Political Dynamics of Transnational Agrarian Movements by Marc Edelman

Author:Marc Edelman [Edelman, Marc]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Business & Economics, Industries, Agribusiness, Political Science, Political Ideologies, Nationalism & Patriotism, Public Policy, Agriculture & Food Policy, Technology & Engineering, Agriculture, General
ISBN: 9781780449159
Google: AM7btwEACAAJ
Publisher: Fernwood Publishing
Published: 2016-01-15T04:09:02+00:00

The problem of the non-inclusion in LVC of several militant agrarian movements in South Asia in general, and in India more particularly, is exacerbated by the dominance within LVC of organizations largely based among medium and rich farmers or that articulate commercial medium and rich farmer ideology (Pattenden 2005; Assadi 1994). Such movements include KRRS in Karnataka and BKU organizations in approximately ten Indian states. Their key demands revolve around higher farm-gate prices. Compare Tables 3.2 and 3.3, with APC members and LVC members in South Asia, respectively. The biggest dilemma for LVC in South Asia is how to maintain its global ideological position and “big tent” inclusivity, which would be at risk if many APC-linked groups—some known for sectarian politics—were allowed entry. It would be difficult to imagine how a “Vía Campesina” could defend middle peasants and small farmers with an orthodox Marxist leadership and an ideology promoting primarily the interests of rural proletarians.

LVC and the Food (Sovereignty) Movements

In recent years, various types of food movements have emerged, cutting across class, as well as the rural-urban, producer-consumer and North-South, divides. Some are quite small and localized, while others are larger and well networked—from Nyéléni to New York, as Schiavoni (2009) describes it. They tend to be united in their critique of the dominant food system around the issues of access, cultural appropriateness, sustainability and human and animal health. The differences in their perspectives can be pronounced, with some calling for dismantling of the industrial agriculture-based food system and others for varying degrees of reform. Some local food systems are closer to food sovereignty, while others are closer to the industrial model (Robbins 2015). Some of these movements identify with the food sovereignty framework, while others do not. Holt-Giménez and Shattuck (2011) provide an excellent overview of this vibrant, though highly differentiated, set of movements.

The rise of these broad, multi-class food movements has at least two relevant political implications for LVC. On the one hand, it has helped broaden political struggles around food, extending the political reach of LVC’s campaign around food sovereignty and strengthening the progressive-to-radical part of the political spectrum in pushing for food justice or food sovereignty alternatives worldwide. This is especially because of the breadth of the food movements’ class base and their geographic spread. It has produced multiple and multi-layered food movement alliances (Brent et al. 2015, Shattuck, Schiavoni and VanGelder 2015, Alonso-Fradejas et al. 2015). On the other hand, the rise of food movements has rendered LVC just one among the many actors in the wider effort to challenge the dominant food system and construct alternatives. The food movements challenge LVC’s “political franchise” on food sovereignty and its claim to be an exclusive and especially astute architect of alternative food systems. Food sovereignty has become just one possibility, alongside the right-to-food, food justice and related paradigms. And food sovereignty as defined by LVC (Patel 2009) has become just one possible interpretation of what food sovereignty means and might look like in real life. The

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.