POLICY
Douglas Specification
WHAT IS SOCIAL
CREDIT?
This specification was drawn up by C. H. Douglas as one of his last
public activities to counteract the tendency of the Social Credit Movement, as
of all movements which have a philosophical base, to develop perspective
disproportionately:
Social Credit assumes that society is primarily metaphysical, and must have regard to the organic relationships of its prototype.
I
POLICY
I
I I
ECONOMICS
ADMINISTRATION
I I I I
Consumer Control Integral Accounting Hierarchy Contracting
Of out
Production
Mechanisms
OBJECTIVE: Social Stability by the integration of means and ends
INCOMPATIBLES: Collectivism, Dialectic, Materialism, Totalitarianism, Judæo-Masonic Philosophy. Political Ballot-box democracy embodies all of these.
C.H. Douglas
February, 1951.
What is Social
Credit?
C. H. Douglas laid down the specification in relation to what is Social Credit for the purpose of ensuring that it could not be misinterpreted, changed, or abused from his original intentions. Because so many have attempted to pervert or alter the meaning of Social Credit as he had expressed it, this was an absolute necessity. His opening statement accompanied by the Specification needs to be understood in terms expressed by Douglas himself.
Throughout his writings and addresses spanning from 1918 to 1951 he never ceased to stress the importance of the underlying philosophy, which is the fountainhead of his specification. There can be little doubt that Douglas was accepting a dictionary meaning of philosophy as, “the investigation of the causes and laws underlying reality”, because he constantly referred to the necessity to “bind back to reality”. The starting point is thus an acceptance of the “causes and laws underlying reality”.
In his address to a conference of Social Crediters in London, on June 26, 1937, Douglas explained very clearly his use of the words Philosophy and Policy and the connection between them as shown in his Specification.
“There is a meaning of objective, a strong essence of objective, in the word “policy”. It is not merely administration. It is actually, if you like, governmental action, but it is action taken towards a recognised and conscious objective, and it is in that sense that we use the word “policy; it is a little more, but it comprehends and comprises the word objective”.
Douglas discusses the etymological derivation of the word “religion” and likens this to his use of the word policy.
“…I think that the agreed definition, its original meaning, was to bind back. In the sense that I am going to use it, and I think I will be using it correctly, the word religion has to do with a conception of reality. It is the binding back either of action, or of policy – particularly of policy in the sense that I was using the word policy – to reality. In so far as it means to bind back, to bring into close relation again, and in the sense I am going to use it, religion is any sort of doctrine which is based on an attempt to relate action to some conception of reality”.
“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, and that conception of reality is a philosophy, and the action that we take based on that conception is a policy, and that policy is Social Credit. It is in fact a policy based upon a philosophy…”.
The philosophy, which takes regard of the “causes and laws underlying reality”, raises two questions. One is the concept of reality and the other is his reference to Society being primarily Metaphysical.
Douglas provided a further insight to what he referred to as a “concept of reality”, when he derided the use of the words “Social Credit” as some sort of license to be used as a means to achieve anything simply by uttering the words, particularly in regard to its monetary aspects. Again in the same address he said, “ All that you can say about Social Credit, either in its monetary aspects, or in these aspects I am discussing tonight, is that we see – and I profoundly believe that we do see – just a little bit of the way in which the universe does in fact act. We see, through the adulation, what the nature of money is, and knowing the nature of money, we know what we can make it do, and what we cannot. Our power is largely in this fact that we know a little, or believe we know a little…”.
In address to Social Crediters at Westminster, on March 7, 1936, Douglas had elaborated on his conception of reality as it applied to what he was calling Social Credit. “As I conceive it, Social Credit covers and comprehends a great deal more than the money problem. Important as that is, primarily important because it is a question of priority, Social Credit fundamentally involves a conception, I feel a true conception – but you must enlarge upon that for yourselves – of the relationships between individuals and their association in countries and nations, between individuals and their association in groups”.
We have reached the point where the various aspects come together. In his qualifying statement he starts with the word Society. Society is an abstract word to describe a number of individuals in association. It matters not whether there are two people or two million, so long as they are associating there is a society. Nevertheless, people associate in order to achieve an objective or an intended result, or at least that is what is regarded as the reason. Douglas also noted in his London address, “the trouble now is the people don’t’ know where they are going, nor how to get there. We have something we want to achieve so we have to get into our minds a conception of the mechanism of the universe in order to use it; whereas the average man in the street including the average politician, the average statesman, and the average person, does not even know where he is going much less how to get there. That is one of the chief explanations of the chaos now, and it leaves the way clear to those who have a conception of the world they want”.
Why has the situation arisen where people do not know
where they are going or how to get there, when they have associated to achieve
an objective or intended result with their efforts? That is one portion of the
concept of reality and it can be the result of either or both of two things. The
first is human nature and the other is the result of actions relating to the
relationships of the individual to the group. Douglas made a very practical
observation in his book Social Credit. With regard to human nature and
its effect on the association of individuals or society there was a dichotomy.
One involved those who were not satisfied with the results of their association
and who were powerless to effect any change and the other involved those who
were completely satisfied with the situation and were not interested in any
change. Douglas drew the conclusion from his observations to the reality and
wrote in his book Social Credit.
“One of the first facts to be observed as part of the social ideal…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…The shifting of emphasis from the individual to the group, which is involved in collectivism, logically involves the shifting of responsibility for action”.
Douglas recognized that human beings act according to the beliefs they hold. These beliefs stem from various sources but it is the belief itself that causes an impulse a need to take some action. Social Credit beliefs based upon reality in the world or universe, as we know it, imply that human association is a voluntary conscious act, which is driven by some force. The desire to do something or achieve something requires the will to do it and this will precedes an action that may occur. That force may be regarded by some as a mystical force but it is no different from the force, which governs the law of gravity or the law of motion. These are known as natural laws and Douglas was quite specific when he commented on the necessity to obey natural laws and that departure from them would be disastrous. Natural laws are universal and apply to all things and should be accepted for the reality they demonstrate when tested. Thus the underlying reality, the reality to which it is necessary to “bind back to”, is the basis of the philosophy of Social Credit. Philosophy, the starting point of the Specification exists in the realm of metaphysics where desire and the impulse to act are generated. This impulse, or metaphysical Will emerges into the world of physics and takes on the realism of the things that are known in this world.
The word “Metaphysical” may provide a problem for some not familiar with it. It may be relevant to quote from Fowlers Modern English Usage to understand the meaning attached by Douglas.
“Metaphysics and metaphysical are so often used as
quasi‑learned and vaguely depreciatory substitutes for various other
terms, for theory and theoretical, subtle(ty)), (the) supernatural, occult(ism),
obscure and obscurity, philosophy and philosophic, academic(s), and so forth,
that it is pardonable to forget that they have a real meaning, of their
own—the more that the usual resource of those who suddenly realize that their
notion of a word's meaning is hazy, an appeal to its etymology, will not serve.
It is agreed that Metaphysics owes its name to the accident that the part
of Aristotle’s works in which metaphysical questions were treated of stood
after (meta) the part concerned with physics (ta phusika),
and that the word's etymology is therefore
devoid of significance.
“It is indeed actually misleading if it suggests
the inference, as it has to some, that metaphysics is the “science of things
transcending what is physical or “natural”. What is wanted, then is a
definition plain enough not to perplex, but precise enough not to mislead.
“ Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that
deals with the ultimate nature of things, or considers the questions, what is
the world of things we know? And, how do we know it? Three kinds of definite answers are returned. Metaphysical
materialism is the view that everything known is body or
matter. Metaphysical idealism is
the view that everything known is mind, or some mental state or other. Metaphysical realism is
the intermediate view that everything known is either body or soul, neither of
which alone exhausts the universe of being”.
We know that Douglas regarded the binding back to
reality in the universe as the basis of the philosophy of Social Credit and that
he used philosophy in the sense of the “causes and laws underlying reality”
and that is precisely the usage that he applies to the word “metaphysical”.
If metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the ultimate nature
of things, and asks the questions “what is the world of things we know”, and
“How do we know it” then he is using metaphysics in the sense of Metaphysical
realism.
We have reached the stage where we can summarise the
opening words of his statement, “Social Credit assumes that Society is
primarily metaphysical”. Social Credit is a policy of a philosophy and that
philosophy accepts the reality that individuals associate voluntarily and
consciously to obtain an objective the results of which are satisfactory to
them. It would be nonsense to accept that individuals associate to produce an
objective that does not produce, nor intends to produce a satisfactory result.
Every question raised with respect to the philosophy of Social Credit takes into
account the ultimate nature of things, the underlying reality and does not admit
of assumptions and theories.
The problem, as Douglas saw it and thus Social
Crediters who follow his work, is the problem of the Individual and how he can
associate in voluntary co-operation with his fellows within the limits of the
existing physical conditions without losing that individuality. This is one
reason why Douglas placed such importance on the relationship between the
Individual and the Group, which is formed for the benefit of the individuals
composing it.
C.H. Douglas in his first book, Economic Democracy
gives a glimpse of the starting point of the philosophy incorporating the
association of individuals into a society. It starts with the individual:
“Systems were made for men, and not men for
systems, and the interest of man which is self-development, is above all
systems, whether theological, political or economic”.
“Accepting this statement as a basis of
constructive effort, it seems clear that all forms, whether of government,
industry or society must exist contingently to the furtherance of the principles
contained in it. If a State system can be shown to be inimical to them – it
must go; if social customs hamper their continuous expansion – they must be
modified; if unbridled industrialism checks their growth, then industrialism
must be reined in. That is to say, we must build up from the individual, not
down from the State”.
It is perfectly clear from this consideration that
Douglas has placed the individual at the top of the list. It is the individual
in society that stands as the focal point. It is the individual alone, in
association and in conjunction with all of the activities undertaken, and the
relationship of the individual and the group of which he is a part. The actions
that are taken by the individual alone or collectively in society are judged by
the results obtained and how they are affected in reality. The position now
reached is the dichotomy of the individual and the group; the subordination of
the individual to the group ideal and metaphysical realism which questions why
this is so; this is something we know, and how we know it, who is causing it,
which leads to what can be done about it.
In answering the question, what can be done about it,
Douglas draws attention to the fact that it “Must have regard to the organic
relationships of its prototype”.
Douglas suggested that the interest of man is self
development and this in itself is an organic process. It is not static and
implies an on going process where the individual is involved in increasing his
self-development for his own benefit as well as those with whom he is
associating. It virtually invokes the concept of “do unto others as you would
have them do unto you”. This is a Christian concept and one reason why Social
Credit has been claimed by some to be practical Christianity. It also relates to
the question of religion, not a particular religious faith, but in the sense of
binding back to reality.
It requires little understanding that by “organic
relationships” Douglas was referring to the growth of the individual, and his
relationship with other individuals in society, either as a nation or between
nations whilst at the same time retaining that principle of “do unto
others…”. The organic relationships of its prototype become clear when taken
together with the principle of “Do
unto others..”, and who is credited with this maxim. A prototype is the
original thing or person in relation to any copy, imitation, representation,
later specimen, improved form etc. What is the prototype for Man? Douglas is
here referring to the original in whose form Man was made. This in itself is not
simply a reference to God but to good and evil and the nature of Man that
develops according to the growth of society of which each individual is a part.
If the requirement is to “do unto others…”,
then why is it that there is so much division in society, and what is the main
cause of the dissension that exists? The policy of Social Credit contains a
strategy to create social conditions favourable to the policy of the individual.
Accepting this as a correct approach to the social problems that exist, Social
Credit represents the systematic advocacy of the of the maximum liberty of the
individual limited only by his not encroaching upon the functional activities of
his fellows. In other words it is the “social stability by the integration of
means and ends”. If this is accepted as an objective to strive for and is in
the interests of the individual and the society, which he forms, why is there
such opposition to it?
Douglas is quite emphatic about the reasons. It is
the will to power exercised through the control of the money system and this is
the basis of the Policy of Social Credit. It is a Policy designed to incarnate
or to put into concrete form the means by which the social problem can be
addressed. It is a Policy designed
to balance the scales, as it were, so that the individual in association can
obtain the benefits of his association with his fellows.
Power is in the nature of Reality. Power has been
defined as the capacity to act, to exert influence, control, to impose one’s
will. Power is exerted by human beings over other human beings and is the
capacity to impose a line of action upon individuals. Centralised power requires
the sanctions of administration. This simply means that centralised power has
the sanctions of the police and the military. The pressure of administration is
probably the greatest in the field of finance, with all it’s manifestations
– debt, taxation, the control and issue of finance, the terms on which we get
it, and the conditions under which it is taken away.
Once we grasp this in essence, the subject of power
is the central question concerning man in the world and living together in
society. When placed alongside the concept of Social Credit which comprises
interlocking concepts of economics and politics and which deal with the Just
Relationship between man and the society in which he lives, the reality becomes
clearer.
Although the problem may be the will to power and the
control of the money system, it is reinforced by the lack of understanding
realities and the metaphysical will to act upon a physical reality. Not only is
it necessary to undertake the Policy of Social Credit to achieve a turn around
it is also necessary to have sufficient people who will, undertake a mental or
metaphysical turn around. It is necessary to recognise that every extension of
extraneous control, i.e., outside the ambit of the individual, is
inherent in the nature of the individual, i.e., contrary to reality. To
those who wish to understand what Douglas meant it is necessary to understand
that human nature may be good or bad, that the aim of the individual is
totalitarian and that therefore all forms of control that are external to that
of the individual are not acceptable as being contrary to reality as expressed
in the words “ the organic relationships of its prototype”.
That is why he has listed those forms, which are Incompatible with Social
Credit Philosophy and why the Policy of Social Credit (The Policy of a
Philosophy) contains measures to counter them.
This
specification was drawn up by C.H. Douglas as one of his last public activities
to counteract the tendency of the social Credit Movement, as of all movements,
which have a philosophical base, to develop perspective disproportionately:
Social Credit assumes that society is primarily
metaphysical, and must have regard to the organic relationships of its
prototype.
"As I conceive it, Social Credit covers and
comprehends a great deal more than the money problem. Important as that is,
primarily important because it is a question of priority, Social Credit
fundamentally involves a conception, I feel a true conception - but you must
enlarge upon that for yourselves - of the relationships between individuals and
their association in countries and nations, between individuals and their
association in groups".
[The Approach to Reality - C.H. Douglas]
These words of C.H. Douglas, as he said,
"involves a conception", and it is that conception that is so often
overlooked by both those who know nothing or little about Social Credit as well
as those who proclaim to be Social Crediters. It is for this reason we now
extend the discussion further to deal entirely with aspects of Social Credit as
defined in his Specification.
There are two main headings under which Social Credit
principles may be dealt. The first relates to Philosophy and the second is
Policy.
It is important to understand that the Philosophy
comes first and is the guiding force, which activates the Policy. For decades
the writer has been asked a simple question to explain Social Credit, briefly,
in a few words, in a more comprehensible manner than contained in the writings
of Douglas. Although it may be difficult for some, who have entrenched ideas or
beliefs and who are not willing to accept changes in their thinking, it is for
others an exercise in laziness. They do not wish to spend their time in learning
or trying to understand. Yet these very same people will spend endless hours
writing to newspapers, attend demonstrations, attend meetings, support political
parties blindly, and complain to their friends, neighbours or relatives on
current affairs that affect their daily lives. All of this is just so much
wastage of energy time and in many cases money. It is simply wasted action.
