Venezuelan opposition criticizes Chavez's land policy

[Vladimir]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-08/31/content_1929359.htm

CARACAS, Aug. 30 (Xinhuanet) -- The Venezuelan opposition coalition on Monday attacked President Hugo Chavez's land policy, accusing the government of being the protector of robbers.

The statement, by the Democratic Coordination, followed Chavez's pledge Sunday to enforce an agriculture law that allows the government to tax and expropriate idle land and give it to poor peasants as a part of his "agrarian revolution."

The opposition coalition said in a statement that "most of the owners who are not working on their lands are in such a position because they cannot do so, since in our country the government, instead of protecting our producers, protects robbers."

Chavez, who won a recall referendum on Aug. 15, ordered his military commanders to investigate large rural estates and report idle land not in productive use, but the opposition said most of the idle lands are already in government hands.

comment: And they still can quit wailing... what a bunch of losers.

[Vladimir]

1. Here is the reuters take on this...

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6097326

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, emboldened by a recent referendum victory, on Sunday promised tougher land redistribution as he pressed ahead with the "revolutionary" reforms at the heart of the nation's political conflict.

Chavez, a populist ex-army officer elected in 1998, ordered his military commanders to investigate "latifundios" or large rural estates and report idle land not in productive use as his government stepped up its drive for agrarian reform.

"In this new stage of the revolution, I demand strict application of the constitution and the land law," Chavez said on "Hello, Mr. President," his weekly Sunday television program. "I want a report on the estates under each military command... We going after the idle land to put it to work."

[Vladimir]

2. And an intersting article from axisoflogic...

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_11351.shtml

Chávez is a reformer; especially when it comes to land. Presently, 77% of Venezuela’s farmland is owned by about 3% of the population but the president has infuriated that 3% by demanding a land-reform bill that reallocates some of it to the landless. Despite the accusations that this amounts to ‘theft’ and is dictatorial, it should be understood that the Chávez law would transfer only unused and abandoned land. Presently, half of the nation’s farmers own only about 1% of the land; the largest number of Venezuelans own nothing and Chávez has vowed to change that.

And in a curious twist of history, Venezuela actually contemplated a similar step in the early 1960s when the dictator of the day agreed to dole out land to the landless but, deliberately or not, never gave the peasants title to the property. In a further twist, the present American régime which supports the Venezuelan landowners in their fight against this ‘land theft’, appears to be unaware that the dictator who promised to transfer land to the peasants 40 years earlier did so at the behest of American president John F. Kennedy, certainly never known as a leftist radical.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

99. 3% owns77% ----- 50% owns 1%.

Sounds eerily familiar.

[AnewerWay]

3. He's becoming quite the dictator

My back yard is idle and would not like it to be taken from me and given to someone else. No Democrat I know supports this type of dictatorship. Chavez is really pushing his power.

[Vladimir]

4. I wouldn't be so sure

we are not talking about backyards, we are talking about vast tracts of unused, fertile land. Under US law, if you own land but never use it, and someone settles down on it and puts it to productive use, after a certain time they are entitled to it. The only difference here is that Chavez is speeding things up...

[el_gato]

6. The rich elite in Venenzuela got that way by criminal behaviour

and now it's time to pay the piper.

All I have to say to the poor little elites in Venenzuela is BOO Fucking HOO!

[ret5hd]

7. you might not know me...

but now you know of me...and i support this type of land reform, and would NOT call it a dictatorship!

[Jerseygirltoo]

8. How did they get the land to begin with?

Have you asked yourself why a tiny minority of white Venezuelans ended up with title to the land, while the indigenous people are landless? Here are some links if you are interested
a sample here
"Control over land represents yet another possible mechanism for labor control in rural Latin America. Landowners and land speculators in various regions sought to gain legal title of public lands already occupied by peasants. Such entrepreneurs then gave the occupants the choice of vacating their farms or signing tenancy contracts and paying rent with their labor. In areas with a self-sufficient peasantry reluctant to work on large estates, the privatization of public lands represented a means of mobilizing and controlling a rural labor force.(4)"
Or this Land Reform in Venezuela
Or read Greg Palast, if you trust him on other issues like Florida voting, maybe you should see what he has to say about Venezuela

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

100. "tenancy contracts"

So, not a vassal-lord relationship (the lord was at least required to protect and militarily aid the vassal)

Same for a serf-lord relationship because the lord had some obligations

Hmmm...

Latifundia?

This paper proposes a simple general equilibrium theory of agrarian production organization to explain the emergence and persistence of latifundia - minifundia type patterns of agrarian production organization such as have prevailed historically in many parts of Latin America. When land ownership is concentrated, the exercise of market power over land can facilitate the exercise of control over labor, as labor supply to landlord estates is affected by peasant access to land. Equilibria may emerge where landlords, behaving as multi-market Cournot oligopolists, inefficiently hoard land to drive up land rentals and corral cheaper labor into their expanding estates. Labor-service tenancy arrangements, similar to those used in practice, emerge as landlords try to price discriminate. These contracts help to restore allocative inefficiency but lead to lower equilibrium peasant wages and welfare. Population growth, differential technical progress on landlord and peasant farms, and other changes in the physical and economic environment are shown to transform equilibrium patterns of agrarian production organization in ways that are consistent with agrarian trajectories observed in late nineteenth century Chile and several other regions and periods. The model also clarifies how agents' incentives to challenge property rights change along with equilibrium agrarian structures (See my more recent closely related paper "On The Causes of Slavery or Serfdom and the Transition to Agrarian Capitalism: Domar Extended.")
http://ideas.repec.org/p/htr/hcecon/02-1.html

[leesa]

9. The rich have stolen that land long ago. He is just righting the wrong.

Do you think he would survive against these corporate whores if he were wimpy? Probably how the Dems have ended up as they are with attitudes like yours.

[ugarte]

10. What dictator goes before the people in an election?

What dictator allows an opposition-controlled media to attack him daily? On what basis do you call him a dictator?

[allemand]

15. 77% of Venezuela's farmland is owned by 3% of the population

Greg Palast:

That week, Chavez himself handed me a copy of the "socialist" manifesto that so rattled the man in the Jag. It was a new law passed by Venezuela's Congress which gave land to the landless. The Chavez law transferred only fields from the giant haciendas which had been left unused and abandoned.

This land reform, by the way, was promoted to Venezuela in the 1960s by that Lefty radical, John F. Kennedy. Venezuela's dictator of the time agreed to hand out land, but forgot to give peasants title to their property. But Chavez won't forget, because the mirror reminds him. What the affable president sees in his reflection, beyond the ribbons of office, is a "negro e indio" -- a "black and indian" man, dark as a cola nut, same as the landless and, until now, the hopeless. For the first time in Venezuela's history, the 80% black-indian population elected a man with skin darker than the man in the Jaguar.

More:
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=22447

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Land redistribution

has been a key tactic in the development of many Third World countries.

In fact, Taiwan did exactly this sort of thing after Chiang Kai-shek took it over--and the land reform was urged on him by the U.S.

A country cannot develop as long as its peasants live like medieval serfs. Land ownership lets them keep the proceeds of their efforts, instead of working for starvation wages to make some already rich person richer.

None of these reforms take away people's backyards. They're talking about mega-holdings in which some rich guy in the city owns the equivalent of a county and makes the local peasants work his land in conditions one baby step above slavery.

[AP]

62. It also gives people a real asset against which to leverage their own

economic development, and there's DEFINITELY a trickle UP effect on the economy.

This is the first step to creating more wealth for everyone.

[eridani]

93. Here is a link about Taiwan's Land to the Tiller program

http://www.taiwan-agriculture.org/taiwan/rocintro4.html

Try crap like that in the backyard of the US of A and the oligarchy hires thugs to slice your head off and serve it to your kids on a plate.

BTW, Taiwan is also legalizing gay marriage, and has had single payer health care since 1998.

[NickB79]

39. We had similar rules in the 1800's here in the US

During the land rushes on the Great Plains, you were required to homestead your land to keep it. You actually had to live on it at least 6 months out of the year and farm it in order to legally retain rights to it. If you didn't, the US government would take back the land and you would lose your right to farm it. Chavez is enforcing something similar right now, because a few landowners are not farming nor living on their land, and have left millions of acres go fallow. In the meantime, there are millions in Venezuala who are poor and want land to farm, yet have no means to get it.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

52. yeah watch out! He's gonna spring out of little kids' closets next!

BOOOOOO!!!


Arghhhh!!! A Brown Man!!!!!

[AP]

61. Ever hear of adverse possession? In the US every state has an adverse

possession statute that allows someone to take title to land their using if the title holder allows them to use the land for a long period of time without complaining regardless of whether the title holder knows about it, so long as the use of the land was open and notorious.

It's a key element of a functioning economy to allow title to pass to people who are willing to make the best, most economically productive use of the land. You can't let large landholders who do nothing with land to sit on it forever if they can't even be bothered to go arround a clear squatters and trespassers from the property.

This is a cornerstone principle of capitalist freemarkets and those rich Venezuelans complaining about this aren't interested in capitalism. They want VZ to be a socialist country for the wealthy, and a free market country only for the poor.

[goforit]

103. Hmmm....You could say the same about Bush taking Iraq....for oil!!!!

[JSJ]

109. idle land = idle owner n/t

[bemildred]

5. This is what really gets the US livid, the idea might be catching. nt

[tlcandie]

11. Go Chavez go!!! eom

[Old_Growth]

12. Viva Chavez!!!

[Vladimir]

13. LOL Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[On the Road]

14. On Margarita Island

I passed a beach hotel that had sat idle for awhile because there was a recession or the owner had gone bankrupt. Squatters moved in and the government gave the squatters ownership rights.

I support land reform. On the other hand, Chavez has to be careful that it's done on a neutral basis according to law, rather than caprice.

[paulk]

16. are the land owners being recompensed in any way?

for the land that is being taken from them?

I couldn't tell from the article. Is there anyone that can point the way to the finer points of Mr. Chavez's land reform proposals?

[Vladimir]

17. From the reuters article posted above

The agrarian law defines a "latifundio" as a rural property larger than 12,355 acres of good, but idle land. The law calls for punitive taxes on farmers not using the territory, after which the state may intervene. Critics say the law is vulnerable to political interpretation.

The land redistribution program calls for parcels of land to be handed over to peasant cooperatives who will farm with the help of cheap state credits.

<snip>

"We are not the enemy of rural estates, we are not going to burn them, we are not going to invade land. No, here we have a constitution and a land law," he said. "I call on all those who own lots of idle land, let's talk."

[bemildred]

18. Here:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1032

You can google up more with "venezuela land reform law".

[TahitiNut]

20. "recompensed" for what?

Just what is the 'value' of that land and why does it have that 'value'?? Does it have 'value' because the owners mixed their labor with it? Or does it have 'value' because there are people with needs not met and people, having such needs, willing to mix their labor with the land to meet those needs? Who, then, creates the very 'value' upon which such (re)compensation should be based? Is it 'compensation' or 'enrichment'?

An enormous heritage of inequitable aristocratic entitlements continues to exist throughout the world. Monarchical 'land grants' persist - (re)distributions of wealth (stolen from indigenous peoples) totally contrary to the equities of labor and public benefit. Just systems of governance don't countenance the egregious enrichment of a few on the basis of deprivations of the many.

