In a nutshell, this was the Fabian plan or “conspiracy”: to systematically, and in their own words “stealthily”, take over education and, through education, also culture, politics and governance. And, as explained by R. Martin, they replicated this in America and throughout the British Empire. In other words, these are the practical details to Wells' more general outlines. — Apollodorus

Why would their plan have any resistance?

In any case, it is clear that Fabianism is not a democratic enterprise. The people have absolutely no say in it. If we want to change culture we need to change education. But we can't do that when education is in someone else's hands. — Apollodorus

Really if the decisions are not made through the democratic process, how are they made? :lol: I have tried to get people interested in education for many years. If Fabians found enough interested people to be effective, more power to them. Did they perhaps have an exclusive society that prevented people from getting involved?

If Fabians found enough interested people to be effective, more power to them. Did they perhaps have an exclusive society that prevented people from getting involved? — Athena

They didn't have a society preventing people from getting involved. They had one getting people involved without the people realizing what the ultimate objective was. Exactly as in communism. People got involved in the hope of building a better society but came to regret it.

History is full of examples of people getting involved in certain causes and then regretting doing so. Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, they all operate on the same basis.

People got involved in voting for Trump only to regret it afterward. That happens all the time. Politicians are good at manipulating public opinion. That's what they do for a living. You've got to do that because otherwise you don't get elected.

Hitler was elected democratically. Does that mean that Hitlerism was good? The point is not how you get to power but what you do with that power once you get it.

Well, philosophy does include logic. Plus, a philosopher king or whatever we choose to call a ruler would have economic advisers, exactly as existing heads of state do. — Apollodorus

I seriously doubt that past economic advisers were capable of giving good advise because they just were not thinking of the greater economy.

Even in Theodore Roosevelt's day, Europe was full of people with royal titles and that social order is nothing like the social order that evolves through exploring the world and trading. In the past, people were locked into their birth position, but with exploring and trading and then industrialization, we get the new rich and a huge shift in power.

Philosophy is not economics and our high-tech society that can feed everyone is not the result of philosophy. Where is the meeting ground between philosophy and economics? A focus on being compassionate is not going to achieve what we have achieved. On the other hand, I also fault economists who ignore our finite reality and create notions of economics that are not well-founded in reality. Our planet will not sustain the US standard of living around the world and I think we are behaving totally insanely!

I also fault economists who ignore our finite reality and create notions of economics that are not well-founded in reality. — Athena

That's exactly my point. Economics isn't an exact science. It can be interpreted and applied in many different ways. So, ultimately, what matters is what you aim to achieve, a truly just society or promote certain business interests that paid for your election campaign?

I'm just saying that Plato put forth that idea in opposition to the direct Athenian democracy and that it was, later, used to disrupt the Liberal democratic project. In some ideal sense, perhaps? I just think that, if we're going to establish a rule by the wise, it ought to be the case that everyone can come to be considered so.

People got involved in voting for Trump only to regret it afterward. That happens all the time. Politicians are good at manipulating public opinion. That's what they do for a living. — Apollodorus

Have you sat on committees that were developing policy or gotten involved with political activist work? When you think something needs to change, how do you go about getting that change? If you are not a good leader capable of uniting followers, you will not succeed and if our leaders do not succeed, we do not succeed.

Why did anyone regret the efforts of the Fabian Society? I am pushing the point because you are right about some movements going sour. Perhaps understanding why this happens could lead to avoiding the problem and succeeding instead of failing?

I just think that, if we're going to establish a rule by the wise, it ought to be the case that everyone can come to be considered so. — thewonder

Well, try to apply that logic to other areas. Nobody should have a university degree unless everyone can have a university degree. Nobody should be a talented singer or artist unless everyone can be a talented singer or artist, etc., etc.

People are different and we choose those that are best suited for a particular purpose. Otherwise abolish elections, exams, etc., etc.

I just think that if we're going to establish a rule by the wise, it ought to be the case that everyone can come to be considered so. — thewonder

The miracle of democracy is the group mind/consciousness. I wish I were a faster reader so I could read Apollodorus links to the books before saying anything. From the little I know now, the effort of the Fabian society is exactly what is needed but Apollodorus has said things went sour. On the other hand, I don't care who makes up the ruling group, it will never achieve the miracle of a democracy with full participation. I do not mean direct democracy, because that would never work for large populations, but a republic that empowers everyone.

