eListas - My Lists: socialcredit: Messages

Douglas made quite clear the role of human association in producing otherwise impossible results whether for human satisfaction or otherwise. His concepts of the Unearned Increment of Association and the Cultural Heritage embody this idea. What is crucial is the engagement of the individual in association by voluntary rather than coerced involvement. The individual chooses to associate in the anticipation that some desired and beneficial result will be achieved. He or she must have the right to contract out of an association if it is not delivering the desired results. This right leaves individuals with the power to atrophy a function if it is not performing satisfactorily in the opinon of the individual, or of individuals.

This contrasts with, e.g., Lenin's static concept of "democratic centralism" wherein issues may be debated and, once decided upon by the group, must be adhered to or one's fate is the gulag or the firing squad. The group appropriates to itself the role of God and executes arbitrary action upon all persons involved.

Contrariwise, Social Credit believes that ultimate authority belongs with a suprahuman authority which transcends the group and mankind itself. Insofar as he does not trangress the rights of other persons, the individual has a right in natural law not to be coerced by others. He has an obligation as an individual to make moral and practical choices--which may bear upon the general condition of society. Organizaton has practical value but it needs to be capable of change and should not be frozen by arbitary human authority. Policy should respond to the desires of individuals rather than the dictates of central command. Institutions were meant to serve the individual and not the reverse. Ad hoc action directed to achievement of limited objectives is a characteristic of free association and should be something which is recognized as inherent in the nature of human relationships.

For humans, the individual is of central importance and the evolution, development and refinement of the individual is of prime importance. In this sense Douglas regarded the the coercive group, dominating the subservient personality, as an atavism. That is, the desirable trend is for the individual to be emancipated from the group. We do not want an unthinking herd of Gaderine swine which can be led, or pushed, over any cliff. The ability to discriminate is the mark of the developed and civilized individual and is the fundamental basis of human advancement up the scale of civilization.

No one is being forced to engage in concerted effort to promote the advance of Social Credit policy. It is held up as something which might kindle the imagination and desires of the listener with the hope that individuals may volutarily unite in demanding its institution. I see no contradiction in all of this--and I certainly see no more realistic or attractive alternative to it. I think that Douglas would have disputed the concept of a "collective" will and would have spoken more in terms of a general desire of individual wills desirous for certain results, in the material field of economics material security being of prime importance.

Wally

----- Original Message -----

From: keith wilde

To: socialcredit@elistas.com

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 4:40 PM

Subject: Re: [socialcredit] a change of pace

Very interesting questions! I have not read Kierkegaard, so cannot answer your most direct question, but the questions themselves have also been on my mind.

I will ask my resident philosopher about K, but she is also an anthropologist and I suspect will have some strong observations about the notion that human nature is individualistic as contrasted to group identification and action.

From my own limited reading in the latter subject, it seems that most students attach a lot of importance to the group as a key element in the evolution of humanity. Furthermore, the very idea of cultural heritage seems to embrace the notion that technology is a collective creation in part, although the contribution of individuals is undeniable. And why are we talking about social credit if the individual is autonomous?

A strong undertone of these discussions is criticism of 'standard' economics, yet one of the paramount features in that ideology is the presumption that individual choices are not only the normative basis of the system but also the explanation for what happens.

Douglas' way of getting to the maximum state of individual freedom depends on their first being a massive action of collective will. Is there not some contradiction at work here?

Keith Wilde

Jim <jschroeder@shaw.ca> wrote:
Pondering the philosophy of Social Credit I am apt to wonder if Douglas was not to Kierkegaard what Marx was to Hegel.

Kierkegaard and Hegel were intellectual adversaries much like Marx and Douglas. Of course Marx's theories were based on the philosophy of Hegel. I wonder if Douglas was familiar with Kierkegaard?

In "Social Credit" Douglas states:

"The vast majority of discussions which take place in regard to industrial problems are prevented from arriving at any conclusion from the fact that the disputants do not realise the premises on which their arguments are based, and in many cases use words (and "justice" is an example of such words) which beg the whole question at issue. It is not too much to say that one of the root ideas through which Christianity comes into conflict with the conceptions of the Old Testament and the ideals of the pre-Christian era, is in respect of this dethronement of abstractionism. That is the issue which is posed by the Doctrine of the Incarnation."

http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/socialcredit/p1c2.htm

Kierkegaard attacked Hegel most vociferously for his philosophy based on idealism/abstractionism. Kierkegaard's philosphy starts with existence, and the study of what it is to exist. Through this he develops the idea of God incarnate, and rejects the speculative philosophy of Hegel as a "phantasm" not based in existence, but based on pure speculation/abstraction.

Kierkegaard said, "Human existence has Idea in it, but it is not a purely ideal existence. Plato placed the Idea in the second rank of existence, as intermediary between God and matter; an existing human being does indeed participate in the Idea, but he is not himself Idea." (Concluding Unscientific Postscript)

Douglas also displays this philosophy when he says:

"One of the first facts to be observed as part of the social ideal which leans for its sanctions on rewards and punishments, is the elevation of the group ideal and the minimising of individuality, i.e. the treatment of individuality as subordinate to, e.g. nationality. The manifestations of this idea are almost endless. We have the national idea, the class or international idea, the identification of the individual with the race, the school, the regiment, the profession, and so forth. There is probably no more subtle and elusive subject than the consideration of the exact relation of the group in all these and countless other forms, to the individuals who compose the groups. But as far as it is possible to sum the matter up, the general problem seems to be involved in a decision as to whether the individual should be sacrificed to the group or whether the fruits of group activity should be always at the disposal of the individual."

The elevation of group over the idividual is the elevation of Idea over existence. Individuals exist. Nations, races, classes are ideals.

Douglas states that discussions on industrial problems remain unresolved because philosophical premises are not made explicit. I believe that the philosophy of Social Credit is as important, if not more important, than the A+B theorem itself.

I'm wondering if anyone knows if Douglas references Kierkegaard in any way?

I also wonder why the discussions in this forum seem to focus solely on A+B and the economics of Social Credit, when much of Douglas work is based on his philosophy?

Cheers,

Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
You're subscribed to this list with the email kwilde@tc-biodiversity.org 
To unsubscribe, send a message to 
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com 
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit 
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
You're subscribed to this list with the email wmklinck@shaw.ca 
To unsubscribe, send a message to 
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com 
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit 

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