Venezuela - The New Cuba

  • Thread starter Thread starter HagiaSophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
kmktexas:
I doubt you will ever hear pro-Chavez homilies in Church here. Chavez has been openly hostile to the Church even though over 90% of the Country is Catholic. Several months back, one of his quasi-military groups smashed and desecrated several Marian statues. This county has a huge devotion to the Virgin Mary, even amoung nominal Catholics.
It’s good to know that the Church is not falling for it as she is in Brazil, not too far away from Venezuela, where Chavez finds another leg of the tripod of the left’s strategy “to realize in Latin America the dream that failed in Eastern Europe”, as Castro said in the Sao Paulo Forum.

Thank you for your witness debunking some parroting communists’ mottos.

:blessyou:
 
Venezuela is worst in many aspects than Cuba, why? because they have petroleum and for this money, to spread the communism in other countries, there are now left in Brazil and Argentina and now in Uruguay, and in Bolivia the communism paid by Chavez is spreading a lot, even, some members of FARC and ELN are refugees in Venezuela, and now China is giving money to these regimes, worrying future.
 
Thank you, Kristine, for this analysis of Venezeula. Unfortunately we now have two oil-rich countries using their money to spread totalitarian ideologies.

Saudi Arabia – Militant Islam
Venezuela - Communism

These are the two banes of the twentieth century. We need to defeat these ideologies in the twenty-first.
 
40.png
Augustine:
AFAIK, theft is not defended in the Gospels…

:blessyou:
osjspm.org/cst/pp.htm

Populorum Progresio
On the Development of Peoples
Paul VI, 1967

Code:
              Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI promulgated on March 26, 1967
  1. If certain landed estates impede the , general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation. While giving a clear statement on this, the Council recalled no less clearly that the available revenue is not to be used in accordance with mere whim, and that no place must be given to selfish speculation. Consequently it is unacceptable that citizens with abndant incomes from the resources and activity of their country should transfer a considerable part of this income abroad purely for their own advantage, with out care for the manifest wrong they inflict on their country by doing this.
  2. But it is unfortunate that on these new conditions of society a system has been constructed which considers profit as the key motive for economic progress, competition as the supreme law of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right that has no limits and carries no corresponding social obligation. This unchecked liberalism leads to dictatorship rightly denounced by Pius XI as producing “the international imperialism of money”. One cannot condemn such abuses too strongly by solemnly recalling once again that the economy is at the service of man. But if it is true that a type of capitalism has been the source of excessive suffering, injustices and fratricidal conflicts whose effects still persist, it would also be wrong to attribute to industrialization itself evils that belong to the woeful system which accompanied it. On the contrary one must recognize in all justice the irreplaceable contribution made by the organization of labor and of industry to what development has accomplished.
  3. It can even be affirmed that economic growth depends in the very first place upon social progress: thus basic education is the primary object of any plan of development. Indeed hunger for education is no less debaing than hunger for food: an illiterate is a person with an undernourished mind. To be able to read and write, to acquire a professional formation, means to recover confidence in oneself and to discover that one can progress along with the others. As We said in Our message to the UNESCO Congress held in 1965 at Teheran, for man literacy is " a fundamental factor of social integration, as well as of personal enrichment, and for society it is a privileged instrument of economic progress and of development’’. We also rejoice at the good work accomplished in this field by private initiative, by the public authorities and by international organizations: these are the primary agents of development, because they render man capable of acting for himself.
 
Expropriation is not the same as theft. And it remains to be demostrated that it’s so in Venezuela.

It certainly isn’t the case in Brazil, when the squatter movement targets the most productive farms using gerrilla tactics, kidnap and murder, all under the auspices of the president’s Workers Party.

:blessyou:
 
osjspm.org/cst/pp.htm

Populorum Progresio
On the Development of Peoples
Paul VI, 1967

Code:
               Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI promulgated on March 26, 1967
  1. If certain landed estates impede the , general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.
 
40.png
Augustine:
Perhaps I read it wrong, but AFAIK, expropriation implies in compensation, doesn’t it?
Not necessarily. It just means the state takes over the property.
 
Matt25 said:
osjspm.org/cst/pp.htm

Populorum Progresio
On the Development of Peoples

****Paul VI, 1967

Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI promulgated on March 26, 1967
  1. If certain landed estates impede the , general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.
Are you trying to justify a dictator stealing private property?
 
Matt25 said:
osjspm.org/cst/pp.htm

**Populorum Progresio
On the Development of Peoples
**Paul VI, 1967
Code:
               Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI promulgated on March 26, 1967
  1. If certain landed estates impede the , general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.
This doesn’t apply to the situation in Venezuela. The land that Chavez wants to take isn’t impeding the prosperity of anyone or brining hardship to anyone. There are vast areas of land available for the redistribution of the population (as Chavez calls it). There is also much land that could be farmed but isn’t because the current government isn’t particularly supportive of farmers. The current plan is to take land that has for the most part already been cleared and/or cultivated by someone and turn it over to homesteaders from the cities. One of the big ideas is to move many of the people who live in the barrios outside cities like Caracas into the country. The fatal flaw in this plan (as I see it) is that these people don’t want to live in the country. How are they going to make thier livings? The jobs are in the cities. Even though many work in menial jobs such as cleaning, parking cars, etc. that kind of work is non-existent in the rural areas.

