Argentina is an example of a country where latifundism hinders the development of not only agriculture, but also the entire economy. The struggle for democratic agrarian reform began there in the first years of independence. An important stage in this struggle was the presidency of B. Rivadavia (1826-1827), a bourgeois politician who sought to establish state land ownership as the basis for further development of the country.

One of the first biographers of Rivadavia (1780-1845) was the prominent Uruguayan statesman, historian and journalist A. Llamas . For him, a" society of social perfection " was a bourgeois society in which there was no private ownership of land .2 He highly valued Rivadavia's agrarian reforms, seeing them as an attempt to implement "just principles of public land ownership" .3 Lamas emphasized that these principles themselves contradicted the generally accepted ideas of that era. Defending Rivadavia's originality as a social thinker, he wrote: "European science then proceeded from the recognition of private land ownership as something absolute and sacred... European science has always identified private land ownership with the social organization of society in general, considering it as the cornerstone of this organization itself, which supposedly cannot be rejected without risking upsetting the balance in society and even destroying it. " 4 The author expressed the hope that "on the day when the agrarian system introduced in Argentina in 1826 becomes known to the scientific world, Rivadavia will take a prominent place in the gallery of reformers of its century." 5
For the most part, modern bourgeois historians find Rivadavia's plans fantastic. One author even called them "the madness of genius." 6 The Argentine researcher R. Sorrakin Becu's assessment of Rivadavia's activities is typical .7 He attributed the agrarian changes of 1826-1827 solely to the influence of "European romantic propaganda" and argued that Rivadavia's policies "did not meet national goals and did not satisfy public opinion."8 "The program (of Rivadavia and his supporters - K. K.), being only an imitation of a foreign one, was intended to change the face of the nation in accordance with imported ideas, without at all considering how appropriate and timely this is."9 "They are

1 A. Lamas. Rivadavia. Su obra politica y cultural. Buenos Aires. 1941.

2 Ibid., p. 13.

3 Ibid., p. 15.

4 Ibid., p. 14.

5 Ibid., p. 18.

6 O. Amadeo. Vidas argentinas. Buenos Aires. 1965, p. 252.

7 R. Zorraquin Beeu. El federalismo argentino. Buenos Aires. 1953.

8 Ibid., p. 55.

9 Ibid., p. 56.

page 98

they did not know their own country and firmly believed in all the dogmas of European authors. The lack of critical and practical spirit was the reason for their defeat. " 10
There is another trend in modern bourgeois historiography that recognizes the progressiveness of Rivadavia's agrarian reforms. A prominent representative of this trend is K. Galvan Moreno 11 . He claims that Rivadavia opposed latifundia , the root cause of "a cancer that has affected the entire national organism." 12 The first president of Argentina "tried to prevent such a situation when greedy speculators and ignorant landlords enrich themselves only by increasing the value of land, without making any effort to do so"13 . "It was also intended to prevent land speculations such as those that later developed in the country, in connection with the construction of railways and other roads, and on which large landowners, politicians and people with positions in general profited enormously."14 At the same time, Galvan Moreno emphasizes that private land ownership ensures the best possible use of land15 . Contrary to the logic of his own presentation, he challenges Lamas ' view that Rivadavia's activities were guided by the idea of public ownership of land. 16
The class limitations of bourgeois researchers prevent them from approaching the theoretical understanding of Rivadavia's experience with all objectivity. A truly scientific assessment of its activities is given by Marxist scientists. L. Paso, a prominent communist historian, wrote a monograph on the politics of the first president of Argentina .17 An in-depth study of socio-economic conditions allowed the author to draw a correct conclusion about the bourgeois nature and progressiveness of Rivadavia's reforms .18 By advocating the inviolability of public land and the monopoly of private land ownership by a few, Paso argues, he sought to end latifundism and backwardness. The agrarian reforms of 1826-1827, the author continues, opened up the prospect of Argentina becoming a highly developed country .19 Evaluating Rivadavia's activities, L. Paso defined it as an attempt to direct the country "along the path of accelerated capitalist development" 20 .

Soviet historiography has developed a general description of Rivadavia's activities and his era .21 However, the agrarian transformations of 1826-1827 were not yet the subject of a special study by our Latin American scholars. The purpose of this article is to try to fill this gap.

