the "populists" v. the "greenbackers"
From: Bill Ryan (william_b_ryan_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/11/04
- Next message: Fabrizio J. Bonsignore: "Masterminds"
- Previous message: Paul: "Re: What the Foreign Invaders Cost America"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 11 Nov 2004 09:28:49 -0800
Thank you for this, Joe. It is a valuable
contribution to my understanding of Douglas and his
thought. This particular quotation might be
considered in conjunction with the quotations
regarding "usury" contributed earlier by Wally
Klinck, which I've appended below. Incidentally, do
we have an update on Wally's condition?
Social Credit historically is very much in
continuation of the 19th Century American "Populist"
movement--that influenced thought in the English-
speaking world. The Populists were in theoretical
conflict with the "Greenbackers," though both
movements "fused" in backing the presidential
candidacy of William Jennings Bryan's first campaign
in 1896 against the Republicans.
The Populists were for checks and balances. They
advocated the regulation of "natural monopolies" like
utilities and banking. Government is itself a
natural monopoly that should be checked. They
opposed in general the centralization of power in
government or any organization. They strongly
opposed the Greenbacker program of having government
"print" and "spend" money into circulation in lieu of
taxation. The necessity to tax is a check on
government the Greenbackers would have eliminated.
>From the Populist perspective, governments should tax
rather than borrow from banks or print their own
money for spending, except in times of emergency like
war where the national survival is at stake. Hence,
the Populists typically advocated "balanced"
government budgets, as we later saw in the Social
Credit administrations in Alberta and British
Columbia. Governments were to be permitted to spend
only what they could tax with the consent of the
governed. One remaining legacy of the Populist era is
that not paying taxes is not a crime anywhere in the
United States. (But tax fraud is of course a crime.)
The government as creditor has civil rather than
criminal remedies to enforce collection, as has any
creditor.
In respect to banks specifically, they were to be
regulated and de-centralized. The Populist movement
started in Texas. Until recently, banks in Texas
were required to be locally owned. Branch banking
was not allowed. Banks were not permitted to have
even drive in windows that were not attached to the
main building through a common roof. A drive in
window not connected by a roof was considered an
illegal branch.
In contrast to the Greenbackers, the Populist
monetary program was "free coinage." The money
monopoly of banking would be broken by the free
coinage of silver, which was (and is) plentiful in
comparison to gold. Anyone with silver or could get
it (much remains in the ground waiting to be mined
throughout the West) would have the right to take it
to the government mint and have it "coined" into
legal tender money at the legal rate, so many dollars
per troy ounce. Coining could be in actual coins or
silver certificates redeemable in silver on deposit
at the Treasury. The Treasury would take a small
percentage of the silver in credit to the government
as its "seigniorage" in payment for the service
rendered. Being legal tender, the banks would be
required to accept the legal tender money in payment
of debt, thus breaking their monopoly. The mining
companies would become a check on the banks, in the
matrix of checks and balances against concentrated
power.
Free coinage in my estimation would have worked and
precluded the Great Depression (1930-39) that
engulfed the industrialized world.
The Greenbacker program would have ushered in an era
of pure fascism on the North American continent,
whatever its good intentions.
Bill
----original message----
Subject: [socialcredit] Re: (Social Credit) Relevance
(and Douglas's Later Works)
Date: Friday, October 22, 2004 07:56:32 (-0700)
From: Joe Thomson
Hello Bill, and All,
There is a passage, number 159, in C H Douglas's
post-WW II book "The Development of World Dominion",
(found on page 128 in my copy), in which Douglas
states:-
"We should be prepared to agree that in technical
ability, and, in the narrow sense, moral integrity,
the upper administrative personnel of the Bank 'of
England' is equal, if not superior, to that of any
institution of its kind in the world. At least since
1920, its structure has been modelled on the German-
Jew cartel controlling Banks, each industry having
one or more Directors who have only to make a case to
get all the finance they need. Other mechanisms,
such as Nuffield Trusts, etc., mould science, art,
and thought.
"This being so, it is difficult to assess the
activities of various monetary reformers, and their
schools of thought, which agitate for 'the
restoration of money issue to the Government (or 'the
people') to spend money into circulation to keep
prices constant.
"We are not concerned at the moment with the
technical falsity of the objective; what we should
like to get at is the nature of the idea they have in
mind. If corruption, in the ordinary sense, is ruled
out (as it is), what do they think they can 'do' to
the Bank 'of England? Do they seriously think
Parliamentary mechanisms can control it?
