Primitive tribes in a socialist world

[Questionable]

I was watching an anthropological documentary showing tribes living in the jungles of New Guinea that were still completely primitive, living in tree huts and having the bow-and-arrow as their most advanced technology with barely any contact with the outside world while warring with each other over hunting grounds.

I was wondering how these types of societies would be treated in a post-revolution world. Would we ignore them and let them develop on their own? Collectivize them and begin introducing new technology? Re-integrate them into a new society? We don't want a repeat of the Trail of Tears so I imagine most people would be against the last two options, but how do we deal with these societies without overstepping our ethical boundaries? Or should we even be concerned with ethics? Should we take whatever steps necessary to introduce them to the new socialist world?

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I don't really see the need to mess with their way of life.

[cynicles]

Yeah, I think there wouldn't be any point in messing with them since most of the confrontations between us and them are centred around the excessive damage caused to the environment through capitalism. Once that factor is removed it would be reasonable to assume that there would be minimal interaction unless some members of their community wanted to assimilate, unless I'm missing some factor.

[Sea]

I'd rather not watch a mini-drama play out should they move on to agriculture and fight over the surplus. Give the option to for them to join the rest of society; don't make it mandatory.

Another trail of tears is an irrelevant worry in a socialist world and I shouldn't even have to explain why.

[RedHal]

Schools and Facilities should be set up in the surrounding areas for members of the tribes who wish to join a socialist society, this should not of course be forced.

As much as leftists criticise the backwardness of peasants, they shy away from criticizing the backwardness of primitive tribes.

[maskerade]

please don't call them primitive. just because they have different values and different social and economic systems does not make them less than us, as the qualifier 'primitive' implies. it's horribly ethnocentric to use that term.

everyone should have a right to their own cultural determination. the areas they live in and the land that they use should be left to them. any socialist society should offer free health care and the promise that such a socialist society would not commit ethnocide and destroy their way of life. it should be their choice whether or not they give up their customs.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I say let them stand for as long as they can provided they're not doing any fucked up shit like FGM or something.

[Prometeo liberado]

These people are very smug, what with all their arrows and such. I think they are just showing off by with those "Green" houses while the rest of us obviously don't get.
Why would we destroy what we could learn from? But they are smug.

[Questionable]

please don't call them primitive. just because they have different values and different social and economic systems does not make them less than us, as the qualifier 'primitive' implies. it's horribly ethnocentric to use that term.

Is there a more scientific term I can use? I said nothing about their social values as you'll notice in my post, but it is an objective face that they are technologically inferior to other societies, whether that is good or bad I cannot say. I've seen the word "primitive" used before without it meaning any kind of insult, but if you have an alternative that is used by credible researchers in the field I will use it.

Another trail of tears is an irrelevant worry in a socialist world and I shouldn't even have to explain why

Well, obviously it wouldn't be the same fundamental thing because it's not being done for capitalist motives, but I was more referring to if this socialist society decided to integrate these tribes "for their own good" or something. I'm not saying what I want to do because I'm not sure yet, these are all merely just questions.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Is there a more scientific term I can use? I said nothing about their social values as you'll notice in my post, but it is an objective face that they are technologically inferior to other societies, whether that is good or bad I cannot say. I've seen the word "primitive" used before without it meaning any kind of insult, but if you have an alternative that is used by credible researchers in the field I will use it.

I think "band societies" is generally used to describe small groups who produce through hunting and gathering with or without the aid of some level of subsistance farming. These terms are just problematic because of the relationship of capitalist society towards them - so words that may have begun as innocuous might take on an elitist or "white man's burdon" connotation. Hell the scientific terms for these societies in Marx's day (and the ones that he and Engels used) were things like "barbarism". Marx and Engels tended to also use "primitive" as in "primitive communism".

But because of the connotations today, it's best to try and use the most neutral term when possible.

Well, obviously it wouldn't be the same fundamental thing because it's not being done for capitalist motives, but I was more referring to if this socialist society decided to integrate these tribes "for their own good" or something. I'm not saying what I want to do because I'm not sure yet, these are all merely just questions.

My view is that workers would not have any motivation to "force" people like this or small communes or groups like the Amish or whatnot to join the majority of society. People may even want to form communes and do subsitance farming outside of the main production of society and as long as they wern't going off to form some secret militia instead of just adopting another kind of lifestyle, then I don't see how this is a threat to a worker's society. As far as forcing people for their own good: well I don't see how this applies either because force (I mean other than against the oppressors) and self-liberation don't really go well together.

