The Case for Degrowth Communism - Kohei Saito's Marx in the Anthropocene

Saito doesn’t mince words in his meticulous study, Marx in the Anthropocene: Towards the Idea of Degrowth Communism, when he first writes, “[t]he world is on fire”(1). But anyone with any sense will agree with that sentiment when it comes to the ecological crises we’re facing. For many, the hows and whys of being in these ecological crises remain for other debates. Yet Saito convincingly takes the reader on a journey to explain both things through Marxian analysis.

Capitalism, of course, is the culprit (for anyone in the know, it’s always the culprit). As Saito explains, “the capitalist system does not offer an alternative to the juggernaut of overproduction and overconsumption”(1). As a result, as just mentioned, we are facing a multitude of ecological crises with the “uncontrollability of nature.” We thus face “the urgent task of rethinking the relationship between humanity and nature”(3). In so doing, Saito introduces what he argues is “Marx’s dualist methodology based on his theory of metabolism”(3).

By outlining this theory, Saito argues that it offers immediate answers to the pressing ecological problems we’re facing now, while also providing us with a new vision of degrowth communism. (Traditional Marxism — falsely premised on historical materialism and a Promethean vision of Marxian models — has long been at odds with the environmental movement, and Saito’s work successfully shows how that is a false divide between the two groups, arguing that former understandings of Marx’s overall ouevre, particularly the overlooking of work after the 1860s, do not account for his deep concern for both ecology and nature.)

The first part of the book delves into the theoretical and methodological concept around the metabolic rift to show the foundation of Marxian political ecology, while the second half of the book is a response to monist and Promethean views in the Anthropocene via a view of Marx’s methodological dualism (5). (Metabolic rift, according to Saito, has been underestimated and misunderstood by those who view Marx via a historical materialist and Promethean lens.)

Furthermore, Saito, though he does not explicitly state it in this way, explores how ageism and ableism influenced how titans in the disciplines of history and philosophy undermined the totality of Marx’s thought, ignoring how it profoundly changed after the 1860s up until he died in 1883. During those years, Marx became deeply interested in the natural sciences, studying such disciplines as chemistry, geology, mineralogy, physiology, and botany. This turn toward the sciences was not a turning away from his magnum opus, Capital, as some argue, but instead was Marx’s way of fleshing out ideas relating to ecology and nature further. Of course, Engels also institutionalized Marx’s work into Marxism, something Saito describes at length in his study, but he does so in a way that is largely positive. However, and naturally, the two men thought differently, so Engels reshaped much of Marx’s work in a way that reflected his thinking and not Marx’s.

Marx’s Notion of Metabolism

Metabolism as a concept in Marx’s Capital has long been overlooked. But thanks to Saito and other recent Marxist scholars, there has been a (re)turn to this concept. Metabolism [Stoffwechsel], or metabolic rift, has three dimensions to it, which I’ll describe succinctly below. But first, metabolism was defined in relation to labor. As Saito quotes Capital, “‘Labour is, first of all, a process between man and nature, a process by which man, through his actions, mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism between himself and nature’ (Capital I: 283)”(19). Human beings cannot escape nature, i.e., as Saito explains, “Humans can never escape from being a part of the ‘universal metabolism of nature’ (19).” Furthermore, “[i]f humans ignore the natural substratum, such a violation of natural law causes multiple ecological contradictions such as pollution, resource scarcity and exhaustion”(20). Under capitalism, capital accumulation destroys not just ecology but human existence. As it stands now, we are at the height of these “ecological contradictions,” facing perilous pollution, destruction of our natural resources, and exhausting the planet, all of which demand a new, radical way of thinking about how we commune with the natural world.

As stated, there are three dimensions to metabolic rift. First, metabolic rift is the material disruption under capitalism. As an example, Marx likes to use “the exhaustion of the soil by modern agriculture (24),” and points out the contradiction in “metabolism between humans and nature” in this case (25). The second form of metabolic rift is spatial, which pertains to the division and “relationship” between town and country.

Saito explains:

[The spatial rift] is founded upon a violent process of so-called primitive accumulation accompanied by depeasantization and massive urban growth of the working-class population concentrated in large cities. This not only necessitates the long-distance transport of products but also significantly increases the demand for agricultural products under large-scale agriculture, which is intensified even more through market competition. In other words, robbery agriculture does not exist without the social division of labour uniqute to capitalist production, which is based upon the concentration of the working class in large cities and the corresponding necessity for the constant transport of their food from the countryside (26).

