EQDOMAIN.EQWQ.LROGERS at email.state.ut.us
Mon Apr 3 18:04:03 MDT 1995
>>> Justin Schwartz <jschwart at freenet.columbus.oh.us> 3/31/95,
I'm a little confused by the discussion of progress and historical
directionality. The remarks by Paul and Ron appended below address
whether progress is a good thing. This seems an odd question. Isn't
progress by definition change for the better? .... There is no
guarantee that any given group will have the power to oppose its own
domination successfully, ...
This is part of the argument of a couple of long papers I have
written arguing for objectivity about justice on a naturalistic
I'm willing to define progress as change for the better, but then I
would ask "better for whom?" (which may be just another way to phrase
some of Paul's and Ron's remarks.)
As for the "no guarantee" of emancipation, I agree entirely! In
fact, it seems to me that inequalities of power have some tendency to
increase, because the powerless may have the least ability to resist,
and the powerful are in the best position to further increase their
power. Of course, this is not guaranteed either.
Naturalistic basis for justice? Rather than the long papers, would
you mind giving up a couple of paragraphs just to explain to us
new-comers what you mean by that?
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism