When slavery was abolished in the British Empire, taxpayers paid huge sums in compensation to slave owners for the loss of their “property”. No compensation was ever paid to the slaves for the loss of their freedom.
The problem with that approach is, of course, that the state did not take into account that the “property” of which it was relieving the landowners was acquired as part of an inhuman and immoral situation.
I was considering the same question in relation to the constitutional moves of South Africa to redistribute land without compensation. It seems to me this is plainly morally justified. The only question marks I can see are of practicality, in terms of making sure those taking over the land are trained to keep it properly in production, and that redistribution is not corrupt. Those are not insuperable problems, and I support the South African government in its endeavours.
But I wish to apply the same principle, of the state acting to right historic injustice on behalf of the people, much more widely and in the UK.
I apply precisely the same argument to the great landed estates, particularly but not only in Scotland. I believe the fundamental answer to land reform is confiscation by the state of large estates, and that social justice can never be redressed by the taxpayer simply handing over money to the ultra-wealthy. We have already been doing far too much of that through the bankers’ bailouts.
I have no moral qualms at all about simply taking back the land, whether it be from the Dukes of Sutherland, Buccleuch and Atholl, from a Dutch businessman or from a sheikh. In England the Grosvenor estate, the lands of the Duchy of Cornwall, and similar holdings could be confiscated. I do not see this as harm to the “owners”. Let them work for a living, or try their luck with the benefits claim system. Residential properties in large estates might become council homes, while tenants of commercial properties might pay rents to the council rather than to the Duke of Westminster, and the council use a large portion of that money for homebuilding.
Agricultural land from vast estates might perhaps best be given to the tenant farmers who have rented it. In the Highland glens, there are vast tracts which were once cattle rearing and arable. We have been lied to for generations that these are only fit for moorland for grouse and deer hunting – despite the fact that they are studded with the croft foundations of the cleared populations they once supported, who reared cattle and grew crops. These unfarmed lands should be given free to communities to develop; with assistance for the expensive task of bringing them back into production. That assistance would be a better use of state money than paying “compensation” to the ultra-wealthy.
But it is not only land. I favour nationalisation without compensation of all PFI projects, and of all railways and utilities. The owners have milked the public and the taxpayer far too long. Any business investment carries risk, including political risk. If you misjudge the political risk, your business fails. These businesses have made a misjudgement of political risk in the view they could profiteer, that it is possible to rip off the people forever without blowback. That is a business miscalculation, and such businesses deserve to fail.
The Labour Party’s renationalisation proposals have been carefully calculated within the existing framework of “legitimate” property rights. Therefore John McDonnell has framed rail nationalisation in terms of the expiration of franchises, and talked of PFI projects in terms of buyouts. I reject this approach in favour of the more radical approach of confiscation.
Yes, I realise that some percentage of the investments removed will belong to pension funds and insurance companies and even foreign states, and to small investors. Still more will belong to hedge funds and plutocrats, and the stake of ordinary people in wealth through pension funds had been – deliberately – tumbling for two decades. The less wealthy individuals with a stake in pension funds will lose a little, but gain from the wider public good, and for them there might be a compensation mechanism.
I also realise the markets will not like confiscation, and there will be an increase in bond yields; but this will pass. There is no measure to redress social injustice the markets will like. The City of London is our enemy and will naturally attempt to resist or punish any attack on its continued ability to be the conduit for the hoovering dry of the national wealth.
The fact is, that the extreme injustice and inequalities of society have now become so very glaring that there is no way to make any impression on wealth disparity without changes that may be rightly considered revolutionary. Either we are content to live in a society where the wealthiest one per cent will within two decades own ninety per cent of all wealth in the UK and the rest of us be helots, or we make changes to the fabric of the economy and government which are truly radical.
The economic system has tilted beyond correction by tinkering.
What is immorally owned ought not to be compensated on expropriation by the community.
As with the owners of slaves, the owners of “property” would be likely to attempt to defend their riches through the courts. This is where the doctrine of the sovereignty of parliament might for once be put to good rather than evil use, in passing law making such state confiscation unequivocally legal. Both the UK and Scotland appear set for at least a period outside the EU; I cannot think of a better use for any window of legal autonomy.
