Are indigenous peoples an obstacle?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Indigenous Struggle in Ecuador Becomes a "Cause Beyond Control", by Kenny Bruno:

Force majeure -- literally "major force" but translated also as "cause beyond control" -- usually describes unforeseen natural catastrophes such as earthquakes or major upheavals such as wars, which can void the obligations of a legal contract.

But the Ecuadorian government now uses force majeure to describe legitimate community opposition to oil concessions on indigenous territory in the Amazon rainforest.

On March 4, 2003, the Ecuadorian newspaper Hoy reported that the Ministry of Environment has agreed to allow two transnational companies to cancel their oil concession contracts under the provision of force majeure. The force majeure they are referring to is the determined opposition of Kichwa, Shuar and Achuar people who live in the concession areas to ongoing activities by the companies, Burlington Resources of Texas and Compania General de Combustibles (CGC) of Argentina. The CGC concession is owned partly by ChevronTexaco, according to Platt's Oilgram News. (Oil giants Chevron and Texaco merged in 2000.)

This turn of events, in what has been furious struggle between indigenous communities and transnational oil companies, leaves the communities and their supporters wondering if they have won a major victory or are danger of in increasing repression.

On the surface, it would seem to be an inspiring victory for the indigenous people whose ancestral territories in the Amazon rainforest have become known as Block 23 (The CGC block) and Block 24 (the Burlington concession). Taken at face value, the decision frees the companies of any obligation to the Ecuadorian government to carry out oil activities in the areas. It means the determination of the communities -- who have officially decided to oppose oil development in their territories -- will be respected.

"We will say NO forever, we don't want to think about the possibility of oil in the future. We definitely want another kind of future," Achuar leader Santiago Kawarim was quoted as saying by the group Amazon Watch.

But there are reasons to be skeptical. Rene Ortiz, the president of the Association of Oil Companies in Ecuador, which includes both CGC and Burlington, has accused indigenous leaders of being "outlaws," according to Hoy. He says the problems in the two blocks are due to the absence of authorities in the remote rainforest. For his part, the Minister of Environment has responded by calling for police presence in the area.

These statements have human rights advocates in Ecuador concerned that the force majeure ruling is the beginning of campaign by the companies and their allies in government to force the indigenous communities to accept oil development in their territories against their will.

In a letter to Hoy, Jose Serrano, a lawyer with the Quito-based Center for Economic and Social Rights, points out that it is, in fact, the companies that have not complied with Ecuadorian law.

On November 15, 2002 the Civil Commission Against Corruption determined that Burlington had not filled the requirements of its concession contract. In addition, Burlington has violated an injunction against communicating with individual members of the Shuar federation, a practice that Shuar leaders say is meant to divide their people by offering special deals to some and not others. Serrano points out that CGC has also violated the terms of a federal injunction relating to its operations in block 23.

"Who are the real outlaws?" in these cases, he asks.

At stake are the basic rights of indigenous people of the Amazon. These communities have said "No" to oil development on their lands. Will their wishes be respected? Or will excuses be found for militarizing these communities in order to pave the way for oil companies to operate? human rights advocates wonder.

Oil impacted communities have seen such militarization many times before. ChevronTexaco, which controls 50% of Ecuador's block 23, has been accused before of complicity with military repression in the countries in which it operates. The oil giant is a defendant in a US lawsuit for its alleged role in requesting and facilitating intervention by the Nigerian military, which led to the deaths of two activists peacefully protesting against Chevron.

Meanwhile, Texaco's operations have led to massive contamination of the northern part of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Texaco is also a defendant in a class action lawsuit for that contamination and resulting impacts on the health and livelihood of some 30,000 Ecuadorian Indians and campesinos. Amazon Watch estimates that some 350 open toxic pools still remain in the backyards of many indigenous and forest communities. These pools are festering with cancer-causing chemicals including benzene, toluene, arsenic lead, mercury and cadmium, they say.

"This was an environmental crime of epic proportions that has created a black plague of cancer through the Amazon where ChevronTexaco drilled," said Luis Yanza, a community organizer for the Frente de Defensa de Amazonia, during a San Francisco Bay Area tour last December.

The situation in Blocks 23 and 24 can go in a number of directions. The companies might leave their concessions. The indigenous communities might welcome such a retreat, even they are unfairly blamed for the pull out. But this outcome would not suit the government, since it would mean the loss of revenues guaranteed by the concession contract. There is therefore a strong possibility that the force majeure ruling is a prelude to an effort divide and conquer the opposition to oil exploitation.

If police or military presence is increased in blocks 23 and 24, the question will be: are they there to protect the oil companies, or the Amazonian people? Will the rights of the communities -- including the right to say no to oil development -- be respected? Or will the need for oil to pay interest on a crushing external overshadow human rights?

For all the ambiguities and dangers in the current situation, the Ecuadorian government has shown innovation in using the force majeure provision to describe indigenous opposition to violations of their rights. Belatedly, they have officially recognized the movement in defense of indigenous rights as a "major force." They have recognized that the will of indigenous communities is "beyond the control" of the government and the oil companies.

What is not clear is whether this major force will be respected or attacked.

