Marxist Ecology in China: From Marx’s Ecology to Socialist Eco-Civilization Theory

In the face of pressing global environmental challenges, Marxist ecology has emerged as a foundational pillar of global left analysis. It represents a critical examination of the modern environmental crisis. The Chinese academic community has been engaging in Marxist ecology research since the 1980s, drawing on traditional studies on Marxism and on the history of socialist modernization. This differs from the trajectory of Marxist ecology in the West, which has gone through different stages, from denying or supplementing Marx’s ecology to rediscovering and developing it.¹ Chinese scholars have highlighted the interpretation of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels’s ecological perspectives from the outset. They have proactively referred to Western insights from eco-Marxism/ecosocialism, aiming to formulate a socialist ecological civilization (eco-civilization) theory with distinctive Chinese characteristics. This article discusses some of the diverse research paradigms and their course of development within Chinese Marxist ecology while also highlighting the accomplishments of and challenges facing Marxist ecology in China.

The Interpretation of Marx and Engels’s Ecological Thought

The interpretation of Marx and Engels’s ecological thought not only involves elucidating their ecological perspectives, but also applying their theories to analyze the contemporary historical context. Research on the ecological thought of Marx and Engels in China is characterized predominantly by a focus on philosophy and economics. Scholars in economics aim to develop socialist environmental economics based on classical Marxist writings and infused with distinctive Chinese characteristics. For instance, in 1981, Huang Shunji and Liu Jiongzhong delved into the notion of the coordinated development of humanity and nature presented in Capital.² In 1983, Xu Dixin argued that Marx had already initiated topics such as ecological balance and the metabolism between humanity and nature, providing a theoretical foundation for ecological economics.³ Chinese scholars widely agree that the productive forces organized for profit maximization under capitalism inherently clash with the imperatives of environmental conservation. Nevertheless, the advantage in environmental conservation offered by socialism needs to be explored through the social organization of production and the scientific management of natural resources. In the realm of philosophy, Chinese scholars have concentrated on the Marxist view of nature and its ecological implications. For instance, around the year 2000, Huan Qingzhi and Xie Baojun published works interpreting Marx and Engels’s views of nature from the perspective of ecological philosophy.⁴ They aimed to demonstrate that the Marxist view of nature is a practical, dialectical, and historically materialist one that scrutinizes environmental issues through the lens of human history and social class. It embodies a “red-green” thinking that integrates environmental and social liberation, advocating for sustainable development with a humanistic focus.

Another notable characteristic of Chinese research on Marx and Engels’s ecological thought is its focus on interpreting the fundamental propositions and theoretical system of their ecological ideas. Regarding the fundamental proposition, Chinese scholars primarily concentrate on the assertion that “the logic of capital is the root cause of the ecological crisis.” Their arguments in terms of this proposition typically revolve around two aspects.

The first aspect explores the opposition between capital and ecology by discussing the major principles of the logic of capital.⁵ A representative approach involves further categorizing the logic of capital into the “principle of utilization” and the “principle of valorization.” The former principle asserts that capital-based production continually seeks to exploit the utility of nature, highlighting how capital perceives nature merely as a tool for production and reduces its use value to exchange value through monetary transactions. Consequently, this process accelerates the commodification and capitalization of nature, while the “principle of valorization” emphasizes capital’s perpetual pursuit of profit maximization. Due to this principle, capitalist production shows a tendency toward indefinite expansion, which inherently clashes with the finiteness of the natural ecosystem.

The second line of thought delves into the ecological risks posed by the logic of capital within the realms of production and consumption.⁶ First, the logic of capital, a form of economic reason that prioritizes profit, is given the most emphasis. Here, capital is accumulated through an expansion of production that is seen as perpetual. This narrow pursuit of profit disregards the order of the earth’s natural metabolism and ecological sustainability. Furthermore, the profit-driven nature of capital often leads to agents lacking a long-term vision for environmental protection. Second, the utilitarian view of wealth and consumerist mode of living fostered by the logic of capital reduce nature to a mere utility within the overall process of capital accumulation. Needs, within the logic of capital, are met exclusively through the consumption of goods, exacerbating and justifying ecological destruction. Finally, capital promotes the globalization of investment and trade and leverages its economic and political hegemony to exploit resources and transfer crises worldwide, exacerbating the metabolic rift globally. However, Chinese scholars argue that an ecological critique of the logic of capital does not simply seek to deny capital outright. Instead, they advocate for a more dialectical approach to discussing the functions of capital and scientifically regulating it, thus making the logic of capital serve the goals of human emancipation and ecological sustainability.⁷

In terms of constructing a theoretical system, Chinese scholars primarily propose three lines of thought. The first line of thought centers on ecological economics.⁸ At the core of this approach lies the concept of “endogenous emergence of ecological environment,” which recognizes that the ecological environment exists not merely as an external condition for human survival and social development, but also as an internal condition of human material production activities, constituting the essential foundation for social and economic development. This perspective fosters a unified understanding of the ecological relationship between humanity and nature, as well as socioeconomic relationships between individuals. It proposes a general law of coordinated and sustainable ecological and economic development. Within this framework, Marxist ecology encompasses various aspects, including the theory of ecological value, which emphasizes the unity of nature’s provision for human needs (extrinsic value) and the dependence of human on nature (intrinsic value).

