If the rupture and continuities between extractivism and neo-extractivism are related to the action of the State, how can we understand the contradictions of the State action in the case of soybean production? Specifically understanding that the Nation-States of the United Republic of Soybeans have been part of the new-left government of Latin America, how have these states promoted, regulated, limited and reformulated extractive practices within their development projects?
How do these production models relate to the world system and dependence mechanisms at the global scale? How do different categories of the population interact with the State in order to deepen the model or resist and promote alternative development?
Cordoba, D., Chiappe, M., Abrams, J., & Selfa, T. (2017). Fuelling Social Inclusion? Neo-extractivism, State-Society Relations and Biofuel Policies in Latin America’s Southern Cone. Development and Change, 49. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12362
Fabricant, N., & Gustafson, B. (2014). Moving Beyond the Extractivism Debate, Imagining New Social Economies. NACLA Report on the Americas, 47(4), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714839.2014.11721813
Neo-extractivism as a concept was defined in the first decade of 2000 as progressive governments particularly in South America embraced new forms of extraction, particularly as it pertained to minerals, fossil fuels and monoculture agriculture (Gudynas, 2009). Here the State not only took the role of private companies in their classical extractivist operations, but they enhanced the efficiency of extraction while transforming excedent into new forms of social welfare. Thus, they protected the operations from critique and debate and used these for political purposes. Neo-extractivist social and environmental negative effects were thus neglected or put aside, while arguing that these were the sacrifices needed in order to develop and industrialize the country.
Since then, the term has been widely used to extend to similar operations in all of the global South. The State’s absence or participation is pivotal to understanding the difference between classical and neo-extractionisms. The State’s role has been typically displaced in the global North where the private sector has had a central place in the economy, yet the State is always already backing this regime through a diversity of jurisdictional infrastructure (if nothing else).
Perhaps the term can be applied to extractive operations in and of the global North, challenging the need for a disclosed centrality of the State? Within US and Canada both classical and neo-extractivist operations having to do with fossil-based energy regimes and agricultural practices can be found.
The following article, although covering Canadian territory, unmasks the political roots of resource-based conflicts
#Neoextractivism as a response to #disastercapitalism? An Inquiry.
In the article by Dr. Christoper A. Loperena (CUNY Graduate Center) entitled “Honduras is open for business: extractivist tourism as sustainable development in the wake of disaster?” Loperena complicates the relationship between (neo) extractivism and neoliberalism. The work asks us to complicate the mechanisms of “sustainable development” as a ricochet of what historical materialists like David Harvey consider to be the ‘state/finance’ nexus. When the state has to respond to natural disasters and protect multinational economic investment, Loperena demonstrates how contested land can be assumed as empty by the state after a disaster and used toward development.
Loperena reminds us that at the heart of extractivism or “neo”- extractivism, there is “state-orchestrated natural resource expropriation, enclosure and dispossession.” In the case of the Garifuna, a Afro-Indigenous group that center their politics around autonomy and decolonial plurivision political reality, the extractivism elements of state supported tourism actively disrupts the claims of autonomy and resistance to exploitation by the Garifuna. After Hurricane Mitch (1998), the state hurried to salvage investment by expanding (rapidly) “special” legislation meant to reform and encourage international investment areas like mining, energy, and tourism. He centered his analysis by ethnography and highlighting what could be seen as anti-extractivist protest by community leaders against a resort being developed in Tela Bay, Honduras.
Christopher A. Loperena (2017) Honduras is open for business: extractivist tourism as sustainable development in the wake of disaster?, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25:5, 618-633, DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2016.1231808
Hurricane Maria is another example of #disastercapitalism that amplifies how #neoextractivism works from the United States. As the United States treats Puerto Rico as an extended colony, economic accumulation from the island to the U.S. is obfuscated because the United States asserts itself as a settler colony. Nevertheless, the policy response and lack of government response display that Puerto Rico is and has been a site of knowledge extractivism. Federal agencies (FEMA) and the academy have modeled their study around #disastercapitalism and #resilience by actively abandoning the island’s immediate needs when there is an emergency. In the article, “Puerto Rico: The Future in Question”, Dr. Adriana Garriga-López highlights this conflict as she does fieldwork after Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. By focusing on autonomous organizing, especially around food sovereignty, Dr. Garriga-López effectively shows how the United States produces scarcity after a natural disaster by allowing the state to accumulate and reconfigure what can be salvaged as economic means without island consensus. Moreover, this construction is part of colonial exploitation that reproduces itself within the neoliberal era. Similar to the anti-extractivist protests in Tela Bay, the autonomous organizing in Puerto Rico included a rise in agroecological awareness- a specific and political orientation around food sovereignty.
Garriga-López, A., 2019. Puerto Rico: The future in question. Shima, 13(2), pp.174-192.
presentation on Agroecology in Puerto Rico found on Wikipedia Commons
Dispossession as #disastercapitalism, #stateviolence against Land Defenders
This piece explains the long arduous struggle land defenders in Honduras have engaged with against the state. Consequently, in the struggle of overcoming contradictions among the peasant class, autonomous afro-indigenous class, and those who are laborers, projects that go against the state push those activities closer to a premature death. In particular, land defenders as environmental activists, conservationists, and practitioners of development from below, are vulnerable to being ‘disappeared’ either by the state or by corporations. OFRANEH (Organización Fraternal Negra Hondureña) is a grassroots organization dedicated to Black autonomy and pluralvision politics in Honduras. Members and allies, including well-known #BertaCaceres have been abducted, tortured, incarcerated, and at times murdered by the state. Below is a documentary that explains the work of OFRANEH.
Need help with the Commons?
Email us at commonshelpsite@gmail.com so we can respond to your questions and requests. Please email from your CUNY email address if possible. Or visit our help site for more information:
