Arghiri Emmanuel excerpt on ecological consumption and international solidarity
Source: Arghiri Emmanuel, "Myths of Development versus Myths of Underdevelopment," New Left Review, no. 85, 1974, pp. 61-82
Note: The article that is the source of this except contains other ideas that are useful for combating the theory of the productive forces, but MIWS would like to highlight one of Arghiri Emmanuel's attempts to connect analysis to strategy. In regard to the analysis, MIWS stresses again that Emmanuel's reasoning, about transfers to First World workers and the impossibility of upward equalization to the level of the First World, is not unique to Emmanuel or relevant only to his particular theory of parasitism. In the context of just Arghiri Emmanuel's work, MIWS finds it interesting that the proposition that amerikan workers are exploiters, in the sense of appropriating surplus value, was being raised for discussion in print in at least five different countries -- Britain, France, Italy, the united $tates, and Yugoslavia -- more than thirty years ago, according to an ecology thesis dealing with Arghiri Emmanuel. There is a deliberate effort by pseudo-communist leaders to perpetuate ignorance about the international history of the labor aristocracy thesis. In refusing to address concrete analysis of surplus value and parasitism, they seek to keep the masses ignorant and suppress science while building a militant parasitic social-imperialist movement among the imperialist country exploiters they call "working class" and "middle class."
"Myths of Development versus Myths of Underdevelopment" contains a peculiar of view of Arghiri Emmanuel's concerning technology, which MIWS may address in detail at a later point, as it is relevant to the theory of the productive forces. The same view appears in Emmanuel's book Appropriate or Underdeveloped Technology?, and Emmanuel briefly touches on the view in "Unequal Exchange Revisited." Emmanuel's point that oppressed nations would be better off with capital-intensive production is not shocking to MIWS. What is scandalizing to Emmanuel's readers who only oppose monopoly capitalists and not the labor aristocracy is that Emmanuel views the introduction of foreign technology by way of multinational corporations positively, saying that imperialism does not allow the oppressed nations to have enough advanced technology. What Emmanuel says is not simplistic, because Emmanuel also opposes the idea that industrialization itself leads to development, and he opposes the idea that oppressed nations can catch up with the imperialist countries by participating as capitalist countries in the integrated world market. Emmanuel's view on technology is in keeping with his belief that oppressed nations can take advantage of contradictions between imperialists, and between imperialists and the labor aristocracy. It is also in keeping with Emmanuel's belief that the majority of parasitism is not found in profits from the export of capital, but in exploitation via international trade involving prices (determined in Emmanuel's theory by wages). Emmanuel's particular theory of unequal exchange aside, MIWS shares Emmanuel's basic belief that the majority of super-profits does not consist of profits from the export of capital. The profits involved are too small to account for the observable gap Emmanuel talks about below.
By "equalization being impossible . . . downwards," below, Emmanuel means within the framework of the market. Among other things, the majority of First Worlders would have to give up their high incomes. In reading Emmanuel's writings, it is crucial to understand that Emmanuel often raises ideas and then contradicts them to make a point. So, oppressed nations can carry out policies to improve their position in the market, but equalization with the imperialist nations through just the market ultimately isn't possible. Oppressed nations that are relatively successful are the minority and for other oppressed nations to try to copy them is futile. Emmanuel suggests that foreign technology would benefit oppressed nations, but also shows that the absence or presence of technology isn't the main aspect of determining the economic development of Third World nations, but rather entrenched conditions that in tandem with market forces impede domestic investment in the oppressed nations while siphoning value from the oppressed nation workers to the imperialist country populations.2007 November
Excerpt of French version follows.
Excerpt:
[78]
[ . . . ]
The Gap in Physical Terms
The impasse of development can be made brutally plain if it is translated
into real terms. Some 6% of the world's population—the inhabitants
of the USA—consume more than 40% of an available quantity of
raw materials. An equalization of consumption to US levels implies,
therefore, a more than sixfold multiplication, on average, of the present
volume of extraction—assuming that the USA does not progress any
further. Geologically and technically, a leap such as this is out of the
question in the foreseeable future. The inhabitants of the USA consume
nearly 700 kg of steel per head per annum. If the entire world followed
their example, all our planet's known reserves of iron ore would be
exhausted in 40 years—assuming that the world's population ceased to
grow; otherwise, exhaustion would occur in an even shorter space of
time. The same equalization of international consumption would,
furthermore, exhaust all known reserves of copper within 8 years, and
of tin within 6 years.25
But where the impasse is most complete is, once again, in the domain of
oil. At present US levels of consumption, the world would need about
14–15 billion metric tons each year. But world reserves amount only to
about 80 billion—which corresponds, given a stationary state of
population and economic development, to 5½ years of consumption.
If we add reserves still to be discovered, or to be exploited by new
technological inventions, we can reckon according to OECD calculations
on twice this quantity or about 160 billion metric tons—and so, given
the same assumed state of stagnation, a period of 11 years before the
end is reached. Finally, if we include the sea-bed potential throughout
the world, some experts reckon that, given the most optimistic calculations
and assumptions, we could count on 320 billion metric tons
altogether, or 22 years' consumption.
But exhaustion of deposits and reserves is not the only factor that rules
out equalization of consumption upwards. Ecological limitations
represent another. If the advanced countries of today can still get rid of
their waste by dumping it into the sea or allowing it to pass into the¬
25 See Yves Saulan's very interesting article: 'Le Développement du Tiers Monde
est-il encore Possible?' in Revue du Tiers Monde, October–December 1972.
[79]
atmosphere, this is because they are the only nations to be doing so—
just as, for example, if their citizens can still travel about the globe by
air without too much difficulty, this is because the rest of the world's
inhabitants are unable to fly across it, so that the nationals of the
advanced countries alone crowd the skies of our planet.
International Solidarity
Here then, it is no longer a question of the abstract rhetoric of concepts
—surplus-value, capital, profit, and so on—but of material consumption.
It is therefore the great mass of the population of the advanced
countries, the wage-earners themselves, who are implicated. The consequence
is that, regardless of any other consideration or antagonism,
in the objective natural and technological conditions of today and of the
foreseeable future, the peoples of the rich countries can consume all
those articles to which they are so attached only because other peoples
consume very few or even none of them. It is this that breaks solidarity
between the working classes of the two groups of countries.
[Comment by MIWS: Earlier in this article, Emmanuel emphasizes money
figures as indicators of development. Emmanuel's point in the above
paragraph is not that the Marxist terms are rhetoric. Rather, Emmanuel
reminds readers that real quantities of material things are involved.
There is a kind of fetish of money that Emmanuel opposes throughout his
writings. Emmanuel opposes this fetish in two ways: by talking about
things in terms of labor and in terms of specific material things.
It is actually the majority of pseudo-communists who treat the Marxist
terms as just rhetoric, because they don't do any calculations or use
the terms incorrectly. They use the language of the labor theory of
value to pose as communists, but there is no quantitative question
for them that is important for practice, and often there is no concrete
analysis at all, but dogmatism or recitation of theory unconnected to
concrete reality.]
We have today reached a point at which, equalization being impossible
either downwards, for socio-political reasons, or upwards, for natural-technical
reasons, the only solution lies in a global change in the very
pattern of living and consumption, and the very concept of well-being.
Since the framework and parameters of this solution must be those of
mankind as a whole, the contradictions between classes within the
advanced countries, which still undoubtedly subsist, have nevertheless
become historically secondary. The principal contradiction, and driving
force for change, are henceforth located in the realm of international
economic relations. Imperialism is certainly not indestructible. But nor
is it withering away, as Warren supposes. It is waiting to be attacked
and destroyed from outside. What lies 'outside' imperialism is not—is
no longer—the working classes of the home countries of imperialism,
but those of the world outside their frontiers.
[MIWS comments: Here, Emmanuel is vague, and this doesn't necessarily
refer to people's war. It is important, though, that there is a direct
relationship between the analysis Emmanuel offers and the practice he
suggests. Emmanuel doesn't just knock down some one else's analysis or
theory and substitute a preconceived strategy in its place. Emmanuel
replaces what he criticizes with something else. That is unlike how
phony "Maoists" and other pseudo-communists and pseudo-Marxists treat
the kind of analysis Emmanuel had. Most of the critics of the
revolutionary scientific communist movement undermine science. It is
in their interests as advocates of the left wing of parasitism and
oppressor nationalism. They are wedded to an irrational system.]
[ . . . ]
Excerpt of French version
Source: Arghiri Emmanuel, "Les mythes du développement face aux "mythes du sous-développement"" (pp. 45-66), La dynamique des inégalités, Éditions anthropos, Paris, 1985
Excerpt:
[ 65 ]
[ . . . ]
LES TERMES PHYSIQUES DE L'ÉCART
Mais l'impasse du développement deviendrait peutêtre
plus visible si on la traduisait en termes réels: 6%
de la population mondiale – les habitants des Etats-Unis –
consomment plus de 40% des quantités disponibles de matières
premières. Une égalisation des niveaux implique
donc la multiplication par plus de 6 fois en moyenne du
volume actuel d'extraction, et ce, à condition que les Etats-Unis
ne progressent plus. Géologiquement et techniquement
un tel bond est exclu pour un avenir prévisible.
Les Américains consomment à peu près 700 kilos
d'acier par tête et par an. Si le monde suivait leur exemple,
toutes les réserves connues de la planète en minerai
de fer seraient épuisées en 40 ans, et ce, à condition que la
population mondiale cesse de s'accroître, sinon l'épuisement
surviendrait dans un délai encore plus court. La même
égalisation de la consommation mondiale ferait s'épuiser,
par exemple, toutes les réserves connues de cuivre en 8
ans, de l'étain en 6 ans1. Ne parlons pas de pétrole où,
même sans égalisation, la situation est déjà problématique.
Mais l'épuisement des gisements et des réserves n'est
pas le seul facteur qui interdit l'égalisation mondiale par
le haut. Les limites écologiques c'en sont une autre. Si les
pays développés actuels peuvent encore se débarasser de¬
1. Cf. le très intéressant article de Yves Laulan: "Le développement du Tiers
Monde est-il encore possible?", in Revue Tiers Monde, oct.-déc. 1972.
[ 66 ]
leurs déchets en les déversant dans les mers ou en les rejetant
dans les airs, c'est qu'ils sont seuls à le faire, de même que
si, par exemple, leurs ressortissants peuvent encore se déplacer
en avion sans trop de difficultés, c'est que les autres
n'ont pas les moyens de le faire et que les premiers sont
seuls à encombrer les cieux de la planète.
LA SOLIDARITÉ INTERNATIONALE
Comme on le voit, il ne s'agit plus de la rhétorique des
concepts ou d'abstractions, plus-value, capital, profit,
etc., mais de consommation matérielle. C'est done la
grande masse de la population, les salariés eux-mêmes qui
sont en cause. Il en résulte qu'en dehors de toute autre
considération et de tout autre antagonisme, dans les conditions
objectives naturelles et technologiques d'aujourd'hui
et d'un avenir prévisible, les peuples des pays nantis actuels
ne peuvent consommer tous ces objects auxquels ils semblent
tenir, que parce que les autres n'en usent que très peu ou
pas du tout. C'est cela qui rompt la solidarité entre les
classes ouvrières des uns et des autres.
Nous sommes arrivés aujourd'hui à un point où l'égalisation
étant impossible et par le bas, pour des raisons socio-politiques,
et par le haut pour des raisons matérielles, la solution
se trouve dans une modification du modèle même de vie
et de consommation et de la notion même du bien-être.
Cette solution ayant comme cadre et comme paramètres
celui et ceux de l'humanité toute entière, la contradiction
encore existante entre les classes dans les pays développés
est devenue secondaire. L'élément moteur du changement,
la contradiction principale, se trouvent désormais situés
dans les rapports économiques internationaux. L'impérialisme
n'est certes pas indestructible. Mais il ne dépérit pas,
comme le croit Bill Warren. Il attend d'être attaqué et détruit
de l'extérieur. Et l'extérieur de l'impérialisme n'est pas,
n'est plus, ses classes ouvrières domestiques, c'est le monde
se trouvant au-delà des frontières nationales entourant
ses foyers.