This article proposes to contribute to a better understanding of the current national situation of the problem and the conflict around the earth in the framework of the academic debate of the political economy with a vision of the south of the new agrarian question [1,2,3). In Paraguay, there is no industrialization process as was the case in the European or American process. On the contrary, there is a process of recampersinization and proletarian lumpen with informality, maintaining the occupational level of the industry at 11% in 1982 and barely growing at 12.3. in 2015 and 12.9% in 2017 [8]. This thesis has already been demonstrated by Campos R.D. D, [5].

Fields D. [5], precisely in his master's thesis (MSc.) At the University of Wisconsin, Madison (USA) analyzing the process of the penetration of capital in the field and the development of capitalism in the Paraguayan case, in the framework of the debate that was taking place in Latin America at that time and was reflected in the US academic debate between Chayanov, Lenin and Kausky. The demographic differentiation was the result of the demographic growth of Chayanov versus the social and economic differentiation of Lenin and Kausky resulting from the penetration of capital in the countryside with the concentration of land and technological centralization. The thesis showed that Paraguay came out of all historical models that were located in Europe, USA. UU. And Asia and that there was no class polarization between bourgeoisie and proletariat (Marx, Lenin, Kausky) but a polarization between blocks, hegemonic historical block and historical block against hegemonic was proposed. The thesis was worked on the basis of the population census of 1982 and the Agricultural Census 1981, demonstrating that a new model of capital accumulation that is being imposed and that coexists with previous accumulation models and based on the previous a new socioeconomic regionalization was developed: region of proletarianization and lumpen proletarianization without industrialization, region of decamping, region of recampersinization, region of internationalized agriculture and industrialization of capitalist monopoly agriculture of soybeans and Brazilian occupation in all border departments.

Campos R.D. D., [6] in his doctoral thesis (PhD) at the same University of Wisconsin, Madison, (USA), based on a political economy analysis of commodities based on Cotton in Paraguay, an item that was established in that period in the main export category of foreign exchange earnings in Paraguay. This item was produced mostly by family farming.At that time, the competition process was already started because it was the main export category for soybeans promoted “from outside” and “from above” by business agriculture. At the end of the 1970s, international capital penetration began with soybeans in expansion with the agricultural reform of Brazil in Paraguay with the massive migration of small-scale farmers ( sharecroppers, midwives ), medium-sized entrepreneurs (farmers yunkers) from the states from the

South of Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Paraná [7]. At that time, the competition process was already started because it was the main export category for soybeans promoted “from outside” and “from above” by business agriculture. At the end of the 1970s, international capital penetration began with soybeans in expansion with the agricultural reform of Brazil in Paraguay with the massive migration of small-scale farmers (sharecroppers, midwives), medium-sized entrepreneurs (farmers yunkers) from the states from the South of Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Paraná [7]. He presented a new historical periodization of the Development of Capitalism in Paraguay according to its different accumulation models and drew a new socioeconomic regionalization (Figure 1, Figure 2, Maps of the New Socio-economic Regionalization). The engine of the new accumulation model was developed through the aggressive and expansive penetration of dependent monopoly capitalism.

It was concluded that with this new accumulation model there was the emergence of a new peasantry that is not proletarianized in the absence of industrialization with the start of the disorderly urbanization of the new and emerging metropolises of Ciudad del Este and Encarnación. He presented a new historical periodization of the Development of Capitalism in Paraguay according to its different accumulation models and drew a new socioeconomic regionalization (Figure 1 and Figure 2 Maps of the New Socio-economic Regionalization). 

Figure 1: Map of Paraguay before the Expansion of the Agrarian Border: 1870-1970

The engine of the new accumulation model was developed through the aggressive and expansive penetration of dependent monopoly capitalism. It was concluded that with this new accumulation model there was the emergence of a new peasantry that is not proletarianized in the absence of industrialization with the start of the disorderly urbanization of the new and emerging metropolises of Ciudad del Este and Encarnación. This article updates the debate on the agrarian issue that occurred in the author's 80s and 90s within the framework of the current debate on the agrarian issue and the new agrarian issue based on the current statistical data of the 2012 Population Census and the Agricultural Census from 2008, 38 years later.

