Notes & Thoughts

This is my first 0 star score. I'm going to say that I am not the intended reader of this book. Here are some extracts I noted as I read, and my thoughts as I became increasingly frustrated with this book, began to skim read, and eventually gave up. But don't let me put you off.

"In the countries of the global north, recent evolutions in capitalism have accelerated the destruction of the labour movement rather than put in place conditions that favour the development of communism. … History has taken a very different direction from the one imagined by early socialists. From an ecological perspective, the world in which communism was invented has also changed radically. Forests are burning," etc etc (Page 2)

"Communism needs now to reflect the fact that climate events will increasingly affect production and society."

"It is undeniable that a productivist strain exists deep within Marxism. … During the productivist period, the idea was universally held that increased production would lead to emancipation. The more completely societies dominated nature through technology, the more individuals would be liberated from the chains of labor." Page 5

"In part, this book means to show that political ecology will be able to succeed only if it adopts a communist stance: the general flourishing of individuals is dependent upon the abolition of the material conditions of suffering (starting with the exploitation of labor—whether wage, unpaid, or household labor). But this goal must now be rethought through an ecological lens, which so often has been missing from the communist movement. Because the exhaustion of natural resources, the consumption of fossil fuels, and the pollution of ecosystems are the accepted material by-products of the quest for profit, there is no accumulation of value without an exploitation of labor that destroys the environment in ever-intensifying ways."

"This book proposes a counterintuitive thesis: the ecological crisis does not push communism further away; instead, it calls for its urgent return. It is true that communism must shed its productivist trappings in order to become ecological, that it must reorient itself in an era of global warming, and that’s it must realise that utopian prerogatives of rural communes." Page 8

It’s ironic that I’m now reading How to Write Clearly at the same time as Anthropocene Communism. Often when I read Marxist inspired works I find the key recurring concepts quite mysterious. Historical materialism? I find the terminology off putting. Unnecessary. “The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals.” Ah yes, of course. I was about to say the same thing. What does it even mean? Why do you need a premise for human history? Why say living human individuals? You mean humans? Is Engels just saying you can’t have human history without humans? Duh!

Seems to me that the crux of the book is that our way of life depends on the environment and therefore we need to take the environment into account. But given we’re in a climate emergency, I’m not sure why the best way to do this is via analysis of Marxism. Can we not just get on with policy that suits the modern age. Do we have to fix up marxism and try to make it work?

"Thus communism is the best suited form of politics to address the capitalocene, it is because its central tenant – the critique of Private ownership of the means of production – continues to be pertinent. Marx and Engels focused readers on this point in the communist manifesto: “the theory of the communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property”. This is what a Marxist intervention ecology can do: it can focus us on how the exploitation of labour, the colonisation of the earths land, and the destruction of nature are all part of the system of capitalist property relations, which deprives human and non-human collectivities of their means of subsistence." Page 17.

I’m becoming quite frustrated with this book. If you start a book by stating we are in a climate emergency, why would you think analysing Marxism was a good response to that. For me it just feels like a waste of time. Slow down, the book about degrowth communism was much more plain speaking and practical.

"The autonomous power of the procreation of the real (or 'symbionomia') emerges within culturally and historically determined conditions, which is to say, conditions that are informed by a heteronomous social history." You what guv? What am I supposed to do with that sentence? That’s it for me. I’ve had enough. I’ve scanned the rest of the book and it looks like it’s more of the same. It’s not for me. It just feels so disconnected from reality. Who is this book written for? Definitely not me.