Li Weiran: The "Anti-Ecological" Nature of Eco-Capitalism—Based on the Perspective of Marxist Critique of Political Economy
Eco-capitalism is the current mainstream theory regarding ecology in developed capitalist countries, primarily consisting of two theoretical paradigms: eco-marketism and eco-Keynesianism. Whether it is eco-marketism or eco-Keynesianism, both are in fact reformist strategies constructed by Western scholars to resolve the ecological predicament of capitalist social development; their expression at the theoretical level is the theory of capitalist ecological modernization. From the perspective of Marxist stands, viewpoints, and methods, eco-capitalist theory's analysis of the causes of ecological problems generally ignores the deep-seated driver that is the logic of the capitalist system. Although ecological problems arise from multiple factors such as population size and value systems, the most fundamental cause lies in the mode of production and its attendant social system. The expansion, profit-seeking, and short-sightedness of the capitalist mode of production and the capitalist system lead to a natural contradiction and opposition between them and the construction of ecological civilization. To fundamentally solve ecological problems, one must dissolve the "anti-ecological" nature of the mode of production and social system, and actively promote a transformation of the mode of production and institutional construction that accords with the essence of ecological civilization. As socialism with Chinese characteristics enters the New Era, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core is leading the Chinese people in successfully opening up a path of socialist ecological civilization with Chinese characteristics.
I. Market or Government: The Two Major Schools of Eco-Capitalism
Within eco-capitalism, using market-led versus government-led as the criterion for classification, there are two main theoretical schools: eco-marketism and eco-Keynesianism.
Eco-marketism starts from the free market and the price mechanism, attempting to demonstrate that through the spontaneous and orderly operation of the market—following the capitalist logic of "ecological capitalization"—ecological problems can be solved without the need for government intervention. Eco-marketists believe the free market is the optimal means for solving ecological problems and that these problems can be entirely resolved through market instruments. Although they recognize that in the early stages of industrialization, the disorderly expansion of the free market triggered "negative externalities" in economic development and damaged the ecological environment, they still maintain that the "positive externalities" of economic development can offset the "negative" ones through the spontaneous and orderly operation of the free market. In this process, the "price mechanism" of the free market plays the decisive role. Eco-marketists argue that, compared to human intervention, the "price mechanism" possesses a reactive advantage in quickly obtaining market signals from both the production and consumption ends; furthermore, it can accurately assess the ecological costs consumed in the processes of production, exchange, and consumption through quantitative methods. Looking at early practices of eco-marketism, this theory did not achieve its intended effects. A primary problem faced in balancing ecological protection with economic development is that ecological protection incurs costs, whereas the basic logic of the free market is cost minimization and profit maximization. Whether at the corporate level or the consumer level, even if eco-marketism firmly believes in the regulatory capacity of the free market, no enterprise or individual is willing to follow ecological principles by adopting high-cost production methods or lifestyles. Even if some groups are willing to follow ecological principles out of moral consciousness, the actual effect is often negligible.
To address the aforementioned predicament, eco-marketism attempts to use economic policy instruments to accelerate the marketization and capitalization of ecological governance. If one views human beings as homo economicus [1], ecological plans envisioned by humanity can only be truly implemented if they are closely integrated with realistic economic interests. This is dictated by human nature under the dominance of the logic of capital. Specifically, eco-marketism argues that, first, externalized environmental costs in economic development should be internalized; second, according to the principle of cost internalization, ecological polluters (primarily enterprises) must pay for the costs of pollution control as assessed by third parties; finally, the price of ecological products should objectively reflect the environmental costs consumed. The specific implementation path for these three policy propositions is ecological tax reform, which in fact already shows a tendency to seek help from state power, attempting to solve ecological problems through the interaction between the free market's price mechanism and the government's regulatory mechanism. As an external intervention tool for eco-marketism, the core of ecological tax reform is likewise built upon the fundamental logic of the market mechanism. In specific ecological governance practice, the targets of taxation mainly cover fields such as land, water, forests, minerals, and waste emissions. Within the theoretical context of eco-marketism, ecological tax reform will increase the cost of ecological resources and services in the process of production and life. To reduce ecological costs as much as possible, both individuals and enterprises will take corresponding measures to respond to cost changes, ultimately driving individual and corporate subjects to contribute to ecological governance.
In addition to ecological tax reform, eco-marketism also attempts to establish a "pollution permit" system to "reconcile" the opposition between production development and ecological protection. Regarding the emission of pollutants during production, the government should conduct quantitative demonstrations of annual pollutant emission standards in advance and issue or sell "pollution permits" to enterprises with pollution needs. If an enterprise's annual pollution quota is not exhausted, it can continue to sell it to other enterprises on the market according to the price mechanism. On this basis, along with economic development and technological progress, the government gradually reduces the pollution permit quotas through an overall assessment of economic and social development. As quotas decrease, high-consumption production subjects will gradually withdraw from the market and be eliminated. Furthermore, eco-capitalism emphasizes that the economic benefits brought by "ecological tax reform" and the "pollution permit system" should be fed back into ecological governance in the form of state finance. From the perspective of eco-marketists, these two types of government actions will strengthen the developmental resilience of corporate subjects, expanding ecological effects from the local to the whole through a "forcing mechanism" [2], ultimately driving economic and social development toward a virtuous cycle.
In essence, the core of eco-marketist theoretical propositions is to find a path of "ecological capitalization" through the marketization of ecological resources. Although it partially involves national government macro-policies, these policies are implemented according to the method of "ecological capitalization." Simply put, this defines ecological resources as "commodities" to be used for a fee under the action of the market price mechanism. In response to this, the eco-socialist Saral Sarkar issued a warning: charging for pollution transforms environmental services into commodities, at which point an enterprise can legally pollute the environment more by paying higher fees. Judging from the results of early eco-marketist practices, the "ecological capitalization" path led by market principles did not achieve expected results; instead, it further legalized the exploitation and destruction of the ecological environment by capital subjects, fully demonstrating the anti-ecological characteristics of market logic—and capital logic in particular.
It is precisely because eco-marketism failed to achieve expected results in specific practice that another theory emerged within eco-capitalist theory: eco-Keynesianism. Eco-Keynesianism has formed a systematic theory of ecological intervention, arguing that solving ecological problems cannot rely on the action of the market alone; large-scale government planning and macro-control are necessary. Judging from the practical effects of eco-marketism, ecological modernization cannot be achieved through the free market; the disorder of the free market will instead lead ecological governance into chaos. Therefore, eco-Keynesianism argues that one must have recourse to macro-control at the level of the national government. In the view of eco-Keynesians, the practices of "ecological tax reform" and the establishment of a "pollution permit system" are worthy of affirmation, but such policy recommendations fall far short of successful ecological protection. The government's functions and powers in the process of ecological governance should not be limited to initial intervention but must be extended to all stages of production, distribution, exchange, and consumption.
The focus of the eco-Keynesian critique of eco-marketism is that the latter has fallen into the theoretical trap of what Paul Samuelson called the "fallacy of composition." To put it simply, while some propositions of eco-marketism are worthy of affirmation, the problem lies in the pre-emptive extension of correctness at the micro level to the macro-integrated level. That is, "ecological tax reform" and "pollution permit systems" may be correct at the micro level of individuals and enterprises, but how they perform at the macro level of the economic cycle is a different matter. Whether viewed from the perspective of functions or the scope of power intervention, the government should and is able to extend its scope to the stages of production, distribution, exchange, and consumption, rather than limiting its vision to the local pollution levels of individual and corporate subjects. Furthermore, compared to eco-marketism's emphasis on the consistency between economic and ecological benefits, eco-Keynesianism goes a step further by incorporating the issue of employment into the vision of ecological modernization—that is, solving the problem of unemployment while solving ecological problems.
Eco-Keynesianism emphasizes that the state government should transition from the role of "night watchman" to that of "designer," conducting ecological reconstruction of modern industrial society through powerful macro-control. Eco-Keynesian Rudolf Hickel criticized eco-marketism's "free market" propositions for facing a dual predicament of theory and practice; neither "ecological tax reform" nor "pollution permit" systems can provide a practical method to solve the old problem of the unrestrained accumulation of toxic waste, which is a major issue for all developed industrial societies. Specifically, the theoretical propositions of eco-Keynesianism are mainly manifested in the following two aspects.
