(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



AntiCapitalist MeetUp: Climate Change is about Class War among others. [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']

Date: 2023-05-28

Matt Huber’s new book is worth your attention (30-50% off at Verso this month $4.99 as an e-book). Socialism can be built on a warming planet and we should work more on the consequences of metabolic rift particularly with respect to working class agency. More analytic approaches will be necessary at macro- and micro- levels of the Capitalocene.

Climate Change as Class War begins from the premise that the climate movement is losing, and seeks how we might not. This is a question of power. As Jane McAlevey points out, to build power social movements must first engage in a “power-structure analysis” of “precisely who needs to be defeated, overcome, or persuaded to achieve success.”11 On that front, we need to build power to take on some of the wealthiest corporations in world history. My central argument is that this particular power struggle is a class struggle over relations that underpin our social and ecological relationship with nature and the climate itself: ownership and control of production.

Resistance to the consequences of neoliberalism can yet reflect on the issues of historical materialism and class consciousness. It remains worth noting that Marx himself never explicitly described his theory of history.

The theory of historical materialism has also been charged with being overly simplistic and reductionist; it is often referred to as “technological determinism” by those who say so. Opponents argue that it is simply not true that the mode of production by itself determines the institutional structure of every society. Marxists can reply that Engels himself agreed that the mode of production is not the only determining element, but this concession raises other problems. To wit: if other elements can influence production, then history is not solely the result of economic activity. www.britannica.com/… The end of history is a concept most often associated with Marx, but appearing earlier in his predecessor Hegel. Hegel was (according to Fukuyama) the first philosopher who saw man as a product of his historical and social environment. But unlike later historicists, Hegel did not turn to complete relativism. www.studocu.com/… Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence helped establish analytical Marxism as a school of thought,[5] and came to be seen as a classic.[10] The book was praised by the historian G. E. M. de Ste. Croix,[11] and was also commended by the political scientist David McLellan.[12] According to the philosopher Peter Singer, Cohen, in contrast to some more Hegelian interpretations of Marx's thought, "argues brilliantly for a more old-fashioned interpretation of Marxism as a scientific theory of history, an interpretation often known – disparagingly – as 'technological determinism'."[3] The critic Terry Eagleton, who understands G.A. Cohen to be espousing a determinist theory in which productive forces automatically produce certain social relations, finds Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence to be a skillful defense of a "wrongheaded" idea.[7] en.wikipedia.org/... x Nearly 25% of the U.S.’s carbon emissions come from fossil fuels pumped or mined from lands and waters that belong to the public and leased by the government. It doesn’t have to be this way. https://t.co/VlBqHQRPYO — Earthjustice (@Earthjustice) March 23, 2023

---------------------------—

Is there a technologically deterministic cart put before the biophysical limits of the horse. Perhaps the desire of identity groups for recognition is a key threat to liberalism only in that they subordinate working class agency, but remain in Department II (sic). It still will be about working out the financialized commodity relation to property.

Nearly five decades into the neoliberal assault on the working classes, amid the horrifying prospect of climate and ecological breakdown, the challenges before us cannot be underestimated. We would, however, also be underestimating the potential for a way out of the crisis if we failed to recognise and build on the possibilities of the present, the first signs of a deepening structural crisis in the here and now – the exhaustion of neoliberalism, and economic and social stresses all over the world that can create opportunities to defy ruling class power, in the unions and in the streets. We necessarily have to contend with the challenges: organised workers in the trade unions are often constrained by union bureaucracies that seek compromise; consciousness is uneven within the working class; and pessimism and defeat can overwhelm the best organisers. Despite these, there have been fundamental breakthroughs in the past, not just following the Russian Revolution but the post-Second World War period, 1968, 2011 and even 2019, where society was reimagined and the task of reordering it begun. By resurrecting accounts of revolutionary upheaval and moments of rupture that have been written out of history, and relating to existing struggles that working-class people are already fighting, we learn from those struggles and can advance them. Climate Change as Class War is an immense contribution towards putting the case for a stronger working class as a climate objective. Concluding the book, Huber argues that it did not take long for the balance of power to shift towards the working class in mid-1930s America when a combination of crisis and militant upsurge created the conditions for a momentous restructuring of capitalist relations in the form of the New Deal. It is absolutely true that the conditions for considerable political change can come quickly, and we need to be prepared. The work of political organising can be seen as putting things off, but we need to think in terms of the scale of the crisis. If we have to build mass movements that are powerful, democratic, internationalist and capable of reorganising society, then there are no shortcuts. The series of crises we face now are even deeper than those that wracked the 1930s, and the potential for movements to demand fundamental change is real. It is to this eventuality that we must bend our will.

