Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Venezuelan troops grab farms from "Lord Spam"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
T_i_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 07:59 AM
Original message
Venezuelan troops grab farms from "Lord Spam"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=VOEMVNBLQ0Y3HQFIQMFCM5WAVCBQYJVC?xml=/news/2005/01/09/wspam09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/01/09/ixportal.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=144772

Troops were preparing yesterday to seize a 32,000-acre ranch owned by one of Britain's richest men as the Left-wing leaders of Venezuela stepped up their controversial "land grab" policy.

The ranch, which is set in rich cattle-rearing land close to the Venezuelan capital of Caracas, is owned by Lord Vestey, whose personal wealth from his family's food empire is estimated at £750 million.

The peer, who is known as "Spam" to his friends, is said by his associates to be saddened and angered by the threat to his ranch. He is, however, understood to be resigned to the Venezuelan government's "illegal" actions.

Critics of Hugo Chavez, the Left-wing Venezuelan president, have likened his policy to that of President Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, but his government has tried to justify its policy by describing the process as one of "agrarian redistribution".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. I'm sorry, but I'm sadden to hear this.
Unless they can come up with a good reason that Lord Spam took that land improperly, this action will not get Chavez many kudos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. At SOME point, the assets MUST be redistributed
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 08:15 AM by SoCalDem
A british citizen who "owns" vast quantities of land and assets in Venezuela, while Venezuelans must beg because they have no land to grow their own food, is a damned shame.

The fact that the land "belonged" to rich foreigners is the problem. The citizens of the country they are born to, should have SOME rights to be able to farm and feed themselves.

Land like this stays inside rich families for centuries, and does little for the locals except to "hire" them as serfs..

All we have to do is to look south and we can see the same thing in Mexico. The fact that the poor people have been driven from land they used to cultivate, and have no jobs to support themselves, is ONE reason so many people move north..

If the governments of countries see to it that their OWN citizens can feed and house themselves, they will have less strife and emmigration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. If he feels justified, I hope he does a good job of explaining
everything as you have. As far as social experiments go, I suspect everyone would be in favor of anything that stops illegal immigration. I hope it works that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. Aw, gee, but don't you know, agribusiness is a GOOD thing!
Haven't you seen the impressive advertisements for Archer Daniels Midland, etc.? Who needs to let those silly individuals own small farms, when everything is so much more efficient when we put it into the hands of one or two experts?

Your comment that maybe land grabs have caused many of the Mexicans to move north: I really think you are right. I have often wondered WHY they were all so eager to move up here. I wonder if any of those republicans, who are angry with their god Bush about the immigration, have thought of this very good point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
31. Its really a property rights thing
If he compensates lord snuffy fairly and uses eminent domain in a legal
court... then at least the semblance of property rights is preserved.

If he simply takes it, then the property rights question leaves open
all people in venezuela to the whims of their new dictator, who can
take whatever he wants from his opposition... because he's ignorant of
human rights. I'm no fan of bush, and i admire this chavez chap for
his resiliance and hubris, but not his intelligence.

He will destroy his own economy like bush is destroying america's...
too much dictator, is bad for business, arts and daily life
, right or left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Chavez is NOT a dictator!!!!
He was elected in a FAIR election, enjoys overwhelming popular support, and triumphed in a recall election financed by $Millions in foreign CorpoMoney.

Why do some people keep INSISTING Chavez is a dictator?
too much US CorpoMedia???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #35
57. In America, property rights is an institution older than God.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #57
61. American property rights includes the principle of adverse possession --
of which this is a modified version since it actually includes compensation for the former land owner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #61
68. Adverse Possession does not apply here if the government is
on notice that it has permission to use the land (among other elements that seem to be missing).

It seems the military is simply about to take the land for very little compensation (if any at all).

The law in the US is the landoner must receive the value of its "highest and best" use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #68
70. Adverse possession is between two private parties.
Edited on Mon Jan-10-05 11:34 AM by AP
But in the same sense that the government provides laws and a court system that allows adverse possession, the gov't in Venezuela is doing the same thing: it's stepping in to act as an intermediary between two private parties, transferring title from large owners of land not being used to people who will use the land much more effectively.

The economic basis for adverse possession is exactly the same in Colorado (or any American state) as it is in Venezuela, Zimbabwe, or even Scotland (where they want to do the same thing).

It's interesting that you identify the "military" as the party that is doing this. Why'd you say that?

And, BTW, in the US, with adverse possession, there's no compensation. If you don't use it, and you don't monitor the land, and someone else uses it, you lose it. In many ways, it is the essesnce of capitalism and property rights. It's why property rights are so important. Property creates value when you use it.

In Venezuela, the land owners are actually getting compensated, so they're getting more than they would in the US if they lost their land thanks to adverse possession.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #70
76. I am not sure you understand everything that goes into adverse
Edited on Mon Jan-10-05 05:00 PM by Bono71
possession.

For one thing, the adverse possessor must actually possess the land for a period of time (usually anywhere from 20 to 30 years) depending on the state. The possession cannot be clandestine but must be "open" and "notorious" so as to put the fee simple owner on notice that his property is being posessed.

This part leads me to believe you are seriously confused:

"The economic basis for adverse possession is exactly the same in Colorado (or any American state) as it is in Venezuela, Zimbabwe, or even Scotland (where they want to do the same thing)."

Ap: This statement could not be farther from the truth. The law is very different from state to state. Colorado and Louisiana are totally different when it comes to adverse possession (acquisitive prescription in Louisiana). In some states, there is no adverse possession....what makes you think Zimbabwe has the same laws?!!!??? The law of course is driven by economics, so I have no idea what you are talking about, here.

This looks to be more like eminent domain---something entirely different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #76
92. It's a new breed, but is based on logic of adverse possession.
The legal and economic philosophy underpinning adverse possession is that sometimes, at an early stage in the economic development of a region, huge disparities in wealth result in a very large concentration of wealth in the hands of a few people and that that concentration of wealth PREVENTS economic development and progress. Therefore – regardless of the specific rules for the jurisdiction – the general theme of adverse possession statutes is that if someone uses land for the purpose for which it is fit for a specified period of time (and it can be seasonal use only, provided that is the season that one would normally make use of that land), then the person without title using the land can compel transfer of the title from the person with title to the land.

Why does this make sense? Because why would you let a person keep title to land when that person owns so much land that they aren't even deriving economic benefit from it (which creates a social benefit)? People who want to keep a lot of land and not use it AT LEAST have to go around and kick off trespassers. If they can't even do that, then they're going to risk losing it. And that's a pretty low threshold that makes sure that the economy can produce wealth for people willing to work.

Eminent domain is something a little different. Eminent domain is the government taking land -- regardless of size or prior use – because the government needs it to provide a public service that is very important. If the government needs to build a major highway that's going to serve millions of people and one house is in the way, the government can apply eminent domain to get that house. It has almost nothing to do with addressing wealth disparities and it doesn't care if the person losing title is rich or poor. It doesn't care if the land taken is used everyday for its most productive purpose by a landowner who spends 100% of his time on that piece of land.

Now, there was that famous eminent domain case in Michigan (where the government often does what the auto companies ask it to do). The government took a whole city block that was being used by homeowners and small businesses and gave it to an auto company for a factory. That's a little like adverse possession in that it was really a private party to private party title transfer based on the idea that the auto company could make the best economic use of the land. However, there was the problem that the auto company wasn't basing their argument on open and notorious use without the objection of the title holders. Well, such a schizophrenic law was bound to collapse on its own poor logic, which it did recently when the Mich Supreme Court said it no longer was the law of the state. (And it didn't hurt that 20:20 hindsight showed the court that the compelled transfer actually took value away out of the land – the auto company abandoned the factory and left behind a economically devastated neighborhood).

Anyway, an important part of adverse possession is that the land is not being used and that it's going to a private party who wants to use it for private economic gain, and it most often operates when very rich, large landowners can't be bothered to use their property (although the other time it is often applied is with abandoned property – like a mansion that squatters take over – but although the plot size is smaller, the situation is similar in that you have a title holder with so much wealth and so little interest in a property which poorer people can make excellent use out of that they can't be bothered to take the time to keep track of an old mansion).

In VZ the situation is way more like adverse possession than eminent domain. You have large landowners who took advantage of huge disparities in wealth to accumulate huge pieces of land which, not only do they not use at all in many cases, but they also put to such ridiculously unproductive uses thank to the fact that income disparity and colonialism meant they could take the land for much less than it is really worth. The government is facilitating the transfer of land from very wealth people who can't be bothered to use huge plots of land and giving it to people who will put the land to good use (through farming, in many cases).

And that's a good thing. That's why many jurisdictions have adverse possession statutes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #92
95. Again...Adverse possession is not what is going on here...
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 01:58 PM by Bono71
there is no one (from what I understand) currently occupying the land...this is more akin to eminent domain (which I don't have a prolem with, per se). I understand you think this is a "hybrid," but it is very different from adverse possession...in an adverse possession case, the owner has a shot to keep the land. All he has to do is provide evidence that the adverse possessor is occupying with permission...then case closed.

I would like to know how the current owners are compensated and what rights they have if they do not feel the compensation is enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #95
99. I'm using it as an (apt) analogy that explains the economic goal
Edited on Wed Jan-12-05 01:05 AM by AP
of this land transfer.

Incidentally, there are 5 or 7 elements of adverse possession. The occupying party has to meet all the tests, so the title holder has 5-7 chances to keep title.

Now, you do understand why a lot of western democratic jurisdictions have adverse possession statutes on the books, right?

Please reread my last couple posts and ask me any questions you still have. I'd be happy to explain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #99
105. Right...this is exacly why your analogy does not fit...
and by the way, Adverse Posession cases in the United States (currently) have very little to do with an economic benefit derived from "working" the land...it has more to do with settling boundary disputes...plus it is an action between private parties with zero government involvement (I have a law degree, so I know what adverse possession is, I have even claimed title on some portions of development projects through AP)...

What you have here is the government taking land (know what a "taking" is?) and redistributing it to poor people (this is VERY MUCH LIKE EMINENT DOMAIN, if it isn't outright eminent domain)...you have the government condemning land and redistributing it (I don't think you get this)...again I don't have a problem with this, per se...however, I would like to know more about the rights of title holders involved...can they appeal the decisions about what compensation is given (like in the good ole USA)? What is the compensation model (is it the "highest and best use" like the good ole USA)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #105
107. The inequitable distribution of land was rememdied by AdvPoss statutes
Edited on Wed Jan-12-05 11:42 AM by AP
100 years ago. Since we don't have barrons, or corporations that hord land and don't use it, their original purposes don't get manifested.

But AdvPoss has a logical foundation which you studiously avoid acknowledging.

Here's the first thing that I googled:

Squatting & Adverse Possession

Squatting is the utilization of unused land or housing by a person who does so without the owner's consent. The history of squatting goes back thousands of years, Through history, squatters have been looked at as both good and evil_squatters, for example, were encouraged in the development of the American West, but are often seen in a bad light today.

The bad image which squatters have today, in fact, resulted in the United Nations affirming that squatting is a legitimate means to combat inequities in the allocation of housing and land.  The UN Commission on Human Rights in a report , "Twelve Misconceptions and Misinterpretations of the Right to Housing," sought to dispel the notion that "squatters are criminals." The Report found that generally an "impression is created that pavement dwellers are anti-social elements, and that a majority of them are criminally inclined, unemployed and not interested in working." However, the UN found that many squatters contribute to local economies and summarized "squatters and squatters' movements must be recognized for their noble and courageous efforts in developing efficient uses of property and alleviating one of society's ills."

Generally speaking, throughout history squatting has generally been seen as a positive force to effectively counter property inequalities whenever the availability of land and housing is insufficient but at the same time land and housing resources remain un-utilized by the legal owners. In other words, whenever there are people without housing and house not being used or whenever there have been people without food and farmland unused.

Because squatting was and remains a positive and efficient way to utilize unused property for people who do not have property, the legal concept of adverse possession was born_essentially to reward a squatter's continued productive use of land and housing by providing a mechanism to transfer the title to the property from the person who abandoned it to the person who has productively used it.

Adverse possession's roots lie as far back as the Roman Empire and the Code of Hammurabi. Preventing the waste of land resources and promoting owners to monitor their lands were goals of 16th century England when the first European adverse possession law appeared and these same motives led to the creation of adverse possession laws and procedures in 17th century colonial America. The basic premise of these laws was that land sitting unused when there were people willing to build, improve, cultivate and utilize the land was harmful to society's interests.

http://www.sftu.org/page.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #107
109. Hey, I pointed out that I have used AP...
and yes, 100 years ago when we were settling the west (my apologies to the Amerindians) Ap was one way to develop the land...no question...

This had very little to do with "inequitable distributions of wealth" which you seem think politicians in the nineteenth century cared so very much about...PUHLEASE....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #109
111. Read the thing I just quoted.
No doubt states saw huge, rich landowners not using their land as the route to having no economic development in their states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #111
113. No doubt you are wrong. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #113
114. That's also a label and not an argument.
Edited on Wed Jan-12-05 12:11 PM by AP
The first thing I googled supported my argument. What do you have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #114
116. lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #116
119. LoL -- "lots of lables"; LoA: "Lack of Argument."
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorbal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #92
100. Poeple are all in a tizzy about the rights of the rich.
I wish people would get as hot and bothered when they tear down the houses of the poor to make way for the interests of the rich.

These guys are facing having their ecologically sound house torn down in Britain so that house's like their's don't "litter the countryside"

http://www.thatroundhouse.info/

Meanwhile everyone is so upset about Mr Richie Rich and his acre's Excuse me while I react instinctively. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #100
106. No, what this title holder is "upset" about is the
rule of law, which I cannot really comment on in the Venezuela situation given the dearth of facts in any of the pro-government or anti-government articles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #57
74. Not if you are in the way of progress!
Here comes the highway!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #31
47. Excellent point there, sweetheart!!!
:bounce:

Of course, property rights are distinguishable from human rights.

However, the concept of "eminent domain", particularly in cases where property has been held WAY beyond any life-in-being (which is a trademark of ANTI-FEUDALISM) is an internationally and USA recognized maneuver towards democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #31
51. Inequitably distributed land not being used productively will destroy ...
... the economy.

What Chavez is doing will improve the economy.

We do this in the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philly Buster Donating Member (133 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #31
58. Very well put
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poe Donating Member (554 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #31
60. land is freedom property rights is slavery
think about this for just a second. a british citizen with land holding in a country of brown skinned people. go away england you have zero rights in our country. we owe you nothing quite the contrary. do your research chavez is not a dictator. the wealthy are corrupt in 99 out of a 100 instances and bleed the people dry. the u.s. is doing all it can to demonize chavez because he has the nerve to suggest the venezuelan people have the right to self determination. the u.s. is agitating on the colombian border with military advisers to the colombian proxy forces. same old song. no colonized country owes the west a dime, should be getting reparations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #60
69. Nice,
no race bating there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #69
88. Ahem, that would be a RW talking point. I HATE RWTPs!!! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #88
96. That is not a RW talking point, that is pointing
something out that is over-broad and incorrect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #96
102. You were just labeling it. You didn't make an argument about breadth
or whether it was correct or incorrect.

