The Road to Globalisation:
Where Stands Permaculture? Where Stand We All?
Shirley-Anne Hardy
[Reprinted from The Permaculture Activist,
No.49, December 2002. The writer is the author of Birthright in
Land and the State of Scotland Today, published by Peregrine
Press. She is a tireless campaigner for land rent reform in Scotland
and may be contacted at The Rocks, Pitlochry, Perthshire PH16 5QZ,
Scotland.]
The introductory column at the front of each issue of A Permaculture
Activist tells of its primary goal as being "to provide
information useful to people actively working to establish
permaculture systems 'on the ground.'" There are plenty of people
in Scotland bubbling with aspiration to do just that! But we live in a
country of locked-up land.
Moreover, where the fundamentals of life (security of home and work)
remain -- on account of this monopolised land -- dependent upon the
good graces of another party, who is thus able to tie up people's
tongues along with their homes and work, we surely have a
humanly-constructed stumbling block to intelligent action on this
Planet! This fundamental chokehold on freedom of speech makes for a
de-MOCK-racy indeed! Meanwhile this root monopoly wastes no time in
working its way up through every level of our economic activity, as
poisons work up the food-chain, multiplying at every stage. For the
primary requirement for all human activity is, of course, access to
land. Thus is innocent capitalism (every man sitting, under his own
vine and fig tree, as the prophet so beautifully put it) convened into
its extremely ugly counterpart, MONOPOLY capitalism.
Access to kind the key to justice
What a pity that those shouting in Seattle, Genoa, and elsewhere
could not diagnose aright society's present ills, and so hit the real
mark with those globalisers! Let us pause and ask ourselves: just how
could a society be expected to act in any moral fashion, which is
built on the immoral foundations of MONOPOLY? We groan at
globalisation, but fail to see the origin of this phenomenon of our
times, as also of the GMOs and so much else, including the water
crisis. For these things are all simply helpful reflections staring
back at us out of our own mirror, pointing the finger at our
staggering on-going nonchalance -- our apparent ability to ignore the
very first question every society must solve: how to institute JUSTICE
in access to land. (Note: in economics the term "land"
includes all natural resources.) For this sin of omission we now find
that instead of having built a society on the foundations of SHARING,
we have reared a society on the hideous premise of snatch-and-grab!
The original snatch-and-grab is well-known to us in the term "land
monopoly." ("To prove a legal title to land, one must trace
it back to the man who stole it."-- Lloyd George.) Under land
monopoly we were going global from the word go!
I am an enthusiastic subscriber to Permaculture publications in both
Britain and America, for the movement provides us with an array of
excellent, stimulating, and often highly fascinating articles. Of
recent ones, I must especially mention Nick Routledge's -- on so many
levels -- in issue 46, and of course (since I live right above one),
the wonderful saga of the transformation of a golf course, "Designing
the Permaculture Links." Then how marvelous (with Scotland's
monsoon summer, and our water management nowhere) to have Water as the
focus of issue 47. However, I find that articles in Permaculture
publications may be rendered a bit superficial, on account of the
movement's ignorance in general on the fundamental matter of rights to
land.
Take the question of "Right Livelihood" -- the focus of PCA
issue 46. What an opportunity to open this important matter up to its
foundations! Yet nowhere in that issue did it occur to anyone to ask:
What kind of a livelihood is made by those who hold onto more land
than they can use? It is land that the rest of us sorely need; and, on
a planet where all land is already taken up, they are then able to
extract from us, in exchange for essential land access, an
ever-growing slice of our earnings, in payment of land rent or land
price.
Did these landowners make the land, that they should reap a "livelihood"
purely from others' use of it? Or, to open the scene up a bit further:
what kind of a "livelihood" is owed to those who
deliberately speculate in land, withholding it from use altogether,
until the desperate need of the landless shall push its price even
further up? No wonder we have a problem with homelessness! Have we
lost our wits, that we actually legitimise such preposterously
anti-social behaviour at the very root of our dealings with one
another? No wonder if -- as so many despair today -- our society
worships at the altar of greed. We have set GREED as our god at its
base! Gandhi spoke of "enough for everyone's need, not for
everyone's greed." It is high time, then, that we grounded those
words, which have roamed the upper atmosphere for far too long. Land
had no cost of production, so what are we paying these "owners"
of it for? In solemn landowner-speak, the landowner becomes "the
provider of the land" -- but I seem to hear some ripples of
laughter from Gaia at that!
