The Environment And Marxismleninism

The Soviet And East German Experience

Joan Debardeleben

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367291808
• eBook ISBN: 9781000301052
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Historia
• Subtopic: Historia del mundo

In the past two decades, environmental pollution and natural resource shortages have evoked increasing concern in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The emerging ecological crisis has challenged many common assumptions in the Soviet bloc, as in the West. This book provides, for the first time, a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the ecology debate in the USSR and its highly industrialized ally, the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Based on a thorough examination of the Soviet and GDR sources, Dr. DeBardeleben explores the authorities' attempts to explain the problem to their populations. She also examines the viewpoints of scientists, writers, and scholars, with special attention to economic dimensions of the ecology debate. The study reveals the increasing sophistication of specialists in influencing public policy by adapting official values to support their positions. Through comparison of the Soviet and East German cases, the study clarifies the impact of natural resource endowment and legitimacy dilemmas on treatment of the ecology issue. The book demonstrates that Marxist-Leninist values subtly affect Soviet and GDR responses, but at the same time the environmental crisis is forcing a reevaluation of some aspects of Marxist-Leninist theory and ideology itself.

Part 1
Ideology, Theory, and the Environment

The first part of this book addresses the broader challenges posed by the emerging ecological crisis to the prevailing world-view in the USSR and GDR. Chapter 1 might have been called an Introduction, for here the goals of the study are explained, relating them to salient issues in the broader field of Soviet studies. Chapter 2 focuses on environmental protection as a question of political legitimation. Here we attempt to discern how leaders present the issue to the public in the USSR and GDR, and how this public portrayal is related to Marxist-Leninist values. Official explanations and assessments in the mass media are contrasted with scholarly treatments. In chapters 3 and 4 the theoretical insights of Soviet scholars are analyzed in depth, with a focus on substantive viewpoints in chapter 3 and on the organization of scientific research in chapter 4.

The second half of the book (part 2) explores more concrete issues of economic policy, providing the reader both with a basic overview of the political-economic obstacles to improved environmental policy, as well as an in-depth study of economic debates. These chapters can be read as a unit for those readers who are primarily interested in economic affairs.

1
Soviet Studies and Ecology

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels envisaged the proletarian revolution and the development of communism as phenomena encompassing all nations on earth. Vladimir Il'ich Lenin, some years later, described the process preceding that revolution in which capitalism's expanding grasp would take the form of worldwide imperialism. The writings of neither Marx, Engels, nor Lenin prepared the present leaders of the Soviet bloc for the possibility that environmental pollution and depletion of natural resources might themselves become global processes, threatening both socialist and capitalist society alike and placing in question the prospect of universal material abundance in a non-exploitative world economic system.

There is no doubt, now, that the related problems of resource depletion and environmental pollution affect all major industrial nations on earth. But it is by no means clear whether any nation or international system will provide a foundation adequate for their timely resolution. Not only do environmental problems pose urgent challenges to public policy, but they have opened a new arena for both international cooperation and international competition. Furthermore, the seriousness of environmental problems has led many to question traditional value systems and established societal goals. Many intellectuals now doubt the conventional wisdom of the last two centuries, that human society is on a path of unilinear progress. No longer is increased material production an obvious component of that progress. The intensification of environmental problems has stirred controversy over the proper direction of future social and economic development, over the value of scientific and technical progress, and over the meaning of the "good" life.

The challenge presented to conventional value systems by environmental deterioration has evidenced itself in many ways in the capitalist world. If the original back-to-the-earth movements of the 1960s were a counter-cultural phenomenon, now movement from city to country has become a general demographic trend. Intense controversy over nuclear power reflects doubts about the worth of a high-energy life style when compared to unknown long-term risks to health and safety. Opposition to construction in wild life areas poses the question of the intrinsic worth of undisturbed nature and the wisdom of making human desires the measure of all things. The brown clouds covering major urban centers suggest to some that the slowed pace of collective transport and the hazards of city biking may be preferable to the privacy and speed of the automobile. Bodies of water polluted by industrial effluents challenge assumptions about the efficacy of the "invisible hand" and suggest the necessity of increased state regulation and intervention. The list could be easily expanded. But behind all these dilemmas lurks uncertainty over the possibility of combining traditional values with a healthy life: liberal values of individualism may have to be accommodated to the need for collective responsibility for nature, a public good; and continued industrial expansion may contradict maintenance of healthy and pleasant surroundings.

Just as it challenges values widely embraced in the capitalist world, environmental deterioration threatens to undermine established assumptions in the Soviet socialist world. Soviet authorities allege the superior capability of their socio-economic system to address social problems and to improve the quality of human life. But Soviet experience offers dubious support for this claim in the environmental area, even though it is precisely such social goods which collective ownership might seem best suited to protect. On the face of it similar causes (industrialization, urbanization) appear to have similar effects (resource shortages, pollution) in both socio-economic systems. The growth fetishism of the West is matched, if not exceeded, in the East. If continuation of existing growth patterns is inadvisable, if not impossible, as many environmentalists claim, the Soviet bloc is equally implicated. Science and technology have always been key elements of the Soviet definition of progress. If scientific-technical intervention in nature leads to dangerous natural imbalances, is this not equally so for Soviet science and technology? Furthermore, some Western critics believe that a common historical-cultural tradition is responsible for ecological crisis in both Western capitalist and Soviet socialist countries. Calls for a new ecological ethic, challenging anthropocentric, exploitative attitudes toward nature apply, at least implicitly, to the Soviet-bloc countries as well. Finally, the global nature of ecological problems may necessitate international cooperation on a scale comparable to that required to control the arms race. Perhaps even international class struggle should take a backseat to solving such global problems upon which the survival of humanity itself rests.

