Right wingers want you to think the Fabian Society are bad they aren't
The Fabian Society is a British socialist organisation whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist effort in democracies, rather than by revolutionary overthrow.
Conspiracy theorists on the right will have you believe that the Fabian society is part of some Illuminati conspiracy they are quite the opposite.
The Fabian Society is Britain’s oldest political think tank. Founded in 1884, the Society has and continues to be at the forefront of developing political ideas and public policy on the left.
The Fabian Society derives its name from the Roman general Quintus Fabius, known as Cunctator from his strategy of delaying his attacks on the invading Carthaginians until the right moment. The name Fabian Society was explained in the first Fabian pamphlet which carried the note.
“For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless.”
The archives of the Fabian Society are held at the London School of Economics, including a comprehensive digital archive.
If you’re interested in the history of the Fabian Society and would like to write for the Fabian Review online on any aspect of the Society’s past, please contact Communications and Editorial Manager, Lucy Snow.
The Early Fabians: “Educate, Agitate, Organise”
The Fabian Society emerged in 1884 as an off-shoot of the Fellowship of the New Life. The new Society soon attracted some of the most prominent left-wing thinkers of the late Victorian era to their ranks.
The 1880s saw an upsurge in socialist activity in Britain and the Fabian Society were at the heart of much of it. Against the backdrop of the Match Girls’ strike and the 1889 London Dock strike, the landmark Fabian Essays was published, containing essays by George Bernard Shaw, Graham Walls, Sidney Webb, Sydney Olivier and Annie Besant. All the contributors were united by their rejection of violent upheaval as a method of change, preferring to use the power of local government and trade unionism to effect change.
The early Fabians’ commitment to non-violent political change was underlined by the role many Fabians played in the foundation of the Labour Party in 1900.
None of the early figures in the Fabian Society was more significant than Beatrice and Sidney Webb in developing the ideas that would come to characterise Fabian thinking and in developing the thorough research methodology that remains a feature of the Society to the present day. Both prodigious authors, Beatrice and Sidney wrote extensively on a wide range of topics, but it was Beatrice’s 1909 Minority Report to the Commission of the Poor Law that was perhaps their most remembered contribution. This landmark report provided the foundation stone for much of the modern welfare state (You can read The Solidarity Society the Fabian Society report to mark the centenary of the Minority Report here).
Back to top
The London School of Economics & the New Statesman
Two other abiding contributions of the Webbs that persist until the present day are the New Statesman magazine and the London School of Economics.
The London School of Economics, today one of the most pre-eminent universities in the world, began far more humbly. A bequest of £20,000 left by Derby Fabian Henry Hutchinson to the Society for “propaganda and other purposes” was used by the Webbs, Graham Wallas and G.B. Shaw to found a research institute to provide proof positive of the collectivist ideal. The LSE flourished and continued to associate with Fabian academics including Harold Laski, Richard Titmuss and Brian Abel-Smith.
Today, the Fabian Society and the LSE continue to work closely together. The London School of Economics holds the Fabian Society archives including extensive correspondence and early photographs of Fabian Society events. It is also home to the ‘Fabian window‘, a stained-glass image of early Fabians, designed by George Bernard Shaw.
The New Statesman was founded in 1913, the brainchild of Beatrice and Sidney Webb. With the financial support of George Bernard Shaw and other Fabian Society members, the Webbs recruited Clifford Sharp as the founding editor of the magazine and sold over 2,000 copies of the initial edition.
Writing in the Manchester Guardian of the new magazine, Sidney Webb said:
“Its distinctive feature will be its point of view – absolutely untrammelled by party, or sect, or creed. Its general attitude will be best designated by the term ‘Fabian,’ but it will endeavour to bring to light and to appreciate in a wide catholic spirit all those features in other social projects or movements which can be recognised as making for progress. A number of these connected with it are members of the Fabian Society, but this is true of nearly every enterprise nowadays, and the paper is in no sense the organ of the Fabian Society, any more than it will be that of the Liberal party. It is going to be really independent.
The New Statesman remained true to Webb’s independent vision and the voice of Fabianism gradually diminished over time. But the New Statesman remains a prominent voice on the left in contemporary British politics and an effective partner with the Fabian Society.
Back to top
Between the wars
As the electoral significance of the Labour Party grew in the inter-war period, the contribution of the Fabian Society kept pace. In 1923, over twenty Fabians were elected to Parliament, with five Fabians in Ramsay MacDonald’s Cabinet. Future Prime minister and Fabian Clement Attlee received his first ministerial post at this time.
The development in 1931 of a New Fabian Research Bureau, the brainchild of G.D.H Cole added vigour to Fabian debates and set the scene for much of the work of the 1945 Labour government. As war broke out in Europe, the Fabians created the intellectual architecture for the peacetime reconstruction. The Colonial Bureau of the Fabian Society attempted to set a timetable for the end of imperialism, and William Robson’s essay Social Security explored many of the ideas that would later feature in the landmark Beveridge report.