The Philosophy of Social Credit is very simple. It is
based upon what Douglas referred to as a perception of reality. It is the
acceptance of those things that are governed by natural law and which have been
described as practical Christianity. This is not to be mistaken as a theological
perception bound up in some religious faith, although it is necessary to have a
faith, but that it is an entirely separate issue.
Many people have in the past mistaken Social Credit
as a religious organisation and yet it is religious in the correct etymology of
the word religion. The correct meaning of religion is; " re", back or
again, and "ligio" to bind. Social Credit Philosophy and Policy are a
means to bind back to reality. It is used in Social Credit as the binding back
of action or of policy, i.e., Social Credit Policy to Reality. It is entirely
necessary to have faith in what one believes, but that is, by itself, not
consistent with Social Credit philosophy. Faith without works is death. If one
believes in something, and that something is important, then it follows that
some action must be taken (the implementation of a policy) to bring it into
being.
L.D. Byrne in his Faith, Power and Action expresses it very clearly when he wrote:
"There can be no consciousness of Reality for any of us except the 'here
and now'. What is happening to us - our experiences - here and now seems vividly
real…The only consciousness of Reality for each of us is what we are actually
experiencing in the present - in the 'here and now'."
We experience poverty, a drug problem, violence and
aggression which is ever increasing, increasing debt that forces people to
require a two person income for a family, lack of health facilities, lack of
decent education, and increasing centralisation of power through finance and so
on.
Douglas wrote of the Canon, that something that
although difficult to define is recognised by everyone when confronted. The
Reality expressed in terms of that which is right. Does the soup taste "
right"? - add a little salt. Is the cake mixture "right"? - add a
little something to obtain the texture required, every cook experiences it. Is
the painting "right"?, add another stroke or another tone of colour,
every artist knows it. Is the symphony played by the orchestra "right"
- the conductor knows it.
"Where it may be asked, is there any problem in
that, other than one of wholesale conversion? Let us, in order to elucidate the
difficulty, compare Christianity to the theory of Thermo-Dynamics, and assume,
for the purposes of the argument, that all the essentials of that theory were
widely known two thousand years ago. It is not difficult to imagine that those
who grasped the implications of it might say, "Here is the key to a better
society. Here is the title deed to a leisure world. Disregard all else, and
apply thermo-dynamics". Remember that we are assuming that James Watt was
still to be born. And the world at large would have said, "This man says
the magic word is Thermo-Dynamics. Crucify him".
"Now the fact, which ought to be patent to
anyone, is that it is the Policy of a Philosophy which is important (because it
is the evidence of things not seen):
and that Thermo-Dynamics means nothing without Heat Engines, and Christianity
means nothing without the Incarnation. You cannot drive a dynamo with Boyle's
Law, or the "Queen Elizabeth" with Joule's Equivalent. This country is
not now the Policy of a Christian Philosophy, and before it can again, as an
organisation, put into practice those Christian principles, for which Lord
Darnley pleads, it must understand their application through proper
mechanisms…"
Similarly, it requires more than the reading of a
cookbook to became a cook. It requires more than just reading about the rules of
cricket to become a cricketer. It requires more than the theoretical study of
music to become a musician. They all require practice "at the nets".
In all spheres of life we know what is right and what
is wrong and in most cases we know what to do to obtain the result we want.
However it is not always possible to do what should be done because there is
something or someone who places obstructions in our path. Added to the
difficulties presented by obstructionists, is the general decline in the
standards that have been set to determine the correct action between man and his
fellows, as well as between man the individual and the group.
There is no apology for Social Credit in accepting
the Christian principle that the individual is the most important factor in
organised society. The individual soul is more important than a non-existent
group soul. It is not surprising therefore that attention is directed towards
the individual who associates with others to form a society. The individual is
real, society is an abstraction. You can feel, see or hear an individual, but
you cannot touch or hear a society. Individuals come together in association
(society) to gain some benefit. This benefit may be in the form of protection,
or obtaining an increment of association, i.e., achieving something that could
not be done singly. Or, it may be reaping the benefit of the cultural
inheritance, that is, those things that have been handed down from past
generations of how to make tools and how to use them and how to increase their
usefulness.
THE INDIVIDUAL
AND THE GROUP
It is this relationship between individuals and
groups to which Douglas refers as being a priority. Unless it is recognised that
the individual is more important than the group, which has been formed by
individuals, no action will be successful. Irrespective of how correct or
"right" a policy may be, it is doomed to failure unless it is
understood exactly what Douglas was saying when he said in Economic Democracy:
"Systems were made for men, and not men for
systems, and the interest of man which is self development, is above all
systems, whether theological, political or economic". Note carefully that
the systems he referred to covered all of those systems that have been formed by
Man, and if formed by Man, they can be altered by Man. He went further in his
explanation of that statement by saying: "Accepting this statement as a
basis of constructive effort, it seems clear that all forms, whether of
government, industry or society must exist contingently to the furtherance of
the principles contained in it. If a
State system can be shown to be inimical to them - it must go; if social customs
hamper their continuous expansion - they must be modified; if unbridled
industrialism checks their growth, then industrialism must be reined in. That is
to say, we must build up from the Individual, not down from the State".
The concentration on policy, or certain aspects of
it, particularly relating to finance, by many who believe they are supportive of
Social Credit have probably done more harm than good. They certainly have not
succeeded in making the slightest dent in the finance system that continues to
become more centralised with increasing control over peoples' lives. Apart from
this is the reality that no one wants to live in poverty, no one wants the drug
problem, no one wants wars, no one wants to live in economic insecurity with the
threat of losing their job, no one wants political insecurity such as in some of
the underdeveloped countries, no one wants to be forever in debt let alone
having it increasing, no one wants to lose their homes, their farms etc. Then,
why do they allow it?
The failure to understand what is happening is
reflected in the inability to understand what Douglas was saying when he wrote
in The Social Crediter February 9,
1946:
"If a man, presently at Crewe, says he wishes to
go to London, and then insists on entering a carriage labelled Wigan, you will
probably be tempted to call him, "incompetent",
"inefficient". But you may be quite wrong. The man may really have
intended to go to Wigan, and have told you he was going in the other direction,
to avoid argument as to the relative attractions of Wigan and London. When,
therefore, you notice that affairs in this country are getting steadily worse;
that badly as they were managed after 1918, they are incomparably worse managed from
your point of view now, it is not wise to assume that your affairs have been
handed over to a collection of nitwits, because if you have any experience of
affairs you will have learnt that Cabinet posts at £5,000 per annum (approx.
$10,000 in 1946 was roughly
equivalent to $200,000 on today's salary) do not come into the grasps of
nitwits. The qualities, which got them there may not be -almost certainly not -
the qualities, you consider suitable to their position. But you must remember
that you did not put them where they are, although perhaps you think you
did".
"Taking their key words, 'Full Employment',
'Austerity' (austerity was the key word during the war, today it is 'saving'
because we are allegedly living beyond our means and living on borrowings from
overseas) and 'Unlimited Exports', as signposts, it is really not difficult to
see why the train is going to Wigan (a hellish coal-town) when you suppose that
everyone wants to go to London". "and Wigan? Wigan is merely Big
Business as Government".
Who is responsible for putting the Multilateral
Agreement on the agenda? Who is responsible for putting the Fifth protocol on
the agenda? Who is responsible for putting the GST on the agenda?
POWER AND
FREEDOM
Whose power and whose freedom?
In Triumph of
the Past Michael Lane writes an excellent article titled "Power and
Freedom". He draws together a
number of significant revelations by Douglas on philosophical thoughts. On the
question of "Wigan" he says:
"If we don't like where we are going, why are we
going there? Britain had been moving steadily toward more centralized power
for fifty years. Both the consistency of the facts over time in Britain and
parallel facts in otherwise unlike countries (Germany, Russia, the United
States) led Douglas to infer the existence of a Promoter. That is, if for
centuries we never went to Wigan and never had the least interest in going to
Wigan, then all of a sudden not only are we going there but we have no choice in
the matter, it is reasonable to infer that someone
wants to go to Wigan”.