"As things are, we consider that the demand, under
various names, for the further centralisation of
money-creation is the most dangerous activity extant.
And many monetary reformers, who appear to be more
concerned to damage private banking than to achieve
individual benefit, are doing their half-baked best
to assist.
"The one fact which becomes clearer daily is that the
value of the Parliamentary system depended almost
entirely on the fact that in the days of metal-
coinage systems, the central Government, whether it
was King or Prime Minister, had to get its finance
from individuals."
"The foundation of the Bank 'of England', the Whig
shop-window for Amsterdam and Frankfort, struck a
mortal blow, as it was intended to do, at the English
governmental system. To ''nationalise'' the Bank,
or to transfer its functions to the Treasury, would
be merely to put what little remains of the lady
inside the tiger."
July 28, 1945. (end of Douglas quote.)
Yet here we have today many "Social Crediters" in
various countries, some even organized as political
parties, calling for the very thing Douglas was
warning above against. Could we get a clear statement
just what Douglas envisioned throughout his works
when he called for 'de-centralised finance'?
Obviously, despite his reference to it above, he was
not advocating a return to a 'metal-coinage'. (I
seem to remember I've read somewhere, perhaps on the
old Topica list quite some time ago, someone writing
that one prominent Social Crediter possibly connected
to the Secretariat seemed to think there was some
merit in returning to the 'gold standard' ~ but
perhaps I'm mistaken. I can't see Douglas ever
advocating that!)
What would be helpful, I think, is to take what
Douglas has written above, where he has compressed a
great many thoughts into a very short series of
paragraphs, (many of which COULD, out of context, be
taken the wrong way), and explain just exactly what
he means in relation to the Social Credit financial
proposals.
Best wishes,
Joe
-
Douglas on "Usury"
from: Wally Klinck
129. The rapturous iconoclasm of certain groups of
"monetary reformers" to whom "usury", the sparring-
partner of the bankers "inflation", is the Scarlet
Woman of Babylon, has had the inevitable effect of
encouraging the financial authorities to abolish, for
practical purposes, the interest paid on undrawn
current balances, and deposit accounts. We do not say
they would not have done it anyway--the one
thoroughly sound feature of the banking system was
its dividends to shareholders and its interest
payments to depositors which jointly with the
insignificant mint issues, provided almost the only
fresh unattached purchasing-power. It is obviously
lost time to beg of our amateur currency experts to
consider whether they really mean what they ask which
is the replacement of unattached purchasing power by
loans. But they must not complain if we, and others
with us, regard them as propagandists for
totalitarianism.
The Social Crediter
(Oct. 27, 1945.)
-
89. We make no apology for recurring to the dangerous
disservice to genuine reform which is offered by many
"monetary reformers" who mix up certain ill-
understood "moral principles" with attempts at
practical design. Amongst the objects of their
attack, an easy first is "usury", which they would
define, if they troubled to define it, as the taking
or giving of interest upon a money loan.
It should be understood without much difficulty that,
in a predominantly gold coinage system, if Moses
Finkelstein lends one hundred gold sovereigns to John
Brown and demands back one hundred and twenty-five at
the end of a year, and continues that process, it is
only a question of time before Moses owns all the
gold. But if John Brown makes a deposit in his bank,
and the bank allows him three per cent interest (no,
Clarence, this is not a fairy story) there is no
available evidence to show that John Brown will come
into possession of the bank. What has happened is
that John has shared, to a minute extent, in the
profits of the bank, in return for providing a smoke
screen for the legend that banks only relend money
deposited with them. Now that this legend is
exploded, John has been informed that he is no longer
wanted, and his share ceases. In fact, he is charged
for keeping his account. That is what the usury
hunters have achieved.
But, you may say, the banks "have no right" to create
money to bribe John with a decimal fraction of it.
The only part of this sentence which makes sense is
the latter. John and others like him ought to have a
larger "interest" on their deposit (really a dividend
on the money created). The greatest nonsense, of
much, which has been written about the banking system
is that which attacks their dividends and interest
paid on deposits. These items are the only fresh
money, corresponding to the normally increased real
wealth, which comes into the hands of John Citizen.
The rest disappears into invisible reserves, such as
those colossal figures which Mr. Dalton will not
disclose, which, by the acquisition of the Bank "of
England", have now been made a free gift to Mr.
Barney Baruch, et al.
The Social Crediter
(Jan. 12, 1946.)
-
- Next message: Fabrizio J. Bonsignore: "Masterminds"
- Previous message: Paul: "Re: What the Foreign Invaders Cost America"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