The real role of these ersatz "providers" is, of course,
the very opposite: that of standing in the way of those who would make
use of the land. And we pay them for that role! This distorted piece
of dealing, upheld by false human law, has naturally a very unsavoury
reverse side to it. For if some get something for nothing, then others
get nothing for something -- i.e., labour is massively underpaid.
We must find our way to establishing a just principle of landholding,
for with this radical clearing-out of injustice at the root of our
dealings with one another, the whole pattern of our living on this
earth will change. Consequently, there will change then, too, the
things we choose to produce (maybe in harmony with the earth?) and the
kind of society we choose to build (maybe one of real sharing?) For
all depends, naturally, on the foundations, the ground floor. Thus we
would not simply rid ourselves of a whole host of problems, social and
ecological, which are due entirely to our distorted building. In
particular, our stressful oversized cities, which proliferate problems
of every kind, have all grown up on the basis of the dispossession of
the people from the land.
People sundered from the land
A deep, if unconscious, awareness of this last makes it highly
understandable that people should wish to re-root themselves in the
countryside. And were the land to be freed, it would be natural that
small rural communities -- which have died out under our Gaia-grabbing
culture -- should spring up once more, to enjoy, widespread, the
happiness of "meaningful work" (issue 46). Capital, in turn,
might free itself gradually from the ugly clutches of monopolism,
which is the real underpinning of the stock markets of today's world.
To get back to the land would not then require the tremendous
pioneering efforts it does under land monopoly, nor would those who
achieved it be condemned to an unnatural isolation, as so often today.
What greater scope or hope could we wish, for the flourishing of a
permaculture society, and of that "greater web of connectivity"
mentioned in editorial 47, could we but find our way to a freeing of
the land!
How far does the monopoly of land affect North America, the source of
several articles on "right livelihood"? To quote from Peter
Meyer's
Land Rush - a Survey of America's Land: "as a generous
interpretation about 3% of the population owns 95% of the privately
held land in the U.S." So we see just how far the question of "right
livelihood" is bedeviled by the corrupt underlying land
structure! And what about that land not included in Peter Meyer's
statement, which is owned by our now global corporations? What of the
enormous apparatus of government requirements, which infallibly grows
under a land hegemony, all tightening the land monopoly, while further
raising land rent and price? Let us pause to give thought here, too,
to those yet grimmer scenarios, where the West's Gaia-grabbers have
extended their tentacles into the Third World, to grab the resources
of other indigenous peoples. The West's corrupt system of land tenure,
now globalised, has succeeded in standing the concept of "right
livelihood" veritably on its head, with tragic consequences for
millions. Britain of course, through her empire, played a major part
in this take-over.
But these ugly workings of monopoly capitalism, and its inseparable
political pursuits, are a tragedy of our own heedlessness, our failure
to heed the voices of those raised long ago in protest against the
commoditising of the Earth. Do we make a pretence of honouring the
Christian faith? Already in the Old Testament (Levit. Ch. 25), we are
warned that "the earth shall not be sold in perpetuity."
There is no doubt that Jesus, in declaring he came "to fulfill
the law and the prophets," well understood the import of those
words and the real plight of the poor. But the wryness of his comment
that "the poor ye have always with you" is generally missed.
Organised religion has of course hopelessly betrayed that very sound
injunction; the church in Britain is one of our biggest landowners.
But fortunately, we have not lacked prophets nearer our own day.
Henry George and land rent reform
It is America which gave birth to the foremost of these for our time:
Henry George, a great-souled thinker (who I am glad to recall had a
Scottish grandfather!), whose seminal work
Progress and Poverty, published in 1879, has sold more copies
than any other book except the Bible. In France, the Physiocrats of
the 18th century discerned the same principle of just land tenure as
did Henry George, while in Scotland William Ogilvie and Patrick Edward
Dove (18th and 19th, centuries) both made unique contributions to this
work. That it was a penal offence in Britain until the 1832 Reform Act
even to question the land laws, surely tells us something of the
dynamite they contain, and explains the suppression of the work of
these great thinkers, and hence our unfamiliarity with their names.
