That explanation of the take over of the Soviet Union is fascinating. How many people are aware of the banking and business deals that actually rule the world? We think of our national leaders and perhaps what the masses believe, but the real power and control are not the subject of our news. That is not what the masses are directed to pay attention to.

Okay, and do computers ask questions? Does any other animal ask questions? For sure many animals are curious, but do they question what consciousness is?

Your reply also makes me think of questions about time and infinity. It seems to me you have said there are infinite questions and answers.

I think you are making some very good points there. Marx was an authoritarian, domineering, and argumentative person from the start. He studied law and philosophy and tried to use philosophical arguments and legalistic language to impose his views on others. But that didn’t work out, he fell into disrepute at university and could never get an academic job. So, he turned to journalism but his revolutionary rhetoric got his paper (funded by wealthy bankers and industrialists) closed down. He then turned to revolutionary activities, used his father’s inheritance to fund insurrection in Belgium where many German factory workers lived, which failed, and he was on the run from the police ever after. — Apollodorus

I think that is a typical problem today. People thinking the right information and the right argument is what leadership is about, getting angrier and angrier when no one accepts them as a leader. This comes with education for technology but is not the result of liberal education.

In 1847 Marx and Engels set up the Communist League in London to promote violent revolution among German workers living in England who had links to workers’ organizations in Germany and other European countries. Their plan was to infiltrate the socialist labor movement, join the Democrats to seize power from the Conservatives, and then overthrow the Democrats and install a Socialist regime run by the Communist League, i.e., by themselves.

Isn't that in line with Hitler's road to power? Except Hitler appealed to the people by going throughout the country and finding out exactly what made people angry and then used that information to gain their support. It was not all, his idea imposed on others, but more skillful emotional manipulation.

The whole Marxist ideology was constructed for that particular purpose, to incite people to insurrection, whilst hiding the leadership’s true intentions of assuming power for themselves. They wrote the Communist Manifesto (1848) to promote their ideology. All the central concepts of Marxist political theory were formulated in ambiguous, suggestive, and misleading language.

And I think a recent leader was doing the same thing, only this time strongly opposing socialism, turning socialism into a strong playing card for the opposition.

So, Marx and Engels’ “revolution” is a myth, a fairy tale, and a hoax. It never happened, because nobody believed in it and very few had actually heard of it. Marx then turned to writing his economic theory and after about twenty years published the first volume of Capital (1867) but nobody bought that either. It was long after his death that Engels and other German socialists, with the help of the London Fabians and Russian Marxists, managed to spread the ideology of revolution to Russia where in October 1917 Lenin, Trotsky, and a few other Marxist ideologists seized power with the help of radicalized factory workers and some elements of the armed forces - all of whom were later liquidated by Stalin.

Essentially, this is what Marxist political theory can be reduced to, an ideological tool for seizing power. It has absolutely no viable political program or anything except total state control and dictatorship of the Communist Party (a self-appointed intellectual elite), not of the working classes who are simply reduced to servants of the state. Marxism comes to power through a mixture of deception and force of arms.

Your explanation is interesting and I am impressed by what communism had to do with giving Hitler power. It is like the US push for socialism and the opposite party pushing against it. People are reacting against each other and excessively willing to follow leaders, like an emotional melee not really an intellectual movement. Hilter was against communism.

Engels’ definition of revolution was “the most authoritarian thing that exists; it is the act, whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon; and the victorious party must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries” - Engels, F., “On Authority”, 1874, MEW, Band. 18, s. 308.

Oh my goodness your highlight of this reveals the tragedy of what happened. The American Revolution was a revolution of consciousness. Not exactly all of it was a revolution of consciousness because not everyone was literate. However, many of the leaders were literate in Greek and Roman classics and the philosophy of their time and they did create a new form of government built on an understanding of Athens and Rome.

Marx was also suffering from a skin disease that was causing frequent episodes of self-loathing and alienation and making him fly into a rage and behave like a tyrant even in his own home. You can almost hear his anger and frustration in some of his writings and this was reflected in the violent language that he was using to attack everyone that contradicted him.

That is sad and I don't think he was the only person with a personality/mental disorder that people have followed. Neitzche's superman is appealing to males, but really is that the thinking that is good for civilizations?

Mao was just a brainwashed farmer and a Soviet Russian puppet. He was worthless without Russian backing. After the death of Stalin, the Russians started a de-Stalinization program to make Russia’s Communist dictatorship slightly more moderate. Mao went in the opposite direction and turned more and more dictatorial and bloodthirsty.

Oh dear, that is really sad but so typical. Looking back on my observations of life it seems few people learn to handle power well. Of course, I am thinking of what happens in families where the head of a household may be a tyrant because he does not know better or when the woman dominates she may be the tyrant especially in her role as mother. When we do not learn better, we do not do better. This is tragic when the person is in a strong national leadership role.

My bell went off- time for me to run. I hope to get back to you later.

I think the mysteries of philosophy are not really about coming up with any definitive answers, or questions about metaphysics, but about not ruling out the scope of imagination. — Jack Cummins

In reading the different philosophers, I have been amazed by the questions they have asked. Perhaps the most important thing is discovering how to ask good questions. Not all of the philosophers asked good questions.

For example, Marx had a hard time supporting himself, so his focus is on commodities. Weber asked better questions and tells us more about human nature and the nature of leadership. And to me, absent in philosophy, is the voice of women coming from the perspective of caregiving.

What does a story about cultural bias have to do with being unable to solve something that is intented to be an unending discovery? — Tiberiusmoon

China kind of got frozen in time because of a cultural bias for tradition. I think Christianity and Islam can both hold people in the past. That is being a conservative.

Capitalism and communism seem to hold people as commodities that either contribute to the national economy or deduct from it. The young and the old have no value but the young can be made valuable with education, while the old are just a drain on society.

Women who stay home to care for the family, and our elders, once had value but I don't think that is true today. Especially the old are outdated and worthless.

Strangely, I have always been far more attuned to reflection than facts. I always had far more difficulty with rote learning than speculation. I think that may because I was an only child, so I was spent more time alone than most children. I also didn't like sports, so spent a lot of time reading, drawing and listening to rock music, by the time I was about 10.

