What do you think?
Rate this book
Terre et capital
L’humanité a basculé dans l’ère des catastrophes globales. Partout sur la planète les forêts brûlent, les océans s’asphyxient, les espèces disparaissent. La sixième extinction de masse est en marche. L’urgence commande l’élaboration d’une politique qui conjurerait la destruction généralisée de la vie : un communisme du vivant. Puisque la crise environnementale procède de la recherche effrénée du profit, toute écologie politique formulée en dehors de cet horizon est vouée à l’échec. S’appuyant sur une lecture conjointe du marxisme et des humanités environnementales, Paul Guillibert défend une philosophie sociale de la nature pour démontrer que la préservation de la biosphère est devenue une condition nécessaire à l’émancipation.
Tentative inédite de fournir une assise théorique aux luttes pour les usages de la Terre et à la prise en compte des non-humains, cet essai propose une ambitieuse actualisation du projet communiste, fondée sur la protection du vivant.
Tentative inédite de fournir une assise théorique aux luttes pour les usages de la Terre et à la prise en compte des non-humains, cet essai propose une ambitieuse actualisation du projet communiste, fondée sur la protection du vivant.
260 pages, Paperback
Published November 5, 2021
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
April 13, 2026
Marxism has been and continues to be the subject of many critiques, often lazy and simplistic, including that it is ‘out of date’ – the core texts stemming from different circumstances in the mid-19th century – or that it has been disproven in practice – see the Soviet Union or the People’s Republic of China. There are many on the Left who don’t help the cause, especially those who argue that the label can only be claimed by those who follow Marxist analysis and practice. The trap that holds together these, and many other critiques, is the implicit (and occasionally explicit) view that there is only one legitimate or ‘true’ form of Marxism – and here many of the more fractious theoretical debates have been over what that form is. For some it is the ‘early Marx’ (of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts), for others the ‘late Marx’ (of Capital). Yet like almost all of us, Marx’s views changed over the 40 or more years between those two vital texts as he explored new issues, unpicked shifting social and economic relations, and debated and discussed ideas and analyses. What’s more, subsequent analysts and followers have imposed their own interpretation and meaning on his work, with many drawing universalising conclusions from local circumstances.
One of the most potent critiques, however, has been that Marx’s analyses of industrial capitalism are no longer valid in the Anthropocene era, and that communism’s obsession with the production of stuff is in part a cause of the current crisis of the global environment. Paul Guillibert is having none of this, noting a distinction between Marxism and the Soviet obsession with ‘catching up’ (also followed by China); he returns to Marx and looks at the ways his ideas developed in the light of new questions and new evidence. His specific discussion of Marx is one of the more demanding parts of this book, in part because Marx’s developing understanding of capitalism was painting a complex picture, and in part because as new questions arose Marx adjusted and tweaked his understanding and analysis. Guillibert makes a case here that towards the end of his life, as Marx entered into correspondence with the ‘Russian Populists’, the Narodniks, whose models of change emphasised rural communities and local systems of governance he began to grapple with systems of control and economic forms and constraints that Guillibert calls ‘historical naturalism’. It’s a subtle and interesting argument made all the richer (if also more obscure) by the presence of drafts of letters that make up this correspondence indicating that as he wrote Marx was rethinking his position.
This is most definitely not a mainstream Marxist analysis, but it does recognise the power of two key issues affecting current environmental and developmental questions. First, there is the difficult issue of land ownership and social accountability. Second, there is the hint of an idea that Europe’s approach is not the only one. Here Guillibert shows the careful way he engages with systems of global power and outlooks, and the importance of the growing critique of a stadial view of history – the notions that social development and change must follow a specific set of stages.
This takes Guillibert to the second part of his case, looking at cultures of engagement with the land. Here he turns to Raymond Williams’s analyses of literary and cultural depictions of land and place, of the country as a carrier of meaning, the questions of rural production, and his notion of structures of feeling. The effect of this in the overall case then to make clear that Williams’s emphasis on ways of life must be considered when invoking relations of production, reminding us a way of making sense of the key point that not all capitalisms are experienced in the same way despite the common structural features of capitalism. Equally importantly, this approach also opens up the potential to consider a much wider range of critical voices.
The introduction of Williams and with him new voices to the discussion then allows Guillibert to draw in the early 20th century Peruvian Marxist thinker and activist José Carlos Mariátegui. Mariátegui’s emphasis on land, on the key place of peasantries and Indigenous peoples in struggles for socialism, allows Guillibert to weave together themes emerging from the discussion of the narodniks and Williams to stress both questions of land ownership as well as cultures of engagement. Crucial here is Mariátegui’s argument that there is no single model for communism, and that a crucial difference, a shift in thinking and practice, is the question of the relationship between humanity and ‘nature’, where he draws on pre-Colombian societies, developing an idea of ‘Incan communism’ that while admittedly despotic was also constrained by its dependency of the natural world.
Guillibert doesn’t claim to have the answers, but he does make clear that the three principal options on the table for responding to the climate catastrophe – hope for the best, technological intervention, and state regulation of the worst excesses – are all inadequate, at best transferring the cost and crisis elsewhere, to generations to come or other parts of the globe. His case is that the climate crisis is a crisis of subsistence and without confronting the question of land ownership it is not possible to confront the question of ownership of the means of production, although exactly what that means is unclear – because it won’t be one approach everywhere, but also, and he leaves this implicit, social solutions of this kind only come from and are worked out during struggle, where (and here he is explicit) the choice is between socialism and barbarism.
The consequence then is that while Guillibert may not be ‘good to do’ – there is no 10 point programme or five year plan – he is ‘good to think’, weaving in ideas and approaches that seem to help make sense of the situation and inform struggle. As difficult as this short book is in places, it’s well worth it for that.
One of the most potent critiques, however, has been that Marx’s analyses of industrial capitalism are no longer valid in the Anthropocene era, and that communism’s obsession with the production of stuff is in part a cause of the current crisis of the global environment. Paul Guillibert is having none of this, noting a distinction between Marxism and the Soviet obsession with ‘catching up’ (also followed by China); he returns to Marx and looks at the ways his ideas developed in the light of new questions and new evidence. His specific discussion of Marx is one of the more demanding parts of this book, in part because Marx’s developing understanding of capitalism was painting a complex picture, and in part because as new questions arose Marx adjusted and tweaked his understanding and analysis. Guillibert makes a case here that towards the end of his life, as Marx entered into correspondence with the ‘Russian Populists’, the Narodniks, whose models of change emphasised rural communities and local systems of governance he began to grapple with systems of control and economic forms and constraints that Guillibert calls ‘historical naturalism’. It’s a subtle and interesting argument made all the richer (if also more obscure) by the presence of drafts of letters that make up this correspondence indicating that as he wrote Marx was rethinking his position.
This is most definitely not a mainstream Marxist analysis, but it does recognise the power of two key issues affecting current environmental and developmental questions. First, there is the difficult issue of land ownership and social accountability. Second, there is the hint of an idea that Europe’s approach is not the only one. Here Guillibert shows the careful way he engages with systems of global power and outlooks, and the importance of the growing critique of a stadial view of history – the notions that social development and change must follow a specific set of stages.
This takes Guillibert to the second part of his case, looking at cultures of engagement with the land. Here he turns to Raymond Williams’s analyses of literary and cultural depictions of land and place, of the country as a carrier of meaning, the questions of rural production, and his notion of structures of feeling. The effect of this in the overall case then to make clear that Williams’s emphasis on ways of life must be considered when invoking relations of production, reminding us a way of making sense of the key point that not all capitalisms are experienced in the same way despite the common structural features of capitalism. Equally importantly, this approach also opens up the potential to consider a much wider range of critical voices.
