The scientific‐technological revolution,the forces of nature,and Marx's theory of value

ABSTRACT

Worker and environmental alliances are critical to advancing economic and environmental transformation, yet they have been very challenging to promote and sustain. This article analyzes these difficulties by providing a class analysis of “divide and conquer” strategies instigated by capitalist firms to subvert worker/environmental alliances. It situates the relationship between workers, environmentalist and capitalist firms in two historical contexts, namely of Keynesian welfare state capitalism and neoliberal capitalism. It highlights some contextual factors that shape “divide and conquer” strategies of capital—particularly the paradigm of economic growth characteristic of these historical periods. The conclusion contemplates some of the possibilities that a post-capitalist economy might provide for workers and environmentalists to rethink economic and ecological agendas without the distorting influence of the “divide and conquer” strategies employed by capitalist firms.     

Marx,Engels, and Ecology*

The following is a brief survey of Marx and Engels’ views on ecology, from the viewpoint of their relevance for 21th-century ecosocialism. While there are some serious limitations in the way both consider the “development of productive forces,” there are powerful insights in their discussion of the destructive consequences of capitalist expansion for the environment—an expansion that generates a disastrous metabolic rift in the exchanges between human societies and nature. Some ecological Marxists distinguish between “first stage ecosocialists”—who believe that Marx analyses on ecological issues are too incomplete and dated to be of real relevance today—and “second stage ecosocialists,” who emphasize the contemporary methodological significance of Marx’s ecological critique of capitalism. This paper tries to argue for a third position (which probably could be accepted by several people of the two groups above): Marx and Engels’ discussion on ecological issues is incomplete and dated but despite these shortcomings it does have real relevance and methodological significance today.     

Radical Reformism and the Marxist Critique

The mainstream environmental movement has tended to accept the continuation of capitalism and the growth economy. A de-materialization is hoped to follow from limits on the use of natural resources. Eco-Marxists have opposed this strategy, claiming environmental problems are intrinsic to capitalism. More recently a tendency which I will call “radical reformism” has been gaining strength. Radical reformists argue that a growth economy is not compatible with environmental limits. They look to regulate capitalism to prevent growth. The overall intention is for a peaceful transition within a broadly capitalist economy. The eco-Marxist critique of mainstream environmentalism can also be applied to radical reformism. While radical reformists may have some answers to this critique, these answers bring further problems.     

Semiotics of pride and profit: interrogating commodification in indigenous handicraft production

This study investigates the shifting terrain of pride, profit and power relations in minority language communities under contemporary globalisation. While “pride” associates linguistic-cultural heritage with identity and preservation, “profit” views these as sources of economic gain. In contemporary late capitalism, “pride” seems to be increasingly giving way to “profit”. Arguing that this transformation needs to be interrogated in terms of complexity and that a detailed, multilayered semiotic analysis can open a privileged window for such an inquiry, this study combines critical multimodal discourse analysis and an ethnographic approach to analyse processes of semiotic commodification in handicraft production in the indigenous minority language community of the Sámi in northern Lapland. The investigation focuses on the activities of an innovative Sámi artist and entrepreneur, and within these a range of paper notebooks, which are, although designed by the Sámi artist and sold in her handicraft shop in Lapland, produced by women living at the border of Thailand and Laos. The investigation illuminates two critical shifts: how the move towards profit can open up space to contest the ownership of pride within an ethnic community. Second, how this move makes way for new, globalised modes of production of ‘indigenous handicrafts’ and creates global vectors of power, engaged in both empowerment and exploitation, in the production of both pride and profit. The study thereby contributes to the understanding of the increasingly complex power relations and the ambivalence and multiple effects of practices constituting the apparent shift from “pride” to “profit”.     

Post-capitalist property

When writing about property and property rights in his imagined post-capitalist society of the future, Marx seemed to envisage ‘individual property’ co-existing with ‘socialized property’ in the means of production. As the social and political consequences of faltering growth and increasing inequality, debt and insecurity gradually manifest themselves, and with automation and artificial intelligence lurking in the wings, the future of capitalism, at least in its current form, looks increasingly uncertain. With this, the question of what property and property rights might look like in the future, in a potentially post-capitalist society, is becoming ever more pertinent. Is the choice simply between private property and markets, and public (state-owned) property and planning? Or can individual and social property in the (same) means of production co-exist, as Marx suggested? This paper explores ways in which they might, through an examination of the Chinese household responsibility system (HRS) and the ‘fuzzy’ and seemingly confusing regime of land ownership that it instituted. It examines the HRS against the backdrop of Marx’s ideas about property and subsequent (post-Marx) theorizing about the legal nature of property in which property has come widely to be conceptualized not as a single, unitary ‘ownership’ right to a thing (or, indeed, as the thing itself) but as a ‘bundle of rights’. The bundle-of-rights idea of property, it suggests, enables us to see not only that ‘individual’ and ‘socialized’ property’ in the (same) means of production might indeed co-exist, but that the range of institutional possibility is far greater than that between capitalism and socialism/communism as traditionally conceived.     

International Cooperation to Manage High‐Skill Migration: The Case of India–U.S. Relations

Highly skilled people are among the most valuable factors of production in the contemporary world economy. Some have characterized the competition among nations for these people as a “brain drain” or “war for talent,” which imposes significant costs on the countries of emigration. However, the distribution of costs and benefits that results from high‐skill migration is not necessarily zero‐sum or fixed. It may be altered through international cooperation, producing a self‐reinforcing “win–win” scenario for sending and receiving countries. Bilateral cooperation, focused on specific sectors affected by migration, is the most promising approach for realizing such a scenario. This paper explores the prospects and potential for such cooperation between India and the United States, which comprise what is probably the world's largest high‐skill mobility relationship. After sketching the broad contours of the relationship, we explore the prospects for mutually beneficial cooperation in three specific fields of high‐skill migration: information technology services, medicine and nursing, and graduate education.     

Means to a Better World: Two Analytical Methods,Similar Policies

In different ways David Harvey’s Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism and Robert Reich’s Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few tell us what we already know about capitalism’s rigged system favoring the rich while exploiting working people. Reich bases his analysis on five building blocks of “free markets” which demonstrate government’s unbreakable connection to the shape given to those markets. Reich’s solutions move the conversation leftward from the establishment mainstream. Harvey, on the other hand, examines seventeen contradictions in today’s capitalism that need to be resolved and proposes seventeen mandates to resolve them. His “mandates” have similarities to Reich’s policy suggestions. Coming from different perspectives and relying on different methodologies, but both focusing on establishing a more just society, both Reich and Harvey wind up suggesting similar changes.     

Value,Nature, and Labor: A Defense of Marx

In this theoretical intervention, I argue that Karl Marx’s theory of value remains a powerful way to understand nature–society relations under capitalism. I suggest environmentalist critiques often misunderstand Marx’s value theory as a theory that “values” workers over nature. His critical theory is better understood as an explanation of how capitalist value exploits both workers and the environment. My defense of Marxian value theory is articulated through five “theses.” I provide empirical illustration based on recent research into the nitrogen fertilizer industry. (1) Value theory does not refer to all values. (2) Marx’s contention that nature does not contribute to value helps us explain its degradation under capitalism. (3) Marx’s value theory rooted in production allows for a critique of environmental economic valuation schemes (e.g. payments for ecosystem services) which are based on neoclassical value theories rooted in consumption/exchange. (4) Value is abstract social labor, but that means it also abstracts from nature. (5) Capital does value certain parts of nature and that matters. I conclude by advocating a “value theory of nature” in the spirit of Diane Elson’s powerful articulation of Marx’s “value theory of labor.”     

Callonistics: a disentanglement

A critical response is offered to the special issue of Economy and Society devoted to Michel Callon's economics. The continuing weaknesses of his approach, as adopted and adapted from actor-network theory and the study of science and technology, are highlighted, together with the weaknesses of the economics itself. In addition, the latter is shown to conform heavily with recent developments within and around mainstream economics. The conclusion that capitalism does not exist, and so does not need a political economy, is argued both to disarm social theory in face of the current, virulent assault from economics imperialism and to waste the opportunity to offer an alternative economics of its own.     

Ecosocialisms,Past, Present and Future: From the Metabolic Rift to a Reconstructive,Dynamic and Hybrid Ecosocialism

John Bellamy Foster and his colleagues have recently argued that the project of ecosocialism should be understood in terms of a “prefigurative” and “first stage” of red-green thinkers whose insights have largely been transcended by their own work on the metabolic rift. Rift scholars have further argued that “second-stage” ecosocialists should push back against “idealist” deviations occurring amongst historical materialists concerned with the production of nature, socionatures and “hybridity,” as well as more or less all engagements with literatures on eco-technological transitions, industrial ecology and the like, which are implicated in supporting “green capitalism.” This paper critically evaluates these claims. In each case, it is argued, rift scholarship is narrowing the possibilities for interdisciplinary engagement and for thinking in dynamic and reconstructive terms about red-green futures. It is our sense that an ecosocialist vision of just transitions has to be conceptualized as a diverse, dynamic, iterative and always incomplete affair. Anthropocene ecosocialisms are inevitably going to involve co-producing, making and remaking hybrid social ecologies on an irreducibly restless, turbulent and warming planet. We argue that what follows from this is the necessity to both critique and recuperate the better insights of hybrid political ecology and ecological modernities.     

