I hear you but right there is the crux to all our problems. — Tom Storm

Correct. And that's why I'm beginning to think that we haven't progressed much since Plato.

As I said, spending more and more billions on elections and politicians does not appear to provide us with better politicians, better elections or better democracy. On the contrary, it seems to me that this only serves to increase the undemocratic influence and power of self-interested oligarchic circles. The "Open Conspiracy", "Fabian Conspiracy" or whatever we choose to call it, seems to have driven us in the same direction. As shown by Orwell's 1984 this was quite predictable and we can't really feign surprise.

The characterization of such works as being written by "lunatics", therefore, is a way for think-tanks and Intelligence agencies to expropriate them from the Left. They're basically putting their theories to use, all the while characterizing anyone who would be willing to invoke them in a critique of their various machinations as "insane".

While it seems that the Right is just simply lacking in a respect for difference, among those who are fairly intelligent, and they do exist, a rather complex strategic machination is actually underway. — thewonder

Well, I think "strategic machination" is employed by the Left as much as by the Right. Marx did borrow a lot from his rivals while at the same time criticizing and attacking them for allegedly being "ignorant" or "insane". Lenin borrowed his "state capitalism" from capitalists like Taylor and Ford, etc.

I don't think the charge of "lunacy" was motivated by the Right's desire to expropriate ideas from the Left. I think the main reason why the Left was called "lunatic" was that leftist policies sounded like "lunacy" to ordinary people, including sometimes to leftists themselves. For example, not everyone on the left bought into the Marxist idea of abolishing private property and this remains the case to this day.

And, come to think of it, there is no evidence that Marx took his own ideas seriously. His real intention seems to have been to inspire others to start a revolution after which he could present himself as its ideological father and possibly as political leader - or at least as advisor to the revolutionary government. This appears to have been his intention in his 1850 Address to the Communist League of which he was a leader.

Then, human value must also be gradated on the basis of intelligence, and from there we arrive at eugenics. — hypericin

Only if we've established that humans must be gradated by the same criteria or standards as animals. But it doesn't look like we've arrived there quite yet.

That they're examples of the Ur-religion of the Ancient Greeks, relfected in Orphism, which was ultimately grounded in the pre-historic Indo-European mythology of the endless caravan of reincarnation and the fallen state of mortal man. Death in this context is a return to the source of life more than the ending of it all. The philosopher, being purified, being a 'good man', has nothing to fear at death because he will be 'joining the company of good men'. Philosophy is 'preparing for death' by letting go of the passions and attachments, as Socrates demonstrates by his calm demeanour. — Wayfarer

I think "life as a preparation for death" is indeed the key to understanding Socrates and Plato. However, we find parallels in Egyptian culture.

The ancient Egyptians viewed death as a temporary transition into what could become everlasting life in paradise. The Egyptian outlook on death was not focused on fear as much as it was preparing and transitioning into a new prosperous afterlife.

The Egyptian Gods judged the merits of human character and deeds when deciding who was permitted to be immortal. As a result, much of human-life was centered on the hopeful attitude that if one is moral, one will live forever in a blissful afterlife. (This is somewhat comparable to Christian concepts of religion.)

So, basically, for the Egyptians – at least the wise or the initiated into wisdom traditions – life was a preparation for death. It seems to me that Greek philosophy was influenced by the Egyptian outlook. This may provide part of the explanation for the fact that the Greeks developed the philosophical system they did, whereas others whose beliefs were more similar to those of the Sumerians didn't.

The Ancient Sumerian and Egyptian Attitudes toward Death and the Afterlife

Philosophy as life-long preparation for death would be more than just about “letting go”. It would also entail the cultivation of virtues and spiritual knowledge, etc. i.e., all the elements that together constitute Platonic philosophy.

