Posted on 03/11/2013 8:46:59 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Sidney Webb, one of the founding members of Britain's Fabian Society, wrote the following in his book "Socialism in England", Page 19:
It is true that with the collapse of the Chartist movement in 1848, all serious agitation of a Socialist character came to an end, and for thirty years popular aspirations in England took the forms of a development of trades unions, the progress of co-operative distributive stores and building societies, in conjunction with the purely political agitation for the Parliamentary franchise. But the Socialist leaven was still at work. The Chartist survivors continued to be centres of quiet education of their comrades. The ideas of Marx and Lassalle filtered in through French and German refugees, as well as through the personal influence of Marx himself on a select few. The latter influence of the Political Economists, notably that of John Stuart Mill,1 gradually prepared the public mind for Socialist proposals, especially on the subject of the "unearned increment" of land values.1 See the explicit confession of his conversion, as he says, from mere Democracy to Socialism (Autobiography, p. 231-2) and the change in tone shown in Book IV. of the Political Economy (Popular Edition 1865.)
Alright, Webb told us where to look. Let's go take a look. Mill, Autobiography, Page 230-233:
Private property, as now understood, and inheritance, appeared to me, as to them, the dernier mot(final word) of legislation: and I looked no further than to mitigating the inequalities consequent on these institutions, by getting rid of primogeniture and entails. The notion that it was possible to go further than this in removing the injustice—for injustice it is, whether admitting of a complete remedy or not—involved in the fact that some are born to riches and the vast majority to poverty, I then reckoned chimerical, and only hoped that by universal education, leading to voluntary restraint on population, the portion of the poor might be made more tolerable. In short, I was a democrat, but not the least of a Socialist. We were now much less democrats than I had been, because so long as education continues to be so wretchedly imperfect, we dreaded the ignorance and especially the selfishness and brutality of the mass: but our ideal of ultimate improvement went far beyond Democracy, and would class us decidedly under the general designation of Socialists. While we repudiated with the greatest energy that tyranny of society over the individual which most Socialistic systems are supposed to involve, we yet looked forward to a time when society will no longer be divided into the idle and the industrious; when the rule that they who do not work shall not eat, will be applied not to paupers only, but impartially to all; when the division of the produce of labour, instead of depending, as in so great a degree it now does, on the accident of birth, will be made by concert on an acknowledged principle of justice; and when it will no longer either be, or be thought to be, impossible for human beings to exert themselves strenuously in procuring benefits which are not to be exclusively their own, but to be shared with the society they belong to. The social problem of the future we considered to be, how to unite the greatest individual liberty of action, with a common ownership in the raw material of the globe, and an equal participation of all in the benefits of combined labour. We had not the presumption to suppose that we could already foresee, by what precise form of institutions these objects could most effectually be attained, or at how near or how distant a period they would become practicable. We saw clearly that to render any such social transformation either possible or desirable, an equivalent change of character must take place both in the uncultivated herd who now compose the labouring masses, and in the immense majority of their employers. Both these classes must learn by practice to labour and combine for generous, or at all events for public and social purposes, and not, as hitherto, solely for narrowly interested ones. But the capacity to do this has always existed in mankind, and is not, nor is ever likely to be, extinct. Education, habit, and the cultivation of the sentiments, will make a common man dig or weave for his country, as readily as fight for his country. True enough, it is only by slow degrees, and a system of culture prolonged through successive generations, that men in general can be brought up to this point. But the hindrance is not in the essential constitution of human nature. Interest in the common good is at present so weak a motive in the generality not because it can never be otherwise, but because the mind is not accustomed to dwell on it as it dwells from morning till night on things which tend only to personal advantage. When called into activity, as only self-interest now is, by the daily course of life, and spurred from behind by the love of distinction and the fear of shame, it is capable of producing, even in common men, the most strenuous exertions as well as the most heroic sacrifices. The deep-rooted selfishness which forms the general character of the existing state of society, is so deeply rooted, only because the whole course of existing institutions tends to foster it; and modern institutions in some respects more than ancient, since the occasions on which the individual is called on to do anything for the public without receiving its pay, are far less frequent in modern life, than the smaller commonwealths of antiquity. These considerations did not make us overlook the folly of premature attempts to dispense with the inducements of private interest in social affairs, while no substitute for them has been or can be provided: but we regarded all existing institutions and social arrangements as being (in a phrase I once heard from Austin) "merely provisional," and we welcomed with the greatest pleasure and interest all socialistic experiments by select individuals (such as the Co-operative Societies), which, whether they succeeded or failed, could not but operate as a most useful education of those who took part in them, by cultivating their capacity of acting upon motives pointing directly to the general good, or making them aware of the defects which render them and others incapable of doing so.
