¹ For an expansion of this view of political theory, see my “Capital and Carbuncles: The ‘Great Books’ Reappraised,” American Political Science Review, XLVIII (09, 1954), pp. 775–86.Google Scholar

² It should be noted that most of the British Socialists who adhere to Original Sin doctrine are members of the Church of England. As the Protestant conception of Original Sin is far from being a rigorous one, they tend to use it loosely—indeed, at times, even metaphorically.

³ Quoted in Isaiah Berlin, Karl Marx (Oxford, 1939), p. 81.Google Scholar

⁴ Owen, Robert, A New View of Society (London, 1927), p. 16.Google Scholar

⁵ Morris, William, News from Nowhere (London, 1941).Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid., p. 81.

⁷ A good account of Hyndman and the Social Democratic Federation is to be found in Pelling, Henry, The Origins of the Labour Party (London, 1953).Google Scholar

⁸ Thus we have the constant reiteration of Morgan Phillips, the Secretary of the Labour Party, to the effect that Methodism was far more influential in establishing the Labour movement than was Marxism. This statement is, on its face, undoubtedly true. However I do not concur with the implication that Marxist thinking has a negligible impact. There is a current tendency to underestimate the influence of Marxist ideas in Britain. Perhaps this is because Labourites themselves are so vigorous in disowning that heritage—a natural tendency considering the emotional connotations of Marxism in the Western World today. However, it should be made clear that by Marxism I mean a method of observing politics and an attitude oriented to the future of society. Such a method or attitude need not entail any sympathy with Soviet Communism. Thus in the way in which society is perceived by men such as Harold Laski, G. D. H. Cole, A. J. P. Taylor, Kingsley Martin, R. H. S. Crossman, John Strachey, and Aneurin Bevan, we find the Marxist emphases of the class struggle, power relationships, and the centrality of economics. And it should never be forgotten that from the 1880's to the 1930's, working-class study groups imbibed Marx as a steady diet.

⁹ Morris' “Marxism” is suggested in Morton, A. L., The English Utopia (London, 1952)Google Scholar, Ch. 6. This book makes interesting reading because Morton is a down-the-line Marxist, and he judges each of the English Utopians on the basis of whether or not they are “scientific” in the Marxian sense. For this reason, almost all of the English efforts are condemned as “idealistic” and hence “bourgeois.” In fact, Morris is about the only writer who passes Morton's rigid test.

¹⁰ See Strachey, 's The Coming Struggle for Power (New York, 1933)Google Scholar and Laski, 's Democracy in Crisis (Chapel Hill, 1932)Google Scholar. For a fascinating series of statements in which Laski explains what he “really meant” in his writings of the 1930's, see The Laski Libel Action (London, 1947), pp. 61–135, 138–47.Google Scholar

¹¹ Blatchford, Robert, God and My Neighbour (Chicago, 1911), p. 245.Google Scholar

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Wells, H. G., The New Machiavelli (London, 1913), p. 141.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Cole, G. D. H., Social Theory (London, 1930)Google Scholar and Laski, Harold, Authority in the Modern State (New Haven, 1919).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cole, G. D. H., The National Coal Board (London, 1949), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Quoted in Martin, Kingsley, Is This Socialism? (London, 1951), p. 20.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Hogg, Quintin, The Case for ConservatismGoogle Scholar: “Conservatives are convinced that nothing is more clearly taught by all human history and experience than the fact in human nature which our forefathers simply described as original sin. They believe that persistently in human life, in our own nature no less than in others, there is an active, positive principle of evil.” Quoted in Shore, Peter, The Real Nature of Conservatism (London: Labour Party, 1952), p. 17.Google Scholar

¹⁸ As has been indicated (footnote 8), it is proper to place great stress on the influence of Methodism on the Labour movement. The conversion of the chapels to Socialism was, however, comparatively late in coming. “Christian Socialism,” writes, Henry Pelling, “was the product of a group of Anglican clergymen and laymen who were roused to the study of social questions by the unrest of the late 1840's.” The Challenge of Socialism (London, 1954), p. 84Google Scholar. Professor G. D. H. Cole indicates that these Anglicans, notably Ludlow, Maurice, and Kingsley, “made little appeal to Low Church evangelicals.” Socialist Thought, Volume II (London, 1954), p. 386Google Scholar. However, Cole goes on, in the 1880's the attacks of men such as Bradlaugh “on the reactionary attitude of the Nonconformist sects … contributed to the breakaway from bourgeois Nonconformist political leadership.” Such a break on the part of the local chapels, Cole asserts, “was a necessity for the growth of a powerful independent working-class political movement.” Ibid., p. 393.

