Anti-Fascist
16th November 2003, 22:18
1. I define progression as expanding and improving the means of
production, augmenting the chances of survival of Mankind, improving
scientific and philosophical knowledge, and making Mankind freer.
2. I believe that each of these definitions, in the end, comes to the same
thing. For, on the one hand, the expansion of the means of production has
progressively made Man freer: it has taken Man from slave society, made
Him freer in the form of feudalism, freer still in the form of capitalism, and
soon freer yet in the form of Socialism. And each of these types of
progression is conducive to every other type of progression. For instance,
improving scientific knowledge can improve the means of production,
which can augment the chances of survival of mankind and make Man's
life easier, i.e. freer, which in turn improves scientific knowledge by
giving Man more opportunity to think and reason.
3. Progression is therefore only a means - a means to an end, the
End.
The goal of progression - maximum scientific & philosophical knowledge,
maximum freedom, survival, etc - I call the End. The End is the end of
progression, perhaps even of History, when all possible desirables are
achieved: when every datum of possible knowledge is taken in to Man's
collective consciousness, when Man is free as possible, when technology is
as splendid as possible, when the means of production are maximally
efficient to such a superb degree as to be superfluous: this I call the End.
It is not just an end, but the End. It is that towards which
written written History has been progressively moving.
5. I submit that the End, not anything else, is the Good and nothing else is
the Good. Progression is a means - the only means - by which to realise
the End.
6. Therefore:
In proportion as an act or idea has a tendency to abate the probability of
achieving the End, in that proportion it is to be deemed immoral.
On the other hand, in proportion as an act or idea has a tendency to
augment the probability of achieving the End, in that proportion it is to be
deemed moral.
Stated in more concrete, but less precise, phraseology, everything
progressive is good, and everything reactionary is bad. Socialism is good,
capitalism is bad. Science and philosophy are good, religion and
superstition are bad. Thus anti-scientce is immoral. Opposing the rise of
civilisation is immoral. Maintaining the status quo is an act immoral.
Counter-revolution is an act immoral. Fighting against Socialism and
Communism is immoral. Destroying democracy is immoral. Wage-slavery
is immoral. And so forth. In a word, anything contrary to the types of
progression mentioned hereinabove (see 1) is immoral.
7. Many other interesting things follow if we regard the End - progression -
as the only Good. For instance, many actions which we would normally
consider as immoral would now become trivial and non-moral. For if an
action does not interfere with progression, we do not oppose it; nor
do we approve of it. For instance, how does eating dogs interfere with
progression? It does not, and therefore we do not think it immoral (or
moral); we have nothing to say of it. Or how does cannibalism interfere
with progression? It does not, and therefore we have nothing to say of it;
it is neither good nor bad.
8. On the other hand, many things will suddenly become moral and
praiseworthy. For instance, to the extent that human breeding augments
the chances of survival of mankind, to that same extent it would be
regarded as moral (if it does the contrary, it were immoral). Improving the
gene pool by exterminating the mentally deficient thus becomes moral
because the mentally deficient are inferior insofar as they do not have a
tendency to progress mankind. In proportion as exterminating "people"
with genetic diseases increases the chances of survival of mankind, in that
proportion we regard it is moral (in proportion as it does the
contrary, it were immoral).
This all follows, logically and irrefutably, if this single claim is regarded as
true: progression is good, and is the only good.
I regard that as a true statement, even axiomatical.
production, augmenting the chances of survival of Mankind, improving
scientific and philosophical knowledge, and making Mankind freer.
2. I believe that each of these definitions, in the end, comes to the same
thing. For, on the one hand, the expansion of the means of production has
progressively made Man freer: it has taken Man from slave society, made
Him freer in the form of feudalism, freer still in the form of capitalism, and
soon freer yet in the form of Socialism. And each of these types of
progression is conducive to every other type of progression. For instance,
improving scientific knowledge can improve the means of production,
which can augment the chances of survival of mankind and make Man's
life easier, i.e. freer, which in turn improves scientific knowledge by
giving Man more opportunity to think and reason.
3. Progression is therefore only a means - a means to an end, the
End.
The goal of progression - maximum scientific & philosophical knowledge,
maximum freedom, survival, etc - I call the End. The End is the end of
progression, perhaps even of History, when all possible desirables are
achieved: when every datum of possible knowledge is taken in to Man's
collective consciousness, when Man is free as possible, when technology is
as splendid as possible, when the means of production are maximally
efficient to such a superb degree as to be superfluous: this I call the End.
It is not just an end, but the End. It is that towards which
written written History has been progressively moving.
5. I submit that the End, not anything else, is the Good and nothing else is
the Good. Progression is a means - the only means - by which to realise
the End.
6. Therefore:
In proportion as an act or idea has a tendency to abate the probability of
achieving the End, in that proportion it is to be deemed immoral.
On the other hand, in proportion as an act or idea has a tendency to
augment the probability of achieving the End, in that proportion it is to be
deemed moral.
Stated in more concrete, but less precise, phraseology, everything
progressive is good, and everything reactionary is bad. Socialism is good,
capitalism is bad. Science and philosophy are good, religion and
superstition are bad. Thus anti-scientce is immoral. Opposing the rise of
civilisation is immoral. Maintaining the status quo is an act immoral.
Counter-revolution is an act immoral. Fighting against Socialism and
Communism is immoral. Destroying democracy is immoral. Wage-slavery
is immoral. And so forth. In a word, anything contrary to the types of
progression mentioned hereinabove (see 1) is immoral.
7. Many other interesting things follow if we regard the End - progression -
as the only Good. For instance, many actions which we would normally
consider as immoral would now become trivial and non-moral. For if an
action does not interfere with progression, we do not oppose it; nor
do we approve of it. For instance, how does eating dogs interfere with
progression? It does not, and therefore we do not think it immoral (or
moral); we have nothing to say of it. Or how does cannibalism interfere
with progression? It does not, and therefore we have nothing to say of it;
it is neither good nor bad.
8. On the other hand, many things will suddenly become moral and
praiseworthy. For instance, to the extent that human breeding augments
the chances of survival of mankind, to that same extent it would be
regarded as moral (if it does the contrary, it were immoral). Improving the
gene pool by exterminating the mentally deficient thus becomes moral
because the mentally deficient are inferior insofar as they do not have a
tendency to progress mankind. In proportion as exterminating "people"
with genetic diseases increases the chances of survival of mankind, in that
proportion we regard it is moral (in proportion as it does the
contrary, it were immoral).
This all follows, logically and irrefutably, if this single claim is regarded as
true: progression is good, and is the only good.
I regard that as a true statement, even axiomatical.