Capital & Class 2000 Spence 81 110

8/13/2019 Capital & Class 2000 Spence 81 110

1/31

http://cnc.sagepub.com/Capital & Class

http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/24/3/81Theonline version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/030981680007200105

2000 24: 81Capital & ClassMartin Spence

contradiction of capitalismCapital Against Nature: James O'Connor's theory of the second

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Conference of Socialist Economists

can be found at:Capital & ClassAdditional services and information for

http://cnc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://cnc.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/24/3/81.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 2000Version of Record>>

by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Daniel Silva on November 1, 2013cnc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/24/3/81http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/24/3/81http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/24/3/81http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.cseweb.org.uk/http://cnc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://cnc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://cnc.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://cnc.sagepub.com/content/24/3/81.refs.htmlhttp://cnc.sagepub.com/content/24/3/81.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://cnc.sagepub.com/content/24/3/81.full.pdfhttp://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://cnc.sagepub.com/content/24/3/81.full.pdfhttp://cnc.sagepub.com/content/24/3/81.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://cnc.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://cnc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.cseweb.org.uk/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/24/3/81http://cnc.sagepub.com/


2/31

81

1. Introduction

James OConnor has played a major role in the red-green debatewhich has run for the past decade and more. His contributions,in which he has patiently and persistently argued for theapplication of Marxist analysis to the environmental crisis, haveundoubtedly raised the quality of a dialogue which all toofrequendy resorts to name-calling.

His main achievement has been to open up a new approach

to the increasingly sterile debate on natural limits. This is anissue fraught with danger for anyone working in the Marxisttradition, for mention of natural limits immediately conjuresup the spectre of Malthus, and Marxs antipathy toMalthusianism is well known. But it serves little purpose to fleeMalthusianism, only to end up endorsing by implication theequally reactionary notion that the natural environment can(and should?) be totally subordinated to human goals: to avoidlining up with Malthus only to end up standing insteadalongside Lysenko. If the question of natural limits forces usto choose between two such ridiculous answers, then there mustbe something wrong with the question.

James OConnors theory of the second contradiction ofcapitalism is a pioneering attempt to reconcile Marxismwith environmentalism, and other social movements. Thisarticle analyses OConnors theory, and finds both seriousflaws and startling innovations. While rejecting the overallframe work of a second contradiction as proposed byOConnor, it seeks to combine his most valuable insiqhtswith a renewed emphasis on class, in order to develop analternative approach to a Marxist understanding ofenvironmental crisis.

Capital Against NatureJames OConnors theory of the secondcontradiction of capitalism

Martin Spence


3/31

OConnor poses a different and more useful question, bydeveloping the Marxist concept of contradiction to putecological crisis, resource depletion and scarcity into context ashistorically specific outcomes of historically-specific patterns of

capitalist development. And he goes on to propose a newtheoretical framework for this, arguing that environmental crisisis the manifestation of a second contradiction of capitalism, anew contradiction in which capital accumulation creates newbarriers to its own further development.

This paper starts (sections 2 to 4) by examining OConnorstheory of a second contradiction of capitalism. It finds that it isunsatisfactory, and in certain respects deeply flawed, but despitethis it throws up valuable new analytical categories. The paper

then goes on (sections 5 and 6) to propose an alternativeapproach to understanding capitals impact on the naturalenvironment. This approach makes use of some of OConnorsanalytical tools, but within an overall framework rooted in thecommodity form of labour power, and the continued relevanceof class.

2. The first contradiction

OConnor starts from a position squarely in the Marxisttradition, seeing crisis and contradiction at the very heart ofthe capitalist mode of production. He repeatedly describescapitalism as both crisis-ridden and crisis-dependent(OConnor, 1996: 203; 1998c: 182), meaning that in thecourse of its normal functioning it generates barriers to itsown further development; and these barriers manifestthemselves as crises; and these crises have the potential eitherto undermine or to strengthen capitalism as a whole,depending on the circumstances at the time, on politicalaction and contingency.

He recognises that for Marxists, capitalism is characterisednot simply by contradiction in general, but by a very specificinternal contradiction:

The point of departure of the traditional Marxist theory of

economic crisis and the transition to socialism is thecontradiction between capitalist productive forces and

production relations (OConnor, 1996: 200).

82 Capital & Class #72


4/31

For OConnor, this is the first contradiction, whose essentialcharacteristics are that:

it is internal to the capitalist system;

it manifests itself in a tendency towards overproductionand a consequent crisis of realisation; it calls into existence the organised working class as the

key agency of progressive social change (OConnor,1996).

In keeping with his emphasis on political action andcontingency, the picture OConnor paints here is not of somegrand, trans-historical logic inexorably working itself out. On

the contrary, there is much scope for messy, pragmaticcompromises to bed down and reproduce themselves. In hisearly writings on this theme he uses the metaphor of a loose fitbetween productive forces and production relations to make thepoint:

any given set of capitalist technologies and work relations is

consistent with more than one set of production relations, and

any given set of production relations is consistent with more

than one set of technologies and work relations. The fitbetween relations and forces is thus assumed to be quite loose

and flexible. (OConnor, 1996: 205).

Thus in favourable historical periods, the labour movement haspushed capital into conceding more social forms of productionrelations such as collective bargaining (OConnor, 1996), or ashift in the balance of exploitation away from absolute surplus

value and towards relative surplus value (OConnor, 1998d).Such gains are real and important: they create newcircumstances and experiences which may help to put socialistsolutions on the agenda.

For the purposes of developing his argument, OConnorworks with a conventional understanding of the forces ofproduction and social relations of production. He usesproductive forces to refer essentially to production technologies;and production relations to refer to private property, wage

labour, and other supportive institutional forms. But at the sametime his metaphor of a loose fit indicates that he sees theboundary between them as relatively soft and porous. And he

Capital Against Nature 83


5/31

insists that one key factor in particularhuman co-operationenters into both of them (OConnor, 1996; 1999). This is acrucial element of his argument, because it opens up the scopeof class struggle to include the productive forces; it politicises

questions of technological purpose, design and implementation.Overall, OConnor paints a picture of capitalism riven in itsdeepest being by the first contradiction between the forces ofproduction and the social relations of production, acontradiction which manifests itself in the form of successivecrises of realisation. Whether such crises resolve themselves asfundamental threats to the capitalist order, or as means ofdisciplining and renewing it, is an open question, to bedetermined politically. Over time working class activity and

interventions have won significant gains. To some extent thishas been helped by the loose fit between technological formsand modes of productive co-operation on the one hand, andbroader social relations and institutions on the other. But thesame loose fit also gives capital considerable leeway to absorblabours challenges and turn them to advantage.

