Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are Fabian socialists as dangerous as communists?
PGA Weblog ^

Posted on 04/22/2012 10:09:00 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica

I recently posted some thoughts from several of the major members of the Fabian Society, where some of them considered Soviet Russia to be a "Fabian State". But there may be a better example.

In order to more properly construct my thought here, I reference the great Milton Friedman, in this video, "The Robin Hood Myth". Large sections of his lecture are relevant, but one line of his in particular really drives the point: (from 2 minutes in, to about 2:20)

Because those people who are at the bottom tend to be much less skillful in political activity for the very reasons that leave them at the bottom of the economic scale.

There's more in the video which develops the thought. But that's all I need to get the point across.

Now, who are Fabians? Who are Communists? There is obviously some overlap here, but the original Fabians were almost all middle/upper class citizens, the successful and/or well off, and that's typically who they tried to recruit. The elites, and that's also typically who progressives are as well. Contrast that with, well, communist theory anyways; where it's the lower classes who supposedly rise up.

The fact that so many people don't even know what a Fabian is,(instead thinking it's just some singer) or don't take Fabians seriously(which is why I chose the heading) is a testament to their political skill, I think.(See my past entries, I do not look fondly upon these people. I just take them seriously. See Sun Tzu) They've successfully re-written themselves out of many of the history books, even when they themselves lauded what was arguably the most well known communist regime as a "Fabian state" and had a profound impact right here in America. How much skill does that take, do you think? With regard to this concept of a "Fabian state", consider this:

It starts with Annie Besant. Have you ever read anything about her? You should. You may come across her time in India. Funny thing, that. She moves to India, and along the way founds the Fabian Society of India(Page 347), and what is now one of the largest colleges in India, the Central Hindu College. Hey, I know where I've heard a story like this. It was the Fabians who set up one of Britain's "most respected" colleges, the London School of Economics. Interesting how similar that is. She was also the First Woman President of Indian National Congress, which is still active today.

Mohandas Gandhi was in Britain(1889) at the time when the Fabian Society was founded. Am I calling Gandhi a Fabian? No, he didn't have to be, as Friedrich Engels noted - the effect that Fabianism has on liberal minded people. Here's what I do know. Gandhi mentions Besant 7 times in his autobiography as they worked together on various things, and he was influenced by her work as a leader within the Theosophical movement in India.

It's well known that Gandhi was heavily influenced by Henry David Thoreau, specifically "Civil Disobedience". Every college professor will gladly crow about this. Who introduced Gandhi to HDT? Henry Salt. Henry Salt was a member of Britain's Fellowship of the New Life. The Fabian Society is an offshoot of the FotNL. Henry Salt was a member of both groups, and Gandhi associated with Salt while in Britain. Note, how both Salt and Gandhi were part of the Vegetarian Society. Bernard Shaw was also a member of that group, as was Frances Willard and Lady Henry Somerset, and others with involvement include Annie Besant and Edward Carpenter - none of this is a coincidence. But it bets better.

Who was Gandhi's hand picked successor in India? On January 15th, 1941 Gandhi said:(Page 252)

Some say Pandit Nehru and I were estranged. It will require much more than difference of opinion to estrange us. We had differences from the time we became co-workers and yet I have said for some years and say so now that not Rajaji but Jawaharlal will be my successor.

Jawaharlal Nehru was a Fabian. Nehru's Daughter was Indira Gandhi, you know, the emergency dictator? She was a Fabian.(Page 234) Her husband, at a minimum studied at the London School of Economics.(Page 90) And I bet there's more. Am I calling India a "Fabian State"? I think it's a fair question to ask. I'd bet that modern Fabians look upon it that way. There's way too much here to just brush aside as coincidence. And none of this is to discount the danger from communism - I'm the one who recorded the Marxist STORM Manifesto into audio, I know the danger they pose. And why go through all this? It's India, who cares? Let them deal with it. Pointing out how all of this clearly flows together is important, considering the similarities with what has been done in America - LSE in London, CHC in India, the Rand school in New York - Britain, India, and in the Wilson and FDR administrations. Again, Sun Tzu.

Let's bring this back to the top. Regarding Friedman's observation about particular people being more successful than others in life. The Fabians are well known for their disagreement with Marx, regarding revolution and evolution(gradualism). But there is another major point of contention, which dovetails with what Friedman said. As noted in Socialists at Work, Volume 20:(Page 98)

The Fabians evolved an original philosophy that the middle and upper classes are the revolutionary element in society, and the proletariat the conservative element

This almost word for word cites the words of Shaw. Here are his exact words:(Page 101)

It was supposed to be written for the working classes; but the working man respects the bourgeoisie and wants to be a bourgeois; Marx never got hold of him for a moment. It was the revolting sons of the bourgeois itself - Lassalle, Marx, Liebknecht, Morris, Hyndman, Bax, all like myself, crossed with squirearchy - that painted the flag red. Bakunin and Kropotkin, of the military and noble caste (like Napoleon), were our extreme left. The middle and upper classes are the revolutionary element in society; the proletariat is the conservative element, as Disraeli well knew.