I am fully aware that I am proposing very radical measures very unlikely to be adopted by the current political Establishment. But the most telling fact of recent western society, itself a natural and predictable result of that galloping wealth inequality, is that the political Establishment has its coat on a very shoogly peg.
Man after my own heart.
.
“Aujourd’hui, rien.”
(attrib. to someone called Louis XVI)
Sláinte
.
Socialist redistribution of assets requires something fundamental to change in our make up.
We have not lived in a collective community for hundreds of years. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but unless you are also prepared to give up for the greater good that which you own and receive it ain’t go to work.
Game theory indicates that even those with good intentions, who might be prepared to let go for the greater good are doubtful of others. It really needs trust of all not division. How do we get there? How do we re-find the ability to co-exist and share?
It’s possible, but dangerous. It’s dangerous because if you try to get everyone to go along with something for the greater good then it’s tough. It involves some sort of collective hypnosis which is usually based on an appeal to class or race hate, envy and greed.
If you try to do it too quickly then the psychological tools which people tend to use are basically fascist i.e. a call to surrender one’s own selfish interests because of class (Russia), nation (Italy) or race (Germany).
Therefore (a) beware whether you deconstruct only to enable new robbers and (b) consider in getting others to go along with your good intentions what emotions you are evoking in them.
“We have not lived in a collective community for hundreds of years. ”
Collective community is a tautology. All communities are collective. All involve interaction between the individuals who make them up. All produce and then redistribute. And all production is already the outcome of communal goods e.g. communal knowledge.
And “game theory” is another one of those inversions whereby individuals are conceived as magically autonomous monads floating around fully formed and indulging in detached rational contemplation.
Similarly “How do we re-find the ability to co-exist and share?” is a pseudo-question since we already co-exist in the same community and are already enmeshed in social/economic networks.
.
Yet again. Inspiring.
Sláinte
.
Well, stripping out those words that Makropulos takes issue with the gist of my point is that socialism is an ideal which might work if the members within that community are willing to believe in and honour a social contract and others don’t take the piss, but experience tells us that others do take the piss, that we are more monks than wolf, and therefore eventually even the more noble minded brethren become cynical and becoming cynical too take the piss as, where and when we can so that the elite comprised essentially of those best able to appear as if they honour the social contract whilst are intelligent enough to abuse it. Therefore the idea of a community where we all really pull together for the common good is a kind of aspiration no better than the history of WWII which obscures any dissent amongst the people of this island.
Socialism might also work if those who believe it follow it sincerely. If a few follow their ideal sincerely then the idea and its practice should spread. If they preach insincerely and piggy back on the coat, wearing their heart on their sleeve, for their own gain or for the gain of a group then it’s just a device, a badge or cloak and unless you are in the group who benefits from the camouflage and rallying call of the idea you should ignore it.
But you didn’t engage with the danger of how throughout the C20 people have been persuaded to support an idea which asks them to put the greater good before their own good, and the technique has essentially been fascism in all its variants, usually reflecting a degree of regional characteristics i.e. hooking onto what works for one particular group at one particular moment be that class, race, or nationalism. Of course there are many more subtle variations less offensive which persuade the many to go along with policy for the greater good, or their own good, or out of fear etc.
I have also banged on a bit from time to time about the theft of revolutions. Some here have mentioned Andy Whightman’s book The Poor Had No Lawyers, which I recommend to everyone here. In reviewing the long history of all those who have snaffled the community’s land, until the community was no more with land AW writes and I read with interest the speed with which the elites turned the 1560 Reformation and how the noble cause promoted by John Knox which sought to use Church land for the maintenance of the Kirk, for the poor, disabled and unemployed and for education was both supported and then turned so the elites made off with the Church’s land. In other words the elites made us of the movement to bait the popular support but then came the switch.
Then came the switch.
Why do never people never anticipate the switch.
The bait and switch is what seems to happen in politics a lot of the time. And the bigger the prize the more likely that there will be a switch.
No one wants to be a patsy.
