive board of the Eugene V. Debs Foundation and President of the Indiana State University chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). He is a longtime member of the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) and the Conference of Socialist Economists (CSE).

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 1

means by which humans could outsmart and I. INTRODUCTION conquer nature.” Evidently Marx “consistently saw human freedom as inversely related to 1. Debates over the economics of socialism humanity's dependence on nature” (Eckersley, have concentrated on questions of information, 1992, p. 80). Environmental culturalist Victor incentives, and efficiency in resource allocation Ferkiss asserts that “Marx and Engels and their (Lange and Taylor, 1964; Science & Society, modern followers” shared a “virtual worship of 1992, 2002). This focus on “socialist modern technology,” which explains why “they calculation” has tended to override any concern joined liberals in refusing to criticize the basic with socialism as a form of human technological constitution of modern society” development.1 With global capitalism's (Ferkiss, 1993, p. 110). Another environmental worsening poverty and environmental crises, political scientist, K.J. Walker, claims that however, sustainable human development Marx's vision of communist production does comes to the fore as the primary question that not recognize any actual or potential “shortage must be engaged by all twenty—first century of natural resources,” the “implicit assumption” socialists. It is in this human developmental being “that natural resources are effectively connection, I will argue, that Marx's vision of limitless” (Walker, 1979, pp. 35—6). communism can be most helpful.2 Environmental philosopher Val Routley 2. The suggestion that Marx's vision of describes Marx's vision of communism as an communism can inform the struggle for more anti—ecological “automated paradise” of healthy, sustainable, and liberating forms of energy—intensive and “environmentally human development may seem paradoxical in damaging” production and consumption, one light of various ecological criticisms of Marx which “appears to derive from [Marx's] that have become so fashionable over the last nature—domination assumption” (Routley, several decades. Marx's vision has been deemed 1981, p. 242).3 ecologically unsustainable and undesirable due 4. An engagement with these views is important to its purported treatment of natural conditions not least because they have become influential as effectively limitless, and its supposed even among ecologically minded Marxists, embrace, both practically and ethically, of many of whom have looked to non—Marxist technological optimism and human domination paradigms, such as Polanyi’s (1944), for the over nature. ecological guidance supposedly lacking in 3. The well—known ecological economist Marx (Weisskopf, 1991; O’Connor, 1998). The Herman Daly, for example, argues that for under—utilization of the human developmental Marx, the “materialistic determinist, economic and ecological elements of Marx’s communist growth is crucial in order to provide the vision is also reflected in the decision by some overwhelming material abundance that is the Marxists to place their bets on a “greening” of objective condition for the emergence of the capitalism as a “practical” alternative to the new socialist man. Environmental limits on struggle for socialism (Sandler, 1994; Vlachou, growth would contradict 'historical necessity'. . 2002). . “ (Daly, 1992, p. 196). The problem, says 5. Accordingly, I will interpret Marx's various environmental political theorist Robyn outlines of post—capitalist economy and Eckersley, is that “Marx fully endorsed the society as a vision of sustainable human 'civilizing' and technical accomplishments of development.4 Section II sketches the human the capitalist forces of production and developmental dimensions of associated (non— thoroughly absorbed the Victorian faith in market) production and communal property in scientific and technological progress as the Marx’s view. Section III draws out the

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 2 sustainability aspect of these principles by labour,” and communism as “a new and responding to the most common ecological fundamental revolution in the mode of criticisms of Marx’s projection. Section IV production” that “restore[s] the original union concludes the paper by briefly reconsidering the in a new historical form” (1976, p. 39). connections between Marx's vision of Communism is the “historical reversal” of “the communism and his analysis of capitalism, separation of labour and the worker from the focusing on that all important form of human conditions of labour, which confront him as development: the class struggle. independent forces” (1971, pp. 271—2). Under capitalism's wage system, “the means of II. BASIC ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES OF production employ the workers”; under MARX'S COMMUNISM communism, “the workers, as subjects, employ the means of production ... in order to produce 6. There is a common misperception that Marx wealth for themselves” (Marx, 1968, p. 580; and Engels, eschewing all “speculation about ... emphasis in original). socialist utopias,” thought very little about the 8. This new union of the producers and the system to follow capitalism, and that their conditions of production “will,” as Engels entire body of writing on this subject is phrases it, “emancipate human labour power represented by “the Critique of the Gotha from its position as a commodity” (1939, p. Program, a few pages long, and not much else” 221; emphasis in original). Naturally, such an (Auerbach and Skott, 1993, p. 195). In reality, emancipation, in which the laborers undertake post—capitalist economic and political production as “united workers” (see below), “is relationships are a recurring thematic in all the only possible where the workers are the owners major, and many of the minor, works of the of their means of production” (Marx, 1971, p. founders of Marxism, and despite the scattered 525). This worker ownership does not entail the nature of these discussions, one can easily glean individual rights to possession and alienability from them a coherent vision based on a clear set characterizing capitalist property, however. of organizing principles. The most basic feature Rather, workers' communal property codifies of communism in Marx's projection is its and enforces the new union of the collective overcoming of capitalism's social separation of producers and their communities with the the producers from necessary conditions of conditions of production. Accordingly, Marx production. This new social union entails a describes communism as “replacing capitalist complete decommodification of labor power production with cooperative production, and plus a new set of communal property rights. capitalist property with a higher form of the Communist or “associated” production is archaic type of property, i.e. communist planned and carried out by the producers and property” (1989b, p. 362; emphasis in original). communities themselves, without the class— 9. One reason why communist property in the based intermediaries of wage—labor, market, conditions of production cannot be individual and state. Marx often motivates and illustrates private property is that the latter form “excludes these basic features in terms of the primary co—operation, division of labour within each means and end of associated production: free separate process of production, the control over, human development. and the productive application of the forces of Nature by society, and the free development of 1. THE NEW UNION AND COMMUNAL PROPERTY the social productive powers” (Marx, 1967, I, p. 7. Marx specifies capitalism as the 762). In other words, “the individual worker “decomposition of the original union existing could only be restored as an individual to between the labouring man and his means of property in the conditions of production by

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 3 divorcing productive power from the product be subject to explicit social control. development of labour on a large scale” (Marx, With associated production, “it is possible to 1994, p. 109; emphasis in original). As stated in assure each person 'the full proceeds of his The German Ideology, “the appropriation by labour' ... only if [this phrase] is extended to the proletarians” is such that “a mass of purport not that each individual worker instruments of production must be made subject becomes the possessor of 'the full proceeds of to each individual, and property to all. Modern his labor,' but that the whole of society, universal intercourse cannot be controlled by consisting entirely of workers, becomes the individuals, unless it is controlled by all. ... possessor of the total product of their labour, With the appropriation of the total productive which product it partly distributes among its forces by the united individuals, private members for consumption, partly uses for property comes to an end” (Marx and Engels, replacing and increasing its means of 1976, p. 97). production, and partly stores up as a reserve 10. Besides, given capitalism's prior fund for production and consumption” (Engels, socialization of production, “private” property 1979, p. 28). The latter two “deductions from in the means of production is already a kind of the ... proceeds of labour are an economic social property, even though its social character necessity”; they represent “forms of surplus— is class—exploitative.5 From capital's character labour and surplus—product ... which are as “not a personal, [but] a social power” it common to all social modes of production” follows that when “capital is converted into (Marx, 1966, p. 7; 1967, III, p. 876).7 Further common property, into the property of all deductions are required for “general costs of members of society, personal property is not administration,” for “the communal satisfaction thereby transformed into social property. It is of needs, such as schools, health services, etc.,” only the social character of the property that is and for “funds for those unable to work.” Only changed. It loses its class—character” (Marx then “do we come to ... that part of the means of and Engels, 1968, p. 47).6 consumption which is divided among the 11. Marx's vision thus involves a “reconversion individual producers of the co—operative of capital into the property of producers, society” (Marx, 1966, pp. 7—8). although no longer as the private property of 12. Communism's explicit socialization of the the individual producers, but rather as the conditions and results of production should not property of associated producers, as outright be mistaken for a complete absence of social property” (Marx, 1967, III, p. 437). individual property rights, however. Although Communist property is collective precisely communal property “does not re—establish insofar as “the material conditions of private property for the producer,” it production are the co—operative property of nonetheless “gives him individual property the workers” as a whole, not of particular based on the acquisitions of the capitalist era: individuals or sub—groups of individuals i.e., on co—operation and the possession in (Marx, 1966, p. 11). As Engels puts it: “The common of the land and of the means of 'working people' remain the collective owners production” (Marx, 1967, I, p. 763). Marx of the houses, factories and instruments of posits that “the alien property of the capitalist ... labour, and will hardly permit their use ... by can only be abolished by converting his individuals or associations without property into the property ... of the associated, compensation for the cost” (1979, p. 94). The social individual” (1994, p. 109; emphases in collective planning and administration of social original). He even suggests that communism production requires that not only the means of will “make individual property a truth by production but also the distribution of the total transforming the means of production ... now

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 4 chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting 488). Only in this way can communism replace labor, into mere instruments of free and “the old bourgeois society, with its classes and associated labour” (1985, p. 75). class antagonisms,” with “an association, in 13. Such statements are often interpreted as which the free development of each is a mere rhetorical flourishes, but they become condition for the free development of all” more explicable when viewed in the context of (Marx and Engels, 1968, p. 53). communism's overriding imperative: the free 14. The most basic way in which Marx's development of individual human beings as communism promotes individual human social individuals. Marx and Engels insist that development is by protecting the individual's in “the community of revolutionary proletarians right to a share in the total product (net of the ... it is as individuals that the individuals above—mentioned deductions) for her or his participate,” precisely because “it is the private consumption. The Manifesto is association of individuals ... which puts the unambiguous on this point: “Communism conditions of the free development and deprives no man of the power to appropriate the movement of individuals under their control — products of society; all that it does is to deprive — conditions which were previously left to him of the power to subjugate the labour of chance and had acquired an independent others by means of such appropriation” (Marx existence over against the separate individuals” and Engels, 1968, p. 49). In this sense, “social (1976, p. 89). Stated differently, “the all— ownership extends to the land and the other round realisation of the individual will only means of production, and private ownership to cease to be conceived as an ideal. when the the products, that is, the articles of production” impact of the world which stimulates the real (Engels, 1939, p. 144). An equivalent development of the abilities of the individual is description of the “community of free under the control of the individuals themselves, individuals” is given in Volume I of Capital: as the communists desire” (p. 309). In class— “The total product of our community is a social exploitative societies, “personal freedom has product. One portion serves as fresh means of existed only for the individuals who developed production and remains social. But another under the conditions of the ruling class”; but portion is consumed by the members of society under the “real community” of communism, as means of subsistence” (Marx, 1967, I, p. 78). “individuals obtain their freedom in and 15. All of this, of course, raises the question as through their association” (p. 87). Instead of to how the distribution of individual workers' opportunities for individual development being consumption claims will be determined. In obtained mainly at the expense of others, as in Capital, Marx envisions in general terms that class societies, the future “community” will “the mode of this distribution will vary with the provide “each individual [with] the means of productive organisation of the community, and cultivating his gifts in all directions; hence the degree of historical development attained by personal freedom becomes possible only within the producers.” He then suggests (“merely for the community” (p. 86). In short, communal the sake of a parallel with the production of property is individual insofar as it affirms each commodities”) that one possibility would be for person's claim, as a member of society, for “the share of each individual producer in the access to the conditions and results of means of subsistence” to be “determined by his production as a conduit to her or his labour—time” (1967, I, p. 78). In the Critique development as an individual “to whom the of the Gotha Programme, the conception of different social functions he performs are but so labor time as the determinant of individual many modes of giving free scope to his own consumption rights is less ambiguous, at least natural and acquired powers” (Marx, 1967, I, p. for “the first phase of communist society as it is

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 5 when it has just emerged after prolonged birth individuality requires” (Marx, 1967, III, p. pangs from capitalist society” (Marx, 1966, p. 876). 10). Here, Marx forthrightly projects that the 18. Even in communism's lower phase, the individual producer receives back from society means of individual development assured by —— after the deductions have been made —— communal property are not limited to exactly what he gives to it. What he has given individuals' private consumption claims. to it is his individual amount of labour. ... The Human development will also benefit from the individual labour time of the individual expanded social services (education, health producer is the part of the social labour day services, utilities, and old—age pensions) that contributed by him, his share in it. He receives are financed by deductions from the total a certificate from society that he has furnished product prior to its distribution among such and such an amount of labour (after individuals. Hence, “what the producer is deducting his labour for the common fund), and deprived of in his capacity as a private with this certificate he draws from the social individual benefits him directly or indirectly in stock of means of consumption as much as the his capacity as a member of society” (Marx, same amount of labour costs. The same amount 1966, p. 8). Such social consumption will, in of labour which he has given to society in one Marx's view, be “considerably increased in form, he receives back in another. (p. 8)8 comparison with present—day society and it 16. The basic rationale behind labor—based increases in proportion as the new society consumption claims is that “the distribution of develops” (p. 7). the means of consumption at any time is only a 19. For example, Marx envisions an expansion consequence of the distribution of the of “technical schools (theoretical and practical) conditions of production themselves” (p. 10). in combination with the elementary school” Given that the conditions of production are the (1966, p. 20). He projects that “when the property of the producers, it stands to reason working—class comes into power, as inevitably that the distribution of consumption claims will it must, technical instruction, both theoretical be more closely tied to labor time than under and practical, will take its proper place in the capitalism, where it is money that rules. working—class schools” (1967, I, p. 488). 17. However, insofar as the individual labor— Marx even suggests that the younger members time standard merely codifies the ethic of equal of communist society will experience “an early exchange regardless of the connotations for combination of productive labour with individual development, it is still infected by education” —presuming, of course, “a strict “the narrow horizon of bourgeois right.” Marx regulation of the working time according to the therefore goes on to suggest that “in a higher different age groups and other safety measures phase of communist society,” labor—based for the protection of children” (1966, p. 22). individual consumption claims can and should The basic idea here is that “the fact of the “be fully left behind and society inscribe on its collective working group being composed of banners: from each according to his ability, to individuals of both sexes and ages, must each according to his needs!” (1966, p. 10).9 It necessarily, under suitable conditions, become a is in this higher phase that communism's “mode source of humane development” (1967, I, p. of distribution ... allows all members of society 490). Another, related function of theoretical to develop, maintain and exert their capacities and practical education “in the Republic of in all possible directions” (Engels, 1939, p. 221; Labour” will be to “convert science from an emphasis in original). Here, “the individual instrument of class rule into a popular force,” consumption of the labourer” becomes that and thereby “convert the men of science which “the full development of the themselves from panderers to class prejudice,

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 6 place—hunting state parasites, and allies of communism. Hence, “the workers assert in their capital into free agents of thought” (Marx, communist propaganda that the vocation, 1985, p. 162). designation, task of every person is to achieve 20. Along with expanded social consumption, all—round development of his abilities, communism's “shortening of the working— including, for example, the ability to think” day” will facilitate human development by (Marx and Engels, 1976, p. 309). giving individuals more free time in which to 22. It is important to recognize the two—way enjoy the “material and social advantages ... of connection between human development and social development” (Marx, 1967, III, pp. the productive forces in Marx's vision— a 819—20). Free time is “time... for the free connection which is unsurprising insofar as development, intellectual and social, of the Marx always treated “the human being himself” individual” (1967, I, p. 530). As such, “free as “the main force of production” (1973, p. time, disposable time, is wealth itself, partly for 190).10 Communism can represent a real union the enjoyment of the product, partly for free of all the producers with the conditions of activity which —unlike labour— is not production only if it ensures each individual's dominated by the pressure of an extraneous right to participate to the fullest of her or his purpose which must be fulfilled, and the ability in the cooperative utilization and fulfillment of which is regarded as a natural development of these conditions. The highly necessity or a social duty” (Marx, 1971, p. 257; socialized character of production means that emphasis in original). Accordingly, with “individuals must appropriate the existing communism “the measure of wealth is ... not totality of productive forces, not only to achieve any longer, in any way, labour time, but rather self—activity, but, also, merely to safeguard disposable time” (Marx, 1973, p. 708). their very existence” (Marx and Engels, 1976, Nonetheless, since labor is always, together p. 96). In order to be an effective vehicle of with nature, a fundamental “substance of human development, this appropriation must wealth,” labor time is an important “measure of not reduce individuals to minuscule, the cost of [wealth's] production... even if interchangeable cogs in a giant collective exchange—value is eliminated” (Marx, 1971, p. production machine operating outside their 257; emphasis in original). control in an alienated pursuit of “production 21. Naturally, communist society will place for the sake of production.” Instead, it must certain responsibilities on individuals. Even enhance “the development of human productive though free time will expand, individuals will forces” capable of grasping and controlling still have a responsibility to engage in social production at the human level in line productive labor (including child—rearing and with “the development of the richness of human other care—giving activities) insofar as they are nature as an end in itself” (Marx, 1968, pp. physically and mentally able to do so. Under 117—8; first emphasis added). Although capitalism and other class societies, “a communist “appropriation [has] a universal particular class” has “the power to shift the character corresponding to ... the productive natural burden of labour from its own shoulders forces,” it also promotes “the development of to those of another layer of society” (Marx, the individual capacities corresponding to the 1967, I, p. 530); under communism, “with material instruments of production.” Because labour emancipated, everyman becomes a these instruments “have been developed to a working man, and productive labour ceases to totality and only exist within a universal be a class attribute” (Marx, 1985, p. 75). More intercourse,” their effective appropriation generally, individual self—development is not requires “the development of a totality of only a right but a responsibility under capacities in the individuals themselves” (Marx

