My first book transcription: Fabian Freeway

The more I have read through this book, the more I keep thinking to myself how well it lays things out with regard to the close relationship between the early progressives and Fabians. Especially in the footnotes. Anybody can say anything they want, it's when you footnote and prove the things you are saying to be true.(and yes I have taken random footnotes here and there and went hunting, I can verify a lot of them)

By transcribing the book, I am continuing a goal for myself that I have always held to be important: easier information access. The book itself - Fabian Freeway - High Road to Socialism in the USA - is up on the Mises Institute's web servers in PDF format. I have referenced it several times for numerous things, but during this process I noticed that much of the content of the book does not show up in a search engine if you set out to find it. This is compounded by the book's original content. Whomever owned the specific copy of the book that ended up getting scanned wrote in it with a pen, and computer software isn't very good at separating pen marks from explicitly typed book text.

I made it a point to ask members of the Mises community, as well as email people within the Institute who would know, as to the status this book's copyright. I have several reasons for doing this on the freecapitalists.org blog instead of here on my main site, many of which I explain here. One more reason is the issue of copyright; This blog site is explicitly tied in with the Mises Institute.

The book transcription is complete. It shouldn't take long for the book's contents to be easy to search or find in any search engine or search the contents with a browser. There are some visual issues with the Appendices. Being as I used a combination of software, internet tools, and manual typing, the lists of names do not have consistency. But they do match the contents of the book. If you are someone who is actively reading the book, or planning on do so, I will fix any errors you find if you just contact me and let me know about it.

------------------------------------------------

Fabian Freeway - High Road to Socialism in the USA
By: Rose L. Martin

Western Islands, Boston, MA, 1966

Foreward and Preface

Chapter 1-Make Haste Slowly!

     Part 1 - Great Britain

Chapter 2-Sowing the Wind

Chapter 3-The Dangerous Fabians

Chapter 4-A Chosen Instrument

Chapter 5-Sedition Between Two Wars

Chapter 6-Dirge For An Empire

Chapter 7-Trial By Ordeal

Chapter 8-Tomorrow, The World?

     Part 2 - The United States

Chapter 9-The Fabian Turtle Discovers America

Chapter 10-Putting The Silk Hat On Socialism

Chapter 11-The Professor Goes To Washington

Chapter 12-The Perfect Friendship

Chapter 13–Left Hands Across The Sea

Chapter 14-The More It Changes...

Chapter 15- ...The More It Stays The Same

Chapter 16-By Any Other Name

Chapter 17-Fabian Face Cards in the New Deal

Chapter 18-Secret Weaponry

Chapter 19-Power and Influence

Chapter 20-More Power and Influence

Chapter 21-The Commanding Heights

Epilogue: The Moving Finger Writes

Appendices

Table of contents

http://tinyurl.com/ah69n7r

Hillsdale's Constitution 201: Have you signed up yet? It's about progressivism.

I signed up for the lecture series last night, and I'm very excited about it. The page for the Constitution 201 program describes it this way:

"The Progressive Rejection of the Founding and the Rise of Bureaucratic Despotism"

In a word, Administrators. Hillsdale has nailed it: Bureaucratic Despotism. I think going in that the whole series will be top notch. Hillsdale is one of those institutions that has been on the forefront of defending American ideals, history, traditions, and liberty for a very long time. I can't help but notice already which sections will (based on the schedule) be the most interest to myself, those are sections 2, 3, and 5.

Especially 5, which is "FDR's New Bill of Rights"; The lecturer is William Morrisey. I've been wanting to write something about the Second Bill of Rights for a long time now, but have refrained while I have gotten to other things. I would think that using a Hillsdale lecture as a basis for what I have already as a potential outline would be outstanding.

Constitution 201, progressivism vs the Founding Fathers is at least in it's proposals everything that I've wanted to make the progressingamerica project into. But they have resources which I don't, from audio/video production to a team of researchers.

You should sign up. Right now.

http://tinyurl.com/8da4hg5

Progressivism: Utilitarianism, Georgism, and Comtism, just like the Fabians

From Edward Pease' "History of the Fabian Society", Chapter 1 - The Sources of Fabian Socialism - is opened this way:

The ideas of the early eighties—The epoch of Evolution—Sources of Fabian ideas—Positivism—Henry George—John Stuart Mill—Robert Owen—Karl Marx—The Democratic Federation—"The Christian Socialist"—Thomas Davidson

This list is curiously similar to what's found in the evolution of progressivism:(the major points are in order based on their listing as excerpted above)

Positivism. Developed by Auguste Comte - there were Positivist ideals right here in the US in the progressive movement. Last week I wrote "Herbert Croly was raised on Comtean beliefs", in which I limited the discourse to the original source's content. Beyond Croly's father and his influence upon his son, there was a "Positivist Church" right here in the states, in New York. It's influence may be limited when compared to other larger movements of the day(such as Georgism or Nationalism), but it did have a notable influence with one of the unions in the area, and Gillis Harp points out that those who were in attendance were the key opinion-makers of their day. Another of Harp's works includes this one about Positivism and Progressivism for those interested. The chapter on the Crolys is fairly compelling.(Google books has a page limit)

Henry George. Henry George's writings were pretty important in the era that preceded/led to the progressive era. Also, as noted above, George had an impact upon the Fabians as well. Georgist ideas were very popular amongst the Unions of the day(using his book for educational purposes), which supported his run for Mayor of N.Y. City.

John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism, present within both the Fabian as well as progressive movements.

Robert Owen. I've never gone into detail about Owen. But Owen, amongst many others set up these socialist cooperatives around the United States, which were certainly influential in their day because they kept being built. Late in the 19th century, colonies based on George's ideas started popping up.

Christian Socialism. I have not yet gone into details much on this one, though I've swerved into it many times. Richard T. Ely (Who I've written about recently) was a leader of Christian Socialism. So too was the founder of the Fabian Society here in America, W. D. P. Bliss.

Thomas Davidson. Pease' writing describes Davidson this way:

Thomas Davidson was the occasion rather than the cause of the founding of the Fabian Society. His socialism was ethical and individual rather than economic and political. He was spiritually a descendant of the Utopians of Brook Farm and the Phalanstery, and what he yearned for was something in the nature of a community of superior people withdrawn from the world because of its wickedness, and showing by example how a higher life might be led.

That's the opening paragraph of the relevant section. Few notes: First, Brook Farm was in America(see above comments regarding Owen) Second, Phalanstery is a nod to Charles Fourier, who inspired many of the socialist communities built here in the US.

As to the description, note how he writes "showed by example how a higher life might be led". This could easily be a descriptor for the book Looking Backward, written by Edward Bellamy. But instead of a personal example in himself, Bellamy provides it in the book in Julian West and the plot line of the model society.

I highlight all of this to show how historically similar that progressivism is to the Fabians not just in tactics(making progress) but also in the evolution of how they came to be.

The obvious ones as listed above are Evolution(and it's other half, eugenics), and Karl Marx. The progressives, just like the Fabians, prefer to reject Revolution and engage in Evolution.(Disruption and subversion, making progress in small steps)

And then there are the clear differences. The time lines are different. British culture vs American culture. The Democratic Federation was a British political party. The coherence of the Fabian Society as a structured group, there hasn't been any official 'progressive society'. American Progressivism a century ago had the legacy of the Founding Fathers still lingering. But while the differences are notable, the similarities are profound.

Despite being an ocean apart, progressivism and Fabianism share a lot of the same dna, had similar childhoods, and had many of the same teachers.

http://tinyurl.com/9kjwzbs

The importance of Georgism in the development of progressivism

Outside of specific circles, Henry George is an all but forgotten philosopher. But in his day, he had a profound impact. John Dewey, the father of modern education, was quite fond of many of his ideas having said the following:

The fact that Henry George has an ardent group of disciples who have a practical program for reform of taxation has tended to obscure from the recognition of students of social theory that his is one of the great names among the world's social philosophers. It would require less than the fingers of the two hands to enumerate those who from Plato down rank with him . . .

