stolcke, verena, and michael m. hall. "the introduction of free labour on são paulo coffee...

8/13/2019 Stolcke, Verena, and Michael M. Hall. "The introduction of free labour on So Paulo Coffee Plantations." The Journal of Peasant Studies 10.2-3 (1983): 170-

1/33


2/33

.\

BOOKREVffiWSPe:asant Nationa:lis:ts ofG,ujarat:Kheda D'istri'ct,. 19'1 'J:..J934,

b'Y David Hardim.anRice Economy and L,an,d Tenure ,in We-S'IMalaysia.,,

by Ke:nso HorThe ~ c t a s s Struggle in the ndentOref kWo,rldfro,m ,the Arch.alc Ag:e to th e' ArabCmrzqu,es,ts.,

HiogAi Yun

HB

121

by 0 E M. de Ste C r c ~ i x Pcter Oarns,cy 123.Seler:.te:d Essa:y,s ofFre:drik B:arth',. Y o ~ l u m , e IPr:ocess andForm in So,c:iulLije.,V:olume 11.: Fe:atulies o f P e r s o ~ n and'Sodety in Swat Akbar S. Ahm. ed 12.6

P o ~ v e r t y and a m , i n , e s ~ An Essay onEnti.tlement an,d Deprivati:o,n:,by Amartya Sen Nigem C r o ~ o k 12:8The P'olit:ical c o n o ~ y ofR'ura,lDievelop,ment. P e a s a n t s ~ , ln ternationtli

Capital, ,and' th'e Stille,,~ e d i t e d by Rosemary E. OaUl P ervmz Naziir 1.30A i s t o ~ r y of he .Ouyanese Worldng P,eople,

18:8'1-1905,y W.alt,er Rodney Madett.a. Mo,rris:s.ey I 312lnd ustrial De,ve:lop,ment ,an,dMigratl'.tLa'b:O'Ii.r,,bry Juan Laite1bu:arregs Nlg:eriens.: Unit;: ,culturrell'e et

.dl11:er:s,it:e 1 regi:OIJ'Qll' d''un peuple'past:eur,,E n ~ . d PerUn

by Bdmo nd Bemus. Sue MardnThe En danered Sex. Neglec:t ojFemG:I'eCll.:,il'dren ,tn Rura:IJn,dia,by ,arbara MiU.er Ursul.a M. S ~ b a r m . aTh e Pt:J,litir:-s . q f D e v : e l o f J m e n t ~ Su,g:arCo-,operatlves in R'uru.l Mtlhtlrasft',tru,,

'114 'II _ JI

by B. s., Bav:iskar l.anad1u.a: Chith e:J en 1144T:h e S:truggle o ~ r LtJ'n,d: A P o ~ l : u ; : c a l Ec:o,nomyq f the Ptoneer Fr;ontier .in Brazilfrom193,0 to tlle Present Day,by Jo,e F o ~ w e r a k e : r Jlan ox.borou,slb 41


3/33

The Introduction ofFree abour on Slio P aulo~ C o f f e e Plantations

Verena Stolcke* and Michael M. HaU**INTRODUCTIONAs a country with abundant land and a rel atively scarce population. Erazi]confronted specia1 problems in the creation of a labour force. Until the 1850sslaves rnade up the bulk of the workforce needed by large-s.cale exportagriculture. By the mid-nineteenth ,c,entury, however, as slavery came underincreasing attadc, at J,east some So P'aulo coffee planters began experimentingwith free labour. The abomion of the sl ave trade in 1850. moreover. coincidedwith tbe penetration and rapid exp,ansion of coffee in western Sao Paulo due tothe dedine of the other main coffee-growing regjon- the P'araiba VaUey- andin response to lhe growing international demand for coffee. The i n t r o d u c ~ i o n offree ~ a b o u r in So P'a.ulo agriculture is. in e'ffect an instance of the creation of afr,e.e la.bour force in a s i ~ u a t i o n of x t ~ e n s i v e agricultmal development under conditions of potentially scarce .labour supply. Our soil offers unlimited weaUh.but we Iack labour/ as one contemporary put the crucial obstacle to continuedagricuHural deveJopment which So Paulo planters raced in the Second half ofthe nineteenth century. 1 The most forward-looki.ng cofTee planters dearly sa.walter l8.50 that a way of replacing slave llabour. or at least supplcmenting it.wouJd have tobe found in the fa.irl.y near futurein order to proviidie the si1zeablenumber of workers requ.ired for this very labour-i1ntensive crop. Sliwery in factcont.inued unt.il 1888, but it was precisely the increasing debate over the l abourquesHon,. a.nd the experi1mentation in the followi.ng decades by Sao P;wloplanters, which eventually made possible a rellatively non-violent transition tofree labour.

The creation of a. l abour ~ o r c e i1s never an ex.dusi1vclly dcmogrnphic qucstion.]n the a b s e n c ~ e of a readlily a.vailablle local reserve of lahom So Paulo plancersresorted to t.he use of i.mmig.rant workers. H o V ~ . e v c r . thcir cxpcdence withslaves had made them acutely awar'e of the necd ~ o r cffcctivc o r m ~ of labourcontrol'. Thus, ~ h e issue planters i ~ n c r e a s i 1 n g l y faccd lhrnughotH thc sccond hrtiJof the nineteenth ,c,entury wa,s not only that of fi1nding a ncw sourcc


4/33

S.o Paulo Coffee Plantalions 171eventually solved their labour problems The eiTective supply of labour at anyp.articular moment is irnportantly afTected by the sanctions and incentivesavaUable to employers to enforce their pO\\er over labour to extract profit. Inthe So Paulo case. ~ h e absence of an established labour market decisivelvdetermined the planters choices of labour systems and their evolution. Theearly difficulties with free labour have repeatedly been attributed to the relativeunprofitability of irnmigrant workers in comparison to s1aves. 2 yet whatinduced planters to introduce free labour in the first place was their increasingawareness that slavery \iii. as doomed. The more interesting initial question. then.is why planters lirst chose shamcropping as the labour systern under 'vhich freeIabour was to be introduced. rather than a s t r a i ~ r h t wage svstem or some other.... L - arrangement.The absence of an established labour rnarket not only decisively determinedthe planters' choice of labom systems but also their fortunes '"ith them. Thesuccess of thc labour syst,ems introduced '"as not only deterrnined by costfactors (in the narrow sens,e of the cost of obtaining immigrant labour). noreven by the planters' ideology (their supposed bacb\ardness or. alternatively.their exemplary entrepreneurial spirit). but importantly by the struggle betweenplanters actions and ,,,:orkers' responses as shaped by the economic andpo1ical circumstances in which they found themsehes. As we \vill attcmpt toshow. it is this interrelationship betv.reen systems of labour exploitation andpaUerns of labour resistance which explains the successive transformations ofthe forms of labour contracting adopted.n IE SHARECROPPING CONTRACTIn 184 7. Senator Vergueiro. the owner of a Iarge estate near the town ofLimeira. in thc provincc of Sao P'aulo. became thc first planter to introduceimmigrant labour for work in coiTee production.J Vcrgueiro. as his son later putit hadl foreseen that thc end of slavcrv was onllv a matter of i m e . ; ~ Initially theimmigrants sccm to havc bccn offcred tv.o kinds of contract: a sharccroppingand a labour Ieasing locaro dc scrl i(os l contract. but they opled for thcf o r m c r . ~According to thc sharccroppi,ng contract. thc plantcr f i n a ~ 1 c c d thcimmigr::mts' transportaon from thcir country of origin to thc port of Santos.advanccd thc cost of transport from Santos tn thc Jllantlllion. as weil as thc

~ o o d s h l i T s nnd tools thc immigrants nccdcd until thcy could pay for thcm withthc procccds frnm c.hcir first crnps. Thc plantcr assigncd thc workcrs thcnumh,cr of c o f f c l ~ tr,ccs thcy could tcnd. harvcst and prnccss. and allollcd thcma pkc,c of hmd (111 \ vhich tn gro\\,' thcir own food crnps. h1 acldition. thcm m ~ m n t s wcrc 11-in:n a housc. lpparcntly frcc of chargc. Thcir rcmuncrationcnnsistcd of half t.hc nct rrolit from coiTcc and frnm thc food crops. Thclahnurcrs \l.:crc ohlij cd to rcpay l.hc ~ c x p c n s c s incurrcd hy thc plantcr nn tbcirhclwi v.ith


5/33


6/33


7/33

174 harecropping nd harecroppersWhy then did So Paulo planters adopt thc sharecropping system? H ha.s

long been maintained that sharecropJling is less dlicient than wage la.bour. theusua] argumenl being that since sharecroppers receive only a part of theproduct they wiU stop work earl'mer than a wage liabourer does. 23 More recentlythe prevalence of sharecropping has been a u r i b u t ~ e d to i.ts greater efficiency inrisk dispersion.24 The So Paulo planters option for sharccropping has beeninterpreted in similar terms. Holloway suggested that uncertain o ~ e e yieldsand p r i c ~ e s i n d u c ~ e d planters to f o r ~ e g o some of the potential income which \vasexdusive]y theirs under slavery ~ o r it prevented the frightening possibility thatwages might absorb more than the income from the crop. 5 This argumentobscur,es the essence of sharecropping. which is its particularly exploitalivecharacter. As Reid has demonstrated for the post-bellum American South.rath,er than uncertain o u t o m e ~ what in fact explains the adoption of sharecropping are the distinctive i n c e n t i v ~ e features it contains. in contrast to wage1abour.2'6 Sharecropping in a suation of scarce labour i s in fact more efficientthan wage labour. t is a form of the use of labour similiar to a carefullynegotiated piecework system. Both are forms of incentive wage systems. a wayof securing extra effort from liabour. of making labourers work harder andbeuer for only a small increase in total. remuneration ovcr that of wagelabourers. Remuneration in the form of a proportion of the product constitutesan incentive for the ~ a b o u r e r to intensify his dTort since i:t is on the amountproduced that his retums will depend. He will culltivate with greater c a r ~ e . ag.ainbecause part of the resuh will accrue to himself. ln addition. the supervisionrequired will be insignificant. since control of work is ~ e x c r c i s e d by thc labourerhims.e1f. 27In the cas,e of So Paulo. because of the absence of a llocal supply ofworkers, labour costs were at lleast initially high. Moreover. coiTee is a vcrylabour-int,ensive crop. ecause of the incentive ellement characteristic ofsharecropping it could be ~ e x p e c t e d that sharecroppers would tend more coffeetrees per worker than would wage labourers. Conscqucntly. f c w ~ e r ' 'orkerswould be re,quired and initial investment would bc lowcr. S h a r c ~ c r o p p c r S areusually conl.ract,ed in fa.mily units. Thus sharccropping also allows thc landowner to benefit from the use of the sharc,croppcrs fa.mily labour. Pllantcrshad always opposed recruiting singJ,e men sincc it was argucd thnt immi,grantfamillies were lle SS prone to abandon thc plantaons. Thi.s may bc so. outequaUy important wa.s surdy the fact that thc immi1grants' f m i l i c : < ~ consti1tutcda cheap labo,ur reserve. A sharecropper will u ~ u a l l } acccpl a di1visinn of thcproduct that will not fuHy cover lhc p o ~ c n t i a l markcl. pricc nf family l a l < ~ . l U I I ' .whmch would otherwise remain undcr- or uncmrloycd. Planten;, in fad smnctimes prohibit,ed immi1grants an1d thc1r famiJi,c: i. frnrn v ~ o r k i n g o u t ~ \ i d l c thcplantat.i.on. 2 The p l a n t ~ e r thu,s obtaincd this ru.llllilional l:1b'illlr al a rnst hclo\,.'that which he \1\IOUI d ha.ve had to pay wen: hc u ~ c m H racl i11 nn I hc nmrkct aswage llabou:r. Si1ncc llahour nccds ~ d u r i l n ~ lhc har\'csl wcrc nhoul onc liflh ~ r e a l e rtha.n dluring cultivation,.1 l.hc workcn;, wi1vcs and childrcn c ~ 1 . n J h l satisJadnrilycovcr this additi1onal demandLabourers werc also assi11-ncd a : iuhsistcncc plnt lil,hich ' 'a:li a hutlH:r \\,uy pfreducing unil labour costs. These plots wcrc U.litmlly ~ r ~ u H c d nn r n a r ~ i r m l Iands