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 7 and Engels, 1976, p. 96). In short, “the genuine labour,” and they cannot be directly “compared and free development of individuals” under with one another as products of social labour”; communism is both enabled by and contributes hence “through their alienation in the course of to “the universal character of the activity of individual exchange they must prove that they individuals on the basis of the existing are general social labour” (Marx, 1970, pp. productive forces” (p. 465). 84—5). 25. By contrast, “communal labour—time or 2. PLANNED, NON—MARKET PRODUCTION labour—time of directly associated individuals 23. In Marx's view, a system run by freely ... is immediately social labour—time” (Marx, associated producers and their communities, 1970, p. 85; emphasis in original). And “where socially unified with necessary conditions of labour is communal, the relations of men in production, by definition excludes commodity their social production do not manifest exchange and money as forms of social themselves as 'values' of 'things'“ (Marx, 1971, reproduction. Along with the p. 129): decommodification of labor power comes an Within the co—operative society based on explicitly “socialised production,” in which common ownership of the means of production, “society”— not capitalists and wage—laborers the producers do not exchange their products; responding to market signals— “distributes just as little does the labour employed on the labour—power and means of production to the products appear here as the value of these different branches of production.” As a result, products, as a material quality possessed by “the money—capital” (including the payment them, since now, in contrast to capitalist of wages) “is eliminated” (Marx, 1967, II, p. society, individual labour no longer exists in an 358). During the new association's lower phase, indirect fashion but directly as a component “the producers may ... receive paper vouchers part of the total labour. (Marx, 1966, p. 8; entitling them to withdraw from the social emphasis in original). supplies of consumer goods a quantity 26. The Grundrisse draws a more extended corresponding to their labour—time”; but contrast between the indirect, ex post “these vouchers are not money. They do not establishment of labor as social labor under circulate” (p. 358). In other words, “the future capitalism and the direct, ex ante socialization distribution of the necessaries of life” cannot be of labor “on the basis of common appropriation treated “as a kind of more exalted wages” and control of the means of production” (Marx, (Engels, 1939, p. 221). 1973, p. 159): 24. For Marx, the domination of social The communal character of production would production by the commodity form is specific make the product into a communal, general to a situation in which production is carried out product from the outset. The exchange which in independently organized production units on originally takes place in production— which the basis of the producers' social separation would not be an exchange of exchange values from necessary conditions of production. Here, but of activities, determined by the communal the labors expended in the mutually needs and communal purposes— would from autonomous production units (competing the outset include the participation of the capitals, as Marx calls them) can only be individual in the communal world of products. validated as part of society's reproductive On the basis of exchange values, labour is division of labor ex post, according to the posited as general only through exchange. But prices their products fetch in the market. In on this foundation it would be posited as such short, “commodities are the direct products of before exchange; i.e. the exchange of products isolated independent individual kinds of would in no way be the medium by which the

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 8 participation of the individual in general separation from the conditions of production production is mediated. Mediation must, of are two aspects of the same phenomenon course, take place. In the first case, which explains why, in at least one instance, Marx proceeds from the independent production of defines communism simply as “dissolution of individuals... mediations take place through the the mode of production and form of society exchange of commodities, through exchange based on exchange value. Real positing of values and through mon... In the second case, individual labour as social and vice versa” the presupposition is itself mediated; i.e. a (1973, p. 264).11 communal production, communality, is As noted earlier, debates over the “economics presupposed as the basis of production. The of socialism” have tended to focus on technical labour of the individual is posited from the issues of allocative efficiency (“socialist outset as social labour. ... The product does not calculation”). Marx and Engels themselves first have to be transposed into a particular often projected post—capitalist economy in form in order to attain a general character for terms of its superior planning and allocative the individual. Instead of a division of labour, capabilities compared to capitalism. Indeed, such as is necessarily created with the Marx describes “freely associated” production exchange of exchange values, there would take as “consciously regulated ... in accordance place an organization of labour whose with a settled plan” (Marx, 1967, I, p. 80). With consequence would be the participation of the “the means of production in common, ... the individual in communal consumption. (pp. labour—power of all the different individuals is 171—2; emphases in original) consciously applied as the combined labour— 27. The immediately social character of labor power of the community ... in accordance with and products is thus a logical outgrowth of the a definite social plan [which] maintains the new communal union between the producers proper proportion between the different kinds and necessary conditions of production. This of work to be done and the various wants of the de—alienation of production negates the community” (pp. 78—9). Under communism, in necessity for the producers to engage in short, “united co—operative societies are to monetary exchanges as a means of establishing regulate national production upon a common a reproductive allocation of their labor: plan, thus taking it under their own control, and The very necessity of first transforming putting an end to the constant anarchy and individual products or activities into exchange periodic convulsions which are the fatality of value, into money, so that they obtain and capitalist production” (Marx, 1985, p. 76). demonstrate their social power in this objective 28. Nonetheless, Marx and Engels did not treat form, proves two things: (1) That individuals planned resource allocation as the most now produce only for society and in society; (2) fundamental factor distinguishing communism that production is not directly social, is not from capitalism. For them, the more basic “the offspring of association,” which characteristic of communism is its de— distributes labour internally. Individuals are alienation of the conditions of production vis— subsumed under social production; social à—vis the producers, and the enabling effect production exists outside them as their fate; but this new union would have on free human social production is not subsumed under development. Stated differently, they treated individuals, manageable by them as their communism's planning and allocative capacities common wealth. (Marx, 1973, p. 158; emphases as symptoms and instruments of the human in original) developmental impulses unleashed by the new The fact that the elimination of the commodity communality of the producers and their form and the overcoming of workers' social conditions of existence.12 Communism's

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 9 decommodification of production is, as domination and abuse of nature, with natural discussed above, the flip—side of the de— resources viewed as effectively limitless. The alienation of production conditions; the present section addresses this environmental planning of production is just the allocative dimension on three levels: (1) the responsibility form of this reduced stunting of humans' of communism to manage its use of natural capabilities by their material and social conditions; (2) the ecological significance of conditions of existence. As Marx says, expanded free time; (3) the growth of wealth commodity exchange is only “the bond natural and the use of labor time as a measure of the to individuals within specific limited relations cost of production. of production”; the “alien and independent character” in which this bond “exists vis—à— 1. MANAGING THE COMMONS vis individuals proves only that the latter are 30. That communist society might have a strong still engaged in the creation of the conditions of commitment to protect and improve natural their social life, and that they have not yet conditions appears surprising, given the begun, on the basis of these conditions, to live conventional wisdom that Marx presumed it” (1973, p. 162). Hence, the reason “natural resources” to be “inexhaustible,” and communism is “a society organised for co— thus saw no need for “an environment— operative working on a planned basis” is not in preserving, ecologically conscious, order to pursue productive efficiency for its employment—sharing socialism” (Nove, 1990, own sake, but rather “to ensure all members of pp. 230, 237). Marx evidently assumed that society the means of existence and the full “scarce resources (oil, fish, iron ore, stockings, development of their capacities” (Engels, 1939, or whatever) ... would not be scarce” under p. 167). This human developmental dimension communism (Nove, 1983, pp. 15—6). In this also helps explain why communism's view, Marx's “faith in the ability of an “cooperative labor ... developed to national improved mode of production to eradicate dimensions” is not, in Marx projection, scarcity indefinitely” means that his communist governed by any centralized state power; rather, vision provides “no basis for recognizing any “the system starts with the self—government of interest in the liberation of nature” from anti— the communities” (Marx, 1974a, p. 80; 1989a, ecological “human domination” (Carpenter, p. 519). In this sense, communism can be 1997, p. 140; McLaughlin, 1990, p. 95). More defined as “the people acting for itself by ominously, Marx's technological optimism (or itself,” or “the reabsorption of the state power “faith in the creative dialectic”) is said to rule by society as its own living forces instead of as out any concern about the possibility that forces controlling and subduing it” (Marx, “modern technology interacting with the earth's 1985, pp. 130, 153). physical environment might imbalance the whole basis of modern industrial civilization” III. MARX'S COMMUNISM, ECOLOGY, (Feuer, 1989, p. xii). AND SUSTAINABILITY 31. In reality, Marx was deeply concerned with capitalism's tendency toward “sapping the 29. Many have questioned the economic original sources of all wealth, the soil and the practicality of associated production as labourer” (1967, I, p. 507). And he repeatedly projected by Marx. Fewer have addressed the emphasized the imperative for post—capitalist human development dimension of Marx's society to responsibly manage its use of natural vision, one major exception being those critics conditions. This helps explain his insistence on who argue that Marx anchors free human the extension of communal property to the land development in human technological and other “sources of life” (Marx, 1966, p. 5).

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 10

Indeed, Marx strongly criticized the Gotha III, p. 617). As Marx says, the association treats Programme for not making it “sufficiently clear “the soil as eternal communal property, an that land is included in the instruments of inalienable condition for the existence and labour” in this connection (p. 6). In Marx's reproduction of a chain of successive view, the “Association, applied to land... generations of the human race” (p. 812; reestablishes, now on a rational basis, no longer emphases added). mediated by serfdom, overlordship and the silly 34. Why have the ecological critics missed this mysticism of [private] property, the intimate crucial element of Marx's vision? The answer ties of man with the earth, since the earth ceases may lie in the ongoing influence of so—called to be an object of huckstering” (1964, p. 103). “tragedy of the commons” models, which As with other conditions of production, this (mis)identify common property with “common property” in land “does not mean the uncontrolled “open access” to natural resources restoration of the old original common by independent users (Gordon, 1954; Hardin, ownership, but the institution of a far higher 1968). In reality, the dynamics posited by these and more developed form of possession in models have more in common with the anarchy common” (Engels, 1939, p. 151). of capitalist competition than with Marx's 32. Marx does not see this communal property vision of communal rights and responsibilities as conferring a right to overexploit land and regarding the use of natural conditions other natural conditions in order to serve the (Ciriacy—Wantrup and Bishop, 1975; Swaney, production and consumption needs of the 1990). Indeed, the ability of traditional associated producers. Instead, he foresees an communal property systems to preserve eclipse of capitalist notions of land ownership common pool resources has been the subject of by a communal system of user rights and a growing body of research (see, for example, responsibilities: Ostrom, 1990; Usher, 1993). This research From the standpoint of a higher economic form arguably supports the potential for ecological of society, private ownership of the globe by management through a communalization of single individuals will appear quite as absurd natural conditions in post—capitalist society as private ownership of one man by another. (Burkett, 1999, pp. 246—8; Biel, 2000, pp. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all 15⎯8, 98—101). simultaneously existing societies taken 35. More ontologically, Marx's emphasis on the together, are not the owners of the globe. They future society's responsibility toward the land are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, follows from his projection of the inherent like boni patres familias, they must hand it unity of humanity and nature being realized down to succeeding generations in an improved both consciously and socially under condition. (Marx, 1967, III, p. 776). communism. For Marx and Engels, people and 33. Marx's projection of communal landed nature are not “two separate 'things'“; hence property clearly does not connote a right of they speak of humanity having “an historical “owners” (either individuals or society as a nature and a natural history” (1976, p. 45; cf. whole) to unrestricted use based on Foster and Burkett, 2000). They observe how “possession.” Rather, like all communal extra—human nature has been greatly altered property in the new union, it confers the right to by human production and development, so that responsibly utilize the land as a condition of “the nature that preceded human history... today free human development, and indeed as a basic no longer exists”; but they also recognize the source (together with labor) of “the entire range ongoing importance of “natural instruments of of permanent necessities of life required by the production” in the use of which “individuals are chain of successive generations” (Marx, 1967, subservient to nature” (pp. 46, 71).

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 11

Communism, far from rupturing or trying to especially to means of subsistence)” (Marx, overcome the necessary unity of people and 1967, II, p. 469). Marx also envisions a nature, makes this unity more transparent and “calculation of probabilities” to help ensure that places it at the service of a sustainable society is “in possession of the means of development of people as natural and social production required to compensate for the beings. Engels thus envisions the future society extraordinary destruction caused by accidents as one in which people will “not only feel but and natural forces” (1966, p. 7; 1967, II, p. also know their oneness with nature” (1964, p. 177). 183). Marx goes so far as to define communism 38. Obviously, “this sort of over—production is as “the unity of being of man with nature” tantamount to control by society over the (1964, p. 137). material means of its own reproduction” only in 36. Naturally, it will still be necessary for the sense of a far—sighted regulation of the communist society to “wrestle with Nature to productive interchanges between society and satisfy [its] wants, to maintain and reproduce uncontrollable natural conditions (Marx, 1967, life.” It is in this context that Marx refers to II, p. 469). It is in this prudential sense that “the associated producers rationally regulating Marx foresees the associated producers their interchange with nature, bringing it under “direct[ing] production from the outset so that their common control” (1967, III, p. 820). Such the yearly grain supply depends only to a very a rational regulation or “real conscious mastery minimum on the variations in the weather; the of Nature” presumes that the producers have sphere of production —— the supply— and the “become masters of their own social use—aspects thereof —— is rationally organisation” (Engels, 1939, p. 309). But it regulated” (1975, p. 188).13 It is simply does not presume that humanity has overcome judicious for “the producers themselves ... to all natural limits; nor does it presume that the spend a part of their labour, or of the products producers have attained complete technological of their labour in order to insure their products, control over natural forces. their wealth, or the elements of their wealth, 37. For instance, Marx sees the associated against accidents, etc.” (Marx, 1971, pp. 357— producers setting aside a portion of the surplus 8). “Within capitalist society,” by contrast, product as a “reserve or insurance fund to uncontrollable natural conditions impart a provide against misadventures, disturbances needless “element of anarchy” to social through natural events, etc.” especially in reproduction (Marx, 1967, II, p. 469). agriculture (1966, p. 7). Uncertainties 39. Pace their ecological critics, Marx and connected with the natural conditions of Engels simply do not identify free human production (“destruction caused by development with a one—sided human extraordinary phenomena of nature, fire, flood, domination or control of nature. According to etc.”) are to be dealt with through “a continuous Engels, relative over—production,” that is, “production Freedom does not consist in the dream of on a larger scale than is necessary for the independence of natural laws, but in the simple replacement and reproduction of the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility existing wealth” (Marx, 1967, II, pp. 177, 469; this gives of systematically making them work 1966, p. 7). “There must be on the one hand a towards definite ends. This holds good in certain quantity of fixed capital produced in relation both to the laws of external nature and excess of that which is directly required; on the to those which govern the bodily and mental other hand, and particularly, there must be a existence of men themselves— two classes of supply of raw materials, etc., in excess of the laws which we can separate from each other at direct annual requirements (this applies most only in thought but not in reality. ...

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 12

Freedom therefore consists in the control over between free time and work—time under ourselves and over external nature which is communism. It is true that, for Marx, the founded on natural necessity. (1939, p. 125) “development of human energy which is an end 40. In short, Marx and Engels envision a “real in itself ... lies beyond the actual sphere of human freedom” based on “an existence in material production,” that is, beyond that harmony with the established laws of nature” “labour which is determined by necessity and (p. 126). mundane considerations” (1967, III, p. 820). But for Marx, this “true realm of freedom ... can 2. EXPANDED FREE TIME AND SUSTAINABLE blossom forth only with [the] realm of necessity HUMAN DEVELOPMENT as its basis” (p. 820), and the relationship between the two realms is by no means one of 41. Marx's ecological critics often argue that his simple opposition as claimed by the ecological vision of expanded free time under communism critics. As Marx says, the “quite different ... is anti—ecological because it embodies an ethic free character” of directly associated labor, of human self—realization through the where “labour—time is reduced to a normal overcoming of natural constraints. Routley length and, furthermore, labour is no longer (1981), for example, suggests that Marx adopts [from the standpoint of the producers as a “the view of bread labor as necessarily whole] performed for someone else,” means alienated, and hence as something to be reduced that “direct labour time itself cannot remain in to an absolute minimum through automation. the abstract antithesis to free time in which it The result must be highly energy—intensive appears from the perspective of bourgeois and thus given any foreseeable, realistic energy economy” (1971, p. 257; 1973, p. 712): scenario, environmentally damaging” (p. 242). Free time —which is both idle time and time for For Marx, evidently, “it is the fact that bread higher activity— has naturally transformed its labor ties man to nature which makes it possessor into a different subject, and he then impossible for it to be expressive of what is enters into the direct production process as this truly and fully human; thus, it is only when man different subject. This process is then both has overcome the necessity to spend time on discipline, as regards the human being in the bread labour that he or she can be thought of as process of becoming; and, at the same time, mastering nature and becoming fully human” practice, experimental science, materially (p. 242). Less dramatically, Walker (1979) creative and objectifying science, as regards points to a tension between Marx's vision of the human being who has become, in whose expanding free time, which “clearly implies that head exists the accumulated knowledge of there must be resources over and above those society. (Marx, 1973, p. 712). needed for a bare minimum of survival,” and Marx's (purported) failure to “mention ... 43. In Marx's vision, the enhancement of free limitations on available natural resources” (pp. human development through reductions in 242—3). work—time resonates positively with the 42. The preceding sub—section has already development of human capabilities in the realm done much to dispel the notions that Marx and of production which still appears as a Engels were unconcerned about natural “metabolism” of society and nature. Marx's resource management under communism, and emphasis on “theoretical and practical” that they foresaw a progressive separation of education, and de—alienation of science vis— human development from nature as such. But it à—vis the producers, are quite relevant in this must also be pointed out that the ecological connection (see Section II). Marx sees this critics have mischaracterized the relation diffusion and further development of scientific knowledge taking the form of new