For in its eagerness to control the minds of people, as well as every
other aspect of their lives, monopoly capitalism early bought its way
in into our political systems. This game them access, of course, to
the vital sphere of education. Hence our educational syllabuses steer
well clear of the land question! We are not taught to think about the
matter of the right to land and all, and most certainly not of its
simple solution, the just and natural Law of Rent.
Tom Paine and the Law of Rent
This natural Law of Rent was fitly enunciated by England's Tom Paine
in the 18th century. Paine played a role in both the French and
American revolutions and was famous for his
Rights of Man. But have you ever seen this part quoted - "I
never heard that the Creator opened an estate office to issue
title-deeds to land.
Every proprietor of land owes to the
community a ground rent for the land which he holds." We can
surely see why our educational courses keep mum also on this aspect of
Tom Paine!
Bearing in mind that the rental value of land is created by the
community -- arising entirely from the people's' need for land -- we
can see that the payment to the community, by the holder of land, of
its full rental value every year, would correctly establish the
original holder of the land to be the community as a whole, not the
individual. Thus we find neatly reversed the present landlord-tenant
relationship, which is as topsy-turvy as it is immoral! Furthermore,
the strict return to the community, every year, by the occupier, of
the full rental value of his holding, neatly prevents him from ever
capitalising the (uncollected) rent into a phoney "land price."
But security of possession is also beautifully taken care of by this
arrangement. For the payment annually of the land rent (justly owed to
the community), fully ensures to the landholder the continuity of his
holding, with entire freedom to occupy, bestow, or bequeath it as he
pleases; whilst any "improvements" made to the land, such as
houses, industrial buildings; etc., (representing capital -- the
fruits of labour), may as freely be bought, sold, or exchanged, in the
relevant marketplace, (with the ongoing rental "ticket" for
the land always attached). Agricultural improvements are a special
case, which can be fairly dealt with - but we will not go into that
here. Finally, in every society there will always be land "at the
margin," which will command no rent, but offer a living to those
who wish to pursue a more marginal lifestyle.
The false market in land
Focusing again for a moment on that falsity, "land price":
how indeed could we ever assess the Planet in terms of MONEY? -- the
Planet that was here long before we were! Land price equals simply the
capitalisation of as many years' rent ahead as the market can be made
to bear, the over-reaching greed of this false market, not
surprisingly, powering those "mysterious" business cycles of
boom and slump.
But the great plum that this false capitalisation of the rent drops
into the laps of those false title-holders is that, once Gaia can be
bought and sold (like any slave), the possibility follows of hogging
and hoarding land, with the immense power that can then be wielded
over the excluded, and all the further privileges (evils) that follow
in the train of
land monopoly. For the excluded - the dispossessed - then form
that incomparable pool of cheap labour, which is so coveted by the
great machine-owners of monopoly capitalism, while the hapless
dispossessed labourers in whatever field, left without land or
capital, can be relief upon to beat down wages for jobs at virtually
any price.
Hence, too, the shock-waves that run through a workforce when the
lordly "bestower" of their jobs suddenly pulls out, leaving
them wageless. Meanwhile the trades unions and socialist parties -
meant to be protecting the workers' interests - continue on as
sleepwalkers in the scene, and haven't a clue!
Let us pause for; a moment on the point that the Law of Rent, obeyed,
returns to the community, for its shared use every year, the full
community-created rental of its land. For do we not find right here,
in the natural Law of Rent, the simplest and most essential meaning of
that "sharing of the surplus" which is one of Permaculture's
core ethics? Any surplus remaining after society's needs are met (and
how reduced these would be amongst a people standing on their own
feet!) would justly be repayable to the members of the community,
equally, on a citizens' dividend basis. This would be social welfare
-- on a definitely higher key! Considering the shaky foundations of
today's stock markets -- with what seems their inevitable collapse in
due course -- who, even among today's richest, would not opt for a
more secure, because justly-based society?
