Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 10:06:38 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Marxism: meat and potatoes questions




[Note: this is a postscript to an earlier, fuller response.]


In a previous post, Philip Locker (jesusc-AT-interport.net) wrote:

>Lets examine the terms 'progresive' and 'reactionary'.  Progresive means
>anything that will move the whole of socierty forward objectivly...in
>marxist terms this means increasing societys wealth, potential to create
>more wealth, etc, etc.
>
>The bourgeoisie was at one point in history a very, very, progresive 
>class.  The were in fact revolutionary.  They as they allways do, stood
>for private profit (along with many progresive political ideas & 
>institutions -- but these were only ways to make it easier to produce
>and realize profit).  We could say that before 1848 the fight for prfit
>was progresive.  It created the world market;  it connected the world;
>it created nation-states; it smashed feudal political & cultural 
>relations and replaced them with bourgeois democracy & culture, 
>morality, etc; the arts & siciences exploded etc.  The wealth of society
>moved ahead by light years.
>
>The bourg. desire for profit remains constant.  But the world, the 
>context in which this desire takes place is infact defined by its 
>DYNAMIC nature.  What is progresive yesterday id reactionary today.  
>After around 1848, the borg., still figfhting fo their intrests, became
>reactionary.  The prusuit of profit has become a fetter to progress.

It's true that democracy and capitalism are improvements upon feudalism.

But when Comrade Locker starts talking about "society" as a monolithic
unit, without reference to the relative effects of economic forces
on different classes, he sounds more like a bourgeois capitalist than
a Marxist (or even an informed liberal).  The position that industrial
exploitation was a boon to the workers before 1848 but a bane after
1848 is untenable, and is in fact absurd on its face.  No doubt the
exploited classes of Dickensian England, in many cases working as
wage slaves under brutal conditions, and dying of starvation, exposure
to the elements, horrendously unsafe work environments, and extreme
punishments (often capital) for trivial and economically motivated
offenses like the theft of bread, would have disagreed with Comrade
Locker's assessment.  Who knows, they might even have preferred
the relative comfort of feudal village life.

And why 1848?  What is so magical about 1848, Comrade Locker?  Why
not 1847, or 1849?  Is this when the "molten hot objective laws
of history" kicked in?  

--
What a curse these social distinctions are.  They ought to be abolished.
I remember saying that to Karl Marx once, and he thought there might be
an idea for a book in it.



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---