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 13 combinations of natural and social science, all the forces of nature” (p. 612). Far from projecting that natural science ... will become anti—ecological, this process is such that the the basis of human science, as it has already producers and their communities become more become the basis of actual human life, albeit in theoretically and practically aware of natural an estranged form. One basis for life and wealth as an eternal condition of production, another basis for science is a priori a lie... free time, and human life itself. Natural science will in time incorporate into 46. The ecological critics also seem to have itself the science of man, just as the science of missed the potential for increased free time as a man will incorporate into itself natural science: means of reducing the pressure of production there will be one science. (1964, p. 143; on the natural environment. Specifically, rising emphases in original) productivity of social labor need not increase 44. This intrinsic unity of social and natural material and energy throughput insofar as the science is, of course, a logical corollary of the producers are compensated by reductions in intrinsic unity of humanity and nature. work—time instead of greater material Accordingly, Marx and Engels “know only a consumption. However, this aspect of free time single science, the science of history. One can as a measure of wealth is best located in the look at history from two sides and divide it into context of communism’s transformation of the history of nature and the history of men. human needs. The two sides are, however, inseparable; the history of nature and the history of men are 3. WEALTH, HUMAN NEEDS, AND LABOR COST dependent on each other so long as men exist” 47. Some would argue that insofar as Marx (1976, p. 34). envisions communism encouraging a shared 45. In short, the founders of Marxism did not sense of responsibility toward nature, this envision communism's reduced work—time in responsibility remains wedded to an anti— terms of a progressive separation of human ecological conception of nature as primarily an 14 development vis—à—vis nature. They did not instrument or material of human labor. Alfred see expanded free time being filled by orgies of Schmidt, for example, suggests that “when consumption for consumption's sake; rather, Marx and Engels complain about the unholy reduced work—time is viewed as a necessary plundering of nature, they are not concerned condition for the intellectual development of with nature itself but with considerations of social individuals capable of mastering the economic utility” (1971, p. 155). Routley scientifically developed forces of nature and asserts that for Marx, “Nature is apparently to social labor in environmentally and humanly be respected to the extent, and only to the rational fashion. The “increase of free time” extent, that it becomes man's handiwork, his or appears here as “time for the full development her artifact and self—expression, and is thus a of the individual” capable of “the grasping of reflection of man and part of man's identity” his own history as a process, and the (1981, p. 243; emphasis in original). recognition of nature (equally present as 48. It should be clear from our previous practical power over nature) as his real body” discussion that any dichotomy between (Marx, 1973, p. 542; emphasis in original). The “economic utility” and “nature itself” is intellectual development of the producers completely alien to Marx's materialism. A during free time and work—time is clearly related point is that Marx's conception of central to the process by which communist wealth or use value encompasses “the manifold labor's “social character is posited ... in the variety of human needs,” whether these needs production process not in a merely natural, be physical, cultural, or aesthetic (Marx, 1973, spontaneous form, but as an activity regulating p. 527).15 In this broad human developmental

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 14 sense, “use value ... can quite generally be growth of material production and consumption characterised as the means of life” (Marx, 1988, for their own sake. Accordingly, they always p. 40; emphasis in original). David Pepper refer to growth of wealth in a general sense rightly concludes that “Marx did see nature's (including expanded free time) not limited to role as 'instrumental' to humans, but to him the industrial processing of natural conditions instrumental value ... included nature as a (material and energy throughput).17 In source of aesthetic, scientific and moral value” discussing the “higher phase of communist (1993, p. 64). society,” for example, Marx makes the “to each 49. As per “man's handiwork,” Marx does not according to his needs” criterion conditional employ an oppositional conception of labor and upon a situation where “the enslaving sub— nature in which the former merely subsumes the ordination of individuals under division of latter. He insists that the human capacity to labour, and therewith also the antithesis work, or labor power, is itself “a natural object, between mental and physical labour, has a thing, although a living conscious thing”; vanished; after labour, from a mere means of hence labor is a process in which the worker life, has itself become the prime necessity of “opposes himself to Nature as one of her own life; after the productive forces have also forces” and “appropriates Nature's productions increased with the all—round development of in a form adapted to his own wants” (Marx, the individual” (1966, p. 10). Similarly, Engels 1967, I, pp. 202, 177; emphases added). Marx does refer to “a practically limitless growth of views labor as “a process in which both man production,” but then fills out his conception of and Nature participate ... the necessary “practical” in terms of the priority “of securing condition for effecting exchange of matter for every member of society ... an existence between man and Nature” in production (pp. which is not only fully sufficient from a 177, 183—4). As a “universal condition for the material standpoint ... but also guarantees to metabolic interaction between nature and man,” them the completely unrestricted development labor is “a natural condition of human life ... of their physical and mental faculties” (1939, p. independent of, equally common to, all 309). Such human development need not particular social forms of human life” (Marx, involve a limitless growth of material 1988, p. 63). Labor is, of course, only part of consumption. “the universal metabolism of nature” and Marx 51. For Marx, communism's “progressive insists that “the earth ... exists independently of expansion of the process of reproduction” man” (p. 63; Marx, 1967, I, p. 183). In this encompasses the entire “living process of the ontological sense, “the priority of external society of producers” and, as discussed earlier, nature remains unassailed” in Marx's view, he specifies the “material and advantages” of even though he does insist on the importance of this “social development” in holistic human social relations in the structuring of the developmental terms (1967, III, pp. 819, 250; productive “metabolism” between humanity emphasis in original). When Marx and Engels and nature (Marx and Engels, 1976, p. 46).16 envision communism as “an organisation of 50. But what of Marx and Engels' notorious production and intercourse which will make references to continued growth in the possible the normal satisfaction of needs ... production of wealth under communism? Are limited only by the needs themselves,” they do these not immanently anti—ecological? Here it not mean a complete satiation of limitlessly must be emphasized that these growth expanding needs of all kinds (1976, p. 273): projections are always made in close Communist organisation has a twofold effect on connection with Marx's vision of free and the desires produced in the individual by well—rounded human development, not with present—day relations; some of these desires—

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 15 namely desires which exist under all relations, enhanced by the greater opportunities that real and only change their form and direction under worker—community control provides for different social relations ⎯are merely altered people to become informed participants in by the communist social system, for they are economic, political, and cultural life. given the opportunity to develop normally; but 54. Of course, labor (along with nature) remains others — namely those originating solely in a a fundamental source of wealth under particular society, under particular conditions communism. This, together with the priority of of production and intercourse— are totally expanded free time, means that the amounts of deprived of their conditions of existence. Which social labor expended in the production of will be merely changed and which eliminated in different goods and services will still be an a communist society can only be determined in important measure of their cost:20 a practical way. (p. 273) On the basis of communal production, the 52. As Ernest Mandel points out, this social and determination of time remains, of course, human developmental approach to need essential. The less time the society requires to satisfaction is quite different from the “absurd produce wheat, cattle etc., the more time it wins notion” of unqualified “abundance” often for other production, material or mental. Just ascribed to Marx, that is, “a regime of unlimited as in the case of an individual, the multiplicity access to a boundless supply of all goods and of its development, its enjoyment and its activity services” (1992, p. 205).18 Although communist depends on economization of time. Economy of need satisfaction is consistent with a “definition time, to this all economy ultimately reduces of abundance [as] saturation of demand,” this itself. Society likewise has to distribute its time has to be located in the context of a “hierarchy” in a purposeful way, in order to achieve a of “basic needs, secondary needs that become production adequate to its overall needs; just indispensable with the growth of civilization, as the individual has to distribute his time and luxury, inessential or even harmful needs” correctly in order to achieve knowledge in (pp. 206—7; emphasis in original). Marx's proper proportions or in order to satisfy the human developmental vision basically foresees various demands on his activity. Thus, economy a satiation of basic needs and a gradual of time, along with the planned distribution of extension of this satiation to secondary needs as labour time among the various branches of they develop socially through expanded free production, remains the first economic law on time and cooperative worker—community the basis of communal production. It becomes control over production — not a full satiation of law, there, to an even higher degree. (Marx, all conceivable needs (cf. Sherman, 1970). 1973, pp. 172—3) 53. Here, one begins to see the full ecological 55. Marx immediately adds, however, that significance of free time as a measure of communism's economy of time “is essentially communist wealth. Specifically, if the different from a measurement of exchange secondary needs developed and satisfied during values (labour or products) by labour time” (p. free time are less material and energy intensive, 173). For one thing, communism's use of labor their increasing weight in total needs reduces time as a measure of cost “is accomplished ... the pressure of production on natural by the direct and conscious control of society conditions, ceteris paribus. This is crucial over its working time —— which is possible insofar as Marx's vision has the producers using only with common ownership,” unlike the their newfound material security and expanded situation under capitalism, where the free time to engage in a variety of intellectual “regulation” of social labor time is only and aesthetic forms of self—development.19 accomplished indirectly, “by the movement of Such a development of secondary needs is to be commodity prices” (Marx to Engels, January 8,

