There is no “scientific” reason to exclude the possibility, but only the possibility. — DingoJones

Exactly. We can't exclude the possibility on logical or philosophical grounds.

Again the category error. You apparently have zero interest in reason or reasoning or being reasonable. — tim wood

So, I'm asking for a scientific reason and you call that "unreasonable"?

So the troll confesses! (Kiss of death (banning) on a philosophy forum – or ought to be) — 180 Proof

Talking about yourself again aren't you?

If one is an atheist because theistic claims of God are false, then what matters of fact are that atheist in denial of? — Sunlight

If. But that hasn't been established, has it? Where is the evidence that no atheist ever rejects the idea of God out of fear?

Atheism, as I understand it, denotes a 2nd order denial of what 1st order theism affirms about g/G — 180 Proof

Yes, but as far as I am aware, denial is often a fear reaction. It is a function of the defense mechanism that seeks to protect the ego from things that the individual cannot cope with or thinks it cannot cope with.

It may well be that some atheists reject the idea of God on “rational” grounds. But not all people are rational, many are emotional and react emotionally to ideas and other things.

I understand what your personal opinion is, but is there any scientific reason to exclude the possibility of that denial being rooted in fear, anxiety, etc. when those emotions often result in denial?

What is interesting is how some of the Eastern thinkers really did see the physical world as illusion, or maya. I remember when I did study the module of Hinduism, I was at the time attending Christian Union and felt that the Hindu idea of Atman, man, merging with Brahman, God, made more sense to me than the idea of eternal paradise after the resurrection. — Jack Cummins

Some Hindus, such as the followers of monistic Advaita Vedanta, yes, though the majority are dualists. These different traditions in fact correspond to different levels of teachings regarding metaphysical realities and are not necessarily incompatible in all cases.

Besides, Platonism, for example, which sees the physical world as the realm of "appearances", comes very close to the Hindu idea of the world as "illusion". On the other hand, the Hindu concept of Maya is interpreted in many different ways. For example, the world may be an "illusion" in the sense that it is projected or manifested by the Universal Consciousness or God in the same way as a feat of magic is produced by a magician, hence God is referred to as Mayin or Magician. But, for man, especially the unenlightened, the world is and remains very real. Westerners and sometimes even Indians often misunderstand these fine distinctions and may come to the wrong conclusions.

I think that you think that what people say on The Philosophy Forum has more of an effect in the so-called "real world", as if the internet was somehow not a part of reality, than it actually does. — thewonder

lol Not at all. It's just a discussion suggested by @Athena which you volunteered to join if you care to recall. I don't really care about this or any other discussion on this forum to be honest. You are reading far too much into it. And you don't have to participate if you don't want to which is probably just as well.

I have began reading thinkers such as Plotinus and Huxley's perennial philosophy, but it does still seem that it is hard to place some degree of emphasis on mind or matter as being more real. — Jack Cummins

As one of my teachers used to say, science says that the earth goes around the sun, while everyday experience says that the sun goes around the earth. The first view may be useful to science but the second is what matters in daily life.

So, it depends what you want to achieve. Personally, I believe that science knows quite a lot about matter so perhaps it ought to try and look at spirit for a change, all the more so as it seems that the scientific view of matter consisting of energy particles or fields or whatever actually comes very close to the spiritual view that matter ultimately consists of immaterial spirit.

In fact, science is unable to explain what matter ultimately consists of while criticising the idealists for being unable to explain spirit.

If it's spiritual and psychological matters you're interested in, then obviously you place less emphasis on matter. But that's something everybody has to decide for themselves.

I don't understand why you think you ought to convince me to do something about this — thewonder

I never asked you to do anything about it. I simply asked you for your honest opinion. But if you think that a private organization that people don't know anything about and that is unaccountable to voters should run the country, then everything is clear. Thank you for your comment.

It doesn't seem to be the case that there is a form of conspiratorial control over the Labour movement on the part of the Fabians. — thewonder

Well, the point I'm making is that the Fabian Society is a private member organization. When people vote for Labour, the vast majority are not aware of the fact that Labour is controlled by the Fabian Society.

In my view, control of a major political party by a private organization doesn't sound very democratic, no matter what party or what organization that is.

Plus, when Labour is in office, the government is run by Fabian executive members sitting on the Labour leadership team.

Why should a private organization that is unaccountable to the electorate run the country from behind the scenes? It doesn't make any sense to me.

If the public were informed that the country is now run by the Fabian Society, it would be a different matter, but it isn't and that is deceptive and disingenuous.

As I said, the analysis provided here isn’t “my analysis”, it is an analysis found in all critical authors and it is consistent with the Fabians’ own writings, policy papers and other documents.

I know a few Fabians personally so maybe we can invite a few Fabians to join the discussion. But in the meantime, let’s take a look at the Fabian view of this so-called “Fabian conspiracy”.

These are some key points made in the Fabian paper Fabian Review, where Vanesha Singh, assistant editor of the Fabian Society, says:

(1) “As an overview, most Fabian conspiracies have right-wing undertones. They tend to be backed by very few facts and are fuelled, instead, by a staunch opposition to socialism”.

(2) “Websites also lay out, in immense detail, how the Fabian Society influences multinational corporations, or how it represents the financial interests of global institutions such as the United Nations”.

(3) “The theorists extrapolate from information found on the society’s own website: that we once had 200 members sitting in the House of Commons, is turned into evidence that we “write Labour’s policy statements, manifestos and party programmes”, for instance. Facts can be manipulated to suit warped versions of the truth …”.

– V. Singh, “Crying Wolf”, 23 Sep 2018, Fabian Review, Autumn 2018

Great. So, let’s just very briefly analyze this, without going into endless discussions. You can let me know what you think.

(1) “As an overview, most Fabian conspiracies have right-wing undertones. They tend to be backed by very few facts and are fuelled, instead, by a staunch opposition to socialism.”

First, the author ignores the fact that the Fabians have many critics on the left, and have had since Engels and many other. By introducing the phrase "right-wing undertones", she attempt to deflect attention from this fact and deliberately misrepresents criticism of Fabianism as an exclusively "right-wing" phenomenon, which is simply not true.

Second, what kind of statement is this? Is the author suggesting that if an accusation has “right-wing undertones” and is “fueled by opposition to socialism” then that renders it null and void? If yes, then this suggestion is another diversionary tactic meant to undermine the validity and legitimacy of criticism of Fabianism.

As for “very few facts”, she is actually contradicting herself, because a few lines down she says:

(2) “Websites also lay out, in immense detail, how the Fabian Society influences multinational corporations, or how it represents the financial interests of global institutions such as the United Nations.”

For sure, “immense detail” (her own phrase) is a bit more than “very few facts”. Quite the opposite of "very few facts" actually. In my view, the detail is overwhelming as you can gather from what we’ve seen here.

But she scores another own goal straight after the first one:

(3) “The theorists extrapolate from information found on the society’s own website: that we once had 200 members sitting in the House of Commons, is turned into evidence that we “write Labour’s policy statements, manifestos and party programmes”, for instance. Facts can be manipulated to suit warped versions of the truth …”.

She admits that her own Fabian Society (which has a membership of about 7,000) has hundreds of members sitting in the House of Commons (the lower house of the UK Parliament). Actually, not “once”, but NOW, because the same website says that the Fabian Society has “hundreds of politicians in Westminster, local government and the devolved (regional) administrations”.

How can you have hundreds of Fabians developing and implementing public policy at local, regional and national level and at the same time claim that Fabian influence is “conspiracy theory”?

On 3 April 2020 the Fabian Society publicly congratulated Fabian Society members Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner for being elected leader and deputy leader, respectively, of the British Labour Party.

Please read this carefully:

"The Fabian Society is delighted to congratulate Keir Starmer on his election as leader of the Labour party. Keir is a member of the Fabian Society’s executive committee and joins the long line of Labour leaders who have been prominent Fabians.

Congratulations also to Angela Rayner on her election as deputy leader. Angela is also an active member of the Fabian Society. Both Keir and Angela have frequently written for the Fabian Society and addressed our conferences and events.

Andrew Harrop, general secretary of the Fabian Society said:

“The Fabian Society is delighted to congratulate Keir and Angela on their election as leader and deputy leader of the Labour party. We are incredibly proud to see two of our most talented Fabian Society members take charge of the British opposition.

“Both Keir and Angela exemplify the best of Fabian values in the way they combine such passion for social justice with a hard-headed practicality. The Labour party and the country will be well served by two inspiring Fabians leading the British left.”