The issues addressed in this study derive from the theoretical and ideological dilemmas which the ecological crisis presents to the Marxist-Leninist states of Eastern Europe, in particular the Soviet Union (USSR) and the German Democratic Republic (GDR). It is the thesis of this study that while official Marxism-Leninism has (sometimes subtly) constrained Soviet and East German responses to the environmental challenge, at the same time the real dilemmas posed by environmental deterioration have also stimulated reevaluation of some basic assumptions in these countries, at times even reflected in official party doctrine. Marxism Leninism may, in some ways, help shape policy-thinking, but at the same time it may be molded to legitimize policies adopted for other reasons. Furthermore, ideology may affect the manner in which political and economic factors influence environmental debate and policy, acting as a sort of mediating variable.¹ While we should not expect the Soviet-bloc leadership radically to alter its worldview or political priorities in response to the ecological crisis, the Soviet and East German experience does demonstrate that as communist states confront new dilemmas, the official interpretation of reality may also change to reflect the new challenges. Whether these changes in perspective will be adequate to produce a timely and appropriate response to the ecological crisis remains, however, open to serious doubt.

Since 1965, an extensive public debate has blossomed in the Soviet bloc over the implications of environmental deterioration in East and West. This debate has been accompanied by rising concern among the Soviet and East European leaders. Speaking to the 26th Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in February 1981 party leader Brezhnev acknowledged the "inevitable increase in spending on environmental protection," citing this as one factor which will "tend to make economic development more complicated" in the eighties.² Later in the same speech Brezhnev expressed concern about utilization of non-renewable natural resources, noting that "we are responsible for their proper and thrifty utilization not only to the present, but also to future generations. And no one has the right to forget this."³ As these statements indicate, the Soviet leadership recognizes that policy choices confront them in dealing with environmental deterioration. From the viewpoint of Marxist-Leninist theory as well, the concerns raised by environmental deterioration and resource depletion pose genuinely unresolved questions. The theoretical mentors of the Soviet bloc provide only minimal guidance to present-day leaders as they attempt to come to terms with the broad-ranging implications of these problems. We must not therefore assume a priori that theoretical discussion of these issues is strictly rationalization by hack ideologues. Rather this theoretical irresolution allows us to raise questions about the limits to debate in an area where official doctrine is only emerging, and about the role of Marxism-Leninism in that debate.

Examination of environmental discussion in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union may enable us to address three types of questions which are important in understanding the dynamics of ideological and theoretical change in the Soviet bloc:

1. What role does Marxism-Leninism play in the Soviet bloc, both as a serious theory of social analysis and as a source of regime legitimation?
2. What limits or constraints are placed on public discussion of a controversial issue like environmental deterioration? Which types of questions are legitimately raised in the public sphere and which are not?
3. In substantive terms, what answers do public officials and theorists offer to basic questions raised by environmental problems? Do they consider continued economic growth viable? How do they understand the causes of environmental problems? What solutions do they offer?

In this study these questions are addressed in the context of two countries, the USSR and the GDR. As the dominant ideological, political, and economic force in Eastern Europe, study of the Soviet approach to the environmental situation is a necessary starting point in understanding the character of Soviet-bloc attitudes. The GDR, as the USSR's most economically advanced ally, also has confronted the ecological dilemma in stark form in recent years. For reasons elaborated on below (see pages 17-23), a Soviet-East German comparison can prove particularly useful in trying to unravel the complex dynamic of ideological and theoretical evolution in Marxist-Leninist states.

First, however, let us elaborate on each of the three issues noted above and describe the manner in which our study may grant us further insight.

Marxism-Leninism as Ideology and as Theory

Marxism-Leninism is the official ideology of the Soviet-bloc countries. Its actual character and function in these political systems is, however, far from obvious. In terms of content, Marxism-Leninism is not, as one might expect, the sum of Marx's and Lenin's ideas, nor even Lenin's version of Marxism. Rather the term "Marxism-Leninism" (as used here and by the Soviets themselves) actually refers to the Soviet interpretation of Marx and Lenin at any given point in time.⁴ This interpretation has not remained static, but continues to evolve. In terms of function, the Soviets see Marxism-Leninism as a guide to state and party action and as the embodiment of science serving the interests of the proletariat.⁵ Western observers not only disagree with this view but argue among themselves about the actual functions of Marxism-Leninism in the Soviet world. Some see it as a historical residue which the Soviet leaders rely on less and less for legitimation and which may even come to serve as a basis for dissent.⁶ Others believe it is an "anti-language" which serves to confuse the population and prevent them from understanding and responding to their own oppression. In this way, the leadership attempts to legitimize increasingly conservative and oppressive policies by connecting them to revolutionary ideals.⁷ Still others propose that ideological statements, having lost their rational validity outside of the system in which they operate, continue to retain pragmatic value in commanding practice directed toward their realization.⁸ In sum, there is almost complete disagreement over the role of Marxism-Leninism both as a legitimizing system and as a guide to policy. To clarify how our study of environmental discussion may help to elucidate these controversies about the nature of Soviet Marxism-Leninism it is neces...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• PART 1 IDEOLOGY, THEORY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT
• PART 2 ECONOMICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
• LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
• BIBLIOGRAPHY