I think that we are becoming far ' too technologically correct', as I think we discussed on the thread you created. But, I think that it has a particular bearing on philosophy. People are becoming so accustomed to Wikipedia, and other sources. I sometimes think a lot of people almost treat Wikipedia like the best living philosopher in the world, knowing all the answers instantly. I also believe that the public can edit, it to include latest information. I use it as a basis for an overview of a topic, but that doing one's own research is better. If everyone relies on Wiki as the guide, there is a danger that people will begin to think too much alike, and there will be less creative and genuine thinking. — Jack Cummins

In a thread started by Apollodorus, I realized communism turns everyone into a commodity and destroys human values. Marx and Engels find fault with a woman doing for others without being "paid" for what she does. Her pay is love, not money. Her pay is making people happy and helping them succeed in life, and being appreciated and socially valued.

Capitalism may or may not do the same thing. You express concern for our human uniqueness and that is essential to valuing human beings. Help me out here.

You ask about our mysteries and perhaps the greatest mystery is the human mind and consciousness. I think communism and capitalism are thinking of people as commodities that add to or take away from the national economy. That is not exactly a human value, because our human value is our uniqueness and our relationships and our sense of well-being if have a mansion or only the clothes on our backs.

I think there is a big difference between communism and what Plato or the US Founding Fathers had in mind. Plato proposed rule by good and wise governors precisely to combat tyranny. America had been a British Crown Colony, so rule by one party either under a king or president wasn’t such an unusual prospect. As long as democracy is secured, it doesn’t really matter.

By contrast, communism advocates abolition of private property, total state control, and dictatorship.
Marx and Engels believed that between capitalist and communist society lay the period of revolutionary transformation of the one into the other and that to this corresponded a political transition period in which the state could be nothing but the “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875, MECW, vol. 24., p. 95).

Engels wrote: “Do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (“Introduction”, 18 Mar. 1891, The Civil War In France, 1871, MEW, Band 22, s. 199).

In the Paris Commune of 1871, armed revolutionaries, some of whom were members of Marx and Engels’ International, had seized the French capital and imposed a reign of terror in which many citizens were summarily executed – including the Archbishop of Paris who had been taken hostage – and much of the city was burned to the ground. Marx and Engels at the time celebrated the Commune as “the most glorious deed of our party” and the “glorious harbinger of a new society” (Marx, Letter to Dr. Kugelmann, 12 Apr. 1871, MECW, vol. 44, p. 131; Marx, “Third Address to the General Council of the International”, 30 May 1871, MECW, vol. 22, p. 230).

The Communists murdered many millions of innocent people in Russia, China, Eastern Europe, and other places. — Apollodorus

I am struggling to understand why anyone would think eliminating the industrial leaders would be a good thing. Marx wasn't even capable of supporting himself. Why would anyone think he could create a healthy economy for a whole nation? To be an industrial leader, first a person has to have a good idea, and the ability to promote that idea and get others to invest in it. Then create an organization that turns the idea into a reality and markets it to a population. At no point in the process does a person take a weapon and start killing people. What went so wrong that made people think a violent revolution is how to achieve anything of value?

China has become different under Western influence. The biggest influence was probably Soviet Communism. After the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, China nearly went down the same road but decided to take a leaf from Lenin’s book and introduced some elements of capitalism under strict state control. This was followed by massive investments and credit from America and Europe and allowed China to become an empire again, but an atheist and national socialist one instead of traditional Chinese. This is already creating big problems for a lot of small countries and even a few big ones.

Moa is a good example of a charismatic leader with no merit. He had the power to rule but not the ability. Science is essential to democracy. We once understood this but don't seem to understand that now because half of us followed a leader who ignores science, proving what happened in China can happen in the US. That is quite frightening to me. Only democracy is protected in the classroom is it protected and I think the US stopped doing that.

Well, if that’s the path humanity wants to go, then there isn’t much we can do about it. Personally, though, I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with having men and women. A bit of tradition isn’t always bad. If animals can be male and female without problems I don’t see why humans should be different.

My comment about men becoming as women was a response to you saying

If we take “equality” to its logical conclusion, then women should stop having children and become men.

I think both of us agree having both sexes and tolerance for gender differences is a good thing. Personally, I think the traditional family of a man who supports the family and a woman who stays home to care for the family has great value. However, within this traditional family structure, everyone needs to be supported for self-actualization and this would involve sharing responsibilities. :grin: Cooperative families making a cooperative nation.

People tend to agree on some things and disagree on others. However, I think the discussion was trying to establish whether Communism in its Fabian form is a good thing and, in connection with that, what form of government we think would be the ideal one.

I believe we agreed on keeping private property. This would rule out communism. Anything else you think we agree on?

I lost interest in communism when I read it "liberated women" with a propaganda campaign declaring full-time homemakers are not valuable citizens. In the US we shortened this to "just a housewife" and effectively destroyed the value of full-time homemakers.

When the communist destroyed the value of full-time homemakers women got jobs in order to be valued citizens and they began working like men. The state had to provide child care, because someone has to care for the children.

The flood of women into the workforce increased the size of a cheap source of labor and this increased the economy. However, the divorce rate soared and so did the abortion rate. Women were not fairing better, because, with both the responsibility of caring for children and having to work, they did not have the time and energy to get an education and advance a career. Not until my X walked out and I had to care for the children and support them too, did I appreciate the value of a full-time homemaker. It would have been wonderful to come home to a clean home, a cooked dinner, and have someone else resolve all the problems that come with having children, so I could just eat and relax. I realized if the only thing I had to do was focus on supporting the family, then I would have the time and energy to develop a career. In old books about family, it was stressed how the woman should manage things so her husband was free to what he needed to do to support the family. My point is, single mothers are not liberated, women unless they can pay someone to care for the children and the home and the relations that a full-time homemaker cares for. When women are forced to both care for the children and support them, they tend to fall into poverty, and this becomes a state burden. It becomes counterproductive.

That makes communism the worst possible thing for family values and a society that values humans. We are proving Capitalism can be just as destructive to family and human values.

I think Marx and Engels needed the voice of a woman who thought her role in society as a homemaker was extremely valuable. I think the men had an exaggerated sense of their own importance.

According to Marxist feminists, women's liberation can only be achieved by dismantling the capitalist systems in which they contend much of women's labor is uncompensated. — Wikipedia

:rage: Darn right much of women's labor is not monetarily compensated for. Caring for people freely because that is what a good woman does, is not a bad thing. Turning a woman into a commodity whose function is dependent on a monetary reward destroys our human values,

:chin: Perhaps that goes with thinking a violent revolution and killing industrial leaders is a good thing, because everyone is reduced to a commodity. No one's unique human value is respected.

