<div class="gmail_quote">Pls find below slightly edited exchange on capitalism, LVT and Project 2012 which I think has relevance to CRD work</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br>
<div>Hi again Stu</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here below is Dave Wetzel's brief response to your question. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>By way of supplementary, the way I see it, it's a way of nationalising/socialising land values without actually taking it from landowners at gunpoint. And, yes I agree other policies (as inferred by Dave and yourself) will definitely be needed in addition, in order to get beyond capitalism. This must include more than new tax and a ditching of some of the old ones, and must see a shift in actual control from individuals and corps to to democratic human collectives. But I do think this tax is part of what we need in mix in terms of showing the values we are for (the earth a common treasury for all, and a tax that reflects that) and how we are to wean ourselves off the old ways via practical application of a revolutionary agenda. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the shift in control part is defintely where I see more overtly anti-capitalist policies coming into play, and yes basically at heart this must be about land and freedom. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, according to the agenda Project 2012 collective have set out so; far buildings must be given over to/seized permanently by the people, in every neighbourhood, to be run as they see fit, and eventually with decision making powers, equivalent to functions of parliament, bank and even benefits distribution - all working on local democracy consensus basis - (benefits, for example mini-jobs so people can start doing 3-4 hours a week of what they want to do, in, and in collaboration with, a local community decision body (ie, some form of local people assembly) - this way communities compete for labour, and decide the character of their area through decisions about who to lend to (as bank), what to spend on (as local parliament) and who to employ through benefits system so we start creating a community based, direct democratic political economy. And of course there is no reason why land can't also be ring-fenced for new intentional low impact communities to set up all around the country, in a reworking of the old monastic system / pre enclosure ( a kind of democratic anarcho communist re-enclosure with collective stewardship / ownership rights, security of tenure for environmental and human-social purposes..) </div>
<div> </div>
<div>All this raises more questions about how do you define a neighbourhood, what happens if the BNP types take over, what will happen to job market in corporations, domestic investment and much more besides. And all of this needs to be considered, (& much of it has) and then developed as theory aswell as connecting to mobilisation if we are to win power. Hopefully between us we can do just that in the coming years!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I hope this of interest, have to rush out now so will leave it at that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>All the best comrade</div>
<div>Mark <br></div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Dave Wetzel</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:davewetzel42@googlemail.com" target="_blank">davewetzel42@googlemail.com</a>></span><br>
Date: 2009/7/11<br>Subject: Re: LVT Question<br>To: Mark Barrett <<a href="mailto:marknbarrett@googlemail.com" target="_blank">marknbarrett@googlemail.com</a>><br><br><br>
<div>Hi Mark,<br>Greetings from Harbin in China.<br>I'm here to give a lecture in the Plenary Opening Session on Sunday 12th July of the 2009 International Forum on Urban Development and Planning organised by the People's Government of Harbin Municipality and the Chinese Government's Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and other bodies including co-sponsors such as the Lincoln Institute at Peking University.</div>
<div><br> In haste right now so maybe the best I can do is to send you and Stuart Hodkinson a copy of the paper I have circulated in advance of my speech. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>nb Annual Land Value Tax or what I call LBC - Location Benefit Charge (an annual charge on landowners for the benefit they receive from the community) is a way of collecting land rent from all landowners. To introduce we could set it at say, only 10% of the annual rent but over a reasonable period raise it to 50% -the highest rate of income tax - and at the same time abolish or reduce many other taxes. (Perhaps raise the thresh-hold for income tax with a personal allowance of £30k so that nobody earning less than £30k should pay no income tax). Eventually I would suggest that nothing less than 100% LBC should be adopted so that all of land rent is used to pay for public services and because it would make the economy more efficient (no valuable land kept idle by speculators, more urban farms and parks, less urban sprawl etc) we could not only easily afford to shift our economy to a more environmental approach but also pay a Citizen's Land Dividend to every adult and child.