What part of that statement is over-broad or incorrect (and how does that relate to "race-baiting")?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #102
108. I think you can figure out how it was overbroad and incorrect. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #108
110. That's a label. That's not an argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #110
112. Race baiting is race baiting. You take a class of people,
or a situation, make stereotypical comments and generalizations (over-broad)and voila.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #112
115. What was the stereotype/generalization?
Edited on Wed Jan-12-05 11:51 AM by AP
The use of race as one of the mechanisms of colonialism is not disputed by anyone seriously interested in thinking about the truth.

However, your label was so vaguely placed on that post that I'm not even sure that that's what you were complaining about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
32. Agree, but you don't have to look...
...south to Mexico. Agribusiness in collusion with their bought politicians have done the same in the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #32
71. and the repubes have "blamed" it on taxes
Edited on Mon Jan-10-05 04:05 PM by SoCalDem
The "blame" goes to the agri-business giants who approached a generation of elderly famers who sent THEIR kids to college. Those "kids" did not want to get up at 4 am and slop the pigs & milk the cows. They did not want to toil in the fields for 16 hrs a day and fight the birds, rodents and insects for every grain of wheat, so they probably convinced Grandpa & Dad to "sell out" so they could retire and enjoy life a bit. NOW that land is hugely expensive because of the building boom, the ones who DID hold on, are being eyed by those now-grown children, and they want EVERY PENNY they can get when they sell off the farm to housing developers..

The "death tax" scam was the "cover" for the real villains.

No farm ever had to be sold for taxes (unless Gramps didn't pay HIS property taxes)...the farm had to be sold because the heirs did not want to be farmers, and they wanted to split the wealth..





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Like the way we must prove that rich people took the money improperly...
before it's taxed to feed the poor?

Or does this sort of logic only apply to US-despised "dictators"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. It would not be difficult to prove if it were true.
One of my very favorite Spanish titles is "Dona Barbara." If the government wanted to keep land in the hands of the poor, it could do it, and should have done it years ago, especially if the private land grabs described in the books had some validity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. That's probably true. But the question is what to do NOW...
should injustice be tolerated because it should have been prevented beforehand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. But what if a government is owned by corrupt
"haves" who DIDN'T want to keep the land in the hands of the poor?

Look at certain incidents in the U.S. If a large "developer", or, say, Wal-Mart, has its eye on certain land, the small land holder doesn't have a chance: he WILL sell, and that's all there is to it. If he doesn't sell to the big guy, the big guy's friends in the government will simply use eminent domain to pry the land away from each small holder.

Regarding this story, I guess the "Telegraph" expects us to cry and wring our hands b/c poor Lord Spam is getting his land taken away. Yet numerous people who are NOT rich have their land taken away, even in the U.S.--yet not a tear is shed by anyone. (Yes, eminent domain laws provide for compensation to the owner of the confiscated land--but what if he just plain didn't want to sell it? And usually such compensation is not a fair price.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
22. Or do what they did in Honolulu & Atlantic City: Raise the property taxes
so high that the next time a payment is due - it's more that the entire property was worth the last time, the poor elderly or joe 6pack has no option but to be foreclosed on, and the rich corporations get to grab the property at fire sale prices - in other words, STEAL it from the rightful owners.

The governments have been asked to tax such properties at current values as long as the original/current owners don't sell it, then to charge the new high rates once a sale is made - but they have refused.

And the poor and elderly lose everything.

Shameless.

Go Hugo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #22
55. Exactly. Sounds just like the sorts of tactics that the
sleazebags use to rob little people of their land. Makes me sick just thinking about it!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
54. There are land grabs, then there are land grabs.
I see the Chamber of Commerce behind the government decisions to seize land for economic growth here in the U.S. We need to make that connection and stop allowing the C of C to hide behind this big dark green monolith called "government." By allowing them such a broad definition, nobody really seems to agree when we have good government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. Yes, and some government or quasi-government positions
are not particularly competitive in the elections, or perhaps they are held by appointment. For example, zoning boards... of COURSE they are filled by realtors and builders. Often no one else is interested. (Big mistake!) And everyone knows zoning boards take bribes. Oh, well, I'm getting off the subject.

Regarding this very rich British peer, I guess Chavez is strongarming him, but somehow it just doesn't make me very sorry. I guess that's b/c to my eyes, this guy is just one embodiment of "agribusiness". And Lord Spam is a big boy, a sophisticated investor, etc., right? And we are constantly told that pure capitalism is the road to nirvana, right? And he gambled, as capitalists do, and he lost. (I'm sure he has plenty of other holdings unrelated to his Venezualan land.) Tough. Probably his first mistake was in not having his own "corporate" army... lol...

For some reason, this all reminds me of something I read about a company called "Delta Pine". It's allegedly owned by the royal family of England, and I read somewhere that it owns a large part of Mississippi... must look that up...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. At one time the British held title to the land we are living on too BC
Do you think we ought to give it back to them because they stole it fare and square from the native Americans?

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KitSileya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #17
67. It is sort of what comes around, goes around, isn't it?
Some Spanish Conquistador probably stole the land that now belongs to Lord Spam fair and square, and now Chavez is 'stealing' it back (I didn't catch whether the Lord is getting compensation or not.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
37. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
64. The right-wing consolidates power. The left-wing deconsolidates power.
Edited on Mon Jan-10-05 10:11 AM by w4rma
That's how it is and how it's always been. The right-wing tries to centralize power. The left-wing tries to decentralize power. At the far extreme on the right, 1 person owns everything (maybe they call themselves king and the rest of us are subjects and we "rent" from that king). At the far extreme on the left everyone owns an equal amount. The key is moderation between the two extremes. In Venezuela power is still too centralized/consolidated/undistributed and needs to be decentralized/deconsolidated/redistributed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. ...and what Chávez wants to do is to allow people to decentralize the ...
Edited on Mon Jan-10-05 10:14 AM by AP
... wealth created from working. Rather than it all get concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy oligarchs, a big % of it will accumulate in the hands of people who work. And the best way to do that is to give people title in the land they're working. And the best place to get the land is from the huge unused pieces of it that people with concentrated wealth and power accumulated in the process of exploiting a system that exploits people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
4. Land reform is the most misunderstood policy on earth
I also agree that land reform is perfectly legitimate -- in Venezuela or Zimbabwe. In fact, one of the least reported facts about Zimbabwe is that it had one of the most efficient and successful land reform programs in the history of developing countries until Mugabe began using it for patronage purposes and then the US and UK withdrew all funding, prompting Mugabe to engage in uncompensated disorderly land reform.

Before that, it was well known in the development field that small scale African farmers in Zimbabwe who were recipients of planned land reform far outproduced the expropriated large scale white farmers.

The reporting on this is so racist, it is unbelievable. Don't drink the RW MSM coolaid on Zimbabwe or other developing country land reform.

BTW, the US carried out land reform in Hawaii in the 1980s, taking massive amounts of land from the descendants of missionaries and selling it to the tenants, who were mostly suburbanites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
49. So True! And I'll add this: in the US this kind of land reform is en-
trenched in the law of just about every state.

In the US if you use land you don't own openly for a period of time and the owner doesn't complain (which is only possible if the person owns a great deal of land and doesn't bother to make any use of it) then the person who doesn't have title but is making use of the land gets title to it.

This kind of land reform is an important element of functioning, productive, western economies. It's such an important part of a productive economy that western countries which don't have laws like these (Scotland -- where something like 50 families own 90% of the land, and they don't do anything with it, and where the other 99.999% of the country are having a hard time building up wealth, engaging in entrepreneurialism, and entering the middle class) are talking about getting them because they know it's great for the economy.

