Hu Xiaojie and Li Xiaochun: On the Core Theses of Western Ecological Marxism

"Since the 18th Party Congress, the CPC Central Committee has gripped the construction of ecological civilization ^[1] with unprecedented intensity. The consciousness and initiative of the entire Party and nation to promote green development have been significantly enhanced, major strides have been taken in the construction of a beautiful China, and China’s ecological and environmental protection has undergone changes of a historical, transitional, and global nature." This assessment of the significant historical achievements made in China’s construction of ecological civilization was pointed out in the Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century, deliberated and adopted by the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee on November 8, 2021. It is evident that China is contributing its own vital strength toward solving major human problems, building a world of lasting peace, universal security, common prosperity, openness, inclusiveness, cleanliness, and beauty, and promoting a community with a shared future for humanity.

By taking history as a mirror, one can create the future. Western ecological Marxism rose in the 1970s, with its representative figures including James O'Connor, John Bellamy Foster, William Leiss, Ben Agger, André Gorz, David Pepper, and Joel Kovel. Facing the increasingly serious contemporary ecological crisis, the academic community has engaged in an ecological critique of the capitalist system from various perspectives. They charge that it is precisely the injustice of production under the capitalist system and capitalist conditions that has caused the alienation of science and technology, needs and consumption, and modes of existence, thereby making the ecological crisis a historical necessity. In his work The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? and published academic papers, Joel Kovel directly identifies the true "mastermind" of the contemporary ecological crisis as capital and the capitalist system. If the core arguments of ecological Marxism focus on the relationship between institutional critique and the ecological crisis, then the dimension of Kovel's critique places even more emphasis on revealing the root causes of capital and the ecological crisis. Currently, academic research on Kovel’s theory of capital critique mainly focuses on the systematic organization of his theoretical ontology. This article aims to look at the critical dimensions of other ecological Marxist schools of the same era, highlight Kovel’s original theoretical characteristics, and scientifically evaluate his critical theory to provide ideological enlightenment and lessons for our better construction of a Chinese-style ecological civilization, following the path of Chinese-path modernization, and creating a new form of human civilization.

I

Looking across the ecological Marxism of the 1970s and 80s, the commonality lies in the identification of ecological crisis under the capitalist system as a historical necessity, and in the deduction from various dimensions that the capitalist system is anti-ecological. Among these, the theoretical perspectives of O'Connor, Leiss, Agger, and Foster are the most representative.

O'Connor's ecological critique of capitalism begins with the disclosure of the dual contradictions of capitalist society. In Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism, O'Connor points the root of the ecological crisis toward the ecological limits of production within capitalist relations of production. O'Connor defines the unity of opposites between capitalist production and the conditions of production as the "second contradiction of capitalism." Historical materialism holds that the socio-economic crisis caused by the surplus of products—resulting from the contradiction between capitalist productive forces and relations of production—is the first contradiction. The contradiction arising from the opposition between capitalist productive forces, relations of production, and conditions of production is the second contradiction; this second contradiction is embedded in the very nature of capitalism. In the globalized capitalist system, the first and second contradictions operate together. O'Connor primarily expounds on the capitalist "crisis theory" through the lens of the second contradiction and the alienation of technology under capitalist conditions. The logical nature of capitalism determines the necessity of its own infinite expansion; however, the natural world lacks an operational system capable of self-expansion. Once the pace and laws of nature cannot run in coordination with the movement of capital, it inevitably leads to the destruction of the ecological environment and the accumulation of costs between the factors of capital production. This further leads to economic, social, and ecological crises triggered by underproduction. Facing a severe ecological crisis, O'Connor profoundly elucidates the relationship between capitalism and the global ecological crisis from three dimensions. First, the direct cause of the ecological crisis is capital accumulation. The goal of capitalism is to maximize profit through the exploitation and oppression of the working class and the innovation of science and technology; we can understand that capital accumulation is achieved on the basis of increasing worker productivity while reducing production costs. Because the self-expanding nature of capitalism inevitably dictates that the faster the economic growth, the higher the demand for raw materials, the proportion of raw materials in capital will increase. Obviously, the intensity of raw material extraction by capital increases accordingly, effective accumulation and production costs grow, and profits subsequently fall, and vice versa. Therefore, analyzing from the dimension of capital accumulation, O'Connor concludes that the outcome of the capitalist production process is necessarily the high consumption of natural resources and high pollution of the natural environment. Second, science and technology become the accelerator of the ecological crisis. O'Connor believes that under capitalist conditions, science and technology possess economic, political, and social functions. The economic function is mainly reflected in the application of science and technology—driven by capitalist interests—to realize surplus value through reducing raw material costs, increasing utilization rates, developing new products, and researching new technologies, thereby fulfilling capitalism's nature of chasing profit. The political and social functions are mainly reflected in the realization of its economic function through the control of the superstructure. Thus, science and technology under capitalist conditions cannot yield to the ecological environment; they are merely means for capitalism to realize profit. Third, the uneven development of capitalism causes a global ecological crisis. Uneven development leads to the destruction of soil fertility, rampant deforestation, and the accelerated extraction of natural resources by both developing and developed countries, globalizing the ecological crisis. In short, O'Connor concludes from the dimension of capitalist relations of production that capitalism possesses self-destructive characteristics; his theory of the dual contradictions of capitalism profoundly exposes the roots of the ecological crisis.

