Social movements in Brazil are united – as never before in Brazilian history – between 8th and 13th of next month they will start a journey towards a popular alliance: the Articulation of Social Movements which unites CUT, UNE, MST, popular movements, urban social movements, and churches. João Pedro Stedile is one of the organisers of this and other movements – he shook parliamentarians, ministers, governors and other elements of society last week when he announced that the Brazilian poor have organised themselves. As he stated, they no longer seek food rations or any other kind of palliative to the endemic hunger, only ‘work and dignity’.

In an exclusive interview with the Jornal do Brasil, the economist and central figure in the Movement of the Landless Workers uses the opportunity to send a message to the Agriculture Minister, Roberto Rodrigues. Stedile informs that he is not an enemy of farmers that have modernised and made their land productive. Those, he comments, have farms no larger than a thousand hectares. The targets of the MST are the ‘latifundiarios’ large estate owners, who alone occupy 178 million hectares in Brazil. He does not accept that a single company can own a 2 million-hectare farm.

Stedile accused the press from Rio Grande do Sul of manipulating information in order to create a state of political instability in the country. He also believes that it is too soon to evaluate Lula’s administration, hopeful that the agrarian reform in the country will start during the next 6 months. However, according to Stedile, not even the president, the PT or any other political force in the country, will be able to stop the determination of the social movements to win what they consider their right, in the countryside or in the cities

———————-
What exactly was said in that meeting with the MST that you considered was distorted by the press from Rio Grande do Sul?

I gave a long explanation, 40 minutes, in which I explained the origin of the ‘latifúndio’ in Brazil. I explained the historical opportunities that were lost by Brazilian society in the past to carry out agrarian reform. For example, in 1888 when the slaves were freed. Or in 1930, and in 1964. Modern and industrialised societies reached that stage because they broke up and distributed the landed estates. I added that unfortunately this perverse, 500-year-old heritage had produced an unbalanced and contradictory society. Now we have on the one hand, one percent of the large land owners, who together make up a total of 26 thousand ‘latifundiaristas’, who own 178 million hectares of land, and on the other hand we have 23 million poor living in the countryside. The social inequality produced is so large and unjust that now a new favourable situation has been produced. There’s a correlation between the forces that expose such an immense social difference.

But, how did this misunderstanding happen?

Then I said that it was very easy to carry out agrarian reform, since in each land holding we could place a thousand families, who are much stronger and of much more importance than just one person. Besides, we have a popular administration, committed to agrarian reform. The beginner journalist recorded it, and sent it to his bosses who ‘discovered’ in the talk, a declaration of war. From the journalistic stand point, we have a situation of an absolute lack of professional ethics, besides the usual shameful manipulation of facts, by this enterprise in Rio Grande do Sul.

In your opinion, is there a deliberate manoeuvre by the press sectors in order to cause social instability in the country?

In the specific case of Rio Grande do Sul, we face a true media monopoly by a company that constantly attacks social movements and the Brazilian left. It has become a true right wing party in Rio Grande do Sul. It tormented Olivio Dutra during his administration, even manipulating the election poll results of the last election. About the Brazilian press, it is obvious that it is a bourgeois press that only defends the interests of the dominant class. They pretend that there is competition among them, but in fact they are a monopoly. In Brazil there’s also a ‘latifúndio’ of the media. Now during the administration of Lula it’s behaviour has demonstrated a clear project. They are constantly creating a false mood of social tension to keep the government cornered and afraid of making changes.

How does this happen, according to your point of view?

They systematically criminalise social movements that fight for their rights. They hide the seriousness of the social crisis provoked by the neoliberal model, which they enthusiastically supported as the only possibility in the last eight years. They create a mixture of fact and fiction around statements. The readers of Jornal do Brasil will remember the mood created last carnival, with the demands for the intervention of the army. It did not go any way towards solving the violence in Rio de Janeiro. Then, a word from Lula about the judiciary was transformed into an institutional crisis. Lately, the regrettable murder of a photographer in São Paulo was blamed on the homeless. The manipulation of my talk fits into this context.

How do you place the MST within the national political picture?

We inherited 12 years of neoliberal administrations that only increased poverty, social inequalities and unemployment. The crisis is so big that there is a decrease within the mass movements in Brazil. Deep down, the political defeat of the working class was so significant that, in order to survive, the people had to look for individual solutions. And what’s worse is this: they did not find it.

And now?

We are in the middle of a very difficult situation. The dominant class has accumulated a lot of money in all those years and they know that social inequalities have increased. That is why they are afraid of a new rise of the mass movements. They know that if there is a mass movement, the Lula administration will turn more towards the left, and will change the model. That is the reason for the attempts by the press to criminalize these movements, using all their ideological power to prevent social mobilisations. Only then will they be able to maintain their privileges and just keep on recycling the neoliberal model.

So, what role do social movements play in this context?

