NERVE OF SIDNEY HOOK
255
III
Throughout his two articles Hook opposes to religion and meta–
physics the more reliable methods of science and the assumptions of
philosophical naturalism. Insofar as he is refuting the claims of
theologians and supernaturalists, these are indispensable alternatives and
criteria. But when it comes to practical economic and political questions,
it is misleading to speak of scientific method and naturalism as the dis–
tinctive grounds of a solution. They are only general conditions which
may hold for entirely opposed views in these fields. (The insistence on
method is sometimes a blind for the lack of theory or the hostility to new
results. That is how radical achievements in the sciences have been
attacked in the past.) Whoever calls for a scientific and naturalistic
approach to society as something new, whoever says, like Dewey, that
in moral and social matters we are "twenty-five hundred years behind
Hippocrates", implies that nothing useful is known about them and
that a scientific theory has yet to be constructed. But Hook would have
us believe at the same time that his own espousal of socialism and his
conception of a labor party rest upon a scientific analysis of capitalist
society and upon an already established theory that permits a long range
view of things and insight into hidden factors and trends. But it is not
even tr.ue, as he maintains, that scientific method has never been applied·
to economic, political and social affairs by the capitalist rulers. Without
overestimating the genius of our statesmen, it may be said that within
the framework of his own system an intelligent politician uses the relevant
information available, studies his objects, finds the most effective mean!!
for his goals, presses into service the instruments of propaganda, organ–
ization, engineering and psychological control, with the help of com–
petent technicians. He cannot prevent economic crises and wars, any
more than the weather bureau can prevent storms, but he knows how to
use them for his immediate advantage. To say that "drift and improvisa–
tion have been the rule" is to propagate illusions about the innocence and
helplessness of the capitalist leaders. Churchill, according to Hook, is
"satisfied merely
[!]
with winning the war". Hook writes as if the
capitalist state could meet the "challenge of poverty, unemployment, dis–
tribution of raw materials, the impact of technology", if it would only
repress certain selfish obstructing individuals. But to criticize capitalism
for not scientifically abolishing economic crises is to criticize it for not
committing suicide.
The difficulties of the socialist movement lie not so much in the
realm of general theory, as in its application. To win power the labor
movement has to overcome a greater resistance with weaker means than
any bourgeois political group. The victory of fascism has been supported
everywhere by those who already hold the economic and military forces.
In proposing that we first discover a scientific theory, Hook hides the
fact that such a theory already exists and has existed for over a hundred
years, and that he himself has expounded it many times and has traced
its emergence.
He goes still further. He defines science in such a way that a scien·
tific political theory and program become impossible for the working
class. In refuting the enemies of scientific method and especially those