Congratulations to Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner | Fabian Society

Of course there are many more Fabians in the Labour Party leadership as well as rank-and-file than Starmer and Rayner. But there is no need to enumerate them all because Fabian Society general secretary Harrop himself tells us that two Fabians, Starmer and Rainer, have “taken charge of the British opposition”. Which they have, they are the official leaders!

So, Starmer, who is a member of the Fabian Society executive committee, is the Leader of the Labour Party, i.e. of the British opposition.

The same Fabian website also expressly states that Starmer and Rayner “join the long line of Labour leaders who have been prominent Fabians.”

Why is the Fabian Society, a private organization unaccountable to the British public, in charge of the British opposition?

And how is stating facts published by the Fabian Society itself, “extrapolation”? Nobody denies that there are some crazy theories out there. But there is no need of any theories. The facts admitted by the Fabians themselves are more than enough to show that something isn’t right there.

People are actually trying to get back control of the Labour Party from the Fabians but aside from brief exceptions like Corbyn and McCluskey it’s just not possible.

I was thinking about something universal, that all humans share. — No One

Yes, but humans being all different, it will a bit difficult to find that. Of course you can try.

I think this question can be reshaped to ; "What is the best way to achieve happiness?" — No One

Didn't Mao Zedong settle that issue? I think it depends on how we define "happiness" in the first place. And then "best ways to achieve" it.

It is a commonly held view that ‘the Egyptians had no philosophy’ and that philosophy began with the Greeks. However, some of the major Greek philosophers, including Thales, Pythagoras and Plato, recognised their huge debt to the sages of Egypt for their knowledge and ideas. Plato himself, for example, apparently spent 13 years studying with the Egyptian priests at Heliopolis.

The difficulty scholars today have with this is that we have no records of a discursive Egyptian philosophy, in other words, philosophy in the form in which we are used to thinking of it today.
But according to philosopher and historian Pierre Hadot, author of Philosophy as a Way of Life, philosophy was seen in a very different way in the ancient world to the way it is perceived today. It was characterised, he said, by two formulas: learning to live and learning to die.

In other words, it was eminently practical, on the one hand and metaphysical on the other. We find both of these poles in Egyptian philosophy: their ‘wisdom literature’, or moral philosophy, dealt with how to live; and their ‘funerary texts’ concerned ‘learning how to die’.

And it is not the case that Egyptians had no philosophers. One example of an Egyptian moral philosopher is Ptah-hotep, who wrote a book entitled The Wisdom. Indeed, historian Will Durant (The Story of Civilization) asserts that Ptah-hotep is probably the world’s first philosopher.

Philosophy in ancient Egypt - New Acropolis Library

So, the Egyptians did have a philosophy, after all, and close parallels can be found in Greek philosophy. An important Egyptian concept was that of maat, justice, which represented the Cosmic Order upon which law and order in human society was based.

The very same concept is found in Greek culture and religion and, especially, in the moral philosophical traditions of Greece like Pythagoreanism and Platonism.

The term justice (dike) or righteousness (dikaiosyne) occurs hundreds of times in Platonic texts such as Republic/Politeia and seems to have been used as a manifestation of Cosmic Order exactly as in the Egyptian case. The very word "cosmos", Greek kosmos, which we have inherited from the Greeks, refers to the ordered universe.

Ancient Egyptian Philosophy – Wikipedia

similar solutions or takes on the same question/issue/problem (here death) isn't remarkable in any way and to infer anything from it other than the obvious fact mentioned above might be a huge mistake. — TheMadFool

I agree. However, There appear to be a significant number of parallels between Egyptian and Greek philosophical traditions in addition to numerous statements in Greek texts to the effect that Greeks borrowed knowledge from the Egyptians. I am aware that ancient authors often make extravagant claims, but there is no reason to doubt it in this case, especially when there is other corroborating evidence. Certainly, evidence of Egyptian Influence seems to be more substantial than Indian influence.

I know. I was just wondering how an Anarchist would evaluate Fabianism (based on the data provided here).

I see the area you raise as being important but it will probably need backing up with various sources and texts. However, you have given a couple already and it may be that others will be able to add more. — Jack Cummins

Yes, further sources will be added as the discussion proceeds. I'm still doing research on it myself.

I believe that Sumerian knowledge, especially Hinduism was important in the development of these ideas, but I do think that it is probably also useful to frame their partly in the historical contexts in which they arose and passed into other traditions. — Jack Cummins

Indian influence may explain Pythagorean and Platonic belief in reincarnation, but other concepts are more likely to have an Egyptian origin/influence. After all, Egypt was just across the sea and as stated in the OP there was Egyptian influence on art, architecture, as well as astronomy and mathematics. Astronomy was closely related to religion and spirituality, hence some elements of Egyptian (and Sumerian) philosophy may have passed into Greek traditions along with astronomy.

Reincarnation was not part of the earliest Indian texts such as the Vedas and seems to have emerged in Indian traditions about the same time as in the Greek ones, in any case not much earlier. The difficulty is to show Greek dependence on Indian traditions on the available historical evidence. We have no idea of what India's earliest religious and philosophical beliefs were. The Indus Valley (Harrapa) Civilization was not earlier than the Sumerian or Egyptian and India itself was influenced by other cultures.

Edit: Thanks for mentioning the website. Yes, it is possible that some spiritual knowledge was acquired from Atlantis, the Minoans and other ancient civilizations. Equally possible is that some elements of Greek spirituality go back to the spiritual traditions of the ancient Indo-Europeans to whom the Greeks also belonged and among which the Sun and attendant symbolism probably plaid an important role.

It seems that the early thinkers were so advanced, and I wonder about the epistemological foundations of their knowledge. — Jack Cummins

They certainly were highly advanced, indeed, we may say unsurpassed. I don't think philosophy has advanced much since Plato and Plotinus and for a very good reason. The philosophical teachings of Greek philosophy were meant as an intellectual framework for spiritual practice in the form of mental purity, development of moral virtues, and certain techniques such as meditation and contemplation that would take the practitioner beyond philosophy as an intellectual pursuit.

I do feel that many materialistic pictures of consciousness are so reductive that they appear to leave awareness out partially or entirely. — Jack Cummins

Correct. I think part of the problem is that awareness is something that is difficult to grasp, let alone analyze in detail in a scientific context. The other is that science tends to take a materialist view of reality that excludes non-materialist views. Precisely because the materialist view is unable to pin down and investigate awareness, science ought to try and apply non-materialist approaches to the subject. However, to do so would mean to renounce its exclusive materialist assumptions which few scientists are prepared to do for fear of being ostracized by the scientific community.

Well, I think you did mention that you are an Anarchist. So, for example, how would you reconcile Anarchism with the Fabian policy of state control?

What are thoughts comprised of, or composed from, and can they be reduced to matter'? — Jack Cummins

I don't think thoughts can be reduced to matter. But they could be reduced to spirit.

We have (1) thoughts and (2) an awareness of thoughts. The subject which has the awareness of the thoughts and of itself is the spirit, "nous" or "pneuma" or what I would call "self-aware intelligent energy".

Thoughts, emotions and sense perceptions are functions of that spiritual self within us and are made of the same stuff, i.e., intelligent energy.

Nice definition. So that illumination in your opinion it happens in a something energetic level or it's pure mind's process? — dimosthenis9

The word for “consciousness” in Greek, Latin and Sanskrit is:

Greek: συνείδησις suneidesis < sun + eidesis
Latin: conscius < con + scio
Sanskrit: संविद् samvid < sam + vid

Apparently, the original meaning in each case was “knowledge with (someone)” and by extension ”knowledge with or of oneself”/”self-knowledge” > “self-awareness” > “consciousness” > “conscience”, etc.

So, spirit is not a mind process. It is a form of "self-aware intelligent energy" of which mental processes such as thinking are mere functions.

For example, we have thoughts, like "this is a tree". But we also have an awareness of those thoughts that is necessarily higher that the thoughts themselves. That within us, that on a lower level has the awareness of our thoughts, and on a higher level has awareness of itself as itself, that is, as pure "self-aware intelligent energy" that has no other object of experience than itself, is the spirit. I would call it "nous" or "pneuma" in Platonic terminology.

I don't know how people would cope, because I think that so many people have become debilitated. — Jack Cummins

That’s a very good observation. I have noticed huge changes in people’s behaviour since last year. You can actually see the psychological impact on most people and many have obvious mental and emotional issues. Some get involved in political activism to vent their frustration and anger but in general nothing is done about it and it doesn’t look good.

I went with a friend to my local priest asking for explanations but, of course, he did not know. — Jack Cummins

That is the big tragedy of the Christian Church. Priests and vicars have lost the ability to lead and guide. Sermons these days are like an advertising campaign for charity organisations and the Church itself has become a virtual extension of Oxfam. People listen out of politeness, others try to extract something spiritual or more practical but in vain. It’s embarrassing and sad. I wish Christians could learn from Muslims and Hindus and stand up for their traditional beliefs instead of apologising for them. I think a new Church is urgently needed if Christianity is to be saved.

I think that some Christian ideas of God are rather narrow, and I see both Christ and the Buddha, as well as other 'masters' as having access to truths which most people are not aware of in daily experience. — Jack Cummins

The Church is struggling to keep its hold on the masses and forgets its spiritual message in the process. The Eastern (Orthodox) Church still preserves strong links to its spiritual heritage and with a bit of luck you can still find priests and monks who are in touch with the Hellenistic tradition that once inspired the Church Fathers. But I suppose other denominations also have some interesting figures among their clergy though not necessarily your local priest.

I wonder how to understand on a deeper level, what we are going through. Do you think it is all a learning experience from the universe and any underlying source, or force? — Jack Cummins

My mother and some of my friends think the epidemic, the weather, and everything is a “sign from above”. Maybe the Universe is trying to warn us, to get us to wake up to what we are doing to nature, to humanity and to ourselves before it’s too late? I tend to think so. A big awakening is needed.

but then used it as a jumping off point to point out the interesting case of those who benefit from nations built before the 20th century and those sort of "going through history" into the 21st century — schopenhauer1

Well, now that this has been addressed perhaps we could (re-) focus on the issue at hand.

Very interesting. Maybe we can discuss a few other points as well, once this has come to a conclusion. (Hopefully soon.)

This means prophetic powers that are not less than theirs, that is Apollo, not from some other master. — Fooloso4

I thought so because the Greek text doesn't have that ambiguity.

[85β] λυπούμενα ᾁδειν οὔτε οἱ κύκνοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἅτε οἶμαι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ὄντες, μαντικοί τέ εἰσι καὶ προειδότες τὰ ἐν Ἅιδου ἀγαθὰ ᾁδουσι καὶ τέρπονται ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν διαφερόντως ἢ ἐν τῷ ἔμπροσθεν χρόνῳ. ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡγοῦμαι ὁμόδουλός τε εἶναι τῶν κύκνων καὶ ἱερὸς τοῦ αὐτοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ οὐ χεῖρον ἐκείνων τὴν μαντικὴν ἔχειν παρὰ τοῦ δεσπότου, οὐδὲ δυσθυμότερον αὐτῶν τοῦ βίου ἀπαλλάττεσθαι. ἀλλὰ τούτου γ᾽ ἕνεκα λέγειν τε χρὴ καὶ ἐρωτᾶν ὅτι ἂν βούλησθε, ἕως ἂν Ἀθηναίων ἐῶσιν ἄνδρες ἕνδεκα.

Anyway, that clarifies it.

Here's another translation by Fowler that supports the Sedley & Long one:

85b] but since they are Apollo's birds, I believe they have prophetic vision, and because they have foreknowledge of the blessings in the other world they sing and rejoice on that day more than ever before. And I think that I am myself a fellow-servant of the swans; and am consecrated to the same God and have received from our master a gift of prophecy no whit inferior to theirs, and that I go out from life with as little sorrow as they. So far as this is concerned, then, speak and ask what ever questions you please, so long as the eleven of the Athenians permit.”

There is nothing unclear that I can see.

Yes, but especially with reference to prophecy, I think in this case the text refers to Apollo as indicated by the Sedley & Long translation.

The Sedley & Long version doesn't. You're using the wrong translation.

Socrates is the dedicated servant of Apollo who is his master and god of prophecy. Hence the gift of prophecy is naturally and logically from his divine master Apollo.

My translation (Sedley & Long, 2011) of 85b has:

"Now I believe that I myself am the swans' fellow-slave and sacred to the same god, and have prophecy from my master no less than they do"

There is nothing unclear in the text.

that I possess prophetic power from my master no less than theirs" Which indicates that it is not Apollo. — Fooloso4

How does it indicate that? To me it is clear that he means Apollo.

I possess prophetic power from my master."

His 'daemon'? — Wayfarer

Socrates means Apollo, his master and god of prophecy.

Spirit is that within and above us that illumines our mind from within and provides us with awareness of ourselves and of other things.

The purpose of any government is expressed in what function(s) it executes... so to answer this question, one may respond with what function(s) they think a government should execute: Should it be: "whatever function it is asked to carry out by the majority of citizens"... or, alternatively: "Whatever function best expresses the nature/desire of it's citizens (such as survival and prosperity). — Marigold23

IMO it should be a bit of both. Government should function in accordance with (1) the will and (2) the best interests of the people.

And we can go back to Sparta and Athens to understand the issues. — Athena

Correct. The fundamental issues have never changed. What has changed is the political systems claiming to address them. And even these are essentially the same. The Greeks already identified several forms of governance such as monarchy, democracy and tyranny. Some philosophers believed that monarchy was the ideal but they qualified it by insisting that the rulers should be philosophical or wise kings. Whichever system we may settle for, what is certain is that communism is a fraudulent system that promises "freedom" but ends in tyranny and economic ruin. And this is why Fabianism must be opposed if we want to avoid the fate of China.

We have zero understanding of economics and banking and yet have the power of the vote, but we can not discuss the really important matters. When was the last time we voted on land use issues or banking policy? And yet we are supposed to be self-governing. — Athena

Knowledge is power. Real power begins with knowledge, with an awareness of the situation we are in, of where we are, how we got here, where we want to go, and how we get there.

There is a great parable from the Bible about the enemy who sowed tares or weeds among the wheat while the farmer slept. Ignorance is a form of sleep that prevents us from identifying the enemy, seeing through his plans and taking steps to stop him. People need to wake up and stay wide awake, aware and alert at all times and encourage others to do the same.

Greek philosophy is about spiritual awakening. But this must go hand in hand with social and political awakening. While we aspire to personal enlightenment or salvation, we can not ignore the world around us. To do so would mean to go against the most fundamental principles of philosophy. The Greeks were practical people. Their gaze was fixed on the stars but their feet were firmly on the earth. Theirs was not an arm-chair philosophy but a philosophy of active practice.

Free speech has slowly been chiseled away at, and may soon be a relic of the past. I hope not, but that seems to be the direction things are trending at the moment. I have a difficult time imagining how society, a supposed free society, can truly function if free speech isn’t maintained. Especially when it comes to the idea of justice. — Pinprick

IMO that's where the problem lies with modern "liberal democracy" and with liberalism in general. Liberalism started as a movement aiming to win freedom for certain social and economic groups. However, political power is a limited commodity. You can only acquire some for yourself by restricting the power of others. From a minority group, the liberals gradually became the majority and now that they hold most of the power they are beginning to take away whatever power the others have left. We are now getting close to full circle when we are reverting to a situation where freedom is becoming more and more limited. And this isn't just in the USA.

choice do youth have? They do not know enough about life to make well informed decisions.
For give me, this thread seems to be making me aware of how different my thinking is! :chin: I so remember rushing out into life eager to get my peice of the pie, and to my horror finding my life was totally different than what I expected and realizing how much I did not know! — Athena

The youth are totally dependent on guidance and direction from the older ones. That's why education is so important. We have no control over the education system. But this doesn't mean that we are completely powerless. We can still make use of modern communication technology to raise public awareness of things that are not right in society and of the need to do something about it, in other words, educate, organize and mobilize the public exactly like the Fabians have done it and many others do it even now. Start with family, colleagues, neighbors and friends and inform the people.

One of my favorite books is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, maybe he was writing in response to Fabians? George Orwell's 1984 is also a warning against totarianism. We speak of democracy and say too little of liberty. I do not want to live in a country without liberty — Athena

It is very interesting that Fabians were so indoctrinated or brainwashed that from the thousands of Fabian Society members very few ever rebelled against Fabianism although a few did rebel against the Society itself. These included Huxley, Orwell and Wells. But even then many of them continued to cooperate with the Society in many ways. Perhaps, knowing the extent of Fabian influence, they felt powerless to resist Fabianism? I think this in itself would make a fascinating topic and instructive study in the psychology of cult-like political movements.

