/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2444410
>They wouldn't necessarily be aware of vaccines, healthcare, prosthetics, satellites, the internet, reduction of food scarcity, etc. etc.
Why would they need to be though? When it comes to healthcare, if they have a non-biomedical view of disease and don't consider it something to be "solved", and are at peace with their own mortality and aging, including what many today consider "mental illnesses", what would it add to imprint on them the idea that diseases ought to be cured and there's something wrong with them?
If they believe they'll be reincarnated or ascend to an afterlife after death, what would it add to tell them their cosmology is false and not backed by modern science?

You can go further and extend it to writing itself; By teaching them to write, you're also imprinting the idea that there is value in permanence and potentially deny them ability to simply "live in the present". You might also introduce social stratification between those who are literate and those who aren't, as often seen in history. Where until very recently, in most parts of the world, only certain classes could read and write.
What if they view their daily activities not as strenuous labor and mere survival, but as an opportunity to socialize with others? As some supposedly "primitive" known tribes already do?
>It is not a noble way to live
Why? If they wanted to know how the world "works" they can venture out themselves. No one is stopping them, they have the means. At no point in the past 100 years have they made any attempt to either visit other islands or the Asian mainland, or leave with researchers, either individually or in groups.
Sure maybe they have some weird taboo against leaving, maybe they think they can't return if they do, or that they'll curse their people, or that their ancestors or gods want them to stay on the island, or fear there might be no one to take care of their elders, or some reason we can't phantom.
But they still have the ability to think for themselves.
So at some point you have to contend they choose to live like this, even though they should be well aware at this point it's possible to live differently.
Maybe they deliberately refuse outside technology because they see it as a threat to their way of life, or perhaps because they already share everything (primitive communism) and feel introducing outside tools they cannot replicate themselves would lead to instability and some having more power than others.
Just because they're supposedly technologically primitive doesn't mean they're mentally and philosophically primitive. They might very well have elaborate arguments and a well developed vocabulary in favor of their own isolation.

They should be left alone. This is a genetic bottleneck event that will end them naturally.

>>2442911
You're saying it like a liberal but I do think it is just purely the 'noble savage' myth that makes people celebrate North Sentinelese society. Modernity, industry and capitalism are overwhelmingly good things. It's also kind of like a religious idea, where everyone was better off in the Garden of Eden and industrialisation was a satanic thing that destroyed the natural order.

Primitive Communism is not Communism, it is not a perfect system that should be emulated, it is a less efficient economic system in which people's lives are worse off in every way. There is nothing good about people being poor and living short lives.

The issue is you are thinking of it incorrectly in terms of "dragging them kicking and screaming to civilisation". That is just liberal colonialism. If we do that they will just be taken over by a corp, they will all be kicked from their land and a U$ airbase will be built on top. Any form of capitalist uplifting is just thinly veiled colonialism.

Even if it were socialists trying to accelerate their societal development, progress cannot just come from without, it has to be an internal thing. So the whole idea of uplifting has to be dropped. People can't stay isolated forever, capitalism is already affecting the Sentinelese. In the ideal world medical equipment and such could be given but this is a capitalist dominated world in which anything like that would just end in the island being ethnically cleansed. We need to treat everyone as people and work on the issues they find important rather than keeping North Sentinel as a human zoo or going in with cracker's burden and displacing them all.

>>2444526
They didn't leave because all their interactions with the outside world until recently were terrible! What would they even do if they landed somewhere else, get abducted by scientists and then die of disease, or be murdered by some Indian fisherman who is worried about the competition? That's just such a ridiculous thing to say. A whole society is not content living a certain way. A society is a product of what economy it has. Their society is just stable, not praiseworthy. Do you really not think the young people on North Sentinel don't look up at the night sky and with things were better?You're taking their own agency away as people, turning their shit situation into a fantasy you can live through vicariously from your hyper-urban home which you won't and can't give up.

Any sort of 'uplifting' (a disgusting word) just means primitive accumulation for the capitalists. And keeping them as a human zoo is all about the natural order of humanity, it is fascism.

Instead of this wankery, why don't you treat indigenous people as humans who also only live in their particular social-economic situation, like you or I do. We need to be able to understand the people around us and address their problems.

>>2444540
>It's also kind of like a religious idea, where everyone was better off in the Garden of Eden and industrialisation was a satanic thing that destroyed the natural order.
No. That's not what this is about. They're not the primitive sinless counterpart to the sinful modern world.
It's about the assumption that somehow their culture needs to be 'fixed" or there's something wrong with it, but every time I see people bringing up what's supposedly wrong and what they're missing out on, it's projecting their own values and fears on a different culture. Including their fear of death. But mostly nothing which has actually to do with communism.
It's especially strange people on a supposedly communist imageboard would critique the Sentinelese islanders for being "primitive" even though there is no evidence they engage in any form of wage labor, internecine warfare, or slavery.