8/33

oP aulo Coffee Plantations 175not appropriate for cofTee. or on virgin land later planted in coffee. \Vorkershad no efTective possession of the land. Ideally. the:y \Vere expected to producestrictly what was needed for their 0\\ 11 subsistence. in this way further reducingthe cost of their own reproduction. 1By reducing unit labour costs in comparison with age labour. sharecrop-ping must have initially appeared to the planters as the most appropriate sub-stitute for slave labour. The incentive element must have seemed a satisfactorysubstitute for the coercion which made slaves work. The question was notmerely to fi the potential gap in labour supply. but to do so in a profi.tablewa.y.Immigrants. however. \\'er,e fr,ee workers. As sharecroppers. they \vere inprinciple free to decide on labour intensity and the allocation of labour. TheirdHigence and productivity in cofTee thus depended on their own appraisal ofreturns.Pl:anters and immigration agents sougha to create the illusion thatimmigrants would quickly be able to repay their debts and acquire their ownland. Jn p ~ r a c t i c e . however immigranls usually had to wait for at least twoyears before receiving si1gnificant returns for their efTorts. The s h r ~ e to \Vhichthey were entitled from the first harvest took almost another year to be paid

b e c a u s ~ e of delays in the marketing of cofTee:. but. since the contracts stipulatedthat half of the workers annual earnings from coffee were to be withheld tocover their debts. and in the meantime they had accumulated ne\ .' debts fromfurther advances. only in the third year could they expect to rcceive muchcash.n H is hardly surprising that t.he immigrants gre\ilt increasingly discon-tented.The 1856 revolt remained an isolated event.n The rnajority of theimmigrants reacted in a lless dramatic but at the sarne time morc insidiousmanner by systematically restricting output in cofTee cultivation. Planters soongrew concemed about thc immigrants Im'>' productivity in cofTcc. As late as11870. an emissary of the Imp,erial govcrnment noted that most plantations arenot yet in a conditi1on to m c c i v ~ c frce labour cven undcr the sharecroppingsystcm maJinly when workers already start out burdened ':vith a dcbt Thetransportation ~ c o s t s arc cxccssivc and conscqucrHly thc labourcrs sharc isinsignificant The dclay in thc salc of cofTec forccs the orkcrs to ' ''ait ovcreight months for paymcnt A.s a ,conscqucncc. thc vllOrkcrs gencrally tcnd areduccd numbcr of coffc,c trccs. p r c ~ c r r i n g w pinnt food crops to supply thcirhomcs and covcr thcir nccds. in addition to obtaining irnmcdiMc hcncfit. Yct iti s cvi1dcnt that this systcm cannol. bc advantagcous for thc pllantcr. whosc mainintcr,cst is ~ . : n H c c : ~

Thc initial dcht. cn:n ithout arhitrary additional dinicultics crcatcd by thcp l a n t e n ~ . d i s c o u r a ~ c d anr cfl ort hy thc v;orkcrs in cofTcc cultivatim1 h c ~ o n dwhat ,,..as stricfly ncccssary. 1\s anothcr ohscrvcr rcmarkcd: Thcy lthclahourcrs I nh:;md.on l hc c o ~ c ~ c trccs. which as a rcsult dn not prouucc hutdctcrinratc, am.l ehe plantcr is dcprivcd not. only nf his sharc in thc product hutallso nf 1.hac of thc i m m i ~ r n t \l.hich is thc only sourcc of amortisation Iof thc

d ~ h l l hc h ~ t : l \ .Thc contract li ft opcn l hc numhcr of cofl\cc trccs l o hc tcndcd by a farnily


9/33

176 Sharecropping nd Sharecroppersand the size oftbeir subsist,enc,e plot Bothofthese dements wen. initiaUy left tothe decision of the labourers themselves. This made it possible that. asimmigrants became unint,er,ested in repaying their debts within the e.xpectedtime, they increasingly diverted their labour to food crops whose returnsaccrued to them directly and immediately Although many obsenr,ers remarkedon the alleged laziness and lack of interest of the immigrants.36 in fact whathappened was an ahemativ,e aBocation of .labour to food crops. rather than anabsolute underuse of labour capacity. 37Most of the immigrants in the early 1850s were members of the rural orurban poor who were driven by the severe economic crisis i.n Central Europe toabandon their home country, in many cases as a maUer of sheer survivaL Whatthey probably initially hoped for was to make a s,ecure lliving.3 Since t.he conditions they encountered in Sio Paulo rnade it almost impossible for them toobtain a profit from work in cofTee. they preferred to dedicate a significant partof their efforts to food crops. As a result, productivity in cofTee was low. AsCarvalho de Moraes quite appropriately observed. lhe planters were at themercy of the colonos . 39'

Th,e pJanters' power to controli labour and enforce a satisfactory Ievei ofproductivity in coffee cultivation was limited by the circumstances under whi:chfree .la.bour had be,en introduced that is. in the abs,enc,e of a local res,erve oflabour and under arrangements which required that irnmigrants repay theircosts of passage and initia.l setdement to their em.ployers. Planters presumablythought that the incentive element contained in sharecropping would effectivelyrep,Jace market forces in reducing wage costs. However. the initial debtcancelled out the incentive demen1t. and the planten) lackcd any efTectiv,e meansof forcing their workers to produce coffee. The threat of dismissaL whkh is theusual form of persuasion us.ed by employers to ,enforcc labour contracts. washa.rdlly practical since it w o u ~ have meant the partial or total loss of theplant,en' investment. Ahhough it was true that the immigrants coulld not lcgallyabandon the pliantation until they had paid ofT their debts. ncither could theplanters make tbem work beyond what the llabourcrs themsclves wcrc willing todo. Even the use of state power. as i n the c;as.c of the lbkaba rcvollt. was of Utcavait The J,eaders of the revolt were expelled. but tho:->e who rcmaincd did notwork any harder. The use o:f extra-contract.ual mcans to amortisc thcir i:rwest.ments had bac.kfiredl: im is i1ncontesUtbl,e th;t,t the planten;, whcn thc lahoun:rswou:ld n o ~ work. cou:ld not enforce thc fulfi:llmcnl. of thcir obligatirms a.ndl lhussurfered harm from the mi1streat.ment of their coffe,c trccs. thc rcducti1on of thcharvest. a.nd the total or partiall loss of thcir a d v a n c c ~ . , oTH LAFIOUR-LEASING CONTRJ .CTBy thc late 1850s. plantcrs faced a dillcmrna. b.;nnnmi.c ilnccnl:i\ C:Ii had railcdl loprrodu,ce thc cxpectcd rcsuhs: a n:asonab1lc lc\'cl of productivity and arno:rtisntion of debt within thc cxpcctcd time. After Ul5 7 thc shnrccro'pJli111Ji sy: i.Ccm W;\tSgr.aduaUy abandoncd in Sao Pa.ulo. Frcc lahour. howcvcr. hy nn mcansdi1sappea.rcd. Whilc thc numbcr of i1mmiJ;trtmnto; Cr1f.tllf. Cd in coffc c cuhivation did


10/33

oPaulo Coffee Plantarions 177not increase during the next t,\.0 decades. it declined only slowly. Reportsreaching Europe on the immigrants' hardships eventually persuaded both theSwiss and Prussian governments to take severe measures which practicallyhalt,ed emigration from the two countries to Sao Paulo. 41 Nevertheless. in 1870it was ,estimated that approximately 3.000 free labourers - some of themBrazilians- still work,ed on the plantations. a dedine of about 500 since 1860.and the debate over possible solutions to the labour problern had not abated.n

Many planters continued to explore alternative labour systems and to deviseinstilutional safeguards ~ ~ . h i c h they hoped would allo' '' a more effectiveenforcement of contracts. In order to deal with the related problems of controlof productivity and arnortisation of debt. planlers initiallv resorted to contractchanges. Sharecropping \vas gradually replaced by a labour-leasing contract[ ocat;iio de sen iros ]. Instead of a share of the val ue of production. labourerswere henceforth paid a pre-established piecerate for each measure of coffeeproduced. It ,:vas argued that by thus reducing uncertainty over income andeliminating long delays in payrnent. labourers \\ould feel encouraged to applythems,elves with g.reater diligence to coffee c u l t i v a t i o n ~ In addition the dausethat surplus food production be shared with the planter was generally dropped.and increasingly the size of the food plot was fixed and/or Iet against a rent inan attempt to discourage immigrants from div,erting labour to food crops.HMoreover. free llabourers no Ionger participated in coffee processing. eitherdirectliy or through a fee. This task reverted to slaves until the 1880s. when itwas then carried out by wage llabour. Significantly.. it as this part of coffeeproduction. together with transportation. which were rapidly mechanised in theearl)' 1870s as sllave labour became i.ncreasingly problematic.Labour-saving Innovations. however. \vere not introduced in coffe,e cultivation. Mechanisation of the harvcst was not technically feasible. and themechanisation of weeding by the use of a cultivator would have severely upsetlabour demand throughout the agricultural year. Mechanised weeding wouldnave either produccd idlc labour during thc cultivati,on period. or a shortage forthe harvest i1n a situation of gcneral scarcity of fme l a b o u r . < ~ ~

hc llabour-llcasing ,contract. continucd thc v..-agc inccntivc systcm. but it stillcould not assurc an adcquatc Ievei of productivity becausc it did not rcsolve thcbasic problern of dcht as a disinccntivc to incrcascd productivity in cofTcc.Plla,ntcrs. i n fact. feit thcy also nccdcd additional l.cgal powcrs lo protcct thcm-5.cllvcs agai:nst thc non-fulfilllmcnt of conlracts and spccifkally thc non-paymentof dcht.u'Somc atlcmpl.s had hccn madc carllicr lo prosccutc immigrants for non-

p y m c n ~ s of dchls. Howcvcr. thc law rcgulatilng sharccropping ''as largclyinciTcc,ivc. It a l l n \ ~ o c d plantcrs only to rcscind thc crmtract or dcmandi n d c m n i : ~ y for da.magcs: lhc formcr implicd loss of thc immigrants' dcht. andthc lauer incrcn.scd thc dcht '''ithout. hnvcvcr. prmiding mcans which obl.igcdlahourcrs to work. to p.ay fnr it.4

Occasi:onalll)'. planlcrs also tricd to apply to sharccropping a lav of I R ~ 7r c g u l a l i n ~ lahour Ieasing contracts. Accnnling t.o this law. any lahourcr vd10.h a v i n ~ hccn disrnisscd, did not pay his outstanding dcbt. could bc jailcd and


11/33

178 Sharecropping nd Sharecropperscondemned to public works until he had paid up. In cas,e of abandonment ofthe plantation he was t.o be arrested immediatdy and not released until hisdebts had been paid. 48 However the applicability of this law to sharecroppinghad proved uncertain. 49 Thus a further rea.son for planters to prefer the labourIeas.ing contract was surely their desire to avaH themsel.ves of the mor,e severepenal sanctions contained in the 18371abour-leasing law.However there is l.itde evidence that even the 1837 law v.as ever widelyapplied. The contracts had not usually stipulated a fixed period for the amortisation of debt and,. in any cas,e, the u s ~ e of the law to press for repayment didnot secure the planters' primary objective... which was to adeve g.reaterproductivity of .labour in coff:ee As Jong as the immigrants were willing toremain on the p ~ a n t a t i o n then: was little the planters could do to make themwork short of outright coercion w h i ~ c h they knew could produce untowardresults.

