I put the black helicopter comment in because i have no idea what you are frightened about. Please describe how the current fabian society presents any concrete practical threat to me. Please be specific. What do i have do worry about? Don’t use vague terms, describe specific consequences, please, and describe specifically how they will come about in the US.
And Technocracy, too. Robert Heinlein seems once to have flirted with that – you can see it manifested in his first and probably worst published novel, Beyond This Horizon. Or perhaps that was based on the Social Credit movement.
I’ve read exactly one AH treatment of Technocracy: “You Could Go Home Again,” by Howard Waldrop. (It’s mainly about Thomas Wolfe if he had lived longer.) You can find it in his 1998 collection, Going Home Again. Waldrop provides an afterword to the story which explains, among other things, technocracy:
Of course, FDR’s brain trust also did a suck-job on some of the best Socialist Party proposals, such as Social Security. Which was perfectly consistent with FDR’s stated vision for the New Deal: Don’t follow any all-encompassing theory, just try things and keep them if they work.
“Progressive,” as the word is used in modern American political discourse (as very much distinct from Progressive Era discourse), means something well to the left of “liberal” and well to the right of “socialist.” More or less what would be called “social-democratic” in Europe.
Aside from the technology angle, it doesn’t sound much different from FDR’s core ideas, which were formed from the U.S.'s war-time economic policy under Wilson. Good stuff, a very interesting footnote in the radical politics of the day.
He was open-minded, I’ll give him that. Just look at the differences between his 1933 policies and his post-'38 ones.
You can use progressive as a counterpoint to conservative on a political axis, or as capital-P Progressivism as a strain of gradualist leftism, but either way a statement like “progressive (i.e. Marxist) movement” is pretty silly.
their professed goal is a world totalitarian marxist state, but established by clandestine means (thus their wolf in sheeps clothing coat of arms, do an image search), and incrementally through attrition using cultural means, instead of violent revolution.
so, at the end of the day, there is zero difference between fabianism and communism, except the methods used to arrive at the feudal night-mare that is the end-goal.
world history shows that marxism has always been a bad idea in practice for the vast majorities who all live at barely subsistance level, and that a tiny polit-buro, or whatever of elites become their feudal lords, and live in luxury.
I dont see how this could be good for you and your family, unless you are getting a seat at the table. there wont be a middle class, so by default you are a pleb if you dont.
(and it wont be the 1%… .01% will be the technocratic elite.)
Seek help.
Cite? I certainly can’t find that anywhere here. The Fabians appear to be democratic socialists. You do appreciate the difference, don’t you? It’s pretty huge.
“We the People…” is a collectivist statement. The FF’s where *@#$! socialists!
Help is socialist!
The problem is that the net effect of the gliberal ideology is not measurably different. The state enforces property rights and inheritance, property concentrates in the hands of a small number of people, and you end up with a plutoligarchy that is functionally indistinguishable from a Marxist autocracy. The thing you fear is not worse, the thing you support is not preferable, unless we can establish cultural norms that prevent what looks like inevitable deterioration, the name you call it by is just a name.
This is not the BBQ Pit.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
No, it’s a statement of fact. Pray tell, if the Crips and Bloods have ideologies, what exactly are they? The answer is they don’t; they are street gangs, not political movements.
The differences between Nazi and communist ideology are anything but marginal, they are quite massive. Nazism called for the subjugation of Europe under the Nazi heel, the elimination or enslavement of subhuman races, and the destruction of communism, or Jewish Bolshevism as they saw it. There was a very clear class society based upon race and racial purity.
Compared to this the goal of communism is a classless society, a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the elimination of nations. How can such massive differences be called marginal?
which is a serious back-pedaling from your initial statement that “They were rival factions of the same poisonous ideology” which they clearly were not.
It wasn’t an alliance, it was a non-agression pact and agreement to divide up Poland and spheres of influence. That they concluded the pact was quite a shock to the rest of the world, but of course Hitler never had any intention of honoring it and for Stalin it was just buying time as his previous efforts to stop German aggression had been rejected by the West, who had deluded themselves into thinking a policy of appeasement would prevent war.
