GA proposal: Land Reform

[Zapatian Workers State]

Land Reform and Land Reclamation

The World Assembly,
Extolling this august body’s long-time dedication to the improvement of universal welfare for nations
and peoples,
Aware that in some nations much of the lands reserved for agricultural usages are held in large estates
by affluent landowners,
Disconcerted that such large landowners often constitute powerful oligarchic factions in such nations
with their economic power, while tenant farmers and sharecroppers who cultivate the land on their
behalf occupy a marginal position on the rim of society,
Resolving to put an end to the system of large landowning elites and the insuperable socioeconomic
divides it engenders,
Determined to foster the substitution of these large landowners with an agricultural sector dominated
by an autonomous class of prosperous and independent farmers,
1.Convenes the World Assembly Agricultural Land Requisition Organization (WAALRO) for the
tasks of:

i. Using polling data from the nations of the World Assembly to make judgements on
where oligopolistic market structures may prevail in the agricultural sector to determine
which nations are applicable for the program of intervention enumerated henceforth;
ii. Defining a “large agricultural estate” operationally as a plot of privately owned land
surpassing 2,000 acres held for the stated purpose of growing and harvesting crops;
iii. Mandating the expropriation of 2/3 of large agricultural estates, where at least said
proportion of the estate is not being actively cultivated, by the central governments of
applicable nations;
iv. Defining a “small agricultural property” operationally as a plot of privately owned land
ranging from 1-500 acres held for the stated purpose of growing and harvesting crops,
and a “medium-sized agricultural property” operationally as a plot of privately owned
land ranging from 500-2,000 acres held for the stated purpose of growing and
harvesting crops;
v. Mandating the redistribution by applicable nations’ central governments of
expropriated lands from insufficiently used large agricultural estates to small,
independent farmers, such as former tenant farmers and sharecroppers, as small and
medium-sized agricultural properties
vi. Ascertaining that the central governments of applicable nations do establish an
agricultural syndicate to represent the professional concerns of the new class of small,
independent farmers collectively, as well as to regulate the conduct of this syndicate
and arbitrate in disputes surrounding the terms of collective labor contracts
vii. Ensures nominal reimbursement of large landowners with an amount no greater than
1/10 of the original large agricultural estate’s total worth.

2. Convenes the World Assembly Land Reclamation and Development Organization (WALRDO) to
oversee the following:

i. Mandating the reclamation of swamplands and marshlands by the central governments
of nations where the agricultural sector is determined to be dominated by oligopolistic
market structures;
ii. Mandating the distribution of reclaimed lands by the central governments of applicable
nations to small, independent farmers as small and medium-sized agricultural properties
iii. Cooperating with the Waterbody Health and Mitigation Management Organization
(WHAMMO) to ascertain that all appropriate purchases of mitigation credits have been
made by individual nations’ central governments for the magnitude and extent of the
land reclamation efforts.

3. Integrates the aforementioned WAALRO and WALRDO into a joint-body known as the World
Assembly Land Reform Execution Joint Committee (WALREJC) to assess statistical data relating
to the agricultural sector of the nations of the World Assembly, to determine the applicability
and necessity of the aforementioned programs of intervention, and to coordinate
decisionmaking processes between the two committees.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Got a real Ti Sempronius Gracchus out here. If you mean to expropriate without compensation, see GA 68 (NEF, if the number is wrong). Generally, in the past, large farms were less efficient than small ones. That, I believe, is no longer the case with mechanised agriculture. Larger farms produce more product with fewer inputs. Why is that bad and why should it be broken up in favour of a less efficient method of agricultural production? Though, I'd also ask why you breaking up large farms is compatibly better than anti-monopolistic régulations, since that appears relevant.

[Grays Harbor]

Mandating the reclamation of swamplands and marshlands by the central governments

And just how many ecosystems destroyed are acceptable to you, all because you have a bee in your trousers over “big farms”? This is wholly unacceptable.

[Aclion]

Ah this must be one of those "left-wingers who don't give a crap about the environment" that Forest was telling me about

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: Why does this need three different committees? Also, so far it seems the only mandates are placed on these committees, and not on member states.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Category, and Strength or Area-of-Effect?

What's effectively "large" and what's effectively "small" is going to vary from nation to nation, and even within some nations due to local differences in factors such as soil or climate.
In some nations, especially where mechanization has taken place, there are almost certainly going to be numerous farms in your [current] "large" category that don't have "tenant farmers and sharecroppers".

