My dad’s best friend was a Fabian.
He was Scottish and had a habit of putting his hands in his suit jacket pockets.
His wife disliked this and sewed all the pockets shut.
As far as I can tell The Fabian Society has no legislative power or authority to ban books.
Here is the Fabian's founding principle:
"To promote greater equality of power, wealth and opportunity; the value of collective action and public service; an accountable, tolerant and active democracy; citizenship, liberty and human rights; sustainable development; and multilateral international cooperation"
Here is Ai's view of the Fabian's founding principle:
That sentence — likely drawn from a mission statement or political charter — is rhetorically elegant but logically bloated and internally inconsistent in several ways. Here’s a breakdown:
1. Category Overload (Too Many Ends at Once) The sentence piles together distinct and sometimes conflicting goals under one banner:- Equality of power, wealth, and opportunity (economic and social aims)
- Accountable, tolerant democracy (political aim)
- Sustainable development (environmental/economic aim)
- Multilateral international cooperation (geopolitical aim)
These are not inherently aligned — promoting all simultaneously is aspirational but logically incoherent without prioritization or explanation of how trade-offs will be resolved.
2. Contradictory Implications - Equality of power is fundamentally at odds with liberty and individual rights — total equality of power would require suppressing differences in talent, ambition, or outcome.
- Collective action and citizenship/liberty can conflict if the collective will overrides individual freedom.
- Multilateral cooperation may limit national democratic accountability, since international bodies are often less directly answerable to citizens.
Thus, while each phrase sounds virtuous, in combination they form a philosophical tension between collectivism and liberal individualism.
3. Ambiguity of Terms - “Equality of power” — does this mean political, economic, or social power?
- “Public service” — by the state, or by citizens?
- “Sustainable development” — by what metric? Environmental, economic, or social?
Each concept is underdefined, allowing multiple interpretations — useful for coalition-building but logically slippery.
4. Moral Inflation By listing so many noble goals without hierarchy or mechanism, the statement risks saying everything and committing to nothing. It reads more like a moral advertisement than a coherent program.
Summary While rhetorically polished, the statement is logically weak because it:- conflates incompatible ideals (equality vs liberty, collective vs individual),
- lacks definitions or prioritization,
- and offers no causal link between the goals.
It’s ideologically aspirational but operationally incoherent — a hallmark of utopian or committee-written manifestos (e.g., Fabian, UN, or NGO language).
Roman Dictator and namesake of the Fabian Society.
Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus
 |