Almost immediately after the May Revolution of 1810, which marked the beginning of the War of independence of Argentina, the agrarian question became a stumbling block in solving the main national problems. The land was the subject of a fierce class struggle, on the outcome of which the further socio-political development of the country depended. Under the conditions of Argentina, "landlord, semi-feudal" capitalism22 is represented by-

10 Ibid., p. 101.

11 C. Galvan. Moreno. Rivadavia el estadista genial. Buenos Aires. 1940.

12 Ibid., p. 473.

13 Ibid., p. 472.

14 Ibid., pp. 472 - 473.

15 Ibid., p. 473.

16 Ibid., p. 472.

17 L. Paso. Rivadavia y la lfnea de Mayo. Buenos Aires. 1960.

18 Ibid., p. 203.

19 Ibid., pp. 69, 71.

20 l. Paso. The dictatorship of Rosas. "New and recent History", 1970, N 5, p. 71.

21 "Essays on the History of Argentina". Moscow, 1961, ch. IV.

22 See V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 24, p. 6.

page 99

there were bourgeois latifundists-pastoralists who sought to concentrate the land wealth of the country in their hands. Their lack of political power hindered the implementation of their plans. In 1810-1815, the country was led, with a short break, by the governments of bourgeois radicals, and then by the bloc of patriotic forces (1816-1819) .23
While fighting against Spanish rule, the masses of the people also fought "for land and freedom from all oppression." 24 Defending the equal right of all members of society to land, they objectively opposed latifundism. The exploited masses of the Viceroyalty of La Plata failed to achieve a consistently democratic solution of the agrarian question. Popular movement for social justice, partly reflected in the activities of the prominent Uruguayan patriot X. Artigas, was defeated during the class battles of the first decade of La Plata's independence. The bourgeois-radical wing of the May Revolution tried to direct the country's agrarian-capitalist development along the farmer's path by allotting land to small rural producers (tenants of public and private land). The implementation of these plans was facilitated by the fact that most of the land was owned by the State .26
The attempt of the bourgeois radicals of Argentina to implement their plans for agrarian transformation dates back to the 20s of the XIX century and is inextricably linked with the name of B. Rivadavia. As a prominent statesman, he came forward in the first years of the War of Independence, was a member of the government (1811-1812), and was its plenipotentiary representative in Europe (1815-1820). From July 1821, Rivadavia served as Minister of the Interior in the Government of the Province of Buenos Aires .

The beginning of the agrarian reforms of Rivadavia was a decree of April 17, 1822, which "prohibited, until a special order, the transfer of land to private ownership" 28 . Latifundists, fearing that the expropriation of their lands was being prepared, launched an anti-government campaign. By accusing the authorities of encroaching on the right to private property in general, they wanted to arouse distrust of the government on the part of all those in power. Rivadavia, on the other hand, sought to show the inconsistency of the claims of the reactionary opposition. At his suggestion, the Chamber of Deputies adopted a decree (June 21, 1822) declaring the inviolability of private property, "regardless of who it belongs to."29 While the Government presented itself as a defender of private property rights, it did not specify its views on private land ownership. It was not until October 15, 1822, in order to "avoid the misinterpretations that some malefactors tried to give to the decree of April 17, "that the provincial government clarified that the April decree referred to state lands. 30
23 Their social base consisted of small landowners, tenants of public and private land, owners of small workshops, and the democratic intelligentsia. Problems of the history of Argentina in the colonial era and during the War of Independence are considered in the monograph: A. I. Shtrakhov. The War for the Independence of Argentina, Moscow, 1976.

24 A. A. Guber, N. M. Lavrov. To mark the 150th anniversary of the Latin American War of Independence. "New and recent History", 1960, N 4, p. 15.

25 The Viceroyalty of La Plata included the territories of present-day Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia. In this case, we are talking about Argentina and Uruguay.

26 This opinion is expressed by a number of authors (see: B. Marianetti. Argentina. Current situation and prospects, Moscow, 1966, p. 48; A. Lamas. Op. cit., p. 15; J. Oddone. La burguesia terrateniente argentine. Buenos Aires. 1967, p. 13).

27 In 1820-1824, the country did not have a central government. The development of the province of Buenos Aires, as well as other areas, was autonomous.

28 S. Bagu. El plan economico del grupo rivadaviano 1811 - 1827. Con una seccion documental. Rosario. 1966, doc. N 38, p. 159.

29 Ibid., doc. N 43, p. 166.

30 Ibid., doc. N 50, p. 172.

page 100

It is difficult to say whether the original intention of the provincial government was to confiscate the land of the landlords, or whether the latter's fears were justified in this regard. But this possibility cannot be ruled out. The April decree did not explain that it applies only to state-owned land, so the government could, based on this decree, declare illegal any act related to the purchase and sale of land. In addition, it refrained from recognizing the inviolability of private land holdings for almost six months.

