Chávez's revolutionary intent stalls amid bumbling bureaucracy

The Guardian (U.K.) ^ | 10/23/06 | Rory Carroll

[Pokey78]

Billed as justice for landless peasants, policy is yet to be put into practice

To reach the heart of Venezuela's agrarian revolution you drive west of Caracas towards the Andes, deep into tropical countryside where it is always hot, and stop at the end of a dirt track where a sign says Mixta Aracal.

As far as the eye can see rolls a patchwork of fields, maize, bananas, black beans, tomatoes, dotted with some stooping figure in red T-shirts, and some tractors from China and Iran.

[Jaysun]

Look at the "Backstory" at the end of the article:

When elected in 1998 President Hugo Chávez promised to sweep away a colonial legacy which left a small elite owning most of the land. After a slow start redistribution is now accelerating, with government-backed peasants seizing ranches and sugar cane plantations and turning them into socialist cooperatives following the land reform act. In addition to redressing a historic injustice and giving peasants a living the new farms are supposed to produce cereals and vegetables to reduce Venezuela's dependence on food imports. Critics say the cooperatives will fail because of corruption and a preference by peasants to own plots instead of being paid a salary to run them.

[Kitten Festival]

I met Vladimir, quoted in the story, when I was in Yaracuy. He is a good guy, decent as the day is long. What Hugo Chavez did to his farm is Zimbabwe stuff. He destroyed a productive spread with a good and decent farmer and replaced it with Jim Jones collectives which are failing beyond belief. They were the most garbagey shantytowns I ever saw.

[aculeus]

Critics say the cooperatives will fail because of corruption and a preference by peasants to own plots instead of being paid a salary to run them.

Left wingers never learn.

[mtntop3]

The scenarios described are indeed familiar to those conversant with past revolutionary utopias including Zimbabwe.

In Nicaragua, the main opposition to the Sandinistas came from the peasant class (the "contras") who resented being collectivized, to the point of the state mandating the selling price of their produce.

Media reports on the utopias ("always in progress" and "the failings are just temporary 'mistakes') never include the views of the silent, dissident peasants - simply because the media people have more in common with the oppressors who many times themselves come from the middle class, particularly university students and other urban "intellectuals."

[baltoga]

Thanks for the insight on the farmer getting the "short end of the stick". I noticed the Guardian was trying to stay neutral, which in my mind meant the collective was a failure.

[SunkenCiv]

This may be a duplicate. :'(

[GSlob]

"...which in my mind meant the collective was a failure."
All collectives are failures, and have to be by the very definition of a collective.