Introduction note from the Editor

Nonviolence

Just as spirituality informs ecowomanist activism, a commitment to liberation guides natural anarchist eco-activism. For natural anarchists nondualist relationality extends beyond the human. Therefore, liberation is not hyper-individual isolation or separation, but connection with each other and with nonhuman nature. Importantly, liberation does not mean freedom from all forms of constraint, but freedom from unjust or unnatural restraint. From this perspective, liberation should never be sought through violent means, and restraint may at times be in order to prevent or halt violent action. This notion of liberation influences natural anarchism’s nonviolent ideological underpinnings. Liberation is understood to be the restoration of relationships, and violence does nothing but further sever connectivity.

Jones defines violence as some violation by means of actual or threatened physical force. Thus, violence requires the existence and use of both violation and force. Natural anarchists do not overwhelmingly dismiss force as a component of eco-activist strategy and cite that “force is necessary when material problems require a physical solution that will not otherwise be forthcoming” (jones, 2009, p. 325). For natural anarchists forceful eco-activism might take the form of elephants uprooting a field of genetically modified crops or baboons trashing the newly built homes that displaced their families (p. 239). Force might be humans breaking into science labs to rescue rabbits from those who would exploit them (p. 328). According to jones, force must be properly contextualized in order for it to be warranted. Eco-anarchist strategies that are construed as violent in the mainstream media are often framed as forceful but not violent by ecoanarchists themselves. Jones applies this need for contextualization to the question of property damage, and contends that in order to define property damage as violence we must ask “[w]hat objects will be damaged? For what purpose? Using what kind of force? Will any living being be injured in any way?” (p. 324). Natural anarchist ideology mostly does not recognize property destruction itself as a form of violence. Jones continues:
If the only potential “injury” is to “property rights,” then I would argue that the act is not violent. Property rights are suspect within a worldview that holds that neither land nor animals are object to be owned. In many instances, property rights are themselves violence or, at minimum, the result of past violence. The creation of “property” generally involves a process wherein land or animals are forcibly enclosed or wherein people or animals are alienated from the products of their labor. These are inherently violent processes, since they involve actual or threatened use of force to cause injury. Moreover, continuing violence is often needed to maintain property. From electrified fences around lakes to armed guards at grocery stores, the violence implicit in property is hidden in plain view every day. [original emphasis] (jones, 2009, p. 324-325)
Many natural anarchists justify force in the context of escalating environmental degradation, but violence in the sense of harm to other persons including nonhuman persons must always be avoided. Jones asserts that upsetting oppositional dualisms, working in the community, and building stronger relationships between humans and nonhuman nature will assist natural anarchists in understanding the difference between force and violence. Grounding eco-activism in a form of liberation that is relational and interconnected is crucial for maintaining nonviolent praxis for positive ecological and social change.

Ecowomanist philosophy is inherently nonviolent. Ecowomanists (and womanists more generally) believe that everyone and everything in the material and spiritual world is connected: “Each individual being is interrelated with all that exists on multiple levels and in multiple ways, ranging from economics and ecology to language, social systems, and energy” (Keating, 2013, p. 11). Thus, because violence exists in the world it must therefore live within all people and not just those who act violently. Maparyan (2012) explains, “all violent action begins with a violent thoughtform fueled by a violent emotion, brought into material expression through an identifiable set of contextually facilitative factors” or circumstances. It is the responsibility of all to intervene into the circumstances that foster violent thoughtforms. Ecowomanists seek to “change hearts and minds” anywhere and everywhere, and halt violence “through love-based technologies of social transformation” (p. 193). For both ecowomanists and natural anarchists violence obstructs overarching goals toward love-based communities on one hand and universal liberation on the other. Each philosophy contends that violence is counterproductive, intrinsically wrong, and should never inform environmental strategy.