Rivadavia himself was opposed to private land ownership. One fragment is extremely important for understanding his agrarian ideas. Referring to natural law, Rivadavia extended the idea of bourgeois equality to the sphere of agrarian relations. "Men are born equal," he wrote, " hence their equal right to enjoy the benefits of this world. If everyone is free in so far as he does not violate the freedom of another, then everyone is free to use natural goods to satisfy his needs, recognizing the same right for others."31 . "It is clear," Rivadavia continued, " that no one can have a monopoly on the use of land - otherwise someone will be more free than others, and this is a violation of the Law." Rivadavia rejected such forms of solving the agrarian question as " joint cultivation and even equal division of land." According to him, "the theory of the collective right to real estate corresponds to the highest stage of development of civilization; and, despite all the difficulties, this principle must be implemented, as equality insistently demands."32
Since the summer of 1822, that is, even before the recognition of the inviolability of private land, the government developed and began to introduce the enfiteusis system .33 The essence of enfiteusis was to transfer public land for temporary use to private individuals. At the same time, the amount of rent paid to the state was subject to revision after a certain period of time. The establishment of this system took place in different ways. As for the vacant lands, as well as the lands taken from the Indians, 34 here its implementation did not meet with any special difficulties. The situation was much more complicated with those lands that, although considered state property, had long been in the actual possession of their users. The Latifundists resisted Rivadavia's intentions to extend the Enfiteusis regime to the lands they had seized, but the Government consistently pursued a policy of returning previously lost lands to the State. The discontent of the landlords ' circles in the province of Buenos Aires with the activities of the authorities resulted in an armed protest. It took place on May 19, 1823, and ended in failure. Rivadavia dealt harshly with the rebels. They were given various sentences, ranging from expulsion from the provinces to the death penalty .35
Rivadavia's agrarian reforms have created favorable conditions for the development of agriculture. Assessing the activities of the previous government, the new governor of the province of Buenos Aires Las Eras said:: "Measures taken to settle relations in Pampa,

31 Ibid., doc. N 165, pp. 509 - 510.

32 Ibid., p. 510.

33 Ibid., doc. N 45, p. 167. " Enfiteusis "(from the Greek" emphiteusis") - a contract under which the owner of real estate transfers it for a long time at the disposal of another person for a certain rent.

34 Due to the land seized from the Indians, the area of the province of Buenos Aires increased from 50 thousand square kilometers in 1824 (R. Gorraiz Beloqui. Tandil a traves de un siglo. Buenos Aires, 1958, p. 50) to 100 thousand square kilometers in 1830 (A. Ferrer. La economia argentina. Las etapas de su desarrollo y problemas actuales. Mexico- Buenos Aires. 1965, p. 62).

35 See A. Saldias. Historia de la Confederation Argentina. Rosas y su epoca. Vol. I. Buenos Aires. 1911, p. 142.

page 101

they brought excellent results " 36 . Recognizing the merits of Rivadavia, the Congress of the United Provinces of La Plata 37 elected him President of the country on April 17, 1826. The post of Minister of the Interior was taken by H. S. de Aguero.

Thanks to the President's efforts, the Congress has stepped up its activities in the field of agricultural relations. The first important decision was made by the Legislative Assembly on February 15, 1826.38 Congress prohibited the transfer to private ownership of "land and other types of real estate owned by the State." 39 The landlords did everything possible to prevent the adoption of the law, because it was a question of a new offensive on their positions. The main speaker of the opposition, Manuel Moreno, argued that the Congress is not competent to dispose of the country's lands, since they belong to the respective provinces. In addition, he tried to play on the tendencies of autonomy, predicting that the adoption of this decision would be the first step towards depriving provinces of their property and even governments .40
The following law (18 May 1826) extended the enfiteusis regime to the entire territory of the country41 . The maximum period for which public lands were transferred to private ownership was set at 20 years; after the specified time, they were returned to the state. In the event that the land plot was again transferred to enfiteusis, preference should have been given to the former land user. Every 10 years, the land of enfiteuta was supposed to be re-evaluated, respectively, and the amount of rent collected. Land intended for the organization of agricultural farms was subject to an annual tax of 4% of the value of the plot, and cattle-breeding-8% - A differentiated tax met the interests of small and medium-sized owners, most of them farmers, and was directed against landlords-pastoralists. Arguing for the need for differentiated rents, Aguero said:: "If the tax is reduced, then large owners will seize the land in order to rent it out with great benefit for themselves and to the detriment of the middle class. This situation is unacceptable for the middle class, whose interests we must put first and foremost. " 42
During the parliamentary debates, the opposition put forward proposals not to limit the term of enfiteusis and to establish a fixed rent (Deputy Paso). These "improvements" were intended to authorize the disguised transfer of public land to private ownership. Paso argued that the government's terms of enfiteusis were not in the best interests of the entire ruling class. He said: "Only if enfiteuta is real

