Venezuela: The "war on the landed estates" is not a war, nor is it directed against the landed estates
(Note: The following article is being translated into English.The Spanish original can be found at http://www.ft.org.ar/notasft.asp?id=4462)
Autor: Juventud de Izquierda Revolucionaria
Fecha: 20/4/2005
Fuente: JIR - Venezuela
Three months have already passed since Chavez announced at the top of his lungs the beginning of the "war against the latifundio" (the large estates), producing, as is logical, joy among the poor rural workers and the exploited in general, also producing, as is customary now, writings by the chavista left saluting the so-called "war" and by the centrists who claim to be Marxists, without making the least effort to unmask the enormous limits of this reform, or explaining that the peasants themselves need to be the ones who take the struggle against the latifundio in their hands.
Once more, no one wants to tell the truth about the matter. Therefore, we insist that, if, beyond the high-sounding phrases of Chavez and the government leaders, we stop for a moment to look at things calmly, we will see that it is not only these phrases which lack relation with reality, but that there are also other declarations and approaches, which express the real policy of the government better, and nevertheless are not stressed, neither by the bourgeois press, nor by the press of those who acll themselves socialists.
Let us start with what Chavez himself and the government functionaries said about the problem of the concentration of land. According to declarations by Chavez at the end of January, "In Venezuela 1% of the owners or supposed owners occupy 80% of the productive lands." (1) For his part, Eliecer Otaiza says thataccording to the assessments made by the technical commission assigned to the recovery of lands, only 5% of the population owns 90% of arable lands, and 95% owns the remaining 10%. (2) And Antonio Albarran, Minister of Agriculture and Land, and chairman of the National Agrarian Commission, says that "5% has 80% of the land, and 75% possesses 6% of these [lands]." (3)
Beyond the differences that can exist between different sets of figures, it is obvious that the problem of land concentration in our country is severe. This fact now lets us see how limited the solution advanced by the government is.
Let us see then what Minister Albarran says: "The one who shows that the lands are his and that they are productive has nothing to fear. If he proves ownership of the land, and that it is not productive, he will have to pay a fair tax." (4) Here there is no doubt that it is not a matter of putting an end to landed estates, but to the illegal landed estate. So the landed estates are not illegal in Venezuela, however much the Constitution and the government functionaries say they are. That is to say, if there is a latifundio (a large concentration of land in a few hands), but he has his papers in order," then "he has nothing to fear." That confirms what Jose Vicente Rangel had said about the matter.
But let us look further. The landed estate is acceptable if it is "legal," and if it is not producing, then a "fair tax" will be imposed on it, nothing more. That is to say, it is not even a reform limited to attacking the illegal and unproductive landed estate, leaving the "legal" and "productive" landed estate intact, rather, not even the unproductive latifundio will be touched, beyond a "just tax."
But a better examination of the reality of this so-called war is still lacking. The Bolivarian News Agency [ABN] reports that the government is drawing up a decree to exonerate idle land from taxes for the years 2002, 2003, and 2004, so they will only have to pay taxes on idle lands for the year 2005, if they do not use them productively this year. (5) Now it is not even a matter of imposing high or "fair" taxes on the unproductive landed estate.
And so that the "unproductive" ones do not have to pay that tax this year, the government is offering them credits, and they also have the choice of selling the land or giving it to INTI. But, according to Otaiza, the government is unlikely to seize private land in the first phase, "first, we do not have available resources today to buy land." (6) This is clear, because in addition to the fact that it has nothing to do with expropriating the latifundios, independently of whether or not they have “papers in order” or not, as it should, nor does it have to do with expropriating even the unproductive lands. It is concerned, rather, with buying the idle land, if the landowner does not agree to ask for a credit to make the land productive.
All this is consistent with what was disclosed by Chavez himself in the meeting at Fuerte Tiuna: “I have given instructions that they invite the estate owners. Invite them and sit down with them at one table. ‘Welcome, señores latifundistas, there is a proposal coming from the President, he wants to avoid conflicts, help him . . . you have 20,000 hectares and barely 50 head of cattle, you live in the capital and do not take care of [your estate] . . . We are going to negotiate. Do you want to? We have a term, we do not want conflict . . . You will have flexibility. Do you want to negotiate that way and avoid conflicts?’ ‘Yes!,’ ‘Then we are going to arrive at an agreement. How many hectares do you need?, keep them and the bienechuría, and give up the rest.” (7)
But one does not have to think very much about the matter to understand this action by the government. The government's objective is "to strengthen national agricultural production," to achieve "sovereignty in food" by developing food production "in the country." These are certainly legimitate objectives and a national need. But the issue is that the government is pursuing this objective independently of who is producing, that is to say, if the landowners are productive, the government leaves them in peace, then gives them credits to make their lands produce. It could not be clearer, as clear in this case, as in the case of the city factories, that the government wants the expropriation of the property of the cpaitalists or the landowners to be an exception and not the norm, since the central interest is not ending the exploitation to hwich the capitalists and landowners subject the toilers of city and countryside [nor ending] [el usufructo] the right to use someone else's labor, but developing "national production."
Seen this way, rather than a war it is a call to conciliation, rather than against the landed estate, it is only against the landed estate that is illegal and unproductive at the same time.
1 Últimas Noticias, 31-01-05.
2 VEA, 18-01-05.
3 Últimas Noticias, 16-01-05.
4 Ídem.
5 ABN, 14-03-05
6 El Universal, 14-01-05
7 Hugo Chávez, “El Nuevo Mapa Estratégico”, www.minci.gov.ve
Autor: Juventud de Izquierda Revolucionaria
Fecha: 20/4/2005
Fuente: JIR - Venezuela
Three months have already passed since Chavez announced at the top of his lungs the beginning of the "war against the latifundio" (the large estates), producing, as is logical, joy among the poor rural workers and the exploited in general, also producing, as is customary now, writings by the chavista left saluting the so-called "war" and by the centrists who claim to be Marxists, without making the least effort to unmask the enormous limits of this reform, or explaining that the peasants themselves need to be the ones who take the struggle against the latifundio in their hands.
Once more, no one wants to tell the truth about the matter. Therefore, we insist that, if, beyond the high-sounding phrases of Chavez and the government leaders, we stop for a moment to look at things calmly, we will see that it is not only these phrases which lack relation with reality, but that there are also other declarations and approaches, which express the real policy of the government better, and nevertheless are not stressed, neither by the bourgeois press, nor by the press of those who acll themselves socialists.
Let us start with what Chavez himself and the government functionaries said about the problem of the concentration of land. According to declarations by Chavez at the end of January, "In Venezuela 1% of the owners or supposed owners occupy 80% of the productive lands." (1) For his part, Eliecer Otaiza says thataccording to the assessments made by the technical commission assigned to the recovery of lands, only 5% of the population owns 90% of arable lands, and 95% owns the remaining 10%. (2) And Antonio Albarran, Minister of Agriculture and Land, and chairman of the National Agrarian Commission, says that "5% has 80% of the land, and 75% possesses 6% of these [lands]." (3)
Beyond the differences that can exist between different sets of figures, it is obvious that the problem of land concentration in our country is severe. This fact now lets us see how limited the solution advanced by the government is.
Let us see then what Minister Albarran says: "The one who shows that the lands are his and that they are productive has nothing to fear. If he proves ownership of the land, and that it is not productive, he will have to pay a fair tax." (4) Here there is no doubt that it is not a matter of putting an end to landed estates, but to the illegal landed estate. So the landed estates are not illegal in Venezuela, however much the Constitution and the government functionaries say they are. That is to say, if there is a latifundio (a large concentration of land in a few hands), but he has his papers in order," then "he has nothing to fear." That confirms what Jose Vicente Rangel had said about the matter.
But let us look further. The landed estate is acceptable if it is "legal," and if it is not producing, then a "fair tax" will be imposed on it, nothing more. That is to say, it is not even a reform limited to attacking the illegal and unproductive landed estate, leaving the "legal" and "productive" landed estate intact, rather, not even the unproductive latifundio will be touched, beyond a "just tax."
But a better examination of the reality of this so-called war is still lacking. The Bolivarian News Agency [ABN] reports that the government is drawing up a decree to exonerate idle land from taxes for the years 2002, 2003, and 2004, so they will only have to pay taxes on idle lands for the year 2005, if they do not use them productively this year. (5) Now it is not even a matter of imposing high or "fair" taxes on the unproductive landed estate.
And so that the "unproductive" ones do not have to pay that tax this year, the government is offering them credits, and they also have the choice of selling the land or giving it to INTI. But, according to Otaiza, the government is unlikely to seize private land in the first phase, "first, we do not have available resources today to buy land." (6) This is clear, because in addition to the fact that it has nothing to do with expropriating the latifundios, independently of whether or not they have “papers in order” or not, as it should, nor does it have to do with expropriating even the unproductive lands. It is concerned, rather, with buying the idle land, if the landowner does not agree to ask for a credit to make the land productive.
All this is consistent with what was disclosed by Chavez himself in the meeting at Fuerte Tiuna: “I have given instructions that they invite the estate owners. Invite them and sit down with them at one table. ‘Welcome, señores latifundistas, there is a proposal coming from the President, he wants to avoid conflicts, help him . . . you have 20,000 hectares and barely 50 head of cattle, you live in the capital and do not take care of [your estate] . . . We are going to negotiate. Do you want to? We have a term, we do not want conflict . . . You will have flexibility. Do you want to negotiate that way and avoid conflicts?’ ‘Yes!,’ ‘Then we are going to arrive at an agreement. How many hectares do you need?, keep them and the bienechuría, and give up the rest.” (7)
But one does not have to think very much about the matter to understand this action by the government. The government's objective is "to strengthen national agricultural production," to achieve "sovereignty in food" by developing food production "in the country." These are certainly legimitate objectives and a national need. But the issue is that the government is pursuing this objective independently of who is producing, that is to say, if the landowners are productive, the government leaves them in peace, then gives them credits to make their lands produce. It could not be clearer, as clear in this case, as in the case of the city factories, that the government wants the expropriation of the property of the cpaitalists or the landowners to be an exception and not the norm, since the central interest is not ending the exploitation to hwich the capitalists and landowners subject the toilers of city and countryside [nor ending] [el usufructo] the right to use someone else's labor, but developing "national production."
Seen this way, rather than a war it is a call to conciliation, rather than against the landed estate, it is only against the landed estate that is illegal and unproductive at the same time.
1 Últimas Noticias, 31-01-05.
2 VEA, 18-01-05.
3 Últimas Noticias, 16-01-05.
4 Ídem.
5 ABN, 14-03-05
6 El Universal, 14-01-05
7 Hugo Chávez, “El Nuevo Mapa Estratégico”, www.minci.gov.ve
posted by Yosef Mikhah @ 6:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home