Social Credit -- from Ireland

Social Credit -- from Ireland

Posted by: "Dick Eastman"

Tue Aug 16, 2011

Cathal,

It can be done without chaos, but it is subject to sabotage by those who profit from the present system.

It can be done by modifying the present "plumbing" or by putting in a whole new system.

I don't know the best way to start it off -- but I can tell you one way.

More discussion below.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Hi Richard,

I came across your work via Jeff Rense.

I live in Ireland, and I'm witnessing the bankrupting of my country along with so many others in Europe and the USA.

I agree that we need to overturn the debt based money system.

I had thought that a gold standard was the way to go, but I see from what you say that it leaves us at the mercy of private gold owners.

I'm intruiged by the idea of Social Credit.

Here are some questions:

1. The Irish bankers bailout and bankrupting of our country was carried out under the threat that, "If we don't do this, there will be no cash in the ATM"

Is it possible to transition from debt based bankeruptcy to Social Credit without chaos breaking out?

DE: Instant benefit and relief for all the Irish except those Irishmen to whom the debt is owed. (Now how many would that be?) Debtors in Ireland and Greece and other countries -- I have just read that the IMF -- which is a central bank to the central banks of every nation -- told Latvia to close half of their schools and hospitals, to fire half of the police and cut the wages and pensions of everyone else -- if that happens in Ireland you might as well have Cromwell or the potato famine -- and that is just keeping a steady course as you have been. This economic catastrophe is meant to reinstate a new aristocracy in every nation with the common man brought so low he will never dream it possible to resist the power of these Lords of Finance. Only social credit can end the vicious circle

But it must accompany debt repudiation and a national fiat currency.

This is easy to design and easy to implement -- it is the freeing of our hands that have been tied behind our backs because of debt.

BUT there is a catch to it. Rothschild power will not dry up and blow away if Ireland chooses to go on its own. The Rothschild's will do everything to sabotage Ireland -- including some kind of frameup or some kind of plague or blight or weather disaster or "terrorism" - protestant against Catholic on your Island -- as they provoke conflict between Sunni and Shiite in Iraq. (Did you know that Saddam did not have a central bank and that he sought the prosperity of his nation rather than of the international speculators?

Short answer: Yes, transition could be better than painless -- if the creditor class is prevented from deliberately sabotaging success.

2. What is the best way to introduce Social Credit?

Can it be gradual or must it be abrupt change from one system to the other?

# Abrupt or gradual? Revolution or evolution? The question is both economics and politics. As for economics, the sooner the quacks stop bleeding the patient and get them back on food and drink the better. As for politics, a consensus must be reached on how it should be done. It would have to start with experts on the current banking system, economists, and businessmen and social credit politicians devising a plan for an initial system -- which can be modified as it goes along. But during this period -- the old system of credit and investment would quickly fail because the bond market would collapse immediately. So social credit dividends would have to be there immediately to take up the slack. This could be done with existing machinery -- the taxing authroity would have to be nationalized and the fiat treasury money authorized by ministry of Industry and Commerce to households would be delivered -- perhaps - by the machinery that delivers income tax refunds when too much has been withheld -- or through the social security mechanism -- although with steps taken to not mix the "books" of the two systems.

The general principle should be Chesterton's -- anything worth doing is worth doing badly" (rather than not at all) -- but most people will understand that money you receive and don't have to pay back is not a bad thing -- especially as it replaces the booby-trap money that appears as a loan, must be paid back, but also sucks away another large amount of your wealth or non-working leisure to pay the interest. THE KEY TO SUCCESS IS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STAND BY WITH FIAT MONEY TO REPLACE WHAT ROTHSCHILD DRIES UP -- TO HIRE PEOPLE TO REPAIR WHAT ROTHSCHILD WILL SABOTAGE.

3. Who will get burned in a change from debt based money? Are all creditors at risk? Which debts get repudiated?

Rothschild and the other banking clanns will lose control of Ireland. The slaveowner is aways hurt when the slaves are set free. We stick the IMF but not the Irish bank. Banks that have loans outstanding will no longer be able to foreclose and get the collateral, but they may continue collecting interest -- and under social credit will have a much better chance of earning that interest. The deflation windfall that goes to creditors will be eliminated with the elimination of deflation. Also -- in addition to social credit and fiat treasury money and repudiation of national debt ...there must be an immediate end to the Irish central bank and a reversion to the pre-1942 currency commission idea -- where a currency commission decides how big or little the social credit dividend will be. No more central banks receiving deposits from banks or the government or rediscouting Exchecquer bills and bills of exchange and all of those other devices which give Rothschild power over the circulation of credit in Ireland. No more central bank setting reserve ratios or controlling liquidity. There will no longer be a minister of finance. Banking will not control the money supply, rather it will simply sell advances to businesses so they can pay workers while the products to sell are being made. Banks will be required to show 100 percent reserves for their loans -- ever dollar loaned at 5% will be a dollar earning 2.5% or somesuch spread for savers who have put their money in time deposits.

Ireland has two state-owned credit corporations, one industrial and one agricultural -- what is needed is a third, not a corporation, but the unity of all Irish households, the union of Irishmen that pays each member dues -- an punt Éireannach originating in the people themselves.

Since the banks must switch to 100% reserves -- the government will provide some currency to prevent a wave of foreclosures -- but only after a bank has been divested of foreign ownership, direct or indirect. Those banks that will not divest, will have a hard time surviving since they will not have the power to foreclose. (Bankers share the risk of their loans -- they will have to become entrepreneurial -- picking the promising person to lend too, rather than the one who has the most and the surest collateral.)

Anyway here is a Catholic organization for social credit based in Quebec, Canada -- which might be a better channel for the Irish to receive the idea than from this old Mormon in Yakima Washington.

http://www.michaelj ournal.org/ articles. htm

And here is a very good introduction by

http://www.alor. org/Library/ IntroductiontoSo cialCredit. htm

Here is the meat of the long article:
Social Credit is an inheritance people did not realize they have.

We might imagine an individual man, equipped with neither knowledge, training, nor tools, and suppose that he could support himself by grubbing for food with his bare hands. Let us suppose that, after allowing for necessary sleep, he has an hour or two a day to spare, when he need not search for and consume food. That hour he might spend in "amusement," but if he devotes it say to making a net with which to catch fish or birds; or to making an instrument with which to dig; or a spear; or even if he devotes it to devising better methods by which to obtain his basic requirements; then he makes it possible to obtain those basic requirements in a still shorter time, and thus to have at his disposal increased time which again may be devoted either to "amusement" or to improving efficiency.

We need not explore the natural limits of this process, for it is only the principle which is of importance.
An exact grasp of the principle, however, is of the first importance.

It is the basic physical reality underlying the conception of investment.

This is the elementary form of investment, on which the modern complicated superstructure is founded. Investment is the devotion of energy to the increasing of the efficiency resulting from the expenditure of energy. It begins in the individual, and its original benefits accrue to the individual.

The tools and knowledge of processes which result from this basic form of investment make use of the individual's own energy, and the total amount of such energy available in the individual limits the usefulness of tools. Yet even within this limit, the cumulative effect of the use of tools and of the knowledge of process, results in a marvellous expansion of the possible results of effort.

One has only to think of the change wrought by the use of the spade in the practice of horticulture. But it is most important to realise that it is not the spade alone, but also the knowledge of the use of the spade, and of the habits of plants, which results in the realisation of the possibilities.
Now many tools have a life exceeding the life of their maker, and commonly they are passed to a succeeding individual.

This we call inheritance.

Investment and profit are fundamental.

It is only less obvious that all we may call knowledge is also the subject of inheritance. The sort of knowledge we are considering is, in fact, a cumulative inheritance; it is a growth from generation to generation, a growth and a condensation; for a knowledge of the origin of knowledge is commonly lost.

But - in this context - the knowledge inherited is a working knowledge; the individual inherits with the spade a knowledge of "spadepractice, " without which the spade has only a fraction of its possible usefulness. This working knowledge, this knowledge of process and practice, in all its wide ramifications, inherited parallel with physical inheritance, we call the cultural inheritance.

This again is a fundamental conception of immense importance, as real as, and more effective than, the longevity of tools and structures. For it enables not only the adequate use of the tool, but the tool's replacement.

Thus we have found basic physical meanings for the terms profit and investment.

Profit we may define as improved efficiency accruing to the individual; and investment as the application of profit to the enhancement of efficiency.

Profit, investment, and inheritance, especially cultural inheritance, are basic elements of economics, and a correct understanding of them apart from any economic, and particularly financial, theories, is essential.

"Plenty" has its origin in these elements; it begins in the little surplus energy at the disposal of the individual, is increased by the application of this surplus to the improvement of process, and enhanced through the accumulations of the cultural inheritance.

So far we have considered the subject of "plenty" from its origin in the individual. We have considered what is available to the individual as such, allowing him the cultural inheritance, but otherwise using only his own animal energy and the tools he has made or inherited. Tools and knowledge place him at a great advantage over the primitive condition, and this advantage is enormously, incalculably, extended and enriched by three further factors.

The first is the association of individuals to achieve a common objective. The first obvious result of association is that a given job may be accomplished more quickly and more easily; and this is the least important result. For association makes possible results impossible for the individual as such. Not only may two men lift a heavy object more easily than one - two men may lift a weight that neither alone could lift. Within reasonable limits, new results become possible with every addition to the number. Thus there is a benefit in association far beyond the benefit of simple addition of numbers. What emerges and above the simple addition is called the unearned increment of association. It is difficult to think of much that modern man does which does not rest somewhere on this increment, the various forms of which are of great complexity.

The "division of labour" and consequent mass-production on which we all increasingly depend is a simple extension of the idea of primary association; more complex are the relations between various associations. The telephone, itself the result of complex associations, depends on there being at least two users, and the addition of each new user Increases the potential usefulness of the system to all the existing users. But the existence of the telephone system as a whole enhances the efficiency of all industry, and some processes are dependent on the telephone, or some equivalent system, of instantaneous communication.
Thus the "association of associations' produces a further increment. It is, of course, impossible to follow and analyse the ultimate complexity of association; but the principle can be grasped so that its immense multiplying power may be appreciated.

It must be remembered that this multiplication operates on the individual achievements we considered first.
The second factor is the introduction of solar energy in place of animal energy as the basis of work done. Solar energy means energy derived in one way or another from the energy of the sun; it therefore includes energy stored in the form of wood, coal, and water-power derived from the changes in the distribution of water due to the sun's heat.

It must be emphasised that it is energy, and not machines as such, which is under consideration here. Machines are simply a form of tools, and the relation of these to output, in principle, has already been considered.

From a theoretical point of view, it is a matter of indifference what is the source of energy which powers the tools; what is important is the total available energy, and the efficiency with which it is utilized. On this basis, human labour is only a proportion of the total energy, and although exact figures are not available, it is certain that human labour contributes less than a fiftieth of the total; and since solar energy is harnessed more rapidly than the human population increases, the human contribution of energy is a decreasing fraction.

In fact, from the point of view of energy, human labour is negligible, and could for the most part, be dispensed with entirely; its importance lies in quite another direction.

It has become, as Major Douglas describes it, a catalyst. This is an illuminating analogy. The term "catalyst" is used in chemistry to denote a substance the presence of which either enables a chemical reaction to take place, or to take place very much more rapidly, but which does not itself enter into the reactions; thus the catalyst is not consumed in the reaction, though it may be dissipated to some extent. Manufacturing chemistry is to a large extent dependent on the use of catalysts. In the same way, modern industry is dependent on human labour; production is effected predominantly by solar energy and tools, but it requires the presence of human "labour" to "catalyse" the processes.

The quantity of production is proportional to the total energy, not to the number of men employed, for example, a machine tended by one man may go faster or slower, according to the power supplied to it, without making much difference to the man supervising it. The amount of solar energy already harnessed is immense - many times the man-power of the entire world - and the efficiency of its utilisation, from a mechanical point of view, is constantly increasing.

For this reason the energy which might be derived from nuclear fission (so-called atomic energy) or from genuine atomic energy is largely of academic interest. Every individual at present has at his potential disposal the solar energy equivalent of fifty or more man-power.
The third factor is the introduction of automaticity into the operations of machines. There is a vast difference between say a power-driven grinding-wheel against which a man may sharpen a blade, and a machine which automatically grinds the edge; but of course the application of automaticity, even in such a simple machine, goes much further.

A machine which is fed from strip steel and cuts shapes, grinds, sharpens, and finishes a tool, and mounts it into a handle, or wraps and packs it (as with razor blades, for example), is a simple machine as machine go these days.

Extraordinarily complicated procedure are carried out entirely automatically, and with extreme precision.
This development is equivalent in its effect to the use of solar energy; it represents a multiplying factor.
The development of what is popularly called "electronics" marks almost a further multiplying factor. Electronics centres largely around the use of the photo-electric cell and related appliances. The peculiar importance of the development is that it gives machinery "eyes" - but eyes that for certain purposes transcend the limitations of the human eye as does the microscope.

Thus this "eye can analyse fast-moving stuffs that to the human eye would be only a blur.
Related to the "eye," and another development of electronics is machinery which can perform with incredible speed certain functions of human thinking. It can perform mathematical "calculations" of extreme complexity and great length.

We are certainly only on the threshold of these developments, which will transform industry, as the introduction of solar energy transformed "manufacture" . So immense, so far removed from mere animal existence, are the processes and developments we have been considering, that it is all too easy to misapprehend them; and the very division of labour confuses the total picture and conceals the totality.
To gain some perspective and clarity, it is legitimate to adopt a special point of view.
So we may consider Mankind and its history as if it were one man who has lived part of his span of life.
In the beginning, that man is a helpless infant, whose almost sole external activity is suckling at his mother's breast. Later, he is a child, taking more concentrated food, and possessing a surplus of energy which he spends in play; but that play teaches him the techniques embodied in his cultural environment, and he learns more and more how to do things for himself.

By degrees his play becomes more purposive; it is consciously directed to the acquisition of knowledge and skill.

At some point the child begins the accumulation of possessions. To begin with, they are toys, but soon they become tools in the more general sense. By virtue of the knowledge gained and the tools accumulated, the child become adult is able constantly to add to his possessions; and some of these outlast his lifetime and pass to his successors.

This man displays two essential types of activity: there are those that merely subserve his simple existence, and those which are a sort of efflorescence. The former are those which relate to the production of the materials for his necessary consumption of food, clothes and shelter, and the latter those which relate to his production of permanent assets in the most general sense.

The former activity is the production of consumer s goods, and these, of course, may go far beyond the bare necessities; the latter is the production of capital goods.

Division of labor among individuals, the Great Industrial Machine in the Aggregate

Now just as one man can pursue both types of activity, so Mankind does. The division of labour means that one man grows wheat, while another lays bricks to build houses. But if it is possible for one man to do more than provide for his own sustenance, and he devotes his surplus energy to capital activity, in the broad sense, then the same is true of Mankind; and there is an exceedingly important special consequence.

Mankind in the aggregate has been engaged during its history in the construction of an industrial machine, just as the individual in his spare time may engage in the construction of his own workshop. The result of this aggregate activity has been to shift the burden of the maintenance of life from the backs of men on to the backs of machines.

The consequence is, in Major Douglas's unsurpassed description, that
"the industrial machine is a lever, continuously being lengthened by progress, which enables the burden of Atlas to be lifted with ever-increasing ease. As the number of men required to work the lever decreases, so the number of men set free to lengthen it increases." (Credit-Power and Democracy.)

1.. We are kept from a world of plenty not from a failure of the ability to produce, not from an incapacity of industry or shortage of resources.

This is the conception known in mathematics as acceleration. In production, if the principle of "capitalisation" can be introduced at all, it results in an acceleration of capitalisation. But there is a limit to the amount of capital which can be usefully utilised; there is no sense whatever in adding to the number of boot-producing factories when the existing factories can produce all the boots that people want; there is a limit to the miles of railroad which will be put to use; and the limit to capitalisation is approached at an accelerating rate.

The difficulty at this point is to obtain a comprehensible estimate of the magnitude of this process.

Probably the clearest picture is given by the wartime activities of the United States of America. During the war, the general standard of living in America rose by 40%; at the same time, twenty-one million people were engaged in the armed forces and in munition production, and were therefore a pure drain on the resources of the country.

The munition production reached an almost incredible volume, and consisted of a considerable proportion of highly elaborated production, including complex new inventions; and on top of tremendous industrial resources were devoted to research into and production of "atomic energy."

The meaning of all this is that it was a complete demonstration of the fact that a small proportion of the population could provide the requirements for a high standard of living of the whole population, and that at the same time another proportion could increase the capitalisation of the country.

The ultimate meaning of industrialisation in a developed country is that the necessary amount of work to maintain a high standard of living is something of the order of an hour per day per man.

The fact that a few people backed by modern machinery can produce enough for everyone to enjoy a high level of consumption is not proof that there is a surplus of people in the world. It is only proof that there is a suplus of emphasis on full employment when people can be free to develope themselves and their families and communities in their creative leisure time.

"The primary fact on which to be clear is that we can produce at this moment, goods and services at a rate very considerably greater than the possible rate of consumption of the world, and this production and delivery of goods and services can, under favourable circumstances, be achieved by the employment of not more than 25 per cent, of the available labour, working, let us say, seven hours per day. It is also a fact that the introduction of a horse-power- hour of energy into the productive process could, under favourable circumstances, displace at least ten man-hours. It is a fact that the amount of mechanical energy available for productive purposes is only a small fraction of what it could be. It seems, therefore, an unassailable deduction from these facts that for a given program of production, the amount of man-hours required could be rapidly decreased, or conversely, the program could be increased with the same man-hours of work, or any desired combination of these two could be arranged." (C. H. Douglas: Social Credit.)

This, then, is the physical and realistic basis of "plenty."

It should be carefully noted that all considerations other than the physical have been excluded.
But it is particularly important that the student should have a thorough appreciation of the physical situation, which is rooted in the history of thousands of years, and underlies economic vagaries as the ocean underlies the waves on its surface. It is particularly to be understood and remembered in the case of America, for America is virtually a self-contained economy, with industrialisation further advanced than anywhere else and still accelerating.

It must be obvious, therefore, that in no physical sense (apart from military invasion or cosmic cataclysm) can America suffer a "crisis."

The crises that have occurred, and which threaten, must be due to something super-imposed.

At this point it is convenient to observe that the theoretical limit to industrialisation is a condition where all production derives from solar energy, operating through machinery which is fully automatic and self-renewing; man would be completely superfluous and displaced.

Now while it is improbable that such a limit will ever be reached, it is quite certainly the direction in which production is moving at an accelerating rate. A rate which has been calculated to be proportional to the fourth power of the increment of time. Clearly, only either leisure, or "employment" outside production can dispose of the unemployment problem.

The problems of economics and politics are absolutely conditioned by the physical realities described; short of sabotage or cataclysm, the progress of the situation is inexorable; and anyone who really grasps what is involved can "see through" the confusions which result from a wrong positing of the problems.

The object is life liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- not "employment" to earn a wage.

Now of "employment" is regarded as the problem, the result will be increasingly artificial employment - employment outside production, as for public works whose only benefit will be to yet unborn generations, or for a surplus of exports over imports.

That is the real physical situation, and it will gradually dawn on everyone involved in it that he is engaged in unnecessary work; and he will have to be constrained by force to continue in it; or else the objective will have to be altered.

That is the aspect of high politics; but before we consider it, we must examine the financial economics of the situation.

ECONOMICS

It is undoubtedly significant that most of the controversies about Social Credit have raged round the subject of Major Douglas's analysis of the costing of industry.

There appears to be a large proportion of people who are quite unable to grasp the solution to the old twister "Brothers and sisters have I none, yet this man's father is my father's son."

The answer for many is in the category of "now I see it, now I don't."

Major Douglas's analysis shows why it is impossible for the purchasing-power (income) distributed in connection with production over any given period of time to buy the whole of that production.
In order to see exactly what it is which is asserted in this proposition, let us put it in simplified particular form; let us say that for one year Mankind produces nothing but bread, and that the cost-price of that bread works out at one million pounds.

The problem is that under the present system of money that is exclusively borrowed money that must be paid back with interest -- the cost of producing things is priced above the wages and salaries and profits that go to people to pay for what they produce. To cover labour cost AND financing so that a business does not lose money, its products must be priced above what peoples incomes can pay for.

The assertion is that Mankind's income is something less than one million pounds - let us say, quite arbitrarily, half a million pounds. Then we say that there is a gap between Mankind's purchasing power, and the cost of the production which he has to buy. In technical terms we say that the income cannot liquidate the cost; and, since the income, or purchasing-power, and the bread derive from the same process - the making of bread - we say that the process is not "self-liquidating. "

Note: We are not concerned at this point with whether the assertion is true or false, or with whether the example is sufficient or insufficient; we merely seek to make plain the sense in which our terms are used.
Now, the bread stands for all production - shoes and ships and sealing wax, and cabbages and Kings, and much more besides bureaucrats and beauty creams, and factories and things - and purchasing-power in respect of this production is the money paid out as wages and salaries in the course of it.

The proposition is that the total money paid out and constituting purchasing power i.e., ability to buy the production; is always less than the cost-price of the whole of production as assessed by standard methods of accounting, as Major Douglas has observed.

Without income sufficient to buy production at cost covering prices, a surplus of unsold goods accumulates. To sell these abroad becomes with a "favorable" trade balance (that is, with a trade imbalance) becomes the objective of the captains of finance and industry.

The first consequence of the proposition that costs exceed purchasing power should be that there accumulates a surplus of goods unsaleable within the area which produced them, and the obvious thing to do then is to sell them outside that area. And at once we observe in confirmation that a ruling axiom of economics is that there should be a "favourable balance of trade."

A "favourable" trade-balance is one where exports exceed imports, and money is obtained for the difference.
If there is a deficiency of purchasing within the producing area, then this "balance" is indeed favourable; for some of the previously unsaleable surplus is exchanged for extra money - purchasing-power - and this can be used to buy what is left of the "surplus".

What is really happening in this case is that a community suffers a real physical loss.

Physically, the balance of trade is unfavourable, because the community parts with more goods than it receives in return. It is not until money is included in the transaction that there can be the slightest doubt about that.

Now, millions of people accept it as axiomatic that an excess of exports over imports is favourable; and they have inductive support for their belief. That is, actual prosperity is experienced in association with a booming export trade, and "depression" accompanies a decline in that trade. This of course, is exactly what should happen if it is the case that costs of production exceed purchasing power.

On the other hand, it is easy to see that not all producing areas can have this favourable balance; and hence we have the expressions "competing in the world's markets," "trade wars," "most favoured nations" and so on.
We have the drive for "self-sufficiency" to reduce the necessity for imports, combined with national organisation in order to achieve "prosperity" by developing an expanding export trade.

Economically, military war is only an extension of trade war.

Shells and ships and tanks and bombs delivered to the enemy are a specialised form of export.
True, they are delivered "on credit"; but the credit operates in the producing country as immediate purchasing power; there is a rising "national income," which is reflected in the early stages of the war by the buying of stored products, and a consequent general prosperity. So great is the productive capacity of America that the prosperity lasted throughout the war, special shortages of some commodities being offset by expanded production of others.

Theoretically, at the conclusion of the war, the loser pays the winner monetary "reparations" which repay the "credit" extended to him throughout the conflict. Then the old problem of finding markets returns; so that it is quite in accordance with the necessities of the case that we find the belligerents preparing for post-war exports before the war's conclusion.

Thus Mr. Harry Hopkins said in effect that after the war, if America was to maintain her prosperity, she would have to export on an unprecedented scale;
and before the American entry into the war, President Roosevelt stated that one of the reasons why America could not stand aside from the conflict was that a German victory would destroy American markets.

Since America is so very nearly entirely self-sufficient physically, the relation of deficient internal purchasing-power to the "dumping" of surplus production abroad is seen in a particularly clear light.

The American Economy and the Motive for "Free Trade" with "Developing Countries"

At this point it is worth analysing in greater detail the American economy.

The primary economic fact about America is that it is in nearly every respect physically self-sufficient. Practically every raw material required for modern industry is available within its boundaries, and it possesses a range of and climates which enables it to grow produce of nearly every description.

Some of the few deficiencies can be made good by synthetic substitutes, but in any case the amount of necessary raw materials required to complete the full range is less than 3% of the economy, and can easily be obtained in exchange for a few American goods and materials such as oil.

To simplify the discussion, let us suppose that the real deficiencies have been made good by barter, and consider the economy from that point on.

The second point is that America is technically self-sufficient; overall industrial technique has been brought to a higher stage of development there than anywhere else.

Now the spokesmen for America are protagonists of the policy that America must "trade" on an increasing scale; and more specifically, they say that if the people previously engaged in munition production and the armed forces are to be absorbed in peace-time industry, expanding export markets are essential.
How is America to be paid for her exports?

If the payment is by an import of goods, then those goods replace an equivalent quantity of American-made goods, and thereby unemploy the men who might have made them.

The payment might be made by gold or other form of "hard" currency. In this case, the currency could only be spent, by hypothesis, on existing American production; but it is realistically unnecessary to import money to buy your own production.

Thirdly, the exports may be financed by credit: America lends dollars to the importing country which uses them to buy the American goods; or, what actually happens, the dollars never leave America, but are paid to the producer of the exported goods. And just as in the case of gold, these dollars can only be spent on existing American goods.

During the war, an article in an American magazine prophesied great difficulties in the post-war period for America.

The argument was that the requirements of war production had resulted in a very great expansion of industry on the west coast of America, and the difficulty that was foreseen was that the West would not need to import so much from the industrial East. This is just the same argument as the one we have been considering.
America, in fact, poses within itself the economic problems of the whole world's economy. If it is the case, however, that industry is not self-liquidating, that incomes distributed in the course of production are not sufficient to buy that production, then the problematical features of the export policy disappear. Then it is necessary to import money to buy American production; then exporting on credit does solve the difficulty (although, of course, it solves it only for the time being), by exporting the problem with the goods, but what is true of America is true of the world as a whole, just as it is true of a part of America.

Britain goes beyond trading output for imports -- it must unload all that its own people lack the money to buy.

Great Britain certainly has to import considerable quantities of goods, particularly of foods, and these have to be paid for by exports; but when this essential barter has been effected, there is a surplus for export: a "favourable trade balance" is a fundamental British policy.

Again, this is a perfectly natural consequence of a deficiency of purchasing power.

As has already been observed, it is the inevitable aim of every industrial country to diminish its dependence on imports - hence protective tariffs, etc. - and to develop its exports; and inevitably "backward" peoples are looked on as a means to prosperity.

"If we can raise the standard of living of the natives in New Guinea," the argument runs, "we shall enter on an era of increasing prosperity. There is little of importance the New Guinea natives can supply to us; and that is just their virtue.

Similarly, America sees prosperity in the coolies of China. And world economists generalise the proposition:
Let us raise the standard of living of all the backward peoples, and we shall all be prosperous.

The standard of living of the backward peoples can only be raised at the physical expense of the developed peoples, since the proposition is not that the backward peoples should raise themselves. But prosperity actually does result, because purchasing power becomes equated with the cost of the goods remaining to be sold in the producing countries.

The real relationships underlying international trade would be much more apparent of national currencies circulated internationally, and national goods could be bought only with their national currency.
Thus if America sold goods to Australia, America would be paid in Australian dollars; and those dollars could be employed only to purchase Australian goods; and if the dollars were imported by America, and could not be used to buy American goods in America, it would become clear that the export of American goods was a real loss, which could only be compensated by the import of Australian goods to exchange for the dollars.
The position is concealed by the use of gold, and by the more modern equivalent of international currency exchange transactions, and by the still more modern proposal to use an international "monetary fund" - which is simply a device to create a substitute for gold, since the natural output of gold is insufficient to meet the needs of expanding national currencies.

But so long as the American exporter is paid in a medium - dollars, - which has an immediate purchasing power for American goods in America, the real nature of the transaction is not apparent.

It is true that less is heard these days of the necessity for a "favourable" trade balance, and more is made of the argument that large markets mean mass-production, with a cheapening of process. But it has to be remembered that the whole of the output has to be disposed of; the total cost has to be liquidated, and although the price of individual units of production may be less, the total price may be very great, and the liquidation of part of it by exporting a proportion of the production, and using imported currency to meet part of the bill simply results in a loss of that much of the production.

To revert to our earlier example, if we call all production bread, then although mass production results in a lower price for a loaf of bread, we find that this is achieved by making say fifteen loaves for every ten that were made previously, but only consuming twelve of them; the three wasted (exported) loaves represent the real loss; they are exchanged for money which is used to meet part of the price of the remaining twelve loaves.
The shortfall of purchasing power leads to an expanding debt.

The second consequence of the proposition that costs exceed purchasing-power is the existence of an expanding debt.

Our proposition is quite general; it applies to any given economic area. We have seen that a surplus of exports over imports solves the problem for a particular area, but only at the expense of compounding the problem in another area; some nations become creditor nations, but others become debtors; and we should expect to find that the total of general indebtedness exceeds credits, and exceeds them more and more as time goes on.
This is, in fact, exactly what we do find.

Every nation has an internal debt which exceeds the total amount of its currency. Loan-created money creates only the amount of the principal - the loan does not create the money with which to pay the interest.

But not only do we find this increasing international indebtedness, but we find that every industrial nation has an internal debt which exceeds the total amount of its currency. This constant rise in debt has been stated by the Technocracy Group to be at the rate of the fourth power of time, one hundred years being taken as the unit.

It is, and can only be the reflection in time of the cumulative gap between purchasing power and prices.
If the "surplus" goods are not to be destroyed, and their cost written off nor disposed of in any equivalent manner then a source of purchasing-power other than that distributed in the course of their production must come from somewhere. This source is the banks, which, by creating new and additional money, known as bank-credit, make good the gap, and record it as debt.

Before we examine the mechanism of this device, it is necessary to emphasise that the continuous growth of debt is an objective fact which any one can confirm for himself; that such a growth of debt is an expected consequence of the proposition that costs exceed purchasing power; and that the finding of the fact is an inductive proof of the proposition.

A third inductive proof may be given in Major Douglas's words: It is found
"in examining the assessments for Death Duties in Great Britain and elsewhere, in which it will invariably be found that an estate alleged to be worth, let us say, £100,000 and taxed in money on that sum, consists only to the extent of two or three per cent, in purchasing power, the remainder of the estate being in assets of one kind or another which have price values attached to them, and require purchasing power to buy them."
This is an indication of "the immense excess of price values over purchasing power," and similar information can be obtained by examining the assets of businesses generally. The total price value of all assets could not be met at any given instant by the amount of purchasing power in existence at that instant - a fact which again can be confirmed by anyone who cares to examine the figures of valuation of assets and of existing purchasing power.

Again, we can take the growing of foodstuffs and the production of raw materials. It is a commonplace to "value" say a wheat or wool crop at so many million pounds.

The production of a crop undoubtedly creates an asset; but it does not create purchasing power.
Now realistically, so long as there is a real demand in the world for the whole of that crop, the whole of that crop is a real asset; but because it does not bring its purchase price in the form of money into existence, increased production results in a lower price per unit, and over-production" in the monetary sense; and despite a real physical demand for the crops, the situation does result in the ruin of the producer, or the arbitrary destruction of the crop "to keep prices up".

The problem is that we have a money system and a loan system in which all the money is all the owed principal of the loan but that all the interest that also must be paid is nowhere to be found, it was never created.