Capitalism has socialized the means of production. It has made production, through the widespread use of machinery, a collective process (it has also made innovation and design a collective process). In doing so it has freed us from the burden of having to make everything we use in our own homes. Socialism will likewise free collective production of the onwership and autocratic control of individuals. Captured in these lines is an entire historical process whereby the productive forces of society have developed to a point where individual production is supplanted by collectivized production. It signifies the breaking up of the home-based peasant economy, which is made up of millions of scattered and isolated families each carrying on their own production, and its replacement with the factory system, which unites those millions of laborers into concentrated production facilities. The old system is negated, or abolished. This appears to be happening in indigenous communities all around in the world, such as in Ecuador, where oil companies have poisoned rivers and lakes, and have constructed highway belts and bridges on their land, all at the expense of exchanging the tribal mode of production for capitalist production. As a result, the natives have torn up roads, blew up bridges, and other forms of infastructure. The Naxals have also responded to modernization by blowing up electric outlets; this action has left hospitals without electricity to treat patients, households without any air conditioning, and as a result, it has claimed many lives as they have attempted to "take a step backward" to their tribal existance.

It would be the task of an international socialist regime to raise the living standards of the rest of the world - but obstacles will arise; demand for these things will skyrocket, and production may not be able to keep up at first. Therefore the forces of supply and demand will exert themselves on the cycle of production and distribution as much as they do now. It may take a long period of development in the parts of the world historically oppressed by imperialism before market mechanisms become entirely redundant. In other words, the vast imbalances between the advanced regions of the world and the underdeveloped regions need to be destroyed. The buildup of material wealth in indigenous areas would be necessitated as a result - but there would certainly be the same opposition that has persisted in Ecuador and India today, so what would the solution be?

My question is, indigenous populations are often culturally dependent on agriculture or other non-technological means of subsistence. As seen in the article, the indigenous population is facing capitalist production. The aim of socialism is to free the population from the drugdery of the struggle for existence, so would the preserving of small scale agriculture and home handicraft production be acceptable? Wouldn't there come a moment in time in which our mode of production will inevitably clash with their's?

Note - I am not trying be Eurocentric. I saw this question raised in another forum, and I thought it would be interesting to discuss it.

[Dimentio]

Of course, those who want to live in their traditional way should be granted the opportunity to so do. Socialism is not about forcing everyone to look or behave or think the same way.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:36 pm
Of course, those who want to live in their traditional way should be granted the opportunity to so do. Socialism is not about forcing everyone to look or behave or think the same way.
Wouldn't cultures that premise themselves on endless toil and perpetual poverty eventually perish? I don't think it is plainly obvious that the vast majority of the world's population would be in a good standing with embracing perpetual hunger and disease as a cherished tradition of their ancestors. This is like arguing that certain Christian groups should be able to withold medicine from their children, condemning them to death, because they believe in the power of prayer alone.

We live in a world with six billion people, and which will contine billions more by the end of this century. Either we find a way to reverse the growth the population, or we find a way to sustain all of the new lives coming into the world. The solutions to this problem, which faces the whole planet, are beyond the considerations of any one group. People should be free to hold whatever beliefs they like and lead whatever kinds of lives they like - as long as they don't conflict with what is best for society as a whole. We may reach a point where we will not be able to sustain every life on this planet and allow at the same time whole sections of ariable land to be dominated by small peasant holdings and indigenous tribes. That's simply an economic fact we have to reconcile ourselves to.

[la-troy]

I see your point RedDali, but I still disagree. Even if they are peasants they still form a society of their own that operate on their own forms of production. The issue is not only one of tradition I would think, cause you seem to forget that tradition has logical roots by which they where developed. The land they live on was chosen because it adequately suited and provided for them. If we, through imperialist actions, infringe on their territory we are in the wrong. we can not say ohh! it's just a road, because we know what needs to happen for road to be built. and in the same way we can not say its just a one farm, because we know that that one farm will take land water and a number of other things needed by these people.

You say that we can not allow one group to come in the way of "what is best" for society . While again I see your point I do not believe we should completely disregard the feelings and the rights of others to live as they please in the land they have know all their lives rich in their own culture and blah blah blah. As I said before they form a society of their own and treating them badly will just result in resentment and a unstable society.

More emphasis should be placed on maximizing on what is already at the disposal of the
people u refer to.

[Dimentio]

Yes I agree. But I think we both agree that it would be both unnecessary and cruel to abolish all indigenious cultures. Such cultures do not tend to respond well upon inflicted change from above, and might drown in depressions, suicides and drug-dependency.

Some individuals, maybe the majority, of those tribes, seriously want to live their traditional ways. As long as they are not forcing anyone, that is ok in my view.

[TC]

Wow, you are such a racist.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Why do you say that? I don't attribute poverty anywhere to "culture". But cultures do arise out of poverty. If the argument being made is that cultures are to be respected and preserved, then that is the same as saying that the conditions that gave rise to them and perpetuate them should also be preserved. But subsistance farming cannot feed the world - only mechanized agriculture can. The point is that what we are dealing with here are not merely different "cultures", but different modes of production. We are dealing with one mode of production intended for the survival of small groups in a relatively fixed location, and another that is necessary for the sustainment of a world population in the billions on an international scale. Romanticizing pre-capitalist modes of production may make for good literature but it doesn't tell us a thing about how the problems of the 21st cenutry will be resolved.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:53 pm
Wow, you are such a racist.
Whom? Me?

It depends on what culture we are talking about. The Sami for example, are generally integrated into society. But all attempts to integrate the Roma by force has resulted in ghettoization.

Is it racist to acknowledge that a lot of indigenious peoples in their majority wants to live in their ancestral culture. That is partially because they have been accustomed to, but that is not the point. The point is that we should grant people opportunities to live their lives as they want to, as long as they are not exploiting anyone else.

[Chicano Shamrock]

What?....... No.