Property is a limited right manifest in any just system of governance by entitlement. Any system of governance that does not achieve such justice is an immoral system. No such system is just when it accommodates and enforces hoarding, a form of waste. Folks failing to comprehend this should go study (again?) John Locke.

[Radius]

21. Mugabe Jr.

Their economy will collapse shortly. Unused for how long, week, day hour?

Phesants generally don't have the resources to support a nations demand for food. Imagine if the large farms out west were given to people who had no experience in farming. It is just not fair that one farmer can buy lots of land, right?

Like all politicians he is rewarding his supporters.

Democratic ideals are not socialist ideals.

[Vladimir]

22. So if the land is lying unused, this helps the economy?

had you read any of the articles posted here, you would have noticed that the first move is to tax the landowner to attempt to force them to use the land, and only if this does no good is the land reposessed.

[Radius]

23. Property Rights

Taking land purchased legally without compensation is socialism. People doing business in Venezuela will pull out or stop investment for fear of asset theft.

If you own property and don't use it, should the government take it from you and give it to their supporters?

The government could tax you for not planting grass in your yard, and then take it if you don't.

Not a democratic thing to do.

[not systems]

25. What about land stolen by your grandfather at end of a barrel of a gun?

Is that socialism or is it only a problem when non-whites do it.

[Radius]

45. Japan?

Was the only my grandfather helped take. I think we gave it back.

His family were first generation English, coal miners. Assumption is a bad practice.
How do you know I'm not black or american indian from my posts?

Just saying taking land from people who bought it is bad policy. Race is not even relevant. It is a class issue. There will be economic fallout if the government starts nationalizing peoples assets for what ever reason. How much of the land in Montana is owned by how many people, should we redistribute it?

The motherland is dead. The USSR failed, socialism looked great to Marx but like all plans they go to shit in the real world. Their is no socialist/communist country that I would want to live in, never mind get sick and seek medical care in.

we are all created equal, just some are more equal than others is a perfect summation of socialism.

Money, power, greed afflict men of all race, creed, and nationality.

[not systems]

49. Ask Okinawa if we gave it back.

I don't know if you are black or white or native american.

You could be Alan Keyes for all I know.

What you think the defunct USSR has to do with democratic land
reform of colonial oligarchs huge land holdings in south america
is beyond me.

FYI the USSR was a communist country not a socialist one.

Race is relevant when economic class and racial origin line
up based on colonial conquest.

[Radius]

55. Umm

We have a millitary bases there. The japaneese goverment buys billions of dollars of the most advanced weapon systems from US. The government of Japan has no intent of asking the US to leave its bases in japan.

We are reducising our footprint on okinawa.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa.htm

We are returning some of what we have. Not like run the island.

[not systems]

57. Very nice of the Japanese to let Okinawa be ...

the raping ground for so many heros.

Never mind that the people on Okinawa think diferently.

They have the best golf courses in the whole empire, I hear.

[Radius]

58. yeah

I'm sure every american who was stationed in japan rapes someone.

I just posted the facts, Japan is a democracy, their leaders are responsible for their policy.

[not systems]

60. Most have the decency to pay.

I'm sure you know that many have and do rape.

[Radius]

64. Gee

I guess American soldiers are the only people who use pro's in Japan.

Many being? Leavenworth is where they find their next duty station.

[NickB79]

53. You seem to be mixing socialism and communism intentionally

Either that or you simply don't realize and understand the numerous differences between the two concepts.

"Their is no socialist/communist country that I would want to live in, never mind get sick and seek medical care in."

Let's see, off the top of my head Germany, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Canada are all much more socialist-leaning than the US, and all have very high standards of living. While I love living in the US, I don't think I'd complain too much if I were required to relocate to any of these countries.

[Radius]

56. Leaning

The terms have mixed themselves over time.

Germany is not "socialist" any more than we are because we have social security. They do things differently.

You have socially supported medicine and giant taxes but people in Germany still pay more for better than state level care when possible or necessary. There are poor people and enormously wealthy people. At least when I was there.

Every nation has some socialist policy.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Socialism

snip
Although Marxists generally use the word "socialism" in the senses described above, another specifically Marxist use of the term is worth noting. Karl Marx, in his exposition of historical materialism, his Hegelian model of history, saw socialism as a phase of human society that would follow capitalism and precede communism. Marx is by no means clear about the expected characteristics of such a society, but he is reasonably consistent in his belief in the eventual revolutionary triumph of socialism over capitalism, and its eventual (presumably less revolutionary) transformation into communism.

[Jerseygirltoo]

84. So I take it you have good health insurance?

If I were sick and unable to afford insurance, this is one of the last countries I would want to be in.

[Vladimir]

26. Perfectly democratic

if 80% of the population lives in poverty and your leaving of land unused worsens this problem. And you have a popular mandate. And we are not talking about backyards, there is a minimum size of the land that must be unused too. And a lot of this land was acquired, not purchased during the long years of dictatorship in Venezuela so the legality of the ownership is dubious.

Incidentally, the land is not being given to Chavez supporters, it is being given to those who need it. Most of whom will vote for Chavez of course, seeing as they are poor and no one else seems to have any interest in helping them...

[allemand]

27. So you think that the French Revolution was socialist too?

"The French Revolution brought land reform to France and established the small family farm as the cornerstone of French democracy."

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=394998

[Radius]

29. Taking

wealth, land, from people and giving it to other people who voted for you smacks of socialism. A rose by any other name..

If you have nicer house than me should I be able to take it from you?

This is the reason Zimbabwe went from a net grain exporter to a net importer in 2 years. Here there isn't even an issue of race.

