The award goes to Evo "Evil" Morales, the President of Bolivia for this new round of agrarian reform .....*L*. Seems like everytime this occurs .........there is always a loss of productive land. This time though ........I will give him credit for only screwing the Bolivian Treasury and all the citizens ..........cuzzzzzz .....in this first round ...he only turned over lands that were unsevered from the Bolivian Government without thought of payment for these lands. Next round he will be redistributing patented lands of property owners.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060605-101716-1557r

Bolivia Initiates Land Reform

SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia, June 5 (UPI) -- Bolivian President Evo Morales has turned over nearly 19,000 square miles of land to indigenous peasants amid intense pressure from the group.

Morales kicked off the program after talks with the groups fell apart during a meeting in Santa Cruz, the BBC reported Monday.

The leftist Bolivian leader is the country's first indigenous president and campaigned on a promise for greater agrarian reform.

Last month Morales nationalized Bolivia's oil and gas sectors.



Slim

Bolivian President Evo Morales has turned over nearly 19,000 square miles of land to indigenous peasants ... he is the country's first indigenous president and campaigned on a promise for greater agrarian reform.

..............<<<gasp!!!!!!!!!>>>..............

.....what a terrible FIEND!!! he is.....

More bad actor than freethinker ....me thinks ........*L*.

Maybe a 7th century freethinker.


Slim

Maybe a 7th century freethinker.

Or maybe a two digit IQ fuckwit who thinks that a leader who gives peasants land is an "evil" person.

7th century freethinking ..*L*

It's only been tried since the beginning of time ...and always failed.


Slim

Freethinker.....

It sure as hell sounds noble for the common people to be given land and for the oil industry to be nationalized, but where does it stop? If land can be siezed from group A to be given to group B then why can't the land be seized again and again and again to be given to somebody else. This kind of thing has a tendency to kill any kind of investment in a nation that does this kind of thing. Why work hard just to have your stuff taken from you?

Freethinker.....

It sure as hell sounds noble for the common people to be given land and for the oil industry to be nationalized, but where does it stop?

I would imagine it will stop when the peasants lives have been substantially improved.

If land can be siezed from group A to be given to group B then why can't the land be seized again and again and again to be given to somebody else.

Who is this "group A" in Bolivia that you're imagining?!?!?

The land was state owned.

This kind of thing has a tendency to kill any kind of investment in a nation that does this kind of thing.

It has the tendency to improve poor people's lives, and put food in their mouths.........THAT is what rightwing fascists (note: i am not naming you as one of them here) cannot bear to have happen........fascists care NOTHING about people, and everything about profits and investments.

That is why I so despise the Rightwing faction in America.

Well, the dictator in Africa, whose name escapes me at the moment, found that after taking farms from white farmers and handing them over to poor peasants there wasn't enough food to go around because the peasants didn't really know how to farm. According to the NPR story of a few weeks ago, they're now working on 1000% inflation.

Well, the dictator in Africa, whose name escapes me at the moment, found that after taking farms from white farmers and handing them over to poor peasants there wasn't enough food to go around because the peasants didn't really know how to farm. According to the NPR story of a few weeks ago, they're now working on 1000% inflation.

I want to say Robert Mugabe.

It has the tendency to improve poor people's lives, and put food in their mouths.........THAT is what rightwing fascists (note: i am not naming you as one of them here) cannot bear to have happen........fascists care NOTHING about people, and everything about profits and investments.

Actually, actions like these usually result in widespread starvation and economic stagnation as productive (or potentially productive in this case) land is given to people with little knowledge regarding how to effictively work it and essentially no access to time and money saving capital. The same thing happened in Tanzania 30 or so years ago, only then it was called Ujaama. In the long run, the land is going to be used to grow easy to manage crops like Marijuanna, crime is going to skyrocket, and the peasants are going to get fed up with the countrys stagnation.

The best idea for a third world country is to open its markets, privatize state industry, and refrain from interfering in the marketplace. That is how countries like South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Poland, Romania, China, Vietnam, and India are currently or have developed in the past.

Robert Mugabe is exactly right, Elf.

Well, the dictator in Africa, whose name escapes me at the moment, found that after taking farms from white farmers and handing them over to poor peasants there wasn't enough food to go around because the peasants didn't really know how to farm.

Yes, but you're talking about a situation VASTLY different than the one in Bolivia, where state owned land was granted to the peasants.

Actually, actions like these usually result in widespread starvation and economic stagnation as productive (or potentially productive in this case) land is given to people with little knowledge regarding how to effictively work it........

That would probably be correct IF the nation of Bolivia was actively farming the land in question. I seriously doubt that the parcel of land was being productively farmed by the State.

The land belonged to all the people of Bolivia ..........not just to Evo "Evil" Morales and his socialist buds. If he wants to sell the property and add the funds back into the Bolivian cashbox ...that is one thing ....but ...he stole them and redistributed the land to people who voted him into office (his own community in leftist socialista parlance).

This is fascism at its worst ..........and once again ....7th century freethinking.

And ......btw .........the lands were in the most productive agricultural valley in Bolivia ..............they were not fallow.


Slim

The land belonged to all the people of Bolivia ..........not just to Evo "Evil" Morales and his socialist buds........This is fascism at its worst ..........


First you say (with justification) that he's a socialist.

But THEN you go on to claim he's guilty of 'fascism'.

You truly are clueless when it comes to political ideology.

*Socialism* is on one end of the political spectrum.....*fascism* {aka "Corporatism"} is on the other.

__________________________________________________ _

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

"Corporatism, or what Mussolini knew as fascism, is the polar opposite of socialism." - Freethinker.

Socialism Breeds Fascism ..........read .........."The Road to Serfdom" ..by F.A. Hayek.

I suggest all you young folks in here to read it. It refutes 7th century freethinking.


Slim

Socialism Breeds Fascism

Makes you wonder what the Spanish civil war was all about then! :confused:

Yes, but you're talking about a situation VASTLY different than the one in Bolivia, where state owned land was granted to the peasants.

But the source of the land is not the point - the point is that distributing the land to the peasants doesn't necessarily result in more people being fed, and in fact can lead to starvation.

Actually, actions like these usually result in widespread starvation and economic stagnation as productive (or potentially productive in this case) land is given to people with little knowledge regarding how to effictively work it and essentially no access to time and money saving capital. The same thing happened in Tanzania 30 or so years ago, only then it was called Ujaama. In the long run, the land is going to be used to grow easy to manage crops like Marijuanna, crime is going to skyrocket, and the peasants are going to get fed up with the countrys stagnation.

The best idea for a third world country is to open its markets, privatize state industry, and refrain from interfering in the marketplace. That is how countries like South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Poland, Romania, China, Vietnam, and India are currently or have developed in the past.Beautifully put, OOElf. :thumbs:

But the source of the land is not the point - the point is that distributing the land to the peasants doesn't necessarily result in more people being fed, and in fact can lead to starvation.
Very true. For being as well read as you are, FT - I suggest you start reading some books on economics.

I am not very versed on Spain ........and the Spanish Civil War ....which took place from 1936 to 1939. But .......if I am not mistaken ...when the King of Spain Alphonso Xlll abdicated the throne and called for democratic elections (1931) ..the people voted for a democratic republic.

This democratic republic was hijacked by the radical socialist Manuel Azana when he became prime minister by receiving 34 % of the vote. Azana, with the support of the Socialist Party (PSOE), attempted to introduce agrarian reform in spain (how coincidental).

In 1933 the reversal of the government occurred again by an election removing the PSOE from office until 1936 when Azana's party again won the government with 34 % of the vote (this could be an argument for a 2 party system). Once again agrarian reform was conducted and lands were removed from the landed population (is this beginning to sound like a bad penny which keeps coming back to you ....). The wealthy took vast quantities of funds out of the country at this time and the value of the peseta crashed.

Jobs were few and far inbetween in Spain at this time.

A number of military generals and their troops at this time, including Francisco Franco were removed from Spain and posted outside of the country in the colonies. After a number of years of anarchy in Spain,and with the support of the German Nazi Regime (itself a party generated from the socialist movement), Adolph Hitler agrees to give military aid to General Francisco Franco. The German Leuftwaft began to fly these national troops who were posted outside of the country back into Spain, establishing a national headquarters in Seville.

As long and drawn out as that simple explanation seems, it describes a socialist movement like the Nazis, taking over another socialist/anarchist movement governing Spain at that time.

Perhaps ........that is what the Spanish Civil war was all about .....elf. The same phenomenom that Hayek describes taking place in Germany (Hayek described it as ...."The Socialist Roots of Nazism" .....where all anti classical liberal forces combine against everything classically liberal) was introduced into Spain ......hijacking the democratic republic ...?

So the roots of fascism in Spain after 1939 ....can only be described as ........actions resulting from the socialist ideology ......or ......"socialism breeding fascism"


Slim

That would probably be correct IF the nation of Bolivia was actively farming the land in question. I seriously doubt that the parcel of land was being productively farmed by the State.

I see, I'd have to read up on it more though.

*Socialism* is on one end of the political spectrum.....*fascism* {aka "Corporatism"} is on the other.

Actually, early 20th century fascism finds it's roots in socialism, as far as public ownership issues go. If you speak of goals however, then they are two different ideologies, I don't know about polar opposites however.

It's better to examine a political philoshiphy by its means, rather then its goals, if you wish to discern the true nature of the idea. Socialism and Fascism may differ in goals, but the path that either take to get there: Using political force and disregarding rights to reach some privately or community defined goal is exacly the same. When viewed from this angle, both socialism and fascism forsake the meaningless and loosely defined lables of "left" and "right" in favor of "authoritarian", the polar opposite of being "libertine".

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Actually, the only reference Mussolini made to the relevance between corporations and state was when he used the term "corporative state" in one of his writings. This quote has been abused far too many times.

http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Actually, early 20th century fascism finds it's roots in socialism, as far as public ownership issues go.

Maybe.

But early 20th century fascism --at least as it concerns me and my use of the term *fascism*-- has little to nothing in common with the current brand of Corporatism/fascism that rules America.

Another confusing point is that some people (incredibly) equate what Hitler was doing and what his aims were as being *socialist*........when in fact it was fascism, and was a movement VERY much in opposition to both socialism and liberalism.

As such it was far removed from the ideals of the type of democratic socialism that I invoke when I use the term *socialism*.

But early 20th century fascism --at least as it concerns me and my use of the term *fascism*-- has little to nothing in common with the current brand of Corporatism/fascism that rules America.

I'm not sure what your definition of "fascism" is, as it seems to stray from the traditional meaning of the word. See, fascism, as I know it, is the restriction of liberty, usually in a social sense, to meet some defined goal. I'm not sure how America could then be seen as fascist. Could you clarify please?

I'm not sure what your definition of "fascism" is, as it seems to stray from the traditional meaning of the word. See, fascism, as I know it, is the restriction of liberty, usually in a social sense, to meet some defined goal. I'm not sure how America could then be seen as fascist. Could you clarify please?

Delighted.

I see fascism as an extreme right-wing ideology which embraces nationalism as THE transcendent value of society. Fascism ---and especially the brand currently being pushed by Bush and the uber-conservatives in power--- relies upon the manipulation of populist sentiment in times of national crisis (albeit, a self-manufactured crisis, in the current instance) .

""Totally in favor of the forever war against the wrong-gawd evil-doers out to destroy us?!?!"" ---then you are a goooood and faithful citizen.

""Against the war?!?!?"" --- then you are an evil, subversive unAmuuurican.

Fascism ---and it is impossible for me to imagine how much more blatantly this could have been ddmonstrated than it has been during Bush's reign-- is characherized by intense xenophobia, militarism, and supremacist ideals. In GWBush's america, fascism is indistinguishable from Corporatism.

Fascism ---as is SO clearly demonstrated by the Bush/Wolfowitz/Rove/Cheney/Perle junta--- places immense emphasis on mythic beliefs such as divine mandates, racial imperatives, and the placement of highly concentrated power in the hands of a self-selected elite from whom all authority flows to lesser elites, such as law enforcement, intellectuals, and the media.