#landless workers movement

[probablyasocialecologist]

The families who reside in the settlement are dedicated to combating monoculture and preserving regrown native vegetation. “Monoculture is for profit,” dos Santos says, mentioning Brazil’s large soy crops that are mostly exported to the EU and China to be used as cattle feed. “We diversify our production for self-sustainment and as the basis for family agriculture,” he says. After the MST began gaining land in the mid-1990s, its members immediately began producing food. “Now that we had land, we started planting so we could eat and show society that we weren’t like the land monopoly owners who didn’t use that land for anything,” Suptitz says. Some of the families in the Roseli Nunes settlement came together to found the Alaíde Reis collective and purchase a small delivery truck to transport produce to the cities of Barra do Piraí, Volta Redonda, Resende, and Rio de Janeiro. In her 22-acre lot, Amanda Aparecida Mateus grows bananas, manioc, okra, tangerines, oranges, limes, beans, and coffee beans—a far more diverse and ecologically sound harvest than that of the coffee plantations that used to rule the area. For Mateus, it’s important to emphasize the movement’s efforts to produce organic, pesticide-free food. “We have so many MST settlements that have advanced in their food production development and today focus on the production of healthy food through agro-ecological methodologies,” Mateus says. “But above all, it’s essential to highlight that our food production has the objective of ending hunger in Brazil. The agrarian reform, the democratization of access to land, is a project to combat hunger.” MST activists argue that land monopolies are the root cause of inequality in Brazil and that the resulting hunger crisis is a type of political violence. During the COVID-19 pandemic, food insecurity rates rose by more than 4% in Brazil, mostly due to poverty, unemployment, and right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro’s mismanagement of the health crisis. In 2022, the movement released a statement reading, in part, “We know that hunger is a project of the current [extreme right] government and one of the most serious effects of political violence in Brazil, where half of the population doesn’t have enough food to supply their homes.” Since the pandemic began, the MST has partnered with other organizations to donate more than 7,000 tons of food to struggling families in Brazil. The MST is also combating slave labor, which a recent investigation found is heavily practiced by local agribusinesses. MST settlements abide by an agrarian reform law, which defines using slave labor as grounds for declaring a piece of land unproductive, allowing the federal government to reappropriate it. In addition to using this legislation to call attention to slavery-like working conditions in land monopolies, the MST grants its members autonomy over their own land and production. By owning the means of production, these rural workers don’t have to depend on exploitative land monopolies for employment. Connecting ethical food production to the eradication of hunger has boosted the movement’s visibility on social media over the past three years. For dos Santos, the movement’s mission has always been bigger than land distribution. “People ask me, ‘But why does the movement care about LGBTQ rights and women’s rights?’” he says. “And I say, ‘It’s always been about more than the land; we are all involved in everything.’”

[fathersonholygore]

A Microcosm of Marxist Revolution in Daniel Bandeira's PROPERTY

Property (2024)Directed & Written by Daniel BandeiraStarring Malu Galli, Carlos Amorim, Anderson Cleber, Zuleika Ferreira, Ângelo Fàbio, Sandro Guerra, Roberta Lúcia, Amara Rita Magalhães, & Marcílio Moraes. Drama / Thriller ★★★★1/2 (out of ★★★★★) DISCLAIMER:The following essay containsBIG SPOILERS! Daniel Bandeira’s Property takes on the shape of a home invasion thriller while developing…

[analligatorr]

viadinhos de esquerda🐈‍⬛🌙♥️

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

The Landless Rural Workers' Movement launched a campaign to support those affected by the floods in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

The movement also lost furniture, souvenirs, and the production of rice and agro-ecological gardens

Amid the most significant floods in the history of Rio Grande do Sul, which as of Monday (6) have killed 83 people, displaced 121,957, and left 19,368 homeless, the Landless Rural Workers' Movement (MST) is launching a solidarity campaign. The aim is to raise funds for actions to support the families affected in the various municipalities of Rio Grande do Sul.   