>Primitive Communism is not Communism, it is not a perfect system that should be emulated
I think depending on the form it takes, the social relations under it should be emulated. Is socialism when everyone has plastic surgery, a car and shelves full of funkopops? I don't see why communism has anything to do with accumulation in itself.
This idea that what is primitive is "bad" and "Civilization" should progress in stages towards communism, is a lot more ideological and religious than arguing that maybe, if some people refuse to leave their island, even if they're aware they can leave, that maybe we should just leave them alone. And that whatever we do, perhaps we should first try to understand what they're on about instead of imprinting our own fears and assumptions (informed by life under capitalism, not socialism no less) on a people which appear to reject them.

>>2444547
Maybe, but that too is an assumption in itself too. Because from what is known in form of written historical record, it doesn't appear they were much different before Europeans arrived, and thus perhaps they have deeper reasons which go beyond a few "bad" interactions. It's again imprinting our own culturally peculiar ideas on an "alien culture", similar to how some people anthropomorphize animals and AI, and how liberals assume their values and way of life are the only ones aspired to and envied the world over.
Not saying this might be the sole reason they aren't exploring the rest of the world, but from my own experiences with many different cultures I know that many "universal" assumptions are particular to specific cultures, upbringings, social structures, (material) levels of development, faiths and "ideologies".

>A whole society is not content living a certain way.
How would we know if we cannot communicate with them, because apparently no one is willing to simply listen to what it is they're saying?
What is the basis for them supposedly being dissatisfied with their own way of life? Their lack of access to certain capitalist commodities we take for granted? How is that not us imprinting out own values and fears on people we cannot communicate with on a deep level at the moment?
Why is it absurd to assume people need plastic surgery, a big mansion in the suburbs, a shelf full of funkopos an Labubus, a successful career under capitalism and an expensive car in order to be "happy", but it isn't absurd to assume the Sentinelese must be dissatisfied with their existence because they can't order clothes off TEMU and don't have access to prozac?
We're not dealing with people who raid their neighbors for slaves or sacrifice them for some unknown purpose. This isn't comparable to how feudal and precapitalist slave states should be judged.
If tomorrow we had world communism, and people still choose to live like this, would you force them into a mental institution?

>>2444588
>it's projecting their own values and fears on a different culture. Including their fear of death.
Death is an inherently bad thing. I hate it when people like you say we should just have another perspective on death, because that is just projecting your own opinion on it to random people. Most people are rightfully scared of death, and if they aren't it is often because they are religious. But there is no heaven or hell in real life. Once you're dead you're gone. It's fine to say that you'd rather have an impactful life rather than a long one, which is what I want, but you can't impose that on other people.
>It's especially strange people on a supposedly communist imageboard would critique the Sentinelese islanders for being "primitive" even though there is no evidence they engage in any form of wage labor, internecine warfare, or slavery.
Primitive (I think it is a very outdated word to use tbh) is not as a moral statement but as an economic / societal one. Read Marx and Engels. Also hunter gatherer tribes engage in warfare and loads of other shit things, they just don't do land ownership in the same way.
>Is socialism when everyone has plastic surgery, a car and shelves full of funkopops?
Obviously socialism is more than standard of living, it is about the working class being in control and abolishing class as a whole, but at the same time I am inclined to say yes. Plastic surgery and toys are objectively good things. They make the vast, vast majority of people happier. People have had toys and modified their bodies for as long as they could do so. The only issue is capitalism unequally distributes them, they are the result of colonial exploitation. In Communism there will be 1000x more video game factories and you will work to make video games for Sudanese consumption. Do you really think amenities are really bad or are you just unhappy because capitalism sucks and can't enjoy them?
>Not saying this might be the sole reason they aren't exploring the rest of the world, but from my own experiences with many different cultures I know that many "universal" assumptions are particular to specific cultures, upbringings, social structures, (material) levels of development, faiths and "ideologies".
Then we need to engage with them. They have important things we need to learn from them. But at the same time that does not make 'culture' right. Culture is dominated by the most conservative parts of it. I don't care about the reactionary parts of cultures or faiths or whatever. Also I don't think there is space for multiple 'correct' ideas in the world. There is only the correct, scientific, path of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
>How would we know if we cannot communicate with them, because apparently no one is willing to simply listen to what it is they're saying?
I know because that's how it is in every single society that has ever existed. It's just a part about humans living together. No group is ever homogenous. There is certainly a progressive force in the island already that wants to talk with the wider world more. One divides into two. There is no such thing as a static utopia. Primitive communism is just a very stable societal form.
>What is the basis for them supposedly being dissatisfied with their own way of life? Their lack of access to certain capitalist commodities we take for granted? How is that not us imprinting out own values and fears on people we cannot communicate with on a deep level at the moment?
Today is the best day to live ever for the vast majority of people in the planet. I'm talking about the poor in the oppressed colonial and semi-colonial countries. People objectively live better than in pre-modern times. They live longer, they are smarter, they are better educated, more able to access entertainment, better housing (most people lived in huts made of twigs and mud until 100 years ago). And this is despite colonialism robbing them blind!
>If tomorrow we had world communism, and people still choose to live like this, would you force them into a mental institution?
Yes. Or at the very least, their children would be taken from them and educated properly, since leaving them to grow up in white hippie larp communes would be child abuse.

