----- Original Message ----- From: William B. Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:35 PM Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Wants critical comment--Keith reads Zarlenga
>>>>> He can write a 798 page book purportedly on the "lost science" of money without mentioning Douglas and social credit, come on. <<<<<<<<<<< I found the book very useful for understanding a lot of the political and philosophical issues that have surrounded my impressions of Social Credit over the years. That is why I suggested to Chick that I would send my summary of it to his questioner. >>>>>>>>>>>...Zarlenga does claim that his book is scholarship.<<<<<<<<<<<<< Yes he does, and and the fact that you disagree with either the thesis or the quality of the work does not cast it into the class of "non-scholarship". I think you mean that it is propaganda, and you might make that one stick. >>>>>>>>>>>There's a lot of background information to this some of which I mentioned regarding the conflict between social credit and the Georgists that goes back to their conflict with the greenbackers and the populists. And now they are trying to say that George was a greenbacker. As to the "scholarship" angle I am partly relying on what Geoffrey Gardiner said about the book. And now this very day I read this from Michael Hudson: "As for Stephen's book I can't answer, as he's not speaking to me any more when I told him I couldn't quote his Chapter 1 because it was a messy hodge-podge, self-published, with too many sentences in capital letters with too many exclamation marks. So I'm not sure what the greenback story is."<<<<<<<<<<<<<< What you say may apply as a long-term goal, but there is very little overt appeal to George. Of "greenbacker" sentiment, if taken in a general sense, yes. I have deliberately not read Gardiner's review so as not to bais my own reading in advance. As to Hudson's comment, I sent an early comment to Stephen which complained that the book often has a scrapbook quality, leaving a bit much to the reader to fit together. And the use of capitals and other emphasis did give me a slight feel of those old conspiracy theory diatribes, which is why I did the exporation which led me to Mullins. I have nevertheless found no evidence of dishonest scholarship. >>>>>>>>>>Yes, I am biased against the Georgists and those in the twenty-first century who can still spout that line. They can spout it because there's a lot of money to be made in spouting it. They have tens of millions in their endowments to pay "researchers." They can't spend it all hopping about like "foundation" heads. It wouldn't look right. I really don't think the present day Georgists-I mean those official ones at the foundations-take seriously any of it.<<<<<<<<<<<<<< What is the line that they spout? I have never read George seriously, and all I know about the Georgeist line is its argument that most taxes should be based on real property values because they incorporate (nearly) all the benefit that human striving and natural resource wealth manifest in money terms. I have never been aware of its connection to the Populist silver campaign or to the greenbacker theme (which, by the way, seems to be endorsed by at least some Social Crediters). Why is it that the Georgeists are rich? ***>I have read the book, and it offers little support for your theory. <*** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What specific theory is that?<<<<<<<<<<<<< The theory you announced in your last letter just before I referred to it. You said "I have a theory" (that Zarlenga's book is a Georgeist tract). ***>It does, however, cite one of George's books, which, on examination, does endorse the theme that the monetary system should be a public function rather than a private privilege. <*** >>>>>>>>>Did you actually examine the book itself, or simply take it at face value Zarlenga's excerpts outside the context of the book? George wrote millions of words in that ponderous verbose nineteenth century style of his. Zarlenga dredged up a few paragraphs that apparently support the greenbacker thesis.<<<<<<<<<<<<< Now you are insulting me as well as the author, and it doesn't polish the image of your own standards of scholarship. >>>>>>>>>>>>>The point is that George and his movement were most definitely in political conflict with the greenbackers of that time, as they most definitely opposed and tried to undermine social credit of eighty years ago and apparently are doing so now, if Zarlenga's book is any indication from what I have learned, for admittedly I haven't read it. They (meaning the Georgists) do have long memories. Now they claim to support the national dividend. That is a revelation of theirs within the past ten years or so which they would fund with their "single tax." In any case, Douglas was opposed to the greenbacker argument that money should be printed and spent by government because of the supreme power it would give government. But the "single tax" is a tax, not a proposal to print money.<<<<<<<<<<<<< This is interesting, and you may be able to demonstrate eventually that it is both an oblique attack on Social Credit and an endoresment of George and single tax, but I will forecast that the demonstration will be every bit as tenuous as you imagine this one of Zarlenga's to be. Those are not the kinds of themes that the book raises to my mind; the flavor is quite different. I fully expect, however, that you will disagree with his main policy recommendation, even though I am still uncertain of how the Social Credit techniques would accomplish the same objectives. Furthermore, it shouldn't be necessary to appeal to either George or Douglas in arguing for or against the policy proposals, the source of the ideas should not be the criterion for judging their efficacy or desirability. ***>It is not my style to interrogate new acquaintances with hostile questions. I wait until they have given me reason to complain about deliberate deception. <*** >>>>>>>>>Then you would never make it as an investigative reporter, for I have given you grist to chew on.<<<<<<<<<<<<< What gave you the notion that I aspired to be one? >>>>>>>>>> In any case, he would cut you off in an instant if he suspected even the hint of hostility (should we infer from that he is paranoid? <<possibly>>) as he has now done with Hudson. He never so much as gave me the chance to be cut off. He never gave me the courtesy of replying to even one of my emails.<<<<<<< Maybe your reputation as investigative reporter preceded you. Anyway, the scholar's response to an effort like this is to read and comment. I am doing so, and I will have my own comments to make. You can argue with mine, but please hold back on the inference that I am obliged to parrot yours. And note that your position in this discussion has been substantially the same as that of the socialist writer whose attack on Social Credit got us going in the first place--"I haven't examined the text, but I know its wrong for these reasons, some of them hoary hearsay but they mean much the same today." _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive larger attachments with Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es --^---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
