In der Tradition der ökologischen Marxlektüre bietet dieses Buch eine philosophische Reflexion der ökologischen Krise auf Basis der von Karl Marx entworfenen Theorie der modernen, kapitalistischen Gesellschaft. Dabei werden die folgenden Fragestellungen verfolgt: Was ist das Wesen der ökologischen Krise? Was ist die Ursache oder was sind die Ursachen der ökologischen Krise? Wie kann die ökologische Krise gelöst werden? Kann mittels der marxschen Theorie eine Kritik und Weiterentwicklung von nicht-marxistischen Theorien entfaltet werden, die sich auf die ökologische Krise beziehen? Und (...) wenn ja, was ist der Gehalt dieser Kritik und Weiterentwicklung? Zur Beantwortung dieser Fragen wird im ersten Schritt die von Marx 1857/58 in den „Grundrissen" entwickelte Theorie textnah und systematisch rekonstruiert. Im zweiten Schritt werden Theorien aus Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Naturethik dargestellt und in einen argumentativen Zusammenhang mit der marxschen Theorie gesetzt. Aufgrund dieses fachübergreifenden Charakters richtet sich das Buch nicht nur an Philosoph/-innen, sondern auch an Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftler/-innen sowie an Personen mit Interesse an Umweltschutz, Nachhaltigkeit und Ökologie. (shrink)

There are two sides to Adorno’s idea of natural history: showing that what appears to be natural is in fact subject to social change, while exposing social change as recurrence of the ever same. Focusing on the second side, this article explains how such a naturalisation can contribute to social critique. What distinguishes Adorno’s use of biological vocabulary from social Darwinism is the critical intention. Rather than scorning nature, naturalisation starts with the conventional notion of nature in order to unmask (...) it as a projection. ‘Nature’ in this sense is what we refuse to acknowledge about our own history. In so far as it does not establish any ontological claims about nature but aims at social transformation, Adorno’s strategy can be understood as a critical naturalism. In the process of demonstrating how human practices are part of nature, the underlying concept of nature is being transformed. (shrink)

In this article, Herbert Marcuse’s nature-ethical considerations, which have to date been scarcely received, are used to develop perspectives on how the nature-ethical gap in contemporary Critical Theory could be closed. The central idea is that nature is tobe recognized as a subject in its own right without needing to anthropomorphize it in the process. The advocatory ethics of nature, which is outlined here, differs from current sustainability and environmental ethics primarily in that it maintains the tension between an anthropocentric (...) and an ecocentric approach and does not resolve it in one direction. Marcuse’s so-called “liberation of nature” is understood as a means for the “liberation of humans”, but the latter can only succeed if the former is also carried out. (shrink)

This article emphasises the relevance of Adorno’s concept of nature for contemporary debates in critical theory about the relationship between nature and society. Adorno identifies a twofold danger for a critical understanding of our relationship to nature. While the first is in the development of a mythical vision of nature, the second is in the development of a purely instrumental relationship to nature, which considers nature as an entity radically heterogeneous to social issues. Against this backdrop, Adorno develops his own (...) concept of nature which can be described as negative and minimal. (shrink)

Eine der frühesten Schriften des jungen Karl Marx — die Dissertationsschrift „Differenz der demokritischen und epikureischen Naturphilosophie“ — legt wichtige Fundamente für das gesamte Marx’sche Denken. In der Dissertationsschrift versucht Marx anhand des Vergleichs der antiken Naturphilosophien Demokrits und Epikurs grundlegende Erkenntnisse der theoretischen und praktischen Philosophie in einem komplexen, von Hegel inspirierten ontologischen System zu verbinden. Aus dieser kritischen Synthese antiker Naturphilosophien entsteht so eine auf Hegelschen Begriffen basierende, aber gleichzeitig reformierte Idee der Praxis. Auf diesen Grundlagen sowie mit (...) Hilfe des über die Kritik an Epikur und Hegel gewonnenen Begriffs der Entfremdung entwickelt Marx den dialektischen Materialismus der Naturphilosophie. Dem inhaltlichen Aufbau der Dissertationsschrift folgend wird in dem Aufsatz die Marx’sche Naturphilosophie diskutiert. Dabei werden die wichtigsten Begriffe des Marx‘schen Denkens, wie etwa Materialismus, Dialektik, Entfremdung oder Einheit von Theorie und Praxis in der Dissertationsschrift von Karl Marx ausgearbeitet. (shrink)

The article deals with the destruction of the widespread myth about Karl Marx as a “Promethean thinker”. Under Prometheism/Prometheanism is the point of view according to which nature is considered as a quantitatively “inexhaustible storehouse”, which must be known and conquered on the basis of scientific and technical knowledge in order to be used to meet constantly growing human needs through continuous growth of production and, accordingly, a permanent increase in the degree of aggressive exploitation of nature while completely ignoring (...) the consequences of this exploitation both for the environment and for human society itself. Since the myth of the “prometheanism” of Marx, which is very tenacious to this day, was previously dispelled in the field of political economy, sociology, ecology, political science, then in the proposed study the author focused only on some of the philosophical aspects of the problem. In the first part of the article it is shown that Marx is mistakenly criticized by many thinkers for anti-environmentalism; in the second, relying on the texts of Marx himself, it is proved that these fragments torn from the general context of his philosophy are mostly false, because Marx, often praising technological progress, nevertheless, was not a Promethean, as he subjected the social and environmental consequences of the capitalist application of technology and science to radical scientific criticism; Finally, in the third part, through the reconstruction of Marx’s philosophical-anthropological and socio-philosophical ideas, Marx’s true attitude to environmental issues is shown. The author’s arguments are as follows. According to Marx, the ontological basis for the existence of any human society is social metabolism, i.e. the exchange of substances between man and nature through transformative activity, during the deployment of which all the “worlds” in which man exists are drawn into metabolic exchange. Each socio-historical stage of development has its own specific type of metabolism, i.e. its own special form of ecological interaction between all “worlds”. Based on this method, Marx shows that metabolic rifts, i.e. disturbances in the processes of normal, balanced flow of social metabolism in the totality of all these “worlds” are most characteristic of capitalism due to its structural Promethean intentions. And in this sense, Marx’s philosophical ecology not only fully corresponds to the modern level of understanding of ecological/environmental problems, but also offers a holistic methodology not only for “explaining” these problems, but also for their “practical solution”. (shrink)

El texto muestra la complejidad de la discusión en torno al sentido y la dirección de la historia, en especial, la dificultad mayor de una dotación de sentido en favor del desarrollo histórico en el mundo actual. El ensayo reconstruye brevemente la posición pesimista de la Escuela de Frankfurt sobre..

Several years ago Guglielmo Carchedi (2008; 2012) published in S&S two interesting pieces on Marx’s dialectics and mathematics. His basic aim was to discover whether Marx’s Mathematical Manuscripts provide a new insight into Marx’s dialectics. The reading he suggested was addressed to Marx alone, i.e., without Hegel and Engels. This, he argued, is the only way to grasp Marx’s dialectics if one wants to understand Marx in his own terms. Since Marx never explicated his notion of dialectics, we ought to (...) derive it from Marx’s own work. To this end, Carchedi first defined “dialectics as a method of social research” (Carchedi, 2008, 416), and then listed three principles of dialectics: 1) “all phenomena are always both realized and potential”; 2) “they are always both determinant and determined”; 3) they are “always subject to movement and change” (ibid.). Later he added a fourth principle: 4) “social phenomena’s movement (change) is tendential” (Carchedi, 2012, 547). He emphasized that these principles are limited to society and not to be confused with nature, because society, unlike nature, necessarily involves “human volition and consciousness” (ibid.). For this reason, “Engels’ dialectics of nature cannot be applied to society” (ibid.), a claim he also asserted in his book Behind the Crisis (2011, 37–8). (shrink)

Reading different or controversial intentions into Marx and Engels’ works has been somewhat a common but rather unquestioned practice in the history of Marxist scholarship. Engels’ Dialectics of Nature, a torso for some and a great book for others, is a case in point. A bold line seems to shape the entire Engels debate and separate two opposite views in this regard: Engels the contaminator of Marx’s materialism vs. Engels the self-started genius of dialectical materialism. What Engels, unlike Marx, has (...) not enjoyed so far is a critical reflection upon the relationship between different layers of this text: authorial, textual, editorial and interpretational. Informed by a historical hermeneutic, inquiry into the elements that structure the debate on “Dialectics of Nature,” and into the different political and philosophical functions attached to it, makes it possible to relocate the meaning of “dialectics” in a more precise context. Engels’ dialectics is less complete than we usually think it is, but he achieved more than most scholars would like to admit. (shrink)