Michael Perelman wrote: >This argument is old. People from Montesqueiu to Kautsky made it, but it is >wrong. More often than not, different modes of production are incompatible. >Once the indigeneous peoples begin drinking coke and watching U.S. cinema, >they will have great difficulty maintaining their way of life. Which would cause a capitalist apologist to note that maybe their way of life isn't as attractive to them as we depraved (post)moderns like to think. While I think most American movies suck out loud, I do like Coca-Cola a lot, and maybe other people do too. We all know the passage from the Manifesto: "The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image." How can you stop this process? From your own example, Michael, its "victims" embrace it with enthusiasm. From what democratic point of view can you hinder it? "Civilization" has committed many crimes against indigenous peoples, but I don't see how you can number Coca-Cola and movies among them. Doug
