eListas - My Lists: socialcredit: Messages

Dear Mr Klinck,

What I find potentially problematic about the social credit philosophy as expounded by Maj. Douglas is as follows:

- it upholds a conception of an 'individual' - though it is doubtful that any such entity has any real existence; It upholds the development of each individual person as the basis of appropriate principles of association, deserving of primary respect. This is consonant with the Christian "Golden Rule" )i.e., Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love God with all one's heart (respect and practice the quest for truth as these relate to the laws of the universe) and love one's neighbor as oneself) As persons we only have consciousness as individuals and from this we derive knowledge about the various aspects of life which give meaning and fulfillment o our existence. It is a sacrilege (major sin) for any person or institution to interfere with the personal relationship of any person with "God" as it is understood through freedom of conscience by the individual. Any interference is only to be justisfied if an individual attempts to deprive his fellow beings of the basic freedoms of thought, enquiry, expression, belief, association, etc.

- it proclaims the object of political organisation to be 'individual freedom' - and therefore sets itself firmly within the framework of classical liberalism; It primarily affirms the right to, and meaning of, individual freedom from the perspective of Christian thought and practice. Insofar as classical liberalism may incorporates some similar beliefs, what might be wrong with that? This does not mean that the two are synonymous and the system of finance which has grown up within both classic liberal and conservative environments certainly does not reflect the philosophy of Christian thought in a practical and organic manner.

- it is just as 'utopian' and millenial as other forms of liberalism in that it looks forward to a 'social credit' system which will bring about a 'new civilisation' through increasing personal freedoms and purchasing power; Douglas regarded Utopianism as some form of preconceived model or structure of society which is pre-formulated and intended to be implanted in or imposed upon society and to this he was entirely opposed, regarding such conceptions to be essentially static and as such a great danger to society. He made it clear that Social Crediters do not profess to know the ultimate nature of human life as it may unfold in the future, but they do believe that the most favorable unfolding of the outcomes of human association are most likely and rapidly to occur where immanent sovereignty for the individual is maximized for all persons within the context of maximal economic security. Social Credit does not intend to prescribe the nature of that "new civilisation" of which Douglas spoke. We do want to facilitate its easy evolution or development by ensuring that the abstract system by which we express and measure our material economic relationships provides a realistic and correct representation of those actual relationships--which we assert it does not do today and increasingly distorts with the growing implementation of technology which reduces the ratio of human effort required to meet our physical needs. In this regard, as Douglas said, Social Credit surely can claim credit to perceiving the realistic nature of one critical aspect of the problems facing us and provision for abundance in the context of freedom. This includes increasing leisure. Indeed, Social Credit forsees a growing release from "economics" as a functional activity of men and women aimed at the provision of material things. This is predicated upon a state of abundance realizeable through the blessings of nature an the innovations of society in being able to discover and apply more efficient means of converting material through the application of energy into forms which are useful and/or desired by the consuming public, i.e., by society at large. There is nothing "millenial" to my knowledge about Social Credit. Social Credit seeks the realistic integration of ends and means in the context of a dynamic, as opposed to the current static, economic dispensation.

- it also seems to take a rather mechanistic view of human nature and society in that it involves the veiw that everything would be a bed of roses if only we changed the financial system - when of course a change in the financial workings of society would do nothing at all to alleviate the basic selfishness of our fleshly hearts. Douglas appeared to be less than enthusiastic about the "Doctrine of Original Sin" as it is usually presented as an innate and fatal characteristic of the human personality. Not a very optimistic or complimentary view of humanity as a creation of God! He said of the assertion that persons are likely to show aggressive and negative tendencies when annoyed, that the logical and rational thing to do would be not to annoy them. The existing artificial and flawed system of financial cost-accountancy arrays an escalating battery of annoyances and tragedies against the individual citizen which makes social friction and violence, ultimately in the form of war, an easily predictable and inevitable outcome of the perverse circumstances engendered thereby. One cannot violate natural law but attempts to do so inevitably carry a heavy burden of consequences. People who concentrate on the essential evil nature of their fellows are to be highly suspect inasmuch as this usually suggests a desire to control and manipulate for the furtherance of some ulterior or vested interest. Insecurity which derives from a constant threat to one's basic physical and psychological integrity or survival is the primary well-spring of the desire for excessive acquisiton and to control others because of the fear that is engendered by threats to basic security of the person. The present financial dispensation is designed to maximize economic insecurity by granting the right to live only by increasing enslavement to debt accompanied by progressive inflation of monetary values. Social Crediters do not suggest that all human problems will simply evaporate with the institution of a rectified financial regime--but we do say that even angels could not administer the present financial apparatus to the benefit of mankind and that the modifications which we recommend would make it practically possible with the proper will to make rapid positive progress in the material and cultural affairs of mankind. We recognize the necessity for a scientific and rational approach to the economic activities of modern society. We do not regard the human personality from a "mechanistic" standpoint which would be quite incompatible with our perspective of the individual person as a free and creative being in the essential Christian context.

