Eric Vilmer
8/31/20
Simpson
“A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things” Response
I found “A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things,” to be the easiest to respond. I could
apply my own feelings to climate change, extinction, and the role capitalism plays within climate
change and extinction. After reading I felt sadness; though I feel this book was meant to be mainly
logical, it still brought a feeling of negativity. I find the period of the text most fascinating when the
Medieval Period is discussed and how it was considered a warm time period. Throughout history there
have been cold periods and warmer periods and people have worried about a permanent end to society
as we know it. During the 20th century there were people who believed that the world was getting
colder due to climate change. This book discusses what global warming will do to Earth by 2050. My
main question is how the authors Raj Patel and Jason W. Moore came to these conclusions. Based on
the reading, I also must assume that the predictions are being made solely if our society continues down
the path of capitalism not if we do manage to change our ways. It is pointed out in the text through
examples of different types of activism that people are working to change the world for the betterment
of others every day. As a reader it makes the text seem less biased and more enjoyable to read when
Patel and Moore point out the efforts that are currently being made to create change instead of just
citing the negative aspects and the problems with our society. We can only see the changes we make
over time as we learn new from our mistakes and figure out new ways to improve life as we see fit for
everyone.
That's interesting that you end on talking about the goals and hopes of Patel and Moore's bleak survey of "The Capitalocene"
ReplyDeleteFrom my pretty limited understanding of Marxist thought, it seems like one of the enduring criticisms against it is its negative focus on what's wrong, (i.e. capitalism) rather than a clear picture of how things could or should be. Patel and Moore nod at this when they say that it's easier for people to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
Further, I think it makes sense that a materialist view would anchor itself in current realities vs an idealized hope.
Any more thoughts on how this text, or the other two, succeed or fail at giving us things to look forward to and get excited about? (and how important is it to have those things?)
-David
Interesting argument here. I'm wondering - do you consider logical thinking to be devoid of any "stance"? You seem to somewhat discredit Patel and Moore because of their negative attitude towards capitalism despite being otherwise somewhat logical. I suppose I've always considered emotion to be a part of logic - we have no reason to be curious if we will not be satisfied or horrified by the answer. Where does this logical/emotional disconnect come in for you? Did you find a similar disconnect in the other readings (say, the Marx and Engels reading looking at German philosophy vs German physicality)? Thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that the chapter from "A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things" was considerably more approachable than Marx and Gramsci. I believe that it isn't just because it's easier to read but because of the tone of the writing as well. Patel and Moore tell jokes and they play on the morbidity of the time we're living in. Compared to Marx's agitated style and Gramsci's more informative style, the other reading makes the topic of capitalism and exploitation something you can mull over without feeling attacked if you don't share the same beliefs. It also does not have that doomsday feel to it, as you mentioned, and that is key to get people to actually listen during these times of overstimulation.
ReplyDelete