The overall critical framework includes: (1) the theory of the dual unity of natural ecological elements and socioeconomic elements, (2) the theory of metabolism with a focus on the interconnection between historical laws of natural ecological relationship and socioeconomic dynamics, (3) the theory of comprehensive production emphasizing the compatibility between socioeconomic production and environmental protection, (4) the theory of generalized productive forces emphasizing the unity of economic productive forces and natural productive forces, (5) the theory of material cycles emphasizing the interconnection between socioeconomic cycles and natural ecological cycles, (6) the theory of sustainable development advocating for the integration of socioeconomic development with environmentally sustainable development; and (7) the theory of a comprehensive civilization advocating for the coordinated development of material, political, cultural-ethical, and ecological civilizations.

The second line of thought delves into “the negation of the negation” concerning the unity, alienation, and reconciliation of humanity and nature.⁹ This perspective delineates Marxist ecology into three distinct elements: (1) the view of humanized nature, emphasizing the unity of humanity and nature; (2) the critique of capitalism focusing on the alienation between humanity and nature; and (3) the perspective of the Communist revolution, highlighting the reconciliation between humanity and nature. With respect to the first of these elements, the Marxist view of humanized nature perceives nature as a product shaped by human practice, thereby envisioning humanity, nature, and society as a cohesive unity. Nevertheless, the mode of social production determines the specific structure and historical trajectory of the humanization of nature. In relation to the second element, in modern society, the logic of capital transforms social production into the expropriation of labor and natural resources, leading to an opposition between humanity and nature. Finally, from the perspective of the Marxist Communist revolution, the emphasis is on the elimination of capital’s dominance over humanity and nature, aiming to resolve contradictions and conflicts between them.

The third line of thought places praxis at its core.¹⁰ Alongside human practical activities, a fundamental framework encompassing the interactions between humanity and nature, between humanity and society, and among human beings is formed, together with a structure incorporating productive forces, production relations, and the economic base and superstructure. Therefore, Marxist ecology encompasses the ecological view of nature, which emphasizes reverence for the laws of nature; the ecological view of society, which aims for the harmonious coexistence of society and the environment; the ecological approach of development, which is dedicated to meeting humanity’s ecological needs and achieving free and comprehensive development; the ecological view of the economy, which promotes coordinated and sustainable development of ecological and economic interests; the ecological view of politics, which prioritizes environmental justice and the major role of the proletariat in transformation; and the ecological perspective of culture, which aims to develop ecological rationality and regulate scientific-technical rationality.

As can be seen above, the Chinese academic community has developed a profound understanding of Marx and Engels’s ecological thought. Based on this, Chinese scholars have proposed more complete perspectives on ecology and a more robust theoretical system of Marxist ecology, rendering Marxist ecology more compatible with contemporary realities.

Reflections on Eco-Marxism

Since the Reform and Opening-up, China has been actively paying attention to foreign theoretical trends. In this context, the study of Western eco-Marxism gradually has become an important aspect of Marxist ecology research in China.¹¹ Since the introduction of eco-Marxism, Chinese scholars have harbored a sense of critical reflection, recognizing that eco-Marxism predominantly originates from Western societies and is imbued with a strong Western subjective perspective. This awareness has prompted Chinese scholars to take into account the specific context of China while delving into the theories of eco-Marxism.

The publication of the Chinese edition of Ben Agger’s Western Marxism: An Introduction in 1991 sparked widespread interest in the dissemination and study of eco-Marxism in China. Early Chinese research on eco-Marxism primarily drew from the works of Agger and William Leiss, author of The Domination of Nature.¹² However, during the late twentieth century, the study of eco-Marxism remained in its nascent stage. It was predominantly a review and introduction, focusing on introducing, comparing, and evaluating the general theoretical perspectives of eco-Marxism. Research at this phase was not comprehensive or in-depth.

