Some general comments made to a correspondent outside the discussion group. Comments in square brackets [] have been added. Note the references to "Binary Economics":
Dear [ ]: The association of Social Credit with the political party gathered some earlier more sound elements who preceded it but eventually degenenerated to the point where it became a distinct liability to the promotion of the original philosophy and policy. What would be left of genuine Social Credit if it had not been for those who preserved it in the non-party sphere? The Alberta situation was that a movement had developed, more than a political party, and at that time Douglas felt a responsibility to offer what sound guidance he could. But he did not promote S.C. as a party. You will remember, also, that in the early days Douglas had hopes that his recommendations would be accepted for their soundness but learned very shortly the reality that power politics would preclude such acceptance because his policy objectives were not compatible with the financial powers and their hanger-ons. [Response to the charge that there have been disagreements among non-party Social Crediters:] There have often been disagreements among non-party Social Crediters but in the main these have stemmed from a desire to follow a course that was true to Douglas's proposals and differences of opinion in this area, especially regarding tactics and strategems for advancement. The difference is that these differences were not generally related to power politics--but rather how to best follow and implement Douglas's ideas. [That is, service to social cause rather than personal aggrandizement has usually been the motivation.] Certainly, whatever party is in office, Social Credit or otherwise, only effective militant surveillance and demands by the public with required sanctions could effect a sound course. Politicians will be Politicians! I think the Roman Senator Cicero once said that politicians were not born but [censored]. He had a lot of experience in this field--and I don't see much evidence of great improvement. I think it would be rather euphemistic to say that Social Credit had success in Alberta and Quebec. An army was recruited but was effectively derailed. Because of earlier associations and some more sound elements, I would agree that a resurgence of Social Credit ideas would likely be more easily achieved in these two provinces. But in Quebec, i.e., the non-party Social Credit "Michael" people (Louis Even's Union of Electors or "White Berets") [preceded party action and] remain as the primary source of Social Credit thought and action. While I had considerable respect for Real Caouette who originated with the non-party Union of Electors, the political party which he started [characteristically] disintegrated in a disastrous way. Party politics DIVIDES the people--and eventually drives them to disgust and apathy. [Reply to a concern that concentrated support and agreed adherence to essential Social Credit doctrine may tend to totalitarian behaviour:] I don't think that general agreement on policy, etc. in any way suggests totalitarian behaviour. If that were true nothing would ever get done because any strong consensus would be regarded as unacceptable. I agree that--provided it is genuinely engaged in as a quest for truth--independent thinking is a sign of intelligence, but totalitariain behaviour is only present when people are deceived, compelled, intimidated or coerced into thought or behavior modes. People who are forever divided will never achieve anything in association--and the less they understand things in a disciplined way, the more divided they will be. The experts must come together through applied study and the general masses, in the nature of things, can be unified in general policy demands rather than technical matters. [No one has to accept Social Credit but those who profess it have an obligation to understand it as thoroughly as possible. Eclecticism is not helpful to understanding the specific subject--especially if it precedes an a disciplined study of the subject.] Binary Economics: Social Credit seeks to restore to the individual his or her rightful share in the communal capital via the Dividend and Compensated Price. [Whether the recipients spend or invest funds made available via their Dividends is a matter of choice.]Binary Economics as I understand it seeks to distribute dividends from WITHIN the price-system which is a denial of Douglas's analysis of the costing system which demonstrates the impossibility of balancing consumption with production via income payments internal to the system. Moreover, my impression is that in order to provide such dividends as Binary Economics would provide, an enormous and exponential increase in production is posited. In other words, it would have devastating environmental effects, while it still would not deal with the problem exposed by the A+B Theorem. It is still bound to the idea that all consumer access to wealth must come from work--do not loans to acquire shares have to be repaid? Many people have neither the interest nor the ability to be directly involved in adminstrative aspects of productive enterprise but that does not, surely, deny them the right to life and the means to it. If I am stranded on the classical remote island, I am going to eat the fruit to be freely found there, I can assure you, with an entirely clear conscience. [And so long as the banana and coconut trees produce an abundance to which I have access, I am not going to be even slightly concerned that I have no formal ownership of these sources of wealth.] You may have noticed some critiques which have recently appeared on the Web of this notion that everyone MUST have direct ownership in capital. What Social Credit wants to do is to ensure that citizens have ACCESS to the results flowing from the productive system by crediting them in prices with the values of capital appreciation credited against the lesser value of capital depreciation. [The "Binary" obsession with direct capital ownership seems to entail a serious confusion of function. Douglas said that we need an "aristocracy of producers, serving and accredited by a democracy of consumers"--in other words, a body of specialized experts, serving and removable by the general body of consumers. Social Credit seeks a consumer-motivated economy--in which economic democracy has been added to political democracy. The only effective means of achieving this end is by giving consumers through FULL income the right to exercise choice to which producers must respond or cease to exit. Thus the consuming public would have effective decentralized sanctions which could never even be approximated by the decision-making procedures involved in capital ownership. The aim is immanent sovereignty.] My impression of Binary Economics is that it is not very disciplined and not realistic. I have read some of their agonized debates about how to effect their policy and it sounds like a nightmare to me. Social Credit believes that everyone has an inheritance to which they have an immediate right--not something that might eventuate sometime depending upon the success or otherwise of some specific enterprise to which they are attached over a given period. [Rodney Shakespeare repeatedly, and perhaps sometimes justifiably, complains that the critics of Binary Economics have failed to fully examine its proposals. By the same token, his repeated seemingly inexplicable suggestions that Social Credit fails to effectively address the issues relating to capital ownership and individual citizens would seem to indicate that he has not really made a thorough, or conscientous, study of Social Credit as put forward by C. H. Douglas.] Anyway, [ ], these are some of my thoughts and impressions. I attach a PDF of Douglas's "The New and the Old Economics" in case you have never seen it. Sincerely Wally --^---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
