Debate on Indigenous and European 'Civilisation'

[Vanguard1917]

I really, really don't care if other societies were more or less advanced and I am not promoting some sense of "native pride" or "superiority"...but I won't stand for the idea that we were just a bunch of backward, primitive idiots waiting for the Europeans to invade and show us how to properly live.

Right.

The problem was never that European society wasn't more advanced than the tribal societies of America. The problem was that capitalism would not permit the Native Americans to reclaim the universal achievements of humanity (in technology, industry, the sciences, the arts, etc.) without resorting to European barbarism.



Cars...and mass production has only multiplied the problems in Africa by 100000 .


I think he got this from the Greenpeace website.

[Plagueround]

Right.

The problem was never that European society wasn't more advanced than the tribal societies of America. The problem was that capitalism would not permit the Native Americans to reclaim the universal achievements of humanity (in technology, industry, the sciences, the arts, etc.) without resorting to European barbarism.

Right. Just so long as you do recognize that in some regards Native Americans were far more advanced as well. ;)

[Vanguard1917]

Right. Just so long as you do recognize that in some regards Native Americans were far more advanced as well. ;)

Overall, however, it was a less advanced society in terms of historical development.

[Dean]

Overall, however, it was a less advanced society in terms of historical development.

This is just like the ridiculous arguments about "evolutionary advancement" as if it were some kind of quantitative trajectory.

[RebelDog]

There were many great features of many native american societies but they were well and truly trashed by the invasion, occupation and genocide after 1492. The destruction of the native americans was the greatest genocide in world history but one seldom mentioned.

[Dean]

There were many great features of many native american societies but they were well and truly trashed by the invasion, occupation and genocide after 1492. The destruction of the native americans was the greatest genocide in world history but one seldom mentioned.

I'm not a hundred persent on that. Did you read about the Congo Free State?

[black magick hustla]

Vanguard 1917 is right insofar that capitalist production had to be introduced into non-civilized societies (I dont mean non civilized in the chauvinist way, but in the fact that they lacked class stratification and the sophisticated layers of bureacracy class societies had). However, the mistake of Vanguard 1917 is to think that the "advancement" of capitalist relations as we communist treat it is synonimous to technological advance. Although capitalism did bring technology, today capital is not progressive in any sense anymore because it accomplished its historical objective of proletarianizing the mayority of the world (either as industrial, service, or agricultural proletarians) and integrating all regions of the world to a world system. Capitalism right now is synonimous to barbarism- although there is technological advance under it (there will always be technology or science regardless) it is prone to crisis and imperialist war. This is the age of war and revolutions, and anytime the world proletariat retreats to the concept of nation-states, humanity will pay with more wars and revolutions.

[Martin Blank]

Overall, however, it was a less advanced society in terms of historical development.

"Historical development", by whose definition? This kind of vulgar historical materialism, which dictates that all societies must follow the steps of development experienced in Europe over its history, was rejected by Marx after his careful study of pre-capitalist societies in the late-1870s (see his Ethnographical Notebooks).

[Martin Blank]

This gem of a comment could not escape my attention.


Vanguard 1917 is right insofar that capitalist production had to be introduced into non-civilized societies (I don't mean non civilized in the chauvinist way, but in the fact that they lacked class stratification and the sophisticated layers of bureaucracy class societies had). However, the mistake of Vanguard 1917 is to think that the "advancement" of capitalist relations as we communist treat it is synonymous to technological advance. Although capitalism did bring technology, today capital is not progressive in any sense anymore because it accomplished its historical objective of proletarianizing the majority of the world (either as industrial, service, or agricultural proletarians) and integrating all regions of the world to a world system. Capitalism right now is synonymous to barbarism- although there is technological advance under it (there will always be technology or science regardless) it is prone to crisis and imperialist war. This is the age of war and revolutions, and anytime the world proletariat retreats to the concept of nation-states, humanity will pay with more wars and revolutions.

"Vanguard 1917 is right insofar that capitalist production had to be introduced into non-civilized societies".... Again, who says? If you're going by what Marx wrote, you should read his 1881 letter to Vera Zasulich on pre-capitalist formations in Russia. For example:


If the Russian admirers of the capitalist system denied the theoretical possibility of such a development [the development of a pre-capitalist social form into a post-capitalist one, bypassing the capitalist mode of production altogether -- HJM], I would ask them this question: In order to utilize machines, steam engines, railways, etc., was Russia forced, like the West, to pass through a long incubation period in the engineering industry? Let them explain to me, too, how they managed to introduce in their own country, in the twinkling of an eye, the entire mechanism of exchange (banks, credit institutions, etc.), which it took the West centuries to devise?...

t can become a [I]direct point of departure for the economic system towards which modern society tends; it can turn over a new leaf without beginning by committing suicide; it can gain possession of the fruits with which capitalist production has enriched mankind, without passing through the capitalist regime, a regime which, considered solely from the point of view of its possible duration hardly counts in the life of society."I don't mean non-civilized in the chauvinist way, but in the fact that they lacked class stratification and the sophisticated layers of bureaucracy class societies had".... Actually, then, you do mean it in a chauvinist way, since the "class stratification and the sophisticated layers of bureaucracy" you equate with social progress and "civilization" were specific to Europe -- especially the latter, "the sophisticated layers of bureaucracy". Indeed, the mind boggles at the idea that "sophisticated layers of bureaucracy" are tantamount to the advent of "civilization" by any measure. You'll forgive me if, here in my notes, I have the comment, "Is this how Stalinism began?"