This is simply another indication that there is no automatic relation between the "value" of assets and the purchasing power available to liquidate those values.

Now, disregarding "cost" and "value", the price of an article is "what it will fetch", and this depends on the number of articles, their relative desirability, and the amount of money available.

In the absence of special "stabilisation" schemes, this system actually does determine the price of primary products, which in consequence show great variations from year to year in their price.

The physical demand for foodstuffs in particular is, however an extremely stable quantity, since the capacity of the individual to consume is limited, and the number of individuals in a given area is subject only to slow fluctuations.

But the monetary demand for foodstuffs, etc. is a very variable quantity, and a low purchasing power may coincide with a bountiful production, resulting in a ruinous fall in prices; that is to say, there is no ascertainable relation between the growing of foodstuffs and the availability of money.

Instability in an essentially stable process of primary production is another consequence to be expected from a general deficiency of purchasing power.

It is true that at times primary production meets a high purchasing power; the reasons for this are most conveniently dealt with in a subsequent stage of the argument. In general, however, we can see that the theory of a cumulative deficiency of purchasing power in relation to costs fits the objective facts of the world's economy.

It explains the search for expanding export-markets, accompanied by tariff barriers to imports - trade war, culminating in military war.

Intra-nationally it explains social friction, since there is bound to be a scramble for an adequate share of the available money, because this is the only effective claim to goods which may be in sufficient abundance to satisfy the real demand.

It explains the paradox of poverty amidst plenty, since poverty is a monetary condition.
It explains the continuous, and increasingly rapid growth of debt, as will be seen more clearly subsequently.
For the moment, it is sufficient to regard debt as the mounting record of
the cumulative deficiency of purchasing power.

The student is asked at this stage simply to hold hard to the fact, to ask himself whether, irrespective of theoretical considerations, the theory that income in the aggregate is less than the cost-price of production in the aggregate, does or does not fit the facts.

It may occur to him that the theory does not explain inflation, when money available exceeds the supply of goods; how this occurs, when it does occur, also falls to be considered later in detail. But at this point it may be observed that inflation occurs in respect of the end products of industry - ultimate consumer goods; but behind these stand intermediate goods, with costs waiting to come forward.

The "surplus" purchasing power is purchasing power held in respect of these intermediate goods, waiting for them to become end-products. This matter is intimately related to the theory of the proposition we are considering, and it is to the theoretical side that we must now turn.
(4)
It is quite characteristic of theorems generally that a number of deductive proofs of them may be elaborated.
This is the case with the Social Credit theorem, now commonly known as the A plus B theorem;
a name which is derived from one of the various available proofs.

The Social Credit theorem is the proposition that in any given period, in any given area, the rate of generation of prices is greater than the rate of generation of incomes.

The point to be noted in this statement is the use of the words "rate of generation". They refer to the fact that production is continuous. We don't know at what point in the past production began, but from whatever point we choose as the beginning of production, we can say that it has proceeded continuously ever since.
We are using the word "production" in the general sense: the conversion of materials from one form into another suitable for the purposes of man. Production varies, becomes more or less elaborate, and changes; but it is continuous. It is a flow, like the flow of a river.

Cost of production must be covered in the price of the product -- and the people must have the purchasing power to pay that price!!!

The production of goods is accompanied by the production of costs, which reach the public as prices; and at the same time, the production of goods is accompanied by the distribution of incomes, in the form of wages, salaries, and dividends.

This is the meaning of the expressions "generation of prices" and "generation of incomes".

It is absolutely essential to grasp the fact that prices and incomes are, like production itself, flows.
There is a stream of purchasing power, and a stream of prices. Both are measured in units of money; say in pounds.

Our proposition is that the size of the flow of income, in pounds, is smaller than the flow of prices, in pounds.
To avoid any confusion, the relation of prices and costs must be stated. The cost of an article is the sum of the disbursements of money, direct or indirect, in the course of the production of that article. It includes the cost of the raw material, the payments of wages and salaries, and a charge for the use of plant and other "overhead charges" such as rent and interest on borrowed money.

The price of an article is at least the cost, but is usually the cost plus profit.

The argument which follows is unaffected by the question of profit, so that the terms cost and price are used as convenient to the context.

Now let us see what actually happens to costs and incomes in the course of production. Let us consider any factory, and assume that it is engaged on the production of an article which takes, from start to finish, six weeks to complete. Let us assume that the raw material is obtained free, and that no charge is made for "overheads", so that the only costs are the wages and salaries paid to the workers.

Now the greater part of these wages and salaries is spent week by week as received on meeting the cost of living, and at the end of six weeks very little of the money will have been saved. At the end of the six weeks, however, the cost of what has been produced (both finished and unfinished) will be the total of the six weeks' wages and salaries of all the workers concerned.

To meet this total cost, there is only available the money which has been saved, which is only a small proportion of the total cost. It is quite true, of course, that only a part of the total production is at that point available for sale - the finished production ; - but the cost has been created, and clearly exceeds the amount of purchasing power left to meet it.

The firm is "out of pocket" to the extent of six weeks' wages and salaries. That "out-of-pocketness" represents the generation of prices. The costs, and hence prices, go forward all the time, whereas income is spent as received on meeting the cost of living.

Thus the position can be stated more generally: the cost of production includes the cost of living of those concerned in the production; but this has been spent within the period of production.
This is true of any given unit of production, and consequently of every unit of production, and thus of production as a whole, and over any period of time.

That is to say, costs going forward are progressively greater than income going forward -
just as Achilles goes forward faster than the tortoise.
These costs are increasingly represented by "overhead charges"; that is to say, an increasing part of prices consists of the cost of capital equipment and "intermediate" production, Such costs are continuously coming forward into the price of final production, and represents incomes distributed, but spent, at some time in the past.
Thus the product of manufacturing industry is involved in the same difficulty as primary production: it does not automatically find a purchasing power awaiting it sufficient to discharge its cost, or "value" in the monetary sense.
At this point the inductive and deductive proofs converge.
Neither primary production nor industry themselves provide the whole of the purchasing power necessary to buy their products - or, as Major Douglas puts it, neither the farmer nor the industrialist "make" money: they scramble for money in the possession of others.

But it is true that money is "made", in the literal sense.

Manufacturing money is, in fact, the actual basic business of banking in exactly the same sense that making things is the business of industry.

The manufacture of money by banks is technically known as the creation of credit.

This manufactured money, or credit, is loaned by the banks against various securities, for various periods of time. On the whole, however, more of this new money is loaned than is repaid, so that in practice there is a continual expansion in the amount of money in the community. It is this new money which becomes available to meet the deficiency in purchasing-power; and it is recorded as debt.

That is why we noted earlier that mounting debt is the record in time of the deficiency of purchasing-power.
But still there is no automatic or necessary relation between the provision of this new purchasing-power, and the amount required to make good the deficiency. The amount of new money provided by banks is governed not by arithmetical considerations, but by a number of factors which can be included under the heading of policy.

For reasons of policy the provision of credits may be restricted, in which case the effect of the deficiency of purchasing-power becomes manifest, and the so-called "depression" is experienced. At other times credits are advanced freely, leading to the "boom" or inflation.

Credits, however, are advanced in connection with production of some sort or other, and consequently become a cost, since they have to be repaid to the banking system. What actually happens is that credits are advanced for such a purpose as the building of a new factory, the installation of machinery, and so on. The credits are distributed as wages and salaries, and spent on goods already produced; but, as we have already seen, those wages and salaries become costs to be recovered in the future, when the factory or machinery is in production.

Now when goods already produced are in short supply, for one reason or another - as, for example, following the conclusion of war, when industry is adjusted for the production of munitions - and at the same time payments are being made out of credit for the "reconversion" of industry or some similar reason, purchasing-power may be in excess of the collective prices of goods available for immediate sale; this is the condition called "inflation".

It results in a rise of prices, which drains off the excess purchasing-power. But it must be remembered that this purchasing-power is distributed in respect of anticipated future production, of which it forms one of the items of cost; and if this money is drawn off either by a rise in prices, or by high taxation, this fact aggravates the deficiency which will in any case accompany the ultimate appearance of the goods.

The money cannot be both spent on existing goods, and available to meet future prices.

Public works, financed by "loan" money, are a special case of this general principle.

Instead of private enterprise building factories, governments build dams and hydro-electric schemes and so on, But these are paid for with fresh money created by the banking system, and this money is recorded as "public debt".

The money is - and can only be - spent on existing goods; and the process is only possible because there is a deficiency in the purchasing -power distributed through the production of those goods.

Public works, however, will have to be paid for, because the credit advanced for their construction has to be repaid, and interest has to be paid on it. This repayment, and the payment of interest, takes the form of taxation; public indebtedness, in fact, is another form of "cost" - exactly equivalent to the plant cost in industry; and since the payments made in the course of building public works are spent on current production, they are not available in the future for the repayment of the original bank loan.

Now, so long as the present system of accounting is followed the continuous operation of industry is absolutely dependent on the continuous expansion of the amount of money - an expansion of minted money, printed notes, or chiefly bank credits, And simple inspection of yearly statistics shows that the expansion is, in fact, continuous.

It also shows that the expansion of credits - recorded as debt to the banks - is far and away the most important, the largest part of that expansion.

It is in this fact that the convergence of the inductive and the deductive proofs of
the proposition we have been examining are found.

When the relationship of expanding credit to industrial production is grasped, it can also be seen that a continuous rise in taxation is a further inductive proof. Apart from the redistribution of income through taxation, an increasing sum must be taken to meet debt charges; and to the extent that this money is used to repay the debt, it disappears; there is nothing received in exchange for it.

Now this is exactly the same thing as obtains in the prices of goods: an increasing proportion of the total price goes to repay old "costs" - either this repayment of bank loans, or the replacement of capital.
This means, of course, that wages and salaries can liquidate only a diminishing proportion of the production which gave rise to them. The general consequence of the whole process is that to distribute even a constant quantity of production to ultimate consumers, an increasing quantity of "intermediate or capital production must be undertaken".

As saturation point in the number of factories which can reasonably be constructed is reached, the emphasis passes to public works and to production for export.

This then is the financial explanation of the paradox of poverty amidst plenty.

As noted previously, there are a number of methods of demonstrating the central proposition. Students are referred to the technical writing of Major Douglas, where various proofs are to be found, including a proof in mathematical terms. The subject is very exhaustively discussed in The Monopoly of Credit.

The emphasis in Social Credit has, however, passed from the technical economic considerations. Several years ago, it was necessary to prove that banks create credit, since this was denied by the officially recognised economists. Today, the creation of money by the banks is an everyday topic of newspaper discussion.
It is equally true, though less obvious to the uninitiated, that the fact of a deficiency in purchasing-power is also admitted in official circles.

The very emphasis on the necessity of embarking on public works to "avoid another depression" is a tacit admission.

Now the real bone of contention has always been in connection with the policy governing the availability of credit, but that fact for many years was concealed behind the controversies centred in economic theory.
The present phase, however, is concerned directly with the question of, in the broadest sense, credit-policy.
Major Douglas's original book, Economic Democracy, was concerned primarily with that question of policy, and treated of the financial issue because the financial system was the chief mechanism of a policy.
The controversy which subsequently developed on the technical side had the effect of concealing the major issue of policy; that is the significance of the emphasis on the subtle aspect where most confusion could be caused.

But although the emphasis has shifted, a knowledge and understanding of the mechanism of finance in relation to production is still vital to a proper grasp of politics.

Export drives, public works, and high taxation are still the outstanding features of our economy, and they all amount to literal and large scale robbery of the community, besides leading to a form of organisation which is within a short distance of rendering any protest against the robbery futile because ineffective, if not impossible.
The officially sanctioned "science" of economics has the job of selling this creditor-favoring system, and, short of that, of concealing its true tendencies.

The officially sanctioned "science" of economics is inextricably intertwined with the operation of the financial system.
This is as of a unit of measurement in the science of physics were wrongly defined. Theoretically sound, the "laws" of economic science are in practice worthless for the most part, and predictions based on them are less reliable than the notoriously unreliable forecasts of weather.

Before the war, economists were for this reason becoming the laughing-stock of the public; and if their prestige has recovered to some extent, this is because governments have taken powers to make theories work as nearly as possible despite the facts.

It is easy enough correctly to predict a shortage of wheat if for reasons of financial policy you take powers to restrict its production.

Major Douglas has, however, enunciated a real and fundamental natural law of economics:

The real cost of production is measured by the consumption incurred in that production.

For example, the real cost of a crop of wheat is measured by the wheat used as seed, and consumed; if we supposed that nothing but wheat were consumed, the cost would be measured directly in wheat.

This specific example can be generalised: the real cost of total production over a period is the total consumption in the same period.

Since production, even in war, exceeds consumption, the ratio in question is a fraction which is less than one.
The difference between that fraction and one represents, in the most fundamental sense, profit - real as opposed to financial profit.

This fundamental law is modified by a most important factor, Production capacity, as opposed to simple production, must be taken into account. Production may include the building of a number of factories; the point is that these factories enhance the potential production of the ensuing period.
The fundamental costs and profit, therefore, must be measured in terms of production capacity -
that capacity which we examined in Part I.

This production capacity is called by Major Douglas the real credit of a community, and defined by him as the ability to deliver goods and services as, when and where required.

Financial credit is similarly defined as the ability to deliver money as, when, and where required.

Financial credit is based on real credit.

Banks can create financial credit because that credit can be exchanged for goods and services.
The connection is perfectly obvious in the case of 'war; the output of industry is enormously expanded, and it is financed by an expansion of credit.

Now the essential respect in which financial credit created by the banks differs from minted money is that it is subject to recall and cancellation within a period determined by the banks. It is issued as a loan by the banks.
Even when this money is "earned" by a man's labour, it is still subject to recall by the banks - a reality reflected by the enormous burden of taxation, but it operates effectively as real money because fundamentally it is based on the capacity of industry to expand its production.

The matter may be put another way: potential production capacity can only be drawn on provided new money is made available; and this new money is bank-created credit.

Thus financial credit is in the nature of a licence to draw on the real credit.

In the sense in which we are using the term "real profit", a factory as such is not profit.

This profit lies in the "factory delivering the goods, as, when, and where required' again, a dynamic conception.

Here, the factory symbolises all those factors, tangible and intangible, which make up the realistic basis of "plenty".

The extent to which this profit is available depends on the degree to which financial credit is made available.
There are two important observations to be made in relation to this situation.

The first is that there is at present no connection between real cost, and financial price. Cost is properly measured as a ratio, in which production-potentia l, the denominator, is increasing much more rapidly than actual consumption, the numerator; therefore real costs are falling.

Prices, however, are based on rules of accounting and are constantly increasing. The implications of this we shall examine later.

The second observation, which amounts to a revelation, is that the poor are not poor because the rich are rich; they are poor because of the operation of the financial system.

But class-war is founded on the delusion that "profiteering" is the cause of poverty; and class-war is the foundation of Socialism. Our present circumstances are dominated by the conscious conception of class-war; and the policy which leads to it requires careful examination.

POLITICS
(1)
The very great importance of the automatic deficiency of purchasing-power resulting from the method of accounting the cost of production lies not in itself, but in the consequential importance of financial credit, and hence of the system which provides this credit.

It is very probable that many of the honest critics of Social Credit theory miss this point.

Because industrial production is continuous, although subject to fluctuations, booms and depressions, they argue against the existence of the automatic deficiency. But the fact of the matter is that production is continuous, because there is a continuous, though fluctuating, supply of fresh money in the form of bank-created credit.

Now, so long as the accounting rules are followed, industry is dependent on that supply of fresh money. It is, in this way, governed by banking policy.

Again, so long as the rules are adhered to, banking policy must be limited in certain important ways.
In the first place, the bank must be concerned with the probability of recovering the money advanced, and in this respect credit policy must be governed by purely financial considerations.

