Does the MST validate Orthodox Marxism?

[Tim Cornelis]

The Landless Workers' Movement (MST) in Brazil celebrates its 30 years of struggle for land reform today. It is the most successful workers' movement in the world today (which says something about the state of the workers' movement as well as the MST) with a membership of 1,500,000 people and 86% of the Brazilian population supporting them (the Naxalites dwarf in every regard compared to the MST). They enjoy support from various far-left currents.
Now the question is, does the strategical framework of the MST validate Orthodox Marxism? My answer is yes.

The strength of the MST is derived from its keen strategical approach toward a pivotal social issue, namely: land distribution. Around this issue they have a built a culture of resistance, a network of (state recognised) education and basic healthcare, organise sports events amongst themselves, and use slogans, songs, and other forms of cultural expression as a means to build a strong social fabric.
I read a paper which identifies these features as central to the MST's success and appeal. The key, then, is to emulate this strategy by adjusting the pivotal social issue to challenges faces in the respective regions wherein the strategic line is applied and provide proper ideological guidance and leadership.

[Die Neue Zeit]

IIRC, didn't you have a discussion on this same group a year ago, or do I have the wrong group?

[Tim Cornelis]

No, that was about the PYD (http://http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-kurds-validate-t180766/index.html). In a short year I'll probably make another thread titled "does the Abahlali baseMjondolo validate Orthodox Marxism?".

[Thirsty Crow]

Tim, would you please offer some reading material on the MST. I don't think many folks around here are that familiar with the movement, myself included (would search myself but not a lot of time on my hands, work and all), and any potential for a fruitful discussion is dependent on that.

And another thing. Another, let's say, meta-issue is what is that Orthodox Marxism you refer to and its social and historical bases. To be frank, I can't see how Marxism of the Second International is validated by MST. This means a) I understand the term in a specific way, and 2) that the historical development at the beginning of the century is relevant to any validation of that historical current in Marxist politics and analysis. It should be clear where I stand on this issue, given the actual history.

[Rafiq]

Orthodox Marxists do not seek to emulate the errors of the second international. Rather, we seek to distinguish ourselves from the turn Marxism and Communism took after the failure of the October revolution, including the "left-wing" response (though not completely), from left communists and so on. The failure of the second international was it's inability to act when the moment was opportune. But we don't believe that the late failures de legitimize aspects of second international movements completely, or falsify their strategies and tactics. We seek a return to the model which brought a proletarian revolution in Russia.

[Thirsty Crow]

Orthodox Marxists do not seek to emulate the errors of the second international. Rather, we seek to distinguish ourselves from the turn Marxism and Communism took after the failure of the October revolution, including the "left-wing" response (though not completely), from left communists and so on. The failure of the second international was it's inability to act when the moment was opportune. But we don't believe that the late failures de legitimize aspects of second international movements completely, or falsify their strategies and tactics.

No one would readily admit to wanting to emulate errors. However, what people think they do does not always amount to an adequate representation of what they do in effect.

Don't you think that strategies and tactics were at least an component of what you simplistically term "inability to act" (when in reality, not only could you speak of "inability", but also of decisive ability to act as the dominant counter-revolutionary power in society, at least in one historical example; in fact, it's hard for me to see just how can you leave out this and the fact that even prior to the "opportune moment" a deep schism had appeared in both the political-organizational and theoretical Orthodox Marxism)? Isn't it necessary to position all of the aspects in precisely this historical context, and of course draw out the difference in both class composition (working class) and the specific conditions of capital accumulation?

This last remark relates to this:



We seek a return to the model which brought a proletarian revolution in Russia.
The model you speak of was itself a historical product of very specific social-economic and political conditions, so I could be excused if I argued that what you say here amounts to nothing other than "we seek a return to the past". Not only with regard to a theoretical, political and organizational framework, but also in that you'd need a time machine for the whole project.

And, of course to return to the reasonable claim that


...we don't believe that the late failures de legitimize aspects of second international movements completelyOf course, but it is precisely the point which sides or aspects are isolated and upheld as viable nowadays. Far from it that I'd argue that the right way communists ought to conceptualize and conduct their work is to do everything the opposite, in comparison to political organizations that ultimately degenerated into counter-revolutionary forces.

[preacherman]

Tim, would you please offer some reading material on the MST. I don't think many folks around here are that familiar with the movement, myself included (would search myself but not a lot of time on my hands, work and all), and any potential for a fruitful discussion is dependent on that.


www[dot]mstbrazil[dot]org

Web site for friends of the MST.

[Tim Cornelis]

Tim, would you please offer some reading material on the MST. I don't think many folks around here are that familiar with the movement, myself included (would search myself but not a lot of time on my hands, work and all), and any potential for a fruitful discussion is dependent on that.

And another thing. Another, let's say, meta-issue is what is that Orthodox Marxism you refer to and its social and historical bases. To be frank, I can't see how Marxism of the Second International is validated by MST. This means a) I understand the term in a specific way, and 2) that the historical development at the beginning of the century is relevant to any validation of that historical current in Marxist politics and analysis. It should be clear where I stand on this issue, given the actual history.

I based this thread on this essay (which I read a year ago or so): THE EXPERIENCE OF THE LANDLESS WORKERS MOVEMENT AND THE LULA GOVERNMENT and quickly scanned it for these highlights:


Throughout these years, the MST has not only organized the struggle for land but has also taken on numerous tasks that go from child and adult education, to provision of basic health care, to training educators, agronomists, administrator of co-operatives and health care provider.


A recent article (Wolford, 2003b) argues that the MST capacity to maintain high levels of participation is due to its ability to create an “imagined community” organized around ideas, practices, symbols, slogans and rituals; and, more importantly, to its ability to remain an effective mediator between the state and settlers. Although these factors lead to high levels of participation within the MST, I argue that this participation also derives from the maintenance of an organizational structure that encourages participation and creates not only an “imagined community” but real concrete “autonomous rural communities”, which are easier to mobilize than the membership of other organizations.


The núcleo (nucleus), made of 10 to 15 families is the most basic unit of discussion and decision-making in a camp. These núcleos name representatives (always a man and a woman) to higher and more specialized instances, called teams and sectors.The teams are in charge of taking care of practical problems such as security, food, wood, barracks, work, sport and sectors are responsible for planning the functioning of the camp in respect to specific issues such as education, health, production, political education, gender relation, discipline, women, human rights, communication, youth and culture, etc. A coordinating committee, made of 2 representatives (a man and a woman), named by each
núcleo, oversees the camp’s life. This committee in turn elects a direction that has to be ratified by the camp’s assembly, which constitutes the highest decision-making instance (de Almeida and Sánchez, 2000: 16). In all these instances, decisions are taken through discussion and participation, making life in the camp a life of constant meetings.

So essentially, the MST practices what Orthodox Marxists propose as strategical framework: the creation of a mass movement around communities using struggle for a pivotal social issue (land in the case of the MST, class struggle in the case of OM), and other social issues (anti-sexism, anti-racism), with communities based on cooperatives, education, recreation, and other such social services to build and sustain a movement for class struggle and social change.

You're right the MST does not validate Orthodox Marxism, but I propose that it does validate its strategical framework.