|
Hi Keith:
Thank you for your thoughts on this issue.
I must disagree with your belief that A+B is the
only source of disagreement amongst those who have studied Douglas.
Even if there was complete agreement about the A+B
theorem itself, there can still be disagreement about remedy.
Douglas himself stated:
"Social Credit is the Policy of a Philosophy.
It is something based on what you profoundly believe - what at any rate, I
profoundly believe, and hope you will - to be a portion of reality. It is
probably a very small portion, but we have glimpsed a. portion of reality, and
that conception of reality is a philosophy, and the action that we take based
upon that conception is a policy, and that policy is Social Credit.
It
is in fact a policy based upon a philosophy, which is, incidentally, why, in
many cases, it is no use arguing with many people about the techniques of Social
Credit, because they don't agree with your philosophy; often they don' t even
understand it, and, therefore, what you say in regard to policy and techniques
sounds like a loud noise to them, chiefly without any sense; and the best thing
to do in the circumstances is, of course, to agree to differ."
http://www.alor.org/Library/Policyofaphilosophy.htm#1a
The problems outlined in Douglas' A+B theorem are arithmetical. They
are not dependent on philosophy. However; Douglas' solution to the
problem outlined in A+B is based on a philosophy. He spends a great deal of time in his book "Social
Credit" outlining his philosophy. Douglas admits that the communist
solution would pretty much eliminate the financial difficulties outlined in
A+B. Then what is the difference between Social Credit and the potential
Communist solution to A+B? Philosophy!
My attempts to highlight parallels
between Douglas' philosophy and the philosophy of Kierkegaard are an attempt to
show influence. Hegel had a great deal of influence on the thoughts of
Marx. I'm wondering if Kierkegaard influenced Douglas' philosophy in the
exact same way.
You are correct that the first step is
getting people to understand A+B in getting them to understand Social
Credit. However; the philosophy of Social Credit is also essential in
understanding Douglas' remedy. I don't think the disagreement between the
disciples of Douglas and the Binary Economics group is a disagreement on
philosophy. That is definetly a technical disagreement about what is
causing the current economic problems we are facing. However; I believe
the disagreement between myself, and others, and our New Zealand friends is
based on philosophy. The disagreement stems around how B is to be put back
in the system. Whether it should go to individuals themselves, or whether
the government should control it. That is not a disagreement over
A+B. This is a disagreement over technique.
Regards,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 12:04
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] a change of
pace
Wally:
You state:
"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 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."
I want to quote Kierkegaard to again show the
parallels:
"Ethically regarded, reality is higher than
possibility. The ethical proposes to do away with the disinterestedness
of the possible, by making existence the infinite interest. It therefore
opposes every confusing attempt. like that of proposing ethically to
contemplate humanity and the world. Such ethical contemplation is
impossible, since there is only one kind of ethical contemplation, namely,
self-contemplation. Ethics closes immediately about the individual, and
demands that he exist ethically; it does not make a parade of a million men,
or generation of men, it does not take humanity in the lump, any more than the
police arrest humanity at large. The ethical is concerned with
particular human beings, and with each and every one of them by himself.
(Concluding Unscientific Postscript)
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 3:24
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] a change of
pace
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 -----
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."
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're subscribed to this list with the email jschroeder@shaw.ca
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 jschroeder@shaw.ca
To unsubscribe, send a message to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
