Springer: Springer Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Theory and Society

Metabolism, Energy, and Entropy in Marx's Critique of Political Economy: Beyond the
Podolinsky Myth
Author(s): Paul Burkett and John Bellamy Foster
Source: Theory and Society, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Feb., 2006), pp. 109-156
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4501746 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 14:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory and Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TheoryandSociety(2006) 35: 109-156 @ Springer2006
Metabolism,energy,and entropyin Marx'scritiqueof

political economy:Beyondthe Podolinskymyth
PAULBURKETT1and JOHNBELLAMYFOSTER2
'Departmentof Economics,IndianaState University,TerreHaute, IN 47809
2
Universityof Oregon
Abstract. Until recently,most commentators,includingecological Marxists,have as-

sumed that Marx'shistoricalmaterialismwas only marginallyecologically sensitive
at best, or even that it was explicitly anti-ecological.However,researchover the last
decade has demonstratednot only thatMarxdeemed ecological materialismessential
to the critiqueof political economy and to investigationsinto socialism, but also that
his treatmentof the coevolution of natureand society was in many ways the most so-
phisticatedto be put forthby any social theoristpriorto the late twentiethcentury.Still,
criticisms continue to be leveled at Marx and Engels for their understandingof ther-
modynamicsand the extent to which theirwork is said to conflict with the core tenets
of ecological economics. In this respect,the rejectionby Marx and Engels of the pio-
neeringcontributionsof the Ukrainiansocialist SergeiPodolinsky,one of the founders
of energetics, has been frequentlyoffered as the chief ecological case against them.
Building on an earlieranalysisof Marx'sandEngels'sresponseto Podolinsky,this arti-
cle shows thatthey relied on an open-system,metabolic-energeticmodel thatadhered
to all of the main stricturesof ecological economics - but one thatalso (unlikeecolog-
ical economics) rooted the violation of solar and other environmental-sustainability
conditions in the class relationsof capitalistsociety. The result is to generatea deeper
understandingof classical historical materialism'secological approachto economy
and society - providingan ecological-materialistcritique that can help uncover the
systemic roots of today's"treadmillof production"and global environmentalcrisis.
Prominent among the wedges driven between Marxism and eco-

logical economics is the notion that Marx and Engels responded
indifferentlyor even negatively to Podolinsky's insertion of certain
elements of thermodynamicsinto socialist theory.Initially set out by
JuanMartinez-Alierand J.M.Naredo, the standardbasis for this con-
tention can be summarizedvia threebasic presumptions.'First,in the
early 1880s Podolinskypublishedan energeticanalysisof humanlabor
that attemptedto reconcile Marx'slabortheory of value with the first
and second laws of thermodynamics.Second, when confrontedwith
Podolinsky'sanalysis, Marx simply ignored it while Engels cursorily

110
dismissedit withoutseriousconsideration- despitePodolinsky'sdirect

solicitation of their opinions and approval.Third,Marx and Engels's
negative reactionto Podolinskyhelps explain, and is symptomaticof,
a generaltendency in Marxismto neglect ecological issues in general
and thermodynamicsin particular.
Variouslyrepeated,the above narrativeis now a key element of the

conventionalwisdom among ecological economists and other envi-
ronmentalthinkers,which arguesthat Marxismsuffers from inherent
ecological deficiencies.2 Section I provides a synopsis of some of the
main conclusions of our recent study of the "PodolinskyBusiness,"3
thatcasts seriousdoubton all threeelementsof the standardnarrative.4
The main purposeof this paperis more affirmative,however.We wish
to examine the extent to which Marx and Engels's own analyses of
capitalismalreadycontainpositive responses to the specific concerns
raised (or thoughtto be raised)by Podolinsky'sanalysis. Section II es-
tablishesthatMarx'sanalysis of capitalistproductionand exploitation
is thoroughlyinfused with a metabolic-energyperspectiveon human
labor,one informedby a close engagementwith naturalscience. Marx
treatsthe value of laborpowerand capitalistexploitationof workersas
subject to both conservationof energy and matter-energydissipation
(or, as it is now called,increasingentropy).Marx'smetabolic-energetic
perspectivejibes with Engels's observations,in both his comments on
Podolinskyand TheDialectics ofNature, concerningthe limitationsof
energy-reductionistapproachesto humanlabor.
Section III shows how thermodynamicand metabolic considerations

enter into Capital's analysis of machinery and large-scale industry.
Marxexaminescapitalistindustrializationin termsof the development
of machine-systemsfor transferringmotive force towardthe points of
direct contact between tools and materials, as is consistent with the
first law of thermodynamics.His analysis of capitalistmechanization
provides a structural,class-based explanationas to how and why hu-
man productiondefinitively"brokethe budget constraintof living on
solar income andbegan to live on geological capital."5It therebyhelps
explain the unprecedentedgrowth in labor productivityand matter-
energythroughputgeneratedby the capitalistsystem - a consideration
reflectedin Engels's criticism of Podolinsky'sfailure fully to account
for the system's squanderingof "past solar heat" in the form of coal,
mineralsandforests.At the sametime, Marxrecognizesthe importance
of frictionandotherforces of wearandtear,consistentwith the second
law, as well as the irreduciblebiochemical requirementsof modern

111
industry(and not just in agriculture).Engels's argument,in response

to Podolinsky,thatthe calculationof pure energy values for industrial
productsis effectively impossible, may be viewed in part as a simple
validationof the complexities revealedby Marx'sanalysis.
Section IV looks briefly at Marx'streatmentof capitalism'smetabolic

rift between humanityand natureas revealedby industrialagriculture
and the division between town and country.Marx'sconcernwith both
biochemical and energetic conditions of productionis on full display
in his analysisof agriculture,where it is obvious that"mattermatters."
FollowingJustusvon Liebig, Marxarguesthatan ecologically sustain-
able agriculturerequiresthe continualrestorationof the nutrientsof the
soil. Moreover,Marxemphasizeshow the unhealthycirculationof mat-
ter generatedby capitalism'surbanindustryand industrialagriculture
vitiates the combinedmetabolicreproductivecapabilitiesof humanla-
bor power and the land. Marx'sapproachtraces environmentalcrises
to the class separationof workersfromthe land and from othercondi-
tions of production,therebyintegratingmaterialistand social concerns
in environmentalanalysis.
In the concluding section we discuss the relation between Marx and

Engels'shistoricaland dialecticalframeworks,andtheirgraspof com-
plex ecological and social systems beyond mechanismand reduction-
ism. ForMarxandEngels, the emphasiswas on irreversiblechangeand
qualitativetransformation,makingtheir dialecticalmaterialisma pre-
cursorof contemporarycomplexitytheory.Althoughthey appreciated
the analysis of thermodynamicsemanatingfrom Sadi Carnot'sclosed
system model (characterizedby reversibleprocesses), they understood
that the real concrete answerswere to be found in a world in which
naturalhistory,like humanhistory,was governedby the arrowof time.
In this sense, Marx and Engels's analysis of metabolism, energy,and
entropyand their interconnectionswith humanproductionanticipated
(often at a much deeperlevel) currentinsightsof ecological economics
and of the "treadmillof production"model within environmentalsoci-
ology. (N.B.: referencesin this article to "Carnot"are to Sadi Carnot,
unless otherwisenoted.)
I. What remains of the Podolinskymyth?
When we first became aware of the significance attached to the

Podolinskydebate, we were admittedlyskepticalabout the claim that

112
by decliningto develop an energeticbasis for the labortheoryof value,

MarxandEngels had showedtheirindifferenceto environmentalissues
and thermodynamicsspecifically.We knew that Marx and Engels had
both filled multiple notebooks with extractsfrom, and commentaries
on, the leadingnaturalscience writersof theirtime. We also knew that
these notebooks covered a wide range of scientific fields - physics,
chemistry,biology, physiology, geology, and agronomy- in each of
which the analysis of energy dynamics occupied an importantif not
centralposition. In fact, as we studiedthe matterfurtherwe discovered
thatMarxand Engels had some familiaritywith and in some cases had
closely studiedthe worksof manyof the scientistsinvolvedin the devel-
opmentof thermodynamics(boththe firstand second laws) - including
Hermannvon Helmholtz, Julius RobertMayer,James PrescottJoule,
Justusvon Liebig, Jean-BaptisteJoseph Fourier,Sadi Carnot,Rudolf
Clausius,WilliamThomson,PeterGuthrieTait,WilliamGrove,James
ClarkMaxwell, and Ludwig EduardBoltzmann.In addition,we knew
that Marx had attendednumerouspublic lectures on naturalscience
in the years leading up to and following the publication of Capital,
Volume I in 1867, and that among these was a series of lectures by
the English physicist John Tyndall,authorof Heat Consideredas a
Mode ofMotion.6 Tyndall,a majorfigure in the developingphysics in
his own right, was the principaladvocateof the ideas of J.R. Mayer-
one of the co-discoverersof the conservationof energy (the first law
of thermodynamics).Marx followed Tyndall'sresearch on the sun's
rays,particularlyas it relatedto heat. Marxand Engels were also close
studentsof the developmentof knowledge aboutelectricity,including
the work of Michael Faradaywho inventedthe first electric motor.In
1882, Marxfollowed closely the resultsof the FrenchphysicistMarcel
Deprez,whose researchwas directedatthe distanttransmissionof elec-
tricity.In the sameyearMarxalso readEdouardHospitalier'sPrincipal
ApplicationsofElectricity, on which he took extensive notes.7
Given this interestin both theoreticalphysics and practicalenergetic

questions,it seemedunlikelyto us thatMarxandEngelswouldhaveex-
hibitedan unreceptive,let alone deaf, ear to any new workby Podolin-
sky that representeda potential breakthroughin the importationof
thermodynamicconcepts into socialist theory.Besides, it simply was
not like MarxandEngels to be indifferentor silent aboutcontemporary
writingsthatreferredto their own works in any way.
Our skepticismonly grew as we delved into the chronologicaldevel-

opmentof Podolinsky'swork as it relatedto the workinglives of Marx

113
and Engels. What we discoveredwas that Podolinsky'sanalysis had

been publishedin four differentlanguagesover the years 1880-1883,
andthattherewere significantdifferencesamongthe fourversions.Im-
portantly,the version of Podolinsky'sanalysisthatMartinez-Alierand
Naredoused to criticizeMarx(forhis supposedneglect of Podolinsky's
argument)had been publishedin the Germansocialist paperDie Neue
Zeit in 1883, only after Marx'sdeath.8Moreover,Engels's comments
on Podolinsky,in two letters sent to Marx in December of 1882 (less
than three months before Marx's death), were based on the version
publishedin the ItalianjournalLa Plebe in 1881 - a version thatwas
much less extensive than the Die Neue Zeit article of 1883.9 The La
Plebe piece itself was more extensivethanan earlierversionpublished
in the ParisianLa RevueSocialiste in June 1880.10
All of this took on addedsignificancewhenwe becameawareof the fact

thatMarxhad actuallytakendetailedextractsfromPodolinsky'swork,
but only with referenceto a French-languageversion that Podolinsky
had mailed to him in early April, 1880.11This version seems to have
been an early draftof the La RevueSocialiste article.12Unfortunately,
althoughwe know from Podolinsky'sown correspondencethat Marx
wrote back to him at least once, neitherthat letternor any otherletter
that Marx may have sent to Podolinsky has survived. Still, it seems
likely that Marx sent commentson the draftto Podolinskysome or all
of which were incorporatedinto the published Frenchversion. (The
most likely reasonno copy of Podolinsky'soriginal draftwas found in
Marx'spapers,andthatall we haveareextensiveverbatimextractsfrom
Marx'snotebooks,is thatMarx,as was customaryandexpectedin those
dayswithoutcopyingmachines,sentthe manuscriptbackto Podolinsky
with marginalnotes on the manuscript.)Interestinglyenough, the text
of the La RevueSocialiste article,as far as we can deduce fromMarx's
extractsfromthe draft-versionsent by Podolinsky,containssignificant
additionsto the earlierdraftsent to Marx.Among these additionsare
the main reference to Marx's concept of surplus labor, Podolinsky's
own calculation of energy equivalents for agriculturallabor and its
output, as well as his conjectureabout the energy efficiency of labor
underthe feudal, slave, capitalist,and socialist modes of production.13
Although all of this clearly undercutthe standardview that Marx and

Engels did not take Podolinskyseriously,a full evaluationof this view
requireda closer look at Podolinsky'sanalysis.Only then could we de-
termine if Engels had treatedPodolinskyfairly in his lettersto Marx.
More specifically,only then could we determinewhetherPodolinsky's

114
analysis providedimportantnew insights that could and should have

been adaptedby historical materialismin general or Marxist value
analysis in particularin ways that Marx and Engels (and later Marx-
ists) wereunableor unwillingto undertake,due to theirown ecological
shortcomings.Wethereforearrangedfor a full English-languagetrans-
lation of the La Plebe version of Podolinsky'swork- the one readand
commentedupon by Engels. 14
Whatwe discoveredwas thatPodolinskyhadnot even come close to es-

tablishinga plausiblethermodynamicbasis forthe labortheoryof value
thatcould havebeen adoptedby MarxandEngels. In fact, Podolinsky's
analysis, althoughleading off with the question of how accumulation
of surpluslaboris consistentwith the firstlaw of thermodynamics(see
below), goes on to makeclaimsthatcontradictthe realityof entropyand
its limitationson human action. Podolinsky'sanalysis has nothing to
say thatis of directrelevanceto the determinationof value and surplus
value in their specifically Marxistmeaning as abstract(homogenous,
socially necessary) labor times. Instead,Podolinsky'smain analytical
themes are that: (1) human labor is uniquely gifted in its ability to
accumulateenergy in useful forms on the earth;(2) this unique capa-
bility implies thatthe laboringhumanbeing fulfills (or even more than
fulfills) the thermodynamicrequirementsof a "perfectmachine" as
theorizedby Carnot;15(3) the superiorityof socialism over capitalism
and otherclass societies can be conceptualizedin terms of socialism's
greaterpotentialfor maximizing the accumulationof energy on earth
by providingthe best conditionsfor utilizing the muscularlaborof the
perfect humanmachine. Even Podolinsky'scalculationsof the energy
productivitiesof differentkinds of agriculturallabor, we discovered,
were not presentedas a basis for value analysis,but ratheras a demon-
strationof the greaterenergy-accumulationcapabilitiesof the human
machine comparedto plants and animals.
We found these contents of Podolinsky'sanalysis quite surprisingin

light of how it had been used to criticize purportedecological short-
comings in Marxism.Podolinsky'sframeworkwas not only energy re-
ductionist,butalso madethe logical errorof directlyapplyingidealized
concepts applicableonly to a closed, isolated system (Carnot'sperfect
machineconcept)to the more complex realityof far-from-equilibrium,
non-isolated,non-closed systems such as life in generalandhumanso-
ciety/labormore specifically.The only way that human labor can be
viewed as a form of Carnot'sperfect machine is if one ignores such
factors as friction,i.e., the naturalmaterialityof labor,along with the