Analysis of the Paraguayan Case in the Debate of the New Agricultural Question The agrarian question is a problem that in recent decades, especially since the 90s and 2000s in the framework of the policies of international institutions such as the World Bank, the IDB, the IMF for Latin America and the peripheral countries of Africa and of Asia with the Structural Adjustments and Structural Adjustments, it tried to cover and hide, stating that it is already a problem overcome and archaic. All this new approach was attempted to replace with neoliberal development, economic globalization and regionalization of markets with competitiveness, productive and technological efficiency [8,9]. From a more rigid perspective of the neoclassical or neoliberal paradigm, the Chicago school's approaches with much influence on the Structural Adjustment programs and the Structural Adjustment programs conceptualize profitable poor and unprofitable poor. The profitable poor are those who are in the market circuit and are still able to compete. The unprofitable poor are those who are outside the market circuit and are no longer able to compete and can survive only through welfare programs. Therefore, the majority of the Paraguayan peasantry is destined to disappear because they are not profitable for this theoretical paradigm.

The agrarian issue is reinstated and rediscovered with the international debate of modernization and the multiple, structural and systemic crisis of the capitalist system with the hunger crisis, the desertification crisis, deforestation, climate change and global warming, the crisis financial speculative again putting in crisis the accumulation of capital. The agrarian issue is reinstated and rediscovered with the international debate of modernization and the multiple, structural and systemic crisis of the capitalist system with the hunger crisis, the desertification crisis, deforestation, climate change and global warming, the crisis financial speculative again putting in crisis the accumulation of capital. Once again, the role and role of peasant family agriculture in the process of modernization, which is identified with a disorderly urbanization process in metropolis cities but without industrialization, or proletarianization, but of proletarianization and marginalization lumpen, returns to the center of the academic discussion and very high informality rate. This new discovery and re-installation of the debate on the agrarian question and the new agrarian question precisely comes from academics from Latin American, African and Asian countries that play the peripheral role of capitalism [10,11,12].

Figure 2: Map of the New regionalization according to the Economic accumulation model of Paraguay

Source: Campos D., 2013

In this way, the same contradiction that Rosa Luxemburg [13] had raised at the time (1915) was redecorated, rescuing a phrase that Engels had already used to raise the slogan of “Socialism or Barbarism” in his analysis of social democracy German with a very clear anti-imperialist and anti-world war position. Today, with the debate on the new agrarian question, the dilemma of “Ecosocialism or Barbarism” is re-established from where the new socialism of the 21st century is defined, discarding the Eurocentric thesis with a new ethnocentric approach of the peripheral countries, thus reviving Mariátegui J.C. [14] with its Popular and National Project, identifying the national liberation struggle with the anti-capitalist struggle in the 60s, 70s and 80s. In the decade of the 90s onwards a process of democratization and the overcoming of Latin American dictatorships in which the problem of radical democracy is re-installed [19,21] and the integral sustainability of the planet, Mother Earth and also the problem of gender and youth with peasant family agriculture, agroecology and solidarity economy with the international year of the UN in 2014 and the Declaration of the Decade of Family Farming 2019-2028.