But guess what? When a Scot or a Coloradan talks about doing stuff like this, the press doesn't say they're engaged in a land "grab" or that they're "left-wingers" or suggest they're savages.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #49
87. Incorrect, (see post above).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
86. You are a little misinformed about Hawaii...
1) it did not happen in the 1980s
2) Land owners in Hawaii (the native Hawaians) sued the government and won huge awards...the case is the basis for eminent domain law in the US---highest and best use, baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
91. Is this part of what you were discussing? Found it in google.....
I. BACKGROUND

Prior to American acquisition, Hawaii developed an exten-
sive feudal land ownership system that has proved remarkably
resistant to change. Although Hawaiian leaders and American
settlers have repeatedly attempted to divide the large Hawai-
ian land estates, the results have generally been unsuccessful.
As of the late 1980's, the largest eighteen landowners in the
state owned 40% of the available land. L.A. Powe, Jr.,
Economic Make-Believe in the Supreme Court, 3 Const.
Comm. 385, 389 (1986). The seventy-two largest landowners
owned 47%. Id. With the federal and state government own-
ing 49% of the land in the state, id., little is left for the rest
of the population. As might be expected in an area of desir-
able real estate with little land for sale, the price of owning
land in Hawaii has grown exponentially over the past several
decades.
(snip/)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9416041

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Since I have NO sense of law concerning real estate, it's slow sledding for me, but I'd say it looks as if, from looking at this paragraph, something significant happened concerning land ownership in Hawaii during the 1980's.

I'd imagine you know what you're talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
10. Here are some articlles posted in the last day or two on a similar thread
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 09:04 AM by Judi Lynn
Venezuela to seize aristocrat's cattle ranch
By Andy Webb-Vidal in Caracas and Henry Tricks in London
Published: January 7 2005 22:04 | Last updated: January 7 2005 22:04

Venezuelan authorities backed by troops are on Saturday expected to seize a 32,000-acre ranch owned by Lord Vestey, an English aristocrat and meat tycoon.

The move, the first in what is likely to be a number of Zimbabwe-style expropriations of big estates, appears to signal a renewed radicalisation in the leftwing government of President Hugo Chávez.

Lord Vestey, known as “Spam” to friends because his family's wealth comes from the meat trade, is one of Britain's richest men and a close friend of Prince Charles.

With interests that have ranged from overseas cattle ranches to a chain of butchers' shops, his fortune was estimated last year at £750m ($1.4bn, €1.07bn).
(snip/...)
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/392c076e-60e4-11d9-af5a-00000e2511c8.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chavez commission to examine land reform in Venezuela
07/01/2005 - 07:10:38

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez plans to form a special commission to examine what Venezuela could do with its farmlands amid a major land reform effort, the agriculture minister said yesterday.

Chavez is expected to announce measures on Monday to ”reorganise the use of agricultural land” in the country, Agriculture and Lands Minister Arnoldo Marquez said.

He said the presidential commission’s duties will include studying the best uses of agricultural lands and defining actions the government will take in the cases of idle lands.

Few other details were immediately available, and Chavez did not mention the land issue when he spoke at a ceremony marking the opening of the legislative session.

Under the Land Law enacted by Chavez in 2001, the government can seize land if it deems property is not being used productively for agriculture, or if it was obtained illegally.
(snip/)
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=129596184&p=yz959689x&n=129596944

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Venezuela Weighs Seizing British-Owned Cattle Ranch (Update1)
Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuela will begin weighing this weekend whether to confiscate a 32,000-acre, British-owned cattle ranch under a government plan to give land to poor farmers, a state official said.

The ranch, located in Cojedes state 200 kilometers (124 miles) southwest of Caracas, would be the first private property seized under the plan should the London-based Vestey Group fail to prove it owns the land legally and uses it productively, said Rafael Aleman, general secretary of Cojedes state.

``This is the first property to be assessed by the state in its war on large land holdings,'' Aleman said in a news conference today in Caracas.

President Hugo Chavez said in August, after he defeated an effort to oust him in a recall vote, that he would target land holdings of more than 25,000 acres for possible seizure and distribution to landless farmers. A decree Chavez issued in 2001 gives the government the power to expropriate private property it considers unused or poorly managed. The directive is one of 49 Chavez after Congress gave him a year, starting in October 2000, to make laws with legislators' involvement.
(snip/...)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aMEOSDVv9QHw&refer=latin_america

On edit:

Adding the D.U. thread on this subject from an earlier poster. Post #6 from Ribofunk is helpful:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1133268
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BAPhill Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
11. They should offer him a buyout...
that would make it easier to sell to the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
80. Corporations do "hostile takeovers" all the time
Small companies who do not want to sell out, are targetted and taken over ..their assets sold off, they workers fired..

THAT is touted as capitalism and good business planning :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
12. If society has the authority to draft a person and force him/her to die
for his country, then surely society has the authority to draft or confiscate a person's wealth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
13. Maybe Chavez is going to build a baseball stadium.
wouldn't that make it legal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. we call that 'Involuntary Annexation'... and it's all perfectly LEGAL
Involuntary annexation. Involuntary annexation could be allowed in three instances: when land is surrounded by the annexing city; when the land is urbanized and contiguous to the annexing city; when the city's border is separated by a small tract of undeveloped land from land that is urban in character.

source...
http://www.iopa.sc.edu/grs/SCCEP/Articles/Annex2.htm

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Doesn't Chimmpy call it " Eminent Domain"
Mine all Mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Or perhaps a highway? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
18. Chavez should have been gone long ago...
another thief using land reform to steal belongings of Venezuela's citizens and investors..just like Peru and Ecuador did in the 70s. I travel extensively in South America and everyone knows what a fool Chavez is and is generally seen as a wacko.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. "Investors" sounds so.... innocuous
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 11:50 AM by Canuckistanian
The fact is, absentee landlords such as these "investors" have never had the best interests of the campesinos at heart.
Sure, I know the argument, these poor people need to be shown the way of capitalism and the benefits of the profit-driven marketplace, but FIRST let them be able to feed themselves and manage their OWN affairs.
As for Chavez being a "wacko", South America is full of them, mostly RW dictators. At least Chavez's "peoples revolution" is not killing large numbers of peasants in the name of the "free market".
You can argue with his methods, but his ultimate goal is lauadable, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #19
30. What arguable "methods" ?
Winning in honest democratic elections?

The Venezuelans have spoken!

Most of the charges against Chavez have been raised by the rich, white, CorpoPredators who currently own the CorpoMedia in Venezuela, and repeated by the CorpoMedia in the USA.

Vast amounts of money are being channeled into Venezuela to overthrow Chavez through undemocratic means. People involved in non-democratic means of overthrowing democratically elected leaders ARE criminals, and should be dealt with accordingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
52. "Devestors" or "Exvestors" would be a better term.
The means are as laudible as the ends, by the way.

Google "adverse possession."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. You have it backwards - it's the foreign colonialists that are the thieves
President Chavez is to be lauded for his efforts to restore fairness and justice to a horrible historical situation.

But I guess it's OK when bunkerboy STEALS land from other private landowners to give it to other private landowners (himself) to build a private corporation stadium WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS TO BOOT! huh?

We ain't buying what you're sellin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. I, for one, am buying it
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 03:02 PM by brentspeak
Why is it that whenever someone points out the abuses perpetrated by the left-wing's idols, people on these boards respond with "And what about Bush?"

Well, what ABOUT Bush? His dismantling of the American Dream is completely independent from the actions of a quasi-communist near-dictator like Hugo Chavez.

This is the DEMOCRATIC Underground -- why do feel that we should give a rip about someone like Hugo Chavez? I can bet you that Democrats like Truman and JFK would not have. And BC didn't either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. Having you been following this idle land story
from non-US/Britain news sources? For years Chavez has been asking the foreign land owners to provide proof of ownership. The foreign land owners have been stalling and stalling while the land lies empty and Venezuela had to import $8 billion of foodstuffs from the US/Britain.

