In part 1, 2 and 3 of this analysis of Marx, Engels and others (Epicurus) on life on earth, I mentioned a number of attempts by some Marxists to make Marx relevant to the problems facing humanity in the 21st century by considering his study of other authors. I mentioned how much I admired and respected Marx’s contribution to understanding the economic and political processes of the capitalist mode of production, but noted that this particular anthropocentric starting point fails to include any detail of the previous crucial biological and social developments of the human species or of life on earth in general.

Consequently, Marx’s concepts of human alienation and the natural essence of humanity are derived from studying that specific capitalist social mode of production and therefore are contained within an anthropocentrically focussed paradigm. His analysis was largely in agreement with Hegel’s, but concluded that the complete alienation from the product of labour and the activity of labour by the majority of citizens, was a characteristic specific to capitalism and other forms of slavery. Yet historically, there were also other various alienations of humans from their ‘species being’, from other human beings, and from nature. Incidentally, we can now add that these additional forms of alienation were common within all hierarchical mass society forms.

Therefore, Marx’s anthropocentric concept of obtaining human freedom within capitalist production, was likewise a specific contrast with the forced labour imposed by hierarchical mass societies using slave labour, other forms of tied labour and the eventual fully developed wage labour under capitalism. I also noted that due to the social and scientific limitations of his 19th century era Marx had been unable to point out the ecological logic within the hierarchical mass society systems that had been intensified once production was harnessed to the capitalist mode of production. The transition from feudal land-owning horsepower assisted agricultural production to the capitalist coal and petrochemical powered industrialised production had enhanced and accelerated a contradiction which was fundamental to all hierarchical mass society structures since their inception.

The historical evidence, however, indicates that this social and biological contradiction had occurred pre BCE by the introduction of ruling classes within the developing hierarchical mass society structures. The privileged status of unproductive religious or secular elites and their armed supporters, led to levels of community consumption that were much, much higher than the necessary average for human species survival and essential resources were consumed at faster rates than the natural inorganic and organic resources could be found or reproduce themselves by growing. Palaces, Banquets, Monuments, Jewelry, etc, etc., were not necessary for survival but quickly drained the surrounding areas of hierarchical mass societies of their available organic and inorganic resources.

Maintaining and extending such societies therefore required continually extended control and/or conquest of ever larger territory and resources. Furthermore, with each scientific and technological advance, the rate and volume of human consumption of natural inorganic resources and organic species compared with the given naturally evolved rate of reproduction (R) of those species deemed essential for human use, had become progressively imbalanced. As each society grew in numbers this also increased the size of the territory needed, by each hierarchical mass society aggregation. In addition, species not directly consumed, by humanity, but that are essential for the entire biospheres viability, (i.e. that oxygenated the atmosphere and kick started the various food chain productions by photo-synthetic plants and insects) were being eliminated, either directly or indirectly by the destruction of their habitats or by pollution.

Nevertheless, in order to substantiate my frequent assertion that even an accurate understanding of Marx is no longer sufficient for understanding and countering the ecological and climate crisis now facing humanity, I realise that even more evidence will be needed. So in Capital volume 1, when Marx writing about social antagonisms, he noted the following;

“But the historical development of the antagonisms, imminent in a given form of production, is the only way in which that form of production can be dissolved and a new form established.” (Das Capital. Volume 1. Chapter 15, section 9 . Page 488. Emphasis added. RR)

He was using an anthropocentric intellectual (and dialectical) focussed approach to a sociological problem of class based antagonisms within hierarchical mass societies. Moreover, the ‘given’ form – at the time of his writing – was of course, the capitalist mode of production. Whilst Marx was clearly focussed upon the antagonisms within humanities hierarchical forms of production particularly when they were functioning within the capitalist mode, he, does not mention whether there were any other ‘given’ forms of human production for consumption which did not have immanent contradictions within them. But of course, such forms, (hunter-gatherers for example) were actually well known in the 19th century. Furthermore, Marx mentions no contradictions between humanities extraction and consumption from nature and the effects of that extraction upon the rest of the species on planet earth, particularly, but not exclusively those that are being extracted. I suggest that this omission was either because he was unaware of any fundamental contradictions of this kind, or that he thought these were irrelevant to his purpose.

Marx was not alone in this narrowly focussed Anthropocentric fixation with regard to life on earth, in the 19th and 20th centuries, that constantly failed to recognise that the air we breath, the food we eat, the water we drink is either directly provided by or indirectly assisted by the activities of millions of other biological species, many of which are invisible to the naked eye. It was not widely recognised, until more recent times that there could not have been any history of human (or animal) sociological systems on planet earth, without billions of years of prior biological systems functioning and evolving and that existing sociological systems can only continue on the basis of there being a minute by minute continuous supply of air, a twice daily supply of food, and some litres of available unpolluted water, which are also supplied by contributions from millions of other organic species and inorganic processes.

However, we now know there is a more fundamental and crucial antagonism between human hierarchical mass society forms of mass production and the biological reproductive patterns of the rest of life on earth. And this fundamental biological problem is located at the interface between the social volume and social rate of human consumption of nutrition (N) and other natural raw materials extracted from nature, and the natural reproductive (R) volume and rate of of those natural species used as nutrition. We now know that hierarchical mass societies of humans consuming natural species daily at rates and volumes which exceed the volume and seasonal rate of reproduction (R) of those same natural species, creates a potentially existential problem.

Sooner or later there will be insufficient supplies of twice daily nutrition and other useful species to fulfill the needs of humanity, from the resources sufficiently nearby. The problem of over-extraction, over-consumption and over-pollution, will be further intensified the larger the mass societies become and the smaller and less fertile the areas available for growing species – as crops – becomes. The problem has been further intensified because the methods of increasing production and the powers sources used for productive technology are at the same time polluting, the air, water, soil and destroying the microorganisms which are necessary for metabolism and the natural recycling of organic material during decomposition. In the 21st century all these seemingly discrete problems have intersected and intensified to existential proportions.

So we can gather from considering the most astute intellects from 1st century Greece, to the 19th century, and on to the 20th century, that the interdependent realm of biological evolution (nature) and its ecologically integrated biosphere in particular, were not properly or fully understood in sufficient detail, by anyone and still aren’t by huge numbers. The accumulating, and seemingly ‘obvious’ anthropocentric assumptions that Smith, Ricardo, Engels and even Marx makes in Das Capital, in light of modern ecological understandings, are undoubtedly wrong. And as we shall see, this basic lack of understanding makes many of their theories mistaken premises upon which to base further deductions or intellectual constructions.

Moreover, these mistakes cannot be understood, explained, rationalised away or overcome by consulting the long dead Hegel and Epicurus who Marx took time out of his life to study. Nor can they be by a study of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Mao. From a serious study of their writings, the latter individuals had not even fully understood the revolutionary humanism of Marx, let alone recognised that Marx, along with all those intellectuals of his generation had serious knowledge limitations. Nor had they seriously considered the limitations of their own anthropocentric fixations and their own distorted view of nature. Nature, remained for them something primitive compared to humanities ‘outstanding’ (!) scientific and technological abilities.

The above extract and the other extracts to follow, reveal that Marx, as was the case with Epicurus, and all intellectuals in their previous respective communities and historic time periods, were still fully and clearly operating within the ancient anthropocentrically based perception of the relationship between one specific biological species (i.e. the human species) and the rest of the millions of biological species making up the biosphere of planet earth. So the conclusion by Marx that the soil exists independently of ‘man’ (and the other species of life) we now know is an evidence-deficient anthropocentric assumption by him and in this instance no one else in particular is to blame for bequeathing that mistaken assumption to future generations.

