Talk:Agrarian reform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Propose merge with Property redistribution

--Mike18xx 07:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't agree. Agrarian reform is not the same as nationalization.

Oh? Point to a case that didn't involve it, or some kind of "do this, or else..." edict.

For example the Plan Zamora land reform in Venezuela which includes the redistribution of expropriated (which compensation) "latifundios" and government land to small farmers and landless families. Isn't this land reform an opposite of nationalization. Wouldn't the redistribution of government land be "de-nationalization" or something like this?Béka 14:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agrarian reform means general reforms in agriculture; the reform of the propriety of land (Land reform) or the use of land, of agricultural methods etc. It can mean expropriation of land and its nationalization, but these are definitely different things. Nationalization can mean the nationalization of land, but also of many other things like companies, factories etc. Béka 09:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Reform" according to whom...? The very term "reform" is POV, and therefore has no place here.--Mike18xx 11:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Property redistribution should work nicely.--Mike18xx 12:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. Agrarian reform can mean a lot of things; it is closely related to land reform, on which we have an extensive article. This article was split out of that as a separate stub precisely so that we have somewhere to expand on those other aspects (e.g. government loans, etc.), but no one has gotten around to doing so.

As for "'reform' according to whom": generally, as in land reform, according to either those agitating for changes before the fact or to the government of the time when the reform takes place. Agrarian reforms are by no means always nationalizations: the reforms at the end of the Communist era in Eastern Europe were quite the opposite. Also, while I cannot think of an example offhand, it wouldn't surprise me if there was an example of an agrarian reform that never changed the formal ownership of property at all: e.g. one that focused entirely on monetary credits and educational opportunities for an already landed peasantry. - Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I accept your stipulation to the fact that, in all instances presently known to you, "reform" is a POV term or at best a euphemism, if not outright political propaganda. It's also disingenuous to describe the land privatizations (AKA "Re-Established Ownership Rights") of post-communist eastern Europe as "land reform" when they represent the exact anti-thesis of the collectivist "land reforms" promoted by Marxists (eg., Allende's in Chile) in the mid-20th century (ie., when they felt the need for "marketing" phrases like "land reform", as opposed to earlier straight-up property grabs under the aegis of "from each, according to his abilitity, to each, according to his need"); doing so dilutes the phrase to utter meaninglessness, since it can then mean absolutely anything at all.--Mike18xx 04:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redacted merger with Land Reform

Those asserted "differences" are some of the most arbitrary mush I've ever read.--Mike18xx 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read your paragraph above that begins "I accept your stipulation…" - Jmabel | Talk 22:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

While I can appreciate your desire for tit-for-tat exchanges, I'm having trouble following this non sequitur.--Mike18xx 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just figured I'd try to speak to you in your own language. But apparently when it comes from other people it is a non sequitur.

I am gathering the distinct impression that you have no idea what certain words I am using mean.

You start out by "accepting" that I stipulated something rather different than what I, in fact, stipulated.

No; I merely observed that the logical conclusion of your argument was something other than what you perhaps thought it was.

Then you call me "disingenuous" in calling the post-Communist changes in land ownership "land reform" (and you seem to presume that they all consisted of handing land back to historic owners, which they did not).

My reasons for labeling the reasoning so are listed above; rewording them to "sound worse" in reprise is another example of that very same thing. As for my "presumptions", I am merely responding to what you previously offered. (I am also perfectly aware of the fact that original owners may be missing/dead after such lengthy durations.)

How is breaking up large government-owned farms and giving land to the peasants "the antithesis" of breaking up large privately-owned farms and giving land to the peasants? - Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

When "land reform" is used to describe BOTH the return of property to rightful owners (Easter Europe) AND the seizure of property from its rightful owners (various kleptocratic regimes), then the term becomes all-encompassing and therefore pretty much wholly useless without significant context. I.e., you might as well use the word "loyal" to describe both obeisance and treachery. In short, language and concepts are destroyed, and one has to perpetually "speak with footnotes" in order to be understood at all. I.e., dictionaries become ever more bloated with every word and phrase acquiring more and more and more and more internally-contradictory definitions. Aside from that legitimate complaint, I get the distinct impression that Eastern Europe (actual "reform" going on there) is trotted out merely to forstall any attempt to chuck labels preferred by those throwin' down with all the codified thievery. At least, that's how the sequence played out here.

....now if someone were to offer that property-restorations could be "land-reform", while observating the vast number of instances of the term "land-reform" to describe property-redistributions are actually just propagandistic buzz-phrases from politicians to clue supporters in to free loot (which is precisely what all of those so-called "willing seller, willing buyer" programs are when the government taxes an owner to "willing buy" his land (which cannot be "willing sold" to anyone BUT government), then gives it away to supporters), that I would readily accept -- because it's the *truth*. There's also the unsavory racism angle (entirely absent in the articles) at play in many usages, in that "land-reform" invariably, or even explicitly, involves robbing a caucasian (eg., Zimbabwe, etc), which I'll mention but leave aside for now.--Mike18xx 04:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike, may I request that you stop breaking apart my paragraphs? It is one thing to intersperse your remarks between paragraphs of someone else's comment, but when you break after individual sentences, you seriously interfere with the flow of the other person's writing. I ignored it the first few times you did this, but you are making a habit of it. - Jmabel | Talk 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you at all familiar with how, say, Hungary redistributed property after '89? It's not just a matter of pre-'48 owners being dead; heirs were given the same rights as surviving owners. The system was somewhat complicated, but it was not the simple return of particular properties to pre-'48 owners (or their heirs). - Jmabel | Talk 19:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And frankly, when someone who calls George Bush a "socialist" accuses me of changing the meaning of words, I don't have a lot of patience for dealing with him. - Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)