The constituent process comprises a double turn, on the one hand, a break with that general framework of norms and ways of understanding the country that society considered insufficient or problematic, and on the other, the need to build everyone’s house or the living tree that will guide us towards the future, which implies an openness to dialogue, to new semantics and possible futures.
In this context, one of the elements that has been most discussed is the link between economy, environment and society. In this column we refer to the book Questioning the Neoliberal Extractivist Model from the South. Capitalism, Territories and Resistances, written by a group of academics, together with inhabitants from different parts of the country, as well as from other countries, including Argentina and Germany. In this book, we stress the extractivist imperative as the only horizon of development for the country and the region.
The concept of extractivism has been widely discussed during the last decade from different disciplines, however, no one can know its meaning in a more lucid way, than those who inhabit territories linked to this mode of production. In Chile, regardless of the political sector that governs, it seems that the idea has been installed historically that there are no other alternatives for the positive transformation of society outside the extraction of natural resources, which speaks of an economic bias that overlooks the impacts, tensions and controversies that these models generate.
However, what research has not always revealed is the socio-territorial heterogeneity that lies under the umbrella that the concept of “extractivism” proposes. Making sense of the above, in this column we talk about “extractivism” in the plural, while it is important to account for their differences. Thus, the public-private links and with civil society that are built around mining in the north, are quite different from those that are built in the south with salmon farming or with the forest industry and, precisely, in the recognition of these differences rests the possibility of transformation towards models where human-territorial development is not determined from outside, nor from extractive activities. Another relevant element, not to be lost sight of, is that in the different extractivist models positions of power are generated that privilege some social actors over others. Similarly, these actors with differential powers act on the territories by building new geographies, where natural resources are quickly “extracted” from the local space, leaving only a footprint of impacts, pollution and waste that remain as vestiges of the search for an economic development that seems increasingly distant.
In the current constituent process, the possibility of thinking and rethinking the relationship between society and nature has been opened from new keys. Obviously, they question the balances of power and territorial structures that currently exist, and in this way they win the antipathy of those who see their positions threatened. It is urgent to discuss extractivism and the unique, democratic and republican possibility that we are living to imagine and project possible and alternative futures to the model of extractivism that both conservative and progressive governments have consolidated in Chile and Latin America.
In this sense, the debate regarding extractivism is not closed, there is no social agreement in order to maintain it, even though there are many who want to take advantage of the climate crisis to make it the best “alternative”. This conversation links us with other domains, such as: i) the regime of government and structure of the State, ii) the processes of decentralization, territorial democratization and decision-making; and (iii) economic development and the possibility of developing State incentives for an economy coordinated with the territory and the common interest.
We invite you all to review the book Questioning the Neoliberal Extractivist Model from the South. Capitalism, Territories and Resistances (Ariadna editions 2021, 701 pages) which is currently released for free download. There, those who write this column, together with a large group of inhabitants, settlers and academics, propose a heterogeneous and broad reflection on extractivism. SpeWe want this proposal to contribute to social discussion and also to look at the constituent process and the new Constitution from a perspective where alternatives to extractivism have more and more space.
Follow us on
 for Chile’s future: an urgency){kind=link}