for the Social Credit
What Do We Mean By Real Social Credit?
Contrary to too widespread an idea in Canada, Social Credit is not at all a political party.
Social Credit is a doctrine, a series of principles expressed for the first time by Major and engineer C. H. Douglas in 1918. The implementation of these principles would make the social and economic organism effectively reach its proper end, which is the service of human needs.
Social Credit would neither create the goods nor the needs, but it would eliminate any artificial obstacle between the two of them, between production and consumption, between the wheat in elevators and the bread on the table. The obstacle today — at least in the developed countries — is purely of financial order, a money obstacle. Now, the financial system neither proceeds from God nor nature. Established by men, it can be adjusted to serve men and no more to cause them problems.
To this end, Social Credit presents concrete propositions. Though very simple, these propositions nevertheless imply a real revolution. Social Credit brings the vision of a new civilization, if by civilization one can mean man's relationship with his fellow men and the conditions of life making easier for each one the blossoming of his personality.
Under a Social Credit system, we would no longer be struggling with problems that are strictly financial, which constantly plague public administrations, institutions, families, and which poison relationships between individuals. Finance would be nothing but an accounting system, expressing in figures the relative values of goods and services, making easier the mobilization and coordination of the energies required for the different levels of production towards the finished good, and distributing to ALL consumers the means to choose freely and individually what is suitable to them among the goods offered or immediately realizable.
For the first time in history, absolute economic security, without restrictive conditions, would be guaranteed to each and everyone. Material poverty would be a thing of the past. Material anxiety about tomorrow would disappear. Bread would be ensured to all, as long as there is enough wheat to make enough bread for all. Similarly for the other goods that are necessary for life.
Each citizen would be presented with this economic security as a birthright, as a member of the community, usufructuary throughout one's life of an immense community capital, that has become a dominant factor of modern production. This capital is made up of, among other things, the natural resources, which are a collective good; life in society, with the increment that ensues from it; the sum of the discoveries, inventions, technological progress, which are an ever-increasing heritage from generations.
This community capital, which is so productive, would bring each of its co-owners, each citizen, a periodical dividend, from the cradle to the grave. And seeing the volume of production attributable to the common capital, the dividend to each one ought to be at least sufficient to cover the basic necessities of life. This dividend would be given in addition to those who personally take part in production, without prejudice to wages, salaries or other forms of reward.
An income thus attached to the individual, and no longer only attached to his status of employee, would shield him from exploitation by other human beings. With the basic necessities of life guaranteed, a man can better resist being pushed about and can better take up the career of his own choosing.
Freed from urgent material worries, men could apply themselves to free activities, which are more creative than commanded work, and strive towards their own development by the exercise of human functions superior to the purely economic function. Getting the daily bread would no more be the absorbing occupation of their lives.
But, however logical, social and respectful of the human person the Social Credit propositions are, they radically break off with notions generally received and considered as tangible and intangible.
That is why Social Credit cannot result from a simple change of party in power. One does not impose a new civilization by an election. One must first make it known, make it wanted, make it sought after by the population. And since this is a question of a Social Credit civilization, let us say that one must first develop a Social Credit mentality, win people over to a standpoint favourable to the vision presented by Social Credit.
Therefore the problem is not of boosting a political party, but of making Social Credit known, loved and wanted.
Besides, the very conception of a party is at variance with the philosophy of Social Credit. Political parties exist to try to take power, and are on the move only when the race for power is opened. As for Social Credit, it would distribute power as widely as possible among all members of society: economic power, by a purchasing power guaranteed to each individual; political power, by making the Members of Parliament the real representatives of their constituents, and no more the servants of a party.
It is a must for the electorate to learn to express their common will at all times. The decisions affecting the lives of the citizens are made between elections. To content oneself with voting for a party candidate, then to passively accept anything which is decided upon without the advice from those who must bear the cost of decisions, is political childishness.
The party creates a wall
(The “Vers Demain” Journal,, January 1, 1957)
It would be in the interest of any group or movement that deals with the social question to know and assimilate the Social Credit principles.
If any representative of the people, taken individually, of whatever political party, really wants to promote the common good, he must not hesitate to call for an appropriate distribution of the wealth, respecting personal freedom, private property and private enterprise, which is something he can do while staying in the party that he considers more capable of running the country.
But we cannot see a masterful idea like Social Credit - which transcends political parties and would enrich them all - being in some way confined in a political party. Social Credit is a universal. A political party is a part, a piece. To call a party "Social Credit" is to want to enslave a universal into a limitative.
As soon as you use the words Social Credit to name a political party, you exclude the possibility for the member of another party to declare himself in favour of Social Credit : it would be to declare himself for an opposing party. He will object to you that he cannot be at the same time for his party and the Social Credit Party.
And if the population is accustomed to thinking of a political party when it hears the words "Social Credit", you carry a very great chance of finding many with only half an ear, if not already blocked up, when you want to introduce Social Credit to an audience of another party.
The aim of a political party is to stay in power if it already holds it, or try to take power if it does not already hold it. Therefore there is necessarily a struggle between political parties. Each party is an opponent of the other or others. To call "Social Credit" a party is to turn the members of all other parties against anything that bears the name Social Credit.
And besides, a truth cannot be submitted to a vote. To subject Social Credit to a vote is to be bound to be told, after a failure : "You can see that it is not as good as you say, since the people voted in majority against it."
Perhaps some will ask: "How will you get a Social Credit legislation passed if the party in power is not a Social Credit Party?"
We believe that Social Credit will prevail everywhere, even in the political parties, the one in power as well as those in the opposition, when it will have been sufficiently accepted in the minds and claimed by the population itself. This is what the Pilgrims of Saint Michael apply themselves to. And it is precisely so as not to put up walls between Social Credit and minds, which are still too much accustomed to thinking about politics only in terms of parties, that we do not want to see the idea of Social Credit linked to the idea of a party.
* * *
Perhaps some will ask: “How will you get a Social Credit legislation passed if the party in power is not a Social Credit Party?”
We believe that Social Credit will prevail everywhere, even in the political parties, the one in power as well as those in the opposition, when it will have been sufficiently accepted in the minds and claimed by the population itself. This is what the Pilgrims of St. Michael apply themselves to. And it is precisely so as not to put up walls between Social Credit and minds, which are still too much accustomed to thinking about politics only in terms of parties, that we do not want to see the idea of Social Credit linked to the idea of a party.
Choose your topic
- Alternative monetary system
- Monetary Reform
- Other religions
- Other topics
- Pilgrims of St. Michael
- Roman Catholic Church
- Social Credit
- Societal debates
- Terrorism & Revolutions
- World Government