Chavez is taking this action now and has again put out the order that if foreign land owners want to keep their land, they need to provide proof of ownership and they need to put idle land back into production.

Not comparing anything to Bush tactics here in the US. Just watching a country trying to get on its feet while global capitalists keep trying to knock it down and rob it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. Bill Clinton didn't underwrite a coup against Chavez, did he?
There may be a few subtle differences!

Could you offer a link bearing out your inplication President Clinton disliked Hugo Chavez? A quick dive into google didn't provide anything like that for me. Not wanting to spend too long rummaging around, I could only find a couple of quick references in passing:
Chavez also met with U.S. President Bill Clinton, spoke at the Brookings Institution think tank and addressed leaders of the Organization of American States.

He said the impetus for reform in Venezuelan society is the result of "a powerful internal force, like a volcano, that has been maturing below the surface."

"It is an absolutely democratic and legitimate process, from beginning to end," he said.


'We are more confident about him'

Clinton's special envoy for Latin America, Kenneth MacKay, who attended the meeting between Chavez and Clinton, said that "we are more confident about him," although the jury was still out on the direction Venezuela was taking.

Analysts said the Clinton administration appears to be willing to give Chavez a chance.
(snip/...)
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/americas/9909/22/chavez/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chavez sits atop a reserve of crude that rivals Iraq's. And it's not his presidency of Venezuela that drives the White House bananas, it was his presidency of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC. While in control of the OPEC secretariat, Chavez cut a deal with our maximum leader of the time, Bill Clinton, on the price of oil. It was a 'Goldilocks' plan. The price would not be too low, not too high; just right, kept between $20 and $30 a barrel.

But Dick Cheney does not like Clinton nor Chavez nor their band. To him, the oil industry's (and Saudi Arabia's) freedom to set oil prices is as sacred as freedom of speech is to the ACLU. I got this info, by the way, from three top oil industry lobbyists.
(snip/...)
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0816-03.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Arturo Valenzuela, the Latin America national security aide in the Clinton administration, accused the Bush administration of running roughshod over more than a decade of treaties and agreements for the collective defense of democracy. Since 1990, the United States has repeatedly invoked those agreements at the Organization of American States to help restore democratic rule in such countries as Haiti, Guatemala and Peru.

Mr. Valenzuela, who now heads the Latin American studies department at Georgetown University here, warned that the nations in the region might view the administration's tepid support of Venezuelan democracy as a green light to return to 1960's and 1970's, when power was transferred from coup to coup.

"I think it's a very negative development for the principle of constitutional government in Latin America," Mr. Valenzuela said. "I think it's going to come back and haunt all of us."
(snip/...)
http://www.pepeace.org/current_reprints/08/US_Seen_As_Weak.htm


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Clinton was leery of Chavez from the beginning -- and still is
Though it's hard to find info of Clinton's thoughts on Chavez on the Net, thanks to a spammed Greg Palast article, I was able to find:

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1926/stories/20030103000306200.htm

"Those intent on ousting Chavez, who was elected in a landslide victory four years ago, have the tacit support of the United States, which has viewed Chavez with suspicion. Before becoming President, he was denied a visa by the Clinton administration to visit the U.S. Chavez is an outspoken admirer of Cuban President Fidel Castro and an opponent of U.S. hegemonism in the region."


So that was before Chavez became president.

And this is after Clinton has left office:

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=8627

"Former US President Bill Clinton appears to give his uncritical agreement to the opposition's slant on media freedom in Venezuela ... as a keynote speaker on globalization at an Inter American Press Society (IAPS) assembly in the Dominican Republic, Clinton said that Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez Frias has tried to take a "short cut" ... only to find himself in a dead-end cul-de-sac … “it's a pity that, when we met, I couldn’t persuade him to act differently.” "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. You know, just because we're Democrats doesn't mean we defer
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 05:15 PM by Judi Lynn
to everything Clinton says. I can't get into V-Headline, being between computers, don't have a way to access my username, etc. to read that article, so I'll remain in the dark about it, for now, I'm afraid.

Many of us D.U.'ers have believed John Kerry was way, way off on Hugo Chavez, as well.

I do know that Bill Clinton has stayed at the home of Gustavo Cisneros, unfortunately, who is one P.O.S., and a personal friend of George H. W. Bush. A fishing buddy, actually. So, as the owner of much of Venezuelan media, he's bound to have an influence on the people who stay as his personal guests in his own house, apparently having something in common with them.

People do change in time, and it would appear Clinton's moving away from his strongest Democratic beliefs, if he ever had strong Democratic beliefs to start with. There's no way a person could both love Cisneros and care for the well-being of the Venezuelan people.

Cisneros was one of the Venezuelan coup organizers. He was given his own award for his services to humanity:
Henry Kissinger will present the award
Women Protest US Award to Venezuelan Coup Leader Gustavo Cisneros

Thursday, Jan 29, 2004

By: Global Women’s Strike / Venezuelanalysis.com

Philadelphia, Jan 29 (Venezuelanalysis.com).- The U.S. based NGO Global Women’s Strike issued a press release today protesting an award expected to be given by the Inter-American Economic Council to Gustavo Cisneros, a Venezuelan billionaire identified by sources such as Newsweek, local Venezuelan publications and analysts as one of the protagonists and financiers of the April 11, 2002 coup d’etat against President Hugo Chavez.

Cisneros is also credited with being a driving force behind the December 2002 nationwide lock-out and sabotage of the oil industry, which instead of ousting President Chávez from his elected office, drove the Venezuelan economy into the ground by causing a historical drop of 27% in the country’s GDP in the first trimester of 2003.

Cisneros is the owner of AOL, Coca-Cola, DirecTV and Pizza Hut in Latin America, Univision in the US, and Venezuela’s biggest TV network Venevision.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who according to declassified documents headed the CIA operation to overthrow Chilean democratically-elected President Salvador Allende in 1973, will be in charge of awarding fellow coup plotter Cisneros.

The Global Women’s Strike statement follows:
The Global Women’s Strike condemns the outrageous decision of the Inter-American Economic Council to honor Latin American media tycoon Gustavo Cisneros at its 2004 Winter Gala on Thirsday January 29h. It shows once more the total contempt of the US administration for people’s right to elect their own government. To recognize as a person who “has consistently sought to create an environment where business and government can work together in meaningful ways for the betterment of society,” a man who has systematically used his corporate wealth and media monopoly to illegally and violently attempt to force from office the democratically-elected government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, is particularly cynical. It is women in particular who elected and have overwhelmingly defended President Chavez, and women from the poorest areas who have most to gain from and have been most involved in the economic and social reforms Venezuela is undertaking to tackle poverty and corruption despite constant coup and assassination attempts from the likes of Cisneros.
(snip/...)
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1183



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #50
59. not a dimes worth of difference
anyone who automatically equates Bill Clinton with Democratic dogma is suspect at the very least. Clinton and Bush are definitely minted on the same coin, and that is one thing the haters cant accept in their worldview. Viva Chavez. Bugger his detractors, whoever or whatever they think and/or claim to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #45
63. I've seen complimentary quotes about one from the other here.
And Chávez obviously got a lot of breathing room from Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bin.dare Donating Member (517 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #40
53. Clinton is a mixed bag on Venezuela and Chavez ...
a little sampler (note Castro's comment at end, brilliant!)

http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/050899a.html

Because he had tried to overthrow an elected government allied with the United States and cozied up to Castro, the State Department treated Chavez as a pariah. In 1998, signaling U.S. displeasure with Chavez, the State Department rejected his application for a visa to travel to the United States.

