Wells also suggested a great central organization of “economic science” that will produce direction and function as the brain of the world community, like “a great encyclopaedic organization, kept constantly up to date and giving estimates and directions for all the material activities of mankind.”

Obviously, this sounds very much like the State in Marx and Engels’ communist society that supposedly will take care of all administrative matters, allowing the citizen “to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner …” (The German Ideology).

But Wells was not a Marxist. He was a Fabian Socialist and leader of the London Fabian Society. So, could it be that Fabian Socialism has achieved through intellectual and cultural work what Marxism failed through more revolutionary means?

Incidentally, Fabian Socialism is a system that aims to implement socialism or communism by a method called “permeation” that propagates socialist ideas without openly identifying them as such.

The Fabian Society describes itself as having “been at the forefront of developing political ideas and public policy on the left for almost 140 years” and derives its name from the Roman general Quintus Fabius, known for his delaying tactics in the war against the Carthaginians.

Fabianism | socialist movement | Britannica

Fabians – Our History

Shaw and Fabianism - marxists.org

The Two Souls of Socialism - marxists.org

Edit:

Fabian methods. Fabianism’s reputation of “conspiracy” comes from the methods Fabians employed to propagate their ideology, especially what they termed “permeation”. Fabian co-founder and leader G. D. H. Cole explained that although a political organization, the Fabian Society was organized for thought and discussion and not for electoral action which it left to other organizations such as political parties while encouraging its members to infiltrate and operate from within those organizations:

“The Fabian Society has become famous throughout the world as a planner of Socialist policies and an inspirer of Socialist ideas”[…]”The person whom the Fabian Society wishes most to convert is the man or woman who is in the best position for influencing others”[…]”The Fabian Society regards each individual in its relatively tiny membership as a stone thrown into a pool, spreading rings of influence all around him”

The Fabian Society, past and present

Fabian objectives. The Fabians’ political philosophy was identical with Wells’ Open Conspiracy. Their primary objective was to establish a world government on communist lines. They set up a Fabian Research Department to do research, write reports and suggest policies on international government. They founded organizations to promote the idea, and were involved in the establishment of, the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations.

H G Wells, The Idea of a League of Nations

Celebrating H G Wells’s role in the creation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights

Fabian influence. Why was this “Open Conspiracy” or “Fabian Conspiracy” so influential? The Fabian founders were well-off Liberals (members of the British Liberal Party) with close links to industrial interests, such as owners of railway/railroad companies, steel plants and chocolate manufacturers. G B Shaw who was a highly influential Fabian leader, wrote “Socialism for Millionaires” in which he advised wealthy personalities of the day to use their wealth for social causes. Carnegie and Rockefeller were among those “converted”. For example, the Fabians’ London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) which was established to promote socialism, had more than 30% of its expenses covered by Rockefeller foundations while also receiving funding from the British Chamber of Commerce, bankers, financiers and other sources.

Rockefeller funding led to the LSE being dubbed "Rockefeller's baby".

LSE - Rockefeller's baby? lse.ac.uk

A History of the London School of Economics and Political Science, by LSE Director R. Dahrendorf.

LSE history - from the Fabian Society Archives at LSE

Criticism of Fabianism. Fabianism has received some strong criticism both from the right and the left. Criticism from the left revolves on the charge that Fabians are not true socialists but represent their own vested interests and the interests of their allies from the corporate community.

Leon Trotsky described the Fabians as a “tool of the ruling class”: “By this we do not at all mean that the Fabians, the ILPers and the Liberal defectors exert no influence on the working class. On the contrary, their influence is very great but it is not fixed. The reformists who are fighting against a proletarian class consciousness are, in the final reckoning, a tool of the ruling class”

Writings on Britain, Where is Britain Going?, The Fabian “Theory” of Socialism, Volume 2, 1974, p. 48

Criticism from the right focuses on the Fabian strategy of implementing totalitarian communism under the guise of democratic socialism.

Another key element that both criticisms have in common is the Fabians' close links to powerful financial and industrial groups.

A detailed account of the Anglo-American industrial and banking groups that shared the Fabians’ aims is given in The Anglo-American Establishment by C Quigley

N.B. In order to properly evaluate the Fabians’ worldwide influence it may be helpful to start with Quigley and then read R. Martin’s Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the USA

Harry W Laidler, an influential American Fabian, also gives a useful account of the links between the London Fabians and the socialist movement in the USA in his History of Socialism

The latest critical study of Fabianism and the industrial groups (Milner Group) described by Quigley is The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy by Ioan Ratiu.

A very good critique of Socialism in general is Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies by Kristian Niemietz.

By the way, The League for Industrial Democracy (LID) which the London Fabians described as their “provincial society” in their publications was one of the many conduits through which Fabians influenced political movements in the USA.

The New York-based LID was named after the Fabian book Industrial Democracy that was also translated into Russian by Lenin and used to promote Bolshevism as a “democratic” project.

The term “conspiracy” seems to denote an agreement to commit an act that is either morally reprehensible or criminal. However, if we look at how it has been used historically, this doesn’t seem to have always been the case. — Apollodorus

Good observation. We tend to say something is a conspiracy if the agenda or the objectives aren't publicly declared about some action or policy.

According to Wells, this necessitates a “conspiracy against established things” that would have to enroll supporters from all quarters, socialists and fascists alike, and it would have to go on in the daylight.

In fact, he seems to suggest that the whole world is already engaged in a sort of “open conspiracy” to reshape the world through world government, abolition of the nation-state, population control and redistribution, and similar far-reaching policies. — Apollodorus

Hmm. So is globalization an agenda of the Fabian society? I think not (yet I don't know, so that's why the question).

So is globalization an agenda of the Fabian society? — ssu

Well, globalization is the agenda of many different groups. The Fabians were just one of them. There were, for example Anglo-American industrial interests (The Anglo-American Establishment by C. Quigley)
But the Fabians were among the first political movements to promote the idea of world government as can be seen from H G Wells and other Fabians. Of course, you can also go back to Marx and Engels. The main difference is that the Fabians pursued their agenda by "non-revolutionary" means even though the agenda was revolutionary in its objective.

The main difference is that the Fabians pursued their agenda by "non-revolutionary" means even though the agenda was revolutionary in its objective. — Apollodorus

I would say that this is something close to every social democratic movement that has been in power in Western Europe. All of them don't directly link to the Fabian society.

Good observation. We tend to say something is a conspiracy if the agenda or the objectives aren't publicly declared about some action or policy. — ssu

Correct. Also, is it still a "conspiracy" if it involves the whole world? Wells seems to think so. Maybe his ambiguity was deliberate. In any case, he did advocate a new world order initiated by an elite group and he wanted the Fabian society to be that group.

I would say that this is something close to every social democratic movement that has been in power in Western Europe. All of them don't directly link to the Fabian society. — ssu

Maybe not all of them. However, the Fabians did reestablish the Socialist International after WWII which they controlled together with the Labour Party that was in charge of government in the British Empire. The SI was reestablished in London and was funded by the Labour Party (itself founded by the Fabians) so it was able to exert influence on all member parties.

Also, is it still a "conspiracy" if it involves the whole world? — Apollodorus

Then you start to be more of a tin-foil hat conspiracist.

You see, "the whole world" has in itself other actors than the US and the West as Putin's Russia, China controlled by the CCP, India, Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea, Latin American countries etc. That these hold a same agenda sounds extremely dubious. The conspiracists simply forgets them or disregards them as independent actors with minimal knowledge of them. So one has to be careful.

"the whole world" has in itself other actors than the US and the West as Putin's Russia, China controlled by the CCP, India, Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea, Latin American countries etc. That these hold a same agenda sounds extremely dubious. — ssu

Actually, "the whole world" wasn't my phrase. It's what Wells says in the book. Personally, I tend to think the Fabian influence was more on England and America - and maybe other former parts of the British Empire like Australia which also had a Fabian Society.

However, the Fabians did reestablish the Socialist International after WWII which they controlled together with the Labour Party that was in charge of government in the British Empire. The SI was reestablished in London and was funded by the Labour Party (itself founded by the Fabians) so it was able to exert influence on all member parties. — Apollodorus

I think this is quite small compared to what lengths the Soviet Union went to finance and control Communist parties all over the World. UK Labour Party is quite puny in it's influence compared to that.

And of course when you think about the various Social Democrat leaders in Europe, Miterrand, Blair, etc. they differed in many ways both with their domestic and foreign policies.

I tend to think the Fabian influence was more on England and America - and maybe other former parts of the British Empire like Australia which also had a Fabian Society. — Apollodorus

This I accept. The strong bonds are quite apparent here. Outside of that realm there come many differences and obstacles more than the language barrier.

This I accept. The strong bonds are quite apparent here. Outside of that realm there come many differences and obstacles more than the language barrier. — ssu

For Fabian influence outside Europe see

J. M. Sneyder, “The Fabianization of the British Empire: Postwar Colonial Community Development in Kenia and Uganda, 1948 – 1956”, Britain and the World: Historical Journal of The British Scholar Society, March 2020, vol. 13, No 1, pp. 69-89

And, of course, the Fabians were also influential on culture, the arts, etc.

