CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW
3.4 Situating the displacement-development paradox within classical sociological theories
3.4.3 Karl Marx-capitalism, alienation and the struggle for resources in forced displacements. 42
Representing German sociology Marx offered an alternative but radical view of social change and development. For this reason, his theory from the beginning was alienated in mainstream development discourse and practice. Nevertheless, there has been a renewed interest in Marx’s theory, particularly as it relates to social change and development (MacLennan 2003). He believes that all known human societies go through a series of stages of development. The first stage being primitive communalism, which is essentially an egalitarian society and there was no exploitation. Exploitation of man by man started with the advent of the period of slavery where class and stratification started to surface. This was followed by the feudal mode of production, capitalism and communism for Marx will be the final and adorable mode of production (Reid 1972). Unlike the two classical theorists alluded to in this section, Marx evaluated change from a revolutionary rather than evolutionary perspective. He posits that the history of mankind is the history of class struggle because it is class conflict that becomes the engine for social change and development. This points to the inevitability of conflict in society in general and developmental projects like dam projects have not been immune to conflict and contradictions.
While he talks of several stages of development, Marx devoted his life to the understanding of capitalist mode of production and its related evils for the ordinary and marginalized sections of society. The modern, industrial society for Marx is just but an experience of estrangement that emanates from the serious and callous commodity production and the industrialized social milieu (MacLennan ibid). Alienation is a ubiquitous social condition for the poor or the working class in the capitalist mode of production. Alienation for Marx has a devastating effect on human beings who labour in a capitalist economy and society in general (Ritzer ibid). Borrowing from this line of thinking, the displaced communities like the Tokwe Mukosi community go through a progressively reified alienated existence as they are debased and dislocated from their traditional sources of livelihood. In as much as this capitalist mode of production is primarily interested in
43
increased productivity and income generation(which is the goal of the Tokwe Mukosi dam project), it is not interested in using technology and infrastructure for the good of the poor and marginalized citizens (Rosen 1998, Carver 1998, Wendling 2009). This is because in the modern capitalist society, developmental projects are paradoxically aimed at benefiting the elite and the visible in society.
The poor, particularly in Africa, are consequently alienated from their land, culture, livelihoods, land and sources of wellbeing (Se Mutopo et al 2013). This is clearly a form of decapitalization that pauperizes the displaced communities as they are alienated from the manmade and natural capital which is of utmost important for their survival (Smith 2001). The issue at hand is that it is highly impossible to maintain a balance between what the agents of development such as the state in the Tokwe Mukosi context cherish and the actual issues affecting the very poor in society. Thus programs aimed at developing the poor communities such as the mega dam projects can at best keep them poor and at worst push them below the poverty datum line (Fernandes 2005). To worsen the already precarious situation, the compensation principle which is fashionable for many governments in the displacement and development paradox mostly target the ‘visible’ members of society and those who lose their livelihoods are sadly glossed over (Smith ibid).
The displacement of villagers from their capital inextricably generates conflict between the government and the affected villagers. This conflict is in many ways similar to the conflict between owners of the means of production and the working class. To a certain degree this conflict points to the aspect of class consciousness for the affected villagers, wherein they are moving from a class in itself to a class for itself. The aim here is to survive and recover the dislocated capital and livelihoods.
3.5 Modernity, capitalism, development projects and delusional development.
44
The 21st century is undoubtedly the period of the most radical ambivalence when one looks at the history of capitalism and modernity, this has actually led to the dialectic of progress and devastation (Barkin and Lemus 2016). Notwithstanding this ambivalence, the dam project and displacement enigma is continuous informed by the capitalist and modernist thinking. The monumental challenge confronting this philosophy is that its architects believe that the persistence of backwardness and poverty in rural economies lies squarely on the persistence of pre-modernist or pre-capitalist modes of production or what is known as compensindios (Arizmendi 2016). To further buttress this point, Savage and Warde (2010) opine that the issue at stake in the capitalism, modernity and development impasse emanates from the myth of progress, that is the delusion that capitalism and modernity are the preconditions for the desired lineal history of social, political and economic progress.
The implications of the modern world and its emphasis on progress, technology and infrastructural development have been succinctly described by Giddens 1990 as a juggernaut. It is ominously a runaway engine of colossal power which, together as human beings, we can push to some extent but also threatens to blast out of control and which could render itself asunder (Giddens 2013). The Tokwe Mukosi dam project in Zimbabwe as part of the modernity, capitalism and development matrix becomes a juggernaut which inevitably crushes and pushes away those who may try to resist it, leading to the marginalization of the villagers in this project.
It is very clear that as long as social institutions that support and streamline this kind of modernity incessantly endure, humanity will never be in a position to control in totality the direction of development (Giddens Ibid). To echo the sentiments on the alienating and destructive effect of capitalism, development and displacement, Ritzer (2010) says, humanity shall never be entirely secure because the terrain through which modernity runs is infested with high risks and undesirable consequences for the poor and vulnerable. This is surely the same path that the Tokwe Mukosi displacees in Zimbabwe have been pushed to follow.
The detrimental effects of modernity can also be seen in that it is pushing away, destroying or surpassing traditional forms of social organization and culture in many dam projects. At best this process can be viewed as a very dynamic and cumbersome development, with remarkable
45
increase in scope and pace with the knock-on effect of changing previous systems, which are seen as inimical to progress (Trigilia 2003). It is highly contradictory, culminating in serious conflict between the winners and losers of this juggernaut of modernity (Streeten 1998). Still on the relationship between modernity and the peasant economy, critical Marxists see a relationship of domination because capitalism and modernity absorb and penetrate the peasant economy, placing it at its service (Barkin and Lemus 2016). Thus, the construction of the Tokwe Mukosi dam project represents the subversion of the peasant economy, replacing it with the capitalist mode of production. This naturally generates conflict as modes of production clash (Powell 2014; Hoppe 2010; Ng 2009). As a result of this Juggernaut of modernity and the clash of the modes of production, those occupying the bottom of the ladder like the Tokwe Mukosi people suffer under the burden of avoidable lifestyles, hunger, diseases and other related challenges including social risks (Turner 1990). Modernity, capitalism and development also lead to the disruption of systems of production, loss of assets, jobs, the dismantling of social and food security among the societies that are experiencing such change (World Bank 1994). In essence, they create landscapes of abandonment and estrangement, at the same time promoting a sense of loneliness and vulnerability for the displaced populations (Salerno 2003).
Modernity and its unintended consequences for the poor and vulnerable have also been conceptualized by Giddens (Ibid) in terms of four basic institutions in society. The first institution is capitalism, which is the symbol and prime mover of modernity. Capitalism dwells on such elements as commodity production, private ownership of property and the class system (also see Marx Ibid). It should be underscored that these facets of capitalism and modernity were the basis for the construction of the mega dam project in question and the subsequent displacement of Tokwe Mukosi Villagers in Zimbabwe. The end product is the establishment of an Agro-based town that is purely capitalistic in nature. Industrialism is the second aspect, which is linked to the use of machinery for production and inanimate sources of power (Ritzer Ibid).
This is also evident in a number of settings including but not limited to transport, hydrogenation and communication. More significantly, when it comes to the state-people relations in internal displacements in Zimbabwe are the third and fourth ingredients of modernity enunciated by Giddens. These are surveillance capacities and control of the means of violence. Surveillance in
46
the context of the displaced communities is the continuous supervision of these villagers mainly in the political arena (See Giddens 1990). Control of the means of production is the capacity of the government to use military supervision or force in the face of civil resistance. In tandem with this position it has been seen that the history of the Zimbabwean government in internal displacements and development is littered by the use of institutionalized violence through repressive state apparatus (Hartnack 2016; Hove 2016; Hove etal 2008; Rutherford 2008;
Tibaijuka Ibid, Katsaura ibid).
For Giddens (Ibid), the new type of modernity that societies are currently experiencing comes with so many destructive elements and risks, making it a risk society for the ordinary citizens.
This destructive tendency of modernity and capitalism has also been elaborated by Bauman (1989) in his analogy of modernity and holocaust. It is very clear that the onset of capitalism and modernity brought a sense of humiliation and lack of self-worth for the poor (Nhodo et al 2015).
Commenting on the impact of capitalism, globalization and modernity on the Zambian poor Ferguson (2003) argues that, this colossal movement brings a sense of abjection, and this refers to the callous process of being pushed aside, expelled or discarded form the mainstream economy. It does not end there since the process does not only mean being pushed out but being pushed down, which entails debasement and mortification (Ferguson Ibid, Ferguson 1999). The Tokwe Mukosi people’s experience clearly typifies this kind of experience since they have been pushed out of the mainstream economy in the quest for modernity and development. They have been pushed to the margins of society, where social life and survival is a daily struggle.
3.6 Dam projects and displacement: An anatomy of global and regional scholarship and