The war also saw the blossoming of local societies. In 1939 there were just 6 local societies, by 1945 there were 120 local societies across the country. Though we do not today reach the numbers of those heady days, the local societies continue to be at the absolute heart of the Society’s work.
Back to top
1945: High tide and after
“It looks just like an enormous Fabian School”
Zena Parker on seeing the 1945 Parliamentary Labour Party in conclave
229 Fabian Society members were elected to Parliament in the 1945 Labour landslide, with many of the ministers in the Attlee administration.
But the Fabian contribution to Attlee’s reforming programme of 1945-51 had begun much earlier. The Labour manifesto Let Us Face the Future had been written by Fabian Michael Young and many of the pioneering reforms of the 1945 Labour government had been first developed in Fabian essays or pamphlets.
The process of renewal that had always been a part of the Society began in earnest as the general election in 1951 loomed. The New Fabian Essays included contributions from Anthony Crosland, Richard Titmuss, Richard Crossman, Denis Healey, Roy Jenkins and would do much to refocus the Society’s work on the continuing problems of inequalities that persisted in British life.
These thinkers would prove vital to developing the agenda of the next Labour government in 1964 as Crossman, Titmuss, Abel-Smith and Crosland became the intellectual engine that underpinned much of the Wilson government.
But the 1960s and 70s proved a challenge for the Society. Though it continued to expand its activity into new areas and developed a formidable research wing, it came to be marginalised as the post-war consensus in British politics was put under increasing pressure in the mid- the too late seventies.
Back to top
Challenge and recovery
The Fabian Society, like all organisations on the left, was rocked by the post-1979 Labour disputes. The Chair of the Society, and former General Secretary, Shirley Williams became one of the founding members of the SDP and the defection of a number of Executive Committee members challenged the long-standing affiliation of the Fabian Society to the Labour Party. In a ballot of the whole membership, it was affirmed that members of the SDP could only be non-voting, associate members and that the Society would continue to be affiliated to the Labour Party.
This crisis successfully weathered, the Fabian Society recovered to provide a platform for debate in the Labour Party following the electoral mauling Labour suffered in 1983. It hosted the only debate between the post-Foot leadership candidates which was televised. The eventual leader Neil Kinnock and deputy leader Roy Hattersley were both actively engaged with the Society and the 1980s saw a number of important pamphlets published that both addressed the social and economic challenges of the day while developing and articulating an electoral strategy for the left to win again.
Back to top
New Labour
In the 1990s the Fabian Society came to be a major force in the modernisation of the Labour Party, building on its work from the 1980s and developing many of the ideas that would come to characterise New Labour.
A New Constitution for the Labour Party was instrumental in the introduction of “one member, one vote” to party elections and contained the original recommendation for the replacement of Clause IV. The Fabians applied themselves to the challenges that Labour faced in building an election-winning coalition of voters and in the Southern Discomfort series pointed the way towards many of the changes that would take place and help Labour to its historic 1997 victory.
After Tony Blair’s landslide victory in 1997, over 200 Fabians now sat in the House of Commons, including many of the Cabinet. However, the Fabian Society developed its role as a critical friend, supporting the Blair and Brown government’s in developing policy, without being afraid to draw attention to the omissions or shortcomings of the government. During these years the society conducted influential policy commissions on reforming the monarchy, ending child poverty and taxation and citizenship (the latter laying the ground for the Labour government’s decision to raise taxes to fund the NHS).
Back to top
In opposition
The fall of new Labour and the election of the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government in 2010 posed new challenges for the Society. During the 2010-2015 parliament, it renewed its focus on tackling the big issues facing policymakers including the future of the state and public services, and the creation of a more robust, balanced and equal economy. It also applied itself to the task once again of defining and articulating the electoral strategy that Labour needs to regain power.
After the 2015 election and the surprise election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, the role of the society as a pluralist, non-factional forum within the Labour movement became even more important. The modern society continues to be a source of robust, evidence-based ideas with influence across the left. Its membership since 2015 has been higher than at any time in the society’s long history.
Prominent Fabian politicians today include: Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Hilary Benn, Stella Creasy, Angela Eagle, Kate Green, Harriet Harman, Margaret Hodge, Dan Jarvis, Sadiq Khan, Neil Kinnock, Seema Malhotra, Gordon Marsden, Alison McGovern, Ed Miliband, Angela Rayner, Rachel Reeves, Emma Reynolds, Jonathan Reynolds, Jan Royall, Owen Smith, Keir Starmer, Emily Thornberry and Chuka Umunna.
What Fabians say about Corbyn.
