Richard Crossman's essay in this book published in 1952 is that the retreat from optimism and belief in progress should not weaken the determination of moderate socialists to make the world a better place. He gets into trouble because he has fallen into the disastrous fashion started by Toynbee of confusing religion and history. He begins by invoking the Buddha as a figure who withdraws from struggle and Prometheus as a figure who continues to fight for his fellow men, suggesting that Prometheus is the appropriate role model. The comparison is false and forces Crossman to try to squeeze Buddha and Prometheus as well as other figures into his analytical framework. First of all, while remote from us, Buddha was a real historical figure, while Prometheus is a symbol or myth who never existed. Prometheus was not a humanist (indeed he was a Titan, not a man), who rebelled against Zeus and whose poetic descendent is Milton's Lucifer. Crossman's Prometheus has, as it were, read the Stoics and acquired a conscience, and a notion of duty, which strikes us as modern, not to say existential. The archetypical rebel does not fit very well into the Fabian Pantheon. Fabians are skeptical humanists and moderates. Prometheus chained to his peak, with the eagle devouring his entrails, is a tremendous and terrifying figure, and the portrayal of Prometheus by Aeschylus inspired Marx. But he is not a skeptical humanist and moderate. The whole pretentious effort to convert metaphysical and political imagery into the small change of politics is misconceived. Crossman then states that the “facts” support the Christian doctrine of Original Sin more than Rousseau’s vision of the noble savage or Marx’s classless society. This sounds impressive, until one remembers that the doctrine of original sin says nothing about institutional arrangements. What it does is to affirm a certain view of human nature which remains true (or the reverse) whatever the historical destiny of mankind. The correct Christian deduction is not that the classless society is impossible but that its coming would not alter man's fundamental predicament. [Review from 1952.]

For a review in Commentary addressing other essays in this collection, see https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/george-lichtheim/new-fabian-essays-e...