I agree with the sentiment. There are practical steps that can be taken, leading to an equitable solution. Firstly shooting estates should be subject again to business rates. These could be set at a fair level, that also severely taxes the destructive paths scarring hillsides. Then we could have a land tax that means that large estate owners are make a fair contribution to our national budget. The land tax could be progressive, to discourage large estates. Finally, we could implement a law similar to that in Denmark, whereby non-residents are not allowed to own property. It is doubly ironic that the largest landowner in Scotland is a Dane.
Craig have you been chin wagging with Andy Wightman? Yes the I agree with all of the above, but unless we have a very strong resolve, the French know how to demonstrate, take action when they need to, then its nothing more than a idealistic pipe dream.
If things keep on going the way they are now, I can foresee a revolution occuring in Britain in the future.
I can’t see any current UK government pushing for the taking back from the rich in such great measures, mores the pity.
Although who’s to say in a future independent Scotland, such a party might rise to power.
I recall Lord Chancellor Brougham getting hardly anywhere with the manumission of his Whig colleagues about almost every problem when he was claiming the there would be no Tories if the people were given their way.
Hardly surprising that there was no compensation for the slaves when they were finally freed while Brougham was reduced to a drugged maniac for his efforts.
Have you read (or even heard of) the booklet The Land Question by Shirley-Ann Hardy? And her book Stolen Land – Stolen Lives – and the great con trick of DEBT! Shirley-Ann Hardy is Scottish and lives in Scotland.
The Poor Had No Lawyers by Andy Wightman highlights the skullduggery of those who acquired land by theft and deception, more so in Scotland.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Poor_Had_No_Lawyers.html?id=2tG8BQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y
Why not write a review of the book since it was published five years ago, and i have yet to see a review.
.
Oh, Trow. . . . why not simply acknowledge a great point by RofS?
(Instead of underhandedly, it seems, attempting to insult those who have had their land stolen.)
Sláinte
.
Great idea. Nationalise the land, most current occupiers could have tenancies for life, a farm could be handed over to a child on death or retirement, otherwise the next person on the public list takes over the lease and all the while the state collects a nominal rent.
Time for a second referendum on 1066 ?
.
Rather. Time to reflect on the analogies between 1066 and present day Palestine.
Go well.
.
How does brexit deal with the use of State cash………
May’s terrible Brexit deal could see Corbyn’s socialism banned from the UK
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2018/11/15/mays-terrible-brexit-deal-could-see-corbyns-socialism-banned-from-the-uk/
Absolutely right Craig. The Right and the Left are mostly defined by their attitude to elites. The Right has excessive faith in elites, and is largely oblivious to the universal tendency for power to attract corruption, and for the talented and admirable to have less impressive children and still less impressive grandchildren. The Left on the other hand has excessive faith in the people as a whole, and is (or pretends to be) oblivious to real differences (except in the field of sport where the concept of elite athletes doesn’t trouble anyone). They tend to solve this contradiction by dragging everyone down to the lowest level as this is so much more achievable than elevating everyone to the highest level.
The obvious solution to these mirrored contradictions is to accept that elites will always form, but ensure that they’re as fluid as possible, i.e. that the talented and admirable can move more easily into positions of influence, and the untalented and dishonourable can even more easily drop out of them.
The greatest obstacle to this fluidity is the existence of vast hereditary wealth, of which land ownership is a glaring example.
The large estates (and many smaller ones) obtained much of their land through dubious “legal tricks”. Perhaps you could contend that its less nationalisation and confiscation, rather a retrieval of stolen goods. In Scotland’s case – read “the poor had no lawyers” – for those with high blood pressure make sure you`ve had your meds first. It is a rather distressing book.
Tom Johnston, historian and Secretary of State for Scotland (Fluffy Mundell couldn’t lace his boots) highlighted in his writings of how the lands of Scotland in particular were acquired illegally.
Johnston wrote “Show the people that our nobility is not noble. That the lands were stolen by force or fraud”.
.
RofS
Thank you. Very proud.
(fwiw, that name in fact my family name, idle mention I know!)
The “legal trick” used is as follows, i believe its now 2 years not 10 in Scotland.
http://www.andywightman.com/archives/479
“Prescription is a legal device introduced in 1617 which has the effect of exempting a title from legal challenge provided that the land has been occupied “peaceably, openly and without judicial interruption” for at least 10 years (20 years in case of Crown land). As I argue in my book, The Poor Had No Lawyers, this was introduced, along with the Act of Registration to provide legitimacy for land that the nobles had appropriated from the Church in the 16th century. It is telling that the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (which governs prescription) states in the preamble that it replaces the Acts of 1469, 1474 and 1617. This is an ancient device and it has served landed interests well.”
Brilliant piece. The land is any nation’s primary resource. It was stolen along with much else – primitive accumulation. It must be held in common – restitution.
Secondary forms of accumulation are likewise consequences of primitive accumulation.
It continues still through ‘intellectual property’ theft, including from publicly funded research in universities.
It must be restored to the public domain. Only then can we have social justice. The so-called Labour Party has forgotten this.
Thank you.
Excellent post, Craig, looking forward to the confiscation of national trust as well as the properties of large NGO’s/charities purportedly held to aid the abundance of a few bird species and well earning charity CEO’s.
This will be a body shuddering punch in just the right position.
Was it by design or did you forget the large inner City holding of the Duke of Westminster and the Royal family?
It is for me not so much for compensation for land possessed as part of an illegal occupation, it is more the fact that at least the owners should be compensated for the work they put into the land to make and keep it productive.
Not to compensate the owners for such investment is simply theft, no matter how you slice it, since time is money at the deepest level, and the time invested in developing land with limited productive value under ancient practises to a higher level of productivity needed a lot of investment of time and monetary funds.
in terms of making sure those taking over the land are trained to keep it properly in production,
in terms of making sure those taking over the land are trained to keep it properly in production
To expect that to happen in the short timeframe and to simply assume “they are trained” is simply nonsense and speaks contrary to the experiences in Zimbabwe.
https://www.fin24.com/Opinion/5-lessons-sa-can-learn-from-zim-land-grabs-20180305-2
Only someone who instead of working the land actively with modern production methods spending his live working desk jobs for the government can think this to be a feasible idea – and yes, I have studied four years of agricultural production both in Europe and developing countries and worked in German and Canadian Agriculture, albeit for a limited time only and therefore can speak somwhat to the challenges of managing a modern farm, which Mr. Murray clearly cannot.
“The City of London is our enemy and will naturally attempt to resist or punish any attack on its continued ability to be the conduit for the hoovering dry of the national wealth.”
Indeed, so why not include nationalisation without compensation of all banks and financial institutions, including all off-shore operations?
I had the misfortune to browse the January edition of ‘Scottish Field’ magazine (never before and probably never again). The first article (after many pages of overpriced property, tweed and a few cute pictures) is relevant to this discussion.
‘A shot in the foot’ bemoaned the (SNPBAAD) Scottish government for not doing enough to support the stalking and shooting industry.
The figures put forward we’re startling but not in the way intended by the publicist:
-6,000 EU citizens a year apply for licences to bring guns to Scotland for shooting and stalking
-8,800 Full-time equivalent jobs in Scotland in the shooting and stalking sector.
-£70m The amount of money stalking and shooting tourism brings into rural Scotland each year
£500 The average price of shooting a stag in Scotland -but tourists also tip the stalker, and pay for food and accommodation.
I think I’m supposed to think ‘wow, the rural world would come to an end unless we bend over backwards to support this’, but I’m afraid my reaction was ‘whit? Is that all that this brings to rural Scotland?’
Despite right to roam (which is a world beating treasure) many parts of Scotland are effectively closed to visitors by this industry. The opportunity to give better access to Scotland for those who are disinterested in (or troubled by) killing must be worth at least £70 million to the general tourist industry.
The stalking and shooting industry dominates rural life in many poorer communities. I’ve seen at first hand the effects of an almost feudal use of the land and people.
I’ve treated people working in this industry suffering from what are clearly industrial injuries. They are very afraid to take time off work or challenge the (sometimes crass) process that caused the injury for fear of loosing their job. This is a realistic concern in areas where alternative employers are all but completely absent. I’ve seen teenagers in tears suffering frostbite but still determined to return to freezing conditions -because they knew that their dream of progressing to become stalkers or game keepers depended on it. I’ve seen stalkers with painful injuries refuse advice to take time off because they feared for their already insecure job. I’m sure that there are some good employers but I’ve mostly seen the bad side. Conditions can be every bit as bad as low wage city employers -but with the added sting of absolutely no alternatives.
