Is ‘degrowth communism’ the only answer to the environmental crisis? Did Marx himself abandon the idea that capitalism develops its own ‘grave-digger’, a working class capable of transforming society on a sustainable socialist basis? PETE DICKENSON writes.
Slowdown: How Degrowth Communism Can Save The Earth
By Kohei Saito
Published by Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 2025, £10-99
Marx in the Anthropocene: Towards the Idea of Degrowth Communism
By Kohei Saito
Published by Cambridge University Press, 2023, £30
‘Eco-Marxist’ academic, Kohei Saito, has generated a debate on the eco-left in recent times with his claim that Karl Marx in his later years abandoned his theory of historical materialism and instead became an advocate of ‘degrowth communism’. Degrowth or cuts in consumption are accepted as necessary for sustainability by many eco-socialists, and by most eco-economists, ecologists and environmentalists, including well known figures such as Greta Thunberg in her The Climate Book. Two of Saito’s books in particular, Marx in the Anthropocene and Slow Down: How Degrowth Communism Can Save The Earth, sum up his position. The first written from an ‘academic’ perspective and the second a popularised approach to the subject, that sold half a million copies in Japan alone and was widely reviewed in the West.
There are two questions to consider here: did Marx repudiate his life’s work as an old man; and separate to this, does degrowth communism point the way forward for future post-capitalist society? Cuts in consumption, ie degrowth, have long been in the (unimplemented) programmes of Green parties internationally, including in the resurgent Green Party in England and Wales. However, its leader and self-proclaimed eco-socialist, Zack Polansky, never mentions cuts in consumption, because he probably sees it, not surprisingly, as electoral poison after 15 years of austerity.
Before considering Saito’s claim about Marx’s conversion, it is necessary to briefly restate what historical materialism is and is not. It is sometimes asserted, including by Saito in relation to his allegations against his ‘early’ Marx, that historical materialism is deterministic, in which, when the productive forces, driven independently by the development of technology, reach a certain level, the material conditions would exist such that capitalism will be transcended and replaced by socialism. (Incidentally, Saito is not criticizing Marx’s alleged determinism because it leaves out the question of agency, ie, the revolutionary role of the working class as grave diggers of capitalism, because he seems to reject this idea, to be discussed later) The determinism charge is based on a one-sided, out of context reading of Marx’s famous brief summary of historical materialism in his Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. In fact, there is an interdependent, two-way relationship between the development of the productive forces (‘the means of production’, technology etc), and ‘the relations of production’ ie capitalist market relations, clear throughout Marx’s writings. To give a simple example, antagonistic relations between capitalist powers have always driven the development of new technology.
Marx v Engels?
What evidence does Saito put forward that Marx fundamentally changed his ideas in later life? In Marx in the Anthropocene in particular, although by no means the first to attempt it, Saito tries to drive an ideological wedge between Marx and Engels, focusing particularly on Engels’ book Dialectics of Nature, in which he began building a worldview linking nature and society; in Engels’ words, dialectics “contains the germ of a more comprehensive view of the world”. The aim was not to replace natural science but to critically take it forward using the method of materialist dialectics and so achieve a comprehensive perspective “on the real world, both of nature and of history”. Saito tries to underpin his claim that Marx abandoned historical materialism by embarking on a detailed polemic against Engels’ ideas, in particular that the laws explaining the development of society and those explaining the natural world are fundamentally different. By undermining Marx’s and Engels’ world view based on dialectical materialism, he aims to undermine by extension historical materialism, which is based on materialist dialectics.
In Volume One of Capital, Marx introduced the term ‘metabolic rift’ to explain how capitalism degrades the natural environment, giving the example of soil exhaustion caused by market-driven intensive methods in agriculture. (Marx defined ‘natural metabolism’ in a general sense as the interaction between human society – labour – and nature and social metabolism, in a section on the circulation of commodities, in this way: “In so far as the process of exchange transfers commodities from the hands in which they are non-use values to hands in which they are use-values, it is a process of social metabolism”.) Saito alleges that Marx’s idea of ‘metabolic rift’ contradicted that of Engels, in that the ‘rift’ between social metabolism and natural metabolism was such that each category was governed by different laws. Social metabolism by materialist dialectics and so historically rooted, and the latter by some unspecified ecological laws governing the natural world.
In his attempts to prove Marx had abandoned historical materialism, Saito clearly implies or even openly claims that Engels misrepresented Marx’s ideas after his death, even going to the extent of accusing Engels of lying at one point. He, however, provides no credible evidence to back his claimed difference between ‘social metabolism’ and ‘natural metabolism’.
To further support his case, Saito makes much of Marx’s increased interest in the natural world in later life, shown in his notebooks from that period. However, there was nothing in the notebooks that developed Marx’s earlier writings on metabolic rift such that a radical reappraisal of his previous position was called for. Most of the entries are quotes from various scientific sources with no comment added from Marx.
In Marx in the Anthropocene, Saito gives a less tenuous and more concrete example to support his revisionist theory from an 1881 letter Marx drafted (but never sent) to Vera Zasulich. She was later a founder of the Marxist movement in Russia with the 1883 launch of the Emancipation of Labour Group, but was an earlier adherent to the People’s Will, a populist peasant-based party. In the drafts of the letter to Zasulich, Marx put forward, as a theoretical possibility, that a future revolution in Russia might be based on the peasant communes (mir), that had long been a feature of feudal Russian society. Such a revolution, Marx hypothesised, could have some advantages over revolution in industrialised capitalist countries. He wrote in a draft for the Zasulich letter that with revolutionary conditions fast maturing in the West, “then present communal land ownership (in Russia) can serve as a point of departure for a communist development”. But he saw this as not an isolated act, but on condition that “the Russian revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other”.
Marxist revisionism?
Marx also saw that such a hypothetical Russian revolution could “appropriate the positive results (of capitalist development)… providing ready-made material conditions for huge-scale common labour”, further undermining his claim that Marx advocated degrowth. Other writings of the ‘late’ Marx further confirm his continued adherence to historical materialism, such as in the preamble to the programme of the French Workers’ Party in 1880, that stated the material elements of collective production “are constituted by the very development of capitalist society”.
Taken together, these comments by the ‘late’ Marx cannot reasonably be considered in any way as a break with or inconsistent with his theory of historical materialism. It is incredible to suppose Marx changed his world view, not only because there is no evidence but also because it beggars belief that he didn’t mention his damascene conversion to his lifelong friend, co-thinker and closest collaborator, Frederick Engels.
Marx took a close interest in Russia in his later life, even learning Russian, as he saw the first shoots of a revolutionary movement developing in an overwhelmingly peasant, semi-feudal society with no significant working class at that time. His provisional comments on the role of the Russian peasant communes should be seen as a very tentative and provisional attempt (perhaps shown by the fact that the drafts of the letter to Zasulich remained just drafts) to address how the possibility of peasant-based revolution in Russia would not contradict his idea of the working class’s leading role in changing society.
Much later, after Marx’s death, and after the explosive development of capitalism in Russia had begun, with its parallel growth of the Russian working class, Engels commented that Marx and his earlier provisional perspective about the role of peasant communes in Russia had been superseded by events. He was making the important general point that initial perspectives must always be provisional and subject to correction in the light of events. It is always necessary to separate the essence of Marx’s thought and teachings from what has been historically superseded, as Engels did here. Marx’s writings are not immutable like Holy Scripture, since they are all historically grounded.
Trotsky’s comment made in the 1930s, in a not dissimilar context, (ie Stalin’s attempt to apply Marx’s analysis of nineteenth century capitalism to the post-capitalist Soviet economy), that Marx analysed a “chemically pure capitalism that had never existed and never will”, also indicates caution when applying Marx’s ideas to present society. The starting point for any analysis of modern capitalism must start from Marx’s ‘chemically pure capitalism’, but cannot end there. However, criticizing Saito is not dogmatic adherence to a historically superseded chemically pure capitalism. It is not hair-splitting in this case to analyse in detail Marx’s writings, since what is under attack is a basic tenet of his thought, historical materialism.
