====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
I agree. Partially. History gives events historical status but "Progress," "Progressive" are so infused with positivist over-under-main-ring- tones, that I shudder whenever I read, or hear, the words used to describe social struggle. I don't know that "history" assigning or passing the judgement or awarding the "title" after the event is a very good measure. There's history, and then there's history. There's their history and there's real history, [which of course is MY history, as each one of us thinks, and might be your history if you agree with me]. I do not mean to imply a validity to historical relativism, just that the judgement of history is the judgements of men and women, men and women reflecting and refracting the class relations of their time. Yes, there is an objective content to history, a materialism of history, but it exists in the totality and not in the judgement of "progressive," non-progressive. The totality is the social organization of labor. I know this sounds like hair-splitting -- I just think we need to avoid making judgements of "progressive" nature of capital's dominance based on criteria of abstract development, quantitative increases in means of production, increases in wages, higher employment levels when it comes to capitalism in its totality of manifestation-- advanced, less advanced, "imperial," "imperialized," etc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shane Mage" <[email protected]> ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
