Mr P.A. Van Heusden wrote
>The idea of productivity of being the final principle of history is one
>which belongs more with Locke than with Marx. After all, which is more
>progressive? The 'backwards' productive methods of Mexican peasants, or
>the 'modern' productivity of an industrialised farm? If it is the
>industrialised farm, then I ask again which is more progressive - the
>peasants of the Chiapas 'autonomous municipality', or the farmers of the
>US corn belt?
>
>There are many ways to skin a capitalist....
Wasn't it Trotsky who said (when comparing the Soviet Union of the '30s to western countries I think) that progress boiled down to economy of time? I think this is just another way of talking about productivity of labour. After all, if progress is not about reducing the amount of time we have to spend reproducing ourselves and increasing the amount of time available to work on our human side, then what is it?
On the undoubtedly worthy, but 'backwards' production methods of Mexican peasants, it's worth repeating another quote from the man. He also said, I believe, that "asceticism has nothing in common with Marxism".
Russell