Leiss and Ben Agger summarize that the reason ecological crises emerge under the contemporary context of globalization lies in two points: first, the irrational use of science and technology, which alienates the relationship between humanity and nature; and second, the unbridled stimulation of consumption by capital in pursuit of profit, leading to the alienation of consumption. Leiss and Agger explore the roots of the irrationality of science and technology within the philosophical worldview and the social practice of capital. In the book The Domination of Nature, Leiss reflects that the concept of "dominating nature" runs contrary to the historical trend of humanity's development toward an ecological civilization, triggering the following reflections. First, Leiss investigates the sources of the idea of "dominating nature." In his view, this thought can be traced back to the Christian doctrine of creation. The rise of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment implanted this concept into the soul, leading to the deep entrenchment of scientific and technological determinism in people's minds after the 17th century. Second, Leiss profoundly analyzes the logical connection between the "domination of man" and the "domination of nature" within the concept of "dominating nature." That is, as humanity strengthens its control over nature, it is simultaneously controlling human beings. Science and technology serve specific social conditions, and the social conditions of capitalism are precisely the struggle for the interests of specific groups and individuals using capital as a means. In other words, the bourgeoisie uses the irrational application of technology to control human consumption and thereby control all of humanity. Third, Leiss uncovers the veil of ecological consequences triggered by the idea of "dominating nature." In the capitalist system, the bourgeoisie realizes its control over people through its control over nature to maximize profit; in this process, the irrational use of science and technology by capitalism becomes a necessity, eventually triggering an ecological crisis. From the perspective of the social practice of capital, Ben Agger reveals the roots of the ecological crisis by reconstructing Marx’s crisis theory. First, from the dimension of capitalism's nature, Agger believes the legitimacy of the capitalist system lies in its presentation to people that it can provide a steady stream of commodities to satisfy human needs. Meanwhile, for the sake of chasing profit and achieving its goal of expansion, capital will promote consumerist values at any cost to realize its control over human consumption needs. In fact, consumerist values essentially serve the orientation of capitalism. Second, from the dimension of the relationship between commodities, human needs, and consumption, Agger emphasizes that the happy experience of human freedom and self-worth can only be achieved through creative labor, rather than through the endless consumption of commodities. Under the "labor-leisure" perspective, Agger posits that alienated consumption is the root of the ecological crisis. Thus, Leiss and Agger launch an ecological critique of capitalism from the dimensions of the critique of technical rationality and alienated consumption. It can be said that it is precisely the application of technical rationality and the deviation of the value concept of consumption needs that further deepen the ecological and social crisis.

Foster profoundly elucidates the essential characteristics of the capitalist mode of production, revealing therefrom that the ecological crisis originates in the capitalist system. Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature and Ecology Against Capitalism are Foster’s major works. He absorbs and draws upon Marx’s views on historical materialism and the theory of metabolic evolution, proposing the "theory of the metabolic rift," and uses this as a basis to elaborate the ecological critique of the capitalist system from the perspective of the relationship between humanity and nature. Foster deconstructs the principle of metabolism (Stoffwechsel) from two levels: natural and social. The natural connotation includes the material exchange of nature itself; the social connotation includes the mutual exchange between the production practices of human society and nature. Since the material exchange of nature itself is universal and objective, we must respect and conform to nature, and utilize it by studying its laws. However, in the Marxian view, the theory of metabolism more importantly advocates for the mutual exchange between nature and human social production practice, where general human labor—for the purpose of creating use-value—acts as the intermediary in this metabolism. Marx further believed that "based on the universality of material exchange (referring to the exchange of equivalent matter in nature), the exchange of equivalents in terms of economic form under capitalist economic conditions is merely an alienated expression." It is under this alienated expression that the alienation of nature itself, and the alienation between nature and society, occurs under capitalist conditions. Therefore, Foster’s deconstruction of Marx’s "metabolic rift" theory can fundamentally reveal the alienated characteristics of capitalist society. Foster analyzes the alienation of nature and the relationship between nature and society under the capitalist system from two dimensions: on the one hand, the separation of town and country and the long-distance trade of products lead to alienation. Foster absorbs Liebig’s "law of replacement" (or law of restitution), believing that if certain "elements" are permanently taken from a piece of land, that land will lose its fertility forever. Therefore, under the expansion of capitalism, long-distance trade between cities and the countryside causes the place of origin to lose its original "nutrients." That is, under capitalist production conditions, the population flows from the countryside to the cities and takes resources with them, leading to agricultural products flowing into the cities and subsequently bringing waste to the cities, destroying the urban environment. This one-way flow causes ecological destruction and eventually triggers ecological crisis. On the other hand, the capitalist mode of production and the private ownership of land under capitalist conditions cause alienation. The prerequisite for the development of capitalist wage-labor relations is free labor—that is, the capitalist's stripping of the wage laborer from the means and instruments of labor. This prerequisite must be built upon the foundation of the separation of the relationship between man and land. Therefore, concentrating land in the hands of a few capitalists to form large-scale landed property becomes a sufficient condition for capital accumulation. In the development of capitalist society, large-scale landed property is the prerequisite for the birth of capitalism and the inevitable result of its development; it is the fundamental cause of alienation. Thus, in Foster’s view, a metabolic rift between man and land, and man and nature, will inevitably emerge under the capitalist system, and this alienated relationship becomes the root of the ecological crisis.

