Cited by 123Agriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentLatin American socio-political dynamicsRural and Ethnic Education

Are Latin American peasant movements still a force for change? Some new paradigms revisited

Petras, James, Veltmeyer, Henry·2001·Journal of Peasant Studies

Abstract

This article is a critique of structuralist and postmodern approaches to the study of agrarian reform and the viability, nature and significance of peasant and landless movements in Latin America. Contrary to the dominant structuralist view, we argue that peasant and landless workers’ movements in Latin America are not anachronistic but dynamic modern classes, which in many contexts play a major role in opposing the dominant neoliberal agenda. Against postmodern interpretations of such grassroots agrarian movements, we also argue that in terms of action and programme, peasant and landless workers’ movements have raised fundamental class issues, in some instances combining them with ethnic demands. Deploying a reconstituted class analysis, we examine four cases of peasant/landless workers movements currently challenging state power: the Rural Landless Workers Movement in Brazil, the Revolutionary Armed Forces in Colombia, the National Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities in Ecuador, and the Zapatista Army of National Liberation in Mexico. Our conclusion is that in the current context, peasant and landless workers’ movements in Latin America are engaged in a modern form of struggle, combining traditional forms of solidarity not only with the acceptance/adaptation of modern goals and techniques, but also with a strategic understanding of the levers of power in the national and international system.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03066150108438767

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The dynamics of land reform in Zimbabwe and other contexts can best be understood in political terms, as a protracted struggle by peasants, poor urban workers and other groups for access to land and the reaction by the dominant landholding class and the state.

    “The dynamics of land reform in this and other contexts are complex and can best be understood in political terms, that is, in terms of a protracted struggle by peasants, poor urban workers and other groups for access to land and in terms of the reaction to this struggle by the dominant landholding class and by the state (Petras and Veltmeyer 2001).”

    From 1 - Land in the Political Economy of African Development: Alternative Strategies for Reform (2007) · cites this paper as Petras and Veltmeyer 2001

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 60 · Cited by 123

Authors
Petras, J., & Veltmeyer, H.
Affiliations
Saint Mary's University (CA)
Venue
Journal of Peasant Studies
Published
2001-01
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
83-118
ISSN
  • 0306-6150 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-9361
OpenAlex
W2036944594
Cited by
123
References
60
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
FWCI
26.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Journal of Peasant Studies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Latin American socio-political dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Rural and Ethnic Education
Keywords
peasant movements, Landless Workers' Movement (MST), land reform, Latin America, structuralism, postmodernism, class analysis, neoliberalism, indigenous movements, EZLN, landless rural workers movement, FARC, social movements

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review