Saito’s attempt to consign historical materialism to the dustbin of history, although unsuccessful, is wide ranging, as well as contradictory, eclectic and confusing. It includes attacks in Marx in the Anthropocene on the ‘early’ Marx’s and particularly Engels’ ‘Prometheanism’ and ‘technological determinism’. Marx’s alleged support for these ideas is also a common criticism of environmentalists and many eco-socialists, at least by those who are aware of his ideas. The charge of technological determinism was answered earlier; Prometheanism, society’s attempts to control the forces of nature, will be dealt with now. (In Greek mythology Prometheus constantly tried to outwit the Olympian gods to ensure humanity’s survival and progress). Prometheanism is seen by Saito as an example of historical materialism’s alleged promotion of endless, unsustainable growth, to be discussed further later.
Capitalist technology
Attempts to control the forces of nature for the benefit of society in a profit-driven system means they are done primarily for the benefit of the capitalists. Any advantage for workers and wider society is incidental and many examples could be given of the dangerous and destructive nature of capitalist attempts to control nature. However, what the critics mean by Prometheanism is only stated in very general, abstract terms and not at all in Saito’s case. Is he proposing that trying to control the forces of nature when they endanger human society, or for that matter nature in general, should be abandoned even in post-capitalist society? For example, measures to mitigate the effects of pandemics, floods, or eliminating deadly diseases like cancer etc (the discussion in Saito’s book appears to be about post-capitalist society, although, like many other things in the book, this is not always clear). It is a common position on the eco-left and by some on the left generally, to baldly state that technology developed under capitalism is unsustainable and so cannot be used in post-capitalist society. But again they do not say what exactly they mean. Would wind or solar power technology, undoubtedly developed under capitalism, be included?
There are very few answers by Saito or other eco-socialists to these questions, although Saito, paradoxically, while roundly castigating Prometheanism, sees a role for capitalist technology in post-capitalist society. Take another concrete example related to climate change and the failure of capitalism to address global warming for more than 30 years. Because very soon there could no longer be sufficient time to avoid environmental catastrophe without quickly and directly reducing global temperatures, it is increasingly likely mitigating measures will have to be taken, above and beyond eliminating the greenhouse gases causing the problem. Methods such as solar ray modification (SRM), ie reflecting back into space some of the Sun’s heat, will be challenging to implement, even in a post-capitalist, democratically run socialist society, and potentially even more dangerous than global warming if a maverick like Trump is in charge. That we have nearly reached this point is a crime of capitalism, but this will not remove the need for action at some point, maybe not far away. However, the eco-critics of Marx’s alleged Prometheanism reject SRM and other similar approaches as a prime example of misguided and dangerous attempts to control nature.
An increasing number of them are saying we should just take the medicine dished out by ‘our’ abuse of nature, even if it means returning to a feudal level of society with a vastly reduced global population. Many do blame capitalism, but the only way they see of removing it is through an environmental catastrophe of unprecedented dimensions that destroys society, taking capitalism with it. The political form such an eco-society would take, with a material basis at a feudal or pre-feudal level, would be eco-Stalinist, a totalitarian police state that would make Stalin’s Russia seem benign. To talk about such a society being based on fairness and equality is a mockery, although to be fair, some of its advocates are honest enough to concede that repressive measures may be necessary.
These desperate positions are a result of their inability to see any other way out of the present environmental crisis. This raises a key question of how we get from where we are today, to being in a position to tackle global warming before an environmental catastrophe strikes. Saito has very little to say on this issue, but he does write approvingly of the ‘three-and-a-half percent rule’, attributed to Erica Chenworth and Maria Stephan before being taken up by Extinction Rebellion and other direct action groups. In Saito’s opinion, the 3.5% rule means only a small percentage of dedicated activists need to rise up non-violently to bring about a change in society. Apart from there not being any credible evidence to back up this theory and it being dangerously naïve about the nature of capitalism (dripping in blood from head to toe in Marx’s words), by implication Saito rejects the central role of the working class in changing society, (Marx’s ‘gravediggers of capitalism’), replacing it with a small classless group of self-appointed albeit dedicated environmental activists.
