Indians Warn of War Against Amazon Mega-dam in Brazil

[The Vegan Marxist]

Indians Warn of War Against Amazon Mega-dam in Brazil

Written by Survival
Thursday, 13 May 2010

Kayapó Indian leader Raoni Metuktire arrived in Europe last week and has appealed for support for his tribe, which is campaigning against the Belo Monte dam on the Xingu river in the Brazilian Amazon.

Raoni said, ‘I have always prevented my people from fighting, but I am very worried now. It is time that we take back what belongs to us’.

He added that ‘3,000 warriors’ are ready to take up arms.

Raoni met French ex- President Jacques Chirac and asked that he and the current President Nicolas Sarkozy urge President Lula of Brazil not to allow the dam to be built.

If constructed, the dam would be the third largest in the world and it would flood a large area of land, dry up certain parts of the Xingu river, cause huge devastation to the rainforest and reduce fish stocks upon which Indians in the area depend for their survival.

The influx of immigrants to the region during the construction of the dam threatens to introduce violence to the area and bring diseases to these Indians, putting their lives at risk.

The Indians have organized many protests against the dam. Most recently, they have blockaded a ferry which crosses the Xingu river and are planning to form a ‘multi-ethnic community’ which will occupy the area where the dam is due to be built, in the ‘Big Bend’ of the Xingu river.

Raoni and other Indian leaders stated, ‘We do not accept the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam because we understand that it will bring more destruction to our region… more corporations, more ranches, more land invasions, more conflicts, and even more dams. If the white man continues to carry on like this, everything will be destroyed very quickly… We already warned the government that if Belo Monte were built, they would have war on their hands’.

Kayapó leader Megaron Txucarramãe, in a letter to the international press, said, ‘We want the plans to build the Belo Monte dam to be canceled… Lula has shown himself to be the Indians’ number one enemy…We Indians are being seriously abandoned, since we Indians, the first inhabitants of this country, are being neglected by Lula’s government which wants to destroy us’.

Brazil’s Public Prosecutor’s Office is calling for the license for the dam to be canceled, stating that the environmental impact studies were incomplete, and that the Indians and other people who will be affected were not properly consulted.

Write a letter to Brazilian President Lula, urging him to suspend the plans to build the dam until and unless a project which will not negatively impact the Indians’ lives has been designed.

Survival is an international organization supporting tribal peoples worldwide.

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/news-briefs-archives-68/2492-indians-warn-of-war-against-amazon-mega-dam-in-brazil

[Red Commissar]

They're going to need help from other people in Brazil. I fear that their small numbers won't be enough to stop the full power of the state.

[Dimentio]

I know James Cameron have joined into their protests.

[Red Commissar]

I know James Cameron have joined into their protests.

Are you being sarcastic or did he really do that?

[NaxalbariZindabad]

^ He did. Link: http://kasamaproject.org/2010/04/13/avatar-in-the-amazon

[bailey_187]

In the middle of the 20th century Communists/Socialists/anti-Imperialists were infavour of building dams, for example Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, Nasser in Egypt, China, USSR etc. Why do we now oppose dams, not from the perspective of them being carried out by Imperialist-TNCs etc (if that is the case), but we seem to oppose them overall?

[Vanguard1917]

In the middle of the 20th century Communists/Socialists/anti-Imperialists were infavour of building dams, for example Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, Nasser in Egypt, China, USSR etc. Why do we now oppose dams, not from the perspective of them being carried out by Imperialist-TNCs etc (if that is the case), but we seem to oppose them overall?

The key point is that sections of the local population in question and Western environmentalists have very different reasons for opposing the dam. While the former are wary of the project because they fear that it will disrupt their way of live, environmentalists oppose it because they oppose economic development in general, especially in the 'third world'. They are extremely hostile to poor countries' attempts to industrialise and they openly reject the necessity of raising living standards in such countries to even the modest levels enjoyed by the masses in the West: e.g. 'if people in the developing world were to have the same living standards as we do in the West, we would need five planets!'

As far as socialists are concerned, the 'third world' is in desperate need of industrialisation. People in the 'third world' should have living standards at the bare minimum as high as those enjoyed by middle-class people in the West. Nothing should be considered too good for them. We oppose capitalism because it maintains poverty and has utterly failed to bring about necessary economic development worldwide. Unlike environmentalists -- the vast majority of whom come from privileged middle-class backgrounds -- who 'oppose' capitalism because they think it generates too much development.

