Fabianism

[Immanuel Can]

Here's a new and interesting topic.

I've been looking at the phenomenon of politicians and billionaires advocating Socialism, and yet somehow managing to end up rich and privileged themselves. One might call it Wefism (after the WEF), or Schwabism, perhaps, or Pelosism, or Clintonism, or Obamaism, or Saundersism, or Omarism, or Newsomism, or Trudeauism, or Carnism, or Whitlamism, or Albanesism...the country may change, but the phenomenon simply does not. And it goes from the political to the business world, too: Sorosism, Singhamism, Finkism...And it includes the world of economists: Engelism, Keynesism, Pikketyism, Sweezyism...yet none of these are elegant at all. But we need some new name for a phenomenon so general. And the tradition has been to meld some man's name with "ism" to designate the ideology behind the idea.

To anyone with even one eye open, this phenomenon is so widespread, so glaringly obvious, and so shamelessly exposed that many, many rich and privileged people are adovcating Socialism while not ever denying themselves a single dinner for doing so -- and actually managing, in every case, to become much richer while claiming to represent redistributive 'justice' policies...that somehow never ever manage to touch them -- that it simply must have a convenient label.

Whatever it is, it clearly isn't true to the dogmas of Socialism itself. There can be no explanation in Socialist theory, when considered all by itself, for the rising prosperity of the most ardent leaders, advocates and funders of Socialist causes. Some name must be coined, if there is no such thing available today.

I discover that the phenomenon already has a name. A long-standing one. Our highly-literate English colleagues have provided us one, ready-made. How convenient. "Fabianism."

Poor old England. This is not going to end well. Your only consolation is going to be that it's not going to end well anywhere else, either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiUV0rM9v7s

[Radagast]

In Britain, the word Fabianism has a whiff of the early 20th century about it. It's not exactly, so far as we can currently tell, the wave of the future. I expect some Labour Party activist still take it very seriously, and the Fabian Society is still a going concern, though basically a think tank. I note that none of the names you put in front of "ism" are from the UK - they are mainly US, a few Canadian, an Australian and a Hungarian. Most of them don't seem like socialists, either. Do you mind if I ask you for your definition of "socialist"?

[MikeNovack]

I think your confusion is precisely because you deny the "other" threads/traditions of socialism. Because you insist on seeing "socialism" as a single "dogma".

Yes, you have spotted the existence one of the "other" lines. Thinking "not true to dogma" is misunderstanding. Not all socialism is Marxist let alone Leninist << when you say "Marxist" you seem to be meaning JUST the "revolutionary Marxists" forgetting that Marx was dead before THAT split among the Marxists >>

The Fabians werte gradualists. That might go some way to help you understand the apparent contradiction of those wealthy supporting it while not denying themselves the benefits of their wealth << though to be fair, SOME of them did compromise in that direction >> IN THE FUTURE WE WILL BE LIVING EQUALLY (but that's long in the future, not now in my lifetime). So while they were working to advance movements and causes they thought were leading in the right direction, not seeing this necessarily requiring them to change their personal ife styles.

The Fabians were organized in the 1880's. Remember, back then in the UK didn't yet have votes for men (let alone women) so "democratic socialists" of their ilk would see much preliminary work to be done before could move toward economic equality.

This being a philosophy forum, I would think you might look at Bertrand Russell.

NOTE: "Democratic Socialists" as a category would include both Marxists (of the non-revoiutionary sort) and non-Marxists (the Fabians an example)

[phyllo]

Jesus was a Fabianist.

[Immanuel Can]

In Britain, the word Fabianism has a whiff of the early 20th century about it. It's not exactly, so far as we can currently tell, the wave of the future. I expect some Labour Party activist still take it very seriously, and the Fabian Society is still a going concern, though basically a think tank. I note that none of the names you put in front of "ism" are from the UK - they are mainly US, a few Canadian, an Australian and a Hungarian. Most of them don't seem like socialists, either. Do you mind if I ask you for your definition of "socialist"?

I've given it before, R...but you've not been here, so I don't mind repeating.

My definition is very broad, very inclusive, very generous, and focuses only on the fundamentals that all Socialists would happily claim: collectivism rather than individualism (that's basic, obviously), the elimination of private property (which Marx himself called Socialism's most basic definition), and the seizing of all means of production (broadly considered, including not merely factories or resources, but other things such a culture and man himself, usually done in the name of "The People"), all achieved through the installing of a singular, monolythic, "Socialist" government.

Beyond those three things, Socialism has many forms. But they all claim to come back to these three key values, above all, and usually to the instrumentality of Big Government, as well.

[Immanuel Can]

Jesus was a Fabianist.