Marx’s post-capitalism
Although Saito fails in his self-appointed task of proving Marx rejected historical materialism, with its alleged focus on endless growth, in favour of degrowth communism, support for ‘degrowth’ goes beyond Saito, as mentioned at the beginning. So, what is the case for degrowth? The first point is nearly all de-growthers, including Saito, don’t define what they mean by the term, or discuss it at a very high level of generalisation and abstraction, making it more difficult to pin down.
Some eco-socialists say they differ from other de-growthers, such as Saito, by theoretically allowing for some growth in particular sectors, but only if, in aggregate, there are cuts. However, they never specify what they would cut or expand, or their positions are always left vague and at the high level of generalization, as mentioned above. Many others reject any possibility of sustainable growth. Like prominent eco-socialist James O’Connor, they just say Marx got it wrong (Saito conveniently sidesteps this accusation by claiming he changed his mind). Marx should have realized that there were planetary limits to growth according to O’Connor. However, in the middle of the nineteenth century the level of pollution was a fraction of that today, and a threat to sustainability on a world scale did not exist.
In this concrete context, Marx correctly argued there were no natural barriers to plenty and abundance, to answer Malthus’ idea that generalised poverty was an inevitable and permanent feature of the human condition. It has already been detailed how seriously Marx took environmental questions with his theory of metabolic rift showing how capitalist relations degrade the environment. However, Marx envisaged that capitalism would have been overthrown long before we reached the point of an environmental threat on a world scale in the late twentieth century. A socialist society would then have been able to rapidly and effectively deal with the threat.
Marx saw post-capitalist society as having two stages, the first a transition period between capitalism and the second stage of fully developed ‘communism’. This first stage is sometimes described as ‘socialist’ where the material conditions necessary for the future ‘communist’ society are developed. This implies growth will be needed to create the conditions for the move to a higher communist stage, the ‘realm of freedom’ in Marx’s words, a realm that can only exist when all human needs are met. In such a society it will be possible to apply Marx’s maxim, “To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability”. For socialists, the environmental crisis raises the question whether the growth needed to reach the realm of freedom can be sustainable.
Saito’s answer is unequivocal: in no circumstances will this be possible, under any form of society, capitalist or post-capitalist, however defined. For him, the only answer to the environmental crisis is degrowth, ie cuts in consumption. The answer to eco-socialists who believe in degrowth is that a healthy, democratic socialist society cannot be built in conditions of universal want. In particular, the co-operation needed to tackle the environmental crisis, which must be international, would be impossible because of the conflict that inevitably results from scarcity.
Other alleged ‘eco-Marxists’ and eco-socialists generally avoid discussion of Marx’s transition period since this requires answering concrete questions and having a programme, which is essential in present circumstances, instead focusing on the longer term, final destination. But here, they still have no answers to the central question ie in a socialist society, is the growth necessary to create the realm of freedom possible sustainably? A minority say yes to this, but give few concrete details of how. Most however answer no, because they think the planetary limits to growth prevent this.
Whether a natural limit to human resource use exists is not however the issue. It is not proposed to increase consumption unsustainably, rather to transform resource use with socialist methods on an international basis. A democratically planned socialist society would make this possible through its inherent advantages. Increases in resource use productivity with democratic planning would be a big positive factor, although not sufficient on its own to achieve sustainability.
Measures will also be needed to rapidly reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions and what is increasingly likely, unfortunately, direct intervention to cut global temperatures. To be credible, the case for a socialist approach, which must start with the replacement of the capitalist system internationally, needs to be made in detailed, concrete terms. This must include explaining how a democratic plan of production could incorporate planning for the environment, and be able to achieve the sustainable growth required to meet all human needs, such that Marx’s ‘realm of freedom’ can be reached. Saito’s books are just an indication of how deep is the ideological confusion now prevalent in large sections of the eco-left.