¹⁹ Quoted in Martin, Kingsley, op. cit., p. 3.Google Scholar

²⁰ Joad, C. E. M., “What I Still Believe,” The New Statesman and Nation, 05 19, 1951, p. 558.Google Scholar

²¹ How long this will continue to be the case is difficult to say. In the Spring of 1952, I conducted a survey among 147 members of the Oxford University Labour Club. Of this number, 38 did not claim to be Labour supporters at all, but had merely joined the Club so they could hear the guest speakers. Of the remaining 109 who were Labour supporters, I asked the question: “Do you consider yourself to be: (a) a socialist; or (b) a Labour Party supporter, but not a socialist?” Of the 109, 86 said that they were socialists (by their own definition) and 23 that they were not. This means that over 20% did not wish to be thought of as socialists even though they supported Labour. And it may be expected that out of this University group will come some of the top Labour leaders of the coming generation. See my report on the survey, “The Rest and the Unrest.” Manchester Guardian, 06 14, 1952.Google Scholar

²² Woolf, Leonard, After the Deluge, Volume I (New York, 1931), pp. 234–35.Google Scholar

²³ Let Us Face the Future (London: Labour Party, 1945).Google Scholar

²⁴ Wells, H. G., The World of William Clissold, Vol. I (New York, 1926), pp. 187–88.Google Scholar

²⁵ Attlee—unlike his fellow cabinet-member, Patrick Gordon-Walker—does not appear to have thought through the metaphysical implications of his political practice. If he has reflected at all on the doctrine of Original Sin, it has probably been in a vague and metaphorical way. Perhaps such eschewing of philosophy is to be expected from a man who is faced with the necessity of governing. For an example of the undeveloped nature of Attlee's thinking, see his preface to The New Fabian Essays (London, 1952).Google Scholar

²⁶ The Times, 11 27, 1945, p. 2.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid., January 29, 1946, p. 2.

²⁸ This discussion of the Gollancz-Attlee controversy must not be construed as a precise “example” of Utopia and Original Sin locking horns. Philosophical conceptions are manifested in deep-seated attitudes and in long-run behavior rather than in specific events. I believe it is worth citing this instance, however, because it does give a glimpse of conflicting frames of mind. Nevertheless; it should be noted that Gollancz was joined by many non-Socialists. The Bishop of Chichester, for example, supported the plea on Christian grounds alone. And we should certainly conclude that the Bishop holds to the doctrine of Original Sin. This, however, does not negate my point. The Christmas rations issue was a national one. Christians, atheists, Socialists, and non-Socialists were to be found on both sides. It is not to be inferred, therefore, that only Utopians supported Gollancz' proposal. My intention is merely to examine the attitudes of two men—and two Socialists—on this single point. My suggestion is that Gollancz' motivation for his action lay in his Utopianism. Others, like the Bishop of Chichester, supported the plan. But such association obviously does not entail their concurring in his Utopian assumptions.

²⁹ Crossman, R. H. S. (ed.), op. cit.Google Scholar See especially Grossman's contribution: “Judging by the facts, there is far more to be said for the Christian doctrine of original sin than for Rousseau's fantasy of the noble savage, or Marx's vision of the classless society.” p. 8. Crossman does not make clear just which “facts” he is alluding to; but for those who want some “sinful” facts, there are plenty in Healey's essay.

³⁰ Crosland, Antony, Britain's Economic Problem (London, 1953).Google Scholar

³¹ Quoted in Martin, Kingsley, op. cit., p. 7.Google Scholar