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 16

1868, in Marx and Engels [1975, p. 187]). More being built on a “higher synthesis” of “the old importantly, communism's economy of labor bond of union which held together agriculture time serves use value, especially the expansion and manufacture in their infancy.” This new of free time, whereas capitalism's economy of union would work toward a “restoration” of time is geared toward increasing the surplus “the naturally grown conditions for the labor time expended by the producers (Marx, maintenance of [the] circulation of matter ... 1967, III, p. 264; 1973, p. 708). under a form appropriate to the full 56. Marx and Engels do not, moreover, project development of the human race” (1967, I, pp. labor time as the sole guide to resource— 505—6). Accordingly, Engels ridiculed allocation decisions under communism: they Dühring's projection “that the union between only indicate that it is to be one important agriculture and industry will nevertheless be measure of the social costs of different kinds of carried through even against economic production. That “production ... under the considerations, as if this would be come actual, predetermining control of society ... economic sacrifice!” (1939, p. 324; emphasis in establishes a relation between the volume of original). It is obvious that Marx and Engels social labour—time applied in producing would gladly accept increases in social labor definite articles, and the volume of the social time in return for an ecologically more sound want to be satisfied by these articles” in no way production. implies that environmental costs are left out of 58. Still, one need not accept the notion, account (Marx, 1967, III, p. 187).21 repeated ad nauseam by Marx's ecological 57. For strong evidence that Marx and Engels critics, of an inherent opposition between labor did not see communism prioritizing minimum cost reductions and environmental friendliness. labor cost over ecological goals, one need only Marx's communism would dispense with the point to their insistence on the “abolition of the waste of natural resources and labor associated antithesis between town and country” as “a with capitalism's “anarchical system of direct necessity of ... production and, moreover, competition” and “vast number of employments of public health” (Engels, 1939, p. 323). ... in themselves superfluous” (1967, I, p. 530). Observing capitalism's ecologically disruptive Many anti—ecological use values could be urban concentrations of industry and eliminated or greatly reduced under a planned population, industrialized agriculture, and system of labor allocation and land use, among failure to recycle human and livestock wastes, them advertising, the excessive processing and Marx and Engels early on pointed to the packaging of food and other goods, planned “abolition of the contradiction between town obsolescence of products, and the automobile. and country” as “one of the first conditions of All these destructive use values are communal life” (1976, p. 72). As Engels later “indispensable” for capitalism; but from the put it: “The present poisoning of the air, water standpoint of environmental sustainability they and land can only be put an end to by the fusion represent “the most outrageous squandering of of town and country” under “one single vast labour—power and of the social means of plan” (1939, p. 323). Despite its potential cost production” (Marx, 1967, I, p. 530; cf. Wallis, to society in terms of increased labor time, he 1993, 2001). viewed this fusion as “no more and no less utopian than the abolition of the antithesis IV. CAPITALISM, COMMUNISM, AND between capitalist and wage—workers”; it was THE STRUGGLE OVER HUMAN even “a practical demand of both industrial and DEVELOPMENT agricultural production” (1979, p. 92). In his magnum opus, Marx foresaw communism 59. Marx argues that “if we did not find

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 17 concealed in society as it is the material the development of mass production and conditions of production and the corresponding consumption to the point where all scarcity relations of exchange prerequisite for a disappears? Not really. It is, first, that by classless society, then all attempts to explode it developing the productive forces, it creates the would be quixotic” (1973, p. 159). He refers to possibility of a system “in which coercion and “development of the productive forces of social monopolisation of social development labour” as capitalism's “historical task and (including its material and intellectual justification ... the way in which it advantages) by one portion of society at the unconsciously creates the material requirements expense of another are eliminated,” partly of a higher mode of production” (1967, III, p. through a “greater reduction of time devoted to 259). In short, the “original unity between the material labour in general” (Marx, 1967, III, p. worker and the conditions of production ... can 819). In short, insofar as it develops human be re—established only on the material productive capabilities, capitalism negates, not foundation which capital creates” (1971, pp. scarcity as such (in the sense of satisfying all 422—3). possible material needs), but rather the scarcity 60. Time and again, Marxism's ecological rationale for class inequalities in human critics have found in such pronouncements developmental opportunities. As Marx evidence of an uncritical endorsement of indicates, “Although at first the development of capitalism's anti—ecological subjugation of the capacities of the human species takes place nature to human purposes —a subjugation that at the cost of the majority of human individuals would continue under Marx's communism. Ted and even classes, in the end it breaks through Benton, for example, asserts that in seeing this contradiction and coincides with the capitalism as “preparing the conditions for development of the individual” (1968, p. 118). future human emancipation,” Marx shares “the 63. Secondly, capitalism potentiates less blindness to natural limits already present in ... restricted forms of human development insofar the spontaneous ideology of 19th—century as it makes production an increasingly social industrialism” (1989, pp. 74, 77; see also process, “a system of general social McLaughlin, 1990, p. 95; Mingione, 1993, p. metabolism, of universal relations, of all— 86). This critique may be viewed as an round needs and universal capacities” (Marx, ecological variation on the theme that Marx 1973, p. 158). Only with this socialized thought “the problem of production had been production can one foresee “free individuality, 'solved' by capitalism,” so that communism based on the universal development of would “not require to take seriously the individuals and on their subordination of their problem of the allocation of scarce resources” communal, social productivity as their social (Nove, 1990, p. 230). wealth” (p. 158). For Marx, capitalism's 61. Section III established Marx and Engels' development of “the universality of intercourse, deep concern with natural resource hence the world market” connotes “the management and, more fundamentally, with the possibility of the universal development of the de—alienation of nature vis—à—vis the individual” (p. 542). As always, it is with all— producers, under communism. It turns out that round human development in mind (not growth the ecological critics have also misinterpreted of production and consumption for their own Marx's conceptions of capitalist development sake) that Marx praises “the universality of and the transition from capitalism to individual needs, capacities, pleasures, communism. productive forces etc., created through universal 62. What, exactly, is the historical potential exchange” under capitalism (p. 488). The same capitalism creates in Marx's view? Does it lie in goes for people—nature relations. The potential

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 18

Marx sees in capitalism does not involve a capitalism both “violates the conditions one—sided human subordination of, or necessary to lasting fertility of the soil” and separation from, nature, but rather the “destroys the health of the town labourer” possibility of less restricted relations between (1967, I, p. 505). According to Engels, the humanity and nature. It is only by comparison system’s alienation of nature is manifested in with these richer, more universal human— the narrow viewpoint on nature's utility nature relations that “all earlier ones appear as necessarily adopted by “individual capitalists,” mere local developments of humanity and as who “are able to concern themselves only with nature—idolatry” (pp. 409—10; emphases in the most immediate useful effect of their original). In earlier modes of production, “the actions” in terms of “the profit to be made” — restricted attitude of men to nature determines — ignoring “the natural effects of the same their restricted relation to one another, and their actions” (Engels, 1964, p. 185).22 restricted attitude to one another determines 65. For Marx, the “alienated, independent, men's restricted relation to nature” (Marx and social power” attained by nature and other Engels, 1976, p. 50; cf. Marx, 1967, I, p. 79). “conditions of production” under capitalism 64. Marx's analysis would only be immanently poses a challenge to workers and their anti—ecological if it had uncritically endorsed communities: to convert these conditions “into capital's appropriation of natural conditions. In general, communal, social, conditions” serving fact, Marx strongly emphasizes “the alienated “the requirements of socially developed human form” of “the objective conditions of labour,” beings ... the living process of the society of including nature, in capitalist society (1994, p. producers” (1967, III, pp. 250, 258, 264; 29). He insists that capitalism's alienation of emphasis in original). Such a conversion “the general social powers of labour” requires a prolonged struggle to qualitatively encompasses “natural forces and scientific transform the system of production, both knowledge” (p. 29). As a result, in his view, materially and socially. Communist production “the forces of nature and science ... confront the is not simply inherited from capitalism, needing labourers as powers of capital” (Marx, 1963, p. only to be signed into law by a newly elected 391; emphasis in original). Indeed, under socialist government. It requires “long capitalism, “science, natural forces and struggles, through a series of historic processes, products of labour on a large scale” are utilized transforming circumstances and men” (Marx, mainly “as means for the exploitation of labour, 1985, p. 76). Among these transformed as means of appropriating surplus—labour” circumstances will be “not only a change of (pp. 391—2; emphasis in original). Nor is distribution, but a new organization of Marx's critique of capital's appropriation of production, or rather the delivery (setting free) natural conditions limited to the exploitation of the social forms of production ... of their directly suffered by workers in production and present class character, and their harmonious the limits it places on workers' consumption. As national and international co—ordination” (p. shown by Foster (2000), Marx had a profound 157). This “long struggle” scenario for post— grasp of the more general “metabolic rift” revolutionary society is a far cry from the between humanity and nature produced by interpretation put forth by the ecological critics, capitalism, one symptom of which is the which has Marx endorsing capitalist industry as antithetical division of labor between town and a qualitatively appropriate basis for communist country with its “irreparable break in the development. Indeed, Marx's vision coherence of social interchange prescribed by corresponds more accurately to Roy Morrison's the natural laws of life” (Marx, 1967, III, p. view that the “struggle for the creation of an 813). Marx used this framework to explain how ecological commons is the struggle for the

