Re: Re: Re: Is Authoritarianism Necessary for Equality? (RE:: Keeping focus after the WTO

[Nathan Newman <nathan.newman@xxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Doug Henwood wrote:

> >At a minimum, the state instituting land reform has to be authoritarian
> >against the land-owners. Otherwise, the compensation for the latter will be
> >high.
>
> Yeah, but why not peasants *taking* the land themselves, instead of
> having an authoritarian government do the work?

Democratic appropriation of property is not authoritarian (except in the
tyranny of the majority sense), so I don't even buy the idea that top-down
land reform is necessarily authoritarian. It is also quite
reasonable to legalize long-term rent-sharecropping relationships as
ownership rights based on landlords having long ago amoritized
investments.

And if compensation is called for, a steeply progressive taxation policy
can also be used to recover much of the compensation paid to landlords.

And even in the wimpiest land reforms with full compensation for
landlords, requirements to reinvest the proceeds in industrial concerns
will at least serve the conversion of feudal relationships into
industrial development.  Just breaking down landlords as a reactionary
political class that itself usually paralyzes development.

-- Nathan Newman