The rest of the article was unintentionally amusing. Apparently Lufthansa decided to stop accepting firearms in checked baggage to Scottish destinations. The Scottish government intervened last year but ‘were caught off guard this year’ (SNPBAAD). The tourists mentioned in the article were inconvenienced and had to borrow guns and equipment. One man narrowly avoided having to hunt wearing pink wellingtons.
The article also argued that the owners are legally obliged to cull the deer anyway. This is true but would generate other jobs. Different decisions could be made about how many deer are kept and which are killed. I suspect that currently there is a premium for shooting a big healthy deer rather than putting a sickly elderly one out of it’s misery. I don’t see the sport in this; the deer near us come so close to our house that they are as vulnerable to clubbing as shooting (not advocating either).
There must be a better way to generate income in rural areas. The returns quoted in the article using the land as a playground to kill for fun are pitiful. They amount to less than £8,000 per full time employee. I suspect that they are being understated so that the industry can plead poverty.
Regarding the route to change, I think nationalising without compensation would be difficult and vulnerable to court challenge (ironically based on the human rights of the owners). I think the best route is effective taxation. The advantage of land based taxation is that the assets cannot be hidden offshore with opaque trusts. If no one fronts up to pay the tax, then the assets could reasonably be forfeited. Their value would fall (possibly dramatically) making community buy out more possible.
I normally am happy to put my full name to my comments but, for obvious reasons, in this case I prefer not to.
Rural Health Worker,
My reply to your very interesting comment has been deleted.
I have no idea why. Maybe Craig doesn’t like The Film Kes, nor experienced poverty, and an excellent, but tough, free education, provided by the post war UK Welfare State, under the control of a real Labour Government.
Maybe Craig, is just too posh, and never been there.
“Kes – Official Trailer (1969)”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icy7v67T8c8
It’s his blog, and he can delete anything he wants.
Tony
Thanks Tony,
Sorry I can’t se your original reply, maybe there has been a technical glitch (I was told once that I should never put down to malice what can be explained by incompetence or a computer),
I don’t think Craig’s background is as posh as you think.
I passed my 11 plus but my parents liked the look of the comprehensive better than the grammar, Craig (according to Wiki) must also have passed but his parents went with the grammar option.
At that stage, I didn’t have any privilege (or handicap) except interested parents. I suspect the same is true of Craig.. Fortunately, as you say, those were the days of ‘a real labour government’ with opportunities to develop whatever our origins. I was the first generation in our family to get a university degree.
Kes is a heartbreaking tale. I was very lucky, never having been in that place but have I have tried to help those who are.
I recently posted this, regarding grouse shooting.
“Let me see if I have got this right?
between 1 million and 1.5 million hectares = 2.47 – 3.705 million acres @ £56 per acre Grouse moor subsidy.
That means we are giving between £138,320,000 and £207,480,000 to rich land owners, to produce £32 million to the Scottish economy.
Would wildlife tourism, forestry, crofting, or frankly anything else, not make more economic sense! and that is before we start talking about endemic wildlife crime, the taking back of tennent farms ‘in hand’, to get the CAP subsidies, and the changing of tennented cottages into ‘holiday lets’, or just bulldozing them, continuing ‘the clearences’ into the 21st century.”
on Bella’s article, https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2018/11/29/grouse-blood-sports-land/
WE PAY FOR IT ??
I have some difficulty to the comparisons Mr. Murray makes between the lands in Scotland and the lands farmed by individual farmers in SA.
As I pointed out further down, the expropriation without compensation for the SA farmers is theft when it comes to their often centuries of developing the land with time and funds.
I can agree that the re-disposal can correct an old injustice, but to do this on the backs of working farmers ignoring the work they put into it and the investment they made is just adding another injustice.
