Extractivism or specificity of capital accumulation? A critique on the extractivist approach regarding the case of Argentina

Abstract

The recent economic and political transformations in many Latin American countries have been increasingly analysed under the (neo-)extractivism approach. Specifically, the debate surrounding the contradictions and limitations of this development model, as well as its consequences, gained traction among scholars. In this article, we intend to put forth a critical analysis of this approach with the goal of giving an account of its explanatory power, focusing on Argentina. In order to do this, we summarize some of the more noteworthy conceptual features of (neo-)extractivism, as well as the main arguments to include Argentina as a case. Then, after presenting some immediate conceptual limitations linked to this theoretical perspective, we introduce an alternative approach in regard to the specific way in which capital accumulation takes place in Argentina, based on the Critique of Political Economy put forward by Marx in Capital, and taking the global unity of capital accumulation as a starting point. This allows us to critically engage, in the last section, with the main claims of extractivism.

Resisting extractivism as a feminist critical socio‐spatial practice

“…Economic policies framing the environment as another commodity in a vast capitalist process of commodity accumulation through different forms of extractivism have exacerbated these processes (Gago & Mezzadra, 2017; Martinez‐Alier, 2003; Pérez Trento, 2021). The cost of commodifying the commons, targeting all communal or common ownership under the authority of states or civic communities (Mandalaki & Fotaki, 2020; Schierup & Ålund, 2018), is environmental degradation on the unseen scale and privatization of the public spaces.…”

Neo-Extractivism and Formalization of Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining—The Case of the Santurbán Moorland (Colombia)

“…In the scientific literature, neo-extractivism is analyzed as a branch of the extractive sector of the economy in LA [15]; consequently, it is an emerging issue in the field of critical studies with a progressive and neoliberal perspective [16,17]. According to Guerisoli and Mandirola [18], the neo-extractivist model 'reprioritizes' economies by relying on natural resources to take advantage of the global demand for minerals and hydrocarbons; in turn, it promotes capital accumulation, which opposes a development model [19]. In this sense, Warnecke-Berger et al [20] consider that neo-extractivism has limitations due to the contradiction with the sustainable objectives of wealth redistribution, in contrast to the potential for structural transformation and inclusive and egalitarian development.…”