Many among our Social Credit apostles know our great apostle of Poland, Dr. Szczesny Górski, who came to our Congress in Canada last September. On the occasion of this Congress, Mr. Wieslaw Magiera, editor of the Toronto Polish-language weekly "Glos Polski" (The Polish Voice) interviewed Dr. Górski, and published this interview in his publication. Here are excerpts from this interview (translated into English by Jacek Morawa); the subtitles are from us:
Dr. Szczesny Górski, a physicist and physiologist, presently works at the Medical Academy in Poznan, Poland. For a few years, he has been engaged in explaining and propagating a social and economical order based on the principles of Social Credit.
W. Magiera: What has made you interested in the economy, if you are a specialist in completely different fields of science? S. Górski: It happened quite by accident. My aunt, Dr. Anna Poray-Wybranowska, came once to Poland from Canada, and she brought some publications about Social Credit along. For a long time, I have been interested only in problems or issues which may be considered as central or the most important. Secondary matters were meaningless to me. This might be illustrated by the example of Saint Christopher: he was looking for the greatest Master whom he wanted to serve. At the beginning, he found an army commander, then a king, and finally, he found out that God was the greatest Lord he was looking for. He looked for what was the most important.
On the basis of the information from the first publications regarding Social Credit available to me, I came to the conclusion that they were touching matters of first-rate importance for the economy, matters dealing with the financial life of a country and the creating of money. I felt that it was the main economical problem of my country. That was the reason why I started to study economics and the doctrine of Social Credit. It was caused by the central and basic importance of the problem.
W.M.: You became an interpreter of books about Social Credit, starting from the fundamental work of Clifford Hugh Douglas, through works of Australian economist Barclay-Smith, up to the new Polish version of "In This Age of Plenty" by Louis Even. What is your attitude to your new interest? Is it going to remain as a hobby, or are you planning to use it for concrete purposes? Are you going to become an "apostle" of Social Credit in Poland?
S.G.: For me, it is a kind of social volunteer work. All through my life, I was engaged in many different social actions. During the years of Communism, they were ecological issues actively acted against the development of nuclear power stations in Poland. Then there was "Solidarity", and now I'm involved in the philosophy of Social Credit. Deep in my heart, I feel that this subject is of incredible importance, and I have devoted the last five years of my life to it.
W.M.: Could you, in the simplest words, describe the basic principles of the Social Credit doctrine?
S.G.: There are three pillars or principles of Social Credit: the right to create interest-free money, the social dividend based on technological progress, and the compensated discount.
For the first pillar, the main point is the creating of interest-free money only by the central bank, and this should be guaranteed by the Constitution. This guarantee is given to the Bank of Canada in the Canadian Constitution.
For the second pillar, the social dividend comes from the fact that every producer uses the real credit of society, and from that capital, he is obliged to pay a dividend from his profits to the owner of the real capital, which is society.
And for the third pillar, the compensated discount will eventually equalize the gap between the purchasing power and the value of goods in such a way that society would be able to buy all of the production which it has made.
All of the three pillars of Social Credit are equally important, if applying this doctrine should end with success. I will compare this situation to a tripod that is stable when its three legs are equal. If these three "pillars" are present, the economy will be strong and stabilized. If, for example, we introduced only interest-free money that was created exclusively by the central bank, but without any dividends and no compensated discount, our situation would be unstable, and could turn into ruin.
A great discovery of Clifford H. Douglas. was that "the cost of the production of goods is equal to the cost of the consumption of goods." Let's illustrate this statement: During the year, goods were produced for 100 units of value, but the consumption was less, and equal to only 70 units. According to Douglas' theory, it is necessary to decrease the prices of these finished goods in like proportion 70/100. The loss for producers and traders should be compensated by a national central bank. The money should come, not from taxes, but from newly created financial credit which would reflect the surplus real credit over consumption. This is the proposition of a compensated discount.
Since I started my study of economics, I have noticed a surprising thing: more and more economists, even former strong opponents of the Social Credit doctrine, gradually accepted Douglas' propositions as a solution to the present economic system. For example, Milton Friedman, an American monetarist winner of the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976, stated that it was very necessary to put additional money into the economy as a dividend. Prof. Maurice Allais from Paris, a laureate of the Nobel Prize in 1988, for a long time said that only a central bank has a right to create money. So, Prof. Allais supports the first "pillar" of Social Credit, which was not long ago considered by economists as something outrageous.
Today, there are new propositions for running the economy which, in a surprising way, are similar to the old ideas of Clifford Hugh Douglas. Since the early 50's, Robert M. Solow (Nobel prize-winner in 1987) has been saying that not financial credit but technology is vital for economical progress for a country.