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 19 building of an ecological democracy— envision communism's basic principles should community by community, neighborhood by be seen not as a “master plan” but “as means of neighborhood, region by region ... the struggle organising the workers' movement and and work of fundamental social transformation structuring and guiding debate in and around it” from below” (1995, p. 188). (pp. 22—3). Although these projections need to 66. In Marx’s view, the struggle for “the be constantly updated in light of developments conditions of free and associated labour ... will in capitalist and post—revolutionary societies, be again and again relented and impeded by the Marx and Engels' basic approach is still resistance of vested interests and class relevant today. egotisms” (1985, p. 157). This is precisely why 68. The demand for more equitable and communism's human developmental conditions sustainable forms of human development is will be generated in large part by the central to the growing worldwide rebellion revolutionary struggle itself —— both the against elite economic institutions taking of political power by the working class (transnational corporations, the IMF, World and the subsequent transformation of material Bank, and WTO). But this movement needs a and social conditions. As Marx and Engels put vision that conceives the various institutions it, communist “appropriation ... can only be and policies under protest as elements of one effected through a union, which by the class—exploitative system: capitalism. And it character of the proletariat itself can again only needs a framework for the debate, be a universal one, and through a revolution, in reconciliation, and realization of alternative which, on the one hand, the power of the earlier pathways and strategies for negating the power mode of production and intercourse and social of capital over the conditions of human organisation is overthrown, and, on the other development: that framework is communism. hand, there develops the universal character and Toward these ends, Marx's vision remains “the the energy of the proletariat, which are required most thoroughgoing and self—consistent to accomplish the appropriation, and the project of social emancipation and hence ... proletariat moreover rids itself of everything worth studying as such” (Chattopadhyay, 1992, that still clings to it from its previous position p. 91). in society” (1976, p. 97). 67. By now it should be clear why Marx argued V. NOTES that “the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes I refer to the economic debates among academics in the core capitalist countries. The connections between socialism and themselves”: the struggle for human human development have of course been a prime concern of development ultimately requires “the abolition anti—capitalist movements and revolutionary regimes on the of all class rule,” and the working class is the capitalist periphery. On the case of Cuba, see Silverman (1973), especially the chapters by Ernesto Che Guevara. only group capable of undertaking such a Like Marx, I use the terms socialism and communism project (Marx, 1974b, p. 82). The self— interchangeably. On this point, see Chattopadhyay (1992). emancipatory nature of communism also Foster (1995, pp. 108—9) and Burkett (1999, pp. 147—8, 223) provide additional references to ecological criticisms of Marx's explains why Marx's vision does not take the communism. form of a detailed blueprint à la the utopian There being no important disagreements between Marx and socialists. Any such blueprint would only Engels on the issues treated in this paper, I will also refer to the writings of Engels (and works co—authored by Marx and foreclose political debates, conflicts, and Engels) as appropriate. strategies developed by the working class itself Marx thus describes joint stock companies as a contradictory “understood as a unity in diversity, as a form of social ownership, or “the abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production political community” (Shandro, 2000, p. 21). itself ... private production without the control of private Stated differently, Marx and Engels' attempts to property” (1967, III, p. 438). In stock companies, “the

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 20 antagonism” between private appropriation and social treating the hitherto separate halves as a single totality. In production “is resolved negatively,” although this may be learning about either society or nature, the individual will viewed as a necessary “transition toward the conversion of all recognize that he is learning about both” (1979, p. 76). functions in the reproduction process which still remain linked This means, for instance, that a commodity's “use value for with capitalist property, into mere functions of associated society, i.e., the buyers” may be “real or imagined” (Marx, producers, into social functions” (ibid., pp. 437, 440). 1988, p. 315). One of the draft manuscripts for Capital has an interesting For details on Marx's dialectical conception of human labor and passage relating the contradictory social character of capitalist nature, see Burkett (1999, Chapters 2—4), Foster (2000), Foster property to the fact that “the individual's ownership of the and Burkett (2000, 2001). conditions of production appears as not only unnecessary but As for pressure on the environment from population growth, incompatible with ... production on a large scale”. As Marx Marx and Engels recognized “the abstract possibility that the notes: “This is represented in the capitalist mode of production human population will become so numerous that its further by the fact that the capitalist —— the non—worker —— is the increase will have to be checked” (Engels to Kautsky, February owner of these social masses of means of production. He never 1, 1881, in Marx and Engels [1975, p. 315]). But, in opposing in fact represents towards the workers their unification, their Malthusianism, they also developed a class—relational version social unity. Therefore, as soon as this contradictory form of what is nowadays called the “demographic transition” ceases to exist, it emerges that they own these means of theory. Indeed, Engels argued that “If it should become production socially, not as private individuals. Capitalist necessary for communist society to regulate the production of property is only a contradictory expression of their social men, just as it will have already regulated the production of property —— i.e. their negated individual property —— in the things, then it, and it alone, will be able to do this without conditions of production” (1994, p. 108; emphases in original). difficulties” (ibid.). On the Marx—Malthus debate more ”Surplus—labour in general, as labour performed over and generally, see Burkett (1998). above the given requirements, must always remain” (Marx, Nove (1983), for example, saddles Marx with the fantastic 1967, III, p. 819). See ibid., I, p. 530, III, p. 847; also Marx projection of “a sufficiency to meet requirements at zero price,” (1963, p. 107). defined as zero resource cost (p. 15). The labor—time standard for consumption claims raises Even when discussing workers' consumption under capitalism, important social and technical issues that cannot be addressed specifically how the worker can “widen the sphere of his here —— especially whether and how differentials in labor pleasures at the times when business is good,” Marx's main intensity, work conditions, and skills would be measured and emphasis is on “the worker's participation in the higher, even compensated. See Engels (1939, pp. 220—2) and Marx (1966, cultural satisfactions, the agitation for his own interests, pp. 9—10). newspaper subscriptions, attending lectures, educating his ”But one of the most vital principles of communism, a principle children, developing his taste etc., his only share of civilization which distinguishes it from all reactionary socialism, is its which distinguishes him from the slave” (1973, p. 287). See empirical view, based on a knowledge of man's nature, that Burkett (1999, pp. 163—72) for an ecological interpretation of differences of brain and of intellectual ability do not imply any Marx's analysis of proletarian consumption. differences whatsoever in the nature of the stomach and of ”In all states of society, the labour—time that it costs to physical needs; therefore the false tenet, based upon existing produce the means of subsistence, must necessarily be an object circumstances, 'to each according to his abilities', must be of interest to mankind” (Marx, 1967, I, p. 71). “Indeed, no form changed ... into the tenet, 'to each according to his need'“ (Marx of society can prevent the working time at the disposal of and Engels, 1976, p. 566; emphases in original). society from regulating production one way or another” (Marx For Marx, “forces of production and social relations” are “two to Engels, January 8, 1868, in Marx and Engels [1975, p. 187]; different sides of the development of the social individual” emphasis in original). (1973, p. 706). Of course, any communist planning worthy of the name will Similarly, in Volume I of Capital, Marx describes “directly also include the maintenance and improvement of natural associated labour” as “a form of production that is entirely conditions under the category of “social wants to be satisfied” inconsistent with the production of commodities” (1967, I, p. by production and consumption. 94). There is also an extended discussion of this point in Anti— See Burkett (1999, Chapters 9—10) for a detailed Dühring (Engels, 1939, pp. 337—8). reconstruction of Marx and Engels' analysis of capitalist Marx also argued that communism's “free individuality” is environmental crisis. dependent on capitalism's prior development of a “general social metabolism” (1973, p. 158). We take up this connection in Section IV. In his book Ancient Society, Lewis Henry Morgan suggested that “mankind are the only beings who may be said to have gained an absolute control over the production of food.” Recording this statement in his ethnological notebooks, Marx stressed the words “have gained an absolute control,” appending to them only the parenthetical comment “?!” (Marx, 1974c, p. 99). The present interpretation is supported by Bertell Ollman, who speaks of people “becoming conscious of the internal relations between what are today called 'natural' and 'social' worlds, and