To recapitulate, ecowomanism highlights a specifically nonviolent spiritual activism, and natural anarchism purports a form of liberation to be achieved through nonviolent means. Importantly, liberation defined according to a natural anarchism rubric is not rooted in anthropocentric frameworks, and it is not limited to humans. Additionally, and in contrast to libertarian anarchism, natural anarchism does not understand liberation as freedom from others. Jones posits that liberation is connection, and “true freedom can only be found in the context of healthy relationships with each other and our enveloping ecosystems” (Jones, 2009, p. 244). Furthermore, natural anarchism does not purport that humans have the superior ability to liberate nature or even the duty to do so. Nor does natural anarchism conceptualize nonhuman nature as being powerless or nonagential. On the contrary, natural anarchist ideology proposes that humans have much to learn about liberation from nonhuman nature in general and animals and plants in particular.
Respect for Nonhuman Animals

In terms of resisting coercive power, animals and plants are themselves natural anarchists. pattrice jones notes that, to our knowledge, nonhuman nature does not require the signing of treaties in order to organize itself into complex communities. Nonhuman animals do not draft constitutions to assure one another of their cooperation in complex collective activities. Flying over arbitrary socially constructed borders

birds and other “outlaws” routinely disregard the authorities and boundaries established by [human] people while working cooperatively with one another to pursue their own purpose in the context of human exploitation and expropriation . . . [“S]uperweeds” creep though fields of genetically modified corps, evolving to thwart each new herbicide in turn . . . If [anarchists] want to bring [their] dreams of pacific anarchism to fruition, [they] need to study anarchism in practice. That means learning from [nonhuman] animals . . . (jones, 2009, p. 236)
Jones affirms that humans have been learning from nonhuman nature since the beginning of time. We have drawn inspiration for plumbing from trees and construction techniques from termites (p. 242). If humans continue to observe the behavior of bees, for example, we may get a practical lesson in the intricacies of non-hierarchical decision-making taking place in bee hives.

According to natural anarchists, humans should not only observe and listen to nonhuman nature in order to conceive alternatives to centralized governments—we have an ethical obligation to consult other species as we work to make another more just world possible. jones argues that in failing to consult land and nonhuman animals about decisions affecting them natural anarchists reproduce the dualist, hierarchical relations they seek to refute. Plans for more sustainable futures must account for the interests of nonhuman nature. Human natural anarchists can begin to consider nonhuman needs by inviting animal advocates to their planning meetings, and by closely observing what other species as well as the land may be saying through their behavior.

Respect for nonhuman animals is similarly integral to ecowomanist spiritual activism. Many ecowomanists maintain vegan diets and cruelty-free consumption lifestyles as an expression of conscious harmlessness. Conscious harmlessness is a major tenet of ecowomanist healing praxis. Closely aligned with ahimsa, conscious harmlessness is a spiritualized notion of nonviolence and respect for all life (Phillips, 2010). Informed by ahimsa, ecowomanist veganism is the refusal to consume animal-based food and products. Some ecowomanist vegans (as well as vegans more generally) choose not to consume animal products, animal bi-products, and products tested on animals due to the belief that animals have intrinsic value and rights. Some vegans refrain from eating meat and dairy for reasons of health. Others link their practice to philosophical or spiritual beliefs. Finally, many practicing vegans cite political and economic considerations undergirding their lifestyles; they are concerned with issues like factory farming, the destruction of rain forests, global warming, the diversion of natural resources away from indigenous lands and people, hyper-consumption, and worker exploitation. These varying rationales are overlapping and may simultaneously inform an individual’s decisions to try veganism. Under the rubric of ecowomanism, veganism—and love and respect for nonhuman animals more generally—“supports both physical and spiritual well-being at both collective and individual levels” (Phillips, 2010, p. 8). Ecowomanist veganism is conceptualized and embraced as a spiritual and ecological positive social change modality rooted in love.
Conclusion: Coalition-Based Ecological Praxis

