On Sunday 16 February 2003 21:33, Chick Hurst you wrote: > The problem of course is that we > have been fighting over the purity of the theory, or the exact following of > the theoretician and/or the theory, and what exactly they were trying to > get across, rather than learning from each and all and advancing them. -----------------------------------
That is my perception also. It reminds me of Christianity, where the theologians spend so much time arguing doctrine that they really miss the simple truth that forgiveness is offered freely to all who ask ---- and in the process they have split the Church thirty-thousand ways (some say forty-thousand, and growing.) Aren't we over-complicating something that should be quite straightforward? We want to take out of the economy, out of the common wealth of the Nation, a certan value and re-insert it where it will achieve a social purpose. Whether we call that value a tax, or social credit, or debt-free money is surely academic? Normal 'tax money' taken out of the economy -- out of the production/distribution processess -- and administered by a Central authority for the good of the population at large, becomes 'tax' or 'national dividend' according to how it is finally used. Doesn't it become a simple bookkeeping entry to write off a portion that is not recoverable? The main problem to me seems to be how to limit the size of government and its internal requirements which places the main burden upon the citizens. So, forms of government and the wealth-pool of the nation are intimately connected. If we can have a form of government where the money of the wealth-seekers does not dictate fiscal policy, we will start to see light. Maybe I'm wrong, but I need to be convinced. The 'Co-operatives' set-up in your post sounds not unlike my 'wish-list' -- if a local governement serving a district or clan-area could be constituted along those lines, what else would they need to serve the community? Chick, would I be free to forward your post to others who may be interested? Regards to all, Jessop. ------------------------------------------------- > There are many points in Alberta's history that must be considered as well > as the development of the foundation on which Alberta Social Credit sits. > > The writings of Charles Dickens' in such stories as A Christmas Carol and > how he described Scrooge are representative of the system under which the > people lived at the time. Victor Hugo's, Les Miserables is another, and we > could mention several, good descriptions of the oppression that had been > imposed upon the citizenry at the hands of the establishment. > > In the 1800s there were several movements that all understood the real > "root of the problems" and the additional oppression that was manufactured > to keep the masses under the control of the aristocracy and the political > and business establishment. The Co-operative movement, Communism, Monetary > Reform or Social Credit, and so many others were spawned by that oppression > and the daily struggles of the masses. It would not have and did not > matter what the theories, proposals or paradigms that were proposed, the > establishment would not only never agree on, nor allow, but would mount any > kind of campaign to discredit it. > > The truth is that all of the work, the research and the subsequent > theories, had great potential benefits. The problem of course is that we > have been fighting over the purity of the theory, or the exact following of > the theoretician and/or the theory, and what exactly they were trying to > get across, rather than learning from each and all and advancing them. > What we should have been doing is taking all the good aspects from each and > putting them all together to build one theory or a new and improved > "flex-theory" that would be able to fit the needs of people and to change > with the times and conditions, if necessary. Instead we have argued > semantics even though there were, and are, so many similarities and/or > similar objectives and/or because each theoretician wanted the glory of > being able to claim the position of being the best theory and its > supporters would be in the position of authority or power. > > In recent communications the argument has been made that Communism, > Marxism, and Socialism all held the position of restricting property rights > and could confiscate property at any time. There was distinctly a neglect > to mention that the same can be said about a Monarchy. Under British > Common Law, of which Canada is still subject for some reason, the Crown > still holds that position and, in a supposedly free country, the same > situation still exists. The criticism has been that under those systems or > theories, the power is centralized oppression in the hands of a chosen few > self appointed dictators or dictators elected through a quasi-democratic > fashion but there also is a neglect to mention by many that the Corporate > Establishment, possibly better known as a Conservative Establishment, does > the very same thing. > > The argument as to whether the King of England had the right or not to give > the Corporate aristocracy the entire western part of Canada that drained > into the Hudson's Bay is for a different discussion. > > Canada purchased it, then known as Rupertsland, from the Hudson's Bay > Company in 1869. It must be understood that at the time of the purchase > there was no intention of giving province-hood to any part of the west; it > was to be a possession for the purposes of providing the Eastern > Establishment with the raw material and produce it needed or wanted. > > Most of the settlers that moved in to western Canada, the North West > Territories being the new name, were Americans; most of who wanted to get > away from the American system. If it were not for Louis Real and the > rebellions of the Red River and the North West, province-hood would never > have happened. Many of the Americans moving into Canada were strong > supporters of the Grainger movement in the United States, the rapidly > expanding Co-operative movement. When Alberta became a province in 1905 > the farmers created two Co-operatives that joined together in 1909. In > 1911 that new Co-op, the United Farmers of Alberta, struck a committee to > study the root cause of the problems that had prevented their