Eco-imperialism

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I wanted to start this thread, for two main reasons.

First and foremost, i don't really understand world politics, in the context of environmentalism, enough to take a strong position on the subject.

The second is an interesting topic within the CC, in which some people have touched on this subject.

So, I think we all accept that Global warming is a very real threat to human survival on the earth, while it is still unconfirmed what the end result will be, we know there will be some effects of global warming which are going to be harmful to humans.

traditional imperialism is understood by one country exerting its economic and political (sometimes cultural) power over other countries.

Since all nations are sovereign and should be allowed national self determination, imperialism does not allow for developing nations to be sovereign.

Imperialism can be from a unilateral imperialist actor, like the united states economic sabotage, which we have seen against many countries, or institutions of global capital Like the WTO and IMF which seek to control developing nations through enforced programs and aid restriction.

So Imperialism is a means for the imperialist countries to expand and open new markets for Labour, resources and markets to sell commodities too.

So, to eco-imperialism.

Eco-imperialism is when industrialised developed nations enforce developing nations to methods which hinder the development process.

This might be enforcing pollution regulation which can restrict the growth of developing nations.

So, i would be delighted if more knowledgeable members could tell me what they think about this interesting and very weighty subject.

though i think one thing we can all agree on in the face of Global warming, is " socialism or barbarism".

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by BCS
Eco-imperialism is when industrialised developed nations enforce developing nations to methods which hinder the development process.

Could you provide some examples of this? Coz i cant think of any examples of 'eco-imperialism' as you are describing it, and as far as im aware there is no global environment watchdog that has the ability to force nation-states to do anything of this nature.



This might be enforcing pollution regulation which can restrict the growth of developing nations.

Firstly, as above - im not aware of any so-called 'developed' countries 'forcing' so-called 'developing' countries to regulate corporate (or otherwise) pollution within their borders... that sounds quite ridiculous (as in impossible).

Secondly, the regulation of corporate pollution is NOT analogous with 'restricting' the 'growth' of 'developing' nations, can you justify that statement please?

It smacks of vanguard1917-type sensationalism, as if any desire to reduce the environmental impact of corporations in the 'third world' is 'anti-development'. Of course in reality, it is the people of the 'developing' world who are fighting against the abuses of foreign capital eg. Indigenous resistance to mining companies throughout the south Pacific.

Why? Well because 'development' (read: foreign investment) is a capitalist process not a socialist one; companies dont act in the interests of any given 'developing' countries working class - though in the short term they may provide jobs - the goal is profit not the long-term development of said nation, that should be obvious - capital is not benevolent and people know that, thats why they fight back!

After all its the people of the 'developing world' who suffer the social and health costs which follow from a 'no questions asked' approach for capital, the approach favoured by the capitalists, the neo-liberals and... oddly enough, you it seems? :mellow: (after all, you've made up this charge of 'eco-imperialism' to be levelled against states who push for environmental protections)

Do you think that 'developing' countries should attempt to regulate the activity of companies within their borders? If not, why not?

[Vargha Poralli]

Eco-imperialism is when industrialised developed nations enforce developing nations to methods which hinder the development process.

Well this thing I would like to have some verifiable sources. To my knowledge Developed Nations don't worry about environmental degradation of the developing nations as long as they can super-exploit the workers of the third world in alliance with the capitalists and their faithful servants(also called as the ruling class of those nations). A good example would be the city I live in which has some knitting companies which worth some 7000 crore turnover every year. The main importers of these companies are Europe and Canada. This town actually competes with China over super exploiting workers.

But the issue is this. Dumping the wastes of the dyeing units of these Industries. They dump it in the rivers and other reservoirs making the water unfit for irrigation,drinking and general human use. None of these companies trading partners gave a fuck about these acts.
Source 1 (http://www.infochangeindia.org/agenda3_14.jsp)
Source 2 (http://www.boloji.com/environment/15.htm).

Nor does the trading partners of China don't give a damn about its Industries polluting its own rivers.

The fact is that neither the market nor the bureaucratic states can solve this environmental crises. I don't think that there is seriously a thing called eco imperialism. I don't think that movement like Green peace are really a seriuos therat to global capitalism because their class nature is mainly western middle class.They can accomplish just a little as much their class is capable of.

And movements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipko_movement)like this are totally local and cannot be blamed on this eco imperialism.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

bleeding gums malatesta



Could you provide some examples of this? Coz i cant think of any examples of 'eco-imperialism' as you are describing it, and as far as im aware there is no global environment watchdog that has the ability to force nation-states to do anything of this nature.

Not really, that why i started this thread so we can debate about it. I got what i said from the eco-imperialism wiki page.



After all its the people of the 'developing world' who suffer the social and health costs which follow from a 'no questions asked' approach for capital, the approach favoured by the capitalists, the neo-liberals and... oddly enough, you it seems? mellow.gif (after all, you've made up this charge of 'eco-imperialism' to be levelled against states who push for environmental protections)

why are you forced to lie about my post?

I made a post asking questions about what people thought about eco-imperialism and you respond by saying i support it?

i dont get it.

I agree that a country dominated by imperialist countries in that context should be popular struggle against it at best and regulated by the government at worst.

I am talking about it in a context of sovereign nations who have control over their industry or at least the national bourgeoisie does.

What i mean then is that in that context, should the developing nations submit to rules and regulations by initiatives led by developed nations?

please, bleeding gums malatesta, you have no need to say i support imperialism when you know i don't.




Do you think that 'developing' countries should attempt to regulate the activity of companies within their borders? If not, why not?

I think any imperialist dominated country should fight that imperialism, but because they are totally dominated by imperialist countries they probably wont have much say. but i think of course they should regulate why do you think i oppose that?

if its a nationalised economy then they should industrialise and not pay much attention to the initiatives led by developed nations.

Please dont be so hostile im just trying to know more about this subject and thought it was be good to debate but you are making me think i shouldnt have bothered. seems like you want to stop debate on what is an issue we should give thought too :(

[Kia]

Hopefully Vanguard will post here, if I'm correct about his views of the "green movement" then this concept of "eco-imperialism" is exactly what he thinks is happening today.


Eco-imperialism is when industrialized developed nations enforce developing nations to methods which hinder the development process.

Using this as a definition, then yes, eco-imperialism does exist and is happening or it will happen. I'm sure as the green movement gets bigger and bigger and more politicians and the public support the idea more and more...countries will be forced into supporting the initiatives of the green. They will also try to make other countries follow in the same footsteps...Kyoto protocol? The thing is though, this isn't necessarily bad. Global warming, destruction of the environment, the mass consumption of nonrenewable recourses, etc, etc...are GLOBAL PROBLEMS. They cannot be solved country to country but rather only with a strong global push. If Europe was to dramatically cut Co2, switch mainly to renewable recourses and start dramatically protecting the environment..would this solve the problem? Not at all. It would help but it wouldn't fix it.

The other assumption made by some is that for some reason that the green movement seems to only exist in "developed" countries..this is just not so. Many developing countries have large parts of the public that support these ideas...remember the African women who won the Nobel (Wangari Maathai), she won it for pushing a mass movement for the replanting of millions of trees across Africa to help fight deforestation (along with pushing for human rights).

Will "development" and "industrialization" be effected by the green movement? YES. Its quite likely that almost all industries in both "developing" and "developed" countries will be greatly effected. It will harm the speed and efficiency of these industries and thus can be viewed as being a negative impact on the poor; however it also is a negative impact on the rich. Weigh the pros and cons though and one should realize that this isn't completely bad. If nothing was done now..industry would be greatly damaged in the future. The lack of natural recourses that could be used for fuel efficiently will have greatly diminished causing major damage to national and private industries. Many developing countries already use outdated technology left by imperialist powers, so updating this technology to be more energy efficient and reliable would actually benefit them rather then harm them. If industry and development has to suffer for awhile so that in the future the world is much safer, eco-friendly, productive place..then so be it.

I will agree that western countries (this idea of imperialism being applied to anything being pushed by western countries is just idiotic) can turn this movement into a weapon to be used to benefit western countries and businesses is a probable threat. Companies and government will abuse the movement to make large sums of profit from developing countries. The solution however is that we fight against this at every possible point, we demand that no strings be attached to saving the environment. That aid tying isn't used when giving aid to countries trying to develop in an eco friendly way. As long as we are vigilant and as long as we fight every situation of exploitation then it is quite possible we can keep this crisis as genuine as possible.



Note: I have a strong feeling that the country that will cause the most problems for the movement other then America will be china. Their recent economic gains seems to have gone straight to their heads.....

[Black Dagger]

Not really, that why i started this thread so we can debate about it. I got what i said from the eco-imperialism wiki page.


You didnt mention this at all in your post... how was i or anyone meant to know that?


why are you forced to lie about my post?

I made a post asking questions about what people thought about eco-imperialism and you respond by saying i support it?

i dont get it.

Uh, im not 'lying' - you made statements in your last post - i analysed these - perhaps if you'd made it clear that nothing in your post was to be taken as your opinion... i wouldnt have taken your post as your opinion.


I agree that a country dominated by imperialist countries in that context should be popular struggle against it at best and regulated by the government at worst.

Huh? Can you please re-word this statement.


What i mean then is that in that context, should the developing nations submit to rules and regulations by initiatives led by developed nations?


Well no, 'developing' nations shouldnt simply 'submit' to whatever 'developed' nations suggest - but this is a moot point; 'developed' nations do not have any mechanism at present to force other states to comply with environmental standards of their creation... and they probably never will, it's simply not feasible.

That said, there is nothing wrong with 'developing' countries imposing regulations on the activity of capital within their borders, on the contrary it's a vital protective measure.



please, bleeding gums malatesta, you have no need to say i support imperialism when you know i don't.

I wasnt saying you 'support imperialsm', merely that you seemed to be supporting the idea that corporate regulation was 'anti-development' (i didnt realise your post was not meant to be taken as your opinion).


I think any imperialist dominated country should fight that imperialism, but because they are totally dominated by imperialist countries they probably wont have much say.

Ok, but i dont think this 'imperialist'/victim relationship is not really an accurate reflection of current inter-state discourse on the environment.



but i think of course they should regulate why do you think i oppose that?

Because i assumed from your last post that you actually believed 'eco-imperialism' exists in any meaningful sense (i.e. in the sense you outlined), it doesnt.



if its a nationalised economy then they should industrialise and not pay much attention to the initiatives led by developed nations.

Regardless of whether the economy is 'nationalised' or not, attention SHOULD be paid to the enviromental sustainability (and thus economic sustainability) of any 'development' strategy.



Please dont be so hostile im just trying to know more about this subject and thought it was be good to debate but you are making me think i shouldnt have bothered. seems like you want to stop debate on what is an issue we should give thought too

Huh? How was i hostile? :unsure: I dont want to 'stop debate', but i do think the term 'eco-imperialism' is fallacious, and im open to debating the validity of that statement with you... i honestly dont know why you've taken my response so personally :wacko:

[Vargha Poralli]

BCS could you respond to my reply ? :) ?

Also an analysis of Green Movement by Marxists.org. I have already posted this in response to vanguard1917 but he never engaged with me regarding it(its is his thread equating environmentalism with Nazism).Green or Environmental Movement (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/g/r.htm#green-movement) And the main point it raises it is this


Originally posted by Marxists.org+--> (Marxists.org)Green issues were no longer the preserve of a few visionaries or dedicated animal lovers, but began to engage the consciousness of millions in the West, who had achieved development but now feared the excessive cost. Pretty soon, “Third World” countries began seeing the cost of “development” as whole ecosystems came under threat as a result of uncontrolled development. Transnational companies, forbidden from polluting their own backyards, used these countries as “dumping grounds” for the most poisonous industries and rode roughshod over attempts to regulate their destructive practices. As a result, the Green movement has embedded itself in the anti-imperialist movement across the world.
[/b]



MIA
The issues raised by the Green Movement were and remain genuine issues of life and death for humanity; the problems were posed to humanity for the first time in the early 1960s as a result of the gigantic expansion brought about by the post-war boom. No force existed capable of confronting this danger, and the Green Movement came forward to meet this challenge. It seems clear that neither the market nor bureaucratic states in which people have no democratic rights can resolve the problems of environmental destruction; in general the Greens have shown that the problem of preventing destruction of the environment is the same as the problems of poverty and freedom. People who do not have enough to eat or who are ignorant, will not and cannot prevent governments and corporations who are accountable to no-one for destroying Nature.


I think factually it is the opposite thing that had happened. Green movement became a global thing only after it embedded itself with anti-imperialist struggle.

[Vanguard1917]

One extreme example of 'eco-imperialism': how Western environmentalist meddling gave way to death and sickness from malaria for millions of people in the world's poorest countries.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64357