How different is that however to the historical wrong of the Clearances in Scotland, where exactly the opposite happened, and vast areas were taken away from the tenants engaging in small scale subsistence farming and ranching of cattle to the large scale production of sheep by the becoming more and more powerful landlords.
https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/the-highland-clearances-1-465248
https://cranntara.scot/clear.htm
Peter – you seem to be suffering from the common misconception that before the European colonisers arrived with guns, Africans made no use of the land in which they lived. This is very far from the truth. Given that is the case, there is no difference between the clearances of the Highlands for the benefit of the aristocracy and the colonisation of Africa, for the benefit of Europeans.
There would be no reason why those descendants, like any other citizen, would not have the right to apply for a share in the land holding. They just wouldn’t have a right to it due to their ancestors having been more successfully thuggish.
You ignore two important factors:
The Psychological impact, not on markets, but the young and ambitious. I am not wealthy or a large landowner, but I would horrified to see such a radical action in my country, such an arbitrary act of the state exercising power over its citizens, in ‘the name of good’. When the government confiscates that which they have accepted as legitimate for many centuries it sends a message to everyone who wishes to do well and put down roots in this country that they better not do too well or they will be judged to be saboteurs. You are happy to see revolutionary acts as long as they don’t affect you.
There is also no proof that this radical action would do good. I am not an opponent of the nationalisation of the railways, where there is a monopoly and so no benefit of such an important resource being in private hands. But which council in modern times have done any better for the local population that well-run business like the Duchy of Cornwall or the Grosvenor Estate. The horrid, ill-conceived housing created by many local councils, or not created at all, has no comparison to the housing made by the Duchy of Cornwall.
.
G. . . . Merely. Smoke. No consequence whatsoever.
Sláinte
.
Property relations. Somewhat relevant to the current topic:
https://off-guardian.org/2018/12/01/fascism-is-the-true-face-of-capitalism/
Fascism has become the core of capitalism, thanks to everyone who is anyone promoting the extreme anti-communist efforts of congenital liars like GHW Bush, who everyone is praising these days as our hero.
I am not that surprised that Craig Murray, is now writing in the style of a full blown brainwashed, Soros supporting Trotsky inspired neocon, but I don’t like it. I think Craig Murray is a decent man. Highly intelligent, and not, so far as I know, lacking in empathy. He is certainly not lacking in courage. It’s just, that I simply do not agree with him.
I could go into details, of how such Western / Malthusian controlled and inspired actions resulted in the death of many millions of innocent people in for example China and Russia, but I am not an expert in such things, and much of it is too gruesome for me to stomach. In many cases, the first thing these new regimes did was to round up, and massacre all the intellectuals. A bit like Hitler Nazi’s on Steroids.
Instead read this transcript – or watch the interview. I have enormous respect for this man, and started reading his books about 10 years ago. His research is phenomenal, and he appears to have no political bias, and he writes extremely well. It is not The Saker. It is F. William Engdahl. I have not yet read his new book “Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance”, but much of the contents of one chapter of it is revealed here.
“The Rape of Russia”
http://thesaker.is/the-rape-of-russia-saker-blog-exclusive-interview/
Tony
State assets were initially transferred to the workers and to everyone during voucher privatisation, but they sold / lost them for peanuts. I don’t know much about how or why it went so wrong so quickly (save for Bill Bowder’s account) and would be interested in reading an objective (or I suppose as is more likely a subjective) account.
I wrote to Mr Engdahl to thank him for his work. Almost by return he sent me, completely free and unsolicited, a copy of Seeds of Destruction, his book on GM. A very kind and good man.
His bibliography – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._William_Engdahl#Bibliography
Thanks for the Engdahl link. Bin looking for that.
.
Tony O (my friend),
re “. . . style of a full blown brainwashed, Soros supporting. . .”
For me, what you say is supposition. Also overlooking the v strong likelihood (often imho) of CM’s irony and sardonic humour.
Please withdraw the comment. It is unworthy of you.
Sláinte
.
Reality check.
You propose a legalistic (as opposed to a revolutionary) ‘communising’ of land and utilities without compensation, going further than the 1945 Labour administration. OK, since they will be the ones doing the voting, exactly how many of the current Labour Party MPs do you think would even have voted for an NHS or nationalised utilities back then, let alone the programme you posit today?
