National Institute of Ideological Colonization, a communist den that must close

On May 20, the authorities from the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture, and Fisheries (MGAP) and the National Colonization Institute (INC) held a press conference after the scandal caused by the purchase of land to honor Mujica.

It is worth noting that representing the MGAP was the Deputy Secretary, Matías Carámbula—who became the interim minister—since Mr. Alfredo Fratti is enjoying the delicious export meats at a stand of the National Meat Institute (INAC) at the SIAL fair in China.

The deficit as a horizon

During the conference, Matías Carámbula was uncomfortable, and understandably so. He not only had to defend this purchase but also had to vindicate the existence of an organization that annually makes its valuable contribution to the fiscal deficit.

"We thought it was important to contextualize the purchase of a property through the INC, within the framework of a series of contextual policies that are important to give argument and meaning to what ends in a property purchase," he explained.

[IMAGE]{1030663}[/IMAGE]

A communist pamphlet as an argument

The four pillars Carámbula presented to justify the existence and actions of the INC seem taken from a manual of applied Marxism.

First, land as "sovereignty"—territorial and food—meaning a strategic asset that must be under state control. Second, the pursuit of a "fairer and more equitable distribution" of the sector's income, which in practice translates into intervention, subsidies, and forced redistribution. Third, a vision centered on a "subject and mode of production" that, if not rescued by the State, would be destined to disappear. And fourth, the idea that buying fields is actually an "investment in public goods" because they become part of the national "heritage," which is nothing more than nationalizing the countryside with taxpayer money.

To understand the purchase, put on these glasses

"It is important that the political debate and the debate with organizations be from that perspective: first from the central discussion of the place of land in this society and in this country (based on the four pillars I mentioned: territorial and food sovereignty; social justice, income distribution, and heritage)," the interim minister noted.

It is evident that, in this discussion, everything is built from the axiom of the "social function of land," where the paternalistic and omnipresent State assumes the role of great redistributor, moral arbiter, and architect of agriculture.

The cherry on top

As if the political-ideological context that justified the purchase wasn't enough, the final episode arrived: the presentation by the president of the INC, Eduardo Viera.

In the middle of the conference, he admitted that he is "proudly a colonist." That is, in addition to earning a three-figure salary for presiding over the organization, he directly benefits from the public policies he himself promotes.

The reaction was immediate: he was asked to resign. His defense? "I have total support from the government" and there is a "clear disdain for the poor." The class struggle wildcard couldn't be missing in this "communist manifesto."

The silent nationalization of land: the true role of the INC

According to the Uruguayan Constitution, it is an organization created with the aim of populating the countryside and "settling the rural worker on the land." In practice, it functions as a state machine for land appropriation, lubricated with Marxist ideology and progressive rhetoric.

Article 200 establishes that the State must acquire land to distribute it. And so, under the excuse of promoting "agricultural colonies," since 1948—thanks to Law No. 11,029—a mechanism has been maintained that concentrates land in the hands of the State while preaching equity and justice.

You might also be interested in: Mass blackout: courtesy of the state monopoly

The logic is clear: more State, less private property

Today, the INC plunders the taxpayer and justifies its actions with blatant Marxist speeches: "democratize the land," "combat rural inequality," "balance the public and the private."

It's not about producing more, or better. It's about waging a symbolic battle for control of the land, even if it costs the people 32 million dollars.

Nothing new for us: privileges are rights, criticism is hate, and the State is always right.