The history which marks the long march of Brazilian peasants is written in the almost always bloody struggles of this social class. On covering it, I make clear that my understanding of the logic of capitalist development is based on the understanding that said development is performed in an unequal and contradictory manner. That is to say, I assume that the development of capitalism—and its subsequent expansion to the countryside—is produced unevenly, complexly and, therefore, plurally. This theoretical reference framework, therefore, is the opposite of that which views the uniform, total and absolute expansion of salaried work in the countryside with the founding characteristic of capitalism. Therefore, I believe that capital works with the contradictory movement of inequality in the process of its development. In the case of Brazil, capitalism is acting by simultaneously developing—in the sense of implementing salaried work—the production of several crops in different areas of the country. This is also the case, for example, with sugar cane crops, reforestation and oranges, partially in Sao Paulo, soy in Mato Grosso, etc. On the other hand, this same capital develops peasant production in an articulated and contradictory manner. This means that I also assume that peasants are not social subjects outside of the scope of capitalism, but rather social subjects within it and, therefore, a social class of it. As such, I have broken capitalism down into four social classes: bourgeoise, proletariat, landowners and peasants, as well as, of course, indigenous people and the descendants of Quilombos.