Answers on the back of a very small postage stamp.
«we are content to live in a society where the wealthiest one per cent will within two decades own ninety per cent of all wealth in the UK and the rest of us be helots»
The difficulty with that view is that the 1% are supported by the 30-40% who own small properties in areas, mostly in southern England, where prices and rents have been booming. it is not a 1% vs. 99% political situation it is 30-40% vs. 60-70% type of situation. If anything that 30-40% is even more determined in its rentierist spite of the servant/”helot” classes than the 1%.
Pretending it is the 99% against the 1% is politically very damaging, and does not explain for example why given their record the Conservative party got 42% of the valid votes at the last election.
Blissex
December 2, 2018 at 16:24
As put forward by Frederick A. Lindemann Churchills chief scientific adviser and best friend.
“During a 1930s lecture, Lindemann argued that surgery, mind control, and drug and hormone manipulations would one day allow humans to be fine-tuned for specific tasks. At the lower end of the race and class spectrum, he suggested, one could remove the ability to suffer or to feel ambition. This subclass would do all the unpleasant work and not once think of revolution or of voting rights. To perpetuate empires, he theorized, one need only remove the ability of slaves to see themselves as slaves.”
Sep Holtzer has indeed shown the way of Permaculture, that would be of benefit to people in England, Ireland and Wales.
http://www.holzerpermaculture.us/
I am solo glad that, in spite of all your denials, you are, in heart a true socialist. WELCOME!
I had not heard of the gilets jaunes until I started hearing reports about them on Sputnik Radio a couple of days ago. They have been totally uncovered in U.S. media.
There finally was a long article on the Gilets Jaunes in the Washington Post of yesterday, Dec. 2.
Land redistribution didn’t work so well for Zimbabwe. And the South Africans have been slaughtering white farmers.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-escalate/news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476
I am currently reading the books of Sir Norman Angell, and find it hard to understand how he is not at least as well known as Keynes and Bevan. He is the only economist ever to have won a Nobel prize. He was advocating for a tarif free European economic zone in 1925. He exposes the psychology of war, and the psychology of peace, and proves that gaining land is not a profitable venture. Cooperation yields much higher returns for everyone, including the wealthy. Austerity was called ‘economy’ in the 1920s and 39s in the decision to try and bring down the deficit, which he illustrated directly caused trade protectionism and the rise of fascism, as well as deaths from hunger In a land of plenty
1930s.
He also worked with Bevan and Keynes to effectively create a socialist government which benefitted a capitalist business class, and proved that it was effective in creating a country with workers educated and trained by the state, to hold state funded jobs, and then to bring those skills and experiences to benefit private industry. This kept dole queues short and paid people to work, as well as providing unemployment benefits and pensions
How will the Bantu then compensate the Hottentots and Bushmen?
It isn’t about compensation so much as equitable redistribution. Nobody is suggesting that all Europeans return from whence they came or the Bantu etc etc. It is rather that inequalities of land tenure are addressed and peoples needs met.
What? Like the inequalities of land tenure are being addressed in Botswana
where the Bushmen are now (…again!) being dispossessed by the Bantu?
Like Zimbabwe where if you were connected to ZANU your needs were met
and you got lots of land and lots of stuff; whereas, if you weren’t, you didn’t?
In the process the breadbasket of Southern Africa became a basket case
where people who used to be well fed starved in a government made wasteland.
Are these stupidities now to be repeated in South Africa?
I do not think this is radical at all. Just logical. It is so depressing reading about all the injustice, wars and exploitation. All contributing to the accumulation of vast amounts of unproductive hoarded wealth by a very few.
I hope John McDonnell shares these views Craig. The first thing we need to do is to give John and Jeremy a party of MP’s that actually represent the views of the membership and support not undermine. I hope that pro war, pro WMD Labour MP’s leave or get kicked out. There is no point Jeremy being PM till this is achieved. No doubt the Establishment, The City, Bank of England, Media, Secret Services, Military and the Neo Fascists will all muster ranks. The 1930’s all over again…But we have a Leader now that has integrity…but do we have a population that will get up out of the sofa and be bothered ? Good luck Jeremy..Good luck England.