| Huberman and Sweezy, the Marxist Critics, | | | | the United Fruit Co. organized a complaint |
| have made an analysis of the land reform of | | | | against for the sum of $16 million in |
| the Alliance for Progress and have proved | | | | opposition to government of Guatemala for |
| that it had no probability for success. The | | | | unlawfully expropriated lands. The argument |
| city bourgeoisie of Latin America would not | | | | was finally settled at the time the United |
| give up its' spots easily; in its place, a | | | | States dropped the assumed policy and the |
| more practical step was required to give a | | | | land has been returned to the company United |
| impulse to the nonviolent revolution. A | | | | Fruit. A comparable land improvement has |
| perfect example to this point that was made | | | | been started in Cuba which was as well doomed |
| by the two researchers is the agrarian agenda | | | | to crash. In 1959, the Agrarian Reform |
| that was accepted in Guatemala from 1952 till | | | | forbidden anyone from holding over 995 acres |
| 1953. These two man which have made a | | | | of farm lands and 3,316 of ranch ones. |
| decision to carry out the reform belonged to | | | | Recompense for the property has been given |
| social democrats of a middle class, where the | | | | out in the mode of twenty-year bonds through |
| aim was 200,00 acres of unfarmed land | | | | 4% annual interests. Later in the same year, |
| possessed by the United Fruit Co. The | | | | a message has been delivered to the |
| Government of Guatemala determined the fee | | | | administration in Cuba that affirmed that |
| for the land, which was about $3.6 million | | | | even supposing that the U.S. grounds could |
| for the ground in twenty-five year unions | | | | have been confiscated, and adequate |
| with 3% annually, that was the objective | | | | recompense should have gone after, but it |
| price of the land in 1952. In spite of this, | | | | never did. |