Simple equation. Governments that nationalize assets freeze foreign investments. No economy operates in a vacuum. Currency deflates, prices rise, markets fail. Look at Zimbabwe's currency on a 5 year curve.

I'm pretty sure the farmers out west would take up arms if the government came and said were taking your farm because you have to much land..

Taking monarchy land and land someone paid for are quite different.

[TahitiNut]

33. But when it's done to build a stadium that enriches the wealthy, it's OK?

When residential property was condemned (through 'eminent domain' powers granted to an "Authority") and compensation for that property was based, not on the value derived from it's intended use, but on the historical basis of its use as a residence, this was regarded as "OK" when the beneficiaries were the owners of the Texas Rangers.

The hue and cry of the apologists for predatory wealth seem only to argue for enrichment when it's the enrichment of the already-wealthy and already-powerful.

[Vladimir]

34. 'There isn't even an issue of race'

How wrong you are. The issue of race is present here between the native indians and negros, who are by and large poor, and the white immigrants who are largely rich and are in almost all cases the landowners in question.

The assets incidentally are not being nationalised, they are being given to other private entities. The government is the intermediaryt which facilitates the transfer, but the property ramins in private hands (there are of course subsidies at the start).

[allemand]

36. What does cronyism in Zimbabwe have to do with land reform in Venezuela?

That's just a cheap rhetorical trick.

If you think that land reform is socialism, then that kind of "socialism" is the best way towards capitalist development.

The unjust land distribution in Venezuela has its roots in the feudal colonial system. Why do you never ask where that property came from?
The aristocracy in France did own all the land in France. So, was the French Revolution unjustified?

[NickB79]

41. Ugh, again it must be restated

The land being discussed in Venezuala is currently UNUSED farmland, left to lie fallow for many yrs. How could redistributing unfarmed land cause Venezuala's crop production to decrease? In Zimbabwe, Mugabe redistributed land already being farmed on a large scale by white farmers, not fallow land. Secondly, the Chavez government is giving the current owners the opportunity to farm it before it is taken, using taxes on unfarmed land as an incentive. In Zimbabwe, the land was simply taken with little to no reembursement given. If the landowners in Venezuala are unable to farm all of their land, they are free to sell it before the government takes it. There is a huge amount of difference between the two situations.

"I'm pretty sure the farmers out west would take up arms if the government came and said were taking your farm because you have to much land.."

Um, this is pretty much exactly what the US government did in the 1800's during the settlement of the Great Plains. You were required to live on your 140 acres of land at least 6 months out of the year and farm it, or the government would take it away.

Have you even read the article yet?

[AP]

66. Zimbabwe certainly wasn't a net grain exporter. It's was a net TOBACCO

exporter. Those corporate farms were growing food to export to Europe where they'd make huge profits, thanks to cheap land and labor costs in Zimbabwe. And there was almost no market in Zimbabwe because the fact that Zimbabwe's national wealth was being sold off in Europe meant that there was no middle class to buy those products in Zimbabwe.

This is where land reform comes in.

And, whether you believe it is one thing, but Zimbabwe has actually announce that it doesn't need any grain aid this year. They say they grew and store enough in the first two growing seasons to cover them for the last one, IIRC.

Also, there's been a terrible droubt the last two years (2002, 2003).

Incidentally, the grain that African countries tend to import is surplus low grade US grain that your tax dollar is used to insure the profitability of large US ag businesses. It tends to sit in warehouse and then is thrown out. NGOs and USAid and the World Bank sometimes don't want African countries to end their dependency relationship with the west because these programs are used to make sure that programs create profit for US ag business. And the banks like the huge profits from using the best land in Africa to grow great produce that goes to Europe.

See. It's a little more interesting than your version of reality, isn't it?

[Radius]

74. FACT CHECK

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/w2896e/pays/af961047.htm

97 gross eporter

2002

The 2001 coarse grains harvest was sharply reduced. The maize crop, accounting for over 90 percent of the total cereal production, was estimated at 1.5 million tonnes, 28 below last year's level and well below average. This decrease mainly reflected a decline of 54 percent in the area planted on the large-scale commercial farms, due to disruption by land acquisitions activities

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2916e/Ctry/AF011247.htm

importer..

Britian pays for lots of their food aid BTW 100million dollars worth.

[AP]

83. Uh, DUH. In a year they transition to land reform, grain production will

obviously drop. Do you think those corporate farms were going to leave fully functioing farms for the new owners.

Look, they didn't have land reform in order to make sure that 2001 would be a bumper year. They did it so that from 2005 on into the future, Zimbabwe could build up a wealthy middle class, so that Zimbabwe could recirculate more wealth within the country before (and IF) they chose to send some of it to Europe, and so that they could end their dependency relationship with the west.

Measuring the success of land reform by what happened in one year -- the YEAR OF TRANSITIOIN! -- is ignorant beyond belief, or it's conscious propagandizing.

[Radius]

104. FACT

They are still an net importer, and while Mugabe blames the British for his mess, he is taking 100 mil in aid from them.

Mugabe destroyed his agri infrastructure and gave it to people who could not farm. Now they are starving.

Contrary to popular belief farming actually takes skill and knowledge. Mugabe's "veterans" don't have it.

Very simple. I posted numbers, care to counter with numbers?

[AP]

107. You have a link for that?

Last I heard, they were going to reach subsistence this year.

Incidentally, subsistence ag is the highest productivitiy farming in the world, especially as it's practiced in in SA and Namibia, by the way.

[AP]

108. One more thing. Racist.

Is your argument that they're too unsophisticated to farm?

Do you know that subsistence farming in Namibia and South Africa (IIRC) is the most productive farming measured by energy input to calorie output?

