Assimilation of seperate groups

[Delirium]

This post by fernando in the Will races exist? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46064&hl=) thread, rasies a good question.


There is a more interesting question, how would communism deal with cultures and societies who are not capitalistic but also not following their doctrines? If a country was fully communistic and there would be some indiginous population...would they be forced to become communists? I guess communism will employ something similar to what most European ideas and people did in the past, sort of "enlightening the savages" in some sort of white man's burden like idea. At least those were the sentiments many rural indians in Peru felt when the Sendero Luminoso tried to shove their maoist ideas down their troats.


I think that if a people want to be seperate from communism, they should be allowed to especially in the case of indigenous cultures.

But at the same time, what if thier society is oppressive in some ways? It is not right to force them to assimilate, but at the same time it's not right to allow the oppression of people.

Say some anarcho-capitalists create a commune (or whatever an association of anarcho-capitalists is called ), should this be allowed? If it is how would they interact with the rest of the world?, would they be allowed to trade? etc...

[loveme4whoiam]

This is a very good question. I've studied a far bit on the "white man's burden" and that whole sordid era of European Imperialism, and I'm left wondering what good has come of it? Are the people of Africa better off after having their country carved up by a committee of old men thousands of miles away? We taught them the value of corruption, and not much else.

However, is this an argument against teaching these peoples the way of Communism? In my opinion, I don't know. In the revolution we will abolish the hateful practices of all religions which oppress people, so why should we not do the same to indiginous natives? But can it be said that we have the right to interfere with the running of their lives. Some will say yes, some will say no, I say I haven't got a clue. We are presuming to do so with the rest of the world, but that is through their own will rather than us forcing Communism on them.

[Jadan ja]

I think that if a people want to be seperate from communism, they should be allowed to especially in the case of indigenous cultures.

But at the same time, what if thier society is oppressive in some ways? It is not right to force them to assimilate, but at the same time it's not right to allow the oppression of people.

Why would someone give-up freedoms and rights that socialist/communist society offers (unless the ruling class is forcing you to live witout those freedoms)? The oppressed classes in those societies would certainly wish to liberate themselves. Communists should help them.


Say some anarcho-capitalists create a commune (or whatever an association of anarcho-capitalists is called ), should this be allowed? If it is how would they interact with the rest of the world?, would they be allowed to trade? etc...

This is a very strange question.

Again, why would people simply give up freedoms and rights they have in a socialist/communist society and decide that they want to be exploited? No one today wants to live in feudalism or slavery and no one is creating communes where there is a rule that the person who is strongest is a slaveowner and is able to force everyone else to do whatever the slaveowner wants. Capitalism, in order to be capitalism, needs a ruling class and oppressed, working class. Why would someone choose to live as an exploited worker in such a commune when he can live in society where he is much more respected? Is participation in such "anarcho"-capitalist commune voluntary? Are they free to leave and live in communist society if they want? Do people come in their commune and in some way decide who will be worker and who will be a capitalist? Why would someone who becomes a worker dicide to stay there?

[anomaly]

I'll respond, Datura inoxia, to your small paragraphs in order, for simplicity:

It is rather improbable that 'indigenous cultures' will exist in any meaningful sense when communism comes about. Communism will come after capitalism has encompassed the world, as it is already close to doing. I strongly suspect that any 'indigenous strongholds' will soon be overtaken by creeping industrialization. Capitalists need a larger and larger market, so it is only logical that such indigenous places will be so overtaken. Therefore, I do not think this will be much of an issue.

First, there will not exist any indigenous societies, in all liklihood. Second, why would these newly formed proletarians not want to 'assimilate' into communist society? Their choice will be simple: communism or capitalism. If they choose the latter while the rest of the proletariat chooses the former (which would be very shocking as there is no logical reason this should happen), they will be killed. In a revolution, if you do not support the revolution, you are hunted down and killed. It is no pretty thing.

If anarcho-capitalists create their own territory with the old capitalist establishment, they should be killed. Counterrevolutionaries cannot be tolerated, especially since such organized ones could have a very real economic consequence upon neighboring communes. Immediately after the revolution, any surviving bourgeoisie or bourgeois sympathyzers should be hunted down and destroyed. If bourgeois sympathyzers emerge from within the communist society (which I think is very unlikely to happen...I mean how many feudal sympathyzers do we see today?), the decision of what to do with them will ultimately be up to that commune, but I'd suggest they be exiled.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 10 2006, 05:37 PM
I think that if a people want to be seperate from communism, they should be allowed to especially in the case of indigenous cultures.
I think if the indigenous culture is sexist, racist, or patriarchal, as almost all are, then it should be obliterated.

