Karl Marx wrote significantly about many topics, prominent among which is his critique

of capital and capitalism. His writings, including Das Kapital and others, maintain their
significance beyond their primary focus, touching upon other topics of importance through the
breadth and depth of the inquiries. Among the tangential issues Marx touches upon is that of
nature. Growing recognition of the ecological problems humanity faces in the coming years
provides inspiration for a more focused study of Marx and his views of nature and the
relationship that capitalist society has to it. Unfortunately, such catch all phrases like the
environment, nature, and ecology are justified by the scale of the problems society presently
faces. While a thorough discussion of all the problems would consume too much time, hopefully
a select list of topics will inspire urgency of thought and immediacy of action.
One of the oldest ecological problems is that of deforestation. Mentions of deforestation
are made as far back as The Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the oldest stories in recorded history.
Gilgamesh and Enkidu slay the guardian of the cedar forest, Humbaba, and proceed to cut down
the cedar trees. Later in the epic it is noted, They uncovered the sacred dwellings of the
Anunnaki and while Gilgamesh felled the first of the trees of the forest Enkidu cleared their roots
as far as the banks of Euphrates.1 The effects of deforestation were known millennia ago: Trees
absorb water, preventing flooding downstream from being too unpredictable and violent. Trees
also play a part in the water cycle, thus leveling forests often leads to less rainfall and the threat
of more fires. Further problems include soil erosion, which makes agriculture less productive.
The lack of rain and soil erosion might also lead to desertification, wherein the surrounding area
becomes a desert from the lack of precipitation. Other problems include disrupting the carbon
cycle, which absorbs carbon that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere and attach

1 The Epic of Gilgamesh. aina.org, p. 11

itself to oxygen, becoming the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.2 Even the study of one
environmental problem displays adequately how the environment is in fact a system of
interactions. One interaction deforestation has is to global climate change.
Global climate change resides at the heart of modern ecological problems, and society is
gradually increasing awareness of that. Likewise, society recognizes the role that humans play in
climate change. Falkowski notes this in Science, saying, Atmospheric CO2 concentration is now
nearly 100 ppmv higher, and has risen to that level at a rate at least 10 and possibly 100 times
faster than at any other time in the past 420,000 years.3 That the remarkable figures noted
coincide with the post-Industrial Revolution era is not a mistake. Energy-rich fuels, such as oil,
coal, and natural gas, are consumed for energy production releasing previously stored
greenhouse gases into the environment. Thus, as Naomi Oreskes states, the consensus of
scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities.4 Whereas the
cause of global climate change has been identified, the consequences are more difficult to predict
due to the global nature of the problem.
Notwithstanding the difficulties of prediction, some outcomes appear probable. The
climate.nasa.gov website lists several consequences of climate change. Among them include
more common droughts, less precipitation in subtropical land regions, decreased freshwater
availability in semi-arid regions, increased tropical cyclonic activity, rising sea levels, and less
snow and ice.5 These effects are severe in their own right, but they must also be taken into
account in human terms. More common and severe droughts make agriculture less productive,
and a decline in freshwater availability in conjunction with reduced precipitation exacerbates the
2 Riebeek, H. (June 3, 2010). Global Warming. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/
3 Falkowski, et. al. (2000). The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System. Science, p.
291.
4 Oreskes, N., (2004). Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science, p. 306.
5 The Current and Future Effect of Global Change. http://climate.nasa.gov/effects

