X Close

The future belongs to Fabians In an age of extremes, we need moderation

Sidney Webb poses with Margaret Bondfield, the first woman cabinet minister (Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)

Sidney Webb poses with Margaret Bondfield, the first woman cabinet minister (Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)


September 17, 2024   6 mins

In the 3rd century BC, the Roman Empire was on its knees. Hannibal had smashed its armies, and Rome itself seemed within his grasp.

And yet, the Eternal City didn’t fall. Under General Quintus Maximus Fabius, the Romans abandoned their formerly aggressive strategy, instead shifting to hit-and-run attacks. Though Fabius was roundly criticised for this cautious approach, and was promptly dismissed by his compatriots as a “cunctator” or delayer, Hannibal’s supply lines were soon cut, and the Carthaginians ultimately forced to leave Italy.

It is a dramatic story, but hardly ancient history. Adopted by Beatrice and Sidney Webb in the late 19th century, the old general’s pragmatism was revived as “Fabianism” — a form of socialism, but one framed by economic gradualism and respect for tradition.

And if, to quote one historian, the Webbs’ ideas were “perfectly suited to British prejudices” in their own sepia-tinged world, what Fabius understood remains starkly relevant now. As Keir Starmer has shown — and Kamala Harris proved in her debate with Donald Trump — remaining level-headed wins debates and often elections. More than that, practical Fabianism can be a salve for some of modernity’s most tender wounds, especially when compared to the dreamy utopianism so common elsewhere in politics.

“Fabianism can be a salve for some of modernity’s most tender wounds, especially when compared to the dreamy utopianism so common elsewhere in politics.”

We are living in an age of dogma. That is clear right across the political spectrum, from the Left’s extreme approach to climate change and gender, to populist demonisation of immigrants and other outsiders.

The specifics, of course, are different. But like their ancient namesake, the original Fabians found themselves in a fraught political climate. Faced with a complacent establishment that despised socialism — and the growing popularity of radical politics, epitomised by a spate of anarchist attacks from New York to London — they were forced to thread a path between the two.

How did they manage this practice? In a word: moderation. Though embracing a range of progressive economic causes, advocating for a national health service as far back as 1911, the Fabians were equally careful not to forsake capitalism entirely. For the Webbs, small businesses were to retain their assets, even as the movement’s leaders were broadly conventional in their personal morality. No less important, the Fabians also made their peace with Britain’s ancient monarchy, even as they preferred a professional civil service to the revolutionary vanguard.

As late as the Nineties, these ideas were successfully practised by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, and even today most developed countries boast mixed economies and lively welfare states. All the same, recent years have seen caution and thoughtfulness replaced by emotion and zealotry, with disastrous results across a range of policy areas.

Consider climate change. While doubtless a major challenge, leading physicist Steve Koonin nonetheless suggests that current environmental policies are underpinned by implausibly catastrophic projections, including mass starvation and a huge rise in weather-related fatalities. To quote John Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics: “Climate science has metastasised into massive shock-journalistic pseudo-science.”

Prodded along by allies in the media — Associated Press and National Public Radio are two of the organisations to accept money from climate lobby groups — this extreme approach may yet prove harmful for regular people. Like Fabius’s opponents in the Senate, the climate lobby ignores inconvenient facts, instead preferring bold action, and a grim future encompassing smaller homes, less mobility, and worse diets.

Apart from anything else, the science underpinning the pessimists is decidedly shaky. For one thing, net zero is a fantasy that can likely never happen even in the medium term, particularly given the rising energy needs of developing countries. That’s before you consider an even more essential problem: physics. Renewables suffer from low power density, which means they require much more material to work. As even the CEO at Siemens Energy recently conceded, economic realities are starting to assert themselves, despite massive and continuing subsidies for wind and solar.

Beyond the scientific folly of climate-change extremism, this zero-sum approach is bound to be unpopular. A recent Gallup poll shows that just 3% of Americans consider climate change the most urgent problem facing the country. Besides, adaptations of various sorts, from better flood defences to clever agricultural practices, have helped reduce climate-related fatalities dramatically over the past century, despite a massive increase in global population and higher temperatures. Why, in short, don’t we try things that actually work?

To be clear, this is not to suggest we should dismiss climate change as fake — the planet really does seem to be getting warmer, albeit more slowly than climate lobbyists suggest. But rather than clinging mindlessly to performative, ineffective and fundamentally unsellable policies, a more Fabian approach would embrace hybrids as opposed to less desirable EVs, or else invest in economically viable alternatives to fossil fuels, notably hydro and nuclear power. Placing your faith in wind or solar seems like a fool’s errand — and a good way to lose money.

If climate change is one area that could do with a strong dose of Fabianism, our attitude to race is another. Once again, it is clear that the current radical approach, popular on both sides of the Atlantic, is doing more harm than good. Current “anti-racism” ideology requires schools, companies and governments to use racial metrics in hiring and spending. Yet this approach has proved a massive failure. After making steady progress in the Fifties and Sixties, the relative economic status of African-Americans has largely stalled compared within other groups, including Latinos. That is even as inner-city problems remain as intractable as ever. The primacy of racial identity politics is also socially counterproductive, as we can see in the ethnic rioting in the US in 2020, in Britain in 2024, and in France almost constantly.

It is understood, of course, that some on the Right are guilty of similar neuroses, especially when it comes to demographic replacement. But the multiracial reality of contemporary Western societies cannot be wished away. And besides, ideologues of both Right and Left miss a basic point: so-called “people of colour” are not monolithic, and often share little beyond not being white. That is apparent from the numbers, with the latest data from the US Census Bureau showing a wide disparity between different ethnic minorities. Korean-Americans, Indonesian-Americans, Taiwanese-Americans, and Filipino-Americans all report higher incomes than whites. Among immigrants from Africa, females apparently do better than their white counterparts already. That’s even as Asians now constitute perhaps a third of leading tech CEOs in the US.

To put it differently, might it not be best to adopt a Fabian approach to race — both in terms of level-headed pragmatism, and in class and upward mobility? Fabianism, for its part, would avoid a racialist approach to public policy, instead adopting a strategy of general societal uplift, one less likely to stir resentment among white majority populations. There’s evidence, moreover, that this can work in practice: Denmark’s policy of integrating immigrants into the labour market has arguably seen the Nordic country suffer less ethnic strife than neighbouring Sweden.

Success there is echoed by the advantages of Fabianism for immigration policy. Once again, the radicalism of Left and Right has caused problems. A massive wave of immigration, embraced by business and intellectual elites across Europe, has in turn energised Right-wing populists across the continent, even as native workers (especially those on low incomes) face rising competition for jobs, homes and social services. Spurred by record numbers of people crossing the border with Mexico, American attitudes to immigration have hardened too — roughly 60% of Americans, and a majority of Latinos, support mass deportations.

These realities lead some on the Right to favour cutting off immigration entirely. Yet it will be extremely hard for Western societies to thrive without it. That’s obvious demographically: across the OECD, the so-called “dependence ratio” (those aged 65 and over as a proportion of people aged 20-64) will hit 46% by 2050.

At any rate, a Fabian approach to these challenges would acknowledge these facts while rejecting open borders. Robust controls are crucial here, with countries from Australia to Canada prioritising high-skilled migration until liberal activists and big business encouraged them to change tack. To put it differently, a Fabian approach to immigration is not only possible. It has actually been proven to work in the recent past — and the sooner nations rediscover it, the better.

In the current environment, prospects for a Fabian revival may seem dim. Practicality is not a virtue much taught in universities these days, with the academy instead seeking to turn students into activists more than citizens. Social media tends to accelerate the ghettoisation of information too, meaning people get little exposure to ideas outside their presumed comfort zone. Then there are the challenges specific to Fabianism as an ideology: in an age of rampant inequality, to say nothing of general disgust for politics, can a softly-softly approach really succeed?

