Frontier expansion was interpreted in the last chapter as a process of integration into the national economy. This integration was seen to proceed through interrelated changes in both production and market relations: the integration which occurs through the progressive change to commercial production in response to the national market is simultaneously a transition from non-capitalist to capitalist production. This interpretation illuminates the process itself, but does not yet pose the question of the relationship between frontier and national economy; in effect, it suggests what occurs in frontier expansion but not why it occurs. Nevertheless, in proceeding to answer this latter question, it is apparent that the prior investigation of the process has revealed the principal dimensions of the determining structure – at least in the economic realm. Thus the question of the relationship between frontier and national economy is made two-fold: on the one hand, what are the production and property relations which determine frontier expansion and accumulation; on the other, what are the market relations which determine the transfer of value from frontier to national economy? In no sense are either or both sets of relations, which in the reality are not easily separated, to be taken as uniquely ‘determining’: their separate investigation here is simply intended as one step in the presentation of the political economy of the frontier.

This step aims to establish the structural conditions of frontier expansion, and so rejects any idea of ‘natural or ideal determination’ of the process.

The pioneer frontier: specificity and generality

The aim of this book is to reach an understanding of the pioneer frontier in Brazil. The object of study is conceived as the particular process of frontier expansion occurring in the country over the last half century. This concept of frontier in no way corresponds to the so-called cyclical character of economic growth and occupation of land in Brazil. There is, therefore, no intention here of following precedent (Normano 1935; Castro 1969) and presenting the entire economic history of the country in terms of its ‘frontier’ experiences. These growth cycles have been observed to follow the economic booms in different products for export to the world market – such as sugar, gold, coffee and rubber – and have depended on new demands arising within that expanding market over the centuries (Prado 1962a; Furtado 1963). The pioneer frontier, on the contrary, has expanded in response to the demands of the national market and in function of economic accumulation within the national economy since 1930.

It is to be expected that as the concept of frontier gains currency it will lose content. There is already an account which assimilates most of Latin American history to the idea of ‘frontier’ (Hennessey 1978). So it must be clear at the outset that the pioneer frontier is a process of occupation of new lands which is historically specific.

Traditionally in Brazil land is titled long before it is occupied. Unexplored regions in the interior are likely to have complex legal histories and many areas within these regions will be titled more than once. For a long time settlement of the continent was confined to the coast and the colonisers seemed to baulk at the prospect of conquering the vast and unknown interior. During the colonial administration the territory was conceded in law even before its extent could be judged with any measure of accuracy. This initial legal division of the land (into sesmarias) spawned a series of minor concessions. Since that time, for different economic and political motives in different periods, titles have proliferated and as occupation proper has continued to meet with delays and difficulties up till today, few constraints have acted to stem the issue of titles. This titling has created the conditions for conflict over the right to land in nearly all frontier regions.

It is interesting to observe that of the folk figures of the Brazilians the bandeirante looms largest in their history because these explorers broke the cultural and geographical boundaries and carried their forays deep into the heartland. But the bandeirantes did not occupy the land but merely claimed it for the crown; or for the nation. The actual occupation of the land had to wait for the unsung hero of Brazilian history, the posseiro, who was to claim the land by cultivating it.

Historically a continuing political intervention has been required to reproduce the conditions for accumulation in the Brazilian countryside. In particular it is the different institutions of labour control in the countryside which have effectively contained these conditions through the monopoly of land and the subordination of the slaves or peasants. This pattern of extensive monopoly of land was established during the colonial period. In contrast to Spanish America, the late discovery of precious metals led to a conquest by ‘colonisation’, and sugar production in engenho, not silver mines, shaped the settlement of Brazil (Halperín 1969). At the same time the Portuguese colonial administration commanded relatively fewer resources than the Spanish, and the consequent devolution of power to local landowners led to a socio-juridical division of the land which was far in advance of economic demands (Prado 1962a). However, these demands increased dramatically after the transition from production for a colonially controlled market to production for a world market which by early in the nineteenth century represented a generalisation of appropriation of surplus through exchange relations dominated by commercial capital. At the political level this transition was from control by colonial administration to control by an autonomous Brazilian State: given the political conditions for accumulation, this control was inevitably vested in the State apparatuses in the countryside, which made this incipient State a landowners' State.