In the twenty-first century, especially following the establishment of Studies on Marxism Abroad as a specialized major within the secondary discipline of Marxist Theory in China in 2005, eco-Marxism research in China has embarked on a new phase. This period has witnessed a comprehensive exploration of eco-Marxism marked by specific investigations into its key representative figures, historical evolution, and core concepts. An important milestone occurred around 2008, when a number of academic works titled “Eco-Marxism/Ecological Marxism” were published. Researchers have primarily approached the study of eco-Marxism from three perspectives.

The first summarizes the theoretical viewpoints and development trajectory of eco-Marxism based on timelines and representative figures. For example, An Introduction to Ecological Marxism in 2007 mainly compared the theories of Agger, James O’Connor, Joel Kovel, and John Bellamy Foster and delineated the evolution of eco-Marxism as a journey from eco-Marxism, to ecosocialism, and back to Marxist ecology.¹³

The second examines the viewpoints of some individual representatives of eco-Marxism through the interpretation of texts. For instance, Ecological Criticism: A Study of Foster’s Ecological Marxism, published in 2008, analyzed Foster’s ecological Marxism through textual interpretation and the observation of the history of ideas.¹⁴ As Wang Zhihe and others argued, Foster is one of the eco-Marxist theorists to whom Chinese scholars have paid the most attention.¹⁵ Publications relating to Foster after 2010 included Critiques, Structuring and Inspiration: A Study of Foster’s Eco-Marxist Ideas (2011), A Study on Foster’s Ecological Marxist Thoughts (2013), A Study of Foster’s Ecological Marxist Thoughts (2016), The Ecological Criticism of the Logic of Capital: An Evaluation of Foster’s Ecological Critical Thoughts in the Field of Marxism (2020), Research on Foster’s Thought on Justice: Based on the Field of Eco-Marxism (2020), and Research on Foster’s Ecological Marxism (2023).¹⁶ This attention can be attributed to several factors. On the one hand, Foster unequivocally affirms Marxist ecology and provides detailed arguments, aligning closely with the prevailing trends in Chinese Marxist academia. On the other hand, Foster continuously advances his own theoretical research and deepens his ecological critique of capitalism in response to contemporary issues such as the Anthropocene and degrowth, approaches that are representative of modern eco-Marxism.

The third is to study the theoretical framework of ecological Marxism by summarizing its core issues. For example, the book Ecological Critique and Green Utopia: A Study of Ecological Marxism Theory, published in 2009, summarizes five theoretical aspects of ecological Marxism: the ecological implications of historical materialism, criticism of the capitalist system, criticism of capitalist technology use, the critique of consumerist values, and ecological political strategies.¹⁷ It regards ecological Marxism as a critique of capitalism that is based on historical materialism and focuses on the relationship between humanity and nature. Such thematic studies have contributed to a more comprehensive and in-depth understanding of eco-Marxism in China. However, at this stage, Chinese scholars have not applied eco-Marxism effectively to analyze China’s specific environmental issues.

After 2015, eco-Marxism research in China proactively transitioned from transferring knowledge to providing ideological resources for analyzing China’s environmental challenges. This shift has been particularly noticeable in the following three key areas.

First, scholars have delved into eco-Marxism with a specific focus on the foundational aspects of China’s progress in ecological civilization, seeking sources of inspiration. For instance, Chen Xueming has articulated that the theoretical essence of eco-Marxism lies in observing the contradictions among people and through observing contradictions between humanity and nature. In Chen’s view, eco-Marxism emphasizes the significance of productive activities in making people happy; it also underscores the critique of capitalism as a pivotal strategy for addressing environmental problems. Consequently, progress on ecological civilization in China is seen as conditioned on a human-centered value outlook, incorporating a form of modernization based on the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature and a socialist development path.¹⁸

Second, scholars have applied the basic principles of eco-Marxism to the context of latecomer nations, developing a theory of ecological civilization rooted in historical materialism. For instance, Wang Yuchen contended that China’s approach to progress on ecological civilization should entail a dialectical examination of the interplay of economic growth, technological advancement, and environmental protection. This perspective underscores the transformative potential of ecological civilization as an alternative to capitalism, thus advocating for the development of a theory that aligns with socialist modernization goals.¹⁹

Third, scholars proposed to integrate China’s progress in ecological civilization into the global discourse of the green left. For example, Huan Qingzhi argued that behind the practical measures of environmental governance and green economic development, China’s progress in ecological civilization embodies a profound political ideology and an understanding of socioecological transformations. It aims to foster the integration and mutual reinforcement between socialist politics and values conducive to ecological sustainability, thereby constituting an important aspect of the global green left initiative.²⁰

Therefore, through continuous research on eco-Marxism, the Chinese academic community has embarked on the development of its own distinctive eco-Marxism. This approach employs eco-Marxism as a theoretical resource for analyzing contemporary capitalism and ecological crises while taking proactive steps to interpret the socialist pursuit of China’s progress on ecological civilization within the global context. While this interpretation leans toward normative perspectives, it underscores the evolving subjective consciousness within Chinese Marxist ecology, which is characterized by a desire to address contemporary challenges and tell China’s own stories using indigenous theories and its own vernacular.

The Construction of Socialist Eco-Civilization Theory

Socialist ecological civilization theory stands out as a distinctive product of Chinese Marxist ecology. While it often draws from the ecological insights of Marx and Engels and builds upon the theoretical fruits of eco-Marxism, the theory’s primary focus is the progress of China’s socialist eco-civilization and interpreting the theoretical implications of socialist eco-civilization and its Marxist underpinnings. This approach underscores the necessity and superiority of socialist principles, systems, and ideologies in effectively addressing environmental challenges, while also outlining the historical conditions necessary to realize these advantages. This endeavor contributes to the development of a distinct Chinese theory of “red-green” socioecological transformation. This primarily refers to the research conducted by the Research Group on Socialist Eco-Civilization in China, which was established jointly by Peking University and the Beijing Office of the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung in 2015.²¹

The promotion and implementation of the concept of ecological civilization is largely attributed to the interplay of China’s political-strategic development and academic research. From the perspective of the Chinese government, the idea of “ecological civilization” was officially put forward during the Seventeenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 2007. Since then, ecological civilization gradually has become a key component of the Party’s political ideology and governance strategy. In terms of the process of academic research, Chinese scholars began advancing theories of socialist eco-civilization as early as the 1980s. For example, in 1986, Chinese agronomist Ye Qianji proposed the concept of “ecological civilization,” meaning that “human beings benefit from nature and return benefits to nature. They transform nature and protect nature. They should maintain a harmonious and unified relationship.”²²

In 1988, Chinese economist Liu Sihua introduced the concept of “socialist ecological civilization.” He stated that “the modern civilization of socialism is a high-level unity of socialist material civilization, spiritual civilization, and ecological civilization.”²³ In his view, the coordinated development of the economy, society, and natural ecology is (or should be) the major difference between socialist modernization and capitalist modernization.

The pathbreaking value of these studies by Chinese scholars in the last century lies in the following aspects. First, these scholars proposed that the concept of ecological civilization be developed with the goal of meeting the needs of people’s comprehensive development, emphasizing that ecological civilization embodies the full realization of socialist values, with people as the priority. Second, they discussed ecological civilization within the context of China’s socialist modernization, underscoring its fundamental role in shaping the relationship between humanity and nature within the socialist framework. Third, they elaborated on ecological civilization in the context of interactions between material civilization and spiritual civilization. At the same time, they pointed out that the era of ecological civilization marks the dawn of true civilization.

Entering the twenty-first century, the Chinese academic community has embarked on a deeper exploration of the foundational concepts of socialist eco-civilization from a theoretical perspective. A primary consideration is the theoretical understanding of socialist eco-civilization. There are two prevailing interpretations. One traces the progression from “primitive civilization, agricultural civilization, industrial civilization, and ecological civilization,” viewing ecological civilization as a new stage in the evolution of civilization beyond industrial civilization.²⁴ The other view links the ecological to the sequence of “material civilization, political civilization, spiritual civilization, social civilization, and ecological civilization” making up human civilization as a whole.²⁵ However, these interpretations do not fully integrate socialism with ecological civilization. According to socialist eco-civilization theory, socialist eco-civilization encompasses a vision of socialist civilization and of a development mode integrating ecological sustainability and the principles of social justice. This approach intrinsically aims to construct a new human civilization through the socialist reconstruction of social relations alongside a fundamental ecological transformation of humanity’s existing methods of production. The ultimate goal is the realization of communism, which entails the liberation of both humanity and nature.²⁶ The modifier “socialist” indicates a socialist method of thinking in response to environmental problems. It also emphasizes adherence to Marxist theoretical guidance, socialist development pathways, and the institutional framework of public ownership of natural resources.²⁷

A second consideration is the value system of socialist eco-civilization. The Chinese academic community has long been debating anthropocentrism versus non-anthropocentrism, with the prevailing tendency shifting from criticizing anthropocentrism to reshaping anthropocentrism. Socialist eco-civilization theory explicitly upholds humanism, aiming to meet people’s needs for a healthy ecological environment and high-quality ecological products in a more comprehensive and equitable manner. This approach aligns with Marxism’s pursuit of the free and holistic development of humankind.²⁸ According to this value system, socialist eco-civilization progress must prioritize socioecological justice. This entails not only equal access to environmental rights and the equitable distribution of environmental responsibilities at the societal level, but also fostering respect and care for nature at the ecological level.

A third consideration is the practical strategy of socialist eco-civilization. The Chinese academic community has reached a consensus on upholding the principle of “harmony between humanity and nature” in order to promote a comprehensive and green transformation of the economy and society. This entails advancing environmental-modernization governance and fostering a green economy, along with the progress of socialist reforms. On this premise, a key concern among Chinese scholars is how to integrate ecological conservation as an intrinsic element and essential aspect of socialist modernization.²⁹ One question is whether—and to what extent—various green transformation initiatives can contribute to the development and optimization of the socialist model. In response, socialist eco-civilization theory emphasizes that contemporary ecological conservation efforts should not be driven by private capital and market mechanisms. Instead, it advocates for collective social actions guided by the foundational principles of a socialist system and political organization. In this process, ongoing institutionalized public participation and the sharing of natural resources serve as the economic foundation and are fundamental to ensuring the socialist nature of ecological conservation.³⁰

In 2012, the Eighteenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China developed a political discourse on ecological civilization, summarized as “Xi Jinping Thought on Eco-Civilization.” To provide this political discourse with greater scientific and theoretical underpinnings, the Chinese academic community initiated a systematic exploration of socialist eco-civilization theories and proposed a series of new concepts.³¹

The most significant core concepts are “a community of life” and the “modernization of harmony between humanity and nature.” These two concepts respectively form the philosophical foundation and practical principle of socialist eco-civilization theory. “A community of life” can be further elaborated as three dimensions: the “community of life in mountains, waters, farmlands, lakes, and grasslands”; the “community of life for humanity and nature”; and the “community of all life on Earth.” The first dimension refers to the integrity of the ecosystem and the close interactions among its various components. This means that human activities should be based on perceiving nature as an organized whole or a living organism. The second dimension aims to challenge the dichotomy between humanity and nature prevalent in modern philosophical thought and emphasize their interrelation and symbiotic relationship. This highlights the necessity for humans to adapt to nature’s laws and accept the constraints of the ecosystem. The third dimension, the “community of all life on Earth” is another expression of “the community with a shared future for mankind” in the field of environment. It emphasizes that no single nation or region, regardless of its economic or political power, can determine its own fate unilaterally, let alone that of the entire planet. Though emphasizing different aspects, the core of these three concepts underscores the imperative for humanity to coexist harmoniously with nature.

“The modernization of harmony between humanity and nature” is a practical approach aimed at safeguarding the community of life within the framework of modernization, namely, achieving the harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature through a new form of modernization. It is essential to differentiate this concept within socialist eco-civilization theory from the notion of “ecological modernization” that emerged in Europe in the mid- to late 1980s. Ecological modernization, prevalent in developed capitalist nations, seeks to enhance gradually environmental quality through economic and technological improvements and public administration adjustments (including the increasing application of market instruments), often without challenging the fundamental tenets of capitalism. In contrast, the modernization of harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature, underpinned by the basic principles of socialism and led by a Marxist governing party, is able to resist submitting to capitalist interests and emphasizes long-term strategic planning and progressive practices. While drawing on certain strategies applied by other countries to ecological modernization, such as carbon emissions trading, the modernization of harmony between humanity and nature ensures that all such measures remain aligned with socialist principles. Approaches to ecological modernization are viewed in terms of their respective development models and the social contexts in which they operate.

One of the fundamental propositions—perhaps the most pivotal—is encapsulated in the phrase, “lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets.” The full statement of this proposition was made by Xi in 2013, saying “We want to have not only mountains of gold, but also mountains of green. If we must choose between the two, we would rather have the green than the gold. And in any case, green mountains are themselves gold mountains.”³² The Chinese academic community has conducted theoretical research on this passage and regarded it as one of the most representative statements of socialist eco-civilization theory. Because the underlying idea is not obscure and can easily be disseminated among government officials and the public, it exerts greater practical effects. In socialist eco-civilization theory, the proposition that “lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets” includes three fundamental viewpoints. First, the proposition upholds the principle of ecological primacy in the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature. This principle dictates that human activities must not exceed the limits of natural resources and the environment. Instead, human beings must leave ample space and time to restore nature, as any harm inflicted upon nature ultimately rebounds upon human beings themselves. Second, it adopts a dialectical perspective on the relationship between economic development and environmental protection. It advocates for a healthy relationship in which economic development and environmental protection mutually reinforce each other. This relationship requires innovative development models and corresponding economic and political systems. This is particularly crucial for contemporary China, which finds itself in the middle and late stages of the modernization process. The third viewpoint emphasizes the pursuit of a scientific and rational transformation of natural wealth into economic and social prosperity. It acknowledges that a good ecological environment is a collective asset of humanity, and must be protected and harnessed for the improvement of people’s lives under appropriate conditions. The key is to identify a scientific pathway for transformation that aligns with the principles of both nature and economy. Therefore, the essence of implementing the philosophy of “lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets” lies in the ecological transformation of the production model and lifestyles so as to foster a modernization path characterized by ecological primacy, green development, and benefits to people’s well-being, thereby propelling us toward a future characterized by socialist eco-civilization.

Therefore, as the Chinese government continues to develop ecological conservation on all fronts, the theoretical discussion on the theory and practice of socialist eco-civilization within the Chinese academic community has emerged as a significant component in deepening Marxist ecology research. This allows the general principles of Marxist ecology to be specified within the social and historical realities of China, leading to the development of new theoretical discourses, thus highlighting the academic community’s independent stance through its choice of research subjects. This deepening also means that Chinese scholars have become more proactive in utilizing their unique theoretical discourses and concepts to address their own (and also global) challenges, marking a crucial step toward humanity joining hands in addressing ecological crises.

Conclusion

An examination of the trajectory of Marxist ecology studies in China since the 1980s reveals that Marxist ecology has become a vibrant and prolific area of study within contemporary Chinese academia. This research has yielded significant fruits across three main fronts: 1) interpretations of the ecological perspectives of Marx and Engels, 2) interpretations of the theoretical underpinnings of eco-Marxism, and 3) explorations of socialist eco-civilization theory. Notably, the exploration of the socialist eco-civilization theory has been greatly deepened in recent years, transitioning from research on the fundamental theory of ecological civilization to the theoretical analysis of China’s ecological conservation and the formulation of discourse frameworks. At the same time, the research on classical Marxism and eco-Marxism has provided theoretical foundations and methodological frameworks for studies of socialist eco-civilization theory. This research also demonstrates that these three domains are not independent. Instead, they show interrelated and progressive trajectories. Indeed, Marxist ecology in China has always been a theoretical response for addressing issues occurring in China’s journey toward socialist modernization and its accompanying environmental challenges. In the early twenty-first century, research on Marxist ecology primarily focused on exploring classic Marxist texts and global academic frontiers. However, the ongoing evolution of China’s progress toward ecological civilization brought a shift in Marxist ecology studies. This shift entails a transition from a stage that is centered on understanding the ecological philosophies of Marx and Engels and exploring eco-Marxism to a new phase, dominated by the paradigm of “Sinicization of Marxism.”

The contemporary landscape of Marxist ecology in China represents a significant historical transformation brought about by both theoretical advancements and practical application. Over four decades, Chinese scholars have amassed a wealth of intellectual knowledge and methodologies for studies on Marxism. For instance, the academic community in China has engaged in in-depth discussions on the relationship between the study of classical texts in Marxist research and real-world issues.³³ They emphasize that the concepts of “returning to Marxism” and “developing Marxism” should be interdependent and seamlessly integrated. It is essential to prioritize reality and continuously advance theoretical and methodological innovations. This approach aims to facilitate the transition of Marxist ecology from abstract concepts and the construction of universal principles toward independent research on the realities of Chinese society and its practical logic. In addition, China’s endeavors in ecological conservation represent a significant historical practice within a socialist framework, offering real opportunities and an innovative space for the development of Chinese Marxist ecology. In particular, it raises a series of theoretical issues to be studied.³⁴ For instance, what efforts have contributed to the success of China’s ecological conservation endeavors? What role does the socialist system play in these achievements? How can we effectively integrate Marxism/socialism with ecological studies? This implies that contemporary Marxist ecology in China not only needs to substantiate scientifically the ecological crises prevalent in capitalist societies and the necessary reconciliation among human beings and between humanity and nature in the ideal communist society, but also to elucidate how progress in ecological civilization at the primary stage of socialism can achieve the historical transcendence of capitalism and green capitalism and accomplish the “red-green transformation” in the middle and advanced stages of socialism.

Currently, research on Chinese Marxist ecology has yet to provide fully convincing theoretical responses to the aforementioned questions and, in the process, there are numerous challenges and limitations in terms of research perspectives and methodologies. Foremost among these challenges are the constraints posed by disciplinary boundaries. Within the established disciplinary framework of Marxist theory in China, the ecological theories of Marx and Engels, ecological Marxism, and socialist eco-civilization theory are categorized into distinct subdisciplines; namely, Fundamental Principles of Marxism, Studies on Marxism Abroad, and Marxism under a Chinese Context, respectively. This restricts the holistic understanding and comprehensive research of Marxist ecology and hinders synergistic interaction among classical Marxist texts, global academic frontiers, and indigenous Chinese theoretical studies.

The second issue lies in an excessive reliance on textual interpretation methods. Due to a lack of understanding and application of the knowledge and methodologies of broader environmental humanities and social sciences, current Chinese Marxist ecology research often confines itself to the generalization or even repetition of the ideas of Marx, Engels, and eco-Marxist scholars, as well as government documents on the policies of ecological conservation. As a result, it is difficult to achieve a rigorous analysis of the logical reasonableness and practical applicability of existing theories and policies, and even more challenging to develop unique insights and cognitive methodologies.

The third challenge stems from real-world environmental shifts. As China grapples with worsening international environmental conditions, ensuring ideological security and reinforcing the independence of knowledge systems have become important concerns in China’s academic research. In this context, Chinese scholars must think carefully about how to balance the relationship between general theoretical research with the value of critical reflections, and how to transform the interpretation of political discourse into the creation of academic discourse. Addressing these complexities demands courage and wisdom from contemporary Chinese Marxist ecology researchers seeking to develop original ideas and solutions that will enable continual progress in the development of socialist eco-civilization.

Notes

1. ↩ John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett, Marx and the Earth: An Anti-Critique (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 1–11.
2. ↩ Huang Shunji and Liu Jiongzhong, “On the View of Nature in Das Kapital,” Journal of Hebei University (Philosophy and Social Science), no. 4 (1981): 1–9.
3. ↩ Xu Dixin, “Marx and Ecological Economics: Commemorating the 100th Anniversary of Marx’s Death,” Social Science Front, no. 3 (1983): 50–58.
4. ↩ Huan Qingzhi, The Discovery of the Value of the Natural Environment: A Study of the Marx-Engels View of Nature in the Modern Environment (Nanning: Guangxi People’s Press, 1994); Xie Baojun, The Eco-Philosophical Implications of Marx’s View of Nature (Harbin: Heilongjiang People’s Press, 2002).
5. ↩ Chen Xueming, The Ecological Crisis and the Logic of Capital (Leiden: Brill, 2017).
6. ↩ Zhang Le, A Study on the Methodology of Resolving Ecological Crisis from the Perspective of Capital Logic Domain (Beijing: China Social Science Press, 2016), 55–89.
7. ↩ Ren Ping, “The Logic of Capital in Ecology and the Logic of Ecology in Capital: A Critique of the Logic of Capital Innovation in the Red-Green Dialogue,” Marxism and Reality 138, no. 5 (2015): 161–66.
8. ↩ Liu Sihua, Principles of Ecological Marxist Economics (Beijing: People’s Press, 2014).
9. ↩ Tao Huosheng, Research on Marx’s Ecological Thought (Beijing: Study Press, 2013); Liu Xigang, From Eco-Criticism to Eco-Civilization: A Study of the Value Logic of Marxist Ecological Theory (Beijing: People’s Press, 2021).
10. ↩ Sun Daojin, Studies in Marxist Environmental Philosophy (Beijing: People’s Press, 2008); Dong Qiang, Studies on the Marxist Ecological Perspective (Beijing: People’s Press, 2015); Fang Shinan, The Ecological Civilization Thought of Marx and Engels (Beijing: People’s Press, 2017).
11. ↩ Zhihe Wang, Meijun Fan, Hui Dong, and Dezhong Sun, “Ecological Marxism in China,” Monthly Review 63, no. 9 (February 2012): 36–44.
12. ↩ Ben Agger, Western Marxism: An Introduction (Santa Monica: Goodyear Publishing, 1979); William Leiss, The Domination of Nature (Boston: Beacon Press, 1974).
13. ↩ Liu Rensheng, An Introduction to Ecological Marxism (Beijing: Central Compilation and Translation Press, 2007).
14. ↩ Guo Jianren, Ecological Criticism: A Study of Foster’s Ecological Marxism (Beijing: People’s Press, 2008).
15. ↩ Zhihe Wang, Meijun Fan, Hui Dong, and Dezhong Sun, “What Does Ecological Marxism Mean for China?: Questions and Challenges for John Bellamy Foster,” Monthly Review 64, no. 9 (February 2013): 47–53.
16. ↩ Kang Ruihua, Wang Ximan, and Ma Jidong, Critiques, Structuring and Inspiration: A Study of Foster’s Eco-Marxist Ideas (Beijing: China Social Science Press, 2011); Hu Ying, A Study on Foster’s Ecological Marxist Thoughts (Harbin: Heilongjiang University Press, 2013); Jia Xuejun, A Study of Foster’s Ecological Marxist Thoughts (Beijing: People’s Press, 2016); Liu Shun, The Ecological Criticism of the Logic of Capital: An Evaluation of Foster’s Ecological Critical Thoughts in the Field of Marxism (Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Press, 2020); Chen Wu, Research on Foster’s Thought on Justice: Based on the Field of Eco-Marxism (Beijing: China Social Science Press, 2020); Liu Yalan, Research on Foster’s Ecological Marxism (Beijing: Social Science Academic Press, 2023).
17. ↩ Wang Yuchen, Ecological Critique and Green Utopia: A Study of Ecological Marxism Theory (Beijing: People’s Press, 2009).
18. ↩ Chen, The Ecological Crisis and the Logic of Capital.
19. ↩ Wang Yuchen, Ecological Marxism and Ecological Civilization Studies (Beijing: People’s Press, 2015); Wang Yuchen, Ecological Marxism and the Theoretical Study of Ecological Civilization in Latecomer Nations (Beijing: People’s Press, 2017).
20. ↩ Huan Qingzhi, “Socialist Eco-Civilization as a Transformative Politics,” Capitalism Nature Socialism 32, no. 3 (2021): 65–83.
21. ↩ Huan Qingzhi and Wang Congcong, Socialist Ecological Civilization: Theory and Practice (Devon: China Forestry Publishing House, 2022); Huan Qingzhi, “Socialist Eco-Civilization and Social-Ecological Transformation,” Capitalism Nature Socialism 27, no. 2 (2016): 51–66.
22. ↩ Ye Qianji, Ye Qianji Anthology (Beijing: Social Science Academic Press, 2014), 81.
23. ↩ Liu Sihua, Selected Works (Nanning: Guangxi People’s Press), 225.
24. ↩ Lu Feng, “Agricultural Civilization, Industrial Civilization and Ecological Civilization: An Essay on the Core Ideas of Ecological Philosophy,” Theoretical Investigation 223, no. 6 (2021): 94–101.
25. ↩ Zhang Yunfei, “On the Historical Position of Ecological Civilization,” Capitalism Nature Socialism 30, no. 1 (2019): 11–25.
26. ↩ Pan Yue, “On Socialist Eco-Civilization,” Green Leaf, no. 10 (2006): 10–18; Chen Xueming, Ecological Civilization Theory (Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing Group, 2008); Ji Zhiqiang, Socialist Eco-Civilization: How It Is Possible (Beijing: Central Party Literature Press, 2015).
27. ↩ Zhang Jian, Ecological Civilization and Socialism (Beijing: Minzu University of China Press, 2010), 199–209; Cai Huajie, “The Socialist Meaning of Socialist Eco-Civilization,” Teaching and Research 423, no. 1 (2014): 95–101.
28. ↩ Zhang Yunfei, “People-Oriented Value Orientation of Socialist Eco-Civilization,” Marxism and Reality 166, no. 3 (2020): 68–75.
29. ↩ Zhou Yang, Study on the Ecological Civilization Progress under the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan (Beijing: China Book Press, 2019).
30. ↩ Zhang Yunfei, “The Scientific Paradigm of the Socialist View of Ecological Civilization,” Studies on Marxism 244, no. 10 (2020): 45–53; Huan Qingzhi, “On Socialist Ecological Civilization Economy,” Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) 325, no. 3 (2021): 5–14; Li Qiang, “The Connotation and Path Construction of Natural Capitalization in the Construction of Socialist Ecological Civilization,” Journal of Poyang Lake 89, no. 2 (2024): 35–46.
31. ↩ Zhang Yunfei, “A Primer on the Discourse System of Xi Jinping’s Thought on Eco-Civilization,” Probe 208, no. 4 (2019): 22–31; Huan Qingzhi, “The Systematic Sample, Core Concepts and Basic Propositions of Xi Jinping’s Thought on Ecological Civilization,” Academic Monthly 628, no.9 (2021): 5–16.
32. ↩ Xi Jinping quoted in China Media Project, “Green Waters and Green Mountains,” April 16, 2021.
33. ↩ Wang Dong, “The Relationship Between Thesis-Based Research and Theoretical Innovation,” Academic Monthly, no. 1 (2003): 8–11; Wu Xiaoming, On the Independent-Assertion of Chinese Academics (Shanghai: Fudan University Press, 2016).
34. ↩ Wang Zhihe, He Huili, and Fan Meijun, “The Ecological Civilization Debate in China,” Monthly Review 66, no. 6 (November 2014): 37–59.