"Choice" & History (was Re: Rawls)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Justin:

<<<Yoshie quotes big chunks of Mill's more embarassing colonialist passages
to support claims about what "the liberal tradition" thinks about
historical change,a nd expects us to infer from this that Rawls believes
that historical change happens because the idaes of the enlightened elite
change through peaceful ratiocination.

Now this obviously does not follow. It's not even true that Mill always
thought in such an elitist vein (see his comments on socialism in his
Political Economy), and there is no reason to think that Rawls follows
Milll at his worst. In fact there is reason to think otherwise, since in
hos one relatively extended discussion of transitions, he specifically
points to the abolitionists and to the civil rights movement, that is, to
struggle from below, and he also expressly and quite inconsistently
justifies the use of coercion against slavers and segregationists. OK,
then.>>>

Mill's & Rawl's friendliness to the idea of socialism has to be qualified,
though.  There are socialisms, and there are socialisms.  For instance,
between left-wing liberals and Fabian socialists, there is little
difference, to be sure.  Both are "designers" of institutions & social
arrangements.  The rhetoric of abolitionists & civil rights movements of
course contained vital elements of moral suasion in the interest of
creating the enlightened opinion, with which one can expect Rawls to feel
kinship.  I'd be surprised, though, if you tell me that Rawls gets inspired
by David Walker, C. L. R. James, Franz Fanon, Malcolm X, Angela Davis, etc.

<<<But my real point about Rawls' historicism did not involve his lack of a
transition theory, but his insistence that justice depends on historical
circumstances and the kind of justice one can aspire to depends on the
level of productivity, or, as we say here, the development of the
productive forces. If that ain't historical materialism, I will eat my hat,
brim and all.>>>

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