In conclusion, the ecology represented by O'Connor, Ben Agger, Foster, and Kovel (the main subject of this article) is an "ecology against capitalism." In their view, the contradictions among productive forces, relations of production, and conditions of production under capitalist conditions, as well as the logical expansion of capital, are the roots of the current ecological crisis. Their critical theories laid the theoretical foundation for later proposals to transform the capitalist system and mode of production.

II

As one of the outstanding representatives of the American school of eco-socialism, Joel Kovel stands within the realistic dimension of historical materialism. Taking the essence of capital and the capitalist system as his point of entry, he demonstrates the anti-ecological nature of capital and the capitalist system, thereby concluding that the "culprit" and "executioner" of the ecological crisis is fatal capital and the capitalist system.

Kovel argues that the nature of capital’s infinite expansion determines its anti-ecological character. Inheriting Marx’s analysis of the essence of capital, Kovel notes that Marx summarized the essential attributes of capital into three aspects: (1) self-valorization is the sole "life instinct" of capital; (2) the economic power that dominates everything stems from the "universal illumination" ^[6] of capital; and (3) as a social relation of production, the social attribute of capital lies in its manifestation of value. The primary essential attribute of capital is self-valorization. As Marx stated, "Capital has one sole life instinct, the tendency to create value and surplus-value, to make its constant part, the means of production, absorb the greatest possible amount of surplus-labor." ^[7] Kovel fully identifies with Marx's view and summarizes the inherent nature of capital into three points: (1) capital has the characteristic of undermining its own conditions of production; (2) capital can survive only through relentless expansion; and (3) capital leads to a widening gap between rich and poor and extreme polarization, thereby throwing the world into a state of chaos incapable of controlling economic crises. As long as capital exists, the ecological crisis will grow unabated and increasingly severe. These three attributes by which capital organizes social production determine that so long as the rules of capital persist, the ecological crisis will—like cancer cells invading a human body—rapidly consume resources, leading the social system toward a historic collapse.

In Kovel’s view, capital and the capitalist system share a natural blood-tie. Due to the anti-ecological nature of capital itself, the capitalist system is necessarily destined to be anti-ecological. Capital permeates every cell of the capitalist system. Under the capitalist system, the cancerous growth of capital operates through intermediaries such as production, exchange, science and technology, and globalization under capitalist industry. The logic of capital’s cancerous expansion drives the forward development of capitalist society; clearly, the capitalist ecological crisis has become a historical necessity within the process of capital accumulation. This is because the capitalist system is utterly incapable of weakening or eliminating the environmental degradation brought about by capital valorization, which takes profit maximization as its ultimate goal. Any such restrictive activities would represent a constraint on the development of capital or even an interference with the freedom of capital. As Kovel said, "The inherent destructiveness of capitalism toward nature is becoming increasingly severe, moving from quantitative to qualitative change, leaving the ecosystem on the brink or even in a state of disaster."

