Zimbabwe to abolish private land ownership

[salin]

Zimbabwe to abolish private land ownership
Title deeds to be scrapped, replaced by 99-year leases
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:50 p.m. ET June

HARARE, Zimbabwe - In its latest crackdown on democratic freedoms, the government announced Tuesday that all farmland will be nationalized and private land ownership abolished.

All land, including more than 5,000 former white-owned farms handed over to blacks, will become state-owned and subject to state-issued leases, Land Reform Minister John Nkomo said.

Title deeds of farm properties will be scrapped and replaced by 99-year leases with rent payable to government, the state Herald newspaper reported.

“There shall be no such thing as private land,” Nkomo said.

more... http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5164756/

[AngryAmish]

1. Thank God

[nodehopper]

65. Do you know anything about what's happening in Zimbabwe?

This is another step towards the ethnic cleansing of non-Shona minorities. Before he was just starving them. Now he will be taking their land away so they can't feed themselves. I believe he said "the country will be better off without those 6 million people."

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. It was a party official

"We would be better off with only six million people*, with our own people who support the liberation struggle. We don't want all these extra people".
Didymus Mutasa: Zanu-PF Organising Secretary,
10th August 2002

*Zimbabwe has a population of 13 million

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/a0da6f9ac37db497c1256c77005f5df4?OpenDocument

[nodehopper]

72. Mugabe party official, the spokesman for his gov't.

Not much better, not in light of Mugabe's policies starving all those "undesirables."

[nodehopper]

66. another step in Mugabe's ethnic cleansing of the non-Shona.

This is another step towards the ethnic cleansing of non-Shona minorities. Before he was just starving them. Now he will be taking their land away so they can't feed themselves. I believe he said "the country will be better off without those 6 million people."

sorry about the double message, computer acting werid.

[denverbill]

2. What moron wrote this article?

"In its latest crackdown on democratic freedoms"

Democratic freedoms are things like the right to vote and the right to free speech and free press.

Abolishing private property may be a 'crackdown' on capitalistic freedoms, but hell, a democracy could vote to abolish private property and still maintain their 'democratic freedoms'.

[grouchy]

3. Wisdom?

But, would they be wise to do so?

[tom_paine]

4. Disagree heartily

Land ownership is SEMINAL to the rise of Liberty.

Read your history. The Enlgihtenment didn't (COULDN'T) take place until there was a new growing Middle-Class of Townspeople, Artisans, and non-Aristocratic Landowners.

I find it amusingly ironic that Comrades feel no qualm about getting rid one of the very things which even allowed a school of thought like Communism to rise. (yes, that's an opinion)

[denverbill]

10. I don't buy it.

Are you saying American Indians had no Liberty? They owned no land but were probably more free than anyone in the world at the time.

All the land in France was privately held prior to the French Revolution. Would you say the French people were 'free'? Is it freedom to toil your whole life as a peasant tending your Lords crops?

Personally, I don't advocate the abolition of private land ownership, however, there is something to be said for a reasonable distribution of ownership. When 1% of the population owns 99% of the land, 99% of the population is very unlikely to be free.

[Fixated]

12. very bad comparison

The difference between Indian tribes and the government in Zimbabwe is a bit strong.

[denverbill]

20. My only point about Indians is that freedom doesn't require property.

And my contention isn't the Zimbabwe's decision to abolish private property is a good thing.

All I'm saying is that the right to own land doesn't guarantee freedom and the lack of land ownership doesn't necessarily indicate enslavement.

Freedom to starve isn't freedom, contrary to what libertarians will tell you. If you are a landless peasant in a poor country, and are given the choice between laboring your entire life working a plantation for food and shelter, with never a chance to save money, and with no chance of finding any better job ever, calling that freedom is ludicrous. Frankly, if I was in that situation, abolition of private property could only be an improvement.

[tom_paine]

28. I left out a single phrase (though it was certainly implied)

"Lower and Middle Class Land Ownership"

Of course, the reason the French Revolution was fought was to gain that "right".

You are correct, or would be if I had been talking solely about Aristocratic Land Onwership.

But I wasn't.

Land ownership by the Aristocrats provides Liberty for NO ONE, on this we agree.

And I haven't seen statistics on it, but there is NO WAY that 1% of the nation owns 99% of the land. Although, if you provide a CREDIBLE link, I might change my mind in the face of irrefutable fact.

Further, and call me Amerocentric, I am referring to western Civilaztion in which we currently reside.

Does that mean I agree with the genocide of the Native Americans and the theft of their land? Hell, no! What it does mean is that I am referring to Western Societies at one time subject to the tenets of the Enlghtenment.

[denverbill]

54. That stat was an example, not a fact.

According to government figures published before the current crisis, some 4, 400 whites owned 32% of Zimbabwe's agricultural land - around 10m ha - while about one million black peasant families farmed 16m ha or 38%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/594522.stm

I think you are missing my point. My point is not "private property is bad". My point, originally, was that the author said abolition of private property was a 'crackdown on democratic freedoms'. It's not. It might be an attack on economic freedoms, it might be an attack on capitalism, but it is not an attack on democratic freedoms.

Not that there are many democratic freedoms in Zimbabwe anyway, but that's another issue.

[tom_paine]

59. I suppose I agree with that, though it's really only semantics

n/t

[jdj]

31. Cherokee did.

The women farmed corn and the men hunted on hunting grounds which they essentially considered theirs. One of the "problems" the colonizers faced was getting the hunting grounds away from the cherokee; the method they tried was to assimilate the women into the "housewife" role and get the men to take up farming and give up the hunting grounds, and they met with tremendous resistance because, among other things, the cherokee men considered farming "women's work" and did not want to do it.

And the whole Trail of Tears was the last theiving of land by colonizers, when they decided to take by force what land was left to the cherokee. With all the history of broken treaties it's weird to hear the Natives owned no land.

[theboss]

81. Fine....give me your car

n/t

[JohnLocke]

38. Thank you, Tom.

You hit the nail on its hypothetical head -- "Life, Liberty, Property."

[htuttle]

6. Americans are commonly taught that Democracy and Capitalism...

...are synonyms.

They are wrong, but they are taught that from birth anyway.

Regarding the reply above as to whether this move is 'wise': There's certainly no rule that democracies need to act wisely. Case in point: the Bush administration.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. A democracy can also vote to restrict free speech and the press

[denverbill]

23. Yes, they could.

And that would be restricting democratic freedom, democratically. We could even democratically vote to abolish democracy, if we so desired.