Productivity in coffee continued tobe low.50 A survey offamilies resident onthe plantation Martyrios in 1869. tlle property of Senator Frandsco Antoniode Souza Quelroz, was published by Carvalho de Moraes. Labour,ers wer,e contracted under the 1abour-leasing sy:stem. llH;: survey contains data on size andcomposition of the famiJi,es and number of coffee trees tended by each. \N'ithtbese data it is possible to ,cakullate the number of tr,ees cuhivated per familyand per labourer by the con:sumer/worker ratio of the famHy.

NUMBER O COFFEE TREES TENDED PER FAMELY AND INDlVIDlif\LLABOURER BY CONSUMER/WORKER RATIO OFTHE FAI\HLY: PLt-\NT \TION

MARTYRIOS. 1 8 ~ J 9

c/w ratio

treestendednumber offamilies

1.0-1.4per perfamily work.er

2.109 56()I I

LS-1.9 2.0 and overper per pcr perfamily "'orkcr fr11mily worker

2.071 709 1.940 SlJ7 5

Source Carvalho de Monu:s op. cit.. appcmlix 17.. Thc fact lhal. \\ithincrcas.inglly more fa\;.oura.hlc c o n ~ u m c r / v . n r k c r ratins I1.0 1.4) thcnumber of t.re,es lended per famiJiy incn::a:o;;.,cs .1\omcwhal i. i dm:: to thc faclthal. those famil'ies generally ,cnntaim;d a l a r ~ r : r ah .olutc rwrnhcr ufworkers.

The avcrage numbcr of coflcc lrec. i l:Uici\nh::d hy nnc lahourcr varicd frrun.566 t.o 813 trccs. Morcovcr. l.hc h1rgcr l',hc prnduct.in:- ..:.ap:Kity ol thc fanly(famiJics with a c/w rnlio hetwc,cn 1.0 and I A). ein M111alkr lhc numht:r or IFCl'st . ~ e n d e d by each l ahourcr in il. The ovcrall prPdtu.:titm i1nh:lll iity per l ahourcr h1c.offee was llow, c s p c ~ c i a J i y whcn cn.mparcd lo thc usual a v c r a ~ c of 2JMlO hl2 500 tn cs, tendcd from the H90s onv..nnl hy ' n , r k c r ~ . l.i.ho wen al.'io prmhu:


12/33

oPaulo CojJee Plantations 179ing food crops at the same time. According to the 8 9 statistics. those familieswhich had the comparatively largest productive capacity. exerted themselves] east in coiTee cultivation.In addition. the q u a ] i t ~ of work appears to have deteriorated under thelabour-leasing contracL Such a system of remuneration not only affects labourintensity. but may also have consequences for the care with which tasks areexecuted. In general. piecewerk is not used for many agricultural tasks becausethe quality of ''rork suiTers. There is evidence that under the Jabour-leasingcontract. while the immigrants ~ ~ e r e keen on harvesting as much cofTee aspossible. they tended to be negligent in the ,,eedings or abandoned outrightpart of the trees once they had been harvested. =In effect. neither contract changes nor the use of more severe labour lawssucce,eded in creating a satisfactory labour force because these measures failedto resolve the basic problern: the initial investment planters had to make tointroduce free l:abour. Heavily burdened by their initial debts. immigrantJabourers continu,ed to nork little in coiTee and were troublesome.THECOLONATOThose planters who still \vorked their plantations with free labourers by the late1860s gradually introduced further adjustments in the labour c o n t r a c t . ~ Whilecontracts initially had contained fines for abandoning the plantation before theworker's debt had been repayed. thcy nov.' increasingly stipulated fines for thenon-execution of weedings. As one planter noted. ~ r o r us the only advantage ofslav,es is i n discipline and once a plantcr wants to rcnouncc a l:ittle control andpatiently bears the faults of the colonos he \.vill gradually succeed. by means ofth,e fincs contai,ncd in thc contracts. in making all colonos submit to rcgularwork. 3 Food plots werc now rcgularly assigned in proportion to thc numbcrof trecs tcndcd by thc famiil)'. Finally. some plaTHcrs bcgan lo introduce a ne\vform of rcmuncration. a mixcd task and piecerate systcm. the colonato anarrangcment which was to pr,cvail on thc cofTcc plantations from the l880suntil thc J 950s Undcr this systcm. co Tcc wecdings vrerc paid at a nxed annualrate pcr thousand trccs t,cndcd and thc harvcst at a picccrntc.

By paying a separate st.ipulatcd rate for ,.,ccdings. a sorl of fixed-rninirnumw a g e . ~ - ~ which guarantccd thc lahourcrs a stahlc incomc indcpcndcnl of cofTccyiclds. it could hc ,cxp,cctcd l.hat workcrs ,,.ould non ncglcct t.hc coiTcc grovcsoutside of thc harvcst scason. Jn addi.lion sincc part of thc labourcrsrcrnuncrat.ion undcr thc nrw contracl dcpcndcd dircctly on thc numhcr of trccstcndcd and: no Ionger nn thci.r yiclds. il could hc :1ssumcd t hat thcy woulcl fcclc n c o u r a ~ c d tn cultinHc a largcr numhcr nf trccs. By rnaintaining thc pieceratesystcrn for thc hancst. howcvcr. lahour costs could still hc adaptcd to annualnuctuati,OI1S in yilclds. Morcovcr. unit lal 'l'Ollf costs could bc Jowcrcd throughintcnsil h.:ation of ciTon on thc part nf thc immigrants family at thc time ,,hcnlahour dlcmand '"'as ~ n a t c s L ~ ~By l.hc latc IHM>s. hov,,rcvcr. thcrc was a growing awarcncss among planten;.thal ~ : n n t r a l : l :tdjustm1:nts :md lhc c..xisting labnur law.s wcrc insuffkicnt inthcrn'-it:lvcs lo :tssurc :1 l h s ~ : i p l i n e d and profitable frec lahom l"orcc. Thc dccadc


13/33

180 harecropping nd harecroppersof the l870s began amid predictions of an impending labour crisis. both interms of future supply and of labour control. Plantcrs attempted to deal withthe situation in several ways Many continued to introduce free labour on alimited s c a ~ e , though privately sponsored schemes had lost most of theirappeaJ.56 Moreover,. planters faith in this system of immigration \vas furthershaken by a new outbr,eak of labour conftict on some plantations run with freelabour.57 At the same time abolitionist agitation was growing. especially afterthe ] 868 Manifesto of the Liberal Party which callcd for an end to slavery.Pressure thus mounted for a comprehensiv,e solution to the labour problem.Nevertheless, coffee production dur1ng the 18 70s expanded to almost t\vicewhat it had been in the previous decade. 58 In fact. planters were still able topostpone until 1888 the efTective end of slavery. They ternporarily solved theanticipated llabour shortage by generallly rationalising cotTee production. Theymanaged to disarm the abolitionists with a very limited concession: the RioBranco law of 187] which declared that children born thereafter of slavemothers were to be free.59 Planters al.so continued to purchase substantialnumbers of slaves from the Rio de Janeiro reg1on and from northern Brazil.'110The great expansion of railroads. almost aiJIIocated in the c o f T e e ~ g r o w i n g areas.which took place in the 1870s also helped postpone an acutc labour shortage.The availability of railroad transport allowed plant,ers to reassign to othcr tasksthe sl1aves they have previously had to use in transporting thcir crop tomarket. 61 Moreover, by lowering the cost of transportation and rcclucing thedarnage the crop suiTered en route. the railroad helped compcnsatc thc pl


14/33

So Paulo offee Plaflfations 18]of forcing v:ork from ingenuos as vrell as provisions to tighten the 183 7 lav regulating labour-leasing c o n t r a c t s . In the end this position \vas to be overruled by those planters , ~ " h o belie,ed that reliance on former slaves after Aboli

t i o n ~ or on the available Iocal population. to CO\"er their labour needs would behighly problematic and v rho sa\\' in subsidised mass immi2.ration the onJypossible solution. But before this lauer group i nally s u c c e e d ~ d in forcing t h ~state to assume full responsibility for mass immigration. the government madea last attempt to relegate this task to the planters themseiYes by grarlting themsome additional legal powers to control labour. In response to those planterswho wer,e pressing for more stringent labour l a \ ~ ~ , s . furth,er legal proYisions \verepassed to discipline the increasingly unruly free labourers. 1n 18 79. the 183 7labour-leasing law was replaced by a new regulation coYering both labour-1easing and sharecropping contracts and providing prison sentences not onlyfor abandoning the plantation \\ithout just cause but also for strikes and incitem,ent of others to slrike through threats or the usc of \iolence. 68This law \vas surely not l1east the result of renewed outbreaks of labourunrest on some plantations. Almost simultaneously \ ~ . ; i t h the AgriculturalCongress. the Tyrolean labourers on the plantation Salto Grande in Amparo.owned by Joaquim Bonifacio do Amara . declared a much publicised strike. 69The labourers began their mo,.,ement eH thc onset of the co Tee harvest inprotest over a number of abuses and omissions of vvhich they feit they had beenthe victims. 70 Jt vvas feared that thc snike might spread to other cstates.Although thc planter made a ccrtain number of concessions. such as raising thepiecerate from 500 reis per alqueire of co Tee har\'estcd to 600 reis. andagreei1ng to chargc interest on outstanding dcbl only aftcr two years. thclabourers could not bc pcrsuadcd to resumc work. Thc owner then stoppedproviding foodstufTs. a wcU-known rncans of forcing Jabourers back to work.and at thc samc time had the Ieadcrs prosecutcd and condcmncd to prisons ~ c n t c n c c s for non-fulfillmcnt flf cnntract und er t.he 183 7 law. These cYentssecm to h:1vc cnnvinccd c n ~ n such a staund1 dcfcnder of priYatcly sponsorcdimmigration as Anuu.rd 0f thc urgent nccd for subsidiscd mass immig.ration.ahhough hc slil:l insist.cd that morc sc\crc laws to cnforcc contracls ,crccquaHy ncccs.sary.':

Othcr So Paulo planten. in contrast. hccamc incrcasingl) cmphatic aboutthc nccd for lhc lihcr:llisatinn of labnur cnntracts amilegal rcforms as indispcnsahllc prcrcquisitcs fnr a succcssful prngrarnrnc of g:o,crnmcnt-sponsorcdimrnigration. \Vhich thcy rcgardcd as lhc only solution to thc l ~ 1 h n u r prnhlcm.Thc rclativdy low cnfTcc priccs nf thc carly I HHOs. and t hc difficultics plantcrsfaccd in s'l:curing crcdit, actcd further dctcrrcnl s n pri,atcly sponsorcdi m r n i ~ r a l i o n . sincc thcy kft many p l a n h . ~ r s unablc or unwillin12. to


15/33

182 harecropping and harecropperssince the Assemb]y ofthat province bad approved a measure in .1884 proridingfree passage for immigrants who went into agriculture. _.

P ~ a n t e r s by this point were g ~ e n e r a l i ) I aware that it is impossibJ,e to have IO\'-'salaries, without violence,. if there are few workers and many people 1.vho wishto employ them.'75 The way out of this dilemma and the essence of the So

P a u ~ o immigration system, was explained by another member of the Chamberof Deputies shortly after Abolition: ] t is evident". he said thal \ve needlabourers . . . in order to increase the compeon among them and in that waysaJari,es wil1 be Jowered by mea.ns of the law of supply and demand."76As ]ong as coffee plantations Could be run predominantly wmth slave labour.it was diffku1t to secure state-subsidised irnmigration on a large scale.Howev,er, by the early 1880s Abolition dearly had become unavoidable. and acomprehensive solution had to be found. The Sto Paulo p l ~ a n t e r s . w h o s ~ e powerin the government had been increasing steadily. then finally succeeded inimposing their solution to the labour problem. Although more than two yearsa.nd several important modifkahons of the law providing for subsidisedImmigration were r ~ e q u i r e d before the system functioned sati:sfactorily.. Pradowas e s s ~ e n t i a l l y c o r r ~ e c t in affirming that the problern had be,en solved by themid-l880s. After ] 884., the state, instead of coercing labourers directly. soughtto achieve the same ob)ective- cheap and obedient labour for the plantations-by ftooding the labour market with subsidised immigrants.By 1886 the provincial g o v ~ e r n r n e n t had found an e f f e c t i v ~ e way to provide

~ c o m p ] e t e subsirlies ~ o r immigrants. and the effect was almost immedi,ate. ByMay of 1887, some 60 .000 to 70.000 immigranls. by now predominantlylta]ian, had aJready be,en placed in the agricultural ~ e s t . a b l i s h m c n t s of SaoPaulo.77 This figure exceeds the estimated 50.000 slaves who werc bcing usedon Sao P'aulo ~ c o f f e e pllantations in 188.5. 711Immigration pol 1,icy remained essentiallly unchanged unlil thc First WorldWar. Between ] 884 and 19 J4 some 900,000 immigrants arrivcd in So Paulo.mos,Uy as chea.p labour for the coffee plantati:ons. The immigration progrmnmealll'owed S.o Paullo planters not onlly to abol1ish sl avcry with only moderateinco,nvenience but the s ~ c h ~ e m e - aided by at least initially high ~ ; o f f c c priccscreated the condi1tions for susta.ined cxpansion of coffcc production. Betwccn1888 and 1902 the number of cofTe,e tre,es pllantcd in Sao Paulo incrcascd frorn221 miUion to 685 miUion. 79Subsidlised mass immi:gra i.iiOn and c.hc crcation or an cffcctivc capita.li:st.llabour ma.rk.et se,emed to :soJv,e both of thc di:fficultics pllanlcrs had prcviouslyencountered with free labour- thc debt and labour di:sci:pllinc. Sincc pl;uHcrs rn1Ionger had to advance pa.ssage mom y to i m m i ~ r a n t s


16/33

oP m1lo offee Plantalions 183partner in the contract.' 80 The 1879 law. howeYer. bad not only senred toenforce contract fulfiUment. but also prohibited strike action. Among otherliberal reforms of the period was one replacing the t879 pro\'isions with adecree on so-called nimes against the freedon:: of work which penalised theindting of either labourers or employers to increase or reduce \\ork or wagesthrough the use ofthreats or violence. 81Contract enforcement and labour discipline were henceforth to depend onthe mechanism of the rnarket. Planters did indeed employ coercion andviollence under certain circumstances to keep labourers on the plantations andextract profit.. but in general they p r e ~ e r r e to deal \.li;ith the problem of keepingdown labour costs by increasing supply. Extra-economic coercion. which wasat times substantiaL sen'ed essentially to impro,e the planters bargainingposition in the labour markeL

Even after the 1880s. planters regularly claimed that there ,,as a shortage ofagricultural labour in Sao Paulo. There are hm11;ever. a number of indicationsthat these laments were for the most part debating points to press for continuedmass immigration so as to assure abundant labour at the lo' '' wages theplanters wanted to pay. For one. the t,,.o alternative sources of labour. thefre,edmen and so-caHed national labour ,,ere nevcr tapped in any substantialway before the First \\forld War. when subsidised European immigrationbecame impratical. Both these g.roups werc largely ig.nored by the planters evenduring allcged labour s h o r t a g e s . ' l ~Moreovcr. agricultural \\ages varicd little between 1884 and I 914. At theend of the century. with fall:ing cofTee pri.ces. thcre was even a decline. followedbetween 1902 and 1910 by a moderate risc duc to the relatively srnall numberof immigrants cntering So Paulo and thc h1rgc number of departures. This wascountered. howevcr. by an j,ncrcase in in1migration in 1912 and 1913 so that by1914 moncy ' 'agcs were back to about the same lc\ CII they had bcen in the mid-1880s. In thc same pcriod real incomc of the labourcrs secms to have dcclincdsignificantlly .11 JEvcn at thc b cginning of this ccntury \\.hcn complaints O\'Cr labour shortagcs bccarnc particularly vchcment.. .. thcrc docs not sccm to have bccn anabsolute scarcity. Such propagandawas to somc cxtcnt a rcaclion by plantcrsto a 902 halian han on suhsidiscd immigration ~ which was cvadcd in parland ofTsct hy thc intrndu tion of Portugucsc and Spanish lahourcrs. Howcvcr.planten; in t.hc oldcr coiTcc rcgions did facc difficuhics in compcting for lahourwith ncwcr rcgiom al a titnc of dcdining cofTcc priccs. and al thc wage Ievelsthcy wen: \'ltilling to o'ITcr. An indication nf thc duhious nature of Lhc plantcrscomphtints is thc facl that nci.thcr \li.'as thc 1 9 ~ suggcstinn tn cut 20 pcr ccnt ofthc t:nffcc trccs so as tn incn:asc l:1hnur supply cn.:r hccdcd nor. as far as wcknow. did cofrcc cvcr ~ o unharvcstcd for Iack nf l a h o u r . ~ o ~ r . Intcrcstingly. it wasin t.his contcxl :lluH n n:turn tn sharccroppin was J. 'roposcd. which turncd outto hc unfc;1;.,iblc. h o \ . ~ ' c H : r . s i n l ~ c lahourcrs. 'fcaring a further dcdinc in priccs.and h a v i n ~ ,. nrk ,,.ith lixc'll rcsull.s. rcjcct sharccropping . ]nslc:HJ. plantcrs inthc oldcr arcas incrcasingly allo\\'cd food crops to hc p.rown hctwccn thc rowsof coffcc in ordcr to aUr;u:' lal:)


17/33

84 harecropping nd harecroppersln dfect, the massive inftux of immigrants covered labour needs quitesatisfactorily before 1914. Not only did subsidis,ed mass immigrationdrastically reduce initia] labour costs, but planters were now r e q u i r ~ e d to makeonly minor advances for ~ o o and agricultural tools. In addition. thedisappearance of the burden of the initial heavy debt.. coupJ,ed , ~ , i t h stricter

regulation of work and fines for non-execution of tasks. no"v possible to enforcebecause of the abundant labour supply. produced a marked increase in labourproductivity in coffee. y the late ] 880s the average nurnber of coffee treestended by an adult man ranged belwe,en 2.000 and 3.000. \Nhik wornen usuallycultivated halfthat number. 119Planters continued contracling immigrant labour under the mixed task andpiecerate .system coupled with subsistence production. The contract \vas nowannual. Even with an abundant labour supply. the colonato system continuedto be more profitab]e than straight wage labour for a number of reasons. Foodprices were persistently high s i n c ~ e foodstuffs were to a arge extent importedasa consequence of the planters' a]most exclusive interest in coffce 90 As the president of the province noted in 1887: 'Corfe,e gives the best returns .... it wou.ldbe an error to disdain i t in order to ~ c u l t i v a t e something else.''n

Food plots acted as an incentive for the l'abourers. at the sametime reducingthe cost of the reproduction of labour. Moreover. since food crops "vcrc gro'"''"during the coffee cultivation season when labour demands were comparativelyl:ower, the p]anters could make full use of the i,mmigrants family labourthroughout the w h o l ~ e year. As one obsenrer noted i n 1908. 'what rcally enablesthe immigrants to make ~ e n d s meet are the crops they ha.vc the right to raise ontheir own account'92 Bonardelli in 1916 estimated that food crops rovm by

l a b o u r ~ e r s made up one third of their income. 9 J Thc right l.o grow food cropsrather than constituting a payment in kind or a mcans of fixing labour.. wasprimarily a way of extracting a .l:abour rent in addit.ion to thc surplus produccdin corfee cultivation. 94 The combination of cash crops v.ith suhsistencc culltivation was potentiaUy problematk for economic dcvclloprncrH in gcncraL and forthe planters themselves - as late as 1922 plantcrs s ~ r c s s c d thc nccd to restrietfood crops since 'the 1andowner cannot permit that l a b o u r ~ c r s plant cxtcmdn;:lyin c ~ e r e a l s when labour is lacking for ~ c o f f c c cultivation. < Howcvcr. ifeffectively controllied. and as long as coffcc was highly prnfil ::.bl'c thc mrangcment was cllearly advantageaus for the phmtcrs.A .final way the pllanters dcviscd to rcducc unit l11hour cnc.;ts was thcirgrowing preference. not only for famiJ,i,es. but fpr I;Hgc familics. ix. unit.s ~ c o n -iaining at least three workcrs.'1' ' A l arge numhcr of wnrkcr.-; in a f : ~ ~ m i l y nwdc itpossible to depress wage cosl.s furthcr. Thc m o r ~ c wnrkcrs pcr consurm:r in afamHy. thc lower thc cost of rcprodluction of c;u.:h imli,idual \1\orkcr and consc

q u ~ e n t l y the lowcr the t a s k r a t ~ c could hc.q 7Thc,re seems liulc douht. l.hcrcforc. that fnr mm.:h of l.hc pcrini.l bcl"'-ccn IKH.:Iand 1914 coffce planting was a. profi1tahlc u n d c r l a k i n ~ . Fvcn aftcr II XW ' :hcncoffee pri1ccs startcd to dcdinc on ac(:ount of P'vcr p r n ( l u ~ : l . i l o n n.:as1Hlahly vrcllrun plantations wcrc still rcturning a p r o f i t . ' ~ 'This was possihlc. howcvcr t h r o u ~ h an incn:;asc in lhc rate Df cxploil ation as


18/33

So aulo CojJee Plantalions 185weil as various frauds.99 Most ltalian observers at the time agreed on theextremely poor working and living conditions of immigrant labourers.1ooP'lanters. for their part. usually claimed that 'the crisis' at the turn of thec ~ e n t u r v had forced them to treat their labourers the wav thev did. 101... - - - ... ...The planters power increased in direct proportians to the grmvingpowerlessness of the labourers. Almost all plantations had their_ band ofcapangas. armed guards in eh arge of carrying out the will of the planter and ofcontrolling among other things the entrance and departure of labourers.Planters occasionally a t t e m p t ~ e d to retain their labourers by such means asartificially delaying the end of the agricultural year when the final financialaccounts were setHed. thus making it unlikely that the labourer 'could findwork on another plantation where cultivation for the next crops had already

b e g u n ~ Nevertheless. the mobility of labour was generally considerable.Some 40 to 60 per cent of the labourers left their plantation ~ e a c h year. 103Planters exercised extensive control over their labourers. in itself an expressionof their abiding fear of indiscipline or worse. Observers sometimes remarked onthe colonos 'submissiveness. respectful and docile" behaviour. although thiswas oft,en more apparent than reaL Hl.s