I mean, our intentions aren't to destroy their 1000 year old cultures to make a profit, or conquer land/resouces, but to liberate people incarcerated in their unfair society. Which I think, teleologicaly speaking, is justified.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

No one should be "forcefully" liberated. People should decide themselves what consists of liberation, and whether or not they wanna be liberated. Only then will the world arrive at communism, otherwise if force is used, it is still a hierarchical society. Rationality rules, and eventually mankind would assimilate all of itself into one group of individuals, and the positive aspects of the world's cultures will be integrated into the new society, while the negative and reactionary aspects will be destroyed.

[Jadan ja]

If anarcho-capitalists create their own territory with the old capitalist establishment, they should be killed. Counterrevolutionaries cannot be tolerated, especially since such organized ones could have a very real economic consequence upon neighboring communes. Immediately after the revolution, any surviving bourgeoisie or bourgeois sympathyzers should be hunted down and destroyed. If bourgeois sympathyzers emerge from within the communist society (which I think is very unlikely to happen...I mean how many feudal sympathyzers do we see today?), the decision of what to do with them will ultimately be up to that commune, but I'd suggest they be exiled.

Didn't my post show that it is impossible for "anarcho"-capitalists to do that?

For capitalism to be capitalism, there must be workers, right (if everyone is a capitalist there will be no production of anything and capitalists would after certain amout of time starve to death)? How would "anarcho"-capitalists make workers to live on their territory if workers can simply move to liberated territory? Only if they force them to stay there (that would mean they are using police and using police would mean they are not "anarcho", but that is a completely different discussion).

If the bourgeois sympathyzers emerge from within the communist society, they would be completely unable to do anything (just like if today someone wants to be a slaveowner, it forever remains an his fantasy). As I already explained, they cannot be capitlists unless they find a way to exploit the worker (and if someone cannot be a slaveowner unless there is a slave he exploits). How would they force someone to become their worker? Therefore, the situation of "bourgeois sympathyzers emerging form somewhere" is not dangerous at all (at least in later stages of development of communist society, in first stages of socialism there might be danger of reactionaries).

[anomaly]

I agree with you that it is quite unlikely, maybe even impossible as you suggest. But, if it were to happen, that cappies somehow create a little 'capitalist land', I stand by what I said.

[Seong]

I don't think they should be forcefully liberated. But maybe we could put the cappies in glass tanks and observe their behaviour. :P Kidding.

But seriously, there are alot of people out there who really, really don't want to be 'liberated.' If this is the case I don't think they should be made to. Not only would it alienate them from Communism but also, they won't actually understand or believe unless they can come to this conclusion independently. I believe the remaining bourgeoisie should be exiled from communist society, assuming we have the majority, simply because our ideas cannot co-exist.

[anomaly]

Who wouldn't want to be liberated?

[Jadan ja]

don't think they should be forcefully liberated. But maybe we could put the cappies in glass tanks and observe their behaviour. Kidding.

But seriously, there are alot of people out there who really, really don't want to be 'liberated.' If this is the case I don't think they should be made to. Not only would it alienate them from Communism but also, they won't actually understand or believe unless they can come to this conclusion independently.

I don't understand your post at all. What is "forceful liberation"? How can people "not want to be liberated"? What are you really talking about?

A good thing to do would be helping people to liberate themselves. If indigenous culture is sexist, racist, or patriarchal, as Additives Free says, the oppressed class or group should be helped in their liberation. If they oppose liberation, they obviously don't understand what liberation is. If they are explained that other way of life is possible, they would decide to free themselves from oppression and they should be helped in liberation.

Same problem as religion: you cannot force anyone to stop believing, you can only help them liberate themselves from religion (by explaining them that a fat priest does not need a percentage of their income).


I believe the remaining bourgeoisie should be exiled from communist society, assuming we have the majority, simply because our ideas cannot co-exist.

Exiled? Where? If whole world is socialst or communist, where would they be exiled? Would you send them somewhere where they would start their "anarcho"-"capitalist" "commune"?

I agree that they, combined with church and similar institutions, might be dangerous and a problem, but I don't think that exile is an option if revolution spreads around the world.

[Seong]

All of this is based upon the assumption that the entire world will be Communist. I believe that after the revolution there will in all likelihood still be a minority of people who are opposed to Communism due to nostalgia, ignorance or whatever. We live in a Capitalist world now, but there are clearly some of us who are opposed to it.


If they oppose liberation, they obviously don't understand what liberation is. If they are explained that other way of life is possible, they would decide to free themselves from oppression and they should be helped in liberation.

Agreed, if they are opposed they won't understand what liberation is. But I think it was said in The Matrix that some people are so totally dependent upon the system that they will fight to protect it. I'm not arguing with Communist theory - I advocate it. All I'm suggesting is the possiblity that since humans aren't always rational and because we will also be fighting against generations of hegemonic discourse there will be some opposition left. People don't always respond to logic. What then will happen to those who just don't get it?

[Black Dagger]

I think if the indigenous culture is sexist, racist, or patriarchal, as almost all are, then it should be obliterated.

That's a disgusting, genocidal statement.

Do you not think that any fledgling communist world would still suffer from the effects of sexism, racism, patriarchy and so forth? Should we obliterate the communist world too?

If an Indigenous community exists outside of a communist community one would think that it would hardly be necessary to murder said people in cold-blood like neo-colonisers, the attractions of a communist society should draw people in.
Another idea, perhaps the communists could.... talk to the Indigenous people! :o You know, instead of just murdering them for being 'backward', perhaps the 'enlightened' communist communities might dialogue with the Indigenous people, to discuss these issues and attempt to resolve them?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:43 PM
No one should be "forcefully" liberated. People should decide themselves what consists of liberation, and whether or not they wanna be liberated.
And how much choice do the oppressed have? Do they have the freedom to stand up and cry for liberation. Many don't rebel because they don't think anyone would support them, many stay quiet until the conditions are right.

Not attacking a sexist/racist/capitalist/Feudal social order is as bad as defending it. By your logic, we should never attack class society, not even the one we live in unless people give us the all clear. I would see any tribal hierarchy as nothing more than an extension to the order we just destroyed, we must ferociously seek to obliterate every trace of class/capitalist society even if some of the oppressed are quite happy.


Only then will the world arrive at communism, otherwise if force is used, it is still a hierarchical society.

No, it's not. Any war against an oppressing order or elite will be seen as a continuation of the Class War.


Rationality rules, and eventually mankind would assimilate all of itself into one group of individuals, and the positive aspects of the world's cultures will be integrated into the new society, while the negative and reactionary aspects will be destroyed.

Then there's no point in us doing anything. Close the website, quit your organisations and support capitalist industry because guess what? Rationality rules!

[Body Count]

I think that ostracization will be an amazing weapon for communist socieites.

Under communism, I'm guessing that many "communes" will be cooperating with each other, exchanging goods, ideas, and scientific discoveries....I basically see a world community.

If there is a place that doesn't want to play ball....then they simply will not be able to take part in communistic life.

Look at it this way.....under current technology, every place on earth needs oil. What if Texas, Venezuela, the Middle East, Alaska, and everywhere else on earth that has oil elevated to communism. Now....there is some place out in...I dunno, the pacific Islands that has not elevated to communism. Will we need to "invade" or "enforce" them? Most likely not.....they will probably come to their senses and jump on the bandwagon. I mean, it'll either be "Keep your stratisfied societies and live in the stone age or come to the red side".

EDIT : For the record, I really couldn't see anything like this happening. I highly doubt that some places on earth would be communism while others capitalism or something different. I actually agree with additives, if there is a place that is still stratisfied...we need to liberate that said place.

Who cares if its "like colonialism"...I've never understood this argument against communist doing anything similar to capitalist. They are fighting to force Christianity and decadent values on people.....we are fighting to liberate people and show them a better society. I don't care if the means seem to be similar...I'm worried about the intent, the ends.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 10 2006, 05:37 PM


There is a more interesting question, how would communism deal with cultures and societies who are not capitalistic but also not following their doctrines? If a country was fully communistic and there would be some indiginous population...would they be forced to become communists? I guess communism will employ something similar to what most European ideas and people did in the past, sort of "enlightening the savages" in some sort of white man's burden like idea. At least those were the sentiments many rural indians in Peru felt when the Sendero Luminoso tried to shove their maoist ideas down their troats.


I think that if a people want to be seperate from communism, they should be allowed to especially in the case of indigenous cultures.


I repeatedly have mentioned (as I believe) the correct decision of this question. It is probably only through the organization of the multistructure economy including communistic and capitalist sectors of economy simultaneously. The capitalist sector should comprise State-capitalist and private-capitalist sectors of economy. In this case, firstly, the dictatorship of proletariat is necessary to have situation in control to prevent transition the power into the hands of bourgeois and, secondly, the proletarian (class) parliament is necessary as an political instrument of the proletariat to have the power democratically but not violently only.

Model of such kind of economy is shown on the website http://asmoko.narod.ru/

Unfortunately in russian language only.
Learn russian language :lol: :lol:

[Black Dagger]

Additives Free, please address my post.

[redstar2000]

I do think that "the whole world" will eventually be communist...but I also think that the process could take as much as four or five centuries to be "completed".

When all of the "major economic centers" of the world have become communist, there may well still be "outlying areas" that retain capitalism or even pre-capitalist modes of living.

While they could be easily "conquered" and communism imposed on them at gunpoint, that may not be a very good idea.

It would be better just to offer the kids in those societies an advanced education...and not permit their parents to stop the kids from accepting our offer.

Over a generation or two at most, the people who strongly believe in "the old ways" will have died off...and the new generations will be communists.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 02:02 PM
I do think that "the whole world" will eventually be communist...but I also think that the process could take as much as four or five centuries to be "completed".

"... the process ..." heheh ... this is the most important and interesting question