WHOSE LAND IS IT ANYWAY?
CLASS STRUGGLE ANARCHISTS focus their activities on the conflict between the working class and the bosses. The struggle has traditionally been in manufacturing industries but increasingly it is recognised that capitalism has expanded into services such as retailing, banking and leisure. The Marxist analysis, of capitalism replacing feudalism, has been taken on board and the image of the ruling class as industrialists and financiers is one that we have in our heads when we think of the class enemy. They are the source of power, the owners of capital. Though we all hate the Royals and froth at the mouth at the idea of the aristos enjoying their hunts and balls, it is not the land owning aristocracy which are considered to be the main source of capitalist power but rather they are seen as remnants of feudalism. Most anarchists live in urban areas, along with the rest of the working class. We don't usually come into contact with the land owning part of the ruling class. Some of us got our first glimpse of them while protesting at the Countryside Alliance demo. And, as the percentage of people employed on the land is under 2%, it is not the agricultural or forestry workers that are the focus of our activity.
But in this article we see the landowners as an integral part of the ruling class, both in the sense of holding real economic power and in the ideological role they play in keeping the working class in their place. The Countryside Alliance demonstrations in London may have had the purpose of forcing the government to back down on any plans for change such as banning foxhunting, but the presence of thousands of 'country folk' on the streets of London should send us another message. The land owning class and their lackeys are a fundamental part of the British ruling class and are immensely powerful and well-organised. We ignore them at our peril.
Landowners exercise their role three ways: as members of the ruling class: economic, political and ideological power. Most of the information for this article came from Marion Shoard's excellent book, This Land is Our Land, but the interpretation is our own. Some of the facts might appear to be out of date since the original book was published in 1987, but as she points out in her 1997 up-date, nothing has really changed.
Economic Power
Despite propaganda about impoverished aristos and the supposed increase in land ownership by the government and the National Trust, around 80% of Britain's land is in private hands. A hard core of titled families own almost 1/3 of Britain, with 2/3 of these owning at least 5,000 acres. An example of this is the Duke of Buccleuch who owns 277,000 acres of Scotland and 11,000 acres of Northamptonshire. The remaining land in private hands is either owned by untitled barons or owner-occupiers. But despite the image of the struggling farmer promoted by the Countryside Alliance, the average farm size is 170 acres, much higher than the average in the rest of the EC. The average would be even higher if Northern Ireland were excluded as there is a greater percentage of small farmers there than in Britain. And the tendency has been to move from smaller to larger farms. When a farm is sold it is other farmers that buy it, further increasing the concentration of land. Most people could never think of buying land as the price has dramatically increased in recent years. It is therefore a close-knit group of people who own and control the vast majority of land in Britain. We have not even discussed the Crown's holdings which are distinct from private landowners. These holdings are enormous: 335,000 acres of farmland, 38,285 acres of commercial forest, the entire shoreline, half the foreshore, to name just some of the properties! The Queen's private holdings are separate and count as private land. These include 50,000 at Balmoral, 20,000 acres at Sandringham and 50,000 acres of Lancaster.
Owning land may not appear to confer economic power and wealth in an economy dominated by industry and commerce. Many landowners like to give the impression that it is a great burden. It is very difficult to disprove their claim as exact statistics do not exist. The Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth had just begun its work when it was abolished three months after Thatcher came to power in 1979. But, other figures can give some indication of how wealthy landowners are. For example, of the 10 people between 1970 and 1979 who left over five million pounds when they died, five were landowners. Looked at more carefully, even without exact figures, land ownership clearly brings enormous benefits.
The value of the land itself is the first source of wealth. Since the Development land tax was abolished in 1985, gains from an increase in land values are subject only to a capital gains tax. In one case £11 million was made when an area was released for development; a tidy sum for not doing anything! Other ways of making money from the land include leasing it out to farmers, hunting and fishing rights and mining. For example, the Duke of Derbyshire receives an estimated £1.8 million in royalties every year for the mining of Derbyshire limestone. Even when coal was nationalised, landowners made a killing. The government paid out £2,875 million at 1985 prices. In addition, though landowners are associated with the countryside, these 'rural' landowners own much of urban Britain. The most well-known example is the Duke of Westminster who owns a large chunk of central London including Mayfair and Belgravia.
It is agriculture and forestry which bring the greatest benefits. The obvious advantage is the receiving of subsidies. Farmers are exempt from rates on agricultural land and buildings which was estimated to be worth £360 million in 1984-85. They are also exempt from paying VAT, worth £300 million, and can average their profits over 5 years for tax purposes. It is estimated that the combined benefit from all the subsidies comes to £20,000 per year per farmer. This doesn't include anything they actually earn from sales. Forestry is another good source of income (and hand-outs). There has been a great increase in afforestation in recent years of which 80% is in the private sector. This may sound like a good thing, but the planting has been 95% conifers which offer a quick return and cause many ecological problems.
It is argued that despite all this wealth, it is soon taken by the government through inheritance taxes. However, this is misleading. The inheritance tax system was amended by Thatcher and it is easy to transfer land to heirs as long as it is done before death. Another system used is to set up a Trust. Therefore, land ownership is clearly a major source of wealth and power over key aspects of the economy that has few, if any, disadvantages.
Political Power
Along with economic power goes political power. Firstly, there is the power over the employees. 70% of agricultural workers live in tied cottages. It is not really surprising that so many farm and estate workers attended the Countryside Alliance demos. Though not the only reason, their dependence on their employer is certainly a factor. Landowners also play an important role in local politics. In 1981, membership of county councils had a disproportionate number of landowners and farmers. In Lincolnshire, for example, they represent 2% of the population but made up 22% of council members. They also have control over other important institutions. In 1983-84 the chairman of all 9 water authorities' agriculture and drainage committees were farmers.
Their power extends even beyond the locality. Though they represented only 9% of MPs in the House of Commons in 1983, they obviously dominate in the House of Lords. In addition, one-third of Thatcher's cabinet in 1985 were landowners. They also appear in a whole range of other capacities: National Park Boards, Countryside Commissions and Nature Conservancy. For example, Mr. Dunning is an executive member of the Country Landowners Association. He runs his own 700 acre farm in the Lake District and was appointed in 1971 to the lake District Special Planning Board to represent the national conservation and recreation interest in the planning of the Lake District national park. He is chairman of Rural Voice and spoke at the Conservative Party Conference in 1985. He is also a member of the Forestry Commission working group. The list goes on! And Dunning is not even an aristo!
The political influence of the landowners can be seen even more clearly in the farming and forestry lobbies. The main lobbies include the Country Landowners Association (CLA), the Scottish Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union. Most of the CLA's work is done behind closed doors through a long-established history of personal contacts. To succeed, the CLA doesn't have to achieve anything but just stop anyone else from changing the status quo. Examples of their accomplishments include removal of investment surcharge, abolition of three generation security for tenants, the reduction of the capital transfer tax as well as many features (e.g. trespass) of the Criminal Justice Act.
The National Farmers Union, in addition to contacts in high places, relies on a massive publicity machine. In 1985 they spent £8.8 million compared to the £350,000 spent by the Ramblers Association. They have active local branches who lobby local MPs as well as maintaining daily contact with civil servants. In 1983 they had an average of 4.6 broadcasts a week. They keep a tab on public opinion so that they can act quickly. For example, we now see a number of ads for eating meat, an obvious response to the increase in vegetarianism. The Forestry lobby is also powerful but they don't need to manipulate civil servants or public opinion to the same extent because the Forestry Commission has been run by landowners since it was set up in 1919!
There are whole aspects of land owning power that we know nothing about because of the secrecy surrounding information on who owns what. There is no public land registry open to the public or even to government officials, very unlike the documentation on the ownership of companies which is very detailed and accessible. This secrecy alone gives enormous power as the government cannot formulate policy on land if they don't know the basic facts, even if they did want to do anything.
We must also keep in mind that the landowners are not really a distinct part of the ruling class. Rural landowners in fact own many urban properties and have control over the major primary industries that form the basis of any economy. In addition, many landowners are also industrialists or financiers or both. For example, Benwells in Newcastle went from being landowners to industrialists and now are both, wielding considerable power in both state and financial institutions. As Shoard puts it, "for power, however it originates, tends to turn into land owning power" (p. 195). This is because of not only the economic overlaps, with banks investing in land, media magnates buying up Highland estates etc., but because of the ideological and cultural role that the landowners play in maintaining the coherence of the ruling class.
Ideological Power
Since the Industrial Revolution those capitalists who made their money from industry and later finance have all aspired to be like the land owning aristocracy in terms of their way of life. The industrialists may have had great wealth, but the landowners had 'cultural capital'. Even if industrialists didn't buy land themselves, they were integrated into the 'club' through participation in a certain way of life which includes blood sports. This is not only true of industrialists but also of the non-aristocratic farmers of all sizes. Many of Scotland's estates have been bought by millionaires who want to pretend that they have 'breeding'. A classic example is of American billionaire Kluge whose new wife (an ex-wife of Russell Gay, porn magnate and herself a small-time porn star) was obsessed with the British aristocracy. He bought her the Mar Lodge estate, just down the road from Balmoral in the Cairngorms, as a birthday present. It is now in the hands of the National Trust for Scotland, sold when Kluge got divorced.
Hunting is a symbol of the ruling class and the rituals involved in foxhunting, pheasant and grouse shooting and deer stalking have a powerful ideological role in integrating all sections of the ruling class as well as ensuring the loyalty of the small farmers and employees who are caught up in the charade. The importance that the ruling class puts on blood sports is shown in the lengths they went to mobilise two mass demonstrations for the first time ever, essentially for the purpose of defeating the anti foxhunting bill. It can also be seen in the outrage and subsequent behind-the scenes manoeuvring that is taking place as a result of the National Trust banning stag hunting with hounds on their land.
It is the image of a 'way of life' that props up the ruling class. This is closely linked with the Royal family who epitomise this, portrayed as the paternalistic, caring guardians of all that is 'traditionally' British. This 'traditional Britain' is synonymous with rural Britain. The message is that if the 'countryside' way of life disappeared, then Britain itself would be destroyed. Despite the Industrial Revolution and the fact that Britain has little of its economy devoted to agriculture or forestry, it is amazing that it is 'rural' Britain which is the symbol of the soul of the nation.
It is a powerful message and gives the landowners a pivotal role within the ruling class that is much greater than their economic and overt political power would suggest. In addition, it is the landowners who through their activities and control of the land have the most impact on the environment. Many anarchists and campaigners such as hunt saboteurs and anti-roads protesters will already be aware of this. This awareness must be spread to the working class as a whole and the landowners must be made a focus of our struggles against capitalism.
Organise! will be looking in more detail at the landowners and their relationship to class struggle in the next few issues. This series will include: a historical background to land ownership and previous struggles, blood sports, agriculture, conservation and the environment and the right to roam and access.