"War is a puzzle just like Wigan".
As Douglas said: "I suppose that about two
thousand millions of individuals are affected by the present war. I should
place the number of individuals who would be quite unable to say with
approximate accuracy what it is about at roughly nineteen hundred and ninety
nine millions, so that we are left with this simple alternative. Either the
total population of the world likes war without knowing what it is about; in
which case it is obviously absurd to do anything to abolish it, or, on the other
hand, we can find the causes of war if we examine the actions of a minority
hidden amongst less than a million individuals" (Programme
for the Third World War, p. 32).
If people associate to obtain benefits that they
could not achieve on their own, why do they allow someone to deny them? There is nothing to be gained in treating the
symptom instead of attacking the cause. There is nothing to be gained to
complain about the effects without discovering the cause. There is nothing to be
gained by spending time and money on matters such as monetary reform of altering
the financial system unless there is a guarantee that such a policy will reflect
the philosophy of providing economic and political security.
RECOGNIZING THE
PROBLEM
Douglas
wrote in The Social Crediter February
7, 1948.
"…it
must be recognised that the practical problem which we have to face is not
intellectual, it is militant. Mere conversion to an understanding of the A + B
Theorem, the creation of credit by the banks, the foreign Acceptance swindle,
and the whole network of International Finance by itself, leads nowhere. Probably ninety per cent of the adult population of this country suspect that they
are being swindled. Even if they
understood exactly and technically how they
are being swindled, it would make little difference. But it does make a great
deal of difference if
they know who is obstructing the rectification of the swindle, and who is the
major beneficiary. The general population of the country has been completely
misled as to the identity of its enemies, and has turned on its most effective
leaders, who were far from perfect, but were incomparably better than the
mixture of Trades Union careerists and alien schemers who now afflict us.
Witness the state of the country, and the worse future with which we are
threatened. For all these reasons and others, we conceive it to be our vocation
to indicate, without prejudice but without favour, those whom we conceive to be
the enemies of our culture and ideals; to unmask their aims".
Douglas
never failed to continue stressing the importance of the individual against the
group ideal. Nor did he lack the courage to point the finger at those whom he
considered were the instigators of programmes or policies that were not in the
best interest of the individuals in society. It was to be expected that this
would attract an attack upon him and Social Credit because those in opposition
to the philosophy and policy of Social Credit were not prepared to face the
truth. Opposition could be found in personal attacks involving his ideas, his
literary style as well as his personal stature and appearance. Most if not all
attacks on his works were based on false presentations of his statements and
incorrect quoting.
In
The Social Crediter October 16, 1948
he again reiterated his conviction relating to priorities;
"There
is a certain body of opinion which is under the impression that we have
abandoned the financial aspect of Social Credit. In this connection, we are
reminded of a pungent criticism made some years ago, that the great disadvantage
under which the Social Credit movement then laboured, was that it was largely
composed of Socialists who wanted nationalisation of banking.
"People
who hold this type of opinion have not taken the trouble to grasp the
fundamental subject matter with which we have always been concerned, which is
the relationship of the individual to the group. Thirty years ago, that
relationship was predominantly a financial relationship. Quite largely through
the exertions of the Socialists, strongly assisted by the highest powers of
International Finance, the Central Banks have become practically impregnable,
and the sanctions, which they exert, have shifted from the bank balance to the
Order-in-Council.
"It
ought to be, but unfortunately it is not, apparent to everyone who takes an
intelligent interest in these matters that the fundamental problem has been
greatly complicated by the developments of the past twenty years; and that the
immediate issue is in the realm of Law and military power, not of book-keeping.
That does not mean in the least that book-keeping is one penny the less
important than it was when we directed attention to it; but it does mean that it
is the second trench to be taken, not the first. For that, we have to thank in
great part, the "obsession" with nationalised banking".
Today
we do not have the emphasis placed on nationalising of the banks, but rather the
constant call by some to take the monopoly of credit/money creation from the
banks and hand it to the government. This would result in a handing control from
one source to another without any change in policy and would lead to even
greater disaster and control. After all, it is the government that allows the
banks the latitude they have today whilst pretending to promote greater
competition. The deregulation and
all of its wondrous consequences are still to be realised as of benefit to the
individual in our society. Yet it has allowed for greater profits reduced
services, increased charges etc.
THE ESSENCE OF CONTROL
In
the 1999 May/June issue of The
Australasian Social Credit Journal we drew attention to the increasing use
of "consumerism" as a means of control, because that
"consumerism" is based on increasing debt. To put it another way, the emphasis on consumerism is an
increase in the acceptance of materialism in contradiction to what may be
referred to as an increase in the quality of life. People have been blindly and
willingly led into an acceptance of those things, which they mistakenly believe,
are signs of prosperity much the same way as one could expect of well-fed
slaves. The individual in society has accepted the need to work longer hours and
the need for a two-income household. We say individual because that is the
reality. It is not society that has dictated the rules. It is that someone or a collection of them who have dictated the terms and it
is the individual collectively in society who have accepted these terms.
In
Programme for the
Third World War, Douglas
wrote:
"Now,
once you have surrendered to materialism,
it is quite true that economics precedes politics, and dominates. It is not in
Bolshevism, Fascism, the New Deal and P.E.P or the London School of Economics,
or the Fabian Society that we shall find the origins of what we are looking for.
These are ostensibly political systems and derive from, rather than give birth
to, economics. While this is obvious and axiomatic, it is not so obvious,
although equally axiomatic that the principle works both ways. That is as much
as to say, if you can control economics,
you can keep the business of getting a living the dominant factor of life, and
so keep your control of politics - just that long, and no longer".
No
one would seriously argue that at the present time the "business of getting
a living is the dominant factor of life". How did this situation arise? Who
is responsible for the economic conditions that prevail that forces farmers off
farms, or create the necessity for "downsizing", or to put it very
simply removing the means of obtaining a living by reducing employment? We are
not here arguing on the necessity for employment but rather the control that is
exercised through the reality that under our existing economic and financial
system, employment is the only means available to the masses to obtain money
that is required for living.
We
have politicians continually boasting how many jobs have been created, which are
in the main, only part time or casual jobs. We have politicians continually
calling for the creation of new jobs. Yet, not one politician has declared the
necessity to accept technological advancements or increases in productivity and
have the benefits passed to those who have been sacked, fired from their jobs or
"downsized" to use the euphemism. Emphasis is on the need to work for
the "dole" which is a means to have the community divided against
itself because of the fiction that it is the 'employed' who are paying taxes who
are keeping others on the dole. It is a very neat philosophical approach to
"kill two birds with the one stone" as the saying goes. On the one
hand the unemployed have no option but to accept the handouts and the conditions
that go with them. On the other
hand the employed are continuing their efforts to maintain the business of
getting a living and paying their taxes, which is an added penalty, and which
places further constraints on their ability to live.
The
philosophy and policy of Social Credit are interwoven to the extent that it is
often necessary to cross the bounds of one when discussing implications related
to the other. As a Policy of a Philosophy, Social Credit postulates practical
policy approaches to obtaining the goals that when achieved will be an
incarnation of the philosophy. That is to say that the questions relating to
employment, money, the provision of economic security backed up by an
administration of affairs by a political system that supports the individual
before the group is a policy governed by a particular philosophy. The philosophy
stresses the importance of the individual above all questions of groups,
institutions, governments or any other type of organisation in society.
The
introduction of policy items in discussions on philosophy are in themselves
simply an explanation of a situation to highlight the subtle way in which
philosophies and policies other than Social Credit, can have an effect on
individuals in society.
The
use, or misuse of words, has a direct bearing in this context because they are
so readily accepted by so many without questioning as to what is meant exactly.