In the second. credit money put into circulation can only be effective in making good the gap between prices and purchasing-power if that credit is paid out in respect of production which does not appear on the market immediately, or at all.

Thus new industries, production for export, the production of munitions, and the financing of public works, distribute incomes which are effective in shifting existing goods into the hands of consumers, and thus stimulating industry generally.

But as we have already seen, this use of credit, which occurs automatically during the original period of capital development, and artificially under the comparatively modern theory of "pump-priming, is only a temporary expedient, since the deficiency in purchasing-power is cumulative, and reflected in an ever-mounting indebtedness, an indebtedness which can never be repaid, but which forms a continuously growing burden in the form of debt-charges, both industrial and governmental.

The practical effect of this process is to mortgage both industry and, through its Government, the nation, to the banking system; and since the indebtedness cannot be repaid, because the money does not exist, the banking system becomes the virtual owner of industry and nation: and both the nominal owners of industry, and the Government, become managers for the owners;* and it is the business of the managers to carry out the policy of the owners.

That is to say, the banking system controls the policy of industry and Government.

The first point to note about this situation is that the individual bank is not autonomous.

The ordinary operating banks, or trading banks, work on almost mechanical principles.

They do create and advance credit to their customers; but the extent to which they can do this depends on their cash position, and this in turn depends on the current policy of the central bank.

*" ... The Civil Service has a managerial function. Whitehall is a great head office of business enterprise with a whole host of branch offices, directly or indirectly dependent on it. The Civil Service must adapt itself to this role. "Departments which used to be self-contained units now have to remember that they are no more than 'departments' of the larger whole. A narrowly departmental attitude can only bring frustration and delay. . . ."
Mr. Herbert Morrison, reported in The Daily Telegraph, June 7, 1947,

The central bank is far more autonomous; it is, in fact, the specific function of the central bank to govern the credit policy of the whole nation. The credit created by the central bank is treated as cash by the trading banks.

But even central banks are not completely autonomous. In the days of the Gold Standard, the central bank's credit policy was related to its holdings of gold.

The Gold Standard is gone, and gone forever, since the rate at which gold can be mined is progressively less than the minimal rate at which total money must be expanded in order to keep industry functioning under the existing system.

Now since the rate at which new money is required is greater than the rate at which gold is mined; and since money is advanced at interest as a loan to industry, it is obvious that the gold must come into the possession of the lending institutions, the banks.

Lending at interest means that more money must be repaid than is lent.

This is, in fact, the first stage of the process by which the system becomes virtual owner of industry. So we have the position that the theoretical basis of the credit system, gold, which has become the property of the banking system. is insufficient; some substitute must be found, having the international properties of gold.
This is the situation which culminated in the formation of the Bank of International Settlements before the war, and the International (monetary) Fund and World Bank after it.

These three, which are different aspects of one thing, constitute a Central Bank for central banks, and allow a world credit policy to be imposed on national central banks. That is to say, the loans - credit - advanced by the World Bank will be cash for central banks.

Once securely instituted, this system will render the banking system independent of gold. Individual banks, however, will be, as they are at present, integrated into a system control of which resides at the apex, and is extra-national.

Since industry and Governments, are dependent on credit policy, it is clear that this extra-national apex controls the fundamental policy of both. The actual and practical meaning of the situation is. of course, that the individuals in control of the apex of the world banking system are in control of the overall policy of the world; and this fact must form the proper starting point for any analysis of politics.

It is the matter of this policy and its background which forms, and always has formed, the essential subject - matter of Social Credit.

Only to the extent that the financial system has provided the mechanism of this policy has the financial system come under consideration. When Major Douglas published his first book Economic Democracy, the financial system was, as he has since expressed it, the headquarters of that policy; and an attack on the system was, in consequence, an attack on the policy.

Now partly because of the nature of the system, and partly because of the publicity resulting from the attack on it, it was impossible for it to remain as it was; that is to say, politics ceased to be imbedded and concealed in the system as such, and emerged as concrete policies.

Or to put it another way, the central policy of the financial system has had to be buttressed with other sanctions.

In consequence, the natural emphasis has shifted from economics to politics. What has happened is just what happened with the outbreak of war: the enormous expansion of credit required to finance the expansion of output for war necessitated extra-financial "controls".

But war is only an acceleration of the normal processes of finance.

As we have already seen, the operation of industry under the existing rules requires this expansion of credit, and the extra-financial controls were in fact appearing in embryo form before the war, and would have developed, only more slowly, without the war.

That is to say, at one time finance and control were synonymous; they are so no longer.
Consequently, the policy of control has emerged as the subject of examination.

Particularly at the present time, the essential theory of Social Credit could be re-written without reference to finance, and in fact numerous groups act on the essential basis of Social Credit policy without reference to finance.

Nevertheless, money forms one of the most beautiful administrative devices which can be imagined, and an understanding of the use to which it has been put, and of the use to which it could be put in the service of another policy, is still the shortest road to an understanding of the political problem.

On the other hand, no financial adjustments by themselves could rectify the present situation; and if a financial system is retained, it will certainly be a modified one.
(2)
Before we proceed further it is very necessary to have a clear understanding of the meanings of two important words in common use, which are confused to varying degrees in many discussions and analyses.
They are policy and administration.
Policy is concerned with the choice of objectives, and includes the sense of action taken to achieve that objective. Thus it is more than the "ends" of the common expression "ends and means". To have a policy is to take action to achieve some chosen objective.
Administration, on the other hand, is much more nearly synonymous with "means". It concerns the technical arrangements necessary to carry a policy into effect. It is not the action taken to achieve an objective, but the methods which that action makes use of. For example, a bank may have a policy of contracting credit, the immediate objective being to reduce the advances made by the bank. The policy will be initiated by some sort of directive, and carried through by supervision and further directives. This policy is administered, however, by the technical staff of the bank.
Administration involves specialised knowledge of book-keeping methods, law, and expediency, as well as of specific banking procedure.
With this distinction in mind, we must examine the nature of the policy administered by and through the banking system.
As we have already seen, the banking system is, through the central banks, integrated into a world banking system; the system is a world organisation. and clearly that organisation must have some general overriding policy.

One way to describe that policy is to say that it is to maintain and secure the predominance of the banking system; and this means, of course, the power of those ultimately in control of the system to impose policy on-to issue directives to the industry and Governments of the world.

The banking system is, in fact, a system of world government, and when this fact is realised it is easy to see that it constitutes a form of world dictatorship.

And what might be called the derived policies arising from this situation comprise the practical policies of the banking system. These are policies designed to secure the predominance of an international medium of monetary exchange; to maintain the "value" of money in the commodity sense; and to facilitate the administration of banking policy.

This latter policy is expressed in the promotion of centralisation in every sphere: the amalgamation of businesses into combines or cartels, the union of autonomous political areas into federations, the strengthening of the federal government at the expense of its constituent parts; and the organisation of populations into trades and professional unions, and the "federalisation" of these.

In short, the policy promoted by those in control of the banking system is centralisation of everything: the promotion of a pyramidal form of world organisation with the banking system at the apex.

The policy is, in fact, the centralisation of the control of policy: totalitarianism.

Money-power was used in the first place to secure a monopoly of money-power; and the monopoly of money-power - the monopoly of credit - was used to bring about a monopoly of political power.
We are witnessing today the consolidation of political monopoly. The number of effective antonomous governments in the world is being reduced; we are at the stage of the Big Five, Big Four, Big Three, or Big Two-and-a-half, according to the context.

And at the same time, the administrative agencies of a single world government are being brought into being.
Another aspect of the construction of a world monopoly of control is the "nationalisation" of banking. What this means is, of course, the amalgamation of banking and government.

It would be too much to ask public opinion to swallow anything which might be called the "bankisation" of government, so that it is essential, if the process is to be *Compare the 'plan' to "Save Europe"- essentially a plan to secure centralised control of vital raw materials and sources of power,. got away with, that it should be called by a name which would at the least not antagonise public opinion.

But it is a matter of observation that the control of banking policy remains in the same hands; and the combination of banking and political power is rendered independent of the public as regards obtaining money for government purposes.

And in just the same way, "socialism" is a political technique to reconcile public opinion to the final stages of the construction of monopoly. Socialism is centralisation, the policy of the bankers.

The objective - and we can see the steps to its consummation day by day and week by week is world government dominated by those at the head of the international banking system, and supported by a world police force and control of food supplies and essential raw materials by the agencies of that government.
* This is a bare outline of the politics of banking control: it is unnecessary to fill it out, since it is the subject matter of contemporary Social Credit literature. Apart from the theoretical approach we have adopted, there is abundant evidence.

But one further point of extreme importance must be mentioned.

For some years it was an open question whether the policy pursued by the banking system was merely a natural consequence of its structure; that is to say, whether the accident of the development of the system had thrown certain men to the top, who more or less unconsciously protected their position and its privileges.
On the other hand was the possibility that the whole situation was the result of conscious intention.

In 1935 a Government was elected in Alberta, Canada, with a mandate to put into effect certain Social Credit technical proposals. Every attempt to carry out this mandate was "disallowed" by the Federal authorities, and a tremendous campaign of publicity was put into operation to discredit the Government. In this campaign quite obviously deliberate and conscious lies and misrepresentation were made use of, and the conscious intention behind the disallowances and publicity were perfectly evident.

In any case, if Social Credit theories were fallacious, the quickest way of disposing of them would be to allow them a trial under circumscribed conditions; and nobody can miss the significance of the fact that that trial has up to the present been prevented by agencies outside Alberta, although the people of Alberta have three times voted for that trial.

For the wider evidence of conscious intention behind the policy of the banking system, evidence which establishes the deliberate intention to make use of world war and other catastrophes in the pursuit of the ultimate objective - readers are referred to The Brief for the Prosecution, by C. H. Douglas.

(3)
One of the most misused and abused words in the political vocabulary is the word "democracy". The reductio ad absurdam of its use is the claim by the masters of Soviet Russia that the system in operation in that country is "democracy', for nowhere outside Russia and her satellites is it seriously contended that the Soviet system is not totalitarianism differing in no essential respect from the German totalitarianism.
Similarly, it is an implicit assumption in the rejection of the term "democracy as suitable to connote the Soviet system, that "democracy" connotes in fact a system the antithesis of the totalitarian system.
At all events, it is practicable to analyse the totalitarian system and to see in what respects an antithetical system is possible and desirable. In this matter we are dealing with a collection of individuals, a collection which can be delimited in some way - as, for example, that they constitute a club, or a nation, or a race.
From the political point of view, they are an association; and the questions we are examining are the objectives of the association, and its organisation. That is to say, we are concerned with policy and administration.
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 Tim-buctoo.
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 be 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 be 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 program 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.

Policy is manifested in the issuance of "directives" to the administrative organisation or organisations competent to carry them into effect. It is in relation to the origin of these directives that the words "totalitarian" and "democratic" are relevant.

The real meaning of totalitarianism is that one man, or a small group of men, are in an exclusive position to have their directives carried into effect; and the real meaning of democracy is that individuals as such shall all be in a position to have their own directives carried into effect.

The general problem of political democracy is to find a mechanism to give practical effect to this principle.
Parliaments, Soviets, and voting systems generally are merely mechanisms which might or might not give such practical effect to political democracy. It may be said at once that the British system does not.

If we overlook the many, and not unimportant, side-issues such as personalities, electoral tricks, misrepresentation, etc., etc., we find that in theory the electorate is asked to vote for a "platform" comprising several policies.

It is self-evident that no genuine decision can be given by a single act of voting on more than one policy at a time. But even if an election were held on the basis of a single alternative, the result would be to issue a single directive to which all individuals, including those who had voted against it, would be subject until a further opportunity arose to vote against it.

This is simply a form of totalitarianism limited in time.
It is an improvement on outright totalitarianism in that there is a periodic opportunity to review the policy; but it is not democracy. It could quite suitably be named "ballot-box" totalitarianism.
It would be merely tedious to explore all the numerous factors which modify ballot-box totalitarianism; but some are important. In the first place, as we have already seen, ultimate policy is controlled through the highly centralised financial system by a small group in control of that system.
Political possibilities are narrowly limited by financial possibilities. As a result of this, large areas of the platforms of different political parties overlap. For example, taxation in its present form and extent is purely and simply the policy of those in control of the financial system; it is not a necessity; it is robbery.
Now different parties merely propose variations in the forms and rates of taxation, and all proceed from the basic assumption that heavy taxation is axiomatic.
Again, financial considerations determine most other policies that come up for consideration, for example, various methods to "keep up prices or to re-distribute income, when that income in the aggregate is already insufficient to liquidate costs.
A genuine alternative to existing policies, therefore, would have to traverse the "axioms" of sound finance; and to the extent that the proposals of any party do not, the ballot-box system comes closer to outright totalitarianism.

On analysis, it is easy to see that in a great many cases the choice offered to the electorate is simply the choice of different methods (associated with particular parties) embodying the same policy.
Now methods are a matter of administration, and a vote on them is simply the expression of opinions as to whether one team or another is more capable of forming an efficient administrative hierarchy to carry out a policy which is not open to decision.

The second important factor modifying ballot-box totalitarianism is propaganda.

Only "broad" propaganda affects broad issues. This is a somewhat subtle matter, But it is "broad" propaganda which maintains general beliefs in the "axioms" of sound finance, and such absurdities as that already examined, that in any real sense a nation benefits from a constant excess of exports over imports.

Similarly, the "trend to the left" is not a natural phenomenon, but the result of carefully controlled propaganda. This aspect of the matter has been very adequately described by F. A. Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom.

But in general it is obvious that broad propaganda - i.e., extensive, pervasive and long-term propaganda-requires enormous financial resources which could not be obtained against the interests of the Money Power.
It ought, in fact, to be conclusive that anti-"Capitalism" -i.e., Socialism, is supported by such "Capitalist" papers as The Times, The Economist, et. al., and it is a demonstration of the effectiveness of the mass hypnotism exercised through such propaganda channels that the delusion of Socialism as a "workers'" movement is so prevalent.

(4)

Socialism or Social Credit?

The General Election in Great Britain in 1945 undoubtedly included Socialism as one of the policies offered, so that the Labour Party could claim an unusually definite mandate to administer an unusually clear-cut policy. This is not to say that the electorate was conscious of this fact, or that it understood exactly what the mandate implied.

And an examination of the opposition policies discloses that they offered the same policy less clearly expressed.

In fact, the Labour Party simply made explicit the policy that had been followed by preceding Governments.
A leading article in the London Daily Telegraph (Oct. 18, 1946) makes the situation reasonably plain:

"To go no further back than its war-time predecessor, the famous Coalition, the present Government found much of the planning for education, other social services, finance, and defence already done. Even attempts to iron out' the peaks of economic fluctuations, the point with which Mr. Morrison made such play, are very far from being a Socialist invention. Such devices as Exchange Equalisation Funds, the accumulation of projects for public works, quantitative regulation of imports, censuses of production. adjustments of taxation to economic or social purposes, have been used by a long succession of Governments, not excepting the Socialist Government of 1929-31 . . ."

This line of policy can be seen to be derived almost entirely from financial considerations. And it is all consistent, and all represents the concentration of control over both policy and administration.

Financial policy promoted monopoly developments, and did so quite explicitly; the Bank of England, the local agency of International Finance, called the policy "rationalisation. "

Such monopoly development is an almost necessary preliminary to nationalisation, " Nationalisation is merely the penultimate stage in a process, Rationalisation, or monopoly control of specific industries, is a step to nationalisation, where distinct industries are brought under the one control.

Internationalisatio n is the next step, where nationalised industries are linked under one world control. And this is the objective of the group of men in control of the world financial system.