(There is an interesting side-note to this view, however. One finds in this comment -- this paean to Hegelian idealism -- a viewpoint that begs the question: Whose class interest does it reflect and serve to philosophically link "sophisticated layers of bureaucracy" and social progress? Or, more to the point, which class benefits most from the existence of "sophisticated layers of bureaucracy" in a society? I'll leave this here for the moment, to let you mull it over and think it through.)

"However, the mistake of Vanguard 1917 is to think that the 'advancement' of capitalist relations as we communist treat it is synonymous to technological advance".... Actually, no. His mistake -- the same as yours -- is to think that the capitalist mode of production stands as "superior" to, as an "advancement" from, the indigenous communism of many Native American societies, such as the Iroquois and Lakotah. You two differ only in synonyms: his is technological advance, yours is class stratification and bureaucracy. But you both express a vulgar, mechanical and, yes, Eurocentric method of historical materialism.

"Although capitalism did bring technology, today capital is not progressive in any sense anymore because it accomplished its historical objective of proletarianizing the majority of the world (either as industrial, service, or agricultural proletarians) and integrating all regions of the world to a world system. Capitalism right now is synonymous to barbarism- although there is technological advance under it (there will always be technology or science regardless) it is prone to crisis and imperialist war. This is the age of war and revolutions, and anytime the world proletariat retreats to the concept of nation-states, humanity will pay with more wars and revolutions."... I sincerely hope you didn't pay any more than 99 cents for that cookie cutter. If you did, you got ripped off.

[Plagueround]

Overall, however, it was a less advanced society in terms of historical development.

If you compare the technological achievements of Europeans and Native Americans, you will find they were vastly ahead of Europeans in a number of areas that are extremely important to civilization and "historical development". To ignore these contributions or paint them as less significant is ahistorical. I was rather disappointed at first, but at the same time, It would not be fair to begrudge you for these opinions because to be quite honest, I didn't even realize the extent of how advanced some of the Native American sciences were, especially in the field of medicine.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you compare the technological achievements of Europeans and Native Americans, you will find they were vastly ahead of Europeans in a number of areas that are extremely important to civilization and "historical development".

...

I didn't even realize the extent of how advanced some of the Native American sciences were, especially in the field of medicine.

So apart from medicine, which you already mentioned, what else was there?

[Dean]

So apart from medicine, which you already mentioned, what else was there?

Social organization, national cooperation (league of nations), to name a couple.

[Vanguard1917]

"Vanguard 1917 is right insofar that capitalist production had to be introduced into non-civilized societies".... Again, who says? If you're going by what Marx wrote, you should read his 1881 letter to Vera Zasulich on pre-capitalist formations in Russia. For example:

Marx is talking about the theoretical possibility of taking advantage of Russia's rural communal property and industrialising the nation on that basis. Why does Marx argue this? Because he argues that the specific conditions of the Russian rural commune allow it to appropriate the achievements of capitalism at a time when capitalism is begining to hold back further economic progress:

'One circumstance very favourable, from the historical point of view, to the preservation of the “agricultural commune” by the path of its further development is the fact that it is not only the contemporary of Western capitalist production and is thus able to appropriate its fruits without subjecting itself to its modus operandi, but has outlasted the era when the capitalist system still appeared to be intact; that it now finds it, on the contrary, in Western Europe as well as in the United States, engaged in battle both with the working-class masses, with science, and with the very productive forces which it engenders — in a word, in a crisis which will end in its elimination, in the return of modern societies to a superior form of an “archaic” type of collective property and production.'
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm

But Marx emphasises that Russia is a special case. Why? Because: 'It is not the prey of a foreign conqueror, as the East Indies, and neither does it lead a life cut off from the modern world.'

For Marx and Engels, the European discovery of America was a vastly progressive historical development for the reason that it allowed the creation, for the first time in human history, of a truly world economy, bringing together the whole of humanity under it, and allowing the smashing of feudalism:

'The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

[...]

'Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.'

(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm)

[bcbm]

For Marx and Engels, the European discovery of America was a vastly progressive historical development for the reason that it allowed the creation, for the first time in human history, of a truly world economy, bringing together the whole of humanity under it, and allowing the smashing of feudalism

A world economy for Europeans. The indigenous were enslaved or murdered wholesale. Progressive. :rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

A world economy for Europeans.

No, not just for Europeans. A world economy which for the first time brought together virtually the whole of humanity under its umbrella. For Marx and Engels, this presented an immense opportunity for further progress, allowing for the first time ever a universal movement of people for change.



The indigenous were enslaved or murdered wholesale.


Yes, history moves forward in contradictory fashion.

[Plagueround]

Social organization, national cooperation (league of nations), to name a couple.