Humanity is defective and aberrant to the natural order of things. The future just involves more and more programmed social behavior, where people will become less and less free and not even realize it because they have been manipulated into accepting servitude. — darthbarracuda

Democracy is a shared consciousness and shared power. I believe it is possible we have greatly increased our shared consciousness and that we are at a point of developing a new consciousness
based on science and histroy. We may be entering a new age that is a high-tech reality and one of peace and the end of tyranny. But then what are we to do with ourselves if we don't need to work from sun up to sun down?

You speak of labor-intense societies. A high-tech society is not labor-intensive.

What does a story about cultural bias have to do with being unable to solve something that is intented to be an unending discovery? — Tiberiusmoon

Wow, I would say that cultural bias makes a huge difference. Right now advanced nations are biased for technological correctness. Christianity without illiteracy in Greek and Roman classics is not the same as Christianity was before we became technically correct. And technological correctness has to lead to reactionary politics and Trump being a US president and increased violence as we are polarized instead of being less sure of what we think we know. A society that desires the perfection of computers that replace humans, is not exactly the liberty and justice of our past.

That was a funny story of people jumping to the wrong conclusion. But at the moment I think it must have been quite frustrating.

Philosophy is not to draw conclusions but to deepen understanding, which is why philosophical mysteries are never solved its like an endless digging of origin.
Even if you think you reached a conclusion there is so much more to think about. — Tiberiusmoon

That is a brilliant statement. Especially in our later years, we are more prone to having a sense of deeper meanings, whereas when we are young our minds are more attuned to the accumulation of facts. I like an old book on logic that sits on my shelves that nicely explains we should never be too sure of what we think we know. That book was written before we were so technologically correct.

I agree. That's exactly why I've said many times before that the emergence of a political right and left hasn't brought anything good and society should return to a no-party system where governance is done by consensus instead of having alternate rule by one party or another. Hence my suggestion that governments should be run by impartial or partyless "philosopher kings" or wise rulers as proposed by Plato. ["/quote"]

:gasp: We criticized the communist for having only one political party. That looks like ignorant propaganda doesn't it, when we consider Plato or even the forefathers of the US who originally were opposed to separate parties.
— Apollodorus

And yes, the problem is powerful countries exploiting the resources of the weak ones. China is a good example. It exploits Tibet - while also suppressing its people - and is expanding its influence and power in the Pacific, Africa, the Middle East and even Europe.

Yet no one says anything about China. Mainstream discussion seems to always revolve around Europe's colonial past.

Good point. However, until recently China was known for its internal wars and then becoming one empire and then not expanding. For philosophyical reasons, China remained in the past and protected that but restricting contact with the rest of the world. At one time it had the best technology in the world but this technological growth came a stand still. Why is China different today?

Sure. But the same applies to a man who has to bring up children without their mother.

I think “equal rights” can be deceptive and is often used to deceive people. The ruled are not in the same position as the rulers. Individuals are different from each other. We all have different aptitudes and skills, different levels of intelligence or physical strength, etc.

If we take “equality” to its logical conclusion, then women should stop having children and become men. Is this what society should strive to achieve?

How about men becoming as women? It has been argued that would make the world a better place. For years I have arged the importance of the traditional woman and the vital part she plays in society.

I never said there should be no welfare. I only pointed out that some families live on state benefits for generations, even those that do have a man or father in the house. I was referring to people who are deliberately abusing the system out of their own choice, not because circumstances force them.

You are I do not understand poverty the same. I once thought poverty was a meaningful experience those of us born white and middle class could never have. Then during the 1970 recession caused by OPEC embargoing, my family experienced serious poverty for so long I forgot how to think middle class.

We used to think the people who went through the depression and starting hording, where funny. During the recession I became afraid of that when I used what we had there would be no more, and I bgan hording. I was proud of my ability to endure hunger and cold, and didn't weigh enough to sell plasma, so I used heavy clothing and risked going to shock to sell plasma. I rished my life in other ways, because that is what I had to do to survive and I developed black humor, where death is something to laugh about. I learned poverty is mentally, physically and spiritually devastating. I do not believe people willingly live like that, but when that is all they know. That is all they know.

Do not judge a man until you walk a mile in his boots.

It does seem that certain experiences seem to be too harsh to make much sense of as a learning curve of experience. Actually, there have been times when I have found people suggesting that certain experiences should be seen in that way as being a bit too much. But, however we interpret our experiences, it does seem that there is a lot of suffering. Also, it does appear that some have more to endure than others. I think that the worst thing is when people have difficult experiences repeatedly, with hardly any break.

Also, we are taken aback by lockdowns etc, so I don't know how most of us would cope with situations like in Palestine. I don't think that I would cope very well. As it is, I wake up wondering what emails I will find, and I often get thrown off course by little stresses, which I build up in my mind. — Jack Cummins

:lol: I just got reported to the authorities as a possible suicide case and 3 people in uniforms showed up to be sure I am okay. As I perceive society today we are overly dependent on technology. We seem to be trying to resolve every problem with technology instead of thinking human beings are the best for solving and preventing human problems. We are living in a world today where we don't aspire to be as angels but what to be like computers and believe we will all be better off when computers are ruling over us. I simply said I would rather be dead than dependent on such a technological machine/society.

The US once found fault in Germany for being a mechanical society and then we adopted German philosophy, bureaucracy, and education. Add our technology to that and we are a super technological machine/society, more like the Borg than the democracy we once defended. The point I intended to make is I rather die than depend on the Borg. That was perceived as a frightening personal problem rather than a social problem. Who wants to go to heaven and be part of a supercomputer instead of an angel? I think my words are failing to express my meaning? As long as I have my independence I am fine, but I do not want to depend on a society that thinks technology is superior to humans or even that technology can serve our humanness as well as, or better than, humans. Dealing with a computerized program is not at all like dealing with a human.

The welfare system especially in Fabian-dominated societies like England has encouraged the emergence of thousands of families living on state support for generations. — Apollodorus

There was a time when we all depended on our tribe. We shared the earth's resources in common and defended our territory just as dog packs and chimpanzees do. We evolved a family order with divided responsibility. Industrialization has disrupted that order. Iran soundly rejected that disruption of family order and celebrated religious leadership and a returned to traditional morality. So does our Christian right, sort of? They reject welfare while bemoaning the end of traditional values, and demanding women have equal rights. A woman with children does not have equal rights, because she does not have equal freedom to pursue her career and have family too.

When men say what you have said, it is pretty obvious that is a man speaking. Where is the father who supports his family and teaches his son how to be a man and a useful part of the community? How many children have you raised without depending on someone to support the family or care for the children?

