Re: Native American land rights

[Michael Perelman <mperelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

James Heartfield wrote:
> Capitalism does two things at the same time:
>
> 1. It develops social productivity to the point that it is possible to
> advance to a better society

Or does it?  I am not convinced of the long term viability of capitalist
development.
>
> 2. It makes the persistence of private property relations intolerable
> for the majority making it necessary to advance to a better society.

Or does it tend to push the less fortunate into self-destructive that
does little to advance societty?

> Beyond that it is necessary to distinguish between capitalism today and
> in Marx's day. In Marx's day it was still possible to talk of a
> progressive capitalism. Today, any advances that are made are more than
> offest by the destructive side of capital. In the main further
> development of social productivity can only be won in opposition to
> capital. There are notable exceptions. Real technological advances have
> taken place is SE Asia.

ok.
>
> What is not sensible in my view is to attack capitalism from the
> standpoint of more archaic social forms. This romantic critique, far
> from providing a secure alternative, is simply assimilated into
> political conservatism. Instead of capital being the enemy, development
> itself is seen as the problem.
>
>

Whoa!  I did not hear anyone here making a romantic critique.  Nor did I
hear that development itself was the enemy.  Start out from false
premises like that, and you can come up with some wierd conclusions.


>
> The quotation from LM that cultures cannot be preserved like jam might
> have been put precociously, but it seems unassailable to me. It reminds
> me of the story about president Marcos' delight that anthropologists
had
> (mis) identified a prehistoric people in the Phillipines. Marcos was so
> made up about the academics' interest in his country that he sent his
> troops in to smash up these unfortunate people's cooking utensils and
> steal their clothes before each new anthropolgical visit was about to
> happen, to hide the knowledge that even this isolated group ahd
> established trade relations with others.
>

We have not been arguing for Marcos to preserve cultures; rather to offer
the opportunity for peoples to maintain theirs.  Big difference.

> In assessing indigenism as a political strategy today, it is necessary
> to understand it as a modern development, in contemporary
circumstances,
> rather than a resistance to modernity. It is right that Marxists should
> defend people's rights against oppression. But that must mean that
> indigenous peoples' have a right to scure their own economic
> development, as well as a right to seek work.

I did not hear anything different on this list.
>
> There really is no way forward but forward.

Nice word play.  What does forward mean?  Nobody here seems confident
that they have THE SOLUTION, so let me turn the question around.  What
indigeneous culture has enjoyed a significant advancement under
capitalist development.  From what I have seen, capitalism relegates such
people to touristic relics (jam?), degrading low wages work, or eking out
a living at the margins of society.

 --
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929


Tel. 916-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx