AHC: Social Credit becomes major political movement

Uhura's Mazda

Uhura's Mazda

Banned
Simple: a Party espousing CH Douglas' economic dogmas wins power on a national or potentially international level any time after the publication of his magnum opus. The most likely locations for this to happen are Canada, New Zealand and the UK, in that order.

It doesn't have to be a Social Credit Party winning elections or carrying out a revolution: you could have a pre-existing Party adopting Social Credit as an economic policy or something.

Extra points for spreading the ideology to the extent of being a credible global rival for Communism and Capitalism, or even replacing traditional Capitalism.

Unabashedly inspired by this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=345690
 

IndefatigableRN

Hmmm... in Canada, there were some Tories worried about Social Credit eating into their vote...

Social Credit does better in the 1930s and early 40s, dominating the West and parts of Quebec. Maybe the CCF does a little worse and Social Credit receives the bulk of the Prairie protest vote. Let's say they win roughly the same number of seats as the Tories...

The Tories, not showing any signs of improvement, begin to worry that Social Credit could take over as the main opposition. In 1942, the Tories hold the Port Hope Conference. Meighen and much of the old guard want Bracken, but the new guard under Herridge suggest going after Social Credit. Herridge gets control of the Tories and brings Social Credit into the fold, adopting many of their policies. The Tories (now with Social Credit, not Bracken's Progressives), become the party of Social Credit. With the use of the Tory name, they get more legitimacy, concentrated in Western Canada, rural Ontario and rural Quebec. The new Social Credit Tories are the main opposition.

However, considering a lot of the unsavoury types in Social Credit, I don't think they would have the breakthroughs the Tories had in the 50s and 80s. The Toronto and Montreal business elite would likely flock to the Liberals.
 

Nae'Blis

Social Credit could definitely win control of Canada, somehow changing things in Saskatchewan so the Socreds win the 1938 provincial election would be valuable I think OTL they did very well in terms of the popular vote but only won a couple of seats. If they won the election then they would have momentum enough to perhaps really sweep the Prairies in 1940. Assuming that a Social Conservative party doesn't emerge after Meighen's failures Social Credit could continue building on this momentum (which would also have stolen a fair bit of the CCF's thunder) to gradually replace the Tories and eventually win control, the financial elites of Toronto and Montreal may never back them, but that doesn't mean they can't sweep to power as the only opposition.
 

GeographyDude

Uhura's Mazda said:
Extra points for spreading the ideology to the extent of being a credible global rival for Communism and Capitalism, or even replacing traditional Capitalism.
Click to expand...
Now, this in particular has some real potential. Having three major competing economic theories for a while. Just for starters, you can have a mixed system with three in so many more interesting ways than just with two!
 

RousseauX

Donor
Uhura's Mazda said:
Simple: a Party espousing CH Douglas' economic dogmas wins power on a national or potentially international level any time after the publication of his magnum opus. The most likely locations for this to happen are Canada, New Zealand and the UK, in that order.

It doesn't have to be a Social Credit Party winning elections or carrying out a revolution: you could have a pre-existing Party adopting Social Credit as an economic policy or something.

Extra points for spreading the ideology to the extent of being a credible global rival for Communism and Capitalism, or even replacing traditional Capitalism.

Unabashedly inspired by this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=345690
Click to expand...

Social Credit was based on a terrible understanding of monetary policy and the lack of understanding that it was effectively levying a tax on people who holds liquid assets (such as cash) to fund certain social programs.

It's actually a pretty terrible idea.
 

overoceans

GeographyDude said:
Now, this in particular has some real potential. Having three major competing economic theories for a while. Just for starters, you can have a mixed system with three in so many more interesting ways than just with two!
Click to expand...

I think that the basic idea behind Social Credit survives to this day, in any populist economic movement that argues the problem is "finance", "banks", "the money supply", "monetary policy", or various buzz words to that effect. Full bingo-card if they use the phrase "monetary reform" to describe what they advocate.

I won't be mentioning any names, but most of you can probably think of some groups that would fit the description outlined above(even if they're not consciously Social Credit), across the spectrum of political identification. It's basically an attempt at blaming all the problems of capitalism on the banking system, rather than saying that capitalism itself is the problem.

As for the challenge, a quirky thing about Social Credit's electoral history in Canada was that they were permanently decimated in western Canada before they ever began their fabled run in Quebec. In other words, they went from being an exclusively western party, to an exclusively Quebec party, with no tranitionary period of having a foot in both regions.

So, maybe have Diefenbaker screw up majorly after becoming PM in 1957, resulting in Alberta staying Socred in 1958(which gives them 17 seats). As well, the Quebec ascension moves up to 1958, giving them another 26.

But this still wouldn't give them much more than they had in OTL, post-1962, when they were in fact the third party for a few years. You'd probably need a couple of other western provinces going Socred to make them either a stronger third party, or(less likely) opposition.
 

overoceans

A little hardball poker as it were.

Aberhart's hardball financial policies were more than matched by his rhetoric.

"...just exterminate them!"

That, after listing the names of the people he was lambasting. I'm trying to imagine an NDP leader doing the same thing today, and the reaction that would get.
 
Last edited:

Goffik

One problem is that much of Social Credit's support came from outright fascists; not a popular base after WWII.
 

overoceans

Goffik said:
One problem is that much of Social Credit's support came from outright fascists; not a popular base after WWII.
Click to expand...

That's very true. (We all know what kind of dog-whistlin' is going on when people blame everything on "bankers"). But, interestingly, it was the Quebec wing of Social Credit that lasted the longest in parliament, losing their last seats in 1980. And they were also the closest to being fascist.