Here's a decent quite recent article about Western environmentalists trying to block a dam development project in Ethiopia and their implicit celebration of poverty and backwardness there: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8339/

[bailey_187]

So what about the people who the dam will effect? Is it simply that the disruption to them is a price worth paying for the benefits it could bring to the rest of the impoverished people of Brazil?

[Vanguard1917]

So what about the people who the dam will effect? Is it simply that the disruption to them is a price worth paying for the benefits it could bring to the rest of the impoverished people of Brazil?

I think there are two things to consider. Firstly, environmentalists tend to greatly exaggerate the level of opposition to such development projects. In reality, the vast majority of people in the 'developing world' desperately want economic development, jobs, better living standards and modernisation. The idea that they are happy with what they have is the degraded fantasy of privileged Westerners.

Secondly, where opposition by local populations does in fact exist, environmentalists cynically exploit it for their own ends. As i pointed out above, their ideology has in reality got very little in common with the anxieties of the local people they champion. Those anxieties should be addressed. But that does not mean that we should have any sympathy with eco-opposition to development in itself.

[the last donut of the night]

Vanguard, I'm not getting what you're trying to say. I myself am from Brazil, and I know too well what these dams mean for the native peoples. They are not the hallmark of a socialist state trying to industrialize, as you are somehow claiming. They are the work of a bourgeois state. They will only lead to more intrusion upon the lives of an already oppressed people. They will be an excuse for more ranches, more unchecked capitalist oppression, and a greater government chokehold on indigenous lands. Now the point you made about environmentalists is true, but it has little to do with this. Are you trying to say opposition to this project is only coming from middle-class environmentalists?

[bailey_187]

Vanguard, I'm not getting what you're trying to say. I myself am from Brazil, and I know too well what these dams mean for the native peoples. They are not the hallmark of a socialist state trying to industrialize, as you are somehow claiming. They are the work of a bourgeois state. They will only lead to more intrusion upon the lives of an already oppressed people. They will be an excuse for more ranches, more unchecked capitalist oppression, and a greater government chokehold on indigenous lands. Now the point you made about environmentalists is true, but it has little to do with this. Are you trying to say opposition to this project is only coming from middle-class environmentalists?

How would a Socialist state creating this dam impact differently on the people it is negativly effecting?

[the last donut of the night]

How would a Socialist state creating this dam impact differently on the people it is negativly effecting?

Well, first of all, the actions of a socialist state would be approved by its citizens. In a socialist Brazil, the native peoples would have voted on this matter. In the capitalist Brazil, they were never really asked. Secondly, part of this project by the Brazilian state is not only one of 'energy needs', but one that is being deliberately used as a key to lock open what is left of the reservations and let more mining, ranching, and logging in.

[Dimentio]

I think there are two things to consider. Firstly, environmentalists tend to greatly exaggerate the level of opposition to such development projects. In reality, the vast majority of people in the 'developing world' desperately want economic development, jobs, better living standards and modernisation. The idea that they are happy with what they have is the degraded fantasy of privileged Westerners.

Secondly, where opposition by local populations does in fact exist, environmentalists cynically exploit it for their own ends. As i pointed out above, their ideology has in reality got very little in common with the anxieties of the local people they champion. Those anxieties should be addressed. But that does not mean that we should have any sympathy with eco-opposition to development in itself.

That power plant is not constructed to help the people of Brazil, but to help the Aluminium Industry.

[bailey_187]

I'm not sure about the dams built by the socialists and anti-imperialists, but the dams being built these days in third world countries by comprador governments are not done with consideration for the aboriginal and tribal people living in those areas or with the environment. The comprador bourgeoisie who have taken the place of the colonialists of the 19th and 20th centuries merely create these dams and undertake "development projects" for the sake of the native wealth to be looted and shipped out of the country as neo-colonial booty. So, such projects only aid neo-colonialism and further exploitation. This is the main reason why they should be opposed.

ok so we are opposed to the way in which this is being carried out, but not industrialising and building dams in Brazil. So surely siding with the anti-dam camp is oppurtunistic?

[bailey_187]

That power plant is not constructed to help the people of Brazil, but to help the Aluminium Industry.

So the problem is not the dam in its self but the social relations of Brazil that will lead to Brazilians seeing little development and gain? If the Aluminium industry was under democratic workers control (along with all other industry) in Brazil, would the dam then be good?

[Vanguard1917]

That power plant is not constructed to help the people of Brazil

Yes, under capitalism things are constructed to make profit for capitalists, from nuclear power stations, to clothes factories, to bakeries, to medical research centres. Does that mean that, as anti-capitalists, we should oppose such construction and development under capitalism? No. I think we need to think like Marxists.

[bailey_187]

I think the label -anti-dam' is just scape-goating progressive demands for reforms. The way I see it is: till the capitalists agree to progressive reforms in their dam-building methods, we block such activities. Leftists don't ask for much, only that the millions of indigenous people be not made homeless and the environment not be destroyed. I'm aware that under capitalism, everything is done for a profit. That being the case, we should fight for reforms under such a system. Blindly accepting the corporate media and agreeing to such destructive projects in the name of 'development' is just capitulation to propaganda.


Well the creation of a dam that could provide electricity to Brazilians and to the Bauxite and Aluminium industry is development. Whether the potential gains of will be fully realised by the Brazilian working class is another question, to which we are all on agreement to i assume.

The opposition to this dam from most is not from a criticism of the relations of capitalism, but rather industrial development of any kind. The Avatar twat and indigenous peoples of Brazil no not care whether the dam is under workers control and will be used power workers industry, they are opposed to the dam in general.

Humans interacting with nature and changing it to meet out needs is not "destroying the environment". When an otta builds a dam it is natural, why when humans do it is it not?
Besides, Communists should not (and historicaly did not) have any qualms with shaping the environment how we want for the benefit of humanity. As Mao said, Communists should "use natural sciences to understand, conquer, and change nature".

So how exactly would Communists, if they ever seized state power in Brazil, go about this? What would be done different?
Well the people made homeless and without a means of making a living certainly would be provided housing and the ability to make a living. However that is not the demands of those who oppose the dam. Their demands are "do not build the dam".
So what would be different about Communists building this dam and Capitalists building it for those who oppose it?

[bailey_187]

If it is at the cost of the livelihoods and homes of indigenous peoples, I would not call it 'development'.

We may as well say Capitalism was no development then, because it displaced English farmers etc. Of course industrialisation and electrification (which could result from this dam) is economic development.




Under capitalist relations of production, everything is done for profit and thus, the collateral damage done by capitalist development projects is huge. For example, the benefits to workers from industries is big, in terms of earning their livelihood. However, this does not mean that workers should not organize as a class and fight for better conditions. I think the opposition to dam should seen in a similar light as a strike by the indigenous peoples against capital. Many capitalists characterize workers striking for better conditions as 'anti-industrial'. However, this is not the crux of the issue.

Well i have never heard of striking workers being called 'anti-industrial'.

This analogy mises the whole point though. In this analogy the workers want better conditions, to take over the factory etc, they dont flat out oppose the factory like those who dont want this dam in Brazil do.




in the eyes of the big bourgeoisie, they do not even exist or matter.

The Avatar maker disagrees. What does not matter is the mass of Brazilian proletarians who would like to have access to the same material goods as Westerners enjoy and be able to afford to turn electricity on.




If this opposition is by some means given a Marxist direction, it can be made so that they don't oppose industrial development as a whole, only the destructive aspects of it.

I see no evidence for it at all being taken in a Marxist direction. Only petty-bourgeois NGO's and the do-good bourgeosie.





I think this is very far away in the future and we should think about what is achievable in today's scenario, which is reforming the capitalist development projects.

Well yeah, reforming capitalist development, but this movement does not wish to reform them; it opposes them

[Vanguard1917]

Well the creation of a dam that could provide electricity to Brazilians and to the Bauxite and Aluminium industry is development. Whether the potential gains of will be fully realised by the Brazilian working class is another question, to which we are all on agreement to i assume.

Notice the anti-working class attitude contained in the article in the OP, which talks about the threat posed by the 'influx of immigrants to the region during the construction of the dam'.

This is a typical feature of the middle-class perspective of environmentalists. The supposedly innocent, wide-eyed, child-like, natural 'indigenous' people are counterposed to the apparently corrupted, consumerist, self-interested industrial proletariat.

This is based on a degraded perception of not only the working class, but of 'indigenous' people as well, who are robbed of all their human characteristics and turned into some sort of alien and mythical race inherently unlike the rest of humanity (a bit like those blue people in Avatar).

For similar reasons, championing the 'interests' of 'indigenous' people over those of the working class has historically been associated with the right. It was British conservatives who set up the Aborigines' Protection Society in 1837.* European conservatives always hated anti-colonialist movements (which fought for independence so as to be able to develop and modernise their societies free from colonial meddling), but they had a bit of a habit of romanticising what they saw as harmless forest people.


*See James Heartfield's book Green Capitalism for a discussion on this.