Corbynism is a collective endeavour in the best Labour tradition – and there is much more to come, writes Mark Perryman
Over the past two years what has made the Corbynite challenge so distinctive, and has become a core part of its appeal, is the way Labour is becoming both a party and a social movement. It heralds a party that is more than the sum of its members, branches, annual conference and MPs.
Theorist of the 21st century’s social movements David Graeber summed up very well the changes that would be needed for Labour to complete this process of combining the electoral and the social:
“Over the past century it [Labour] has gradually become like all the other political parties – personality (and of course, money) based, but the Corbyn project is first and foremost to make the party a voice for social movements once again, dedicated to popular democracy (as trades unions themselves once were). This is the immediate aim. The ultimate aim is the democratisation not just of the party but of local government, workplaces, society itself.”
Corbyn, like Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise, has not emerged out of nowhere. It is part of a wider phenomenon. These movements are not all the same. But each is popular with a base beyond, and sometimes in contradiction with, the left’s traditional support. Each has enjoyed a surge of success contrary to the rapidly declining position of the previously majoritarian social democratic party in their countries. Journalist Paul Mason seeks to explain this shift in sociological terms, describing the base as ‘the graduate with no future’ equipped with access to social media and a flexible, if broadly supportive, attitude to traditional leftist ideologies. It is a distortion to suggest that this newly engaged base is the sole source of Labour’s increased vote share and huge swings in some constituencies but nor would it be wise to discount its significance either.
And after the June general election where might these tendencies take Labour next? Neal Lawson is the chair of Compass, standard-bearer of new thinking. In an open letter he explained why as a soft leftie in 2015 he surprised himself voting for the hard left candidate, Corbyn:
“But things change. There is no perfect wave, and Jeremy isn’t perfect. But this is not about the person but the moment and the wave the Corbyn candidacy has unleashed. I voted for the wave.”
These were sentiments I could identify with. I’d come to the same conclusion as Lawson with similar political values still intact though with perhaps a smidgen more enthusiasm. Lawson’s description of the ‘wave’ is crucial:
“The Corbyn wave is a window into what is possible. Its energy is breaking up the permafrosted soil that for 30 years has been too harsh for our dreams to grow in. Labour as a party and a movement cannot survive electorally or politically unless it holds out the hope of radically changing society. On this point, the time has caught up with New Labour. If the best it gets is to slow the pace at which the poor get poorer and the planet burns then it’s not enough to sustain us. A party needs high ideals and deep organic roots in society if it is to transform that society. This cannot be done from the top down, only when a party meets a groundswell from below.”
And now we have that groundswell. First, it was the party that was transformed, and now, after 8 June, it could well be the country come to the next election. For this to be sustained however we cannot rely on one individual, whatever his rock star popularity. On the eve of Jeremy’s re-election as leader in 2016 academic David Wearing described both the opportunity ahead and the obstacles:
“For now, the Labour membership’s potential to organise as an active social movement has yet to be realised, which is unsurprising given the exclusionary, aggressive and patronising attitude they have been greeted with by the party establishment. But those members should not allow themselves to be demoralised by what’s happening in Westminster. Instead, they can take the initiative themselves, and set about shifting the ground on which future general elections will be fought and won.”
Such a viewpoint was viewed with derision by most MPs. And plenty of Labour members also lined up alongside the massed ranks of the commentariat long after Jeremy’s triumphant re-election to oppose any such notion. As the months wore on and the poll ratings sank lower, a number of Jeremy’s most prominent supporters peeled off too. A landslide defeat beckoned and an early general election was surely Labour’s worst nightmare. Much of this pessimism was entirely understandable at the time. Those of us beaming with pride now at what has been achieved might enjoy proving the naysayers wrong but we had our doubts too. We’re activists, not fan club followers or personality cultists.
But there was a reason behind the derision we’d faced. Two fundamentally different conceptions of what constitutes the political – different though not always entirely incompatible. Writer Rachel Shabi sums up admirably well the impetus of Corbynism that connects with a constituency that seeks a Labour party that is at one and the same time a social movement:
“This pursuit of collectivism, in the face of decades of rampant individualism, was always one of the more radical aspects of Corbyn’s leadership. It was in evidence throughout his campaign speeches, where he often spoke of society’s many cohorts as one community, binding together groups – young and old, black and white, nurses as well as builders and office workers – that are more often encouraged to compete against each other in the current economy.”
Keir Hardie and Ellen Wilkinson, the hunger marches, Labour winning the peace in ’45, Bevan and the foundation of the NHS, Barbara Castle on the picket line with the women Ford strikers campaigning for equal pay, Foot, Kinnock and Benn leading CND demonstrations, Bernie Grant standing with his community after the 1985 Broadwater Farm riots – after all of that none of what Rachel was describing should appear either new or threatening. But threatening was precisely how some seemed to regard such a shift, and 8 June has done precious little to alter their opinion. They describe their outlook as ‘Clause One Socialism’ and have the pin badges to prove it.
The grouping most identified with this Clause One position inside the Labour party, Progress, puts it thus:
“In the 1930s, 1950s and 1980s Labour has pulled away from its true path by syndicalist social movements. At its founding, the party’s intention was clearly spelt out for the world to see in the very first paragraph of the constitution: to ‘maintain in parliament… a political Labour party.”
In contrast to this parliament-centred view, the key potential of Corbynism is as a party that has a lived experience of, and presence in, every community, at all levels of society. In my small East Sussex town of Lewes, just six miles from where Labour conference will be meeting, I set myself a ‘10-minute rule’ every time I step outside the door. Before I reach my set time I’ve met someone who I know is a fellow member of the Labour party. A neighbour, a market stall holder, a fellow parent, a swimmer down at the pool, someone serving me in a shop, the programme editor of the football club I support. We are everywhere but if we are restricted to the kind of role that Clause One is being interpreted to ascribe to us – passive supporters to be switched on and off when a canvassing session is required, extras rather than the actors – what a waste it would be.
What could have been more symbolic of this potential than the person who introduced Jeremy at his final outdoor rally of the 2017 general election campaign, Saffiyah Khan? A few months previously a photo of her, a young Asian, Muslim woman fearlessly facing down the English Defence League boot boys in her home city of Birmingham, peacefully with a smile on her face, had gone viral. She had stood up for what she knew was right. Neither parliamentarianism nor protest politics can do that on their own. Rather it needs Saffiyah and hundreds of thousands like her to make such resistance possible. And in the process Corbynism challenges the traditional version of populism that on occasion it has threatened to become.
Corbynite Labour is not a stage army at anyone’s beck and call but individuals who come together and become communities of change from below. Welcome to the Corbyn effect. We’ve only just begun.
Chairs of the Fabian Society
Chairs
General Secretaries
1939-46 G.D.H. Cole 1891-1913 E.R. Pease
1946-48 Harold Laski 1913-20 W.S. Sanders
1948-50 G.D.H Cole 1915-19 E.R. Pease (Acting)
1950-53 John Parker 1920-39 F.W. Galton
1953-54 Austen Albu 1939-45 John Parker
1954-55 Harold Wilson 1946-47 Bosworth Monck
1956-56 Margaret Cole 1947-49 Andrew Filson
1956-57 Arthur Skeffington 1949-53 Donald Chapman
1957-58 Roy Jenkins 1953-60 William Rodgers
1958-59 Eirene White 1960-63 Shirley Williams
1959-60 H.D. Hughes 1964-76 Tom Ponsonby
1960-61 Lord Faringdon 1976-82 Dianne Hayter
1961-62 C.A.R. Crosland 1982-85 Ian Martin
1962-63 Mary Stewart 1985-89 John Willman
1963-64 Brian Abel-Smith 1990-1996 Simon Crine
1964-65 Anthony Wedgwood Benn 1993-94 Glenys Thornton (Acting)
1965-66 Peter Townsend 1996-97 Stephen Twigg
1966-67 William Rodgers 1997-2003 Michael Jacobs
1967-68 Arthur Blenkinsop 2003-11 Sunder Katwala
1968-69 PeterShore 2011- Andrew Harrop
1969-70 Thomas Balogh
1970-71 Jeremy Bray
1971-72 Peter Hall
1972-73 Anthony Lester
1973-74 Frank Judd
1974-75 Nicholas Bosanquet
1975-76 Colin Crouch
1976-77 Giles Radice
1977-78 Dick Leonard
1978-79 Philip Whitehead
1979-80 Peter Archer
1980-81 Shirley Williams
1981 Apr David Lipsey
1982 David Lipsey
1983 Stella Meldram
1984 Jenny Jeger
1984-85 Tessa Blackstone
1985-86 Andrew McIntosh
1986-87 Austin Mitchell
1987-88 Nick Butler
1988-89 Bryan Gould
1989-90 David Bean
1990-91 Robin Cook
1991-92 Oonagh McDonald
1992-93 Dianne Hayter
1993-94 Ben Pimlott
1994-95 Alf Dubs
1995-96 Maggie Rice
1996-97 Chris Smith
1997-98 Margaret Hodge
1998-99 Tony Wright
1999-2000 Calum McDonald
2000-01 Gordon Marsden
2001-02 Denis MacShane
2002-03 Paul Richards
2003-04 Stephen Twigg
2004-05 Eric Joyce
2005-06 Seema Malhotra
2006-07 Ed Balls
2007-08 Anne Campbell
2008-10 Sadiq Khan
2010-12 Suresh Pushpananthan
2012-14 Jessica Asato
2014-16 Seema Malhotra
2016- Kate Green
Conspiracy theorists on the right will have you believe that the Fabian society is part of some Illuminati conspiracy they are quite the opposite.
The Fabian Society is Britain’s oldest political think tank. Founded in 1884, the Society has and continues to be at the forefront of developing political ideas and public policy on the left.
The Fabian Society derives its name from the Roman general Quintus Fabius, known as Cunctator from his strategy of delaying his attacks on the invading Carthaginians until the right moment. The name Fabian Society was explained in the first Fabian pamphlet which carried the note.
“For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless.”
The archives of the Fabian Society are held at the London School of Economics, including a comprehensive digital archive.
If you’re interested in the history of the Fabian Society and would like to write for the Fabian Review online on any aspect of the Society’s past, please contact Communications and Editorial Manager, Lucy Snow.
The Early Fabians: “Educate, Agitate, Organise”
The Fabian Society emerged in 1884 as an off-shoot of the Fellowship of the New Life. The new Society soon attracted some of the most prominent left-wing thinkers of the late Victorian era to their ranks.
The 1880s saw an upsurge in socialist activity in Britain and the Fabian Society were at the heart of much of it. Against the backdrop of the Match Girls’ strike and the 1889 London Dock strike, the landmark Fabian Essays was published, containing essays by George Bernard Shaw, Graham Walls, Sidney Webb, Sydney Olivier and Annie Besant. All the contributors were united by their rejection of violent upheaval as a method of change, preferring to use the power of local government and trade unionism to effect change.
The early Fabians’ commitment to non-violent political change was underlined by the role many Fabians played in the foundation of the Labour Party in 1900.
None of the early figures in the Fabian Society was more significant than Beatrice and Sidney Webb in developing the ideas that would come to characterise Fabian thinking and in developing the thorough research methodology that remains a feature of the Society to the present day. Both prodigious authors, Beatrice and Sidney wrote extensively on a wide range of topics, but it was Beatrice’s 1909 Minority Report to the Commission of the Poor Law that was perhaps their most remembered contribution. This landmark report provided the foundation stone for much of the modern welfare state (You can read The Solidarity Society the Fabian Society report to mark the centenary of the Minority Report here).
Back to top
The London School of Economics & the New Statesman
Two other abiding contributions of the Webbs that persist until the present day are the New Statesman magazine and the London School of Economics.
The London School of Economics, today one of the most pre-eminent universities in the world, began far more humbly. A bequest of £20,000 left by Derby Fabian Henry Hutchinson to the Society for “propaganda and other purposes” was used by the Webbs, Graham Wallas and G.B. Shaw to found a research institute to provide proof positive of the collectivist ideal. The LSE flourished and continued to associate with Fabian academics including Harold Laski, Richard Titmuss and Brian Abel-Smith.
Today, the Fabian Society and the LSE continue to work closely together. The London School of Economics holds the Fabian Society archives including extensive correspondence and early photographs of Fabian Society events. It is also home to the ‘Fabian window‘, a stained-glass image of early Fabians, designed by George Bernard Shaw.
The New Statesman was founded in 1913, the brainchild of Beatrice and Sidney Webb. With the financial support of George Bernard Shaw and other Fabian Society members, the Webbs recruited Clifford Sharp as the founding editor of the magazine and sold over 2,000 copies of the initial edition.
Writing in the Manchester Guardian of the new magazine, Sidney Webb said:
“Its distinctive feature will be its point of view – absolutely untrammelled by party, or sect, or creed. Its general attitude will be best designated by the term ‘Fabian,’ but it will endeavour to bring to light and to appreciate in a wide catholic spirit all those features in other social projects or movements which can be recognised as making for progress. A number of these connected with it are members of the Fabian Society, but this is true of nearly every enterprise nowadays, and the paper is in no sense the organ of the Fabian Society, any more than it will be that of the Liberal party. It is going to be really independent.
The New Statesman remained true to Webb’s independent vision and the voice of Fabianism gradually diminished over time. But the New Statesman remains a prominent voice on the left in contemporary British politics and an effective partner with the Fabian Society.
Back to top
Between the wars
As the electoral significance of the Labour Party grew in the inter-war period, the contribution of the Fabian Society kept pace. In 1923, over twenty Fabians were elected to Parliament, with five Fabians in Ramsay MacDonald’s Cabinet. Future Prime minister and Fabian Clement Attlee received his first ministerial post at this time.
The development in 1931 of a New Fabian Research Bureau, the brainchild of G.D.H Cole added vigour to Fabian debates and set the scene for much of the work of the 1945 Labour government. As war broke out in Europe, the Fabians created the intellectual architecture for the peacetime reconstruction. The Colonial Bureau of the Fabian Society attempted to set a timetable for the end of imperialism, and William Robson’s essay Social Security explored many of the ideas that would later feature in the landmark Beveridge report.
The war also saw the blossoming of local societies. In 1939 there were just 6 local societies, by 1945 there were 120 local societies across the country. Though we do not today reach the numbers of those heady days, the local societies continue to be at the absolute heart of the Society’s work.
Back to top
1945: High tide and after
“It looks just like an enormous Fabian School”
Zena Parker on seeing the 1945 Parliamentary Labour Party in conclave
229 Fabian Society members were elected to Parliament in the 1945 Labour landslide, with many of the ministers in the Attlee administration.
But the Fabian contribution to Attlee’s reforming programme of 1945-51 had begun much earlier. The Labour manifesto Let Us Face the Future had been written by Fabian Michael Young and many of the pioneering reforms of the 1945 Labour government had been first developed in Fabian essays or pamphlets.
The process of renewal that had always been a part of the Society began in earnest as the general election in 1951 loomed. The New Fabian Essays included contributions from Anthony Crosland, Richard Titmuss, Richard Crossman, Denis Healey, Roy Jenkins and would do much to refocus the Society’s work on the continuing problems of inequalities that persisted in British life.
These thinkers would prove vital to developing the agenda of the next Labour government in 1964 as Crossman, Titmuss, Abel-Smith and Crosland became the intellectual engine that underpinned much of the Wilson government.
But the 1960s and 70s proved a challenge for the Society. Though it continued to expand its activity into new areas and developed a formidable research wing, it came to be marginalised as the post-war consensus in British politics was put under increasing pressure in the mid- the too late seventies.
Back to top
Challenge and recovery
The Fabian Society, like all organisations on the left, was rocked by the post-1979 Labour disputes. The Chair of the Society, and former General Secretary, Shirley Williams became one of the founding members of the SDP and the defection of a number of Executive Committee members challenged the long-standing affiliation of the Fabian Society to the Labour Party. In a ballot of the whole membership, it was affirmed that members of the SDP could only be non-voting, associate members and that the Society would continue to be affiliated to the Labour Party.
This crisis successfully weathered, the Fabian Society recovered to provide a platform for debate in the Labour Party following the electoral mauling Labour suffered in 1983. It hosted the only debate between the post-Foot leadership candidates which was televised. The eventual leader Neil Kinnock and deputy leader Roy Hattersley were both actively engaged with the Society and the 1980s saw a number of important pamphlets published that both addressed the social and economic challenges of the day while developing and articulating an electoral strategy for the left to win again.
Back to top
New Labour
In the 1990s the Fabian Society came to be a major force in the modernisation of the Labour Party, building on its work from the 1980s and developing many of the ideas that would come to characterise New Labour.
A New Constitution for the Labour Party was instrumental in the introduction of “one member, one vote” to party elections and contained the original recommendation for the replacement of Clause IV. The Fabians applied themselves to the challenges that Labour faced in building an election-winning coalition of voters and in the Southern Discomfort series pointed the way towards many of the changes that would take place and help Labour to its historic 1997 victory.
After Tony Blair’s landslide victory in 1997, over 200 Fabians now sat in the House of Commons, including many of the Cabinet. However, the Fabian Society developed its role as a critical friend, supporting the Blair and Brown government’s in developing policy, without being afraid to draw attention to the omissions or shortcomings of the government. During these years the society conducted influential policy commissions on reforming the monarchy, ending child poverty and taxation and citizenship (the latter laying the ground for the Labour government’s decision to raise taxes to fund the NHS).
Back to top
In opposition
The fall of new Labour and the election of the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government in 2010 posed new challenges for the Society. During the 2010-2015 parliament, it renewed its focus on tackling the big issues facing policymakers including the future of the state and public services, and the creation of a more robust, balanced and equal economy. It also applied itself to the task once again of defining and articulating the electoral strategy that Labour needs to regain power.
After the 2015 election and the surprise election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, the role of the society as a pluralist, non-factional forum within the Labour movement became even more important. The modern society continues to be a source of robust, evidence-based ideas with influence across the left. Its membership since 2015 has been higher than at any time in the society’s long history.
Prominent Fabian politicians today include: Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Hilary Benn, Stella Creasy, Angela Eagle, Kate Green, Harriet Harman, Margaret Hodge, Dan Jarvis, Sadiq Khan, Neil Kinnock, Seema Malhotra, Gordon Marsden, Alison McGovern, Ed Miliband, Angela Rayner, Rachel Reeves, Emma Reynolds, Jonathan Reynolds, Jan Royall, Owen Smith, Keir Starmer, Emily Thornberry and Chuka Umunna.
What Fabians say about Corbyn.
Corbynism is a collective endeavour in the best Labour tradition – and there is much more to come, writes Mark Perryman
Over the past two years what has made the Corbynite challenge so distinctive, and has become a core part of its appeal, is the way Labour is becoming both a party and a social movement. It heralds a party that is more than the sum of its members, branches, annual conference and MPs.
Theorist of the 21st century’s social movements David Graeber summed up very well the changes that would be needed for Labour to complete this process of combining the electoral and the social:
“Over the past century it [Labour] has gradually become like all the other political parties – personality (and of course, money) based, but the Corbyn project is first and foremost to make the party a voice for social movements once again, dedicated to popular democracy (as trades unions themselves once were). This is the immediate aim. The ultimate aim is the democratisation not just of the party but of local government, workplaces, society itself.”
Corbyn, like Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise, has not emerged out of nowhere. It is part of a wider phenomenon. These movements are not all the same. But each is popular with a base beyond, and sometimes in contradiction with, the left’s traditional support. Each has enjoyed a surge of success contrary to the rapidly declining position of the previously majoritarian social democratic party in their countries. Journalist Paul Mason seeks to explain this shift in sociological terms, describing the base as ‘the graduate with no future’ equipped with access to social media and a flexible, if broadly supportive, attitude to traditional leftist ideologies. It is a distortion to suggest that this newly engaged base is the sole source of Labour’s increased vote share and huge swings in some constituencies but nor would it be wise to discount its significance either.
And after the June general election where might these tendencies take Labour next? Neal Lawson is the chair of Compass, standard-bearer of new thinking. In an open letter he explained why as a soft leftie in 2015 he surprised himself voting for the hard left candidate, Corbyn:
“But things change. There is no perfect wave, and Jeremy isn’t perfect. But this is not about the person but the moment and the wave the Corbyn candidacy has unleashed. I voted for the wave.”
These were sentiments I could identify with. I’d come to the same conclusion as Lawson with similar political values still intact though with perhaps a smidgen more enthusiasm. Lawson’s description of the ‘wave’ is crucial:
“The Corbyn wave is a window into what is possible. Its energy is breaking up the permafrosted soil that for 30 years has been too harsh for our dreams to grow in. Labour as a party and a movement cannot survive electorally or politically unless it holds out the hope of radically changing society. On this point, the time has caught up with New Labour. If the best it gets is to slow the pace at which the poor get poorer and the planet burns then it’s not enough to sustain us. A party needs high ideals and deep organic roots in society if it is to transform that society. This cannot be done from the top down, only when a party meets a groundswell from below.”
And now we have that groundswell. First, it was the party that was transformed, and now, after 8 June, it could well be the country come to the next election. For this to be sustained however we cannot rely on one individual, whatever his rock star popularity. On the eve of Jeremy’s re-election as leader in 2016 academic David Wearing described both the opportunity ahead and the obstacles:
“For now, the Labour membership’s potential to organise as an active social movement has yet to be realised, which is unsurprising given the exclusionary, aggressive and patronising attitude they have been greeted with by the party establishment. But those members should not allow themselves to be demoralised by what’s happening in Westminster. Instead, they can take the initiative themselves, and set about shifting the ground on which future general elections will be fought and won.”
Such a viewpoint was viewed with derision by most MPs. And plenty of Labour members also lined up alongside the massed ranks of the commentariat long after Jeremy’s triumphant re-election to oppose any such notion. As the months wore on and the poll ratings sank lower, a number of Jeremy’s most prominent supporters peeled off too. A landslide defeat beckoned and an early general election was surely Labour’s worst nightmare. Much of this pessimism was entirely understandable at the time. Those of us beaming with pride now at what has been achieved might enjoy proving the naysayers wrong but we had our doubts too. We’re activists, not fan club followers or personality cultists.
But there was a reason behind the derision we’d faced. Two fundamentally different conceptions of what constitutes the political – different though not always entirely incompatible. Writer Rachel Shabi sums up admirably well the impetus of Corbynism that connects with a constituency that seeks a Labour party that is at one and the same time a social movement:
“This pursuit of collectivism, in the face of decades of rampant individualism, was always one of the more radical aspects of Corbyn’s leadership. It was in evidence throughout his campaign speeches, where he often spoke of society’s many cohorts as one community, binding together groups – young and old, black and white, nurses as well as builders and office workers – that are more often encouraged to compete against each other in the current economy.”
Keir Hardie and Ellen Wilkinson, the hunger marches, Labour winning the peace in ’45, Bevan and the foundation of the NHS, Barbara Castle on the picket line with the women Ford strikers campaigning for equal pay, Foot, Kinnock and Benn leading CND demonstrations, Bernie Grant standing with his community after the 1985 Broadwater Farm riots – after all of that none of what Rachel was describing should appear either new or threatening. But threatening was precisely how some seemed to regard such a shift, and 8 June has done precious little to alter their opinion. They describe their outlook as ‘Clause One Socialism’ and have the pin badges to prove it.
The grouping most identified with this Clause One position inside the Labour party, Progress, puts it thus:
“In the 1930s, 1950s and 1980s Labour has pulled away from its true path by syndicalist social movements. At its founding, the party’s intention was clearly spelt out for the world to see in the very first paragraph of the constitution: to ‘maintain in parliament… a political Labour party.”
In contrast to this parliament-centred view, the key potential of Corbynism is as a party that has a lived experience of, and presence in, every community, at all levels of society. In my small East Sussex town of Lewes, just six miles from where Labour conference will be meeting, I set myself a ‘10-minute rule’ every time I step outside the door. Before I reach my set time I’ve met someone who I know is a fellow member of the Labour party. A neighbour, a market stall holder, a fellow parent, a swimmer down at the pool, someone serving me in a shop, the programme editor of the football club I support. We are everywhere but if we are restricted to the kind of role that Clause One is being interpreted to ascribe to us – passive supporters to be switched on and off when a canvassing session is required, extras rather than the actors – what a waste it would be.
What could have been more symbolic of this potential than the person who introduced Jeremy at his final outdoor rally of the 2017 general election campaign, Saffiyah Khan? A few months previously a photo of her, a young Asian, Muslim woman fearlessly facing down the English Defence League boot boys in her home city of Birmingham, peacefully with a smile on her face, had gone viral. She had stood up for what she knew was right. Neither parliamentarianism nor protest politics can do that on their own. Rather it needs Saffiyah and hundreds of thousands like her to make such resistance possible. And in the process Corbynism challenges the traditional version of populism that on occasion it has threatened to become.
Corbynite Labour is not a stage army at anyone’s beck and call but individuals who come together and become communities of change from below. Welcome to the Corbyn effect. We’ve only just begun.
Chairs of the Fabian Society
Chairs
General Secretaries
1939-46 G.D.H. Cole 1891-1913 E.R. Pease
1946-48 Harold Laski 1913-20 W.S. Sanders
1948-50 G.D.H Cole 1915-19 E.R. Pease (Acting)
1950-53 John Parker 1920-39 F.W. Galton
1953-54 Austen Albu 1939-45 John Parker
1954-55 Harold Wilson 1946-47 Bosworth Monck
1956-56 Margaret Cole 1947-49 Andrew Filson
1956-57 Arthur Skeffington 1949-53 Donald Chapman
1957-58 Roy Jenkins 1953-60 William Rodgers
1958-59 Eirene White 1960-63 Shirley Williams
1959-60 H.D. Hughes 1964-76 Tom Ponsonby
1960-61 Lord Faringdon 1976-82 Dianne Hayter
1961-62 C.A.R. Crosland 1982-85 Ian Martin
1962-63 Mary Stewart 1985-89 John Willman
1963-64 Brian Abel-Smith 1990-1996 Simon Crine
1964-65 Anthony Wedgwood Benn 1993-94 Glenys Thornton (Acting)
1965-66 Peter Townsend 1996-97 Stephen Twigg
1966-67 William Rodgers 1997-2003 Michael Jacobs
1967-68 Arthur Blenkinsop 2003-11 Sunder Katwala
1968-69 PeterShore 2011- Andrew Harrop
1969-70 Thomas Balogh
1970-71 Jeremy Bray
1971-72 Peter Hall
1972-73 Anthony Lester
1973-74 Frank Judd
1974-75 Nicholas Bosanquet
1975-76 Colin Crouch
1976-77 Giles Radice
1977-78 Dick Leonard
1978-79 Philip Whitehead
1979-80 Peter Archer
1980-81 Shirley Williams
1981 Apr David Lipsey
1982 David Lipsey
1983 Stella Meldram
1984 Jenny Jeger
1984-85 Tessa Blackstone
1985-86 Andrew McIntosh
1986-87 Austin Mitchell
1987-88 Nick Butler
1988-89 Bryan Gould
1989-90 David Bean
1990-91 Robin Cook
1991-92 Oonagh McDonald
1992-93 Dianne Hayter
1993-94 Ben Pimlott
1994-95 Alf Dubs
1995-96 Maggie Rice
1996-97 Chris Smith
1997-98 Margaret Hodge
1998-99 Tony Wright
1999-2000 Calum McDonald
2000-01 Gordon Marsden
2001-02 Denis MacShane
2002-03 Paul Richards
2003-04 Stephen Twigg
2004-05 Eric Joyce
2005-06 Seema Malhotra
2006-07 Ed Balls
2007-08 Anne Campbell
2008-10 Sadiq Khan
2010-12 Suresh Pushpananthan
2012-14 Jessica Asato
2014-16 Seema Malhotra
2016- Kate Green