Perhaps not. Yet as Fabius so vividly proved, in difficult times societies need pragmatists not ideologues. One cannot expect either the current liberal oligarchy — nor Right-wing demagogues like Trump — to embrace such a rational response. But like Rome or the British socialists, success can only come by recognising political, economic, and social realities.

Today, in short, Fabianism provides an elegant route away from our current travails. Like the ancient Romans, we are past the point where dogma and vainglory can be afforded. In an increasingly divided, debilitated West, a shift towards greater realism therefore seems the healthiest alternative.


Joel Kotkin is a Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and a Senior Research Fellow at the Civitas Institute, the University of Texas at Austin.

joelkotkin

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

47 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Martin M
Martin M
23 days ago

I appreciate that the article focussed more on the methodology rather than the underlying political position, but there is no getting away from the fact that Fabianism is, at heart, Socialism.

j watson
j watson
23 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

Does depend what one means by Socialism. Like Capitalism, Socialism is a spectrum.
The use of both phrases probably too manichean. It’s much more nuanced.

Martin M
Martin M
23 days ago
Reply to  j watson

I guess that is true. I would say that the positions espoused by Jeremy Corbyn are Socialist. There was a time I would have said the same about Ed Miliband.

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
23 days ago

Fabianism is first and foremost dishonest. It isn’t called Fabianism because of pragmatism but because the Webbs intended to use Fabius-like tactics of distraction, delay, and attrition to deliver socialism rather than directly fighting and winning the battle of ideas and votes. It’s founding action was the disguised permeation of socialism through universities and institutions. A socialism managed by upper middle class types who considered themselves intellectual superiors. It is exactly that dishonesty and managerialism that is the cause of our division and debilitation today. It is the spread of Fabianist action throughout universities and institutions that has delivered their disfunction and slow collapse.

The author writes the “original Fabians found themselves in a fraught political climate. Faced with a complacent establishment that despised socialism” but neglects to mention socialism was despised by a majority of all classes and was never going to win at the ballot box. The innovation Fabianism offered was that instead of socialism by bullet they’d deliver it by gradualist stealth.

The author does acknowledge the gradualism of Fabian action but fails to extrapolate what this means: any current political moderation is a pretence, merely the next small but necessary gradual step on the road to socialism. By very many small steps they march through the institutions… Most who live in the UK will recognise the universities, civil service, and judiciary are now saturated with left wing politics exactly as the Fabians set out to do. This leads directly to our biggest crisis: a Fabian managerial class governing for all of us without any mandate and beyond accountability. I don’t totally doubt their well meaning sincerity, but a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim is still a tyranny.

As a footnote, the Webbs went on to write the very influential book Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation? It was an entirely uncritical review of Stalin’s farming collectivisation, his creation of the gulags, and the purges of the 1930s. It was pure Soviet propaganda justifying mass murder written by two unapologetic socialists who just happened to be the founders of Fabianism. The Webbs and the motives of Fabians should be talked about in the same way we talk about National Socialists. There is never, ever any good in the greater good.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
23 days ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

Indeed. The level of naivety in the article is disturbing. The author purports to advocate “sensible” policies (who doesn’t!) but there’s a dissonance between his interpretation of Fabianism and the authoritarian mindset that currently prevails.

What this suggests is that our so-called “intellectuals” are unable to free themselves from the very groupthink which they purport to be seeking to critique.

One of the ‘signifiers’ is the frequent use if the word “even”. If an author uses this word as a device to seek to elucidate their argument, i think of the term “special pleading”. I lost count of the number of times it occurs in this article.

Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
23 days ago
Reply to  Lancashire Lad

‘What this suggests is that our so-called “intellectuals” are unable to free themselves from the very groupthink which they purport to be seeking to critique.’

