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?
The issue is peasants don't give a shit about communism, they just till their crops and live in an Amish Paradise or whatever.
I don't recall the words Marx used exactly on this subject, but capitalism is a world-historical force because it creates the proletariat, who have a class interest in the formation of communist society; it's a stage of development humanity must go through. The issue is peasants don't give a shit about communism, they just till their crops and live in an Amish Paradise or whatever.
The two closest articles I could find was Engels on the Mexican-American war:
spoiler
Or Marx on British rule in India:
spoiler
I don't have the time to give further background on this quote, though I agree with organic_party's short comments in this thread that Marx is coldly analyzing the conditions for the communist movement, and that his assessment of India as backwards is because pre-capitalist civilizations are literally economically backwards. (People often forget pre-capitalist cultures also do horrific shit like human sacrifice and FGM.) Progress is sometimes horrific, but it is progress nonetheless.