[la-troy]

The idea is not that they should be preserved, but rather that it not be forcefully destroyed by some section of society who deems their method to be right and the way forward totally disregarding the peculiarities of the region and the feelings of people who have lived their all their lives. and although i know u are not trying to be a lot of the things that will be necessary for what u are suggesting seems to be eurocentric and imperialistic. Its just like the Spaniards and the Tainos. the Tainos mode of production might have been out dated but it worked for them and it was being developed. The Spaniards however believed that their way was better and it was for a lot of Europeans, a much larger sect than the Tainos, but it was still wrong.

[Dimentio]

About indigenous people being obstacles.

The answer is profoundly no. They do not control means of production. They are not exploiting workers. Albeit for some reactionary traditions in some cultures (like female circumsision in the Massai for example), they are generally harmless.

[Labor Shall Rule]

To la-troy:

"The idea is not that they should be preserved, but rather that it not be forcefully destroyed by some section of society who deems their method to be right and the way forward totally disregarding the peculiarities of the region and the feelings of people who have lived their all their lives."

But what you are arguing for here is special treatment, a sort of inequality. The rest of the world must get by with modern methods of production, but there and there these pockets of people get to go on living a pre-industrial existence. I suppose if people choose to toil for eight or twelve hours a day simply to feed themselves in spite of the mechanization of agriculture, they will be free to do so, but as I have stated, there would come a time in which these relations will run smack against socialism. There are "cultures" that have blown up dams, electric outlets, hospitals, bridges, railroads, and other modern forms of infastructure and transportation due to their denunciation of modernization. In Papua New Guinea, many of the Papuan and Melanesian tribes have largely rejected modern medicine, and have even went as far to forbid all foreign nationals from entering their territories altogether - I see that as a step backwards. If consenting adults want to let themselves die, that's fine by me. But their children should be given a chance. Considering that hundreds of people died from medical deprivation and overheating due to the destruction of electric outlets in India by the natives there, I don't think that the mode of production continued by many tribal cultures should be blatantly ignored.

"and although i know u are not trying to be a lot of the things that will be necessary for what u are suggesting seems to be eurocentric and imperialistic."

Oh yes, how very "Eurocentric" of me to hold the belief that widespread poverty, starvation and disease should be eliminated, and that reactionary backwardness that counters such influences should be opposed using any means necessary. Socialism will coordinate development rationally and humanely, with an eye first and foremost to the needs of the people. It would be wrong to conceptualize socialist development as taking on the same forms and methods of "imperialistic" development. Anyone who leaves behind the tribal or peasant life and engages in modernized production will be a part of a democratic process, a process in which they own a share of the productive forces and their own product.

To Serpent

"The point is that we should grant people opportunities to live their lives as they want to, as long as they are not exploiting anyone else."

It should be noted that they live in a seperate mode of production from ourselves, so they would naturally conflict with our's sooner or later. There is no running away from it.

"Albeit for some reactionary traditions in some cultures (like female circumsision in the Massai for example), they are generally harmless."

What about blowing up factories and electric outlets?

[Chicano Shamrock]

It should be noted that they live in a seperate mode of production from ourselves, so they would naturally conflict with our's sooner or later. There is no running away from it.
So, what the fuck does that mean? What does production have to do with conflict as long as no one is forcing others to do stuff? You say it will naturally conflict. I don't understand how it will "naturally" conflict but why don't you provide an example on how it will naturally conflict and what the conflict will be?

This is obviously an ethnocentric view and in my opinion borderline racist.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Chicano [email protected] 24, 2007 07:12 am

It should be noted that they live in a seperate mode of production from ourselves, so they would naturally conflict with our's sooner or later. There is no running away from it.
So, what the fuck does that mean? What does production have to do with conflict as long as no one is forcing others to do stuff? You say it will naturally conflict. I don't understand how it will "naturally" conflict but why don't you provide an example on how it will naturally conflict and what the conflict will be?

This is obviously an ethnocentric view and in my opinion borderline racist.
Uhm, how about the blowing up of electric towers and factories in India? How about the destruction of oil installations in Ecuador?

If you even read the post, or paid attention to the society that surrounds you, they are culturally dependent on agriculture or other non-technological means of subsistence, while we are quite the opposite. It is their mode of production - and this is our's. There can only be forward movement, as history has proven - there is a constant buildup of material wealth and the productive forces - as well as changing external conditions that contextualize the situation.

In Mexico, the Zapatistas arised when foreign enterprises were seizing their land plots for the use of constructing airports and infastructure; the manner in which this is done is wrong. But ultimately these things are necessary in modern society. Naturally I think a socialist society should avoid for as long as possible unnecessary infringements on pre-capitalist modes of production. But sooner or later these modes will collide, and a resolution must be found. In cases where the deed has already been done, there can be no going back. There can only be forward movement.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by RedDali+June 23, 2007 11:47 pm--> (RedDali @ June 23, 2007 11:47 pm)
Chicano [email protected] 24, 2007 07:12 am

It should be noted that they live in a seperate mode of production from ourselves, so they would naturally conflict with our's sooner or later. There is no running away from it.
So, what the fuck does that mean? What does production have to do with conflict as long as no one is forcing others to do stuff? You say it will naturally conflict. I don't understand how it will "naturally" conflict but why don't you provide an example on how it will naturally conflict and what the conflict will be?

This is obviously an ethnocentric view and in my opinion borderline racist.
Uhm, how about the blowing up of electric towers and factories in India? How about the destruction of oil installations in Ecuador?