Massive agricultural progress and advanced understanding of plant breeding not seen in Europe until Mendel, Iron working and the ability to work with platinum centuries before Europe figured it out, the invention of the wheel (although American terrain was generally not suited for it or they lacked domesticatable animals, so it was only used for toys, they relied on more suitable means of transportation), and of course common everyday items that have been modified like parkas, snowshoes, etc.

It's a subject I've been looking into and will be ordering some books on because as I said, I didn't even know the extent of contribution. It seems to me to be a very obscured and "hidden" part of history that I would like to know more about so I can give you all a more qualified answer than what I've read in the past few days.

[black magick hustla]

This gem of a comment could not escape my attention.



"Vanguard 1917 is right insofar that capitalist production had to be introduced into non-civilized societies".... Again, who says? If you're going by what Marx wrote, you should read his 1881 letter to Vera Zasulich on pre-capitalist formations in Russia. For example:

"I don't mean non-civilized in the chauvinist way, but in the fact that they lacked class stratification and the sophisticated layers of bureaucracy class societies had".... Actually, then, you do mean it in a chauvinist way, since the "class stratification and the sophisticated layers of bureaucracy" you equate with social progress and "civilization" were specific to Europe -- especially the latter, "the sophisticated layers of bureaucracy". Indeed, the mind boggles at the idea that "sophisticated layers of bureaucracy" are tantamount to the advent of "civilization" by any measure. You'll forgive me if, here in my notes, I have the comment, "Is this how Stalinism began?"

(There is an interesting side-note to this view, however. One finds in this comment -- this paean to Hegelian idealism -- a viewpoint that begs the question: Whose class interest does it reflect and serve to philosophically link "sophisticated layers of bureaucracy" and social progress? Or, more to the point, which class benefits most from the existence of "sophisticated layers of bureaucracy" in a society? I'll leave this here for the moment, to let you mull it over and think it through.)

"However, the mistake of Vanguard 1917 is to think that the 'advancement' of capitalist relations as we communist treat it is synonymous to technological advance".... Actually, no. His mistake -- the same as yours -- is to think that the capitalist mode of production stands as "superior" to, as an "advancement" from, the indigenous communism of many Native American societies, such as the Iroquois and Lakotah. You two differ only in synonyms: his is technological advance, yours is class stratification and bureaucracy. But you both express a vulgar, mechanical and, yes, Eurocentric method of historical materialism.
.

I am not "western" nor white. So the accusations of "chauvinism" is dumb as hell, unless you want to imply that I am some sort of "house brown". I am a mexican first generation immigrant.

I am for the destruction of civilization, so for me, the word "civilized" has no progressive connotations today. Furthermore, I never used "progress" in that post. I dont see "civilization" as a "progress", it came with a lot of misery, but it was something inevitable. It doesnt means its a "progress" - its like saying imperialist wars are "progressive" because they are inevitable.

the west development of more "sophisticated" forms of bureacracy has nothing to do with some sort of european cultural or genetical superiority, but because of geographical features. I go with the line of Guns, Germs, and Steel. Implying that the indigenous societies had more sophisticated forms of organization is just silly pandering to cultural politics. They werent a "worse" society because they were not civilization, simply it was inevitable, in one way or the other, that sooner or later such societies were integrated to world capital.

You shouldnt quote Marx against me. I do not care about quote battles - I just care what is true or not - not who said it or if I am consistent with a dead white man.

[Vanguard1917]

...silly pandering to cultural politics.


And the cultural relativists in reality accept some of the same racists premises which they purport to be challenging. The idea that the 'white man' and the 'brown man' have two inherently different ways of doing things, and that the achievements of each are particular to their own distinct way of living, cultural peculiarities, etc.

[Plagueround]

And the cultural relativists in reality accept some of the same racists premises which they purport to be challenging. The idea that the 'white man' and the 'brown man' have two inherently different ways of doing things, and that the achievements of each are particular to their own distinct way of living, cultural peculiarities, etc.

Not inherently different because they are white or brown. Simply different due to the environments and conditions they were in. It's not a competition, and when I say "Natives were more advanced in this particular area" it's not a challenge to say either society was greater, it's a demonstration of the fact that scientific and societal development is not a linear trail that begins and ends with European innovation.

[Vanguard1917]

it's a demonstration of the fact that scientific and societal development is not a linear trail that begins and ends with European innovation.

I don't think anyone here would claim that it is. It's a matter of geographical accident that European society happened to be at the forefront of historical development at a certain stage in world history.

But the point is: the accomplishments which took place in Europe (whether in the sphere of culture, science, technology or industry) should not be perceived as 'European accomplishments', but as human accomplishments, to be reclaimed by humanity as a whole. The problem is that the capitalist order has stood in the way of this. Like Fanon said: 'All the elements of a solution to the great problems of humanity have, at different times, existed in European thought. But Europeans have not carried out in practice the mission that fell to them.' Denouncing European colonialism ought not to mean disregarding the profound achievements that took place in Europe. Instead, it should mean fighting for the right of all, as opposed to a privileged minority, to have access to them and benefit from them.

