Harold W. Pease, Ph. D.
The term socialism has been around primarily in Europe since the early 1800s—with perhaps dozens of practicing groups. Adam Weishaupt, Baron Anacharsis von Clootz, Count Henri de Saint-Simon, Georg Wilhelm Hegel, David Friedrich Strauss, Bruno Bauer, and Ludwig Feuerbach, even Robert Owen in America, to name a few. Dozens more were expressing collectivist and/or atheistic doctrines long before Marx and Friedrich Engels brought forth the Communist Manifesto and finalized Das Kapital. Karl Marx is considered the godfather of the two most influential, dangerous, and successful forms of late 19th century socialism: International Communism and Fabian Socialism. The former gained power in Russia, the latter in Great Britain, each spreading outward from these two centers influencing neighboring countries. Total or near total regimentation is the goal of both, though the means of accomplishing this objective differ radically: the former orders violent revolution, the latter prescribes a diet of revolution by evolution—one piece at a time. Both work to establish a classless, socialistic, world society. One basic difference, Marx viewed the proletariat or working class as the essential revolutionary force while the Fabians insisted that the upper class was the more important revolutionary element. Both call themselves socialists.
Thus we can best define socialism by extracting what the philosophers of these two very successful socialist groups say that it is, rather than share what the variants of socialism, those that never conquered a single country, say that it is. Relying on them Webster’s Dictionary definition is found to be willfully incomplete. It reads: “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” Actually socialists seek to impact every element of society: law, morality, government, economics, religion and education—everything; not just the ownership and administration of the means of production. But Webster did correctly view it as “a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism….” They are first cousins, both know of, and work for a common goal—full communism.
The violent means of communism, as a form of socialism, is well known and now out of favor with most socialists outside North Korea since the fall of the United Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on December 26, 1991. Marx and Friedrich Engles being its doctrinaires, so we won’t need to write what is commonly known. Perhaps one citation is representative. Most are familiar with Marx’s strange love letter written to his prospective spouse, Jenny, before their marriage. Marx wrote: “Jenny! If we can but weld our souls together, then with contempt shall I fling my glove in the world’s face, then shall I stride through the wreckage a creator!” (Edmund Wilson, To The Finland Station: A Study in the Writing and Acting of History, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 1972, p. 136). Wreckage was an understatement! No philosophy resulted in more havoc on the earth’s surface than his. Marx died in 1883 but 34 years later, in 1917, Russia a non-capitalist society, adopted the violent revolutionary philosophy he prophesied.
So what did the Fabians say socialism was? In their published pamphlet Fabian Tract No. 4, “What Socialism Is,” George Bernard Shaw admitted, the publication contained “nothing that was not already to be found better stated in the famous Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels” (Shaw, The Fabian Society: Its Early History, pp. 3-5). The Fabian Society from the beginning has been clothed with respectability and since it “stressed programs instead of dogma and avoided conflict with the authorities its motives were not seriously questioned” (Rose L. Martin, The Selling of America, Fidelis Publishers & Company, 1973, pp. 5-6). The prescription then and now is simply to introduce piecemeal changes in existing concepts of law, morality, government, economics, and education such that the masses absorb the changes desired without resistance.
Norman Thomas, six time candidate for U.S. President on the Socialist Party ticket and a Fabian, described the formula even more bluntly. “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until America will one day be a Socialist nation —without knowing how it happened.” (Two Worlds: The Story of Man and the Major Influences on His Life, A Flick-Reedy Education Enterprises Book, Bensenville, Illinois, 1966, p. 152). The quote has been attributed to Thomas for many decades but the exact first source is not known. Given his background, there is more reason to believe the quote credible, than to believe it was not made by him. Moreover, the quote is in complete harmony with socialist strategy followed historically.
Nor were the Fabians any less clear as to what their new world order would be like once fully implemented. Shaw, left no doubt with this very scary detail. “I also made it clear that Socialism means equality of income or nothing, and that under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well (George Bernard Shaw, Intelligent Women’s Guide to Socialism, Brentano’s Publishers, New York, 1928, p. 470). PERMITTED TO LIVE!?!
But this point was not the ravings of one man only but was basic Fabian doctrine. It was stressed as early as Oct. 1907 in Fabian Tract No. 113 “Communism” by William Morris, The Fabian Society, which read in part, “There would need indeed to be a natural compulsion, which would prevent any man from doing what he was not fitted for, because he could not do it usefully; and I need not say that in order to arrive at the wealth I have been speaking of, WE MUST ALL WORK USEFULLY.” In other words, your very right to exist was dependent entirely upon whether you were a profitable citizen and that determination was to be made by the government. In this respect socialism and communism differed little. Ultimately the use of force is basic to the Fabian new world order as it is to the communist utopia. Sounds like their Great Reset. “You will own nothing and be happy.”
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. Read his weekly columns at www.LibertyUnderFire.org. Column #889.
Share this column to help preserve liberty while we still can.