Fabianism

[phyllo]

Would you trust somebody ignorant, indifferent and self-centered to run your Socialist state?

Yes, because those are the only humans that exist.

But obviously there are various degrees of ignorance, indifference and self-centeredness. And we would want to minimize them in a leader/manager/supervisor.

[Immanuel Can]

Would you trust somebody ignorant, indifferent and self-centered to run your Socialist state?

Yes, because those are the only humans that exist.

Here's the problem: Socialism is a theory that requires leaders who are not ignorant, indifferent, or especially, self-centered. It demands that the leaders will be unselfish, altruistic, not greedy, not manipulative, not power-mad...in other words, not "wolves," not Fabians.

...we would want to minimize them in a leader/manager/supervisor.

This is why it is so important for us to recognize this propensity in man. If we pretend it doesn't exist, will include no measures in our political plan to counterbalance the wolfishness of the leaders. We'll trust them too implicitly, far beyond the level of trust we should accord to the "ignorant, indifferent and self-centered," let alone the greedy, the manipulative and the power-mad. We'll set the whole system up for failure.

Remember Orwell's Animal Farm? "Some animals are more equal than others," right?

And that has proved to be the story of every single Socialst regime in history...too much trust was placed in fallible men, with the effect that no safeguards adequate to the task were put in place, and they succumbed to the temptation to seek their own advantage, became an elite faction of manipulators, and did more evil than any other political plan in history, by orders of magnitude.

So if people are as you say, Socialism will never work. It will never be a safe system even to try. And the last group of people any of us should trust are the Fabian-types.

[phyllo]

You could have made so many valid points about misplaced trust, unchecked power, the need for compartmentalization, the role of a free press, the need for critical thinking, education, etc.

Instead you unload on the other team, team socialism. Again.

[Impenitent]

you cannot make a stable building with flawed bricks

-Imp

[Alexis Jacobi]

So where does the "not good" stuff come from?

Again, I know the answer and I am prepared to talk through it in such a manner that the intelligent and sensitive will understand. It is really not that difficult to understand.

Then talk. Nobody's stopping you.

You say 'talk' but I prefer to say 'expound' and 'hold forth'. In any case, I will proceed. Though we have been over this before, and I do not remember getting much assent from you, still I will attempt it again.

When Man becomes conscious I think we can all agree that he looks around and takes stock of the nature of the reality and circumstances where he finds himself. In our human culture we can find examples of men in periods of history when this act of 'taking stock' was done. My reference is to ancient India and the Ancient Rishis. It is a very old word (Sanskrit: rsih) and corresponds to the Greek notion of 'inspired poet' and then of course to our own Prophets and the traditions of 'seeing' things through inspired lenses. So dear Immanuel Can I must ask that you first give your assent to understanding that such a means of knowing, involving as it does inspired seeing, inspired revelation, is a valid means of gaining knowledge.

Do I have your assent? Good! Let's proceed! I assert with emphasis that giving credence to this means of gaining knowledge though inspiration (intuition, intellectus, etc.) is essential to understanding all metaphysical systems upon which all religions and religiosity are based. Again, do I have your assent? Excellent! A chef's kiss!

When Man becomes aware of 'the nature of this reality' he looks around him and what does he see? Let me focus on what these Ancient Seers saw. Certainly they saw a magnificent world, the dome of the heavens, the sun-power that rises and brings with it illumination and life, and also the dusk where the same potency retreats and night envelops everything. Do you ever go outside, IC, and stare up at the firmament? Wow, eh? But aside from briefly referencing the magnificence of what is here before us to be seen, they also noticed the terrible side to life. How shall this be described? All life feeds upon other forms of life. And all life, all that lives, dies. As it pertains to Man his life, his body, decays. The life given, along with awareness, the power to perceive and to cogitate, and to develop 'awareness' which -- and even here you will agree -- is the basis of what makes man Man -- all this ends!

We must face, and I ask that you please face with me, with us, that awareness is really everything. Even within your rather dogmatically drenched system of understanding.

