<div>Hi Robin</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for your message about LVT. I agree with you that we should devote a thread to the development of a clear statement of principle about land, economic rent and by way of comparison to our present tax system. More on that in last para of this mail. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But also, as you and others not on the original Project 2012 list have come into this debate *after* various discussions have already taken place, maybe I should clarify a few things about where this discussion has gone so far. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Since the beginning of this year, the idea of "Local Sovereignty" and "The Right to the City" was mooted, to which our LVT colleague Dave Wetzel, and others were contributors. Yes, this was on a point of political principle but we believe that this principle has certain, important ecological and social ramifications on a par with the economics. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>One way of describing what we are aiming for is a "decentralised, direct democratic and community focused political economy". </div>
<div> </div>
<div>My post today about benefits (aswell as the one about land rights, posted two days ago, see below this mail at ***) is, in this light just one aspect of how we might go about driving that (new political economy). Other subsidiary angles pursuant to this might include, as it has in our discussions thus far, examples of the (superstructural) need for a community owned / run building, a "local parliament" or "governing assembly" (with both revenue raising and executive spending powers), locally run banking facilities for direct capital injection into green enterprise schemes, all four possibly in every single local neighbourhood area. The Jay article that you took exception to, which is about appropriate scales of human organisation at each level (see <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6684542.ece" target="_blank">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6684542.ece</a> ) should really be read in the light of these ideas, as should Barry Finberg's welcome contribution to the last CRD meeting, at the Whitechapel Gallery (Barry's views on decentralisation, scale and the need for new, delegation powers upwards from the grassroots, as an antidote to the excessive centralisation and (basically) rule of the state-corporate leviathan we now face. Likewise the need for a conciousness shift to see real democracy as potentially our liberation, rather than the domain of "do-gooders with too much time on their hands". </div>
<div> </div>
<div>As always, we are here considering the need for top down structures (as mentioned in the preceding para), what one might term "the new constitution" in tension with the need for an open agenda for bottom up autonomy. For such a newly autonomous culture to flourish, and towards a democratic blossoming, the constitution should be aimed but at the same time, a bit like a sail needs tension - not too much (top down control freakery, potentially fast moving but dangerous, eg turbo capitalism) - nor too little (equals flapping sail, doldroms, stagnation, or just scary chaos etc). </div>
<div> </div>
<div>While on the topic, one other necessary local structure we might want to consider - and this is essentially a feminist point - is the locally run creche, for parents living and/or working in the area under the new scheme (and/or, the need for a new, democratic school in every locality?). Thoughts on this anyone? What might said school look like? ;-)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Robin as you know I am in agreement with you about LVT, and I am looking forward to working with you in the sub committee of the Professional Land Reform Group (PLRG, a separate initiative). But about your primary point: I am of the mind that the two; political and economic principle, regarding collective ownership of the state (politics) by us, and control of its executive power to tax and spend (economics) should go together. That said, I agree with you that the benefits idea I've set out below comes *from* the politics, and so I agree with you that the LVT point should come first. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>So yes, let's put aside the politics on another thread and develop the LVT idea, both as a standalone (eg perhaps for the forthcoming PLRG meeting) aswell as to, perhaps, go with these politics (for those that feel moved to work on them further). Please do therefore draft a short child friendly statment about the economic principles, from first base (but without reference to benefits); this is much needed!!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But also, thoughts on the benefits idea set out below Robin's message. much appreciated as i am trying to develop a manifesto and would welcome any comments. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best wishes</div>
<div>Mark</div>
<div> </div>
<div>***wouldn't it all be much easier if there were lots of places around the country / continent / world where people who are abused / isolated / marginalised and alienated could go, to live differently and so avoid the harshness of the capitalist system, and contribute to the building of a new society. <br>
<br>history is always a double edged sword; i was in Ely today, hometown of oliver cromwell and it got me thinking again about the new settlement he helped england to achieve, for all his faults in betraying the levellers, diggers and co. and how what we need today is also a new settlement. for people above parliament as then it was parliament above king. and the stained glass in the cathedral there is quite something, rare in the uk as henry viii's vandals destroyed much of the country's glass art. and then, that in turn got me thinking about his legacy, along side cromwell's, how though he managed to rest independence from the catholic church he also destroyed the spiritual culture of monasticism which had prevailed over the whole of europe and further afield for at least a millennia. for all its faults, that was a institutionalised force for simplicity, humility, prayer, fasting and communal living with brotherly and sisterly love. <br>
<br>so yes, wouldn't it be better for there to be places where the usual rules don't apply, community places where spirituality is pursued, where drugs, prostitution and war are not on the agenda, but with other rules, some communities for families, some for less traditional pairings, some for celibates etc. ie kind of like monasteries but 21st C, kind of like kibbutz but for eco/ spiritual living. <br>
<br>more than anything that is what i am fighting for - the renclosure of land for community living going full circle with the dissolution and enclosures act, but not just here in the uk, this settlement needs to be won everywhere, for one people, the stewards or "real caliphate". [the actual meaning of caliphate is from the arabic khilafa, which means stewardship]<br>
