Why pay?

  You don't need to be told that, no matter whether Labour, Tories or LibDems win power, nothing really changes for the better. Nor that millions no longer vote because it's so pointless. But what you might not know is that there is a way to stamp out the same old problems for good – along with the same old politicians forever talking the same old humbug about 'solving' them. How about a brand new, radically different, politician-free system guaranteed to provide all the top-quality food, goods and services you ever need, throughout your entire life, at  no cost whatsoever?

  Cornflakes, computers, cars, housing, rail travel, water, electricity, gas, phones, TV etc. all for free. You're now possibly thinking: "Rubbish! What new system can possibly bring this?" Well, prepare to be confused and annoyed by a word we have been conditioned, by years of disinformation, to immediately blow a fuse upon hearing. It's socialism. If you thought this has been tried already – and deceitful politicians and newspaper editors have done their damnedest to convince people it has – in fact, genuine socialism has never existed. In dictionaries, socialism is: "Common ownership of the means of production and distribution". That is, mineral mines, oil fields, manufacturing, utilities, trains, etc., owned by the people. But at no time, in no country, has any population directly owned and controlled these productive assets. Private and/or state owners have always possessed and run these, and consequently – surprise, surprise – they have benefited most.

  Does asset ownership really matter?  Absolutely. Whoever owns the means of living decides the manner of living. Capitalist possession has brought inadequate or no essential services due to profit-making and cost cutting; more cancers and illness due to pollution and unsafe food; excessive or dislikeable work; homelessness; ageism; too little free time; burglaries; inequality; unemployment; escapist drug abuse; racism; wars; environmental destruction; mortgages, bills, rent, taxes etc. With genuine socialism, all those worries would end – not just get a little better. Take cash troubles. If we all owned tomorrow what a few do today, money would be obsolete. Directly owning those vital assets mean we'd also own all the food, goods and services these provide. And as one of the new collective owners, you'd then have a right to these as required.

  That is why real socialism brings free access to whatever you need. Free access would not mean people grabbing everything in sight because, while work will obviously still have to be done to produce things, with genuine socialism the whole purpose of this work would have then changed from today's provision of goods and services strictly for sale (which causes artificial shortages and exclusion for the non-wealthy), to provision of goods and services purely to meet needs.

  No more money might seem bizarre – even frightening – but what's it for? It's for buying things that others own, and those owning what people need most – capitalists – benefit most. We are led to see money as offering freedom from worries, when in reality, it deliberately and barbarically maintains them. By deviously making money essential for life, asset owners can then compel those able to work to become their employees. Governments help out in this (e.g., by imposing paltry and hard-to-get benefits, and ensuring children are 'educated' to unquestioningly accept money, wages, profits, etc.). Workers end up buying what they together provided in the first place! Working long and hard, they can't earn enough to quit for good, since if they could, capitalists would then be unable to use them to make profits. Money is basically just one part of a massive scam to control and exploit the majority.

  Obviously, cash is needed while this scam goes on, but if we want a far more agreeable, healthier, plentiful free-access society, we need only take care who we support and how we vote. Most people really would gain from real socialism. Even those now with reassuring incomes and savings would benefit from this new system – not experience worse lives as a result of millions of others obtaining better ones. But after a lifetime deliberately hooked on must-have money, some people may find this radical change to cashless co-operation hard to take in. But weigh up the facts, examine the criticisms, and true socialism is seen to be infinitely better.

  For instance, you might think free access to whatever we need must mean harder work. Not so. Ending capitalist employment also ends its unemployment, so millions of people unwanted because bosses can't profit from using them, can then contribute. And with no more exclusive assets to protect, or money, millions more soldiers, solicitors, bureaucrats, etc. and those just tinkering with cash in retailing, banking, insurance etc., would all then be freed to add something of real value. What's more, many repetitive and unpleasant jobs could be done by sophisticated automation, which just won't happen today unless it's "cost-effective". So, for these reasons, real socialism would actually bring a far shorter working week, and jobs people enjoy – never again are forced to do for money, or by governments.

  For now, work is for profits, which means employees aren't paid the true value of their labour. Someone working 5 days may have done enough after 2 or 3 to cover their wages, but is kept at it so major shareholders can sponge off profits and thereby enjoy relaxed opulent lives. Even a 'good' boss must take advantage of workers to buy better equipment, premises, advertising, etc. to remain competitive. So, to some extent, all employees are cheated.

  Exploitation of workers is unavoidable with capitalism, as without it, the system won't work. This in-built abuse happens here now, just as it did in a so-called 'socialist' Russia. In reality, old Soviet Russia was capitalist too. It had employers (the state), leaders, money, wages, profits, inequality etc. None of these would exist if genuine socialism was established –  fact elitist 'left-wingers' choose to ignore even today. Such political activists claim to be 'socialist' while calling for "Full employment", "Strong trade unions", "Higher top-earner taxes" and "Nationalisation". But what they are therefore supporting is capitalism continuing, since waged work, labour bargaining, taxation and even full-blown state ownership of productive assets are all features of a capitalist system. Even replacing private bosses with state bosses changes nothing, as work will still be profit-driven.