Another Nobel prize-winner, Wasilly Leontief, wrote:
"Adam and Eve enjoyed, before they were expelled from Paradise, a high standard of living without working. After their expulsion, they and their successors were condemned to eke out a miserable existence, working from dawn to dust. The history of technological progress over the past 200 years is essentially the story of the human species working its way slowly and steadily back into Paradise. What would happen, however, if we suddenly found ourselves in it? With all the goods and services provided without work, no one would be gainfully employed. Being unemployed means receiving no wages. As a result, until appropriate new income policies were formulated to fit the changed technological conditions, everyone would starve in Paradise."
So, if we wish to approach a technological paradise, all the economy should be thought over to find a right solution for humanity and for the world.
Some people think that the idea of a distribution of a dividend is immoral, and that it will lead to laziness and demoralization. This is not true. Leontief says that, at present, we are at the stage of our technological life where the production is clogging itself because of the impossibility to buy all the goods with our salaries, and we are forced to buy more and more goods through loans made against future wages. We are becoming slaves of future work which will allow us to pay our present debts.
W.M.: Could we stop for a while at the subject of "demoralization of society by the dividends?" Why is this allegation not true?
S.G.: People who do not know or do not understand the Social Credit doctrine, and who hear about dividends as being money that is given to the citizens for "nothing", often confuse the Social Credit idea with discredited socialism, or even Communism.
Let's start from the question: Should people receive dividends or not? From all of what was said before, everybody should receive them, because what is the dividend, if not the right to use the increment of real capital. It is thanks only to social capital that increment has been created, so there is no other way to use and enjoy that increment except, by giving the dividend to people as shareholders of social wealth. This is pure social justice.
Here we could end analyzing this problem. To wonder if receiving something without work has any aspect of demoralization is out of the question. According to ethical and moral principles, if someone has the right to receive something, nobody is eligible to decide what that man is going to do with it. This is his private business on how he will use his dividend, on good or on bad.
Some critics of Social Credit say that the only motivation people will have to work is the reward of payment. And they say that easier work should pay less, and difficult work should pay more. Will the dividend cause common laziness among people with little ambition?
W.M.: We must note that the dividend doesn't eliminate the reward for work at all. For an example, let's take two men. One will get only the dividend from the increment of real capital, and the other will get the dividend and the reward for his work. Then the second one will have more purchasing power than the first one.
S.G.: I would like to focus our attention on a very important thing "work". What does this word mean? It can be understood in two different ways. One, as doing something that people get paid for, and the other, as doing something which does not pay. (...) But, is either one better than the other? Let's say that the work that we get paid for is called "employment", and the work which is not paid be called a "hobby", or "leisure". Now everything is clear; if the dividend really eliminates the necessity of employment, I can quit my work for money, and lead a modest life, and I can devote my time to my children, for example. Some individuals could spend their time on countless socially positive things, and nobody could say that it is not work. Maybe that kind of work is more important than paid employment, especially when someone participates in the production of cheap and bad things, and then persuades others to buy that garbage.
The dividend will have the tendency to reduce employment in a large proportion, because many people, especially women (bringing up children) will resign from employment. Now we have a full and clear picture; the dividend does not reduce unpaid work ("hobby"), but it does reduce employment. A dividend supports the unpaid work.
Let's imagine an individual who has some talents and skills, but who cannot find a job where he could use them. If there was not a necessity for working for a living, that fellow could use them, and even upgrade them. I'm sure that there is no danger of demoralization because of the dividend. Some people will waste the dividend, but usually they belong to a social margin. They always have been, are, and will be. We will not be able to change that. But I think it isn't right that the rules and principles of the whole of society be based on the social margin. These principles should be built on the base of a healthy society. For healthy and sane individuals, doing nothing is acceptable to a degree, and usually for a short period of time. Then they will organize their time in a personal way. I don't think that there would be a danger of destabilization and degradation for society.
W.M.: The Social Credit dividend could be compared with "welfare". Welfare recipients receive money from taxes, but a dividend is a kind of distribution of the increment of the common wealth of the nation. Every citizen should receive the dividend unconditionally, and any person who cannot find work in a field that he has skills and talents for, could have a modest life, but could do things he likes to do. And in such a way, his talents or skills could have a better chance to be realized, than to work like a robot and hate a job he has to do for a living.
S.G.: Here you are. You have touched a very delicate, and also, a very important matter. There is a certain psychological resistance against the social dividend. The opposition comes from not understanding the differences between "welfare" and the dividend. Most people consider these two subjects as the same in regards to being a source of money. And here a protest arises.
