ion which they are both good at regardless of whether one is a humanist and the other a scientist! If socialists do not make explicit broad, universalistic socialist principles then there is no way of evaluating how political action is either overthrowing repressive, unjust social practices, or reproducing these pre-capitalist and bourgeois relations despite the overthrow of private property. What is the point of analyzing the structures of different modes of production if one cannot see whether the social practices of these various pre-capitalist modes of production are compatible or incompatible with nonexploitative social relations. How can we pretend to be scientific and not evaluate the moral legitimacy of slavery or piece work? The value free moral relativism of structural analyses of modes of production is not only bad science but also bad political practice. For without a conception of historically specific struggles over moral development, we remain blind to the progressive achievements which capitalist states have implemented. Or are we to only see the bourgeois state in negative terms and ignore the protests of reactionary religious, political and economic forces who are desperately trying to limit state intervention against discriminatory social practices based on puritan bigotry, racist and sexist notions of superiority, plus dozens of other non-universalistic notions of human beings? For if one denies that socialism is a moral development over many This content downloaded from 157.55.39.255 on Mon, 01 Aug 2016 06:00:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms