A Non-Marxist Solution for Nicaragua

Mike Curtis

[Reprinted from the Welcomat, 2 December 1987]

Our president tells us that the Sandinista government of Nicaragua is a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship that oppresses and enslaves its people. He tells us it is a moral imperative that the United States fund the Contra revolution and liberate the Nicaraguan people.

I urge you: Look - first at the atrocities and the irony of the proposal that funding people who torture, murder and sabotage the availability of food and medicine is somehow liberating the very same people. I urge you next to look at the dynamics of Nicaraguan history. They are not unique or even unusual. They are an excellent example of the general conditions that brutalize the world.

The Somozas, whom the U.S. installed and supported for nearly 50 years, ruled Nicaragua until the Sandinista revolution of 1979. Under that U.S.-supported government fewer than half the people were fully employed. The majority of those who did work received a bare subsistence in wages. There was mass hunger and epidemic disease. Only a small percentage of the workers was skilled or professional and therefore got more than the basic essentials in pay. But the land owners - and particularly the biggest land owners - lived like kings.

Every advance in technology, every increase in the demand for Nicaraguan products only increased the profits of land ownership. The workers had no alternative way of employing themselves, and so they were willing to work for starvation wages.

There was little hope for more jobs and higher pay. There was no alleviation of hunger or disease. All attempts to improve conditions through the political process were met with violence and suppression. Nicaragua was a despotism. Perhaps it was Somoza's absolute control of the government that finally rallied other land owners against him.

The Sandinistas had been training and fighting for many years, but the decisive victory came when some of the land owners threw their support on the side of the revolution. In retrospect, it seems that the land owners were fighting for democracy - a representative form of government in which they could participate. The Sandinistas, although committed to democracy, were much more focused on the material well-being of the people. The Sandinistas did gain control, and they confiscated Somoza's property.

Along with his family, Somoza owned 20% of the arable land, 25% of the industry, one of the nation's four banks and the only airline. The Sandinista government expropriated, from the large land owners, only the land which was not being used, and none of their capital (buildings and machinery, etc.) or personal property.

The new government nationalized international trade. In effect it taxed imports and exports until the potential profit was greatly reduced and under strict control. The Sandinistas taxed income and real estate; they inflated the money supply and controlled the price of staples: rice, beans, com and cooking oil. In general, the accustomed rates of profit became a thing of the past.

The Sandinistas passed a law that anyone who did not re-establish residence every six months would lose his holdings. Three and a half million acres of land were parcelled out 40.000 families were given homesteads; 10,000 families were given land as members of cooperatives, and 45,000 formerly unemployed workers were given jobs and a living wage on what became state farms.

The Sandinistas established welfare; they built schools and hospitals and immunized large segments of the population. They held elections, believed by some to be among the fairest in Latin America, and signed a new constitution.

In the first five years, the consumption of basic food (rice, beans, etc.) increased by 30 to 40%; that means the quantity of food eaten, not the quality or value. The incidence of malaria, typhoid, polio and tuberculosis were greatly reduced. The infant mortality rate fell and housing increased. Over half the population was taught to read and write on a third grade level. Then things changed. The Contras multiplied their attacks. In addition to their human victims, the Contras disrupted farming, mined the roads and destroyed public utilities. Anxiety rose and the economy was greatly impaired. Now there are enormous shortages and a black market that frustrates and demoralizes the Nicaraguan.

There has been a black market because the, value of commodities -particularly staple commodities - is greater than the legal price. However, the Contra-created shortages have multiplied the effects and brought about this deplorable condition. It is now said that the Contras have offset almost all of the extraordinary gains of the revolution.

Today, seven years after Somoza's defeat, 60% of the economy over 80% of the arable land is still in the private sector. Everything that the Sandinista government now takes in taxes or price controls, the land owners had previously taken in profits. That is to say, what is now taken for revenue or lower prices was previously gained by the private ownership of land. Before the revolution, wages for the vast majority of workers bought nothing but a bare subsistence. For the first five years after the revolution -- before the U.S. vastly increased its aid to the Contras - the general level of wages rose. Those workers who put forth special skills or knowledge were and are paid more than the average wage. This is allocated by the laws of supply and demand; over half the economy is still in the private sector.

In addition, the government competes with the private sector for its skilled and professional staff. It therefore pays competitive wages. The Sandinistas did not confiscate savings accounts, and the banks still pay interest.

The only producers who did not enjoy a commensurate increase in theft income during the first five years after the revolution were the small, number of union workers. The government did not sanction strikes, as it believes any extortive increase in pay now comes at the expense of the people as a whole.

The greatest gains of the revolution were realized because three and a half million acres of land were reassigned. Free access to land presented an alternative means of employment. Wages rose to the level that could be experienced on the freely available land. Over 75% of the agrarian population benefitted through direct titles or membership in cooperatives and significantly increased the total number of people employed. There is still free land available for those who are willing and able to work it.

The Sandinista government did not confiscate property per se, only that of a criminal - Somoza- and the unused land of the large holdings.

Nicaragua's alteration in the distribution of wealth - which increased wages and social benefits and reduced the profits of land ownership -- is a giant step toward justice. The idea that land can be owned, in the same way as a product of human exertion, is without any moral premise. Human beings are equally dependent upon the earth. It is on the earth that they stand and from the earth that they live. To grant one person a greater right to the use of the earth is to grant him a greater right to exist Land in the social sense includes all the offerings of nature as distinguished from the products of human exertion.

The historical basis for exclusive use or assignment of land is to give security to the improvements. Its only justifiable purpose is to grant - to those who plant a crop, build a house or produce a factory - a right to the product of their labor upon the land.

The policies of the Sandinista government have clearly given more freedom and independence to the Nicaraguan people than the U.S.-supported government of the past or the stated policies of the F.O.N. (Nicaraguan Democratic Force) could possibly give in the future.

Even if Nicaragua were a Marxist economy (that is, if means of production were socialized), that would not mean that the people, as a whole, were more oppressed or enslaved than they were before the revolution. Nicaragua is not a Marxist economy, but many Third World countries are or will be if their revolutions succeed.

Within those countries, like Nicaragua of the past, all the land is monopolized. Most of it and the best quality, is owned by a very few people. Not only the land but virtually all of the productive machinery has and continues to accumulate to the landowners, not the workers who produce. By confiscating the means of production, land and capital, they are only taking the possessions of the landowners, as such. When the government becomes the universal employer, the vast majority of workers experience a higher standard of living, either through higher pay or social benefits.

To the extent that emigration is restricted - which means that the government does not have to compete with the wages of other countries -skilled workers and professionals experience an unjust reduction in their pay. They are given some greater rewards than the average worker, or they would not put forth any greater productivity. And to the extent that skilled workers and professionals -- the only workers with any savings to invest -- can no longer put money in the bank and draw interest, their income is unjustly diminished.

, However, with these two exceptions imposed on a small minority of the population, Marxist governments only fake for the people, as a whole, what would otherwise go, unjustly, to the landowners.

Abraham Lincoln observed:

The world has never had a good definition of the word Liberty. And the American people just now are much in want of one. We all declare for Liberty; but in using the same word we do not mean the same thing.

"With some, the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor; while to others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men and the product of other men's labor. Here are two not only different but incompatible things, called by the same name, Liberty. And it follows that each of these things is by the respective parties called by two different and incompatible names. Liberty and tyranny.

"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his Liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act - plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of Liberty."

In truth, the heart and soul of U.S. foreign policy becomes the protection of landed investments, both in this country and every other country in the world. There are many good people in our government, and many well-intended acts are implemented with absolutely no ulterior motives involved. However, the billions and billions of dollars spent every year on U.S. foreign policy, in the final analysis, reinforce and enhance the institution of private property in land. And this institution is the world's basic instrument of human exploitation.

If we in the United States do, in fact, "hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men (and women) are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," then we can build a model society, and we can lead the world by example.

We must start by making a clear distinction between the earth itself (land) and the products of human exertion. We must adhere to the principle that all people have an equal right to use and enjoyment of the earth, and an exclusive right to the products of their labor. The exclusive use of land must only be given to grant security to the improvements and products upon it.

The value of land rises as the best quality of land is monopolized and those who desire to use it must resort to less productive land. The value of land also arises as people come together in communities. The concentration of people gives a greater potential to trade. This permits specialization, concentrations of capital and economies of scale (producing a large number of the same thing).

The increase in labor's ability to produce attaches to land; this is because trade becomes most efficient only on land where population is dense. The more dense the population - all other things being equal -- the greater the land's value.

When land attains a value, it confers an advantage to its owner. Only by paying this socially-created value to society as a whole can the equal right of all other members of that society be satisfied. When the value of land to collected, without regard to whether the land is used or not, the payment acts as a device which penalizes those who do not use it and rewards those who do employ labor and capital in proportions that yield the highest possible result The effect is an increasing demand for labor and the products of labor capital.

Only a small portion of the land in any country is fully being used. When the value of land is being collected for social purpose, only the most productive grades of land will be monopolized; the rest of the land within a country will remain free. This is a reflection of the great abundance in its supply and the minimal demand for its use.

As long as there is a frontier, the people of any country will have an independent means of employment with unlimited opportunity. No one will work for someone else for less than can be produced working for one's self. The same frontier also provides an independent opportunity for those who own and use or loan their capital. They will have to receive as much of the product of any land on which their capital is engaged, as they would have experienced from the full advantage of its application at the frontier, where the land is freely accessible and no payment is made for its use.

Revolutions of the 20th Century are the gross manifestations of intolerable conditions: poverty, hunger, brutality and finally, human despair. Whether these revolutions take the form of taxes and price controls or the nationalization of land and capital, the objective is the material well-being of the people.

The world is only conscious of two extremes. In the first, there is freedom and incentive to do as you please and keep what you produce, but all the opportunities are monopolized and in many cases hoarded. The result is that people who work and produce are exploited, and many people are involuntarily unemployed.

By contrast, societies that have eliminated exploitation and given full employment have done so at the expense of freedom and the right to property. Their rationale asserts that the well-being of the majority supersedes the luxuries of the inherently gifted few.

Given only the choices of these two extremes, the latter is the more honorable and higher plane of social organization. Given the circumstances of today, any support for anti- or counterrevolutions is, in effect, an effort that reinforces and enhances the institution of unconditional private property in land, the basic instrument of human exploitation.

However, there is a potential for yet a higher form of human organization, one that conforms to the individual's perceptions of justice. It only requires that we distinguish the values and products of groups and individuals (wealth, capital) from the Earth itself (land) and its values which are produced by society, as a whole.

By predicating the monopoly of land on the payment of its annual value, we can eliminate exploitation. provide opportunity and Insure freedom and personal property. From the revenue so collected, we can tad the legitimate expenditures of government. which certainly can include the basic needs of those who are incapable of providing for themselves.

When the value of land is collected for social purposes, all people can be assured of an equal right to the earth and an exclusive right to the fruits of their labor. And this is truly a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As these basic relationships, previously stated. are brought into focus, it is obvious that Nicaragua is not unique. It is an excellent example of the conflict and the conditions that brutalize the world. The solution to these conditions in Nicaragua, the United States or anywhere else is the realization of an equal right to the Earth and an exclusive right to one's self and the products of his or her labor.