Treadmills of Production and Destruction

Abstract

The treadmill of production has identified and examined an inherent dynamic that results in the inexorable expansion of capitalism. Although it is argued that a number of benefits accompany this economic expansion, the treadmill of production literature has focused on the environmental costs. The treadmill of production embraces the legacy of C. Wright Mills with a focus on the entangled relationships between two aspects of Mills's "power elite"-politics and economics. Building on Mills's inclusion of militarism as one of the three pillars of the power elite, it is argued that there exists a treadmill of destruction that maintains a distinct logic relating to geopolitics and arms races that cannot be reduced to capitalism. The 20th century has witnessed unprecedented growth in the research, testing, storage, and employment of both conventional weaponry and weapons of mass destruction. In focusing on this development, the distinctive role the state plays in creating a treadmill of destruction is stressed.

Natural Resource Extraction, Armed Violence, and Environmental Degradation

“…Nevertheless, we contend that in focusing their attention on wealthy nation military power, military violence between nations, and the direct environmental consequences of weapons production, military activity, and war, these scholars ignore several important ways in which violence and armed conflict contribute to local, regional, and global environmental degradation. For instance, although we agree with Hooks and Smith’s (2004, 2005) argument concerning the direct environmental effects of war and militarism, we also believe that violence and armed conflict play a critical role in degrading the environment by helping ensure that natural resources vital to both capital accumulation and core nation military power are extracted and transported in sufficient quantities and at low enough prices to (a) maintain or increase corporate profits and industrial production levels across core nation economic sectors, (b) guarantee levels of economic activity sufficient to maintain core nation tax revenues, and (c) provide core nations with the natural resources and tax revenues they need to maintain large, powerful militaries.…”

“…As previously noted, environmental sociologists have paid relatively little attention to the role that armed violence and military activity play in damaging the environment and ensuring the profitable extraction and transport of natural resources (Hooks & Smith, 2004, 2005; Jorgenson & Clark, 2009). In recent years, however, a handful of environmental sociologists, including several ecological unequal exchange researchers, have begun to argue that military activity may be a key driver of environmental degradation.…”

“…In recent years, however, a handful of environmental sociologists, including several ecological unequal exchange researchers, have begun to argue that military activity may be a key driver of environmental degradation. These researchers have noted, for example, that military equipment, military bases, weapons production and disposal, and war all produce severe environmental degradation that cannot be attributed solely to the pursuit of capital accumulation (Hooks & Smith, 2004, 2005), that powerful nations often use military coercion to maintain disproportionate access to natural resources (Jorgenson & Clark, 2009; Jorgenson, Clark, & Kentor, 2010; York, 2008), and that military power was one of the key factors that allowed Western Europe to exploit its colonies’ labor and natural resource wealth, thereby enriching Western Europe, impoverishing much of the rest of the world, and severely degrading the environment (Foster, 1994). Researchers have also argued that war and debt played an important role in ensuring British control over Peru and Chile’s 19th-century natural fertilizer trade (Clark & Foster, 2009) and that imperialism and militarism have played an integral role in cementing U.S. power over global petroleum supplies (Foster, 2008; O’Connor, 1998).…”

“…Nevertheless, research demonstrates that state interests are not reducible to capitalist interests or to structural constraints imposed on them by others (Giddens, 1985; Hooks & Smith, 2004; Mann, 1986). Instead, states have political, military, bureaucratic, and geopolitical concerns that are often quite distinct from those of corporate actors, and powerful states often act effectively on these concerns (Hooks & Smith, 2004, 2005). 6 …”

“…Nevertheless, relatively few ecological unequal exchange researchers have thought systematically about the organizational and institutional mechanisms that underlie ecological unequal exchange; and they and other environmental sociologists have paid only limited attention to the role that armed violence and militarism play in degrading the environment and securing core nation access to developing nation natural resources (Hooks & Smith, 2004, 2005; Jorgenson & Clark, 2009). Moreover, environmental sociologists and ecological unequal exchange researchers who have examined armed violence and militarism tend to ignore several important categories of armed violence and militarism, including armed conflict between state and nonstate actors, violent repression carried out by state and rebel forces, and the use of mercenaries to protect natural resource assets.…”