Communism and postdevelopment theory

[Adi Shankara]

Does anyone have any opinions on it? do you think "modernization" is wrong? do you think that the way we measure poverty (i.e, anything less than the way a US or European middle class family would live) is wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdevelopment_Theory

[Adi Shankara]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future

I read Ted Kazcinsky's manifesto on modernization and "progress", and it's surprisingly very well thought out. While I don't agree with it's position on leftist politics, his analysis of "progress" and western society is pretty dead-on.

[Invincible Summer]

I think - from what I understood from the Wiki article - that this theory does have its merits due to the fact that it seems to be based on an anti-Eurocentrism premise.

However, I do not think modernization is inherently wrong. What is wrong about providing more efficient, generally better tools for doing things?

I do think there are problems with the measurement of poverty, as it seems to ignore the fact that wealth is relative. 1000 brands of cheese =/= better cheese.

[bailey_187]

It's anti-Marxist and fits right into Colonialism.

As Franz Fanon said:
“for centuries [the Western world has] stifled almost the whole of humanity in the name of a so-called spiritual experience.” (The Wretched of the Earth, p. 311)


The anti-development nonsense basicaly is saying:
"Silly brown people, dont try and rid yourself of poverty, you dont want to live like us materialisitic Europeans with our cars, 70+ year life span etc"


The real racism lies in anti-development. Rather than viewing the "third world" as backward economically as a result of imperialism, geographical luck etc and no fault of the actual people of the 'third world', anti-development views the people of the 'third world' as fundamentally different from Europeans.

All the great anti-Imperialist movements of the 20th century and anti-imperialists (e.g. Che, Fanon, Mao, Ho Chi Minh etc) were pro-development, they recognised that Imperialism was imposing upon them economic backwardness and poverty and they aimed to end that.

[pranabjyoti]

Scientific and technical progress in itself is NOTHING. It depends on which CLASS controls the scientific and technological development and using it for its own interest. So far, the way scientific and technological progress is defined and applied from bourgeoisie-imperialist viewpoint. From that viewpoint, technological progress means loss of jobs and cuts in wages for workers, destruction of forests and other natural resources. But, it can give totally different results, when it will be under control of the working class.
But, I also want to say that further scientific and technological progress is necessary for delivering more and more of its fruits to more and more part of the human kind. As for example, it's just imaginable and very very dangerous, if the world have same number gasoline powered cars per unit population as the US, UK and other industrialized countries. But, if the car is electricity driven, then the outcome wouldn't be that dangerous.