Marxism and Ecologism

Over the last few decades, issues concerning the political involvement in environmental preservation have become prominent. This is because of an increasing awareness concerning the environment as well as the need to ensure that it is protected for the sake of future generations. The need to preserve the environment has become a paramount political issue which has either been adopted or rejected by the different ideological standpoints that occupy the political space today. It is essential to note that the merger of political and environmental ideologies has become a basic part of the politics of the contemporary world and this is the reason why alliances between political parties and environmentalist groups are being formed. Among the most prominent ideologies that have emerged in the contemporary world are Marxism and ecologism; ideologies that can either be compared or contrasted.

According to the Marxist concept of anthropocentrism, nature should not be a matter of paramount importance because it is not a product of labour. As a result, neither the earth nor nature should be provided importance when it comes to situations where labour is concerned. Labour is the primary concern of anthropocentrism and it is the basis upon which this concept has been developed. As opposed to ecocentrism, anthropocentrism promotes the importance of labour over nature, with the latter being considered to be inconsequential because it does not have a direct effect on the management of labour. The anthropocentric approach recognises that there is need for some form of environmental protection because it allows for the development of a better means through which individuals in society can be able to apply their labour for their own benefit. However, there are instances where the environment interferes with the way that labour is conducted and managed and this creates a situation where it is essential for issues concerning the environment to be set aside so that labour can be given more prominence. This approach further recognises that man does not have any control over the environment and that the latter cannot be brought under control by any means. It is therefore reasonable that man does not concentrate too much on nature or the environment to such an extent that labour and its products come to be ignored.

The ecocentric approach on the other hand is based upon the need to ensure that all human actions are conducted in such a way as to make possible the integrity of nature. This concept recognises that the environment is the most important thing in the world and that it is man’s responsibility to ensure that his activities do not cause it harm. Without the intervention of man, it is believed that the integrity of the environment will become compromised and might end up creating a situation where man as a race, in addition to wildlife, will end up suffering. The ability of man to conduct his activities with utmost consideration for the preservation of nature is essential because it allows for the development of better means through which man and nature can coexist in a constructive manner. This concept is one that indicates that man has a responsibility to nature as well as having a responsibility for nature; meaning that he has to do everything possible so that nature can be preserved, but that its integrity be maintained.

The anthropocentric approach is one which propagates the belief that the main value of nature is based on its resources rather than on the preservation of its integrity. In this way, the economic value of natural resources should be the main reason why man interacts with nature and this should involve the exploitation of these resources to ensure that the value of labour is increased. Without the resources that are contained within it, nature would not have any value because there would be nothing within it that would ensure that it is not only exploited, but also given the attention that it receives. The ability of man to exploit nature for its resources is the reason why it is important for the economy because it is these resources which make it thrive. The preservation of nature would mean that most of its resources would not be exploited; making it difficult for labour to be employed for the purpose. Such a situation would create a situation where individuals in society would end up living in a primitive way where the inequalities that are present in society would be further maximised; leading to chaos.

The ecocentric approach, in contrast to anthropocentrism, is one which calls for the adoption of a new land ethic, where individuals within society should conduct their actions with the intention of ensuring that the integrity, stability and beauty of the environment is preserved. Nature should not only be exploited for its resources, but there should be means through which these resources are exploited in a responsible manner, so that instead of concentrating on maximising the profits gained; individuals should develop better means of ensuring that their exploitation does not degrade nature. Under such circumstances, ecocentrism is similar in approach to anthropocentrism because the latter also recognises that nature should not be exploited for the purpose of profit but instead to ensure that there is some form of benefit for labour. Without this benefit, it would essentially be useless to exploit natural resources because it would mean that the profits gained would end up benefiting the bourgeoisie. The econcentric approach, however, is opposed to the anthropocentric one where nature can be exploited for its resources without any need to preserve its integrity. Instead, it proposes that any approach that exploits nature and ends up destroying its stability, beauty, or integrity is a wrong one because it does not consider any respect for nature.

While it promotes the unlimited exploitation of nature for the sake of labour, it is essential to note that the Marxist approach also recognises the hazards of doing so. This is especially the case in situations where the environment ends up being unstable as a result of being massively exploited. Not only does it lead to its destruction, but it also creates a situation where the environment becomes hostile to man. The conquest of nature is considered to be futile and any attempt to do so would be detrimental to the welfare of human beings. The stance taken by the anthropocentric approach can be considered to be a contradiction because while it advocates for the unlimited exploitation of nature for the benefit of labour, it also calls for caution because the destabilisation of nature as a result of activities of exploitation would bring about a situation where nature would take its revenge. Therefore, one would suggest that anthropocentrism takes on a middle ground in matters concerning environmental preservation; a situation that makes it questionable as a political concept in the contemporary world where environmental protection is paramount.

The anthropocentric approach to environmental conservation, especially during its contemporary states of development, can be considered to have been extremely modified to such an extent that it has essentially come to take a similar approach to ecocentrism. This change can be seen through some of the laws that were passed by Russia during the Soviet Union which attempted to reduce the impact of individuals on the environment. One such law forbade the destruction of any non-commercial wild animals except for those that had a potential of either harming the economy or the health of the people within the state. This approach shows a need for man to take responsibility for his actions towards nature and this should be done in such a way that its integrity is protected. The exploitation of nature for its resources is an essential part of human civilisation because it allows for the development of an easier way of life. However, the anthropocentric approach is one which advocates for the primacy of labour over nature, so that nature is used for the latter rather than labour working towards the preservation of nature. There are instances where this approach puts importance in the need to preserve the environment because it is realised that to do otherwise would mean the destruction of life as it is and the end of labour. Among the events that are referred to in this approach as having taken place as a result of man’s manipulation of nature is the Chernobyl disaster, which can be considered to be nature’s way of taking revenge on human attempts to tame it.

It is essential to note that both the anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches recognise that laws concerning the balance between man and the environment have not been adequately developed. This ethical deficiency on the part of developing moral guidelines on how to treat the environment has led to a situation where it has become extremely difficult for man to conduct his activities with consideration for nature. The need to ensure that the use of land as well as other natural resources is conducted in a way that preserves the latter has been forgotten in a bid to ensure that commercial interests are protected. The result is that commercial interests have taken a hand in directing laws concerning the environment, through their lobbies, so that these laws do not in any way interfere with their destructive activities. both of these approaches states that the contemporary society does not recognise the importance of nature and the need to ensure that the environment is preserved in such a way that future generations will be able to exploit its resources while continuing to maintain a balance. The lack of moral obligation towards the environment is blamed by both approaches as being the reason behind the massive levels of degradation that has been taking place and they warn that this disregard might result to disaster for the entire planet.

While the two approaches discussed might be similar in some perspectives, the ecocentric approach is more convincing because it goes further in the development of concepts that can be used as a means of protecting the environment. Among these is its propagation of there being a need for a proper means of protecting the environment through the development of a set of laws based on the rights of nature. It is through these laws that it can be possible for environmental protection to be brought from the realm of idealism to reality. According to the ecocentric approach, in order to make environmental protection viable, it is essential for the principles guiding the process to be converted to legal concepts that can be used to ensure that the process becomes a reality. This is an approach that has gained traction in recent years and it has led to the beginning of a legal process whose purpose is to gain recognition for the worth of the environment and the need to preserve it.

 In conclusion, the discussion above has shown that according to the Marxist concept of anthropocentrism, nature should not be a matter of paramount importance because it is not a product of labour. This is countered by the ecocentric approach which is based upon the need to ensure that all human actions are conducted in such a way as to make possible the integrity of nature. In addition, it is stated that the anthropocentric approach is one which propagates the belief that the main value of nature is based on its resources rather than on the preservation of its integrity. The ecocentric approach, in contrast to anthropocentrism, is one which calls for the adoption of a new land ethic, where individuals within society should conduct their actions with the intention of ensuring that the integrity, stability and beauty of the environment is preserved. Moreover, while it promotes the unlimited exploitation of nature for the sake of labour, it is essential to note that the Marxist approach also recognises the hazards of doing so. The anthropocentric approach to environmental conservation, especially during its contemporary states of development, can be considered to have been extremely modified to such an extent that it has essentially come to take a similar approach to ecocentrism. Furthermore, it has been noted that both the anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches recognise that laws concerning the balance between man and the environment have not been adequately developed. Finally, while the two approaches discussed might be similar in some perspectives, the ecocentric approach is more convincing because it goes further in the development of concepts that can be used as a means of protecting the environment.