Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:39:30.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Case of Neo-Feudalism: La Convención, Peru

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

E. J. E. Hobsbawm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The province of La Convención, department of Cuzco, in Peru became familiar to citizens of the outside world in the early 1960s, when it was the scene of the most important peasant movement of that period in Peru, and probably in the whole of South America. This might legitimately attract the attention of the social historian. At the same time La Convención is a special version of a more general phenomenon, which ought also to interest the economic historian. It is ‘frontier territory’ in the American sense of the word, i.e. it belongs to the large zone of undeveloped land on the eastern edge of the Andes (the western edge of the Amazon basin) which has come under settlement and cultivation in recent decades, mainly for the cultivation of cash crops for the world market, but also for other economic purposes. Along the Andean slopes there are a number of such regions, into which, in their different ways, landlords and entrepreneurs penetrate with estates and trade, peasants in search of land and freedom. Mostly they are Indian peasants from the highlands, and the socio-economic background of the sierra and altiplano determines to some extent the forms of the new economy which take shape on the semi-tropical and tropical eastern slopes. These vary considerably, as we can tell by the various available monographs.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , May 1969 , pp. 31 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for instance, Tenencia de la Tierra y desarollo socio-económico del sector agricola: Peru(CIDA: Unión Panamericana, Washington, 1966)Google Scholar; Informe sobre la integración económica y social del Peru Central(Unión Panamericana, Washington, 1961)Google Scholar; Martínez, H., Las migraciones altiplanicas y la colonización del Tambopata (Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Indigenas, Lima, 1961)Google Scholar and some forthcoming work on the Bolivian yungas by Dwight B. Heath.

2 Godard, M. H. Kuczynski, A propósito del saneamento de los Valles Yungas del Cuzco (Min. de Salud Publica, Lima, 1946), p. 33.Google Scholar

3 The major sources on the economic development of La Convención, which will be used extensively below are: Tenencia de Tierra: Peru (cited as CIDA: Peru (1966), especially Chapter VIIGoogle Scholar, ii ‘Caracteristicas generales de los sistemas de tenencia en la selva con referencia especial al valle de La Convención’, Rosell, D. D. Enrique, ‘Fragmentos de las Monografias de la provincia de La Convención’, Revista Universitaria, VI (Cuzco, 1917)Google Scholar (cited as Rosell, (1917)Google Scholar). de Leon, F. Ponce, ‘Formas del arriendamiento de terrenos de cultivo en el Depto de Cuzco, y el problema de la distribución’, Revista Universitaria, VII (Cuzco, 1918)Google Scholar (cited as de Leon, Ponce (1918))Google Scholar. Tupayachi, Isaac, ‘Un ensayo de econometria en La Convención’, Revista Universitaria (Cuzco, 1959)Google Scholar (cited as Tupayachi, (1959))Google Scholar. Villena, C. F. Cuadros y, ‘El “Arriendo” y la Reforma Agraria en la provincia de La Convención’, Revista Universitaria, xxviii (Cuzco, 1949)Google Scholar (cited as Cuadros, (1949))Google Scholar. Cabello, J. Kuon, ‘Industrias alimenticias en el Cuzco’, Revista Universitaria, LI–LII (Cuzco, 1965)Google Scholar (cited as Kuon, (1965))Google Scholar. Godard, Kuczynski, A propósito del saneamento de los Valles Yungas del CuzcoGoogle Scholar (cited as Godard, Kuczynski (1946)).Google Scholar On the social movements in the province, see: Hobsbawm, E. J., ‘Problèmes Agraires à La Convención (Pérou)’, Colloque CNRS sur les problèmes agraires de l'Amérique Latine 1965 (Paris, 1967)Google Scholar. Neira, Hugo, Cuzco, Tierra y Muerte (Lima, 1964)Google Scholar. Aníbal, Quijano O., ‘El movimento campesino de Peru y sus lideres’, America Latina, VIII, 4 (Rio de Janeiro, 1965)Google Scholar. Craig, Wesley W., The peasant movement of La Convención (Cornell University, 1966, duplicated).Google Scholar

4 Thus earlier studies give it as 1,05,000 ha., recent ones as 44,800 sq. km (Bol.Soc.Geog. de Lima, lxxiv (1957), 3–4Google Scholar; CIDA: Peru (1966), p. 208.Google Scholar

5 Bingham, H., Inca Land (London, 1922), p. 324Google Scholar. The expedition of 1911, which discovered Machu Picchu, has through Messrs. Bingham and Bowman provided us with some useful data on La Convención at this time. It is fortunate, incidentally, that the upper part of these valleys was visited by several early European travellers, thanks to its proximity to Cuzco, so that we have descriptions of two of the great haciendas, Huadquiña and Echarate, dating back to at least the 1830s.

