Green Marxism

by Luke Browne

“Care for the future of mankind is the over-ruling duty of collective human action in the age of a technical civilization” - Hans Jonas

It is painfully clear that our environment, indeed our biosphere, is in serious trouble. Modern technology has enhanced human power in ways never seen before, but brings with it a price - the potential destruction of the environment and, therefore, the destruction of life as we know it.

Without going into statistics, predictions or apocalyptic warnings (all of which can be found on any number of internet sites), the current relationship between man and nature can be likened to a schoolyard drama, in which the bully preys continuously upon his victim, disregarding the potential consequences his actions may have for himself or for his prey.

But, as everybody knows, (especially all the directors of Hollywood teen-movies) bullies never win in the long run.

Biff Tannen in Back to the Future for example.

George McFly, the nerdy father of Marty McFly is tormented by the moronic Biff for the vast majority of his school years. After suffering his final humiliation at the hands of Biff in front of the film’s love interest Lorraine, George punches Biff with such force that his whole life is transformed – he goes on to be a best-selling science-fiction author, while Biff becomes a lowly car-washer. (It is worth noting here that Marty’s whole plan to return to the year 1985 is hinged on George McFly’s courage, the relevance of which can be seen in Back to the Future II.)

It is equally important to realise, when examining the McFly family history or any other real life case of unfounded meanness, that prolonged bullying of anyone or anything will almost certainly result in an angry victim, capable of any kind of horror in his search for relief and justice. (One thinks of the tragic events in 1999 at Columbine High School.)

In any case, the analogy is clear – man is the bully, nature the nerdy bespectacled sci-fi reading chess player. And, the more bullying this ‘nerd’ is subjected to, the more his frustration will be redirected back towards the perpetrators of his misery.

Clearly, a no-bullying policy needs to be introduced, and the question begs itself – what man, government, or country will best introduce and more importantly implement such a policy?

This is one of several questions philosopher Hans Jonas attempts to answer in his most important work The Imperative of Responsibility, which, published in 1979, (and in English in 1984) quickly became the manual for green-orientated political parties around the world.

Jonas (1903-1993), a German Jew and pupil of Heidegger, took the unusual (and rather egotistical) step of translating his own work into English, which sours the palate somewhat when trying to make sense of some of the impenetrable jargon that prevails in the aforementioned text. His question, as to which form of government/political structure would best serve the interests of the massively over-taxed environment, forms the basis of this article.

So, which form of government to save the environment, and, indeed, the future of the human race? As Jonas reminds us, “nature could not have incurred a greater hazard than to produce man”. The inherent paradox, that the increasing danger to the environment comes from the success rather than the failure of the Baconian ideal (dedication to the study of power over nature through experimentation and development of technology in order to better the human lot), as well as the fact that our apparent ‘domination’ of nature has made us all the more submissive to her will, lingers through-out the book.

Jonas reminds us, rather pessimistically, that [nature] will “have the last word when it eventually denies itself to the overdemand”, the sort of statement that could really ruin one’s weekend, if one thought about it too much.

Anyway, Jonas states that the economy of Western industrial capitalist societies is at the heart of the problem, and thus looks to the natural alternative of Marxism to see if it can provide salvation. Marxism looks like the perfect candidate with its professed concern of the future of the whole human enterprise and not just with one state

– the proletarians have “a world to win”, which is obviously ideal, environmentally speaking, in that making a real change to current practices requires the ‘co-operation’ of all countries and all men.

Elements of the Baconian ideal, that of the development of technology with a view to ‘mastering’ nature, live on in certain respects in Marxism , since a relationship between nature and technology must exist. However the essence of this relationship is different in Marxism - the capitalist ideology of power over nature to create profit contrasts sharply with the Marxist ideal of man harmonising with nature. This ideology places technology as a liberating force in the service of human happiness, giving man the opportunity to be creative, enjoy life, and leave behind a natural image of himself.

Jonas therefore declares that the difference between excessive use of technology for profit and minimal use in order to marry man and machine will be the difference between spiralling rates of CO2 emissions and pollution.

Furthermore, in Jonas’ opinion, “only a maximum of politically imposed social discipline can ensure the subordination of present advantages to the long-term exigencies of the future. That is to say, humans will not make sacrifices to ensure a better future for all concerned, or, for that matter, a future at all, without some gentle prodding from above. Only the Marxist programme, claims Jonas, with its integration of the Baconian “power over nature” to reshape society with the ultimate end of producing the “definitive man”, can seriously be considered as a system which “aims action predominantly at the future’ and thus “imposes norms on the present”.

The mechanics of a capitalist consumer society entail a great deal of waste due to market production aimed at enticing a potential buyer. However, central planning, according to Jonas, could avoid much of this waste and approach the use of natural resources with far more caution, an obvious advantage to the non-profit-orientated economic and social order of Marxism. Since the norms which will have to be imposed upon mankind to make any sort of future change possible will be largely contrary to mankind’s present interests (economically, at least), Jonas argues that in a truly Marxist society a spirit of frugality, to live “for the whole” and “do without” pervades. Ascetic traits as well as a willingness to be led in any direction are key to Marxism, as well as to real environmental change, and Marxism (apparently) has the asset of being able to inspire enthusiasm and sacrifice among its followers in ways unimaginable in capitalism.

Finally, there is the advantage of autocracy in the communist model of socialism, in that decisions can be made at the top and implemented without any real (or at best passive) resistance from below.