Have you sat on committees that were developing policy or gotten involved with political activist work? When you think something needs to change, how do you go about getting that change? If you are not a good leader capable of uniting followers, you will not succeed and if our leaders do not succeed, we do not succeed.

Why did anyone regret the efforts of the Fabian Society? I am pushing the point because you are right about some movements going sour. Perhaps understanding why this happens could lead to avoiding the problem and succeeding instead of failing? — Athena

Yes, I have and I know exactly what it is like. It's a never-ending struggle that most of the time leads either to no results or to the wrong results. That's why Karl Marx gave up on politics and took up economics.

I doubt very much that people regret the efforts of the Fabian Society when the vast majority of people haven't even heard of its existence except perhaps small political circles like within the British Labour Party.

At the end of the day, if people are happy with the education and culture we have at the moment, then there is nothing to worry about. But if not, then something needs to be done. And to do something we need to know who the key players are in education, culture, politics, etc.

That's exactly my point. Economics isn't an exact science. It can be interpreted and applied in many different ways. So, ultimately, what matters is what you aim to achieve, a truly just society or promote certain business interests that paid for your election campaign? — Apollodorus

That is not how I understanding economics. We can measure everything, and with the right measurements, we can predict the future.

Let me explain myself. I knew a geologist who after years of working in the field became a professor, and he wrote books. It was an academic publisher who published his books and they were used in colleges. The publisher did not market the book in book stores such as Barnes and Noble, so I attempted to persuade economic professors to look at the book and they refused. They had no understanding of what finite reality has to do with economics, not even oil! Their heads were up in the clouds somewhere with economic theories. Like hello, the gold rush led to boom towns, and the boom towns became ghost towns, and that is a complete failure of economic planning. Oil-rich nations tend to be one resource economies and when the oil is gone, they are back to riding camels. They know this and are investing much of their wealth in military power, and they will not sink into poverty passively.

The US would be so screwed if it had not been for fracking ending our dependency on foreign oil. Isreal could not take more and more land from Palestinians without the protection of a large nation and its military build-up. The US needs to secure its access to oil and chose to do so militarily and that makes Israel essential to the US, the economic fallout of all this is huge and I highly doubt there is one economic professor explaining it. Now, what are the philosopher-kings going to do with this information? Which philosophy course explains these concerns are vital to keeping people fed?

Yes, I have and I know exactly what it is like. It's a never-ending struggle that most of the time leads either to no results or to the wrong results. That's why Karl Marx gave up on politics and took up economics.

I doubt very much that people regret the efforts of the Fabian Society when the vast majority of people haven't even heard of its existence except perhaps small political circles like within the British Labour Party.

At the end of the day, if people are happy with the education and culture we have at the moment, then there is nothing to worry about. But if not, then something needs to be done. And to do something we need to know who the key players are in education, culture, politics, etc. — Apollodorus

I really need to move on to my mundane life, and I hate doing that in the middle of a really hot debate.

You said

People got involved in the hope of building a better society but came to regret it. — Apollodorus

Why did they regret it?

But when it comes to education you said

People got involved in voting for Trump only to regret it afterward. That happens all the time. Politicians are good at manipulating public opinion. That's what they do for a living. You've got to do that because otherwise you don't get elected.

Hitler was elected democratically. Does that mean that Hitlerism was good? The point is not how you get to power but what you do with that power once you get it. — Apollodorus

:brow: Trump and his thugs are the same as Hilter and his thugs, and is the result of replacing the US replacing its liberal education with the German model of education for technology. For a good 30 years, I have been trying to make people aware of this change in education and it is futile because people are clueless about what culture has to do with being a democracy, and they are convinced education for technology is essential to our wealth. When Eisenhower put that into place, he warned of the dangers and no one pays attention to the warning, nor do they accept the science of global warming, nor do they know what have is temporary and will come to a terrible end unless there are a few miracles.

That is not how I understanding economics. We can measure everything, and with the right measurements, we can predict the future.

