Jacobo Grajales – författare

Based on extensive research conducted in Colombia since 2009, this book addresses the connection between land grabbing and agrarian capitalism, as well as the unfulfilled promises of peace and justice.

While land remains a key resource at the core of many contemporary civil wars, the impact of high-intensity armed violence on the formation of agrarian capitalism is seldom discussed. Drawing on nearly 200 interviews, archival research, and geographical data, this book examines land grabbing and the role of violence in capital with a particular focus on one key actor in the Colombian civil war: paramilitary militias. This book demonstrates how the intricate ties between armed conflict and economy formation are obscured by the widespread belief that violence is a radical form of action, breaking with the normal course of society and disconnected from the legal economy. Under this view, dispossession is perceived as diametrically opposed to capitalist accumulation. This belief is enormously influential in precisely those bureaucratic agencies that are in charge of peacebuilding, both domestically and internationally. However, this narrow view of the relationship between armed violence and capitalism belies the close ties between plunder and lawful profit, and obscures the continuity between violent dispossession and the free market. By the same token, it legitimizes post-war inequality in the name of capitalist development. The book concludes by arguing that the promotion of radical democracy in the government of land and rural development emerges as the only reasonable path for pacifying a violent polity.

The book is essential reading for students, scholars, and development aid practitioners interested in land and resource grabbing, agrarian capitalism, civil wars, and conflict resolution.

Based on extensive research conducted in Colombia since 2009, this book addresses the connection between land grabbing and agrarian capitalism, as well as the unfulfilled promises of peace and justice.

While land remains a key resource at the core of many contemporary civil wars, the impact of high-intensity armed violence on the formation of agrarian capitalism is seldom discussed. Drawing on nearly 200 interviews, archival research, and geographical data, this book examines land grabbing and the role of violence in capital with a particular focus on one key actor in the Colombian civil war: paramilitary militias. This book demonstrates how the intricate ties between armed conflict and economy formation are obscured by the widespread belief that violence is a radical form of action, breaking with the normal course of society and disconnected from the legal economy. Under this view, dispossession is perceived as diametrically opposed to capitalist accumulation. This belief is enormously influential in precisely those bureaucratic agencies that are in charge of peacebuilding, both domestically and internationally. However, this narrow view of the relationship between armed violence and capitalism belies the close ties between plunder and lawful profit, and obscures the continuity between violent dispossession and the free market. By the same token, it legitimizes post-war inequality in the name of capitalist development. The book concludes by arguing that the promotion of radical democracy in the government of land and rural development emerges as the only reasonable path for pacifying a violent polity.

The book is essential reading for students, scholars, and development aid practitioners interested in land and resource grabbing, agrarian capitalism, civil wars, and conflict resolution.

Dans l’après-guerre froide, de nombreux observateurs s’inquiétaient de la multiplication de « nouveaux » conflits armés, et promettaient des États « faibles » ou en « faillite ». À rebours de ces approches, les auteurs analysent des situations dans lesquelles la violence est une forme d’action politique routinière. Les principaux protagonistes sont de multiple nature. On observe des groupes armés qui, loin de se placer simplement dans l’opposition ou la défense d’un ordre établi, naviguent dans un espace de dissidence relative. Des organisations qui exigent leur intégration à l’État, et visent à en être reconnues comme des intermédiaires, des partisans, voire des branches légitimes. Enfin, des acteurs appartenant directement à des institutions publiques. Ceux-ci cherchent à incarner l’État dès lors qu’ils tentent de se placer dans un hors-champ du conflit. Ainsi, la violence ne représente pas une remise en cause du jeu politique, mais bien une opportunité pour des acteurs de s’y intégrer, de s’y positionner, ou de s’y maintenir, et d’en tirer une forme de reconnaissance.

Autrement dit, la fragmentation de l’autorité sur un territoire ne conduit pas nécessairement à l’accroissement de son autonomie par rapport au centre. Au contraire, ces contextes peuvent réaffirmer l’État en tant qu’arène politique de référence, et pousser les acteurs à poursuivre un objectif central : rester dans le jeu, plutôt que de le renverser.