One such word is Democracy; another word used indiscriminately is Sovereignty.
In the field of economics the use of words in the language spoken by a
particular group take on a completely different meaning than that understood
normally by the population. Two examples are "cost" and
"price". There are others.
Douglas
was quite explicit and correct when making observations on the significance of
Sovereignty and its relation to the money question. If we pass the discussion on
the origins of money to the point where the owner of the asset issued currency,
it is at once axiomatic that economic sovereignty resided with the owner of
the asset. Assets in this context refer to a physical asset such as an animal,
cattle, or goats. Although Douglas used the word Wealth it is obvious
from the totality of his writings that he was referring to Assets in some
circumstances and to money in others. This probably because common usage had
blurred the difference between them and he was writing and talking to an
audience who accepted these words as being synonymous
The
following extract from The Brief for the
Prosecution is not a treatise on money or finance but a constructive
approach to the question of Sovereignty. It is of enormous importance to the
understanding of the underlying philosophy that what Douglas is saying is not so
much about the changes in the money system but the ultimate effect and the
consequences relating to the establishment of controls over individuals and
their "getting a living".
"Certain premises are an essential starting‑point for any
useful suggestions in respect of the situation we have to face. The first of
these is that a comprehension of a sound policy is by no means an identity with
a comprehension of the means by which it may be achieved.
"The
first may be emotional or intuitional; but the second must be technical. There
is, fortunately, no lack of the former, but there is immense confusion as to the
latter. It is in this difference that one of the greatest difficulties of
genuine reform resides. "The complaints of the under‑privileged have
been wholly justified; their remedies have often been inspired by their
deadliest enemies. In small matters, most people are quite aware that it is
absurd to tell their shoemaker how to make shoes, but reasonable to complain
that their shoes hurt. But, to take an important example, once the average voter
has grasped the idea that there is something wrong with the money system, it is
rarely that he does not attribute its defects to something he has been taught to
call private enterprise... We may observe that, amongst many reasons for this,
is the fact that previous researches have established the fact that centralised
sovereignty is at the root of the world's ills; and money is connected with
economic sovereignty. The currency was issued by the owner
of the wealth. To
the extent that his ownership was absolute, economic sovereignty resided in
him.
"The
next stage was the accompaniment of war and social insecurity. Wealth was
deposited with goldsmiths for safe-keeping, and their receipt became
currency. The issue of currency thus passed from the owner of wealth to the
custodian of wealth. It is easy to prove that the goldsmith's receipt, which was
often a fraudulent receipt, is the prototype of the bank note. Sovereignty
largely passed to the goldsmith bankers, who " created the means of payment
out of nothing." Finally currency and cheques on drawable deposits became
simply bankers' credit, which was not owned by either the owner of real wealth, per
se, or the producer of wealth. This is quite easy to prove by an inspection
of any balance sheet, in which it will be found that "real" items and
monetary balances are to be found on the same side, and both are assets. This
would imply that someone, somewhere, actually owes to the possessor of money, a
"real" asset corresponding to' the money, and that this individual
shows this property in his accounts as a liability. There is nothing in the
facts or accounts of the business system to confirm this conclusion, but there
is much to suggest that bankers have a concealed lien on nearly all property.
"There
is little difficulty in demonstrating that the money system will only work
satisfactorily when sovereignty over his share of it is restored to the
individual It is unnecessary to develop this thesis here, since it has been
fully explored in such books as The Monopoly
of Credit. The point that is germane to our present enquiry is that there is no
evidence to indicate that a nationalised banking and currency system would be
anything but more oppressive than a partly decentralised system. Each approach
to centralisation, and this approach have been rapid, has increased the tyranny
of Finance, a tyranny that in itself is technical, but becomes political by
reason of the immense advantages, which accrue to its manipulators. There is no
more effective claim to totalitarian power than the claim to the sole right to
issue and withdraw (tax) money, and no mere manipulation of monetary technique,
which does not resolve and decide this question can do anything but complicate
the problem.
"It
may be objected that the preceding outline ignores the metallic currency of the
Royal Mints. So far from this being the case, the royal prerogative of striking
coins is a relic and confirmation of the original theory of money. The King was,
as the " Crown" in theory still is, the ultimate owner of everything
within his sovereignty. Land and chattels were held ultimately from the King,
and the possession of his coinage was
simply an acknowledgement of a grant by him. Those well‑intentioned
people who feel that nationalisation of banking, with its attribute of
credit‑money creation is desirable, would do well to realise what it is
they are proposing, which is the Divine Right of Kings, tout
court, without a responsible King.
"It is not necessary to infer from the preceding analysis that the establishment
of a mint for every household is desirable. The money system is
complementary to, and useless in the absence of, a price system. A corollary of
this is that the price of articles is the
direct sum paid for them, together with the proportion of involuntary payments
in the form of taxation, which accompany residence within the sovereignty.
"That
is to say, every rise in price, whether direct, or in accompanying taxation, is
a transfer of economic sovereignty from the individual to a centralised
Sovereign. And the imposition of any condition of law on the free purchase of
any article is a similar transfer. It will be noticed that managed currency
systems ostensibly intended to keep price levels constant are incompatible with
economic decentralisation. Managed currencies are controlled currencies and
require a controller. The essential requirement of a free economy is radically
different. In such an economy the proper function of money is to reflect facts,
not policy".
MONEY AS AN INSTRUMENT OF POLICY
This
is a clear indication by Douglas that the money system is being used as a tool
of Policy and as such is in direct contrast with Social Credit policy. It is
therefore as clear as night follows day that this policy which must be governed
by a philosophy which also is in direct conflict of Social Credit philosophy.
It
is in this grey area between philosophy and policy that many, including those
who would genuinely support the philosophy of Social Credit, become confused.
They place the emphasis on the priority of correcting the financial system above
that of recognising the objective. This objective is contained in the philosophy
in the relationship between individuals in association, and recognition of the
cultural inheritance and the increment of association as being part of the right
of every individual. These are
above that of the group; the institution; the organisation; and all of those
abstraction such as the Nation, the People, or Society.
As
shown in the Specification, the policy of Social Credit is divided into two
groupings and each of these is further divided into two groupings.
Economics
Under
the heading of economics is the subject of Consumer Control of Production. This
does not mean that consumers should have control over factories or industries in
the sense that they should own them and therefore have a direct input into how
they should run. This is the business of the producer. Douglas put this into
perspective when he wrote in The Social
Crediter November 16, 1946:
"Ignoring
the use of the word as a street-corner term of abuse, 'Fascism' is a symbolic
name for corporate action, and its nearest ideological equivalent is Guild
Socialism, or the Corporate state. If you once admit the premise of producer
control of the State, the fundamental premise of all Socialism masquerading
under its opposite, State control of production, there is little doubt that
Fascism is much superior to Russian Socialism. As in nearly everything nowadays,
however, it is the premise, not the logic, which is vicious.
"Consumer
control of production is the only possible basis of freedom; and no method of
obtaining consumer control has ever been tried with success which did not ban
state control of money and credit and include decentralised individual credit
power".
Douglas
had previously commented on the question of money in The Social Crediter, February 17, 1945 when he wrote:
"What
we appear to have forgotten is that the money system exercised the most perfect
control by the individual over
institutions which has ever been devised. It was a voting system besides
which political franchises are the crude devices of barbarous savagery. By
allowing the essential nature of the money system to be perverted and distorted
by coupons and licences to buy and so forth, we are throwing away the perfect
mechanism of our salvation. All these facts are clearly known to our plotters
and planners; that is why they are in so great a hurry to supplant, rather than
to perfect the money system, by administrative control".
In
a later edition of The Social Crediter, April
22, 1950, in what may be considered as a prophecy because of current
developments with the effects of Globalisation he wrote:
"There
are three economic systems. The first is genuine Capitalism; the second genuine
Socialism; the third Monopoly.
