What do you think of westernization?

[waqob]

Is it good or bad?

[Comrade Chernov]

It's bad. It whitewashes and eliminates culture.

[Comrade Jacob]

Oh, I love it! We should go on more occupations in the East it makes me so happy!



(I think we all agree that it's inherently shit).

[motion denied]

Could you elaborate?

[Stalinist Speaker]

burn it before it spreads!

[Red_Banner]

"East, West, just points of the compass, each as stupid as the other."-Dr.No

[hatzel]

What is it?

[Rafiq]

It's bad. It whitewashes and eliminates culture.

What exactly is it about culture that is worth preserving? Culture that almost always reflects social relations worse than capitalism. Westernization is something all communists should support. It creates a basis from which Marxism can develop.

Name me a non western nation in which a communist party was in power that did not strive towards westernization.

[Remus Bleys]

What exactly is it about culture that is worth preserving? Culture that almost always reflects social relations worse than capitalism. Westernization is something all communists should support. It creates a basis from which Marxism can develop.

Name me a non western nation in which a communist party was in power that did not strive towards westernization.

Would this include assimilation of immigrants, or support for imperialism?
Not that I disagree with your main idea, its just you leave this a little well, unspoken.

Westernization is a misnomer - the diffents in ideas of east and west values are irrelevant at best. No communist should support "westernization" as it is a false term, and a capitalist one. Communist, however, should not shy away from imposing culture on people. Is it authoritarian to prevent female circumscion? Does this not destroy part of that culture? The answer is yes. We should frankly admit we want to radically change the world, smash all current existing cultures, and replace it with something better.

[adipocere]

Communist, however, should not shy away from imposing culture on people. Is it authoritarian to prevent female circumscion? Does this not destroy part of that culture? The answer is yes. We should frankly admit we want to radically change the world, smash all current existing cultures, and replace it with something better.

I'm not sure female circumcision would need to be "smashed" as eliminating private property would eliminate the treatment of women as property and the custom would no longer be relevant and die out on it's own.

[Remus Bleys]

I'm not sure female circumcision would need to be "smashed" as eliminating private property would eliminate the treatment of women as property and the custom would no longer be relevant and die out on it's own.

Ooh, well just wait for the superstructure to change on its own with no external help. "Don't worry girls, under communism, you'll still have your clitoris, in the meantime, let's just wait for the proletarian dictatorship to transform society in a process that will take years."
Let's say your right, does that mean communists should not actively combat sexism?

[The Intransigent Faction]

What exactly is it about culture that is worth preserving? Culture that almost always reflects social relations worse than capitalism. Westernization is something all communists should support. It creates a basis from which Marxism can develop.

Name me a non western nation in which a communist party was in power that did not strive towards westernization.

Someone restrict this guy!

Seriously, though, this is kind of colonialist logic. "Westernization" does not erase class structures in other societies. What it does do is further exploit and exacerbate inequalities while reinforcing a stereotyped "inoffensive" version of other cultures that can be packaged and sold off to Western consumers.

Sure, industrialization is essential, as is interaction with the rest of the world. That does not support multinational corporations or other groups in non-Western countries imposing a consumerist value system in place of respect for nature (even if a respect based on what one might see as misguided spiritualism), or Western clothing in place of other traditional clothes. There are patriarchal and otherwise oppressive aspects of other cultures, but that should never be used as a thinly veiled justification for imposing European or North American commercialism and culture which is patriarchal and class-driven in its own right. There are positive aspects of other cultures which are marginalized or ignored because it doesn't suit the agenda of the ruling class, and there are parts that do which are played up as stereotypes.

I realize that you're suggesting it as a means, not an end, but Westernization is more than industrialization. It is the imposition of a globally hegemonic culture centred in the West. Despite what may have been written about "battering down Chinese walls", so to speak, the idea that especially under current conditions this is somehow the only path to progress away from patriarchy and class structure is mistaken. In fact quite
the opposite is probably true given how the West relies on perpetual 'underdevelopment' of other economies.

Whatever negative aspects there were/are in other cultures, Western European or American-imposed "progress", in the sense we mean when talking about Westernization, is not the answer. Economic advancement through greater industrialization and other programs, definitely (for all its problems, Venezuela is just one example of how progress can be made by advancing things as basic as literacy and health care), but that can happen without sacrificing the variety of cultural experiences.