Though of course the cultural dynamics might have been a little different in rural Quebec, where the fight against fascism likely wasn't the same cause celebre that it was in English Canada.
 
Uhura's Mazda

Uhura's Mazda

Banned
RousseauX said:
Social Credit was based on a terrible understanding of monetary policy and the lack of understanding that it was effectively levying a tax on people who holds liquid assets (such as cash) to fund certain social programs.

It's actually a pretty terrible idea.
Click to expand...

Hang on, isn't that just a welfare state? Like the ones which have been quite successful in Scandinavia, UK, etc. in the late 20th century? As a non-econo,ist myself, could you explain which bits of monetary policy they got wrong?
 

steve_wilson

Far from being a tax on savings, Social Credit rewarded consumption, which isn't the same thing. This thread needs merging with the other social credit thread.
 
Uhura's Mazda

Uhura's Mazda

Banned
steve_wilson said:
Far from being a tax on savings, Social Credit rewarded consumption, which isn't the same thing. This thread needs merging with the other social credit thread.
Click to expand...

OK, then let's talk about how practical SoCred was as a popular ideology. Was it doomed to become a crazy subset of social conservatism? How could it have positioned itself as a credible alternative in the minds of the working class (the main beneficiaries of a National Dividend, I'd have thought) as against Communism/Socialism/Labourism?
 

Goffik

Uhura's Mazda said:
OK, then let's talk about how practical SoCred was as a popular ideology. Was it doomed to become a crazy subset of social conservatism? How could it have positioned itself as a credible alternative in the minds of the working class (the main beneficiaries of a National Dividend, I'd have thought) as against Communism/Socialism/Labourism?
Click to expand...

SoCreds never did well with the working-class, despite numerous attempts to absorb them. They were always dependent on rural support, and thus positioned themselves as a rural party, which is why they ended up so far on the right toward the end.
 

GeographyDude

overoceans said:
Aberhart's hardball financial policies were more than matched by his rhetoric.

"...just exterminate them!"

That, after listing the names of the people he was lambasting. I'm trying to imagine an NDP leader doing the same thing today, and the reaction that would get.
Click to expand...
Yes, clearly a really bad situation.

According to the wikipedia article, the Social Credit whip Joseph Unwin served three months in prison. (I for one don't have much confidence in wikipedia at all and would like to find a better source, or at least an additional source)

======

perhaps an okay source (bio about someone else):
http://immigrants-to-canada.integrityshop.org/David_Milwyn_Duggan/itemdetail

And according to this, this Joseph Unwin guy was legally charged and persecuted for "counseling murder," as probably he damn well should have been.
 
Last edited:

Major Major

"Alfred William Lawson is God's greatest gift to man."

Have someone give omnicrank Alfred William Lawson enough money to build a superpowerful radio station in Mexico.

Lawson's social credit theory was called "Direct Credit". He operated out of Detroit and was apparently incredibly charismatic and convincing in person. Wherein the problem; the Direct Credit Society flourished during the Depression, but only in areas where he could deliver personal addresses. The header is a quote from a song written by one of his followers paying tribute to him.

He didn't have a radio show because he believed the radio stations were controlled by the financiers, the Bad Guys of Direct Credit.

But if he could speak to a nationwide audience over the radio . . .

He would need assistance, however. As a naturalized citizen he couldn't be President, and his enterprises tended to come apart; a baseball league that had collapsed (he had been a MLB pitcher with an 0-3 record) and an aircraft company that went bankrupt when the second prototype crashed on takeoff. He also had crank scientific ideas and an enormous ego.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Uhura's Mazda said:
Hang on, isn't that just a welfare state? Like the ones which have been quite successful in Scandinavia, UK, etc. in the late 20th century? As a non-econo,ist myself, could you explain which bits of monetary policy they got wrong?
Click to expand...

With a welfare state, you could enact taxation on various things to fund the social welfare net. For instance, you could tax corporate profits, or property, or capital gains, or from people buying stuff.

The problem with social credit is that you are printing money to pay for everything, and since this isn't 1990s Japan this will create inflation. Inflation devalues savings, but doesn't devalue, say, the stock shares you own, or the house you own. So in reality, it converts those forms of taxation into a taxation on cash and other liquid assets which do not earn interest.

So the first problem with this is that societies tend to become pretty unstable once inflation hits a certain % point for long enough time. Ironically enough it's the poor who are being taxed the most since rich people find it much easier to hold non-cash assets (how many of the working poor do you know own stock shares or a house?). And the possibility of an inflationary spiral in which the government has to print more money to cover existing rise in prices, which leads to a vicious spiral which looks distinctly like Latin America at various points in time during the last few decades.

Come to think of it a lot of radical ideologies, left and right, seems to be trying to recreate Latin American history, 1950s-today.
 

overoceans

Goffik said:
SoCreds never did well with the working-class, despite numerous attempts to absorb them. They were always dependent on rural support, and thus positioned themselves as a rural party, which is why they ended up so far on the right toward the end.
Click to expand...

Even back in its bohemin inception in Britain and Europe, I think Social Credit tended to draw from the more conservative tendencies of artistic and literary circles, people like T.S. Eliot and, most notoriosuly, Ezra Pound.

The explictly rural-fundamentalist gloss was put on by Aberhart after Social Credit migrated to Canada, but its conservative roots in the UK probably made it an easy fit for that sort of thing.

As far as electoral representations went, Social Credit in Alberta, at its stongest, penetrated the cities just as much as the countryside, if we're talking about seats won. I'd be interested to know what percentage of the popular vote which stayed away from Social Credit was concentrated in the cities. My guess would be considerable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top