Moore Flashcards
(10 cards)
Define the term “Capitalocene.” How does it differ from the Anthropocene, and why does Moore advocate for this alternative?
The Capitalocene is a term coined by Jason Moore to describe the current epoch not as shaped by humanity in general (as the Anthropocene suggests), but by the specific historical and economic system of capitalism. Moore argues that the Anthropocene wrongly attributes ecological destruction to humanity as a whole, whereas the Capitalocene highlights the role of capitalist modes of production, exploitation, and appropriation in driving environmental crises. It shifts the focus from “humans” to “capitalism” as the primary agent of planetary transformation.
What are the main features of “Green Thought” according to Moore, and how do they relate to his critique of the Anthropocene framework?
Green Thought, as critiqued by Moore, includes:
- The reduction of humanity to a unified, destructive actor.
- The separation of society and nature into distinct, opposing categories.
- The conceptualisation of nature as pristine and independent of human influence.
Moore argues that these features are shared with the Anthropocene framework, which reinforces a Cartesian dualism and fails to account for the relational, co-productive dynamics between capitalism and nature.
Explain Moore’s concept of “appropriation.” How does it differ from Marx’s notion of exploitation, and why is it central to Moore’s theory of capitalism?
Appropriation refers to the process by which capitalism incorporates unpaid work and resources from outside the formal economy into its circuits of accumulation. Unlike exploitation, which occurs within the wage-labour relationship (e.g., in factories), appropriation involves unpaid care work, natural resources, and cultural inputs. Moore argues that capitalism depends not only on exploitation but also on the appropriation of “cheap” inputs that are not compensated, making it a foundational mechanism of capitalist expansion.
What does Moore mean by “cheap nature”? Provide examples and explain how this concept supports his critique of capitalist accumulation.
“Cheap nature” refers to the strategic devaluation and appropriation of natural and human resources with minimal or no compensation. It includes:
Labour-power (e.g., unpaid domestic work, slavery)
Energy (e.g., fossil fuels)
Raw materials (e.g., timber, lithium)
Moore and Patel argue that “cheap” is not just about low cost but about systemic violence and extraction. This concept supports Moore’s critique by showing how capitalism relies on externalising costs and exhausting the very resources it needs to survive.
Discuss Moore’s critique of Cartesian dualism. How does this critique inform his understanding of the relationship between society and nature?
Moore critiques Cartesian dualism for separating mind and body, society and nature, and for promoting the idea of human control over nature through science. He argues that this abstraction distorts the reality of capitalism, which is embedded in and co-evolves with nature. By rejecting this dualism, Moore insists on a relational ontology where society and nature are not separate substances but interwoven processes.
What is the “oikeios,” and how does it serve as an alternative to the Cartesian worldview in Moore’s framework?
The “oikeios” is Moore’s term for the relational field through which humans and nature co-produce each other. It rejects the idea of separate substances (society vs. nature) and instead emphasises the primacy of relations. In this view, changes in society are simultaneously changes in nature, and vice versa. The oikeios thus provides a monist, integrated framework that replaces Cartesian dualism.
Compare and contrast “metabolic rift” and “metabolic shift.” Why does Moore prefer the latter, and what does it reveal about capitalism’s relationship with nature?
Marx’s “metabolic rift” describes capitalism’s disruption of the natural metabolic relationship between humans and nature (e.g., soil depletion). Moore builds on this but prefers “metabolic shift” to emphasise that capitalism does not merely disrupt nature—it reorganises it to serve capital. This shift reframes the issue: instead of asking what capitalism does to nature, we ask how nature is made to work for capitalism.
Describe the concept of “double internality.” How does it illustrate the mutual entanglement of capitalism and the biosphere?
Double internality refers to two simultaneous processes:
Capitalism internalises planetary life (e.g., financial markets adapting to climate risks).
The biosphere internalises capitalism (e.g., factory farming creating new animal species).
This concept illustrates that capitalism and nature are not external to each other but mutually constitutive. Environmental crises are also capitalist crises, and vice versa.
In what ways does Moore revise or extend Marx’s theory of capitalism? Focus on his treatment of labour, nature, and historical development.
Moore extends Marx by:
Critiquing the primacy of wage labour and highlighting unpaid labour and care work.
Emphasising appropriation alongside exploitation.
Integrating ecological processes into the history of capitalism.
Rejecting the Promethean view of human mastery over nature.
He reframes capitalism as a system embedded in the web of life, not separate from it.
Critically assess Moore’s claim that capitalism organises nature rather than disrupts it. What are the implications of this view for ecological politics and responsibility?
Moore argues that capitalism does not merely damage nature but actively reorganises it to serve capital accumulation. This view challenges narratives of external environmental harm and instead sees nature as internal to capitalist processes. The implication is that ecological politics must address systemic economic structures, not just individual behaviours or technological fixes. It also complicates moral responsibility by blurring the boundaries between society and nature.
