Forced Modernization

[Robespierre2.0]

If, hypothetically, socialist parties came to power in certain parts of africa still living under a backwards tribal system, with the patriarchy and anti-Marxist religious beliefs that that entails, would forced modernization be ethical?

I personally think the population should be forced to modernize. I also think that if you're against that, you're a bourgeois liberal.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I rather live with the nature than seeing 100 people per square feet.

[Robespierre2.0]

You're arguing for people dying of preventable diseases, the practice of abandoning the old and disabled to die in the woods- you realize that, right?
That sounds like primitivism to me.
I don't think that these peoples have to completely destroy their cultural identity, but at the same time, patriarchy and other backwards views can't be tolerated. Hell, Swaziland is still ruled by an absolute monarch

[rouchambeau]

Marxosaurus, until you define what you mean by "modernization", "backwards", and "tribal system" I am inclined to belief that your just another eurocentristic, imperialistic hack.

P.S. Stating " I rather live with the nature than seeing 100 people per square feet." isn't an argument.

[Robespierre2.0]

In Russia, during Stalin's time, most Russian peasants were still living in the middle ages. Famines and epidemics of curable diseases were common. Many had superstitious religious beliefs, which allowed them to be manipulated by kulaks.

Stalin initiated collectivization, in which thousands of peasants joined collective farms. To help, the Soviets sent teachers, tractors, and medicine. Women were encouraged to educate themselves and work, rather than spend their life pumping our babies. Kulaks were stripped of their property and put to work alongside the peasants.

How is it imperialist and eurocentric to eliminate illiteracy and curable diseases? I never said that these people should have to give up their cultural identity- It's just that living in squalor is, to me, much more dehumanizing than using medicine manufactured in more developed parts of the world.

[black magick hustla]

Marxosaurus, until you define what you mean by "modernization", "backwards", and "tribal system" I am inclined to belief that your just another eurocentristic, imperialistic hack.

P.S. Stating " I rather live with the nature than seeing 100 people per square feet." isn't an argument.

i am sorry but this is liberal nonsense.

"civilization", "modernization" etc are words that, although they may have ideological baggage sometimes, are meant to be neutral. primitive communist tribes are not "modernized" nor are they "civilized". it doesnt means they are bad or whatever

[Sentinel]

I have difficulties in seeing how a majority of a people living in miserable conditions would oppose modernisation, such opposition is much more likely to come from reactionary instances such as religious clergies and the upper classes in general (which the example of the kulak class in Russia proves quite well). It is in their interest to keep the people wallowing in ignorance, and in noone elses, but no doubt will they use all kinds of excuses to justify their reactionism!

That the third world has been victim of imperialist plundering in the name of civilisation and progress does in no way negate the fact that those are often direly needed. While many -- but not all! -- cultural traits and customs should actively be fought to be preserved, trying to preserve inadequate living conditions or technological level and ignorance in their name is a crime against humanity.

For instance, all children deserve access to modern, secular education and medicine -- despite the inane ramblings of the cultural relativists. They deserve a choice.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have difficulties in seeing how a majority of a people living in miserable conditions would oppose modernisation, such opposition is much more likely to come from reactionary instances such as religious clergies and the upper classes in general (which the example of the kulak class in Russia proves quite well). It is in their interest to keep the people wallowing in ignorance, and in noone elses, but no doubt will they use all kinds of excuses to justify their reactionism!

That the third world has been victim of imperialist plundering in the name of civilisation and progress does in no way negate the fact that those are often direly needed. While many -- but not all! -- cultural traits and customs should actively be fought to be preserved, trying to preserve inadequate living conditions or technological level and ignorance in their name is a crime against humanity.

For instance, all children deserve access to modern, secular education and medicine -- despite the inane ramblings of the cultural relativists. They deserve a choice.

I think you are correct. Most people would want access to these things especially under the circumstances after a revolution where aid would not come with strings attached that force mining companies to come into your area in exchange for vaccinations or something.

As long as tribal areas are not hostile to a worker's society developing in industrial areas, workers should allow tribes to have self-determination for their areas. I think if there was a worker's revolution in urban areas then probably many tribal areas would support it and want to develop their areas as well because both tribal cultures and the workers would have a mutual interest in getting rid of the ruling class.

Forced modernization is harmful to a revolution because it won't win active supporters of the revolution; at best it could merely create passive and submissive supporters.

[Black Dagger]

"civilization", "modernization" etc are words that, although they may have ideological baggage sometimes, are meant to be neutral.

Right - 'meant to be' - that doesn't mean that they are neutral terms. Indeed to suggest that concepts like 'civilisation' and 'modernisation' are neutral is the very epitome of liberalism.



How is it imperialist and eurocentric to eliminate illiteracy and curable diseases? I never said that these people should have to give up their cultural identity- It's just that living in squalor is, to me, much more dehumanizing than using medicine manufactured in more developed parts of the world.

Obviously eliminating illiteracy and curable diseases is not the issue - it's more the enlightenment 'we must rescue the downtrodden savages' attitude that a program of forced aid to 'tribal nations' [sic] entails.

There is little-to-no rhetorical difference between what you're proposing and what european colonists proposed for the 'new world', the australian continent and so forth.

Both views essentially cast europeans as the benevolent saviours of 'the backward' peoples; bringing 'civilisation' (which you call 'modernisation') to the 'uncivilized'. Now i doubt that your motivation is imperialist domination and exploitation; but do you really think 'forced modernisation' is going to look like anything but european invasion v2.0 to Indigenous peoples the world over? To be honest, to even advocate the forced 'modernisation' of Indigenous peoples shows a pretty startling ignorance of colonial history/language.

[rouchambeau]

You know what? Nevermind. This wouldn't go anywhere anyway.

[Hiero]

There is little-to-no rhetorical difference between what you're proposing and what european colonists proposed for the 'new world', the australian continent and so forth.

There is a real difference, or at least in the case of what happen in Russia and China. The words "Marxosaurus Rex" choose and maybe the way he is thinking of modernisation or industrialisation is very eurocentric. The Soviet Union never talked about forced modernisation. It was a collective effort to liberate the oppressed and down trodden through moderinsation and industrailisation under a socialist structure. Rather then the European model of the enlightened coming to save the down trodden, which was just a method of pacificing the indigenous to make way for colonial expliotation.

For the most oppressed and economic backward, the revolutionary movement if it comes from a more industrialized class\nation\group\ethnicity it must give the means to the former group to liberate themsevles through their own cultural indepence, while also developing a strong proletariat class identity.

[Robespierre2.0]

There is a real difference, or at least in the case of what happen in Russia and China. The words "Marxosaurus Rex" choose and maybe the way he is thinking of modernisation or industrialisation is very eurocentric. The Soviet Union never talked about forced modernisation. It was a collective effort to liberate the oppressed and down trodden through moderinsation and industrailisation under a socialist structure. Rather then the European model of the enlightened coming to save the down trodden, which was just a method of pacificing the indigenous to make way for colonial expliotation.

For the most oppressed and economic backward, the revolutionary movement if it comes from a more industrialized class\nation\group\ethnicity it must give the means to the former group to liberate themsevles through their own cultural indepence, while also developing a strong proletariat class identity.

Ok, I chose the wrong words in the argument. I don't agree with the patronizing 'enlightened people' theory. However, there is an element of force in this- while sections of the people will join the collective effort to modernize, there will also be elements working against it. The Kulaks were 'forced' to give up their property.

I think a great example of the kind of thing I'm talking about is Stalin's assistance to India. Whereas Britain achieved industrialization by leeching off of its colonies, including India, the Soviets industrialized on their own, and helped India in industrializing. It's more about 'helping people help themselves' than taking a condescending attitude towards the disadvantaged.

EDIT:
On second thought, I realize that we're confusing things here. I originally started the topic giving the example of a progressive party coming to power in an area that is backwards. I wasn't talking about a foreign power coming in and forcing everyone to modernize.

I think my point of view on this subject is being misrepresented because of this.
A progressive workers party coming to power in a backwards area of the world, should attempt to 'catch up' in terms of technology, medicine, and the like. Though it will be a collective effort, inevitably there will 'guardians of the old order' who will attempt to turn back the clock, and they must either deal with the new government or get out.

As for one nation's aid to another, as I mentioned above, I summed it up in the paragraphs above.

[Black Dagger]

However, there is an element of force in this- while sections of the people will join the collective effort to modernize, there will also be elements working against it.

And how do you propose that the dissenters to this plane of forced 'modernisation' be dealt with?


The Kulaks were 'forced' to give up their property.

So-called 'backward' 'tribal' peoples are not analogous to a landed elite.



I think a great example of the kind of thing I'm talking about is Stalin's assistance to India...the Soviets industrialized on their own, and helped India in industrializing.

How is that anything like the forced 'modernisation' that you've proposed? There was no threat of force behind the assistance offered by the Soviet Union.



It's more about 'helping people help themselves' than taking a condescending attitude towards the disadvantaged.

I agree - that is what the Soviets efforts you described above represent - but that is not at all what you have proposed thus far (indeed the topic title itself reads - 'forced modernisation'):


I personally think the population should be forced to modernize.


However, there is an element of force in this- while sections of the people will join the collective effort to modernize, there will also be elements working against it.

If you don't agree with the 'patronizing 'enlightened people' theory' than you should not propose that communists should 'help' disadvantaged people by force.

