Let’s say you’re the leader of a primarily indigenous country where most people are peasants who sustain themselves through the practice of subsistence agriculture, like Peru or Bolivia. Let’s say you want to develop the country’s economy in the way development is traditionally conceived of. This involves the creation of a modern industrial economy at the expense of the indigenous peasant’s traditional ways of life. Would you say that by doing this, you would be oppressing them to an extent that is unacceptable? If so, what is the correct vision to have for the future if you’re in a country like that?
It seems to me like China developed a modern industrial economy at the expense of the indigenous peasant’s traditional ways of life. Should I count this answer as a simple no on the first question?
The way I see it it really doesn’t matter if it’s better or worse for it to be the way I described it. I’m trying to use language as morally neutral as possible so as to not goad people into answering a certain way.
I’d say it depends on their standard of living under the current system. If their cultural traditions essentially resign entire populations to living in poverty, are they worth preserving? How exacting does a culture have to be, if it can’t survive thousands, perhaps millions of people changing their lifestyle, but still living in proximity and being granted the freedom to practice as they wish?
Or just build the city over the hill and leave the door unlocked for them idk
How exacting does a culture have to be, if it can’t survive thousands, perhaps millions of people changing their lifestyle,
People living in premodern conditions typically consider “the lifestyle” and the institutions that surround it to be an integral part of the culture. Leftist types often follow this line because they consider those people’s experiences to be the most legitimate.
Or just build the city over the hill and leave the door unlocked for them idk
Do you think that is possible?
Would you say that by doing this, you would be oppressing them
I wouldn’t say it’s that word. But that doesn’t mean it’s good stuff.
Cuba was embargoed and couldn’t industrialize though - what they were able to do was definitely good but a lot of the issues they had after the fall of the USSR would have likely been avoided if they could have.
Dude, why would it be any different from the industrialization of anywhere else? Yeah, a lot of people would migrate to the cities cuz there are better paying jobs there and that would affect them, but you wouldn’t be forcing them, unless you are a dickhead.
Also, you might be overestimating the “peasant” population proportion of those countries.
