In defense of Henry Liu, I can find a Marx-quote, which I have cited
in a wkipedia article on the "productive forces"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_forces):
"...it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real
world... by employing real means... slavery cannot be abolished
without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom
cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and... in general,
people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food
and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity.
"Liberation" is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought
about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce,
agriculture, the conditions of intercourse [Verkehr]...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm#b1
But in defense of Patrick Bond, providing barbaric regimes with
factories, schools, hospitals, tractors, cars, drilling wells, roads,
etc. may not make those regimes any less barbaric. To think so, would
be a case of economism, of economic determinism, implying that a
better morality will somehow usher forth, simply from the fact that
people have more money to spend, perform industrial labour, or own
more assets. Indeed, this is the whole nature of the "development
problematic" these days - it's not just that more markets do not
automatically mean a better morality, but also that the moral fabric
must be changed, so that markets can exist at all. Hence the
come-uppance of whole new "brigades of moralists" justifying
investment here or disinvestment there. But at the root of the "moral"
debate is, of course, always the question of property rights, of the
just entitlement to wealth.
As I've noted at times, markets or commerce provide no specific
morality of their own beyond the requirement to pay your bills. Hence,
when commercial forces begin to talk morality, they often quickly wind
themselves in justificatory conundrums and hypocrisy. America, the
"greatest democracy on earth", appeals to the world to democratise
itself, but cannot in truth even organise a fair and honest
presidential election at home, free of fraud and nepotism. It preaches
"freedom" and operates the largest prison industry in the world. It
preaches "equal opportunity" while denying to millions at home. And so
on.
But how do things stand with Marxism? Marxism also lacks a specific
morality, beyond the Kantian imperative to revolt against all those
conditions which make people less than they could be. Well, even a
liberal businessman like Bill Gates could agree with that. What in
fact happens is, that the Marxists graft their own moralities onto the
doctrine, which may be drawn from a variety of sources; religion;
political policy; material interests; cultural conventions, etc.
Anyway, "in the name of the working class", all kinds of moral
contraband is smuggled into the doctrine, which mutates as a result,
sometimes changing beyond recognition, and justifying mass
slaughter... until, perhaps, the "m" drops out of "moral". Which
really raises the question, under what conditions could a better
morality emerge?
Jurriaan
I go down to speaker's corner I'm thunderstruck
They got free speech, tourists, police in trucks
Two men say they're jesus one of them must be wrong
There's a protest singer singing a protest song - he says
'they wanna have a war to keep us on our knees
They wanna have a war to keep their factories
They wanna have a war to stop us buying japanese
They wanna have a war to stop industrial disease
They're pointing out the enemy to keep you deaf and blind
They wanna sap your energy incarcerate your mind
They give you rule brittania, gassy beer, page three
Two weeks in espana and sunday striptease'
Meanwhile the first jesus says 'I'd cure it soon;
Abolish monday mornings and friday afternoons'
The other one's on a hunger strike he's dying by degrees
How come jesus gets industrial disease?