|
Social Credit is not a political party
by Louis Even To
rely on a party is a delusion (Taken
from “Vers Demain”, January 15, 1958) The
implementation of Social Credit would institute true democracy: economic
democracy, by making each consumer capable of ordering from the
country's production the basic necessities of life; political
democracy, as long as the people can make known to their elected
representatives, to their governments, what they expect of them and to
demand results. (Demos, people; kratein, to reign. —
Democracy: the people's sovereignty.) Any Social Crediter, even slightly informed, knows very well that, today, supreme power is exercised neither by the people nor by their governments, but by a financial clique. Statesmen like Gladstone, Wilson, and many others, declared it explicitly. Mackenzie King was promising, in 1935, the greatest battle of all times "between the financial powers and the people." A battle in which he did not engage, no doubt because he considered the financial powers too strong and the people too weak. The
people are weak indeed; and it is understandable that they are weak
when, in the first place, they know nothing about public matters and
what goes on behind the scenes; weak, secondly, when, instead of
teaching them about these things, those who are stirring in front of
them divide them into political factions that are fighting each other.
It is not one more faction that will create unity, the unity which would
make up their strength, whereas division increases their weakness.
It
is a man of genius, C. H. Douglas, who discovered the great truth that
Social Credit is; it is he who founded the Social Credit school. He most
certainly knew better what Social Credit meant, as far as democracy is
concerned, than those little fellows of our homeland who would like to
make out of Social Credit the instrument of their race to power, or at
least a platform for their jigging about in search of a seat in
Parliament. Now,
Douglas declared, in a lecture given in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, on March
19, 1937, that there is, in England, two major obstacles to true
democracy, and the first of these obstacles is the system of parties. The
same goes for Canada, and the solution does not consist in feeding the
system of parties, but in weakening it. That is to say, to make
the parties in existence inoffensive, not by making another division
within the people, but on the contrary, by uniting the citizens, all
citizens, without party distinctions, to express their common will to
their Members of Parliament, whoever these Members of Parliament are,
and whatever their political colours. To put the emphasis on what
happens between elections, when the fate of the citizens is at stake,
more than during elections when the politicians' fate is at stake. To
unite the citizens. And for this, to begin by making them understand
that they all want the same fundamental things; then to convince them
that by thus insisting together to get what they all want, they would
inevitably get it. It
is still Major Douglas who, on another occasion, in Liverpool, October
30, 1936, said “The
people's sovereignty, i.e., their effective ability to give orders,
would increase with their unanimity, and if people all wanted a uniform
result there could be no possibility of parties, and there could be no
possibility of parties, and there could be no resistance to their
demand.” That
is, it seems to us, a very good line of conduct, perfectly in keeping
with common sense. You
will never be able to put everybody in agreement around a ballot box.
But you could fairly well put everybody in agreement on the results to
request from politics, if you make it a point to set these results in
the order of their universality and urgency: economic security, a
sufficient amount of goods today and guaranteed for tomorrow, the
freedom for each one to choose his occupation and lifestyle. Everybody
wants these things; and, as Douglas points out, even those who do no
want them for others, want them for themselves. Why
then centralize attention and turn activities toward the ballot box,
toward the thing that divides, instead of applying oneself to
effectively uniting everybody around requests over which everybody can
be in agreement? Never
was an important reform obtained by the formation of a new political
party. Most of the time, the party established in view of a major reform
dies because of electoral failure; and if, by chance, it comes to power,
it finds so many obstacles that it finally stands still and has no other
objective than to stay in power without doing any more than the traditional
parties. To overcome the obstacles, it lacked a strength: that of a
people sufficiently enlightened, and sufficiently formed in the
political field. Besides,
a reform cannot come out from an election. It results from a natural and
democratic way, from the maturation of a well-cultivated key idea; it
results from its acceptance, its request, by a sufficient number of
people to create a general will, expressed without being tied up to the
hazards of electoral results. Social
Credit will enter into the country's legislation when it will have
become the object of a general request, asserted so much that all
political parties will welcome it into their programs. To confine it
into a political party is to link its fate to the electoral fate of that
party. And it can mean moving backward instead of forward. Thus, in New
Zealand, the party called "Social Credit", which got 11 per
cent of the votes in the 1954 elections, got only 7 per cent in the
following elections. One could certainly give many explanations to this
tumble; they will only serve to prove that to tie up the fate of Social
Credit to the ballot box is not to put the cause of Social Credit into a
very reliable train. A
new idea is spread through propaganda, it takes roots through study. The
newer the idea and greater its repercussions, the more its propagation
and implantation call for efforts, usually for time also, but always for
perseverance. The cause that propagates this idea has much more need of
apostles than members of parliaments. There
is no need to look outside of the country, nor to go back very far into
history, to fend the failures of parties conceived in view of a reform
or reforms. The Province of Quebec supplied several examples in less
than one generation. In
all these adventures, the founders relied on a fast electoral success.