problem. Regardless of any productivity, a lack of freshwater is currently a large problem in the
American southwest, in California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona.6 Situated near or in a
desert, all the aforementioned states face problems of scarcity in regards to freshwater
availability. And for many cities situated near or on rivers and coastlines, an increase in sea level
threatens the city itself, as well as all the productivity, infrastructure, institutions, and people in
it. Such events are not a problem for the planet so much as they are for humanity.
Perhaps the greatest problem with environmentalism is the popular misconception that
the primary reason for any attempt to save the planet is due to the intrinsic worth of the
environment. There exists the notion that humanity is somehow separate from nature; completely
independent as such. Humans are likewise classified as being different than animals, despite
Homo sapiens being a species of the animal kingdom. Nature furnishes humanity with the means
of existence and our continued survival. Tools that society builds use resources from nature,
including iron, wood, copper, bronze, tin, and aluminum. Humanity uses natural resources for
energy, using oil, natural gas, and coal. Further nature provides the food that humanity eats and
drinks, such as crops, fruit, vegetables, dairy, seafood, meat, and water. Humanity is not separate
and distinct from nature, but instead completely dependent upon and an intricate part of nature.
The question that must then be asked is why does such an opinion prevail given the evidence
against it?
John Bellamy Foster published an article called Capitalism in Wonderland which
attempts to expound upon this and other related questions. In his article, Foster posits that
people, including economists and policymakers, are veiled by a mist capitalism casts over them.
He says, Mainstream economists are trained in the promotion of private profits as the singular
6 Rice, D. (July 9, 2013). Water Worries: Climate Change in the Desert Southwest.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/07/09/southwest-climate-change-drought/2439191/

bottom line of society, even at the expense of larger issues of human welfare and the
environment. The market rules over all, even nature.7 The market ruling over everything,
including nature, is an example of one inversion Marx decries. The market - a product of human
activity - becomes the singular end goal, instead of the means towards a further end goal, such as
human welfare. The inversion of the market poses further problems as Peter Hudis notes, saying,
The market controls the fate of the producer by setting prices in a way that has little or nothing
to do with their actual value or the subjective activity by which the products are created.8 That
the market does not accurately portray the value of the product is a problem not just for the
producers, but also for nature. John Bellamy Foster quotes Milton Friedman as saying,
Ecological values can find their natural space in the market, like any other consumer demand.9
There are several problems with this approach to the environment. First, the market does
not accurately portray the value of items represented within. Environmental considerations
therefore will more likely than not be undervalued, to disastrous consequences. The second
problem is that the market is based on values and its manifestation, exchange-value, rather than
use-worth or utility. Humanity expends little to no effort or labor on the creation nor the
continued existence of nature, and as labor is the source of all value, nature can be seen as being
comprised of little to no value. Thus John Bellamy Foster says, Ancient forests are seen as nonperforming assets to be liquidated...10 In the eyes of the market, nature has no intrinsic value,
nor are any of the services it provides valuable because no labor was expended. The third
problem of the market-based approach to environmentalism is the inverted relation nature has to
society. Humanity, instead of being viewed as dependent upon nature for the tools and material
7 Foster, J. (May 2009). Capitalism in Wonderland. Monthly Review.
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/capitalism-in-wonderland
8 Hudis, P. (2013). Marxs Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism. Haymarket Books, p. 92.
9 Foster, J. (May 2009). Capitalism in Wonderland.
10 Ibid.

for its continued survival, is viewed as being completely independent and separate from nature.
This view completely discounts the dependence on nature for the water, air, land, and food
humanity uses to survive. Indeed, the commodification of nature can be seen when economics
uses terms such as natural capital.
The fourth problem in regards to a market-based approach is the inversion of the market
itself. Rather than serving other goals, the market becomes a goal unto itself. Economists see the
survival and growth of the market as the end, rather than the means towards a greater end. Thus,
environmentalism concerns economists inasmuch as it affects economic growth. Foster recalls
how Danish economist Bjrn Lomborg views the environment in economic terms, saying,
Lombard argued, for example, that attempting to prevent climate change would cost more and
cause more harm than letting it happen.11 Similarly, Foster mentions William Nordhaus and his
projection, saying, ...the loss to gross world output in 2100 due to continuation of global
warming trends would be insignificant (about 1 percent of GDP in 2100).12 The negligible effect
of global climate change on the economy allows economists and policymakers to invest little in
the welfare of the environment, in spite of the environmental effects which loom as a specter
over the lives of all humanity. Stephen Schneider, a biologist at Stanford, summarizes: Most
conventional economists... thought even this gargantuan climate change [a rise in average global
temperature of 6 C] - equivalent to the scale of change from an ice age to an interglacial epoch
in a hundred years, rather than thousands of years - would have only a few percent impact on the
world economy. In essence, they accept the paradigm that society is almost independent of
nature.13

