you are right it violates every one of our enlightenment principles. However if it is the best possible case it represents a significant improvement to the lives of those people and their children. If it is shitty it is BS and we don't have to do a struggle session about it. However if they are actually trying to do a good thing you have to ask how many children need to go blind from vitamin A deficiency to maintain their traditional way of life.
Sub point to that. If they are poor Muslim goat herders , their culture would probably offend all of your enlightenment values anyway. At the risk of going mega tankie here. If we agree MLM is the best political though, then replacing shitty political thought with it would be an improvement. Both on a level of personal happiness and material conditions. This is how Engels conceptualized idealism right? People act in according to the values allowing for material conditions. Like, suppose you are a 16 year old girl going to get married, do you want your husband to husband to marry you and treat you in the way of a traditional poor Muslim farm wife? Or would you rather he know that women have better sex under communism and be a proper Marxist catgirl like the rest of us?
While I agree with your point that by our concept of living standards it would benefit the population of Xinjiang to join with Beijing, forcing them to do so will not create Marxists it will create fascists and radicals. Communism can only spread effectively through self determination. When the people of Turkestan realize how much they would benefit by changing their practices, they will do so and our global movement will rejoice with blackjack and hookers. However, it is impossible to force an ideology without creating an equal or greater opposition movement. Look at the former Warsaw Pact states. states like Estonia that were subject to heavy occupation and Marxist Rusificitation now have the largest ardently fascist populations. If the United States' global efforts have taught us one thing, it is that revolutions must be supported, not created, if they are to succeed.
you are right it violates every one of our enlightenment principles. However if it is the best possible case it represents a significant improvement to the lives of those people and their children. If it is shitty it is BS and we don't have to do a struggle session about it. However if they are actually trying to do a good thing you have to ask how many children need to go blind from vitamin A deficiency to maintain their traditional way of life.
Sub point to that. If they are poor Muslim goat herders , their culture would probably offend all of your enlightenment values anyway. At the risk of going mega tankie here. If we agree MLM is the best political though, then replacing shitty political thought with it would be an improvement. Both on a level of personal happiness and material conditions. This is how Engels conceptualized idealism right? People act in according to the values allowing for material conditions. Like, suppose you are a 16 year old girl going to get married, do you want your husband to husband to marry you and treat you in the way of a traditional poor Muslim farm wife? Or would you rather he know that women have better sex under communism and be a proper Marxist catgirl like the rest of us?
While I agree with your point that by our concept of living standards it would benefit the population of Xinjiang to join with Beijing, forcing them to do so will not create Marxists it will create fascists and radicals. Communism can only spread effectively through self determination. When the people of Turkestan realize how much they would benefit by changing their practices, they will do so and our global movement will rejoice with blackjack and hookers. However, it is impossible to force an ideology without creating an equal or greater opposition movement. Look at the former Warsaw Pact states. states like Estonia that were subject to heavy occupation and Marxist Rusificitation now have the largest ardently fascist populations. If the United States' global efforts have taught us one thing, it is that revolutions must be supported, not created, if they are to succeed.