The roots of populism run deep in Alberta and a tradition of protest existed even before the depression of the 1930s. The massive economic downturn, accompanied by drought and all kinds of agricultural pestilence, left Albertans asking the question “How can there be poverty, in the midst of plenty?” “The depression discredited many traditional economic and political leaders forcing people to look for replacements[1].” Growing out of this fertile soil of discontent, the Social Credit Party and the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) came into being to offer alternative solutions to the economic problems of the depression. While much has been made of the differences underlying the philosophies of the two parties, there are a number of common values and beliefs that the two parties shared. Tied into the populist roots of Alberta and their religious background, the parties shared certain common views of government, the financial and banking sectors, social justice, and shared some ideas on how to reform society that were, at least in the short term, quite similar. There were enough similarities that there was even some agitation for the parties to unify, at least in Saskatchewan. “Many of the farmers…did not see vital differences in the program and tactics of these movements[2],” as the line between Social Credit, and Socialism was not as clear cut in this period as it has been made out to be.
The reasons for the similarities can be traced to their common background in the economic depression of the 1930s and to the populist influence in Albertan politics. As John Irving points out, “Social movements tend to appear during periods of widespread social unrest, when profound dissatisfaction with the existing social order arises[3].” Such was the case in the prairies in the early 30s, where drought, high tariffs and pestilence, combined with a massive drop in agricultural prices to create incredible hardships. The debt problems, which had always kept farmers distrustful of financial and banking interests, grew and even the government of Alberta was running into massive debt difficulties[4]. “Fluctuating resource prices, unstable wages, and debt…had characterised the provincial economy before the Depression and…influenced political culture[5].” As conditions became more extreme the potential solutions became more extreme. People began to “re-examine potential solutions that had been discussed for years but never really given a fair trial: monetarism, socialism, communism and co-operativism, and of course, social credit[6].” The same conditions that had given rise to the progressive movement were now giving rise to the establishment of the CCF and Social Credit parties[7].
The two parties, having arisen in similar political and economic conditions, have been seen as “like responses to similar conditions[8].” And while they did not share the same “equally extensive conception of democracy,” it is true that “the elements of each variant cohere around principles concerning redistribution of wealth[9].” The CCF and Social Credit can be viewed as “Populist resistance to the effect of the National Policy on the agrarian West[10],” but both demanded deeper changes (although the CCF was certainly more radical in its goals). They were rejections of the traditional party system, and an expression of regional conflict and protest against eastern capitalism[11]. However, the CCF formed to bring about “radical changes in the nature of Canadian Society[12],” and while many changes proposed by Social Credit would have radically altered Canadian society they did not go as far as the CCFs proposals. Still, both parties promised that there would be a new social order under them[13], even if the conceptions of such a social order were slightly different. However, the parties shared a number of views on the creation of this new social order, even as they held different underlying ideas behind them. Many of these similar values can be traced back to the populist protest background in Alberta. In fact, the CCF had connections with both the UFA party and the Progressives, especially the Ginger group, and had grown from a collaboration between labour and farmers as the Farmer’s group moved closer to a Socialist position[14]. Social Credit was also effected by this political background as ”Aberhart had absorbed some of the political rhetoric of radicalism that was characteristic of the Alberta environment into which he inserted his social credit crusade[15].”
The CCF and Social Credit shared a similar distrust of and antipathy towards the banking and financial interests, especially as part of the cause for the depression. “Prairie populism targeted outside capitalist interest[16],” and both parties blamed financial capital and big business, especially from the East. Both Aberhart and the CCF (notably M.J. Coldwell) would lash out at the ’50 bigshots’ who controlled financial credit, and “indicated that the existing monetary and banking system…[was] the principal cause of a depression in the midst of plenty[17].” Social Credit’s criticisms were levelled against finance for not allowing credit to flow, which was necessary for A to match B in the A + B theorem (as Aberhart interpreted it). This resulted in the problem of ‘poverty in the midst of plenty’ as workers and such could not afford to purchase what they produced[18]. The CCF, on the other hand, had its roots in socialism, and it attacked the capitalist system in general, but at this time finance and banking were usually their most significant targets. Despite these differences in reasoning, both the parties attacked the hold of big money on government in the tradition of populist movements. Social Credit blamed the same financiers who controlled the economy for controlling the government[19], and many members of the CCF saw it as a class dominated body, which, as Woodsworth argued, was controlled by concentrated economic power, especially finance capital[20]. While they may have seen banking as an extension of capitalism, the CCF concentrated their attacks on the financial interests. “In his regard they both reflected and reinforced the views of their constituents, who perceived themselves as the victims of monopolies such as the banking system and railways but regarded such institutions as perversions of the capitalist system rather then its core element[21]”. The concentration on the financial aspect by both groups was “was expected to appeal to all western farmers and consumers who had experienced firsthand the extractive powers of the chartered banks and mortgage and loan companies[22].”
The solution proposed by both Social Credit and the CCF was based around the same idea of nationalisation of the banks and financial systems, although the underlying principals behind this move did differ slightly. Like the prairie agrarian organisations during the First World War and NPL of Alberta and parts of the UFA, they demanded the socialisation of the banking and financial system[23]. This was deemed necessary to prevent exploitation by financial interest, and it was mentioned in both the Regina Manifesto, and Social Credit’s Ten Planks make One Platform for the 1935 election. The CCF called for the socialisation of finance to remove “the control of private profit-seeking interests” so that government could “control the flow of credit” and direct investment (through a National Investment Board) for socially desirable purposes[24]. Social Credit shared this distrust of the of banks, and asserted that finance and credit had “fallen into the control of bankers who, through its manipulation, exploit the community for purposes of private profit[25].” The system should, in their opinion, try to issue enough credit to cover the real productive capacity of the producer. It was an attempt to regulate the amount of purchasing power through the amount of credit available and its rate of flow[26]. Although they tried to do this, the Social Credit legislation was disallowed (but we still have the Alberta Treasury Branches). Although the parties held similar views in this matter, the socialisation of the banking system was seen as a stepping stone to deeper changes for the CCF. In fact, many on the left never felt like they had to choose between socialism and social credit, because the latter was a tool for the government to achieve the former[27].
The parties also shared a somewhat similar view with respect to the government’s role in the market. Convinced of the problems with capitalism, the Social Credit party attempted to reform, while the CCF attempted to radically alter the distribution of goods. While they may have disagreed about the degree of change, both parties looked towards a more central control of the economy by experts. Aberhart advocated “government by technical experts, particularly on monetary questions[28]” and the CCF itself was “was not opposed to using experts[29].” In fact, the both the Social Credit Board, and the CCF’s National Planning Commission would need to be run by such technocrats who would be able to apply a more scientific manner to the distribution of goods that would benefit the community. The National Planning Board was to be run by “a small body of economists, engineers and statisticians[30]” while the Social Credit board “provided legislative authorisation for selection and policy- making activities of ‘Social Credit experts[31].’ The Douglas based approach would have the government voice the demands of the people, and appoint experts to fulfil those demands[32]. As Aberhart himself said “you don’t have to know all about Social Credit before you vote for it; you don’t have to understand electricity to use it…all you have to do is push the button and you get the light[33].” While this may differ from the Socialist ideology, its intentions are the similar: that people get more purchasing power in relation to their productive capacities and thereby reducing hardships[34]. Both parties spoke of the need to use the resources to their fullest productivity, which was not occurring in the present system[35]. In fact, it was expected that this opening of economic potential would provide the money for the Social Credit dividend.
Social Credit felt it could at least ease the problems inherent in the capitalist economy “by systematically controlling prices ‘for all goods and services used in the provinces and fixing minimum and maximum wages for each type of worker[36].” While this was not quite the same as a centrally planned socialist state, it was a strong method of government intervention. This concept of the ‘Just Price’ was not a new one and Aberhart’s version was stronger than the Douglasite version, which would have been implemented by consumer pressure on the producers. The Aberhart version appealed to people who were receiving a low value for labour despite paying a high price for good[37]. Indeed it was somewhat similar, at least in practice, to the concepts expressed by the CCF. The Co-Operative Commonwealth’s “basic principle regulating production distribution, and exchange, will be the supplying of human needs instead of the making of profits[38].” The Social Creditor shared this concern with filling human needs, and the “Just Price’ was “portrayed as a means of eliminating exploitation of labour[39].” Still, Social Creditors supported individual subsidies, such as the $25 dollar dividend, over collective actions[40]. Indeed while their methods differed slightly, both parties shared the goal of turning the benefit of the economy from “the interests” towards the greater population.
Indeed many of the short-term reform policies advocated to deal with the suffering and certain welfare state ideas implemented by Aberhart can be seen in the proposals of the CCF. “There were overtones of tax-the-rich, rigid controls over the operation of the free market, and hatred of big corporations—including non-financial corporations—in Aberhart's rhetoric and specific proposals[41].” This rhetoric included proposals for labour education and health and, Finkel asserts, when Aberhart was not concentrating on Monetary issues he was still a little left of centre[42]. Both parties supported protecting farmers from foreclosure, a policy that the Social Creditors tried to implement after they were elected[43]. Both parties also supported initiatives such as the minimum wage and better protection for labour[44]. The desire for socialised health care is mentioned both in the Regina Manifesto[45], as well as the Ten planks Make One Platform[46]. Labour also gained under Social Credit, with such policies as “reasonable hours of work,” a “minimum wage”, and “collective bargaining” and the creation of a Board of Industrial Relations whose concern was “a square deal for the wage earner” [47]. This was similar, at least in effect, to the CCF’s calls for “state regulation of wages,” “limitation of hours of work,” and the right of workers to “organise themselves in trade unions[48].”
Social justice was important to all prairie populist movements, and the CCF and Social Credit were not exceptions[49]. They spoke of equitable distribution of the financial gains that would come from the freeing of credit[50]. The concept of a dividend, specifically the $25 dollar one promised by Aberhart, carried elements of “egalitarianism[51]”, as did the proposal that Albertans incomes be limited to a certain maximum. As with the CCF’s socialism, Social Credit was implemented with the larger goal of ensuring that the state would be there to ensure that no one would “suffer” in a world of plenty[52]. In fact, it was the State’s role to “promote the individual’s welfare, freedom and security[53].” Aberhart proposed that there would be a maximum income that would prevent someone from getting an income that was “greater then he himself and his loved ones can possibly enjoy, to the privation of his fellow citizen”[54]. It was partly because of the prairie populist roots, the Aberhart brand of Social Credit stressed inherent egalitarianism and social justice far more then Douglas version[55]. Still, Social Credit was unique in that “social dividends rather than wealth confiscated from the rich would provide the new income for the poor[56].”
The ideas of social justice are also rooted in the religious (specifically Protestant) basis for the two parties. The two parties were rooted in different ideas of Christianity, and academics like Wiseman claim that there was substantial difference between the social gospel of the CCF and the “fundamentalism” of Social Credit[57]. Still religion was an important part of each movement, especially Social Credit[58]. Both Woodsworth and Aberhart had been religious leaders at one point, Woodsworth having been a Methodist minister[59], and much of their rhetoric would be infused with Christian ideas. It has been argued that the CCF was trying to provide a “society in which Christian principals—or, more accurately, Protestant principals[60]” were the basis of organisation. This came from the mixture of social gospel, socialism and Fabianism” that made up the CCFs religious background[61]. Indeed the presence of social gospel was felt by Aberhart too, who “did not cast aside his fundamentalist beliefs, but did not prevent [himself] from taking positions on secular issues that were identified with social gospellers and generally anathema to fundamentalists[62].” While Aberhart may have had a stronger evangelical and American influence than the CCF, as Wiseman asserts, both parties tried to rectify their philosophies with the beliefs of Christianity. Indeed it was Aberhart’s ability to unify Christianity with the philosophy of social credit that made it so attractive[63].
Despite these similarities there were differences in the underlying philosophies of Socialism and Social Credit that are quite important. Many academics, such as S.M. Lipset and John Irving, insist that “Social credit wasn’t Socialism[64].” They argue that the fundamental difference between the two was that the CCF ”proposed fundamentally to restructure the existing political and economic system, while [Social Credit] had no major quarrels with capitalism, aiming instead to make it work better in the West by shifting control of the financial institutions from the East and by issuing more purchasing power to western consumers.[65]” “The Social Credit Party, while attacking the Grain Exchange and eastern financiers, did not propose a fundamental change in the going capitalist system. It hoped to make capitalism work by nationalising the banks and pumping new currency into circulation whenever prices fell….[66]” It has even been suggested that the two parties were either side of the western populist movement in the 1930s. The CCF, or left-wing, version “featured farm and labour alliances attacking all sectors of corporate capitalism and advocating both co-operatives and either government regulation or government ownership of the means of production as a way of building an alternative society[67].” The Social Credit, or right wing, version “featured a common front of all classes, a narrow focus on monetary issues, and advocacy of open market competition, excepting banks[68].” Certainly it is true that while the Regina Manifesto ended with the phrase “No CCF government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism and put into operation the full programme of socialised planning[69],” the Social Credit party never took the same hard stand against the concepts of private ownership or free enterprise. It must be stressed that these critics argue that there was no change in the social relations of production with Social Credit[70]. But, it was in the short term that both Social Credit and CCF actions and assumptions seem most closely rooted, as both parties were concerned with similar short term reforms[71].