Abstract

In order to see a theoretical context of debate between the Anthropocene and the Capitalocene which has attracted a lot of interests in recent ecological discourse, this paper is to reconsider in comparison main contents of J.B. Foster’s theory of metabolic rift and J. Moore’s theory of world ecology. and central issues of what the former calls ‘epistemic rift’ between them. Drawing out and theorizing the concept of metabolic rift from Marx’s works, Foster understands metabolic rift=alienation=dialectics, while Moore criticizes Foster’s theory in several aspects as deeply committed to the Cartesian dualism, arguing metabolic rift=separation=dualism. Defining capitalism as ‘a way of organizing nature’, Moore has developed what he calls ‘world ecology’, and tried to describe history of capitalism since the longue 16 century, newly proposing or reconstructing various concepts such as unpaid work/energy, exploitation and appropriation, cheap nature, commodity frontier, abstract nature, value relation, ecological surplus value, negative value, etc. But Foster asserts Moore’s world ecology as a hyper-social constructionist or left anthropocentric monism, criticizing that it has strayed from Marx’s historical dialectics and law of value. This theoretical rift or conflict seems to have arisen, since there may be some difficulties or limitations in arguments for their own theory and there seems to be some misunderstanding or distorted interpretation of each other’s theory in their critique and anti-critique. Yet, their arguments can be seen not as contradicting but as supporting and remedying each other’s limitations and weaknesses. Thus, we need to consolidate these theories, especially in relation with Marx’s theory of alienation and that of value, in order to reconstruct relationship between capitalism and nature.