A recent trend in so-called “Marxism” is attempting to incorporate degrowth.
Kohei Saito is a more recent name that has explicitly argued for “degrowth communism,” although the ideas behind degrowth are actually very old. Still, the foundations to inject degrowth into Marx’s work come from a 1999 paper by John Bellamy Foster entitled “Marx's Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology.”
If Prussian spies were to be believed, Karl Marx was a mess. Still, it is unlikely that he wrote the opposite of what he meant as a joke. Central to Marx’s work is class struggle (which degrowth suspiciously avoids in favor of class collaborative prescriptions) and developing productive forces to the extent that great abundance is available to all (also known as “growth”).
I’ve written and produced heuristics on degrowth as a successor to Thomas Robert Malthus’s overpopulation rhetoric, demonstrating extensive lineage between these ideologies and noting Marx’s own words on the subject. While I will touch on that later, my primary aim here is to demonstrate that a concept that is de facto (and sometimes directly) attributed to Marx was created in the 1990s is a means to smuggle degrowth rhetoric into Marx’s work.
It is the result of what I will (generously) assume is Foster picking up on an opportunity to put forward a seemingly novel contribution to Marxism, when in fact, he opens the door for people to contradict its very foundation and still call themselves “Marxists.”
Metabolic Rift
In its ridiculous Wikipedia entry, “metabolic rift” is straightforwardly described as “Karl Marx's key conception of ecological crisis tendencies under capitalism,” but Marx put forward no such conception. Discussion of soil science and human intervention is the context by which Marx (through Engels’s translation) describes a “circulation of matter” and “social interchange,” noting nothing even vaguely resembling ecological crises.
As one might expect based on the previous paragraph, Karl Marx never used the term "metabolic rift" in his writings. Saito claims he came up with the concept in “unpublished manuscripts,” however, the term was coined by John Bellamy Foster. By his own account, Foster decided that Marx's analysis of labor exploitation under capitalism should include the exploitation and degradation of the environment.
In 1980s, [it became] the general notion that […] Marx himself was a Promethean, an anti ecological thinker. In many ways, became the prominent view, even among the left [due to] Ted Benton's Marxism and Natural Limits (1989).
It argued that Marx in many ways was was inferior to Malthus from an ecological perspective because Malthus had dealt with natural limits, [while] Marx had not. [What] was happening at this time is that eco-socialism arose to prominence in the late 1980s [and] distanced itself from Marx […] because the argument was that what Marks had offered was [exclusively] an analysis of labor.
[So] some of us started to look back at at Marx's work and [in 1999], I wrote my article “Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift.” I had decided it arose out of his materialism and that Marxists had lost sight of what materialism actually meant for Marx.
-JB Foster, Interview
Karl Marx used the term "social metabolism" one time in Friedrich Engels’s original translation of Capital Vol. 3, and not in the passage in Foster’s paper that de facto attributes Marx with the beginnings of the theory of “Metabolic Rift” (which, again, is a term he coined).
In Marx’s usage, “metabolism” refers primarily to the movement and appropriation of material. In this specific passage (again, the only use of the term in Engels’s translation of Capital Vol. 3), "social metabolism" is said while describing how goods – for instance, boots – are bought and sold while maintaining their original form. Even though the boots change hands, they don’t become something else. Ultimately, “social metabolism” is a loose analogy Marx uses while describing how goods retain their identity during transactions while their value is transformed into a different form.
Aside from this not actually being related to ecology, Foster’s usage of citations from Marx uses an edition of Capital Vol. 3 (published by Vintage, which Penguin now owns and therefore currently publishes), which contains very different language from Friedrich Engels’s translation, the original English Text.
It should be noted that in the German version, the word “stoffwechsel” (which translates to “metabolism”) was used; however, Engels did not see fit to use it in English. Contextually, he clearly believed there was a reason to use alternate terminology. A similar, though somewhat inverted, issue can be found with The Communist Manifesto’s use of “aufheben” (generally meaning “sublate,” though typically translated as “abolish,” as in, “abolish the family”), as translated by Helen Macfarlane (who, unlike Engels, was not Marx’s closest friend and collaborator), who translated it for the Chartist newspaper The Red Republican in 1850. We should assume Engels made a more deliberate choice than Macfarlane (as Engles would know more specifics about Marx’s intent), though the confusion is similar.