And anyway, your subclauses in clause '1' effectively cancel each other out: the size categories are defined in terms of land that is being cultivated, but the expropriation rules apply only where it isn't.

Also, see GA Resolution #413.

[BlackLight Covenant]

"So ambassador, how does this apply to nations whose agricultural sector hasn't utilized sharecroppers and tenant farming for...hm, let's say decades, perhaps centuries, depending on the nation? Does this proposal simply not do anything for them, or would they be forced to break down massive parts of their agricultural sector, and rebuild it from the ground up around tons upon tons of small businesses, run by an artificially-created group of former tenant farmers and sharecroppers, even if their previous system produced agricultural goods at a much more efficient rate?

It seems kinda pointless to me, harmful even, especially when you add the fact that your proposal forces nations to start draining swamps and marshes en masse in order to allow this artificial layer of small farming businesses to expand, without any attention to what kind of consequences this could have on their environment.

I'd strongly suggest redrafting this proposal to prevent it from being a sledgehammer to the agriculture and/or environment of nations affected by it. Until then, I will not even remotely consider being in favour of this idea of yours."

[Wallenburg]

Acreage is a rather poor measure of whether a farm is so large that it hurts other farming practices. Some land is more fertile or useful than others, some land is good for growing more profitable crops than others. You might consider a different standard to distinguish large and smaller farms.

[United Massachusetts]

I am all in favour of the Gracchan land reforms.

[San Carlos Islands]

OOC: How close is this to the land reform that happened in Zimbabwe?

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

In addition to what others have already said...

Extolling this august body’s long-time dedication to the improvement of universal welfare for nations
and peoples,

You seem to use enter-enforced line width. I suggest not doing that, given that these forums can be viewed on various screenwidths.

Aware that in some nations much of the lands reserved for agricultural usages are held in large estates
by affluent landowners,
Disconcerted that such large landowners often constitute powerful oligarchic factions in such nations
with their economic power, while tenant farmers and sharecroppers who cultivate the land on their
behalf occupy a marginal position on the rim of society,
Resolving to put an end to the system of large landowning elites and the insuperable socioeconomic
divides it engenders,

What about if all the land, including what is used for agriculture, is owned by the state?

i. Using polling data from the nations of the World Assembly to make judgements

Who is polled?

ii. Defining a “large agricultural estate” operationally as a plot of privately owned land
surpassing 2,000 acres cultivated for the purpose of growing and harvesting crops;

iv. Defining a “small agricultural property” operationally as a plot of privately owned land
ranging from 1-500 acres cultivated for the purpose of growing and harvesting crops,
and a “medium-sized agricultural property” operationally as a plot of privately owned
land ranging from 500-2,000 acres cultivated for the purpose of growing and harvesting
crops;

So state-owned land is excempt?

vi. Ascertaining that the central governments of applicable nations do establish an
agricultural syndicate to represent the professional concerns of the new class of small,
independent farmers collectively, as well as to regulate the conduct of this syndicate
and arbitrate in disputes surrounding the terms of collective labor contracts

Syndicate? Why?

i. Mandating the reclamation of swamplands and marshlands

There's a resolution on wetland protection. I suggest looking at that carefully.

[Lord Dominator]

"You seem to have managed to make socialism look worse ambassador, purely by trying to decrees with arbitrary numbers."

[Marxist Germany]

"Marxist Germany firmly opposes siezing private lands and will make sure this proposal gets crushed."

[Zapatian Workers State]

I have edited the proposal to adress some concerns and criticisms, does anyone know what the WA system considers to be "Invalid Characters"

[Grays Harbor]

Mandating the expropriation of 2/3 of large agricultural estates, where at least said
proportion of the estate is not being actively cultivated

So every time land is unused to allow replenishment of essential nutrients you want it expropriated. Great plan. Just keep planting crops until the land is useless. Crop rotation is not allowed.

Mandating the reclamation of swamplands and marshlands by the central governments

And just how many ecosystems destroyed are acceptable to you, all because you have a bee in your trousers over “big farms”? This is wholly unacceptable.

ECOSYSTEMS. Ever hear of them? Just because it ain’t farmland doesn’t mean it is useless. This alone makes this, as previously stated, wholly unacceptable. Period.

[Wallenburg]

Acreage is a rather poor measure of whether a farm is so large that it hurts other farming practices. Some land is more fertile or useful than others, some land is good for growing more profitable crops than others. You might consider a different standard to distinguish large and smaller farms.

