Land Reform in Brazil - The Intractable Struggle

In this post, Tacitus demanded that I fill him and his readers in on what's going on in Brazil in response to a rather over-the-top commentary in Newsmax . Tacitus, to his credit, is considering the source and his skepticism is warranted.

There is however a kernel or two of truth in the article which I will address shortly. Meanwhile, I really don't want to repeat myself, but would point you to the fact that I have made several posts on land reform in Brazil, primarily in my old Blogspot blog. I tried to give a comprehensive overview of it here (if the link is bloggered, scroll down to Thursday, January 2, 2003 to the post with the heading " LULA'S INAUGURATION PART II") and I wrote about some recent developments here (if bloggered, Monday, June 30, 2003 " LAND REFORM IN BRAZIL") including how the MST (Landless Workers Movement) shoots itself in the foot with ridiculously inflammatory statements like this:

Landowners say they favor land distribution but fear the MST wants more than agrarian reform.

"Its ultimate goal is the establishment of a socialist regime," said Marcos Prochet, a leader of the Democratic Ruralist Union, which represents the landowners.

The MST's Mendes readily agrees. "Agrarian reform is just the first step toward socialism," he said.

I also had a guest blog post on Winds of Change about the issue here.

Regarding the kernels of truth in the article, yes the number of land invasions by the MST has increased significantly over the past year and the MST has been recruiting unemployed people from the major urban areas like São Paulo as this Washington Post article describes. Yes, there have been squatters in unoccupied buildings in São Paulo. Yes, the confrontations between the MST and the landowners have been on the increase and have the potential to get even uglier, although there hasn't been anything recently on the scale of Corumbiara or Eldorado de Carajas. Nevertheless, there is still the potential for an even more violent confrontation.

The Newsmax article also has its share of hysteria. The author failed to mention (or deliberately ignored) the fact that a great number of the more radical element of Lula's Workers' Party (or PT in the Portuguese acronym) are extremely dissatisfied with Lula, especially as a result of the pension reform that he recently pushed through, and which the PT had fought vigorously against during the administration of Fernando Henrique Cardoso. As a matter of fact the more moderate members have referred to the radicals as "Shiites." They are also discontented that he has been more interested in placating markets than pursuing a more radical agenda.

The author then goes on to attempt to draw a linkage between the PT and the Bolshevik Regime by accusing Lula and the PT of the following:

By abandoning the traditional Marxist strategy of launching an armed insurgency and revolution, Brazil’s Workers’ Party, known as the “PT”, has been able to effectively elaborate a “Gramscian” [Inspired by renown Italian Marxist Theorist Antonio Gramsci, widely read in PT circles] strategy of penetrating the key institutions of civil society and democracy first, and then using the legitimate authority conferred by elections to abridge constitutional restraints to establish a Marxist state.

Whether one likes Lula or not, the fact is that he has attempted to attain his goals through purely democratic means, including four attempts for the presidency. Does the writer expect the world to believe that any leftist who attempts this is a closet Gramscian (note the lack of sourcing for the accusation) and any attempt to attain office and effect political change through democratic means is ipso facto evidence of their closet Bolshevism? Puhleeeeeeze!

The author also seems to have little faith in his country's political and judicial institutions. It's worth remembering (the writer has apparently forgotten) that Brazil forced the notoriously corrupt Fernando Collor out of office in 1992, when the renascent democracy was still young. It's also worth remembering that the PT does not have a majority or plurality in the senate (14 out of 81) and a bare plurality (24 out of 150). Accordingly, any nefarious schemes they may cook up will require a coalition.

I certainly think that the MST has the potential to be a dangerous organization if reckless leadership were to take over. Clearly their PR efforts are clumsy. Lula is walking a difficult tightrope and I have no doubt that he is aware of it. How he attempts to please two wildly divergent constituencies will be worth watching and will be difficult. For what it's worth, I have some family members in Brazil that have some kooky ideas about Lula. One, for example, thinks that he was the real brains behind the September 11 terrorist attacks. No evidence, no explanations, she just can't stand him.

But although the writer of the Newsmax piece acknowledges that Brazil is "a country of significant social inequalities," he offers no suggestions whatsoever to ameliorate the situation. In February, The Economist had a special section devoted to Brazil and showed a map that displayed what may be the greatest evidence of Brazil's "social inequalities":

More than one third of the population live in two regions that have per capita GDP of less than half of the national average. Why am I thinking of a Langston Hughes poem right now?

If one really wants to make a better Brazil, this issue will have to be addressed. This is not Marxist-Leninist thought; it's just common sense. I don't claim to have the answers, but the best way to battle the excesses of an organization like the MST would be to create a more just society with less social divisiveness and more social cohesion at all levels. Perhaps then Brazil won't be referred to as so many Brazilians refer to it: "Brazil is the country of the future - and always will be."

Comments

[Manish]

Randy,

I've come to your excellent site via Tacitus. Your reports on land reform are very interesting. We have similar problems where I live (in Bengal in India) and Lula is a great HERO to our Communist Government.

To extrapolate from our experience, I think a certain amount of land and asset grabbing is unavoidable as a Marxist plays to his base to keep himself in the electoral game. Later, as they realise the importance of capital, they tend to become the greatest champions of property rights (as do the landless, as soon as they become propertied themselves).

[Randy Paul]

Manish,

Thanks for the kind wrds. What is interesting about land reform in Brazil is that to some extent, it has been an issue that has gone beyond mere right and left. There has been support for it from across the political spectrum, except for the extreme right.

[Tacitus]

Thanks, Randy! Very educational....vastly moreso than NewsMax.

[Randy Paul]

Thanks, Tacitus. I certainly don't claim to have all the answers and for a long term solution, I don't think that a predominantly agricultural society will benefit Brazil, just as I do believe that the economically forced migration of citizens from the Northeast of Brazil to the crowded cities of the Southeast (São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte for example) and the subsequent establishment of favelas is hurting these cities and Brazil now in so many ways: economically, socially and in terms of crime. On the other hand, I certainly can't criticize anyone who flees a desperate situation to make a better life for themselves. What else are they supposed to do?

But now that we have taken a macro view, let's take a micro view of this situation. My father-in-law owns a farm in Minas Gerais in an area known as the Jequitinhonha Valley. We all spent Christmas there in 1997. At the time, there was a man working on the farm with my father-in-law who was 32 years old, married with six kids. He was also illiterate, owned no land and depended on my father-in-law's employment to provide housing and money simply to exist. My father-in-law tried to encourage him to send his kids to school, but he needed them around the house to help his wife. I cannot help but see his children leading the same life he led as he has led the same life his father led.

Now imagine, if he had some land and was able to make enough money perhaps to employ someone on his land and afford to send his kids to school. Maybe, just maybe, some if not all of th kids can break out of this cycle of extreme poverty. I can't look upon that as radical. It just seems like a combination of common sense and enlightened self-interest to me.