If you even read the post, or paid attention to the society that surrounds you, they are culturally dependent on agriculture or other non-technological means of subsistence, while we are quite the opposite. It is their mode of production - and this is our's. There can only be forward movement, as history has proven - there is a constant buildup of material wealth and the productive forces - as well as changing external conditions that contextualize the situation.

In Mexico, the Zapatistas arised when foreign enterprises were seizing their land plots for the use of constructing airports and infastructure; the manner in which this is done is wrong. But ultimately these things are necessary in modern society. Naturally I think a socialist society should avoid for as long as possible unnecessary infringements on pre-capitalist modes of production. But sooner or later these modes will collide, and a resolution must be found. In cases where the deed has already been done, there can be no going back. There can only be forward movement. [/b]
Umm how about the tearing down of the Nike Town store in Seattle at the WTO protests? I don't know the context of what you are talking about in the India and Ecuador situations but at face value I think I would agree with them.

Please don't include me when you say this is their mode and this is ours. What is wrong with people choosing to live as they like? If I want to live like my native culture has before me why is that a lesser culture than yours of consumerism and mass manufacturing?

Suggesting that the Zapatista's situation would have been justified if done in a different manner or under a different regime is disgusting. Especially from a supposed "leftist".

Your opinion is that going from capitalism to socialism is forward movement. I would generally agree with that but socialism would not have been necessary in the first place if my culture had not been colonialized in the first place and forced into capitalism. Wishing for cultures that are untouched by the death that is capitalism to be forced to change their culture into the solution of capitalism is crazy thinking. If the problem of capitalism isn't there why would it need the solution to capitalism.

You still haven't provided any proof of a conflict other than that of your style of society trying to imperialize and expand onto others.

[Hiero]

My question is, indigenous populations are often culturally dependent on agriculture or other non-technological means of subsistence. As seen in the article, the indigenous population is facing capitalist production. The aim of socialism is to free the population from the drugdery of the struggle for existence, so would the preserving of small scale agriculture and home handicraft production be acceptable? Wouldn't there come a moment in time in which our mode of production will inevitably clash with their's?

Note - I am not trying be Eurocentric. I saw this question raised in another forum, and I thought it would be interesting to discuss it.

You made your Eurocentric position clear right there. You define Indigenous people as "agricultural and non-technological". It is the old racist idea that once you "give" access to technology for indigenous communites they stop being indeigenous. Technology destroys their aboriginal culture, while for Europeans it improves their culture.

In many indigenous nations technology is used to benifit the daily life in hunting, communication, arts and health. They continue to maintain a indigenous culture. Technology is absorbed into the culture and use accordingly


Uhm, how about the blowing up of electric towers and factories in India? How about the destruction of oil installations in Ecuador?

I am not sure the Naxals even have the power to do this. The mostly focus on the assassination of police and reactionary politicians. If they do have the ability, then good on them. It brings down the reactionary state by forcing them to focus resources on repair and maintance, and not on the military and police. It also plays into the pyschological war, reaffirming proleteriat power over the bourgeois state.

[Vargha Poralli]

I don't think RedDali had in anyway made an racist comment.

But still his views are Eurocentric as indicated by Hiero.

I think he just raised this point to have a discussion he had not pronounced any judgements in my opinion.

Who are we to decide what is good for some others and what is bad for them ? I think this view is somewhat similar to white man's burden.

Anyway the points raised by RedDali are really have to be discussed to find a Solution.

The current conflict of resources in the areas mentioned by RedDali have arise due to the system that is dominating the world today - Capitalism. The main opposition to the capitalist grab of Land from them by indigenous people is that any development or progress that is caused under this system is never really going to benefit them in any way - but what it actually does is bring them out right misery scramble for a livelihood and competition with urban population for that very livelihood.

Under Capitalism this is the only way things happen. I think in Socialism things would certainly be different.

How different it would be I can't explain and it would merely be speculation. Those things would be sorted out by the victorious proletariat and peasantry who has seized the control over the means of production from the capitalists in a positive manner.

For now what is the possible stance of the workers in this struggle ? This IMO is a question worth discussing.

Certainly capitalists are never going to work in the interest of Humanity - Profit has a priority over that.

[Bilan]

The title of this thread stinks of eurocentrism <_<

RedDali


My question is, indigenous populations are often culturally dependent on agriculture or other non-technological means of subsistence. As seen in the article, the indigenous population is facing capitalist production. The aim of socialism is to free the population from the drugdery of the struggle for existence, so would the preserving of small scale agriculture and home handicraft production be acceptable? Wouldn&#39;t there come a moment in time in which our mode of production will inevitably clash with their&#39;s?

Why would it not be acceptable? If people choose to live in a certain way, do they not deserve the freedom to do so? In a post revolutionary society, Indigenous people have every right to live in their traditional way, and no one is in the position to tell them they are not.
There is a small, minute possibility of their being conflict, but that will be the result of imperialism from one side or another (and by the sounds of it, it&#39;s going to be your side :angry: ). And if there is, is there not the possibility that all disputes can be settled through dialogue? Which is essentially, the only way that it can be a mutually benefitial result.

The whole "us" and "them" thing is kind of silly too, especially in this circumstance. Both Indigenous people who wish to hold to their traditional ways and non-Indigenous people have to learn from each other. It&#39;s essential to a harmonious existance.

