Showing posts with label Mining. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mining. Show all posts

Saturday, May 23, 2020

3371. Book Review: Planetary Mine: Territories of Extraction Under Late Capitalism

By Steve Knight, Marx & Philosophy Review of Books, May 22, 2020


Yanacocha, a complex of four open-pit mines and four processing facilities stretching over more than 500 square miles in the Northern highlands of Peru, is Latin America’s largest gold mine and the second-largest in the world.  Operating since 1993 as a joint venture of U.S.-based Newmont Mining, a Peruvian mining firm and the International Finance Corporation, Yanacocha has produced millions of ounces of gold, silver, and copper for international export.  At the same time, Yanacocha has brought forth a nearly endless stream of lawsuits, blockades and other protests by indigenous groups over the mine’s pollution of their water supply with mercury and cyanide, both by-products of the mining process.

Mega-mining operations like Yanacocha – combining the extraction of vast wealth with negative externalities for surrounding communities – have become increasingly common throughout Latin America over the past forty years, following on the post-Allende “Chicago Boys” wave of neoliberal economics that opened formerly state-owned resources to widespread multinational investment. In Planetary Mine, Chile-based author Martin Arboleda makes a compelling case that mines have been transformed into the loci of simultaneous, interconnected revolutions in relations of technology, labor, and financialization.  In his introduction, Arboleda defines the planetary mine as a new, twenty-first century “geography of extraction” that merges two world-historical shifts: an industrialization no longer circumscribed by the West, and a leap forward in the robotization and computerization of the labor process.

It should be stated near the outset that “Planetary Mine” succeeds on two levels simultaneously, for two different cohorts of potential readers.  First, it is an illuminating description of how over the past generation Latin American extractive industries have integrated with the emerging “tiger economies” of East Asia, China in particular; indeed, trade between Latin American and Asian states is rapidly replacing trans-Atlantic commerce as the world’s preeminent trading relationship. Second, Planetary Mine draws upon the insights of numerous Marxian theorists to show that resource extraction in Latin America is best understood as a flow of worldwide value creation that depends, in the author’s words, on “networks of relations” (22) among people and communities to create spaces of extraction.  At one point Arboleda (123) quotes Marx from the Grundrisse: “The tendency to create the world market is inherent to the concept of capital itself”; this is an apropos choice of quotation, the narrative of Planetary Mine illustrates this statement.

Arboleda makes an especially adept use of one Marxian thinker, Henri Lefebvre, who in works such as The Urban Revolution and Critique of Everyday Life developed the notion of “totality” as a set of dialectically interconnected levels of social practice: global, urban, and local.  While the author draws upon Lefebvre’s trope of totality most explicitly in Chapter Six, “Debts of Extraction”, to show how a globalized financial system creates financialized “geographies of extraction” that subsume both urban and local communities in the circuit of capital, “totality” is actually a concept that suffuses every section of “Planetary Mine.” The book’s chapter topics – Empire, Labor, Circulation, Expertise, Money, and Struggle – are meant to be understood as co-equal constituents of one totality. As the author writes to underscore the importance of totality, “Marx intended the idea of the world market to express the primacy of the concrete corporeality of the sum total of the vast multitude of labors living under the geographies of capitalist society, before it assumes distorted forms in international political relations and inter-capitalist competition” (52).

Key to understanding this “vast multitude of labors” powering the worldwide network of the planetary mine is the theory of “global depeasantization” propounded by Farshad Araghi and other Marxian theorists.  Arboleda shows that depeasantization has operated with increasing speed since the 1990s at both ends of the resource extraction value chain: Latin American peasants, along with millions of their Chinese counterparts, have been systematically separated from subsistence-based, agrarian-oriented communities and fully proletarianized. The author also draws upon the notion of the “collective laborer” described by Marx in Volume 1 of Capital (with considerable assistance here from Moishe Postone’s landmark study Time, Labor, and Social Domination) to suggest that the twenty-first century may produce the world’s first truly global proletariat, where a combination of cross-border migration and racialization of the workforce make available an always-ready reserve army of industrial labor.

No discussion of the modern mining industry would be complete without mentioning the huge leap forward in recent decades in extractive technologies: robotized trucks, GIS systems to locate new mineral sources, engineered microorganisms to break the resistance of recalcitrant ores, computerized port facilities, massive container ships, to name just a few.  Arboleda skillfully places these technological advances in the context of a “fourth machine age”, an extension of Ernest Mandel’s three previous machine-driven ages of production from his study Late Capitalism. He points out that these technological changes have increased the material footprint of mineral extraction, according to one geophysicist, by a factor of around 1,000, with a concomitant increase in ecosystem degradation near mining sites (49). In addition, however, the increased organic composition of capital in the mining industry, with technology often reducing the size of the workforce while at the same time placing downward pressure on value creation for the owners of capital, has created an opening for revolutionary praxis among mining’s proletariat. “Alongside job destruction and instability,” Arboleda (234) writes, “the computerization and mechanization of resource extraction has also underpinned renewed processes of knowledge production in formal settings as well as in the course of workers’ practical interaction with technological infrastructures.” Communities of resource extraction workers throughout Latin America have acquired cellular phones, computers and internet access as they have been drawn into the proletariat, all of which have increased their ability to organize collectively.