Among them are around 420 families from the MST itself who had to leave their homes quickly. The force of the waters submerged five of the movement's settlements in the metropolitan region of Porto Alegre.  

"With the loss of the structure of the houses, furniture, souvenirs, and the production of rice and agro-ecological gardens, where many rural workers had already replanted after the flood at the end of last year, the families are still in collective shelters," says a statement from the movement.  

The Integração Gaúcho (IRGA), Apolônio de Carvalho, and Conquista Nonoaiense settlements are in Eldorado do Sul. The Sino and Santa Rita de Cássia settlements are in the municipality of Nova Santa Rita. The towns are two of the worst affected by the floods, and humanitarian aid can only be accessed by helicopter.  

Continue reading.

[this-world-of-beautiful-monsters]

Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement (MST) donated two tones of food to Gaza, including rice, milk and sugar.

The Brazilian government sent a Brazilian Air Force plane to transport the food.

MST says they hope to have donated a 100 ton by the end of the week.

[jltejo]

September 21, the Arbor Day.

[selena0919]

Donation links to help feed the people displaced by the floods happening in Rio Grand do Sul

The Homeless Workers' Movement (MTST) and the Landless Rural Workers' Movement (MST) are doing crowdfunding projects to help feed the displaced population in Rio Grande do Sul.

To donate you need to make an account on the website. It's rather quick to make an account, and your browser should be able to translate the website.

Edit: If you scroll down, you will find instructions in english and links to donate with dollars, euros, and british pounds. So you don't need to make an account on the website.

MTST's crowdfunding campaign

MST's crowdfunding campaign

[one-divides-into-two]

Though other classes and social sections will be important partners in the historical movement to destroy capitalism (its highest stage of imperialism) they cannot provide leadership. In each instance the issue of liberation is specific – land in the case of landless peasants, caste oppression for Dalits, male chauvinism for women, ethnic oppression for Adivasis, national oppression for oppressed people, religious persecution for minorities and so on. Being specific they are also partial, in the context of the whole revolutionary project. But this is not the situation of the proletariat. Capitalist bondage is different from earlier exploiting systems like caste-feudalism. It imposes no other compulsion on the workers other than the pangs of hunger. And since, in principle, they are free, there can be no specific liberation suiting them. Every form of exploitation and oppression must be ended. Thus the emancipation of the whole of humanity becomes a precondition for the liberation of this class. The leading role of the proletariat derives from this objective social position. It obliges the proletariat to continue the revolution all the way up till realising a world rid of exploitation.

If this Marxist understanding of proletarian leadership is absolutised it would certainly lead to reification. Both the history and present of the international communist movement illustrate how this emerges with mechanical equations, where proletariat = revolution and communist party = vanguard. On the other hand, economist impulses often seen in the upper strata of the proletariat, social passivity engendered by revisionist, reformist politics that strengthen this economism, and changes seen in the nature of labour and work places, have given rise to views that abandon the proletarian leadership concept. Carried away in the tide of identity politics, they believe that, in future, these movements will give leadership to social change.

Thus we have the two. At one end, reification of the proletariat and the communist party, selfishness that hoists this banner to justify fleeting necessities as common interests. At the other, the lethargic plea to reduce our sights to the partial, to abandon the noble task of an exploitation free world since it is a mere myth. Maoism cuts through this vicious circle. The leading role of the proletariat and the vanguard position of its communist party are potentialities contained in historical circumstances. They can only be realised through creative intervention in the historical moment of a specific society. Similar to other phenomena, this too is a unity of opposites

Ajith, On the Maoist Party

[workingclasshistory]