It seems to me that what is true for Presidents might be true for philosopher-kings — Tom Storm

Might be true but not necessarily so. Not if the philosopher-kings are specially raised and trained for that particular purpose. All that needs to be done is for the people to decide what qualities, abilities, and virtues the philosopher-kings should possess and for them to be educated and trained accordingly. There would be no need for elections, corruption and aberrant political ideologies would be eradicated, and many billions would be saved and distributed among those who need it most or otherwise used for the public good. And @thewonder would finally be released from the burden of being an Anarchist

'The many live each in their own private world, while those who are awake have but one world in common' ~ Heraclitus — Wayfarer

I think that might be key to solving the puzzle.

If people are ever to elect politicians who are worthy of respect, then they will have to be willing to respect that which is ethical and that which is pertinent. — thewonder

I think most people are. Unfortunately, politicians seem strangely unable to deliver. So, why waste billions on elections and politicians instead of eradicating poverty?

Wouldn't it be better to get rid of political parties and have governments run by philosopher-kings as suggested by Plato?

However, that would be mistaken, for the Buddha, having established the identity of ‘the All’, then advises the monks to abandon it: — Wayfarer

Well, I'm not disputing that. And perhaps Platonic, Christian and other mystics (or Hindu yogis for that matter) aren't totally different. However, it does seem to me that this applies to Buddhist monks specifically, not to Buddhists in general. The vast majority of the Buddhist population seems to be going about their daily life just like the rest of us without concerning themselves too much with Buddhist doctrine.

Without it, just like religion, this enterprise (The extreme American neofascist corporate oligarchic movement ) would collapse. — hypericin

Yes, but isn't that itself a conspiracy theory? How do we know that the world is run by "extreme American neofascist corporate oligarchs"? Do they run Communist China too?

Don't forget that Marxism is based on a conspiracy theory that claims that the middle class has conspired to suppress the working class, or in its more modern forms, that there is a conspiracy by whites to suppress blacks, by men to suppress women, by capitalists to suppress communists, by Christians to suppress Muslims, and so it goes on and on. A never-ending spiral of conspiracies. Like a religion, without which the Left's neo-Marxist narrative would definitely collapse.

So these neat schemes are devised, 'physica' and 'mental' and 'soul', which purportedly describe different things, but they're simply reifications and abstractions in which you then get enmeshed. — Wayfarer

Yes, but that's how the human mind works, by classifying and organizing experience and trying to make sense of it all. But one can equally get enmeshed in denying everything. And, as we don't know until we're dead, we just can't tell. It might make people feel better to think that everything is an "illusion" or "emptiness" but in the final analysis there is no objective proof, nor can there be if neither objective nor subjective reality exists.

By the same token, however, I think that we ought to consider just what we elect politicians for — thewonder

Well, that's what seems to be less and less clear. Personally, I tend to think we're being taken for a ride.

I don't mean to be cynical but political life is becoming so complex and there are so many and multiplying competing interest groups that it is nearly impossible to achieve anything of value except short-term, cosmetic "results" that are promptly undone or cancelled the minute the opposition comes to power.

Brexit was the big mistake, IMHO. The EU isn't a perfect union, of course, but it seemed like the UK was much better off IN than OUT. I certainly can understand the ethnic pride the Scots have, be they Celts or Norse. But ethnic pride isn't enough to maintain their economy. — Bitter Crank

Well, when it comes to ethnic pride, the economy often takes second place. Obviously, in an ideal world all four nations should be "independent", though it's hard to tell how practicable that would be in the end.

As for Brexit, I think it's too early to tell. We need to see how Europe comes out of the pandemic crisis, how rival powers like Russia and China play it, etc. But if Johnson intends to make the UK dependent on China as a substitute for the EU, then I doubt Brexit can have a happy ending.

Granted, I should probably just take your word for that you were giving a mere analysis of his depiction in the press as you have explicitly stated. — thewonder

I don't think it would be bad if you did. I was just making a general point about Labour and about the fact that it hasn't really recovered after Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Another issue Labour had was the way it handled the banking crisis in 2008, selling off the country's gold reserves at rock-bottom prices and making rich gold speculators and traders even richer in the process, etc. Brown who had been regarded as an expert on economics, was seen to have failed miserably.

Perhaps Labour was treated unfairly by the press on this point as well, but that's how the cookie crumbles. What matters at the end of the day is that Labour lost the trust of the voters and it's still struggling to catch up. And internal frictions aren't helping either.