Apologies for the preaching, but you get the idea. I shudder to think that progress towards socialism/communism means necessarily progress toward some uniform global culture where all the different forms of cultural dress, art, music, and even to some extent spirituality and philosophy are flushed away. That's probably not what you were going for, but it's just what comes to mind for me based on much of what I've read on "Westernization".

[The Intransigent Faction]

Ooh, well just wait for the superstructure to change on its own with no external help. "Don't worry girls, under communism, you'll still have your clitoris, in the meantime, let's just wait for the proletarian dictatorship to transform society in a process that will take years."
Let's say your right, does that mean communists should not actively combat sexism?

I don't think adipocere's point was that we should wait around or shouldn't actively combat sexism. It's that we should combat sexism by actively combatting the effects of capitalism on women's position in society.

The superstructure won't "change on its own", which is precisely why attempts to move completely beyond racism and sexism within the framework of capitalist society have failed (despite positive reforms in the West through and since the civil rights era).

[Flying Purple People Eater]

What exactly is it about culture that is worth preserving? Culture that almost always reflects social relations worse than capitalism.

This is quite possibly the generalisation that rules all generalisations.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

it's bad. It whitewashes and eliminates culture.

Reactionary! :thumbdown:

Personally, I believe people should be able to imitate or don any culture they please.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Some of my favourite anti-colonial revolts were heavily "western".
Dunno why westernism is here equated with purely consumerism and patriarchy

[Einkarl]

Westernization is a meaningless word stemmed from a right wing "us vs them" mentality


Reactionary! :thumbdown:

Personally, I believe people should be able to imitate or don any culture they please.

Man, that word is thrown around so easily.

[Agathor]

I'm not sure female circumcision would need to be "smashed" as eliminating private property would eliminate the treatment of women as property and the custom would no longer be relevant and die out on it's own.

Oh my god, the naivete..

So you think misogyny arrived with modern property relations?

[hatzel]

reinforcing a stereotyped "inoffensive" version of other cultures that can be packaged and sold off to Western consumers


in place of respect for nature (even if a respect based on what one might see as misguided spiritualism), or Western clothing in place of other traditional clothes.

Oh you're literally the cutest person in this thread :wub:

I really like how you hate on 'westernisation' (still nobody's replied to my post asking what this word is even supposed to mean, so I guess it remains quasi-mythical...) for 'reinforcing a stereotyped "inoffensive" version of other cultures that can be packaged and sold off to Western consumers' and then you go on talking like a cross between some colonialist's stereotype-laden account of the 'noble savage' (or why else are you suggesting those in 'non-western countries' historically have more to do with a spiritualistic respect for nature than their 'western' counterparts when the archaeological and anthropological records have exposed this as an absolute falsehood?) and the New Age section of a Barnes & Noble, and then like one of those wealthy tourists who goes to Africa or somewhere and complains that people are wearing t-shirts because 'I DIDN'T SPEND ALL THIS MONEY TO COME ALL THE WAY OVER HERE TO SEE PEOPLE NOT EVEN WEARING EXOTIC COSTUMES FOR ME GAAAAAWWWDDD!!!'

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

SI shudder to think that progress towards socialism/communism means necessarily progress toward some uniform global culture where all the different forms of cultural dress, art, music, and even to some extent spirituality and philosophy are flushed away. That's probably not what you were going for, but it's just what comes to mind for me based on much of what I've read on "Westernization".

Too bad for you, cultural relativist, that's exactly what it ought to be; though westernisation would be a misnomner since the new world culture will not be born from the west but from the ruins of all culture the revolution shatters like the glass of a million abandoned corporate skyscrapers, where all art and language will be fused into a singular twisting new form unthinkable for us now except as a vague thing to aspire to.

[Slavic]

The term "westernization" still needs to be defined in this thread. It has too broad of a meaning and can be interpreted in so many different contexts that it is irrelevant to debate the merit of it.

[Rafiq]

The very basis from which you claim to be against westernization derives from a completely western form of logic. It's western thought that gave us Marxism, that gave us Communism (don't talk to me of some primitive tribe somewhere in south Asia or along the amazon, that is not Communism). Western culture is superior because the "west" attained a more advanced and more socially complex mode of production. It is only from the basis of "Western culture", Communist universalism that other cultures can be appreciated by properly appropriating them, and depriving them of their fundamentally reactionary nature. Every successful anti colonial movement did away with their old cultural norms and were westernized, as a matter of fact, it was the cultural conservatives who the colonialists supported, from the Muslim world to China. Most of the well known anti colonial figures were educated in western universities and upon conceptualizing western concepts, only then formed their anti colonial views.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Oh you're literally the cutest person in this thread :wub:

I really like how you hate on 'westernisation' (still nobody's replied to my post asking what this word is even supposed to mean, so I guess it remains quasi-mythical...)

Nah, I was pretty clear on what I thought it meant. Feel free to give another definition of what you think it is.


for 'reinforcing a stereotyped "inoffensive" version of other cultures that can be packaged and sold off to Western consumers' and then you go on talking like a cross between some colonialist's stereotype-laden account of the 'noble savage' (or why else are you suggesting those in 'non-western countries' historically have more to do with a spiritualistic respect for nature than their 'western' counterparts when the archaeological and anthropological records have exposed this as an absolute falsehood?)

Have they? There's a reason natives play such a huge role in environmentalist activism.


and the New Age section of a Barnes & Noble, and then like one of those wealthy tourists who goes to Africa or somewhere and complains that people are wearing t-shirts because 'I DIDN'T SPEND ALL THIS MONEY TO COME ALL THE WAY OVER HERE TO SEE PEOPLE NOT EVEN WEARING EXOTIC COSTUMES FOR ME GAAAAAWWWDDD!!!'

"Exotic costumes"? No. Your characterization of anything but t-shirts as such says a lot, though. You can use straw-man arguments all you want but I never suggested there's any problem with people choosing to wear t-shirts if they want to. The idea that it's some mark of refusal to 'evolve' culturally if someone chooses to wear a hijab, for instance, is a colonial sort of thinking, yeah.

[Anti-Traditional]

The very basis from which you claim to be against westernization derives from a completely western form of logic. It's western thought that gave us Marxism, that gave us Communism (don't talk to me of some primitive tribe somewhere in south Asia or along the amazon, that is not Communism). Western culture is superior because the "west" attained a more advanced and more socially complex mode of production. It is only from the basis of "Western culture", Communist universalism that other cultures can be appreciated by properly appropriating them, and depriving them of their fundamentally reactionary nature. Every successful anti colonial movement did away with their old cultural norms and were westernized, as a matter of fact, it was the cultural conservatives who the colonialists supported, from the Muslim world to China. Most of the well known anti colonial figures were educated in western universities and upon conceptualizing western concepts, only then formed their anti colonial views.

That was then, this is now. Marxism arose in 'the west' because there was a material basis for it, namely Capitalism, which did not exist at the time in 'the East'. Capitalism exists all over the world now, so it makes no sense to argue 'Western culture' is any more progressive than 'Eastern culture'. It wasn't from the basis of 'Western culture' that Marxism arose. It was Capitalism, which isn't inherently western or eastern.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Too bad for you, cultural relativist, that's exactly what it ought to be; though westernisation would be a misnomner since the new world culture will not be born from the west but from the ruins of all culture the revolution shatters like the glass of a million abandoned corporate skyscrapers, where all art and language will be fused into a singular twisting new form unthinkable for us now except as a vague thing to aspire to.

I'm not against a new form of culture, but I am sure as hell against treating current Western culture as the ideal norm against which we should measure the value of all 'other' cultures and trying to therefore impose it on others.

[o well this is ok I guess]

That was then, this is now. Marxism arose in 'the west' because there was a material basis for it, namely Capitalism, which did not exist at the time in 'the East'. Capitalism exists all over the world now, so it makes no sense to argue 'Western culture' is any more progressive than 'Eastern culture'. It wasn't from the basis of 'Western culture' that Marxism arose. It was Capitalism, which isn't inherently western or eastern. So it doesn't make a difference that the classical theorists of socialism and communism were themselves western intellectuals, puzzling over problems in western philosophy and science? That their earlier musings on what sort of hegelians they ought to be didn't affect their social writings one iota?

[The Intransigent Faction]

That was then, this is now. Marxism arose in 'the west' because there was a material basis for it, namely Capitalism, which did not exist at the time in 'the East'. Capitalism exists all over the world now, so it makes no sense to argue 'Western culture' is any more progressive than 'Eastern culture'. It wasn't from the basis of 'Western culture' that Marxism arose. It was Capitalism, which isn't inherently western or eastern.

This. Thank you! This is all I've been trying to say.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's western thought that gave us Marxism,

That is true, though Western thought also gave us globalized Imperialism, and it's not like Marxism can only be understood to a thoroughly Western person. I don't think one's cultural heritage is so static, and IMO most "Western" and "Eastern" thought has gone through 2000 years of osmosis and is in fact harder to distinguish than people who fetishize either one would admit.


that gave us Communism (don't talk to me of some primitive tribe somewhere in south Asia or along the amazon, that is not Communism). Why is that not Communism? They operate with communal property relations. No it is not industrial communism, but it is still "communism" strictly speaking.


Western culture is superior because the "west" attained a more advanced and more socially complex mode of production.Talk of "superiority" is a moral value judgement, not an objective description of matters at hand, nor is industrialization something exclusively "western" any more than the printing press was exclusively "eastern"


It is only from the basis of "Western culture", Communist universalism that other cultures can be appreciated by properly appropriating them, and depriving them of their fundamentally reactionary nature.Why is Western culture the necessary point of departure? Why can't a Vietnamese person appropriate from Western culture what they need? Anyhow there are reactionary elements in all cultures, including Western culture.


Every successful anti colonial movement did away with their old cultural norms and were westernized, as a matter of fact, it was the cultural conservatives who the colonialists supported, from the Muslim world to China. Most of the well known anti colonial figures were educated in western universities and upon conceptualizing western concepts, only then formed their anti colonial views.What of the EZLN (which is an indigenous movement that appropriated Marxism and anarchist ideas, as opposed to an anarchist or marxist movement that appropriated indigenous ideas)? Or the Voodoo priests who fought slavery and French rule in Haiti? Or the American Indian tribes who organized to resist manifest destiny? As far as native Americans were concerned it was actually the most Westernized ones like the Cherokee who relied the most heavily on reactionary institutions like slavery and landed property.

You're right that we shouldn't drop modern industrialism in favor of some hippy live of the land nonsense, and we shouldn't exchange what's good from Western heritage for what's bad from non-western heritage, but I think the conclusions you draw from that are too extreme.


So it doesn't make a difference that the classical theorists of socialism and communism were themselves western intellectuals, puzzling over problems in western philosophy and science? That their earlier musings on what sort of hegelians they ought to be didn't affect their social writings one iota?

It does make a difference, but IMO it's not like Hegel wasn't influenced by ideas that weren't "Western", though he himself may not have openly admitted it. The history of "Western philosophy" is not sealed from outside influence and never has been, despite what the Eurocentrists would want us to believe.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

don't talk to me of some primitive tribe somewhere in south Asia or along the amazon, that is not Communist.

Why not? Because you choose not to believe it?

[o well this is ok I guess]

It does make a difference, but IMO it's not like Hegel wasn't influenced by ideas that weren't "Western", though he himself may not have openly admitted it. The history of "Western philosophy" is not sealed from outside influence and never has been, despite what the Eurocentrists would want us to believe. I have not said that western philosophy had been entirely closed to eastern influence. But are you supposing that eastern influence in it is so pronounced so as to declare the two evenly mixed?

I mean, I don't think of the east west divide to be particularly meaningful. But nonetheless, you're not likely to study even Huxley in a north american university, let alone proper eastern classics, unless you take one of the token classes on the subject. So there is still a means by which a barrier is erected between the two.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I have not said that western philosophy had been entirely closed to eastern influence. But are you supposing that eastern influence in it is so pronounced so as to declare the two evenly mixed?


I don't think that they're evenly mixed, but I think there's always been a dialogue. After all, without Avicenna and a bunch of other Persians and Moors we wouldn't have known much of the works of Aristotle, and after Hegel died, forms of Indian and Chinese philosophy had a huge influence on German philosophy, particularly through Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.



I mean, I don't think of the east west divide to be particularly meaningful. But nonetheless, you're not likely to study even Huxley in a north american university, let alone proper eastern classics, unless you take one of the token classes on the subject. So there is still a means by which a barrier is erected between the two.Yes there is still an institutional barrier between "east" and "west" but I think its something which can and will be be attacked by more radical thinkers from both sides of the barrier.

[leukotripsy]

I think it's just more of the white man's expansionist supremacy. It's white world domination repackaged as a new 'culture'.