Marx's ecology in historical perspective
JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER
'For the early Marx the only nature relevant to the understanding of history is human nature . .. Marx wisely left nature (other than human nature) alone.' These words are from George Lichtheim's influential book Marxism: An Historical and Critical Study, first published in 1961. 1
Though he was not a Marxist, Lichtheim's view here did not differ from the general outlook of Western Marxism at the time he was writing. Yet this same outlook would be regarded by most socialists today as laughable. After decades of explorations of Marx's contributions to eco logical discussions and publication of his scientific-technical notebooks, it is no longer a question of whether Marx addressed nature, and did so throughout his life, but whether he can be said to have developed an understanding of the nature-society dialectic that constitutes a crucial starting point for understanding the ecological crisis of capitalist society.2 A great many analysts, including some self styled eco-socialists, are prepared to acknowledge that Marx had profound insights into the envi ronmental problem, but nonetheless argue that these insights were marginal to his work, that he never freed himself from 'Prometheanism' (a term usually meant to refer to an extreme commitment to industriali sation at any cost), and that he did not leave a significant ecological legacy that carried forward into later socialist thought or that had any relation to the subsequent development of ecology.3 In a recent discus sion in the journal Capitalism, Nature, Socialism a number of authors argued that Marx could not have contributed anything of fundamental