The transition will be diffiicult but only an idiot would say that the people won't be better off after the transition.

The farmland was being used to grow tobacco and other stuff that was exported to Europe, the profits from which were deposited in European bank accounts. Now the land is being used to create wealth that circulates in Zimbabwe, and the very first step will simply be that it will be used for subsistence farming that feeds Zimbabweans.

[Sandpiper]

59. Then the United States must be Socialist

Most states in this country have what are called Adverse Possession laws.

That means if someone moves onto idle land that they don't own, lives there and/or works it for 7-10 years, and the actual owner is unaware of the other person's presence there and takes no steps to actively remove them, after the statutory period of time has expired the property rights vest in the Adverse Possessor.

There's a little more to it than that, but that's it in a nutshell. Any law student who's taken Property I could tell you this.

The right to own real property in this country is not an absolute right.

[Radius]

68. Law

Yep you can squat on someones property and make a claim, in court. The squattor is then responsible for the tax on the land for the entire time they are on the property. If they cant pay the claim is null. The burdon is on the squattor to prove their claim.

The goverment envokes emminent domain if they take your property and have to pay for it.

My issue is with goverment messing with peoples property rights because they own "to much".

[AP]

71. So you want to draw the line somewhere?

When 77% of the land is owned by a tiny % of the population and most of that land is creating no social wealth for anyone, and is in fact doing the opposite -- it's creating a huge social opportunity cost -- then where do you say, OK, a tax code that encourages the transfer of title to people willing to get value out of the land makes sense?

How bout in, say, a place like Venezuela?

[Sandpiper]

73. Why are you deliberately misstating the issue?

My issue is with goverment messing with peoples property rights because they own "to much".

The issue here is land that is not being used.

What societal benefit is there in allowing a few to hoard thousands of acres of productive but unused land?

Why should the highest priority of government be in protecting the greed of the one over the will and needs of the many?

Because the best argument that you or these land owners seem to be offering as to why they should be allowed to hoard enormous tracts of unused land is..."Because it's mine!"

But is it really? Land "ownership" is a legal fiction that can only exist where there is a power structure in place that will allow and enforce individual ownership of real property.

If I draft up, sign, and seal a deed that says I now own the Pacific Ocean, that doesn't make it so. It only works when other people are willing to play along.

[TahitiNut]

92. That's because it's mine. All mine.

BWaahahahahahaha! And nobody can use it but me! All you fish? OUT! NOW! :evilgrin: :dunce: :silly:

[AP]

63. Adverse possession is a core element of capitalism.

Letting super rich people withold the potential of the marketplace just because they can is socialism for the wealthy.

[Sandpiper]

65. Exactly

The whole point of property rights is to encourage putting land to productive use.

If one person owns 12,000 acres of land and uses only 2,000, what is the benefit to society of them hoarding the remaining 10,000?

Helping people hoard enormous tracts of unused land was never the intention behind property rights.

[AP]

70. Land and labor. Source of all wealth. Every functioning society should

be interested in allowing both to maximize their value.

Reasonable property taxes are a very gentle way to do the same thing. If you aren't doing enough with your land to pay reasonable property taxes on that land, then you should selll it and give it to someone who is able to at least get 1% value out of it per year. That's why Chávez is using the tax code to encourage some of this change.

[Radius]

76. And

That is why foreign investors will not touch it. That premise may work great but it will have a chilling effect on foreign investment in their currency and markets. Investors see seizure as the first step to nationalization of their assets. They are beyond tax, which is normal, and have moved to seizure.

Dumping land onto the market will devalue it. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor sounds nice but the outcome is like in the movies.

[AP]

78. "Foreign Investment" -- you mean like the kind that ruined Argentina?

Wall St and the World Bank don't want these countries to build up wealthy middle classes. They want them to be sources of cheap labour and cheap raw materials that are exploited in a way that builds up wealth on Wall St. That's the kind of foreign investment you're talking about.

The kind of wealth creation Venezuela is talking about is the kind that starts by building up the middle class -- you know, the kind that FDR believed in...the kind that resulted in the greatest expanision of wealth that lasted until the early 70s, when American corporations decided that they wanted more than the middle class.

And guess what. This is working. Did you know that Ford had record sales in VZ this last year because no more people can afford cars, because wealth is trickling down to the middle class. That's the kind of wealth creation that matters.

By the way, do you know that you're repeating the exact same argument that many appologists for fascism have made before at DU about VZ, and have abandoned because it's untenable? It always starts with, "he's a socialist." They can't support that, so they move on to, "it's bad for foreign investment." That's just as stupid. I predict you'll be gone in 10 more posts like all those who have come before you.

By the way, you can't devalue land any more than by letting it sit, earniing nothing. It's not being dumped on the market. Title is transferring to people who will make it generate wealth. That will INCREASE the value of the land.

[Radius]

82. Did you Know

That ford builds a large number of its cars in Mexico.

Do you think they would build a plant there if they thought mexico would nationalize it?

Is ford wrong for using mexican labor?
Is honda wrong for using american labor?

Transferring is a polite term for taking something from someone and giving it to someone else. Tax fine, take is different.

It is funny to here some one use trickling down in an economic sense on this board.

[AP]

85. What has Chávez nationalized? He's not nationalizing the land. He getting

more land into productive use in the marketplace.

And clearly Ford and MB aren't afraid of being nationalized, because they are building factories in VZ and getting ready to sell to what they know will be a burgeoning middle class.

This is "trickle up" economics. This is what "trickle down" is meant to counter.

[Radius]

87. Market Predictions

No crystal ball but not the way I see it. Once oil drops back his momentum goes the same way. I hope the poor have their situation improved. Is this the right way to do that. IMHO no, but time will tell.

