Comparison of Marxism and Ecologism - Coursework Example

Marxism and Ecologism Over the last few decades, issues concerning the political involvement in environmentalpreservation have become prominent. This is because of an increasing awareness concerning the environment as well as the need to ensure that it is protected for the sake of future generations. The need to preserve the environment has become a paramount political issue that has either been adopted or rejected by the different ideological standpoints that occupy the political space today. It is essential to note that the merger of political and environmental ideologies has become a basic part of the politics of the contemporary world and this is the reason why alliances between political parties and environmentalist groups are being formed. Among the most prominent ideologies that have emerged in the contemporary world are Marxism and ecologism; ideologies that can either be compared or contrasted. Both Marxism and ecologism are highly critical of capitalism; considering the latter to be one of the main reasons why there has been massive degradation of the environment. These ideologies seem to suggest that the rise of capitalism is what brought about the exploitation of natural resources as a means of making profits (Foster 1999, p.381). Those who controlled the means of production sought to make use of natural resources in order to develop products that would be in high demand in the market; in this way making it possible to make large amounts of money. While the main intention of these individuals was to make money, they failed to recognise that their actions were having an impact on the environment and that it was essential for them to create a balance between their demand for resources and the exploitation of nature. These ideologies are critical of the way that the capitalist system has come to handle matters concerning the environment and the different ways through which capitalism has developed an almost absolute disregard for the impact of the system of the natural environment. Marxism and ecologism are both critical of the way that industrialism developed and has come to dominate the world today. According to Marxism, industrialism developed as result of the need by the bourgeoisie to dominate production and it was done in such a way that it encouraged the massive exploitation of natural resources for the sake of profit. Ecologism also supports this point and suggests that industrialism is the main reason why there has been degradation of nature to such an extent that it has led to global warming (White 1967, p.1204). Both of these ideologies concurs that industrialism brought about a situation whereby it became difficult for there to be a balance between the exploitation of natural resources and the need to preserve the integrity of nature; while in the beginning it allowed for the making of fabulous profits by the industrial barons, it led to hazardous environment to human beings. The inability of industrialists to recognise the importance of environmental conservation is what has resulted in the global warming that is being experienced today and because industrialism does not address matters concerning the environment, the situation might end up becoming worse. According to the Marxist concept of anthropocentrism, nature should not be a matter of paramount importance because it is not a product of labour (Routley 1980, p.96). As a result, neither the earth nor nature should be provided importance when it comes to situations where labour is concerned. Labour is the primary concern of anthropocentrism and it is the basis upon which this concept has been developed. However, it recognises that there is need for some form of environmental protection because it allows for the development of a better means through which individuals in society can be able to apply their labour for their own benefit. However, there are instances where the environment interferes with the way that labour is conducted and managed and this creates a situation where it is essential for issues concerning the environment to be set aside so that labour can be given more prominence (Goodwin 2007, p.234). This approach further recognises that man does not have any control over the environment and that the latter cannot be brought under control by any means. It is therefore reasonable that man does not concentrate too much on nature or the environment to such an extent that labour and its products come to be ignored. Ecologism on the other hand is based upon the need to ensure that all human actions are conducted in such a way as to make possible the integrity of nature. This concept recognises that the environment is the most important thing in the world and that it is man’s responsibility to ensure that his activities do not cause it harm (Hettinger and Throop 1999, p.3). Without the intervention of man, it is believed that the integrity of the environment will become compromised and might end up creating a situation where man as a race, in addition to wildlife, will end up suffering. The ability of man to conduct his activities with utmost consideration for the preservation of nature is essential because it allows for the development of better means through which man and nature can coexist in a constructive manner. This concept is one that indicates that man has a responsibility to nature as well as having a responsibility for nature; meaning that he has to do everything possible so that nature can be preserved, but that its integrity be maintained. Ecologism is an ideology that calls for the adoption of a new land ethic, where individuals within society should conduct their actions with the intention of ensuring that the integrity, stability and beauty of the environment is preserved. Nature should not only be exploited for its resources, but there should be means through which these resources are exploited in a responsible manner, so that instead of concentrating on maximising the profits gained; individuals should develop better means of ensuring that their exploitation does not degrade nature (Konopka 2009, p.245). Under such circumstances, the ecological concept of ecocentrism is similar in approach to that of Marxist anthropocentrism because the latter also recognises that nature should not be exploited for the purpose of profit but instead to ensure that there is some form of benefit for labour. Without this benefit, it would essentially be useless to exploit natural resources because it would mean that the profits gained would end up benefiting the bourgeoisie. While it promotes exploitation of nature for the sake of labour, it is essential to note that the Marxist approach also recognises the hazards of doing so. This is especially the case in situations where the environment ends up being unstable because of being massively exploited (Foster 1997, p.149). Not only does it lead to its destruction, but it also creates a situation where the environment becomes hostile to man. The conquest of nature is considered futile and any attempt to do so would be detrimental to the welfare of human beings. The anthropocentric approach to environmental conservation, especially during its contemporary states of development, can be considered to have been extremely modified to such an extent that it has essentially come to take a similar approach to ecocentrism. This change can be seen through some of the laws that were passed by Russia during the Soviet Union, which attempted to reduce the impact of individuals on the environment. One such law forbade the destruction of any non-commercial wild animals except for those that had a potential of either harming the economy or the health of the people within the state. The exploitation of nature for its resources is an essential part of human civilisation because it allows for the development of an easier way of life. However, the anthropocentric approach is one that advocates for the primacy of labour over nature, so that nature is used for the latter rather than labour working towards the preservation of nature (Foster 1997, p.152). There are instances where this approach puts importance in the need to preserve the environment because it is realised that to do otherwise would mean the destruction of life as it is and the end of labour. Among the events that are referred to in this approach as having taken place as a result of man’s manipulation of nature is the Chernobyl disaster, which can be considered to be nature’s way of taking revenge on human attempts to tame it. It is essential to note that both Marxism and ecologism recognise that laws concerning the balance between man and the environment have not been adequately developed. This ethical deficiency on the part of developing moral guidelines on how to treat the environment has led to a situation where it has become extremely difficult for man to conduct his activities with consideration for nature (Hoffman and Graham 2009, p.362). The need to ensure that the use of land as well as other natural resources is conducted in a way that preserves the latter has been forgotten in a bid to ensure that commercial interests are protected. The result is that commercial interests have taken a hand in directing laws concerning the environment, through their lobbies, so that these laws do not interfere in any way with their destructive activities. The lack of moral obligation towards the environment is blamed by both ideologies as being the reason behind the massive levels of degradation that has been taking place and they warn that this disregard might result to disaster for the entire planet. While the ideologies discussed might be similar in some perspectives, ecologism is more convincing because it goes further in the development of concepts that can be used as a means of protecting the environment. Among these is its propagation of there being a need for a proper means of protecting the environment through the development of a set of laws based on the rights of nature (Rowe 1994, p.106). It is through these laws that it can be possible for environmental protection to be brought from the realm of idealism to reality. According to the ecocentric approach, in order to make environmental protection viable, it is essential for the principles guiding the process to be converted to legal concepts that can be used to ensure that the process becomes a reality. This approach has gained traction in recent years and it has led to the beginning of a legal process whose purpose is to gain recognition for the worth of the environment and the need to preserve it. In conclusion, the discussion above has shown that both Marxism and ecologism are ideologies that take a stance against environmental degradation. Furthermore, they propose that stricter laws be developed to ensure that the environment is protected against any form of destruction as a result of industrial activities as well as disregard for a need for balance between the needs of man and nature. Both Marxism and ecologism are highly critical of capitalism; considering the latter to be one of the main reasons why there has been massive degradation of the environment. Furthermore, they are also critical of the way that industrialism developed and has come to dominate the world today. It is recognised that ecologism is an ideology which calls for the adoption of a new land ethic, where actions are conducted with the intention of ensuring that the integrity, stability and beauty of the environment. In addition, while it promotes exploitation of nature for the sake of labour, it is noted that the Marxist approach also recognises the hazards of doing so. Finally, ecologism has been found to be more convincing because it goes further in the development of concepts that can be used as a means of protecting the environment. In this way, ecologism is a means through which the future of the environment can be guaranteed and this as a result of the development of legal principles that will protect the integrity of the environment. References Foster, J.B. 1999, "Marxs Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology". The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 346 – 405. Foster, J.B., 1997. "Marx and the Environment" in Ellen Meiksins Wood and John Bellamy Foster, (eds). In Defense of History. New York: Monthly Review Press. Goodwin, B., 2007. Using Political Ideas. 5th Ed, West Sussex. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons Ltd. Hettinger, N. & Throop, B., 1999. “Refocusing Ecocentrism: De-emphasizing Stability and Defending Wilderness.” Environmental Ethics, vol. 21, pp. 3-21. Hoffman, J. & Graham, P., 2009. Introduction to Political Theory. Harlow: Pearson Longman. Konopka, A., 2009. "Ecological Goods that Obligate". Environmental Ethics, 31, pp. 245-262. Routley, R., 1980, “Human Chauvinism and Environmental Ethics.” In Environmental Philosophy (eds) D.S. Mannison, M. McRobbie and R. Routley. Canberra, ANU Research School of Social Sciences. Rowe, S.J., 1994. "Ecocentrism: the Chord that Harmonizes Humans and Earth." The Trumpeter, 11(2), pp. 106-107. White, L.T., 1967 "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis." Science, 155(3767), pp 1203–1207 Read More