6 Soldan, M. F. Paz, Diccionario Geografico Estadistico del Peru (Lima, 1877)Google Scholar, Census of 1940; Tupayachi, (1959)Google Scholar; CIDA: Peru (1966).Google Scholar

7 Godard, Kuczynski (1946), p. 32Google Scholar; CIDA: Peru (1966), p. 209.Google Scholar

8 Cf. Bowman, I., The Andes of Southern Peru (London, 1920), p. 77n.Google Scholar

9 Llona, Scipión E., ‘Traslación de la capital de la provincia de La Convención’, Bol.Soc. Geog. de Lima, XXXIII (1917), 188Google Scholar; Markham, Clements, Lima and Cuzco (London, 1856), p. 272Google Scholar; Bowman, , The Andes, p. 77n.Google Scholar

10 Kaerger, K., Landwirtschaft und Kolonisation im spanischen Amerika (Leipzig, 1901), II, 374.Google Scholar

11 Bowman, , The Andes, p. 83.Google Scholar

12 For the middle of the nineteenth century, Soldan, D. Mateo Paz, Geografía del Peru (Lima, 1862), p. 399Google Scholar, reports a production per annum of

The annual Guia del Peru (1860) talks vaguely of cocoa, coffee, cane, coca, cotton and tobacco, but the 1872 edition no longer refers to these. In 1906 Cisneros, Carlos B., Reseña Económica del Peru (Lima, 1906)Google Scholar mentions only coca and aguardiente; in 1914 Luis Valcarcel, ‘La cuestion agraria en el Cuzco’, Rev.Univ., III (Cuzco, 1914)Google Scholar, speaks of sugar, coca, coffee, cocoa and fruit, and mentions experiments with rubber, but makes it clear that aguardiente and coca were overwhelmingly preponderant. It is clear from Kaerger, (1901), 374–5Google Scholar, that coffee was not yet seriously cultivated.

13 The major sources for these figures are Tupayachi, (1959)Google Scholar, Kuon, (1965)Google Scholar and the FAO Production Yearbook (for tea, which in Peru is produced only in La Convención). How much these statistics are worth, is another question.

14 Tupayachi, (1959), pp. 202, 226Google Scholar; Romero, E., Geografia Económica del Peru (Lima, 1961), p. 399.Google Scholar

15 At both dates it seems to have had about 2,000 inhabitants.

16 Guia del Peru (1860)Google Scholar; Tupayachi, (1959)Google Scholar; CIDA: Peru (1966).Google Scholar

17 For figures see CIDA: Peru (1966), p. 108Google Scholar; Guerra a Muerte al Latifundio: Proyecto de ley de Reforma Agraria del M.I.R. Estudio del Ing. Carlos Malpica S.S. (Lima, s.d.), pp. 221–3, and Hobsbawm, E. J., Colloque CNRSGoogle Scholar. The main owners around 1960 were Romainvilles (Huadquiña, Maranura), the Bartens (Chancamayo), Arranzabal (Echarate), Maldonado (Uchumayo), Hernani Zignago (Paltaybamba), Gonzalez (Sahuayaco, Potrero), L. Alvarez (Quellouno), P. Danemberg (Chaullay), Luglio (Pintobamba, Aranjuez), and two companies: Isidoro Lambarri y Roldan and Cia. Agricola de Cuzco (Huiro).

18 This would seem to be a considerable overstatement, even if the cultivated area has increased substantially since 1954; or else the figures for the 1950s grossly understate the area under cultivation. As so often, there seems to be an element of fantasy about statistics relating to La Convención.

19 Cuadros, (1949), p. 87.Google Scholar

20 Bowman, , The Andes, p. 83Google Scholar, describes the system as it operated around 1911, calling the serfs ‘free (faena) Indians’. Labour services seem to have been low or unsystematic, since, though there were said to be 5–6 regular estate labourers for every 100 faena Indians, in practice only 5–6 serfs were working on the estate at any one time; but his observations on economic matters do not command confidence.

21 The sources for these figures are as given in n. 3 above unless otherwise stated.

22 According to CIDA: Peru (1966), p. 211Google Scholar, this was common. Though some arrendires received up to 20–25 ha., on average they exploited only 4–6 ha.

