Rides and Cottage Economy are still available in print), demonstrating their enduring value. Cobbett did not stand against change per se. A living rural economy is in a constant state of flux and adaptation to changing circumstances. However, the new technology and above all the dominant rule of finance brought an altogether destructive form of change to the countryside.

According to Massingham, Cobbett's work was popular amongst skilled labourers and artisans forced to migrate to the towns as unskilled machine minders and wage labourers. The machine did not eliminate drudgery. Instead, by eliminating skill and pride in work the new technology created "a new drudgery of its own, the drudgery of mechanising not only work but men" (p 18). Industrialisation and commercialisation of the land undermined the "institution of small property that (gave) economic freedom", replacing service to the community with the servitude of wage labour. Discussion of these issues was widespread in the UK among all classes throughout the early decades of the twentieth century, most particularly among wage labourers themselves, as evidenced by Robert Tressell's The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists and the history of the William Morris inspired guild socialist movement. In this broad context Massingham could write (in The Tree of Life) "Peasant economy is the ground floor of the structure of civilization; industrialism but its top-heavy upper storey" (p130), confident that his words would be read, understood and appreciated by a broad spectrum of society, not only in England but in other cultures as well. Equally, he could

assume knowledge of the campaign for a basic income or national dividend, economic democracy, the just price and the other demands made by social crediters.

Social credit originated from the work of the now almost forgotten economist, C.H. Douglas, as Hargrave's answer to Question 2 indicates. However, in common with other social credit activists of the 1930s, Hargrave failed to acknowledge the guild socialist origins of Douglas' writings. The idea of good work, service to the community, the common cultural inheritance, local production for local use, the folly of overproduction, the links between competitive international trade and warfare, the replacement of wage labour and the concept of the just price, to be found throughout the works of guild socialism, did not originate with Douglas. By the late 1930s, however, the guild socialist origins of social credit were largely forgotten by Douglas and his keenest supporters, as is evident from Hargrave's answer to Question 3. Moreover, social credit drew the wrath of 'socialist' politicians and trade union leaders, since its widespread popularity and appeal threatened the Labour party's political base. It failed, not because its conceptualisation of the economy was unsound, but because, along with guild socialism and the political writings of a host of thinkers opposed to global capitalism social credit philosophy was systematically eliminated from the mainstream academic curriculum.

Born in 1941, I graduated in so�cial studies with economics in the early 1960s. Social credit, guild socialism and the rich literature surrounding those traditions did not appear on the mainstream curriculum. If mentioned at all, alternatives were dismissed as impractical, idealistic or mis�guided nonsense. There was no alternative to Benthamite utilitarianism and rational self-interest as the motivation for all social and economic action. Even altruism was presented to us as a self-interested ploy to massage the ego of the giver, while searching questions as to the purpose of economic activity were almost invariably met with ridicule. I say 'almost', advisedly since I owe my interest in economic and political thought to my tutor, the eco�nomic historian David Everseley. There have always been individuals fighting a lone battle against the general onslaught on reasoning and its replacement by the 'exact' sciences based upon objectifying, analytical, particularising and reductionist methodology.

Thankfully, students today continue to ask those same questions about social and economic life. In the absence of quick and easy answers we recommend that this little booklet be read alongside a number of classical texts, including the Massingham and Tressell books already mentioned, Hammond's The Labourer 1760-1832, Thorstein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class, the political writings of William Morris, the works of R.H. Tawney, Mahatma Gandhi, Wendell Berry, Rachel Carson and Richard Mabey, T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land, Marx's Capital Vol. l (in the original), The Bible via Richard Foster, Money, Sex and Power and the leading texts of other religions. (1)

Such works provide an introduction to the rich legacy of alternative 'stories' to the 'change is inevitable', 'you can't stop progress', 'where's the money to come from' and 'you can't change human nature' philosophy dominating the study of society at the present time. It is impossible to underestimate the power of the silence suppressing these works. Each one of them has been marginalized by being labeled fascist, communist, xenophobic, archaic, historical, artistic, feminist, misogynist and/or, most damning of all, associated with a particular relig�ion or sect. Any work challenging today's dominant material self-interest can be studied as a curiosity but it must not be taken at face value. In this way, our history is assigned to oblivion. 'We' have all moved on. We must not look back. In this climate, time taken out for study and discussion is essential if the voices of individual reformers are not to remain lone voices in the wilderness.

Furthermore, as Colin Hines has so ably indicated in Localization A Global Manifesto, the focus on solutions to individual single-issue problems merely serves to maintain the status quo. In isolation, each single issue pressure group may rectify symptoms, achieving short-term amelioration of suffering. However, as the underlying causes of problems remain hidden the fundamentally inequitable political economy remains unchallenged. The case for a Citizen's Income (CI) has been ably presented by the Basic Income European Network and the UK Citizen's Income Research Group on grounds of social justice. Within the context of the continuation of capitalism and waged labour, however, de�mands for a CI regardless of work status remain logically inconsistent and politically unacceptable. Within the context of social credit the demand for a citizen's income or 'national dividend' makes a great deal more sense, providing the basis for economic democracy.

Taken as a whole, the questions and answers provide an excellent starting point for a re-examination of capitalist production and distribution. (Q.60) In reprinting the 101 Questions Answered we seek to engender debate leading to constructive personal and political policy alternatives to the destructive forces of global capitalism. Although the practical examples cited are now dated, the principles remain the same. The details may have altered, but capitalism has not changed its spots. It still insists that if a thing is worth doing it is worth being paid to do it, and conversely that services and resources operating outside the money economy have no intrinsic value. Long ago, in Capital Karl Marx raised the questions of what money is, how it comes into existence, how it undermines all other values and how it is guaranteed by statutory law. His basic premises were accepted and followed by guild socialists and social crediters across the world, although few of the latter recognised the origins of social credit.

A key question raised by social credit relates to the apparent necessity to restrict access to income to past, present or future employment, with only the privileged few entitled to an unearned income through their personal ownership of a large share of wealth. For social crediters, the necessity for full employment in the machine age was ludicrous

(Q68). They therefore proposed payment of a basic income or 'national dividend' to all citizens by right of their 'common