Posted on 03/08/2012 9:15:15 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
It is quickly dawning on me from my courses at my re-education camp that the teachings of Utilitarianism are potentially a means to an end(to cite Alinsky), that a professor does not need to strictly teach socialist dogma in order to make sure that young adults leave colleges indoctrinated into the big government mindset. Just teach the foundations, teach that social justice is a good thing, and teach a handful of other things that complete the picture and the rest will fall into place. So how then, were the Fabians influenced by Utilitarianism? Judging from what I'm reading in Edward Pease's "The History of the Fabian Society", Utilitarianism is probably not the largest influence. But it can't be ignored either. Here are some general observations:
First, as I wrote earlier, Henry George was an important ideological driver for the Fabians. But as Pease's writing makes clear, George was not the only one. Chapter 1 of Pease's 'History' is titled "The Sources of Fabian Socialism" to which:
The ideas of the early eighties—The epoch of Evolution—Sources of Fabian ideas—Positivism—Henry George—John Stuart Mill—Robert Owen—Karl Marx—The Democratic Federation—"The Christian Socialist"—Thomas Davidson
To those of you not well versed in all of these things(and I don't consider myself an expert either, I'm just observing) John Stuart Mill is the Utilitarian key here. I also bolded Positivism, because that's Auguste Comte's ideals. I've not seen that in my classes, but it's something that Mill himself had wrote about, and not in a way that I would consider favorable to liberty.
But keeping with Utilitarianism and Fabianism, here is one of the first things written about Mill in Pease's 'history':
(quoting Mill)"We are too ignorant, either of what individual agency in its best form or Socialism in its best form can accomplish, to be qualified to decide which of the two will be the ultimate form of human society."More than thirty years had passed since this had been written, and whilst the evils of private property, so vividly depicted by Mill, showed no signs of mitigation, the remedies he anticipated had made no substantial progress. The co-operation of the Rochdale Pioneers had proved a magnificent success, but its sphere of operations was now clearly seen to be confined within narrow limits. Profit-sharing then as now was a sickly plant barely kept alive by the laborious efforts of benevolent professors. Mill's indictment of the capitalist system, in regard to its effects on social life, was so powerful, his treatment of the primitive socialism and communism of his day so sympathetic, that it is surprising how little it prepared the way for the reception of the new ideas. But to some of his readers, at any rate, it suggested that there was an alternative to the capitalistic system, and that Socialism or Communism was worthy of examination.
I could go on quoting Pease at length, but I'm hoping people will click the link and do so for themselves. The above is certainly written favorably to Mill. Other parts of the book are certainly favorable as well, though at several times(as I mentioned at the beginning) the question arises as to just how influential Mill really was. My goal here is not to lay it all at the feet of Utilitarianism, as the facts simply do not warrant that. My goal is to get people thinking that perhaps there's more than one way for professors to get their students to start thinking that big government is the only correct course of action for society. It doesn't have to be communist or socialist propaganda.
Of the things I've found relating to Utilitarianism and Fabianism, four stand out and are worth the read to those interested:
1: "Shaw, the Fabians, and the Utilitarians" by William Irvine Lays out many things pretty well, including those things which are unwritten. For example, Beatrice Webb's parents, and their role in earlier Utilitarianism.
2: The Rise and Fall of England: 11. The Fabian Thrust to Socialism, an article on The Freeman which also details the influence of the Utilitarians.
3: The third is a writing by G. D. H. Cole, titled "Fabianism". Cole was himself a member of the Fabian Society, so he is yet another solid source for this, and to which unlike other writings seems to explain why the Fabians rejected many parts of Mill: (Page 3)
John Stuart Mill they recognized as standing at the point of transition between the two interpretations of utilitarianism. Although he sympathized with the socialism of his day, he was too deeply rooted in the old traditions for a complete conversion. The Fabians regarded themselves as completing the work which he had begun and thus found further cause to emphasize their continuity with older liberal thought.
4: Another member of the Fabian Society, Bertrand Russell, wrote the following, to which is displayed prominently upon one of the home pages of today's utilitarians, utilitarian.net(this comes from Page 39 of his autobiography)
It appeared to me obvious that the happiness of mankind should be the aim of all action, and I discovered to my surprise that there were those who thought otherwise. Belief in happiness, I found, was called Utilitarianism, and was merely one among a number of ethical theories. I adhered to it after this discovery.
I'm satisfied that the answer to the original question is an affirmative - Utilitarianism leads to Fabianism.
I would say that it’s the other way around. Socialism leads to utilitarianism, because when socialism is about dividing resources amongst the existing members of society artificially, which lends to the concept of designating some as deserving a share of resources and those who do not.
The flaw in the writer’s logic is that so-called “social justice” IS socialist dogma.
I think these are just two links in a larger chain. Driving all of this is the left's insistence on an empirical epistemology. Once that is establilshed as the dominant worldview then ultilitarianism follows as a matter of course. From that socialism, totalitarianism and genocide will come on each other's heels, like falling dominos. Just as night follows day. (unless of course the population is able to figure out that the logical conclusion of pure utilitarianism is solipsism. But that realization generally comes too late for anyone to do anything about it. Anarchy is restrained by an iron fist.)
Interestingly, although hardly anyone recognizes the fact, America's greatest literary figure, Edgar Allan Poe, recognized that the Utilitarians were playing dishonest word games, back in the 1840s. (See Poe Rebukes British Utilitarians.)
Your point is very important to a fuller understanding of the nature of the ideological conflict over the future.
Thank you for posting this.
William Flax
There’s a bit of irony there. Utilitarianism is about the greatest good for the greatest number. It shouldn’t be any wonder that the two run so closely together.
Socialism is rooted in the thought that we are all on a small planet with limited resources. Supposedly, if things were let be, we’d eventually run out of resources and perish as a species.
Socialism, everything that extends from that, is really the elites ensuring they have enough for themselves.
There is no real concern about the well-being of man overall.
I certainly agree with your sentiment about it being socialist dogma, but that’s not how it’s taught in class. ‘Social justice’ is taught as the purist form of justice.(at a minimum, one of the purist)
That’s how I tried to structure what I wrote. Partly, anyways.
The term is grossly misused by the Egalitarian Collectivists (Jacobins, Socialists & Communists). For a response to this misuse, see Not "Social" & Not Just.
William Flax
William Flax
You’ve been to college, and seen how all of this is done, haven’t you?
To add perspective on just how truly neither moral nor actually pragmatic are the Fabians & their perverted economics, see Keynes & The Keynesians.
William Flax
I may seem to be unkind, in that description. But if you look more closely, at almost any of their great projects in the 20th Century, both in how they approached them--via very selective sifting of any context;--and how they put them over, you will see my point confirmed.
Poe's little analysis of Mill, above, captured the basic intellectual dishonesty of the utilitarians; but that pales compared to the intellectual dishonesty of those using utilitarian arguments to pursue the fantasy of Egalitarian Collectivism. (And many of them are so far gone in compulsion limited thinking, that they are not even aware of what in the context of their programs they are ignoring to make those programs sound reasonable to those lacking good analytic skills.)
William Flax
There is a big gulf there. Try talking to a modern day Brit about the concept of Natural Law and they look at you like you are speaking Greek.
The way I'm being taught Utilitarianism I find to be alarming.(it's only one segment of the teaching, to be fair) Something that has been stated several times in class is that "in Utilitarianism, the individual does not matter" And that's also been in my book:
(click for larger)
I used a program to smudge parts of the image, college books are from what I've seen heavily, heavily guarded by copyright.(I can't blame them, I'd want to keep this stuff hidden from public view if I were a professional propagandist as well) but I left the relevant line visible. You can plainly see, "Individuals don't matter with this approach", and it is referring without question, to Utilitarianism.
Yup.
So does democracy.
Constitutional Republics, when upheld, do not.
Ultimately, and in a practical sense, it is about who decides what greatest good for the greatest number actually is. Utilitarianism - and all of the other collectivist 'isms' - is the perfect hijackable vehicle for those driven by the will to power. History is my witness to the consequences.
Socialism, everything that extends from that, is really the elites ensuring they have enough for themselves.
There is no real concern about the well-being of man overall.
Nice! Socialism is fear and loathing. And the obsessive need to count other peoples' money.
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.