Dewey is sticking up for him in this comment amongst other professors quoted, as in his day Henry George was fairly controversial. Back then nationalization of the land was not looked at quite so fondly, which is one of the things that George had called for: (page 295)

We must make land common property

One only needs to go to Google Books and insert the phrase "single tax": the top 12 returns are all written between 1900 to 1921. Dewey also wrote of George's ideas:

Henry George was right when he said that while socialization of natural opportunities, the land and the materials and power that come from it, is not a panacea, it is the foundation measure. but it is difficult to put this measure through on the scale necessary as long as it stands alone. As an integral and basic part of a larger program of socialization such as this Conference stands for, its appeal will be irresistible.

As I wrote recently regarding the "Nationalist Clubs" that once existed in America, so too did Single Tax Clubs and Leagues have their effect.

While Dewey doesn't say who those ardent disciples are, he makes it fairly clear that he is himself one. I was able to find another high profile voice in his favor; Upton Sinclair. In 1924, Sinclair wrote this:

So, I no longer advocate the Single Tax. I advocate many taxes. I want to tax the rich man's stocks and bonds, also his income, and his inheritances, and his wife's jewels. In addition, I advocate a land tax, but one graduated like the income tax. If a man or a corporation owns a great deal of land, I want to tax him on the full rental value. If he owns only one little lot, I don't want to tax him at all.

So prior to 1924, Sinclair was a Georgist. This is his turning point on the matter. But we don't have to look so high for evidence of how wide spread George's ideas had become. Earlier I mentioned Single Tax Clubs, here is a menu from the Manhattan Single Tax Club. It's from 1900. I link this to illustrate that these were upscale clubs, which would have put on an air of respectability Note that admission price was $2 dollars - the menu doesn't appear to list prices for the food, but I would imagine that this puts the admission into the range of $40-60 in today's dollars. At that price range, it would've likely been a suit/tie setting.

There weren't just Single Tax Clubs, there were single tax colonies, such as Fairhope, AL. There was a whole single tax party, which called itself The Commonwealth Land Party. George made a run for mayor of New York City, which he didn't win, but one of his biggest supporters was the Knights of Labor. This is important because of what many of the unions had for reading material. From the Biennial report of the BLS of the State of Colorado: (page 10)

To educate its membership upon sociological industrial and economic questions. Very many of the unions have regular night schools, where the writings of Henry George, Edward Bellamy and other standard authors are taken up chapter by chapter and discussed in a capable and intelligent manner.

Given George's support by the Knights in NYC, it's likely a similar program was instituted there as well.

The early progressives even engaged in debates, regarding "Henry George or Edward Bellamy". "The Dawn" was published by W.D.P. Bliss, who would later publish The American Fabian.

Even with any controversies that existed because of his ideas, Henry George had a big impact upon the thought of Americans in his day. Even Richard Ely,(one of NRO's Four Horsemen of Progressivism) who was not particularly a fan of George's proposals, wrote the following in his book "Social Aspects of Christianity: And Other Essays": (page 143)

We have also the movement instituted by Henry George, designed to modify a fundamental economic institution, private property in land, and Henry George's name within ten years has become a household word in America, Europe, and Australia, and is not unknown in Asia and Africa.