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 21

Ferkiss, Victor. 1993. Nature, Technology, and VI. REFERENCES Society. New York: New York University Press. Feuer, Lewis S. 1989. “Introduction.” In Karl Auerbach, Paul, and Peter Skott. 1993. Marx and Friedrich Engels: Basic Writings on “Capitalist Trends and Socialist Priorities.” Politics and Philosophy, Lewis Feuer, editor, Science & Society, Vol. 57, No. 2, Summer, pp. pp. vii—xix. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. 194—204. Foster, John Bellamy. 1995. “Marx and the Benton, Ted. 1989. “Marxism and Natural Environment.” Monthly Review, Vol. 47, No. 3, Limits.” New Left Review, No. 178, July/August, pp. 108—23. November/December, pp. 51—86. Foster, John Bellamy. 2000. Marx's Ecology. Biel, Robert. 2000. The New Imperialism. New York: Monthly Review Press. London: Zed Books. Foster, John Bellamy, and Paul Burkett. 2000. Burkett, Paul. 1998. “A Critique of Neo— “The Dialectic of Organic/Inorganic Malthusian Marxism.” Historical Materialism, Relations.” Organization & Environment, Vol. No. 2, Summer, pp. 118—42. 13, No. 4, December, pp. 403—25. Burkett, Paul. 1999. Marx and Nature. New Foster, John Bellamy, and Paul Burkett. 2001. York: St. Martin's Press. “Marx and the Dialectic of Organic/Inorganic Carpenter, Geoffrey P. 1997. “Redefining Relations.” Organization & Environment, Vol. Scarcity: Marxism and Ecology Reconciled.” 14, No. 4, December, pp. 451—62. Democracy & Nature, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 129— Gordon, H. Scott. 1954. “The Economic Theory 53. of a Common Property Resource: The Chattopadhyay, Paresh. 1992. “The Economic Fishery.” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. Content of Socialism: Marx vs. Lenin.” Review 62, No. 2, April, pp. 124—42. of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the 3—4, Fall/Winter, pp. 90—110. Commons.” Science, Vol. 162, December, pp. Ciriacy—Wantrup, S.V., and Richard C. 1243—48. Bishop. 1975. “'Common Property' as a Lange, Oskar, and Fred M. Taylor. 1964. On Concept in Natural Resources Policy.” Natural the Economic Theory of Socialism. New York: Resources Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, October, pp. McGraw—Hill. 713—27. Mandel, Ernest. 1992. Power and Money: A Daly, Herman E. 1992. Steady—State Marxist Theory of Bureaucracy. London: Economics, Second Edition. London: Verso. Earthscan. Marx, Karl. 1963. Theories of Surplus Value, Eckersley, Robyn. 1992. Environmentalism and Pt. 1. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Political Theory. Albany, NY: State University Marx, Karl. 1964. Economic and Philosophical of New York Press. Manuscripts of 1844. New York: International Engels, Frederick. 1939. Herr Eugen Dühring's Publishers. Revolution in Science (Anti—Dühring). New Marx, Karl. 1966. Critique of the Gotha York: International Publishers. Programme. New York: International Engels, Frederick. 1964. Dialectics of Nature. Publishers. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Marx, Karl. 1967. Capital, Vols. I—III. New Engels, Frederick. 1979. The Housing York: International Publishers (1977 printing). Question. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 22

Marx, Karl. 1968. Theories of Surplus Value, Marx, Karl. 1994. “Economic Manuscript of Pt. 2. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 1861—63, Conclusion.” In Collected Works, Marx, Karl. 1970. A Contribution to the Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Vol. 34, pp. Critique of Political Economy. New York: 7—354. New York: International Publishers. International Publishers. Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. 1968. Marx, Karl. 1971. Theories of Surplus Value, “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” In Pt. 3. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Selected Works (1 vol.), Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, pp. 35—63. London: Marx, Karl. 1973. Grundrisse. New York: Vintage. Lawrence and Wishart. Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. 1975. Marx, Karl. 1974a. “Inaugural Address of the International Working Men's Association.” In Selected Correspondence. Moscow: Progress The First International and After, David Publishers. Fernbach, editor, pp. 73—81. New York: Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. 1976. The Random House. German Ideology. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Marx, Karl. 1974b. “Provisional Rules.” In The First International and After, David McLaughlin, Andrew. 1990. “Ecology, Fernbach, editor, pp. 82—4. New York: Capitalism, and Socialism.” Socialism and Random House. Democracy, No. 10, Spring/Summer, pp. 69— Marx, Karl. 1974c. The Ethnological 102. Notebooks of Karl Marx, Lawrence Krader, Mingione, Enzo. 1993. “Marxism, Ecology, and editor. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum. Political Movements.” Capitalism, Nature, Marx, Karl. 1975. “Notes on Wagner.” In Texts Socialism, Vol. 4, No. 2, June, pp. 85—92. on Method, Terrell Carver, editor, pp. 179— Morrison, Roy. 1995. Ecological Democracy. 219. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Boston: South End Press. Marx, Karl. 1976. Value, Price and Profit. New Nove, Alec. 1983. The Economics of Feasible York: International Publishers. Socialism. London: Allen & Unwin. Marx, Karl. 1985. “The Civil War in France.” Nove, Alec. 1990. “Socialism.” In The New In On the Paris Commune, by Karl Marx and Palgrave: Problems of the Planned Economy, Frederick Engels, pp. 48—181. Moscow: John Eatwell, Murray Milgate, and Peter Progress Publishers. Newman, editors, pp. 227—49. New York: Marx, Karl. 1988. “Economic Manuscript of Norton. 1861—63, Third Chapter.” In Collected Works, O'Connor, James. 1998. Natural Causes: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Vol. 30, pp. Essays in Ecological Marxism. New York: 9—346. New York: International Publishers. Guilford. Marx, Karl. 1989a. “Notes on Bakunin's Book Ollman, Bertell. 1979. “Marx's Vision of Statehood and Anarchy.” In Collected Works, Communism.” In Social and Sexual Revolution, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Vol. 24, pp. by Bertell Ollman, pp. 48—98. Boston: South 485—526. New York: International Publishers. End Press. Marx, Karl. 1989b. “Drafts of the Letter to Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Vera Zasulich,” and “Letter to Vera Zasulich Commons. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge (March 8, 1881).” In Collected Works, Karl University Press. Marx and Frederick Engels, Vol. 24, pp. 346— Pepper, David. 1993. Eco—Socialism. London: 71. New York: International Publishers. Routledge.

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 23

Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Wallis, Victor. 1993. “Socialism, Ecology, and Transformation. New York: Farrar & Rinehart. Democracy.” In Socialism: Crisis and Routley, Val. 1981. “On Karl Marx as an Renewal, Chronis Polychroniou, editor, pp. Environmental Hero.” Environmental Ethics, 143—69. Westport, CT: Praeger. Vol. 3, No. 3, Fall, pp. 237—44. Wallis, Victor. 2001. “Toward Ecological Sandler, Blair. 1994. “Grow or Die.” Socialism.” Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, Vol. Rethinking Marxism, Vol. 7, No. 2, Summer, pp. 12, No. 1, March, pp. 127—45. 38—57. Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1991. “Marxian Crisis Schmidt, Alfred. 1971. The Concept of Nature Theory and the Contradictions of Late in Marx. London: New Left Books. Twentieth—Century Capitalism.” Rethinking Science & Society. 1992. “Socialism: Marxism Vol. 4, No. 4, Winter, pp. 70—93. Alternative Views and Models.” Vol. 56, No. 1, Spring, pp. 2—108. Science & Society. 2002. “Building Socialism Theoretically: Alternatives to Capitalism and the Invisible Hand.” Vol. 66, No. 1, Spring, pp. 3—158. Shandro, Alan. 2000. “Karl Marx as a Conservative Thinker.” Historical Materialism, No. 6, Summer, pp. 3—25. Sherman, Howard J. 1970. “The Economics of Pure Communism.” Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 2, No. 4, Winter, pp. 39—50. Silverman, Bertram (editor). 1973. Man and Socialism in Cuba. New York: Atheneum. Swaney, James A. 1990. “Common Property, Reciprocity, and Community.” Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 24, No. 2, June, pp. 451—62. Usher, Peter. 1993. “Aboriginal Property Systems in Land and Resources.” In Green On Red: Evolving Ecological Socialism, Jesse Vorst, Ross Dobson, and Ron Fletcher, editors, pp. 93—102. Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing in association with the Society for Socialist Studies. Vlachou, Andriana. 2002. “Nature and Value Theory.” Science & Society, Vol. 66, No. 2, Summer, pp. 169—201. Walker, K.J. 1979. “Ecological Limits and Marxian Thought.” Politics, Vol. 14, No. 1, May, pp. 29—46.

MARX'S VISION OF COMMUNISM... 24