[Martin Blank]

Marx is talking about the theoretical possibility of taking advantage of Russia's rural communal property and industrialising the nation on that basis. Why does Marx argue this? Because he argues that the specific conditions of the Russian rural commune allow it to appropriate the achievements of capitalism at a time when capitalism is beginning to hold back further economic progress:

I actually thought about including the quote you give to justify your argument, because it reinforces the point I was making.


But Marx emphasises that Russia is a special case. Why? Because: 'It is not the prey of a foreign conqueror, as the East Indies, and neither does it lead a life cut off from the modern world.'

Apparently, you have not read Marx's Ethnographical Notebooks, where he develops and deepens the analysis and applies it to many (not all, admittedly) of the indigenous societies in North America. I'm not surprised, really; his analysis flies in the face of your own Eurocentrism.

If you read beyond the quotes you use, you'll also see that Marx's reference to the situation in Russia being "special" was to say that it was special within Europe. "Alone in Europe," he writes, "it has kept going not merely as scattered debris such as the rare and curious miniatures in a state of the archaic type which one could still come across until quite recently in the West, but as the virtually predominant form of popular life covering an immense empire."


For Marx and Engels, the European discovery of America was a vastly progressive historical development for the reason that it allowed the creation, for the first time in human history, of a truly world economy, bringing together the whole of humanity under it, and allowing the smashing of feudalism:

For Marx and Engels, the European discovery of America was a vastly progressive historical development for Europe, because it allowed the continent to smash feudalism and create a world economy that it dominated. On the other hand, it was not progressive for the pre-class societies that existed in North America, such as the Iroquois and Lakotah -- for societies that knew nothing of private property, classes or class antagonisms.

[Martin Blank]

I am not "western" nor white. So the accusations of "chauvinism" is dumb as hell, unless you want to imply that I am some sort of "house brown". I am a Mexican first generation immigrant.

Actually, you are "western" in your ideology and consciousness, so the accusation of chauvinism still applies, in my opinion. Just because you are a "Mexican first generation immigrant" doesn't mean your view of the world is not shaped by Eurocentric ideology. On the contrary, given that Mexico is a country that was conquered by the Europeans, I would expect that the same ideology used to proclaim the virtues of the "discovery" and conquest over "non-civilized" indigenous peoples would be akin to what is spread here.


I am for the destruction of civilization, so for me, the word "civilized" has no progressive connotations today. Furthermore, I never used "progress" in that post. I don't see "civilization" as a "progress", it came with a lot of misery, but it was something inevitable. It doesn't means its a "progress" - its like saying imperialist wars are "progressive" because they are inevitable.

Your dime-a-dozen moralism does not let you escape from the fact that you readily cast societies not shaped by European standards as "non-civilized" -- the implication being they were less socially progressive than "civilized" Europe. That is Eurocentrism, albeit yours is a more passive and nihilistic form.


the west development of more "sophisticated" forms of bureaucracy has nothing to do with some sort of European cultural or genetic superiority, but because of geographical features. I go with the line of Guns, Germs, and Steel. Implying that the indigenous societies had more sophisticated forms of organization is just silly pandering to cultural politics. They weren't a "worse" society because they were not civilization, simply it was inevitable, in one way or the other, that sooner or later such societies were integrated to world capital.

It was inevitable, after Europe began to spread out around the world in search of capital and resources, that other societies would find themselves under their domination. But it is neither "silly pandering to cultural politics" nor "cultural relativism" to recognize a fact: that many of the societies that were conquered and dominated by European capital had more sophisticated forms of organization.

One needs only look at what the Framers of the U.S. Constitution chose as one of its primary influences for that document: the political and governance structure of the Iroquois Confederation. They looked to the "non-civilized" peoples for ideas ... and found them. Would you call that a retrograde development, since the "civilized" Europeans looked to the experience of the "non-civilized" Iroquois for lessons in shaping the future development of their bourgeois-democratic system?


You shouldn't quote Marx against me. I do not care about quote battles - I just care what is true or not - not who said it or if I am consistent with a dead white man.

Marx's quote only reinforces a point of methodology, and is not about "quote battles". It's also not about "what is true or not", but about what is factual or not. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are entitled to your own "truth", but you are not entitled to your own facts ... and you cannot simply pick and choose which facts to acknowledge.

BTW, nice try with the baiting. It really makes you look like someone who thinks about things seriously. :rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

Apparently, you have not read Marx's Ethnographical Notebooks

Does Marx argue that pre-conquest American society did not have a material base less advanced than European society?



his analysis flies in the face of your own Eurocentrism.



There is nothing 'Eurocentric' about what i have said. My outlook is a universalist one, which attempts to apply a universal measure of historical development, as opposed to a cultural relativist one.



If you read beyond the quotes you use, you'll also see that Marx's reference to the situation in Russia being "special" was to say that it was special within Europe.


That's clearly not what he's arguing. Indeed, he compares Russia to India, which obviously isn't a European country. He argues that Russia could, in theory, appropriate the gains of capitalism (industry, technology, etc) without abolishing the rural communes because (as Marx emphasises twice in his letter): 'It is not the prey of a foreign conqueror, as the East Indies, and neither does it lead a life cut off from the modern world.'

It's as a result of such conditions, Marx argues, that Russia may theoretically be able to 'gain possession of the fruits with which capitalist production has enriched mankind, without passing through the capitalist regime'.

In what sense is a society completely cut off from the modern world (e.g. pre-conquest American society) going to 'gain possession of the fruits which capitalist production has enriched mankind' with?



For Marx and Engels, the European discovery of America was a vastly progressive historical development for Europe, because it allowed the continent to smash feudalism and create a world economy that it dominated.


And, therefore, not progressive for historical development as a whole? Marx argues that the very success of the bourgeoisie's revolutionary aims was facilitated by the European discovery of America - i.e. the discovery of America was of epoch-making proportions.

In other words, society could not have progressed beyond feudalism and towards a world capitalist order without the discovery. Thus no international rule of capital, no international proletariat, and no international movement for socialism.



for societies that knew nothing of private property, classes or class antagonisms.


Even if this is true, it does not in any way necessarily indicate a progressive form of society. Primitive communal societies did not have private proverty or classes. Does that mean they weren't less historically advanced than modern society? Obviously, we know that from the POV of Marxism they were. Marxists look at the level of the development of society's productive forces.

[Vanguard1917]

the implication being they were less socially progressive than "civilized" Europe. That is Eurocentrism


No, there is nothing 'Eurocentric' about recognising that some societies are more advanced than others. In fact, such a recognition is key to the materialist conception of history.

But, of course, all sorts of bourgeois ideologues have for a very long time made a habit of branding Marxism as 'Eurocentric'...

[Martin Blank]

Does Marx argue that pre-conquest American society did not have a material base less advanced than European society?

He pointed out the obvious -- that they did not have much of the technological development that had emerged in Europe after the Industrial Revolution. But in many other areas, including in the development of agriculture, medicine, social relations and politics, they were on the level of or even higher than Europe. This is especially the case in social relations and politics, where most indigenous societies were still without classes and class antagonisms.


There is nothing 'Eurocentric' about what i have said. My outlook is a universalist one, which attempts to apply a universal measure of historical development, as opposed to a cultural relativist one.

You cannot have a "universalist" outlook if you begin from the premise that European historical development was "universally" the highest. And there is more to historical development than economics. You might be willing to distill communist theory down to economic determinism and be satisfied, but by doing so you rob it of most of its power.

World history, and world historical development, is not created or written by one people, nor in one country, nor on one continent. Unless you are willing to read the other chapters of the world's history, study and analyze them, you cannot but help have you viewpoint shaped by only what you know -- in this case, European history, European development and European culture.


That's clearly not what he's arguing. Indeed, he compares Russia to India, which obviously isn't a European country.

Read it again. The comparisons to India and the East Indes are incidental, included in the text because the two had been in the news of the day. The entire letter frames the discussion on Russia through its contrast with "the West", by which he meant western Europe.


He argues that Russia could, in theory, appropriate the gains of capitalism (industry, technology, etc) without abolishing the rural communes because (as Marx emphasises twice in his letter): 'It is not the prey of a foreign conqueror, as the East Indies, and neither does it lead a life cut off from the modern world.'...

It's as a result of such conditions, Marx argues, that Russia may theoretically be able to 'gain possession of the fruits with which capitalist production has enriched mankind, without passing through the capitalist regime'.

In what sense is a society completely cut off from the modern world (e.g. pre-conquest American society) going to 'gain possession of the fruits which capitalist production has enriched mankind' with?

"Pre-conquest American society" is not necessarily what we're talking about here. Columbus landed in 1492, but it took another 400 years before the last of the indigenous peoples of North America were subjugated. During those four centuries, the indigenous peoples of the continent were not "cut off from the modern world [sic!]", completely or otherwise. On the contrary, in large parts of North America, the traders and explorers from the "modern world" were wholly dependent on those indigenous people for their survival.

Indeed, among many Native American nations today, it can be said that the subjugation is not complete, and that some of the forms and even content of pre-class society remain and are practiced. If we take the Lakotah, for example, we see a society that still retains many of the "archaic" customs and practices that existed for 10,000 years before the final battles between them and the U.S. government took place in 1890. Moreover, the "collective memory" of pre-class society remains within the culture and is reflected in social relationships; those who seek to work within the existing capitalist system are looked upon as igluwašiču -- as those trying to ape the European.

It is also seen in Lakotah attitudes toward property; even personal property, as defined in American society, is seen as having something of a communal character, and private property -- capital -- is seen as something that should be owned by none, administered by all and producing for the benefit of humanity.


And, therefore, not progressive for historical development as a whole? Marx argues that the very success of the bourgeoisie's revolutionary aims was facilitated by the European discovery of America - i.e. the discovery of America was of epoch-making proportions.

In other words, society could not have progressed beyond feudalism and towards a world capitalist order without the discovery. Thus no international rule of capital, no international proletariat, and no international movement for socialism.