The “Metabolic Rift,” as told by John Bellamy Foster, extends Marx's use of the term “social metabolism” to emphasize the ecological disruptions caused by capitalism. This extension goes beyond what Marx himself explicitly discussed, deviating from Marx's original intent to focus on ecological dimensions in a way that he just did not do (note Foster’s incorporation of garbage-in-garbage-out, “Limits to Growth” rhetoric, from the report commissioned by Malthusian organization Club of Rome, often seen in degrowth circles):
An essential aspect of the concept of metabolism is the notion that it constitutes the basis on which life is sustained and growth and reproduction become possible. Contrary to those who believe that he wore an ecological blinder that prevented him from perceiving natural limits to production, Marx employed the concept of metabolic rift to capture the material estrangement of human beings in capitalist society from the natural conditions of their existence. To argue that large-scale capitalist agriculture created such a metabolic rift between human beings and the soil was to argue that basic conditions of sustainability had been violated.
- JB Foster, “Marx's Theory of Metabolic Rift”
Moving on to another of Foster’s citations, this time from Capital Vol. 1, we can see that where the Vintage/Penguin edition directly translates Marx’s “stoffwechsel” to “metabolism,” while Engels’s version (this time translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, but edited by Engels) uses the words “circulation of matter.”
This point specifically focuses on agriculture and the practice of returning human waste (feces, bones, clothing, etc.) to the soil. Again, Marx’s “metabolism” is simply the “circulation of matter.” In this case, it refers to the transfer of soil nutrients to plants, which then become clothing and food for humans. The idea is that when a person is buried (or waste otherwise discarded), the matter is returned to the soil. Specifically, he is discussing the evolving position of biochemist Justus von Liebig who first advocated for fertilizer to boost agricultural production and then later changed his mind amid soil depletion.
As per Liebig, this “circulation of matter” could be interrupted/damaged by humans (as evidenced by soil depletion by undeveloped farming techniques and capitalistic incentives). However, Marx’s loose conception of a “metabolism” is not about interruption or damage; it is a neutral description of a process.
In fact, Marx did not see farmland as “nature” but as a product of human labor. As noted in The German Ideology, “the nature that preceded human history, is not by any means the nature in which Feuerbach lives, it is nature which today no longer exists anywhere (except perhaps on a few Australian coral-islands of recent origin) and which, therefore, does not exist for Feuerbach.”
This is not to say Marx didn’t talk about the environment (see below). However, Marx’s theory of communism as a stage of society depends on expanding the productive forces to such an extent that abundance for all is the order of the day. This requires prioritizing ways to develop (rather than avoid) natural resource usage. Marx clearly thought it was good to find techniques that do not strip the soil of its nutrients, which people have certainly done (though whether they are employed at the scale they should be is a different discussion).
In the manifesto, he even hails the “most revolutionary part” the bourgeoisie has played in societal progress, noting “subjecting nature’s forces to man” among its accomplishments:
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground – what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
- Karl Marx, “The Communist Manifesto”
Marx’s discussion of “metabolism” was not a declaration of an ecological crisis; it is a description of a natural reality humanity must contend with to continue progress – a hurdle to jump.
Nature is to be further subjected to humanity.
Degrowth
I contend that the contemporary idea of “metabolic rift” is a means to revise Marx from “staunchly pro-growth” to at least “open to degrowth.” If people like Foster and Saito are to be believed, Marx predicted an “ecological crisis” due to humanity’s interventions with nature and thus humanity needs to make adjustments – again, Saito really going the distance in pushing a “degrowth communism.”
However, when compared, it becomes clear that Marxism and degrowth are fundamentally at odds, and here are the primary reasons:
The Role of Growth. Marxism seeks to overcome scarcity and provide for the needs of all individuals, with economic growth as a catalyst. Scientific socialists call for the continuous expansion of productive forces, which is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of degrowth that advocate for a deliberate reduction in economic activity.
Abundance for All. The point of all that growth is to raise the standards of living through the deliberate creation of wealth with the elimination of conflict in appropriation. To put it crudely, destroying poverty by making everyone rich. Degrowth, on the other hand, focuses on reducing overall consumption levels and material wealth. This approach conflicts with Marxism's as it does not acknowledge material relations of power, much less address them.
Class Struggle. Marxism’s endgame is a classless society, and as noted in point 2, Degrowth doesn’t approach material relations of power. This means it does not address the contradiction in appropriation that creates material classifications for rulers and ruled, creating a class that accumulates wealth and another that can not buy back the full product of their labor.