"In
the first, the producer meets the wishes of the consumer or goes out of
business; in the second, the producer takes his orders from an omnipotent
bureaucracy, and the consumer takes what is allowed to him; in the third, the
producer serves the policy of a small omnipotent clique.
"All
three are still in operation; but the third is for the moment eliminating the
other two".
There
is no necessity at this stage to outline the details of the increase in the
control of Big Business in the form of multinational and transnational
corporations. There have been numerous books written on the subjects of
Globalisation, Multilateral Agreements, mounting debt on a personal level, and
in the poorer countries of the world.
Each
and every one of these books are only confirmation of what Douglas had warned
about in the ever-increasing control of finance and communications that is
evident today. Solutions to the problem facing people, as consumers have not
been forthcoming because any proposals that have been suggested are based on
incorrect premises as Douglas pointed out. It is the falsity of these premises,
which are dangerous and not the logic that follows.
One
of the premises that Social Crediters continually expose is the cry for
"Full Employment". This is a subject in itself, and it only requires a
simple statement based on reality to reveal the viciousness to which Douglas
refers.
"Employment"
is a means to an end and to substitute a means for an end is a pernicious
attempt to distort the truth and reality. However it does provide its
propagators, against a background of ignorance by the general population on the
question, to promote schemes for job creation, job training schemes, work for
the dole etc. All of these promotions are designed ultimately to continue the
exertion of control over the individual. Employment is a means and money is a
means, neither are ends in themselves.
Another
false premise that is advocated continuously is the need for continuing growth
in exports.
"The
purely economic aspect of Social Credit is really quite elementary, and rests on
the fundamental proposition that industrial output is proportional to applied
energy and the availability of raw materials". (The Social Crediter 1/11/69).
It
can be seen from this statement that money does not constitute a component of
basic economics and yet it is expounded as a fundamental necessity to obtain the
benefits of economic activity. The fundamental function of money is its use as a
claim on production and potential production. Money, used as a means of control
through the requirement for employment as a means for its attainment is in the
realm of politics, and politics is concerned with channelling those claims.
For
consumer control of production it is necessary for consumers to be able to exert
an effective demand in the market place. It is not an effective demand to have
people limited in their choices based upon what is placed before them. Such a
demand is based upon limitations of purchasing power. Individuals should be able
to choose or refuse to purchase undesirable goods based upon the effectiveness
of their available purchasing power.
Restrictions
on the availability of purchasing power not only reduce effective demand but
also are a means of control over the individual.
Douglas
emphasised that the basis of freedom is economic and also that political
democracy without economic democracy is dynamite. The destruction of economic
democracy, and the permanent enthronement of a system of rewards and punishments
masquerading as Full Employment, is precisely the objective of political
ballot-box democracy.
Integral Accounting
Essential
to any understanding of proposals for the necessary changes to the financial
accounting system is acknowledgement of a basic fundamental. The
standard of living for the individual is governed by the ratio of
consumer-production to capital production.
Douglas
had analysed the economic system and drew attention to what was considered to be
a major flaw. It was this flaw that provided the basis for his A + B Theorem.
Now
in this regard it must be stressed that a Theorem is a proposition or statement
of fact, which is a truth to be established by reason of accepted truths. It is
not a theory as claimed by many misinformed and the truth by which the Theorem
can be proved as a true statement is evidenced by subsequent events. It can be
proved by other accepted facts but the conclusion of the Theorem itself
vindicates the body of the statement.
It
is not necessary to go into detail and explanation of the A + B Theorem here as
there is ample literature on the matter. The only essential comment that is
necessary is to draw attention to the concluding sentence:
"Since
A will not purchase A plus B, a proportion of the product (our emphasis) at
least equivalent to B must be distributed
by a form of purchasing power which is not comprised in the description under
A". (our emphasis).
Douglas
emphasised on many occasions that the flaw that existed was that the generation
of prices was greater than the generation of purchasing power distributed as
wages, salaries and dividends in any given period.
Not
only opponents of his proposals but also many who believed they were supportive
mistakenly believed that he was saying that there was always a shortage of
purchasing power. This is not correct. The shortage of purchasing was overcome
by money distributed at a later stage in the product viz. Capital production.
Douglas
had offered two ways of overcoming the problem by means of providing a National
Dividend and the introduction of a simultaneous Compensated Price system.
An
article in The Social Crediter 28
November 1970 explains this very clearly.
"In
its expanded (in the mathematical sense) form the A + B theorem states: in order
to ensure the distribution of a given quantity of consumers' goods, it is
necessary under present conditions to accelerate
the production of capital goods. The recognition of this by J.M. Keynes and its
dressing-up in elaborate economic jargon brought about the virtual slaughter of
the Social Credit idea, for he showed how to maintain the centralisation of credit control, whereas the Social Credit idea was
the distribution of credit, thereby
achieving economic democracy, a far
more important concept to the individual
than political democracy, which in its
ballot-box form is a well-nigh perfect smoke-screen for autocracy.
"Its
essence lay in the need…for accelerating capital production - production which
distributed incomes, but which did not come on to the consumer market
(production for export comes into this category).
"Every
expansion of industrial capacity increases the "B" element in prices -
i.e., the element representing payments made to individuals at some indefinite
period in the past, and for the most part spent at that time, but accounted forward into the price of an article when it reaches the consumer
market. This is the fundamental cause of "cost-inflation". . This
natural increase in prices leads to demands for higher wages, which in the
aggregate…necessarily leads to "wage-cost" inflation.
"Inflation,
thus, is a built-in feature of the economy. Its rate of increase can be slowed
by a genuine increase in productivity; but this is inhibited by high taxation
imposed, it is said to 'curb' inflation."
There
are other ways to curb inflation. One is to allow cheap imports from low wage
countries and thus force local industries out of business and thus increase
unemployment and once again maintain control with a two edged sword.
That
source of purchasing power made available from a source other than wages,
salaries and dividends described as A (the original payment in the commencement
of the aggregation of what will eventually become the Price), is the
distribution through capital production (buildings, machinery etc). It is
important to note that in the main this new purchasing power is through bank
lending. This lending may be, and in most cases, is for capital production, and
therefore an increase in debt, which can only be repaid after the final product
is sold. When it is for the purpose of new capital buildings, which do not come
on to the consumer market, it is an inflation of the currency. Where Plant and
Machinery are concerned, although they are purchased, not on the consumer
market, and used in further production it is an extension of the problem,
exacerbated by the inclusion of Depreciation (the writing off of the cost into
future prices). Secondly, direct lending to consumers in the form of bankcard.
There is sufficient evidence to verify Douglas's conclusions that a form of
purchasing power 'at least equivalent to B (payments made to other organisations
for raw materials, bank charges, and other external costs)" must be
distributed to meet total prices.
This
fact was obviously lost on economists as revealed in the caustic comment by a
Professor Hart in his Money, Debt, and
Economic Activity, first published in 1953 by Prentice-Hall, Inc. In a
section devoted to what he refers to as "Monetary Panacea" he
criticises Social Credit proposals. After completely misquoting the A + B
Theorem and adding his comment as to what Douglas suggested, which was
completely untrue, he said:
"The
A plus B Theorem is a silly way to compare costs and markets (which it does not,
and never intended to do - Ed.)…. The Theorem proves too much. On the average,
for the firms in an industrial economy the A's are only a fraction of total
costs ( which is perfectly true - Ed.) Only a fraction of a year's output,
therefore, could be sold. At this rate, the economic machine must have become
completely jammed long ago, with all out put stopped - but how did we fail to
notice it?”
This
is the logic of a well known academic.
"The deficiency between purchasing power, and goods with money prices attached to them, can be made up (at any rate to a large extent) by this process of creating bank money. This enables the business cycle to be carried through. and conversely, the refusal to create fresh money by banking methods or otherwise, whatever the cause of this refusal may be, is sufficient to paralyse both production and consumption".
