The first idea that comes to the mind of too many people living in Canada, when they hear the words Social Credit, is the idea of a political party.
- Oh! yes, they will say, I know. Social Credit, that small group from the West in a corner of the House of Commons. Or that new name for a government, when people are tired of the old parties, as in Alberta, or this year in British Columbia. I am not interested. I am a Liberal... or a Conservative... or, maybe, a C.C.F.... or simply, I don't bother about political parties; they are all the same, taxing us and laughing at us when in power.
But no. Social Credit is not a party, although there may be a party by that name. Social Credit is no more a party than Christianity is a party, even if, in some countries you find political parties with such names as Christian Democrats, Christian Party, Christian Centre, etc.
A political party exists purposely to seek power, to be or strive to be the group that rules the country. Social Credit works in the very opposite way. Social Credit will set the individual free; it will place the individual in a situation where he can himself be the ruler of his own life. Social Credit will thus distribute power to individuals -- not the power to boss their neighbours, but the power to order the goods they want from the potential production of their country.
The slogan Economic Security and Freedom was coined by Social Crediters. Politicians of various colours have found it so appealing, that they affix it to party programs where you will look in vain for measures of security not encroaching upon your liberty.
But Social Crediters mean what the words say, even the conjunction and carries its weight: Economic Security AND Freedom – not one at the expense of the other.
Social Credit is not economic security and freedom for an abstraction, for an organization, for a collectivity, but economic security and freedom for every individual; in Canada, for every Canadian citizen, from the cradle to the grave.
Economic security is the assurance of "daily bread", of at least the necessary goods to maintain the health of the individual. This guarantee of daily bread means the end of worry for the morrow.
To be identified with freedom, this type of security must be unconditional, guaranteed as a birthright, as sacred and protected by law as is the very life of the individual.
Economic security on terms, at the expense of personal freedom, would not be Social Credit. It would not meet the aspirations of man. There is a minimum of economic security in jail, but no freedom; and were it not for locked doors and high walls, the internees would promptly sacrifice that economic security for freedom.
Economic security involving irritating and humiliating inquiries, implying that the individual is a pauper to be supported by the community, is degrading. It hurts the dignity of the human being. Such methods are much in vogue in the welfare State now taking shape in our Western world; but they are NOT the methods of Social Credit.
But, if economic security without freedom impairs the integrity of the individual, then, conversely, freedom without economic security means little, if anything at all.
Are you really free, when you have to choose between slavery and starvation? Between accepting conditions imposed upon you or going without a living?
In our modern world, no one individual produces, by himself, all the things necessary for his sustenance and that of his dependents. A large two thirds of the population have not even a modest piece of land, nor any means of production of their own. In our day everybody depends, at least in part, upon what is produced by others. Excluding the case of robbery, this general produce is acquired by purchase. And to purchase, one must have money.
Money has become a licence to live. And unless you have money, with a sufficient purchasing power to procure at least the bare necessities of life, you are not free. You will submit to almost any terms to obtain a minimum of goods, or of claims on goods. (Money is a claim on goods.)
The man who works and gets wages in return for his labour, obtains money. But he is not free for all that. He may be free to do what he likes with his money; but during the time he works to get it, he is not free; he has to accept conditions which he may either like or hate.
Take Joe Smith, of whom there are more than five millions in Canada. He has to leave his family every working day, often at undue hours, in spite of pressing circumstances that might urge him to remain at home. Snatching his lunch box, he runs to get into some crowded bus or tram that will discharge him at the door of some plant, where he will punch at the clock and become the tool of his employer, Ready to do anything, for any program of production, whether it be to feed or kill, to clothe or destroy.
Do you think Joe Smith is a free man? Certainly not between those walls. And see how he hastens out as soon as the clock strikes the end of the day's slavery. He would not dash out of a prison more hurriedly.
But Joe Smith has no other source of income. Only the income of servitude. And when pay-day comes, even the free use of the full income of his servitude is refused to him. The government will have taken the first bite. The money taken from his envelope by the government is used by the government, not by Joe Smith.
Economic security? Hardly. As meagre as what remains in his envelope when he receives it, and contingent upon the disheartening price labels attached to the goods he has to buy.
But freedom? Surely not.
Who then has freedom, and to what degree? - The man whose income is not thus tied to the conscription of his time and energies. The man who can do what pleases him and yet be sure of his income. He has freedom, to a degree proportionate to the amount of such free money.
Income of that description is a dividend. If wages is the money of servitude, dividend is the money of freedom.
And because Social Credit means economic security AND freedom, Social Credit guarantees economic security by the money of freedom, by the assurance of that form of income called dividend.
A dividend to each individual, because Social Credit economic security, with freedom, is intended for each and every one.
A dividend to Joe Smith, besides his wages, when he works. But a dividend to Joe Smith, too, when he is not employed. His wages are conditioned upon his employment, but his dividend is not. And a dividend to Mr. Smith's wife; and to each of the little Smiths at home.
The Social Credit dividend is not based on taxation. Taxation is the reverse of a dividend. Taxation is taking from the individual. Dividend is giving to the individual. The same economic philosophy cannot reconcile the two.
Social Credit wants neither robbery nor servitude. Taxation is the coin of robbery: it robs Peter to pay Paul. Any looter can practice that art. The welfare State does. But Social Credit does not.
The dividend of Social Credit is based on production - actual and potential. It would stimulate production; taxation does the contrary: ask business men, ask the Western farmer.
Whatever way you take it, taxation increases the cost of living; the consumer gets less.
Taxes paid by the consumer lowers his purchasing power: you cannot buy a pin with the money taken away from you in taxes.
Taxes paid by the producer are transferred by him into the price of his products; and when prices are higher, the buyer obtain less.
A dividend does none of these things. It does the contrary. The dividend to all members of the family increases the purchasing power of the family. And no producer has to pay the Social Credit dividend; it is distributed to every one, without passing through the channels of industry; it affects no price.
Concerning the dividend to all, as proposed by the Social Credit concept of finance, you will often read about it in this paper. Even the present issue carries an article (page 4), explaining briefly why every individual is entitled to a dividend.
Subscribe