This leads into the book’s penultimate chapter, “Struggle: Plebeian Consciousness and the Universal Ayllu”, where Arboleda presents numerous possibilities for workers’ revolutionary action at all stages of the planetary mine’s value chain.  The author wisely foregrounds this discussion with a consideration of Marx’s late writings, where he escaped the narrow Eurocentrism of his earlier work and began delineating revolutionary potentialities in non-Western societies.  Latin American Marxism, Arboleda notes, offers one excellent opportunity to rethink the global working class outside of a Eurocentric bias. The former Bolivian vice-president Garcia Linera, for example, envisions the ayllu (a network of Andean indigenous communal associations) as a potential vector for ethnic- and class-based opposition to the extractive industry’s dominance. Moreover, the simultaneous depeasantization of both Latin American and East Asian workers mentioned earlier is another force for proletarian revolt, as conditions for workers’ dissatisfaction are strikingly similar at both ends of the commodity cycle: dispossession of peasants’ land to create industrialized agriculture; environmental degradation from changes in land use caused by infrastructural modernization; corruption of local government officials; and – perhaps most important – a massive increase in the use of subcontracted, contingent labor. “More than being merely oppositional,” Arboleda (222) writes, “these struggles are concerned with inventing new territorial configurations in which value relations are overthrown and replaced by renewed modes of sociality”, a sociality potentially rooted in the ethos of Linera’s “universal ayllu.”

Arboleda ends the narrative of “Planetary Mine” on an optimistic note, in an epilogue that devotes much of its space to how some resource extraction workers are bridging the divide between intellectual and manual labor (“science” and “life,” in Marx’s terms) that is endemic to capitalism.  The key to bringing together intellectual workers with their indigenous and campesino comrades, the author maintains, is endowing intellectual workers with class consciousness, a sense that their ideas should be grounded in the material struggles of those who supply living labor.  Some Latin American scientists, for example, have trained indigenous activists in the use of drones to monitor extractive firms’ destruction of ecosystems: surely an example of turning the tables on surveillance capitalism!  It is this creative interplay between indigenous knowledge, technology, and class consciousness that perhaps offers the best chance of effective resistance for all types of workers to the totalizing value relations of resource extraction.

Planetary Mine should be considered essential reading for anyone interested either in Latin America’s signal contributions to Marxian thinking, or in understanding commodity extraction and export from a historical materialist point of view.  The author avoids the trap of methodological nationalism that limits many studies of extraction, offering instead a lively account of the globalized, sociometabolic processes underlying the extractive industry’s production and reproduction. As Arboleda (6) states in his introduction, “the manifold determinations that produce landscapes of extraction in historically and geographically specific ways necessitates a dialectical theory of praxis, one that sets out from the material conditions in which life itself is produced and reproduced”. Planetary Mine succeeds admirably in showing this dialectical process at work.

Monday, March 24, 2014

1362. Indian Villagers Bring Down Hills as Lure of Mining Grows

By Max Bearak, The New York Times, March 19, 2014
Alldrina Nonglamin’s mine is one of hundreds of brand new pits near Meghalaya’s border with Bangladesh.
Photo credit: Himanshu Khagta
NONGTALANG, India — “Bomb, bomb, bomb!” shouted the miner, and his warning echoed off the walls of the decapitated hillock. Seconds later, an explosion sliced off yet another chunk of limestone, which crumbled into a pile somewhere near where the center of the hill used to be.
The mine’s owner, Alldrina Nonglamin, 40, barely noticed the explosion. On that morning in early January, she wore her bed slippers and a sarong tied over her shoulder as she surveyed the pile of rock that had once underlaid her orange and betel nut garden, her former source of income.
Proudly showing off the mounds of ammonium nitrate she uses as an explosive, she said, “I want to finish the hill quickly so I can level the land and build a big house. It might take 20 years, but maybe less also.”
Ms. Nonglamin is one of the many new mine owners in the Jaintia Hills of Meghalaya State who were surprised to find out that the pile of rocks they were living on might as well be made of cash. In the last few years, her village of Nongtalang, like so many other communities across this hilly northeastern state, has become home to an increasing number of family-owned limestone mines, whose owners are seeking wealth unheard of in a region accustomed to subsistence farming.
Hundreds of limestone mines now line the 60 kilometers, or 40 miles, of highway that lead through this region toward the border with Bangladesh.
Ms. Nonglamin took loans of more than $150,000 to purchase mining equipment after seeing the profits her neighbors were unearthing. In just one year, she has paid back more than half of the initial loan.
“My earnings are now 100 times better, and the loans are easily paid. My kids go to private school in the city. I’m a businesswoman with more than 100 employees, when before I was a farmer and sometimes a tailor,” she said.
With so many villagers rushing to mine the hills, small-scale miners are now extracting more rock per year all together than massive multinational corporations would in a smaller network of bigger mines, environmental activists say, and with little to none of the regulations those big companies are normally subjected to.
Just under 1,000 trucks of the low-grade rock are exported from the small mines to Bangladesh daily, where the world’s largest cement manufacturer, the French company Lafarge, buys most of it, processes it and churns out the fine cement powder that is ultimately transformed into the building blocks of that country’s infrastructural development.
Very few in this village of 2,000 resist the lure of mining in these hills, but those who do say runoff from the mines often goes straight into rivers that provide drinking water. Helpme Mohrmen, a local Unitarian minister who has organized poorly attended local protests and traveled to Delhi to speak to distant advocacy groups, refers to himself as “The Lone Ranger.”
“Our people have always had a deep reverence for nature,” Mr. Mohrmen said. “We give our rivers personalities. We call the animals our brothers and sisters. Each plant carries some meaning. I cannot understand why we have gone about killing our rivers for this mining, but now no one will join me because they don’t want to fight against their clan members.”
Tribal society in this part of Meghalaya is structured around clans, which often form political blocs and share economic interests. Those who open mines often employ fellow clan members, or at least spread the wealth earned through mining in the form of lavish gifts and parties. Clans also traditionally have viewed land as communal among members.
“There is this idea that we, as tribals, have inherited our land and have the right to do as we want with it,” Mr. Mohrmen said. “But no one can own a river.”
Nongtalang is Mr. Mohrmen’s home village, but he can count his allies there on one hand. One is Brightstar Pohsnem, 26, an elementary school teacher and the president of the one-year-old Nongtalang People’s Unity Movement, which has about a dozen members. They contend that the village can survive on farming alone and that the mines are not sustainable.
“In this village, we get our water straight from the river,” Mr. Pohsnem said. “As soon as the mining started, the water became undrinkable. Now they say they have stopped mining near the river, but they have buried the headwaters of the streams already. Maybe with the money they make from mining, they can buy clean water, but that is not a solution.”
Workers in the mine can earn as much as 3,000 rupees a day, or $50, all year round. That is on par with what they could earn on a market day selling oranges or betel nuts if they are lucky, but markets are held only once a week and only during the harvest period.
Mr. Pohsnem said villagers constantly lobbied him to recognize the value of mining. “People offer to buy me coffees, clothes or to go on picnics with their mining money,” he said. “But I know that is just how they became interested in mining, because of all those things you can get with money. They are not thinking properly about what they are doing.”
Yet the immediate benefits of the newfound wealth abound. Dolly Khonglah, a mine owner who also heads the Meghalaya International Exporters Chamber of Commerce, was able to fly her son to an upscale, private hospital owned by the Apollo Hospitals group in New Delhi, where he underwent a liver transplant.
“We have been interior-type people, so we are happy to see changes,” she said during an interview at the hospital.
“The limestone is a blessing of the land. Ten years ago, we couldn’t even go to Shillong,” she said, referring to Meghalaya’s capital. “Now we can come to Apollo.”
As the new prosperity brings advantages like access to better health care and a higher standard of living, even Mr. Pohsnem’s closest kin have questioned his stance. “My best friends from school and my neighbors have stopped talking to me,” he said. “They don’t understand why I am against mining.”
Looking at the floor in his small home, Mr. Pohsnem said that his feelings about mining boiled down to a fundamental difference in how he saw the future of his village. He does not imagine that the wealth, or the rock itself, is sustainable.
“We used to have deer and bears around here, but even the squirrels ran away after the mining. If they cannot drink the water, then how can we?” he asked. “It’s no use fighting — better that we buy a place elsewhere where there’s no mining.”
He laughed, mostly to himself. “The sad thing is that the mine owners are the only ones who have the money to do that.”
Both Ms. Khonglah and Ms. Nonglamin dream of passing on their mines to their children, but when Ms. Nonglamin was reminded that she had earlier said there might be only 20 more years of rock left, she said, “I cannot imagine that day. I haven’t thought about it.”

Ms. Khonglah admitted, “It is true. The rock may not last.”