[black magick hustla]

Right - 'meant to be' - that doesn't mean that they are neutral terms. Indeed to suggest that concepts like 'civilisation' and 'modernisation' are neutral is the very epitome of liberalism.

Maybe liberalism a few centuries ago, when it was almost synonimous to enlightment and positivism. When I mean they are neutral is that "civilization", in historical terms, means something very specific. Same with "modernization". It has nothing to do with it being inherently good or bad, or that we "should civilize" those barbarians. My history textbook would define Egypt, Sumeria, etc as the first civilizations because they followed a certain trend.

And I think you are misunderstanding my politics. I am for the destruction of the contemporary conception of civilization, and the concept of enlightment as a "morally good" thing. Civilization and class society are essentially the same thing: the civilized "creature" is essentially someone that can be domesticated under what the dominant ideology deems as "good".

I am not a primitivist, nor I am against technology or anything like that however,.

[Robespierre2.0]

Ok, I concede. When I started the topic, I was trying to find an example of something similar to Imperial Russia- I figured that undeveloped areas today would be quite similar- there would be some group parallel to the Kulaks and their cronies working against modernization, and that the party would be required to use force and repression against them.

However, I realize how my words came off. Therefore, I suppose I'll accept defeat.

[coda]

good decision, Marxosaurus!

[Robespierre2.0]

Hey, don't be so smug. I still am for revolutionary parties using force and repression against those who work to restore capitalism, patriarchy, and theocracy- The difference is that I've realize that the words I used earlier do indeed sound like condescending 'help from above', and therefore, I want to stress that I don't have that kind of view on the matter.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I started a thread like this a few months ago, called "Indigenous Peoples and Socialism," and I repeated the same eurocentric overtones.

Most tribal peoples incorporate themselves into what is 'modern' (that is, what betters their standard of living) without 'force' from above. They use electricity in their villages, hunting rifles and gadgets, medicine, and even sign contracts with local governments over the construction of infrastructure in their areas.

With globalization continuing the imperialist tradition of misplacing natives from their land, I think that indigenous peoples should be apart of the socialist experience, and should be offered an analysis of why their lives were destroyed, so that they can take it and join with other farmers, workers, and oppressed peoples in constructing a new world based on a more rational social allocation of the world's resources.

[coda]

<<Hey, don't be so smug. I still am for revolutionary parties using force and repression against those who work to restore capitalism, patriarchy, and theocracy- The difference is that I've realize that the words I used earlier do indeed sound like condescending 'help from above', and therefore, I want to stress that I don't have that kind of view on the matter>>

Look in the mirror, bud.

Ethnocide generally leads in all cases to genocide. There is no *urgent* need to modernize primitive tribes. They aren't practicing capitalism and on the verge of toppling civilization. "Revolutionary parties" forcing assimilation or crushing them underfoot isn't the way to deal with anybody. how about sending anthropologists who understand their culture and language to teach the rest of the world what they're about. The people who need help and need modern amenities brought to them are the people currently living in modern civilization under abject poverty who are dying at alarming rates because they don't have food, clean water, medicine or proper housing and have no means of getting those things --- not indigenous people who have been self-subsistent for centuries.

ps: read Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

[Robespierre2.0]

Do you realize even realize what I'm talking about here?

The hypothetical situation I created was one in which a revolutionary party comes to power in the cities of a mostly unindustrialized nation. In the countryside, peasants still plow with oxen, women still exist only to make babies, and the priests and wealthy landowners have convinced the population that 'This is the way God wants it'.

You want to send anthropologists to study these people rather than the Red Guards to encourage the masses to do away with the old ways and suppress the bourgeois and their lackies?

To be fair, I think you misunderstood me as wanting to force the bushmen or similar groups to immediately modernize. I'd agree with sending them medicine and such, but as I stated above- It must be done in the spirit of solidarity with other oppressed peoples rather than for personal gain.

[coda]

ohhhh, the old bait and switch tactic!! good one, Marxasuarus rex. first it's backwards tribal systems. Now, it's peasants who plow with oxen. uh huh.

Well, i don't deal with hypotheticals.. but i gotta feeling that your Red Guards will never get past our AVA who will be there to protect those peasants every step of the way.

[Coggeh]

If, hypothetically, socialist parties came to power in certain parts of africa still living under a backwards tribal system, with the patriarchy and anti-Marxist religious beliefs that that entails, would forced modernization be ethical?

I personally think the population should be forced to modernize. I also think that if you're against that, you're a bourgeois liberal.
What point would their be in coming to power if were not going to force change and modernization i would have thought that was a pretty big deal in social marxism .

[bcbm]

For instance, all children deserve access to modern, secular education and medicine -- despite the inane ramblings of the cultural relativists.

I don't think you understand what it is that cultural relativists actually believe. They don't believe societies with harmful traditions or practices should be allowed to continue them without interruption.