History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle
To clarify, I would say that the Marxist approach is a 'Western box', for *all* people -- just because Marxism comes out of the Western Enlightenment tradition doesn't mean that it's *beholden* to any kind of conceivable traditionalism there. Marxism addresses the concerns of *humanity*, to *benefit* humanity by annihilating *private* material interests ('class'), once and for all.
However, Marx and Engels were Western guys agitating Western people and arguing that the West should go Communist first, whereas their ideas were misinterpreted and misused, or even abused, outside the West (for a reason).
So you're talking advanced-/developed-Western-countries-versus-Third-Worldism, if I understand correctly.
I think Third-World-type countries felt too *beholden* to the workers in the advanced Western countries, to kick-things-off, and many in the Third-World-type countries wanted to be the ones to get the world revolution underway, despite *not* being so technologically / industrially advanced.
It's a tough call -- I think the workers in the advanced, developed Western countries have relatively more *leverage*, and could probably *liberate* more (infrastructure) upfront, but I certainly see no problem with Arab-Spring-type movements that can popularize struggle and overthrow dictators, military rulerships, etc. Hopefully such would *spark* and *spread* and also become more class conscious.
I recall that workers in the Sinai Pennisula started to take over their workplaces, so that was probably the most militant extent of politicization and struggle around that time in Egypt.
Really? You're going to compare *human slavery* to gadget-usage?
Yes I am, because one technology leads to another.
First, human slavery was a way for a small number of elite humans to become grape monkeys. But this lead to misery from the other cucumber monkeys.
So, it was agreed that it would be better to become grape monkeys via technology. That way, a critical mass of the current generation will eat grapes, while all future generations (who we don't have to deal with in the present) will be lucky to get rotten cucumbers.
Well this is an *arbitrary* scenario, then -- why wouldn't grape-technology *grow* and become *more available* to future generations so that, inevitably, *all* monkeys can eat grapes?
And what's wrong with the underlying popular desire to eat grapes instead of cucumbers? You're being *moralistic* here, instead of acknowledging *mass demand*.
It's perfectly rational to kill the future in this way, whatever your commitment to "equality in the present" is.
The 'kill the future' conclusion of yours is just a *scarcity* of grapes *prevailing* in the future, for whatever reason, in this scenario of yours.
It's just the latest scam. The latest technology.
You're just confusing means and ends. You're blaming and demonizing technology for not being perfectly utopian in every instance.