Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Strange Bedfellows
Message-ID: <28200313@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Nov-85 23:10:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200313
Posted: Thu Nov 21 23:10:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 20:58:39 EST
References: <549@qantel.UUCP>
Lines: 49
Nf-ID: #R:qantel:-54900:inmet:28200313:000:2385
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 21 23:10:00 1985


[Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor ]
>Socialists have always seen history as a struggle
>between Progress and Reaction in various disguises. 

No, not always. Pre-19th century socialists had little use
for progress. Their utopias were static, stressing fair distribution
and rigid behaviour control. Age of Progress changed that. Then
Age of Disillusionment changed it again.

In particular, Marx's system is totally based on  technical  pro-
gress. The ultimate reason the old social order is doomed is, ac-
cording to him, that it becomes a brake on  productivity  growth.
Marx's  delight with every technical innovation was so great that
Engels especially dwelt on it in his short and eloquent  funeral
oration.  (Marx's  typical remark was that, as Steam provided the
technical base for Capitalism, so would Electricity for Social-
ism).  The  most important item of the post-revolution program of
the Communist Manifesto calls for the fastest possible increase
of productive forces.

But it seems that modern socialists are regressing - not just  to
pre-Marx  times, but pre-Saint-Simon. Again they stress distribu-
tion over production, security over progress;  prefer  Noble  Sa-
vages  (==the 3d world) over Western civilization; exaggerate the
role of natural resourses over that of technology; recommend sub-
sistence  agriculture  as  the  way  to  reduce  hunger;  and, in
developed countries, tend to make the condition of the *retarded*
citizens the benchmark by which to judge policies.

By contrast, for libertarians, every other word is  *space*.   At
times it may sound childish, but this progress-oriented mentality
is profoundly *healthy* and makes me feel that,  while  Socialism
has had a great past, Libertarianism may have a great future.

(Newborn ideas should be treated as gently as newborn babies -
even if both may seem all wet to you :-) ).

>[Note that, for Marx, this is an  objective  distinction  without
>moral  content; i.e., slaveholders and capitalists may, in some
>cases, qualify as progressive.]

Yeah, that's so on one level; but deep inside, Marx is  *extreme-
ly* moralistic. Slaveholders may have been progressive in the 1st
century BC - yet Marx's hero was *Spartacus*. And  remember  your
accusation of a moral superiority attitude ? Marx had it too; but
at least he was hardly amoral.

[more later] 		Jan Wasilewsky