| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] The Ecosocialism of Fools? | | Date: | Monday, August 25, 2008 13:23:06 (-0700) | | From: | william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5502 (written by william_b_ryan) |
Appended below is an article by Ms. Hutchinson from the Winter 2007 Social
Crediter about the Wall "Ecosocialism of Fools" paper. It seems that it is some
twenty-four pages with ninety-seven footnotes. Apparently it has the appearance
if not the substance of a work of scholarship. His comments in the paper about A
+ B should suffice to demonstrate it is not. It appears that he is unfamiliar
with even the basic of Social Credit literature.
--------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
The Social Crediter, Winter, 2007
What’s Wrong with Social Credit?
Frances Hutchinson
In 2003 the journal Capitalism, Nature, Socialism published a 24-page paper
entitled “Social Credit: The ecosocialism of fools” (Wall 2003). The paper
carries 97 footnotes and makes reference to over 80 individuals and their work.
However, as is evident at a glance from the title, the paper cannot correctly be
described as a piece of academic research. Its use of emotive language,
interspersed with assumptions stated as fact, together with non-sequiturs, places
it in the realm of polemics. In this article I explore the background to the
writing and publication of this curiosity. Plainly, Wall and the editor accepting
the article for publication had some purpose in mind.
Presumably the target readership for Wall’s article is people with an interest
in economics who might be tempted to read around the subject of social credit.
These fall roughly into three categories: ‘social crediters’,
‘conscientious activists’ and ‘general critics of globalization’.
Social crediters often have (with notable exceptions) a tendency to struggle to
understand where the ‘outsider’ is coming from. They reject outright economic
orthodoxy, alongside communism, capitalism, socialism or any other ‘–ism’
without necessarily being familiar with the key authors and texts upon which
mainstream theories are based. Social crediters are most effective when they
direct conscientious activists to appropriate material written by Douglas, much
of which is now available electronically.
Conscientious activists object to the status quo, being well-versed in the
mainstream politics and economics of globalization. Often approaching their work
from a faith perspective, they cut through the illusions of orthodoxy so that
they can speak and write from a fully informed standpoint. They may include
professional academics, who often write outside the subject area of their
salaried work. However, a conscientious activist may be anybody at all capable of
reading about politics and economics, with the ability to apply their findings to
their socially motivated activism. For them, *The Grip of Death* and *The
Political Economy of Social Credit and Guild Socialism* stand alongside
Douglas’ own work as valuable and much quoted resources, enabling them to make
a concrete contribution to an otherwise confused medley of isolated ‘good
points’.
Meanwhile, the general critics of globalization are so fully occupied with
‘facts’ about the environmental crises, mounting personal, national and
international debt, war, poverty, injustice and just about everything that they
have ‘no time’ to study social credit. They persistently demand a short
answer to the question, “What is social credit?”, remaining content with an
explanation which is “simple, easy to understand – and wrong” (to misquote
Ralph Twentymann). For them, Wall’s article is excellent: they are the target
audience. It gives them a good excuse for not studying the analytical work of
Douglas or the history of the social credit movement.
One could let matters rest there, leaving a host of general critics of
globalization secure in their conviction that they, at least, are ‘doing
something’ rather than standing idly by as their pet concerns go to rack and
ruin. However, the cultivation of the illusion of the positive nature of their
unfocused activity serves the purposes of the pedlars of the status quo
admirably. Throughout the 20th century economics ‘experts’ have doggedly
paraded their expertise, as O’Duffy demonstrates so delightfully in Asses in
Clover. An 'expert’ is often defined as a paid member of staff of a university.
Thus, while orthodox economists may have studied Douglas’ analysis of the
economy, using his work to develop their own research, they have had to
studiously avoid making any positive references to social credit on the threat of
losing tenure.
The early years of the 21st century have seen a dawning realization of the
necessity for reform of the relationship between the money system inherited from
the past and society at large. It is my firm belief that there is no better
starting point for effective reform than the study of the history of the social
credit movement. In view of the volume of misleading presentations of the
writings of Clifford Hugh Douglas and various social crediters, there is no
alternative but for individual readers to ensure that they are fully informed of
the historical facts. What was the analysis put forward by Douglas? What actually
happened? On the basis of such information, informed activism emerges as a
possibility.