Since the 1990s, rural movements in Latin America resurfaced, highlighting in Mexico the Zapatista Movement, in Brazil and in Paraguay with the struggle for land in land occupation and recovery as part of the struggle for democratization in access to the earth. In Paraguay, the struggle for land took place throughout the period of transition and democracy (1989-2018), recovering and conquering by force the lands of landowners and authoritarian landowners and pro dictatorship with the support of democratization, developing a process of return to the field with recampesinization and immediately undergoing again the de-desinization and the expulsion of the process of concentration of land and the technological centralization of the monopolistic and international capitalist agribusiness of soybeans on forests and peasant and indigenous territories, (Figure 3. Expansion map of the soy). In Paraguay, the struggle for land took place throughout the period of transition and democracy (1989-2018), recovering and conquering by force the lands of landowners and authoritarian landowners and pro dictatorship with the support of democratization, developing a process of return to the field with recampesinization and immediately undergoing again the de-desinization and the expulsion of the process of concentration of land and the technological centralization of the monopolistic and international capitalist agribusiness of soybeans on forests and peasant and indigenous territories, (Figure 3).

In the Paraguayan case, we analyze in a comparative way the process of the penetration of capital into the countryside in the 1980s based on the conclusions of Campos R.D. D. [15] with the new agrarian question of 1984-2018 based on current 2018 data. Indeed, at the economic level, the unemployment rate increased from 5.5% in 2015 to 7.4% in 2016 and 8.9% in 2017 of the Economically Active Population (PEA) [8]. Analyzing the evolution of the unemployment rate (1983-2017), it can be seen that the rates remained at 5%, rising between 1999 and 2006, above 6%, then decreasing slightly between 2007 and 2013 during the brief administration progressive of Lugo, to rise again in the last Colorado business administration of Cartes consolidating again the capitalist monopoly model with the Parliamentary Coup of 2012 [15].

Figure 3: Map of Soybean Expansion over Peasant forests and territories. And Map of Soybean Expansion over Peasant forests and territories.

Analyzing the economic cycles of GDP growth and the informal employment rate, it can be clearly seen that Campos' thesis is fully confirmed and strengthened. Indeed, even with a macroeconomic growth in GDP, standing out among the countries in the region with economies in the process of weakening Brazil and Argentina. This macroeconomic growth of the GDP was maintained in all the years with the exception of 2009 when the Paraguayan economy suffered relatively negative growth. Again it grows -4.0 %% in 2010. There was an economic recovery of 13.1% being negative back in 2012, in the year of the parliamentary coup with -1.2% to rise again in 2013 to 14% and then remain above 4% from 2014. While This positive evolutionary cycle at the macroeconomic level is set, coincidentally the evolutionary process of the informal employment rate throughout the period 1982-2017 remained between 86% and 78% [8] and the process of The country's industrialization rate remained with an average of 11%. This continues to confirm a consolidated process of informalization of the economy with disorderly urbanization and conformation of metropolis and without industrialization based on a speculative rentier economy selling raw material, soybeans and meat and electric power to Brazil of the hydroelectric from Itaipú and Argentina from the Yacyretá hydroelectric plant. 

On a social level, 75% of the extreme poor are peasants. The peasantry in crisis, mostly in debt. It was proclaimed in a peasant mobilization of more than 40 days in Emergency, demanding and conquering Law No. 5868/17 that Declares National Farming to Farming Family Farming. According to the 2017 Permanent Household Survey, 37% of the inhabitants of Paraguay (6,709,730 inhabitants) live in rural areas that was reduced from 1950 with 65.4% rural, in 1992 57.2% rural and 2002 with 43.3% rural . This 28.1% reduction percentage represents the peasant population expelled from the peasant territories [8]. Even so, Paraguay is an eminently peasant country being the most concentrated country on the continent, even more than Brazil in terms of land distribution. 2.6% of the productive units hold 85.5% of the available land while 91.4% of the productive units of peasant family agriculture have only 6.0% and a Gini index of .93 [7].

Environmentally, Paraguay is a green country of forests and privileged soil with abundant water that underwent a process of environmental degradation with the advance of the production of capitalist monopoly agribusiness of soybeans on forests and peasant territories and the mass expulsion of peasantry in the marginal areas of Asunción and new metropolises such as Ciudad del Este and Encarnación and with the massive flow to Buenos Aires, Spain and San Pablo (Brazil), especially of rural youth (Fig. 3. Map of soybean expansion) ([14,16]. In this last period, 1992 to 2001, there is the consolidation of the capitalist productive structure with the massive incorporation of the herbicides that still expel these informal workers and the beginning of the "transgene" in soybeans. The impact of the "transgene" from 2000 to 2018 was the expansion of soybeans with the increase in the average area of farms as a result of the process of land concentration and technological centralization. The same process had occurred in Brazil in the early 70s and 80s with the soy boom in the southern states of Brazil that forced the expulsion of small producers to the colonization of Paraguay when they found that their farms of 100 hectares no longer had the adequate productive scale to be profitable in the production of soybeans.

Analyzing the process of cotton evolution, export product of peasant family agriculture until 1982 was still the main national export item with 40.1% of the GDP of 1982, while soybeans were already advancing in second place with 36.3% of the GDP of 1982, while meat at that time only represented 2.3% with a negative accumulation rate with -16.5%.). Cotton reached its maximum production with more than 700,000 hectares in the cotton boom decade 1972-1983. At that time, more than 43 cotton industries were operating. All industrial and export companies were affiliated with CADELPA (Cotton Chamber of Paraguay) which was the strongest Guild. [6]. At that time, the CAPECO soybean guild (Paraguayan Chamber of Cereals and Oilseeds) was comparatively weak. Cotton was gradually reduced, while still remaining relatively strong until 1990 with 560,000 hectares, after which it gradually collapsed to only 15,000 hectares in 2017, with all the cotton industries disappeared except for a few. Meanwhile, soybeans were up to 1993 with 300,000 hectares. Only after the illegal use of the transgenic soybean seed, the soybean surface could jump the limits of 500,000 hectares in 1996, then exceeding the limits of 1,000,000 hectares. and now reach more than 3,500,000 hectares. . In all this time the meat business also grew from just 9,000,000 heads in 1983 to more than 16,000,000 heads in 2017. Likewise, in all this time the economy grew in its underground, speculative and mafia gear. . Indeed, analyzing a period from 2002 to 2015 of the structural dynamics of the GDP of the Paraguayan economy, a constant dynamism can be observed with tendencies to growth of the economy in its underground, speculative and mafia gears (washing, smuggling and drug trafficking) [17]. 

This demonstrates the consolidation of the new model of accumulation of international monopoly capital with the items of soybeans and meat on the one hand and the commercial speculative agro-export strategy of the sale of energy to the associated countries of Brazil and Argentina prioritizing policies of agro-export and condemning the disappearance of peasant family agriculture and the disappearance and weakening of industry and the rise and consolidation of the narco economy. This also consolidated the urbanization process without industrialization and therefore, without proletarian polarization. (Table 1).

Table 1: Paraguay's Underground Economy according to GDP 2002- 2015

Source: PRO Desarrollo Paraguay, 2016

Based on the statistical data analyzed, it can be seen that in the agrarian question of Paraguay, Chayanov's thesis of demographic differentiation is totally discarded, which is conservative and that is identified with an agrarian question of the peasantry that comes from the medieval transformation. This is a socialist and economic capitalist dynamic differentiation but rejecting the thesis of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Kausky, of the polarization between classes but a new social and economic differentiation occurs with the polarization of blocks consisting of multiple subjects and social actors based on a new accumulation model.

With this new model of monopoly and internationalized accumulation of capital with the industrialization of agriculture through the revolution of the technology of transgenics, intelligent agriculture and cybernetics and computer science of the internet and globalization imposing integration and globalization excluding peripheral countries with the penetration of international capital. In this context, capital no longer needs to boost industrialization with urbanization. On the contrary, there is only a disorderly urbanization, without industrialization, with a mostly informal population and the countryside without forests and without peasant communities.

Since 1985, four years after the fall of the Stroessnist Dictatorship, a process of struggle for land begins, with hundreds of martyrs fighting and resisting the peasantry. With this, it is demonstrated that the peasantry is the only sector and social subject that resists the advance of capital in the countryside and that demonstrated capacity for articulation with other social subjects, such as workers organized in Central Unions and Trade Unions, University Students and Secondary, Neighborhood residents of the periphery of Asunción and satellite cities of the Metropolis of Asunción. Therefore, it is the new articulating historical subject of the other exploited, subordinate and dominated sectors. This new peasantry is what is defined in the context of a new agrarian question, ceasing to be the medieval peasantry previously defined by Karl,Marx [18] as "pockets of potatoes." On the contrary, it is the new historical subject with social identity and a national and popular historical project for all the exploited, subordinate, dominated, marginalized and excluded sectors. This national and popular historical project is based on the rescue of its own science, technology with agroecology and its own economic model with the solidarity economy and its own development model with the "TEKO PORAVE REKO" (the good living) and the slogan and flag of "Ecosocialism or Barbarism". The successful historical experiences of Paraguay but traumaticly cut with the war of extermination of the Triple Alliance in the period of France and the López show that this national and popular project of the new peasantry in the framework of the construction of the historical block against hegemonic and power Popular with the other dominated, exploited, subordinated, marginalized and excluded social subjects and actors is realistic and possible.

Marina Case Study Cue

The peasantry the new historical subject of the counterhegemonic historical block. The case of Marina cue or the Curuguaty massacre is the most emblematic because it was the excuse of a parliamentary coup that threw the constitutionally democratically elected president [10]. It is a part of a real estate property originally owned by Industrial Paraguaya SA (LIPSA), an Anglo-Argentine capital that had been acquired for sale by the state for an insignificant sum within the framework of subordinate relations and dependent on the native oligarchy in the government Colorado on behalf of the English capital in alliance to the regional oligarchy of the Río de la Plata after the Triple Alliance War, in the 1880s. 

This company owned the entire territory of Alto Paraná, part of Caaguazu, Caazapá and part of Canindeyu. The South of the territory of Alto Paraná resold to the multinational company American capital, the Gulf and Western and this one again to the Favero Group of Brazilian capital. Part of its domain constituted the plot of 2,821 hectares. in Ybyrá Punta, Curuguaty and that donates to the Paraguayan State in August of 1967, to the National Navy that had asked him in lease. In October 1967, dictator Alfredo Stroessner accepts the donation for usufruct of the National Navy by decree.

The first neighborhood commission is presented to the National Institute of Agrarian Development and Reform - INDERT in April 2004 and then to the Ministry of National Defense claiming the property. In October 2004, President Nicanor Duarte Frutos declares of social interest through a presidential decree and orders the transfer of the title in favor of INDERT. The company Campos Morombi SAC and A., of Blas N. Riquelme, a representative of the new national bourgeoisie, mafia and prebendaría, whose original capital was carried out through the privileges of the state, being part of the trilogy of the stroesnista dictatorial power . Through the Colorado party, a usucapion trial against Industrial Paraguay - LIPSA begins in June 2005. In October 2005, Judge Carlos Goiburu makes the usucapion in favor of Campos Morombi. Months later, the Attorney General's Office initiates actions to annul the trial. In June 2009, Judge José Benitez rectified Goiburu's sentence.

Meanwhile, the Marina Cue Neighborhood Commission has been recognized by INDERT since 2004. In February 2012, INDERT files an autonomous nullity action against the usucapion judgment. In June 2012, 11 farmers and 6 police officers die in an eviction proceeding. As a result, the political trial of the Parliamentary Coup is made. In July 2016, an unfair, manipulated and arbitrary trial against peasant leaders with exemplary convictions was completed to block the struggle for the land of the peasantry with criminalization [14 ,19]. The nullity of the trial is presented to the Court. In 2018, a court of the Supreme Court of Justice declares the trial void. In this way, the Paraguayan justice system condemns the peasants by imposing justice, which is the justice of the concentrated powers, of the large transnational and national capitals of agribusiness; those capitals that concentrate dehumanizing values ​​that need more and more land and less peasantry [10]. However, after years of struggle, resistance and peasant and social mobilization at national and international level, the unfair trial was annulled.

It was precisely a masterful blow of international capital (Monsanto, Cargill, ADM) in alliance with all the actors and social subjects of the hegemonic historical bloc, recovering again the role of the historical subject of the bloc, the Colorado Party and the new business and mafia leadership of the President Cartes [10]. With this coup democracy is not questioned as the path of social change. On the contrary, it is confirmed that democracy is the path for change, but recovering the banner of Radical Democracy with the strengthening of participatory democracy over representative democracy [13,15]. It was precisely a masterful blow of international capital (Monsanto, Cargill, ADM) in alliance with all the actors and social subjects of the hegemonic historical bloc, recovering again the role of the historical subject of the bloc, the Colorado Party and the new business and mafia leadership of the President Cartes [10]. With this coup democracy is not questioned as the path of social change. On the contrary, it is confirmed that democracy is the path for change, but recovering the banner of Radical Democracy with the strengthening of participatory democracy over representative democracy [13,15]. 

Through the comparative analysis of the data of the national historical period 1954-1983 [6] with the current period until 2017, the thesis of Moyo S., Praveen and Paris Y. [3] can be confirmed and confirmed. of the new agrarian question very different from the classical agrarian question (Marx, Lenin and Kautsky) demonstrating the consolidation of this new agrarian question with the consolidation of the new model of accumulation of international monopoly capital in the Paraguayan case [6].

For the classical agrarian question there was a process of social differentiation with polarization of classes between bourgeois and proletarians. On the contrary, in the new agrarian question there is a process of social differentiation of polarization between the hegemonic historical block and the historical block against hegemonic as a result of the massive urbanization without industrialization. In this way, the thesis of massive urbanization without industrialization with a very high rate of informality, underemployment and unemployment of an invisible economy or lower gear of the economy based on corruption, contraband, speculation, narco-production and narco-politics and money laundering.

This new model of capital accumulation is the result of the tiple, simultaneous and systemic scientific and technological revolution of the biotechnology of the transgenics, of the cybernetics, informatics and electronics of the intelligent agriculture and finally of the revolution of the social re-engineering of companies and markets developing a process of globalization and regional integration excluding capital.

With the new agrarian question, a new organized peasantry arises that is not "a bag of potatoes." On the contrary, in this new agrarian question, the peasantry constitutes the historical subject of the historical block against hegemonic as one of the main actors for the articulation and construction of this block. It was also demonstrated that it is constituted as a historical subject because it has identity with a national and popular historical project with historical heritage of success through the rescue and reconstruction of its peasant ARANDU (wisdom) that is the basis of a new science and base of new technologies harmonious with nature capable of re-cooling and revitalizing nature and overcoming humanity's multiple crises of hunger, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, desertification, climate change and global warming with agroecology and solidarity economy . This new science is a necessary complement to rescue and strengthen Rosa Luxembourg's slogan "Socialism or Barbarism" with a new dilemma of Life or Death and Destruction of "Ecosocialism or Barbarism." It is at the same time a complement to the science of the macro political economy of the historical materialism of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kautsky with the new science of the micro-political economy of Agroecology and the Solidarity Economy of the new millennium to continue being updated and current to develop the structural and revolutionary socio-economic changes that humanity needs on the way to a new, more human, just and integrally sustainable civilization.

Finally, this process of change that is integrally sustainable, confirms that the peasantry is a historical social builder and articulator of social change and is considered within the framework of the radicalization of democracy. In this way, the original flag of Radical Democracy, of workers democracy is recovered [13,15]. The radicalization of peasant and workers' democracy and democracy is fundamentally posed with the radicalization of participatory democracy over representative democracy. Finally, this process of change that is integrally sustainable, confirms that the peasantry is a historical social builder and articulator of social change and is considered within the framework of the radicalization of democracy. In this way, the original flag of Radical Democracy, of workers democracy is recovered [13,15]. The radicalization of peasant and workers' democracy and democracy is fundamentally posed with the radicalization of participatory democracy over representative democracy.

1. Kay, C., and L. Vergara-C., eds. La Cuestión Agraria y los Gobiernos de Izquierda en América Latina: Campesinos, Agronegocio y Neoliberalismo. CLACSO, Buenos Aires, 2018.

2. Moyo, Sam, and Paris Yeros. “The Zimbabwe Model: Radicalization, Reform and Resistance.” In Sam Moyo and Walter Chambati, eds., Land and Agrarian Reform in Zimbabwe: Beyond White-Settler Capitalism, CODESRIA, Dakar, 2012, pp. 331–357.

3. Moyo, S., et al. “The Classical Agrarian Question: Myth, Reality and Relevance Today.” Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, vol. 2, no. 1, 2013, pp. 93–119.

4. DGEEC/STP. Encuesta Permanente de Hogares 2017. Asunción, Paraguay, 2017.

5. Campos, Daniel. “Socio-Economic Changes and Capitalist Agricultural Expansion: A Theoretical, Historical and Analytical Model for the Paraguayan Case.” M.Sc. thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1986.

6. Campos, Daniel. “White Gold Producers in Paraguay: Socioeconomic Change and Technological Transformation through Cotton Production.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1987.

7. Campos, Daniel. Reforma Agraria: Una Causa Nacional Pendiente. Ed. Arandura, Asunción, Paraguay, 2013.

8. Bell, C., and S. Devarajan. “Shadow Prices for Project Evaluation under Alternative Macroeconomic Specifications.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 97, 1983, pp. 454–477.

9. Drèze, J., and N. Stern. “The Theory of Cost-Benefit Analysis.” Handbook of Public Economics, vol. 2, Elsevier, 1987, pp. 909–989.

10. Campos, R. D. El Golpe de Estado Parlamentario del 2012 en Paraguay: Análisis de un Proceso Político. Religación: Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, vol. 2, no. 7, 2017, pp. 144–159.

11. Moyo, Sam. African Land Questions, Agrarian Transitions and the State: Contradictions of Neoliberal Land Reforms. CODESRIA, Dakar, 2008.

12. Moyo, Sam, and Paris Yeros. Recuperando la Tierra: El Resurgimiento de Movimientos Rurales en África, Asia y América Latina. CLACSO, Buenos Aires, 2008.

13. Luxemburgo, Rosa. ¿Reforma o Revolución? Máspero, Paris, 1969. Translated by Irene Petit.

14. Mariátegui, José Carlos. Siete Ensayos de Interpretación de la Realidad Peruana.Biblioteca Amanta, Lima, 1973.

15. Laclau, E., and Ch. Mouffe. Hegemonía y Estrategia Socialista: Hacia la Radicalización de la Democracia. Siglo XXI, Madrid, 1987.

16. Rojas, Luis. “Concentración de la Tierra: El Paraguay, Estado Social de Unos Pocos.” In La Soja al Cuello 2016: Informe de Agronegocios., Base-IS, Asunción, 2016, pp. 12–18.

17. PRO Desarrollo Paraguay. Economía Subterránea: El Caso Paraguayo. Asociación PRO Desarrollo Paraguay, 4th ed., Asunción, Paraguay, 2016.

18. Marx, Karl. El 18 Brumario de Luis Bonaparte. Fundación Federico Engels, Madrid, 2003.

19. Rojas, Luis. “Concentración de la Tierra: El Paraguay, Estado Social de Unos Pocos.” In La Soja al Cuello 2016: Informe de Agronegocios., Base-IS, Asunción, 2016, pp. 12–18.