European society could not have progressed at that time if international extension had not happened. If it wasn't the Europeans who did it, it would have been others. There is documented evidence of trans-Atlantic voyages between western Africa and northeastern South America, beginning as early as the 13th century and ending in the early 16th century, as Europeans began colonizing the hemisphere. The Chinese are suspected to have "discovered" the Americas at least 60 years before Columbus left Spain. The path toward "discovery" was more like the race to the moon between the U.S. and USSR, with China (then the world's largest manufacturer), the various European powers, and some of the more powerful nationalities in South America and Africa vying for dominance. Europe came out as the winner of that race because of the specific circumstances (China not needing eastward expansion and thus not willing to invest in such exploration; the Africans dealing with internal civil conflict and external power struggles in the wake of the decline of the Caliphate; the South American indigenous nations seeing no need to expand its trade beyond what their societies needed).


Even if this is true, it does not in any way necessarily indicate a progressive form of society. Primitive communal societies did not have private property or classes. Does that mean they weren't less historically advanced than modern society? Obviously, we know that from the POV of Marxism they were. Marxists look at the level of the development of society's productive forces.

Yes, "Marxists look at the level of the development of society's productive forces". But they look at them in relation to the society and social relations, not in a vacuum. This is how we understand distinct modes of production, which are based on social relationships, and how the contradictions between the development of productive forces and social relationship foster revolutionary social change.

Here again we see the vulgar, mechanical approach to history. the curve of historical development is a calculus of change and relationship, not a simple mathematical aggregation -- not a lineral slope that rises along with technological advances.

[Martin Blank]

No, there is nothing 'Eurocentric' about recognising that some societies are more advanced than others. In fact, such a recognition is key to the materialist conception of history.

In and of itself, no. But there is something "Eurocentric" in failing to recognize that some indigenous societies were able to advance farther in some areas than those in Europe -- there is something "Eurocentric" in seeing only European historical development as "advanced".


But, of course, all sorts of bourgeois ideologues have for a very long time made a habit of branding Marxism as 'Eurocentric'...

And ahistorical, tunnel-visioned self-described "Marxists" like you give them the ammunition with which to make their argument.

[Plagueround]

No, there is nothing 'Eurocentric' about recognising that some societies are more advanced than others. In fact, such a recognition is key to the materialist conception of history.

But, of course, all sorts of bourgeois ideologues have for a very long time made a habit of branding Marxism as 'Eurocentric'...

What then, at the time of contact, was more advanced about European society? As we've mentioned, both societies had their "advantages" in technological development...are you basing this solely on class relations? I'm not following how this can be accurate when the development of modern bourgeois society was directly influenced by native (specifically, Iroquois) forms of governance.

[Vanguard1917]

But in many other areas, including in the development of agriculture, medicine, social relations and politics, they were on the level of or even higher than Europe.


OK, where does he say this?



This is especially the case in social relations and politics, where most indigenous societies were still without classes and class antagonisms.



Why would that be indicative of a more advanced historical development? Is primitive communism, where there were no classes and thus class antagonisms, a more advanced historical stage than capitalism?



You cannot have a "universalist" outlook if you begin from the premise that European historical development was "universally" the highest.


That's not my premise at all. What i'm doing is putting forward the Marxist argument that, at the time of the European discovery of America, Europe was at the forefront of historical development.


"Pre-conquest American society" is not necessarily what we're talking about here. Columbus landed in 1492, but it took another 400 years before the last of the indigenous peoples of North America were subjugated. During those four centuries, the indigenous peoples of the continent were not "cut off from the modern world [sic!]", completely or otherwise. On the contrary, in large parts of North America, the traders and explorers from the "modern world" were wholly dependent on those indigenous people for their survival.


Then this means that you accept that the European discovery of America was progressive from a historical POV - that world historical development could not have taken place without it.


"cut off from the modern world [sic!]"

Cut off from the modern world is Marx's phrase.



European society could not have progressed at that time if international extension had not happened.


Why just European society? Capitalism is a world system, which could not have come about without the European discovery of America.


In and of itself, no. But there is something "Eurocentric" in failing to recognize that some indigenous societies were able to advance farther in some areas than those in Europe -- there is something "Eurocentric" in seeing only European historical development as "advanced".


And in no way have i argued that in this discussion or anywhere else. All i have pointed out is the Marxist view that the mode of production and historical epoch which was emerging in Europe at the time of the discovery of America - i.e. capitalism - happened to be the most advanced stage in historical development in the world at that time.



Read it again. The comparisons to India and the East Indes are incidental, included in the text because the two had been in the news of the day. The entire letter frames the discussion on Russia through its contrast with "the West", by which he meant western Europe.



The point is that Marx is outlining the conditions in which the rural commune structure can be used to industrialise the country: the lack of outside conquest and not being cut off from the modern world.

It therefore makes litte sense to draw comparisons with Marx's Russia and the isolated Native American tribes, when very different social conditions are in play.