fair > treatment in the market place. The reason for the creation of the co-ops > in the first place was for the purpose of creating a system of countering > the oppressive market place that was dominated by and dictated by the > Eastern Establishment and for the purpose of working together to help > themselves and each other and their economy. The one thing that their > understanding of the co-op movement taught them was that alone they would > continue on the same path. They also learned that by working together they > would be a formidable power in more ways than one. > > The root cause of the problem was the money system and even in 1911 this > was not news but the members of the UFA were bent on trying to do something > about it. They tried to work with the Liberal Government of the day but > the situation did not improve so in 1917 they decided to go into the > political arena and swept the province in the elections of 1921. The new > UFA government struck a committee in 1923, this time it was a government > committee to study the root cause of the economic problems, the > possibilities and theories of monetary reform and the effects that the > money system of the day had on the people and the economy. The UFA > government brought C. H. Douglas to Canada to speak to the Canadian House > of Commons and the Alberta Legislature. The UFA government contracted > Douglas as a Financial Advisor, of sorts, to the Alberta Government. > George Bevan and his government committee sought a public figure who would > champion the cause of Social Credit and monetary reform and to teach the > people that there were underlying powers or structures that were preventing > the establishment of a stable and secure economy and economic system. > > In 1935 the UFA government wanted to "test the waters" on the public > acceptance of Social Credit and decided to run two sets of candidates in > the provincial election. The election swept the regular UFA candidates > from office and elected a new slate of monetary reform candidates. > > There are a few other factors to consider that were quite important to the > thinking of the people of Alberta. The co-op ideals and the co-operative > mind set were part and parcel of the make up of the people of Alberta from > the time shortly after the purchase of the North West Territories. > > Over the years and even to this day, Co-operatives are viewed differently > by different people; they have been viewed as extreme Capitalism to extreme > Communism but Co-ops are deeply rooted in democracy, one member one vote. > This democracy is acceptable to neither of the theories. There are people > who, even within the movement, who look at a co-op as a paternal community > organization that is controlled by a chosen few. There are some who see a > co-op as a corporation with an ownership form that is local but is > controlled by management. But there are also those who see a co-op for > what it really is, an organization that is owned and controlled locally, > that is for most, unless they are a national co-op of some kind, with a > Board of Directors that are elected by the members and who direct the > affairs of the co-op in the best interest of the members and reflective of > the community where the members live and work. An organization that will > compete with other businesses but the services to the members is more > important than creating a return for investors. > > It was through co-operation, the co-op mind set and the development and use > of Co-ops that Alberta was developed and not the Corporations or Capitalism > as is supposed and touted. > > In Alberta the Co-op sector and the Social Credit government held the > position that Free Enterprise was the best system. That view of Free > Enterprise was a system where by Capitalism Enterprises, or publicly traded > corporation, Government Enterprises, Private Enterprise, and Co-operative > Enterprise were or should be all free to function and do their part in > building the economy. Government Enterprises was required to provide > services where none were available and/or, to keep the private or publicly > traded corporation honest. Co-operative Enterprise can be either "for > profit" or "not for profit" co-ops. There were also times when either the > government or the people by referendum would chose to regulate certain > industries such as electricity and gas prices. > > Several years ago I was given a very well worn piece of paper by a > gentleman who had been a life time supporter and believer in the Co-op > Sector and the co-op way of doing business. I copied it as best I could > from what I could make out from the faint writing. > > The Essence of Co-operation > > The original wording of the appeal by George W. Holyoake of Manchester, > England, when the Rochdale Pioneers applied in the year 1844 to the British > House of Commons for their charter. > > Co-operation supplements political economy by organizing the distribution > of wealth. > > It touches no man's fortune. > > It causes no disturbance in society. > > It gives no trouble to statesmen. > > It enters into no secret association. > > It contemplates no violence. > > It subverts no order. > > It envies no dignity. > > It asks no favours. > > It keeps no terms with the idle. > > It will break no faith with the industrious. > > It asks no special privilege. > > It seeks no government aid. > > It fears no competition in trade in any branch of production. > > It abhors monopoly and will fight them to the bitter end. > > It seeks healthy competition knowing this is the soul of all true progress. > > It means self help, self dependence and such share of the common competence > as labour shall earn or thought can win and this it intends to have. > > Today the Co-operative Sector holds a strong set of ideals to govern its > way of doing business. > > > > Definition of a Co-operative > > A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily > to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations > through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise. > > > > Values > > Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, > democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity. In the tradition of their > founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, > openness, social responsibility, and caring for others. > > Principles > > The co-operative principles are guidelines by which co-operatives put their > values into practice. > > 1. Voluntary and Open Membership. > > Co-operatives are voluntary organizations, open to all persons able to use > their services and willing to accept the responsibility of membership, > without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination. > > 2. Democratic Member Control > > Co-operatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who > actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men > and Women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the > membership. In primary co-operatives members have equal voting rights (one > member, one vote) and co-operatives at other levels are organized in a > democratic manner. > > 3. Membership Economic Participation > > Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of > the co-operative. At least part of that capital is usually the common > property of the co-operative. They usually receive limited compensation, if > any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate > surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing the > co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would > be indivisible, benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with > the co-operative, and supporting other activities approved by the > membership. > > 4. Autonomy and Independence > > Co-operatives are autonomous, self-help organizations controlled by their > members. If they enter into agreements with other organizations, including > governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms > that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their > co-operative autonomy. > > 5. Education, Training, and Information > > Co-operatives provide education and training for their members, elected > representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively > to the development of their co-operatives. They inform the general public, > particularly young people and opinion leaders, about the nature and > benefits of co-operation. > > 6. Co-operation among Co-operatives > > Co-operatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the > co-operative movement by working together through local, national, regional > and international structures. > > 7. Concern for the Community > > While focusing on member needs, co-operatives work for the sustainable > development of their communities through policies accepted by their > members. > > These are the values and principles adopted by the International > Co-operative Alliance > > > It is also worth mentioning that throughout the twenties and thirties the > Communist movement was very strong in Canada and most especially in > Alberta, especially in the coal mining areas of Hinton, the Crow's Nest > Pass and Drumheller. The town of Blairmore even had its own Red Square and > the main street was called Tim Buck Avenue after the leader of the > Communist Party of Canada. Communism lost its potency after the election > of 1935 and Social Credit gained popularity. > > The Alberta Government maintained its commitment to co-ops and co-operation > until the entire program was disbanded by the Conservative Government of > Peter Laugheed in 1971. > > So, for a time there was a marriage between two theories and credit must be > given to the Co-operative movement for its advancement of monetary reform, > in Alberta at least, and giving Social Credit, good, bad or otherwise, some > recognition. > > In hind site, I would suggest that it is too bad that Douglas made a > connection between the Jews and the money system for a number of reasons. > One is that, and it has been proven, he was working with flawed > documentation and it has forever caused the grief of Social Credit being > labelled as Fascists and anti-Semitic. Also, because establishment > economists were unable to see the difference between the economic theories > that fuelled the Nazi movement and the theories of C.H. Douglas they were > able to mount their campaign to discredit Social Credit. This has made it > especially difficult for Social Credit in Canada because it has attracted > undesirable people to what could be and should be a strong movement. > > Another connection that has made life difficult for Social Credit in Canada > is Douglas' connection of Social Credit to Christianity. This in not to > say that Christianity is bad but if the theory is good for Christians it > should also be good for Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhist, Taoist, > Pagans, etc. etc. As a Jew, or anything else, not only am I not > interested in the advancement of Christianity or any religion other than my > own, but also just the mention that a particular theory being connected to > a particular religion or belief reduces its possible acceptance. The > reason for the lack of acceptance is that it is, perhaps, a theory that is > propagated as being a theory of a religion other than my own. > > Aside from the undoing of a Premier who pulled the rug out from under a > movement that could have and should have been a strong influence, on not > just Canada but the world, the Social Credit government of Alberta, did > leave behind two strong advantages for a government that can or could be > used in a provincial jurisdiction to aid the people and their economy. > Those two institutions are the Alberta Treasury Branch (ATB Financial) and > the Heritage Fund, now called the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund. > > The ATB provided banking services where the banks had closed 138 branches > across Alberta in the thirties. It provided long term, low interest loans > to destitute people. It caused the Canadian Banking system to restructure > its interest rate policy through the early years. > > The Heritage Fund was established in 1950 after the entire provincial debt > had been paid off in 1949. It set up to operate the way the Alaska > Permanent Fund operates today and the dividends were to start being paid in > about 1975 but the Conservative government changed that as well. > > > > Chick Hurst ==^^=============================================================== This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^^===============================================================