  These would-be reformers may hope to change private enterprise into something better, but they'll never succeed. The Labour Party has proved this. They, too, wanted to keep reforming capitalism so we gradually moved towards socialism. But in the end, it was unchangeable capitalism which reformed Labour – into yet another 'New' Tory party!

  These "let's-make-it-nicer" tinkerers are quick to claim capitalism can help those suffering if more money is taken off the rich, or if it's governed 'properly'. This may sound good, but it's just tosh that ignores the only way capitalism can operate – exploiting assets in the most profitable way. If firms are made to pay higher taxes for state services and welfare, pay better wages, use the best food ingredients etc, then they can't compete in a global market. As profits suffer, businesses go bust. Investment shifts overseas. The economy fails. Public services collapse. Unemployment and poverty rise. Even more people suffer, and the government of the day get kicked out. So, no matter who governs, capitalism can never be run to benefit a suffering majority, as majority exploitation is fundamentally inevitable – for the chief benefit of a selfish minority.

  Due to this fundamental bias, there is one party that wants not to govern – but to enable voters to both elect themselves to power, as well as obtain direct ownership of productive assets, by choosing real socialism (once socialism's established, its purpose served, this party will then cease to exist). Freed from capitalism's asset-owner bias, money madness and marketplace wastefulness, aren't we perfectly capable of running our own lives? Why shouldn't we all decide how resources should be used (e.g., through occasional referendums) – rather than have these momentous decisions made by a self-seeking privileged few, aided by two-faced puppet politicians?
If you want a far better future, having had enough of capitalism's never-ending troubles and the contemptuous electoral game politicians play among themselves, where identical candidates from identical parties chase votes to deliver an identically odious outcome (a game they privately call Who's Best At Duping), then please get in contact for further details about real socialism.

M.Hess

communalise the land

John Hancox, director of community food organisation The Commonwealth Orchard, wants the Scottish Government to encourage bodies such as the Forestry Commission, health boards or the Crown Estate, as well as private landowners, to make surplus land available for growing food. It is argue that bodies such as councils, health boards, power companies and conservation organisations all own large amounts of unused land, some of which is derelict or unused and measures can be introduced to provide people with space to grow fruit and vegetables or establish community gardens.

  While there may be a legal requirement to retain land in public ownership a presumption of a community right to use land assets and utilise unused land should be considered, Mr Hancox suggests "We believe that much land is needlessly unproductive, and would urge the Scottish Government to encourage ways to allow people to use land more intelligently," he said. "Making land available to poorer Scots offers them a way to grow healthy, accessible local food, and build skills and food security at a local level. In our urban areas such as Glasgow there is a lot of land which is largely passive and unused, while in rural areas, patterns of land ownership which concentrate land into relatively few hands also mean that availability of land for ordinary people is scarce."

Scottish common ownership

Scotland has a tradition of common property rights. They include rights arising from commonties, grazing rights, peat-cutting rights, salmon rights, rights to use harbours and foreshore, mineral rights, sporting use rights, ownership rights, rights to usufruct, rights of access to resources and rights of passage over land and inland water. Commonty in Scots Law means; a piece of land in which two or more persons have a common right. A widespread example of such common property is living in a  tenement. Those who own or rent a flat also hold other parts of the property,  e.g. the stairs or close (and have its common responsibility - your turn to clean the stairs!) and access to the communal back-garden  It does not mean state-owned or public-land but could be parish/burgh land.

It is estimated that half the land area of Scotland was still common land in 1500. They provided areas of free access. It was not a "free for all" but their use was covered by sets of rules that were well established and understood locally. No-one could make financial profit. The resources of the commonty were solely for personal uses, and individuals could not, for instance, cut timber for sale or rent grazing to someone else. By the mid 19th century, virtually all this common land had been divided into the private property of neighbouring land owners. Subsistence farming could not survive without access to the resources that the commons traditionally supplied and their loss was a major factor in forcing local people to abandon the way of life that had sustained generations before them and join the mass of people leaving the Scottish countryside. "Ferm touns" or collective farm settlements, of Scotland’s subsistence agriculture, which survived in northern areas into the 19th century, were a traditional arrangement that typically could not have survived without the resources provided by a commonty which provided many of the resources needed by a community at no cost apart from the inhabitants’ own labour. The commonty also offered a degree of flexibility to meet fluctuations in population or food supply, that was not possible within the formal restrictions of privately held land. The image of commonties as barren wastes was the perspective of the land-owning class, who were seeking to do away with commonties and the "ferm touns" they served.

A green is a small area of common land usually closely associated with a settlement, whether a town or village or single clachan. These greens provided an area where cows could be milked, markets and other events held, garments bleached and a host of other common and communal activities carried out. The greens associated with many fishing communities were used for the drying and repairing of nets, the salting and drying of fish and other related activities. One specific type of green were the overnight and river crossing stances associated with traditional routes and drove roads.

A loan was a common route through private property to and from an area of common land or some other ‘public’ place. The distinction between this and a right of way was that the loan was itself common land and not just a right of use. Their former existence of others is indicated by street and  place names, like Loanhead.