Just as one starts to becomes enthusiastic and reach for The Communist Manifesto to see what other treats Marxism has in store, Jonas does a complete volte face and explains why, in spite of all the obvious theoretical advantages to Marxism, the whole thing is never going to work. The selfless sacrifice that he has spoken about has not been all that evident in the two examples he cites, Russia and China. Neither country has demonstrated that they are willing “to make sacrifices for the benefit of other parts of the world”.

And it’s all well and good to talk about the enthusiasm Marxism inspires in its followers, but will this enthusiasm for a “utopia” prevail when it has to be directed towards a different purpose, the unglamorous one of “humanity tightening its belt” in order to provide a better environment for future generations? Jonas goes on to ask whether the profit motive is really eliminated in a communist society – is there anything to prevent collective striving after profit, that is, larger nations striving after profit at the expense of smaller ones, which brings us back to the schoolyard scenario. The advantages of central planning are marred by the danger that a state economy, devoid of any real competition,

is under no compulsion to keep production costs down in order to survive, thus taking over the mantle of “waste-creator” from the ducking and diving capitalist economy.

Thus, if not to Marxism, then to what do we turn? Jonas evades the difficulty of this question by employing his by-now familiar technique of disappearing off into abstract jargon, ignoring any pleas by the reader to actually structure his arguments, and does what any bewildered philosopher does when they want to really confuse the reader – he talks about fellow philosopher Nietzsche.

A thoroughly pessimistic, fatalistic view of human nature is then articulated; “of collective altruism we have no record in world history and not the slightest grounds for expecting it in the future”, and so, by way of recompense, Jonas decides to go out on a high.

The logic of Marxist history indicates that the transition from capitalism to communism is inevitable, as was the transition from feudal system to capitalism. However, Jonas goes further than this, stating that no one can predict the radical change which will take place in the human equation due to this ‘inevitable’ revolution, this “conscious and violent intervention in the course of things”. Such an intervention will be so novel, so liberating, that no comparison with the past will apply and “all former history pales into prehistory. The true history of mankind only begins with this juncture”.

For Jonas, man’s nature will be dramatically altered by the intense experience of such a revolution. Jonas doesn’t say that mankind will become the kind of race you’d like to have at a party, or that any previous dispositions towards self-service or self-interest will be replaced by St. Francis of Assisi-esque generosity – however, he states that man’s nature will have changed to such an extent that any previous aggression towards ‘harsh’ measures, which look towards a ‘greener’ future, will have dissipated.

To further explain:

This idea, of “wiping the slate clean”, is rather convenient, in that we can abandon any pre-existing negative conceptions of human nature. For example, the impossibility of collective altruism due to man’s natural disposition towards egoism becomes stale, and we can therefore allow ourselves to imagine that, once such a revolution occurs, the idea of man being ready to sacrifice his present lot for that of future generations becomes tenable.

Why can we abandon our previous conceptions of human nature? Because, according to Jonas, that nature was a product of inhibiting and distorting circumstances which will now have been altered by the revolution, and therefore “truly human history…will only then begin.” Then, the imposition of social norms and regulations that are necessarily harsh to save the environment will not be such an impossible task - Marxism will provide the answer, but only after human nature has been changed to the extent that comparisons with the past become unnecessary, and the idea of an environmentally friendly future, achieved through collective human action and unspoilt by egoism, becomes possible.

Jonas’ proposal is far too pessimistic. His sweeping generalisations about human nature are not founded on any real examples. Therefore his dismissal and refusal to entertain the idea of collective human altruism, while potentially valid, cannot be taken as gospel, as it is just opinion (Indeed the very existence of a human nature has been disputed by the existentialists, Sartre et al). Thus to state that the future of the environment hinges on dropping human nature into the garage for a complete overhaul is wildly unfounded.

Furthermore, in terms of collective action, could one not argue that the possibility of a future world government is not a ridiculous premise, and that it could forseeably arise from the amalgamation of consenting bodies, be they capitalist or Marxist? Witness the UN, which, although not perfect, “continues to be a symbol of humanity’s eternal yearning for a world at peace” (F.T. Holohan), and has been at least in part responsible for the prevention of a third world war. Thus, if nations can come together for the goal of peace, then who is to say that they cannot come together for the protection of the environment, possibly creating an international governing body with a larger brief than has been seen thus far in history.

Thus if one at least accepts the possibility of a future world state, be it communist or non-communist, then the next issue which would arise is the imposition of norms which are difficult to bear for those unlucky enough to bear them. If a world state were to impose heavy restrictions upon the “citizens of the world”, would there be such an outcry and potential uprising as that which Jonas posits?

Maybe, but not definitely. To answer such a question in the affirmative is to agree with the pessimistic view laid out by Jonas, that although a world state is the only form of government which will be powerful enough and bold enough to introduce the necessary “controversial” norms which can ensure the survival of mankind, we humans are inherently selfish beings, and that any surrendering of rights which doesn’t result in instant reward will be attacked and ignored, and thus such a state is unimaginable. The potential of human nature to overcome difficult situations through any means possible can be examined at length, but to write off collective altruistic human in the future would be a mistake. And, since we don’t have the luxury of a flux capacitor-based time machine operated by the moral monument of Marty McFly to undo the mistakes of the past, the only real way forward is to have faith in the human species, and hope that when the time comes (now!?) for great sacrifice, any Goodness can and will be utilised for the future welfare of mankind.