How can one hope to understand a term without immersing oneself in the field of expertise from which this term originates? — baker

That was what I was saying. Buddhist theories are more difficult to process and assimilate if they require "immersing oneself in that field of expertise". Platonic or Hindu theories such as reincarnation are easier to understand as they are using everyday terminology like "soul" with which most people are already familiar. By the way, it wasn't a criticism of Buddhism, just an observation or statement of fact.

That seems like an important statement. Which generation enjoyed that new money and what changed that made that new wealthy posible? — Athena

Well, you need to know a bit about how the British Empire worked. The Tories were the party of "old money", i.e., upper-class, landed aristocracy. The Liberals were "new money", i.e., middle-class bankers and industrialists who made their fortune from investments in the colonial possessions especially in Africa where gold, diamonds, and other natural resources were being discovered and developed. The Fabians being middle-class Liberals, they had close connections to the Liberal bankers and industrialists described by Quigley in The Anglo-American Establishment. After all, they were members of the same party and they knew each other.

Regarding Labour, it is sufficient to know for now that it was founded by the Fabian Society and trade unions who had different interests but entered into an alliance of convenience with one another for political expediency. So, basically, the Labour right wing is led by the Fabian Society and other Fabian groups mainly based in London, whereas the Labour left wing is led by unions like Unite which are often headed by people from further north, e.g. Liverpool, Manchester, etc. For example, Unite boss Len McCluskey, Jeremy Corbyn's ally, and opponent of the Fabian right, who is a Marxist from Liverpool.

Despite your clearly confused interpretation of Jeremy Corbyn's relationship to the Provisional Irish Republican Army, which the citation of The Telegraph and The Daily Mail as reputable sources of information upon such matters is evidence of ... — thewonder

I think the confusion is yours, not mine. I don't care about Corbyn in the least. I was simply saying how he was portrayed in the press and why he acquired a negative image among voters which exacerbated the problems Labour already had, as explained above. Nothing more and nothing less.

The same applies to McDonald. His description as a "champagne socialist" was merely an illustration of how Fabians were seen by other socialists. Fabian authors admit that Fabians weren't highly regarded by working-class people. They were middle-class intellectuals with whom working-class people couldn't easily connect or identify. That's why Fabians preferred to quietly sit on the Labour executive committee and draft policy papers whilst working-class members like McDonald and Keir Hardie were used as a front or bait, if you prefer.

That said, as a person living a life who sometimes ends up posting, a large part of me is much more interested in why I'm doing this thing, and what I'm getting out of it. — csalisbury

I joined the forum because I was working on a project about parallels between Greek and Indian philosophy and their historical roots.

But I don't mind discussing politics, psychology and other issues which I do outside the forum anyway. Occasionally, I may start a discussion to wind people up and see how they react.

BTW is "kvetched" a code word used by members of the German Green Party or is it something more arcane that we should know about?

Paṭiccasamuppāda explains these things. Unless you think that paṭiccasamuppāda requires an additional explanation/context/foundation? — baker

What I meant was that the Buddhist explanation may be OK to Buddhists, but it seems less satisfactory to Platonists and Hindus, for example. And it looks like some Buddhist traditions do accept something that comes close to the soul of Platonists and Hindus.

Plus, as your Wikipedia article says, there seem to be issues of interpretation, etc. and several scholars have identified inconsistencies in this theory of “dependent origination”.

It may be true that the soul or individual mind/consciousness is not eternal and changeless in its normal everyday aspect, but it may still be eternal and changeless in essence. Otherwise, what is nirvana?

It is important to understand that the Fabians were middle class. There were exceptions, but it would be factually wrong to see the Fabians as poor and destitute working-class people. At origin, they were members of the Liberal Party, the party of new money (as opposed to the Tories who were the party of old money). That was precisely why they founded the Labour Party with the help of the unions, because poor working-class people didn't trust them and the middle-class Fabians didn't stand a chance of influencing the labor movement without an ostensibly "working-men party" like Labour.

