America's Latin American Empire: How Chiquita Made "Banana Republics" Possible

A scientist at one of America's premier companies, Proctor and Gamble, once remarked that "If you do not have your own agenda, you will become part of someone else's." He was, of course, referring to the corporate environment under which he labors, but the same could also be true with worker's movement politics, if the article by Striffler is any example. Unlike some of the dependency theories proposed, particularly by Cardoso and Faletto's three-tiered approach, Striffler's studies conclude that divisions are present at all tiers of society and no one tier provides a unified front (Striffler, 9).

Eschewing a "happy ending" study of the relationship of people to the land, Striffler's book details through a case study, the problems of agrarian revolution and the different forms which "reform" can take. Ecuador offers the classical, almost Marxist, timeline of capitalist exploitation, emergence of worker identity, and revolution. United Fruit Company (later renamed "Chiquita")- among other international corporations - came into Ecuador and established plantations in the early part of the 20^th century.

Their labor policies favored low wages (compared to the going wage in the United States, UFC's headquarters) and controlled every aspect of the lives of their workers, right down to housing. In the mid- to late-1950's the "awakening" of the peasant-as-worker began, with emergent and increasingly militant workers groups placing pressure on the large company's holdings. Finally, in the 1960's, the "revolution" took hold of the country, and the United Fruit Company dissolved their holdings in the hacienda at Tenguel. Striffler was tempted, he notes, to write a history of triumph and underdog victory, but the reality, he notes, is far more complex. His perspective is one of realism, of unfulfilled potential, and the failure of the worker's movements to push their own "agenda", as it were.

The main problem with dependency theory, in this author's estimation, is that there is too much emphasis upon the invincibility of multinational corporations, and not enough attention paid to of the role of the nation-state, nor of the agency of the worker. Striffler seems to concur in his treatise. For example, Striffler is able to prove that the increasing militancy of the worker's movements and their seemingly steadfast union of ideals were able to drive out the UFC's representatives as owners of the plantation and force a form of agrarian revolution.

But, as he later points out, internal politics of the "workers" undermined their ability to "dictate the subsequent terms through which land would be distributed and agricultural products cultivated and sold." (Striffler 14-15). Along with exemplifying the, for lack of a better term, failure to follow through of the worker's unions, this passage also hints at the role of the nation-state in asserting its power. The passage also indicate where control of the land went to, and thus control of the contracts for produce: the government and those who control it - the landed elite in this case - are sole proprietors of the land that once belonged to the UFC, with relatively few exceptions.

It is in the role of the state that Striffler's articles really highlight the deficiency in pure, orthodox interpretations of dependency theory. The state, now vested with the power to oust multinational companies and reclaim the land - purportedly on behalf of the people - is simultaneously invested with the power to dictate the use of the land. Some governments, such as Egypt and Guatemala, institute a form a land reform that directly benefits the majority of the populace. Others - Ecuador in this case - utilize this opportunity to enhance the wealth of a select few cronies. Either way, the state has stepped forward and stripped the land rights of multinationals and taken back a measure of its own sovereignty. It is up to the nation now to dictate what companies, if any, it will deal with, thereby becoming a "multinational" in its own right, often through a political banding together with other nations.

Thus the story of the Ecuadoran peasant movement was a "victory and success would often be short-lived and almost incomplete." (Striffler, 17). The government, now able to do as it wished with the land, was no longer responsive to the workers that had given it the mandate to eject the foreign companies (if "eject" could be used in this case) primarily because the workers had proven to be a fractious and divided group. In the past, the workers had been able to "Defeat(ed) a large company, scare(d) off a local landlord, or sen(d) the police running." (Striffler, 17), but now the workers were quarrelsome and disorganized. Part of the blame is in the victory; the movement had achieved its initial goal, and no longer seemed relevant or important to Ecuadorian society.

Part of the blame is in the internal politics of the country, with increasing apathy between the peasant, the worker, and the city-dweller. Finally, a portion of the problem is that the UFC never really "left" the country, it merely changed tactics. Workers now labor under somewhat worse conditions, with fewer wages, and even less international attention because UFC (Chiquita) is only a contractor, and does not run the day-to-day operations of the banana industry. It seems cynical, but should be interpreted as practical, that the worker's movement failed to press its agenda: The state had its agenda, the companies clearly have theirs, and the only one seeming to have not pushed an agenda is the workers. In the end, the workers had become part of someone else's agenda.

Though a template of dependency theory, such as Cardoso and Faletto propose could be applied to the agri-business of Ecuador's economy, it is an ill-fitting one. The theory is one which does not take into account the vulnerability of multinationals (both private business and external government) to the will of a determined mass and nation-state. It also does not take into consideration the capability of the nation-state to assert its own right unilaterally (such as Mexico's nationalization of its oil fields) with a real possibility of escaping the repercussions of such acts to one degree or another. Finally, it under-estimates - as well as over-estimates, in some cases - the power of a populist movement, particularly if it enjoys international attention. Striffler's study of Tenguel is a study of contrasts; classic interpretation of dependency theory coupled with an indictment of the very same theory and a Marxist-influenced critique of classical Marxist interpretations.

Steve Striffler In the Shadows of State and Capital: The United Fruit Company, Popular Struggle and Agrarian Restructuring in Ecuador, 1900-1995 (Duke University Press, 2001)