The "common man" has no power whatever to issue effective directives to an organisation on this scale, even elected representatives would be powerless in relation to the permanent officials. The ballot-box would merely introduce an element of inefficiency into the organisation, and consequently its elimination is to be expected.
It is, in fact, necessary for the stability of the organisation to control the individual: that is the significance of so-called Social Security schemes. It really is astounding that these have not been seen through long ago.
Their monetary benefits are mere pittances; but the underlying assumption is that the recipients of them will be completely dependent on them, and the actuarial calculations show that it is anticipated that the recipients, as old-age pensioners, will be the majority of those contributing to them.

Thus it is anticipated that ten, twenty, thirty years ahead nothing better than a pittance will be available to the majority of those over 65 - and this calculation does not allow for the steady depreciation which in the past thirty years has reduced the official value of the pound sterling to a half, and the actual value to a quarter or less.

But the real cost of this pittance to the worker is conformity to a network of regulations which is reaching ever finer details of the individual's existence.

Again, this is the use of the financial mechanism to achieve a definite objective. The essence of it is to make money essential to existence, arrange through inflation and taxation that whatever the standard of living, it absorbs the whole of the worker's income so that he cannot save, and so threaten him with insecurity - i.e., starvation-at retiring age unless he submits to controls throughout his working life.
He thus becomes defenceless material for planning.

"The plan" will require individual workers to work in accordance with the plan.

What possible effect can voting for Mr. A. or Mr. B. have on the individual worker's destiny?

Since the Socialist Government took office in Great Britain, appallingly rapid progress has been made towards complete and explicit totalitarianism. The shape of things to come is perfectly evident from the emphasis on compulsory trade-unionism, in association with the admonitions of trade union leaders that the time for strikes is past, and that the worker has now achieved his goal, his future part being to work for increased production.
*Mr Arthur Deakin. General Secretary 0f the British Transport and General Workers Union, was reported by A.A.P. on July 15, 1947, as saying "1 am even prepared to say we must accept a limited measure of direction [of labour)." For the rest, everything will be decided "in the public interest" between Labour Leaders and Political Leaders*
The initiative in this policy has rested with Finance. which clearly anticipates being able to retain the initiative and the control which, indeed, probably sees no other way of securing in perpetuity the enormous power which results from international control of finance.
Administrative controls are simply buttresses for financial control which itself is a most wonderfully flexible and sensitive mechanism.
(5)
The group in control of the banking system is using the financial and industrial systems in the pursuit of a long-range objective-the objective of world-dominion for that group.

Such a policy is in conflict with the desires of those to whom it is applied.

Where we have an opposition of policies in this way, we have a state of war in the most general sense:
"War is the pursuit of policy by other means" (Clausewitz) .

In this sense, the translation of policy into practice involves the concept of strategy.

"Strategy is the employment of the battle to gain the end of the War
(i.e., the objective of policy . . . Strategy forms the plan of the War" Clausewitz) .

The objective of strategy is subordinate to the objective of policy, in the same way that the objective of a campaign is subordinate to the strategy of the nation waging a war, in the same way that policy transcends war itself as defined by Clausewitz.

In this sense, the use of the industrial system by the financiers is a strategical use.

In an address given in 1924, Douglas pointed out that there are only three possible objectives of a world economic system: "The first is that it is an end in itself for which man exists.

"The second is that while not an end in itself, it is the most powerful means of constraining the individual to do things he does not want to do; e.g., it is a system of Government. This implies a fixed ideal of what the world ought to be.

"And the third is that economic activity is simply a functional activity of the men and women in the world . ."
Since that address, it has been explicitly stated that the objective of the industrial system is "Full Employment."

Considered as a means of making people work (an aim which is common both to the Capitalist and Socialist Party Politics) the existing financial system, as a system, is probably nearly perfect. .
"Its banking system, methods of taxation and accountancy counter every development of applied science, organisation. and machinery, so that the individual, instead of obtaining the benefit of these advances in the form of a higher civilisation and greater leisure, is merely enabled to do more work. Every other factor in the situation is ultimately sacrificed to this end of providing him with work...." (C. H. Douglas, 1924) .
Recalling our examination of the physical situation, let us imagine a man to be employed in tending an area of lawn. Under primitive conditions, he would cut the grass by plucking the blades with his hands. The first "scientific" advance would consist in the use of a single-bladed cutting instrument, and even with this he could at once cut the grass much more rapidly.
Therefore, he could either tend the former area in less time, or he could tend a larger area in the same time.
The next advance would consist in the use of a two-bladed tool, on the principle of scissors, and this again would result in more rapid work, with the same result as previously. Then successively we see the introduction of the mower and the power-driven mower; and we can imagine the eventual introduction of the radar-controlled automatic mower.
The strategy of "Full Employment" means that with every improvement in the technique of grass-cutting, the spare time gained is devoted to extending the area of lawn to be cut, and exporting the grass-"building export trade," or "Saving Europe."

This extension of lawn is the equivalent of all those devices by which politicians create employment."
The most obvious is public works, but emphasis on further industrialisation and on the importance of export markets is exactly the same thing in principle.

"Full Employment" does, in fact, counter the developments of applied science, organisation, and machinery; it steals the leisure which is the potential result of power-utilising industry. That is to say, "Full Employment" is a strategy which has the result of subjecting individuals to a system of government.

