Free the land, free the slaves: Chavez seizes land of British food giant

By AFP

President Hugo Chavez on Sunday vowed to move forward on the nationalization of land owned by a subsidiary of British meat products company Vestey, as he called for “acceleration of the agrarian revolution.”

A week after opposition parties were emboldened by a strong showing in legislative elections, Chavez used his first television program since the vote to announce moves to strengthen his self-styled revolutionary government.

“All of the lands of the so-called Compania Inglesa will be nationalized now,” Chavez said, referring to the subsidiary of Britain’s international food giant Vestey.

“I don’t want to waste another day,” he added.

Chavez called for the acceleration of nationalizing agricultural assets across the country in coming months, including land and property owned by Venezuelan farming technology company Agroislena.

Read the full post at AFP

14 responses to “Free the land, free the slaves: Chavez seizes land of British food giant

  1. Viva Chavez!

  2. charmaine calvert

    Now that’s socialism at it’s worst.

    • I totally disagree. Corporations should never be allowed to own land.

      The only way to achieve sustainable farming is to make sure each person has enough land to raise their own crops. In order to do that, we’re going to have to retake those lands stolen by the wealthy.

  3. “Behind every great wealth is a great crime.”

  4. That is sad. I never want the state seizing private land from anyone. The progressives/liberals/democrats/whatever in the US believe taking land from the poor by force and selling it to the rich is a good thing and they’re backed up by the Supreme Court as long as the land will generate more taxes for their bureaucracy. I believe that’s just as wrong as taking land from the rich, in the name of the poor. In America we fought a revolution to secure the rights of the individual to own private property and a bloody civil war to insure no individual was to be considered private property. The state needs to stay out of the business of the people, they will rectify the situation on their own when it becomes too much to bear.

  5. here’s a corporation, paying its top people 300 times what it pays its laborers, and from those profits driving out competition so it can make even more money, and with that money buying whatever it wants.

    that’s predatory — and illgotten gain. The only way to rectify it is to take back its illgotten gain and give it to those who actually performed the labor, in this case, the actual farmers.

    yes, it’s scary that Big Gov’t is doing it – because we have ample historical reasons why the State should not have such power — it will abuse it.

    but Big Gov is the only thing that can stop Big Biz – unless there’s all out revolution.

    In capitalism, Big Biz owns Big Gov. For right now, state socialism is the only resistance that’s been effective in stopping predatory capitalism

  6. Hi Rady,
    How have you been? It’s good to find you here, you might remember yours truly from OpEdNews.com.

    May I suggest that you look at Zimbabwe as an example of socialist land reform not working. Further nationalizations in Venezuela will only take them down the same path.

    “In capitalism, Big Biz owns Big Gov” This is correct the solution is too make govt smaller not bigger by implementing state socialism. Big biz got big by favors granted by big govt. Merging the 2 bigs into one through state socialism is a step down the same path that lead to the problem. Implementing a free market in which competitive pressures keep biz under control & allows all opportunity is the answer.

    A good example of this was my experience in Venezuela in the ’90s owning an English language instruction company. There were big and small companies in Caracas, including Berlitz. For the most part we all made money & did well. I never considered the big players like Berlitz to be a problem. My main competition were the other lean & mean companies like my own. The key to all this was the complete lack of regulation & licensing of the industry. Free markets, as opposed to regulated ones, do work.

    • Hi, Darren ~ Thanks for your thoughtful argument. It seems your experience with free markets under socialism worked! I’m not opposing genuinely free markets.

      But, I’m still convinced that localized socialism is the best avenue to take. When anything gets too big, it becomes a problem (too big to fail, too big to jail). Even with healthcare, I believe in socialized medicine – but only at the regional level.

      Also, the playing field has to start out even. It’s not fair that any one person owns millions of acres while people are homeless. That’s immoral. Wealth is amassed by exploiting people; and that’s immoral, too. So, land reform is vital. It’s time for rich folks to make concessions, to give back some of their ill gotten gains. Land reform provides societal stability and national security.

      That a single person or family has more net worth than several nations is abominable. We must redistribute the wealth. Then we’ll talk about the new rules, like genuine free markets.

      • btw, I used to privately cheer Bill Gates – he got IBM to let him keep the software licence. That was Microsoft’s turning point, because software became what people bought. That was brilliant.

        But now, at a net worth of $40 bn last time I checked, the man has gone off the deep end and is promoting depopulation thru vaccination and GMOs. He’s insane. He thinks because he amassed so much wealth, his ideas of how to solve the world’s problems should be implemented. And he’s got the money to make that happen. He’s dangerous to the entire world now.

        That’s why wealth redistribution has to happen … the playing field has to be leveled. Too much of an income gap causes the super rich to develop megalomania.

  7. Interesting take on free markets & redistribution, Rady. I would remind you of the old saying “from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations” http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080114145024AAd1iHd

    Just think of Paris Hilton. In a free market do you really think she could keep the family fortune?😉 So skip the redistribution part, go directly to the free market. It will redistribute things just fine.

    Bill Gates has gone off the deep end it seems. I used to like him when he was more independent of the powers that be. Sadly, they kicked him into the fold with their jackboots:

    The New Trustbusters

    Behind the scenes at the conferences, you hear snickers about the innocence of Microsoft, which thought it could sit out there in Redmond writing software and ignoring Washington, D.C.–as if such a big pot of wealth could go unnoticed by a rapacious imperial capital. The idea that perhaps a company should be able to do its business and ignore Washington is regarded as hopelessly naive. Microsoft is now playing catch-up, adding former congressional aides to its staff and boosting its budget for political contributions.

    http://reason.com/archives/1999/03/01/the-new-trustbusters/

    • hmm — you make a good point using Paris Hilton.

      re trustbusting – the article informs me that that can be run with corruption, too. Guess i never thought about that.

      what if the majority of citizens in, say, Florida, voted for universal healthcare for all Floridians, similar to what France has. would you oppose that?

  8. I agree with Darren. We really need a truly free market. The problem is there is a misconception we have a free market and that it has failed. Unfortunately we don’t have a free market at all. If we had a free market, then Raw Milk, vitamins and supplements producers etc could promote their benefits without fear of being fined, jailed and imprisoned. We do have a lot of wealth locked up in mega corporations, but they maintain this wealth by restricting the free market through laws which eliminate the competition.
    I would prefer we make wealth available to all through enabling a true free market vs. distributing the wealth.
    Distribution of wealth may very well not result in the effect that is hoped. Take for example one of the greatest wealth distribution experiments. Over $1 trillion dollars has been transferred to Africa. And according to this research, those countries receiving aid are much worse off than before and those countries who chose not to receive aid have prospered.

    http://www.dambisamoyo.com/deadaid.html

  9. “what if the majority of citizens in, say, Florida, voted for universal health care for all Floridians, similar to what France has. would you oppose that?”

    Consider it opposed. First, when paid for by taxes it is financed with stolen money. Second, there is a freedom of association issue. The state would still be licensing & regulating doctors, pharma, & insurance companies, ie telling us who we can & can’t do biz with.
    Lastly, govts have proved themselves incapable of delivering much in economic terms, it seems especially true of the US govt.

    BTW, health care is in serious need of reform. Let’s start by removing all govt licenses & regulation from doctors, pharma, & insurance companies. Then let’s put an end to the fact that govt pays for 1/2 of all health care. With these reforms would also come tort reform so these massive lawsuits can end. Then we’ll have great & affordable health care.

What do YOU think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s