115
inherentlybiochemical or metabolicnatureof the humanlaboringor-

ganism and its interactionwith the naturalenvironment.
The limitationsof Podolinsky'sperfect machine argumentwill be fa-

miliar to most ecological economists from the reaction generatedby
Elias L. Khalil'srecent suggestion that "the economic process should
be conceivedafterthe Carnotcycle, andnot the entropylaw."16Similar
to Podolinsky,Khalilarguedthatinsofaras humanlaborandthe Carnot
cycle are both "designedpurposefully"to produce net work or "free
energy,"neither one is limited by "the non-purposeful,mechanistic
entropylaw.""7Lozada aptly describedthis argumentas "basicallyan
'ultravitalist'attemptto deny that living, purposefulbeings are com-
pletely subject to all laws of elementarymatter such as the entropy
law."'8As Williamsonpointed out, one should never confuse the pos-
sibility that"apurposefulagency ... maybe interposedin an otherwise
spontaneous(or natural)process to produceuseful work"with the no-
tion that the "purposefulagency may be of unlimitedpotency."l9The
basic problem, as Biancardi,et al. observed,was with Khalil's (and,
we might add, Podolinsky's)assumptionthat "the Carnot cycle has
the sameform as the economic process."20Unlike Carnot'sideal fric-
tionless engine, which was conceived as an isolated thermodynamic
system (closed to transfersof matterand energy),the humaneconomy
is a dissipativesystem thatboth drawsupon (in fact mines) and dumps
waste back into its naturalenvironment.Hence, "each economic pro-
cess can be regardedas an irreversibletransformation,"i.e., one that,
ecologically speaking,never "returnsto the startingconditions."21By
neglecting this crucial form-divergence,both Khalil and Podolinsky
confused the fact that the reproductionof human life feeds upon the
(temporary)fixationof low entropymatter-energyin useful forms,with
the fantasticnotion that this need not involve increasingentropyfrom
the standpointof the total biosphericsystem with which the system of
humanreproductionco-evolves.
Imagine our astonishment,then, when we realized that Engels's main

criticisms of Podolinskyalreadyfocus precisely on some of the limi-
tationsadumbratedabove. In his letterto Marxof December 19, 1882,
Engels not only rejectsPodolinsky'senergy-reductionistconceptionof
humanlabor,posing a moremetabolicalternative,but also emphasizes
the failureofPodolinsky'senergy-productivitycalculationsto takeinto
account the great extent to which human productionhas heretofore
operatedas "a squandererof past solar heat,"especially by "squan-
dering our reserves of energy, our coal, ore, forests, etc."22Engels's

116
discussion of Podolinskyhad apparentlybeen elicited by some com-

ments by Marx on Engels's essay "The Mark."This essay, which was
publishedas an appendixto the Germanedition of Engels'sSocialism:
Utopian and Scientific, examines socio-ecological pressureson Ger-
man peasantfarmersstemming from the growing influence of landed
propertyand capitalist competition- e.g., reducedpeasant access to
common lands and the resultingdifficultyof maintainingpeasantpro-
ductionwithout access to cattle manure.23
In short, our re-examinationof the context and substanceof Engels's

comments, in light of our study of Podolinsky'sLa Plebe article, re-
vealed that Engels's responses were far more advanced ecologically
than Podolinsky's analysis (however bold and importantthe latter's
contributionwas). Moreover,the fact that Engels's criticisms do not
directlyaddressvalue questionscan now be seen as a quitelogical non-
reaction,given thatPodolinskyhad nothing significantto say on value
theory as such. Indeed,to interpretPodolinsky'senergy-productivity
calculationsas a potentialbasis forvalue analysisis not only to embrace
a kind of energyreductionismthathas been stronglyopposed by some
of the major figures in ecological economics, including Georgescu-
Roegen andDaly,24but also to conflateMarx'sclass-basedtheorywith
a Smith-Ricardo(thatis, crudematerialist)"embodiedlabor"approach
to value.25
So what, then, remains of the Podolinsky myth? First, there is the

issue as to whetherMarx and Engels providedan adequateanswerto
Podolinsky'sinitialquestionbearingon the consistencyof surplusvalue
with the firstlaw of thermodynamics(the conservationof energy). As
Podolinskyput it:
Accordingto the theory of productionformulatedby Marx and acceptedby
socialists, humanlabor,expressed in the language of physics, accumulates
in its productsa greaterquantityof energythanthatwhichwasexpendedin
theproduction of thelaborpowerof theworkers.Whyandhowis thisaccu-
mulationbroughtabout?.. .In acceptingthe theory of theunity of physical
forcesorof theconstancyof energy,we arealsoforcedto admitthatnothing
canbe created,in thestrictsenseof theword,throughlabor...26
Notice that even this statementdoes not speak of surplus value, but
rather of the energy equivalent of surplus labor in a more general
sense applying across differentmodes of production.Still, insofar as
the standardinterpretationtreatsit as a challengeto Marx'svalue anal-
ysis, we should considerhow MarxanswersPodolinsky'squestionfor
capitalism'sspecific form of surpluslabor.

117
Second,even if one acceptsthatEngels'scommentson Podolinsky

embodyopen-systemandmetabolic-energy concerns,thereremains
the questionas to how well theseconcernsaremethodologically in-
fusedintoMarx'sandEngels'sanalysisof capitalism.Thedebunking
of the Podolinskymythmay not be sufficientto overturnthe con-
ventionalwisdomthat,as a generalrule,MarxandEngelstreatthe
economyas a self-reproducing systemnotdependenton its naturalen-
vironment.Georgescu-Roegen exemplifiesthis conventionalwisdom
withhis claimthatfor"Marxisteconomists," the "patentfactthatbe-
tweentheeconomicprocessandthematerialenvironment thereexists
a continuousmutualinfluencecarriesno weight."27 Similarly,
Perrings
assertsthatMarx"assumedthatthe economymay expandwithout
limit at the expenseof the environment,"in effecttreatingthe envi-
ronmentas "simultaneously a hornof plentyanda bottomlesssink."28
Underpinning this conventionalwisdomis the view,well phrasedby
Hawley, that "Marxian theory"representsa "closed-system" perspec-
tive on the economywhich "ignoresenvironment as an interaction
field."29
Althoughwe havealreadydemonstrated the considerableecological

contentof Marx'sandEngels'sthinkingin earlierrelatedworks,30it
is importantto reconsiderthe extentto which open-systemenergy
andentropicconsiderationsareincorporated intoMarx'sCapital,and
whetherthis incorporationis consistentwith Engels'scriticismsof
Podolinsky.Only then can we definitivelydeterminethe lessonsthat
the Podolinskyepisodeholds for the relationshipbetweenMarxism
andecologicaleconomics.
II. Energy in Marx's metabolic analysis of value and exploitation
ForMarx,commodityproduction bywage-laboris thespecificallycap-

italistformof humanlabor,"theuniversalconditionforthemetabolic
interactionbetweenmanandnature."31 Capitalismis thereforejust as
muchsubjectto nature'slawsas anyotherformof humanproduction.
"Itwould,"as Marxsays,"beabsolutelymistakento attachmystical
notionsto this spontaneously
developedproductivity of labour,as is
sometimes done."32"When man engages in production,he can only
proceedas naturedoes herself,i.e. he can only changethe formof
the materials.Furthermore,
even in this workof modificationhe is
constantlyhelpedby natural
forces."33

118
Perhapsthe most basic way in which humanlaboris constantlyhelped

by naturalforces is throughthe effect of solar energy on the terres-
trial environment,without which no life, and hence no labor, could
occur. In this connection,Engels points out that Podolinsky'senergy-
productivitycalculations take no account of the complexities intro-
duced by "the fresh cal" that the worker "absorbs from the radi-
ation of the sun."34Engels's observation on the complexity of ac-
counting for the full effects of solar energy can thus be seen as logi-
cally consistentwith Daly's contemporarycriticism of some forms of
energetics:
Even in its own termsof calculatingthe "solarenergynecessary directlyand
indirectlyto produce"all commodities, the actual accountingof embodied
energy is very incomplete.It counts only solar energy enteringinto agricul-
ture, forests, and fisheries.But solar energy obviously enters all production
processes by providinglight andheat... How this enormousjoint cost could
be allocatedamong all its joint products... is beyond my imagination.35
In otherwords, solar energy'srole in humanlaborcannotbe fully cap-

turedby any simple, mechanisticaccountingmodel, with energyenter-
ing as fuel at one end and emergingas useful workat the other.Before
delving more deeply into the issue of Marx's combined metabolic-
energetic approachto capitalism, we should make three preliminary
points. First, Marx's use of "metabolism"is far more than a mere
analogy. As pointed out by Griese and Pawelzig, Marx employed
and developed metabolic analyses in all his major economic works,
from the Grundrisse (1857-1858) to his Notes on Adolph Wagner
(1880-1881).36 Griese and Pawelzig go on to state that:
Whatis involvedhere is no picture,no metaphorfor visualization,but rather
a rich concept. The exchange of matter by living systems, according to
the physiologists' definition,remains for Marx what it is, neither watered
down nor "generalized,"as is often done. Exchange of matteris taking up,
reshaping,storing,andgiving up of matterwith an exchangeof energytaking
place simultaneously.This same contentapplies- andhere lies the discovery
of Marx- not only to living but also to social systems, insofar as social life
is also actuallylife in the physiological sense, arising out of social life and
developing furtherits materialbasis.37
Second, Marx saw the labor process itself as constitutingthe main

metabolicrelationbetweenhumansandnature.But underthe influence
of Liebig he also explored in great detail the metabolic rift between
natureand society,manifestedin the extractionof nutrients(such as ni-
trogen,phosphorusandpotassium)fromthe soil (as food andfiber),and
theirtransportationhundredsand thousandsof miles to urbancenters,
to eventuallytake the form of humanand animalwastes - subverting

119
the naturalcycle that would have returnedthe nutrientsto theirnative

soil. In this way Marx explored problems of human dependence on
nature,which, while not independentof energy issues, could not be
reduced to pure energetics.38 Marx'sadamantrefusal to embraceen-
ergy reductionismseems to foreshadowGeorgescu-Roegen'sfamous
dictumthat "mattermatters,too."39
Third,Marx'smetabolic interpretationof commodity productionand

exchange directly informed his analysis of commodities as values
(repositories of abstract,socially necessary labor). He thus consid-
ers commodity exchange to be a "processof social metabolism,"and
"thevalue form of the commodity"to be the "economic cell form"of
this metabolism.40A commodity is, of course, a useful good or ser-
vice that is put up for exchange. Recognizing that this "use value...
is conditioned by the physical properties of the commodity,"Marx
sees commodity use values as "the material content of wealth" un-
der capitalism.41As is well known, Marx also insists that both nature
and human labor contributeto the productionof all use values.42In
analyzingcommoditiesand money,therefore,he emphasizesthat "the
physicalbodies of commodities,arecombinationsof two elements,the
materialprovidedby nature,and labour."43 Marx also insists "nothing
can be a value without being an object of utility. If the thing is use-
less, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as
labour, and therefore creates no value."44Stated differently:"Value
[as abstractlabor]is independentof the particularuse-value by which
it is borne, but a use-value of some kind must act as its bearer."45
Therefore,because commodities, like all use values, are productsof
both labor and nature,and because labor is itself an interactionwith
nature,the productionand exchange of commodities is both a social
(people-people)anda metabolic(people-nature)relation.The dialectic
of value and use value is not a simple dichotomy in Marx'sconcep-
tion, but rathera unity-in-differenceor moving contradiction.Capital-
ism's exploitationof wage-laboris fraughtwith contradictionslargely
because of the tensions between the materialrequirementsof value
accumulationand the metabolic nature of both wage-labor and the
wage-laborers.
Laborpower and its value
Marx defines "labour-power,or labour-capacity"as "the aggregateof

those mental and physical capabilities existing in the physical form,
the living personality,of a humanbeing, capabilitieswhich he sets in

120
motion wheneverhe producesa use-value of any kind."46Laborpower

"is a naturalobject, a thing, although a living, conscious thing."47It
is, "above all else, the material of nature transposedinto a human
organism."48The metabolic-energeticcontent of Marx's conception
is evident not just in his choice of the term laborpower, but also in
an alternative(and more descriptive)translationof the definitionjust
quoted:"Labour-power itself is energytransferredto a humanorganism
by means of nourishingmatter."49
Energyconsiderationsareaccordinglycentralto Marx'sanalysisof the

value of labor power.As is well known, Marx equates labor power's
value with the value of the commodities entering into the consump-
tion of workersand their families. Two aspects of this consumption
are distinguished:a physical subsistence component and "a histori-
cal and moral element."50Ourmain concern here is with the physical
subsistence element. This begins, of course, with the worker's"nat-
ural needs, such as food, clothing, fuel and housing"- needs which
"varyaccordingto the climatic and otherphysical peculiaritiesof his
country."51 Even at this basic level, Marx recognizes both the role of
matter-energydissipation,as well as the energyrequirementsforthe in-
dividualworker'sreproduction.Preciselybecause"labour-powerexists
only as a capacity of the living individual,"it is by nature(regardless
of what happensin the labor-process)subjectto "wearand tear... and
death."52"The owner of labour-poweris mortal,"and must therefore
"perpetuatehimself by procreation."53Hence,the value of laborpower
includesthe value of commodities"necessaryfor the worker'sreplace-
ments, i.e. his children,in orderthat this race of peculiarcommodity-
ownersmayperpetuateits presenceon the market."54 It shouldperhaps
not surpriseus that Marx, in addressingthe physiological and ener-
getic requirementsof production,was always aware of the arrow of
time.
But the metabolicdimensiononly becomes fully apparentwith Marx's

considerationof the connectionsbetweenthe worker'slaboringactivity
and laborpower'svalue. "Theuse of labour-poweris. .. .labouritself,"
and "thepurchaserof labour-powerconsumes it by settingthe seller of
it to work."55This is true whetherlaboris consideredto be production
of use values or as productionof values. Even thoughthe substanceof
value is abstractlabor("homogenoushumanlabour,..,. humanlabour-
power expended without regardto the form of its expenditure"),the
"creationof value" still requires "the transpositionof labour-power
into labour,"i.e., "aproductiveexpenditureof humanbrains,muscles,

121
nerves, hands,etc., of the labour-powerpossessed in his bodily organ-

ism by every ordinaryman."56Conservationof labor'svalue-creating
power thereforeimposes additionalmaintenancerequirementson the
worker:
However, labour-powerbecomes a reality only by being expressed; it is
activatedonly throughlabour.But in the course of this activity,i.e. labour,a
definite quantityof humanmuscle, nerve, brain,etc. is expended,and these
things have to be replaced.Since more is expended,moremustbe received.
If the owner of labour-powerworks today,tomorrowhe must again be able
to repeat the same process in the same conditions as regardshealth and
strength.His means of subsistencemust thereforebe sufficientto maintain
him in his normalstate as a workingindividual.57
An alternativetranslationof the italicized sentence is: "Thisincreased

expendituredemands a larger income."58Here, Marx is employing
an "energy income and expenditure"frameworkadapted from the
work of the great German energy physiologist LudimarHermann.
We know that Marx studied Hermann'sElements of Human Physi-
ology, which treats energy flows in human labor from a biochemi-
cal standpoint.59In Hermann'sanalysis, "energy income" connotes
consumptionof energy sources convertibleinto work, while "energy
expenditure"refers to the laborer'sloss of energy when work is per-
formed. Marx evidently found Hermann'sapproachquite useful for
determiningthe "ultimateor minimum limit of the value of labour-
power,"i.e., "thevalue of the commoditieswhich have to be supplied
every day to the bearerof labour-power... so that he can renew his
life-process"in somethingmore than "a crippledstate."60In addition,
Marxwas undoubtedlyawareof Liebig's discussion of the application
of thermodynamicsto physiology in the last chapterof his Familiar
Letters on Chemistry,entitled "The Connection and Equivalenceof
Forces."61
Marx follows Hermannand Liebig in declining to reduce the con-

tent of the energy income and expenditureto pure energetic terms.
For Hermann,the biochemical processes of energy income and ex-
penditure,and their degree of compatibilitywith nutritionaland other
metabolic functions,help determinewhetherany given laborsituation
is consistent with the healthyreproductionof the laborer.62Different
kinds of labor (in terms of type and intensity) requiredifferentbio-
chemical forms of energy income, and are as well impactedby how
well restedthe workeris frompriorlabors.Theworkercannotbe treated
like a steamengine thatwill just keep runningas long as adequatecoal
is shoveled in. Marx applies this aspect of Hermann'sapproachwhen

122
discussingthe value of laborpowerin termsof the lengthof daily

worktime:
Whentheworkingdayis prolonged, thepriceof labour-power mayfallbelow
its value,althoughthatpricenominallyremainsunchanged, or evenrises.
Thevalueof a day'slabour-power is estimated...onthebasisof its normal
averageduration, orthenormaldurationof thelife of a worker,andon the
basisof theappropriate normalstandard of conversionof livingsubstances
into motionas it appliesto the natureof man.Up to a certainpoint,the
increaseddeterioration of labour-power inseparablefroma lengtheningof
theworkingdaymaybe compensated forby makingamendsin theformof
higherwages.Butbeyondthispointdeterioration increasesin geometrical
progression, andall therequirements forthe normalreproduction andfunc-
tioningof labour-power ceaseto be fulfilled.Thepriceof labour-power and
thedegreeof its exploitation ceaseto be commensurable quantities.63
In a footnoteto thepassagejust cited,Marxprovidesa quotationfrom

a workby the"fatherof thefuelcell"- theEnglishjuristandphysical
chemistSir WilliamRobertGrove- entitledOn the Correlationof
PhysicalForces,whichstates:"Theamountof labourwhicha manhad
undergonein the courseof 24 hoursmightbe approximately arrived
at by an examination of the chemicalchangeswhichhadtakenplace
in his body,changedformsin matterindicatingthe anteriorexercise
of dynamicforce."64 MarxandEngelshad,in fact,readGrove'sbook
withdeepinterestas earlyas 1864-1865,as partof theirstudiesof the
mechanicaltheoryof heatandthe convertibility of differentformsof
energy.65 Theywerefamiliarwiththe fourtheditionof Grove'swork,
publishedin 1862, in whichGrovehad alreadyprovideda detailed
discussionof the secondlaw of thermodynamics.66 Marxobviously
foundthese studiesdirectlyrelevantto his analysisof the value of
laborpower.67
Marx'sanalysisof the valueof laborpowerclearlyincorporates the

conservationof energyas well as the inevitabilityof matter-energy
dissipation.In Capital,MarxquotesLucretiusin orderto evokethe
fundamental materialistprinciple(theprincipleof conservation)
that
"outof nothing,nothingcan be created."68 ThatMarxdoes not use
the terms"entropy,""thermodynamics," or "firstandsecondlaws,"is
explainedby the factthattheseterms wereonly then beingintroduced
intophysicsandthuswerenot usedwidelyevenwithinthe scientific
community at the time of Marx's Capital. (Clausius introducedthe
term"entropy"- froma Greekconstructionmeaning"transformation"
- in 1865, two yearsbefore the publicationof Capital,while Clausius's
MechanicalTheoryofHeat appearedin 1867, the sameyearas Capital.

123
The firstuse of the term "thermodynamics"in the title of a book was

in 1868 in Tait'sThermodynamics.69)
As the entropy law was only just then being recognized, its full im-
plications still had to be workedout by scientists. William Thomson,
the leading British proponent of the idea of energy dissipation (or
what came to be called entropy), denied in 1852 that animals can
be viewed in any sense as thermodynamicmachines equivalent to
steam engines.70Engels in particularwas wary of the crude mecha-
nistic and energy-reductionistpurposesto which thermodynamicswas
put in some subsequentanalyses. As he wrote in The Dialectics of
Nature:
Let someone try to convertany skilled labourinto kilogram-metresandthen
to determinewages on this basis! Physiologically considered,the human
body contains organs which in their totality,from one aspect, can be re-
gardedas a thermodynamicalmachine,whereheat is suppliedandconverted
into motion. But even if one presupposesconstantconditionsas regardsthe
otherbodily organs,it is questionablewhetherphysiologicalworkdone, even
lifting, can be at once fully expressed in kilogram-metres,since within the
body internalwork is performedat the same time which does not appearin
the result. For the body is not a steam-engine,which only undergoes fric-
tion and wear and tear.Physiological work is only possible with continued
chemical changes in the body itself, dependingalso on the process of res-
pirationand the work of the heart. Along with every muscularcontraction
or relaxation,chemical changes occur in the nerves and muscles, and these
changes cannot be treated as parallel to those of coal in a steam-engine.
One can, of course, comparetwo instancesof physiological work thathave
takenplace underotherwiseidenticalconditions,but one cannotmeasurethe
physical work of a man accordingto the work of a steam-engine,etc.; their
externalresults,yes, but not the processes themselves withoutconsiderable
reservations.71
Seven years afterthe above commentarywas written,Engels was con-

frontedwith Podolinsky'snaive attemptto calculate"thephysicalwork
of a man accordingto the workof a steam-engine,"i.e., by simply com-
paringthe caloric food intakeof the laborerto the caloriesembodiedin
the physical outputof the (agricultural)laborprocess.72Conveyinghis
opinion of Podolinsky'senergy-accountingexercises to Marx, Engels
reprisedhis priorcritiqueof energy-reductionism.As noted earlier,he
pointed out thatPodolinsky'scalculationsignoredthe energymetabol-
ically absorbedby all workersfrom the sun. He also observedthatthe
food-calories consumed by a worker(a figure of 10,000 calories per
day is used) "are known in practice to lose on conversion into other
forms of energy as a result of friction, etc., a portion that cannot be
put to use. Significantlyso in the case of the humanbody. Hence the

124
physical labourperformedin economic labourcan never= 10,000 cal;

it is invariablyless."73
After this initial clear recognition of matter-energydissipation, En-

gels considersfurthermetabolic qualificationsto Podolinsky'senergy
productivitycalculations.He points out how Podolinskyassumedthat
all "physicallabouris economic labour,"when in reality much of the
energy expenditureof the workeris "lost in the increasedheat given
off by the body, etc., and such useful residue as remains lies in the
fertilising propertyof excretions."74"In hunting and fishing,"for ex-
ample,"assumingthe individualconcernedtakesnormalnourishment,
the amountof proteinand fat he obtainsby huntingor fishing is inde-
pendent [logically and temporally]of the amountof these substances
he consumes [while huntingor fishing]."75Comparedto Podolinsky's
energy-reductionistframework,Engels's more metabolic approach-
one fully consistent with Marx'sanalysis of the value of laborpower
- is clearly more sensitive to the complex and entropicnatureof the
laborprocess.
It is worth noting at this point that Engels has sometimes been criti-
cized in ecological literaturefor skepticismregardingthe second law
of thermodynamics.As Martinez-Alierwrites,
The second law was mentioned by Engels in some notes written in 1875
which became, posthumously,famous passages of the Dialectics of Nature.
Engels refersto Clausius'entropylaw,foundit contradictoryto the law of the
conservationof energy,and expressedthe hope that a way would be found
to re-use the heat irradiatedinto space. Engels was understandablyworried
about the religious interpretationsof the second law. In a letterto Marx of
21 March 1869, when he became awareof the second law, he complained
aboutWilliam Thomson'sattemptsto mix God andphysics.76
The particularfragment in Engels's Dialectics of Nature to which

Martinez-Alierrefers was given the heading "Radiationof Heat into
Universal Space" and was devoted to the broader,cosmological im-
plications tied to the second law of thermodynamics.77These were
questions of materialismvs. idealism/religion,connected with alter-
native conceptions of the creation and possible future destructionof
the universe. Engels laid out some of the complications and logical
difficulties. To claim on the basis of this that Engels demonstrated
skepticismtowardor even rejectedthe second law of thermodynamics,
as Martinez-Alierand some othershave done, is presumptuous.Such
a conclusionis particularlyunacceptablesince elsewherein Dialectics
of Nature, Engels expresses his deep respect for the results of Carnot

125
and Clausius and conforms his own observationsand analyses to the

stricturesof the second law.
Equally erroneous is the suggestion Martinez-Alieradvances (in the

above quote) thatin his March21, 1869 letterto Marx,Engels showed
that he had become awareof the second law of thermodynamicsonly
at thattime. We know thatEngels readGrove'sCorrelationofPhysical
Forces (probablythe fourth edition of 1862) by 1865 - shortly after
Marx. Grove'swork included a very detailed treatmentof the second
law in the key chapteron "Heat,"in the context of a discussion of the
discoveries of Carnot,Clausius,and Thomson.Thereis no possibility
that Engels or Marx - both of whom praised Grove'sbook - missed
this discussion. Moreover,since Engels referreda numberof times to
Thomson'sandTait'sclassic 1867text on physics,A Treatiseon Natural
Philosophy (andnot to any of the latereditions of thatwork) it is quite
probablethat he also encounteredthe second law upon reading that
workwhen it firstappeared.If thatweren'tenough, no directreference
to the secondlaw of thermodynamicsappearsin the letterthatMartinez-
Alier cites (nor any mention of Thomsonby name there) so the point
seems to be a gross extrapolation.Instead Engels's letter deals with
the hypothesis of the "heat death" of the universe, associated with
Helmholtz, Clausius, Thomson, and others. Engels complained that
cosmological claims assertingthe cause of the eventual "heat death"
of the universe,and also its origins in an "originalhot state,"based on
the entropyconcept alone, were absurdbecause they would have had
to have been founded on a "naturallaw [that] is, to date, only half-
knownto them."78In short,no unfavorableconclusions aboutEngels's
position on thermodynamicscan be derivedfrom these comments.
How MarxanswersPodolinsky'squestion
If Marx'sapproachto energy and value did not align with Podolinsky

(who in any case made only suggestive commentsin this regard),what
was the specificnatureof Marx'sargument?At severalpointsin Capital
andits preparatoryworks,Marxconsidersthe creationof surplusvalue
in terms of the difference between: (1) the energy equivalentof the
value of labor power,as determinedby the labor requiredto produce
the means of subsistencepurchasedwith the wage, and (2) the energy
expendedby laborpower,insofaras it correspondsto the energycontent
of the commoditiesin whichvalue is objectified.But, given the inability
of the commodity (value) form to adhereto the metabolic-energetic
requirementsof laborpowerandthe workit performs,it is as incorrect

126
to identifythe energyequivalentof laborpower'svaluewith all the

energythatentersintothereproduction of laborpowerasit is to identify
the energycontentof commodityvalueswithall the energyentering
intotheirproduction.Podolinsky's openingquestion,asto howthefirst
lawof thermodynamics is consistentwithanexcessof energy-product
overthe energy"expendedin the productionof the laborpowerof
the workers,"is thus full of misapprehensions insofaras it is meant
to referto Marx'stheory.79For Marx,moreover,the productionof
surplusvalueis a socialandmaterialeffectspecificto capitalism;it is
notsusceptibleto a purelynaturalscientificproof.Nonetheless,Marx's
applicationof theenergyincomeandexpenditure approachto surplus
valuedemonstrates thethermodynamic consistencyof his theory.80
ForMarx,the possibilityof surplusvalue stemsfromlaborpower's

"specificuse-value... of beinga sourcenotonlyof value,butof more
valuethanit hasitself."81Thisusevaluehastwoimportant characteris-
tics.First,givencapitalism'sreductionof "value"to abstractlabortime,
"theuse valueof labourcapacity,as value,is itselfthe value-creating
force;the substanceof value,andthe value-increasing substance."82
Second,"thepastlabourembodiedin the labour-power andthe living
labourit canperform,andthe dailycost of maintaining labour-power
andits dailyexpenditure in work,aretwo totallydifferentthings."83
Whilethevalueof laborpoweris determined by thevalueof workers'
commodified meansof subsistence,
The use of that labouringpower is only limited by the active energies and
physical strengthof the labourer.The daily or weekly value of the labouring
power is quite distinct from the daily or weekly exercise of that power,the
same as the food a horse wants and the time it can carry the horsemanare
quite distinct. The quantityof labourby which the value of the workman's
labouringpoweris limitedformsby no meansa limit to the quantityof labour
which his labouringpower is apt to perform.84
In energyterms,"Whatthe freeworkersells is alwaysnothingmore

thana specific,particular measureof force-expenditure";but"labour
capacity as a is than
totality greater everyparticularexpenditure.""8
"Inthis exchange,then,the worker... sells himselfas an effect,"and
"is absorbedinto the body of capitalas a cause,as activity."86 The
resultis anenergysubsidyforthecapitalistwhoappropriates andsells
thecommoditiesproducedduringtheportionof theworkdayoverand
abovethatrequiredto producethe meansof subsistencerepresented
by the wage. The apparentlyequal exchangeof the worker'slabor
powerfor its valuethus"turnsinto its opposite... the dispossession
Marxdevelopsthis pointin termsof the distinction
of his labour.""'87

127
labor"objectifiedinworkers'
betweensurpluslaborandthe"necessary
commodifiedmeansof subsistence:
During the second period of the labourprocess, that in which his labouris
no longer necessary labour,the workerdoes indeed expend labour-power,
he does work, but his labouris no longer necessary labour,and he creates
no value for himself. He creates surplus-valuewhich, for the capitalist,has
all the charmsof somethingcreatedout of nothing."88
Of course, this value (energy)surplusis not really createdout of noth-

ing. Rather,it representscapitalism'sappropriationof portions of the
potential work embodiedin laborpower recoupedfrom metabolicre-
generationlargelyduringnon-worktime.Andthisis onlypossibleinso-
faras theregeneration
of laborpower,in bothenergyandbiochemical
terms,involvesnotjust consumptionof caloriesfromthe commodi-
ties purchasedwith the wage, but also fresh air, solar heat, sleep, re-
laxation,and variousdomesticactivitiesnecessaryfor the hygiene,
feeding, clothing, and housing of the worker. Insofar as capitalism
forcestheworkerto laborbeyondnecessarylabortime,it encroaches
on the time required for all these regenerativeactivities. As Marx
observes,
But time is IN FACTthe active existence of the humanbeing. It is not only
the measure of human life. It is the space for its development. And the
ENCROACHMENTOF CAPITALOVER the TIME OF LABOUR is the
appropriationof the life, the mental and physical life, of the worker.89
Viewed in this way, Marx's metabolic-energeticanalysis of surplus

value is an essential foundationfor his analysis of capitalism'sten-
dency "to go beyond the natural limits of labour-time"- a ten-
dency "thatforciblycompels even the society which rests on capitalist
production..,. to restrictthe normal working day within firmly fixed
limits."90Unless forciblyconstrainedfromdoing so, capitalistproduc-
tion encroachesnot just on the time the workerneeds "to satisfy his
intellectual and social requirements,"but also on "the physical limits
to labour-power":
Within the 24 hours of the naturalday a man can only expend a certain
quantityof his vital force. Similarly,a horse can work regularlyfor only 8 h
a day.Duringpartof the day the vital force must rest, sleep; duringanother
part the man has to satisfy other physical needs, to feed, wash and clothe
himself... But what is a workingday?At all events, it is less than a natural
day. How much less? The capitalisthas his own views of this point of no
return,the necessary limit of the working day. As a capitalist, he is only
capital personified.His soul is the soul of capital. But capital has one sole
drivingforce, the driveto valorizeitself, to createsurplus-value,to absorb...
the greatestpossible amountof surpluslabour.91

128
inherentdriveto extendworktimebeyondlaborpower's
Capitalism's
metabolic-energeticlimits is, in fact, one of the majorthemes in Vol-
ume I of Capital. But the more basic point is that Marx's analysis
of surplus value already answers Podolinsky's question: it is com-
pletely consistent with not only the first but also the second law of
thermodynamics.Ironically, Podolinsky's answer to his own ques-
tion regardingthe relation of the labor process to the transfer and
transformationof energy violates the second law by treating the
worker as a "perfect machine" - and doubly so insofar as, in the
real world, it is precisely capitalism'sattemptto convert labor power
into a surplus-labormachine that threatens the worker's metabolic
reproduction:
But in its blind and measureless drive, its insatiable appetite for surplus
labour,capital oversteps not only the moral but even the merely physical
limits of the working day. It usurps the time for growth, developmentand
healthymaintenanceof the body.It steals the time requiredfor the consump-
tion of fresh air and sunlight.It haggles over the meal-times,where possible
incorporatingthem into the productionprocess itself, so thatfood is added
to the workeras to a mere means of production, as coal is supplied to the
boiler,andgrease and oil to themachinery.It reducesthe soundsleep needed
for the restoration,renewal and refreshmentof the vital forces to the exact
amount of torporessential to the revival of an absolutely exhaustedorgan-
ism. It is not the normalmaintenanceof labour-powerwhich determinesthe
limits of the working day here, but ratherthe greatestpossible daily expen-
ditureof labour-power,no matterhow diseased, compulsory and painful it
may be...92
As a preludeto the next section, it is worth noting that Marx'suse of

metabolic-energeticanalysis led him to a direct comparisonbetween
the overextensionof worktimeand the overexploitationof land. After
all, he closely studiedthe worksof the leading agronomistsof his time,
includingJustusvon Liebig and JamesJohnston- works emphasizing
the biochemicalrecyclingprocessesrequiredto maintainsoil fertility.93
In Marx's view, capitalism'sincessant pressure to produce as much
surplus value as possible within any given time period caused it to
violate the metabolic conditionsfor sustainingthe productivevigor of
land and labor power.94Referring directly to the work of Johnston,
Marxarguedin Capital that
The way that the cultivation of particularcrops depends on fluctuations
in marketprices and the constant changes in cultivationwith these price
fluctuations- the entire spirit of capitalist production,which is oriented
towardsthe most immediate monetary profit - stands in contradictionto
agriculture,which has to concern itself with the whole gamutof permanent
conditions of life requiredby the chain of humangenerations.95

129
Similarly,in the case of forestry,Marx suggestedthat:

The long productiontime (whichincludesa relativelyslight amountof work-
ing time), and the consequentlength of the turnoverperiod, makes forest
culturea line of business unsuitedto privateand hence to capitalistproduc-
tion. .. .The developmentof civilizationand industryin generalhas always
shown itself so active in the destructionof forests that everythingthat has
been done for their conservationand productionis completely insignificant
in comparison.96
The commonelementin capitalism'stendenciesto overexploitlandand

labor power is the failure to provide sufficienttime (and biochemical
energyinputs)fortherestorationof productivepower.Inbothcases, this
productivepowerwinds up being depletedinsofaras free competition
reigns:
Capital asks no question about the length of life of labour-power.What
interestsit is purely and simply the maximumof labour-powerthat can be
set in motion in a workingday.It attainsthis objectiveby shorteningthe life
of labour-power,in the same way as a greedy farmersnatchesmore produce
from the soil by robbingit of its fertility.97
Hence, when consideringthe forces behind the English FactoryActs,

which placed a cap on worktime,Marx suggestedthat:
Apart from the daily more threateningadvanceof the working-classmove-
ment, the limiting of factory labourwas dictatedby the same necessity as
forcedthe manuringof Englishfields with guano. The same blind desire for
profitthatin the one case exhaustedthe soil had in the othercase seized hold
of the vital force of the nation at its roots.98
That this analogy was underpinnedby the energy income and expen-
diture frameworkis clear from the following passage in Theories of
Surplus Value,writtenjust a few years before the publicationof Capi-
tal, VolumeI:
Anticipationof the future- real anticipation- occurs in the productionof
wealthin relationto the workerandto the land.The futurecan indeedbe an-
ticipatedandruinedin both cases by prematureoverexertionandexhaustion,
and by the disturbanceof the balance between expenditureand income. In
capitalistproductionthis happensto both the workerand the land... What
is shortenedhere exists as powerandthe life span of this poweris shortened
as a result of acceleratedexpenditure.99
Giventhisparallel,it is notsurprising
thatMarxdevelopeda full-blown
ecological critiqueof capitalism- one that synthesizedhis metabolic-
energetic analyses of capital's exploitation of labor and of the land.
But an essential place in this synthesis was occupied by the capitalist
mechanizationof production.

130
III. Capitalistindustrialization,matter-energy,and entropy
Thermodynamicconsiderations- the conservationof energy, its en-

tropic dissipationthroughfriction in particular,and the correlationof
physical forces - play a crucialrole in Marx'sanalysis of "Machinery
and Large-ScaleIndustry"in Chapter15 of Capital, Volume I. This
chapterrepresentsthe core of Marx'sanalysisof industrialdevelopment
undercapitalism.
Energy,friction, and biochemicalprocesses in capitalistindustry
Marxdepictsthe industrialrevolutionusing a model of machinerysys-

tems consisting of "threeessentially differentparts, the motor mech-
anism, the transmittingmechanism and finally the tool or working
machine."'00He perceives machine-basedproductionas a transferof
force from one partof the system to another- startingfrom the motor
mechanism which "acts as the driving force of the mechanism as a
whole," on throughthe transmissionmechanismwhich "regulatesthe
motion, changes its form where necessary,and divides and distributes
it among the working machines,"and finally to the working machine
which "usingthis motion ... seizes on the object of labourand modi-
This entire frameworkis clearly informedby an
fies it as desired."'101
extensive theoreticaland practical study of both energy conservation
and the mechanics of energy transfer.102
Indeed,in an 1863 letterto Engels outlininghis researchfor "the sec-

tion on machinery,"Marx wrote that he had not only "re-readall [of
his] note-books (excerpts) on technology,"but was "also attendinga
practical(purelyexperimental)course for workingmen given by Prof.
Willis."103The lecturerhe referredto was the ReverendRobertWillis
(1800-1875), the brilliantBritish architectand mechanical engineer
(and, from 1837 onward,JacksonianProfessorof Naturaland Experi-
mentalPhilosophyatthe Universityof Cambridge).Thatthe mechanics
of energy transmissionwere a centraltheme in these lectures is clear
from the working models that Willis used - models he had himself
As described
designed and integratedinto an instructionalsystem.1'04
by technology-educator Eric Parkinson:
Willis developed a special constructionkit which could be used as a means

of demonstratingprinciples of mechanisms to his students.It was devised
so that mechanical componentscould be added,removed,or re-positioned
with speed and accuracyduringa lecture-demonstration.105

131
When combined with Marx'stheoreticaland historical studies, such

practical instruction led him to argue that the industrialrevolution
startednot with the motormechanismand its energy sourcesbut rather
with the tool or workingmachine- specificallywith the mechanization
of the portion of labor that incorporateddirectly the principalmate-
rial(s). As explainedin Capital,
The entiremachineis only a moreor less alteredmechanicaleditionof
theoldhandicraft is a mechanism
tool... Themachine,therefore, that,after
beingsetinmotion,performs withitstoolsthesameoperationsastheworker
formerlydidwithsimilartools.Whetherthemotivepoweris derivedfrom
man,or in turnfroma machine,makesno differencehere.106
This argument"establish[ed]a connectionbetweenhumansocial rela-

tions and the developmentof these materialmodes of production."107
After all, the abilityof the capitalistto separatethe tool fromthe worker
and install it in the machine - and the subsequentapplicationof sci-
ence to the technical improvementof machinery on the capitalist's
profit-makingbehalf- presumedthatthe workerhad alreadybeen so-
cially separatedfrom controloverthe means of production.'08But this
historical primacy of social relations, and correspondingprimacy of
machine-toolsover energy sources and mechanisms,hardlyprevented
Marx from emphasizingthe crucialenablingrole of power supplyand
transmissionin the industrialrevolution.Forone thing,the mechaniza-
tion of tools means they are freedfromthe limitationsof the individual
worker'slabor power as the direct motive force. "Now assuming that
[theworker]is actingsimplyas a motor,thata machinehas replacedthe
tool he is using, it is evidentthathe can also be replacedas a motorby
naturalforces."'09 Once installedin machines,tools may be drivenby
a greatervariety of power sources and on a much largerenergy-scale.
Indeed,the growing scale of machineryitself precludesthe continued
use of laborpower as motive force:
An increasein the size of themachineandthenumberof its workingtools
callsfora moremassivemechanism to driveit;andthismechanism,
in order
to overcomeits owninertia,requiresa mightiermovingpowerthanthatof
man,quiteapartfromthe factthatmanis a veryimperfectinstrument for
producing uniformandcontinuous motion."00
The replacementof laborpowerwith othermotive forces startswith "a
call for the applicationof animals,waterand wind as motive powers,"
but it soon graduates to the development of coal-driven steam-engines
and eventually (as Marx projected) electric power mechanisms.111' It
is here, with the development of motor mechanisms and their power
sources in response to the energy demands of increasingly complex

132
andlarge-scalemachine-toolsystems,thatMarxemphasizesthe role of
frictionas a fundamentalentropicprocess.112Hence, in explainingthat
the "increasein the size of the machineand its workingtools calls for a
more massive mechanism"and motor force to drive it, Marxobserves
thatthe questionof force (or energy)becamecriticalwhen waterpower,
which in Britainhad hithertobeen the main sourceof power,no longer
seemed adequate:"theuse of water-powerpreponderatedeven during
the period of manufacture.In the seventeenth century attempts had
alreadybeen made to turntwo pairs of millstones with a single water-
wheel. But the increasedsize of the transmittingmechanismcame into
conflict with the water-power,which was now insufficient, and this
was one of the factors which gave the impulse for a more accurate
investigationof the laws of friction."''113
Here Marx demonstratesan acute understandingof the way in which

water and steam, as contemporaneouspower technologies, affected
the early history of industrialization.Although the "take-off"associ-
ated with the industrialrevolutionis usually seen as occurringaround
1760 or 1780, water power remained the principal motive force for
industryin Britainuntil well into the nineteenthcentury.In the eigh-
teenth and early nineteenthcenturies scientist-engineerssuch as Par-
ent, Smeaton,D6parcieux,and LazareCarnotexploredthe efficiency
requirementsof water power, the problem of friction, and, in Lazare
Carnot'scase, the maximum efficiency under ideal conditions from a
given fall of water.At this time, despite the improvementsof Watt's
steam engine, the water wheel provided far more motive power. The
steam engine was thus commonly used as a supplement to water
power. However,the increasing efficiency of the steam engine, cou-
pled with its greaterversatility (the areas of serviceable water power
in Britain- principallyScotlandand the North - were alreadyin use)
led to its steadydisplacementof waterpoweras the nineteenthcentury
progressed.114
Not only do Marx's comments seem to be cognizant of these devel-

opments, but his point here may reflect awarenessof the fact that the
ScottishphysicistsJamesThomsonandhis brother,WilliamThomson
(the future Lord Kelvin), were initially drawn to their research into
thermodynamicsby theirpracticalexplorationsinto fluid friction.115It
was William Thomsonwho rediscoveredand promotedSadi Carnot's
1824 workon thermodynamics,which had hithertofallen on deaf ears.
The very term"thermodynamics" (referringinitiallyto the laws of heat
as a source of power)was introducedby Thomsonin 1849.

133
In any event, despite common misinterpretationsregarding Marx's

polemic with Proudhon,in whichMarxglibly statedthat"thehand-mill
gives you society with the feudallord,the steamengine society with the
industrialcapitalist,"Marxclearlydidnot adoptthe view thatthe steam
engine literallygeneratedeitherthe capitalistor industrialization.116
He
recognized that water power not only dominated in the early manufac-
turing/mercantilistperiod precedingindustrializationbut even led the
way in the initial phase of industrializationproper(the age of "machi-
nofacture").In fact, his analysis emphasizes that steam power only
displaced water power as the entire mechanism of production(itself
a product of developing socioeconomic relations) began to demand
increasinglylargeconcentrations,andmore versatileforms, of energy.
Specifically,Marx observes that with "tools... convertedfrom being

manualimplementsof maninto the partsof a mechanicalapparatus," it
becomes possible to reduce"theindividualmachineto a mere element
in productionby machinery";but this presumesthatthe motive mech-
anism is "ableto drivemany machines at once.""' Thus, the required
"motormechanism grows with the numberof the machines that are
turned simultaneously,and the transmittingmechanism becomes an
extensiveapparatus.""'118 Insofaras "theobjectof labourgoes througha
connectedseries of graduatedprocessescarriedout by a chainof mutu-
ally complementarymachinesof variouskinds,"the power-sourcemust
meet demandingscale, flexibilityandtransmissionrequirements.119 In
industriesusing machines to produceprecision machines, especially,
an "essentialcondition .. .was a prime mover capableof exertingany
amountof force, while retainingperfect control."120The materialna-
tureof waterpowerprecludedits use for suchpurposesbeyonda certain
level and locality, given problemsof friction, containment,storability
and transportability:
The flow of watercould not be increasedat will, it failed at certainseasons of

the year,andaboveall it was essentiallylocal. Not till the inventionof Watt's
second and so-called double-actingsteam-enginewas a prime mover found
which drew its own motive power from the consumptionof coal and water,
was entirelyunderman'scontrol,was mobile and a means of locomotion,...
and, finally,was of universaltechnical applicationand little affected in its
choice of residenceby local circumstances.121
Obviously,"mattermatters,too,"in Capital'sanalysisof the energetics

of capitalistindustrialization.One can then understandwhy Marxpaid
such close attentionto the physical wear and tear of machinery.In the
chapteron machineryand large-scaleindustry,we are told that:

134
The physical deteriorationof the machine is of two kinds. The one arises
fromuse, as coins wear awayby circulating,the otherfrom lack of use, as a
swordrusts when left in its scabbard.Deteriorationof the firstkind is more
or less directlyproportional,and that of the second kind to a certainextent
inverselyproportional,to the use of the machine.'22
Such physical deteriorationis central to the analysis of the costs of

fixed capitalreplacementandrepairin VolumeII, Chapter8 of Capital,
where Marx again distinguishesbetween wear and tear from "actual
use" and"thatcausedby naturalforces,"showingthroughvariousreal-
worldexampleshow the labornecessitatedby each type entersinto the
values of commodities.123
Aside from friction, another reason why Marx eschewed energy-

reductionismin his analysis of industrywas his awarenessthat cap-
italism's "developmentof the social powers of labour"involved not
just machinesandtheirmotive forces, but also "theapplianceof chem-
ical and other naturalagencies" in a way that is not reducibleto pure
energy-transmission.124 This is most evident from Marx'sanalysis of
capitalistagriculture, where the "conscious,technologicalapplication
of science,"in the service of profit-making,confrontsa barrierin "the
fertility of the soil," with its necessary basis in "the metabolic in-
teractionbetween man and the earth."125 But there is an irreducible
biochemical element to any kind of productionwherein something is
"addedto the rawmaterialto producesome physicalmodificationof it,
as chlorineis addedto unbleachedlinen, coal to iron, dye to Wool."126
"In all these cases," as Marx puts it when consideringtheir effect on
value accumulation,"theproductiontime of the capitaladvancedcon-
sists of two periods:a period in which the capital exists in the labour
process, anda second periodin which its form of existence - thatof an
unfinishedproduct- is handedover to the sway of naturalprocesses,
without being involved in the labour process."127Such biochemical
productionprocesses obviously reduce the relevance of analyses an-
chored solely in energetics.128
For Podolinsky,the primarygoal of socialism was to maximize the

accumulationof energy on earth through full utilization of the per-
fect human-laboringmachine- an analog derivedfrom Carnot'sideal
reverse cycle model.129Carnot'smodel, however,was that of an ab-
stract,isolated system - a purelytheoreticalconstructused as a means
of determiningthe maximum efficiency of a heat engine under ideal
conditions. Although it was to be the basis for the development of
thermodynamics,his ideal model was conceived in terms of reversible

135
processes.Hence, Carnot'scycle abstractedfromthose irreversiblepro-

cesses such as conduction,friction,percussion,etc. that later came to
be seen as particularmanifestationsof entropy(the second law of ther-
modynamics). Podolinsky'serrorwas to attemptto apply a model of
an isolated system to humanproduction,which is betterunderstoodas
an open, dissipativesystem. By attributingto humanlaborthe charac-
teristics of Carnot'sperfect machine (assumingcomplete reversibility
and hence the absence of entropy),Podolinskyset up an analysis that
in effect deniedthe relevanceof the second law of thermodynamicsto
humanproduction.In fact, Podolinsky'smodel in places seems to point
beyond Carnot'sidealized cycle of perfect reversibilityto the notion
that humanbeings can simply,throughthe expenditureof their labor
(withoutdrawingon any source of energy outside of themselves), cre-
ate a net increase in work, i.e., fire their own engines. This would be
a perpetuummobile, somethingthat Carnot'smodel of course negates
as transcendingall physical laws.130
Given that Podolinsky'sanalysis of labor failed to recognize the en-

tropicprocesses in real worldproduction,it is not at all surprisingthat
his calculationsof energy expenditurewere simplistic to an extreme,
especially when appliedto industry.As Engels writes:
In industry all [such] calculations come to a full stop; for the most part
the labour added to a product simply does not permit of being expressed
in terms of cal. This might be done in a pinch in the case of a pound of
yarn by laboriously reproducingits durabilityand tensile strengthin yet
anothermechanicalformula,but even then it would smack of quite useless
pedantryand,in the case of a piece of grey cloth, let alone one thathas been
bleached,dyed or printed,would actuallybecome absurd.The energy value
conformingto the productioncosts of a hammer,a screw,a sewing needle,
is an impossible quantity.131
Hence, in a mannersimilarto Marx,Engels'sargumentagainstenergy-

reductionismemphasizesthe irreduciblebiochemical characterof hu-
man laborand its products,and the fact thatuse value is not reducible
to pure energy. The metabolic processes within the human body, re-
flexive of humans' interactionswith their physical environment,are
of a qualitativenature,not easily incorporatedin such calculationsof
energy input-output.132 In this, Engels's argumentis consistent with
that of many later ecological economists.133
Another importantconnection between Marx's analysis and ecologi-

cal economics - specifically the entropyschool - involves the latter's
view thathumanproductionbecame unsustainablewhen it "brokethe

136
budget constraintof living on solar income."134However, although

Daly limits this post-solarincome regime to "the last 200 years,"nei-
ther he nor Georgescu-Roegenventure a structuralexplanationfor it
- that is, an explanationcombining specific social productionrela-
tions with the developmentof specific technologies relying on fossil
As we've seen, Marx'sanalysis
fuels and other"geological capital."135
of machineryand large-scale industry(and industrializedagriculture
under capitalism)providesjust such an explanationfor the growing
industrialmechanism'svoracity for materialsand energy.Apart from
the standardinterpretationof the Podolinskydebate,perhapswhat has
bolsteredecological economists' misperceptionsof Marx'sviews are
passages such as the following, extractedfrom its propercontext:
In the firstplace, in machinerythe motion and the activityof the instrument
of labour asserts its independencevis-a-vis the worker.The instrumentof
labournow becomes an industrialform of perpetualmotion. It would go on
producingfor ever if it did not come up against certainnaturallimits in the
shape of the weak bodies and the strongwills of its humanassistants.136
The "perpetualmotion" of which Marx speaks here, replaced in its

propercontext, concerns the entire social mechanism behind the in-
strumentof production,as perceived from the standpointof the indi-
vidualworkeralienatedfromthe means of production.This "perpetual
motion"is that of a material-socialclass relation;it is not an inherent
physical property,a matteronly referredto metaphoricallyand hence
inviolate of the laws of thermodynamics.Marx'smain point involves
how the machine-system"confrontsthe workeras a pre-existingma-
terial conditionof production":137
An organizedsystem of machinesto which motion is communicatedby the
transmittingmechanism from an automatic centre is the most developed
form of productionby machinery.Here we have, in place of the isolated
machine,a mechanicalmonsterwhose body fills whole factories,andwhose
demonic power, at first hidden by the slow and measured motions of its
gigantic members, finally bursts forth in the fast and feverish whirl of its
countless workingorgans.138
Marx'sreferenceto the "workingorgans"of this machine monstros-

ity goes back to the original Greek term organon, which refers both
to tools and to bodily organs, in what amountsto a theory of natural
technology.In this view, carriedforwardby Marx,tools are essentially
inorganicextensions of the organs of the body.139The distinctionbe-
tween humanbodily organsand their instrumentalextensions also has
a long history in ecological economics - the crucial differencebeing
that ecological economists have not integratedit into a class analysis

137
of productionas Marx did.140At any rate, one can certainly imag-

ine from the above-quotedpassages how Marx must have felt about
Podolinsky'sdesignationof workersas "perfectmachines,"i.e., ideal-
ized steam engines. Indeed,the main way in which "Podolinskywent
astray,"as Engels put it in his December 19, 1882 letterto Marx,was
to bypass the alienatedcharacterof real-worldmachineryand mecha-
nized laborundercapitalism.141Instead,Podolinsky"soughtto find in
the field of naturalscience fresh proof of the rightness of socialism,"
andthus "confusedthe physicalwith the economic."142 Althoughcon-
temporaryecological economics does not (for the most part)champion
socialism, it arguablysuffers from a similar tendency to confuse the
physical with the economic, due to its failureto grapplewith the deep
material-socialcontradictionsof capitalistproductionand monetary
valuation.143By debunkingthe Podolinskybusiness, we hope to help
clear the air for a more productive dialogue between Marxism and
ecological economics, regardingthe changes in socio-economic con-
ditionsnecessaryif humanityis to live within its solarincome andother
environmentalconditions. An importantsub-topic in that dialogue is
Marx'sanalysisof the matter-energythroughputgeneratedby capitalist
industry,to which we now turn.
Matter-energythroughputundercapitalism
Marx emphasizes that capitalism's development of "the productive

powersof labour"is dependentupon "thenaturalconditionsof labour,
such as fertility of soil, mines, and so forth."'44Capitalistindustri-
alization is a process in which "science presses naturalagencies into
the service of labour"underthe pressuresof privateprofit-makingand
competition.145Nature provides capitalist enterprisewith use values
that act not only as bearers of value, but also as "free naturalpro-
ductive power[s] of labour."146Both functions are evident in Marx's
analysis of rawmaterialsin the capitalaccumulationprocess.
Marx'smain theme here is that capitalism'sdevelopmentof machine-

based production,and of a complex division of labor among compet-
ing enterprises,generatesan unprecedentedincrease in labor produc-
tivity that necessarily correspondsto an unprecedenteddemand for
raw materials. As he says, "the increasing productivityof labour is
expressed precisely in the proportionin which a greater quantityof
raw material absorbs a certain amount of labour, i.e. in the increas-
ing mass of raw material that is transformedinto products, worked
up into commodities, in an hour, for example."'47"The growth of

138
machinery and of the division of labourhas the consequence that in

a shortertime far more can be produced,"so that "the part of capital
transformedinto rawmaterialsnecessarilyincreases."148 As laborpro-
ductivity grows, so grows the quantityof materialsthat capital must
appropriateand process in order to achieve any given expansion of
value.
As has been shown,Marxwas also well awareof the crucialimportance

of power supplies for capitalistindustry.Accordingly,he includes en-
ergy sourcesin capital'sgrowingdemandfor "auxiliary"or "ancillary"
materials,definedas those materialswhich, while not forming partof
"theprincipalsubstanceof the product,"are nonetheless required"as
an accessory"of its production.149 They provideheat, light, chemical
and other necessary conditions of productiondistinct from the direct
processing of principalmaterialsby labor and its instruments.Obvi-
ously, consumptionof energy sources("coal by a steam-engine... hay
by draft-horses,"or "materialsfor heatingand lighting workshops")is
a largepartof such ancillaries'usage.150As Marxobserves,"Afterthe
capitalist has put a largercapital into machinery,he is compelled to
spend a largercapital on the purchaseof raw materialsand thefuels
requiredto drive the machines."151 In short,capitalistindustrialization
resultsin "morerawmaterialworkedup in the sametime, andtherefore
a greatermass of rawmaterialand auxiliarysubstances entersinto the
labourprocess."152
This is not to say that the goal of capitalist productionis simply to

maximize matter-energythroughput.Capitalismis a competitivesys-
tem in which individualenterprisesfeel a constantpressureto lower
costs. Hence, in its own historicallylimited way, capitalismdoes pe-
nalize waste of materialsand energy.As Marx observes, "valueis not
measured by the labour-timethat [an] article costs the producer in
each individualcase, but by the labour-timesocially requiredfor its
production."153 Competition thus penalizes excessive matter-energy
throughputsby not recognizing the labor time objectified in them as
necessary,value-creatinglabor.Inthis sense, "allwastefulconsumption
of raw materialor instrumentsof labouris strictlyforbidden,because
what is wasted in this way represents a superfluousexpenditureof
quantitiesof objectifiedlabour,labourthat does not count in the prod-
uct or enter into its value."154Such waste also includes any "refuse"
that could have been "furtheremployed as a means in the production
of new and independentuse values"- at least insofar as competitors
are able to implementthe necessary recycling operations.155"As the

139
capitalistmode of productionextends,"Marxargues,"so also does the

utilizationof the refuse left behindby production."156
Nonetheless, such competitiveeconomizationand recycling of mate-

rials only operates along a path of rising labor productivity,i.e., of
the processing of matter-energyinto commoditieson an ever-growing
scale. The main "motivefor each individualcapitalist"is "to cheapen
his commoditiesby increasingproductivityof labour." 157By lowering
cost per commodity produced,such productivitygains enable man-
ufacturersto reap surplus profits and/or an increased market share.
Although they still feel pressureto keep throughputat or below the
normallevel, this level is itself a positive functionof the constantdrive
to boost outputper laborhour.
Moreover,capitalism'scompetitiveenforcementof its own standards

of matter-energyuse does nothingto counterthe throughputproduced
by the "moraldepreciation"of fixed capitalprecipitatedby the devel-
opmentof more advancedmachineryand structures,or by rising labor
productivityin the industriesproducingthem.158Throughsuch moral
(lossof capitalvaluesobjectified
depreciation inmachinery
andbuild-
forces
ings),"competition the replacementof oldmeansof labourby
newonesbeforetheirnatural demise"- a clearacceleration
of ma-
terial throughputresultingin environmentaldegradation.159
The con-
stantthreatof moraldepreciationalso compelsindividualenterprises
to speedup the turnoverof theirfixedcapitalstocksby prolonging
worktimeandintensifyinglaborprocesses,furthermagnifyingthesys-
tem's normalmatter-energythroughput.160
Advanced capitalism'sex-
tensionof suchaccelerated
turnover
to consumer"durables"
(personal
audioequipment,
televisions,
computers, kitchenappliances,
etc.)only
worsenstheseentropicdynamics.161
Giventhisbackground,
one canbetterunderstand
Engels'scritiqueof
Podolinsky'sattemptto calculate the energy productivityof agricul-
turallabor.In Marx'sview, capitalistdevelopmentof productiveforces
translatesinto a growing throughputof matterand energy per labor
hour. This explains Engels's observation,in response to Podolinsky,
that "whetherthefresh cal stabilisedby the expenditureof 10,000 cal
of daily nourishmentamount to 5,000, 10,000, 20,000 or a million
is dependent solely upon the level of development of the means of
production."162In otherwords,the amountof energythateach hour of
labor (temporarily)stabilizes depends on the total amountof matter-
energy processed per hour as well as the amount of ancillary energy

140
used per unit of output- both of which correlateto the development

of production.Given thatthe increasein laborproductivityundercap-
italism is generallyaccompaniedby increases in materialthroughput,
Podolinsky'sfailure to include non-laborinputs in his calculations is
a serious omission indeed, seeing as how "the energy value of auxil-
iary materials,fertilisers, etc., must ... be taken into consideration"
- and increasinglyso.163The general lesson, Engels tells his life-long
comrade(in a statementalreadyreferredto above),"is thatthe working
individualis not only a stabiliserofpresent but also, andto a fargreater
extent,a squandererofpast, solarheat. As to whatwe have done in the
way of squanderingour reserves of energy,our coal, ore, forests, etc.,
you are betterinformedthan I am."164
IV. The metabolicrift and entropy
Engels'scritiqueof Podolinsky'senergy-reductionistframeworkis fully

consistentwith Marx'smore complex metabolic-energeticapproachto
wage-labor and industrialcapital accumulation.For Marx, the capi-
talist economy is an open system reliant on environmentalinputs of
laborpower and non-humanmatter-energy.Marx emphasizescapital-
ism's tendency to deplete and despoil the land, while exploiting the
worker.Stateddifferently,Marxarguesthatthe metabolicsystems that
reproducethe productivepowers of labor and the land are susceptible
to adverse shocks from the system of industrialcapital accumulation
to which they are conjoined.
It is thus no accidentthatMarxchooses the final section of his chapter

on machineryand large-scaleindustryas the place to develop an initial
synthesisof capitalism'stendencyto "simultaneously[undermine]the
original sources of all wealth - the soil and the worker."165 This was
for Marx a major consequence of the industrializationof agriculture,
which led to the systematic and intensive robbing of the soil, as well
as exploitationof the worker.Here, Marx invokes Liebig's theory of
biochemicalreproductivecycles to arguethat capitalism"disturbsthe
metabolicinteractionbetweenman andthe earth."166 Specifically,cap-
italism concentratespopulationand manufacturingindustryin urban
centers in a way that "preventsthe returnto the soil of its constituent
elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing; hence
it hinders the operationof the eternal naturalcondition for the last-
ing fertilityof the soil."'167In short,the capitalistdivision of town and
country disrupts the soil's reproductivecycle, and this disruptionis

141
accentuated
by thetendencyof industrial towards
capitalistagriculture
"robbingthe soil"and"ruiningthe morelong-lastingsourcesof [its]
fertility."'68
Marxreturnsto his critiqueof themetabolicriftassociatedwithcapi-

talist industrializationwhen he analyzesthe originsof agriculturalland
rent in VolumeIII of Capital, arguingthat:
Largelandedpropertyreducesthe agriculturalpopulationto an everdecreas-
ing minimum and confronts it with an ever growing industrialpopulation
crammedtogetherin largetowns;in this way it producesconditionsthatpro-
voke an irreparablerift in the interdependentprocess of social metabolism,
a metabolismprescribedby the naturallaws of life itself. The resultof this is
a squanderingof the vitality of the soil, which is carriedby tradefar beyond
the bounds of a single country.169
The metabolicrift between town and countrycreatedby the industrial

capitalistsystem vitiates the reproductionboth of laborpower and the
land, two things that in reality constitutea unified metabolic system,
howevermuchcapitalismmaytreatthemmerelyas separableexternal
conditions.To quote Marx once again,
Largelandedpropertyundermineslabour-powerin the final sphereto which

its indigenous energy flees, and where it is storedup as a reserve fund for
renewingthe vital powerof the nation,on the landitself. Large-scaleindustry
and industriallypursuedlarge-scaleagriculturehave the same effect. If they
are originallydistinguishedby the fact thatthe formerlays waste and ruins
labour-powerand thus the naturalpower of man, whereas the latter does
the same to the naturalpower of the soil, they link up in the latercourse of
development,since the industrialsystemappliedto agriculturealso enervates
the workersthere,while industryand tradefor theirpartprovideagriculture
with the means of exhaustingthe soil.170
Marx'sanalysis is fully consistentwith the centralconcept of Liebig's

agriculturalchemistryparadigm:"the cycle of processes constitutive
for the reproductionof organic structures."'71This concept is not
energy-reductionist,but it does abide by the first and second laws of
thermodynamics.As Krohnand Schdiferdescribeit, "plantand animal
life, together with meteorologicalprocesses, jointly circulate certain
'substances';apartfromthe irreversibletransformationof energy into
heat, living processes do not 'use up' nature,but reproducethe condi-
tionsfortheircontinuedexistence."172
Capitalism'sassaulton the biochemicalprocesses necessaryto sustain

the human-landsystem does not createor destroymatter-energy,but it
does degradeits metabolicreproductivecapabilities.This degradation

142
can clearlybe seen as a formof entropicmatter-energy dissipation.

In Marx'sview, this phenomenon- to some extentinherentin pro-
duction- is dramatically worsenedby capitalism'sspecificform of
industry,which is basedon thesocialseparationof theproducersfrom
thelandandothernecessaryconditionsof production. Henceit is possi-
ble forsocietyto achievea "systematicrestoration"of its reproductive
metabolismwith the land"as a regulativelaw of social production,
andin a formadequateto the full development of thehumanrace."173
Butthis requires"co-operation andthe possessionin commonof the
landandthe meansof production," basedon "thetransformation of
capitalistprivateproperty...intosocialproperty."174
V. Conclusion
"The idea of a history of nature as an integral part of materialism,"

writes Ilya Prigogine,winner of the 1977 Nobel Prize in chemistry,
was assertedby Marx and, in greaterdetail, by Engels. Contemporaryde-
velopments in physics, the discovery of the constructiverole played by ir-
reversibility,have thus raised within the natural sciences a question that
has long been asked by materialists.For them, understandingnaturemeant
understandingit as being capableof producingman and his societies.
Moreover,at the time Engels wrote his Dialectics of Nature, the physical
sciences seemed to have rejected the mechanistic world view and drawn
closer to the idea of an historical developmentof nature.Engels mentions
three fundamentaldiscoveries:energyand the laws governingits qualitative
transformations,the cell as the basic constituentof life, and Darwin'sdis-
covery of the evolutionof species. In view of these greatdiscoveries,Engels
came to the conclusion that the mechanisticworld view was dead.'75
Unfortunately,many nineteenth-centurymaterialists and socialists

were reluctantto let go of the mechanisticworld view. They were not
aware,as Marx and Engels were, that the rigid,mechanisticapproach
to nature had been displaced by a naturalscience that was increas-
ingly historical in character(concerned with irreversibleprocesses).
So-called"scientificmaterialism"(or mechanism)lackeda sufficiently
Cartesiandualismhadpromoted
dialecticalapproachto materialism.
a rationalist/idealistconception of the mind on the one hand and a
mechanisticconceptionof animalsandthe body on the other.It should
come as no surprisethen that among the firstreactionsto Carnot'sad-
vances in thermodynamics,in which he presentedan idealized model
of engine efficiency in a closed, reversiblesystem, was to see the work
of animals and humanbeings in the terms of the steam engine. This

143
first took the form in many cases of concrete comparisonsof human

laborpower,horsepower,and steampower- studies with which Marx
and Engels were familiar.176
Podolinskymade a bold departurein applyingCarnot'smodel directly,

claimingthathumanlaborwas the "perfectmachine"- a kind of steam
engine able to restartits own firebox.But althoughdrawingout some
importantrelationships,he fell prey to crude mechanism and energy
reductionism.The questionof laborpowerwas divorcedfromits histor-
ical and social context, from all qualitativetransformationsof nature,
as well as from humans' relation to nature, and was viewed from a
purelymechanisticand quantitativeperspective.Appearingto believe
that he had unlocked the physical basis of the labor theory of value,
Podolinskyin fact lost sight of the qualitativerelationsamong nature,
labor,and society that underlieMarx'svalue theory.Ironically,by ap-
plying Carnot'sclosed, reversiblemodel of the machine to the actual
world of human labor, Podolinsky essentially denied that such labor
was tied up with irreversibleprocesses andhence, in effect, deniedthat
entropywas applicableto humanlabor.At the same time he left out of
his analysis the full complexity of human-naturetransformationsand
even many aspects of more quantitative/energetic relations,such as the
solar budget, the use of coal, fertilizers,etc.
ForPodolinsky,the creationand accumulationof value was essentially

the samething as the accumulationof terrestrialenergythroughthe ex-
ercise of humanlabor- the preventionof the dispersionof heat/energy
back into space. Podolinsky did not (and obviously could not be ex-
pected to) understandwhat scientistsknow so well today:"Earth'stem-
peratureis whateveris requiredto send back to space the same amount
of energy that the planet absorbs. If less energy is sent back than is
received,the planetwarms, 'glowing' more brightlyand sendingmore
back until a new balanceis reached."177 This is in fact what is happen-
ing today with global warming.Throughthe buildupof carbondioxide
and other greenhousegas emissions in the atmosphere,humanshave
finally achievedthe goal that Podolinskysought, of increasingthe en-
ergy storedon the earth.But the consequenceendangersthe conditions
requiredfor perpetuityof all currentforms of terrestriallife.
The fact that Marx and Engels did not embracePodolinsky'smecha-

nistic andreductionistapplicationsof quantitativeenergeticsto human
labor (and by implication, value) does not indicate their rejection of
thermodynamicsor theirlack of sophisticationwhere issues of energy

144
were concerned.On the contrary,the foundersof historicalmaterial-

ism followed the development of the physical sciences very closely
and made sure that their analyses were consistent with the latest de-
velopmentsin thermodynamics,evolutionarytheory,etc. Yet,theirdi-
alectical instincts and emphasis on the qualitativeratherthan simply
the quantitativenatureof energy transformations(togetherwith their
wider metabolic approach)kept them from capitulatingto crude en-
ergetics. Attentiveto the irreversibleprocesses relatedto production,
Engels complainedof Podolinsky'sinabilityto comprehendthe fact that
capitalistindustrialismsquanderedlimited supplies of coal and other
resources.As famed early Soviet physicist and sociologist of science
Boris Hessen observed,the "treatmentof the law of the conservation
and conversionof energy given by Engels, raises to the forefrontthe
qualitativeaspect of the law of conservationof energy, in contradis-
tinction to the treatmentwhich predominatesin modem physics and
which reduces this law to a purely quantitativelaw - the quantityof
energy duringits transformations."178
What Marx and Engels generatedin their historical-dialecticalmate-

rialism was a theory of the capitalistlabor,production,and accumu-
lation process that was not only consistent with the main conclusions
of thermodynamicsoriginatingin their time, but also extraordinarily
amenableto ecological laws. Althoughattentiveto the quantitativeas-
pects of energy transfers,they nonetheless emphasized,dialectically,
the qualitativetransformationssuch transfersinvolve. All tendencies
towardmechanism or reductionismwere excluded from their analy-
sis. At the same time Marx developed a sophisticatedtheory of the
metabolic characterof the human laborprocess and of the metabolic
rift that appearswithin capitalism.This analysis not only recognized
that"mattermatters"but was sensitiveto the biochemicalprocesses of
life itself andto emergingevolutionarytheory.In otherwords,classical
Marxism, contraryto widespreadmyth, has an extraordinaryaffinity
for whathas become knownas "ecologicaleconomics,"while in many
ways prefiguringthe leadingtraditionin environmentalsociology in the
United States,the neo-Marxian"treadmillof production"perspective,
associated in particularwith the work of Alan Schnaiberg.179 Indeed,
Marx'smetabolic-energeticanalysisis a forerunnerandin some ways a
deepertheoreticalrendition(though obviously lacking much contem-
poraryhistorical specificity associated with developmentsof the last
centuryanda half) of the treadmillof productionmodel. Marxhimself
had writtenaboutthe "treadmill,"in referenceto laborconventionsof
his time, but also as a largermetaphorfor modes of productionthat

145
debasethe humanconditionandthusnegatesustainabilityin an ecolog-

ical sense, disallowing for the propagationof the vital bases of life. It
was thereforeassociatedin his mind with the "barbarism" that contin-
ued to exist within bourgeois society.'80While present-dayecological
economics togetherwith environmentalsociology, in its neo-Marxian
treadmillmodel, haveemphasizedthatcontemporaryeconomic growth
violates the solar(andoverallenvironmental)budgetconstrainton sus-
tainable human production,this violation was already recognized in
many ways in Marx's complex theory of metabolic rift. As British
environmentalsociologist PeterDickens has written,
Marx'searly backgroundled him to undertakeno less than an analysis of
what would now be called "environmentalsustainability."In particularhe
developed the idea of a "rift"in the metabolic relationbetween humanity
and nature,one seen as an emergentfeatureof capitalistsociety. . no-
..The
tion of an ecological rift, one separatinghumanityand nature,and violating
the principlesof ecological sustainability,continuesto be helpful for under-
standingtoday's social and environmentalrisks. These risks are becoming
increasinglyglobal in extent. This is partlybecause they directlyimpacton
environmentalmechanismsoperatingat a global scale.8"'
The contrastwith Podolinsky'svision of energy accumulationas the

key to human productivity- an extreme version of productionism,
borne out of mechanism- could not be more stark.Marx, for all his
commitmentto the expansion of humanproductivecapabilities,rec-
ognized the rift between humanity and nature, as it is amplified by
capitalism, and both he and Engels were acutely aware of problems
of degradation,waste, and resourceloss - the environmentalarrowof
time. Even climate change due to humanenvironmentaldepredations
was an issue they considered.ForMarx,environmentalproblemswere
not subject to mechanical solutions (as in the concept of a "perfect
machine")but only to social ones - namely,the creationof a society of
associatedproducerscapableof rationallyregulatingthe metabolismof
society andnature.Withits organicsynthesisof open-systemmaterial-
ism and class analysis, Marx'sperspectivecan help us to broadenand
deepen the critiqueof the political-economicsystem providedby con-
temporaryecological economics and radicalenvironmentalsociology
(particularlythe treadmillcritiqueof the latter).
How should we account for the remarkableresonanceof Marx'senvi-

ronmentalcritiquein this respect?In the end,this has only one possible
explanation:the fact that ecology is perhapsthe most exemplarysci-
ence where dialectics is concerned.182It follows that an ecological
critiqueof the existing political economy built on Marxianmaterialist

146
is likelyto go furtherandfaster- because

anddialecticalfoundations
it goes to the root of the matterwhile rejectingall forms of mechanism
and reductionism,all rigid separationsof natureand society. Many of
those problems that have most bedeviled ecological economists and
treadmilltheoristswithin environmentalsociology, such as the deeper
social dynamics underlyingthe environmentaljuggernautof capital-
ist society, have their answers, we believe, in the classical Marxian
frameworkand its development.
Acknowledgments
A draft of this paper was presented at a Marxist Sociology session

of the American Sociological Association Meetings, San Francisco,
August 14-17, 2004, andwe thankthe participantsandaudienceat that
session, especially Brett Clark,for useful comments. We also extend
gratitudeto Angelo Di Salvo and Mark Hudson, who provided the
translationsof Sergei Podolinsky'swork without which our analysis
would not have been possible. In addition,we gratefullyacknowledge
KevinB. Anderson,DavidNormanSmith,NorairTer-Akopian,Georgi
Bagaturiaand JiirgenRohan, the editors of the forthcomingVolume
IV/27 of Historisch-KritischeGesamtausgabe(MEGA), for allowing
us access to Marx'sextractsfromPodolinskypriorto theirpublication.
Finally,thanksto an anonymousrefereeandthe Editorsof Theoryand
Society for their useful comments which significantly improvedthe
paper.
Notes
1. JuanMartinez-Alier and J.M.Naredo,"A MarxistPrecursorof Ecological

Economics:Podolinsky,"Journalof PeasantStudies9/2 (1982):207-224; see
alsoJuanMartinez-Alier,EcologicalEconomics(Oxford,UK:BasilBlackwell,
1987).
2. ThatPodolinsky'sworkelicitedanindifferent
ordismissivereactionfromMarx
andEngelsis commonlycitedas an establishedfactby ecologicaleconomists,
environmentalsociologists,environmental
historians,andecosocialists,among
them, RobertKaufmann,"Biophysicaland MarxistEconomics,"Ecological
Modeling 38/1-2 (1987): 91; Anna Bramwell,Ecology in the TwentiethCentury
(New Haven:YaleUniversityPress, 1989): 86; Jean-PaulDeleage, "Eco-Marxist
in MartinO'Connor,
Critiqueof PoliticalEconomy," editor,Is Capitalism
Sus-
tainable?(New York:Guilford,1994):49; TimHayward,Ecological Thought:An
Introduction(Cambridge,UK: Polity Press, 1994): 226; David Pepper,Modern
Environmentalism Routledge,1996):230;ArielSalleh,Ecofeminism
(London: as

147
Politics (London:Zed Books, 1997): 155;AlfHornborg,"Towardsan Ecological

Theory of Unequal Exchange,"Ecological Economics 25/1 (1998): 129; James
O'Connor,Natural Causes (New York:Guilford,1998): 3; CutlerJ. Cleveland,
"BiophysicalEconomics,"in John Gowdy and Kozo Mayumi, editors,Bioeco-
nomics and Sustainability(Northampton,MA: EdwardElgar, 1999): 128; John
Barry,"MarxismandEcology" in AndrewGamble,DavidMarsh,andTonyTant,
editors,Marxismand Social Science (Urbana:Universityof Illinois Press, 1999):
277-278; JuanMartinez-Alier,"Marxism,Social Metabolism,and Ecologically
UnequalExchange,"PaperPresentedat the Conferenceon WorldSystem Theory
and the Environment.LundUniversity,Sweden, September2003, 11.
3. To use Engels's description of the issues raised by Podolinsky'swork, in his
December 19, 1882 letterto Marx (KarlMarx and FrederickEngels, Collected
Works,Vol. 46 (New York:InternationalPublishers,1992): 410).
4. John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett,"Ecological Economics and Classical
Marxism:The 'PodolinskyBusiness' Reconsidered,"Organization& Environ-
ment 17/1 (2004): 32-60.
5. HermanE. Daly, Steady-stateEconomics, Second Edition (London:Earthscan,
1992): 23.
6. John Tyndall,Heat Consideredas a Law of Motion (London:Longman,Green
& Co., 1863).
7. On these and other aspects of Marx and Engels's naturalscientific studies, see
PradipBaksi, "KarlMarx'sStudy of Science and Technology,"Nature,Society,
and Thought9/3 (1996): 261-296; PradipBaksi, "MEGAIV/31: Natural Sci-
ence Notes of Marxand Engels, 1877-1883," Nature,Society,and Thought14/4
(2001): 377-390. Additional specific examples are noted in Sections II and III
of the presentpaper.
8. Martinez-Alierand Naredo, "A MarxianPrecursorof Ecological Economics";
Martinez-Alier,Ecological Economics. The Germanversion of Podolinsky'sar-
ticle was publishedin two installments:Sergei Podolinsky,"MenschlicheArbeit
und Einheit der Kraft,"Die Neue Zeit, 1/9 (1883): 413-424 and 1/10 (1883):
449-457.
9. Engels's two letters to Marx are dated December 19, 1882 and December 22,
1882; see Marx and Engels, Collected Works,Vol. 46, pp. 410-414. The Italian
version of Podolinsky'swork, like the German one, was published in two in-
stallments:Sergei Podolinsky,"II Socialismo e l'Unita delle Forze Fisiche,"La
Plebe, 14/3 (1881): 13-16 and 14/4 (1881): 5-15.
10. Sergei Podolinsky,"Le Socialisme et l"Unitedes Forces Physiques,"La Revue
Socialiste, 8 (1880): 353-365.
11. These extracts, roughly 1800 words long, are to be published sometime in
the next few years in Volume IV/27 of Historisch-KritischeGesamtausgabe,
commonly known as MEGA, the plan of which is to provide the first truly
comprehensive collection of Marx and Engels's writings in their original
languages.
12. A much longer renditionof Podolinsky'sanalysis was publishedin the Russian
journal Slovo in 1880. It has recentlybeen reprinted(in Russian) in book form:
Sergei Podolinsky,HumanLabor and Its Relation to the Distributionof Energy
(Moscow:Noosfera, 1991). This Russianversioncontainsmore extendeddiscus-
sions of energeticsand of the generalimportanceof plants, animals,and human
beings for the terrestrialdistributionof energy.

148
13. This is based on our comparison of Marx's notes to an unpublishedEnglish

translationof Podolinsky'sLa Revue Socialiste article by our colleague Mark
Hudson.
14. See Sergei Podolinsky,"Socialism and the Unity of Physical Forces" (trans-
latedby Angelo Di Salvo andMarkHudson),Organization& Environment17/1
(2004): 61-75.
15. Sadi Carnot,Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire (Gloucester,MA: Peter
Smith, 1977).
16. Elias L. Khalil,"EntropyLaw and Exhaustionof NaturalResources:Is Nicholas
Georgescu-Roegen'sParadigmDefensible?,"Ecological Economics 2/2 (1990):
171.
17. Ibid., 170, emphasisin original.
18. Gabriel A. Lozada, "A Defense of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen'sParadigm,"
Ecological Economics 3/2 (1991): 157.
19. A.G. Williamson, "The Second Law of Thermodynamicsand the Economic
Process,"Ecological Economics 7/1 (1993): 70-71.
20. C. Biancardi,A. Donati, and S. Ulgiati, "Onthe RelationshipBetween the Eco-
nomic Process, the CarnotCycle and the EntropyLaw,"Ecological Economics
8/1 (1993): 9, emphasisadded.
21. Ibid, 10.
22. Marxand Engels, Collected Works,Vol. 46, 411, emphasisin original.
23. FrederickEngels, "The Mark,"in Karl Marx and FrederickEngels, Collected
Works,Vol. 24 (New York: InternationalPublishers, 1978): 439-456. That
Marx would raise ecological, including metabolic, issues at this time is un-
surprising in light of his reaffirmation,less than two years earlier in his
Notes on Adolph Wagner,of the open-system characterof his own analysis
of capitalism. Referring to the method used in Capital, Marx wrote: "I have
employed the word [Stoffwechsel]for the 'natural'process of production as
the material exchange . . . between man and nature."(Karl Marx, Texts on
Method (Oxford,UK: Basil Blackwell, 1975): 209.) Stoffwechseltranslatesas
metabolism.
24. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, "Energy and Economic Myths," Southern Eco-
nomicJournal41/3 (1975): 347-381; Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen,Energy and
Economic Myths (New York:Pergamon, 1976); Herman E. Daly, "Postscript:
UnresolvedProblemsand Issues for FurtherResearch,"in HermanE. Daly and
Alfred E Umafia, editors, Energy, Economics, and the Environment(Boulder,
CO: Westview,1981): 165-185.
25. Alfredo Saad-Filho,The ValueofMarx (London:Routledge,2002); PaulBurkett,
"TheValueProblemin Ecological Economics:Lessons fromthe Physiocratsand
Marx,"Organization& Environment16/2 (2003): 137-167.
26. Podolinsky,"Socialismand the Unity of Physical Forces,"61, emphasisin orig-
inal.
27. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen,"The EntropyLaw and the Economic Problem,"
in Herman E. Daly, editor, Economics, Ecology, Ethics (San Francisco:W.H.
Freeman,1973): 50.
28. CharlesPerrings,Economyand Environment(New York:CambridgeUniversity
Press, 1987): 5.
29. Amos H. Hawley,"HumanEcological andMarxianTheories,"AmericanJournal
ofSociology 89/4 (1984): 912.

149
30. Paul Burkett, Marx and Nature (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999); John
Bellamy Foster, "Marx'sTheory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundationsfor
EnvironmentalSociology,"AmericanJournal of Sociology 105/2 (1999): 366-
405; John Bellamy Foster,Marx's Ecology (New York:Monthly Review Press,
2000); Fosterand Burkett,"EcologicalEconomics and Classical Marxism."
31. KarlMarx, Capital (ThreeVolumes)(New York:Vintage, 1981), Vol. I, 290.
32. Ibid., 647.
33. Ibid., 133-134. Marxcastigatedthe GothaProgrammefor assertingthat"labour
is the source of all wealth,"because to do so was to ascribe "supernaturalcre-
ative power to labour."Karl Marx, Critiqueof the GothaProgram (New York:
InternationalPublishers,1966): 3, emphasisin original.
34. Engels to Marx,December 19, 1882, in Marxand Engels, Collected Works,Vol.
46, 411, emphasisin original.
35. Daly, "Postscript,"169.
36. Anneliese GrieseandGerdPawelzig,"WhyDid MarxandEngels ConcernThem-
selves with NaturalScience?,"Nature,Society,and Thought8/2 (1995): 132; see
also Foster,Marx'sEcology, 157-158.
37. Griese and Pawelzig, "Why Did Marx and Engels Concern Themselves with
NaturalScience?,"132-133. Engels'suse of themetabolismconceptinDialectics
of Nature also adheredto "the physiologists' definition."This is clear from the
following definitionof life: "Life is the mode of existence of proteinbodies, the
essential element of which consists in continualmetabolic interchangewith the
natural environmentoutside them, and which ceases with the cessation of this
metabolism,bringingaboutthe decompositionof the protein.... [M]etabolism
is the characteristicactivity of proteinbodies."FrederickEngels, Dialectics of
Nature (Moscow: ProgressPublishers,1964): 306-307, emphasisin original.
38. Burkett,Marx and Nature,Chapters9 and 10; Foster,Marx'sEcology, Chapters
4 and 5. Forhistoricalapplicationsof Marx'smetabolicrift theme (includingthe
rift between city and country) from a world-systemperspective, see Jason W.
Moore, "EnvironmentalCrises and the Metabolic Rift in World-HistoricalPer-
spective,"Organization& Environment13/2 (2000): 123-157; JasonW.Moore,
"The Modem World-Systemas EnvironmentalHistory?:Ecology and the Rise
of Capitalism,"Theoryand Society 32/3 (2003): 307-377.
39. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, "Energy Analysis and Economic Valuation,"
SouthernEconomicJournal 45/4 (1979): 1039.
40. Marx, Capital,Vol. I, 198, 90.
41. Ibid., 126.
42. See Burkett,Marx and Nature, 26, for a full documentationof this point.
43. Marx, Capital,Vol. I, 133.
44. Ibid., 131.
45. Ibid., 295.
46. Ibid., 270.
47. Ibid., 310.
48. Ibid., 323.
49. Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I (New York: InternationalPublishers, 1967): 215.
When quoting from this edition of Volume I of Capital we will refer to it as
the "InternationalEdition";Otherwiseall quotes of Capital are from the 1981
Vintage edition.

150
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid., 274.
53. Ibid., 275.
54. Ibid. The physical requirementsof reproductionnot only of the individual la-
borer but also whole families supportedby, and supporting,the worker are
always explicit in Marx. While "a certain mass of necessaries must be con-
sumed by a man to grow up and maintain his life,... another amount"is re-
quired "to bring up a certain quota of children."In order "to maintain and
reproduceitself, to perpetuateits physical existence, the working class must
receive the necessaries absolutely indispensable for living and multiplying."
Karl Marx, Value,Price and Profit (New York:InternationalPublishers,1976):
39, 57.
55. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 283.
56. Ibid., 128, 323, 134-135. Marxwas alwaysvery carefulto explainthattherewas
no new materialitybeing created.Rather,matter-energytakes a new form as a
result of labor.See, for example, his footnote to Lucretius(Ibid., 323).
57. Ibid., 274-275, emphasisadded.
58. Capital, Vol. I, InternationalEdition, 171.
59. LudimarHermann,ElementsofHumanPhysiology,FifthEdition(London:Smith
and Elder, 1875); Baksi, "MEGAIV/31'"378.
60. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 276-277.
61. Justusvon Liebig, "On the Connection and Equivalenceof Forces,"in Edward
L. Youmans,editor, The Correlationand ConservationofForces (New York:D.
Appleton & Co., 1864): 387-397.
62. Hermann,Elementsof HumanPhysiology, 199-200, 215-225.
64. Ibid.
65. In a letter to Lion Philips, written on August 17, 1864, Marx reports: "I re-
cently had an opportunityof looking at a very importantscientificwork, Grove's
Correlationof Physical Forces. He demonstratesthat mechanicalmotive force,
heat, light, electricity,magnetismand CHEMICALAFFINITYare all in effect
simply modificationsof the same force, and mutuallygenerate,replace, merge
into each other,etc."KarlMarx and FrederickEngels, Collected Works,Vol. 41
(New York:InternationalPublishers,1985): 551, capitalizationin original.Marx
reaffirmedhis excitementwith Grove'sworktwo weeks laterin a letterto Engels,
suggesting that Grove "is beyond doubt the most philosophical of the English
(and indeedGerman!)naturalscientists"(Ibid., 553). Marxdid not dispense this
kind of praise very often.
66. William Robert Grove, On the Correlationof Physical Forces, in EdwardL.
Youmans,editor, The Correlationand Conservationof Forces (New York:D.
Appleton & Co., 1864): 1-208; Karl Marx and FrederickEngels, Selected Cor-
respondence(Moscow: ProgressPublishers,1975): 162.
67. Cf. Kenneth M. Stokes, Man and the Biosphere (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe,
1994): 52-53; Baksi, "MEGAIV/31," 385.
69. CrosbieSmith, TheScience ofEnergy:A CulturalHistoryofEnergy andPhysics
in VictorianBritain (London: The Athlone Press, 1998): 255; David Lindley,
Degrees Kelvin: A Tale of Genius, Invention, and Tragedy(Washington,DC:
Joseph HenryPress, 2004): 110.

151
70. SilvanusP.Thompson,TheLifeofLordKelvin,TwoVolumes(New York:Chelsea

PublishingCo., 1976): Vol. I, 289.
71. Engels, Dialectics ofNature, 315-316, emphasesin original.
72. Podolinsky,"Socialism and the Unity of Physical Forces,"64-65; Foster and
Burkett,Ecological Economics and Classical Marxism,"39-40.
73. Engels to Marx,December 19, 1882, in Marx andEngels, Collected Works,Vol.
46, 410, emphasisin original.The figure of 10,000 calories of daily food intake
per worker seems to have been chosen by Engels without much thought. It is
hardto see how even a workerengaged in extremelyheavy labor for 16 hours
per day could approachsuch an energyrequirement.But the validity of Engels's
point does not hinge on the accuracyof his illustrativenumbers.
74. Ibid., emphasisin original.
75. Ibid.
76. Martinez-Alier,Ecological Economics,221; see also JuanMartinez-Alier,"Polit-
ical Ecology, DistributionalConflicts,and Economic Incommensurability," New
LeftReview 211 (1995): 71.
77. Engels, Dialectics ofNature, 289-291.
78. Engels to Marx,March21, 1869, in KarlMarxand FrederickEngels, Collected
Works,Vol. 43 (New York:InternationalPublishers,1988): 245-246.
79. Podolinsky,"Socialismand the Unity of Physical Forces,"61.
80. Throughoutthis discussion we follow Marx'sassumptions,in VolumeI of Cap-
ital, that commodity prices = commodity values, and that competitionamong
firmshas convertedall concretelaborsinto abstractlaborsimultaneouswith the
formationof commodityprices (Saad-Filho,The ValueofMarx, Chapter5). Our
discussion of the energeticsof surplusvalue builds upon the work of ElmarAlt-
vater,especially "TheFoundationsof Life (Nature)and the Maintenanceof Life
(Work),"InternationalJournal of Political Economy 20/1 (1990): 20-25; The
Future of the Market (London: Verso, 1993): 188-192; "Ecological and Eco-
nomic Modalitiesof Time and Space,"in MartinO'Connor,editor,Is Capitalism
Sustainable?(New York:Guilford,1994): 86-88.
82. KarlMarx, Grundrisse(New York:Vintage, 1973): 674.
84. Marx, Value,Price and Profit,41, emphasesin original.
85. Marx, Grundrisse,464.
86. Ibid., 674.
87. Ibid.
88. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 325. "The mattercan also be expressed in this way: If
the workerneeds only half a working day in orderto live a whole day, then, in
order to keep alive as a worker,he needs to work only half a day. The second
half of the labour day is forced labour, surplus-labour.. . . One half a day's
work is objectifiedin his labouringcapacity- to the extent that it exists in him
as someone ALIVE or as a LIVING instrumentof labour.The worker'sentire
living day (day of life) is the staticresult,the objectificationof half a day'swork.
By appropriatingthe entire day'swork and then consuming it in the production
processwith the materialsof which his capitalconsists, butby giving in exchange
only the labourobjectifiedin the worker- i.e. half a day'swork - the capitalist
creates the surplus value of his capital; in this case, half a day of objectified
labour."Marx, Grundrisse,324, 334, capitalizationsin original.Note thatMarx

152
here looks at the labor time requiredto reproducethe worker from the point
of view of the capitalist, i.e., as identical to the labor-timeequivalent of the
commoditiespurchasablewith the wage.
89. KarlMarx,"EconomicManuscriptof 1861-63, Continuation,"in KarlMarxand
FrederickEngels, Collected Works,Vol. 33 (New York:InternationalPublishers,
1991): 493, emphasesand capitalizationsin original.
90. Ibid., 386.
92. Ibid., 375-376, emphasisadded.
93. Wolfgang Krohn and Wolf Schifer, "AgriculturalChemistry:The Origin and
Structureof a FinalizedScience,"in Wolf Schiifer,editor,Finalizationin Science
(Boston: D. Reidel, 1983): 32-39; Baksi, "KarlMarx's Study of Science and
Technology,"272-274; Baksi, "MEGAIV/3 1,"380-382; Foster,Marx'sEcology,
149-154.
94. Burkett,Marx and Nature, 88-90; Kozo Mayumi, The Origins of Ecological
Economics (New York:Routledge,2001): 81-84.
95. Marx, Capital, Vol. III, 754.
96. Marx, Capital, Vol. II, 321-322.
98. Ibid., 348. In the same passage (Ibid., 348-349), Marx points to "the dimin-
ishing military standardof height in Franceand Germany"as evidence of labor
power'sdeteriorationunderthe duressof capitalistexploitation- citing datacom-
piled in Liebig'sDie Chemiein ihrerAnwendungaufAgriculturundPhysiologie
(Chemistryin its Applicationto Agricultureand Physiology), Seventh Edition
(Braunschweig:F Vieweg und Sohn, 1865): 117-118.
99. Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Value,Part III (Moscow: Progress Publishers,
1971): 309-310.
101. Ibid.
102. Baksi, "KarlMarx'sStudy of Science and Technology,"274-278.
103. Marxto Engels, January28, 1863, in MarxandEngels, Collected Works,Vol. 41
(New York:InternationalPublishers,1985): 449.
104. RobertWillis,A SystemofApparatusfor the Use ofLecturersandExperimenters
in MechanicalPhilosophy (London:JohnWeale, 1851).
105. Eric Parkinson, "Talking Technology," Journal of Technology Education
11/1 (1999): 67 (wysiwyg://18/http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTEvl lnl/
parkinson.html).ParkinsonaddsthatWillis'smodel-basedapproach"was some-
thing of a benchmarkin educationin mechanics.Willis was a clear leaderin his
field, establisheda novel, practically-basedteaching mode, and communicated
his ideas to an influentialcadreof futureengineers"(Ibid., 67).
106. Marx, Capital,Vol. I, 494-495.
107. Marx to Engels, January28, 1863, in Marx and Engels, Collected Works,Vol.
41,450.
108. For details on Marx's analysis of capitalism'sdevelopmentand applicationof
science as a form of workers' alienation from the means of production, see
Burkett,Marx and Nature, 158-163.
110. Ibid.
111. Ibid.,496.

153
112. That Engels also had a keen interestin friction,but on a more theoreticallevel,
is clear from the numerous passages on this subject in Dialectics of Nature,
e.g., 95-96, 108, 110, 228-229, 252, 258-260, 284, 297. This may help explain
why Georgescu-Roegenseems to have very much liked the book. (See Juan
Martinez-Alier,"SomeIssues in AgrarianandEcologicalEconomics,InMemory
of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen,"Ecological Economics 22/3 (1997): 231.) It is
harderto explainhow Georgescumissed themorepracticaldiscussionsof friction
in Marx'sCapital.
113. Marx, Capital,Vol. I, 497-498.
114. D.S.L. Cardwell,From Wattto Clausius: The Rise of Thermodynamicsin the
Early IndustrialAge (Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 1971): 67-88; Lindley,
Degrees Kelvin, 64-65.
115. Smith, TheScience ofEnergy, 39, 48.
116. Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy (New York: InternationalPublishers,
1963): 109-110; Foster,Marx'sEcology, 280.
118. Ibid.
119. Ibid., 501.
120. Ibid., 506.
121. Ibid., 499.
122. Ibid., 528; cf. Ibid., 289-290.
123. Marx, Capital, Vol. II, 248-261.
124. Marx, Value,Price and Profit, 34.
126. Ibid., 288.
127. Marx, Capital, Vol. II, 317.
128. These kinds of processes have been termed "eco-regulated"by Ted Benton,
"Marxismand NaturalLimits,"New Left Review 178 (1989): 51-86. For a de-
tailedrebuttalof Benton'sclaim thatMarx'sanalysisfailed to take suchprocesses
into account, see Paul Burkett,"Labor,Eco-Regulation,and Value,"Historical
Materialism 3 (1998): 125-133; Burkett,Marx and Nature, 41-47. It should
be noted in relation to biochemical and energetic processes that the more so-
phisticatedpurely energetic approachesdo not deny the qualitativeaspects of
biochemicalprocesses but nonethelessattemptto subsumethem undera kind of
energeticreductionism.For a contemporaryexample see Vaclav Smil, General
Energetics (New York:JohnWiley and Sons, 1991).
129. Carnot,Reflectionson the MotivePower ofFire.
130. See, for example,MarioGiampietroand Kozo Mayumi,"ComplexSystems and
Energy,"in CutlerCleveland,editor,EncyclopediaofEnergy, Vol. I (San Diego:
Elsevier,2004): 617-631.
131. Engels to Marx,December 19, 1882, in Marx andEngels, Collected Works,Vol.
46,411.
132. Ibid., 410-411.
133. Compare,for example, Georgescu-Roegen,"Energyand Economic Myths"and
Daly, "Postscript."For furtherdiscussion see Burkett,"The Value Problem in
Ecological Economics,"140-141.
134. Daly, Steady-stateEconomics, 23.
135. Ibid.;PaulBurkett,"Entropyin Ecological Economics:A MarxistIntervention,"
Historical Materialism 13/1 (2005): 117-152.

154

137. Ibid., 508.
138. Ibid., 503.
139. JohnBellamy Fosterand Paul Burkett,"TheDialectic of Organic/InorganicRe-
lations:Marxand the Hegelian Philosophyof Nature,"Organization& Environ-
ment 13/4 (2000): 412-413.
140. HermanE. Daly,"OnEconomicsas a Life Science,"JournalofPoliticalEconomy
76/2 (1968): 396-398; John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett,"Marx and the
Dialectic of Organic/InorganicRelations,"Organization& Environment14/4
(2001): 452; Foster,Marx'sEcology, 200-204.
141. Marx and Engels, Collected Works,Vol. 46, 412.
142. Ibid.
143. Paul Burkett,Marxism and Ecological Economics: Towarda Red and Green
Political Economy(Leiden, The Netherlands:Brill, 2006), forthcoming.
144. Marx, Value,Price and Profit, 34, emphasisin original.
145. Ibid.
146. Marx, Capital, Vol. III, 879; Burkett,Marx and Nature, Chapter6.
148. KarlMarx,"Wages,"in Karl Marx and FrederickEngels, Collected Works,Vol.
6 (New York:InternationalPublishers,1976): 431.
149. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 288; see also Ibid., 311. "Underraw material we also
includethe ancillarymaterialssuch as indigo, coal, gas, etc. ... Even in branches
of industrythatdo not use any specific rawmaterialof theirown, thereis still raw
materialin the form of ancillarymaterialor the componentsof the machinery,
etc."(Marx, Capital,Vol. III, 201).
150. Capital, Vol. I, 288.
151. Marx, "Wages,"431, emphasis added. The ancillary materials category also
helped Marxanalyzesituations,mentionedearlier,where biochemicalprocesses
makeup an essentialphase of production.See Burkett,Marxand Nature,42-43.
152. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 773, emphasis added. Similarly,when specifying capi-
talism's inventoryrequirements,Marx includes "materialfor labourat the most
varied stages of elaboration,as well as ancillary materials.As the scale of pro-
duction grows, and the productivepower of labourgrows throughcooperation,
division of labour,machinery,etc., so does the mass of raw material, ancillar-
ies, etc. that go into the daily reproductionprocess."Capital, Vol. II, 218-219,
emphasesadded.
153. Capital,Vol. I, 434.
154. Ibid., 303.
155. Ibid., 313.
156. Capital,Vol. III, 195.
158. Ibid., 528; Capital,Vol. II, 208-209.
159. Capital,Vol. II, 250; for details see StephenHorton,"Value,Wasteand the Built
Environment:A MarxianAnalysis,"Capitalism,Nature, Socialism 8/1 (1997):
127-139.
160. Marx, Capital, Vol. III, 208-209.
161. Ursula Huws, "MaterialWorld:The Myth of the WeightlessEconomy,"in Leo
Panitch and Colin Leys, editors, Socialist Register 1999: Global Capitalism
VersusDemocracy (New York:Monthly Review Press, 1999): 29-55; Susan

155
Strasser,Wasteand Want:A Social History of Trash(New York:Henry Holt and

Company,1999).
162. Engels to Marx,December 19, 1882, in Marxand Engels, Collected Works,Vol.
46, 411, emphasisin original.
163. Ibid., 411.
164. Ibid., emphases in original. Far from dismissing energetic considerations,En-
gels's comments- informedby Marx'sanalysisof capitalistproductivitygrowth-
show a healthyawarenessof how a faultyspecificationof the relevantdimensions
of energy use can generatemisleading results. As two leading energy analysts
emphasize,one cannot overestimate"the importanceof the choice of space and
time boundaries"for any "assessmentof the energeticrequirementof humanla-
bor."Mario Giampietroand David Pimentel,"EnergyEfficiency:Assessing the
InteractionBetween Humans and Their Environment,"Ecological Economics
4/2 (1991): 119. Engels's approachto energy accounting,unlike Podolinsky's,
encompasses"all the energy consumedat societal level to raise the workersand
to supporttheir dependents."Ibid.
166. Ibid., 637.
167. Ibid."Thenaturalhumanwaste products,remainsof clothingin the form of rags,
etc. are the refuse of consumption.The latterare of the greatestimportancefor
agriculture.Butthereis a colossal wastagein the capitalisteconomyin proportion
to their actualuse." Capital,Vol. III, 195.
168. Capital,Vol. I, 638.
170. Ibid., 949-950.
171. Krohnand Schifer, "AgriculturalChemistry,"32.
172. Ibid.
174. Ibid., 929-930.
175. Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos (New York:Bantam
Books, 1984): 252-253.
176. See JohnChalmersMorton,"Onthe ForcesUsed in Agriculture,"Journalof the
Society of the Arts (December9, 1859): 53-68; Marx, Capital,Vol. I, 497-498.
177. RichardB. Alley, The Two-MileTimeMachine (Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUni-
versity Press, 2000): 132.
178. Boris Hessen, "The Social and Economic Roots of Newton's 'Principia',"in
Nikolai Bukharin,et al., Science at the Cross Roads (London:FrankCass and
Co., 1971): 203.
179. The foundational work of the treadmill of production perspective is Alan
Schnaiberg, The Environment:From Surplus to Scarcity (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1980). For more recent perspectiveson this traditionin envi-
ronmentalsociology see RichardYorkand John Bellamy Foster,editors, "The
Environmentand the Treadmillof Production,"Organization& Environment,
two-partspecial issue, 17/3 (2004): 293-362 and 18/1 (2005): 5-107.
180. Karl Marx, Early Writings(New York:Vintage, 1974): 360; Karl Marx and
FrederickEngels, Collected Works,Vol. 6 (New York:InternationalPublishers,
1976): 434; Karl Marx and FrederickEngels, Collected Works,Vol. 8 (New
York:InternationalPublishers,1977):218; JohnBellamy Foster,"TheTreadmill
of Accumulation,"Organization& Environment18/1 (2005): 7-18.

156
181. PeterDickens, Society and Nature:ChangingOurEnvironment,ChangingOur-

selves (Cambridge,UK: Polity,2004): 80-81. Marx'sconcept of metabolicrift is
integratedinto a generalassessmentof climatechangeconnectedto the treadmill
model in RichardYork,Eugene Rosa, and ThomasDietz, "A Rift in Modernity?
Assessing the AnthropogenicSources of Global Climate Change with the Stir-
pat Model,"InternationalJournal of Sociology and Social Policy 23/10 (2003):
31-51. For a more general theoreticalanalysis of the relation of the metabolic
rift to global warming,see Brett Clarkand RichardYork,"Carbonmetabolism:
Global capitalism,climate change, and the biosphericrift,"Theoryand Society
34/4 (2005): 391-428. On the relationof the metabolic rift to ecological impe-
rialism, see JohnBellamy Fosterand Brett Clark,"EcologicalImperialism:The
Curseof Capitalism,"in Leo Panitchand Colin Leys, editors,Socialist Register
2004: TheNew Imperial Challenge (New York:Monthly Review Press, 2004):
186-201.
182. See RichardLevinsandRichardLewontin,TheDialecticalBiologist (Cambridge,
MA: HarvardUniversityPress, 1985);BrettClarkandRichardYork,"Dialectical
Nature:Reflectionsin Honorof the 20th Anniversaryof Levins and Lewontins's
TheDialectical Biologist,"MonthlyReview 57/1 (May 2005): 13-22.
Notes about contributors
Paul Burkett is Professorof Economics at IndianaState University,TerreHaute. He

is the authorof Marx and Nature:A Red and GreenPerspective (1999), and the co-
author,with Martin Hart-Landsberg,of China and Socialism: MarketReforms and
Class Struggle (2005).
John Bellamy Foster is Professorof Sociology at the Universityof Oregonin Eugene,

Oregon,andco-editorof MonthlyReview(New York).He is the authorof The Vulnera-
ble Planet (1994, 1999); "Marx'sTheoryof MetabolicRift: Classical Foundationsfor
EnvironmentalSociology,"AmericanJournal of Sociology (September1999);Marx's
Ecology (2000); Ecology Against Capitalism(2002); and NakedImperialism(2005).


Springer: Springer Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Theory and Society

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Springer: Springer Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Theory and Society

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metabolism, Energy, and Entropy in Marx's Critique of Political Economy: Beyond the

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

Metabolism,energy,and entropyin Marx'scritiqueof

Abstract. Until recently,most commentators,includingecological Marxists,have as-

Prominent among the wedges driven between Marxism and eco-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

dismissedit withoutseriousconsideration- despitePodolinsky'sdirect

Variouslyrepeated,the above narrativeis now a key element of the

Section III shows how thermodynamicand metabolic considerations

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

industry(and not just in agriculture).Engels's argument,in response

Section IV looks briefly at Marx'streatmentof capitalism'smetabolic

In the concluding section we discuss the relation between Marx and

I. What remains of the Podolinskymyth?

When we first became aware of the significance attached to the

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

by decliningto develop an energeticbasis for the labortheoryof value,

Given this interestin both theoreticalphysics and practicalenergetic

Our skepticismonly grew as we delved into the chronologicaldevel-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

and Engels. What we discoveredwas that Podolinsky'sanalysis had

All of this took on addedsignificancewhenwe becameawareof the fact

Although all of this clearly undercutthe standardview that Marx and

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

analysis providedimportantnew insights that could and should have

Whatwe discoveredwas thatPodolinskyhadnot even come close to es-

We found these contents of Podolinsky'sanalysis quite surprisingin

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

inherentlybiochemical or metabolicnatureof the humanlaboringor-

The limitationsof Podolinsky'sperfect machine argumentwill be fa-

Imagine our astonishment,then, when we realized that Engels's main

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

discussion of Podolinskyhad apparentlybeen elicited by some com-

In short, our re-examinationof the context and substanceof Engels's

So what, then, remains of the Podolinsky myth? First, there is the

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

Second,even if one acceptsthatEngels'scommentson Podolinsky

Althoughwe havealreadydemonstrated the considerableecological

II. Energy in Marx's metabolic analysis of value and exploitation

ForMarx,commodityproduction bywage-laboris thespecificallycap-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

Perhapsthe most basic way in which humanlaboris constantlyhelped

In otherwords, solar energy'srole in humanlaborcannotbe fully cap-

Second, Marx saw the labor process itself as constitutingthe main

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

the naturalcycle that would have returnedthe nutrientsto theirnative

Third,Marx'smetabolic interpretationof commodity productionand

Laborpower and its value

Marx defines "labour-power,or labour-capacity"as "the aggregateof

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

motion wheneverhe producesa use-value of any kind."46Laborpower

Energyconsiderationsareaccordinglycentralto Marx'sanalysisof the

But the metabolicdimensiononly becomes fully apparentwith Marx's

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

nerves, hands,etc., of the labour-powerpossessed in his bodily organ-

An alternativetranslationof the italicized sentence is: "Thisincreased

Marx follows Hermannand Liebig in declining to reduce the con-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

discussingthe value of laborpowerin termsof the lengthof daily

In a footnoteto thepassagejust cited,Marxprovidesa quotationfrom

Marx'sanalysisof the valueof laborpowerclearlyincorporates the

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:12:35 PM

The firstuse of the term "thermodynamics"in the title of a book was