People think that individuals who receive a dividend live on their shoulders because of taxes. If the new created money coming on the market is interest free, and there was no necessity of borrowing it at interest, the taxes would disappear, or at least the greater portion of them. "Welfare" would no longer exist as a mercy of society, and it would not be a burden on the taxpayers' shoulders.
The dividend should be considered as something that every member of society should receive, and have an unconditional right to it as a participant in the technological progress of the country and in the usage of its natural resources. The dividend recipient would have his basic needs fulfilled, and he would accomplish his personal growth as a human being. So, we can see the role of the dividend from a completely different perspective.
The Social Credit idea is in harmony with the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, which says that the earth was given to all peoples in the world for a common and good use. There should be no fear that the dividend distribution would be in the hands of bureaucrats or clerks, because the dividends could be calculated by computer. It would not be someone's mercy, but the pure result of the economy of the country.
Additionally, the volume of the dividend would depend on the performance of the economy, so that factor alone would mobilize everyone to do more efficient work. The dividend itself doesn't remove the criticism in full that one would take advantage of someone else's work.
The clear understanding will be achieved only in connection to newly created interest- free national credit. That doesn't mean the complete elimination of interest from some credits (for example, the interest on someone's savings), but the national credit must be free of interest. According to my research, the Social Credit doctrine makes sense only when the three factors ("pillars") are met and work together in consonance.
W.M.: I'd like to ask you about your impression of an event that we took part in together. I mean the annual Congress of the Institute for Social Justice of Louis Even in Rougemont, near Montreal.
S.G.: I'm still under the impression of that three-day Congress. It was great! I'm happy I could meet such wonderful people who clearly understand the present financial problems of the world, and who teach people, and make them aware of what is going on in the economy. These people have practically checked all aspects of the Social Credit doctrine, and have decided to support it as a solution for the nations of the world.
They are very religious, and I haven't noticed any signs of fanaticism. That kind of religiousness is very deep, but, at the same time, very practical. When I sometimes see individuals who expose their religious belief in some sort of sentimental, pathetic, or mawkish behaviour, I immediately become suspicious, because of the danger of fanaticism. It doesn't take place in this case.
For me personally, if I'm going to give my heart and commitment to a matter or an idea, I have to be fully convinced that all is right, and that there is nothing wrong in it. My mind must analyze all pro's and con's before I start to be involved in any action. The people at the Congress gained my trust and support. They are open to others, nice, friendly, and joyful. They are like a great family. And among them, I really felt that I belonged to this family.
W.M.: Now coming to the subject of a family. The "Social Crediters", or rather, the Pilgrims of Saint Michael, come to their beautiful center in Rougemont with whole families. All of them wear white berets. Don't you think an outside observer could have the impression that there are meetings and ceremonies of a religious sect?
S.G.: I'm prone to agree that one could have a similar impression who observes them from the outside. In Poland, we have a Radio Maria Family. The members have their own signs, and many outsiders state that it is a kind of religious sect. The definition of a sect is usually a small group of people who separate from a greater doctrine. I must state that the Radio Maria Family and the Pilgrims of Saint Michael are not the case. These people live according to the Gospel and principles of the Catholic Church, and they wish that every individual considering himself as a Christian and a Catholic was like them.
W.M.: The Pilgrims of Saint Michael have always emphasized that the philosophy of Social Credit remains in accordance with Catholic social science, with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and with the Pope. By the way, there is a chapel in the Rougemont center where Catholic priests celebrate Holy Mass.
S.G.: For those people, the principles of Christianity are superior. The greatest of these is love, the real foundation of the whole of Christianity. In the name of love for their neighbour, both the Radio Maria Family and the Pilgrims of Saint Michael are Christian knights who do not focus their activity on single victims, but on the root of sin. Their goal is to defend society from an evil economic system, and they attack the structure of sin, about which John Paul II said in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of the Truth). The Pope, writing about sin, connected it to the present financial systems and international debts of countries of the world.
The Radio Maria Family and the Pilgrims of Saint Michael are two mighty armies who have swords in their signs, who are fighting for humanity against evil. Radio Maria defends Poland and the Polish society, whereas the Pilgrims of Saint Michael defend the whole world! I support them, and I want to cooperate with them.
The Pilgrims of Saint Michael are contemporary knights who fight with words and love only. They fight by means of education, which is represented by an open book on their beret and flag. Knowledge is the best weapon in their hands. Radio Maria fights by means of radio waves, daily news, books, and the Institute of National Education, where I have had the honour of being a lecturer. By all of these means, we have to fight, and we must not give up. We fight for our neighbour, for all of humanity, and for our common good home. The sword is only a symbol of our being persistent in our task.
W.M.: I thank you very much.