On this day, 25 July 1898, the United States invaded the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico. The US government claimed that they were liberating Puerto Rico from Spanish colonial rule. The event took place amidst the so-called Spanish-American war which also affected Cuba and the Philippines. By December, the US force of over 15,000 troops was victorious. However, rather than liberating Puerto Rico, instead US troops became the new occupying power. Spanish colonists in Puerto Rico were then given US citizenship, and US troops began protecting Spanish landowners from attacks by landless rebels and independence activists. The new US colonial power focused on overseeing the takeover of land by large sugar corporations, harvested by workers paid in company chits rather than money. By 1910, sugar corporations controlled over 60% of arable land on the island. In 1917, the US eventually granted citizenship to all Puerto Ricans, but the ruthless exploitation of Puerto Rican workers continued. Working class and anti-colonial struggles broke out continuously, like the strike of sugar workers in 1934, and a wave of workers' and land struggles in the 1960s. Public pressure forced concessions to be granted, like the introduction of an elected governor in 1948 and Commonwealth status granting partial autonomy in 1952. Over time the Puerto Rican economy also became more and more integrated with and dependent on the US. Meanwhile, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation attempted to infiltrate and disrupt pro-independence movements. In 1967 a plebiscite was held on the future status of the island given the options of a continuing Commonwealth, US statehood or independence. 60% of voters chose a continuation of Commonwealth status, with 39% backing statehood and only 0.6% voting for independence. Puerto Rico remains under US control to this day. More information, sources and map: https://stories.workingclasshistory.com/article/9748/us-invades-puerto-rico https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=667573708749181&set=a.602588028581083&type=3

[thedevilsrain]

another aspect about all of this that makes me so upset (though every aspect of this makes me upset) is the destruction of brazilian art and culture. the Praça Dos Três Poderes (three powers' square) is a marvel in modernist architecture, projected and drawn by a communist, oscar niemeyer.

oscar niemeyer and fidel castro, who compared him to michelangelo

niemeyer wearing a cap of the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra, the Landless Worker's Movement, a Marxist social/activist movement in brazil

this is desecration of culture. countless works of art, paintings, statues, have been stolen, broken, stabbed, destroyed. the rooms in these buildings are flooded after the terrorists started a fire inside

the rooms in the national congress, flooded with water

victor brecheret's "ballerina" statue, which was stolen

di cavalcanti's painting, which was stabbed/ripped

brazil will not forget this day. we will not allow it to be forgotten.

(photo by gabriela biló, @/gabrielabilo1 on twitter)

[dailyanarchistposts]

F.8.4 Aren’t the enclosures a socialist myth?

The short answer is no, they are not. While a lot of historical analysis has been spent in trying to deny the extent and impact of the enclosures, the simple fact is (in the words of noted historian E.P. Thompson) enclosure “was a plain enough case of class robbery, played according to the fair rules of property and law laid down by a parliament of property-owners and lawyers.” [The Making of the English Working Class, pp. 237–8]

The enclosures were one of the ways that the “land monopoly” was created. The land monopoly referred to feudal and capitalist property rights and ownership of land by (among others) the Individualist Anarchists. Instead of an “occupancy and use” regime advocated by anarchists, the land monopoly allowed a few to bar the many from the land — so creating a class of people with nothing to sell but their labour. While this monopoly is less important these days in developed nations (few people know how to farm) it was essential as a means of consolidating capitalism. Given the choice, most people preferred to become independent farmers rather than wage workers (see next section). As such, the “land monopoly” involves more than simply enclosing common land but also enforcing the claims of landlords to areas of land greater than they can work by their own labour.

Needless to say, the titles of landlords and the state are generally ignored by supporters of capitalism who tend to concentrate on the enclosure movement in order to downplay its importance. Little wonder, for it is something of an embarrassment for them to acknowledge that the creation of capitalism was somewhat less than “immaculate” — after all, capitalism is portrayed as an almost ideal society of freedom. To find out that an idol has feet of clay and that we are still living with the impact of its origins is something pro-capitalists must deny. So are the enclosures a socialist myth? Most claims that it is flow from the work of the historian J.D. Chambers’ famous essay “Enclosures and the Labour Supply in the Industrial Revolution.” [Economic History Review, 2nd series, no. 5, August 1953] In this essay, Chambers attempts to refute Karl Marx’s account of the enclosures and the role it played in what Marx called “primitive accumulation.”