During the Empire the landowners were both the dominant class and the class-in-charge of the State (Poulantzas 1968).

In explaining the process of frontier expansion, the emphasis has rightly been placed on spontaneous migration to the frontier, rather than on planned colonisation of the frontier. The pioneering movement is primarily determined, as was argued in Chapter 3, by the ‘surplus’ of labour and monopoly of land in the countryside, and by the rising demand for staple foods in the cities. Planned colonisation appears to have contributed little to the movement, not because plans for colonisation were lacking, but because most such plans, both public and private, met with failure. Public planning of colonisation has recurred throughout the period of the pioneer frontier, with occasional concerted efforts to direct the pioneering movement, such as the series of incentives to colonisation provided by Vargas under the Estado Novo, which were heralded collectively as ‘The March to the West’ (Esterci 1972). But of the tens of national colonies inaugurated in the years following the collation of this legislation in 1945, only one or two managed to survive and prosper (Diegues 1959), which is indicative of the small success of public colonisation initiatives over the period. Such public policies necessarily obeyed political imperatives, such as ‘peopling the political boundaries of the nation’, and therefore the collapse of most of the colonies may be explained by a lack of any economic viability. But private colonisation plans, which in principle should respond to clear economic incentives, appear to have met a similar fate.

It has been established that the pattern of frontier expansion is not fortuitous, but proceeds in response to larger forces within the national economy. In particular political intervention and violence are seen to promote a specific process of accumulation, which contributes to national economic growth. The relationship between frontier and national economy is interpreted, in purely economic terms, as achieving a transfer of value from one to the other. But the moving frontier does more than merely feed the growth of the national economy through primitive accumulation. Frontier expansion extends the boundaries of this economy, and by its advance creates an economic, from a natural, environment. The frontier experience, the political intervention and the violence, is not merely the effect of specific production and exchange relations, but participates in a complex of such relations in the countryside, and can impose these relations. Therefore, in addition to a particular interpretation of the relationship of the frontier to the national economy, there exists a clear need for a broad conceptual scheme which can successfully locate the place of the frontier in the formation of the national economy – a global theory of frontier expansion.

By definition the frontier exists on the periphery of the economy, and the scheme of ‘centre–periphery’ relations seems a logical choice for the location of the frontier. But such a scheme is purely descriptive, and in practice is given very different conceptual contents (Balan 1974).

The process of expansion of the pioneer frontier describes the progressive integration of the frontier region into the national economy. The same process contains the cycle of accumulation on the pioneer frontier. In other words, the cycle of accumulation runs its course through the integration of the frontier region into the national economy. This national economy is capitalist, where accumulation takes place through the appropriation of surplus value; the frontier economy is not originally capitalist, but, on the contrary, is characterised by clearly ‘pre-capitalist’ production, and occasionally market, relations. Thus the transformation of the ‘natural environment’ of a frontier region into a ‘productive society’ describes the transition from pre-capitalist to capitalist relations occurring within the cycle. Given the heterogeneous structure of the Brazilian social formation, where different modes of production exist side by side, the transition implied by the cycle may never be complete.

The concept of transition implies changes both in production relations and in the markets for goods, land and labour. These changes are complex, and take place over time. But it is possible to capture the principal dimensions of change by distinguishing three consecutive ‘stages’ of frontier expansion, called here the ‘non-capitalist’, the ‘pre-capitalist’, and the ‘capitalist’. There are doubts which quite rightly surround any division of social process into ‘stages’, and the strategy is adopted here as a heuristic device which should not be taken to deny the central idea of the process of frontier expansion.