If he manages not to get assassinated in the mean time. That happens to left leaning politicos in SA quite often.

Chavez has a history of butting heads with ford.

In private, Ford representatives accuse politicians close to Chavez of pushing Indecu to falsify accident reports to extort monetary damages from the U.S. carmaker. They believe that the political leadership in that country, joined by U.S. plaintiffs' lawyers, decided to "follow the money" and attack Ford's deep pockets while effectively ignoring Firestone.

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2001/08/20/InvestigativeReport/An.Explorer.May.Lead.Ford.To.Ruin-161270.shtml

[AP]

88. Ford has a problem with the rollovers, and it wasn't Chávez

who caused them.

And that article was hardly unbiased. (Nice reading material! No wonder you're so misinformed!!)

You've made a lot of statements in this thread that betray either your ignorance of politics, economics and history, or betray a desire to propagandize.

You need to get yourself some better arguments.

[Radius]

105. Did you read it?

It didn't say he caused it, only tried to profit from it.

I could link to another source if you like. I'm sure WSJ carried it. are they ok or not to be trusted?I suspect I could link to an audio tape of him stating the above and you would dismiss it.

[AP]

106. Yeah, show me your other links

because whatever you're trying to prove with this is crazy.

Nassar's gone and Ford and MB are selling lots of cars in VZ.

[Jerseygirltoo]

79. LOL

If you think companies will pull out of a country with that much oil, you are deluded. Our government also takes away people's land in this country,for private use, it's called eminent domain. Usually it's in favor of rich developers. Do you call that a democratic thing to do?

[Radius]

86. supposed to be

used to build public works and is abused by all types of people. People are PAID for their property, either way.

Their oil is nationalized right? PDVSA. Chavez butted heads with them. Oil people are rich elite, right. It will be interesting to see how long any foreign assets survive now that he has free reign. He just seems really Castro like to me. IMHO.

It is a legal process with an appeals hearing and recourse in the courts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2549589.stm

[JSJ]

110. no property rights for the protected elites- what's fair for the poor...

...is fair for the fascists.

[TahitiNut]

24. "don't have the resources"???

Catch-22, huh?

There's an astonishing circularity in your 'argument' -- the wealthy land-owners have an entitlement purely due to their wealth? Nonsense. Wealth justly accrues to the wealthy due to the deprivations of the majority? Autocratic nonsense.

[Radius]

32. "wealth"

is relative. House, farm, 100 acres 10000acres, who is the cutoff. Can they bribe their way out?
Should we redistribute the wealth here. This has been tried, it never works.

Zimbabwe is a more complicated example where race was involved, not just a socialist trying to consolidate his support with class war.

There are clear economic effects from this. I don't live in Venezuela or Zimbabwe but those who do are in for a rough ride.

[TahitiNut]

35. Wealth is being 'redistributed' all the time.

A 'corporation' is almost nothing but a 'wealth redistribution machine' - redistributing the wealth derived from labor (the only source of wealth) among non-laboring 'owners'.

[Radius]

47. Corporations

Here we go again.

A corporation is a legal entity. It is controlled by a majority of share holders. It is no more or no less. Wealth is should be free to move on its own accord with reasonable limits. Accumulation of wealth is not illegal or immoral. BTW there are many corporations whose primary share holders are Democrats. ILM, Apple.

I can start a corporation that employs no one and make money or does nothing but protect my personal assets in case of legal action.

2001 - 2004 Democratic Underground, LLC

Look you are posting on a Limited Liability Corporations website, must be evil..

[not systems]

37. The government redistributed a whole continent here from...

the original owners to white settelers.

You definition of wealth just depends where the clock
on land grabbing gets stopped.

In your case you want it frozen when whites have all the land.

[TahitiNut]

43. Alas and alack, those 'owners' failed to register their deeds ...

... with the Monarchies of Europe. Shame on them.

[not systems]

44. and the pope.

[TahitiNut]

54. Pope Nicholas V and Pope Alexander VI, in particular.

They corruptly provided 'divine' cover for the rape and pillage of non-Christians throughout the world. The Doctrine of Discovery remains the law of the land in the US. It's obscene beyond any moral countenance.

[Radius]

51. Romans

Greeks, Byzantines, ottomans, Anglos, Saxons, Mayans, Spanish, Mongols, Chinese, have a big jump on the white man on land and power. Whites are pretty new to scene. You think Europe just started the way it is now?

Like I said, the policy has no effect on me. Just think land redistribution causes economic hardship.

[allemand]

31. That comparison to Mugabe is pure slander

You have either no idea about Venezuela or Zimbabwe or both.

Mugabe discovered "land reform" when he was suddenly in danger of losing an election, and he made sure that his cronies (and his wife) got the best farms.

In Venezuela, peasants indeed "don't have the resources", that's why they will get "state aid".

"Productivity check

The government will assess large estates and look at how best to utilise unused land.

The redistribution programme allows for some of it to be given over to peasant cooperatives, which will get state aid to farm the land.

The government last year said that it planned to hand out as much as 3.7 million acres (1.5 million hectares) to rural workers in the early stages of its programme, the Reuters news agency reported."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3612114.stm

[AP]

67. That's not an honest characterization of Zimbawe, by the way.

Here's some good stuff to read, if you're interested:

http://www.swans.com/library/subjects/africa.html

[allemand]

77. I happen to disagree

Thanks for the interesting link, though.

When you google the last author on that website, Gregory Elich, you will find that he is a "colorful" character, defending Milosevic and North Korea... (so it seems only appropriate that he is defending Mugabe too...).

I based my assessment of Mugabe and his regime on the following:

This is his wife, Grace Mugabe:



And this is what she did to John and Eva Matthews:

Mugabe's wife stakes her claim as farmers evicted

By Peta Thornycroft in Nyamandhlovu
August 21 2002

Zimbabwe's first lady, Grace Mugabe, has chosen the white-owned farm she wants and has ordered its elderly owners and residents off the land.

Mrs Mugabe has picked the Iron Mask Estate, 50 kilometres north-west of Harare, which belongs to John and Eva Matthews, both in their seventies. The couple abandoned their home at the weekend.

Residents on the farm said Mrs Mugabe and a high-powered entourage visited the property last week and politely told the black families that she would be taking up residence shortly and they should find alternative accommodation.

More:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/20/1029114109781.html?oneclick=true

You can call Grace Mugabe many things, but hardly a "landless peasant"...

And this is how the supposed "land reform" works:

"President Robert Mugabe claims land like this has been confiscated to assist the resettlement of landless peasants.

But the selection process is controlled by committees from the ruling Zanu-PF party and the main beneficiaries are party officials, "war veterans", and card-carrying members of the party, some of whom have no background in farming."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2414713.stm

And it seems that even black farmers are evicted by that Mafia:

A new class of land grabbers
Rodrick Mukumbira

A new breed of land grabbers has emerged in Zimbabwe taking land from both white commercial farmers and black peasants as the country's controversial land redistribution programme continues.

<...>

The government said it wanted to address the disparity in land whereby 4000 white people owned 70 per cent of the country, while the rest was distributed unfairly to over 11 million people. But now the hapless peasants and war veterans, who launched the farm invasion campaigns, watch helplessly while the ruling elite scurries to grab prime pickings. As it is turning out, their campaign served to clear the decks for the ruling elite to enrich itself.

<...>

Air force Commander, Perence Shiri, has also displaced villagers from rural Svosve in Marondera, east of capital Harare. These villagers spearheaded the land invasions in 1998 and they were brutally crashed by the government, which later resettled them on a prime farm in 2001. Now that farm has been taken over and they watch helplessly.

More in this very interesting article:
http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_586.html

[AP]

81. Forget Elich. I disagree with him. It's the interviews you should read.

They give the side of the story that the BBC doesn't give.

Read the Nujoma's interview. In fact, read all Ankoma's interviews.

[allemand]

89. I wonder if you know Petals of Blood by Ngugi wa Thiong'o (1977)

He is one of those great African intellectuals who not only criticize the old imperialists but also the new corrupt African ruling elite.

"The novel describes the inequality, hypocrisy, and betrayal of peasants and workers in post-independence Kenya. As with Ngugi's other works, many of the events depicted in the novel have their basis in historical and social fact. The work is a damning indictment of the corruption and greed of Kenya's political, economic, and social elite who, after the struggle for freedom from British rule, have not returned the wealth of the land to its people but rather perpetuate the social injustice and economic inequality that were a feature of colonial oppression. In addition to criticizing this neocolonialism, the novel is also a bitter critique of the economic system of capitalism and its destructive, alienating effects on traditional Kenyan society."
http://www.enotes.com/petals-blood/

If I remember well (and it is some time ago that I read that novel), Ngugi denounces that the new rulers frequently resort to blaming "imperialism" for their own failings.

When you google Baffour Ankomah, the first thing you find is that he seems to be one of those who, like Thabo Mbeki, denies the danger of the AIDS virus, an absolutely stupid position which may have endangered the lives of millions of Africans.

Nevertheless his interview with the Namibian president is full of insight. I am very interested in that region, so I want to thank you again for providing that link.
In my view, Nujoma doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand that Mugabe uses the accusation of "imperialism" exactly as Ngugi described it, as a cheap excuse to defend his supposed "land reform" (which is a land grab by the ruling elite) and to remain in power.
I am not against a reasonable land reform in Zimbabwe in order to correct the historic injustice, but I seriously doubt that Mugabe had that in his mind.

[AP]

90. Read the interview with Mugabe next...

[Minstrel Boy]

80. There's not a leader in the world with a greater mandate to govern

right now than Hugo Chavez.

"Mugabe Jr" is simply way the fuck wrong and out of line.

[eridani]

94. Wrong. Peasant agriculture is by far the most efficient--

--that is, if you consider calories expended (oil, fertilizer) and calories produced.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

101. The peasants actually work the land

and at least grow enough to support themselves.

That's worse than letting the land lie fallow how??

[Bo]

28. Not another "Reforma Agraria"

OH I hate these policies they never work

[AP]

69. If it wasn't going to work, there wouldn't be so much resistance from the

"haves."

They know it's going to work.

[Sandpiper]

75. Funny, isn't it?

That the loudest wails against a more equitable distribution of economic natural resources always come from the tiny minority that sits on huge piles of money (most of which they never use) and huge tracts of land (most of which they never use).

Unfortunately, greed will always be a virtue for some people.

[eridani]

96. It worked just fine in Taiwan, and also in Kerala

http://www.upsizethis.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71860

[TahitiNut]

30. What Thomas Jefferson said ...

"It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all... It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." -- Thomas Jefferson

And then there's ...
"The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one." -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men (1754)

[Radius]

46. Hey its their Bed,

I just think if you buy property you can use it or not use it. That's what my deed says. Now not 150 years ago.

I have a problem with a government taking land from its owners for any reason other than tax default or legal eminent domain, which includes market price.

Like I said, does not effect me, I just think it is a bad economic move and will probably cause economic problems.

[aneerkoinos]

95. You are wrong

China has still socialist "property" laws.
China sucks more foreign direct investments than US.

[AP]

97. A rational actor would use it in order to finance their property tax bill.

If you're rich enough, you can get utility out of unused propperty. But if you own 70% of the property in your area and you're not using it all, and there are a lot of other people in town who need some land so they can eat and build up some wealth for themselves and their community, I don't see how the opportunity cost you're creating can be justified.

The fact is, rational actors do try to get returns on their investments, and if 70% of the land is held in way where people are discouraged from trying to use the land in a productive way, for the sake of functioning marketplace, the government is going to have to take actions, just as they are in VZ.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

38. The most telling part of this article is this:

"According to a 1998 census, 60 percent of Venezuela's farmland,or nearly 179,200 square kilometers, was owned by less than 1 percent of the population. The survey said 90 percent of farmland given to peasants in a 1960 reform program reverted to large landholders"

How dare that evil dictator say "I call on all those who own lots of idle land, let's talk."?

That's crazy talk

[Vladimir]

40. If these opposition apologists

wan't to see real dictatorship, they should look closer to home...

[TahitiNut]

42. Ubetcha.

Idolatry in the worship of Mammon.

[Vladimir]

50. Enjoy schooling them guys

sadly, I got a train to catch. Why do these arguments against Chavez never change? I would sure love to read an original critique now and then...

[AP]

72. I know. I'm sure there are some very interesting debates one could get

into about Chávez, but these stupid "he's a socialist dictator" certainly isn't one of them.

[sadiesworld]

48. When I hear of Chavez's successes...

I always feel a bit like the blond girl in "An Officer and a Gentleman" who cheers (with tears streaming down her face) as Richard Gere carries Debra Winger out of the factory.

[AlexanderBarca]

91. The way I see it

This is actually a good idea, but there are a few um...problems with it. The first has already been addressed on this board (and it's kinda sad that people will attack someone so vehemently just because they disagree with Chavez, I mean...why don't you just have a calm, logical discussion minus the name calling and vitriol? Gets a lot more done and changes many more minds...) that problem is that this land DOES currently belong do these land owners...no bones about it. All land in the US that is currently owned by anybody was robbed of the Native American tribes 600 years ago (in fact, almost ANY land owned by ANYBODY was stolen from SOMEBODY at SOME point...) so using the logic that this land was taken in past generations and now that somehow justifies taking it back is faulty. It is morally questionable to take a person's property for them...no matter how much they have or how rich they are. It's the same way with Income Tax. No matter how hard we try, we will never be able to 100% morally justify income tax to conservatives...

HOWEVER:

Income tax is 100% absolutely NECESSARY to run our country. Even if it IS morally questionable, the rich MUST pay more in order for us to have money to create a society of equal oppertunity. That's just a fact, and one the conservatives with all the money have difficulty accepting (and quite understanably, actually). This case is the same. The land MUST BE FARMED for the good of VZ and Chavez sees this. The tax on unfarmed land is a good way to go, as long as it's high enough, the wealthy that own the land will start farming there to keep from losing money. However, redistribution is the only solution. So, Chavez needs to find a way to FAIRLY redistribute the land, and by fairly, I do also mean being "as fair as possible" to the land owning class. Perhaps using the money attained from taxes on the unused land to make a FAIR OFFER to the landowners...by fair offer I mean creating a FLATE RATE per-acre that will recompensate the landowners. Tell the landowners that they can either 1. Pay the ever increasing taxes or 2. Sell their land to the government for redistribution at this rate. If not enough landowners do this (by which I mean that this 77 percentile figure doesn't drop DRAMATICALLY, i would personally set the threshold at about 25 or 30 to start) then pull away the offer and THEN sieze the land from them...after all, you GAVE them the chance to sell their land, knowing that the land must be redistributed for the good of the country, and if they want to refuse the offer, that's just friggin TOUGH and they won't get recompensated. This much idle farmland is BAD for a country in a multitude of ways. If Chavez gives the landowners a fair chance to do what must be done, and get compensation for it, he'll have the much more higher ground on the world stage.

That's just the way I see it, though...

[AP]

98. What do you think is unfair about the program they're using?

What you described seems to be pretty close to what they're doing.

And I don't think anyone has made the argument you've imputed in part one. I think, for the most part, people are pointing out that we have Adverse Possession statutes in the US which nobody complains about which do the same thing Chavez is trying to do. (Even the Scots are realizing the need for AdvPoss statutes, by the way.)

The argument for having Adverse Possession statutes has nothing to do with the fact that currrent owners might have bad title in the land. (However, there is something to be said for that position in Africa where title was often taken through murdering people, which would not be a transfer recognized in any western court at the same time that Europeans were doing that in Africa.)

[Tatiana]

102. I agree wholeheartedly.

This issue is the only legitimate bone the elite have to pick with Chavez, in my opinion. A flat rate needs to be instituted to compensate the landowners for the land. The campesinos are making much better use of the land and the land reform is good for the economy. However, the reality of the situation is that the landowners don't want to pay the taxes on the idle land and they don't want to sell it.

So what is Chavez to do?

It's a tough situation. I do admire Chavez for being ambitious, though. More dialogue is needed on the topic.

[Judi Lynn]

111. Tremendous thread, Valdimir.

Got to read it very late, indeed, and was so impressed by the tone and character of the good DU'ers who participated on this one.

Needless to say, you always know someone has no actual material he can use to fortify his position when he attempts to start his own sub-thread, just for a way to keep his hand in.

Better to wait until they either find that important missing information, or join a conversation with people of their own philosophical "perspective."

There's not much value at D.U. in joining a thread to talk about oneself, is there? As you and other DU'ers have witnessed, the anti-Chavez, pro-rightwing-coup visitors always forget this kind of message board is NOT "all about" them, but relies intensively on actual information. Also I'd like to mention that real values are the feelings that sustain and protect peoples' long-term well-being, rather than the shallow, negative selfishness of a few.