For the most part though, there are very few groups like this left and many contemporary family-band groups today are actually somewhat connected to market relations through trade or seasonal migrant wage jobs even if most of the time they use subsitance farming or hunting. The groups that are totally independant or isolated can be free to relate to the larger socialist society as they wish and on their own terms, and if they decide they want to continue as they are, then it really doesn't impact workers much at all.

[ind_com]

Is there a more scientific term I can use? I said nothing about their social values as you'll notice in my post, but it is an objective face that they are technologically inferior to other societies, whether that is good or bad I cannot say. I've seen the word "primitive" used before without it meaning any kind of insult, but if you have an alternative that is used by credible researchers in the field I will use it.



Well, obviously it wouldn't be the same fundamental thing because it's not being done for capitalist motives, but I was more referring to if this socialist society decided to integrate these tribes "for their own good" or something. I'm not saying what I want to do because I'm not sure yet, these are all merely just questions.

When the class war starts, communists will find some of their first bases in those tribes. They will be among the first groups to embrace the revolution. So we need not worry about them. They will bring socialism to us, and not the other way around.

[Igor]

It shouldn't be the job of socialist to run around liberating people and bringing nice things to the oppressed masses of the world, because that leads into bad shit. That kind of thinking can lead into a very dangerous mentality; what we are doing could be considered to be imperialist or otherwise condemnable, but because we're commies, you know, the good guys, it's ultimately the right thing. This is used all the time to justify Soviet atrocities, for example.

So yeah, any kind of revolution has to come inside the society. We can show solidarity and support these groups but when the situation is literally having a foreign army bringing about the revolution, it's bad. These societies haven't really changed for thousands of years and that's probably how it will remain but we will just have to live with that because to do otherwise would just make us the Hernan Cortezes of socialism. Acts of imperialism have always been justified with liberation of people who are for some reason lesser, to think it would be any different when we say "yeah but this time it's really for a good cause dude" is astonishingly ignorant of pretty much any history ever.

[maskerade]

Is there a more scientific term I can use? I said nothing about their social values as you'll notice in my post, but it is an objective face that they are technologically inferior to other societies, whether that is good or bad I cannot say. I've seen the word "primitive" used before without it meaning any kind of insult, but if you have an alternative that is used by credible researchers in the field I will use it.



Well, obviously it wouldn't be the same fundamental thing because it's not being done for capitalist motives, but I was more referring to if this socialist society decided to integrate these tribes "for their own good" or something. I'm not saying what I want to do because I'm not sure yet, these are all merely just questions.

In terms of cultural and social complexity, I could make the argument that we are the ones that are primitive compared to them. How would you like being called primitive? it's not a nice word. Most of these bands - you can call them band societies/hunter-gatherer societies/semi-nomadic hill tribes (in reference to many in Papau New Guinea) you get the drift, qualify them by what they are not by what we perceive them to be with our eurocentric lenses on - have had contact with Western technology and reject it completely. I wonder why...

I make this point and emphasize it because language is extremely political. To call them 'primitive' is to in many ways separate them from what we consider to be modern and thus our modern society, putting them out of place. But they are a part of our modern society - just because they reject scientific worship and technological deities doesn't make them not part of it - so making that distinction only serves to 'other' them and simplify their culture. They are not primitive. not in any sense. there is nothing objective about technology being some sort of indicator for cultural and societal sophistication, and the use of technology is a cultural and social act.

We don't decide what is for someone else's good. The day a socialist government forcefully assimilates unwilling people into a culture/society they don't want to be forced into - regardless of how much better we know it will be for them - is the day that socialist government should be abandoned. I don't see anything socialist about it. These people don't want to be integrated into capitalist economies now, that is their choice, it should be their choice whether they join a socialist one.

[Questionable]

In terms of cultural and social complexity, I could make the argument that we are the ones that are primitive compared to them. How would you like being called primitive? it's not a nice word. Most of these bands - you can call them band societies/hunter-gatherer societies/semi-nomadic hill tribes (in reference to many in Papau New Guinea) you get the drift, qualify them by what they are not by what we perceive them to be with our eurocentric lenses on - have had contact with Western technology and reject it completely. I wonder why...

If you called me primitive I would think you were crazy because we live in a rather advanced technological society where I'm speaking to you from thousands of miles away using a computer and the internet. I'm not saying that these hunter-gatherer tribes are bad people for the lives they live, you'll find nothing in my posts blatantly suggesting that. But technologically speaking, they are primitive, and I don't see the point in getting so uptight about me saying that when it's true. It doesn't mean they're savages or horrendous people like some pulp fiction comic, but it's true that we're more technologically advanced than them. More morally advanced? That I cannot say, but I never attempted to make that argument.