The pioneer frontier in Brazil may appear at first sight to be another of those rather recondite topics, of concern only to academics. A moment's consideration, however, should be enough to recognise its claims to general interest. This frontier pits man against nature, and demands domination of the physical environment, which is the basis of all economic activity. It involves millions of people over several decades in a massive input of human labour and creation of economic wealth. In its advance it also pits man against man and reveals social and political relationships which often remain hidden within the confines of national society. And with its advance into Amazonia it becomes the world's ‘last great frontier’, and marks the beginning of the end of a chapter in human history.

I first went to the frontier some ten years ago, and was immediately captivated by the atmosphere and the action, and by the courage of the pioneering peasants. I was struck by the vividness of the experience, and the closeness of earth and elements. At a showing of a ‘spaghetti’ western in Capanema (Paraná) I was hard put to tell actors from audience. But this romantic vision was soon tempered by the everyday violence of the peasants' lives, and their fears and anxieties. This was evidently less a question of the brutal battle with nature than of ‘man's inhumanity to man’.

The process of frontier expansion has been observed to be very violent. Indeed this violence defines the process in some degree. But the explanation for the violence is less evident. It may be seen, in descriptive terms, as equivalent to ‘lawlessness’ and therefore endemic to frontier regions existing beyond the reach of the law: it is random in nature, particular in motive, and criminal in its conception. It may be seen, in more moral terms, as the result of a ruthless search for gain by evil and unprincipled entrepreneurs and politicians, who do not include the costs of violence in their calculations. Finally, it may be seen in political terms, as a result of institutional incursions on the frontier: the legacy of legal confusion and conflict, and of bureaucratic bungling or inertia. Possibly all of these ‘explanations’ contain elements of the truth, but they all participate in partial perspectives of the total process. The intention now is to integrate these different perspectives into a more complete theoretical framework, which will contain not only these descriptive, moral and political elements, but also the economic relationships which underpin violent behaviour on the frontier.

Violence and the stages of frontier expansion

Explanations of the violence as ‘inevitable’ in the ‘lawless’ frontier regions appear to refer to the precarious occupation of the land in the initial stages of frontier expansion.

The situation of dual authority in the frontier regions, where ownership of land may change not only by commercial contract but by the decisions of the courts leads inevitably to legal confusion at the local level. In the states of the south the Federal State leases land where the local state titles it; these leases, and even simple applications for title – which have no legal validity whatsoever – are negotiated as if they were titles (Gomes 1969). More recently in the states of the north virtually any document issued by the Federal land agency (including tax receipts and farm surveys) are sold in the emerging market for land. Moreover, the body of law governing access to and occupation of land is hugely complex, and the innumerable laws, decree-laws, regulations, instructions, injunctions and ‘explanations’ have never been collated. It is said that in Brazil there are in force some 120,000 laws (Stefannini 1977), and the only one missing is the obligation to obey them.

Quite apart from these legal complexities both Federal and local administrations have proved incapable of controlling the process of occupation of the land. Local land offices were not even equipped with maps of their respective regions, so that title-holders could claim land where it suited them, or extend the boundaries of their claim at will.

In discussing Federal policy for the frontiers, it has emerged that a glaring discrepancy exists between the formal objectives of the State, and the real development which takes place on the frontier. In Chapter 3, it was observed how Federal minimum price and credit policies, which in principle might prevent the transfer of value from the frontier, can, in fact, promote it; in Chapter 5, it was seen how Federal promises to solve the land problems of the frontier were never fulfilled, or not in time to benefit the peasants on the land. This gap between policy making and policy implementation is clearly revealed on the frontiers, which offer a different perspective on the national political process from that available ‘at the centre’. This perspective may correct possible misconceptions of the centre view: at the centre it may certainly be seen what is said, but on the frontier it is seen what is done. The discussion has referred to the difference between the two in terms of the apparent ‘independence’ of the frontier cycle from policy making in the Federal state.

In explaining the gap, there has been reference to the tendency within the authoritarian State to treat political problems as if they were simply administrative, and to the vulnerability of the State administration to the political pressures of economic groups, operating inside and outside the local state land departments.