England and the US prepared their young for citizenship. England rejected education for technology because it was protecting its classes and technology increases equality. We have all embraced education for technology, which is preparing the young to be products for industry and destroying family values. We now speak of freedoms but not our duties. People are physically becoming adults but they are not maturing. Having that wonderful career is about culture and preparation for life that education, is totally failing to do, in our technological societies with unknown values. So now we have divided and are no longer united, and the poor have no idea how to think middle-class lives, nor is the middle-class consciousness the of the at the of poverty. Children in poverty with overwhelmed mothers learn to want nothing because their mothers can not cope with their needs and wants. And this we are spreading around the world. We have left culture up to media commercialism. Our amorality is erupting into anarchy, as we find fault with everything and everyone and look forward to the day computers take over and we are all consumed by the Borg.

China is expanding into South America as the US has expanded around the world. The terms right and left are meaningless to me. What matters is nations are competing against each other and the powerful ones are exploiting the resources of the weak ones. It was a Trump agenda to expand the sphere of corporate interest by increasing their ability to exploit undeveloped countries. I suppose his idea of making the US great again, and at the expense of indigenous people. Without the words "right and Left" we have to talk about what is really happen and those decisions are not just what is happening in our own countries, but it is what is happening around the world and is a moral issue not just an economic one. Our economic interests have caused bad health and suffering and destroyed ecological systems. Now China has progressed and is doing the same. Isn't that wonderful? :brow:

I am inclined to think that everything happens for a purpose. We would have never interacted and I do see my experience of using the forum as a very important part of my life. In the last couple of weeks there has been a lot of people really attacking one another in various threads and I just hope that lessens. Today, there seem to be a couple of new members, including the person who you engaged with on this thread today, and that may dissipate the tensions.

As far as the world issues, especially the crisis in India, I think that it shows how the world is interconnected. Sometimes, especially when we are have got used to isolating it is easy to become insular. We are becoming so accustomed to doing things online and the people who don't have access must feel really left out. — Jack Cummins

I doubt that everything happens for a purpose but we can find meaning in anything. :lol: When we reach old age and our bodies break down, there does not seem to be a good purpose for that, bringing us to thoughts of life after death, because it makes no sense for our short lives to be completely meaningless. To believe our lives are no better than the fleas on a dog's back and the world would be better off without us, is a terrible thought. We must create a sense of meaning and purpose.

The crisis in Palestine is very upsetting to me and I no more see the Israelites as doing the will of God, than I see the warring anywhere else in the world as the will of God. However, I have a book about war that explains it is a necessary way to keep populations down and so is Covid. It is like protecting the wolf population to keep other species in balance, so they do not destroy the ecosystem. It is not something a god wills, but it is what has evolved and just happens to keep everything in balance.

I hardly think destroying our planet is the will of a god and I love the common aboriginal people's belief that we are supposed to take care of this planet, as opposed to the capitalist belief that we are supposed to exploit the planet and kill anyone or anything that gets in our way. Our problem is recognizing right from wrong and I like to believe science is helping us do that.

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

Who thinks about business and economic matters? What does it mean to think about either? As I understand governing, it is what makes sure everything works together. It must not favor one thing over another but keep things balanced. Some industries can make huge profits and others can not. Only if an industry is very profitable can it pay high wages, and economies are mostly supported by low labor cost, and here government can balance the low labor cost with subsidies. There are economic and social benefits to assuring all workers have a decent standard of living. Someone must care for children and perhaps we should pay that person? I don't think we want to pay a woman who keeps having children so she can live on welfare, so there needs to be a disincentive for not doing that unless a low population rate means there is a need for more people. Then we might want to pay mothers more to encourage their reproduction.

History has not had a lot of highly influential women, but for me, the focus needs to be on the children and the elderly. That means there must be a good economy that can support a high standard of living. But money alone is not the only thing that needs to concern us. Morals also are important, and an industry that is all about manipulating us to buy things may not be considered moral? Businesses should be ethical and society must have shared morals and principles, and that won't be without education transmitting a culture for that. Fabianism is attractive because it considers fairness in wages and education.

Putting your experience of the difficulties arising from the pandemic, various ones of my own and other people, 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? At times, it does seem that we are being stretched almost beyond breaking point. Sometimes, I wonder if the pandemic is a lesson for humanity as a whole. Also, I do think that it is possible that our individual experiences are lessons to develop us. I am sure many on the forum would see what I am saying as absolute rubbish, but I probably dare say it here because this thread had faded but reanimated again today. — Jack Cummins

Laugh, you may be losing sleep because of this forum but I am not getting necessary daytime stuff done, like the laundry, washing my hair, and other such mundane things.

There is always something to learn and I am pretty excited about all the things we have to learn from the pandemic. For darn sure the world is looking very little as what happens in South America and Africa can impact us immediately. I have heard talk of the US government taking over the research
and development of vaccines? Actually, we have political TV ads warning of the danger of our government taking over medical research. It is a bull shit, political ad playing on our ignorance and fear. The fact is

In the U.S., the federal government provides core sources of support for basic biomedical research and development. In general terms, 64 percent of all applied biomedical R&D funding comes from within the industry, while just 22 percent comes from the federal government.Jan 3, 2018 — Jeffrey A. Bluestone, David Beier, and Laurie H. Glimcher

The argument is for greater federal funding and that does not threaten us as the political ad suggests. The ad would have us believe the drug companies must make huge profits or we will lose the research work they do. Our right and left political battling does not improve our judgment of such matters.

India needed our help yesterday and when it comes to the struggle for world power this really matters because the location of India and the size of its population really matters. This is not something to leave up to private drug company interest. If the US wants to maintain a position of world leadership it must act as a leader to protect all people. Not only is this favorable to being a world leader but the virus keeps mutating and coming back to hit every country including the US. The virus does not respect borders or economic status. We must manage this pandemic and prepare for the next one and this demands thinking globally and only government can operate on that scale.

It seems like all social issues are demanding our attention right now. The inequality of income and education is surely demanding our attention. Far too many families are without internet access and computers for homeschooling. And in today's world computer experience is essential to most jobs. However, when we put children online, we then begin hearing of the suicides because of cyberbullying and we learn our children are not safe at home, but illegal drug dealers have gained easy access to our children. We need to update our morality to deal with the new threats technology has presented and the pandemic has brought this to our attention.

And then we may have never met if it had been for the pandemic giving you a lot of time to fill and for sure we are better off for knowing you and your perspective.

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. — Apollodorus

Ah, I love this, sometimes we need to keep communicating to actually understand each other's meanings.

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. 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.

I can appreciate that as I struggle to communicate with words that get people's attention and cause them to think. But we can also see that a terrible failure of ignorance. I think when we are planning for humans we need to have a scientific understanding of human nature and our limits. But the Greeks made it clear that a polis that is too large is not a polis at all. We are limited in the number of people we can know, and how we feel towards those we know, is different from how we feel about people we do not know. Our morality is based on these feelings. We will never be as moral with "those people" as we are moral with one of "us". This is very much an Israeli problem as they imagine themselves to be very different from "those" people and do to "them" what they never would do to their own.

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 …”

I would credit the Prussians for this breakdown of traditional social/economic organization. It goes with modernizing the military force and putting people in their positions based on their merit, instead of inherited social position. As I said earlier, exploration and trading totally changed the social/economic and political order, and religion is inadequate for modern needs because it is based on God's will and inheritance, not merit. These are old world order issues versus the New World Order and we might not be able to think them through without understanding the huge change brought on by exploration and trade, then technology and industry, shifting populations from the country to the city. The Bible was not written for city dwellers.

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?

:wink: Capitalism is not about working for a living. It is about owning for a living. For years I have wondered why we prepare our young to be workers instead of owners? Oh boy, now we have something to talk about! In the US and some European countries, we want everyone to accept capitalism but we do not prepare our young to be capitalist. 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. This looks really insane to me. Perhaps reading Bible stories would improve my ability to be self-governing?

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 organised 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.

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”.

Yeap looks like New World Order to me. And we have "liberated our women" and made them equal to men in this workforce army. Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens and education for a technological society with unknown values, is going to get its leaders from where and what will be their goals? We must think of our children as products for industry and their parents as cogs in the machine.

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 taking the authors’ statements to their logical conclusion and 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. 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.[Sparta]

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.

You explained all that very well! And we can go back to Sparta and Athens to understand the issues.

It is mind blowing for me too. Maybe the fun after will be that human being ensured that there is nothing after death could learn new ways to discover happiness and how should persuade it. But maybe it's the opposite a total chaos in human physicism. I don't know either. But indeed I agree that quantum actually indicates that everything energy. And I have a sense that this universal energy that connect everything might be connected in human soul and all the things we have inside us and we can't describe it with words or see it but we are still sure there are there! Anyway It might be all wrong it's just what I sense — dimosthenis9

I am so thrilled to have DVDs of John Edwards communications with the deceased, much as he did in his TV show "Crossing Over". It is impossible for me to believe he is not connecting with those who crossed over.

There are several life-after-death books and this one, "Dead Men Talking" looks particularly interesting to me, because it questions religious leaders' ability to manage this time in history, and I have heard other stories like the ones described here. Like does the religious community have all the information of spiritual truth?

I also believe some people who have crossed over have communicated through me. My deceased mother warned me of a life-changing event and that things would come out okay. A friend's dead child used me to give his mother a message. A dead friend gave me messages with a bird and the electricity in an elevator both messages came in the same time frame on my way to my apartment. Another came from a friend's husband and it could not have been anything other than a message from him to her because only she could decode the message and I had no idea why I was thinking "red" and "bucket". I just knew I had to ask her if those words made any sense to her and I was shocked when she said there was a red bucket used for trash in his room. So much like John Edwards' readings, where he has a thought but does not know the significance of that thought until the person he is doing this with decodes the meaning.

so many people have become debilitated. — Jack Cummins

That is for sure and is especially so for older people who are slipping into dementia and dying. My job as a Senior Companion is on shut down, but the residential retirement housing and nursing homes are opening up. They have vaccinated everyone willing to be vaccinated and Senior Companions were required to be vaccinated. Our president is telling us we are a low-level risk. But my county we are in a high-risk level and I can not visit my people. Two of my clients are rapidly going downhill! Physically and mentally the elderly are in higher risks because of isolation than they are in risk because of the virus. This is eating me up. I feel so helpless against what the isolation is doing to them. I have never seen people decline so fast!

In my opinion there is a "line" in everything and that line connects everything in universe. If people ever discover the Reason for everything. To answer to the Why question! Why everything happens like that. The Way it works. If people do ever achieve that I believe it will connect-answer to everything! It will connect all siences! It will be the line that connects all dots.so yes it will answer all philosophical questions too. If not then th questions will remain forever till science help — dimosthenis9

But then what fun would life be? My mind jumps to the Hindu god waking up, and reality as we know it disappears like a dream, only to start all over again when he goes back to sleep.

For me, quantum physics throws us into questioning all of reality as we understand it. It is all energy but we think of all of it as matter. That is mind-boggling to me.

But just the other night I had this dream about a pigeon that came back to me and next morning I got a parcel in the post of stuff I had ordered online ages ago. You did mention dreams earlier, mine tend to be of this "coded" type, sometimes more direct and obvious than other times but always connected with events taking place within the next few days. It is as if your subconscious is communicating to you in a language that you can learn quite easily if you make the effort. Some of my friends and acquaintances have that sort of dreams, too, and we have long discussions about it. Obviously, this is only explicable by positing the ability of human consciousness to operate not only independently of the physical body but also independently of time and space which is quite extraordinary really. Over time, this and other experiences (even more powerful and real than dreams) have convinced me than there must be some truth in reincarnation. This is what I mean when I say "reliable accounts" of paranormal experience. — Apollodorus

I used to experience stuff like that a lot more than I do now. I went through a phase when I bought books about clairvoyance. Such as Edgar Cayce's books and Ruth Montgomery. Of course, quantum physical thinking is a must. It can be argued that our perception of time is just an illusion and that seems to make sense if what we dream seems to come true the next day.

For example, in the Russian Revolution people got involved in overthrowing the imperial system. But what they got was a new emperor called Stalin who murdered or starved to death millions of innocent people.

What I'm saying is that people can get involved politically without knowing what the end result will be. — Apollodorus

:lol: What 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! Now as an old woman I find no one wants to hear what I have to say nor the lessons I have learned. They all want to rush out there and discover life for themselves.

My point is, along with all the other changes in life is the growing populations of long lived people. This means a totally different consciousness than in the past. When things changed slowly and there were no scientist or professional experts, we listened to our elders and valued their experience.

Then education for technology told the children old people are old and out dated and technology was creating a whole new world, elementating any reason to turn to the elders. Our technological world, with merit hiring, has destroyed family values and family order. Like lemmings we are all rushing over a cliff and this is really stupid because we have more information that ever before and the scientific method of determining truth, and we are not developing a culture of independent thinkers and long lived people. We are looking for a leader and don't know the cliff is infront of us. Our expectations have gone wild and our sense of responsibility has crashed.

think a major point that has been missed here is the ultimate objective of Fabianism. When I ask people what current political system they think Fabianism most resembles, they tend to say “America” or “England”. This immediately tells me that they have failed to process and assimilate what Fabianism is about, because the answer is China (though it used to be the Soviet Union).