Let me explain myself. I knew a geologist who after years of working in the field became a professor, and he wrote books. It was an academic publisher who published his books and they were used in colleges. The publisher did not market the book in book stores such as Barnes and Noble, so I attempted to persuade economic professors to look at the book and they refused. They had no understanding of what finite reality has to do with economics, not even oil! Their heads were up in the clouds somewhere with economic theories. Like hello, the gold rush led to boom towns, and the boom towns became ghost towns, and that is a complete failure of economic planning. Oil-rich nations tend to be one resource economies and when the oil is gone, they are back to riding camels. They know this and are investing much of their wealth in military power, and they will not sink into poverty passively.

The US would be so screwed if it had not been for fracking ending our dependency on foreign oil. Isreal could not take more and more land from Palestinians without the protection of a large nation and its military build-up. The US needs to secure its access to oil and chose to do so militarily and that makes Israel essential to the US, the economic fallout of all this is huge and I highly doubt there is one economic professor explaining it. Now, what are the philosopher-kings going to do with this information? Which philosophy course explains these concerns are vital to keeping people fed? — Athena

This is from the Investopedia Guide to Economics:

"Economics is generally regarded as a social science, although some critics of the field argue that economics falls short of the definition of a science for a number of reasons, including a lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones."

So, first of all, critics point out that economics isn't a science and even less an exact one.

Secondly, even if it was an exact science, it is still interpreted and applied differently by different political factions. Otherwise, all governing political parties would have an identical economic program. But they don't. Different parties stress different sectors of the economy or employ different methods to pursue their policies.

In Soviet Russia there was an overproduction of bricks for the building industry but there was a shortage of shoes, etc. How do we explain that, in a political system following the economics of Marx who was supposed to be an economic genius?

When the British Labour Party came to power in 1945 it introduced nationalization and other Marxist policies, it got billions in loans from America on top of Marshall Plan aid, etc. And it still failed so miserably that it got kicked out after just five years. Its reputation in the field of economics has never recovered since.

As for philosophy, Pythagoras, Plato and other famous Greek philosophers all believed that it should have a practical application in public life. Roman emperors often agreed and tried to style themselves philosophers. If we deny this, then what good is philosophy?

You said
People got involved in the hope of building a better society but came to regret it.
— Apollodorus

Why did they regret it? — Athena

For example, in the Russian Revolution people got involved in overthrowing the imperial system. But what they got was a new emperor called Stalin who murdered or starved to death millions of innocent people.

What I'm saying is that people can get involved politically without knowing what the end result will be.

For a good 30 years, I have been trying to make people aware of this change in education and it is futile because people are clueless about what culture has to do with being a democracy, and they are convinced education for technology is essential to our wealth. When Eisenhower put that into place, he warned of the dangers and no one pays attention to the warning, nor do they accept the science of global warming, nor do they know what have is temporary and will come to a terrible end unless there are a few miracles. — Athena

If we look at it from that perspective, then nothing can be done, there is no hope, and no point discussing anything.

Personally, I think we can learn from the Fabians. Take their slogan "Educate, Agitate, Organize", and start educating, organizing, and mobilizing the people. But we can't do that if we can't agree what to educate them about or what we want to achieve.

I think that you misunderstand.

Cultivating wisdom as such would result in the cultivation of cults of personality and the formation of intellectual classes. Those two things already pose certain predicaments for me. Why, when the fundamental qualms that I have with society already are not resolved, should I go for another way of organizing it?

If we are to take you and Plato at his and your word, in good faith, and interpret you well, within a political context, it would seem that the training of philosopher kings would result in a syncretic form of representative and participatory democracy. In the ideal sense, these "philosopher kings" are just open-minded Liberals and Anarchist political philosophers. Why even adopt such a moniker?

Why, when the fundamental qualms that I have with society already are not resolved, should I go for another way of organizing it? — thewonder

To resolve those qualms. But you don't have to. You can always join the Communist Party or the Taliban. Or just leave it.

I don't see how my assumption that there ought to be a somewhat equitable access to education is somehow indicative of that I advance some form of extreme egalitarianism.

It's been over one-hundred years since the era of industrialization. I'm still just some down and out Catholic school kid from a working class neighborhood who never can seem to get past kind of a lot of wealthy and abusive middle-aged men. As much as I don't harbor any animosity towards people with wealth or the lucky few who are let to become successful within academia, classism just isn't charming and mentalism really is a form of prejudice.