Regarding the movements and intellectual circles, we know that social movements have a civilising role, since they organise the people and create awareness of the social struggle. Where people cannot organise social movements there is only barbarism, since individual violence will be the rule, or else they will be trapped in escapist searches for miraculous, religious solutions that do not exist. What is missing in our country is a process of democratisation of the media, and at the same time, a wide debate in society discussing a project to get us out of this crisis which has been imposed by the economic model, and the social crisis that is getting deeper and deeper.

Are you afraid of confrontations between the government and the MST due to the occupations in the country?

Quite the opposite. We are optimistic about the agrarian reform for several reasons. First, the government knows that agriculture and agrarian reform are one of the few solutions we have, besides public works, to generate jobs for poor people, in a short time, at a low cost, and by the thousands. For example, when we have settled a million families, we will have generated more than 3.5 million jobs directly and, no doubt, another 2 million indirectly, in businesses and industry. Also, there is a historical agreement within the left, the government and Lula himself about the need for agrarian reform. There is also the support of the whole of Brazilian society for the expropriation of the ‘latifundios’, which is very moving

What is the role of the MST in this scenario?

The role of the MST is precisely to organise the poor. To make the poor aware so that the escape from poverty can be carried out in an organised and civilised fashion. Without the MST they will all come to the cities, to the slums, in the thousands.

I would like you to define, with the maximum possible precision, what is a ‘latifúndio’ and, mainly, what is an unproductive latifúndio.

The word latifúndio comes from Latin. It means large extension of land owned by a single person. Later, in the Land Act, a juridical definition has been drafted in which an exploiting latifúndio, would be those estates that produce, below their capacity and are not of benefit to society. In the new Constitution and in the Agrarian law of 1993, the concept of large unproductive estate was introduced. Average means to measure the size of properties were established. In general large estates in Brazil are those larger than a thousand hectares. The unproductive estates would be those that do not have a social function, as indicated by low productivity, or not respecting labour laws and the environment. Among them are also those that break the law, for example by using slave labour, planting drugs or involvement in smuggling, etc.

Is that what the MST defends?

What I said in Canguçu is the policy of the MST. We defend that the government should expropriate the largest ‘latifundios’, those farms above 2 thousand hectares of fertile soil and close to the markets, to integrate workers in society. Nobody in their right frame of mind can accept that a single person can own 5, 10, 50 thousand hectares. Nobody in their right frame of mind can accept that foreign companies own 30 million hectares, while there are so many Brazilians without any land. Nobody in their right frame of mind can allow a Canadian steel company to own 25 thousand hectares of the best soil in São Paulo. And certainly not to accept that the construction company CR Almeida can own more than 2 million hectares of registered land

This is a question from the executive-director of Jornal do Brasil, Sônia Araripe: ‘Frei Betto said to JB that we should keep our negative thoughts for better days. As he sees the picture of social tensions growing, the invasions of the homeless, the intensification of unemployment. The MST wouldn’t be pushing the PT, the government, to a dangerous abyss with no return?

The social mobilisations are the result of the contradictions within our society. On the one hand a rich society, on the other, millions of poor. How can the poor solve their lack of access to public services and to fundamental rights? By organising and through struggle. In Brazil, the thousands of poor struggle for the republican rights to work, land to plough, housing and education. That is all. The poor do not want a basic ration. They want work, and the elite does not allow them to work. Every time the poor organise and fight for their rights, it is an action, which has a civilising effect – it is a republican act if you wish. Only Arnaldo Jabor sees socialism and leftism in this. This is because he understands cinema, not people.

What is the role of the government in this

A popular government, such as the administration Lula, requires people to organise; otherwise it will be held hostage by the pressure from bankers, construction companies, foreign capital, and the owners of the media. And more: by the conservative parliamentarians who represent the Brazilian elite. The ‘no return’ solution that we want to build, to accept the provocation, is to change the economic model. The way to the abyss is to maintain the current economic policy and the neoliberal model inherited from the ‘tucanos’. Why bring the Argentinian tragedy here.

The struggle of the landless and homeless predates the PT administration. Many PT members were brought up in this environment. Do you believe that the PT could abandon those movements due to international and national, economic and political pressures?

It does not depend on the will of those in charge, or on the party as a whole. The changes do not even depend on Lula. Social changes in this country depend on the capacity of the people to organise. If people organise and mobilise for their rights, which date back to the French revolution as I said time and time again, we will have a progressive government and a PT on the side of the people. If the people do not mobilise during the next four years, then we will have a very negative picture indeed.

Do you believe that President Lula is strong enough to face these obstacles?

This is exactly the reason why he needs the people to be aware of the problems and the true solutions. The government needs the people to mobilise and struggle. The strength for the government to face the powerful interests of those who do not wish to lose their privileges will come about through a broad process social mobilisation. Only the strength of millions of mobilised, politically aware Brazilians will help the government to face those interests and change the current economic model. We are hopeful. Brazilian people have the energy and a lot of experience in organising. Except that the mass movements are in decline.

Are these mass movements organised?