Now, now, be patient! I am getting there! You want an answer to the question of where the 'not good' stuff comes from, where 'evil' comes from. Very well! Let us establish that the first revelation of understanding of 'badness, of what is undesirable, of what is painful and which renders Man unhappy, is essentially a primary component within the structure of *the world* and life itself. I.e. the manifestation. It is an 'evil' (men feel) that they suffer the effects of life in the world as it is constructed, as it is manifest. You must give your assent here. I am asking nicely. You must recognize that in the very first place, as it pertains to awareness, that man recognizes that alongside the magnificent and the awesome -- the beauty, the warmth, the goodness of having life and being aware -- that right there, and very close, is the awareness of wounding, destruction, loss, death, pain, sorrow -- in brief the tragedy inherent within the structure of things.

Take a moment, IC. Do you see? Are you with me? Good! Now let us make a statement for our Hypothetical Man, our inspired Seer. "This life, this world, is a world of duality. If things go well, all is well, But when things go badly, and they always do at one point or another go badly, the pleasant experience turns very sour very quickly. And I myself am dying! I came into life, how I cannot say. But with every passing moment life and health and well-being drains away from me. There is nothing I can do! I die!"

Don't cry, IC. We must be strong! Gird up your loins! Face the facts! What is, is, and there is hardly anything to be done about it.

OK, so within this world which worlds along according to its established incontrovertible rules, which is really to say processes, Man is as much a victim of circumstances as is any creature who is, say, trapped within the processes of life. He must live, he must survive! He must pursue other forms of life, kill them and devour them. So he stares into the terrified eye of, say, that wabbit or that mastodon, and he notices (or really feels) the same terror that he himself feels; that subsumes him; that haunts him; and eventually takes him down, either by natural processes or by the tooth & claw of a predator who hunts him just as he hunts others. In this sense Man is forced to participate in 'evil' when evil is associated with bad.

What's that? Oh, you are asking more specifically about evilness? As in 'maliciousness'? As in deliberate human cruelty? But hold on! I have just painted a picture that describes the basic platform of our life here. I must ask for your assent. Is the picture accurate? Yes or no? Oh for Heaven's sake! Don't haggle over this! What? "Life is essentially good", you say. You need to meditate more on what I am describing as the fundamentals pertaining to the very *structure* of things. Life is extremely dual.

Now let us return to our Seer. He has seen all of this. He knows that he is in a 'fish eat fish world'. He sees that everything is fragile. His flesh & blood body is, in many ways, the source of his problems. And here there arises one major accent of 'dual awareness': that he conceives of himself as a 'spirit-being'. Or a 'soul' within the body. But hold on! That 'soul' and that 'spirit' are not, are they? subject to the same destruction is is his fragile body. You see, Dear One, when this awareness is developed (or arises?) it becomes possible, even inevitable, that he can therefore conceive of worlds of different qualities. For example a world without death. A world not constrained and circled by 'earthly sorrows, earthly tragedies'.

But remember Dear IC, you have assented to the notion that Divine Seeing and Inspired Seeing is not only possible but part-and-parcel of things: life, awareness, being. Oh yes you did! You DID! You really did give your assent! You cannot back out now. And I will not let you.

When Man begins to ask the deepest questions, and when Man develops awareness and, if you will, methods of developing increased awareness, the entire issue of intuitive seeing and internal revelation open up to him. And, at the same time, speculative processes.

I will not go on much longer as this is quite enough for one day! Whew!

Let us suppose that Man learns that, for reasons he cannot fathom, that his life, his very self, some essence in him, is by its nature eternal. It is more than a momentary biological process or like a coalesced vapor that vanishes as the molecules disperse. What does man face, you ask? Good question! I am so proud of you!

What he faces is the very nature of his incarnated being on a specific plane of manifestation within what he intuits as a far far larger realm of the possible and even the necessary and the eventual. But in order to, let's say, claim what he intuits as possible he must discover, avail himself of, gain awareness of, aspects of knowledge that are internally realized, internally understood. What is all that? Is it 'real'? Or is it all fantasy?

Here, I have explained evil. It is part-and-parcel of the world. True, I have not touched yet on 'human maliciousness' but this will have to remain until the next blessèd lesson. Be well, my son. Receive my many blessings!

I forgot to include an appropriate soundtrack to my revelations! Et voilà!

[MikeNovack]

you cannot make a stable building with flawed bricks

-Imp

You have to work with the materials at hand.

It is a matter of design, having one that is tolerant of the flaws in the materials. Those who designed/built New Grange had no better, less flawed material, than the other megalithic tomb builders. But while the structures of those others have been destroyed by erosion till only the huge megaliths remain, New Grange has survived the millennia essentially intact.

I agree with Lord Acton, "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Our structures of governance have to be designed taking this flaw in the materials into account. This is no less a problem for the socialists than anybody else. Unless the design of the governance of a socialist entity includes features to tolerate the flaws of the humans in positions of power it will fail. But that is NOT because socialist. True of any other system.

If all you are saying, IC, is that because classic Marxism lacks discussion of this problem it can't HAVE the necessary structural contols, well that isn't quite true. Mind, this is a bone of contention between the classical and we others who think it not too early to consider "what structures will we need?". They call us "utopian" to worry about such things now, too early (we might think them unwise because not going tp be easy not to be too late)

[Immanuel Can]

you cannot make a stable building with flawed bricks

-Imp

You have to work with the materials at hand.

Exactly so!

One cannot built a Socialist edifice with Fabian "bricks," especially when the reliability of those "materials" is essential to the cornerstones, the capstones, and the stressed members of the building. The building will collapse, and kill everybody in it.

And that is exactly what has happened in 100% of the cases in which the Socialist edifice has actually been set up.

The "materials" are unsuitable to the project.

I agree with Lord Acton, "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Our structures of governance have to be designed taking this flaw in the materials into account. This is no less a problem for the socialists than anybody else.

Actually, it is. It's especially problematic for Socialism because of the absence of checks-and-balances on power inherent to the Socialist project.

Socialism can tolerate only one project -- one politics, one party, one goal, one "People," one media, one education system, one set of laws, and only one set of rulers. That is because it is a totalizing project...it seeks to absorb all the "means of production," including the means of production of man himself. It aims at creating a new man, in fact, a "Socialist Man," who has a different nature and orientation than the mere "proles" and "reactionaries" from which the People are "constructed." Stem to stern, it's not merely a pragmatic and temporary option: it's supposed to be the ONLY project, the LAST project, the DEFINITIVE project.

It's easy to see this, too. Can you imagine a Socialist project that has to be stopped, say, every four years for an election in which some alternate party and platform may take power for the next four years? Will Socialism be achieved if, say, the Fabians or the Leftists Dems are only in power for one session, and then the people vote in a Libertarian or a conservative or even a classical liberal party that undoes the Socialist project for the next four years? How would that work? How soon would the Socialist utopia arrive, if it had to endure the back-and-forth of successive waves of opposed parties?

It would never happen.

Unless the design of the governance of a socialist entity includes features to tolerate the flaws of the humans in positions of power it will fail.

Exactly so.

But there is nothing built into the Socialist project to prevent Fabian "wolves" from ruling.

They call us "utopian" to worry about such things now, too early (we might think them unwise because not going tp be easy not to be too late)

You are precisely correct. And this is the danger.

The Socialist project has no built-in tolerance for human variation, let alone human moral failure. Nothing checks the power of the Socialist party, and nothing stands in the way of Fabian takeover. The very singularity that gives Socialism its appeal to utopians is its greatest weakness, because Socialism completely misreads human nature, and naively trusts, where it should be sanely guarded.

Socialism is ALWAYS "too late" in this sense. The vigorous unity of purpose it forces upon the populace becomes its Achilles heel. Its monopoly on power becomes the opportunity for the "wolves." And all it takes is a few moral failures of that kind, and the entire system becomes nothing more than an opportunity for robbery of the populace and enrichment of the elites. And this is exactly what we have observed in every case in which Socialist idealism comes into conflict with human nature -- we get nothing but tyranny, misery, oppression and death.

Remarkable, isn't it, for a system that so trumpets values like "tolerance," "liberation," "anti-oppression," "equalization," "sharing," "redistribution," and the "brotherhood of mankind." These turn out to be bait; but the hook is buried deep within Socialism, and it never fails to hit home as soon as the Socialist system is in place.

[MikeNovack]

The Socialist project has no built-in tolerance for human variation, let alone human moral failure. Nothing checks the power of the Socialist party, and nothing stands in the way of Fabian takeover. The very singularity that gives Socialism its appeal to utopians is its greatest weakness, because Socialism completely misreads human nature, and naively trusts, where it should be sanely guarded.

Socialism is ALWAYS "too late" in this sense. The vigorous unity of purpose it forces upon the populace becomes its Achilles heel. Its monopoly on power becomes the opportunity for the "wolves." And all it takes is a few moral failures of that kind, and the entire system becomes nothing more than an opportunity for robbery of the populace and enrichment of the elites. And this is exactly what we have observed in every case in which Socialist idealism comes into conflict with human nature -- we get nothing but tyranny, misery, oppression and death.

Remarkable, isn't it, for a system that so trumpets values like "tolerance," "liberation," "anti-oppression," "equalization," "sharing," "redistribution," and the "brotherhood of mankind." These turn out to be bait; but the hook is buried deep within Socialism, and it never fails to hit home as soon as the Socialist system is in place.

You are missing a key point. On one hand you do ee me saying that there would be a need for a structure of governance tolerant of the flaws inherent in the materials. At the same time you insist all socialists do not see this. How do you reconcile those two tings?

Are you saying that because I see the problem that means I am not a socialist (of some sort)? A socialist who sees this problem is thereby not a socialist? Then what ARE people like me? You are arguing "socialism is bad because it lacks x, y, and z" and "socialism with x, y, and z wouldn't be socialism". Must be something else. Propose a name? X? I really don't give a damn that you don't consider X within socialism as long as you are able to understand that I do, that when I use the term socialism I am including X.

[Immanuel Can]

The Socialist project has no built-in tolerance for human variation, let alone human moral failure. Nothing checks the power of the Socialist party, and nothing stands in the way of Fabian takeover. The very singularity that gives Socialism its appeal to utopians is its greatest weakness, because Socialism completely misreads human nature, and naively trusts, where it should be sanely guarded.

Socialism is ALWAYS "too late" in this sense. The vigorous unity of purpose it forces upon the populace becomes its Achilles heel. Its monopoly on power becomes the opportunity for the "wolves." And all it takes is a few moral failures of that kind, and the entire system becomes nothing more than an opportunity for robbery of the populace and enrichment of the elites. And this is exactly what we have observed in every case in which Socialist idealism comes into conflict with human nature -- we get nothing but tyranny, misery, oppression and death.

Remarkable, isn't it, for a system that so trumpets values like "tolerance," "liberation," "anti-oppression," "equalization," "sharing," "redistribution," and the "brotherhood of mankind." These turn out to be bait; but the hook is buried deep within Socialism, and it never fails to hit home as soon as the Socialist system is in place.

You are missing a key point. On one hand you do ee me saying that there would be a need for a structure of governance tolerant of the flaws inherent in the materials. At the same time you insist all socialists do not see this. How do you reconcile those two tings?

Socialists don't actually "see" it, if "seeing" means, "changing their ideology to compensate for..." They may give lip service, reluctantly, perhaps, to the fallibility of man; but they are always reluctant to go even this far. And then the proof of their unreality is that they will not change Socialism in order to compensate for the facts they claim to recognize.