Anyway, the Fabians had a highly sophisticated propaganda machine comprising a propaganda bureau linked to literary societies, book clubs and similar organizations through which they churned out hundreds and later thousands of items of imaginative literature of all sorts from novels to science fiction through which they promoted Fabian ideas.

Bernard Shaw was the main propagandist of the Fabian Society and wrote many pamphlets that were translated in various languages as well as being a highly influential playwright. In 1925 he said that the world had been “thoroughly Fabianized”.

In fact, we learn a lot about the Fabians from Shaw. While the Webbs and other Fabians were English and therefore much more reserved and guarded in the language they used, Shaw was Irish and his more candid or careless statements were all over the papers as well as in his own writings. So Shaw is a good source for Fabian ideology and policy although other leaders like the Webbs were the actual ideological leaders.

Where do you stand on all of that? I thought we agreed private property is a good thing? However, workers need affordable housing and that requires government to step in because privately there is no affordable, decent housing for low paid workers. Because of population growth land needs to be set aside for low income housing and it needs to be spread about the incorporated area. — Athena

Yes, we did agree that private property is a good thing.

Once we have understood that the ultimate aim of Fabianism is to impose communism, we can see how the abolition of private property is an unacceptable feature of totalitarianism.

In order to eradicate economic injustice, utopian socialists before Marx suggested solutions such as the abolition of private property. These solutions were often linked to other extreme measures like the abolition of marriage and the abolition of religion. The original Fabians were far-left, extreme radicals of all sorts from Marxists to Anarchists.

Marx and Engels copied most of their ideas from the utopian socialists but coached them in language that sounded “scientific” to make those utopian ideas more palatable to prospective followers. The abolition of private property was no different.

In 1845, Marx and Engels had written in The German Ideology that in Communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, “society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner …”

Marx and Engels failed to find a publisher for their book and it is not difficult to see why. Their idyllic picture of communist society may seem enchanting, but only so long as no questions are asked. It may well be possible in a communist society for all citizens to engage in various spheres of activity, but who would decide what activities should be pursued by millions of citizens at any given time and place and how? What if some preferred to engage in a different type of work or chose not to work at all?

Only three years later, in the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels totally reversed the above utopian description of the future society by suggesting not only that all citizens would be “equally liable to work” but that they would be organized in “industrial armies, especially for agriculture”.

Apparently, citizens could now no longer do as they pleased. Their “freedom” consisted in joining the army of workers and perform work as directed by the state which was the new owner of land and means of production. This new description implies that, far from being “free”, all citizens will be turned into the state’s servants or instruments of production. As later happened in Soviet Russia and Maoist China and as Britain's Fabian Socialist Labour Party attempted to enforce in 1945.

Marx and Engels’ insistence on armies of workers engaged in large-scale industrial production is also the key to understanding the true meaning of other Marxist concepts such as “abolition of private property” and “common ownership”.

The Communist Manifesto, although calling for the abolition of private property, does not explain what this means in practice. Its hidden meaning only comes to light by (1) taking the authors’ statements to their logical conclusion and (2) seeing how they were applied in Marxist societies.

The Manifesto states very clearly that communism was to abolish property in land and all rights of inheritance. This means that land and houses would become property of the state along with all means of production (raw materials, tools, machinery and factories), transport and communication. This would leave the citizens of communist society with nothing but personal belongings such as clothing and household items.

In terms of housing, the only option would be state-owned accommodation. Marx and Engels believed that, for communist society to be sustainable, workers had to produce as much as possible as efficiently as possible. This required a workforce that was highly disciplined and organized like an army, which was also the Fabian idea. And as armies are housed in barracks provided by the state, so too, industrial armies would be housed in barracks-style, state-owned housing estates. Indeed, dormitories and accommodation blocks with communal kitchens – and little privacy – became a standard feature of urban planning in the wake of the Communist takeover in Russia.

Obviously, this system of state-owned housing also severely restricted freedom of movement, which once again shows why communism - and Fabian Socialism leading to Communism - is a totalitarian system that is unacceptable to lovers of freedom and democracy.

This is why Fabian Socialist parties like the British Labour Party attempt to publicly distance themselves from controversial Marxist policies like abolition of property while covertly aiming to eventually establish a communist system. And this also applies in various degrees to other "democratic" or "social democratic" parties - like the US Democratic Party - that have close links to Britain's Fabian Society and Labour Party.