The people's political education mattered little or none at all. From
the people, one sought the vote, that is all. And because the expected
electoral success did not come about, they stopped all activity. It
was the fate of the "Action Liberale Nationale". It was the
fate of the "Bloc Populaire". There were a few other attempts
also, of less importance except in the minds of their authors. The
instigators of new parties no doubt consider that the people's political
education would take too much time, if however they ever thought about it.
A quick vote seemed to be a more normal method and, especially, a faster
one to them. The result: tombstones, which are not even visited by those
who supported these defunct parties. A fair number of these gentlemen
have since kindly settled down under the wings of traditional parties
that they had yet eloquently denounced. One
must build up the people's strength, so that their weight on the
governments exceeds the strength of the financial powers. It is not in a
parliament that one builds up the people's strength. It is where the
people are — outside of parliaments. And it is the place of a true
Social Credit Movement. The
Social Crediter in front of an election (Taken
from “Vers
Demain”, March 1, 1958) Where
is the importance of an election in comparison to the importance of the
work we are dealing with? We,
of the Pilgrims of Saint Michael, bustle about the whole year round, and
fruitfully, being busy improving the conditions of the multitude. And we
have to do it, not only without the support of politicians, but often
frustrated by them. When an election comes along, would we be stupid
enough to give even a fragment of our time, or spend one sole penny, to
deal with the fate of politicians? Our activities are too sacred to
debase them for such a mean work: it would be sheer prostitution. There
are too many people who content themselves with watching us take action,
when we devote ourselves wholeheartedly and without looking for a
material reward. If these people, all of a sudden, find themselves a
pair of legs and a tongue when an election comes along, they can use up
all their energies into it, but they most certainly cannot expect us to
follow them. Our
Social Credit Movement, because it stands for real Social Credit, wants
to redistribute power to individuals, those who make up the people.
Individuals are found outside of parliaments. We will not depart from
our mission and waste our energies to put some individuals on seats in
parliaments where, paid by the people, they totally forget them and do
nothing for them. The
Members of Parliament themselves admit that they do nothing. They are
the first ones to tell you, when you go to request things for everybody:
"Sorry, I am not able." Then,
is it really worth getting all excited for this joke, sending someone to
sit down on a seat of incapability ? It
is not the members of parliament who can mark out the government's way.
It is marked out by the invisible government, not subject to elections.