>>2441788
The north sentinele are a major case of genetic bottleneck, they simply will not survive without external contact

>>2444680
No. I'm not necessarily arguing the Sentinelese already share my attitude to death, or that if they don't they should. But I am saying there are cases where the introduction of certain medical technology is not socially beneficial, and thus is worth questioning if it should be introduced.
I.e. if it causes them collective anxiety and dread, is that an improvement?
And I think primitiveness itself, as a concept, should at the very least be separated into the "socially" and the "technologically" primitive. Because as history has shown, social relations associated with a theoretical "advanced" communism can exist at various stages (See Inca Empire, etc.)

In a scenario of world communism, how would the Sentinelese, assuming that if we understood their language and could communicate with them about this, not be considered Communist too? Why should their children be taken away from them and put in boarding schools or given to adoptive families? If we find they're not being physically or sexually abused, and they are aware they can choose not to live like that?

And no, certain capitalist commodities and services are not inherently good. Beauty standards, which also drive the demand for plastic surgery, are under capitalism, the product of advertisement. Specifically by inducing insecurity and want in target audiences. Under world communism, maybe much of plastic surgery will no longer be practiced or be deemed necessary or desirable. Demand is also induced for other commodities (see children's toys and the "nagging factor").
Nor do I see why the "vast majority of people" should matter either. Because communism is ultimately, the struggle of Communists against Capital, much more than it is specifically the proletariat against the bourgeoise, or the proletariat against Capital, or humanity against Capital. Because as Communists, we explicitly value this struggle.
Which brings me to the next point: If a "primitive" communism already exists, why should communists insist on introducing tools, ideas and technologies generally which might destroy it? I don't think this would be acceptable under an "advanced" communism either. So I don't see why an exception should be made for a (materially) primitive communism.
If you already know the introduction of an idea or technology would lead to the reintroduction of capital and capitalism, then it's the same as acting as a mere "ideological" reactionary engaged in a "political" struggle against communism.

And sure, I think there might be much we can learn from them, but I do think there can be multiple coherent and correct worldviews, even if they are seemingly different and do appear to overlap.
Because if you disagree with this stance, then you'll have to agree that previous "communisms" in either theory or practice (Including Marx at the time) are outright wrong owing to their "incompleteness". If you agree however that whilst our understanding can grow, past theories and attempt were also "correct", you will have to agree that there are approaches which might appear radically different, but are still ultimately "correct". E.g. some past Communist experiments were as Communists as today's Sentinelese are, and therefore, destroying their way of life is as wrong as wiping out the Paris Commune was.

Also you mention that "because that's how it is in every single society that has ever existed.". But my assumption runs deeper, not that there must be dissatisfaction on their part by some individuals, but that the Sentinelese are as capable of reasoning and decision making as anyone else, and thus also capable, if they so decide, to leave with researchers visiting the island, or simply sneak away on a fishing boat, or organize a change in the social relations within their culture if they find it doesn't suit them.
If workers are capable of overthrowing Capital on their own, and slaves can overthrow slavery, why wouldn't the Sentinelese be capable of overthrowing a social order they consider to be restrictive? Or you know, simply leave if they reject whatever taboos believed to bar them from venturing out?

I also disagree with the assumption of people objectively living better if this is solely reduced to access to commodities, and doesn't take into account social relations, and the degree to which people find their lives existentially meaningful.
Some of the adaptions and "advances" for example, have only become necessary because previous ways of living are now untenable due to population growth. The rest of the world for example cannot adopt a Sentinelese way of life, because modern agriculture and food security relies on industrially mass produced fertilizers and fossil fuel driven logistics. People nowadays "need" smartphones and computers for their jobs, for job searching, and for many other activities which previously were not mediated digitally through screens.
The ways modern economies and bureaucracies operate necessitates literacy on part of most of the population.
In many parts of the world, cars or other electrically or internal combustion powered vehicles are necessary to commute to work or even basic things like groceries shopping or visiting a doctor.
The existence then of these technologies and their widespread use does not imply in themselves that lives have meaningfully improved, if they're considered critical for survival, in a world where the alternative is starvation and death.

>>2444705
>whitoids coming up with more contrived reasons to colonize
they will do just fine.

>>2442118
>Like, there probably was a paleolithic hunter-gatherer who made a really cool spear with meteoritic iron
unlikely. iron working requires furnaces with higher temperatures than pre-pottery cultures were capable of making

>>2442361
you are on an imageboard, get off your high horse

>>2442689
no they don't

They have a population of 40
why are westoids so obsessed with em

>>2445208
Because every square inch must be colonized and inhabited by at least 1 McDonalds. The North Sentinelese haven‘t been blessed with school shootings and taxes yet and instead have to spend their days having sex in open air and eating fruits from trees while ignorant of what a BigMac is.

>>2445221
They could be having sex and eating big macs.

>>2445226
They could also be having sex while not eating garbage.

>>2445208
Western culture is obsessed with wiping out and civilizing savages. Its the frontier mythology. The only way you can assert yourself as modern and superior is by denigrating others. So what you have here is a form of narcissism where looking upon the "primitive savages" is a way of reassuring yourself that you are not a "primitive savage."

>>2445208
It will always be intriguing for capitalists, like a steak held above a dog, because it is a piece of common land. The bourgeois are just slathering human-killing dogs held back only by the chains of "rule of law" and "democracy". There is only greed in their eyes. The pole is property rights and they know it is necessary for capitalism to continue, so they accept law, because they know feral dogs are only put down. If not for the restraints they would jump to snatch the island for themselves to complete primitive accumulation. But the chains are made of plastic.

>>2441788
Okay but seriously… why is this thread not in /siberia already? With just as much success, you could discuss a sociopolitical issues of some random remote monastery.

We should introduce them to consumer capitalism

We can start with labubus and dubai chocolate

>>2442911
rightoid coded

>>2445290
It's a very interesting discussion and reveals much more about the level of theory on this board than the popular generals.

Like the idea that having more "stuff" is somehow synonymous with progress, instead of people understanding that many capitalist commodities and services, as well as infrastructure build under capitalism isn't optional but required for survival under capitalism, outside of them being advertising driven manufactured "needs".
And I think that idea in particular makes a lot of people uncomfortable because it puts into question what communism is really about. Like you have these really vulgar takes sometimes where Communism is all about developing the "productive forces" and under communism we will all be forced to work in the People's Funkopop Factory and this will be a glorious sacrifice, but I think that's both gross and a bunch of nonsense really.

Even idea like "the Sentinelese would benefit from living longer lives" is suspect. I think there's a big difference spending 50-60 years living what you think is a "meaningful" existence, and only doing "meaningful" labor, as opposed to spending 60+ years in schools where you don't want to be and commutes and working dead end jobs, an finally being able to retire when you're near 70, but still feeling unfilled and being able to enjoy your own retirement due to poverty and poor health.
You can argue they would benefit from being able to live longer healthier lives if those lives continue to be meaningful by their own standards. But stating they'd benefit even if most of that time is spend on labor they find meaningless or causes them health problems, in an environment they hate, is highly suspect.
It reminds me of liberals arguing the pre-Gorby USSR was a miserable place because most people couldn't afford to buy cars or something. But then you talk to people who lived and were born back then you don't get this impression at all. It's simply liberals projecting manufactured needs and necessities on people who had no need for them.
Cars in much of North America for example aren't exactly a luxury if you can barely survive without one. And the way labor is organized and infrastructure is build necessities car dependency and ownership.

>>2442918
Communism is colonialism, its worldwide and beyond.

>>2443083
Holy pale skin, you OK? I'm originally from Europe and still way way tanner than that.

>>2444769
>I.e. if it causes them collective anxiety and dread, is that an improvement?
This can easily be fixed with more medical technology - narcotics.
You're not an internationalist, you will never be internationalist, you will always be a crappy autonomist with this mentality of yours ranting about non-issues that development never causes.

I will vaccinate the spear chuckers no one can stop me.

I hope they are the only ones who survive global nuclear war

>>2447722
you're not really reassuring us about your hate boner for autonomism by posting a racist propaganda youtube video

>>2447986

i think your brain has fallen out of your skull. the typical explanation given for why the baltics were not oppressed by the soviets is that they already had european levels of development which is not seen in typical scenarios of colonization. can you at least learn your arguments first?

>>2445290
at the absolute least its a nice change of pace and the discussion in this thread isnt worse than 90% of the main board anyway

>>2447986

False equivalence - European powers exploited Africa much more than they developed any kind of infrastructure there. Whether this is true of the USSR with regards to its non-Russian population is another question, but posting a video that ignores this obvious fact about Euro-colonization is kind of the opposite of a convincing argument as to why developmentalism can be okay.

>>2447992
>>2448095
Development or Death :)

>>2448100

Not really, no. Humanity existed for 100s of thousands of years without any kind of "development." I'm sure it won't die. And if you want to use advanced technology, shoving it down other people's throat isn't going to make anything better for you anyway.

>>2448103
>I'm sure it won't die
Death is as inevitable as mortality, develop or die.

>>2448105

I get that you have a fear of death, but not everyone else has it, and it certainly does not justify going around colonizing places to bring them advanced technology, if that's your point. We also have this thing called, uh, sexual reproduction?

>>2448103
There's no place to hide. Danger is at all times present for those who fail to face it.

>>2448109

I have no clue what this means, sorry.

>>2448107
>but not everyone else has it
In Janitzio Death is not Scary. Colonialization is inevitable to a society that lacks self-preservation.

>>2448110
The old door lock can't stop the hammer.

>>2441788
Cowards on an island.

>>2448112

I'm not really arguing about when colonization happens and why. I am addressing this point here that colonization was ultimately a good thing because it ended up with some infrastructure being built.

>>2448114

Cool, you've given up on arguing. Cool conversation thanks for the fun.

>>2448119
>I am addressing this point here that colonization was ultimately a good thing because it ended up with some infrastructure being built.
I don't think I'm arguing for colonialization. Rather that inability to develop and defend makes it inevitable for colonizers to win.

>>2448127
Oh I see what you mean. I thought your original comment was two separate statements. Well, I just disagree. I don't think death acceptance has any connection whatsoever with rolling over and surrendering, whether it is to an invading force, someone in your life, or whatever.

Also my reference to the colonialism arguments was in reference to the other users in this conversation, not you specifically.

>>2447722
>Autonomist
If you think this is about autonomism you're sadly not even close to grasping what I'm getting at. The medicalisation and pathologizing of behaviors, appearances, and lack of "want", is already an issue in today's materially advanced societies.
This isn't about whether giving them diet cokes ruins their perfect noble savage culture. It's about what the supposed problem is, what people think they're "fixing", and whether they actually understand both what they're proposing and the basis of their worldview.
A lot of people, including here, are too caught up with the idea that 'material' progress is synonymous with social progress.
E.g. the Soviet Union was miserable and poor because most people didn't have cars (lib take). Ignoring the part where car ownership was mostly unnecessary, and you could live your whole live without ever driving one. Or people forget the part about how the rapid industrialization of the USSR was hardly a choice, because they knew the capitalist powers were going to try and destroy them again like they had been trying from the start.
If they felt they had centuries to figure things out, and didn't need to immediately address the widespread destruction and famine in the aftermath of the Russian Civil War, they could very well have taken a different approach. But we'll never know because the Bolsheviks inherited a gigantic impoverished country suffering recurrent famines and warlordism, and they correctly understood that another war was on the horizon.

>Ranting
I don't think you know what a rant is.

The island is 3 square miles and has a population of 40 people

That rightoids are fucking seething at this literallywho island just proves to show how they are losing the grip on their own countries with millions upon millions of big dark penis invading european countries to deflower the aryan maidens with their long zulu rods, so they cope by obsessiong about a literallywho island in the middle of the ocean.

REMINDER
A population of 40.

Why doesn't China or the USA or some other progressive industrial state invade this pissant island and make these loafers productive? The worth of humanity is measured by working on an assembly line or in a warehouse, slaughterhouse, shuffling paperwork, anything but hunting and fishing and not creating VALUE. If they refuse to work then they deserve to starve and die, like the Bible says (I am very progressive by the way). The island is the treasure of humanity, seize it, put a factory on it to make purple double headed dildos for the masses and dump the waste on their sacred gravesites (reactionary superstition). They probably worship some retarded nature animal gods. Make them worship the only real god INDUSTRY.

>>2449825
Uhhhhhhmm, based?