3. The second contradiction

OConnors theory of a second contradiction of capitalism isdeveloped by analogy from his version of the firstcontradiction. He argues that the ecological crisis marks a pointin the develop ment of capitalism at which new barriers tocapital accumulation and new forms of systemic crisisin otherwords a new contradictionappear. The characteristics of thisnew, second contradiction can be highlighted by comparisonwith the three defining characteristics of the first contradictionwhich were summarised above:

the second contradiction is partly internal, and partlyexternal, to the capitalist system;

it manifests itself not in a tendency to overproductionand a crisis of realisation, but in a tendency to underproduction and a crisis of liquidity or shortage ofcapital;

it calls into existence the new social movements as thekey agency of progressive social change (OConnor1991; 1996).



6/31

How does this second contradiction arise? What are thecontradictory categories? Clearly they cannot be the forces ofproduction, or the social relations of production, whoserelationship to each other is already defined within the

framework of the first contradiction. It follows that in order fora second contradiction to exist, a new fundamental category ofanalysis is required. This new category is the conditions ofproduction or production conditions.

OConnor states that Marx defined three kinds ofproduction condition. Firstly, there are the communal generalconditions of production, for example means ofcommunication'a concept which OConnor broadens toencompass not only transport and communication systems but

social capital, urban space and infrastructure in general.Secondly, there is the labour power of workers defined asthe personal conditions of production. And thirdly, there areexternal physical conditions or the natural elements, usuallyreferred to by OConnor as external nature (OConnor, 1996:200). The common defining characteristic of these threeconditions of production is that each of them is notproduced as a commodity according to the law of value ormarket forces, butis treated by capital as if it were a

commodity (OConnor, 1998f: 307).This category conditions of production is fundamental to

OConnors case. If it doesnt stand up, then the whole edificeof his second contradiction theory collapses around it. Thecategory is therefore examined in some detail in section 4 below.But for now we will give it the benefit of the doubt.

Taken as a whole, OConnors second contradiction theory isan attempt to explain the production of scarcityor rather, theproduction of specifically capitalist scarcity (OConnor, 1996:198). It expresses a contradictory relationship between capitalistproductive forces and production relations on the one hand,and production conditions on the other:

the combined power of capitalist production relations and

productive forces self-destruct by impairing or destroying

rather than reproducing their own conditions (OConnor,

1996: 206).

The combined expression of productive forces and productionrelations is nothing other than the process of capital



7/31

accumulation itself, so in effect OConnors second contradictionis a contradiction between capital accumulation, and productionconditions. It is driven by individual capitals seeking to shore uptheir profitability through cost-cutting which degrades, or fails

to maintain, the material and social conditions of their ownproduction. But these conditions are common to capitalistproduction as a whole, so capital-in-general is confronted withhigher costs further down the road, in order to repair the damagedone to the shared conditions of production by the short-termism of individual capitals (OConnor, 1998d).

OConnor argues that this process can be seen at work in allthree production conditions. In the case of urban space andinfrastructure he points to crises and conflicts over public

transport, public safety and policing, planning and development.In the case of human labour power his emphasis is not on labourpower as a commodity, but on peoples capacity for usefullabour, their physical and mental integrity and well-being, andhe highlights such issues as threats to public health and toworkplace health and safety. In the case of external nature hepoints to the appearance of artificially-induced natural barriersto production such as loss of soil fertility due to over-use ofpesticides, soil erosion due to deforestation, ozone layer

depletion due to CFCs, global warming and climate change dueto greenhouse gas pollution, and so on (OConnor, 1996).

OConnor also argues that, because these various conditionsof production are not produced as commodities, the State isnecessarily involved in their supply and regulation. In fact hesees the State predominantly as an instrument for regulating theconditions of production:

Excepting branches of the state regulating money and certain

aspects of foreign relations every state agency and political

party agenda may be regarded as a kind of interface between

capital and nature (including human beings and space)

(OConnor, 1996: 206).

Finally, he argues that the second contradiction throws up a newagency of progressive social change in the form of new socialmovements, whose activities tend to defend or restore the

integrity of the conditions of production. In fact OConnor seesa one-to-one connection between different conditions ofproduction, and different types of social movement:



8/31

new social movements seem to have an objective referent in

production conditions: ecology and environmentalism in

natural conditions; urban movements of the type discussed by

Manuel Castells and many others in the 1970s and early1980s in urban infrastructure and space; and movementssuch as feminism that pertain to (among other things) thedefinition of labour power, the politics of the body, thedistribution of child care labour in the home, and similarissues, in the personal conditions of production.(OConnor, 1998f: 308).

OConnor therefore does not regard the working class as the

sole or even dominant agency of progressive social change inmodern capitalism. On the contrary, he regards it as an agencyassociated specifically with the first contradiction, and with atraditional process of socialist construction based on the legacyof capitalist productive forces and production relations. Withthe second contradiction, however, comes a new agency ofsocial change in the form of the new social movements,associated with a new project of socialist reconstruction of theconditions of production. For OConnor, two different but

parallel paths to socialism may now exist, each associated with adistinct contradiction of capitalism and a distinct social agency(OConnor, 1996).

It is clear from this brief sketch that OConnors secondcontradiction theory does provide an explanatory frameworkfor many aspects of the ecological crisis, and that it makes useof Marxist categories and concepts. However it also makes somestartling theoretical innovations: firstly, by proposing theconditions of production as a fundamental new category ofanalysis; secondly, by posing a new contradiction which drivesthe forces of production and the social relations of production,whose own contradictory relationship is part of the commonground of Marxism, into a sort of theoretical shotgun wedding;and thirdly, by proposing the emergence of a new, non-classbased agency of progressive social change.

4. Conditions of productionThe category conditions of production is fundamental toOConnors approach, and as we have seen, in setting out his



9/31

second contradiction theory he is adamant that the category wasused by Marx, claiming that Marx defined three kinds ofproduction conditions (OConnor, 1996: 200). In the sameseminal piece he goes on to say:

I use conditions of production because I want to reconstruct the

problem using Marxs own terminology (OConnor,1996:

218, note 12).

How far can this be justified? Did Marx use and recognise thecategory of conditions of production in the way that OConnordefines it? The question matters only because of OConnorsinsistence that he did, and because this insistence allows

OConnor to present his second contradiction theory as simplyan elaboration of established Marxist categories. What is at stakehere is not the legitimacy of the concept of productionconditions, but the relationship of OConnors theory toMarxism.

OConnors claim that urban space and infrastructureconstitute a condition of production is supported by aquotation from the Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy(the Grundrisse), written in 1857-8, in which Marx refers to

roads and canals as general conditions of production(OConnor, 1996: 218, note 14). His claim that external nature isa condition of production is supported by quotations fromTheories of Surplus Value, written in 1862-3, in which Marxrefers to the natural fertility of the land as the precondition forabsolute surplus value (OConnor, 1996: 217, note 5); and fromCapitalvolume I, published in 1867, in which Marx refers to thesoil and the labourer as the original sources of all wealth(OConnor, 1998b: 156, note 11). And his claim that humanlabour power is a condition of production is supported by aquotation from the Critique of the Gotha Programme, publishedin 1875, in which Marx refers to labour power as the personalcondition of production (OConnor, 1996: 200). In otherwords, OConnors assertion that Marx recognised and usedconditions of production as an analytical category is maintainedby picking up on odd uses of the phrase, from different works,scattered across Marxs prodigious output over a period of

nearly 20 years.It is certainly true that Marx used the phrasein fact he usedit on many more occasions than those highlighted by



10/31

OConnor. But much more important than his mere use of thephrase is the fact that he invested it with a variety of differentmeanings. In The German Ideology (Marx, 1998a: 66), TheCommunist Manifesto (Marx, 1998b: 16), and Capitalvolume

III (Marx, K., 1998c: XV-341) he used it roughlyas a synonymfor the social relations of production. In The EighteenthBrumaire (Marx, K., 1998d: 19), and the Preface to theCritique of Political Economy (Marx, K., 1998e: 8) it carries ameaning closer to the forces of production. In the Critique of theGotha Programmein the very same passage referred to byOConnorthe phrase is used to refer to the means orinstruments of production (Marx, 1998f: 21). And in ValuePrice and Profit(Marx, 1998g: 35) Marx uses it to refer to a

mode of production, capitalist or otherwise. The only sensibleconclusion that can be drawn from this is that in the course ofhis work Marx used the phrase conditions of production tocarry a variety of meanings, dependent on context. There is noevidence that he used it as an analytical category with theprecision of meaning that OConnor now ascribes to it.

The truth is that OConnors concept is primarily derivedfrom sources other than Marx. Karl Polanyi is one such source.OConnor is quite open about his theoretical debt here, and

sometimes presents his own work as a fusion of Marx andPolanyi. But in fact he leans overwhelmingly on Polanyi, whoseargument that land and labour are fictitious commoditieslooks like a direct inspiration for OConnors definition ofproduction conditions (Stahel, 1999: 109). In fact OConnorhimself admitted, five years after first framing his secondcontradiction theory, that:

Marx used the concept of conditions of production in

different and inconsistent ways; he never dreamed that the

concept would or could be used in the way that I use it in this

chapter; and no-one could have used the concept in this way

until the appearance of Karl Polanyis The GreatTransformation (OConnor, 1998d: 252, note 7).

But this admission is tucked away in a footnote to one of hismany essays on the subject.

It is possible that Gunnar Skirbekk was another source ofinspiration. Although OConnor does not acknowledge him,Skirbekks 1974 essay discussed natural conditions of



11/31

production and infrastructure in ways which certainly prefigureaspects of OConnors argument (Skirbekk, 1996).

OConnors invocation and refinement of the category ofconditions of production is therefore primarily his own work,

inspired certainly by Polanyi, and perhaps by Skirbekk. It is notan elaboration of a category used by Marx, and it is unclear quitewhy OConnor felt it necessary to suggest that it was: Marxsfailure to use the concept does not after all make it illegitimate.What this means is that the re]ationship of second contradictiontheory to Marxism needs to be tested, rather than merely asserted.And it means that the novelty of the concept of productionconditions needs to be acknowledged, and its utility interrogated.

The following three sub-sections undertake this

interrogation. Each exarnines one of OConnors threeconditions of production, to establish whether it meets his owndefinition of the term, and whether it appears to be associatedwith a new contradiction of capitalism.

4.1. Urban space and infrastructure as a condition of production

Throughout his writings on the second contradiction,OConnor treats the elements of urban space and infrastructure

as if they self evidently meet his definition of conditions ofproduction: that they are not produced as commodities, but aretreated by capital as if they were commodities.

To start by establishing points of agreement: it is true anduncontroversial that the global economy faces widespreadproblems within its urban and industrial infrastructure. Twoexamples are inadequate access to public transport in manycapitalist metropolitan areas, and inadequate access to cleanwater in much of Africa and Asia. It is also true anduncontroversial that both these situations arise from lack ofinvestment, in line with OConnors argument that the secondcontradiction manifests itself in crises of under-production orshortage of capital.

But OConnors claim, that the constituent elements ofurban and industrial infrastructure are not produced ascommodities, is incorrect. On the contrary, public transportservices, water supply systems, roads, railways, canals, airports,

power stations, electricity supply systems, gas supply systems,and telecommunications networks, very often are produced ascommodities.



12/31

This is admittedly a complex area, but the complexities arereal and need to be faced, whereas OConnors approach simplybegs all the important questions. Significantly, he quotes theGrundrisse in his support, so it may be worthwhile going back to

that source to revisit Marxs argument. In the Chapter onCapital, Marx spends some time ruminating on the means oftransport and communication. He concentrates on roads. Onthe one hand, he argues, as capitalism develops and asproduction is driven increasingly by exchange value, it needseffective transport and communication systems in order todeliver its products to market, rapidly and in bulk. On the otherhand, the labour invested in creating and maintaining thesemeans of transport and communication is not directly

productive from capitals point of view: it is a drain on thecommon surplus product. From this point Marx goes on todiscuss the different circumstances in which the task of road-building might be undertaken by the State, or by capital, ormight effectivelybe shared between them. Underlying it all is thefundamental principle that: Capital undertakes onlyadvantageous undertakings, advantageous in its (own) sense(Marx, 1973: 531).

In our own era, the full subtlety of Marxs observations

becomes clear as soon as we take stock of the range of forms ofState ownership, privatisation and semi-privatisation; robustand light-touch regulatory regimes; and public-privatepartnerships and finance initiatives; which characterisetransport, the utilities, and communications systems. Butdespite this complexity, the brute fact remains that within thesesectors, private capital finds and creates opportunities forprofitable investment, investment whose logic is dictated by thelaw of value and market forces. In fact much of the success ofthe neo-liberal offensive of the past quarter century can beattributed to the tortured ingenuity with which capital hasattacked precisely these sectors to create precisely theseopportunities.

To sum up, it is undeniable that there are serious localproblems, even local crises, of urban space and infrastructure;and that lack of investment lies at the heart of this. ButOConnors broad-brush concept of conditions of production

fails to shed light on the matter. A more subtle approach isrequired, as suggested by Marxs line of argument in theGrundrisse. It follows that it is not necessary to invoke a second



13/31

contradiction of capitalism in order to explain these problemsand crises. On the contrary, we are dealing here with the firstcontradiction, the contradiction between the forces ofproduction and the social relations of production, or between

social production and private appropriation. The explanationfor lack of investment in public transport in London, or cleanwater in much of sub-Saharan Africa, lies in the fact that capitalundertakes only advantageous undertakings, and theparameters for calculating its advantage are set by neo-liberalstructures of State power and global finance.

4.2. Labour power as a condition of production

Unlike urban space and infrastructure, labour power clearlydoes meet OConnors definition of a condition of production.Labour powerin its manifestation as a capacity for usefulworkis not produced as a commodity, but emerges from theinteraction of evolutionary, biological and cultural processes;and yet it is taken up by capital and transformed into acommodity. According to second contradiction theory, it istherefore caught in a contradictory relationship with the processof capital accumulation, which throws up barriers to the

reproduction of labour power.Capitalism is not the first or only mode of production to

produce or exchange commodities. But it is unique in rootingitself in the commodity of labour power, which is theinstitutional expression of abstract labour, which in turn is thesubstance of value. Labour under capitalism therefore has atwo-fold character. As in other modes of production it is aconcrete useful activity, but as labour power it is also acommodity for sale, a capacity to perform work, vested inhuman beings who are formally and legally free, but whosenominal freedom is constrained by the fact that they have nochoice but to sell this commodity in order to acquire theessentials of life.

What then can OConnor mean when he argues that capitalaccumulation throws up barriers to the reproduction of thiscommodity? In principle, he might mean that accumulation issomehow undermining the commodity status of labour power.

For instance, this might happen if the pattern of capitalaccumulation generated large numbers of people withindependent access to the essentials of life, thus freeing them



14/31

from the need to sell their labour power. This is an option forsmall numbers of people, including rentiers and criminals, but awhole new contradiction of capitalism would require it to bewidespread, expressed as a collective abstention by millions of

otherwise fit, healthy, skilled individuals on a scale thatundermines the effective functioning of the labour market.No such collective abstention has occurred or is in prospect.

On the contrary, the neo-liberal offensive of recent years hashad precisely the opposite effect, by undermining structures ofpermanent employment and substituting various forms ofinsecure, casual, freelance and contract labour. Many workersare now more vulnerable, weaker in terms of their bargainingpower with employers, their labour power more thoroughly

commodified, than ever before. Far from undermining orcalling into question the commodity form of labour power, neo-liberalism has redefined and re-imposed it with a vengeance.

However, OConnors discussion of labour power focusesnot on its commodity-status, but on its physiological and socialmanifestation in living human beings. In his view, the secondcontradiction impacts upon labour power via public health andaccess to healthcare; threats to health and safety at work; thepolitics of gender and the body, tensions around paid and

unpaid work and the division of labour; and social and culturalconditioning including work discipline (OConnor, 1996: 200-201; 217, note 6).

This is a slippery set of issues. Clearly these are real andimportant questions, which are actively and sometimes violentlycontested, but a sense of proportion is required. It is one thingto point out that struggles are under way around health care,workplace safety, gender, the family, and the boundaries of paidand unpaid work. It is another, quite different thing to arguethat these add up to a new contradiction of capitalism, that theirlogic is to thwart or block the reproduction of labour power tothe point where this becomes a systemic problem for capital.

To take health as an example: it is true that in advancedcapitalist countries, the level of public consciousness of healthissuesincluding environmental health, workplace safety, foodsafety, health service provision, transport safetyhas neverbeen higher. But a high level of public consciousness does not

amount to a new contradiction of capitalism. Capitalism hasalways undermined the health and safety of workers and thegeneral public: Dickens, Engels, Marx, and Mayhew described



15/31

in vivid detail the appalling living and working conditions oflabourers in nineteenth century England, whose lives wereblighted by their employers pursuit of surplus value. But Marxalso acknowledged that the Victorian State sought to prevent

certain abuses, and took action to protect public health andwelfare. In our own times, despite regular health scares, the baldstatistical fact is that public health and longevity in the UK andother leading capitalist countries continues to improve. To sumup: it is true that health issues have a high public profile; and it istrue that there is a constant, never-ending debate on resourcesand priorities in public safety and public heath; but it is not truethat the current era of capitalist development has generated ahealth-related contradiction around the availability of labour

power.At a global level, in fact, the opposite is true. At a global level,

capitalism creates not labour shortages, but massunemployment and poverty on a staggering scale. Globalunemployment stands at around one billion. Whole countriesand regions of what used to be called the Third Worldincluding much of the continent of Africahave effectivelybeen written off by capital as offering little or no prospect forprofitable investment. One result is that poor people, excluded

from the capitalist labour market and cash economy, takeenvironmentally-damaging action to acquire the resources theyneed directly from the natural environment. Unemploymentand poverty are significant factors in the destruction of theworlds rainforests, in deforestation and soil erosion, in pressureon water supplies. This is indeed a crisis, and it is indeedassociated with a dysfunctional global labour marketbut it isnot the crisis indicated by OConnor.

4.3. External nature as a condition of production

This brings us to the third of OConnors conditions ofproduction: external nature, the natural environment andnatural processes.

Certain aspects of external nature do fulfil OConnorsdefinition of conditions of production. The soil, for instance, is

not produced as a commodity, and yet it is treated by capital asif it were a commodity. Soil itselfthe complex, living, organicmass which is a prerequisite for plant growth and therefore also



16/31

for terrestrial animal lifeis produced and reproduced as partof a natural cycle of biological growth and decay. But capitalistagriculture imposes the commodity form upon the soil in

various ways. It redefines it as land, a form of private property

capable of beingbought, sold and rented for use. And itsubordinates the soils natural fertility to the aim of producinganother commodity, a crop for sale, by subjecting it to a series ofinterventionsthe intensive application of human labour, theaddition of herbicides, pesticides, etc.which cut across its owncycles and rhythms and force it to yield larger and more regularcrops than would otherwise be the case. This may work for atime, but ultimately it yields diminishing returns as the soilbecomes depleted, and as weeds and pests adapt and evolve to

resist the chemical interventions deployed against them.The environmental impact of capitalist agriculture upon the

soil is discussed by Marx in the first volume of Capital(Marx,1998h: 724-7). He described the ways in which capitalistagriculture undermines soil fertility, and thus undermines itsown viabilitybut as OConnor points out, while describing thecontradiction very eloquently, Marx failed to recognise it as acontradiction. He did not perceive that soil depletion is in effecta natural barrier to accumulation, a second, capitalised nature

called into existence by capital itself (OConnor, 1996: 199).This notion of second nature is central to OConnors

argument. Second nature refers to aspects of the naturalenvironment, aspects of living organisms or natural processes,which have been transformed by capitalist productive activity.But this is not a one-way movement in which humans simplyact upon or master nature. It is a dynamic movement in whichtwo unfolding systems act upon each other; and it is potentiallycontradictory for capitalism because the end result of themovement may be a natural barrier to capital accumulation,called into being by capital but inimical to it. In effect, secondnature transformations are an interface, a zone of tension andpotential conflict, between capitalist productive activity, and

primary-nature processes which have their own movements andrhythms but which are beyond human reach.

Global warming is a familiar example of capitalist secondnature. Here, capitalist production has generated the sudden

and massive eruption of greenhouse gases, which thenencounter primary-nature processes encompassing theatmosphere, solar radiation, the planets geology, ocean



17/31

currents, and the presence of organic life (Lovelock, 1979), andthe interaction between the two is the second-naturephenomenon of global warming. This perspective allows us tograsp global warming not as a breach of some quantitative

natural limit, but as a zone of second-nature tension betweentwo dynamic systems, between capitalist production andprimary-nature processes.

Natural barriers are not immediately thrown up every timecapitalist productive activity impacts upon the naturalenvironment. The phenomenon of urban wildlife demonstratesthat, in a relatively short time, some plant and animal speciescan adapt even to the artificial environment of capitalistmetropoles. In all such cases, however, we must allow for the

intrinsically complex and open-ended character of evolutionarychange. The fact that a particular intrusion into the naturalenvironment has not so far provoked the appearance of anatural barrier, does not mean that it never will.

OConnors concept of second nature is therefore rich andpersuasive. It helps us to grasp real contradictory movements,and reveals the interaction between human society and thenatural environment as a dynamic and reciprocal process. Butas OConnor himself points out, this contradiction is not

restricted to capitalism. Other societies, other modes ofproduction, have given rise to their own forms of second nature.He states:- Slave labour gives you one kind of nature, serflabour another kind, and he illustrates the point by referenceto patterns of agriculture in the Roman Empire and feudalEurope (OConnor, 1998a: 26-7).

Non-capitalist modes of production are perfectly capable ofcreating their own destructive second natures, their ownenvironmental contradictions. In the case of Rome, theprotracted process of environmental collapse exacerbated thepolitical and military collapse: deforestation and overgrazing inItaly led to soil erosion and food shortages, which together withacute urban pollution encouraged epidemics, general ill health,and population decline. The Eastern Empire however hadaccess to the rich soil of Egypt, and to large productivepopulations in Asia Minor. Thus Constantinople/Byzantiumsurvived while Rome fell (Hughes, 1975, 1999; OConnor,

1996).In Central America the Maya established a proto-urbansociety in semi-tropical jungle on the improbably narrow



18/31

economic base of slash-and-burn agriculture. Slash-and-burnis a viable mode of subsistence where relatively small groupsoccupy relatively large ranges, but it was incapable of supportingMayan society, densely populated and with a high

environmental impact. The Maya overloaded their eco-system,causing deforestation, soil depletion, water scarcity, andperhaps even local or regional climate change (Harris, 1978;Hughes, 1999; OConnor, 1998d).

Non-capitalist environmental barriers and contradictionsare evident in our own era too. In its own ways and according toits own laws of motion, the USSR acted upon and transformednature with a vengeance. The Soviet social formation had aninherent tendency to stagnate, and relied for its internal

dynamism largely upon the energy of the political bureaucracy(Furedi, 1986)but this in itself encouraged the conception,and sometimes the realisation, of Promethean projects ofenvironmental transformation. Some of thesesuch as thediversion of an entire river system from the Arctic to CentralAsiathankfully remained pipe-dreams. Otherssuch asimposing an irrigation-based cotton monoculture in Uzbekistanand neighbouring areaswere implemented. Water from thetwo great rivers feeding the Aral Sea was diverted for irrigation.

Consequently, the Sea started to shrink. The local climatebecame more extreme, with hotter summers and colder winters.The fishing industry died as fish went extinct, and former portsfound themselves miles from the retreating Sea. The drying-upof the Sea bed also released toxic dust and fertiliser residues intothe air. As a result of all these interacting factorsthe death ofthe Sea, unemployment, health problems from airbornepollution, the deteriorating climatede-population set in.Socially, economically, and environmentally, the entire regionis dying, at enormous cost to the post-Soviet republics affected.

To sum up, OConnor is correct to argue that aspects ofexternal nature may be pulled into genuinely contradictoryrelationships with human productive activities; and his conceptof second nature gives us a valuable tool for grasping thesecontradictions. But second nature is not unique to capitalism:other modes of production have given rise to their own formsof second nature, which may be quite capable of throwing up

barriers to the reproduction of the natural productionconditions of those non-capitalist societies. In other words,while OConnor may have identified a contradiction which is



19/31

new in the sense that it has only recently been theorised, it isnot new in historical terms. On the contrary, in one form oranother, it has been present for thousands of years.

We therefore return to the original question: what is it about

capitalism which generates ecological crisis on the scale that wesee today? Some of OConnors analytical tools and categoriesare invaluable in tackling this questionincluding the notionof conditions of production when applied to the naturalenvironment, and the concept of second nature. In the nexttwo sections I will sketch out a new approach to this question,making use of these tools, but applying them within a broaderframework which places much more emphasis on thecommodity form in general, the commodity of labour power in

particular, and the continued relevance of class.

5. The magic of markets: capitalism and the naturalenvironment

There is a common view among environmentalists, includingsome green socialists, that capitalisms destructive impact onnature is a consequence of treating natural resources as free

goods, and the broader environment as a bottomless sink forwaste and pollution. For them, the central problem is that thenatural environment falls outside the sphere of capital logic,outside the sphere of monetary prices.

OConnor takes a diametrically opposed position. He arguesthat the degradation of the natural environment flows preciselyfrom the imposition of capital logic, and that what is uniqueabout capitalism is that it commodifies and valorizes nature as itdegrades it (OConnor, 1998d: 244). This is a much moreconvincing and fruitful approach, which opens the way for usto focus on the inner dynamic of competitive capitalaccumulation, the crucial commodity of labour power, and theimposition of private property rights upon the naturalenvironment.

We have already seen that the defining feature of thecapitalist mode of production is its reliance upon abstractlabour, expressed institutionally in the commodity form of

labour power. By making a commodity of labour power, capitalis able to mobilise labourboth living and deadon a scaleunknown to other modes of production. Consequently the



20/31

sheer scale of its impact on the natural environmentitsconsumption of scarce resources, its generation of waste andpollutionis also unprecedented. This happens not becauseindividual capitals positively set out to degrade the

environment: it happens because capitals primary focus is noton its own concrete activity at all, but on that activity as a meansto the end of realising surplus value in a constantly-changingand uncertain world.

Thus Benton misses the point entirely when he criticisesMarx for over-emphasising the transformative character of themanufacturing labour process, and for paying insufficientattention to regulatory labour such as agricultural labour,which (he says) regulates the natural rhythms and dynamics of

soil and crops (Benton, 1996a). All of Bentons attention here isupon labour as a concrete activity, a combination of knowledge,skill and experience applied to a real task. But this is not capitalsperspective, and by ignoring capitals perspective Benton failsto see that his distinction between transformative andregulatory labour is illusory. For when capitalist farmersmobilise commodified labour power, they are driven by themarket to make it every bit as transfommative as industriallabour. And this is precisely where OConnors contradiction

cuts in, as the market-driven imperative to make agricultureinto a profitable industrial process generates multiple second-nature contradictions.

In addition to its mobilisation of commodified labourpower, and its imposition of private property rights and legalboundaries upon nature, there is also a third way in whichcapital imposes the commodity form, and this is through theimposition of commodity-time, or market-time, upon nature(see Stahel, 1999). To retum to the example of agriculture:capitalist farmers, as farmers, know perfectly well that the soilsfertility, its capacity to fix nitrogen and to maintain its supply ofessential minerals, requires time for complex interactions tooccur between millions of microbes and other organisms. Butcapitalist farmers, as capitalists, also know that the market hasits own cycles, quite disconnected from natural cydes, andtypically of much shorter duration. The market dictates thattime is money, that the soil is a means to the end of surplus

value, and that its yieldat least within conventional andforeseeable accounting periodswill be maximised by intensivefarming. Capitalist farmers who ignore the dictates of the



21/31

market will go bankrupt and cease to be farmers at all. So theyprioritise delivering their crops to market in sufficient bulk andat the right time to get a good price, despite the fact that this maycut across the soils need simply to be allowed time to replenish

its fertility.In our own era, the advent of genetically modified organisms(GMOs) in agriculture is capitals latest attempt to impose uponnature both commodity-time, and private property rights, in asecure and effective way. Bio-technology corporations alreadyhave rights in the raw materials of agri-business: fertilisers,herbicides, pesticides, etc. These proprietary applications havetraditionally been protected by restricting knowledge of theirunderlying chemical formulae and ingredients. With GMOs,

property rights can be consolidated and protected even moreeffectively from challenge or theft by inscribing them below thechemical level, at the genetic level. This greater protection isrooted in the sheer cost and complexity of genetic modification,and the enormous difficulty of reading back the precise natureof the modification from the final product.

GMOs tighten the commoditys grip upon nature byinscribing property rights in genetic codes and sequences.Second nature here is created in the form of genetic sequences

that do not exist in nature. The great unanswered questionwhich underlies the GMO debate is whether this particular formof second nature will prove to be a contradiction, throwing upbarriers to the reproduction of natural conditions ofproduction. The risk that they will generate second-naturecontradictions is high, because GMOs represent anintervention, an inscription of private property rights, not justin the process of growth and reproduction within a particularspecies, but in the primary nature process of evolution andspeciation.

Whether we accept a gradualist model of evolutionarychange (Dawkins, 1988) or a model of punctuated equilibrium(Gould, 1990), the time scales involved in the emergence of newspecies are measured in hundreds or thousands of generations,which for many species means hundreds of thousands, ormillions, of years. Within this evolutionary time scale, a newspecies or variation of a species arises as a result of a series of

genetic changes, the manifestations of which are tested bycountless interactions with an environment which is itselfconstantly changing, over many generations. This is not a goal-



22/31

oriented process; survival is not assured; many variations arenotviable and simply disappear. And even those new speciesthat do persist often only do so for as long as their environmentremains relatively stable.

With GMOs, however, the evolutionary feedback of geneticchange and relentless environmental testing over manygenerations is short-circuited in the interests of capital. Instead,after abrupt trials in artificial conditions designed mainly tosatisfy or by-pass regulatory authorities, radically re-engineeredorganisms are imposed wholesale on the natural environment.In the nature of things, no-one can know what environmentaleffects this radically new form of second nature may have. In thenature of things, time-limited tests cannot establish whether,

over many generations, artificially engineered genetic sequencesmay be transmitted from proprietary GM organisms to otherorganisms belonging to related or unrelated species, and if so,with what consequences for those species, or for the eco-systemsin which they participate, or for human health and welfare.

To sum up, capitals relationship with nature is characterisedfirstly, by its capacity for mobilisation of commodified labourpower, so that the sheer scope and scale of its impact on theenvironment is unprecedented; secondly, by its imposition

upon nature of private property rights and legal boundaries; andthirdly, by its imposition of commodity-time or market-timeupon natural cycles and rhythms.

These three aspects of capitals impact upon nature allcontribute to the generation of second-nature contradictions asdescribed by OConnor. But there is yet a further twist, becauseinsofar as capital is prepared to contemplate solutions to theenvironmental problems and contradictions which it generates,these solutions too are increasingly based on creating newcommodities and new property rights. Of course, these marketbased solutions are supported by many who subscribe to thefree goods/bottomless sink analysis:

(Many) natural environmental and infrastructure conditions

of production are not treated by capital as commodities, but

rather as free goods. The main strategy of neo-classical

environmental economics, and of a large part of the reform

wing of the environmental movement, is precisely to requirecapital to treat these conditions as commodities, to internalise

them as part of its cost structure. (Benton 1 996b: 191 ) .



23/31

One prominent example of this trend is the creation of amarket in pollution permits as a means of tackling globalwarming. Such a market was set up at the United Nationsenvironmental summit at Kyoto in 1997 although it later

emerged that, if the summit had decided against it, sevenleading capitalist countries including the USA, UK, andGermany would have gone ahead anyway. The newcommodity conjured up by the Kyoto system is a tradableright to pollute, and the system itself is based on the marketin sulphur dioxide emission permits established by traders inChicago (Financial Times 21/10/1997). US Vice President AlGore greeted the Kyoto decision as a breakthrough in tacklingenvironmental crisis by mobilising the magic of markets

(Financial Times 10/12/1997).The Kyoto system is a limited market intended to tackle a

singlethough large-scaleenvironmental problem. Howeverit opens the door to a more thorough-going project whereby aprice would be placed on nature itself. Thus Professor JaneLubchenko has called for a market valuation to be placed on theservices provided by the planets eco-systemsservices suchas water purification through the hydrological cycle, wasterecycling through biological degradation, soil fertility, and

insect pollination. For what its worth, the value of such serviceshas been estimated at $30 trillion or 18,600 billion (FinancialTimes 17/2/1997).

However the line taken by OConnorand by this paperis that far from being the result of imperfect or insufficientlyextensive commodification, capitals environmentaldegradation springs precisely from its imposition of thecommodity form upon the natural environment. To take globalwarming once more as an example, it is true that the planetsatmosphere has been treated as if it were an infinite sink capableof absorbing endless volumes of greenhouse gas emissions, butthis does not explain whythe emissions occur in the first place.Greenhouse gas emissions occur because fossil fuels arecommodities; as are the oil-fields and gas-fields and mines fromwhich they are obtained; and the pipelines and transportationsystems by which they are distributed; and the power stations,cars, houses and workplaces where they are consumed; and

most importantlythe labour power invested at all theselocations. Global warming is the end result of a vast chain ofcommodity relationships, a chain of exchange-value



24/31

transactions, at each stage of which individual capitals are undermarket pressure to grow and accumulate by increasing the valueand volume of the commodities in which they dealthuscontributing to the volume and severity of the final

environmental crisis.The Kyoto strategy will do nothing to tackle this chain ofcausal conditions. All it does is to add yet another commodity,and yet another market, at the end.

6. Social class and social movement

OConnors ideas on the dynamics of social change, and the

significance of the green/environmental movement as a forcefor progress, flow directly from his wider theory of a secondcontradiction.

As we have seen, he argues that each contradiction ofcapitalism throws up its own agency of opposition and socialchange: the first contradiction throws up the working class,while the second contradiction throws up the new socialmovements, by which he means the green/environmentalmovement; the womens movement; and urban and community

campaigns He does not argue that these new social movementshave replaced the working class, any more than the secondcontradiction has superseded the first. Rather, he is careful tokeep both processes and both sets of struggles in play, with theimplication that there are two paths to socialism in latecapitalist society (OConnor, 1996: 198).

OConnor perceives a direct relationship between specificsocial movements, and specific conditions of production:

new social movements seem to have an objective referent in

production conditions: ecology and environmentalism in

natural conditions; urban movements of the type discussed by

Manuel Castells and many others in the 1970s and early 1980s in

urban infrastructure and space; and movements such as

feminism in the personal conditions of production.

(OConnor, 1998f: 308).

He even casts the new social movements as proxies for natureitself:



25/31

The combination of crisis-stricken capitals externalising more

costs, the reckless use of technology and nature for value

realisation in the sphere of circulation, and the like, must sooner

or later lead to a rebellion by nature, that is, to powerful social

movements demanding an end to ecological exploitation.(OConnor, 1996: 212).

OConnors schema therefore confers upon these new socialmovements a status, role and significance directly equivalent tothat of the working class. The problem is that he is notcomparing like with like. Social classes, and social movements,belong to different orders of reality. Membership of a socialmovement is by and large a matter of personal choice and

personal commitment. Of course such choices are affected bycultural and other circumstances, but the voluntary element stillexists, both in OConnors new social movements and inolder ones such as the labour movement.

The working class, however, is not a social movement.Membership of the working class is not voluntary, individualsdo not choose to join it. The working class is a body of humanbeings united by their shared conditions of life, by theirseparation from the means of production, by the broad

compulsion to sell their labour power in order to acquire thenecessities of life. Of course, members of this class initiate andparticipate in social movements, both old and new. But socialclass and social movement remain distinct. Even the labourmovement, rooted specifically in the working dass, is notidentical with the working class: it addresses only certain aspectsand elements of working class life. Class and movement belongto different orders of reality.

We cannot therefore accept OConnors easy conflation ofclass and movement as social agencies of equivalentsignificance. We can certainly agree with him that thegreen/environmental movement is an important phenomenon,but this still leaves us with the task of explaining how it relates toits broader social and class contextand until we do this, wecannot know the real significance of this movement. There mayturn out to be an enormous gulf between its claims and self-image, and the class interest which it actually serves through its

activities. OConnor, in asserting the equivalence of social classand social movement, simply ignores these importantquestions. The closest he gets to a unifying explanation of the



26/31


27/31

health and safety issue. These changes have struck not only atworkers, but also at the professional and managerial layers atthe heart of the new middle class debate. And they also rippleout more widely in society, for part of the logic of this trend is to

break down traditional boundaries between the working andnon-working population, to pull in new sources of labourpower, and new reserve armies of labour.

Despite the very real differences between the roles they arecalled upon to perform at work, all of the individuals affectedby this intensificationfull-time and part-time workers,permanently-employed or contract-workers, freelances,managers, professionalslive by selling their labour power.And at the heart of each transaction around the sale of labour

power is a bargain over time. When a worker, or supervisor, orprofessional, sells his or her labour power, he or she is selling acapacity to work for a certain period of time. Sometimesespecially for managers and professionalsthe preciseboundary in time is contractually undefined, and there is anexpectation that the individual will work to the job': this in itselfcan be a major source of stress. But even here there is an implicitrecognition that a portion of time does exist which standsoutside the contract, and for most workers that recognition is

explicit. This portion of time, free time, is time for ones ownlife, for family, friends, social occasions, rest, relaxation, privacy,home. The fact that it is not really free, the fact that capitalexerts enormous pressure to define it primarily as a sphere ofcommodityconsumption, only reinforces the fundamentalpoint because in order to commodify free time, capital must firstendorse and reinforce its status as free time. It must endorse andreinforce the notion that there is, and should be, a part of lifewhich is removed from the dictates of work, walled off from thepressures of selling ones skills in a labour market.

These observations may appear self-evident and mundane,but in the current context, when neo-liberal restructuring of thelabour market has intensified the subjective experience of stressand vulnerability at work, they take on new rneaning. Preciselybecause of the increased investment of physical and emotionalenergy which workers and others are required to make at work,they also invest ever more heavily in private life and free time

outside work, as a protected zone of rest and recuperationand capital endorses and celebrates this.



28/31

But at the same time as capital endorses and celebrates freetime and private life, it also undermines them. For most people,degradation of the natural environment is actually experiencedas a process whereby free time and private life are steadily

deprived of their subjective value. Thus scares over food safetyand hygiene; the destruction of local or much-loved naturalhabitats; fear for oneself or ones children due to air pollutionand transport hazards; broader underlying fears arising fromglobal warming and climate change; are common, widely-shared experiences in Britain today, with the power to mobiliseimpressive and broadly based protests and campaigns.

The social phenomenon that we are discussing here is oftendismissed as a retreat into private life, by definition

individualistic and apolitical. But if this phenomenon is in factprovoked by a collective experience of increased stress and

vulnerability at work, and if it then becomes the basis for newcollective initiatives in defence of private life itself, then it issimply not good enough to dismiss it in this way. Far fromrepresenting a retreat from politics or collective struggle, non-working time and private life may be a new site of resistance,provoked by a coming together of the consequences of capitalsbrutal re-assertion of power in the workplace, and the

consequences of its growing imposition of the commodity formupon the natural environment.

Seen from this perspective, whatever the claims or self-imageof the green/environmental movement in Britain, its realsignificance is as a collective defence of the intrinsic value ofprivate life and free time, of a sphere of life which capitalconstantly seeks to commodify and degrade, but whose formalintegrity it must at the same time endorse and accept.Environmental protests and campaigns certainly cannot bepigeon-holed as neat, unambiguous expressions of classstrugglebut equally clearly they are related to class struggle,to collective experience, and to the dynamics of capitalaccumulation, in definite and identifiable ways.

We have tried here to understand the green/environmentalmovement as a phenomenon arising from a particular socialand class context, rather than in terms of arbitrary political goalsascribed to it by its own members or sympathetic observers. Its

emergence is related to defeats imposed upon the working classas part of the neo-liberal offensivebut this does not justifytheorising a whole new contradiction of capitalism. On the



29/31

contrary, the conditions for the rise of the green/environmentalmovement lie in the first contradiction of capitalism.Casualisation and increased insecurity at work have drivenworkers, professionals, and others back into private life, only to

find that private life too is increasingly degraded as a result ofcapitals commodification of the natural environment. Fromthis starting point, from the vast range of local and subjectiveexperiences which it engenders, the green/environmentalmovement takes its strength.

7. Conclusions

James OConnors theory of a second contradiction ofcapitalism is a fascinating but flawed attempt to build uponMarxist categories in order to understand the ecological crisisof our time. It is flawed, because ultimately its theoretical reachexceeds its grasp. Thus the concept of conditions ofproduction, which underpins the theory as a whole, isenormously valuable if used with precision to refer to thenatural environmentbut it lacks the Marxist legacy whichOConnor claims for it, and it fails to deliver the theoretical

goods when broadened out to apply to urban space andinfrastructure, and to labour power.

Similarly, his ambitious argument for new socialmovements as a new agency of social change, with an impliedstatus equivalent to that of the working class, does not stand up.But more detailed, focused analysis reveals that it is perfectlypossible to acknowledge the importance of social movementswithin the framework of class analysis. The Britishgreen/environmental movement, for instance, can beunderstood in terms of social resistance at the point wherecapitals imposition of the commodity form on the naturalenvironment, intersects with its re-assertion of power in theworkplace. None of this requires a second contradiction: onthe contrary, the first contradiction of capitalism, between theincreasingly social nature of production and the re-assertion ofprivate modes of appropriation, provides an adequateexplanatory framework.

Despite these criticisms, there is much of value inOConnors work. In particular, the combination of hisargument that external nature is a condition of production,



30/31

with his equally powerful concept of second nature, opens upan enormously fruitful, dynamic understanding of capitalsimpact upon the natural environment, and of theenvironmental contradictions of other, non-capitalist modes of

production. ____________________

Thanks to Andy Danford, Roy Lockett, Bettina Lange, and GerardStrange for their helpful comments during work on this paper.

____________________

Benton, T. (1996a) Marxism and natural limits, in T. Benton (ed.) The Greeningof Marxism. The Guilford Press, New York & London.

__________ (1996b) Introduction to Part 111, in ibid.

Carter, B. (1995) A growing divide: Marxist class analysis and the labourprocess, in Capital&Class 55, Spring 1995.

Dawkins, R. (1988) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin, Harmondsworth.Engels, F. (1998) The part played by labour in the transition from ape to man',

in Classics in Politics: Marx & Engels. The Electric Book Company, London(CD-ROM).

Furedi, F. (1986) The Soviet Union Demystified. Junius, London.Gould, S.J. (1990) Wonderful Life. Hutchinson Radius, London.Harris, M. (1978) Cannibals and Kings. Fontana, London.Hughes, J.D. (1975)Ecology in Ancient Civilizations. University of New Mexico

Press, Albuquerque.__________ (1997) Romes decline and fall: ecological mistakes?, in Capitalism,

Nature, Socialism, Issue 30, June 1997.__________ (1999) The classic Maya collapse, in Capitalism, Nature, Socialism,

Issue 37, March 1999.Lovelock, J.E. (1979) Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University

Press, Oxford.Marx, K. (1973) Grundrisse. Penguin, Harmondsworth.__________ (1998a) The German Ideology, in Classics in Politics: Marx &

Engels, The Electric Book Company, London (CD-ROM).__________ (1998b) The Communist Manifesto, in ibid.__________ (1998c) Capital Volume Three, in ibid.__________ (1998d) Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, in ibid.__________ (1998e) Preface to the Critique of Political Economy, in ibid.__________ (1998ff Critique of the Gotha Programme, in ibid.__________ (1998g) Value, Price and Profit, in ibid.__________ (998h) Capital Volume One, in ibid.OConnor, J. (1991) On the two contradictions of capitalism, in Capitalism,

Nature, Socialism, Issue 8, October 1991.

__________ (1996) The second contradiction of capitalism, in T. Benton (ed.)The Greening of Marxism. The Guilford Press, New York & London. Firstpublished in Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, Issue 1, Fall 1988.


Acknowledgement

References


31/31

__________ (1998a) Part I Introduction: History and nature, inNatural Causes:Essays in Ecological Marxism. The Guilford Press, New York & London.

__________ (1998b) The conditions of production and the production ofconditions, in ibid.

__________ (1998c) On capitalist accumulation and economic and ecological

crisis, in ibid.__________ (1998d) Is sustainable capitalism possible?, in ibid.__________ (1998e) Socialism and ecology, in ibid.__________ (1998f) Ecology movements and the State, in ibid.__________ (1999) A prolegomenon to an ecological Marxism: thoughts on

the materialist conception of history, in Capitalism, Nature, Socialism,Issue 38, June 1999.

Polanyi, K. (1957) The Great Transformation. Beacon Press, Boston.Skirbekk, G. (1996) Marxism and ecology, in T. Benton (ed.) The Greening of

Marxism. The Guilford Press, New York & London.Stahel, A.W. (1999) Time contradictions of capitalism, in Capitalism, Nature,

Socialism, Issue 37, March.Stroshane, T. (1997) The second contradiction and Karl Polanyis The Great

Transformation, in Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, Issue 31, September.Walker, P. (ed.)(1979) Between Labour and Capital, Harvester Press, Hassocks.

____________________


Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	d-silva-escobar
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Capital & Class 2000 Spence 81 110

Documents