Nope. The man who "had no place to lay His head" certainly was not. And He had no political program at all...a fact which the Sadducees and Zealots, two parties of his day who certainly had very strong political ambitions, continually complained about.

[Immanuel Can]

...you insist on seeing "socialism" as a single "dogma".

You mean like Marx did? Gee, what a surprise.

The Fabians werte gradualists.

A change of methodology, but not of ideology.

And clearly, not of hypocrisy, either.

[phyllo]

Jesus was a Fabianist.

Nope. The man who "had no place to lay His head" certainly was not. And He had no political program at all...a fact which the Sadducees and Zealots, two parties of his day who certainly had very strong political ambitions, continually complained about.

He wanted society to change. That's a political program.

Of course now, Christianity is about preserving whatever exists. Protecting the landowners and the robber barons.

[Immanuel Can]

In Britain, the word Fabianism has a whiff of the early 20th century about it. It's not exactly, so far as we can currently tell, the wave of the future. I expect some Labour Party activist still take it very seriously, and the Fabian Society is still a going concern, though basically a think tank.

That "think tank" has most of the Labour Party, including the PM, as members. I think they're doing a whole lot more than "thinking."

I note that none of the names you put in front of "ism" are from the UK - they are mainly US, a few Canadian, an Australian and a Hungarian.

Precisely the point. Its a super-national phenomenon. There's also nothing at all unusual about it. It's everywhere.

But we can call it by one of those other names, such as "Pelosism" or "Trudeauism" if you wish...it won't matter.

The important thing is to ask the key question:

"Why would wealthy people be urgently advocating for Socialism, which is supposed to be redistributive and egalitarian?"

And also

"How come they keep getting richer by the day by doing so?"

those are surely the obvious questions that need to be asked, rather than getting distracted by mere nomenclature.

[Immanuel Can]

Jesus was a Fabianist.

Nope. The man who "had no place to lay His head" certainly was not. And He had no political program at all...a fact which the Sadducees and Zealots, two parties of his day who certainly had very strong political ambitions, continually complained about.

He wanted society to change.

I don't find he ever addressed matters of "society": not even once. And a quick concordance search will show I'm right about that.

[phyllo]

Society cannot remain the same if individuals adopt the values that Jesus espouses.

[Gary Childress]

Here's a new and interesting topic.

I've been looking at the phenomenon of politicians and billionaires advocating Socialism, and yet somehow managing to end up rich and privileged themselves. One might call it Wefism (after the WEF), or Schwabism, perhaps, or Pelosism, or Clintonism, or Obamaism, or Saundersism, or Omarism, or Newsomism, or Trudeauism, or Carnism, or Whitlamism, or Albanesism...the country may change, but the phenomenon simply does not. And it goes from the political to the business world, too: Sorosism, Singhamism, Finkism...And it includes the world of economists: Engelism, Keynesism, Pikketyism, Sweezyism...yet none of these are elegant at all. But we need some new name for a phenomenon so general. And the tradition has been to meld some man's name with "ism" to designate the ideology behind the idea.

To anyone with even one eye open, this phenomenon is so widespread, so glaringly obvious, and so shamelessly exposed that many, many rich and privileged people are adovcating Socialism while not ever denying themselves a single dinner for doing so -- and actually managing, in every case, to become much richer while claiming to represent redistributive 'justice' policies...that somehow never ever manage to touch them -- that it simply must have a convenient label.

Whatever it is, it clearly isn't true to the dogmas of Socialism itself. There can be no explanation in Socialist theory, when considered all by itself, for the rising prosperity of the most ardent leaders, advocates and funders of Socialist causes. Some name must be coined, if there is no such thing available today.

I discover that the phenomenon already has a name. A long-standing one. Our highly-literate English colleagues have provided us one, ready-made. How convenient. "Fabianism."

Poor old England. This is not going to end well. Your only consolation is going to be that it's not going to end well anywhere else, either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiUV0rM9v7s

Fabianism is a British socialist movement and theory, founded in 1884, that advocates for a gradual, peaceful transition to socialism through democratic reforms rather than revolution. Known for its "gradualist" approach, it seeks to influence public policy via research and lobbying ("permeation") to achieve social justice, rather than through violent overthrow.

So what is your complaint with Fabianism? Do you prefer violent revolution? Do you prefer the wealthy to be cut throat, dog eat dog, competitive. A wealthy person who advocates for socialism seems better than a wealthy person who thinks of the poor as undeserving low lifes. You're fighting the wrong people. You're condemning civility and consideration for the poor, in the name of what I have no idea. You're delusional.

[Immanuel Can]

So what is your complaint with Fabianism?

You should watch the video, Gary.

A wealthy person who advocates for socialism seems better than a wealthy person who thinks of the poor as undeserving low lifes.