And someone could use their capitalistic skills to acquire a huge tract of land, and turn it into a commune, essentially using capitalism to advance anti-capitalism.

Frankly, I don't see much difference between the new Zimbabwean system and ours. They will have 99 year leases, so essentially, one person could own the land for their lifetime. They have to make lease payments or get kicked off their land. In the US, we have to make property tax payments or we'll get kicked off our land.

[theboss]

82. This is why democracy itself is fundamentally flawed

The question is where do rights come from. This country rejects the idea that rights are granted by the government (or even by the people making up the government). Rights are inherent in the individual.

[smiley_glad_hands]

51. I disagree.

This is communism. It will fail. IMHO the right to own land is essential to a functioning democracy.

[AliceWonderland]

55. No, this is not communism

Regardless of how you feel about the theory of communism, this particular policy of land nationalization, or Zimbabwe, this is NOT communism. I'm constantly amazed at what the label "communism" is thrown at.

[theboss]

83. It's theft actually

And it is going to turn into feudalism.

[smiley_glad_hands]

87. Were private citizens allowed to own

their own farms and property in the Soviet Union?

[AliceWonderland]

107. Communism, despite the various scattershot usages of the term

does not mean that private citizens cannot own farms under state law. Moreover, communism is an ideal type that refers to more than land owndership. It's a theory that has never been put into practice and a concept that has been much abused, in theory and in politics. The Soviet Union wasn't communism either, no matter how many people within or without applied the label. Just the idea of a "communist state" is a contradiction in terms. And methinks the working class in Zimbabwe are not owning the means of production.

By all means, criticize Mugabe's land policy, or the theory of communism, all you wish. Just don't conflate the two.

[denverbill]

58. Should property taxes be illegal then?

After all, if I don't pay them, the govt confiscates my property that I paid for and kicks me out of my home.

Personally, I don't see how that's much different from the govt owning the land and leasing it back to me.

[smiley_glad_hands]

86. You are right.

But its the illusion that people need.

[Zynx]

91. Without private property I would consider my freedoms restrained.

Mugabe also doesn't allowed freedom of speech and of the press.

[DBoon]

101. It might not be a democratic freedom

but taking away land from peasants takes away their right not to die of starvation.

Absent this particular right, the rest of the "democratic rights" aren't worth much.

[nemo137]

5. this is not a good thing.

a government with that much power. ech.

[geek tragedy]

7. What a disaster.

No title=no collateral.

No collateral=no investment.

No investment=no production.

No production=massive and permanent poverty ala Ethiopia.

Well done, Mr. Mugabe. Further proof that almost all famines (and this will create/make worse the current famine there) are man-made and political in nature.

[itsnoteasybeingreen]

9. I am no friend of capitalism

But I am also no fan of tyrannical dictatorships.

Mugabe is a plague on the country of Zimbabwe, once one of the most rich countries in natural resources, its farmland has gone largely unused since he stole lands from the white farmers and gave them to landless black peasants who didn't know what to do with them. I don't mean to sound racist, but that is what happened, and now most of Zimbabwe's farms are idle and useless.

Not to mention the severe curtailing of press freedoms which makes even this small article a treasure in the Western world.

I pray for those poor souls of this once great nation.

[HamdenRice]

33. This is not just wrong, but racist

This is a lot of crap peddled by the only journalists available to cover Zimbabwe -- white, western ones.

Studies funded by the British overseas council and US AID all proved that before the wave of corruption of the mid 1990s, Zimbabwe had one of the most successful land reform programs in history.

The main reason was that small scale black farmers are more productive on a per acre basis that white farmers, who at any rate, don't actually farm but employ black farmers anyway.

By as early as the late 1980s, black farmers were producing more in gross tonnage, as well as on a per acre basis.

The idea that black farmers, who have lived, and whose ancestors have lived and farmed the country for several thousand years, don't know what to do with their own environment is ludicrously racist. What do you think they did for two millenia? Stand around and wait for the white man to come to tell them how to make a living from the soil?

So what caused the crisis? About ten years ago, Mugabe was indeed corruptly handing out some large farms to his cronies. As punishment, the British and Americans cut off all funding for this successful, gradual land reform program. Because the constitution required that white farmers be paid in either dollars or pounds, the funding cut off ended the land redistribution.

Mugabe cynically used this crisis to basically get rid of his white farmer constitutional problem, but plunged the country into its current political and economic crisis.

I don't like Mugable, but please don't spout racist, ill informed clap trap when you talk about the nature of the crisis.

[On the Road]

115. Thank You for the Background, Hamden Rice

This is exactly what I was hoping to understand about the situation. You never ever get the context from the American press.

[On the Road]

22. No Collateral -- Is That True?

Wouldn't the long-term lease act as an asset, like a capital lease on a corporate balance sheet? I mean, there has to be some way to secure loans, no?

I don't know enough about it to judge whether the redistributed land will be used more effectively or not. Both opinions are being expressed on this thread.

I'm not opposed to the land reform aspect so much as the fact that corruption takes a heavy toll on anything that goes through the central government. Poverty and corruption (as well as poverty and crime) are a vicious cycle in Africa -- lack of choices and economic desperation lead people to do anything. Corruption prevents investment which could actually improve things.

And Western aid, even aid supposedly given to develop the economy, rarely works because all the contracts and labor go to foreign firms and the government just acquires debt. The Africans have to do it themselves. They need their own Ivan Illich.

http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PS/776/Projects/Illich/illich.htm

[LibertyLover]

25. Using Leases as security

It would all depend on what the Zimbabwe law on mortgages and security says about leases. Some countries will permit perfection of a mortgage over a lease and others will not.

[mulethree]

64. would need transferable leases

80 years right to use, X hectares of grade Y farmland - has value, if it can be sold.

If the lease will transfer from the land-holder to the creditor in the event of a default, and from creditor to another landholder when the creditor wants to liquidate the lease, then it would be usable as collateral.

[theboss]

85. At this point, does any Zimbabwe law mean anything?

It's becoming a totalitarian state where the law changes from day to day.

[geek tragedy]

27. How much faith would you place

in Mugabe's leases? I sure wouldn't place any confidence in him honoring the lease, in case he has more supporters to reward for their support.

[AP]

30. That's funny. Because, a lot of what's been going on with land reform in

Zimbabwe has been the story of the formers colonizers not keeping their promises, and refusing to abide by the law.

Do a search of willing buyer/willing seller, and Lancaster Agreement, and compare the eviction process in Zimbabwe to the way the UK or American courts would treat someone who took tiltle to land by murdering the former occupants. I'm not sure if there's a track record of the Zimbabwean gov't not keepting their promises. However, there's a clear history of former colonizers not keepting their word.

