I have appreciated the comments on this general subject over the past few days, and especially the additional information provided by Wally, Victor and Curtiss. All of those are elements in my interpretation of the issue, which I hope to get across in fewer than two pages.
Although by no means well read in the works of Douglas or of Social Credit literature generally, I brashly submit that the problem we address under this label (Policy of a Philosophy) is due to a careless usage of the word "philosophy"-probably by Douglas himself. I suspect it can be shown that Douglas did NOT develop a philosophic system as that term is used to describe the work of Hobbes, Kant, Descartes, etc. That he was an astute observer of economic and financial systems is manifest. Furthermore, he inferred a set of policies by putting his analysis together with a set of values. Now, neither values nor economic/financial analysis constitute a philosophy, nor do they in combination. Values are mostly either ethical or esthetic in nature. They are shaped in part by personal tastes and physiological instincts, and in part by acculturation. Culture is what concerns us here, primarily, for it has a great deal to do with how individuals interpret the world around them, whether it be nature, the built environment, or social relations. We imbibe culture as children, through parents, extended family, community participation (including church and school), work, play, conflict, etc. >From this combination we each form our individual view of who we are, the meaning of life, our place in the world, and the ethical and esthetic standards that seem good to us. We also learn the community standards (morals) that we had better observe if we want to be comfortable in our society. Now, some people refer to this bundle of notions and predispositions as a "philosophy". And, I conjecture, Douglas was one of them. This is NOT the meaning of philosophy in the classic sense of the tradition of rigorous and uninhibited thought that was invented in ancient Greece. Religion is part of culture; it is older than philosophy and always has more influence on popular opinions. When philosophically oriented individuals attempt to analyze and justify religious ideas, we get theology. We also get comparative ethics from the same analytic instinct. But then we get a surprise. For although there may be, and often are, irreconcilable differences on the subject of what or who god is or does, the ideas about interpersonal ethics are remarkable similar. Whatever god is, he (she, it they) seems to mandate the same behavioral rules for every society. At least that is my impression of how the most respected moral authorities see it, in all the great religions. So is Judaism compatible with Christianity? Theologically speaking, of course not. The very notion is absurd. Ethically, on the other hand, I am not aware of any significant differences. The same applies when comparing Islamic principles to either of the two. (Nevertheless, we must acknowledge the existence of fundamentalists in all three of these traditions who violate ethical principles in the name of purity.) Humanism implies the same set of fundamental ethical values, without as much danger of reversion to atavistic tribal and sexual instincts under the cover of 'religious principle'. So why would Douglas or his close associates affirm that there is something peculiarly Christian about Social Credit? If we eliminate the notion of conflict over the name and nature of god (as irrelevant), there seems no reason to exclude Judaism as a source of similar ethical principles. The same goes for humanism, of course, or Islam. Having thus ruled out fundamental ethical differences, can we identify any other element of difference among these major religious orientations that might account for the link to Christianity that some Social Credit proponents seem to find so important? From little hints picked up here and there, I conjecture that the answer is to be found in the domain of political philosophy. This is not to say that Douglas developed a full-blown political philosophy-on the other hand, I don't know that he did not. There are plenty of well-developed political philosophies around from which to borrow. Douglas, or at least some of his followers, seem to believe that Christianity implies a particular political philosophy for the 20th century-and beyond. Thus, I have seen a whiff of a suggestion that H.G. Wells would not have been part of the Social Credit movement, because he was a humanist. And to accentuate the difference, he was also a socialist. Wells himself affirmed (cited in my exchanges with Curtiss) that he differed with Silvio Gesell, for example, in the extent to which untrammeled individualism would redound to the benefit of social order and felicity. We have seen suggestions that the idea of Salvation by Grace, a uniquely Christian idea, prepares the groundwork for acceptance of Social Credit. Well, maybe. But might it not be only a useful metaphor that captures the new reality of recent centuries, that machines and fuels (technology) will do most of the work if we just get ourselves organized effectively? Early Christianity certainly introduced some new ideas and had a profound impact in the Roman Empire. But is it sufficiently distinctive in the 20th century to warrant identification with a unique political philosophy? I doubt it. Certainly Christians are not identifiable as a voting block in most large democracies; they are scattered along the left-right spectrum, and so are Jews, it seems to me. My conjecture, therefore, is that Christianity serves Social Credit best as metaphor, and that that value has probably expired. The worldview that it once provided to the movement may require renewal if Social Credit is to get a new lease on life. Keith Wilde Ottawa, Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] 613 990-8125 ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ==^================================================================