Shocking as this may sound, this is the reality of Fabianism if we carefully read Fabian documents. As I said before, the original Fabians were radical members of the British Liberal Party and that means Marxists.

G B Shaw openly (and proudly) admitted that he discovered his political career by reading Marx. Now, at that time “Marxist” or “socialist” was a dirty word in polite society. There was no way middle-class Liberals could have promoted Marxism openly. So, these “Liberal” Marxists decided to slightly modify Marxism to make it palatable to wider sections of society. So they used more indirect and suggestive language that still preserved the Marxist essence of Fabianism.

“The object of the Fabian Society is to persuade the English people to make their political constitution thoroughly democratic and so to socialize their industries as to make the livelihood of the people entirely independent of private Capitalism” - Fabian Tract No. 70, 3

The original agenda of the Labour Party which the Fabians founded in 1900 was to enforce socialism through nationalization, state control and abolition of private property.

Common ownership of the means of production, state administration and control of all industries and services (1918 Constitution).

Land nationalisation (1918 Manifesto, Labour and New social order, etc.).

That was exactly what the Fabians and Labour tried to enforce when they came to power in 1945 but failed to win support for all the Marxist policies they would have liked to implement.

But there is much more to it. Leading Fabians like H. G. Wells and G. B. Shaw were great admirers of totalitarian regimes such as Communist Russia to which they maintained close links.

The Webbs knew Lenin personally from before the 1917 Revolution (remember they were in contact with Marxist revolutionaries through the Socialist International and other organizations) and had a portrait of Lenin at their private home. They made several trips to Russia as did Shaw and wrote “Soviet Communism: A New Civilization” in praise of the regime which they believed should be copied by England and the whole world.

The Fabians regarded Bolshevism as “applied Fabianism”. They called the Soviet Union “Union of Fabian Republics”. Lenin was “the greatest statesman of Europe”. Stalin was a “good man” and a “good Fabian”, etc., etc.

So, basically, as many historians have pointed out, the Fabians were promoting Communism under the guise of “democratic socialism”. This is exactly what earned them the label of “Fabian Conspiracy” in addition to their well-documented policy of stealth.

IMO pretending to promote a democratic system when in fact you are promoting a totalitarian one is not only disingenuous but also undemocratic - by definition. — Apollodorus

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.

All economies depend on low income workers and these workers need to depend on government subsidies as a social thank you for their important social and economiic contribution. And every child must be assured a safe neighborhood and good education.

However? I am not sure government should provide child care and all adults should be forced to work for economic reasons? I think the traditional values and traditional women are essential to a civil society. I am more in favor of supporting individualism than destroying it.

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 and that means people will make choices that lead to poverty and I will point out that means a lot of women getting paid very poorly for caring for others because that is meaningful and essential work and that work is not about honest profit. In such circumstances that is where government needs to subsidize the worker. And I would leave the homeless in camps that are provided for everyone's safety. Taking all challenges out of life is not doing anyone a favor. Moving from a camp to a home should require making a social contribution.

Hum, :chin: we could talk about what is a honest profit and what is the ugliness that we see in capitalism.

I don't see how my assumption that there ought to be a somewhat equitable access to education is somehow indicative of that I advance some form of extreme egalitarianism.

It's been over one-hundred years since the era of industrialization. I'm still just some down and out Catholic school kid from a working class neighborhood who never can seem to get past kind of a lot of wealthy and abusive middle-aged men. As much as I don't harbor any animosity towards people with wealth or the lucky few who are let to become successful within academia, classism just isn't charming and mentalism really is a form of prejudice.

They don't like anyone with a fair amount of intelligence and common sense. They never have and never will. They're right not to. What often happens is that people like me get everyone else to understand that they're just kind of using them, as, if we don't, we will be marginalized and isolated from society. On some level, they're right to claim that we're just trying to remove them from their positions of authority. Clearly, we have good reason to. They could always just give up on their boarding school habits, though. There came a time in my life where I thought that I should consider as to why it is that Jason Pierce has developed the band, Spiritualized, and let go of what I thought about Spacemen 3. It takes half of them until around sixty-five to gain even the semblance of maturity, though.

This is just a personal gripe and nothing to anyone here, really. I can appreciate Classical music. I'm glad that there's a world outside of it, too, though.

A joke that I have added to this comment:

I grew up in an actual split-level house next to an actual sewer in an actual post-industrial working class neighborhood with a proverbial "other side of town" across the bridge and over the rain tracks that also happens to be kind of a mob retirement community and went to an actual Catholic school where there were actual informally organized boxing matches in the parking lot where we had our recess. It's a good thing that I am a Pacifist and don't have any friends because we otherwise probably would have started the American equivalent of the Provisional Irish Republican Army by now.

A closing remark:

As much as I, too, am a great fan of his work, I do kind of lament that the creative oeuvre of Wes Anderson has had the effect of, again, convincing the global populace that what isn't really, but people generally term "racketeering" is fun. I just want to be let to like Bottle Rocket again. Alas, though, I should stop going on like this, and, so, will give the original poster their thread back. — thewonder

I need to see the quotes with the replies, otherwise, it is like walking into the middle of a conversation and not knowing what people are talking about.

Equitable education is essential to democracy. What we have been doing, giving some children excellent education while other children live in life-threatening neighborhoods, with very poorly funded schools, is insane. Science is just beginning to point out that inequity sets our young on very different paths. We are still very primitive and we may self-destruct before making adequate changes but science might make a difference. The chances of that happening increase if we start using TV to educate the people and create a better world.

You write of the old world order that is ordered by family. In the old world order children are dependent on their families for any advantages they may have, and if they are raised by poorly educated parents doing manual labor for very low wages, they will not have advantages. Importantly among the advantages is social ties and cultural differences.

The new world order is about merit. That means anyone with the necessary education has an opportunity to rise up and achieve the highest levels. Now we know that is an ideal but not exactly the whole story. The human factor has not gone away and that is a good thing. But there are people who believe we all be better off when everything is run by computers. I really don't think we want to go that far in overriding the human factor. In the New World Order, people are dependent on the state, not the family, and that may not be a good thing?