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Stuart is right - LVT (or LBC) is not a panacea - it will not replace capitalism. Neither will it cure cancer. We will need other policies to achieve both - but I believe it is an essential step towards a socialist, green society in which local people and communities can take control. See: <a href="http://www.labourland.org/" target="_blank">www.LabourLand.org</a> and for a non-socialist view of LVT <a href="http://www.theiu.org/" target="_blank">www.TheIU.org</a> <br>
<br><font size="6">China’s Gift To The World –</font> .<br>China is a growing super power. Her GDP expands each year at an amazing rate. The shift in the past 40 years from a communist, mainly agricultural economy to a communist-led, mixed public/private economy producing massive growth in industry has been nothing short of incredible. <br>
China has become the manufacturer of the world. Every child in the USA and Europe plays with toys and games that have been made in China and households have many goods that originated in Chinese factories.<br>China is truly a global player. <br>
This expansion in the international arena has led to economic prosperity for China - at a price. <br>The price is greater exposure to the World’s dysfunctional financial and economic systems where even in the so-called “prosperous West” (USA and Europe) - much poverty sits beside plenty, where many are left uneducated, where health programmes are often either unaffordable or do not match people’s needs, where many essential services (including much research for cures to illnesses) rely upon charities accosting people on the streets or advertising on TV for donations, where amid prosperity many people’s diets are inadequate, where it is common to find unemployed and homeless people, racial tensions are growing, where taxes on trade and incomes are far too high, crime is widespread and the prisons are full. <br>
The current world financial and economic crisis leaves China dangerously exposed. Chinese factories now face massive reductions in overseas demand for their goods and the whole economy suffers. <br>It must be possible to improve upon a system that produces such dire results.<br>
This present crisis is a symptom of the failure of the capitalist mode of production. That is not to say that the free market exchange and trade of goods and services between individuals, companies and indeed between countries, is intrinsically bad. This trade where we each produce and exchange more of what we excel in (preferably in a sustainable way) can only benefit mankind. <br>
Local production for local markets is also a desirable way of reducing huge transport costs and many adverse effects on our environment. This should be achieved by releasing local economies to play to their own strengths and not by creating artificial trade barriers whether they are taxes, duties and custom charges on imports or artificial barriers, such as laws prohibiting certain goods for reasons other than genuine safety or for ethical considerations (such as the international trade boycott on South African goods during the apartheid period). <br>
It must now be obvious to all, that the current capitalist mode of production as practiced in the West does have a fundamental flaw. Many Government leaders are happy to just blame the banking and financial systems and seek regulatory controls on future lending. I believe that the current crisis is caused by a much deeper underlying defect than a mere banking/credit problem. The fact that this crisis is not unique, that it is a part of a pattern of a regular circa 18 year cycle of booms and slumps must surely indicate that we are all ignoring a fundamental truth. A truth as important to economics as the law of gravity is to physics.<br>
Could it be that because of its unique history, culture, politics and intellect – that China could not only develop an economic model that gives it some protection from the current and future world trade downturns but actually sets the agenda for other major and emerging economies to follow?<br>
The answer to this question has to be a resounding “YES”!<br>Most economists failed to see the impending economic crash. <br>This is like saying that most rocket scientists failed to see that they had to produce enough power to overcome the Earth’s pull of gravity if they were ever to launch a satellite into orbit.<br>
How can economists, the practioners of a science that does nothing but study the production and distribution of wealth be so ignorant?<br>It can only be because there is a failure in their body of knowledge. An important factor that gets totally ignored, distorted or deliberately misconstrued.<br>
Ever since the dawn of civilisation, cities have always given people the opportunity to create surplus wealth. Craftsmen become specialised and hence more productive, trade increases, new tools are created, ideas are readily exchanged, knowledge grows and surplus time is devoted to the arts, sport and other cultural and leisure activities. As a city grows, people move in from the surrounding neighbourhoods. This creates a demand for space. Space for homes, factories, offices, shops, roads, railways, leisure activities etc. This growing demand creates a value for land. We call this land value “economic rent”. This value cannot be ignored. It exists as surely as the law of gravity. <br>
It is not the “rent” paid for the hire of a man-made item such as a building or hire car. “Economic rent” is the income that arises from land or natural resources. It is the value of the location of a building, or the extra natural fertility of a farmer’s field or the demand for a landing slot at an airport or the part of the spectrum used for mobile telephony.<br>
We all need land for our existence. <br>To create man-made wealth – our food, clothes, homes, workplaces, transport etc we need three distinct factors of production: namely Labour – human mental and physical exertion, Capital – man-made wealth used to create more wealth and finally Land and Natural Resources. Without land and natural resources we can create nothing. <br>
The return to Labour is wages. And if I take your wages you become my slave. The return to Capital is interest or profit. If I defer spending my wages and instead buy tools, then surely I am entitled to a return on my capital. The return to Land and Natural resources is economic rent. <br>
So the question arises, who has the right, morally rather than legally, to enjoy this land value?<br>In Western economies it is usually accepted that the owners of land have the right to collect the economic rent of land. But on what basis do these landowners make this claim? Did they build the planet with their own labour? Of course not! They and their ancestors have grabbed the land using strength, guile, cunningness, bribery and military conquest. They have then influenced governments to pass legislation that gives their “ownership” the force of law.<br>
In its constitution, China recognises that land belongs to all. But even in China the collection of economic rent is only partially addressed.<br>One of China’s founding fathers, Dr Sun Yat-sen advocated the collection of economic rent. Karl Marx and Engels described how the rent of land should be used to pay for public services in their writings including “The Communist Manifesto”.<br>
Hong Kong has collected a part of economic rent for over a century. All land in Hong Kong is leased and the income used to partly meet government expenditure. Because of the nature of the leases and methods of auctioning them, not all the economic rent is collected publicly and a large part remains in private hands. But nevertheless they did manage to build a new Metro and a new airport from land values rather than resort to taxing trade or people’s incomes.<br>
If China adopted a policy for collecting all land rent, many advantages would flow. The value of buildings and other improvements would be ignored and only the location value collected. Taxes on trade or incomes could be reduced or even abolished. Economic rent could be used for funding infrastructure improvements which over time would add to surrounding land values and thus increase the public income naturally. <br>
Few entrepreneurs would pay to keep land idle for speculative reasons and so city land would be developed comprehensively, facilitating the use of communal services such as transport and avoiding the unnecessary spread of urbanisation into the surrounding countryside – urban sprawl. With towns and cities becoming more efficient, business growth would be sustained and the whole economy would become more efficient. <br>
The current world economic crisis originated in the USA with banks lending money to people on low incomes (subprime mortgages). It was only when land prices reduced that the world-wide banks had a problem and soft loans for land speculation in other countries also began to cause economic collapse. So the world needs to address the land problem as well as a banking problem.<br>
Collecting the economic rent of land is the way to do it!<br> <br>Dave Wetzel<br><a href="mailto:DaveWetzel42@googlemail.com" target="_blank">DaveWetzel42@googlemail.com</a><br>Tel: 0044 208 568 9004<br><br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2009/7/11 Mark Barrett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marknbarrett@googlemail.com" target="_blank">marknbarrett@googlemail.com</a>></span>
<div>
<div></div>