A moss is a wet area where peats can be dug and historically many were used in common by local inhabitants. Common mosses were the same form of shared property. The common status of surviving common mosses has often gone unnoticed because they have been of relatively little use since the decline of peat cutting in the eastern and central Highlands.

Rigs were narrow strips of cultivated land, sometimes up to around 15 metres wide. Traditionally, adjacent rigs were used by different cultivators and the rigs periodically re-allocated between them. This system was known as runrig. Lands lying runrig were invariably associated with an area of rough ground or hill land that was also shared in common. These two types of land were the longstanding basis of farming in Scotland before the Improvements of the 18th  and 19th centuries. Originally, many areas of runrig, together with their shared hill ground, were held by two or more proprietors. Each owned a number of rigs, which were interspersed with the rigs of the other owners and each owner had an undivided share of the ownership of the common hill. The common hill was thus a commonty and the runrig lands equivalent to a commonty on arable land.(Bishopbriggs was originally Bishoprigs)

Burghs were established in Scotland from the 12th century. The creation of Royal Burghs was to provide the Crown with a convenient counter-balance to a feudal aristocracy which threatened to assume supreme power in the State. It was necessary that the King’s burgesses should have absolute freedom from the jurisdiction of the neighbouring baron and should have an adequate patrimony. The Kings, therefore, granted wide privileges and vast territorial estates for the common good use of their chartered burghs. In 1617 the jurisdiction of the Magistrates of Rutherglen extended from Polmadie on the south side of the river Clyde to Carron; the entire parish of Ayr at one time belonged to the Burgh of Ayr; Aberdeen once possessed lands which extended many miles in circuit round Aberdeen, granted by the Kings of Scotland, for the use of the town. Edinburgh’s common land, the Burgh Muir had a total area of approximately 5 square miles. The last open area of common land remaining of the Burgh Muir is now Bruntsfield Links. The Border towns still retain the tradition of the annual Common Ridings, reasserting the boundaries of it.

 Even the towns which did not hold their charters from the Crown, but from the neighbouring baron, possessed wide territories of commonity. The lands over, which property rights and privileges of use were held by the burgh were the burgh commons. The loss of the burgh commons stemmed in large part from an Act of the Scots Parliament in 1469. This Act had suppressed the popular election of Councils and led to the dominance of burghs by local land owners and wealthy merchants. The evidence in the reports shows how these land owners and merchants, with their relations and allies, had appropriated the burgh commons to themselves through generous land grants and cheap feus.  Labour politician Thomas Johnson wrote extensively about Burgh commons and its loss, being a sympathiser of "municipal socialism" and nationalisation

Crown Commons were land held directly by the Crown and are thought to have originated out of the once extensive Royal Hunting Forests. The lands that became Crown Commons were areas within those forests where traditional communal use, which had predated the establishment of the forests, continued after the system of forests broke down in the medieval period. While these Commons were most heavily used by people living nearby, anyone unconnected with the area could also use them. Crown Commons had certainly largely disappeared by the early 19th century. An Act in 1828 allowed for their division and the land was then shared out between the adjoining land owners.

Crofters’ Common Grazings are an example of a common property resource where legislation has been used to safeguard equitable access to the resource by those entitled to a share in it. Many, but not all crofts have two parts: the in-bye land - arable ground on which the crofter’s house is usually built; and rough grazing held in common with neighbouring crofts, usually a much larger area of rough hill pasture – the common grazings. While the land involved is mostly owned by private land owners, the local crofting communities have secure legal rights of occupation and use. This is as a result of the Crofting legislation of 1886 and 1891 that followed a period of riots, rent strikes, political agitation, land raids and government commissions of inquiry in the aftermath of the Highland Clearances. crofting common grazings still cover a substantial part of the Highlands and Islands - 541,750 hectares or around 7% of Scotland’s total land area. The management of common grazings is governed by regulations which are administered by local committees appointed by the grazings shareholders. There are some 853 registered grazing committees and a further 200 unregulated grazings. The main functions of these committees has until recently been to administer, manage and improve the grazings primarily for livestock production

During recent decades, an increasing number of rural communities mostly in the Highlands and Islands have become directly involved in the ownership and management of land within their locality through purchasing, leasing or some form of management arrangement. It is estimated that over 94 community land trusts control around 130,242 hectares which amounts to some 1.98 percent of rural land. Many of the early instances of this were remote rural communities whose members were largely the tenants of a single large private estate and who set up a collective body which bought the property on the open market, preferring to be their own landlord than have another new private landlord. In a number of celebrated cases (Assynt, Eigg and Knoydart), community purchases took place when the private land owner had gone bankrupt or run into financial difficulties and the community was able to negotiate with the main creditors or the financial receivers. To purchase properties, local communities form a democratic body with an appropriate legal structure to represent the whole community or make use of an existing one.

SOURCES
http://www.scottishcommons.org/docs/commonweal_1.pdf
http://www.scottishcommons.org/docs/commonweal_2.pdf
http://www.scottishcommons.org/docs/commonweal_3.pdf