Kovel further analyzed how, driven by profit-seeking, the mode of production under capitalist industrialization embodies its "injustice." The capitalist world is a massive machine integrating production, distribution, sales, and commodity transport. The most fundamental mode of production in capitalism is large-scale industrial production. Originating in Western capitalist countries, capitalism has, since the day its political systems were established, led the human life-world from traditional agricultural society into industrial society, hijacking the entire world in its own image. It is precisely the vigorous development of large-scale capitalist industrial production that has caused a qualitative transformation in human production and lifestyles. It has greatly promoted the development of productive forces and driven the creation of material wealth. However, the model of industrial development is deeply influenced by the motive of capital valorization; it naturally possesses certain "limitations" and "pathologies." The internal drive of capital to relentlessly pursue profit maximization compels capitalism to use every possible means to input and consume all energy and resources to produce large-scale products. Overproduction inevitably requires enterprises and capitalists to use various means to stimulate human's constant consumption and pursuit of commodities, thereby ensuring the continuity of large-scale production. Thus, overproduction inevitably leads to alienated consumption, which in turn stimulates capital to constantly innovate products to realize profit. To occupy a larger market share, enterprises always feel the need to expand, which inevitably leads to a series of ecological problems such as over-extraction of resources, a surplus of commodities, and market saturation. Over the course of his observations of the Union Carbide Corporation's Bhopal disaster in India, Kovel found that the ecological alienation brought about by capitalist industrialization led to the alienation of relations between humans, and between humans and nature. This is the inevitable outcome of capital's expansive nature, and its appearance inevitably exacerbated the imbalance of the ecosystem. In the developmental process of capitalist industrialization, private ownership—the institutional foundation of capitalist society—is necessarily the indispensable root for capitalist expansion. "Capitalist private ownership is the private possession of the means of production, using the means of production held by capitalists to expropriate surplus labor without compensation, a system aimed at realizing its own maximization of capital." It is evident that capitalist industrialization arose upon private-sector exploitation and fully developed this "injustice" of production, causing an internal instability that leads to a state where "the capitalist system will face an unacceptable choice: grow or die."

In the historical process of capitalist development, globalization is an irresistible trend. Both developed and developing countries have been drawn into it in different ways. In fact, rapidly developing capitalist countries, clutching the rules of the globalization game, have promoted the capitalist mode of production on a global scale; they drive the process and scale of globalization's development. Kovel points out that "the concept of globalization expresses the following fact: the expansion, colonization, and penetration of capital occur on a global scale." From a certain perspective, globalization is essentially a rational extension of capital’s cancerous growth. However, with the arrival of economic crises after World War II, trade barriers and global ecological barriers meant the development of globalization was not as smooth as imagined. Although the era of globalization has arrived, the victory of capital still has a long way to go. The capitalist mode of production accounts for only half of capital accumulation; peasants still use traditional modes of production. The task of the globalization system is to complete the integration of the other "rough" half of the world—using "refined" ^[8] modes of production to extract natural resources, employing cheap labor, and maintaining the exchange value of commodities to realize the true meaning of globalization.

In short, capitalism will use every possible means to realize the global circulation of capital. Against the backdrop of the era of globalization, the function of financial capital—namely, money capital—has become increasingly prominent. Its logic is to reconstruct modes of production, circulation, and consumption to urge the entire world to operate under economic dominance. The World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) form a "Iron Triangle" integrated into transnational structures to serve the capital of various nations. Yet in the process of globalization, alongside the mechanism of capital accumulation, one country after another is being sucked into the vortex of ecological crisis. "Dependency and unequal development, accompanied by massive debt, have become the midwives of ecological crisis." All debts are repaid through the destruction of the ecological environment. Indonesia is a typical case, as it used its forest resources to repay financial debts to banks. The ecological disasters generated by the debts borne by developing countries in the Global South make the development of global capital difficult; it is like a giant ship slowly sinking.

Science and technology should originally have been effective means for shortening labor time, improving labor efficiency, and transforming nature in the process of industrial production. However, under the capitalist system, advanced science and technology have made heavy labor more intense, and humanity remains subject to the dictates of nature and the enslavement of technology. Science and technology are a "double-edged sword." On one hand, they have greatly improved the production efficiency of society and promoted the rapid growth of social wealth; on the other hand, they have caused the destructive consequences of ecological crisis under the alienation of technical rationality. In Capital, Marx provided a detailed exposition on the duality of scientific and technological development. In Marx's view, while "science is a historically productive, revolutionary force," "the development of contemporary science and technology has driven the capitalist application of machinery and the development of the modern factory system." For laborers, "mechanical labor extremely damages the nervous system, while it simultaneously suppresses the diverse movements of the muscles and takes away all free physical and mental activity. Even the lightening of labor becomes a means of torture, for the machine does not free the worker from labor, but rather robs the worker's labor of all content." Marx believed that the alienation of science and technology is not an alienation of technology itself, but has its historical roots in the capitalist system. Kovel continues the dimension of Marx's theory of technological alienation, ultimately attributing the roots of technical alienation under capitalist industrialization—and the resulting ecological crisis and existential predicament facing humanity—to the way technology is used under the capitalist system. Borrowing a famous saying from Ross Perot, Kovel points out that "science and technology are applied to society, rather than being an integral part of society." Regarding the question of whether science and technology can ameliorate the ecological crisis, Kovel decisively rejects so-called "technological progressivism." Technological progressivism adheres to scientific-technological reformism, believing that the ecological crisis can be alleviated through inventions such as electronic information technology, genetic modification, and low-pollution energy equipment. Under the capitalist system, seeking energy substitutes, improving resource utilization, and reducing pollution can, to a certain extent, overcome the severe consequences brought by the ecological crisis. However, maintaining capital expansion and obtaining more profit remains the ultimate goal of capitalism. Therefore, "humanity cannot view science and technology in isolation from social relations." Treating social problems as easily fixable technical problems actually severs the relationship between society and science and technology; it is a crude theory of mechanical materialism. Behind science and technology are the means by which capitalists manipulate economic interests; while promoting economic growth, they inevitably bring about a serious ecological crisis. Standing on the perspective of the Marxist critique of technical rationality, Kovel raises the essential issues of the "crisis of science" and "technological alienation" under the capitalist system. The capitalist system is the "gravedigger" of technical alienation. Furthermore, he lays an important theoretical foundation for the construction of an alternative to the "pathological society" to eliminate technical alienation—namely, the construction of a new social mechanism.

Kovel’s investigation of capitalism and the ecological crisis proceeds from a dual-directional essential dimension. Only by following the laws of the essential development of things can theoretical research be more persuasive. From the perspective of capitalism, Kovel provides a concrete and profound analysis of how various elements of capitalism, within the logic of capital, lead to far-reaching and incurable alienation throughout capitalist society and SOW the seeds of ecological crisis. From the perspective of the ecosystem, Kovel believes the ecosystem is holistic and complete. He adheres to the values of "ecocentrism" and emphasizes that things have "intrinsic value," thereby concluding that "capitalist society destroys the balance of the ecosystem in its own way—a way that is non-linear, fatal, and chaotic."

Natural ecosystems are aggregates of biological organisms and their surrounding environments within a specific space (or a specific region); these aggregates form definite structures and functions through mutual coupling and integration. According to Prigogine’s theory of dissipative structures, four conditions must be met to form and maintain a dissipative structure: first, the structure does not arise in an isolated or closed system—only an open system can produce it; second, the system must be a stable and orderly structure in a "living" non-equilibrium state; third, the system must inevitably generate dynamic processes of interaction; fourth, the realization of systemic order and harmony must occur through the interaction of structure, function, and fluctuation. The "steady state" or "meta-stable state" in the operation of natural ecosystems across various stages—production, consumption, and decomposition—precisely conforms to a stable and orderly structure under the non-equilibrium conditions of a dissipative structure. To explain the steady-state order of natural ecosystems, Kovel employs the Second Law of Thermodynamics, namely the law of increasing entropy. Kovel points out that "the ecosystem is not a solitary system; it maintains internal and external links with all other systems." An ecosystem must rely on interdependence with nature and the biological world under open conditions to maintain its organizational form—that is, a low entropy value—otherwise, it will fall into a confrontation with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: "heat death." "The life activities manifested in human productive practice maintain a dynamic tension with other things in the natural world." In Kovel’s view, wholeness and integrity are the salient characteristics of ecosystems, while the ecological crisis is the full process of the ecosystem's disintegration. The rupture of relations between the various constituent elements of the ecosystem fragmentizes ecological organization; the implantation of this "destructive component" becomes the motive force of the ecological crisis. While ecosystems maintain a low-entropy dissipative structure in every link of production, consumption, and decomposition, the inherent nature of capital causes the effect of capital valorization to lead to alienation in these links. This shatters the "steady-state and orderly" dissipative structure. Whether viewed from a biological or alienated perspective, this "destructive component" hinders the maintenance of the ecosystem's steady state and tears apart its integrity, thereby falling into a process of "disorderly" entropy increase. Kovel believes that the integrity of "order" and "disorder" in the ecosystem is, in fact, a contest of entropy. As Kovel says, "life originated from nature and, through struggle and its position in the ecosystem, continues to evolve." Clearly, the inherent attributes of both capital and ecosystems dictate that the development of capital and the maintenance of natural ecosystems are naturally situated in a "game" of increasing and decreasing entropy—a process of ebb and flow that eventually leads capital toward its demise.

Kovel advocates for ecocentric values and adheres to the "intrinsic value" inherent in things. Kovel’s definition of "intrinsic value" is: "Value is manifested as the desire to pursue, possess, control, or achieve a certain end. When we call it the essential attribute of a thing, it is intrinsic: such an attribute can never be created, but exists of itself." What Kovel insists upon is not only the inherent essential attributes of things but also a use value coupled with the essential attributes of commodities. In his article The Struggle for Use Value: Thoughts About the Transition, Kovel profoundly elucidates the connotation of "use value." He points out that "use value reflects the existence of nature in economic activity (exchange value is the result of quantification extracted from nature). However, since use value is not nature itself, but exists as nature within human activity, the relationship between use value and the ecosystem is very complex. Use value represents the way humans allocate things, but this function is not directly visible and requires perception and imagination. Therefore, use value is an abstract, imagined entity." Kovel utilizes Marx's theory regarding use value and exchange value to initiate an ecological critique of the system itself. The value of a commodity primarily stems from its use value; it is precisely because people value its use value during the process of purchasing that the sale is realized, and exchange value is ultimately achieved. However, in the operation of capitalism, the separation between labor and the products of labor, and between labor and the means of production, causes the exchange value of commodities to take precedence over use value, and abstract labor to take precedence over concrete labor. Production in capitalist society is primarily for the realization of exchange value, obscuring the original meaning of use value. By its very nature, capital can only achieve its goal of self-valorization within economic categories, especially the category of exchange. "Capitalist growth is not the growth of material factors of production or products, nor even the growth of the economic total, but the growth of exchange value." The characteristic of large-scale capitalist production is to regard economic interests as more important than anything else; all real human relations are naturally transformed into money relations. Kovel reappraises capital’s exchange value and use value, arguing that by blindly allowing exchange value to drive commodity production, capital will inevitably enter the trap of interest-driven fallacies. Only by adhering to the principle of the "supremacy of use value" and rescuing labor from alienation and false needs can the ecosystem be repaired.

III

Kovel’s ecological critique of capitalism possesses both the common characteristics of other schools of Western Ecosocialism and its own theoretical originality. Regarding the commonalities: first, it opens a window onto the ecological horizon of historical materialism, launching a critique from the ecological dimension of the capitalist system. Scholars of Ecological Marxism such as O'Connor, Ben Agger, and Foster have all revealed the anti-ecological nature of capitalism through the analysis of the double contradictions of capitalist society, the capitalist mode of production, and consumption patterns under the capitalist system. Similarly, Kovel views capitalism and the mode of production, science and technology, and globalization under capitalist conditions as the root causes of the ecological crisis. This determines that, in essence, Ecological Marxism is anti-capitalist, and it forcefully counters the Western Green trends represented by ecocentrism. Ecocentrism maintains that anthropocentric values lead to ecological crises; the technical progress and economic growth they advocate are built on the foundation of individual and capital interests. Although conducive to protecting the environment, their purpose is to maintain the natural resources and economic development of capitalist production, making it impossible to fundamentally overcome the ecological crisis. Based on the critique of the capitalist system, Ecological Marxism maintains that only by turning the ecological movement into a political movement can a thorough transformation of the system be achieved, thereby laying the foundation for constructing a revolutionary ecosocialism. Second, they all derive the conclusion from Marx’s relevant theories that the capitalist system is anti-ecological. Kovel points out that "although Marx never directly used the term 'ecological crisis,' his relevant works are all discussing ecological problems; he paid high attention to nature and explored ecological issues through the 'inorganic body of man.'" First, Marx’s works profoundly elucidate "the relationship between humans as a part of nature and other species, and how humans change this relationship through labor in productive practice." Because Marx affirmed that productive practice and the natural world occupy equally important positions in human civilization when viewing civilization as a whole, it is clear that the productive practice of the entire society can be understood from an ecological dimension. Second, in works such as The German Ideology, the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Capital, The Communist Manifesto, On the Jewish Question, and Letters from Wuppertal, Marx systematically discussed the dialectical relationship between the conceptions of history and nature, and between man and nature. He also addressed the capitalist economic system and property relations, the capitalist mode of production and ecological crises, and the liberation of man and the liberation of nature. The difference between Marx and Western Green trends lies in attributing the ecological crisis to the logical expansion of capital’s essence—resulting in the alienation of man and nature—rather than industrialization itself causing ecological problems. Moreover, the global spread of capitalism coincides with the integrity of the ecosystem; the ecological crisis manifests as a trend of globalized spread, leading to the conclusion that the true root of the ecological crisis is capital and the capitalist system. Third, Marx conducted a profound critique of the egoistic and consumerist values under the capitalist system, emphasizing that these values rupture the dialectical unity between humanity and nature. Marx not only criticized the view that places humanity above nature but also criticized how the capitalist system stripped the proletariat of the natural resources and all means of livelihood necessary for survival, while also causing the separation and opposition between town and country ^[9]. Capitalism destroyed the integrity of the ecosystem, becoming the "executioner" of the ecological crisis. The conceptualization of the capitalist system by Ecological Marxism is precisely established upon Marx’s detailed analysis of the relationship between man and nature under capitalist conditions.

