THE DOUGLAS CREDIT SYSTEM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21772, 11 October 1932, Page 12

THE DOUGLAS CREDIT SYSTEM

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — I read with interest a reply to my questionnaire presumably from the pen of E. Roberts. I say “ presumably ” advisedly. Be that as it may, it is to Mr E. Roberts, of Herbert, that I intend addressing myself. At the very outset I should say I would not have the temerity to cross pens with Mr Roberts were I not convinced that a letter recently published in your columns from his pen was 95 per cent, personal attack, 5 per cent, social credit policy, social credit value nil, Mr Roberts, iu his apparent eagerness to spread the gospel of Douglaeism, holds to the idea that the best, nay, the most intelligent, method of so doing is to have a “ slap at ” or a " bite from ” orthodox economists in the person of professors and lecturers. Those of your readers, therefore, who follow debates on social credits readily understand why intelligent- people, whose knowledge of economics covers a wide field, treat such methods with the contempt they deserve. Throughout the world there are countless thousands who are not unmindful of the sufferings of humanity, and, though they may be merely orthodox, that is no reason why they should be looked upon as being unutterably senseless, etc. Many there are who search eagerly around with sturdy old St. Paul and cry: "Who will deliver me from this body of death? ” Mr E. Roberts steps forward full of confidence in the knowledge he has supposedly obtained from the writings of Douglas, and says: "I am the man.’’ ‘

I am Sir Oracle. When I ope my Ups Let no dog bark.

Obedient to the call of his masters to "get into the press,” he regales us with quotations from “ Economic Democracy,” which he does not understand, and cheap American' ya-hoo quotations from twopenny pamphlets. And with what result? Simply that several of your readers are “ sick unto death ” of his verbosity, Let me quote from a sentence from a** letter containing a pretty jargon of words in your issue of September 15: "Major Douglas is not constantly foisting himself upon the public through sheer pig-headed-ness.” This, then, means that Major Douglas is passing on something “spurious,” something “not real.” It may have been an unfortunate frankness on Mr Roberts’s part so to write, but “that is his funeral.” This in itself should be sufficient reason why even I should ignore him, but I shall deal with his “ answers ” and show where again his knowledge of Douglasism is limited. I am told by Mr Roberts that he feels tempted to reply directly as I wish, with "No” to each question. It is a thousand pities he did not do so, thereby covering part of his ignorance. Major Douglas’s teachings, says he —with a glance at the pamphlet at his elbow—“ are Socialistic; they are not Socialism.” I always understood Socialistic teachings as having relationship to Socialism. 'Will some intelligent person, without being insulting, tell me if I understand correctly? I pass on to the social distribution of wealth into consumption. Mr Roberts takes the liberty—pardonable on his part, of course—of presuming that' I mean “ even ” distribution. I don’t. I mean what I asked, viz., “Does social credit merely mean.a social distribution of wealth into consumption? ” Mr Roberts cannot answer, because he does not know. It is my duty, therefore, to tell him it means more. It also means a social dividend distribution, Mr Roberts can here define the word “ social ” as being “even” if it suits him. The social dividend* distribution is to be £3OO for Scotland, and the same figure for Australia. All this we are told will actually come to pass without interfering with private enterprise. What nonsense! Sucha distribution cannot operate under private enterprise. It is not a separate aim in itself. How can private enterprise continue to function with the “ appropriation of the products ” wiped out by a social dividend distribution? The whole economic system by which Major Douglas is supposed to “ stand four-square ” hangs together in this ■ matter. Such a distribution leads to the “creation of a new social structure, of which the. material forms must be social ownership of the natural resources on which all productive activity depends., social organisation of the use of these resources'in production itself as planned communal services up to the level of our producing capacity in response to human needs and human demand for satisfaction.”

It is only but fair that I should warn Mr Roberta not to try an answer to this, as Major Douglas has yet to give a convincing reply. And so I pass on to cultural inheritance. Mr Roberts tells me he can do no better than quote from a booklet issued by the Manchester Credit Reform Group. Truth to tell, Sir, I hardly expected him to do any better. His knowledge of cultural inheritance is very hazy. For that matter of it so is anyone’s. But I did look for a quotation from “ Economic Democracy.”

And now, Sir, in thanking you for the space you have afforded me, 1 would like to make this appeal. In the name of suffering humanity, will Mr Roberts keep out of the press and leave the expounding of social credit to those capable of so doing?—l am, etc., O. T. P. October 10.