How is Social Credit different from technocracy? CS
In a previous recent post on a different subject, Bill Ryan provided this excert from Finlay's book that explains it quite well. Joe
John L. Finlay, *Social Credit: The English Origins,*
1972, pages 102-105.
(notes omitted)
...What made Douglas fear organization and what made
him insist upon the organic was his bold analysis of
human nature and especially of human motivation.
While holding that most people were good, socially
minded creatures, he allowed the existence of a
minority whose driving force was the pursuit of
power. It was here in the identification of the power
complex that Douglas showed his originality. In a
pretotalitarian age it was difficult to conceive of
anyone's being motivated by power for its own sake.
Yet it was this point which Douglas had stressed from
his earliest writings onwards, the second of his
articles in the *English Review" was entitled "The
Pyramid of Power." In that article he described the
"will to power" and noted that it was particularly
virulent in Germany. The war had encouraged the
development of this will, and not only in Germany, so
that a new danger faced the world. It was not merely
an intensification of previous conflict, for there
was a qualitative difference too. "Strong and
embittered differences of opinion resulting in some
sort of conflict are nothing new in the history of
civilization," Douglas noted, "they recur with dreary
monotony ...But there is definitely novel component
in the present upheaval ...the cleavage is in the
main horizontal and the issue is impersonal." In
Douglas's view, then, groups were of two kinds. There
were traditional natural groupings which predated the
emergence of the "novel component in the present
upheaval" and which were to be preserved as essential
protection against the coming storm. They would tend
to be small, and in fact Douglas once declared that
no organization should exceed three thousand. On the
other hand there were artificial organizations which
had no real purpose but to provide the means by which
the power seekers could arrange the people into a
perfect hierarchy of obedience. It was for this
reason that Douglas was so distrustful of democracy.
Not that he was prepared to give up the concept
itself. He declared his belief in the "Democracy of
the Common Will"; what he rejected was the "Democracy
either of the Intellect or of the emotions, which
lead directly to dictatorships." Thus he refused to
distinguish between the extreme right and the extreme
left. He sensed rather than understood that mass
mobilization through the ballot box would lead to "a
Mussolini and a Lenin or Trotsky who are identical in
their contempt for Liberty and passion for the rule
of centralizing force." The same intuition led him to
oppose the Work Study philosophy and its later
manifestation, Technocracy, two movements which
maintained that a planned approach to the routine of
work at all levels could lead to tremendous increases
in output. Such methods demanded a high level of
organization and therefore were to be feared. A
typical Douglas judgment upon these movements was
that they were "Syndicalist in essence and [did] not
differ very widely...from ... Fascism."
--^^--------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^^---------------------------------------------------------------
