From time to time so-called Social Crediters — especially those who attempt to pervert Social Credit principles for party political gain — make wild and irresponsible statements which, in the minds of sensible people, must bring Social Credit into disrepute.
For instance, as a result of the substantial Social Credit vote in the last New Zealand elections, the government set up a commission before which appeared "Social Credit" witnesses to explain Social Credit proposals. Colin Clark, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, gives these excerpts of the testimony:
"If you bring in a system in which there is no necessity to work", asked Mr. Walsh, "how are you going to get men to mine coal or to clean streets?"
The Social Credit witness replied that "if a man refused to do the work for which he was trained, he would forfeit his national dividend."
Such an answer, if the witness is quoted anywhere nearly correctly, is sheer nonsense, embracing the very opposite policy to Social Credit.
To begin with, the national dividend is not a government handout to be granted or withheld by the politicians and bureaucrats of the hour. Nor is it a political or economic weapon to be used by the state to coerce the individual into pursuits against his will. It is to liberate, not regiment, the individual that the dividend is proposed.
The dividend is based upon production — production over and above purchasing power available for consumption — production which, unless distributed will glut up the market and become a curse instead of a blessing.
And the individual's right to a dividend is the fact that the major part of present-day production is the result of the inventions, skills and developments of countless generations, handed down to us by our forefathers as a colossal power-driven productive machine. We, in this age, are heirs to this inheritance from our forefathers; and each of us has a right to some share in this inheritance — not at the price of forced labour or political coercion, but as a God-given right.
In a Social Credit economy the individual would be much more independent than he is today, and for that very reason would not be subject to compulsion. He would choose, or refuse, any work he desired just as he does today, his freedom of choice being greater because of his increased independence. Dirty or uncongenial work would be done by offering greater inducements.
Let those who would speak as Social Crediters keep in mind that Social Credit is based upon the principle of INDUCEMENT, not Compulsion.
Subscribe