***] 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. [***
I'm sure that it is useful and I certainly intend to read it.
***] Yes he does, 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. [***
That's right, propaganda is the better word.
***]And the use of capitals and other emphasis did give me a slight feel of those old conspiracy theory diatribes [***
Because they are written by amateurs without editors. And that does create a problem for the book in that it will inhibit its selection for purchase by libraries with limited budgets. It doesn't have the "appearance" of scholarship, which is all that seems to count nowadays in becoming "journal" articles or shelved by "research" libraries. The substance (or lack thereof) behind the slick appearance is irrelevant.
***]What is the line that they spout? I have never read George seriously, and all I know about the Georgist 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. [***
Actually, I believe that if we are to have taxes property taxation is the best form of taxation for a whole slew of reasons. That slew is not Georgism, however, in the pure form. It was the "single tax" on land not improvements on land. A vacant parcel of land identical and adjacent to a parcel upon which has been erected a one hundred story office tower would be taxed at nearly the same rate as the parcel with the office tower. The office tower itself being an improvement wouldn't be taxed. There is a lot of logic to that argument. My problem with Georgism is its complete indifference to the financial aspect to the situation. Especially in the nineteenth century when George wrote it was a diversion from the hotly contested "money question" in a country where plenty of free land was still available and that land already titled was easily purchased. That "diversion" may well have been intentional. At any rate, the movement had a great deal of financial success if not political success. One can only speculate as to the reasons why. That is of course my conspiracy theorist side speaking.
***]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 Georgists are rich? [***
The connection is that they opposed the greenbackers and populists. Yes, the majority of latter day social crediters appear to be greenbackers in that they want government to be the monopoly source of money and that it is printed and "spent" into circulation for government projects. They are therefore in opposition to Douglas who would pay dividends directly to people, allowing people and not government to spend the money into circulation preserving the system of free enterprise and personal sovereignty. It's what he meant by economic democracy. On several occasions he said it could be accomplished through the banking system. As to why the Georgists are rich, I suggested an answer in my reply above. They have huge endowments that go back to the nineteenth century. They were never starved for funds as were the greenbackers and populists. William Jennings Bryan was the "fusion" candidate of the Populist, Greenbacker and Democratic parties, with endorsements from Republican "free silver" groups. The banks and every single big-city newspaper opposed him. So far as I know he wasn't endorsed by a single Georgist organization.
***]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 Georgist tract) [***
Zarlenga is a Georgist of long standing. The theory is not that Zarlenga's book is a Georgist tract but that the Georgists have had an axe to grind with social credit and its predecessors that goes back many decades.
***]Now you are insulting me as well as the author, and it doesn't polish the image of your own standards of scholarship. [***
The claim that George was a greenbacker is a recent concoction, believe me, as is their claim to be supporters of the national dividend.
***] This is interesting, and you may be able to demonstrate eventually that it is both an oblique attack on Social Credit and an endorsement of George and single tax [***
What I think has happened is that Zarlenga has become a greenbacker and has basically written off the single tax but won't or can't let go of his Georgist roots. He pays lip service to the single tax (and possibly is paid for the lip service) in the manner the osteopaths pay lip service to the theory of subluxations. The Georgist movement is intellectually though not financially moribund in terms of being true to its roots.
***]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. [***
That is correct. For social credit to make any headway at all it is going to have to be completely repackaged for the twenty-first century. Right now it has far too much baggage.
***]What gave you the notion that I aspired to be one? [***
Nothing.
***]Maybe your reputation as investigative reporter preceded you. Anyway, the scholar's response to an effort like this is to read and comment. [***
Not only that, but to do so from an informed basis.
***]please hold back on the inference that I am obliged to parrot yours [***
That is not my intention.
***]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." [***
What I have said is background information underlying the book, about Georgism, its conflict with the greenbackers and populists, its financial backing, Zarlenga's history, etc. I made no pretense to be commenting on the book other than what I've read from others. Having said that, I am quite confident the book carries forward themes that he has expressed before in articles and papers he has already published, with which I am quite familiar. Some of the book's chapters have already been published before almost verbatim, as Zarlenga so states on his website. Hearsay, yes, but that's all we've got to work with in many cases. Using the adjective "hoary" doesn't change that reality. Indeed, our sum total of knowledge that we have read or been told by persons who are not themselves the actual witnesses of events is hearsay. That covers most of what we think we know, including that the speed of light is the speed of light, and the assertion that Jupiter has moons. Indeed, the assertion that the Earth's moon is NOT made of green cheese.
_________________________________________________________________
Compare Cable, DSL or Satellite plans: As low as $29.95. https://broadband.msn.com
--^---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