The introduction of Williams and with him new voices to the discussion then allows Guillibert to draw in the early 20th century Peruvian Marxist thinker and activist José Carlos Mariátegui. Mariátegui’s emphasis on land, on the key place of peasantries and Indigenous peoples in struggles for socialism, allows Guillibert to weave together themes emerging from the discussion of the narodniks and Williams to stress both questions of land ownership as well as cultures of engagement. Crucial here is Mariátegui’s argument that there is no single model for communism, and that a crucial difference, a shift in thinking and practice, is the question of the relationship between humanity and ‘nature’, where he draws on pre-Colombian societies, developing an idea of ‘Incan communism’ that while admittedly despotic was also constrained by its dependency of the natural world.
Guillibert doesn’t claim to have the answers, but he does make clear that the three principal options on the table for responding to the climate catastrophe – hope for the best, technological intervention, and state regulation of the worst excesses – are all inadequate, at best transferring the cost and crisis elsewhere, to generations to come or other parts of the globe. His case is that the climate crisis is a crisis of subsistence and without confronting the question of land ownership it is not possible to confront the question of ownership of the means of production, although exactly what that means is unclear – because it won’t be one approach everywhere, but also, and he leaves this implicit, social solutions of this kind only come from and are worked out during struggle, where (and here he is explicit) the choice is between socialism and barbarism.
The consequence then is that while Guillibert may not be ‘good to do’ – there is no 10 point programme or five year plan – he is ‘good to think’, weaving in ideas and approaches that seem to help make sense of the situation and inform struggle. As difficult as this short book is in places, it’s well worth it for that.
April 15, 2026
A bit of a slog for such a short book. Much of the first half consists of quotations that are then explained over the course of several pages with somewhat dense philosophical jargon that complicates rather than clarifies. I'd personally recommend reading the likes of Andreas Malm or Kohei Saito for similar works that feel more coherent and relevant to the politics of today. As a fan of Raymond Williams I did somewhat enjoy the chapter discussing his writings, but again I felt something was lost in extracting parts out of their original context and fitting them into Guillibert's theory.
February 4, 2026
Another book aiming to refound communism as a plausible political project by returning to philosophical principles. In this case the case hinges on the incorporation of radical ecological perspectives to bolster the argument that the multiple overlapping crises of the environment require the abolition of private property.
Guillibert argues that the current which came to dominant communist politics in the 20th century was productivism - not an exclusively communist notion but one that saw human well-being as dependent on the capacity to produce more material and immaterial things to satisfy what are actually insatiable appetites for consumption. This meant the increased domination of nature by technology. Communism became tied to the city and industry whilst ecological movements centred on rural life and small-scale communities. But the drive towards accumulation which preceded capitalism emerged during the struggle over landownership in the countryside. Communal property relations supported the original form of land tillage and where cooperative in nature. But as feudal interests asserted claims on peasant communities to produce larger surpluses the common land was subdivided into strips which were farmed by individual families. This produced a class struggle which was waged at several levels - between peasant and feudal lord, and rich peasant and poor peasant.
These forms of class struggle survived well into the 19th century and became the basis for new political ideologies around the question of landownership. The classic example was the struggle within the Russian mir which generated competing ideas around populism and anarchism. One reading of the Marxist cannon pitched scientific socialism against all of these on the grounds that society had to pass though a capitalist stage before the means of production were sufficiently developed to support socialism. The Marxist parties confined their agitation to the plight of workers in the city and dismissed peasant action in defence of communalism as a petty bourgeois diversion.
Guillibert challenges the idea that this was Marx's position both by looking at aspects of his studies that were concerned with the exploitation of the soil as well as labour, and his correspondence with the leading Russian populist Vera Zasulich. In this he showed himself to be open to the idea that the peasant struggle might fuse with the workers battling over conditions in the city and the factory to forge a social movement supporting communism. The need here was to suppress the tendency towards productivism, which required the expansion of the city at the expense of the countryside, and to root the new socialist society in common ownership and the preservation of the conditions necessary for the reproduction of life - presented here as 'naturalism'.