Again, completely untrue. Being Jewish, Roma, Slavic, etc meant you were slated for extermination under Nazi ideology. Not being a member of the proletariat meant you were slated for political reeducation under communist ideology. Hardly an academic differance.
Nonsense, they were not planning on spreading their ideology of the superiority of the Germanic race in Britain, or France, Poland, Belgium, Norway, Yugoslavia, the USSR, etc, unless you consider planning on the extermination of the following percentages of Eastern European ethnic groups to be ‘spreading ideology’:
They had no intention of integrating those they conquered into German society as anything other than slave labor. They did not seek to spread their ideology, nor again is it an ideology that is suitable for exportation. Communism clearly is an ideology that both seeks to and is easily exportable as the number of countries that are or were communist amply demonstrates. Nazism only existed in one country; the small extent that it existed in other countries was restricted to Germanic peoples who lived in other countries prior to the war.
I’m “factually” disqualified from this discussion? Announcing that someone is “disqualified” from discussing the topic at hand is a poor debate tactic. It’s poisoning the well. And if you believe it, why did you reply again? If you don’t believe it, why’d you write it?
You have a very narrow view of ideology; it’s a set of ideas that constitute one’s goals, expectations, and actions.. It’s not confined to political movements. I already gave characteristics of street-gang ideology in post 33.
Because they are more similar than dissimilar.
Not so, as I’ll claim it again: They were rival factions of the same poisonous ideology. That doesn’t mean they have the same historical and intellectual roots, it means that their ideologies are similar. Once more: radical reordering of society into an omnipotent state, to favor a chosen group, which was held to be *inherently * worthy of this lofty position, and the eradication of the enemies within and without the new society that were inherently (ie, by their nature) opposed to it.
Compare this to other political movements of the day, and see who’s close to whom.
I’m sure Poland took comfort that the nations conquering them per the agreement weren’t truly “allies”.
You are seriously underestimating how much exterminating the Soviets carried out. Look at the Kulaks again:
In the case of Britain, after carrying out the murders of the names in the Black Book and British Jews, the plan was to create a civilian government of Brits to administrate a new, fascist, Britain, similar to what was done in Norway.
Thanks for responding. I did a quick image search and don’t see that logo anywhere but on Conspiracy theory sites. I find the idea that a British think tank could establish itself as the nightmare government you describe to be risible. I’m honestly not sure where to begin pointing out all the flaws. I don’t think there will be a dictatorship in the US, at least not in my lifetime–which admittedly I’m on the back half of–but if there is (and there won’t be) it will probably arise from the Christian right, not from a handful of powerless leftist academics across the pond.
ETA: Or possibly a military coup, which again is more likely than a handful of academics seizing power somehow.
Would it have been headed by Sir Oswald Mosley?
Isn’t the symbol of the Fabian Society a tortoise?
Agreed, radical Leftism has tended to produce nightmarish results in practice, as radicalism tends to do. That said, how does the existence of the Fabian Society, a British socialist organization that peaked in influence in the early 1900’s, and now boasts 6,286 members, evidence for collectivism becoming increasing accepted over individualism in the United States?
Possibly, he was discussed as a candidate, as was Harold Nicholson. There were three German agencies carrying out the planning; the OKW (Supreme Command of the Armed Forces), the RSHA (Reich Main Security Office), and the Foreign Ministry, and of course the invasion never occured, so it’s hard to be definitive on who’d have ended up in charge. What is definitive is the Germans planned to install a fascist, British, government, which is spreading ideology.
ETA: Hitler’s Britain is an interesting documentary on the subject if you can find it.
Best account I’ve read of Hitler’s long-range plans is from Paul Johnson’s Modern Times:
Interesting stuff as usual, BrainGlutton.
That looks like the spreading of ideology to me.