La Via Campesina calls on the governments of the world, and in particular progressive governments and those of the South, to do everything in their power to end apartheid and Israel’s colonization.
Brazil: Why should we fight agribusiness?
The fight for land justice in Zimbabwe, South Africa, and across the Global South is not just a local struggle – it is a global one
International Day of Action against WTO and Free Trade Agreements
Solidarity with Palestine and the Sumud and Freedom Flotillas to break the blockade of Gaza
… among the world’s most diverse and significant gathering of representatives of small-scale food producers, Indigenous Peoples, pastoralists, food chain workers, daily wage and migrant laborers in urban and rural areas, feminist and climate justice movements, advocates for social and solidarity economies and health for all, consumer groups, other service and manufacturing sector workers – is set to bring the agenda of a ‘systemic transformation’ back on the table in an emphatic way.
I really don’t see how this is not a leftist group.
If opposition to genocide and oppression of poor farmers makes one a “leftist,” then I guess it is. Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” highlighted the oppression experienced by poor peasants during the war of secession that established Bangladesh as a separate nation.
So there are movements of the very people Singer seemed concerned with in that essay, people suffering from hunger and marginalization. Does no one who is part of the EA movement believe that EA should express solidarity with hunger’s victims fighting on their own behalf?
There seems to be a choice between doing for passive others or acting in solidarity with hunger’s victims who are active in struggle. Is it always the former, never the latter? If so, doesn’t that smack of “the white man’s burden?”
Here are some recent headlines from the La Via Campesina website:
I really don’t see how this is not a leftist group.
If opposition to genocide and oppression of poor farmers makes one a “leftist,” then I guess it is. Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” highlighted the oppression experienced by poor peasants during the war of secession that established Bangladesh as a separate nation.
So there are movements of the very people Singer seemed concerned with in that essay, people suffering from hunger and marginalization. Does no one who is part of the EA movement believe that EA should express solidarity with hunger’s victims fighting on their own behalf?
There seems to be a choice between doing for passive others or acting in solidarity with hunger’s victims who are active in struggle. Is it always the former, never the latter? If so, doesn’t that smack of “the white man’s burden?”