11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 Schneider, S. (1997). Laboratory Earth. New York: Basic Books, pp. 129-135.

Another economic consideration is that of the discount rate. Nordhaus says, A zero
discount rate means that all generations into the indefinite future are treated the same; a positive
discount rate means that the welfare of future generations is reduced or discounted compared
with nearer generations.14 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration details several
reasons why the discount rate is applied to economics today. The first reason is inflation; a dollar
today is worth more than a dollar in the future due to inflation. Thus, a smaller investment today
will be just as valuable as a much larger investment several years from now. Second, there is the
opportunity cost. Any money invested in environmental protection has an opportunity cost from
not being invested elsewhere, increasing its value. Third is the uncertainty regarding future
income. Last, they posit that humans are, generally impatient and prefer instant gratification to
waiting for long-term benefits.15
While there are obvious economic considerations for selecting a discount rate, there are
other considerations to ponder. Such a consideration is the ethical and moral conclusions
regarding the discount rate. The discount rate sacrifices future generations for the present. While
there is a limit regarding the lifespan of planet Earth - due to the Sun eventually becoming a red
giant and consuming the Earth16 - questions need be raised regarding the responsibility of the
present generation to preserve Earth for future generations. Precisely how much does society
owe future generations? Foster exhibits two different ethical theories from economists William
Nordhaus and Nicholas Stern: Nordhaus discounts the future at roughly 6 percent a year; Stern
by 1.4 percent. This means that for Stern having a trillion dollars a century from now is worth
$247 billion today, while for Nordhaus it is only worth $2.5 billion.17
14 Foster, J. (May 2009). Capitalism in Wonderland.
15 http://www.csc.noaa.gov/archived/coastal/economics/discounting.htm
16 Schrder, K.P., Connon Smith, R. (May 2008). Distant Future of the Sun and Earth Revisited. Monthly Notices
of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 386, Issue 1, p. 162.
17 Foster, J. (May 2009). Capitalism in Wonderland.

Further complicating matters is the consideration of future in regards to economic power.

Part of the rationale for a larger discount rate is that future generations will be more financially
able to tackle problems than modern society is able to with its respective economic capabilities.
This, however, presupposes sustained economic growth for a not insignificant number of years,
something which is not guaranteed by any stretch. Indeed, it is partly by increasing input of
natural resources that the economy will continue to grow. This exacerbates the ecological
problems humanity faces. Perhaps more disturbingly, the eventual conclusion to this line of
thought is that because all future societies will be more economically able to overcome
problems, the onus will be left to them, and all future societies will end up neglecting the
problem entirely. Displayed in the discount rate is part of the relationship of capital and nature.
Capital finds a way to return little of what it takes back to nature in investments to protect and
restore nature. In examining the other side of the relationship it can be discovered precisely what
capital takes away from nature, and thus from humanity.
To this end, Peter Hudis recalls some of the thoughts Marx had, saying, The peculiar
feature of capitalism, Marx held, is that all social relations become governed by the drive to
augment value, irrespective of humanitys actual needs and capacities.18 This is to be kept in
mind when Marx says, The human significance of nature is only available to social man; for
only to social man is nature available as a bond with other men, as the basis of his own existence
for others and theirs for him, and as the vital element in human reality; only to social man is
nature the foundation of his own human existence.19 As Hudis mentions, Marx believes that all
social relations are corrupted by capitalism in its drive to augment capital. This drive to augment
itself allows capital to further conceal the true essence of nature and maintain the status quo as
18 Hudis, P. (2013). Marxs Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism. p. 7.
19 Marx, K. (2000). Karl Marx Selected Writings. Oxford University Press Inc., New York, p. 98.