Only a major, steady and increasing pressure can cause the government to
escape from the powers which dominate it today. The
only strength capable of effectively putting this pressure on is the
strength of an informed, united and determined people that imperatively
requests results. Who
can build up such a strength? Those who are working at it, the active
Social Crediters. Where can they build it up? Outside of the Parliament,
since it is outside of the Parliament that the people are. Therefore,
during the election campaign, the Social Crediters, the true ones, carry
on with their day-to-day work, next to the people and for the people. If
a candidate goes by, let us shout our program to him, and let us refuse
to listen to his. It is not for the one who is paid to decide what he
will do: the orders must come from those who pay. But,
above all, let us not forget that it is the politicians' fate, and not
that of the people, that is at stake during the election campaign. Let
us let the politicians thrash about: it is their turn. And they can
thrash about without us. As for us, let us keep up our noble mission. Douglas and electioneering (Taken
from “Vers
Demain”, November 1, 1958) The
Social Credit Secretariat, an organism founded by Major Douglas himself,
has republished an address given by the founder of Social Credit, on
March 7, 1936. That day, Douglas was not speaking to the general public,
but to Social Crediters. In
that address, Douglas recommends a policy of pressure, and strongly
condemns the methods of political parties, especially that of a
"Social Credit" party. He condemns this method, not only
because it is doomed to failure before it starts, but also because it is
to link the beautiful thing which Social Credit is to politics and the
ballot box. Douglas goes as far as to say: “If
you elect a Social Credit party, supposing you could, I may say that I
regard the election of a Social Credit party in this country as one of
the greatest catastrophes that could happen.” The
proper function of a Member of Parliament, explained Douglas, is to
receive and pass on to the government the expression of the legitimate
will of its constituents. The proper function of a government is to
receive this demand and order the experts to follow it up (the experts,
therefore the financiers for financial matters). One must not tell these
experts how to go about it, but point out the result to achieve and
demand this result. And
the people's role is to become aware of objectives that they commonly
want and to express this will to their representatives. It is where it
must begin, from where it must be set off, with the electors. Therefore,
instead of putting the importance on the elected representative, one
must put it on the electors. In
Douglas's words: “If
you agree that the object of sending a set of men to Parliament is to
get what you want, then why elect a special set of men, a special party
at all? The men who are there should get you what you want — that is
their business. It is not their business to say how it is to be got.
How things are done is the responsibility of the expert.” The
experts must be told what the citizens want, and this demand must come
from the citizens themselves. Electioneering
has perverted the sense of democracy. All the political parties can do
is to divide people, weaken their strength and lead them to
disappointments. To add a new party can only add another disappointment
under another name. A disappointment all the more disastrous if the
adventure drags with it the term of an excellent cause like that of
Social Credit. Douglas
also wrote in 1951: “Incompatibles (with Social Credit): Collectivism, Dialectic Materialism, Totalitarism, Masonic Philosophy and Policy. Ballotbox democracy embodies all of them.” A
“party”, the opposite of Social Credit (Taken
from “Vers
Demain”, January 15, 1962) A
true Social Crediter cannot be a party man. Party and Social Credit are
two terms which exclude one another, by their very nature and
definition. Thirst
for power A
political party organizes a group around politicians to try to come to
power. Social Credit views power redistributed to the individuals:
economic power, by the guarantee of a dividend allowing each individual
to order from production the goods he needs; political power, in making
the State the property of the individuals, instead of the individuals
the property of the State. The
party system leads the citizens to put their confidence in a group of
politicians. Social Credit teaches the citizens to take on their
responsibilities and, in politics, to make themselves the governments'
supervisors and conscience. A
political party divides the people, by forming a group to struggle
against other groups that seek the same power; and any division weakens.
Social Credit unites the citizens around common, fundamental
aspirations, and invites them to unite their demands so that the
governments may implement these demands, whatever the party in power. If
the people are not strong enough to put a government at the service, it
is not the government that must be changed, but the people that must be
made more powerful; this certainly cannot be achieved by dividing, but
by uniting. With
power, constraint A
political party wants power, therefore the right to use force, because
power is exercised by administrative, legislative, executive measures
which compel under fear of punishment. It is the opposite of Social
Credit, which loathes compulsion, and advocates inducement. Social
Credit loathes what is compulsory, and stands for freedom of choice;
now, everything which comes from the government is compulsory. The
Social Crediter who pledges allegiance to a party, of whatever
denomination, for the conquest of power, shows by this that he is not
really a Social Crediter, even if he bears the For the candidates or the people? No,
it is not a party, it is not election campaigns that will ever make
people Social Crediters. The parties exist to try to put their members
into parliaments, therefore to make election campaigns. And the election
campaigns are made for the candidates, not for the people. During an
election campaign, it is not the politicians who are working for the
people, it is the people who are made to work for the candidates seeking
power. The election campaigns can bring something to the candidates,
they give nothing to the people. Election campaigns are not a concern of
the people, they are a concern of the politicians. For
a powerful people The
financial power did not come about suddenly, and it will not disappear
suddenly. It is firmly established today; and it is certainly not X's
written on ballots every three, four or five years that will dislodge it
from its entrenchments. Only one strength can face it that of a whole
people, of a people sufficiently informed and united to demand the
change that is essential in the financial system. Louis
Even
Previous article: A Primer of Social Credit, by Louis Even |