First, dernier mot means "final word", so I added that in line to make this easier to understand.
Second, much of this is utopian nonsense. "If" we could only get humans to do this, and do that, life would be so much better for all. I actually quoted more than Webb specified, because I felt it gave a greater context.(I italicized what is actually on pages 231-232, you can verify it here.) Utopian nonsense aside, you can clearly see that Mill wanted to go much further than the "average democrat", and did not at all have a problem with socialism. Which isn't surprising, Webb's writings are from a socialist perspective, for other socialists, and in either a historically accurate sense and/or from a pro-socialist perspective.
This isn't the first time I've written about this topic, last time I noted much of this, but from the writings of Edward Pease. As you can see(and Bernard Shaw is also there) Mill is a very problematic figure in history due to how he influenced people back toward a big government mindset.
Webb also pointed out Mill's importance to Socialism in Fabian Tract 15. The Fabian Tracts are not always easy to deal with over the internet, so this might be a sticking point; the page numbers. The Fabian Tracts' pages themselves are often times numbered, and the book has it's own numbering system as well. So you can find this on Tract page 11, book page lxvi:
Is there then no hope? Is there no chance of the worker ever being released from the incubus of what Mill called,1 "the great social evil of a non labouring class," whose monopolies cause the taxation of the industrious for the support of indolence, if not of plunder?2Mill tells us how, as he investigated more closely the history and structure of Society, he came to find a sure and certain hope in the Progress of Socialism, which he foresaw and energetically aided. We who call ourselves Socialists today in England, largely through Mill's teaching and example, find a confirmation of this hope in social history and economics, and see already in the distance the glad vision of a brighter day, when, practically, the whole product of labour will be the worker's and the worker's alone, and at last social arrangements will be deliberately based upon the Apostolic rule ignored by so many Christians, that if a man do not work, neither shall he eat.
One of my reasons for quoting Mill directly should be apparent to you by now, look at the language used. Fabian Tract 15(at least this portion) is written almost word for word(at the very minimum, inspired by) from Mill. I think that speaks volumes, perhaps is even more important than the text that's written. Because it puts on display the change in mindset, the infectuous transfer of idealism.
As a final note, on Page 20 of Webb's "Socialism in England", he goes into the influence of Henry George. I mention it due to it's relevance to the article of mine that I referenced above, but also to an article I wrote 6 months prior to that. Henry George was an American. But his influence, like Mill's, cannot be ignored in the beginnings of both Fabianism and Progressivism.
The twentieth century was a hundred year long experiment in socialism. The results are that it fails everytime it is tried. The cost, 100,000,000 dead civilians and untold treasure.
I can think of a family of Irish socialists from Massachusetts who are not going to like it if this ever comes to be reality.
I am far more familiar with Mill’s philosophy on liberty. Is he not the hero of libertarianism? If you take Mill’s views on personal liberty on face value, it is difficult to see how he would establish a socialistic polity? It seems totally inconsistent.
Amen.
The problem is their control of the “education” of all children in the West. Even “private” schools use their “textbooks” designed to teach lies and remove Reason and Logic and God (Rule of Law-Higher Law) the ideas of John Locke, Blackstone and Adam Smith.