The latter may be readily associated with what is commonly called a "credit squeeze".
Of
course it did not become jammed because of the new money provided by the banking
system for capital production and in later years in addition, by lending
directly to consumers, via personal loans, Visa cards, Master Cards, Bankcard,
etc. But then Professor Hart was not to know that events would prove Douglas
correct as with all of his other critics.
Douglas's
observations on economics and its use for control include some of the following
comments.
"The
simple test to be applied to all legislation at this time, from the point of
view of those whose policy we endeavour to express, is 'Does it centralise
power, or does it free the individual? …"And the explanation is in
essence both simple and incontrovertible - instead of being self-contained units
we are, more and more, becoming components of a function masquerading as
'economics', but accurately described as "full employment'. Five minutes'
consideration will convince anyone not mentally infirm that a policy
of full employment means, and can only mean, direction of labour. Combine
that with egalitarianism, and you have the slave state - you cannot have
anything else" (The Social Crediter, March 13, 1948).
"The
essence of civilisation is free contract
under duress. To suppose that you can have a contractual system which does
not provide duress after contract is to adopt the social system of 'unauthorised
strikers'…Either the contractual is inherent in the nature of things and
should be clearly recognised and upheld, or unilateral totalitarianism is
better, and should be proclaimed.. The essence of the National dividend
proposals of Social Credit technique is to provide for free
negotiation without duress, not contract without penalty" (The
Social Crediter, July 24, 1948).
The
technique of Social Credit Proposals for the establishment of the National
Dividend and the Compensated Price mechanism requires an alteration to the
financial accounting system. The steps that need to be taken are first to gain
acceptance that there is a flaw in the accounting system. The second is to break
the monopoly of credit/money creation and the third is the implementation of the
policy to distribute the National Dividend and at the same time introduce the
Compensated price to counter any tendency to inflation. There cannot be
inflation where prices are being reduced as would occur with the application of
the Compensated Price mechanism. There are other things that would require
attention but these are procedural matters.
ADMINISTRATION
In
any administrative process, that is in an organisation designed to carry out a
function, there must be chain of command to ensure that the policy to be
effected must be done so in the most efficient manner. Efficient in this sense
means the ability to produce an intended result.
At
the same time there must be a mechanism to ensure that those who are elected to
provide results, do so. Under the heading of the Individual and the Group it was
explained that Policy must come from the bottom up, not the top down. However,
this does not refer to Administration, which must be hierarchical.
HIERARCHY
With
regard to the antithesis or contrast between the implementation of Policy and
Administration, probably the best example is provided by Dr. Bryan W. Monahan in
his Introduction to Social Credit,
written in 1947.
“The
antithetical possibilities in regard to each of these are that control may be
centralised, or de‑centralised; and consequently, the combinations offer
four possibilities:
1.
Centralised control of policy and centralised control of administration.
2.
Centralised control of policy, and decentralised control of administration.
3.
Decentralised control of policy, and centralised control of administration.
4.
Decentralised control of both policy and administration.
“Let
us examine these possibilities in relation to a cricket club. In the first
example, we have the club organised so that there is an authority at the top,
which exercises control through various administrative grades of authority. That
is to say, authority is hierarchical. This is, of course, the familiar form of
administrative organisation; it is found, in fact, wherever there is efficient
administration. But in the case we are examining, a centralised hierarchy also
controls policy; it decides what objectives the club shall follow. Thus an
authority, say a board, or the President, may say that the club shall play
twenty cricket matches, fifteen of them against one team, and five in Timbuktu.
The wishes of the members have no part in this decision. It is taken
"for" their good in the opinion of the authority.
“It
will be noted that in order that this decision should he effective, the
authority controlling policy must also control the administration. The whole
organisation is completely centralised in respect of policy and administration.
But one further point must be noted: the individual members of the club must not
be able to contract‑out if they do not like the policy dictated by the
authority, since otherwise there would be the danger that the policy could not
be carried through, for want of personnel.
“Now
this is the system in operation in Russia, the system called
"totalitarian". Decisions of policy are made either by Stalin, or that
very small group known as the Politbureau; and the whole of the administrative
apparatus is centralised under the control of the same group, and the sanctions,
which enforce the decisions, are controlled from the same centre. There is no
contracting out; orders must he obeyed, and no one is free to leave the country.
“It
will be obvious that our second possibility, centralised control of policy, and
decentralised control of administration, is merely a theoretical possibility.
Decentralised control of administration means that anyone who likes does
anything he likes, so that there is no assurance that a given decision on policy
will be carried into effect. In the cricket club, the decision to play a match
against another club requires a programme of action, which in the very nature of
things, must be arranged by a hierarchical authority ‑ the committee,
co‑ordinated under the authority of the President. Similarly, it is
perfectly evident that the Russian Politbureau's decisions could not possibly
be effective unless a centralised administrative system, acting under orders,
existed under the control of the Politbureau to carry the directives into
effect.
“This
same requirement rules out the fourth theoretical possibility in the same way.
In this case, indeed, the whole idea of organisation is missing.
“The
only practicable possibility besides the totalitarian system is, therefore, the
third of the above possibilities: decentralised
control of policy, and centralised control of administration. Thus we can
arrive at a valid basic definition of democracy from first principles.
“It
does not follow from this that in a democratic system administration is fully
centralised. Administration must be hierarchical and subject to direction from
its apex, in respect of a given undertaking. But a democratic organisation may
have several separate administrative hierarchies in respect of several
undertakings. On the other hand, all administration is ultimately centralised in
one system in the totalitarian organisation, because it is all subject to one
over‑riding direction on policy”.
CONTRACTING OUT MECHANISMS
We
revert back to our quote by Douglas concerning "free negotiating without duress". This supports the Social
Credit philosophy of Freedom of
Association.
In
simple terms, an individual should be free to choose which pair of shoes they
will buy. If they do not like a product they can refuse to purchase it. If they
are members of an organisation or club they should be free to leave if it does
not meet their requirements. If they have elected an administration they should
be free to contract-out or at least have a sanction to remove the committee and
replace them with people who will produce the result they want.
In
The Big Idea, Douglas defines this as
a prerequisite to genuine democracy:
"Genuine
democracy can very nearly be defined as the right to atrophy by contracting out.
It is essentially negative, although, contrary to the curious nonsense that is
prevalent about "negativeness", is none the less essential for that
reason.
"This
genuine democracy requires to be carefully distinguished from the idea that a
game is necessarily a bad game simply because you can't or won't play it, and
therefore the fact that you can't play it is the first recommendation for a
chief part in changing the rules. On the contrary, that is an a
priori disqualification. For this reason, if for no other, a period of
discipline in the prevailing social and economic disciplines in say, the early
twenties, seems highly pragmatically desirable. No play, no vote. Bad play,
Grade 3 vote. But you needn't do either.
"The
power of contracting-out is the first and most deadly blow to the Supreme
State".
Freedom
of Association means exactly what it says. Individuals may choose to enter into
association with each other or not to. If the choice is to enter into a contract
with another the contract should be acceptable to both parties, otherwise one or
the other can refuse to enter into the contract. When both, agree to enter into
a contract, they have also agreed to accept the conditions or penalties that may
apply. It is a contract under duress, i.e.,
a penalty applies for voiding the contract. However, it is something entered
into freely. A contract, which involves a weaker party e.g. the individual
against an organisation, and who is not free to refuse to enter, and who is
compelled to accept the conditions that are imposed, is tyrannous, immoral, and
a travesty of justice.
The
introduction of new or extra taxation measures is an example. Compulsory
National Superannuation is another, particularly when it is repeated under
different names as has happened in Australia. When the right to contract-out is
not available to individuals and there is a passive acceptance of the idea of
universality manifested in language such as, "In the National
Interest", "For the benefit of all", or "For the good of the
Country", it is always the weaker party, the individual who pays the higher
price in freedom.