The obstades to more than spnradic individual resistance \vere immense.and planters did what they could to suppress any expression of discontent. Forexamp],e. all societies or associations of labourers \vere prohibited. 105 Yetdespite severe control. not only were individual l a b o u r ~ e r s often turbulent andsometimes violent.. but strikes occurred with some frequency. 1 6Labourers acng individually or nearly so quitc regularly c a r r i ~ e d out acts of

vioknce against plantcrs and overseers. One of the most farnaus instances.though by no means atypical . occurred in 1901 when Francisco AugustoAlmeida Prado a plantcr belanging to thc promi.nent Prado famil y. was socareless as to strolll through his coiTec Helds onc day without the protection ofhis bodyguards. Scveral of his labourers took advantage of thc situation andm u r d c r ~ c d him. riddling his body ~ ~ h knifc v,ounds and chopping it into pieceswith their h < ~ ~ t c h c t s and hocs. Diogo Sallcs. thc hrotllcr of thc Presidcnt of theRcpublic. was murdcrcd in 1900 by a labourcr for aHcrnpting to rapc the murderer\ ~ i s t c r . This was an indi,.idual motivc. but. it is as much indicative of thcextreme form: i. cxploitation tonk as of thc undcrlyi.ng tcnsi1ons. Other incidcntsarosc frorn somcwhat hroadcr issucs. In thc Prado rnurdcr. thc immediatecausc was said tn h,c thc punishmcnt hc had irnposcd on his labourcrs forrcfusilllJ . to put nut a firc on thc cstal.c of nnc of his rclatives. 1o;CoUcctivc ac:tion ,,as ahn not infrcqucnL Thc fir.st st.rikcs aftcr Abolitionoccurrcd i1n thc carly 1M90s. and thc Halian-languag.c daily Fm (ulfn rcgistcrss c v ~ c r a l dozcn hy llJ I : from I. hat yc::u tn 19JO. thc Patmna/0 Agn(ola (a statc. a g c n c y l ~ and thc lahour p n : ~ s providc r ~ c f c r c n c c s tn O\'cr a hundred strikcs onthc coffcc plantalions. 11111 Most sud1 strikcs wrrc limitcd to thc houmlarics nf(mc plantation a h h o u ~ h in 191 I ahoul. 1.000 Iabnurcrs strucl\ on half a dozcnplantal:i,lms in thc arra of U r a n ~ a m ; a for l\li.crl y days and sccurcd a slig.htjr1crcasc in pa.y. Thc f o l l o w i n ~ ycar. lahourcrs nn mnrc t han a do1.cn planta1i1ons in thc R i ~ h c i r i i o Prcto arca wcnt on strikt and also sccurcd a small wage


19/33

86 Sharecropping nd Sharecroppersr i s ~ e The Iargest s t r i k ~ e of the period took place in the sa.me area in 1913. hmobilised between 10,000 and 15.,000 labourers,. but resulted in a total defeatS,tfik,es were generaJJy carried out in an e ~ o r t to secure an increase in v.rages. orin opposition to such measur,es as the non-payment of wages.. auempts toreduc'e sa]aries, heavy and arbitrary discipline and fines. or restrictions on theplanting of food crops. 109From the beginn:ing., the relations between planters and free labourers werefraught with s e v e r ~ e and generaUy rather explicit tensions. Even had the plantersdesired to ~ e s t a b ] i s h paternalistic re1aons of personal dependence - and thepoint remaitns undear - a number of elements limited the ready use of sucharrangements to obscure exploitation and discourage r ~ e s i s t a n c e Not only w ~ e r eSo Paulo plantations large, but the work force was both new and foreignborn thus depriving the planters of many of the traditional sanctions -re)]gjous and otherwise- which rund ruling classt S have oHen enjoyed.

As I ~ o n g a.s sharecropping prevailed, struggJe between labourers and plantersc ~ e n t r e d around the share in net profit from coffee. Exceptionally. labourersrevo1ted, but. more generally they resisted by withdrawing labour from cofTeecultivation. As ~ o n g as food growing was not subject to syslematic restraints.the labourers were able,. without jeopardising their own survival:. to deprive theplanters of part of their ~ a b o u r power. This does not mean however. thatlabourers reduced their expectations. What they did was to divert a significantpart of their productive capadty to ~ o o d growing. beyond \\'hat they requiredfor subsistence. Though essentially individuaL these actions were d e c i s i v ~ e indetermining the r ~ e a d j u s t m e n t of the liabour system.

The transition frorn sharecropping to the mixed task and piecerate s y s h ~ mthe co/o.nato was a process of incn: asingly systemati1c expl1oitation of labouraided after the mid-l880s by the massive importation of immigrants. Once acapitalis.t labour market had been cr,eated. pllanting rights restrictcd to the basicminirnum,. and increasingly severe labour disci:plinc instituted. condlitionseffe,ctilvely disappeared ~ o r individual struggJ,e at thc Ievel of \'-'Ork against whatwere considered unsatisfactory returns. By lhe turn of thc ccntury immigranllabourers consdtuted a homogem:ous mass. subjcct to morc or lcss uniformlyharsh conditions. Under normal circumstanccs thcy had thc possihi,liity ofexplloiti.ng r ~ e g i o n a l difTerenccs to their advantagc. or of ahandoning Sao P'auloagriculture ahog,ether either for work in BrazjJ,ian (itics or in othcr countrics.Labour mobility a.mong plant.ations and outrighl dcparl.urcs ",,.crc considcrahlc.But for those who remai ned in agri1cu.U.un:. lo"' wagcs o ~ r any addihonal cxactions by phm,ters. such as 1the non-paymcnl of wa Ics. l.hc prohi1hil.irm of o og:rowing, or a reducti10n in wagcs. coukl t.riggcr off collcclivc action in ehe formof .strikes. Contradictoril.y. hy i1ncrcasing la,hour discipllinc. plarHcrs crcatcd tl u:very conditi1ons for c o l l l e c t i v ~ c ~ and thus pol:cntiallly much morc d : u n a ; t i n ~ acE.ion by the immigrantsCONCLUSTONThis is not the pllace to aucmpt n :'l.urvcy or l.hc vnst and ; , : . r o \ i n ~ . Iiteraiure onthe his'tory of Brazili:an agriculturc. 0 Our corHcntion. I Ul\ld;vcr, i: ; ftutl n w ~ l : uf


20/33

s o Paulo offee Plantations 187thes,e studi,es have t,ended to appl)' macro-models to the plantation laboursystems examined in this article rather than posing the crucial question of whvplanters opted for the various arrangements in the first place. lnsufftcient auer{tion has thus been paid to the decisive conditions under \.vhich free labour \\'as

i n t r o d u c e d ~ lo the dynamics of the labour systems themsehes. and to thereasons f:or their transformation.In p a r t ~ recent debates have continued a long dispute about the supposedfeudal. or at least non-capitalist. nature o Brazilian agriculture. 111 The implicitpoint of reference for both the 'feudar and 'capitalisf interpretations is straightwage Iabour as the characteristically capitalist form of surplus extraction.Those who endorsed the feudal thesis emphasised the distinctive features of the

p ~ a n t a t i o n 1abour systems as proof of the non-capitalist nature of Braziliana g r i c u l t u r e ~ ~ z Those who supported the capitali.st thesis generally took as theirpoint of referenc,e the larger economic s y s t ~ e m into which Brazilian agriculturewas integrated and argued for the underlying identity between the specificliabour systems used and wage labour. \Vhile such authors explained t.he prevalence of thes,e systems by their greater productivity in contrast to wageJabour. they still did not account for their transformations.

More recently. yet other interpretations have been proposed. From the perspective of capitaJ accumulation it has been suggested that labour relations inBrazilian agriculture have benefed the accumulation of capital in industrythrough relatively low prices ~ o r agricultural products.. and werc thusfunctional for the system. 1P This vie,, has been cont,ested by the suggestionthat low agricultural productivity. on the contrary. has s ~ e t dear Iimits toaccumulation: 'The relativcly lo '' prices of agricultu.ral products imply. inreallity. relati1vely high social costs and a relatively lo\v 'socialproductivity .' 11 The articulation of the tvm scctors is seen as contradictory. acontradiction produced by thc relativdy l,m > Ievel of productivity in agriculturcon account of what arc sccn as prcdominantly pre-capitalist or backward rda-ons o productilon. Productivity in agriculture is indccd lovrer. in moncyterms. than in industry. But agai1n 'hy plantcrs have for so long optcd forlabour systcms of lov.r producthi1ty rather than introducing morc producti,cinnovations is not cxplaincd. ll sccms rcasonahlc that plantcrs should prcfcrJabour-intcnsivc methods of production rather than inacasing fixcd cajJital. ithe cost of thc lauer vras highcr than that of Jahour. Butthis posits thc qucstionof why thc cma of l11hour was so low for so long. Low agricultural v.ages irnplya. rcstriction in thc consumption of \\:agc goods. out t.hcn why should plantcrshe conccrncd with thaL rather than ith thcir 0\ -'11 Ievels of profit'? Such ana.UitwJc has impnrtant political conscqucnccs gcncrating social tcnsions. but

t h ~ c n capitalist dcn:lopn1cnt is h:m.Hy a harmonious proccss. Nor is its dynamicdcl.crmin,cd hy thc ru;,cds nf c;1pital accumulation as a kiml of d us cx m clrinhut. as wc hil\'C aUcl'nptcd to sho\\' in tiH : s p c c i f i l ~ ~ : a s c of thc coffcc plantations.by cha,ss s l r u J t ~ l c .These ;uc m;u;ro anallyscs. Thcrc an: also a nurnhcr of st udics speci.ficallyt r c a t i 1 r 1 ~ t thc firsl. c.:q \Cri111H:nts vrith fmc llahour. most nf which cc11trc nn thcfai1lurc of thc sh.a.n.:-croppinJ.l systcm. 1t has hccn variouslv argucd that what


21/33

188 Sharecropp ing nd Sharecropperscondemned the early sharecropping experi.ments was in the last instance theplanters' own backwardness. It is suggested that for fme labour to be comparative1y as profitable as slave labour- the point of reference is slave labourplanters resorted to forms of coercion which were unacceptable to the freelabourers who reacted by rebelling. The implicit condusion isthat planters didnot know where their true interests lay. They revealed themselves incapable ofappreciating the requirements of a contractual relationship. an incapacityderived from their 1ong tradition as s l a v e h o l d e r s . By using coercion ratherthan economic incentives they undermined the labour system they themselveshad adopted in order to replac,e the s1aves.

These interpretations contain a mixture of elements from both the feudal andcapitalist theses. The early sharecropping system is implicitl y interpreted asc a p i t a l i s t ~ but its failure is generally attributed to the planters traditionalideology which ]ed them to treat f r e ~ e labour,ers as if they were slaves.

We hav,e argued that So Paulo planters introduced free labour to replac'e oradd to their slave force becaus'e the most forward-looking of them were awareby mid-century that some substitute for slave labour eventually had to befound. Under these circumstances they w,ere wil1ing to ~ x p r i m n t with newforms of labour. whose productivity th,ey initially di,d not know Houever. onlya minorHy of Sao Paulo planters opted for free labour at thc time. and the endof slavery was not immediate. Thus there was no acute shortage of slavcs. andplant,ers could continue to starr their pl:antations ' 'ith slavc labour. whos,eproductivity was famiJI,iar to them. in casc free labour did not respond to theirexpectations. Not only those who have studied the ,early expcriments 'ith frce

l a b o u r ~ but also the planters themsdves repeatcdly ~ U r i b u t c d thc difficultieswi:th free labour to its relativ,el1y low productivity in comparison to slavcry .11 f, hmay be true thal slaves were morc profitable than frcc labourcrs. hut to goback to sl,avery was no permanent solution. Thus. to e x p l : - ~ i n thc failurc of thcshare,cropping syst,em by its comparativcly IIO\\ICT productity \"ould bcreasonabl1e only if i1t were no1t for th,e impcnding abolition of slavcry. Thcspectre of abolition left planters. in fact. with only l \ \ "0 : - t l t c r n : - ~ t i v c s : cithcr tofind a satisfactory substitute ~ o r m of frcc lalwur. or to aband


22/33

So PauJo Coffee Plantations 189systematically restricted outpul in c o ~ e e and/or rebelled. It is this \ ~ > ' h i c h ledsome planters to conclude that 'at the cost of any sacrifke the work of a slaveis preferable to that of a fre,e man .117 Others attempted to resolve their labourprobl'ems by introducing contract changes and more etfective labour la\.\'S. vetwith s ~ c a r c e l y greater success. The permanent problern of labour producti,;ityand discipl,ine was only resolved in the 1880s when the state began to subsidisemass immigration and thus lay the foundations for an etfective capitalist labourmarket.

NOTES

I. 'Bericht des schweiz. Generalkonsuls in Rio-Janeiro an den schweiz. Bundesr;:Hh ber dieAuswanderung nach Brasilien. Schll'ei.::erisches Bundesblatt. X. Jahrgang II. no. 34. 24July 1858. pp. 183-188 quoting the specches of an immigration agcnt named vlota onbehalf of emigration to Braz.il.

2. E. VioUi da Costa. 'Colnias de parceria na lavoura de cafe: primeiras expcricncias. in herDa Monarquia Repriblica: momcntos decisiros. So Paulo. 1977: V/. Dean. Rio C/aro; aBra::.iliarr Plantotion System. 1820-/920. Stanford. 1976: J.S. \Vitter. 'Um cstabelecimentoagricola no estado de So Paulo nos meados do seculo X IX'. Rerisla de Historia. no. 98.1974; S. Buarquc de Holanda. prefacc and not es to T. Da,atz. Mcmarias de um cofono noBrasil. So Paulo. 1941.

3. T11c lmnsformation of Verguciro's plantation Jbicaba in thc first part of thc ninelccnthcenlury is a good CJ(amplc of the evolution of Silo Paulo agriculturc. Vcrguciro had bcg:un toreplace sugar canc with cofTcc in 1828. but a c t i , i t i c ~ wcre limitcd by thc small number ofslavcs he ov.ncd. ln 1840. hc madc a first attcmrt to rcorganisc thc r l a n l < ~ t i o n . graduallyintroducing Portugucsc f a m i l i c ~ to n:placc his sla\ Cs. This expcriment failed bccausc ofthc political uphcavals of 1842. Not discouragcd. howc\'cr. by 184 7 he hchf Pmkrwicr :u crsct::cn lkrlin. 1 8 5 . ~ .5 J.P. Carvfllhn dc M n r a c ~ Rdarnrio aprnrntad / ao MiniHhio da .h:ricu wra Rio ucJanciro. pnn. p ln vic" pf lhc ~ l m \ i n ~ lcrrm in which Siin Paulo


23/33

190 Sharecropping and SharecroppersZei.tung, Rudolstadt. 25 September 18.57. no. 39: J.J. \ On Tschudi. Viagem lis prot(ncias doRio de Janeiro e So Paulo. S.o Paulo. 1953. pp. 1 35. 149. The presidcnt of thc province.Saraiva. reported in 1855 that of the initial 900 immigrants timt had settlcd on Vcrguciro"sproperty in 1847. by 18:55 about 670 were left The rest had eithcr fulfilled lhcir contracls orindemnified the planter for the costs incurred on their behalf. By 186 7. howc\"er. an cmissaryof the Prussian government H. Haupt noted that only under very favour.ablc eireumslamees-such as ferti]l,e plots. a arge family. the absence of diseases - could an immigr.ant familysucceed in r ~ e p a . y i n g its debt within1 a reasonabl e time. H. Haupt. in Sodedadc Intcrnacionalde I m i g r a ~ t i o , Relatorio. I. 186 7. p. 39.

8. JJ. von T s ~ c h u d i . op.cit.. pp. 135. 166.9'. Jbid, p. 05; J.P. Carvalho de Moraes. op. cit. pp. 55-56.W J.P. C:uva1ho de Moraes. op.dt .. p. 5; it was argued that this would allow l < : ~ b o m c r s to tcnda Iarger number of coiTee U'ees. ibid .. p. 59.I]. 'Relar;o das colcmias exjstentes na provincia de So Paulo no ano de 1855'. an anonymousmanus,cript dated 8 March 1856. located in lhe archin: of the Jnstituto Histrko eGeogrtfico Brasilei1ro. Rio de Janeiro. lata 71/7. There wen; 117. i31 slavcs in thc provinccin I854. How many were engaged in coiTee cuhivation is not easy to say. but thcy surelyconstituted a majority. J.F. Camargo. Crescimenlo da popular;iio rw estado de Sdo .Paulo cseus aspeclos economicos. Siio Paulo. 1952. H. p. 12.12. J.P. Carvalhode Momes. op.cit.. p. 10.13. E. Vioui da Costa. 'Politica de lenas no Brasilenos Estados Unidos. in her D.a MIJnarquiaaRep ublica. op.cit. As she points out. the defenders of thc law. mostly largc landowncrs.were essentiaJiy concerned with the efTects of this law in providing frcc labour to rcplacctheir slaves. Liberals opposed to the landowning intercsts rejcclcd il. arguing instcad for thcdonation of .land to immigrants as an inccntive to auracl forcign scttlcrs tn civilisc thccountry. Cf. J de Souza Martins A imigraro e a criH. do Brasil a.r:rarin. So Paulo. 197 3.

pp. 51-54; W. Dean. 'Latifundia and Land Policy in Ninctccnth-Ccntury Brazil". HispmlicAmerican Historical Review. U. no. 4. 1 9 7 1 ~ .141. Those wlilo wen: anached to tlhe planla.tions wen: a rclati,cly unimpvrtanl group ofagregados. a kind of retai1ner aHowed the use of margim'll eslatc land in rcturn for occasionalllabollr and other services. M.S. de Caurvalho franco. llnmrm lirre.s na orclon csamocrataSao Pillulo. 1969. Cf. Pcter Eisenberg. 0 homem esquecido: o trab:llh;ulor Iivre nacifmal noseculo XIX. Sus;,estes pa ra uma. pesquisa. Anai.i do M u ~ ( ' l l Pmrfitta. XXVIU. I J77. 7 ~ .15. J.J. von Tschudi, op.cit.. p. I)6. Ts.chudi wa o; a.n cnvoy of thc Swis" F c d c r : : r ~ t i o n . scnl tl1

Bn11zil in 111 160 to inspe:'t c.he conditions of Swiss s h a r e c n " ~ p p e r . , . He wao; him5.df a landnwncrin li is nali1ve country and reported sympallleti:ca.l'ly l h : ~ ~ t thc pl:mtcr . wen: wcll qtidkd withthe modi1fications nf the corrlract : o ~ i n c e thc'le nrren;d lhcm a "'nlid flU:mmlce fnr thc capitalilw.est.ed.

16. Allgemeine A ' u s ~ 1 < a n d e r u n g : ~ Z f ' i U m g . Rudolsladl. 2J Octnh


24/33

Stio Paulo Coffee Plantations 19118. T. Davatz. op.cil.. pp 105-l 06.19. Deursche AUSI 'CUidererZeitung.. Bremen 22 October 1857. noo 83. quoting a report oftheBrazilian Imperial Colonisation Agency on the lbicaba revolr. J.Jo \on Tschudi. 'Bericht dessclrnveizo ausserordentlichen Gesandten in Brasilien. Herrn \'0 Tschudi. an den Bundesrathber die dortigen Verhltnisse der Kolonisten. vom 60 Oktober 1860'. Sch1rei::.erischesBundesblatt. XII. Jahrgang HI. no. 61. 28 No\oember 1860. ln his comments to the Swiss

Federation. which Tschudi sent along with his report. he pointed out that in fact part of thcbl,ame for the dilliculties belonged ro the immigration agcnts who had not selected theJabourcrs properly and had contracted many disabled peoplc simply to eam the commission.He p:uticularly bl:amed the immigr.ants themsclves. ''oho did not always show the necessaryinterest in their worli. Tschudi had omitted thesc aspects in his rcport to the Imperial go\-crnment. 'in order to emphasisc thos'c points which arisc from the conditions in Brazir.Schwei:erisches .Bzmdesblall. XlL Jahrgang Hf. no 61. 28 November 18600 p. 2690 T.Davatz. op.cit.. p. 100: .IVI.Jo Valdetaro. colnias de So Paulo. in Brazil. Rclalorio daReparfir o Geml das Terms Pribliras aprescntado em 31 de man;o dc 1858. Rio dcJaneiro. 1858. p 91.20. AI/gemeine A tmranderwzgs-Zeitung. Rudolstadt. noo 43. 23 Octobcr 185 7. p. 189.21. The theme is prominent. for example. in the previously citcd works by JOS. VVitter and SoBuarque de Holanda. as weil as in Wo Dcans Rio Claroo22. RoAO Natsch. op.cil.. makes this point quite clcaro23. Ao MarshalL Principles of Economics. London. various cditionso241 SON.S. Chucng. Thc Thcory ofShare Tcnancy. Chicago. 196925. T. Holloway. 'Thc coiTcc colorro of Sao Pauloo. Brazil: migration and mobility. 18801930'.in K Duncan and L Rutledge (eds). Land and Labour in tmi11 Amcrim Cmnbrid'ge. 1977.

1t is unlikely hat So Paulo planten; did not know a\-eragc cofTee yicldso Thcy had thcParaiba Vallcy c:'ll:pcriencc to go byo fn any casc. no cntreprcncur can cxactly prcdicr futurcmarkets and p r i c c ~ o21Jo J.Do R.cid. Jro. 'Sharccropping and .Agricultural Unccrtaintyo. rnimco . 1973: cf JOD. Rcid.

Jr.o 'Sharccropping as an Undcrslandablc Markct Response: thc Post-Bcllum South'.Journal of Ermwmic fli5tory. 3 ~ . 19TI. which contaim < i numbcr of ~ h a r c c r o p p i n g con-tract, hc W; , .. C:l111\'l:fli.:Cd lhill lhC 'J:rthllllrl'f\ Willlid hc h{:ter nno jf tl cy lt:Ceivcd lhtir ~ h a r eltt f ~ t ~ l u m ;rmd "nld 11 tlu:rmt:IH\, imtcad of h a v i n ~ : thc plallln 0 0 0 1. rheir intcrmcdian 0lhc hii}'Cf'i \ ~ p u h l t h c n ~ o o i J r d thc pnxlucl and


25/33

192 Sharec ropp ing and Sharec ropper:sThe actualt.ime taken by immigJrants to amortise tlleir debts is a controversial issue. Someaul.hors h.ave estimated thal it took an average of nine years. See E. Vioui da Costa.coi.Onias de parceria . P' 114. W. Dean,. Rio Claro. pp. 105-07. on the contrar)'. maintains

that an avera.ge family cou.ld repay its debt withi1n fiv.e years or less. and in additionaccumulate some s.avings. Dean estimates H1at an aYerage family of lh'c members \IIOUidt.end about 3,'000' coffee trees. yet most accounts indicate that this is an overestimate. Seenote 3 7 below.33. There iS' evidence of olher work stoppages. Tsdmdi. t iagem s prol'lifcias . . . . pp. 164-5.n:pcds such a case for the plantation B;oa Vista in Amparo in 1858. The labourers werea.pparently h.arvestilng green berr:ies along \11d1th tlle ripe ones to speed up the work.Repri1manded by the planter wllo threatened p.ay deductions. they stopped tlu: harvest.Another case is that of Portuguese immignmts on a. plamla.tion i1n the area of Rio Claro.reponed inS. Maclhado Nunes. 'Colnias, na pliovincia deS. Paullo". in liazil. Ministeno dolmperio, Relatorlo ..... 1860 p. 15. MJ. Val'detaro. op.cit.. p. 94. reports thal on tlle pllanta-tions B;ery and Cauvatinga mosl. Swiss :md Gerrrum labourers werre lazy and careless in thefu:lfiJIIment of tbeir duti,es, to the poinl of aba.ndoning work entirely. Cf. H. Haupt. op.cit. p.3>9: 'The laboure:r in sharecropping (''obreiro colono por parceria . ) will moreon:r be a verybad worker, because he necessarily loses the Iove o1r work which ~ i v e s him no result. norindependence. ln this case he wilil seelot to avoid his duties and deceive the planter. Soon afiee.lling of enmity will grow up betwee:n them. and in many cases deplorable scenes i:llresult.'

34. S. Machado Nun,es. op cit.. pp. 2-3. Cr. also J.P. Carvalho de Moraes. op.ci,t.. p. 86.Tschudi, Viag em tis pmvindas .... p. 183. 1111 69 reported tha.t on Hu: pl;antaon SaoLourenr,;o some families tended no more than 500 to 700 cofTee trees. Whcn asked why. C.hl: yreplj,,ed tha.t they we.re overburdened by their debts and' Hn.1s not interested in culti\atingcofTe,e. n,,ej;r food plots produced sufficient for them to l'i'Oe on. and the) saw no reason tokii',J themselves working.

35;_ MJ. Valdetaro . op.cit . p.9136. Jbid,.; JJ. von Tschudi. St:hweizerisc11es Btmdesblau XU ahrgang IH. no. 61. 28November 1860.37. Quan1lit.ativ,e d11ta on the number of cofTe,e trees tended oy immigrants. eilher on a.nindividual Oll' fam,i.lly basis. are scan:e. A c c o r d i ' n ~ to Cmrvalllo dc Moracs. op.rit.. pp. 7 0 ~ 7 1 .it was initiaJiy expccted thal a laboun::r could tend up to J.IJ(M) cofTce llrces in lhc casc ofmature groves betw,een five liUnd twelve years of age pro ided he wceded them four lo fhe

ti1m,es a year IIIId hsd n;o additional ohligalion,s. ln thi" cas.e. addilionallabour fnr lhe l u u r n : ~ lwould be r e q u i ~ r e d . lf ehe labourer. however. s.imullaneQU"'Iy g.rc"" I U h < ~ i , s . e t m c r cwp i hecot.dd not tend mon: thatn IJJOO l.o 1 200. ln lll;tual fact a l a o o u r ~ ; r tcnd,cd ooly l'lclwccn 1:'1()0and LO()C) trees. while women Iook on hdween .500 and tJOO lrce nf Ihre ln twche year ' ofage. s]nce 'in gene:ra.J ll1bot11rers du not pay thelir d e b t < ~ y,i,th anylhing ch.c l"lut lhcir i n 4 ; ~ 1 m cfrom coilfie,e 111d for this reas.on they willl ;tr)' ln lcnd 'lm IIH n u ~ r ,,.,f lrcc'l ttu:),'possibly can. in order to hnve more li,mt: fpr their o\ilrn ~ : t o p " ~ nnd tn hcnc,fll fwm' tllhell'activities. lt is Chis difficuhy wid1 whkh lhe plnnler:v;. ' l t r u ~ t ~ l e .... T11i" I'; nnc Pr lhc ruwn'iiwh1y in llfl,js province tbe work of 1 fre'e hmbot1rer i11 coJuidcred l f ~ ~ em(icn,t lhilll l ~ m l ,,r ashilve.' lbid.. p. 86. Ocher 1t.ca.ttcr,ed evidencc 'UfJJ'Pfl'l 1l:ur \ie chal lhc l n h . l l , l t c t : ~ ~ , 'productivity in' coffee w ~ u . j,nde,ed l ow s ~ E. VioUi da, C n < ~ l n . 'Cnl,1'lnia" ~ s c p ~ r ~ : c r i ' pp. 173-4. ~ u 1 d Tschudli. ViOHtm civ p r . m i r ~ r i a . t . . . . pr. 4.fdO. IN.;l.J.P'. CarvaJiho de Moraes. op.cit .. 'Mlpa dc Sno Jcronim(l,, P't.lhlli"'h('d' d : J ~ r a nn pbntn,liunrun under l.he i t l ~ u e c r n p n p i ' M ' f t ~ ) ' l e m w i ~ h ' l l ~ nll lhc r n r n i i i C ~ thrnl < ~ t U i c d nn thc r : l l l l ~ t cbetwccn 1852 illll'lld ISfl9. J ~ ; i v i n J i h e i t :'litc. c o m p u < ~ i l l i u f l r tiNll"l(;t pf V r k "f'i nnd l: lllil 'i. Ufl,[ 'f 'll),il llcOrnt in lhac perirnt a.nd d ale nr f r i v ~ l liU11d' dcrfll.ltc. Of he lnl \1 111 r .. l h e ~ U) ~ n ~ l ~ ; , ' \ , ..:Pillifiii .C:d i,nde::bted. On lhe h l l l . l l i i ~ ut t h e < ~ ~ e d'nlill j,l i'l J'l41'11\iltli,C' Co ~ , : w l n h l h : . if Uul lhc r n u n ~ r urIFC:C II Umdtd per la,bourer, 1111 Jcll.'t lhe Jllh


26/33

oPaulo Coffe e Plantarions 193indebted at the time. We can also calculate the consurnerh,orker ratio in order to determinethe comparative productive capacity of tihe families. Since t.he greater the number oflabourers in a family in proportion to the consumers. thc greater would bc its productivecap.acy. this should be refllected in the monnhly earnings of its workers. provided that thevworked at full capacity.

C/W ratioMil. rcisNumber offamilies

MONTHLY EARNINGS PER 'WORKER FROM COFFEE CULTIVATJONBY C O N S U ~ E R - W O R K E R RATIO OFTHE FAfl.HLY:

PLANTATIONSOJERNIM0.18S21869

l.0-1.46.508

25

1.5-1.97.714

20

2.0 and over8.111

16, We excluded three farnilies from the total 64 v..ith fa\.ourable results: one was a widow whomarried arnother immigrant and joined her accounts to his: the other two werc single individuals.)The earnings gi,en refer to income from coiTee cultivation. since il was with this that debtswere paid. Harvests ,.ar:ied from year lo ~ e a r . but il may be assumed that O\'er the years earning.sroughly expressed the number of trees tended. As the table indicates. producti,e capacity of thcramilies is imersely related to the number of trees tended by each of its workers as expressed inmonthly earnings. This is a further indicaon that immigrants did not respond to lhe econornicincentives contained in the sharecropping contract. As point.cd out. thcse fig.ures refcr to thoscfami]i,es who at some point managed to pay their dcbts and those who in addition could save.Thus. they do not tell us anything about lhe behaviour of thosc who wcrc still indebled. althoughit may bc prresumed that C\ Cn the d e b l - ~ r e e families had been indcb ed for a considerablc periodof their permanem::e38. A lfgemeirre A rmmndcrrmgs-Zciturrg. Rudolstadt. 2 Octoher 185 7. no. 40.39'. J.P. CarYalho d'e Moraes. op,.cil .. p. 21.40. rbid . p. 21. The inilial deht incurred by thc immigrants has somctimcs bccn takcn as anindicati(m uf thc e:-;i,.,cncc of dcbi peonagc. Cf. w. Dcan. Rio Cfaro pp. 97-8. and E. Viottida Costa. 'Colonias dc parccria'. p. lt19. lfwc ddinc debt peonagc in its stricl sense as beinglhe inh::nHonal burdcning of l a , b o u r c r ~ wilh a dchl lo tic lhcrn to a property. lhis intcrprclation inapprnpti llc fnr thc Gl iC of Sii,o Pmllo. Thc primary airn planlcrs pursucd incharging i m r n i ~ r a n t o ; . wilh lhcir tramfJ(lrt c n t ~ and fnod ;l(hanccs was to rcco\'Cr thcir initial

ifn C'IImcnl. Slmhilily nf hthour on lhc plantation w a ~ a wdcomc hy-prnduct. Signific:mtl.y. anU ~ 2 cnntracl o;.tatcd holh lcnglh nf cnnlract and :unnunt nf dicht. in E. Violli da Costa.'(olnilil" dc parccri;t', p. 177. r . . I P r t ~ 4 W C T , ~ m l l ' o h ~ c r \ . c r o ; rcrortcd. il was not infrcqucnltlurr immiJtr.:mh mnHd frnm nnc plmntation tn atwthcr l;tking thcir dcbt wilh thcrn. C.HcU'I'>Ct, opxit. p.l. ln :uldinn. thc Vcr,1wcirn ~ . : n n l r a r t includcd a c l a u ~ c allowing fnruamicr nf immiJ:Umh. Plnnlcr". il lruc. w d . : n r ~ .. ; ~ ~ m H. Jhmp'l. or .dl .. r. ~ 1 0 . Flm\cvcr Tschudi whn was quitc critical nf thcS5o Pnulo p l n n l c r ~ . w:H prohnhly ~ . : n r r c c whcn hc nolcd: 'I h:wc nol ohscr\'cd such a

C ~ t u k n c . ~ Oll nnr or thc rl:mt.alinm I >itcd: all planiCf'- dcJ.:Iarcd hat thcir grcatcst intcrcstW11111. t " ~ C ' t : i n ~ t lhcir I : J J ~ ' I I r t ' f ' frcc of dchl' ..,urdy nnl k


27/33

194 Shar;ecropping an Sharecroppers415. P'. Denis, Brazil. London,. 19 E . P'P 2 16-1746. J.P'. Carvalbo de Moraes. op.cit.. pp. 20-2 1.47. Ord. Libro 4, Titl45. of tbe Ordenaroes e Leis .do lmp.erio de Portugal. various editions.48. Lei de locatyio de seni JOS of 11 October 1837. in Colepio de Leis do lmperio do Brasil.