In addition, these spatial rifts lead to environmental degradation in cities due to the inadequate sewage systems that contributed to pandemic outbreaks, such as cholera during Marx’s time. Peasants also suffered due to soil exhaustion (26). These two things led to a rift in metabolism between humans and nature.

The third, and final, dimension of metabolic rift is the temporal rift, i.e., capitalism’s time and nature’s time are out of sync.

Saito writes:

Capital constantly attemps to shorten its turnover time and maximise valorization in a given time - the shortening of turnover time is an effective way of increasing the quantity of profit in the face of the decreasing rate of profit . . . Furthermore, capital constantly revolutionizes the production process, augmenting productive forces with an unprecedented speed compared with precapitalist societies. Productive forces can double or triple with the introduction of new machines, but nature cannot change its formation process of phosphor or fossil fuel, so ‘it was likely that productivity of the production of raw materials would tend not to increase as rapidaly as productivity in general’ . . . This tendency can never be fully supspended because natural cycles exist indepdently of capital’s demands. Capital cannot product without nature, but it also wishes that nature would vanish (27-28).

These three metabolic rifts — the material disruption rift, the spatial rift, and the temporal rift — are interconnected and reinforce one another. Marx was deeply concerned about these metabolic rifts and wanted to incorporate them into his project during his later years, hence the reason for his turn to the natural sciences to understand “the historical dynamics of capital accumulation and its ecological consequences”(28).

The Debate Between Monism and Dualism

It must also be noted that Saito delves into an in-depth analysis of whether or not Marx’s overall views fell under monism or dualism. This analysis matters in how it relates to metabolism and its relationship to society (humans) and nature. As noted, metabolism is critical in grasping the ecological crises we’re currently facing in the Anthropocene. Yet another issue, however, arises on whether or not Marx’s work falls within a dualist (Cartesian form) of thinking or a monist form of thinking. Capitalism itself relies upon hierarchies of duality; thus, awareness and a “critique of the Anthropocene demands that we reflect upon the prejudices arising from modern binarism”(107). This form of thinking is also productivist, i.e., the belief in dominating nature and the marginalizing of reproductive work (107). Given these facts, Saito concludes that a leaning in Marxism today toward monism comes as no surprise. That said, monism does not equate superiority over dualism. On the contrary, Marx’s thinking on metabolism and its relationship to humans and nature gets lost when trying to frame it in a monist manner. Furthermore, monism has led some to argue that nature, before any humans, was perfect. But this account fails to acknowledge how precapitalist societies existed within nature prior to capitalism. They also treat nature as if it were not independent of humans, yet it is.

Saito explains:

Marx clearly recognized the objective and independent existence of nature, highlighting this point with the expression of ‘substratum’ in Capital: ‘This substratum is furnished by nature without human intervention. When man engages in production, he can only proceed as nature does herself: i.e he can only change the form of the materials’ (Capital I: 133). Marx’s theory of metabolism negates the idea that natures is built by labour. Labour only changes’ its forms (109).

As Marx saw it, there was never a complete separation between society and nature. What we produce is deeply connected to parts of nature. The notable critics of a dualist reading of Marx are monists who see this view as problematically “anthropocentric” and “Eurocentric.” Jason W. Moore is one of the better-known critics whom Saito cites at length. (Moore denounces, among other things, the metabolic rift for being a Cartesian divide between Nature and Society.) Weaving together a meticulous argument against Moore, Saito demonstrates myriad weaknesses in his monist arguments, notably his suggestion that metabolic rift is a mere metaphor. But perhaps the biggest hole is Moore’s denunciation of Marx’s anthropocentric approach to the ecological crisis. As Saito notes, we must recognize the non-identity of nature, adding, “[w]ithout anthropocentrism, it would actually be impossible to speak of the ecological crisis because it exists mainly for humans” (129). Indeed, nature will still be here, even if we are not. The problem right now is saving our very species.

Saving Ourselves — Moving Towards Degrowth Communism

In Saito’s final chapters — “Marx as a Degrowth Communist” and “The Abundance of Wealth in Degrowth Communism” — we see Saito’s arguments truly shine and come to life via Marx’s assertions on “ecosocialism,” communal living, and degrowth communism.

While there are so-called leftists who denounce Saito’s work as promoting austerity, one can easily see that these arguments are fear-based and predicated on the desire for an automated form of luxury communism (I’m thinking of the negative fixation that some writers at the Jacobin have with Saito’s study.) Saito is doing no such thing. By delving into his ideas on degrowth communism and the notion of an abundance of wealth in that setting, it is clear that he is not calling for austerity. One must also note that those who argue in favor of an “automated form of luxury communism” also fail to realize that Marx himself already understood by the 1860s that historical materialism and a Promethean vision of capitalist development transcending into communism was problematic and simply not possible. Again, he came to this realization based upon his development and understanding of the metabolic relationship between nature and human beings, which is severely deformed under capitalism (172).

Again, Saito is resituating Marx’s thought to overcome the division between, as he puts it, “Red and Green,” to “re-examine whether a path exists to reconcile the long antagonism between [them] and to build a new Front Populaire in defence of the planet in the Anthropocene”(172). It must be reiterated that ignoring, undermining, and reshaping his later work in the 1860s and beyond had a major effect on the antagonism towards Marx’s insights on environmentalists for decades.

Marx, again, was deeply concerned about ecology and nature. These concerns led him to study, as noted already, to study the natural sciences later in life. In addition, he began to study pre-capitalist and non-Western societies. At this time, notably in 1868, Marx became interested in communal landed property. Saito cites his letter and several drafts to Russian Revolutionary Vera Zasulich (1849 - 1919) as evidence. Saito argues that this letter, which Marx redrafted several times, illustrates how he “ultimately became a degrowth communist”(173).

Marx also began to move away from “productivism” and “Eurocentrism.” Productivism implies a Hegelian teleological notion of time, i.e., linear progress towards an end goal. In addition, productivism favors Western capitalist countries, asserting that they have reached a higher stage of history than non-Western countries. Saito adds, “It follows that other non-capitalist countries must follow the same European path of capitalist industrialization in order to establish socialism”(177). No one should make these arguments today. At one point, however, Marx and Engels made such assertions in The Communist Manifesto, and they also praised new, emerging technologies. But that changed later in life, at least for Marx. As he researched the natural sciences further, he came to be concerned with animal welfare, soil exhaustion, sewage problems, and pandemic disease. This shift in his views on productivism had implications for his Eurocentrism. Saito writes, “When Marx jettisoned productivism as the essential component of his view of human history, he was also compelled to reconsider his biased Eurocentrism, which is the other side of the same coin”(182). Even more importantly, the abandonment of these two concepts ultimately led Marx to reject historical materialism, which must have been philosophically difficult, given the years of commitment he had made to this notion.

The later Marx, however, had shed himself of both productivism and Eurocentrism. For instance, he sided with the enslaved people in the Americas. He denounced the cruelty of the British in India. As Saito notes, “Marx always stood on the side of the oppressed and more clearly denounced the brutality of imperialism and slavery under capitalism”(183).

These brutalities don’t just effect people, but also the ecological makeup of the planet. That is precisely why Marx began to study non-Western and pre-capitalist societies. Furtermore, in volume III of Capital, Marx asserts that the “earth is a common property, and this irrational treatment of the earth [under capitalism] is unnacceptable” (205).

But how do we solve these crises then, according to Marx? As Saito explains:

[T]he crisis of capitalism ‘will end through its own elimination, through the return of modern socieities to a higher form of an “archaic” type of collective ownership and production’ (Shanin 1983: 107; emphasis added by Saito). Here again, ‘what is newest is what is the oldest’. Marx did not argue that communism would be established after pushing capitalist development as far as possible. Suprisingly, he now claimed that Western Europe need to ‘return’ to pre-capitalist society. . . . The real question becomes what exactly Western Europe needs to integrate from non-Western societies so that they can ‘return’ to a higher form of an archaic type.

We are finally approaching the theoretical core of the late Marx. As seen earlier, Marx speculated about the interrelation of ‘sustainability’ and ‘social equality’ in the 1870s, he took Zasulich’s question as an opportunity to formulate a new form of rational regulation of human metabolism with nature in Western Europe and the United States. In doing so, he amended his presupposition about the superiority of Western societies for ecological reasons. Now he insisted that Western societies revive the superior elements archaic communes in the process of establishing communism. In other words, what is important is not the pluralization of the historical course and the provincialization of Europe but that Marx significantly modified his vision of communism as such (205 - 206).

This type of communal living* would be democratic. Economic growth would be cyclical and steady. Not surprisingly, a steady-state economy is diametrically opposed to the capitalist model of endless accumulation and economic growth (207). (Marx looked toward the Russian commune as one model for these ideas.) Furthermore, sustainability and equality are key points to this type of living; they are critical to degrowth communism.

Many may balk at the term degrowth communism. As mentioned above, to some it denotes austerity. But Saito introduces us to Marx’s notion of an abundance of wealth in degrowth communism and explores the paradoxical poverty found in the wealth of capitalism.

First, there is a lack of “common wealth” (genossenschaftlicher Reichtum) under capitalism. When there was first primitive accumulation, it was brutally violent, too. And it “‘divorc[ed] the producer from the means of production’” (218). It is here when peasants were then forced to sell their labor to survive, alienating them from the products they created to further the accumulation of capital (wealth for others). Their living conditions worsened as they moved from the land into cramped living quarters in ever-expanding towns and cities. This transformation not only effected the worker (proletariat) but also their relationship to nature and nature itself. The proletariat is further alienated from nature under these conditions. (Marx again related it back to his theory of metabolism.) Marx thus argued for the “re-establishing of the ‘original unity’ in the future society” (220), one where individuals are not alienated from nature under capitalism. In order for this to be recaptured in communism, this ‘original unity,’ capitalism needs to be destroyed. Saito continues, ‘To put it bluntly, it is the ‘wealth’ of societies and nature that is severely impoverished under capitalism. It may sound paradoxical to claim that capitalism destroys wealth despite the magnificent increase in forces it generates. Indeed, our society is filled with an excess of commodities. However, this poverty in plenty constitutes the ‘paradox of wealth’” (220).

Marx’s definition of wealth (Reichtum) needs further elucidation. Reichtum must be understood as richness beyond capitalistic terms. Saito explains:

Marx considered the richness of culture, skills, free time and knowledge as the wealth of societies. In other words, the wealth or richness of societies cannot be measured by an ever-greater quantity of commodities produced and their monetary expressions, but rather by the full and constant development and realization of the potentialities of human beings. The full and all-around development of human capacities and creative potentialities is, however, heavily constrained under capitalism because they are always measured on a ‘predetermined yardstick,’ namely, how much use they can be for profit-making. Capitalist production sacrifices social wealth under ‘total alienation’ and the ‘complete emptying-out’ of human activities by imposing ‘an entirely external end’ upon producers solely for the sake of valorization. Marx problematized this tendency of capital as the impoverishment of social wealth under the accumulation of an ‘immense collection of commodities.’ Against this tendency, he maintained that the full realization of human creative potentialities requires stripping away the ‘bourgeois form’ of wealth as commodity (222).

Since Reichtum has a far more nuanced meaning in German, there is also natural wealth (natürlicher Reichtum) for Marx. When respected — the land, water, forests — these forms of nature allow us to thrive. When commodified, however, they are exploited, just like labor.

Conclusion

Saito establishes clear connections with Marx’s later thought, degrowth communism, ecology, and his anti-capitalist project. Demonstrating that Marx is neither a Promethean thinker nor historical materialist, Saito situates him within an ecosocialist context with his previous studies and works that have been given little attention.** Saito also included Marx’s notebooks. It is also unfortunate that many titans, as mentioned above, in various fields of the humanities fell victim to ableism and ageism, discounting Marx’s later thought and work after the 1860s, thus failing to acknowledge the tremendous changes to how he perceived historical materialism, pre-capitalist and non-Western societies, as well as his views on metabolic rifts, the forms of which Saito elaborates on extensively. Combining Marx’s research on pre-capitalist and non-Western societies with the natural sciences, Saito makes clear that Marx’s work on Capital was leaning towards a form of “ecosocialism” as an end goal in relation to degrowth communism. It’s now up to use to decide whether or not we’ll take those lessons Marx and Saito shared with us to heart and apply them to the future.

Notes:

*For those interested, I’ve also written recently about Kristin Ross’s The Commune Form: The Transformation of Everyday Life, a book which offers concrete examples of the commune form in the here and now.

**These works are from the MEGA II/10 - Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (Marx-Engels-Complete Edition), section II, volume 10 (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, Akademie Verlag, De Gruyter, 1975—).