Marxian Ecology, Dialectics, and the Hierarchy of Needs
we now call the “emergence” of new material powers through changing organization forms, or what Joseph Needham called “integrative levels”, was crucial to later work by socialist scientists, and anticipated the development of science in general. His speculations on the origins of the universe, origins of life, the origins of the human species through labor, and the origins of the family were also enormously important for later theoretical developments. The chapter in The Return of Nature that focuses on the significance of the Marxist natural-scientific, evolutionary, and ecological tradition embodied in the work of thinkers such as J. B. S. Haldane, J. D. Bernal, Joseph Needham, Lancelot Hogben, and Hyman Levy in the 1930s and ’40s is entitled “The Return of Engels” since it was the rediscovery of Engels’s dialectics of nature that constituted the initial basis for many of the revolutionary discoveries of the period, influencing the modern environmental movement. The point is that the recovery of Engels’s ecological thought, like Marx’s, is not so much about countering popular assumptions, but rather building on and revitalizing a critical analysis that is indispensable for revolutionary theory and practice in our time. How can this recovery of Engels’s ecological thought change the way we understand the fate of dialectics of nature in the Soviet Union? The belief in a supposedly unbroken line of continuity between Engels and Stalinism still affects how many people in Central and Eastern Europe seem to think about this issue... The issue of Soviet dialectical materialism is complex. And while I could discuss that at some length, I think it is most useful in this context – since a long disquisition would not be in order – to focus on the ecological aspects, which will get at many of the salient issues. It should hardly surprise us that in the 1920s up to the mid-1930s the Soviet Union had the most advanced ecological science in the world, encouraged initially by none other than Lenin himself. Moreover, it was inspired in large part by Engels’s dialectics of nature, as well as Marx’s broad dialectical and historical materialism. Even those Soviet-era thinkers who were not Marxist were influenced by the dialectical conceptions emerging at the time. Geophysicist Vladimir Vernadsky developed the notion of the biosphere and biogeochemical cycles; geologist Aleksei Pavlov introduced the notion of the Anthropogene Period (also referred to as the Anthropocene); Bolshevik revolutionary leader and theorist Nikolai Bukharin applied Vernadsky’s concept of the biosphere to historical materialism and explored metabolism as constituting the basis of an equilibrium (although originally seen by him in rather mechanistic terms); biologist Alexander Oparin introduced the modern materialist theory of the origins of life (also developed at the same time by J. B. S. Haldane in England, who was influenced by Engels and Soviet thought); geneticist Nikolai Vavilov discovered the global sources of germplasm underlying the major crops and pioneered in genetics; zoologist Vladimir Stanchinskii was the first to develop a rigorous energetic analysis of ecological commu-
95
Interview with John Bellamy Foster
nities and trophic levels, was the editor of the USSR’s first formal ecology journal and the leading proponent of the Soviet zapovedniki, or ecological reserves; physicist Boris Hessen introduced the sociology of science and explored the significance of Engels’s focus on the relations between the transmutation of matter and the transformation of energy; Boris Zavadovsky developed a powerful critique of vitalism in science; Vladimir Nikolaevich Sukachev pioneered in ecological work on swamps that impressed Lenin in this respect. All of this was based on Marxian concepts of dialectical naturalism/ materialism. A number of these figures, namely, Bukharin, Vavilov, Zavadovsky, and Hessen, flew into London from Moscow in 1931 for the Second International Conference on the History of Science and Technology, where they had an enormous influence on socialist scientists in Britain such as Bernal, Needham, Hogben, Levy, and Haldane, leading to the tradition of red science in Britain that is explored in The Return of Nature. However, the impact of Stalinism (and Lysenkoism) was reflected in the fact that Bukharin, Vavilov, Zavadovsky, Hessen, and Stanchinskii were all eliminated in Stalin’s purges. Their tradition of analysis lived on primarily in the work of the British red scientists who were directly influenced by them and who became what I called at one point a “second foundation” within Marxian natural science. In the Stalin period dialectical materialism in the Soviet Union was reduced to a set of empty formulae and took various crude forms, including positivism. Nevertheless, there remained authentic dialectical thinkers in the natural sciences (and the arts) concerned with ecology who managed to survive, such as Sukachev, who introduced the notion of biogeocoenosis, constituting in many ways a more dialectical alternative to an ecosystem tied to the concept of the biosphere. Sukachev, at the head of Soviet science, was to declare war on Trofim Lysenko and eventually defeated the latter, which opened the way to the revival of Soviet ecological thought, the resurrection of the zapovedniki, and the rise of what I have called “late Soviet ecology” in the late 1970s and 1980s. It is at this time that the Soviet climatologists, notably those surrounding the extraordinary figure of Mikhail Budyko, played the leading role in introducing the notion of accelerated climate change, while also playing a major role in the development of nuclear winter analysis. Soviet scientists and philosophers got together to develop the notion of “ecological civilization”, which was later adopted in China. In all of this we can see the power of dialectical-materialist ways of thinking despite attempts to reduce it to a positivistic dogma, the very inverse of itself. None of this is to deny the ecological failures of the Soviet state. But just as we would not want to judge the value of all ecological and critical thought in the West by the failures of the capitalist system, which is now pointing us toward the complete destruction of the planet as a safe home for humanity and putting the survival of the species in question, we should not discount the contributions of all critical Soviet thinkers on the basis of the errors made in the Kremlin.
96
Marxian Ecology, Dialectics, and the Hierarchy of Needs
How can this complicated Soviet legacy inform our thinking today? The answer lies in your reference to “the complicated Soviet legacy”. The Soviet Union (also including Soviet-type societies in general) cannot be treated as simply a monolithic society nor was its history a simple, continuous one. Rather, there were sharp breaks. In writing my article on “Late Soviet Ecology and the Planetary Crisis” in Monthly Review in June 2015, I looked at the three periods of Soviet history from an ecological perspective, represented by the period up to the mid-1930s, the core Stalin period beginning with the major purges, and then late Soviet ecology beginning with the thaw in the 1960s. What interested me was that not only was the opening decade and a half in the Soviet Union, as is now well understood, a period of critical ecological advance, but also that this was not entirely destroyed in the Stalin period, and there was a new flowering of Soviet ecology near the end, arising principally out of the sciences. Moreover, the dialectical and materialist forms of thinking to the extent that these persisted led to very creative ecological insights along lines quite different from the West. In late Soviet ecology there was of course a greater emphasis on the possibilities of ecological planning as part of the overall planning process, which is very important compared to capitalism’s anarchic market approach. And there was a significant unearthing of some of Marx’s ecological ideas. The notion of the creation of an “ecological civilization” represented a kind of thinking that is hardly evident in the West even today. Budyko and the Soviet climatologists around him were in the 1950s and early 1960s the largest group of climate scientists and the most advanced in the world, though this shifted towards the United States by the mid-1960s. The emphasis on the biosphere and on concepts such as biogeocoenosis and biogeochemical cycles gave Soviet ecologists a more integrated Earth System view. It is remarkable even today to read Budyko’s Global Ecology from the 1970s and compare it to what existed then in the West. There was something of a socialist ecological humanism that emerged in nascent form at this time. Of course, there were contradictions because dogmatism still persisted in core areas along with the belief in Promethean megaprojects, such as diverting rivers. But many of the ecological figures in science and philosophy broke decisively with that. The massive Soviet conservation movement was a scientist-led dissident movement that was gaining ground throughout the 1970s and ’80s and resulted in the largest conservation organization in the world. All of this went away, however, with the dissolution of the USSR itself. Since we are rapidly moving under capitalism toward the destruction of the planet as a home for humanity, threatening the demise of civilization and even the possible extinction of the human species, I think it is important to draw some lessons from the ecological scientists in the Soviet Union who tried to envision another way, breaking somewhat with the dominant tendencies of their own society, but also not succumbing to Western capitalism. It is interesting that Chinese Marxists have to some extent drawn on the ideas from this period, such as the notion of ecological civilization.
97
Ukázka elektronické knihy