But of course, I repeat that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Mao, were all products of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century limited levels of biological, sociological and scientific understanding, so cannot be judged too harshly. However it’s a different matter with regard to all modern intellectuals, particularly those who claim to be ‘Marxists’. To have not yet understood that the viability of any social form of human existence is absolutely dependent, not upon themselves, but to nature in all its millions of forms, is wilful ignorance. Ultimately, the future of a species rich life on earth, depends upon humanities ability to cease it’s current rate and volume of extraction, consumption, and pollution. Ensuring that all the interdependent species are living within a healthy and viable biosphere and need protecting and nurturing is a task that only the human species needs to fulfil.

Furthermore, with regard to Marx’ previously noted, lack of understanding of the dependence of humanity on the soil, we now know that animals, including humans (and insects and plants) are not categorically independent of the soil – but quite literally the opposite. First, the human species (along with many other plants, animals and insects) are absolutely dependent upon the soil and the microorganisms which exist within it. That is because it is this complex inter-dependence of biological species within soil which supports the photosynthetic plant species that grow within and are the basis of all food chains that humans, most animals and insects require as nutrition several times per day for 24/7 and 365 days per year.

This inter-dependence is not simply one way, but functions in multiple interactive ways. These essential soil based biological organisms themselves are dependent upon many other species to obtain the organic and inorganic nutrition (N) their own cells need. These sources of nutrition are carried into the soil from the excrement and decomposition of other dead and decayed organic material dispersed in huge amounts on average at least once per day, from many other species – including humans! So in fact the fertility of soil and its nutritious products has always depended upon insects, plants and animals – including human animals – for its fertile condition and for the photo-synthetic results of its plant species biological processes, which by their gaseous exchanges with the inorganic sphere also create a breathable atmosphere.

This is because in addition, to their own essential organic intake, the microorganisms along with the photosynthetic plants are dependent upon absorbing inorganic gases and on using the suns inorganic radiant energy to produce oxygen and abundant plant material for the nutritional requirements of those whose excrement the soil and their microorganisms rely upon to metabolically processes. Consequently in reality, rather than in out-dated 19th century theory and anthropocentric Giaia-blind assumptions, there is no independence, between humans and ‘nature’, once nature is understood as an integrated and interdependent biological system and that therefore the social systems humanity creates need to be in harmony with that biological system rather than antagonistic toward it.

The rest of the millions of species existing in the biosphere) whose interactive Nutritional, Metabolic, Growth, Reproductive, Ageing and Death (N-M-G-R + A-G) biological processes, are consistently being obscured by the habitual and unscientific use of the abstraction – nature! Indeed, a modern study of the biosphere reveals there is an existential inter-dependence between all species indirectly, and with many other species directly and also a dependence between the bio-chemical based organic material and the inorganic radiant and gaseous material of the solar system along with the mineral materials of the planets surface and sub-surface structure.
It is this crucial level of modern biological and ecological understanding which has now become necessary in order to comprehend how life on earth functions inter-dependently and to understand how banal it has become to focus on just any one particular aspect of its interconnected whole. This understanding includes the recognition that within the earth’s biosphere this biological matrix of life has existed and evolved over billions of years and this inter-dependent reality was, and still is, being obscured, ignored or taken for granted generally by the habitual use of the abstract classification – ‘nature’! Consequently, in Das Capital, Marx continued;

“Thus Nature becomes one of the organs of his activity, one that he annexes to his own bodily organs adding stature to himself…” (Capital Vol. 1 ibid)

Here again we have the concept of an abstraction (nature) and the species within it being considered as separate entities to humanity and thus was likened by Marx to an organ of the human species that humans had annexed to their own bodily organs. This is an anthropocentric example of the reality of ecological and biological interdependence being completely missing from 19th century understandings of life on earth. The most favourable intellectual interpretation of this missing evidence is to suggest that a reversal of the real relationship of humanity, to nature had been viewed upside down.

Humans are a species of organism that evolved within and upon the inter-connected network of natural species and our species are absolutely dependent upon this complex, integrated organic spectrum of life on earth. It is not the organisms of the biosphere which which are being turned into organs of humanity, it is humanity which since the invention of hierachical mass societies has been using its evolved organs (particularly our brains and our hands) not to understand the inter-dependence of life on earth as a whole but to imagine the existence of two seperate and independent realms of existence; nature on the one hand and humanity on the other.

It was this intellectually derived, ignorant social-bifurcation, between the human species and the rest of nature’s prolific species, that was leading by degrees to the over-extraction and over-consumption of the biological system. The biological system – as a whole – is the primary system which supports all life on earth – including humanities various social sgstems. Yet the human species and their internal social relationships remained Marx’s primary focus throughout his life, with only occasional side-bar type references to the other supportive species of life on earth, such as the following example;

“…life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things…..Therefore, in any interpretation of history one has first of all to observe this fundamental fact in all its implications and to accord it it’s due importance…The production of life, both of ones own in labour and of fresh life in procreation, now appears as a double relationship: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relationship. By social we understand the cooperation of several individuals, no matter under what conditions, in what manner and to what end. ” (Marx. ‘The German Ideology’. Section 1 History. Emphasis added. R.R.)

The fundamental biological processes of all forms of life on earth involve the absorption of Nutrition (N), its Metabolic (M) processing by biological cells, the subsequent Growth (G) of the organisms and Reproduction (R), Ageing (A) and Death (D). Abbreviated as (N-M-G-R + A-D). The optional social means of obtaining (N) devised by humanity does not alter that ‘natural’ relationship or bifurcate it into a double one, as Marx asserts in the above extract. It merely inserts a supplimentary optional social relationship into the fundamental and essential natural one. It has created a collective form of obtaining (N) by a fully integrated social species. Ants and Bee species as well as all pack hunting animal species have evolved similar optional collective means of fulfilling the ‘natural’ biological relationship to obtain their preferred nutrition..

The practical essence of all biological species is to ensure the immediate reproduction of their evolved bodily form, (achieved by absorbing and metabolising sources of adequate nutrition); ensuring adequate protection for that bodily form; and also the generational reproduction of the species by sexual or non-sexual means. The essence of those species which are also predominantly social, includes the characteristic, that the social individuals within those species cooperate with each other, to widely varying degrees, in fulfilling those requirements. Consequently in social species, there are two connected processes involved: a biological process and a social process. The first is a bio-chemical determined instinctive process; the second is a socially determined learning process; and the second is dependent upon the first.

It appears that the Mendelian levels of recessive and dominant genetic understandings were insufficient during the period that Marx or anyone else, studied life on earth, to understand or conclude that the evolution of the Prokaryotic and Eukariotic biological cells were the common denominator and foundational organic elements of all forms of life on earth, irrespective of the diversity and multiplicity of social species forms evolving from them. For the 19th century situated Marx – and everyone else at the time – it appeared to them that the human species, had progressively outgrown nature and created an alternative and superior form of conscious relationship.

It appeared to the 19th century levels of understanding that on the one hand a natural relationship had been retained by all other species; and on the other hand a more advanced socio-scientific human realm had created a superior relationship between humanity and nature. Moreover, it appeared to be a social form with which humanity would conquer, control and command nature to conform to whatever humans desired. We shall see in Part 5, that like the ancient anthropocentric Abrahamic monotheistic ideologies, the 19th century secular anthropocentric ideologies, including those of Marx, also presumed that the social realm of humanity had achieved an intellectual and technological superiority over the biological realm of nature.

Roy Ratcliffe (February 2026)

MARX & MARXISM on Life on Earth (Part 5) will conclude this consideration of the 19th century Revolutionary-Humanist intellectual tradition initiated by Karl Marx, but which became betrayed and distorted by those who claimed to be following in his theoretical and practical footsteps. As has been considered, it turns out that the revolutionary-humanist perspective running through Marx’s 1844 manuscripts, the Grundrisse and Das Capital were focussed almost entirely on the anthropocentric sociological dimensions of life on earth. Consequently, that perspective lacked a sufficiently detailed understanding of the biological contradictions within the hierarchical mass society systems and also the absolute dependency of these social systems upon the continuation of a whole inter-dependent matrix of biological species of life on earth.