Fabian leaders like the Webbs (who were the true leaders, not Wells) held dinner parties at home with the rich and powerful of the day as related by Beatrice Webb in her diary and memoirs. They had a dining club called "The Coefficients" ( I think Quigley mentions that as well) where they met and discussed their plans with bankers, gold and diamond producers, and powerful politicians with whom they coordinated their activities, like Lord Haldane, Edward Grey, Lord Milner and many others.

Incidentally, the term "champagne socialist" was applied to Fabians like Ramsay McDonald, the first Labour Prime Minister, who had married into money and, like other Fabians, was regarded as a traitor to working-class interests.

As I said, the tension between the Labour right wing revolving around the Fabian Society and the left wing revolving around unions is still there and for very good historical and ideological reasons that need to be understood.

Maybe the British Isles should be made a UN Protectorate. Once they ran an empire; now they don't seem to be able to run a fish and chips shop. Or maybe the French should take over again. It improved things quite a bit the last time. — Bitter Crank

lol I doubt very much France can take over anything right now. Maybe Germany though? After all, that's where the Anglo-Saxons came from.

BTW, I remember reading somewhere that the Scots originally came from Scandinavia, thousands of years before the Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. So, maybe the genetic pull is calling?

Having said that, considering that the four nations are so close together, can they really be economically separate and at war with one another? Would conflict between them not be used by foreign powers like China or Russia to destabilize Western Europe and take over? I think the issue is a bit more complex than it seems.

I am also willing to posit that something similar could be happening with Eugenics and the Labour Party. — thewonder

Well, it can't be ruled out. Eugenics did form a big element in Fabian ideology. In those days a lot of people were into Darwinism and Eugenics and the Fabians were no different. Certainly Wells advocated population control and redistribution and this involves some elements of Eugenics. So, hypothetically speaking, Labour could be motivated by Eugenics in its current policies? But I'm not an expert on it, and I haven't looked into that.

I was talking about the way Fabianism came to exert a lot of influence on politics, education and culture. But if you have any sources on Labour's links with Eugenics, do let us know, by all means.

Sometimes philosophy and psychology seem to go hand-in-hand. Maybe there isn't a "which came first"? — Don Wade

Quite possible. However, I'd say that from a philosophical standpoint, psychology would represent a tool of philosophical inquiry. But this is just my opinion.

How many of those leaders experienced terrible poverty as children? H. G. Wells is one of them who was malnourished and suffered a lot because of poverty and stupid laws that enforced suffering on others — Athena

Wells, yes. But he was not a founder of the Fabian Society, he joined much later.

Beatrice Webb was the daughter of railroad magnate Richard Potter, chairman of the Great Western and Grand Trunk Railways of England and Canada. It was people like Potter who helped finance the Fabians' London School of Political Science and Economics (LSE) and other Fabian initiatives that cost millions to fund.

First for the word "conspiracy". It originates from Latin meaning to breathe together, which becomes agreement and later a secret plot .... There is a stronger motivation factor when we have private property instead of communal property. — Athena

Correct. I've slightly edited the OP (2nd post, actually) to clarify how Fabianism has come to be associated with "conspiracy". The Fabians were attacked from the start by other socialists, from leading ideologists like Engels to common folk, for being disingenuous and self-interested or "unprincipled spiders" as some called them.

And yes, property is a powerful motivating factor in all political movements. Leading Fabians, although members of the Liberal Party, were often Marxists and some still are. However, they realized early on that abolition of private property as advocated by strict Marxists wasn't too attractive a proposition to the common people. Farmers and other land owners were definitely against the idea and ever factory workers wanted higher wages in the hope to one day own their own property.

So, the Fabians who were highly intelligent and educated people, were forced to modify their political program in order to accommodate the interests of the majority and win the support of bankers and industrialists whose aim was to water down the more revolutionary currents of socialism. This is why they dubbed socialism "a business proposition" and were viewed by other socialists with suspicion and disdain. But the Fabians' intellectual work, their influence on education, and the support they enjoyed from economic interests enabled them to outmaneuver other socialists and impose their own agenda.

