Let's say you're the leader of a primarily indigenous country where most people are peasants who sustain themselves through the practice of subsistence agriculture, like Peru or Bolivia. Let's say you want to develop the country's economy in the way development is traditionally conceived of. This involves the creation of a modern industrial economy at the expense of the indigenous peasant's traditional ways of life. Would you say that by doing this, you would be oppressing them to an extent that is unacceptable? If so, what is the correct vision to have for the future if you're in a country like that?
I'd say it depends on their standard of living under the current system. If their cultural traditions essentially resign entire populations to living in poverty, are they worth preserving? How exacting does a culture have to be, if it can't survive thousands, perhaps millions of people changing their lifestyle, but still living in proximity and being granted the freedom to practice as they wish?
Or just build the city over the hill and leave the door unlocked for them idk
People living in premodern conditions typically consider "the lifestyle" and the institutions that surround it to be an integral part of the culture. Leftist types often follow this line because they consider those people's experiences to be the most legitimate.
Do you think that is possible?