This issue of The Union of Electors is being sent to a considerable number of people over and above the regular subscribers, especially in the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The reason — to introduce the paper to new readers. Now, if you are one of these new readers, you might very well be asking yourself what the purpose of this paper is, what is it aiming at. It seems to be political in its make-up. Then, what political party does it support?
The answer, very briefly, is, none. The Union of Electors supports no political party, old or new. Its aim, broadly, is to serve citizens, all citizens; not to support this or that politician or this or that political party.
In reading through the pages of this issue, one after the other, you are going to find us talking about money, credit, the universal dividend, the cutting of taxes, etc. And you will remark that in support of what we say we are constantly recurring to the principles and teachings of Social Credit.
These two words, Social Credit, will naturally arouse your speculation and lead you to ask this question: "How is that? You have just stated that you support no political party. And yet from the first to the last page of this number you preach Social Credit! Aren't you then an organ, of a party, the Social Credit party?
Now that is precisely the idea we want to get out of your heads once and for all. In their strict sense the words Social Credit, designate a doctrine, an unfolding of what is an ideal economic system, especially considered from the financial point of view. And it is this doctrine that The Union of Electors discusses when it uses the term Social Credit.
Then why should the words, Social Credit, set on edge the teeth of Liberals, Conservatives and the partisans of other political parties? The reason is this: in the disastrous 30's, the people of Alberta, in desperation, cast their eyes hopefully towards the monetary reforms presented by the doctrine of Social Credit. They embraced the doctrine with enthusiasm, but since the provincial government of that time stated that it could do nothing to bring about such reforms, these people presented their own candidates, who were in favor of Social Credit, in the elections of 1935. They won their election and took over power as the Social Credit party. However, after suffering several reverses at the hands of Ottawa in its reform attempts, the Alberta government openly renounced any further attempt to implement the program of 1935. Today it is nothing more than a good government which might just as easily bear the name Conservative or Liberal. It retains the title of Social Credit but it is, in fact, no more interested in establishing a Social Credit regime than are the Conservatives of New-Brunswick or the Liberals of Newfoundland.
Now, unfortunately, this transformation of a Social Credit movement into a Social Credit political party has accomplished nothing but to sow confusion and hinder the spreading of a very wonderful doctrine, that of Social Credit. A political party invariably creates opposition and closes doors and minds. Using the words, Social Credit to designate a political party is like using the word light to designate darkness, so contradictory are the objectives of true Social Credit and those of a mere political party of any kind.
Social Credit is seeking a change. That is true. But it is not a change in government, either provincial or federal. It proposes a change in the method of financing production on the one hand, and on the other, a change in the mode of keeping the pocketbook of the consumer nourished.
Social Credit seeks to put into practice, and not merely to preach in theory, the principle that money ought to be placed at the service of men and not men at the service of money; that whatever is physically possible and legitimately desired by the people ought to be made financially possible; that man should not have to stand passively by when they need hospitals, schools, roads, etc.; that the production wrought by the people should not be made a debt burdening the shoulders of the people; that when, for example, a community has furnished all that is necessary to build a school — material, labour, support for the laborers, etc. — it should not be condemned to pay for this school with the fruit of labour expended for other production.
Social Credit is a logical doctrine, a doctrine in conformity with the nature of the human being; it supposes that products and produce and services exist to meet human needs and that consequently their should be a joining of goods and needs. In other words, bread should be put on the tables of those who are hungry, all the abundance of goods, which can be still more abundant providing there are no financial obstacles, should pour into the homes where they are needed.
The only obstacle which impedes the realisation of all sorts of goods is the financial obstacle — the lack of money. And Social Credit offers the means whereby this obstacle can be eliminated. This obstacle has nothing to do with the particular party that may happen to be in power. It exists, always the same, under all the governments that succeed one another both in Canada and the United States and in practically every other country. Likewise, the means of abolishing this obstacle, Social Credit, has no real relationship with the political color of the party that may form the government of the day. It teaches an entirely new conception of the role of money, of its relationship with production and the distribution of production so that it may meet man's needs. It is a concept which will be realized in legislation once this concept has come to prevail in the minds of men.
To make of Social Credit a political party in search of power is absurd; it is to change the very meaning of the two words, Social Credit.
Social Credit is a philosophy of the sharing of temporal goods, a philosophy which teaches that each human, from birth, has the right to a share in these temporal goods; a right to a share which is at least sufficient to meet essential needs, especially in a country where the production is more than sufficient for the population.
And most certainly, a philosophy, a concept of economic life, cannot be a political party.
It wasn't much more than forty years ago that a Scottish engineer, C. H. Douglas, who died in 1952, gave to the world this vision of economy and finance which the world knows as Social Credit.
Douglas was not just a mere engineer. He was a true genius. He was the first who was able to refashion the fundamental ideas which were necessary to set a new course for an economy which would be healthy and capable of attaining its natural end. Such ideas had long ago been ignored and trampled under foot in the complex economic-financial system which exists today.
Douglas carefully analyzed the functioning of that system. He exposed the badly adjusted double flow, of price and wage distributed during the course of production. He explained why the financial system dictated instead of obeying; how it was that countries which were developing themselves found themselves going into debt in the same measure that they increased their real wealth. He explained the contradiction existing in the fact that with increasing real wealth went increasing financial indebtedness, when logically finance ought only to be a reflection, a faithful representation of real wealth. He told why we are unable to pay for that which we are able to produce. He exposed the curious state of affairs where prices go up in spite of the fact that we are able to produce more and better goods with less and less effort.
Douglas was not satisfied with merely exposing the evil. He established the fundamental principles and the policies and concrete propositions based on these principles whereby this evil could be corrected and finance made to conform with reality which it is supposed to represent and not contradict. Now Douglas always looked with disfavor upon the idea that a Social Credit economy could be realized through the instrumentality of a political party. He went so far as to tell an assembly of Creditors on March 7, 1936:
"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."
It would in effect make politicians play the part of experts and would lead to a formidable reverse. The name of Social Credit could only emerge with a blemish which it would take much time to clear.
A union of electors
Again, Douglas wrote in The Social Crediter (Liverpool) of October 15, 1947:
""Nothing would suit our common enemy more than to see us chasing after the will-o'-the-wisp of a political party."
By its very nature the political party causes divisions. One party means one more division. The only force that can oppose the common enemy, the enemy of all the people and not of a single party only, is the force of a union of all the people. The common enemy is the dictatorship of finance. Only the strength of a united people can dislodge from their strongly entrenched positions the forces of the money powers.
It is the force of a people united not a people divided. It is the force a people united about a common objective which will meet the common fundamental aspirations of all. To effect this union it is necessary that the common objective be presented and understood. That is the purpose of this publication; and it is for this that they who support this paper are working. But to form a political party based on the message and doctrine of Social Credit would do nothing but to close doors and minds to that message.
The formula which this publication recommends is the union of electors, a union of all citizens, regardless of their political affiliation for the purpose of pressuring governments, irrespective of the party in power, into giving the people the results which all agreed are the results which they want.
The reader who follows carefully this paper, its articles, its presentation of the Social Credit doctrine, its reports on the activities of the movement, will become more and more informed, will arrive at an ever deepening conviction, will become more and more convinced of its rightness, until the reader will no longer be able to resist the impulse to bring to others the light of its teachings, to lead others along the same path which can only lead to the greates benefit of all.