The internal situation within the British Labour Party, where right-wing Fabians are at loggerheads with left-wing unionists, is a microcosm of the wider tensions and conflicts between Fabianism and other socialist currents throughout the world.

But, as I said, there is quite a bit to explore and assimilate. So, do take your time. There is no rush.

Sometimes we may intend for our responses to be philosophical, but they end-up as being more psychological. Which then brings up the question: is philosophy based more on how our minds work than it does on traditional philosophical concepts? — Don Wade

Depends on what is meant by "philosophy". One interpretation of Greek philosophy is that it started as a system aiming to make man as wise ("sophos") as the gods or God as far as humanly possible. This involved knowledge of the mind and its processes i.e. psychology.

So, I'd say that originally, philosophy came first. But, as others have pointed out, different philosophical traditions use psychology in different degrees and ways.

He makes some interesting points, but I note his byline says 'Alex Lickerman, M.D., is a general internist and former Director of Primary Care at the University of Chicago and has been a practicing Buddhist since 1989.' — Wayfarer

That's why I found the article interesting, because it's written by a practicing Buddhist. Obviously, a beginner or non-Buddhist would find the matter even more confusing.

But I agree with "soul" as the "totality of being". Interestingly, the Platonic term for the embodied soul or totality of man as a “living being” is το ζώον, to zoon. Its Hindu equivalent is jivātman which means pretty much the same.

Incidentally, the Platonic nous is also equated with "being" just like Sanskrit atman. As Plotinus puts it:

"For we and what is ours goes back to real being and we ascend to that real being" VI 5,7, 1-8

The pure soul and intelligible being are one and the same.

So, essentially, man consists of (1) a pure spiritual core (nous or pneuma), (2) the soul proper (psyche) which is the psycho-mental apparatus attached to embodied spirit and (3) physical body.

Disembodied spirit, as in the after-death state, consists of essentially the same, viz. spirit (nous) and soul (psyche) with the difference that its body is not physical but a slightly more "palpable" extension of soul consisting of the same psycho-mental "substance" as the soul, including perhaps impressions or memories of the physical body left behind.

This metaphysical body is termed ohema in Platonism and sukshmasharira ("subtle body") in Hinduism. The soul is endowed with this subtle body prior to rebirth and apparently during "out-of-body" travel and other OBE states.

I'm not sure to what extent certain Buddhist traditions agree with this but the Platonic and Hindu accounts seem to make reincarnation fairly easy to explain.

While Martin McGuinness was a former leader of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, he later became Sinn Féin's chief negotiator in the peace process. Engaging in dialogue is not the same thing as fostering political terrorism. — thewonder

I agree. However, the republican movement had a political wing represented by Sinn Féin and a paramilitary group represented by the IRA and its various offshoots like the Provisional IRA (PIRA).

Corbyn's alleged links to the IRA were reported in the press:

Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links

This contributed to Labour and especially Corbyn having a negative image with voters.

You have me tracting down information and reading as fast as I can and I don't have anything worth saying yet, but I am having a wonderful time. Thank you. :grin — Athena

Oh, you're most welcome. Do take your time. It's all very interesting stuff I think and I doubt you will regret it in the end. Reading does tend to open one's horizons especially when it comes to new topics of this kind.

At the moment, Scots make up about 8% of the population of the UK and have about 9% of the MPs in the UK Parliament. However, since 1900, Scottish Prime Ministers have been in power for about 20% of the total period. — RussellA

Correct. It is true that historically England has dominated Scotland as it has Wales and Ireland. However, Scotland having a much smaller population and economy, it would have ended up being dominated by England anyway, in the same way Germany with Europe's largest population and strongest economy has dominated smaller Continental countries by default.

At the end of the day, foreign domination is foreign domination, and there is no guarantee that domination by Brussels, i.e. by Germany and France will be any better than domination by London. I think the danger is that the SNP is mainly interested in acquiring power for itself as most parties are and is only playing the independence card for its own agenda. But it remains to be seen whether the Scots actually vote for independence in the end.

