A HOUSE OF THEORY
19
Theory of Value, and blunting the Socialist claim to provide the
only true science of society.
The appeal of Marxism as a body of doctrine, never strong in
this country, has diminished with the lengthening history of the
U.S.S.R. Marx and Marxist theorizing have been left to the Com–
munists. The revolt against convention which was a sacred duty
in the nineteenth century and between the wars was at least still
fun, is now, as a result of the greater flexibility of society, not
obviously either. Shoddy remains king, but nobody bothers much.
The vision of the ideal society, which, outside Marxism, was often
associated with opposition to parliamentary methods, lingered a
while in Guild Socialism, and perished with the development of
the parliamentary Labour Party. The sentiments of "proletarian
solidarity" have given way to the sentiments of the trade union move–
ment. Socialism no longer seems (as it seemed to certain favored
spirits) something essentially and profoundly Christian. The
anarchists are gone. What has triumphed (with many results for
which we are profoundly thankful) and what is still largely with
us is Benthamite efficiency, the spirit of the Fabians. Socialism,
in the course of its rapid and successful development, has lost even
the oddments of theory with which it started out.
It will
be
argued that the absence of Socialist theory is neither
surprising nor deplorable. The British were never ones for theory
in any case. We have always been empiricist, anti-metaphysical in
philosophy, mistrustful of theoretical systems. It is true, indeed,
that our political thought has been almost entirely sceptical, and
could be summed up under the three heads of Tory scepticism,
scientific scepticism, and Liberal humanist scepticism. Hume and
Burke would represent the first. (Don't theorize: let habit and
tradition solve your problems.) Bentham, with some assistance from
Hobbes, would represent the second. (Don't theorize: theories are
troublesome metaphysical nonsense. What matters in society is the
mechanics of satisfaction.) Locke and Mill, with Kant in the back–
ground, would represent the third. (Don't theorize: empirical truths
are unsystematic and moral truths can't be demonstrated; so be an
undogmatic but rational respecter of persons.) However,
all
these
thinkers were themselves theorists in the minimal sense that they
invented certain concepts, presented certain schemes and picturel,
