And this was a huge problem with Marx’s work (as great and important as it is). He was still somewhat hamstrung a bit in teleology, I think, and in sticking with the notion that the developments in Europe were universally applicable and represented the inherent human mode of progress. Let’s not forget his belief in the “asiatic” mode of production, as something of an aberation rather than an example of human variability of social structures:
I’d argue that was in part because they were seeking to impose their will on other people, working with friendly individuals on the ground, for sure, but imposing their world view on how humans should “naturally” progress on people who maybe had different ways of structuring their lives. It’s about the specific historical situation, not anything inherent in Afghan culture. We can possibly see that they were insistent upon independence, rather than just so backwards and tribal, that they couldn’t be tamed.
No arguing there. Although, we can perhaps expand that to include the rest of the world, maybe? 
Indeed. Apparently, we need to start with water pipes.
