POSTS THREE & FOUR. Tensions : economy & ecology

In Karl Marx Allee / photo : Lefebvre Berin, may 2102

_______________________________________________________ 
KARL MARX AND THE OWNERSHIP OF RESOURCES
(1818-1883)
This is partially intended as a summary for the 2.7 point : «Karl Marx and the Ownership of Resources», in Costanza’s Chapter 2 of an Introduction to Ecological Economics (1). Perhaps there is not much new to add of Karl Marx’s ideology without repeating everything history as already given us or deepening specific aspects.  But in times where we deeply need a shift of paradigm towards sustainable living, Marx’s analysis of how inequity of «concentration of land and capital» affected economy, as presented in Costanza, already addressed a key social dimension, which can be transposed in today’s sustainable equation. ( Even if Costanza’s conclusion points out the lack of environmental concern in Marx’s proposal -observation, which I will come back to…).

It is easy to agree that «the ownership of resources [can] affect(s) the path of development» (2) and from this observation, to foresee the eventual scarcity and resource depletion of non-renewable energy.  Furthermore, the ability, of ownership or private property, to affect economy and to slow down sustainable living considering they are owned or controlled by one, appears a logical deduction, although it has long been (and still seems) consciously ignored, as the author notes.  In terms of economy, land ownership can also reach Zane Parker’s identification of some of the failures of economy in term of «allowing one body to set prices market prices» (3) from monopoly, per example, or Hardin’s tragedy of the commons as well  (4).

(1, 2) Costanza, Robert et. al. (2007). Chapter 2: An Introduction to Ecological Economics. In Cutler J. Cleveland (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Earth. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment.
(3) Parker, Z. (n.d.). Course material : Lecture 2, week 4, RRU.
(4) Hardin, G. (1968). Tragedy of the commons. Science, 162 (3859), 1243-1248.


Costanza explains the links to be made between resource allocation or distribution of land, and economical efficiency. The distribution of rights and control of resources over to individuals or societies being directly related to possible ecological resource depletion from lack of vision or sustainable concerns.  He notes that «Peasants or others who work land and interact with biological resources owned by someone else have little incentive to protect them» (1), although I believe we should turn the initial responsibility of education and concern to the «owners» (considering there are owners of what otherwise be the common).

It is everywhere, visible, we have been well aware for decades, but I would witness this daily in Indonesia, where rice paddies usually -not owned by rice field workers- themselves.  Chemical fertilizing and pesticide use should fall under the land owner’s responsibility towards the soil and earth (thinking of Jonas’ «ownership of human responsibility»  (2)) as much as towards his workers.  Unfortunately, their long-term effect will directly affect the workers themselves, who therefore have no control over their own health, far form the mythical vision proposed from a narrow postcard visions we are often exposed too (taken they have no other economical choice). Was a landowner aware of the depletion of resources considered to be under his control to some extent, may it be the soil, ecosystem or human’s health through labor rights (last element which is more under Marx’s concerns), economical issues could misguide his conduct to ignore change, from not taking environmental and social costs/impacts in consideration.

(1) Costanza, Robert et. al. (2007). Chapter 2: An Introduction to Ecological Economics. 
(2) Jonas, H. (1984). Chapter 1: The altered nature of human action. The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age (pp. 1-24). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rice paddy worker in Kenang Bali ( photo : Lefebvre 2102)

To make his point (as well as vulgarising Marx’s ideology) on the importance of resource distribution, the author uses the ethical, fair share idea of resource allocation upstream in opposition with unequal initial repartition of resources or land use and access, where therefore luxury living and poverty will cohabit, since inequity in the use of resources benefit the wealthy. As projects such as «design for the 90% of the rest of us»(1) propose solving, we must remember «the vast majority of the people on the globe still consume very little»(2) . Costanza’s article or analysis on the reasons to poverty seem fairly simplistic but are nevertheless true. The lack of «long-term access to resources» reduces possibilities for one to meet his fundamental needs. Aspiring to –better living- also often results in unsustainable choices, from lack of options, frequently merely having access to non-renewable energies.  Ancient, tropical or unprotected forests, still suffer both poverty and luxury needs, while being victim of poor repartition and «ownership of land».

Very similarly to Bullard’s and Bradford’s observations on environmental racism (3) and waste exposure (4), whom we read in previous course, Costanza also addresses the idea that the «poor and people of color bear a heavy share of the environmental costs of development», from living «near waste disposal sites (…) and polluted environments». «Excessive material and energy consumption» (5) remains the appanage of the few, the author also notes, and as Marx’s social views also condemned.  Although industrialized and wealthy countries’ use of resources causes most of our actual environmental crisis, from loss of biodiversity to global warming, they (we) are reluctant recognizing «the role of inequity in environmental degradation» (6). The author posits that our «understanding» of environmental impacts, unfair ownership and control transferred to a few, «are rooted in economic thinking»(5), emphasizing we –owe- much of that comprehension to Marx’s proposal, equity being key in environmental depletion and eventual sustainable development.

(3) Bullard, R. D. (1994). Overcoming racism in environmental decisionmaking. Environment, 36(4), 10-20, 39-44.
(4) Bradford, G. (1985, Winter). We all live in Bhopal. Fifth Estate, 19.(1,4,5,6) Costanza, Robert et. al. (2007). Chapter 2: An Introduction to Ecological Economics. 

Other reading influences:
De Silva, L. (1987). The Buddhist attitude towards nature. In K. Sandell (Ed.), Buddhist Perspectives on the Ecocrisis. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society. 
Dwivedi, O. P. (1990). Satyagraha for conservation: Awakening the spirit of Hinduism. In J. R. Engel & J. G. Engel (Eds.), Ethics of environment and development. London: Bellhaven Press.

Berlin wall remain, art and thoughts / (photo : Lefebvre 2012)

«Their ideological rejection of rent and interest as necessary prices, and their insistence on a labor theory of value were responsible for much of the environmental destruction in communist countries» (1).  It reminds me of the -who blames who- in Communer's article (2), which Liz Beattie «blogs about» nicely in a post (3).  But I feel important to see that Marx put the finger on an important tension within society (neo-classical capitalism (4)).  A «class» and ownership problem, where the wealthiest control the production of material goods and those who would have the task of producing these goods, considered to be the «lower class» (I put in brackets to hating to associate such words to people, just as casts do in Indonesia).  The author considers that Marxism and Communism, -although concerned with distribution equity-, did not solve the economical/ecological issues.  He goes further concluding they were responsible for much of the environmental destruction (in communist countries) because of valuing labor «that neglected nature’s contribution».

I understand (or extrapolate) the link the author wishes to make but find the equation a little… out of context perhaps. Marx, like many others until this day, simply did not understand, value or consider the –whole-, the link between social and environmental issues, consequences, roots and effects. Although as a Union representative for my University I have also been able to notice that environmental values and social ones don’t necessarily always go hand-in-hand for otherwise very engaged people on many levels, I dare think, was Marx alive today, he might do like many, and start considering environment as an important part of social equity, in his political agenda and socialist ideals.

(1,4) Costanza, Robert et. al. (2007). Chapter 2: An Introduction to Ecological Economics.
(2) Commoner, Barry. (1971). Chapter 1: The environmental crisis, and Chapter 2: The ecosphere . In The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology (pp. 5-48). New York: Knopf.
(3) Beattie, Liz (2012). The blame game, Sunday, 6 May 2012, 09:59 PM, course blog.