23 This obligation is listed as very important in CIDA: Peru (1966)Google Scholar, but not in earlier sources, where maquipura appears simply as a synonym for hired wage-labour.

24 For what it is worth, the following information for Some haciendas was collected by Kuczynski Godard in the middle 1940s:

Hda San Lorenzo: of 66 families analyzed 33 arrendires, 39 allegados.

Hda Chancamayo: 41 arrendires, 57 allegados.

Hda Echarate: about 70 arrendires, each with from 3–10 allegados.

CIDA: Peru (1966) gives 3,128 peasantGoogle Scholar, ‘unidades agropecuarias’, on a sample of 18 estates of 110,000 hectares (1962).

There are no valid estimates of landless labour, but CIDA: Peru (1966)Google Scholar reckons it at 60,000 in the early 1960s. This is also a figure I heard mentioned in discussions around Cuzco.

25 Ponce de Leon (1918) gives the following illustration: $5–6 is a fair market rate for a holding. The landlord offers to let it at a prohibitive cash rent (say $8–9) to deter tenants — for he wants labour not cash, but then agrees to let it for part-cash part-labour at $6–7.

26 CIDA: Peru (1966)Google Scholar observes the absence of ‘grandes inversiones’ in the haciendas of La Convención. Of the three types of latifundium in this area it notes the absence of the ‘comercial moderno’ and that even the ‘tipo transicional’ is of small importance; hence the overwhelming predominance of the traditional type.

27 CIDA: Peru (1966), pp. 222–3Google Scholar, gives a case-study of one such estate: 12,600 ha., owned for the last 60 years by a single family, at present composed of 7 members, 3 resident, 4 living in Cuzco. This estate cultivates or utilizes 150 ha. and rents out 400 ha. to arrendires; 50 ha. are irrigated. The main crop is cocoa, but small quantities of other market and subsistence crops are grown, mainly for sale to agents of overseas merchant houses. There are 42 head of cattle. The estate relies entirely on the labour services of arrendires or other similar peasant-tenants whom it treats as resident peones. It is inefficient, has introduced no improvements in recent years but talks vaguely of extending the area under cultivation ‘in the immediate future’. Unable to raise a loan with the Banco de Fomento Agropecuario, the estate has raised a three-month loan of $20,000 from a moneylender at 2 per cent per month. It complains of lack of capital, and would like to sell out to the Agrarian Reform authorities.

28 ‘A diferencia de las otras regiones, la selva ofrece a los trabajadores sin tierras la perspectiva de ocupar un terreno de monte y convertirse en productores independientes, aunque su futuro como tales pueda ser incierto.’ CIDA: Peru (1966), p. 219.Google Scholar

29 While the dept. of Cuzco has a direct railway link with the coast, via Arequipa to Mollendo, it is much easier for these elements to get to La Convención.

30 Especially Godard, Kuczynski (1946).Google Scholar

31 Craig, Wesley (The peasant movement of La Convención)Google Scholar notes that the first Secretary-General of the Federación Provincial de Campesinos in 1958 was a protestant, subsequently jailed as a ‘communist’, and I have certainly encountered protestant peasant militants from La Convención. How early this phenomenon appeared, I do not know. The first peasant union seems to have been that of Maranura in 1934, which long remained a fortress of the communist party. There is no sign of any agitation in the province in the 1920s, at least in the peasant supplement ‘El proceso al gamonalismo’in Mariategui's journal Amauta, which reported the activities of the Grupo Resurgimiento in Cuzco.

32 See n. 3 above for accounts of it. There is as yet no full and reliable treatment, and perhaps it is too early to attempt one.

33 The major source is CIDA: Peru (1966)Google Scholar, which makes a study of 42 ‘unidades agropecuarias’ of the selva region and gives details of 8 presumably typical cases, including one latifundium and one arrendire's holding from La Convención. The Informe of the Panamerican Union (see n. 1 above) provides comparative material for other selva regions.

34 CIDA: Peru (1966), table 18–VII, provides no comparable data for cocoa and tea.Google Scholar

35 See CIDA: Peru (1966), pp. 212–13.Google Scholar

36 CIDA: Peru (1966), pp. 214–15.Google Scholar

37 CIDA: Peru (1966), p. 297.Google Scholar

38 I have used figures from CIDA: Peru (1966)Google Scholar, Tupayachi, (1959)Google Scholar, Kuon, (1965)Google Scholar and the FAO Production Yearbook.

39 The data about central Peru are calculated from the material collected in the Informe of the Panamerican Union; those about La Convención from the sources already listed.