Maybe another solution would be for Scotland to join the Scandinavian countries that are just across the sea, but whether that would help much economically is questionable and the economy does matter I should think.

I'm not so sure that I foresee the danger of "militant Islam" within the Labour Party, — thewonderLabour'

Well, I was talking about Labour's image with voters. Corbyn didn't do his party a service by apparently endorsing extremist Islamic organizations as well as far-left groups like the Irish Republican Army (IRA) while at the same time also having an "anti-Semitic" problem. When you start playing off one ethnic group against another for political gain it doesn't take long before people start to wonder what your game is. That's why Corbyn never stood a chance as a leader and Labour never stood a chance with him in charge of the party. Add to that the Fabians' opposition to him and you'll start seeing the problem.

Well, in my view, you'd be mistaken. You'd be reifying the dynamic process which is 'the self' into an objectively existing entity, which it isn't. In Buddhist terms, it gives rise to clinging - the idea of 'me and mine', transposed into some supposedly ethereal domain of existence. — Wayfarer

Sure, I might of course be wrong. I was just stating what my personal impression was after seeing that Buddhism which is otherwise quite thorough in other respects has failed to come up with a more satisfactory account of remembrance, rebirth, etc.

People do ask questions, it isn't just @baker

The Problem with Reincarnation - Psychology Today

But there is no big rush to answer my points at all. Do take your time. I happen to work from home at the moment so I know what it's like trying to juggle many things at once. My multitasking abilities tend to be way below what I would like them to be ...

This is where Buddhism is very different from the 'substance and attribute' metaphysic of Aristotle. — Wayfarer

I agree. I wouldn't go quite so far as to call Buddhism "nihilist" in all respects. It still has some interesting contributions it could make.

However, some Buddhist traditions claim that imprints of past experience are stored in a “store-consciousness” (ālayavijñāna) from where they arise in the form of memories like plants germinating from seeds. But that doesn’t explain where the store-consciousness itself is stored. Even if we grant that the store-consciousness is nothing but the totality of imprints or seeds, we still need to explain how the seeds are held together and where. The same applies to the chain-of-consciousness or chain-of-causation theory.

In contrast, Platonism and Hinduism say that remembrance, for example, is a function of the soul who stores impressions of past experience within itself.

In my view, the Buddhist theory sounds like an artificial device intended to spare the Buddhist an admission of soul, necessitated by the no-soul theory (anattā/anātman). This is also suggested by the negative description of memories. Once you postulate the non-existence of soul, you need to negate other things normally associated with a soul and you may end up appearing to be "nihilist" without necessarily intending to.

Interesting, but I assume Jeremy Corbyn wasn't a Fabian (or am I wrong) and the way Blair was against Corbyn and predicted a disaster (which the elections were, so Tony was right), I assume that there is an opposition to the old-school Fabians in the Labour party.

Now the leader Keir Starmer is for a foreigner like me a total unknown. — ssu

Starmer was a total unknown to most people except to the Fabians. A barrister/lawyer to anyone who had heard of him if at all. I think he was running a Trotskyist magazine for a while.

Yes, there is an opposition within Labour as I said. The left-wing unions and the right-wing Fabians. It's always been that way. The deal that was done from the start was for the unions to provide members and funds and for the Fabians to make policy, write policy papers and manifestos, carry out research, run elections, and generally do the brain work for the party.

Corbyn's far-left unionist gang tried to rebel and take over but they failed. Of course Labour has always been more successful with Fabians in charge but last time around, under Blair and Brown it got kicked out by the voters and the Tories have been in power ever since - from 2010. That's a long time in politics and as things stand right now it doesn't look good for Labour. The Tories would need to make some really big blunder to lose to Labour.

The other problem Labour has is that it is seen as a party for minorities ever since it abandoned the British working class in favor of ideology-driven far-left policies and militant Islam.

I don't understand why the Labour Party has not absolved themselves of such notions, aside from my rather spurious claim that it has something to do with British Intelligence. — thewonder

I really don't know much about the role of British intelligence in this. I suppose I will have to look into it. But social engineering has long been part of the Fabian agenda. Wells himself speaks of "controlling and redistributing" the world's population in his book. As I said, his plans were really very far-reaching in many respects. I can understand why some people agree with the idea of a nanny state, but I for one wouldn't like to be social engineered just because the Fabian state wants so.

Really, I thought that you were better off having the discussion a little more discreetly on this thread as a it is quiter. I think that the topic you have started is so controversial. — Jack Cummins

Agreed. But what good is a forum if you can't discuss controversial topics? We can't pretend that certain issues don't exist. And on this forum, in particular, it looks like even the most non-controversial of discussions can very fast turn (or be turned) into something else.

Am I the only person who suspects for the Fabians to be entryists within the Labour Party and that their defense of Eugenics is just a cryptic form of social murder, — thewonder

I wouldn't call Fabians "entryists into the Labour Party" as they co-founded it and have been sitting on its national executive from the start. Hundreds of Labour members of Parliament are Fabians. Without the Fabians there would be no Labour Party.

That's why Jeremy Corbyn and the far-left unions failed. They tried to take over the party after Tony Blair and Gordon Brown but the Fabians reasserted their control with Keir Starmer and his new team of Fabians.

However, you are right about the Fabians' Eugenicist tendencies. G B Shaw wrote "what we are confronted with now is a growing perception that if we desire a certain type of civilization and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it" - Preface, On The Rocks, 1933.

In short, we're a bunch of kids cut loose unsupervised in a mall. — James Riley

I do agree with that statement. I certainly believe that mankind has a lot of growing up to do. And the current consumer-oriented culture that cares little about the future and even less about our spiritual well-being can only serve to exacerbate the situation and turn us all into obedient subjects of an all-controlling nanny state while we happily relinquish whatever power we have left.

And Fabians, of course, are among the first to applaud the advances of the nanny state. For example, the British Labour Party politician Margaret Hodge has defended policies she acknowledged had been labelled as "nanny state", saying at a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research that "some may call it the nanny state but I call it a force for good".

Are we boldly making political and economic decisions in a state of ignorance and do we need informed people to form a conspiracy and straighten out this mess? — Athena

Perfectly reasonable question. The Fabians of course, were fanatical believers in efficiency and aimed to build a society in which everything would be controlled and decided by a body of administrative "experts". Fabian ideologists who were also leaders of the Labour Party believed that the state should think for the whole of society and the Fabian Society saw itself as the "brain-workers" of socialism and of mankind in general.

In their view, the Fabians were joined and reinforced by Anglo-American industrialists and bankers, who, like the Fabians, believed that power should be taken from the hands of politicians and entrusted to an administrative elite consisting of themselves and their Fabian collaborators.

Who these industrialists and bankers were is explained in detail in The Anglo-American Establishment by C. Quigley

It is fine. I think that you are going to be busy because you still have your reincarnation thread going — Jack Cummins

I've got the feeling you might be right there. And possibly one or two other threads, too. But we all do what we can ....

The February Revolution was a spontaneous revolution. Were it not to have been co-opted by the Bolsheviks, it is quite likely that people would have a dramatically different relationship to Socialism today. — thewonder

I think most people would agree with that. As shown by Rappaport and other historians, Lenin did like to see himself as a conspirator and the whole Soviet leadership was rather fond of that description. I suppose over time it became like a sort of "badge of honor". And I certainly agree with the view that the Bolshevik "revolution" was really more like a coup than a revolution, in view of the fact that it was carried out by a handful of Marxist ideologists with the help of radicalized workers and some elements of the military that had been exposed to revolutionary propaganda.

The rural population, that formed the vast majority of the country, was not involved.

And, of course, Lenin used the statements of Marx and Engels - like the May 1850 Address to the Communist League - to justify his own belief in power being seized by a conspiratorial clique:

“If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed […] To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party [the democrats], whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition”

Marx & Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, May 1850

and

“A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists”

F Engels, “On Authority”, Almanaco Republicano, 1874

This was also what enabled the Bolsheviks to justify their reign of state terror in the wake of the revolution or coup.