Global Implications. Marxism's perspective encompasses a global outlook, advocating for justice and the liberation of oppressed peoples worldwide. Degrowth advocates claim they want to degrow only affluent societies, but this fails to address their concerns, as developing nations are the ones that will pollute significantly more. In the current paradigm of control or competition instead of cooperation, developing nations aiming for "carbon reduction" cannot grow without emitting more carbon than current developed nations. Growth is crucial for improving living conditions in developing nations, rendering degrowth impractical and unjust.
Marxism and degrowth are incompatible. Marx’s focus on growth, abundance, class struggle, and global justice is at odds with degrowth's call for reducing economic activity and consumption. While Marxism and degrowth have some surface-level overlap on societal and environmental concerns, their differing approaches and objectives make it impossible (as I see it) to reconcile the two without sacrificing what makes Marx’s work useful.
To advocate degrowth is to advocate for regression, not progression. Thus, it is reactionary. Degrowth doesn’t address class; while advocates like Jason Hickel advocate Bernie Sanders-like, Nordic distribution models, he also happily shits on communism and class struggle. How, indeed, can we move to a “post-capitalism,” though, when its prime characteristic is not addressed?
Marx and Engels posit that the defining feature of capitalism is its fundamental contradiction of socialized production with private appropriation, creating classes with different interests, accumulation potential, and purchasing power. Degrowth advocates will not touch this with a 10-foot pole.
Why? (Hint: follow the money.)
Conclusion: Less Sucks
To add to point 4 in the previous section’s list, most degrowth advocates refuse to embrace nuclear energy, indicating that their goal is not carbon reduction but reducing energy production, which would adversely affect human lives. Nuclear technology could simply be given to developing countries if the goal was cooperation (as we can see Russia and China doing in Africa). However, the United States’ shift to that paradigm would require class struggle, which degrowth avoids.
In avoiding practical solutions for the problems it puts forward (nuclear growth) and ignoring class antagonisms, degrowth must be seen for what it ideologically is: beneficial for the imperial-capitalist ruling class, which must contend with an ever-falling rate of profit. As value crisis presents itself, the ruling class must force the underclass to reduce consumption. Degrowth is a set of ideological justifications certain sections of the ruling class are happily funding “anti-capitalist” activists, academics, and non-profits to push.
Marxism is being co-opted from many different angles (I’m producing a documentary about it). Its social context in a consumer lifestyle market (today’s society) makes it a necessary target for injecting justifications for the status-quo (or changes the ruling class must make to maintain class rule) that do not look the part. “Metabolic Rift” is one such means of co-option.
It should be obvious that we must ask ourselves, “why would the ruling class fund the promotion of ideologies that are ostensibly against them?” But a slightly less obvious (but more necessary) question is: “how are people into Marx but not doing anything about class struggle?”
More should examine newer “Marxist” ideas for connection with ruling ideologies rather than look away.
This essay seems topical to you:
https://monthlyreview.org/2023/07/01/degrowth-whats-in-a-name-assessing-degrowths-political-implications/
(It examines the breadth of conflicting ideologies that tend to get labeled as “degrowth”, i.e. how “degrowth” is not any one thing.)
My understanding is that “degrowth” is not a coherent ideology, per se, so much as a cluster of vaguely related ideas.
So, while, yes, many people under this very large umbrella skew Malthusian (with or without the eugenics), other tendencies such as so-called “solarpunk” focus instead on technological solutions to environmental degradation.
And a significant portion of people you might label as “degrowth” focus on overconsumption as intentional waste serving the purpose of extracting profit. See, for instance, “fast fashion”, which produces overpriced garments with poor workmanship and durability, while using much the same resources (and labor exploitation) as more sustainably produced equivalents.
In the case of “fast fashion”, the “degrowth” comes not from limiting people’s ability to clothe and express themselves but rather from improving production quality (by reducing labor exploitation) and pushing back against the class-based imperative to constantly appear in new styles of clothing.
In other words, a “degrowth” approach to “fast fashion” would tend to push back against the *spectacle* of fashion, not against the garment industry’s provision for human needs.
Similarly, people who want to reduce industrial-scale food waste are not inherently Malthusian. They aren’t encouraging people to eat less; they’re targeting the profit motive that leads to food being discarded rather than eaten. Sure, these people tend not to be Marxists, but then again *most* people aren’t Marxists, so that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wildly neoliberal instead.
Yes, I know this column is mostly discussing a single author relying on a dubious translation, but I honestly don’t care about this sort of literary exegesis.
Oh, and as for Russian and Chinese investments in industry and infrastructure and industry… these investments generally come with the same sort of sovereign-debt burden as anything from the World Bank or the IMF, so I struggle to see how they are somehow serving any anti-Capitalist intent.