We cannot be expected to provide an extensive account of the debate that has raged over this issue (Colin Ward notes that “a later series of scholars have provided locally detailed evidence that reinforces” the traditional socialist analysis of enclosure and its impact. [Cotters and Squatters, p. 143]). All we can do is provide a summary of the work of William Lazonick who presented an excellent reply to those who claim that the enclosures were an unimportant historical event (see his “Karl Marx and Enclosures in England.” [Review of Radical Political Economy, no. 6, pp. 1–32]). Here, we draw upon his subsequent summarisation of his critique provided in his books Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor and Business Organisation and the Myth of the Market Economy.

There are three main claims against the socialist account of the enclosures. We will cover each in turn.

Firstly, it is often claimed that the enclosures drove the uprooted cottager and small peasant into industry. However, this was never claimed. As Lazonick stresses while some economic historians “have attributed to Marx the notion that, in one fell swoop, the enclosure movement drove the peasants off the soil and into the factories. Marx did not put forth such a simplistic view of the rise of a wage-labour force … Despite gaps and omission in Marx’s historical analysis, his basic arguments concerning the creation of a landless proletariat are both important and valid. The transformations of social relations of production and the emergence of a wage-labour force in the agricultural sector were the critical preconditions for the Industrial Revolution.” [Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor, pp. 12–3]

It is correct, as the critics of Marx stress, that the agricultural revolution associated with the enclosures increased the demand for farm labour as claimed by Chambers and others. And this is the whole point — enclosures created a pool of dispossessed labourers who had to sell their time/liberty to survive and whether this was to a landlord or an industrialist is irrelevant (as Marx himself stressed). As such, the account by Chambers, ironically, “confirms the broad outlines of Marx’s arguments” as it implicitly acknowledges that “over the long run the massive reallocation of access to land that enclosures entailed resulted in the separation of the mass of agricultural producers from the means of production.” So the “critical transformation was not the level of agricultural employment before and after enclosure but the changes in employment relations caused by the reorganisation of landholdings and the reallocation of access to land.” [Op. Cit., p. 29, pp. 29–30 and p. 30] Thus the key feature of the enclosures was that it created a supply for farm labour, a supply that had no choice but to work for another. Once freed from the land, these workers could later move to the towns in search for better work:

“Critical to the Marxian thesis of the origins of the industrial labour force is the transformation of the social relations of agriculture and the creation, in the first instance, of an agricultural wage-labour force that might eventually, perhaps through market incentives, be drawn into the industrial labour force.” [Business Organisation and the Myth of the Market Economy, p. 273]

In summary, when the critics argue that enclosures increased the demand for farm labour they are not refuting Marx but confirming his analysis. This is because the enclosures had resulted in a transformation in employment relations in agriculture with the peasants and farmers turned into wage workers for landlords (i.e., rural capitalists). For if wage labour is the defining characteristic of capitalism then it matters little if the boss is a farmer or an industrialist. This means that the “critics, it turns out, have not differed substantially with Marx on the facts of agricultural transformation. But by ignoring the historical and theoretical significance of the resultant changes in the social relations of agricultural production, the critics have missed Marx’s main point.” [Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor, p. 30]

Secondly, it is argued that the number of small farm owners increased, or at least did not greatly decline, and so the enclosure movement was unimportant. Again, this misses the point. Small farm owners can still employ wage workers (i.e. become capitalist farmers as opposed to “yeomen” — an independent peasant proprietor). As Lazonick notes, ”[i]t is true that after 1750 some petty proprietors continued to occupy and work their own land. But in a world of capitalist agriculture, the yeomanry no longer played an important role in determining the course of capitalist agriculture. As a social class that could influence the evolution of British economy society, the yeomanry had disappeared.” Moreover, Chambers himself acknowledged that for the poor without legal rights in land, then enclosure injured them. For “the majority of the agricultural population … had only customary rights. To argue that these people were not treated unfairly because they did not possess legally enforceable property rights is irrelevant to the fact that they were dispossessed by enclosures. Again, Marx’s critics have failed to address the issue of the transformation of access to the means of production as a precondition for the Industrial Revolution.” [Op. Cit., p. 32 and p. 31]

