Land politics, agrarian movements and scholar-activism

This paper examines the recent changes in global land politics and agrarian movements and the activists and academics that mobilize around and study these issues. There are several arguments, or propositions for discussion, in this paper: (1) Land politics today are more diverse than at other points during the past century; (2) The changing character of land politics has shaped the broadening social movements that mobilize around land issues: some agrarian movements have transformed into environmental and climate justice movements as well as food sovereignty movements --or have moved on towards alliance-building (objective or subjective) with environmental and climate justice as well as food sovereignty movements; (3) During the past three decades, the transnationalization of agrarian movements has been one of the most significant shifts in agrarian politics, (4) The changes in land politics and agrarian movements in light of the changing global context have ushered in a new period and inspired a new generation of agrarian scholar-activists. By scholar-activism, I mean, rigorous academic work that aims to change the world, or committed activist work that is informed by rigorous academic research, which is explicitly and unapologetically connected to political projects or movements. There are three types of scholar-activists in this broad sense: (1) scholar-activists who are primarily located in academic institutions who do activist work and are connected to a political project or movement(s); (2) scholar-activists who are principally based in social movements or a political project and do scholar-activism from within; and (3) scholar-activists who are mainly located in non-academic independent research institutions who do activist work and connect with a political project or movement(s). The changes on the agrarian front have also altered the character and reshaped the agenda of scholar-activism, as well as the style, methods, strategy and tactics of work. It is thus important to have a better understanding of contemporary scholar-activists in general. However we must not see agrarian scholar activists as a stand-alone category, but in relationship to their institutional location and in the context of their interaction with other scholars and activists, to highlight the tensions, synergies, limits, and possibilities for agrarian scholar-activism. I conclude by putting forward a proposition for discussion around the idea of an ‘agrarian scholar-activist research movement.

Agrarian social movements: The absurdly difficult but not impossible agenda of defeating right‐wing populism and explo

Parallels, resemblances, and interconnections between contemporary right‐wing populism and the populism of agrarian movements are examined in this essay. The two are partly linked through their social base in the countryside. This paper explores an agenda for political conversation and research on possible contributions to the twin efforts of splitting the ranks of right‐wing populists while expanding the united front of democratic challengers. The challenge is how to transform the identified interconnections into a left‐wing political project that can erode right‐wing populism. This requires a reclaiming of populism. In exploring this agenda, the paper revisits the ideas and practices of right‐wing populism and agrarian populism and the awkward overlaps and fundamental differences between them. It concludes with a discussion on the challenge of forging a reformulated class‐conscious left‐wing populism as a countercurrent to right‐wing populism, and as a possible political force against capitalism and towards a socialist future

Understanding and Subverting Contemporary Right-wing Populism

There are awkward, and in some instances troubling, parallelisms, resemblances and interconnections between right-wing populism and the populism of agrarian movements, past and present. These are not random accidents. The political economy upon which such populisms emerged partly shapes the kind of broader politics that get constructed. The boundaries between right-wing populist currents and their social base in the countryside on the one hand, and the populism of agrarian movements on the other hand are constantly porous, blurring and malleable. This means partly that there is a slippery slope down which the populism of progressive agrarian movements may slide to reinforce rather than undermine right-wing populism. There are two urgent tasks and challenges: to avoid such a slippery slope, and to transform such parallelism, resemblances and interconnections into an extraordinary political opportunity and emancipatory force that can contribute to strategically eroding right-wing populism and to building a positive future. Accomplishing such twin tasks requires (re)claiming populism but without its authoritarian trappings, being class conscious, and eschewing romantic restorative tendencies among agrarian movements some of which are utopian, conservative or reactionary. Finally, in their political struggles within and/or against capitalism, agrarian movements are more effective if they take a socialist perspective that is broadly cast in terms of what it might mean and who could be its prime movers. Such a perspective can be grounded in simultaneous and interlinked political struggles for redistribution, recognition, restitution, and regeneration in a framework of a revolution against the entrenched centrist strategy of ‘anti-subversive petty reform incrementalism’ that has been promoted alongside neoliberalism. These tasks could be made to lead to, and could be pursued within, the construction of a class-conscious left-wing populism as countercurrent to right-wing populism