"We" have no right to force "them" into industrialism if "they" choose not too. "They" have every right to live "their" own way.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Bite the [email protected] 25, 2007 09:01 am
The title of this thread stinks of eurocentrism <_<


Your post, along with other posts on this thread, stink of primitivism. Seriously, if we consider ourselves progressives (as all members who are unrestricted should), we should all agree that anything that brings civilization forward should be praised and anything that turns back the clock of time should be looked down upon. This is common sense. Our first duty is not to preserve the peculiarities of any specific culture, but to bring civilization forward. For those who will call me a racist because of this, will you also consider me a racist if I think the caste system in India should be abolished, that female genital mutilation should be outlawed, or that foot-binding in China should have continued? When Mao outlawed foot-binding I do not think that he really cared about whether foot-binding was part of Chinese tradition.


But what you are arguing for here is special treatment, a sort of inequality. The rest of the world must get by with modern methods of production, but there and there these pockets of people get to go on living a pre-industrial existence. I suppose if people choose to toil for eight or twelve hours a day simply to feed themselves in spite of the mechanization of agriculture, they will be free to do so, but as I have stated, there would come a time in which these relations will run smack against socialism. There are "cultures" that have blown up dams, electric outlets, hospitals, bridges, railroads, and other modern forms of infastructure and transportation due to their denunciation of modernization. In Papua New Guinea, many of the Papuan and Melanesian tribes have largely rejected modern medicine, and have even went as far to forbid all foreign nationals from entering their territories altogether - I see that as a step backwards. If consenting adults want to let themselves die, that&#39;s fine by me. But their children should be given a chance. Considering that hundreds of people died from medical deprivation and overheating due to the destruction of electric outlets in India by the natives there, I don&#39;t think that the mode of production continued by many tribal cultures should be blatantly ignored.

I completely agree. You also made a very good point when you mentioned that certain members of the community, like the children, really have no choice. I see no problem with adults who want to go live in the jungle and die from some easily curable disease, but the children do not really have a choice. This goes against the argument that if some communities want to live that way they should be allowed.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Once again, I am not arguing for the whole termination of cultures, but the economic backwardness associated with them. I would rather propose that they become the collective owners of the new factories or fields or whatever is there. As I said, anyone who leaves behind the tribal or peasant life and engages in modernized production will be a part of a democratic process, a process in which they own a share of the productive forces and their own product. And if I may make this clear, I&#39;m arguing that we shouldn&#39;t force people to develop if we don&#39;t have to - but with the course that we are currently taking, I don&#39;t think that our mode of production will always live in peace alongside their&#39;s.

If I was a migrant worker in Bangladesh, and electric lines were built that powered my house, a hospital that suited to my health, and that powered the tools within my factory; and all of a sudden, a local tribe launced an act of sabotage that blew those lines out of the sky, my livelihood would be in question. If me and my fellow workers had democratic control over that workplace, I could calculate that we would not be perceived differently by that local tribe. If we wanted to build more electric lines to power more hospitals and housing units to suit to the needs of the working people without adequate healthcare or housing, we would probably see the same attacks. So, for G.Ram, I am not sure if socialism would change the division between their mode of production and our&#39;s.

As for Bite the hand, I think you need to acknowledge that there is a difference between a system based on progress and a system based on backwardness. This is not about me being "eurocentric", this about being a proponent of moving foward, while the other side is a proponent of primitivism. Through the buildup of material wealth, technological improvements, and the productive forces altogether, this would all lead to the socialization of the means of production - if someone is against this, they are reactionaries, primitivists that believe in small, backward development that is not compatible with socialism.

Hiero, tribal cultures come from the tribal mode of production; that is not a "racist, old idea", that is acknowleding an historical fact. They may not lose their ethnic character, but the cultural and economic character disappears and is integrated into society.

[bcbm]

As for Bite the hand, I think you need to acknowledge that there is a difference between a system based on progress and a system based on backwardness. This is not about me being "eurocentric", this about being a proponent of moving foward, while the other side is a proponent of primitivism.

Given that all of those are, ahem, European ideas.... I&#39;d say it is about you being eurocentric.

[Janus]

I don&#39;t see why natives/indigenous people should necessarily become an "obstacle" unless of course said society chooses to consider them as such. However, the expansion of capitalism is rapidly making this a moot question as it is increasingly absorbing new land and cultures to the point that only the most remote communities are still relatively untouched. How future societies will seek to interact with such groups (should they continue to exist) will of course depend on various factors and of course there is the possibility that indigenous settlements will merely become autonomous areas and thus protected in their own right. However, labeling such groups as obstacles or problems is not only unjustified but also smacks of a strong moralistic overtone.

[BreadBros]

RedDali, I see various problems with what you&#39;re saying.

1. Mode of production:

As seen in the article, the indigenous population is facing capitalist production
Nothing from what you&#39;ve posted indicates that these indigenous groups are rebelling against a mode of production. The extraction of oil or the building of structures on their land doesn&#39;t mean they are being integrated into capitalism. It is very possible for a company to build something or extract the resources from a region while leaving the inhabitants old economic structure intact - meaning their method of making a living might be threatened but no real progress occurs for them. So these are pretty bad examples.

Conversely, the mere fact that indigenous people are farming by hand on communal lands doesn&#39;t indicate to me that they aren&#39;t already a part of the capitalist system. Its true that there are some tribes that are to a very great degree closed off from contact with the rest of the world, in New Guinea for example. However, most indigenous tribes that still live in their native territory do produce commodities. I bet most of the people who make up the Naxalites and a great deal of S. American farmers produce crops for sale in a market. Remember, for most of capitalism&#39;s history agriculture was done by small farmers (producing the question of "What about the peasantry?"), its only in recent times that agriculture has been fully "capitalized" into big business with wage-laborers. So there are questions to be asked - the perennial one about the position of the peasantry, but even that one is increasingly becoming moot as Western-style agriculture is quickly penetrating the rest of the globe.

