Series: Social Ecology Today — Roots
An Indispensable Critical Legacy
Social ecology is situated within a theoretical landscape in which Marxism occupies a central place. While not reducible to it, social ecology draws on certain essential tools from Marxism to understand the contemporary crisis.
Karl Marx’s contribution lies primarily in his analysis of capitalism as a dynamic system based on accumulation. This logic does not merely organize production: it tends to transform the entire world—human activities as well as natural environments—into exploitable resources.
This point is decisive for social ecology: the ecological crisis cannot be understood as a mere technical or political failure. It is linked to an economic structure that drives unlimited expansion.
Another fundamental contribution is the idea that social forms are historical. Capitalism is neither natural nor eternal. This perspective opens up a horizon of transformation that social ecology embraces.
Finally, certain elements in Marx—notably his attention to the imbalances between human societies and natural cycles—offer points of reference for an ecological reading, without constituting a fully developed ecology.
Nevertheless, reducing Karl Marx’s thought to strict social reductionism would overlook certain decisive insights. Together with Friedrich Engels, he writes:
“We know of only one science, that of history. History can be examined from two angles. It can be divided into the history of nature and the history of mankind. The two subjects, however, are inseparable: as long as mankind exists, its history and that of nature condition one another. ”
This statement opens up an essential perspective: that of a co-implication between natural and social dynamics. But in Marx’s work, it remains largely at the level of intuition. Lacking a genuine elaboration of nature as a subject—and not merely as an object of human activity—historical materialism tends, despite itself, to perpetuate a form of separation that it had nevertheless helped to undermine.
An analytical framework to be expanded
While this legacy is valuable, social ecology differs from it in several key respects.
First, part of the Marxist tradition has accorded a central place to the development of the productive forces. Even from an emancipatory perspective, this orientation has sometimes led to maintaining a vision in which nature remains an object to be mastered.
Second, reducing relations of domination to the class dimension alone appears insufficient. This limitation was, in fact, recognized as early as the 20th century by certain heterodox Marxist thinkers. Rosa Luxemburg already emphasized the spontaneous and democratic dimension of revolutionary movements, in tension with centralized forms of power. Henri Lefebvre, for his part, demonstrated how domination extends far beyond the economic sphere, permeating space, daily life, and ways of living. As for Walter Benjamin, he profoundly criticized the idea of linear progress, inviting us to rethink history through the lens of ruptures, catastrophes, and unrealized possibilities.
Social ecology thus emphasizes that hierarchies—political, social, and patriarchal—precede and transcend capitalism. They constitute a deeper foundation of domination.
Finally, the political forms associated with the history of Marxism have often favored centralized structures. However, as discussed in the previous text, social ecology, on the contrary, emphasizes direct democracy, decentralization, and the autonomy of communities.
These differences are not merely a matter of theoretical disagreement: they involve different visions of social transformation.
Eco-Marxist reinterpretations: a major turning point
For several decades, Marxist authors have sought to reinterpret this tradition in light of the ecological crisis.
Thinkers such as John Bellamy Foster, Paul Burkett, and Kohei Saito have helped bring the ecological dimension of Marx’s work back to the forefront.
The concept of “metabolic rift” is central here: it refers to the disruption of exchanges between human societies and ecosystems, caused by the capitalist organization of production. By separating natural cycles from economic processes, capitalism generates structural ecological imbalances.
These works help move beyond certain simplistic readings of Marxism and enrich the ecological critique of capitalism. In particular, they show that the environmental question is not external to Marxian analysis, but rather extends certain of its insights. As Kohei Saito points out, Marx came to view capitalism as incompatible with ecological sustainability.
This incompatibility does not stem from a mere external limit, but from a dynamic internal to the system itself. As Kohei Saito writes:
“Capitalism could very well continue to profit from the unscrupulous exploitation of natural resources until nature is so destroyed that a large part of the earth has become uninhabitable.”
However, some of these approaches often remain centered on economic critique and sometimes struggle to thoroughly examine political forms and power structures.
Transcending through Expansion
Social ecology is built neither against nor alongside Marxism, but within a critical relationship that aims to extend and transcend its limits.
Its specific contribution lies in shifting the focus of analysis: the ecological crisis is not merely a consequence of capitalism, but the expression of a broader relationship of domination, embedded in the history of human societies.
From this perspective, the domination of nature appears inseparable from social domination. This is why an ecological transformation cannot be limited to a reorganization of the economy.
It implies a transformation of political forms, social relations, and ways of life.
Social ecology thus emphasizes:
- direct democracy as a concrete practice of collective reappropriation
- decentralization as a condition for a more balanced relationship with territories
- the reconstruction of political communities capable of articulating autonomy and interdependence
An emerging articulation
The value of dialogue with heterodox Marxisms lies precisely in the fact that it opens a space for convergence without erasing differences.
On the one hand, eco-Marxism reinforces the critique of destructive economic logics. On the other, social ecology broadens this critique by fully integrating the political, cultural, and institutional dimensions of domination.
It is within this articulation—still unfinished—that part of the theoretical and practical renewal necessary for envisioning future transformations is taking place.
But while dialogue with Marxism allows for a better understanding of the economic dynamics of modern domination, it is not sufficient to grasp its full historical depth.
It is by turning to anthropology that social ecology further broadens its perspective, by examining ancient forms of human organization and the possibilities they continue to open up today.