Mentioned only in passing, pattrice jones states that natural anarchists “ought to be vegan,” and asserts that many eco-anarchists practice veganism (jones, 2009, p. 243). Indeed, veganism penetrates the false boundaries distinguishing womanist and anarchist philosophical world views from one another as does their shared nondualist ideology, dedication to interconnectedness, and commitment to nonviolent environmental praxis. Importantly, I do not contend that natural anarchism and ecowomanism are the same idea. Nor do I argue that natural anarchists are unwitting ecowomanists or vice versa. However, I do believe that conceiving ecological thought and action through Rosi Braidotti’s theory of nomadic politics allows us to make necessary linkages to recognize parity between these two seemingly disparate praxes. Braidotti (2006) asserts that “[g]iven the complexity and paradoxes of our times, there cannot be only one political frontline or precise strategy [for change]. Multiple positions are needed instead” (p. 134). Furthermore, “conceptual and ethical creativity” are key to “producing dynamic transversal interaction or movement among heterogeneous and diverse sites and strategies” (p. 134). Acknowledging the ways in which natural anarchism and ecowomanism overlap in terms of nondualism, interconnectedness, nonviolence, and respect for nonhuman animals pushes activists involved in myriad social justice causes to creatively craft new ways of thinking about the environment, about coalition, and about political eco-activism. Applying nomadic politics to ecological issues assists natural anarchism and ecowomanism in existing relationally despite contradiction and encourages activists possessing divergent worldviews to connect with one another and nonhuman nature as we zigzag toward more sustainable futures. Natural anarchism’s emphasis on nonhierarchical liberatory self-governance, and ecowomanism’s love-based spiritual activism intermingle to converge within nomadic politics. This convergence serves as both bridge and threshold toward crafting coalition-based praxis among eco-activists eagerly generating nuanced understandings and mixed practical strategies for remedying ecological crisis. Let us cross this bridge and hover in this threshold to co-create planetary sustainability mechanisms nurturing generations to come.

References
Best, S., and Nocella II, A. (2006). A Fire in the belly of the beast: The emergence of revolutionary environmentalism. In S. Best and A. Nocella II (Eds.). Igniting a revolution: Voices in defense of the earth (pp. 8-29). Oakland: AK.

Braidotti, R. (2006). Transpositions: On nomadic ethics. Malden: Polity.

Carter, A. (2010). Beyond primacy: Marxism, anarchism, and radical green political theory. Environmental Politics, 19(6 ), 951-27.

Hall, M. (2011) Beyond the Human: Extending ecological anarchism. Environmental Politics, 20(3), 374-90.

jones, P. (2009). Free as a bird: Natural anarchism in action. In R. Amster, A. DeLeon, L.A Fernandez, A.J Nocella II, and D. Shannon (Eds.). Contemporary anarchist studies: An introductory anthology of anarchy in the academy (pp. 236-246). New York: Routledge

jones, P. (2006). Stomping with the elephants: Feminist principles for radical solidarity. In S.

Best & A.J Nocella II (Eds.). Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth (pp. 319-333). Oakland: AK

Keating, A. (2013). Transformation now!: Toward a post-oppositional politics of change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

LaDuke, W. (1999). All our relations: Native struggles for land and life. Cambridge: South End

Maparyan, L. (2012). The womanist idea. New York: Routledge

Marshall, P.H. (2010). Demanding the impossible: A History of anarchism. Oakland: PM

Phillips, L. (2010). Veganism and ecowomanism. In A. Breeze Harper (Ed.). Sistah vegan: Black

female vegans speak on food, identity, health, and society (pp. 8-19). New York: Lantern

Phillips, L. (2006). Womanism: On its own. In L. Phillips The womanist reader: The first

quarter century of womanist thought (pp. xix-lv). New York: Routledge

Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature. New York: Routledge

Purchase, G. (1997). Anarchism and ecology. New York: Black Rose

Riley, S.S. (2003). Ecology is a sistah’s issue too: The politics of emergent afrocentric ecowomanism. In R.S Gottlieb Liberating faith: Religious voices for justice, peace, and ecological wisdom (pp.398-410). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield

Smith, M. (2007). Wild-life: anarchy, ecology, and ethics. Environmental Policy (16)3: 470-487.

Warren, K.J. (2000). Ecofeminist philosophy: A western perspective on what it is and what it matters. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield

Marx and the Relationship between the Exploitation of Labor and the Degradation of the Environment
Mathieu Dubeau

Seattle University


Abstract: With the fall of 20th century communism and the troubles facing liberal democracy in Europe, a reevaluation of Marxist theory may be relevant to our present predicament in politics and the pending ecological crisis. My analysis is primarily concerned with the alienation induced upon the laboring classes under capitalist development. My argument posits that Marx foresaw that alienation would result in not just the alienation of man from man but of man from himself and Nature as well. This trifecta of alienation, I argue, results in the temporal disconnect between humans and Nature, which eventually culminates in the upset of the symbiotic relationship shared between society and the environment.

Capitalism has been at the core of modern development since the late 1700’s when Adam Smith first published The Wealth of Nations. Over the course of time there have been several theorists willing to critique its workings but none more specifically than Karl Marx. However his insights seem irrelevant to current economic issues because Marxist theory has been thrown to the dustbin of history due to the fall of the Soviet Union and other communist communities around the globe. This paper is an attempt to help resurrect Marx and will argue that as capitalism has sought to perpetually expand, it has done so on the ill-founded basis that resources are infinite. The current ecological crisis has brought with it a need to reevaluate the current economic system. This paper attempts to validate the relevance of Marx to this problem through an examination of his understanding of the symbiotic relationship between labor and the environment. Marxist theory demonstrates that as labor is commoditized, the environment becomes ever more degraded through perpetual materialist consumption and the alienation of the laborer. Only when the means of production are returned in full to the working class and the fruits of their labor become their own will equilibrium in the relationship be reached.

The culmination of capitalism through the full integration of the world economy has resulted in the austerity packages passed by many nation states. This end state of full integration has made labor evermore subservient to capital, which in turn has resulted in the further deterioration of the world environment. Today, Marx is being validated through his understanding of this symbiotic relationship between the laborer and the environment. This newfound validity of Marx, I argue will propel us to retrofit our current economic system based on environmental sustainability through the re-empowering of the working class by reclaiming the means of production and the products they produce, realizing Marx’s idea of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” (Marx, 1994, p. 321). This I argue is the foundation of Marxist ideals, combining the species-character of man, which is free conscious life activity with enduring sustainability for current and future generations.

Before examining the explicit correlation between the commoditization of labor and environmental degradation, the end goal of Marxism must be examined. That goal is the free conscious life activity and the ability of individuals to self-actualize, intellectually and socially, which leads to the betterment of society as a whole. This free conscious life activity for Marx demonstrates that freedom is the basis of all human expression. When it is freely picked, it is what animates all aspects of human nature. Marx displays this clearly when he says:

For labor, life activity, and the productive life appear to man at first only as a means to satisfy a need, the need to maintain physical existence. Productive life, however, is species life. It is life-begetting life. In the mode of life activity lies the entire character of a species, its species character; and free conscious activity is the species character of man. (Marx, 1994, p. 63)
This is Marx’s constitution. It is this free choice that animates man and is the one determining factor in man’s existence that differentiates his species-character from that of animals. This free choice is what leads to our ultimate realization of our purpose in life, our personal identity, development, and environmental consciousness.

