Skip to main content

This is a review of the English translation of Enrique Leff’s 1995 short book Ecologia y Capital, titled Green Production, oriented toward a discussion of its political usefulness in the current era.  I finally got around to reading this book over the weekend, after suggesting it to a friend who is in fact doing this kind of work in college; here are my thoughts.

One of the most brilliant concepts to be articulated in Joel Kovel’s (2002) book The Enemy of Nature is that of "ecological production."  Kovel’s point is that, in the ecologically-conscious future, human production will no longer be the production of commodities, items for sale on a market, but rather the production of ecosystems, envisioning the management of ecological cycles that have as their incidental byproducts the growth of natural objects useful for human beings.  So what is "ecological production"?  We produce things because we want them; how could we want to produce an ecology?  Kovel admits to borrowing the concept from the Mexican ecologist Enrique Leff.  In Green Production (an English translation of Ecologia y Capital) Leff outlines this concept, and here I hope to simplify "ecological production" in a form that is useful for political thinkers concerned about the future.

What’s the problem?

The growth of global civilization has been accompanied by a global ecological crisis.  As John McMurtry pointed out in 2002, ecological systems are everywhere "in catastrophic dieback," as forest, ocean, topsoil, and fossil fuel resources are consumed in excess of their regenerative capacities.

I think it’s really important that we focus upon ecology, and make its study a priority in thinking through major political issues, even if they don’t at first glance seem related.  The occupation of Iraq, for instance, can be thought of as an ecological issue.  In occupying Iraq, our government represents corporate interests that would like to see the US military as the arbiter of who gets to exploit Iraq’s precious oil reserves.  Our civilization, of course, is addicted to oil, which will at some future date start to run out, greatly increasing its price.  Burning billions of barrels of oil has, moreover, brought to global society a raging greenhouse effect that promises to accelerate in the coming years.

The economy, moreover, has become a matter of society’s dependence upon "jobs," which must be provided by those with money.  Few people today think about the material basis of their relationship to the land and the good things that it grows, since everything can be bought with money at supermarkets, Home Depot, or the local shopping mall.  Thus I have suggested that, if the money were to run out, we could be in deep trouble, and that genuine security in light of this reality may have to come from "living off of the land."  But to "live off of the land" like our ancestors once did, we would have to get back in touch with its ecological realities.  The bottom line is that the resources which our economy uses come mostly from a natural world, which is based on fragile, breakable ecosystems, and that ecology is the science by which we can know how that natural world works.

Some writers, such as Derrick Jensen, blame the ecological crisis on "civilization," while leaving open the meaning of what precisely is wrong with "civilization" that makes it unecological.  Others blame "population," without fully accounting for the unequal impact of different populations upon the environment.

For Enrique Leff, a Mexican writer on the editorial board of Capitalism Nature Socialism, the environmental crisis is a product of "the process of capital accumulation." (1)  Leff’s argument about capitalism is based upon how life under capitalism has become more and more "technologically advanced."  (Those of us who were born before the Internet experience this thought every day.)  

As the capitalist system has become more technologically advanced, the requirements of "being in business" have become overall more expensive because businesses in many sectors have had to buy more equipment.  Businesses seeking a profit have therefore had to become bigger (as for instance we see WalMart displace mom-and-pops in localities everywhere), and use more natural resources.  The result, for Leff:

Throughout these processes, extended reproduction of capital intensified the exploitation of natural resources.  Gradual regenerative processes that allow biotic resources to recuperate and to grow cannot keep pace with accelerated capital reproduction cycles.  The resulting depletion of resources generated, in turn, a tendency toward higher prices for raw materials and general commodities.  The costs of producing capital, as well as the labor time necessary for working-class subsistence, can be expected to rise, generating an obstacle to the need to continuously raise the rate of profits and surplus value.  (24)

In short, capitalism is too fast and too dynamic for the natural world which supports it.  Of course, there are consequences to capitalism’s fastness.  To cope with the problem of intensified exploitation, Leff argues, businesses have had to come up with "new ‘environmental’ technologies designed to exploit ‘more rationally’ different ecosystems with sustainable yields of natural resources".  (25)  This, however, does not in Leff’s eyes stop capitalism from ruining the globe’s ecosystems.  The more advanced capitalist nations rationalize business exploitation by shifting the costs of overexploitation to the less developed nations, where, by virtue of being a Mexican, Leff lives.  (We call this "outsourcing" today.)

What does Leff advocate?

As a remedy for capitalism’s environmental problems, Leff advocates a sort of "ecodevelopment," which suggests a new productive paradigm:

A new productive paradigm must be constructed – one that articulates the laws of thermodynamics, of ecology, and of social production.  This emergent productive rationality will integrate the conditions for the primary productivity of natural ecosystems, the technological productivity of productive processes, and the social productivity of the labor process, supported by socially controlled, scientific-technological progress. (67)

The harmonious order of "ecodevelopment," managed democratically and scientifically, will presumably replace the one in which

Until now, the advance of science and technological innovation has been overdetermined by a necessity to increase labor productivity, as a means for surplus extraction (67)

This is what has heretofore prompted ecological crisis, and so Leff suggests a concept of "ecotechnological productivity" as a counterpoint to "economic productivity."

Is ecological production incompatible with capitalism?

Leff does not argue thusly.  Instead, he opines:

Ecodevelopment practices do not imply a frontal attack against capital.  Nevertheless, the implementation of new ecological technologies and new productive practices imply political conflict, institutional changes, and social struggles for the possession of new technical knowledges and means of production for the appropriation of nature and the production of social wealth.  Thus, instead of definitively stating an incompatibility between capitalism and ecodevelopment, it is important to understand how these productive transformations are incorporated into social struggles over resources.  In the process of implementing this new productive rationality, political conflicts will be generated, as well as social changes that may lead to the appropriation of lands and means of production by the working classes, peasants, and indigenous peoples in rural communities.  But this possibility does not simply depend on the "rational" exploitation of resources.  (127-128)

Leff will not come out and say that "ecodevelopment" is incompatible with capitalist exploitation.  However, in light of the things he has said about capitalist exploitation, it is hard to see how ecodevelopment will have much in common with the current Age of Finance Capital.  It’s not clear, for instance, what sort of profit rate would survive the conversion to ecodevelopment.  A period of social conflict is projected, after which whatever business is there to be transacted will happen in accordance with ecological concerns:

Ecodevelopment as a process requires a systematic assessment of an ecosystem’s behavior as it is modified by the productive activities of any given social formation.  This demands new integrated methods of economic, social, and environmental accounting to evaluate the patrimony of natural and cultural resources and the ecosystems’ sustainable use potential under alternative management strategies.  (63)

So Leff wants to suggest the outlines of a rational government on the other side of a projected social revolution-of-sorts.  Can he make it happen?  Can he get scientists to work on his vision of a world where ecodevelopment is business as usual?  I’d like to see it happen.

How does Leff illustrate ecodevelopment?

In short, Leff does project a way forward, a form of "progress" that offers an alternative to the compromised radicalism of Hugo Chavez and the other "maverick" Keynesians of South America, the ecological tragedy of neoliberal development, or the return-to-the-past desired by the primitivists.  Leff seems to complete the social picture that (to my reading, at least) is only half-filled-in by the advocates of permaculture, whose recommendation to those who want a better world is usually limited to "buy some land."  His specific examples of how this can be accomplished are illuminating.  To form a comprehensive picture of ecodevelopment, Leff suggests that we research the ethnobotanic practices of prehispanic cultures in Latin America and in China, sustainable agricultural practices in tropical ecosystems, and suggestions of an emerging debate about ecodevelopment in UN documents.

Where will I go from here?

I’m trying to get more Leff.  I think libraries are reluctant to order lots of stuff in Spanish, and so I’m ordering his most recent writings from Amazon.  I will probably start to reinvestigate agroecology, preferably after next week when Pomona College will be in session again.

Originally posted to Cassiodorus on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 10:07 PM PST.


how do you most clearly see yourself as an environmentalist?

3%1 votes
25%7 votes
0%0 votes
7%2 votes
0%0 votes
14%4 votes
0%0 votes
10%3 votes
3%1 votes
7%2 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
17%5 votes
10%3 votes

| 28 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  tip jar (8+ / 0-)

    please donate edible food items -- I give them away tomorrow morning at the local food bank...

    Reduce, reuse, recycle

    by Cassiodorus on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 10:08:20 PM PST

  •  Ecodevelopment (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, Cassiodorus, Brahman Colorado, jfm

    There are practical applications of these ideas which are already beginning to come into the marketplace and the built environment.  Looking at the New Alchemy Institute's work, A Safe and Sustainable World by Nancy Jack Todd, will give you some of the history and background of how ecological principles and systems drove research in the 1970s and 1980s.  The New Alchies provided examples that we can emulate today and should have much sooner.

    Bill McDonough's ecological design principles are also useful:
    waste equals food
    use only available solar income
    respect diversity
    love all the children

    Fact is, we have always been a solar economy and will always be a solar economy.  We just don't count the solar contribution.  Last I looked, the official energy budget for the USA says 3% of the energy we use goes to agriculture, the food we eat.  That includes the chemicals, fertilizers, processing, and transportation but does not include the sunlight that powers photosynthesis that actually grows the food.  Ballpark figure I come up with is about 100 times the petroleum contribution will maybe equal the solar contribution.  That means merely the agricultural sector's solar input is three times the whole energy budget of the country.

    We fool ourselves all the time because we confuse economics with reality and money with life.

    Solar is civil defense. Video of my small scale solar experiments at

    by gmoke on Sun Jan 07, 2007 at 10:26:03 PM PST

  •  I just wrote a diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus, jfm

    that i will be posting soon on the practical application of environmental design in manufacturing.

  •  One would think the urgency in dealing with this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, Cassiodorus


    M-A-R-S - Mars, bitches! - Black Bush

    by Nathan Jaco on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 12:12:41 AM PST

  •  random (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, Cassiodorus, jfm, edison

    I saw this cool article about a technique used in the amazon; instead of slash-and-burn, one grows a certain crop like corn then burns it down into charcoal. That is then buried underground, and creates a more fertile topsoil. I tried in vain to go back to alternet or wherever I saw the article, maybe even, but I can't find it.

    I must admit, it seems beyond the imagination of most to consider a less competitive, more cooperative system of economy. We want to defeat the beast, yet depend on it so much

  •  Thanks for this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We need to look at the threat to our biosphere from every perspective. Here is a link to Capitalism or a Habitable Planet: You can't have both a thought provoking article from the Guardian (UK), a year ago.
     These criticisms notwithstanding, there is still time for capitalism to prove its value. Here is a link to an excellent paper by Ross Gelbspan at The Heat is Online laying out a comprehensive, three-part action plan for tackling the climate crisis.    

  •  So the student sez: 'Ok, so what's the answer??? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Some writers, such as Derrick Jensen, blame the ecological crisis on "civilization," while leaving open the meaning of what precisely is wrong with "civilization" that makes it unecological.

    Others, like Zerzan, are even more vague in their 'solutions', yet, the discussion is a necessary one, I believe.

    Leff will not come out and say that "ecodevelopment" is incompatible with capitalist exploitation.  However, in light of the things he has said about capitalist exploitation, it is hard to see how ecodevelopment will have much in common with the current Age of Finance Capital.

    Leff is nearly as confounding for many as Jensen and Zerzan, yet, the discussion is remains important. Excellent dairy, Cassiodorus! Thank you.

  •  square our means of production (0+ / 0-)

    with what we know of sustainability...

    Reduce, reuse, recycle

    by Cassiodorus on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:50:33 AM PST

  •  I am the son and the heir... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    of nothing in particular.

    Nice poll, but I wish I could choose about half a dozen of the choices.  My main environmental practises are gardening, composting, and biking to work, and lots and lots of re-using (my wardrobe is neo-Goodwill).  Of those, only gardening is really related to production, though...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site