"Choice" & History (was Re: Rawls)

[Jim heartfield]

In message <v03130300b4bbc64a9023@[140.254.114.153]>, Yoshie Furuhashi
<furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> writes

>Liberalism contains the idea of historical evolution -- the history of
>Progress -- with stages and all; it is clear in Mill, Kant, and other
>giants of liberalism, so it is no wonder Rawls endorses it.  Some people
>think that historical materialism is a version of teleology, a stagist
>history of Progress, but I beg to differ.  I do agree with you, however,
>Marx may be inconsistent on this question.
>
>Yoshie

Surely you don't mean to say that there is no historical evolution or
progress? Wouldn't Marx say that the reduction in necessary labour time
consequent on increased productivity is progress?

And isn't it also true that history has passed through stages, albeit
not in a mechanically linear way? Is there no difference between
Feudalism and Capitalism, say? Or are these categories not helpful?

-- 
Jim heartfield