I also have difficulty with the explanation of Social Credit as 'practical Christianity' - as also with your explanation that Maj Douglas lived within a 'Christian culture.' Well, so did Tsar Nicholas live within a 'Christian culture' - in Holy Russia itself! If you want real practical Christianity, as per the Russian example, one should either join a monastery or go to live in a cave in the remote forests of Siberia, and devote oneself to prayer! Douglas lived in a culture which had over centuries preserved and implemented with varying degrees of success certain Christian principles. These included a considerable influence upon the British system of jurisprudence and political structure. This embraced such things as the reforms and protection of the Magna Charta ("The Great Charter" of 1215 A.D.) the British Bill of Rights, the rights to habeas corpus, justice with mercy, the rights and protections derived from evolution of the Common Law, the independence of the Three Estates including that of a supposedly free press. The structure of government was designed according with a trinitarian model which attempted to divide state functions in a counterbalancing manner into the legislative, executive and judicial branches to maintain independence of function and prevent the concentration of power into impregnable and unchallengeable centres of monopolized power. This was part of a continuing struggle to protect the individual citizen against arbitrary and unaccountable decrees and power exercised by absolute monarchy and all-powerful governments. It was crowned by the idea of a constitution (not written in Britain but rather organic) enshrining the rights of the individual and responsibilities of government toward all citizens. Moreover, it was characterized by an invincible and undying optimism inspired by the Christian message of the special nature of each person and the promise to all of the opportunity to participate in and to access, responsibly, the boundless abundance of a beneficent God and bountiful nature. Of all factors working against and sabotaging the realization of this end, the financial system has been central. It has buffeted mankind between booms and depressions, unrepayable debt and inevitable foreclosures, physical abuses and psychological stresses, and the final abominations of destructive wars which have ruined efforts of lifetimes and subjected populations to unthinkable horrors and suffering. As Douglas observed, modern wars are fought between A and B at the instigation of, and for the benefit of, C. I do not know your cultural or religious/philosophical background but from your comments, it would appear that your conception of the nature of Christian principles may be something which derives from a perspective quite alien to my own. (?) So far as Old Russia is concerned I think we have to bear in mind the evolution of nations and differing cultures over historic periods. If we are thinking of "Ivan the Terrible" surely this must be different than to consider Nicholas II who was relatively a decent man but perhaps less competent than he could have been. I doubt that many would argue in consideration of the rapid advances being made in Russia during this latter period that the nation would not have emerged over the next century as a leading modern state with great achievements in science and political organization. Surely, it would have done much better than under the murderous authoritarian dictatorship which replaced the government of Nicholas and provided only tyranny and scarcity. For a time, at least, even the Nazis provided a stabilized economy with relative abundance, albeit with their own brand of authoritarianism. Their tragic mistake was to elevate the "Work State" as the road to "salvation"--which led, as the worship of work must inevitably do, to a major world conflagration. That sort of idol worship, of course, is what Western nations do also--and accounts for our endless and expanding engagements in destructive warfare, or attempted economic conquest through military adventure. Anyone can claim that they adhere to any religious or philosophical position but this is no guarantee of fidelity whatsoever. Religion and belief systems as such can be and often are appropriated, misrepresented and misapplied for entirely self-interested ends which are at wide variance with the ends which might reasonably be associated with them. This corruption by humans has been quite common but need be no criticism of any religious or philosophical view and their alleged policy objectives. After all, the price of freedom--as has been said--is eternal vigilance. A society comprised in the majority by irresponsible citizens probably gets what it deserves. Of course, the existing "establishment" seems less than enthusiastic about assisting the general populace to think meaningfully about public financial, economic and social affairs--being content if not determined to keep those citizens occupied with trivial pursuits--while the world around them "goes to hell in a handbasket."

The 'salvation by grace' concept which you promote seems to me rather more a British Calvinist protestant bias. And to dichotomise it with an 'essentially Jewish doctrine of salvation by works' shows a clear misunderstanding of Orthodox Christianity and possibly of Rabbinical Judaism. My understanding is that the "Protestant Work Ethic" describes the materialistic, financial/economic tyranny which has been characteristic, under the existing financial system, of predominantly Protestant nations. Here, there has been an artifical separation of the spiritual and the physical, with professed emphasis upon spiritual salvation but which in reality is closely allied with work at the material plane. While the Protestant societies have allowed economic progress they have also implemented a form of economic tyranny which derives from the perverse and defective financial system which will, as a moral imperative, provide "money" only for work and never directly for consumption. Of course, Douglas observed that if the primary objective of the economy is to provide work--and increasing work--then the existing system is probably nearly perfect, inasmuch as it necessitates increasing expansion which requires, and will guarantee, increasing waste activity in the form of unnecessary consumer production, excess capital production and inevitably grand waste through war and destruction. Catholic society it seems has emphasized the spiritual above the material but has done so, historically, by the exercise of fear of Divine retribution often in a manner which can only be described as a form of spiritual or psychological tyranny--accompanied by relative economic lassitude which such artificial separation and elevation of the spiritual from the physical engenders. Social Credit is concerned about Christian philosophy and policy--not "Orthodox" (i.e., "establishment") "Christianity"--and we see some serious deficiencies in the latter, whether innocent or by design. Douglas said that the Incarnation is probably the biggest challenge with which we are faced. This involves the realistic integration of the spiritual and physical. On the material or economic plane, this requires the equation of consuming power with production power. Social Credit is concerned with neither Left nor Right politics and the destructive results of this combative dialectic process. It is concerned with the realistic integration of means and ends so as to enhance the Cultural Heritage of mankind and work toward implementation of policies which redound to the real benefit of all citizens. If one looks upon the political spectrum not as a linear continuum but as a circle it will be seen that the Right and Left move backward along their respective paths to merge ultimately into a form of tyranny--where one is essentially inseparable and undistinguishable from the other. As for Rabbinical Judaism is concerned, my understanding is that it derives from roots in ancient Pharisaism and that its primary incompatibility with Christian Doctrine is, indeed, over the question of "Salvation" being a "Gift" (unearned) or being justified by "Work"--the latter being declaredly the Rabbinical position. I expect that any qualified Jewish scholar could confirm this for you--and for your information, I attach a brief PDF document wherein a Rabbi goes to some effort to make this issue clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Another brief document is also attached with additional Rabbinic comment.

And, further, while the sort of 'micro-management' of the financial system that the social credit policy advocates may be quite well-founded and potentially highly beneficial for everyone, is it really practical to try to change the present system so fundamentally? One of course will come up against the 'vested interests' of the current set-up. For example the federal authorities of Canada generally vetoed the social credit legislative measures proposed for Alberta. So bascially the only way to implement a social credit system would be by military conquest and force of will, which of course is against its own ethic. There is only one morally justified course of action and that is to seek that which appears to be good and desirable for all citizens in the eventual if not the immediate sense. That really leave no option but for an individual of conscience to pursue the right course. It is appeal to the conscience of each citizen, assisted by effective education, that we must turn--to an intellectually armed and morally indignant public. This may not be the short or easiest path but it is the only one which can eventually meet with success. The politicians are in a power game and, with few exceptions, they will bend only to those who provide the material support which they believe assures their continued sinecure. When they see a public clearly and militantly aroused from its slumber, they will then recognize the real source of that continuity and relent to making the necessary reforms. That is correct, Social Credit relies on the power of knowledge and truth, not on any form of violent insurrection. The latter should not be necessary, is not necessary, and historically leads only to substitution of one form of tyranny for another. What is required is a regeneration of the culture. Without this the implementation of Social Credit measures would probably last for about one day. Actually, the changes which Social Credit advocate are not that terribly radical in that they do not require the dispossession, uprooting and reorganization of society. As an analogy, if there exist a deficiency in the fuel/oxygen mixture in the carburetor of your automobile, a restoration of the proper balance will restore its full function admirably--one need not purchase a new vehicle. These changes do however have vast implications for the nature of the society which would evolve from their implementation--changes which confer enormous benefits of freedom, abundance and leisure upon all except those who wish to concentrate power over their fellow citizens. That these primarily financial vested interests have possessed enormous power making effective action more difficult is, and has been, a distinct inconvenience is true--it just makes the task a little more difficult and requiring more effort, that's all. In one sense, Social Crediters have a tremendous advantage. Orthodox policies are rapidly leading to a multitude of increasingly insoluble problems, discrediting world leaders, and--provided we do not simply give up by default--making the promulgation of Douiglas's ideas much easier, especially with the marvelous assistance of modern electronic information transfer technology.

So where could we go from here? I have tried to provide at least a glimpse of the required course of action and the justification for it.

Services:	Home, List Hosting Services, Industry Solutions
Your Account:	Sign Up, My Lists, My Preferences, Start a List
General:	About Us, News, Privacy Policy, No spam, Contact Us


The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net

HOME SERVICES SOLUTIONS COMPANY