|
Populism and
Full-employment
It has been noted on here, and correctly in
my opinion, that the ultimate direction of what can be called
'Greenbacker-ism', i.e. the Government prints and spends money into circulation,
is inevitably towards 'Fascism'. As I understand it, one
of the policies of 'Fascism' is 'full-employment'. Under increasingly
centralized direction. Which is another way of saying that those in charge
have found a way of 'making' everyone work.
What is less clear is whether or not 'Populism', in
the abscense of properly applied Social Credit financial principles, might lead
to somewhat the same thing.
For it's also been mentioned that one of the roots
of the Canadian Social Credit movement was imported American
'Populism'. And that (at least two of) the ''Social Credit'' Party
governments of British Columbia were seen as being very 'Populist'
administrations. Those governments, while a vast improvement over what we
had previously, or since, did not ever attempt to avail themselves too much
of 'social credit' financial principles
In recalling that era, without question two of the
most "Populist" (and popular, at least for a time) members of those Governments
were the Rev. Phil Gaglardi and Bill Vander Zalm. The former was
an aspirant to the leadership of the original BC Social
Credit 'Movement', and later, as BC's long time Minister of Highways was
described by former Premier WAC Bennett as "the greatest Roman road builder of
all time." And few in BC would argue with that description.
The latter, Mr. Vander Zalm, actually did
become Premier, after serving in several Cabinet positions in the Bill Bennett
government. And was eventually credited, (rightly or wrongly), with
destroying the BC Social Credit Party.
Both of these individuals, however, had more in
common than their respective strong popularities, highly
visible religious convictions, shared 'Populist' beliefs, and an abiding
desire to hold the top job. For at various times in their political
careers both also briefly occupied what is now known in BC as the "Human
Resources Ministry" portfolio.
This is the government Ministry which, amongst
other things, doles out welfare benefits. And both of these gentlemen
entered that job with a pre-conceived notion they were there to weed out the
'deadbeats'. Those able-bodied recipients of the public's largesse who
they were sure were 'scamming' the system, and should be made to "pick up their
shovels, and get a job."
Mr. Gaglardi, who was no stranger to 'scamming'
himself, and had always been a bit scandal-prone, was eventually stripped of his
Highways job over his familiy's personal use of a Government jet. And
was later 're-habilitated' by being given the Human Resources portfolio.
Where he arrived with the announcement that the 'deadbeats' better watch out,
for he was going to be the "best rootin'-tootin' Welfare Minister ever in
'saving' the taxpayer's dollars".
I've read the record later showed he'd spent over
twice as much trying to "weed out the 'deadbeats", the few that were actually
found, than it would have ever cost to have kept paying them
welfare! But the initiative taken was
politically popular in many quarters, nonetheless.
There is something else the record should have
shown, if anyone had been keeping one. And that is how this notion that
everyone should be 'made' to work, was in contrast to 'Social Credit'
philosophy. For I ask you, if you were a BC employer, would you want
someone in your employ who didn't want to work? Would it add to greater
'efficiency' in your firm to have such employees? As a BC employer I'll
answer those questions. A simple 'No' to both should
suffice.
Most of those people were clearly not 'needed' in
the workforce, and being in the 'workforce' was clearly where they didn't, for
whatever reasons, want to be. Why, then, think that anything's to be
gained by burdening some poor employer with them? It's completely
counterproductive. And if any 'satisfaction' was gained by anyone
from that type of exercise, it was a very perverted 'satisfaction' indeed.
For we needed them not as 'producers'; in that role most would've been more a
hinderance than a help. But we did need them as
'consumers'. And with a proper financial system we could have
benefited from their 'release' from the employment system. "Populism" in
this case was like 'political democracy' without 'economic democracy' ~
like dynamite, in the harmful effects of its misuse.
Fast forward a number of years, and we'd find Bill
Vander Zalm entering the Human Resources job with much the same attitude of his
one-time Socred predecessor. He started off by making a speech, one in
which he publicly chided those who 'will not' work, (even though by this time
there is no argument that there was a genuine shortage of jobs in BC), and told
them they'd better, "Pick up their shovels", and get with it, because he's
out to cut them off welfare. He received great applause for this stance,
(from an already expectant audience). And the 'unemployed', or at least an
organized group of them, decided to take him at his word.
They 'picked up their shovels', and with TV
cameras rolling, and other media types in attendance, staged a march to Mr.
Vander Zalm's private nursery business. Where they were going to
apply for 'all the jobs' he'd indicated were out there. Knowing full
well there wouldn't be anything there, or anywhere else, for
them. It would have made great theatre, and
driven home their point, if someone hadn't tipped Vander Zalm first. His
phone call to his nursery Manager preceded their arrival. And his
instructions to him were to, " Hire everyone that applied". And with
TV cameras rolling that's exactly what the Manager did. Leading all the
would be 'shovelers' to a great pile of manure and sawdust mix, and telling them
to move it by shovel and wheelbarrow to another area of the nursery.
They'd been completely 'upstaged' by a master of media manipulation. Most
through down their shovels in disgust, and stalked away. The show was
over. Almost.
For while the general public was eating up the
great victory of Vander Zalm's moment of glory, and most of the media had left
for other stories elsewhere, one reporter had not. He hung around the
nursery 'til the end of the day. And then interviewed one of the young men
in the march who'd been hired, and had spent the entire day on the end of his
shovel. He asked him what he thought of his new job. And, sadly, the
young fellow's response, where it made it into the papers at all, was buried in
the back pages. It should have been front page news. For the young
fellow replied that he was quite willing to work, and glad of the chance, even
though he hadn't expected what had happened. But what he,
and the few fellows who'd also stayed, had spent all day doing by shovel and
wheelbarrow could've been done in less than ten minutes by any one of them being
allowed to get on the front-end loader parked idle all day behind the manure
pile. He opined that this use of 'manual labour' was a rather
'inefficient' way to conduct a business, and though he knew his 'job' would end
if the loader was used, using it made far more sense all around than the
perpetual drudgery they'd all just endured. He did not, as might be
expected, know the answer to this apparent dilemma. Sadly, for one
who aspired to lead a "Social Credit" Party, neither did Bill Vander
Zalm.
Joe
|
Re:- (social credi
Reply to this message