UB7, VIU.49. Machado Nunes, op.cit., p.IO. repcrts the case of one German and two Swiss labourer:s ofthe Laranjall phmtation in the area of Campinas. anested in Sao Paulo and condemned inaccorda111,ce with the 1837 law to pa.y double thcir debt for having refused to fulfil theirsharecropping contracts. However, he not'e5 that in another case a similar sentence wasovemded with the argum.ent that the .1837 l < ~ ~ w did not ap'P'lY to sharecropping. He con-clluded that 'with such a deci.si.on the pla.nter will have to lose all his adva.nces to thelabounm;" since persecuting tllem in civil courtwill have to prodluce this resull.' Consequently, i f immigtation according t.o the sharecropping. system is to increasc in So Paulo itwill lbe itndispensabJI,e to pass specia] legislation regulat.in.g the stmrecropping contract andfumishing an easy rneats to resolve quickly the conllicts bet.ween labourers and planters."Jbid., p. 20. Cf. Tschudi,. Schweizerisches Bundesbfau. XU. Jahrgang IH. no. 61.. 28November 1860,. Jl' 2150. for atOllhlei case. Tsctn.1di w


28/33

So P aulo Coffee Plantations 19553. Domingos Jaguaribe Fillho. A lgrmras pafa,ras sobre a emigrariio. So Paulo. 1877. pp. 34-5.54. P. Denis. op.cit.. p. 202.55. See A. Ramos. op.cit. p. 104. on the labour-demand irnbalance between cul ti'"ation andharvest. and its consequences.56. For two contrasting positions on immigration systems . see the cxtended debate betweenJoaqui.m Bonifcio do Amara :md Jose Vergueiro. published in the Ga::eta de Campi1ws

between Ja.nuary and July of 1870. Vergueiro was totally disillusioned with pri,ately sponsored immigration. In addition to the Ibicaba re\olt. in the 1860s the Swiss Federation hadsued Vergueiro and Co. for the reslitution ofpassage money adYanced by the cantons to theimmigrants and e\"entually the company dedared bankruptcy. R.A. Natsch. op.cit.. pp. 207-208. In the early 1870s. the Angelica plantation. also belanging to Vergueiro. was soldofT to creditors. the London and Brazilian Bank. The Engl.ish managers. however. do notseem to ha1.e met with much mon: success. They are alleged to ha,e been 'drunken incompetents' who br:utalised the labomers and led tlle estate once again into bankruptcy. lt isreport,ed that in 1876. Angelicas administrator was murdiered by some of his labourers.G.B. Marchesini. II Brasile e le sue colonie agricole. Rome . 1877. Joaquim Bonifacio doAmaral. in contrast. tra\elled to Europe hirnself in 1870 to rccruil Jabour personally. Evenhe. however. comph1ined of the scant support he had recein:d from other planters in thisundertaking. Ga::l ta de Cmnpinas. 24 July 1870. Cf. also J.B. do Amara . op.cil.

57. P. de Turenne. 'l.'imrnigration et Ia colonisation au Bresir. Rente Britmmiqur. February1879. p. 453. J.B. do Amara . op.cit.

58. A Laliere. Le cafi dans /"Etat de Saifll Paul. Brisil Paris. 1909 . appcndix.59'. The law included the important pro\iso thal unlil such children benune 21 years old thcycould be used by their mother's owner. Thoug.h tcdmically frce. the inghruos condition was

almost indistinguishabJ,.c in praclice from that of a slavc. TllUs. thc Rio Branco law wouJdhave Iinie practical signi.ficance until 1892. whcn the fi1rst of those born under it wouldbe:come 2 I.

60 The mosl. lhorough s Udy is in Robr thc prcccdinJ.: lcn yc;us thc plantcrs had

h c ~ n nhi C ln i n ~ ~ n . ' ~ ~ ( ' 'i1J I1Iifknnlly lhc procJucti,ity nf lhcir , J a \ c ~ whn wcrc now 'hctlrrm : ~ l c d . heller red : ~ n d 'arctl ftlt', hut w.IHl ' m u ~ l w o r ~ h:IHkr'. c. \";ul Dddcrl l.iicrne.Hm:.il mrd Jom: Rt mt rm c ~ a i 1 Cul111n. Londo11. I -1 \5. p. II I.

65. Jn uon C'arva.lho die M n r n c ~ luul \ U ~ t : C < , I , r d a . an aftcr houl> lll lhal lhc llllllerial (iovcrnmcnl : : lcn"l ; ~ n u r l 1hc ;1hullrr' \\.11(1 i l i t r l ~ t l t u . : r f r n ~ lahom a ~ u h ~ i d y of . ~ 0 0 0 0 to -10$000m em.:h d1ild Lilll .lcr Ihr nr,r o.f 11 yc:H\ whu 1.7ornc., in thc ~ n m p a n y nf l l l \ parmh. op.cit..

p . I O ~ .


29/33

196 Sharecropping and Sharecroppers66. 0 Lavrador. G.azeta de Campinas. 20 Febrruary 1870.67. Congresso Agfi,cola. Coleriio de documentos. Rio Janeiro. 1878. pp. 47-8. Onlhc Congrcss.see Pet,er L. Eisenberg. 'A mentalidade dos fazendeiros no Congresso Agricola dc 1 8 7 ~ r . in

J.R. Amarall .apa (ed). Modos de produpio e realidade brasileira. Petrpolis. 1980.68. De,creto no. 2827. 15, Matrclll 1879 . in Colet;iio de Leis do lmperio do Brasil. 1879.69. The strike broke oul on June 9th. The Tribuna Liberal of September I I and I 3. I878.

carried detaikd reports on the strike by tbe Police Chief sent to investigate the cn nts. asweil as infmmation from a speciaJ investigating commissi,on.70. They drew up a Iist of nine demands: that the planter fulfil his promise to provi,dc ncw

hollllses within six months; that foodstufTs be charged at ClJrrent priccs: that they receive thctotal amount of flour fmm the maize ground at the planter's mill; that thcy not be forced toabandon their food plots for new unculti:'ll'ated land: tha.t they be paid for thc repl.anting oftrees: llhat medical expenses be shared by the plaunter: that doths for the harvest be providedfree of charge: and that a school and a teacher be pwvided free. Tribuna Ubeml II September 1878.

7 L J.B. do AmaraJ. op.cit: Tribuna Libero . II and 13 September 1878. The pre,ious ycar agroup of German labourers which Amaral had recruited in Lhe neighbouring. provinc,e ofSanta Calarina had gone on strike and somc ofthe l eaders had been senlenced to jail.

72. J.B. do Amaurall. op.cilt.. pp. 2418. 252.73. C.F. V an Deiden Leme. pp. 213. 2 I 7. The question is also discussed C \tensivcly in Con

gresso Agrlcola. op.cit741 Brazil. Anais da Ccimara. 1884. V. pp. 541-J.In 18841. his brolhcl". Martinho Prado. defend

ing a bill introduced in the So Paulo assembly to subsidise the cnrirc costs of the passage oflmmigrants. sta.ted cl,early the purpose of such a measure: I ) to replacc thc sl;wes with freellabmurers and prepare for immedia.te emancipation.; 2) to allow immigrants to arrive fn:c ofd e b t ~ 3) to permit planters to employ free labour without h::t\ing to advance rnoncy. SaoPaulo. Anais da assembleia. 18841. pp. 34. 224.

75. Anais da Camara. J8.84 V. p. 54.0.76. Anais da Camara. 1888. IV. p. 323.77. Anais do Stm.a.do 1887. annex lo m. p. 6: another wurcc cstimaled lhat betwcen 1882


30/33

So Paulo Coffee Plantations 19785. Coffee has been an itinerant culture in Brazil. Simuhaneously tlhere existed a frontier rel> .ionwhere coflee was just penetrating. a region where the groves were fully productive. a ~ d adeclining region suiTering from soil exhaustion. See. for example. A. Castro. op.cit.. p. 61.

1hereas until Abolition new land was cleared and new cofTee planted mostlv bv sla\.es orfr,ee empreiteiros. from the 1890s om\ard immigr::ml labourers were also u s ~ d for formingnew plantations. This \\as done under a four-year contract which entitled the labourers togrow food crops at will in the coflee rows. At the end of the contract. they were paid acertain sum per tree. and the contract v:as replaced by the usual mixed task and pieceratesystem. On new plantalions. the \irgin soil ~ i e l d e d much more abundant food crops. Inaddition. with intercalary growing. the labourers cultivated their crops while weeding thecofTee trees. and food crops thus req1uired little extra labour. Food growing. on separateplots. however. as generally practised on the older plantations. implied doubling. labour inputwitlhout increase in profit for the workcr. Consequently. labourers preferred ncw plantationsand. if these were not availi:1ble. they still preferred thosc plantalions which allowcdiruerc.alary crops rather than assigning separate plots. J.P. Canalho de Moraes. op.cit . pp.68-9: P. Denis. op.ciL. p. 213: A. Ramos. op.ciL pp.210-12: G. Maistrello. 'Fazendas decafe - costumes ISo Paulo)'. in A. Ramos. op.ciL pp. 556 7. 5 i2-3: /rrquerito Agricola.op.cit.. p. 4.3: J. Brandao Sobrinho. Apreciaro da situar;o agricola do P disrritoagronmico do estado deS Paulo . ... Sao Paulo. 1903.

86. C.F. de Lacerda. A crise do ca_fe: estudo das causas da crise do ca_fe e dos meios decombate-/a. Sao Paulo. 190J. p. 15.87. C.F. de Lacerda. Estudo da meiar;o. parceria. etc. e das sucn mfllagens. So Paulo. 1905.p. 15. Only in the declining arcas did planters return to sharccropping. granting thelabourers. however.. a larger share. F.P. Lzaro Gom;:ahes. op.cit.. p .:l2. dcscribcs the situation in the 18BOs.88. lnqm riltJ Agr.icfJfa op.cit .. p. 46: S. Colctti. 'Lo stato di S. Paulo c l"emigrazione it.aliana.Bolletlino defi'Emigra::ifJfiC. no. 14 19'08. p. d I. slales that. a.round Campinas planters were

unable to increao;e salaries:. so thcy had to compete with othcr regions by allowing cofonos toculvate beans and mai1e in tl1e coffcc rows. He also notes that lhis was morc advantagcous10 thc colmws than 70-100 mil-reio; morc pcr 1.000 coffcc trccs tcndcd.Whilc il was u s u a l l ~ bclicved thal thc ioc intcrcalary crops had an advcrse ciTcct on thcco1rfe,c yields of trecr;; ovcr four ycars old. in praclicc plantcrs dccisions in thi,s rcspccldependcd much more on fluctuation5 of coiTcc priccs and labour supply ttwn on tcchnicalcondiliom Sec \. Ramo'i. op.ciL. p. IOll.

89. F.P. L z ~ r o Gom;ahc'>. op.cit. pp. 2'0, 28. For a typical colorwto contracl. sec thc Hollct-/iniJ UJ./Icialr ddfu Cumtra /t(J/i(mo di CPmmrrcio ed Arti. Sao Paulo. II. no. 4. F e b r u a r ~ 190).

90. L. Couty. op.cit.. pp. I >,fl. 7. wmmcnl Pn tltc plantcr: a v c r ~ i o n producing maize. ricc.heanll, rnnd to rai'iilll(l animal'i in il c n u n l r ~ imponing a lar":c parl of ils foodslufTs rrom

: : ~ h m a d er. .Rnlhuirm COiriak dc,lla Cmncra l lafiono di Cmrmll'r, 111 lhc poillt of ~ l n l C I I l l C ~ p r e f c r r i n ~loy;er 'l l"llf.C\ hnl r1i


31/33


32/33

So P'aulo Coffee Plantations 199detailed account see M. HalL op.cit.. and l\t Hall. 'Emigrazionc italiana a San Paolo tra1880 e 1920'. Q.uaderni Srorici. no. 25. 1974.

101. S. Coleui. op.ciL. p. 375 . '-'Titing in 1908. condudcd however. that thc fall in coffcc priceshad ncver pre'>ented planters from earning a decent profit. if not as splendid a one as in thepasf. and he further noted that 'it was not so much lhe fall in the price of coffee as thea.cquisition of already prepared plantations al fabulous priccs. and thc sudden cstablishmcntof new ones with money borrowed at very high interest rates. which has led 10 the crisis".

102. S. Coletti. op.cit.. p. 53.103. P . Denis. op.cit.. p. 206. Denis considered the estimate- from a gon:rnmcnt source- to be

lliglh. but e ~ . e n on one "'elll-run estate between 1895 and 1930 . half the colonos staycd forless than 4.5 years. accordi1n

stolcke, verena, and michael m. hall. "the introduction of free labour on são paulo coffee...

Documents