social interactions are not directly social but instead mediated by commodities. This concealment
- the lack of recognition of the role nature plays - allows society to commodify nature. Marx also
mentions how nature acts as the foundation of the human existence to social men. Thus he
clearly recognizes the essential role that nature plays in the continued existence of humanity, and
in doing so displays a deficiency of capital in regards to how it augments society and their role to
fellow humans and nature.
Turning now to how capital changes nature itself, the dual nature of labor in capitalism
must be examined. Hudis does this in saying, Its dual character lies in the opposition between
concrete labor and abstract labor. Concrete labor is the array of differentiated forms of exertion
that create useful products; abstract labor is undifferentiated human labor, labor in general.20
Human labor in a capitalist society has a concrete and abstract form; the concrete form generates
use-worth or utility whereas the abstract form generates value. Hudis takes care not to call the
concrete form labor, lest it conflate the issue by virtue of the saying that labor is the source of
all value and imply that concrete exertion generates value. This delineation is important as value
holds a particular meaning in Marxist thought. Value - that which capital seeks to augment - is
abstract. Whereas some object will have a particular amount of utility or use-worth inherent in it
or produced by concrete labor, Marx says of value and exchange value that, So far no chemist
has ever discovered exchange-value either in a pearl or a diamond.21
The abstract nature of value and exchange-value means capital need not conform to the
laws of the natural world. Material wealth is limited by virtue of the finite nature of the
environment. There is only so much material on Earth that can be turned into material wealth.
Hudis provides some context and a selection from Aristotle, saying, Aristotle explicitly
20 Hudis, P. (2013). Marxs Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism. p. 14.
21 Marx, K. (2000). Karl Marx Selected Writings. p. 480.

distinguishes between the natural form of wealth and its social form, the latter which he
derides as unnatural, in Book I of the Politics: Natural wealth acquisition is a part of household
management, whereas commerce has to do with the production of goods, not in the full sense,
but through their exchange... The wealth that derives from this kind of [unnatural] wealth
acquisition is without limit.22 As an abstraction, capital is allowed to exert its own logic above
and beyond any natural laws and limits imposed by such. In contemporary economies which
utilize inputs to continue growth, capital encourages the pillaging of nature to achieve continued
growth.
Gross domestic product is one of the more important metrics of economic growth used
today, thus many consequences are seen by their effect on the GDP and rationalized or discarded
on that merit alone. Foster explains:

Namely, human life in effect is worth only what each person contributes to the economy as measured in
monetary terms. So, if global warming increases mortality in Bangladesh, which it appears likely that it will, this is
only reflected in economic models to the extent that the deaths of Bengalis hurt the economy. Since Bangladesh is
very poor, economic models of the type Nordhaus and Stern use would not estimate it to be worthwhile to prevent
deaths there since these losses would show up as miniscule in the measurements. Nordhaus, according to his
discount analysis, would go a step beyond Stern and place an even slighter value on the lives of people if they are
lost several decades in the future. This economic ideology, of course, extends beyond just human like, such that all
of the millions of species on earth are valued only to the extent they contribute to GDP. Thus, ethical concerns about
the intrinsic value of human life and of the lives of other creatures are completely invisible in standard economic
models.23

