Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space

TWO: The Production of Nature

49 chapter two The Production of Nature “scientific truth,” Marx wrote in a famous statement, “is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive appearance of things.”1 The idea of the production of nature is indeed paradoxical, to the point of sounding absurd, if judged by the superficial appearance of nature even in capitalist society. Nature is generally seen as precisely that which cannot be produced; it is the antithesis of human productive activity. In its most immediate appearance, the natural landscape presents itself to us as the material substratum of daily life, the realm of use-values rather than exchange-values. As such it is highly differentiated along any number of axes. But with the progress of capital accumulation and the expansion of economic development, this material substratum is more and more the product of social produc- 50 Chapter Two tion, and the dominant axes of differentiation are increasingly societal in origin. In short, when this immediate appearance of nature is placed in historical context, the development of the material landscape presents itself as a process of the production of nature. The differentiated results of this production of nature are the material symptoms of uneven development . At the most abstract level, therefore, it is in the production of nature that use-value and exchange-value, and space and society, are fused together. The function of this chapter, then, is to renovate our conception of nature in such a way that the dualistic world of bourgeois ideology can be reconstituted as an integrated whole. This will allow us to treat the real patterns of uneven development as the product of the unity of capital, rather than blindly to situate the process in the false ideological dualism of society and nature. The problem will be to separate the essential moments of the production of nature from its various appearances. Marx nowhere talked explicitly about the production of nature. But in his work there is implied an understanding of nature which leads firmly in this direction. In fact, Marx did not have a single, coherently elaborated concept of nature at all, rather he used “nature” in a variety of ways. These different uses of the concept were not random, however, and a close reading of Marx’s work demonstrates a rational progression in his treatment of nature. In the end we are not at all left with a fully constructed concept but do have a sketchy framework of the conception of nature implied by Marx’s analysis and critique of the capitalist mode of production. I do not accept that there is a radical break between the so-called young Marx and the mature Marx;2 there is, rather, a rich and complex development in his thought, and this is reflected in his treatment of nature . Throughout his work, Marx treats nature as a differentiated unity, but at different periods the emphasis upon unity and differentiation varies . His earlier work, particularly the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (in Marx, 1975 edn) emphasized the unity of “man and nature.” Here he borrowed heavily from the idealist Hegelian tradition as well as The Production of Nature 51 from Kant. Only with German Ideology did Marx (writing with Engels) come round to a more materialist vision of nature. Rather than discussing the philosophical aspects of the supposed unity of “man and nature ,” Marx was more concerned with the actual processes which might achieve this unity. This led him to discuss the function of human labor, putting it at the center of the relationship between human beings and nature . Further, he began to treat the whole question as a historical one not an abstract philosophical puzzle. In Grundrisse, many of these insights were extended and others added, particularly concerning the historical dimensions of the human relation with nature. In Capital, and especially in volume one which Marx completed for publication, the treatment of nature is still sporadic, but there for the first time we see a consistent logical progression in the different treatments of nature. The discussion of nature occurs only in fragments because Capital was not intended to analyze nature, specifically, under capitalism. It was intended as a critique of capitalist production, and as such required Marx to develop at least partially his conception of nature. Pursuing his primary task, however, did not require him to present or even develop a completed conception of nature. But...