National recently released their discussion document on mining, proposing the removal of 7000 ha of land from Schedule 4 (protected lands) so that mining can be considered on a ‘case-by-case’ basis. This has led to a bout of anti-mining sentiment. The environmental NGOs are busy gathering submissions and groups like Coromandel Watchdog are planning on-the-ground civil disobedience to stop the bulldozers. There have been marches in Wellington and Nelson, and tens of thousands marched down Queen Street, Auckland, on May 1st to oppose the Government’s plan.
About a dozen of us gathered at Trades Hall, Wellington for a discussion on the mining debate. AWSM holds regular discussion evenings in Wellington and Christchurch. We had envisioned a discussion on how we should engage with the anti-mining debate from an anti-capitalist perspective, but it turned out to be a different conversation, because of the 40,000+ march against mining the previous Saturday.
The discussion included the following points: (Please note that these don’t represent the view of AWSM or all the people present at the discussion – it was a discussion rather than a planning meeting):
- If mining is done by a state owned enterprise it’s no more environmentally friendly
- National are not worse than Labour – they just do things faster.
- Frustrating that 50,000 people would come out for anti-mining but not for any thing else
- There is a lot of nationalism in the anti-mining debate, e.g. “Our parks”
- Miners’ unions are not necessarily nested in new seems and new areas being opened up for mining; there doesn’t need to be a divide between those against the opening up of Schedule 4 and miners.
- In Britain the National Union of Mineworkers and Earth First! have joined up to oppose opencast mining.
- If a divide is perpetuated, what side do we stand on?
- Ideally the anti-mining movement wouldn’t be dominated by the large environmental non-governmental organisations (e.g. Greenpeace, Forest and Bird).
- It’s possible to have a mass movement that is much more democratic. It would be much stronger if lots of little groups were doing stuff. That way, those who wanted to get active could get involved.
- It is grassroots – organised via Facebook etc.
- Greenpeace did a lot of organising, including emailing the Sign-On list.
- Not going to stop mining with a really big march.
- Both ‘mining’ and ‘don’t mine; we’ve got a great tourism industry’ reinforce capitalism. We need to argue this is a false ideology. Could use the debate to push a specific anti-capitalist ideology; people care about this issue.
- The discourse is narrow.
- The environment centres of the 1980s and 1990s were grassroots based. They were a way for greenies to do something local – both vague liberal stuff and direct action. Those groups have died; they went under by cuts to funding as part of the neoliberal agenda.
- We have these peaks of mobilisation at the moment, e.g. anti-Iraq, and then it drops away again. With anti-Vietnam work it took years to mobilise.
- The current mining debate overlooks class. A major critique of mining companies and what they are trying to do globally. Financial capital built up all these debts and now they are desperate for money.
- Cyanide dams have to pump for 200 years or else the cyanide dries out, oxidises, and is then water soluble.
- There is no gold-mine that’s been successfully ecologically rehabilitated.
- If we open up more mines, it’ll fuck people up.
- Are we opposed to all mining? Would Tiwai (aluminum smelter) exist in an anarchist-communist society?
- We wouldn’t need as much mining. Currently industry is competing against each other. That goods become obsolete is built-in, especially under modern neo-liberal capitalism. A lot more could be recycled. Consumerism is fed upon people – it’s all we’ve got. Mining could be done by robots because it is a shit job.
- Everyone is packed together – there is more solidarity – These are better paid jobs. Part of the bizarre alienation is that people are desperate for those jobs even though it gives you black lung etc.
- 50,000 people saying “our land” doesn’t have to be nationalistic because in future society, it would all be ours. The land is everybody’s – that’s potentially a really good starting point in terms of talking about distribution of wealth.
- So often greenies are so condescending when talking about alternatives to mining; e.g. ‘oh all those workers could get green jobs’
- Organising a radical anti-mining, anti-capitalist movement is a huge amount of work. It’s very easy to get excited by 50,000 people. How do we engage with it as it exists?
