View source for Essay:Ecological crisis and the Marxist understanding and resolution from a dialectical materialist lens

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Essay: Ecological crisis and the Marxist understanding and resolution from a dialectical materialist lens}}
{{Infobox essay|title=Ecological crisis and the Marxist resolution from a dialectical materialist perspective|author=Comrade Kiwi|date=2025-09-29|excerpt=The following paper aims to resolve two questions simultaneously: 

1) With the annihilation of class antagonisms within the communist stage of society, i.e. classlessness, what drives growth? Is growth even possible without class contradictions driving human history?


2) If growth is possible, and non-antagonistic contradictions remain (Human and nature for our particular case of study) in a classless society, which they do, who ensures constraints and restrains? What stops humanity from devouring nature and thus itself? Because humanity doesn't exist in separation, above, or below nature, it exists in tandem within nature.|image=ML-Ecology.png}}
 The dialectical materialist perspective on climate change and ecological collapse: 
 
 The causation, the resolution and the material base for why the resolution is

= Outline and scope =

* The following paper aims to resolve two questions simultaneously:

# With the annihilation of class antagonisms within the communist stage of society, i.e. classlessness, what drives growth? Is growth even possible without class contradictions driving human history?
# If growth is possible, and non-antagonistic contradictions remain (Human and nature for our particular case of study) in classless society which they do, who ensures constraints and restrains? What stops humanity from devouring nature and thus itself? Because humanity doesn’t exist in separation, above, or below nature, it exists in tandem within nature.

= Meta notes from me in square brackets. =

= Key: (Divided into linear sections and sub-sections) =
Section (1): Establishing the basis of the stage of society we seek to analyze, i.e. communism and it’s differentiation from the previous modes of production. [You could skip this, I don’t recommend it but you could if you have theoretical knowledge, but once again I recommend you don’t]

Section (2): The dialectics of history: From unconscious struggle to conscious creation. From pre-history to history.

Divided into three sub-sections:

> Sub-section (2.1) - Class society without a captain at the helm guiding the ship.

> Sub-section (2.2) - Classless society with humanities historically and materially conditioned conscious will driving it forward.

> Sub-section (2.3) - The beginning of history.

Section (3): What are non-antagonistic contradictions? Do they survive in classless society? What do they do?

Divided into two sub-sections:

> Sub-section (3.1) What are antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions? Do they survive in classless society?

> Sub-section (3.2) The Survival and proliferation of non-antagonistic contradictions in classless society.

Section (4): Climate change and other potential man-made environmental catastrophes in making, and their resolution under communist i.e. classless society. What causes this resolution? Why is there even a resolution at all?

Divided into three sub-sections:

> Sub-section (4.1) - The cause of the crisis: The anarchic drive of capital.

> Sub-section (4.2) - The cause of the resolution: The primacy of social and collective interest over private interest.

> Sub-section (4.3) - The process of resolution: Conscious, material and actively developing approach.
                                                           Section (1) - What is communism?
Communism put simply is the classless, stateless and moneyless stage of human society. For the purposes of our enquiry we shall focus on the classlessness, and what classlessness means in material terms within communist society and how does classlessness contrast from class society.

The Marxist posits that all hitherto history of humanity is only the pre-history of humanity i.e. the history of class struggle [The reasoning will be elaborated in section (2)]. Let us first discuss class society and what drives it.

Class society, i.e. societies with class divisions that stem from one’s relation to the mode of production, has dominated the history of humanity thus far, class society is what determines one’s social position and material conditions and basis of existence in society. In class society, the forward movement (both quantitative and qualitative) i.e. the march of history is driven by the primary contradiction (the diametrically opposite interests of competing classes), particularly stemming from the struggle between the static and unchanging social relations of the specific mode of production of society at that point and the ever increasing productive forces and capabilities of humanity.

This contradiction stems from the fettering of productive forces and the periodic destruction of it, wherein the social relations of the mode of production can no longer contain the very wealth their system of social organization now produces, in the sense that there is simply too much, the productive forces outpace the social relations, the goblet begins to overflow. The ruling class of the period responds to the metaphorical flooding by destructive measures upon productive forces for the preservation of their mode of production and the status quo. Thus arises the contradiction, the very productive forces that advance society and material conditions also becomes the weapon for destruction and transformation of the old society. One class seeks fundamental transformation for that is in their material interest and one class seeks status quo reaction for that is in their interest. [Expanded in sub-section (2.1)]

Every old society is born pregnant with the seeds of a new one, containing the seeds of it’s own negation, the historical progression of modes of production gives us our current mode of production, capitalism and the social relations that stem it. The proletariat, the class which is forced to sell it’s ability to labor (or die, as much of a choice as the gangster demanding jewels on a street with a gun, where the choice is between conceding property or death, thus not a choice at all), and not the commodity it produces through commodity production, in the process augmenting value (creating upon value greater than the value that the worker first began with in the initial stage of commodity production), the surplus (surplus being the value generated by the worker that is beyond what is necessary to “maintain” the worker, i.e. ensure he can produce more workers and show up to work tomorrow himself) of which is extracted by the capitalist or bourgeois class, which is the class with the private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange (thus allowing them to force this involuntary transaction).

The struggle of the proletariat and bourgeoisie gives us the transitionary socialist stage of society and finally communism, wherein because the social relations and productive forces of capitalism produce massive amounts of wealth (gradations of society are reduced into only two major classes), the reconciliation and resolution of the contradiction between diametrically opposed interests only emerges through the process of the qualitative transformation of social relations once again. However since the proletariat encompasses the overwhelming majority of humanity, we get the collective ownership of the means of production by the totality of humanity, with the annihilation of classes because the reconciliation of the contradiction of the previous capitalist age materially necessitated so. Unlike the previous modes of production communism thus requires the whole of humanity to become the owner class, wherein doing so structurally abolishes class society itself. (this stage of society comes after the mandate and diktat of the proletariat i.e. dictatorship of the proletariat, the utility of which, however, is a topic for another time). [Expanded in sub-section (2.2)]

The question that we must answer, is that if class antagonism, the basis for struggle within human society itself vanishes, what propels society forward? The answer to this question lies in the understanding of the unconscious development of society by forces within human society but not in control of the human, i.e. class antagonisms, the social and material dialectical forces (the material forces enforce a realm of necessity, wherein the human thought must bend to reality, so that once it is bent it can become a coherent material force in itself and act back upon the world, wherein the material base transforms and thus the human also once again transforms) and the conscious developing of human society, where the human freely and consciously shapes reality (but of course is still shaped by reality, the consciousness still forged from matter, and constrained by social-historical and biological development). [Expanded in section (3) and section (4)]
             Section (2) - Unconscious development of class society vs Conscious development of classless society. What ends and what begins?
The entirety of human history, can be understood as a grand dialectical process, a dynamic and often violent unfolding driven by a fundamental contradiction. This process manifests in two distinct, sequential stages: the long epoch of unconscious development under class society, and the potential future stage of conscious development under a classless, communist society. The transition between these stages represents the most profound qualitative leap in the human condition, marking the end of what Marx called the “prehistory” of human society and the beginning of its true history, per se, the history of humanity goes from being the history of class struggle to the history of the human.

'''Sub-section (2.1) - The unconscious dialectical development of class society'''

The “unconscious development” of society does not imply that individuals lack consciousness or agency within society itself (quite the opposite, history is not pre-determined nor linear, what it is however, is directional and those directions have what one may call “potential tendencies” in that they tend to bend history and the human, however acting upon these tendencies remains firmly within the grasp of the human). Rather, it signifies that the overall direction and structure of social evolution are not the product of a collective, rational human plan. Instead, society is propelled forward by forces that operate behind the backs of its participants, these forces are the engines of the social dialectic material forces, and their fuel is class antagonism.

The genesis of this process lies in the development of the material forces of production. As human societies evolved from primitive communism, a surplus was generated beyond what was necessary for immediate subsistence. This surplus became the object of social struggle, leading to the division of society into classes: those who controlled the means of production (the land, the tools, the factories) and those who were compelled to labor upon them. This fundamental schism created the primary contradiction of class society: the conflict between the ruling class, which seeks to preserve and expand its control over the surplus and the social order that guarantees it, and the exploited class, which labors under alienation and strives for emancipation. This class antagonism is the unconscious motor of history. It is “unconscious” because its outcomes are unintended. No feudal lord intended to create the bourgeois class that would eventually overthrow him; his actions were geared toward maximizing rent and maintaining feudal privileges. Yet, in doing so, he inadvertently fostered the growth of trade, towns, and a new merchant class whose interests became fundamentally incompatible with the feudal mode of production. Similarly, the capitalist does not intend to create a revolutionary proletariat; the capitalist’s drive for profit leads to the concentration of capital, the socialization of labor, and the immiseration of the worker, thereby creating its own “gravediggers.”

Human consciousness, in this realm or stage of human society, must bend to reality as it is largely a reflection of one’s class position and the material base. The thinker, the artist, the politician, however brilliant, operates within the ideological confines of their epoch, their thoughts channeled by the unseen currents of class interest, not as pre-determination but as tendencies to be acted upon to bend reality to human consciousness.

To be concise and clear: Material conditions and reality are subject to change because the material conditions shape consciousness which is not a thing in of itself (not in isolation, and neither standing above the material nor below it, but rather within it) but rather an extension of reality as the brain is the organ of thought. Material shapes the consciousness (also a material phenomena) which in turn shapes the material, an observable feedback loop.

The development, therefore, is dialectical. A thesis (e.g. feudalism) contains within it its own negation, an antithesis (the rising bourgeoisie). The conflict between them leads to a synthesis (capitalism), which itself becomes a new thesis (the law of negation of negation demonstrated here) containing a new contradiction (the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie). This process is not smooth, it proceeds through ruptures, revolutions, and periods of intense social violence. Progress, such as the development of technology, the expansion of human knowledge, and even certain social liberties, is achieved, but it is a byproduct of this blind, antagonistic struggle. It is progress stumbled upon through tendencies, paid for with immense human suffering and struggle. Humanity, in this stage, class society, is like a passenger on a ship driven by stormy seas, with no one at the helm, tossed toward an unknown destination by winds of its own creation but not its own control. 

'''Sub-section (2.2) - The conscious development of classless society under communist rule'''

The communist stage of society aims to seize the helm of the ship. It represents the point of negation of the negation: the resolution of the fundamental class contradiction. By socializing the means of production, it abolishes the economic basis for class divisions. The antagonism between a propertied ruling class and a propertyless working class vanishes because the distinction itself is dissolved (as explained in Section 1). This monumental shift does not, however, signify the “end of history” in a stagnant sense. Rather, it marks the beginning of a new form of historical development: conscious development. This is the stage where humanity, for the first time, can freely and consciously shape reality. The realm of necessity does not disappear, what it does however, is appear, clearly and vividly, human beings remain biological entities subject to material constraints. We must still eat, and nature must still be mastered to provide for our needs. However, the character of this necessity is transformed. Under communism, the metabolic interaction with nature is no longer mediated by class exploitation, anarchic market competition, and the blind pursuit of profit. Instead, it becomes a collective and consciously calculated undertaking for the whole of humanity. [This forms the basis of the totality of this text and is elaborated upon in section - (4)]

The driving force of societal progress is no longer the unconscious clash of hostile classes, but the conscious association of producers. With the fetters of class interest removed, humanity can collectively and democratically deliberate on its goals. What should we produce? How much? With what technologies? How do we distribute the social product? How do we balance our material needs with ecological sustainability and the pursuit of knowledge, art, and leisure? These are no longer questions decided by the impersonal logic of capital accumulation, which dictates that what is produced must be profitable above all else. They become questions of collective will and rational planning calculated by the overall material needs of humanity, in both balancing material productivity and the existence of nature and thus our existence.

Human consciousness is still forged from matter, and constrained by social-historical and biological development. Humanity under the communist stage of society do not transcend material conditions. They remain physical beings whose consciousness is shaped by their interaction with a material world. The profound (qualitative) difference is that this interaction is now conscious. Instead of being passively shaped by anarchic social forces, humanity actively engages in a dialogue with nature and its own social nature. We are still shaped by reality, but we also shape it back with a coherence and purpose previously made structurally impossible by the existence of class society and the anarchic forces which drove them. 

'''Sub-section (2.3) - The history of the human and it’s start'''

This is the essence of Marx’s assertion that all previous human history within class society was merely the prehistory of human society. Prehistory is the period before humans took conscious but historically and materially conditioned control of their collective destiny, when they were subject to the whims of nature (primitive communism) and, later, the social dialectical of their own unconscious creation (class society). Communism, thus is the start of true human history, the history of humanity as humans, not as avatars of class struggle. Progress and development are no longer an accidental byproduct (i.e. it is not the byproduct of the pursuit of the bourgeois or any other class to maximize the rate of exploitation and surplus yield) but a deliberate, guided and planned aim.

The energy once expended in internal social and dialectical class warfare is redirected outward, toward the scientific and artistic (in that the sublation of nature and human, or the reconciliation per se, mastery of nature and the full flowering of human potential. The struggle against scarcity, deprivation and what have you, continues, but it is a unified struggle, and its success directly translates the space for individuals to develop their capacities for their own sake.

To conclude: Pre-history ceases, and history begins, a conflict between social classes ends and becomes a dynamic interaction between a unified humanity within the objective world with the objective world, a process of endless self-overcoming and creative development where, for the first time, the human species becomes the conscious author of its own destiny.
                                       Section (3) - The dialectical engine of communism: Non-antagonistic contradictions
Having established the fundamental shift from unconscious, antagonistic development to conscious, collective development, a pertinent question arises:

Does the abolition of class antagonism mean the end of contradiction itself? If dialectics is the logic of change through the conflict of opposites, does a classless society enter a state of static harmony? The answer is, absolutely not. The dialectic continues, but its character transforms qualitative as previously discussed. The engine of progress ceases to be the violent clash between hostile social forces and becomes the dynamic interplay of what are known as non-antagonistic contradictions.

'''Sub-section (3.1) - Defining antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions'''

An antagonistic contradiction is, as previously described, a conflict between irreconcilable interests. Under capitalism, the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is antagonistic because the former’s interest in maximizing profit is fundamentally opposed to the latter’s interest in higher wages, better conditions, and ultimately, freedom from exploitation. This contradiction can only be resolved through the revolutionary negation and supersession of one class by the other. It is a struggle between enemies with diametrically opposite interests.

A non-antagonistic contradiction, by contrast, is a conflict of interests or differences that occur within a fundamental unity of purpose. The parties involved share a common, overarching goal, but disagree on the methods, priorities, pace, or specific applications to achieve it. The resolution of these contradictions does not require the destruction of one side by the other, but rather a synthesis that sublates the differences, leading to a higher level of understanding and organization.

Think in this manner: Within a healthy engineering team, there may be contradictions between the desire for maximum efficiency and the need for robust safety margins. The resolution is not a victory for one side over the other, but a creative synthesis that produces a design that is both efficient and safe.

'''Sub-section (3.2) What drives the conscious collective humanity in communist society forward?'''

In a communist society, the removal of the exploitative class structure eliminates the primary source of antagonistic contradictions from the social and material fabric. However, this does not create a conflict-free utopia. Instead, it clears the stage for a vast landscape of non-antagonistic contradictions to become the primary drivers of social development. These contradictions arise from the very process of conscious social management and the endless pursuit of human advancement. [As was discussed in sub-section (2.3)]

To mention a few of these:
  (a) Human and nature [The subject of this text]

  (b) Present and future [Also indirectly the subject of this text]

  (c) Individual and Universal, the particular and total. [Okay mentioning this one because I’m going to write on it next lol, the principle of self-interest and individual experience]
To expand on (a) as it is the very subject of this text, it is the most fundamental non-antagonistic contradiction. Humanity’s need to draw sustenance from nature will always exist within the realm of necessity. This creates a series of dynamic tensions, particularly between economic development and ecological sustainability, between resource extraction and of course conservation. These are not antagonistic struggles because society and nature are not enemies, they exist in a symbiotic relationship. The goal is not for one to dominate the other destructively, but to achieve a collectively willed and historically conditioned rational, sustainable, and sophisticated conscious regulation of this exchange. The resolution made possible by classlessness, where previously social and material dialectical forces directed this exchange in anarchically, it is now driven by the collective reasoning of humanity regulated by it’s own conscious and material necessities it recognizes openly. [Elaborated and articulated in section - (4)]
                                                         Section (4) - Climate change
From the totality of this established framework, the transition from an unconsciously developed class society, driven by antagonistic contradictions, to a consciously developed classless society, propelled by non-antagonistic contradiction. Let us circle back to the question of climate change and it’s resolution and why it is resolved at all.

The phenomenon of climate change and other potential environmental catastrophes reveals the full historical significance of our framework. These crises are not mere technical failures or simple errors in policy. They are the direct, logical, and catastrophic culmination of the unconscious dialectic of class society, specifically of its highest stage: capitalism. Their resolution under communism is not a guaranteed outcome but the necessary, defining project of a society that has seized conscious control of its own dynamic relation with nature, within nature.

'''Section (4.1) - Why is there a crisis?'''

The crisis itself (not the relation between human and nature) but the crisis itself is an antagonistic contradiction.

In essence, it is an antagonistic contradiction of the highest order, but one that operates on a different axis. It is not primarily a contradiction between two social classes within society although of course it exacerbates those, but a contradiction between the entire logic of class society, specifically capitalism, and the natural world upon which it depends. Under capitalism, the driving imperative is not human need or ecological sustainability, but the accumulation of capital. This imperative is unconscious and anarchic, no single “evil” capitalist intends to destroy the planetary ecosystem, but the competitive compulsion to maximize profit creates a system-wide logic that is inherently ecocidal.

This leads to three primary consequences:
 (x) The treatment of nature as a "free gift": Natural resources are seen not as a finite foundation for life to be stewarded,
  but as an inexhaustible repository to be plundered without cost to the balance sheet.
 
 (y) The externalization of costs: The true costs of pollution, resource depletion, and ecosystem collapse are not factored into
 production. They are "externalized," pushed onto society as a whole and onto future generations, creating a  grotesque divergence 
 between private profit and social (and ecological) ruin.
 
 (z) Short-termism: The relentless focus on quarterly returns and rapid turnover of capital makes long-term planning over 
 decades or centuries which is the timescale of ecological processes (and collapse, impossible by design. The system is structurally 
 blind to the slow-moving catastrophe it creates.   
'''Section (4.2) - The basis for resolution and are communists inherently more ecologically minded?'''

The resolution of this crisis becomes possible only with the abolition of the capitalist mode of production and the class relations that sustain it. Communism resolves the environmental crisis not because communists are inherently more ethical or ecologically minded, but because the very social structure of a classless society removes the systemic barriers to rationality.

Under communism, the fundamental unity of social collective interest, the precondition for non-antagonistic contradictions, is established. There is no longer a parasitic capitalist class whose private accumulation depends on the externalization of ecological costs. The associated producers now own and control the means of production. Consequently, the “health of the social whole” and the “health of the natural environment” become one and the same project. Pollution that harms any member of society is recognized as a direct cost to all. The preservation of ecosystems for future generations becomes a direct social interest, not a secondary concern to be sacrificed for profit.

This transformation allows for the conscious regulation of the human relationship with nature. This is the core of the resolution. The question of how to interact with the environment is lifted from the unconscious, anarchic realm of the market and becomes a central object of collective, democratic deliberation. It becomes a non-antagonistic contradiction to be managed, not an antagonistic one that threatens systemic collapse.

'''Section (4.3) - The dynamic approach to the question of how'''

The resolution is not a single event but a continuous, conscious process driven by the new social relations. It manifests through several key shifts:
 Planning replaces anarchy: Instead of production being determined by profit, it is planned according to human need and ecological sustainability. A communist society can rationally assess its true needs, the carrying capacity of ecosystems, and the long-term consequences of its actions. It can consciously choose to scale down certain forms of production, phase out destructive technologies, and invest massively in renewable energy and restorative agriculture, not because it is ideologically “green” but because it the conscious and collective will of humanity itself.

 Science liberated for social good: Scientific research is freed from its subordination to corporate patents and military applications. The collective intellectual power of humanity can be directed toward solving the ecological crisis: developing closed-loop production systems, advancing carbon capture technologies, and deepening our understanding of ecosystem dynamics.

 The reconciliation of humanity and nature: This conscious regulation represents the highest form of human freedom, as defined by Engels: “the control over ourselves and over external nature which is founded on knowledge of natural necessity.” Humanity ceases to be a blind, destructive force on the planet and becomes its conscious steward.
In conclusion, the resolution of the environmental crisis under communism is inevitable not in a fatalistic sense, but in a structural one. It is the direct consequence of replacing a social system whose very logic generates the crisis with one whose logic demands its solution. The crisis is a product of unconscious, antagonistic development; its resolution is the first and most vital test of humanity’s new-found capacity for conscious, collective development. It marks the moment we cease being prisoners of our own social forces and begin, finally, to act as rational custodians of our world.
----Notes from Comrade Kiwi [that is me]: So I basically got the idea to write this at 9ish PM and I have been mostly writing since then and right now it’s 4 AM lol. This was basically just a whole elaboration of another text I wrote on philosophical matters, this one is based on the most inarticulate sections of them about self-expression reaching it’s highest stage through the realm of conscious historical development and it just came to my mind, that well that could be applied to the resolution of climate change as well. Hence the text.

I am going to add a bibliography for anyone who wants further readings on these matters, and as always remember, without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary movement and without a revolutionary movement all theory is mere intellectual masturbation.

* Theses on Feuerbach, Marx - <nowiki>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm</nowiki>
* Preface of a contribution to the critique of political economy, Marx - <nowiki>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm</nowiki>
* Dialectics of nature, Engels - <nowiki>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/index.htm</nowiki>
* Anti-Duhring, Engels - <nowiki>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/</nowiki>
* Scientific and utopian socialism, Engels - <nowiki>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm</nowiki>
* Dialectical and historical materialism, Stalin - <nowiki>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm</nowiki>
* On contradiction, Mao - <nowiki>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm#bm3</nowiki>
* On the question of dialectics, Lenin - <nowiki>https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/misc/x02.htm</nowiki>
* Philosophical notebooks, Lenin - <nowiki>https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/volume38.htm</nowiki> (no I haven’t read ALL of them either before you ask lol)
* Dialectical logic, Ilyenkov - <nowiki>https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/</nowiki>
[[Category:Essays by Comrade Kiwi]]
[[Category:Theory (essays)]]
[[Category:Ecology (essays)]]
[[Category:Essays]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Essay: Ecological_crisis_and_the Marxist_understanding_and_resolution_from_a_dialectical_materialist_lens}}