There is a further point about the land rent reform, which is of some
significance. For the fact that land is LOCAL suggests that the
revenue from the land is best collected locally, and locally
disbursed. Do we not have here additionally, then, a most practical
key to local empowerment? For every community would thus have the
resources to deal with its own affairs, leaving only those things it
could not best undertake for itself to be delegated upwards to a more
federated level. "Community empowerment" is one of today's
buzz phrases, especially in Scotland, but it is mostly bandied about
with little real meaning, as a kind of "sop to the plebs."
Land rent reform, by a natural process, brings about both economic
and political decentralisation. The assessing of land rental values
should present no problem, since it has long been established practice
in Denmark, for example. Valuation rolls, publicly displayed in the
town hall, would leave no scope for skullduggery, confronted with the
first-hand knowledge of the local populace. In the uniquely practical
path it offers to local empowerment, through self-funding from local
resources (avoiding the sophisticated world of taxes), the land rent
reform is a profoundly decentralist measure, and prime permaculture
tool.
Since land rent is our one truly socially sourced revenue -- arising
from the presence and activities of the entire community -- it sets
before us very clearly how false is the substitute we have in
taxation. Falling on the individual, taxes (visible and
not-so-visible) are rightly most loathed by the poor, whose earning
power is hardest hit by them. In fact, it was the barons of o1d, who
held the power to legislate in parliament, who betook themselves to
this substitute. It was attractive to them to privatize the rents,
from which originally they were obligated to provide the king's army;
so it was that taxation came to be instituted as our "social"
fund, in place of rent. We can easily see, from studying the Law of
Rent, that this true social fund, sourced from ground level, would
amply replace its false and feeble one-floor-up substitute.
OTHER NATURAL DIFFERENCES AFFECTING THE LAW OF RENT
The operation of
rent applies with any factor that makes one piece of land
superior to other lands. There are others besides agriculture
differences. A good harbor makes land around it valuable. The
land further away is less valuable. Growth of population is
another significant influence. When people settle in one
particular section of a good piece of agricultural land, one
that yields four, so to speak, a town is likely to grow up
there. Though land within the town is no more fertile than the
land outside, a productiveness of a new kind has arisen. Through
cooperation and specialization of labor, that section of the
land is of much greater productivity. It now yields forty
instead of four. If the four land were free, rent within the
town would be thirty-six.
Industries grow up, new machines are invited, and much more can
be produced. The productivity of industrial land has become
seventy, which is greater than the town's productivity of forty.
Since more is produced, new materials are needed, and this
extends the margin of production to land that yields only one.
Wages then become one, and rent is the excess on all superior
lands.
|
Taxation, easily manipulated by those advantaged at the incomparible
ground level, including by the workings of this level up through the
stock market, has naturally never managed to close the gap between the
rich and poor. It was never meant to, and never will. Any society that
tries to finance itself from taxes will eventually go bankrupt.
Plain common sense
The Law of Rent is a natural law. That is to say: the rental value of
land cannot be prevented from arising, for it reflects the comparative
desirability of differing grades of land. Our task is therefore to see
that the rent is channeled aright. In removing any windfall gain from
the occupancy of a site, the Law of Rent is the true "leveler of
the playing field." It further accords with natural law in being
timeless and universal; it is plain common sense once pointed out. It
is not surprising to discover, therefore, that in former times the
peasants of Java conducted their lives on the basis of this just Law,
for several centuries during a period when Java flourished. Nor is
Java the only example of such a society. But we live, today, in a
world run mad on land monopoly -- on the commoditising of Gaia -- and
even the Green movement seems to have failed to take account of this
rather strange treatment of our Earthly Mother.
I found some bits in issue 47 surprising in this respect. In the fine
"Manifesto for Seeds -- We Have Always Known This," I
stumbled over "Each of us has a plot of earth to serve" --
Perhaps it was placed there as a piece of wishful thinking? It
certainly remains firmly in that realm for the Scots -- in fact, for
countless numbers in the Western world, let alone for millions in the
Third World. Then, in "Restore the Earth, Restore the People,"
we read of how "quality of life" is "fundamentally
measured." But strangely, although access to water is included,
there is no mention of the fundamental question of access to land,
which would of course include water, and is vital to unlock the door
to the other basic needs, shelter and food. What a contrast with the
cry from the Third World: "Land is security -- land is freedom
-land is life!" (recorded by Jeremy Seabrook in
Freedom Unfinished, a moving volume about Bangladesh).
Finally, in a review of Local Trade, Local Wealth, we find
this book regards money as "the principal means by which economic
power is exerted in the modern world." Really?! Here is a
counter-offering from a small country with a good deal more insight: "The
stark fact is that whoever owns the land controls Scotland." ("Land
Ownership -- the Big Issue," Dundee Courier, July 1,
2002) As the saying goes, "if you had all the money in the world,
my lad, and I had all the land, I'd charge you all your money for one
night's rent!"
Land and nature belong to the commons
The article "Water as Commodity" documents well the scene
as we view it today, pointing out at the end that we need "a new
water ethic." But the commoditisers of Gaia have so run away with
our thinking, that we still cannot see that water is but a part Gala's
bounteous gifts to us, and that our dealing with water must be viewed
within the larger embrace of our dealings with Gaia. For it is
entirely through our folly in allowing the false privatisation of Gaia
in the first place, that we now reach the point where one of her
primary gifts to us is being catastrophically destroyed. We would not
now be needing "a new water ethic," if we had but nurtured
at the outset at the heart of our society, a true LAND ethic embracing
all natural resources. It is that land ethic for which Aldo Leopold in
his much-loved classic
Sand County Almanac, so eloquently appealed. For should we not
have cared, in the first place, that Gaia was not privatised?
How many other hideous problems of our day, such as Third World "debt,"
would have had no place in our thinking either, had a true land ethic
but prevailed!, But now it is the more advanced thinkers in economics
and ecology in Africa, one of the poorest parts of the Third World,
who have grasped this point; and it has set them far ahead of us in
proclaiming that they need no munificent cancellation of their "debts"
by the West. They have begun to discern how it was the false
commoditising, or privatisation, of their land which was the begetter
of those false debts in the beginning. By choosing to free their land
to its own people, through collecting its rental values annually for
the community (precisely the Law of Rent), they have no need of that
phony foreign "aid", nor ever had, out of which those "debts"
have arisen. (See website: www.henrvgeorge.org/alodia). So we see how
the whole situation suddenly reverses itself! It now becomes a
question of how we can ever compute what we, the West, owe back to the
Third World, for that ROBBERY of their natural resources we have so
unremittingly pursued. This robbery never should have been, and ran
riot entirely on the basis of a false economic system (the
commoditisation of the Earth), imposed from without upon an
unsuspecting Third World.
Let us recognise the origins, equally, of that massive debt which is
now increasingly engulfing ordinary citizens everywhere. If we are
born onto this Planet without a foothold, we are falsely set in debt
before our life's journey has even begun; and precious few of us in
this situation will ever manage to catch up.
Our great task is therefore to catch up with these forward African
thinkers, and with those Javanese peasants of 250 years ago; to catch
up, indeed, with our own great thinkers, whose wisdom has been denied
us for far too long. We shall then find that we denounce the
commoditising of water simply as part of the whole false commoditising
of Gaia. For not only has our water suffered. The same distorted
structure of the economy has hideously turned into "commodities"
(so far as it has been able) the entire animal kingdom of the Earth,
not to mention her human inhabitants, as Anti-Slavery International
has documented. But do not Care of the Earth (which includes her
creatures) and Care of People stand as the two first ethics of the
Permaculture movement?
Let us see that we catch up, then, with those thinkers who are truly
of the New Age. For so shall we form part of today's most vital "web
of connectivity" -- the movement that is dedicated to ending the
buying and selling of our Earthly Mother, and which holds the
essential key to achieving this. Let us do so not only for our own
sakes -- in our now visibly disintegrating Western society, reaping
the terrible fruits of its immoral foundations. Let us do so also for
the sake of all those other beings, and creatures, who exist on Earth
today in a state of wretchedness, enserfed -- within the
ever-tightening noose of land monopoly -- to those who are now their
global masters.
That noose, which in the name of globalisation,
holds in its grip the very Earth, having rechristened as "commodities"
both Gaia herself and all her bounteous gifts to us.
|