First, the government must not only conduct ecological regulation of the micro-market under the action of the price mechanism but must also carry out large-scale ecological investment in a planned manner. The purpose of large-scale ecological investment is to support the development of industries that meet ecological governance requirements (low input, low consumption, low emission), consider appropriately increasing the supply of public services, and reduce the use of industrial machinery through labor subsidies for enterprises to increase human input and provide more jobs. In this way, ecological problems and employment problems could be solved simultaneously. As early as the 1980s, the German Confederation of Trade Unions (DGB) proposed a policy consultation suggestion, arguing that the state should invest 50 billion marks in more than 50 ecological projects over four years. At that time, this series of projects could have solved the employment problem for several hundred thousand people.
Second, under government promotion, ecologically destructive technologies of the industrial era should be phased out through ecological regulation-type technologies of the post-industrial era. With the development and progress of science and technology, especially ecological technology, its role in economic production and ecological governance has become increasingly prominent. Ecological technology will serve as an important means throughout the reconstruction of an ecological society. Driven by ecological technology, the flourishing development of ecological industries will correspondingly give rise to a large demand for new ecological products, leading to a trend of ecological products replacing industrial products. Under the joint action of government regulation and market mechanisms, ecological industries will be extended from a specific field to the entire process of economic and social development, fundamentally increasing economic resilience. In short, compared to eco-marketism, eco-Keynesianism remains skeptical of the ecological utility of market mechanisms, pays more attention to the government's role in resource allocation at the level of redistribution, and cares for social livelihood issues while considering ecological problems.
Whether it is eco-marketism or eco-Keynesianism, both are in fact reformist strategies constructed by Western scholars to solve the ecological predicament of capitalist social development, whose theoretical expression is the theory of capitalist ecological modernization. In a broad sense, "eco-capitalism can be more broadly summarized as an incremental solution and practice for addressing ecological and environmental problems through economic and technological innovation, within the capitalist institutional framework composed of a modern democratic political system and a market economic mechanism." Viewed objectively, as the mainstream theory for promoting ecological construction in Western countries, eco-capitalism is playing an increasingly important role in the economic development, ecological governance, and social transformation of capitalist countries. Some scholars even believe that among the complex and varied ecological theories in the West, eco-capitalism will shoulder the important mission of the "Green Economy" and the "Green New Deal." Despite having a series of progressive significances, whether eco-capitalism can thoroughly solve ecological problems, solve social problems while addressing ecological issues, and even ultimately resolve capitalist contradictions still requires further observation and discussion.
II. A Political Economy Critique of the "Anti-Ecological" Nature of Eco-Capitalism
Viewed objectively, to fundamentally resolve ecological issues, one must first scientifically identify their root causes. Only by addressing the source can we avoid falling into a cycle of "pollution—remediation—re-pollution." From a Marxist standpoint, perspective, and method, ecological capitalism generally overlooks the root cause of ecological problems: the logic of the capitalist system. Regarding this, the French eco-socialist Michael Löwy pointed out profoundly: "Our answer is—as Marxists say: the cause lies in the capitalist system. Its absurdity, its irrational logic of infinite expansion and accumulation, its productivist obsession with the pursuit of profit at all costs, are responsible for humanity’s plunge into the abyss." The ecological-Marxist John Bellamy Foster, in The Ecological Crisis and Capitalism, pointed out even more explicitly: "Ecology and capitalism are two mutually opposing realms; this opposition is expressed not in every single instance, but as a whole in the interplay between the two." There exists a natural and irreconcilable "metabolic rift" [3] between "ecology" and "capitalism"; whatever is ecological must necessarily be non-capitalist, and whatever is capitalist must necessarily be anti-ecological. This judgment is rooted in the expansionary, profit-seeking, and short-sighted characteristics of the logic of the capitalist system—factors fundamentally in contradiction with "ecology." A fact implicit in the logic of the capitalist system is that within a capitalist framework, any attempt by ecological capitalism to solve ecological problems is essentially mere tinkering and patching; only by transforming the capitalist system can attempts to solve ecological problems possess theoretical persuasiveness and practical feasibility.
First, regarding the expansionary characteristic of the logic of the capitalist system, Marx's analysis of "capital" in Capital profoundly noted that capital is not a thing, but in its essence value that valorizes itself—a capitalist social relation mediated by things. As the concrete manifestation of capitalist social relations, the existential value and purpose of the specific category of "capital" is the limitless "sucking" of living labor; to achieve this goal, "capital drives beyond every barrier to universality," extending its claws not only toward the working class but also toward "defenseless" nature. The specificity of capitalism lies in the fact that it must be built upon the foundation of infinite expansion; once it stops expanding, it signifies its own "end." Therefore, from the perspective of the nature of capitalism, "each unit of capital faces the fate of 'grow or die' [4], and every capitalist must endlessly seek to expand markets and increase profits, or else lose their position in the hierarchical structure." As long as capitalism exists, it must pursue an economic development model of infinite expansion and infinite growth. Once the extraction of natural resources exceeds ecological limits, ecological problems will accompany capitalism throughout in a vicious cycle.
Second, regarding the profit-seeking characteristic of the logic of the capitalist system, the purpose of capitalist production is not to satisfy human needs for use-value, but to maximize the realization of valorization (value-increase) to obtain more exchange-value. In capitalist society, the exchange-value of wealth is generally expressed in the form of money. Therefore, the purpose of capitalist production is to acquire money. In capitalist society, all types of needs are ultimately reduced to one: the need for money. Furthermore, under the logic of the capitalist system, money must necessarily re-enter the spheres of production and circulation, ultimately taking on the attributes of capital and once again possessing the logic of expansionary valorization. Therefore, what capitalist states focus on most in economic and social development is growth in terms of value dimensions, such as economic growth rates and total economic volume, while neglecting human development, let alone the ecological environment. In short, capitalism takes the acquisition of profit—rather than human development and ecological protection—as its objective, treating both humans (laborers) and nature entirely as tools for valorization.
Third, regarding the short-sighted characteristic of the logic of the capitalist system, this is a derivative feature determined by the expansionary and profit-seeking nature of that logic. To achieve the valorization and expansion of capital and the limitless acquisition of surplus value, many governments and enterprises in capitalist society usually only focus on short-term immediate interests, lacking long-term considerations for economic and social development. "Industrial enterprises cannot operate for future generations... we must produce for the market now to make money." This leads to a total disregard for "natural limits"; even when importance is attached to ecological issues to alleviate domestic ecological contradictions, the solutions involve resource exploitation and the transfer of pollution [5]. The ecological tax reforms and applications of ecological technology advocated by ecological capitalism seem feasible, but as soon as they "touch the cake" [6] of the ruling class or hinder capital valorization, they cannot be smoothly advanced in practice.
From the historical process of the development of human civilization, capitalism's role in promoting the social productive forces is indeed incomparable to previous social formations; this is the "civilizing" influence of capital that Marx spoke of. However, this civilizing nature of capitalism contains a destructive side. From the perspective of human development, capitalism treats laborers as commodities; laborers obtain the freedom of being "unencumbered" (owning nothing) [7], free to sell their own labor power. Under the dictates of the capitalist system’s logic, laborers are reduced to tools for valorization. In capitalist society, both owners of capital and laborers depart from their free nature, exhibiting a highly reified state. Capital owners lose themselves in the competition for valorization, alienating into "personified capital," while laborers, having lost their conditions of production, are completely subordinated to capital. From the perspective of relations between people, "no other nexus survives between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment.'" Under the rule of capitalism, materialism and egoism prevail, and people have no time to attend to anything beyond working to earn money. From the perspective of the relationship between man and nature, capitalism has also created a contradiction and opposition between the two. As an "unbridled horse" without boundaries or borders, capital must necessarily extend its tentacles into every field and region; anything can become an object for capital to trample upon at will. Under the logic of capital valorization, "production comes on the one hand from the infinite exploitation of the worker, and on the other from the infinite extraction from nature." As long as the capitalist system persists, ecological problems—manifested as the opposition between man and nature—cannot be thoroughly resolved, and these ecological problems will inevitably take on a globalized character, ultimately forcing the people of the vast number of developing countries to "foot the bill." The increase in ecological problems and the expansion of capital valorization are two sides of the same coin; wherever capital expands globally, it will inevitably trigger ecological issues.
Marx profoundly pointed out: "Modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few." The private ownership of the means of production in capitalism determines that the capitalist state only focuses on partial interests and the interests of the few—namely, the interests of the capitalists. The interests of the majority within the whole, as well as the ecological environment as a public resource, can hardly enter the scope of capitalist protection. Aside from the interests of capitalists, everything else can become an object of exploitation and appropriation. Therefore, "the most immediate consequence of private property is the division of production into two opposing sides: the natural side and the human side—land and human activity." Regarding the opposition between man and nature, Marx believed it must be resolved through a transformation of the capitalist system; only by eliminating the institutional foundation of the logic of capitalist expansion can the "anti-ecological" nature of capitalism be fundamentally dismantled.
It is precisely the anti-ecological nature of the logic of the capitalist system that renders any effort to protect the ecology within the capitalist framework effectively futile. Although ecological capitalism is committed to solving ecological problems in capitalist countries, its specific proposals and strategies do not touch the substantive roots of the ecological issue. Therefore, it can only alleviate but not cure ecological problems. At the essential level, ecological capitalism actually puts a green coat on capitalism through the method of "capital innovation." As a historical category, capitalism will inevitably perish. However, from the perspective of its internal developmental logic, capitalism must try every possible means to extend its lifespan. Thus, since its birth, the form of capitalism has undergone multiple changes. No matter how it changes, the essence of capitalism has not changed. As the latest model of morphological evolution, the nature of ecological capitalism remains profit-seeking. "Since the profit-seeking nature has not changed, and the basic contradiction between socialized production and the capitalist private appropriation of the means of production has not changed, the contradiction between ecological capital and ecological justice will surely erupt from time to time, ultimately leading to a deviation from and alienation of the essence of ecological justice and ecological civilization." It is in this sense that I believe ecological capitalism, as a short-term, incremental strategy for capitalist countries to alleviate ecological problems, cannot thoroughly solve ecological problems in the long run; its theory itself is "anti-ecological."
III. The Prerequisite and Foundation for Solving Ecological Problems: The Public Form of Ownership
As described above, although the emergence of ecological problems is influenced by multiple factors such as population size and values, the most fundamental cause lies in the mode of production and the social system accompanying it. The expansionary, profit-seeking, and short-term characteristics of the capitalist mode of production and the capitalist system lead to a natural contradiction between capitalism and ecological development. To fundamentally solve ecological problems, one must eliminate the anti-ecological nature of the social system and actively promote a transformation of the mode of production that conforms to the requirements of ecological civilization construction. John Bachtell, Chairman of the Communist Party USA, pointed out profoundly: "The capitalist mode of production can hardly create harmony in the relationship among man, nature, and society. Only in a socialist society can people make this harmony a reality." Compared to capitalism, socialism possesses multiple advantages in solving ecological problems, including its value standpoint, institutional foundation, and economic system.
First, from the perspective of value standpoint, there is the advantage-gap between capitalism’s "valorization-centeredness" and socialism’s "people-centeredness." As a product of the bourgeois revolution, the capitalist system naturally prioritizes the protection of the interests of capitalists, manifesting a development philosophy "centered on valorization" in its value standpoint. As a product of the proletarian revolution, the socialist system must necessarily prioritize the fundamental interests of all the people, manifesting a "people-centered" development philosophy.
Second, from the perspective of institutional foundation, there is the advantage-gap between capitalist private ownership and socialist public ownership. Under the conditions of capitalist private ownership, the "contradiction between socialized production and capitalist private appropriation of the means of production" has remained unresolved since the birth of capitalism and cannot be resolved. On the one hand, the massive expansion of wealth in the upper classes causes significant waste and pollution; on the other hand, the lower classes are filled with abject poverty and injustice, and the basic living needs of the people can hardly be truly met. Under the conditions of socialist public ownership, the means of subsistence (including natural resources) are jointly held by all the people; there is no situation where a privileged class privately appropriates ecological resources. "Even a whole society, a nation, or all contemporary societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, like boni patres familias [good heads of households], they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition." By continuously eliminating the "contradiction between socialized production and capitalist private appropriation," socialist public ownership abolishes both the exploitation of the laboring people by capital and the enslaved extraction of natural resources by capital. Under the conditions of socialist public ownership, the products created by laborers belong to society, and the laborers' own needs will be reasonably met under socialist modes of distribution; meanwhile, social production will adopt planned, non-destructive methods for the extraction of natural resources. As Marx profoundly pointed out, in communist society, "socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature." The fundamental purpose of the logic of the socialist system is not valorization or expansion, nor the protection of the interests of a certain group, but is based on the overall relationship between man and nature, taking the satisfaction of human use-value needs as the purpose of production, and striving for the early realization of the free liberation and well-rounded development of all humanity.
Third, looking at economic systems, the difference lies in the comparative advantages between the capitalist market economy and the socialist market economy. Under the capitalist market economy system, economic and social development is left to the dominance of the free market, while the government plays only an auxiliary role and appears on the scene only after problems and crises have already emerged. The government is often merely a "night watchman" [8] for "wealth," essentially serving as an accomplice to capital's pursuit of profit by allowing the free market to develop at will. However, the market is not omnipotent; the defects of the market—its spontaneity, blindness, and lag—dictate that if the market is allowed to develop freely, it will cause a vicious cycle of ecological problems. In contrast, the socialist market economy emphasizes the decisive role of the market in resource allocation while better leveraging the role of the government. Compared to the "night watchman" status of governments in capitalist countries, the government in a socialist country acts more as a "planner" and "regulator," using the "sentience" of the government to compensate for the "ruthlessness" of the market. The socialist market economy must operate under the influence of socialist political forces; it is a planned, purposeful, and foresighted market economy that, to a large extent, eliminates the hazards caused by market mechanism failures. "The goal of socialism is not accumulation, but the development of global productive forces to satisfy the needs of the working people. Therefore, we see that socialism, by its very nature, is a harmonious and universal economic form."
The issue that needs clarification here is that, from a theoretical perspective, only socialism is a social form consistent with the requirements of ecological civilization; yet, from a practical perspective, why has China—as the world's largest socialist country—also generated ecological problems during its modernization process? The aforementioned contradiction between theory and practice has led some people to make misjudgments. We must have a clear understanding of this issue: China's ecological problems are not caused by public ownership, but by a variety of historical and realistic factors. On one hand, constrained by the level of development of the productive forces, we neglected the "quality" of economic development to a certain extent, forming an extensive growth model [9] over a historical period. On the other hand, in the process of developing the socialist market economy, we had neither existing theoretical guidance nor successful experiences to draw upon, and could only move forward by "groping our way" [10]; this, combined with the transfer of pollution from developed capitalist countries, collectively triggered China's ecological problems.
As socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered the New Era, under the guidance of Xi Jinping installations of Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, we have made ecological civilization construction a vital component of the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan and the Four Comprehensives strategic layout. We have carried out a series of fundamental, pioneering, and long-term tasks, proposed a series of new concepts, new ideas, and new strategies, and continuously strengthened the Party's leadership over ecological civilization construction. China's ecological civilization construction has achieved systemic and historic accomplishments. Therefore, theory and practice continuously prove that as long as we recognize the importance of ecological civilization and proceed from the production modes and institutional foundations—such as strengthening top-level design [11] regarding the synergy between socialist public ownership and ecological civilization—ecological problems can be completely resolved under the socialist system.
At the present stage, although China has built a moderately prosperous society in all respects, it remains in the primary stage of socialism [12] and is far from reaching the historical stage of "abolishing capital" predicted by Marx. This requires us to view the historical role of capital dialectically. On one hand, we must continuously improve the socialist market economy system through comprehensively deepening reform to further release the potential for the development of productive forces. On the other hand, we must provide rational guidance for capital. Through the power of the socialist state and government, and by means of standardized management via rules and regulations and healthy competition in ecological markets, we must guide the innovation of capital markets and promote the transformation of capital from industrial capital into ecological capital. Thus, we shall forge a path for socialist ecological civilization with Chinese characteristics that is distinct from that of Western developed countries. (Notes omitted)
(The author is a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Marxism, Jilin University) Online Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Journal of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping Theory, Issue 4, 2023