[P2P-F] An Open Letter to the Fabian Society (was: Re: [NetworkedLabour] New models of leadership)

[Örsan Şenalp]

Thanks for your considered answer Pat,

In my reply I am not addressing you as an individual; but since I
believe you play an important political role in the global network of
Fabian Society, namely as coordinator of “New Economy Foundation” I do
address with this email to the society you represent. So, this is to
read as an open letter to the Fabians as a whole. I hope you would be
so kind to pass my message to other Fabians, who are not in the
addressed lists, hence who may be able to reads it.

First of all, I like the reader to read the basic information and fact
of this influential society here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society

and from their own website here: http://www.fabians.org.uk/

Your writings are collected there by Socioeco:
http://www.socioeco.org/bdf_auteur-204_en.html

And this is your article for Fabian Society Review
http://www.socioeco.org/bdf_fiche-document-3842_en.html

At the bottom of the website there are links saying that socioeco.org
is part of Ripess Europe and Ripess International - which is
represented by Jason Nardi. and Restakis is the part of the Synergia
alliance around the same networks linked to Fabians; active in WSF, as
well as other left wing networks at structural level.

Here is you again in ''New Era" network, linking India to United
'Kingdom' (then by force - today is a dissolving Kingdom)..
https://neweranetwork.info/networkers/pat-conaty/

As for your reply, what is very striking that not the lack of clarity
of your opinions on Fabians and relation to Fabianism, but rather a
weak confirmation you have given only one thing find good in it;
namely guild socialism; or cooperative solidarity economy vision. I
would guess this means you believe in gradual change instead of
full-force attack at the heart of the machine; which kills billions of
people and destroy the planet; the main principle of the Fabians. I
sincerely think that nothing would be wrong if this was all, an
innocent naive political view.. I mean if there was no massive funding
from Royal family, massive global networking to support imperial
policy of the West, hence being allowed access to politics at the
highest levels.. As close relationship to Labour Party, from its very
foundation, also a global university like LSE (a global complexity
management center) -also from its foundation; these all increases this
importance of Fabians in global politics (but not socialist,
capitalist one).. Through this ties, people like Polanyi, Popper,
Hayek, Coase, Rockefeller, Soros, Laszlo, mobilized... not only them
but also ‘sort’ radical or less radical thinkers of Good Global
Governance -like Graeber, Saskia Sassen, Susan George,.. etc. these
take Fabians' closest connections at the heart of the Global Class
War. That ‘s why I consider this open letter, and broader critics and
exposition of Fabian’s and the power networks they involved as one of
the most important tasks, for the good and real change.

More precisely; I believe and argue that the role that has been
attained to Fabians was about regulation and control, in order to
minimise the risk of too much of a radical change, that is to say
regulation of or delaying too much extreme equality might be demanded
or aimed at in the midst of the turbulence created by the global
inta-capitalist class war. It is a kind of feedback regulator for the
complex global capitalist system. To be more precise, the mission of
the Fabians has been delaying of any genuinely radical attempt that
would overturn the entire capitalist system; and steer it towards the
direction that is really outside the capitalism (be it communism,
commonism, real democracy, or name it).

Fabians played the key role in the reformulation and refoundation of
Social Democracy, as Democratic Socialism, as 'Delayism'. The name of
the Fabian Society, comes from the famous Fabius Maximus, also known
as 'Fabius the Delayer'. It is because he was delaying the Roman
mortal offence against Hannibal to crash him when the right time has
come (what a metaphor). Here, in the 20th century, and today’s world
at the edge of a third inter-imperialist and inter-capitalist war this
metaphor that is used by Fabians as 'delaying' means the delaying of
what Gramsci called 'war of movement', or emancipatory uprising and
construction. Fabianism in this sense means an effort, or political
project to lock the radical counter movements into 'position wars'
mode. This role, as Bertrand Russell saw it and therefore decided to
left Fabians, has been steering the world into World Wars in the
1900s. Since according to its meta-strategy of delaying full force
attack on the global capitalist system, Fabians supported the Entente
against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Russell was totally right,
Polanyi could not get it, Hayek and Popper must have sow it. Today the
role Fabian's are playing is the same one, and this time they are
serving to the arrive of the third inter-capitalist world war, by
supporting liberal Western global capital against the Brics.

The Fabian Society was founded on 4 January 1884 in London as an
offshoot of a society founded a year earlier called The Fellowship of
the New Life and was dissolved in 1899. From the perspective above, I
think this decision of seizing the "The New Life Fellowship" was a
good one. Since the general mission of the society, identified with
the symbolism as in "turtle" icon, or "ship in a wolf coat" (that was
abandoned too); to a large extent brought about massive deaths during
the first and second world wars. Russell was correct when leaving
Fabians, but he had to expose his criticism louder.

In short, Fabians' service to imperialism help to take the world to
first and second world wars, then their service in the US served to
emergence of labour imperialism.. now it is serving to Western
imperialism survival hence taking the world into the third imperialist
war.. I am sure, the delayism of Fabians, tell it is better then full
attack on the machine and kill it, let's delay the revolution and get
the wars, let capitalism re-invent itself.. I think there is something
seriously flawed with this delayism of the newer coming mortal attack
in Fabius Lucius, Fabius' strategy was to do the attack when the time
comes.. the time never comes for the Fabians, they aim to delay the
full force attack even it is the highest time. This is why they are
called 'Her majesty's' loyal opposition' -about their role in the
foundation of the Labour Party.

I wonder if Corbyn is a Fabian, or he is a threat for Fabians that are
leaving his team. I think if he is not a Fabian, and he can clean the
Labour Party from Fabians, and expose the global relationships of the
power structures/networks Fabian's involved he would make a great
contribution for change, more than he could as prime minister.I
believe this network includes LSE complex governance centre, Mont
Pelerin Society, Club of Rome, Club of Bucharest, World Economic
Forum, Trilateral Commission, Center of Foreign Relations, Bilderberg
circle, Ford, Rockefeller, Soros Foundations, and other major liberal
think tanks. The struggle these networks giving against the networks
of power like Neo-cons, right-wing, as well as radical left wing needs
to be openly publicly disclosed as well. Without this happening the
world has never see a good chance, and the final attack that was
prevented by Fabians (forever) will never take place. In a sense
Fabian Society will succeed, but humanity will fail.

Please forgive me for this letter, but I sincerely believe beyond and
over individuals, and their goodwill's, these organisations,
societies, and networks, the use of funds and political tactics, even
crimes they commit, suppress individuals with genuinely good heart and
personality. If there is a ‘war of complexity management’, individuals
become one of the variables in the management of complexities by
complexity managers. This positivist approach defended by Madron, or
used in his self-promotion to Corbyn, probably for the opening
positions in the expert chembers around him, is not the way. The
vision, that goes beyond this positivist understanding and sees all
sides as part of one system, including those complexity managers,
would bring about the global radical change that is bloody needed by
anyone, for all species; the name or form is not important, communism,
commonism, socialism.. Global elite will not be able to delay it
forever, even with the generous help of the Fabian Society. The Next
System will be build by those smashed by every new economy, and every
next system.


Best,

Orsan




On 3 August 2016 at 00:25, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures at phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> Hi Orsan
>
> Michel and I have been exchanging views for some while viz. personal
> thoughts about what is to be done. When I met you in Berlin in 2013 at the
> Economics of the Commons conference I very much enjoyed our discussion and
> hearing about Network Labor. So you asked for my perspective…….
>
> I think there is a perennial truth and socialism at its best always has been
> linked to forms of co-operative economic democracy. In the debates about
> Fabianism, it was the guild socialist thinking and alternative that I found
> attractive. I still do.
>
>  I think the problem I have had with some of the modern commons conversation
> and dialogue is that many advocates are unaware of the risks of reinventing
> robust wheels. There is still a widespread lack of recognition that what
> comes around goes around and that the commons if it is to succeed for people
> and planet in this new century needs to connect with the co-operative
> commonwealth struggles of our ancestors and therefore that the past and the
> present need to be reconnected. Otherwise the hard fought wisdom from the
> past, a cultural vernacular that is precious, will be forsaken.
>
> I did a paper for a conference in Montreal about 18 months ago that Michel
> has put on the Commons Transition site. It is two of three parts only -
> about the cardinal questions of land and money. Polanyi in his explanation
> of the double movement argued that for a Great Transition we need to take
> out of the market what Marx called the fictitious commodities. Polanyi
> agreed here completely with Marx and argued for the freeing up of land,
> labour and money by a political and structural reversing of enclosure. This
> is also the vision and practice of what EP Thompson showed as a struggle
> from our common history that focused on building co-operative commonwealth.
>
> So you might find this three part essay of interest. I think it echoes in
> some ways at least the spirit of paper you sent me about trade unionism gone
> wrong. Each part of the essay is not long.
>
> http://commonstransition.org/co-operative-commonwealth-de-commodifying-land-and-money-part-1/
>
> I have not included in this paper an analysis about labour but I have
> written about this elsewhere. But I really think Hilary Wainwright’s
> articles in recent years about Labour as a commons really would be what I
> would regard as a brilliant way of looking at this third part, about our
> collective selves and the future of work as a common good.
>
> All the best
>
> Pat
>
> On 2 Aug 2016, at 09:22, Orsan Senalp <orsan1234 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The thing is after reading Madron's critic of usual leaders and then reading
> Lilian Greenwood's speech, one (or I) thinks immediately that Lillan shows
> almost all skills of self-branding, her masculine tone in her self-marketing
> as natural born labour leader in Madron's sharp critics... I don't know why
> but somehow one gains more sympathy for Corbyn to be honest after reading
> this stuff. On the other hand I am highly critical about Madron's references
> like Koku and Kurzweil, they are similar to Rifkin; imagining perfect
> capitalism.
>
> I think Michel's critical integral perspective which sounds more close to
> Tektological thinking is more useful to envision a genuine radical change;
> Pat you are supposed to be supporting from a left-socialist point of view. I
> have been wondering for a while about your ideas and views on Fabianism and
> Fabian society, if I may ask with this opportunity? And if you find Corbyn
> too left, of radical, or simply not as a good leader, and in what sense?
> Those points would make more sense since it sounds to me that those who are
> leaving Corbyn's 'experts team were close to your networks, around 'new
> economy'; so can that be the reason of your reserves on Corbyn?
>
> Best,
> Orsan
>
> On 01 Aug 2016, at 18:52, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures at phonecoop.coop>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Anna
>
> Michel and I are discussing these matters with other colleagues. A close
> colleague, Henry Tam, who was a senior civil servant
> under Labour before 2010 and set up a creative Empowerment Fund for
> grassroots projects. This did lots of good work.
>
> He has been hopeful about Corbyn. But having seen at first hand politicians
> at their worst and best he now has his concerns.
>
> He shared this speech a few days ago from a Labour MP and active trade
> unionist. She highlights some things that Gary Younge raised his worries
> about.
>
> http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian_s_speech_to_nottingham_south_labour_party_members
>
> Pat
>
>
> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:44, Anna Harris <anna at shsh.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Thanks for these links Pat, and any others you think would be helpful.
>
> Anna
>
> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:32, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures at phonecoop.coop>
> wrote:
>
> Michel
>
> Not sure about the internal politics within the team. A number left in the
> team are good experts.
>
> But my point is that several elements have to be aligned. A new accountable
> leadership style for sure as the article you shared makes clear.
> Then a creative use of complexity theory in practice.
>
> But also if the theory of new economics is not sound then this impacts on
> the programmes. Not due to leadership but because of a faulty understanding
> and analysis.
>
> For example Richard Murphy from the UK Tax Justice Network was not selected
> to be in the Corbyn advice team whereas last summer he was guiding Corbyn
> on Peoples QE that was popular with people in the Labour party who voted for
> Corbyn. Since then these ideas have been not on the agenda and what Ingham
> calls for
> is not far removed from Murphy’s thinking and guidance.
>
> All the best
>
> Pat
>
> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:20, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
>
> thanks for the details Pat,
>
> I remember critiques that Jeremy was not a good listener and did not work
> well with his advisory team,
>
> Michel
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Pat Conaty
> <pat.commonfutures at phonecoop.coop> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Michel
>>
>> This is a good piece on complexity theory and participative politics that
>> Anna Harris has shared. As I have mentioned, this way forward is great and
>> also the
>> work of Stafford Beer on viable systems theory for intensifying
>> co-operative forms of democracy. But I only wish Corbyn was moving in this
>> direction. Not questioning his good will to do so and his integrity of
>> course but little evidence of this yet emerging. See the relatively recent
>> Gary Younge article below when there
>> were three leaders in the race for Labour party leader, now just Smith and
>> Corbyn.
>>
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/13/corbyn-critics-destroying-labour-party-members
>>
>> But in addition to complexity management and new forms of leadership,
>> there is the need for a deeper understanding of economics and what is money.
>> This question is the
>> Elephant in the room as Geoffrey Ingham explained and that all socialists
>> need to get to grips with. The Economic Advisory Committee advising
>> Corbyn are all left of centre economists but even Piketty and Stiglitz
>> have a poor analysis of What is money as Ingham highlights below.
>>
>> https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/geoffrey-ingham/whose-money-is-it
>>
>> Corbyn and other anti-austerity politicians thus lacks guidance on this
>> question that is crucial for developing alternative economic strategies.
>>
>> Ingham is a professor at Cambridge. He is a socialist and in his book, The
>> Nature of Money, he shows that unfortunately Marx got the money question
>> wrong. Despite some great insights, fundamentally Marx concluded that money
>> was a commodity. He took this from Aristotle. The real truth is that it is
>> not a commodity but a social technology as David Graeber has shown.
>>
>> However as Ingham observes, this errant view of Marx has sent most of the
>> left down the wrong road to understand money and hence most of the left is
>> blind on this question. From a theoretical perspective this is a fatal flaw.
>> Ingham argues so well that we need to revisit the What is money debates from
>> the 1920s and folk like Gesell and also Douglas and social credit ideas as
>> these show where the real answers are.  Ingham calls for a public social
>> partnership on monetary and banking reform to replace the oppressive and
>> toxic public private partnership destroying both society and ecology and
>> leading us in to relentless wars defending geopolitical turf over oil and
>> other resources.
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>
>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 09:16, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
>>
>> dear Pat, has anything been written on the contrary view that was reported
>> on in that other discussion ?
>>
>> Michel
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Anna Harris <anna at shsh.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Corbyn Model of Leadership
>>> Of all the people currently in leadership positions in a major political
>>> party anywhere in the world, Jeremy Corbyn is the only one who shows the
>>> potential of being a leader who could begin to manage successfully the
>>> complex problems that all of our societies have to face in the coming
>>> decades.
>>>
>>> Brilliant article, first I've seen really understanding what Corbyn is
>>> trying to do.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://medium.com/@ROY_MADRON/the-corbyn-model-of-leadership-a7a006405f27#.hyj8ckaw2
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetworkedLabour mailing list
>>> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
>>> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at:
>> http://commonstransition.org
>>
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>
>> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
>
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetworkedLabour mailing list
> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
>
>