So will it be a workers paradise from whence the proletarians simultaneously rise up? Or will it be led and sourced from people in the middle to the highest classes of society? Anybody know what Frances Fox Piven's net worth is? You know, Pelosi is filthy rich. So is George Soros.(which coincidently enough, he attended the London School of Economics) And how about Dear Leader, President Obama? He attended private school, then Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard. I do myself wonder who paid for all that, but here I wish to examine the difference between the mindset of people at the lower levels of society and those who comprise the middle and upper. It's clear where Obama fits in.

There are plenty of people today who recognize the danger that is posed by the elites, I just happen to have taken a very different path here - to get to that conclusion.

There is one more way to look at this. Do you believe America to be more socialist today? Or more free, as the founders envisioned?(and as Tocqueville wrote about) If yes to the first, did it happen with one quick revolution ala the Chinese/Mao Revolution? Or has America followed a 100 year plan?


TOPICS: Education
KEYWORDS: progressingamerica

1 posted on 04/22/2012 10:09:04 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Thank you for posting this. It goes very well with what I just posted:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2875121/posts

I’ll link this article there, too.


2 posted on 04/22/2012 10:10:42 AM PDT by Eye of Newt (What life, what liberty do Americans have, without sovereignty?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdvisorB; HOYA97; Klemper; pgkdan; vanilla swirl; right way right; Tahoe3002; libertarian27; ...
If anybody wants on/off the revolutionary progressivism ping list, send me a message

Summary: The similarities are uncanny. They do it the same way every time in nation after nation.

3 posted on 04/22/2012 10:11:40 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (What's the best way to reach a you tube generation? Put it on you tube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Newt

Socialism is the morally corrupt belief that we each can (and must) live off of the income and wealth of others. Christians should know how this violates at least three of the Ten Commandments: lies, coveting and theft. But recall that socialists themselves love to scold the rest of us about “sustainability”, yet as Margaret Thatcher once quipped, socialism works until they run out of other people’s money.

So, the dirty secret about socialism is that in the long run, it is not economically “sustainable”, and is in fact built to fail. Sadly, socialists not only think they have the right to seize the income and asset of others, many of whom they have never met, they don’t stop there. To read Keyenes or Marx is to read the plans and proposals of someone who assumes the right to own, control and in the end, to even wholely consume the personhood of others. It is a sociopathology so vast in scope, that it is only restrained by how many humans it can place under its insatiable grasp.

Socialism is evil, plain and simple. Those who advocate socialsm are advocates and supporters of evil. They are our our enemies and are a threat to our lives and our prosperity.

[The one who says] ‘What’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine’ is wicked.” — Mishna

Socialists must always resort to coercion and compulsion to implement their Utopia. It was not for nothing that Mao said that power came from the barrel of a gun. Socialism in its various forms has the blood of over 100 million people on its hands from the last century alone.


4 posted on 04/22/2012 10:22:37 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

They have allowed the communists to get a foothold in this country and I call them a bunch of traitors and that includes the bush clan.Bush 43 primed the pump for the spending under obama.


5 posted on 04/22/2012 10:23:53 AM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HANG THE EXPENSE

They have allowed the communists to get a foothold in this country and I call them a bunch of traitors and that includes the bush clan.Bush 43 primed the pump for the spending under obama.


I agree.


6 posted on 04/22/2012 10:32:59 AM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

I believe it was Vladimir Lenin that noted the fact that socialism is merely a step towards communism. That would make socialism dangerous right there.


7 posted on 04/22/2012 10:39:12 AM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Progressive is Communist spelled differently.


8 posted on 04/22/2012 10:46:04 AM PDT by broken_arrow1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

All socialists become communists when they realize that their model won’t work and naturally decide that the reason is too much personal liberty.


9 posted on 04/22/2012 11:00:46 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica
The Fabians evolved an original philosophy that the middle and upper classes are the revolutionary element in society

I think many of them come from these classes. But the classes themselves aren't the element.

On the contrary, many from the middle and upper class fight revolution.

Meanwhile, there are plenty from the proletariat who are revolutionary. Think Nation of Islam...Malcolm X for example who started off dirt poor.

10 posted on 04/22/2012 11:10:02 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unkus

Good.Thats two of us.:)


11 posted on 04/22/2012 11:35:09 AM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Fabian Sociaety founded in 1884 favoring the gradual and peaceful spread of socialism.

Sounds like the democrat party merged with them in 1884.Obama&Co are doing everything to speed up the process.


12 posted on 04/22/2012 11:44:24 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Please add me to your progressivism ping list, thank you.


13 posted on 04/22/2012 12:22:12 PM PDT by Eye of Newt (What life, what liberty do Americans have, without sovereignty?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz
I believe I have read that Orwell named his novel 1984 to coincide with the 100 year anniversary of the founding of the Fabian Society....
14 posted on 04/22/2012 12:37:08 PM PDT by wolf24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz
Obama&Co are doing everything to speed up the process.

They are "progressives". A communist utopia is what we're "progressing" toward - as fast as they can push.

15 posted on 04/22/2012 2:31:34 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica
Yes, Fabian Socialists are as dangerous as Communists. They are fellow travelers on the road to tyranny.
16 posted on 04/23/2012 1:50:02 AM PDT by MasterGunner01 (11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson