[Marxism] The struggle for ecology in the early Soviet Union | Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Fri Nov 29 15:02:36 MST 2013


(Written in 1997.)

Ecology in the former Soviet Union
by Louis Proyect

Polluted rivers, deforestation, noxious smokestack emissions and 
Chernobyl. That is what comes to mind when we think of the former Soviet 
Union. Like much of the history of the former Soviet Union, there is 
another side to the story. Just as there were political alternatives to 
Stalin, there were alternative possibilities to the way that the planned 
economy dealt with nature. Douglas R. Weiner's "Models of Nature: 
Ecology, Conservation, and Cultural Revolution in Soviet Union" (Indiana 
Univ., 1988) is, as far as I know, the most detailed account of the 
efforts of the Russian government to implement a "green" policy.

This story starts, as you would expect, with the Bolshevik revolution. 
While Lenin has the reputation of being a crude "productivist," the 
actual record was quite the opposite. Although Lenin wanted to increase 
Soviet Russia's productive power, he thought that nature had to be 
respected.

The Communist Party issued a decree "On Land" in 1918. It declared all 
forests, waters, and minerals to be the property of the state, a 
prerequisite to rational use. When the journal "Forests of the Republic" 
complained that trees were being chopped down wantonly, the Soviet 
government issued a stern decree "On Forests" at a meeting chaired by 
Lenin in May of 1918. From then on, forests would be divided into an 
exploitable sector and a protected one. The purpose of the protected 
zones would specifically be to control erosion, protect water basins and 
the "preservation of monuments of nature." This last stipulation is very 
interesting when you compare it to the damage that is about to take 
place in China as a result of the Yangtze dam. The beautiful landscapes 
which inspired Chinese artists and poets for millennia is about to 
disappear, all in the name of heightened "productiveness."

What's surprising is that the Soviet government was just as protective 
of game animals as the forests, this despite the revenue-earning 
possibilities of fur. The decree "On Hunting Seasons and the Right to 
Possess Hunting Weapons" was approved by Lenin in May 1919. It banned 
the hunting of moose and wild goats and brought the open seasons in 
spring and summer to an end. These were some of the main demands of the 
conservationists prior to the revolution and the Communists satisfied 
them completely. The rules over hunting were considered so important to 
Lenin that he took time out from deliberations over how to stop the 
White Armies in order to meet with the agronomist Podiapolski.

Podialpolski urged the creation of "zapovedniki", roughly translatable 
as "nature preserves." Russian conservationists had pressed this long 
before the revolution. In such places, there would be no shooting, 
clearing, harvesting, mowing, sowing or even the gathering of fruit. The 
argument was that nature must be left alone. These were not even 
intended to be tourist meccas. They were intended as ecological havens 
where all species, flora and fauna would maintain the "natural 
equilibrium [that] is a crucial factor in the life of nature."

Podiapolski recalls the outcome of the meeting with Lenin:

"Having asked me some questions about the military and political 
situation in the Astrakhan' region, Vladimir Ilich expressed his 
approval for all of our initiatives and in particular the one concerning 
the project for the zapovednik. He stated that the cause of conservation 
was important not only for the Astrakhan krai, but for the whole 
republic as well."

Podiapolski sat down and drafted a resolution that eventually was 
approved by the Soviet government in September 1921 with the title "On 
the Protection of Nature, Gardens, and Parks." A commission was 
established to oversee implementation of the new laws. It included a 
geographer-anthropologist, a mineralogist, two zoologists, an ecologist. 
Heading it was Vagran Ter-Oganesov, a Bolshevik astronomer who enjoyed 
great prestige.

The commission first established a forest zapovednik in Astrakhan, 
according to Podiapolski's desires Next it created the Ilmenski 
zapovednik, a region which included precious minerals. Despite this, the 
Soviet government thought that Miass deposits located there were much 
more valuable for what they could teach scientists about geological 
processes. Scientific understanding took priority over the accumulation 
of capital. The proposal was endorsed by Lenin himself who thought that 
pure scientific research had to be encouraged. And this was at a time 
when the Soviet Union was desperate for foreign currency.

In my next post, I will cover the period of the NEP.

Under Lenin, the USSR stood for the most audacious approach to nature 
conservancy in the 20th century. Soviet agencies set aside vast portions 
of the country where commercial development, including tourism, would be 
banned. These "zapovedniki", or natural preserves, were intended for 
nothing but ecological study. Scientists sought to understand natural 
biological processes better through these living laboratories. This 
would serve pure science and it would also have some ultimate value for 
Soviet society's ability to interact with nature in a rational manner. 
For example, natural pest elimination processes could be adapted to 
agriculture.

After Lenin's death, there were all sorts of pressures on the Soviet 
Union to adapt to the norms of the capitalist system that surrounded and 
hounded it and produce for profit rather than human need. This would 
have included measures to remove the protected status of the 
zapovedniki. Surprisingly, the Soviet agencies responsible for them 
withstood such pressures and even extended their acreage through the 1920s.

One of the crown jewels was the Askania-Nova zapovednik in the Ukranian 
steppes. The scientists in charge successfully resisted repeated bids by 
local commissars to extend agriculture into the area through the end of 
the 1920s. Scientists still enjoyed a lot of prestige in the Soviet 
republic, despite a growing move to make science cost-justify itself. 
Although pure science would eventually be considered "bourgeois", the 
way it was in the Chinese Cultural Revolution, it could stand on its own 
for the time being.

The head administrator of Askania-Nova was Vladimir Stanchinksi, a 
biologist who sought to make the study of ecology an exact science 
through the use of quantitative methods, including mathematics and 
statistics. He identified with scientists in the West who had been 
studying predator-prey and parasite-host relationships with laws drawn 
from physics and chemistry. (In this he was actually displaying an 
affinity with Karl Marx, who also devoted a number of years to the study 
of agriculture using the latest theoretical breakthroughs in the 
physical sciences and agronomy. Marx's study led him to believe that 
capitalist agriculture is detrimental to sound agricultural practices.)

Stanchinski adopted a novel approach to ecology. He thought that "the 
quantity of living matter in the biosphere is directly dependent on the 
amount of solar energy that is transformed by autotrophic plants." Such 
plants were the "economic base of the living world." He invoked the 
Second Law of Thermodynamics to explain the variations in mass between 
flora and fauna at the top, middle and bottom of the biosphere. Energy 
was lost as each rung in the ladder was scaled, since more and more work 
was necessary to procure food.

The whole purpose of the Askania-Nova was to allow scientists to observe 
such processes without interference from politicians or commerce. 
Unfortunately, there were already powerful forces being unleashed in 
Russian politics that would undermine these efforts.

They came from two sources which tended to reinforce one another. One 
was the sheer need to compete in a hostile capitalist world. This meant 
that everything was ultimately judged on whether it could be bought or 
sold. The other hostile force was the Soviet science establishment 
itself that Stalin was reorienting toward a more "utilitarian" view of 
nature.

Stalin had very little use for theoretical science. On the 12th 
anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, he said, "All the objections 
raised by 'science' against the possibility and expediency of organizing 
great grain factories of forty to fifty thousand hectares have collapsed 
and crumbled to dust. Practice has refuted the objections of 'science,' 
and has once again shown that not only has practice to learn from 
'science,' but that 'science' also would do well to learn from practice."

(Of course, Stalin never examined the environmental consequences of such 
grain factories. The dubious lessons of such models are coming under 
scrutiny today as soil and water are exhausted by agribusiness, just as 
Marx anticipated in the 1860s.)

Eventually, Stalin and his minions began to view all pure scientists as 
being nuisances at best and counter-revolutionaries at worst. He sneered 
that they enjoyed the sort of "protected" status that the ecologists had 
achieved for the zapovedniki. "During the twelve years of revolution, 
the scholars of the USSR lived as if in a fastidiously protected 
zapovednik. In this All-Union zapovednik for the Endangered Species of 
Bourgeois Scientists, they found cozy corners for themselves...far out 
of sight of Soviet public opinion."