We are building an enormous popular alliance, the Articulation of Social Movements that brings together CUT, UNE, MST, urban social movements, and churches, and between September 8th and the 13th we will organise a national event , for the defence of our national sovereignty, towards a new development, for work and wealth distribution.

Who is/are the main enemies of the MST?

The enemies of the MST are the same enemies of the Brazilian people and the poor. Our enemies are speculative foreign capital, which enters the country just to take advantage. There are also the bankers, who never made so much money as in the last 8 years of the FHC (Fernando Henrique Cardoso) administration. Our enemy is the strategic plan of American multinationals to control our economy, the Amazon and our wealth through the FTAA (Free Trade area of the Americas).

Anybody else on that list?

The large unproductive estate owners, who own farms larger than 2 thousand hectares, and in general concentrate on extensive cattle raising or who just hold on to land while it increases in value. I also want to send a message to the distinguished Minister, Roberto Rodrigues, who is s good agronomist, but does not understand a thing about social class: Don’t worry, you are not our enemy. We know that you represent a part of the agrarian bourgeoisie that has modernised its farms, and is productive, and that in general owns farms between 100 and a 1000 hectares. What you need to do is to convince your social base that the way out for Brazilian agriculture is not to export – it is the internal market. The largest potential food market is the 110 million Brazilians that do not eat properly. Stop deluding yourselves with the idea of exporting soy beans and sugar, the only two crops that have been increasingly cultivated in the last few years. All the other crops have had a decrease in production. Help us develop our sovereignty in food, the internal market and family farming.

What are the actions that the MST is planning for the next 6 months?

No social movement plans their actions. The MST, as any other social movement, does tireless, constant work through its social militancy, which is to organise the poor and raise their level of awareness. In each region, they decide what to do to solve their problems. Basically, agrarian reform itself, is only a means for you to guarantee work on the land, to the poor in the countryside. We are also contributing to the national campaign against the FTTA, gathering signatures and sending them to congress to make sure that that the right of the Brazilian people to decide whether to accept or reject this pact.

Do the landless want land or a socialist revolution in Brazil?

In fact there is a lot of confusion among the analysts and sociologists about the nature of the social movements in Brazil. What’s going on? It so happens that the tradition of the left throughout the world and even the manner, in which classic sociology interpreted the social movements, was according to the manual. There were groupings by social groups, by sectors. And in general, these social groups had interests which were merely corporative, only relating to their group, and they were ideologically directed by the parties, whether from the left or the right or by the churches. With the advent of the present stage, where capitalism is controlled by finance capital and without investments in industry. The lower classes and social groups have become mixed together and have lost their distinctions and special interests. From another vantagepoint capitalism has helped to politicise people. For example, take a look at São Bernardo where the homeless need to take over some land, which was left vacant by a German multinational… From another perspective also, the classical means by which the parties and the church ideologically controlled the movements has also gone into crisis. As a result, a new type of social movement has come about, such as the MST and so many others, in Brazil and the whole world, in which the social movements are no longer just corporative but now have a greater social awareness. They have broader means by which to organise. They include the project of society itself in the debate. It is this economic model which generates poverty and exclusion. And this politizes people. In this fashion, they have ceased to be conveyor belts for the parties and the churches. They now have autonomy. And this causes discomfort, because none of the manuals said that the poor could have ideological autonomy. Actually, in the Brazilian case, the elite accepts that the poor can struggle for a basic ration, but they do not accept that they can have ideas. The people understand the way that the social movements work. It was them that created the movements through their own practise. The ones who don’t understand are the academic intellectuals who are far from the people and keep themselves happy reading Habermas. And the bourgeois press, who manipulate their ‘journalists’ and make idiots of them, without allowing them the right to investigate.

But what about socialism?

Any political leader, any studious person, anyone from the people, knows that in Brazil, socialism is not involved in the question. And this does not depend on the willingness of the people. What all the social movements want is a new social and economic project which guarantees fundamental rights to land, work, a home, education and culture. What we want to do is to build a society based on the traditional humanitarian values, of equality, solidarity and justice. That is our project. A popular project for Brazil.

The Lula government just finished the first 6 moths. What’s your opinion of this initial period?

Difficult to say after only 6 months. We can’t judge the government yet. We can only analyse the 6 months. Within the PT and the left, there are at least 5 different evaluations of the government. As far as agrarian reform is concerned, they have done nothing yet. They have already done something regarding the problem of credit. But they are still tidying up the house. I hope that, in the next 6 months we will actually have finished the national plan for agrarian reform so that we can settle a million families or more over the 4-year period. I hope that INCRA will be prepared and strengthened as a large public body for agrarian reform. Generally speaking, the government needs to change the economic model. If they don’t change the economic policy, the government, Lula and the left will lose the game. And the poor will be headed for social tragedy. Our efforts, as a movement, and in the co-ordination of the social movements are precisely to organise the people, to mobilise the people to help the government to change the economic model. This is why we are arguing with the government so that it adopts social and economic policies, which help to improve the living conditions of our people.

---