[Kenmoria]

I have edited the proposal to adress some concerns and criticisms, does anyone know what the WA system considers to be "Invalid Characters"

(OOC: The WA system considers a lot of things that aren’t straight text to invalid, and will display a jumble of numbers after an ampserand instead. Generally, it’s best to stick with just ASCII, since people have found invalid characters accidentally inserted just from using a program with a different type of line break in the past.

On another note, cut down the committees. You have three, which is two too many for any proposal. There’s no reason to have multiple when you could just use one that has three roles; there are plenty of committees in the GA that far more different and numerary tasks than that. Also, your key mandate about land redistribution is likely to be unpopular.)

[Wallenburg]

If you are using something outside of ASCII, then you are most likely violating the rule requiring proposals to be written in English.

[BlackLight Covenant]

"So what, exactly, did you change about your proposal, ambassador? Besides the addition of a clause that mandates member states to provide large landowners with a compensation rate that, in my eyes at least, might as well be labeled as World Assembly-mandated theft? If you have made any other edits, please do point them out, as I most certainly can't see them.

On a side note, may I inquire as to why the creation of a state-mandated agricultural syndicate, instead of letting the smaller farms that this proposal artificially forces upon our fellow member states create their own, independent union, appears to be one of the key aspects of your proposal?"

[Zapatian Workers State]

BUMP

After a time of absence and inactivity, I am back, and I have put the proposal up for a vote!

[Bananaistan]

BUMP

After a time of absence and inactivity, I am back, and I have put the proposal up for a vote!

OOC: And subsequently withdrew it apparently.

I'd strongly encourage you to deal with the criticisms raised above but even if you do so, I feel the idea is not feasible and won't pass in any form, and perhaps you should move onto a different idea (see the stickied ideas for proposals thread).

IC: "Bananaistan has no problem with waving all sorts of sticks (EG land value tax and vacant sites tax up to forfeiture of free-hold) and carrots (exemptions from the aforementioned) to ensure adequate usage of agricultural land for the benefit of both the owner, occupier and society in general under the Socialism in All Countries policy. We don't require the WA sticking its oar in to tell us how to do so "better". Opposed."

- Ted

[Zapatian Workers State]

BUMP

After a time of absence and inactivity, I am back, and I have put the proposal up for a vote!

OOC: And subsequently withdrew it apparently.

I'd strongly encourage you to deal with the criticisms raised above but even if you do so, I feel the idea is not feasible and won't pass in any form, and perhaps you should move onto a different idea (see the stickied ideas for proposals thread).

IC: "Bananaistan has no problem with waving all sorts of sticks (EG land value tax and vacant sites tax up to forfeiture of free-hold) and carrots (exemptions from the aforementioned) to ensure adequate usage of agricultural land for the benefit of both the owner, occupier and society in general under the Socialism in All Countries policy. We don't require the WA sticking its oar in to tell us how to do so "better". Opposed."

- Ted

I withdrew it because I needed to learn how to run a WA campaign the right way and because I want to fix the spacing.

I will not abandon this idea because I think it's vital that it should be passed. No previous resolution to this effect has been done before. I cannot alleviate the concerns of the above posters because their sole concern is environment, while mine is the autonomy of the workers. I believe that whatever environmental damage is justifiable by a utilitarian calculation that expanding an independent base of free agricultural laborers ultimately helps humanity more in a realistic, palpable way.

As for reimbursement of the owners of the estates for seized property in land, I covered that already.

[Youssath]

"Fix the horrendous wall of text and spacing, ambassador. This does not spark joy at all."

"Also, like the rest have said, you have just made socialism sound worse than it actually is, even though this delegation team is in full support of its principles."

[Araraukar]

I will not abandon this idea because I think it's vital that it should be passed.

OOC: Why?

I cannot alleviate the concerns of the above posters because their sole concern is environment, while mine is the autonomy of the workers. I believe that whatever environmental damage is justifiable by a utilitarian calculation that expanding an independent base of free agricultural laborers ultimately helps humanity more in a realistic, palpable way.

Mine weren't. And also, fucking up the environment is not good for humanity. If you want agricultural laborers to have more freedoms, write a resolution about that instead!

As for reimbursement of the owners of the estates for seized property in land, I covered that already.

10% of the going price =/= reimbursement.

As is, it contradicts various resolutions, remain a fucking stupid idea, appears to be committee-only given that you make committees do all the stuff (including things that nations are supposed to be doing), and you haven't given any indication of what category you're trying to wrangle this into.

[Kenmoria]

“2i makes no provisions for extremely rare species in swamplands that would be damaged by land reclamation. It also doesn’t consider the possibility that people can and often do live in these areas.”