Stalin adapted a crude version of Marxism based on a "productivist" 
reading of the Communist Manifesto. Gone was any attempt to view society 
and nature as in harmony. Instead, man would conquer and tame nature 
like a hostile beast. Scientists and artists were sensitive to Stalin's 
new views and helped him find the words to express them. Leonid Leonov 
wrote a novel called "Soviet River" whose protagonist is the engineer 
Uvadiev. His antagonist? Nature itself. "From the moment when Uvadiev 
stepped on the bank, a challenge was cast at the River Sot'...and it 
seemed as though the very earth beneath his feet was his enemy." Another 
square-jawed, broad-shouldered hero is the Soviet manager Sergei 
Potemkin who had a dream to turn forests into newsprint. Leonov rhapsodizes:

"Gradually...his dream had swollen...Potemkin sleeps not; he straightens 
and deepens the ancient bed of rivers, increasing fourfold their 
carrying capacity...unties three provinces around his industrial 
infant...opens a paper college...Cellulose rivers flow to foreign lands, 
the percentage of cellulose in the newspaper world is tripled. The 
dreams urge on reality, and reality hastens on the dreams."

(Doesn't this sound a bit like an Ayn Rand novel? Apparently this 
Russian emigré must have sopped up the culture of such proletarian 
novels and simply transposed them to the capitalist world.)

Another hater of nature was the hack Maxim Gorky whose novel "Belomor" 
depicts the great dictator drawing up battle-plans against nature:

"Stalin holds a pencil. Before him lies a map of the region. Deserted 
shores. Remote villages. Virgin soil, covered with boulders. Primeval 
forests. Too much forest as a matter of fact; it covers the best soil. 
And swamps. The swamps are always crawling about, making life dull and 
slovenly. Tillage must be increased. The swamps must be drained...The 
Karelian Republic wants to enter the stage of classless society as a 
republic of factories and mills. And the Karelian Republic will enter 
classless society by changing its own nature."

The concrete form that subversion of the zapovedniki took was 
"acclimatization." Stalin and his science whores believed that it was 
necessary to import species that were not native to a region in order to 
maximize their value (i.e., commercial value.) This bone-headed idea 
found its most profound expression in the release of muskrats into 
various regions, despite the objections of scientists who thought that 
the result could be as disastrous as the import of rabbits into 
Australia. Muskrats might adapt well to the steppes, but they could very 
easily feed on valuable fish roe as well. What good would fur production 
be if salmon were destroyed in the process?

The justification for acclimatization was the same as that provided by 
the novelists Leonov and Gorky. It was part of man's historical mission 
to conquer nature. In 1929, the Stalinist Academician N.F. Kaschenko 
made a major statement on behalf of the policy. He argued that it would 
not only reduce the USSR's dependence on imports but "proletarianize" 
the availability of tropical fruits. The notion of growing pineapples in 
the Ukraine was as foolish as the proposed muskrat project, but Stalin's 
followers were not easily persuaded of their errors. Kaschenko's words 
epitomize the insanity of the anti-ecology assault that was gathering 
steam in the USSR and which would become official policy in less than 5 
years:

"The final goal of acclimatization, understood in the broad sense, is a 
profound rearrangement of the entire living world--not only that portion 
which is now under the domination of humanity but also that portion that 
has still remained wild. Generally speaking, all wild species will 
disappear with time; some will be exterminated, others will be 
domesticated. All nature will live, thrive, and die at none other than 
the will of humans and according to their designs. These are the 
grandiose perspective that open up before us."

Louis Proyect

(This is the second and final part of Douglas Weiner's "Models of 
Nature: Ecology, Conservation, and Cultural Revolution in Soviet Union," 
Indiana Univ., 1988)




More information about the Marxism mailing list