I make this point and emphasize it because language is extremely political. To call them 'primitive' is to in many ways separate them from what we consider to be modern and thus our modern society, putting them out of place. But they are a part of our modern society - just because they reject scientific worship and technological deities doesn't make them not part of it - so making that distinction only serves to 'other' them and simplify their culture. They are not primitive. not in any sense. there is nothing objective about technology being some sort of indicator for cultural and societal sophistication, and the use of technology is a cultural and social act.

I would disagree that technology is JUST a cultural and social act. Well, actually, I take that back; obviously it is a social act, but is it not an indication of greater social cooperation and advancement on a larger scale? and I would also disagree that some of these tribes are part of our modern society. Some of them have more links than others, but there exist tribes that have never once had contact with any group of people other than themselves, no economic or cultural ties to speak of. And yes, they are primitive in the sense that they are economically and technologically far behind other societies. Once again, I am not making a moral judgement here, I'm simply observing a basic fact, and I don't see the point in getting worked up about this just because the word "primitive" makes some people feel bad. But, as you and other users have pointed out, the word is indeed mired in a history of ethnocentric white supremacism, and I believe the more correct scientific term is "band societies" as Jimmie Higgins said, so I will refer to them as that from now on, but my point still stands about the economic and technological development.

We don't decide what is for someone else's good. The day a socialist government forcefully assimilates unwilling people into a culture/society they don't want to be forced into - regardless of how much better we know it will be for them - is the day that socialist government should be abandoned. I don't see anything socialist about it. These people don't want to be integrated into capitalist economies now, that is their choice, it should be their choice whether they join a socialist one.

I have still yet to decide my stance on this issue, but I have to ask about the underlying mentality in this position. Why shouldn't we attempt to integrate these tribes? Is it because it is immoral? What morality are we referring to here? Obviously it would be bad for them to be integrated into the system of shameless exploitation that is capitalism, but what is wrong with bringing people under the wings of a socialist system with the improvement of mankind in mind? What is the basis for this isolationist mentality? It seems to be grounded in subjective morality, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

And I just want to clarify again, I'm not arguing here. I haven't decided my stance on the issue and I'm actually leaning closer to something like what Jimmie Higgins was saying. I just want to explore all possibilities before choosing a stance.

[piet11111]

Warring over hunting grounds ?

Maybe thats something that needs to be stopped or do we respect their cultural affinity for war ?

[Igor]

I have still yet to decide my stance on this issue, but I have to ask about the underlying mentality in this position. Why shouldn't we attempt to integrate these tribes? Is it because it is immoral? What morality are we referring to here? Obviously it would be bad for them to be integrated into the system of shameless exploitation that is capitalism, but what is wrong with bringing people under the wings of a socialist system with the improvement of mankind in mind? What is the basis for this isolationist mentality? It seems to be grounded in subjective morality, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

I don't really give a fuck about "improvement of mankind", and that's exactly the kind of rhetoric that's used to justify all kinds of really questionable things. If the decision to overthrow their current system doesn't come from inside the society, it's basically imperialism, and even if we probably think we're just helping them out, that's basically how colonialism was justified for centuries. There is no white man's burden. If these people, or any people, don't show any initiative to change things, just marching in and saying that we're going to show you guys how things are done now, what has that to do with liberation of these peoples? We'd just be the new colonial masters of those people, yippe-kay-yay. The idea that the fact that we're socialists makes it okay for us to do things we otherwise condemn because we're not the bad guys here is absolutely absurd.

[maskerade]

If you called me primitive I would think you were crazy because we live in a rather advanced technological society where I'm speaking to you from thousands of miles away using a computer and the internet. I'm not saying that these hunter-gatherer tribes are bad people for the lives they live, you'll find nothing in my posts blatantly suggesting that. But technologically speaking, they are primitive, and I don't see the point in getting so uptight about me saying that when it's true. It doesn't mean they're savages or horrendous people like some pulp fiction comic, but it's true that we're more technologically advanced than them. More morally advanced? That I cannot say, but I never attempted to make that argument.

Look, using the word primitive has more connotations than just technological. it doesn't matter how you try to justify it to yourself because the word comes with ideological baggage. Why do you have to use the word primitive? They are not as technologically advanced. Boom. Problem solved? Yes. What I am saying is that language surrounding stateless societies have always tended to simplify them and construct them into an other, and this is exactly what using the word 'primitive' does. It fits in to a racist Western discourse that I would say places unjustifiable attention to technology as some sort of indicator of anything. It's not. There is no one true historical path that all people will follow; when you call them primitive you place them on a chronological scale and by implication make them less than us because they haven't come as far. They live the way they do by choice.

I would disagree that technology is JUST a cultural and social act. Well, actually, I take that back; obviously it is a social act, but is it not an indication of greater social cooperation and advancement on a larger scale? and I would also disagree that some of these tribes are part of our modern society. Some of them have more links than others, but there exist tribes that have never once had contact with any group of people other than themselves, no economic or cultural ties to speak of. And yes, they are primitive in the sense that they are economically and technologically far behind other societies. Once again, I am not making a moral judgement here, I'm simply observing a basic fact, and I don't see the point in getting worked up about this just because the word "primitive" makes some people feel bad. But, as you and other users have pointed out, the word is indeed mired in a history of ethnocentric white supremacism, and I believe the more correct scientific term is "band societies" as Jimmie Higgins said, so I will refer to them as that from now on, but my point still stands about the economic and technological development.

Technology is all about the way we use it. We give it agency but it doesn't give any to us. I'd say that the way technology is being used and consumed today, in the West, furthers alienation and societal isolation.

they are not primitive in any way. the word has no currency in describing anything about these societies because it only has meaning in a discursive context that favors a subordination of such societies.

Read this please: http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html

You cannot be outside of modern society. This magical place only exists in our imagination. These uncontacted tribes have contact among themselves and with other groups that have similar language structures. They know what the outside world is and purposefully reject it. Living 'beyond' modern society is still being a part of it as your way of life is a direct response to modernity.

As for why we should leave them alone: the only people we should be concerned with using force in any capacity are the owners of capital. Societies such as the ones in Papua New Guinea don't oppress anyone and, largely speaking, want to be left alone. We should respect that, and there is no need to make a moralistic argument about it.

[piet11111]

Or we could just say "hey guys you dont have to fight over food anymore we can supply you with all the food you need every other week if you want us to"

Just because they are living a traditional lifestyle doesn't mean that everything they do should be allowed to happen.

We would not let fundamentalist christians stone adulterers just because its in the bible and part of their fundamentalist religious culture.

So why even make such a distinction between the two ?
(assuming that the tribe would do such things but the OP mentions war over hunting grounds and that is something we should not let happen just because its their traditional way)

[maskerade]

Or we could just say "hey guys you dont have to fight over food anymore we can supply you with all the food you need every other week if you want us to"

Just because they are living a traditional lifestyle doesn't mean that everything they do should be allowed to happen.

We would not let fundamentalist christians stone adulterers just because its in the bible and part of their fundamentalist religious culture.

So why even make such a distinction between the two ?
(assuming that the tribe would do such things but the OP mentions war over hunting grounds and that is something we should not let happen just because its their traditional way)

Because fundamentalist christians are a part of our society and we should have the right to have a say in how our society is governed. There is a difference here, in that we are not part of these hunter-gatherer societies or 'band societies'. It is not our place to tell them anything. If there is something that we find reprehensible we should aid those native to such societies in their efforts to stop such practices - if such resistance occurs - but never impose our own moral and ethical values on to them. An example of this is FGM. There is huge resistance amongst women that are subjected to this, and we should do everything we can to help them help themselves change the situation according to their own demands, rather than come in and tell them that their culture is backwards and have aspects made illegal.

[l'Enfermé]

Ermm, so the bunch of you would feel perfectly fine enjoying the blessing of living in a socialist society, with all the comforts and advantages of modern civilization, while primitive tribes live without proper housing, nutrition, and literacy and education?

You don't see the "need to mess with their way of live"? You don't see the need to improve their terribly low quality of life? Why is their "way of life" so special? You do see the need to "mess" with the "way of life" of billions that live in capitalist societies, who are infinitely better off than primitive tribes.

Hey, one form or another of female genital mutilation is inflicted upon up to 90 percent of women in Eritrea. But we don't want to change that, you see, cause it's their "way of life", and opposing their way of life is RACIST!!!!! Hey, the rule of capital is the "way of life"

And enough with this political-correctness, we're not liberals, this is not chomsky.org. If a society doesn't even have electricity, then yes, compared to modern societies, it's primitive. Do you need a dictionary?