I find this very true of the BBC. People like Andrew Marr seem utterly convinced of the self-evident nature of their position on any particular topic, to the extent that you get the impression he is oblivious to the concept that his position is necessarily a partial one and is reflective of a particular time, place and class.

Any deviation from the narrative (see John Lydon on his show recently) is seen as merely a lack of accurate information and perspective, benevolently bestowed upon us by people like Andrew.

General Store
General Store
23 days ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

Plus, you didn’t win. She had questions in advance. With the cat meme, it looks like the debate is working against Harris . And if Starmer’s moderation won, it seems to have been a pyrrhic victory. Joel is normally much better than this. The Fabians, Starmer and Harris are all extremists. Trump is much more of a centrist than any of them. A narcissistic celebrity for sure. But basically a centrist.

takioc
takioc
23 days ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

So true. There is never any good in the greater good.
As a Christian I firmly believe the fabian society along with most similar organisations and think tanks are bad at best and probably Satanically inspired.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the fabian society emblem is straight out the Bible… a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
They are a link in a chain in a movement to totalitarian control over humanity.
Whether they’re aware of it or not they are pawns of Satan.
For similar reasons Islam specifically hates Jews and Christians.
Anthony Hutton wrote well about part of this movement in his Skull and Bones book.
Marx was in to the occult I believe.

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
23 days ago
Reply to  takioc

Yes, the Fabian Society coat of arms is a wolf in a sheep’s clothing. An odd choice for an organisation claiming not to have any ulterior motives… I’m reminded of That Mitchell and Webb Look comedy sketch where two SS soldiers ponder if they’re actually not the good guys because they have a skull and crossbones on their caps.

Point of Information
Point of Information
23 days ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

“our biggest crisis: a Fabian managerial class governing for all of us without any mandate and beyond accountability”.

True enough but when has the managerial class ever had any mandate or been accountable? I mean anywhere, ever, from modern Britain to ancient China? Sounds like hankering for a time when the ruling class shared your worldview rather than a memory of a golden age when mandarins implemented the will of the people and were held to account when they failed.

A Bowles
A Bowles
23 days ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

I didn’t think the author really understood what Fabianism is at all. I hope he reads your excellent comment.

Paul MacDonnell
Paul MacDonnell
22 days ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

Pretty first-rate analysis.

Brett H
Brett H
23 days ago

How did they manage this practice? In a word: moderation. 
There’s something bland and weak about this as a way forward. I can’t think of any part of anyone’s history that’s taken a successful leap with moderation. Moderation feels like a watered down version of life itself. It just doesn’t feel likely that human progress has been the result of moderation. Circumstances may force upon us, without us choosing, something in between as the road forward (which may look like moderation in retrospect) but only because the two extremes confronted each other. Choosing moderation seems to me a weak foundation for leaping into the future.

j watson
j watson
23 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

And yet it’s the essence of Britishness and has been for some centuries.

Brett H
Brett H
23 days ago
Reply to  j watson

And look at the state of the country.

Peter B
Peter B
23 days ago
Reply to  j watson

Not true.
The British Empire wasn’t acquired by moderation !
In those days we executed Admiral Byng for not fighting at Menorca. His moderation may have been reasonable, but it certainly wasn’t acceptable in those days.
Of course, these days someone like Gareth Southgate will doubtless be getting a knighthood for his exemplary moderation in not taking the risk of winning at football.

j watson
j watson
23 days ago
Reply to  Peter B

One could argue even the British Empire was more moderate than some without entire rose tinted specs.
The point more that our politics has emerged through evolution and not revolution. You have to go back to 1640s for a revolution, and even then we reverted back within a decade or so to a much more organic development. Whilst Europe has history of convulsions we are much more often moderate and tolerant

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
23 days ago
Reply to  j watson

1688

j watson
j watson
23 days ago

Common sense, moderation, practical solutions and less performative rhetoric. Fairly radical stuff at the moment.
Not going to play well of course with the Unherd base.

Andrew R
Andrew R
23 days ago
Reply to  j watson

You could of course tell us why, rather than stating it as fact. There’s a laughable op-ed written by Gordon Brown in today’s Guardian… that right JW, The Guardian. Those ghastly proles not voting the right way again.
I suppose we can give the Fabians a break when they were formed but it’s been proved time and time again that ideologies fail and utopia cannot exist because of paradox. It’s funny how utopia always requires coercion then authoritarianism, which leads to corruption and collapse. You’d thought “enlightened” people would know this.

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
23 days ago
Reply to  j watson

And not very Fabian.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
22 days ago
Reply to  j watson

If you think that’s Fabianism you desperately need to read some history.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
23 days ago

This article meanders all over the place and is in places, downright silly. We are meant to agree with a lot of the proposed ideas because they seem calm and quiet and sensible. It forgets one very important point: vested interests.
I agree with the author that the climate change lobby has run out of steam but Ed isn’t going to turn around and say, “Let’s slow things down a bit”, because he would then lose control and lose status. The same is true of the scientists who advise him. The feeling of power, of control, gets in the way of all of these cosy ideas. In London the mayor is using his power to control people, to make them do stupid things, to have power over them. He will not give that up. Nor would his successors (if he would ever allow a successor).
Fabianism, or Communism, has failed everywhere because people want power over other people.

Dustin Needle
Dustin Needle
23 days ago

The vast majority of the public understand that you cannot stop immigration altogether. Not without addressing a multiplicity of issues over generations.
I know the author is using it to present a balanced pro-Fabian argument, whilst having a swipe at the proles. But it’s a malicious lie.
Freddie, please don’t let this lazy stuff through.
Immigration whilst maintaining a national culture and a sustainable welfare state should not be beyond the wit of our political class, Tory, Labour or Fabian, when we have 70 years experience of what works and what doesn’t.
Why they ignore that unrivalled experience, in favour of untested treaties and international compacts to signal a nation’s virtue, is a mystery to everyone. Maybe let’s have an article on that.
You think Britain is a racist country? Name one country with a welfare state and a better track record that we could learn from. Without including those in the EU that have now erected manned borders and commenced deportations.

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
23 days ago

The Webbs famously espoused eugenics and selective breeding programmes. Doesn’t scream ‘moderate’ to me.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
23 days ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

Yes. Time someone pointed that out. They were also massive fans of Stalin who conspired to keep news of the holomodor out of the media.

Their worst crime though, both then and now, was to hijack the Labour Party and turn it into a vehicle for middle class busybodying. We’re still living with the consequences.

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
21 days ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

All the progressives were. Global warming policies will be viewed in the same way 100 years from now.

Graham Cunningham
Graham Cunningham
23 days ago

Fabianism as our way foreward?….I hope not. Fabianism was not really “pragmatic”; it was just a bit less frenzied than more recent iterations of the ideology of “Progress”….(ie progress brought about by political means rather than as a by-product of technology and enterprise). And the Bloomsbury set were brimful of vanity and sentimentality. A much better pointer to what we need would be Edmund Burke. “Edmund Burke – father of modern conservatism – expressed this caution in this axiom: “frenzy will pull down more in half an hour than prudence, deliberation, and foresight can build up in a hundred years.”  Few people are outright opposed to political change but Progressives seem permanently hungry for it and believe that politics is the way to make it happen. Recent history suggests that they are right in this belief but paradoxically are unlikely to actually be all that happy with the changes they have helped bring about.” https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/mrs-thatcher-and-the-good-life

David Peter
David Peter
23 days ago

lol at the USA having a ‘lively welfare state’

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
23 days ago

Moderate Communists. But immoderate eugenicists.

rob clark
rob clark
23 days ago

“and Kamala Harris proved in her debate with Donald Trump — remaining level-headed wins debates and often elections.”

Are you referring to that ABC inspired hit job debate, fact checking Trump, while letting Kamala coast? Might want to check out her recent solo interview by an ABC affiliate in Philadelphia for another take!

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
23 days ago

As Keir Starmer has shown — and Kamala Harris proved in her debate with Donald Trump — remaining level-headed wins debates and often elections.
It was at this point that I scrolled to the comments. Did I miss anything of value between that line and here?

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
22 days ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Not much.

Point of Information
Point of Information
23 days ago

Kotkin uses “Fabianism” as a synonym for – variously – gradualism, pragmatism and realism. This is not the historical or, for those who carry it on, current meaning of Fabianism, which is a centrist branch of socialism with specific political aims.

You could equally well have a gradualist right wing group or a pragmatic anti-authoritarian movement, but they wouldn’t be Fabians.

Perhaps Kotkin would be better using the term “Fabius-ism” but really I think he’s trying to lump too many concepts together.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
15 days ago

While I acknowledge and share the rejection of Fabianism and its founders, the article brings up good points that are hard to reject. To what degree are those ideas Fabianist? I guess avoiding to mention the Fabians alltogether would have spared the author most of the flak he attracted. He must have had a different idea when he wrote the piece. But which?

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
23 days ago

Most of the Commenters miss a very important point.
Here in the US, Franklin Delano Roosevelt used Socialism (lite) to save Capitalism (viscous) from its own excesses. Most of his programs failed or never got through Congress. But enough of them stuck that we went on to help win a very serious war and then had the best decades of our existence. Social Security, a sharply graduated income tax, fair labor laws, farm security, industrial recovery, banking regulation and deposit insurance, etc; without FDR we would be unrecognizable.
(Unfortunately, in the 80s and 90s various “leaders” came along and hobbled most of it. Then we got globalization. And here we are, barely limping along.)

Martin M
Martin M
22 days ago

The “New Deal” might have been necessary given the conditions that prevailed in the 1930s, but the US fortunately moved in a rather more capitalist direction thereafter.

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
21 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

“And here we are, barely limping along.”

Martin M
Martin M
20 days ago

Whatever issues we face, Socialism isn’t the answer.

RA Znayder
RA Znayder
22 days ago

Indeed. It was especially the renewed New Deal policies and the sound agreements of Bretton Woods after the war that brought the most stable period in recent history. Trade was facilitated, innovation was very high but capital and speculation was restrained. The backlash in the 80s against this system has been explained as simple class warfare by many scholars. The Rand corporation estimated that about 50 trillion was transferred from the lower classes to the upper class in the first waves of neoliberalisation.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
22 days ago

“Centrist socialists”….so the Fabians incrementally screw up everything, and destroy their society slowly and respectfully…no thanks.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
22 days ago

When one considers the leadership imposed damage being inglicted on the West we are apparently already led by wolves in sheep’s clothing, the symbol of the Fabians

RA Znayder
RA Znayder
22 days ago

If anything I think that there is actually way too little radical change in the face of a system that essentially already collapsed after 2008. Yes, there is a lot of radial rhetoric – especially since that 2008 crisis – but it mostly just remains rhetoric. The extreme center, first and foremost, aims to protect the status quo as it was established in the 80s. It seems they rather drag everyone down with them than allowing serious reforms.

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
21 days ago

The problem with planning to be in the middle is that the extremes tell you where it’s at.

John Greatorex
John Greatorex
21 days ago

I think this article portrays the Fabians as benign and enlightening. But if one delves into the research, their legacy becomes rather more pernicious.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
17 days ago

last thing we need if the Fabians, David Lammy say he is one and I would not trust him as far as I could throw him, Zionist rat.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
17 days ago

Fabian scientic rationalism and gradulist socialism has included advocacy of euthanasia, colonial imperialism and some nasty racist attitudes, while its influence on the British Labour has not always been beneficent.