A great deal of the essential leg-work on the history of the social credit
movement has already been done. In *The Political Economy of Social Credit and
Guild Socialism* books by and about Douglas have been analysed, the findings
distilled and presented in readable form. From the research it emerges that the
social credit movement of the 1930s presented a worldwide challenge to the
growing power of centralised finance. Douglas detailed a range of coherent
alternatives to the domination of finance over the everyday lives of people
across the world, over employment, production, distribution and decisions in all
forms of working relationships between human beings. Throughout the 1930s, right
up until the outbreak of World War II, there was a fighting chance that a sane
social economics based upon Douglas’ analysis of the financial system might
prevail. For the remaining decades of the 20th century, books and periodicals on
social credit continued to
circulate among constantly dwindling groups of activists. Meanwhile the subject
of social credit, if mentioned at all in university courses, was presented as
merely a populist reaction to the Depression years of the 1930s, rendered
obsolete by the universal prosperity which followed WWII.
Until the early 1990s, students of economic thought were taught that the only
viable alternative to global corporate capitalism was ‘socialism’ in the form
of communist state control of the economy. Hence ‘social credit’, when
occasionally given a brief mention, was presented as a form of ‘socialism’
which appealed to fascists. Most regrettably, since the early 1990s the history
of economic thought has been all but wiped clean out of the curriculum in
university social science courses.
Under these circumstances, The Political Economy of Social Credit and Guild
Socialism was published in 1997, the result of several years of full-time
research into the history of social credit, in collaboration with Brian Burkitt.
The publishers, Routledge, produced the book as a refereed hardback research
text, varying the price between £45 and £65. Although well reviewed, the book
failed to reach the activist readership for which it was intended, remaining
instead on the shelves of university libraries which have become increasingly
inaccessible to the general public. As the publishers adamantly refused to bring
out a paperback version, I embarked on the writing of What Everybody Really Wants
to Know About Money, subsequently published by Jon Carpenter in 1998. The title
is a play on the 1933 book edited by G.D.H. Cole entitled *What Everybody Wants
to Know About Money*. Cole’s book was one of an incredible number of attempts
to divert people from
social credit and towards the economic orthodoxy which had, in the UK, been
adopted by all sectors of the political spectrum. My book sought to explain how
it was that finance had come to be a dominant controlling factor in the lives of
individuals and society as a whole.
As I embarked on the writing of the Jon Carpenter book, Michael Rowbotham asked
me to read an early draft of the *The Grip of Death*. As a student in Bangor he
had been introduced to social credit by Geoffrey Dobbs, a colleague of Douglas.
For a while we worked together. I introduced Rowbotham to my publisher, and the
two books were published in 1998. *The Grip of Death* has been reprinted this
year (2007) for the third time, with endorsements by Ed Mayo of New Economics
Foundation, Rt. Rev. Peter Selby, Bishop of Worcester, Richard Douthwaite, author
of The Growth Illusion, and the following:
“An essential self-education tool for anyone interested in creating a world
that works, pushing the issues further and posing implications more bluntly than
I have seen anywhere else.” David C. Korten of *When Corporations Rule the
World*.
“A trenchant analysis of the current arrangements for credit creation, a
powerful indictment of their baleful consequences, and a persuasive case for
reform.” Prof. Bryan Gould, Vice-Chancellor, University of Waikato.
“Michael Rowbotham’s forceful discussion is a welcome revival of an issue
that has been too long dormant.” Prof. Herman Daly, co-author, For the Common
Good.
“A radical, shocking and eye-opening exposé of how our monetary system really
works.” New Internationalist.
“A work to be cherished … stands out not only for the quality of the
research and the writing, but for the compelling vision that it unfolds.”
Economic Reform.
“Essential reading for social and environmental reformers. It fills a major
gap in accepted theory.” The Ecologist.
In his “Ecosocialism of Fools” article Wall notes that Korten and Daly had
endorsed The Grip of Death, but fails to clarify why such distinguished
authorities should have done so. Instead, Wall presents a muddled medley of
confused statements of what he comprehends from his reading around the subject of
social credit. Having failed to comprehend Douglas’ analysis of the
relationship between finance and the processes of production and distribution, he
dogmatically states as fact his personal view that Douglas’ “analysis is
flawed”. Why, one wonders, did Wall feel it necessary to present the academic
world with his flawed understanding of social credit? Surely the intelligent
reader can read Douglas’ work if they want to make a reasoned judgement, just
as they are free to read the work of Henry George and E.F. Schumacher? In my
researches I have found plenty of attacks on Douglas and his work, but so far
none on any other ‘alternative’
economist. Normally, heterodox economists are simply ignored. Wall’s article
raises a great number of, as yet, unanswered questions.
-
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message