Kovel’s theory of ecological critique of capitalism also possesses its own originality. This is mainly reflected in: first, Kovel's entry point for criticizing the capitalist system is completely different from other Ecological Marxist theories. Specifically, O'Connor and Ben Agger opened the ecological horizon through a revision of historical materialism. Within the dimension of historical materialism, O'Connor took the ecological relationship between human society and natural society as a starting point and introduced "culture" and "nature," revealing that the second contradiction of capitalism ^[10] is the root of ecological degradation. Ben Agger, through a re-deconstruction of the crisis theory of historical materialism, revealed that the necessity of the ecological crisis is due to "alienated consumption." Foster directly called historical materialism "ecological materialism" to elaborate on the dialectical unity of the conceptions of nature and history, revealing that the metabolic rift ^[11] under capitalist conditions causes ecological crises. Through a detailed analysis of "economic rationality" and "ecological rationality," Gorz pointed out that the worsening of the ecological crisis is the "tragedy" of the prevalence of economic rationality. Leiss, on the other hand, introduced ecological issues starting from the essence of man, proposing theories of alienation regarding commodities, needs, consumption, and technology under capitalist conditions. Thus, there are two types of Ecological Marxist theories of systemic critique: one based on the direct elucidation or revision of the ecological meaning of historical materialism, and the other initiated directly through the analysis of needs, commodities, and technological alienation. Kovel’s critical dimension belongs to neither; he cites basic Marxist theory and takes capital as the logical starting point to launch an ecological critique of the inherent attributes of capital and the capitalist system, representing a unique perspective in the theoretical field. Second, with the exception of Benton, Ecological Marxist theorists generally believe that the ecological crisis has no direct relationship with anthropocentric values; they all oppose ecocentric values and have even given a new interpretation to anthropocentrism. Uniquely, Kovel insists on ecocentric values. Kovel’s values transcend the ecocentrism advocated in the West; such a transcendence not only caters to the practical nature of the ecosystem but also embeds the critique of the capitalist system within it. Kovel insists that to establish ecocentric values and construct an ecosocialist society, old concepts—namely, placing humanity above nature—must be abolished. His theoretical character marks him as a "heretic" in the field of Ecological Marxism. Finally, although Ecological Marxist schools all believe in the anti-ecological nature of the capitalist system and emphasize that under capitalism, the ecological crisis can only be mitigated and not eradicated—making the transformation to ecosocialism unachievable—Kovel not only insists on the anti-ecological nature of capital and the capitalist system but also asserts that capitalist society has the capacity to transform into ecosocialism. He repeatedly emphasizes transcending capital, rescuing people from the state of exploitation and slavery, and realizing "freely associated labor," while proposing a return to the "intrinsic value" inherent in things. Clearly, Kovel’s theory of ecological critique is more systematic and complete.

IV

Kovel cites the basic principles of Marxism to grasp the "core" of capital and the ecosystem, analyzing how capital and the capitalist system are the "instigators" of the ecological crisis. He "foreshadows" that the fundamental path to eventually solving the ecological crisis is to use ecosocialism to drive capitalism off the stage of history. Kovel’s theoretical characteristics and value position possess strong heuristic significance for us in constructing a Chinese form of ecological civilization and embarking on the path of Chinese-path modernization.

First, Ecological Marxism enlightens us that in the practice of ecological civilization, we must combine institutional construction with the construction of ecological values. The core of the inquiry conducted by Joel Kovel and other schools of Ecological Marxist theory is primarily the coupling of the critiques of capital and ecology, revealing the root causes and solutions for the ecological crisis, and dissecting the "executioner" of this crisis: the capitalist system. Regarding this, we must maintain a clear understanding that while the capitalist world is the "chief culprit" ^[12] of the ecological crisis, socialist countries still face serious ecological problems. Therefore, as China endures the dual pressures of severe ecological environment issues and economic development, our ultimate aim lies in considering "our own solution." On one hand, we should recognize that ecological civilization is a new social formation that transcends social systems; that is to say, the construction of a true ecological civilization is by no means confined to realization within either a capitalist or a socialist society. In our critique, we must "combine Chinese and Western elements while allowing both to flourish," providing a Chinese interpretation of the capitalization of nature. On the other hand, the alienation of consumption, commodities, and technology—which take capital as their logical starting point—inevitably deviates from the laws of human and social development. This inspires us to establish correct ecological views, consumption views, and concepts of happiness, implementing the pursuit of environmental justice and the advocacy of values of green and coordinated development into our practice. A socialist view of ecological governance that "possesses both virtue and law" is what we truly ought to establish as the Chinese form of ecological civilization. "A so-called ecological governance view possessing both virtue and law means overcoming views of ecological governance based on pure moralism or technicism. It requires both the establishment of an ecological culture and ethics of cherishing ecological resources and protecting the environment throughout society—elevating people's moral consciousness in upholding the concept of ecological civilization—and the use of strict ecological institutions, laws, and regulations to provide hard constraints on people's practical behavior from the outside." On one side, theory is externalized into laws and regulations that coordinate the relationship between humans and the ecosystem, serving as baseline rules to restrain human practical activities; on the other side, it fundamentally elevates human ecological consciousness and their realm of values, making it a conscious action within ecological civilization governance. General Secretary Xi Jinping has proposed that achieving the modernization of the ecological governance system and governance capacity requires the use of the strictest ecological institutions—namely, establishing the strictest possible system for natural resource property rights, a system for the development and protection of national territorial space, a system for evaluating and assessing the targets of ecological civilization construction and a system for accountability, an ecological compensation system, the River and Lake Chief systems ^[13], the Forest Chief system ^[14], and systems such as "equal responsibility for Party and government" and "dual responsibility for one post" ^[15] in environmental protection. Human practical behavior will inevitably undergo a process from external constraint to internal consciousness. External constraint requires strict ecological legal systems, while internal consciousness requires the construction of ecological ethics and values regarding the relationship of harmonious coexistence between man and nature. The Chinese form of ecological civilization must be built upon a governance system where morality and law coexist.

