Ironically we now know that the removal of the hedges and patches of trees was devastating where it occurred and would have had horrendous effects had it occurred on the scale these men wished. It gets rid of the pollinators vital for plant pollination, shelter and shade for farm animals, the birds which eat insect pests, and breaks in fields. Allowing pests to run rampant.
Good work. It still bothers my mind, how nobody thought, that simply limiting import food, and not taxing any farm under 20 hectares, as well as allowing them to process their own produce is sorting the problem. I am saying this as someone who tried it and succeeded already in the first year. Of course doing sales 'privately'. So the bureaucracy wasn't killing it.
Not sure if I comprehended correctly because there were a lot of words, but taking ownership away from farmers distances the manager from the land. Not a good idea. It also relies on utmost competency and trust in those at the top. Not a good idea also. Also once formalised procedures immediately take on a sterility and lose reactivity. Again not good.
They don't intend to farm the land.. they intend to starve the population.. Every communist takeover does the same thing.. The communist takeover of China..The Great Chinese Famine was a man made famine that occurred between 1959 and 1961 in the People's Republic of China. It is widely regarded as the deadliest famine and one of the greatest man-made disasters in human history, with an estimated death toll due to starvation that ranges in the tens of millions
At the time I think the majority of farmers were tenants, rather than owning the land they farmed. So, taking farms into state ownership would not have meant taking ownership from the majority of farmers. Presumably the intent was that some of the farmers would have remained as 'managers'. Don't get me wrong, I agree that it still sounds like an idea that would have been tricky to pull off.
Have you heard about agricultural cooperatives in England? The shares they emit function exactly like a share in a company. Why don't you organize your farming industry in this way on community level? You can do that also with the instruments and machines. It's really not that hard, if you want to do it.
Wouldn't the issue of excessive rents be addressable by using a land value tax or having the agricultural land Inheritance tax exception only applicable if worked say 9 years out of the last 10? Then there would be financial pressure to keep land as productive or actively used as possible to compete with other agricultural landlords by lower rents and or more improved land. To avoid a tax flight situation, the tax could be passed on between companies similar to VAT based on percentage ownership with a personal allowance on the tax where a British citizen's first 2 million GBP in land value isn't taxed. The current situation of rich people using land as a tax free intergenerational capital transfer vehicle is shameful.
A land value tax would make farming uneconomical. I have no idea why people would think taxing farmers more would make farming more viable. Farming creates value by creating and extracting value from land above its price. A tax by the state to take away all the value return is just feudalism to the bureaucracy.
@@SurmaSampo I'm talking about taxing people who own farmland and not farming it when they die. Those people should sell up or rent it affordably to people who will actually farm it.
@@siskinedge A land value tax taxes land based on its economic value. The more valuable the land is due to market forces or productivity improvements the more tax is collected. What you now claim to be advocating for is a penalty on unproductive land not a land value tax. It is in fact the opposite of a land value tax as unused unproductive land declines in value over time. Land value is closely tied to productivity and proximity to productive infrastructure.
@SurmaSampo you don't understand by the sound software it. All taxes are shifted from wages and business profits to unproductive rents. The farmer would be ahead if they were using the land for the highest and best use even if it is land intensive the location is not in high demand and so the land tax is low.
The idea of land nationalization was abandoned because of the potential cost of compensation. What was done instead was to nationalise the right to develop land ie the planning system- although the word was not used
Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population, according to new data shared with the Guardian that seeks to penetrate the secrecy that has traditionally surrounded land ownership.
Well, this is interesting. A comment about farmers being the dispossessed managers of the land when it’s nationalised does not include those who are tenant farmers already and work successfully to produce food. And farming is only a part of land use. What about the the millions of acres of golf courses, upland shooting, private estates, etc? Nationalising land means you can stop employment tax, VAT, leases, council tax, etc. and simply tax the land usage. All property would then be subject to an annual tax based on the productive use of land and national parks would be exempt. Farmers would pay on the basis of productivity - better, more efficient use would attract a significant subsidy. Duke of Sutherland would be taxed on his 300,000 acres accordingly. Businesses would pay less, houses would pay more (based on square metres), flats would pay a proportion of the land they stand on. Housing would become cheaper. Land would all be leased. Government would encourage productivity through reduced taxes. Start ups like small holdings would pay little until productivity/profit improved. Taxing land use seems better than taxing fuel use, insurance, Labour, etc. Everyone would know how much land is used by people because we have the Land Registry. MOD would pay massively so would try to reduce their land holdings. Crown Estates would be paying the government not receiving subsidies. Taxation would be based on productivity not ownership. And all land would belong to everyone so right to roam would be enshrined. Simple.