Without
a sanction available to individuals collectively in society there will continue
to be further erosion of their freedoms. Many believe that a sanction is
available in the use of the ballot box, which there is not. Many believe in
taking action on a prescribed issue, but unless that action is in association,
and is cumulative in exposure and information, and unless it has a sanction to
apply, it is not efficient, that is, not able to produce an intended result.
The
ballot-box mentality is a guise that is applied and used to declare that a
mandate has been received. Changes in the rules of the game each time the game
is played will eventually cause players to leave the game. With electors, who do
not have a proper sanction, and who are unable to contract-out, it is much more
serious and eventually leads to catastrophic events, such as civil disobedience,
civil war or revolution.
OBJECTIVE
As
stated in the Specification, the objective is Social Stability by the
integration of means and ends. By applying a correct perception of reality and
not substituting means for ends and applying a Policy to achieve a Philosophy
that encompasses the importance of the individual above the group, the Social
Credit objective is clear.
It
is to provide economic security together with political security so that,
"They shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none
shall make them afraid". (Michah iv.,
4)
INCOMPATIBLES:
The
items listed as incompatible with Social Credit are in direct contrast to the
concept of the individual being more important than the group and have been
dealt with. The Philosophy that produces the Policy resulting in so many
catastrophic consequences around the world in the current century needs no
further elucidation.
Ballot-box
democracy embodies all of these components in one form or another.
The
topic of "ballot-box democracy" is rarely discussed, probably because
it has been for so long inculcated upon the minds of people that it is a fair
and honest way for people to choose those who they wish to manage their affairs.
Some observations by Douglas are worth noting.
"Five
minutes' consideration of this subject, which is either pure moonshine or the
most vital subject which affects us on earth, ought to convince anyone that a
ballot-box democracy can only be advocated by two kinds of persons - the
abysmally ignorant or the consciously traitorous". (The Social Crediter, June 4, 1949).
"A
man who is ashamed or afraid to let it be known how he votes, is afraid to take
responsibility for the consequences of his voting, and has no right to
vote"
Commenting
on a statement by General Sir William Slim who remarked "More than two
thousand youths enter the Army each year who cannot even sign their name",
Douglas said, "We aren’t told how many who don't enter the Army each year
can't sign their name. But they can all make a cross on a 'secret' ballot paper,
even if they can't read the name of the candidate. So they just about cancel the
votes of the few thousand whose opinion on political matters is worth
attention". And what about Nursing Homes and other similar institutions?
Under the heading "Secret Ballot", the following letter
appeared in Truth (England), Dec. 13,
1946, and was later reprinted in The
Social Crediter: July 15, 1967.
"Sir,‑Your correspondent, Mr. Clifford Rivington, appears to
overlook a Dumber of factors, many of them highly technical, which make it
altogether too superficial to "agree that a genuinely secret ballot is the
bedrock of political freedom". It may easily be exactly the reverse. The
first of these factors was the fundamental cause of the American Revolution, and
it is operating in this country today. It is the assumption that anyone can vote
about anything, or anybody, and that a genuine mandate is thereby conferred upon
Parliament, which Parliament can delegate to a Cabinet, upon which it confers
the right to legislate without limitation by Common Law, or as the American
colonists called it, "natural" law.
"The Common Good", always invoked by tyrants, is the excuse
given for the transfer by a legal process, which inverts the protection given by
Common Law, of privileges acquired by individuals to a bureaucracy subject to a
junta whose primary concern is to retain power. The secret ballot is a most
ingenious method of facilitating this process by attributing power to an
electorate, which cannot exercise it, and suffers collectively, not for its
unidentifiable vote, but for the deterioration of morale, which always
accompanies the divorce of power from responsibility. Many, if not most, of our
political premises demand serious reconsideration; and the real nature of our
so‑called democracy stands high upon the list".
In
conclusion we offer here an extract of part of a paper published in The
Social Crediter, March 16, 1946, which, considering current events of
June/July 1999, in Yugoslavia reveals the truth and reality contained in Social
Credit philosophy.
"A POLITICAL SYSTEM
The paper which appears below is an excerpt from the
joint work of Dr. and Mrs. C. Geoffrey Dobbs, which was published in The Social
Crediter, March 16, 1946
Question.
To
what extent, and in what connection, if any, do you consider the adult universal
vote constitutes a mechanism, with or without modification, corresponding with,
and tending to, a satisfactory political system?
The Validity of the Political Vote
Definition:
VOTE: (fr. Lat. votum, 'wish, vow; to
, wish for'). Formal expression, by ballot or show of hands, etc., of one's
wish, choice, opinion, esp. in regard (i) to the election of a candidate for a
post, or as a member of Parliament or other legislative or administrative body;
or (ii) to the passing of a resolution, law, measure, sanctioning or prohibiting
some specific form of action.
(Question taken with current meanings and within the framework of present day political systems 1946)
Surveying
the evidence:
"(i)
Great Britain, U.S.A., U.S.S.R. (all vote over 18), all have adult universal vote; in none of them does it
constitute a satisfactory political system, serving merely to camouflage
tyranny. At its most prosperous period in the19th century Great Britain had
certain qualifications, real but not political, on the right to vote.
"(ii)
On the other hand the reluctance shown e.g.,
by powerful forces in Belgium to have a universal vote on the proposed
abdication of King Leopold, and in Greece to a vote on the form of government desired by people there, point to
the conclusion that there is some field in which an adult universal vote is
valid and could muster the power to thwart the Dark Forces. The elaborate
measures taken in e.g., Yugoslavia to
preserve some of the trappings of a universal vote also point in this direction; but in fact the vote there is no
longer universal, the disqualification for voting being political' (i.e.,
'fascist,' etc.) not real.
"We
therefore conclude that it is not so much, the vote that should be considered but the whole vote‑operation
including as well as the vote the policies and people voted for, and the way of
summing up the results, and the limiting factor of propaganda and information
available to voters.
"Wherever
there is an adult universal vote, at present we find complete control and corruption of the other factors composing
the operation, so that the vote is useless for ends not approved by the
controllers, while giving an illusory air of free choice.
"We
consider the following factors important in this connection:
"I.
That no satisfactory political system
is 'workable' unless those concerned with it hold broadly the same religious or
philosophical views: in practice this was so when Christianity was the dominant
religion. This is the only safeguard to the social credit (the faith of people
that in association they will get what they want) of a system without which any
political system will disintegrate.
"11.
So‑called democracies have always emphasised exclusively the numerical
aspect of the vote. The development of the party system has caused each
political vote to be set off against another different one (thus playing off
different groups of the community, against each other and creating class
warfare) and account is taken only of the difference
in numbers between supporters of the competing parties. In consequence (a)
many votes are rendered ineffective, and (b) the resulting Government may not,
even represent the majority of voters.
"The
political vote is thus transformed into an instrument to restrict the freedom of
the voter by selecting one policy only and imposing it on everybody".
Political
Reality
It
needs little explanation to add that the political system has been captured by
the Political Party system. Electors vote for a candidate they did not
choose as their representative and who, when elected, must obey the dictates of
the elite at the top echelon of the party with respect to policy and how to vote
in Parliament. They are no more than a number, and those with the greatest
number form the government. The elite in control of the party, and not
necessarily those within the elected few at the top, determine policy and the
means by which they can maintain control and the power that is inherent in the
government by means of the sanctions it holds in the police and military.
The
ordinary voter has no voice whatever in the making of policy for his individual
benefit within society. Neither has the individual any means of contracting out
or the capability of redressing the situation to ensure that he will, in
association with his fellows receive the benefits of that association. He is
subservient to the control of the group.
Thus
it is necessary to correct the administration of our affairs with respect to the
economic and financial system and the political system to allow for economic and
political security. Only then will people be able to receive in free association
one with the other and collectively, the benefits of their association.