> And now we have Ekky--who you didn't list
among your
> supporters--promoting "monetary reformers" like
> Bernard Lietaer, who is in fact a leading Gesellist--
> as examples that social crediters should follow. (Bill).
> supporters--promoting "monetary reformers" like
> Bernard Lietaer, who is in fact a leading Gesellist--
> as examples that social crediters should follow. (Bill).
Who you have not listed and
described is yourself, Bill.
So, I'll assume you're a
Social Crediter, or Douglasist - but during the days of my formative political
years, there were Socialists, or Marxists in different camps opposing each other
vehemently while reading from the same bible. Social Democrats were simply seen
as traitors by the hard core, but watching Trotskyites at the throats
of Marxist Leninists -who they dismissed as Stalinists-, was spectacularly
scary; not as if most observers understood it all, since the insider
jargon was as mystifying as some of your own Social Credit
explanations, Bill.
Yet it is said
of Marx that he only became a Marxist in the mid 1840s, but even after
that he could at times feel it necessary to assert that he was not a
Marx'ist'.
Such disagreements
are obviously not peculiar/particular to Marx's or Douglas' ideas, but
I've made this connection deliberately, because they do connect (and here,
in this explanation quoted form the Norwegian philosopher Jostein Gaarder who tries to
explain Marx in simple language to a neophyte, yours Bill, and
my central interest regarding the 'displacement of labour' is
specifically mentioned :)
"...which means production as a
whole is continually being made more effective. Factories become bigger ad
bigger, and are gradually concentrated in fewer and fewer
hands.
Fewer and fewer workers are
required, which means there are more and more unemployed. There are
thereafter increasing social problems, and crisis such as these
are a signal that capitalism is marching toward its own destruction. But
capitalism has a number of other self-destructive elements. Whenever
profit has to be tied up in the means of production without leaving a big enough
surplus to keep production going at competitive prices....
.....when the factory owner cannot
make ends meet, cannot buy the raw materials you need to keep producing, when
facing bankruptcy.
So now my question is, what can
he/you do to economize?
....Cut down on wages, that really is
the smartest thing you could do. But if all capitalists are as smart as that,
the workers would be so poor that they could not afford the goods any more.
We would say that purchasing power is falling...."
I'd say any Social Crediter
today reading this would admit that Marx was not a stupid fellow :)
<smiles>
But he
was after all
not perfect and completely correct in all his conclusions/predictions, because
the capitalist system did not collapse under its own contradictions. Marx paid
insufficient attention to the plundering of the environment, or the export of
surplus production - often radically efficient export in the form of
war.
And so I'm back to the issue
of interest, as in the non-issuing of money to the masses who have to pay
interest.
Call me a monetary Gesselist
reformer, a socialist, liberal or libertarian, conservationist,
trade unionist, pacifist/peace activist, individualist or communityist ......
I have been and am some and all of these things, and now I'm learning
to become a Social Crediter too.
But one who thinks
that unearned and undistributed interest is part of the problem, as I think
Douglas did too. Though he may have paid insufficient attention to
it?
Maybe it is just an
'accountancy measure', a mechanism built on top of the more
fundamental fault line, but it is an _expression_/extension of it, because while
it results in accumulating/compounding enormous unearned income/profit to the
few who already 'have', it demands full/full-time employment from the
majority who otherwise 'have not' sufficient money to pay the
interest.
Regards,
Ekky
Irion
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The problem, Michael, is that you were
probably on the > wrong list from the beginning. Your "municipal social
> credit" scheme is simply a variation of sovietism as
> advocated by Lenin, Trotsky, et al. which they
> practiced before and after the October revolution till
> Stalin came along. So it's not even original thought,
> Michael. For the past to "triumph" we do need to know
> something about it, at the very least, so we don't
> repeat the mistakes that others already made.
>
> As to those you claim to be your supporters (who I am
> sure are your friends, as all of us are):
>
> Jessop is a novice who admittedly knows little about
> social credit. So far as I can tell he is trying to
> learn and does not seem to be pushing his own agenda.
>
> Chick has been around for awhile. Generally I have
> found what he says to make good sense.
>
> Rodney "who stepped up to the plate" is completely
> ignorant of social credit--he has never read Douglas
> (and very little else, so far as I can tell)--and uses
> every opportunity to promote his own nitwit "binary
> economics" scheme.
>
> Joe who replied "privately" to you said quite publicly
> yesterday that Douglas was "perhaps unwittingly" part
> of the "conspiracy."
>
> And now we have Ekky--who you didn't list among your
> supporters--promoting "monetary reformers" like
> Bernard Lietaer, who is in fact a leading Gesellist--
> as examples that social crediters should follow.
>
> So farewell, Michael.
>
> (But if there is something you would like to post or
> contribute in the future, you are always welcome to
> do so.)
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
> http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005
>
>
>
> credit" scheme is simply a variation of sovietism as
> advocated by Lenin, Trotsky, et al. which they
> practiced before and after the October revolution till
> Stalin came along. So it's not even original thought,
> Michael. For the past to "triumph" we do need to know
> something about it, at the very least, so we don't
> repeat the mistakes that others already made.
>
> As to those you claim to be your supporters (who I am
> sure are your friends, as all of us are):
>
> Jessop is a novice who admittedly knows little about
> social credit. So far as I can tell he is trying to
> learn and does not seem to be pushing his own agenda.
>
> Chick has been around for awhile. Generally I have
> found what he says to make good sense.
>
> Rodney "who stepped up to the plate" is completely
> ignorant of social credit--he has never read Douglas
> (and very little else, so far as I can tell)--and uses
> every opportunity to promote his own nitwit "binary
> economics" scheme.
>
> Joe who replied "privately" to you said quite publicly
> yesterday that Douglas was "perhaps unwittingly" part
> of the "conspiracy."
>
> And now we have Ekky--who you didn't list among your
> supporters--promoting "monetary reformers" like
> Bernard Lietaer, who is in fact a leading Gesellist--
> as examples that social crediters should follow.
>
> So farewell, Michael.
>
> (But if there is something you would like to post or
> contribute in the future, you are always welcome to
> do so.)
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
> http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005
>
>
>
==^^=============================================================== 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 ==^^===============================================================
