No statistics or difficult words.
order not to lose the habit of Mass Communication (MMC) told us bad history. They were wrong again. Address the problem of the field facing the media got only two actors: The field and the government, compared to only one problem: The deductions. Only two players . The field represented by agricultural institutions, including the two that had the word: FAA (Federación Agraria Argentina) and SRA (Sociedad Rural Argentina). On the opposite side who had the word was "the lady of human rights" (and now "redistribution of wealth") C. F de Kirchner, with his (former) young minister.
all started when you ran far increase export taxes. words, the state is now more of the money coming into the country's agricultural export. In theory, the end of this appropriation of part of agricultural income is to redistribute wealth. In summary they are removed a portion of money from the rich to give to the poor. Because of this, the various farming the strike began.
Cristina seemed far re progress of the action taken, until it appeared a conceptual division within the field: small, medium and large producers. This is where the FAA raised the banner of small producers, by inserting in the media discourse that can not be retained everyone equally (serious error of K, they began to complicate). The rates of withholding income should have changed according to the producers. Ie those who earn little bit and hold them that much gain for the state to retain a lot. More progress is still the proposed small farmers and ordinary people.
peasant movements in (and me after writing this summary) have some questions:
Where do silver goes retentions, the fiscal surplus and reserves millionaire? Why agricultural entities claim to defend small producers, while some Member businesses of these entities have hired thugs (if such as Kristina) to evict small farmers in Santiago del Estero, as a report by the MOCASE. In the statement of the peasant movement in Córdoba on this problem are asking "if a farmer of 300 acres of soybeans are small, what type of producer is one who has 30 goats and a grow-group of garlic and onions? In all this, can soy did not land crap? Are we going to defend transnational groups have a policy of soybean production? "The field is a single united group as seen in the mass media?
Since the problem started "the field" means painted this as a homogeneous group, which is not true. The field is not one represented by agricultural institutions. The field is also divided in two: on one hand "excluded small farmers defending their land and their culture" most of which are part of the Indian National Peasant Movement (Via Campesina) formed by movements like Mocase of Santiago del Estero, or movements of Cordoba, Mendoza and Salta. And these are added some "small producers if they are nucleated to the FAA defending their right to work."
Opposed to this group (not named by the media) are the oligarchs of the various farming landowners and ambitious hardened by the accumulation of capital, comrades in the military trial of 1976 and the historical and current political right. These "owners" of the earth maintains a model of food production whose sole purpose is profit and concentration of wealth in few hands "based on the monoculture of soybean seeds, fertilizers and herbicides (pesticides). This model of production (soybean monoculture) in Argentina brought some of the following consequences: "In the period 2002-2006 in the country ceased to exist 1,108,669 hectares of forest 277 000 hectares per year, equivalent to 760 per day, 32 acres per hour. The same Ministry stresses that deforestation occurs to target those areas for agriculture, primarily soybeans. According to these official figures, while the area planted with soybeans progresses, disappearing farms (including large proportion of dairy farms). In 1988 there were 422,000 farms in the country, which fell to 318,000 in 2002. "(Diary Page 12: Monday, March 31, 2008, by Dario Aranda).
would be nice if the story is only a government that retains a higher percentage of their profits to the rich to give to the poor. But here are two paradoxes that shows me that the story is so simple:
no way to see what is going public spending (and that famous redistribution of wealth) so if you see is poverty, hunger , violence, inhumane living conditions, food parcels and welfare plans (eg. see Family Plan) from the government condemning poverty to the masses. What about income redistribution?
The K to the president and all his people is to retain a larger share of the cake from the landowners to give to the poor, making the deductions the main means of raising the country ignoring the destruction and disabling of the land and maintaining the land and capital accumulation in a few hands. I ask a question to Mrs. Cristina Does the end justify the means? Ie is it worth the redistribution of income and disabling polluting the earth? How beautiful I ... ... ...
Why no one spoke of the consequences that brings a country to have acres and acres of soybeans? And if he spoke. Why no one said then that our president supports the destruction of the planet as (almost) all the presidents of this development model as it is perverse Neoliberalism. Why middle class does not cut the path for the problem of soy as it did with the paper?
We're a little confused. Before talking about whether they are right or wrong deductions should speak for urgent reform. Land that does not accumulate in few hands, that does not promote monoculture soybean (deforestation, land degradation, land consolidation, rural population expulsion and reduced food security), not having the sole purpose of profitability , they returned to their ancestral lands. The tortilla becomes bread for the poor and the rich eat shit shit !!!!!!
KPC
0 comments:
Post a Comment