The reason given was his role as a revolutionary who challenged a democratically elected government. At the time, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright described the snub as a matter of principle, not personal disapproval.
...

Despite its nervousness, Washington recognized the 44-year-old Chavez as the duly elected president. In January, Chavez made a whirlwind victory tour of Europe and North America, including a White House meeting with President Clinton. Clinton invited Chavez to return for an official state visit by the end of February, after his inauguration.

But the U.S. government put the state visit on indefinite hold after Chavez made controversial statements that were seen as anti-democratic. Chavez raised eyebrows with his stubborn idea of scrapping the constitution which he claimed "aids and abets only the corrupt" and replacing it with "an original" constitution.
...

Rangel’s complaint prompted a message from President Clinton to President Chavez via Venezuelan Ambassador Alfredo Toro Hardy. Clinton’s message was that the United States supports Chavez’s public commitment to respect democracy.

But one well-placed Venezuelan source said Chavez also was receiving advice from Fidel Castro, who has known Chavez for a number of years. The source said Castro’s advice was to “carry out the business you have to carry out with the U.S. but never get too friendly. ... To maintain a certain distance means more respect.”



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #53
65. Albright is on the board of N.E.D., IIRC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bin.dare Donating Member (517 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #65
85. "the price is worth it" says Albright ...
... a little story from the memory hole:

http://www.southendpress.org/books/iraqexc.shtml

"Albright," I call out, "over one-half million Iraqi children have died because of US/UN sanctions. In May 1996, you told 60 Minutes that this was an acceptable price to pay in order to maintain US interests in the region. Are you prepared to withdraw that statement?"

A security guard, Officer Goodine, is at my elbow. Senator Jesse Helms motions to him to remove me, but the young officer raises his hand politely as if to indicate "just a moment, let her finish," and he gently taps my arm.

"These children are helpless victims," I call out again, moving into the aisle. " Albright, please, you could do so much good."

The officer leads me out as though he were ushering at the opera. Simon Harak is already on his feet, asking Albright if she would impose the same punishment on every other country that fails to comply with US demands.

Ardeth, Carole, and Art rise, in turn, to speak. After we are all escorted out, Albright addresses the committee: "I am as concerned about the children of Iraq as any person in this room. . . . Saddam Hussein is the one who has the fate of his country in his hands, and he is the one who is responsible for starving children, not the United States of America."

On January 10, 1997, Voices in the Wilderness sent out a statement of our response, saying in part:

Iraqi children are totally innocent of oil power politics. All those who prevent the lifting of sanctions, including Madeleine Albright, are not. One line disclaimers of responsibility may appear suavely diplomatic, but the children are dead and we have seen them dying. According to the UN itself, they died as a direct result of the embargo on commerce with Iraq. Many United Nations members favored significantly easing these sanctions. The US government and Madeleine Albright as its spokesperson prevented that from happening. This economic embargo continues warfare against Iraq, a silent war in which only the weakest, most vulnerable and innocent non-combatant civilians—women, children and families—continue to suffer.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clem_c_rock Donating Member (989 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. A wacko sure - at least a wacko on the side of the poor
I am so sick of seeing the opposite which is about 99% of the time.

As far as wackos in government - lest clean the trash in our backyard before we start casting the stones.

Further, the trash in our backyard has the potential to start another World War and is responsible for the deaths and oppression of millions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. Wacko is a term used only by BushCo backers, his spinmeisters
and the rich elite in Venezuela.

Venezuela has vast areas of furtile land "owned" by rich foreigners who "obtained" ownership in the late 1800's. Chavez told the rich elite to prove ownership but they stalled and stalled. The wait is over, Chavez is acting.

But the BushCo owned media keeps spinning and spinning. It is tough being a developing nation sitting on top of oil BushCo wants to grab. If we are talking about stealing and thiefs, first we should look in our own backyard starting with the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
34. Two types of people...
"travel extensively in South America".

1) Humanitarian workers for Social Justice

2) Global CorpoPredators

I don't doubt that those with which you associate see Chavez as a wacko.
The CorpoPredators fear the Chavez reforms and desperately need to marginalize him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #18
39. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. You might be able to see him waving from the blue house
at the top of the heap in this photo of lovely Caracas mountain-side homes....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #18
43. You seem to be ignorant of history...
Let's see, yes they did take land from people, or more accurately, corporations. The United Fruit Company, and many other businesses lost a lot of land in those days, cry me a river, PLEASE!!!!! Foriegn owned companies, most American, owned that land, while 90 percent of the people living there were to the starving point. And what happened, we overthrew those democratically elected "dictators", cancelled elections, and over a period of 30 years, killed hundreds of thousands so the rich can keep the land. You actually think that was a good thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
48. I travel there too and disagree with you strongly. You must only
talk to the fabulously wealthy.

I deal with people and businesses up and down the economic scale and their attitudes depend on how much wealth they have and how much they want and what they might lose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #18
97. Chavez gives the land to the citizens;
to the 80% of the population that lived in poverty due to the rule of a wealthy elite minority (which would include many investors). Same thing with profits from the sale of oil.
That's why Chavez was elected by a landslide (twice, if you count the recall referendum).

The Venezuelan mainstream media are still owned by the elites, while Chavez only has the one state-owned channel. If Chavez would by a dictator of some kind he'd have shut down the MSM there a long time ago.
It is these commercial Venezuelan mass media who purport that Chavez is a wacko. Most of the rich, usually light-skinned Venezuelans will tell you the same thing. But those are in fact a small minority.

In the mean time thanks to Chavez's anti-analphabethism campaign most Venezuelans know their constitution better than the average American knows theirs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbizuX Donating Member (322 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
20. hmmm....um...
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 12:03 PM by AlbizuX
Lord Spam is British and owns 32,000 acres of VENEZUELAN land...yet more than 80% of Venezuelans languish in poverty.

Screw Lord Spam...the Venezuelan people COME FIRST...

Have we become so indoctrinated by capitalist logic that we weep because ONE rich foreigner is divorced from his opulent wealth? I'm not for stupid ideas (like the Tanzanian "socialist" farm program), but if Chavez can put the land to better use than being the personal stomping grounds of some British "lord", I'm all for it.

And in case people think Chavez is killing the Venezuelan economy, unemployment just went down to the lowest numbers since 6 years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #20
117. Damn Right!
The government has every right to TAKE whatever it wants from from anyone if they feel the citizens of the country need it more. This sounds like a great system. We should do that here in America, seize everyone's land and put it in the hands of the government. Then our officials can decide who gets what piece of land, or who doesn't get any at all. It will really kick-start our economy and, of course, we know we can trust the government to do what's best, and not be corrupted by the power! I'm sure that many of us here on DU would greatly support a government seizure of land in our own country, especially if it's only done to "foreigners".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
21. You Go, Hugo!!!!
Kudos from me for social reform in ANY feudal society, including ours!
Building free schools, free healthcare for the impoverished, socializing profits from natural resources, "Forty acres and a mule programs".

I can see why the rich, white, foreign elites who used to own Venezuela would be pissed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chicago Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
25. Viva CHAVEZ!!
Viva Venezuela!!!

DOWN WITH BUSH and BLAIR!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedsron2us Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
27. The Vesteys
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 01:51 PM by fedsron2us
Big in meat and avoiding UK income tax. They even get their own mention in the Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestey_Group

Their star has been on the wane recently so Chavez land grab is not going to help their family fortunes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carl Brennan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
28. Why that Chavez is a bloody Robin Hood!!
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 02:01 PM by Carl Brennan
Remember the 30's movie with Errol Flynn as the star? How Robin Hood ...uh, er....acquired from the rich and gave to the poor?

Surely, even the Brits, must see the irony here.

Now whose side were you on in this story Robin or the rich? Fess up now. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedsron2us Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #28
44. Most Brits who know about the Vesteys do not like them
The family has made an art form out of avoiding income tax so that does not make them that popular with the rest of the UK population who do pay their dues. Given the large number of costly court cases fought between Her Majesty's Inland Revenue and the Vesteys over the years I am not sure that even the British government is going to shed too many tears for them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #28
62. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, outrageous!
Funny that no one complained about the way land belonging to the Venezuelan people ended up in the pockets of rich foreigners. Shall we mention the poor peasants that had their land stolen by Occidental Petroleum when it build a pipeline in neighboring Colombia?

It is only called "class warfare" when the victims of the elites's war on the poor fight back!

Behind the Violations is the Drive for Oil ...led by Britain's richest company BP

US oil company Chevron is prospecting in the Zone of Rehabilitation and Consolidation covering Sucre and Bolívar departments, and another US multinational Occidental Petroleum has big investments in Arauca department. Arauca, as well as being declared a special zone, will see US troops arriving in November to establish a new battalion to protect Occidental's pipeline.

BP is the biggest foreign investor in Colombia. Through its management of the Casanare oilfields, BP controls over half of the country's crude oil production. Its human rights and environmental impact has been disgraceful. There is no trade union organisation in BP's oilfield. BP uses a shadowy private security operator Defense Systems Limited, and it makes payments to the 16th Brigade of the Colombian army that has been involved in human rights abuses. Yet BP has refused to pay just compensation to hundreds of peasants forced off their land by its OCENSA pipeline and who now live in complete destitution.

Occidental, Texaco and BP are members of the "US Colombia Business Partnership" a grouping that lobbied in Washington for Plan Colombia. Altogether BP and other oil companies have spent $25 million pushing for US military intervention to protect their investments. And now BP's interests have led the British government into backing Uribe and his crackdown on the Colombian people.

It is high time that respect for human rights and not BP's profits formed the basis of policy.

http://www.colombiasolidarity.org.uk/Events/notofascism.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
29. Chavez is the kind of liberal we could use. Three cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
36. Before too many people fall for the disinformation about "land grabbing"
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 03:11 PM by Judi Lynn
it would be good to ask them to do simple research, not to pass on bogus claims by pro-rightwing posters.

A speedy run to google offered this item immediately:
In November 2001, Chávez passed a set of 49 laws by decrees, shortly before the enabling law expired. One of the most controversial of these laws was the Ley de Tierras ("Land Law"), which created the Plan Zamora to enact land reforms in Venezuelan agriculture: taxing unused landholdings, expropriating unused private lands (with compensation), and giving inheritable, unsellable land grants to small farmers and farm collectives.
(snip/...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%E1vez

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Authorities say the 32,000-acre (13,000-hectare) El Charcote cattle farm operated by Vestey subsidiary Agroflora in Cojedes State is using public land that must be handed over as part of an agrarian reform campaign by President Hugo Chavez.
(snip)

The law allows the government to take over and redistribute property judged to be idle, under-used or belonging to the state. Private owners will be paid compensation at market price for expropriated idle land, according to the law.
(snip)
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/celebrity/story.jsp?id=2005010417480002419759&dt=20050104174800&w=RTR&coview=

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Land Reform law provides for expropriation with compensation of idle farmlands, as well as arable lands exceeding 12,350 acres in areas of poor soil (350 acres in areas of rich soil), to be redistributed to landless workers. It is also important to note (though Hadden doesn't) that in the 1960's big landowners and ranchers expanded their fences to expropriate most of the state-owned marshlands the government intended for redistribution. Current stats on land concentration are appalling: One percent of farms account for 46% of farmland, one percent of the population owns 60% of arable lands, and 40% of all Venezuelan farmlands lie fallow. As a result, Venezuela is agronomically undiversified and chronically dependent on oil and imports, while the urban population has exploded, causing crime, unemployment, and pollution rates to soar. Even the middle-class Chavez foes I spoke to said the need for land reform is a no-brainer. Does this make them Castro-communists? The mere suggestion is ludicrous.

Hadden would likely respond that he didn't have enough airtime to discuss the law's particulars. Fine, but why not couple the word "expropriation" with "idle farmland"--both concise and precise--instead of the buzzwords "private property," unless he specifically intends to associate Chavez with communistic distribution of wealth?
(snip/...)
http://www.counterpunch.org/carlton01112003.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Please check the legitimacy of anyone who tells you Hugo Chavez is simply GRABBING "wealth" and property from the helpless billionaires.

If you check some of what is available in this thread, you'll note that only a portion of the land in question has been targeted, and the owner by no means is headed for the poorhouse.

Don't be misled. If in doubt, show some initiative, research for the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbizuX Donating Member (322 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. thanks
for providing this info...

We're with you Hugo...keep making Venezuela more egalitarian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jose Diablo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
46. Gasp!! Can such a thing be allowed to happen?
What of our very own corporate holders of land right here in the 'good old USA'.

I mean, they have managed the land wisely, like standing in-line as other corporal entities to receive the abundance the land produces, ie tax breaks and cash from the government to not use the land.

Even moving the actual production of food to other countries to preserve our land and let it sit idle, and to get the subsidy our generous government provides plus the bonus of very inexpensive labor available in other countries (hey, they expect less, Less IS More).

Sure, this has produced a tremendous increase in the price of goods in the grocery store. But to us, we spend a very small percentage of our money on food, thus it doesn't harm us, the real Americans.

Somebody should stop this plan to take the wealth of the land from those much more deserving to those by the nature of their poverty have proved themselves unworthy of anything except contempt.

Somebody in power needs to be informed of this tragedy, to do something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
72. From one who lived in Venezuela...
If land is not productive the state can confiscate abandoned or idle land, especially if for agriculture.

If land has passed on through inheritance to any person born out of wedlock, they lose their rights to that land. This is because some family lost a huge lawsuit way before Chávez in which they wanted to get compensated for land around Lake Venezuela, Lake Maracaibo and the city of Maracaibo. They sought billions in return for their idle lands which have plenty of oil in and around them. But they had some illegitimate ancestors and lost the feud. The government won and, by extension, the people for the land did not have to come out of their reimbursement in the form of taxes. I even had family members lose land due to idleness. The government also awards huge tracts of land virtually free to those who will work it. So it goes both ways.

Land grabbing by the government and by peasants is a fact of life in Venezuela. The fact that Chávez is in power is mere coincidence.
It's an old form of US propaganda: We steam clean OUR bottles!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. So this is SOP in Venezuela and has been for a long long time
What a POS our so called liberal media is. A real journalist would have mentioned that fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #75
78. Victor Jara and Woody Guthrie chime in!
Adecos told me to take land as I needed. They were sending out "their" poor to take over lands, all abandoned by the ousted Christian Democrats. They promised water, electricity and roads very quickly.

But I thought I didn't graduate from college to advance some one's political revenge agenda. Besides ,those who needed the land, really did and I could afford to pay rent. That land was in flood plains near Valencia, Venezuela.

BTW Adecos are Social Democrats.

Yo pregunto a los presentes
si no se han puesto a pensar
que si las manos son nuestras
es nuestro lo que nos den
A desalambrar. A desalambrar.
Que la tierra es nuestra, es tuya y de aquél...

What I remember from Víctor Jara

"I ask those who are present
if you have ever wondered
that if our hands are ours
it is ours what they give us.
Tear down the wire fences.
For the land is ours, it's your's and yonder person's.

