>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