Where Are We, Where Do We Want to Be, How Do We Get There?

This article briefly summarises the core causal elements in the global predicament, focusing on the market system and the relatively neglected limits to growth, i.e. over-consumption, and then 'draws implications for the form a sustainable society must take'. 'The Simpler Way' must involve far less affluent lifestyles in small scale, highly self-sufficient and localised economies, within a zero-growth post-capitalist society. The paper continues by discussing the strategic implications and argues that the most promising arena in which to work for transition at this point in time is the Global Ecovillage Movement. Differences with orthodox left thinking about strategy are discussed, including the notion of attempting to build the new society before the old has been abandoned, the potential significance of setting examples and whether or not it makes sense to confront capitalism.     

Towards the circular economy: A commentary on corporate approaches and challenges

The concept of the circular economy is gaining momentum within the business world, and it is seen as an important element in the transition to a more sustainable future. Circular economies are built around a range of activities that look to reduce the demand for raw material inputs and natural resources and to recover, recycle, and reuse those inputs and resources as an integral part of the production process. As such, the concept of the circular economy restorative and regenerative and is contrasted, by its proponents, with the traditional “linear economy” that turns raw materials into waste in the production process and that is seen to lead to environmental pollution and the removal of natural capital from the environment. This commentary paper outlines the characteristic features of the concept of the circular economy, outlines how a number of companies are adopting circular economy approaches, and offers some general reflections on the application of the concept.     

The Theory and Practice of “Nudging”: Changing Health Behaviors

Many of the most significant challenges in health care—such as smoking, overeating, and poor adherence to evidence‐based guidelines—will only be resolved if we can influence behavior. The traditional policy tools used when thinking about influencing behavior include legislation, regulation, and information provision. Recently, policy analysts have shown interest in policies that “nudge” people in particular directions, drawing on advances in understanding that behavior is strongly influenced in largely automatic ways by the context within which it is placed. This article considers the theoretical basis for why nudges might work and reviews the evidence in health behavior change. The evidence is structured according to the Mindspace framework for behavior change. The conclusion is that insights from behavioral economics offer powerful policy tools for influencing behavior in health care. This article provides public administration practitioners with an accessible summary of this literature, putting these insights into practical use.     

A Post-Parsimonious Proposition

This article is at once a critique, a challenge, and a risk, first in the form of instructive parody, moving on to engage more seriously with the critique of “parsimonious” social science embedded within it, and finally suggesting ways to embrace and advance a legacy of new political science. Employing satire, the article begins by outlining the various methods within the field of mainstream political science currently being used to tackle the (impossible) empirical project of exploring an “ideal world.” Next, although protocol cautions emerging political scientists to tread lightly with critiques of entrenched methods, established scholarship, and renowned journals, it argues that substantive analyses of this less than “ideal world” are still urgently interwoven with provocative interrogation of this less than ideal discipline. Beyond critique however, the goal of this commentary is both to affirm the risk-taking trajectory of “new” political science that has beckoned many into the field and to insist upon the continuation of this forward move(ment): opening up space for, and claiming as political responsibility, a stake in methodological creativity and a more robust set of political associations.     

Capitalism,nature, socialism a theoretical introduction∗

This article expounds the traditional Marxist theory of the contradiction between forces and relations of production, over‐production of capital and economic crisis, and the process of crisis‐induced restructuring of productive forces and production relations into more transparently social, hence potentially socialist, forms. This exposition provides a point of departure for an “ecological Marxist”; theory of the contradiction between capitalist production relations and forces and the conditions of production, under‐production of capital and economic crisis, and the process of crisis‐induced restructuring of production conditions and the social relations thereof also into more transparently social, hence potentially socialist, forms. In short, there may be not one but two paths to socialism in late capitalist society.

While the two processes of capital over‐production and underproduction are by no means mutually exclusive, they may offset or compensate for one another in ways which create the appearance of relatively stable processes of capitalist development. Study of the combination of the two processes in the contemporary world may throw light on the decline of traditional labor and socialist movements and the rise of “new social movements”; as agencies of social transformation. In similar ways that traditional Marxism illuminates the practises of traditional labor movements, it may be that “ecological Marxism”; throws light on the practices of new social movements. Although ecology and nature; the politics of the body, feminism, and the family; and urban movements and related topics are usually discussed in post‐Marxist terms, the rhetoric deployed in this article is self‐consciously Marxist and designed to appeal to Marxist theorists and fellow travelers whose work remains within a “scientific”; discourse hence those who are least likely to be convinced by post‐Marxist discussions of the problem of capital's use and abuse of nature (including human nature) in the modern world. However, the emphasis in this article on a political economic “scientific”; discourse is tactical, not strategic. In reality, more or less autonomous social relationships, often non‐capitalist or anti‐capitalist, constitute “civil society,”; which needs to be addressed on its own practical and theoretical terms. In other words, social and collective action is not meant to be construed merely as derivative of systemic forces, as the last section of the article hopefully will make clear.     

“Your Money or Your Life”: Money and Socialist Transformation

This article argues against a common-sense logic that money can assist in socialist transformation, espouses a non-market ecosocialist position and urges greater clarity in associated discourse. Analyses of capitalist operations show that growth is not simply a characteristic tendency of capitalism but rather an essential outgrowth of its deficiencies. Marx identified these deficiencies, indicating that the end of capitalism was an end to money, that is, exchange value. Money is not a tool but evolves as a code of conduct to structure social relationships that reproduce inequity, competition, distrust and alienation. Indeed, the existence of capitalists and capitalism without money is inconceivable and impossible in practice. Money refusal and the development and defence of fair non-monetary forms of livelihood continuously critique capital and demonstrate alternative (or at least “hybrid”) socialist forms. Contemporary anti-capitalists have developed constructive skills to move beyond money and capitalism in their practical development of “green materialism.” However, a wide-ranging discourse remains to be had on moving beyond money sooner rather than later. The final section of this paper sketches a non-market ecosocialist vision.     

“Value Grabbing”: A Political Ecology of Rent

This paper aims to redress the under-appreciated significance of rent for political ecological analysis. We introduce the notion of value grabbing, defined as the appropriation of (surplus) value through rent. A concept that is analytically distinct from accumulation, rent is both a social relation and a distributional process that is increasingly central to the reproduction of contemporary capitalism. Emphasis is placed on the “grabbing” of value in order to shed light on the processes at work by which surplus value is distributed unevenly between different classes and fractions of classes. A focus on rent within political ecology, we argue, can help us distinguish between two organically related but analytically distinct “moments”: (a) the creation of property rights that establish rent relations and (b) the struggle over the appropriation and distribution of surplus value generated by the rent relation itself. We explore some of the implications of this perspective for understanding new forms of socio-ecological struggles and their varied relations to the state. We maintain that a value-grabbing perspective has far-reaching consequences for political ecology, as it provides a sharp conceptual tool for situating a wide range of socio-ecological conflicts and movements as class struggles over value appropriation and distribution.     

Janos Kornai: a non-mainstream pathway from economic planning to disequilibrium economics

This paper first positions Janos Kornai in the controversies about the feasibility of socialist planning (Lange, Hayek). Kornai has leant in favor of Hayek’s thesis contending that, without an actual market price system for conveying information to those who can beneficially use it, a socialist economy is impracticable. The paradox is that Kornai worked at the Computer Centre of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in relation with the Planning Institute of the National Planning Office and conceived an algorithm for decentralized two-level planning, i.e., the best improvement ever brought into Lange’s model of market socialism. This is due to Kornai being also involved in actual dysfunctions of central planning in Hungary (shortages) that he eventually theorized with disequilibrium modelling in his Economics of shortage. However, the latter departs from standard disequilibrium economics (Barro–Grossman) which has been joined by most former planometricians (such as Malinvaud for instance). Eventually Kornai adopted a more institutional approach for his recommendations as regards post-communist transformation into a market economy with a Hayekian flavor, in particular his support to an organic development of a privately-owned sector within a gradualist process instead of mainstream-supported overnight privatisation. His recent analysis of capitalism as a surplus economy shows the continuity of his non-mainstream view of disequilibrium over five decades. All this makes Kornai an original front-running researcher and breaking-through analyst, though somewhat paradoxical, and a quasi-heterodox economist, one foot in and one foot out of the mainstream.

     

Unity Without Totalitarianism: Tensions Within Normativity

Although he did not invent the term, Jürgen Habermas has popularised “constitutional patriotism” as a form of political unity that avoids excessive nationalism. This paper attempts to examine the link between emotivism and normativity that has otherwise been excluded from Habermas’s notion of constitutional patriotism. Beyond Habermas, political theory as a whole has not yet taken emotivism as a serious component of normativity. Rather than developing it in isolation, this paper attempts to reconcile emotivism with cognitive-normative practices found within rational deliberation. Reconciling the two not only provides a better normative steering component for judging good from bad practices, but also depicts contemporary political practices more accurately. In sum, constitutional patriotism’s normativity must be sourced from a complex integration of emotion and cognition, or put another way, from the interplay between citizens’ moral sentiments and rational judgements.