Secondly, we must adhere to the idea that "man and nature are a community of life" ^[16] and forge a path of modernization guided by ecology. The school of Ecological Marxism represented by Kovel takes the relationship between man and nature in historical materialism as its starting point, employing methods of historical and class analysis to explore the roots of the ecological crisis and thereby construct ecological socialist theory. James O'Connor emphasizes that the ecological relationship between humanity and the natural world is established through the creation of cultural links between man and nature; Ben Agger analyzes the ecological crisis by revealing the conflict between "alienated consumption" caused by the "labor-leisure" dualism and the finitude of nature; John Bellamy Foster elucidates the inevitable relationship between ecological crisis and the alienation of nature by revealing the "metabolic rift" between man and nature under capitalist conditions; and Kovel, in analyzing the integrity of ecosystems, invokes Marx's view of nature and applies the principle of entropy increase from the Second Law of Thermodynamics to derive a relationship of harmonious development between man and nature. The Chinese form of ecological civilization theory must persist in taking Marx’s theory of the relationship between man and nature as its foundation, combining the systemic and integrated character of ecological elements to transition toward the modernization of socialist ecological governance. The concept that "man and nature are a community of life" proposed by General Secretary Xi Jinping coincides precisely with Kovel's ecological ontological understanding. Xi Jinping emphasizes that humanity and the natural world are a "community of life" formed by mutual connection and interaction, and that mountains, rivers, forests, farmlands, lakes, grasslands, and deserts also constitute a community of life. He has repeatedly emphasized that human utilization and transformation of nature must take compliance with the ecological laws of the natural world as a prerequisite. This requires us to "persist in the harmonious coexistence between man and nature" in the construction of socialist ecological civilization. As Professor Huan Qingzhi summarized: "'Man and nature are a community of life' and 'the modernization we want to build is a modernization of harmonious coexistence between man and nature' are the 'core viewpoints' of Xi Jinping's ecological philosophical thought." This concept not only foreshadows the "shattering" of anthropocentrism and ecocentrism but also fits Kovel's ontological understanding of the view of nature. Therefore, the practice of the Chinese form of ecological civilization must take the ecological program of harmonious coexistence between man and nature as its fundamental guide.

Finally, we must persist in ecology-centered production. When deconstructing the anti-ecological capitalist system, Ecological Marxism profoundly elaborates on the causal relationship between the capitalist mode of production and the ecological crisis. Driven by profit-seeking and the pursuit of immediate interests and high profits, capital dominates the capitalist modes of production and exchange. In its attitude toward nature, it completely ignores the long-term impact of overproduction and overconsumption on the natural world, sacrificing any and all available natural resources in pursuit of the surplus value of products, thereby causing irreversible damage to the ecological environment. Kovel believes that to realize ecological socialism, one must adhere to a mode of production guided by ecology. "Nature itself does not perform any production; to survive and develop within nature, humans must produce. People cannot choose whether to produce, but they can choose the mode of production." From the 18th National Congress of the CPC until the convening of the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee ^[17], the General Secretary has repeatedly discussed the scientific concept that "lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets." "We want lucid waters and lush mountains as well as gold and silver mountains; moreover, lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets." This "Two Mountains Theory" ^[18] clearly explains the dialectical unity between economic development and environmental protection, and it also confirms the ecological demands of Kovel’s view of ecological development. The "Two Mountains Theory" explicitly points out that China's economic development must follow a "steady-state economy" model of harmonious coexistence between man and nature, ensuring the stamina and potential of economic and social development, resolutely resisting the excessive pursuit of economic benefits, effectively improving resource utilization, and building eco-saving, environment-friendly, and ecologically harmonious industries. Under an ecology-centered mode of production and development, it achieves a "win-win" for both economic development and environmental protection. Therefore, to advance the practice of the Chinese form of ecological civilization and realize the harmonious coexistence of man and nature, we must thoroughly transform the capitalist mode of production, revive the original concept of "production justice" in an ecological socialist society, and "more consciously promote green, circular, and low-carbon development, adhering to a path of civilized development characterized by productive development, prosperous lives, and a sound ecosystem."