Marxist & Capitalist Approach to Environmental Pollution from a Narrative Perspective

Based on Environment and Society A Critical Introduction-Wiley-Blackwell (2014)

MARXIST APPROACH

The Marxist approach sees environmental pollution as an inevitable result of the capitalist production system. This is linked to the exploitation of natural resources and the destruction of the environment, driven by capitalism’s desire for continuous growth and profit maximization. The Marxist solution, as mentioned in the “Labor” section of the book, is found in the union of natural resources with labor and the end of capitalism. When human labor combines with natural resources, as before the Enclosure Laws (1780–1820 ), environmental pollution decreases, and environmental awareness increases.

The Marxist approach often uses terms like exploitation, injustice, alienation, and systematic inequality. It describes capitalism’s impact on the environment as “destructive,” “exploitative,” and “brutal.”

According to the Marxist approach, the main actors are the capitalist class (employers, big companies) and the working class. Environmental pollution events are examined through concrete examples such as factory waste, toxic chemicals, air pollution, and deforestation. The environmental struggle of the working class and socialist movements are highlighted as important events.

The Marxist approach criticizes the damage capitalism causes to the environment and argues that a socialist transformation is necessary for a sustainable environment. This approach emphasizes the importance of the working class’s environmental struggle and conveys the message that ecological sustainability and social justice should be addressed together.

CAPITALIST APPROACH

According to the capitalist approach, environmental pollution is an inevitable byproduct of economic growth and technological progress. From this perspective, environmental issues are manageable and can be solved through technology and innovation. The capitalist approach seeks solutions to environmental problems through market mechanisms and regulations. As mentioned in the “What about science?” section of the book, “A fundamental part of our understanding of environmental issues comes from scientific research.” According to the capitalist approach, environmental pollution can be solved with technology and scientific advances. Science provides the necessary knowledge to identify and solve environmental problems.

The capitalist approach often emphasizes terms like innovation, efficiency, market solutions, sustainable development, science, and innovation. It highlights the potential of technological innovations and market-based approaches to solve environmental problems. In this approach, the main actors are companies, entrepreneurs, governments, and consumers. Environmental pollution events are often examined through positive examples such as eco-friendly technologies, green energy projects, and sustainable business practices. Successful green initiatives and eco-friendly policies are highlighted as important events.

The capitalist approach argues that economic growth and environmental sustainability are possible together.

IN CONCLUSION:

Both approaches are consistent within themselves but also highlight each other’s shortcomings. Therefore, in solving complex issues like environmental pollution, both approaches should be considered and addressed from a broader perspective.

From my point of view, we can approach both positively and negatively. For example, it is undeniable that the Marxist approach has valid points: as Bullard emphasized, in the United States, environmental waste is moved to areas where black citizens predominantly live — is this environmental justice? On the other hand, before the Enclosure Laws (1780–1820 ), people lived in harmony with the environment by combining their labor with their own resources on their own land. Later, these lands fell into the hands of a few, and the remaining people had to sell their labor to them and then buy the products produced with their own sold labor, which is quite unfair.

From the capitalist perspective, every innovation benefits nature. For example, artificial fertilization: this discovery came about thanks to Justus von Liebig, a product of the capitalist system. This agricultural reform prevented much waste. On the other hand, strict state authority is a major obstacle to this progress. As Barnes and Duncan mentioned in “The Tragedy of the Commons,” authorities like the church, school, etc., limit what is right and wrong rather than telling us what to do. How is scientific progress possible in this case? These examples can go on for both sides. So, I think this is enough.

For me, the most important point is that nature will give us the lesson and limits we need. As O’Connor said, “Nature will set a limit to capitalism at some point.” Otherwise, we will disappear, but nature will continue to exist in another form. The fundamental question here should be: What is nature? Are we nature? Or will nature exist without us? Is our goal to protect nature or to ensure our own existence?

Kubilay Tokbay
Lovely Husband of Beste Acran