Owning the Earth
* Book: Owning the Earth. Transforming history of land ownership. By Andro Linklater. 2013
"Historian Andro Linklater, who died in 2013, was inspired to write what became his last book by the economic crisis of 2008. Inequality was rising and social mobility falling: the top 3% of British taxpayers owned almost 80% of the country’s wealth. For Linklater, the question of ownership lay at the heart of the boom and subsequent crash. Owning the Earth is a remarkably wide-ranging and erudite study that explores the global history of possessing land. Thought-provoking and original, it is packed with insights into the history and politics of ownership. Beginning in the 16th century with the carving up of the New World, he traces the emergence in England of the idea that one person could exclusively own a piece of the Earth. He argues that this idea has destroyed traditional systems of rights and responsibilities binding communities to the land, promoting instead an individualistic culture of “greed and selfishness”. He concludes that “the private property society” is “a bizarre mutation alien to most of humanity” and a “monstrous method of owning the earth”." (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/23/owning-the-earth-the-transforming-history-of-land-ownership-by-andro-linklater)
"This his last book covers some 500 years since the emergence of private property rights under Queen Elizabeth 1, but covers so much stuff and in so many different countries and continents. He explores communal property systems, the land reform struggles in Latin America, the Mexican ejidos, the reasons why serfdom collapsed under its own contradictions in Russia when the serfs were then liberated in the 1860s to access basically finance to pay off their insolvent landlords.
He also delves into the different philosophical perspectives of property rights and shows how these have trumped human rights again and again. Hence the perversity of their sanctity if private property excludes other human and social rights. The views of Austrian economists like Von Mises and Hayek is the worst on this score and extreme compared to Locke (which is bad enough)
His analysis of financialisation is interesting and spans the twist and turns of the 100 years up to 2008. He shows how housing finance underpins the entire money system and this was the antidote to a perspective like that of Keynes.
What is very revealing in his analysis is the reasons why private property does make sense up to certain very constrained limits (to meet household or personal needs). This was implicit in the thinking of Rousseau in his Discourse on Inequality. But also post World War 2 to eradicate feudalism and limit a return to fascism in Japan, US policy was to instigate a Land to the Tiller programme that broke up the feudal estates still strong in order to provide small plots to farmers who were heavily oppressed by the residual power of the samurai. But also in Taiwan and South Korea the same Land to the Tiller reforms were introduced then. As a consequence what this led to was the Asian Tiger levels of productivity that could feed cities and a form of republicanism that forged democracy.
However this was at risk of gaining in popularity more widely. Indeed the land reform in Guatemala in 1954 and the threat this posed to US interests led to a super fast curtailment of Land to the Tiller programmes support by US foreign policy and a repression of anything like this again.
The data Linklater provides shows the sound economics of systems where land can be managed in both mutual or commons ways with leases to small producers. So very much a Community Land Trust approach. This partially happened in late 19th century Russia under the Mir system and before the Lenin and Stalin fully nationalised land. But what seems crucial is the balance between limited private property rights under a leasehold system and broader stewardship/commons rights.
What Linklater argues is that the ownership question viz. land and intellectual property is key as this is where the politics reside, not in the economics and markets as is standard but the wrong-headed view.
He touches on a clear understanding of the commons here and there. This is implicit but it does not take away from what a fabulous book this is." (email, August 2017)