******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
MM wrote
> On Aug 13, 2018, at 6:59 PM, Ralph Johansen via Marxism
<marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
> I think calling this epoch "Capitalocene" instead of "Anthropocene"
makes the most sense, in line with the term "ecosocialist." In an
ongoing struggle with increasing direction towards essential systemic
change, calling it for what it is becomes important, historically and
currently. "Anthropocene" doesn't nail it, for obvious reasons. I sense
that Ian Angus agrees, but it's not mentioned here, and I'd like to know
whether.
Ian addressed this a couple of years ago in his review of Jason Moore’s
book:
http://climateandcapitalism.com/2016/09/26/anthropocene-or-capitalocene-misses-the-point/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have read the article, thanks, and I quote below all that seems
relevant there to my question. Angus does not agree with the term
"Capitolicene" but refers readers to his book. Unfair, we should not
have to read the book to get the answer to a disagreement he alludes to
that he says he has with others. The difference between the terms
"Anthropocene" and Capitalocene" is one he is fully aware of. It
ascribes cause, the former in a misleading way.
Why not a brief explanation in this review backing his disagreement? I
may be missing something, but I can speculate that it's because he
considers it important to join the discussion with scientists and
activists whose orientation is not ecosocialist, join alliances without
appearing to be rigidly sectarian. Or that it's a problem that pre-dates
capitalism, which seems clearly not his position. Given the extreme
urgency of the issue and the absence of any alternative to ecosocialism
to address the problem, as he well says, if that's the reason then I
question his conclusion.
I once had a similar experience. long ago. We were a liberal group led
by the Friends Committee on Legislation, a Quaker group, discussing
content of our pamphlet opposing nuclear testing, proposing cessation of
nuclear testing as a first step towards disarmament. A group of
Trotskyists came into the meeting, arguing against the premise that
nuclear disarmament was a first step toward disarmament or much of
anything else, that the solution was to attack capitalism and global
inequality as basic cause. I agree now, of course, but then we as
liberals instead of examining their argument were spooked by the
sectarian packing of the meeting and what we perceived to be an attempt
to constitute a majority and to take over. We took the discussion
elsewhere and published the pamphlet with our premise intact. Shame on
me, but that seems to be how tremulous liberals still react to organized
socialists. So it's a continuing dilemma, to be approached carefully.
From the article:
"...Andreas Malm says that “a more scientifically accurate
designation…would be ‘the Capitalocene,’” he makes clear that he is
referring to the “new geological epoch” that will last far longer than
capitalism itself.10 I disagree with Malm about the name..."
"Most people who think the Anthropocene should be called Capitalocene
are not challenging the science — they simply want to focus attention on
capitalism’s responsibility for the crisis in the Earth System that
scientists have identified."
"Moore is not alone in preferring the label Capitalocene, but most
people who support that term agree that Earth System scientists have
correctly identified a new stage in planetary history: they simply want
a name that focuses attention on capitalism’s responsibility for the
crisis.
"The IGBP concluded that the “Earth System as a whole” is experiencing
unprecedented and qualitative change caused by recent human action. Its
2004 synthesis report was explicit: “The second half of the twentieth
century is unique in the entire history of human existence on earth….
The last 50 years have without doubt seen the most rapid transformation
of the human relationship with the natural world in the history of
humankind.”2"
"Marx and Engels studied and adopted ideas from the scientists of their
day—Liebig on soil fertility, Morgan on early societies, Darwin on
evolution, and more. We should follow their example and learn from
today’s scientists, especially those who are studying the planetary
emergency."
"If the Left stays out of the discussion, if we condemn it from the
sidelines, we will be leaving Anthropocene science and scientists under
the ideological sway of neoliberalism, and we will be irrelevant to the
most important scientific developments of our time. Adoption of Moore’s
approach would do lasting damage to both science and radical politics,
and undermine our ability to carry through the radical social and
geophysical transformations that are needed in our time."
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