2. Progress:

As for Bite the hand, I think you need to acknowledge that there is a difference between a system based on progress and a system based on backwardness. This is not about me being "eurocentric", this about being a proponent of moving foward, while the other side is a proponent of primitivism.

It may not be an example of you being "Eurocentic" but certainly an example of you being "Western-centric". I&#39;ve seen nothing in your posts or examples that indicates in a very concrete way how these indigenous groups are "backwards". All of the examples you&#39;ve given are of Third World countries. In all of these countries their is large degrees of unemployment, work is often in a position of precarity and much of the urban population faces dire straights. Its very clear to me that there are many situations in which, if a family had to decide between being small agricultural producers or move to the city to seek employment, the family would easily choose rural agriculture where the economic situation is often more stable. So, assuming the definition of &#39;progress&#39; we&#39;re working with is material benefit for people and not just technological innovation, these people aren&#39;t anti-progress, they&#39;re pro-progress for themselves and anti-progress for big business. Their actions might seem illogical to you in a first-world country where people would never leave the city to become cotton-pickers or something, but I can see how it might be completely logical for people in some countries. Instead what this highlights is that, possibly contrary to our expectations, capitalism is not necessarily progressive for many people in the Third World. A better question to ask than "are indigenous peoples an obstacle?" is whether that non-progress is a temporary feature that all transitioning nations experience (in other words, do all countries take a similar arc of development) or has imperialism caused it to be a permanent facet.

3. Technology:

My question is, indigenous populations are often culturally dependent on agriculture or other non-technological means of subsistence.
Wrong. They clearly do use technology to farm via the use of tools. I&#39;d also bet that if someone offered them free tractors they&#39;d take those too. Assuming these people are growing food on their land then how is not wanting a corporate or state owned oil well or electrical tower on my land a rejection of technology? Last I checked you could not use either of those to produce food. These people aren&#39;t anti-technology, they are trying to stop their method of making a living from being threatened for someone else&#39;s benefit.

4. Socialization:


Capitalism has socialized the means of production. It has made production, through the widespread use of machinery, a collective process (it has also made innovation and design a collective process). In doing so it has freed us from the burden of having to make everything we use in our own homes.
Yes, but you&#39;re missing a vital element. Socialization of production is not very helpful if the end beneficial result of that production isn&#39;t accessible to you. Much of the stuff made in these third world countries is consumed by us in the first world. AND an enormous amount of surplus value is extracted from this labor, moreso than that of first world workers. So in many cases its possible to see why sticking to indigenous lands and farming might provide a more stable lifestyle with more of an economic pay-off than moving to the city and not only being in a situation of precarity, but also having your labor be severely underpaid. Thats not the fault of the indigenous people, who are only making the micro-economic decisions that make most sense for them, its the fault of capitalism which is unable to solve the problem of initial differing economic development around the globe.

5. Socialism:
I don&#39;t think its "certain" at all that an encounter between a socialist society and a tribal one (which seems to me, HIGHLY unlikely to ever even happen, since closed off indigenous societies will likely be history in a matter of 5-10 years) would be similar to one between a capitalist and tribal one. I&#39;m not convinced at all that their culture is somehow "anti-technology" nor "anti-progress" and presumable if we offered them a place in our society that was fair instead of offering them exploitation, they would deal with us differently as well in turn.

[rouchambeau]

TC:
Wow, you are such a racist.
Couldn&#39;t have said it better myself.

RD:
This appears to be happening in indigenous communities all around in the world, such as in Ecuador, where oil companies have poisoned rivers and lakes, and have constructed highway belts and bridges on their land, all at the expense of exchanging the tribal mode of production for capitalist production. As a result, the natives have torn up roads, blew up bridges, and other forms of infastructure. The Naxals have also responded to modernization by blowing up electric outlets; this action has left hospitals without electricity to treat patients, households without any air conditioning, and as a result, it has claimed many lives as they have attempted to "take a step backward" to their tribal existance.

Well maybe if modernism and "progress" didn&#39;t destroy the land upon which the natives depend, we wouldn&#39;t see indiginous people--to use your racist language--"taking a step backward".


It would be the task of an international socialist regime to raise the living standards of the rest of the world - but obstacles will arise; demand for these things will skyrocket, and production may not be able to keep up at first. Therefore the forces of supply and demand will exert themselves on the cycle of production and distribution as much as they do now. It may take a long period of development in the parts of the world historically oppressed by imperialism before market mechanisms become entirely redundant. In other words, the vast imbalances between the advanced regions of the world and the underdeveloped regions need to be destroyed. The buildup of material wealth in indigenous areas would be necessitated as a result - but there would certainly be the same opposition that has persisted in Ecuador and India today, so what would the solution be?

Indiginous people arn&#39;t the cause of this demand for wealth and increased production. In fact, as you stated yourself, some of these indiginous people are destroying the very means by which they could have more possessions. So, the rest of your arguement here is bunk.


Note - I am not trying be Eurocentric. I saw this question raised in another forum, and I thought it would be interesting to discuss it.
It&#39;s funny how often I hear this sort of talk right after someone says something grossly bigoted. If you have to make a disclaimer saying "I&#39;m not being eurocentric", then you probably are.


Wouldn&#39;t cultures that premise themselves on endless toil and perpetual poverty eventually perish? I don&#39;t think it is plainly obvious that the vast majority of the world&#39;s population would be in a good standing with embracing perpetual hunger and disease as a cherished tradition of their ancestors.
Please, do us the favor of pointing out some indiginous societies that willingly and consciously "premise themselves on endless toil and perpetual poverty". I&#39;ll keep my eyes open.


If the argument being made is that cultures are to be respected and preserved, then that is the same as saying that the conditions that gave rise to them and perpetuate them should also be preserved.
No, it doesn&#39;t.


Uhm, how about the blowing up of electric towers and factories in India? How about the destruction of oil installations in Ecuador?

I think you&#39;re confused about who is assaulting whom. The indiginous peoples didn&#39;t get up one morning and think, "Hey&#33; I&#39;m going to fuck with modernism because I feel like it&#33;" This is a reaction to modernism essentially shitting on people, and those people are simply defending themselves.


And if I may make this clear, I&#39;m arguing that we shouldn&#39;t force people to develop if we don&#39;t have to - but with the course that we are currently taking, I don&#39;t think that our mode of production will always live in peace alongside their&#39;s.

So we shouldn&#39;t have to change, but they should. Do I need to tell you how eurocentric this is?

[Vargha Poralli]

If I was a migrant worker in Bangladesh, and electric lines were built that powered my house, a hospital that suited to my health, and that powered the tools within my factory; and all of a sudden, a local tribe launced an act of sabotage that blew those lines out of the sky, my livelihood would be in question. If me and my fellow workers had democratic control over that workplace, I could calculate that we would not be perceived differently by that local tribe. If we wanted to build more electric lines to power more hospitals and housing units to suit to the needs of the working people without adequate healthcare or housing, we would probably see the same attacks. So, for G.Ram, I am not sure if socialism would change the division between their mode of production and our&#39;s.

To my knowledge there is no significant clash between indigenous people and "Civilised Society" in Bangladesh.


But I understand the situation that you project. Your flaws in the argument is inherently eurocentric and borders Racial Prejudice. Similar to some urban intellectual elite people&#39;s prejudice against people who live in Slums and Villages as if it was all the latter&#39;s fault.

Let me tell how it works in Capitalist society first .

When an important natural resource was found in a place where it is occupied by Indigenous people the capitalist try to expropriate those land from them. They try to remove them from that place by buying off those lands and promising them something they won&#39;t keep up and driving them to misery. Those people lose the means for their survival to the "Civilised Society" but directly come in to conflict with the underclasses in Jobs,Education etc., which doest not work out in their favour.

After all this it is the capitalists- who control the means of production not the workers who benefit in this.

If this situation is going to continue in a Socialist society then that will not be Socialist IMO.

But there are other things to learn from the existing Capitalist Society itself. For example there is an explicit reservation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheduled_Castes_and_Tribes) for those indigenous people who are reffered to as Adivasi&#39;s/Scheduled Tribes along with Scheduled Castes(mostly Dalits) to improve their Social Status and their cahnces of in a highly discriminative Social Order. And in places where the intrests of the Capitalists and those tribal intrests collide the capitalist government have worked out some of the alternative ways unlike the 19th century American settlers.

And you have used some naxalite example I failed to address in my first Reply.

Let me tell you the Naxalite movement is not built on by the tribal people nor does it explicity represents the Peasant intrests. The leaders of those movements are urban intellectuals and radicals(it grew out as movement of students who revolted against the capitulation of CPI and CPI(M) to the Indian Bourgeoisie).The movements life is almost snuffed out in 70&#39;s and 80&#39;s when CPI and CPI(M) were still at their prime and gained its life back in late 90&#39;s to till date because of the lack of coherent direction of these two parties in many issues in the complex Indian political scene.

Their tactics and doctrines I do not generally agree with but that is a separate discussion - but their fight did had and still have some meaning - that is why the movement still lives on unlike movements in the west which had simliarites in their views with them. And we cannot ignore those issues until socialism - if at all we are serious to achieve it without the entire civilisation collapsing because of capitalism.

[che_diwas]

It’s a really good post to discuss. Not due to the euro centric or racist stuffs,
But due to the fact that cultural and traditional aspect of a society has risen in sky-high limits especially in the third world countries (mainly in Asia).

I don’t know much about Latin America other than the writings of Comrade Che in his Motorcycle Diaries;
But preservations of tradition and culture in Asia, especially in underdeveloped countries like Nepal is the daily talk of the town. In Nepal, the state was run by the feudalistic society with a little bit of capitalism for the last 238 years. Now the country is unstable because those indigenous and minorities who were oppressed during the kingship rule are demanding to set a federal structure of governance with economic rights, that also in the cast system. They believe that it’s their term in politics to rule on their own cast and not by any others.

There are many views in Nepal regarding this issue, some point out that they are correct and support them, but others believe that since they are backwards up to now, it will be hard right now for them to grow economically and run their federal governments. This view is somewhat true; cause decentralization of power will put major responsibilities on the shoulders of those who have still no proper education or healthcare systems. So, federal system only on the basis of cast system will be little bit unsuitable in the 21st century, as many federal states will not have enough resources to earn and run their own governments. And since science and technology has developed rapidly, it should be fully utilized for the benefit of the working class.

