Development of Cultures

Great Debates
1

This thread is based off of my thread from yesterday, Rise of Cultures, which got as far as telling me to read a book.

The gist I gathered from that thread has prompted me to dust of my older theory on world civilization - namely that, whatever we may like to believe, we are not equals on a cultural level.

I’m not saying that we don’t have the potential to be equals, or any specific group is incapable, barbaric, or otherwise flawed. I’m saying that culture has to evolve.

The great tragedy of the last century is, in my opinion, the paplication of the industrial revolution to pre-industrial cultures. In essence, introducing democracy and industry and urbanization and mass production and international market economies and all that “good” stuff that makes up modern civilization - what makes us modern - to groups of people socially unprepared for the change, whether they be in tribal or regal or whatever other stages, causes Very Bad Things ™ to happen.

The industrial revolution was more than technological - it was a profound (the most profound!) social revolution. Western civilization had fits with it for almost 200 years before “figuring it out” (if we have done that yet or not is up for another debate). Over centuries, we developed political systems, laws, cultural adaptations, government systems, etc to balance and counter-balance the changes brought by urbanization and nationalization (not fiscal).

Introducing the world market and industrial factors into cultures that are pre-Renaissance is a disaster. They simply aren’t prepared and can not change quickly enough, resulting in huge income disparities, extremist politics, underdeveloped urban ghettos, and social inequality.

Further, by having industry introduced to an “immature” area, they become ripe for the picking by “mature” multinational corporations - monopoly landowners sell the rights to foreign companies who siphon out the resources and use foreign labor, returning none of the riches to the community in the form of education and social reform. The result is that the few landowners selling out to the companies get very rich, while the majority of the people to whom property rights and such are rather alien have no opportunity to grow evenly. The West went through this hissyfit, but had developed democracy that (eventually) developed countermeasures. What the “developing” world has are corrupt monarchis like the Saudis who frankly don’t give a flying fuck about most of their people, as long as their money rolls in. This, in turn, fuels extremist opposition, as we have been seeing for decades in South and Latin America and are seeing in the Middle East now.

So the question arises; how do we balance this? How is it possible to introduce and control a social revolution? We have on one hand, nations like Japan, who managed to power through these troubles with only a “little” growing pain (cough).

What is the key? Isolation? Somehow putting the breaks on them artificially?

2

First we allow the the third world to actually sell us the goods they can produce effeciently by getting rid of our farm subsities. We are basically robbing the poor countries and ourselves in the name of preserving a way of life that doesn’t even really exist any more. Why the hell does France for instance pay its farmers to grow sugar cane out of the government coffers when Haiti can grow it much cheaper. With the money raised from their crops the third world can accumulate enough of their own money from overseas to begin starting their own light manufacturing industries. From their they can move to heavy industry and lastly begin producing their own high-tech. Its the same process the West went through and it seems the most natural.

3

So, you’re basically saying, encourage their agricultural development as a first step, and make sure they have a market… basically, not introduce industrialization at all and let them develop it on their own?

In our free global market, I don’t think that is possible. Encouraging trade is a good thing, but I’m afraid that could lead to more NAFTA situations.

I would be tempted to say that some form of nationalization or collectivization is in order, but there isn’t a government that I think can be trusted with such an order, especially in the developing world.

Here’s a question: If not democracy, what form of government?

4

Perhaps less control, more patience, respect, and generosity. Recognizing the enormous benefits of long-term thinking and the willingness to dismiss a measure of short-term, exploitative profits would perhaps result in healthier development.

America developed its democratic institutions during a time when it could engage its commercial interests on terms that were extremely favorable, mutually beneficial, or ridiculously favorable to America. As we pursued our destiny we had steady opportunities to rebuild the institutions of democracy over and over with great success. We made mistakes and either learned from them, excused them, or ignored them. This cultural development and growth of democracy came from within. Influenced, yes of course. Nation building can’t be done properly from the outside. Introducing and controlling a social revolution will be a difficult if not an impossible undertaking.