True, Marx et al. didn't care about environment. For them, "we use it" and that's all, appropiation of natural resources. Marx refused talking about Malthus - for him, if Malthus' Law is true, it's unavoidable; and if it's false, we don't need to take it into account. I criticize Marx in this...
This' one place where Marxians¹ and Marxists differ: most Marxists see nature as something that must be preserved, Marxians ignore.
Marxists believed in science and progress. Paradise on earth was in the future, not some sort of misty, bucolic past. (According to Engels, industrialisation had pulled the working class out of a vegetative state ‘not worthy of human beings’.)
"Working class" was misused - in Engel's texts, he used proletarian
instead. He is talking about the Roman free men (the nearest equivalent to today's proletariat); they wasn't the productive class as today, but slavekind was.
And, wow. My English is rusting
I don't give a shit if "sustainable development" became cliché
; for me, it's an important thing to follow.
1 - for those not aknowledged by the term, "Marxians" are those who follow what Marx writes as sola scriptura
; they ignore Engel's, Lenin's, Luxembourg's works completely when thinking about society and economy. For me it's like deny Genetics because Darwin didn't take it in account.
My English is rusting