It is sometimes foolishly asserted by ignorant people that these social and economic movements are not American, but essentially foreign. This is absurd. They are, as pointed out, cosmopolitan, and not national at all, and take them all together it may be doubted whether any country has contributed so much to these social movements as the United States. From every land the wage earning classes are looking to America for inspiration and direction.

http://tinyurl.com/chm2fzj

Henry George: We must make land common property - inch by inch

In "Progress and Poverty" (1879) on page 295, Henry George wrote the following:

We have traced the unequal distribution of wealth which is the curse and menace of modern civilization to the institution of private property in land. We have seen that so long as this institution exists no increase in productive power can permanently benefit the masses; but, on the contrary, must tend still further to depress their condition. We have examined all the remedies, short of the abolition of private property in land, which are currently relied on or proposed for the relief of poverty and the better distribution of wealth, and have found them all inefficacious or impracticable.

There is but one way to remove an evil—and that is to remove its cause. Poverty deepens as wealth increases, and wages are forced down while productive power grows, because land, which is the source of all wealth and the field of all labor, is monopolized. To extirpate poverty, to make wages what justice commands they should be, the full earnings of the laborer, we must therefore substitute for the individual ownership of land a common ownership. Nothing else will go to the cause of the evil—in nothing else is there the slightest hope.

This, then, is the remedy for the unjust and unequal distribution of wealth apparent in modern civilization, and for all the evils which flow from it:

We must make land common property.

We have reached this conclusion by an examination in which every step has been proved and secured. In the chain of reasoning no link is wanting and no link is weak. Deduction and induction have brought us to the same truth—that the unequal ownership of land necessitates the unequal distribution of wealth. And as in the nature of things unequal ownership of land is inseparable from the recognition of individual property in land, it necessarily follows that the only remedy for the unjust distribution of wealth is in making land common property.

But this is a truth which, in the present state of society, will arouse the most bitter antagonism, and must fight its way, inch by inch.

This is one of the earliest that I've seen that is word for word exactly the kind of thing that a modern progressive will say. Early reform/progressives took time to become the uniform statists that we would recognize in the early 20th century progressives to today.(and it's likely that George himself is no different - I am hardly the George expert, knowing every minute detail) But in just these short few paragraphs, we have the following:

Government stealing of property - while that theft is mis-labeled as 'justice'? Check.

Incessant focus on 'the unequal distribution of wealth'? Check.

But most importantly, "inch by inch". The directive is given: You must make progress!

http://tinyurl.com/8lrxqad

"Nationalism" is how socialism was introduced to the American people

In "Social Aspects of Christianity: And Other Essays", Richard T. Ely writes the following: (page 143)

We have the opposite of anarchy, socialism, the extension of which over the face of the earth has been one of the most remarkable social movements of modern times. It is as yet scarcely a generation since a well-known French historian of social movements penned the obituary of socialism, but penned its obituary, as we now see, before it was scarcely born. The ink was hardly dry on this obituary notice before socialism again reared its head, and now it has become a power felt in every civilized nation the world over without an exception. We have in this country the American type of socialism, the new Nationalism, which has made so much noise in the world and has spread so rapidly that it is difficult to realize that the first Nationalists' Club has not yet held its second anniversary.

This is significant for so many reasons. Edward Bellamy's book "Looking Backward" was written in 1887, and here you have American socialists applauding it. This book of Ely's, 'Social Aspects of Christianity' was written in 1889, just two years after Looking Backward's publication. This shows us how wide spread it was from the view of a socialist. It makes sense since at the time Looking Backward was published, it was one of the best sellers of the day.

Richard T Ely is a very important person to the evolution of progressivism here in the US, having been the subject of a major expose by NRO titled "The Four Horsemen of Progressivism".(Ely is on the far left)

As is pointed out in the above excerpt from Ely, Americans formed Nationalist Clubs after Looking Backward, which were pretty far spread. Chapter 10 of the book Fabian Freeway - Putting the Silk Hat on Socialism - contains additional information: (page 129)

For a few years, the Bellamy cult spread like a brush fire across the United States. By November, 1890, its leaders reported 158 Nationalist clubs in twenty-seven states. Sixteen of these clubs were located in New York and sixty-five in California, which Laurence Gronlund exuberantly judged to be more nearly ripe for the Cooperative Commonwealth than any other state in the Union. The movement bypassed former Confederate states and made few overtures to the Catholic church, generally viewed in the nineteenth century as an immigrant church—notwithstanding the fact that Catholic colonists in Maryland and Pennsylvania had fought almost to a man in the War of Independence.

According to Edward Bellamy, his new social gospel was to be spread "not by foreign malcontents, but by Americans descended from generations of Americans." In February, 1891, 165 chartered clubs existed throughout the country, a majority of them in the Far and Middle West. Fully fifty newspapers supported the Nationalist cause in whole or in part, and Sylvester Baxter declared you could not go into a major newspaper office in New York, Philadelphia or Boston without finding one or more Nationalists on the staff. Though the Atlantic remained aloof, other respected monthly magazines of the age opened their pages to Nationalist propaganda. Bellamy himself contributed a brief article to the North American Review on the "Progress of Nationalism in the United States."

America didn't just get to problematic people like FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and all of the things/people that happened after that simply because a few intellectuals got together in their colleges. Sure, that's important. As Paul Ryan noted in an interview, intellectuals were very fond of German philosophers. But this is the ground up aspect of it. The major progressive intellectuals a century ago had to have a choir to preach to, and Bellamy and his supporters in the press gave them one.

We could even do a pre/post comparison with this. Richard Ely is elated at how successful that "Nationalism" has been in getting Americans to adopt socialist doctrine,(1889) here is the view from 1898, roughly a decade later:

In Bellamy, social science and imagination were combined at their best. He has given us a substantial revelation whose scientific deductions from economic phenomena are unassailable. In the work of speeding the light he has made the valued distinction between Nationalism and Socialism. Nations advance toward their destiny upon lines marked out by the temper of their peoples, the character of their institutions, the conditions of soil, climate, and surroundings. Consequently the forward movement must be by national rather than international pathways. Bellamy saw this clearly, and formulating his Socialism to a purely American applicability, named it Nationalism. What has been the result? We hear no more the philistine cry that Socialism is an alien product. The far-reaching influence of "Looking Backward" has given us a native development of this definite form of Socialism, and has made possible the realization of his dreams in the near future.

That was written in the American Fabian. From there, it's not a far cry to people writing about the need for expert boards to run the show.(Wilson was out there during this time period making his views very clear) "We don't need socialism anymore", the progressive says. We can do it with regulation and administrators. We can let them keep their property. We'll just dictate how every aspect of it shall be used.

That's a very compelling argument for any statist who keeps getting rejected in the kind of America that used to exist.

http://tinyurl.com/93w24l2

Herbert Croly was raised on Comtean beliefs

In "Memories of Jane Croly", Herbert relates a story: (Page 61)

I should like to relate one incident in the history of my father's relations with myself--an incident which was eminently characteristic of certain aspects of his nature.

From my earliest years it was his endeavor to teach me to understand and believe in the religion of Auguste Comte. One of my first recollections is that of an excursion to Central Park on one bright Sunday afternoon in the spring; there, sitting under the trees, he talked to me on the theme which lay always nearest his heart--that of the solidarity of mankind.

And the story goes on. It culminates this way:

While I was at college I was surrounded by other influences, and while retaining everything that was positive and constructive in his teaching, I dropped the negative cloth in which it was shrouded.

This is significant, in that he is saying that he is a "Salad Bar Comtist", picking and choosing those parts he wants to follow, and others he does not. But what fascinates me isn't so much that he kept some of his Comtean beliefs, so much as the fact that those beliefs did not conflict with the new progressive beliefs that he was importing from his professors. It is my understanding that Auguste Comte held totalitarian views.

Herbert Croly co-founded The New Republic, a progressive publication which still publishes to this day. There has been a question that existed even during his day as to if "New Nationalism" was taken directly from Croly's writings, even having his writings recommended by a U.S. President. His 'star' is one that was, and perhaps still is bright in the movement of progressivism.

http://tinyurl.com/9hjsp25