Well, those aren't the alternatives, obviously. You could have a wealthy person who has earned his wealth, and whose wealth increases the wealth and welfare of everybody else. They're called "inventors," or "entrepreneurs." And they're not particularly rare. We should all be grateful for the men who invented computers, or health care technologies, or even entertainment things that we all enjoy...and why would they have put in the effort, taken the risk, or even bothered to ponder the opportunity, if it were not both to their personal financial prospects and to the betterment of our lifestyles when they did so?

So do you want your life to be better, or do you want mankind to stop creating, innovating and inventing? And if they can lift your prospects by doing so, do you want them to keep doing it, or do you want them to quit?

But now, let's ask the right question: is there anything we should be suspicious about, if one of those rich Socialist-advocates you're talking about just keeps getting richer, and richer and richer, while still mouthing Socialism?

Because we're not short of examples of so-called Socialist-advocates who are doing just that. And at some point, shouldn't we ask ourselves if we're being had?

The refreshing thing about the Fabians is their unapologetic lust for power. They don't hide it: they really think they're an elite group, which, by right of its superiority, can reengineer society -- meaning you and me -- to fit their plans and to bestow upon them yet more power, riches and influence. Most of the other Socialist-advocating groups are either less self-aware or less frank than that.

But we might well suspect they're ultimately no different.

[MikeNovack]

Because we're not short of examples of so-called Socialist-advocates who are doing just that. And at some point, shouldn't we ask ourselves if we're being had?

The refreshing thing about the Fabians is their unapologetic lust for power. They don't hide it: they really think they're an elite group, which, by right of its superiority, can reengineer society -- meaning you and me -- to fit their plans and to bestow upon them yet more power, riches and influence. Most of the other Socialist-advocating groups are either less self-aware or less frank than that.

But we might well suspect they're ultimately no different.

We get it that you don't LIKE "socialism". But at least progress in that you now seem to recognize that "socialism" is broader than just revolutionary Marxism.

You aren't very clear on what you base your belief that the Fabians are DISHONEST. That they do not want, for the future, this society for which they are advocating. They were "elitist", but I'd blame that more on class than "socialism". Or are you claiming that they were more elitist than the non-socialist majority of their class << which of course also believed it their right and DUTY to lead/direct society into the correct paths --just differing on what the correct path is >>

I'll again refer you to Bertrand Russell

[Gary Childress]

So what is your complaint with Fabianism?

You should watch the video, Gary.

A wealthy person who advocates for socialism seems better than a wealthy person who thinks of the poor as undeserving low lifes.

Well, those aren't the alternatives, obviously. You could have a wealthy person who has earned his wealth, and whose wealth increases the wealth and welfare of everybody else. They're called "inventors," or "entrepreneurs." And they're not particularly rare. We should all be grateful for the men who invented computers, or health care technologies, or even entertainment things that we all enjoy...and why would they have put in the effort, taken the risk, or even bothered to ponder the opportunity, if it were not both to their personal financial prospects and to the betterment of our lifestyles when they did so?

So do you want your life to be better, or do you want mankind to stop creating, innovating and inventing? And if they can lift your prospects by doing so, do you want them to keep doing it, or do you want them to quit?

But now, let's ask the right question: is there anything we should be suspicious about, if one of those rich Socialist-advocates you're talking about just keeps getting richer, and richer and richer, while still mouthing Socialism?

Because we're not short of examples of so-called Socialist-advocates who are doing just that. And at some point, shouldn't we ask ourselves if we're being had?

The refreshing thing about the Fabians is their unapologetic lust for power. They don't hide it: they really think they're an elite group, which, by right of its superiority, can reengineer society -- meaning you and me -- to fit their plans and to bestow upon them yet more power, riches and influence. Most of the other Socialist-advocating groups are either less self-aware or less frank than that.

But we might well suspect they're ultimately no different.

I watched the video just now.

Regarding your views; so your view is that we should live in a society where the wealthy "earn" their wealth and use it to do good for society in the process. Is that correct? If so, then how is that any different from the view that the wealthy deserve their wealth and that the poor do not deserve the wealth of the wealthy? How is that not the fundamental principle of every Wall Street tycoon? Are you merely suggesting that the Fabian society has hijacked socialism to make it more palatable for the wealthy? Are you suggesting that the poor need to rise up and depose their wealthy masters? Or are you suggesting that the poor should not rise up and depose their wealthy masters? Or what exactly is your takeaway from all of this? Is it simply that you want wealthy people who have "earned" their wealth while making the world a better place for all to be in power? If so, then what do you see as the proper way to bring about a society where only the wealthy who "earned" their wealth (and will use it toward good ends) are in power?