They will not, for example, accept any genuine diversity of opinion or politics, any legislated limitations on the power or range of a Socialist government, and they most certainly will not address the problem of how to tackle the "wolfishness" that is latent in every human soul, always ready to be actualized in some form when the right circumstances present themselves. For even the kindest, most gentle, most altruistic soul can be drawn to cruelty when faced with particular temptations. Socialism does nothing to compensate for that reality. Its project, its theory, doesn't suit that realization. And the procedures it needs -- such as mono-governance, no term limits, no limits on jurisdiction, no diversity of belief and thought, no free press, and so forth -- are all particularly bad things if we are faced with the problem of human fallibility or "wolfishness."

Are you saying that because I see the problem that means I am not a socialist (of some sort)?

No. I'm saying that if you are a Socialist, and yet you know about "wolfishness," you should NOT be a Socialist any longer. That Socialism is incompatible with that reality.

Then what ARE people like me?

You'll have to decide, of course. You won't be able to remain a Socialist. You'll find it's eternally in conflict with the realistic view of human nature.

Propose a name?

That's a funny thing to request. Would you want ME to name your own belief system for you? Whatever you decide to believe is up to you, of course. All I'm saying is that it won't be Socialism if it turns out to be realistic project.

I really don't give a damn that you don't consider X within socialism as long as you are able to understand that I do, that when I use the term socialism I am including X.

I can see it irritates you to have to break with the term "Socialism." And I understand that it's irritating to find that the straw house in which one has been comfortable is actually a straw house, and one might have to move on.

However, if what you are telling me is true (and I have no reason to contradict you), you recognize what Socialists fail to assimilate into their view -- the "wolfish" propensities latent in mankind. And that fact is of such profound significance, I suggest, that nothing less than a complete revision of political theory away from Socialism will enable compensation for it. Socialism itself requires belief in the essential goodness and ultimate perfectability of mankind. It cannot place "wolfishness" into its permanent theory. It's utopian. But you can. You do.

Now, "Socialism" itself already has a name and an associated theory. It has its own definition. I think what you'll find necessary, so that others will understand your better view, is to describe a significantly different theory, one that has some ability to recognize and compensate for "wolfishness." Unfortunately, "Socialism" won't be it. But at least you'll spare yourself being mistaken for the naive Socialists.

There is nothing more fundamental to any political project than that its suppositions about human nature should be correct and complete. If it assumes humans are something other than they are, then to that extent, its project will become unrealistic, unrealizable, and impractical. Even more concerning attempts to force it to work will entail increasing upstream-swimming against reality. And this swimming-upstream will incentivize increasing violence, as its efforts fail, and fail, and fail, and fail...as Socialism has always inevitably done.

At some point, we just need to admit to ourselves that the Socialist project is suppositionally flawed. And I suggest it's in the area of its anthopology, its characterizing of human nature, that this failure exists. Socialism ends up being (theoretically) well-meaning, but in actual practice, disastrously unrealistic. And its failures have been far too extravagant, evident and devastating for us to try that project any longer.

[Immanuel Can]

You could have made so many valid points about misplaced trust, unchecked power, the need for compartmentalization, the role of a free press, the need for critical thinking, education, etc.

Instead you unload on the other team, team socialism. Again.

Oh, that's for one obvious reason: Socialism, as a theory, denies all of them. And Socialism is the most dangerous option we currently know, in the face of these problems.

But by abandoning Socialism, revising our political theory, and coming up with new view based on a realistic anthropology, we might never have to suffer the miseries occasioned by Socialism again.

That's a thoroughly altruistic wish, I think you'll recognize.

[phyllo]

No True Socialist Fallacy

[Immanuel Can]

No True Socialist Fallacy

Not at all. Socialism is an elaborately-developed theory, at least since Marx...it has specific terms it dictates, of its own. So we can know what a "true Socialist" is, by its own dictates. You don't have to ask me.

[phyllo]

You're so rigid in your thinking. So obsessed with your definitions.

You're a caricature.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You're a caricature.

No, he’s the real thing. I’m a caricature

[Immanuel Can]

So obsessed with your definitions.

You don't think Socialism has its own definition? It seems the internet begs to differ. So you might have to take it up with AI:

"Socialism is an economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production, aiming for a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources."

And Oxford:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."