The Myth of Karl Marx's Prometheanism: Analysis and Criticism
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...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Philosophy and Law
2022-05-01
|
| Series: | Антиномии |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://yearbook.uran.ru/images/files/Antinomies_2022_1_7_43.pdf |
| Summary: | 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 (J.B. Foster, K. Saito, P. Burkett), sociology (A. Salleh, M. Musto), ecology
(B. Clark, J. Moore, E. Alvater, K. Saito, T. Grassmann), political science (K. Royce), 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 (based on some of his
statements) 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 (nature, society, “second nature” – material and spiritual culture, the world of
others, their own inner world). 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
(the desire to increase profits, which is associated with the need for permanent growth
of production – the imperative “grow or die!”; and hence to increase the exploitation
of nature). 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”. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2686-7206 2686-925X |