Expropriation of land without compensation.

(10:48:54) BoogieMonster: Are we all suitably freaked out by what all this organised farm stealing shit is revealing about the actual state of our nation? This is the kind of stuff that'll flush us straight down the freedom tubes. (11:24:13) brianvds: What farm stealing shit are you referring to? Perhaps something to start a thread about instead of shoutboxing it? (11:33:43) Rigil_Kent: Agree. Kindly initiate OP. Ek het ook 'n eier om te lê. (11:55:31) Mefiante: BM, you’re talking about land expropriati​on without compensatio​n, yes?


Haven’t seen all the latest news, but Ramaphosa chose his words carefully, and specifically added a bit about farms having to be productive. He was perhaps just throwing a bone to the populists; he doesn’t have much of a choice.

In the meantime, expropriation without compensation is unconstitutional, so it ain’t gonna happen any time soon. Of course, if they look like they’re getting serious about it, it will break the economy: capital will promptly flee the country, and we’d be in deep doo-doo before the law is even passed. Which means they may rethink it.

In other words, I’m not sure we need to start panicking about it just yet.

Who cares if they’re productive? The current farms are already productive. This is a property rights issue, not an efficiency issue.

In the meantime, expropriation without compensation is unconstitutional,

But, this is where the ANC is going to get a whole lot of the house (esp the EFF) on board to help them push constitutional changes.

so it ain't gonna happen any time soon.

Never is preferable.

Of course, if they look like theyre getting serious about it, it will break the economy: capital will promptly flee the country, and we'd be in deep doo-doo before the law is even passed.

Bingo. If they think poverty is bad now just wait until they start taking property. Then this shitshow is going to go into high-gear. The road to purgatory is indeed well paved with “good intentions”.

The other problem here is the populace is an entirely different matter. The ANC is in a populist rock-and-a-hard place. The people want the farms. Period. They are not going to back down from that demand. No matter how bad that would be for selfsame. If the ANC won’t, they’ll find another party who will (Hint: He’s a bit of a dick…). This is what worries me. At this stage the conversation in the country makes it almost inevitable to me: Votes are going to be king in this matter.

And then we are in deep, deep poo. Because, as Mantashe pointed out, taking the stuff of 8% won’t do much for the 80%… that hunger will not be satiated by a couple of farm repossessions. Not in the slightest. We’re going to have a case of “first they came for the farms”.

Quite so, but I think Ramaphosa put in that little bit to give himself a convenient excuse to go back on his word: currently, all the “redistributed” farms are not productive.

But, this is where the ANC is going to get a whole lot of the house (esp the EFF) on board to help them push constitutional changes.

The EFF will support it. But will the entire ANC? Especially if the opposition can force a secret ballot? They may or may not get the two thirds they need.

The other problem here is the populace is an entirely different matter. The ANC is in a populist rock-and-a-hard place. The people want the farms. Period. They are not going to back down from that demand.

Actually, I’m not sure the people want the farms at all. The people want to leave the farms and move to the city to get proper jobs. But the farms have become a political symbol of sorts. The people perhaps think they want the farms. But once the farms are confiscated, the politicians may find to their unpleasant surprise that they can’t find anyone willing to volunteer to go live on the farms. :slight_smile:

If we can get the economy growing a bit, the huge exodus from the country to the city will speed up, and the countryside will empty out of people who want farms. Perhaps the thing will blow over.

But it remains to be seen. I wouldn’t get too worried or too excited about anything any politician says in a SONA speech. It’s bound to be self-serving and populist. I wouldn’t have bothered at all, but I was visiting family and they all watched the speech, so I did too. I wasn’t as excited as they were. I’ll believe in an improvement when I see one.

Me, I care less than I probably should about who the farm belongs to, or even how it was obtained, and more about its productivity. Hunger trumps politics, and the utility of the land reaches far, far wider than its title deed. The worry is obvious: should the functioning farms be handed over voetstoots, chances are that the new owner will battle to maintain productivity to the same level. Either through lack of experience, knowledge or enthusiasm.

In the meantime, the farmers from whom the land was taken will go farm in Mozambique and Zambia, and we’ll have to import our food from there, at three times the price.

But so it goes in politics: sometimes big, symbolic actions trump all reason.

My point is actually that it’s the productivity that’s moot… The problem is trouncing all over people’s rights being a precedent that moves the political landscape in the wrong direction.

However from a historical standpoint, the countries that have tried it have never ended up better-off afterwards, usually the results are extremely undesirable.

The actual thing I wanted to say about this really demands a sound clip link by means of introduction, but I can’t find the material after a not so brief comb through the webulae.

I was listening to an interview on radio. It followed the SONA, and someone to the left of the ANC ( I tuned in late) was evidently telling CR off. He said land reform was an “emotive” issue, and that the new president must not talk about it unless he is serious. Also, compensation is out of the question, because “when they took our land they killed our people”.

Anyway, I’m no history buff and so I wished he was more specific about these killings. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any killing that was done specifically to steal land, either in the distant past or in the recent apartheid era. If someone here is better informed, I’d love to learn some history.

Perhaps by way of a gentle introduction to an inordinately complex and convoluted historical issue, one might start here in considering the intricacies.


Good read, thanks.

Sigh. So, it’s been passed by parliament and is now going into a constitutional committee. Dark times ahead.


Ja nee.

This is just what some commentators feared: unlike Zuma, Ramaphosa gets things done. Now he’s getting all the wrong things done.

Some of the commentary I’ve been reading on the subject online has been EYE-OPENING to say the least.

Right now there’s a thread on Reddit where citizens of the UK seem to near-unanimously think that ex-europeans from SA should be allowed to go back and be given asylum. For various reasons… Their resistance against Muslim immigration is much stronger than against that of people of European descent. Good old tribalism or a preference for contributing members of society? Racism? You decide.

Yet more commentary is flaming up in the world news section where I’m reading things that, frankly, Blows. My mind.

I had no idea foreigners felt like this. These are, nice on the ego but, I guess fundementally hypocritical yet… you can kinda see their point … yet I’d rather stay here and have a kickass country. Why the fuck can nobody in Africa get their shit together?

By they way… Called it. :smiley:

This crazy mess just wouldn’t be complete without someone calling on God to come sort it all out, in this case via a uniquely peculiar mix of free enterprise, socialism, communism, and fascism.


When it comes to actually taking in four million refugees, only a small proportion of whom are actually scientists, doctors and engineers, they’ll sing another tune.

We’ll probably end our days in a refugee camp in Mozambique, like so many Palestinians…

It looks like we are soon going to have a whole lot of stuggling farmers on hand. Now may be the time to become an agricultural consultant. :slight_smile:

And I’m semi-serious. Apparently, in the midst of the mayhem that ensued in Zim after the land grabs, there were a whole bunch of white folks who lived the high life, simply because they were the last ones left who could provide the services the government could not. This is wha these naive Marxists simply can’t get through their thick skulls: the reality is that we live in a knowledge economy, and you cannot legislate reality out of existence.

Amidst all the largely prejudiced rhetoric about historical injustices and original land ownership, there’s something important that’s gotten lost in this feverish furore, and that’s the ANC’s main motivation for changing its tune about the land issue. The party’s sudden support for the “without compensation” element is a very recent change. The party has always championed property rights in the past, and consistently been adamant that in no circumstances will it ever allow its policies to be dictated by any non-ANC person, organisation, or group. And yet, the ANC has reversed its position on property rights and allowed the EFF to set what is sure to become a core ANC tenet.

So, why the change? My guess would be that the 2016 LGE results were more of a wake-up call for the party than it will openly admit. The EFF garnered support primarily due to its vocal stance on the land issue, while many ANC voters simply chose not to vote. The ANC, not being moribundly stupid, realised that it needs to reinvigorate its electorate—and what better way to do so than by hopping onto the “landwagon” (so to speak)? In other words, for the ANC the issue has more to do with votes than with restitution where it would rather that the country slides into poverty and ruin than lose more of its support. It’s easy to sell the restitution lie to the people because that’s what they want to hear. And, moreover, the governing elite that pushes through such a potentially ruinous change needn’t be overly concerned about the consequences because its members can rest comfortably in the near-certainty that they will not be overly inconvenienced whichever way things play out.

If my suspicions are correct, the upshot would be that the ANC is simply not playing straight with SA on this issue.