Social credit is a distributive philosophy of political economy developed in the 1920s and 1930s by C. H. Douglas. Douglas attributed economic downturns to discrepancies between the cost of goods and the compensation of the workers who made them. To combat what he saw as a chronic deficiency of purchasing power in the economy, Douglas prescribed government intervention in the form of the issuance of debt-free money directly to consumers or producers (if they sold their product below cost to consumers) in order to combat such discrepancy.
(From the wiki page)
previous (possibly incorrect) ChatGPT summary
Social Credit is an economic theory by C.H. Douglas that aims to fix a fundamental problem: the total cost of producing goods and services is always greater than the money people have to buy them. To solve this, Social Credit proposes a National Dividend, a regular payment given to all citizens to boost their purchasing power, and a Compensated Price Mechanism, which reduces prices so consumers can afford more while producers still make a profit. The idea is to ensure that the economy works for everyone by closing the gap between what people earn and what they need to spend, without relying on debt or heavy government control.
Stumbled onto this randomly and I find it interesting and rarely talked about. It almost seems like a capitalistic approach to communism which I had no idea existed. The oddest thing about it to me is that most parties advocating for it were highly religious and right wing. On the surface, it seems fairly progressive and left leaning to me though.
What are your thoughts?
It was briefly influential here in Ireland and linked with respected figures like Maud Gonne.
My main impression: I have never figured out what the feck they’re on about.
Do they have a simple ‘bible’ that explains what it is?
Compare Georgism for example: Georgism means ‘tax the land’. Comprehensible. What does social credit call for?
I’m suspicious of the links to Fabian Socialism, which I see as condescending philanthropy to help the poor (rather than empowering the poor as in Marxism)
I’m suspicious of its moralistic language.
I’m suspicious of the links to Catholicism, but that can somewhat be written off as a product of its time.
I’m inclined to say its of historical interest at best, as I’ve never seen in advocated for past 1950. Maybe I could be brought around if someone can explain what it actually is.
Well that’s another Wikipedia rabbit hole I’m about to dive into
But totally agree with your suspicions. From what I’ve read so far, the Catholicism link is from Christians who actually believed in the fact that the bible says to take care of each other, but I’m not fully ready to trust that. (Like you said though, this could be a product of its time)
To me it really reads like something invented by a capitalist who knows that the system is unjust but is still devoted to it. Which, to be honest, I can respect, especially for the time period.
That being said, in my limited understanding of it, it doesn’t sound all that bad? (definitely drop any religious connections). If I were to choose between the current system (in Canada/USA specifically), and this one, I might be willing to try it out.
That’s for sure my issue. I’ve read a number of articles on it at this point and I’m still not grasping exactly what it is. Was really hoping someone here would be an expert on it lol
I guess Social Credit by CH Douglas is the bible I need to read.
Haha probably not a bad place to start