It does, as it is designed to do, make the individual a cog in a system of world organisation.
This strategy has developed out of the earlier phase in which adherence to the canons of "sound" finance was the prime concern of the official economists and politicians.
The development is of extreme importance, for it indicates that shifting of the headquarters of policy to which we have already referred. But if what is involved is grasped, it is easy to see that the unfolding strategy in itself reveals the continuity of policy behind it, and it is easy to see that, as Major Douglas has pointed out, the apparent failures of policy are in reality its greatest successes.
The policy is centralisation of control; and trade rivalry leading to military war, and the depression leading to the elimination of small businesses and the psychological conditioning of the masses to the idea that the greatest service their leaders could provide would be the avoidance of "unemployment" on almost any terms of loss of freedom, are all of a piece.
Both wars-or the two phases of the one war - led to the installment of a bureaucracy ruling through Regulations and Orders in place of the highly developed system of Common Law at the service of the individual.
"Full Employment" for unspecified ends quite smoothly replaces full employment to defeat Hitler.
Now obviously it is just as impossible to pick a man off the street through the mechanism of elections and place him in control of the policy of a society organised for "Full Employment" as it is to place such a man in the same way to control a steamship company. He simply has not got the knowledge. He is in the hands of his advisers, the higher officials of the permanent bureaucracy, who understand very well that only certain possibilities are open: a decision in one sphere quite inevitably repercusses throughout the system, and closes a number of possibilities in other spheres.
This is particularly so in the case where "Full Employment" is an overriding policy, for if a certain proportion of man-power is hypothecated to certain long-term undertakings, other undertakings are ruled out until the former are completed, unless the waste involved in their abandonment can be countenanced.
At this point it is much easier to realise the significance of the "nationalisation" of banking.
Banking-i.e. , credit-control, becomes part of the governing bureaucracy; and because of its administrative characteristics, its properties of "generalness, " it occupies a central position.
Finance enters into bureaucracy to control and direct the bureaucracy; and it has ready to its hand all the ancillary means of control, which are lacking to it while Government is a competitor.
That is to say, the "canons" of sound finance are replaced by Governmental orders backed by the sanctions of the Law.
High taxation becomes a matter of Government "policy" instead of a merely economic necessity of "balancing the budget."
Wages and prices can be "controlled, " the redistribution of workers being effected by Orders instead of by economic incentives; the Orders are backed up by control of rations, and by the necessity of compliance so as not to forfeit the "benefits" of compulsory Social Security.
One of the advantages of sovereign nations lies in the possibility of diversity in the way of social organisation. the opportunity to try out different possibilities. But we see that as the world becomes richer in its ability to produce goods and services, so we are told that it is becoming increasingly difficult for a nation to live to itself.
This is made the excuse for imposing similar systems and objectives on every nation, and the similarity of the proposals everywhere-" Full Employment," State Socialism, and the abrogation of national sovereignty - is a clear indication of the operation of a world policy proceeding from a world centre and having an ulterior motive.
*Since this was written, the Truman-Marshall 'Plan' to "Save Europe" has appeared. If the plan is accepted, the Americans will have an export market to maintain "Full Employment." If not, they might go to war to "Save Europe" from Stalin. In either case, the American people are the losers. The absurdities in the situation are so gross that it is difficult to write patiently of the petty details. "Full Employment" in a power-production economy is the most absurd of all; and in the U.S.A. the situation is so precarious that clearly only a repudiation of the policy can avert frightful disaster. Only war, or the pouring out of American production free to the world can possibly keep American noses to the grind-stone. It looks like war,a It is very necessary to bear constantly in mind the real physical situation-the real inherent ability of a modern power-production economy, in which human labour is becoming more and more nothing but a catalyst, to deliver the goods. The standard of living ought in reality to be related to that ability. Obviously, there must be some neutral measure linking the standard of living with that real ability. That measure is the ratio of the production of consumers' goods to total production. It is the measure immortalised in Goering's phrase: "Guns instead of butter."
The financial-bureaucra tic combination is able, through a "planned economy," to postulate a certain standard of living, and to put that proportion of the population not engaged in providing the goods and services that make up that standard to work on whatever it likes - public works, international public works, raising the standard of living of Hottentots, and so on. All these things are equivalent to Goering's "guns." The quantity 0f "butter" delivered to the population depends purely on the policy of those in control of the administrative apparatus.
With a perfected bureaucratic control, the "axioms" of finance can be dismissed. Production is financed from financial credit to any extent required, and the credits are recovered through direct and concealed taxation. Consequently, a discussion such as is often proposed, on wages and hours in industry," overlooks the vital factor-the ratio of consumers' production to total production. Vast sums spent on public works are exactly the same thing as the "profits" against which the Socialist invective is so largely directed. The "profiteer" (an almost extinct animal now) invests the greater part of his profits in further capital expansion; it is this, and not his personal consumption (which is strictly limited) . which depresses the standard of living of the "worker." But capital expansion (public works) initiated by the Government out of credits has precisely the same physical effect.
A planned economy, "Full Employment," and an allocated standard of living, comprise the official program of Socialism. It represents nothing but an intensification, backed in the last resort by a secret police, of the very policy against which "the worker" believes he is protesting. In fact, it could hardly be otherwise.
The idea is ludicrous that the "Capitalist" who, according to the orthodox Socialist, controls the Press and the Government, is going to see himself dispossessed. What "the worker" calls "the Capitalist" is in reality the independent producer; and the Financier has organised the Proletariat into a mob to use it to remove the threat to monopoly of the independent producer.
(6)
Totalitarianism is, in essence, the conversion of Society into a fixed pattern, a machine which can be operated as a whole by a small group. This conception is most easily grasped in connection with war. Society can only be organised as a whole in relation to some function; war is a function of organised Society, and in war the individual is, and must be, subordinated to that function.
Apart from war, however, it is difficult to conceive of any but one other function to which the individual can be subordinated in this way. That other function is work-work is an end in itself - "Full Employment" for unspecified ends.
But once Society is organised in relation to a function, central control reaches out in ever more detail over the life of the citizen, and government as such becomes more and more of a pre-occupation.
Thus the pervasiveness of modern government is a direct consequence of totalitarianism.
The real problem of genuine political democracy is, therefore, much simpler than it appears at first, because it involves much less "government. " The essential point to grasp in connection with genuine democracy is that it has nothing whatever to do with devices for imposing one policy on the whole of Society.
Democracy means making the policy of each individual effective in relation to himself; as we put it earlier, it means that each individual is in a position to issue his own directives, and have them carried out.
Now, under primitive conditions, the expanding desires of the individual will rapidly require the subordination of other individuals to his policy if his directives are to be fulfilled. But the great significance of the progress of the industrial arts is that the individual's desires can be met to an ever-increasing extent by the resources of power-driven machinery; and consequently, what is required of government is simply that it should see that these resources are at the service of the individual as such.
From this point of view, the individual has two aspects: in one he is a producer, in the other a consumer. We have already seen that it is an immense advantage to the individual as a producer to submit to organisation. since this results in an unearned increment of association- i.e., the required output is obtained from a lesser effort when this effort is co-ordinated with the efforts of others. Coordination implies centralised direction: it is in its nature totalitarian. Production is thus hierarchical.
As a consumer, on the other hand, each individual has his own requirements. There is no sense in the idea of "centralised consumption. " That is to say, consumption is in its nature democratic in the sense we have defined it. Now, the more production becomes a function of power-driven machinery, the less importance attaches to the producer aspect of the individual, and consequently the less importance attaches to organisation.
Correspondingly, the consumer aspect increases in importance. and this aspect implies democracy. In other words, the individual needs to submit to organisation for a continually decreasing proportion of his time, and outside that time he should be free within the natural limits imposed by the freedom of others; and in that free time, he should be able to have his "directives" fulfilled up to the capacity of industry to fulfill them.
Under totalitarianism, the individual is a subject of the State.
The antithetical possibility is that he should be a shareholder in his country.
That conception defines the democratic relationship perfectly. Let us consider an industry, making, say, footwear. The people concerned in the situation are: (1) the owners; (2) the executive; (3) the management; and (4) the consumers of its product.
(1) The owners, as shareholders, are concerned with dividends - a claim in money which can be exchanged for the products of that or another industry. Their directive to the executive is to return the greatest possible dividend, and they are entitled to appoint and dismiss officers of the executive in accordance with their success in fulfilling that directive.
(2) The executive officers are concerned with carrying the policy of the owners into effect. They form a bridge between the owners and the management. They represent the owners in relation to the management.
(3) The management consists of experts in the different techniques of every aspect of the production. It is the business of the expert to know how to carry general directions into practical effect; to take orders in regard to objectives-i. e., on policy and to give orders in regard to the methods of carrying those directives into effect. Executive and management together form an administrative hierarchy. At the bottom of the hierarchy is the ordinary worker.
(4) The consumer is concerned solely with the product of industry and its price. He requires that the product should satisfy his specific and individual want - that the boot or shoe should be of the style, quality, and price that suits him. He is not concerned with the method of manufacture, or with the way the factory is run.
Now if the owner wants dividends, and the consumer has the money, there is a perfect sequence of cause and effect. The concern of the executive and management is to find the appropriate methods of reconciling the requirements of owners on the one hand, and consumers on the other. As long as the organisation must compete for customers, the customers in the aggregate will direct the program of production - so many shoes of one size, so many of another, so many in each of several styles.
The pattern of aggregate production is thus controlled in detail by the democracy of consumers.
We can say, therefore, that money is a blank directive; the details are filled in at the time of purchase. The spending of a sum of money on a particular article is in effect an order to the producing concern to produce another article of the same specification to replace it. It is impossible to conceive of a more sensitive and perfect device for ensuring the truly democratic control of the program of production
. For the reasons which we have already examined, there are barriers to its proper operation. But there was a period, say between 1850 and 1914, in which the economic aspect of this problem was in a fair way to solution.
The gold sovereign was a complete order system. Mr. Brown had only to tender his yellow warrant of sovereignty and he got what he wanted. He set in motion the most marvelous train of self-acting psychological sanctions.
Factories sprang to life, trains ran, and ships sailed, all concerned not merely to do his will, but to do it better than anyone else. It is quite irrelevant to this particular argument that a large and increasing number of Mr. Browns had no sovereigns; it is a fact of history that the man who had one always wanted two, and in consequence, if every Mr. Brown had possessed a sovereign, it would still have been effective. It is perhaps unnecessary to observe that the virtue of the gold sovereign lay not in its material, but in its sanctions." (C. H. Douglas. 1946.)
Now if we consider a given Society as an industrial concern, as, in one aspect, it is, we can consider each member of Society to be an equal shareholder. At the same time he is a consumer of the product of the concern - boots, shoes, bread, cars, etc. In his shareholding aspect, he is interested only in the dividend which the concern returns him. In his consumer aspect. he is concerned with the product. His third concern is with his position as a member of the production hierarchy. In this aspect, he is an expert (to a great or small degree) in some particular aspect of production; but at the same time he is subordinated to the policy governing production.
He is a member of a hierarchy; he takes orders from above, and gives orders, or carries orders into effect, below. He has, or may have, three concerns: interest in his work, improving his position in the hierarchy, and discharging his obligation in the shortest possible time. With regard to this,
The foundation of successful administration, in my opinion, is that it shall be subject to the principle of free association, which will, in itself, produce in time the best possible form of technical administration.
If the conditions of work in any undertaking, and the exercise of authority are ordinarily efficient, and there is in the world any reasonable amount of opportunity of free association, such an undertaking will automatically disembarrass itself of the malcontent, while being obliged to compete for those whose help is necessary to it.
On the other hand, if there is no free association, the natural inertia of the human being and the improper manipulation of methods and aims will make an undertaking inefficient, since there is no incentive to reform. The idea that administration can be democratic, however, is not one which will bear the test of five minutes experience. It may be consultative, but in the last resort some single person must decide." (C. H. Douglas. 1936.)
As we have already observed, the producer-aspect of the individual is of diminishing importance, since production is overwhelmingly a matter of power and machinery.
The other two aspects - the dividend-receiving and the consuming-are complementary.
As a shareholder, the individual is interested in the greatest possible dividend: as a consumer, he is concerned with the greatest possible value for his money.
His orders as a shareholder to the executive are solely concerned that the administration should be efficient; but he is not interested in or concerned with the methods by which those orders are put into operation.
Consequently, the only sanction he requires in this regard is the power to remunerate the executive, and to appoint and dismiss it. As a consumer, he requires control over the program of production in the way we have discussed. He requires to be able to prevent production for an export surplus: to prevent the diversion of economic activity to unwanted public works, or to a disproportionate production of capital equipment.
There is no reason why the efforts of one generation should be expended on work that will only benefit a succeeding generation. There is an obvious obligation to leave to the succeeding generation a productive capacity at least as great as that we have inherited: and we may choose to leave it somewhat greater. But it is very necessary to remember that we do not penalise our successors by refraining from such improvement: we place them in the same situation as we found ourselves in: and they may choose for themselves whether they will or will not extend the productivity of their industry, either for themselves or for their successors.
Barring accidents, there are aeons of time ahead, and the sacrifice of present generations to near or remote successors is a ridiculous policy.
(7)
Society as an industrial concern - an organisation for producing goods and services - is only one aspect of Society. In another aspect it can be likened to a Club: for example, a Sports Club, which exists to afford to its members facilities for participating in various types of sports and games.
The organisation of such a club derives from its purpose. The most general purpose in the case under consideration is to afford a choice of various games to sportsmen. This general purpose is represented by a general committee, and it is the business of that committee to see that resources are available to those who wish to play football as well as to those who wish to play cricket or contract bridge.
The rules this committee is entitled to make, therefore, are concerned purely with such general relationships, and are largely concerned to see that the football section does not secure a monopoly of resources.
The rules of particular groups - football, cricket, tennis, etc.-are the concern of those groups, and are the function of special committees. Now as most people, and all sportsmen, are aware, the rules of a game are only very exceptionally either altered or added to; and when they are, it is with the object of making the conditions of the game more congenial to the player.
An improvement in the materials with which the game is played may form a justification for altering the rules; and so may the test of a long experience of a particular rule. But such alterations are the particular concern of those participating in the game in question.
There are two vitally important considerations governing the conduct of a sports club.
The first is freedom of association, Freedom of association means that individuals are free to join or leave the club as they wish, and equally that they are free to participate in one or other or several of its different activities. It is not fully true that an individual is free to join, in most cases. In general, he must possess some qualification. In the first place, he must be acceptable to the existing members; in the second, he must (usually) be a bona fide player, either wishing to learn the game, or able to play it. As regards leaving a club, this is technically called contracting - out. The ability to contract-out of a club, or a section of a club, is of extreme importance, for it is this that safeguards the rights of an individual; it ensures that the conditions governing a particular activity are acceptable to those participating, for if they are not, those concerned will cease to participate, and the activity in question will come to an end.
This is the absolutely essential complement to rule making.
The election of a committee to make rules is merely a convenience; what does matter is the sanctions which can he applied to that committee; and the ultimate sanction is the right to withdraw from its jurisdiction.
"Genuine democracy can very nearly be defined as the right to atrophy a function 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 prior 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 and 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."
(C. H. Douglas: The Big Idea.)
The other aspect of this matter is the playing in specific games. Teams for games are not elected: they are selected. And the team itself is under a captain. In matches, we have passed out of the sphere of policy, into the sphere of administration or technique. Consequently, we have the hierarchical form of organisation, and an individual's position in the hierarchy is dependant on his qualifications. And the test is in results, in matches won in competition.
As everyone knows, those who fail in the test are replaced, until in time the best possible form of technical administration - the best team - is produced, the second vitally important general consideration is the idea of sportsmanship. Sportsmanship is an unwritten code which is above all particular games, and is above even the general rules of a multi-sport club.
In one aspect it constitutes the ethical system of the club; but it also transcends any particular club. Sportsmanship is an invisible criterion governing admission to a club; and it is a supra-personal standard restraining the capricious use of the power of contracting- out.
Again, it circumscribes all the rule-making within the club. No rule incompatible with the code of sportsmanship is conceivable in practice. A further important principle of a club is its financing. Normally, the revenue of the club is derived from the subscriptions of its members (we are excluding the "club" which really exists to make a business of sport; which employs professionals, and derives its revenue by exhibiting to the public the performances of its employees. But in passing, it may be noted that the existence of genuine clubs exerts a powerful influence on the behavior of the professional associations. )
The income of the members is derived from sources outside the club, and contributed to the club. The committee has the spending of the funds; but it has to justify to the members generally the rate of subscription proposed in relation to the program of general activities contemplated. Thus members will not approve of unlimited subscriptions to acquire unlimited playing grounds, nor to pay the wages and salaries of redundant employees; nor to accumulate disproportionate reserves.
It is incumbent on the committee to show the advantages expected to accrue to the members generally from our contemplated expenditure; and the power to withhold the necessary funds resides in the members.
When a general program is approved, it faIls to the committee to carry it into effect; and a failure is properly rewarded by the dismissal of the committee.
The various activities carried on within the club - the games, the social life, the administration of its affairs - are the functional activities of the club. The general pattern of these is derived from the individual desires of the members expressed in their proportional support of these activities.
The relative emphasis on one game rather than another comes directly from the number of those who prefer one game to another.
On the other hand, one member may participate in several functional activities; he may play two or three games, as well as become a member of the committee. His precise position in the club depends on his choice and on his ability; he may captain the cricket team, but be the first reserve of the football team; he may be the Treasurer, and at the same time help out by serving at times behind the bar.
The time he spends in various functional activities is determined by his free will, but conditioned by his "sportsmanship. "
His sub-mission to his captain is voluntary, but - in the ideal member at least - his discipline - self-discipline - is perfect.
It is easy to see that elections play but a small part in the conduct of such a club.
For the most part majority decisions are expressed in the actions of the members, as in the playing of various types of games. Provided the cricketer finds the facilities he desires, it is a matter of no consequence to him that perhaps the majority prefer to play tennis. He is concerned only when the majority is so overwhelming that the minority is insufficient to constitute a team.
Then he is free to consider the reasons why the majority prefers tennis, and either to give it a trial, or to leave the club, since it no longer serves his specific purposes. But no member would submit to having the game he would play throughout the season determined by a majority vote in the election sense.
Or, what is a variant of the same thing, that he should vote for a committee which would have the power of telling him how much of his time he should spend in the club, and what games he should play in that time.
"Supposing I were to say to you, 'I am organising a cricket club'. You are all cricket enthusiasts, so I feel sure that you will join my club, and will deposit all your title deeds, stocks and shares, and other valuables with the secretary as a guarantee that you will obey my orders' - you would probably remark that, under the circumstances, you think you'll play golf.
But supposing you had been brought up to believe that you must play cricket, and you must join my club, and that, of course, placing all your eggs in my basket was only a formality. And supposing that, when you were all neatly registered, I were to say; 'This organisation. which we humorously call a cricket club, is really planned for plainer living, higher thinking, and more painful dying, and you can't resign' - you would complain, wouldn't you?
To which the answer is, No. you wouldn't, because you, in fact, don't.
Most of you merely say that more people must join the club - "full employment .
(C. H. Douglas: Program For the Third World War.)
(8)
Society is fundamentally an association of individuals.
Within that association all sorts of functional activities are conducted, and nothing is more important than to grasp the fact that labour, or employment, is simply one of those functions.
Now, in a genuinely democratic Society, the pattern of functional activity will be the resultant of the functional activities of individuals exercising free choice, in exactly the same way as the pattern of activity of a sports club results from the various preferences of its members for different games.
On the other hand, "Full Employment" as a policy means the subordination of Society to a single function. The other functions may be there; but the pattern of functional activity is determined by the elevation of a particular function to pre-eminence.
It makes for a fixed pattern: and that is totalitarianism.
That this pattern is achieved by voting in elections is quite irrelevant. And when, as is our case, all the major parties stand for "Full Employment" as a policy, totalitarianism is inescapable.
Genuine democracy has nothing to do with elections; elections are simply a convenient mechanism to achieve a very limited purpose within a democratic organisation. If individuals want "Full Employment," they can have it.
Any man can dig holes in his own backyard, and fill them up again. A majority decision in favour of "Full Employment" should be expressed in the majority digging holes, and leaving the minority free to paint pictures if they prefer to do so.
0f course, the work of the world must be done. But it must always be remembered that the immensely greater proportion of the necessary work can be done by power-driven machinery:
"Considerably less than the total available number of individuals, working with modern tools and processes, can produce everything that the total population of the world, as individuals, can use and consume, and this situation is progressive, that is to say, that year by year a smaller number of individuals can usefully be employed in economic production." (C. H. Douglas. 1924).
It is important to notice the words "as individuals" in the above statement. "Full Employment" involves the increasing production of goods which the individuals producing them cannot use or consume. They are goods which fulfill the ambitions of power-maniacs; no individual in his senses would freely produce atom-bombs and hand them over to the individuals in control of an organisation which might use them against him; nor does the individual really desire that they should be used against other individuals.
Again, many public works are of benefit only to succeeding generations; and as we have already observed, there is no special or reasonable urgency to press forward the development of the world at the expense of a few generations, and for the benefit of others who will be left with nothing to do.
It is essential, therefore, that the program of production shall be predominantly one that sub-serves the requirements of individuals, not of organisations; and once this is the case, it must be found that there is room only for a proportion of those available for employment in it.
This at once reduces "employment, " or labour, to its proper level as a function among others; and there is no reason at all why it should not be considered in exactly the same light as a game, participation in which is subject to proper qualifications. In other words, participation in the program of production involves membership of a team, and should be confined to those with a genuine desire to participate, and possessing the necessary technical qualifications.
The effect of such a change would be to emancipate other functions both of the individual and of Society.
There are, of course, very good reasons why this should not be done suddenly; but it forms an objective which can be approached at whatever rate is found in practice expedient, and a mechanism by which this might be done will be considered later.
But obviously such an objective results in a completely different conception of the nature and functioning of Society.
It is, in fact, an absolute prerequisite of genuine democracy.
As soon as government ceases to personify the elevation of a particular function as dominating the pattern of Society, it falls into its proper perspective. Government itself is merely one function among all the others, and by no means the most important.
Its true nature is that of the Board 0f Directors of a company on the one hand, and of the general committee of a club on the other.
As a Board of Directors it is the business of the Government to see that the industrial component of Society produces the greatest possible dividend to the shareholders, the citizens.
This does not mean that the Government should "run" industry. An industry is always (unless interfered with by the Government) "run" by the technicians.
It does not mean that the Government should have any control over the internal policy of the particular industry.
The Board simply represents the shareholders whose interest is confined to the receipt of dividends and the business of the Board is simply to impress the will of the shareholders on the technicians.
Most emphatically it does not mean that the Government should dictate the program of production. That is the concern of the consumers, and is properly controlled by the money-vote.
The main function of government in this aspect is really the authorization of new enterprises which may enhance the collective dividend. This is a point to which we shall return subsequently.
The more important aspect of government is that of a general committee.
It is concerned with the general framework within which the multitudinous functional activities of Society are conducted.
The first consequence of this position is that the emphasis immediately passes from law-making.
No club-committee is forever adding to the number of rules.
Now Society in the course of some thousands of years has evolved a quite sufficient number of laws to provide for the general conduct of Society. It is only when some new development, such as the introduction of some major new invention, disturbs the general equilibrium, that new laws may be necessary.
The appearance of the motorcar and the aircraft, for example, clearly need integrating into the existing possessions of mankind in such a way as to enhance rather than diminish the real credit.
Apart from this, it is a proper concern of the Government to revise the laws with a view to removing unnecessary restraints on the freedom of the individual.
As the physical conditions which limit the individual are overcome, so artificial restrictions should be eased and, so far as possible, abolished. And here the social equivalent of "sportsmanship" comes in.
That is an ethical system having its roots in religion, and accepted by, and as binding on, the Government just as much as individuals.
The second consequence of the proper position of government is that it should derive its finance by agreed contributions from individuals.
Just as with the club committee, it should suggest a program, and this program should be sanctioned by the public.
What is undertaken by the Government is at the immediate physical expense of the individuals composing the community, and what is required is that this physical necessity should be correctly reflected in the relations between Government and people.
Government itself is an expense; a certain amount of it, which should be reduced to the practical minimum, is an unavoidable expense. But government undertakings are a different sort of expense.
Providing "Full Employment" is such an expense, and is simply a blank cheque drawn in the Government's favour, and honoured by the community at the individual's expense. Nothing should be done for the sake of providing employment.
It may be that roads need to be built, and aerodromes constructed, and so on.
If so, the Government should suggest a program of roads. etc., showing the immediate advantages to be derived from them by individuals. Some such works will have an immediate and obvious advantage; with some the advantage will be more remote; and with others, the advantages will accrue entirely to succeeding generations.
The amalgamation of credit-monopoly with government means exactly that the Government is rendered independent of public control in these matters.
It can embark on programmes which are at the expense of the individual, but are disguised as being to his advantage, since they issue to him the money, which ought to be his unconditionally, only in exchange for his work.
The citizens ought to licence the Government to undertake the works of which they approve, by voting the necessary funds.
But as things are, the citizens have only the most slender control over the Government; and although a correct use of the vote could rectify the immediate situation, it must be realised that the vote is an exceedingly crude mechanism, with a very limited use, and that it is essential to reinforce it with more adequate sanctions.
(9)
The essential mechanism of totalitarianism is centralised control of the real credit of the community.
What we call the real credit we defined as "the ability to deliver goods and services as, when, and where required."
Centralised control of this real credit means that goods and services can only be delivered to the orders of those in control of a centralised organisation. These orders may be delivered through the control of financial credit; or they may be delivered through bureaucratic Regulations and Orders; or, as at present, through a combination of both.
The essential mechanism of genuine democracy is decentralised control of the real credit of the community.
Easily the most convenient and flexible mechanism for such decentralised control is money, because money is the most marvelous order system if properly used.
We have already seen that financial credit - bank-created money - is based on the capacity of industry to produce.
If financial credit was suddenly cut-off, industry would stop except to the extent that people "saw through" the monetary situation.
Restriction of credit is, in fact, the direct cause of the so-called depression, the slowing-down of industry.
That is to say, credit policy governs industry.
Credit initiates production.
If this fundamental fact is grasped, it will be clear that there is no reason whatever why credit should be issued only through centralised institutions, other than the policy of those in control of the credit-system.
Financial credit reflects real credit.
Does the real credit of the community - its ability to produce goods and services - belong to the community, or to a small group within the community?
In Part I we examined the nature of "the ability to produce," and saw that it derives from the labour and inventions of countless generations. It is a community inheritance.
It must be clearly understood here that what is in question is not the right to the technical operation of industry; it is a question of to whom belong the results of its operation; consequently, who have the right to control the program of production?
The answer, in a genuine democracy, can only be the democracy of consumers in the sense in which we have discussed that conception.
They must, therefore, be given the means to control the program and obtain the production; and this involves the distribution direct to the consumer, as an individual, of the money, in the form of credit. with which to issue his specific orders.
The general conceptions involved in this are really quite simple. At any given time, a community possesses a capacity to produce a quantity of goods and services in some ensuing period - say a year.
This capacity is the real credit of the community. Against this real credit, financial credit is issued.
At present it is issued in such a way as to result in the community devoting its resources to projects from which as consumers its individuals derive no immediate benefits or no benefits at all - the production of redundant factories, production for an export surplus, grandiose public works, etc.
Payment for this type of production, which does not reach the public as consumers, is exactly as "inflationary" as if the money were given direct to the public. But this credit belongs to the community, and to force individuals to "work" for it is absolutely unjustified on any grounds whatever.
Therefore it should be issued to them as a right - as a dividend.
The payment of a dividend out of credit thus establishes in practice the status of the citizen as a shareholder in his country in the sense we have already discussed.
There are sound technical reasons why the whole of the available credit should not be issued as a dividend.
In the first place, inflation would, exactly as it does at present, ensue.
There is a very simple way to overcome this.
A proportion of the credit may be set aside for the purpose of paying subsidies to reduce prices.
This merely means that the consumer receives his credit through a different channel; it is paid to the seller of goods as part of the price, but it is only paid to the order of the consumer.
Happily, a system of subsidies to reduce prices to the consumer is already in operation, so that it is unnecessary here to go into the theoretical considerations which prove its practicability. But there remains the question of the extent to which such subsidies should be applied.
In Part II, Section 5, we have referred to the fundamental law of real, as apart from financial, cost.
Nevertheless, the financial cost, as arrived at in respect of particular goods by the standard methods of accounting, is a perfectly valid and real measure of financial transactions, and therefore can be related to the real cost.
If the financial cost of an article is multiplied by the ratio which expresses real cost, and this figure is taken as the selling-price of the article, we have a figure which is less than cost, and is mathematically and impartially related to the actual processes of production and consumption.
This reduced price was originally termed by Major Douglas as "The Just Price", but it is now known as the Compensated Price.
It is the price at which goods should be sold so as correctly to relate that price to the physical facts of production and consumption. Its theoretical justification can be demonstrated mathematically, and students are referred to Social Credit, Part II Chapter 3 for particulars.
Here it is worth examining some of the general considerations.

The ratio
consumption
production
is measured in terms of monetary units over a selected period.
It is therefore determined absolutely by the actual facts of production and consumption, and reflects the activities of the community. It is of exactly the same character as, for example, a bank statement which records the totals of deposits and withdrawals over a selected period - figures which could, of course, be recorded as a ratio.
Since production normally exceeds consumption, the ratio is normally less than one.
Now the more production exceeds consumption - as in the building of permanent assets, etc.,
the greater becomes the capacity of industry to produce goods and services.
If we assume, for the sake of demonstration, that the community holds the same total of money
at the end of the selected period as at the beginning,
but
that the prices of all goods available for sale are reduced to the figure cost-price
(including profit) x
consumption
production
we have the purchasing power of the money available increased to correspond to the increase in the real credit.
This is exactly the opposite of what obtains at present, when the money paid out for a relative increase in the production of capital goods is accompanied by a rise in prices, and consequently a decrease in the purchasing power of the unit of money.
On the other hand, when the rate of consumption relative to the rate of production rises - as it does, for example. in war, since shells fired and bombs dropped count as consumption - the application of the "price factor results in a rise in prices as compared with normal times, which again is a correct reflection of the physical facts.
Again, as we have already seen, the physical facts of production are dominated by the rapidly increasing capacity of industry to produce goods with (say) a constant amount of human effort.
A falling price-level is a correct reflection of this situation.
Now if we assume a constant wage and salary structure, which, we may also assume, reflects the differing importance of different operatives in technical and other processes, a rising purchasing-power of the units of money with which these wages and salaries are paid renders the differences of less importance as a cause of social friction.
A falling purchasing power (rise in prices), on the other hand, leads to friction and demands for higher rates of pay which again raise the prices still further.
The use of credit to reduce prices by the payment of subsidies - the "compensation" of prices in accordance with the physical realities - therefore overcomes inflation, benefits the whole community, and minimises the risk of social friction.
(10)
The second reservation to be applied to the issue of financial credit as a dividend relates to the payment of those engaged in production - the payment of wages and salaries.
The consumption incurred in production is a cost; it is a diminution of the real credit, and should be so accounted.
The relationship of dividends, subsidies, and payments for production is essentially a matter of statistical calculation.
Such calculation is a function of a statistical organisation, not of a political organisation.
It is equivalent to the accounting branch of an industry.
It is now possible to see the practical basis of the proper limitation of Government to its legitimate functions.
We have already seen that the power to contract-out is an essential aspect of genuine democracy. But, apart from suicide, it is impossible. or nearly impossible, to contract out of Society.
Consequently it is absolutely essential to protect the individual with "the equivalent of a Bill of Rights ultra vires of Parliament, together with a permanent professional body, trained to attack not only an existing law, but armed with permanent power to bring out into the open for cross-examination at any time the originators of any law which encroaches on those rights.
"One of the first results of such an arrangement would be an arrest in the flow of law-making.
If the world is regarded as a factory run by officials on would - be mass-production lines, continuous works - orders camouflaged as laws are inevitable, though quite rapidly fatal.
But, in a world in which it is realised that the more action is spontaneous within the limits of personal sovereignty the less the friction and the higher the general satisfaction. they are both redundant and objectionable. "
(C. H. Douglas: The Brief for the Prosecution. )
Such a Bill of Rights provides an area of personal sovereignty into which the individual can withdraw, and out of which he can emerge into functional activities of his choice, in which he subordinates himself to the necessities of functional organisation.
This is like the club member who elects to play in some particular game.
Next, the individual must derive his income "from outside", so to speak, and contribute money to such organisations, including Government. as he desires to support.
That is to say, the Government should have no access to the genera! credit of the community except through independent citizens. It should have no powers of taxation except the power to collect "subscriptions" as agreed to by citizens acting through their Representatives in Parliament.
Again we see that the nationalisation of banking is exactly the wrong thing, since it gives the Government direct access to the general credit.
Once the idea of the Government as the "Big Boss" is cleared away, it is much easier to discern its legitimate functions.
Perhaps the first of these functions is that of maintaining the rights of the individual by providing for the proper mechanisms for the administration of Justice - again, a reversal of the present usurpation of the functions of the Courts of Law by the "administrative lawlessness" of the bureaucracy.
Secondly, the Government has a function as a General Committee of Society.
And thirdly, it has a function as a Board of Directors.
It is legitimate for the Government (Cabinet) to propose to Parliament (the Representatives of the Shareholders) general expenditure to enhance the general real credit.
It is the function of Parliament to authorise or to refuse such expenditure.
It is legitimate for the Government to recommend the rate of dividend distribution, on the basis of properly kept accounts relating to the affairs of Society. (For example, the plant and resources of the community can be "valued" as capital assets, and this gives an approximation to the real credit of the community if the various factors are properly taken into account.
This figure can be given a "capital" value in monetary terms, and a "rate of dividend", for example, 5% or 10%, declared.
This provides a general income, to be allocated as between general individual dividends to citizens, wages and salaries, and subsidies to adjust prices to the physical facts.
The money required for government purposes must be contributed out of the distributed money in the same way as the funds of a club are derived from the subscriptions of its members.
To give effect to these general relationships, there needs to be a credit-issuing organisation with a constitutional status equivalent to that of, say, the Auditor-General.
To this organisation would fall the keeping of the national accounts, and the computation of the price factor; and it might quite suitably be the organisation through which the national dividend was distributed, the price-subsidy adjusted, and the financing of production initiated.
In principle, and potentially, most of the organisations necessary to implement genuine democracy exist, and there is no difficulty in adapting these organisations to their proper functions.
Production is a function of selected teams, organised on the hierarchical principle, and subject to the principles of free association and contracting- out.
It is a matter for experts, taking orders in regard to objectives, and giving orders in regard to methods. Orders in connection with the program of production are given through "money votes by the democracy of consumers; orders in regard to efficiency are given by the "Board of Directors"- Cabinet, or the Executive, on behalf of the shareholders - the general community.
Parliament should be considered as an assembly of shareholders' representatives on the one hand, and as a general committee of the community, considered as a society, on the other.
In both aspects, the conception of party strife, or class-warfare, is absurd.
It is the business of Parliament to see that the Executive impresses the general requirements of the community on the technicians.
"We do not want Parliament to pass laws resembling treatises on economics. What we want is for Parliament to pass a minimum of laws designed to penalise the heads of any great industry, and banking and finance in particular, if they do not produce the results desired."
(C. H. Douglas: The Tragedy of Human Effort.)
The main qualification for Parliament is that it should be properly representative. It is highly desirable that it should represent the greatest possible diversity of functional interests, not as competitive, but as integral functions, just as the general committee of a Sports Club should properly represent the interests of those favouring cricket, football, chess, and so on.
Its object is not to turn the Club into an organisation for playing the maximum amount of cricket, but for seeing that the maximum practicable facilities are available for all those wishing to play any form of game.
The actual proportions of games should be determined by the actions of those freely participating in them. Similarly, the Executive is merely an administrative device for conveying the requirements of Parliament to the appropriate quarters; and it should be devoid of any powers but executive powers.
In particular, it has no rights with respect to policy; but it has an obligation to present political possibilities for the decision of Parliament. For example, the Executive may put forward proposals for say the development of water conservation schemes, aforestation, and road-building. All these things are an immediate charge on the general credit, while they augment the potential credit. That is to say, the general public will be "out of pocket" in the immediate future, but will derive an increased dividend subsequently.
The rate at which such development shall be undertaken is therefore properly a subject for decision by the representatives of the public.
The important qualification of a candidate for Parliament is integrity, not a "platform."
The electors require to know that their Representative will genuinely represent their general interests, and not, as at present, endeavour to subordinate them to any function whatever
(11)
We contend that insofar as we are discussing principles in contradistinction to anything in the nature of a specific scheme, the relationships put forward as underlying genuine democracy. and the facts of the economic situation have their basis in Reality. "The general principles which govern association for the common good are as capable of exact statement as the principles of bridge building. and departure from them is just as disastrous." (C. H. Douglas) .
Democracy is not a theory; it is a form of association, the alternative to totalitarianism. It is the form of association in which the individual obtains the benefits of the increment of association. In relation to those principles, we can say that all modern Governments, without exception, are corrupt.
Lord Acton's statement, "All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," is of the nature of a general law enunciated on the basis of expert observation, just as the "law" of gravitation is a statement of observed phenomena.
Governments are, in fact, at the present time analogous to fraudulent Directors; they are engaged in swindling their shareholders, and perverting the purposes of the Company. And they are accomplishing this by means of crooked Company Law - by writing or rewriting the Articles of Association in their own favour.
They are all at it; they are all trying to increase their own powers by amalgamation, by the political equivalent of economic cartelisation. Every amalgamation is a step nearer to one Board in control of the whole world.
But the group which sees farthest in this game is the group in control of the most flexible instrument of policy -money.
Because under existing conditions money is essential and insufficient, those ultimately in control of its supply are able to manipulate the ambitions of less powerful groups.
Selective financing, both in the domestic and the international fields, controls the development of powerful nations, and maneuvers them into conflict.
Hitler, for example, was internationally financed into the position where aggression appeared worthwhile. After Hitler's elimination - and before - Russia was built up.
Now Hitler made the mistake, as Douglas has pointed out, of kicking away the ladder on which he climbed to power. If Stalin (or his successors) make the same error, they will be crushed by "the democracies" ; if they don't, we'll have a "proletarian" revolution and the clamping down on the whole world of the Russian N.K.V.D.
At the present time, both possibilities are being kept open; the radically defective economic system with its consequent class-war is being kept in operation, while Russian diplomacy is being allowed to keep the world in turmoil to the advantage of Russian strategy; and at the same time public opinion is being cautiously re-orientated to regard Russia as an aggressor in the military sense.
"Control of news and control of credit are concentric; consequently, those in control of credit are, so far, in control of the developing situation. Now clearly, the matter of transcendent importance is to recognise, locate, and expose this occult would - be World Board of Directors.
This is the task undertaken by Major Douglas in The Brief for the Prosecution, which is an examination of the major political events, between 1918 and 1939 culminating in the Second World War.
This examination leads directly to a group of international Zionist Jews, who control the Palestine Economic Corporation and who were the force behind the New Deal in the U.S.A.; who are behind cartelisation, rationalisation, and P.E.P. Planning in Great Britain, and who were the promoters of State Socialism in Germany.
This fact is concealed as well as possible by raising the cry of "anti-Semitism"
whenever an attempt is made to expose it.
Nevertheless, it is an easily ascertained fact that world finance is centralised, and that being so, some group must be at the head of it.
If this clue is followed, it is just as easily ascertained that that group is composed predominantly of Zionist Jews.
Now the balance of probability is obviously in favour of the theory that in any case the Jewish race, which takes such pains to preserve its identity, would have a racial (as equivalent to national) policy. But quite apart from such theorizing, it can be seen that Jews are associated with the promotion of international authorities to a degree out of all proportion to their relative population in the world.
Those are the facts; and as facts, they are just as neutral as the facts of German aggression. and they have to be dealt with by methods equally appropriate and effective.
If you want to get to Berlin, you have to fight the Germans; if you want to break the credit-monopoly, you have to fight the Jews who monopolise it.
"This, I think, exactly defines the task which society must face and solve, or perish. First, to attack and defeat the Money Power; then consider the reorganisation of the money system." (C. H. Douglas.)
The monopoly of credit is the instrument of the Jewish will-to-power, in the same way that Armed Forces were the instrument of the German will-to-power. The objective is the same in both cases; to disarm our adversaries.
This is the problem with which Social Credit is currently concerned; and the contemporary developments can be followed in the Social Credit journals. There is no Social Credit "scheme"; Social Credit is a policy, issuing in a strategy, and subject, therefore, all the time to development.
(12)
The immediate strategic necessity of overthrowing the Money Power obscures the genuine objective of Social Credit as a policy. Major Douglas defined that objective in the first chapter of his first book Economic Democracy; "It is suggested that the primary requisite is to obtain in the re-adjustment of the economic and political structure such control of initiative that by its exercise every individual can avail himself of the benefits of science and mechanism; that by their aid he is placed in such position of advantage, that in common with his fellow he can choose, with increasing freedom and complete independence, whether he will or will not assist in any project which may be placed before him."
A careful consideration of that objective will make clear that Social Credit cannot be any scheme or system. The real objective is to allow a free evolution of forms of association, allowing them to arise and develop from the freed initiative of individuals.
There can be no question, therefore, of introducing a set of fixed relationships by Act of Parliament.
The first necessity, as Douglas has recently emphasised, is a retreat from government - less government.
That is the essential first step to a freeing of individual initiative. It is a step which in the nature of things does not commend itself to any Government. And here, perhaps, is one of the most striking aspects of Social Credit.
The exponents of nearly every system of reform see themselves as rewarded by the fruits of office, as possessing a mandate to implement a policy.
Social Credit, on the other hand, proposes to free individual policies, to make the individual increasingly the master of his own fate. Appropriate Social Credit action, therefore, consists in forcing the Government to disgorge its powers.
The power of government, and the independence of individuals, are reciprocals; consequently, the lessening of the power of the Government is the increase of the power of the individual.
This general concept applies right through.
Taxation and dividends are reciprocals.
The first step to the distribution of the dividend is the reduction of taxation; or to put the matter slightly differently, taxation is a negative dividend.
Again, prices are a form of taxation; sales tax is a negative subsidy.
What we require, therefore, is that the negative dividend should pass through zero to the positive dividend; and that the power of government over individual should pass through zero to power of individuals over government.
Zero in this concept has no contemporary significance whatever.
The step -8 to - 7 is exactly equivalent to the step - 1 to 0, 0 to plus 1, and plus 7 to plus 8.
What is significant is the direction of the progression.
The mechanisms necessary to enhance the freedom of the individual will emerge just as surely as do those of totalitarianism, once a course is set towards the Social Credit Objective.
The idea of the compensated price would occur to any person competent in the technique of finance, if he wanted to secure the results it is designed to achieve, just as ingenious forms of taxation occur to those who are concerned to concentrate economic power.
From the beginning of the industrial era, until the outbreak of the 1914 war, mankind was moving towards a Social Credit Society. Savings, investment, and inheritance were mechanisms which were providing numbers of individuals with independence; given time, and the free play of natural social forces, and those benefits would have diffused.
A man, starting from nothing, might by his industry save,. and leave to his children a house and a small income. Those things represented a start for his children, who might by their own industry add to the inheritance.
The physical basis of such an inheritance was growing all the time.
Social Credit simply generalises the idea of private inheritance. It substitutes a conscious objective and ordered progress towards it for a blind one and haphazard progress. It recognises that the popular demand for the socialisation of industry is genuine, just, and sincere, but mistaken.
What is truly wanted is the socialisation of the product of industry.
Not "public control" of the administration of industry, but consumer control of the program of production.
The cry for "social security" springs from a desire for the dividend, not from a desire for a network of "controls." They ask for bread, but are given stones.
In 1914, there emerged into the open a conscious policy, the antithesis of Social Credit. Its weapons are perversion and inversion, lies, corruption, and destruction: "Daemon est deus inversus."
Instead of inheritance, confiscation; instead of a dividend, confiscatory taxation; instead of falling prices, inflation and sales tax; instead of the diffusion of property, dispossession; instead of the flowering of individuality, the age of the Common Man - the depersonalised statistical unit, the faceless numbered pawn manipulated on the chessboard of Power Politics . . .
We are going backwards, losing the achievements of civilisation, smudging out all differentiation, reverting to the barbarism of group psychology. Class hatred, tribal war - cries, tin houses, rationed food, mass-produced 'culture', perverted language, utterly corrupt politicians, austerity, utility, shoddy; gadgets, utility gadgets, substitute gadgets; "we must produce more . . . full employmnent . . . famine . . . controls . . . riots in India . . . a train was blown up in Palestine today" . . . Progress . . . "
The core of the pre-war system was 'the private income -the possession of adequate purchasing-power not subject either to governmental interference, nor terminable by loss of employment.
'Private incomes' were decreasing rapidly in number, but were still considerable. The fundamental object of the so-called New Orders is the abolition of all purchasing-power which is not granted 'upon terms', and revocable at any time, thus making 'employment controlled by international cartels, a world government. (C. H. Douglas.)
Social Credit as a policy is the only hope left to us.
Now, that does not mean that there is no hope unless Parliament passes an Act to institute a "funny money scheme." It means simply that we must recognise that we are being subjected to an absolutely fatal policy, and that we must oppose, halt, and reverse it.
Every victory of the people against the Government is a step towards rectification. But steps taken in this sense, but with a conscious objective, are more effective steps.
There is a Social Credit strategy - a properly designed series of steps. Social Credit does not envisage any "idea" of what the world should look like, or even of what it might look like. It dreams of no Utopia.
It looks to the unfolding of events resulting from the play of free social forces, like the unfolding of a game from the freewill of individual players - freewill operating within the framework of legitimate rules, freewill restrained by voluntary discipline and selfdiscipline, and supported by the voluntary acceptance of an ethic.
Nothing like that can come from legislation. It can come only from the incarnation of the necessary spirit in "amateur" organisations, and what C. S. Lewis calls the "good infection" of other bodies.
Governments today are almost infinitely evil; at all events, they contact infinite evil;
they are robbers, liars. and hypocrites.
They are corrupted by power; and the solution is, to withdraw that power back to the individual, to de-concentrate it.
The only safe exercise of power is by the individual over himself, not over others.
We call that power, at home in the individual, individual initiative.
Essential Social Credit action is individual initiative. And where that initiative is exercised with that of others, in pursuance of a strategy, there is an increment of association.
That is why there is a Social Credit Movement, concerned with a single strategy to gain a common objective for the genuine benefit of all men.
There is no hope in a change of government. A new government inherits the excessive power of its predecessor, and in accordance with Lord Acton's law, is corrupted by that power.
What is essential is a change in the distribution of power as between Government and citizens. Such a change will not be initiated by the Government; it must, therefore, be initiated by the citizens.
We have not got democracy; we can only get it by being democratic - by limiting government.
The necessary reform must begin in individuals as such.
Every individual who makes the effort necessary to understand Social Credit brings Social Credit nearer. The spread of the correct conception of genuine democracy will make it progressively more impossible for the present totalitarianism to continue a situation which will bring its own mechanisms for reform into being.
But against this must be set the time factor.
Unquestionably the would-be world dominators contemplate making their position impregnable, whatever the condition of public opinion, just as in Russia.
For the present, they rely on the careful confusion of public opinion, and on diverting into relatively harmless channels such public opinion as shows signs of awakening to the real situation.
Therefore to understanding must be allied action.

METAPHYSICS
(1)
Zeno brought to his problem two concepts, those of time and distance, and by cutting those concepts into unimaginably small pieces, 'proved' that motion was impossible. He might, in the same way, have applied to the measurement of length a wooden yard-stick, and then, by shaving the stick with a knife into splinters, so 'proved' that length is impossible.
There is no essential difference in the way by which the official economist 'refutes' the analysis demonstrating how the gap between purchasing-power and prices arises.
Zeno in his argument omitted the one significant feature motion - from his premises, and consequently it was absent from his conclusion. The economist subdivides a flow into static stages; he omits the rate. He assumes that a payment made to a worker remains in the worker's hands until the item part of whose cost it represents is ready for sale.
But there is a deeper resemblance, which is merely exemplified in the official economist. It lies in the notion that because you can, within the limits of your imagination, do anything you like with concepts, you can, thereby, do anything you like with Reality. You can, and it has been done, imagine all kinds of "possible worlds"; but so far as we are concerned, only one of those worlds has found expression, and forms one aspect of what we know as Reality.
Zeno with his eyes open and for the sake of argument took a 'possible' world as real - a world in which time and distance were significantly infinitely divisible. In that sort of world Archilles never would overtake the tortoise. And similarly, in the economists' conceptual world, Utopia would be actualised.
The scientific method is properly the technique of "restoring or cultivating a just and legitimate familiarity between the mind [concepts] and things."
In Bacon's words, "It is the setting of Achilles to race against the tortoise". It is the genuine proof of the concepts employed.
Now, probably the greatest fallacy of our times is the notion that Reason in itself provides a proof; that because an argument is logical, its conclusion has any concrete embodiment. It is not necessarily, or even probably, so:
"The Reason, like a slide-rule, is incapable of furnishing anything more than the logical sum of the data provided. It is pure instrument, and can prove nothing." (Douglas.)
Reason is specially active in the construction of Utopias; and the most devastating demonstration of its nature lies in the fact that every Utopia we hear of differs from each of the others in significant particulars.
Ely Culbertson adapts the game of Contract Bridge to produce a statistically invincible Police Force; H. G. Wells solves all by Science; and the 'British' Socialists find now that a Super-Planner is required to reconcile the ambitions of varied segments of the governing bureaucracy each to further its own plan.
As Zeno left motion out of the data, so the Planners ignore the organic: Life, the Living, and in particular, Human Nature - the thing-in-itself that produces the diversity in plans.
The proof that this is so is not verbal; it is the experience we suffer of Planning. Planning assumes-it must assume-that the number of factors involved is sufficiently small to allow the Intellect to cope with them, or else that it can select sufficient factors for its purpose.
The only possible proof of this hypothesis has failed by the pragmatic test; and the cost of the failure has been the sacrifice of literally millions of human lives, through famine and concentration camp, without reckoning with the culmination in war.
Major Douglas has specifically described Social Credit as "the policy of a philosophy."
Since then he has emphasised time and time again that any and every policy is the outcome of some particular philosophy.
In particular, Socialism. Socialism as we know it from the practice of Soviet Russia, the Corporate State of Italy under Mussolini, the National Socialism of Germany particularly under Hitler, and the developing Socialism in Great Britain particularly under the Attlee Administration is a policy; the outcome of a philosophy.
The philosophy in question has innumerable particular expressions, but in principle they all derive from the idea that the Intellect, or Reason, is not only the supreme Power in the universe, but that it is supreme as manifested in Man.
This view of things received a great strengthening from the successes of modern science for a time. But the scientific method is only a tool; it is only a method of dealing with concepts: it is only, in fact, a refinement of Zeno's argument.
In the last few years this disconcerting truth has emerged very plainly.
The pursuit of Zeno's problem leads to the most beautiful development of mathematical theory; but it is found in the end that the elaboration is an elaboration of the relations between concepts - 'pure" mathematics. And so it is with science.
The enormous discoveries tail out into entirely abstract concepts. Matter quite literally disappears, and God reappears as a super-mathematician with the world as his equations.
What science has really discovered is the necessary consequences of the concepts employed.
It is necessary here to guard against misunderstanding.
The scientific method leads to an enormous increase in knowledge about Reality.
The point is this: the knowledge comes from Reality, and not from science as such. Science discovers, it does not create. So long as we seek information about the properties and behavior of matter, it supplies the answers if the right questions are asked. But exclude matter from the enquiry, and it returns the answer "nothing there," just as, by excluding motion, Zeno proved that motion was impossible.
And since science excludes the concept of creative activity, creative activity is absent from the logical sum of its conclusions. It is, of course, impossible to explore the vast field referred to here; the object is merely to identify it, to name it as the philosophy behind Socialism.
Its name, indeed is legion, and it has many aspects. But what we refer to is that common body of belief underlying what we variously call Materialism, Collectivism, Pantheism, according to the manifestation.
And so we return to the original question, 'What is Social Credit?
(2)
The philosophy of which Social Credit is the policy is Indicated in the statement "Social Credit is practical Christianity. '
We can usefully distinguish in this context two aspects of Christianity. There is the aspect which gives rise to Christian theology; and the aspect which embodies certain ethical and metaphysical values.
It is with the latter that Social Credit is specially concerned. Civilisation might be defined as the incarnation of ethical and metaphysical values in the institutions of society.
Now, C. S. Lewis, in his Abolition of Man, has pointed out that the values embodied in the great religions are not several, but one coherent system. He uses the Chinese word 'Tao' to denote this system.
Aldous Huxley The Perennial Philosophy and Lin Yutang The Wisdom of China and India have compiled anthologies from the scriptures of different religious systems which demonstrate this truth very clearly.
Social Credit is the practical endeavour to transform the institutions of society in such a way that the transcendental values of the Tao may find incarnation in them. A further generalisation of the lessons of the scriptures of the great religions is that such an incarnation is dependent on the individual, and is manifested through individual initiative.
The very purpose of Social Credit as a system is to free individual initiative by placing the benefits of association directly at the service of individual initiative. The objective of Social Credit is to enable the individual to achieve the maximum differentiation possible.
In earlier times this objective to some extent implied the renunciation of certain material values, at least for the majority, because it implied a renunciation of the whole time business of getting a living on anything but a relatively low standard.
With the rise of modern power-production the necessity for this renunciation has diminished progressively until now, as we have seen, there is a material basis for an absolutely unprecedented freedom of individual initiative for an increasing majority of men.
On the other hand, it cannot be denied that such a freedom, coming suddenly, would in all probability prove disastrous.
The possibility of such a freedom is conditioned not only by material facts, but by the adequate incarnation of metaphysical values.
For Europe, for Western Civilisation, those values are embodied in Christianity.
In Europe, Christianity is a prerequisite for Social Credit.
And equally Social Credit is a necessity for Christianity.
Social Credit is the policy necessary in the circumstances resulting from modern industrial productivity. To put the matter in a more general way, the specific character of Social Credit is the result of the specific character of the modern world; but the metaphysical pre-suppositions of Social Credit are those of the Tao, just as Christianity is a specific differentiation of the Tao on the theological plane, so Social Credit technique is a specific differentiation on the material plane.
The Tao is the transcendental Good. But there is also the transcendental Evil, with the same possibilities of incarnation.
Evil is the system of false values, false, because their incarnation leads to practical evil.
Or, Evil is the denial of spiritual values; but such a denial is, of course, a judgment on the metaphysical plane.
The practical outcome of that judgment - its incarnation - is the deliberate emphasis on Materialism.
The specific character of the contemporary world, more particularly on the material plane, is to a large extent determined by this Materialism. The particular transformation of the world of the recent past into the world of the present is chiefly the outcome of practical Materialism, more particularly of Technology which has its origin in modern Science.
That science, as we have seen, excluded all considerations except those of a material order, a perfectly legitimate procedure so long as the exclusion was not of a metaphysical character, so long as it did not involve a metaphysical judgment.
But such a judgment was increasingly made, and the making of the judgment, being of a metaphysical order, the denial of spiritual values resulted in metaphysical consequences.
To the extent that the modern world incarnates metaphysical Materialism, it incarnates Evil. It is not surprising that hitherto agnostic observers have been increasingly impressed with the reality of Evil, with a consequent deduction of the existence of transcendental Good (cf. C. E. M. Joad: God and Evil).
This character of the contemporary world inevitably involves a change in the application of Social Credit policy.
The world is retreating from Christianity, and correspondingly Social Credit strategy is retreating from the most highly differentiated form of that policy. It is retreating from specific technique, back to considerations of a more purely political character based on the dichotomy of Good and Evil.
The retreat of the world from Christian civilisation is going back to an incident in the life of Christ.
Metaphysical values must have personal exponents to be effective in this world: the conflict of values finds its expression in the conflict of men. Christ found it necessary to drive the money - changers from the Temple, and that is precisely the contemporary necessity; it is also the immediate aspect of Social Credit policy.
Those who are interested can derive an immense insight into the immediate and metaphysical character of the present situation from the modern fairy-tale, That Hideous Strength, by C. S. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis symbolises the contemporary conflict in its metaphysical and its concrete personal phases. It is significant that he links his exponents of modern scientific materialism with that earlier group which encompassed the crucifixion of Christ.
The ultimate meaning of Social Credit, then, is inseparably connected with
the ultimate meaning of the conflict of Good and Evil.
It derives from metaphysical Reality, and issues in the effective policies of this world. Social Credit is a special case of that more general Credit, that Faith which is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

In short, I'd love to get info on how to change from debt based to Social Credit.

Also, is social credit as simple as issuing a certain amount of currency to each household?

Could Social Credit replace social security? ie give everyone a certain amount, which puts money in circulation, and is enough for basic survival, and allow each individual decide how much more they wish to earn on top of that?

If that is a correct understanding of the system, then is it also a limited system?

Each houshold get say 1000 per month, but what would be the possible income per household on average? Did anyone work that out?

I have so many questions on this, but I do think it is an idea with possibilities.
>>

Thank you for your online explanations, and the links. However, much of them, although learned are extemely detaied and do not offer a concise summary.

Perhaps you can let me know any sources that answer my questions.

warm regards

Cathal Spelman