36 Cit. by: S. Bagu. Op. cit., p. 36.

37 The Congress opened in Buenos Aires on December 16, 1824. The majority of them consisted of democratically-minded deputies grouped around the delegation of the province of Buenos Aires. Its leader was H. S. de Aguero, an associate of Rivadavia. The conservative minority of the Congress was headed by M. Dorrego and Manuel Moreno, who expressed the interests of the landlords of Buenos Aires. However, they were elected to Congress not from their own province, where the radicals set the tone, but from the provinces of the East Coast and Santiago del Estero, whose ruling circles were characterized by conservatism.

38 The draft resolution was prepared as early as October 7, 1825, by the Government of the province of Buenos Aires, which at that time had the functions of the country's highest executive authority.

39 "Registro oficial de la Republica Argentina que comprende los documentos expedidos desde 1810 hasta 1873". (далее-"Registro oficial"). Vol. II. Buenos Aires. 1880, doc. N 1900, pp. 110 - 111.

40 "Asambleas constituyentes argentinas seguidas de los textos constitucionales, legislativos y pactos interprovinciales que organizaron politicamente la nacion" (далее - "Asambleas"). Vol. II. Buenos Aires. 1937, pp. 678 - 681.

41 "Recistro oficial". Vol. II. doc. N 1944, p. 134.

42 S. Bagu. Op. cit., doc. N 125, p. 353.

page 102

he will become an entrepreneur and will take care of his farm if the land is transferred to him as if in ownership." If you limit the time that enfiteuta can feel completely master of the earth, then he will not make large investments. If his proposals were accepted, Paso concluded, the country would prosper and its citizens would prosper .43
To prove the opposite, Aguero argued that if public land becomes private property, the number of people renting land from private owners will inevitably increase in the country, and the situation of this social group will worsen. "Land,"he said," is not the same as other things, the quantity of which depends on the demand for it; since the demand for land will constantly increase, and its quantity is limited, then the love of power, self - interest, and even the whim of large landowners will be the only law that determines the terms of rent." "They will be able to raise the rent and become full owners of even the tenant's income, which by right belongs only to him alone." The picture will change, he continued, when the state becomes the landowner. "Its interests completely coincide with the interests of tenants, as it is interested in increasing the number of wealthy taxpayers... Consequently, the terms of the state lease will always be fair and even to the benefit of enfiteuta. " 44
Explaining the draft law, the minister pointed out that in case of non-renewal of enfiteusis, the state tenant had the right to receive compensation for all improvements made on the site. Therefore, setting the enfiteusis deadline will not serve as an obstacle to agricultural progress .45 "The main purpose of limiting the duration of enfiteusis was," Aguero argued, "to regulate the land use system and determine the amount of rent." 46 Aguero called the proposal to set a maximum for the league's assessment (2,700 ha) a "chimera". "The quality of land plots, and hence their prices, are so different that it is impossible to set any limit"even within the borders of one zone, let alone the entire country."47 "It would be unfair and harmful for society to set a fixed rent for each league. In this case, the user of bad land will pay the same amount as the user of good land. " 48
The landlord opposition failed to impose its views on the democratic majority of the Congress, which represented the interests of small and medium-sized proprietors and was well aware that the enfiteusis system was beneficial to the "middle" strata and that it created favorable conditions for rural entrepreneurship. Deputy Gallardo pointed out that preserving the state's ownership of real estate was the "fairest and best" measure. 49 Enfiteuta, said another MP, does not spend money on the purchase of land, but almost entirely uses it to organize the economy .50
By introducing this system of land use, the radicals wanted to leave to the state that part of the land rent that is formed due to the limited land as an object of economy and the natural difference in the fertility of individual plots. Explaining the reasons for their approval of the government bill, members of the special Session of the Parliament-

43 "Asambleas". Vol. II, p. 1213.