In the above postings, I found out that our comrades are debating in issues of modernization, agriculture, and industrialization. Well in my view, let us all be realistic and practical. We know that industrialization, if owned by the working class will bring many benefits for us. But we still need agriculture to fill our stomach. I am opposed to the idea in bringing industrial revolution where there are lands used by the farmers to earn their livings, but I clearly support the idea of bringing technological change in the way of farming so that the farmers will cultivate and produce more efficiently for their own benefits. This also has to be dealt with geographical knowledge. Some lands are so fertile and productive that setting up a factory (even if it is owned by the working class) will harm the farmers.

The best thing in my view for a socialist government to do is to go on a field visit to each and every villages, ask the people living there about their problems, whether they can live happily with what they have or new technology should be introduced in order to have efficient and effective farming or they might opt for industrial developments. There are still majority of people who are illiterate to know the goods and the bads that their tradition and culture are giving them. Especially in Nepal, many superstitions come from culture and tradition. These people require scientific education, so they can move forward and in parallel save the good aspects of their tradition and culture.

These are only my thoughts but each and every point I made above about technology, agriculture, industry are to be implemented by the socialist governments and not by the bloodsucking capitalists.

In Nepal, these days, communities own much of the resources, specially the forests and water resources. I think communities owning resources that are under their territory will be good for collective production unless a sick capitalists of a community tries to sell the resources to another party for his/her own profits. Now days many education sectors in the rural areas are owned by communities,
They (teachers, students, guardians) control all the economical, managerial, and administrative issues regarding their schools and colleges. Even if it is helping the development of education in the society, I am not sure whether these little drops of progress will lead to the ocean of communism or not. Please post your views and opinions.

Hope to read more on these important issues...


" Every literate worker and peasant must learn it, for the new history is being made in accordance with that eternal truth, which draws onward the working people of the whole world, and has often fired them with the longing to realize it in practice, to build life on its foundation. This is the only truth with the power to improve all the conditions of life for the workers and peasants. The first man to prove beyond dispute that the old history of humanity was drawing to its end and that the time had come to create a new history--the history of the complete emancipation of the working people from the cruel yoke of the rich--this man was Karl Marx."
- Maxim Gorky

[Bilan]

RedDali


As for Bite the hand, I think you need to acknowledge that there is a difference between a system based on progress and a system based on backwardness. This is not about me being "eurocentric", this about being a proponent of moving foward, while the other side is a proponent of primitivism. Through the buildup of material wealth, technological improvements, and the productive forces altogether, this would all lead to the socialization of the means of production - if someone is against this, they are reactionaries, primitivists that believe in small, backward development that is not compatible with socialism.

I am well aware of the difference between systems of progress and systems of backwardness. However, I suggest you need to acknowledge the difference between socialism based on liberty, and tyrannical, ethnocentric forms of socialism.

All I have advocated is the freedom for peoples to live as they wish, respecting the freedom of others, of course, and that any conflicts should be resolved in a mutually benefitial way.
If you deny the freedom of others to live as they wish, because you believe their culture is "backward" and primitive, whilst yours is "progressive", then you are ethnocentric, and I&#39;d say border line racist.

People should neither be forced nor denied the right to live a primitive lifestyle, they should be given the freedom to do so, so long as they do not intend on forcing others to do so.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Well Breadbros, I have always pressed the point within this thread that socialism will be "rational and humane"; that it would offer them a "place in our society" by welcoming them as active participants in the political and economic process. I have never argued that they should be excluded and shot down like savages, but that within a few years, our course of development might run against small, backwards homescale production that is inherent to certain tribal territories, considering that we may reach a point where we will not be able to sustain every life on this planet and allow at the same time whole sections of ariable land to be dominated by small peasant holdings and indigenous tribes. As I said, that&#39;s a simple fact that I will hold on to.

As for Bite the hand, I was addressing a matter of societal necessity, not some moralistic argument. I think we are basically in agreement. You later went on to say in your post that "people should neither be forced nor denied the right to live a primitive lifestyle, they should be given the freedom to do so, so long as they do not intend on forcing others to do so." I profoundly agree.


I wrote:
"And if I may make this clear, I&#39;m arguing that we shouldn&#39;t force people to develop if we don&#39;t have to - but with the course that we are currently taking, I don&#39;t think that our mode of production will always live in peace alongside their&#39;s."

"The point is that what we are dealing with here are not merely different "cultures", but different modes of production. We are dealing with one mode of production intended for the survival of small groups in a relatively fixed location, and another that is necessary for the sustainment of a world population in the billions on an international scale."

I would note that I borrowed this title from another thread that I found in a seperate forum; the same article, and the same arguments raised after the article was posted by the author within that post. I have basically been playing devil&#39;s advocate this entire time - I didn&#39;t mean to present myself as a border-line racist or a eurocentric personality. I think it would of been more acceptable for me, and I thought I was to a certain degree, to present my arguments from the perspective of that mode of production, rather than associating indigenous peoples with it specifically. I am sorry if anyone was offended by that.

[PRC-UTE]

I don&#39;t see this question as inherently eurocentric. Europe itself possesses a number of small, exotic seperatist movements who are harmless now but could at some point try to start a reactionary anti-imperialist movement. That is, one that seeks to turn back history to a less developed time / mode of production.

In the example you provided, it seemed they were a native tribe resisting a company that was taking the oil from where they lived and threatened their survival. If I&#39;m understanding you correctly. That deserves our support. There&#39;s a similar issue going on in Ireland now with shell.

I think you are much more likely to run into the chuavnism of the imerialist working class forming an obstacle. The Bolshevik authorities had to intervene for instance when some of the white revolutionaries in the more remote areas didnt&#39; want to allow indigenous poeple to take part in their soviet.