A várzea do planejamento: a territorialização das ações estatais e as transformações no “Vale da Suruaca” (ES) no período de modernização do Espírito Santo (1960-1990)

Abstract

In this research, we approach the process of modernization of the so-called “Vale da Suruaca/ES”, reproduced by the territorialization of state actions that moved the extension and the territorialization of the capital-relationship, particularly in the second half of the 20th century. Suruaca, located in the north of Espírito Santo, was one of the last frontiers of the territorialization of capital in the Southeast of the country in the 1960s. In this sense, we discussed the formative presuppositions of the area, observing the development of the passage from slavery to free labor in this portion of the state, passing through the discussion about the territorialization of quilombolas and indigenous people and the disputes and appropriation of land and water in Suruaca, at the same time time in which we observe their relations with local power. We verified that this whole process of imposition of relations and autonomization of the categories of capital had, however, a violent history of imposition. Therefore, we also return to understand the process of imposing the categories of capital, the State itself and planning. So, we discuss how these unfolded in Espírito Santo from the imposition of a “state model of modernization” headed in this particularity by Jones dos Santos Neves. We also discussed how national modernization unfolded in the state and local context. Through the analysis of DNOS initiatives and action plans such as the “Anteprojeto de Recuperação dos Vales Úmidos”, PROVALES and PROVÁRZEAS, we understand how the reality of Suruaca would be abruptly changed by the actions of regional planning of the floodplains that would transform wetlands of common use on land intended for the production of agricultural and livestock goods that can be traded. These state interventions allowed the implementation, expansion and promotion of agro-industry and highly technified agriculture, in addition to the free mobility of workers and the sale of rural lands to landowners of rice cultivation and, later, also to subdivision for the transformation of these areas into urban land. There was, therefore, the manipulation of water for the appropriation and “valorization” of lands. Thus, even though the discursive objective of these actions was to extend the agricultural area of the state, starting from the production of rice, we saw that what was left in Suruaca was a large plantation of “ox” in lands condemned by actions of “rationalization”, that were transformed through drainage works and systematization of the soils of the floodplains and wetlands, resulting in contamination and desertification. All these processes were mediated by the inflow of fictitious capital, so that the reproduction of capital employed there only occurred through the inflow of public funds, arising from state credits, including the subsidy of infrastructural works, production and commercialization. Therefore, we understand that the territorialization of state actions in Suruaca generated an intense transformation of the socio-environmental conditions of the floodplains and wetlands, producing and leaving as a legacy a "nature in ruins", together with a series of expropriation and spoliation processes of the necessary elements to the means of production and subsistence for local populations, leading towards an intense process of labor mobilization. These processes led to the suppression and elimination of the possibility of reproduction of populations that had a large part of their means of subsistence in relation to water and land. Thus, we conclude that the floodplain of planning was constituted in a context of crisis of the social reproduction of capital, from an intense and violent process of imposition of delayed modernization and, at the same time, it is the territorialization of state actions itself that is itself creator of new and intense crises of different scales and spheres from the point of view of reproduction and capital accumulation, but also of reproduction of populations and ecological problems resulting from the destructive capacity of the commodity production system.