Reclaiming truly unused land for the poor would cost the government money. Taking it away from the current landowners doesn’t cost anything.
 
40.png
gilliam:
Not necessarily. It just means the state takes over the property.
If so, it’s pure tirany. How can such document specify a “medicine” without decribing the symptoms. What is large, underused? Whose interest is the country’s, the people’s or the state’s?

Not everything the pope says is infallible and in this case it is flawed. Catholicism has long tradition of respect for property rights that goes all the way back to St. Thomas Aquinas.

:blessyou:
 
40.png
gilliam:
Are you trying to justify a dictator stealing private property?
I am pointing out that expropriation as such is not morally wrong. People have rights which exceed the rights of private property. Property exists to serve life not the other way round. The Catechism makes the following points

2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits.187 The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.

2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."188 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.

2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.189

2408 *The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.
*

As regards Venezuela I do not know enough to offer an opinion as to the rightness of land expropriations although President Chavez is elected and so comparisons with Fidel seem illegitimate.
 
In a dramatic step toward Cuban-style communism, the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says it will seize more than 270,000 acres of private property and redistribute it to the poor.

Since his election in 1998, Chavez has led an “agrarian reform” effort, including a 2001 land law aimed at narrowing the gap between the country’s rich and poor, the Voice of America reported.

The government has argued unused land would be restributed, but critics say the 2001 law violates property rights and paves the way for illegal land grabs.

Radio Netherlands correspondent Cees Zoon said the government finally is beginning to implement its program of expropriating land from the country’s major landowners.

“Although President Hugo Chavez once spoke of a ‘war against the landed estates,’ the government now carefully avoids using the word ‘confiscation,’” Zoon writes. “It is simply ‘retaking’ land which, while it has always been ‘public property,’ was dubiously ‘occupied’ by private landowners and businesses.”

A 32,000-acre cattle ranch owned by a British company is one of four estates to be redistributed. The meat producer the Vestey Group insists it legally owns the property and the land is fully productive.

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43324
 
vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=27327

Venezuela’s Land Institute (INTI) recovers common lands for redistribution

Venezuelanalysis.com Jonah Gindin writes: Venezuela’s National Land Institute announced the impending redistribution of five ranches on Saturday, in a controversial settlement dealing with both private and public land.

**The five ranches are, El Carcote, Pinero, Coco, Borges, and Hacienda Sanz. This could mean the redistribution of private land titles for the first time since the land reform law was passed in November, 2001. **

The El Charcote ranch is owned by the British meat-producer Lord Vestey, through its local subsidiary Agroflora. In January this year, State Governor Jhonny Yanez ordered the National Guard (GN) and state police to ‘intervene’ the property to prevent disputes between ranchers and occupying peasants from getting violent.

**A group of farmers have been occupying a portion of the land for the past four years. **

The Land Law, passed in 2001, was one of the Venezuelan government’s most controversial measures since President Hugo Chavez’ election in 1998.

  • **According to the Land Law, only underutilized or idle land is subject to expropriation. So far the reform has focused on public land, giving private land owners a grace period to put their land to use. **
In the event that private land-owners fail to make their land productive, the law states that high-quality private land over 100 hectares (roughly 250 acres) or low-quality land over 5,000 hectares* (12,355 acres) *can be expropriated – with the government compensating the owners at market price.

On January 10, 2005, President Chavez launched a new campaign to speed up the land reform. Since the land reform was passed in 2001, 2.2 million hectares (4,940,000 acres) publicly held land has been re-distributed. Under the new campaign, the “war against the landed estates [latifundistas],” underutilized private property will also be targeted.

But according to the National Land Institute (INTI), much of the land on the five ranches in question is not private. INTI president Eliecer Otaiza has affirmed that all five ranch-owners have failed to provide adequate documentation proving their land title. Those portions of their properties for which they do not have proper documentation will by default be declared public and will be subject to redistribution.

**Whatever property the owners can prove title to, will be subject to taxes, according to its use. **

In a communique released on Saturday, INTI declared the Pinero ranch “a landed estate [latifundio], according to the parameters of the law.” The statement continued, noting that the Pinero ranch was unable to provide adequate documentation proving ownership, concluding that “this property is not private.”

In their report on the land in question, INTI announced, “the first revolutionary decision of the directorate was with respect to the Pinero ranch.” The “presumed owners” of the ranch, according to INTI, were unable to provide documented proof of ownership, supporting INTI’s claims that 80-90% of the 80,212 hectares (198,000 acres) of Pinero ranch, is in fact public land.

**Otaiza said the recovered land would be distributed to cooperatives and small farmers. **

*Casualties *

Since 2001, Venezuela’s land-reform has repeatedly run up against the apparent mutability of land title. Initially distributing only underutilized public lands for cultivation by cooperatives and individual families, many small farmers given title to land were subsequently driven off by paramilitaries and gunmen. Neighboring latifundistas – large land owners – claim title to the land (often with no legal basis) and have been accused of hiring armed thugs to intimidate would-be settlers.

*In many instances activists and community leaders associated with the land reform have been murdered. Reports vary as to the number of activists killed since 2001, ranging anywhere from 100 to over 200. *

This article was originally published by Venezuelanalysis.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top