[HamdenRice]

39. Some corrections from first hand experience in Africa

>>No title=no collateral.

Not correct -- you have title to your 99 year lease.

>>No collateral=no investment.

Not correct -- plenty of investors invest with collateral as a leasehold -- just look at China, where western corporations invest with even shorter leaseholds.

>>No investment=no production.

>>No production=massive and permanent poverty ala Ethiopia.

Poverty in Zimbabwe has as much to do with the fact that 95% of the people are forced to live on the poorest 50% of the land, while white farmers, whose "farms" are typically 20,000 to 100,000 acres sit around sipping gin tonics while their black farmworkers actually farm the 100 or so acres of corn or tobacco the white farmer cares to put into production.

The other tens of thousands of acres are left idle or as game farms, so rich white hunters can get drunk and shoot animals.

That's my take of southern African white "farmers" from first hand experience.

[AP]

44. Everyone should read this post.

Land and labor was so cheap in Zimbabwe, there was no incentive to make the best use of it.

Labor was cheap because Zimbabweans were desperate for money once they were forced off their land with no compensation.

Furthermore, land was controlled by people who had no interest in contributing to the Zimbabwean economy.

Their largest crop before land reform was tobacco which went into cheaper cigarettes for Europeans. The profits from selling tobacco went into Swiss bank accounts. The savings for consumers of these cheaper cigarettes (if there was in fact price compeition) went into the pockets of Europeans. There was almost no financial participation by Zimbabweans in the economic benefits of Zimbabwean land (and let's not forget, it was all stolen at the point of a gun).

It was a totally unreal economy which created less wealth than it could have.

Imagine this: wealthy Europeans travel to Africa, see all this great land which can grow shit for Europe. They enter into fair leases and fair purchases of the land where both sides are represented by good lawyers. The profits from the land go into building up a wealthy middle class of Zimbabwean entrepreneurs. They move to the city and start businesses which service the new agricultural industry. All the wealth also ensures that Zimbabwe has a well-resourced government which protects the rights of Zimbabwean laborers and citizens.

These farms exists in a rational economic system. So their profits from selling cigarettes aren't windfall profits. But they're fair profits. But they're not only producing cigarettes. They're producing products for domestic consumption, because there acutally is a wealthy middle class of consumers of all sorts of agricultural products. Thanks to a good government and the fact that their land wasn't stolen from them -- they got a fair price for it -- they have economic power.

Any time this entrepreneurial class wants to become landowners, they can, because they have capital, and their are no structural (cultural, political or economic) impediments to them switching back to agriculture.

That's the way it SHOULD have been. But that's not what colonialism was at all.

And so how do you get to where the Zimbabwean economy should have been had there been "rule of law" rather than "might makes right"? Well, lots of stuff Zimbabwe is doing right now is designed to get to the point they should have been at had there been no colonialism.

[AP]

8. Might be a sensible...

...way to transition from colonialism to functionging capitalism.

For persepctive, a great deal of valuable property in the UK isn't freehold, but are long leases (ableit, the longest allowed, IIRC, are 999 years).

Of course the criticisms of this program are the same as always: bad for investment. They don't mention that foreign investment hasn't been working in favor of Zimbabweans yet (just as it didn't in Argentina or any other poster children for foreign investment). Clearly, what Zimbabwe needs is to get the ownership of the land back into the hands of people who will derive value from it in a way the cirulates first within Zimbabwe, and builds up economic power for Zimbabwe first.

[geek tragedy]

11. The problem

is that people aren't deriving value from it.

The technology and expertise are available to make those farms productive. However, Mugabe is giving the farms to political supporters and cronies, not people who know how to run farms.

However, Mugabe has chosen a policy of sticking it to Whitey rather than one which will lead to a sustainable redistribution of land, which is overdue.

[AP]

15. That's actually not the truth.

10s of thousands of Zimbabweans have taken title and they aren't all Mugabe's cronies. And the land is being used much more productively now than before. I saw an article which actually criticized Zimbabweans for turning a rhinoceraus preserve into farmland. Others criticize tobacco farms for being converted to subsistence maize farms.

Subsitence maize farming is the most efficient farming in the world. Most of the land in Zimbabwe is being used much less effiicently (tobacco farming), and it's being used to create wealth that doesn't cycle within Zimbabawe.

There's no doubt that the economics of land reform work to benefit Zimbabwe and will ultimately create a great deal of wealth for Zimbabweans in Zimbabwe rather than for European consumers of cheap cigarettes, and European land owners in Zimbabawe.

[geek tragedy]

26. Where do you get your news,

Mugabe's ass?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3711153.stm
A former food exporter, Zimbabwe has relied on food aid since it began controversial land reform seizures in 2000.

But aid agencies estimate that 5.5m Zimbabweans - almost half in urban areas - will require emergency food aid this year

[AP]

29. The bbc doesn't tell the whole story about African politics. ever.

How were the rhincoeraus preserves and the tobacco farms feeding Zimbabweans before land reform?

All of Afirca was struck by severe droughts in 2002 and 03, so food production has been down across the continent.

Also, in the first years of land reform there will be displacement and low production because most of these farms will be converted to farms for shit like tobacco to maize farming for Zimbabweans.

What happens in the transition years isn't a good measure for what will be achieved ultimately by land reform.

Um, DUH!

[HamdenRice]

42. I get my news about Zimbabwe from British official aid sources

>>A former food exporter, Zimbabwe has relied on food aid since it began controversial land reform seizures in 2000.

Those were the post 2000 seizures.

The land reform program started in 1980, and official and multilateral (eg world bank) sources call the older program one of the most successful and efficient in the history of the world.

[AP]

46. The US and UK stopped financing willing buyer/willing seller.

I can't say that I blame Tony Blair for not bailing out agri-business in Zimbabwe. I don't think the british taxpayer should have been the final insurer of the profits of colonialism. And, clearly, the process was taking so long that the big businesses that didn't get bought out in 1980 had made enough profit off the land that it was simple greed that made them want to still get bought out in '98.

I read an interview with Mugabe in which he said that the only reason he accepted the Lancaster Agreement was because the US and UK promised to finance the willing buyer/seller. He knew from the start that no Zimbabweans would have the money to buy out the colonizers. It was the last sticking point and the US and British govt's promised that their taxpayers would pay off the colonizers.

So, I wonder what people here think Zimbabwe should have done once that program ended? It was a condition of the Lancaster Agreement.

[lil-petunia]

13. not with mugabe there

circles of fire, burning tires over the necks of political dissidents?
Armed groups of thugs attacking women and children of the wrong political party?
forced starvation, stealing of UN food bags, and preventing the poorest from receiving them?

Mugabe is actually worse than Ashcroft. But, he has had more time, hasn't he?

[jdj]

43. Read a horrifying story about the land seizures

in a magazine at the vet the other day. People were taking off leaving their livestock and pets, and rather than put the animals to use the farm animals were slaughtered and many of the pets tortured to avenge the original colonization. The had a picture of a dog whose eyes had been gouged out during the land seizures; he was at a sanctuary someone has started for animals who have been victimized because of the land seizures. How stupid can you be, someone abandons livestock and you slaughter it and torture it?

Reminds me of the slaughter of the Canaanites by the Hebrews in the Old testament, one of the verses was "everything that drew breath, we slaughtered it."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

With regards to this story, it would totally depend on the lease payment as to whether this is a fair deal or not. But with Mugabe in the picture it is destined to end up a bad policy some way or the other.

[AP]

49. Read the horrifying stories about when the colonizers seized the land

in the first place.

It will put "leaving livestock and pets behind" in perspective.

It's sweet, however, that the vetrinary magazines have their priorities in order. The pets are more important than people. You get a little neoliberal propaganda along with your anthropomorphism. It must make that vet bill hurt a little less if you read that article and think, "boy, pets are the most important people in the world!"

[AP]

50. By the way, any story that would make you feel more compassion for a

domestic animal than a black man whose land was stolen from him is racist.

I'm going to give the vet magazine some wiggle room on the racism charge becaue they make money off of you thinking that an animal's live is more valuable than any human's life. But come on! Can we wise up just a little here. Please. These aren't complicated issues.

[geek tragedy]

89. LOL!

That post is bona fide self-parody. Animal lovers are concerned because people are torturing and killing animals, and that makes them racist? Hoo boy.

I'm sure Mugabe's thugs are torturing plenty of people as well, though. As with all other African dictators, he'll use the wealth of the land, such as it is, as a way of rewarding his supporters and maintaining their loyalty.

Everyone else will starve.

[AP]

98. I put people before pets. I think land reform is important enough

that this story doesn't change my mind.

It's also probably a pack of lies like most reporting on how savage Africans are when they start getting all anti-neoliberal.

And if you can't see that it's racist to put pets before the lives of men and women...well, I'm glad we are on the opposite side of that argument.

[Judi Lynn]

109. I'm starting to wonder about that "news" article, AP!

After a brief search, I found this:

Zimbabwe farmers to be reunited with their pets
April 17, 2003, 15:00


More than 80 dogs and 20 cats that were left behind when their
owners fled Zimbabwe during the land eviction programme arrived safely in
Pretoria last night. The pets were transported in one large road shipment
and are kept at the city's Wetnose Animal Rescue Centre.

The centre has rescued more than 5 000 dogs to date. Tracey
Forte, of the centre, says they have also rescued more than 600 cats and are
rehabilitating 14 horses.

She says the cats and dogs will be flown to destinations all
over the country to be re-united with their owners. Those that can't be
taken back by their owners will be given new homes.
(snip/)

http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/apr18_2003.html#link5

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

You'd think a big "story" like that which makes it to the vet's office where true animal lovers would read it would also be somewhat available through ordinary news sources.

Maybe it's better to contemplate it with a bit of sensible skepticism.

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

On edit:

What can we be thinking? Tuesday was a BIG day for hearing about _Bush's interest in and probably approval of torture of human beings, speaking of TORTURE! Funny how visiting posters can tend to try to pull people off sides, isn't it?

I'd recommend they get hobbies. Working at humane societies, ASPCA, etc., could help bring healing to pets tortured by Americans, on problems I have heard are serious right here.

[bitchkitty]

111. I don't get you either -

It might not be nice, but it's not racist, unless you say that dogs are a race.

[AP]

113. It is racist.

One of the first articles I remember reading in the US press after land reform got under way was in the LA Times, I believe. It was written by a women (IIRC) whom JudiLyn tracked down as an aouthor of a romantic novel about white farmers in the early 20th century in Zimbabwe.

I'm pretty sure that article was loaded with lame attempts to discredit land reform that were carefully structured to appeal to western racist perceptions of Africans. The article had a hierarchy of concerns and higer on the list than poliitcal, economic and cultural power for black africans were the rights of endangered rhinoceraus and the environment.

The article described how if you drive through some of these old farmlands you see black people eating the wild animals off the land and clear cutting forest. It was written like this was a bad thing. Um, that's the POINT of land reform -- putting unused, excellent farmland in the hands of people who are going to use it to create wealth for Zimbabweans. If it were 1840s America that article was describing, we would have been lauding their pioneer spirit and entrepreneurialism. But, because they were black Africans, it was represented as damaging the environment.

The article also described ho a rhinoceraus preserve was going to be turned over to the government, which was bad. The disneyfication of that event was ubelievable. The article made it sound like those animals had more rights than people. That is just plain racist.

If you don't believe me, read this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0974003905/qid=1086789998/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-7891748-5712619?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[David__77]

14. Land ownership is not a "democratic freedom."

In the US, government frequently uses rights of way to take private lands. This is ridiculous propaganda. I think that some type of compensation would be warranted, if not for moral then for political purposes at least. But the legacy of bloody colonialism runs deep in this nation of Zimbabwe, and this is not an unreasonable proposal at all.

[rastignac5]

37. Land ownership doesn't guarantee a free and democratic nation but

you can't have a free and democratic nation without it.

[TahitiNut]

60. Government is about nothing if not about Justice.

Economic justice is must exist if any justice is to exist. When 1% owns 95% and labor is only compensated for less than 10% of the value of that labor, that's not justice. Ownership of land that's only made "valuable" because of labor is no reason to impoverish labor and further enrich owners. That's not justice. That's tyrrany by people without the titles but with the same feudal power that corrupted mankind for centuries.

[AP]

61. Right on.

And when there's one resource from which the entire wealth of the nation flows and it's controlled by foreign capitalists who don't care about the citizens of the country in which they do business, that's the route to fascism.

[TahitiNut]

77. When it's extra-national, I'd call it neocolonialism.

When it's meta-national, I'd call it neofascism. These are the corporatization of the state. In effect, they're substantively indistinguishable, I think. In the US, we've become almost indistinguishable from a neofascist state. The broad damage done in the last 25 years is nearly incalculable in terms of the time it'll take to get back on the path to Justice (both civil and economic) we were on in the 70's (about the time of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).

[stickdog]

84. Sure you can. Are you really saying that a commune can't be

democratic?

Now give that commune sovereignty.

What do you have?

[THUNDER HANDS]

16. I'm sure no problems will arise from this

I mean, what's the chances for corruption...practically nil right?
:eyes:

[On the Road]

17. Is This Fundamentally Different from Other "Land Reform" Programs?

You always hear about redistributing land to peasants in countries dominated by large landowners. The farmland situation in Zimbabwe is usually written about as some type of outrage. But is it really that different from what's happened in other places?

[fedsron2us]

18. The USA and Zimbabwe have a lot in common

They are both governed by crooks.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

21. Very smart move...

After all, what is the point of undergoing a near revolution in order to redistribute the nation's wealth, if you just hand blocks of land to desperately poor people ready for resale to the highest bidder?

Just giving the land back into private ownership would merely ensure that a few wealthy people once again own all the land. By keeping it government controlled, it can't be sold, and in fact limits on holdings can be made to ensure the fairest distribution of wealth generating land.

Of course corruption of the process is not impossible, but then again corruption of ANY process in ANY nation is not impossible - take Bush's presidency for example.

At least it will be Zimbawbeans ripping off Zimbabweans rather than foreigners tens of thousands of miles away.

On edit: By the way, when was the last time MSNBC criticised Israel's land ownership policies?

History of Land Ownership in Israel
In order to purchase land for the resettlement of Jews in their ancient homeland, the Fifth Zionist Congress (1901) created a private charitable organization called the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Before the State of Israel was established in 1948, land purchased by the JNF was not resold but was instead leased out on a long-term basis to create kibbutzim and other forms of Jewish settlement.

After 1948 state-owned lands formerly in the possession of British Mandatory Authorities, together with property abandoned by Arab refugees, passed into the control of the new Israeli government. Some of this land was sold by the government to the JNF, which had developed expertise in reclaiming and developing waste and barren lands and making them productive.

In 1960 under Basic Law: Israel Lands, JNF-owned land and government-owned land were together defined as "Israel lands," and the principle was laid down that such land would be leased rather than sold. The JNF retained ownership of its land, but administrative responsibility for the JNF land, and also for government-owned land, passed to a newly created agency called the Israel Land Administration or ILA.

Of the total land in Israel in 1997, the Israel Government Press Office statistics say 79.5% is owned by the government, 14% is privately owned by the JNF, and the rest, around 6.5%, is evenly divided between private Arab and Jewish owners. Thus, the ILA administers 93.5% of the land in Israel.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_land.php

[arcos]

24. I would have no problem if this were done in a democratic way...

but as usual, Mugabe proves he doesn't believe in anything remotely similar to democracy. The fact that he is able to do this without a vote from Congress or a referendum says a lot.

[AP]

35. How do you know this wasn't done legally.

I don't know if it was done legally. But I suspect it was.

The government took title to the land lawfully. Now they're saying that they're not handing it out for free, and they're not selling it. They're going to enter into long leases.

Compare this to Venezuela nationalizing the oil industry. There's one thing in VZ which creates more wealth than anything else. Privatize it, and you vest in a private authority most of the economic (and therefor political) power in the country. That power could then easily dominate all other aspects of government. Nationalize it and you can guarantee that there's a level economic playing field. It guarnatees that all other private industry to operate competitively because they don't have to worry about being dominated by one very powerful industry.

Well, in Zimbabwe there's exactly one resource from which all economic power flows -- the land. And, just as with oil in VZ, there was a time when very few people controlled all the valuable land, and, to make things worse, they weren't even loyal to Zimbabwe. The put all their profits from selling the proceeds of Zimbabwes resources into European bank accounts.

Well, clearly Zimabwe has decided that, to let all other aspects of the economy work, until there comes a time when land can be distributed in a way that allows competition and prevents a concentration of land ownership in the hands of a few people, it looks like the government will control the land. And it's probably a good idea to let the Zimbabwean government have a little economic and political power because there are a lot of poor people, just like in Venezuela, who could stand to have a government trying to help them gain a little economic and political power -- which is what the government is trying to do when it passes beneficial title from a few very wealthy private European agrobusinesses to the people of Zimbabwe.

[rastignac5]

41. Mugabe is a murderous and corrupt dictator

What does "legal" have to do with it?

[AP]

45. Whatever.

If you ever care to learn about development economic and have an informed opinion, let me know, and maybe we can have interesting debates.

If you just want to type out slogans like that, I don't think there's anything I can really contribute.

Suffices to say, there's way more to this issue than you captured in your post.

[rastignac5]

47. Why are you a Mugabe apologist?

Are you so obsessed with the success of a major land reform program that you'll delude yourself into believing a corrupt dictator can provide it?

[AP]

48. Is using labels easier than thinking? I'm very interested in economic...

...development, and you don't have even have an opinion on Mugabe to know that land reform in Zimbabwe is going to create a great deal of wealth for a lot of Zimbabweans who have only their labor to sell.

Slap whatever label you want on that, and write a single sentence.

It's not a good subsitute for informed debate.

If you want to have an informed debate about economic development, let me know.

[TahitiNut]

70. It's often far, far easier to collect that which we don't understand ...

... and don't want to bother understanding, wrap it in a verbal garbage bag labeled "tyrant," and throw it at people who persist in supplying the potentially valuable contents of that sack.


George MacDonald said something like it best (for me) in Lilith ...
"Why know the name of a thing when the thing itself you do not know? Whose work is it but your own to open your eyes? But indeed, the work of the Universe is to make such a fool of you that you will know yourself for one, and so begin to be wise!" (George MacDonald)


I've read your posts with interest and commend you for trying to convey an understanding based on a sense of equity and justice rather than People Magazine politics. Thank you.

[AP]

75. Thank you. Interesting quote.

[nodehopper]

68. Mugabe has been targeting the non-Shona for genocide.

In a press conference in '02 he said:
""We would be better off with only 6 million people, with our own people who support the liberation struggle. We don't want all these extra people."
He enforced policies by which the non-Shona were not able to purchase food. Now he is taking their land away so they will be denied any way of feeding themselves.

[AP]

76. Not so helpful without a cite.

[nodehopper]

80. cite

Actually, I just looked and it was Mugabe's Zanu-PF organizing secretary speaking on his behalf:
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/a0da6f9ac37db497c1256c77005f5df4?OpenDocument

"We would be better off with only six million people*, with our own people who support the liberation struggle. We don't want all these extra people".
Didymus Mutasa: Zanu-PF Organising Secretary,
10th August 2002

"The current report documents that attacks on independent voices in the media, the judiciary and civil society have indeed continued, and are predicted to escalate yet further in the next few months, in the form of further repressive legislation, as well as attacks on individuals. Government officials, in the last few months, have ignored court rulings and condoned attacks on court officials who made rulings unfavourable to government. The appointment of a new Minister of Home Affairs appears to have coincided with an escalation of reported torture perpetrated by the police.

The most significant findings in this report relate to political abuse of food.

We conclude that in the last four months, manipulation of food was directly related to elections. The threat of being deliberately starved by the Government if the opposition won votes, was used to profoundly influence vulnerable rural voters in recent elections in Zimbabwe.

Abuse of government controlled "food for work" programmes and of sales from the government controlled Grain Marketing Board, were reported to us from 18 different districts and centres. This is indicative of a wide spread and deliberate strategy, in which opposition supporters are being denied the right to maize.

In all cases of problematic food distribution, those implicated in politically manipulating access to food, are Zanu-PF officials or supporters.

Zanu-PF appears to be maintaining a situation where there is too little food in the country, by controlling all sales and imports. Too little food is serving a dual purpose: it allows political control through controlling who accesses food; it facilitates the creation of a Zanu-PF dominated black market, thus enriching the Zanu-PF hierarchy. "

I suggest you read the entire webpage.

[AP]

90. So what do you think this all means?

[nodehopper]

94. read my other response to you.

Mugabe doesn't want the non-Shona around. He is happy to starve them. When a corrupt government with an authoritarian leader annexes private land, in the context of a long history of the persecution of the opposition via political sanctions and starvation, I think that this will be used to the same effect.

[AP]

99. Cites?

[AP]

92. That says nothing about the non-Shona. And Mugabe didn't even say it.

And it's not clearly about genocide either.

it's out of context, which probably suggest that context doesn't support the allegation.

[nodehopper]

93. yes, it was his party secretary at a press conference, I corrected myself

I suggest you google it, google Shona, google Mugabe, google food policies. You can think whatever you want about Mugabe, but you should familiarize yourself with how the ways in which he is corrupt and how he uses hunger as a method of terrorizing the non-Shona.

Are you familiar with his corrupt election "methods"? How he has assumed sole jurisdiction over the elections and banned foreign monitors? His violent muzzling of the press? The extent of his human rights abuses? I am not throwing dogma at you, I regularly read human rights reports that come out of Zimbabwe, and I educate myself about that part of the world.

Do you know about the ZF-cards and how they've been used to disenfrenchised thousands of voters? The Matabeland massacres?

[AP]

97. Are you familiar with the book Hearts of Darkness which explains why

Zimbabwe has a policy of not allowing non-Zimbabwe based journalists to report on Zimbabwean politics?

If you have evidence of non-Shona discrimination, I'd think you'd do a little better than that out of context quote.

Do you know that the CIA has admitted that it's funding the opposition in Zimbabwe?

Did you know that the MDC was almost entirely funded by Western governments?

Don't you wonder if Morgan Tsvengerai was set up by the brits who financed his run for office? I think that's the only explanation for what happened to him. They tried to frame him with a charge of treason because they knew he wouldn't win the election. They wanted Mugabe to arrest him and execute him and call off the election so they could argue that it wasn't a legitimate election. Mugabe didn't call off the election and Tsvengerai hasn't been executed.

Do you know that the neoliberals detest what Zimbabwe is doing politically because it's depriving western corporations of easy profits?

Do you know that when the US and UK used Amnesty reports to justify invading Iraq, Amnesty said, in no way should their reports be read as a justification to invade Iraq. Do you know that when the US tried to use Amnesty reports to argue the illegitimacy of Mugabe's government and to argue that the MDC should win, there wasn't a peep from anyone. I can't believe Amnesty believes that Mugabe is worse than Hussein. So what do you think those Amnesty reports mean?

Do you know that I've read the human rights reports on Zimbabwe, and I noticed two things: (1) almost every allegation in the amnesty reports comes from one newspaper and (2) they're pretty tame compared to what happens in a place like Nigeria.

Do you know why we don't complain about Nigeria? Because they tyranny in Nigeria is designed to maintain Shell's de facto control of that country. We complain about Zimbabwe because Mugabe won't let American and European companies tyranize and run Zimbabwe like a de facto colony.

About that newspaper that publishes all the allegations about the government: their editor, a british citizen, was kicked out of the country for lying. He admits he was lying. He gives interviews on BBC and NPR all the time talking about how bad the government is. Who do you believe? The neoliberal apologist lying journalist out to discredit an anti-neoliberal government? I'm not sure, but I'm skeptical.

Do you know that back in 2002 and 2003 one of the arguments against land reform was that 3 to 6 million people were going to die of starvation in the summer of 2003? It didn't happen.

Do you know the world bank is pissed at Mugabe because they passed laws which resulted in an end of foreign banks monopolization of development financiing in Zimbabwe?

I mean, where do you stop.

Mugabe isn't a great guy by any means. But he's standing up to the west and that's the biggest reason people hate him.

Oh, and Mugabe was engaged in bloody civil war after independence. It was a power struggle. He did atrocious things. The West LOVED him back then becuase he wasn't going to push back hard agains the former colonizers. He accepted go-slow land reform. (Ian Smith lives comfortably on a huge farm today.) They were happy that he was killing other AFricans rather than former colonizers.

It's only now that he's pushing harder with an anti-neoliberal agenda, long after the civil wars have ended and long after black Zimbabweans settled the differences they fought over in the civil war, that people like to remind themselves of what Mugabe did way back then.

If it wasn't for accelarated land reform (and challenging the hegemony of western development banks), nobody would care about that stuff.

So much wealth flows to the west out of these colonies and you can count how much by looking at how poor people are in Zimbabwe and how rich they are in London, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Paris and Berlin.

That's what this is all about. It's all about which way the money flows. People don't like that Zimbabwe wants it to flow in circles in Zimbabwe before a part of it flows out to Europe.

if you want to be on the side of the neoliberals in that debate, then I guess we'll be going head to head.

[nodehopper]

106. I will respond to this at length tomorrow (I have to go to bed)

But this
"if you want to be on the side of the neoliberals in that debate, then I guess we'll be going head to head."

Is a mark of a poor argument. It's a logical fallacy. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I am a "neoliberal"

And you keep writing "cites?" but since you appear to be well-informed on the issue I find it hard to believe that you've never read anything about the non-Shona discrimination except from whatever one source you are referring too. Becase I've read about it in dozens of sources.

And I notied you did not mention anything about the 1982-1986 massacre that I brought up. Why is that?

[AP]

114. I'm framing the debate. I see the big issue here as neoliberalism.

If you don't think the biggest issue here is which direction the money and power flows in Africa (within or out to Europe and America) than make your argument.

It's a weak argument to respond only by saying the other argument is weak.

The civil war after independence was a power struggle.

I heard an interview on BBC with a Zimbabwean named George ____ (?) from the Zimbabwean gov't. They also had on that racist author of the Dogs of War (Forsythe), and this was Forsythe big argument too -- the civil war. George ____ said that that argument was outrageous. He said the civil war was bad, but that it was the past and both sides have made amends. He said that the west didn't care about it at all when it happened, and were in fact, quite pleased with the destabilization it caused. He said that the west was dragging it out now to discredit land reform.

I've read nothing since '98 about land reform not benefitting non-shona. I know the west loves to look at African politics through the lens of 'tribalism" because it plays into the notiong of savages, but, seriously, with land reform the argument has only ever been that the government has punished MDC members. Remarkably, they haven't -- until your posts -- tried to sell this one as tribalism.

Check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0974003905/qid=1086789998/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-7891748-5712619?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[Judi Lynn]

110. Great posts, AP, throughout this thread, on your part.

Didn't get around to reading them all until just now.

You're making the points which need to be considered. It's simply amazing how little people know before they develope a fully blown belief they are experts on complex subjects, wouldn't you say?

As you can probably sense, a lot of people read your posts and think about them, and use them as points of departure to learn more. You defintely appear a deeply intelligent person in a world with a lot of preposterous blowhards.

Thanks a lot.

[duvinnie]

63. isnt that what they said

about Saddam?
Im sure the brits are busy putting together the case
against Mugabe as we speak.

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. And it was true about Saddam

but don't think that Britain, or the US, will bother to invade Zimbabwe. There's no oil there.

[AP]

78. Actually, the Brits don't seem to be pressing this one.

I read that it was the UK that made sure that Zimbabwe had food aid last year. They could have let Zimbabwe starve so that they could make the argument that land reform wasn't working. You can be sure the Tories would have done that.

Also, like I said above, I think Blair was right to stop funding the willing buyer/willing seller program. There is no reason that British taxpayers should be paying off colonizers, especially after 20 years of easy profits off that land. And it was the end of that that put land reform on the fast track. It would be quite a thing if that's what he intended (chances are 1 in 100), but Zimbabwe's economy is going to be better off sooner because of fast-tracking land reform.

[arcos]

95. read again... I never said legally...

I said democratically. Yes, this was probably done legally... but it is very sad that a government has so much power that they can abolish private land ownership without even the vote of Congress. Nowhere in the article is a vote mentioned, just what the Land Reform Minister said.

I suspect it was done legally too. But I'm pretty sure it was not done democratically, in typical Mugabe style.

[AP]

100. Why don't you think a majority of Zimbabweans would prefer

a system of land ownership that doesnt' concentrate land ownership (and therefore economic and political power) in the hands of a few very rich foreign commpanies.

I believe the purpose of this rule is to make sure foreign companies don't turn around a buy back the land from the very poor people the government is giving the land.

That's the basic problem here. The fucked up world of colonialism created some very poor people with some very short term needs that are hard to protect in the face of some very wealthy foreign corporations.

I'm sure protecting the interests of the majority of poor people is democratic and popular.

[arcos]

102. that's not the point...

Regardless of whether people support land reform or not (in my opinion most probably do), this wasn't done democratically. How do you know they don't prefer an alternative? How do you know this new system won't be abused by the government to fuck up people who don't agree with all their policies? Maybe THE PEOPLE would have wanted to have a say in this, and not have the policy dictated by the government.

This is something BIG and should have been done democratically... as I said, at least a vote in Congress should have taken place. The fact that it was not and it was probably a legal decision says a lot about the kind of 'democracy' Zimbabwe has.

[AP]

103. I'll add...what if this is the fastest way to a real democracy?

You aren't going to have real democracy until the people are more powerful than the corporations, and this is how to get there.

[arcos]

104. well, Mugabe claims Zimbabwe is a democracy...

and Chávez calls him a great 'freedom fighter'. Why was it that hard to get a vote in Congress then?

[AP]

105. The entire land reform program has been done according to rules

that are the product of government process, beginning with the lancaster agreement, right through to the rules for evicting squatters.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know exactly what's going on, but I don't see where this diverges from the logic of the legal and political process that has been in place.

That the government takes title to the land has been party of the reform process. I always assumed they would then vest title in individuals. That they are giving long leases instead doesn't change much.

Clearly, their fear is that the recipients are so impoverished that they might turn around and sell the land at way below market values to the same european agro-businesses the government had just taken the land from, thus defeating the entire purpose of land reform.

(And this is a real risk, because, as we know from looking at the labor market in the US, when people are hurting economically they tend to turn around and sell their most valuable resources at cut rate prices to the people who are already doing really well and have a lot of economic and political power.)

So, I'm not sure what vote you're looking for. That they're taking title to the land has always been part of the reform process. That's not really the thing that's new. That they're taking this extra step to make reform work is new, and it's clearly in the best long term interest of the citizens of Zimbabwe, and not so great for the neoliberals.

[arcos]

108. well, the fact that they are abolishing land ownership is new...

and again, I think the democratic thing to do is to ask Congress for approval. The fact that they don't even need permission from the legislative branch is scary, and a symptom of an executive branch who has way too much power.

[AP]

112. Again, no. The gov't always planned to take title to the land.

What's new is that they're not giving it out to poor Zimbabweans in fee simple absolute. They're giving it out as leases.

[hughee99]

32. Hitting on several subject

from the posts above, I don't think that government seizure of the land was a good idea, but someone above made an excellent point about long term leases preventing the new owners from selling back to the same people who used to own the land. I think the problem is that when a government shows the will to sieze the land, it makes investors (and their $$ will be required to improve the land) nervous about getting involved. This is even more true in more industrialized areas. Sure, someone my buy a lease and put up some sort of mfg plant (Coca-cola bottling for example). Once the plant is built, is there any real assurance that the land won't be siezed on some technicality (or even just outright taken), thus screwing the investors. There is also the problem (also discussed above) about a landowner being able to use the land as security for the loan. Above the fact that the government may not permit this, wouldn't a bank have the same concerns as any other investor. After all, if someone can't make their loan payments, they may not be able to make their lease payments either and lose the collateral. The government would take the land back and the bank would now be in the position of trying to collect the payment from the governement. It just seems like this type of action will do more to destabilize the economy and hurt investment, than it will benefit the people.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

36. Don't over state what is being done...

I actually work in the land reform field, and it is easy for Americans to misunderstand what this means. This does not "abolish ownership" of land -- it changes the nature of what is owned.

In America, you don't actually own land -- you own a bundle of rights called an estate in land, the formal name of which is "fee simple absolute."

Many countries redefine what that estate is. A 99 year lease, especially one that has automatic renewal, is almost indistinguisable from our fee simple estate.

Lots of capitalist countries in western europe have similar systems of 99 year leases or "quit rent". The main purpose of switching from fee simple to 99 year lease or quit rent has to do with some technical issues of compensation when zoning regulates usage. that's about it.

Just as you can borrow against a fee simple, you can borrow against a lease or quit rent. Corporations do it all the time in America.

This change is mostly symbolic. Its effect will depend on what is the content of the 99 year lease.

[AP]

40. The funny thing about the BBC spinning this is that in England most of the

land isn't held in fee simple absolute. Most land is sold as a long lease.

And clearly that hasn't hurt investment in England.

There's actually another side to this "investment" angle.

One of Mugabe's recent reforms has been to pass laws to create Zimbabwean-owned investment banks. If IIRC, up to a couple years ago there were only 3 banks which dominated all development in Zimbabwe. Mugabe decided they had too much control over the economy and that they were also siphoning off all the profit from economic development to the US and Europe.

His reforms resulted in something like 6 new zimbabwean-owned investment banks. One of them failed a couple months ago (which is no surprise -- that's what capitalism is all about, competition, with the best business models surviving). The World Bank then went on a publicitiy offensive. They said that this was a sign of trouble and that most of the new banks should close. Which ones do you think they want to keep open? Probably the European and US owned banks which are seeing their profit-margins and their control over the Zimbabwean economy shrink.

Anyway, I bet some of those Zimbabwean banks would be happy to lend to these leasors, especially if it's going to have a spiralling-up effect on the Zimbabwean economy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. The funny thing about your post

is that no-one has yet linked to what the BBC has reported about this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3786785.stm

And apart from 1 paragraph quoting government critics and aid agencies, it's almost all the Zimbabwean government's words. It points out that many other African countries don't allow private freehold ownserhip of land. Where's the spin?

More relevantly, here's the original Herald article this all came from:

http://allafrica.com/stories/200406080361.html

This makes it seem more like the first draft of an idea, rather than something set in stone. For instance, this banker doesn't know how the leases will work yet:

"It depends on how the lease agreement between the farmer and Government is drawn up and whether banks would accept it as collateral," he said.

What this seems to mean is that the government is going to forget how it dealt out land before, and do it again, via the "vetting" process. We have to hope they'll do it both reasonably fairly, and with an eye to getting the land productive. Completely fair would be to give every adult the same amount (as measured by production), but that would be tiny amounts each. But how would you dole out parcels of land to only some of the people (the implication is that no money will be paid before the rent) fairly, when the leases are going to have a monetary value afterwards (because to be useful as collateral, they must do)?

A big experiment, for which Mugabe's track record for corruption doesn't give me much confidence.

[AP]

56. See post 26. That BBC story concludes with...

a couple paragraphs claiming this was going to hurt investment.

How many more Argentinas before we realize that that's a slogan that's worthless?

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. No, you're wrong there

There's not a single mention of investment in the story from post 26. It's about food shortages, not land ownership; and it ends:

With parliamentary elections due next year, it says the government is preparing to do the same again.

Archbishop Ncube said: "They want to use food as a political weapon as they have done in the past.

"Once they put out the non-governmental organisations that have been feeding the people, then they'll have the whole field to themselves.

"Then they can punish those people who are supporting the opposition."

What slogan are you talking about? Are you forgetting to put in links to articles you're reading? You do know how to, don't you?

[AP]

74. I'll be damned. It was the MSNBC story in the OP. It reminded me so much

of the british press, I failed to distinguish. Oops.

Here's the offiending, neoliberal mantra: "bad for investment"

Move seen as frightening away investors
“The banks aren’t going to lend to an individual against a lease that belongs to the state. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t borrow on the strength of something you don’t own,” he said.

The nationalization program is likely to further hurt the ailing economy by frightening away what little investment Zimbabwe still receives, Robertson said. It also would also cast new uncertainty over general property rights including home ownership rights, that likely would undermine already struggling businesses and commercial activity, he said.

“It is a very big step away from a market economy to the communist-style command economy of state control of the factors of production,” he said.

Land seizures have slashed production of food and tobacco — once the nation’s biggest hard currency earner.

United Nations crop forecasts predict Zimbabwe, once a regional breadbasket, will produce only half its food needs this year.
© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[smiley_glad_hands]

52. This is pretty scarey.

This is not democracy this is authoritarianism and communism.

[AP]

57. Love to get your comments on post 35. I think that when private companies

especially companies which aren't interested in the welll-being of the citizens of the country in which do business, control a huge percentage of the most valuable resources in that country, it's called fascism. And fascism is not democracy.

[hughee99]

71. When a government, especially

a governement which isn't interested in the well-being of the citizens of the country in which he rules, controls a huge percentage of the most valuable resources in that country, it's called totalitarianism and that's not a democracy either. I don't think most people would be arguing the reforms if Ghandi was running Zimbabwe. There is definately the potential for both good and evil to come of this, and many do not trust Mugabe to look beyond his personal and political gain and do what's best for his citizens.

[AP]

73. If the Zimbabwean gov't didn't care about creating a functioning economy

they'd just sit back, accept the bribes from wester capital and wouldn't be trying to reform land ownership.

[smiley_glad_hands]

88. No

I'm certainly not one for fascism or communism. If Capitalism is responsibly regulated then a society will flourish. Private citizen's generally don't own property in a communist system? Where is there a democracy where private citizens can't own a farm or land?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

96. Israel springs to mind...

See my othe rpost on this thread (#21) for the full details, but basically 93.5% of all land in Israel is owned or administered by the israeli government, and only leased to private citizens.

Of course some would argue whether Israel is truly a democracy...

[stickdog]

79. Land ownership = democratic freedom?

Is this from the same school of thought in which capitalism is the opposite of totalitarianism?