<br>the way i see it there are a whole people desiring to live differently, and that desire needs to be tapped for our spiritual and ecological, political salvation. we who are everywhere, and who together hold the necessary ingredients to hot house a really democratic gift culture, transforming the rest of the world in the process. <br>
<br>a new nation needing land rights to be born, to make self determination. </div>
<div> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2009/8/4 Robin Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robinsmith3@googlemail.com" target="_blank">robinsmith3@googlemail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">Dear Mark<br><br>May I call on us all to commence by putting aside the politics, until<br>the economic principles have been agreed upon and made so clear that<br>
even a small child could understand them?<br><br>I think this is what you are calling for. But these principles are not<br>at all clear, I see no agreement nor have I heard any decicions. Is it<br>possible to proceed with the practicalities and policy (political<br>
decisions) when we do not yet understand the fundamental principles at<br>stake? Is it not true that if we insist on proceeding from this point<br>of confusion, discontent and destruction can be the only result short<br>of a miracle?<br>
<br>I made this point very badly(apologies) at the Festival Hall meeting.<br>I felt the more vocal members were denying this approach was sound and<br>that practicalities are foremost.<br><br>What am I proposing? I will assert that until the private collection<br>
of the rents of monopoly (land title holders, interest on debt,<br>cartels, unions, etc) are outlawed by our community, there will always<br>be a need to supplement the resulting "un-privileged" and impoverished<br>
with benefits, at great cost to society on the whole, and tax free to<br>the private collectors of these rents. Democracy will be there but<br>economic survival will come first.<br><br>In my limited time here, this is the first time I have seen any<br>
movement with the heart and courage it will take to inspire those with<br>the real power, the people, to awaken and finally re-establish the<br>advance of this great society?<br><br>Can it be done without starting from points of certainty? The economic<br>
principles that identify the nature of wealth, and the laws of its<br>production and distribution. That hold the key to justice, peace and<br>prosperity.<br><br>Brgds<br>Robin.<br><br>2009/8/4 Mark Barrett <<a href="mailto:marknbarrett@googlemail.com" target="_blank">marknbarrett@googlemail.com</a>>:<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div>> Hi everyone<br>><br>> As it's been reported in the press this week that a quarter of the UK budget<br>> is now being spent on benefits, could we please have some list discussions<br>> about how this money might be harnessed to create a really democratic<br>
> society, or to use the phrase previously embraced, greater local sovereignty<br>> (LS)?<br>><br>> I've sent this message to the three lists above as I've found them to be the<br>> most fruitful in terms of discussions on the topic of building a just<br>
> society. If anyone has any other lists they can recommend for this end, pls<br>> let me know. On this subject please can people hit reply to all so that all<br>> three lists can take part in any debate that ensues?<br>
><br>> Benefits & Productivity<br>><br>> For me this is the next stage of productivity in the industrial economy, the<br>> pursuit of a really democratic culture with full employment, freely chosen.<br>
> So I had this idea that people could do a few hours work each week - what<br>> one colleague has dubbed a 'mini-job' - in return for payments. Say, an hour<br>> for every £10-15 they receive. Key thing is that this work should be chosen<br>
> BY the recipient, in collaboration with a local community of their choice,<br>> so that the work allows the individual to do what they would rea;y like to<br>> do rather than have the state force something on them as is the case with<br>
> neo-liberal workfare programmes now being experimented with. Obviously these<br>> kinds of decisions would need different, decentralised benefits<br>> 'purse-string' structures - essentially a breakdown of the currently<br>
> unwieldy and wasteful nationalised benefits programme into a really<br>> democratic, ie each local community owned, public service. Of course there<br>> will be lots of questions about how this will work in practice, which is why<br>
> I am posting about it now, but for me the huge benefit (sic) in this is that<br>> it will allow state expenditure to be directed towards the development of<br>> locally based creativity, community fabric building, green jobs, real<br>
> democracy, individual and collective entrepreneurialship, and a re-embrace<br>> of the dignity of work. It will also allow people to wean themselves<br>> off benefits as they develop new skills, improved CVs, greater self<br>
> assertion and confidence, not to mention the huge health benefits in terms<br>> of tackling isolation, depression, social breakdown at the root. It will get<br>> people off their backsides but not Tebbit "On Yer Bike" style, rather Rumi<br>
> "Let the beauty that we love be what we do"..<br>><br>> The way I see it, alongside the present economy, communities should be able<br>> to compete with one another for labour, by simply embracing a cultural<br>
> stance. A mixed economy, two parallel economies inteplaying with one<br>> another rather than this monoculture of labour everywhere competing for<br>> capital, or else the indignity of the dole.<br>><br>> Here's the story about 186 billion benefits.<br>
> <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5962510/Unsustainable-social-security-spending-equal-to-a-quarter-of-goverments-budget.html" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5962510/Unsustainable-social-security-spending-equal-to-a-quarter-of-goverments-budget.html</a><br>
><br>> Thoughts anyone?<br>><br>> Love<br>> Mark<br>><br></div></div>> _______________________________________________<br>> Campaignforrealdemocracy mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Campaignforrealdemocracy@lists.aktivix.org" target="_blank">Campaignforrealdemocracy@lists.aktivix.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/campaignforrealdemocracy" target="_blank">https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/campaignforrealdemocracy</a><br>><br>><br><br><br><br>--<br>Economics Comment<br>
<a href="http://gco2e.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://gco2e.blogspot.com/</a><br><br>Work<br><a href="http://www.systemicfiscalreform.org/" target="_blank">http://www.systemicfiscalreform.org/</a><br><br>About Me<br>
<a href="http://fon.gs/robinsmithme/" target="_blank">http://fon.gs/robinsmithme/</a><br></blockquote></div><br>