I'm wondering at the time of his writing if he was more experienced with massive amounts of real property owned by a landlord that was rented out to tenant farmers to actually cultivate, or if there was still a decent amount of small farms he had seen. I could see how if it was the former one would want to do away with a rent seeking group that acquired the land through things such as enclosure and royal gifts assuming what you said about them taking money is true. If you have what is effectively middlemen taking a cut of the profit and thus requiring the state to intervene for capital improvements to the land, you are effectively as the state subsidizing the landlords by paying for their improvements rather than making them take it out of their profits.
I think what many people did not get from this video is that the transfer of land ownership into public ownership is not taking away the abilities of the farmer to work their land. It is just a transfer of ownership from companies and corporations to the government. This allows the government to help maintain and manage the land, while providing ample wages to the farmers. This would help to eliminate risks of investing in farms be minimized as the government would help to streamline production. Corporations do this already to a more limited extent and they put all the risks on the farmer while still being able to be bailed out by the government. If you believe that you can't trust the government, know that agriculture and many other industries operate at a loss and are kept afloat by subsidies. Ownership should be thought of as a landlord-tenant relationship, except the government would be providing more funds and ensuring that the farmer and his workers are looked after without rent payments. Tax burdens would be distributed among farmers, and with the amount of subsidies already, these would only increase a nominal amount. This scenario also assumes that farmers and workers in general have more power and influence in unions or co-ops to stop the government from overstepping. Vietnam is a communist country, a developing country at that, and their co-op system is massively successful. If you want to compare this to a bunch of dirty commies and the Soviet Union, note that the USSR went from a society of peasants to beating the United States in the Space race in around 50 years. This is not to downplay that mismanagement of agriculture in the Soviet Union, but to note that there is more than just 1 way to organize labor and farming labor than just capitalism and farming is failing under capitalism at securing any financial security for the workers.
I'd really like to see you do a video on the first agricultural revolution - the one that was 10,000 years ago, when we slowly switched from hunting and gathering to farming. Very good videos, my friend 👍
Arguably, the private ownership of land actually allows for security on the land of a loan is needed to improve the farm. Eg. New machinery or infrastructure
Yet another terrific video, thanks. No-one else is doing anything like this. So useful. 2 things to add. 1) Arguments for land nationalisation were surprisingly widespread from the late 19C to mid 20C. What would be a far left position now was much more mainstream and espoused by Liberals as well as socialists of various kinds, all appalled by the terrible wastefulness and privelege inherent in feudal landlordism. Brett Christophers discusses this in Ch. 2 of his excellent *The New Enclosure*. 2) Nationalisation of land would surely be a good thing today , a kind of 'Hall-lite' approach with existing tenants keeping their farms, and only land holdings above a certain acreage (500 acres?) liable to be nationalised: better access to farming, prevents concentration of private ownership, enables land improvement and a national agricultural policy.
He literally said that the land should be taken from the farmers, some of them should be evicted immediately, and then the state should determine who is allowed to cultivate and how much land. Of course, the leftists would immediately settle in migrants, evict all the white domiciled population because they hate all European and white population. Literally the whole point of that project is the nationalization of all the land and then the state determines who has the right to cultivate the land. If a farmer has a large plot of land, then the state comes and takes it away and can do whatever he wants with it, for example to settle migrants and evict the white population. The state can decide whatever it wants if it has the property, and it is not the farmer or PEOPLE who owns the land, if the land is in the hands of the state because the state is populated by migrants, that means they have the same right to that land, delusional.....
If ownership of land is taken away from farmers I doubt it will even take a year before our gov decides that we don’t need to eat and instead we need to use that land to house migrants.
@@kieran4434 nobody is saying to take away land from farmers. All land will belong to the state/government/people. Farmers will need to remain productive and seek profit. They will be subsidised as they are now. Just won’t ‘own’ the land they work so can’t sell it to build houses or anything else. They will lease it instead in return for subsidies. The more productive they are the less they pay and the more they are subsidised.
@@iscadean6038Communism in its same form. They snatch the land from the peasants and nationalize everything, then they decide who can take and cultivate a plot of land, in the best case a couple of corporations will have control over all the arable land. Of course, since we are talking about leftists, then you can be convinced that the regime will give the land to settle migrants, while the domicile white population will move out.
@@iscadean6038He literally said that the land should be taken from the farmers, some of them should be evicted immediately, and then the state should determine who is allowed to cultivate and how much land. Of course, the leftists would immediately settle in migrants, evict all the white domiciled population because they hate all European and white population. Literally the whole point of that project is the nationalization of all the land and then the state determines who has the right to cultivate the land. If a farmer has a large plot of land, then the state comes and takes it away and can do whatever he wants with it, for example to settle migrants and evict the white population. The state can decide whatever it wants if it has the property, and it is not the farmer or PEOPLE who owns the land, if the land is in the hands of the state because the state is populated by migrants, that means they have the same right to that land, delusional.....
