When I first agreed to write a piece on ‘Community Ownership’ there wasn’t the panic in the world economy that there is now, a

Jock Penman, Solidarity activist and active member of Kelty Community Trust argues that community ownership offers a radical way forward for socialism.

It may well come as a surprise to many members of Solidarity but there is a growing movement which enables ordinary people to take land, buildings and businesses within their communities into ‘community ownership’. Ordinary people living in these communities can collectively own these assets, which are run for the benefit of the community, by representatives of the community, who are democratically elected and accountable to the community. For this to be occurring in a country with a government which is committed to Thatcherite economics, this seems rather difficult to believe. However, the evidence is there and there are several working examples, which I will refer to at a later stage.

We applaud Chavez for creating community organisations which own businesses and land in Venezuela, so why should we not take seriously similar movements right here on our own doorstep? On the other hand both the Westminster and Holyrood Governments are keen to promote ‘social enterprises’ as an alternative to public spending. So should we support it or not?

For decades people have been dependent on the state to supply jobs, services and housing, where adequately funded councils, over the years, built houses, provided community centres, kept roads in good condition and so on. These days are going, going, if not gone. As an alternative Tory and New Labour governments promoted private enterprise in the form of PFI/ PPP deals as the answer. This has been universally discredited as another scam to line the pockets of private investors.

Jock Penman and other members of Kelty Community Development Trust

Over the decades there have been various urban regeneration programmes which changed nothing but their names. Only the bureaucrats thrived. Each one depended on grants from central government and, regardless of their worth to the communities or to society in general, they were closed down mercilessly when the grants ran out. Gordon Brown adopted an identical attitude to public spending as his mentor, Margaret Thatcher, and cut more and more, year on year and jobs, services, charities and voluntary organisations which depended on state funding were thrown on the scrapheap.

Private enterprise thrived in the housing boom, where houses were sold at record prices even before they were built, then sold on for more money a couple of years later. But money never actually changed hands. Everything was done on credit. Hence the economic disaster we call the ‘credit crunch’ which will see many thousands more people lose their homes and jobs over the next couple of years. Let’s not even consider putting forward ‘private enterprise’ as a solution to the housing shortage or any other crisis which has fallen on, or will fall on, the working class.

However, the public (or state) sector clearly does not have the wherewithal to solve the crises either. That leaves the third sector, known as ‘the voluntary sector’. This is the fastest growing sector, expanding and recruiting rather than laying people off. Contained within is a thriving business and industrial sector which may depend initially on the use of volunteers but each business, or social enterprise, must eventually be self-sustaining rather than being dependant on state funding. The idea of using volunteers to solve the problems of capital has always been anathema to the left but others have taken it up and developed it for the benefit of communities and, in many cases, have succeeded in converting voluntary jobs into full-time employment with decent wages.

Dalkeith was the only council to even consider building council housing over the past decade but they are doing it at a price, using Prudential Borrowing to pay for the house-building programme with a rent rise of 25%. There is little doubt that this would not be part of any plans we make, but that is as much as councils can afford to do and tenants are getting so desperate they would agree to anything, as witnessed in Glasgow when they were conned and coerced into agreeing to the Stock Transfer.

In October 2006 COSLA publicised a report on Small Town communities, issuing a real warning.

"At a time when community planning could begin to embrace and actively encourage local people in a new expression of civic pride in reinvigorating local democracy, resources are drying up. National agencies, such as Scottish Enterprise and Communities Scotland, do not give priority to small towns, potential is largely overlooked, and problems remain largely unaddressed."

It found towns as far afield as Lerwick and Coldstream are facing a "time-bomb" of decay, as landmark buildings are increasingly lost. Some regions, it adds, face a repair bill of hundreds of millions of pounds. Residents, too, are losing their sense of civic pride as towns become threatened with losing their identities and becoming home to pockets of social deprivation.

There are also examples of failure of community organisations which have attempted such ventures, but they are a tiny minority as communities learn by the mistakes of others and are supported by professional advisors and the DTA (Scotland). We cannot take a ‘broad brush’ view of these developments but, instead, look at what is successful and what is not.

While many major banks have lost billions and, in particular, small investors, pension schemes and councils lose out as a result, Credit Unions are being seen as the safe option for savers. Indeed it is seen as the short-to-medium-term future - until

the banks recover of course! Within the voluntary sector we have an organisation run by members of the community, on behalf of the community in an organisation owned by the community.

For those who join a Credit Union and put some money away every month, it is an option for when they need to borrow money, for Christmas or for unforeseen crises which strike us all. With much lower repayment terms the Credit Union takes away the necessity of borrowing from loan sharks or from high-interest loan companies, who are no better though less physical than the loan sharks and the stress and misery of being in debt to such individuals and companies is removed. In Ireland the Credit Union movement is massive, on a par with major banks but with one major difference in that they are owned by ordinary people and benefit ordinary people. In other words it changes “..the bank’s priorities from profits to social investments.” If this sounds familiar it is what Chavez said when he announced he was going to re-nationalise the Bank of Venezuela.

“The profit will not be of one group, but to invest in socialist development,” he said.

Development Trusts should not be confused with other types of Trust, just as all Housing Associations should not be seen as being identical. Some councils have set up ‘Community Trusts’ in order to attract funding and, having satisfied certain criteria, can then complete unfinished projects because the councils cannot afford the necessary investment and, due to legal restrictions, are refused access to the funding to which Trusts are entitled. It is not uncommon for councils to ignore community development where it looks like the council or councillors may lose power and influence. If the Trust proves to be successful the attitude changes and councils are suddenly supportive, particularly when the press show an interest.

Development Trusts are set up in accordance with strict criteria set down by the Development Trust Association (Scotland) so there is no chance of a group of individuals creating a ‘fly-by-night’ organisation. A lot of work goes into building and nurturing a fledgling Dev. Trust. It is a potential social enterprise and will have to ensure that any project the Dev. Trust initiates has a good chance of becoming self-sustaining. It means that communities have to learn how to run businesses for themselves. That cannot be a bad thing if we truly believe the working class will some day take control of the commanding heights of the economy. Here is as good a starting point as any, providing practical experience, which is always the best way to learn anything. This experience can provide just a tiny glimpse of what life in a socialist society would be like. It won’t be suddenly milk and honey, it will be a hard slog and many will not automatically accept this new responsibility. Only by attracting and ensuring the involvement of the vast majority of the working class will we ensure a successful transformation of society.

While the idea of community ownership remains a theoretical debate, disagreements will continue with no decisive conclusion being reached. However when there is just one working model we have a point of reference, an example to show how an idea can work. There are, in fact, many examples of successful social enterprises, where communities have benefited enormously from taking on the tasks required to own community assets. It can, as previously indicated, take many years to achieve success, but groups have to prove themselves to the community as well as to funders and professionals. Once that goal is reached the community, if not the world, is their oyster.

In Renton in West Dumbartonshire the community were given a community centre the council didn’t want. They managed it for themselves, transformed it into a successful concern and used it as collateral to take over a small housing estate which was in need of re-building. They went into partnership with a local developer and built houses for rent as well as for sale, making no distinction between the two. Once they sold of some of the houses, which paid their bills, the profits then went into the local economy. The rents paid for 17 workers, working full-time for the community. That’s not bad for a community with a population of only 3000. They are currently building another 200 houses which will provide more investment into the community. They have built a state-of-the-art home for pensioners and they own a Healthy Living Centre, hiring out rooms to the NHS and council.

In Twechar, near Kilsyth, the council threatened to close the Community Centre as it was costing them too much money to run. The community took it over and converted it into a Healthy Living Centre, with a £1M renovation. It is now a thriving concern.

In England the movement for community ownership is years ahead of us. The Goodwin Trust in Hull grew in 9 years from a few volunteers to a business with 300 staff and a turnover of £11million per year. There are many examples in England but Northern Ireland is even more advanced than that, with communities owning housing, pubs, businesses and land with the profits being turned back into benefits for the community. www.goodwintrust.org.uk.

For regular information on community ownership in Scotland check out www.senscot.net

Anton Pannekoek wrote a paper in 1947 entitled ‘Public Ownership and Common Ownership’, something many may have believed to be one and the same. However he explains how, under public ownership, the worker still clocks in and out and takes direction from an unelected boss. Under common ownership the worker makes the decisions, elects the management and reaps the rewards. In today’s Britain only the voluntary sector provides opportunities for common, or community, ownership. The public sector is bound to the state, and therefore to the discredited form of nationalisation Thatcher destroyed so easily, and is in a state of decline due to under-investment.

Why then do we insist on politically and ideologically bankrupt councils solving the problems within the communities, thereby leaving them an excellent opportunity to provide valid excuses? Would it not be better to encourage people to take some form of democratic control of the assets within their own communities?