44 Ibid., pp. 1201 - 1202.

45 Ibid., p. 1214.

46 Ibid., p. 1215.

47 Ibid., p. 1214.

48 Ibid., p. 1213.

49 Ibid., p. 683.

50 Ibid., p. 1225.

page 103

the commission pointed out that all the benefits associated with a further increase in the value of land should be received by the state, and not by "one or two companies of land speculators"51 . Aguero's acceptance of the rent reduction proposal was conditional on a shorter lease term, otherwise, he said, "the state will suffer enormous losses."52
Proponents of the law were aware of the fact that enfiteusis blocked the path to land for the poor strata of society. DEPUTY Gomez spoke directly: "Those who have no means are not deprived of the right to enjoy the benefits of enfiteusis. However, it is clear that he is not called to participate in this business, in this type of entrepreneurship. " 53 According to Gomez's speech, the poor could only use the "benefits of enfiteusis" as farm labourers on the farms of their well-to-do compatriots. Congress rejected the bill of Deputy Portillo, which provided for the free allotment of land to the broad masses of the people and even " wild Indians, if they obey the laws of the republic." According to the draft, the allocated land could never be alienated and taxed 54 .

The Enfiteusis Law was passed by an absolute majority. The implication was that the state would forever retain ownership of its lands, and enfiteusis would be eternal. The press of the democratic circles of Buenos Aires welcomed the adoption of the law by Congress. One of the articles of the newspaper "El Mensagero Argentino" dated June 15, 1826 was devoted to the system of enfiteusis, the justification of the legality and legitimacy of its introduction. The article argued that this system of land use is "the most equitable, profitable and productive, the best of all adopted in other countries, including those that were ahead of us in their development." "It is absolutely indisputable that the right to own and dispose of land in general is an exclusive privilege of society and by no means a natural right inherent in man before the formation of this society." "In matters of land, one should proceed from the public benefit and expediency - only society has the right to dispose of land and set the conditions for its transfer to private individuals." 55
To monitor the implementation of the law, the Government established the Topographic and Statistical Department on June 26, 1826. He was charged with recording state and private land ownership, verifying the rights of owners, and establishing boundaries between farms .56 All information about enfiteuts, the size of their plots, and the terms of their leases had to be entered in the so-called "Big Book of Public Lands". Persons who did not register the land they occupied as taken in enfiteusis lost all rights to it. 57
Some of the people who arbitrarily seized state lands did not register them in the "Big Book". Therefore, in October 1826, a new decree 58 was issued . All those who rented state lands "for an indefinite period" were asked to legalize their status of enfiteouts before January 1, 1827 (Article 1). Persons who rented state lands for a certain period were to be considered enfiteouts after its expiration (Article 2). Article 1 definitely meant unauthorized invaders of state lands. lands. The government's desire to avoid precise definitions was explained by the high level of

51 S. Bagu. Op. cit., doc. N 125, p. 352.

52 "Asambleas". Vol. II, p. 1200. The Congress left unchanged the amount of rent proposed by the Government and the time frame for its revision.

53 Ibid., p. 1207.

54 Ibid., pp. 1264 - 1265.

55 S. Bagu. Op. cit., doc. N 132, p. 386.

56 "Registro oficial". Vol. II, doc. N 2009, p. 138.

57 Ibid., doc. N 2024, pp. 140, 141.

58 Ibid., doc. Xs 2066, p. 152.

page 104

the social status of violators of the rule of law - they were mainly representatives of landowner circles. By agreeing to refer to the looters of public land as their tenants "for an indefinite period," the Government did not concede on the merits of the case: it sought the return of its land to the State.

By 1830, enfiteusis covered more than 86% of all land in the province of Buenos Aires .59 The Government of Rivadavia sought to establish this system of land use for the benefit of small and medium-sized owners. However, time has shown that the measures taken by him did not ensure the achievement of the goal. State lands fell into the hands of rich landlords, who rented huge areas. Thus, 18% of the enfiteuts of the province of Buenos Aires, each of which had a plot of at least 10 leagues (27 thousand hectares) in use, occupied more than 65% of all public land 60 . Beyond the expectations of the radicals, large owners were not deterred by the 8% rent from leased land plots .61 In one of his notes published in the newspaper Cronica Politica y Literaria de Buenos Aires, Rivadavia noted: "The ease with which the concentration of land takes place contributes to the formation of a privileged class that can use its position for low purposes - to destroy the foundations of our republic; and then the road will open for the domination of the landed aristocracy"62 .