Fabianism and Culture - cambridge.org

And on literature:

The Influence of Fabian Society on English Social Literature

They also had a Fabian Society in India and both Nehru and Gandhi were members.

African leaders also had links to the Fabians:

Fabian Society JOMO KENYATA

All in the former British Empire, as I said.

And of course there might be influences and exchanges of ideas with international relations. But then, I guess,for example the work within EU by various political party factions might be on a different level now to earlier exchanges between various social democratic parties.

All in the former British Empire, as I said. — ssu

That's how it started. But close links with Europe's socialist parties were forged during WWII when socialist leaders fled to London and were carried on after the reestablishment of the International.

The Labour Party, Denis Healey and the International Socialist Movement

The think tank Policy Exchange was founded in 1999 by UK Prime Minister and Fabian Society member Tony Blair, another leading Fabian Peter Mandelson, Germany's Social Democratic Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and US Democratic President Bill Clinton.

Among many other organizations promoting globalism Tony Blair also founded The Tony Blair Institute For Global Change.

By the way, the entire leadership of the British Labour Party consists of Fabian Society members and Fabians have founded and hold key positions in many influential educational institutions, think tanks, and government advisory bodies such as the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), Imperial College London, Royal Economic Society (RES), National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) and many others. As stated on the Fabian Society website, there are also hundreds of Fabians politicians.

You neglect what is perhaps the single greatest conspiracy of all time, Christianity. Beginning with the self-appointed Church Fathers it has laid claim to be the sole authority in all matters spiritual, and when it managed to wield enough power, all matters political and material. Even today Christian soldiers are all too willing to engage in battle against all who oppose them.

Of course, it depends on which side of the battlelines you are whether this appears to be an act that is both morally reprehensible and criminal. This is not to say that all who call themselves Christian are guilty by association, but the Religious Right will not rest until they help usher in Armageddon.

You neglect what is perhaps the single greatest conspiracy of all time, Christianity. — Fooloso4

Well, I suppose you could describe Christianity as a conspiracy against ignorance and evil but there is nothing wrong with that. As the OP says, conspiracies aren't always bad.

All political movements and even some religious ones aim to acquire power for themselves and they can only do so by denying power to others. But Christianity didn't come to power by force of arms but through persuasion.

As explained by St Augustine in The City of God, Graeco-Roman religion was already moving in the direction of monotheism and many leading thinkers, including Hellenistic philosophers found Christianity attractive. Conversely, many early Church leaders found Platonism attractive. Many had started off as Platonic philosophers and continued to hold Platonism in high regard. Augustine himself says that he was inspired by the writings of Plotinus to look for a higher truth (Confessions).

Louis Auguste Blanqui, the leader of one of the political factions during the Paris Commune and arguably their better half, openly advanced a conspiratorial praxis, which he justified by the necessity of remaining outside of the apparently omnipresent gaze of the Sûreté. Despite this, communards of both factions, even, perhaps, particularly his own, did, to varying degrees, become committed to the open form of direct democracy which the Commune has been lauded because of, of which Peter Watkins's La Commune, an excellent film, I might add, is exemplary.

Blanqui's assumption that the revolution can only be carried by a conspiratorial sect was later taken up by Vladimir Lenin in his rejection of revolutionary spontaneity in the foundational theses of what has come to be called "Leninism", What Is to Be Done? and The State and Revolution. The assumption that an effective revolution can only be carried out by a cadre of "professional revolutionaries" in the form of a revolutionary vanguard directly led to co-option of the February Revolution by the Bolsheviks during the October Revolution.

Be they either Communist or Anarchist, I would sooner die as a quote unquote "White" than I would wait to discover what form of totalitarianism such revolutionary chauvinism takes. Though I do understand that you are merely posing a question as to whether or not we ought to consider "conspiracy" as being negative from a kind of philosophical skepticism that cultivates keeping an "open mind", I would like to take this opportunity to state, in no unclear or uncertain terms, that the characterization of political conspiracy as being somehow nefarious is not only to the point, but also ought to be just simply evident to anyone with even fairly limited understanding of the October Revolution. The February Revolution was a spontaneous revolution. Were it not to have been co-opted by the Bolsheviks, it is quite likely that people would have a dramatically different relationship to Socialism today.

I suppose you could describe Christianity as a conspiracy against ignorance ... — Apollodorus

Was it the ignorance of those whose souls Christians tried to save through torture and death or the ignorance of Christians? Was it the ignorance of those who were the victims of psychological torture of those who were told what to believe on penalty of an eternity in Hell or the ignorance of Christians? Is it the ignorance of those who strive for peace or the ignorance of Christians plotting Armageddon?

But Christianity didn't come to power by force of arms but through persuasion. — Apollodorus

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance of Christian history. Through the actions of the Church Fathers and their suppression and persecution of those disagreed with them they established an official Catholic Church. Note the definition of 'catholic'. They later gained political power when the Roman Emperor Constantine purportedly converted to Christianity. It remains an open question whether he did this merely as a political expedient.

As explained by St Augustine — Apollodorus

Augustine was hardly an impartial observer. He was, after all, a Church Father and invented 'original sin'. An idea that still tortures the spirit to this day.

I would, further, like to point out that the only agreed upon definition of Anarchism is that it is a political philosophy that advances the "abolition of any form of either apparent or implicit hierarchy." I consider for myself to be an Anarchist, and one that agrees to this definition at that, but have taken enough of an influence from the libertarian Left to characterized as a libertarian socialist.

The decision, on the part of the Left-Communists, to support the Bolsheviks had drastic consequences for both them and in the general course of human history. It was a mistake that would later lead their defecting during the Russian Civil War and persecution under the Marxist-Leninist regime of Josef Stalin, one that, though I generally have an aversion to speaking for anyone other than myself, we readily acknowledge. Our refusal to participate within any revolutionary project where any party, with any rationalization or justification whatsoever, considers for whatever class they offer the pretense of being capable of liberating as their political subjects is well-founded and more than reflective of our commitment to a Socialist project only in so far that it is necessarily anti-authoritarian.

It seems doubtful to me that you would be aware of the general sentiment or political praxis of the libertarian Left, and, so, I should hope that you don't take my elaboration upon this as a form of censure. What your query calls to light is the fundamental flaw within every form of Leninism and raison d'être for the failures of both the French Revolution and the so-called "Russian Revolution".

There is a very limited partial necessity for political organizations engaged in illegal activities, assuming that they are justified in doing so, to be somewhat clandestine. If we are to suggest that there somehow exists something like a general project for the common liberation of all of humanity as per the historical meta-narrative of quote unquote "civilized" progress, of this, I will say, there are certain elements of serendipity. In terms of the world becoming a better place to live, however it is that you should like to interpret that, often times that "The Lord works in mysterious ways" can be meaningfully invoked as a kind of socio-political allegory. Being said, even within Liberal democracy, it is nothing but self-evident that clandestine politics have overall been fairly damaging. One only need to point to the Intelligence community, particularly in the United States, United Kingdom, or Germany, as evidence of this. Rudyard Kipling described the form of diplomatic espionage that resulted in the war in Afghanistan between the British and Russian Empire as "The Great Game". Of it, he said, "When everyone is dead, the Great Game is finished. Not before."

As well-meaning as anyone could be in their invocation of the real-life Jedi Order in a defense of clandestine politics, the utilization of things like secret police within totalitarian regimes ought to illicit a forthright rejection of any political party that must rely upon secrecy. Your example of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though I am willing to give you more of the benefit of the doubt in the general course of this thread, is paradoxically exemplary of what Karl Popper called the "Open Society", the very antithesis to any conspiratorial political sect.

:100:

Not to mention the ongoing conspiracy of Christianity in its sexual abuse of children - committed by clergy and covered up by clergy at the highest levels for generations. Like Marxism, Christianity has pretended to care for the weak and suffering, but energetically commits atrocities on the very group it proports to protect.

Was it the ignorance of those whose souls Christians tried to save through torture and death or the ignorance of Christians? Was it the ignorance of those who were the victims of psychological torture of those who were told what to believe on penalty of an eternity in Hell or the ignorance of Christians? Is it the ignorance of those who strive for peace or the ignorance of Christians plotting Armageddon? — Fooloso4

Oh my, that is back to the thread this one sprang from. Empirical scientists being no better than the church of old. These discussions can make a person's head swim. Especially when trying to decide if a subject should break off into a new thread or not because everything is connected. :roll:

Perhaps we need new categories of thought? How can we be sure of what we know? Around 1830 Tocqueville wrote of how Christian democracies would become despots and this is not a good thing but seems an accurate explanation of what is happening. Are we unquestionably sure one economic system is better than another and would this be true for all people in the whole world? Is there ignorance hiding in what we believe is true? Do we have terminology that includes a healthy element of doubt?

Was/is democracy a conspiracy? I can imagine fundamentalist Muslims and Chinese leaders arguing it is. Are some economic systems compatible with democracy and others not?

Are we boldly making political and economic decisions in a state of ignorance and do we need informed people to form a conspiracy and straighten out this mess?

I should also like to point out a certain irony to my having just made such statements, as, upon doing so, I am now hoping to be recruited by Open Society Foundations, which was founded by George Soros.

Was/is democracy a conspiracy? I can imagine fundamentalist Muslims and Chinese leaders arguing it is. — Athena

I have certainly heard this expressed by fundamentalist Muslims. Democracy is how the evil West spreads its 'poisonous ideas' of equality for women and secularism.

The February Revolution was a spontaneous revolution. Were it not to have been co-opted by the Bolsheviks, it is quite likely that people would have a dramatically different relationship to Socialism today. — thewonder

I think most people would agree with that. As shown by Rappaport and other historians, Lenin did like to see himself as a conspirator and the whole Soviet leadership was rather fond of that description. I suppose over time it became like a sort of "badge of honor". And I certainly agree with the view that the Bolshevik "revolution" was really more like a coup than a revolution, in view of the fact that it was carried out by a handful of Marxist ideologists with the help of radicalized workers and some elements of the military that had been exposed to revolutionary propaganda.

The rural population, that formed the vast majority of the country, was not involved.

And, of course, Lenin used the statements of Marx and Engels - like the May 1850 Address to the Communist League - to justify his own belief in power being seized by a conspiratorial clique:

“If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed […] To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party [the democrats], whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition”

Marx & Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, May 1850

and

“A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists”

F Engels, “On Authority”, Almanaco Republicano, 1874

This was also what enabled the Bolsheviks to justify their reign of state terror in the wake of the revolution or coup.

Are we boldly making political and economic decisions in a state of ignorance and do we need informed people to form a conspiracy and straighten out this mess? — Athena

Perfectly reasonable question. The Fabians of course, were fanatical believers in efficiency and aimed to build a society in which everything would be controlled and decided by a body of administrative "experts". Fabian ideologists who were also leaders of the Labour Party believed that the state should think for the whole of society and the Fabian Society saw itself as the "brain-workers" of socialism and of mankind in general.

In their view, the Fabians were joined and reinforced by Anglo-American industrialists and bankers, who, like the Fabians, believed that power should be taken from the hands of politicians and entrusted to an administrative elite consisting of themselves and their Fabian collaborators.

Who these industrialists and bankers were is explained in detail in The Anglo-American Establishment by C. Quigley

The biggest open conspiracy is our agreement to look the other way when we see others doing what we do, or want to do, but about which we all know better.

Pretending we "Do it for the children".
Externalizing costs onto the Earth.
Generally just taking the easy way.
The "I deserve this (a break, a treat, whatever)" mantra.
The whole "Up Up With People!" [It happened just this morning I was walking down the street
The milkman and the postman and policeman I did meet.
There in ev'ry window and ev'ry single door
I recognized people I'd never noticed before.
Up! Up with people!
You meet 'em wherever you go
Up! Up with People!
They're the best kind of folks we know.
If more people were for people
All people ev'rywhere
There'd be a lot less people to worry about
And a lot more people who care.]

What's really bad is pretending "I am forgiven. Someone died for my sins. I can burn the less fortunate."

In short, we're a bunch of kids cut loose unsupervised in a mall. The open conspiracy is that that is somehow okay to run wild and consume and destroy.

I am glad that you agree, but think that you have only been so fair to Marx and Engels, whose opinions and statements often changed and varied.

The phrase, "the dictatorship of the proletariat", comes from "The Civil War in France", written by Marx, which is largely a celebration of the Paris Commune. He uses the phrase to describe that the communards had largely dismantled the repressive apparatus of the French state, while keeping a minimal set of aspects of it operational so as to defend the commune. Lenin nearly completely expropriated this in his defense of a transitional and fairly autocratic state that was to guide the revolution from Socialism to Communism in The State and Revolution. Josef Stalin, later, interpreted that as a sanction for dictatorship, which he explicitly defended, I think, in Foundations of Leninism, though can't quite remember the particular Marxist-Leninist text. I am fairly certain that it is one of the foundational Marxist-Leninist texts.

Marx had chosen an incendiary phrase in a polemic that Lenin had interpreted in his creation of a political philosophy that, in my opinion, departed from what had come to be Marxism, which Josef Stalin later took as a justification for his regime. Though there are causal chains on the links of historical events, there isn't quite the through line between Marx and Stalin that some people propose, as Marx had originally used the phrase to describe something wholly other, perhaps only so justifiable in itself, than what either Lenin or Stalin did.