22 Hudis, P. (2013). Marxs Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism. p. 150.

23 Foster, J. (May 2009). Capitalism in Wonderland.

Capital displays how it successfully commoditized not only nature, but also the lives of
human beings. Some lives, as they provide little to the GDP, are seen as non-performing assets
as are the aforementioned ancient forests and are seen fit to be used in whatever manner best
suits capital. While this situation could be mistakenly interpreted as apathy, there are other
situations in capitalism which are less prone to erroneous interpretation. Foster notes how former
chief economist of the World Bank Lawrence Summers, wrote an internal World Bank memo in
which he stated; the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage
country is impeccable and we should face up to that. He justified this by arguing: The
measurement of the costs of health-impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from
increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health-impairing
pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country of the
lowest wages.24
Capital also encourages capitalists in other ways which ultimately prove harmful. Marx
sees overproduction as one inevitable result of capitalism. Productivity and efficiency increase,
meaning each commodity requires less socially-necessary labor-time for its production. As a
result, less value is imbued in each commodity. Hudis explains the cycle capitalism finds itself
in:

They respond by trying to further boost productivity, since the greater the quantity of goods produced, the
better the opportunity to realize the value of his initial investment. The best way to increase productivity is to invest
in labor-saving devices. The resulting growth in productivity, however, reproduces the same problem, since the
increase in material wealth leads to a further decrease in the relative value of each commodity. Thus, capitalism is

24 Ibid.

based on a kind of treadmill-effect in which it is constantly driven towards technological innovation regardless of
the human or environmental cost.25

The resulting production of commodities is disturbing, but perhaps in no sector is it more

disturbing than the agricultural livestock sector. Increasing technologies and economies of scale
encourage the ever-increasing size of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Ryan
Gunderson notes how incredibly dense the CAFOs are, describing how, livestock production on
the whole in late capitalism is a rapid, mechanized process in which animals are confined to
quarters often unable to turn around, let alone roam.26 Gunderson further states that, The
cramped conditions created by CAFOs are breeding grounds for disease. Antibiotics and
hormones are used excessively to keep livestock healthy in unclean conditions and misused to
promote rapid tissue growth. Excessive antibiotic and hormone use create additional public
health problems.27 Stemming from this are the ethical and moral considerations regarding the
well-being of the animals. Other ethical concerns include whether it is proper for humans to raise
animals in such a fashion to be eventually used as food. Raising animals is intensive, as
Gunderson informs when he reiterates the use of hormones to stimulate growth. Even bracketing
the use of hormones out, there is required a lot of input via traditional methods for growth, which
is where another problem arises.
Gunderson addresses this other problem when talking about a metabolic rift. Gunderson
notes how, Marx became increasingly concerned with the decline in soil fertility because of
capitalist farming methods associated with the 19th centurys second agricultural revolution.28
25 Hudis, P. (2013). Marxs Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism. pp. 18-19.
26 Gunderson, R. (October 19, 2011). The Metabolic Rifts of Livestock Agribusiness. Organization &
Environment, p. 405.
27 Ibid. pp. 408-409.
28 Ibid. p. 409.

Part of the perils of overproduction are realized in agriculture; technology advances, and thus
less labor is required per unit, and the value accordingly falls. To make up for it, more units are
produced, leading to larger-scale agricultural outputs. The larger-scale agricultural outputs have
ill effects on the soil; it depletes the soil of nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorous, which
explains the curiosity Marx has regarding soil fertility. Foster explains in detail, saying:

As human societies develop, especially with the growth and spread of capitalism, the interactions between
nature and humans are much greater and more intense than before, affecting first the local, then the regional, and
finally the global environment. Since food and animal feeds are now routinely shipped long distances, this depletes
the soil, just as Liebig and Marx contended in the nineteenth century, necessitating routine applications of
commercial fertilizers on crop farms. At the same time this physical separation of where crops are grown and where
humans or farm animals consume them creates massive disposal issues for the accumulation of nutrients in city
sewage and in the manure that piles up around concentrations of factory farming operations.29