<div><br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div>LVT people - here below is a question for you from Stuart Hodkinson who is very active in Leeds, on land and housing issues, social centre campaign work and much more (see <a href="http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/people/shodkinson.html" target="_blank">http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/people/shodkinson.html</a> and <a href="http://www.autonomousgeographies.org/" target="_blank">http://www.autonomousgeographies.org/</a> ) Folks if we can have a discussion about this here to answer Stuart's point directly I'll happily forward results to him so he can see where we are going / coming from individuallly and collectively. Ie in the context of Local Sovereignty/ Real Democracy idea. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>"In respect of making land a key focus, I completely agree. Land enclosure is the basis of capitalism and dispossession. But a land tax implies retaining capitalism. I'm keen to learn more."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyone want to get the ball rolling?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cheers Mark </div>
<div> </div>
<div>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Stuart Hodkinson</b> <br>Dear Mark<br><br>I'm afraid I can't make it but thanks for the invite.<br><br>In respect of making land a key focus, I completely agree. Land enclosure is the basis of capitalism and dispossession. But a land tax implies retaining capitalism. I'm keen to leanr more.<br>
<br>stu<br>________________________________<br>From: Mark Barrett [<a href="mailto:marknbarrett@googlemail.com" target="_blank">marknbarrett@googlemail.com</a>]<br>Sent: 10 July 2009 11:05<br>To: Mark Brown; Massimo; Stuart Hodkinson; michael bakunin<br>
Subject: Fwd: Invite + Draft Agenda for 23rd July<br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div></div>
<div><br>Hi Everyone<br><br>Here is an invite for the 23rd July, our next CRD meeting for people to send out to their networks.<br><br>CRD MEETING THURSDAY 23rd JULY<br><br>The next CRD (Campaign for Real Democracy) meeting will be on the eve of Thursday 23rd July, from 6.30pm for a 7pm start. It will be held in the Guernica Tapestry round table space at the Whitechapel Gallery (77-82 Whitechapel High St, E1 Aldgate East tube). For more info, see: <a href="http://www.whitechapelgallery.org/exhibitions/the-bloomberg-commission-goshka-macuga-the-nature-of-the-beast" target="_blank">http://www.whitechapelgallery.org/exhibitions/the-bloomberg-commission-goshka-macuga-the-nature-of-the-beast</a><br>
<br>The purpose of CRD is to further develop our network of people to campaign for a genuine, democratic society (meaning: one based on inclusive, consensus based decision-making). Suggested items for the agenda are: (1) short discussion to prepare a bullet point list of the various obstacles to real democracy (2) info sharing about which local campaigns need our support (3) considering prospect of a formal "localists' union" (4) further discussion about possible demands for said union (in particular regarding land tenure) (5) if time (ie. in pub/cafe afterwards ;-) ) further discussion about eg Land Value Taxation (LVT), concept of clean slate/debt cancellation for 2012, making links with student and wider work-place struggles and other important questions relating to political economy and superstructure..<br>
<br>Please note, this meeting will be recorded as part of the Goshka Macuga's one year long art project "The Nature of the Beast". One creative proposal is that for each obstacle to real democracy identified, people are invited to make a paper "brick" and so create a collage wall to represent our collective response to the question posed.<br>
<br></div></div>Please let us know if you are planning to attend by emailing <a href="mailto:crdlondon@gmail.com" target="_blank">crdlondon@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:crdlondon@gmail.com" target="_blank">crdlondon@gmail.com</a>><br>
And to join the CRD mailing list, send your request to <a href="mailto:james@dogmanet.org" target="_blank">james@dogmanet.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:james@dogmanet.org" target="_blank">james@dogmanet.org</a>><br>
<br><br></div><br> </blockquote></div></div></div><br><br clear="all">
<div></div><br>-- <br>Best Wishes,<br><br>Dave<br><br>Dave Wetzel – CEO<br>"Transforming Communities".<br>Sustainable Transport Policies ▪ Public Finance with Social Inclusion ▪ Affordable Housing ▪ Economic Land Policies with Justice.<br>
<br>Tel: 0208 568 9004 <br>Intl:+44 208 568 9004<br><br>Mobile/Cellphone: 07715 32 29 26 <br>Intl: +44 7715 32 29 26<br><br>e-mail: <a href="mailto:davewetzel42@googlemail.com" target="_blank">davewetzel42@googlemail.com</a><br>
<br>40 Adelaide Terrace. Great West Road.<br>Brentford. LONDON. TW8 9PQ. UK<br>Web: <a href="http://www.labourland.org/" target="_blank">www.LabourLand.org</a><br></div><br><br clear="all">
<div></div><br></div></div><font color="#888888">-- <br>"We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet /Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.” <br></font></div><br><br clear="all">
<div></div><br>-- <br>"We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet /Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.” <br>