They don't like anyone with a fair amount of intelligence and common sense. They never have and never will. They're right not to. What often happens is that people like me get everyone else to understand that they're just kind of using them, as, if we don't, we will be marginalized and isolated from society. On some level, they're right to claim that we're just trying to remove them from their positions of authority. Clearly, we have good reason to. They could always just give up on their boarding school habits, though. There came a time in my life where I thought that I should consider as to why it is that Jason Pierce has developed the band, Spiritualized, and let go of what I thought about Spacemen 3. It takes half of them until around sixty-five to gain even the semblance of maturity, though.

This is just a personal gripe and nothing to anyone here, really. I can appreciate Classical music. I'm glad that there's a world outside of it, too, though.

A joke that I have added to this comment:

I grew up in an actual split-level house next to an actual sewer in an actual post-industrial working class neighborhood with a proverbial "other side of town" across the bridge and over the rain tracks that also happens to be kind of a mob retirement community and went to an actual Catholic school where there were actual informally organized boxing matches in the parking lot where we had our recess. It's a good thing that I am a Pacifist and don't have any friends because we otherwise probably would have started the American equivalent of the Provisional Irish Republican Army by now.

A closing remark:

As much as I, too, am a great fan of his work, I do kind of lament that the creative oeuvre of Wes Anderson has had the effect of, again, convincing the global populace that what isn't really, but people generally term "racketeering" is fun. I just want to be let to like Bottle Rocket again. Alas, though, I should stop going on like this, and, so, will give the original poster their thread back.

Well, okay, I apologize for venting.

I don't see how either genuine representative or participatory democracy are akin to either of those things, but, whatever.

I don't see how either genuine representative or participatory democracy are akin to either of those things, but, whatever. — thewonder

If someone doesn't see something it doesn't mean it's impossible or it isn't true. But I think "whatever" is probably the word.

I think a major point that has been missed here is the ultimate objective of Fabianism. When I ask people what current political system they think Fabianism most resembles, they tend to say “America” or “England”. This immediately tells me that they have failed to process and assimilate what Fabianism is about, because the answer is China (though it used to be the Soviet Union).

Shocking as this may sound, this is the reality of Fabianism if we carefully read Fabian documents. As I said before, the original Fabians were radical members of the British Liberal Party and that means Marxists.

G B Shaw openly (and proudly) admitted that he discovered his political career by reading Marx. Now, at that time “Marxist” or “socialist” was a dirty word in polite society. There was no way middle-class Liberals could have promoted Marxism openly. So, these “Liberal” Marxists decided to slightly modify Marxism to make it palatable to wider sections of society. So they used more indirect and suggestive language that still preserved the Marxist essence of Fabianism.

“The object of the Fabian Society is to persuade the English people to make their political constitution thoroughly democratic and so to socialize their industries as to make the livelihood of the people entirely independent of private Capitalism” - Fabian Tract No. 70, 3

The original agenda of the Labour Party which the Fabians founded in 1900 was to enforce socialism through nationalization, state control and abolition of private property.

Common ownership of the means of production, state administration and control of all industries and services (1918 Constitution).

Land nationalisation (1918 Manifesto, Labour and New social order, etc.).

That was exactly what the Fabians and Labour tried to enforce when they came to power in 1945 but failed to win support for all the Marxist policies they would have liked to implement.

But there is much more to it. Leading Fabians like H. G. Wells and G. B. Shaw were great admirers of totalitarian regimes such as Communist Russia to which they maintained close links.

The Webbs knew Lenin personally from before the 1917 Revolution (remember they were in contact with Marxist revolutionaries through the Socialist International and other organizations) and had a portrait of Lenin at their private home. They made several trips to Russia as did Shaw and wrote “Soviet Communism: A New Civilization” in praise of the regime which they believed should be copied by England and the whole world.

The Fabians regarded Bolshevism as “applied Fabianism”. They called the Soviet Union “Union of Fabian Republics”. Lenin was “the greatest statesman of Europe”. Stalin was a “good man” and a “good Fabian”, etc., etc.

So, basically, as many historians have pointed out, the Fabians were promoting Communism under the guise of “democratic socialism”. This is exactly what earned them the label of “Fabian Conspiracy” in addition to their well-documented policy of stealth.

IMO pretending to promote a democratic system when in fact you are promoting a totalitarian one is not only disingenuous but also undemocratic - by definition.

"Economics is generally regarded as a social science, although some critics of the field argue that economics falls short of the definition of a science for a number of reasons, including a lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones." — Apollodorus

That is as smart as all the different religious leaders taking their flock in a different direction, and basing their understanding of life on a fiction. How in the world did we come to an agreement that that is economics?

Secondly, even if it was an exact science, it is still interpreted and applied differently by different political factions. Otherwise, all governing political parties would have an identical economic program. But they don't. Different parties stress different sectors of the economy or employ different methods to pursue their policies. — Apollodorus

:lol: Yeap and might there be something wrong with that? How about, something a whole lot wrong with that? It isn't just about politics inside a nation, but politics and the whole world! They all need to get their heads out of the cloud and ground economics in reality.

In Soviet Russia there was an overproduction of bricks for the building industry but there was a shortage of shoes, etc. How do we explain that, in a political system following the economics of Marx who was supposed to be an economic genius? — Apollodorus

Obviously, that thinking was not grounded in necessary facts. Not only is it necessary to know the number of shoes needed but also do we have resources for making shoes? Where do the resources from come?

As for philosophy, Pythagoras, Plato and other famous Greek philosophers all believed that it should have a practical application in public life. Roman emperors often agreed and tried to style themselves philosophers. If we deny this, then what good is philosophy? — Apollodorus

Wow, what a great observation that is. And how well was scientific thinking developed in the day of Plato and Rome? Rome's economic problems were directly related to its supply of gold, and it is a great example of what is wrong with having an economy dependent on oil, and not figuring that into economic thinking. Religion and philosophy are great for talking about who to treat each other. It is not science and economic thinking should not be modeled on philosophy without reality.

What I'm saying is that people can get involved politically without knowing what the end result will be. — Apollodorus

That is one reason we should pay attention to history. Our education for a technological society may be smart but it sure isn't wise. We can forgive people in the past for their ignorance because they didn't have history to learn from and the ability to educate everyone and keep people informed, but we do not have a good excuse for our ignorance.

If we look at it from that perspective, then nothing can be done, there is no hope, and no point discussing anything.

Personally, I think we can learn from the Fabians. Take their slogan "Educate, Agitate, Organize", and start educating, organizing, and mobilizing the people. But we can't do that if we can't agree what to educate them about or what we want to achieve. — Apollodorus

Perfect, I agree with that 100% and one of the stupidest things in all time is our use of TV for advertising and appealing to our lowest instincts to attract people who watch the advertising, instead of using it to educate the masses and keep them updated. The other really stupid thing is letting industry make education decisions instead of the educators and our failure to prepare these educators to prepare the young for democracy as they once were when used education to mobilize for war.

We need a Fabian society to correct these grievous errors.

I don't see how my assumption that there ought to be a somewhat equitable access to education is somehow indicative of that I advance some form of extreme egalitarianism.

It's been over one-hundred years since the era of industrialization. I'm still just some down and out Catholic school kid from a working class neighborhood who never can seem to get past kind of a lot of wealthy and abusive middle-aged men. As much as I don't harbor any animosity towards people with wealth or the lucky few who are let to become successful within academia, classism just isn't charming and mentalism really is a form of prejudice.

They don't like anyone with a fair amount of intelligence and common sense. They never have and never will. They're right not to. What often happens is that people like me get everyone else to understand that they're just kind of using them, as, if we don't, we will be marginalized and isolated from society. On some level, they're right to claim that we're just trying to remove them from their positions of authority. Clearly, we have good reason to. They could always just give up on their boarding school habits, though. There came a time in my life where I thought that I should consider as to why it is that Jason Pierce has developed the band, Spiritualized, and let go of what I thought about Spacemen 3. It takes half of them until around sixty-five to gain even the semblance of maturity, though.

This is just a personal gripe and nothing to anyone here, really. I can appreciate Classical music. I'm glad that there's a world outside of it, too, though.

A joke that I have added to this comment:

I grew up in an actual split-level house next to an actual sewer in an actual post-industrial working class neighborhood with a proverbial "other side of town" across the bridge and over the rain tracks that also happens to be kind of a mob retirement community and went to an actual Catholic school where there were actual informally organized boxing matches in the parking lot where we had our recess. It's a good thing that I am a Pacifist and don't have any friends because we otherwise probably would have started the American equivalent of the Provisional Irish Republican Army by now.

A closing remark:

As much as I, too, am a great fan of his work, I do kind of lament that the creative oeuvre of Wes Anderson has had the effect of, again, convincing the global populace that what isn't really, but people generally term "racketeering" is fun. I just want to be let to like Bottle Rocket again. Alas, though, I should stop going on like this, and, so, will give the original poster their thread back. — thewonder

I need to see the quotes with the replies, otherwise, it is like walking into the middle of a conversation and not knowing what people are talking about.

Equitable education is essential to democracy. What we have been doing, giving some children excellent education while other children live in life-threatening neighborhoods, with very poorly funded schools, is insane. Science is just beginning to point out that inequity sets our young on very different paths. We are still very primitive and we may self-destruct before making adequate changes but science might make a difference. The chances of that happening increase if we start using TV to educate the people and create a better world.

You write of the old world order that is ordered by family. In the old world order children are dependent on their families for any advantages they may have, and if they are raised by poorly educated parents doing manual labor for very low wages, they will not have advantages. Importantly among the advantages is social ties and cultural differences.

The new world order is about merit. That means anyone with the necessary education has an opportunity to rise up and achieve the highest levels. Now we know that is an ideal but not exactly the whole story. The human factor has not gone away and that is a good thing. But there are people who believe we all be better off when everything is run by computers. I really don't think we want to go that far in overriding the human factor. In the New World Order, people are dependent on the state, not the family, and that may not be a good thing?

I believe you not only are you no topic, but you raise our awareness of the complexity of it all. The upper class, middle class, and low class have different values, and just how much should government and education shape the child's values? The US "Americanized" the immigrants' children and many of those children walked away from their families and never looked back. The children went on to achieve the American dream, especially if they fought in WWII and took advantage of the GI Bill and got in on the new technologies when there was very little competition for those higher-level jobs. Back in the day, not only was the education free to GIs but their education almost guaranteed upward economic mobility. That was not that long ago and it dramatically changed our lives and expectations. We have a lot of soul searching to do and questions to ask.

think a major point that has been missed here is the ultimate objective of Fabianism. When I ask people what current political system they think Fabianism most resembles, they tend to say “America” or “England”. This immediately tells me that they have failed to process and assimilate what Fabianism is about, because the answer is China (though it used to be the Soviet Union).

Shocking as this may sound, this is the reality of Fabianism if we carefully read Fabian documents. As I said before, the original Fabians were radical members of the British Liberal Party and that means Marxists.

G B Shaw openly (and proudly) admitted that he discovered his political career by reading Marx. Now, at that time “Marxist” or “socialist” was a dirty word in polite society. There was no way middle-class Liberals could have promoted Marxism openly. So, these “Liberal” Marxists decided to slightly modify Marxism to make it palatable to wider sections of society. So they used more indirect and suggestive language that still preserved the Marxist essence of Fabianism.

“The object of the Fabian Society is to persuade the English people to make their political constitution thoroughly democratic and so to socialize their industries as to make the livelihood of the people entirely independent of private Capitalism” - Fabian Tract No. 70, 3

The original agenda of the Labour Party which the Fabians founded in 1900 was to enforce socialism through nationalization, state control and abolition of private property.

Common ownership of the means of production, state administration and control of all industries and services (1918 Constitution).

Land nationalisation (1918 Manifesto, Labour and New social order, etc.).

That was exactly what the Fabians and Labour tried to enforce when they came to power in 1945 but failed to win support for all the Marxist policies they would have liked to implement.

But there is much more to it. Leading Fabians like H. G. Wells and G. B. Shaw were great admirers of totalitarian regimes such as Communist Russia to which they maintained close links.

The Webbs knew Lenin personally from before the 1917 Revolution (remember they were in contact with Marxist revolutionaries through the Socialist International and other organizations) and had a portrait of Lenin at their private home. They made several trips to Russia as did Shaw and wrote “Soviet Communism: A New Civilization” in praise of the regime which they believed should be copied by England and the whole world.

The Fabians regarded Bolshevism as “applied Fabianism”. They called the Soviet Union “Union of Fabian Republics”. Lenin was “the greatest statesman of Europe”. Stalin was a “good man” and a “good Fabian”, etc., etc.

So, basically, as many historians have pointed out, the Fabians were promoting Communism under the guise of “democratic socialism”. This is exactly what earned them the label of “Fabian Conspiracy” in addition to their well-documented policy of stealth.

IMO pretending to promote a democratic system when in fact you are promoting a totalitarian one is not only disingenuous but also undemocratic - by definition. — Apollodorus

Where do you stand on all of that? I thought we agreed private property is a good thing? However, workers need affordable housing and that requires government to step in because privately there is no affordable, decent housing for low paid workers. Because of population growth land needs to be set aside for low income housing and it needs to be spread about the incorporated area.

All economies depend on low income workers and these workers need to depend on government subsidies as a social thank you for their important social and economiic contribution. And every child must be assured a safe neighborhood and good education.

However? I am not sure government should provide child care and all adults should be forced to work for economic reasons? I think the traditional values and traditional women are essential to a civil society. I am more in favor of supporting individualism than destroying it.

One of my favorite books is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, maybe he was writing in response to Fabians? George Orwell's 1984 is also a warning against totarianism. We speak of democracy and say too little of liberty. I do not want to live in a country without liberty and that means people will make choices that lead to poverty and I will point out that means a lot of women getting paid very poorly for caring for others because that is meaningful and essential work and that work is not about honest profit. In such circumstances that is where government needs to subsidize the worker. And I would leave the homeless in camps that are provided for everyone's safety. Taking all challenges out of life is not doing anyone a favor. Moving from a camp to a home should require making a social contribution.

Hum, :chin: we could talk about what is a honest profit and what is the ugliness that we see in capitalism.

For example, in the Russian Revolution people got involved in overthrowing the imperial system. But what they got was a new emperor called Stalin who murdered or starved to death millions of innocent people.

What I'm saying is that people can get involved politically without knowing what the end result will be. — Apollodorus

:lol: What choice do youth have? They do not know enough about life to make well informed decisions.
For give me, this thread seems to be making me aware of how different my thinking is! :chin: I so remember rushing out into life eager to get my peice of the pie, and to my horror finding my life was totally different than what I expected and realizing how much I did not know! Now as an old woman I find no one wants to hear what I have to say nor the lessons I have learned. They all want to rush out there and discover life for themselves.

My point is, along with all the other changes in life is the growing populations of long lived people. This means a totally different consciousness than in the past. When things changed slowly and there were no scientist or professional experts, we listened to our elders and valued their experience.

Then education for technology told the children old people are old and out dated and technology was creating a whole new world, elementating any reason to turn to the elders. Our technological world, with merit hiring, has destroyed family values and family order. Like lemmings we are all rushing over a cliff and this is really stupid because we have more information that ever before and the scientific method of determining truth, and we are not developing a culture of independent thinkers and long lived people. We are looking for a leader and don't know the cliff is infront of us. Our expectations have gone wild and our sense of responsibility has crashed.

Where do you stand on all of that? I thought we agreed private property is a good thing? However, workers need affordable housing and that requires government to step in because privately there is no affordable, decent housing for low paid workers. Because of population growth land needs to be set aside for low income housing and it needs to be spread about the incorporated area. — Athena

Yes, we did agree that private property is a good thing.

Once we have understood that the ultimate aim of Fabianism is to impose communism, we can see how the abolition of private property is an unacceptable feature of totalitarianism.

In order to eradicate economic injustice, utopian socialists before Marx suggested solutions such as the abolition of private property. These solutions were often linked to other extreme measures like the abolition of marriage and the abolition of religion. The original Fabians were far-left, extreme radicals of all sorts from Marxists to Anarchists.

Marx and Engels copied most of their ideas from the utopian socialists but coached them in language that sounded “scientific” to make those utopian ideas more palatable to prospective followers. The abolition of private property was no different.

In 1845, Marx and Engels had written in The German Ideology that in Communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, “society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me 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 …”

Marx and Engels failed to find a publisher for their book and it is not difficult to see why. Their idyllic picture of communist society may seem enchanting, but only so long as no questions are asked. It may well be possible in a communist society for all citizens to engage in various spheres of activity, but who would decide what activities should be pursued by millions of citizens at any given time and place and how? What if some preferred to engage in a different type of work or chose not to work at all?

Only three years later, in the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels totally reversed the above utopian description of the future society by suggesting not only that all citizens would be “equally liable to work” but that they would be organized in “industrial armies, especially for agriculture”.

Apparently, citizens could now no longer do as they pleased. Their “freedom” consisted in joining the army of workers and perform work as directed by the state which was the new owner of land and means of production. This new description implies that, far from being “free”, all citizens will be turned into the state’s servants or instruments of production. As later happened in Soviet Russia and Maoist China and as Britain's Fabian Socialist Labour Party attempted to enforce in 1945.

Marx and Engels’ insistence on armies of workers engaged in large-scale industrial production is also the key to understanding the true meaning of other Marxist concepts such as “abolition of private property” and “common ownership”.

The Communist Manifesto, although calling for the abolition of private property, does not explain what this means in practice. Its hidden meaning only comes to light by (1) taking the authors’ statements to their logical conclusion and (2) seeing how they were applied in Marxist societies.

The Manifesto states very clearly that communism was to abolish property in land and all rights of inheritance. This means that land and houses would become property of the state along with all means of production (raw materials, tools, machinery and factories), transport and communication. This would leave the citizens of communist society with nothing but personal belongings such as clothing and household items.

In terms of housing, the only option would be state-owned accommodation. Marx and Engels believed that, for communist society to be sustainable, workers had to produce as much as possible as efficiently as possible. This required a workforce that was highly disciplined and organized like an army, which was also the Fabian idea. And as armies are housed in barracks provided by the state, so too, industrial armies would be housed in barracks-style, state-owned housing estates. Indeed, dormitories and accommodation blocks with communal kitchens – and little privacy – became a standard feature of urban planning in the wake of the Communist takeover in Russia.

Obviously, this system of state-owned housing also severely restricted freedom of movement, which once again shows why communism - and Fabian Socialism leading to Communism - is a totalitarian system that is unacceptable to lovers of freedom and democracy.

This is why Fabian Socialist parties like the British Labour Party attempt to publicly distance themselves from controversial Marxist policies like abolition of property while covertly aiming to eventually establish a communist system. And this also applies in various degrees to other "democratic" or "social democratic" parties - like the US Democratic Party - that have close links to Britain's Fabian Society and Labour Party.

One of my favorite books is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, maybe he was writing in response to Fabians? George Orwell's 1984 is also a warning against totarianism. We speak of democracy and say too little of liberty. I do not want to live in a country without liberty — Athena

It is very interesting that Fabians were so indoctrinated or brainwashed that from the thousands of Fabian Society members very few ever rebelled against Fabianism although a few did rebel against the Society itself. These included Huxley, Orwell and Wells. But even then many of them continued to cooperate with the Society in many ways. Perhaps, knowing the extent of Fabian influence, they felt powerless to resist Fabianism? I think this in itself would make a fascinating topic and instructive study in the psychology of cult-like political movements.

Anyway, the Fabians had a highly sophisticated propaganda machine comprising a propaganda bureau linked to literary societies, book clubs and similar organizations through which they churned out hundreds and later thousands of items of imaginative literature of all sorts from novels to science fiction through which they promoted Fabian ideas.

Bernard Shaw was the main propagandist of the Fabian Society and wrote many pamphlets that were translated in various languages as well as being a highly influential playwright. In 1925 he said that the world had been “thoroughly Fabianized”.

In fact, we learn a lot about the Fabians from Shaw. While the Webbs and other Fabians were English and therefore much more reserved and guarded in the language they used, Shaw was Irish and his more candid or careless statements were all over the papers as well as in his own writings. So Shaw is a good source for Fabian ideology and policy although other leaders like the Webbs were the actual ideological leaders.

choice do youth have? They do not know enough about life to make well informed decisions.
For give me, this thread seems to be making me aware of how different my thinking is! :chin: I so remember rushing out into life eager to get my peice of the pie, and to my horror finding my life was totally different than what I expected and realizing how much I did not know! — Athena

The youth are totally dependent on guidance and direction from the older ones. That's why education is so important. We have no control over the education system. But this doesn't mean that we are completely powerless. We can still make use of modern communication technology to raise public awareness of things that are not right in society and of the need to do something about it, in other words, educate, organize and mobilize the public exactly like the Fabians have done it and many others do it even now. Start with family, colleagues, neighbors and friends and inform the people.