E.Leff A second

7/29/2019 E.Leff A second

1/5

-Leff, Enrique 1992 A Second Contradiction of Capitalism? Notes for the Environmental

Transformation of Historical Materialism, en Capitalism Nature Socialism. A Journal of

Socialist Ecology, Volume 3 (4) Issue Twelve. December. Pgs. 109-117.

A Second Contradiction of Capitalism?Notes for the Environmental Transformation of Historical Materialism*

By Enrique Leff

Both conventional economics and historical materialism marginalize nature, hence

when confronted with the environmental question, face theoretical problems. Nature ismanifest in the philosophical foundations of both doctrines or fields of study, but it is not an

active principle in their accounts of the productive process.

This, conventional economics did not take the initiative lo internalize ecologicalexternalities" and the long-run, and Marxism did not consider natural processes as a

constituent part of the conditions of production or of the development of the forces ofproduction until the ecological crisis exploded, when growth limits became manifest and

environmental conflicts rooted in new social movements made their appearance. Historical

materialism was founded upon an epistemological break with conventional economics and acritique of classical political economy. It replaced the theoretical arguments of naturalism and

the mechanicism that had dominated inquiry into social processes with a specifically socialscience, and oriented dialectical thought toward the comprehension of the contradiction of the

concrete. Capital, as a theory of the capitalist mode of production, is based upon the

contradiction between labor and capital inasmuch as capital exploits the worker, whoproduces more value in a work-day than he or she receives in the form of a salary for the

reproduction of his or her laborpower. This basic principle of contradiction is reproduced inthe realization process of the merchandise as a crisis of overproduction and

underconsumption. The "second contradiction" appears as the self-production of capital's

conditions of production - laborpower, space and environment - and the self-production ofresource scarcity and limited capital accumulation, thus generating an underproduction crisis.*

Marx perceived this contradiction this way: The productive forces generated by the crisis ofcapital combine in such a way as lo exhaust the natural force of man and nature.2

This "second contradiction," manifest as an environmental limit to accumulation, is

hidden from historical materialism because it was not explicitly developed in Capital. Thiscan be explained only in part by the relative abundance of nature with regard lo the level o

development of the forces of production and the expansion of capital which in Marx's time

had not yet broken through the carrying capacities of natural eco-systems nor broken theplanet's fragile ecological equilibrium. The very theoretical structure of Capital hold, up

nature as an overdetermined, but not determinant, process of the dialectic of capital.Historical materialism opened up a broad field of understanding regarding various

social, technological, and natural processes that are overdetermined by capitalist relations ofproduction as a basic contradiction of the social structure. It was not Marx but rather the

dogmatic simplification of Marxism that could lead one lo believe that demographic

dynamics, scientific and technological progress, juridical and ideological superstructures - theentire social body - could be fully explained by the basic and underlying contradiction of

capital.

1


2/5

Among the effects of the basic contradiction were ecological destruction and the loss

of soil fertility. The degree of ecological destruction up lo 20 years ago could allow one lo

perceive nature as a permanent and free source of resources, capable of regenerating itselfthrough scientific inputs, in the same way that the exploitation of workers did not prevent the

maintenance of a permanently available supply (the reserve army) for capital. Resourceexploitation was not reflected in the face of an endangered nature. The theoretical need to

internalize resource scarcity and ecological equilibrium as contradictions of capital was not

raised. For Marx, as for conventional economics after the Physiocrats, the natural supply ofresources lacked value and price because it did not involve labor, the only source and

substance of value.The ecological crisis thus emerged in a field of theoretical externality and in a

temporal horizon distant from the historical object and social contradiction which constitute

the real subject of Capital. Capitalist accumulation generated a dialectical transformation ofcapital brought about by technological development, which, at the same time that it increased

relative surplus value, also separated the productive process from simple and direct labor,

dissolving the law of value. Marx wanted to make this moment, in which the explicativepower of the science of capital dissolves, coincide with, the disappearance of the capitalist

mode of production. The scientific-technological revolution would lead to the transition andthe construction of socialism.3

Affirming that "the basic cause of the second contradiction is capitalism'sself-destructive appropriation and use of labor power, space and external nature, or

environment"4 only confirms that the second contradiction is the effect of the first

contradiction, which generates a, self-destructive process. Calling a "second contradiction"what others call externalities or limits on growth Opens up an important way of building an

eco-Marxist theory of the environmental crisis of capital, but it does not supply the theoreticalresponse which the environmental issue demands of historical materialism.

To postulate the ecological crisis as a contradiction of capital raises the theoretical

problem of uncovering a second contradiction of capital that was not presented in Capital,furthermore, one must theoretically develop the capital-nature contradiction of present-day

capital in the context of the globalization of the economic crisis and ecological changes(global warming, deforestation, erosion, etc.). This should lead to a theoretical re-elaboration

that challenges the capacity of die concepts of historical materialism to produce and assimilate

this new contradiction.The basis of an eco-Marxist theory of production posits not only the internalization of

this second contradiction as an effect of the widened reproduction of capital in theover-exploitation of nature, but the construction ofthe concept ofthis new contradiction. This

means that the concepts of historical materialism must be re-worked so as to conjugate thecontradictory relationship between labor exploitation and the development of the productionforces of capitalism with the self-destructive processes of its production and reproduction, and

with the emergence of the environment as productive potential. The forces of nature arearticulated with those of capital and labor in a "tripolar relation of production." One must

comprehend the substance of value in natural processes and its contribution lo he

development ofproductive forces.5 The "second contradiction" so far has the heuristic qualityof allowing us to think what was not explicitly developed in Capital. It remains to be seen if

we are dealing with a contradiction that is subordinate to the capital-labor contradiction; thenwe must decipher the proper nature of this contradiction within contemporary capitalism. That

implies going from a passive concept of nature as a combination of constituent processes of

2


3/5

the general conditions of production to an active, explicative and co-determinant concept of

the current crisis of capital and the global environmental crisis.

The making concrete of this second contradiction, manifest in the self-destructive effectof capital accumulation on the very bases of production, means one must transcend the

Marxist discourse's notion of nature.6

The general category of labor as a transforming processof nature, as a metabolic mediator between natural and social processes,7 establishes a general

condition for all modes of production and situates the dynamic of nature within the

perspective of the social use of resources. It is a critical category that allows us to distinguishsocial theoretical perceptions of society-nature relations from biological or ecological

perspectives of the relationship between population and resources. But one must go beyondthis and construct concepts that can explain the articulation of ecological, technological, and

economic processes determining the contradictory nexus of capital, labor and nature.

What makes ecological destruction appear as a second contradiction, as the emergenceof something new in the economic order, is the globalization of the destruction of the

resources necessary for productive processes. In this sense, one must transcend what

OConnor describes as the "Marxist vision that capital never encounters absolute limits,"being that the "crisis is mainly localized because of the site specificity of production

conditions."8 Clearly, the limits are not absolute, and they are certainly not natural, norpredominantly demographic. Rather, they are limits generated by the world economic order.

Even so, as long as the site specificity of production conditions was maintained, the "secondcontradiction" of capital did, not become manifest. It emerges only from the global,

international and complex nature of environmental destruction. Site specificity of production

is now being affected by global environmental conditions (global warming, rise of the sealevel, biodiversity, pollution of environmental services) and not only by its local environment.

Thus, "the actual ecologically driven crisis (OConnor) is not a crisis located in a specific siteor resource, which can be avoided by relocating individual capitals (e.g., by expanding

agricultural borders, exporting polluting industries, or disposing of toxic waste in the ocean or

in neighboring countries) or by substituting a scarce product with new resources or energysources as a result of technological progress. Rather, it is a crisis of underproduction, of a

decline in the production and productivity of the global economic system, and also of futureopportunities for productive investment, which combine to create the deterioration of

environmental potential while increasing the ecological costs of development.

Furthermore, the second contradiction, which concerns production conditions, is notlimited to those conditions produced by the state: urban infrastructure and transport,

environmental restoration, health and education services for workers (as claimed by,OConnor). The environmental conditions of production, photosynthesis, ecological balance

and potential, and soil fertility (the conditions that Marx believed were offered free to capitalby nature) are natural processes without state intervention and, as Marx himself saw, withouthuman labor (although the state intervenes in these areas to protect nature's productive and

regulative mechanisms or to orient scientific and technological progress toward theconstruction of an ecological technology capable of increasing nature's productive potential).

Capital is self-destructive not only because it raises the cost of production conditions (urban

services, health, and die cost of extracting natural elements of constant capital) but because itdestroys the ecological mechanisms responsible for the natural supply of resources. It is in

this sense that environmental conditions differ from other production conditions.Thus a generalized ecological crisis, induced by capital accumulation, can bring about

a catastrophic crisis of the economic system with far greater consequences than any other

3


4/5

previous form of capitalist destructive creation. Exploited nature can accumulate greater anger

and ignore the offenses of spoilation and extermination with more difficulty than the worst

genocide, unleashing the rebellion of natural forces that might become stronger and moreuncontrollable than a social revolution.

This leads us to ask if ecological conditions and the environmental potential of

development can be assimilated into Marxist concepts and categories through an addendum (a

second contradiction) or if they require a theoretical re-working of historical materialism,including the creation of interdisciplinary concepts and the articulation of historical

materialism with other sciences. Basically, the limits of nature consist of the destabilizationand rupture of certain ecological equilibrium, the over-use of resources beyond the carrying

capacity of ecosystems, the loss of soil fertility, and ecosystems' resilience and productivity

with regard to resource use patterns induced by the basic contradiction of capital. The firstand second contradictions of capital are linked by the confrontation of capital's economic

cycles with the productivity limitations of resource producing ecosystems.