[Leo]

Apparently, you have not read Marx's Ethnographical Notebooks, where he develops and deepens the analysis and applies it to many (not all, admittedly) of the indigenous societies in North America.There is no such thing as Ethnographical Notebook and I believe you are referring to the Ethnological Notebooks: Marx does not have a perspective like that at all in that study: he is rather examining an isolated and sieged community (that is the Iroquois confederation) which carries heavily the characteristics of the primitive communal societies in order to properly understand and define primitive communism historicaly. While it was one thing to say that the obshchina which was more or less dominant in Russia could 'collaborate' with proletarian revolution due to Russia's special conditions as well the relations between the Russian peasants and, the landlords and the central authorities, it would have been absurd to make a similar conclusion regarding the now tiny native population that was not absorbed into the capitalist system. Clearly it could not be said that the Iroquois society was 'not the prey of a foreign conqueror, as the East Indies' nor that it doesn't 'lead a life cut off from the modern world'.

Capitalism, it is true, begun as a mode of production centered in Europe, and it owe it's existence and it's ascendancy to the expansion to, and exploiting and capitalization of the pre-capitalist markets in the rest of the world. By doing this, capitalism proletarianized the toiling population in societies where it was expanding to, and either integrated the existing ruling classes or created new native bourgeois classes as well. Of all the modes of production in the world at that period, capitalism was the only one capable of unifying the whole world by creating a world market and developing the productive forces to a sufficient extent, and these two factors would make modern, scientific socialism possible. Thus in it's expansion, it was progressive against decaying modes of production such as feudalism, asiatic despotism, slavery and so forth, and the isolated primitive communities had no chance of resisting the capitalist expansion whatsoever: they were either directly integrated into the capitalist system, or they became integrated in the general system when they were struggling against the colonizers. It was a losing battle.

Marx’s approach to primitive society was based on the historical materialist method, which saw the historical evolution of societies as being determined in the last instance by changes in their economic infrastructure. These changes brought about the demise of the primitive community and paved the way for the appearance of more developed social formations. But his view of historical advance was radically opposed to the crude bourgeois evolutionism which saw a purely linear ascent from darkness to light, culminating in the splendor of bourgeois civilization. His view was profoundly dialectical: far from dismissing primitive communist society as semi-human, the Ethnological Notebooks express a profound respect for the human qualities of the tribal commune: its capacity for self-government, the imaginative power of its artistic creations, its sexual egalitarianism and so forth. The limitations of primitive society (in particular, the restrictions on the individual and the separation of humanity into separate tribal units) were necessarily overcome by the historical development and expansion of other modes of production. As for the positive side of these societies, they were lost in the process and will have to be restored at a higher level in the communist future.


Actually, you are "western" in your ideology and consciousness, so the accusation of chauvinism still applies, in my opinion. Just because you are a "Mexican first generation immigrant" doesn't mean your view of the world is not shaped by Eurocentric ideology. On the contrary, given that Mexico is a country that was conquered by the Europeans, I would expect that the same ideology used to proclaim the virtues of the "discovery" and conquest over "non-civilized" indigenous peoples would be akin to what is spread here.What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.


It was inevitable, after Europe began to spread out around the world in search of capital and resources, that other societies would find themselves under their domination. But it is neither "silly pandering to cultural politics" nor "cultural relativism" to recognize a fact: that many of the societies that were conquered and dominated by European capital had more sophisticated forms of organization.Obviously, in the social life, decision making, distribution etc. primitive societies were more communal if this is what you are referring to. On the other hand it is quite clear that the way to acquire the means to survive for a primitive communal societies were much more individually based, and production, if existed at all, too was completely individually based, and of course was very limited; on the other hand in capitalism production was both massive and more significantly collective. The primitive communal societies had many virtues without a doubt, but it was capitalism which was creating the basis for the possibility of a future communist society at that point of history.


One needs only look at what the Framers of the U.S. Constitution chose as one of its primary influences for that document: the political and governance structure of the Iroquois Confederation.This is evidently not accurate, the US Constitution has nothing in common with the governance structure of the Iroquois Confederation.The Iroquois had recommended to the "forefathers [of the] Americans, a union of the colonies similar so their own." Obviously, from a materialist perspective, it was and of course still is impossible for any capitalist regime, no matter how "progressive and democratic" to adopt anything that is actually like a communal governance structure, even if it is a primitive one.

[Plagueround]

There is no such thing as Ethnographical Notebook and I believe you are referring to the Ethnological Notebooks:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/ethnographical-notebooks/ch03.htm

I won't reply to the rest of this because I'm tired of the notion that native American societies classify as primitive.

[Vanguard1917]

But his view of historical advance was radically opposed to the crude bourgeois evolutionism which saw a purely linear ascent from darkness to light, culminating in the splendor of bourgeois civilization. His view was profoundly dialectical


No doubt, of course, that such a critique also needs to be made.

Good post overall. Interesting read. :thumbup1:

[black magick hustla]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/ethnographical-notebooks/ch03.htm

I won't reply to the rest of this because I'm tired of the notion that native American societies classify as primitive.

Primitive is not a moral judgement of whether a society is bad. Certainly the europeans, despite their barbarism, conformed more multi layered civilizations were overall more advanced in the means of production. To deny this is just silly guilt and cultural politics. Certainly, the europeans were more violent but nobody can deny that in most of the aspects that comform civilization, like a writing system, class stratification, a state, etc, the europeans were more sophisticated.