I believe you not only are you no topic, but you raise our awareness of the complexity of it all. The upper class, middle class, and low class have different values, and just how much should government and education shape the child's values? The US "Americanized" the immigrants' children and many of those children walked away from their families and never looked back. The children went on to achieve the American dream, especially if they fought in WWII and took advantage of the GI Bill and got in on the new technologies when there was very little competition for those higher-level jobs. Back in the day, not only was the education free to GIs but their education almost guaranteed upward economic mobility. That was not that long ago and it dramatically changed our lives and expectations. We have a lot of soul searching to do and questions to ask.

If we look at it from that perspective, then nothing can be done, there is no hope, and no point discussing anything.

Personally, I think we can learn from the Fabians. Take their slogan "Educate, Agitate, Organize", and start educating, organizing, and mobilizing the people. But we can't do that if we can't agree what to educate them about or what we want to achieve. — Apollodorus

Perfect, I agree with that 100% and one of the stupidest things in all time is our use of TV for advertising and appealing to our lowest instincts to attract people who watch the advertising, instead of using it to educate the masses and keep them updated. The other really stupid thing is letting industry make education decisions instead of the educators and our failure to prepare these educators to prepare the young for democracy as they once were when used education to mobilize for war.

We need a Fabian society to correct these grievous errors.

What I'm saying is that people can get involved politically without knowing what the end result will be. — Apollodorus

That is one reason we should pay attention to history. Our education for a technological society may be smart but it sure isn't wise. We can forgive people in the past for their ignorance because they didn't have history to learn from and the ability to educate everyone and keep people informed, but we do not have a good excuse for our ignorance.

"Economics is generally regarded as a social science, although some critics of the field argue that economics falls short of the definition of a science for a number of reasons, including a lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones." — Apollodorus

That is as smart as all the different religious leaders taking their flock in a different direction, and basing their understanding of life on a fiction. How in the world did we come to an agreement that that is economics?

Secondly, even if it was an exact science, it is still interpreted and applied differently by different political factions. Otherwise, all governing political parties would have an identical economic program. But they don't. Different parties stress different sectors of the economy or employ different methods to pursue their policies. — Apollodorus

:lol: Yeap and might there be something wrong with that? How about, something a whole lot wrong with that? It isn't just about politics inside a nation, but politics and the whole world! They all need to get their heads out of the cloud and ground economics in reality.

In Soviet Russia there was an overproduction of bricks for the building industry but there was a shortage of shoes, etc. How do we explain that, in a political system following the economics of Marx who was supposed to be an economic genius? — Apollodorus

Obviously, that thinking was not grounded in necessary facts. Not only is it necessary to know the number of shoes needed but also do we have resources for making shoes? Where do the resources from come?

As for philosophy, Pythagoras, Plato and other famous Greek philosophers all believed that it should have a practical application in public life. Roman emperors often agreed and tried to style themselves philosophers. If we deny this, then what good is philosophy? — Apollodorus

Wow, what a great observation that is. And how well was scientific thinking developed in the day of Plato and Rome? Rome's economic problems were directly related to its supply of gold, and it is a great example of what is wrong with having an economy dependent on oil, and not figuring that into economic thinking. Religion and philosophy are great for talking about who to treat each other. It is not science and economic thinking should not be modeled on philosophy without reality.

Yes, I have and I know exactly what it is like. It's a never-ending struggle that most of the time leads either to no results or to the wrong results. That's why Karl Marx gave up on politics and took up economics.

I doubt very much that people regret the efforts of the Fabian Society when the vast majority of people haven't even heard of its existence except perhaps small political circles like within the British Labour Party.

At the end of the day, if people are happy with the education and culture we have at the moment, then there is nothing to worry about. But if not, then something needs to be done. And to do something we need to know who the key players are in education, culture, politics, etc. — Apollodorus

I really need to move on to my mundane life, and I hate doing that in the middle of a really hot debate.

You said

People got involved in the hope of building a better society but came to regret it. — Apollodorus

Why did they regret it?

But when it comes to education you said

People got involved in voting for Trump only to regret it afterward. That happens all the time. Politicians are good at manipulating public opinion. That's what they do for a living. You've got to do that because otherwise you don't get elected.

Hitler was elected democratically. Does that mean that Hitlerism was good? The point is not how you get to power but what you do with that power once you get it. — Apollodorus

:brow: Trump and his thugs are the same as Hilter and his thugs, and is the result of replacing the US replacing its liberal education with the German model of education for technology. For a good 30 years, I have been trying to make people aware of this change in education and it is futile because people are clueless about what culture has to do with being a democracy, and they are convinced education for technology is essential to our wealth. When Eisenhower put that into place, he warned of the dangers and no one pays attention to the warning, nor do they accept the science of global warming, nor do they know what have is temporary and will come to a terrible end unless there are a few miracles.

That's exactly my point. Economics isn't an exact science. It can be interpreted and applied in many different ways. So, ultimately, what matters is what you aim to achieve, a truly just society or promote certain business interests that paid for your election campaign? — Apollodorus

That is not how I understanding economics. We can measure everything, and with the right measurements, we can predict the future.

Let me explain myself. I knew a geologist who after years of working in the field became a professor, and he wrote books. It was an academic publisher who published his books and they were used in colleges. The publisher did not market the book in book stores such as Barnes and Noble, so I attempted to persuade economic professors to look at the book and they refused. They had no understanding of what finite reality has to do with economics, not even oil! Their heads were up in the clouds somewhere with economic theories. Like hello, the gold rush led to boom towns, and the boom towns became ghost towns, and that is a complete failure of economic planning. Oil-rich nations tend to be one resource economies and when the oil is gone, they are back to riding camels. They know this and are investing much of their wealth in military power, and they will not sink into poverty passively.

The US would be so screwed if it had not been for fracking ending our dependency on foreign oil. Isreal could not take more and more land from Palestinians without the protection of a large nation and its military build-up. The US needs to secure its access to oil and chose to do so militarily and that makes Israel essential to the US, the economic fallout of all this is huge and I highly doubt there is one economic professor explaining it. Now, what are the philosopher-kings going to do with this information? Which philosophy course explains these concerns are vital to keeping people fed?

I just think that if we're going to establish a rule by the wise, it ought to be the case that everyone can come to be considered so. — thewonder

The miracle of democracy is the group mind/consciousness. I wish I were a faster reader so I could read Apollodorus links to the books before saying anything. From the little I know now, the effort of the Fabian society is exactly what is needed but Apollodorus has said things went sour. On the other hand, I don't care who makes up the ruling group, it will never achieve the miracle of a democracy with full participation. I do not mean direct democracy, because that would never work for large populations, but a republic that empowers everyone.

People got involved in voting for Trump only to regret it afterward. That happens all the time. Politicians are good at manipulating public opinion. That's what they do for a living. — Apollodorus

Have you sat on committees that were developing policy or gotten involved with political activist work? When you think something needs to change, how do you go about getting that change? If you are not a good leader capable of uniting followers, you will not succeed and if our leaders do not succeed, we do not succeed.

Why did anyone regret the efforts of the Fabian Society? I am pushing the point because you are right about some movements going sour. Perhaps understanding why this happens could lead to avoiding the problem and succeeding instead of failing?

Well, philosophy does include logic. Plus, a philosopher king or whatever we choose to call a ruler would have economic advisers, exactly as existing heads of state do. — Apollodorus

I seriously doubt that past economic advisers were capable of giving good advise because they just were not thinking of the greater economy.

Even in Theodore Roosevelt's day, Europe was full of people with royal titles and that social order is nothing like the social order that evolves through exploring the world and trading. In the past, people were locked into their birth position, but with exploring and trading and then industrialization, we get the new rich and a huge shift in power.

Philosophy is not economics and our high-tech society that can feed everyone is not the result of philosophy. Where is the meeting ground between philosophy and economics? A focus on being compassionate is not going to achieve what we have achieved. On the other hand, I also fault economists who ignore our finite reality and create notions of economics that are not well-founded in reality. Our planet will not sustain the US standard of living around the world and I think we are behaving totally insanely!

In a nutshell, this was the Fabian plan or “conspiracy”: to systematically, and in their own words “stealthily”, take over education and, through education, also culture, politics and governance. And, as explained by R. Martin, they replicated this in America and throughout the British Empire. In other words, these are the practical details to Wells' more general outlines. — Apollodorus

Why would their plan have any resistance?

In any case, it is clear that Fabianism is not a democratic enterprise. The people have absolutely no say in it. If we want to change culture we need to change education. But we can't do that when education is in someone else's hands. — Apollodorus

Really if the decisions are not made through the democratic process, how are they made? :lol: I have tried to get people interested in education for many years. If Fabians found enough interested people to be effective, more power to them. Did they perhaps have an exclusive society that prevented people from getting involved?

Why should we be ruled by a conspiracy of Fabians and oligarchs? Both politics and business are about power and self-interest. In contrast, philosophy is about wisdom or common sense. Therefore, governance should be based on philosophy, not on politics or business.
4 hours ago — Apollodorus

I think the big mistake communist made is to eliminate the business people. Philosophy just is not the subject to study for a good economy and if the economy isn't good, nothing will be good. We might want to care more about logic and worry less about being "nice".

I don't understand what this has to do with the Democratic Party. — thewonder

I never speak of the Democratic Party. I speak of the democratic process and my ideas of that come from the ancient Greeks. I am also in favor of sports events and the winners of the game get things their way until next year when the games are played again.

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. — Apollodorus

When I got involved with a group of grandparents fighting for grandparents' rights, I was horrified by the fighting for control that almost destroyed our united effort, and I notice in the reading that there were divisions in the socialist movement for the same reason. We are highly motivated when we feel important to the movement, and like churches break up into different sects, political activist groups seem to do the same thing. Strong leaders need followers, they tend to compete against each other.

For sure owning one's own property is desirable. There are some benefits to renting, but I rather have control over property choices and who can live in my home, than feel like I am still living with my parents because the owners and managers have all the rights, not the renters. Not to neglect, when we own we build equity and when we rent, not only do we not have equity but the cost of renting goes up and up, preventing renters from getting economically ahead and preparing for retirement. Those are important differences.

"This is why they dubbed socialism "a business proposition"" I really like your explanation of that and I must ponder it. It makes perfect sense to me to work with economic interests instead of against them.
And it seems to me, some of the important Fabians were educators, not industrialists. That might be important to their take on things? Education is essential to liberty and I think liberty is very important. It goes with owning land and having property rights, versus renting and living under rules made without us having a say in them.

I think I favor the democratic model for industry. I like the idea of worker-owned industry but there must be strong leadership as in a republic, not the inefficiency of democracy that lacks strong leadership. Thank you for making the issue comprehensible.

the party of new money (as opposed to the Tories who were the party of old money). — Apollodorus

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

"gold and diamond producers"? That comes from Africa. Exploration and trade were behind the new economic opportunity, and that is a totally different economy than farms, serfs, and slaves. The new economy involves wars of conquest and leads to the first and second world wars. Wars are costly and demand manpower. The colonial economy didn't survive the world wars but industry was able to pick the labor and continue creating new wealth. Mass production requires mass markets and now a growing middle class becomes more important to economic growth. This is a lot of rethinking social and economic matters.

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. — Apollodorus

I am going to have to work on figuring that out. Can you say more about it? What are the important power centers of both? I have always ignored left and right talk so I really do not have the necessary concepts.

Edward Carpenter was not exactly a wealthy industrialist. His family was wealthy and left him a nice inheritance, but he was not an industrialist. But was sensitive and imagined a better world much as Henry Ford's son did. He was a romantic homosexual attracted to working-class men.

His sexual preferences were for working men: "the grimy and oil-besmeared figure of a stoker" or "the thick-thighed hot coarse-fleshed young bricklayer with a strap around his waist". — Wikipedia

He was strongly influenced by Walt Whitman and the Hindu Bhagavad Gita. He clearly saw in these a sense of purpose and devoted himself to that.

In May 1889, Carpenter wrote a piece in the Sheffield Independent calling Sheffield the laughing-stock of the civilized world and said that the giant thick cloud of smog rising out of Sheffield was like the smoke arising from Judgment Day, and that it was the altar on which the lives of many thousands would be sacrificed. He said that 100,000 adults and children were struggling to find sunlight and air, enduring miserable lives, unable to breathe and dying of related illnesses.[25] — Wikipedia

Fabian influence. Why was this “Open Conspiracy” or “Fabian Conspiracy” so influential? The Fabian founders were well-off Liberals (members of the British Liberal Party) with close links to industrial interests, such as owners of railway/railroad companies, steel plants and chocolate manufacturers. G B Shaw who was a highly influential Fabian leader, wrote “Socialism for Millionaires” in which he advised wealthy personalities of the day to use their wealth for social causes. Carnegie and Rockefeller were among those “converted”. For example, the Fabians’ London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) which was established to promote socialism, had more than 30% of its expenses covered by Rockefeller foundations while also receiving funding from the British Chamber of Commerce, bankers, financiers and other sources. — Apollodorus

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, such as his mother having to work as a domestic to support her family when her husband was disabled, and her employer having the power to prevent her from living with her children and husband while she was employed.