On my channel, there is a free audiobook, "The Outline Of Sanity" by GK Chesterton. If you'd like a literary/spiritual analysis of an alternative to capitalist or socialist monopolization based on private property, it'll be right up your (admittedly narrowly defined) alley.
My new favourite channel. You only ever loose me on the climate stuff, Listen to John r Christy University Huntsville Alabama. He built the Best temperature record available today along with Roy Spencer. It quite the eye opener!
The Crown has given the land to the "Landed Gentry". The King should seize the land that is not in use, or requires subsidies. How did the Railways of the UK get a "right of way", and thus start the "Industrial Revolution"? There are remedies there.
I think there might be something to be gained by starting a slow process of replacing income tax with rent (since the rent collecting industry doesn't add much to property - apart from occasional maintenance). That would mean picking a set of land holdings with good rent yield potential (so maybe those that already run that way, maybe) and using that to learn from (either that it's a sow's ear, and can't be made into a silk purse, or maybe that it turns out there are ways of making it work well). Then iterate. Grand schemes to marshall everything are too risky. I'm assuming that things like the ecological consequences of land use would be viewed differently today - as something of value, basically. You'd want expropriation with compensation, but compensation that's only available for "active income" (i.e. capitalistic) investment, not "passive income". It would probably also be best to give the original owner a big enough rent discount to amount to priority as far as things like peoples homes go. (Try to let people keep their homes. People are quite attached to their homes.) The idea is that you'd get a little boost in the right kinds of investment, in general, that helped to make the process worth pursuing further. _Replace_ taxation (start deleting the bottom tax brackets) to the extent that rents can do that. Maybe a further feature might be to run several experiments at once (at an experimental scale, so that if the wheels fall off it's not too much of a disaster). Let the small farmer feeling they're doing fine come up with their own version of what would work, and try that out too. (They're the real experts, after all.) Sell your land to the state, get a reasonably favourable leasehold on it for long enough to amount to secure tenure in practical terms (maybe ten years renewable?), and allow the option of doing things your way to be properly measured (with allowance for disputing the sensibility of the measurements). I had the thought (and found it's an old idea) mainly seeing what seems to be what's happening to everyone's housing situation, and concluding that if you distill the problem down to its essence, the problem is one of "passive income". It's interesting to see it's also an old idea as far as farming goes, so this is just a sketchy set of ideas on the fly. (Much more complicated topic.)
I think a responsible farmer who owns the freehold of his or her land, is the best option for most farms. I do think that a tenant farmer paying rent to the state, is as good as paying it to a company or a private landlord, I wouldn't trust the state to invest in that land though.
That’s correct. Freehold simply means you are free from costs for using it. In the UK it is HM Government, HM Loyal Opposition, HM Armed Forces etc etc
Ah! yes of course. Farms like the prairies in USA. Something like the size of a county? Absolutely nuts. We already have the ongoing destruction of the typical UK countryside which in part protected the ecology. It also forced farmers to rotate their crops such that they did not destroy the soil. Massive mono culture farming destroys nature and destroys the soil and relies on inputs to fertilise etc etc.
If youre thinking about collectivization of farming in the USSR, thats nothing like this. This was more establishing the State as landlord and land management/planning, with farming to operate pretty much as it did.
Who owns the land . ?? Interesting point here . Isnt a thing called a peppercorn rent paid the families of the lords and barons when the council rates are paid . You know the old money elite.who were given land after 1066. .hence the doomsday book. ?? Please correct me as i am only a uneducated cockney
Looks like it's going that way anyway, as if you don't conform to land management and cross COMPLIANCE schemes you don't get the grants. We already have it.
Watching the video, it sounds like the idea was that the managers would be private companies, employing workers and selling their produce on the open market. That part of it sounds like capitalism to me.
@@randomg0atCommunism in its same form. They snatch the land from the peasants and nationalize everything, then they decide who can take and cultivate a plot of land, in the best case a couple of corporations will have control over all the arable land. Of course, since we are talking about leftists, then you can be convinced that the regime will give the land to settle migrants, while the domicile white population will move out.
This guy confuses fascism (Mussolini's brand of socialism) with socialism broadly, where nationalism was practiced by ALL socialists (including Hitler as Hitler's socialist party removed the right to private ownership in 1939). He should remake his video and refer to fascism as Marxism, he would be more correct and not sound like he is politically illiterate.
