Against inadvertent climate change; for великое преобразование природы instead

Even casual readers of Marx will likely know that his favorite figure from antiquity was Spartacus. In his responses to one of the questionnaires that periodically circulated — or “confessions,” quite popular during the nineteenth century — he listed the great leader of the Roman slave revolt as his hero. Johannes Kepler was his modern idol. What is less widely known, however, is that Marx’s favorite figure from classical mythology was Prometheus, who revolted against the gods. Marx did mention Aeschylus, author of the famous tragedy Prometheus Bound, as his favorite ancient poet in the 1865 “confession.” Shakespeare took the title as greatest of the moderns; Nietzsche would have approved of both choices. He went so far as to quote Aeschylus’ Prometheus in the introduction to his dissertation, in March 1841: “Philosophy makes no secret of it. The confession of Prometheus — ‘in a word, I hate all gods’ — is its very own confession, its own sentence” (MECW 1, pg. 130).

Franz Mehring later pointed out the affinity Marx felt with the fallen Titan, who stole the technology of fire from the gods and bestowed it upon humanity. Edmund Wilson would expand on this motif in his outstanding intellectual history To the Finland Station, placing Lucifer alongside Prometheus as one of Marx’s twin patron anti-deities. Both challenged the gods. “In one of Karl Marx’s ballads,” Wilson explained, “a Promethean hero curses a god who has stripped him of his all; but he swears that he will have his revenge, though his strength be but a patchwork of weaknesses: out of his pain and horror he will fashion a fortress, iron and cold, which will strike the beholder livid and against which the thunderbolts will rebound. Prometheus is to be Marx’s favorite myth” (To the Finland Station, pg. 116).

After his journal, the Rheinische Zeitung, was suppressed by state censors in 1843, Marx was depicted in a contemporary cartoon as Prometheus chained to a printing press, being disemboweled by a Prussian eagle. There’s also a squirrel holding a rifle featured in the upper left of the picture, the symbolism of which has been lost to time. Regardless, Marx was quite flattered by the comparison.

One of the more controversial subjects within Marxist discourse over the last forty or so years has been Marx’s relationship to what is commonly called “Prometheanism.” Following the appearance of the Club of Rome’s neo-Malthusian study The Limits to Growth (1972) and the Romanian mathematician Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s ruminations on entropy (1970, 1975), optimistic visions of mankind’s mastery of self and world were generally frowned upon. Since this time, many sympathetic to Marx tried to distance the his theories from more Promethean strains of applied Marxism or actually-existing socialism. They stress Marx’s ambivalence toward large-scale machinery in heavy industry, marveling at its productive powers while also decrying their effect on the humans who operated them.

John Bellamy Foster, for example, tries to turn the tables by revisiting Marx’s critique of Proudhon, supposedly on grounds of the latter’s “Prometheanism.” In his book, Marx’s Ecology, Foster claims that Marx impugned “Proudhon’s fetishistic approach to machinery, which gives it a reified ‘Promethean’ character” (Marx’s Ecology, pg. 131). Foster fails to produce textual evidence that Marx argued in these terms. Marx’s argument, in fact, is not that Proudhon is too Promethean. If anything, he is not Promethean enough. Ever the dialectician, Marx recognized the dual-sided character of progress in capitalist society: “In our days, everything seems pregnant with its contrary,” wrote Marx. “Machinery, gifted with the wonderful power of shortening and fructifying human labor, we behold starving and overworking it…At the same pace that mankind masters nature, man seems to become enslaved to other men or to his own infamy. Even the pure light of science seems unable to shine but on the dark background of ignorance” (MECW 14, pgs. 655-656).

Clearly, there is a dimension of the old man’s thought that is far from being naïvely enthusiastic about newfangled industrial technologies. He can hardly be called a vulgar technocrat. But it is not so easy to disaggregate Marx’s own Prometheanism from that of his so-called “epigones.” Quite plainly, if one looks to his writings, Promethean undertones are readily apparent. For example:

Herr Daumer’s cult of nature…is a peculiar one. He manages to be reactionary even in comparison with Christianity. He tries to restore the old pre-Christian natural religion in a modernized form. Thus he of course achieves nothing but Christian-Germanic patriarchal drivel on nature…[T]his cult of nature is limited to the Sunday walks of an inhabitant of a small provincial town who childishly wonders at the cuckoo laying its eggs in another bird’s nest, at tears being designed to keep the surface of the eyes moist, and so on, and finally trembles with reverence as he recites Klopstock’s Ode to Spring to his children. There is no mention, of course, of modern natural science, which, with modern industry, has revolutionised the whole of nature and put an end to man’s childish attitude towards nature as well as to other forms of childishness. But instead we get mysterious hints and astonished philistine notions about Nostradamus’ prophecies, second sight in Scotsmen and animal magnetism. For the rest, it would be desirable that Bavaria’s sluggish peasant economy, the ground on which grow priests and Daumers alike, should at last be ploughed up by modern cultivation and modern machines. (MECW 10, pg. 245)

Marx had very little patience for reverential attitudes toward nature, or romantic anticapitalism in general. As he saw it, the main problem faced by society under the capitalist mode of production was the subjugation of all its efficiency toward ends foreign to itself. Humanity, which is able to marshall wondrous materials and energies in pursuing its productive enterprise, nevertheless does not produce for the good of society. Social production serves an end outside of itself, namely the valorization of capital. Other considerations take a back seat to the primary goal of capitalization, so it is seldom that the unintended consequences or harmful byproducts of this process (such as climate change) are questioned. This is one of the ways production is “alienated,” to borrow the terminology of the young Marx.

In fact, the character of Prometheus reappears in Marx’s Capital. Here Prometheus stands in for enchained humanity: “[T]he law which always holds the relative surplus population or industrial reserve army in equilibrium with the extent and energy of accumulation rivets the worker to capital more firmly than the wedges of Hephaestus held Prometheus to the rock” (Capital, pg. 799). The implication is that capitalist production after a time actually constrains the creative capacities of mankind, instead of cultivating them. This was the sense of the metaphor summoned up by the revolutionary leader Clara Zetkin almost sixty years later, discussing Comintern’s need to “accelerate the advent of the proletarian world revolution.” Zetkin implored her audience to “learn from Lenin to believe implicitly that within the bosom of every proletarian and of every oppressed human being, there dwells the titanic promethean defiance which says to the strongest oppressors: ‘And yet you cannot slay me!’ Let his spirit teach us to snap the chains of Prometheus and forge them into weapons for freedom and into tools for construction.” Once again, the technologies which today constrain the proletariat tomorrow may just liberate them, effectively repurposed to serve society.

Until humanity attains mastery over its own social organization, it is bound to remain ensnared by the iron logic of capital. The second nature men have made confronts them as a force over which they have no control, so they can scarcely be expected to exercise discipline or restraint in their interactions with the first nature that still appears to them as given, preexistent and external. Engels expressed it as follows:

With the seizing of the means of production by society, the production of commodities is finally done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then, for the first time, man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature, because he has now become master of his own social organization. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face-to-face with man as laws of Nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man’s own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by Nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have, hitherto, governed history, pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, more and more consciously, make his own history — only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.

This was not some sort of “vulgar addition” to Marx’s thought, either. Engels is often criticized for oversimplifying his colleague’s views, in an effort to popularize them. One finds in the Grundrisse lines like the following, which Engels echoes above:

[W]hen the limited bourgeois form is stripped away, what is wealth other than the universality of individual needs, capacities, pleasures, productive forces etc., created through universal exchange? The full development of human mastery over the forces of nature, those of so-called nature as well as of humanity’s own nature? The absolute working-out of his creative potentialities, with no presupposition other than the previous historic development, which makes this totality of development, i.e. the development of all human powers as such the end in itself, not as measured on a predetermined yardstick? Where he does not reproduce himself in one specificity, but produces his totality? Strives not to remain something he has become, but is in the absolute movement of becoming?

Prometheanism runs deep in the tradition of revolutionary Marxism. Nikolai Bukharin invoked Goethe’s Prometheus as providing “a poetic expression of the growing power of man over nature, his active power” (Historical Materialism, pg. 122). Amadeo Bordiga’s main journal was called Prometeo, after Prometheus. Isaac Deutscher, the great Marxist historian, pegged Trotsky as a kind of Prometheus, as someone gifted with foresight. Today, however, few are willing to defend this legacy. Alberto Toscano wrote an admirable article in 2011 that challenged “The Prejudice against Prometheus.” Ray Brassier, a contemporary philosopher, and his accelerationist allies have recently tried to reclaim the Promethean aspect of Marxism against the prevailing Epimethean disposition of much of the left. Still, there’s a long way to go.

Taking a page from Dzhugashvili, albeit tongue in cheek, we might thus call for «великое преобразование природы», i.e., the “great transformation of nature.” Marx and Engels each asserted the radical transformability of human “nature” itself; external nature, as man’s “inorganic body,” must be similarly transformable. So today, when protesters gather to march against manmade climate change, we should remember that it is not climate change as such which must be opposed. Unplanned, inadvertent climate change is simply a symptom of capitalism’s uncontrollable drive toward self-valorization, resulting in overproduction. It is a testament to the self-incurred nonage of unenlightened humanity, to paraphrase Kant. Planned climate change might be something quite different.

Nature at present is okay, but I have the feeling it could be way better. We should seek to improve nature — artificially enhance it — not leave it as it is, supposedly “virginal” and untouched.

9 thoughts on “Against inadvertent climate change; for великое преобразование природы instead

  1. So…this is what Marx “really” thought…this is what the Bible “really” meant…and we ignore everything we’ve learned since his time about the downside of Prometheanism.

  2. Nice article.

    Marx was trained by Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker, the inventor of the Totalitätsideal, which no doubt influenced Marx, the idea that one had to know everything about something in order to deduce anything.

    Today the authorship of the Prometheus Bound is disputed. It’s usually attributed as ps.Aeschylus.

    See the work of marxist classicist Peter W. Rose’s ‘Sons of the Gods, Children of Earth: Ideology and Literary Form in Ancient Greece’.

  3. Rather than improving the weather, I think a better formulation of the Promethean impulse would be the ability to recreate the Epicurean garden at the level of the earth as a whole through machine-based technology. Maybe beyond that as well, extending through the cosmos.

  4. Btw, Tony Harrison did a TV play reinterpreting Prometheus in light of the demise of working class power, I think for the BBC. Unfortunately it’s very, very unavailable.

  5. “Unplanned, inadvertent climate change is simply a symptom of capitalism’s uncontrollable drive toward self-valorization, resulting in overproduction.”—State socialism wasn’t exactly carbon neutral though, was it?

  6. Pingback: Karl Marx: Prometheus and Lucifer | The Charnel-House

  7. Pingback: Against accelerationism, for Marxism | The Charnel-House

  8. Pingback: Birthday > Earth Day: Happy 146th, Lenin! | The Charnel-House

Leave a Reply