The old CCF and the theory of Social Credit - Bill Irvine wanted Social Credit as part of a Socialist programme

William Irvine once wrote "those who insist a mere change in monetary policy will remove all economic ills of society are no more in error that those who think the evils can be removed without a change in financial policy."

The first cases were Social Credit-ers, those who like William Aberhart believed capitalism could be saved through social credit. That they could leave the means of production in the hands of private owners, leave the economy in the hands of capitalists but achieve fairness (or at least a modicum of economic support for the needy and suffering, the struggling workers and farmers) through social credit - a nationalization of the banking, loan and money side of the economy.

The second cases were socialists who wanted to make widespread changes - nationalization of factories and utilities (gas, electricity etc.) but while leaving the banks and money in private hands.

Irvine wanted both.

Ernie Cook, one-time president of the Alberta CCF, described Irvine's views this way - "in the 1920s social credit was a subject in which Irvine was very interested. He believed one could create "social credit" as opposed to collateral credit (mortgages based on home ownership for example). But he did not believe the plan of Major Douglas could be made effective except by a sovereign government. Even then he did not agree it could be really effective with private ownership and control of finance. Irvine repudiated Aberhart's interpretation of Douglas's social credit and there was no possible point of agreement with the political movement called Social Credit, which appeared in 1935." (R.J.E. (Ernie ) Cook, The UFA Experiment 1920-1935)

For those who may not know, the United Farmers of Alberta were the government of Alberta from 1921- 1935. It was the longest-lived post-WWI farmer government elected across Canada. The UFM in Manitoba and the UFO in Ontario were its shorter-lived equivalents.

Those were the days when Alberta was a fairly radical place. When farmer s and workers grew tired of the UFA in the depths of he Depression. they did not turn to the Liberals or the Conservative but instead to Aberhart's SC movement. Aberhart hoped to get the UFA to back his plan for the capture of the money/bank complex. But instead under the leadership of Irvine and other the UFA voted against adopoting his ideas that was in Jan. 1934. Aberhart then turned his movement into a vote-getting political movement that swept the province. The UFA lost every seat it had had before the 1935 election and the SC party took a majority of the seats. (As is usually the case with non-proportional elections, the 1935 election result was lop-sided. Aberhart's candidates took 89 percent of the seats with only 54 percent of the vote. The UFA took no seats despite receiving 11 percent of the vote.)

How did Aberhart think he could bring in Social Credit if Alberta did not have a sovereign government, which Irvine thought was an impossibility?

Well, Aberhart actually thought, or at least partly acted as if Alberta was a sovereign government. When he presented Alberta's brief to the Rowell-Sirois Royal Commission on federal-provincial affairs, Alberta's submission was entitled: The case for Alberta addressed to he sovereign people of Canada and their governments. (1938).

(See Montopedia blog: "Social Credit in Alberta 1905-1935")

==================================