This process enters into every aspect of life for Marx, he says, “By degrading free spontaneous activity to the level of a means, alienated labor makes the species-life of a man a means of his physical existence” (Marx, 1994, p. 63). Marx makes it clear, if our free conscious life activity is taken away and the production of our works made alien to us, then we lose our connection with our species-existence. Instead of retaining our human essence we turn to an animalistic function, one that is determined by physical need, which neglects our intellectual and social development. As this animalist nature predominates we lose our connection with the rest of humanity and thus the very essence of our initial animation as humans. In the end, our free choice, which is the basis of all conscious life activity, is not only our connection with ourselves or with other humans but with Nature as well. Once this is lost, man becomes alienated from all aspects of his life, and the human condition begins to deteriorate. Thus freedom is man’s creative self-actualization; it is this uncoerced way of living life that leads to the realization of mans actual freedom, the determination of his life-activity leading him towards his ultimate development. This is Marx’s most astute claim, without this creative freedom, man cannot live to fulfill his purpose and thus becomes alienated from all aspects of life, eventually destroying what is most vital to our existence, our personal identity and what leads to its definition, our environment.

Marx’s labor theory value and that of John Locke’s are roughly similar. Where the difference becomes apparent is in the treatment of Nature. Locke, saw Nature’s bounty as a gift from God and determined that it was infinite and therefore its existence was there for the pillage by man. In Locke’s Second Treatise of Government he presents his definition of private property. Locke states:

Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labor of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by his labor something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for his labor being the unquestionable property of the laborer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others. (Locke, 1980, p. 19)

As Locke (1980) points out clearly, a man who imbues his labor into Nature has turned it into his own property (p. 20). This is not all that different from Marx, but Locke, unlike Marx believed that Nature was subservient to man. “God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being.” (Locke, 1980, p. 18). Clearly, Locke did not intend to grant Nature intrinsic value. According to Locke, Nature is only instrumental to man and deserves no other consideration. This valuation by Locke has defined the character of capitalism. Capital accumulation, being the end goal, has legitimated a system where economics becomes paramount to the environment, when in actuality economics must live within the environmental system.

By contrast Marx viewed the relationship between man and Nature as one of reciprocity, although use-value is attributed by the amount of productive labor imbued within a natural asset, Marx understood that Nature was intrinsic in its value to man because without Nature there is no life and no definition to man.

But coats and linen, like every other element of material wealth that is not the spontaneous produce of nature, must invariably owe their existence to a special productive act materials to particular human wants. So far therefore as labor is creator of use-value, is useful labor, it is a necessary condition, independent of all forms of society, for the existence of the human race; it is an eternal nature-imposed necessity, without which there can be no material exchanges between man and nature, and therefor no life. (Marx, 2007, pp. 9-10)
As Marx clearly demonstrates through this passage the difference between his labor theory of value and the one proposed by Locke is his intrinsic valuation of Nature. Man cannot live outside of Nature; he is in fact defined by it. Thus economics, as defined by Marx, can never be larger than Nature itself. This stark contrast between both theories, the belief that Nature itself is intrinsically valuable even without human labor infused within it, grants legitimacy to Marx in the sustainable context and clearly identifies Nature as a self-reliant system creating it’s own use-values:
The use-values, coat, linen, etc, the bodies of commodities are combinations of two elements – matter and labor. If we take away the useful labor expended upon them, a material substratum is always left, which is furnished by Nature without the help of man. The latter can only work as Nature does, that is by changing the form of matter. Nay more, in this work of changing the form he is constantly helped by natural forces. We see, then, that labor is not the only source of material wealth. (Marx, 2007, p. 10)
According to Marx the regenerative capacities of labor and Nature are one and the same. Nature has value in and of itself, which is separate from its use-value to humans created by labor. For the symbiotic relationship between man and Nature to assume its greatest meaning, the general means of subsistence must be afforded to all while remaining in equilibrium with Nature. The means of subsistence, according to Marx:
Must therefore be sufficient to maintain him in his normal state as a laboring individual. His natural wants, such as food, clothing, fuel, and housing, vary according to the climatic and other physical conditions of his country. On the other hand, the number and extent of his so-called necessary wants, as also the modes of satisfying them are themselves the product of historical development, and depend therefore to a great extent on the degree of civilization of a country, more particularly on the conditions under which, and consequently on the habits and degree of comfort in which, the class of free laborers has been formed…This increased expenditure demands a larger income. If the labor- power works today, tomorrow he must again be able to repeat the same process in the same conditions as regards to health and strength. (Marx, 2007, pp. 139-40)
This to Marx is vital, as soon as the laborer is not afforded his means of subsistence the human condition begins to deteriorate. As the condition of humanity begins to deteriorate, self-actualization of the individuals is reduced and man no longer represents his species-character. The laboring process of capitalism continually commodifies the labor of man until it effectively undercuts the means of subsistence. Man thus becomes a slave to industry and loses what at first gives him his definition, free conscious life activity.

Marx furthers his argument, which again grants Nature intrinsic value and renders capitalism the agent of alienation of man. In the first passage of Critique of the Gotha Program Marx makes evident that labor itself is not the source of all wealth. And for anyone to claim Nature as his own effectively annuls the species character of humans.

Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use-values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. The above phrase is to be found in all children’s primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the pertinent objects and instruments. But a socialist programme cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that alone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the outset behaves towards nature, the primary source of all instruments and objects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth.The bourgeois have very good grounds for ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor is determined by nature, it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission. (Marx, 1994, p. 316)
As Marx persistently demonstrates in the passages above, the difference between his labor theory of value and the one conceptualized by the capitalist and defined by Locke, is that Nature by his account is valuable in and of itself, that even without the labor of man Nature is intrinsically valuable. This form of valuation by Marx makes his thesis relevant when considering the impending environmental crisis and how to reorient our economics to value Nature intrinsically and to associate costs with its destruction. The current modes of capitalist production have always given Nature instrumental value, when in actuality it has always been equally important in the valuation of production. Without Nature man has no definition. Marx makes this explicit, that a relationship between man and Nature must always be held in equilibrium, and if it is not, it becomes unsustainable and results in degradation of the laborer and Nature. The relationship links labor and Nature as one, the exhaustion of the former leads to the collapse of the latter. This definition annuls the premise of the relationship between capitalist and laborer, because labor being an extension of Nature cannot be owned by anyone else other than the laborer himself. The laborer then selling himself to a capitalist for a wage becomes a slave of the bourgeois and forfeits his species-character of free conscious life activity resulting in his complete alienation.

Labor, is a process where both man and Nature participate. Marx makes this evident in Das Kapital. As Marx describes the relation of Nature to man, he makes clear that man does not live outside of Nature. Nature is what gives man his definition, it is not as the Bible describes, there for the exploitation of man but rather there to work in concert with man. Marx states: “Thus Nature becomes one of the organs of his activity, one that he annexes to his own bodily organs, adding stature to himself in spite of the Bible” (Marx, 2007, p. 145). This further demonstrates that the foundation of the relationship between man and Nature are inextricably linked, and only exist because of one another. Marx goes on continually refining the relationship that man and Nature share in Alienated Labor:

The universality of man appears in practice in the universality, which makes the whole of nature his inorganic body: (1) as a direct means of life, and (2) as the matter, object, and instrument of his life activity. Nature is the inorganic body of man, that is, nature insofar as it is not the human body. Man lives by nature. This means that nature is his body with which he must remain in perpetual process in order not to die. That the physical and spiritual life of man is tied up with nature is another way of saying that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature. (Marx, 1994, p. 63)
In direct opposition of what Locke states in his labor theory of value, man, being part of Nature, must live within it, not outside of it. Capitalism at its core is not defined by the bounds of Nature but rather the continual exploitation of laborers for the sake of perpetual capital accumulation and material consumption. Thus the exploitation of laborers is also directly the exploitation of Nature as Marx demonstrates, because man is part of Nature.

More tellingly Marx takes the modern example of industry and agriculture and demonstrates their destructive effects on both the laborer and Nature:

In agriculture as in manufacture, the transformation of production under the sway of capital, means, at the same time, the martyrdom of the producer; the instrument of labor becomes the means of enslaving, exploiting and impoverishing the laborer; the social combination and organization of labor-processes is turned into an organized mode of crushing out the workman’s individual vitality, freedom and independence… In modern agriculture, as in the urban industries, the increased productiveness and quantity of the labor set in motion are bought at the cost of laying waste and consuming disease labor-power itself. Moreover, all progress in capitalistic agriculture is a process in the art, not only of robbing the laborer, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time, is a progress towards the ruining the lasting sources of that fertility. The more a country starts its development on the foundation of modern industry, like the United States, for example, the more rapid its destruction. Capitalist production, therefore develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into the social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth – the soil and the laborer. (Marx, 2007, p. 254)
The real question of Marx’s critique is not whether man and Nature are intertwined but rather how capitalism takes the original relationship between man and Nature, and transforms it from a sustainable relationship to one of exploitation. Capitalism according to Marx subjugates the labor of man and deadens his initial perceptions of his relations with Nature, construing a laborer who is rather defined by material consumption instead of free conscious life activity. Once that relationship is lost, alienated from man and converted into a process of profit seeking by a capitalist individual with the only motivation of accruing more profits, then sustainability of the entire system is lost, and man becomes completely alienated from his initial species-character. He is no longer a free conscious being but rather a slave of industry that perpetuates the alienation of man from Nature through the increase in material consumption. This relationship, caused by the monopolization of the means of production by a few capitalist individuals resembles a veil drawn over the eyes of laborers. This veil obstructs the laborers from viewing their relationship with Nature and effectively annuls their perceptions of sustainability.

For capitalism to function properly and effectively alienate man from his species-character, capitalists must swindle capital from the laborers production and wages and reinvest that capital in more natural resources and laborers. There are two types of capital according to Marx, variable capital and constant capital. Variable capital is the capital represented by labor, and because labor reproduces its equivalent and a surplus it becomes variable in nature, the surplus being the capitalist’s profits. Constant capital, on the other hand, is represented by raw materials, instruments of labor and auxiliary material and this the capitalist cannot produce profits from because they are mere investments into the labor process (Marx, 2007, p. 166). The combination of both variable and constant capital results in 100 percent of total capital invested. The goal of the capitalist is to accrue the greatest amount of surplus-value, surplus- value is the profit amount made by the capitalist per laborer employed. By doing so the capitalist can redirect this surplus-value into more laborers, which creates more surplus-value meaning more investment in constant capital, purchasing more resources for the creation of more commodities.

There exists an inverse relationship between variable and constant capital. As labor becomes commodified, which results in the reduction of wages and variable capital a greater amount can be dedicated to constant capital. As a greater percentage of the total investment is dedicated to constant capital an increase in resource consumption can be observed. Thus as wages fall and an increase in surplus-value is realized, that surplus-value is reinvested into more resources for the creation of more commodities. Thus this inverse relationship between variable and constant capital results in the commodification of the labor and the degradation of the environment. As Marx (1994) mentions previously “Man lives by nature. This means that nature is his body with which he must remain in perpetual process in order not to die” (p. 63). Nature being finite, this inverse relationship caused be a constant need for greater capital accumulation creates a contradiction in the capitalist system and points to the pending ecological crisis.

The pending ecological crisis can thus be seen through the theory of Marx. Marx’s relevance to the current state of affairs is prominent. Marx foresees that as labor, which this paper has argued to have a symbiotic relationship with Nature, becomes commodified and alienated from each individual laborer the means of production begins to live outside of the natural world. Since man is part of Nature and in order to survive must live in equilibrium with Nature, then in essence capitalism and its inefficient valuation of Nature is effectively leading humankind to commit ecological suicide.