As the logic of capital mandates, globalization and global markets emerge. This increased
competition leads to countries seeking their comparative advantage, a market that holds an
advantage for a specific country because of resource availability, geography, or other reasons.
For some countries, this means agriculture. As crops are produced and shipped overseas, the
scenario Foster details becomes more pronounced. Instead of more localized production of crops,
growth is centralized on massive farms. The larger the distance between production and
consumption, the more problematic nutrient replenishment becomes. Instead of the waste being
directly used as fertilizer, it is instead being disposed of, at times as runoff into waterways,
poisoning them to aquatic life. The metabolism Marx introduces is a complex interaction

29 Foster, J. (October 23, 2013). Marx and the Rift in the Universal Metabolism of Nature, Monthly Review.
https://monthlyreview.org/2013/12/01/marx-rift-universal-metabolism-nature

between society and nature. As such, it becomes that much more important to recognize how
society really exists and functions in respect to nature.
To this end, Marx illustrates how nature functions in capitalism, saying, Nature becomes
for the first time simply an object for mankind, purely a matter of utility; it ceases to be
recognized as a power in its own right; and the theoretical knowledge of its independent laws
appears only as a stratagem designed to subdue it to human requirements, whether as the object
of consumption or means of production.30 In detailing how nature functions in capitalism Marx
allows for the possibility of a change of thought; it is only via the recognition of a problem that
one can begin to solve it. Here Marx highlights the inversion, how - instead of society
recognizing that humanity is a subset of nature - society sees itself as above and beyond nature.
This is an inversion that Marx wants to break, and is why Marx equates humanism with
naturalism. In so doing, Marx hopes that society realizes its reliance upon nature and that
humanity is not beyond nature in any sense. Beyond any ecological reasoning, Marx also
provides reasoning that humans can connect to.
To such an effect Marx delineates, saying, The human significance of nature is only
available to social man; for only to social man is nature available as a bond with other men, as
the basis of his own existence for others and theirs for him, and as the vital element in human
reality; only to social man is nature the foundation of his own human existence.31 Nature acts as
provider, giving humanity the means of production and consumption, for whatever purpose they
see fit. This is fully recognized in a new society, and further, nature acts as a bond, allowing
humanity to connect with each other more fully. It is a shared condition amongst humanity that
nature acts as provider, and thus any exploitation of nature is an exploitation of humanity, both at
30 Marx, K. (2000). Karl Marx Selected Writings. p. 398.
31 Ibid. p. 98.

present and in the future. Likewise, when others exploit nature there will be the individual
awareness that they are exploiting each individual person at the same time. A society which does
so actively alienates humanity from itself as each individual has primacy instead of humanity as
a whole. Hudis summarizes in saying that, By treating nature as a person apart that is to be
possessed, consumed, and destroyed for the sake of augmenting value, capitalism indeed leaves
us with a world that is lifeless, solitary, and alone.32
Overcoming the inversion is not to be an easy task, especially given the agency and
autonomy with which capital acts. Its logic and abstract essence imbue it with a means of acting
outside any laws that humans or nature abide by. That capital continues to wield its influence is a
dangerous prospect for humanity, as the problems continue to grow as capital likewise continues
to grow. Given the mist with which capital acts, the question is what - if anything - will inspire
people to look beyond the mist? There is no certainty, however perhaps recognition of the
ecological problems society faces will provide the spark. By forcing society to recognize the
ecological problems as they grow, there could be a reevaluation of the relationship between
nature and humanity. The hope would be that such a paradigm shift would trigger further
exploration into the causes and the conditions that allow for the possibility of exploitation of
both humans and nature.
To such an end there can be no magic bullet which cures the problems society presently
faces. In the true Hegelian spirit which Marx builds upon, the negation of one negative - the
resolution of the ecological problems - leads only to another phase which need be overcome - the
conditions which allow for the possibility of the exploitation of nature, and by extension
humanity. Marx said that, all philosophy is a continuous process of becoming(?), and it is time
that society begins its own process immediately, lest it run out of time.
32 Hudis, P. (2013). Marxs Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism. p. 90.