For the agroecology movement to achieve its potential, it will require moving away from limited piecemeal reforms, towards a revolutionary consciousness with demands for radical land/agrarian reforms
I started to read this but I feel like I immediately got lost in the details not having either agroecology or class suicide defined for the average reader hopping on board, would love some info on those things so I can digest this article!
Thanks for attempting it all the same. It's admittedly a messy piece because I was trying to get somewhere in my mind that was fresh to me at the time. There is a link in the through to the original text of Cabral's on class suicide. It's not the easy thing to define and the point of the piece was trying to use it in a new way. I guess very simply you could say class suicide is the recognition of the need for the self-abolition of the (petty) bourgeoisie and siding with the revolutionary class of non-owners (bourgeoisie being those who own the means of production, the land, businesses, property, and so on - petty being the small business owners, as opposed to big capital like corporations and banks and so on). Agroecology I tend not to define as I'd need to define it in literally every single post I write, and I don't tend to write these as standalone pieces, but as a continuation of a set of thoughts-in-development. This is a good explainer: https://www.tabledebates.org/building-blocks/agroecology
Fascinating and powerful analysis here. I appreciate the author’s sincere grappling with what solidarity requires within the context of contemporary social arrangements, and articulation of opportunities for landowners to support agroecology on a more intersectional basis.
A question: to what extent does this perspective identify or insinuate opportunities for landless workers to participate in the project? On the one hand, I could see their struggles intrinsically promoting the “class suicide” recommended by the author. On the other hand, might there be some opportunities for cross-class solidarity exposed by this analysis?
Thank you so much - and sorry I missed this before - and great question. For me that is the motivation with this: how to build cross-class solidarity - but a genuine one, not a fake one, which is what we often enough get. I guess every now and then this is one of the main Qs I'm thinking about when I write.
I started to read this but I feel like I immediately got lost in the details not having either agroecology or class suicide defined for the average reader hopping on board, would love some info on those things so I can digest this article!
Thanks for attempting it all the same. It's admittedly a messy piece because I was trying to get somewhere in my mind that was fresh to me at the time. There is a link in the through to the original text of Cabral's on class suicide. It's not the easy thing to define and the point of the piece was trying to use it in a new way. I guess very simply you could say class suicide is the recognition of the need for the self-abolition of the (petty) bourgeoisie and siding with the revolutionary class of non-owners (bourgeoisie being those who own the means of production, the land, businesses, property, and so on - petty being the small business owners, as opposed to big capital like corporations and banks and so on). Agroecology I tend not to define as I'd need to define it in literally every single post I write, and I don't tend to write these as standalone pieces, but as a continuation of a set of thoughts-in-development. This is a good explainer: https://www.tabledebates.org/building-blocks/agroecology
Thank you! I’ll check the link out now :)
This is really excellent and feels quite vital in the current moment.
Thank you!
Fascinating and powerful analysis here. I appreciate the author’s sincere grappling with what solidarity requires within the context of contemporary social arrangements, and articulation of opportunities for landowners to support agroecology on a more intersectional basis.
A question: to what extent does this perspective identify or insinuate opportunities for landless workers to participate in the project? On the one hand, I could see their struggles intrinsically promoting the “class suicide” recommended by the author. On the other hand, might there be some opportunities for cross-class solidarity exposed by this analysis?
Thank you so much - and sorry I missed this before - and great question. For me that is the motivation with this: how to build cross-class solidarity - but a genuine one, not a fake one, which is what we often enough get. I guess every now and then this is one of the main Qs I'm thinking about when I write.