x Wow gratifying when reviewers can distill my book’s arguments more eloquently and forcefully than I can (and also extend them further!).



Huge thanks @phaisie!! https://t.co/7sk0u6PuJl pic.twitter.com/BB3uLpP4wV — Matt Huber (@Matthuber78) May 25, 2023

​

x Matt Huber (@Matthuber78) makes cogent arguments in favor of using #NewNuclear as the foundation for a reliable, near-zero emissions grid.

Echoes of @GoldsteinJoshua and @QvistStaffan's Bright Future.

Warning–might be a challenge for those allergic to socialism/Marxism https://t.co/ttARND3fMk — Rod Adams (@Atomicrod) May 27, 2023

x And check out this very generous thread on the episode from one of the hosts @duncan__c https://t.co/i9aaFJBvFb — Matt Huber (@Matthuber78) May 27, 2023

More interesting is his interpretation of the latest Saito book. For me, the essence of historical materialism is understanding the “progressive character of capitalism.” In Capital, Marx shows how capital itself *socializes* the production process — integrates cooperation, science, & ‘the collective worker.’ 2/x Unroll available on Thread Reader Saito claims this abandonment begins in Capital (diverging from articulations of HM in 1859 preface/Grundrisse). Supposedly Marx’s concepts of cooperation/real subsumption show he no longer believed the dev of productive forces create the material conditions for socialism. 2/x It can’t be understated how bold these claims are (& I haven’t seen reviews bring it up): 159 — “[the pf of capital]..compelled Marx to abandon his earlier formulation of HM” 159 — “In Capital he was no longer able to endorse the progressive character of capitalism.” 3/x 173 — “In finally discarding both ethnocentrism and productivism [in the 1870s], Marx abandoned his earlier scheme of historical materialism. It was not an easy task for him. His worldview was in crisis.” 4/x 182- “Marx must have completely parted ways w/ HM as it has been traditionally understood” and Marx “consciously discarded historical materialism…” 5/x 177 — “He realized that the productive forces do not automatically prepare the material foundation for a new post-capitalist society, but rather exacerbate the robbery of nature.” 6/x This allows Saito to argue against HM and for a kind of ahistorical idealism. Under socialism there will be no use of capitalism’s productive forces. They “disappear together with the capitalist mode of production” (156). 7/x When it comes to technology, socialism will have to “start from scratch in many cases” (158). Start from scratch socialism! All the technological breakthroughs of the last few centuries must be smashed & disappear! 8/x So what *evidence* does Saito marshal for this claim about Marx abandoning HM (he literally calls it an *epistemological break* on p. 209, ala Althusser). It’s incredibly *thin*. 8/x He uses this passage from the preface to Capital in order to note the absence of his mention of ‘the productive forces’ in contrast to the famous 1859 preface. 9/x But, this ignores that Marx actually footnotes the 1859 preface in Capital itself! (p. 175 Penguin edition) To be fair he *does* exclude the productive forces from the quote, but he doesn’t seem like someone who had abandoned the 1859 formulation which he calls ‘my view’ 9/x Plus, in Capital itself, Marx says things like this *a lot*. Note here how central the “development of the productive forces” are argued to create the material conditions which “alone” (ALONE!) form the basis for socialism. Sounds pretty historical materialist to me! 10/x​ Also this passage from “Results…” (supposedly written btw 1863–66) which is the famous elaboration of the ‘real subsumption’ theory Saito claims is so central to abandoning HM. Again the productive forces *ALONE* provide the basis for a free society! 