Our legal system was destroyed by progressives, such as Justice Holmes, who literally destroyed the concept of “Right Reason according to Nature” and forced in arbitrary laws (nonsense)-—into our “legal” system where our “Supreme Law” should have the understanding of “Fixed Nature” in man and a Higher Power (God’s Laws)-—Universal Truths that NEVER evolve (such as the Founding Documents.
We have to get control over our Judiciary again, which is totally corrupt—with legislators positing thousands of unconstitutional laws and no judges throwing them out——as “Null and Void” which according to John Marshall they are ALWAYS required to do, if they are antithetical to the Constitution—the Supreme Law.
Reason and Common Sense was thrown out for Marxism/Progressivism to destroy the minds of our children-—they will “naturally” be Irrational—as Ayn Rand stated. Their “ideas” are based on lies and all laws become “arbitrary” and destroy all freedoms eventually. Our children are forced into this belief in Marxism (Leftist ideology). Marx is always incompatible with the USA. ALL socialism ROTS the soul and creates “dependent” mentality.
Belief in God is required by ALL judges since our Rights come from God—not the State. This used to be a “must” to be a “judge” until the Progressives and planting Marxists/Progressives on the court and “freedom of religion” got twisted to where any insanity like snake worship and “Wicca” become “religions where they would NEVER have been recognized by the state.
Atheism was never recognized as a religion —although they were not arrested if they were one—but they could be shunned legally for their warped views and behaviors.
Atheists were not allowed on the courts though, since they didn’t believe in the Constitution (that our Rights come from God) until the Progressives appointed their buddies and they lied in confirmation hearings. All their actions were antithetical to our Constitution.
For someone who pretends to be working on behalf of the poor, he sure doesn’t seem to have a high opinion of them ... “uncultivated herds”, who should be “educated” in order for there to be “voluntary restraints on population”.
"Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life."
I sometimes think libertarians have an anarchist streak.
“I sometimes think libertarians have an anarchist streak.”
A streak perhaps, but libertarians are essentially Black Flag Tories.
What are Black Flag Tories?
That is what they originated as. In America, their (effective) role in politics is that while agreeing with conservatives on economics, their actual street level effectiveness is in promoting the left's agenda of anarchy on moral issues and in contradiction to God.
"Some political scholars assert that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with left anarchism, and some express disapproval of free-market capitalists calling themselves libertarians."
"The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left anarchism since the 1890s. The term libertarianism is commonly considered to be a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US."
It's a strange notion for an economist to have, but Mill was primarily an intellectual or a philosopher, not a practical man. If the main thing in life is contemplation or theorizing, one might see production and economic expansion as a distraction. Mill also wasn't a family man either (and here you may see a parallel to Keynes). I don't think he understood that without growth it could be hard to keep people occupied and out of trouble, and hard even to replace the things that do wear out. Maybe I'm oversimplifying his ideas, but they do seem more like the ideas a gentleman of leisure (which Mill became on his retirement at 52) would have, rather than a practical economist.
Quoting Mencken, “Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.”
That’s what I mean.
It is. That article is BS. Mill is here writing about his earlier years in his 20s when he was influenced by his father's Utilitarianism. (He got better)
The third, and most cogent reason for restricting the interference of government, is the great evil of adding unnecessarily to its power. Every function superadded to those already exercised by the government, causes its influence over hopes and fears to be more widely diffused, and converts, more and more, the active and ambitious part of the public into hangers-on of the government, or of some party which aims at becoming the government. If the roads, the railways, the banks, the insurance offices, the great joint-stock companies, the universities, and the public charities, were all of them branches of the government; if, in addition, the municipal corporations and local boards, with all that now devolves on them, became departments of the central administration; if the employés of all these different enterprises were appointed and paid by the government, and looked to the government for every rise in life; not all the freedom of the press and popular constitution of the legislature would make this or any other country free otherwise than in name - JS Mill 1859
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.