Thirdly, it is often claimed that it was population growth, rather than enclosures, that caused the supply of wage workers. So was population growth more important than enclosures? Given that enclosure impacted on the individuals and social customs of the time, it is impossible to separate the growth in population from the social context in which it happened. As such, the population argument ignores the question of whether the changes in society caused by enclosures and the rise of capitalism have an impact on the observed trends towards earlier marriage and larger families after 1750. Lazonick argues that ”[t]here is reason to believe that they did.” [Op. Cit., p. 33] Overall, Lazonick notes that ”[i]t can even be argued that the changed social relations of agriculture altered the constraints on early marriage and incentives to childbearing that contributed to the growth in population. The key point is that transformations in social relations in production can influence, and have influenced, the quantity of wage labour supplied on both agricultural and industrial labour markets. To argue that population growth created the industrial labour supply is to ignore these momentous social transformations” associated with the rise of capitalism. [Business Organisation and the Myth of the Market Economy, p. 273]

In other words, there is good reason to think that the enclosures, far from being some kind of socialist myth, in fact played a key role in the development of capitalism. As Lazonick notes, “Chambers misunderstood” the “argument concerning the ‘institutional creation’ of a proletarianised (i.e. landless) workforce. Indeed, Chamber’s own evidence and logic tend to support the Marxian [and anarchist!] argument, when it is properly understood.” [Op. Cit., p. 273]

Lastly, it must be stressed that this process of dispossession happened over hundreds of years. It was not a case of simply driving peasants off their land and into factories. In fact, the first acts of expropriation took place in agriculture and created a rural proletariat which had to sell their labour/liberty to landlords and it was the second wave of enclosures, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, that was closely connected with the process of industrialisation. The enclosure movement, moreover, was imposed in an uneven way, affecting different areas at different times, depending on the power of peasant resistance and the nature of the crops being grown (and other objective conditions). Nor was it a case of an instant transformation — for a long period this rural proletariat was not totally dependent on wages, still having some access to the land and wastes for fuel and food. So while rural wage workers did exist throughout the period from 1350 to the 1600s, capitalism was not fully established in Britain yet as such people comprised only a small proportion of the labouring classes. The acts of enclosure were just one part of a long process by which a proletariat was created.

[probablyasocialecologist]

This is The Farming Left: these land workers share a politics, united by the concept of food sovereignty: the right to control of local food systems, which originated with farmers in the Global South. ‘We’re talking about equitable access to resources to enable localised food supplies’, explains Fernandes. These organisations are tackling the challenges of access to land in an unequal landscape: the Ecological Land Cooperative, for example, purchases large plots and obtains planning permission for dwellings before parcelling them up into affordable smallholdings.  The Kindling Trust in Manchester is also seeking to foster a new generation of agroecological farmers. The Trust, which was established in 2007, has a veg box scheme and a community garden, and also offers training to new entrants, but there has always been a long-term plan to establish a cooperative farm. Since raising over a million pounds from more than six hundred investors last year, the Trust is looking to purchase a 120-acre farm in the Manchester area. ‘We want people to feel ownership in whatever way they get involved’, explains co-founder Chris Walsh. Whether they are founding members, workers, investors, or tenants, they will all be represented equally on a governing board.   There ‘is a need for a rural radicalism’ of this kind, argues Chris Smaje, farmer and author of A Small Farm Future (2020). ‘It’s about trying to de-commodify land and take it out of speculative ownership’, he explains. For Smaje, who plans to purchase a 20-acre plot to be divided up among several small-scale farmers, the goal is ‘to build a land-based community’ and ultimately ‘generate more of what we need within our own communities’.  While the radical agrarian community in the UK pales in comparison to the strength of conservative farming interests, this fight for land – and the right to use it – is happening on a global scale. The international peasants’ movement is connected through the 200-million strong La Vía Campesina, linking groups such as Brazil’s Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), or ‘Landless Workers’ Movement’, which has, since the 1980s, been occupying land to their counterparts across the world. The world’s farming Left is a David to big agribusiness’s Goliath, the latter having been bolstered by states, major international institutions, and the liberalising of global political economy since the Second World War. From Zapatistas to Scottish crofters, the peasants’ movement is fighting to turn the tide on our social and ecological future before it is too late.

[nobrakes]

LINK to support flood victims in Rio Grande do Sul (south of Brazil) through a grassroots workers focused organization, the Landless Workers Movement (MST).

[groundpear]

Help for Southern Brazil!

Images via Planet Labs

2024, September: all links still working, please keep donating!

But the exchanges rates changed - so your international donation will help even more! 1USD ~ 5,5BRL 1EUR ~ 6BRL 1GBP ~ 7BRL

The reconstruction will take a lot of time, work, and resources, and many people will need support

What happened? In the last days, the Rio Grande do Sul state suffered catastrophic flooding (news1, news2)

There are at least (2024 May, 7th) 155,000 people displaced, 90 dead, 360 injured, 130 missing

How can you help from abroad?

I'm trying to find trusted institutions accepting international donations. This list will be updated!

new Apib+Comissão Guarani Yvyrupa Instagram info, PayPal

Cozinha Solidária - Apoia-se. Within this link you can also find links for Stripe (USD, EUR, GBP) and PayPal

CUFA (Central Única das Favelas) - PayPal: doacoespaypal@cufa.org.br

Landless Workers Movement - Apoia-se. Stripe (USD, EUR, GBP) options also available within the link.

Keep in mind the exchange rates! 1USD ~ 5BRL 1EUR ~ 5,4BRL 1GBP ~ 6,3BRL

So even small donations will be immensely helpful!

Thank you so much!

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Landless Rural Workers and Indigenous peoples take joint action in reforestation activity in Brazil

The activity, part of the Landless Rural Workers' Nature Day, was joined by Minister Sônia Guajajara

In a joint action, the Landless Rural Workers' Movement (MST, in Portuguese), Kaingang and Guarani Mbya Indigenous peoples airdropped three tons of juçara and araucaria palm seeds. The activity in Rio das Cobras Indigenous Land in the state of Paraná, southern Brazil, is part of MST's Nature Day.  

The event held on Tuesday (4) was attended by the Minister for Indigenous Peoples, Sonia Guajajara; the head of the Presidency's General Secretariat, Márcio Macêdo; and the interim Minister for Agrarian Development, Fernanda Machiaveli.  

Indigenous leaders from different regions of the state came to personally hand over their demands to federal government representatives. This is the first time Sonia Guajajara has visited an Indigenous land in Paraná as minister.

In a document drawn up after a meeting of Indigenous leaders the previous night, they demand the demarcation of lands, public policies to promote agriculture, policies for access to housing and improvements in Indigenous health and education. 

Continue reading.

[himedanshicult]

Though other classes and social sections will be important partners in the historical movement to destroy capitalism (its highest stage of imperialism) they cannot provide leadership. In each instance the issue of liberation is specific – land in the case of landless peasants, caste oppression for Dalits, male chauvinism for women, ethnic oppression for Adivasis, national oppression for oppressed people, religious persecution for minorities and so on. Being specific they are also partial, in the context of the whole revolutionary project. But this is not the situation of the proletariat. Capitalist bondage is different from earlier exploiting systems like caste-feudalism. It imposes no other compulsion on the workers other than the pangs of hunger. And since, in principle, they are free, there can be no specific liberation suiting them. Every form of exploitation and oppression must be ended. Thus the emancipation of the whole of humanity becomes a precondition for the liberation of this class. The leading role of the proletariat derives from this objective social position. It obliges the proletariat to continue the revolution all the way up till realising a world rid of exploitation.

Ajith, On the Maoist Party