I dont get why people get so worked up by this? Who cares if a certain group was more backward in terms of the means of production and the sophistication of civilization. This means nothing unless you are a positivistic extremist. It doesnt means that the indigenous were dumber or more miserable. This means nothing unless you are attached to much to a guilt trip or identity politics. A person, regardless of descent, can study and create anything given the right resources.

[Plagueround]

Because nothing about those societies were primitive unless you view it solely from a Eurocentric standard of progress, placing emphasis on certain developments while completely ignoring or minimalizing them (It's especially funny that anyone would refer to something as complex as the Iroquois Confederacy as behind Europe in terms of governance, or suggest that it had no influence on the US constitution when there is only a handful of historians who try to state otherwise). To concentrate so much on Europe as the historical forefront of development is to ignore the fact that human progress was a combined effort from all corners of the world, which was the original point of this thread and something people still refuse to see because they can cloak it in a Marxist analysis that, according to CL (I haven't been able to read the article in question), even Karl didn't agree with.

[black magick hustla]

:shrugs: Mayans were more advanced than the europeans in astronomy. The aztecs had a better agricultural system, etc, a beautiful city, bigger than all the other european cotoes, etc.I dont think Europe was the historical "forefront of developlment". Europe became a "forefront" around the late 15th century. The chinese had a more sophisticated civilization for millenia, and certainly indians and muslims were more advanced than europe in the middle ages. There where richer city-states in northern africa for a while, etc. However, in 1400, the europeans were the forefront of capitalist economy. So please dont call me eurocentric.

PS: it says last edited by marmot because i did something wrong. i apologize

[Plagueround]

:shrugs: Mayans were more advanced than the europeans in astronomy. The aztecs had a better agricultural system, etc, a beautiful city, bigger than all the other european cotoes, etc.I dont think Europe was the historical "forefront of developlment". Europe became a "forefront" around the late 15th century. The chinese had a more sophisticated civilization for millenia, and certainly indians and muslims were more advanced than europe in the middle ages. There where richer city-states in northern africa for a while, etc. However, in 1400, the europeans were the forefront of capitalist economy. So please dont call me eurocentric.

PS: it says last edited by marmot because i did something wrong. i apologize

That to me makes more sense and I can agree with that. Europe's development eventually came to the forefront and the economic system we have now is widely a result of that establishment of dominance, and that is what we must use to construct our analysis of modern class struggle. Thank you and my apologies if my defensively written post came off offensively.

[Martin Blank]

It's going to be a couple days before I can reply in any detail in this thread; we are in our weekly editorial phase again, producing the next issue of Working People's Advocate. So, bear with me, it will likely be Sunday night or Monday before I post again on this.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Leo,


As China's feudal society had developed a commodity economy, and so carried within itself the seeds of capitalism, China would of herself have developed slowly into a capitalist society even without the impact of foreign capitalism. Penetration by foreign capitalism accelerated this process. Foreign capitalism played an important part in the disintegration of China's social economy; on the one hand, it undermined the foundations of her self-sufficient natural economy and wrecked the handicraft industries both in the cities and in the peasants' homes, and on the other, it hastened the growth of a commodity economy in town and country.Mao wrote that on China's native development, prior to the entry of British and Portuguese colonialism into their port cities. He was a critic - followed also by Ajaz Ahmad and other anti-colonial figures - of how revolutionary Marxism appropriated the worldview of European culture by treating non-European societies as 'unchanging', 'passive', or otherwise unable to break hereditary-based, landlord system of the past. Indeed, Marx's 'Asiatic' mode of production did not recognize how the breaking down of national markets could of very well ended the linear move upwards to capitalist production on a path independent of the Euro-American powers.

It's because he used the dispositions of early Europe as a paradigm for all of civilization - viewing the 'mode of production' as epochal (in western Europe's case)rather than seeing that several 'modes' could very possibly be in competition with each other. It's not because he's a progressevist or evolutionist, it's because, quite frankly, he held onto many Eurocentric and Orientalist views that were popular that time. It was also highly deterministic of himself to not view Indian history (and politics) through a more investigative lense.

It's clear that the scientific and social advance of the productive forces => a better world that revolutionary communists aim at. But it's crucially important to see the cultural nationalism that civilizational motifs of 'progress' are grounded into, so that Indian and indigenous workers can feel like they are apart of a class movement that views their struggle against racist/national oppression as unique and important in making a better world.

[PRC-UTE]

:shrugs: Mayans were more advanced than the europeans in astronomy. The aztecs had a better agricultural system, etc, a beautiful city, bigger than all the other european cotoes, etc.I dont think Europe was the historical "forefront of developlment". Europe became a "forefront" around the late 15th century. The chinese had a more sophisticated civilization for millenia, and certainly indians and muslims were more advanced than europe in the middle ages. There where richer city-states in northern africa for a while, etc. However, in 1400, the europeans were the forefront of capitalist economy. So please dont call me eurocentric.


this sums up the marxist view well, imo.

too much has been read into the scientific socialist view of progress here in this thread. marxists view progress specifically as development of productive forces, which are understood to be a prerequisite for any socialism.

that doesn't mean the developments of other societies can't be appreciated as well, which marmot has just described. so it is not an inherently eurocentric concept at all.