And I remember Woody Guthrie:

As I went walking along that highway
I saw a sign that said no trespassing,
but on the other side
it didn't say nothing
That's how it was made for you and me!
This land is your land,
This land is my land,
From the Gulf Stream Waters...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike Niendorff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
73. There is no such thing as a legitimate land title.
Edited on Mon Jan-10-05 04:47 PM by Mike Niendorff
Every single one traces back to a theft of common resources. Or, to put it another way: what Chavez is doing is no more a "theft" than was the granting of the original title in the first place.

And that, my friends, is the real battle of the coming generations. As long as there were "frontiers" (complete with less-armed people who could be killed and/or driven out) into which dispossessed subpopulations could be offloaded, then everything worked out for a while (at least for the conquering powers). But that approach has pretty much run its course now, at which point the general distribution of basic resources (land, in particular) becomes a much more immediate question. The opening shots of this battle were heard in the 20th century, but the battle is going to keep flaring up and intensifying until it is finally resolved in a manner that is equitable and tolerable for everybody.

We have one home, and the earth is it. It is a shared resource. All of us have a right to exist, and that requires access to the fundamental means by which existence is maintained. Any system that denies such access in order to enrich its favored members is -- by definition -- a barbaric and corrupt system that has outlived its time, a system which will ultimately fall.

Chavez is right on this one.


MDN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bono71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #73
82. So, you are saying two wrongs make a right? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike Niendorff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. who said there are two wrongs here?

Armed theft of common resources -- resources then redistributed into the hands of the wealthy and the well-connected -- is both unsustainable and wrong.

Restoring broader access to those resources is a correction of this historical wrong, and is also in and of itself right.

Fairly straightforward, I think.


MDN

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radric Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #84
94. Isn't this what happened in Zimbabwe?
And that's turned out great from all reports ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #94
103. Actually, "all reports" are having a hard time arguing that it
Edited on Wed Jan-12-05 10:34 AM by AP
isn't going to work. Obviously, there's going to be disruption during the switch-over years. And certainly the west doesn't want it to work (and NGOs and credit agencies are not going to participate in a way that might allow Zimbabwe to end dependency and create wealth for Zimbabweans and not for the west). But that alone isn't evidence that subsistence maize farming isn't going to be better for the economy than a rhinoceraus preserve.

There's a lot of neo-liberal hysteria over Zimbabwe in the press which uses the same language as this article in the OP. But other former colonies are seeing Zimbabwe as a model for remedying inequity. Namibia, for example, doesn't see Zimbabwe as a disaster, even though the Times of London and the Wall St Journal do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
77. I don't see how this is a good thing.
This is the criminal behavior of a theif and a dictator that is beyond the law. Then again, this article doesn't give enough info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. Have you read RedCloud's post #72 ?
This is how Venezuela has always handled land. The only difference now is that our so called liberal media is making it out that Chavez is doing something new and illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #77
81. translation of Ali Primera (Vzla Protest singer)
TECHOS DE CARTON (roofs of cardboard)

Qué triste, se oye la lluvia (How sad the rains falls)
en los techos de cartón (on the roofs of cardboard)
qué triste vive mi gente (How sad live my people)
en las casas de cartón (in their houses of cardboard)

Viene bajando el obrero (The working is coming down from there)
casi arrastrando los pasos (almost dragging his footsteps)
por el peso del sufrir (from the weight of his suffering)
¡mira que es mucho el sufrir! (Look how much he suffers.)
¡mira que pesa el sufrir!(look how his suffering weighs him down)

Arriba, deja la mujer preñada (Up above he leaves behind his pregnant wife)
abajo está la ciudad (down below is the city)
y se pierde en su maraña (and he gets lost in its entanglements)
hoy es lo mismo que ayer (today is the same as yesterday)
es su vida sin mañana (it's his life with no tomorrow)

(recitado)
"Ahí cae la lluvia, (there the rain is falling)
viene, viene el sufrimiento (the suffering is coming and coming)
pero si la lluvia pasa, (but if the rain stops)
¿cuándo pasa el sufrimiento? (when will suffering stop?)
¿cuándo viene la esperanza?" (when will hope come?)

Niños color de mi tierra (Children the color of my earth)
con sus mismas cicatrices (with their same scars)
millonarios de lombrices (Millionaires only in parasites!)
Y, por eso: (and that's why)
qué tristes viven los niños (how sad live our children)
en las casas de cartón (in their cardboard houses)
qué alegres viven los perros (how happy live the dogs)
casa del explotador(at the exploiters house)

Usted no lo va a creer (you are not going to believe it)
pero hay escuelas de perros (but there are schools for dogs)
y les dan educación (and they give them education)
pa que no muerdan los diarios (so they won't bite the newspapers)
pero el patrón, (but the boss)
hace años, muchos años (for years, so many years)
que está mordiendo al obrero (has been biting the worker)

oh, oh, uhum, uhum

Qué triste se oye la lluvia
en las casas de cartón
qué lejos pasa la esperanza
en los techos de cartón.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #81
90. Thanks for posting Ali Primera and the translation.
Information about the crushing poverty which has been forced upon the people of Latin American has been very scarce here, hasn't it?

At one time, I realized, considering the tone and content of our ordinary news, and magazines, history classes in schools, etc., it's as if there is nothing in this hemisphere south of Florida, and usually nothing north, either.

Our news is self-centered, except for the stories needed to reinforce a political agenda as administrations try to create
each emotional storm needed to carry people along for new wars, new aggressions. Sad.

I hope Latin America will be able to develop the growth and progress which have been impossible during the years of radical, economic, racist warfare at every level it has endured at the hands of people who had no business interfering.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nevernose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #77
83. The right of a man to feed himself is the most fundmental of rights
Beyond the right to safety, or fire departments, or health care, or education, or religious freedom, or even the right to personal property, the right for people to feed themselves is the foundation upon which all other freedom is built.

For me, the operative term in the article is "idle." We're not talking about taking away one man's right to farm their own land in favor of another's, we're talking about taking away one man's vacation home in order to feed several hundred families. Simple taxation.

My concern, though, is probably similar to yours: while this is, in my opinion, a worthwhile case, I'd hate to see a slippery slope of impounding everything formerly owned by rich people and giving it to the poor. The 20th century is all too filled with promising, benevolent governments that quickly turned into despotic regimes when it came time to ensure the right of the peasants to own land (Stalin and Mao come to mind).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
89. Anybody want to bet what will happen to the farm?
My money is that it will end up belonging to one of Chavez's close associates.

Of course, I'm a bit of a cynic....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radric Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #89
104. More than likely that will happen..
I have a feeling Chavez will decide he should be "President for Life" in the not too distant future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mojojojo27 Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
93. hmm
hmm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
98. Appalling stats from bemildred's thread. Grotesque.
A 1998 census found that 60 percent of Venezuela's farmland was owned by less than 1 percent of the population. The survey said 90 percent of farmland given to the poor under a 1960 agrarian reform had since returned to the hands of large landholders.
(snip/...)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1133268

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matilda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 02:32 AM
Response to Original message
101. No need to weep for the Vesteys.
For most of the last century, they ran one of the biggest multi-
nationals in the world. Huge holdings in the UK, and famous there
for avoiding income tax. Huge holdings in the Northern Territory
in Australia, and famous here for avoiding tax - for 15 years they
exploited a tax loophole and paid no tax at all. Even when the
loophole was closed, like most big corporations they were able to
avoid paying anything like what they really owed. Also have
extensive holdings in Brazil, from where they supply meat to
Macdonalds (this came out in the MacLibel suit in Britain), and
this involved cutting down large areas of rainforest to graze cattle.

This family has ripped off the people of at least three continents
for decades - it's time they paid their dues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
118. pretty sure the same policy has been in place in Costa Rica for years
at least that's how it was explained to me in 96. I believe it applied to foreign ownership only.

Of course, Costa Rica has no oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 11th 2024, 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC