The Danger? The Plot Against Civilivation pp. 128-136

 We continue on with Webster’s diatribe that Socialism was started by the Illuminati in France before the revolution…or something like that, I’m a little confused as to what her point is. Chronologically, if we just stick to what she has told us, socialism comes after Weishaupt (who never made it to France) and has seeds in Revolutionary France. It doesn’t get going until much later, but nevertheless, this is her story.

What’s missing from the story is why Socialism is bad. I consider myself, philosophically, to be very sympathetic to socialism. If the economic positions of Socialism were implemented it would only benefit me, i.e. not having to pay for healthcare would be an extreme boon to my life. This blog is not a place where I extol the virtues of Socialism, if people want to have that debate—there is a very unused comment section below.

With that being said, we know that Webster is against Socialism, but we don’t know why. She’s never really made the argument. The only concrete claim that she’s offered was that the dress makers in aristocratic France were better off because the nobility would buy dresses but afterward no one had money to buy them. Similarly, she’s made the claim that there were more employed people under the French King than the revolutionary government. However, both cases are not about Socialism, they are about the Revolution. What’s missing in this book so far, is an argument against socialism.

What we have instead are anecdotes concerning individuals who may have been Socialists.

Another thing that Webster attempts is to play really pedantic word games. She claims that Socialists try and divorce “socialism” from Robespierre and Bebeuf, instead preferring to tie their origin to Owen or Saint-Simon. She finds this puzzling and dastardly because of course Robespierre was a Socialist according to her. Yet, I don’t know of any philosophical position of Robespierre’s that would be considered Socialist. Webster merely ties him to Socialism because he would become a leader in the French Revolutionary Government, but that is a thin thread of connection which only works because Webster thinks the French Revolution was an Illuminati plot. If you accept this as true, you’re falling for the Special Pleading fallacy. This is a fallacy that requires you to accept an unproven premise as the foundation for everything that comes after it. For example the MCU only makes sense if you can accept that Tony Stark could build his infinite energy source in a cave.

Webster spends way too long on a figure known as Etienne Cabet. Cabet was another of these Utopian idealists that Webster has attacked. It’s a fun story, concerning Cabet’s group living in a former Mormon town, and creating the Icarian movement; ultimately it’s a pointless story. The movement eventually petered out. Webster claims this is because Cabet tried to act like a dictator, but then she claims that it was internal strife that broke the movement.

An infuriating part of this story is that our author keeps bringing up these examples with a stress on the dangers of Socialism but all of her examples end in failure so there is no danger. If left to its own devices these movements will all end on their own. There’s nothing to fear and yet Webster needs to keep beating this drum.

My problem with all of this is that it seems to be without point. It is very reminiscent of the writings of David Icke—who drops names for the seeming purpose of letting us know that’s he has read a book or two. I don’t know if that is what is happening here or if there is some contextual argument in the 1910s that Webster is trying to address; but reading this today it’s just nonsense.

An argument that she’s making, is that Illuminism is the very worst thing in human history. Then she explains that Socialism comes from Illuminism; her definition of Socialism hasn’t really been elucidated yet so we really can’t judge on the accuracy, we can however say that she’s entirely focused on French Socialism that private property should be held in communal arrangement. She then wants to claim that the opposite of this is anarchism, which she attributes to Proudhon as the innovator. Alright, but she’s also claiming that anarchism, which is the ultimate destruction of organized community is also the very worst thing. Pick a side, either no communal property or all property is communal—only one of these things can be the very worst. Her example is also wanting, Proudhon worked in the French government, he was never for its abolition.

She’s trading on the popular understanding of the word “anarchist” against the specific definition of the term as Proudhon meant it. Her point in this section is not to communicated information, it’s to pretend to lay a foundation. All of those name drops are more of her gish-gallop. She wants us to nod along be impressed with her knowledge and thus her conclusion. The problem is that she isn’t arriving at a point with all of this.