11/x​ OK, but to be fair, Saito claims Marx really abandons HM and becomes a full blown “degrowth communist” after 1868 in the last 15 years of his life. What’s his evidence there? Again not much! 12/x Basically some notebooks where Marx transcribed some things about livestock and soil (180–1). The key evidence is the well-trodden examination of Marx’s study of Russian agricultural communes in the 1870s 13/x Saito makes a huge inference (and analytical leap) where he claims because these communes were stationary (developmentally) and Marx thought they could provide a basis for communism, he was a ‘degrowth communist’ (207). Wild! 14/x But even Saito’s quotes from Marx and Engels’s 1882 preface to the communist manifesto showing both believed the communes could become a “point of departure” only alongside “proletarian revolution in the West, so that the two complement each other…” (195). 15/x Also, again, if Marx fully abandons HM and becomes a ‘degrowth communist’ in the 1870s, he continues to write passages like this from The 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program that look rigidly HM! (Saito admits some read the Gotha program this way, 234). 16/x​ OK fair question: does it matter? Is this pointless Marxology? I think it matters. Marx’s theory of HM is one of his most powerful ideas that inspired literally *millions* to believe capitalism was laying the conditions for the abolition of class & human emancipation.17/x Here’s how Lenin sums up the Critique of the Gotha Program (written in Marx’s peak degrowth phase apparently): 18/x​ Here’s Engels at Marx’s funeral explaining the power of his materialist theory of history (btw on p. 209 Saito claims that Engels didn’t really *know* Marx was a degrowth communist lol…it was Engels who spread HM theory best perhaps) 19/x​ So what is going on here? It seems to me this is a *desperate* attempt to contort Marx and Marxism into a post-1970s environmental and degrowth ideology. 20/x On p. 155 Saito claims Grundrisse-era Marx (Promethean) is “incompatible w/ environmentalism.” This crystallized Saito’s project for me: to make Marx and Marxism “compatible with environmentalism.” 21/x But what does environmentalism have to show for it? It has risen during precisely the same period of a massive shift in political power toward the capitalist class. It has shown itself incapable of forming a movement able to challenge this capitalist power. 22/x Meanwhile Marxism, & the associated theory of historical materialism, induced world-historical revolutionary upheavals & provided a serious challenge to capital. We might apply its basic principles to the ecological crisis (rather than revise it to current movement fads) FIN Oh, and @Leigh_Phillips and I plan to collaborate on the review (at some point!). His natural science knowledge will be really helpful in examining some of Saito’s claims on the metabolic rift and the centrality of ideas of biophysical limits to ‘degrowth communist’ ideology. *overstated 🤦‍♂️.

Capital in the Anthropocene (Japanese: 人新世の「資本論」, romanized: Hitoshinsei no "Shihonron")[1] is a 2020 non-fiction book by Japanese academic Kohei Saito. Drawing from writings on ecology and natural science by Karl Marx, the book presents a Marxist argument for degrowth as a means of mitigating climate change. Capital in the Anthropocene was an unexpected commercial success in Japan, selling over half a million copies. An English translation was published in 2023, Marx in the Anthropocene: Towards the Idea of Degrowth Communism.[2]

Is not the discourse of A.I. “starting socialism from scratch” putting us on the road to Fully Automated Luxury Communism. Huber on Kohei Saito's book Capital in the Anthropocene enters some new interesting terrain for discussion. The question that will be raised is whether Degrowth can have a role in reversing or mitigating Climate Crisis.

We are in a bad way with the mythologies of fossil fuel and even our breath

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/5/28/2171795/-AntiCapitalist-MeetUp-Climate-Change-is-about-Class-War-among-others

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.