But the accumulation among capital, labor, and nature is more complex: we mustexplain how demographic processes (population growth and distribution) combine with

production and consumption patterns and with the "carrying capacity" or alternativeproductivity of ecosystems to generate global economic-social-environmental crises (with

their local expressions) or to construct the environmental potential for sustainabledevelopment. So explanations for the economic-ecological crisis self-induced by capital's

contradictory growth, the transformation of complex socio-environmental systems, and the

construction of new environmental relations of production all require knowledge fromdifferent disciplines and the production of concepts able to articulate historical materialism,

ecology, and cultural sciences.9

The same is true, and even more so, regarding an explanation of the transition from the

economic-ecological crisis to the construction of an "eco-socialism" in which the forces of

production are harmonized with those of nature. This involves moving from a postulation ofthe mode of production based on the social ownership of natural means of production to the

construction of a new productive rationality based on new principles of productivity; to theimplementation of an ecotechnological paradigm based on the articulation of ecological

productivity of the resource system, technological productivity, and social and cultural

productivity - the latter stemming from productive and cooperative organizational forms inthe labor process - under the principle of the socialization of natural goods, including

knowledge regarding their use and transformation, and participatory democracy based uponthe principles of environmental managernent.10

The "eco-socialist" project must transcend the aim of establishing a mode ofproduction capable of conserving or restoring production conditions and internalizingenvironmental externalities of productive processes, and build a productive rationality that

can open the way to a socialism based on ecological sustainability, social equity, politicalpluralism, and cultural diversity.

4


5/5

*Translated by Ruth MacKay.1 O'Connor distinguishes between two types of scarcity: "First, scarcity arising from economic crisis based en traditionalcapital overproduction, i.e., a purely social scarcity; second, scarcity arising from economic crisis based on

capitalistically produced scarcity of nature or production conditions generally. Both types of scarcity are ultimatelyattributable to capitalist production relations." (Capitalism, Nature, Socialism: A Theoretical Introduction CNS 1,

1988, p 15).2 Capitalist production develops the technique and the combination of social production processes, at the same time

exhausting the two sources of all wealth: land and labor. (Capital, Vol. I, in Oeuvres, pp. 998-99). Later Marx wrote:"Big industry and mechanized agriculture act together. If at first the former tends to devastate and ruin the labor force,and therefore man's natural force, while the latter directly attacks the natural force of the land, both end up in a

concerted effort. ... The resulting conditions provoke an irreparable break in the metabolism determined by the laws of

life, which causes wasting of the land's resources and that commerce extends beyond national borders. (Capital, Vol.III, in Oeuvres, p. 1424).3 See Enrique Leff, "La teoria del valor en Marx frente a la revolucin cientfico tecnolgica," in E. Leff, ed., Teoria del

Valor (Mexico: UNAM, 1980). The exchange of live labor with materialized labor the determination of social labor

as the opposition between capital and wage labor, constitutes the last development of the value relation and theproduction system based on value. Its permanent condition is the mass of immediate labor time...as a decisive factor in

the production of wealth. But as big industry is developed, the creation of true wealth depends less upon the time andquantity of labor used than ... on the general state of science and technological progress.... When, in its immediate form,

labor has ceased being the great source of wealth, labor time will cease being the measure of labor, and exchange value

will cease being the measure of use value. Surplus labor of workers will cease being the condition for the developmentof general wealth.... From then on, production based upon exchange value will collapse and the immediate process ofmaterial production will be stripped of its form and it miserable contradiction." (Contribution to the Critique of

Political Economy. in Oeuvres, Vol. 2, p. 301).4 See J. O'Connor, "The Second Contradiction of Capitalism: Causes and Consequences." Conference Papers (SantaCruz: CES/CNS Pamphlet l).5 E. Leff, Ecologa y Capital. Hacia un Perspectiva Ambiental del Desarrollo (Mexico: UNAM, 1986); E. Leff La

Ecotechnological Productivity: A Conceptual Basis for the Managentent of Natural Resource," Social Scienceinformation, 25, 3,1986.6 E. Leff, Alfred Schmidt y el fin del humanismo naturalista, Antropologa y Marxismo. 3,1980, pp. 139-152.7 Alfred Schmidt,El Concepto de Naturaleza en Marx (Mexico- Siglo = Editores, 1975).8 Capitalism, Nature, Socialism: A Theoretical Introduction, op. cit.9 E. Leff, "Sobre la articulacin de las ciencias en la relacin naturaleza-sociedad" E. Leff. ed., Biosociologa y

Articulacin de las Ciencias (Mexico: UNAM, 1981); E. Leff,"Ambiente y Articulacin de Ciencias," in E. Leff LosProblemas del Conocimiento y la Perspectiva Ambiental del Desarrollo (Mexico: Siglo M 1986).10 E. Leff, "Cultura Democrtica, Gestin Ambiental y Desarrollo Sustentable," Ecologa Poltica, 4, Icaria/Fuherm,

Barcelona, 1992.

E.Leff A second

Documents

Transcript of E.Leff A second