Martin Thomas’s article against metabolism (Solidarity 753) is not a postscript to my critique of Monthly Review published in the previous paper, because I resoundingly reject almost everything he wrote. I did not invite Martin’s “postscript” and he is not fit to compose the final word.
Rather, Martin’s article is another badly-constructed and deliberately destructive polemic against the anti-Stalinist, third camp Marxist ecological theory I’ve tried to advance over two decades.
Earlier this year, the AWL published a fourth ecology discussion bulletin, eco-DB4, containing my extended evaluation of John Bellamy Foster, editor of Monthly Review magazine. I maintain that Stalinism lies at the heart of the Monthly Review tradition. I then critically assess Foster’s extensive writings on ecology. I had to write this contribution because for the past five years, Martin Thomas has persistently conflated my views on ecology with those of Foster. This is a deliberate amalgam, designed to warn comrades off my perspective.
I argue that Marx’s metabolic analysis in Capital, particularly his emphasis on the labour process as the nexus of nature-society relations, helps orientate Marxists to address contemporary ecological questions. Classical Marxists, such as Lukács, Bukharin, Preobrazhensky and others, also deployed metabolism as Marx did, applying it to their own time.
More recently, Alfred Schmidt and Neil Smith further developed Marxist metabolism and applied it to modern ecology. Smith in particular made sharp criticisms of bourgeois and green approaches, developing original Marxist theory in the process. So when Martin claims that “neither drew any very special ecological-politics conclusions” he demonstrates only his own ignorance.
Martin constantly employs a polemical ruse, to smear me with the political conclusions drawn by other authors who use metabolism, such as Kohei Saito and Andreas Malm, along with Foster. This is particularly obtuse, since I’ve written more critical evaluations of these authors than anybody else in Solidarity. Martin nowhere proves that their erroneous political conclusions follow from metabolism.
Martin’s methodological nihilism ultimately destroys authentic Marxism. Substitute other commonly used terms — such as “labour theory of value”, or “imperialism”, or the “united front”. They were used by Trotsky, but also by Stalin. They are used by the AWL, but also by Cliff, Grant, the CPB, Maoists and worse. The job of Marxists is to define and extrapolate what is rational from these concepts, while discarding the excrescences added by opponents. Martin dumps the Marxist category of metabolism, simply because some leftists with bad politics refer to it.
Mangles
Martin mangles the origins of Marx’s adoption of metabolism by reintroducing Moleschott, who was not the source. The real provenance has been well-documented, notably by Saito. Marx first referred to the German word “stoffwechsel” in his notebooks in 1851, after his comrade Roland Daniels sent him his physiology book draft. Daniels took stoffwechsel from Liebig, who had applied it scientifically since the early 1840s. This was before Moleschott’s first use in 1852. Martin knows Marx was later critical of Moleschott. Inserting him adds nothing: it is just sand in our eyes against metabolism.
Martin indulges in word games, denying the translation of stoffwechsel as metabolism until the 1960s. In fact, both terms were in use by the mid-nineteenth century among scientists writing about the same phenomena. German-English dictionaries caught up by the late 1800s.
Marx took the term stoffwechsel from these scientists, but applied it metaphorically in other contexts. He employed it in his value theory. More importantly, Marx used metabolism to capture the interdependent, mutually-constitutive relationships between nature and society, adding the crucial insight that these relations were mediated by labour.
Since the late nineteenth century, the translation of stoffwechsel as metabolism has been common among scientists. It can be found in Marxist books since the 1920s. Since the 1970s, the translation of stoffwechsel as metabolism has become ubiquitous. Modern translations of Capital, Volumes I and III, the Grundrisse first draft, and other writings all accept it. Martin can quibble all he likes, but metabolism is well-established as a legitimate starting point for Marxist ecology.
Summary
I have frequently summarised my interpretation of Marx’s metabolic approach in three propositions:
• Labour as the principal mediator between class societies and the rest of nature
• The disturbance, break or rift in nature-society relations
• Socialism as the sustainable interaction of society within nature.
Martin wilfully misrepresents this again in Solidarity 753. He stated, “Paul Hampton credits Foster with developing a ‘metabolic’ approach into three propositions.” Not true. I do not “credit” Foster with these propositions. This is purely Martin’s invention.
All three meanings of metabolism were instigated by Marx. Many subsequent Marxists referred to most or all of them. Foster’s work came long after these Marxists. Foster does not claim to originate metabolism — and provides many of the earlier references. Foster’s main innovation is to take two words from Marx with regard to the crisis of nature-society relations and formulate the pithy appellation: “metabolic rift”. I think this is consistent with Marx’s use. It advances Marxist approaches to past and modern ecological questions.
I acknowledge Foster’s contribution to elevating metabolism, while consistently criticising much of his theory and politics. Foster has authored many books about Marxism and ecology. Few activists will get far without coming across his writings. Readers of Solidarity are sufficiently discerning to understand my critical evaluations of Foster’s books, extracting what is useful while registering disagreements.
Martin offers no alternative reading of Marxist ecology. He does not engage with the debates between Lukács, Bukharin and others in the 1920s. He offers no interpretation of Schmidt or Smith. He never bothers to explain what is valuable and where they might have erred. He provides no serious review of Foster’s work or anybody else. Instead he persistently distorts my views, garnished with condescension and faint praise. This is utterly ruinous.
Substantial
Martin has written nothing theoretically substantial on Marxist ecology. During recent debates within the AWL, he is the perennial sceptic, never elaborating his own distinctive theory. Martin disparages all efforts to develop Marxist theory on ecology. Instead he counterposes empirical questions, ignoring what I’ve written on concrete ecological issues — informed by Marxist metabolic theory. Martin’s negativism leaves only scorched earth.
Martin eventually but grudgingly concedes my three propositions are acceptable. A frustrated reader might therefore wonder what was the point of his circuitous musing.
The editors of Solidarity asked me to provide an edited version of my eco-DB4 essay on Foster and Monthly Review for the paper. I removed my criticisms against Martin and others in the original for the paper version. Martin then took advantage of his position as editor to publish a spiteful polemic against me. This is a rotten culture for a socialist newspaper. It is no way to hold a serious debate.
• Further discussion will be (and previous discussion can be) found in Workers’ Liberty’s eco Discussion Bulletins here
Comments?We welcome replies, corrections and debate pieces. Contact us