February 9, 2018 – Fort Russ News – Paul Antonopoulos – Translated from Nova Resistencia.
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil – In the time we live, considering that globally we produce enough food to feed the entire population on the planet and, nationally, the entire population of our country, it seems trivial to speak of “food sovereignty.” The level of development of the productive forces has enabled most of humanity to regard the fear of famine as a specter of the distant past.
Ledo mistake. The reality is that despite these advances in the productive forces, the natural factor and the economic fluctuations of capitalism still affect the food security of populations. We know this well in Brazil, because if in 2000 we left the “Map of Hunger”, with the current crisis, Brazil is beginning to return to this tragic past, and the supposed falls in inflation have not prevented the basic basket from becoming more face.
But the point is even deeper. Brazil, despite its territorial extension and the large participation of the primary sector in its economic constitution, is, amazingly enough, surprisingly dependent on imports to feed its population. The wheat from our bread, for example, is almost all imported. Its price, therefore, is tied to the dollar and that is why such a basic food had its price increasing absurdly in the last 20 years.
In general, Brazil was practically forced on the same path as the other underdeveloped countries, becoming almost a soybean-producing monoculture, whose agricultural area is organized in the form of large estates, most of them belonging to foreign corporations. It is they who decide what we are going to plant. And through their lobbying, the ruralist bench in Congress, they have the power to ensure their supremacy through legal mechanisms.
In this sense, Brazil does not have food sovereignty. A spike in the price of the dollar, for example, could jeopardize several items in the food basket. An exaggerated fluctuation in the price of some commodities could put some of the population on the brink of famine.
Reflection on this becomes all the more important when we recall that the international megacorporation Monsanto has been engaged for years in a project of global monopolization of agriculture, acquiring rights over numerous cultivars and forcing farmers around the world to become dependent on their transgenic seeds and of their pesticides.
Brazil is one of the lucky countries in the world that has the potential to become fully autarchic in what concerns agriculture and livestock. But this is not enough protectionism, because the semi-feudal class of the landowners benefits greatly from the current export-oriented economic structure.
To do this, we must wage a war against this enemy class and, after their defeat, restructure Brazilian agriculture around non-capitalist organized family farms under the protection and guidance of a state that does not leave the Brazilian farmer at hand.
The control of what is planted and harvested in our soil must belong to the Brazilian farmer and not to the caste of the international parasites.