ENVIRONMENTALISM in the EARLY SOVIET UNION
Previously titled: "The Role of Environmentalism in the Russian Revolution"
The nation of Russia, once the USSR and now the Russian Federation, has never been specially known by either the Western conscience or third-world internationalists for being particularly "environmentally friendly," although a mind for sustainability is often paired with being decried as a "commie" or "hippie bum". The reason behind the conflation is simple: that socialism propels environmentalism and vice versa, contrary to anti-Soviet mythos.
However, one would be mistaken to think environmental politics didn’t have their place among Soviet radicals, scientists, economists, and artists alike, and they have influenced many other environmentalists across the world since.
Marxism stands to be entirely compatible with many environmentalist ideals and efforts, as it analyses political economy through the eyes of a natural scientist (Engels, 1883). Marx and Engels’ writings can be interpreted to reflect the environmentalist struggle as a mirror of the class struggle, and the environment as a finite resource is inextricably linked to the process of labor and value production already inherent to this class struggle. We would not have the material to produce our needs if not for the Earth we inhabit, so the reproduction of the human species and society is dependent upon a sustainable relationship with Earth (Breen, 2014).
Dialectical materialism as a process, to go deeper, can also reflect nature of a cell or an atom, built of contradicting components which propel and attract each part to constitute a functioning whole, like organs or organisms- or even the larger picture of the universe in motion, made up of layers upon layers of these systems. These pieces are always in motion due to their gravities orbiting each other, and the communication between each piece shifts along with its trajectory and constantly propagates change. Change is neutral, and never ending, because atoms cannot stop moving lest they stop existing (Stalin, 1938).
When the object of observation is as small as an atom, one may not be able to tell it's there, but several atoms may make a molecule, and maybe this molecule in congregation promotes carbon life and forms a cell, and enough cells may form tissue that form organs that form an animal which is definably different, but not separate from, the original atom. That means change in any system is made up of several smaller changes that motivate its flow. A plant grows quantitatively before it sprouts qualitatively, just as sociological change must occur in pieces of a population before they constitute a larger measurable change in the definable features of a culture (Stalin, 1938).
Marxism posits that the social world is as much a system caught in this flow as anything else that is tangible, consisting of several conflicting material contexts, ideologies, and social forces. Our cultures and modes of production- how labor value is attained and distributed and by whom- make up our political economies, and by studying these conflicting contexts we can understand what forces got us where we are now in history, and what changes can be promoted in attempts to shift this flow towards an intended goal in the future (Engels, 1880. Harnecker, 1979). The environment is an equal part of these moving systems and processes, so any economic or cultural change must also accommodate the ebbs and flows of the natural world.
To put it another way, “ecology” refers to Darwin’s concept of the “economy of nature,” or the relationship between species and the systems they inhabit- and the work of any good ecologist is done with respect to those species. As such, any good economist should also respect their own special equivalent: humans. Most importantly, both systems- the economies of society and of nature- are intertwined. Just as capitalism would inevitably destroy its own economy by consequence of its assumptions of infinite growth in contrast to real profit decline, it would also destroy the natural resources it relies on, and it is understood to be the responsibility of socialists to prevent this (Foster, 2015).
By the time of the first attempted revolution of 1905, Russia already had a history of conservation efforts dating back to at least the 18th century. Monarchs such as Peter the Great were influenced to recognize the role that the wellbeing of wildlife played in the wellbeing of the state, and regulated practices like logging and hunting. While this was done majorly with the intention of protecting Russia’s upper-class economic interests, there were others, mostly within the scientific community, who pursued to pass legislation for sustainable and natural reasons of value (Weiner, 2000). But the regulations that managed to pass weren’t enough, leaving ecologists such as Vladimir Stanchinsky and Aleksandr Formozov concerned by the lack of effect they had against species extinction (Gare, 1993. Weiner, 1999). As a result, in 1893, Russia established the first zapovednik, or “nature sanctuary,” which intended to keep a specific region “wild” through the prohibition of economic activity and authorization of only non-intrusive scientific studies (Danilina, 2001).
Vladimir Lenin was a proponent of such sanctuaries as he, not as an ecologist but a Marxist, saw value in the natural sciences and understood the exchange between natural resources and societal value. After the successful revolution in 1917, he signed the “Decree on Land”, as well as the “Decree on the Protection of Natural Monuments, Gardens and Parks” in 1921, protecting much of Russia’s vast landscape from industrial exploitation. Continuous support from both Lenin and the head of the People’s Commissariat for Education, Anatoly Lunacharsky, allowed the official Soviet zapovednik system to protect several geographical areas, with claims ranging from 15 to 61 zapovedniki by the 1930s (Gare, 1993. Weiner, 2000). Through the 40s, Joseph Stalin's policies enveloped several hectares for hydrology under the assumption that natural waterflow was best regulated by natural forestry, and that forested land was the healthiest land as deforestation contributed to drought and flooding that could detract from Soviet modernization; in the 50s he proposed state efforts to combat what they recognized to be manmade climate change (Brain, 2010, 2011). Today, zapovedniki encompass not only natural land, but also cultural and archaeological landmarks, and at least 100 of these sanctuaries now exist within Russia with many designated as UN Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites (UNESCO).
With the scientific freedom and technological growth that flourished with the turn of the century, Russian scientists were given the tools necessary to advance research, especially in zoology, biochemistry, and thermodynamics. Stanchinsky, who heavily supported zapovedniki, also proposed influential ideas about trophic levels, how energy was transferred between each level, and how the climate influenced those levels, working off of the theories of biosphere dynamics created by fellow Russian scientist Vladimir Vernadsky (EOHT. Gare, 1993). Vsevolod Timonov, an oceanographer and engineer who held upper positions in the government’s railway departments before and after 1917, published several papers on the functioning and methods of improving river health, hydraulic engineering, and sewage systems (Soloviova, 2018).
Economists contributed as well. Aleksandr Chayanov, an agrarian economist and a member of the People’s Commissariat for Agriculture, supported the various proposed systems of communal agriculture, but also supported the peasantry’s traditional subsistence farming and believed that they, not the state, should own the land they farmed, and that the Soviet government would have a difficult time convincing them to force excess product out of the land just for the sake of an external urban community (Raskov, 2014). Then there was Aleksandr Bogdanov: an economist, physician, and one of the founders of the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP. His theory stated that all systems, abiotic and biotic, man-made and natural, were related, and balance could be achieved by considering their unified elements in a holistic manner (Gare, 1993).
Some Soviet revolutionaries tried to incorporate this as a primary goal in their practice, influenced by Marxist analyses of ecology, Bogdanov, and even the writings of poet William Morris, as they weren’t satisfied with the industrialist stance taken by many other Bolsheviks: accepting unregulated loss of environment for the sake of productivity. These “green socialists,” not to be confused with the peasant Green Armies of the Russian Civil War, believed in the worth of all biological life much the same as previous Russian ecologists, and often opposed the Soviet's specific methods of state collectivization and redistribution in favor of yet untested theories which would hope to benefit rural peasantry (Foster, 2015. Critchley, 2011).
The Black Army had its share of interest in conservation efforts. Commander Nestor Makhno held the anarcho-communist Pyotr Kropotkin in high regard and met with him on one occasion (Palij, 1976). While Kropotkin, like Lenin, was not directly concerned with environmentalism, he advocated for communal, self-sufficient agricultural systems, and thus would have to account for ecological health. And like Chayanov’s subsistence farming, this is a common feature of modern environmental activism (Adams, 2015). Other anarchist groups drew inspiration from author Lev Tolstoy, called “green anarchists” or “Tolstoyans”, and were usually Christians, vegetarians, and pacifists. His influence was stronger outside of Russia, but even within he was known for his literature as well as propagating the work of other anarchist theorists during the time of the Revolution (Christoyannopoulos, 2013).
Still, Soviet culture became flooded by what could be described as “transhumanism”: the belief that technology can or should be used to enhance human cognition or physique, with various interpretations of to what extent of advancement, which inevitably entails the use of the environment around us to achieve that end. The cultural focus was shifting away from depictions of natural mysticism, traditional history, and peasant life, as Soviet education taught political history and promoted cultural growth or evolution, so artists that retained the prior elements had to compete with movements like Futurism, Constructivism, Cosmism, Soviet Realism, and the concept of the “New Soviet Man” (Walsh, 2018).
One of these artists was Mikhail Larionov, who sometimes painted in the style of Primitivism, which evoked nature through indigenous folklore and art. He and his partner, Natalia Goncharova, helped pioneer a style that mixed Primitivism with the emerging avant-garde, called Neo-Primitivism (RAN. VAC). There also existed a group of Realist painters known as Peredvizhniki, or “Wanderers.” They often utilized the plein air technique, depicted landscapes and the relationships between peasantry and their surroundings, and displayed their work in multiple exhibits across Russia between 1870 and 1923. Former Peredvizhniki members would go on to join the art magazine Mir iskusstva, and then the Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia, influencing the Neo-Primitivist and Soviet Realist styles (TAS).
After Stalin's death and the election of Khruschev, the environmental focus in culture, economics, and legislation disappeared with the maturation of the Soviet Union, or rather, its regression into liberal market opportunism, and its eventual dissolution (Brain, 2011). The excesses of the Siberian oil industry through the 60s to 80s, and the purposeful drying of the Aral Sea, were major failures of later Soviet policy. Now, environmental justice has been entirely sidelined and these failures emboldened by Russia's modern Capitalist industry.
The Bolshevik influence perhaps drowned out movements that ideally could have shared space together, and orthodox practice was more concerned with increasing productive forces than shifting those forces for cultural ideals, but nevertheless valued ecologically-just effort far more than the Capitalist realm. Marxists then and today are able to understand that we are constrained by the natural world just as much as they were by the tsardom and the bourgeoisie, but despite the efforts of radicals who intended for the Revolution to also help nature, Russia has still ended up in a position equal to other nations facing the effects of industrial and Capitalist environmental degradation, leading to what we suffer as climate acceleration and impending catastrophe today (Partridge, 1993. Gare, 1993).
Regardless, the legacy of Soviet scientists and revolutionaries can be seen within the current scientific community, and in the effort that many environmentalists put forth in the fight for ecological and proletarian liberation worldwide. The Soviets didn't have to say it, anyone with eyes could see the damage inflicted by industrial domination and could predict the devastation to come.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244013520609
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
Foster, John. (2015). “Marxism and Ecology: Common Fonts of a Great Transition” Great Transition Initiative international network.
https://greattransition.org/publication/marxism-and-ecology
Weiner, Douglas. (2000). “Models of Nature: Ecology, Conservation, and Cultural Revolution in Soviet Russia” University of Pittsburgh Press.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=b8_2PvhwnO8C&dq
Weiner, Douglas. (1999). “A Little Corner of Freedom: Russian Nature Protection from Stalin to Gorbachev” University of California Press.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=hbkwDwAAQBAJ&dq
Brain, Stephen. (2011). "Song of the Forest: Russian Forestry and Stalinist Environmentalism, 1905 1953" University of Pittsburgh Press.
https://upittpress.org/books/9780822961659/
Danilina, Natalia. (2001). “The Zapovedniks of Russia” The George Wright Forum, vol 18 no 1, The George Wright Society.
http://www.georgewright.org/181danilina.pdf
Walsh, David. (2018). “What the Russian Revolution meant for Art and Culture” World Socialist Web Site, International Committee of the Fourth International.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/02/28/talk-f28.html
http://gadfly.igc.org/russia/rus-envt.htm
https://journals.openedition.org/oeconomia/836
http://www.ditext.com/palij/9.html
https://books.google.ca/books?id=bFFOCgAAQBAJ&dq
http://hstjournal.com/index.php/hst/article/view/302
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215502741_THE_ECOLOGICAL_COMMUNITARIANISM_OF_WILLIAM_MORRIS
https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/425d0e23-1000-4498-bb1c-7674265ca744.pdf
https://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/ru
http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/contact.asp?code=RUS
http://www.eoht.info/page/Vladimir+Stanchinsky
http://www.rusartnet.com/russian-artistic-movements/20th-century/avant-garde/neo-primitivism
http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/history-of-art/russian-art.htm#modern
http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/famous-artists/goncharova.htm
http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/famous-artists/mikhail-larionov.htm
https://www.theartstory.org/movement/peredvizhniki/
https://www.theartstory.org/movement/peredvizhniki/history-and-concepts/#concepts_styles_and_trends_header
Comments
Post a Comment