That's a simple enough argument but it takes a dense read through Guillibert's engagements with other proponents of peasant interests to get there. The contributions of the Peruvian dissident communist, Jose Carlos Mariategui are considered as well as the insights of the Welsh Marxist, Raymond Plant, among others. The longer chapters were often difficult and at many points quite obscure in their lines of arguments. But if your persevere a solid case is made for the urgency of the demand for the abolition of private property in land as a central plank of a socialist programme. As the commons is restored and made a place where the cultural mores of wider society become firmly grounded, the hope that we might move beyond the destructiveness of economies based on private consumption becomes a little more plausible.
Guillibert argues that the current which came to dominant communist politics in the 20th century was productivism - not an exclusively communist notion but one that saw human well-being as dependent on the capacity to produce more material and immaterial things to satisfy what are actually insatiable appetites for consumption. This meant the increased domination of nature by technology. Communism became tied to the city and industry whilst ecological movements centred on rural life and small-scale communities. But the drive towards accumulation which preceded capitalism emerged during the struggle over landownership in the countryside. Communal property relations supported the original form of land tillage and where cooperative in nature. But as feudal interests asserted claims on peasant communities to produce larger surpluses the common land was subdivided into strips which were farmed by individual families. This produced a class struggle which was waged at several levels - between peasant and feudal lord, and rich peasant and poor peasant.
These forms of class struggle survived well into the 19th century and became the basis for new political ideologies around the question of landownership. The classic example was the struggle within the Russian mir which generated competing ideas around populism and anarchism. One reading of the Marxist cannon pitched scientific socialism against all of these on the grounds that society had to pass though a capitalist stage before the means of production were sufficiently developed to support socialism. The Marxist parties confined their agitation to the plight of workers in the city and dismissed peasant action in defence of communalism as a petty bourgeois diversion.
Guillibert challenges the idea that this was Marx's position both by looking at aspects of his studies that were concerned with the exploitation of the soil as well as labour, and his correspondence with the leading Russian populist Vera Zasulich. In this he showed himself to be open to the idea that the peasant struggle might fuse with the workers battling over conditions in the city and the factory to forge a social movement supporting communism. The need here was to suppress the tendency towards productivism, which required the expansion of the city at the expense of the countryside, and to root the new socialist society in common ownership and the preservation of the conditions necessary for the reproduction of life - presented here as 'naturalism'.
That's a simple enough argument but it takes a dense read through Guillibert's engagements with other proponents of peasant interests to get there. The contributions of the Peruvian dissident communist, Jose Carlos Mariategui are considered as well as the insights of the Welsh Marxist, Raymond Plant, among others. The longer chapters were often difficult and at many points quite obscure in their lines of arguments. But if your persevere a solid case is made for the urgency of the demand for the abolition of private property in land as a central plank of a socialist programme. As the commons is restored and made a place where the cultural mores of wider society become firmly grounded, the hope that we might move beyond the destructiveness of economies based on private consumption becomes a little more plausible.
April 22, 2026
A pretty disappointing read. Written by an academic for other academics. Starts strong with the idea of wanting to explore the idea that rural ecology movements and urban labor must figure out a way to coordinate an environmental strategy in the anthropocene. But from there, Guillibert abandons both for an academic wank-fest of old Marxist theory, using over-complicated and clever vocabulary that will leave most non-academics (and academics unfamiliar with Marx) sitting by the side of the road.
In the end he says nothing other than review old ideas of how the nation state perpetuates class structure, that we are over-consuming resources, that the climate crisis will affect all of us.
It's a book academics write to maintain their tenure or that is necessary on the road to tenure.
In the end he says nothing other than review old ideas of how the nation state perpetuates class structure, that we are over-consuming resources, that the climate crisis will affect all of us.
It's a book academics write to maintain their tenure or that is necessary on the road to tenure.
February 8, 2026
gtreat book 4 stars! i've been doing a lot of rereading on communism lately cuz i've been thinking in 2026, communism felt culty and book worshippy. i looked around for contemporary reimaginings of communism and found this book! its great and it definitely makes a new pass on communism in light of modern life and imminent climate calamity. it was a quick read. i loved it. but it was a tiny bit dry. thats ok it was worth it imo! i'm still a non hyphenated anarchist but i apprfeciate this new refresher! enjoy!
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews