1. Chavez is a socialist not a communist. I know to most Americans there is no distinction but there is the real world.

2. Chavez has actually been reasonably good (by south american standards) for venezuela and is rather popular. His educational reforms have been particularly well greeted.

3. Americas problem with him is he controls a shite load of oil you would love to have full control over and he is not going to kow tow. His land reforms are designed to stop your lot getting their hands on it.

Funny how this comes out 2 days after Rummy makes known his "concerns" at a Venezuelan purchase of 100,000 AK47s.

Any proof people will starve in Venezuela because of Chavez's plan? Or is this some kind of false association like Saddam...911...
I'm wondering if it will do the opposite and help those most likely to starve.

Maybe you two should read about another great redistributor of land in order to benefit the people, Pol Pot:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/78988.stm

Why is it that socialists, actually Communists, can't see the error in their ways? How much higher, now at over 150,000,000, does the body count have to go before they believe in nothing more than a utopian nightmare?

Stop mixing apple and oranges unless you can provide some valid points concerning your comparison.

Redistribution of land is a result of the left's ignorance of agriculture economics. Farmers with small plots of land can feed themselves but they can not produce a surplus to feed others. Only large farms with extensive inventory of equipment can produce surpluses for the people in the cities.

This is a major mistake of Chavez. The majority of the people of Venezuela want him gone. Only his roving gangs of street thugs keep him in power. Starvation will push the people to throw him out.

Looking at the situation in Zimbabwe, all other things being equal, the problem seems to that in both places there are people with rather a lot of personal freedom. Thus, individual freedom can be seen for the bad thing that it is.
This is quite along the lines of what Bush is pressing for... democracy.
By and large, people really don't want it, nor is it good for them: they need order.
Yes indeed, a world without people would be a much kinder, gentler place, that is unarguable. What's more, from a mathematical point of view, while one may see that the liklihood for organized meanness diminishes with the population, it does not go to zero until the number of people IS zero. My my.

The United States was surveyed and marked by Jefferfson specifically for its later distribution to anyone who could work it. The United States was unique in the world, where anyone, absolutely anyone could own land. That was utterly without possibility anywhere else in the western world: ownership of land, which preceeds the formation of capital.
Working the land productively should be a prerequisite. Otherwise, the free distribution of land merely removes the reach of government over it, creates anarchy... "starvation" is just one of the minor byproducts... besides, starvation is such a blah word" it's malnourisment, deformed bodies, bodies subject to disease and disfigurement and all the same terms applied to the mind.
Why not actually support Chavez program and see if there might not be a socially effective way to distrubute lands. Unless a case can be made that aggrarian societies made up of small land ownders is neither productive nor stable? (Could be)

This is a little off topic but what thread about Chavez is complete without something about Castro's Cuba.

http://www.canadacuba.ca/education/compare.php

It seems those commies are decent at providing for everybody in thier country not just the upper classes.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/613/613p12.htm

That second link is a commie/greenie take on Chavez land reforms/redistributions. To me it seems to imply that Chavez is trying to improve food security by reducing the percentage of food imports (70%) that Venezuela needs currently. To this end he is looking at how much these landowners auctually use their land and how productive it is.

And Nick, Chavez says he isn't a socilaist but he does say that captialism must be trancended by democracy into genuine socialism. He quite the character one hand he defends China, Russia, Spain and Iran (perhaps rightly so) because they are "standing up to North American Imperialism" but ignores that China and Iran aren't exacly model democracies (esp. China) and he ignores the fact all these countries are not exactly advancing the cause of the worker.

But still he is going in the right direction at least. Check out a Marxist and very complimentary (of course cause commies love Chavez) review of Chavez's World Social Forum 2005 speech at:

http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/chavez_speech_wsf.htm

Good luck to Chavez although I'm not sure he'll last as long as Fidel even though Chavez's mass support is more evident then Castro since Chavez has won something like 4-5 elections if you include the refrendum since 1998.

Of course, agriculture in Western Democracy is a great example of how the free market works perfectly. Not over subsidised in Europe or North America. Oh no. Not the single biggest source of barriers to true international free trade. No siree. Nope, you never had Willie Nelson and Bob Dylan singing at farmaid concerts in the 80s. No, not in the U.S. Okay, starvation is not an issue, but to arrogantly state that Chavezs untried reforms might not work, and compare them to what happened under Stalins collectivisation is just bandwagon jumping. Horses for courses. I haven't a fucking clue about the agrarian economics of Venezuela, but I guarantee most posting here haven't either. The young neo cons in America are reminding more and more of the left in Britain during the 80s. No objectivity. If it's anything remotely on the opposite side, criticise first, find the (usually tenuous) arguments later.

Nick, buddy, Chavez calls HIMSELF a Maoist. You've got issue with the Commie label, you take it up with him.

Everytime you write, Nick, I just feel like your affluence gets in the way of you seeing the world as it is. Chavez is NOT reasonably good, by any standards. The fact that you think he is is also because you think he is, like you, a Socialist. I just wish you'd get the chance to live under the systems you endorse.

Paul, Funny you should mention Iraq. During Saddam's reign, Hugo Chavez called Iraq a 'model' for Venezuela. And, just like Saddam, he's cracked down on political speech and oppositition. What a guy.

But, really, I'm surprised you don't understand why land re-distribution is a bad idea. Let's start with the obvious. You own your apartment. You like it. Well, the government says you're under utilizing it and they can easily fit at least another family in it. Are you cool with that? That's what happened in the Soviet Union and what seems almost destined to happen when the government has too much control over the citizenry. But that's not all: when farms are redistributed to friends and relatives, there is little guarantee, like in Zimbabwe, that these people actually know how to farm.

Hugo Chavez is either a Communist or a Totalitarian, you can have your pick. Either way, you can see the trainwreck coming a mile off. It's not apples+oranges, it's learning from history, something Commies can never seem to do.

Gberke, no clue what you're on about. Zimbabwe has too much freedom? Venezuela, where political opposition can get you directly to jail, has too much freedom? I'd hate to see what you consider too little.

Urbane, land redistribution is not a new idea. Every dumbass Commie who gets control thinks he's found the solution to equality. It's the same story every time. Because it's not an unusual occurence, we're able to predict what will happen. Again, I'm sure you're all cool with land being 're-distributed', as long as it's not your land, right?

I wish farm subsidies didn't exist but to compare them to stealing land isn't exactly a fair comparison. I'm glad you admit though, that the free market would be a better option here.

Do his plans automatically involve stealing ?
From what I understand the scheme seems to be for unproductive land.
Agrarian reforms in poor countries need not be driven ideologically.

If the land isn't used, wouldn't the government already own it?

Oh and Urbane, I wasn't referring to 'Stalins collectivisation' with the USSR link, I was actually referring to Khruschev's corn idiocy (one of my favorite 'communists are morons' stories that you may have heard before). After a visit to the US, Khruschev, impressed with the fields of corn he had seen there, ordered Russians to grow corn. Well, that didn't work out so well: 'He especially encouraged the growing of corn, ordering farms to cultivate that more than anything else. It was a disaster; the seeds, fertilizer, machinery, silos and experience needed were just not there. Bad land management caused the topsoil of the Virgin Lands area to be blown away, turning Kazakhstan into a dustbowl, and old agricultural regions like the Ukraine fell into neglect as manpower and machines were poured into Central Asia. To prevent starvation Khrushchev was forced to buy 6.5 million tons of grain from Canada and Australia in 1963, the first of the many grain purchases in recent Russian history.'

Classic.

Thanks Karol and Jake for adding some substance to your starvation comparison.

I knew absolutely nothing about his subject so I did some research. This was the most informative read:

http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/2003/1215/p07s02-woam.html

Some points:
Only very large land holdings can be re-distributed 20 square miles plus. Presumably if a land owners land gets taken said landowner will still keep 20 square miles.

Only land that is being unused and under utilized will be redistributed and peasant farmers will utilize land better.

The owner has a two-year grace period to initiate production and thus avoid expropriation.

I don't agree with taking peoples land without compensation and if the land owners legally own the land, no matter how they gained possession (probably legacy of colonialism). They should be compensated.

With millions living in poverty the land SHOULD be utilized. but instead of expropriation the land owners should have to Utilize their land, produce food for Domestic consumption, and pay workers decent wages.

The USA takes private land all the time. It's called eminent domain. Sort of like how Karol thought she might lose her apartment if they build the new subway line.

Paul, I completely oppose eminent domain. I am 100% behind private property rights. The situation with the subway is a little different because I don't own my apartment, I just rent, so whatever deal they make would be with the landlord.

According to the link provided by weech.
Land owners will be compensated.
I read conflicting things, anyone know the deal?

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/613/613p12.htm

“If they hold a large extension of land (more than 5000 hectares) that is not producing they will be asked to show that they own that land. Should they fail to, they will be given a term in which they have to make it produce. If the land owner/holder fails to make it produce the law establishes that it can be bought by the government at current market prices to assign to farmers to produce. It will not be taken away, but they will be forced to sell it.”

The link below is very informative. It list's common misconceptions of Venezuelas land reform initiative and compares it to Lincoln's Homestead Act.

http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/news/03-01-05coha.html

Karol. I am a liberal not a socialist. Personally not in favour of land redistribution particularly in industrial states largely because of the example of the USSR and more recently Zimbabwe.

One of the core problems is not that people do not HOW to farm. In the USSR the people knew how to do that. The problem was that the policy of taking the produce for use in the cities and the lack of private ownership of the produce created a severe lack of incentive. If i am not going to benefit from the fruits of my labour why bother. Its the human element that Socialism and what communism morphed into in the USSR never seems to take account of.

Now i am not sure whether or not the people in Venezuela know how to farm or not. But Chavez is genuinely popular there largely because of his policies.

As i said I am not a socialist. I think their ideas or perhaps the theoretical ideas of pure communism (which has NEVER materialised anywhere) are fine but are largely unworkeable in an industrial state because of their inability to overcome the human element.

As far as evidence that Chavez has been a disaster for Venezuelans - check this guy out:

Publius Pundit

And just read all the entries on Venezuela.