Understanding the tension of the situation, the Government began to pay special attention to the distribution of land. In his policy, the organization of Enfiteut settlements became increasingly important. A decree of February 3, 1827, prohibited the transfer to enfiteusis of land lying south of the line: Cabo Corrientes-Tandil Laguna de Curalafken-Cruz Colorada-Mar Chiquita del Norte. The Government reserved this zone so that it could always have on hand the land needed for the establishment of settlements of medium and small owners. In the areas lying north of the specified border, the same procedure for transferring land to enfiteusis was maintained. However, even there it was prescribed to leave part of the land unoccupied 63 .

On May 5, 1827, the government relaxed the terms of enfiteusis for small proprietors who settled in the south of the province of Buenos Aires, on land captured from the Indians. Poor settlers were supposed to get a plot of 350 hectares for farming. Landowners and state tenants who owned at least 200 head of livestock were allocated 675 hectares for the organization of cattle breeding. Settlers were exempt from paying taxes: pastoralists - for four years, farmers-for eight. During this time, they could neither sell nor cede their Enfiteuts ' rights .64
The decree of May 10, 1827, prohibited the satisfaction of those applications for state lands, the applicants of which were large enfiteutami. The purpose of the decree was to protect the interests of small and medium-sized owners. Its drafters explicitly stated: "There are no restrictions on the

59 The area of land taken in enfiteusis was 86.5 thousand square kilometers (J. Oddone. Op. cit., p. 91), and the entire territory of the province was then estimated at 100 thousand square kilometers (A. Ferrer. Op. cit., p. 62).

60 The calculations are based on a list of enfiteuts indicating the area of land they used from 1822 to 1830 (J. Oddone. Op. cit., pp. 73-83).

61 The Enfiteusis Act did not set a limit on the size of land that could be transferred to a single enfiteu. Aguero said that such a measure would be unjustified, since it is unlikely that anyone will take large areas in enfiteusis, for which a significant tax must be paid ("Asambleas". Vol. II, p. 1216).

62 Cit. by: C. Sienra. Campo y ciudad. El problema agrario argentino. Buenos Aires. 1946, pp. 81 - 82.

63 "Registro oficial". Vol. II, doc. N 2117, p. 176.

64 Ibid., doc. N 2154, pp. 187 - 188.

page 105

the size of the land transferred to enfiteusis, the full satisfaction of requests for the areas indicated in them, has created a situation, the harmful consequences of which are already felt by society. Applications are submitted for vast fields, without the intention or ability to exploit them, but in the confidence of reselling in the near future their user rights, purchased for a meager amount, at a high price. In the end, it turned out that a lot of public land has already been distributed, although most of it is empty." It is contrary to State interests, as stated in the decree, "that public lands should be used by a few, used with enormous damage to society and to the private enterprise of a larger class"65 .

The bourgeois radicals failed, however, to carry out their plans. Their "program of action provoked open resistance and sabotage on the part of major latifundists, who raised an armed rebellion, which ultimately led to the fall of the Rivadavia government in 1827." 66
As a measure of bourgeois progress, the agrarian reforms of Rivadavia, which were based on the idea of public ownership of land, became possible due to extremely favorable conditions: capitalist relations in Argentina were still in their infancy, and the state owned a significant part of the land. Many farms in the country, both small and large, were conducted on leased or illegally occupied state lands. Private land ownership did not take any deep roots there , 67 and the ruling classes did not have much "respect"for it.

As the most important democratic reform of the Argentine economic system, Rivadavia's agrarian initiatives provided the material basis for the rapid development of capitalism. Enfiteusis allowed the development of farming on land that was free from medieval allotment land ownership, and even more so from the landlord system. At the same time, the land became open for the unhindered application of capital, since it was not burdened with absolute rent.

The defeat of Rivadavia was the last milestone in the struggle of the bourgeois-radical wing of the May Revolution for a democratic agrarian program. During the reactionary dictatorship of Rosas (1835-1852), the landlords resolved the agrarian question in their favor .68 At the same time, the foundations of large latifundist property were laid .69 The development of Argentina finally followed the path of "landlord, semi-feudal" capitalism.

65 Ibid., doc. N 2155, pp. 189 - 190.

66 l. Paso. Decree. op., p. 71. Forced to leave Argentina, Rivadavia spent many years in exile, died in Spain.

67 E. Matteis. Analisis de la vida argentina. Buenos Aires. 1962, p. 57.

68 B. Marianetti. Op. ed., p. 59.

69 R. Gioldi. Selected articles and Speeches, Moscow, 1974, p. 86.

page 106

Permanent link to this publication: