NATURAL SOCIALISM

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21222, 19 September 1940, Page 9

NATURAL SOCIALISM

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In his letter in your issue of September 10. heeded “ t 0 F.nd the Class War,” Mr A. Warburton expresses the commendable hope tnat ! an end of the class war is in sight. He cites the “ co-operation of British ! labour and capital ” as a cheerful sign. So far, well and good, but I note that Mr Warburton, like Mr W. Goodfellow, when on the same subject recently, overloked the first and most important factor of production, since the other two come out of this first one—land! Industry, to be economic, cannot function “ a thousand miles from nowhere.” When men look for sites on which to establish industries they usually consider not only the natural features, but such things as access to populous markets, transport facilities and social amenities of all kinds for those working in the factories. But to obtain access to land, men in- ! evitably must pay the market social or site value at least—and perhaps j an added speculative rent due to i more or less monopoly holding—so it | is ridiculous to side-step the “ bottom question.” I I agree with Mr Warburton that the j Labour v. “ capital ” strife is an unI natural war. but the war against pure ! landlord tribute is both natural and ■ just, and should and will continue to I the end. According to the NewsChronicle (London) the seven largest landlords of London have the following rent roll: Duke of Westminster, £3,000.000: Lord Howard de Walden. £2,900,000; Duke of Bedford, I £2,250,000; Lord Portman, £1,890,000; I Marquess of Northampton, £1,600.- | 000; Duke of Norfolk, £1,500,000; Earl

Cadogan, £1,500,000. Labour and “ capital ” alone produce the whole of this value. A site in Comhill wa* sold in 1921 at a rate of £6,500,000 an acre, and the late Minister oi War, Mr Hore-Belisha, gave figures of recent values to the tune of £9,075,000 an acre. All the damage by bombing will have to be replaced in labour and capital, not a pennyworth by landlords as such, they being parasites and nothing else. Mr Warburton tells us that labour cannot produce without “ supervision,” seemingly unaware of the fact that supervision is “ labour,” and nothing else! It is not land, and it is not capital, the only other two things that go into production. I am afraid that Mr Warburton’s kindergarten “ economics ” will not contribute much of value to public discussion. All human effort is “ labour capital is that portion of wealth tha< is used in the production of more wealth; land, in the scientific economics sense, is all the material universe outside of man himself, the latter being labour. A picture - on a wall in a home is wealth, but not i

apital. A workman’s tools for carentering, and the bicycle he rides o work on, and all the buildings and actories and their machinery and ransport are true capital. Let us ;ee how a just return on capital invested may be secured without the injustice of landlord parasitism. Half of Regent Street, in London, is held in title by the Crown—but titles are not involved in this discussion, as all that is needed is to collect the site values publicly, and let holders have what titles they want The other side is held by Lord Howard de Walden, as “ owner,” and the above list enumerates his rake-off. But take a single example of what happens where the nation collects the ground rent. Mr G. W. Kettle owns a building in Regent Street, on the Crown Land, area of half an acre. He pays a yearly ground rent of £27,000 to the Crown. His building cost him £350.000, but he is quite satisfied, for he has. after paying the ground rent and all supervision, insurance, maintenance and rates, a return of 4 per centon his capital outlay. Will Mr War-

burton tell us what, if anything, is | wrong with this “ consummation de- ; voutly to be wished ” universally? ! My only objection is that the ground j rent is in this case collected by the j State, whereas I now hold that it should be by the local bodies, most of it spent where it arises, on local J services, but a part passed on to the State for national services. [ The war between labour and ( “ capitalists,” so-called, is a piece of howling stupidity. The fact is that { landlord tribute robs both, and the j fools fight one another, not knowing I who or what is really hurting them. | But a change is in I recently, thanks to the hospitality of your columns, gave your rfaders the views of the Hon. Winston Churchill on the ground rent question. I may now add that Mr F. C. R. Douglas, chairman of the London County Council finance committee, who recently flew into the Commons by 9000 votes to 900 for an Independent (Mr Douglas being Labour), has an international reputation for advocacy of public collection of the land rent. Mr Herbert Morrison, M.P., who was lately

chairman of the L jC.C., Is another ardent advocate, and co is Mr Bevin. The stage is being set for the final class war—that between the landed and the landless, as envisioned by Patrick Edward Dove. When the nation’s ground rent Is used in lieu of rates and taxes, we shall all, in the economic sense, be “ landed,” every man, woman and child. Meanwhile, I hope the above discloses to your readers the absolute worthlessness of discussion in alluged “economics” which ignores the most fundamental factor of production and the equitable distribution of wealth. —1 am, etc., t. e. mcmillan.