¿La ‘soberanía de la tierra’ como alternativa? Hacia un contracercamiento de los pueblos

1. La soberanía de la tierra se refiere al derecho que tienen los pueblos trabajadores al acceso efectivo a la tierra, al uso de ella y a su control, así como a los beneficios de su uso y ocupación, entendiendo la tierra como un recurso, como territorio y como paisaje. 2. La soberanía de la tierra es tanto un llamado a la acción en contra de los renovados esfuerzos corporativos y (trans)nacionales para cercar el patrimonio común como la afirmación de la necesidad de un cercamiento popular de la tierra, que apoye a los pueblos trabajadores y su derecho humano a ejercer control sobre la tierra. ..

A ‘Land Sovereignty’ Alternative? Towards a Peoples’ Counter-Enclosure

1. Land sovereignty is the right of working peoples to have effective access to, use of, and control over land and the benefits of its use and occupation, where land is understood as resource, territory, and landscape. 2. Land sovereignty is both a call to action against a renewed corporate and (trans)national global push to enclose the commons and an assertion of the need for a people’s enclosure of the land; supporting working peoples and their human right to control over land. ..

‘Land grabbing’ e ‘Green grabbing’: Uma leitura da ‘corrida na produção acadêmica’ sobre a apropriação global de terras

A partir de 2008, houve uma extensa produção e publicação de artigos acadêmicos, basicamente em inglês, sobre um fenômeno denominado corrida mundial por terras ou land grabbing (apropriação de terras). Depois de cinco ou seis anos, essa produção se mantém, mas com construções teórico-empíricas mais elaboradas – inclusive com a reformulação de conceitos e criação de outros como green grabbing (apropriação verde) e water grabbing (apropriação da água) –, especialmente porque as primeiras reflexões eram excessivamente centradas em dados quantitativos e escala (quantidade de hectares transacionados), em grandes investimentos estrangeiros em terras agrícolas e voltados para estudos de casos sobre a compra de terras no Continente Africano. O objetivo deste artigo é retomar os termos do debate, relendo argumentos e discutindo formulações teóricas (inclusive o próprio conceito de land grabbing), procurando construir diálogos teóricos e agendas de pesquisas acadêmicas no Brasil, pois o mesmo – além ser um país com históricos problemas agrários como a concentração da terra – é marcado por investimentos externos, mas também incentiva a apropriação privada de terras em outros lugares e países, o que resulta na expansão das fronteiras agrícolas e gera conflitos e disputas territoriais. After 2008, there has been an extensive production and publication of academic articles in English, dealing with a phenomenon called global land rush or land grabbing. After five or six years, such academic production continuous but more elaborated theoretically and with larger empirical evidences, including some conceptual reformulations and creation other concepts like green grabbing and water grabbing. This happened especially because the first studies were overly focused on quantitative data and scale (land deals in hectares), considering large foreign investment in agricultural land and focused on case studies on the purchase of land on the African continent. This article aims to resume the terms of the debate, discussing some arguments and theoretical formulations – including the concept of land grabbing –, looking for reflexions, theoretical dialogue and academic research agenda in Brazil. Besides being a country with historical agrarian problems, like the concentration of landownership, Brazil is has foreign investments, but it also encourages private investments and land deals, resulting in the expansion of the agricultural frontier, generating conflicts and territorial disputes in other countries

Tendencias políticas en disputa para la gobernanza global del acaparamiento de tierras

La expansión de los ‘cultivos y materias primas flexibles’ en el marco de una transición paulatina en el régimen alimentario global, junto a la emergencia de los países BRICS y MICS (de Renta Media) y el revalorizado papel de los estados nación, conforman un contexto crítico para el acaparamiento de tierras. Estas transformaciones globales que determinan, y son a su vez determinadas por, el actual acaparamiento global de tierras, han resultado en varias interpretaciones en disputa alrededor de su significado, complejizando aún más el ya de por si complejo terreno de la gobernanza. Estamos siendo testigos de una disputa política tripartita sobre el control del carácter, ritmo, parámetros y trayectoria discursiva, así como de los instrumentos sobre, y la práctica de, la gobernanza global del acaparamiento de tierras, como en el caso de las Directrices Voluntarias del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial de la ONU. Esta contienda gira alrededor de las siguientes tres tendencias: ‘regular para facilitar’, ‘regular para mitigar impactos negativos y maximizar oportunidades’, y ‘regular para detener y revertir’ el acaparamiento de tierras. Las trayectorias futuras del acaparamiento de tierras serán determinadas en buena medida por el balance entre fuerzas sociales y estatales en cada una y entre las tres tendencias políticas. Este artículo plantea un análisis preliminar a partir del mapeo de áreas de indagación sub-exploradas y ofrece más una serie de modos de cuestionamiento inicial, que argumentos firmes basados en material empírico sólido y completo

Climate change and land: Insights from Myanmar

Climate change and land are linked – politically. Climate change politics intersects with the global land rush in extensive and complex ways, the impacts of which affect villagers profoundly. These interconnections occur in direct and indirect ways and are often subtle, but that does not make them less important; it only makes the challenge of governing such dynamics in the interests of marginalized working poor people even more difficult. In this paper, we focus our analysis on indirect and subtle interconnections. Examining empirical cases in Northern Shan State in Myanmar, we conclude that these interconnections occur in at least three broad ways, in which climat

El Acaparamiento de Tierras en América Latina y el Caribe Visto Desde una Perspectiva Internacional más Amplia

Introducción y mensajes claves Este documento se basa en la investigación empírica que fue encomendada por la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO) sobre las condiciones y tendencias del ―acaparamiento de tierras‖ en 17 países de América Latina y el Caribe (véase el Anexo para una lista completa de los estudios, así como el documento síntesis correspondiente; FAO, 2011). Los 17 estudios se concluyeron a mediados de 2011. El marco analítico común de los estudios es amplio, pero a la vez focalizado. Por un lado es amplio porque analiza los procesos generales de las tierras rurales y la concentración de capital en el contexto de la globalización neoliberal. Por el otro, es focalizado porque analiza el fenómeno del ―acaparamiento de tierras‖ basándose estrictamente en tres dimensiones específicas, a saber: i) el gran alcance de las adquisiciones de tierra a gran escala; ii) la participación de los gobiernos extranjeros en estos tratos sobre tierras; y iii) el impacto negativo de dichas inversiones recientes en tierras sobre la seguridad alimentaria del país receptor. Es en gran medida debido a este tipo de marco analítico que la mayoría de los estudios pudieron desentrañar y recopilar gran cantidad de material empírico relacionado con la dinámica de las tierras en la región; sin embargo, dado que el enfoque de su análisis y conclusiones se basó en la definición y la dimensión angostas del acaparamiento de tierras, la conclusión obtenida fue que el ―acaparamiento de tierras‖ se da únicamente en dos países de la región: Argentina y Brasil. ..

Acaparamiento de tierras y acumulación capitalista: aspectos clave en América Latina

__Abstract__ We introduce this special issue by explaining seven characteristics of land grabbing in Latin America. These features are not unique to the region. By highlighting them – arguing, for instance, that a key aspect in Latin America is intra-regional land grabbing driven by (trans)Latina companies – we hope to inspire new cross-regional comparisons to understand the dynamics of “global” land grabbing. Our focus on Latin America challenges some problematic generalisations in the literature, for instance, that land grabs occur mainly in fragile states. We interrogate the relationship between land grabbing and the “foreignisation” narrative, and the need to revisit the broader question of land concentration. Thus we build upon the literature locating land grabs and the land question within the political economy of global capitalism